But, Patrick, pandering is saying or doing something you don't really believe in order to get votes, win elections. In the overall grand scheme, the pandering that Obama may or may not do, is certainly less obvious than the outright pandering of picking breasts, suggesting you care about a feminist agenda, and really, really care about the working class.
I don't think Obama, by picking Biden, is pandering, unless you think trying to show rural America that hey a white can like Obama too, it's safe.
Bush pretty well ran both of those ends into the ground- strategic interests and domestic policy.
I think what we have in this election is simply a choice. And I'm not talking about the media circus, the convention personality contest or resume contest... This is an important election because we have two starkly different candidates on policy positions, and as we've seen over the last 8 years, policy matters... It affects our lives: our economy, national security, our foreign relations, taxes: who gets the tax cut and which tax cut will actually have the best impact as a fiscal stimulus for our economy, healthcare and whether you are for making healthcare affordable and provided to every citizen, education and investment in education, the environment- whether you believe that global warming and climate change are a real threat or if you think that its okay to continue to increase carbon emissions and not to invest in sustainable alternatives, how much debt our country carries, diverse social issues including stances on affirmative action, sex education, gay rights, community development, our supreme court justices (appointing judges who will define our laws), our infrastructure- whether you favor strategic investment in high speed rail and urban transit as a response to rising energy costs, and as a source of economic stimulus and smart growth and environment, our moral standing in the world- whether you believe in smart and principled dimplomacy to form alliances, or whether you think the last eight years of foreign policy, alienating our allies and eliminating our credibility by acting unilaterally and egotistically, and tolerating torture as a method of interrogation is okay...
On almost every policy stance, John McCain is continuing the policies of the past 8 years. John McCain says he's a maverick and that he will change washington, but lets hear specifics. How will he be different? I just don't see any differences, so unless he proves otherwise, both in his politics and in his policy stances, as far as I'm concerned, he is more of the same...
I actually thought it was the real video for the first few minutes. I'm glad it wasn't.
I feel like when John McCain loses, he'll go back on the Daily Show and come out and say that he just said all of these things to get the base on his side. Just like he did in 2000 when he said later that he thought South Carolina really should get rid of the confederate flag on its own flag, after he said in the campaign that he thought it should stay. He's so desperate that he'll say anything this time around, including giving up everything he used to actually stand for. (Unless he doesn't lose. In which case, I can't wait to see him try to follow through on these things)
The first part of the show is kind of genius too....it's really sad that it takes a comedy show to expose these things.
I think the biggest energy "find" is conservation, bar none. Rather than the Obama supported bailout for Detroit automakers I'd propose tax credits for dismantling the SUV fleet and give tax rebates for fuel efficient vehicles.
Agreed. Conservation is the biggest domestic energy "find". And this is something where, energy conservation is best achieved by working *with* the market, rather than against it. Investment in practical alternatives: alternative energies and alternative consumption. This is a strategic investment, about economic competitiveness and also managing growth. The investment in American automakers and their production of hybrid vehicles is an investment in jobs and the economy. The energy issue aside, this is about domestic industry, and I'm not talking just about where cars are assembled, I mean where the source of innovation and technological advance is, because that is ultimately an issue of investment.
The energy crisis is one aspect to the issue, the economy and job growth is another... All these things IMHO are important, and rather than pick apart one individual policy stance by itself, we need to look at the big picture... Which candidate offers a broad comprehensive vision for how to deal with these problems, energy, environment and economy, and which candidate do you believe has the correct intention: that is to invest strategically in our future. Because on any one single issue, things always change, but the question I'd have is: which candidate has their mind thinking about the right things, asking the right questions?
Health care is a related issue too. Health care is not just a social issue, it is an economic issue. it relates to the competitiveness of our country for jobs. Auto manufacturing jobs and many other jobs are being shipped to Canada and other foreign countries, and a part of this is simply how expensive labour is here, we cannot compete because of health care costs.
Investment in clean energy jobs and infrastructure. This is an investment which comes at a cost, but in the short term, it stimulates our economy, creates jobs, and will make us more competitive in a global marketplace in the future.
This latest argument is just asinie. Theoretically yes, American oil is sold in a global market. But it isn't cheap to transport oil around the globe. Why do you think Canadian crude all flows to the US, ditto Mexico. Hugo Chavez has an axe to grind so he exports to China but typically oil is exported to the nearest market. Also, contrary to what most people belive, the USA is the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world behind Saudi Arabia & Russia. We consume a heck of a lot, but we are by no means a minor player in production.
The point of this is the price at which oil is traded in the global market. It doesn't matter where your oil is pumped from, if anyway you are consuming far more than you are producing domestically, and oil consumption continues to increase at a rate (both domestically and globally) that far excedes your increases in production. Nobody is saying we aren't producing alot, this is about the *increase* in production possible... There just isn't that much increase possible, and it will have no short term or long term effect on energy cost. The cost of transportation is embedded in the cost to the consumer, whereever it is consumed, so this oil is traded globally. Ten years from now when the any small amount of new oil drilling production is realized, the price of oil will be probably 5 times what it is now, if we look at the growth of industrial nations like China, Russia, and India. True, the oil we actually consume may be from sources that are domestic, or closer to us, but ultimately, the thing that matters is how much you consume. Right now, we are consuming 1/4 of the world's oil, even though we have less than 1/20 of the world's population. Here are some graphs to look at... Click on the pie chart for dramatic effect... Consuming less makes us immune to the price change in oil, and therefore more competitive in global markets.
The most effective solution to this energy problem is to change consumption, which requires in focused investment and direction... This will be the inevitable result of rising prices anyway, as prices rise, consumption decreases. It's just a matter of providing alternatives, or making those alternatives accessible... I think Obama has his head inthe right place, and McCain does not.
"Either one of our presidential candidates is VERY WELL QUALIFIED."
Let's see. The McCain campaign is being run by a herd of high-paid corporate lobbyists like the one that the President of Georgia thought had had bought when he called out John McCain by name on CNN to say that "McCain said we are all Georgians today, let's see him back up his words with action." McCain's senior foreign policy advisor has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from him. McCain maybe the first US presidential candidate that the leader of a foreign sovereign nation has asked on international telelvision to have his army intervene on their behalf. Isn't that the president's job? Does McCain has his own army?
Remember, when Eisenhower ran for office, he never once brought up his military service. He talked instead about his vision of the future.
Obama really is the cream of the crop. You gotta' be a smart cookie to teach at the very conservative U of C Law School. McCain was fifth to last in his class at Annapolis.
unfortunate obama slip on '[url=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2zQK_EhDhZQ]this week with george stephanopoulos[url]
full(er) transcript:
Obama: What I was suggesting, you're absolutely right that John McCain has not, uh, talked about my Muslim faith and you're absolutely right that that is not...
Stephanopoulos: Christian faith.
Obama: My, my Christian faith, and, well, what I'm saying is he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim. (cross talk by Stephanopoulos could not be distinguished.)
Context: Stephanopoulos was asking about Obama saying yesterday Republicans are saying he's a Muslim and the McCain campaign denying that they are doing that. After the transcribed exchange Obama acknowledged the 'upper echelons' of the McCain campaign were not doing that but he accused others in the Republican party of doing so.
Do you truly, truly believe that Barack Obama is a muslim, FRaC?
If you don't then why are you posting these slips?
I don't believe that the Republican operatives who spread this insidious garbage believe he's a muslim. But they know a lot of Americans far less informed than them WILL believe it.
What you're doing—and what they're doing—is lying and it's disingenuous. And you know it.
Worse yet, the attack is built on two separate, insidious lies. First the lie that Obama is a Muslim, and second the lie that being a Muslim is equivalent to being a terrorist.
as i stated the slip was 'unfortunate'. obama is definitely NOT a muslim.
then i posted the full transcript, which the youtube person cut (stephanopoulos' correction of what obama meant to say). i'm doing this to help stop this 'slip' from being turned into evidence obama is muslim. so you obama guys have a little more info when this comes up.
as thom yorke once wrote 'i'm a reasonable man, get off my case.'
I wonder to what extent stuff like this does more damage to the McCain campaign than it does to the Obama campaign... It undermines the GOP's credibility among voters. I'd hope that the McCain campaign speaks out against this garbage to denounce it, as untrue and bigotted, and to distance themselves from these kinds of fear mongering tactics.
These kinds of things might help them when it comes to the small number of ignorant voters who might buy this garbage (and who probably wouldn't be voting for a Democrat anyway), but for the large majority of independent and informed voters who are interested in integrity and concerned with real issues, this is pretty off-putting...
I find it sad, not so much that there are uninformed people in our country, but more that there are people who would take advantage of people's ignorance and prey on their fears in lame attempts to get a few votes...
FRaC, please. Come on. You're a right-winger and the only reason you post this is to further the "Obama is a muslim" lie. What you're doing is cynical and Rovian and you know it.
Don't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming you're somehow reasonable. You are trying to spread a smear. Period.
I don't think the large majority of independent voters are concerned with real issues. I think a small minority are. All the rest of them care about is "projected strength."
It doesn't matter who wins the debates, or who's right, or that the McCain campaign lies through its teeth. ALL that matters among swing voters is who is percieved as tougher.
The smear-agents of cynicism managed to portray Gore as a know-it-all in 2000, Kerry as a bragging wine-snob in 2004. And now they're trying to paint Obama as an ivy-educated "uppity" yuppie. If this succeeds, the election is already lost.
The reason the "Obama is a musilm" trope won't work (despite FRaC's efforts) is that it's not true. But the Obama is an elitist trope might, because it's difficult to disprove.
Swing voters want a sitcom, not a presidency. They want the White House version of "Everybody Loves Raymond." That's why Sarah Palin is getting so much press—her family is like some hi-jinx sitcom.
i posted the transcript and its context. it's just a funny slip of the tongue. no rational person believes he's a muslim - there are both democrats and republicans who believe that myth.
Cosponsors [as of 2008-08-31]
Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?
6/3/2008--Introduced.
Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 - Amends the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 with respect to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) searchable database website. Requires the website to allow the public to search programmatically and access all data in a serialized machine readable format (such as XML) via a web-services application programming interface.
Specifies additional information on federal awards the website must include by certain deadlines.
Requires the website to present information about federal awards and their recipients in ways that meet the needs of users with different levels of understanding about government spending and abilities using searching websites.
Sets forth requirements of the Director of OMB to add specified data quality enhancements to the website.
Requires the Director to ensure that the unique identifier used to link information on the website is also used to link information about performance of individual contractors and recipients of financial assistance starting with awards given in FY2008.
Requires the chief executive officer of an award recipient to certify whether the entity has: (1) filed all federal tax returns required during the preceding five years; (2) been convicted of a criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code; and (3) an outstanding debt under the Code for which a notice of lien has been publicly filed that is not being paid in a timely manner, or for which a collection due process hearing or relief is requested or pending.
Requires the Director to: (1) develop certification forms; (2) ensure that each agency providing federal awards complies with tax compliance requirements; and (3) ensure that the website contains such certified information.
anybody hear the interview of thomas friedman on fresh air today? check it out. i'm hot and cold on friedman - often think he's a boob - but he was both passionate and had well-crafted arguments today in his discussion of why and how the candidates need to understand the green issues and energy. given that he gets a pretty good hearing and his book is likely to be a bestseller, it gave me a small glimmer of hope.
best part was when he noted his early excitement about a obama vs mccain race. great, he thought, both candidates likely to be green candidates... and then his dismay as mccain backpedaled on every major environmental principle he once championed.
the story of the post-70s alternative energy legacy was funny - except that the u.s. was the butt of the joke....
I heard half of it, Steven, and may go listen to the first half now. He is certainly engaging to listen to, what a kooky personality he has! But does raise some good points.
DAV (Disabled American Veterans) - a large and non-partisan Veterans group, rates Obama's voting record on Vets issues 85% and McCain only 20%! Other groups that rate Obama far superior to McCain on Vets issues - Vietnam Veterans of America and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (Obama gets a B+ and McCain gets a D).
The best idea is to not go after poorly educated children in school before they are too young to make these sorts of decisions for them selfs with professional marketers (recruits) who don't want to be in harms way them selfs and to give them all the information correctly about benefits and the harms like PTSD and DU.
but yes the vets are 6 to 1 for Obama.
And yet. And yet. It turns out that in the post-Republican Convention polls, the pollsters oversampled Republicans versus Democrats relative to earlier polls.
That means the spike we're seeing may have absolutely nothing to do with how people will actually be voting, and more to do with who the pollsters are calling. Namely, lots and lots of Republicans. See here:
maybe the number of republicans sampled is bumped up because they are more likely to go out and vote (cbs is still sampling a higher percentage of democrats - from huffypost: 'the second sample was 34.9% Democratic, 31.1% Republican, and 34.0% independent.').
it could also be that pollsters expect the palin cult to bring out more evangelicals and lipstick-wearing pit bulls so they're sampling republicans a bit higher now.
i still think it's time for change and obama will win. should be an exciting election day/night ..
thanks for the realclearpolitics electoral map link, beta. interesting to go back over the years and review my first election memory of reagan/carter '80.
This was just launched by the Obama Campaign, a new tool to help people contribute by making calls to registered voters in support of the campaign, either in their own area or in a battleground state:
Y'know, though, not to rain on any parades, but all the dems crowing about how the electoral count is all that matters reminds me of the 2000 election ... seems they was talking a different line back then, right?
Hey, I'm for the good guys, too, just saying, though.
It's good for both parties, and it's good for the country. Honestly, even Republicans need a change, and that's not happening. You said you supported a Colin Powell, but I can tell you for a fact, he is not a part of the current Republican party. I seriously believe that he served on the Bush Administration out of a sense of duty to his country, to serve it when things were bad. And the Bush administration did not do him right. This is not the party of the Reagan years anymore, the country, and the Republican party needs a change, and McCain/Palin isn't going to bring that... These aren't fiscal conservatives, they don't represent the Republicans of the past, the values of the past.
sevensixfive, you are completely right about that assessment, I wonder if the democrats have the nerve to push through the removal of the electoral college after they get in power? doubtful.....but the republicans proved they certainly don't have it on their agenda.
So. I'm talking about John McCain's economic policies, and I say: "This is more of the same, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig." And suddenly they say, "Oh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska." And now they're making this big fuss and, you know -- here's where most Democrats in the past would carefully and earnestly explain how I meant nothing of the kind.
Heck, I was about to do that. Yesterday, I didn't mean anything but a comment on their policies, one that was obvious to anyone who was there. But today is different. Today I am here to tell you that I am flip flopping. I've changed my mind.
Pig in lipstick. I meant it any way they want to take it.
For weeks we've all watched their low-ball ads and listened to their lies and twisted innuendo, attacks on my family and our values, community service and patriotism, all of it wrapped in our flag-- and last night I thought to myself, Barack, CHANGE isn't letting someone kick you over and over again. CHANGE doesn't mean that the only response to blatant lies, extremism and intolerance is thoughtfulness.
Maybe the reason they think they'll get away with this is they think I'm such a big lofty "celebrity" that I can't get down on the ground and fight like a man. Well, they are wrong. Lies are lies. Not untruths. Not misstatements. Not "questionable" facts. Lies. And lies dishonor our nation.
A great country, the world's greatest country, should not waste its time with trivialities -- but a wise leader cannot pretend the world is as he wishes it was. If this is the kind of fight they want, then I will give it back to them.
So let me be clear what I meant yesterday.
McCain and Palin, their policies and their demeaning campaign are A PIG IN LIPSTICK.
They are OLD FISH IN A NEW WRAPPER.
They are a threat to our future. Because they are the past, masquerading as the future.
I'm going to disagree with some of whats said here. What's going to lose the Dems the election is falling victim to the spin and mudslinging game.
I'll tell you what has happened the last few days. The reason that Obama's campaign has lost its edge. It's because people are sick and tired of this kind of politics, and they are actually falling into the Republicans game, trying to respond to their lies and nonsense, and not doing an effective job of it at that. What they *should* be doing is, understand why their campaign was successful in the first place: giving people hope, making the right stances on the issues, and bringing people together and giving people some optimistic
What wil lost this election is not if the McCain camp continues in their charrade. What will lose this election is if the McCain camp is successful in distracting. Turning this election into some kind of hype-fest, popularity contest, and smear battle that will simply distract people from the very real and very important issues facing our country. What will turn out a repeat of Kerry/Edwards '04 is, if people don't feel passionately enough to get out and vote. This is the problem: this ugly politics of lies and smears makes people depressed, it makes people sick, but those that it makes sick simply don't feel passionately enough to step up and vote, and they don't make a difference... The beneficiary of this is ultimately the candidate of the Karl Rove politics. These tactics work because they play on peoples' fears and negativity and seek to break the spirit of the average voter, in favor of voters who will vote for hype...
TAKE THE GLOVES OFF, BUT DO IT BY INSPIRING PEOPLE. RALLY PEOPLE AROUND THE ISSUES, AND SHOW YOUR STRENGTH THROUGH YOUR ABILITY TO LIFT PEOPLE UP RATHER THAN TEAR PEOPLE DOWN. PEOPLE WILL GET OUT TO VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN, AND IF YOU DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT SMEARS, BUT RATHER BE EMPASSIONED ABOUT THE ISSUES AND ABOUT HOW TO BRING REAL PROGRESS... THIS IS WHAT WILL GET OUT LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE TO VOTE, IS IF THEY SEE SOMETHING TRUE AND DIFFERENT.
LETS SEE SOME STRENGTH IN MESSAGE.
Here's an example. Connect with the working class voter by speaking to their values, connect by standing up for them, because you can't connect with people if you are constantly trying to wipe the mud off your face that is flung by the pig, just don't roll in the mud, instead stand up make your case loud and clear. Talk to the failures of the past eight years, not to the silliness of the past week...
Commenting on what NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell described -- on the September 10 edition of MSNBC Live -- as the "latest controversy over [Sen.] Barack Obama's use of a common expression about putting lipstick on a pig," NBC News Washington bureau chief Mark Whitaker said that "on one level, this seems like a frivolous story" but it is "important to watch" because it's an example of "how good the [Sen. John] McCain campaign is at ... driving the news cycle day after day." But while Whitaker acknowledged no media responsibility in determining what they cover, NBC News political director Chuck Todd said earlier the same day on MSNBC's Morning Joe that the story was "a faux controversy" and that the media had "taken the bait on this lipstick thing" which he called "a joke" and "laughable."
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the September 10 edition of MSNBC Live:
MITCHELL: With less than two months before the election, there are plenty of personal and political attacks, accusations, negative political ads out there, on the web, on television, and especially this latest controversy over Barack Obama's use of a common expression about putting lipstick on a pig. How did we get here? How effective is negative campaigning, and how risky is it? What about the backlash?
I'm joined now by Mark Whitaker, NBC's Washington bureau chief. Mark, let's take it back and try to put this into some context. It all started with Barack Obama making a comment he did or did not think is innocuous, he's said it before, but immediately, the response -- and I was watching it happen, live, on television, and then within 15 minutes we were called to a conference call by the McCain camp.
WHITAKER: I keep waiting to see what animal we're going to find -- put lipstick on tomorrow. You know, we've had pit bulls, we've had pigs. It's turning into a very campy version of Noah's Ark. But, yeah -- look, I think, on one level, this seems like a frivolous story, but I think it does tell us two things that I think are important to watch. One is how good the McCain campaign is at hand-to-hand combat, at basically driving the news cycle day after day. Obviously, it's true that they don't really want to talk about the state of the economy, they don't want to talk about George Bush's record, so they've got to get other things to talk about, and they're very good at that. But, I think it's also -- people are looking to see how Obama is going to respond, you know. And, the fact is that, as we discovered in '04 with Kerry, people take how a candidate responds to these kinds of attacks, and whether they're willing to fight for themselves, as a proxy for whether they're going to be fighters for the American people on other issues.
MITCHELL: Now, the Obama campaign responded very quickly, because 10 minutes after we got off this conference call with the McCain people, the Obama people already had all of these citations of how often John McCain had used "lipstick on a pig." In fact, it is the title of the book written by his former press secretary, Torie Clarke. That said, they didn't put anyone out immediately. Did Obama show his toughness today when he said, "I may not throw the first punch, but I will throw the last punch?"
"The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.
"By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course.
"This is a stiff test, not the work of a speech or two, but of an entire campaign. Whether or not Obama passes the test will determine his fitness for the presidency."
I disagree with that description of Obama's challenge, I think what Obama has been saying all along, on many topics, has been clear, well thought out and well founded. I think Obama's challenge is getting people to listen. Many voters choose to ignore what he is actually saying and prefer to just believe the republican googly eyed characture of him that is being pushed by right wing media outlets.
Vote Obama and get a racist VP. Joe Biden brags about DE being a "slave state" and has said that they fought for "the wrong side" in the Civil War. He also has also make racist comments about people of Indian decent.
He's a good ole' boy that Obama picked out of greed and a lust for power.
The Biden selection only proves that NoBama lacks core values.
VOTE OBAMA
i just dont want to see white people in power anymore.. you guys cant handle the responsibilities...
wheres dave chapelle when u need him to make racists jokes okay..
But, Patrick, pandering is saying or doing something you don't really believe in order to get votes, win elections. In the overall grand scheme, the pandering that Obama may or may not do, is certainly less obvious than the outright pandering of picking breasts, suggesting you care about a feminist agenda, and really, really care about the working class.
I don't think Obama, by picking Biden, is pandering, unless you think trying to show rural America that hey a white can like Obama too, it's safe.
Bush pretty well ran both of those ends into the ground- strategic interests and domestic policy.
I think what we have in this election is simply a choice. And I'm not talking about the media circus, the convention personality contest or resume contest... This is an important election because we have two starkly different candidates on policy positions, and as we've seen over the last 8 years, policy matters... It affects our lives: our economy, national security, our foreign relations, taxes: who gets the tax cut and which tax cut will actually have the best impact as a fiscal stimulus for our economy, healthcare and whether you are for making healthcare affordable and provided to every citizen, education and investment in education, the environment- whether you believe that global warming and climate change are a real threat or if you think that its okay to continue to increase carbon emissions and not to invest in sustainable alternatives, how much debt our country carries, diverse social issues including stances on affirmative action, sex education, gay rights, community development, our supreme court justices (appointing judges who will define our laws), our infrastructure- whether you favor strategic investment in high speed rail and urban transit as a response to rising energy costs, and as a source of economic stimulus and smart growth and environment, our moral standing in the world- whether you believe in smart and principled dimplomacy to form alliances, or whether you think the last eight years of foreign policy, alienating our allies and eliminating our credibility by acting unilaterally and egotistically, and tolerating torture as a method of interrogation is okay...
On almost every policy stance, John McCain is continuing the policies of the past 8 years. John McCain says he's a maverick and that he will change washington, but lets hear specifics. How will he be different? I just don't see any differences, so unless he proves otherwise, both in his politics and in his policy stances, as far as I'm concerned, he is more of the same...
well said.
I actually thought it was the real video for the first few minutes. I'm glad it wasn't.
I feel like when John McCain loses, he'll go back on the Daily Show and come out and say that he just said all of these things to get the base on his side. Just like he did in 2000 when he said later that he thought South Carolina really should get rid of the confederate flag on its own flag, after he said in the campaign that he thought it should stay. He's so desperate that he'll say anything this time around, including giving up everything he used to actually stand for. (Unless he doesn't lose. In which case, I can't wait to see him try to follow through on these things)
The first part of the show is kind of genius too....it's really sad that it takes a comedy show to expose these things.
aquapura,
I think the biggest energy "find" is conservation, bar none. Rather than the Obama supported bailout for Detroit automakers I'd propose tax credits for dismantling the SUV fleet and give tax rebates for fuel efficient vehicles.Agreed. Conservation is the biggest domestic energy "find". And this is something where, energy conservation is best achieved by working *with* the market, rather than against it. Investment in practical alternatives: alternative energies and alternative consumption. This is a strategic investment, about economic competitiveness and also managing growth. The investment in American automakers and their production of hybrid vehicles is an investment in jobs and the economy. The energy issue aside, this is about domestic industry, and I'm not talking just about where cars are assembled, I mean where the source of innovation and technological advance is, because that is ultimately an issue of investment.
The energy crisis is one aspect to the issue, the economy and job growth is another... All these things IMHO are important, and rather than pick apart one individual policy stance by itself, we need to look at the big picture... Which candidate offers a broad comprehensive vision for how to deal with these problems, energy, environment and economy, and which candidate do you believe has the correct intention: that is to invest strategically in our future. Because on any one single issue, things always change, but the question I'd have is: which candidate has their mind thinking about the right things, asking the right questions?
Health care is a related issue too. Health care is not just a social issue, it is an economic issue. it relates to the competitiveness of our country for jobs. Auto manufacturing jobs and many other jobs are being shipped to Canada and other foreign countries, and a part of this is simply how expensive labour is here, we cannot compete because of health care costs.
Investment in clean energy jobs and infrastructure. This is an investment which comes at a cost, but in the short term, it stimulates our economy, creates jobs, and will make us more competitive in a global marketplace in the future.
This latest argument is just asinie. Theoretically yes, American oil is sold in a global market. But it isn't cheap to transport oil around the globe. Why do you think Canadian crude all flows to the US, ditto Mexico. Hugo Chavez has an axe to grind so he exports to China but typically oil is exported to the nearest market. Also, contrary to what most people belive, the USA is the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world behind Saudi Arabia & Russia. We consume a heck of a lot, but we are by no means a minor player in production.
The point of this is the price at which oil is traded in the global market. It doesn't matter where your oil is pumped from, if anyway you are consuming far more than you are producing domestically, and oil consumption continues to increase at a rate (both domestically and globally) that far excedes your increases in production. Nobody is saying we aren't producing alot, this is about the *increase* in production possible... There just isn't that much increase possible, and it will have no short term or long term effect on energy cost. The cost of transportation is embedded in the cost to the consumer, whereever it is consumed, so this oil is traded globally. Ten years from now when the any small amount of new oil drilling production is realized, the price of oil will be probably 5 times what it is now, if we look at the growth of industrial nations like China, Russia, and India. True, the oil we actually consume may be from sources that are domestic, or closer to us, but ultimately, the thing that matters is how much you consume. Right now, we are consuming 1/4 of the world's oil, even though we have less than 1/20 of the world's population. Here are some graphs to look at... Click on the pie chart for dramatic effect... Consuming less makes us immune to the price change in oil, and therefore more competitive in global markets.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
The most effective solution to this energy problem is to change consumption, which requires in focused investment and direction... This will be the inevitable result of rising prices anyway, as prices rise, consumption decreases. It's just a matter of providing alternatives, or making those alternatives accessible... I think Obama has his head inthe right place, and McCain does not.
"Either one of our presidential candidates is VERY WELL QUALIFIED."
Let's see. The McCain campaign is being run by a herd of high-paid corporate lobbyists like the one that the President of Georgia thought had had bought when he called out John McCain by name on CNN to say that "McCain said we are all Georgians today, let's see him back up his words with action." McCain's senior foreign policy advisor has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from him. McCain maybe the first US presidential candidate that the leader of a foreign sovereign nation has asked on international telelvision to have his army intervene on their behalf. Isn't that the president's job? Does McCain has his own army?
Remember, when Eisenhower ran for office, he never once brought up his military service. He talked instead about his vision of the future.
Obama really is the cream of the crop. You gotta' be a smart cookie to teach at the very conservative U of C Law School. McCain was fifth to last in his class at Annapolis.
unfortunate obama slip on '[url=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2zQK_EhDhZQ]this week with george stephanopoulos[url]
full(er) transcript:
Obama: What I was suggesting, you're absolutely right that John McCain has not, uh, talked about my Muslim faith and you're absolutely right that that is not...
Stephanopoulos: Christian faith.
Obama: My, my Christian faith, and, well, what I'm saying is he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim. (cross talk by Stephanopoulos could not be distinguished.)
Context: Stephanopoulos was asking about Obama saying yesterday Republicans are saying he's a Muslim and the McCain campaign denying that they are doing that. After the transcribed exchange Obama acknowledged the 'upper echelons' of the McCain campaign were not doing that but he accused others in the Republican party of doing so.
Do you truly, truly believe that Barack Obama is a muslim, FRaC?
If you don't then why are you posting these slips?
I don't believe that the Republican operatives who spread this insidious garbage believe he's a muslim. But they know a lot of Americans far less informed than them WILL believe it.
What you're doing—and what they're doing—is lying and it's disingenuous. And you know it.
Worse yet, the attack is built on two separate, insidious lies. First the lie that Obama is a Muslim, and second the lie that being a Muslim is equivalent to being a terrorist.
as i stated the slip was 'unfortunate'. obama is definitely NOT a muslim.
then i posted the full transcript, which the youtube person cut (stephanopoulos' correction of what obama meant to say). i'm doing this to help stop this 'slip' from being turned into evidence obama is muslim. so you obama guys have a little more info when this comes up.
as thom yorke once wrote 'i'm a reasonable man, get off my case.'
I wonder to what extent stuff like this does more damage to the McCain campaign than it does to the Obama campaign... It undermines the GOP's credibility among voters. I'd hope that the McCain campaign speaks out against this garbage to denounce it, as untrue and bigotted, and to distance themselves from these kinds of fear mongering tactics.
These kinds of things might help them when it comes to the small number of ignorant voters who might buy this garbage (and who probably wouldn't be voting for a Democrat anyway), but for the large majority of independent and informed voters who are interested in integrity and concerned with real issues, this is pretty off-putting...
I find it sad, not so much that there are uninformed people in our country, but more that there are people who would take advantage of people's ignorance and prey on their fears in lame attempts to get a few votes...
FRaC, please. Come on. You're a right-winger and the only reason you post this is to further the "Obama is a muslim" lie. What you're doing is cynical and Rovian and you know it.
Don't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming you're somehow reasonable. You are trying to spread a smear. Period.
bRink,
I don't think the large majority of independent voters are concerned with real issues. I think a small minority are. All the rest of them care about is "projected strength."
It doesn't matter who wins the debates, or who's right, or that the McCain campaign lies through its teeth. ALL that matters among swing voters is who is percieved as tougher.
The smear-agents of cynicism managed to portray Gore as a know-it-all in 2000, Kerry as a bragging wine-snob in 2004. And now they're trying to paint Obama as an ivy-educated "uppity" yuppie. If this succeeds, the election is already lost.
The reason the "Obama is a musilm" trope won't work (despite FRaC's efforts) is that it's not true. But the Obama is an elitist trope might, because it's difficult to disprove.
Swing voters want a sitcom, not a presidency. They want the White House version of "Everybody Loves Raymond." That's why Sarah Palin is getting so much press—her family is like some hi-jinx sitcom.
Lets get back to talking about the issues.
What are the architectural opportunities if Obama becomes president?
Who's doing the federal courts work now?
Are they done?
farwest give me a fucking break
i posted the transcript and its context. it's just a funny slip of the tongue. no rational person believes he's a muslim - there are both democrats and republicans who believe that myth.
What happened with Thom Mayne and the court house building program?
Would a new administration rekindle his interest?
I was started to get angry again earlier and then I found this bit of info, and it made me feel better:
Troops deployed abroad give to Obama's campaign 6:1 over McCain
Free Ramos and Compean you are a sick person
have you ever been diagnosed?
Here's an interesting bill that Obama introduced:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3077
Look at the cosponsors:
Cosponsors [as of 2008-08-31]
Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?
Here's the summary of the bill:
6/3/2008--Introduced.
Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 - Amends the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 with respect to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) searchable database website. Requires the website to allow the public to search programmatically and access all data in a serialized machine readable format (such as XML) via a web-services application programming interface.
Specifies additional information on federal awards the website must include by certain deadlines.
Requires the website to present information about federal awards and their recipients in ways that meet the needs of users with different levels of understanding about government spending and abilities using searching websites.
Sets forth requirements of the Director of OMB to add specified data quality enhancements to the website.
Requires the Director to ensure that the unique identifier used to link information on the website is also used to link information about performance of individual contractors and recipients of financial assistance starting with awards given in FY2008.
Requires the chief executive officer of an award recipient to certify whether the entity has: (1) filed all federal tax returns required during the preceding five years; (2) been convicted of a criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code; and (3) an outstanding debt under the Code for which a notice of lien has been publicly filed that is not being paid in a timely manner, or for which a collection due process hearing or relief is requested or pending.
Requires the Director to: (1) develop certification forms; (2) ensure that each agency providing federal awards complies with tax compliance requirements; and (3) ensure that the website contains such certified information.
anybody hear the interview of thomas friedman on fresh air today? check it out. i'm hot and cold on friedman - often think he's a boob - but he was both passionate and had well-crafted arguments today in his discussion of why and how the candidates need to understand the green issues and energy. given that he gets a pretty good hearing and his book is likely to be a bestseller, it gave me a small glimmer of hope.
best part was when he noted his early excitement about a obama vs mccain race. great, he thought, both candidates likely to be green candidates... and then his dismay as mccain backpedaled on every major environmental principle he once championed.
the story of the post-70s alternative energy legacy was funny - except that the u.s. was the butt of the joke....
i might even go get his new book.
I heard half of it, Steven, and may go listen to the first half now. He is certainly engaging to listen to, what a kooky personality he has! But does raise some good points.
Thanks -- caught me just in time for the 7 PM West Coast airing. . .
McCain voted against the New GI Bill and called it "overly generous"
What's a guy with 10 homes and a wife with a $130 million fortune to do?
;-)
The best idea is to not go after poorly educated children in school before they are too young to make these sorts of decisions for them selfs with professional marketers (recruits) who don't want to be in harms way them selfs and to give them all the information correctly about benefits and the harms like PTSD and DU.
but yes the vets are 6 to 1 for Obama.
go here, really take a look, this MIGHT help clarify the reality of the situation, MIGHT.
And yet. And yet. It turns out that in the post-Republican Convention polls, the pollsters oversampled Republicans versus Democrats relative to earlier polls.
That means the spike we're seeing may have absolutely nothing to do with how people will actually be voting, and more to do with who the pollsters are calling. Namely, lots and lots of Republicans. See here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html
Polls seem to be to be increasingly bunk. Did anyone hear Zogby on Talk of the Nation today, seeming desperate to defend his profession?
Are you listening, Free Ramos and Compean? There's hope for this election yet.
i wonder, what was the response to russel brand's (brit standup comedian) outburst at the mtv music video awards to vote for obama?
probably "Duh of course"
yeah polls are meaningless right now
maybe the number of republicans sampled is bumped up because they are more likely to go out and vote (cbs is still sampling a higher percentage of democrats - from huffypost: 'the second sample was 34.9% Democratic, 31.1% Republican, and 34.0% independent.').
it could also be that pollsters expect the palin cult to bring out more evangelicals and lipstick-wearing pit bulls so they're sampling republicans a bit higher now.
i still think it's time for change and obama will win. should be an exciting election day/night ..
thanks for the realclearpolitics electoral map link, beta. interesting to go back over the years and review my first election memory of reagan/carter '80.
This was just launched by the Obama Campaign, a new tool to help people contribute by making calls to registered voters in support of the campaign, either in their own area or in a battleground state:
Neighbor to Neighbor
Y'know, though, not to rain on any parades, but all the dems crowing about how the electoral count is all that matters reminds me of the 2000 election ... seems they was talking a different line back then, right?
Hey, I'm for the good guys, too, just saying, though.
Free Ramos and Compean:
Vote for Obama.
It's good for both parties, and it's good for the country. Honestly, even Republicans need a change, and that's not happening. You said you supported a Colin Powell, but I can tell you for a fact, he is not a part of the current Republican party. I seriously believe that he served on the Bush Administration out of a sense of duty to his country, to serve it when things were bad. And the Bush administration did not do him right. This is not the party of the Reagan years anymore, the country, and the Republican party needs a change, and McCain/Palin isn't going to bring that... These aren't fiscal conservatives, they don't represent the Republicans of the past, the values of the past.
No one wants to say it: Colin Powell was screwed and flushed by Bush -- personally -- and that isn't cabinet installation terminology, in this case.
sevensixfive, you are completely right about that assessment, I wonder if the democrats have the nerve to push through the removal of the electoral college after they get in power? doubtful.....but the republicans proved they certainly don't have it on their agenda.
woohoo! i'll save $3000!
So. I'm talking about John McCain's economic policies, and I say: "This is more of the same, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig." And suddenly they say, "Oh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska." And now they're making this big fuss and, you know -- here's where most Democrats in the past would carefully and earnestly explain how I meant nothing of the kind.
Heck, I was about to do that. Yesterday, I didn't mean anything but a comment on their policies, one that was obvious to anyone who was there. But today is different. Today I am here to tell you that I am flip flopping. I've changed my mind.
Pig in lipstick. I meant it any way they want to take it.
For weeks we've all watched their low-ball ads and listened to their lies and twisted innuendo, attacks on my family and our values, community service and patriotism, all of it wrapped in our flag-- and last night I thought to myself, Barack, CHANGE isn't letting someone kick you over and over again. CHANGE doesn't mean that the only response to blatant lies, extremism and intolerance is thoughtfulness.
Maybe the reason they think they'll get away with this is they think I'm such a big lofty "celebrity" that I can't get down on the ground and fight like a man. Well, they are wrong. Lies are lies. Not untruths. Not misstatements. Not "questionable" facts. Lies. And lies dishonor our nation.
A great country, the world's greatest country, should not waste its time with trivialities -- but a wise leader cannot pretend the world is as he wishes it was. If this is the kind of fight they want, then I will give it back to them.
So let me be clear what I meant yesterday.
McCain and Palin, their policies and their demeaning campaign are A PIG IN LIPSTICK.
They are OLD FISH IN A NEW WRAPPER.
They are a threat to our future. Because they are the past, masquerading as the future.
You want to go backward -- vote for them.
Bravo. You can put words in his mouth and sign my name to it, too, any day. Now is the time to take the gloves off. Now.
I get burnt out on politics too.
I'm going to disagree with some of whats said here. What's going to lose the Dems the election is falling victim to the spin and mudslinging game.
I'll tell you what has happened the last few days. The reason that Obama's campaign has lost its edge. It's because people are sick and tired of this kind of politics, and they are actually falling into the Republicans game, trying to respond to their lies and nonsense, and not doing an effective job of it at that. What they *should* be doing is, understand why their campaign was successful in the first place: giving people hope, making the right stances on the issues, and bringing people together and giving people some optimistic
What wil lost this election is not if the McCain camp continues in their charrade. What will lose this election is if the McCain camp is successful in distracting. Turning this election into some kind of hype-fest, popularity contest, and smear battle that will simply distract people from the very real and very important issues facing our country. What will turn out a repeat of Kerry/Edwards '04 is, if people don't feel passionately enough to get out and vote. This is the problem: this ugly politics of lies and smears makes people depressed, it makes people sick, but those that it makes sick simply don't feel passionately enough to step up and vote, and they don't make a difference... The beneficiary of this is ultimately the candidate of the Karl Rove politics. These tactics work because they play on peoples' fears and negativity and seek to break the spirit of the average voter, in favor of voters who will vote for hype...
TAKE THE GLOVES OFF, BUT DO IT BY INSPIRING PEOPLE. RALLY PEOPLE AROUND THE ISSUES, AND SHOW YOUR STRENGTH THROUGH YOUR ABILITY TO LIFT PEOPLE UP RATHER THAN TEAR PEOPLE DOWN. PEOPLE WILL GET OUT TO VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN, AND IF YOU DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT SMEARS, BUT RATHER BE EMPASSIONED ABOUT THE ISSUES AND ABOUT HOW TO BRING REAL PROGRESS... THIS IS WHAT WILL GET OUT LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE TO VOTE, IS IF THEY SEE SOMETHING TRUE AND DIFFERENT.
LETS SEE SOME STRENGTH IN MESSAGE.
Here's an example. Connect with the working class voter by speaking to their values, connect by standing up for them, because you can't connect with people if you are constantly trying to wipe the mud off your face that is flung by the pig, just don't roll in the mud, instead stand up make your case loud and clear. Talk to the failures of the past eight years, not to the silliness of the past week...
NBC Washington bureau chief suggests media powerless in face of McCain campaign's ability to "driv[e] the news cycle"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200809100029
Commenting on what NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell described -- on the September 10 edition of MSNBC Live -- as the "latest controversy over [Sen.] Barack Obama's use of a common expression about putting lipstick on a pig," NBC News Washington bureau chief Mark Whitaker said that "on one level, this seems like a frivolous story" but it is "important to watch" because it's an example of "how good the [Sen. John] McCain campaign is at ... driving the news cycle day after day." But while Whitaker acknowledged no media responsibility in determining what they cover, NBC News political director Chuck Todd said earlier the same day on MSNBC's Morning Joe that the story was "a faux controversy" and that the media had "taken the bait on this lipstick thing" which he called "a joke" and "laughable."
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the September 10 edition of MSNBC Live:
MITCHELL: With less than two months before the election, there are plenty of personal and political attacks, accusations, negative political ads out there, on the web, on television, and especially this latest controversy over Barack Obama's use of a common expression about putting lipstick on a pig. How did we get here? How effective is negative campaigning, and how risky is it? What about the backlash?
I'm joined now by Mark Whitaker, NBC's Washington bureau chief. Mark, let's take it back and try to put this into some context. It all started with Barack Obama making a comment he did or did not think is innocuous, he's said it before, but immediately, the response -- and I was watching it happen, live, on television, and then within 15 minutes we were called to a conference call by the McCain camp.
WHITAKER: I keep waiting to see what animal we're going to find -- put lipstick on tomorrow. You know, we've had pit bulls, we've had pigs. It's turning into a very campy version of Noah's Ark. But, yeah -- look, I think, on one level, this seems like a frivolous story, but I think it does tell us two things that I think are important to watch. One is how good the McCain campaign is at hand-to-hand combat, at basically driving the news cycle day after day. Obviously, it's true that they don't really want to talk about the state of the economy, they don't want to talk about George Bush's record, so they've got to get other things to talk about, and they're very good at that. But, I think it's also -- people are looking to see how Obama is going to respond, you know. And, the fact is that, as we discovered in '04 with Kerry, people take how a candidate responds to these kinds of attacks, and whether they're willing to fight for themselves, as a proxy for whether they're going to be fighters for the American people on other issues.
MITCHELL: Now, the Obama campaign responded very quickly, because 10 minutes after we got off this conference call with the McCain people, the Obama people already had all of these citations of how often John McCain had used "lipstick on a pig." In fact, it is the title of the book written by his former press secretary, Torie Clarke. That said, they didn't put anyone out immediately. Did Obama show his toughness today when he said, "I may not throw the first punch, but I will throw the last punch?"
Mark.Whitaker@nbcuni.com
Chuck.todd@nbcuni.com
Steve.capus@nbc.com
Phil.griffin@nbc.com
nightly@nbc.com
"The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.
"By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course.
"This is a stiff test, not the work of a speech or two, but of an entire campaign. Whether or not Obama passes the test will determine his fitness for the presidency."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/01/what_bush_hath_wrought/
Is it already too late for this to happen ? Does the Pit Bull in Lipstick trump any discussion of America's future, in this campaign ?
I disagree with that description of Obama's challenge, I think what Obama has been saying all along, on many topics, has been clear, well thought out and well founded. I think Obama's challenge is getting people to listen. Many voters choose to ignore what he is actually saying and prefer to just believe the republican googly eyed characture of him that is being pushed by right wing media outlets.
Vote Obama and get a racist VP. Joe Biden brags about DE being a "slave state" and has said that they fought for "the wrong side" in the Civil War. He also has also make racist comments about people of Indian decent.
He's a good ole' boy that Obama picked out of greed and a lust for power.
The Biden selection only proves that NoBama lacks core values.
McCain/Palin have it in the bag....
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.