KCRW's Left, Right & Center 10.10.08 Show
UPDATED 10.17.08: I am including a link to a brand new article on the blog of The Center for Public Integrity about ACORN. I think it is valuable to read for those who are concerned about allegations concerning ACORN in light of the recent news, comments on our blog and comments made by Senator McCain at last night's debate. I hope you find it useful.
ELECTION ’08: ACORN, Stuck Between a Law and a Hard Place
By Sarah Laskow | October 16, 2008, 11:09 am
"For a program that exists as an alternative to screaming talking heads, there sure are a lot of that activity on this blog. Is there anyway that individuals can just email each other if they are going to take over the blog, particularly with insults. There is a link to do that."
I AGREE WITH STAN H WHO POSTED THE COMMENT ABOVE. AT SOME POINT, THE ARGUMENTS BECOME PERSONAL -- AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, IT'S TIME TO TAKE IT OFF LINE. I HAVE WRITTEN PRIVATELY TO A FEW PARTICIPANTS -- NOW I AM PUBLICLY ASKING YOU TO PLEASE MODERATE YOURSELVES AND STICK TO ISSUES, NOT PERSONAL ATTACKS. IT'S TURNING OTHERS OFF AND WE WANT THIS TO BE A FORUM FOR INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION, NOT VENOM AND VITRIOL AND PERSONAL POINTS OF HONOR. I DON'T WANT TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DAILY POSTS. THINK FIRST, THEN WRITE. AND IF YOU MUST BE NASTY, SEND EMAIL.
THANKS.
The President goes on TV to tell the public not to panic – and the Dow drops 450+ points. I can’t even begin to summarize today’s show – a whole lot of smart, heady and elevated talk about free markets, capitalism, Adam Smith, the role of government and everything we need to be thinking about to revive the global economy for the next 20 years. A real knockout of a show – there will be cheers and many jeers following Bob’s choice of words about Gov. Palin…don’t blame me, we don't censor the pundits -- blog about it!
PS: Matt mentioned a website during the show it is www.rgemonitor.com
My Groups
-
Music News from KCRW.com Updated: 3 days ago
-
The Global Gig Guide on KCRW Updated: 4 days ago
-
the KCRW Music Library Updated: 4 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
I'm not sure that there is any point in tussling back and forth about the election anymore. Where I live, we've had early voting for over a week, and I am 90% sure that an Obama victory is a foregone conclusion at this point. I'm not particularly pleased about it, but there it is.
I was a solid McCain backer prior to the financial implosion.
My confidence has eroded so that I think that I am 50/50 on McCain now.
There's a 1 in 3 chance I'll end up going for Obama.
If I am that reticent now, then I cannot imagine McCain getting any major positive movement (failing some cataclysmic event) with the undecideds.
PS: If you're wondering about my math, there is a 1 in 6 chance that I'll just leave that portion of my ballot blank.
BOB: ENOUGH WITH THE MCCAIN MORTALITY SCARE MONGERING
I forgot to put this up last week...
An actuary at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that McCain has a 94.5% chance of surviving a 4 year term in good health.
Click here for article
Shame on you for playing ignorant/naive partisan in your parry to Arianna on the vile hate speak coming out of McCain Palin rallies.
For you to equate an Obama supporter having over-heated adoration for their candidate with a Palin / McCain supporter calling a U.S. Senator and Democratic candidate for President a "traitor", a "terrorist", and calling for someone to "Kill him" would be laughable were it not so obscenely simple-minded.
These are unprecedented, dangerous times, Tony. Your tone-deaf take on this very real situation, seems completely out-of-character for a right-of-the-aisle pundit whose opinions I have always found thoughtful and well spoken, even if I disagreed with them.
This was a very low moment for you Mr. Blankley. Again, shame on you.
I'm not talking about finger-pointing or anything. I just mean that it's an "only Nixon could go to China" moment. A far right-wing president is authorizing the largest step toward nationalizing the banks in history. But nobody could rationally accuse George W. Bush of being a socialist. It doesn't even enter the debate.
Now, if this crisis had come to a head four months later, in February 2009, and newly-sworn-in President Obama had initiated a bailout including buying up equity in the banking industry, it would have totally different politically. The conservative voices in America would shout "communist!" and perhaps even block the effort out of partisan spite.
The same economic reality would be there, and the same remedy would be on the table, but politically it is actually easier to get traction and bipartisan consensus when there's a conservative president in the Oval Office.
And by the way, the more I hear about this crisis, the more I think the current bailout plan is only the beginning. I'm making a prediction: that the government will have to nationalize the banks to get this to turn around.
Tony Blankley is way off base to compare a mob's death threats against their political opponent to the adulation of Obama supports for their candidate. The former is illegal, for one thing. Mr. Blankley, how would you feel about your apologist remark if someone actually did kill Senator Obama as a result of this fanaticism?
What is John McCain playing at? Is he so covetous of winning that he's willing to incite a violent uprising? Is this how he would treat Congress, or deal with world leaders? Is John McCain willing to burn the nation in order to rule it? Doesn't this seem like a scene out of "Animal Farm" or "Lord of the Flies?"
I've read that a few GOP leaders and respected conservative commentators have already condemned the negativity of the McCain campaign and specifically the dangerous rallies this week. I want more GOP leaders to speak out. This is completely out of hand.
I'm not sure which saddened me more today, the news or Robert Scheer's choice of words in describing Governor Palin. I understand that he's frustrated with the nation's situation. However, this program is not the place to use vulgar names as such.
Re the rest of the show... I know I've been occasionally critical of Matt Miller in the past but no criticism this time. Very lucid and insightful points and I could definitely hear an element of crisis in his voice, with which I could relate. There's nothing like having to decide whether to cash out your life savings fifteen minutes before the closing bell to wake you up.
The unfortunate nature of American political campaigns is there's always a mud fight, but the mud always flies in both directions. The nature of McCain/Palin's attacks on Obama about Ayers, ACORN, and others is comparable to Obama's attacks on McCain/Palin. One only has to watch how the ladies on The View treated Obama (Barbara Walters almost unzipped his pants) compared to their vicious attack on McCain (Barbara looked like she was going to throttle him). The LRC clan has to go no further than Bob Scheer's rant about Palin in this show; why is McCain's selection of Palin so repulsive when Obama's credentials and foreign experience is not so far from hers? Political attacks just seem more repulsive when they are against the candidate you favor and they seem more justified when they are against the candidate you are against. It's your personal responsibility to clear the mud away and see the truth, don't just take Arriana's word for it.
As I said before, mud only sticks if there's some truth behind it, the rest falls off. If Obama wants to quell the "vicious attacks," he has nothing more to do than be open and truthful. Thus far, he has revised his story with each new revelation and has fallen back on his pat answer of, "He's not the person I once knew." People don't need to concern themselves about whether Obama is a closeted terrorist plotting to overthrow the government with Ayers. They should question the voracity of his honesty, however. If he is less than truthful about major portions of his life, then how will we ever be secure that he will keep the campaign promises that Matt waxes poetic about at the end of the show?
In response to: "Ocraz, should we infer that you bring a six-sided die with you into the voting booth? (Just kidding -- please take this as friendly ribbing.)"
I'm not offended. I imagine that I may seem to be talking about numbers too much :)
I often worry that in representative democracies voters can be too easily persuaded by emotional appeals or affinities for the personality traits of those running for office, and so I do the best that I can to eliminate irrelevancies by assigning points for policy positions, past performance, and things that I think are rationale bases for decision making.
I don't use a die, but when the relative importance of issues changes because of current events (as has just happened) or candidates change their positions on issues (as often happens), I need a piece of scrap paper to see if it tips things one way or the other! (That's not a joke.)
"I thought that you'd be interested in reading this transcript from NewsHour that represents my feelings.
DAVID BROOKS: The last 60 days of any campaign, even for those of us who love politics, tend to be depressing, because they get into the gutter. I think both campaigns have been misleading, exaggerating.
I think the McCain campaign has been more misleading and exaggerating. Obama has said things which I think are blatantly untrue, where he said John McCain said yes to -- when you make $5 million, you are rich. McCain never said that seriously. Obama ran an ad today saying John McCain hasn't changed since he join the Senate in '82, that he doesn't know how to use a computer. I don't any of us as journalists would that as the factual truth. Those things are just not true.
So, I think both campaigns are trading untrue charges. They enjoy their own lies. They get furious at the other.
JIM LEHRER: Enjoy their own lies?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes.
I mean partisan people -- this is the narcissism of partisan. You get furiously outraged at the other campaign's lies, and you love your own. Nonetheless, I do think it is fair to say that the McCain campaign ads have been more egregious than the Obama campaign's'
Maybe that isn't directly relevant to your argument RIGHTGUY, but it seemed at least reminiscent.PS: There were some missing words in the transcript- I just cut and pasted it.
Rightguy keeps trying to shovel this nonsense that "both sides" are "guilty" of "vicious attacks" and make everything accusation or political point each side is trying to make "equivalent."
But fair minded people see very clearly how different the rightwing attacks are from that of the leftwing.
The strategy is obvious. When someone is covered with mud because they've been wallowing with pigs (just an example, not name-calling), they have no problem throwing mud at someone with a clean suit on. In fact, they hope the guy with the clean suit starts throwing mud back.
Because then they can say "see, everybody's dirty."
But it's not going to work this time. The American people are wising up to these hateful, petty, nasty, ugly political rightwing games.
Maybe I should have read the earlier comments before leaving that last one. I had been thinking about the statements of the campaigns or their ads, or maybe supporters who attempt character assassination (e.g., Obama supported violence in Kenya, or McCain abandoned POWs in Vietnam). I haven't heard that McCain or Palin have been encouraging violent rhetoric. I've been feeling discouraged about the race lately and cut down to mainstream print news.
I'm not aware of the incident you guys seems to be referring to. I thought you were just talking about generic smearing of candidates. I'd have thought that I'd have heard of it if anyone were flirting with violent imagery or hate speech or whatever.
link to AP story
Hmmm....because I am suggesting Obama is clean and McCain has been resorting to ugly politics, then I'm "coming dangerously close to zealotry".
Really? Do you really believe that? Let's not be drama queens.
1. When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country," McCain stoked the sentiment. "I think I got the message," he said. "The gentleman is right." He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.
2. One woman shouted "traitor" when McCain told voters Obama would raise their taxes. Volunteers worked up chants from the crowd of "U.S.A." and "John McCain, John McCain," in an apparent attempt to drown out boos and other displays of negative energy.
3. In two events this week, warm-up speakers at GOP rallies have used Obama's middle name, Hussein, to seed doubts about the Democrat, a tactic meant to draw attention to the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim, as well as to belittle him. "On Nov. 4, let's leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened," a sheriff told Palin's Florida rally. McCain once stepped forward directly to denounce that tactic. This week, his campaign merely issued a lukewarm criticism that tried to score a political point in the same breath: "We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November."
4. Some of the frustration at McCain's rallies is from people who want the candidate to go harder after Obama. In Waukesha, when a voter begged McCain to take a more combative tone toward Obama, McCain instead talked about the financial crisis. "Could I just say very quickly, yes, I'll do that," McCain said. "But I also, my friends, want to address the greatest financial challenge of our lifetime with a positive plan for action."
I grant that McCain could take a more aggressive approach to the negativity of his supporters, but I don't think that this is the same as inciting violence.If Sheer wants to harp on McCain's age as a factor then the fact that Obama is still having trouble quitting his smoking habit should be a factor too?
Many members of my friends and family have suggested doing things to Pres. Bush which would have gotten them investigated by the secret service if they wrote it down and sent it in the mail (and which would have violated the Geneva Convention if they actually did the same things to enemy soldiers).
“Now, the American public itself almost demands there be a kind of gladiatorial element. They want Obama to go in there and gut McCain..."
(but he continued by saying, "They want to see him smite his opponent in the election with a real muscularity.”
I've lost track of the times that Chris Matthews has talked about "knee capping" one's opponent.
In both of these cases, it was plain that the language was allegorical.
How many posts are you going to throw up tonight Ockraz? Now you're replying to your own replies.
This is my last for the night, unless anyone lies about something: I found the podcast this week fairly dull. Matt, for once, definitely carried the podcast this week.Tony was just talking nonsense: "when does Obama disavow him having been called the alpha and omega--the Jesus of politics?" Isn't that a rightwing mocking attack started by Hillary?????????
But I found most of the final thoughts very on point:
Homerun: I agree totally with Tony's assessment of Obama's tendency to coast when he has a lead. (However, there are times I've wanted him to hit McCain hard in the debates where he instead took the opportunity to present a vision for the country...his instinct was better).
Triple: Arriana. I agree that Bimbo wasn't the best term to use. Unethical would have been a better characterization of her. But the metephor of her being a blank slate for rightwingers -- a kind of billboard for posting the latest Roger Ailes smears -- was very illuminating.
Double: Bob. He's totally right that McCain betrayed moderate Republicans and decent people anywhere by choosing Palin. Somebody who gives credit to a witchdoctor for bringing her to power.
Swinging for the fences but hitting a squibbler to first: Matt, after doing so well, offered the kind of silly talk that if echoed will sink Obama faster than Tony can regurgitate his rightwing talking points.
I think that everyone should take care however, that this is an area fraught with cultural sensitivities.
On the one hand, I want to stress that (especially for people who can remember the political violence of 40 years ago) there is legitimate concern about the safety of Sen. Obama. I don't want anyone to think that I'm trying to be dismissive of their fears- I'm not, and I found the article about the rallies both alarming and depressing.
On the other hand, there is another issue as well.
Despite the fact that I live in a small city in Indiana, since Gov. Palin was nominated for VP, I have heard a lot of people around our campus make references to 'red necks', 'white trash', and other names that have made me very uncomfortable. If angry college students can yell out threatening things about the President at anti-war protests (This has happened here just within the last year.) and no one takes notice of it, then we should be careful about what assumptions we make about angry rhetoric from people we assume to be disaffected rural white voters.
We have to make generalizations every day, and most of them are probably harmless. This is not the case when race, class, and hate are involved. I am worried because we can't err on the side of assuming that people's motives are innocuous, but we also don't want to assume that people are bigots when they may just be stirred up over the election.
"Barry made me do it!"--Ockraz
But I think you may have made a Fruedian slip.
I MADE THAT COMMENT TO Stan H not to Ockraz.
So, thanks for outing yourself. You obviously are posting with more than one screen name. Not against the rules, I guess.
But, like Palin, highly unethical.
-Sarah
In response to : Hmmm....because I am suggesting Obama is clean and McCain has been resorting to ugly politics, then I'm "coming dangerously close to zealotry". Really? Do you really believe that? Let's not be drama queens.
Of course I believe that. When I congratulated you for being akin to a Left version of Rove, I had assumed that you had the cynicism about your own side that would be appropriate. That you may be a 'true-believer' willing yourself not to see your own sides failings is scary.
PS: If Hillary started the meme about Obama being a political savior, then how can it be right-wing? The first time I remember hearing about it was after Oprah's memorable introduction of him in the primaries. Incidentally, for some reason, it is super-strong in Germany! Does anyone else watch Zakariah's show on CNN and remember when they talked about that?PPS: I don't know about the collective pronoun, but (with all due respect) when it comes to your being a drama queen, I think that that ship has sailed :)
A little late with the "drama queen" thing and not very strong. Try to keep up.
I'm anything but an idealogue or zealot. I want Obama to win because I think the rightwing has taken over the Republican Party for the worse, just as they took over and are destroying the true spirit of Christianity.
Are Obama's politics closer to the philosophy of Jesus than McCain's? I say quite emphatically, "yes!" Is Obama Jesus? Will he turn water into wine? I'll let you and Tony debate that nonsense.
But, compared to McCain's policies, Obama's policies will heal the sick (healthcare) and feed the poor (lower taxes on 95% of Americans).
Wow.
1. If I were posting under two names, then it wouldn't have been a Freudian slip. It would just have been a memory lapse. If I accidentally referred to something you said as a 'Democrap' talking point, then that would be a Freudian slip. [I plead exigent circumstances and an attempt at humor lest anyone to take me to task for that!]
2. You already made a fuss over my using a screen name (for reasons only known to you) and I told you that my name is David and not Stan.
3. I didn't say that you made me do it. I said that I did it because of you. The way that I remember it (I don't have a photographic memory, and I want to have breakfast soon so I'm not going to go looking it up.) is that you criticized me and two others (neither of whom was Stan as I recall) for being long-winded. I've never made the transition from e-mail to im's well because of the emphasis on brevity and I thought that shorter individual comments might be more appropriate here- but that linking them as responses showed that they followed the same thread (given a lack of subject line).
4. Ask Stan if we're the same, if you don't believe me. (Are you really that conspiracy minded? I used to think that it was some sort of tactic or odd flourish on your part.)
And do you know why Obama's campaign doesn't try to smear McCain for all of the mistakes and associations of his earlier life?
A, because it's not relevant except to counterpoint unfair attacks.
and
B, because in Christianity we have a little thing called "forgiveness". If someone says they're sorry or they refute the actions of someone they've met or known, we Christians don't put ourselves above God. We forgive and go on. We don't try to smear people with exaggerations and inuendo.
If the Rightwing really are the moral Christians they claim, they would stick to the issues and quit lieing.
Barry, I'm going to shut up for awhile because I think i made my point. And, I just heard McCain admit to Obama's decency and I watched him stand up to some rightwing crazies.
Thank you, Sen. McCain. I think it's probably too little too late, but i appreciate it and admire you for it. I just wished i believed your supporters felt the same way.
Now, dog gone it, if we can just get some of those policies a little more compassionate, we might not have to drive anymore witches out of town.
BD: A little late with the "drama queen" thing and not very strong.
I absolutely think that you are needlessly dramatic. Do you read your own comments after you post them?
BD: I think the rightwing has taken over the Republican Party for the worse, just as they took over and are destroying the true spirit of Christianity.
Gee- that's certainly not overly dramatic! Are you going to hold forth on the 'true spirit of Christianity' now? What a treat!
BD: Obama's policies will heal the sick (healthcare) and feed the poor (lower taxes on 95% of Americans).
Maybe you're still thinking of Stan. I've told you that I prefer Democratic policies on health care and taxes. I don't have your confidence that Obama will be able to do what he wants on those issues given the current economy. Furthermore, your point about 'Christian' thinking and healthcare ignores that Obama's policies support the terminating of about 750 thousand innocent human lives in our country annually. I'm not a theologian like you (actually, I'm an atheist), but even I can see how this is troubling to Christians. It is troubling to me! How it is that you would have us believe that opposition to those policies is destroying Christianity is something that may be comprehensible only to you.
And if you wanted to say that McCain's campaign has been dirtier than Obama's- then I acknowledged that in the NewsHour comment- BUT- if you want tomaintain that Obama has run a clean campaign or that he didn't get his hands dirty rising up through the ranks in Chicago politics, then you really are an ideologue or a zealot or just plain delusional.
Listening to McCain's recent rallies, I heard people frustrated with HIM because they feel he has not been aggressive enough on confronting Obama on his radical past.
In my memory, the most pointed Obama threat televised to date is Rev. Jackson volunteering to castrate Mr. Obama. Isn't Jackson an African-American democrat?
Now you're starting the same old tired lies now? Really, who do you think is reading this message board who hasn't watched any of the debates? Other than hard core Republicans, who do you think you are going to fool?
As you know, Obama plans to raise taxes for only 5% of Americans. And, as you rightly pointed out, those tax rates will occur due to the expiration and non-renewal of the Bush Tax Cuts.
So, it will depend on Congress. If they don't want the Bush Tax Cuts to expire, they can over-ride Obama's veto.
You're just a liar, Ockraz. Every post convinces me of that.
Obama is also in favor of letting the Bush Tax cuts expire, which will raise everyone's taxes, income, capital gains, and death. So hold onto your hat.
Recall an Obama interview where he was told that each time the capital gains tax was cut tax revenue increased and when the tax increased the tax revenue went down? Obama said, "Oh really." The moderator then queried, "So do you still want to raise taxes?" Obama says, Yes, because it's fair."
In the last debate, Obama conceded that he may need raise the taxes in the face of the poor economy, which harkens back to his revelation that increased taxes do bring in less revenue and are bad for the economy.
You bemoan tactics that your compatriots use themselves and then call anyone a liar who points the fact out to you.
Your guy is going to win the election- why do you insist on being so contemptible when you're winning. It is people like you who are constantly courting rancor who make it so difficult to return to any kind of unity after an election. I've been spending less time with political media lately so that I won't be upset after the election. I can live with either candidate, but people like you just get me angry.
Maybe you're not a liar- maybe you're just a deluded dolt.
I don't understand why you say that that means that poor people would end up paying more in taxes. You can certainly contend that there income might decrease, but I don't see why what they pay in taxes would increase.
Second, if a person who makes less than the required amount to pay taxes works at a job where they have a retirement plan, the money in the retirement plan will be taxed when it is taken out at capital gains rates. So even though raising capital gains tax will really sock it to those evil rich wall street investors, it will also have an effect on the poor. Those Wall Street investors will most likely hide their investments in foreign accounts anyway, so we won't really sock it to them.
Third, there will not be sufficient money to finance Obama's healthplan by using electronic medical records, my group has invested 500 thousand in a computer system five years ago and it's effect on reducing costs is zero and it's still more cumbersome than using a pen and paper. Economist have found that "closing corporate loopholes" will not be sufficient to cover the healthplan costs. This all means increased payroll taxes, everyone pays those.
Fourth, the government will take the pennies from your eyes when you die, instead of one penny Obama wants both. Death taxes affect poor people more than rich people. Rich people have ways to hide their money in trusts, such as the Kennedy Family Trust, and poor people don't, so they get stuck.
There's more at stake than just income taxes, even though that's where most of the arguments focus.
This all be a moot point, if someone flushes now that the economy is in the toilet.
Sure, Ockraz. You're side is slinging mud and telling lies at every opportunity, and I'm the problem. Got it.
Believe it or not from all my typos, I actually have a journalism degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia, one of the top j-schools at that time. Graduated with honors. But I didn't fit in because my politics weren't Left-enough. I didn't fit in. As a student journalist I had the opportunity to interview the likes of John Ashcroft and the late Mel Ashcroft. I attended countless hearings about bills trying to be passed by groups on every point of the political spectrum. I learned to respect all points of view. But I also learned that there is no such thing as objectivity in politics.
As a student intern I worked for Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri. I got the internship because of an honors poli-sci class i was taking. During that class I correctly predicted Bush and Dukakis as the candidates to emerge from a crowded field. While working in D.C. i even met Dan Quayle during a campaign rally. What I learned had nothing to do with either party--i learned that the Senate as an institution is little more than a incumbent re-election factory, literally. There are subways under the ground and countless offices dedicated to nothing but generating constituent letters, newsletters, radio shows, etc., and shipping out certificates, photos and gifts. I don't know how many hours i spent working the Signature Machine on Sen. Bonds' "personal" correspondence. And i saw the daily talking points memos that came over the fax machine.So, I don't need any lectures from you about politics.
While serving in a Muslim country on a military intelligence base, my commanders taught me one thing. There wasn't a war at that time but there was quite a bit of terrorism directed at individual soldiers and sailors at that time. And since I had a Secret Security clearance I read dozens of daily terrorism briefings. So again, I don't need any lectures from you. I served my country. Our commanders at that time kept drilling one thing into us: you can only fight the guy in front of you. You can't win a war or defeat terrorism by yourself.
So, that's what I'm doing on this message board with less than 100 posts a week. I'm just fighting the enemy that's in front of me. I can't answer all the lies that are being unfairly made against a decent, family man--Obama, but I can refute the ones you guys make here.
And just to finish this boring lecture, I learned something else when I worked for a nonprofit education group for ten years: manipulating a corporate board is not an art but a science. So, it's very easy for me to understand how all these executives and CEOs were able to legally rob their shareholders.
So, instead of middle class working stiffs like you and me fighting over tax cuts for the wealthy, we should be working together to throw these bums out. We can fight the issues after the election, but 8 years is enough. Don't you think?
If Obama is the miserable failure you think he is, then you guys can come back in 2012 and support Palin.
What do you think?
Don't quote me on this, but I have heard that Obama is not truly promoting a permanent tax cut, he wants to provide a single tax refund, but the tax rates will remain the same. If true, it's essentially bribing the constituency. This would be in keeping with his proposal to provide a one-time $300 stipend to people on social security during the democratic primary...You vote for me and I'll give you $300. To remain fair and non-partisan, you could also compare it to McCain's repeal the gas tax for the summer.
Just listen to what George Soros has to say and then maybe we can move forward with a discussion on where we can go from here..
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10102008/watch.htmlHere's a site that does that: http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/
Personal income tax:
Obama's plan maintains the Bush tax cuts for the lower tax brackets (up to income of $173K). Obama would roll back the Bush tax cuts for the two highest tax brackets, restoring the Clinton-era tax rates at that level (increase from current 33% to 36% on income $173K-366K, and increase from current 35% to 39.6% on income $366K+). I think it's clear this includes no increase for low-income and middle-income people, and an increase only for people who are truly higher-income.
Obama's plan also eliminates all income taxation for seniors making under $50K.
McCain's plan simply maintains the current Bush tax cuts.
Corporate taxes:
Obama's plan eliminates capital gains taxes for startups and small businesses.
McCain would cut corporate taxes from the current 35% to 25%.
Tax Reform:
Not many specifics from either candidate, except that Obama would instruct the IRS to provide a pre-filled tax form to many taxpayers.
Coincidentally, this was a recommendation of the Taxpayer's Advocacy Panel in 2007 (my father served on the TAP). It would save a lot of money and hassle for many Americans who have simple taxes, and reduce mistakes and the cost of processing taxes. But not surprisingly the tax preparation industry (e.g. H&R Block) is against it.
Estate Tax:
Obama: 45% tax on estates over $3.5M ($7M for couples).
McCain: 15% tax on estates over $5M ($10M for couples).
Social Security Payroll Tax:
McCain: no change from current system; SS tax is 12.4% for income up to $102K, then zero tax for income over $102K.
Obama: same, but add new 4% SS tax for income over $250K, taking effect after 2018.
AMT:
McCain: phase out AMT (I'm in favor of this).
Obama: extend AMT patch. This is the same thing we've been doing for several years, and because the Senate did this so late in 2007, the IRS had to reprogram its forms. What a mess! We should just eliminate the AMT.
Capital Gains Tax:
McCain: maintain current 15% tax on capital gains and dividends.
Obama: increase rate to 20% tax on capital gains and dividends.
Other:
Each candidate has a set of tax credits and increases to dependent exemptions and so on.
Sheer continues to be a despicable old crank.
He says that Obama should be at 90% in the polls and then suggests that since he isn't it's because of racism. Disgusting.
Sarah Palin is a "Bimbo"? Can't you find someone else to represent the "left" other than someone whose views are so far out in left field that the buses won't even go there?
As far as his flacking for Interest rate controls, which bank is trying to offer loans at 40-50%? Maybe for non-secured short term personal bank loans for someone with bad credit so who cares?
Here's how I'd like a true leader to react:
Crowd: "Obama is a traitor! Off with his head!"
McCain: "Now, hold on, sir/ma'am. I have to pause my speech to address that comment. We don't think that Senator Obama is a good choice for president, but he's still an American and a good man. He's doing what he thinks is right. We disagree with that, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. That's what America is about. We live in a country dedicated to freedom and liberty, and that's what makes us strong. That means that even when we disagree, we have to get along. Respect one another. Protect one another's rights. If we don't do that, we've lost what America stands for. Anybody who wants to take away another American's rights, will have me to answer to. Is that clear? Now, back to my ill-concieved and meandering economic policy."
That would be the message of a leader. McCain and Palin were silent during most of the angry comments, which is not leadership. It's tacit approval of the anger and the threats.
I got this lovely e-mail from my father this morning. Lovely. He's serious, so he's believing all these rightwing lies.
I guess it wouldn't make any difference to point out to your father that George W. Bush has a much closer relationship with the Bin Laden family than Barack Obama has. :-) GWB's first oil company, Arbusto Energy, received a $50K investment on behalf of Salem Bin Laden, elder half-brother to Osama Bin Laden.
The first thing you learn in politics is not to argue with people who will never change their mind. I could provide my dad with an encyclopedia of facts. It's not going to work. He's retired and worried about his 401K. He's looking for someone to blame, and the last person he wants to blame is himself and the support he has given to Bush's policies. He, like many Americans, trusted Bush and still does, simply on cultural grounds.
By the way, I was born in 1965. He named me after Barry Goldwater, who lost in 64.
That goes both ways.
That's precisely my point- you are acting as if I (and 2 or 3 others) are your enemies. While I don't feel that way about people who disagree with me politicaly, I do come to feel that way about people who snipe at and insult and challenge the integrity of people merely for holding the same views that I have. Your choosing to treat people as enemies makes them such- That is a problem for decent fair minded people- but apparently not for you.
You can make all the personal attacks you want. If you lie, I will make sure it's pointed out.
I don't care if you counterpoint every sentence of mine in every post.
I don't care if you like me, respect me or even ignore me.
I'm not going to let people like you dehumanize me.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops wrote a statement on voting called 'Faithful citizenship' that can be downloaded from: http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/
Catholics, and others, should read it. One note: near the end section 89 reads:
As Catholics, we are led to raise questions for
political life other than “Are you better off than
you were two or four years ago?” Our focus is not
on party affiliation, ideology, economics, or even
competence and capacity to perform duties, as
important as such issues are. Rather, we focus on
what protects or threatens human life and dignity.
You are accusing me of personal attacks?!
You dehumanize yourself with your own rhetoric.
I tell you what Barry- if calling someone a liar who isn't one counts as lying- then you are personally responsible for the vast majority of lies on here.
RG: One survey showed that 95% of the people consider themselves to be middle class regardless of their income level, which is why every politician is for the middle class.
I've noticed that myself :) I find it kind of amusing.
RG: Second, if a person who makes less than the required amount to pay taxes works at a job where they have a retirement plan, the money in the retirement plan will be taxed when it is taken out at capital gains rates.
I thought that Obama had said that the capital gains tax increase would include some sort of 'means testing' (I think that's the right term.) so that people who were below a set level for annual income wouldn't be affected.
RG: Third, there will not be sufficient money to finance Obama's healthplan by using electronic medical records... This all means increased payroll taxes, everyone pays those.
I agree that he doesn't account for the funds he needs here- but why payroll taxes? Isn't it more likely that he'd just run up more debt instead? That's the sort of thing I meant when I questioned his raising taxes on people who aren't well to do (if you consider $250K as the 'well-to-do' line).
RG: Death taxes affect poor people more than rich people.
That's not consistent with what I heard on NPR. I don't remember the exact number, but I thought that estate taxes only affected people who left over a $1M or so.
You probably know more about economics than I. Even though it was a major gaffe, I identified with McCain when he said that he needed to know more about the economy. It always seemed to me that there were so many variables involved and so much capacity for irrational behavior that it wasn't a real science, and I never found it very interesting.
Stop making person attacks if you don't want to be accused of making personal attacks. How bout that?
As for the "life" issue being promoted by a self-described 'atheist' your lates erratic post is a lot to believe. But I will take you at your word that this is a real concern for you.
First of all, Obama believes that it's a woman's choice to decide what to do with her body. That doesn't mean he's pro-abortion. He's not. Biden put it best when he said he accepts the Catholic teaching about when life begins but recognizes it's not something that is scientific. When a soul is born can never be proven scientifically, as any good Atheist knows, and it's a religous teaching. Biden doesn't believe religious teaching should be legislated.
My personal belief is that God put the baby in the woman's body on purpose. He didn't put it on her shoulder or in an egg that could be taken from the woman and sat on inside a government icubator until it hatched. By putting the egg, then the fetus inside the mother, God gave the mother the decision and the power. I am personally against abortion and support policies that both discourage abortion and encourage life. Abortion is and should be a difficult decision, not one that is made casually.
Rich people have always had access to safe, discreet abortions and always will no matter what the law is. They can simply travel to wherever in the world it's safe and legal.
We don't need to oppress women again or kill doctors who provide this medical service.
Doesn't Obama say that of you have an income <$250K, then your taxes decrease? From what you said, it sounds like that isn't true if your income is above $173K.
BK: Obama's plan also eliminates all income taxation for seniors making under $50K.
Does that include capital gains taxes?
Do you know what the minimum amount is before estate taxes are levied? I thought that it was a lot.
BK: Obama - add new 4% SS tax for income over $250K, taking effect after 2018.
If it takes place after his administration would end (even assuming a 2nd term), then isn't it meaningless?
BK: McCain: maintain current 15% tax on capital gains and dividends.
Obama: increase rate to 20% tax on capital gains and dividends.
Is that regardless of your annual income?
On LRC, Matt said something about increasing SS payroll taxes hurting small businesses, but I don't know what he meant. Can you explain?BD: Stop making person attacks if you don't want to be accused of making personal attacks. How bout that?
BD: As for the "life" issue being promoted by a self-described 'atheist' your lates erratic post is a lot to believe. But I will take you at your word that this is a real concern for you.
BD: First of all, Obama believes that it's a woman's choice to decide what to do with her body. That doesn't mean he's pro-abortion. He's not.
BD: Biden put it best when he said he accepts the Catholic teaching about when life begins but recognizes it's not something that is scientific.
BD: When a soul is born can never be proven scientifically, as any good Atheist knows, and it's a religous teaching. Biden doesn't believe religious teaching should be legislated.
BD: My personal belief is that God put the baby in the woman's body on purpose.
BD: He didn't put it on her shoulder or in an egg that could be taken from the woman and sat on inside a government icubator until it hatched. By putting the egg, then the fetus inside the mother, God gave the mother the decision and the power.
BD: I am personally against abortion and support policies that both discourage abortion and encourage life.
BD: Rich people have always had access to safe, discreet abortions and always will no matter what the law is. They can simply travel to wherever in the world it's safe and legal.
BD: We don't need to oppress women again or kill doctors who provide this medical service.
PS- thanks for the explanation :)
Wow, you're all over the place Ockraz. But I think I made my points fairly clearly.
When a soul comes into the body is a religious teaching, not a scientific one.
Religion is personal; it's not a state or federal issue.
I think most people agree with me on that, at least, so I'm not sure what we're actually arguing about.
If we're arguing about which party will work to defeat Roe v Wade, on paper that is clearly the Republicans.
But the Republicans elite, who are primarily driven by financial considerations, don't really care about abortion either. Like I said before, the wealthy will get their abortions one way or the other.
But as an intern in a Republican office 20 years ago, i tried to get them to pusht he Abortion issue. I had done a Pro-Life research thesis in my honor poli-sci course. Everytime I raised the issue they coaxed me in another direction.
Of course, I have changed my view of Choice over the years even though personally i'm still opposed to abortion.
As far as Means testing distributions from IRA/401k, how do you decide "means"? Since in retirement your income may be only from your IRA/401k, you could be fairly wealthy but only take a small amount out of your retirement in a given year or you could have a huge retirement savings from having led a frugal life and decide to take out large sums per year to enjoy retirement.
I think saying it effects "poor" might be an overstatement but it does effect people who are middle class and working hard. If a person dies who owns a large amount of assets (for example, a couple of hardware stores worth $2Million) this could force heirs to have to sell assets or take a huge loan in order to pay the tax(several $100K) if there isn't that much in liquid cash laying around because many small business owners put all their profits into their business.
The exemption used to be larger for farms but some family farms can be worth millions, especially if their farm in in proximity to a growing city.
BD: Wow, you're all over the place Ockraz.
Most elected officials don't even pay attention to their Party Platforms. Platform statements and primary elections are time when the base of a party argues among themselves over their policy beliefs and ideals. It's quite natural and appropriate for candidates to argue they are the best person to pursue those ideals and that they best represent their party and have the best chance to win.
It's equally natural for both party's to move to the center during the general election. Moving to the center is just another way of saying that you are trying to get the non-party members or "independents" to vote for your side. If they already agreed with everything the party believes, they'd be Repubican or Democrat already.
That's why it's so bizarre that instead of moving to the center, like Obama has done, McCain chose to take a hard Right. He did this most overtly by choosing pro-life superstar Palin even though she represents the most extreme wing of the party.
How is that being a maverick?
BD: I think I made my points fairly clearly.
I dont know what tell you except that i was pretty clear. Very few people on the planet support abortion. Most people are opposed to it. But they think it should be the woman's decision not yours, Ockraz. Is that really so hard for you to understand? Or must everything be intellectualized?
So, riddle me this: Is the day-after pill actually a form of abortion? Is birth-control bad, too, in your opinion? How can the Catholic Church be opposed to something that prevents something else they are opposed to?
If you want to intellectualize and dehumanize it, what would happen if the whole world adopted the Catholic position on abortion? Don't you think China already has enough people? What about India? Will there be enough resources to support everyone? Won't fights over the world's limited resources just continue?
BD: Most elected officials don't even pay attention to their Party Platforms.
Of course they do! The platform is created by the advocacy groups that make up the coalition which is the base of the party. Anyone who wants the support of their base has to try to make them happy, and the platform is their wishlist.
More to the point- you seem to characterize my political views as erratic because they incorporate elements that are traditionally advocated by groups that don't get along. My point was that those groups tend to cooperate in large part because we have a two party state and they are thrown together in a struggle for power. They aren't natural allies, so why should a free thinking person pick views that belong to the left or the right when the left or the right isn't intellectually coherent?
As far as the judges go, you mentioned the NRA earlier. The most recent court decision -- which i agreed with -- basically made it up out of whole cloth.
They basically ruled that individuals have the right to own arms for personal defense and hunting, but that this right was not unlimited. They said it's ok to regulate guns but not to forbid them.
Scalia had to go back to English history to justify his ruling.
BD: It's so bizarre that instead of moving to the center, like Obama has done, McCain chose to take a hard Right. He did this most overtly by choosing pro-life superstar Palin even though she represents the most extreme wing of the party. How is that being a maverick?
It isn't. McCain's being a maverick endeared him to centrists in the past (like you), but it also estranged him from elements of the base. Given the climate this election cycle and the unpopularity of the war, he needed the base and couldn't count on the centrists who used to support him.
It was a calculated political move to try to win the election, and if it hadn't been for the financial crisis, it might have worked.
When the election was about foreign policy, he could have won. When it was about the price of energy, he could have won. When it became about real estate investments and global finance and credit markets, his candidacy imploded. I wouldn't bet on him winning at ten to one odds, and I'm still not sure I'm going to vote for him.
#1) I think that everything should be intellectuallized. The more so the better. As a Bright (the preferred term- 'atheist' defines you as something you aren't, not what you are), I think that we are animals, but not MERELY animals. Our intellect makes the difference. Politics suffers not from to much intellectualizing but too little. ('I'd have a beer with candidate X.' or 'Candidate Y seems really cool.' too many people vote on this nonsense.)
#2) You are not opposed to abortion. Why do people insist on this stupid trope? Look, I'm dry (a teetotaller), but that doesn't make me against liquor. If I wanted to bring prohibition back then I'd be against liquor.
What does it mean when you say that you are against abortion? That you won't have one? That you'd council others not to have them? You are in favor of keeping it available to those who want it. That's not being against it. You just personally dislike abortion (I guess).
The correct term (though not the one usually used)- is 'right to life', not pro-life. Everyone says pro-life, but that doesn't really tell you anything. (Who is against life?) By the same token, pro-choice is meaningless (school choice; choice to own guns- to legally use drugs- to marry whomever you choose?). Sometimes people say 'abortion-rights', and that makes a lot more sense.
You are a supporter of 'abortion-rights' and an opponent of a 'right-to-life'.
"Very few people on the planet support abortion."
That's just sloppy semiotics masquerading as ideology.
BD: what would happen if the whole world adopted the Catholic position
BD: How can the Catholic Church be opposed to something that prevents something else they are opposed to?
BD: What would happen if the whole world adopted the Catholic position on abortion? Don't you think China already has enough people? What about India? Will there be enough resources to support everyone? Won't fights over the world's limited resources just continue?
BD: Is birth-control bad, too, in your opinion?
That's a leap! I can believe that human life shouldn't be disposable, despite not believing in god, but why would I care two shakes about gametes?
You said before that when human life begins hasn't been decided. I think that that is something that (as Mr. X would say) you pulled out of your rear. However, gametes aren't human life. They aren't humans. (Unlike fetuses, they lack half of our genome.) They don't even meet the traditional criteria for life. (Fetuses can grow, and as long as they are healthy they can reproduce.)
The most important point (IMO) is one you still haven't addressed. Why are you assuming that abortion is a church/state issue. I believe in freedom of conscience as an absolute. (In an earlier age, people who thought as I do could have been persecuted for it, after all.) Where's the connection to abortion? Is euthanasia a religious issue too? It is controversial in pretty secular cultures in Western Europe.
When I brought up abolitionism, I meant it. You're employing the genetic fallacy here (which I guess is an improvement over your constant ad hominem attacks). Just because the genesis of an ideological movement was tied to religious groups, doesn't mean that there is anything essentially religious about the ideology. The right-to-life movement is led largely by Catholics and Evangelicals, but the abolition movement was led originally by Quakers, Methodists and Baptists. You're probably familiar with the 'Am I not a man and a brother' medallions. There is no reason why we could not see people today with 'Am I not human and a child' buttons instead of the little feet pins. Both movements are political and (despite finding strongest support in churches) not essentially religious.BD: As far as the judges go, you mentioned the NRA earlier. The most recent court decision -- which i agreed with -- basically made it up out of whole cloth.
Well then, you and I are at least consistent in this regard. I didn't agree with the ruling. You favor judicial activism, and I don't. I think that it is anti-democratic.
In the case you're mentioning, I think that the strict interpretation of the intent of the 2nd amendment would grant that there is a right to gun ownership, but the right is politically motivated (In other words, it isn't about defense against crime.) I don't think that the 'only in militias' argument is legitimate, because my take is that the founders were concerned not just with defense against foreign enemies, but also against domestic tyranny. I think that it was specified as a right to safeguard against a state which would render citizens unable to physically resist their own government should it become tyrranical. Therefore, since the D.C. ban allowed ownership in the home if you had a 'long gun' and it was trigger-locked (or disassembled), then it should not have violated the second amendment.
Barack Obama took a moment this morning to thank John McCain for attempting to rein in his angry crowd yesterday. “Senator McCain tried to tone down the rhetoric,” Obama told a rally in Philadelphia today. “I appreciate his reminder that we can disagree while being respectful of each other.” McCain had asked his crowd to exercise such respect and quickly cut off a supporter who called Obama “an Arab terrorist.”
You brought up the comparison to slavery. It is wrong to hold a human being responsible to another against their will. That idea could be applied to an unwilling woman who finds herself bearing a child. The reason the abortion issue is so intractable is that it places the freedom of two human beings in opposition to one another. Individual freedoms are non-negotiable and inalienable, so we're at a permanent stalemate.
Here's another metaphor: suppose you receive a phone call from a hospital. A young child is dying of a disease, and you have been determined to be the only suitable donor of an organ that will save the child's life. Would you do it? I'm sure you would. Many people would be happy to do so.
But is it right that the government makes it mandatory that you give up an organ? You must undergo surgery, submit to a painful hospital stay, perhaps lose job opportunities, etc. Oh by the way, did we mention that you're required to pay for this operation, too. Shouldn't you have the freedom to choose in this situation? Even if your choice may lead to the death of another human being?
Another nuance to the abortion issue is that many of the most vocal people in the Pro-Life movement also oppose family planning education, availability of birth control, public assistance for pre-natal and post-natal care, and support for adoption services. All factors that are proven to reduce the number of abortions.
If people who oppose abortions were practical instead of ideological, they should promote programs that reduce the demand for abortions by supporting real alternatives. This suggests to me that the Pro-Life movement is more religious in origin instead of political.
I support Pro-Choice. We cannot resolve the tie between the unborns right to live and the woman's right to choose when and if she bears a child. Since that's a tie, we must decide based on other grounds. Our society supports individuals' rights in many cases, such as freedom of religion, freedom to vote, innocent until proven guilty, etc. I count a woman's right to choose if she will bear a child among these kinds of individual freedoms. Society and government must not have the power to impose that choice on the individual woman.
There have been inappropriate things said by third parties about McCain too, that he's old or crazy or whatever. But the things said about Obama aren't merely unfair, they're false. The pointed accusations that Obama is a Muslim aren't merely false, they're racist. Every time Obama is referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama" on the media or when introducing a John McCain speech (as happened twice last week) is not only perpetuating a false rumor that Obama is Muslim (or at least foreign), but it unfairly casts all Muslims as villains, and that's pure bigotry.
John McCain denounces this kind of rhetoric only sporadically, and a very lukewarm fashion. My belief is that privately, he is disgusted by the racism, but his campaign message handlers, like Steve Schmidt, have told him to let it happen. It actually does help him, among certain voters at least, to allow xenophobia to go on.
How about Madonna flashing a picture of McCain and Hitler together?
Just because Obama's campaign says they're not attacking McCain doesn't make it so.
Neither is Obama responsible for Madonna's provocative messages. There's no reason to believe that the Obama campaign had anything to do with her diatribes.
If you're going to hold Obama responsible for what Madonna says, I guess we should hold John McCain responsible for the rhetoric of other entertainers who make their living from shock value, like Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. I'm not suggesting either would be appropriate -- my intent by making that comparison is to show clearly how inappropriate that would be.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
Why should Obama be asked to retract Lewis' statement? Lewis is a member of the HOR and McCain is a big boy and if he wants a retraction he should ask of it from Lewis himself.
Also, I am not sure that McCain deserves a retraction anyway. He is doing exactly what Lewis said he was doing and that is he is fomenting hate at his rallies. While he doesn't control his mobs, he does control the rhetorical lead up to when he asks the question, "Who is Barack Obama?"
Before that question gets asked, Palin has given her speech where she links him to a known domestic terrorist, but doesn't mention that he only met the guy on a board set up by Annenber (a republican) to improve education in Chicago, then says that Obama doesn't share our values and lets the listeners connect the dots that if he pals aroudn with Ayers, and he doesn't share our values, and we heard in the introduction his middle name "Hussain", then Obama must be a terrorist. So when John McCain asks the question, "Who is Barack Obama?" he is begging for that answer "A terrorist!" because his speech writers set it up that way.
They want to have plausible deniability. John McCain never said Obama was a terrorist. It is the uncontrollable crowd that did. Let's not all be so naive here on the LRC blogs. This is very good rehtorical manipulation on the part of the McCain/Palin speech writers so bravo to them for being so manipulative. However, this is exaclty how hate speech begins. This was true for Wallace, David Duke, when he woudl speak to his non-KKK crowds and even for Hitler.
Do I think that McCain is as prejudiced as Wallace, Duke or Hitler. Absolutely not. I actually think he is, or was, a decent guy. However, I think he wants to win at any cost and he is putting aside his ethical compass and has put himself on a slippery slope of accepting an ever increasing level of hate mongering rhetoric.
In the end, I think it is a mistake as I think it will energize his base, but turn off the independents.
Ockraz, again I think everything I said was very clear. You're trying way to hard to slice and dice everything I say. I can't imagine anyone else is reading your counterpoints to me--I'm only scanning through them myself.
It's simply a fact that being Pro-Choice doesn't make you Pro-Abortion, hence the name, pro "choice".
How's that any harder to believe than a Pro-Life Atheist, which you purport to be.
We have seen plenty of HATE from the left.
Michelle Malkin lists tons in one blog post:
The Atlantic Photographer posting pictures of McCain with blood and fangs
Sandra Bernhard fantasizing about Palin going to New York and getitng gang raped.
The Madanna McCain, Hitler comparison.
Abort Sara Palin stickers
The democratic underground website filled with plenty of hate
But some yahoos call Obama some bad names at a McCain event and the press goes unhinged. Yet they go out of their way to avoid pointing out and out hate coming from the left.
What about all those left wing protesters?
McCain=War criminal?
Protesters arrested with feces?
But it's only the right wingers that get any notice.
I am Stan H and am not Ackraz, Barry Dalton, Right Guy or Mr. X
For a program that exists as an alternative to screaming talking heads, there sure are a lot of that activity on this blog. Is there anyway that individuals can just email each other if they are going to take over the blog, particularly with insults. There is a link to do that.
I am very concerned about the ugliness and anger which we are seeing out of the Republican rallies and postings on blogs, particularly those that contain demeaning names for Obama, Obamassiah, O-bam-bam, Obomanation, Obambi, a new one on this blog bacarama bin laden. Ot many references to him as "litttle," starting perhaps with Limbaugh's "little black man child." And of course the repetition of his middle name Hussein which is also the name of the high negative leader about whom we are embroiled in a 2 wars in Iraq. You may have seen the lady from West Virginia on the Daily Show who said "I don't like Hussein." Plus all the booing, cries of traitor and off with his head. And all the may stream of consciousness narratives that these people construct out of straws, most recently how the Dems, Obama and Acorn caused the economic meltdown, and these narratives about Ayers and Obama which are trying to unleash all the sixties social conflict and negativity. And all the stuff about how Obama is a Marxist, socialist radical instead of a cautious Ivy Legaue lawyer whose nuanced ideas put people to sleep (try to make a sound bite out of his 12 point health care plan).
This is really an issue about the role of the so called conservative Republican "base" whose virulent emotional energy has empowered Republican victories, and particularly Bush's. McCain was not their candidate, and his first need after winning the nomination was to get them on board. That is why he picked Palin, the self described "pit bull with lipstick," to rile them up with her demeaning attacks. Generally the candidate has surrogates such as the VP candidate do the negative stuff while he stays looking presidential. However, McCain also needs to separate himself from Bush, and from those elements of the "base" that turn off independent voters, and to make his case that he is a new kind of Republican leader given the disasterous experience of Bush's 8 years. And McCain has never been a "base" kind of guy although he supported Bush 90% of the time. That may make you a maverick in Republican circles where party cohesive party discipline has been the road to power. He may not like or want to encourage that level of emotionality. But the base is not happy, and that leaves him in a quandry.
For all the talk about reaching across the aisle, it is hard to imagine any positive response from these people, even to McCain, let alone Obama. Democracy is in trouble under such situations. We need to ask why society produces so many people like this, perhaps by being demeaning and devaluing within a society that operates by demeaning and devaluing, and where the only way out is to devalue and demean others. What kind of democratic system can you have when people are that unwilling to participate in a larger society?
"Bimbo" was not the right term for Scheer to use for Palin
What we see in the Ayres controversy is the same pattern as we did in the Wright controversy, initial denial and partial, orchestrated answers. Unlike Wright, Obama cannot come out and give a speech about race relations in America, can he give a speech about being more understanding about a guy who still would like to bomb the capital? Obama's only defense is to make the McCain campaign's accusations appear vicious and baseless.
The crux of the matter is not, why did Obama pick Ayres? We should be asking, why did Ayres pick Obama? We know Ayres still carries his radical opinion of America and it is only reasonable to conclude that Ayres would select someone who shared his views to head the distribution of his foundation grant and to do a campaign fund raiser for. Can we honestly say that Bill Ayres, unrepentant terrorist, would host a campaign fund raiser for someone who does not share his view? The simple answer is, no.
How can you refute the video evidence? If calling Obama a scary Arab who pals around with terrorists is not hate-speech, what is it?
I wait on the edge of my seat for your reasonable and rationale response.
You can lean back on your seat now, Barry.
If you cared at all about facts, you would know that it was a Reagan pal who funded the board which Ayers was only an advisor to and which Obama chaired for awhile.
The funder of the board was publishing magnate Walter Annenberg, a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain.
Among the other board members who served with Obama were: Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Journalism, and a host of other mainstream folks.
Among the groups funded by the board were:
Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children's Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.
I'm sorry. Are once again promulgating the lie that Obama is a Muslim?
"because she couldn't recall the word Muslim"
I'm still on the edge of my seat, waiting...
We were talking about how Palin, primarily, and also McCain inflamed tensions that led to the event and other events you described. Even today I saw a photo of a man at a Palin rally carrying a monkey doll with Obama's name on it.
But I suppose this shouldnt be a surprise.
The McCain/Palin ticket is the first in American history in which both candidates were found to have violated ethics standards by a legislative body controlled by their own party.
McCain, of course, was admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee "for exercising 'poor judgment' for intervening" with federal regulators on behalf of Charles Keating.
And now Palin has also been found to have violated state ethics laws in Alaska by a Republican legislature.
The nation has had 102 major-party tickets covering 51 presidential elections over more than two centuries. And this has never happened before.
We better start some more distractions...
Thank you for not being sarcastic.
First, who cares that Palin wanted a bad cop fired after he tazered a kid and drinks on the job and threatened her family.
Second, the democratic, independent prosecutor in the Keating affair still says that McCain should have been dropped from the investigation, but the committee that should be listening to their independent prosecutor failed to heed his recommendation because the other four senators were all democrats. It was one of the few times a senate committe went against the advice of their own independent prosecutor.
So let's get back to why Bill Ayers had a close relationship with Obama.
One wrinkle on the Ayers controversy is that this guy may be a model of what we better hope happens in Iraq, namely people engaged in violent militancy lay down their weapons, get involved in nonviolent political activity to further their political aims and beliefs. For all this talk of him being an "unrepentent terrorist" he is a professor, has gotten civic awards in Chicago and no one has accused him of blowing up anything for decades. Whether he denounces violence in theory (most Americans and both candidates do not) he has certainly abandoned it in practice. Plus he was never even convicted of any violence, although it appears the government harmed its case against him by its own misconduct, which might also tell us something. So it seems like he may be a model ex-offender, another thing America could use more of given its incarceration rates which are among the highest in the world.
Again this narrative that Ayers is some kind of James Bond villain mastermind pulling Obama's strings seems like fantasy, These boards they were on were filled with high profile academics, business people and lawyers. I have been on a couple of low profile boards involving jail ministry and community work and I am sure there are some ex-offenders involved. That doesn't mean I endorse the crimes they committed. At most Ayers raised some money for Obama's early campaign, donated $200, and will probably vote for him. He and everyone else has one vote. All politicians including Obama and McCain come into contact with some people who are or at some time have been up to no good. The whole politics of denouncing someone (past subjects in various presidential campaigns include Farrakhan, Sister Soulja, Playboy Magazine, various talk radio hosts, and most recently extent Rep. John Lewis) to prove that you are ok is oversimplistic and hypocritical.
It seems like the right is trying to nitpick Obama's memory ("We don't care that much about what happened. Not us. We just want to know if he is telling the truth.") in order to unleash the passions about the sixties that have dominated politics ever since. Maybe they hope the photo of Ayers in his Weather Underground days will stir the passions the way the photo of Willie Horton did for Bush I. But he's not the same guy, any more than anyone else is.
Today columnist David Brooks, usually a reliable conservative pundit, suggests that the Republicans have hurt themselves by doing "class warfare" (which of course they usually accuse the Democrats of doing) pushing away the educated part of their traditional constituency, suburban business people. Still the race remains amazingly close given how badly Bush has done and how few of McCain's "maverick" votes were in subjects of concern to voters. I guess Obama is a tough embrace, even you ignore his cultural differences. In anxious times, you want a leader who is strong, smart but also feels peoples pain and might think twice about causing it. Clinton gets some ridicule about this, but he was more successful in showing that human side than Obama has been.
An intersting part of the last show was talking about the economic future and how the way we run the financial system might change (Miller gave a long paen on this.) It was all somewhat vague as there was more talk about Adam Smith and ancient theories of capitalism. Those were all written before there were derivatives and CDOs, although there have long been bubbles and heavy doses of irrationality in markets. Could you reserve 5 minutes or so to talk about some more details?
It wasn't a Democratic Board. That's just not true. And she fired a member of her cabinet, I believe. Not her "board." And he was a Republican.
In any case, the bi-partisan committee said Palin violated ethics laws, but that she was permitted to fire her staff for any reason, even an unethical one.
I'd like to appologize for any insults I've made against anyone. I will try to not make personal attacks or points of honor in the future.
In fact, I may vote for McCain, because I know what it's like to be a maverick now. Nobody seems to like me -- Left, Right or Center. Even "the man" has privately and now publicly scolded me.
I confess I just don't get it. I don't see how anything I've posted would keep others from posting. Most of my posts are fairly short and can just be skipped over.
Constructively, I think it would be a great idea to limit how many posts anyone can make per day. I also think there should be a word limit. That's just my 2 cents.
I'll try to keep it clean and impersonal in the future so as not to scare anybody away from this great podcast, which I really enjoy even if they have been squabbling a lot lately.
You should read Bill Ayers' own blog clarifying his statements and condemning terrorism. Obama has also made clear statements that he strongly condemns the violence committed by the Weathermen, as he does all violence. You shouldn't believe all (or perhaps any) of what you hear on Fox News.
By comparison, John McCain was a very close friend of Charles Keating, received $112K in political donations from Keating, and accepted trips on Keating's jets (McCain paid for the trips later, when things got sticky). McCain played a minor role in Keating's S&L fraud crime, which cost the taxpayers more than $3 billion. John McCain was cleared of wrongdoing, but mildly rebuked, by the Senate Ethics Committee.
The response to Fox News obsessing about Bill Ayers is, not surprisingly, for opponents to bring up Charles Keating, complete with exaggerations similar to those used in the claims of an Obama-Ayers relationship. So I'm surprised McCain supporters want to bring up this issue of past criminal associations, because if anything, McCain had a much closer association with Charles Keating than Obama had with Bill Ayers.
John McCain has admitted that the Keating episode was the greatest mistake of his life, and that should be enough for us to trust that McCain learned a lot about Senatorial ethics from the affair. In fact, McCain devoted a lot of his career to ethics reform in years after that.
So people can reform and make amends for their mistakes, can't they? The Obama-Ayers issue is a dog that won't hunt. It's a distraction.
By-the-way, just because I'm conservative, doesn't mean that I develop my views from Fox News. It is presumptive and of a restricted view point on your part.
Why don't you go to National Review and read through some of Stanley Kurtz's articles. At least he is basing his articles on researching the documents instead of what Obama's campaign is feeding him like the NY Times.
Yes, I agree. After I worte that, I thought
Nowhere in that linked blog was Bill Ayers condemning what he did in the 60's and 70's. He didn't say, "I was wrong." I got the impression that he considered all US use of force to be 'terrorism' which is what he condemns.
Interesting quotes:
He seems to justifies his violence in part because the Vietnam War itself was so violent and unjust, which to my mind is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.
This reminds me of an interview I heard with a veteran journalist (I recall it was Seymour Hersh). He said that he's interviewed a lot of people who did criminal acts, but none of these perpetrators ever feels they did anything wrong.
In any case, none of this should reflect on Barack Obama. The claim is guilt-by-association claims against Barack Obama for working with Bill Ayers twenty years after Ayers perpetrated violent acts. I think McCain supporters should think twice before going down the guilt-by-association path.
Again, we should question why, when Ayres continues to express his radical views, did he choose Obama to manage his grant funds for 10 years and gave him a coming out party for his first political activity. Ayres would not support someone who did not share his views and that's very troubling to me. The fact that Obama purposefully hid his association and continues to do so is troubling to me.
So far, trooper-gate has gotten much more investigation and press time than the Obama-Ayres association. The least that should be done is to impartially investigate this association and for Obama to freely come forward with all information.
Rightguy, you can work the refs all you want. you can fool the moderator with how intellectual and respect you pretend to be.
But you are lieing. Why don't you just stop it and talk about the issues?
The issues:
1. McCain has repeatedly lied during his run for the presidency.
2. Palin is a rightwing, religious zealot who was prayed over by a witchdoctor and in turn credited him with her election.
3. McCain and Palin have both been convicted of ETHICS VIOLATIONS - whether that was unfair in your little opinion is irrelevant.
4. McCain will give more tax breaks to the very rich while Obama will reduce taxes for the rest of us.
5. McCain and Palin hope to end Roe v Wade and criminalize women in trouble and the doctors that help them.
6. McCain has been erratic in his reactions to the economic crisis, literally changing his mind and his public positions daily. "Suspending his campaign", which he never did, was just a cheap political gimmick.
7. McCain is a neocon. He cheerleaded the unneccessary invasion of Iraq and said it would be easy...he now says he knew all along it would be difficult.
8. McCain bragged repeatedly during the primaries how much he supported Bush all the time. Now, he wants to throw Bush under the bus. Just because Bush is willing to eat his treads, doesn't make it honest.
9. McCain has horrible temper that is not suitable for the presidency. There is too much evidence for this to ignore.
10. McCain has associated with and is still actively supported by countless rightwing radicals and racists.
ShanH, I know you and I aren't pals, but you seem an honest broker. Instead of buying into this hokey Ayers argument than even the McCain has dropped for now, can you tell me the "real deal" on McCain's gambling? If he really does have a big gambling problem, why isn't there more about it in the media? Why are the protecting McCain?
Federal law and Senate rules require all income to be reported on annual financial disclosure reports. The Senate Ethics Manual states that winnings, such as those derived from a lottery or a game show, are gifts that must be reported as income. Knowingly filing a false report is a crime punishable by up to five years in jail.
Nevertheless, Sen. McCain reported no income derived from gambling on the personal financial disclosure reports he filed with the Senate between 2000 and 2007.
In contrast, other members of Congress, including Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) all reported winnings on their financial disclosure reports.
Given Sen. McCain’s long history of gambling, the fact that he never included gambling income on his financial disclosure forms suggests he is either the unluckiest gambler ever or, more likely, he failed to report the income.
Given McCains ethics convictions in the past, shouldn't the Senate Ethics Committee investigate whether Sen. McCain deliberately failed to report gambling winnings? Shouldn't this be done BEFORE we elect this guy?
Shouldn't it be turned over to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation? Gambling is controled by organized crime, isn't it?
Check out the Wall Street Journal analysis of Obama's 95% tax cut. It's on line from today's issue.
It explains the difference between tax credit and tax cuts.
When has McCain been "convicted" of ethics violations? Not in the keating 5 scandal.
From the New York Times: "During a 14-month Senate ethics investigation that ended with his exoneration..."
I see the logic: give tax credits for specific expenses, because not everyone has the same expenses, and so not everyone has the same need for help. It's what Obama referred to as the "scalpel" -- identify the areas of greatest pain and give help there. It's better than giving everyone the same tax cut, on the logic that a tax cut across the board would still be inadequate to help some people, while giving too much relief to people who don't need it as much.
I also see the logic in phasing out the credits for people with higher income. Why give assistance to people who can already afford their expenses?
But the marginal tax rate graph shown in that article demonstrates that some tweaking in the phase-out formulas is needed, to avoid creating a disincentive for people to raise their income.
Likewise, Sarah Palin has not been convicted of anything at this time, but last week's report found that she violated Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. It's not clear from the media reports whether that's an actionable offense. I wonder how that's going to play out.
www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=McCain%20Gambling&st=cse&oref=slogin
The Palin thing just doesn't hold my imagination. The Trooper in question should have been fired and I really don't care if she fired a member of her cabinet. It just doesn't come across as corruption to me.
I've heard several "talking heads" compare the economic situation of the last few weeks to the Great Depression.
Here's a question for discussion:
I've heard several "talking heads" compare the economic situation of the last few weeks to the Great Depression. Consider that WWII got the U.S. out of GD. My question is would it have helped or hurt our economics if the U.S. passed a draft bill for the present war?
Personal story: A relative of mine runs a store and does taxes for some low income people who work there. One young single mother is a hairdresser and lives with her Mother (who works at the store). The Young lady quit her job part way through the year to keep from earning too much money so she could get her EIC (Earned Income Tax Credit) because if you earn too much you can loose the credit. When she got the credit refund she spent it on spa treatments(much to her Mothers dismay).
I am not saying that all or even most EIC recipients do this but that's the problem with the EIC, it's just free money to poor people who may not be very good at managing money to begin with. A proposal was made years ago to change the EIC so that it would be paid out monthly but that proposal was shot down. I think that was a great idea and would have helped the poor.
Looking up effective marginal tax rate in Wikipedia leads you to what is called a "Welfare Trap," which has a net effect of keeping the very people you want to help down. Obama's tax plan fits the explanation of a Welfare Trap perfectly. This is troubling because during the Saddleback debate Obama cited his greatest mistake to be opposing welfare cuts during the Clinton administration and how he now saw that it proved beneficial in the long run. Either Obama does not understand that his tax plan sets up the economically disadvantage for the same trap or he doesn't care. If it's the former, he has poor judgment. If it's the latter, he is proposing his tax plan as a election bribe.
Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz. was one of Keating's most loyal friends in Congress. DeConcini set up a meeting with five senators and the regulators investing Keatings crooked S&L to demand they leave Keating alone. Keating was McCain's biggest contributor and fundraiser.
McCain had previously paid Keating back by co-sponsoring "a resolution to delay new regulations designed to curb risky investments."
Even if loyalists would forgive McCain for the first meeting, (where he sat silently as improper demands were made), even conservative Republicans were disturbed by McCain's attendance at the second meeting.
Together, the five had accepted more than $300,000 in contributions from Keating, with McCain receiving the most.
On Oct. 8, 1989, The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.
The paper also reported that the McCains had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat. McCain, of course, didn't pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.
"You're a liar," McCain said when a Republic reporter asked him about the business relationship between his wife and Keating.
In McCain's book, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain confesses to "ridiculously immature behavior" and adds that The Republic reporters' "persistence in questioning me about the matter provoked me to rage."
Among the Keating Five, McCain took the most direct contributions from Keating. Because of McCain's friend, taxpayers lost more than $2 billion on the bailout.
McCain said: "It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."
DeConcini said: "Thanks to the three Democrats on the committee and perhaps with the help of Senator (Jesse) Helms (R-N.C.), however, the charges remained in place for all the senators under investigation."
McCain owns up to his mistake this way: "I was judged eventually, after three years, of using, quote, poor judgment, and I agree with that assessment."
Source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter7.html
One of the main causes of the Great Depression was that an unsustainable economic boom was essentially paid for "on credit," adding to immense debt.
This matches the pattern we've seen in the 2000's, where both the government and consumers added to their respective debt at unprecedented rates. The sub-prime housing debacle is part of it, but one could argue that the whole practice of home equity borrowing is too.
Also, George W. Bush did something else unprecedented: he waged an expensive war at the same time as making huge tax cuts, but he didn't ask the American people to sacrifice their lifestyle to support the war effort, as was done in WWII. So Bush has paid for both the tax cuts and the war by borrowing, in the same unsustainable way that consumers were doing.
So while the WWII wartime economy gets some credit as a remedy for the Great Depression, the War in Iraq more closely resembles the cause.
Further to the discussion as to what has caused the meltdown, I recommend Bill Moyers interview with George Soros, from last week.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10102008/watch.html
According to Mr. Soros, the housing crisis was a mini bubble and when it burst it detonated the big bubble which had been building for some 25 years .
This has the ring of truth for me. I could never get my head around the idea that the housing market alone could have been the cause of this credit collapse.
Apart from the mortgage backed assets, there were many other overleveraged, poorly backed financial instruments that precipitated the ultimate crash. All because of reduced regulation and poor oversight over many years, but escalating over the past 8 or so.
Even Bob Dole, not known for being soft-spoken has confirmed McCain's erratic personality.
Dole told Larry King that McCain "does have a... I guess you could say temper. But I always sort of rationalized that because the poor guy had been locked up" in a tiny cell for six years.
McCain himself admitted it in 2002:
In McCain's book, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain confesses to "ridiculously immature behavior" and adds that reporters' "persistence in questioning me about the matter provoked me to rage."
These are not isolated incidents, and McCain shouldn't get a pass just because he's admitted to it. Does OJ get a pass if he admits he did it? Of course not.
In any case, it's not the kind of circumspect, responsible behavior I would like to see from the president or vice-president in the White House. We've seen what happens when the VP feels free to do his own will, without regard for laws or public appearances. The results include holding prisoners without due process at Guantanamo, or moving them to other countries through extraordinary rendition. The outing of Valerie Plame. The fraud that led us into the War in Iraq.
A bigger issue was tight monetary policy by the Fed in the late 20's and early 30's was being being used to fight inflation but the problem was that the late 20's and early 30's was a period of deflation (remember you mentioned high Dept., deflation is your enemy if you are in debt.). Had the Fed used a loose monetary policy during this time many bank failures could have been avoided and we may have just gone through a recession.
What we are seeing today is the Fed going out of it's way to save banks. Matt Miller said in the Show that he favored the takeover of banks as we are not about to see. My concern about it right now is the arbitrary way it's being done, there doesn't seem to be any rules to which bank to save so that creates uncertainty.
Yes we waged a war but a difference between now and WWII is in scale, even with the war, our defense spending is only about 4% of GDP. The US went into debt in the 2000's but not just because of a war, lots of other spending has occurred, and you can blame bush and Republicans for that and it would be fair. The national Dept is high now but not anywhere near where it was in WWII and since the Iraq war is not the main cause.
I didn't catch a lot of it. What I was wondering was whether the secondary, credit card bubble is yet to come. Something's fishy, that's for sure.
I've heard some people attribute the malignant nature of the bad mortgages as "poisoning the system." That is, even though there were only a small percentage of bad loans, they were bundled with good ones, which then tainted the entire bundle. Since the loans in each bundle were highly mixed and remote for the original lendor, it was impossible to separate them. As a result, banks began refusing all such bundles.
Seems like it's the economist's hour, with each and every person coming out with their own theory. I suspect the most accurate appraisal was that we are still debating the cause of The Great Depression, so how can we completely understand the dynamics of our current dilemma?
Another top McCain aide is in the news today--William Timmons--for questionable ethics and dealing with terrorists for profit.
But, in Republican world, if you do something for profit, I suppose it's ok:
"The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government."
"Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism."
This is not guilt by Association--this is a dude McCain hired to oversee his transition team when he wins.
He's a close friend and confidant of John McCain.
He's from Pittsburgh's Steel Valley. He was raised in veterans' public housing in
Erie, Pennsylvania. He earned a scholarship to Harvard College,
where he paid his way through with construction work, played intramural
baseball and football, and graduated with honors in 1967.
He served as an infantry staff sergeant during the Vietnam War.
He earned the Bronze Star, National Defense Service
Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnam
Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.
He served as a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives
(1983–1995), Governor of Pennsylvania (1995–2001), and the first U.S. Secretary of
Homeland Security (2003–2005).
This is who John McCain passed over for Sarah Palin.
This is putting country first? How so?
She is a member of the Republican Party.
In 2001, she was named one of "The 30 most powerful women in America" by Ladies Home Journal.
She is the first woman to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate and the first Republican woman to
win election to the Senate by defeating an incumbent. She was the first in Texas history to poll more
than four million votes.
She received her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1967. She was the first female
onscreen newswoman in Texas.
She's a U.S. Sentator.
She was passed over my John McCain for Sarah Palin.
Is this putting country first? How so?
She was the youngest Republican woman ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives;
she is also the first woman to have served in both houses of a state legislature and both houses of the
U.S. Congress as well as the first Greek-American congresswoman.
Her early life contained much tragedy; her mother died of breast cancer when she was eight,
and her father died of heart disease barely a year later. Tragedy struck her again in 1973,
when her husband was killed in an automobile accident.
She was selected by Time as one of "America's 10 Best U.S. Senators" She was the only woman so recognized.
She is the fourth woman to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee
and the first to chair its seapower subcommittee, which oversees the Navy and Marine Corps.
She became the first Republican woman to secure a full-term seat on the Senate Finance Committee.
She has never lost an election in 35 years as an elected official,
and in the 2006 midterm senatorial elections, she won with a reported 73.99% of votes.
Her political popularity in her home state is the highest of any current U.S. Senator.
She was passed over my John McCain for Sarah Palin.
Is this putting country first? How so?
What do Tom Ridge, Kay Baily Hutchinson and Olympia Snowe all have in common?
They are all loyal Republicans.
They are all moderate or center-right.
They all have a centrist record that could unite a divided country.
They all have many years of experience on finance and foreign policy.
They are not Pro-Life.
So, when it comes to putting country first, John McCain only cares about whether or not they want to criminalize women in trouble and the doctors who help them.
That's putting country first? How so?
Hutchinson has a lifetime rating of 90 by the American Conservative Union so I would hardly call her a "Moderate or center-right"
So that's why McCain didn't choose her?
Palin was more experienced I guess.
I consider her center-right because she's not Pro-Life but conservative on everything else.
Duh.
It's a political decision. Unlike Obama, McCain isn't the party bases' first pick because he has opposed his party many times(McCain-Fingold campaign-finance reform, Gang of 14, McCain-Kennedy immigration-reform, McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act). Obama never goes against his party.
To Mr. Sheerer
Dear Ockraz,
Obama hasn't gone against his party because, except for the past two years, he's been in the minority.
In the past two years, he's been going up against Bush and McCain, because they have mostly been wrong.
I realize McCain tries to score cheap political points with gimmicks like McCain-Feingold, but he has never did so on the really important issues.
When it came to his most important decision, he chose a pro-lifer with little knowlege, intelligence or experience instead of an experienced person who happened to be pro-choice. He did so for calculated, political reasons, which you seem to admire.
Duh. I am disdainful and toward anyone who would criminalize women in trouble and then mock someone who doesn't use the terminology you want them to use.
Aren't you guy who just mocked me for saying "women in trouble" instead of pregnant?
Why don't you report me to the moderator and grow a pair.
That didn't last long.
Tom Ridge graduated with honors from Harvard College. In Vietnam, he earned the Bronze Star and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm. He served as a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives (1983–1995), Governor of Pennsylvania (1995–2001), and the first U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (2003–2005). He was passed over by McCain for Palin.
Kay Baily Hutchinson was named one of "The 30 most powerful women in America" by Ladies Home Journal. She is the first woman to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate and the first Republican woman to in election to the Senate by defeating an incumbent. She was the first in Texas history to poll more than four million votes. She received her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1967. She was the first female onscreen newswoman in Texas. She was passed over by McCain for Palin because she's Pro-Choice.
Olympia Snowe has never lost an election in 35 years. In the 2006, she won 73.99% of votes. She was the youngest Republican woman ever elected to the House; the first woman to serve in both houses of a state legislature and both houses of the U.S. Congress as well as the first Greek-American. Time magazine called her one of "America's 10 Best U.S. Senators" She is the fourth woman to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the first to chair its seapower subcommittee, which oversees the Navy and Marine Corps. She became the first Republican woman to secure a full-term seat on the Senate Finance Committee. She was passed over by McCain for Palin because Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan don't like her.
This is a maverick move? This is putting country first.
Shame on you John McCain.
I disagree. He picked her in the past. But she could be the president in the future.
To quote Hillary Clinton on SNL, the media needs to "get a pair."
Let's talk about William Timmons, then.
Sarah had no problem with Mr. X repeatedly slamming Obama about Ayers or blaming the economic mess on poor people.
I guess Mr. X is a personal friend.
This is from Huffington Post:
"The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government."
"Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism."
This is not guilt by Association--McCain hired this terrorist friend to oversee his transition team when he wins.
I have said that there is plenty of blame to go around which may include some people who borrowed beyond their means. To suggest that is "blaming the economic mess on poor people" is just ridiculous.
Well, I keep getting you, Ockraz and Rightguy mixed up. Point is there has been endless conversation on this board about Ayers....talk about old news. Obama was 8 years old. And when he was in his 40s, he sat on a board with a bunch of Republicans and a college professor who was a 60s radical. THAT's worth endless discussion? Pa-lease.
The real issue if McCain's judgement. Sarah wants us all to believen his selection of Palin is old news. Last I checked, we haven't voted her in yet.
Sarah has moved on but I haven't. McCain could have chosen a war hero--Tom Ridge; or one of the Senates' top 10 Senators--Olympia Snowe. But, no. He was seduced by Sarah Palin and her rightwing views.
Who cares if Sarah will make women in trouble into criminals, right? That's just old news. Who cares if Sarah is ok with an African priest deciding which women in the village are witches and which women in the village should be governor.
"Move on."
Election officials in some swing states have been illegally purging voter registration rolls. "States' Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal," The New York Times, October 8, 2008. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=31166&id=14403-10164910-7c20.Ix&t=5
Fox News has been spreading false allegations about a community group that registers low-income people to vote. "A Dose of Reality on the ACORN Hysteria," Talking Points Memo, October 13, 2008. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=31167&id=14403-10164910-7c20.Ix&t=6
Right-wing operatives have distributed flyers falsely warning that anyone with so much as an unpaid parking ticket will be arrested if they vote. "Vote-scam fliers target black neighborhoods," Philadelphia Daily News, October 2, 2008. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=31041&id=14403-10164910-7c20.Ix&t=8
We already know what they're doing on this message board, what are they doing in your town?
How about giving me some credit for changing the subject from Ayers and blaming poor people to McCain's poor judgement, which the media seems uninterested in--i.e. McCain passing over more qualified vp candidates, McCain's gambling problems, McCain's self-described rage problems and McCain's dealing with unethical people such as Keating and Timmons.
No, you're in who said what to who and were they polite. Get real.
Now, I'm watching McCain mop the floor with Obama during the debate. Not on substance but on style and aggressiveness.
Obama is following your script and it's doing him no service.
Debate Question: "Could you nominate someone to the supreme court who disagrees with you on Roe v Wade?"
McCain claims he would, but he imposed this litmus test on VP.
Tom Ridge - War Hero, Pro-Choice
passed over Palin (no exceptions for rape, incest)
Olympia Snowe - Top 10 Best Senator, Pr-Choice
passed over for Palin (no exceptions for rape, incest)
DEBATE SCORECARD
Who won?
Economy - McCain (a flurry of lies overwhelmed Obama's ability to respond as McCain chased him around the ring)
Character - McCain (it was very uncomfortable watching McCain jab, jab, punch while Obama did little more than duck, duck, cover up.)
Health Care - Obama (Flash knockdown, McCain jumps back up)
Women's Rights - Obama (McCain takes a standing 8-count)
Education - Obama (Obama slips in more solid jabs)
Personality - Obama (it was uncomfortable to watch McCain's weezes, eyes rolls and glares as he tried to run out the time and win the debate on points)
VERDICT: Draw, (but slight edge to McCain on nonsubstantive attacks)
There are too many sports metaphors in talking about these debates. In sports, there are rules that apply to both parties and a well defined meaning of winning and losing. In a presidential debate all that matters is the electoral votes, and we won't know that until the votes are counted.
Given how badly things have gone under Bush, chances are the main issue is whether people are comfortable with Obama to succeed him. Everytime he looks prepared, composed, presidential and in charge, chances are he wins the debate. However his inexperience, ancestry and the skill of Republicans in striking chords with Rove type tactics are wild cards. In addition Republicans have a large number of safe electoral college votes.
McCain did the best he's done, and he also managed to get all the attack stuff in on Ayers, ACORN and Rep. Lewis. However Obama was well prepared with answers, and unless McCain has hard evidence of present involvement and wrongdoing, the debate format doesn't help him much. McCain probably wins with his base by his attacks but will not win anyone else. Visually, particularly in facial expressions, Obama does better. In substance no one did better than the other and it depends on what you believe. Obama certainly had lots of substance to say, even if he was into looking presidential and not taking chances with attacks. There were no gaffes or zingers worth mentioning.
This highly unusual election will remain in doubt with many unknowns until the votes are counted, given the power of Obama's ancestry and the country's pro-Republican tendencies since 1980, as opposed to the generally dismal performance of President Bush that McCain must both embrace and run away from. Obama's constituency seems primed to turn out while Republicans, even with Palin, have some divisions particularly over government intervention. If the economy continues to push the wars off the front burner, that hurts McCain also.
I agree with everything you said. I've never heard it put quite so oddly, "given the power of Obama's ancestry and the country's pro-Republican tendencies", but I can't say you're wrong.
And that's probably what worries me the most and gets me so fired up on these message boards. If Obama loses on the issues, I can live with it. I just hope the media doesn't decide to use the "comeback kick" narrative in the last couple days of the campaign for the sake of a good story.
The more Obama pulls away in the polls, the more the press seems to want to make it a horse race so they attempt to pull one candidate down and revive the other. I hope the media plays it straight and just stands back and reports what happens instead of trying to create the narrative themselves.
Speaking of odd phrases, I"ve never heard the Kennedy Assassination referred to as "an intervention." Is it just me? Or is that a little creepy? Like he let some rightwing speak accidentally slip through for a moment.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: in·ter·ven·tion
Pronunciation: "in-t&r-'ven-ch&n
Function: noun
: the act or an instance of intervening; specifically : the act or procedure by which a third party becomes a party to a pending proceeding between other parties in order to protect his or her own interest in the subject matter of the suit —compare IMPLEADER, INTERPLEADER, JOINDER
NOTE: Intervention developed as a procedure in equity courts. There is some overlap between joinder and intervention because of the merger of law and equity in federal practice.
intervention of right
: intervention allowed in federal civil procedure when a statute grants an absolute right to intervene or when the applicant claims an interest in the subject of the proceeding that the applicant may be impeded from protecting by the disposition of the proceeding
NOTE: Intervention of right will not be granted if the court considers that the applicant's interest is already adequately represented.
permissive intervention
: intervention allowed in federal civil procedure when a statute grants a conditional right to intervene or when the applicant's claim has a question of law or fact in common with the proceeding
A problem with Obama's healthcare proposal people don't speak about it what I call the "employer shift." Obama will provide a government-based insurance option for people who have no health insurance from their employment. He claims that most people will be able to keep their current employer-based health plans. Employers who pay for their employee's health benefits can only deduct 50% of that cost. Employer's will stop providing healthcare benefits knowing that their employees call purchase the benefits from the government. Guys like Joe the plumber, will not offer benefits at all or he may provide a healthcare account to purchase the government insurance. Bottomline, their will be a shift to government sponsored healthcare and anything the governement oversees is more expensive, highly bureaucratic, and less effective.
Unless McCain's plan has some type of regulation of the healthcare insurers, it will only rely on market forces to govern the healthcare insurers. He hasn't been clear on this point.
That's actually pretty good.
Employers are not mandated to provide healthcare - they do it as a BENEFIT to attract and retain employees. Obama's plan will require big companies to provide healthcare, so they can't just stop providing it.
He probably wouldn't anyway. That's the problem with the current system. Health care coverage is very expensive, especially for small business owners. That is the status quo. That's why so many people don't have health insurance.
Good rhetoric, but not debatible.
Actually, Obama explained it fairly well. Under McCain's plan, businesses will be encouraged to drop their employee insurance for just the reason you stated above. They will tell their employees to use their $5000 check to buy their own insurance. To get healtchare plan that cheap, they will have to go to Arizona or somewhere where there is less regulation.
So, when they file a claim, the cheap insurance provider will deny anything they can argue was a pre-existing condition or not covered.
So what about this from the Huston Chronicle concerning ACORN in a part of Texas.
Other organizations seem to have no problems doing a good job. Is ACORN just trying to muck up the system by flooding them with useless work?
This is related to the controversial firings of U.S. attorneys that preceded the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. One fired U.S. attorney, David Iglesias, in his book "In Justice" describes how he was ordered to investigated ACORN for voter fraud, but he didn't find sufficient evidence of any wrongdoing. When Iglesias refused to indict ACORN, he was asked to resign. He was interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air on Wednesday 10/8.
It appears that ACORN is a perennial target of the Republican party, because ACORN's activities help poor and minority voters to get registered. This tends to reduce Republicans' chances in elections. The allegations of fraud are bogus and politically motivated.
I'm also seeing numerous reports that John McCain in fact supported ACORN in the past. According to this article in the WSJ MarketWatch, John McCain was even a keynote speaker at a 2006 rally on immigration, sponsored by ACORN (back when McCain supported immigration reform). So it's curious that McCain and Palin are now leading the charge against ACORN.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/acorn_rallies_its_troops.php
Here's an excerpt from ACORN's memo:
If Hillary would have won the primary, I would be arguing just as hard for her as i am for Obama. I don't understand why some Hillary supporters still blame her for her loss. The fact is that if Hillary would not have made the mistake of telling the Bosnia story, she would have won the primary. She got caught by youtube, not Obama. I don't even think Hillary lied on purpose, but it did appear as if she did. And it probably will prevent her from ever getting the Democratic nomination, even if Obama loses, which he probably will.
Obama will definitely lose without the support of Hillary voters. That will be the real Bradley effect, if there is one, not something racial. This Bradley effect will by women who want to see any woman elected to president or vice president, even Sarah Palin.
Which I really don't understand, since Palin is one of the most dangerous people to ever run on a national ticket. Even more dangerous than Pat Buchanan.
I hope Hillary supporters honor their word and vote for the only candidate who cares about women's rights.
(that's 1)
LR&C email to Barry Dalton:
Please do not put more than 5 posts on the LRC blog per day. I get an email every time there is a new post and I am now getting to the point where when I see your name in my inbox, I just want to start tearing out my hair.
One of the other people posting said it -- you are getting antagonistic. This is not Barry's blog and not Barry's personal forum for every political thought that comes into your head.
It's the LRC blog and I want more people than just you conversing with one another. I am not sure why you are posting so aggressively; don't you have people you can talk to in person and in real time?
I only have two more posts after this one, so I'll make it quick.
I posted Sara's email to me because a) it was kind of funny b) it was kind of hurtful.
But it's a fair question so I'll answer why I post so much (I already sent Sara a much longer, more personal version).
BECAUSE I love this show, but so far this blog is not popular. I can't post at Huffington post because it is so successful that nobody ever reads anything you post. When i see "860 comments" or "2,387 comments"...Why Bother?
So, the good news for Sara is that if/when the LR&C blog becomes more popular, people like me will stop posting.
It's a double edge sword so be careful what you wish for, Sara. Is it really so hard just to ignore me? I know I'm gorgeous and outrageous, but come on!
(that's 3)
I think it's sad.
I've worked in a corporate environment before. My guess is that the managers of the message board want to report to their bosses and boards how many people are posting on their blog. They don't want to say we had 100 posts and 40percent of them were from the same five guys.
I think it's sad that these suits don't want this board to be "personal." How dare anyone make a point of honor.
It's so much better to have thousands of people making posts that nobody would ever have time to read.
How sad it is that only a few people are posting here. That only a few people are having a conversation, or a debate, or even sometimes a fight. Wouldn't it be so much better if a thousand people came on and posted, "I love LR&C!" That's what the suits judge as success.
I think the battles and conversations on this board accurately reflect what's going on everywhere else.
So, let's keep it impersonal, folks!
PLEASE SEND ME A PRIVATE MESSAGE IF YOU WANT ME TO STOP POSTING ON THIS BOARD--IF I GET ENOUGH OF THEM I WILL STOP.
I promise.
To send a private message, don't use the tab at the bottom of this page--that goes to LRC, so don't see it.
Instead, hit reply to one of my posts, and then select the private message option.
(this is my 5th post in a 24 hour period, so i can't post again for about 16 hours. I think I'll wait until the next podcast, though)
In this day and age, we do not require organizations to be paid to register people to vote. You can teach people the benefit of voting, you can campaign for your candidate or issues, but it is an individual's civic duty to register and vote. Organizations like ACORN produce a venue for fraud, especially when one of the candidates give $800 thousand to that organization. ACORN has used the same excuse for their registration fraud in the past four elections, it's hard to believe that it is due to anything but their primary motive to influence elections. The FBI will determine whether there is fraud in ACORN. Whatever their determination, ACORN and its critics have sown the seeds of doubt in this election. This election will be close and they will be recounting the votes for two months afterward. People will have internal feelings that their vote was stolen regardless of the outcome.
There is a post office within walking distance of every home and it is a simple matter to register to vote. Let's eliminate organizations that are paid to register people and let it return to voluntary individual registration at the post office.
There are many organizations, both volunteer and paid, that collect voter registrations. And yet Secretaries of State say that the number of actual voter fraud cases can be counted on one hand. Turning in a registration for "Mickey Mouse" does not allow someone to vote using that name. If it is a strategy to steal an election as you suppose, then it's wholly ineffective.
I'll offer another possible explanation of the false registrations: some of the workers who are paid to register voters don't want to stand outside in the Nevada heat all day, so they stay indoors, fill out bogus registrations, and then falsely claim that they worked eight hours.
It'd be interesting to see a correlation between the number of bogus registrations turned in, and the weather conditions. Uncomfortable heat, cold, rain, or snow could convince more workers to stay indoors.
I'll also point out that Obama's relationship with ACORN in 1995 was part of the legal effort to make the state of Illinois comply with the National Voter Registration Act (the "motor-voter law"). If ACORN had any vested interest in controlling voter registration for nefarious purposes, why would they fight to enforce the motor-voter law?
Currently, people state that ACORN is not under investigation for voter fraud...ostensibly because people haven't voted yet...and because they are actually committing voter registration fraud.
ACORN themselves uses the excuse that a few of their lower employees are responsible for the fraudulent registrations, but this excuse has been used over and over again with each election cycle. If they cannot control the mechanism by which they register people then they should get out of the business.
The Dallas Cowboys and Mickey Mouse are sensational examples of the problem. What is more troublesome is the thousands of fraudulent registrations in some cities and counties. One Ohio county now has 105% number of registrations where ACORN registered several thousand people. The trouble with this is it produces the potential for voter fraud, for influencing voter/votes (as in shipping homeless people to the polls), and it sows the uncertainty in the election process.
Obama's relationship with ACORN goes as far back as his appointment as the chairman for the Chicago Wood's Foundation (Of Ayres fame) when he shunted $200 thousand to ACORN affiliates, goes to him acting as general council for the Illinois chapter of ACORN, and extends to the present when his campaign gave $800 thousand to ACORN.
For the sake of ethics, there should be an arm's length relationship between candidates, voter registration, and the voting process...all of which is problematic with any apparent relationship between ACORN and Obama, merely to prevent any suspicion or criticism of the election process.
My 84-year-old mother runs a polling site in our area. If someone comes in who is registered as Tony Roma, she sould accept it as face value and allow him to vote. She has no idea that he is the quarterback of the Cowboys. She may catch Mickey Mouse, however. These false registrations have a great potential for fraud, and potentially allow a single person registered multiple times to go to different polls and vote multiple times.
By-the-way, I said nothing about stealing the election in my post.
If ACORN has committed any fraud, they should be held accountable, of course. They are currently being investigated, as they have been numerous times. But never has evidence been found sufficient to indict ACORN. Yes, some individuals were found to have violated the rules, and ACORN cooperates in these cases. They also say they perform quality control and alert the state about suspicious cards. I would think this shows them to be trying their best not to commit fraud.
As for the $800K donation from Obama's campaign, that's a good point, I don't understand what's up with that. I would think given the past attempts to paint ACORN as biased, the organization should know better that accepting a donation from a candidate's campaign creates the appearance of fishiness, even if there is no actual wrong-doing.
The potential for voter fraud you describe is a good point too. But in practice it seems it has not occurred in significant numbers. Between ACORN's QC, the state's QC, and voter identification at the polls, this seems to be effective at preventing the casting of fraudulent votes.
By the way, did you know that homeless people can vote?
What do you think about the theory I described, that the bogus applications come from workers who simply didn't want to stand outside? Isn't this explanation at least as reasonable as a decades-old voter fraud conspiracy that has somehow escaped detection?
That's kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's not clear how many of the registrations submitted by ACORN are false. I have read news reports with such wildly different numbers that I think it's premature to conclude that ACORN should get out of the business.
2 topics I wanted to respond about:
On McCain:
>I don't agree that he has made ethnic attacks (veiled or otherwise) against Obama. I don't see what he has said or done to cause you to say that he is supporting racism.
>BK: There have been inappropriate things said by third parties about McCain too, that he's old or crazy or whatever. But the things said about Obama aren't merely unfair, they're false.
>You aren't saying that the 3rd party criticisms of McCain are true are you? I don't believe that he is senile or addled or crazy. I think that suggesting as much is malicious.
>I don't see why you think that the analog to Ayers is Keating. It always seemed to me that Keating and Rezko were very similar, and on that score McCain has done more to redeem himself than say that he made a bone-headed mistake. Ayers has the traction it does because there is no clear analog (that I know of) for McCain.
On abortion:
>I see no reason why being dependent upon another means that you forfeit any rights and that you have only privileges. I believe that if you think about this generally you will see that it is a very problematic formulation. You suggested that being dependent on the woman for “life support” relegates the right to life to the status of a privilege, but I don't believe that you would extend that argument to post-birth human lives. Most people would not. The law does not.
>Women have a right to their lives, indeed, but no one challenges that. (Even the most ardent right to lifers tend to accept that abortion should be legal when the life of the mother is threatened.)
>BK: It is wrong to hold a human being responsible to another against their will.
I think that it is probably wrong in some circumstances, but there are other circumstances when it is worse not to do so. If your standard is that you can never promote anything that is unfair, then you will have to remain neutral in the face of grave injustices. (Perhaps this is the motivation of some 'Pro-Choice' people?) I believe that one should strive to minimize unfairness, but that sometimes the interests of justice demand an unfair result to avoid a far worse result.
Unless one is willing to take a laissez-faire approach to morality, then you have to be willing to prioritize rights, and it is reasonable to believe that a right to exist should take precedence over a temporary loss of freedoms.
>One reason that I think that the slavery metaphor is apt aside from the church and state criticism is that advocates of legal slavery used to argue about who should be considered 'human' or a 'person', and advocates of legal abortion do the same. It is also reasonable to conclude that if 'wanted lives' have value, but unwanted ones can be treated as little more than refuse, then the right at issue is not a right to life, but a property right.
I think that it is instructive to consider that denying a woman an abortion would result in her being compelled to remain pregnant for approximately 1% of her life, whereas allowing the abortion to occur would eliminate all freedoms for 100% of another life. Having less than 1% of the value of a 'person' is an extreme position.
>BK: Here's another metaphor: suppose you receive a phone call from a hospital. A young child is dying of a disease, and you have been determined to be the only suitable donor of an organ that will save the child's life. Would you do it? I'm sure you would. Many people would be happy to do so. But is it right that the government makes it mandatory that you give up an organ? You must undergo surgery, submit to a painful hospital stay, perhaps lose job opportunities, etc. Shouldn't you have the freedom to choose in this situation? Even if your choice may lead to the death of another human being?
I think that that is a good metaphor. I would respond by saying that I would hope that I'd be happy to do it, but I worry that that might not be my attitude and that I think that it would be better if it were mandatory, because I fear that I might not. I do not believe that I should have that freedom. In the heat of the moment, I would likely protest vigorously if I wanted to choose not to become an organ donor, but 'the heat of the moment' is not when I make the best decisions. If you view the sacrifice necessary to save the child's life as supererogatory, then your conclusion is the right one. If you see it as a duty, then it is not.
>BK: Another nuance to the abortion issue is that many of the most vocal people in the Pro-Life movement also oppose family planning education, availability of birth control, public assistance for pre-natal and post-natal care, and support for adoption services. All factors that are proven to reduce the number of abortions.
I've heard that charge before. It is not nearly as clear as opponents of the right to life movement would have one believe. Religious groups actually do tend to support adoption services- so I think that that part of the claim is misinformation. With regard to sex education, contraception, and health care, attitudes vary widely depending upon religious affilliation, age, and to some degree class even amongst opponents of abortion.
>BK :If people who oppose abortions were practical instead of ideological, they should promote programs that reduce the demand for abortions by supporting real alternatives. This suggests to me that the Pro-Life movement is more religious in origin instead of political.
This is not an issue of pragmatism, but of ideology, regardless of which side of the divide you find yourself on- surely you would acknowledge that. I can't imagine that abortion rights advocates would be portrayed by many people as more pragmatic than ideological! The issue has two distinct areas of contention- a legal on and an ideological one. Even 'pro-choice' legal scholars are critical of Roe. From an ideological perspective, if you are very religious, then your moral principles will seem to you to be an extension of theology- but that is true of all issues and not just of abortion.
>BK: I support Pro-Choice. We cannot resolve the tie between the unborns right to live and the woman's right to choose when and if she bears a child. Since that's a tie, we must decide based on other grounds. Our society supports individuals' rights in many cases, such as freedom of religion, freedom to vote, innocent until proven guilty, etc. I count a woman's right to choose if she will bear a child among these kinds of individual freedoms.
I think that your argument would certainly carry the day if you believe that an unborn is not an individual. Plainly, if you don't take that position, then the tie is not so easily broken.
Maybe it's time that the country let voter registration be done at government offices only like any post office, DMV office (remember "motor voter"), public libraries, courthouse, Public School, welfare office, etc. Voter registration drives could get people registered at these places.
If you really want people to stop worrying as much about voter fraud then we should have all voters show valid government ID to vote (Free "voter ID" for anyone so poor they can't afford a $10 ID card). No showing up with an old electric or phone bill.
MRX: If you really want people to stop worrying as much about voter fraud then we should have all voters show valid government ID to vote (Free "voter ID" for anyone so poor they can't afford a $10 ID card). No showing up with an old electric or phone bill.
On abortion I did read your comments and you make some excellent points. Very, very difficult problem. I respect that there's a conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn, and I don't know how to resolve that. Nevertheless, my view is that since the mother is the steward of the fetus' life, then she must have the right to make the choice regarding termination. We can and should do more as a society to give her real options, though.
I believe a few bad people may collect excessive registrations because it's too hot outside, but the gross numbers noted in Mr. X's post suggest that the majority of false registrations are purposeful.
The point to my original post on ACORN is that they have created an atmosphere of fraud in the election regardless of whether that was their purpose. We do not require registration programs, there is ample access for everyone, even homeless people. Because ACORN appears (I may be wrong, but it sure appears that way) to be performing voter recruitment for their own purpose, they will coerce the recruited people to their cause.
Yes, homeless people have a right to vote, but you should consider them a "vulnerable population," i.e., their needs make them vulnerable for coercion. There are documented instances of this coercion through money, cigarettes, and alcohol. We must safeguard vulnerable populations from political manipulation of people who would take advantage of them.
Again, my point is voter registration should be relegated to an impartial site, it should be voluntary, and pristine. That's why ACORN should be thrown out with the bathwater.
I also agree with Mr. X, that proper identification is required registration and at polling sites.
http://truthaboutfraud.org/commentary/the_link_between_voter_fraud_a.html
It's run by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
ACORN uses lawful means to counter unlawful voter suppression, the practice of which favors Republicans. You mentioned safeguarding vulnerable voter populations from coercion and political manipulation. I think it's just as important to protect people from politically-motivated voter suppression.
I keep hearing different numbers of the proportion of bogus registrations submitted by ACORN employees. I will look forward to a full investigation, but if ACORN is cleared of wrongdoing (again), I would want its critics to drop the issue. That is, if the accusations against ACORN do not bear fruit (forgive the pun), do not in the future cite the current controversy as damning.
I do object, however, to the characterization (not in this forum- but generally) of my state's ID laws. I find it hard to credit that so many people think that there is something nefarious about it. Previously, where I vote, all you had to do when you showed up to vote was to tell the poll worker your name (and sometimes your address). Then they crossed you off of the list. Now there is at least a way to verify that you are the person on the list.
Some people claimed that there wasn't any evidence to show that voter fraud made the law necessary, but I think that that is irrelevant. The test wasn't whether or not illegal activity could be found to justify the change in the law- it was whether the law was somehow unreasonably burdensome- which it was judged no to be.
Nationally, a lot of people painted a picture of a state where the GOP was keeping DEM supporters from being able to cast a ballot, but I'm a bit suspicious of people who think that my legislature did something wrong in trying to verify that the people voting here are who they say they are.
Maybe that's ungenerous of me- there are some people who would prefer to have a situation like that in Australia, where everyone is required to vote (and where ballot design is so important- since disinterested people check of the first name in the list so often).
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fraud20-2008oct20,0,3842357.story
In this case, the California Republican party paid the firm $7 to $12 per registration card they turned in, unlike ACORN's practice.
Instead of perpetuating this phony ACORN bunk, we should be re-focusing on Republican voter fraud, not voter registration fraud, which is not the same thing: