Showing posts with label Election 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2008. Show all posts
04 November 2008
27 October 2008
In A Recently Conducted Poll in Southern California, John McCain Has a 2:1 Lead Over Barack Obama!!!
OK, it's not really a poll, but it's me walking my dog. And my sample only included walking up and down my residential block by 5 blocks in either direction. Within that 10 block radius, there were 2 McCain yard signs or window displays while for Obama there was only 1.
If McCain is enjoying a 67-33% edge in super-liberal Santa Monica, then it would appear that California will produce a surprising landslide victory for Sen. John S. McCain. To contrast, in roughly the same area I recall Kerry enjoying about a 5:1 advantage in visible support.
I bet my poll is just about as scientific and accurate as some of the media sponsored polls that are floating around currently.
If McCain is enjoying a 67-33% edge in super-liberal Santa Monica, then it would appear that California will produce a surprising landslide victory for Sen. John S. McCain. To contrast, in roughly the same area I recall Kerry enjoying about a 5:1 advantage in visible support.
I bet my poll is just about as scientific and accurate as some of the media sponsored polls that are floating around currently.
22 October 2008
Your Immodestly Californian Voter Guide . . .
Because it's never too early to vote (and you can never vote often enough!), here's my guide to the myriad (if by myriad you mean 12) of propositions infesting our state ballot.
Proposition 1A Hell NO!
The only way it could be better (and by better, I mean more ridiculous, of course) would be if it were for a proposed monorail. Instead Prop 1A wants to spend $20B over the next 30 years and operate a high speed rail link (220 MPH) between basically L.A., Silicon Valley, and the Bay Area, but the real goal is to build out 700 miles of track serving multiple communities at a likely cost of $80B not the $20B admitted to in the voter guide (and the proposal only claims to need $9B in bonds, but that's just to start this project rolling, but don't believe me, believe this 196 page PDF put together by Reason, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation ). Never mind that this kind of rail link has never been successfully constructed over such a great distance (not at the proposed speeds, anyway, China's opened up 6000km of new high speed rail, but most of that is in the 120-150mph range, significantly slower than the California proposal), never mind that such a rail link has never gone through the kind of terrain found in between the target cities, and never mind that there's a reason commuter rail fails in the United States, nope never mind any and all of those things, instead push some pie in the sky dream of 'green' tech and high-speed mass transit that will be the envy of the world. Yeah, I don't think so. I'm not down on all high speed rail in SoCal, though, I think Desert XPress Enterprises has the right idea, and could be profitable if government gets out of their way (even just the Victorville to Las Vegas portion alone would alleviate a lot of car and air traffic between LA and LV, have a big park and ride center in Victorville, have adult only cars on the train, have plenty of booze, and maybe gaming instruction (and even strippers), and you got yourself a service planes can't beat).
Proposition 2 Hell NO!!
This one is to improve the conditions for farm animals. How can anyone be against better conditions for farm animals? I am, for one. The rules in place are sufficient, these new rules will give folks another reason to move their businesses from California. Now is not the time to be driving businesses away from California (and food stuffs are still really big business here in the Golden State).
Proposition 3 Hell NO!!!
This one raises nearly $1B for children's hospitals. How can you be against children's hospitals? That these various entities are spending $7M to get their hands on the $1B of government funding probably tells you most what you need to know. They're using sick children to justify bloated budgets, overly generous compensation packages for their executives, and the usual mix of sweetheart deals and graft that go hand in hand with freeing up $1B for building out new infrastructure. I'm for caring for sick children, but that's not really what this bill funds. Clearly, now is not the time for these kind of questionable 'investments' at taxpayer expense.
Proposition 4 Reluctantly No.
Amending the State Constitution to require adult notification for abortions by unemancipated minors seems like a worthy goal, but I'm not comfortable with amendments in general, and I can't imagine that this situation happens often enough to warrant tinkering with our Constitution.
Proposition 5 Hell NO!!!!!
Didn't we just have this on the ballot? It's a complicated bill that aims to add more money to treating drug addiction, expand the Department of Corrections involvement into drug treatment, and lessen the penalty for possession of marijuana. Some parts of this bill I'm for, but on the whole it smells of a boondoggle, and when in doubt when it comes to creating new levels of state bureaucracies to solve problems at the societal level that are more about individual choices, I always lean towards, "hell no!!! (with varying numbers of "!"). I think all the treatment crap was thrown in to cover for the main part of the bill which is reducing penalties for Mary Jane. I still believe that marijuana should be fully legalized, but I think incremental steps such as this when larded up with pork would be worse than no change at all.
Proposition 6 Hell NO!!!!!!
Another $1B in spending to screw up our state budget and limit the flexibility of what our governor and legislature can do. This time the $1B is to 'clean up the streets' and 'take back our neighborhoods' and would go to combating gangs and the meth trade. There's already enough laws on the books, and enough police on the streets to tackle the problem, the problem isn't money, or the number of prison bunks, or the number of cops, the problem comes from within the communities themselves. Money won't fix that, especially when that money comes from required budgetary outlays that will limit flexibility to respond to the other problems that cause these kinds of situations to arise in the first place. If you don't like the way your legislators are legislating, rather than trying to do their jobs for them by placing artificial impositions on spending priorities within the state budget through the ballot process, instead, vote the bums out.
Proposition 7, Hell NO!!!!!!!
The boondoggles to top all past boondoggles. This bill imposes all sorts of 'green energy' requirements on power generation and use within the state, and comes up with all sorts of time tables and goals that aren't currently feasible with available technology (the bill makes all sorts of assumptions about innovations that are 'just around the corner'). It's "Green" so it must be good. But, "Green" and "Greed" are off by only one letter for a reason, and what this bill really is a sweetheart deal to the folks pushing wind and solar as the be all and end all to power generation. If we do this and go down this road, good bye business. We'll have brownouts and higher costs when compared to neighboring states that choose an 'all the above' path towards generation. Electricity fuels the economy, we need energy period, cleaner or not, by placing artificial restrictions on the sources of this energy, we'll destroy our economy. This isn't about the environment anymore, it's about namby-pamby pie in the sky wish fulfillment and it's about Californians buying into some fairyland of cheap, renewable, CO2 free energy generation. I'm not sold, I'm not buying it, and the costs of voting yes on this one will be a massive reduction in the competitiveness of our entire economy. Not a good idea to gimp our economy, not now, not ever.
Proposition 8 No
This one is getting a lot of national attention. It's a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage in the state as between a man and a woman. I'm not pleased, personally, that our state courts invented a 'right' to marriage within the existing Constitution, but it doesn't upset me to the point where I think codifying a traditional view of marriage is needed. I'd vote for this if it amended the Constitution to eliminate all state recognition of marriage, period. Then there'd be no hint of discrimination, marriage shouldn't be a state matter to begin with, whether it between Dick and Jane, or Dick and Dick. I sympathize with the bill, but I find it flawed, and I'm not comfortable mucking up the state's Constitution over something that in the long run is a personal matter and won't really have much effect one way or the other.
Proposition 9 No
This is a victim's notification bill on steroids. Victims are currently notified at sentencing and parole proceedings, this proposition would extend that to notification at every stage of the legal system, from bail, to plea deals, to sentencing, to parole. It's micromanagement of the criminal justice system, and I think it's a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. It's unwieldy, and unnecessary, so as usual, I vote no.
Proposition 10, Hell NO!!!!!!!!!!
Another green bill, this one focuses on vehicles rather than power generation. This is just as dumb as Prop 7, and potentially just as costly to our economy. Alternative fuels will happen when they happen, government fiddling won't make petrol disappear any faster. It's a waste of taxpayer money, and won't bring about the coming 'green paradise' any sooner. Let the dopey Europeans waste their money on this crap, let's tax Californians less, and spend the funds we have on maintaining the current infrastructure, not fairyland dreams of cars powered by unicorn farts.
Proposition 11, Yes?
I didn't realize Yes was in my vocabulary when it came to propositions. This one is yet another scheme to take redistricting away from the legislature and put it in the hands of a bipartisan commission. I can live with that, even if the plan is a bit overly complicated, this is one change that I can accept and can readily believe that doing something is better than doing nothing given that we live in the most gerrymandered, least competitive politically, state in the nation. Enough is enough, and since our legislature won't do it, the people will have to, even if they have to embrace a less than perfect instrument in reaching the goal of creating competitive districts that reflect the will of the people and not the will of the incumbents. The current system is sufficiently broken to require amending our State Constitution, this is an example of non-frivolous change.
Proposition 12, No.
Another bond, another $2B outlay of funds our state doesn't have. This time the target for California taxpayers' gold are our veterans. They're worth it, but not by this much. The legislature can figure out a way to get stuff like this done by legislating, I refuse to pay for bond issues through the proposition process, even for bonds that otherwise might make sense. In this case it's not about the bond itself, the target for the money, or the amount of money, it's the principle of the thing that informs my decision to say "no".
So that's my voting guide, one yes snuck in there amongst a cavalcade of nos. I guess I'm contrarian, or I don't believe that I should have to do the job that my elected officials were elected to do, one or the other. For those not in California, hope you enjoyed a glimpse at the mess created when you have a very active initiative culture within the political system. The populist impulse to give people a direct voice and vote in making policy may have good origins, but it's morphed into another form of rent-seeking where interests groups try and buy themselves with a few million in advertising dollars a billion or two in bond money over a decade or two. Sometimes props lead to positive changes, mostly though, it's just a windfall for local broadcasters and leads to legislative gridlock and future court cases where the poorly written propositions get tied up in some judge's chambers. That's why you have the first round of a prop where it's just a proposed law, and then when it's struck down, it returns from the dead as an amendment the way Prop 8 is doing. I understand the process, I see why it happens, but I don't have to like it, and in all but rare cases, I will not support it.
Proposition 1A Hell NO!
The only way it could be better (and by better, I mean more ridiculous, of course) would be if it were for a proposed monorail. Instead Prop 1A wants to spend $20B over the next 30 years and operate a high speed rail link (220 MPH) between basically L.A., Silicon Valley, and the Bay Area, but the real goal is to build out 700 miles of track serving multiple communities at a likely cost of $80B not the $20B admitted to in the voter guide (and the proposal only claims to need $9B in bonds, but that's just to start this project rolling, but don't believe me, believe this 196 page PDF put together by Reason, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation ). Never mind that this kind of rail link has never been successfully constructed over such a great distance (not at the proposed speeds, anyway, China's opened up 6000km of new high speed rail, but most of that is in the 120-150mph range, significantly slower than the California proposal), never mind that such a rail link has never gone through the kind of terrain found in between the target cities, and never mind that there's a reason commuter rail fails in the United States, nope never mind any and all of those things, instead push some pie in the sky dream of 'green' tech and high-speed mass transit that will be the envy of the world. Yeah, I don't think so. I'm not down on all high speed rail in SoCal, though, I think Desert XPress Enterprises has the right idea, and could be profitable if government gets out of their way (even just the Victorville to Las Vegas portion alone would alleviate a lot of car and air traffic between LA and LV, have a big park and ride center in Victorville, have adult only cars on the train, have plenty of booze, and maybe gaming instruction (and even strippers), and you got yourself a service planes can't beat).
Proposition 2 Hell NO!!
This one is to improve the conditions for farm animals. How can anyone be against better conditions for farm animals? I am, for one. The rules in place are sufficient, these new rules will give folks another reason to move their businesses from California. Now is not the time to be driving businesses away from California (and food stuffs are still really big business here in the Golden State).
Proposition 3 Hell NO!!!
This one raises nearly $1B for children's hospitals. How can you be against children's hospitals? That these various entities are spending $7M to get their hands on the $1B of government funding probably tells you most what you need to know. They're using sick children to justify bloated budgets, overly generous compensation packages for their executives, and the usual mix of sweetheart deals and graft that go hand in hand with freeing up $1B for building out new infrastructure. I'm for caring for sick children, but that's not really what this bill funds. Clearly, now is not the time for these kind of questionable 'investments' at taxpayer expense.
Proposition 4 Reluctantly No.
Amending the State Constitution to require adult notification for abortions by unemancipated minors seems like a worthy goal, but I'm not comfortable with amendments in general, and I can't imagine that this situation happens often enough to warrant tinkering with our Constitution.
Proposition 5 Hell NO!!!!!
Didn't we just have this on the ballot? It's a complicated bill that aims to add more money to treating drug addiction, expand the Department of Corrections involvement into drug treatment, and lessen the penalty for possession of marijuana. Some parts of this bill I'm for, but on the whole it smells of a boondoggle, and when in doubt when it comes to creating new levels of state bureaucracies to solve problems at the societal level that are more about individual choices, I always lean towards, "hell no!!! (with varying numbers of "!"). I think all the treatment crap was thrown in to cover for the main part of the bill which is reducing penalties for Mary Jane. I still believe that marijuana should be fully legalized, but I think incremental steps such as this when larded up with pork would be worse than no change at all.
Proposition 6 Hell NO!!!!!!
Another $1B in spending to screw up our state budget and limit the flexibility of what our governor and legislature can do. This time the $1B is to 'clean up the streets' and 'take back our neighborhoods' and would go to combating gangs and the meth trade. There's already enough laws on the books, and enough police on the streets to tackle the problem, the problem isn't money, or the number of prison bunks, or the number of cops, the problem comes from within the communities themselves. Money won't fix that, especially when that money comes from required budgetary outlays that will limit flexibility to respond to the other problems that cause these kinds of situations to arise in the first place. If you don't like the way your legislators are legislating, rather than trying to do their jobs for them by placing artificial impositions on spending priorities within the state budget through the ballot process, instead, vote the bums out.
Proposition 7, Hell NO!!!!!!!
The boondoggles to top all past boondoggles. This bill imposes all sorts of 'green energy' requirements on power generation and use within the state, and comes up with all sorts of time tables and goals that aren't currently feasible with available technology (the bill makes all sorts of assumptions about innovations that are 'just around the corner'). It's "Green" so it must be good. But, "Green" and "Greed" are off by only one letter for a reason, and what this bill really is a sweetheart deal to the folks pushing wind and solar as the be all and end all to power generation. If we do this and go down this road, good bye business. We'll have brownouts and higher costs when compared to neighboring states that choose an 'all the above' path towards generation. Electricity fuels the economy, we need energy period, cleaner or not, by placing artificial restrictions on the sources of this energy, we'll destroy our economy. This isn't about the environment anymore, it's about namby-pamby pie in the sky wish fulfillment and it's about Californians buying into some fairyland of cheap, renewable, CO2 free energy generation. I'm not sold, I'm not buying it, and the costs of voting yes on this one will be a massive reduction in the competitiveness of our entire economy. Not a good idea to gimp our economy, not now, not ever.
Proposition 8 No
This one is getting a lot of national attention. It's a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage in the state as between a man and a woman. I'm not pleased, personally, that our state courts invented a 'right' to marriage within the existing Constitution, but it doesn't upset me to the point where I think codifying a traditional view of marriage is needed. I'd vote for this if it amended the Constitution to eliminate all state recognition of marriage, period. Then there'd be no hint of discrimination, marriage shouldn't be a state matter to begin with, whether it between Dick and Jane, or Dick and Dick. I sympathize with the bill, but I find it flawed, and I'm not comfortable mucking up the state's Constitution over something that in the long run is a personal matter and won't really have much effect one way or the other.
Proposition 9 No
This is a victim's notification bill on steroids. Victims are currently notified at sentencing and parole proceedings, this proposition would extend that to notification at every stage of the legal system, from bail, to plea deals, to sentencing, to parole. It's micromanagement of the criminal justice system, and I think it's a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. It's unwieldy, and unnecessary, so as usual, I vote no.
Proposition 10, Hell NO!!!!!!!!!!
Another green bill, this one focuses on vehicles rather than power generation. This is just as dumb as Prop 7, and potentially just as costly to our economy. Alternative fuels will happen when they happen, government fiddling won't make petrol disappear any faster. It's a waste of taxpayer money, and won't bring about the coming 'green paradise' any sooner. Let the dopey Europeans waste their money on this crap, let's tax Californians less, and spend the funds we have on maintaining the current infrastructure, not fairyland dreams of cars powered by unicorn farts.
Proposition 11, Yes?
I didn't realize Yes was in my vocabulary when it came to propositions. This one is yet another scheme to take redistricting away from the legislature and put it in the hands of a bipartisan commission. I can live with that, even if the plan is a bit overly complicated, this is one change that I can accept and can readily believe that doing something is better than doing nothing given that we live in the most gerrymandered, least competitive politically, state in the nation. Enough is enough, and since our legislature won't do it, the people will have to, even if they have to embrace a less than perfect instrument in reaching the goal of creating competitive districts that reflect the will of the people and not the will of the incumbents. The current system is sufficiently broken to require amending our State Constitution, this is an example of non-frivolous change.
Proposition 12, No.
Another bond, another $2B outlay of funds our state doesn't have. This time the target for California taxpayers' gold are our veterans. They're worth it, but not by this much. The legislature can figure out a way to get stuff like this done by legislating, I refuse to pay for bond issues through the proposition process, even for bonds that otherwise might make sense. In this case it's not about the bond itself, the target for the money, or the amount of money, it's the principle of the thing that informs my decision to say "no".
So that's my voting guide, one yes snuck in there amongst a cavalcade of nos. I guess I'm contrarian, or I don't believe that I should have to do the job that my elected officials were elected to do, one or the other. For those not in California, hope you enjoyed a glimpse at the mess created when you have a very active initiative culture within the political system. The populist impulse to give people a direct voice and vote in making policy may have good origins, but it's morphed into another form of rent-seeking where interests groups try and buy themselves with a few million in advertising dollars a billion or two in bond money over a decade or two. Sometimes props lead to positive changes, mostly though, it's just a windfall for local broadcasters and leads to legislative gridlock and future court cases where the poorly written propositions get tied up in some judge's chambers. That's why you have the first round of a prop where it's just a proposed law, and then when it's struck down, it returns from the dead as an amendment the way Prop 8 is doing. I understand the process, I see why it happens, but I don't have to like it, and in all but rare cases, I will not support it.
21 October 2008
Well, I Have a Suggestion For Where the California Motto Should Go . . .
Times of London mentions this Meghan McCain post promising to ink the message "Live Free or Die" upon her flesh should her father win the election and the state of New Hampshire as well.
And do I really have to spell out in graphic detail where best an attractive young woman should have "Eureka" upon her person (I will say that waxing will be involved)?
(I know her father won't win our state, but he'll probably get his most votes here, even as he doesn't garner our electoral votes, so I think we're worthy commemoration, too)
And do I really have to spell out in graphic detail where best an attractive young woman should have "Eureka" upon her person (I will say that waxing will be involved)?
(I know her father won't win our state, but he'll probably get his most votes here, even as he doesn't garner our electoral votes, so I think we're worthy commemoration, too)
Why Your Vote Matters (Even In States Where the Electoral College Result Isn't In Doubt)
If folks thought that all the wailing and gnashing in the aftermath of Democratic losses in 2000 and 2004 were bad, wait until Sen. Obama somehow manages not to be acclaimed as The One on November 4th.
The groundwork for whining about the Electoral College is already being laid, and I've noticed that The One with the obscene amount of campaign cash (hey, most of it is probably legal, so no complaining) is spending plenty of money in the Los Angeles TV market, a market that he most certainly will win, within a state that won't even be close.
So why spend the money (other than he has more money than he can possibly spend before the end of the election, no matter how profligate his campaign gets)? I believe the Democrats not only want to win in the Electoral College (obviously), but they also want a decisive popular vote victory, or if they lose in the Electoral College, they still want to garner a 1-2% advantage in the popular vote.
Why is this important? The Democrats are addicted to whine, they are whine-os, and they're still pissed off by Gore's slim popular vote win that didn't translate to victory in the Electoral College (though the opposite would have been true if 60,000 Ohioans had switched from Bush to Kerry in 2004, and I bet they wouldn't have complained about Kerry losing the popular by a couple million votes while winning the White House).
They need either a landslide, or at least a talking point for the next four years about the unfairness and inherent racism of the Electoral College (racist, because it favors rural votes over urban votes, also racist because everything that doesn't go Obama's way is a result of racism).
So even if you live in one of the many non-battleground states, your vote for President will count in how McCain or Obama's presidency is perceived and spoken about. It matters more for McCain than Obama, though. McCain has to both win the Electoral College and popular vote, if he wins a narrow victory in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, I hate to imagine what the NYT, MSNBCs and Politicos of the world will be like. They'll be vicious cesspools of McCain and GOP hatred regardless of the popular vote differential, but I think the public will accord their rantings a little more legitimacy if McCain wins the EC but not the popular vote.
So, while I am loathe to do so, I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain/Palin, not because I like him, his maverick ways, or his government first reflex towards solving problems. I'm voting for him, even in solidly blue California, cause in every scenario, the popular vote is going to matter.
It may not matter in terms of who governs, but it will matter as far as the 'mandate' they have, and how they'll be treated by the media and on the internet. I don't want a victorious McCain hamstringed by constant sniping that he's didn't win a 'legitimate' result, and I don't want a victorious Obama to think he has a broad mandate to sweep in a new and wonderful more socially democratic United States. If Obama wins, hopefully the margin won't be huge, and the Dems won't pick up too many seats, otherwise it'll be a rocky few years.
The groundwork for whining about the Electoral College is already being laid, and I've noticed that The One with the obscene amount of campaign cash (hey, most of it is probably legal, so no complaining) is spending plenty of money in the Los Angeles TV market, a market that he most certainly will win, within a state that won't even be close.
So why spend the money (other than he has more money than he can possibly spend before the end of the election, no matter how profligate his campaign gets)? I believe the Democrats not only want to win in the Electoral College (obviously), but they also want a decisive popular vote victory, or if they lose in the Electoral College, they still want to garner a 1-2% advantage in the popular vote.
Why is this important? The Democrats are addicted to whine, they are whine-os, and they're still pissed off by Gore's slim popular vote win that didn't translate to victory in the Electoral College (though the opposite would have been true if 60,000 Ohioans had switched from Bush to Kerry in 2004, and I bet they wouldn't have complained about Kerry losing the popular by a couple million votes while winning the White House).
They need either a landslide, or at least a talking point for the next four years about the unfairness and inherent racism of the Electoral College (racist, because it favors rural votes over urban votes, also racist because everything that doesn't go Obama's way is a result of racism).
So even if you live in one of the many non-battleground states, your vote for President will count in how McCain or Obama's presidency is perceived and spoken about. It matters more for McCain than Obama, though. McCain has to both win the Electoral College and popular vote, if he wins a narrow victory in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, I hate to imagine what the NYT, MSNBCs and Politicos of the world will be like. They'll be vicious cesspools of McCain and GOP hatred regardless of the popular vote differential, but I think the public will accord their rantings a little more legitimacy if McCain wins the EC but not the popular vote.
So, while I am loathe to do so, I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain/Palin, not because I like him, his maverick ways, or his government first reflex towards solving problems. I'm voting for him, even in solidly blue California, cause in every scenario, the popular vote is going to matter.
It may not matter in terms of who governs, but it will matter as far as the 'mandate' they have, and how they'll be treated by the media and on the internet. I don't want a victorious McCain hamstringed by constant sniping that he's didn't win a 'legitimate' result, and I don't want a victorious Obama to think he has a broad mandate to sweep in a new and wonderful more socially democratic United States. If Obama wins, hopefully the margin won't be huge, and the Dems won't pick up too many seats, otherwise it'll be a rocky few years.
18 October 2008
Since When Have Stoners Been Able to Shut Their Pieholes About With Whom They've Toked?
This bit, allegedly from a lawyer for Cindy McCain pushing back against NYT stupidity, where the correspondent questions why the wife of a candidate is getting so much more scrutiny and delving into her past when compared to the actual candidate of the other side, reminded me of something that's bothered me about Dreams of My Father.
I haven't read it, but as has been pointed out over and over again, Obama readily admits to having a misspent youth and having run around with druggy friends and got himself involved into that scene as a high school kid in Hawaii and as an undergrad in Los Angeles at Occidental.
I think he's lying. I think he never was that much into that stuff, but he needed to have something that he 'overcame', so he exaggerated his use of drugs so that his story arc could be that of redemption and struggle rather than privilege and ease.
Simply put, druggies love telling stories about who they get high with, and if they got high with someone famous, or would later become famous, despite their blissed out nature and poor short term memory, this is the kind of detail they'd love to endlessly talk about.
The sad truth about Sen. Obama is that he was a square then, he was a square at Harvard, and he's a square now, but he's afraid the notion that he's always been square would be bad for his image, so he constructed this narrative about his past that was based on attending a few parties and he spun this into his own 'struggle' with the demon weed and the Colombian marching powder.
Sorry, but I ain't buying it. If you were a real user, then you've got the scars, stories, and associations real users collect, and there's just no evidence of this.
If you don't believe me, here's what was reported in the NYT back in February:
I have a much bigger problem with someone making up youthful indiscretions, rather than actually having youthful indiscretions. For the former, you are a grown-assed person who should know better than to fabricate an identity for yourself, for the latter, you were young dumb and full of vigor, so as long as you didn't get anyone killed or jailed for more than a decade, no harm done (except to yourself).
It's amazing how often, and in how many different contexts, that the memories and accounts of everyone around Sen. Obama seems to fail them. There always seems to be a discrepancy between his recollection and those of the rest of the universe. Obviously, the universe is wrong, cause The One does not make those kind of mistakes.
I haven't read it, but as has been pointed out over and over again, Obama readily admits to having a misspent youth and having run around with druggy friends and got himself involved into that scene as a high school kid in Hawaii and as an undergrad in Los Angeles at Occidental.
I think he's lying. I think he never was that much into that stuff, but he needed to have something that he 'overcame', so he exaggerated his use of drugs so that his story arc could be that of redemption and struggle rather than privilege and ease.
Simply put, druggies love telling stories about who they get high with, and if they got high with someone famous, or would later become famous, despite their blissed out nature and poor short term memory, this is the kind of detail they'd love to endlessly talk about.
The sad truth about Sen. Obama is that he was a square then, he was a square at Harvard, and he's a square now, but he's afraid the notion that he's always been square would be bad for his image, so he constructed this narrative about his past that was based on attending a few parties and he spun this into his own 'struggle' with the demon weed and the Colombian marching powder.
Sorry, but I ain't buying it. If you were a real user, then you've got the scars, stories, and associations real users collect, and there's just no evidence of this.
If you don't believe me, here's what was reported in the NYT back in February:
Mr. Obama’s account of his younger self and drugs, though, significantly differs from the recollections of others who do not recall his drug use. That could suggest he was so private about his usage that few people were aware of it, that the memories of those who knew him decades ago are fuzzy or rosier out of a desire to protect him, or that he added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic.
In more than three dozen interviews, friends, classmates and mentors from his high school and Occidental recalled Mr. Obama as being grounded, motivated and poised, someone who did not appear to be grappling with any drug problems and seemed to dabble only with marijuana.
I have a much bigger problem with someone making up youthful indiscretions, rather than actually having youthful indiscretions. For the former, you are a grown-assed person who should know better than to fabricate an identity for yourself, for the latter, you were young dumb and full of vigor, so as long as you didn't get anyone killed or jailed for more than a decade, no harm done (except to yourself).
It's amazing how often, and in how many different contexts, that the memories and accounts of everyone around Sen. Obama seems to fail them. There always seems to be a discrepancy between his recollection and those of the rest of the universe. Obviously, the universe is wrong, cause The One does not make those kind of mistakes.
15 October 2008
The Moshtra From Hofstra!!!
It's ON!
6:03PDT
Hi, I'm Bob Schieffer, and we're just a bunch a folksy folks talkin folksy stuff around a folksy table, so let's be regular folks and talk to the regular folks about the regular folksy folks stuff that regular folks folk about when they folk with each other.
First question: Market, sucks, what are you gonna do?
McCain: Homes, homes, throw money in a hole and help dumb people pay their mortgages.
Obama: I love Lon Guy Land! It's Depression II!!! Oh Noes!!!!! We both supported the bailout so, but don't forget executive compensation, and see I said, "MIDDLE CLASS", did McCain say "MIDDLE CLASS", no I don't think so, therefore because I say the words, "MIDDLE CLASS" and throw out the meaningless phrase "MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT" I'm more a man of the people than those fatcat Republicans. Specifics, Ha, you don't want specifics from The One, you just want him to whisper sweet nothings in your ear.
MCCAIN: McCain fires back with Joe the Plumber from Ohio, and he's taking to long to get to the punchline, the punchline was, Obama explicitly said he wants to "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND", without that phrase, the Joe the Plumber incident loses its fire. As Ren would say, EEEEEEDIOTTTTTTT!!!!
OBAMA: Rebuttal, spreading the wealth around is a great thing, evil OIL, did I mention EXXXON yet (yes, the extra 'x' is intentional, cause EXXXON is obscene), I just did, I'm so smart, I am The One, this is in the bag, I guess I'll just get wonky and ignore that I said I'd SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND, and instead mention how giving money away to people who now aren't paying any taxes and actually redistrubiting existing wealth isn't socialism.
MCCAIN: Finally, he wants Joe the Plumber to "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND", Obama's plan is Class Warfare (and it is, too), McCain doesn't want to raise anybody's taxes.
OBAMA: I'm cutting taxes for 95% of Americans even while 40% of Americans don't pay taxes, cause I'm MAGICAL, and I'm going to mention EXXXON again, cause they're evil, and you MIDDLE CLASS Folksy Folks are wonderful.
MCCAIN: He's not afraid to come off as irascible tonight, apparently, corporate taxes are too high, if we raise business tax, businesses will run off to Ireland and hire a bunch of leprechauns, we don't want leprechauns running our corporations!!!
6:14PM PDT
Schieffer: Both you are spending like drunken sailors, you'll both raise the deficit, what are you going to cut?
OBAMA: The rescue package will not add to the deficit if I'm running things, cause I'm MAGICAL. I believe in pay as you go, and every thing I've ever proposed on the Senate floor has been paid for (of course, I've never actually proposed anything), and again because I'm so magical, the Congress is going to give me a magical LINE ITEM VETO even though it's currently unconstitutional. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, still no cuts, even more spending proposed, actually, but he promises to be responsible.
MCCAIN: I'm going to ignore the question to Bob, I like spending tax money just as much as every other Senator, it's an addiction with us. Energy independence will magically balance the budget (actually, it could help if we sold mass quantities of oil on the open market, but that ain't happening), spending freeze, just go at the budget with a hatchet. End Ethanol subsidies (Woohoo!!), no tariff on Brazilian sugar based ethanol (again, woohoo!!!!). He'll fight for a line item veto (D'oh!, guess that pesky constitution is meaningless to McCain, too).
OBAMA: Spending freeze is bad, we can cut carefully and somehow come up with a 40-50% reduction of the federal budget (which is what you'd need to get towards not only balancing current budgets but reducing the debt). And it's all Bush's fault, and McCain is Bush, so there.
6:20PM PDT
Can you balance the budget?
MCCAIN: I ain't BUSH, MUTHERF$($#(&!!!!!! If a budget freeze works in NYC, it'll work here, and I'm the person to do it. Obama's a spender, and a liberal, and a waster, I'm not, MUTHERF*(&$#(&!!!!!!! (he didn't say the mutha's but he meant them)
OBAMA: Once I voted against lawyers, and I supported charter schools, and I support clean coal (funny he doesn't campaign much on those issues). McCain is a liar, even FOXNEWS says so, and they're evil. And I call you BUSH, cause you are BUSH, so there, and you hurt my feelings, you are a mean old man, you mean old man.
6:25PM PDT
You both pledged to be above the mud, but you're both slinging the muddy stuff, what's up with that?
MCCAIN: It's Obama's fault, if we met face to face, we wouldn't have had to trash him in paid ads. Rep. John Lewis is a libelous jerk and Sen. Obama sat silently, that hurt my feelings, too. Campaigning is tough, get used to it, and Obama's spent more on negative campaigning then anyone in history, and he lied about public financing, cause he's a liar, liar, with his pants on fire.
OBAMA: Ummh, Ahhh, Ummm, Ahhh, campaigns are Ummm, ahhh, tough. Ummm, ahhh, I think he doesn't like this Ummmm, Ahhh, question. 100% of McCain's ads are not only negative but racist, even the ones where he just talks about his own record (which have been plentiful, so this 100% of ads are negative is a laughably, and easily provably false statement that takes some amazing audacity to even think, let alone say out loud). Let's get back to the economy, he's being negative cause people love my WEALTH SPREAD™(see here).
MCCAIN: Obama sucks, and he knows it.
OBAMA: Rep. John Lewis was reacting to those MOBS of angry pitchfork wielders at all the GOP events, so it was understandable, but his analogy was inappropriate, and he Rep. Lewis also pulled back slightly. I'm not getting into tit for tat, cause we have big challenges, and let's talk health care, let's ignore that I'm an asshole.
MCCAIN: Our rallies are full of good folks, and an occasional idiot. Do not impugn the good folks just cause a few idiots show up, you pissant little fool. When they say bad stuff, I jump on them and tell them it's wrong, when your folks say bad stuff, you smirk your stupid little smirk you smarmy little bastard (OK, he didn't say those exact words, but that's what he meant).
OBAMA: This campaign is too serious to worry about the unlevel playing field that the MSM and fears about being labeled a racist have created.
MCCAIN: Ayers and ACORN are relevant given that Obama won't own up to his relationships with these crazies.
OBAMA: I'm above all this, I can't believe he deigned to mention Mr. Ayers, Bill Ayers is just a kindly Professor, and that little board we worked on was bi-partisan and Bill Ayers won't influence my presidency. ACORN is fine, just a few folks got out of line, and my past with them. I like a bunch of old white folks and DC Wonks, those are who will run my presidency, so don't bring up Ayers or ACORN.
MCCAIN: Facts are facts, and Obama's still not forthcoming, and my campaign is a positive one that will fix America, Obama's is a commie marxist radical piece of crap.
6:40PM PDT
Schieffer: Why would your VP be better if thrust into the Presidency than the other guy's?
OBAMA: Regular folksy folk Joe Biden is folksy folk, and an experienced policy wonk. Nevermind the plagarism, the blowhard, the sheer idiocy of his behavior on various Senate committees, or his shady familial dealings and spreading of campaign cash, Joe Biden will be wonderful, and did I mention I'm going to raise corporate taxes and give 95% of folks a tax cut?
MCCAIN: America Lurrrrrvvvvvvvsssssssss Palin! She's a reformer, she's real folksy folk, she's stood up to big oil, and she's reduced government, and she's a breast of freth aire (or something like that). Why'd he bring up Autism? I guess he's confusing Autism with Downs, or he sees all developmentally challenged children about the same.
OBAMA: (BOB: Is Palin qualified) Palin's wonderful, and yeah, special needs is important, and we need to spend more federal dollars on this stuff, and if you freeze monies, that won't happen.
MCCAIN (BOB: Is Biden qualified) He's a qualified idiot. (he says more, but that's all he really says). Obama's answer to everything is spending more, cause he's a spendaholic, and his programs will scuttle our economy.
6:47PM PDT
Bob Schieffer: How much can we reduce Oil imports by 2012?
MCCAIN: We can cut out Saudi and Venezuelan oil completely by 2012 (by upping domestic and Canadian, and reducing demand through alternatives). Canadian oil is good, it's got that special Canuck flavor.
OBAMA: 10 years, completely, I won't say what we can do in 4 years, but domestic production should be raised, carefully, and we must reduce demand, but only with types of energy sources that the Laurie Davids and Sheryl Crows of the world would approve. Did I mention that BUSH=MCCAIN lately? No, we'll I'll do it again, not all trade is good trade, but McCain thinks all trade is good, and we should be firm with South Korea and be protectionist, cause Smoot-Hawley worked so well.
MCCAIN: Notice Obama said, 'we'll 'look' at off shore drilling', he didn't say we'll do it. And Hell Yeah!! with the Free Trade, asshole. We're screwing Colombia, and Obama wants to keep screwing them, I want Colombia to prosper, Obama's never even been South of the Border.
OBAMA: The Colombian government is evil, and they've killed socialist, and I always prefer socialist, that's why I supported a free trade agreement with Peru. Back to energy, Ford/GM/Chrysler can be saved if we force them to create econoboxes and hybrids, cause government intervention into the design process ALWAYS turns out wonderfully!
MCCAIN: Obama won't trade with Colombia, but he'll sit down with Chavez (damn commies, both of them Obama and Chavez). If you want Hoover's Smoot-Hawley all over again, elect that smirking fool sitting next to me.
6:57PM
Bob Schieffer: Health care, what's up with that?
OBAMA: It breaks my heart, I love the middle aged women, especially those still angry about me snubbing Hillary, so let me look into the camera and tell you all the wonderful things that I'll do for you on health care. Unicorn farts, and candy rainbows, that's what I'm offering, it'll cost some money to harvest those unicorn farts, sure, but it's WORTH IT!
MCCAIN: It's a tough subject, and it's a cost issue, so reduce costs, improved records, clinics, tackle obesity, reward wellness, and most importantly, encourage competition. Hey, Joe the Plumber, what are you doing with that ballot in your hand? Vote for me! If Obama's elected, Obama will force you to spend far more to cover each employee, while my plan will be much more private, and his will be socialist.
OBAMA: Joe the Plumber, small business won't have to provide health care, I'm only going after the fat cats (ummm, then there'll be fewer big companies, or they'll hire far fewer people, not a good situation). Joe the Plumber will get a big fat tax credit, and that'll be wonderful. And McCain's credit won't cover some people, and he's going to tax health care, so he's evil, and won't cover most people (but my unicorn farts will cover everyone!).
MCCAIN: Hey Joe, Obama's a commie, and Obama is lying about my plan, it will be a net benefit to most people, and it will be far more portable both geographically, through the workplace. Obama is Senator Government (he shouldn't have corrected that mistake, he is Sen. Government). With the Dems in charge and Obama as President, it'll get far worse.
OBAMA: McCain's plan is scarrrrryyyyy!!!!!! Booooooooo!!!!!!
7:06PM PDT
Roe v Wade, McCain is against it, Obama loves it, would you nominate a Justice against your view?
MCCAIN: No litmus test from me. I lead the GANG of 14, Obama stayed away from it. I've voted for Breyer and Ginsburg cause they were qualified, Obama based his votes purely on ideology, cause he's an ideologue. Supporting Roe v Wade would probably be inconsistent with the type of constructionist I'd appoint, however.
OBAMA: There's a couple of old liberals on the court, and I won't have a litmus test, but *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*, so if you want to keep the current ideological balance, you know which one of us will pick correctly (I'll ignore the bit about Alito and Roberts and my opposition to those qualified nominees). Now I'm getting wonky with some dumb equal pay for equal work case (I guess his polling with PUMAs isn't looking good to bring up this at this time, he's pandering to a specific group, and despite the polls looking good for him, he seems very concerned with courting Hillary voter types).
MCCAIN: Obama kills live babies!
OBAMA: Ummm, ahh, ummmm, ahhhh, ummm, I didn't vote the way I voted, and the law I opposed didn't do what you claim it did. I support a late term ban, as long as you have loopholes that you could drive a truck through in it. And we shouldn't burden people with unwanted pregnancies, I'm mainstream on this issue, I swear. I don't like abortion.
MCCAIN: Health of the mother is a huge loophole, and is used for everything under the sun, and Obama knows that. The unborn have rights, period.
7:16PM PDT
Bob Schieffer: I don't like how Obama sounded on that last question, so let's move on, our education system is expensive and it sucks, what are you going to do about it?
OBAMA: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, we need reform and money, blah, blah, blah, blah, we must start state indoctrination while children are still in diapers, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, more pay for teachers, blah, blah, blah, blah, accountability, blah, blah, blah, blah, college is too expensive, blah, blah, blah, blah, tuition credit, blah, blah, blah, forced service for a government stipend, cause that'd be wonderful, and finally, the parents must be parents.
MCCAIN: It's a civil rights issue, we have equal access, but we still have failing schools, and we need choice and competition between schools to break the back of the unions, reward good teachers, and dump bad teachers. Charter schools are part of the answer, not throwing money at the problem. Teach America and Troops to Teacher should be supported, college loans, wait, I'm sounding pretty much just like Obama, I guess we both suck.
BOB Schieffer: Local or Federal control of education?
OBAMA: Yes, of course I believe we should socialize and standardize and federalize the schools, I'm a commie, afterall (but I'll pretend it's all about fixing No Child Left Behind and ending 'unfunded mandates'). I'm pro-charter school, I swear. And I'm against bad teachers. But, vouchers won't work, and he's not giving enough money to get people to take Marxist Theory courses or Wimyn's Studies.
MCCAIN: Vouchers do work, biiiiiyyyyyaaattttcchhhhh!!!! NCLB is just a beginning, money isn't the answer, reform Head Start, transperancy, and more accountability, and I'll guess I'll ignore the original question about whether or not this is primarily a Federal or Local thing.
OBAMA: I'm going to do more, I swear.
MCCAIN: You suck!
7:27PDT Closing statements:
MCCAIN: Vote for me.
OBAMA: Vote for me.
6:03PDT
Hi, I'm Bob Schieffer, and we're just a bunch a folksy folks talkin folksy stuff around a folksy table, so let's be regular folks and talk to the regular folks about the regular folksy folks stuff that regular folks folk about when they folk with each other.
First question: Market, sucks, what are you gonna do?
McCain: Homes, homes, throw money in a hole and help dumb people pay their mortgages.
Obama: I love Lon Guy Land! It's Depression II!!! Oh Noes!!!!! We both supported the bailout so, but don't forget executive compensation, and see I said, "MIDDLE CLASS", did McCain say "MIDDLE CLASS", no I don't think so, therefore because I say the words, "MIDDLE CLASS" and throw out the meaningless phrase "MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT" I'm more a man of the people than those fatcat Republicans. Specifics, Ha, you don't want specifics from The One, you just want him to whisper sweet nothings in your ear.
MCCAIN: McCain fires back with Joe the Plumber from Ohio, and he's taking to long to get to the punchline, the punchline was, Obama explicitly said he wants to "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND", without that phrase, the Joe the Plumber incident loses its fire. As Ren would say, EEEEEEDIOTTTTTTT!!!!
OBAMA: Rebuttal, spreading the wealth around is a great thing, evil OIL, did I mention EXXXON yet (yes, the extra 'x' is intentional, cause EXXXON is obscene), I just did, I'm so smart, I am The One, this is in the bag, I guess I'll just get wonky and ignore that I said I'd SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND, and instead mention how giving money away to people who now aren't paying any taxes and actually redistrubiting existing wealth isn't socialism.
MCCAIN: Finally, he wants Joe the Plumber to "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND", Obama's plan is Class Warfare (and it is, too), McCain doesn't want to raise anybody's taxes.
OBAMA: I'm cutting taxes for 95% of Americans even while 40% of Americans don't pay taxes, cause I'm MAGICAL, and I'm going to mention EXXXON again, cause they're evil, and you MIDDLE CLASS Folksy Folks are wonderful.
MCCAIN: He's not afraid to come off as irascible tonight, apparently, corporate taxes are too high, if we raise business tax, businesses will run off to Ireland and hire a bunch of leprechauns, we don't want leprechauns running our corporations!!!
6:14PM PDT
Schieffer: Both you are spending like drunken sailors, you'll both raise the deficit, what are you going to cut?
OBAMA: The rescue package will not add to the deficit if I'm running things, cause I'm MAGICAL. I believe in pay as you go, and every thing I've ever proposed on the Senate floor has been paid for (of course, I've never actually proposed anything), and again because I'm so magical, the Congress is going to give me a magical LINE ITEM VETO even though it's currently unconstitutional. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, still no cuts, even more spending proposed, actually, but he promises to be responsible.
MCCAIN: I'm going to ignore the question to Bob, I like spending tax money just as much as every other Senator, it's an addiction with us. Energy independence will magically balance the budget (actually, it could help if we sold mass quantities of oil on the open market, but that ain't happening), spending freeze, just go at the budget with a hatchet. End Ethanol subsidies (Woohoo!!), no tariff on Brazilian sugar based ethanol (again, woohoo!!!!). He'll fight for a line item veto (D'oh!, guess that pesky constitution is meaningless to McCain, too).
OBAMA: Spending freeze is bad, we can cut carefully and somehow come up with a 40-50% reduction of the federal budget (which is what you'd need to get towards not only balancing current budgets but reducing the debt). And it's all Bush's fault, and McCain is Bush, so there.
6:20PM PDT
Can you balance the budget?
MCCAIN: I ain't BUSH, MUTHERF$($#(&!!!!!! If a budget freeze works in NYC, it'll work here, and I'm the person to do it. Obama's a spender, and a liberal, and a waster, I'm not, MUTHERF*(&$#(&!!!!!!! (he didn't say the mutha's but he meant them)
OBAMA: Once I voted against lawyers, and I supported charter schools, and I support clean coal (funny he doesn't campaign much on those issues). McCain is a liar, even FOXNEWS says so, and they're evil. And I call you BUSH, cause you are BUSH, so there, and you hurt my feelings, you are a mean old man, you mean old man.
6:25PM PDT
You both pledged to be above the mud, but you're both slinging the muddy stuff, what's up with that?
MCCAIN: It's Obama's fault, if we met face to face, we wouldn't have had to trash him in paid ads. Rep. John Lewis is a libelous jerk and Sen. Obama sat silently, that hurt my feelings, too. Campaigning is tough, get used to it, and Obama's spent more on negative campaigning then anyone in history, and he lied about public financing, cause he's a liar, liar, with his pants on fire.
OBAMA: Ummh, Ahhh, Ummm, Ahhh, campaigns are Ummm, ahhh, tough. Ummm, ahhh, I think he doesn't like this Ummmm, Ahhh, question. 100% of McCain's ads are not only negative but racist, even the ones where he just talks about his own record (which have been plentiful, so this 100% of ads are negative is a laughably, and easily provably false statement that takes some amazing audacity to even think, let alone say out loud). Let's get back to the economy, he's being negative cause people love my WEALTH SPREAD™(see here).
MCCAIN: Obama sucks, and he knows it.
OBAMA: Rep. John Lewis was reacting to those MOBS of angry pitchfork wielders at all the GOP events, so it was understandable, but his analogy was inappropriate, and he Rep. Lewis also pulled back slightly. I'm not getting into tit for tat, cause we have big challenges, and let's talk health care, let's ignore that I'm an asshole.
MCCAIN: Our rallies are full of good folks, and an occasional idiot. Do not impugn the good folks just cause a few idiots show up, you pissant little fool. When they say bad stuff, I jump on them and tell them it's wrong, when your folks say bad stuff, you smirk your stupid little smirk you smarmy little bastard (OK, he didn't say those exact words, but that's what he meant).
OBAMA: This campaign is too serious to worry about the unlevel playing field that the MSM and fears about being labeled a racist have created.
MCCAIN: Ayers and ACORN are relevant given that Obama won't own up to his relationships with these crazies.
OBAMA: I'm above all this, I can't believe he deigned to mention Mr. Ayers, Bill Ayers is just a kindly Professor, and that little board we worked on was bi-partisan and Bill Ayers won't influence my presidency. ACORN is fine, just a few folks got out of line, and my past with them. I like a bunch of old white folks and DC Wonks, those are who will run my presidency, so don't bring up Ayers or ACORN.
MCCAIN: Facts are facts, and Obama's still not forthcoming, and my campaign is a positive one that will fix America, Obama's is a commie marxist radical piece of crap.
6:40PM PDT
Schieffer: Why would your VP be better if thrust into the Presidency than the other guy's?
OBAMA: Regular folksy folk Joe Biden is folksy folk, and an experienced policy wonk. Nevermind the plagarism, the blowhard, the sheer idiocy of his behavior on various Senate committees, or his shady familial dealings and spreading of campaign cash, Joe Biden will be wonderful, and did I mention I'm going to raise corporate taxes and give 95% of folks a tax cut?
MCCAIN: America Lurrrrrvvvvvvvsssssssss Palin! She's a reformer, she's real folksy folk, she's stood up to big oil, and she's reduced government, and she's a breast of freth aire (or something like that). Why'd he bring up Autism? I guess he's confusing Autism with Downs, or he sees all developmentally challenged children about the same.
OBAMA: (BOB: Is Palin qualified) Palin's wonderful, and yeah, special needs is important, and we need to spend more federal dollars on this stuff, and if you freeze monies, that won't happen.
MCCAIN (BOB: Is Biden qualified) He's a qualified idiot. (he says more, but that's all he really says). Obama's answer to everything is spending more, cause he's a spendaholic, and his programs will scuttle our economy.
6:47PM PDT
Bob Schieffer: How much can we reduce Oil imports by 2012?
MCCAIN: We can cut out Saudi and Venezuelan oil completely by 2012 (by upping domestic and Canadian, and reducing demand through alternatives). Canadian oil is good, it's got that special Canuck flavor.
OBAMA: 10 years, completely, I won't say what we can do in 4 years, but domestic production should be raised, carefully, and we must reduce demand, but only with types of energy sources that the Laurie Davids and Sheryl Crows of the world would approve. Did I mention that BUSH=MCCAIN lately? No, we'll I'll do it again, not all trade is good trade, but McCain thinks all trade is good, and we should be firm with South Korea and be protectionist, cause Smoot-Hawley worked so well.
MCCAIN: Notice Obama said, 'we'll 'look' at off shore drilling', he didn't say we'll do it. And Hell Yeah!! with the Free Trade, asshole. We're screwing Colombia, and Obama wants to keep screwing them, I want Colombia to prosper, Obama's never even been South of the Border.
OBAMA: The Colombian government is evil, and they've killed socialist, and I always prefer socialist, that's why I supported a free trade agreement with Peru. Back to energy, Ford/GM/Chrysler can be saved if we force them to create econoboxes and hybrids, cause government intervention into the design process ALWAYS turns out wonderfully!
MCCAIN: Obama won't trade with Colombia, but he'll sit down with Chavez (damn commies, both of them Obama and Chavez). If you want Hoover's Smoot-Hawley all over again, elect that smirking fool sitting next to me.
6:57PM
Bob Schieffer: Health care, what's up with that?
OBAMA: It breaks my heart, I love the middle aged women, especially those still angry about me snubbing Hillary, so let me look into the camera and tell you all the wonderful things that I'll do for you on health care. Unicorn farts, and candy rainbows, that's what I'm offering, it'll cost some money to harvest those unicorn farts, sure, but it's WORTH IT!
MCCAIN: It's a tough subject, and it's a cost issue, so reduce costs, improved records, clinics, tackle obesity, reward wellness, and most importantly, encourage competition. Hey, Joe the Plumber, what are you doing with that ballot in your hand? Vote for me! If Obama's elected, Obama will force you to spend far more to cover each employee, while my plan will be much more private, and his will be socialist.
OBAMA: Joe the Plumber, small business won't have to provide health care, I'm only going after the fat cats (ummm, then there'll be fewer big companies, or they'll hire far fewer people, not a good situation). Joe the Plumber will get a big fat tax credit, and that'll be wonderful. And McCain's credit won't cover some people, and he's going to tax health care, so he's evil, and won't cover most people (but my unicorn farts will cover everyone!).
MCCAIN: Hey Joe, Obama's a commie, and Obama is lying about my plan, it will be a net benefit to most people, and it will be far more portable both geographically, through the workplace. Obama is Senator Government (he shouldn't have corrected that mistake, he is Sen. Government). With the Dems in charge and Obama as President, it'll get far worse.
OBAMA: McCain's plan is scarrrrryyyyy!!!!!! Booooooooo!!!!!!
7:06PM PDT
Roe v Wade, McCain is against it, Obama loves it, would you nominate a Justice against your view?
MCCAIN: No litmus test from me. I lead the GANG of 14, Obama stayed away from it. I've voted for Breyer and Ginsburg cause they were qualified, Obama based his votes purely on ideology, cause he's an ideologue. Supporting Roe v Wade would probably be inconsistent with the type of constructionist I'd appoint, however.
OBAMA: There's a couple of old liberals on the court, and I won't have a litmus test, but *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*, so if you want to keep the current ideological balance, you know which one of us will pick correctly (I'll ignore the bit about Alito and Roberts and my opposition to those qualified nominees). Now I'm getting wonky with some dumb equal pay for equal work case (I guess his polling with PUMAs isn't looking good to bring up this at this time, he's pandering to a specific group, and despite the polls looking good for him, he seems very concerned with courting Hillary voter types).
MCCAIN: Obama kills live babies!
OBAMA: Ummm, ahh, ummmm, ahhhh, ummm, I didn't vote the way I voted, and the law I opposed didn't do what you claim it did. I support a late term ban, as long as you have loopholes that you could drive a truck through in it. And we shouldn't burden people with unwanted pregnancies, I'm mainstream on this issue, I swear. I don't like abortion.
MCCAIN: Health of the mother is a huge loophole, and is used for everything under the sun, and Obama knows that. The unborn have rights, period.
7:16PM PDT
Bob Schieffer: I don't like how Obama sounded on that last question, so let's move on, our education system is expensive and it sucks, what are you going to do about it?
OBAMA: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, we need reform and money, blah, blah, blah, blah, we must start state indoctrination while children are still in diapers, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, more pay for teachers, blah, blah, blah, blah, accountability, blah, blah, blah, blah, college is too expensive, blah, blah, blah, blah, tuition credit, blah, blah, blah, forced service for a government stipend, cause that'd be wonderful, and finally, the parents must be parents.
MCCAIN: It's a civil rights issue, we have equal access, but we still have failing schools, and we need choice and competition between schools to break the back of the unions, reward good teachers, and dump bad teachers. Charter schools are part of the answer, not throwing money at the problem. Teach America and Troops to Teacher should be supported, college loans, wait, I'm sounding pretty much just like Obama, I guess we both suck.
BOB Schieffer: Local or Federal control of education?
OBAMA: Yes, of course I believe we should socialize and standardize and federalize the schools, I'm a commie, afterall (but I'll pretend it's all about fixing No Child Left Behind and ending 'unfunded mandates'). I'm pro-charter school, I swear. And I'm against bad teachers. But, vouchers won't work, and he's not giving enough money to get people to take Marxist Theory courses or Wimyn's Studies.
MCCAIN: Vouchers do work, biiiiiyyyyyaaattttcchhhhh!!!! NCLB is just a beginning, money isn't the answer, reform Head Start, transperancy, and more accountability, and I'll guess I'll ignore the original question about whether or not this is primarily a Federal or Local thing.
OBAMA: I'm going to do more, I swear.
MCCAIN: You suck!
7:27PDT Closing statements:
MCCAIN: Vote for me.
OBAMA: Vote for me.
Ten Questions for Each Candidate That Probably Won't Be Asked...
For Obama (going into bullet point mode, cause this blog has been lacking in bullet points, lately)
McCain questions that won't be asked:
Edward Said, fool or sage? Wealth redistribution, policy goal or communism? Mandatory government servitude, bringing us together or neo-slavery? White Sox or Cubs? Of all the cities to make a name for yourself politically, why pick the biggest cesspool of corruption in the nation? Should the federal government set prices at the pump and for home heating oil? Is combating global warming more important than improving the economy, and if one adversely effects the other, which wins in your administration? Yes or No? (no other question and not referencing anything else, just ask him, "Yes or No", sometimes, how one responds to nonsense has meaning) Which should be the larger priority in K-12 education, encouraging more students to embrace the hard sciences, or promoting social justice? Do you really believe that the President has a line item veto as you've implied throughout your campaign?
McCain questions that won't be asked:
What's wrong with a flatter simplified tax code? In retrospect, McCain-Feingold, a huge mistake, or success? How 'bout them Cardinals, playoff bound? How old is too old to run for President? If you were forced to cut three cabinet posts, which three would you eliminate? As you are likely going to be faced with a solid Democratic majority in the Senate, how would you get a strict constructionist for the Supreme Court through the Senate confirming process? Fish or Fowl? (what, you didn't expect the same nonsense question, did you?) In light of the Heller decision, will you direct your DOJ to aggressively attack municipal and state handgun bans? What could we learn from Canada, and the way they are governed? Should voting standards be more nationalized to prevent future Florida and ACORN style messes?
If Either Candidate Had Any Guts...
They'd stride out on the stage at Hofstra for tonight's debate, wearing one of these (let's see Mr. Schieffer deal with that, again).
(Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll semi-live-blog this semi-interesting-debate)
(Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll semi-live-blog this semi-interesting-debate)
11 October 2008
The Difference Between the Two Candidates . . .
If what is actually happening in the markets is that traders are 'pricing in' an Obama victory as it seems more certain, then the difference between the expected Obama victory and an unexpected McCain victory might look something like this when the markets close on December 5th about a month after the election:
President Elect Obama
DJIA 7500
President Elect McCain
DJIA 11,000
The market isn't the entire economy (despite the way many are acting in the media at the moment), and an Obama victory beating down the market isn't all about Obama, but has to do with the fear in some circles that a unified Executive and Legislative branch (and even worse, a fillibuster proof Senate) would be compelled to 'do something' to the economy (and I do mean 'to' with all the associated connotations of that preposition, and not 'with', or 'for').
McCain would also be compelled to 'do something', but luckily in the McCain scenario, he'd be opposed rather than egged along by the Legislative branch.
President Elect Obama
DJIA 7500
President Elect McCain
DJIA 11,000
The market isn't the entire economy (despite the way many are acting in the media at the moment), and an Obama victory beating down the market isn't all about Obama, but has to do with the fear in some circles that a unified Executive and Legislative branch (and even worse, a fillibuster proof Senate) would be compelled to 'do something' to the economy (and I do mean 'to' with all the associated connotations of that preposition, and not 'with', or 'for').
McCain would also be compelled to 'do something', but luckily in the McCain scenario, he'd be opposed rather than egged along by the Legislative branch.
07 October 2008
If a Blogger Liveblogs a Debate, and Nobody Follows it Live, Was It Really a Liveblog?
Bears, wood, shit, I'll be liveblogging the debate, even if nobody notices.
5:55PM PDT
Why is a Panda sneezing in my semi-liveblog? Cause I expect this Townhall to be PANDERFEST 2008™
6:00PM PDT
80 uncommitted voters selected by Gallup, vetted by NBC, that makes me feel good about this being fair to the GOP candidate (or not).
6:01PM PDT
Tom Brokaw's the final arbiter of what's asked and unasked, Brokaw begins with woooooeeeeeeeee, the economy, we're doooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmm. Allen Shaffer asks the first question, Obama begins the littany of woe, depression is here, etc, and I guess that means a new New Deal is in order. But, that FDR crap screwed us over and delayed the recovery from that trough until WWII. Of course, this is an excuse for class warfare, boooooo!!! CEOs, yeaahhhhh!!! middle class. That's Obama's solution.
McCain's solution is socializing home ownership. Uggghhh.
Neither candidate is really offering anything interesting or sensible.
Brokaw asks who would you appoint to replace Paulson, McCain's answer, maybe Warren Buffett, maybe Meg Whitman, someone folksy folks can trust. Candidate Obama unanswers the question, instead he wants to hit the wooooooeeeeee is the middle class crap again. Meh.
6:11PM PDT
Oliver Clark asks what's up with this bailout? McCain hits the Fannie/Freddie link to the current mess, and links Obama to it, and touts his own calls for reform. Will anyone hear him (Obama can be seen smirking as he listens). McCain pushes the home loan thing again, along with reform of Fannie/Freddie presumably.
Obama gets up to answer, says it's about the credit market (so why didn't the money go straight to the credit market?). Obama blames deregulation, Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with it, I suppose.
James Brown sums up both responses.
6:17PM
Brokaw asks, 'will things get worse before they get better'? McCain's answer, American workers are great, Obama doesn't get that question.
On to Teresa Finch, 'both your parties suck, why should we trust either of you?'
Obama's answer, GWB, GWB, GWB, McCain=GWB, GWB=Satan, therefore McCain=Satan. Obama claims he's a deficit hawk who will shrink government (seems hardly believable).
McCain's answer, DC is broken, he's Mr. Reform! Oh, no he didn't he mentioned his crappy ass McCain-Feingold, the same bill both candidates have run circles around and raised huge wads of cash. McCain hits Obama on being a big fat liberal, and big spender, Obama's smirking again, I guess he's going for bemused disdain. Somehow McCain brought in Energy Independence, I guess he figures that's a winning issue for him.
6:23PM
Brokaw asks Health Care, Energy, Entitlement, which is highest priority?
McCain answers first, McCain says you can go after all three, and 'my friends' Social Security is a joke, it won't be there for you if you were born after 1960. Nuclear power, all the above, domestic production of energy, and health care, whatever, all three can be done, no priorities.
Obama's answer, energy is first (I guess), specifics, naaahhhhh. $15B over 10 years to create magic fairy dust that will power our cars using the bottled farts of unicorns and dragons. Obama still seems to think the President has a line item veto, guess he hasn't read the U.S. Constitution lately. Hits McCain on that $4B to BIG OIL (Booo!) bit.
6:29PM Internet Question from 78 year old Fiorra (or 12 year old Candi, it's the internet, who knows?)
What sacrifices will we ask from our citizens, McCain pushes for earmark reform again. Reduce the size of the federal government with spending freezes to non-essential programs (why not eliminate the non-essential? I hate half measures, Federalism would be nice for a change). McCain goes back to the importance of not prioritizing.
Obama gets up to bat, brings up 9/11 and how GWB (booo!!!) squandered all that good will and not asking for sacrifices (derides, 'go out and shop' back in 2001). In the great ObamaNation that will follow his inaugural, we will all happily reduce our own energy use by buying smaller cars, weather stripping, and serving in the Peace Corps, and starting up a Volunteer Corps so that everyone gets drafted into non-military service (he didn't say that, but he did say that as far as I'm concerned).
6:34PM
Brokaw asks how Government will restrain itself. Obama answers, we must punish the rich (not what he said, but what he means). Derides freeze proposal, cause government is wonderful. McCain calls Obama changeable with regards to his various tax proposals, compares him to Herbert Hoover, and even invokes Smoot-Hawley (but not by name). McCain wants to leave taxes alone, and game the system with tax credits rather than actually fixing the system and reducing the complexity of the system.
6:39PM
Internet Langdon asks, unfunded entitlements will eat the whole budget within a few decades, what are you gonna do about it? Obama won't give up on his 95% OF YOU WILL GET A TAX CUT, PROMISE, PINKIE SWEAR, CROSS MY HEART AND HOPE TO DIE. Let's ignore the entitlement question. Hit's McCain on tax cuts for the rich thing again. Whatever, soaking the rich will have a 'trickle down' effect, things that trickle only trickle down, wanting the economy to work from the bottom up instead of top down defies history, experience, and physics.
McCain's answer, 'I'm a Maverick!' He'll attack Social Security (no specifics), he'll attack Medicare with a Commission! (similar to the base-closing commission of the 90s). McCain hits back on Obama's tax record.
6:44PM
Ingrid Jackson asks 'Climate change, green jobs, why can't Congress always act so fast as on the bailout'? McCain answers, me and my buddy Leiberman are green, we're so green we green glow with Nuclear Power! (woohoo!!) Go Nuclear! Pushes his 'all the above' approach, cause American workers are great.
Obama describes this as both an opportunity as a challenge, and we'll have 5,000,000 new green jobs if the government gets involved. He implies that the computer was a government project, but that's bunk, computers were big room filling pieces of hardware before the PC revolution, and computers as they are used in our daily lives and have changed the shape of the world were decidedly NOT a government aided phenomenon. Green Tech will be similar, I suspect, the more government stays out of the way, the better, but Obama wants the government to pick which companies and solutions win, and which lose, which is why we end up with porkbarrel crap like E85. Grrrr, Arrggggghhhhhh.
Brokaw's getting sniffy, do we want incubators, or Manhattan project?
McCain wants both, start off with government project, and once it gets going, hand it over to the private sector. McCain hits the pork thing again, which is relevant given that much of our energy policy is pork based in one way or another and that's why it has failed so miserably and Obama's suggested solution will most likely fail miserably (hey, I'm not impartial, I can through in a partisan screed from time to time).
6:50PM
Lindsey Trella asks, 'should Health Care be a commodity'?
Obama answers, 'waahhh, waaahhh, waahhh, boohoo, boohoo, boohoo, health care is broken, and the government must step in and save everyone and everything'. Somehow socializing health care won't lead to socialized medicine. If the government steps in and offers a gold-plated health care system of first resort like what Congress gets, then health care will be effectively socialized, private providers will not be able to compete. Either he's lying about his intentions, or he's an idiot.
McCain answers, expand effeciency, and the market can work and folks can afford it with a bit of a bump from the government with his tax credit. Let folks shop, they'll make the better decisions. Choice will work, markets will work, that's his mantra.
Brokaw asks, health care, privilege, right or responsibility?
McCain answers, it's a responsibility, we ain't Canada biyaaaatccchhhhh!!!! (I may have maed up the part about Canada). Ohhh, 'nother smirk.
Obama, health care is a RIGHT, cause his mother died of cancer fighting with insurance companies (Earth to Obama, socialized medicine paradises don't do half of the stuff we do for cancer patients, they would have stuck your mama in hospice care and morphined her up and she probably would have died months earlier than she did here, but why let facts get in the way of a good personal anecdote?)
That sums up the difference between the two, doesn't it, and it shows that if health care is a RIGHT, then how can you leave it up to the private sector? Someone isn't telling the whole truth about what he wants to do about health care, and it ain't McCain.
7:00PM
I missed Obama's rant against deregulation while I was doing my own rant. Phil Eliott asks, 'will our economy effect our military?' (obviously I've been paraphrasing the questions, that's why the single quotes).
McCain answers by singing the little ditty below:
(I know the above video is meant to be anti-American, but screw that, we kick too much ass for some little snot on the internet to make us look bad).
OK, I lied, he didn't start singing that song, but he should have.
Obama's answer, we are in decline, Iraq was a mistake, everyone hates us, woooooeeeee, wooooeeeeee, woooooeeeee is us, Unless we elect The One.
Brokaw, what's the 'Obama Doctrine' and what's the 'McCain Doctrine'?
Obama answers, Rwanda should have been considered, genocide is very, very bad, and we should intervene where possible, but defining what's possible is entirely up to The One. Darfur, we could do some stuff, but only if everyone loves us.
McCain answers, goes back to Obama being wrong about withdrawal, would have screwed Iraq and the whole region. The USA (F Yeah!) is a force for good in the world, McCain won't repeat the mistakes of Somalia, or Lebanon in the early 80s.
Both said about the same, but Obama emphasized international cooperation.
7:12PM
Katie Hamm asks about hitting Pakistan with or without their approval to hit Al Qaeda and Taleban.
Obama blames Bush, Iraq is why Bin Laden is dead somewhere (hey, you can't prove he's alive, so I'm assuming he's dead) in Pakistan. We need to talk tough with Pakistan, so far hasn't answered the question, he'll waive his wand and get them to do what we want, I guess.
McCain answers, Teddy Roosevelt is a hero of mine, I knew Teddy (oh, wait, sorry, he wasn't pulling a Lloyd Bentsen). Goes back to driving out the Soviets, should have helped rebuild Afghanistan in the 80s, won't make the same mistake. Petraeus will save Afghanistan, and we'll work with Pakistan, McCain won't talk tough (but he'll act tough, as implied, and also implying that Obama is all bluster with his talk of going after Bin Laden in Pakistan).
Obama demands a rebuttal, rambles, accuses McCain of being unhinged and bloodthirsty.
So far nothing new from this dog and pony show, neither is hurting the other (nor helping themselves, really).
7:17PM
Brokaw, Oh Noes! Afghanistan is a disaster, we need a friendly dictator there.
Obama, answers, Iraq is the problem with Afghanistan. Blah, Blah, Blah, this is going nowhere, refutes friendly dictator suggestion, but thinks Afghan government can be more responsible to their people.
McCain answers, tactics need to change, NATO needs to be better commanded, and the Afghans and Pakistanis most step up, and the surge can work in Afghanistan (and also, Obama won't admit that he was wrong about the surge in Iraq). In Petraeus we trust. Honor, Victory.
7:20PM
Russia, they're bad, how do we get them to be better?
McCain answers, Russia is bad, they're fat with oil money, they're being run by ex-KGB, and they're acting agressively in their backyard. We must support Georgia and Ukraine, and get them in NATO. Get the rest of the world on our side (ahhh, but there's all that oil, and Europe and China are weenies, so that's a non-starter).
Obama answers, Russia is one of the central issues for any future adminstration, and we must help these ex-Soviet Republics, and we must talk alot without actually saying anything (oh wait, that's what he's doing, not what he's saying he'll do, but he's still not saying anything, and brings Bin Laden back into this somehow).
7:25PM
Russia, Evil Empire?
Obama, they have evil impulses.
McCain, maybe, can't answer either way, Russia will play ball, but we must play from strength.
7:26PM Two more questions
Retired Navy Chief Terry Shirey asks will we defend Israel if Iran attacks?
McCain shakes the CPO's hand, can't wait for UN to defend our friends, must prevent Iran from getting nukes, cause Iran having nukes means Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and any one else with the means will want their own. Sanctions will prevent the possibility of an Iranian attack on Israel seems to be his answer, and that we won't allow a 2nd holocaust, so I guess that means we'll defend Israel (and possibly bomb the hell out of Iran with our own nukes, though he doesn't say that).
Obama replies diplomacy will keep us from having to make this decision (but only if we have a president the rest of the world lurrrvvvvvvvs, like The Obama). He's still talking, goes back to the idea of direct talks with Iran, cause there's nothing wrong with a President Obama meeting with President Ahma-dinner-jacket.
7:31PM Last Question!
Peggy asks, What Don't You Know, and How Will You Learn It?
Obama's answer, Michelle has my balls in a jar by her dresser (oh, wait, that's not what he said, but sounds like it to me). He's giving a closing statement, he's not even thinking about answering the question, Brokaw should break in with an, "Obama, Please" (is that racist of me to suggest that?). More Wooooooooeeeeeeeee, woooooooeeeeee is we, but that woe will be relieved if we have the courage and nerve to elect The One.
McCain steps up, McCain doesn't know what everyone doesn't know, nobody knows the trouble we'll see.
But, that trouble will be overcome by the great folks of the US of A, and his steady hand will guide us through these troubled waters.
7:36PM MY IMPRESSIONS
Nobody did nothing, they told the same half-truths, spun the same spin, neither hurt themselves, or the other, neither of them seemed to really have any solution more than 'more government' to the domestic issues, and as far as foreign policy, Obama believes the consensus fairy will come and build global consensus at the waive of a wand, while McCain seems to believe that more of the same with a slight McCain twist will do the job.
Watching the NBC feed, Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell are immediately spinning it as a big Obama victory (without directly saying so).
5:55PM PDT
Why is a Panda sneezing in my semi-liveblog? Cause I expect this Townhall to be PANDERFEST 2008™
6:00PM PDT
80 uncommitted voters selected by Gallup, vetted by NBC, that makes me feel good about this being fair to the GOP candidate (or not).
6:01PM PDT
Tom Brokaw's the final arbiter of what's asked and unasked, Brokaw begins with woooooeeeeeeeee, the economy, we're doooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmm. Allen Shaffer asks the first question, Obama begins the littany of woe, depression is here, etc, and I guess that means a new New Deal is in order. But, that FDR crap screwed us over and delayed the recovery from that trough until WWII. Of course, this is an excuse for class warfare, boooooo!!! CEOs, yeaahhhhh!!! middle class. That's Obama's solution.
McCain's solution is socializing home ownership. Uggghhh.
Neither candidate is really offering anything interesting or sensible.
Brokaw asks who would you appoint to replace Paulson, McCain's answer, maybe Warren Buffett, maybe Meg Whitman, someone folksy folks can trust. Candidate Obama unanswers the question, instead he wants to hit the wooooooeeeeee is the middle class crap again. Meh.
6:11PM PDT
Oliver Clark asks what's up with this bailout? McCain hits the Fannie/Freddie link to the current mess, and links Obama to it, and touts his own calls for reform. Will anyone hear him (Obama can be seen smirking as he listens). McCain pushes the home loan thing again, along with reform of Fannie/Freddie presumably.
Obama gets up to answer, says it's about the credit market (so why didn't the money go straight to the credit market?). Obama blames deregulation, Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with it, I suppose.
James Brown sums up both responses.
6:17PM
Brokaw asks, 'will things get worse before they get better'? McCain's answer, American workers are great, Obama doesn't get that question.
On to Teresa Finch, 'both your parties suck, why should we trust either of you?'
Obama's answer, GWB, GWB, GWB, McCain=GWB, GWB=Satan, therefore McCain=Satan. Obama claims he's a deficit hawk who will shrink government (seems hardly believable).
McCain's answer, DC is broken, he's Mr. Reform! Oh, no he didn't he mentioned his crappy ass McCain-Feingold, the same bill both candidates have run circles around and raised huge wads of cash. McCain hits Obama on being a big fat liberal, and big spender, Obama's smirking again, I guess he's going for bemused disdain. Somehow McCain brought in Energy Independence, I guess he figures that's a winning issue for him.
6:23PM
Brokaw asks Health Care, Energy, Entitlement, which is highest priority?
McCain answers first, McCain says you can go after all three, and 'my friends' Social Security is a joke, it won't be there for you if you were born after 1960. Nuclear power, all the above, domestic production of energy, and health care, whatever, all three can be done, no priorities.
Obama's answer, energy is first (I guess), specifics, naaahhhhh. $15B over 10 years to create magic fairy dust that will power our cars using the bottled farts of unicorns and dragons. Obama still seems to think the President has a line item veto, guess he hasn't read the U.S. Constitution lately. Hits McCain on that $4B to BIG OIL (Booo!) bit.
6:29PM Internet Question from 78 year old Fiorra (or 12 year old Candi, it's the internet, who knows?)
What sacrifices will we ask from our citizens, McCain pushes for earmark reform again. Reduce the size of the federal government with spending freezes to non-essential programs (why not eliminate the non-essential? I hate half measures, Federalism would be nice for a change). McCain goes back to the importance of not prioritizing.
Obama gets up to bat, brings up 9/11 and how GWB (booo!!!) squandered all that good will and not asking for sacrifices (derides, 'go out and shop' back in 2001). In the great ObamaNation that will follow his inaugural, we will all happily reduce our own energy use by buying smaller cars, weather stripping, and serving in the Peace Corps, and starting up a Volunteer Corps so that everyone gets drafted into non-military service (he didn't say that, but he did say that as far as I'm concerned).
6:34PM
Brokaw asks how Government will restrain itself. Obama answers, we must punish the rich (not what he said, but what he means). Derides freeze proposal, cause government is wonderful. McCain calls Obama changeable with regards to his various tax proposals, compares him to Herbert Hoover, and even invokes Smoot-Hawley (but not by name). McCain wants to leave taxes alone, and game the system with tax credits rather than actually fixing the system and reducing the complexity of the system.
6:39PM
Internet Langdon asks, unfunded entitlements will eat the whole budget within a few decades, what are you gonna do about it? Obama won't give up on his 95% OF YOU WILL GET A TAX CUT, PROMISE, PINKIE SWEAR, CROSS MY HEART AND HOPE TO DIE. Let's ignore the entitlement question. Hit's McCain on tax cuts for the rich thing again. Whatever, soaking the rich will have a 'trickle down' effect, things that trickle only trickle down, wanting the economy to work from the bottom up instead of top down defies history, experience, and physics.
McCain's answer, 'I'm a Maverick!' He'll attack Social Security (no specifics), he'll attack Medicare with a Commission! (similar to the base-closing commission of the 90s). McCain hits back on Obama's tax record.
6:44PM
Ingrid Jackson asks 'Climate change, green jobs, why can't Congress always act so fast as on the bailout'? McCain answers, me and my buddy Leiberman are green, we're so green we green glow with Nuclear Power! (woohoo!!) Go Nuclear! Pushes his 'all the above' approach, cause American workers are great.
Obama describes this as both an opportunity as a challenge, and we'll have 5,000,000 new green jobs if the government gets involved. He implies that the computer was a government project, but that's bunk, computers were big room filling pieces of hardware before the PC revolution, and computers as they are used in our daily lives and have changed the shape of the world were decidedly NOT a government aided phenomenon. Green Tech will be similar, I suspect, the more government stays out of the way, the better, but Obama wants the government to pick which companies and solutions win, and which lose, which is why we end up with porkbarrel crap like E85. Grrrr, Arrggggghhhhhh.
Brokaw's getting sniffy, do we want incubators, or Manhattan project?
McCain wants both, start off with government project, and once it gets going, hand it over to the private sector. McCain hits the pork thing again, which is relevant given that much of our energy policy is pork based in one way or another and that's why it has failed so miserably and Obama's suggested solution will most likely fail miserably (hey, I'm not impartial, I can through in a partisan screed from time to time).
6:50PM
Lindsey Trella asks, 'should Health Care be a commodity'?
Obama answers, 'waahhh, waaahhh, waahhh, boohoo, boohoo, boohoo, health care is broken, and the government must step in and save everyone and everything'. Somehow socializing health care won't lead to socialized medicine. If the government steps in and offers a gold-plated health care system of first resort like what Congress gets, then health care will be effectively socialized, private providers will not be able to compete. Either he's lying about his intentions, or he's an idiot.
McCain answers, expand effeciency, and the market can work and folks can afford it with a bit of a bump from the government with his tax credit. Let folks shop, they'll make the better decisions. Choice will work, markets will work, that's his mantra.
Brokaw asks, health care, privilege, right or responsibility?
McCain answers, it's a responsibility, we ain't Canada biyaaaatccchhhhh!!!! (I may have maed up the part about Canada). Ohhh, 'nother smirk.
Obama, health care is a RIGHT, cause his mother died of cancer fighting with insurance companies (Earth to Obama, socialized medicine paradises don't do half of the stuff we do for cancer patients, they would have stuck your mama in hospice care and morphined her up and she probably would have died months earlier than she did here, but why let facts get in the way of a good personal anecdote?)
That sums up the difference between the two, doesn't it, and it shows that if health care is a RIGHT, then how can you leave it up to the private sector? Someone isn't telling the whole truth about what he wants to do about health care, and it ain't McCain.
7:00PM
I missed Obama's rant against deregulation while I was doing my own rant. Phil Eliott asks, 'will our economy effect our military?' (obviously I've been paraphrasing the questions, that's why the single quotes).
McCain answers by singing the little ditty below:
(I know the above video is meant to be anti-American, but screw that, we kick too much ass for some little snot on the internet to make us look bad).
OK, I lied, he didn't start singing that song, but he should have.
Obama's answer, we are in decline, Iraq was a mistake, everyone hates us, woooooeeeee, wooooeeeeee, woooooeeeee is us, Unless we elect The One.
Brokaw, what's the 'Obama Doctrine' and what's the 'McCain Doctrine'?
Obama answers, Rwanda should have been considered, genocide is very, very bad, and we should intervene where possible, but defining what's possible is entirely up to The One. Darfur, we could do some stuff, but only if everyone loves us.
McCain answers, goes back to Obama being wrong about withdrawal, would have screwed Iraq and the whole region. The USA (F Yeah!) is a force for good in the world, McCain won't repeat the mistakes of Somalia, or Lebanon in the early 80s.
Both said about the same, but Obama emphasized international cooperation.
7:12PM
Katie Hamm asks about hitting Pakistan with or without their approval to hit Al Qaeda and Taleban.
Obama blames Bush, Iraq is why Bin Laden is dead somewhere (hey, you can't prove he's alive, so I'm assuming he's dead) in Pakistan. We need to talk tough with Pakistan, so far hasn't answered the question, he'll waive his wand and get them to do what we want, I guess.
McCain answers, Teddy Roosevelt is a hero of mine, I knew Teddy (oh, wait, sorry, he wasn't pulling a Lloyd Bentsen). Goes back to driving out the Soviets, should have helped rebuild Afghanistan in the 80s, won't make the same mistake. Petraeus will save Afghanistan, and we'll work with Pakistan, McCain won't talk tough (but he'll act tough, as implied, and also implying that Obama is all bluster with his talk of going after Bin Laden in Pakistan).
Obama demands a rebuttal, rambles, accuses McCain of being unhinged and bloodthirsty.
So far nothing new from this dog and pony show, neither is hurting the other (nor helping themselves, really).
7:17PM
Brokaw, Oh Noes! Afghanistan is a disaster, we need a friendly dictator there.
Obama, answers, Iraq is the problem with Afghanistan. Blah, Blah, Blah, this is going nowhere, refutes friendly dictator suggestion, but thinks Afghan government can be more responsible to their people.
McCain answers, tactics need to change, NATO needs to be better commanded, and the Afghans and Pakistanis most step up, and the surge can work in Afghanistan (and also, Obama won't admit that he was wrong about the surge in Iraq). In Petraeus we trust. Honor, Victory.
7:20PM
Russia, they're bad, how do we get them to be better?
McCain answers, Russia is bad, they're fat with oil money, they're being run by ex-KGB, and they're acting agressively in their backyard. We must support Georgia and Ukraine, and get them in NATO. Get the rest of the world on our side (ahhh, but there's all that oil, and Europe and China are weenies, so that's a non-starter).
Obama answers, Russia is one of the central issues for any future adminstration, and we must help these ex-Soviet Republics, and we must talk alot without actually saying anything (oh wait, that's what he's doing, not what he's saying he'll do, but he's still not saying anything, and brings Bin Laden back into this somehow).
7:25PM
Russia, Evil Empire?
Obama, they have evil impulses.
McCain, maybe, can't answer either way, Russia will play ball, but we must play from strength.
7:26PM Two more questions
Retired Navy Chief Terry Shirey asks will we defend Israel if Iran attacks?
McCain shakes the CPO's hand, can't wait for UN to defend our friends, must prevent Iran from getting nukes, cause Iran having nukes means Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and any one else with the means will want their own. Sanctions will prevent the possibility of an Iranian attack on Israel seems to be his answer, and that we won't allow a 2nd holocaust, so I guess that means we'll defend Israel (and possibly bomb the hell out of Iran with our own nukes, though he doesn't say that).
Obama replies diplomacy will keep us from having to make this decision (but only if we have a president the rest of the world lurrrvvvvvvvs, like The Obama). He's still talking, goes back to the idea of direct talks with Iran, cause there's nothing wrong with a President Obama meeting with President Ahma-dinner-jacket.
7:31PM Last Question!
Peggy asks, What Don't You Know, and How Will You Learn It?
Obama's answer, Michelle has my balls in a jar by her dresser (oh, wait, that's not what he said, but sounds like it to me). He's giving a closing statement, he's not even thinking about answering the question, Brokaw should break in with an, "Obama, Please" (is that racist of me to suggest that?). More Wooooooooeeeeeeeee, woooooooeeeeee is we, but that woe will be relieved if we have the courage and nerve to elect The One.
McCain steps up, McCain doesn't know what everyone doesn't know, nobody knows the trouble we'll see.
But, that trouble will be overcome by the great folks of the US of A, and his steady hand will guide us through these troubled waters.
7:36PM MY IMPRESSIONS
Nobody did nothing, they told the same half-truths, spun the same spin, neither hurt themselves, or the other, neither of them seemed to really have any solution more than 'more government' to the domestic issues, and as far as foreign policy, Obama believes the consensus fairy will come and build global consensus at the waive of a wand, while McCain seems to believe that more of the same with a slight McCain twist will do the job.
Watching the NBC feed, Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell are immediately spinning it as a big Obama victory (without directly saying so).
03 October 2008
Because Somehow Where You Shop and Eat Matter . . .
So, Joe Biden probably lied, or misremembered a few details about places he frequents in Wilmington.
In preparation for my 2016 run, I guess I should start cataloging the places I patronize.
Last 3 'restaurants' I ate at:
NY Pizza & Pasta (mostly excellent pizza (sometimes undercooked), I believe Israeli owned, cause Israelis know pizza)
Ramen-ya (tasty ramen, but noticed after we finished eating that their health board rating has dropped to a "C", so may wait till they get back to an "A" before going back)
McDonalds (I haven't eaten a McDonalds burger in ages, so rather than my usual fast food fix of Jack n the Box, thought I'd give McDonalds a go and order something. Big mistake, was pretty nasty, the fries weren't terrible, though)
The last three shops I patronized (all on the same day):
Costco That's right, big box shopping rules. The membership pays for itself pretty quickly.
Target Practically WalMart, but not quite.
Home Depot I love me some wood (and tools).
Hopefully, the information above will help you in deciding whether or not to vote for me in the 2016 GOP primaries and caucuses.
In preparation for my 2016 run, I guess I should start cataloging the places I patronize.
Last 3 'restaurants' I ate at:
NY Pizza & Pasta (mostly excellent pizza (sometimes undercooked), I believe Israeli owned, cause Israelis know pizza)
Ramen-ya (tasty ramen, but noticed after we finished eating that their health board rating has dropped to a "C", so may wait till they get back to an "A" before going back)
McDonalds (I haven't eaten a McDonalds burger in ages, so rather than my usual fast food fix of Jack n the Box, thought I'd give McDonalds a go and order something. Big mistake, was pretty nasty, the fries weren't terrible, though)
The last three shops I patronized (all on the same day):
Costco That's right, big box shopping rules. The membership pays for itself pretty quickly.
Target Practically WalMart, but not quite.
Home Depot I love me some wood (and tools).
Hopefully, the information above will help you in deciding whether or not to vote for me in the 2016 GOP primaries and caucuses.
26 September 2008
A Debate Complaint . . .
Foreign Affairs isn't only war-fighting, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia, though you'd get that impression from this debate. Issues that should have been addressed, but weren't:
Instead of an endless back and forth about whether or not Iraq was a mistake and whether or not Afghanistan is in trouble, there are many more global challenges facing the next President, and it would have been nice to see a debate that focused on future challenges rather than rehashing the same tired talking points of the past 6 years.
Borders.
Would have been nice to get Obama and McCain on record as agreeing or disagreeing about illegal immigration.
Overbearing visa restrictions.
It's too easy for the wrong people to sneak in, and too hard for the right people to visit and move here legally. This has to stop and damages us abroad. Would have been nice for this to be brought up.
Opium.
Afghanistan would be going better if we would buy up the opium crops (and use it for the production of medical opiods) and support the growers, rather than letting that revenue stream fund Al Qaeda and Taliban efforts.
Free Trade.
Colombia's President is wandering around NYC and DC trying to get firm support for a trade agreement, and the Democratic leadership in Congress is giving him a cold shoulder. That's no way to treat a staunch ally, but for the Dems are on a protectionist kick, and the media refuses to call them on it. Should have come up in this debate.
Africa.
George W. Bush has been the best friend in the White House Sub-Saharan Africa has ever seen. It would have been nice to see what Obama or McCain intended to do to continue to build on the remarkable progress enabled by Bush's leadership on the issues of water, malaria, and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment.
Protectionism.
With the dollar down against the Euro, Europe should be ripe for a flood of cheap American goods supporting tons of US jobs across many industries. EU countries will fight this tooth and nail given that they're socialist, protectionist, and hypocrites by nature (free trade is well and good, as long as it's the USA that's wide open for European goods, not the other way around). I'd like to know how each candidate would fight to open up European markets.
Cuba/Venezuela/Bolivia
The axis of socialist stupidity within the Americas should have been a topic for debate. Does McCain or Obama support full autonomy for Santa Cruz in Bolivia? What will either of these men do to help the opposition in Venezuela challenge Chavez's dictatorship? With Raul Castro's ever so slightly kinder, gentler, autocracy in Cuba, is it time to normalize relationships there, or should we maintain the status quo?
China
Competitor? Friend? Rival? Threat? Enigma?
India
Should we do more to embrace India? What's America's role with India, how should we expand our cooperation with the largest democracy in the world? Should we encourage competition between China and India?
Instead of an endless back and forth about whether or not Iraq was a mistake and whether or not Afghanistan is in trouble, there are many more global challenges facing the next President, and it would have been nice to see a debate that focused on future challenges rather than rehashing the same tired talking points of the past 6 years.
What to Do About Tonight . . .
I think for a liveblog to be relevant, you need major traffic like Althouse, so she can do the liveblog thing.
And to do live drunkblogging, you need to have major traffic, and be a major alcoholic (or at least play one on the internet), so I'll leave that up toJeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom. Stephen Green at Vodkapundit. (UPDATE: can't explain why, but I always get those two mixed up, I'm pretty sure drunk blogging originated at Vodkapundit, though he's abandoned the gimmick it would seem)
So I'm going to do something different, and ambitious. I'm going to record one of the feeds of the debate, chop it up to each Q&A, and then break out my trusty Mind-Reader-Omatic 5000™.
So, over the course of this weekend, I'll be dribbling out posts covering the entire debate that not only have YouTubed clips of each Q&A, but useful and helpful annotations of:
It's a big project, one I may wimp-out on, but we'll see how it goes for the first couple of questions, and if I like the results, I'll keep it up, if I don't, I'll pretend I never suggested doing this in the first place.
And to do live drunkblogging, you need to have major traffic, and be a major alcoholic (or at least play one on the internet), so I'll leave that up to
So I'm going to do something different, and ambitious. I'm going to record one of the feeds of the debate, chop it up to each Q&A, and then break out my trusty Mind-Reader-Omatic 5000™.
So, over the course of this weekend, I'll be dribbling out posts covering the entire debate that not only have YouTubed clips of each Q&A, but useful and helpful annotations of:
A) What they should have said (in my opinion)
B) What they really meant by what they said
C) More importantly, what they were thinking when they said it, and what they would have said had they not been too busy vote-grubbing (using my trusty device, so you know this will be accurate, or at least as accurate as the 5000™ can be from 1800 miles away)
It's a big project, one I may wimp-out on, but we'll see how it goes for the first couple of questions, and if I like the results, I'll keep it up, if I don't, I'll pretend I never suggested doing this in the first place.
02 September 2008
The Debates I'd Like to See, Part II
OK, for the primaries, I already advised both parties on a better way to get the candidates together to discuss the issues, now it's time to fix the debate structure for the general election (in a manner that neither party will ever agree to, unfortunately).
Here's what we need for the general election (it even has a catchy title)
Here's the set-up, after the RNC convention wraps up, and both candidates are set, they'll have a week to announce a team of advisers that will represent them on specific policy areas. Basically, I'd expect both candidates to all but announce their major cabinet picks, plus their top administrator. The furious five would be the presumptives of both parties for the position of Secretary of State, Defense, Treasury, Attorney General, as well as Chief of Staff. "Why those five?" you ask. Good question, here's the answer, State and Defense give the broader framework of international relations, and when it comes to the Executive branch, that's the one area that they have the most reach and power when compared to the other two branches, so it's crucial to know as much as possible about the kind of person a candidate is considering for those positions before voters are forced to make their choice. As far as domestic policy, Treasury and Attorney General are the two main surrogates, Treasury because economic policy is set by the President, and his choice there is a big signal as to what he thinks would be successful in helping America prosper, and the other big side of domestic policy is lawmaking, law interpretation, and criminal prosecution, and the AG is in charge of all that. The many other cabinet positions, and cabinet level offices have their roles (though many of them could be eliminated and folded into other offices), but to keep this from getting out of hand just a few big picture type folks are all that is necessary to make this more informative than the system we have now. That's why a Chief of Staff, as far as sub-Secretary level appointments, is someone I want to hear from as well. The kind of person a President chooses for Chief of Staff says a lot about a President, and it is one of the most purely political offices in the cabinet. Know who that pick will be, and you'll know what the real nuts and bolts of an administration will be like. It would be fascinating to hear prospective Chiefs hash out politics with each other.
Here's how the WONK-OFF would work. The two presumptive Secretaries of State would go at each other directly for two hours on matters of state. They'd alternate asking and answering questions. No moderator, no audience, just two policy wonks wonking off at each other. Whether they choose to really ask and answer questions, or just use their time to rattle off talking points would be up to each individual, but at least the information would be out there, and the personalities, politics, and positions of these people would be out there for everyone to observe. Repeat the above process for the other four official wonks, and you have yourself 10 hours of official head to head policy discussions a week.
We elect one person (well two people, but given that you can't split the Prez and VP votes, really you are only choosing the top of the ticket, the VP is just a bonus), but an entire team is who governs. I want to know who that team is before I vote, I want to hear the official surrogates battle each other directly on specific subject areas in an official capacity. I want the candidates to have to react to what their surrogates say and be forced to confirm or deny the direction they hope to take the country on a variety of issues.
A few tepid debates hosted by some media figure hardly scratches the surface of the real issues. Mostly they're just a chance for a candidate to not screw up and show how he reacts when off script. It's not enough anymore. A WONK-OFF would bring curious and engaged voters much more information than they now get, in a much more official way, and in a way that would be hard for media to spin (OK, harder). YouTube would fill up with clips from each Wonk-Off, and what our country might have in store depending on which choice voters make would just be a little bit clearer.
All five official wonks would have to WONK-OFF against each other once a week from the 3rd week of Sept to the last week of OCT. Spread out the WONK-OFFs by days of week, so State would be MON, Defense, would be TUE, and so on, with the Chiefs of Staff wonking off each other each Friday. That'd be six weeks of wonking off, six weeks of real policy discussions, or at least real screaming matches between equally matched surrogates from both sides. The Presidential Debates could be scheduled on Sundays so as not to overshadow the WONK-OFFs, but by having these on a regular schedule, and on a weekly basis, the campaign for ideas between each party would be forced into the forefront and would be battled in a face to face way without any media interference. I know the networks won't carry this, but CSPAN could, and the Internet can, and the soundbites would drive the cable news coverage after each debate. Instead of talking about pregnant daughters, the cable newsers and internet freaks would be forced to talk about actual policy discussions. I think that might be nice for a change.
Seems like this isn't such a radical suggestion, but I'm nearly certain nothing even close to approximating such a sane and informative approach would ever be attempted.
(and checking my old posts, I did sort of mention this idea before, but it's more fleshed out here)
Here's what we need for the general election (it even has a catchy title)
THE GREAT AMERICAN WONK-OFF
Here's the set-up, after the RNC convention wraps up, and both candidates are set, they'll have a week to announce a team of advisers that will represent them on specific policy areas. Basically, I'd expect both candidates to all but announce their major cabinet picks, plus their top administrator. The furious five would be the presumptives of both parties for the position of Secretary of State, Defense, Treasury, Attorney General, as well as Chief of Staff. "Why those five?" you ask. Good question, here's the answer, State and Defense give the broader framework of international relations, and when it comes to the Executive branch, that's the one area that they have the most reach and power when compared to the other two branches, so it's crucial to know as much as possible about the kind of person a candidate is considering for those positions before voters are forced to make their choice. As far as domestic policy, Treasury and Attorney General are the two main surrogates, Treasury because economic policy is set by the President, and his choice there is a big signal as to what he thinks would be successful in helping America prosper, and the other big side of domestic policy is lawmaking, law interpretation, and criminal prosecution, and the AG is in charge of all that. The many other cabinet positions, and cabinet level offices have their roles (though many of them could be eliminated and folded into other offices), but to keep this from getting out of hand just a few big picture type folks are all that is necessary to make this more informative than the system we have now. That's why a Chief of Staff, as far as sub-Secretary level appointments, is someone I want to hear from as well. The kind of person a President chooses for Chief of Staff says a lot about a President, and it is one of the most purely political offices in the cabinet. Know who that pick will be, and you'll know what the real nuts and bolts of an administration will be like. It would be fascinating to hear prospective Chiefs hash out politics with each other.
Here's how the WONK-OFF would work. The two presumptive Secretaries of State would go at each other directly for two hours on matters of state. They'd alternate asking and answering questions. No moderator, no audience, just two policy wonks wonking off at each other. Whether they choose to really ask and answer questions, or just use their time to rattle off talking points would be up to each individual, but at least the information would be out there, and the personalities, politics, and positions of these people would be out there for everyone to observe. Repeat the above process for the other four official wonks, and you have yourself 10 hours of official head to head policy discussions a week.
We elect one person (well two people, but given that you can't split the Prez and VP votes, really you are only choosing the top of the ticket, the VP is just a bonus), but an entire team is who governs. I want to know who that team is before I vote, I want to hear the official surrogates battle each other directly on specific subject areas in an official capacity. I want the candidates to have to react to what their surrogates say and be forced to confirm or deny the direction they hope to take the country on a variety of issues.
A few tepid debates hosted by some media figure hardly scratches the surface of the real issues. Mostly they're just a chance for a candidate to not screw up and show how he reacts when off script. It's not enough anymore. A WONK-OFF would bring curious and engaged voters much more information than they now get, in a much more official way, and in a way that would be hard for media to spin (OK, harder). YouTube would fill up with clips from each Wonk-Off, and what our country might have in store depending on which choice voters make would just be a little bit clearer.
All five official wonks would have to WONK-OFF against each other once a week from the 3rd week of Sept to the last week of OCT. Spread out the WONK-OFFs by days of week, so State would be MON, Defense, would be TUE, and so on, with the Chiefs of Staff wonking off each other each Friday. That'd be six weeks of wonking off, six weeks of real policy discussions, or at least real screaming matches between equally matched surrogates from both sides. The Presidential Debates could be scheduled on Sundays so as not to overshadow the WONK-OFFs, but by having these on a regular schedule, and on a weekly basis, the campaign for ideas between each party would be forced into the forefront and would be battled in a face to face way without any media interference. I know the networks won't carry this, but CSPAN could, and the Internet can, and the soundbites would drive the cable news coverage after each debate. Instead of talking about pregnant daughters, the cable newsers and internet freaks would be forced to talk about actual policy discussions. I think that might be nice for a change.
Seems like this isn't such a radical suggestion, but I'm nearly certain nothing even close to approximating such a sane and informative approach would ever be attempted.
(and checking my old posts, I did sort of mention this idea before, but it's more fleshed out here)
30 August 2008
An Issue That Won't Go Away . . .
People want to see Sarah Palin while less clothed apparently (see here, and here). I can appreciate that, I'm a big fan of seeing as many attractive women in less clothing possible, too. It seems, some of this frenzy isn't just good old American horn-doggedness, though, some folks on the left somehow have bought in to their own twisted notions about social conservatives and have come to the conclusion that ALL Republicans are gynophobic, skinnophobic, and will recoil in horror at the sight of women with bared ankles, knees and stomachs.
Given Sarah Palin did compete in pageants, and she's a red blooded American woman who grew up in the 80s, I'm guessing she has more than one or two private and semi-public photos of herself with a bit of skin showing.
She should post them on her official website before someone else digs through their pageant photos to try and 'out' her and show off her assets. Make them flash images that can't be easily copied to other websites, and have text of policy positions floating over the pics. Or, do a narrated slideshow and post it on YouTube, show off those pictures, and while you're at it, tell us about you and McCain's positions on the stuff that's really important.
That'd be amusing, display a sense of humor about yourself, and be a great avenue in getting non-political junkies to see, hear and read specific policy positions for the GOP ticket.
So far, the McCain camp seems to understand things like this and have used YouTube far more effectively than Camp Obama, go ahead and harness the power of all those horndogs searching Google, give them what they want, and give them information, too, do this and you won't lose anybody who will be voting for the GOP ticket, and if it's done right, this might even pick up a few independents and centrist Democrats. Every vote will be needed in this election, and every avenue should be explored in getting the message out, it's the message above all else that will win this election for McCain-Palin, and if they need to show a bit of skin to get folks to listen to that message, so be it.
Given Sarah Palin did compete in pageants, and she's a red blooded American woman who grew up in the 80s, I'm guessing she has more than one or two private and semi-public photos of herself with a bit of skin showing.
She should post them on her official website before someone else digs through their pageant photos to try and 'out' her and show off her assets. Make them flash images that can't be easily copied to other websites, and have text of policy positions floating over the pics. Or, do a narrated slideshow and post it on YouTube, show off those pictures, and while you're at it, tell us about you and McCain's positions on the stuff that's really important.
That'd be amusing, display a sense of humor about yourself, and be a great avenue in getting non-political junkies to see, hear and read specific policy positions for the GOP ticket.
So far, the McCain camp seems to understand things like this and have used YouTube far more effectively than Camp Obama, go ahead and harness the power of all those horndogs searching Google, give them what they want, and give them information, too, do this and you won't lose anybody who will be voting for the GOP ticket, and if it's done right, this might even pick up a few independents and centrist Democrats. Every vote will be needed in this election, and every avenue should be explored in getting the message out, it's the message above all else that will win this election for McCain-Palin, and if they need to show a bit of skin to get folks to listen to that message, so be it.
29 August 2008
Just For a Second, Bet You Thought This Might Be an Ad for a New Anchor Team at Your Local Network Affiliate . . .
Aren't most of your local anchor teams, 'distinguished dude', and 'younger (but not too young) babe' combos?
(and the weatherperson is usually the eye candy, or comic relief)
Biden is going to come across as a mean old (and possibly lecherous) man during the Vice Presidential debate, it's almost inevitable.
(I'm pretty sure "A Team You Can Trust" is a slogan that's been used more than a few times for local TV news, too)
21 August 2008
That Idiot, Nobody Takes Him Seriously . . . What? Really?, Ummmm, What a Great Choice,
Let the rehabilitation of Sen. Joe Biden begin!
(suddenly, he's a fine elder statesman who speaks truth to power and is a champion of the 'little people')
(I don't know that Biden will be the pick, but I am fascinated by the immediate 180° pivot performed by media types)
(the link above isn't a specific example of bias, but just turn on MSNBC today, or watch any of the network nightly news half hours tomorrow, and watch them scrub clean Sen. Biden's record)
(suddenly, he's a fine elder statesman who speaks truth to power and is a champion of the 'little people')
(I don't know that Biden will be the pick, but I am fascinated by the immediate 180° pivot performed by media types)
(the link above isn't a specific example of bias, but just turn on MSNBC today, or watch any of the network nightly news half hours tomorrow, and watch them scrub clean Sen. Biden's record)
18 August 2008
Now We Know Just How Bad Obama Did in Saddleback . . .
The Gumball of News is doing its rotating, flashing dance on Drudge with the breathless announcement that Presumptive Obama will presumptively name his presumptive Vice Presidential choice within the next twelve hours or so.
I think there's some truth to this rumor (this time), checked the Obama site, and they've taken down the sign-up for 'be first to find out who the VP is' list. That suggests to me the choice is imminent.
And I think he would have held off on announcing this decision till just before the convention, or at the convention, if he hadn't got his clock cleaned in Saddleback.
And just to be on record, my money is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, with Sen. Evan Bayh a close second.
UPDATE:
As I was typing this, Drudge took down the rotating gumball and put up a picture of a smiling Obama instead, I miss the gumball, so I'm putting one up myself. Also the roof-mounted single beacon emergency vehicle lighting (sometimes known as a 'gumball') are practically non-existent as far as current usage goes, think Drudge needs to come up with a new breaking news attention getter.
16 August 2008
Live Blogging Rick Warren Saddleback Pander Fest 08 . . .
(all times PDT)
4:53pm
Really, Rick Warren gets access to the candidates? I prefer a purposeless life, personally (driven, or not).
5:01pm --- Cone of silence jokes, hah-hah-hah-hah-hah. Rick Warren loves everyone, everyone is his friend, and we must be civil with each other. Ahhhh, civility, I wonder how civil Lincoln and Douglas were with each other?
5:03pm --- Obama gets asked who the 3 wisest people he's met. So far, Obama's not answering the question, instead just talking about how his wife bust his balls and how he loves and admires his racist grandmother. Obama continues to not answer the question, he's pandering to the idea of he'll listen to folks from both sides of the aisle. Obama's answer is a bit facetious if you ask me (and full of feces)
5:06pm --- Greatest moral failure personally, and nationally is the question. The answer, I was a selfish and callow youth, and I bet he ignores the other half of the question, wait and see (like how he slipped in a 'doing God's work' line), ohhhh, he quotes Matthew (doesn't say what chapter:verse, though), all about doing for the least. In other words, we aren't Marxist enough.
5:09pm --- Ouch, when have you not been a party aparatchik he's asked (though not in those words). His answer, McCain-Feingold. Uggghhhh!!! That piece of crap legislation was a disaster, a terrible affront to the 1st amendment, and has proven to be as bad as it seemed to begin with. He also goes on to claim he was being brave by opposing the 2003 Iraq invasion while he was in the Illinois State Senate. Yeah, whatever. Now he's asked about what he believed a decade ago that he now has changed his mind about. Welfare reform, he's stating (though that was more like 14 years ago), he's saying work has to be part of his Marxist reforms. Asked gutwrenching decision, again he goes back to Iraq War opposition. He's convinced he knew better than the people who knew better, he's claiming that being on the opposite side of most of the people who knew better wasn't cause he was an uninformed idiot, but because he was prescient and prematurely wise. I suppose being wrong about the surge, but pleased with the outcome is completely different. (time for commercials)
5:19pm --- Worldview/Minefield section. Christ, what's he mean to you? Obama- pablum, pander, pablum, 'I don't walk alone', Jesus is my co-pilot, I guess. Ummm, ahhh, Obama's a bit of a slow talker, I guess he's being thhhhhhhooooooooouuuuuuggggghhhhhttttttffffuuuuuulllllll.
5:21pm --- Now the tough ones, Abortion, 40,000,000 since Roe v Wade, when is a baby a baby? Ummm, ahhh, I can't say, cause I am The One, and The One can't say what he thinks, but he feels your pain, and it is a moral and ethical choice, but he's not going to make that choice for anyone cause being pro-choice means it's up to women, and no woman is going to just wantonly kill a baby/fetus. Still dodging the question basically, now he's going to the legal-but infrequent dodge. He respects those pro-life nuts, those absolutist nuts can't be argued with, but he still wants to work with them to lower the number of abortions, by giving women more 'resources'.
5:25pm --- Marriage is between a man and a woman, and is also sacred, but it shouldn't be codified in law as such. Civil Unions, not marriage for same sex couples. Another dodge, basically. On to stem cells and federal funding for embryonic stem cells. He wants them, but only existing lines, no embryo factories (but he doesn't specifically rule it out, instead talks about no cloning and the sacredness of human life, wait he finally in the end says no embryo factories). Evil, real or not? Yes, evil exists, in Darfur, in our cities (sadly), in bad parents, (I guess we need to pump more dough into the inner cities, and maybe the state should intervene more agressively with families). But let's confront evil with humility, sounds like he's implying that the Iraq War was an evil result from good intentions.
5:30pm --- Who in the Supreme Court would you NOT have nominated? He answers, Clarence Thomas, suggests he was purely an affirmative action hire, also mentions Scalia for ideological reasons, and dodges when Warren asks about Roberts, still waiting for an answer, oohhh, he says he was right to vote against confirmation. Well, that's ridiculous. As is his answer about Thomas, Thomas was more than qualified, and he's been an excellent jurist, so what if he chooses to hold his tongue?
5:33pm --- Faith based initiatives, should they be forced to hire anyone if they want federal money? Obama begins saying how wonderful they are, maybe he'll get around to answering the question, when it comes to federal programs churches must be non-discriminatory. Sensible answer, really, can't say anything snarky about this answer.
5:36pm --- Education. #1 in incarceration, #19 in graduation (woohoo!! USA, USA, USA!!!) Merit Pay? Yes, but only if the unions agree and manage the system, basically is his answer, and as always, they're underpaid because, that's always the answer, even though we already aren't getting much bang for our buck. Next, define Rich? Obama jokes, Rick Warren is rich bitch (heh, heh). $150,000 is middle class, Rick, claims in OC, that's poor. Obama suggests $250,000 is rich, bitch, and they should pay for everything, and I guess families below that should get a ride on their backs (though not exactly saying that). Brings in Iraq War for no good reason. He's 'balancing' our tax code, and he thinks it should be simpler, but he's never made specific suggestions on how it could be simplified, so basically more pablum and pandering. (commercial time again, time to check what Althouse has live-blogged about).
5:44pm --- And we're back. Only 15 minutes to go with Barack, the last section on America's responsibility in the world. Let's talk about War, what's worth dying for? American Freedom, American interests, Obama visited the Arizona while in Pearl, cause he's solemn, and caring, and not really answering the question. NATO is in our interest, but I guess not Georgia. What about genocide, Warren asks, and Obama answers, genocide, schmenocide, it all depends if the rest of the world gets on board or not, so basically it's up to the French and the Chinese and the Russians. Bosnia was OK, so his rule, when Dem prez intervene it's OK, when GOP prez do, it's wrong, (and I guess when Dem prez don't intervene like in Rwanda, that was the right idea, too).
5:47pm --- Orphans, does a bit of pandering to Warren, and commends Bush in that narrow policy area. Doesn't really say anything. Next question, religious persecution. Answer, bare witness, but be careful about it in cases like China. Basically he claims he'll follow what the Bush administration currently espouses (but he doesn't put it that way). Brings up habeas corpus and torture for no good reason other than that he realized he was agreeing with Bush on something, so he had to highlight a difference.
5:51pm --- Human trafficking, it's very, very bad. What else is there to say? (pander, pander, pablum, pablum, evidently, no specifics, or real policy suggestions).
5:53pm --- Wrapping up the Obama section of this panderfest, question, 'why do you want to be Prez', Obama's answer, cause we are slipping as a nation and politics is broken and The One will build bridges and solve problems with His superior common sense.
5:54pm --- Final question, 'Enough about you Obama, what about ME, Rick Warren?' Answer, of course it's good that you invited both of us to sit down and speak with you, cause the people are good, and the people are wonderful, and the people will decide wisely. With the real last question Warren asks, what should people know but don't want to hear, his answer, some Green pandering since he didn't get a chance to do it earlier, about how we must all pull together and sacrifice like we did in WWII (sounds great in theory, but in practice is he suggesting, price fixing, ration cards, nationalizing major industries like in WWII?)
5:59pm --- Obama thoughts (my own). He hemmed and hawed like he normally does when he doesn't have a prepared speech, and he wasn't exactly forthright with many of his answers, but he did get through it OK. Don't think he helped himself with his core supporters, and I don't know that he helped himself with this crowd.
NOW MCCAIN TIME!!!!
6:01pm --- 3 Wisest? McCain answers Gen. David Petraeus, John Lewis a civil rights pioneer who stood up to bigotry and suffered physically in that struggle, and Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay. He actually answered the question directly, and with thought, and picked a soldier, a civil rights trailblazer, and an entrepreneur. Advantage McCain!!!
6:04pm --- The moral failure question, but this time Warren pre-faced it with a hint to the Edwards debacle. McCain's answer, my first marriage, for his personal failure, and for our national failure, not asking more of our own people, especially after 9/11, and avoiding stopping Rwanda, and McCain even uses the words 'a little pandering here', he quotes Warren back to Warren. Ohhh, that was good. Really good, both recognizing that this is pandering, but then to do it well. Advantage McCain.
6:06pm --- Positions you've taken where you've gone against party question. For McCain, that's pretty easy, isn't it (and they joke about that some)? McCain goes back to Lebanon, he opposed sending peacekeepers there (not because it was the wrong thing to do, but because we didn't go in full force). Advantage McCain.
6:08pm --- The Ten years question. Offshore drilling. Man, McCain has this pander thing down pat, plus he is succinct, yet informative (makes a Kallyfornia, Schwarzenegger joke on the issue), suggests that it's a matter of national security, which it damn well is. Dammit, I'm liking this McCain, I don't like liking him, he still sucks, but he sucks less than Obama so far. Brings up France, but that's my line, you bastard, he's been reading my blog I guess, Nuclear has to be part of the mix, and he's not afraid to say it. Advantage McCain.
6:11pm -- Gut wrenching decision question. Deciding to refuse to accept an early release from the POW camp, and he's happy he made that decision. Another answer/question that just makes Obama look like a lightweight dolt in comparison. Advantage McCain. (commercial time)
6:16pm --- minefield questions. Christianity? Saved, and forgiven, going back to Hanoi Hilton, describing his torture, tells a touching anecdote, his faith preserved him and he connected with one of his captors who was a fellow Christian. Advantage McCain.
6:19pm --- Abortion question. Conception is it, purely and only pro-life, no equivocation. Push (McCain is clearer, but I don't know that too many people are as absolute as he is). On to marriage, man and woman only, but it should be a state's choice, he's a federalist (though he could have fooled me all these years), suggests that agreements that aren't marriage are fine. Push again. Stem Cell question, he sees it as a dilemma, optimistic that this question will go away through science. Push again.
6:22pm --- Evil question. Yes, and it must be defeated, period. Gates of Hell again, he loves those Gates of Hell, and indeed Rodin's Gates of Hell are magnificent. Our troops can kicks evil's ass, and take names. Advantage McCain.
6:25pm --- The Supreme Court question. He names Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, suggests they've all have legislated from the bench, and he loves Alito and Roberts. Straightforward, looks pretty political though. Push (both McCain and Obama answered this question too politically for my taste).
6:28pm --- The faith-based and federal funds question. His answer, to paraphrase, money is fungible, and to create obstacles against these organizations from helping is bad for the country. Better answer than Obama, but it doesn't respect the separation of church and state, and so even if Obama was less coherent, his carefully parsed answer is probably more correct. Advantage Obama
6:29pm --- The schools question. Choice and Competition, dammit. HUGE advantage McCain (screw those teachers' unions)
6:31pm --- The define rich question. Rich isn't a matter of money, we should all be rich, we should all be prosperous, and penalizing entrepreneurs is wrong (damn straight!). $5,000,000, not $250,000 like Obama. And he's right. Low taxes will raise revenues, spending is the problem, not that the taxes are too low. Damn, McCain sounds like he's been reading my blog again, that's scary. Advantage McCain (let's hope he means it).
6:35pm --- BONUS QUESTION, when privacy and security collide, how do you measure which wins? Brings up the union secret ballot thing, mentions keeping up with the ability to communicate, so the laws must shift, too, and both sides should be able to work together without bickering on basic security.
6:40pm --- What's worth dying for question. Freedom. American security. Not much different answer from Obama, really, but the tone is very different, and seems more sincere, plus he ties it into the future, and defeating Islamic extremism. Goes on to obligation to stop genocide, period, suggesting he'd have intervened in Darfur, and Rwanda, but not necessarily militarily directly, but helping neighbors in the region to separate the warring parties. Warren adds in a Georgia angle that he left off for Obama, and McCain is saddened by Russian aggression (as he should be), mentions Georgia goes back to 330AD as a christian nation, and Saakashvili was educated here, and has built a 'great little nation'. Russia must be opposed, and Russia must respect the territorial integrity of Georgia, and the other former Soviet States support Georgia, and so should we, and we all know it's about the pipeline. Advantage McCain (this is getting monotonous)
6:47pm --- Religious persecution question. Again with the freedom answer, and a bit of Reagan worship. The president must use the bully pulpit and be an example and an advocate. Simple, clear, concise, and challenging. Advantage McCain.
6:49pm --- Orphan question. Another one in McCain's wheelhouse, given that he's an adoptive parent, he and Cindy got one directly from Mother Teresa no less. Advantage McCain.
6:50pm --- Why you for Prez question. Service, and facing the challenges of the times, and coming together as one nation, his record, and his experience, and he wants to join together to put our country first. He'll be the President for all Americans. Push (McCain's answer is much better, but Obama is more charasmatic, and glamor counts).
6:51pm --- What about objections to a forum at a church question. He's proud to have spoken there. Push.
That's it, I would imagine that the CNN folks are going to be flabberghasted and unable to respond once they get to the spinning shortly. McCain owned Obama, and owned this crowd, and was better in every way in how he presented his positions and his ideas and what his administration would be like. I bet this whole event will disapper down the memory hole.
UPDATE: Fixed spelling error on Gen. David Petraeus (should remember that 'rock' is the first part of his last name), and after perusing other bloggers who watched and live-blogged, seems like Althouse saw what I saw, mostly, Sullivan (Obama post, McCain post) is on his own little planet, but for the most part, I'm not seeing a big response to this on the left (other than to decry the entire enterprise as being some sort of violation of church/state separation), and kudos for McCain on the right. I suppose we could all be right, reality being subjective and all, or, partisans saw it through their partisan viewpoints, and aren't capable of being objective. I'm fairly partisan myself, but I think if you put each response to each question side by side, and let people decide for themselves who had a better answer, then McCain won overwhelmingly.
On top of that, I think his answers are the kind of answers that are more likely to persuade people who weren't already persuaded by him, while Obama didn't hurt himself with his acolytes one bit, but I don't think he converted anybody new to his cause with his performance, so long as people compare his answers to McCain's. If you took Obama's answers alone, without McCain's answers, he comes off much better, so the job of McCain supporters will be to make sure that whenever talking about this forum, that juxtaposition is always made. Just as Obama supporters will be wise to focus only on their man, and pretend that McCain wasn't even there, thus showing that Obama can successfully reach out to an evangelical constituency that's perceived as being his weakness.
4:53pm
Really, Rick Warren gets access to the candidates? I prefer a purposeless life, personally (driven, or not).
5:01pm --- Cone of silence jokes, hah-hah-hah-hah-hah. Rick Warren loves everyone, everyone is his friend, and we must be civil with each other. Ahhhh, civility, I wonder how civil Lincoln and Douglas were with each other?
5:03pm --- Obama gets asked who the 3 wisest people he's met. So far, Obama's not answering the question, instead just talking about how his wife bust his balls and how he loves and admires his racist grandmother. Obama continues to not answer the question, he's pandering to the idea of he'll listen to folks from both sides of the aisle. Obama's answer is a bit facetious if you ask me (and full of feces)
5:06pm --- Greatest moral failure personally, and nationally is the question. The answer, I was a selfish and callow youth, and I bet he ignores the other half of the question, wait and see (like how he slipped in a 'doing God's work' line), ohhhh, he quotes Matthew (doesn't say what chapter:verse, though), all about doing for the least. In other words, we aren't Marxist enough.
5:09pm --- Ouch, when have you not been a party aparatchik he's asked (though not in those words). His answer, McCain-Feingold. Uggghhhh!!! That piece of crap legislation was a disaster, a terrible affront to the 1st amendment, and has proven to be as bad as it seemed to begin with. He also goes on to claim he was being brave by opposing the 2003 Iraq invasion while he was in the Illinois State Senate. Yeah, whatever. Now he's asked about what he believed a decade ago that he now has changed his mind about. Welfare reform, he's stating (though that was more like 14 years ago), he's saying work has to be part of his Marxist reforms. Asked gutwrenching decision, again he goes back to Iraq War opposition. He's convinced he knew better than the people who knew better, he's claiming that being on the opposite side of most of the people who knew better wasn't cause he was an uninformed idiot, but because he was prescient and prematurely wise. I suppose being wrong about the surge, but pleased with the outcome is completely different. (time for commercials)
5:19pm --- Worldview/Minefield section. Christ, what's he mean to you? Obama- pablum, pander, pablum, 'I don't walk alone', Jesus is my co-pilot, I guess. Ummm, ahhh, Obama's a bit of a slow talker, I guess he's being thhhhhhhooooooooouuuuuuggggghhhhhttttttffffuuuuuulllllll.
5:21pm --- Now the tough ones, Abortion, 40,000,000 since Roe v Wade, when is a baby a baby? Ummm, ahhh, I can't say, cause I am The One, and The One can't say what he thinks, but he feels your pain, and it is a moral and ethical choice, but he's not going to make that choice for anyone cause being pro-choice means it's up to women, and no woman is going to just wantonly kill a baby/fetus. Still dodging the question basically, now he's going to the legal-but infrequent dodge. He respects those pro-life nuts, those absolutist nuts can't be argued with, but he still wants to work with them to lower the number of abortions, by giving women more 'resources'.
5:25pm --- Marriage is between a man and a woman, and is also sacred, but it shouldn't be codified in law as such. Civil Unions, not marriage for same sex couples. Another dodge, basically. On to stem cells and federal funding for embryonic stem cells. He wants them, but only existing lines, no embryo factories (but he doesn't specifically rule it out, instead talks about no cloning and the sacredness of human life, wait he finally in the end says no embryo factories). Evil, real or not? Yes, evil exists, in Darfur, in our cities (sadly), in bad parents, (I guess we need to pump more dough into the inner cities, and maybe the state should intervene more agressively with families). But let's confront evil with humility, sounds like he's implying that the Iraq War was an evil result from good intentions.
5:30pm --- Who in the Supreme Court would you NOT have nominated? He answers, Clarence Thomas, suggests he was purely an affirmative action hire, also mentions Scalia for ideological reasons, and dodges when Warren asks about Roberts, still waiting for an answer, oohhh, he says he was right to vote against confirmation. Well, that's ridiculous. As is his answer about Thomas, Thomas was more than qualified, and he's been an excellent jurist, so what if he chooses to hold his tongue?
5:33pm --- Faith based initiatives, should they be forced to hire anyone if they want federal money? Obama begins saying how wonderful they are, maybe he'll get around to answering the question, when it comes to federal programs churches must be non-discriminatory. Sensible answer, really, can't say anything snarky about this answer.
5:36pm --- Education. #1 in incarceration, #19 in graduation (woohoo!! USA, USA, USA!!!) Merit Pay? Yes, but only if the unions agree and manage the system, basically is his answer, and as always, they're underpaid because, that's always the answer, even though we already aren't getting much bang for our buck. Next, define Rich? Obama jokes, Rick Warren is rich bitch (heh, heh). $150,000 is middle class, Rick, claims in OC, that's poor. Obama suggests $250,000 is rich, bitch, and they should pay for everything, and I guess families below that should get a ride on their backs (though not exactly saying that). Brings in Iraq War for no good reason. He's 'balancing' our tax code, and he thinks it should be simpler, but he's never made specific suggestions on how it could be simplified, so basically more pablum and pandering. (commercial time again, time to check what Althouse has live-blogged about).
5:44pm --- And we're back. Only 15 minutes to go with Barack, the last section on America's responsibility in the world. Let's talk about War, what's worth dying for? American Freedom, American interests, Obama visited the Arizona while in Pearl, cause he's solemn, and caring, and not really answering the question. NATO is in our interest, but I guess not Georgia. What about genocide, Warren asks, and Obama answers, genocide, schmenocide, it all depends if the rest of the world gets on board or not, so basically it's up to the French and the Chinese and the Russians. Bosnia was OK, so his rule, when Dem prez intervene it's OK, when GOP prez do, it's wrong, (and I guess when Dem prez don't intervene like in Rwanda, that was the right idea, too).
5:47pm --- Orphans, does a bit of pandering to Warren, and commends Bush in that narrow policy area. Doesn't really say anything. Next question, religious persecution. Answer, bare witness, but be careful about it in cases like China. Basically he claims he'll follow what the Bush administration currently espouses (but he doesn't put it that way). Brings up habeas corpus and torture for no good reason other than that he realized he was agreeing with Bush on something, so he had to highlight a difference.
5:51pm --- Human trafficking, it's very, very bad. What else is there to say? (pander, pander, pablum, pablum, evidently, no specifics, or real policy suggestions).
5:53pm --- Wrapping up the Obama section of this panderfest, question, 'why do you want to be Prez', Obama's answer, cause we are slipping as a nation and politics is broken and The One will build bridges and solve problems with His superior common sense.
5:54pm --- Final question, 'Enough about you Obama, what about ME, Rick Warren?' Answer, of course it's good that you invited both of us to sit down and speak with you, cause the people are good, and the people are wonderful, and the people will decide wisely. With the real last question Warren asks, what should people know but don't want to hear, his answer, some Green pandering since he didn't get a chance to do it earlier, about how we must all pull together and sacrifice like we did in WWII (sounds great in theory, but in practice is he suggesting, price fixing, ration cards, nationalizing major industries like in WWII?)
5:59pm --- Obama thoughts (my own). He hemmed and hawed like he normally does when he doesn't have a prepared speech, and he wasn't exactly forthright with many of his answers, but he did get through it OK. Don't think he helped himself with his core supporters, and I don't know that he helped himself with this crowd.
NOW MCCAIN TIME!!!!
6:01pm --- 3 Wisest? McCain answers Gen. David Petraeus, John Lewis a civil rights pioneer who stood up to bigotry and suffered physically in that struggle, and Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay. He actually answered the question directly, and with thought, and picked a soldier, a civil rights trailblazer, and an entrepreneur. Advantage McCain!!!
6:04pm --- The moral failure question, but this time Warren pre-faced it with a hint to the Edwards debacle. McCain's answer, my first marriage, for his personal failure, and for our national failure, not asking more of our own people, especially after 9/11, and avoiding stopping Rwanda, and McCain even uses the words 'a little pandering here', he quotes Warren back to Warren. Ohhh, that was good. Really good, both recognizing that this is pandering, but then to do it well. Advantage McCain.
6:06pm --- Positions you've taken where you've gone against party question. For McCain, that's pretty easy, isn't it (and they joke about that some)? McCain goes back to Lebanon, he opposed sending peacekeepers there (not because it was the wrong thing to do, but because we didn't go in full force). Advantage McCain.
6:08pm --- The Ten years question. Offshore drilling. Man, McCain has this pander thing down pat, plus he is succinct, yet informative (makes a Kallyfornia, Schwarzenegger joke on the issue), suggests that it's a matter of national security, which it damn well is. Dammit, I'm liking this McCain, I don't like liking him, he still sucks, but he sucks less than Obama so far. Brings up France, but that's my line, you bastard, he's been reading my blog I guess, Nuclear has to be part of the mix, and he's not afraid to say it. Advantage McCain.
6:11pm -- Gut wrenching decision question. Deciding to refuse to accept an early release from the POW camp, and he's happy he made that decision. Another answer/question that just makes Obama look like a lightweight dolt in comparison. Advantage McCain. (commercial time)
6:16pm --- minefield questions. Christianity? Saved, and forgiven, going back to Hanoi Hilton, describing his torture, tells a touching anecdote, his faith preserved him and he connected with one of his captors who was a fellow Christian. Advantage McCain.
6:19pm --- Abortion question. Conception is it, purely and only pro-life, no equivocation. Push (McCain is clearer, but I don't know that too many people are as absolute as he is). On to marriage, man and woman only, but it should be a state's choice, he's a federalist (though he could have fooled me all these years), suggests that agreements that aren't marriage are fine. Push again. Stem Cell question, he sees it as a dilemma, optimistic that this question will go away through science. Push again.
6:22pm --- Evil question. Yes, and it must be defeated, period. Gates of Hell again, he loves those Gates of Hell, and indeed Rodin's Gates of Hell are magnificent. Our troops can kicks evil's ass, and take names. Advantage McCain.
6:25pm --- The Supreme Court question. He names Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, suggests they've all have legislated from the bench, and he loves Alito and Roberts. Straightforward, looks pretty political though. Push (both McCain and Obama answered this question too politically for my taste).
6:28pm --- The faith-based and federal funds question. His answer, to paraphrase, money is fungible, and to create obstacles against these organizations from helping is bad for the country. Better answer than Obama, but it doesn't respect the separation of church and state, and so even if Obama was less coherent, his carefully parsed answer is probably more correct. Advantage Obama
6:29pm --- The schools question. Choice and Competition, dammit. HUGE advantage McCain (screw those teachers' unions)
6:31pm --- The define rich question. Rich isn't a matter of money, we should all be rich, we should all be prosperous, and penalizing entrepreneurs is wrong (damn straight!). $5,000,000, not $250,000 like Obama. And he's right. Low taxes will raise revenues, spending is the problem, not that the taxes are too low. Damn, McCain sounds like he's been reading my blog again, that's scary. Advantage McCain (let's hope he means it).
6:35pm --- BONUS QUESTION, when privacy and security collide, how do you measure which wins? Brings up the union secret ballot thing, mentions keeping up with the ability to communicate, so the laws must shift, too, and both sides should be able to work together without bickering on basic security.
6:40pm --- What's worth dying for question. Freedom. American security. Not much different answer from Obama, really, but the tone is very different, and seems more sincere, plus he ties it into the future, and defeating Islamic extremism. Goes on to obligation to stop genocide, period, suggesting he'd have intervened in Darfur, and Rwanda, but not necessarily militarily directly, but helping neighbors in the region to separate the warring parties. Warren adds in a Georgia angle that he left off for Obama, and McCain is saddened by Russian aggression (as he should be), mentions Georgia goes back to 330AD as a christian nation, and Saakashvili was educated here, and has built a 'great little nation'. Russia must be opposed, and Russia must respect the territorial integrity of Georgia, and the other former Soviet States support Georgia, and so should we, and we all know it's about the pipeline. Advantage McCain (this is getting monotonous)
6:47pm --- Religious persecution question. Again with the freedom answer, and a bit of Reagan worship. The president must use the bully pulpit and be an example and an advocate. Simple, clear, concise, and challenging. Advantage McCain.
6:49pm --- Orphan question. Another one in McCain's wheelhouse, given that he's an adoptive parent, he and Cindy got one directly from Mother Teresa no less. Advantage McCain.
6:50pm --- Why you for Prez question. Service, and facing the challenges of the times, and coming together as one nation, his record, and his experience, and he wants to join together to put our country first. He'll be the President for all Americans. Push (McCain's answer is much better, but Obama is more charasmatic, and glamor counts).
6:51pm --- What about objections to a forum at a church question. He's proud to have spoken there. Push.
That's it, I would imagine that the CNN folks are going to be flabberghasted and unable to respond once they get to the spinning shortly. McCain owned Obama, and owned this crowd, and was better in every way in how he presented his positions and his ideas and what his administration would be like. I bet this whole event will disapper down the memory hole.
UPDATE: Fixed spelling error on Gen. David Petraeus (should remember that 'rock' is the first part of his last name), and after perusing other bloggers who watched and live-blogged, seems like Althouse saw what I saw, mostly, Sullivan (Obama post, McCain post) is on his own little planet, but for the most part, I'm not seeing a big response to this on the left (other than to decry the entire enterprise as being some sort of violation of church/state separation), and kudos for McCain on the right. I suppose we could all be right, reality being subjective and all, or, partisans saw it through their partisan viewpoints, and aren't capable of being objective. I'm fairly partisan myself, but I think if you put each response to each question side by side, and let people decide for themselves who had a better answer, then McCain won overwhelmingly.
On top of that, I think his answers are the kind of answers that are more likely to persuade people who weren't already persuaded by him, while Obama didn't hurt himself with his acolytes one bit, but I don't think he converted anybody new to his cause with his performance, so long as people compare his answers to McCain's. If you took Obama's answers alone, without McCain's answers, he comes off much better, so the job of McCain supporters will be to make sure that whenever talking about this forum, that juxtaposition is always made. Just as Obama supporters will be wise to focus only on their man, and pretend that McCain wasn't even there, thus showing that Obama can successfully reach out to an evangelical constituency that's perceived as being his weakness.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)