Interesting, interesting debate. Here's the thing - I think McCain did an excellent job putting Obama on his heels the entire night.
BUT, by doing this, he forced Obama to explain himself, and his policies, informatively and cogently. By doing what he needed to do, McCain assured my vote in Obama.
I thought that was weird.
The whole entire debate was about Obama. For me, that helped assure my vote in Obama. Did it do the opposite for anyone else? Did it reassure Republicans on their McCain vote? Did it cause independants to jump one way or the other? Did anyone face a similar reaction I had? Are any Republicans unsure of McCain's stances because of the focus on Obama?
Keeping it civil (or not, fuck it, whatever), what did other people think?
The Last Debate
Moderator: Yankees
I keep hearing pundits say that it was McCain's best performance and Obama's worst. I think they're half right.
Without a doubt, it was McCain's best performance. However, I think Obama did exactly what he needed to do as well. He didn't let McCain bait him into losing his cool or saying something he might regret. I think if you watched this debate on a network that didnt do split screen like CNN did, then McCain's performance was even better. His weakest moments were when he wasn't speaking, and he just couldn't help looking like the crazy, angry old man the democrats have been trying so hard to paint him as. Other than that, terrific job by the Senator from Arizona.
Obama recovered nicely for the second half of the debate on the issues of Health Care and Abortion he was clearly back on his game. I agree with Brett that by forcing Obama to go into such detail, McCain actually helped him. I watched the debate with a room full of undecideds who all say their understanding of Obama's tax plan and health care plan has greatly improved.
I don't have a problem saying McCain won the debate. I do find it humorous that most of the networks had immediate polls that said Obama won the debate with about 50-55% of the vote, yet Fox News had it 87% in favor of McCain, a nice 50 point swing. Fair and Balanced journalism at its best.
It was without a doubt the most interesting of the debates, though I'm still not convinced McCain has enough time to get back into this thing. I do think McCain has to drop the Ayers thing now. Its been discussed at naseum, and he's just not getting anything out of it. Is it rallying up the base? Sure. But independents aren't biting, and it seems to be backfiring quite a bit.
I also give Obama a lot of credit for not jumping on the Sarah Palin question and tearing her to pieces, which I think a lot of liberals were hoping he would do. Let her prove she's an idiot all by herself, Barack, she doesn't need your help.
All and all, interesting night. I am still not convinced by some of these poll numbers for Obama we're seeing in battle ground states. Between the Bradley effect and lazy ass people not getting out to the polls, I'm still not feeling too comfortable with Obama's lead. In fact, the wider it gets, the more it scares me, because people may not feel the urgency to get out and cast their ballots.
But if the numbers in Virginia hold and it goes Obama, this thing is over folks, because that essentially makes Ohio and Florida irrelevant.
Without a doubt, it was McCain's best performance. However, I think Obama did exactly what he needed to do as well. He didn't let McCain bait him into losing his cool or saying something he might regret. I think if you watched this debate on a network that didnt do split screen like CNN did, then McCain's performance was even better. His weakest moments were when he wasn't speaking, and he just couldn't help looking like the crazy, angry old man the democrats have been trying so hard to paint him as. Other than that, terrific job by the Senator from Arizona.
Obama recovered nicely for the second half of the debate on the issues of Health Care and Abortion he was clearly back on his game. I agree with Brett that by forcing Obama to go into such detail, McCain actually helped him. I watched the debate with a room full of undecideds who all say their understanding of Obama's tax plan and health care plan has greatly improved.
I don't have a problem saying McCain won the debate. I do find it humorous that most of the networks had immediate polls that said Obama won the debate with about 50-55% of the vote, yet Fox News had it 87% in favor of McCain, a nice 50 point swing. Fair and Balanced journalism at its best.
It was without a doubt the most interesting of the debates, though I'm still not convinced McCain has enough time to get back into this thing. I do think McCain has to drop the Ayers thing now. Its been discussed at naseum, and he's just not getting anything out of it. Is it rallying up the base? Sure. But independents aren't biting, and it seems to be backfiring quite a bit.
I also give Obama a lot of credit for not jumping on the Sarah Palin question and tearing her to pieces, which I think a lot of liberals were hoping he would do. Let her prove she's an idiot all by herself, Barack, she doesn't need your help.
All and all, interesting night. I am still not convinced by some of these poll numbers for Obama we're seeing in battle ground states. Between the Bradley effect and lazy ass people not getting out to the polls, I'm still not feeling too comfortable with Obama's lead. In fact, the wider it gets, the more it scares me, because people may not feel the urgency to get out and cast their ballots.
But if the numbers in Virginia hold and it goes Obama, this thing is over folks, because that essentially makes Ohio and Florida irrelevant.
I didn't get home from class until 9 and I watched South Park at 10, but the hour of the debate I watched, I don't see how you can say Obama won. McCain had him on his heels the whole time, but all Obama did was repeat the same things he's said over and over. He woudl address things not asked in the questions, duck things McCain said, ect. I just got a gut feeling that if he's elected, he's going to become so crooked he makes Nixon look like Jefferson
Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said Democratic candidate Obama did the best job in the debate, with 31 percent saying Republican Sen. John McCain performed best.
The poll also suggests that debate watchers' favorable opinion of Obama rose slightly during the debate, from 63 percent at the start to 66 percent at the end. The poll indicates that McCain's favorables dropped slightly, from 51 percent to 49 percent.
The economy was the dominant issue of the debate, and 59 percent of debate watchers polled said Obama would do a better job handling the economy, 24 points ahead of McCain.
During the debate, McCain attacked Obama's stance on taxes, accusing Obama of seeking tax increases that would "spread the wealth around." But by 15 points, 56 percent to 41 percent, debate watchers polled said Obama would do a better job on taxes. By a 2-1 margin, 62 percent to 31 percent, debate watchers said Obama would do a better job on health care.
Sixty-six percent of debate watchers said Obama more clearly expressed his views, with 25 percent saying McCain was more clear about his views.
McCain won in two categories. Eighty percent of debate watchers polled said McCain spent more time attacking his opponent, with seven percent saying Obama was more on the attack. Fifty-four percent said McCain seemed more like a typical politician during the debate, with 35 percent saying Obama acted more like a typical politician.
"Independents tend to prefer debates that are dominated by substance and light on discussion of personal characteristics," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director. "The perception that McCain attacked Obama gave red meat to GOP partisans, but it probably didn't help McCain with independents."
"There was a notable gender gap as well," Holland said. "Women thought Obama won the debate by a 62 percent to 28 percent margin. Among men, Obama's lead was narrower, 54 percent to 35 percent in Obama's favor."
The poll also suggests that debate watchers' favorable opinion of Obama rose slightly during the debate, from 63 percent at the start to 66 percent at the end. The poll indicates that McCain's favorables dropped slightly, from 51 percent to 49 percent.
The economy was the dominant issue of the debate, and 59 percent of debate watchers polled said Obama would do a better job handling the economy, 24 points ahead of McCain.
During the debate, McCain attacked Obama's stance on taxes, accusing Obama of seeking tax increases that would "spread the wealth around." But by 15 points, 56 percent to 41 percent, debate watchers polled said Obama would do a better job on taxes. By a 2-1 margin, 62 percent to 31 percent, debate watchers said Obama would do a better job on health care.
Sixty-six percent of debate watchers said Obama more clearly expressed his views, with 25 percent saying McCain was more clear about his views.
McCain won in two categories. Eighty percent of debate watchers polled said McCain spent more time attacking his opponent, with seven percent saying Obama was more on the attack. Fifty-four percent said McCain seemed more like a typical politician during the debate, with 35 percent saying Obama acted more like a typical politician.
"Independents tend to prefer debates that are dominated by substance and light on discussion of personal characteristics," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director. "The perception that McCain attacked Obama gave red meat to GOP partisans, but it probably didn't help McCain with independents."
"There was a notable gender gap as well," Holland said. "Women thought Obama won the debate by a 62 percent to 28 percent margin. Among men, Obama's lead was narrower, 54 percent to 35 percent in Obama's favor."
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
Yea, I'm pretty sure neither of us said Obama won. It was the American public speaking to CNN/CBS/FOX/NBC etc. that said Obama won.
Not sure what you mean by Obama repeating himself - he spoke much more in-depth about his views on abortion, health care, addressing campaign issues, and laid out his economic plan (which was my big sticking point prior - his lack of information here) in far more detail then I've seen him prior.
Keep in mind, I think McCain did a fantastic job pressing Obama and trying to corner him into a mistake. He just didn't get the game-changing mistake he needed - though I, by no means, think this election is over.
McCain's BEST moments were when he spoke to his record of accomplishments - but those were a bit few and far between. McCain kept the debate's attention on Obama, which Obama was more than happy to run with.
The big knock on Obama coming was my own knock on him - he wasn't explaining his platform in ANY detail. Well McCain challenged him to do that (very well I might add), and Obama responded by laying out his agenda in great detail.
I thought Obama's two big failures in the debate were:
1) Not addressing the question of what programs he would cut to curtail spending (though McCain dodged this one, too). By not addressing this, he did really answer any questions about how he wouldn't be a free spender as President.
2) Not saying what Lewis said was wrong first, and then addressing it second. He addressed it first, and admonished the comparison 2nd. He missed a big opportunity to make a sweeping gesture across party lines. It was obvious that it was a statement that hurt McCain. Although McCain did flat-out lie when he said Obama did not repudiate the comments immediately. I read the press release from the Obama camp that came out 10 minutes later distancing him from it.
Not sure what you mean by Obama repeating himself - he spoke much more in-depth about his views on abortion, health care, addressing campaign issues, and laid out his economic plan (which was my big sticking point prior - his lack of information here) in far more detail then I've seen him prior.
Keep in mind, I think McCain did a fantastic job pressing Obama and trying to corner him into a mistake. He just didn't get the game-changing mistake he needed - though I, by no means, think this election is over.
McCain's BEST moments were when he spoke to his record of accomplishments - but those were a bit few and far between. McCain kept the debate's attention on Obama, which Obama was more than happy to run with.
The big knock on Obama coming was my own knock on him - he wasn't explaining his platform in ANY detail. Well McCain challenged him to do that (very well I might add), and Obama responded by laying out his agenda in great detail.
I thought Obama's two big failures in the debate were:
1) Not addressing the question of what programs he would cut to curtail spending (though McCain dodged this one, too). By not addressing this, he did really answer any questions about how he wouldn't be a free spender as President.
2) Not saying what Lewis said was wrong first, and then addressing it second. He addressed it first, and admonished the comparison 2nd. He missed a big opportunity to make a sweeping gesture across party lines. It was obvious that it was a statement that hurt McCain. Although McCain did flat-out lie when he said Obama did not repudiate the comments immediately. I read the press release from the Obama camp that came out 10 minutes later distancing him from it.
Good opinion article if anyone gets 2 mins to read
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438847,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438847,00.html
I thought McCain started really strong, particularly with the "If you wanted to run against George Bush you should have run four years ago" line (which should have been a stump speech standard by now), but the wheels really came off on the abortion question. Obama nailed it, and McCain should have moved on but instead he tried feebly to counterpunch and that was the end of the debate in my mind, McCain never regained his early momentum.
I only caught bits and pieces.. as I was working.. so my view is only on the limited amount of the debate I saw.. but what put me off about McCain was his whining about "dirty" politics. I guess you can count me in the agreement with the majority of those polled who feel his commercials do little but attack Obama on a personal level(i.e. calling him a Terrorist), then he cried about Obama 'attacking' his proposed policies(i.e. healthcare). Not even the same in my book, and to make that comparison was grasping at straws. In fact, most of the ads I do see from Obama's camp are about himself - who he is, where he grew up, what he believes in, what he's going to do.. while on the other side, McCain's ads seem to just call Obama a terrorist and other assorted names.
I wasn't overly impressed with Obama, but I guess I just came away less impressed than ever with McCain. He seemed to cry about how much Obama was spending, hammering the point home that he is spending "unprecidented" amounts of money. It got old real quick to me, and really, the point he was making seemed neither here nor there.
To be honest, and maybe its just because I'm tired of this merry go round, but I used to have a great deal of respect for McCain.. and over the course of the past couple months that has wained. He doesn't even seem like the same guy to me, a candidate I would of considered voting for up until about the conventions. It just seems to me he's gotten some really bad advice from his advisors, and has done everything he can to just win.
Well, this isn't the IBC World Series, you can't trade away all your integrity, character, and morals and win the thing.. At least not in my humble opinion. And McCain has given me the impression that he has done that. He's sold himself out, and its backfiring.
But thats just my impression.
I wasn't overly impressed with Obama, but I guess I just came away less impressed than ever with McCain. He seemed to cry about how much Obama was spending, hammering the point home that he is spending "unprecidented" amounts of money. It got old real quick to me, and really, the point he was making seemed neither here nor there.
To be honest, and maybe its just because I'm tired of this merry go round, but I used to have a great deal of respect for McCain.. and over the course of the past couple months that has wained. He doesn't even seem like the same guy to me, a candidate I would of considered voting for up until about the conventions. It just seems to me he's gotten some really bad advice from his advisors, and has done everything he can to just win.
Well, this isn't the IBC World Series, you can't trade away all your integrity, character, and morals and win the thing.. At least not in my humble opinion. And McCain has given me the impression that he has done that. He's sold himself out, and its backfiring.
But thats just my impression.
"Hating the Yankees is as American as pizza pie, unwed mothers, and cheating on your income tax."
Interestingly enough, Joe isn't a licensed plumber, which isn't illegal, but definitely odd for the head of a plumbing business.
Roughly 1.5% of American Households make $250k/yr or more (according to 2005 data). Joe the Plumber isn't exactly "Joe Average".
I have to agree with what Nate said. When it looked like McCain was going to win the Republican nomination, I was actually pretty excited. Even though I disagree with a lot of his positions, I felt he was an honorable person with good judgment and with McCain v. Hillary or Obama it was a Win-Win for America. I was particularly sympathetic to how he had been dishonourably sunk by Bush in 2000. Then he selected Palin as a running mate (there is no way she is the best person in the Republican Party to be VP, sorry, it's just impossible) and his campaign started taking on a nastier tone. I live in a battleground state, I see a TON of ads and there are (at least here) a lot more negative ads by McCain than by Obama. You can chalk some of that up to Obama being the frontrunner, but I really thought McCain had the kind of integrity to not run the kind of crap that sank him in '00 and that's not even considering the level of disdain and dislike he clearly holds (and shows) for Obama. At this point, I really wonder how he'll act if he loses, which is looking increasingly likely.
Roughly 1.5% of American Households make $250k/yr or more (according to 2005 data). Joe the Plumber isn't exactly "Joe Average".
I have to agree with what Nate said. When it looked like McCain was going to win the Republican nomination, I was actually pretty excited. Even though I disagree with a lot of his positions, I felt he was an honorable person with good judgment and with McCain v. Hillary or Obama it was a Win-Win for America. I was particularly sympathetic to how he had been dishonourably sunk by Bush in 2000. Then he selected Palin as a running mate (there is no way she is the best person in the Republican Party to be VP, sorry, it's just impossible) and his campaign started taking on a nastier tone. I live in a battleground state, I see a TON of ads and there are (at least here) a lot more negative ads by McCain than by Obama. You can chalk some of that up to Obama being the frontrunner, but I really thought McCain had the kind of integrity to not run the kind of crap that sank him in '00 and that's not even considering the level of disdain and dislike he clearly holds (and shows) for Obama. At this point, I really wonder how he'll act if he loses, which is looking increasingly likely.
On the one hand your right that it sucks, on the other hand I completely understand how McCain feels. Here's a guy who didn't even bother to complete a full term in the Senate who gotten his balls licked by the a generation who knows absolutely nothing about politics (be honest, how many of you can name more than 1 Supreme Court Justice, how many of your friends? And what percentage of them are Obama supporters?), had an entire major cable news network (MSNBC) give up their journalistic credibility just to support him, and who continues to get votes based on pretty speeches and caviar dreams (and a whole host of disgust at the Republican party). Hell, Obama admitted to being a communist during the debate last night ("I can afford to pay more taxes so can you to give to people who make less," that is the essence of communism), and still people say he won the debate. I'm really not sure there was anything McCain could do to win this election. He's certainly not blameless, but this election cycle has been an indictment of the electorate.
Any way you slice it, saying "Obama admitted to being a communist" is wrong, ignorant and exactly the type of slanderous, libelous bullshit that makes these elections so disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying it, no matter what side of the political divide you're on.
Jake, you're a smart guy in a lot of ways, but you're a complete idiot (or intentionally distorting the facts) on this issue. That's not communism, try looking up what communism actually means, then join the conversation with a CLUE. If it's any -ism it's close to socialism but it's essentially the way the world has worked for hundreds if not thousands of years. The rich pay more in taxes because they can afford to (and because they have more to lose if the state of things goes south).
As for experience? Lincoln had 2 years as a congressman. Washington had no political experience at all. Two of the worst presidents in recent history meanwhile... Dubya was a governor for 5 years, while Nixon had 8 as a VP and 6 in Congress, yet both were a mess to say the least. Experience can certainly be a good thing, but that's no guarantee and it's no substitute for sound judgment. McCain's selection of Palin pretty much proves he lacks that.
Jake, you're a smart guy in a lot of ways, but you're a complete idiot (or intentionally distorting the facts) on this issue. That's not communism, try looking up what communism actually means, then join the conversation with a CLUE. If it's any -ism it's close to socialism but it's essentially the way the world has worked for hundreds if not thousands of years. The rich pay more in taxes because they can afford to (and because they have more to lose if the state of things goes south).
As for experience? Lincoln had 2 years as a congressman. Washington had no political experience at all. Two of the worst presidents in recent history meanwhile... Dubya was a governor for 5 years, while Nixon had 8 as a VP and 6 in Congress, yet both were a mess to say the least. Experience can certainly be a good thing, but that's no guarantee and it's no substitute for sound judgment. McCain's selection of Palin pretty much proves he lacks that.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, I forgot, the generations before us were doing such a damn good job without us. We should all just stay home and not vote. Our generation will keep fighting your war, but not vote, cause apparently we're stupid.Athletics wrote:On the one hand your right that it sucks, on the other hand I completely understand how McCain feels. Here's a guy who didn't even bother to complete a full term in the Senate who gotten his balls licked by the a generation who knows absolutely nothing about politics (be honest, how many of you can name more than 1 Supreme Court Justice, how many of your friends? And what percentage of them are Obama supporters?),
Maybe, and this is gonna be a big shock, but just maybe people who like Obama aren't idiots. Maybe they just disagree with you.
Because there's not a whole network dedicated to supporting McCain? You're right, there is a difference though, MSNBC at least started off with journalistic integrity, FOX hasn't had that in years.had an entire major cable news network (MSNBC) give up their journalistic credibility just to support him
Yup. That's why everyone is voting for Obama. Because he talks pretty, and we're all dumb, and think his big words are awfully impressive.and who continues to get votes based on pretty speeches and caviar dreams (and a whole host of disgust at the Republican party). Hell, Obama admitted to being a communist during the debate last night ("I can afford to pay more taxes so can you to give to people who make less," that is the essence of communism),
But, you know what, I better not comment. You better ask someone older than me, cause myself and everyone my age - we're just a bunch of idiots, right? Or is it just those of us who are voting for Obama? Aaron's not an idiot, right? He's voting for McCain. I mean we're the same age, went to the same schools...is he okay? Or have his posts, agreeing with you, shown that he is smarter than me and somehow more educated?
Maybe we're not all dumb, Jake. Maybe we just don't agree with you.
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
Jake, you want to know what's happening with this election? In the worst financial crisis in the history of the vast, vast, vast majority of living Americans, the country is searching for a leader. They are looking for someone to step up, look them in the eye, and tell them there is a brighter tomorrow. They want someone to tell them why that person should be President, and not someone who only wants to tell the people why their opponent shouldn't be President. One of my favorite quotes, from one of my all-time favorite movies hits the nail on the head of this election:
John McCain is not standing up to explain why his differences of opinion with Barack are the right ones. All he cares about is saying why Obama's are the WRONG ones. You can argue that statement until you're blue in the face, but it's why people are shifting to Obama.
For the last 8 years there has a genuine lack of leadership in the White House. And now we're in some pretty deep economic shit. The American public wants someone to lead them out of it, and they believe Obama, the man who looks them in the eye, is the guy to do it.
I'm not voting for Obama because of that. But I CERTAINLY do not fault anyone if that's their reason for voting for Obama.
Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
John McCain is not standing up to explain why his differences of opinion with Barack are the right ones. All he cares about is saying why Obama's are the WRONG ones. You can argue that statement until you're blue in the face, but it's why people are shifting to Obama.
For the last 8 years there has a genuine lack of leadership in the White House. And now we're in some pretty deep economic shit. The American public wants someone to lead them out of it, and they believe Obama, the man who looks them in the eye, is the guy to do it.
I'm not voting for Obama because of that. But I CERTAINLY do not fault anyone if that's their reason for voting for Obama.
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
And as an add-on, THIS is the McCain that should have been running in this election:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/17/ ... nnSTCVideo
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/17/ ... nnSTCVideo
Sorry, I made that post in haste and apparently managed to not put in that I was trying to explain the point of view of the McCain campaign as told to me some people close to the campaign, and that frustration is being expressed in the visible McCain has for Obama.
Bren, Washington served in the Virginia House of Burgesses and then was part of the Second Continental Congress before being appointed General of the armed forces, and he presided over the constitutional convention in 1787. Considering it was a brand new country, that's about as much political experience as anyone could have. As for Lincoln, good for him, but there are other examples not so friendly, for instance Warren G. Harding, whose political experience most closely matches Barack Obama's. Harding served in the Ohio State Senate for four years and then spent two as Lieutenant Governor (Obama spent roughly 6 years in the Illinois legislature). Harding was elected to the US senate in 1915 and then elected president during his first term. He was immensely popular, but was ultimately one of our least successful Presidents. He presided over the Teapot Dome Scandal (Harding's Secretary of the Interior, who party cronies convinced him to appoint, gave a no-bid contract on an oil field in Wyoming to an oilman who was a friend of the campaigns, Harding was apparently totally oblivious to this situation). Several of his appointees were ultimately charged and convicted with accepting bribes as well. The cynic could parallel these to the potential influences of ACORN, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko.
My point? Obama is a crapshoot. Maybe he pays off and maybe he doesn't, the upside is much higher and the downside is much lower.
Bren, Washington served in the Virginia House of Burgesses and then was part of the Second Continental Congress before being appointed General of the armed forces, and he presided over the constitutional convention in 1787. Considering it was a brand new country, that's about as much political experience as anyone could have. As for Lincoln, good for him, but there are other examples not so friendly, for instance Warren G. Harding, whose political experience most closely matches Barack Obama's. Harding served in the Ohio State Senate for four years and then spent two as Lieutenant Governor (Obama spent roughly 6 years in the Illinois legislature). Harding was elected to the US senate in 1915 and then elected president during his first term. He was immensely popular, but was ultimately one of our least successful Presidents. He presided over the Teapot Dome Scandal (Harding's Secretary of the Interior, who party cronies convinced him to appoint, gave a no-bid contract on an oil field in Wyoming to an oilman who was a friend of the campaigns, Harding was apparently totally oblivious to this situation). Several of his appointees were ultimately charged and convicted with accepting bribes as well. The cynic could parallel these to the potential influences of ACORN, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko.
My point? Obama is a crapshoot. Maybe he pays off and maybe he doesn't, the upside is much higher and the downside is much lower.
We've got, as Brett described it, "the worst financial crisis in the history of the vast, vast, vast majority of living Americans" and you think Americans are going to elect John McCain? Or that they SHOULD?
You can throw out every negative thing that has ever been said about McCain, make it all not have happened and you'll still have a guy who managed to be a congressman for 20+ years and somehow still admittedly doesn't know much about the economy. What does he do then with his biggest decision as a candidate? Does he choose someone like Romney who (while a d-bag to the nth degree) really DOES have a clue about economics? No, he chooses a backwoods beautyqueen. Poor judgement.
If the biggest issue in America right now was foreign policy, McCain would be doing much better. But it's not, "it's the economy, stupid" and he didn't have the sense, like Obama did, to choose a running mate whose knowledge and experiences complement his own. On top of that, who does he have as advisers on his campaign? Lobbyists (sorry 'former lobbyists') for some of the biggest companies we taxpayers just bailed out. These assholes are the ones whose opinions he values so much they're some of his top men, yet we're supposed to believe he somehow is looking out for us? for the average Joe? Poor judgement.
All candidates are going to fuck up, they're human. McCain lacks a grasp of the issue Americans are most concerned about, chose a runningmate with even less of a clue and is advised by people who are certainly not clueless and who most Americans would DREAD having in a position of influence at this time. Those are major mistakes McCain has made very recently. Saying the potential downside of having a hotheaded, economic nincompoop with a laundry list of health problems backed up by someone who makes Bush look sharp as a tack isn't lower than Obama's, is just silly. McCain has had some huge errors of judgment DURING the campaign, you just can't do that and expect to win the election or to have people think you deserve to win it.
You can throw out every negative thing that has ever been said about McCain, make it all not have happened and you'll still have a guy who managed to be a congressman for 20+ years and somehow still admittedly doesn't know much about the economy. What does he do then with his biggest decision as a candidate? Does he choose someone like Romney who (while a d-bag to the nth degree) really DOES have a clue about economics? No, he chooses a backwoods beautyqueen. Poor judgement.
If the biggest issue in America right now was foreign policy, McCain would be doing much better. But it's not, "it's the economy, stupid" and he didn't have the sense, like Obama did, to choose a running mate whose knowledge and experiences complement his own. On top of that, who does he have as advisers on his campaign? Lobbyists (sorry 'former lobbyists') for some of the biggest companies we taxpayers just bailed out. These assholes are the ones whose opinions he values so much they're some of his top men, yet we're supposed to believe he somehow is looking out for us? for the average Joe? Poor judgement.
All candidates are going to fuck up, they're human. McCain lacks a grasp of the issue Americans are most concerned about, chose a runningmate with even less of a clue and is advised by people who are certainly not clueless and who most Americans would DREAD having in a position of influence at this time. Those are major mistakes McCain has made very recently. Saying the potential downside of having a hotheaded, economic nincompoop with a laundry list of health problems backed up by someone who makes Bush look sharp as a tack isn't lower than Obama's, is just silly. McCain has had some huge errors of judgment DURING the campaign, you just can't do that and expect to win the election or to have people think you deserve to win it.
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
Is this serious? As Letterman said, if we look at everyone on this planet's associations, I'm sure we can find some characters we've come in contact with. Gordon Liddy is an unrepentant criminal. William Timmons, the head of McCain's transition team, lobbied FOR Saddam Hussein for lesser sanctions. C'mon, you, and McCain, have to do better then that.Several of his appointees were ultimately charged and convicted with accepting bribes as well. The cynic could parallel these to the potential influences of ACORN, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko.
Oh yea, and the company that made the robocalls AGAINST McCain in 2000 - you know, the ones he called 'hate calls'? Yea, he just hired them.
They don't make "hate calls" anymore, it's information disbursement.Royals wrote:Is this serious? As Letterman said, if we look at everyone on this planet's associations, I'm sure we can find some characters we've come in contact with. Gordon Liddy is an unrepentant criminal. William Timmons, the head of McCain's transition team, lobbied FOR Saddam Hussein for lesser sanctions. C'mon, you, and McCain, have to do better then that.Several of his appointees were ultimately charged and convicted with accepting bribes as well. The cynic could parallel these to the potential influences of ACORN, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko.
Oh yea, and the company that made the robocalls AGAINST McCain in 2000 - you know, the ones he called 'hate calls'? Yea, he just hired them.
Wow, talk about missing the point once again and completely. Bren was trying to make the case that since Abraham Lincoln and George Washington didn't have much experience we don't have to worry about Barack Obama. I countered Washington and then gave a counterexample to Lincoln's lack of experience, and Bren chooses not to respond to the point at all Note: As usual and go into a full on McCain attack, which I'll get to in a second.
But first, since Brett actually seems to have read the post and responded to it somehow let me respond to you: First of all, there is a major difference between who someone associates with professionally and who someone associates with personally. A professional lobbyist, whoever they work for, is doing a job he/she is paid for, and his/her loyalty is generally only about as deep as the pockets of his/her client. The classic example of this is Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD, who ultimately ended up as a lobbyist for Seagram's urging the government to raise the legal BAC limit. I don't think anyone is suggesting that William Timmons had a meaningful personal relationship with Saddam Hussein. As for Gordon Liddy, you really want to compare a third rate burglary to setting bombs? They're both equally unrepentant, but their crimes are of completely different degrees. Note, that preceding paragraph was a test to see if anyone is actually reading this for depth, the real point is coming up now: I was not trying to compare the associates of Obama and McCain, I was comparing the associates of Warren Harding and Barack Obama (by the way, find someone corrupt like that in Abraham Lincoln's close circle of associates, there might be or there might not be, I'd just rather have a factual rather than rhetorical debate). Though I commend you for reading the post Brett, you clearly missed the point.
Now, as for Bren's most recent partisan screed, I have some time and this game (TB vs. Seattle) is phenomenally boring so I'll humor you. The last financial crisis we had in this country as dangerous as this one Note: dangerous should be read as there was a huge downside risk to the financial system wasn't in 1929, it was in 1979, during the lifetime of most of the electorate and the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. Carter's administration raised payroll taxes massively, with marginal tax rates over 50%, with the highest tax bracket taxed at 70% (imagine that, more than 2/3 of your income right off the top to the government, there's a lot less incentive to be successful). What does Barack Obama want to do? Raise taxes on the rich. Carter was also very concerned about keeping energy prices down and not letting oil companies prosper while American's paid high prices. He figured that the best way to do this was a windfall tax on oil companies. What happened? Oil companies didn't want to pay the punitive tax, which discouraged them from producing more oil, which exacerbated the shortage. What does Barack Obama want to do? Windfall tax on oil companies. Those are just two examples but Note: Here's the important point: Barack Obama wants to do the same things that Carter did to put us into a mess in the 1970's only he wants to do them while we're already in a mess. Meanwhile, because the Democrats are likely to have a large majority in both houses, if President Obama comes up with a bad idea there is no check on it, it will just be rubber stamped by congress. AND WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT BARACK OBAMA WON'T COME UP WITH BAD IDEAS note: precedign capitalized so that it won't be missed. He might be Abraham Lincoln, and he might be Warren Harding. That is major downside risk on this major economic crisis that we face right now.
But first, since Brett actually seems to have read the post and responded to it somehow let me respond to you: First of all, there is a major difference between who someone associates with professionally and who someone associates with personally. A professional lobbyist, whoever they work for, is doing a job he/she is paid for, and his/her loyalty is generally only about as deep as the pockets of his/her client. The classic example of this is Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD, who ultimately ended up as a lobbyist for Seagram's urging the government to raise the legal BAC limit. I don't think anyone is suggesting that William Timmons had a meaningful personal relationship with Saddam Hussein. As for Gordon Liddy, you really want to compare a third rate burglary to setting bombs? They're both equally unrepentant, but their crimes are of completely different degrees. Note, that preceding paragraph was a test to see if anyone is actually reading this for depth, the real point is coming up now: I was not trying to compare the associates of Obama and McCain, I was comparing the associates of Warren Harding and Barack Obama (by the way, find someone corrupt like that in Abraham Lincoln's close circle of associates, there might be or there might not be, I'd just rather have a factual rather than rhetorical debate). Though I commend you for reading the post Brett, you clearly missed the point.
Now, as for Bren's most recent partisan screed, I have some time and this game (TB vs. Seattle) is phenomenally boring so I'll humor you. The last financial crisis we had in this country as dangerous as this one Note: dangerous should be read as there was a huge downside risk to the financial system wasn't in 1929, it was in 1979, during the lifetime of most of the electorate and the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. Carter's administration raised payroll taxes massively, with marginal tax rates over 50%, with the highest tax bracket taxed at 70% (imagine that, more than 2/3 of your income right off the top to the government, there's a lot less incentive to be successful). What does Barack Obama want to do? Raise taxes on the rich. Carter was also very concerned about keeping energy prices down and not letting oil companies prosper while American's paid high prices. He figured that the best way to do this was a windfall tax on oil companies. What happened? Oil companies didn't want to pay the punitive tax, which discouraged them from producing more oil, which exacerbated the shortage. What does Barack Obama want to do? Windfall tax on oil companies. Those are just two examples but Note: Here's the important point: Barack Obama wants to do the same things that Carter did to put us into a mess in the 1970's only he wants to do them while we're already in a mess. Meanwhile, because the Democrats are likely to have a large majority in both houses, if President Obama comes up with a bad idea there is no check on it, it will just be rubber stamped by congress. AND WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT BARACK OBAMA WON'T COME UP WITH BAD IDEAS note: precedign capitalized so that it won't be missed. He might be Abraham Lincoln, and he might be Warren Harding. That is major downside risk on this major economic crisis that we face right now.
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
Not being totally familiar with the industry - but can't some people have ethical discretion here? Like a plumber, I'd imagine that you would take almost every job offered, but I'd imagine you can say 'no' if you want to.The classic example of this is Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD, who ultimately ended up as a lobbyist for Seagram's urging the government to raise the legal BAC limit. I don't think anyone is suggesting that William Timmons had a meaningful personal relationship with Saddam Hussein.
Jake, totally respect everything you're saying, and, as stated, I don't have a hell of a history in politics - but a few things have stood out to me as pretty damning lately- namely all the endorsements from former Republican-leaning people and media, and the fact that so many 'Red' states are very much in play, if not Obama-leaning.
Are these all due to the economy? Or is Obama that type of unifying figure?
