Sarah Palin Interview

[Jason1]

yea, I watched that last night. My dad actually thought it was really Sarah Palin for a few seconds.

[Bond]

Stop polarization!

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Bond

Stop polarization!

Tell that to the "Straight Talk Express." Seriously. Back in 2000 (if I could have voted) I might have gone for McCain instead of Gore, but the guy has really lost his integrity.

[Dylflon]

Prof: The reason I mock is because anyone on the right wing can do as much mudslinging at anyone they choose. And they do it extensively. The anti-Kerry swiftboat commercials come to mind.

I see so much right wing mud slinging yet when it comes from the other direction, republicans just boo-hoo because it's not fair and the media is biased.

I hear this liberal bias argument FAR TOO OFTEN, and it honestly just sounds to me like whiny spoiled child syndrome. Don't dish it if you can't take it.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Tell that to the "Straight Talk Express." Seriously. Back in 2000 (if I could have voted) I might have gone for McCain instead of Gore, but the guy has really lost his integrity.

Mccain on the view was the funniest thing ever. This video sums up a lot of thoughts:

[Professor S]

1) If you read all of factcheck.org, you'll see a lot of dirt coming from Obama as well. The mud-slinging has gone both ways.

here is an excellent example:


The truth is that the hunting was culling wolf overpopulation that was destroying Carilbou herds. So I guess not the McCain camp should come out and attack Obama as anti-caribou? Do you see how silly all of the claims that McCain has been more negative than Obama? They've both been negative.

As for the sex-ed claim: Did you read the bill, or just repeat what Obama said? Read the legislation, and then get back to me. It was a LOT more than avoiding predadators.

2) What does segregation have to do with any of this? Do you honestly think that argument holds any water in today's political media scene? Why won't anyone challenge the points I made instead of dismissing them because "you've heard it before"? Once again, a spade is a spade, regardless of whther or not you've seen one before.

3) Palin was not my first, second or fourth choice, but you can't argue with the pick, politically. Now McCain is winning where he was being handed a drubbing before. Palin gave him a 10 point swing, got the Obama campaign on the defensive, mobilized the conservative base, raised a ton of money and will launch him into the debates. He needed that if he wanted to win. If you don't win you don't get to make any judgements, and with McCain's long history of independently minded legislation, I'm willing to forgive some actions taken during the heat of a campaign because I feel he is by far rthe superior candidate based on the issues (namely healthcare tax rebates, energy policy, vetoing earmarks, and international issues).

You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.

Anbd haven't they figured out this doesn't work?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13433.html

The strategy of attaching Bush to McCain HAS NOT WORKED. Voters over 30 with a memory remember the 200 campaign. They remember McCain coming out against certain Bush policies and a long history of centrist legislative leadership, and they aren't buying it. "McSame failed at the convention and it will fail again. You don't have to believe me, look at the polls:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7360265.stm

Obama was slipping against McCain since the beginning of the summer, and now he's losing. YET they are going to go back to more of the same. I don't think they've figured out that McCain is bulletproof on that point.

Obama should be attacking McCain on where THEY differ, and leave Bush out of it. He should be putting out ads, with more specifics (all you need is a single sentence blurb as McCain has shown), about healthcare, taxes, Iraq strategy, etc. He needs to give more than just "lower taxes for 95% of Americans". "provide healthcare", and "get out of Iraq in a timely manner".

Instead, they'll continue with more of what has done nothing for them to gain new support. Once again, this shouldn't even be close.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

1) If you read all of factcheck.org, you'll see a lot of dirt coming from Obama as well. The mud-slinging has gone both ways.

here is an excellent example:


The truth is that the hunting was culling wolf overpopulation that was destroying Carilbou herds. So I guess not the McCain camp should come out and attack Obama as anti-caribou? Do you see how silly all of the claims that McCain has been more negative than Obama? They've both been negative.

As for the sex-ed claim: Did you read the bill, or just repeat what Obama said? Read the legislation, and then get back to me. It was a LOT more than avoiding predadators.

2) What does segregation have to do with any of this? Do you honestly think that argument holds any water in today's political media scene? Why won't anyone challenge the points I made instead of dismissing them because "you've heard it before"? Once again, a spade is a spade, regardless of whther or not you've seen one before.

3) Palin was not my first, second or fourth choice, but you can't argue with the pick, politically. Now McCain is winning where he was being handed a drubbing before. Palin gave him a 10 point swing, got the Obama campaign on the defensive, mobilized the conservative base, raised a ton of money and will launch him into the debates. He needed that if he wanted to win. If you don't win you don't get to make any judgements, and with McCain's long history of independently minded legislation, I'm willing to forgive some actions taken during the heat of a campaign because I feel he is by far rthe superior candidate based on the issues (namely healthcare tax rebates, energy policy, vetoing earmarks, and international issues).

You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.

Anbd haven't they figured out this doesn't work?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13433.html

The strategy of attaching Bush to McCain HAS NOT WORKED. Voters over 30 with a memory remember the 200 campaign. They remember McCain coming out against certain Bush policies and a long history of centrist legislative leadership, and they aren't buying it. "McSame failed at the convention and it will fail again. You don't have to believe me, look at the polls. Obama was slipping against McCain since the beginning of the summer, and now he's losing. YET they are going to go back to more of the same. I don't think they've figured out that McCain is bulletproof on that point.

Obama should be attacking McCain on where THEY differ, and leave Bush out of it. He should be putting out ads, with more specifics (all you need is a single sentence blurb as McCain has shown), about healthcare, taxes, Iraq strategy, etc. He needs to give more than just "lower taxes for 95% of Americans". "provide healthcare", and "get out of Iraq in a timely manner".

Instead, they'll continue with more of what has done nothing for them to gain new support. Once again, this shouldn't even be close.

Did I miss something, Professor? Explain to me where the ad you posted says that it is approved by Barack Obama. It doesn't? Oh yeah, it doesn't. It actually specifically says it is not affiliated with any candidate. Nice try though. All of the ads I mentioned were specifically endorsed by McCain. The things dismissed by Factcheck were about smears from liberal blogs, not anyone in Obama's camp.

Here is an article about the Obama legislation...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...x-ed-for-kids/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314

He wasn't even a sponsor, but he voted for it. Parents didn't have to agree to it and it didn't teach anything explicit. What exactly is the problem here? I couldn't find the full legislation, but only every major news organization denouncing it as absurd. Spin it your own way though, go ahead.

In the end, yeah I agree, in the short term, the Palin pick has worked. I don't think the enthusiasm will last for more than another week or so, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never said that the Obama was running a great campaign, and yeah, the point is to win, but I respect Obama's take on it. He called the media's bullshit on the "lipstick on a pig" story when McCain ran with it and he immediately said Palin's family was off-limits from the get go. The Republicans cry sexism every time a criticism has run against Palin, but didn't feel that way when Hillary was a threat. In the end, the Republicans will do whatever they can to win, whether that means bending the truth or taking any position when it favors them. Yes, this is politics, and if they need to play dirty to win, great, but it feels better to root for the good guys who actually seem to have the country's interests in hand rather than their own power. Call me naive if you want, but nothing about McCain's borderline untruthful campaign tells me he's going to help this country. When is the last time he mentioned a specific policy of his own and how it will help America? I wish I was being facetious in asking this question, but I really can't remember. In the end, I'd rather believe in truth and hope than fear and lies, but I suppose we differ there.

And I did challenge your assertion on the "liberal media." I asked you whether it's possible that Palin just really has more skeletons in her closet than Obama. The media has had 19 months to run at Obama and they've dug up what they could (secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, anti-American wife, Jeremiah Wright, etc). The media was presented with somebody the general public didn't know with just 60 days left in the election and you expected nothing to happen? Palin has had a questionable past (Troopergate, congressional earmarks, Bridge to Nowhere, hiring friends to high-level positions in Alaskan government) and these are all legitimate concerns.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.

That's a good point, however it goes against what he stood for in the begining. He didn't pick her because she's fit to be president in case he dies. He picked her to scoop up a few extra votes and to get more attention. Basically Mccain has sold completly out to try and win this election.

[Bond]

This wonderful economic news developing today will certainly help Obama. Greedy. Greedy. Greedy.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bond

This wonderful economic news developing today will certainly help Obama. Greedy. Greedy. Greedy.

He's already jumped on this as a talking point. If this ends up directly impacting everyone's pocketbooks (meaning, if shit doesn't get better FAST), McCain is going to have a hard uphill climb.

A 500 point drop in a day is a game changer.

[TheGame]

Looks like the polls just switched back to normal and Obama is back in the lead according to msnbc. I don't tend to trust poll numbers, but yeah. Guess palins effect wore of fthat fast.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26763744/

[Bond]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Looks like the polls just switched back to normal and Obama is back in the lead according to msnbc. I don't tend to trust poll numbers, but yeah. Guess palins effect wore of fthat fast.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26763744/

I think it has more to do with the recent economic news. McCain enjoyed a very sizable and long-lasting bump from his VP decision.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Looks like the polls just switched back to normal and Obama is back in the lead according to msnbc. I don't tend to trust poll numbers, but yeah. Guess palins effect wore of fthat fast.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26763744/

I agree with Bond that this has more to do with a 700 point drop in the stock market in 3 days than Palin's effect wearing off. Also, I don't buy the assertion in the article that McCain's alleged association with Bush is hurting him, either. Obama's camp has been trying to do that for months, and while it speaks to people who were going to vote for Obama anyway, I haven't seen anything that shows it has swayed undecided voters in the least.

The fact is McCain is a Republican and the economy is associated with the party in power... the Republicans, and that hurts McCain even though he has been railing against the the inequities of our financial powers for some time:

May 25, 2006:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

This bill would have set the following:

1/26/2005--Introduced.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.

Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.
Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...90&tab=summary

This bill never made it out of committee because it was killed by Democrats, who were recipients of HUGE amounts of money from Fanie and Freddie.

GUESS WHO WAS #2 ON THAT LIST?

All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000
Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500
Bachus, Spencer H AL R $103,300 $70,500 $32,800
Blunt, Roy H MO R $96,950 $78,500 $18,450
Kanjorski, Paul E H PA D $96,000 $57,500 $38,500

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008...d-freddie.html

Keep in in mind this list goes back to 1989... Obama caught up to #2 in only 4 years while it took a lot longer for other members to receive that money.

EDIT: To be fair, McCain is also on that list, but far lower and his ticker goes back 20 years, not 4, and none of his contributions cam from PACs (Political Action Committees)

McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I agree with Bond that this has more to do with a 700 point drop in the stock market in 3 days than Palin's effect wearing off. Also, I don't buy the assertion in the article that McCain's alleged association with Bush is hurting him, either. Obama's camp has been trying to do that for months, and while it speaks to people who were going to vote for Obama anyway, I haven't seen anything that shows it has swayed undecided voters in the least.

I think overall his link with Bush has hurt him. I know many people who were for Bush last election, and are now for Obama this one simply for that fact alone. (Since Bush was extremely misleading, and acted a lot without the approval of the people, kowing good and well that most people were against his actions.) Though I don't think that it changes things NOW, it just initially hurt Mccain.

As far as the market droping off so bad, I can't see how that directly caused polls to change. I think Palin just caused some excitement and it wore off after she stopped being the headline.

[GameMaster]

Palin used Yahoo Mail. Anonymous hacked it. Her personal and business exchanges EXPOSED!

Why wasn't Palin using her government issued email address? Hmm?