Thanks!

Can't wait for the video Intents from the RNC, you know the ones from the hamburger,hot dogs,brats,beer and bourbon lounge !

Sean Quinn of FiveThirtyEight.com wrapping up the conventions wrote:

"Attending two major party conventions in back-to-back weeks in this era of polarized national politics was an unbelievable experience."

"...There was a dramatic difference in the mood of each city – Denver and St. Paul. Denver was joyful, energized and loose, with bustling sidewalks and open parties running late into the night. St. Paul was tense, heavily defended, and featured privately cloistered gatherings, sparsely populated streets (the downtown businesses and especially the hapless cabbies took a bath) and really had only one emotional peak causing the feeling on the streets to come alive – Sarah Palin’s speech."

On C-Span, I could see people literally falling asleep during some of the speeches. The crowd was completely disengaged.

Ron Paul had a better rally.

I don't see much future for McCain. I see a very stressful future for Palin.

A VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate should be ready to speak to the press immediately. If she has to cram then she is no where near ready. This to me shows how out of touch she is in the WORLD ARENA.

derek

One of the clearest windows into the mind of a politician comes by way of science. Unlike political ideology or religious theology, science is more black and white, there are right answers and wrong answers. Sarah Palin gives the wrong answers. When asked her view on global warming and how it might affect the nation, via Think Progress:

"A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." -- Sara Palin 29 Aug 2005

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/29/palin-globalwarming-manmade/

Why might the Republican Vice Presidential hopeful feel qualified to make science policy for 300 million people? She explained when defending the idea of teaching creationism as science:

"Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher."

Being the daughter of a science teacher and unafraid of information obviously didn't work for Palin. Otherwise she would know that teaching creationism as science has been literally proven in the nation's highest courts to be fraudulent and illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

By some accounts Palin is a nice person who has many positive, professional attributes; maybe she is, maybe she does. But that alone doesn't qualify someone to lead a nuclear superpower critically dependent on the development and application of science. In Palin's case, what little we know about her suggests the exact opposite: She appeals instead to a minority of conservatives extremists who not only dismiss science, they proudly hold it in contempt. The most alarming part is that that's 'precisely' why the party faithful are so excited she was chosen to be John McCain's successor. But for the majority of voters, Palin is looking less and less Presidential. And, by definition, if someone's not qualified to be President, they're not qualified to be 'Vice' President.

Cindy McCain is not running for high office, fortunately…but this still seems to be the predominant attitude among the Republican leadership.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE69ajamamo

Couric: How do you feel about creationism? Do you think it should be taught in schools?

McCain: I think both sides should be taught in schools. I think the more children have a frame of reference and an opportunity to read and know and make better decisions and judgments when they are adults. So, I think you know I don't have any problem with education of any kind.

What about miseducation, Ms McCain? Do you have a problem with that? Apparently not.

ScienceDebate 2008 had submitted a list of science and technology policy questions to our presidential candidates.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/

For now, only Obama has answered them, while McCain has been silent (maybe he's waiting for input from his creationist VP choice).

Obama's answers are pretty good, although we have to keep in mind that these are campaign promises, many of the proposals look rather expensive, and with the economy going as it is, implementation may be problematic. But the attitude is positive, at least.

Obama recognizes the problem that the US is a fading star in international science, and sees that the answer requires more investment in research and in science education. He sees that global warming is real, that the country must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that this is an economic opportunity…and a research opportunity. He sees that our national security benefits from technology. He has the right idea on the importance of genetics and stem cell research, and is going to lift the ban on creating new stem cell lines.

His answer on what he's going to do to improve education contain many good ideas, too, including a specific education committee within the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Now I really want to hear what the Republican answer to these questions might be.

*********************

The Story

"In November, 2007, a small group of six citizens - two screenwriters, a physicist, a marine biologist, a philosopher and a science journalist - began working to restore science and innovation to America’s political dialogue. They called themselves Science Debate 2008, and they called for a presidential debate on science. The call tapped a wellspring of concern over the state of American science.

Within weeks, more than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities. See who here. Among other things, these signers submitted over 3,400 questions they want the candidates for President to answer about science and the future of America.


The Process

Beginning with these 3,400 questions, Science Debate 2008 worked with the leading organizations listed to craft the top 14 questions the candidates should answer. These questions are broad enough to allow for wide variations in response, but they are specific enough to help guide the discussion toward many of the largest and most important unresolved challenges currently facing the United States.

The Questions and Answers

Barack Obama's answers appear below. John McCain has said he will also answer the questions.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40

Awwww....dey had vegan snacks...isn't dat chweet!! Had to have'em for all the little tofu fartin' fairies at that convention!!

Wonder if they have video of a the stars and stripes going in the dumpster?!! Poor Obama, he can't catch a flag break!! he won't salute, he won't wear the pin....and now....all his 'citizens of the world' type followers dumped all their flags in the garbage....... one of those good American organizations, you know...the kind of kids who are always proud to be American, the Boy Scouts, dug'em all out and took'em to a MacPalin rally!!!

hehehehehehe.....nobama is going down....think i'll go have a glass of wild turkey and a moose burger....Vegan snacks...my ass!!

:)

Steve....

I try to stay away for a couple days and let you handle these yoyos....but i guess i'm addicted...you're a lot nicer and a lot smarter than i am....so soon, when i cross that line and get kicked out again...keep up the good fight!!

:)

Oh, for a minute there I thought Palin had stopped by to comment here at IB...but no, it's just our home-boy repub....skinny....hey, skinny, you and Palin deliver your goods so similarly it is hard to tell the difference....you both must use the same handler.....hmmmmm......the lovely little repub, Mr. Snide...

really Mr. Snide is getting used a bit much these days and it is getting a bit stale and tired, you two might want to try someone else...say, a Democrat...and I have just the man, he goes by the name Mr T, the t stands for tolerance and when used he actually increases one's attractiveness and appeal. And, since, you and Palin, are so close, I would mention it to her, that, that litte squinch of her nose, when delivering those Mr Snide's lines, really took away from her undeniable good looks and brought out her pit bull....which...was not only a complete downer but scary as hell...

oh, don't fall over backwards thanking me for the tips....heck, what are friends for, my friend?

oh, say hey to Palin...next time she is in the lower 48...ruth

I thought I would toss this in here. It supports the idea that the few benefit to the detriment of the many when there is a "conservative" policy.

Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?
By ALAN S. BLINDER

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.

NO L, Sarah is just a Pain. MCCain Pain!