Obama is doing a great job and handling the Ft. Hood massacre with dignity and proper decorum. His call to hold off making judgements until all the facts are in is a sound call.
Unfortunately, earlier in the year, he was not waiting for all the facts to be in before weighing in on the Harvard Professor case (where the Police mistakenly believed a man trying to break into his own home was a burgler).
You can see where Right-Wing Talk Radio will take this - it writes itself. When Police hassle a black man, well, Obama is quick to jump in and make the call of racism.
But when a disturbed Muslim opens fire on a room full of troops, he calls for us to hold off judgement until all the facts are in.
The latter is the RIGHT ANSWER for both situations. Unfortunately, the earlier gaffe makes the latter fuel for the talk radio folks (who will no doubt dredge up the hoary old "Obama is a Muslim" canard and/or accuse him of sympathy for terrorists).
Nobody is perfect, and President Obama (why does NPR call him "Mr. Obama"?) has done a stellar job so far (compared to the last guy). The economy tanked about the same time he took office, and less than 9 months later, nearly half the "lost" value in my 401(k) has come back, home sales are rebouding, Ford is showing a PROFIT (and Chrysler says it may have one soon). The only downside is the jobless numbers, which usually lag in a recovery.
But just remember in the future, your own line - wait for all the facts to be in. That whole "Beer at the White House" thing was kind of embarrassing.
Other than that, keep up the good work. Still pissed about the dog thing, though. Designer Dogs?
Many folks are already disappointed with the Obama Presidency. Some say that he amounts to no more than a slighly more liberal Bush. While some changes have been made by executive order, many other things are just about ths same as they woud have been if Bush was still in office.
Expediency trumps values and beliefs, it seems, once you are in the oval office.
To some extent, one can understand this. After all, the Iraq war (it is a war, or an occupation, or what?) cannot be stopped in a matter of days. Gitmo can't be emptied out without finding a place to take all the inmates (other than Venezuala?). Change doesn't come quickly.
But other things that are not as critical that can be done according to principles, unless you are just lazy.
Obama promised that he would get a dog from a shelter. Why is this important?
Well, every time a breed of dog becomes a celebrity, the puppy mills start cranking them out and the market is flooded, as people want "the same dog as the President has" or "that cute dog I saw on TV!"
Remember the Jack Russell craze from "Frazier"? People ran out and wanted a Jack Russell terrier, as the one on TV was so cute and trained. The reality was that the dogs can be a terror, and without careful training, can destroy an apartment in an afternoon. Throw in poor breeding and inbreeding to meet the demand for puppies, and you have a recipe for disaster.
2-3 years later, shelters were flooded with Jack Russells. Most were put down. You can't adopt-out hyperactive little dogs. No one wanted them. Frazier was off the air, and so much for the dogs.
The same happened whenever any breed becomes a celebrity. Dobermans, pit bulls, english bulldogs, chocolate labs, you-name-it. Once they become popularized, they end up flooding the shelters. Many, such as the fighting breeds, are hard to adopt out (other than to the Michael Vick's of the world) and are euthanized.
I PREDICT that in 2-3 years, we'll see the same effect as Portugese water dogs flood the shelters. West Virginia puppy mills no doubt are racing AT THIS VERY MINUTE to get these dogs and start breeding them quickly while the demand for puppies (and the prices) is high. YOU WILL SEE on CNN in the next few weeks, stories about how demand for these puppies has skyrocketed.
Human nature is a sick thing sometimes, and people will say "I need a Portugese Water Dog like Obama has" and not even think how perverted and depraved it is to want to own a live animal based on what amounts to a fashion trend.
Obama's PROMISE to obtain a shelter dog was a breath of fresh air -and if people followed his lead (as people tend to do) shelters would be flooded with people looking to adopt. The trend of breeding and creating life to satisfy fashion trends might diminish.
(NOTE: there is nothing wrong with owning a a particular breed of dog in an of itself. The problem is when people who don't really want the responsibiliy of pet ownership decide to acquire a pet as a fashion accessory or to be trendy. As a celebrity or leader, it is important to set a good ROLE MODEL for the rest of us).
But instead we have this. Lame excuses. "My daughters have allergies" (get a retired racing greyhound). "Ted Kennedy got the dog for me and he's sick." That's even worse. Trying to pave-over a campaign promise using the dying body of Ted Kennedy.
Yes, that is probably the most disgusting aspect of it. Any criticism of this broken campaign promise is shouted down by raising the cancer-ridden body of Ted Kennedy as a talisman. "How DARE you criticize Obama, when dying Ted Kennedy gave him this dog!"
And others will say, of course, "What a tempest in a teapot! We have a hostage situation here, and a war going on!"
Tell that to the 60,000 Portugese Water Dogs that will be euthanized in shelters in the coming years, as people buy these puppies and then realize, that like any other dog, they require time, patience, attention, training, feeding, space, etc. Yuppies love to buy designer dogs and then dump them at shelters.
Dogs will die, and it didn't have to be that way. Obama would have been better off with NO DOG than to purchase (through Ted Kennedy) a designer hound.
And you know what? I'd be willing to bet there was one of these dogs languishing in a shelter somwhere, too. But like most idiotic Americans, they want a "cute little PUPPY!". Puppies, like children, lose their appeal quickly, and then are ignored. I hope Obama's daughers think about those implications.
How sad, but not entirely unexpected.
I can only think that John McCain is suffering from the early stages of Dementia.
The John McCain of 2000 was a different man.
In the 2008 election, not only has he turned against every single thing he has ever stood for, he trampled those principles into the ground and then spat on them.
He renounced his own immigration reform bill!
He kow-towed to the far right of the party after years of saying they were the problem, not the solution.
Something is very wrong with McCain - or he was fooling us all those years.
There is an excellent article in this week's New Yorker on the subject.
Their take was that he wanted to be President so badly, he was willing to do anything to get it - and lost everything he had in the process.
I'd be willing to bet he loses his Senate seat. Cindy will dump him, and with the pre-nuptuial agreement, he will be flat broke and living in Sun City, Arizona in a double-wide before long.
A very sad end to what could have been a great man.
When you abandon your principles, all is lost.
John McCain's closing argument was that if we elect Obama, then the Democrats will run the House, Senate and the White House and run roughshod over the American People.
I, for one, was not worried, as history shows that when Democrats and Republicans run the whole government, they devolve into petty arguments, bickering, and infighting, within about 10 to 15 seconds after the election.
Already we are seeing jockying for power, with Murtha's power play. And I am certain that Hillary will play it strategically if she remains in the Senate, and use her position to let Obama take the blame for the economy (which will get WORSE before it gets better) and run in 2012.
But the bigges dustup is coming out of California. The Gay Marriage Protests are getting ugly, and one big division in the Democratic electorate is between Gays and African Americans, the latter of whom voted 70% in favor of Proposition 8.
Instead of taking this close loss in stride and working to develop a new propsition for next year's ballot (and perhaps outreaching to the community to build support for such a measure), many self-appointed Gay leaders (I didn't vote for them) are pushing the enevelope with protests, lawsuits, and the blame game.
This sort of bitter infighting is accomplishing nothing. It will not overturn Proposition 8, nor will it endear Gays to other voter groups - goups whose support will be needed to overturn Proposition 8 during the next election cycle.
The lawsuits are pointless and ill-advised. Even if successful, they will help spread the feeling that the Courts are being used to overturn the will of the voters. This is just bad Public Relations, period.
And I doubt the lawsuits will be successful anyway. If the State constitution is amended, how can a court say it is unconsitutional?
It would be better to BUILD support and convince African-Americans to vote to repeal Proposition 8.
Ugly protests and accusations are not going to accomplish this. But they will provide much fodder for anti-Gay elements in society.
There is an old saying, "You can't be TOO THIN, TOO YOUNG, or TOO RICH."
I'll add to that phrase, "An you can't have TOO MANY SENATE SEATS."
We have an election in Georgia on December 2nd, and Saxby Chandliss, who by all acounts is a lazy, bigoted coward, is set to win a runoff, after a fairly narrow win in the general election.
Without the African-American vote, Jim Martin doesn't stand a chance.
We need Obama to campaign here in Georgia. We need SOMETHING.
All I hear about on the radio is Saxby, Saxby, Saxby.
It would be a shame if this "Boss Hogg" were re-elected for another SIX YEARS!
Let GM go bankrupt. Ford too, if necessary. I am shareholders in both companies, but I've already taken my losses at this point - the stock is essentially worthless. Take the rest. It would be better for the country in the long haul.
If the car companies cannot find debtor financing, THEN, the government should step in and help out duing the post-bankruptcy transition period.
Bankruptcy would:
1. eliminate "golden parachutes" and fat-cat pensions for executives, past and present.
2. Cut UAW wages from their ridiculous levels (4 or 5 times market value) to a more reasonable level.
3. Cut gold-plated retirements and health care for existing and former workers.
4. Allow GM to eliminate unnecessary brands (Pontiac, Buick) without facing Billions in dealer lawsuits.
5. Allow GM to cancel dealer agreements and eliminate unprofitable dealers, without facing Billions in dealer lawsuits.
6. Allow GM to import vehicles from its overseas subsidaries (Australia, Japan, Korea, Europe) without silly caps imposed by the UAW.
7. Allow GM to CLOSE unprofitable assembly plants without having to worry about UAW requirements that they maintain X number of workers.
8. With these savings, invest in product development for new domestically built cars.
Bankruptcy would restructure the company as a PROFITABLE enterprise. A leaner, meaner GM could compete on a world level with any automaker. GM's unburdened overseas divisions are already doing this.
If we BAIL OUT GM without bankruptcy, then nothing changes, and the company is still bloated and unprofitable and all we've done is band-aid the company and patch it up for another few miles down the road, where it will break down yet again.
A pre-bankruptcy bailout would just prop-up the old structure for another 12 months or so. You'd be back to the bailout table in 2010.
While it is tempting to play Superman and "Save the Day" sometimes people (and companies) need to work through their problems.
I've heard some analysts compare GM to an alcoholic - and I think the analogy is apt. Giving money to GM is like giving booze to an alcoholic. It might make them happy for a while, but it does not solve the underlying problem.
Let GM go through its 12-step program and then, only then, help them up from the gutter.
Sound advice from 2400 years ago.
Get Hillary in the cabinet or in the administration at all costs.
If she resists, you know what her plan is.
Already, many are saying that she would prefer to stay in the Senate and be free to criticize Obama and take pot-shots at him (and scuttle legislation) and then be able to declare him a "failed President" and position herfself to run in 2012.
I don't doubt it for a minute. She is a strategic thinker. However, I think she fails to realize people will see through the strategy, particularly if we announce it NOW rather than just let her do it.
If she were in the cabinet, however, she could not criticize an administration that she was a part of.
Find her a job - somewhere! But don't let her free-range in the Senate. You will live to regret it.
One misconception about the auto industry bailout is that if we don't "rescue" it, it will "go down" and take many other industries with it.
Not true!
The Democrats are presenting a FALSE CHOICE by saying that the only alternative to a bailout of GM is that the company would be dissolved and take out millions of jobs.
Declaring bankruptcy and starting over will not even mean the assembly lines shut down or anyone misses a day of work. It is a seamless process.
What it does mean is that creditors, shareholders, pensioners, workers, and salary bosses will all take a long-overdue hit. They have milked the car companies dry for years, taking the path of least resistance - building empty steel boxes called "SUVs" and "Pickups" which had high profit margins, while conceding the more difficult and competative market segments to the Japanese and Europe.
We we "bail out" GM and others, they will go back to their old ways (particularly now that gas is $1.87 here in Georgia) and sell more SUVs and Pickups and nothing will change.
We cannot reward bad behavior.
In addition, giving GM $20 million without changing the fundamental management and labor structure will just be tossing $20 million down the drain. GM will go under (or request bailout after bailout) and take our money with it.
Why not just nationalize the company like they did in France? (Just kidding, that's an even worse idea!).
This idea of "ALL OR NOTHING" being pur forth by Pelosi and the governor of Michigan (whatshername) is a FALSE CHOICE. Companies CAN go bankrupt and still survive.
Rather than BAILOUT GM now, let it go bankrupt and then if they have trouble getting debtor-in-possession financing, THEN step in (with a loan or a stock purchase).
But propping up incompetent management and corrupt unions is a BAD IDEA. I've seen union members SABATOGE the assembly lines out of shear boredom. And many managers are more interested in building their own empires than in the overall success of the company.
DO NOT REWARD THESE PEOPLE FOR THEIR BAD ACTIONS!
DO NOT USE MY TAXPAYER MONEY TO DO SO!
If you do, WHERE IS MY BAILOUT? You'll have to bail all of us out then - it would only be fair. And that would BANKRUPT the country - chapter 7, not 11, too.
I am SO disappointed that the Democrats are already pandering to Michigan with this bailout plan. I wonder if voting for Obama was the right idea.
One BIG problem with the "big three" is that they ARE in Michigan. The automotive tastes of Michigan (opera windows, landau tops, camaros, Grand La-Barges, crappy quality) do not play well in the coasts. Japan and Europe have filled a void where Detroit has failed.
Barack -
I used to work for GM. I went to their little college, General Motors Institute. I watched as both managment and the unions frittered away a 60% market share by selling cheaper and cheaper cars and mortgaging the future of the company.
PLEASE do not bail out GM - at least just yet. Let GM go bankrupt first. Then provide bailout money as Debtor-In-Possession.
If you give them the money NOW, it will all go to fat-cat salaries for management (and bonuses no doubt) and to continue paying the $70 an hour wage of the UAW workers. It will also prop up extinct brands such as Pontiac and Buick and prevent GM froim paring down its dealer network.
Bankruptcy will force new management, new union rules and rates, and also slim down the company by eliminating unprofitable brnads and dealers.
At that point, GM can survive. If you give them the money NOW as Pelosi wants to do (pander, pander) all that will happen is you will delay the inevitable for a few months, maybe a year.
Let Generous Mothers go chapter 11 and reorganize. THEN bail it out, if they need the dough.
Just my 2 cents. The employes of GM (that is not a typo, they spell employe differently there) both salary and management drove the company into the ground. They should not be rewarded for this task.
In his excellent concession speech, John McCain said that he would leave it to others to catalog the mistakes he made in his campaign. So here's a start. By the way, where was the John McCain that gave that concession speech for the last two years? Too late he finally delivers a decent speech!
McCain made so many mistakes, his campaign will be used in political science textbooks for years to come. Here are a few I can think of. Some may seem trivial, but when you add them up...
1. The Count Dracula Black Suits: These made McCain look old and creepy. For a man who needed to look younger than he was, he dressed poorly. I think someone told him black made him look thinner. Bad advice.
2. The Smile: Not since "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" have Americans been subjected to such BAD TEETH and such a FORCED SMILE. Again, some bad advice from someone here. Someone told him to "show teeth". That is good advice for a Hollywood star or someone like Obama who has a natural "big mouth" smile. But for some folks, it just looks creepy and forced. Bad idea. Better off to do the closed mouth smile and look natural than to "show teeth" when it doesn't work for you.
3. "My Friends..." OK, that was funny the first few times around. But after a while it started to sound like a tag line from a bad sitcom - sort of like J.J. Walker's "Dyn-O-MITE!" Presidents don't have tag lines.
4. Immigration Reform: The Bush/McCain immigration reform bill was the only good thing to come out of the Bush Presidency, and the far right shot it down (aided by some opportunistic Democrats). Going against HIS OWN IMMIGRATION BILL was the ultimate flip-flop and it did not play well with the Hispanic voters, who ended up being a deciding factor in many States.
5. Pandering to fear: McCain offered more than enough spurious reasons to fear Barack Obama, but offered no compelling reason to vote for him. He pandered to the "we hate blacks" part of the country (Notice how nearly all the SLAVE STATES went McCain) but turned off the rest.
6. Sarah Palin. Wow. What a colossal screwup.
7. Poor campaign management: He started out with one team in the primaries, blew through nearly all his money and nearly lost, then switched teams, pandered to the far right to win the primary, then switched to another team, and forgot to go back to the center for the general election. He was poorly served by all the management in his campaign, who openly bickered with each other and with Sarah Palin's advisors. Amateur night!
8. Insulting our intelligence: McCain did very poorly with educated voters. When you come out with these claims that Obama is a Marxist or some stupid attack ad that a child can see through, you insult the intelligence of any thinking American. Meanwhile, on the TeeVee, we see images of bellicose and belligerant McCain supporters at his rallies saying some very, very ignorant and nasty things. Smart peope don't go for that. The reassuring news is that Smart people seem to outnumber dumb people, despite "no child left behind". You can't fool all the people all the time!
9. Not Dividing himself from Bush: McCain WAS a Maverick back in 2000 and even 2004. He had serious diagreements with George Bush over many policies, and his record should have been enough to distance himself from the unpopular President. However, in the last few years, as part of his pander spectacle, he aligned himself more closely with Bush, and that backfired.
10. The Cheney Vase: Getting Dick Cheney's endorsement was the kiss of death. What was McCain thinking? He should have told Cheney to go back to his "undisclosed location" and stay there until Novemebr 5th. The only worse endorsement you could get would be Osama Bin Laden himself.
11. "The Economy is Fundamantally Strong" This may be technically correct, but was bad political theater. (The economy will recover with suprising speed, and even now shows signs of recovery, just wait for it). Regardless, however, telling someone who lost their job or house that things overall are good is not the right thing to say. It's all in how you say it.
12. George Bush's Scare the Crap out of Everybody Speech: GW did not favors to McCain when he went on national TeeVee and said the entire country is headed for the dumpster unless we bail out Wall Street NOW with $700 Billion. If the economy seemed "fundamentally strong" the week before, it certainly didn't the next. Bush could have played this better so that it did not hurt McCain as much. Of course, GW and McCain have some history, so perhaps it was intentional?
13. Suspending the Campaign and Rushing to Washington to Save America: This came across as histronics of the worst sort - and a form of narcissism (the word of the hour!). McCain would single-handedly save American from the economic crises! Perhaps that was the plan with Bush all along? Bush would set up a slow pitch for McCain (the crises speech) and McCain would bat it out of the ballpark by "fixing the economy" by passing the bailout bill. If so, someone forgot to tell the rest of the Republicans, who shot down the effort. McCain's "suspension" ended up seeming overdramatic and ineffectual - two things we don't want in a President.
There are, of course, maybe dozens more mistakes he made. Not renouncing the racist and violent comments of his "supporters" for starters (and pandering to that "base base" in the first place). The list goes on and on. It is a TEXTBOOK case of how to lose an election.
His speaking style was also a key. He stumbled and hesitated and sounded like someone WHO DID NOT BELIEVE, IN HIS HEART, WHAT HE WAS SAYING.
The only decent pseech he gave was his concession speech. That was polished and poised and smooth. You felt he WAS speaking from the heart then.
All he needed to do was get the middle class, middle-of-the-road voters. And he failed. Even my Republican friends in Northern Virginia who voted for Bush last time voted for Obama. That says a lot.
He blew it!
I got a robocall from Elizabeth Dole asking me to vote for her.
Problem is, I am registered to vote in GEORIGA. Wrong State, Liddy!
Why did she call me? Well, I left a message on her website telling her I thought her "Godless" comment about her opponent was totally unacceptable. They asked for a phone number, so I gave them my local number.
Well, Liddy Dole is my new BF. She has called three times now with her robo-dialer.
It is too late for this election, but it gave me an idea. If you want to help squander an opponent's resources, to encourage your supporters to register with an opponent's website, so they waste valuable resources on mailings and robocalls.
But then I thought, "That sounds like something Karl Rove would do". So, no. Bad idea.
Besides, its too late for this election. But I am glad that Ms. Dole squandered a buck or two putting me on her mailing list and calling me over and over again. My answering machine had a nice chat with her robo-caller.
I am SO disappointed in her. She and John McCain have the same advisors, it seems.
THEY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
I went to have blood taken today at the Hospital for a routine test.
The nurse, a young Hispanic, asked me who I was voting for, to distract me while she jabbed me with the needle.
"I'm no supposed to ask that," she said.
"That's OK," I said, "I'm voting for Obama."
She drew back in horror. "Don’t you know he's a Muslim? Don't you know he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Don't you know he took the oath of Office on the Koran?"
I smiled and said, "Those are just rumors on the Internet, they aren't true!"
She replied, "Really? How can you be sure?"
I told her of all the evidence to the contrary, but she remained unconvinced. The fact that Obama has been on video saying the pledge, testimonials from people in his church, video of him taking the oath of office ON A BIBLE, etc.
Nothing would convince her. She kept saying "How do you know it is true?"
Finally it dawned on me.
"You've heard about Reverend Wright, the minister in his church who said all those crazy things, right?"
"Oh yes," she said, "That Reverend Wright is a very bad man!"
"Well there you go," I replied, "He can't very well be a Muslim if he is attending a CONTROVERSIAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH, right?"
"Oh…..right" she said. Perhaps a glimmer of understanding occurred there.
The Republican rumor-mongers CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. They can't criticize Obama for the actions of Reverend Wright and at the same time say he is a Muslim. He's one other, not both.
The fabric of silly lies and rumors has propagated to the point where they disagree with each other.
They can't have it both ways.
P.S. – After all of THAT, she said that she hadn't registered to vote! GOOD!
See:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/11/03/spellman.jen.the.security.guard.cnn
Why has CNN run this piece? Very odd. It is hardly "newsworthy" in any regard. And certainly biased.
The poor lady gets laid off from a "high tech job" and is now working as a security guard. Whose fault is that? Apparently Obama's.
Her message "We can't afford to redistribute the wealth to people who don't want to work. Who is helping me?"
This is a common refrain amoung many poor white voters. They mistakenly believe that somehow the Welfare system automatically gives out money to black candidates but that Whites are excluded. Despite data to the contrary, they believe that millions of Blacks are living "high on the hog" while they sweat and toil.
She said attending the McCain rally convinced her. I am sure that attending a Scientology rally has the same effect - everyone is nice to you and you feel loved and wanted.
But in terms of money, she stands to gain more with Obama, who will CUT HER TAXES and perhaps even give her a cash refund of a tax credit.
No wonder she got laid off from that "high tech" job - she can't do math!
(BTW, I see she is suffering, with a brand new pickup truck and plenty of food to eat and a nice apartment!)
Under McCain, security guards will pay more taxes, while the Cindy McCain's of the world get their taxes cut. Just wait for the "trickle down" they say.....
This election has highlighted a certain nastiness among some Republicans. This nastiness has backfired, as it has turned-off most foks.
You already read about the fellow who put up the NO PARKING FOR OBAMA SUPPORTERS sign in his parking lot (a parking lot that had a CONTRACT with city hall for employee parking!).
Now this, the newest and lowest sort of thing - going after the CHILDREN:
GROSSE POINTE FARMS, Mich. - A woman refused Halloween candy to children whose parents support Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Shirley Nagel passed out candy Friday on the scary U.S. holiday, but only to those who shared her support for Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his vice presidential pick Sarah Palin.
Television station WJBK reported that a sign posted outside Nagel's house in suburban Detroit served this notice to children seeking treats: "No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters."
* * * * * * *
Sick, isn't it? Why doesn't she just come out and admit she's racist? Or is this the crop we sow when McCain spreads lies and negativity?
On NPR the other day, two correspondents following the campaigns were giving their thoughts on the "final push" before election day. One was at a McCain campaign rally, the other at an Obama rally.
While you could not hear what the candidates were saying (the correspondents were talking), you could hear the audience's responses in the background.
The contrast was startling and summarizes this election and the strategies chosen by the candidates.
At the McCain Rally, the responses to McCain's rhetoric were BOO! and NOOOOO! The sound was ominious and negative, almost like the moaning of a ghost. The only other response was chanting of mindless slogans, and even this sounded almost fascist in its negativity. It was not a happy chant.
At the Obama rally, the audience response was CHEERS and happy ones at that. The audience sounded upbeat and happy.
McCain is selling FEAR and NEGATIVITY at a time in our country that people want reassurance and hope.
Obama is selling OPTIMISM and HOPE at a time when our country needs a good hug.
The old "Osama Bin Laden is out to get us" rhetoric doesn't work anymore, as it is clear that Al Queada has been knocked down in Afghanistan, DESPITE the Iraq war (which did more to fuel Al Queada than dispel it).
Fear simply does not sell anymore. We know that we have been lied to all along, and if the government had SIMPLY DONE ITS JOB, 9/11 would not have happened (if even ONE of the 90 FBI agents examining Monica Lewinsky's Blue Dress had bothered to investigate the numerous reports sent in by flight training schools in Minnesota and Florida, the entire plot would have been uncovered and stopped).
Americans are, by nature, are a positive-thinking people. You cannot sell negativism for very long. It has a short shelf life. And the Bush-McCain "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism" are past their expiration date.
McCain on SNL...
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-sen-mccain/805401/
This skit is perhaps too real - he is already doing both the "Reverse Maverick" (doning what everyone tells him to) and the "Double Maverick" (going beserk). The opening QVC sequence was funnier.
Like Kerry and Gore, too little and too late, do they show their human side, so obsessed they are about appearing "Presidential".
The Real John McCain was a decent person. What happened?
He was very poorly served and poorly advised by his campaign staff and advisors.
This could have beem McCain's year. He made every mistake possible.
McCain promises to unite America. How can this be when he refuses to even allow political dialog?
This campaign, he tells us, is not about different policy positions or rational disagreements over policy.
No.
In the last week, the campaign has been redefined as "saving America" from THEM (The Blacks, the Communists, the Terrorists, etc.).
You are either with us, or with the terrorists. That is the message.
Not only are Obama's policies wrong, McCain says, they will DESTROY THE NATION.
This is a bit extreme, to say the least. How is this "reaching across the aisle?"
The response from the PEOPLE has been "Well, what do you think BUSH has done?" No President in history has done more to ruin the domestic economy, bankrupt the nation, trash our reputation overseas, and bog us down in two wars with third-rate third-wold countries that should have been over and done with years ago.
Which party is really DESTROYING THE NATION? The Republicans.
I drove by the election board today. The line to vote was around the block. I'll try again tomorrow.
Our precinct has only 600 voters, so I might just wait until election day. Nice to see a fantastic turnout.
Obama will win this election because he won the internet contest. This election will go down in history as the first where the Internet made the difference - in courting the younger voters (and the elderly - they are online all day!) and also in strategy, marketing, and countering negative attacks.
No politician after this will neglect, misunderstand, and misuse the Internet as McCain did.
Go to the McCain website. It is lame. No blog. No interaction. Hard to use.
Go to the Obama website. Easy to use, lots of interactive features. It is clear that Obama "gets" the internet.
Here's how Obama WON the election online:
1. Fundraising: The Obama website raised staggering amounts of money. McCain was too little, too late in this regard, and his "base" is internet illiterate (and the other kind of illiterate as well).
2. Advertising: Starting with the viral videos (e.g., the Obama Mac ad), the Obama campaign has used the relatively "free" medium of the internet to its advantage. The only McCain internet ads and viral marketing came across as some paranoid videos from crackpot religious cults.
3. E-mailing: Both McCain and Obama have my e-mail address as I have registered with both sites. The Obama site sends me an average of an e-mail every day or every other day. They stay in touch and use the medium. McCain sends maybe one e-mail a month if that. But he does love his robo-calls! How 20th century!
4. Mythbusting: The Internet is good at spreading rumors, but after a decade or mroe, people are wising up that you look pretty foolish when you mass-forward some cookie recipe or other nonsense and one of the people you forward it to says "hey, fool, don't you bother to check SNOPES before you hit SEND?" So Internet rumors carry little in the way of weight anymore. And it is SOOOO easy to fact-check online with just a click.
5. Fact Spreading: On the other hand, it IS easy to get the "real dope" on McCain and his policies online nowadays, and thus, you can't make the sort of bland statements and outright lies anymore without people saying "hey, that's not right". Moreover, the media this time around is more aggressive about saying whether something is true or not. Kudos to CNN and teir "fact checker" blog.
The Internet CAN be a tool to improve democracy. Obama will win because he understood this and used the Internet to his advantage. McCain will lose because he viewed the Internet as some sort of fad for kids that was not really important.
By the time of the 2012 or 2016 elections, the concept of "television" as a broadcast medium will be obsolete. More people will be downloading their video online than watching "broadcasts" of shows and news at certain times.
By the next election, the Internet will be the whole ball game, and the concept of "big television buys" for ad time will be obsolete, IMHO.
This is the start of a big CHANGE.
Barbara West – impartial journalist?
Barbara West, the "journalist" who asked Joe Biden if Barack Obama was a communist, on the air, is claiming that she is "just a journalist". If you believe that, so is Sean Hannity.
Her husband is a Republican party operative in Florida. She is about as partial as you can get.
This quote from a recent Larry King interview is the tipoff:
For those of you who don't have your Republican Decoding Rings with them, it goes like this:
"Wage earner" = WHITE PERSON
"Somebody Who Refuses to Work" = BLACK PEOPLE ON WELFARE
The scare tactic of "Black folks getting rich on Welfare while you work your fingers to the bone" is about as old as the hills – and as RACIST as well.
Obama is going to give black folks more welfare, well, because he is one of them!
That is how the argument goes.
Unfortunately for McCain, the only people this argument resonates with are the far right nutjobs who are going to vote for him anyway.
Speaking in code words to interst groups (Christians, for example) is a page right out of the Karl Rove playbook.
The "Big Lie" that Joe the Plumber and McCain are perpetrating is that somehow businesses will be taxed on GROSS RECEIPTS rather than net income.
Very few plumbers are making $250,000 a year in net take-home pay. Yet "Joe the Plumber" implies that his GROSS receipts of $250,000 would somehow be taxed under Obama.
Gross receipts have never been taxed at the Federal Level and never will be.
NET PAY is taxed at the Federal level. Average pay for a plumber these days is $47,000. Such folks would get a tax CUT under Obama. Joe the Plumber fails to mention this.
Note also that the argument that a tax hike on the rich will suppress jobs is plainly false. Again, salary expenses for employees are DEDUCTIONS not TAXABLE INCOME, so there is no disincentive to hiring people. You will not "pay more taxes" by hiring more employees.
(Note: "Joe the Plumber" is actually an unlicensed plumber's assistant, and it is unlikely he will "buy the business" he works for anytime soon, the entire scenario was a "gotcha" question for Obama).
Why does "Joe the Plumber" and John McCain spread these clear falsehoods about basic tax law? Because they can. Because to most people, tax law is a voodoo mystery. It really isn't all that hard, if you can add, subtract, multiply and divide. But thanks to "no child left behind" very few can do that either.
