Obama Campaign Response to The View:

'Today on "The View," John McCain defended his campaign's latest ad campaign, which has been debunked repeatedly as both false and sleazy. In running the sleaziest campaign since South Carolina in 2000 and standing by completely debunked lies on national television, it's clear that John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.'

The View last night was one of the fluffiest video segments I've ever seen with McCain.

A lot of people might enjoy this show for the kind of questions asked by the ladies ... but since when the fuck is a nice cuddly fireside chat with the man who is going to start World War 3 anything to celebrate?

I kept waiting for them to follow-up on every question that was answered and...NOTHING. Not one intelligent word was said to contradict the depth of the lies of McCain...

Also see:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/obama_campaign_mccain_would_ra.php

The thing is, the media was prepared to give McCain a pass on it, and McCain decided to take responsibility for those ads. He really DID approve those messages. And the worst part is, he tries to blame OBAMA when OBAMA isn't putting out ads like that about him (and Lord knows there's enough ammo out there).

Hello Gotham and Everyone,

I started to write a much more lengthy response in defense of the lefts response and opinions then deleted it, in favor of this..you write,". Any small thing may make a big difference. Let's keep that in mind.".......that goes for the other side to....and their small things have won them the two previous elections....I wouldn't worry about the cheerleaders on the sidelines of either Party, they are bound to inspire, annoy, insult, or compliment, someone, somewhere, but, ultimately, will not change a voter's mind one way or another.

have a great day...ruth

"But back to my main point: I am concerned that a lot of higher profile voices are not helping things when they take aim at the GOP."

Why didn't you set an example Gotham? It's the liberal/left knee jerk reaction, apparently they can't help themselves, you couldn't. How many attack Palin posts did you write? 3,4? Now you are contrite, sorry it's too late. You lost a lot of my respect, The View is the gift that keeps on giving and Bill Mahr, you think they will stop? I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. My advice is think before you write Gotham.

Btw, let's see if Irvine and co. can control themselves after my comments?

Steve

Ambasteve: "Btw, let's see if Irvine and co. can control themselves after my comments?"

Apparently you couldn't control your stupidity with your response.

Naturally, you should be worried, you will be called on your stupidity.

oh, actually, last nite on PBS on a discussion of questions being asked by the news people and whether they were tough or not they had an example of one local news reporter asking John McCain repeatedly to give an example of Palin's forgien intelligence expertise and John McCain kept avoiding the foreign serive part and moving right to the economy while the interviewer kept bring him back to the foreign intelligence issue and it finally ended with John McCain saying something so ridiculous as to be completely inane and I just wish I could remember what his exact words were....and you were left just wishing that that kind of questioning took place in all interviews with all the candidates....boy, if it did....few would get away with the bullsheet that passes for answers in today's political reality.

I just wish the Barak Obama campaign could get a copy of that interview and put it in an ad...the effect on people seeing it nationwide would be like jumping into the ice cold waters of Alaska in terms of McCain being caught on the other side of his spin and being stopped dead in his tracks as to how to answer a question.

I believe this is a small thing that could in fact make a big difference in how McCain is perceived as a leader.
ruth

Only eight more weeks of trash-talk and issue avoidance.

One thing is clear about American politics: knowledge of the issues is NOT required to get elected.

...sigh...

So far I've been called stupid, good start anyone else care to step up and help the cause as the "enlightened ones " for Obama and don't forget Joe Biden. I only mention Biden because he doesn't get much press here.

Ruth you are exempt from this category.

Steve

Ambasteve
Have you actually watched McCain speak?
Have you actually watched Obama speak?

When I see McCain speak I see a weak and fearful bullshitter. Shifty eyes and phoney smile. Bush is a better speaker than McCain and he puts me to sleep within the first minute.

McCain is an empty soul and I can see it in his eyes and his countenance no matter what he is saying. Try hitting the mute button when you listen to him speak. Don't worry about missing anything 'cause he keeps saying the same things over and over.
You can see more about someone's character when your not blinded by their words.

derek

Hey Doodle, I respect your opinion, bullshitter doesn't come to mind when I listen to McCain, I'm not so sure with Obama, since his answeres aren't always direct, that's usually the test for me whether a candidate can give a straight answere. So far McCain wins handily.

Is it ok with you Doodle if I have a difference opinion? Do I have to see the world as you see it?

That doesn't work for me, we still have that freedom in this country.

Cheers,

Steve

The View has a large enough audience, I suspect maybe a million viewers? But, I think the ladies over there did a good job in calling him out on his lies (when the msm was giving him a free pass for far too long.) As Tipper pointed out, it is another thing that these are not professional journalists who can really grill him. And McCain repeated more lies, and this will be picked up in the media and adds to negatives of McCain. In my opinion, the show was a net positive for Obama campaign. What we see on the View is a side effect of the media narrative (not the other way) that is cacthing up ...his irresponsiblity and terrible judgment in picking Palin, and his sleazy campaign.

In the bigger picture, the so called "high profile" reatcions are not going to have that much effect(compared to several other factors that weigh more in influencing the "undecided" and the "swing" voters that are crucial in a close race), than what the cmapaigns do, and what the traditional media does.

*******

Talking of passion and attacks on McCain/Plain as some idiot wrote above(#14), lets not forget the passion and attacks from the other side.

....Do you really think Rush Limbaugh..IS NOT HELPING McCain?

*******

The blogosphere has a little more influence this cycle than in the past, but Gothams posts and what we write here have little influence in the eventual outcome if any.

What is Intentblog's readership? Not much.

Again they are side effects, it all comes down to the actions of the candidates and how they run their campaigns in co-ordination with the outside forces the can't control.

oh, and don't worry Gotham, the right, whether, or not, you, say something really horrific or mildly accusitory, toward them, their response, is always that you treated them with such disrespect and disregard that there is not enought outrage on the face of the plant to express how wronged they are, now, have been, and, will be, toward the left and lberalism for all eternity....and amen to that....

I say voice your choice as loud and as often as you can, lefties, and, liberals, because at least then the feigned outrage by the right is drowned out for a few hours, anyway....and there is some semblance of a possible peace on earth for the rest of us.....oh what a tawdry tune their feigned outrage has become for these republicans, lalalalala...la.

:))))))ahhh, I really need to get something done today....by all ruth....

Doodleman,

Ambasteve is is a fine example. The problem with Obama - he is too smart. Too smart for the dumb asses that vote republican. If you think about what you are about to say the rednecks think you are trying to lie. Did you not catch the McSmart on The View say that "Senator Obama chooses his words very carefully"

That is the only problem i have with Obama.... In the debates and every interview that i have watched him in, he seems to stumble and think very long and hard about what he is about to say, which in turn makes the dumbasses think that he is about to lie to them.

How's this?

"I know there are a lot of Democrats, and some Independents and some Republicans who really want change who start getting nervous because they’ve seen this movie before every four years. Right? You have ads that are being just fabricated, they’re just made up. And lies – that’s the word I was looking for," said Obama.

"Here’s what I can guarantee you: that we are going to be hitting back hard – we have been hitting back hard but ...I’m not going to start making up lies about John McCain ... we’re going to make sure that anything that is out there that we are immediately responding to. But this election is too important, it’s too serious to be playing silly games."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

Maybe he wonders whether his pay grade is high enough to warrant an answere

yogi
Actually there has been a lot of talk on the issues. The network news media just doesn't show it. Obama has been addressing issues in detail. McCain has not. I have had the opportunity to take the time to watch all this. If you are only getting your info from prime time news, then you are getting very edited versions.
With a little research you can find full speeches and interviews. When seen in full all this trash talk you are seeing is meaningless.
Unfortunately so many people are making choices by using overly edited video clips that last few seconds then 5 minutes of opinionated commentary and 15 minutes of commercials every cycle. Junk TV.

There have been many amazing and inspirational speeches by Obama dealing with issues since the RNC but the media mostly reports on the trash talk.

If your going to vote, turn off CNN, MSNBC and FOX. Do some research ad find full speeches and interviews.

Try cspan.org to start. Our cable network is now offering both conventions with Ondemand. I would suggest watching both with an open mind and no commentary.

derek

iftheworldcouldvote.com

I bet Yogi doesn't watch much cable news, his sources go beyond the msm, and good for him.

Is it me or does David Gergen remind one of the Cat in the Hat?

Steve

Yes, Welsh!

yes, we wouldn't want a president who thinks before he speaks!

better to have memorized soundbites without substance or truth!!!

Gotham,

I think the fact that corporate lobbyists are running the McCain campaign is most disturbing because this tells us who would be running the administration, since McCain is an old dog he will be dependant on the lobbyists for many things that require new memory, learning, and comprehension.

As to the other point, the question to ask is the source of what we deliver the ego and it's irrational perspective or spirit and it's wisdom?

It is true that intentions formed by ego that are not in alignment with divine intent will untimely achieve the opposite of what the ego intends due to it's limited capacity and finite capability for in it’s infinite capability and endless capacity divine will prevails.

This failure to align is a product of not realizing that the divine will is your true will, the will of your authentic self which will always prevail over the false self born of fiction.

There is no loss of free will when the divine will prevails, this would be an illusion due to a lack of understanding of who and what you really are.

Props to the Ladies on The View. Has anyone noticed that the most substantive interviews are coming from the traditional "entertainment" shows like The View, Jay Leno, David Lettermen, Craig Kilborn, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report? At the same time the "news" shows are the ones running with the Maverick, "John McCain is an honorable man" and "lipstickgate" memes?

oh, Steve, you write, "Maybe he wonders whether his pay grade is high enough to warrant an answere"

now, that is a low blow....a quick right to the jaw.....but I am still standing...and, my answer, because, I do not need to spin an answer is everyone, except those invested in "using and not knowing" what Barak Obama meant by that very intelligent answer to that question of when he thinks life begins is a great answer, is the best answer to a question in which some claim to know exactly that answer, but, others, and, many others, do not, like Barak Obama, claim that knowledge for themselves....but to get back to McCain...

his question was directed toward whether or not his chosen partner to run as second runner-up to the Presidency of the United States had or has in her resume packet a concrete example of her experience of foreign policy expertise and he couldn't.

have a grand day Steve, ruth

Steve
I respect your right to your opinion. I don't feel I have ever expected anyone here to change their belief to be like mine but I do say what I believe.

I am a little more out spoken at this time because I feel it is important.

derek

Hey Ruth,

He picked a belligerant, ignorant woman-- she doesn't know anything, but she is delighted to fight with everybody who asks her about it-- and the scary thing here is that HE SEES HIMSELF IN HER. He likes that she's belligerent. He likes that she picks fights. He doesn't mind that she doesn't know, like, anything. Again: HE SEES HIMSELF IN HER. That's the terrifying thing.

Jesus Christ, what is WRONG with the Republicans that they're actually backing this guy?

Mr. Welsh, Tipper, doodleman, ruth et al.... it would be better served if you ignore the baits for your reactions from trolls seeking attention.

Aloha Gotham and Everyone

Steve is right, no one can control what anyone else says. And sometimes we don't know what we are going to say before we say it. Communication is to gather information, as it is God's Script where the script can't have the wrong lines and wisdom is to change how we hold it. Being split minded is where adversity leads to Spirituality. America is a adult child of a dysfunctional world. Be the change we are.

love patty

Judith Warner published her normally-Friday-released Domestic Disturbances column (NYT) on Wednesday this past week. Here's the link:

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/no-laughing-matter/index.html

Since it's already been a couple of days since this column was published, and you may not be in the mood to click through, and in any case (well this is really the first reason -- as a typical Dem using too many words to soften my real purpose, I may have already lost most readers) because Judith Warner in this column has correctly identified the real problem that you, Gotham, are thinking about in this blog... I'll do the almost unthinkable for me -- paste her entire column below (a typically Dem apology for Dem self-perceived brash and out-of-line behavior that would be viewed as standard and acceptable by a Rep):

* * *

September 11, 2008, 10:29 pm
No Laughing Matter
by Judith Warner (New York Times' Domestic Disturbances columnist)

Tags: liberals, media, sarah palin

"“You can stand on my wagon, if you want.”

"I tend, when I’m not in big crowds, to forget that I’m short. In Republican crowds, I find, I feel particularly small.

"And dark. And unsmiling. And uncoiffed, unmade-up and inappropriately dressed.

"For the McCain/Palin rally in Fairfax, Va., on Wednesday, the organizers had asked people to wear red. I – unthinkingly – had dressed in blue, which was somewhat isolating.

"I was isolated, too, because, unable to find the press area in the crowd of about 15,000, I was out with the “real” people. Which meant that I could hear everything from the podium and from the onlookers around me, but could see nothing, not, at least, until the mom beside me stopped struggling to balance atop her Little Tikes wagon with two toddlers in her arms and another screaming at her feet, and offered me a go at the view.

"(“It’s Sarah. Sarah’s going to be the vice president,” she had told the little girls, clad in their matching polka dot dresses. “Sarah Palin.”)

"She was a nice woman. She told me history was in the making. She told me where to get lunch. She handed me back my reporter’s notebook when one of her almost-two-year-old twins, fixing me with a dark look of mistrust, took it away. “Liberal media, eh?” her solemn eyes glared. “Well, watch what you say about my mommy and Our Sarah.”

"Do not think for a moment that I was being paranoid.

"Fred Thompson had warmed up the crowd, his familiar old district attorney’s voice restored to full bombast, and he’d been in fine form, denouncing – to loud boos from the crowd — the “lawyers and scandal mongers and representatives of cable networks” (boos from the crowd) who were at that very moment descending upon Alaska looking for dirt on their Sarah.

"“I hope they brought their own Brie and Chablis with them,” he’d said, to raucous laughter, as I willed myself to disappear, remembering, with a shudder, that my children had demanded Brie for breakfast only that morning.

"I should have been finding this funny. My whole plan, after all, had been to write something funny this week about the whole Sarah Palin phenomenon. I’d arrived at an if-you-can’t-beat-’em-laugh-at-’em kind of a juncture, I suppose.

"I’d planned to make attending the McCain/Palin event a silly sort of adventure. I’d invited a friend who has six kids to come with me. I figured funny things were bound to befall us in Palin-Land, where, collectively, we’d have eight children between us (a funny thought in and of itself.) A Harold and Kumar Escape from the Barracuda sort of storyline was the idea – until my friend, done in by one too many sleepless nights, declined to accompany me, and I had to venture off alone.

"And, forced to make new friends on the spot, discovered that the Palin Phenomenon is no laughing matter.

"Those who think that it is — well, as Thompson warned on Wednesday, “they’ve got another thing coming.”

"I made my first friend on the shuttle bus that took us from a nearby mall, where we’d been instructed to park, to the field where the rally was held. She was from Leesburg, Va., an ardent McCain supporter, conservative and self-described “soccer mom,” who grew up in Pennsylvania among girls who went hunting with their Dads.

"Sarah Palin, she told me, “just seems like a regular person.”

"I did not argue with her. One does not argue when making new friends. And besides, we had so many other things to bond over. We talked about kids with issues. She had a son with A.D.H.D., cousins with Asperger’s and dysgraphia, and a nephew with autism. (“They’re lucky they live in New Jersey. New Jersey’s pretty progressive,” she said.)

"We talked about the moral vacuity of modern parenting. “I see extreme spoiling, self-absorption,” she said. “Constant bringing the kids up to love themselves without reflecting on how they affect others.” We talked about the disastrous lack of respect that children now show adults and institutions, and about the ways this lack of respect translates into a very ugly sort of lack of decorum and a lack of basic manners: “This 10-year-old, my daughter’s friend, she comes over and throws down a magazine with John McCain on the cover. ‘Here’s friggin John McCain,’ she says. ‘Let’s see what lies he’s going to tell now.’” She continued: “These 10-year-olds think they’re better than me. That they don’t have to say hello. That they think I’m beneath them.”

"You go girl, I was thinking, in so many words, until the talk turned back to politics: “So often these kids that are so incredibly full of themselves, I find their parents are Democrats. The Democrats, they hate ‘us,’ the United States, but they love ‘me,’ that is, themselves,” she said.

"I heard a lot more talk that day about the need for respect – and about arrogance and selfishness and about Democrats and liberals who think way too highly of themselves.

"Fred Thompson on the liberal media: “This woman is undergoing the most vicious assault … all because she is a threat to the power they expected to inherit and think they’re entitled to.”

"Businessman Scott Maclean on the Democratic Party: “Their attitude is: you don’t get it and they don’t expect you to get it because they’re smarter than you – and I hate that.”

"I heard, repeatedly, a complaint about sterile individualism, about selfishness and the desire for a revalidated “us” – from John McCain’s boilerplate attack on “me-first Washington” to this curious reflection, from a mother of nine, on the field with eight of her children, on the question of whether she, like Palin, could ever imagine balancing the demands of her large family against a high-profile political career like Sarah’s.

"“My daughter asked me, ‘Mom, would you do that if you had the opportunity?,’” she recalled, as the six-year-old in question looked on. “I said ‘I don’t know. Maybe she was born to do that. Maybe that’s the sacrifice she has to make to serve her country.’”

"The daughter lifted high her hand-painted, flower-adorned Palin sign.

"“She’ll really be a big step forward for women,” the mother said.

"No, it wasn’t funny, my morning with the hockey and the soccer moms, the homeschooling moms and the book club moms, the joyful moms who brought their children to see history in the making and spun them on the lawn, dancing, when music played. It was sobering. It was serious. It was an education.

"“Palin Power” isn’t just about making hockey moms feel important. It’s not just about giving abortion rights opponents their due. It’s also, in obscure ways, about making yearnings come true — deep, inchoate desires about respect and service, hierarchy and family that have somehow been successfully projected onto the figure of this unlikely woman and have stuck.

"For those of us who can’t tap into those yearnings, it seems the Palin faithful are blind – to the contradictions between her stated positions and the truth of the policies she espouses, to the contradictions between her ideology and their interests. But Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, argues in an essay this month, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, that it’s liberals, in fact, who are dangerously blind.

"Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.

"Perhaps that’s why the conservatives can so successfully get under liberals’ skin. And why liberals need to start working harder at breaking through the empathy barrier."

* * *

(For those of you who aren't NYC-area savvy, New Jersey is considered by New Yorkers to be anything but "pretty progressive", as it was characterized by the Rep mom in this piece.

Another interesting point - I expected this to hit the "most e-mailed" list at the NYTimes, and it did not. Perhaps, perhaps... it's just too damned honest to be popular amongst the NYTimes.com's Dem-leaning audience.)

Aloha Gotham and Everyone

Look how they prosecute Anand Jon Alexander insane and electing a President is like voting for American Idol. We we point the finger we have to take responsibility for the four pointing back at us. It is about self-governing. love patty

Chris, Thanks for the tip. I noticed, the classic troll bait: "let's see if Irvine and co. can control themselves after my comments?" (Post #4)

I also noticed, he cuts and runs when he cannot defend the substance of his posts, when challenged. No mutual dialogue from people who take the time to respond sincerely to his comments (of course, I am not one among them.) He lies low for a while and then come back to provoke reactions with his usual troll remarks form his usual victims. Yogi-one is not one to fall his antics though.

As per your post #24, who would the Goopers back?

Rudy, the Mittens, Huckabee, or Grandpa Fred? I agree that McCain sees himself in her, and, even more significantly, he knows that he'll sink or swim with her. Yes, it's terrifying, but the last 8 years haven't exactly been reassuring.

Since the "elite" TM outlets aren't doing their journalistic job, I'll be glad to see pop culture do it. Between Charlie Gibson and "The View," ABC is 2/2 the past 2 days.

Irvine,

The Goopers back these morons because they've been relentlessly programmed by talk-radio and right wing press outlets to believe that Democrats and liberals are evil. So, they don't even look critically at their own candidates, they just jeer and slap at our candidates.

This hate-radio is just part of the right wing strategy to gain power through the demonization of half of the American populace. The reason they're using it is because they studied the history of Hitler and discovered that hate works.

They hate us. Did anyone notice when McCain slipped in the "Democrat" party in the first video segment? It's just one more way to denigrate the "evil, satanic liberals."

This shit has got to stop before we devolve into groups of people who attack each other on the streets.

votesmart.org

I agree with Gotham; don't underestimate the power of The View. I disagree with him on its impact though; a lot of women snapped out of Palinmania today.

And at least they've got bigger balls than the network anchors (won't mention Wolfe Blitzer cause he has none at all.)

Everything else about her aside, my instinctive and probably very shallow reaction is that I really HATE her tacky hairdo!

So there.

At this point, and as a late Obama convert, I am still expecting Obama and company to play the game of chess better than McCain and company.

McCain's selection of Palin was like a kid trying to knock over the chess board and replace it with a game of checkers.

Obama's best response, and I hope he has enough time to do it, is to calmly pick up the pieces and set the game right. This is what he's been doing so far.

Somewhere I read that McCain's answer for the dirty politics he's started to play was: if only Obama had agreed to a long round of joint town meetings with him, the McCain campaign would have played their game at a higher level. This vengeful attitude is tantamount to the negative payoff when a blackmail target doesn't give in to pressure.

I'm rooting for Obama's intelligence and instincts to stay in high gear and knock down the opposition. I have a feeling that this is his time, and it is our time. This is the time of intelligent solutions, of teamwork, of a real potential for change. That's what Obama's about.

In all the moments I've viewed of his public presence, I've seen a really really smart and quite vulnerable man, who is seizing the day for the good of others. I think how proud I'd be if we, the American public, manage to do the right thing and choose him as our leader. In itself, that one act would undo about 70% of the damage to the world perception of the US that Bush and Cheney have wrought over the past 8 years.

1. Republicans will try to win at all cost, even if it means throwing their mama under the bus...

2. They habitually nominate dummies to run for they presidency...

3. And their supporters clearly reflect that, just look at the three of them here who have not changed their views one bit in years on the insanity and idiocy that is commonplace washington...tsk...shame, shame on them...

votesmart.org

votesmart.org

votesmart.org

turn off the cheerleader contest and find some reliable info

watch full speeches not sound bites

this is one of the most important elections in history

I have never believed in elections but I was wrong. I now realize how important it is to be an educated participant in our democratic process.

from my home to my neighborhood to my local community to my country to our world

derek

I don't think McCain came off looking too bad on The View... because people don't listen to actual details or continuity of thought.

#34

Heath, yes, Joy asked him about the deceptive pig and kindergarten ads, but he went off on his, "Well, if Obama would have done town hall meetings like i wanted, the tenor of this campaign ..."

No one followed up with, "So you're saying your lies about him are some kind of payback because he hasn't agreed to town hall meetings?"

Instead, the response is, "Yes, town hall meetings are a good idea!"

Or words to that effect.

So in the end, it looks like McCain had a good idea.

I think his “Roe v Wade was a bad decision" had a real impact. The audience groaned and so did I. What hasn't come to light yet, although it's getting there, are McCain and Palin's positions against women. Planned Parenthood's ad is wonderful. It's a start. Now get Palin on record about Roe v Wade.

And I agree with heath. This campaign is like a chess game. The end game will look totally different from the middle game. The Obama campaign know their game. The republicans are good at winning elections but its not going to be any easy for the McCain campaign.

found this there

http://votesmart.org/kimball/

"It will take that political courage to move our nation forward. It is not the imagery created around them or even the words they utter that is of greatest value. It is what they have actually done with their lives that will most accurately forecast what they will do for you or to you if elected."

"Chris, Thanks for the tip. I noticed, the classic troll bait: "let's see if Irvine and co. can control themselves after my comments?" (Post #4)"

Re. 29 by Mr. Welsh

And notice WHO couldn't control himself after reading Gotham's post? And after reading some responses to HIS post? LOL!

It is so easy to find all of the complete unedited speeches from both conventions without any commentary.

Watch both conventions before you vote.
Watch both conventions before you listen to any comments on the View or any other entertainment network.

Watch, not just the speaker but more importantly the audience.

In light of all the that has happened since the DNC take the time to go back and watch. Spend some of that time watching junk TV and the real thing.

and excuse me if I'm being overly opinionated

derek

My take on Sarah Palin is that she is a hick - trailer trash with a dysfunctional family. She is also an ingnorant egomaniac who doesn't have a clue what the big leagues are really like. She has been a big fish in a tiny pond and she's starting to drown in the big ocean. Her smile cannot save her from herself.

The dumber you are, the more you think you know it all. The more informed you are, the more you realize how little you know.

Palin thinks she knows it all.

"So much is expected, so many untoward circumstances may intervene, in such a new and critical situation, that I feel an insuperable diffidence in my own abilities. I feel, in the execution of the duties of my arduous Office, how much I shall stand in need of the countenance and aid of every friend to myself, of every friend to the Revolution, and of every lover of good Government."

--George Washington

"The thought of being president frightens me. I do not think I want the job."

--Ronald Reagan

"I answered him ‘yes’ because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate."

--Sarah Palin

Spend some of that time watching junk TV and spend some time watching the real thing.

Yo
Take some of that time watching junk TV and spend some of that time to watch the real thing.

Re. heath, #34

Check this out:

Frameshop: The Winning Frame has Emerged
by Jeffrey Feldman
Thu Sep 11, 2008

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/11/10652/7987

Quote

"Sometimes, people think of framing in Presidential elections as a tug of war. We set our frame, they set theirs--whichever side pulls the hardest wins.

In fact, the more accurate metaphor is that of a chess game. Each side sets out to establish a broad, opening frame, but through a series of middle ground debates, the election ultimately arrives at an end frame--a final, compelling way to re-establish one side's opening frame, and which ultimately captures enough people's imagination to win the most votes."

john maccain is boring, boring, boring and has absolutely no fresh ideas...he and the repubs will ramp up the fear factor to scare millions of dumbasses to vote for them...again...

they will keep talking about 9/11...and imminent, imaginary attacks...they will keep talking about the same shit they have been talking about for years...

and the dems will sit on their asses and again fail to remind them how this insane, costly war has spawned more enemies, how it has taken more american lives than the terrorists took on 9/11, how it is draining billions of dollars a month to keep fighting an unwinnable war and to remind the dummies that bushman (while being fully supported by macinsane) was "prez" when 9/11 happened...while these repubs continue to exploit the emotions of 9/11 seven yrs later for political gains...

unbelievable!

Jeffrey Feldman (above, #44) writes "The video of Craig Ferguson in this diary by paddykraska is absolutely brilliant--if you only watch one YouTube video today...watch that one."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/11/11651/5961/422/594525

********

doodleman, you will like this.

(I think heath likes Ferguson's talk show.)

********

A MUST WATCH FOR EVERYONE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE

*******

Video- Craig Ferguson's Righteous Voting Rant
by paddykraska

Wed Sep 10, 2008

Just an incredibly empassioned rant from newly minted U.S. citizen Craig Ferguson that actually got me out of bed to see if the video was up yet. It is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ

There is another section after this at his desk where he rants a bit more and shows a voter registration form, explains what it takes to fill it out and says that everyone in his audience will receive one on their way out. He also chided us on the horrid percentage of citizens that turn out to "perform their duty".

Bravo.

From Wikipedia-

"On the Tuesday, January 22, 2008, airing of The Late Late Show, Ferguson announced that he was scheduled to take his citizenship test in Los Angeles on Friday, January 25, 2008. The next Monday he announced that he received a perfect score, with footage of this shown as proof. Aware of the cameras, Ferguson gave tongue-in-cheek answers to some questions: for example, in response to a request to name the writer of The Star-Spangled Banner, he replied "Francis Scott Key... and Puff Daddy".

Ferguson became an American citizen on February 1, 2008.[22] Clips from his citizenship ceremony were aired the following week during Monday night's airing of The Late Late Show on February 4, 2008."

The second half of the rant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1good-Ifdg

The new meme has emerged:

JOHN MCCAIN IS A LIAR.

-------

McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions (New York Times)

Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions...

***

McCain Wrong on Palin Earmarks (Los Angeles Times)

NEW YORK -- John McCain got it wrong Friday when he asserted that his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, had not requested any earmarks, the spending directives lawmakers insert in spending bills that McCain has vowed to eliminate.

Palin, in fact, requested $198 million in federal earmarks in February, including such expenses as $487,000 to fight obesity in Alaska and $4 million to develop recreational trails.

***

McCain Lambasted for Inaccuracies (Seattle Times)

Sen. John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Sen. Barack Obama's record and positions.

Obama also has been accused of distortions, but McCain is under fire for two headline-grabbing attacks. First, the McCain campaign twisted Obama's words to suggest he had compared GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin to a pig after Obama questioned McCain's claim to be a change agent by saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig." (McCain has used the same expression to describe Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health plan.)

He then falsely claimed that Obama supported "comprehensive sex ed" for kindergartners. (Obama supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults.)

***

Palin, McCain Contradict Each Other on Spending (San Francisco Chronicle)

In a televised interview Friday, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin defended her request for an estimated $200 million in federal projects from Congress - even as earlier in the day her GOP running mate John McCain insisted Palin had never sought money from Congress.

***

McCain Wraps Distortions Around One Truth (Washington Post)

THE AD

He was the world's biggest celebrity, but his star's fading. So they lashed out at Sarah Palin. Dismissed her as "good-looking." That backfired, so they said she was doing "what she was told." Then desperately called Sarah Palin a liar. How disrespectful. And how Governor Sarah Palin proves them wrong, every day.

ANALYSIS

This John McCain commercial, which contains two significant distortions, is part of a larger effort to rule criticism of his running mate out of bounds and to paint her as the victim of unfair attacks from both Democrats and the media.

***

Palin Reviews Are In, and Gibson Got a... (New York Times)

After taking in some of Charles Gibson’s interviews with the Republican vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, Paul Begala sounded ready to cast his vote.

"I thought one person on my television screen looked ready to assume the presidency," Mr. Begala, the CNN commentator, said by telephone on Friday. "It wasn’t Governor Palin."

***

Fact Check: McCain on Palin and Earmarks (Dallas Morning News)

For more on John McCain's incorrect claim that Sarah Palin has sought no earmarks as governor, click here. The Associated Press reports that Ms. Palin "asked for nearly $200 million in targeted spending for the 2009 fiscal year."

Along the same lines, McClatchy declares a new Republican ad "out of bounds" for its claim that Ms. Palin "vetoed nearly half a billion dollars in wasteful spending and cut earmark requests by hundreds of millions of dollars." While technically true, McClatchy says, the ad takes the remark out of context enough that its meaning is distorted.

---------

Palin admits to being earmark abuser.

From the Gibson interview:

"GIBSON: Governor, this year, requested $3.2 million for researching the genetics of harbor seals, money to study the mating habits of crabs. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that John McCain is objecting to?

PALIN: Those requests, through our research divisions and fish and game and our wildlife departments and our universities, those research requests did come through that system, but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar. That's the abuse that we're going to stop. That's what John McCain has promised over and over for these years and that's what I'm joining him, also, saying, you're right, the abuse of earmarks, it's un-American, it's undemocratic, and it's not going to be accepted in a McCain-Palin administration. Earmark abuse will stop.

The abuse that they are going to stop is the earmarks that she, herself, requested this year? It's nice of her to admit to being a pork abuser, like McCain admitting Thursday night that he's out of touch. But I suspect this wasn't part of their game plan.

Of course, that's what McCain gets for putting the nation's biggest pork abuser on a ticket campaigning on stopping such abuse. And Gibson didn't tiptoe around the issue:

GIBSON: But you turned against [the Bridge to Nowhere] after Congress had basically pulled the plug on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your remarks.

PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form -- earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that's what John McCain has fought. And that's what I joined him in fighting. It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment.

GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time...

[...]

GIBSON: The state of Alaska, under OMB figures in 2008, got $155 million in earmarks for a population of 670,000. That's $231 per person in Alaska. The state of Illinois, Obama's state, got $22 per person. You got ten times per person as much. How does that square with your reforms?

PALIN: We have drastically, drastically reduced our earmark request since I came into office.

GIBSON: But you still have multiple of any other state.

PALIN: We sure are -- and this is what -- you go out and you ask any Alaskan this. This is what I've been telling Alaskans for these years that I've been in office, is no more."

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5789483

Incoherent. I can't believe the GOP dug up someone that makes George Bush look like a genius.

The McCain campaign just can't help itself:

"Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Senator John McCain has drawn some of the biggest crowds of his presidential campaign since adding Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to his ticket on Aug. 29. Now officials say they can't substantiate the figures McCain's aides are claiming. [...]

In recent days, journalists attending the rallies have been raising questions about the crowd estimates with the campaign. In a story on Sept. 11 about Palin's attraction for some Virginia women voters, Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher estimated the crowd to be 8,000, not the 23,000 cited by the campaign."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics

The McCain campaign cited a fire marshal as the source of the "23,000" figure. But the fire marshal "said his office did not supply that number to the campaign and could not confirm it."

And according to the article, in another incident, the McCain camp claimed "10,000" people showed up for Palin's first public appearance, citing the Secret Service as the source for that figure. But, as the article notes, the Secret Service never gave any information like that to the McCain Campaign.

In lying to make Palin look like a "celebrity" (because being a "celebrity" is ok if you're a Republican), the McCain campaign just adds to its growing credibility problem, raising the question again and again--is there anything that John McCain's campaign won't lie about to win this election?

Yo Scott
Comedians are in a unique position to say what people really feel.
They are usually very intelligent and not beholding to political correctness.
They are a better representation of the people.

Fake news has become the place to get the real news.
Though somewhere in the middle is Keith Olbermann.
His special comments are priceless and courageous. You can find all of them for free on you tube.

The people have a voice now like never before.

iftheworldcouldvote.com
thomasjefferson.org

derek

Feldman's analysis is absolutely outstanding, Tiger. Thanks for sharing it here. I hope it plays out the way he sees it.

IMHO re Craig Ferguson, there's nobody better on at night. I'm so responsive to his particular intelligent, fiery wit that hearing no more than a half-word from him makes me crack up.

hello Gotham and Everyone,

Gotham writes, "To that extent, a lot of times when I see the likes of the ladies listed above indulging in their rants, I wonder what they are thinking. Do they really believe they are influencing voters in a positive way or is their own narcissism getting in the way of their intentions and having the opposite effect"

First, I would have to respond that the voters in this Nation have been exposed to indulgent rants by republicans, men and women, alike, on tv shows, in the press and on talk radio for over seven years and I think it is much more a way of being for the republicans, in fact, I would go so far as to call it an arm of their business/political strategy, than a response to a liberal's point of view or even liberalism.

The ladies you mention above and others not mentioned are doing the best they can to respond to what they perceive as another possible victory for the repulican's, especially, after Palin's entrance into the arena and their Candidate's vague response to the change in the race for the Presidency.

Second, indulgent rants by republicans have obviously worked, for their Candidates.

As far as throwing out the "narcissistic" dart I have to chuckle on that....who isn't narcissistic, for the most part, when offering their beloved points of view or opinions whether in the form of rants or not......really, I do not think I have read a comment or blog on this site that is without a good share of narcissism thrown in.

oh, and just wanted to mention that last night also on PBS, Bill Moyers show, they were discussing the "right's talk radio shows and their host celebraties" and how they talk about liberal, liberalism and the left....an interesting example was when they compared a certain radio host referring to liberals as cockroaches and then they talked about how in Rawanda before the great massacres, talk radio played a huge part in working up and instigating the hate between the two tribes of peoples.....even referring to the victims of the massacres as cockroaches.....

I was somewhat busy with other things and I just caught snippets of the show...but what I did catch was incredibly interesting and disconcerting as to how much the right gets away with trashing liberal, liberalism, and the left while at the same time accusing the medias of bias.....theirs is a very professional strategy, a very committed business in the use of mental and vocal trashing...it has been winning them race after race through a public that seems to be only willing to agree with their point of view.

I think it would do well for the left, the liberals, whatever to focus on the real danger and that is how the republican's spin propaganda to their advantage, and how they use it to successfully divide Americans on the left and right and how unity of the sides is not something in their playbook, it is not advantageous to their interests as a political party who desirs complete executive powers for themselves. Their political machine is polished, runs smoothly and has delivered them two elections....a few "narcissistic rants" by a few frutstrated liberal lady's, not gents, of course, doesn't mean much in their scheme of things...

ponderings, ruth

There is evidence that the media is liberal because they demonstrate collectively, individual exceptions noted and held in high regard, an ignorance regarding business. They tend to repeat what they are told but do not posses an innate understanding which is required for discerning news reporting this applies not just to business but also science and health. I would hope to see an increase in the number of exceptions and the Divine supports those that Become One.

Take for example the price gouging surrounding gasoline related to the hurricane. They are asking if that is what it is and the answer is obvious if you understand the math and supply chains.

Evidence of Price Gouging

Having understanding of how business actually works one would know that their current inventory has already been paid for and the cost known. Any increase in price for that inventory would be an increase in the profit margin and resulting profit. It is that simple any one can do the math. Sale price - cost equals = profit.

There would be no need to increase the price until the new inventory was actually delivered at a higher cost. The notion that the future inventory is going to cost more would be pure speculation.

Now there is one remote argument that can be used but we can disqualify it. It may be said that they need to purchase new inventory at a higher cost and since they are counting pennies in their cash account they need to get some extra money to make the purchase. This future higher cost is still based on speculation and even if a higher price is paid for the new inventory the old inventory will still have achieved a higher profit margin and a greater profit as a result of the increased price it is sold for. So the reality is that a greater profit is made from the false perception being created. The other reality is that many businesses have a credit line that they can use to purchase inventory so they would not need to actually increase the sale price to make the inventory purchase. The one last argument that they might try to use is that they are increasing the price to cover the cost of interest on the additional money they would need to borrow to buy the new inventory. But this would be minimal, and already included in the cost of doing business and be reflected in the standard markup on their products.

Any enlightened business person knows that borrowing money for cash flow and paying interest on it decreases profit, and increases the cost of goods to the consumer. A sure sign of reduced product quality and inefficient operation is a company with a heavy debt burden. Borrowing money is not a good thing. In fact large corporations that don’t really need to borrow money do so because it is a way for the executives and management to divert or steal real profit away from the shareholders by converting it interest into an expense on the books, then reaping the rewards from their shares in the bank which shows the interest as a profit.

I would also point out that gas stations only make a few cents per gallon, and that it is the oil companies that rake it in by creating false perception and hiding reality.

There are other fictions regarding oil to explore later.

dear Richard

Media people were drawn to literary careers. Business people were drawn to business careers. It's no more a surprise that media people are generally ignorant about business than it is that most business people know little or nothing about writing and reporting. There are conservative media people, as well as liberal media people.

love, h

No worries Derek, you a very passionate.

Hey Ruth, have you read the Daily Kos lately or the Huffinton? Air America? NY Times? MSNB with Obermann? A fair amount of conservative trashing going on and hey let's include a few from IB :)

"Mr. Welsh, Tipper, doodleman, ruth et al.... it would be better served if you ignore the baits for your reactions from trolls seeking attention"

Without mentioned my name, I believe I'm the troll in question. Sorry, I was out enjoying the day, not tied to the internet. I had more time in the past to do some more battonage, but I just have the time, so the troll will pick and choose his responses.

I noticed Chris that you just can't help but make another cheap shot after your post #25,

LOL

Just for that here's a little Krauthammer on why Charlie Gibson whose last name should be Glibson:

Charlie Gibson's Gaffee
by Charles Krauthammer

"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of `anticipatory self-defense.'" -- New York Times, Sept. 12

WASHINGTON -- Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden ... to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about Bush's grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage."

I can't guarrantee that I will be posting later, you never know what the sneaky troll will do next, when you least expect it.

Scott, Chris, Tipper and many others (including yours truly,) copy and paste often but also have demonstrated an ability think independently.

But one person here (mentioning his name would be feeding a troll, but you know who) doesn't fall into that category. As mentioned, by Chris, he cannot respond to the substance of criticism, but only makes another cut and runs, only to come back again and repeat the pattern.

One last commentary on the Palin-Gibson interview before--this one based on a conservative commentator--I return to bashing John McCain for being a dishonorable liar.

I'm struck by the CONSERVATIVE divide over the Palin pick; specifically, how the analysis has laid bare the disagreement between intellectually honest conservatives [a very small minority] and the right-wing, religious ideologues.

From the somewhat more intellectually honest conservatives, a new meme is hardening on Sarah Palin, post-Gibson interview: she is fundamentally unprepared to be Vice-President.

Reading Ross Douthat this morning, the young-ish conservative author of "Grand New Party", I was struck by the unflattering comparisons of Sarah Palin to Dubya. In fact, the title of his last two blog articles at The Atlantic are:

"Channelling Dubya"

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/channeling_dubya.php

& "Sarah, the Unready".

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/sarah_the_unready.php

Douthat writes:

"She seemed about an inch deep on every issue outside her comfort zone.

There's no way to look at her performance as anything save supporting evidence for the non-hysterical critique of her candidacy - that it's just too much, too soon - and a splash of cold water for those of us with high hopes for her future on the national stage."

If the McCain campaign wants to promote the myth that the media is out to destroy Sarah Palin, just throw the Republicans own words back at them. To continue the commentary on the conservative take on Plain Interview, from the blog "The Next Right", Kristen Soltis writes, in reference to Sarah Palin regurgitation of talking points:

"There were oh so many times when I could practically envision the talking points. "We shouldn't second guess Israel. No matter what, they are our ally. We don't second guess Israel." And so it went. "We can't second guess Israel, Charlie."

Whether that's the correct policy or not what I'm debating. What matters is that it didn't seem like it was really her opinion. I can't see inside the mind of Sarah Palin, so I have no place saying if it is ACTUALLY her opinion or not. But the feel of it? It didn't feel genuine. It felt like a repeated talking point. It felt "done".

And if you're going to try not to sound political, of all the things you can't afford to do, it's sound like Bush. Remember - he was the candidate of cowboy authenticity, shoot-em-straightness, of "lets do this thing, lets get them terrorists". No doubt Palin has been prepped by Steve Schmidt (Rove's protege), Nicolle Wallace (former Bush staffer). So maybe that's why I'm so sensitive to Bush-sounding language."

http://www.thenextright.com/kristen-soltis/wheres-sarah-the-palin-interview-night-one

But, what else should we expect from the 'shoot first, ask questions later' crowd?

And it's not just the regurgitation of tough sounding talking points and the use of forceful language to answer questions that called for nuance, it's the almost complete and utter lack of intellectual curiosity about events that occur outside her little provincial fiefdom.

Ignorance of key issues plus a lack of intellectual curiosity plus a desire to seem decisive and tough equals to a redo of George W. Bush.

Even Rich Lowrey, writing at The National Review Online [heck--that's about one step removed from Hannity] stated:

"The foreign-policy session was a white-knuckle affair. She barely got through it and showed no knowledge more than an inch deep."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2VlNThlZGMzMDBiY2M2OTZhYmExMDQ1OWY5ZTgxNDA=

I mean, when even the National Review can't hold the line . . . it should be over.

However, I think conservative writer David Frum summed it up best yesterday on the National Review Online, comparing Palin to Dubya:

'A president does not need to know everything. In fact, it's certainly impossible for him (or her) to know everything that he might possibly need to know. That's what the White House staff - and beyond them the whole vast apparatus of the US government - is for. Collectively, the US government knows a lot. And all of that knowledge is at the service and disposal of the president. All the president has to do is - is ask.

But that's not as easy as it sounds.

Somebody who knew President Bush well once remarked to me. "You'll notice he never asks questions."

"Why not?" I said.

"Because he doesn't know what it's okay for him not to know." '

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmRkN2QwYjMxMmI1NjY2OGFhOThjZTdjOGEzYWJiNTY=

As has been demonstrated over and over and over again, John McCain is a liar. So, how does his campaign respond when questioned about these lies?

"A McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said the campaign had evidence for all its claims. "We stand fully by everything that’s in our ads," Mr. Rogers said, "and everything that we’ve been saying we provide detailed backup for — everything. And if you and the Obama campaign want to disagree, that’s your call."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

No, facts are not a "call," that's why they are called facts. And the facts say that John McCain is a liar.

Hey Gotham,

You have made a constant theme that McCain is old. Has it bothered you that Indian Prime Minsters have usually not been spring chickens?

Current PM Singh-75
Vaigpayee-was in his late 70's when he was PM
Gujral-81
Rao-late 70's
Gowda- a young 64
Moraj Desai 81

The last two have been pretty effective PM's Gotham, age doesn't seem to be a barrier.

You also say that Obama has tremendous leadership abilities. Tremendous?

How has that been expressed? A tremendous leader doesn't come to mind, I see someone with tremendous ambition, that would be fair to say, but where is the evidence? When someone votes "present" over a 100 times in the state senate, would you conclude, now their is someone who can take charge of this country.

I see someone who could possibly run a govt. service program, to me that's about it.

Steve

Ambasteve #62

"You have made a constant theme that McCain is old. Has it bothered you that Indian Prime Minsters have usually not been spring chickens?"

Bad analogy.

McCain is doing good as a senator at his age, Tedd Kennedy is a goos example too. The Indian PM is a legislative post like a senator. The Prime Minister of India doesn't have EXECUTIVE powers like the President of the United States. People don't elect their Prime Minister. India has House and Senate elections, and have not (presidential) Prime Minister elections. Indian PM is essentially the position of the Senate Majority Leader in the US, like Harry Reid who is not young either.

The PM of India, can be easily replaced by the Parliament (Senate) with consensus of the party in power. There is no Vice Prime Minister like the VP in the Indian system, in our case Palin who would take over if something unfortunate happens.

Moreover, it is the age of McCain's ideas that are antic.

#62 Ambasteve.

"When someone votes "present" over a 100 times in the state senate, would you conclude, now their is someone who can take charge of this country."

No, one can't "conclude" that Obama is a great leader from that information. But apparently, the poster of that comment CONCLUDED that Obama "can't take control of the country" based on a misleading talking point.

When one can't care to know the details and facts behind distortions, talking points and rhetoric and plain lies, we have these intolerant views from people towards those who have a different point of view than their that makes him insecure and fixated.

PS: Ref. 63. I mean "antique"

The PM heads and appoints the Council of Ministers, basically leads the functioning of the Govt. In India, during the election cycle it's pretty clear who the PM will be and it's direction. For instance Vajpayee and his close associates formed a new BJP party, which was very conservative and very different from the same ol' Congress party. They won and was probably the first right wing party in India and also paved the way that Rao sort of started into the current economic boom. Singh's Congress party returned to power and instead of continuing it's old provencial ways, realized that it was a good thing to continue the economic progess that started to take off in the late 90's.

So a PM , yes an older PM can effect great change in India.

You remember Indira Gandhi? She was no wall flower.

More McCain lies, this one on taxes that's being reported in the traditional media. The AP comments on Alan Greenspan's dim view of McCain's judgment when it comes to taxes.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD9361PJO0

After lying about earmarks, lobbyists within his campaign, Palin's qualifications to be a heartbeat away from a 72 year old man and the vetting process that got us there, why would anyone believe anything this campaign says?

And when it comes to fiscal matters, it's absurd--McCain earlier in the GOP primaries--to suggest that reading Greenspan's book is a substitute for sound policy in the first place, and doubly absurd to assume McCain actually read it (Greenspan didn't see any signs he did.)

AP: Greenspan: Country Can't Afford McCain's Tax Cuts

******************
"Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain — at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending.

"Unless we cut spending, no," the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion.

"I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money," Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. "I always have tied tax cuts to spending."

McCain has said that he would offset his proposed cuts—-including reducing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that has plagued middle-class families—-by ending congressional pork-barrel spending, unnecessary government programs and overhauling entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

Democrats pounced on Greenspan's comments, in part because McCain professed last year that he was weaker on economics than foreign affairs and was reading Greenspan's memoir, "The Age of Turbulence," to educate himself.

"Obviously he needs to go back to that book and study it some more," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said during a conference call arranged by the campaign of Democratic nominee Barack Obama."
*******************

We know McCain doesn't know squat about the economy, and we know, along with lying about everything else he slams Obama for, McCain is lying about Obama's position on taxes:

********
"On the stump, Obama focused on his tax plan, which offers sizable breaks to middle-income families, while raising taxes on families earning more than $250,000. He said McCain has been "simply dishonest" about that plan, asserting repeatedly that an Obama administration would raise everyone’s taxes.

"I will make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax," Obama said.

And he slammed McCain’s proposal to tax the value of employer-based health-care plans as income and use that to help finance tax credits to buy health insurance. The senator from Illinois called that "a $3.6 trillion tax increase" on working families."
*********

It's been said that McCain is willing to lose his integrity to win an election. Well, whatever happens with the election, McCain has already lost his integrity. The facts make that abundantly clear. And amongst those hard facts is the one that says McCain doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to taxes. But don't worry... McCain will lie about that, too.

"In India, during the election cycle it's pretty clear who the PM will be..." #65

Dude, your understanding of Indian Politics is very thin, not surprisingly.

Apparently, no one in India guessed that the current PM, Manmohan Singh would be their PM.

Ref. #67

How about the Senate Votes THIS year?

John McCain missed ALL of them. Even the crucial ones, that hang on laser thin margins, where EVERYONE votes including Tedd Kennedy who came from his hospital bed to vote.

Obama voted on all the crucial votes this year and the last.

McCain essentially took a holiday from all Senate work and shrugged away from votes that would have exposed his embracing on Bush.

He voted with Bush 95% of the time before he began his campaign.

From Wiki, to quote:

An alliance led by the Congress Party won a surprisingly high number of seats in the Parliamentary elections of 2004. The Left Front decided to support a coalition government led by the Congress Party from the outside. Sonia Gandhi was elected leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party and was expected to become the Prime Minister. In a surprise move, she declined to accept the post and instead nominated Dr. Singh."

The key words: " was expected to become the PM", but declined and nominated Singh.

So Obama missed 43% of the Senate Votes, again is that the hallmark of tremendous leadership?

Typo: EVERYONE *voted* including Tedd Kennedy...

McCain was the only one who missed the vote in that instance.

Obama has voted 95 percent of the time with the liberal Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, yes Mr. 9% approval rating, lower than Bush's approval. In fact the Senator with the highest liberal voting record. If you like that voting record, please vote for more of the same.

Ted not Tedd

"So Obama missed 43% of the Senate Votes, again is that the hallmark of tremendous leadership?"

Is that what you infer? Great.

That's a straw man argument.

"In fact the Senator with the highest liberal voting record. "

Like according to National Journal?

"If you like that voting record, please vote for more of the same."

Sure, lets see how many of those bills were not vetoed by Bush, or filibustered by Republicans in the House and the Senate.

Whne you talk about Congressional approval rating, you are not talking about Democarts alone. Remmember Republicans are part of it, and they are not in a filibuster proof minority, yet. A Demcoartic senate majority of 50+1 is nothing with Bush and the current GOP numbers.

Irvine, don't waste your energy with the pinheads who make ridiculous arguments.

OK he is the most liberal Senator who votes a little more than half the time, so can the straw man conclude that he will indeed implement his 1/2 trillion dollar government expansion. And at the same time make Government cool again? Bring in a little jazz music and sip Absenthe perhaps?

Night all, Irvine you get the last words

Preity, the Stupid, it burns! Wow, these people can "conclude" anything from anything.

When someone expresses a opinion, isn't it easy to presume that he/she is drawing conclusions from a data mentioned by soemone or by just mentioning them in our own terms, and (mis)interpreting the data if possible as if those arguments are made the person whom you are criticizing in the first place?

Thanks.

Re. 78

"Night all, Irvine you get the last words" --Ambasteve

Dude, I have no interest in having a "conversation" with you. I am sure you enjoyed a little attention from me, and perhaps from Gotham too. Don't expect that to happen again. Although, you can keep dreaming about it. Your exchanges -- in the past -- with sincere folks show the depth of your lack of sincerity OR the lack of your ability to participate in a constructive dialogue.

I guess you can't help yourself. Next time, you can possibly expect some insults and put-downs that are worthy of your arguments, even if you try to pre-empt such inevitabilities like with your Post #4.

Let's see whether the "pinheads" like Ambasteve can follow the "conclusions" I draw below.

Let's talk about Palin's latest lie on Energy.

When pressed to come up with any experience on issues of national security that Sarah Palin had, McCain had a one word answer:

"INTERVIEWER: Again, I'm just asking you for an example, what experience does she have in the field of national security?

McCAIN: Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/mccain-thinks-palin-knows_b_125830.html

And leaving aside the question of exactly how that translates into national security experience, let's look at Palin showing off that expertise during her recent interview with Charlie Gibson:

"Palin: Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States."

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5782924

And while facts don't mean anything to the McCain campaign, factcheck.org says that Sarah Palin is wrong:

"Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html

There are a number of conclusions one can draw here, so take your pick:

Sarah Palin doesn't know very much about energy,

John McCain doesn't know much about Sarah Palin,

John McCain and Sarah Palin are both liars, and another claim of Palin's readiness for office goes down the drain.

And for the record, the correct conclusion is, "all of the above."

“Your exchanges -- in the past -- with sincere folks show the depth of your lack of sincerity OR the lack of your ability to participate in a constructive dialogue”.

Well said Mr. Welsh.

The sad thing is though, there is a good chance that many more voters appear to lack a sincere desire for a constructive dialogue. That combined with an unhealthy amount of gullibility and a poorly educated general public may just be enough to make this a horse race.

Can you imagine, after eight years someone belonging to the shrinking middleclass wanting more of the same.

What’s wrong with these people?

Matt Stoller: Palin: "Everybody's Got Burdens" But Not Everyone Has Their Own Mansion and Seaplane

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2854057160_8d0885fae9_o.jpg

My brother pointed out that in Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson, she empathizes with the American people by saying 'Everybody's got issues, everybody's got burdens' while standing in front of the mansion she and her husband built two years ago and her own seaplane. And it's worth noting that she has not released her tax records, though to be fair, my guess is that Palin does remember how many houses she has.

Ah, being a member of the political elite has its rewards.

Your own private seaplane? $150k.

Mansion on a private lake? Who knows?

Being able to bill your government for a travel allowance while staying at your mansion? $16,951.

Letting your family and husband who is under investigation by the state for abuse of power, charge the state for travel as well? $43,490

Covering up your own corruption and greed with lies about Barack Obama? Priceless.

Paul Rosenberg: Shorter Sarah Palin

Charlie Gibson Interview:

__________________________________________________
Sarah Palin on Reform:

GIBSON: Didn't George Bush come to Washington eight years ago talking about reforming Washington in the same kind of language? Ran as something of a maverick actually; came to Washington. Eight years, hasn't changed the ethos in Washington particularly. Why are you any different?

PALIN: Well, we're promising the reform. And we are mavericks. There's no doubt in anybody's mind now across America, who's paying attention to the presidential race here, that I am a Washington outsider. I mean, look at where you are. I'm a Washington outsider. I do not have those allegiances to the power brokers, to the lobbyists. We need someone like that in Washington, someone committed to the American people and implementing their will, not the power brokers' will.
__________________________________________________

Shorter:

___________________
GIBSON: How are your lies different from George Bush's?

PALIN: To be honest, they're not. But who's honest?
___________________

A very, very effective video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHABGmgo5Ng

Could be a good ad.

About:

"For all those thinking Mccain will change America, you are sadly mistaken, because he sounds like Bush in 2000 and sounds like Bush in 2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008.

Mccain may be older war vet, and will have a new staff but that doesn't change his views which are fundamentally the same as Bush."

Watch the video.

HuffPo has a big headline:

PAGE 1 NY TIMES

PALIN'S RECORD AS MAYOR OF WASILLA AND 2 YEARS AS GOVERNOR

Personal Vendettas... Censorship... Cronyism...
Secrecy And Lying...

Here's the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin.

It's as devastating an account of cronyism, incompetence, vindictiveness and corruption as is likely to be compiled about this fraud from Alaska. It couldn't be clearer: she'll be another Cheney if she get's elected as Vice President. She'll treat the office as a means of harassing public servants who won't do her dirty work. She'll appoint incompetent cronies who will fail in their duties, just as certainly as Bush appointed "Heckuva job Brownie" to head FEMA.

Here are some choice quotes:

"Ms. Palin walks the national stage as a small-town foe of "good old boy" politics and a champion of ethics reform. The charismatic 44-year-old governor draws enthusiastic audiences and high approval ratings. And as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, she points to her management experience while deriding her Democratic rivals, Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as speechmakers who never have run anything.

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents "haters" — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image."

The Times interviewed more than 60 Alaskans who've encountered the so-called Barracuda, the tales were not pretty:

"Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials."

Does this following passage remind you of anyone?:

"Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records."

Palin = Cheney. Read the Times article and see if you disagree.

#82

Skep, Only In America!

Hope you guys annex Alaska! (If not their neighborhood Russians.) Or before Secessionist Sarah declares Independence of the essentially "welfare state"(under the earmark queen) from the United States.

Ticking off the daze!

Irvine, the dimwit (who looks like he is doing Google/Wikipedia 101 lessons) doesn't know/understand the fact that Sonia Gandhi is the most powerful politician in India, everyone in India knows that. (You can even take the word of the Chinese, on that, for that matter!) Indian leadership derives its power from the party. And the ruling coalition headed by the Congress party is controlled by Sonia Gandhi.

Well of course, her late mother-in-law Indira Gandhi abused her office and that of the President, declared Marshal Law and did a lot of nasty things. And because of that traumatic experience of the nation, there were more checks and balances placed on the powers of a single person whether its the Prime Minister or the President of India.

amber is getting bashed pretty "good" by the feller with multiple aliases...

in a way...he very much deserves it...he's has demonstrated a clear and stubborn unwillingness to be objective at anytime and to honestly criticize the nutbar in washington (who has brought so much shame to america) with his insane and destructive obsession with that bottomless pit that is iraq...

Check this out from the Christian Science Monitor!

Jerry Lanson writes in the CS Monitor "Only a vigilant media can keep Machiavellian calculations of contemporary campaigns from fooling enough people enough of the time to make such deceit the deciding factor in our elections."

DON'T BE SWEPT AWAY BY HYPE IN THE PALIN CAMPAIGN
The media's job is to unearth facts, not repeat myths.

By Jerry Lanson

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0910/p09s01-coop.html

Let's see what the "pundits" are saying today.

Frank Rich:

"The question today: What kind of president would Sarah Palin be?

It’s an urgent matter, because if we’ve learned anything from the G.O.P. convention and its aftermath, it’s that the 2008 edition of John McCain is too weak to serve as America’s chief executive. This unmentionable truth, more than race, is now the real elephant in the room of this election."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html

***

Maureen Dowd:

"I’ve been in Alaska only a week, but I’m already feeling ever so much smarter about Russia."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14dowd.html

***

Thomas Friedman:

"Imagine for a minute that attending the Republican convention in St. Paul, sitting in a skybox overlooking the convention floor, were observers from Russia, Iran and Venezuela. And imagine for a minute what these observers would have been doing when Rudy Giuliani led the delegates in a chant of "drill, baby, drill!"

They'd weep for joy about how stupid Republicans are. And they'd be right."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html

***

David Ignatius:

"In May 2006, after McCain had courted the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an effort to win conservative support, I asked him if he was bending his principles for the sake of winning. "I don't want it that badly," McCain answered. "I will continue to do what is right. . . . If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil."

He was right."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202594.html

Hi Steve,

This is for your :)

Stopping At Nothing To Win

By David Ignatius
Sunday, September 14, 2008; Page B07

In the military culture that shaped John McCain, there is no more important responsibility than the promotion boards that select the right officers for top positions of command. It's a sacred trust in McCain's world, because people's lives are at stake.

McCain wrote in his memoir of the officer's responsibility for those who serve under him: "He does not risk their lives and welfare for his sake, but only to answer the shared duty they are called to answer."

McCain made the most important command decision of his life when he chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee. Two weeks later, it is still puzzling that he selected a person who, for all her admirable qualities, is not prepared by experience or interest to be commander in chief. No promotion board in history would have made such a decision.

Because of Palin's dynamism and political appeal, she's being hailed as an "inspired choice," to use President Bush's words. And she certainly has energized the Republican ticket: The polls show it, as do the enthusiastic crowds. And if a politician's primary responsibility is to get elected, this may indeed have been a sublime choice. But was it the right one? And what does it tell us about McCain?

McCain is 72, and he has had a serious bout with a virulent form of cancer. Thus, he had a special responsibility to pick a running mate who could be, in effect, a deputy commander -- someone who could take over for him if his health should fail. The country is at war, as McCain so often reminds us, and he was picking someone who might be responsible for the security of the nation.

McCain's appeal is that he presents himself as a man of principle -- a person who will do the right thing, even if it is politically costly. He did that in championing the troop surge in Iraq, and he has taken courageous stands in the Senate for years. He defied his party on issues he believed in -- from ethics reform to climate change to torture.

But John McCain also likes to win. And he has an impulsive streak, sometimes bordering on recklessness, which is described by many of his friends and by McCain himself in his memoir, "Faith of My Fathers." The desire to win, and the impulsiveness, converged in his decision to pick Palin -- a bold move that has allowed McCain to regain his maverick identity.

Palin is an immensely engaging political personality. But that doesn't make her a suitable commander in chief for a nation at war. She has almost no knowledge or experience of foreign affairs; no military leader would entrust command to someone so inexperienced or unprepared. Her performance in her first major interview did little to allay concerns. In speaking about Russia, for example, she was much sharper in tone than the Bush administration has been.

Barack Obama faces a similar question, but he has been in the national spotlight for four years and has traveled, studied, prepared -- and chose in Joe Biden a running mate who is one of the Senate's real experts on foreign policy. The country will watch Palin's performance in interviews and the debate with Biden, but right now she seems a genuinely risky bet.

Thinking about the Palin choice, you begin to ponder other moves McCain has made on the road to winning the Republican nomination. McCain was right a few years ago to warn that Bush's tax cuts would have potentially ruinous fiscal consequences; now he favors extending the cuts that have produced a crisis of debt and deficit. Why did he switch his position, other than political opportunism?

McCain even seems to have forgotten what saved his greatest legislative achievement, which is campaign finance reform. When he was asked during the Saddleback Church debate which Supreme Court justices he would not have nominated, he named Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. It happens that those are four of the five justices who voted in 2003 to uphold the McCain-Feingold law.

In May 2006, after McCain had courted the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an effort to win conservative support, I asked him if he was bending his principles for the sake of winning. "I don't want it that badly," McCain answered. "I will continue to do what is right. . . . If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil."

He was right.

Steve, I think this says all that needs to be said about John McCain and his choice of Palin and what it means to our Nation, and as you can see it is not anything to be proud of.

btw....have the republicans also named the washingtonpost as a liberal rant page because clearly they have many right wingers commenting in their paper.

Morning Steve,

I do not know how any concerned American can argue with what David Ignatius has layed out in his piece, he seems to have covered the Palin choice from corner to corner.

What more can be said. Either the American people have already gotten used to her and accept her as a possible President if something happens to McCain, if elected or they are seriously wondering what the heck the man was thinking while choosing this attractive but completely unqualified intern of a political candidate.

another twist is that they are getting bad feedback and they might withdraw her...that is still a possibility...

but the Novemer 4th election is right around the corner and I feel myself winding down from this race, getting myself ready to accept the outcome for better or for worse....your choice is worse for me, Steve, mine is better for us both...for sure :)) you just haven't realized that possibility yet :))

oh, well....I am hoping that we vote for the interests of all Americans on November 4th by electing Barak Obama....

well, gotta run.....oh, have I ever told you all about my foreign intelligence expertise? Probably not....not one to brag....but if I take the bus or drive about 40 minutes from my home and stand on the beach I can look across and see...well, I can't actually see it, but I know it is there...Canada! yes, it is right across the Lake...a hop, skip and a ferry boat away...and even though I do not have a gun....I have been keeping an eye on them making sure they are not up to any "funny stuff." Don't worry my fellow American's....ruth has got your back....

bye all ruth....

Morning Steve,

I do not know how any concerned American can argue with what David Ignatius has layed out in his piece, he seems to have covered the Palin choice from corner to corner.

What more can be said. Either the American people have already gotten used to her and accept her as a possible President if something happens to McCain, if elected or they are seriously wondering what the heck the man was thinking while choosing this attractive but completely unqualified intern of a political candidate.

another twist is that they are getting bad feedback and they might withdraw her...that is still a possibility...

but the Novemer 4th election is right around the corner and I feel myself winding down from this race, getting myself ready to accept the outcome for better or for worse....your choice is worse for me, Steve, mine is better for us both...for sure :)) you just haven't realized that possibility yet :))

oh, well....I am hoping that we vote for the interests of all Americans on November 4th by electing Barak Obama....

well, gotta run.....oh, have I ever told you all about my foreign intelligence expertise? Probably not....not one to brag....but if I take the bus or drive about 40 minutes from my home and stand on the beach I can look across and see...well, I can't actually see it, but I know it is there...Canada! yes, it is right across the Lake...a hop, skip and a ferry boat away...and even though I do not have a gun....I have been keeping an eye on them making sure they are not up to any "funny stuff." Don't worry my fellow American's....ruth has got your back....

bye all ruth....

didn't mean to double post...sorry ruth

I.A.,

I think Ignatius, given the voice he has, is someone whose words carry great weight.

Ignatius and others are starting to realize that this nonsense can't go unanswered. Thanks for the comment!

Friedman writes in the NY Times:

"the same guy, who would not sell his soul to win his party’s nomination, is ready to sell every piece of his soul to win the presidency"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html

I.A.,

I often see the term "angry", "quick tempered" to describe McCain but I seldom see "vindictive". I recognize it from the guy who reported on Cindy's drug use and how McCain turned on him and a few other examples but not many writers/reporters have phrased it just this way.

After reading the article this morning in NY Times and other local papers from Alaska like the Frontiersman, I have seen "vindictive" used very often with Palin. With her it is small town, back biting, claw your way up the ladder, turn on those that even hint at opposition. It also is a very strong character trait of Todd Palin.

What happens to government when you have two strong characters who are "vindictive". It will bleed into the government culture just as opposition to civil rights, or voter rights have permeated the culture of Dept. of Justice under Bush. It's the same meme. We can do better in America than this.

Thanks, again.

Is ignatius a conservative?

Mani,

Ignatuius is a propagandist. He works for the Washington Post. The paper is always on its knees for Bush and the GOP, the editorial writing is some of the most stupid and offensive in the US.

The paper is captured, has been for a long time, anyone who works there is not to be trusted in any sense. I even trust Froomkin significantly less for it, and he's the only one I trust to some extent at that horrible "paper."

And the fact that he is terrified of Palin is signaling something important with regard to the ruling elite...they were ok with Bush who pretended to be a country bumpkin, or, is simply inept...but with faced with the prospect of having McCain/Palin... the signs of a disaster are on the horizon.

Ignatius is a big-time McCain fluffer.

Wow.

Friedman says to Zakaria, "the market won't solve our energy crisis . . ."

Oops!

He actually sounds, dareIsay, progressive in some of his reasoning. Holy Moly!

If McCain died in office, can we imagine what kind of policies Palin, with the religious rants we have heard her espouse, would implement?!?

Kristol, Krauthammer, and Prager would have her invading Iran the day after she took office.

God help us!

hi everyone,

just chomping on some great salad and reading through some comments and I come across this little goodie from our Steve, who comments about Gotham, saying, Obama has tremondous leadership skills(tremondous, might be stretch, no need to go overboard like the repubs in selling the man's qualifications, he's qualified),...replying with this...."I see someone who could possibly run a govt. service program, to me that's about it."

Now, Steve is probably going to vote for his republican ticket McCain/Palin and he doesn't bat an eye putting Palin in a position so far out of her league, in every imaginable way, as Vice President of our Nation but also a heartbeat away from the Presidency.....now that is some strange and terribly twisted logic, imo.

how one goes from saying Barak Obama doesn't cut the mustard to Palin does in a heartbeat......

I guess that particular divide is so huge to me that there is no logic in my brain to bridge it, that John McCain who supposedly cherishes his service in the Armed Forces would subject our young men and women in uniform to Palin as their second in command and possible first, a mere intern of a gal.

oh, well......this Nation is certainly divided and I think no matter who wins this election we need to to some kind of study on the whys and wherefores as to how we gots here...so split...and are we or have we always been this way....and I am just not remembering it that way. The last time I remember the Nation being so divided was during the Vietnam War between those wanting it to end and those who wanted to stay...probably we would still be there if not for the courage of the anti-war demonstrators, hmmmmm you know those pesky...hold your nose Steve, I am going to say it.....liberals.

need more salad....ruth ponderings. ruth

Glad you are enjoying your salad Ruth on this fine Sunday.

I enjoyed your post and yes you are correct, the war ended sooner rather than later because the demonstrations, it didn't stop the Cambodian killing fields, but the war ended.

Have a great week Ruth,

Steve

Sorry this comment, by all appearances, is quite late in the thread, but Gotham, I think, yes, in my opinion, Whoopi Goldberg's demeanor was quite tacky on that particular episode of The View. Especially when McCain was talking about wanting to elect Supreme Court justices who are strict interpreters of the constitution where she then asked something to the effect (this is not verbatim) but something to the effect of did that mean that McCain wants her to be a slave?
To me, that was unfair, or at least totally out in left field, as I don't think that McCain is going to be wanting to interpret the constitution in such a way as to mean that slavery should be reinstituted, but apparently Whoopi thought that was a fair shot. That particular approach does not help the Dem cause. It does make me scratch my head.

Many of you may not know that I am a physician. As such, I am keenly aware of the threat that melanoma poses. John McCain as far as we know has had several bouts with melanoma, invasive melanoma. A condition that strikes fear in the heart of every internist, because Melanoma can manifest at anytime, and virtually anywhere in the body.

You can be fine for 10, 20, 30 even fifty years after a melanoma removal, and then have seizures one day, and find it to be caused by a metastatic melanoma to the brain.
It could go to your liver, and destroy it, leading to death.
It goes to the lungs.
It is virtually ubiquitous, and when it does strike, its is deadly, and extremely resistant to effective treatment.

Melanoma is not just a cancer. It is a chameleon, in that it will mimic other illnesses and will be hard to find. The only clue will be a history of the patient havig had a melanoma some time in his past. Other times, even that will be unknown.

Given all this, it is no surprise that PHYSICIANS demand to know what is the status of John McCain and his health. We expect to know what his health is like, in full, before he potentially is elected president.

Let people know how dangerous this is, a presidential candidate with a history of melanoma NOT making his health records a part of the public record.

It is unheard of. Frankly, it is dangerous to national security, to the US, to the world.

The link for the Physicians' video on McCain's Health as well as PETITION:

http://therealmccain.com/doctors/

Rove thinks McCain's ads are too dishonest.

And the Obama campaign has a nice response:

"In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove -- the man who held the previous record -- said McCain's ads have gone too far."

Thanks Sachin for the info.

Here's the video of the physicians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvesa49zSIM

Sachin,

Dude, you sound smart. I was intrigued reading your description of this medical mystery. Too bad most men don't have brains like that. Keep up the good work!

Gotham,

The rant is "politics as usual." When will the tide turn and who will help the turning? Certainly not those who continue with the same negative angles of expression.

When enough people have positive energy to contribute to the moment then we will see, hear, smell and taste a new politics.

Obama sounds a new tone. Who will resonate in like manner? That resonance has nothing to do with opinion and mental analysis. That resonance has to do with radiant energy...not the same old stagnant stench.

Trish~~

"Many of you may not know that I am a physician."

dude, where did you gain your medical degree and how long have u been a physicain?

the fact that you can give us a description of melanoma proves nothing!

and are you not the same so-called doc who was despised here a couple a years ago for being a royal pain in the ass...and one who behaved like he needed medical help himself? dude if it's u... please go back to your hiding hole! damn!

My goodness, Diablo! Is there any sanity anywhere, anywhere at all? And if not, why do we have this notion that there is?
As for me, I'm taking a pill to sleep and , too, a cup of coffee. Here's lookin' at you kid.
(I know I just took my life in my hands, incurring your wrath. But I still have my Just So books ready...)

Dear Gotham,
I don't see how any civilized person can esteem being a maverick as a good quality in a President. He has to honor and work with so many different people as well as the public. Being dysfunctionally willful can only bring about a stagnant or unappreciated turn of events. Mrs. Palin seems equally as willful.

In the words of Chief Beaver, a Delaware Indian, who had greater finess than the two of them, said in 1758 at a Pennsylvania treaty conference: Brother, I would tell you, in a most soft, loving, and friendly manner, to go back over the mountain and stay there.

PS: In keeping with the jist of your article, I don't think the millions of voters care one twit what a high profile celebrity thinks. It is sheer entertainmentof the fascinating sort. We didn't build this country on rock and roll, you know. They either like one's policies or they don't. They either accept taxes or they don't. They either go to war or they don't.

says one "Sherry,"As for me, I'm taking a pill to sleep and, too, a cup of coffee."

well lady...it seems to me that if you are taking medication to sleep, it does not make sense to drink coofee as well...cofffee is suppsed to keep you awake..." i hope the next time u blurt out here, u make sense!

120, Diablo

Sherry's being ironic, dude. Don't take everything literally.

In any case, Sherry is above the 'law' ;)

Re. Sachin

Good health is essential in any case, but critical with the most unqualified, unprepared VP candidate waiting in the wings.

I found it ridiculous that the McCain campaign only gave selected reporters limited one time access to his edited medical records - where they could go over it but not make copies and have experts analyze it.

I also have read that 3 or 4 melanoma incidents is often a sign that there may be another cancer involved. Correct?

Sachin,

This has really bugged me all during the campaign. As a lay person, I have a question for you. Would you as a physician give someone with this condition a clean bill of health and act as if there was nothing at all to be worried about? I ask that because I wonder who his physicians are and why this has been treated in such a breezy manner by the press.

Diablo, you were too gentle and easy on me. It's 'cause you do love me, right?

Another health issue.... I'm surprised that more hasn't been made of his MENTAL health.

It is not a stretch at all to come to the conclusion that McCain suffered (or suffers) from some form of PTSD, after all, he is so keen on reminding us day in and day out that he was a POW for 5 1/2 years and was tortured. And given the phsyical beating and the extreme malnutrition would easily add up to 5-10 -- (if not more) years of increased catabolism effects -- to his biological age. McCain is in effect over 80 YEARS old when compared to his non-POW Americans of relative age.

Well, all things considered, it WOULDN'T be dangerous if he had a competent V.P. waiting in the wings. What a selfish douchebag. He's willing to do whatever it takes to get his name on the list of U.S. Presidents before he keels, and to hell with what happens to the rest of the country after he's gone.

"Country First"--doublespeak--my ass.

And by the way, (#117), the fact that there is no sanity and yet we think there is, is a brief way of saying: is that we think we should be perfect, instead of, our reaching for Perfection.
My dear Full Gent, Diablo, I know you understand.

@114

"Keep up the good work!"

Thank you.

@123

"I also have read that 3 or 4 melanoma incidents is often a sign that there may be another cancer involved. Correct?"

Well...

not necessarily, but it is not uncommon for melanoma to be associated with other cancers. But the biggest risk factor for developing melanoma is a history of a melanoma.

@124

"Would you as a physician give someone with this condition a clean bill of health and act as if there was nothing at all to be worried about? "

Well....

people with a history of mealnoma are typically screened frequently as every 3 months for signs of recurrences, by their dermatologist.

The worst thing about melanoma is that metastatic disease can be latent for a long time, and then suddenly present itself virtually anytime in the patient's life.

Of course the key indicators are what kind of melanoma, what depth, were the nodes positive.
the public has a right to know this information...

"Of course the key indicators are what kind of melanoma, what depth, were the nodes positive.
the public has a right to know this information..." Sachin

I have always felt this was the plan. McCain would really get off giving his life for his country as he sees it. All honor in the last days and a big send off and he essentially gets to choose the next president.

The fact he came up with a Cheney clone in heels just blows me away. If you have any brains at all it is right there in your face.

Palin is the real candidate the neo-cons and religious right want in office. What better way than to pull her in with the old sick man who comes off as more moderate to most uninformed people!

Dr. Sachin,

McCain smoked 2 packs a day for 25 years. What additional danger does this pose when coupled with the recurring melanoma? (This WITHOUT considering what Preity mentioned: the POW malnutrition and physical abuse taken by the body for 5 and 1/2 years. Also, let's IGNORE the MENTAL health aspects of his age and POW experience.)

"@123

"I also have read that 3 or 4 melanoma incidents is often a sign that there may be another cancer involved. Correct?"

Well...

not necessarily, but it is not uncommon for melanoma to be associated with other cancers. But the biggest risk factor for developing melanoma is a history of a melanoma."

128. Posted by Sachin

McCain Has Had FIVE!!!

And the last, which required major surgery, was very deep, as I understand it, indicating much greater risk. Does that make sense to you???

SPREAD THE WORD! WATCH THE VIDEO!

John McCain's health records must be released
Click here to spread this to everyone you know

http://therealmccain.com/doctors/

Help spread the word about McCain's health records:

Email this video to everyone you know and encourage them to send it on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvesa49zSIM

OPEN LETTER

John McCain has not yet released his medical records to the public. McCain is 72 years old, and has been diagnosed with invasive melanoma. In May of this year, a small group of selected reporters were allowed to review 1,173 pages of McCain's medical records that covered only the last eight years, and were allowed only three hours to do so. John McCain's health is an issue of profound importance. We call on John McCain to issue a full, public disclosure of all of his medical records, available for the media and members of the general public to review.

Signed by 17,421 people, 681 doctors:

Noah Craft MD, PhD
Fellow of the American Academy of Dermatology
Stephanie Taché, MD, MPH
Diplomate of the American Board of Family Medicine
Jeffrey Becker, MD
Psychiatry
Claudia Borzutzky, MD
Diplomate of the American Board of Family Medicine
Stephanie Koven, MD
Diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine
Jonathan Reitman, MD
Diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine
Robert Krochmal, MD
Diplomate of the American Board of Family Medicine
David P. Michener, MD, MPH
Point Richmond, CA
Edwin Stein, MD, PhD, L.M.D.
Cleveland, OH
Jay A. Gold, MD
Madison, WI
Deborah Commins, M.D., Ph.D
Los Angeles, CA
Patricia Blochowiak, M.D.
East Cleveland, OH
James Self, MD,
Eugene, OR
Judeth McGann, MD
Portland, OR
Robert Rapkin, MD
Doylestown, PA
Gerald Levitis, MD
Bethesda, MD
Karen Levitis, MD
Kensington, MD
James Pelloquen, MD
Brooklyn, NY
John H. Uhlemann, MD
St. Charles, MO
Jon Bjornson, MD
Philadelphia, PA
Former Major in U.S. Army Medical Corps and Vietnam Veteran
Thomas A. Sattler, M.D.
San Francisco, CA
Jacob T. Chachkes, M.D.
New Caanan, CT
Jonathan Cobb, MD
Morristown, NJ
Ira Monosson, MD
San Fernando Valley, CA
John McCarthy, MD
Sacramento, CA
Michael D. Fratkin, MD
Eureka, CA
Allena Burge, DMD
Tampa, FL
President, Hearts for Haiti Foundation
Don Kelley, MD
Rapid City, SD
Mini Ann Liu, MD
New York, New York
Rachel Boykan, MD
Stony Brook, NY

....

http://therealmccain.com/doctors/

@132

"McCain smoked 2 packs a day for 25 years. What additional danger does this pose when coupled with the recurring melanoma?"

That puts him at increased risk for Heart disease,
Lung cancer, oral cancer, pancreatic cancer, etc....etc.... COPD/Emphysema

@133

"McCain Has Had FIVE!!!

And the last, which required major surgery, was very deep, as I understand it, indicating much greater risk. Does that make sense to you???"

If what you say is correct.
This man is a walking time bomb.

"If what you say is correct.
This man is a walking time bomb."

I'm Pretty sure it is, and that all relevant info on the most serious case were not revealed when he "released" his medical records....tick...tick...tick...

President Palin is a terrifying prospect!!!

Here's a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09mccain.html

NYT article about McCain's melanoma diagnosis Remarkably, his stage IIa diagnosis of the melanoma on his temple apparently showed two separate melanomas as well as a separate melanoma on his arm at the same time.

A sane, thoughtful and caring adult always makes out a will and testament in case he or she dies so that the children are hurt less by this tragedy.

A sane, thoughtful, caring and patriotic presidential candidate picks a competent vice-presidential candidate for the same reasons.

that self-described doc is nothing but a quack...to me...

"...I like Obama and what he represents. ..... I believe he's a smart, compassionate, and well exposed thinker with tremendous leadership qualities. I think he'll surround himself with intelligent, diverse, creative thinkers who can lead this nation from the dark place it is. It's a bet I'm willing to make. .... " ~ Gotham

GO OBAMA!!!

GO OBAMA!!!

GO OBAMA!!!

Nice to see you here Sachin :-)

Get involved and take action .... big or small :-)

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/actioncenter/

50 DAYS LEFT ....

"I want to help."

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/actioncenter/

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/15/1398167.aspx

"From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann
*** The map 50 days out:"

Obama is from that place high above ...

Richard Cohen calls McCain a "farce." Cohen is one of those columnists who kind of supported the Republican agenda for sometime now, and like many in the traditional media he is a long time "admirer" of McCain who gave him a free pass for years. Until now.

Today, he makes it clear.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html

One of the politicians he most admired has turned into a liar and a farce:

(All emphasis mine)

"I AM ONE OF THOSE JOURNALISTS ACCUSED OVER THE YEARS OF BEING IN TANK FOR McCAIN. GUILTY. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician's lap.

Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACCESS. IT HAD TO DO WITH INTEGRITY."

This is both a stunning admission of his own, and a damning indictment of the McCain campaign. Could anything be worse than someone saying "I liked you, hell, I was in the tank for you because I believed you. I believed IN you. And now I don't. You have no integrity."

And yes, it gets worse for McCain:

"And so McCain lied about his lying and maybe thinks that if he wins the election, he can -- as he did in South Carolina -- renounce who he was and what he did and resume his old persona. It won't work. Karl Marx got one thing right -- what he said about history repeating itself. ONCE IS A TRAGEDY. SECOND IS A FARCE. John McCain is both."

The whole piece is a must read. Cohen attacks the Palin choice for all the right reasons. He also mentions the "View" interview.