OT- ????? speech

[quattro]

So, what does Serotta nation think?

[Kirk007]

I thought he came off more presidential than usual. Good rhetoric playing to American values; some great lines and themes; didn't shy away from confronting the social issues that have driven much of the one issue voters on the right; sees willing to stand up rather than shrink away - the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy - we'll be tough on security; promised a lot.

I thought the Biden's speeches last night were very powerful as well. I think Biden is a good choice.

[ti_boi]

Fantastic. The right man for these times. :beer:

[Smiley]

Proud to be an American

[GearsSchme]

I had a ticket and just got back after leaving a bit early, I am still shellshocked(by the incredible speeches and the soundsystem :p ). I know everyone has their opinions on the Dems, ?????, etc. I also know that everyone thinks they know enough from watching tv, reading, etc. Let me be the first to tell you that after seeing the spectacle live and hearing ?????'s acceptance speech, I truly believe the man has the charisma and strength to lead this nation. If words and charisma were good enough indicators of capability, ????? is way off the richter scale. I, being a recent govt, economics, and pre-law major, pride myself on being as independent as possible concerning most political issues, yet I found myself definitely identifying with the democratic nominee/party. It was a truly amazing experience and I hope the democratic electorate will be unified and resolve their differences enough come november(Or I am moving to Canada :p ).

[thwart]

Not his best, but the speech served its purpose well.

I was hoping for no negative stuff at all...

[gdw]

Nice and general, lots of promises, but no beef. Democrats loved it, older Independents like myself are still wondering who he really is and what he really stands for.

[davep]

I thought most interesting "the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy"...What about the last 45 years?

[ti_boi]

Nice and general, lots of promises, but no beef. Democrats loved it, older Independents like myself are still wondering who he really is and what he really stands for.


Code for.....never trust a man....like him......

[ti_boi]

Not his best, but the speech served its purpose well.

I was hoping for no negative stuff at all...


I am glad he came out with guns blazing....I hope his fire power increases and he buries ??????....

[sellsworth]

I was hoping for no negative stuff at all...

Not going negative doesn't win elections these days. A legacy of AM talk radio I'm afraid.

[Louis]

older Independents like myself are still wondering who he really is and what he really stands for.

May I kindly suggest that if you legitimately haven't yet figured this out at this late date, then you really haven't been trying to understand.

Considering all the sources of information out there (radio, TV, press, inter-web, other folks to talk to, etc.) claims like this ring hollow. As was hinted above by someone else, I read / hear things like this and don't think very charitable thoughts about the speaker.

[scottcw2]

May I kindly suggest that if you legitimately haven't yet figured this out at this late date, then you really haven't been trying to understand.

Considering all the sources of information out there (radio, TV, press, inter-web, other folks to talk to, etc.) claims like this ring hollow. As was hinted above by someone else, I read / hear things like this and don't think very charitable thoughts about the speaker.

Nice democratic response. :rolleyes:

[gdw]

Keep this civil. I'm quite well read, listen to NPR, read the HNN, etc and familiar with the product that's currently being pitched. My concern is that the real ????? is an unknown. He's a great speaker but has no real experience and hasn't really accomplished anything in his short time in Washington. The convention and evenings speech hasn't changed my opinion of him. I'm looking forward to the debates...maybe my opinion will change.

[93legendti]

"We passed legislation keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists".

Really? How's that work Mr. ??????

[ti_boi]

Let's put it this way...a young...energetic and obviously intelligent man like Mr O walks into your business....with his background and achievements just in academia....you would hire him no? I like what he said....he is firing on all cylinders. :beer:

[bironi]

I don't mean to steal the thread, but was curious of the origin of the ominous mood music following ?????'s (my this censorship is lame) speech. It sounded like a movie soundtrack, but I did not recognize the music. Any answer here?

[93legendti]

Let's put it this way...a young...energetic and obviously intelligent man like Mr O walks into your business....with his background and achievements just in academia....you would hire him no? I like what he said....he is firing on all cylinders. :beer:
Sure, I'd hire him...for an entry level job, not as CEO. Once his resume padding came to light, he'd be fired.

The audacity of resume-padding (or, why ????? makes things up)

Aug. 17, 2008
Abraham katsman and Kory Bardash

One of the knocks on Barack ????? is that his résumé is, so to speak, paper-thin. But that is not entirely accurate. ?????, in fact, has held some major job titles which are noteworthy all by themselves: United States Senator, Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Harvard Law Review President-each of these titles puts him in rarefied company. Tack on a few Illinois State Senate terms, and his resume actually appears solid. Yet, in spite of these prestigious positions, ????? has increasingly resorted to making claims of accomplishment that are so patently inflated that even his cheerleaders at CNN and the New York Times are taking notice. Why?


...A few examples? Take ?????'s first general election ad. We are told that ????? "passed laws" that "extended healthcare for wounded troops who'd been neglected," with a citation at the bottom to only one Senate bill: The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the Senate by a 91-3 vote. Six Senators did not vote-including ?????. Nor is there evidence that he contributed to its passage in any material way. So, his claim to have "passed laws" amounts to citing a bill that was largely unopposed, that he didn't vote for, and whose passage he didn't impact. Even his hometown Chicago Tribune caught this false claim...

Or take one of ?????'s standard lines: his claim of "twenty years of public service." ...the numbers don't add up. Shall we count? Three years in the US Senate (two of which he's spent running for President), plus seven years in the Illinois State Senate (a part-time gig, during which time he also served as a law professor) equals, at most, ten. Even if we generously throw in his three years as a "community organizer" (whatever that means, let's count it as public service), that still adds up to just thirteen.
?????'s other activities since 1985 have included Harvard Law School, writing two autobiographies (including several months writing in Bali), prestigious summer law firm jobs, three years as an associate at a Chicago law firm, and twelve years part-time on the University of Chicago Law School faculty. As Medved notes, it takes quite the ego to consider any of those stints "public service." Which of them is ????? including?

????? made yet another inflated boast last month during his visit to Israel. At his press conference in Hamas rocket-bombarded Sderot, ????? talked up "his" efforts to protect Israel from Iran:

"Just this past week, we passed out of the US Senate Banking Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon." (Emphasis added.)

Nice try. But as even CNN noted, ????? is not even on that committee...

as the New York Times recently pointed out, ????? spent twelve years on the University of Chicago Law School faculty...and produced not even a single scholarly paper. He was President of Harvard Law Review, but wrote nothing himself...

????? has held several serious positions from which a serious man could have made a serious impact. But ????? made none. He remains a man of proven charisma, but unproven skill--and not for lack of opportunity. He's treated his offices as if they were high school student council positions-fun to run for, fun to win, affirmations of popularity, heady recognition from superiors, good resume-builders for stepping up to the next position of power, and…well, that's about it-actual accomplishments are not expected; heavy lifting is never on the agenda.

?????'s record of accomplishment is thin not because of lack of opportunity, but in spite of it. For twenty years, ????? has walked the floors of the most prestigious institutions in the nation, but has left no footprints...

...????? has accomplished nothing noteworthy despite the golden opportunities and positions he's had... No company would hire anyone with ?????'s empty track record, pattern of underachievement and padded résumé to be CEO. Is America really ready to hire him as President?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710381368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[cadence90]

I have been an O-bama* supporter from the beginning, but I found this speech somewhat a letdown relative to its possibilities.

There were some terrific speeches (his wife, both Clintons, Biden) that set the stage for O-bama tonight, and I think he lost a great opportunity.

I was disapponted in that while it may have been a more "policy-specific" speech than he has previously delivered, I found it far less emotional and electrifying than he is capable of, I think at least to the people who were not in the stadium. 40,000 or 75,000 people are not the only people he needed to charge up.

There were some good lines and a well-rounded description of himself and his projected and desired constituency....But: Mile High Stadium: where was something like "No mountain high enough." (perhaps not quite such a direct cliche', but still...)?

A reference to himself as not necessarily the likeliest candidate "but this election is not about me, it is about YOU"; a nod to (Mc-Cain's) valor and patriotism; and many references to unity, commonality, mutual respect and reciprocal work and service, all nice touches; but why was the fire burning in the man's heart not allowed at least a moment to really flare?

Finally, and most baffling, on this truly historic day (and the 45th anniversary of "I have a dream...", Roosevelt and JFK mentioned directly, by name, as predecessors and examples, but MLK mentioned only as a "preacher from Georgia", he who also "defended this nation", most nobly. What was that about? :confused:

I really hope his debates and inauguration speech have more real heart and less incredible mind.

(*: O-bama and Mc-Cain dashed because I do not understand at all why the candidates names are being turned into question marks ?????? in this thread. What is up with that? :confused: )

[ti_boi]

I think the job of President is largely one of rallying around ideas....and he has them -- We need a motivator with his heart and mind in the right place. I think he represents the future as opposed to more of the same baby boomer crap we have has to endure for the past 8 years.

[cadence90]

I think the job of President is largely one of rallying around ideas....and he has them -- We need a motivator with his heart and mind in the right place. I think he represents the future as opposed to more of the same baby boomer crap we have has to endure for the past 8 years.
I agree completely, and I really believe he and his partners will be up to the task, but we're discussing his speech tonight here, not his qualifications, no?

[ti_boi]

I agree completely, and I really believe he and his partners will be up to the task, but we're discussing his speech tonight here, not his qualifications, no?


Yes, I was really energized and think he touched on all of the important topics...his style was direct and very impressive....but then I like shiny things....like Ti bikes. :beer:

[cadence90]

Yes, I was really energized and think he touched on all of the important topics...his style was direct and very impressive....but then I like shiny things....like Ti bikes. :beer:
I like him and Ti bikes too, but, to continue the analogy, while he delivered a lot, he could have used a bit more Pledge polish tonight imho.

[Needs Help]

I have been an O-bama* supporter from the beginning, but I found this speech somewhat a letdown relative to its possibilities...

I really hope his debates and inauguration speech have more real heart and less incredible mind.

Blame the speech writers and political handlers. Politicians are actors. They are funded by corporations and donors who want favors and who are willing to pay for them. A politician's job is to play the role assigned to him/her and to get elected and stay elected. In return, the politician's cronies are allowed to dip their greedy hands into the U.S. Treasury whenever they want to.

Democrats or Republicans--the game is the same. They tell the sheeple what they want to hear and then they raid the public Treasury when they get elected.

[cadence90]

Blame the speech writers and political handlers. Politicians are actors. They are funded by corporations and donors who want favors and who are willing to pay for them. A politician's job is to play the role assigned to him/her and to get elected and stay elected. In return, the politician's cronies are allowed to dip their greedy hands into the U.S. Treasury whenever they want to.

Democrats or Republicans--the game is the same. They tell the sheeple what they want to hear and then they raid the public Treasury when they get elected.
As I understand it O wrote the speech himself and, with all due respect, I believe his call that we must finally drop the cynicism that is increasingly doing us and our place in the world real harm was right on.

[dsteady]

Sure, I'd hire him...for an entry level job, not as CEO. Once his resume padding came to light, he'd be fired. . . .

SNIP. . .

....
?????'s record of accomplishment is thin not because of lack of opportunity, but in spite of it. For twenty years, ????? has walked the floors of the most prestigious institutions in the nation, but has left no footprints...

...????? has accomplished nothing noteworthy despite the golden opportunities and positions he's had... No company would hire anyone with ?????'s empty track record, pattern of underachievement and padded résumé to be CEO. Is America really ready to hire him as President? [/I]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710381368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Wow. That's just a mind-boggling over-simplification of his career.

How do you (or the Jerusalem Post) reconcile this supposed lack of accomplishment with being the first African American in the history of the United States to be nominated by a major party to run for President?

Anyway, I think we've learned in the last 8 years that CEO's don't necessarily make good presidents.

I thought the speech was pretty good. That type of speech, which needs to articulate so many points, cannot really soar rhetorically. I would have liked less negativity, but unfortunately M(a)Cain lowered the bar with those Paris Hilton ads and I don't think O(')Bama had any other option but to come out swinging.

dn'l

[johnnymossville]

an opinion on his speech is above my pay grade.

[R2D2]

Blame the speech writers and political handlers. Politicians are actors. They are funded by corporations and donors who want favors and who are willing to pay for them. A politician's job is to play the role assigned to him/her and to get elected and stay elected. In return, the politician's cronies are allowed to dip their greedy hands into the U.S. Treasury whenever they want to.

Democrats or Republicans--the game is the same. They tell the sheeple what they want to hear and then they raid the public Treasury when they get elected.

Exactly.........
I thought he was composed and delivered well.
It did make me wonder about a few things.
Who does he consider "workers"? I've worked my entire life. But I didn't work on an assembly line. Do I qualify? Most likely I'll qualify to pay the bills.
Where's the "fat cat" rich line? I bet it's a lot lower than you think.

There was also a lot of the guv'ment gonna straighten everything out. And DC is needs to change. Didn't Jimmy Carter say the same?

The one thing I find hard to swallow is the "Change" byline.
He's running for the the head of the executive branch. Congress changes things. The executive branch enforces the law.

The other one (the site chages the name to ??????) is no better.

Either way the hard working middle class will get soaked with little representation or benefits.


.

[1centaur]

I thought it was a great speech for his voting base (and in just a delivery sense it was wonderful period - he is very skillful), like Reagan's shining city on a hill speech. In both cases, it was the style more than the substance that carried the day and will, I think, carry the election. Thus are historical changes made.

Line by line, concept by concept, it would be relatively easy in a dispassionate context to challenge his promises and criticisms and claims with success. This board is not a dispassionate context, and even so it does not matter - that is not the way America will view it. He is such an effective speech maker the media will laud him and the voting population will be inspired by him. He hit the emotional hot buttons perfectly and his opponent has no hope of doing the same.

My broadest criticism was his implication that so many causes of hard working families' problems were solvable by government (and his utter silence on the broader negative consequences of such solutions), especially in the context of giving 95% of the people tax cuts. I'm inclined to call that arithmetic a cynical lie, since he seems so smart, but I fear it is more than that, since he seems so sincere - I really (really) like him. One way or another, he will win and have majority power in Congress and then we'll all see him hit reality and the hard core base will be disappointed, because what he says he will do is impossible, not implausible. More narrowly, I'm sure the military is scratching its collective head at his implication that we were incapable of getting Bin Laden under Bush but won't be under him. I also think Putin is smirking at the hard diplomacy line.

Bottom line: Great speech, history made, a move towards Euro-socialism ensues, at least our push to alternative energy speeds up, but much larger forces will determine how it plays out for America over the next 50 years.

[quattro]

Bring on the debates. Lets hear what Mr. O and Mr. M have to back-up their promises. I'm ready to move to the next step.

[Climb01742]

putting politics aside...

i'm 54 years old, was born in the deep south (savannah, ga) and spent a good chunk of my early childhood in the south. where we as a nation were then, and where we are now, as smiley said, that makes me happy and proud to be living in america.

i think most of us saw what we wanted to see last night. i "saw" something hopeful last night.

[michael white]

????? often speaks in a literary, metaphorical style which is gorgeous to some of us. He knew he couldn't do that this time, since it wasn't a speech for that particular audience, so he spoke to the points in a prosaic way.

If you're the "change candidate," the thickness of the resume is far less important than whether or not Independents connect with the Biden/????? team as THEIR team for change. This is a change election, pure and simple, and the winds favor the Dems--for the other team to put on a convincing show as change agents isn't really possible . . .

It was a fabulous speech, I thought.

It will all be grist for the mill next week, but I would imagine this ticket gets a good solid bounce in the polls the next couple of days. . . I would wager that within twenty four hours his Gallup and Rasmussen numbers go up three or four points.

[Ray]

Well, I thought it was a damn near perfect speech, but I would.

For those who found it less soaring than some of his others, I think its pretty clear that THOSE speeches already won over those of us inclined towards a guy like ????? and gave those not inclined toward him a good meme to try to bring him down (yeah he makes a nice little speech, what what else can he do?). Most of us around here seem to take this stuff pretty seriously and think about it a lot and we tend not to be the typical "undecided" voter. So he's not after us anymore. He's trying to get the folks who don't think all that hard all that early about elections and who are probably inclined to vote Democratic this time, but who want to know what he's gonna do for them. So he tried to tell 'em - to get them more comfortable with him. To refute some of McCane's ridiculous (but probably effective) claims of ????? as "elitist" and "celebrity", which given the difference in their lives (both past and present) could make a fellow regurgitate.

So he had to come out both swinging and reassuring and I think he did both brilliantly. It at least gets him back on his feet until the debates start. McCane will do better there, but I expect ????? to hold his own. I predict either Obamma wins by a comfortable margin or McCane wins a close one. As much as I like this guy, I never count on a majority of the American people to agree with me - it rarely happens.

And, oh yeah, the experience thing. Several presidents have been younger and similarly inexperienced when they came in. And mostly they're regarded as among the best. The guy can move people and get folks united behind a common cause. That's what presidents do if they're good. Doesn't bother me in the least.

And, oh yeah, as noted in an earlier thread - proud as hell of our country (or at least my party) today.

-Ray

[avalonracing]

Sure, I'd hire him...for an entry level job, not as CEO. Once his resume padding came to light, he'd be fired.

[I]The audacity of resume-padding (or, why ????? makes things up)

Aug. 17, 2008
Abraham katsman and Kory Bardash

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710381368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I love that you are quoting a website that when clicked on has a HUGE anti abortion banner ad running across the top. I'm sure that it too is "fair and balanced".

[jeffg]

Keep this civil. I'm quite well read, listen to NPR, read the HNN, etc and familiar with the product that's currently being pitched. My concern is that the real ????? is an unknown. He's a great speaker but has no real experience and hasn't really accomplished anything in his short time in Washington. The convention and evenings speech hasn't changed my opinion of him. I'm looking forward to the debates...maybe my opinion will change.


Debates, like conventions, provide soundbites and fodder for pundits. Points may be scored but little, if anything, will be learned

Try to take a look at the proposed policies (when they come up), and form an opinion not based on some TV moment (which is why I don't have a TV). The effects on the health care system (and employee sponsored health care) would be quite dramatic (and dramatically different), for example under X and Y.

I realize a complex reality will be boiled down even by doing one's own case study, but this hypothetical undecided voter we keep hearing about mystifies me, at least once we get into October

If you can't decide on the merits, just go with your gut like Colbert!

[avalonracing]

SNIP. . .

Anyway, I think we've learned in the last 8 years that CEO's don't necessarily make good presidents.

dn'l

He was a suck-ass CEO too. (The country isn't the first thing that is has taken to bankruptcy).

[Ray]

Try to take a look at the proposed policies (when they come up), and form an opinion not based on some TV moment (which is why I don't have a TV). The effects on the health care system (and employee sponsored health care) would be quite dramatic (and dramatically different), for example under X and Y.

I realize a complex reality will be boiled down even by doing one's own case study, but this hypothetical undecided voter we keep hearing about mystifies me, at least once we get into October

If you can't decide on the merits, just go with your gut like Colbert!
Those of us (the vast majority of Americans and probably the vastER majority of forumites) are not the undecideds. We've either made up our minds or we've made up our guts and are trying to get our minds to rationalize that choice. The vast majority of that small minority of undecided voters that the campaigns will spend zillions of dollars to convince over the next couple of months are total gut deciders who aren't gonna think about the detailed policies beyond 'who's gonna bring down gas prices' (neither) and 'who's gonna keep the terrorists away from my house' (we'll never know).

Just out of curiosity, how many here truly don't have a strong feel for who they're gonna vote for in two months? I don't mean you have ABSOLUTELY decided, but you more or less know in your gut barring some real big surprises in the next month or two? And if you really ARE undecided, what are you hoping to learn that you don't already know?

-Ray

[93legendti]

SNIP. . .



Wow. That's just a mind-boggling over-simplification of his career.

How do you (or the Jerusalem Post) reconcile this supposed lack of accomplishment with being the first African American in the history of the United States to be nominated by a major party to run for President?

...
Can you tell me how it's an over "simplification of his career"?

If he's done more, what has he done? And why hasn't he told us about it?

If his record is so chock full of accomplishments, why does he lie and say he did things he did not?

Hey, most people bitten by the ????? bug think Pres. Bush is an "idiot"...an idiot who has never lost an election and who has gotten almost all of his legislative agenda passed.

The Democrat Party has a long history of nominating unfit candidates: Pres. Carter, Dukakis, Kerry and Mondale. The Democratic Party, with which I voted until 2000, has had ONE candidate re-elected since WWII.

The Democrat party has lost, what 8 of the last 12 Presidential Elections? I wouldn't rest my argument on Sen. ?????' nomination as proof of anything other than he has been nominated.

"Or take one of ?????'s standard lines: his claim of "twenty years of public service." ...the numbers don't add up. Shall we count? Three years in the US Senate (two of which he's spent running for President), plus seven years in the Illinois State Senate (a part-time gig, during which time he also served as a law professor) equals, at most, ten. Even if we generously throw in his three years as a "community organizer" (whatever that means, let's count it as public service), that still adds up to just thirteen.

?????'s other activities since 1985 have included Harvard Law School, writing two autobiographies (including several months writing in Bali), prestigious summer law firm jobs, three years as an associate at a Chicago law firm, and twelve years part-time on the University of Chicago Law School faculty. As Medved notes, it takes quite the ego to consider any of those stints "public service." Which of them is ????? including? "

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes_analysis&printer=1;_ylt=Ah.IpnrQ9wauFx0.hBVnoYth24cA

Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence
By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press WriterSat Aug 23, 5:02 AM ET

The candidate of change went with the status quo.

...He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate — the ultimate insider — ...The Biden selection is the next logistical step in an ????? campaign that has become more negative — a strategic decision that may be necessary but threatens to run counter to his image.

...A senior ????? adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said his boss has expressed impatience with what he calls a "reverence" inside his campaign for his message of change and new politics. In other words, ????? is willing — even eager — to risk what got him this far if it gets him to the White House.

Biden brings a lot to the table. An expert on national security, the Delaware senator voted in 2002 to authorize military intervention in Iraq...

After all, Biden is anything but a change agent, having been in office longer than half of all Americans have been alive. Longer than ??????.

...And there's the 2007 ABC interview in which Biden said he would stand by an earlier statement that ????? was not ready to serve as president.

It seems ????? is worried that some voters are starting to agree.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Ron Fournier has covered national politics for The Associated Press for nearly 20 years.





2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080823/pl_politico/12735&printer=1;_ylt=Av5DheVA3_5R07aOJiIhE_PCw5R4
A statesman known for slips of his tongue
Eamon Javers, Jonathan MartinSat Aug 23, 2:44 AM ET

...For all that, though, the likeliest attacks on Biden are all matters of public record, and often problems of his own making.

Biden, who dropped out of the 1988 Democratic primary after he was accused of lifting sections of his stump speech about his humble origins from British Labour party leader Neil Kinnock, more recently took heat in 2006, when he said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

...More substantively, Biden supported the 2002 resolution that authorized the war in Iraq — a resolution that ????? opposed and, in the primaries at least, painted as “the most important foreign policy decision in a generation.”

Biden was on the wrong side of that thinking, by ?????’s lights. In 2002, he said that America had “no choice but to eliminate” Saddam Hussein.

While preparing for his own run at the party’s nomination last year, he took several shots at ?????’s inexperience, warning that “if the Democrats think we’re going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we’re making a tragic mistake.”

When ????? gave a speech saying he’d send troops into Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government was unwilling to act, Biden told NPR that “It’s a well-intentioned notion he has, but it’s a very naive way of thinking how you’re going to conduct foreign policy,” adding of his then-rival, in a remark Republicans are sure to revive, “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.”

Biden also said last year of his now-running mate, that “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” He may also see clips from his 1988 presidential run, when he ran an ad in which the narrator warns:

”The White House isn't a place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power ... the economic future of the next generation,'' the narrator of Biden's 1988 ad for the Democratic nomination said. "The president has got to know the territory.”

Biden, 65, came to Congress at the age of 30, meaning he’s spent more than half his life in the institution, which Republicans will surely charge makes him an unsuitable running mate for a candidate of change.

Another moment likely to be used against him is his Aug. 2, 2005, "Daily Show" appearance in which Jon Stewart asked him of a potential 2008 run, “You may end up going against a Senate colleague, perhaps ??????, perhaps Frist?”

Biden replied, “John ?????? is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John ??????, because I think the country would be better off — be well off no matter who ...”

Biden's long tenure in the Senate cuts against ?????’s change message, even as it insulates the first-term Illinois senator from charges that he’s too green for the White House.

Biden has accepted $5,133,072 in contributions from lawyers and lobbyists since 2003. ????? does not accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists.

...One of Biden's sons, Hunter, is a registered Washington lobbyist in a year in which ????? has been excoriating lobbyists and the culture of corruption in Washington. The younger Biden is a name partner at the firm Oldaker, Biden & Belair and seems to have specialized in lobbying for just the kind of earmark spending by Congress that ????? has vowed to slash. Republican insiders say the party is likely to make an issue of Biden's family lobbying ties.

Also expect to hear more about Biden's close ties with credit card companies. His largest contributor, based on total contributions by employees, over the past five years has been MBNA, the Delaware-based bank aquired in 2005 by Bank of America that, until then, was the world's largest independent credit card issuer and a major supporter of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that Biden crossed the aisle to support.

Top five donors (including employee donations):
MBNA Corp. (Delaware-based bank acquired in 2005 by Bank of America)
Pachulski, Stang (law firm with major Delaware officers)
Young, Conaway (large Delaware law firm)
Law Office of Peter Angelos (mid-Atlantic trial law firm)
Simmons Cooper (national trial law firm)

Top five industry group contributors:
Lawyers/law firms
Real estate
Retired
Securities & investment
Miscellaneous finance

Alexander Burns contributed to this story.


----- Original Message -----
From: Adam J. Baker
To: Adam J. Baker
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 11:05 AM
Subject: Emailing: The Overthinking ?????


3.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_el_pr/veep_biden_profile&printer=1;_ylt=ApniHcswTcscKLFlJRQgrTth24cA

Biden speaks — and speaks — his own mind
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press WriterSat Aug 23, 4:54 AM ET

...Biden voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq invasion, which ????? opposed from the start. Since then, he's become a firm critic of the conflict and pushed through a resolution last year declaring that Bush's troop increase — now considered a military success — was "not in the national interest."

One of the youngest politicians ever elected to the Senate — he was 29 — Biden entered the 1988 Democratic presidential primary promising to "rekindle the fire of idealism in our society." He reluctantly quit the race three months later after he was caught lifting lines from a speech by a British Labour Party leader.

In his latest effort, Biden proved to be a cheerful campaigner who mixed easily with voters, got along with rivals and displayed a self-deprecating sense of humor that leavened debates and speeches....

The question was rooted in Biden's occasional gaffes. He had apologized earlier for describing ????? as "articulate" and "clean" in one unguarded episode that was taken by some to have a racial overtone. And he'd had to defend his remark that "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/22/AR2008082202207.html

4.

NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | Discussions | Photos & Video | City Guide | CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE
The Overthinking ?????

By Kathleen Parker
Sunday, August 24, 2008; B07



Abortion is back with, dare we say it, biblical vengeance.

...What is more likely to be true is that ????? is studiously cautious, too smart by half and ambivalent to a fault. Suddenly, the man whose campaign seemed helium-propelled is being pulled back down to Earth by the force of his own vagueness. Abortion, of all things, has become his kryptonite.

...But ?????'s current problem isn't really about his position on abortion. It is about his central weakness as a presidential candidate: He overthinks and ends up seeming not to know what he thinks.

He can't seem to give a straight answer.

...What did ????? mean and when did he mean it?

Alas, the more he tries to explain his position, the more muddled the picture becomes. The most revealing answer may have come last weekend, when pastor Rick Warren asked him when a baby gets human rights.

"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."

...But the answer is really pretty simple. It's whatever one thinks. It is not above anyone's pay grade to be honest.

Instead, ????? punted....

Kathleen Parker is syndicated by theWashington Post Writers Group. Her e-mail address iskparker@kparker.com.

[ti_boi]

I thought his speech represented the fact that he seems to understand the current situation in this country from the point of view of someone who might be able to do something to help.

Unlike many who claim things are great and we are all doing fine -- we are not.
This country has been ravaged by greedy banks....continues to fight in unjust wars....has lost it's direction....and needs a major overhaul.

Change is good.

[93legendti]

I thought his speech represented the fact that he seems to understand the current situation in this country from the point of view of someone who might be able to do something to help.

Unlike many who claim things are great and we are all doing fine -- we are not.
This country has been ravaged by greedy banks....continues to fight in unjust wars....has lost it's direction....and needs a major overhaul.

Change is good.

He said last night "we are a great country...we have the greatest wealth...we have the best military...we are the envy of the world...everyone wants to come to these shores..."

[ti_boi]

He said last night "we are a great country...we have the greatest wealth...we have the best military...we are the envy of the world...everyone wants to come to these shores..."

He also said that he would reward innovation and stimulate creation of jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Look -- seriously -- we might all look at issues from a different point of view....but we want to feel good about our country.

The last 8 years have tested that idea for me...or perhaps I have simply become more aware of the reality of our nation's unfairness.

I see someone in front of me who is saying the right things....is he a salesman with a good line and glib manner? I do not know. If that is the case than I will be as disappointed as anyone. And BTW....I am not putting the faith of religion in this guy. I simply think he is saying exactly what I have been thinking.

Has the message been crafted by the study of the American condition and the current state of anxiety in some of the populace? Perhaps.

[johnnymossville]

I thought his speech represented the fact that he seems to understand the current situation in this country from the point of view of someone who might be able to do something to help.

Unlike many who claim things are great and we are all doing fine -- we are not.
This country has been ravaged by greedy banks....continues to fight in unjust wars....has lost it's direction....and needs a major overhaul.

Change is good.

...to think a guy who's mentors are communists, racists, terrorists, chicago mob bosses, deadbeat dads and fictional characters is the guy to do it? wow.

I've made up my mind and last night confirmed it.

[ti_boi]

...to think a guy who's mentors are communists, racists, terrorists, chicago mob bosses, deadbeat dads and fictional characters is the guy to do it? wow.

I've made up my mind and last night confirmed it.


Ha! Great post....love the ambiguity....but you know it makes him sound like a character in a really good dime store novella.

And Hendryx was a drugged out womanizer...but when he played the Star Spangled Banner.....

[Kevan]

the president has to have 2 major talents and 1 obligation. The president has to be a communicator; he has to inspire his citizens and present a unified voice to the rest of the world. He or she also has to be an administrator, able to select good talent and manage that talent. The decisions the president makes comes from the support of others. He needs a team that he can rely on and trust. The citizens that the president is taking care of will expect nothing less.

The obiligation is responsibility. Whatever happens while at the helm, the president is responsible.

I'm confident the man is a fine speaker. I think he will do wonders in restoring USA's good name to our neighbors. In so many ways I liken his abiltiy to communicate with that of Lincoln's.

As far as being a fine administrator? I simply don't know yet. I wasn't wild about the Bilden selection, but reserve judgement for later (As if I count.).

If he's anything like Lincoln's character that I think he is, I suspect that he will properly shoulder responsibility.

There's my 2 cents.

[93legendti]

Ha! Great post....love the ambiguity....but you know it makes him sound like a character in a really good dime store novella.

And Hendryx was a drugged out womanizer...but when he played the Star Spangled Banner.....

And when he played the Star Spangled Banner...he sounded like a drugged out womanizer playing the Star Spangled Banner.

[ti_boi]

And when he played the Star Spangled Banner...he sounded like a drugged out womanizer playing the Star Spangled Banner.


I prefer him on Castles Made of Sand.

[BURCH]

I have a civics question...

Does each state have equal amounts of Republican and Democratic delegates? Is there a chance that Republican delegates would have gone to this convention for out of any type of obligation?

I haven't seen the speech yet. I was going to catch it online today.

BURCH

[csm]

good speech. said lots about nothing.
I heard Biden say that ????? will give 95% of the American taxpayers a tax break. that I am looking forward to. if he wins, I hope he's called out on it cuz there ain't no way that's gonna happen.

[Climb01742]

...to think a guy who's mentors are communists, racists, terrorists, chicago mob bosses, deadbeat dads and fictional characters is the guy to do it? wow.

I've made up my mind and last night confirmed it.

you apparently enjoy mindless name-calling. i am tempted to respond in kind, but your post, itself, says everything that need be said about you.

[Len J]

putting politics aside...

i'm 54 years old, was born in the deep south (savannah, ga) and spent a good chunk of my early childhood in the south. where we as a nation were then, and where we are now, as smiley said, that makes me happy and proud to be living in america.

i think most of us saw what we wanted to see last night. i "saw" something hopeful last night.

I was thinkming the same thing.

I was listening yesterday on NPR, to a group of aged civil rights leaders who marked beside King to Selma talking about what ?????'s nomination meant to them........it was inspiring. But what struck me most was that this momentous thing was not that big a deal to me. We have come far enough that a white Man born in 1955 really doesn't think that the color of his skin is important to me.

How cool is that?

len

[93legendti]

you apparently enjoy mindless name-calling. i am tempted to respond in kind, but your post, itself, says everything that need be said about you.

Jim, I think you did respond in kind.

[csm]

why can't we have differing opinions? I disagree with bill clinton on most of his policies and beliefs but I bet he's a heckuva guy to have a couple of beers with. I think the same about Ted Kennedy; just not letting him drive me home.

[zap]

man-Palin-more history in the making.

Talk about real change we can believe in.

[csm]

IF it's Palin I think it's gonna be a fun ride.

[Vancouverdave]

He sure can talk. I'll vote for him unless he looks like winning in a titanic landslide (not likely) i which case I'll ink the square for Cynthia McKinney.
This election looks like a choice between two Republicans--think of ????? as a moderate, humane, responsible Midwestern conservative; a new-agey Gerald Ford. ?????? is talking and acting like General Curtis Lemay--a trigger happy hawk who should NOT be trusted with the office he's seeking. I think ????? is likely to do less damage.

[93legendti]

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

DENVER (AP) — John ?????? tapped little-known Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, two senior campaign officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes

[BURCH]

Just listened to the speech and I thought it was a pretty good speech, but can we expect anything less from presidential candidates? They have teams of people writing the speeches, right?

I did think that Bama did a good job of pointing out that by attacking Cain he is not attacking Cain's patriotism. It was a smart move and a necessary pre-emptive strike. Did the Republicans notice?

I disagree with the consistent proposal by Bama that Cain would be another term added to the Bush/Chaney presidency. To tie Cain into the Bush admin that stronly is too much propaganda for me. The Bush admin is not even the same 8 years later. This article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731) by Newsweek was pretty interesting about that fact.

Finally, I thought that the weakest point of the speech was his one sentence stating how he has worked across party lines in Washington and held lobbyist accountable. As far as the average American should be concerned, neither of these are happening enough for anyone to take credit (by Bama or Cain). Lobbyists are killing our country and Washington can barely get anything.

[johnnymossville]

Thanks Climb. :banana:


Go John and Sarah!!!!!

[93legendti]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

Let's see:
She has executive experience.
She has youthfulness and energy.
She is NOT from Washington.
She is a reformer.
The DNC's attack machine will have to tread lightly attacking a mother of 5.

I love "change". A woman for VP, why didn't ????? think of that?? :)

"...Palin, a telegenic conservative, has led the oil-producing northwestern US state since December 2006 and was the first woman and youngest person to hold that state's top job.

Known as an anticorruption crusader, Palin studied journalism and is on the conservative wing of her party..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080829/pl_afp/usvote??????vp_080829145108;_ylt=AgsWUqiFNdLKHirv. xZs7lNh24cA

[93legendti]

Just listened to the speech and I thought it was a pretty good speech, but can we expect anything less from presidential candidates? They have teams of people writing the speeches, right?

I did think that Bama did a good job of pointing out that by attacking Cain he is not attacking Cain's patriotism. It was a smart move and a necessary pre-emptive strike. Did the Republicans notice?

I disagree with the consistent proposal by Bama that Cain would be another term added to the Bush/Chaney presidency. To tie Cain into the Bush admin that stronly is too much propaganda for me. The Bush admin is not even the same 8 years later. This article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731) by Newsweek was pretty interesting about that fact.

Finally, I thought that the weakest point of the speech was his one sentence stating how he has worked across party lines in Washington and held lobbyist accountable. As far as the average American should be concerned, neither of these are happening enough for anyone to take credit (by Bama or Cain). Lobbyists are killing our country and Washington can barely get anything.

????? should talk to Joe Biden's son....

[johnnymossville]

Don't forget, she runs marathons and probably actually sweats when she works out. Woohoooo!

[93legendti]

This is exciting!

[johnnymossville]

Communist News Network is trying to dig up dirt on her as we speak. LOL I have it on now.

*the most they've come up with so far is her sister's divorce. There's news for ya.

[Louis]

Palin - apparently inexperience is not a disqualifier after all.

[BURCH]

????? should talk to Joe Biden's son....

Why? I am not following you as I don't know his son's story?

[johnnymossville]

Palin - apparently inexperience is not a disqualifier after all.


WAYYYY more experience than the other guy, what's his name?

[ti_boi]

Interesting news. May the best people win.
And may they make the changes that do help ordinary Americans.
May fairness return to our great land.
And may I continue to lose weight and age gracefully while enjoying my bicycle for many moons.

[93legendti]

Why? I am not following you as I don't know his son's story?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20...7aOJiIhE_PCw5R4


"A statesman known for slips of his tongue
Eamon Javers, Jonathan MartinSat Aug 23, 2:44 AM ET

...For all that, though, the likeliest attacks on Biden are all matters of public record, and often problems of his own making...


Biden has accepted $5,133,072 in contributions from lawyers and lobbyists since 2003. ????? does not accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists.

...One of Biden's sons, Hunter, is a registered Washington lobbyist in a year in which ????? has been excoriating lobbyists and the culture of corruption in Washington. The younger Biden is a name partner at the firm Oldaker, Biden & Belair and seems to have specialized in lobbying for just the kind of earmark spending by Congress that ????? has vowed to slash. Republican insiders say the party is likely to make an issue of Biden's family lobbying ties.

Also expect to hear more about Biden's close ties with credit card companies...
Top five donors (including employee donations):
MBNA Corp. (Delaware-based bank acquired in 2005 by Bank of America)
Pachulski, Stang (law firm with major Delaware officers)
Young, Conaway (large Delaware law firm)
Law Office of Peter Angelos (mid-Atlantic trial law firm)
Simmons Cooper (national trial law firm)

Top five industry group contributors:
Lawyers/law firms
Real estate
Retired
Securities & investment
Miscellaneous finance"

Alexander Burns contributed to this story.

[93legendti]

Interesting news. May the best people win.
And may they make the changes that do help ordinary Americans.
May fairness return to our great land.
And may I continue to lose weight and age gracefully while enjoying my bicycle for many moons.

That is worth repeating...again and again and again!!

[zap]

Communist News Network is trying to dig up dirt on her as we speak. LOL I have it on now.

*the most they've come up with so far is her sister's divorce. There's news for ya.

The wsj reported on this a few weeks ago. The dems media machine are already talking about her youngest son and wonder how she will have time to campaign and be vp.

Maybe Hillary and Bill are right. There is media bias.

[johnnymossville]

You know, I've been following with amusement how Biden is touting his blue collar upbringing in Scranton, PA. He knows they need PA to win.

I lived in Scranton for several years, and the neighborhood Joe grew up in is full of beautiful tree-lined streets, multi-million dollar mansions and white-bread milk toast people. One time CEO of Coca-Cola owns a house in his neighborhood. There is no way he was part of the blue collar Scranton the media is trying to portray.

Now Hillary's ancestors from Scranton on the other hand were more blue collar. They owned a fine whore-house/tavern in another part of town.

[Ray]

This Palin pick is VERY interesting. It tells me two things. First, McCane was very confident he could NOT win without a big roll of the dice. Given the recent polling, I find that surprising, but the folks inside the campaigns know a lot more than I do. Second, they've determined that they've got to run another 'bring out the base' campaign in a year that the Republican base has shrunk and the Democratic base has grown. I find this very surprising. Sounds like the involvement of Rove and Steve Schmidt (Rove disciple) and perhaps the last gasp of that approach for a while. Yeah, they're going after some of the disaffected Hillary vote, but how many women who would vote for Hillary are really gonna vote for a VP pick who's as strong as she is on abortion, gay rights, and other social issues? Maybe a few, but it will be interesting to see how hard Hillary attacks Palin in her campaign stops. It also takes the experience issue off the table against Borama, which means they didn't think it was gonna work. Putting someone a heartbeat away who's been governor of Alaska for a year and a half and was only a small town mayor and beauty queen before that sure shoots that issue out of the water.

All very fascinating. Will be interesting to watch it play out. At least we know that history will be made one way or another in this election. You gotta love that.

Hand it to McCane. He's never been one to play it safe.

-Ray

[dsteady]

Can you tell me how it's an over "simplification of his career"?

A man can be more than his supposed "footprints" left behind in a few brief tenures at at a couple of institutions. That he did not publish while at the HLR does not mean he was ineffective. I read a NYTimes piece which quoted substantially from his conservative classmates at the time who all agree that Mr. O was an effective, unifying leader at an institution which in the early 90s was in gravely fractured along ideological lines. Funny, but to me those sound remarkably like the same qualities I see in the man now.

Had he been keen academic in either of these positions the Right would no doubt be attacking his dangerous "intellectualism."

Also, that he did not publish while at University of Chicago Law School does not make him some sort of deadbeat. He was a respected lecturer there. U of C is very serious institution and doesn't just hand these positions out. Mr. O may have simply not felt compelled to play the publish or perish game if he knew that he did not want tenure.

My point is that your JPost article merely rakes over a few inconsequential details of his career and tries to amplify these into major character flaws.

If he's done more, what has he done? And why hasn't he told us about it?

Well, gosh he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. Needless to say he was also the first African American ever to hold that post. He was elected an Illinois State Senator at 36. Then to the US senate at 43. There's the little matter of his bid for presidency, but you don't seem to think that means anything. I guess you had that checked off when you were just a young pup.

If his record is so chock full of accomplishments, why does he lie and say he did things he did not?

I'm don't know that he lied about any of this, and I'm not going to leave it to the Jerusalem Post to confirm that for me.

But I'll take his one speech on race as a record of accomplishment over the accomplishments of many others. That speech, was, besides being unscripted, one of the greatest moments of political oratory, and thinking, since the era of King and JFK.

Hey, most people bitten by the ????? bug think Pres. Bush is an "idiot"...an idiot . . .

CORRECTION: Most of us know that he's an idiot.

. . . who has never lost an election and who has gotten almost all of his legislative agenda passed.

Never lost an election? Or never won an election that he couldn't steal ?

The Democrat Party has a long history of nominating unfit candidates: Pres. Carter, Dukakis, Kerry and Mondale. The Democratic Party, with which I voted until 2000, has had ONE candidate re-elected since WWII.

I'll give you Mondale and Dukakis, but Carter and Kerry were hardly unfit.

The Democrat party has lost, what 8 of the last 12 Presidential Elections? I wouldn't rest my argument on Sen. ?????' nomination as proof of anything other than he has been nominated.

You really seem to think that getting nominated is some sort of cake-walk. The guy got nominated running against the Clinton machine. That is no mean feat, and shows he's got brass ones, if you ask me. It also shows that he has the qualities of a natural leader.

"Or take one of ?????'s standard lines: his claim of "twenty years of public service." ...the numbers don't add up. Shall we count? Three years in the US Senate (two of which he's spent running for President), plus seven years in the Illinois State Senate (a part-time gig, during which time he also served as a law professor) equals, at most, ten. Even if we generously throw in his three years as a "community organizer" (whatever that means, let's count it as public service), that still adds up to just thirteen.

What that means is that he worked in a hard, tiring and thankless position as advocate for poor and working-class American families. It shows that he has real, on-the-ground experience with the very Americans who are struggling most to survive in our modern world. Community Organizing is hard, hard work. It's about extending democracy to those who are continually denied it, and doing so from the ground up, person by person and with precious few resources and lousy pay. In my opinion, it makes him uniquely qualified to be president.

?????'s other activities since 1985 have included Harvard Law School, writing two autobiographies (including several months writing in Bali), prestigious summer law firm jobs, three years as an associate at a Chicago law firm, and twelve years part-time on the University of Chicago Law School faculty. As Medved notes, it takes quite the ego to consider any of those stints "public service." Which of them is ????? including? "

If I had known that at this point you were going to cite Michael Medved (that esteemed neo-con movie critic) I might not have bothered with a response. ;)

The rest of your post veers belligerently, and predictably, into an attack on Biden which is neither here nor there. Yes, Biden criticized Mr. O when he was running against him, and yes now he stands beside him and yes that is typical of DC. But Biden does bring significant foreign policy expertise, as well as an insider's knowledge of how to deal with the Senate and, not inconsequentially, I think that Joe Biden could kick Chuck Norris' ass.

So there.
:p

daniel

[93legendti]

It tells me:

?????? doesn't merely utter empty cliches- he backs them up.
?????? is actually for change, rather than just using it as a slogan on a placard.
?????? knows governors have ACTUAL executive experience.
?????? knows soccer/hockey mom's are often are crucial to campaigns and can't be ignored.
Biden's few assets just got fewer- nobody likes an attack dog that picks on the opposite sex- it's means you are a bully.
?????'s chocie of Biden went from being a small mistake to a big one. It's too bad you can't "refine" a VP choice like you can an "idea/position". there are no mulligans (spell? I don't golf) at this level.
?????? knows you can't hold up your outsider status as a plus and then pick the ultimate insider for a VP.

[Len J]

This Palin pick is VERY interesting. It tells me two things. First, McCane was very confident he could NOT win without a big roll of the dice. Given the recent polling, I find that surprising, but the folks inside the campaigns know a lot more than I do. Second, they've determined that they've got to run another 'bring out the base' campaign in a year that the Republican base has shrunk and the Democratic base has grown. I find this very surprising. Sounds like the involvement of Rove and Steve Schmidt (Rove disciple) and perhaps the last gasp of that approach for a while. Yeah, they're going after some of the disaffected Hillary vote, but how many women who would vote for Hillary are really gonna vote for a VP pick who's as strong as she is on abortion, gay rights, and other social issues? Maybe a few, but it will be interesting to see how hard Hillary attacks Palin in her campaign stops. It also takes the experience issue off the table against Borama, which means they didn't think it was gonna work. Putting someone a heartbeat away who's been governor of Alaska for a year and a half and was only a small town mayor and beauty queen before that sure shoots that issue out of the water.

All very fascinating. Will be interesting to watch it play out. At least we know that history will be made one way or another in this election. You gotta love that.

Hand it to McCane. He's never been one to play it safe.

-Ray

spot on........

for a candidate that needs swing votes to win, it's a gamble. If she doesn't deliver the Catholic vote, which ?????? has little chance of delivering, they are dead in the water.

Len

[93legendti]

...There's the little matter of his bid for presidency, but you don't seem to think that means anything. I guess you had that checked off when you were just a young pup...



But I'll take his one speech on race as a record of accomplishment over the accomplishments of many others. That speech, was, besides being unscripted, one of the greatest moments of political oratory, and thinking, since the era of King and JFK...



You really seem to think that getting nominated is some sort of cake-walk. The guy got nominated running against the Clinton machine. That is no mean feat, and shows he's got brass ones, if you ask me. It also shows that he has the qualities of a natural leader.



...Community Organizing is hard, hard work...In my opinion, it makes him uniquely qualified to be president...

The rest of your post veers belligerently, and predictably, into an attack on Biden which is neither here nor there. Yes, Biden criticized Mr. O when he was running against him, and yes now he stands beside him and yes that is typical of DC. But Biden does bring significant foreign policy expertise, as well as an insider's knowledge of how to deal with the Senate and, not inconsequentially, I think that Joe Biden could kick Chuck Norris' ass.

So there.
:p

daniel
Yes, Biden voted for the Iraq war and against the surge. Experience doesn't always mean one makes correct choices. It just means a person has made a lot of choices.

Your post boiled down seems to state ????? is qualified because he got the nomination, he made a speech and he's a "community organizer" - what did he organize? FWIW, Biden ("I would never be a VP") and the Clintons did not think ?????'s speech gave him Presidential worthy credentials...

The point of citing where he's been and the fact he did nothing there is that for all of ????? oratory skills, his action skills PALE in comparison.

[Kirk007]

93Legend Ti:

While your attacking the Biden family why not pick on the son that's on his way back to Iraq? Sure as he** haven't seen Bush or Cheney sending their kids off to there attempt to establish domination over a middle east oil supply.

And experience and resume padding: I'll take ?????'a over the lying, pandering idiot in the White House who has proven that he can run more than oil companies and baseball teams into the ground. Where was Bush's "experience" to run this country? Is repeated failure and bailout by your families rich cronies the type of experience we should be comforted by?

Bush has achieved his agenda? What is that, a ruined economy, a lower stature across the world, the replacement of honest agency employees with political idealogues - "great job Brownie" and a bunch of $5 millionaires safely ensconced in their McMansions waiting for the rapture while the rest of America's standard of living declines? That's one heck of an accomplishment. And I am proud to say we have pretty much taken the majority of his rape the environment agenda and stuffed it down his throat.

And what did any of your points have to do with the speech anyway?? Did you feel the energy coming from the stadium? Do you appreciate why ????? has energized so many, particularly the young? He has given many Americans hope that they too might have a decent life. Don't believe me, then go spend some time talking to high school students or college students about their hopes and dreams for the future; and not just those whose parents are paying their way at Exeter Academy or Harvard, Yale, Stanford. Talk to those whose parents are divorced and struggling to make ends meet. Ask them what future they see and whether they view American as the land of opportunity for them; and then ask them how ????? impacts that view.

Motivation is a powerful thing. ?????? and his staffers view most Americans as a bunch of "whiners" (see NYT Op-Eds today for discussion); I see most Americans as so beat up that they are despondent and disallusioned to the point of fatal ambivalence, and perhaps that's what the rich 2% want - a malleable emasculated majority. That ????? is waking and motivating that majority up must scare the hell out of those fat leeches. And yes, that is too broad a generalization; I hereby exclude all in that top 2% who understand the opportunities they were afforded and take meaningful action to give back to America.

A motivated America has proven throughout our proud history that we can accomplish great things. One path in the election may lead us in that direction. No guarnatees. The other will surely perpetuate our decline as a country as a nation of two classes - the haves and have nots. I used to admire ??????; heck I used to think George Bush 1 was a smart man who would make an ok president. I watched Bush abandon his middle of the road principlesin order to gather the support of the most conservative factions of the Republican party. Sadly I see ?????? doing the same thing. I might have a little hope if we were getting ?????? as his own man, but the thought of ?????? as manipulated and controlled by the party makes me fearful for our future. We don't have another 4-8 years to waste.

[avalonracing]

Oh good... Her husband works for an oil company. We need someone in office who represents their interests.

[93legendti]

93Legend Ti:

While your attacking the Biden family why not pick on the son that's on his way back to Iraq?...

Maybe he'll serve with VP Palin's oldest son who enlisted last year on 9/11.

You'll have to excuse me, I have to go listen to Rush and "get out my Liberace records" :)

[TMB]

Oh good... Her husband works for an oil company. We need someone in office who represents their interests.

Umm,

The husband is a commercial fisherman, who works off seasons in the oil field.

That is what many people in the north do.

[Needs Help]

As I understand it O wrote the speech himself and, with all due respect, I believe his call that we must finally drop the cynicism that is increasingly doing us and our place in the world real harm was right on.
Of course. The crooks always want the public not to be cynical of their misdeeds. Every 8 years, the politicians have a new generation of people to con into believing in them. Yet, there is one scandal after another. In every corner of the business world, there are people who are using politicians to steal from the public--and it never ends.

Tell me this, why should a U.S Congressman ever travel outside Washington, D.C. to meet with a lobbyist? If a U.S. Congressman decides to grant an audience to a lobbyist, shouldn't that meeting take place at Congress's place of business, i.e. in Washington, D.C.? And shouldn't the meeting take place in a public auditorium where anyone who wants to can attend the meeting? And shouldn't the meeting be videotaped, so that any citizen who is unable to attend the meeting can see what was said at the meeting. Why isn't that a law?

I'm pretty certain that if all elections consisted of picking 10 names at random from the general public and then electing one of them to office, government would be much better. The problem with government is the professional politicians--they are bought and paid for many times over before they ever reach the national political scene.

In order for real change to occur, tough anti corruption/anti lobbying laws must first be instituted. The penalties for violating the public trust must be the harshest possible: capital punishment or life sentences. There also need to be term limits so that "lifers" don't entrench themselves in the seats of power. No one should be able to serve more than one term--that way getting re-elected will not be the primary motivating force behind every action. And, after a politician leaves office, he should never be able to receive any compensation from a company who financially benefited from any of his votes--if there is an appearance of impropriety, then it should be illegal. Don't like the rules? Then don't run for office.

Have any of the candidates discussed these points?

[93legendti]

Umm,

The husband is a commercial fisherman, who works off seasons in the oil field.

That is what many people in the north do.
I was hoping he'd be a "community organizer"...

[Ginger]

Maybe he'll serve with VP Palin's oldest son who enlisted last year on 9/11.


So she's been planning for higher office for a while now.

[Fixed]

this stuff only divides us
imho vote for who you like
cheers :beer:

[BURCH]

Tell me this, why should a U.S Congressman ever travel outside Washington, D.C. to meet with a lobbyist? If a U.S. Congressman decides to grant an audience to a lobbyist, shouldn't that meeting take place at Congress's place of business, i.e. in Washington, D.C.? And shouldn't the meeting take place in a public auditorium where anyone who wants to can attend the meeting? And shouldn't the meeting be videotaped, so that any citizen who is unable to attend the meeting can see what was said at the meeting. Why isn't that a law?

Bite your tongue! That type of talk is way to honest for Washington!!! :no:
Too bad it wasn't that way, right? Maybe we could ban corporate donations to campaigns too.

[mikki]

an opinion on his speech is above my pay grade.


Oh yeah? Well, I will just have to consult my Grandmother about that one!!


I personally think Barack said what the majority wanted to hear; like a pep rally. I think we are in trouble if he is elected. Presidents are not as all powerful as they let on they can be in convention speeches; they have to contend with many lawmakers in order to get things done or NOT done as is the case with unfulfilled promises. His pervasive "CHANGE" platform he promises in this speech will be (in large part) just hot air. I think that the race card is being played AND the gender card now with John's Vice President choice. Why are they making such a big deal of the first African American blah blah blah or a woman blah blah blah? If we truly were at the egalitarian place that they are touting, you don't have to shout it from the rooftops a zillion times. Ah...politics!!

[93legendti]

So she's been planning for higher office for a while now.


You lost me...her SON enlisted...SHE'S the Gov. and running mate.

I know many warriors; I know career military men and women; I know wounded warriors who secretly changed their medical profile so they could get back in and serve. I'm lucky to count them as my friends. People join the military because they want to be in the military. And thank G-d for them.

[johnnymossville]

Getting back to last night's speech. O$ama was amateur at best there. He must have said, "I will do this this, I will do that, I I I I I I I I I I a million times.

It's all about O$ama with O$ama. He really believes he was put on this earth to fix all of your problems. Two autobiographies by the time you are 45 is pretty funny. Maybe he was, since he is a self proclaimed immaculate conception. His parents conceived him FIVE full years AFTER he was BORN!!! LOL

Sarah on the other hand. Sounds sincere, smart, honest and caring and has a quality track record way more impressive than Community Whiner. I'm looking forward to learning more about her. From what I hear so far I'm impressed. Nice touch complimenting Hillary and Geraldine. Hillary should've been the Dem's pick. Too bad she had to marry the wrong guy.

[michael white]

good speech?



must have been good enough.

National Gallup Tracking ????? 49, ?????? 41 ????? +8
National Rasmussen Tracking ????? 49, ?????? 45 ????? +4

[avalonracing]

Umm,

The husband is a commercial fisherman, who works off seasons in the oil field.

That is what many people in the north do.

Yes, just a simple, old world fisherman... Who just happens to be married to the governor. I wonder who spends more time fishing this guy or "W"?

[Ray]

Getting back to last night's speech. O$ama was amateur at best there. He must have said, "I will do this this, I will do that, I I I I I I I I I I a million times.

It's all about O$ama with O$ama. He really believes he was put on this earth to fix all of your problems. Two autobiographies by the time you are 45 is pretty funny. Maybe he was, since he is a self proclaimed immaculate conception. His parents conceived him FIVE full years AFTER he was BORN!!! LOL

Sarah on the other hand. Sounds sincere, smart, honest and caring and has a quality track record way more impressive than Community Whiner. I'm looking forward to learning more about her. From what I hear so far I'm impressed. Nice touch complimenting Hillary and Geraldine. Hillary should've been the Dem's pick. Too bad she had to marry the wrong guy.
My man, if you watched the Barack speech last night and the McPain/Palin speech today and you came away thinking Barack was the amateur....

Well, it just proves again that red and blue America see things about as differently as it is possible to see them. Or at least you and I do.

I felt that, whatever you feel about his politics, last night's speech was the absolute height of political speechifying (I used to feel that way about Reagan too, although I disagreed with him most of the time). The McCane - Palin deal looked like a poorly done high school pep rally with speakers who you'd root for just not to embarrass themselves too badly. So, we live in different worlds.

-Ray

[johnnymossville]

Ray, I will grant you your point that we probably do see things differently in many ways. I used to be a Democrat when I was younger but both the party changed and I changed as I got older and "wiser" I would guess. When I moved to where I am now a few years ago I changed party affiliation based on some very simple values I hold dear.

Hey, at least we both love to ride bikes. :beer:

You gotta admit, my immaculate conception joke was funny though, right? :p

[michael white]

well, Palin is captain of the cheerleading squad, if you ask me. And yes, I think she's still just as dang cute as she ever was. You know, if I were an old coot who always went for the hot broads I'd a picked her, too. Plus the glasses gives her that smarty-pants thing. DD all the way.

(sorry, I guess I should put on some a these) :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

[Samster]

Not mine, but it's the kind of story democrats typically find irritating.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl, and she said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?'

She replied, 'I'd give houses to all the homeless people.'

'Wow - what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50.

'Then, I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds (because she's only 6)…..

And while her Mom glared at me, the little girl looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'

And I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'

Her folks still aren't talking to me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Louis]

Not mine, but it's the kind of story democrats typically find irritating.

Hey Sam, you can come over an mow my lawn any time you want. I also have some weeds in the flower garden that need to be pulled.

Thanks.

Louis

PS Solutions to this country's problems developed by 6-yr olds is what we've had the last few years. I think we're ready for something a bit different.

[gdw]

95 posts and still not locked. :beer:

[Samster]

Hey Sam, you can come over an mow my lawn any time you want. I also have some weeds in the flower garden that need to be pulled.only if you drive me up your hill and pay me in beer.

[Samster]

95 posts and still not locked. :beer:
it'll get there. we just have to keep on trying!

[Pete Serotta]

:D :D Discussion is good - - attacking is not good..... :cool: :cool:

[Ray]

:D :D Discussion is good - - attacking is not good..... :cool: :cool:
Seems like as soon as you legalized using Obama and McCain again, the whole thing went back down the toilet. Amazing!

-Ray

[Blue Jays]

Interesting thread.

[Fixed]

I am a dumb cat but don't we have the right under the constitution to petition the government ie lobbyist
cheers :beer:

[dsteady]

Not mine, but it's the kind of story democrats typically find irritating.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
. . .
And I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'
. . . .
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yeah. The party that would con a child into doing the work of women and men.
;)
dn'l

[Pete Serotta]

yeah, an experiment that I might have to be reversed/// Hope not. :argue:

Seems like as soon as you legalized using Obama and McCain again, the whole thing went back down the toilet. Amazing!

-Ray

[Climb01742]

pete, in this instance, i think it's up to us to behave. i hope your faith will be rewarded.

[Samster]

Yeah. The party that would con a child into doing the work of women and men.
;)
dn'l
india
pakistan
korea
china
brazil
russia
republicans
democrats
socialists
capitalists
hindus
christians
???s
atheists
etc. etc. etc.

it's the company we keep. ;)

[Fixed]

pete, in this instance, i think it's up to us to behave. i hope your faith will be rewarded.
it will not work greed and hate the way of the past hardheaded cats that don't listen to reason try to keep the old ways going ..get use to it it is not 1970 anymore ....
cheers :beer:

[Viper]

Mrs. Sarah Pa-lin showed up tonight. If you didn't care for her before her speech, you either really dislike her now, or you found a new level of respect. Perhaps Mr. O-bama's greatest gift is the ability to grab the mic, convey meaning to his words while capturing the audience, Mrs. Pal-in seems to own a similar talent. While we don't know much more today than we did yesterday, it's safe to say that Mrs. Clint-on is staring at some very formidable competiton at the next starting line; Mrs. Pal-in can sprint and climb, but does she have endurance?

For the Republican Party, for Mr. Mc-Cain, Mrs. Pa-lin was called up from triple-A, last minute, hit a stand-up triple tonight, knocked in several runs, took the game ball and did it with a winning smile. Regardless of one's political leaning, tonight we witnessed something historic, a sight we would never have thought possible, a woman taking center stage at a Republican convention.

Game on.

:beer:

[girlie]

She did a great job cheering.
But not a new role for women and nothing I haven't seen before.
HC was looking to lead not cheer. Different situations.

Anyway, yes, seems like "game" is on.

[ti_boi]

Sorry to say, but the DEMs might be Scr*wed.

[93legendti]

Sorry to say, but the DEMs might be Scr*wed.

SP was GREAT!

[Viper]

But not a new role for women and nothing I haven't seen before.

When have you seen a female VP candidate from that Republican Party?

HC will get her chance in 2012, in the meantime, she can re-write her thesis from Wellesley. :) It seems that HC's salty, fake tears will be frozen by Mrs. Alaska.

:beer:

[gdw]

The "silent majority" in the heartland will love her.

[rnhood]

Easy to see why she was the number 1 VP choice. I made the prediction in early June that she would get the nod. She engages others, she is driven, she is focused, and she gets her job done. She doesn't play party favorites either. Her comment about Reid could not have been more appropriate.

[johnnymossville]

It was a great night, as long as I hurried to turn the sound down when the commentators came on after. They still don't quite get it, but that's a good thing.

I think she did a good job. I might have to go sacrifice a little bling on my bike this fall so I can make a donation to the cause.

[TMB]

About 5 or 6 months ago we first started to hear her name being tossed around.

I understand why.

Yes, she will go over big time and I expect that the main media outlets will continue not to understand at all, until it's over.

Home run.

[Sandy]

Now I undestand why King, my Pit Bull, started playing hockey and wearing pink lipstick. :rolleyes: :)


Sandy

[Louis]

Easy to see why she was the number 1 VP choice.

Because she would make the best Republican Vice President?

[cadence90]

A 4 or 5 day super-prepared typical convention speech, well delivered, but nothing new. I really wonder if it will appear so convincing, out of a captive hall, in 2 weeks.

Ironically, it may even hurt McCain, who has to top it tomorrow night. I don't know if he's capable of doing that. He always looks so stiff at her side, imho.

Tonight was beat up on B. O. night, and I found that belittling him so much, while implying that the Dems can't speak about her because she's a woman, a bit over the top. And John M. did not, afaik, save New Orleans all by himself.

The speech surely incited already committed voters; I don't know if it will attract any (enough) new voters; I think Europe was probably appalled; and I think OPEC was laughing, not scared.

If the U.S. goes for more "more war" and "drill, baby, drill", I will be truly disappointed not only in the "political process" (which is more disappointing each election anyhow), but for our collective future.

[cadence90]

Easy to see why she was the number 1 VP choice.
She was? I don't think so.

[stuckey]

The "silent majority" in the heartland will love her.

Do not know about that, I am deep in the heartland up nort'. They will love her anti abortion crap but not here shi!!y parenting/having a knocked up daughter. Teenage pregnancy is looked down upon here by the rich right wing.

[53-11]

The way to evaluate a speech like this is by what people are going to remember in the morning, and the only thing that people are going to remember about this speech in the morning is that she went after Obama -- a lot -- and that at times it it seemed fairly personal. It was almost kind of fun at first -- I don't think people saw it coming, and she got three or four really good lines in. But then it became too much -- sarcastic and mean-spirited. Everything else -- the outsider stuff, the family stuff, the media critique -- is going to be forgotten about. In fact, the Republicans will look like whiners if they go after the media after that speech.

[Sandy]

Regardless if you (or anyone) agreed with what she said politically or not, I think the speech was extremely well written and delivered exceptionally well. I think the Republicans got someone they wanted (thus far) in that she seems to speak in a very articulate, calm, but forceful manner. On balance one might like or not like the taking the offense remarks, but she appeared strong, focused, and able. Seems to possess a charisma/charm that is sorely lacking with McCain. Probably a nice balance for the Republicans. I think that she will do a lot of the communication from here on out.

Don't know how much the Republicans will look like whiners. But I think that the Democrats might not look too great themselves if they push back really negatively on her speech. Thought it was very well presented.


Sandy

[Viper]

Regardless if you (or anyone) agreed with what she said politically or not, I think the speech was extremely well written and delivered exceptionally well. I think the Republicans got someone they wanted (thus far) in that she seems to speak in a very articulate, calm, but forceful manner. On balance one might like or not like the taking the offense remarks, but she appeared strong, focused, and able. Seems to possess a charisma/charm that is sorely lacking with McCain. Probably a nice balance for the Republicans. I think that she will do a lot of the communication from here on out.

Don't know how much the Republicans will look like whiners. But I think that the Democrats might not look too great themselves if they push back really negatively on her speech. Thought it was very well presented.


Sandy

Sandy,

The RNC has this cranking right about now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAzF8iJ0gMw

Regards,
Viper

:beer:

[michael white]

the guy who wrote the speech did a good job of appealing to the base. Palin's outfit, similarly, was well-calibrated in its appeal. I found her pretty stiff in delivery--really overdoing the same hand gesture on every single phrase, etc. To me she looked like some sort of a parody: an ice-fisherman's pin-up gal, or an over-rouged red-neck mannequin.

But, once again, there's no doubt there's a market for that. ;)

[1centaur]

Nobody on the left is going to like that speech, that's a given. Most on the right are going to love the speech, which is also a given. The point of the pick (other than the base shoring) is some women in the middle. Much though women on the left and most men of all sorts really don't want to believe women will pick her because she is a woman, the dominant feeling I got reading the eyes in that crowd last night is that many women REALLY like her and are looking for someone to identify with - they found her. She is more than just a caricature, she has spunk, and they like spunk. She has achieved what the Republicans wanted with the pick.

As for the O'bama attacks and the whining from the left that SP's divisive, I have to wonder what they did not see in O'bama's speech. "Divisive" just means going after the flaws of the other side with specificity, and both sides do it because that's the right way to win a popularity contest once you've talked about your good sides. Divisive is a meaningless word in two-party politics, meant to fool can't-we-all-get-along hand-wringers into thinking somebody's mean. A lot of Republicans have a lot of specific problems with O'bama's positions and experience and they're going to talk about those things with relish. Same on the other side. Clear the smoke and she did fine (much better than, say, Giuliani, who just seemed to be having fun being mean but did not rally care much about the country, and better than that California Hispanic politician who chewed gum while he gave his speech and just looked dumb and shallow [on CSpan where you don't have to worry about commentators]).

[Elefantino]

I now more convinced than ever that we, the American people, will once again get the president we truly deserve.

[Ray]

Nobody on the left is going to like that speech, that's a given.
She was great. I liked her before and I like her more now. I won't vote for her. I'll never vote for someone with her right-wing positions, but I can still like her and admire her delivery. Because she's female and nice looking, she can get away with being negative in a way that just looks nasty coming from Rudy or Mitt. She got the pit bull thing with lipstick right - it was a great line. Note to others - you can like people you violently disagree with. I liked Reagan. I liked McCain until recently and I suspect I'll like him again. Hell, I don't think he even likes himself much right now - this isn't the kind of campaign he's best at or most comfortable with, but he's doing it because he knows its his best chance to win. Once he either wins or loses, I'll probably like him a lot again.

Palin did a really good job at what she was hired to do. There's plenty in her record for the Dems and/or the press to go after and I'm sure that stuff will get fleshed out. But she's a very effective speaker. There's actually a danger that she'll overshadow McCain, who hasn't been much on the stump so far this year. But I'm sure they'll figure out how to do the main act / backup singer dance quickly enough. But they're gonna have to watch that celebrity thing - she is one now.

I think the election is going to come down the Dems pushing economic populism and the Republicans going back to pushing cultural populism, which they've done very effectively in the past. It s a base strategy, though, and the Republican base has shrunk pretty substantially this year. I suspect the middle goes for the economic message this year rather than the hard right cultural stuff, but I'm almost never right, so I won't call this one. I suspect after the debates, the polls will start to move in one direction or another. I know which way I HOPE they move, but that could just be me being full of audacity again.

We'll see. Game on.

-Ray

[ti_boi]

She was great. I liked her before and I like her more now. I won't vote for her. I'll never vote for someone with her right-wing positions, but I can still like her and admire her delivery. Because she's female and nice looking, she can get away with being negative in a way that just looks nasty coming from Rudy or Mitt. She got the pit bull thing with lipstick right - it was a great line. Note to others - you can like people you violently disagree with. I liked Reagan. I liked McCain until recently and I suspect I'll like him again. Hell, I don't think he even likes himself much right now - this isn't the kind of campaign he's best at or most comfortable with, but he's doing it because he knows its his best chance to win. Once he either wins or loses, I'll probably like him a lot again.

Palin did a really good job at what she was hired to do. There's plenty in her record for the Dems and/or the press to go after and I'm sure that stuff will get fleshed out. But she's a very effective speaker. There's actually a danger that she'll overshadow McCain, who hasn't been much on the stump so far this year. But I'm sure they'll figure out how to do the main act / backup singer dance quickly enough. But they're gonna have to watch that celebrity thing - she is one now.

I think the election is going to come down the Dems pushing economic populism and the Republicans going back to pushing cultural populism, which they've done very effectively in the past. It s a base strategy, though, and the Republican base has shrunk pretty substantially this year. I suspect the middle goes for the economic message this year rather than the hard right cultural stuff, but I'm almost never right, so I won't call this one. I suspect after the debates, the polls will start to move in one direction or another. I know which way I HOPE they move, but that could just be me being full of audacity again.

We'll see. Game on.

-Ray

Good post Ray! It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
I am not sure about the whole game right now. I wonder how many people are looking beyond the rhetoric and wondering how our government became so bad at governing....how our tax dollars are often squandered on things no one wants.....and how sloganeering and stupid sound bites became legitimate means of communicating....I guess we the people are a bunch of morons?

[Ray]

Good post Ray! It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
I am not sure about the whole game right now. I wonder how many people are looking beyond the rhetoric and wondering how our government became so bad at governing....how our tax dollars are often squandered on things no one wants.....and how sloganeering and stupid sound bites became legitimate means of communicating....I guess we the people are a bunch of morons?
I don't think most of us are morons. Most of us have pretty well formed opinions based on real influences, experiences, and a good deal of thought. But about 40-45% of us are generally right and about 40-45% of us are generally wrong and opinions obviously differ about which is which :beer: .

But the relatively small handful of people who have so damn much trouble making up their minds every four years and who determine the outcomes of most elections ARE often morons and make decisions on all sorts of the most base level (not party, human nature) appeals. Which is why the best candidates are the ones who can appeal to both the intellect and the nastiest parts of the gut (studies have shown that we react to fear far more than to logic - fear sells REALLY well). Those late-deciding "low-information" voters get to decide for the rest of us every year. The Republicans have been much much better at that whole game for the last 40 years. The only time the Dems have won has been when Republicans screwed it up sooooooo bad that even Jimmy Carter could get elected or when we finally came up with a nastly little gut-fighter of our own in Clinton. This year, it may be that enough people think the Republicans have screwed it up soooooooo bad again that Obama may win. He's a pretty damn talented candidate too. But I'll believe it when I see it.

-Ray

[ti_boi]

I don't think most of us are morons. Most of us have pretty well formed opinions based on real influences, experiences, and a good deal of thought. But about 40-45% of us are generally right and about 40-45% of us are generally wrong and opinions obviously differ about which is which :beer: .

But the relatively small handful of people who have so damn much trouble making up their minds every four years and who determine the outcomes of most elections ARE often morons and make decisions on all sorts of the most base level (not party, human nature) appeals. Which is why the best candidates are the ones who can appeal to both the intellect and the nastiest parts of the gut (studies have shown that we react to fear far more than to logic - fear sells REALLY well). Those late-deciding "low-information" voters get to decide for the rest of us every year. The Republicans have been much much better at that whole game for the last 40 years. The only time the Dems have won has been when Republicans screwed it up sooooooo bad that even Jimmy Carter could get elected or when we finally came up with a nastly little gut-fighter of our own in Clinton. This year, it may be that enough people think the Republicans have screwed it up soooooooo bad again that Obama may win. He's a pretty damn talented candidate too. But I'll believe it when I see it.

-Ray


Agreed! I found the flip arrogance displayed by Palin to be initially appealing because we all like confidence...but somewhat false....she has plenty of flaws to discuss....so if she goes that direction....Biden might have fun gutting her like a dead moose....I am all for the entertainment value and the gut level stuff...but would like a more substantial dialog before Nov.

[Ray]

Agreed! I found the flip arrogance displayed by Palin to be initially appealing because we all like confidence...but somewhat false....she has plenty of flaws to discuss....so if she goes that direction....Biden might have fun gutting her like a dead moose....I am all for the entertainment value and the gut level stuff...but would like a more substantial dialog before Nov.
Then watch the debates - that's the only place there's even a remote chance you're gonna see a "substantial dialog" between now and Nov. And even that's a pretty remote chance. I think most of the substantial dialog, or at least as substantial as it ever gets, is over, or will be after tonight. Now its down to two months of fiercely nasty advertising and a lot of 'get out the vote' activity. The time for the head has past - its all gut now.

-Ray

[Elefantino]

I don't think most of us are morons.
I disagree.

Politics — the game, not the reality of governing — COUNTS on us being morons.

Ask Karl Rove. Love him or hate him, he has generally been on the right end (2006 being the exception) of knowing how to sway voters not with policy and promise but with deception and division.

And yes, the Democrats do it, too. They're just not as good at it.

We are a nation whose moron-ism is exceeded only by the ignorance of the consequences of our exhausted credit-card limits.

Then again, who am I to cast aspersions on morons: I believe that health care, like education, peace and tolerance, is a basic human right. What an idiot.

[Ray]

I disagree.

Politics — the game, not the reality of governing — COUNTS on us being morons.

Ask Karl Rove. Love him or hate him, he has generally been on the right end (2006 being the exception) of knowing how to sway voters not with policy and promise but with deception and division.

And yes, the Democrats do it, too. They're just not as good at it.

We are a nation whose moron-ism is exceeded only by the ignorance of the consequences of our exhausted credit-card limits.

Then again, who am I to cast aspersions on morons: I believe that health care, like education, peace and tolerance, is a basic human right. What an idiot.
I tend to agree with you that most of us are usually WRONG, but I know too many people who I think are badly wrong who are NOT idiots by any definition other than me thinking they're just badly wrong, and that's obviously only my opinion. I think Rove HAD 45% in his back pocket - he only needed that additional 6%. THEY'RE the morons. Just like Gore and Kerry had 45% in their back pockets but could only come up with another 4%. This ***** really gets fought out at the margins most years.

I fully agree that Democrats try it too, but generally aren't as good at it. I think Reagan was one of the best ever because he could play that fear game as well as anyone, but also had a real uplifting part of his message that got him to BIG wins. I think Obama has that same kind of talent, but whether he has enough of it or not only time will tell. He's trying to scare the crap out of people on economic grounds (economy vs terrorism is THE main event in terms of what scares folks more and this year the economy is actually in the running) but he's got the very uplifting "we can be better" part of his campaign too. Bush/Rove never bothered with that - all fear all the time with those guys. And it sold really well three times, failed badly once.

We'll see. My inclination is towards anger at this stuff, but I try to take the Elvis Costello philosophy, "well I used to be disgusted, now I try to be am-uuuuuused". Not sure if there are any angels out there looking for my red shoes or not.

-Ray

[avalonracing]

Then watch the debates - that's the only place there's even a remote chance you're gonna see a "substantial dialog" between now and Nov.
-Ray

But there are people who thought Bush did well in the debates against Gore when it fact he looked alike a complete simpleton with his stammering and long pauses. People see what they want to see... And hear what they want to hear.

[keno]

Those who don't accept that the most influential members of the left are the media might explain why the editorial in today's New York Times was in its fourth paragraph before mentioning Sarah Palin, and other than a parenthetical comment later in the editorial, this is the sum total of reference to her in it:

"Sarah Palin, the vice presidential nominee, was a combative and witty relief at a torpid convention. But it was bizarre hearing the running mate of a 26-year veteran of Congress, a woman who was picked to placate the right-wing elite, mocking “the permanent political establishment in Washington.”

That's it? This is the same mainstream influence, the newspaper of record, that was front and center to editorialize on what it considered to be a bad decision by McCain for his VP running mate. Last night's speech by Palin deserved more attention from the Times than it got. Apparently, last night Palin did not give the editors any support for their opinion, as they certainly would have written about it had there been any. Instead, they chose to marginalize her with "witty" and "combative". Personally, I'll take that over the suspect substance and depth of Joe Biden, not to mention the man himself, not that I'm crazy about the Republican's slate.

I think that Palin will prove to be a serious problem for those on the left. For one, I would not like to be in Joe Biden's shoes. I would give odds that many democrats would like to eliminate his debate with Sarah Palin from the agenda.

With the mainstream media in its corner, the democrats do not even need to lift a glove to throw punches at the republican candidates, not that they don't. And it should not be forgotten that much of what the media reports is provided to them by many folks out there who are little helpers, in one way or another, for the candidates themselves on both sides, spending considerable effort in digging up seeds of controversy. While this goes beyond the subject of today's editorial, the editorial speaks to whose dirt the Times is most likely to emphasize and regularly does.

(If only Michael Bloomberg could be running. He is the only politician out there, in my opinion, who has the qualifications to be our president. Nevertheless, the religion he, I and many share moots the possibility in my view.)

keno

[Climb01742]

if BO had chosen hillary as his VP, we would have gotten to see something that i'd love to watch: a debate between hillary and sarah. that would be fascinating. but if BO had chosen hillary, would JM have picked palin?

it will be fascinating to watch hillary's response or lack of. play this out a bit. if mccain wins, and serves only one term, could 2012 be hill vs sarah? does hill try to defeat/tarnish sarah now or wait? how would a hill vs sarah debate/fight play among women, left, right and undecided?

[girlie]

When have you seen a female VP candidate from that Republican Party?

HC will get her chance in 2012, in the meantime, she can re-write her thesis from Wellesley. :) It seems that HC's salty, fake tears will be frozen by Mrs. Alaska.

:beer:

So I'm supposed to be impressed with the Republican Party starting to embrace diversity.
That was not my point.
I find the SP position to be one of a traditional female role....possibly a move forward though not ground breaking. And a position that reinforces where 'we' are not.
If there is any movement forward, from one females perspective, it's that society is now being forced to pander to women - as well. This is not through any act of SP rather a response to HC and the "game".
girlie

ps. I have been an O supporter.....I am trying to speak from my female perspective and not out of the political "game":)

[Viper]

While I think many humans are mouth-breathers, unable to utilize three-dimensions of thought, politics doesn't require a tremendous level of depth. Politics is Wilson sales techniques in it's most simple form with a stated purpose, process and payoff to you, the consumer (voter). This election is fairly simple, it's the economy and the War(s) on terror. While healthcare, education or offshore drilling might be paramount for some, most undecided/truly independent voters stare at their wallet or terrorism.

The irony is most voters complain about the system, the candidates, their country and yet, those same voters are chronically party-line automatons as they vote 'D' or 'R' every four years.

It's a 50/50 country, the goal is to find that one, two or five percent of the voters. Heck, the reality is that it comes down to a few, key states with a large chunk of electoral votes and pandering to that significant population.

I have been a registered Republican since age 18 and why? Like most R's, it came down to those core issues, God, guns, taxes and abortion. Over the past twenty years, God is no longer a core issue for me, I prefer the term, faith and want my leader(s) to simply believe in something, even if it is evolution. Guns? Columbine (and the umpteen which take place yearly now) makes me wince at the availability of guns and yet, a few teachers in Columbine who could've been licensed to carry a firearm, may have killed the sick freaks on that horrible day (if I were a teacher I would carry a pistol). Taxes? Let's start with the Federal Reserve System and be honest about the American dollar, for which Ahneida Ride gets my vote. In terms of taxes, my overview from 30K feet is that government does not exist to help you, go make your own buck. Abortion? I remain a righty on this issue, it's got nothing to do with religion, or the host of it for nine months, it's about life, the greatest gift and women should always remember that it takes two (2) to create life; it's not a female unicycle, it's a bicycle and a human-issue. "A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle" said Gloria Steinem, who later married not a fish, nor a lugged bicycle, but a man. Fact, ninety-nine percent of Americans do not know who Norma McCorvey is and that's sad. One cannot debate the laws on the books regarding abortion without discussing Norma McCorvey. Healthcare? Americans are fat, lazy slobs so let's start there and work our way forward. Education? Parents are at fault, not teachers or the system. The most overlooked issue is America's foreign policy, for which Ron Paul was the most interesting and logical to me. Mr. Paul rocked for the short time he was on the scene, go Ron go.

It's a 50/50 country. Since the vast majority of Americans believe in God, perhaps one could argue the Republican party gets a small boost every four years as they make God an integral part of their campaigns. It's a 50/50 country and I am too, I will give Mr. O-bama both of my ears and eyes during the debates, something I haven't done in...twenty years. Mrs. Pa-lin was very impressive last night and Mc-Cain in 2000 was more interesting to me as a candidate, than he is today.

Perhaps these upcoming debates will be the most compelling since the 2000 staredown between G-ore and B-ush.

[Ray]

But there are people who thought Bush did well in the debates against Gore when it fact he looked alike a complete simpleton with his stammering and long pauses. People see what they want to see... And hear what they want to hear.
I agree, which is why I added "And even that's a pretty remote chance" about the odds of substance in the debates. Politics is ultimately a gut-level bidness. I agreed with you totally about the 2000 debates, but we were obviously in the minority. I thought Gore wiped the floor with him in that first one - most people thought Bush was witty and Gore was obnoxious. I hesitate to watch this year because I KNOW I'll think Obama gets the better of it. And what I think and six-bits will still get you a cup of coffee, or maybe a half a cup today. But I'll watch anyway - can't seem to help it.

-Ray

[93legendti]

Those who don't accept that the most influential members of the left are the media might explain why the editorial in today's New York Times was in its fourth paragraph before mentioning Sarah Palin, and other than a parenthetical comment later in the editorial, this is the sum total of reference to her in it:

"Sarah Palin, the vice presidential nominee, was a combative and witty relief at a torpid convention. But it was bizarre hearing the running mate of a 26-year veteran of Congress, a woman who was picked to placate the right-wing elite, mocking “the permanent political establishment in Washington.”

That's it? This is the same mainstream influence, the newspaper of record, that was front and center to editorialize on what it considered to be a bad decision by McCain for his VP running mate. Last night's speech by Palin deserved more attention from the Times than it got. Apparently, last night Palin did not give the editors any support for their opinion, as they certainly would have written about it had there been any. Instead, they chose to marginalize her with "witty" and "combative". Personally, I'll take that over the suspect substance and depth of Joe Biden, not to mention the man himself, not that I'm crazy about the Republican's slate.

I think that Palin will prove to be a serious problem for those on the left. For one, I would not like to be in Joe Biden's shoes. I would give odds that many democrats would like to eliminate his debate with Sarah Palin from the agenda.

With the mainstream media in its corner, the democrats do not even need to lift a glove to throw punches at the republican candidates, not that they don't. And it should not be forgotten that much of what the media reports is provided to them by many folks out there who are little helpers, in one way or another, for the candidates themselves on both sides, spending considerable effort in digging up seeds of controversy. While this goes beyond the subject of today's editorial, the editorial speaks to whose dirt the Times is most likely to emphasize and regularly does.

(If only Michael Bloomberg could be running. He is the only politician out there, in my opinion, who has the qualifications to be our president. Nevertheless, the religion he, I and many share moots the possibility in my view.)

keno
At the risk of being accused of citing "neocon" sources :D , The Times illustrates, once again, why it is losing readers:


"Palin provides a 'perfect populist pitch' By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
Thu Sep 4, 12:57 AM ET


With a forceful speech that served as her introduction to millions of Americans on Wednesday, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin seduced many on television who had spent days doubting her candidacy.

It wasn't just a home run, said CNN's Wolf Blitzer; it may have been a grand slam. "A very auspicious debut," said NBC's Tom Brokaw. It was a "perfect populist pitch," said CBS' Jeff Greenfield. "Terrific," said Mort Kondracke on Fox News Channel.

"A star is born," said Chris Wallace on Fox.

"A star is born," Blitzer said.

"A star is born," said Anderson Cooper on CNN..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_tv_palin_s_night
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080904/COL33/809040458

[Viper]

So I'm supposed to be impressed with the Republican Party starting to embrace diversity.

A starting point must have a beginning. The Republican Party (Mc'Cain) has made history with it's selection of SP.

Diversity? The Republican Party was launched in 1854, for an oppostion to the Kansas-Nebraska Act; the very foundation of the Republican Party is oppostion to slavery, diversity. The Civil War which ended in 1865 and the Civil Rights movements which took place nearly one hundred years later occured in thanks to the GOP:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:n3rFEviLWoUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas-Nebraska_Act+republican+party+created+to+fight+sla very&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:77UPOQkbuUsJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)+republican+party+ created+1854&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[93legendti]

So I'm supposed to be impressed with the Republican Party starting to embrace diversity...":)

If you have been paying attention the last 8 years, you know that the R party is not "starting" to embrace diversity... :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700731.html

"...Bush has established a record of diversity in his Cabinet. Bush's Cabinet, which includes the vice president and the heads of 15 executive departments, currently has two Hispanics, two African Americans and two Asian Americans. Three departments -- State, Education and Labor -- are headed by women, and a fourth, Interior, has an acting secretary who is a woman.

Before Bush took office, no minority had occupied any of the four highest-profile Cabinet positions -- attorney general and the secretaries of the Defense, State and Treasury departments. Now, Alberto R. Gonzales, a Hispanic, is attorney general. Condoleezza Rice is the first African American woman to be secretary of state; her predecessor, Colin L. Powell, was the first African American named to that post.

"The president nominates well-qualified, experienced and highly respected individuals from diverse backgrounds to serve throughout his administration," said Erin Healy, a White House spokeswoman.

Healy also pointed out that several of Bush's top aides are women, including White House counsel Harriet Miers, homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend and communications director Nicolle D. Wallace..."

Not to mention the J E W S who have held positions as Chief of Staff (Josh Bolton) and Press Secretary (Ari Fleisher).


There's PLENTY of diversity in this party - and they aren't "just for show".

[Ray]

At the risk of being accused of citing "neocon" sources :D , The Times illustrates, once again, why it is losing readers:

The Times is losing readers because ALL newspapers are losing readers. Yeah, we on the left still have the Times. But the Washington Post has not been left at all and the AP and Reuters have been positively Republican - jeez the AP has been a McCain mouthpiece since Fournier (I think that's his name) took over. On TV, we have MSNBC, you have FOX and I can't stand watching Wolf Blitzer long enough to know where CNN comes down these days. On the radio you have Rush and Hewitt, we have Air America I think, but I've never listened to any of that stuff.

The News Hour on PBS is the only thing I watch if I really want balance - they tend to interview pretty thoughtful people from both sides of any issue. But I usually don't want balance. And neither do you.

-Ray

[Viper]

But I usually don't want balance. And neither do you.

-Ray

I lol'd on that, funny!

[93legendti]

...But I usually don't want balance. And neither do you.

-Ray
Sorry, untrue. We have different defintions, I am sure.

As to The Times, it could at least TRY to get the story right.

[TMB]

The Times is losing readers because ALL newspapers are losing readers. Yeah, we on the left still have the Times. But the Washington Post has not been left at all and the AP and Reuters have been positively Republican - jeez the AP has been a McCain mouthpiece since Fournier (I think that's his name) took over. On TV, we have MSNBC, you have FOX and I can't stand watching Wolf Blitzer long enough to know where CNN comes down these days. On the radio you have Rush and Hewitt, we have Air America I think, but I've never listened to any of that stuff.

The News Hour on PBS is the only thing I watch if I really want balance - they tend to interview pretty thoughtful people from both sides of any issue. But I usually don't want balance. And neither do you.

-Ray

Honestly, I think the AP have long since ceased to be identifiably Republican in their views.

I could not agree more with you though on the Wolf Blitzer thing - how on earth does that little twit stay on the air and keep his job? He is unwatchable.

[93legendti]

Honestly, I think the AP have long since ceased to be identifiably Republican in their views.

I could not agree more with you though on the Wolf Blitzer thing - how on earth does that little twit stay on the air and keep his job? He is unwatchable.

Not compared to Aaron Brown (spell?). Listening to him was like watching paint dry.

[MilanoTom]

I'm admittedly liberal and have questions regarding Palin's experience and qualifications (as I do about Barak's), but I'll give credit where due - she gave a heck of a speech last night. Even though there was a lot of detail that might have been fairly new to her, the speech never sounded memorized, nor did it sound as though it was being read from a teleprompter.

Some of it was a little bit over the top atmo (as were some of the Democrats' speeches), but it certainly played well to her audience.

Regards.
Tom

[johnnymossville]

...
There's PLENTY of diversity in this party - and they aren't "just for show".

It's more than just words too, they actually vote for it (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml) . I hate to sound like a media basher, (I've worked in it for over 15 years, NBC/ABC/PBS/NYTimes/PBS included) but I think the media, the democratic party marginalizing conservative diversity (Clarence Thomas and Condy Rice and now Sarah Palin), and a poor defense of their record by conservatives doesn't help debunk the classic stereotypes.

"In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes."
- cut and paste from a story by Diane Alden.

[Ray]

The irony is most voters complain about the system, the candidates, their country and yet, those same voters are chronically party-line automatons as they vote 'D' or 'R' every four years.

It's a 50/50 country, the goal is to find that one, two or five percent of the voters. Heck, the reality is that it comes down to a few, key states with a large chunk of electoral votes and pandering to that significant population.
You know Vipe, it's pretty hard NOT to vote the same party every election, at least at the presidential level. I vote for Republicans all the time at lower level races, even the US Senate, but I feel bad about that because I don't like increasing the odds of the Republican president (as its almost always been in my adult life) getting more Supreme Court judges. But at the presidential level, the parties are so polarized, you just almost never get a real centrist. So you err on the side you think is less of an err. The only time I could have seen voting Republican for president was MAYBE McCain in 2000. I probably wouldn't have, but I'd have given it very serious thought. The tricks and u-turns McCain has had to make to get the nomination this year absolutely precludes me voting for him. But his history gives me hope that if he does get elected, he might govern more like the 2000 model. Hell, if the reporting is right he really WANTED to pick Lieberman for VP (who I agree with on most issues other than Iraq) but the religious right base of the party would have lynched him - Palin was not just a hail mary, it was a cave-in too. It might work - hail marys do sometimes and she might be able to fight for the ball in the end-zone, but it did not come from his heart!

You sound unusual in that you were a hard core conservative as a kid and have gotten more liberal (in your positions, whether or not your voting) as you've gotten older. Most of us start out liberal and get more conservative. That has certainly been true of me, but the country has moved right so much faster than I have that I still seem to be well left of center. Think back for a minute, Richard Nixon used to be considered a conservative. But he'd probably be too liberal to get even the Democratic nomination today! If you just took his positions and un-hooked them from the man, and put them in front of today's Republican party, they'd get laughed out of the room. There are a lot of things I agree with conservatives on, but until the Republican party frees itself of the stranglehold the religious right has on it (and gets back to fiscal conservatism), I can't see voting for them at the national level.

Sorry, just spouting.

Have a good ride for anyone that can get out today.

-Ray

[Ray]

"In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes." - cut and paste from a story by Diane Alden.
You know damn well that's got nothing to do with the parties of today. Prior to 1964, the south was all-Democratic and the Democrats were, among other things, the party of racial segregation. In 1964, when Johnson managed to push the civil rights legislation through (with the help of a lot of northern Republicans), he presciently noted that he'd probably just lost the south for his party for a generation or more. And he was dead right. Starting with Nixon's election in 1968, the South has been solidly Republican and every Republican president since then has used the "southern strategy" to get and stay elected. And the "southern strategy" didn't have a hell of a lot to do with warm summer nights and football.

-Ray

[girlie]

What did I get 93 and Viper on the same note for a page....that in itself is an interesting point of reference for my hypothesis ;)
oh come on that's funny............and please remember I'm on vacation.
girlie

[fiamme red]

(If only Michael Bloomberg could be running. He is the only politician out there, in my opinion, who has the qualifications to be our president. Nevertheless, the religion he, I and many share moots the possibility in my view.)

kenoI'd have supported a Bloomberg presidential candidacy, just to keep him from making mischief in New York City. :rolleyes:

[Kevan]

(If only Michael Bloomberg could be running. He is the only politician out there, in my opinion, who has the qualifications to be our president. Nevertheless, the religion he, I and many share moots the possibility in my view.)

keno

The guy is too short to have his head in the clouds. He would have gotten my vote. Relgion-smidgion...the guy knows how to work a buck.

[mwos]

I wonder why:

I'm a woman and the Republicans tell me that "I'm going to love this woman" but I don't.

The press lauds her speech but I found it disappointing. It was carefully scripted and predictable.

I'm simply not "endeared" to this woman?

Kathi

[Chris]

I will only make two comments. One opinion and one pure shock.

First, I wish that the candidates would focus on the sales techniques I was taught from the sales videos that we had to watch at the shop I used to work out. The key was that you sold yourself, the shop and your product. You NEVER degraded the others, because that is just a cheap shot and shows how little faith you have in what you are selling and providing. Both parties just repulse me with all of the finger pointing. It's pathetic.

Second, I cannot believe that I am on Viper's side in regards to his statements a page or two over. On all, but the choice issue, I think he nailed it. My opinion on a woman's right to choose is simply mine, and I don't profess to know a good answer. I think no one is pro abortion, just pro choice, and it is a moral issue. It is interesting that the majority of pro-lifers are men... I don't mean to start a debate about that. Just illustrating how Viper (who is someone who I have come to verbal blows with in the past although I respect his right to his opinions) and I actually agree on a lot. Go Ron Paul!

[fiamme red]

The guy is too short to have his head in the clouds. He would have gotten my vote. Relgion-smidgion...the guy knows how to work a buck.The best line at the Democratic Convention: "We need a president who puts Barney Smith before Smith Barney."

[Viper]

You sound unusual in that you were a hard core conservative as a kid and have gotten more liberal (in your positions, whether or not your voting) as you've gotten older. Most of us start out liberal and get more conservative.

-Ray

There's a lot of truth to that. Grew up with a farmer, his preacher and town on Little House on the Praire, but then bumped into Chrissy Snow and Three's Company. :) I wanted in at the Regal Beagle.

My Catholicism has diminished, The Bible is Aesop's great, great, great grandfather at work. I mean Genesis, how can something be written, explained and defined while we were still out there, listening to Ziggy Stardust? I was nearly kicked out of religion class umpteen times, asking the teacher about space, the Big Bang and David Bowie*. I know for a fact I asked Mrs. Keenan, "If I had a Millenium Falcon and put it on super mega speed forever, where would I wind up, where is God and can I have more oatmeal cookies too?" Later, she called my Mom and when it came to Q&A time at the end of religion class on Wednesdays, I had to sit there and stfu.

Leonard Nimoy and Jacques Cousteau were the best teachers with Nimoy's In Search of...and Underwater Sea Adventures with Jacques Cousteau. Nimoy showed me ancient civilizations and I was fascinted by Egypt, those cats wrote the book on stars, space and religion within, which was simply re-written down the Roman roads.

I don't dig moral relativism. I don't groove on the far left, they make me ill and the far right gets on my nerves. Nancy Pelosi is a twit, I'd rather drink beer with Pat Buchanan. Still, the goal is 2020, I'll make my run and see where it winds up. In reality, I'd like to write speeches for a President. Or do screenplays for p*rn. :D

* = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE5uByp47Ik

Edit: Fwiw, Mrs. Alaska is receiving rave reviews from many within the paper today and the buzz at the local deli folks was two thumb's up. Experience? Nobody has Presidential experience. Governor of California? Cool, big state. That's a local crit versus the Tour de France of running America (atmo). I believe experience is somewhat overrated, true for both BO and SP. Give me someone who's intelligent on paper, witty, well spoken and can squint (very important attribute) on demand and you've got a candidate. Squinting is necessary across the table from Iran, NK or even a Red Sox fan. Read Machiavelli's The Prince, he devouts a whole chapter on squinting. :D

[avalonracing]

In reality, I'd like to write speeches for a President. Or do screenplays for p*rn.


Both have the same level of sincerity.

[Viper]

Both have the same level of sincerity.

Pron prolly pays better. :) Still, I'm an east coast guy, DC it is. Although I did write a screenplay of Star Wars VII - The Emperor's New Clothes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlPCl6aF5VA


PS. Sinead O'Connor, what a dancer. Never saw anything like it. Although after a boatload of beer and 80's music I think I dance like that. Dunno. Sinead = Irish Madonna. It just didn't pan out for her. I think it was the haircut.


:beer:

[dwightskin]

The best line at the Democratic Convention: "We need a president who puts Barney Smith before Smith Barney."

Where does Barney Smith work?

For Conoco? Then he must be evil.
For Ford? Then he must be a polluting idiot.
For a Farm? Then he must be a cancer-causing red-meat.
For Barney Smith? Then he must be robbing us of our money.
For A Drug Company? Then he must be profiting off our sicknesses.

The Democtrats are going to burn every industry except lawyers and hollywood producers.

[fiamme red]

Give me someone who's intelligent on paper, witty, well spoken and can squint (very important attribute) on demand and you've got a candidate. Squinting is necessary across the table from Iran, NK or even a Red Sox fan. Read Machiavelli's The Prince, he devouts a whole chapter on squinting. :DDubya isn't intelligent on paper, witty, or well-spoken. But he can squint, and Gore and Kerry couldn't. ;)

[Viper]

Dubya isn't intelligent on paper, witty, or well-spoken. But he can squint, and Gore and Kerry couldn't. ;)

Cowboy hat. Wear one, squint and it could make up for the pee brain Dubya's got. It was the hat atmo*. And Gore should've picked someone other than Joey Lieberman. Gore should've walked away from the late night Twinkies, stopped shopping for earth tone colored clothes and watched The Little Mermaid in order to learn how to kiss the girl/Tipper^. That staged kiss was so weak, it hurt to watch.

* = why I wear a Giro lid. It's the road equivalent of my Resistol Ranchman cowboy hat.

^ = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1CBWUoFrsE

[johnnymossville]

Man, the squinting thing is genius! I'm gonna watch Clint Eastwood movies tonight and practice.

[Viper]

Man, the squinting thing is genius! I'm gonna watch Clint Eastwood movies tonight and practice.

Call me if needed. Drop me a PM with contact info. Here is a good starting place:

1). Clint Eastwood
2). Steve McQueen
3). Yul Brynner
4). Lee Majors (only as Col. Steve Austin)
5). Quint (it was a play on words atmo, though I haven't spoken with Peter Benchley about this).

Honorable mention:

1). Don Johnson as Sonny Crockett
2). Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones
3). Sean Connery
4). Arnold Schwarzenegger
5). Yoda (you didn't want that mofo squinting at you!!!).

Chuck Norris didn't squint, it was the sun squinting for him.

Captain Kirk crosses my mind, but his seemed, and it hurts me to admit it, his squints seemed too well scripted and acted.

Here is the situation:

http://themoviespace.com/2008/06/15/the-great-movie-squinters/

The good news is this, as we men get older, we squint more and more, so you're getting a little better every day.

[avalonracing]

Dubya isn't intelligent on paper, witty, or well-spoken. But he can squint, and Gore and Kerry couldn't. ;)

He was probably trying to read Rove's lips so he new what to say and when to say it.

[DukeHorn]

Dwightskin, I think the Republicans are going to burn more of our high-tech industries as they keep on pushing intelligent design/creationism in our schools. Nothing like trying to educate the future scientists/engineers of our country by ignoring "scientific theory". Nice try on the rhetoric.

[avalonracing]

:beer: Dwightskin, I think the Republicans are going to burn more of our high-tech industries as they keep on pushing intelligent design/creationism in our schools. Nothing like trying to educate the future scientists/engineers of our country by ignoring "scientific theory". Nice try on the rhetoric.

[93legendti]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1876329/posts

Former NASA engineer touts creationism
Galveston Daily News ^ | August 4, 2007 | Rick Cousins

Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2007 11:55:32 AM by DaveLoneRanger

Tom Henderson is not much of a watchmaker. He shakes a small glass jar containing a tiny metallic gear, a brass bezel, a scarred watch crystal and dozens of other nearly microscopic, shiny objects.

But, no watch. He vigorously rattles the container again. Still, no watch. For Henderson, a retired NASA engineer and creationist speaker, that is the point.
No watchmaker — no watch.

He’s carried the somewhat-out-of favor message of special creation to nine foreign countries in the past several decades because he is convinced that how we believe the world came to be it is important.

His is a radical message that challenges both mainline and some evangelical church assumptions, as well as those of the scientific community as a whole: that the first few chapters of Genesis are just as literal and authoritative as the rest of the Bible.

“Years ago, I traveled to Mexico and spoke on the campus of a left-wing university,” he recalled. “During the Q&A on creationism, some there accused me of being a CIA spy.”

Henderson has never been a spy, of course. He has degrees in math, physics and science education and worked at the Johnson Space Center for 37 years.

Creationism is a step beyond the controversial intelligent design movement that has been involved in text book discussions in various parts of the United States.

“Today’s intelligent design movement has done a really good job of showing the complexity of creation — showing that naturalism cannot be the answer,” he said. “Of course, intelligent design only suggests a creator, but as a Bible-believing Christian, I have come to know and I can appreciate what the creator has done.”

Why should the average person in the pew care? Henderson argues that societal decay, theological erosion and moral bankruptcy will ensue if the evolutionary model is embraced.

“The basis for all Christian doctrines is found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis,” he said. “If it is not true, then what is our basis for morality?”

He also said that the evidences he has found for creationism could remove barriers to faith.

“For some people, evolution is a barrier to the good news of Jesus. They feel if evolution is true, Christianity can’t be —and they are right,” he said. “But if evolution is a myth, then they can take that step to faith.”

Although the creationist view has become unpopular in public schools, mass media and other forums, Henderson said that both the Christian school and home-school movement are generally supportive of it.

The Institute of Creation Research, Bob Jones University and other creationist sources produce text books and other materials designed for these groups. National media recently noted the opening of the 60,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.

Creation arguments range from disputes over the validity of radioactive dating, the claim that life is irreducibly complex, the observation that most mutations are unfavorable and the theory that only a finely tuned universe can manage to produce stars.

Now retired from NASA, Henderson coordinates the Web site www.creationsuperlibrary.com from his Friendswood home, where he answers questions from both believers, skeptics and the merely curious.

[jeffg]

At the risk of being accused of citing "neocon" sources :D , The Times illustrates, once again, why it is losing readers:



Not to defend the Times (they gave a column to that twit Kristol who has less readers than the Nation, after all), but it's headline after the speech was:

"Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party" and the article gives gave lots of room to comments by Republicans as to how well qualified she is and what she will being to the ticket.

Is it really for the media to make such commentary as "a star is born?" That's not news, it's cable news blather

Palin gave a competent speech and was very well received by her party. Two high-level Republican strategists (thinking they were off-mike?) earlier in the day panned the choice since they did not have the Rove-like cynicism to defend Palin after saying this about a potential Democratic VP choice:

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

Hmmm. Palin gave a speech, folks like James Dobson who hailed her pick as VP loved it.

She and the Republicans still have a mountain to climb, and the Democrats have to not lose the election. I'd say it's an even race

[jeffg]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1876329/posts

Former NASA engineer touts creationism
Galveston Daily News ^ | August 4, 2007 | Rick Cousins

Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2007 11:55:32 AM by DaveLoneRanger

Tom Henderson is not much of a watchmaker. He shakes a small glass jar containing a tiny metallic gear, a brass bezel, a scarred watch crystal and dozens of other nearly microscopic, shiny objects.

But, no watch. He vigorously rattles the container again. Still, no watch. For Henderson, a retired NASA engineer and creationist speaker, that is the point.
No watchmaker — no watch.

He’s carried the somewhat-out-of favor message of special creation to nine foreign countries in the past several decades because he is convinced that how we believe the world came to be it is important.

His is a radical message that challenges both mainline and some evangelical church assumptions, as well as those of the scientific community as a whole: that the first few chapters of Genesis are just as literal and authoritative as the rest of the Bible.

“Years ago, I traveled to Mexico and spoke on the campus of a left-wing university,” he recalled. “During the Q&A on creationism, some there accused me of being a CIA spy.”

Henderson has never been a spy, of course. He has degrees in math, physics and science education and worked at the Johnson Space Center for 37 years.

Creationism is a step beyond the controversial intelligent design movement that has been involved in text book discussions in various parts of the United States.

“Today’s intelligent design movement has done a really good job of showing the complexity of creation — showing that naturalism cannot be the answer,” he said. “Of course, intelligent design only suggests a creator, but as a Bible-believing Christian, I have come to know and I can appreciate what the creator has done.”

Why should the average person in the pew care? Henderson argues that societal decay, theological erosion and moral bankruptcy will ensue if the evolutionary model is embraced.

“The basis for all Christian doctrines is found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis,” he said. “If it is not true, then what is our basis for morality?”

He also said that the evidences he has found for creationism could remove barriers to faith.

“For some people, evolution is a barrier to the good news of Jesus. They feel if evolution is true, Christianity can’t be —and they are right,” he said. “But if evolution is a myth, then they can take that step to faith.”

Although the creationist view has become unpopular in public schools, mass media and other forums, Henderson said that both the Christian school and home-school movement are generally supportive of it.

The Institute of Creation Research, Bob Jones University and other creationist sources produce text books and other materials designed for these groups. National media recently noted the opening of the 60,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.

Creation arguments range from disputes over the validity of radioactive dating, the claim that life is irreducibly complex, the observation that most mutations are unfavorable and the theory that only a finely tuned universe can manage to produce stars.

Now retired from NASA, Henderson coordinates the Web site www.creationsuperlibrary.com from his Friendswood home, where he answers questions from both believers, skeptics and the merely curious.

What's your point?

That a NASA scientist who is completely out of step with the scientific community thinks evolution precludes Christianity? He is wrong with respect to, or at least at the lunatic fringe of, both science and religion

That's just sad

[93legendti]

What's your point?

That a NASA scientist who is completely out of step with the scientific community thinks evolution precludes Christianity? He is wrong with respect to, or at least at the lunatic fringe of, both science and religion

That's just sad
My Father (z"l) was an architect and believed in creationism. Can you please insult him too?

[TMB]

Many scientists are among the devout in our society.

My late uncle was was a brilliant man, a physicist and aerospace engineer.

He was also a devout christian, who in his retirement considered joining a Benedictine Order.

I never understood how he reconciled the conflicting viewpoints in his mind, nor did I ever ask him.

It was clearly personal to him, and he had come to an accomodation that worked for him.

He was happy.

I think there was nothing sad about it.

But, by all means thanks for insulting my late, favourite uncle as well.

[DukeHorn]

I could care less if you believe in creationism. The question is whether you, your father, toomany bikes, or toomanybike's uncle think it should be taught in school as a legitimate scientific counter-theory to evolution. Did you miss the entire "Reason is the Greatest Enemy of Faith" thread??


PS. on your family values argument...

The most remarkable differences between the large mass of evangelicals and the rest of Americans are in divorce statistics. Since the '70s, evangelicals and the coastal elites have effectively switched places. Evangelicals are now far more likely to get divorced, whereas couples with four years of college education have cut their divorce rates in half. An intact happy marriage that produces well-behaved children, it turns out, is becoming a luxury of the elites—bad news for the Obamas.

[jeffg]

I am somewhat confounded by this.

What about all the people, living or dead, who believe(d) that evolution does not preclude Christianity and that intelligent design has no merit? What about their feelings?

My late father, whom I idolized in many ways, found all organized religion to be an evil. I do not agree but am not offended in the least if people take umbrage with his view or mine. That is what living in a free society is all about.

You both state some fairly strong views in this thread.

Have you considered whose dead relatives you are offending? I apologize if your feelings are truly hurt, but I cannot help but feeling there is a double standard here that chills debate.

[93legendti]

I am somewhat confounded by this.

What about all the people, living or dead, who believe(d) that evolution does not preclude Christianity and that intelligent design has no merit? What about their feelings?

My late father, whom I idolized in many ways, found all organized religion to be an evil. I do not agree but am not offended in the least if people take umbrage with his view or mine. That is what living in a free society is all about.

You both state some fairly strong views in this thread.

Have you considered whose dead relatives you are offending? I apologize if your feelings are truly hurt, but I cannot help but feeling there is a double standard here that chills debate.

This chills debate:

"...He is wrong with respect to, or at least at the lunatic fringe of, both science and religion..."
and

"...Nice try on the rhetoric..."

There are probably a thousand engineers in Israel who believe G-d created the World and designed it. No need to insult, vilify or condemn them. I was taught both theories, one in private school (K-9) and the other in public school (10-12). I survived.

[paczki]

I am somewhat confounded by this.

What about all the people, living or dead, who believe(d) that evolution does not preclude Christianity and that intelligent design has no merit? What about their feelings?

My late father, whom I idolized in many ways, found all organized religion to be an evil. I do not agree but am not offended in the least if people take umbrage with his view or mine. That is what living in a free society is all about.

You both state some fairly strong views in this thread.

Have you considered whose dead relatives you are offending? I apologize if your feelings are truly hurt, but I cannot help but feeling there is a double standard here that chills debate.

This chills debate:

"...He is wrong with respect to, or at least at the lunatic fringe of, both science and religion..."
and

"...Nice try on the rhetoric..."

There are probably a thousand engineers in Israel who believe G-d created the World and designed it. No need to insult, vilify or condemn them. I was taught both theories, one in private school (K-9) and the other in public school (10-12). I survived.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the point is they are different sorts of theories. Creationism is a metaphysical theory about first causes and their nature. It is not falsifiable. Evolution or what have you are scientific theories because they are falsifiable. They shouldn't be taught as competing theories because they are not -- they are wholly different.

[jeffg]

[QUOTE=jeffg][/[/B]QUOTE]

This chills debate:

"...He is wrong with respect to, or at least at the lunatic fringe of, both science and religion..."
and

"...Nice try on the rhetoric..."

There are probably a thousand engineers in Israel who believe G-d created the World and designed it. No need to insult, vilify or condemn them. I was taught both theories, one in private school (K-9) and the other in public school (10-12). I survived.

Nice try on the rhetoric is not my quotation, so let's leave that.

Stating that the view that evolution precludes faith is wrong does not chill debate -- it is part of it.

As for those engineers, are you conflating creationism/intelligent design as a competing scientific theory to evolution with the belief that God created the universe?

How about this statement from Pope Pius XII that:

"the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

My point is that the study of evolution and faith are indeed eminently compatible.

To think otherwise risks shortchanging both.

[markie]

[QUOTE=93legendti]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the point is they are different sorts of theories. Creationism is a metaphysical theory about first causes and their nature. It is not falsifiable. Evolution or what have you are scientific theories because they are falsifiable. They shouldn't be taught as competing theories because they are not -- they are wholly different.

But it does make an interesting case having them side-by side.

I do not think there is any massive conflict between believing in god and evolution. Science is the study of nature, religion is faith in the supernatural.

[Kirk007]

Palin's speech: nice delivery; seems like a nice person, but there was no substance in that speech. McCain's campaign promised that this speech was America's oppportunity to get to know Sarah Palin. For me, it did not deliver the promise. Well, I know she can give a speech, and is charismatic. But with November two months off, I'd like to know a bit more about who she is, what she stands for, and I didn't get any of that. Other than delivery all I got was that she is willing to take the lead of the RNC attack dogs, like a barracuda. But really, any Hollywood actor could have knocked that speech out of the park particularly as it was written as pure pablum for the base.

Ms. Palin may get there in time, she certainly has potential to appeal to a broad swath of America, but not this year, certainly not for me; she does not exhibit the wisdom or sound judgment that comes with experience; from what I've read and heard, her life experience and world views are too limited and narrow. Is this really the person we want going toe to toe with Putin if something happens to McCain? (and yes 93Ti and others, the same can and should be asked about Obama).

Unfortunately in our country its the window dressing and rhetoric on a few hot button issues that seem to carry the day with the voters at the margins. Palin will certainly help with that on the Republican base. But for me, she appears to be a nightmare, off the charts worse than McCain, who, until having to bend to please the RNC's task masters of the ultra-right, is a candidate that I would have seriously considered voting for. Here are a few substantive reasons why Palin seals the deal with me voting for Obama:

Palin's environmental record is off the charts bad; consistent though with a view that god put the earth and all of its resources here for man's use, disposal and destruction (and for those of you who agree with this view - that is certainly your right and I respect your right to believe that, but I wouldn't vote to put you in any position of power either- call me a one issue voter, but for me protecting our environment for future generations is security; is economics; is quality of life, health etc.). Palin's record: 1. aerial hunting of wolves is ok - she put a bounty on their heads - ever see a video of that? We put Michael Vick in jail as a felon for dog fighting. I don't see dog fighting as being much more cruel and barbaric than harrasing a wolf with an airplane and perhaps with snowmobiles, causing it to run for its life for miles, until it collapses exhausted and then jumping out and blowing it away. Do you think that those hunters consider this less of a "sport" than the dog fighters? I don't. Not only is the practice barbaric and cruel it is based on antiquated game management theories from the 50s that treats all of our fellow creatures as those that are valuable to us (sport & food) and those that are pests (predators and everything else); a view that is astonishingly lacking in scientific integrity and disregards all notion that we live in a complex world - that we are part of it not above it. The wolves as a species can survive this perverted approach to biology; its not that I wouldn't vote for Palin because she approves of butchering wolves it is because it puts her intellectual horsepower, open-mindedness and judgment in question - I don't want that level of ignorance of science in the second most powerful person in the free world; 8 years of that is enough already); 2. drill everywhere. 3. Global warming is not caused by human activity. 4. Favor continued extraction of gold at the expense of Alaska's salmon and its fisheries (a potentially sustainable economic force if managed smartly; i.e not as currently managed - you don't put your streams at risk of cyanide poisoning if you really want to keep this resource indefinitely. Note: the majority of Alaskans agree with her ). The list could go on and on....

2. No sex education in schools other than a policy based on abstinence - hows that worked out for 'ya Sarah? Sorry but as a father of a teenager who may well be sexually active despite our wishes and his girlfriend's family's wishes, I think this position is parochial, narrow-minded, unrealistic, mean, sad and morally and ethically bankrupt. There are 10-12 year olds, and a whole lot of "older" teens having sex folks, and they're not just from the families on the wrong side of the tracks or from liberal democrat families. Palin's family proves that as do many more examples. Examine your past - I bet you can find a few from your own teen years. Is your religious belief (a belief that each of us is supposed to be free to choose) more important than the physical health and welfare of other human beings in your community? Apparently Palin believes that her's is just this. To oppose full provide sex education in this day of HIV, limited natural resources and over population is just wrong and is not the type of wise judgment that I'm looking for in a national leader.

I am sad to say I agree with Elephantino regarding the state of our nation, education, politics and elections.

[Pete Serotta]

Why can we not have education on all points?

Why does one have to be right and one wrong?

Hell no one knows who is right but "The Man" and that is only if you believe in "The Man". :)






Stating that the view that evolution precludes faith is wrong does not chill debate -- it is part of it.

As for those engineers, are you conflating creationism/intelligent design as a competing scientific theory to evolution with the belief that God created the universe?

How about this statement from Pope Pius XII that:

"the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

My point is that the study of evolution and faith are indeed eminently compatible.

To think otherwise risks shortchanging both.

[Kirk007]

Why can we not have education on all points?



I think you can, in the appropriate context. One is a science. One is a religion. And as others have pointed out and I agree, belief in god/faith what have you and belief in evolution can be reconciled. It is hard to reconcile, ATMO, if you believe that writings like the Old and New Testament are literal words of god rather than writings that have a historical purpose and context, that have been interpreted many times over. My favorite non-biology course in college was a religion class - the New Testament. What an eye-opener to approach the new testament from a historical perspective rather than the restrictive view I had been taught and chafed against in church.

[93legendti]

Why can we not have education on all points?

Why does one have to be right and one wrong?

Hell no one knows who is right but "The Man" and that is only if you believe in "The Man". :)

Well said, Pete.

This definition of "theory" (as opposed to "fact") is interesting:

"... In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[mschol17]

There is nothing in creationism that has anything to do with science. It is not a theory, as there is no experiment that can test any assertion it makes. It's religion period. It's straight out of the send Galileo to jail for his wacky views about the earth and the sun anti-intellectual tradition.

[keno]

It concerns me that global warming is being taught in the schools not as a theory but as a fact as to primary causes. As time passes, more and more scientists are saying "It ain't necessarily so."

Brings to mind that until Copernicus, in the 1530s, replaced the earth with the sun, Johanny was taught bad science. (Of course each of us knows who the center of the universe is despite the what of our solar system.)

keno

[itsflantastic]

i am insulted by Palin in too many ways to even start to explore.


because of her selection i've been canvassing door to door for obama.

i hate to be that guy... but this calls for it. Overall I'be had a very good experience and i nice reception.

[fiamme red]

Palin is a hockey mom. If McCain wins, that bodes well for our relations with Canada. The people of Iraq, on the other hand, don't really care about ice hockey. :rolleyes:

[93legendti]

[QUOTE=Kirk007]...2. No sex education in schools other than a policy based on abstinence - hows that worked out for 'ya Sarah? ...QUOTE]

Probably the same as it did for B.O.'s mother:

"...Dunham and Obama are presumed to have married on February 2, 1961 in Maui, Hawaii, although no marriage certificate exists: the date is reported by Dunham as such on the later divorce filing.[6][1]

On August 4, 1961, at age 18, she gave birth to her first child whom on the birth certificate she named Barack Hussein Obama II..."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

[paczki]

[QUOTE=Kirk007]...2. No sex education in schools other than a policy based on abstinence - hows that worked out for 'ya Sarah? ...QUOTE]

Probably the same as it did for B.O.'s mother:

"...Dunham and Obama are presumed to have married on February 2, 1961 in Maui, Hawaii, although no marriage certificate exists: the date is reported by Dunham as such on the later divorce filing.[6][1]

On August 4, 1961, at age 18, she gave birth to her first child whom on the birth certificate she named Barack Hussein Obama II..."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

Was she a public figure arguing for abstinence? You never cease to amaze me with your ability to present non-arguments out of context as if they mean something. Otherwise I rather like you :banana:

[jhcakilmer]

I think we need to cautious about forcefully asserting our views on science and religion. Both can be very personal, and people tend to become offended easily. Plus, you absolutely need to understand both sides, to have a coherent, intelligent debate.......IMO

Religion is based on faith......the bible, Koran, and torah all say that. Unfortunately, the Intellegent Design discussion (I would not consider it a theory) has been extrapolated way beyond Dr. Behe's original context or purpose.

I'm not saying we need to remove any type of scientific reasoning from our spiritual understanding, but if you truly believe in the omnipotence and omnipresence of God, we will never be able to understand who, or what he/she/it is. I believe, science gives us a small glimpse into God's character, or being.

Creation should not be taught in public schools. If you feel strongly about christian values and teachings, send your child to a christian school. Goverment and religion have never coexisted in a healthy relationship in the past, or present. Also, religion should never be forced on someone....this is completely counter intuitive to the basic fundamental teachings of the bible.

Finally, there is a problem I have with "Social Conservatism". The objective to stop another individual from making a "choice". God gave adam and eve, the choice to condemn the entire world (for eternity) to death, with the "Tree of Kowledge" in the garden of eden, and God sent Abraham to Sodom and Gamorah to convince, not force the people to turn away from there sinful ways.....and in the end, God bestowed the judgment and punishment, not Abraham. Christ gave the rich, young ruler a choice, he didn't force him to believe. I can go on and on with the examples of where we are to use our own convictions, to make a choice, and in turn be judged by God for those choices.

Oh, and by the way, I'm Pro-life, but these are the questions that I struggle with.

[MarleyMon]

[QUOTE=Kirk007]...2. No sex education in schools other than a policy based on abstinence - hows that worked out for 'ya Sarah? ...QUOTE]

Probably the same as it did for B.O.'s mother:

Nice - The woman is as dead as your father and unable to defend herself.

[Tobias]

Here are a few substantive reasons why Palin seals the deal with me voting for Obama:You are not serious, are you?

We are so polarized as a nation that I seriously doubt a single person has changed their minds about who they will vote for; at least not after reading info posted on this forum. If you were not going to vote for Obama regardless, who could McCain have chosen that would make you vote for him?

I’m a long-term McCain supporter and I can’t say I like his VP choice. She was selected primarily to help win an election -- which unfortunately is of greatest importance – and not because of her qualifications. If she wasn’t a woman McCain wouldn’t have picked her in a million years. It’s sad that gender and race are playing a part in this election.

On the other hand at least she has more “time-in-command” than Obama and her record better predicts what she would do in the unlikely case she should become president -- not that that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Given a choice I’ll take smaller government and lower taxes.

[jhcakilmer]

It concerns me that global warming is being taught in the schools not as a theory but as a fact as to primary causes. As time passes, more and more scientists are saying "It ain't necessarily so."

Brings to mind that until Copernicus, in the 1530s, replaced the earth with the sun, Johanny was taught bad science. (Of course each of us knows who the center of the universe is despite the what of our solar system.)

keno


There is an overwhelming amount empirical data avaliable supporting global warming, it should be presented in schools, but with some common sense.

I have yet to see more than a handful of objective academically reviewed articles that actually raise concerns about global warming. And most of the points seem to be semantic.

[paczki]

who could McCain have chosen that would make you vote for him?

Sandy

[Onno]

I think we need to cautious about forcefully asserting our views on science and religion. Both can be very personal, and people tend to become offended easily. Plus, you absolutely need to understand both sides, to have a coherent, intelligent debate.......IMO

Religion is based on faith......the bible, Koran, and torah all say that. Unfortunately, the Intellegent Design discussion (I would not consider it a theory) has been extrapolated way beyond Dr. Behe's original context or purpose.

I'm not saying we need to remove any type of scientific reasoning from our spiritual understanding, but if you truly believe in the omnipotence and omnipresence of God, we will never be able to understand who, or what he/she/it is. I believe, science gives us a small glimpse into God's character, or being.

Creation should not be taught in public schools. If you feel strongly about christian values and teachings, send your child to a christian school. Goverment and religion have never coexisted in a healthy relationship in the past, or present. Also, religion should never be forced on someone....this is completely counter intuitive to the basic fundamental teachings of the bible.

Finally, there is a problem I have with "Social Conservatism". The objective to stop another individual from making a "choice". God gave adam and eve, the choice to condemn the entire world (for eternity) to death, with the "Tree of Kowledge" in the garden of eden, and God sent Abraham to Sodom and Gamorah to convince, not force the people to turn away from there sinful ways.....and in the end, God bestowed the judgment and punishment, not Abraham. Christ gave the rich, young ruler a choice, he didn't force him to believe. I can go on and on with the examples of where we are to use our own convictions, to make a choice, and in turn be judged by God for those choices.

Oh, and by the way, I'm Pro-life, but these are the questions that I struggle with.

This is a very thoughtful and interesting post, presenting a viewpoint on the subject I'd never encountered before. It IS worth reading some of these non-bike threads (though it can take about 190 posts)!

[johnnymossville]

I would love to be able to send my kids to a different school, Give me choice Obama!

[TMB]

I'm not saying we need to remove any type of scientific reasoning from our spiritual understanding, but if you truly believe in the omnipotence and omnipresence of God, we will never be able to understand who, or what he/she/it is. I believe, science gives us a small glimpse into God's character, or being.



.

Very well said.

Many of the most quietly devout people I have ever met in my life are, or were, theoretical phyicists.

If anything will give you a glimpse into the mystery of the universe and a place to touch God's character ..............

[ti_boi]

Very well said.

Many of the most quietly devout people I have ever met in my life are, or were, theoretical phyicists.

If anything will give you a glimpse into the mystery of the universe and a place to touch God's character ..............

Sure....I for one do not want a soccer/hockey/football mom in office. I want a politically adept, motivated individual (m/F is irrelevant to me) who is in the 90+ percentile of intelligence, has a real vision for the county that doesnt include the return of jesus, and actually understands 1 or 2 foreign cultures.

[ti_boi]

I would love to be able to send my kids to a different school, Give me choice Obama!


You could buck up and pay a tuition I suppose? Or are you looking for the government to pay for that?

[Kirk007]

[QUOTE=Tobias]You are not serious, are you?

McCain, at least once upon a time, has had much stronger positions on climate change than Obama. Obama is a coal guy. I've always admired McCain's willingness to call BS on things. There is much that I like about Obama, but I think he is far from perfect. At the end of the day I probably would have punched the ticket for Obama regardless of McCain's VP choice but I have been doing my best to continue to keep an open mind and see how things play out.

His choice ends the debate for me because I view it as confirmation that politics has won out over a choice for sound leadership (as it seems to always do); it opens up questions of judgment (McCains) and as stated, I think she is unqualified and would potentially pursue strategies and make decisions that would not be in the best interest of our nation nor our survival as a species.

Paczki - I don't know if she has advocated for this in her position as mayor or governor. But that she believes it should be so is what I was talking about. It's about good judgment, open-mindedness, tolerance and caring for humanity. I don't think restricting information on life changing issues demonstrates any of those characteristics; and I think it is naive to think that all families will adequately supply this information if they choose. And character is an argument in this election. And I rather like you too, which is true for everyone here, even those I disagree with on politics etc. We'll always have bikes in common!

[jhcakilmer]

Sure....I for one do not want a soccer/hockey/football mom in office. I want a politically adept, motivated individual (m/F is irrelevant to me) who is in the 90+ percentile of intelligence, has a real vision for the county that doesnt include the return of jesus, and actually understands 1 or 2 foreign cultures.


Man, how many people were you trying to insult with this simplistic, myopic statement??

[ti_boi]

Man, how many people were you trying to insult with this simplistic, myopic statement??


Anyone who believes the role of government is to push Christianity.....anyone who thinks that it is just fine to lie and distort and belittle with sarcasm....anyone who thinks the GOP deserves another 4 years to level the country.


Give Sarah Barracuda a little more time in the public eye....one speech does not a career make....remember that some of the country isn't as easily impressed by the nonsense paraded around last night....if you chose to serve the country fine....but it doesn't somehow make you a 'better American' than someone who took another path....the myths being volleyed about are simplistic and jingoistic...they wreak of desperation and deception. Anyone who comes off as 'tough and superior' as that chick definitely is hiding something...Offended? Too F'ing bad.

[fiamme red]

Paczki - I don't know if she has advocated for this in her position as mayor or governor. But that she believes it should be so is what I was talking about. It's about good judgment, open-mindedness, tolerance and caring for humanity. I don't think restricting information on life changing issues demonstrates any of those characteristics; and I think it is naive to think that all families will adequately supply this information if they choose. And character is an argument in this election. And I rather like you too, which is true for everyone here, even those I disagree with on politics etc. We'll always have bikes in common!Paczki was responding to 93legendti, not to you. :)

[jhcakilmer]

Anyone who believes the role of government is to push Christianity.....anyone who thinks that it is just fine to lie and distort and belittle with sarcasm....anyone who thinks the GOP deserves another 4 years to level the country.

This type of rhetoric tends to push people away, and close minds to possible valid points you maybe trying to express.

And IMO, not very classy.

[ti_boi]

This type of rhetoric tends to push people away, and close minds to possible valid points you maybe trying to express.

And IMO, not very classy.


Dude....I'm a country boy.....I play rock and roll....I ride a bike and anything else with wheels....I can smell bull$hit a mile away....and that chick wreaks of it. I am not out to impress anyone...I'm way over 21. And I don't want a bunch of know-it-all bible thumpers telling me how to live.

I need a government that spends my money wisely....keeps the roads smooth....the schools safe....and the riff raff in jail. Don't even get me started on the crap that I have watched Washington pull over the last 8 years.

[paczki]

Paczki was responding to 93legendti, not to you. :)

I like him though too, and you too even though leaping to your defense got me banned from the Ramble!

I bought some Fiamme Red rims BTW, go to build them up.

[girlie]

Why can we not have education on all points?

Why does one have to be right and one wrong?

Hell no one knows who is right but "The Man" and that is only if you believe in "The Man". :)

See this is back to my point....I don't believe in "The Man" - I believe in "The Woman". Where does that leave us? :D
girlie

[ti_boi]

See this is back to my point....I don't believe in "The Man" - I believe in "The Woman". Where does that leave us? :D
girlie


So your version of reality includes a woman in the sky who tells you what to do....fine. That whole paradigm has no place in the government...

[paczki]

So your version of reality includes a woman in the sky who tells you what to do....fine. That whole paradigm has no place in the government...

Have you read her other posts? She's a damned hippie!

[fiamme red]

I like him though too, and you too even though leaping to your defense got me banned from the Ramble!

I bought some Fiamme Red rims BTW, go to build them up.What are you building them with? Campagnolo NR low flange hubs + Fiamme Red Label rims + Clement Criterium tires = my favorite wheelset ever.

[ti_boi]

Have you read her other posts? She's a damned hippie!


NOFX......"never trust a F*ing Hippy"......this one goes out to Barracuda Sarah!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUZ5gGO0_Pw

[paczki]

What are you building them with? Campagnolo NR low flange hubs + Fiamme Red Label rims + Clement Criterium tires = my favorite wheelset ever.

Haven't decided yet but that sounds like a good idea.

[girlie]

Have you read her other posts? She's a damned hippie!

No - I'm only a hippie when I smoke pot and I'm straight, right now.
ti_boi = I'll kick your ass - how's that for a hippie!
girlie

[ti_boi]

No I'm only a hippie when I smoke pot and I'm straight, right now.
ti_boi = I'll kick your ass - how's that for a hippie!
girlie


Dee-lusional......but hey a girl's gotta dream.

Have you met Sarah....she thinks she can take Joe Biden....it oughta be GOOD.

[Tobias]

I think she is unqualified and would potentially pursue strategies and make decisions that would not be in the best interest of our nation nor our survival as a species. :confused: Not sure where you are headed with this but I'd agree she’s not qualified to run this nation. Period. At least not at this time.

But as an analyst stated on TV the other day, Obama hasn’t even run a Jiffy Lube. He has “zero” CEO experience. It’s frightening.

[jhcakilmer]

So your version of reality includes a woman in the sky who tells you what to do....fine. That whole paradigm has no place in the government...


But I thought the government was "of the people, by the people", doesn't that include there beliefs or lack there of........hey, if you don't like democracy, than go live in North Korea, China, Russia, etc.

You're doing a diservice to "our" party, with your vindictive, personal attacks. Personally, I don't see any difference between what your doing, and what Palin said last night (which I found mostly condescending, sneering, and lacking substance)

[girlie]

So your version of reality includes a woman in the sky who tells you what to do....fine. That whole paradigm has no place in the government...

Oh hell I'm from Vermont.....we have civil union not marriage. That is separation of church and state. Now all we have to do it make all state recognized marriages into civil unions.

[paczki]

No - I'm only a hippie when I smoke pot and I'm straight, right now.
ti_boi = I'll kick your ass - how's that for a hippie!
girlie

My riding in Vermont made me all hippied out. Here's a pic of one of the Igles on Brook Road in Waitsfield/Warren. Perfect cycling.

[ti_boi]

But I thought the government was "of the people, by the people", doesn't that include there beliefs or lack there of........hey, if you don't like democracy, than go live in North Korea, China, Russia, etc.

You're doing a diservice to "our" party, with your vindictive, personal attacks. Personally, I don't see any difference between what your doing, and what Palin said last nice (which I found mostly condescending, sneering, and lacking substance)


No dude....our government is by the corporation and for the corporation. And tough times call for tough talk...and perhaps a little action....(see the current Dems r lacking in that).....

[girlie]

My riding in Vermont made me all hippied out. Here's a pic of one of the Igles on Brook Road in Waitsfield/Warren. Perfect cycling.

Paczki....I know exactly where that is :) Vermont hippies are fight'n hippies so be careful.....they even tote guns and have some of the most lenient hand gun laws in the country.

Jealous!

[William]

No - I'm only a hippie when I smoke pot and I'm straight, right now.
ti_boi = I'll kick your ass - how's that for a hippie!
girlie

No doubt. She will. :bike:



William

[ti_boi]

Paczki....I know exactly where that is :) Vermont hippies are fight'n hippies so be careful.....they even tote guns and have some of the most lenient hand gun laws in the country.

Jealous!


Uh....most people who own a firearm (statistically speaking) actually have their own gun used against in a crime.....go figure. Others just can't shoot.

[jeffg]

You are not serious, are you?

We are so polarized as a nation that I seriously doubt a single person has changed their minds about who they will vote for; at least not after reading info posted on this forum. If you were not going to vote for Obama regardless, who could McCain have chosen that would make you vote for him?

I’m a long-term McCain supporter and I can’t say I like his VP choice. She was selected primarily to help win an election -- which unfortunately is of greatest importance – and not because of her qualifications. If she wasn’t a woman McCain wouldn’t have picked her in a million years. It’s sad that gender and race are playing a part in this election.

On the other hand at least she has more “time-in-command” than Obama and her record better predicts what she would do in the unlikely case she should become president -- not that that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Given a choice I’ll take smaller government and lower taxes.

Are you serious :)

She has more time in command than McCain as well. Perhaps Republicans should nominate her for president and make Romney second on the ticket to get some experience on the ticket.

Please. Rove was on the attack about being governor of Virgina not being sufficient experience, so now we are supposed to accept the myth of "executive experience" the Republicans are promoting. Don't drink the Kool Aid.

She is someone who appeals to the base of the Republican party but has the thinnest resume of the bunch.

Hey, if pandering to the base is more important than picking a competent VP, that's McCain's choice. I would have applauded Joe L or how about Christie Todd Whitman for crying out loud?

[Tobias]

Oh hell I'm from Vermont.....we have civil union not marriage. That is separation of church and state. Now all we have to do it make all state recognized marriages into civil unions.I prefer the very opposite.

The government shouldn’t get involved in marriage at all. Marriage should be limited to a “religious” commitment for those who value that kind of thing but with no legal standing whatsoever. With women being financially independent, the high divorce rate, etc… the whole “marriage” thing to form a legal “family” is obsolete. IMO marriage now creates more problems than it’s worth.

If there was no legal implication I wouldn’t care if a person wanted to marry their dog, let alone someone their own gender. :rolleyes:

[Tobias]

Are you serious :)What’s this obsession with Rove? Why does his name keep coming up? Really? He’s not running. Trust me on this.

Anyway, as I stated a long time ago, I would have personally preferred Lieberman or Powell, but neither could get McCain elected. The center which will decide the election would have seen the ticket as to hawkish.

I don’t like his choice but accept it as a necessary evil to “try” to get elected (I see it as a Hail Mary pass). And since there are more women that blacks I can’t argue with the math – disgusting as it may be.

[girlie]

I prefer the very opposite.

The government shouldn’t get involved in marriage at all. Marriage should be limited to a “religious” commitment for those who value that kind of thing but with no legal standing whatsoever. With women being financially independent, the high divorce rate, etc… the whole “marriage” thing to form a legal “family” is obsolete. IMO marriage now creates more problems than it’s worth.

If there was no legal implication I wouldn’t care if a person wanted to marry their dog, let alone someone their own gender. :rolleyes:

Interesting:) To be honest hadn't thought of it. I like civil union with only social not religious implications. I clearly am not for the church term marriage.
I will need to think over - no acknowledgment of union. Off hand it sounds interesting.

[girlie]

Uh....most people who own a firearm (statistically speaking) actually have their own gun used against in a crime.....go figure. Others just can't shoot.

blah blah blah ;) I'm from Vermont.
girlie

[DukeHorn]

Good old Westmoreland telling it like it is. Remember this is the guy who sponsored the 10 Commandments legislation but couldn't even name 5 of them on the Colbert Show. This is the true subtext (which is easily discernible if you see the racial makeup of the RNC).


"Just from what little I've seen of her and Mister Obama, Senator Obama, they're a member of an elitist class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

When a reporter sought clarification on the racially loaded word, Westmoreland replied, "Uppity, yeah."

Sort of like this CNN interview from 2006 in Vidor, TX:

Peggy Fruge told me she'd welcome blacks to her neighborhood. Then she said this:

"I don't mind being friends with them, talking and stuff like that, but as far as mingling and eating with them, all that kind of stuff, that's where I draw the line."

That's the "red meat" target audience???

[ti_boi]

PALIN RAISES MONEY -- FOR OBAMA! **Exclusive** Obama scores $8 million since Palin's speech from over 130,000 donors - on pace to hit $10 million by the time John McCain hits stage, campaign says..

[ti_boi]

blah blah blah ;) I'm from Vermont.
girlie


What's the sell-by date for a single gal in Vermont?

[jeffg]

What’s this obsession with Rove? Why does his name keep coming up? Really? He’s not running. Trust me on this.

Anyway, as I stated a long time ago, I would have personally preferred Lieberman or Powell, but neither could get McCain elected. The center which will decide the election would have seen the ticket as to hawkish.

I don’t like his choice but accept it as a necessary evil to “try” to get elected (I see it as a Hail Mary pass). And since there are more women that blacks I can’t argue with the math – disgusting as it may be.

Hey, I can respect that ultimate analysis.

As for why Rove, political operatives matter. Who do you think writes the speeches? Who puts out the talking points? These folks are "running" more than you give them credit for, Republicans and Democrats alike. The reason I mentioned it twice (hardly an obsession) is nobody addresses the issue, that Republicans are being cynical and hypocritical on this exectuive experience bull$hit.

[Tobias]

As for why Rove, political operatives matter. Who do you think writes the speeches? Who puts out the talking points? These folks are "running" more than you give them credit for, Republicans and Democrats alike.Maybe, but the thing I’ve always loved about McCain is that he’s his own man.

If elected he would never cow down to the likes of Rove or any other good old boy. If he didn’t fold to the Vietnamese he sure as hell ain’t going to fold to Rove. I don't know much about politics at that level but of that I'm certain.

[Kirk007]

:confused

I think Global Warming, Peak Oil etc. pose a risk to our long term survival.

But as an analyst stated on TV the other day, Obama hasn’t even run a Jiffy Lube. He has “zero” CEO experience. It’s frightening.

I agree it isn't comforting. But, I think the executive experience issue is over-played for the Presidency. I think that what we look for in a CEO is two basic things: leadership and management. A great leader does both extremely well. A good leader knows her/his strengths and weaknesses and brings on the appropriate persons to cover the weaknesses. I think Obama has demonstrated leadership; he can motivate folks and provide them with a positive vision (the same may be true for Palin). He is running an extremely effective campaign, so this too is a sign of leadership and perhaps management (although I suspect it is more the ability to surround himself with effective managers running the campaign.

For our President though I think we want more than these basics. Wisdom, open-mindedness, fairness, a true spirit of public service, tolerance, thoughtfulness, respect - all of these qualities come to mind. I'm not saying that Obama or any of the candidates knock any or all of these out of the park, but these qualities are some of the "others" that I look for. I didn't pick up on many, if any of these last night.

[MarleyMon]

Maybe, but the thing I’ve always loved about McCain is that he’s his own man.

If elected he would never cow down to the likes of Rove or any other good old boy. If he didn’t fold to the Vietnamese he sure as hell ain’t going to fold to Rove. I don't know much about politics at that level but of that I'm certain.
He has apparently folded on his VP selection.

[93legendti]

Hey, I can respect that ultimate analysis.

As for why Rove, political operatives matter. Who do you think writes the speeches? Who puts out the talking points? These folks are "running" more than you give them credit for, Republicans and Democrats alike. The reason I mentioned it twice (hardly an obsession) is nobody addresses the issue, that Republicans are being cynical and hypocritical on this exectuive experience bull$hit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
"...Since leaving the White House, Rove has worked as a political analyst and contributor for Fox News, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal..."

I'm confused by your post. Your claim is that Karl Rove works for McCain-Palin? :confused:

[Ray]

Holy crap. I leave the computer to go spend the afternoon with a bunch of fellow travelers at an Obama rally in Lancaster and you's guys (and the occasional girlie) go all off and start talking about RELIGION!?!? Are you freakin' KIDDIN' ME!?!?!?!? Do you REALLY want to blow this place up? Good way to do it.

All I'll say is I believe very strongly in a firewall of separation between church and state. And leave it at that.

Obama gives a hell of a speech, btw. I was reminded again today. HUGE crowd for a small town. I don't think it was close to the 20,000 I saw him with in Wilmington in February, but the line went on forever...

If McCain manages to win this, you gotta hand it to him. Because Obama's got some serious mojo happening these days. Love him or hate him, the mojo is flowing.

-Ray

[michael white]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
"...Since leaving the White House, Rove has worked as a political analyst and contributor for Fox News, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal..."

I'm confused by your post. Your claim is that Karl Rove works for McCain-Palin? :confused:

Matt Scully, speechwriter for Quayle and Bush--a longtime pro at reaching this particular constituency, as well as a Rove team player--wrote Palin's speech. (I won't go into how the Obamas write their own.) We'll see what will come out of Palin's mouth when she's just talking--that's the million dollar question--perhaps we'll see a little of that at the debates. One point is, and I guess it's a minor one: for a campaign working hard to distance itself from the Bush administration, it seems an odd choice that they'd haul out the same old writer . . . but then again maybe there's no one else (obviously not Palin) that McCain would trust.

[ti_boi]

From The Nation.

Sarah Palin gave a riveting and devastating nomination speech on Wednesday night. She shared her inspiring story and brave family, while savaging and ridiculing the celebrated life story of Barack Obama, a fellow barrier-breaking candidate, with whithering attacks on his work as a community organizer, senator, and author. She misrepresented his record and simply lied about her own, claiming to oppose earmarks that she supported, and dissembling on her $1.5 billion tax hike and record of raising sales taxes by 25 percent in Wasilla.

Reviewing the McCain Campaign's bullying, "unprofessional" onslaught against anyone who notes Palin's extreme positions and dishonest claims, Time's Joe Klein urged reporters to face facts:

I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God."

By all accounts, Palin faced a huge task in St Paul. She had to prove she was up to the job of commander in chief.

She struck out big-time -- in a biting speech that showed the only job she was ready for is RNC Chair, another ruthless soldier in Karl Rove's army.

[Tobias]

He has apparently folded on his VP selection.I don't like it, but read it differently. As a fighter he is doing everything possible to win.
The choices I personally would have preferred (Lieberman or Powell) would have been conceding defeat.
At least he's trying to pull it off against great odds.

[Tobias]

I think Global Warming, Peak Oil etc. pose a risk to our long term survival.It's a "GLOBAL" problem, not a USA problem.
We need to get our heads out of the sand on this -- and quickly.

[gdw]

The world isn't black and white. The Democrats good, Republicans evil thing is pretty juvenile.

[ti_boi]

The world isn't black and white. The Democrats good, Republicans evil thing is pretty juvenile.


why I oughta!!!

[gdw]

Human growth hormones, steroids, politics, and meth are an evil combination.

[velodadi]

In my opinion, he has charisma and some special qualities that can endear him to a lot of people. I sure can respect a man who defeated the Clintons fair and square.

That being said, I will not vote for him. If you listen to what he says and plans to do, it is the same old democratic party agenda with the same cast. There is no real "change" there. He has been a celebrity senator from day one with no major legislation to show on his "palmares". You don't just talk up a good race and then win the Tour de France with words alone.

He will be a major figure in America for years to come, win or lose. But 2008 is too soon, too fast.

V

[jeffg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
"...Since leaving the White House, Rove has worked as a political analyst and contributor for Fox News, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal..."

I'm confused by your post. Your claim is that Karl Rove works for McCain-Palin? :confused:

I am sure you are right that Rove has had no conversations with the RNC and has had no role in coordinating the Republican message this season, especially since he uses the same soundbites as the rest of the Republican crew. Carville was a co-host of Crossfire and is on CNN's situation room. Does that mean he is/was a neutral working for CNN? I do not think so.

[Kirk007]

It's a "GLOBAL" problem, not a USA problem.
We need to get our heads out of the sand on this -- and quickly.
I agree 100%. I just ask that as the leader of the free world we lead. It is the only way.

[GoJavs]

For those of you who think McCain will change anything, keep in mind his most trusted economic ally is Phil Gramm (Americans are whiners!) and his chief foreign policy advisor was until recently on the Georgian payroll. :crap:

Folks - its business as usual in Washington. For the last 20 odd years, it's been vote for the least evil. For me (voted for Bushes 6 times), I'm done with Republicans for a while. Bye bye...

[93legendti]

Matt Scully, speechwriter for Quayle and Bush--a longtime pro at reaching this particular constituency, as well as a Rove team player--wrote Palin's speech. (I won't go into how the Obamas write their own.) We'll see what will come out of Palin's mouth when she's just talking--that's the million dollar question--perhaps we'll see a little of that at the debates. One point is, and I guess it's a minor one: for a campaign working hard to distance itself from the Bush administration, it seems an odd choice that they'd haul out the same old writer . . . but then again maybe there's no one else (obviously not Palin) that McCain would trust.

So that means Rove works for McCain-Palin?!?!

[93legendti]

2 observations:

1. I am sure you are right that Rove has had no conversations with the RNC and has had no role in coordinating the Republican message this season, especially since he uses the same soundbites as the rest of the Republican crew. Carville was a co-host of Crossfire and is on CNN's situation room. Does that mean he is/was a neutral working for CNN? I do not think so.

2. Careful quoting Wiki in general...
Please delete the attack against me. There is no reason to attack anyone.

So you have no proof Rove works for McCain-Palin, right?