Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hadn't seen this discussed in the thread yet. The whole 'I have a bracelet too' comment by Obama seemed odd enough when he said it. It just seemed like something that was brought up knowing that McCain would mention it. Now we find out that the father of the soldier who Obama mentioned had asked him not to use his son's name as a campaign tactic.......

Article:

Political Punch

Interview with father where he mentions that he didn't want his son's name used for political purposes:

http://clipcast.wpr.org:8080/ramgen/...qwar5years.mp3

[Flasch186]

You left out something kind of important.

Soldier's mother 'ecstatic' about Obama's bracelet

By DINESH RAMDE – 14 hours ago

MILWAUKEE (AP) — The mother of a Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq says she was "ecstatic" when Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama mentioned during Friday's debate the bracelet she gave him in honor of her son.

Tracy Jopek of Merrill told The Associated Press on Sunday she was honored that Obama remembered Sgt. Ryan David Jopek, who was killed in 2006 by a roadside bomb.

Jopek criticized Internet reports suggesting Obama, D-Ill., exploited her son for political purposes.

"I don't understand how people can take that and turn it into some garbage on the Internet," she said.

Jopek acknowledged e-mailing the Obama campaign in February asking that the presidential candidate not mention her son in speeches or debates. But she said Obama's mention on Friday was appropriate because he was responding after Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, said a soldier's mother gave him a bracelet.

"I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant — from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay," Obama said during the debate. "She asked me, 'Can you please make sure another mother is not going through what I'm going through?' No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided."

Jopek says Obama's comment rightfully suggested there's more than one viewpoint on the war.

She wouldn't directly say whether she wanted Obama to refrain from mentioning the bracelet again, but said she hopes the issue will just go away.

"I think these bracelets should be looked upon as an honor that both candidates wear them to respect the troops," Jopek said. "My request to both of them is that they honor the troops by lifting the conversation to the issues, and that they continue to live up to the standards our military deserves."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

You left out something kind of important.

Nothing I posted was different than what you posted. The complaint was by the father and the mother said she was happy to hear the reference but wanted it all to go away. That's exactly what was in the article I posted and nothing was left out.

[Flasch186]

your snippet left that very important part out. I once tried, in this thread, to start only link to articles and got hammered on it eventhough my stance remains that most people dont read the long articles. If that was you joining me in the thought that people dont read them, than welcome. If not, than Im sure someone should equally point out how your choice of what to put out there, what you chose to summarize, and what you put in a link, makes things look.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Side topic related to Palin.

I REALLY would like to see the Republican strategists just let Palin speak freely. They're making such an effort to fill her full of knowledge on the issues and to avoid making a mistake that they're turning her into a robot that doesn't resemble her personality in any way. If they don't let her show her personality (which is her strong point), they're going to end up shooting this campaign in the foot.

I'm reminded of the Bob Dole campaign where they told him to 'act presidential' rather than just being himself. After the election, he was open and even funny in his appearances, leading most to wonder if the election would have gone differently if he would have acted like himself in the run-up to the election. We'll be thinking the same of Sarah Palin if they don't take the cuffs off soon.

Will she make mistakes here and there? Probably.

Will she be forced to say that she's not sure or isn't up to snuff on certain topics? Probably.

Is a free-speaking Palin better than the Palin robot? Absolutely.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

your snippet left that very important part out. I once tried, in this thread, to start only link to articles and got hammered on it eventhough my stance remains that most people dont read the long articles. If that was you joining me in the thought that people dont read them, than welcome. If not, than Im sure someone should equally point out how your choice of what to put out there, what you chose to summarize, and what you put in a link, makes things look.

"Did you think I didn't hear him?"



If people don't read the info, that's their issue.

[Flasch186]

fine opinion. I think thus far, they have filled her with so much info and put on such trigger points of which talking point to react with, that she cant think. Whether or not that would be better I dont know, but Im glad we can agree that the few interviews she had have been disastrous.

Ok, so then you meant to spin it....cool. Glad I could put it back on even footing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

fine opinion. I think thus far, they have filled her with so much info and put on such trigger points of which talking point to react with, that she cant think. Whether or not that would be better I dont know, but Im glad we can agree that the few interviews she had have been disastrous.

The debate is this week, which is why I mention this now. If they let her loose and she does well in the debate, people will quickly forget about those interviews and note that she did well against an experienced senator. If she tries to stick to the talking points, she'll fail miserably.

[Flasch186]

The expectations are so low that, like my opinion with McCain, if she even draws...she wins. Barring a Nascar like wreck I think most watchers will be 'disappointed' in a way. Should she win or draw the base will be empowered however Im, again, not sure it'll sway anyone. BTW I hope the format is better, the last one's format was uber-awful.

[JPhillips]

The problem is that she doesn't have much knowledge about national or world affairs. No style is going to cover that up. I've gotten to a point where I feel a little sorry for her. She's like an A-ball pitcher suddenly called to the bigs. She just doesn't have the knowledge or experience to handle a campaign at this level. If I were a Palin fan I'd worry that this campaign is tarnishing her brand to the point where she won't ever have another shot at national office.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The expectations are so low that, like my opinion with McCain, if she even draws...she wins. Barring a Nascar like wreck I think most watchers will be 'disappointed' in a way. Should she win or draw the base will be empowered however Im, again, not sure it'll sway anyone. BTW I hope the format is better, the last one's format was uber-awful.

LOL....I swear that I didn't read this before I made my post about Palin. I'm sure that my post validity will be diminished now that I find out that I'm thinking like Bill Kristol.

William Kristol: How McCain wins - International Herald Tribune

With respect to his campaign, McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her - aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she's a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.

I'm told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff's handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They're supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice-presidential debate on Thursday.

That debate is important. McCain took a risk in choosing Palin. If she does poorly, it will reflect badly on his judgment. If she does well, it will be a shot in the arm for his campaign.

In the debate, Palin has to dispatch quickly any queries about herself, and confidently assert that of course she's qualified to be vice president. She should spend her time making the case for McCain and, more important, the case against Obama. As one shrewd McCain supporter told me, "Every minute she spends not telling the American people something that makes them less well disposed to Obama is a minute wasted."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The problem is that she doesn't have much knowledge about national or world affairs. No style is going to cover that up. I've gotten to a point where I feel a little sorry for her. She's like an A-ball pitcher suddenly called to the bigs. She just doesn't have the knowledge or experience to handle a campaign at this level. If I were a Palin fan I'd worry that this campaign is tarnishing her brand to the point where she won't ever have another shot at national office.

well said

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

it's early but did you just compare the "W" card to the "Nazi"' card as somewhat even? Im jewish, y'know.

In all honesty Glen, I truly view it as a waste of time. I could find what IMO are the perfect examples and you'll shoot them down (as you did above) as not being good examples or being an example of something else. Hmmmm, perhaps Im evolving from this thread and learning what is worth effort or stress and what isn't. Doubtful, but I know that whatever I 'prove' you'll say proves diddly squat.

Hey you've now you've played the ulitmate substantial discussion avoider, "I'm an offended Jewish person" tactic.

Flasch I wasn't trying to argue. I just saw a statement, and had to call "Bullshit".

I'm not asking for you to even substantiate the references. But if you say that "W" used the "Feds","Army", and "DoD" to intimidate those that shouldn't be intimidated, then I'd think you'd at least be able to produce a reference to each that you could believe in. As it is, I think you just threw it out there with zero substance.

Fair enough, I'm just sticking with my original assessment, "Bullshit"

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I REALLY would like to see the Republican strategists just let Palin speak freely.

The problem is, when she speaks freely they end up having to issue retractions as with her Pakistan comment this weekend.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As it is, I think you just threw it out there with zero substance.

That's exactly the kind of thing that Flasch considers a "lie", and "hypocritical".

Not the proper usage of either word, of course, but maybe I'm just behind the times.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The problem is, when she speaks freely they end up having to issue retractions as with her Pakistan comment this weekend.

And I covered that in my point. She's going to screw up here and there and that's something they'll have to deal with. But I contend that they have zero chance of winning the election if they continue to restrain her personality. They're better off letting her go. She's certainly not going to make any more stupid statements than her VP opponent on the Dem side. He's a walking contradiction and quote machine despite his 20-some years of experience.

[timmynausea]

Obama now has a 5 or more point lead in all national head to head polls but one. GW/Battleground Tracking is the black sheep with McCain up by 2.

Edit: I see now that larry already mentioned this.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Three day weekend voting FTW.

Yeah, let give 3 days to operatives from both sides to ensure as many people who haven't followed politics get bribed to vote as possible. That's a great way to ensure quality elections.

In this process, why not just take 75% of your campaign money and hire a ton of "mercenaries" to take people to the polls. Maybe buy them lunch and give them a "propaganda onslaught" heading to the voting booth. Our elections would become even a bigger joke than they are now.

There are current exclusions for most employees and most polls open at 6 AM. So, if you work a job from 6 AM to 8 PM, you get a little screwed in the deal and need to get an early ballot. But everyone else has numerous opportunities (early AM, evening, vote absentee/early ballot, use the state "time to vote" option with your employer). All adding more day/time will do is allow more shenanigans from both sides to essentially "buy" elections.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, let give 3 days to operatives from both sides to ensure as many people who haven't followed politics get bribed to vote as possible. That's a great way to ensure quality elections.

In this process, why not just take 75% of your campaign money and hire a ton of "mercenaries" to take people to the polls. Maybe buy them lunch and give them a "propaganda onslaught" heading to the voting booth. Our elections would become even a bigger joke than they are now.

There are current exclusions for most employees and most polls open at 6 AM. So, if you work a job from 6 AM to 8 PM, you get a little screwed in the deal and need to get an early ballot. But everyone else has numerous opportunities (early AM, evening, vote absentee/early ballot, use the state "time to vote" option with your employer). All adding more day/time will do is allow more shenanigans from both sides to essentially "buy" elections.

so you'd really rather disenfranchise people??

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

In this process, why not just take 75% of your campaign money and hire a ton of "mercenaries" to take people to the polls. Maybe buy them lunch and give them a "propaganda onslaught" heading to the voting booth. Our elections would become even a bigger joke than they are now.

You just summarized what happens on a single election day in St. Louis every 4 years.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

so you'd really rather disenfranchise people??

Thanks, Captain Overgeneralization.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Thanks, Captain Overgeneralization.

anytime

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

so you'd really rather disenfranchise people??

While everyone has the right to vote, there's a certain degree of responsibility involved. There are a ton of ways to ensure your vote is taken regardless of your circumstance. The easiest is to get an absentee ballot (I usually get one in the mail anyway), fill it out and take it to a mail box at your convenience.

• If you don't have access to a campaign center, you can get the material sent to you via online gov't sites.
• If you don't have access to the internet, you can use a public library.
• If you don't have access to a library, you can vote early in the morning.
• If you can't vote early in the morning, you can use the state statute to take off work to vote.
• If you are worried about losing your job and leaving early, you can go vote after your job.

If you don't have access to the internet, don't live next to a library or campaign center, can't vote early in the morning, can't take off work (even for your hour lunch), can't vote after work and don't know how to use the postal service to mail an early ballot, you just may not have the chance to vote and I guess you will be disenfranchised

I would much rather exclude the small percentage of people who really want to vote, but fall into the above situation (probably less than 1%) than make the election a 3-day "Tent sale" with used car salesmen getting as many uniformed people as possible into voting booths. I don't see how this country benefits from making every election the outcome of a random number generator.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, let give 3 days to operatives from both sides to ensure as many people who haven't followed politics get bribed to vote as possible. That's a great way to ensure quality elections.

In this process, why not just take 75% of your campaign money and hire a ton of "mercenaries" to take people to the polls. Maybe buy them lunch and give them a "propaganda onslaught" heading to the voting booth. Our elections would become even a bigger joke than they are now.

There are current exclusions for most employees and most polls open at 6 AM. So, if you work a job from 6 AM to 8 PM, you get a little screwed in the deal and need to get an early ballot. But everyone else has numerous opportunities (early AM, evening, vote absentee/early ballot, use the state "time to vote" option with your employer). All adding more day/time will do is allow more shenanigans from both sides to essentially "buy" elections.

I don't see how it would be worse than it is currently. If I want to spend all my budget on "street money" I still can. I'd also be fine with nationwide mail voting as in Oregon. It just makes little sense that we still vote the same way we did 200+ years ago.

[DaddyTorgo]

171 more posts and we surpass the M-F thread...

[Galaxy]

I love how Democrats are, in this time of of economic crisis, trying to add all these silly things and bail out all the industries, and trying to show it's power. Both parties suck.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And I covered that in my point. She's going to screw up here and there and that's something they'll have to deal with. But I contend that they have zero chance of winning the election if they continue to restrain her personality. They're better off letting her go.

Unfortunately it puts them in a bit of a tough spot... Unless she suddenly picks up her game significantly, they're screwed with her either way at this point. But I guess with "maverick" decision making, you have to be willing to take bad results with the good.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

She's certainly not going to make any more stupid statements than her VP opponent on the Dem side. He's a walking contradiction and quote machine despite his 20-some years of experience.

Biden says dumb things, but there is a world of difference between Biden's stupid statements (saying FDR was president and television existed during the great depression) and Palin's (directly contradicting your pary's stance on Pakistan and not grasping the most basic issues during a softball interview).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Hey you've now you've played the ulitmate substantial discussion avoider, "I'm an offended Jewish person" tactic.

Flasch I wasn't trying to argue. I just saw a statement, and had to call "Bullshit".

I'm not asking for you to even substantiate the references. But if you say that "W" used the "Feds","Army", and "DoD" to intimidate those that shouldn't be intimidated, then I'd think you'd at least be able to produce a reference to each that you could believe in. As it is, I think you just threw it out there with zero substance.

Fair enough, I'm just sticking with my original assessment, "Bullshit"

very quickly so as not to waste too much of my time showing stuff that you'll throw in the trash:

Feds Intimidate War Protesters :: there it is . org :: pertinent pointers

Feds Win Right to War Protesters' Records
[ link ]

BY RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer

February 8, 2004, 9:23 AM EST

DES MOINES, Iowa -- In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.

In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served this past week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said.

Federal prosecutors refuse to comment on the subpoenas.

In addition to records about who attended the forum, the subpoena orders the university to divulge all records relating to the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based legal activist organization that sponsored the forum.

The group, once targeted for alleged ties to communism in the 1950s, announced Friday it will ask a federal court to quash the subpoena on Monday.

"The law is clear that the use of the grand jury to investigate protected political activities or to intimidate protesters exceeds its authority," guild President Michael Ayers said in a statement.

Representatives of the Lawyer's Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union said they had not heard of such a subpoena being served on any U.S. university in decades.

Those served subpoenas include the leader of the Catholic Peace Ministry, the former coordinator of the Iowa Peace Network, a member of the Catholic Worker House, and an anti-war activist who visited Iraq in 2002.

They say the subpoenas are intended to stifle dissent.

"This is exactly what people feared would happen," said Brian Terrell of the peace ministry, one of those subpoenaed. "The civil liberties of everyone in this country are in danger. How we handle that here in Iowa is very important on how things are going to happen in this country from now on."

The forum, titled "Stop the Occupation! Bring the Iowa Guard Home!" came the day before 12 protesters were arrested at an anti-war rally at Iowa National Guard headquarters in Johnston. Organizers say the forum included nonviolence training for people planning to demonstrate.

The targets of the subpoenas believe investigators are trying to link them to an incident that occurred during the rally. A Grinnell College librarian was charged with misdemeanor assault on a peace officer; she has pleaded innocent, saying she simply went limp and resisted arrest.

"The best approach is not to speculate and see what we learn on Tuesday" when the four testify, said Ben Stone, executive director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, which is representing one of the protesters.

Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the Washington-based American Association of University Professors, said he had not heard of any similar case of a U.S. university being subpoenaed for such records.

He said the case brings back fears of the "red squads" of the 1950s and campus clampdowns on Vietnam War protesters.

According to a copy obtained by The Associated Press, the Drake subpoena asks for records of the request for a meeting room, "all documents indicating the purpose and intended participants in the meeting, and all documents or recordings which would identify persons that actually attended the meeting."

It also asks for campus security records "reflecting any observations made of the Nov. 15, 2003, meeting, including any records of persons in charge or control of the meeting, and any records of attendees of the meeting."

Several officials of Drake, a private university with about 5,000 students, refused to comment Friday, including school spokeswoman Andrea McDonough. She referred questions to a lawyer representing the school, Steve Serck, who also would not comment.

A source with knowledge of the investigation said a judge had issued a gag order forbidding school officials from discussing the subpoena.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationa...s20071014.html

Hundreds of New Documents Reveal Expanded Military Role in Domestic Surveillance (10/14/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [email protected]

NEW YORK - New documents uncovered as a result of an American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union lawsuit reveal that the Department of Defense secretly issued hundreds of national security letters (NSLs) to obtain private and sensitive records of people within the United States without court approval. A comprehensive analysis of 455 NSLs issued after 9/11 shows that the Defense Department seems to have collaborated with the FBI to circumvent the law, may have overstepped its legal authority to obtain financial and credit records, provided misleading information to Congress, and silenced NSL recipients from speaking out about the records requests, according to the ACLU.

"Once again, the Bush administration's unchecked authority has led to abuse and civil liberties violations," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "The documents make clear that the Department of Defense may have secretly and illegally conducted surveillance beyond the powers it was granted by Congress. It also appears as if the FBI is serving as a lackey for the DoD in misusing the Patriot Act powers. At the very least, it certainly looks like the FBI and DoD are conspiring to evade limits placed on the Department of Defense's surveillance powers."

NSLs are secretly issued by the government to obtain access to personal customer records from Internet service providers, financial institutions, and credit reporting agencies. In almost all cases, recipients of the NSLs are forbidden, or "gagged," from disclosing that they have received the letters. While the FBI has broad NSL powers and compliance with FBI-issued NSLs is mandatory, the Defense Department's NSL power is more limited in scope, and, in most cases, compliance with Defense Department demands is not mandatory.

In April, the ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act requests with both the Defense Department and the CIA seeking all documents related to their use of NSLs to gain access to personal records of people in the United States. And in June, the ACLU filed a lawsuit to force those agencies to turn over the requested documents. The Defense Department's NSL documents are the first materials received by the ACLU as part of this lawsuit.

"The expanded role of the military in domestic intelligence gathering is troubling. These documents reveal that the military is gaining access to records here in the U.S. – in secret and without any meaningful oversight," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project. "There are real concerns about the use of this intrusive surveillance power."

As first revealed by the New York Times in January, recipients of the letters have reported confusion over the scope of the information requested and whether compliance with the NSLs is legally required. The documents released to the ACLU confirm that the letters are coercive and do not make clear that compliance with the Defense Department's "requests" for information is voluntary.

These revelations about the Defense Department's use of NSLs come on the heels of widespread reports of other significant government abuses of the NSL power. A March 2007 report from the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) estimated that the FBI issued over 143,000 NSLs between 2003 and 2005, an astronomical increase from previous years. The IG's report also found numerous examples of improper and illegal uses of NSLs by the FBI.

The Defense Department documents uncovered today contain numerous revelations of potential abuses of the National Security Letter power:

* Documents show the Defense Department may be flouting the law and, by simply asking the FBI to issue the NSLs on their behalf, accessing documents it is not entitled to receive. There is no evidence that the FBI has ever turned down such a request. (See document page 60)
* The Defense Department told Congress that it seeks NSL assistance from the FBI only in joint investigations, but an internal program review shows that the military asks the FBI to issue NSLs in strictly Defense Department investigations. (See document pages 178-80)
* A heavily redacted copy of the results of an internal program review prompted after the New York Times reported potential abuses of the military's NSL power shows that the Defense Department has issued NSLs with little guidance or training, no coordination within the military, no real recordkeeping, and an inadequate review process. A Defense Department action memo identifies and recommends fixing these flaws. (See document pages 49, 54-73)
* Although compliance with Defense Department-issued NSLs is voluntary, the coercive language found in these letters would lead a reader to believe compliance was mandatory. For example, one NSL was stamped multiple times with the words "subpoena" and "non-disclosure obligation" to intimidate its recipients with authority the Defense Department does not have. According to Navy records, no credit agency has ever refused to comply with the military's requests, and only two financial institutions have refused to comply. (See document pages 16-18, 87, 1040)
* The Defense Department appears to "gag" all NSL recipients as a matter of course, and, despite recent changes to the law, the NSLs issued by the Defense Department do not inform recipients of their new right to challenge the request and gag order in court. (See document pages 87, 303)
* The Defense Department can use NSLs to gather information on individuals not suspected of wrongdoing. (See document pages 112-114)

"The Fourth Amendment protects against the government's effort to rummage broadly through the papers and documents of individuals without narrow and specific justifications," said Arthur Eisenberg, NYCLU Legal Director. "Yet the excessive secrecy surrounding the military's use of national security letters opens the door to abuse. Without oversight and accountability, there is nothing to stop the Defense Department from engaging in broad fishing expeditions."

The ACLU has successfully challenged the NSL power in two separate lawsuits. In one case involving an Internet Service Provider, a federal court in September struck down as unconstitutional the National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act authorizing the FBI to demand a range of personal records without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing the letters.

Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Jerrold Nadler have introduced legislation to rein in this unchecked NSL authority. The ACLU urges immediate consideration of these bills in light of this new information.

Attorneys in the case are Goodman and Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU's National Security Project and Eisenberg of the NYCLU.

All of the Defense Department documents obtained by the ACLU are available at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationa...s20071014.html

More information about the ACLU's challenges to the NSL power is available at: www.aclu.org/nsl

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

I would much rather exclude the small percentage of people who really want to vote, but fall into the above situation (probably less than 1%) than make the election a 3-day "Tent sale" with used car salesmen getting as many uniformed people as possible into voting booths. I don't see how this country benefits from making every election the outcome of a random number generator.

If that's disenfranchisement, then I'm with the disenfranchiser. Again, I don't want the election to be determined by who has the best ground game but by who (the people think) is the best candidate. And I have a hard time with the parenthetical part since it's a glorified high school popularity contest as it is to all but maybe 10% of the population.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't McCain express support in the debate for continued funding of Star Wars??

and now we get this in Time magazine (no surprise to those of us who have been following along and realize what a clusterfuck the whole program is -- shit I don't think it'll ever work, it's money flushed down the drain at this point):

The Latest Star Wars Woes: Launching Fake Targets - TIME

[Arles]

I think he referenced it as being a major reason the US won the cold war. I think he is in favor of the current missile shield project (referenced in the Time article).

People need to really start looking at these advanced defense mechanisms as what they really are - glorified R&D for the pentagon (and eventually the private sector). If people don't want to do that, I can see that point. Still, there have been a ton of technological advancements (esp in the areas of satellite systems, communications and GPS) from these "star wars" projects. Much like with the original space travel projects, you have to look at more than just one finished product (in this case, a missile shield).

That said, I know McCain has hammered the administration/congress for Lockheed costs and I would think he would get more involved with the costs here as president. Here's a good article on some aspects of "bloated" defense spending with both McCain and Obama in mind:

Sachs Group Inc. warned its clients last month that Barack Obama would be ``a negative for defense stocks'' if he became president, because he will cut weapons programs that generate the companies' biggest profits.

Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp. and other military contractors may not fare any better under John McCain.

While the two presidential candidates are hammering each other over their differences on Iraq, they share a skepticism over big Pentagon programs such as Lockheed Martin's F-22 fighter and the Army's $159 billion Future Combat Systems, a modernization plan jointly managed by Boeing and SAIC Inc.

``When you get beyond the issue of the war in Iraq, Senator McCain and Senator Obama sound remarkably similar on many defense issues,'' says Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia.

Interesting McCain quotes:

McCain has cited the F-22 as one example of the cost overruns and delivery delays that he says have plagued the acquisition process. In a speech last year in Oklahoma, he said the U.S. ``must be willing to pull the plug before sinking more dollars into weapons that do not provide what our warriors need.''

McCain believes ``there's a huge waste in the Pentagon's acquisition system,'' says John Lehman, a McCain military adviser who served as Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan.

While McCain hasn't reached conclusions about any specific program, he's determined to crack down on cost overruns and lack of accountability, Lehman says. ``The whole culture has evolved into a bureaucratic morass, and there's no obstacles to gold-plating.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...5PA&refer=home

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't McCain express support in the debate for continued funding of Star Wars??

and now we get this in Time magazine (no surprise to those of us who have been following along and realize what a clusterfuck the whole program is -- shit I don't think it'll ever work, it's money flushed down the drain at this point):

The Latest Star Wars Woes: Launching Fake Targets - TIME

Not if you're the one getting the $$$. It goes in your pocket. And if you;re the person allocating the money, you likely get a commission.

[larrymcg421]

I don't think we need to have three day voting, but I think all states should expand to early voting.

Also, no matter how backed up a precint may be, they should be required to stay open until everyone that got in line on time has a chance to vote. This is part of the problem in many inner cities which don't have enough polling locations or enough volunteers and run into really long lines.

Furthermore, any state that requires photo ID to vote must offer a free state ID. Otherwise, requiring an ID to vote amounts to a poll tax.

I think many states cover these options, but some do not and that leads to the complaints we get every 2 years.

[Big Fo]

As an Obama supporter I agree that the Republicans should let Palin speak more freely and more often.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think he referenced it as being a major reason the US won the cold war. I think he is in favor of the current missile shield project (referenced in the Time article).

People need to really start looking at these advanced defense mechanisms as what they really are - glorified R&D for the pentagon (and eventually the private sector). If people don't want to do that, I can see that point. Still, there have been a ton of technological advancements (esp in the areas of satellite systems, communications and GPS) from these "star wars" projects. Much like with the original space travel projects, you have to look at more than just one finished product (in this case, a missile shield).

That said, I know McCain has hammered the administration/congress for Lockheed costs and I would think he would get more involved with the costs here as president. Here's a good article on some aspects of "bloated" defense spending with both McCain and Obama in mind:



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...5PA&refer=home

yeah, i know they're basically glorified R&D - just wish they'd abandon the pretense -- really the pretense of this "missile shield" is just getting us in hot-water internationally, so why not just drop the act.

good to see both men looking at out-of-control defense spending though

[albionmoonlight]

I think the reason that the GOP conventional wisdom this morning is that they need to "Let Palin just be herself" is because people don't like the Palin they have seen.* So, they have to spin that Palin as "not the real Palin." Which might or might not be true. But, if true, it means that McCain's campaign is basically saying "You guys would like the real Palin, and if we showed her to you, we would be more likely to win the election. But, we are forcing her to cover that person up and making her pretend to be someone who she is not who you guys will like less." Which begs a pretty obvious question.


*Not totally true, of course. A fair number of people like Palin just fine. She just seems to have fallen flat with the swing voters. If McCain loses this election, one of the big stories will have to be how a guy who was apparently (depending on who you believe) seriously considered to be Kerry's running mate four years ago managed to lose the center of the electorate. I have some theories on that, but they are all in a pretty proto form and not really fit for posting at this point. (And, hey, until November 4th, we won't know whether McCain really did lose the center or not. I'm not counting him out. This is a guy whose primary campaign was down to a stick of gum and a broken paper clip while we were all talking about Romney v. Huckabee but who managed to McGyver his way to the nomination. The lesson? Don't count out old Navy guys who are tough as shit.)

[Maple Leafs]

Has this been posted yet?

Report: 60 Million People You'd Never Talk To Voting For Other Guy | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

yeah, i know they're basically glorified R&D - just wish they'd abandon the pretense -- really the pretense of this "missile shield" is just getting us in hot-water internationally, so why not just drop the act.

Again, if you're the one getting paid, why would you be eager to stop it?

[larrymcg421]

Electoral sites...

FiveThirtyEight - Obama 325.5-212.5
Electoral-Vote - Obama 286-252
Real Clear Politics - Obama 301-237

[Flasch186]

McCain rushed back and saved the deal? Just wanted some clarification on that. BTW bill failed market is cratering, to use McCain's lingo.

[larrymcg421]

Today's Gallup is 50-42 and contains two days of post-debate polling.

[Flasch186]

still time to save the vote while it's open....Perhaps John can run over and sway the votes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

BTW bill failed market is cratering, to use McCain's lingo.

This will be an interesting discussion. The Democrats went out of their way to say that McCain didn't help anything and that the bailout bill was something that they brokered. Will they be taking credit for a bill that they can't even pass with a majority of both houses?

FWIW.......I think this bill failure is a good sign that the general Congress is starting to vote based more on their constituent's wishes rather than following the party lines. There was a ridiculous amount of public input against this bill being sent to Congressional offices and it appears that the majority of them were listening.

The market has recovered most of it's loss that it had during the vote.

[Flasch186]

and he didnt deliver the GOP....nuff said.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and he didnt deliver the GOP....nuff said.

They didn't have to deliver the GOP. The Democrats couldn't even muster support within their own ranks. Blaming the GOP for the bill failure is humor at its finest. The Democrat leaders wanted GOP support so they could help shoulder the blame if this bailout failed. The result is that the GOP and roughly 20% of the Democrats decided they didn't want to be the ones to stick their necks out for this bill. I'm against the bailout, so I'm certainly glad to see this happen.

[Flasch186]

Stop spinning. McCain said he's 'rushing' back to make sure this happens, the negotiated through the weekend, and he didnt deliver the GOP as he 'rushed' back to do. spin it however you want, deflect it all you want but the matter is a FACT. IT IS A FACT!!!!!! Im watching it with my own eyes and have watched for 10 days. IT IS A FACT.

[Arles]

Why are the democrats not putting this to a vote. They have plenty of House and Senate support to pass it (even without McCain and the House republicans)?

If Obama/Reid/Pelosi is right and we are facing the worst economic crisis since the depression if it isn't passed, why wait for those "stubborn" house republicans?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Stop spinning. McCain said he's 'rushing' back to make sure this happens, the negotiated through the weekend, and he didnt deliver the GOP as he 'rushed' back to do. spin it however you want, deflect it all you want but the matter is a FACT. IT IS A FACT!!!!!! Im watching it with my own eyes and have watched for 10 days. IT IS A FACT.

I'm going to write this off as sarcasm. If you're serious.............

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

They didn't have to deliver the GOP. The Democrats couldn't even muster support within their own ranks. Blaming the GOP for the bill failure is humor at its finest. The Democrat leaders wanted GOP support so they could help shoulder the blame if this bailout failed. The result is that the GOP and roughly 20% of the Democrats decided they didn't want to be the ones to stick their necks out for this bill. I'm against the bailout, so I'm certainly glad to see this happen.

idk if you can blame it on the democrats.

Originally Posted by cnn

The measure needs 218 votes for passage. Democrats voted 141 to 94 in favor of the plan, while Republicans voted 65 to 133 against. That left the measure with 206 votes for and 227 against.

More republicans voted against it than democrats. more democrats voted for it than republicans.

i think you have to blame it on this groundswell of public opinion you've been talking about.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm going to write this off as sarcasm. If you're serious.............

1. Im shutting down my campaign to go make sure that the deal that ccomes through is one that we like, and passes and is good for the people

2. they work 24hours / day over the weekend negotiating

3. They come up with a deal that has bi-partisan support (dont make me get the quotes)

4. Deal fails 2-1 on the GOP side.

Where do you see the falsehood?