Presidental Debate #1

[denali]

Would like your comments/opinion on the debate.

[Rockstarr]

Also, since it seems that about 99% of the people on here had their minds already made up on who they are going to vote for, why bother watching them?

[Mr Douglas]

Also, since it seems that about 99% of the people on here had their minds already made up on who they are going to vote for, why bother watching them?

For me, because it's funny. I'm not sure I can afford to live in either of their utopias.

[denali]

Also, since it seems that about 99% of the people on here had their minds already made up on who they are going to vote for, why bother watching them?

Maybe it is just me but it seems like I know a lot more people this election that really can be swayed one way or the other yet.

[flatbird1]

I am waiting as fast as I can to see the debate Thursday. The Wicked Witch of the North will be exposed as a total buffoon.

[denali]

I am waiting as fast as I can to see the debate Thursday. The Wicked Witch of the North will be exposed as a total buffoon.

Although I agree with you when you say that Sarah Palin is wicked and I believe that she has mis-represented herself and her record beyond belief and I have more doubts than I did a couple of weeks ago. I really do not believe that she will fall on her face. I may regret saying this but Sarah Palin is a lot of things but I don't believe that she is stupid. The debate next week will be very interesting.

[Mr Douglas]

Although I agree with you when you say that Sarah Palin is wicked and I believe that she has mis-represented herself and her record beyond belief and I have more doubts than I did a couple of weeks ago. I really do not believe that she will fall on her face. I may regret saying this but Sarah Palin is a lot of things but I don't believe that she is stupid. The debate next week will be very interesting.

And, she has the 'GOD' phone, which I'd have to guess is pretty nice!

[evilkumquat]

Although I agree with you when you say that Sarah Palin is wicked and I believe that she has mis-represented herself and her record beyond belief and I have more doubts than I did a couple of weeks ago. I really do not believe that she will fall on her face. I may regret saying this but Sarah Palin is a lot of things but I don't believe that she is stupid. The debate next week will be very interesting.

Palin will do what most of the GOP operatives have done for the last eight years: stick to a pat set of phrases regardless of whether or not it answers the question at hand.

If enough people sit back and REALLY listen to her when she "answers" a question, or "responds" to a debate, asking themselves if what she said really dealt directly with the question or whether it was just meaningless rambling of pat GOP talking points, they will realize she is a woman of VERY limited substance.

Look back at the "interview" she had with Couric when asked what McCain ever did to regulate Wall Street (in response to the charges that he had, in fact, lead the revolt AGAINST regulations which was a direct cause of the current financial meltdown). Her answer was that McCain was a "maverick" who bucked the conventional D.C. machine, going against his party, etc. Again, Palin was asked what McCain did in his 26 years in Congress and she replied, "I'll have to get back to you."

Or THIS wonderful example of a neo-con who has a laundry list of talking points but no intellect to actually back up his assertions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMklhX74_w

"He was an appeaser!"

"Okay, but what did he actually do?"

"What did he do? He was an appeaser!"

"Yeah, but uh... what exactly did he do to be an appeaser?"

"What did he do? He was an appeaser! He appeased! He appeased!"

"But what did he do to appease?"

"He appeased!"

My god, it's like an Abbott and Costello skit!

[LuciusBeebe]

Although I agree with you when you say that Sarah Palin is wicked and I believe that she has mis-represented herself and her record beyond belief and I have more doubts than I did a couple of weeks ago. I really do not believe that she will fall on her face. I may regret saying this but Sarah Palin is a lot of things but I don't believe that she is stupid. The debate next week will be very interesting.

You don't have to be stupid to not know what you're talking about. She's simply out of her depth, as her interviews with Gibson and Couric have demonstrated. If she can't handle an interview with Katie Couric, how do you think she's going to handle Biden? Joe Biden doesn't care about perceptions, he will maul her and smile while he does it. Frankly, he needs to do it. Palin does not deserve to be this close to running the country. People need to wake up and realize that she's not qualified. Its nothing personal, she's just not qualified. Its King Ralph. She's likeable, but she's not qualified to run the show.

[evilkumquat]

Its King Ralph. She's likeable, but she's not qualified to run the show.

Holy god, you just described the last seven to eight years of the Executive Branch.

Except, substitute "King Ralph" with "Chaz Buffington, preppy old-money villain from any 80's summer camp movie".

[denali]

You don't have to be stupid to not know what you're talking about. She's simply out of her depth, as her interviews with Gibson and Couric have demonstrated. If she can't handle an interview with Katie Couric, how do you think she's going to handle Biden? Joe Biden doesn't care about perceptions, he will maul her and smile while he does it. Frankly, he needs to do it. Palin does not deserve to be this close to running the country. People need to wake up and realize that she's not qualified. Its nothing personal, she's just not qualified. Its King Ralph. She's likeable, but she's not qualified to run the show.

LB you are singing to the choir-I don't need to wake up-I already know that Sarah Palin is not qualified, she is not qualified to be Gov. of Alaska let alone Vice President of the United States for God's sake.

I think that Joe Biden does need to maul her but perceptions of picking on poor Sarah Palin will be tossed about and you know how people can be when they think that someone is being picked on.

The only thing that I disagree with you about is-"She's likeable"-not so much.

[matt_s]

Did anybody notice that at some point during every answer, McCain basically tried to give an "I've got experience at that" spin to everything. The question could have been about how much "quilting' affects the absorbency of TP and his answer would have included the phrase "well, one time in...".

Are people buying what he is selling about Obama being inexperienced?

[LuciusBeebe]

Are people buying what he is selling about Obama being inexperienced?

No.

More importantly, I'm not buying that McCain's experience will make any difference. The past 8 years have been handled by people with experience. What I want is judgement in my candidate, not experience.

[HoosierHelen]

You don't have to be stupid to not know what you're talking about. She's simply out of her depth, as her interviews with Gibson and Couric have demonstrated. If she can't handle an interview with Katie Couric, how do you think she's going to handle Biden? Joe Biden doesn't care about perceptions, he will maul her and smile while he does it. Frankly, he needs to do it. Palin does not deserve to be this close to running the country. People need to wake up and realize that she's not qualified. Its nothing personal, she's just not qualified. Its King Ralph. She's likeable, but she's not qualified to run the show.

I can not imagine how her lack of perception and knowledge of world affairs will escape the population after her first debate. She did accomplish an over the top acceptance speech for her VP nomination. Drama must be her major accomplishment. Depth of Focus is NOT her strong point in my opinion.

Any question I had left in my heart regarding McCain due to his service to our country were answered when he chose Sarah as his VP. Good Grief Charlie Brown!! I want to love this man..but..he steps all over him self with decisions like choosing Sarah.

[evilkumquat]

The past 8 years have been handled by people with experience. What I want is judgement in my candidate, not experience.

EXACTLY.

If McCain has all this "experience", but still votes the way he does... why in the hell would we want to give him any MORE power...?

[Mr Douglas]

I personally can't believe Palin was 'his' decision. And I consider going with Palin to be more of a GOP calculation of demographics, who they want to 'sway'. Very presumptuous of women, rednecks, and other presumed simpletons. The 'American Idol' types. Once again- Wickedly brilliant! It'll probably work.

And besides, what could be more cool than jerking everyones underwear up over their heads, and scoring some 50/50 photo finish win? Seems to happen every time.

[HoosierHelen]

Mr. Douglas,

DUDE...I am a woman...I am dismayed at the choice of Sarah Palin for McCains running mate. Get it straight...women do NOT support other women simply because of their gender. We don't think that way. Do you?

[Mr Douglas]

Mr. Douglas,

DUDE...I am a woman...I am dismayed at the choice of Sarah Palin for McCains running mate. Get it straight...women do NOT support other women simply because of their gender. We don't think that way. Do you?

Hah? I was speaking of some conservative 'think tank', whatever that means,:rolleyes:, and their presumption that women are stupid, or fickle or impetuous- Which is a very common belief among white rednecks. You live here in Indiana, right? Perhaps you're somehow 'sheltered' from these types.(?)

[evilkumquat]

Mr. Douglas,

DUDE...I am a woman...I am dismayed at the choice of Sarah Palin for McCains running mate. Get it straight...women do NOT support other women simply because of their gender. We don't think that way. Do you?

Their choice in Palin shows their utter contempt for women.

They think that women still feel like we're back on the elementary playground picking teams for kickball and it's Girls versus Boys.

Remember, they picked Quayle for Bush's father because, in part, he was "cute" and they thought that would give Poppy a better shot at the Presidency.

Why women who don't suffer from esteem issues vote Republican I will NEVER understand.

By the way: need we remind anyone which party was the FIRST to pick a woman as a running mate?

[Mr Douglas]

[QUOTE=evilkumquat;18596]Remember, they picked Quayle for Bush's father because, in part, he was "cute" and they thought that would give Poppy a better shot at the Presidency.
QUOTE]

I've frequently wondered how much Quayle paid for a haircut.

[evilkumquat]

I've frequently wondered how much Quayle paid for a haircut.

That's funny, cuz I've frequently wondered if Quayle's haircut was smarter than he was.

[Mr Douglas]

That's funny, cuz I've frequently wondered if Quayle's haircut was smarter than he was.


If one is unable to 'baffle' with the BS, then hopefully he can just cruise off his looks. As a lifelong musician, I've seen one's appearance/presense carrying the day as often or moreso as his actual skill. Sadly, it reminds me that the average person is pretty darn stupid, which is to say, half the world is even stupider than he is. It's kind of depressing, really.

[HoosierHelen]

Mr Douglas,

And...the other half is smarter than he is. 1/2 full or 1/2 empty right? :-)

[Mr Douglas]

Mr Douglas,

And...the other half is smarter than he is. 1/2 full or 1/2 empty right? :-)

I sure hope so, for everyone's sake.

[HomeyG]

Ladies for Obama, please read the following link

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/36234

[ebbieday]

Even though that stinks, the amount of money I make compared to my male co worker is not my #1 concern...keeping the job I DO have from moving to Mexico or China is above that, along with many other issues. But this is good to know.

[evilkumquat]

Ladies for Obama, please read the following link

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/36234

This was written by a conservative and member of the Hoover Institute defined as a "conservative public policy think tank" whose members include Condoleezza Rice, Newt Gingrich, George Schultz and Ed Meese and is funded by Big Oil and other huge corporations.

Please note that the assumptions being made in the article only take into account half a year's worth of figures: the writer simply "doubled" the figures for the time frame on which they were reporting and made the assumption that would be a full year's worth of salaries.

Additionally, look at how often the writer uses "weasel" words like "seems", "one explanation could be", "one reason may be", etc.

Finally, the REAL purpose of this article was to use a six-month period of time to try and paint Obama as either a misogynist or hypocrite.

Why just the most recent six months? Wouldn't using ALL the data from when Obama started in the Senate paint a much, much better picture? Why not go all the way back through McCain's entire 26-year political career (Keating 5, anyone?) to get a much more accurate picture of his real background in supporting equal pay?

Clearly, the guy who wrote the article had an agenda (already proved by his membership with the Hoover Institution) so he used as much cherry-picked data as possible to try and smear Obama.

[denali]

Clearly, the guy who wrote the article had an agenda (already proved by his membership with the Hoover Institution) so he used as much cherry-picked data as possible to try and smear Obama.

I don't want to sound negative but it is my opinion that most politicians or political people have an agenda. You have to take everything with a grain of salt and realize that there are 3 sides to the story, opponent, proponent and the truth. Guess that is pretty cynical, isn't it?

[armyda]

This was written by a conservative and member of the Hoover Institute defined as a "conservative public policy think tank" whose members include Condoleezza Rice, Newt Gingrich, George Schultz and Ed Meese and is funded by Big Oil and other huge corporations.

Please note that the assumptions being made in the article only take into account half a year's worth of figures: the writer simply "doubled" the figures for the time frame on which they were reporting and made the assumption that would be a full year's worth of salaries.

Additionally, look at how often the writer uses "weasel" words like "seems", "one explanation could be", "one reason may be", etc.

Finally, the REAL purpose of this article was to use a six-month period of time to try and paint Obama as either a misogynist or hypocrite.

Why just the most recent six months? Wouldn't using ALL the data from when Obama started in the Senate paint a much, much better picture? Why not go all the way back through McCain's entire 26-year political career (Keating 5, anyone?) to get a much more accurate picture of his real background in supporting equal pay?

Clearly, the guy who wrote the article had an agenda (already proved by his membership with the Hoover Institution) so he used as much cherry-picked data as possible to try and smear Obama.

I looked at the data from LegiStorm and it didn't look to be exactly cherry picked. Looking at the period from 4/1/06 to 9/1/06: For the top 20 salaries from each: Obama had 30% women, while McCain had 55% women.

Maybe you should start looking at the data and facts, instead of accusing the author of being biased. The use of "Attack the Messenger" is a basic Logical Fallacy. But it does make an excellent means of distraction from the facts.

[edeevee]

I looked at the data from LegiStorm and it didn't look to be exactly cherry picked. Looking at the period from 4/1/06 to 9/1/06: For the top 20 salaries from each: Obama had 30% women, while McCain had 55% women.

Maybe you should start looking at the data and facts, instead of accusing the author of being biased. The use of "Attack the Messenger" is a basic Logical Fallacy. But it does make an excellent means of distraction from the facts.

Wow, you almost had me there, but the truth is the info is cherry picked. It's not comparing men and women working in the same job and it seems to have picked a particular time period that sways the numbers the writer's way. If you look at just field representatives, just legislative assistants, etc., you'll see that the equal pay data that article presents is pretty much hooey.

Now, if you want to make the argument that Obama hasn't promoted as much equal opportunity within his staff as McCain, you might have something. Maybe.

But the truth there is: What women today want is the best person for the job, male or female, and equal pay for equal work. We don't want to be DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. We want an equal shot but we don't want your warmed over placating and pandering.

It's like the whole Palin thing all over again. There are many, many qualified women in the Republican party. It's pure arrogance and the ultimate in sexism to pick one who is plainly not up to the job.

Next?

[armyda]

Wow, you almost had me there, but the truth is the info is cherry picked. It's not comparing men and women working in the same job and it seems to have picked a particular time period that sways the numbers the writer's way. If you look at just field representatives, just legislative assistants, etc., you'll see that the equal pay data that article presents is pretty much hooey.

Now, if you want to make the argument that Obama hasn't promoted as much equal opportunity within his staff as McCain, you might have something. Maybe.

But the truth there is: What women today want is the best person for the job, male or female, and equal pay for equal work. We don't want to be DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. We want an equal shot but we don't want your warmed over placating and pandering.

It's like the whole Palin thing all over again. There are many, many qualified women in the Republican party. It's pure arrogance and the ultimate in sexism to pick one who is plainly not up to the job.

Next?

Actually, I did look at the positions and I'll admit that I couldn't understand the differences in salaries that were listed. For some there were differences of 20 to 30 thousand dollars for the same position. One thing was consistent for both time periods I looked at though. For the 20 highest paid positions each offered, McCain had over 20% more women in those higher pay jobs than did Obama.

Isn't "glass ceiling" based on the idea that women aren't given an equal chance to get into those higher paid positions?

And as for Palin, whether or not she was the best choice I don't know. I'm just hoping that she is "no Dan Quayle"

[edeevee]

Actually, I did look at the positions and I'll admit that I couldn't understand the differences in salaries that were listed. For some there were differences of 20 to 30 thousand dollars for the same position.

I think the difference is widest in the "Special Assistant" category. I believe those are "special" -- each one has a different main task. When I compared positions that seem more clearly the same, there was a lot of parity.


Isn't "glass ceiling" based on the idea that women aren't given an equal chance to get into those higher paid positions?

Yes. And this is where you may have an argument. However, politics is the king of the good ole boy networks. I imagine it is hard to find an equal amount of women who have the same depth of experience as men do in the field ... although McCain seems to have done it. Score one for him!


And as for Palin, whether or not she was the best choice I don't know. I'm just hoping that she is "no Dan Quayle"

I hate to tell you this but I think come Thursday night you're going to be wishing Gov. Palin was as eloquent and well versed in policy as former VP Quayle -- and that's plain scary.

[HoosierHelen]

But the truth there is: What women today want is the best person for the job, male or female, and equal pay for equal work. We don't want to be DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. We want an equal shot but we don't want your warmed over placating and pandering.

It's like the whole Palin thing all over again. There are many, many qualified women in the Republican party. It's pure arrogance and the ultimate in sexism to pick one who is plainly not up to the job.

Next?

Your words here are straight from my heart also. The Republican party could have came up with far more qualified female canidates than Sarah Palin for this slot. Thursday will be entertaining (unfortunately).

[armyda]

Yes. And this is where you may have an argument. However, politics is the king of the good ole boy networks. I imagine it is hard to find an equal amount of women who have the same depth of experience as men do in the field ... although McCain seems to have done it. Score one for him!


For Bayh and Luger, Bayh around 50% women in top paying positions, Luger 45%.

[evilkumquat]

I looked at the data from LegiStorm and it didn't look to be exactly cherry picked. Looking at the period from 4/1/06 to 9/1/06: For the top 20 salaries from each: Obama had 30% women, while McCain had 55% women.

Maybe you should start looking at the data and facts, instead of accusing the author of being biased. The use of "Attack the Messenger" is a basic Logical Fallacy. But it does make an excellent means of distraction from the facts.

I must reiterate what I said earlier: why do they focus on such a narrow time frame to examine these figures?

McCain has TWENTY-SIX YEARS of working in the Senate, yet the writer chose only this very, very narrow timetable.

Could the argument be made that McCain has such a high percentage of women working for him now because he had anticipated running against Hillary, so he was already working on the argument that he had chauvinist hiring practices. What were the hire dates of these women? If all within the last two years, that is EXTREMELY telling.

Show me the entirety of his career and the percentage of women who work for him, then I will be more open to the writer's criticism.

[HomeyG]

Your words here are straight from my heart also. The Republican party could have came up with far more qualified female canidates than Sarah Palin for this slot. Thursday will be entertaining (unfortunately).

Helen,

Your are probably right. I also don't think McCain was the best choice either.
And, if you really think about it, Obama and Biden are not the best choices for the Democrats. We know that there are better candidates, so the question is: Why won't they run? Could it be the mudslinging, outright lies, misrepresentations, etc., etc., etc., that goes on by both parties.

[armyda]

The data is presented in 1/2 year increments based on the Federal Fiscal year. The writer took the most recent data segement. The website seems to have the salary data from 2002 on. The group may not have existed or had access to earlier data.

I had questions about some of the analisis of the overall statistics given by the article author and so I went to the data site to examine the information myself. Some of the earlier figures used in the article are pretty much meaningless, but the author does use the specific fact that McCain has more women in higher paying jobs than does Obama as a reason for the difference.

edeevee noted the statistical revelancy issues in a response post, but she also noted the correctness of the number of women in high paying postions. But then again, she took the time to go and look at the data rather than just trying to bash the author out of ignorance.

Oh and Evil: Why does McCain have to prove his innocence from sexual discrimination for 26 years? I guess for you, innocent until proven guilty isn't meant for Republicans.

[LuciusBeebe]

Your are probably right. I also don't think McCain was the best choice either.
And, if you really think about it, Obama and Biden are not the best choices for the Democrats.

Obama and Biden are the right choices, but they're in the wrong positions. Biden should be the Prez and Obama should be the Veep.

[evilkumquat]

Oh and Evil: Why does McCain have to prove his innocence from sexual discrimination for 26 years? I guess for you, innocent until proven guilty isn't meant for Republicans.

Well, the writer's point in that article was to try and make people believe that Obama was discriminatory against women and that McCain wasn't. So, it isn't a matter of McCain having to prove his innocence, it's a matter of having each candidate examined fairly.

Besides, why can't McCain be questioned on his policies and beliefs up to and including twenty-six years ago (when he was around 46) since Obama has been questioned about his religion and nationality from birth?

[armyda]

Well, the writer's point in that article was to try and make people believe that Obama was discriminatory against women and that McCain wasn't. So, it isn't a matter of McCain having to prove his innocence, it's a matter of having each candidate examined fairly.

Besides, why can't McCain be questioned on his policies and beliefs up to and including twenty-six years ago (when he was around 46) since Obama has been questioned about his religion and nationality from birth?

McCain can be questioned on his past policies and actions. Your statements have required the proof be in place before you will consider anything else.

And how fair have you been with your postings between the candidates? I seem to recall several edited video's that disparage character. If you want to demand fairness by all others, you need to provide it yourself. That would be the fair thing to do.

[LuciusBeebe]

Well, the writer's point in that article was to try and make people believe that Obama was discriminatory against women and that McCain wasn't. So, it isn't a matter of McCain having to prove his innocence, it's a matter of having each candidate examined fairly.

Its a matter of who gives a



[darn swearing filter]

[HoosierHelen]

McCain can be questioned on his past policies and actions. Your statements have required the proof be in place before you will consider anything else.

And how fair have you been with your postings between the candidates? I seem to recall several edited video's that disparage character. If you want to demand fairness by all others, you need to provide it yourself. That would be the fair thing to do.

Armyda,

McCain fails the character test when I review his Keating 5 history. Go in depth into history and you will find the facts. He escaped prosecution only because of his political connections in my opinion.

I do not trust a man who can be bought and paid for while in a position of authority to run this country. Keating flew McCain and his wife to exotic vacation locations on his private jet after McCain helped get Keatings Savings & Loan legislation approved. The favors bestowed on McCain were enormous by Keating.

Our fine government chose to not charge McCain and John Glenn due to their previous service to our country. I can not ever trust McCain after knowing his track record in the S&L scandal. AND...this current financial crisis is a mirror image of the previous.

I'm suggesting we open our eyes to who John McCain has been since he returned from Viet Nam. It's not a pretty picture.

Helen

[armyda]

Armyda,

McCain fails the character test when I review his Keating 5 history. Go in depth into history and you will find the facts. He escaped prosecution only because of his political connections in my opinion.

I do not trust a man who can be bought and paid for while in a position of authority to run this country. Keating flew McCain and his wife to exotic vacation locations on his private jet after McCain helped get Keatings Savings & Loan legislation approved. The favors bestowed on McCain were enormous by Keating.

Our fine government chose to not charge McCain and John Glenn due to their previous service to our country. I can not ever trust McCain after knowing his track record in the S&L scandal. AND...this current financial crisis is a mirror image of the previous.

I'm suggesting we open our eyes to who John McCain has been since he returned from Viet Nam. It's not a pretty picture.

Helen

Helen,

I find it interesting that you say that McCain was not charged due to his political connections and past service. But you omit political connections for Glenn. Why is that? You don't think that Glenn made use of politics?

Also the issue I was addressing was that there needed to be proof that McCain had never done anything sexist for the last 26 years, before they would give any consideration to each of McCain's and Obama's personal records for the employment of women.

[evilkumquat]

Also the issue I was addressing was that there needed to be proof that McCain had never done anything sexist for the last 26 years, before they would give any consideration to each of McCain's and Obama's personal records for the employment of women.

Nooooooooooo..........

I'm saying that the people doing the "investigating" are using a very narrow, six month window on which to make these assumptions.

What if McCain only hired men all the way up to this current election cycle, until it became obvious that Hillary was going to be an issue (and such blatant misogyny could be a political liability) , so he went out and hired a ton of women?

Without viewing a candidate's FULL political history, one really cannot make any educated assumptions of that candidate.

Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, two of the most bigoted senators in this country's recent history, both recanted some of their positions from early in their career while approaching their respective deathbeds. If one were to base his view on those two evil men solely on the last six months of their lives, he would never know (or possibly believe) how those two hurt or destroyed countless innocent people.

[armyda]

Nooooooooooo..........

I'm saying that the people doing the "investigating" are using a very narrow, six month window on which to make these assumptions.

What if McCain only hired men all the way up to this current election cycle, until it became obvious that Hillary was going to be an issue (and such blatant misogyny could be a political liability) , so he went out and hired a ton of women?

Without viewing a candidate's FULL political history, one really cannot make any educated assumptions of that candidate.

Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, two of the most bigoted senators in this country's recent history, both recanted some of their positions from early in their career while approaching their respective deathbeds. If one were to base his view on those two evil men solely on the last six months of their lives, he would never know (or possibly believe) how those two hurt or destroyed countless innocent people.

Why the article writer only used the last 6 month period of data I can't say for sure, maybe because that was the most current. But also as I said, all the information was provided in 6 month blocks. I looks at other time frames and found it was pretty consistent.

What about your little edited video snippets you keep posting, aren't you trying to create an bad impression of McCain from incomplete information? You say you want the whole picture. How often have you provided it. It makes you appear pretty hypocritical to me.

And yes, past actions do matter. But you can only make judgments on the data that you have. The source used didn't have the data, maybe it exists someplace else, maybe it doesn't. If you have some facts that contradict the current actions, then present them. If not, you have to work with the incomplete ones.

You need to realize that recent actions also DO MATTER .

[HoosierHelen]

armyda,

I believe the early days of McCain in Vietnam were very admirable and heroic, I believe his days as Senator under investigation for the Keating 5 showed a much different personality. Nothing honorable there.

How he deserted his first wife for his current wife was not honorable in my sence of values.

I believe his choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate reminded me of any old man who wants to walk into a room with a showgirl on his arm to confirm his manhood. (I know...prejudice statement...but exactly what I felt).

Sarah doesn't deserve being dimished to that role, but she took the bite because it came with the office of VP attached.

I know you all will be throwing mud pies at me now (or worse), but I'm telling you how I see it.

Helen

[Mr Douglas]

armyda,

I believe the early days of McCain in Vietnam were very admirable and heroic, I believe his days as Senator under investigation for the Keating 5 showed a much different personality. Nothing honorable there.

How he deserted his first wife for his current wife was not honorable in my sence of values.

I believe his choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate reminded me of any old man who wants to walk into a room with a showgirl on his arm to confirm his manhood. (I know...prejudice statement...but exactly what I felt).

Sarah doesn't deserve being dimished to that role, but she took the bite because it came with the office of VP attached.

I know you all will be throwing mud pies at me now (or worse), but I'm telling you how I see it.

Helen

Here's my favorite hypocrite ever- Family values... what was their bullcrap?- "CORE Values"-
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/gingrich.schneider/index.html - 48k -

[HoosierHelen]

yes, that story is a classic isn't it? Thanks for recovering it.

Helen

[denali]

Here's my favorite hypocrite ever- Family values... what was their bullcrap?- "CORE Values"-
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/gingrich.schneider/index.html - 48k -

OMGosh, Newt thought about running for President-he would have been worse than John McCain. Thank God that was not in the cards. But he is not 72 yet so I guess there is still a chance.

[Mr Douglas]

What? What? Newt was The MAN!!

[HoosierHelen]

Newt was the man until he was discovered doing the "naughty" in the parking lot at the White House with one of his aides after he had been stumping for "family values" (while still a married man).

That put a halt to his political future for a while. Anyone remember?

Helen

[evilkumquat]

What about your little edited video snippets you keep posting, aren't you trying to create an bad impression of McCain from incomplete information? You say you want the whole picture. How often have you provided it. It makes you appear pretty hypocritical to me.

I'm not trying to run for President, nor do I make a living trying to get one elected.

[HomeyG]

Well now isn't this something. All of you on the left keeping preaching separation of church and state and now what are you doing, condemning two politicans, both Republicans, who did not violate "man's" law but violated "God's" law, and because of this, they wouldn't be good presidents. By the way, where's your condemnation of John Edwards. I assuming this was an oversight. It's amazing you can forgive and excuse a sitting President from violating the sanctity of the White House who had a sexual encounter with a 21 year old and committed a felony by lying under oath, but you can't find it in your heart to forgive these men. Now here's the ironic part. If President Clinton would have been found guilty of his impeachment, and forced to resign, Al Gore would have become President and probably would have been re-elected, keeping G.W. from the Presidency.

[evilkumquat]

Well now isn't this something. All of you on the left keeping preaching separation of church and state and now what are you doing, condemning two politicans, both Republicans, who did not violate "man's" law but violated "God's" law, and because of this, they wouldn't be good presidents. By the way, where's your condemnation of John Edwards. I assuming this was an oversight. It's amazing you can forgive and excuse a sitting President from violating the sanctity of the White House who had a sexual encounter with a 21 year old and committed a felony by lying under oath, but you can't find it in your heart to forgive these men. Now here's the ironic part. If President Clinton would have been found guilty of his impeachment, and forced to resign, Al Gore would have become President and probably would have been re-elected, keeping G.W. from the Presidency.

Uh, the GOP we're mocking are the *******s who lead the charge against Clinton, who claimed moral "superiority" over him and ran on "family values" platforms.

They're hypocrites and deserve scorn.

[armyda]

I'm not trying to run for President, nor do I make a living trying to get one elected.

No, you are saying that you or anyone else can't make a reasonable judgment with out all of the facts. Yet what you do is post edited snippets. Therefore, everyone should ignore your posts as they are irrelevant. That is if your reasoning is applied.

[HoosierHelen]

Well now isn't this something. All of you on the left keeping preaching separation of church and state and now what are you doing, condemning two politicans, both Republicans, who did not violate "man's" law but violated "God's" law, and because of this, they wouldn't be good presidents. By the way, where's your condemnation of John Edwards. I assuming this was an oversight. It's amazing you can forgive and excuse a sitting President from violating the sanctity of the White House who had a sexual encounter with a 21 year old and committed a felony by lying under oath, but you can't find it in your heart to forgive these men. Now here's the ironic part. If President Clinton would have been found guilty of his impeachment, and forced to resign, Al Gore would have become President and probably would have been re-elected, keeping G.W. from the Presidency.

I guess I am coming from the "left" these days. (The right is too limiting)

Homeyg, don't you see that those nations who do try to combine the church and state are the ones who at war with major violence in all countries? All sides of these religious wars belive theirselves to represent "Gods Laws". Therein is the source cause of the war. They all believe their religions to be the correct and devine word of God.

We need to allow all religions to honor their beliefs, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Budhists, etc. When we try to say we have the exclusive insite into God's mind...we immediately set ourselves into the midst of warfare. We've gotta get this! IF we can get this..we can deminish warfare and death of our youth of our country.

Peace to all on earth. I believe this!!

Helen

[james_t]

We need to allow all religions to honor their beliefs, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Budhists, etc. When we try to say we have the exclusive insite into God's mind...we immediately set ourselves into the midst of warfare.

A certain amount of this is inherent in some of the religions. I'd say the key is being respectful - around here, I think the saying is "agree to disagree."

[HoosierHelen]

HomeyG,

Just read your issues about John Edwards. I have no disagreement with your issues with him. Bad marital issues in his marriage are undisputed.

Clinton and Monica...sure that wasn't proper. Was that a maritial issue or a national issue? My judgment was it was a maritial issue.

When I vote for a President, I sincerely hope he has a sound marriage...however...I AM voting for a President...not a husband..so..if his marriage is not successfull, I continue to believe in his commitment as the President of our Country.

What is the difference? The difference between Personal Relationship and Career Choices is what I believe. How would any of us feel if we were released from our career positions simply because we have martial problems?

Just my thoughts.

Helen

[LuciusBeebe]

Well now isn't this something. All of you on the left keeping preaching separation of church and state and now what are you doing, condemning two politicans, both Republicans, who did not violate "man's" law but violated "God's" law, and because of this, they wouldn't be good presidents.

No, that is not what they are doing. They are not condemning them for whatever misdeeds they did, in and of themselves. They are condemning them for doing these deeds... wait for it... because the people who committed them claimed to be against such actions.

Its about hypocrisy. Its not about sex.

I don't care if Newt Gingrich did the most depraved (legal) thing imaginable. Or John McCain. Or anybody else, for that matter. But I do care when that person is on the record for saying that such things are bad, wrong, et cetera. I don't care about someone's sexual activities. But I do care about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a lie in action. Its worse than just a lie.

Its the same thing as the Rush Limbaugh oxycontin addiction.

Don't you get it, man? Its the sort of thing that makes the Left angry when Bush would talk about protecting freedom while legalizing warrantless wiretaps. Couldn't such hypocrisy have been predicted? Perhaps by something in Bush's past?

Well here we are now, with evidence of hypocrisy. Why should the hypocrite be given the White House, just to prove how capable he is of more? If McCain can talk about family values, while hypocritically violating them, then what else might he turn on? Tax cuts? Health care? National security?

Anything?

[HomeyG]

No, that is not what they are doing. They are not condemning them for whatever misdeeds they did, in and of themselves. They are condemning them for doing these deeds... wait for it... because the people who committed them claimed to be against such actions.

Its about hypocrisy. Its not about sex.

I don't care if Newt Gingrich did the most depraved (legal) thing imaginable. Or John McCain. Or anybody else, for that matter. But I do care when that person is on the record for saying that such things are bad, wrong, et cetera. I don't care about someone's sexual activities. But I do care about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a lie in action. Its worse than just a lie.

Its the same thing as the Rush Limbaugh oxycontin addiction.

Don't you get it, man? Its the sort of thing that makes the Left angry when Bush would talk about protecting freedom while legalizing warrantless wiretaps. Couldn't such hypocrisy have been predicted? Perhaps by something in Bush's past?

Well here we are now, with evidence of hypocrisy. Why should the hypocrite be given the White House, just to prove how capable he is of more? If McCain can talk about family values, while hypocritically violating them, then what else might he turn on? Tax cuts? Health care? National security?

Anything?

Do we detect a little bit of hypocrisy here?

Both Barack Obama and John Edwards have fulminated against "lobbyists" and "insiders," and claimed that they will end "business as usual" in Washington if elected president. But the latest quarterly campaign finance reports show that both candidates continue to receive large sums of money from donors employed by powerful "special interests," including trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, and hedge funds.

The Facts
Exhibit A in the drive by both Obama and Edwards to "clean up" Washington is their refusal to accept "a dime" from "Washington lobbyists." It distinguishes them clearly from their chief Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, who has raked in more than $500,000 from the lobbying industry this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (website is opensecrets.org) But it turns out that both Edwards and Obama have adopted a narrow definition of the word lobbyist, which raises questions about the effectiveness of their campaign.

They still take money from state lobbyists.

They make no attempt to distinguish between lobbyists for big corporations and lobbyists for small non-profits. They treat a lobbyist for Haliburton in the same way as a lobbyist for child poverty or cancer research.

They accept money from former lobbyists and future lobbyists.

As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.)

They have no problem about taking money from people representing other "special interests," e.g. trial lawyers and the hedge fund industry.

So far this year, according to Opensecrets.org, Edwards has taken more than $8 million from lawyers and law firms, some of whom employ the federally-registered lobbyists whose lucre he refuses to touch. Obama is not far behind: $7.5 million. (Clinton has taken $9.2 million.)

Obama has emphasized that he does not take money from PhRMA, the powerful lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, he does not seem to mind taking money from senior employees of PhRMA members, such as Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Campaign finance records show that he has raised about $250,000 in pharmaceutical-related contributions this year. (Clinton collected $269,000.) He has also not been averse to helping out Illinois-based pharmaceutical companies with "tariff suspensions."

Nor does refusing to accept money from federal lobbyists prevent the Obama and Edwards campaigns from accepting in-kind contributions from registered lobbyists in the form of volunteer work. See this Roll Call article. My colleague, Matt Mosk, recently reported that the Obama campaign is hiring a top lobbyist, Moses Mercado, as a senior adviser. Mercado's accounts with the Ogilvy Government Relations lobbyist group included Pfizer, United Health Group, and the Blackstone Group, which paid millions of dollars to Ogilvy to defeat proposals for doubling taxes paid by private equity managers. Mercado has said he will take a "leave of absence" from Ogilvy in order to work for Obama.

In the meantime, the Obama campaign returned a $250 contribution from a small-time federal lobbyist named Gigi Sohn, who works for a non-profit organization called Public Knowledge that advocates digital consumer rights. Sohn has, however, been permitted to help the campaign as a volunteer. In an interview with Roll Call, Sohn described Obama's position on lobbyists as "absurd." She said that the loopholes in the anti-lobbyist campaign were "big enough to drive a truck through."

A spokesman for Obama, Ben LaBott, said that "neither Mercado, nor any registered federal lobbyist, is a staff member of the Obama campaign." He declined to say whether Mercado would join the campaign at at later date or is an unpaid adviser. He said that the ban on accepting money from federal lobbyists was not "a perfect solution to the problem [of money in politics], and it isn't even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates."

A spokesman for Edwards, Eric Schultz, said that there was a "clear distinction" between refusing to take money from lobbyists and taking money from the people who employ them. "Either you lobby the federal government or you don't. Either you are paid to influence legislation and the people who write it or you're not. The line is clear and only murky for those who are trying to blur it."

[evilkumquat]

Do we detect a little bit of hypocrisy here?

Both Barack Obama and John Edwards have fulminated against "lobbyists" and "insiders," and claimed that they will end "business as usual" in Washington if elected president. But the latest quarterly campaign finance reports show that both candidates continue to receive large sums of money from donors employed by powerful "special interests," including trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, and hedge funds.

The Facts
Exhibit A in the drive by both Obama and Edwards to "clean up" Washington is their refusal to accept "a dime" from "Washington lobbyists." It distinguishes them clearly from their chief Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, who has raked in more than $500,000 from the lobbying industry this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (website is opensecrets.org) But it turns out that both Edwards and Obama have adopted a narrow definition of the word lobbyist, which raises questions about the effectiveness of their campaign.

They still take money from state lobbyists.

They make no attempt to distinguish between lobbyists for big corporations and lobbyists for small non-profits. They treat a lobbyist for Haliburton in the same way as a lobbyist for child poverty or cancer research.

They accept money from former lobbyists and future lobbyists.

As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.)

They have no problem about taking money from people representing other "special interests," e.g. trial lawyers and the hedge fund industry.

So far this year, according to Opensecrets.org, Edwards has taken more than $8 million from lawyers and law firms, some of whom employ the federally-registered lobbyists whose lucre he refuses to touch. Obama is not far behind: $7.5 million. (Clinton has taken $9.2 million.)

Obama has emphasized that he does not take money from PhRMA, the powerful lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, he does not seem to mind taking money from senior employees of PhRMA members, such as Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Campaign finance records show that he has raised about $250,000 in pharmaceutical-related contributions this year. (Clinton collected $269,000.) He has also not been averse to helping out Illinois-based pharmaceutical companies with "tariff suspensions."

Nor does refusing to accept money from federal lobbyists prevent the Obama and Edwards campaigns from accepting in-kind contributions from registered lobbyists in the form of volunteer work. See this Roll Call article. My colleague, Matt Mosk, recently reported that the Obama campaign is hiring a top lobbyist, Moses Mercado, as a senior adviser. Mercado's accounts with the Ogilvy Government Relations lobbyist group included Pfizer, United Health Group, and the Blackstone Group, which paid millions of dollars to Ogilvy to defeat proposals for doubling taxes paid by private equity managers. Mercado has said he will take a "leave of absence" from Ogilvy in order to work for Obama.

In the meantime, the Obama campaign returned a $250 contribution from a small-time federal lobbyist named Gigi Sohn, who works for a non-profit organization called Public Knowledge that advocates digital consumer rights. Sohn has, however, been permitted to help the campaign as a volunteer. In an interview with Roll Call, Sohn described Obama's position on lobbyists as "absurd." She said that the loopholes in the anti-lobbyist campaign were "big enough to drive a truck through."

A spokesman for Obama, Ben LaBott, said that "neither Mercado, nor any registered federal lobbyist, is a staff member of the Obama campaign." He declined to say whether Mercado would join the campaign at at later date or is an unpaid adviser. He said that the ban on accepting money from federal lobbyists was not "a perfect solution to the problem [of money in politics], and it isn't even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates."

A spokesman for Edwards, Eric Schultz, said that there was a "clear distinction" between refusing to take money from lobbyists and taking money from the people who employ them. "Either you lobby the federal government or you don't. Either you are paid to influence legislation and the people who write it or you're not. The line is clear and only murky for those who are trying to blur it."

When you copy and paste whole articles from other websites, even ones that are almost one year old, it is considered polite to just post a snippet and at least cite the source.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/obama_edwards_and_the_lobbying.html

[HomeyG]

When you copy and paste whole articles from other websites, even ones that are almost one year old, it is considered polite to just post a snippet and at least cite the source.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/obama_edwards_and_the_lobbying.html

I guess your only criticism is how I post and not the article itself, you must agree with me that there's hypocrisy on both sides of the street.

[hairypumper]

I guess your only criticism is how I post and not the article itself, you must agree with me that there's hypocrisy on both sides of the street.

Lack of criticism does not imply aggreement. Give him a chance. I knew too much about Hillary to vote for her, I know too little about Obama to vote for him. His brief voting history scares me. His words and deeds don't paint the same picture. You can say the same about McCain. McCain is touted as a war hero, some of us feel everyone who serves in the military is a hero. I am still undecided. I may just leave that box blank.

[LuciusBeebe]

I guess your only criticism is how I post and not the article itself, you must agree with me that there's hypocrisy on both sides of the street.

Your posting was bad for two reasons.

1.) You did not give a source. Not exactly honest posting, to take someone else's words and post them as your own.

2.) It is outdated.

Edwards hasn't been in the running for quite some time. Likewise for Hillary Clinton. As for Obama, his financing base has changed since that story. He's getting most of his money from internet donors these days.

But the article did point out something.

A spokesman for Obama, Ben LaBott, said that "neither Mercado, nor any registered federal lobbyist, is a staff member of the Obama campaign." He declined to say whether Mercado would join the campaign at at later date or is an unpaid adviser. He said that the ban on accepting money from federal lobbyists was not "a perfect solution to the problem [of money in politics], and it isn't even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates."

So Obama has a ban on accepting money from lobbyists.... that's a good thing, right? Any other candidates have that?

[evilkumquat]

Your posting was bad for two reasons.

1.) You did not give a source. Not exactly honest posting, to take someone else's words and post them as your own.

2.) It is outdated.

Thanks, Lucius.

That was EXACTLY what I wanted - someone else to connect the dots, which is why all I did was point out the copy/paste.

I had also planned on pointing out that it was originally written by someone who's come under attack for biased "reporting" before and spent some time gathering examples, but then decided Dr. Mario would be more fun so I just posted the link and hoped someone else would run with it.

[HomeyG]

Your posting was bad for two reasons.

1.) You did not give a source. Not exactly honest posting, to take someone else's words and post them as your own.

2.) It is outdated.

Edwards hasn't been in the running for quite some time. Likewise for Hillary Clinton. As for Obama, his financing base has changed since that story. He's getting most of his money from internet donors these days.

But the article did point out something.

A spokesman for Obama, Ben LaBott, said that "neither Mercado, nor any registered federal lobbyist, is a staff member of the Obama campaign." He declined to say whether Mercado would join the campaign at at later date or is an unpaid adviser. He said that the ban on accepting money from federal lobbyists was not "a perfect solution to the problem [of money in politics], and it isn't even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates."

So Obama has a ban on accepting money from lobbyists.... that's a good thing, right? Any other candidates have that?

It was not my intention to post these remarks as my own. Check my other posts and you'll find that I identify whom I'm quoting and at a minimum I'll use QUOTE at the beginning and UNQUOTE at the end, and if I'm paraphrasing I'll use quotation marks. If you must, chalk it up to laziness.

Found an interesting article on lobbyists and their connection with presidential candidates.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/29/lobbyists/

[denali]

Clinton and Monica...sure that wasn't proper. Was that a maritial issue or a national issue? My judgment was it was a maritial issue.

How was that a maritial issue when it took place in the White House, his relationship was with an Intern for crips sake and didn't he use his power to have this relationship and cover it up?

[LuciusBeebe]

How was that a maritial issue when it took place in the White House, his relationship was with an Intern for crips sake and didn't he use his power to have this relationship and cover it up?

That's a national issue? Banging an intern? Call me crazy, but I thought national issues had to do with the economy or security or the budget...

[evilkumquat]

How was that a maritial issue when it took place in the White House, his relationship was with an Intern for crips sake and didn't he use his power to have this relationship and cover it up?

If that wasn't entrapment on the GOP's part, why did Lewinsky go to such lengths to save his DNA?

[james_t]

If that wasn't entrapment on the GOP's part, why did Lewinsky go to such lengths to save his DNA?

It was a memento from the relationship. I mentioned this before: Remember the Brady Bunch episode where Marcia would never wash her face again?

Same thing. Starry-eyed Monica: "I'll never wash this dress again..."

Besides, it wouldn't make any sense to set up entrapment only to confirm what everyone knew about Clinton anyway. The legal trouble for Clinton didn't come from his sexual escapades, but only when he chose to lie about them under oath.

[LuciusBeebe]

It was a memento from the relationship. I mentioned this before: Remember the Brady Bunch episode where Marcia would never wash her face again?

Well played, old bean.

[evilkumquat]

It was a memento from the relationship. I mentioned this before...

Bah, a memento is a flower pressed in a book, a movie stub, a plane ticket...

Saving your fling's DNA has CSI evidence retrieval all over it.

[james_t]

Saving your fling's DNA has CSI evidence retrieval all over it.

Even if it was, what purpose would have it served? It wasn't like people had illusions of Bill Clinton's fidelity, even at that point in time.

Think about it: The GOP announces it has discovered that Bill Clinton has had a sexual affair. Public reaction: Who was it THIS week?

Had he not lied about it later, it might have caused a minor scandal but not near the trouble it did.

I'd think if there was any nefarious purpose in her saving the dress it might be more that she was trying to get some hush money out of him later on.

[evilkumquat]

I'd think if there was any nefarious purpose in her saving the dress it might be more that she was trying to get some hush money out of him later on.

Oh... she was WELL taken care of by Clinton's enemies...

[armyda]

If that wasn't entrapment on the GOP's part, why did Lewinsky go to such lengths to save his DNA?

Monica Lewinsky, A plant???? My first reaction on seeing her was why would he want that.

I'm sorry, but if the Republicans were going to plant a woman there, she'd have been a heck of a lot better looking.

[LuciusBeebe]

I'm sorry, but if the Republicans were going to plant a woman there, she'd have been a heck of a lot better looking.

I'd say her "success" speaks for itself.

[armyda]

I'd say her "success" speaks for itself.

If we are going with conspiracy theories: Maybe she was planted by the aliens from Area 51.

Give me a break

[LuciusBeebe]

I was just commenting on her success in snaring Bill. I don't believe in any conspiracy theory.

[armyda]

I was just commenting on her success in snaring Bill. I don't believe in any conspiracy theory.

Since I was responding to the question of her being a Republican plant to entrap Clinton and you quoted that response, I figured you were supporting the conspiracy theme.

sorry. You might want to add clarification if you do that in the future.