Yesterday I went to the McCain rally. We stood outside for two hours in the cold to get in, and the line was huge. It was pretty fun, clapping and booing and laughing with the crowd. Ours is a swing state, and I hope things go well for us next week. At this point, I don't know what to think.
That is awesome you got to go. I was hoping they would bring a rally to Illinois, but I think it would have been a lost cause on their part. I'm getting nervous but today the campaigns are within the margin of error. When Reagan won in a landslide against Jimmy Carter, at this point in the campaign Carter was up by 8 points. So I still have hope
Posted by: BigD78 at October 29, 2008 09:05 AM (W3XUk)
I wish I could go to sleep and wake up on Tuesday, just in time to vote (not that it'll make much of a difference in my state).
Glad to hear that you had fun at the rally!
Posted by: Susan at October 29, 2008 09:30 AM (IfQM3)
Sounds like fun. I went to the rally when he came out to Sea-town during the primaries, right before Romney officially dropped out. I wanted to see exactly who we were "settling for". I do have to admit; I ended up liking him much better after seeing him in person. Hope your swing state swings to the right!
Posted by: Leofwende at October 29, 2008 04:42 PM (cZoqf)
I have been off the internet for a couple of days, but so much has come out. This Syria thing is huge, and a plot to assassinate Obama. And this 2001 tape of Obama that's out? Whittle says it all:
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you Â— regardless of your political affiliation Â— then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, Â“a righteous wind at our backs.Â”
Posted by: HomefrontSix at October 27, 2008 02:55 PM (4Es1w)
And I quote, "these are the times that try men's souls." I hope and pray our country comes out as well from these trying times as it has in the past.
Posted by: Ruth H at October 27, 2008 05:45 PM (FAgoX)
What about FDR?
And yes, I am not frightened of Obama at all, I welcome his Presidency.
Now, for fun, write down your five top predictions of the horrors that I will "deserve." If Obama wins, we'll come back if 3 or 4 years to see how you've done.
Posted by: PensiveGadfly at October 28, 2008 06:09 AM (6VhMY)
1And I'm totally going to be Sarah Palin for Halloween.
You must post photos of yourself in costume!
Posted by: Amritas at October 21, 2008 09:38 AM (+nV09)
I feel the same way about all the multiple NRA mailings...
Posted by: Green at October 21, 2008 12:22 PM (6Co0L)
I got an email asking for volunteers to either go to a swing state to get out the vote or make phone calls from home following a pre-written script to undecided voters.
If I can talk my hubby into being a moose for halloween, I'm going as Sarah in hunters camo.
Posted by: Pamela at October 21, 2008 12:45 PM (9Twxi)
Ditto,ditto and ditto. I actually yelled at the
latest envelope "STOP IT! Spend the money on TV
ads! Not to mail me more things!"
I need to go shoot some more money at him..right
Posted by: MaryIndiana at October 22, 2008 08:44 AM (SRyvm)
Hey, that was my idea. I was going to be Sarah Palin for Halloween.
I already get funny looks downtown whenever I wear my glasses to work.
But I have to admit, I am tempted to send just enough money (according to their email) for them to send me a lapel pin. Hmmm... Only thing is, I'm not sure sending more money would actually do any good.
Posted by: Emily at October 22, 2008 10:35 AM (jAos7)
I've gotten two mailings with that photo. And more letter-sized mail than I can count. What they don't know is that I don't have the spending money to contribute, so all those mailings, as you noted, are a waste of what money they already have...
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at October 22, 2008 04:12 PM (zoxao)
FOUR DAYS AGO CALLED
I'm catching up on some blogs and came across this hilarious post-debate line by Varifrank:
SO - we no longer ask our Presidential candidates any questions that involve the military?
Three debates and I don't get any answers on these and many other important issues, I get the equivalent of what it feels like to have two used car salesman run back and forth and "ask their manager" if they can get me a "discount on the price for the undercoat" ( an undercoat that I don't want or particularly need, but will be forced to take to get off the car lot with my wits and my wallet mostly intact.)
Politics aside - I'm not saying his comments are complete hogwash but I think there is an element of truth to what he said. I have relatives in Western PA and there is a bit of rascist sentiment among the older generations. After spending time talking to people on visits up there, I'm almost floored at the comments that come out of people's mouths in this day and age. I'm not saying that this is widespread - only that I've heard rascist comments from many a person up in that region.
I don't know if Murtha is right or not, but there seems to be an assumption that whiter areas are more racist. Although that could be true, I've also seen the opposite. Racism is everywhere.
On a more positive note, I read this article yesterday:
Blacks account for less than 1 percent of the population in this small suburban district near the Massachusetts border. But none of that seemed to matter to the people here [when a black candidate was campaigning for re-election] ...
Political analysts say such electoral gains are quietly changing the political landscape, increasing the number of black lawmakers adept at crossing color lines as well as the ranks of white voters who are familiar, and increasingly comfortable, with black political leadership ...In 2007, about 30 percent of the nation's 622 black state legislators represented predominantly white districts, up from about 16 percent in 2001 ...
Sadly, there is some ugly racism (is there any other kind?) on page 2.
Posted by: Amritas at October 15, 2008 12:58 PM (+nV09)
Ah yes, it must be racism thatÂ’s the reason the people of Pennsylvania wonÂ’t be voting for Obama. Yea, yea thatÂ’s it. It couldnÂ’t be because of his condescending remarks about them clinging to their guns and religion or any of his liberal/socialist views or his questionable associations orÂ…Nope, racism Â…thatÂ’s it.
Just like the Marines in Haditha were cold blooded killers right Jack?
By the way Murtha, what percentage of blacks are voting for McCain? No, letÂ’s not go there, Â‘cause we all know blacks arenÂ’t racist. Yup, glad I never encountered any of that growing up in the cityÂ…going to a predominately black high schoolÂ…
JackASS Murtha, hope your gone soon which isn't soon enough.
Posted by: tim at October 16, 2008 04:32 AM (nno0f)
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year.
We're so far from the concept of a "safety net" here that it's sickening. And there's more, as The String Beans say:
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
So both poor and rich people have a "disincentive to working harder" under the Obama tax plan. Boy, that sounds like a winner for the future of America.
It's amazing to me the basic lack of understanding even the candidate has regarding economics and basic things like capital gains taxes. He was blathering on the other day in Toledo about small businesses, capital gains taxes and such but the promise of doing away with capital gains taxes in the small business scenario he described wasn't such a great give since they don't exist in that scenario anyhow.
But, just the kind of pretty face/happy talk the American people seem to be super in love with at the moment.
Posted by: Guard Wife at October 15, 2008 03:37 AM (eb8pN)
But he's just wants to "spread the wealth"! What's wrong with that? (said very sarcastically)
Posted by: Jenni at October 15, 2008 04:25 AM (1vAo5)
3We're so far from the concept of a "safety net" here that it's sickening.
Could you clarify this sentence? At first, I thought you were saying that Obama's plan is too inadequate to be a "safety net," but knowing you, that seems, um, unlikely.
Posted by: Amritas at October 15, 2008 08:09 AM (+nV09)
Oh. And another thing while I'm at it. He gave a mumbo jumbo answer to a plumber in my state that has made it onto the national news more than once regarding what his tax plans would do to help this guy. Unfortunately for those industrial or tradespeople losing their jobs who may have the ability to start their own businesses, doing so will likely have a huge chunk of taxes attached to it such that it won't even be worth it to launch your own business.
And, please, can someone say out loud that by punishing large companies for earning profits, our retirement accounts suffer? Can someone do that? I don't know...maybe MCCAIN in the debate tonight!?
Posted by: Guard Wife at October 15, 2008 08:45 AM (eb8pN)
Amritas -- What I meant was that the idea of the government helping people financially has always been called a "safety net": a little bit of help to get them back on their feet so they can start being successful again. But now we're at the point where the government is literally just cutting checks to people for no good reason, taking money from one guy's earnings and handing it over to another, just for existing.
I know that the connection is tenuous, but I have had several discussions in the past week about the meaning of the "safety net" and so it's at the front of my mind.
Posted by: Sarah at October 15, 2008 09:14 AM (TWet1)
Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't find the term "safety net" in the WSJ article and was wondering why you brought it up. Not that I don't think it's relevant - it is.
Posted by: Amritas at October 15, 2008 10:11 AM (+nV09)
Watching this makes me feel sorry for Joe Biden. Joe who?
I wish people of multiple economic and ethnic backgrounds had been interviewed. I bet the results would be the same.
I fear that many people can only think on an iconic level. They vote for names and images, not ideas. They know more about celebrities and sports teams than their rulers.
Such ignorance is a luxury only possible under a benevolent government. In a totalitarian state, the whim of the leader determines life or death. Is Big Brother for or against Eurasia today? One had better know ... or else. Comply or die.
Posted by: Amritas at October 15, 2008 09:31 AM (+nV09)
Posted by: Sarah at October 15, 2008 10:21 AM (TWet1)
I really enjoyed this, and was gleeful, but would venture to say that these were soundbites from about 15 interviews they did, where perhaps only these 3 gave such responses, and the other 12 were perhaps a little bug-eyed and said not such nice things to the interviewer.
Lols...I especially loved the support that Palin got from them...that was sweet!
I would also venture to say that there are many who aren't voting for Obama merely because he is black...and I am not talking about Republicans...I think there are a few Dems who fit that bill:
Far more telling to me was when Penn and Teller's people got those 400+ signatures at the enviromentalist rally in Washington in support of banning water. That was truely pack ignorance mentality.
I agree that the Obama-Palin supporters were probably cherry-picked out of a larger sample.
If one looked around, one might find McCain supporters in favor of cutting taxes for 95% of working families and VP Joe Biden.
That YouTube clip is depressing and disgusting. Sadly, there are probably McCain voters who "think" like that.
H2O must go? Sign me up!
Posted by: Amritas at October 15, 2008 12:36 PM (+nV09)
Ruth H was right in her comment saying that she will have a hard time accepting Obama as her president since there has been so much voter fraud. I too am dumbfounded at the shenanigans that have been uncovered and the general apathy towards it. Rachel Lucas has the scoop.
Maybe it's not so much apathy as ignorance. One can't be outraged about what one doesn't know. Most people don't read Rachel Lucas. They are only exposed to ... you know who:
"95% of Americans will never even know about it because Katie Couric and Jon Stewart sure as hell wonÂ’t be talking about it"
- Rachel Lucas
Posted by: Amritas at October 09, 2008 03:53 PM (HWSu7)
Next weÂ’ll being hearing how Â“both partiesÂ” do this.
No?!? HmmmÂ…I wonder why that isÂ…?
Posted by: tim at October 10, 2008 08:06 AM (nno0f)
Yeah, I'm with Deltasierra. Acorn was part of the problem here with the gubernatorial election 4 years ago. We all thought Rossi had won, then Gregoire and her cronies decided to sue the pants off of them and recount (multiple times) until the Republicans ran out of money and gave up. In the end they declared Gregoire the winner by something like 147 votes. Wonder how many of those votes were Acorn-submitted. We'll never find out. I do know that there were a number of Acorn people arrested here for voter fraud in that election, but whether or not the results of their actions were straightened out, I don't know.
I can't believe that people think they can (and do!) get away with this kind of BS. I'm just glad the investigations into Acorn practices this time around are starting before the election and not after its already over.
Posted by: Emily at October 14, 2008 08:54 AM (jAos7)
THE LITTLE THINGS
I'm concerned about the little things that reveal Obama. Thomas Sowell explains why the little things matter:
Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone's outlook and character. For example, after the Cold War was over, it came out that one of the things that caught the attention of Soviet leaders early on was President Ronald Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' strike.
Why were the Soviets concerned about a purely domestic American issue like an air traffic controllers' strike? Why was their attention not confined to "the real issues" between the United States and the Soviet Union?
Because one of the biggest and realest of all issues is the outlook and character of the President of the United States.
It would be hard to imagine any of Ronald Reagan's predecessors over the previous several decades-- whether Republicans or Democrats-- who would have broken a nationwide strike instead of caving in to the union's demands.
This told the Soviet leaders what Reagan was made of, even before he got up and walked out of the room during negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. That too let the Soviet leaders know that they were not dealing with Jimmy Carter any more.
Presidents are living symbols of America. So it's no wonder that we obsess over what may seem to be minutiae. They ideally embody what we want our nation to be, down to the last detail.
It would be interesting to read Sowell's column alongside a column by a Obama supporter listing the little things that reveal McCain.
When I read Sowell's column, the comment right below it was titled "Sowell for President". Right on. Sowell embodies my America.
He and Joanne Jacobs were my favorite columnists in the local papers years ago. Joanne now blogs, but Sowell hasn't made the digital leap yet. It's a shame, because I'd love to see what's on his mind every day.
Oh well, back to reality ...
Posted by: Amritas at October 08, 2008 08:08 AM (+nV09)
8:20PM Obama makes me want a cigarette, and not in that nice afterglow way.
I thought tonight's debate was phenomenally boring. I couldn't tell you at all "which one" I thought won or lost. I think McCain did well in some areas but he didn't wow me, and since I can't stand anything that comes out of Obama's mouth, I am not able to objectively assess his performance.
I can tell you what I thought the most egregious moment of the night was. The candidates were asked whether health care is a "privilege, a right, or a responsibility." McCain said it was a responsibility; Obama said it is a right.
Health care is a right.
Do people have just a completely different understanding of what the word "right" means than I do?
You never have the right to someone else's labor or money. And that's what national health care is. If you cannot afford it, you will need to take money from someone else in society to apply it to your health care.
You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have the right to free speech, to practice your religion, and to assemble.
As Leonard Peikoff says, you have a "right to action":
Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
The scary thing to me is that Obama came right out and enumerated health care as a right, and that no one will call him on it or argue it. It made my jaw drop.
You know, in every debate, they repeat the same talking points. And we can discuss the nitty gritty of policies, and who will give tax cuts to whom, and whether we need a surge in Afghanistan, but I am far more interested in these little revealing statements. I was blown away when Obama said that we're "spending money on tax cuts," and I'm blown away again tonight to hear that he thinks health care is a right. These are the statements that expose a fundamental difference in worldview between Obama and me.
Obama thinks that Americans have the right to other people's earnings. He believes in redistribution of wealth. I find this remarkably frightening, and all of his policies stem from this worldview.
What I don't understand is how people are undecided. I have to imagine that the undecideds are people who just haven't been paying attention, because the difference in worldview between Republicans and Democrats is staggering.
7:52PM Obama says McCainÂ’s health care plan will give with one hand and take from the other. Which might well be true. ObamaÂ’s plan, however, will give with one hand andÂ… stuff will just appear in it. Really.
7:58PM Obama: Health insurance Â“is a right.Â” We our endowed by our Creator with a really sweet no-co-pay plan from Aetna, and maybe some free speech. At least I think thatÂ’s what Jefferson wrote.
You say that we don't have a right to other people's labor, but then how could we have the right to liberty? The labor of the men and women in our military provide for us this right.
Posted by: Kiki at October 07, 2008 07:29 PM (H9dTh)
Oh, it got me the way he said it, actually, too - "I believe health care _should be_ a right." In other words, "it isn't really, but um, I'd sure like to amass enough power to grant everyone rights I deem proper..."
Kiki - we pay our military; we don't confiscate their labor. It's (more or less) a free-market exchange. At least from where I sit... does that make sense? And I don't see the military as *providing* the right - they/we help ensure that we can all exercise it, but the rights don't come from military protection. They come from the Creator and are inherent in our being.
Posted by: kannie at October 07, 2008 07:50 PM (f+LJo)
I personally believe that healthcare is a human right. How can one pursue the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if they aren't healthy? Again, just my personal opinion. Oh, but I will read "Healthcare is Not a Right".
Posted by: Tania at October 07, 2008 08:03 PM (ErkFh)
I don't understand the "undecideds" either. At the risk of sounding snooty, I'll say that I sometimes feel like many Americans don't have a clue what's going on...maybe that's how one arrives at being "undecided" because, in my view, if you're paying attention to what the candidates are saying (and often in Obama's case, not saying) than it's virutally impossible to be "undecided"...isn't it? Of course, I'm constantly irritated by how many people seemed to be bafooned by Obama's "95% of americans are getting a tax cut" malarkey.
Posted by: Nicole at October 07, 2008 10:06 PM (xPxyx)
That is my problem. I am just wondering how he is going to cut the taxes of the people that don't pay them. That is the one that frustrates me. Obama is playing class warfare. Why should the wealthy get to keep their 700,000 when they already have so much money? I think class warfare is a very dangerous game to play.
Posted by: Tressa at October 08, 2008 04:11 AM (yY6P+)
The debate was like watching two marshmallows slug it out! But I watched it all. A townhall NOT.
Tom Brokaw as moderator was terrible. They were propped on stools, McCains was too tall for his battered body, but an actual townhall meeting format was missing. BORING.
Posted by: Ruth H at October 08, 2008 04:19 AM (wWMQq)
As we get within a month of the decision, I find myself revisiting Dean Esmay's pledge from 2004.
I tend to hold to a rather odd doctrine myself, which is that partisanship is supposed to stop at the water's edges: we can argue as loudly as we want about domestic policy, but we do our best to speak with one voice once we get past the nation's shores. Old-fashioned and crazy I know, but it's just how I see the world. There was a time in America when if you'd spoken of the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt as a liar, a traitor, and a warmonger during World War II, accused him of engineering the Pearl Harbor attacks, referred to our war over there as "Roosevelt's war" (as a few dipshit Republicans did back then) you might well have gotten yourself a bloody nose even in the most Republican counties in America.
Because debate all you want but, once a decision is made, partisanship should stop at the water's edges. At least so far as I'm concerned.
Now here is my interesting question: I've made myself some friends among conservatives by speaking this way. But I do find myself wondering: how many of you on the right will embrace such a philosophy if John Kerry should carry the election in November?
I don't want to hear why you think it won't happen. Indulge me: pretend it might. How many of you will have the patriotism to say, "I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"
I'm genuinely curious. For that is the stance I intend to take. I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent. He will be my President, my Commander In Chief, the Chief Executive of a great nation, elected by the will of a majority of the electors in these 50 great united States. So even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, "I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all."
That's my pledge. How many of you will take a similar one?
As I face the idea that Barack Obama might become my husband's boss, I wonder if I can uphold the same pledge I made to be respectful to John Kerry. I ought to be able to do it; it's not like Kerry's meeting with the Viet Cong is any less heinous than Obama's relationship with Ayers.
Good heavens, that just gave me pause. Why do the Democrats keep nominating people who consort with the enemies of our country?
Four years removed, I am having a hard time conjuring the gut feelings I had for John Kerry. It feels now like I dislike Obama more than I disliked Kerry back then, but I doubt this is true. Is there really any difference? (Well, the Obamessiah stuff is pretty unsettling.)
I can't promise that if Obama is elected I will like it. However, I will pledge to try to be respectful of the office of the presidency. I can, as MAJ Winters said, "salute the rank, not the man." I will write against Democrat policies, but I pledge that I will never call Obama names or compare him to a chimp, as classless people have done for the last eight years.
But really, it makes me sick to think I might have to do this.
P.S. This pledge in no way prevents me from laughing at stuff like this.
Name calling just makes the person calling the name look stupid. I make every effort to try and be respectful to the office, even if I can't stand the person.
No "Barry" from me, even now. I don't call him "Ears" either.
And for the love of God I don't go around telling other people how stupid their governments are when I first meet them like we've both experienced, Sarah. Even if I think they are.
Posted by: airforcewife at October 07, 2008 04:37 AM (mIbWn)
People aren't their governments. The opposite can backfire, too. What if you praise their government, only to find out they hate it?
Let's suppose it's the 30s. You run into someone from the Soviet Union. You know nothing else about this person. Do you praise Stalin, or condemn him? I would do neither. There's no way to know if that person is a sympathizer or a dissident. Just stick to business, at least at first.
I've met with and worked alongside people from many countries, and I'm glad that none have ever told me how stupid my government was when they first met me (or even afterward!). I never said anything about their governments either.
Posted by: Amritas at October 07, 2008 05:50 AM (+nV09)
I have to be honest: if he's elected, I'm going to need to abide by the, "if you can't say anything nice..." doctrine - out of principle and necessity. (PC police... ;-)
Of course, if he happens to do something I think is in the *right* direction, I'll give him credit. (Although, granted, I might miss it from trying not to look too closely as a rule...)
And yes, I prefer to stay on a personal level - even with people in my own country - except where political exchange is specifically appropriate. I really do care more about how individuals are doing than what governs their political philosophy; and for some of them, I'm doing us both a favor by not giving them a reason to think I'm evil (you know - since I'm "one of those hateful conservatives")... LOL.
Posted by: kannie at October 07, 2008 07:34 AM (f+LJo)
"But really, it makes me sick to think I might have to do this."
Let's wait before we have to go down this road. But I do agree, just can't bring myself to talk about the possibilty of it all. Besides, there's a reason we hold elections, if polls were worth anything it would have been Pres. Gore/Kerry.
Posted by: tim at October 07, 2008 07:42 AM (nno0f)
I'm having a very hard time with this concept. I could have handled a John Kerry victory much better than an Obama victory. For one thing I think there will be, or has been, far more illegal activity in registering voters in this election. I know from a daughter in law who was a caucus person for Hillary here in Texas that there were shenanigans there. Althouse had some talk of that in the Austin area from her son, my DIL in Austin is an Obama supporter so she saw nothing wrong with what happened. NOT GOOD. So I will have a hard time feeling this is actually my president, my CIC, much like some of the Democrats apparently felt in 2000, although they were proven wrong they have never admitted to it
and have been like an angry hive of bees since.
Posted by: Ruth H at October 07, 2008 08:59 AM (wWMQq)
I'm with Tim. I had the same thought earlier
today about those 'exit polls' last time.
Let's just wait and see before giving up the ship.
Yes,I agree that the high road needs to be taken
with regard to Senator Obama. Liberals claim that
they are the party or peace,love and understanding
but it's a lie.
Republicans are far more tolerant.
The Slate had a marvelous article on it some 4
Posted by: MaryIndiana at October 07, 2008 10:14 AM (SRyvm)
AM I THE ONLY ONE?
Best comment I've seen so far about the debate:
Buford Gooch: CNN and ABC already had focus groups of Â“uncommittedÂ” voters saying it was Biden by a landslide. I think too many of them mistook Â“uncommitted to candidateÂ” for Â“uncommitted to an asylumÂ”.
And am I the only one who had a problem with this answer to which long-held view Biden has changed?
BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was -- had been a good student.
And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.
That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.
I think Biden got this exactly backwards. Judges are not supposed to rule based on ideology; they rule based on constitutionality. No one else seems to be talking about this one, so maybe I am overreacting. But it simply doesn't matter what changes Biden would or would not like to see. The only thing that matters is what the Constitution says. It just seems to me that this is a gross misunderstanding of the judicial system.
My husband noticed it and said for that reason alone, no one should vote for Biden.
Posted by: Amy at October 03, 2008 01:25 AM (UMp4+)
My husband went ballistic on that one. He could not believe that a so called constitutionalist would or could admit he voted for a judge on ideology. I had to calm him down to get him to listen to the rest.
Posted by: Ruth H at October 03, 2008 05:05 AM (4u82p)
Yep - it turns the judiciary into yet another legislative branch, imposing law where there's not sufficient popular support for it...
Indeed, "the ideology of that judge" *does* make a big difference - whether they believe that we're governed by the Constitution or not.
And the arrogance of his projecting "and the American people wouldn't like" (does he meet many normal "American people" on Amtrak?) just astounds me.
Posted by: kannie at October 03, 2008 05:48 AM (f+LJo)
It's something we've heard Obama spouting once in a while. People have forgotten (or just misunderstand) that judges are supposed to be impartial, and are supposed to do their best to uphold the Constitution.
But, when fairness means to you "what you perceive to be fair", you believe that impartiality equals ideology. The biggest issue I have with the left.
Posted by: Deltasierra at October 03, 2008 07:39 AM (OnLoQ)
Your not overreacting Sarah, IÂ’m on the same page. I sat there think, heÂ’s got it all wrong. (But then again, I said that a lot when he spoke). And I think thatÂ’s why nobody has gotten around to this one yet, he made so many mistakes and stated falsehoods itÂ’s hard to remember them all.
But good for you for bringing it up, it certainly needs to be talked about and highlighted as this type of view that is dangerous if elected to the WH. ItÂ’s one of the most fundamental differences of the two partyÂ’s and considering that the next president will most likely be appointing three SC Justices, itÂ’s extremely important for the McCain to keep talking about this.
Posted by: tim at October 03, 2008 10:50 AM (nno0f)
No, you're not overreacting. I heard it too and it set my brain on fire. I DO NOT WANT JUDGES LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. Their job is to INTERPRET the law through the lens of the Constitution of the United States. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Ideology should NEVER enter into it. This is one slot where, as Sarah Palin put it, their opinions should be checked at the door.
He not only didn't do so hot on the Hezbollah situation either.
Posted by: HomefrontSix at October 03, 2008 11:09 AM (4Es1w)
I just watched the Palin-Couric Supreme Court exchange. It strikes me that Palin's critics and defenders are both right. The Supreme Court question was a bit "pop quiz." What was trying to be gleaned here? Palin is not a lawyer or Supreme Court historian. But she could have said that, and then elaborated on her judicial philosophy. She could have discussed how court rulings have influenced policy she's had to carry out as governor, for example. But that on-camera confidence takes practice to acquire. And in the beginning, its really hard.
I heard the exchange too, and I knew exactly what Sarah Palin was doing. She was searching her brain for the right answer, the best answer. I know because I do it too, every time I sit on a panel at SpouseBUZZ or the Milblogs Conference. My body tenses when a question is directed at me and all I can think in my brain is "Don't say something dumb, please let me know the answer." And my moderators aren't out to get me!
In Las Vegas last week, Guard Wife asked me which SpouseBUZZ posts get the most comments. I got a deer-in-headlights look on my face and wracked my brain as quickly as I could to come up with what I thought was the right answer, the factually correct answer. I wanted to answer the question well.
The politician's trick though is to just open your mouth and start saying whatever is tangentially related to the question you've been asked to steer the conversation to what you want to talk about.
Sarah Palin apparently hasn't mastered that trick. But I don't really see why that is a bad thing.
If someone asks her which Supreme Court decision she doesn't like, I want her to really search her brain and come up with one. I don't want her to just start flapping her gums around the question.
LEHRER: Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?
First response to you, Senator Obama. You have two minutes.
OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, and thanks to the commission and the University of Mississippi, "Ole Miss," for hosting us tonight. I can't think of a more important time for us to talk about the future of the country.
You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
And although we've heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.
And you're wondering, how's it going to affect me? How's it going to affect my job? How's it going to affect my house? How's it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?
So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I've put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort.
So he spent at least a minute in a two-minute answer saying absolutely nothing. And then McCain does the same baloney, and then Lehrer has to come back and re-ask both the candidates to answer the fricking question. That's how politics works. You do everything you can not to answer the question.
Sarah Palin hasn't figured that out yet. That's why some of us are OK with her.
I like her. I liked her in the beginning, and I still like her. I don't have any problems with her policies, or with her family, or any of that. What I do worry about is that her relative inexperience in interviews and in front of the camera may hurt the McCain ticket just as much as her regular-gal, hockey mom image and her conservative policies help. Unless she seriously wows tonight in the debate, seizes hold of some confidence, and takes off, getting in the public eye daily for the remainder of the campaign, I think her place on the ticket will end up being a wash overall when it comes to results.
Posted by: Emily at October 02, 2008 12:17 PM (jAos7)
Yep, that's why we LOVE her. She is NOT GOOD AT BS'ing, LOL.
Posted by: kannie at October 02, 2008 12:30 PM (f+LJo)
I didn't mean for my use of the word "OK" to indicate that I no longer like Palin. I do. I want her in the White House way more than the other option, and I want her "a heartbeat away from the presidency," a phrase I have learned to loathe.
Posted by: Sarah at October 02, 2008 12:36 PM (TWet1)
Exactly! I just watched the VP debate and we had a few people over and of course we had to discuss it...and someone made the comment that Biden "sounded better." I have to clench my teeth not to scream when I hear this...if you've had 30+ years to sit in the Senate and listen to "political-speak" you know how to circle the drain without ever answering a question. You can talk and talk without ever saying anything...I'd much prefer that they literally do not say anything rather than just talking.
Posted by: Nicole at October 02, 2008 08:04 PM (xPxyx)
Nicole, but it does help to actually answer the questions posed.
I thought Palin held her own. But ultimately, Biden took it. It wasn't just about sounding better. It was about answering the questions and putting forth what the ticket plans to actually do.
104kb generated in CPU 0.0311, elapsed 0.1382 seconds.
59 queries taking 0.1179 seconds, 226 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
There is neither happiness nor misery in the world; there is only the comparison of one state with another, nothing more. He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness. We must have felt what it is to die, Morrel, that we may appreciate the enjoyments of living. --The Count of Monte Cristo--
While our troops go out to defend our country, it is incumbent upon us to make the country worth defending. --Deskmerc--
Contrary to what you've just seen, war is neither glamorous nor fun. There are no winners, only losers. There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, WWII, and the Star Wars Trilogy. --Bart Simpson--
If you want to be a peacemaker, you've gotta learn to kick ass. --Sheriff of East Houston, Superman II--
Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind. --Jed Babbin--
Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. --President John F. Kennedy--
War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. --General Patton--
We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over. --Full Metal Jacket--
Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. --Dick Cheney--
The Flag has to come first if freedom is to survive. --Col Steven Arrington--
The purpose of diplomacy isn't to make us feel good about Eurocentric diplomatic skills, and having countries from the axis of chocolate tie our shoelaces together does nothing to advance our infantry. --Sir George--
I just don't care about the criticism I receive every day, because I know the cause I defend is right. --Oriol--
It's days like this when we're reminded that freedom isn't free. --Chaplain Jacob--
Bumper stickers aren't going to accomplish some of the missions this country is going to face. --David Smith--
The success of multilateralism is measured not merely by following a process, but by achieving results. --President Bush--
Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life.
First, go buy a six pack and swig it all down. Then, watch Ace Ventura. And after that, buy a Hard Rock Cafe shirt and come talk to me. You really need to lighten up, man.
You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting --General Curtis Lemay--
If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained -- we must fight! --Patrick Henry--
America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them. And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American. --President George W. Bush--
are usually just cheerleading sessions, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing but a soothing reduction in blood pressure brought about by the narcotic high of being agreed with. --Bill Whittle
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill--
We are determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle, our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and of overwhelming force on the other. --General George Marshall--
We can continue to try and clean up the gutters all over the world and spend all of our resources looking at just the dirty spots and trying to make them clean. Or we can lift our eyes up and look into the skies and move forward in an evolutionary way.
America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world.
Recent anti-Israel protests remind us again of our era's peculiar alliance: the most violent, intolerant, militantly religious movement in modern times has the peace movement on its side. --James Lileks--
As a wise man once said: we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
Unless the price is too high, the burden too great, the hardship too hard, the friend acts disproportionately, and the foe fights back. In which case, we need a timetable.
I am not willing to kill a man so that he will agree with my faith, but I am prepared to kill a man so that he cannot force my compatriots to submit to his.
You can say what you want about President Bush; but the truth is that he can take a punch. The man has taken a swift kick in the crotch for breakfast every day for 6 years and he keeps getting up with a smile in his heart and a sense of swift determination to see the job through to the best of his abilties.
In a perfect world, We'd live in peace and love and harmony with each oither and the world, but then, in a perfect world, Yoko would have taken the bullet.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. --Ronald Reagan--
America is rather like life. You can usually find in it what you look for. It will probably be interesting, and it is sure to be large. --E.M. Forster--
Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse. --Mark Twain--
The Enlightenment was followed by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, which touched every European state, sparked vicious guerrilla conflicts across the Continent and killed millions. Then, things really turned ugly after the invention of soccer. --Iowahawk--
Every time I meet an Iraqi Army Soldier or Policeman that I haven't met before, I shake his hand and thank him for his service. Many times I am thanked for being here and helping his country. I always tell them that free people help each other and that those that truly value freedom help those seeking it no matter the cost. --Jack Army--
Right, left - the terms are useless nowadays anyway. There are statists, and there are individualists. There are pessimists, and optimists. There are people who look backwards and trust in the West, and those who look forward and trust in The World. Those are the continuums that seem to matter the most right now. --Lileks--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
A man or a nation is not placed upon this earth to do merely what is pleasant and what is profitable. It is often called upon to carry out what is both unpleasant and unprofitable, but if it is obviously right it is mere shirking not to undertake it. --Arthur Conan Doyle--
A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself. --John Stuart Mill--
After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." --Dave Grossman--
At heart Iâ€™m a cowboy; my attitude is if theyâ€™re not going to stand up and fight for what they believe in then they can go pound sand. --Bill Whittle--
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. --Alexander Tyler--
By that time a village half-wit could see what generations of professors had pretended not to notice. --Atlas Shrugged--
I kept asking Clarence why our world seemed to be collapsing and everything seemed so shitty. And he'd say, "That's the way it goes, but don't forget, it goes the other way too." --Alabama Worley--
So Bush is history, and we have a new president who promises to heal the planet, and yet the jihadists donâ€™t seem to have got the Obama message that there are no enemies, just friends we havenâ€™t yet held talks without preconditions with.
"I had started alone in this journey called life, people started
gathering up on the way, and the caravan got bigger everyday." --Urdu couplet
The book and the sword are the two things that control the world. We either gonna control them through knowledge and influence their minds, or we gonna bring the sword and take their heads off. --RZA--
It's a daily game of public Frogger, hopping frantically to avoid being crushed under the weight of your own narcissism, banality, and plain old stupidity. --Mary Katharine Ham--
There are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms
of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. --James Madison--
It is in the heat of emotion that good people must remember to stand on principle. --Larry Elder--
Please show this to the president and ask him to remember the wishes of the forgotten man, that is, the one who dared to vote against him. We expect to be tramped on but we do wish the stepping would be a little less hard. --from a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt--
The world economy depends every day on some engineer, farmer, architect, radiator shop owner, truck driver or plumber getting up at 5AM, going to work, toiling hard, and producing real wealth so that an array of bureaucrats, regulators, and redistributors can manage the proper allotment of much of the natural largess produced. --VDH--
Parents are often so busy with the physical rearing of children that they miss the glory of parenthood, just as the grandeur of the trees is lost when raking leaves. --Marcelene Cox--