Sarah Palin Interview

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

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.

Honestly, I missed that. I don't try and "slip things passed". I thought it was an approved Obama ad, and I'll concede the point.

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.

I never said that there was a problem, I said that the statement the Obama campaign made in saying it was only about child protection was dishonest, AND IT WAS regardless of what anyone says about it. I never made value judgements on the legislation, only Obama's dishonest response to it. The fact is the legislation involved teaching chjildren as young as 5 about intercourse, same-sex couples, etc., and not just protection. No spin needed. It is what it is.

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.

I agree completely. I think the Republicans have lost their mind in trying to push everything as an attack against women/age/etc. Republicans don't do well playing themselves as victiums, nor should they do so.

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.

My biggest complaint here is the willful blindness you and many other Obama supporters show reflected in this post. You blame Republicans for doing whatever it takes, and not Democrats? Obama has been dishonest down to his policies, renaming government grants as "tax breaks" when they are really redistributiuon of wealth programs. He has said that McCain was against Bush's tax cuts, without explaining that he was against the tax cuts not being associated with cuts in spending, and not against the tax cuts themselves. That is a lie of omission and a misrepresentation.

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.

No, you aren't arguing my point. My point wasn't about whether or not the media addressed Obama's skeletons, but how they did so. It took over a YEAR from Obama's announcement that he was running for the media to even mention William Ayers or Reverend Wright. It took 4 DAYS for them to dig up everything on Palin. If you can't see the difference, nothing I say will help you see it.

And for the record, the media never claimed that Obama was a secret Muslim, they debunked the assinine e-mail that went around claiming that he was a secret Muslim.

And as long as we're posting SNL skits, remember thje debate parody when Obama was asked if he needed a pillow? Yeah, its like that.

[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/

[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?

[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.

[TheGame]

Just saw these videos this morning, not that I didn't already know about most of the situations. Mccain just seems like a sell out these days to me.






And sorry if its somewhat off subject. But I'm bored. lol

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

I'm sorry, but this post ignores history.

1) The polls just don't support your opinion on the Bush association, and thats all we have to go on for evidence. I think the it makes those likely to vote for Obama more likely, but nothing has shown that it has affected this election as McCain had been creeping up on Obama for months while they ran ads assiciating McCain to Bush. Sorry, it just doesn't convince the undecided, IMO.

2) Most people were not against his actions. In fact, most people supported the war in Iraq on both sides of the political isle. As for acting without the approval of the people, he acted on the budget approval of the people's representatives and the President doesn't need approval to go to war. It's in the constitution.

As for Bush being misleading, well, that depends on what part of the timeline you speak of: Running up to the war, we acted on bad intelligence from across the globe. Thats not misleading people, thats simply being incorrect. Mying and misleading at that stage inplies that he knew they had no WMD's and told the world that they did. There is no evidence of that.

Switching our reason for being there after we didn't find WMD's? He misled when he should have just said "Well we were wrong about the WMD's, but now we have to finish this (we have no other choice, really), but there can benefit from this situation and in the end, the world is one less in the despot category."

3) The polls evened up to the DAY when the stock market dropped. Thats what happened. There is a direct correlation. I simply don't see how you can see it any other way. The argument that "Palin's effect wore off" when at the same time we tip-toe close to a depression-era crisis is nonsensical.

But what is you opinion of the information included in my above post? Does that sway any opinion on the candidate, not party, that has been on the right track when it came to this crisis?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Just saw these videos this morning, not that I didn't already know about most of the situations. Mccain just seems like a sell out these days to me.






And sorry if its somewhat off subject. But I'm bored. lol

If you're so bored, read my post on his stance on the economy and Fannie and Freddie. Who do you think is right, and who is the sell-out?

And honestly, if you want to post films by Robert Greenwald as fair arguments in an election, I don't see what arguments anyone could make that would sway you. He's a propogandist, pure and simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Greenwald

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I'm sorry, but this post ignores history.

1) The polls just don't support your opinion on the Bush association, and thats all we have to go on for evidence. I think the it makes those likely to vote for Obama more likely, but nothing has shown that it has affected this election as McCain had been creeping up on Obama for months while they ran ads assiciating McCain to Bush. Sorry, it just doesn't convince the undecided, IMO.

Name an Obama vs Mccain poll that existed before Bush was a factor. You can't, because there isn't one. I put very clearly that that it hurt him initially, not that I think it makes a huge difference now.

2) Most people were not against his actions. In fact, most people supported the war in Iraq on both sides of the political isle. As for acting without the approval of the people, he acted on the budget approval of the people's representatives and the President doesn't need approval to go to war. It's in the constitution.

They supported him because he was misleading about it in the first place. When the truth came out, where did his approval rating go?

As for Bush being misleading, well, that depends on what part of the timeline you speak of: Running up to the war, we acted on bad intelligence from across the globe. Thats not misleading people, thats simply being incorrect. Mying and misleading at that stage inplies that he knew they had no WMD's and told the world that they did. There is no evidence of that.

Switching our reason for being there after we didn't find WMD's? He misled when he should have just said "Well we were wrong about the WMD's, but now we have to finish this (we have no other choice, really), but there can benefit from this situation and in the end, the world is one less in the despot category."

Do you know how long it took him to admit he was wrong? Initially yes I can see how he may have thought they were there, but he was still barking the WMD thing years after we had entered and had nothing to show for it. Did Bush appologize about putting us into that situation? If he did I haven't seen it yet.

3) The polls evened up to the DAY when the stock market dropped. Thats what happened. There is a direct correlation. I simply don't see how you can see it any other way. The argument that "Palin's effect wore off" when at the same time we tip-toe close to a depression-era crisis is nonsensical.

Like I said earlier, I don't trust polls t begin with. I think they're only there to get ratings. However, I don't think that the drop is what caused the shift. Yes its big news, yes it happend around the same time, but no I don't think it had a direct effect. Why would a Mccain supporter go back to voting for Obama because of this event? If you can give me a good answer without directly indirectly linking it to Bush, then maybe I will be able to see why. If you can't make an answer without at least some link, then that explains why there's articles like the one I posted above.

I just don't see the answer other than people thinking the bush whitehouse is screwing up, and they're worried Mccain would take the torch. Thus the reason for that article.

But what is you opinion of the information included in my above post? Does that sway any opinion on the candidate, not party, that has been on the right track when it came to this crisis?

I read it, I just didn't have much of an opinion on it. But with info like that, it just further begs the question to why the polls would suddenly go into Obama's favor if it had a lot to do with this event?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

.They supported him because he was misleading about it in the first place. When the truth came out, where did his approval rating go?

He wasn't misleading anyone in the first place. He was misleading everyone in the SECOND place.

Do you know how long it took him to admit he was wrong? Initially yes I can see how he may have thought they were there, but he was still barking the WMD thing years after we had entered and had nothing to show for it. Did Bush appologize about putting us into that situation? If he did I haven't seen it yet.

To my knowledge he has never admitted to being wrong. thats a reason why i dislike him as a President. Then again I can't remember Obama ever admitting he's been wrong about anything either...

Like I said earlier, I don't trust polls t begin with. I think they're only there to get ratings. However, I don't think that the drop is what caused the shift. Yes its big news, yes it happend around the same time, but no I don't think it had a direct effect. Why would a Mccain supporter go back to voting for Obama because of this event? If you can give me a good answer without directly indirectly linking it to Bush, then maybe I will be able to see why. If you can't make an answer without at least some link, then that explains why there's articles like the one I posted above.

They're called the undecided. Its the same group that went up after the Democratic covention, and the same group that switched after the Republican one, except that one seemed to last far longer. Now the financial industry goes in the tank, and the same day the polls switch after 2-3 of McCain beating Obama in the polls, and you think its Palin and Bush and not an association with Republicans who have been made synonymous with Big Business?

If you can't see this, I can't help you see it any clearer. You'll believe what you want to, regardless.

I just don't see the answer other than people thinking the bush whitehouse is screwing up, and they're worried Mccain would take the torch. Thus the reason for that article.

I agree that people do feel that way, but that has nothing to do with the swing in the polls recently, and thats what you were referring to when you brought up the polling change. There is no evidence that it has had any impact in the election recently. NONE. You can make it whatever you like, but it has no relation to the information we have to base our opinions.

I read it, I just didn't have much of an opinion on it. But with info like that, it just further begs the question to why the polls would suddenly go into Obama's favor if it had a lot to do with this event?

Because information like this requires people to read and be informed on more than what political ads say. And for this to not inform your opinion on any level, I don;t know what to say to that. I call it willful ignorance.

[Jason1]

NEWS ALERT!

The polls mean nothing! The person with the most votes might not win!

Looks like Obama has the advantage on the electoral map...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...map/index.html

[Professor S]

Jason, any opinion on the info about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that I posted above?