pageok
pageok
pageok
Obama leads in 4 of 5 recent polls.

Barack Obama has a slight lead in 4 of the 5 most recent polls.

The likeliest reasons for the shift toward Obama are:

(1) The Republican convention bounce naturally expired.

(2) The press's direct attack on Sarah Palin is working.

(3) The Wall Street collapse and the bailouts are turning voters toward Obama/Biden.

J. Aldridge:
Barry been losing ground in every new poll in WI, NY, PA, NJ AND Minn - MINNESOTA!!!!!

If he is struggling in MINN even with the media on his side he is going to be toast in November.
9.18.2008 1:37am
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

4. They're polling more Democrats.
9.18.2008 1:39am
Asher (mail):
What about Palin's kamikaze-like attack on herself?
9.18.2008 1:49am
dr:
Top-notch analysis! I think you've covered all conceivable bases!
9.18.2008 1:58am
Jim at FSU (mail):
I'm inclined to think it has to do with the wall street mess.

But the state-by-state picture is looking increasingly grim for Obama. Pennsylvania is getting really close and nearly everything around IL is trending towards McCain.

Neither of them has it sewn up- one really bad moment could sink either candidate at this point.
9.18.2008 1:59am
RW Rogers (mail):
The Palin Effect (#1) started fading over the weekend. The old rule of thumb of campaigns, whoever becomes the issue loses remains valid, so #2 is probably true as well. #3 appears to be the case as the week goes on. That's politics.
9.18.2008 2:02am
Grover Gardner (mail):
5. Palin's slip is showing and McCain acts like a robot with malware.
9.18.2008 2:03am
Laura S.:

(2) The press's direct attack on Sarah Palin is working

I suspect this has something to do with it. The press has been vicious in its insinuations, omissions, and consequent distortions. IMO, the WaPo has been particularly offensive in this regard, but its by no means so limited to them.
9.18.2008 2:04am
CB55 (mail):
2.5 If the press was vetted by Fox News, McCain would have nothing to worry about
9.18.2008 2:12am
Jim at FSU (mail):
I think McCain dropped the ball by suggesting the formation of a commission to look at the problem. It's a non-answer. Obama didn't really run with this either, so I think it is probably a wash so far. Both the left and the right are trying to paint this as the fault of Clinton cronyism or Bush laissez-fairism. Unless either side gains traction with their particular angle, I don't predict this will have much effect.
9.18.2008 2:18am
Laura S.:

(3) The Wall Street collapse and the bailouts are turning voters toward Obama/Biden.

I don't get that one. The dot-com bubble and the housing bubble can both be traced to that gem from the Democrats: the Humphrey-Hawkins Act. Both parties were responsible for ill-constructed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Democrats are largely to blame for diverting oversight Fannie and Freddie. The Corzine and Johnson amendments in the "The American Dream Down Payment Act" directly encouraged the suprime debacle... the ground work of which came from the "Community Reinvestment Act" and repeated threats from the Democrats of punitive measures if banks did not increase their lending to low-income borrowers.
9.18.2008 2:22am
Anna:
I asked a friend today why she doesn't like Palin.

She said, "Two things. One, she wants to make abortion illegal. Two, she bans books from the library."

I said, "I think you're wrong."

She said, with conviction, "I don't think so."

So I'm thinking reason number 2 above is working. Not everyone invests the time to figure things out for himself and relies on headlines and newscasts for his information instead. Gets me even more irritated with the MSM.
9.18.2008 2:23am
Cold Warrior:
I can't agree with "the press's direct attack on Sarah Palin."

What "direct attack?" I think the mainstream media have been fair. Certain bloggers? Obviously not. But I see nothing resembling an "attack."

Could someone please point me to an "attack" on Palin in the MSM?
9.18.2008 2:28am
Asher (mail):
Anna, I don't believe the MSM per se ever said she banned books from libraries. They've reported on her repeatedly inquiring as to whether books could be banned, but they've never said she banned books. Liberal blogs have... but they're not MSM.
9.18.2008 2:28am
mogden (mail):
Or people realize that Palin is an unqualified zealot?
9.18.2008 2:34am
Obvious (mail):
"Both the left and the right are trying to paint this as the fault of Clinton cronyism or Bush laissez-fairism. "

Ahh...I'm sure going to miss the loss of laissez-faire come January...
9.18.2008 2:35am
womanwhodoesn'tlikePalin:
(2) makes me roll my eyes. Poor, poor Palin under attack from the liberal media. YEA RIGHT.
9.18.2008 2:38am
cboldt (mail):
-- Not everyone invests the time to figure things out for himself and relies on headlines and newscasts for his information instead. Gets me even more irritated with the MSM. --
.
I respectfully submit that your irritation should lie with the consumer. The MSM (Massive Snakeoil Marketers) is simply acting in its natural character.
.
People who don't take the time to "check it out" should have the sense and humility to admit uncertainty and doubt. Anybody who takes a headline as accurate is a manipulable dumbass.
9.18.2008 2:41am
CB55 (mail):
Unless Fox News does the interview or reports the political news what ever they do else where is fiction. It's real said that they not fair and balanced at MSNBC as they are at Fox - they seem to just make things up from what ever comes out of McCain's mouth. If you adjust your dial you'll see that they are just being Liberal and being a lib is a sick-o mind.
9.18.2008 2:45am
JB:
Considering that 53% of the country thinks that Obama will raise their taxes, and 15% think he's a Muslim sleeper agent, complaining about how he's winning because people believe falsehoods about Palin is a bit rich.
9.18.2008 2:49am
Nunzio:
Cool. I look forward to the debates. Maybe Obama and McCain will learn something about monetary policy and the role of depositary banks, commercial banks, i-banks, securitization, and leveraging by then. Maybe the moderator of the debates will too.

We thought Sarah Palin had to cram.
9.18.2008 2:49am
CB55 (mail):
Obvious:

So you mean McCain is the only solution. Let's try the Market for 4 more years and get the government out of the way and form another study group like that 9/11 congressional group and give a few medals and some golden parachutes.
9.18.2008 2:49am
Laura S.:
Could someone please point me to an "attack" on Palin in the MSM?

* The WaPo and LAT both ran stories on August 10th about Palin's use of personal email accounts for political email rather than her state issued account. Both stories neglect to mention that using the state account for political email is an ethics violation. Consequently, the story describes a behavior that is both proper and necessary.

* The WaPo ran a front-page article on Palin's travel expenses, insinuating in the headline and first paragraph that she abused the process. Later in the article they disclosed that she was just following the rules and opted to file fewer expenses than she was entitled to file.

* During her interview with Gibson?, he asked if she wanted to repeal abortion. She repeatedly answered that her position on abortion was only her personal view. Whenever she tried to explain that she didn't want to govern on that issue, he cut her off and repeated "but you oppose abortion"

* The story about Palin not understanding the Bush doctrine had a lot of legs--until finally pretty much every expert agreed that Palin was right to question Gibson who completely blew on the point.

Need I go on? Look: the MSM does not lie. They do, however, insinuate, omit, and generally structure their articles and stories to imply a conclusion about Palin that happens to be wrong.
9.18.2008 2:51am
CB55 (mail):
JB:

I think about 60% of the American population think the only thing Obama is qualified for is shinning shoes and washing windows due to Affirmative Action.
9.18.2008 2:53am
cboldt (mail):
-- I think the mainstream media have been fair. --
.
Dear Friend,
I am Larisa Sosnitskaya and I represent Mr. Mikhail Khordokovsky the former C.E.O of Yukos Oil Company in Russia. I have a very sensitive and confidential brief from this top (oligarch) to ask for your partnership in re-profiling funds US$46 Million. I will give the details, but in summary, the funds are coming via Bank Menatep. This is a legitimate transaction.
9.18.2008 2:58am
Laura S.:

Considering that 53% of the country thinks that Obama will raise their taxes,

You know, Obama does plan to raise _some_ taxes even if he doesn't intend to raise them (just barely) on Average. McCain's argument is that you shouldn't raise ANY taxes in the middle of a downturn. You know "Don't rock the boat" + the Keynesian demand push: government borrowing fuels monetary expansion.
9.18.2008 2:59am
TCO:
All of the above. But number three is the most important. McCain really is missing a trick by not taking an anti-bailout stance. Palin actually feels this way (if you listen to her statements).
9.18.2008 2:59am
CB55 (mail):
Laura S.:

Palin is a long suffering saint, they should have a cross named after her or a doll. Saint Sarah of the Northern Cross, wounded by the sins and omissions of the press.
9.18.2008 3:00am
Cold Warrior:
Laura S. (shall I call you Doctor, Laura?), you'll have to do better than that:

1. Palin certainly can -- and should -- use a personal e-mail account for personal and purely political e-mails. However, that's not the story here. I have no idea why Palin's husband was on the cc: list on some e-mails dealing with the so-called "Troopergate" matter. And those e-mails dealt with official state business, not with "political" matters.

2. Don't you think Palin's claim of a per diem for nights spent in her own home is curious, even if it is allowed under Alaska's unusual interpretation of appropriate travel reimbursements? I see nothing resembling a "direct attack" here.

3. The Gibson thing was, in part, his attempt at a "gotcha" moment, but it wasn't exactly unfair. And I think Palin handled it fine. I would've preferred a somewhat more honest response: "please explain what you mean by the Bush Doctrine," rather than Palin's "in what sense" or whatever it was she said. But, after all, Dick Cheney pronounced the existence of such a thing, even though the new book on him makes it clear that he was too humble in naming it; it is really the Cheney Doctrine.

Yes, you need to go on. If Lindgren had said, "Widespread press skepticism regarding her record and qualifications to serve as VP," I'd agree with you. But he said "direct attack." And there was no such thing.
9.18.2008 3:01am
CB55 (mail):
Most Americans feel they do not have to or should not pay taxes for any thing because China is writing the check and the Fed has a printing press in the backroom
9.18.2008 3:03am
CB55 (mail):
Repeat after me, Palin is not running for president and as VP she must at least look like she supports the McCain agenda and if elected she is joined at his hip
9.18.2008 3:07am
Cold Warrior:

During her interview with Gibson?, he asked if she wanted to repeal abortion. She repeatedly answered that her position on abortion was only her personal view. Whenever she tried to explain that she didn't want to govern on that issue, he cut her off and repeated "but you oppose abortion"


I've seen this criticism before. And I just don't understand it. If you are against abortion because you think it is murder, well, doesn't it follow that you want it outlawed? So about the only sensible answer would be this (and it is a very sensible answer): I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue of abortion returned to where it belongs, the states. But that's not what Palin said. If her "personal" viewpoint on abortion has no bearing on public policy, then why on earth did her party demand candidates who are opposed to abortion?
9.18.2008 3:12am
PC:
McCain really is missing a trick by not taking an anti-bailout stance. Palin actually feels this way (if you listen to her statements).


I'd love to get McCain or Palin's opinion on the market effects of not bailing out AIG.
9.18.2008 3:23am
Asher (mail):
Cold Warrior, I guess the point would be that the fact that Palin doesn't support abortion in cases of rape and incest is virtually meaningless. What can she, the Vice President, do about it? Yeah, she's pro-life, so if McCain were to pass, that would probably play some role in her judicial nominations, but the specifics of her position don't really have any force, or relevance to anything. It's just, as she says, her personal position.
9.18.2008 3:28am
Cold Warrior:
Asher, that's all well and good -- and correct -- but the question is simple: do you want to outlaw abortion? In other words, do you want to see abortion made illegal?

And based on her obvious commitment, the answer is simple: "Yes."
9.18.2008 3:33am
cboldt (mail):
-- If her "personal" viewpoint one abortion has no bearing on public policy, then why on earth did her party demand candidates who are opposed to abortion? --
.
Executives don't make law, so her position would have no -direct- bearing. But as a person who might influence SCOTUS nominations, and as a person who has more influence on legislators than the average person, her point of view on the subject matters to voters.
.
The same calculus works for the pro-abortion side too. Why do DEMs insist on candidates who are NOT opposed to abortion? See above.
9.18.2008 3:39am
Asher (mail):
Yeah, she'd like to see abortion be outlawed - I wouldn't say, though, that she wants to outlaw it. Really, I think the point of her emphasizing that her view was merely 'personal' was that it's one that the man at the top of the ticket doesn't share, at least not entirely. So in a sense it's a little like Paul O'Neill's view of the war in Iraq. Doesn't mean anything.
9.18.2008 3:41am
Jim Rhoads (mail):
The wonder is that BHO is not ahead by 15 points after the all-out "vetting" of Palin by the MSM and the worst news on Wall Street in many a year happening over the past 10 days.

Usually, Dems do very well in bad economic times because they are generally perceived then as more "helpful" to the common people. With that and the wind of the press at his back, why isn't he way ahead?

FOr all you Obama supporters, that is the question of the day.
9.18.2008 3:59am
08 voter:
Jim Rhoads:

Why do you think Obama isn't way ahead?
9.18.2008 4:14am
The General:
If Obama isn't up by 20 with after this administration, with this economy and with this extreme, in the tank for him, leg-tingling, lefty media, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House. The reason he isn't ahead by more is because he's a left-wing elitist radical who can read a teleprompter, but has no accomplishments, no leadership and is basically an empty suit who only repeats liberal Daily Kos canards/talking points about George Bush. He's Howard Dean without the accomplishments or the screaming.

And don't forget about all those racist Americans who say they'll vote for the black guy, but really won't.
9.18.2008 4:26am
gs:
Memo to John McCain:

You deflated Obama's oratory with humor. Well done.

You resurrected the Republican coalition. Congratulations.

Bravo. I never thought you'd get this far.

But when a supporter compares you to Nancy Pelosi and Herbert Hoover, maybe, just maybe, you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.
9.18.2008 4:30am
JB:
1) Give it some time. The extent of the financial crisis is still uncertain. If WaMu fails, or consumer savings is threatened, look for a Democrat stampede. If things turn out fine, McCain wins.
2) The country is so ideologically polarized that -anyone- up by 20 just will not happen. The last time that happened was Reagan/Mondale. Obama's no Reagan, McCain's no Mondale, and the country is far more divided than it was in 1984.
9.18.2008 4:31am
CB55 (mail):
McCain must try to confuse those Hillary voters with Palin. Keep reinforcing Hillary's rhetoric about "cracks in the glass ceiling." A large percent will think Palin is pro-choice. Try to convince regular Americans that McCain looks and feels for them and they will forget that his wife has a check book that can crush them and their family pet rat.
9.18.2008 5:15am
CB55 (mail):
I guess that's what confuses a lot of voters: Conservatives are worried that Democrats might do the same astonishingly lousy job Republicans have done for the last eight years. To avoid even the possibility that that might happen, conservatives prescribe electing more members from the same crew who wrecked the country, in what is clearly to any lucid external observer the ridiculous and desperate hope that the same party will fix it all by continuing, uninterrupted, the same policies that produced the damage in the first place. After both parties reformed the money business, the GOP took it further they put morons in charge to run the government and that made even your paper boy look like a Fortune 500 CEO.
9.18.2008 5:29am
A. Zarkov (mail):
"The Wall Street collapse and the bailouts are turning voters toward Obama/Biden."

Obviously. Voters hold the party of the administration in power responsible for an economic crisis. Also it doesn't help McCain when he suggests he doesn't understand economics or wants to appoint a commission to deal with the financial mess. Many people have lost a big fraction of their IRAs and 401ks this year. Money many of them need their investments to retire on soon. Now they are scared and want someone to rescue them. BHO benefits from this state of mind. Of course the Democrats are as much to blame as the Republicans for our messed up financial system. But the bad stuff is happening on Bush's watch and he gets the blame. That's the way it works, and naturally the voters look for a Messiah. If the crisis calms down before the election, McCain could make a comeback. But if it continues, even the Re-Animator (Palin) can't help.
9.18.2008 6:20am
A.W. (mail):
Jim

I have said this consistently. Rasmussen is the most accurate. Gallop, cnn/time, etc. have been grossly inaccurate. I said that when rasmussen had mccain down, or not as much up as i would like, and i stand by it now.

Bluntly the other polls have a history of being wrong.
9.18.2008 6:51am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Polling tracker 538 says
There are certainly some hints that Barack Obama has gained back a couple of points' worth of ground in the past 24-96 hours, although so far this remains more apparent in the national trackers than in state polling.
Whether we really have a trend for BHO remains to be seen.
9.18.2008 7:18am
Aleks:
Re: Barry been losing ground in every new poll in WI, NY, PA, NJ AND Minn - MINNESOTA!!!!!

Back in 04 we saw the same sorts of claims about Kerry in NJ, MI, MN, WI, PA, and even HI. And about Bush in several red states (CO, AZ, NV and NC). When push came to shove on election day both candidates took the states where they had been leading on Labor Day. This is going to come down to OH, VA and FL this year, the true swing states. Obama will take the usual blue states (adding maybe CO and NM), McCain will take the usual red states.

Re: If he is struggling in MINN even with the media on his side he is going to be toast in November.

MN is not a deep blue state. It's been a fairly bluish purple shade all along.

Re: The reason he isn't ahead by more is because he's a left-wing elitist radical who can read a teleprompter, but has no accomplishments

The reason he isn't up by more is because he's Black. There's no hint of scandal about him and you can barely slip a thin knife between him and the Clinton's ideologically. He's about as radical as milquetoast. Don;t confuse Obama with the Ombamabots on Kos. Those people are going to be mightily peeved when President Obama stiffs their pet projects.

Re: If things turn out fine, McCain wins.

The chances of things turning out fine (at least in the near term,) are about equal to my chances of becoming pope.
9.18.2008 7:55am
Hoosier:
What is most surprising to me is that the Democratic lead in the "generic" congressional poll has collapsed: from 15+% to 3%. Obama had been polling far behind his party. He has not caught up with them, but they have tanked to the point at which he and they are in a dead heat.
9.18.2008 8:04am
VincentPaul (mail):
Aleks,
If you follow Chicago politics, you'll find that Obama's support of corrupt machine politicians is in fact scandalous.
9.18.2008 8:19am
Jim at FSU (mail):
With McCain talking up more government and more regulation as a response to the failure of private firm AIG, I'm increasingly becoming pessimistic about his chances. He is dropping the ball in a huge way on this.
9.18.2008 8:29am
Angus:
Running as anti-corporation, pro-regulation is a pure loser for McCain. His base hates it, and independents won't believe it coming from a Republican with a decades long record of fighting against regulation.
9.18.2008 8:49am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
There are a lot of Catholic dems who claim to oppose abortion personally but insist they'd do nothing against Roe.
It seems to work for them, and, except for bishops, nobody questions them.
Gibson was playing a dirty game on this one.
9.18.2008 9:16am
TyWebb:
'thehellsa Palin?

Seriously, I have no idea who that person is, in any real sense. Until she does a press conference, the press hasn't really attacked her. I mean, unless you think fact-checking is an attack.
9.18.2008 9:19am
MQuinn:
Angus,
I agree that running as anti-corporation and pro-regulation will hurt McCain with the base and some independents. However, pro-regulation and anti-corporation is the effective talking point of the day, mostly due to the recent trouble in the lending industry. Thus, McCain is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

However, I don't think that his situation is different than any presidential candidate who is the member of the incumbent party where the sitting president is perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- as having run the country into the ground. In such circumstances, the public will usually desire a change in policy, in which case the incumbent party candidate will have to make a similar choice to that with which McCain is faced.
9.18.2008 9:27am
pluribus:
It is pretty sad when people mistake reporting about a candidate for vice president with a "direct attack." (Would an "indirect attack" be OK?) Are reporters supposed to bow respectfully when a woman is plucked out of political obscurity and plopped down on the national political stage, heaping praise on her at every turn but never saying anything negative? Or are they supposed to investigate who she is, what her record is, and what her positions are? If some of the reporting is unfavorable, so what? Unless she is an angel walking on the earth, she has some faults, and the people deserve to know what they are before they elect her Miss Heartbeat Away.
9.18.2008 9:36am
Mike Keenan:
I think the press has hammered pretty successfully on the qualifications issue. Of the presidential candidates of the past 40 years, she is more "qualified" (note the scare quotes) than only a handful: I would argue Agnew, Edwards, Ferraro, and Obama (in order from most to least qualified -- obviously a subjective list).

I think people are getting less comfortable with seeing her as president as a result. Not many people, but maybe enough?
9.18.2008 9:49am
JosephSlater (mail):
(1) How can you tell, in a non-partisan way, when one side thinks it's losing? Because it's the side complaining most loudly about the media.

(2) The bloom is clearly off the Palin rose. Keep blaming the big bad media all you want, but her own performances and record have contributed to her lower favorability ratings. Hiding her from real reporters and only allowing her to swat at softballs served up by the idiot Hannity just makes her look weaker.

(3) Having said that, the election is very close and will, IMHO opinion, remain very close. But this has been a bad few days for McCain.
9.18.2008 9:58am
A.W. (mail):
Joseph

> Because it's the side complaining most loudly about the media.

Right. It has nothing to do with actual bias.

So for instance, when the right complained about Dan Rather using forged memos last time, that meant they thought they were losing. Because the media is perfect and the only reason to ever complain about it is when you are losing.

The real sign of desperation is the utter dishonesty on the left. Now they are claiming that McCain agrees with Limbaugh on immigration. They don't even dare say it in English, suggesting they think Spanish-speakers are actually dumb enough to fall for that.

> Hiding her from real reporters

Before O'Reilly, name one non-softball interview Obama ever had.

> But this has been a bad few days for McCain.

Not at all. He is winning in New Mexico, he is tied in Pennsylvania. Indeed, I don't see how NObama could win Pennsylvania, given that he insulted half the state. The map is turning redder every day.
9.18.2008 10:16am
Donald (mail):
What JosephSlater said. "The press's direct attack on Sarah Palin" = "reporting that her campaign statements are not true."

Objectively verifiable facts have fallen far in our national esteem, but they are not totally disposable yet.
9.18.2008 10:17am
neurodoc:
Or people realize that Palin is an unqualified zealot?
"Unqualified" I won't quarrel with, but what bespeaks "zealot"?
9.18.2008 10:23am
Virginian:

I think people are getting less comfortable with seeing her as president as a result. Not many people, but maybe enough?


People are so concerned about Palin's (i.e., the VP candidate) experience that they are going to vote for a less qualified presidential candidate?

Obama hasn't received even one-tenth the amount of MSM scrutiny in two years that Palin has received in three weeks.

I know 'The View' isn't the MSM, but have you compared the clips from the Obama and McCain appearances? Baba Wawa was practically on her knees in front of Obama, and she wouldn't even look McCain in the eyes.
9.18.2008 10:34am
JosephSlater (mail):
A.W.:

So now you're digging up issues from the 2004 election to prove bias against Palin? Go to any respectable liberal site, and they can match complaint about the media to complaint about the media with equal justification. Again, it's what the side that thinks they are losing says.

Also, we know that Palin's handlers are worried about her public performances because after Gibson, they have only let her appear on Hannity. Seriously, if Palin can't handle the U.S. media, is she fit to VP or possibly Prez? It just makes her look weaker.

Finally, as I said, the race is close and will remain close, but if you think the polls aren't shifting toward Obama, you either aren't paying attention or are desperate to believe your own spin.
9.18.2008 10:36am
cboldt (mail):
-- The real sign of desperation is the utter dishonesty on the left. --
.
I don't see a correlation between (dis)honesty and a sense of impending loss on an issue. Both sides lie, but after some time comparing statements with facts, I've adopted the position that the left (and the media, but I repeat myself) is pathalogical about it.
9.18.2008 10:44am
The Ace (mail):
The Wall Street collapse and the bailouts are turning voters toward Obama/Biden.

I am very unclear as to why this issue "helps" Obama.
It is like saying that people would turn to Joe the Rug Guy's brother in times of financial turmoil over EF Hutton.

There is no evidence this issue helps Obama other than the media wishing it so.

Oh, and then there is this:

- Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.


I love it when stingy Democrats, Biden donates hundreds, yes hundreds of dollars to charity each year, call on others to "give more."

Hypocrites, all of them. Liberalism: people for whom the bell never tolls.

Finally:

How To Make a Contribution To Reduce Debt Held by the Public
To help reduce debt held by the public, make a check payable to "Bureau of the Public Debt." Send it to Bureau of the Public Debt, Department G, P.O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188. Or, enclose a check with the income tax return. Contributions to reduce debt held by the public are deductible subject to the rules and limitations for charitable contributions.


How many "patriotic" leftist will do that?
Answer: None
9.18.2008 10:48am
Sarcastro (www):
JosephSlater the US media so bad and biased and viscous and vicious and elite and attackin' an' sexist! They're worse than ANYTHING Palin will have to face as President.

The way you can tell the media is so biased is that lots of the people who work for them are liberal! Don't bother to check for bias in the stories, that one bit of data is all you need!

And besides, the polls are probably lies by that rascally media!

And look how biased the View and Oprah are! And Obama attacked Rush Limbaugh! And the media never attacked Obama! And And And! PALIN!
9.18.2008 10:50am
The Ace (mail):
Considering that 53% of the country thinks that Obama will raise their taxes

Um, Obama is on record saying so.

This isn't some misguided belief or anything.
9.18.2008 10:51am
Anderson (mail):
The country is so ideologically polarized that -anyone- up by 20 just will not happen.

Exactly right.

And it frankly didn't help that the Democrats, with their usual nose for defeat, decided that in such a great year for them to win, they should have their Prez choices boil down to a black guy, or the most polarizing woman in American politics.

I still favor the Dems to squeak by, but never underestimate the power of the GOP slime machine. The Repubs are great at winning elections -- just kinda lousy at running the government.
9.18.2008 10:52am
Angus:

Of the presidential candidates of the past 40 years, she is more "qualified" (note the scare quotes) than only a handful: I would argue Agnew, Edwards, Ferraro, and Obama (in order from most to least qualified -- obviously a subjective list).

I'll agree on the end part -- subjective. I'll grant you Agnew, but to me Edwards, Ferraro, and Obama were/are all more experienced and qualified than Palin. Yes, I completely disqualify being mayor of a 5,000 person town and count only her less than two years experience as governor. So, 3.5-6 years in Congress to me trumps 22 months as a governor.
9.18.2008 10:52am
Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon:
A.W.:

Today's Rasmussen has the candidates even, with the past results as follows:

9/14 - McCain +3
9/15 - McCain +2
9/16 - McCain +1
9/18 - Even

Take a wild guess what tomorrow's result (three-day rolling average) will be?
9.18.2008 10:55am
The Ace (mail):

I'd love to get McCain or Palin's opinion on the market effects of not bailing out AIG.

I'd love to get Obama's stance on the bailout.

It was a lot of "uh's" and such.
9.18.2008 10:55am
Anderson (mail):
Yes, I completely disqualify being mayor of a 5,000 person town

Particularly when the town had to hire a city administrator to run things b/c Palin wasn't competent -- er, I mean, was too busy with other very important matters.
9.18.2008 10:56am
Mike Keenan:

People are so concerned about Palin's (i.e., the VP candidate) experience that they are going to vote for a less qualified presidential candidate?

Yes, I believe that they will. The elitist media (and why shouldn't they be) views a Harvard Law Review head as much more qualified than a Wasilla beauty queen. And that would still be true if she had been governor for 10 years and senator for 10 more. So, the public get this picture drawn for them every day.
9.18.2008 10:56am
Loren (mail):
Or people realize that Palin is an unqualified zealot?

"Unqualified" I won't quarrel with, but what bespeaks "zealot"?



I really can't speak for the left, but at a guess: That she goes to church and seems to actually believe in God, and she didn't have an abortion when she found her latest child would have Down's.
9.18.2008 10:57am
Anderson (mail):
I really can't speak for the left

Boy, did you get *that* right.
9.18.2008 11:02am
The Ace (mail):
From Ras:


As for the political implications, polling conducted last night shows that 47% trust McCain more than Obama on economic issues while 45% trust Obama.


So it isn't clear as to why the subprime mess helps Obama considering his ties to Fannie Mae.
9.18.2008 11:03am
The Ace (mail):
So, 3.5-6 years in Congress to me trumps 22 months as a governor.

Likely because you don't have a clue as to what a Senator actually does.

Viewing Obama as more "qualified" than Palin is obscene.

Why not just say - "I think Barack's smarter than Sarah. And cooler — less country" and be more honest?
9.18.2008 11:06am
The Ace (mail):
The Wall Street collapse and the bailouts are turning voters toward Obama/Biden

Perhaps this will get some play:


John McCain. 25 May 2005, speaking to the Senate:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.


Where was Obama?
Taking Fannie's money pretending things were hunky-dory...
9.18.2008 11:09am
The Ace (mail):
The Wall Street collapse and the bailouts are turning voters toward Obama/Biden

Then let us hope voters hear this:


Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., this morning released a statement about the U.S. government's rescue of AIG.

"The fact that we have reached a point where the Federal Reserve felt it had to take this unprecedented step with the American Insurance Group is the final verdict on the failed economic philosophy of the last eight years," Obama said. "While we do not know all the details of this arrangement, the Fed must ensure that the plan protects the families that count on insurance. It should bolster our economy's ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills and save their money. It must not bail out the shareholders or management of AIG.


Of course he was unable to take a position on it.
Don't worry, his running mate incoherently blamed the Bush tax cuts.
9.18.2008 11:11am
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

"Or people realize that Palin is an unqualified zealot?"

*laugh*

What amuses me are the people who were happy to vote for John Edwards as VP in 2004 complaining about Palin's qualifications.
9.18.2008 11:20am
corneille1640 (mail):

How many "patriotic" leftist will do that?
Answer: None

Absolutely none? Not even one?
9.18.2008 11:22am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
If the media was really being hard on Palin, they would not be overlooking many of the distortions and contradictions in her Troopergate narrative.

Yesterday a Palin surrogate said Wooten "abused her [Palin's] sister." In 2005, Molly told police "he [Wooten] has never physically abused her."

Palin (via surrogates) frequently references the restraining order as evidence that Wooten was violent. Palin never mentions that the judge dissolved the order because Molly "was unable to produce any acts of physical or implied violence."

Palin recently described Wooten as "a trooper who is making threats against the First Family." This implies that threats are ongoing. But there's no evidence of any threats after 4/05. And the evidence of threats prior to that time is very weak. In 2005, Palin admitted to police that an alleged threat against her and the family was a threat of political harm, not a threat of violence.

Palin (via surrogates) frequently claims that Wooten was suspended for making a death threat against her father. But the suspension letter doesn't reference that threat, or any other threat. (An earlier Memorandum of Findings considered the threat a violation of trooper policy, but Col. Grimes apparently discarded that finding, because the evidence was so weak.)

Palin said "according to the Grimes report, Trooper Wooten had been disciplined a dozen times before he was the subject of a Domestic Violence Protective Order from Molly McCann." That's false. In Grimes' letter, she indicates only three minor disciplinary actions prior to 4/11/05.

Palis said Wooten's personnel file is in the "public domain." But she also claims that she didn't know about Wooten's suspension until after she fired Monegan. That makes no sense.

Palin frequently describes Wooten as violent, even though there is no finding that Wooten ever committed a violent act against any person (aside from the Taser incident).

There's a much longer list. This is just scratching the surface. It would interest me greatly if anyone can find a single MSM article that describes any of the points I just mentioned.

Want citations? It's all in the wiki article, which has over a hundred references. Google troopergate.

An interesting VC article would be Wooten's defamation case against Palin.
9.18.2008 11:23am
Sarcastro (www):
I agree with The Ace. The only person more to blame for this financial crisis than Bill Clinton is Barak Obama!

Only Palin McCain can deregulate us out of this mess!
9.18.2008 11:24am
corneille1640 (mail):

I love it when stingy Democrats, Biden donates hundreds, yes hundreds of dollars to charity each year, call on others to "give more."

Hypocrites, all of them. Liberalism: people for whom the bell never tolls.

Every single one? There is not any one who is not stingy? Conservatism: people for whom every man is an island, entire unto himself.
9.18.2008 11:24am
A.W. (mail):
For starters, I don't understand the argument that Obama is more qualified than Palin. Palin has run a commercial fishing operation, a town and a state. Obama has only run his mouth.

Not all experience is created equal. I could be the best surgeon in the world, for decades, and know nothing about business. I could be a great engineer, but know nothing about making laws.

Being governor is virtually the same job as being president, except on a different scale. Of course Ross Perot once derided Bill Clinton saying something like that by saying, "running the corner store doesn't make you qualified to run Walmart." Well, maybe the person running the corner store is not the best choice, but it you had to pick the CEO of Walmart and you had only two choices, 1) the manager of a country store or 2) a heart surgeon, well, who would you pick? The first option is not optimal, but it beats the hell out of the second.

In an ideal world, we would be talking about a possible president Guiliani, not McCain, not Palin and certainly not Noobius Maximus. But we live in this world, and so that is what we have to deal with. Palin is frankly more qualified than all of them.

Joseph

> So now you're digging up issues from the 2004 election to prove bias against Palin?

No, I am picking a notorious example of media bias to demonstrate that complaining about the media is not automatically a sign that one was losing.

Duh.

> Go to any respectable liberal site, and they can match complaint about the media to complaint about the media with equal justification.

Really? When has the media presented forged evidence against a presidential candidate?

And notice, now comment about the softball interviews obama has done.

> if you think the polls aren't shifting toward Obama

Nationwide opinion polls? Yes. And so I imagine what obama is doing is making the hard core blue states bluer. But McCain is winning the electoral college, and is trending higher there. I mean, my gosh, he is making New York and New Jersey competitive! As we all know, it is possible to lose the popular vote, and still become president.

Snappy

> Take a wild guess

Mmm, if people vote for a person purely because other people are moving toward him and thus he is the hip and cool thing to vote for, well I will weep for the republic.
9.18.2008 11:27am
Sarcastro (www):
Thanks to The Ace for continually bringing whatever's on the Front Page News section of Free Republic to this forum.
9.18.2008 11:29am
The Ace (mail):
Absolutely none? Not even one?

Step up to the plate champ and prove me wrong.
9.18.2008 11:34am
The Ace (mail):
Every single one?

Every single one that a) votes for Obama-Biden and/or B) doesn't criticize Biden for being a hypocrite because remember, silence is complicity.
9.18.2008 11:36am
The Ace (mail):
Thanks to The Ace for continually bringing whatever's on the Front Page News section of Free Republic to this forum.

You can't cite a single instance where I have done any such thing.
9.18.2008 11:36am
The Ace (mail):
So, 3.5-6 years in Congress to me trumps 22 months as a governor

Compare &Contrast:

"Dissapointed that taxpayers are called upon to bailout another one," she said. "Certainly AIG though with the construction bonds that they're holding and with the insurance that they are holding very, very impactful to Americans so you know the shot that has been called by the Feds its understandable but very, very disappointing that taxpayers are called upon for another one"


Vs "experience"

At a time when Sen. Barack Obama is trying to project expertise and instill confidence in his potential stewardship of the economy, his campaign this morning sent out his statement on the Fed's bailout of the AIG where it misidentified the American International Group, calling it the "American Insurance Group."


Carry on.
9.18.2008 11:38am
Anderson (mail):
Being governor is virtually the same job as being president, except on a different scale.

Um, no. The presidency involves a wide range of concerns outside the scope of a state governorship. Particularly when the state has about 600,000 people.

Besides which, the problem with the "experience" argument is that George W. Bush had more "executive experience" than anyone running for Prez or Veep this time around. Somehow, that didn't translate into doing a good job as president.
9.18.2008 11:39am
corneille1640 (mail):

Absolutely none? Not even one?

Step up to the plate champ and prove me wrong.

Okay, a friend of mine does. Therefore, you are wrong.
9.18.2008 11:43am
Per Son:
Oy vey. Many of the polls include the last 4-5 days. As for states being close where they should be Obama or McCain - look closer. I saw one poll that said New York was close, and another that said they were not, same with North carolina, West Virginia and others.

I read these comments because I am a masochist. That is, I know I will be annoyed, but I still come back. It seems the Repubs will construe everything in favor of McCain and Dems do the same for Obama.

As for Palin, I think the hockey mom shtick is getting really old, and people really don't care that much. The National polls are demonstrating such, but then again, others say differently.

Now time for my partisan attack. McCain reminds us how his life shows how he has character, and that a life turning event in the 1960s - an event I believe makes him a hero - shows how he is a man of character. Now, are we not allowed allowed to look at other facets of his life? Does his cheating on his disfigured wife matter when looking at his character - we are talking about going back almost 40 years for one thing, why not that?

In the end, I hope people vote on issues, not this bullshit thing called character - which can be morphed into everything.
9.18.2008 11:46am
PLR:
Every single one?

Every single one that a) votes for Obama-Biden and/or B) doesn't criticize Biden for being a hypocrite because remember, silence is complicity.
In that case, you're nuttier than Lindgren.
9.18.2008 11:49am
Thomas J. Webb (mail) (www):

I've seen this criticism before. And I just don't understand it. If you are against abortion because you think it is murder, well, doesn't it follow that you want it outlawed? So about the only sensible answer would be this (and it is a very sensible answer): I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue of abortion returned to where it belongs, the states. But that's not what Palin said. If her "personal" viewpoint on abortion has no bearing on public policy, then why on earth did her party demand candidates who are opposed to abortion?


No, it doesn't follow that she would want it to be outlawed. She just might respect the will and freedom of the American people. I'm a vegetarian, does that mean I want to outlaw meat eating? Of course not, even if I'm "against it." Confusing of the two might be the main reason the mainstream doesn't understand Libertarians.
9.18.2008 11:52am
Martinus (mail) (www):
I put no faith in these polls. Look back at their recent track records. These are the same polls that said Kerry was going to sweep Bush by 10 points in 2004.
9.18.2008 11:54am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Considering that 53% of the country thinks that Obama will raise their taxes, and 15% think he's a Muslim sleeper agent, complaining about how he's winning because people believe falsehoods about Palin is a bit rich.
I think Obama will raise our taxes.

If you mean that he hasn't said he will raise most people's taxes in so many words, you're right. But I'm not accusing him of promising to raise taxes; I'm predicting that he will.
9.18.2008 11:55am
Anderson (mail):
In the end, I hope people vote on issues

Which the McCain campaign has said they *don't* think the election will be about. Hint, hint.

I'm a vegetarian, does that mean I want to outlaw meat eating?

Depends. If you really, honestly believe that animals are people, then how do you *not* want to outlaw killing them for meat?

"I think 6-month-old babies are people, but I'm not against killing them" is an odd position. Doesn't get less odd if you substitute "fetuses" for "babies."
9.18.2008 11:56am
Anderson (mail):
I think Obama will raise our taxes.

Would it be out of place to mention that Congress, not the President, sets tax rates?

The "Bush tax cuts" are really the "Republican Congress tax cuts."
9.18.2008 11:57am
byomtov (mail):
So now factual reporting is "a direct attack."

I know there are lots of commenters here who think St. Sarah of the Bridge couldn't possibly have ever done anything wrong, or told even the mildest fib, but I would have hoped that the conspirators would have a little more regard for facts than that.
9.18.2008 11:57am
Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon:
A.W. yesterday:


I have said this consistently. Rasmussen is the most accurate. Gallop, cnn/time, etc. have been grossly inaccurate. I said that when rasmussen had mccain down, or not as much up as i would like, and i stand by it now.


A.W. today:


Mmm, if people vote for a person purely because other people are moving toward him and thus he is the hip and cool thing to vote for, well I will weep for the republic.


So your first post said that Jim's 4 of 5 polls are likely not accurate, implying that McCain is still leading because Rasmussen says so. The last 4 days of Rasmussen show a steady trend toward Obama, and will likely show Obama +1 or +2 in the next couple of days. Today you weep for the future because the trend likely will continue. But do you stand by Rasmussen as the most accurate?


But McCain is winning the electoral college, and is trending higher there.


From Rasmussen (link):


When "leaners" are included, it's Obama 259, McCain 247


I assume you will take back that McCain is "leading" in the electoral college (note that the daily polling that you relied on yesterday also includes "leaners"; note also that this Rasmussen electoral college roundup was from 9/13, when McCain was +3 in the national polling according to Rasmussen).

So, A.W., is Rasmussen correct that the nationwide poll is tied and that Obama is winning the electoral college? Rasmussen will release new state polling later today. I can't wait to see your reaction.
9.18.2008 11:58am
Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon:
Replace "leading" with "winning." kthx
9.18.2008 12:00pm
Cornellian (mail):
(2) The press's direct attack on Sarah Palin is working.

Wow, JL really is drinking the Kool-Aid isn't he?
9.18.2008 12:02pm
The Ace (mail):
Would it be out of place to mention that Congress, not the President, sets tax rates?

Yes, because I hear so many of you leftists blaming Congress for the national debt and all...
9.18.2008 12:07pm
Triangle_Man:
4) McCain's recent embracing of populist rhetoric makes him sound like a Communist and no one knows what his real political values are any more.
9.18.2008 12:09pm
cboldt (mail):
John McCain. 25 May 2005, speaking to the Senate:
.
For those who are inclined to fact check stuff like this, you'll want to see the Congressional Record for May 25, 2006. McCain was a late co-sponsor of S.190 - adding his name 14 months after the bill was introduced.
9.18.2008 12:18pm
Grover Gardner (mail):
"Palin has run a commercial fishing operation..."

No, she hasn't. Her husband is a "commercial salmon fisher." This does not translate into running a large business. Insisting on padding her resume is part of the problem here.
9.18.2008 12:20pm
TruthInAdvertising:
"Obama hasn't received even one-tenth the amount of MSM scrutiny in two years that Palin has received in three weeks. "

Some people seem to forget that Obama record has been fair game for his political opponents since he entered the Presidential race (and we can say the same about Biden, McCain and Palin). Do we really think that Clinton or Edwards wouldn't have exploited some controversy or revelation if it was out there? Palin hasn't had any of that political scrutiny that Obama or McCain has gone through.
9.18.2008 12:32pm
Adam J:
Ace- you are really criticizing Biden's charity? You must be forgetting that he's not rich by any stretch, his net worth is between $59,000 and $366,000 according to wikipedia.
9.18.2008 12:35pm
loki13 (mail):
C'mon, guys, stop kicking around Ace so much. We only have until Nov. 4th to enjoy his postings!

65% or more of the white female vote, right?
9.18.2008 12:47pm
Anderson (mail):
Ace- you are really criticizing Biden's charity?

Of course he is. Biden is a Democrat, and therefore evil in all respects.

Can't wait for Ace to get his own blog &start posting there ....
9.18.2008 12:49pm
T.J.:
A.W.,

Didn't Rasmussen have Bush up by 10 on election day in 2000? I'm not sure how you can argue he is the most reliable, especially when his party ID numbers are off by most unbiased accounts...
9.18.2008 12:57pm
Sam Draper (mail):
Things are going to hell on Wall Street and the President and his party are getting the blame. No surprise there.

That this mess is largely a result of policies which either preceded Bush or were not in his control is irrelevent.
9.18.2008 12:57pm
Angus:

I put no faith in these polls. Look back at their recent track records. These are the same polls that said Kerry was going to sweep Bush by 10 points in 2004
I must have missed those polls. From what I see, not a single pollster had Kerry up by more than 4 points in September through election day. Almost all polls had Bush up.
Link
9.18.2008 1:01pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
The likeliest reasons for the shift toward Obama


On 9/5 I said this about Palin:

[there are] many things the voters have not yet learned about her. She has nowhere to go but down.


I think I was right, and I think the learning is just getting started.

The way she's suddenly stonewalling Troopergate (after saying "we would never prohibit, or be less than enthusiastic about any kind of investigation") is, as someone else said, like putting up a neon sign that says I'M HIDING SOMETHING.

McCain is trying to make the investigation look partisan, even though the investigation was launched by a committee made up of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats, acting unanimously (French was appointed unanimously by the same committee). And even though subpoenas were just issued by another committee made up of three R and two D (this vote was 3-2). And even though multiple R supported the decision to report the results on 10/10 instead of 10/31. And even though French has a track record of supporting Palin legislatively.

Dan Fagan, Alaska's Rush Limbaugh, said this a couple of days ago:

No one is above the truth, even Palin …

My question to my conservative friends is simple. Does the truth still matter? … some Republican leaders are abandoning truth and closing ranks to help Palin cover up her scandal by attacking the investigation. … too many in my party are not interested in the facts. They want Palin to win -- at all cost.

I want McCain and Palin to win too. But with Palin's refusal to cooperate with the independent investigator and her transparent delay tactics, Americans deserve to know what Palin is trying to hide before we vote her a heartbeat away from the leader of the free world. …

No politician is so popular and charismatic that they should be above accountability and telling the truth. Not even Sarah Palin.
9.18.2008 1:02pm
Anderson (mail):
Nate Silver, a Democrat, allows as Rasmussen tilts a bit GOP but is still pretty reliable as pollsters go -- the 3d most reliable in his table of pollster rankings.
9.18.2008 1:03pm
ChrisIowa (mail):
How can you be quibbling about such minor things when the Cubs are closing in on a Division title?
9.18.2008 1:05pm
TruthInAdvertising:
Obama billboard defaced with racial slurs and Secret Service investigates threatening letters - These will get no coverage by Mr. Lindgren. If these were a McCain/Palin billboard, I'm sure we would get the usual suspects here claiming that it must surely have been done by Obama supporters, probably orchestrated by Obama HQ and that all Obama supporters, nay, all leftists, supported such actions.
9.18.2008 1:05pm
Anderson (mail):
If these were a McCain/Palin billboard, I'm sure we would get the usual suspects here claiming that it must surely have been done by Obama supporters, probably orchestrated by Obama HQ and that all Obama supporters, nay, all leftists, supported such actions.

Why do you think he won't suspect it's the Obama campaign anyway?
9.18.2008 1:06pm
Sarcastro (www):
TruthInAdvertising sounds like a typical Marxist tactic to me. I was totally going to vote for Obama, but after seeing this transparent leftist scam, I'm voting for Palin!
9.18.2008 1:08pm
Aultimer:

A.W. [If] you had to pick the CEO of Walmart and you had only two choices, 1) the manager of a country store or 2) a heart surgeon, well, who would you pick? The first option is not optimal, but it beats the hell out of the second.

I guess I'm a fey elitist Democrat now, because I think that's ridiculous. Being smart is far more important than having any particular set of prior experiences.

Intelligence is my second tiebreaker for choosing a candidate. Unfortunately, libertarian beliefs is my primary criteria and honesty is the first tiebreaker, so I most often pick the candidate who has demonstrated smarts.
9.18.2008 1:14pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
If you follow Chicago politics, you'll find that Obama's support of corrupt machine politicians is in fact scandalous.

Lay it on us, buddy. Which politicians? How are they corrupt? How did Obama support them? In what way was it scandalous?

Without support for your claims, you give the impression of being a partisan blowhard.


Before O'Reilly, name one non-softball interview Obama ever had.

His hometown papers have tried to tear Obama a new body orifice for a long time now. Check Lynn Sweet's blog on the Sun-Times. If you want to see how Obama handles himself under the TV spotlight, I would refer you to the months of televised debates before and during the primary season.
9.18.2008 1:14pm
The Ace (mail):
Ace- you are really criticizing Biden's charity?

Yes, especially when he's calling for higher taxes on me but is so cheap.
He's a hypocrite.

You must be forgetting that he's not rich by any stretch, his net worth is between $59,000 and $366,000 according to wikipedia.

So what?

Sen. Joseph Biden and his wife, Jill, earned $319,853 last year.
9.18.2008 1:15pm
Nibbles:

Ace- you are really criticizing Biden's charity? You must be forgetting that he's not rich by any stretch, his net worth is between $59,000 and $366,000 according to wikipedia.


That can't be right. He's been in the Senate for 36 years. I've been out of school for 10 years and made less than a third of what a senator makes for most of that time, yet my net worth is well within that range.
9.18.2008 1:16pm
The Ace (mail):

Can't wait for Ace to get his own blog &start posting there

Been there, done that.
9.18.2008 1:16pm
The Ace (mail):
his net worth is between $59,000 and $366,000 according to wikipedia.

Proving he isn't very bright.
9.18.2008 1:17pm
The Ace (mail):
Of course he is. Biden is a Democrat, and therefore evil in all respects.

Never said he was "evil" just a hypocrite.

Sort of like you.

And the rest of the people you vote for.
9.18.2008 1:18pm
Anderson (mail):
Unfortunately, libertarian beliefs is my primary criteria and honesty is the first tiebreaker, so I most often pick the candidate who has demonstrated smarts.

So the smart people aren't usually libertarian? ;)

Sen. Joseph Biden and his wife, Jill, earned $319,853 last year.

See? Evil, just like I said.

Whereas McCain, who wants to cut taxes on the rich and thus increase the national debt for future generations, is a saint. Because he's a Republican.
9.18.2008 1:18pm
Anderson (mail):
Ace, you're trying to imply that McCain is *not* a hypocrite?

Better trolls, please. On their own blogs, preferably.
9.18.2008 1:19pm
The Ace (mail):
I think I was right, and I think the learning is just getting started.

Great stuff, really.

I love the fact you leftists think every. single. aspect. of Palin's life should be uncovered - even her email hacked - yet bringing up uncomforatable truths about Obama - Resko, Ayers, Reverend Wright, constitutes "smears" or "distractions"

You people are an embarrassment and I find it hilarious you can't understand why you can't win an election.
9.18.2008 1:20pm
Sarcastro (www):
Silly everyone but The Ace, All smart people are rich!

If you're not rich, you're not smart.
9.18.2008 1:24pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

(2) The press's direct attack on Sarah Palin is working.

Wow, JL really is drinking the Kool-Aid isn't he?

"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell." -- Harry Truman
9.18.2008 1:25pm
Kevin R (mail):
Being smart is far more important than having any particular set of prior experiences.


I don't know about "far", but being smart is certainly a good thing. Unfortunately, people who are smart don't go into politics.
9.18.2008 1:27pm
Anderson (mail):
Unfortunately, people who are smart don't go into politics.

Obama seems to be one of the exceptions.

I believe it was Aristotle who said that if the better men don't rule, then they will be ruled by the worse.

I love the fact you leftists think every. single. aspect. of Palin's life should be uncovered - even her email hacked

Who, exactly, thinks that Palin *should* get her e-mail hacked? Raise your hands, fellow leftists? Anyone?
9.18.2008 1:30pm
Randy R. (mail):
"With McCain talking up more government and more regulation as a response to the failure of private firm AIG, I'm increasingly becoming pessimistic about his chances. He is dropping the ball in a huge way on this."

Yes, because if there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that Wall Street has way too much regulation....

"Dan Fagan, Alaska's Rush Limbaugh, said this a couple of days ago."

I've never heard of Dan Fagan, but based on what he says, he obviously is a liberal pinko and part of the MSM attack dogs who have no regard for the truth. We must all keep drinking the kool-aid, kids!
9.18.2008 1:32pm
sjalterego (mail):
"The Press's Direct Attack on Sarah Palin is working"

I second Tony Tutins' sentiments. I see that the liberal elites that populate the MSM have formed a cabal with the explicit aim of "attacking" Sarah Palin for the purpose of defeating the McCain-Palin ticket. I bet they are using sexist, non-deferential methods and unfairly exploiting her personal life.

Oh what I would give if there were only one, just one, media outlet that was fair and balanced and would rectify this gross miscarriage of justice. If there were such an outlet I would suckle information from it and be absolved of any duty or obligation to formulate thoughts of my own.
9.18.2008 1:34pm
Randy R. (mail):
Ace"I love the fact you leftists think every. single. aspect. of Palin's life should be uncovered - even her email hacked - yet bringing up uncomforatable truths about Obama - Resko, Ayers, Reverend Wright, constitutes "smears" or "distractions"

Actually, the media has brought up the religious affiliations of both Palin and Obama, and left it to the people to decide whether they consider it important. And so a debate insued.


How about this: every.single.aspect of a candidate's life should be uncovered, and then let the people argue over what is relevant. Would that be fair?
9.18.2008 1:36pm
Bart (mail):
4. Polls of registered voters (40%+ of whom will not vote) always overstate Dem support. You should ignore these.

5. Polls of "likely voters" showing a big Obama lead grossly overweight Dem votes. Compare the number of Dem votes counted by the CBS in arriving at a 4 point Obama lead with that calculated by Rasmussen's tracking poll (tie) and the very nice bipartisan Battleground poll (McCain +1)

In reality, the economic news has probably returned the race from a narrow McCain lead to a tie. There has only been a real 2 point shift in likely voters, which is small enough to be statistical noise.
9.18.2008 1:44pm
The Ace (mail):
Who, exactly, thinks that Palin *should* get her e-mail hacked?

Why don't you go to the thread by Orin Kerr on this and review the comments on the matter?

Because there are enough people there justifying it.
9.18.2008 1:45pm
Randy R. (mail):
I venture another guess as to why Obama is taking the lead in the polls recently:

People see through the lies of McCain's campaign, where he tries to say that Obama's tax increases will fall on everyone, and that Obama wants to force sex ed on kindergartners.
9.18.2008 1:46pm
The Ace (mail):
See? Evil, just like I said

Huh?
I never said Biden was "evil" despite you saying twice I did. Can you read?

Whereas McCain, who wants to cut taxes on the rich and thus increase the national debt for future generations, is a saint.

Mind you, coming from the same person who said:
Would it be out of place to mention that Congress, not the President, sets tax rates?

Your posts are getting more incoherent as we go.

Otherwise, I never said McCain was a "saint"
Can you read?
9.18.2008 1:48pm
Randy R. (mail):
And the polls are not getting the hundreds of thousands of people who are newly registered by the Democrats.

Bart: "4. Polls of registered voters (40%+ of whom will not vote) always overstate Dem support. You should ignore these. "

Considering the fact that in many primaries, the Dems outnumbered the Reps by 10 to 1, you may find that your fact needs revising.
9.18.2008 1:48pm
cboldt (mail):
-- If you're not rich, you're not smart. --
.
The way I remember the saying, it goes: "If yer so darn smart, why ain't you rich?"
9.18.2008 1:48pm
Mark Field (mail):

Being governor is virtually the same job as being president, except on a different scale.


Sure, and my Siamese has the same job as a Bengal tiger, except on a different scale.

It turns out, size DOES matter.
9.18.2008 1:52pm
The Ace (mail):
Wow, JL really is drinking the Kool-Aid isn't he?

Ah yes, because its not like there were not cheap shots at Palin or anything.

Let's take this for example:

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin seems to have switched colleges at least six times in six years, including two stints at the University of Idaho before graduating from there in 1987


That has value, how, again?

Here:

A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain's choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.


Here:

Pundits from all over the pop culture world are sounding off on the pregnancy of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's unwed daughter, and just as Jamie Lynn Spears was raked over the coals when she was with child, Bristol Palin's become the butt of a lot of jokes


Here:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.


She didn't "slash" funding considering the funding request went from 1 to 5 million and she funded 3.9 million.

But go on pretending the media coverage of her has been "fair."
9.18.2008 1:54pm
The Ace (mail):
Considering the fact that in many primaries, the Dems outnumbered the Reps by 10 to 1, you may find that your fact needs revising.

Considering you don't have the foggiest clue about this topic, why are you commenting?

You do understand Democrats historically have higher primary turnout than Republicans, right?
9.18.2008 1:56pm
Anderson (mail):
Why don't you go to the thread by Orin Kerr on this and review the comments on the matter?

Good heavens, what a morass. If there are comments saying "hacking Palin's e-mail is a good thing &I approve of it," feel free to link to them.

Now, since Ace is an obvious hack, I try to avoid arguing with him -- but since I've erred from that policy today, let me wrap this up:

(1) Ace *always* opposes Dems and *always* supports Repubs. Repubs never do anything wrong, and Dems never do anything right. People who "can read," as Ace puts it, can figure out what I meant by "Ace says all Democrats are evil." Ditto "McCain is a saint."

If the Ace would show some signs (as I and most other good-faith commenters do) of willingness to criticize his favored party occasionally, he would not appear to be such a hack.

(2) Biden is not a "hypocrite" for calling for tax hikes on the rich, since those hikes will -- as Ace himself demonstrated -- fall upon people making what Biden makes. For that matter, he's not a hypocrite regardless. How much or how little he gives in charity is IRRELEVANT to how much taxation there should be.

(3) McCain can *want* to cut taxes without having the power under the constitution to impose those cuts himself. As someone once said, "can you read?"

There: spelled out for the intelligence-impaired. Glad I could help.
9.18.2008 1:57pm
Sarcastro (www):
Seems to me Palin is so awesome ALL shots at her are cheap shots.
9.18.2008 1:59pm
The Ace (mail):
People see through the lies of McCain's campaign, where he tries to say that Obama's tax increases will fall on everyone

They will fall on everyone paying taxes.
Which of course means there is no "lie"

How about this: every.single.aspect of a candidate's life should be uncovered, and then let the people argue over what is relevant. Would that be fair?

Hysterical.
Don't you find it the least bit odd you get to argue for things like this while the built in bias favors your side?

As your silly "lies" claims demonstrate, you favor no such thing.
9.18.2008 2:00pm
The Ace (mail):
If there are comments saying "hacking Palin's e-mail is a good thing &I approve of it," feel free to link to them.

Mind you, from the author of:
McCain can *want* to cut taxes without having the power under the constitution to impose those cuts himself.

Again, coherence is not your strong suit.
9.18.2008 2:02pm
Anderson (mail):
Notice btw Ace's litany of media abuses:

(1) College thing -- irrelevant says Ace, but surely that's for the voters to decide?

(2) NYT link just says there's doubt about McCain's vetting of Palin. Well, duh.

(3) ABC notes that there are Bristol Palin jokes -- this in an "Entertainment" feature noting "pop culture." If there are jokes, then there are jokes.

(4) Legislature raises funding from $1M to $5M, Palin cuts the $5M to $3.9M. Is that not a "slash" of the funding enacted by the Legislature? Ace's additional information is relevant, but doesn't prove that the article was mistaken, let alone an unfair criticism.

So that's what Ace has?

Btw, Gourevitch had the good fortune to visit Alaska, and Palin, before the nomination was announced, and got a rather good, even-handed article out of it, setting Palin in the context of Alaska politics &talking to some people (including Palin) who probably spoke a lot more freely than they would a few weeks later. Non-hacks should check it out.
9.18.2008 2:04pm
The Ace (mail):
Now, since Ace is an obvious hack

You are an obvious hack.

If the Ace would show some signs (as I and most other good-faith commenters do) of willingness to criticize his favored party occasionally

You do no such thing.

I am more than happy to criticize Republicans.
And have done so, you can not make the same claim.
9.18.2008 2:07pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):
The economic news, when it turns bad, always hurts the party of the incumbent. So, McCain is taking some of the blame for the bad news, because Bush is in charge. McCain can try to tap dance away from Bush, but he can't flat out denounce him like Obama (that would be too disloyal). So, McCain is going to blast Chris Cox for the mess caused by credit swaps/derivatives and the real estate bubble's bursting.
9.18.2008 2:09pm
The Ace (mail):
Legislature raises funding from $1M to $5M, Palin cuts the $5M to $3.9M. Is that not a "slash" of the funding enacted by the Legislature?

Laugh out loud funny.

And where would you get that impression from the article again?

So increasing funding from $1 to $3.9 million is now a "slash"

Slash me up, dude!
9.18.2008 2:09pm
Anderson (mail):
Oh, look -- he *does* have his own blog!

Now we all know where to go.

And have done so, you can not make the same claim.

I, too, am happy to criticize Republicans.

(And Democrats, most recently above.)
9.18.2008 2:10pm
Brian K (mail):
(2) The press's direct attack on Sarah Palin is working.

so when the media posts/presents information about palin it is a "direct attack" but when you do it about obama it is "just providing information about a candidate"? i'm surprised you seem to think you have any credibility left.
9.18.2008 2:12pm
The Ace (mail):
NYT link just says there's doubt about McCain's vetting of Palin

It said "called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background"

Really meaning: Liberals overhyped a bunch of stuff and believe she is not qualified.

Called into question by whom?
Hells Bells, we don't know!

Another cheap shot:


Ingraham was taking issue with a column by Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn, asking whether Palin's 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy is raising "the question among the evangelical base about whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother."


Go on and pretend there were not a bunch of stories about whether or not she should "stay home" etc.
9.18.2008 2:13pm
The Ace (mail):
And Democrats, most recently above

Oh?
but never underestimate the power of the GOP slime machine

Is an "attack" on Democrats?

You are simply a parody.
9.18.2008 2:15pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Anderson, you're wasting your time. Ace is an obvious hack. Luckily, Loki13 isn't the only one that remembers his promise to stop posting here if McCain doesn't get at least 65% of the female vote. Just another reason the VC will be vastly improved after Nov. 4.
9.18.2008 2:21pm
Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon:
The Ace:

You are simply a parody.


Mr. Kettle, I have a message here from a Mr. Pot.
9.18.2008 2:22pm
The Ace (mail):
Ace is an obvious hack

I love the fact obvious Democratic partisans and Obama voters say this as if it means anything.
9.18.2008 2:23pm
David Warner:
Palin is suffering the effects of class (and to a lesser extent, gender) prejudice; Obama ideological* (and to a lesser extent, racial) prejudice. My guess is they're just about canceling out currently. The debates will give both an opportunity to break through, but it will be difficult. Both are currently having difficulty focusing on their strengths.


* - lots of guilt by association. His primary formative influence was his grandparents, who were ostensibly left, but of the wholesome traditional American variety (social gospeller foot soldier types, now secular, but in the same spirit), hence his capacity for expressing "conservative" (actually traditional) values with sympathy and understanding, almost unique among the contemporary left.
9.18.2008 2:24pm
The Ace (mail):
Mr. Kettle, I have a message here from a Mr. Pot.

Another leftist with nothing substantive to say.
9.18.2008 2:24pm
Sarcastro (www):
Yeah, guys! Stop doing ad hominems against The Ace! It adds nothing substantive to the debate!
9.18.2008 2:28pm
Anderson (mail):
Anderson, you're wasting your time.

I know, I know ... but our trial just got continued, and I'm in that sudden vacuum of "what ELSE do I need to be doing?"

Windows makes this work/blog/work/blog thing all too easy.

I also note that Ace can't tell the difference b/t an op-ed column and "the news." No surprise there, actually.

But feeding the troll always hurts the thread -- I should desist.
9.18.2008 2:29pm
A.W. (mail):
Aultimer

Well, the problem is the most import skill in a manager is people smarts, not book smarts. And that is hard to rate in a candidate.

And who said the manager of the corner store is dumb? That is how Walton started.

T.J.

I don't know what Rasmussen said in 2000, but it was right on the dot in 2004.

Snaphappy

Fine, you caught me speaking overly broadly. Rasmussen is most accurate on the national numbers. Less accurate state-by-state, only because they are not in the game in every state. So for that I go to RCP, although even then you have to be discerning, because there are some polls that are clearly outliers.

> So your first post said that Jim's 4 of 5 polls are likely not accurate, implying that McCain is still leading because Rasmussen says so.

I don't consider a one point lead to be a lead. Indeed, technically even a 3 point lead is in the margin of error and so you could have said with a straight face that mccain was never leading. Rasmussen is pretty GD accurate, imho, but I would never celebrate over a point.

> The last 4 days of Rasmussen show a steady trend toward Obama, and will likely show Obama +1 or +2 in the next couple of days.

Based on what? I mean, seriously, do YOU vote a certain way because you think it is the hip thing to do? Or do you study issue, character, experience, you name it and vote based on some combination of those factors?

Shouldn't we both hope that is wrong?

Anyway, look at the stock market in the last few days. Love it or hate it, Americans trust McCain more on the economy than Obama. So unless Obama can change that number, bad economic news works against him. And what will the effect of Obama's lying Spanish ad be? Will it drive Spanish speakers to Obama, or drive lots of people toward McCain for telling such a lame lie, or what? I would be lying to say I could predict that outcome. And then will there be any blowback because of the hacking of Palin's email? Who knows? Or Obama telling his supporters to get in people's faces? Who knows?

Tell me, are you capable of just analyzing things, putting aside the outcome you hope for and looking at things dispassionately? Because if you are dispassionate, nothing I said is unreasonable.

> I can't wait to see your reaction.

See? Not exactly dispassionate analysis. You're just a drink-the-koolaid kind of guy who takes everything as a sign that the people will embrace The Lightbringer.

You hyperpartisans do nothing to help Obama. This election will be won in the middle, and people like you turn off even most democrats. Ya'll are creepy.
9.18.2008 2:29pm
Anderson (mail):
Here, this is funny -- tried to go visit John Cole's blog, &got this message all over the screen instead:

"Warning - Invalid argument supplied ...."

Think what that would do to *most* blogs.
9.18.2008 2:31pm
Randy R. (mail):
Ace:"Considering you don't have the foggiest clue about this topic, why are you commenting?

You do understand Democrats historically have higher primary turnout than Republicans, right?"

Yes, but in the last primaries, there were often *record* turnouts. Or did you miss that part?

How about this: every.single.aspect of a candidate's life should be uncovered, and then let the people argue over what is relevant. Would that be fair?

Don't you find it the least bit odd you get to argue for things like this while the built in bias favors your side? "

I see. So if tne media exposes every aspect of a Dems life, that's okay, but if the media exposes every aspect of a Reps life, that's not okay?

Hysterical.
9.18.2008 2:32pm
The Ace (mail):
If there are comments saying "hacking Palin's e-mail is a good thing &I approve of it," feel free to link to them.


Comment 1:

The kind of yahoo that uses a Yahoo! account to run official government business deserves this result


Comment 2:

4) I actually find this whole thing quite funny and will be using it as education material at work. Don't use your personal email for work purposes! See what could happen! You don't want to be "that gal" or "that guy".


And there are several more implicitly accepting the outcome becuase she is alleged to have done something work related with the account.
9.18.2008 2:38pm
The Ace (mail):
I also note that Ace can't tell the difference b/t an op-ed column and "the news."

I also not that I never said it was "news" I said "cheap shot"

Can you read?
9.18.2008 2:39pm
The Ace (mail):
So if tne media exposes every aspect of a Dems life, that's okay,

Um, you can't give an example of this happening.

Otherwise, so you are pressing for the media to ask Obama why he lied about his association with Bill Ayers the singular time he was asked about it, right?

Right?
9.18.2008 2:41pm
The Ace (mail):
Yes, but in the last primaries, there were often *record* turnouts.

And there were "record" turnouts at the time they happened in previous years.

You are not really this dense, you're pretending, right?
9.18.2008 2:42pm
The Ace (mail):
But feeding the troll always hurts the thread

Considering:

You are a partisan hack
You attack me for things I never said
You can't argue any position with any coherence &consistency

It is rather ironic you are calling me a "troll."
9.18.2008 2:44pm
Angus:
Shorter argument over polls:
Polls that agree with me = fair and accurate
Polls that disagree with me = partisan trash
9.18.2008 2:54pm
The Ace (mail):
Anderson:

I think Obama will raise our taxes
Would it be out of place to mention that Congress, not the President, sets tax rates?

But, when it comes to McCain:
Whereas McCain, who wants to cut taxes on the rich and thus increase the national debt for future generations

So Obama is to not receive any blame because of that rascally old Congress, but McCain is to be of course blamed. Why?
You're a hack.

However, I did enjoy this:

According to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018


I bet you "criticized" him for that too.
9.18.2008 3:01pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin seems to have switched colleges at least six times in six years.

That has value, how, again?


If I saw this on a job candidate's resume, I would certainly ask why. I like people who finish what they start; flitting from school to school makes Gov. Palin look like a flake.

A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain's choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.

Yes, exactly. Introducing Bristol to a national audience without mentioning her five months' pregnancy made us wonder what else we hadn't been told about the Palins.

Bristol Palin's become the butt of a lot of jokes

As Jimmy Kimmel put it, once your campaign compares Obama to Britney Spears, you can hardly protest third parties' comparing Mrs. Palin to Britney's mother Lynn.

I agree the headline to the Covenant House story was unfair. First, Gov. Palin slashed a lot of appropriations. Second, Covenant House provides a lot of services to teen runaways; expectant mothers are only a small part of the kids they serve. So Palin was hardly targeting unwed teen mothers-to-be.
9.18.2008 3:08pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):

Not at all. He is winning in New Mexico, he is tied in Pennsylvania. Indeed, I don't see how NObama could win Pennsylvania, given that he insulted half the state. The map is turning redder every day.


Winning in NM? Not according to RCP.
9.18.2008 3:09pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
Latest NM poll shows Obama up +7, +8:

Obama leads big in New Mexico
9.18.2008 3:10pm
A.W. (mail):
Eide

I wasn't aware of the change. I stand corrected.

Tony

> If I saw this on a job candidate's resume, I would certainly ask why. I like people who finish what they start; flitting from school to school makes Gov. Palin look like a flake.

Well, the reality was she had trouble affording it. That's why she did the beauty pageant, you know?

> Yes, exactly. Introducing Bristol to a national audience without mentioning her five months' pregnancy made us wonder what else we hadn't been told about the Palins.

I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that the daughter of a veep's pregnancy was any of your damn business.

Obviously sooner or later, the press would know, but frankly a good reporter wouldn't have even told us. I challenge you to explain to me why that is even newsworthy.

> As Jimmy Kimmel put it, once your campaign compares Obama to Britney Spears, you can hardly protest third parties' comparing Mrs. Palin to Britney's mother Lynn.

That's stupid. Pointing out that Obama is a vacuous celebrity who hasn't done much to deserve being famous (or nominated) is not the same as an invitation to examine the family lives of any of the candidates' children. Are you deranged?

All it does is invite for you guys to ask the experience question of Palin.
9.18.2008 3:29pm
Anderson (mail):
Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018

Indeed it would.

The McCain proposal would leave the nation $5.1 trillion more in debt by 2018. The Obama plan would still add $3.6 trillion to the national debt.
9.18.2008 3:41pm
Randy R. (mail):
"I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that the daughter of a veep's pregnancy was any of your damn business."

Then she shouldn't make it any of our business in the first place. But if she is going to parade her children in front of the camera and the public to show what a terrific family she has -- even bringing them to a political convention -- then she can hardly complain when people examine her life.

And when she makes a point of stating that abstinence-only should be taught in the schools to avoid teen pregnancy, then it's fair game when we have proof it didn't work in her own family.

The solution is simple: If you don't want to drag your children into the media, then don't do it.
9.18.2008 4:05pm
Randy R. (mail):
Ace: Otherwise, so you are pressing for the media to ask Obama why he lied about his association with Bill Ayers the singular time he was asked about it, right?"

Sure. I'm suggesting that if you run for office, let the media investigate each aspect of each candidate's life. What's the problem with that? Then you can't complain about Palin being investigated, right?

Me: "Yes, but in the last primaries, there were often *record* turnouts.

Ace: And there were "record" turnouts at the time they happened in previous years."

Ace, you can't seriously be that stupid. More people turned out for the primaries this past year than ever before in many jurisdictions. What part of that do you not understand? Do you agree with it or disagree with it?

My point is that the polls may be wrong because they may not be taking into the fact that many more people are actually voting than ever in the past.
But please, feel free to twist this around and call me: dense, liberal, biased and fail to answer to question, because that seems to be the only thing you can really do.
9.18.2008 4:09pm
The Ace (mail):
I like people who finish what they start; flitting from school to school makes Gov. Palin look like a flake.

I think you should go on pretending she didn't graduate or something.

Introducing Bristol to a national audience without mentioning her five months' pregnancy made us wonder what else we hadn't been told about the Palins

Right because you, silly liberal, have the right to know everything about 17 year old's lives.
9.18.2008 4:11pm
A.W. (mail):
Randy R.

> Then she shouldn't make it any of our business in the first place. But if she is going to parade her children in front of the camera and the public to show what a terrific family she has -- even bringing them to a political convention -- then she can hardly complain when people examine her life.

Oh, so we can gossip about Obama's children, then? How about Biden's loser sons? How about Al Gore III being a screw up?

Give me a break. You can appear on a stage with your family around you without making them a fair target.

You radical lefties have no class or consistency.

> And when she makes a point of stating that abstinence-only should be taught in the schools to avoid teen pregnancy

Except she didn't, as it was pointed out at this very blog.
9.18.2008 4:17pm
Randy R. (mail):
Well, Ace, I'm glad you are a convert to the privacy of 17 year olds. I'd be happy with that too, as long as it applies to the children of all candidates, even the democratic ones. Their lives should be totally off limits!

And if the 17 year old is gay, that the religious right shouldn't even know about it.
9.18.2008 4:20pm
Anderson (mail):
Ace, you can't seriously be that stupid.

Now, Randy, don't go telling Teh Ace what he can or can't be. It's a free country.
9.18.2008 4:21pm
A.W. (mail):
Randy R.

> And if the 17 year old is gay, that the religious right shouldn't even know about it.

You didn't notice the outrage on the right when Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter; and she was an adult. Indeed, I can't think of a single time when "the right" attacked a dem candidate for the behavior of their children.

Keep it classy.
9.18.2008 4:26pm
The Ace (mail):
My point is that the polls may be wrong because they may not be taking into the fact that many more people are actually voting than ever in the past.

This has happened before and the Democrats lost then too.


I'm glad you are a convert to the privacy of 17 year olds. I'd be happy with that too, as long as it applies to the children of all candidates, even the democratic ones

Hysterical.
Um, when have I, or any conservative or elected Republican advocated otherwise?
Answer: Never

Again, you just love these rules as long as the bias in favor of your side is built in.

You do grasp the fact that the media, because it is a liberal institution, doesn't treat the children of Democrats the way the do Republicans, right?
9.18.2008 4:28pm
The Ace (mail):
More people turned out for the primaries this past year than ever before in many jurisdictions.

And people like you were saying the same exact thing in 1972.

What don't you get about this?
9.18.2008 4:29pm
JosephSlater (mail):
New reason why Obama is increasing his lead over McCain:

4. McCain's oddly virulent opposition to . . . Spain and that country's leader. I mean, he was talking about Spain, right?
9.18.2008 4:31pm
The Ace (mail):
But if she is going to parade her children in front of the camera and the public to show what a terrific family she has

I love this.
Please tell us how you know Palin's motives.

So Obama did this too, right? That is the only reason he brought his kids out on camera and to the DNC, correct?
9.18.2008 4:33pm
The Ace (mail):
Sure. I'm suggesting that if you run for office, let the media investigate each aspect of each candidate's life. What's the problem with that?

Again, it is easy to say this when the rules are stacked in your favor.

If the media actually asked Obama about his lie regarding his association with Ayers, you would be the first to shout "smears" and that is it not a "real issue" and such.
9.18.2008 4:37pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

Well, the reality was she had trouble affording it.

Good answer. In fact, why not just come out and say putting herself through college wasn't easy?

I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that the daughter of a veep's pregnancy was any of your damn business.

First, she made her family our business: After thanking Sen. McCain, she immediately started talking about her family in profuse detail, especially her husband and son. Mentioning that her youngest was only four months old was the perfect opportunity to mention that Bristol was due on Inauguration Day.

Second, there is tremendous human interest in the possibility that the first woman VP will be a grandmother.

First, there are a few people whom I would like you to meet. I want to start with my husband, Todd. And Todd and I are actually celebrating our 20th anniversary today, and I promised him a little surprise for the anniversary present, and hopefully he knows that I did deliver.

And then we have as — after my husband, who is a lifelong commercial fisherman, lifetime Alaskan — he's a production operator. Todd is a production operator in the oil fields up on Alaska's North Slope, and he's a proud member of the United Steelworkers Union, and he's a world champion snow machine racer. Todd and I met way back in high school, and I can tell you that he is still the man that I admire most in this world.

Along the way, Todd and I have shared many blessings, and four out of five of them are here with us today. Our oldest son, Track, though, he'll be following the presidential campaign from afar. On Sept. 11 of last year, our son enlisted in the United States Army. Track now serves in an infantry brigade. And on Sept. 11, Track will deploy to Iraq in the service of his country. And Todd and I are so proud of him and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform.

Next to Todd is our daughter Bristol; another daughter, Willow; our youngest daughter, Piper; and over in their arms is our son Trig, a beautiful baby boy. He was born just in April. His name is Trig Paxson Van Palin.



Pointing out that Obama is a vacuous celebrity...

Analogizing Obama to a member of the Spears family invites other comparisons to members of the Spears family, especially when Obama has very little in common with Britney Spears, while Palin, like Lynne Spears, has an unwed teen daughter with a bun in the oven.
9.18.2008 4:37pm
The Ace (mail):
New reason why Obama is increasing his lead over McCain

You must be reading different information.


The presidential race continues to tighten in Wisconsin, where Barack Obama now leads John McCain by just two percentage points, 48% to 46%, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state.

Last month, it was a four-point race. A month earlier, in the first poll in the state since Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama had an 11-point lead over McCain 50% to 39%


And,

The race for Pennsylvania's 21 Electoral College votes is tied.

The latest Fox News/Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 47% of the vote
...
Also, by a 51% to 42% margin, voters in the Keystone State trust McCain more than Obama.


And,

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Oregon voters shows Obama attracting 51% of the vote while McCain earns 47% (see crosstabs). This is the seventh Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Oregon for Election 2008, and it's the closest that McCain has ever been. Four times, Obama has enjoyed an eight-to-10 point lead, and once he was up by 14.


Some "lead"
9.18.2008 4:41pm
The Ace (mail):
started talking about her family in profuse detail,

I love watching you "tolerant" liberals in action.

Again, and you people wonder why you can't win an election.
9.18.2008 4:44pm
Mark Field (mail):

Ace, you can't seriously be that stupid.


Randy, normally I'm on your side, but the evidence is against you on this one.
9.18.2008 4:47pm
Anderson (mail):
Number of comments: 196.

Number by The Ace: 41.

% of the total: 20.9.

Life: to be gotten.
9.18.2008 4:53pm
Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon:
A.W.:

When you start making claims about the most "accurate" polls, and trumpeting which side is "winning," don't be surprised to be called out when your own sources don't show what you want them to show.

My point is that the current trend is toward Obama. Your posts appear to trumpet the news that favors McCain and discount that which favors Obama. I'm happy to admit that McCain pulled ahead in national polling following the convention and the Palin pick. Is it so hard to admit that in the past week things have gone Obama's way, even if the national polling has never been significantly outside the margin of error for either candidate (which I'm also happy to admit)?


Fine, you caught me speaking overly broadly. Rasmussen is most accurate on the national numbers. Less accurate state-by-state, only because they are not in the game in every state. So for that I go to RCP, although even then you have to be discerning, because there are some polls that are clearly outliers.


Oh. Okay. Somehow the most "accurate" polling isn't accurate in some states becuase it's not "in the game" in other states? That makes no sense whatsoever. If Rasmussen isn't in the game in every state, then their national numbers should be less accurate for that reason. If the states they are in are accurate, then they should be more accurate in those states.

Also, thanks for preemptive disclaimer. Now I don't have to waste space showing that RCP shows Obama winning when using "no tossups," and only behind by 4 without (approx. 1% of the projected electoral votes). I'll assume your view that the ones for Obama are incaccurate and the ones for McCain are accurate.


> The last 4 days of Rasmussen show a steady trend toward Obama, and will likely show Obama +1 or +2 in the next couple of days.

Based on what? I mean, seriously, do YOU vote a certain way because you think it is the hip thing to do? Or do you study issue, character, experience, you name it and vote based on some combination of those factors?


Based on the fact opinions evolve over time and information does not spread instantaneously. And yes, there is a bandwagon effect. People like to back a winner. Also, when polling is done on a three day rolling average, the prior days effect the following days, so if you see a trend to one side in 3-day polling, it's likely that the earlier days showed less of the trend and the subsequent days show more of a trend. So if the three days are McCain +1, Even, Obama +1, the average is even. This is what I think probably is happening. McCain will have to gain ground just to stay even.


Love it or hate it, Americans trust McCain more on the economy than Obama.


47% to 45%. How about the margin of error on that one? And was that before or after McCain said the economy was fundamentally strong?


Tell me, are you capable of just analyzing things, putting aside the outcome you hope for and looking at things dispassionately? Because if you are dispassionate, nothing I said is unreasonable.


Project much? I'm actually quite the centrist. I thought at the beginning of this campaign that we would have an historic election because I thought both McCain and Obama were too honorable to go to the gutter. My dispassionate analysis is that I was right about one of the candidates.
9.18.2008 4:55pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Ace:

National polls, baby. State polls are all over the place (I could just as easily cite you recent polls that have Obama very close or ahead in VA, IND, FLA, and OH), and it's a tight race. But the whole premise of this thread is the fact that Obama has been moving up in national polls, and that's undeniable. While it's possible to win the popular vote and lose the EC, it's unlikely that if Obama keeps a 3% edge or greater that will happen.

And let's not forget about your prediction of McCain winning 65% of women, or white women was it? Either way, you'll be gone after Nov. 4, if you're a troll of your word.
9.18.2008 4:57pm
Anderson (mail):
National polls, baby. State polls are all over the place

McCain's recent lead began in the national polls &then the state polls caught up. This seems to be typical.

I expect the race to stay close, &to be decided pretty much by Colorado.
9.18.2008 5:04pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

Go on and pretend there were not a bunch of stories about whether or not she should "stay home" etc.


Please make sure to notice which liberal moonbat said this:

what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?


By the way, it's not that mom needs to be home. It's that a parent needs to be home. In this family, there appear to be this many parents at home: zero. People who keep having lots of kids even though no parent is around to take care of them are being irresponsible. This is true in the Bronx, and it's true in Wasilla.

Palin's irresponsible parenting is my business because she's applying for a job that requires being responsible. The fact that she's not on welfare doesn't change this.

And there's no comparison to Obama, Biden, Pelosi or anyone else. No one else has run for high office while also having a special-needs infant and a pregnant teen at home, without a parent at home to take care of them. Not even close.

As others have pointed out, Palin has gone out of her way to invite us to take a close look at her parental decisions. For example, Palin displayed Trig to press photographers when he was three days old. This led to the obvious headlines that excited her base. Palin routinely invites us to evaluate her parental decisions, but expects us to close our eyes when we notice that those decisions are not uniformly impressive. Trouble is, it doesn't work that way.
9.18.2008 5:22pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
aw:

Well, the reality was she had trouble affording it [college]. That's why she did the beauty pageant, you know?


Can you show any support for either of these claims?
9.18.2008 5:29pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
jukeboxgrad:

I still can't believe you are going after Palin's family. How dare you.
9.18.2008 5:32pm
A.W. (mail):
Tony

> Good answer. In fact, why not just come out and say putting herself through college wasn't easy?

You say tomato, I say toMAHto... I don't see how we said anything different.

> First, she made her family our business: After thanking Sen. McCain, she immediately started talking about her family in profuse detail

Again, this is just par for the course. No different from Chelsea. To this day, when they rerun an episode of wayne's world, they edit out the part where they called her a dog. Because saner people said that was out of bounds. And it was. She was like 13 at the time and didn't deserve to be a national joke.

> Second, there is tremendous human interest in the possibility that the first woman VP will be a grandmother.

Human interest is another word for gossip. You have yet to explain why it means a damn.

> Analogizing Obama to a member of the Spears family invites other comparisons to members of the Spears family

No, it doesn't.

> especially when Obama has very little in common with Britney Spears

You're right. I always did think it was unfair to Britney Spears to Obama. I mean she has actually accomplished quite a lot in her chosen field. :-)

The Ace

Its like I said. I think the deep blue states must be getting deep bluer (if that's a word). There is no question that we are seeing simultaneously two trends: Obama is gaining on McCain in the popular vote (although it isn't swinging as much as some say), and McCain is gaining on Obama in the electoral college. Mathematically it's the only explanation that makes sense.

Snap

> Your posts appear to trumpet the news that favors McCain and discount that which favors Obama.

Sorry, when exactly did I "trumpet" anything. You are the one acting as though a victory by Obama somehow personally validates your existence.

> Is it so hard to admit that in the past week things have gone Obama's way, even if the national polling has never been significantly outside the margin of error for either candidate (which I'm also happy to admit)?

Try answering this question… when did I deny it? All I said was that I believed in Rasmussen. And as I noted, I said that back when other polls had mccain up by 10 points. I said, in this blog, more or less, don't believe it. I wish it was true, but I remember the history.

You are so hyperpartisan you can't even recognize that I didn't say half the things you imagine. Frankly you are projecting. You are hyperpartisan, so you assume we ALL are.

> Somehow the most "accurate" polling isn't accurate in some states becuase it's not "in the game" in other states?

Look at RCP. Often their state polls don't even have Rasmussen numbers, or they are very old and don't tell us much as a result.

> If Rasmussen isn't in the game in every state, then their national numbers should be less accurate for that reason.

Not true. They just simply have chosen not to break down every poll by state.

> Now I don't have to waste space showing that RCP shows Obama winning when using "no tossups," and only behind by 4 without (approx. 1% of the projected electoral votes). I'll assume your view that the ones for Obama are incaccurate and the ones for McCain are accurate.

Thank you for projecting again. Indeed, having been corrected above, I would say at the moment Obama is leaning up, but only so long as he keeps Pennsylvania. We won't win Pennsylvania. You don't insult half a state and then expect to win that state.

> Based on the fact opinions evolve over time and information does not spread instantaneously.

But there is a lot of information spreading, as I outlined above, and it could easily cut both ways.

> And was that before or after McCain said the economy was fundamentally strong?

It isn't fundamentally strong? I mean what are the foundations of our economy. Most basically the American people. We are not strong? There is also a justice system that impartially settles dispute. I think that is strong, you might not. And then there is American consumer spending which I am frankly amazed has never quit even after 9-11 and all that. That creates liquidity, which keeps the blood flowing in the economy.

Seriously, what fundamental isn't strong?

> I'm actually quite the centrist.

Dude, you need to give me a warning before you say a thing like that. I was in the middle of drinking my soda, I burst out laughing and now it has gone up my nose.

> I thought at the beginning of this campaign that we would have an historic election because I thought both McCain and Obama were too honorable to go to the gutter. My dispassionate analysis is that I was right about one of the candidates.

Gee, which one are you saying stayed out of the gutter? Is it the one who actually goes negative more often than McCain? Is it the guy who put out an ad claiming that McCain and Rush Limbaugh were on the same side on immigration (and falsely suggested Limbaugh was racist)? I mean, my God, abc news calls that ad dishonest, and we all know ABC leans to the left (although, to be fair, they really try to be fair, and of the big three networks, succeed more than most).

I guess that is a perfect example of your centrist analysis. Obama puts out a lying ad, in Spanish so us Gringos might not catch on, but he doesn't descend into the gutter!

Who exactly do you think you are fooling?

By comparison, do you really think there is anyone voting for McCain who are doing so without reservation? He is pro-amnesty, anti-first-amendment (though less frightening on that count than your guy), anti-drilling-in-ANWR, pro-embryonic-stem-cell-research, and on and on. Love him or hate him, he isn't exactly a party-line kind of guy, and those of us voting for him are not party line supporters.

Could you even name one thing you disagree with Noobius Maximus on? I just named 4 issues I disagree with McCain on. Can you name that many disagreements with B.O.?

Jukebox

Go watch Gretta Van Susterin's special on her life. Or try google.
9.18.2008 5:33pm
A.W. (mail):
Jukebox

> It's that a parent needs to be home. In this family, there appear to be this many parents at home: zero.

Jesus H. Christ, what planet do you live on? I don't know a single family where either parent stays home. My mom was kind of unusual to do that herself, and she didn't keep doing it when I was a teenager.

And who created that situation? The Democrats. And I don't say that as a complaint. Women should have been allowed to move out of the home. But its rich to see the people who pushed that trend suddenly becoming "a woman's place is in the kitchen" conservatives. And yes, that is the practical effect of your "one parent must stay home" rule. After all, who usually earns more money in most families? The man. So who should stay home, in most cases? The woman. So women, out of the law firms and board rooms and back in the kitchens. The democrats have changed their minds!

And, by the way, what exactly do you think Palin should have done to keep her daughter unpregnant? Should she have gone as a chaperone on all her dates? Maybe hit her daughter with a tranquilizer dart, and then fit her with a collar that tells her when her daughter got too close to a hotel or the backseat of a car? Or perhaps she should have just fitted her with a chastity belt?

Seriously, if you are holding back the secret to absolutely 100% prevent teen sex, then out with it. I am sure millions of parents would love to be imparted with your wisdom.

But unless you can name some foolproof thing she should have done, then sit down and shut the f--- up. This sort of thing happens in the best of families. You are being an a-- to think it means anything about Palin.
9.18.2008 6:00pm
Anderson (mail):
And who created that situation? The Democrats.

Uh, y'know, some social developments really *are* too big to lay at either party's door ...

But if real income hadn't declined, fewer couples would need to have both spouses working whether they wanted to or not. I don't think you can lay *that* at the Dems' door.
9.18.2008 6:03pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
eide:

I still can't believe you are going after Palin's family.


I still can't believe that you're pretending to not understand the difference between going after Palin and going after Palin's family.

I also can't believe you are willing to hold up her children as a shield, to try to protect her from legitimate criticism. Palin thinks it's OK to use her kids as political props (to a much greater extent than is normal in politics), and you think it's OK to use her kids as a shield.

I'm not evaluating the behavior of the kids. I'm evaluating the behavior of the parents. Especially the parent who wants to be on my payroll. The fact that Todd and Sarah conceived Trig is more significant to me than what Levi and Bristol did. Parents have a duty to avoid pregnancy if neither parent is willing/able to stay home and take care of the kid. Especially if you already have four other kids, and especially if mom's age indicates a heightened risk. Conceiving Trig was an irresponsible act, and then failing to make the personal sacrifices needed to take care of him properly is another irresponsible act. Todd and Sarah bear completely mutual responsibility in this, but only one of them is asking me for a job.

It would be a little different if Palin signaled a sense of responsibility for her poor choices. And if she showed reluctance to parade her kids in front of cameras. But she is showing no such sense of responsibility, and she is showing no such reluctance. On the contrary.

And please spare me the pretense about how you would be behaving if the shoe was on the other foot:

If the Obamas had a 17 year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if that they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.


That's quite an understatement. And pay attention to who said it.
9.18.2008 6:15pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
aw:

Go watch Gretta Van Susterin's special on her life


I will, if you can show me where to find it.

try google


I did, and found nothing. Humor me and show me where the proof is hidden.

Actually, I didn't find nothing. I found this:

The McCain campaign did not have an immediate comment on Palin's higher education record


If the reason for her strange college history was money, why didn't they just say so? And have they ever said so? Or do I have to rely on what is probably a vague, unsourced claim in "Gretta Van Susterin's special on her life?"
9.18.2008 6:16pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):

It's that a parent needs to be home. In this family, there appear to be this many parents at home: zero.


I'm not sure what commenter originally meant. Todd and Sarah both seem to be on the campaign circuit: are the daughters at home and in school, or travelling with parents?


It is difficult to be more paranoid than Americans, but I've always assumed those who ran Republican campaigns were far smarter (and more devious). I've always assumed that Rove and company, in order to silence talk about Bush's service record created the forged documents that CBC and Rather fell for hook, line and sinker.

Similarly, if Palin wanted to keep her daughter's private life private, why did she announce the pregnancy. Purportedly it was to silence rumours that Trig was Bristol's. Why didn't she have her obstetrician hold a press conference to destroy the silly rumours. Instead she exposed Bristol's pregnancy as the purported way of silencing rumour as to Trig's parentage. Motive: create additional press coverage and interest in her acceptance speech.
9.18.2008 6:16pm
Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon:

Gee, which one are you saying stayed out of the gutter? Is it the one who actually goes negative more often than McCain?


Let's see, off the top of my head: McCain has accused Obama of wanting to teach sex to children and said that Obama voted to raise taxes on people making less than 100K (I don't remember the actual number, in the 60-80K range). Setting aside Palin's serious truth-telling problem, those claims are both false. I haven't heard about the ad you mention, but assuming that you're 100% correct, that is one of very few low blows from Obama, where they seem to come daily from the McCain camp.

I disagree with Obama on tax cuts or credits for people who hardly pay or don't pay taxes at all. I used to disagree with a large tax increase on upper middle income people making >250K/year (but less than say 600K) because they already pay a large percentage of the bill, but he appears to have mostly fixed that proposal. I disagree with him on trade, and I'm pretty sure I disagree with his bankruptcy "reform" proposals.
9.18.2008 6:20pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
aw:

I don't know a single family where either parent stays home.


No two households are exactly alike. I realize that two working parents is extremely common. Sometimes that's because of necessity. Sometimes it's because of choice.

Juggling work and family is hard, and there are many creative arrangements that people come up with. Some are successful and some aren't. Some parents put their kids first, and some parents put their personal ambitions first.

I'm not making a blanket statement about every household. I'm making an assessment of Sarah Palin. Both parents are out of the house not because of economic necessity, but because they like to do what they're doing. Todd really likes being, among other things, a championship snowmachine racer. Fine. But if that's your choice, then don't impregnate your 43-year old wife. Because she's not willing to stay home, and neither are you.

what exactly do you think Palin should have done to keep her daughter unpregnant? … This sort of thing happens in the best of families.


Absolutely. And when it happens in a family where the parents are obviously putting a lot of effort into parenting, then it's unfair to blame the parents. But this is not such a family. This is a family where both parents, by choice, are putting a lot of effort into activities other than parenting, and are putting their personal ambitions ahead of their kids. Bristol's pregnancy is just one symptom of this.
9.18.2008 6:29pm
wfjag:

But if she is going to parade her children in front of the camera and the public to show what a terrific family she has

I love this.
Please tell us how you know Palin's motives.

So Obama did this too, right? That is the only reason he brought his kids out on camera and to the DNC, correct?


Ace, I think Randy has got you there:
1. This year the Dem's convention was first;
2. Joe Biden failed to mention his other son -- Hunter;
3. Joe has also told us about how he won't meet with lobbyists;
4. Since the election is in early Nov., we won't know if Hunter gets invited to his parents' home for Thanksgiving or Christmas, or if Hunter's Mom sneaks over to his house since Joe won't meet with lobbyists.

Relying on the precedent of the 2004 election -- Mary Chaney's sexual orientation was not an issue until John Edwards raised it in the VP debate -- you understand that family matters are not to be discussed in a campaign until the Dems raise them. Thus, unless Joe raises the girl's pregnancy (or his son Hunter), Repubs are forbidden from referring to those matters in any way. Dems are, of course, still allowed to bring up matters by saying that the Repubs have been hiding them, even though Repubs are forbidden from mentioning them first.

This is called "The Anti-Republican Meanness Rule." I'm sure you understand why it was adopted by the FEC -- Republicans are such meanies.

The FEC is considering the appropriate penalty for this violation of the election rules. I think the appropriate penalty is for the First Presidential Candidate Debate to be moderated by Baba Wawa.
9.18.2008 6:35pm
A.W. (mail):
Jukebox

> I'm not evaluating the behavior of the kids.

Who exactly do you think you are fooling? You are condemning her daughter's behavior and then blaming the mother for it.

> Conceiving Trig was an irresponsible act

How do you know that was intentional?

> and then failing to make the personal sacrifices needed to take care of him properly is another irresponsible act.

Right. The governor of Alaska is all by herself with no one but her husband to help her. *stares at you like you are an idiot* And she will have even less help in the White House!

> and then failing to make the personal sacrifices needed to take care of him properly is another irresponsible act.

Gotcha. We are all hypocrites because... you imagine we would be. Wow, faith-based argumentation.

> I will, if you can show me where to find it.

Fox news channel. Ever hear of it?

> I did, and found nothing.

Then you suck at google.

Snap

> McCain has accused Obama of wanting to teach sex to children and said that Obama voted to raise taxes on people making less than 100K (I don't remember the actual number, in the 60-80K range).

Both of which are true, contrary to what you claim. Go read the law they tried to pass in Illinois, or the tax bill he voted for. In fact the range was even lower than that, like below $40K. Kind of puts a lie to Obama's claim he only wants to tax "the rich," doesn't it?

Oh, and for bonus points, Obama killed a law that would have banned infanticide. The man is out of step with the American people.
9.18.2008 6:42pm
Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon:

Both of which are true, contrary to what you claim. Go read the law they tried to pass in Illinois, or the tax bill he voted for. In fact the range was even lower than that, like below $40K. Kind of puts a lie to Obama's claim he only wants to tax "the rich," doesn't it?


I did. If you stand by those lies, there's no need to continue.

A.W. = The Ace. The end.
9.18.2008 6:48pm
LM (mail):
Anderson :

The Repubs are great at winning elections -- just kinda lousy at running the government.

That's not fair. It's only because they hate it so much. Pat Buchanan's very smart, but I wouldn't hire him to run AIPAC.
9.18.2008 7:04pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
johnny:

Todd and Sarah both seem to be on the campaign circuit: are the daughters at home and in school, or travelling with parents?


I'm not even talking about what's happening at this exact moment, which is almost undoubtedly worse than what came before. I'm talking about the apparent status quo throughout Palin's career as a politician. Her jobs have gotten bigger and bigger. Meanwhile, Todd is an oil-rig worker, a commercial fisherman, and a championship snowmachine racer. There's no parent at home. With 1-2 kids, maybe this situation is manageable. With 4-5, it's not. Bristol's pregnancy is a symptom of what's wrong.

Motive: create additional press coverage and interest in her acceptance speech.


I think you're probably right. But I think the original plan was to hide Bristol's pregnancy until after the election. That's the family tradition; notice how long mom's pregnancy was kept secret.
9.18.2008 7:20pm
A.W. (mail):
Snaphappy

You're right.

Obama never voted to raise taxes for people making $41K

Obama never voted to teach "comprehensive" sex ed to kindergarteners.

And for bonus points, Obama never killed a law banning infanticide.

I am being sarcastic, of course. But I admit I got one thing wrong. Obama didn't go below $40K in voting to raise taxes. He stopped at about $41K. My bad.

Here's a hint: stop trusting the liberal media.

Jukebox

> Absolutely. And when it happens in a family where the parents are obviously putting a lot of effort into parenting, then it's unfair to blame the parents.

Lol, so if Mom is home then this prevents the child from getting pregnant... how exactly? Does it allow her to concentrate her thought rays?

Or do you favor chastity belts? What exactly do you think she should have done? Not just "be there" but something that will actually stop sperm from meeting the egg.

You know you don't have an answer to that question. That is why you didn't even try to answer it.
9.18.2008 7:39pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
aw:

You are condemning her daughter's behavior and then blaming the mother for it.


Please try to respond to what I've actually said, instead of various fantasies that are flying around inside your brain. First of all, I'm not just blaming the mother. I'm blaming the parents. Second, I'm not blaming the parents just because Bristol got pregnant. I'm blaming the parents because they have made various decisions which appear to be irresponsible and neglectful. Bristol's pregnancy is just an example of something that is more likely to happen in that kind of environment. Third, the pregnancy that was created by Todd and Sarah is of greater interest to me than the pregnancy that was created by Levi and Bristol.

How do you know that [conceiving Trig] was intentional?


I didn't say it was, but it doesn't matter. Unless you want to claim that their act of sexual intercourse was unintentional. Parents who are not available to take care of a new infant (let alone a special-needs infant) have a duty to avoid pregnancy. Period. There are many ways of accomplishing this very effectively, including abstinence. If you fail to accomplish this, you've been irresponsible. Period.

The governor of Alaska is all by herself with no one but her husband to help her. … And she will have even less help in the White House!


Hired help is no substitute for direct parental attention. It's better than nothing, but it's not the same. Likewise for help from in-laws, relatives, neighbors etc.

We are all hypocrites because... you imagine we would be.


Palin going to back to work when Trig was three days old is not something I "imagine." It's a fact. And part of what makes the situation interesting is that it's something she basically brags about. Like the way she essentially bragged about getting on an airplane even though she was leaking amniotic fluid.

If you're claiming there's something I said that's based only on what I "imagine," you should let us in on the secret and tell us what it is.

Fox news channel


I tried to find a link to the show you mentioned, and I couldn't.

Then you suck at google.


Naturally. But you're really good at it, so it should be really easy for you to show us some proof for the claim you made (about how Palin couldn't afford to stay in one college). Why are you holding out on us?

Go read the law they tried to pass in Illinois


Go read the thread on this subject, which proves beyond any doubt that McCain lied.
9.18.2008 7:40pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
aw:

so if Mom is home then this prevents the child from getting pregnant... how exactly?


Kids who get more parental attention are less likely to get into the kind of trouble that Bristol is in. No family has absolute immunity, and there's nothing which absolutely "prevents the child from getting pregnant." It's just a question of making it less likely.

You can wear your seat belt and obey speed limits and still die in a crash. It's just less likely. If you do those things and die in a crash, I'm going to be inclined to think it wasn't your fault (if that's all the information I have). But if you drive at high speed without a seat belt, I'm going to be inclined to think the crash and fatal injury was your fault. Likewise for when neglected kids get into trouble. I can't be sure there's a connection, but common sense indicates the likelihood that there's a connection.

Obama never voted to teach "comprehensive" sex ed to kindergarteners


York manages to skirt a very simple issue: the bill doesn't mandate teaching sex ed to anyone. It only permits it, and establishes criteria that have to be met if a school decides to teach it. Read the other thread.
9.18.2008 7:58pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
And you should tell us why anyone should take York and NRO seriously, since they don't mind promulgating obvious lies.
9.18.2008 8:01pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
More proof that the cited statement is an obvious lie can be found in the wiki article on that subject. Google troopergate.
9.18.2008 8:02pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Speaking of people who put their own personal ambitions and desires ahead of their kids: McCain and Palin are birds of a feather, in this regard. McCain decided to chase after the rich young beer gal even though he had kids at home. With both McCain and Palin, here's the rule: Me First.

All this reflects a lack of honor, which is also apparent in the way they both incessantly lie.
9.18.2008 8:14pm
jasmindad:
Here's an explanation of why the tide is turning in favor of Obama. Wick Allison, former publisher of National Review, says today, in "A Conservative for Obama" (http://tinyurl.com/4fsbe9):
------------------
Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don't matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama's books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.
--------------
9.18.2008 8:24pm
A.W. (mail):
Jukebox

You are so full of it.

First, you are condemning the mother because of the behavior of the daughter. You can only do so if you also condemn the daughter's behavior. You cannot say the mother's behavior was bad without saying the daughter's behavior is bad, too.

> [me] How do you know that [conceiving Trig] was intentional?

> [you] I didn't say it was, but it doesn't matter. Unless you want to claim that their act of sexual intercourse was unintentional.

Oh wow, so you are promoting an abstinence only approach to birth control... in a marriage. You are mad that Todd actually had sex with Sarah!

That is [laughter] pretty remarkable.

> Hired help is no substitute for direct parental attention. It's better than nothing, but it's not the same. Likewise for help from in-laws, relatives, neighbors etc.

Mmm, which brings up a good point. Remember when all those Republicans attacked Obama for being raised by his grandmother? Yeah, me neither. I guess that disproves the hallucinations of the left if the shoe was on the other foot.

> If you're claiming there's something I said that's based only on what I "imagine," you should let us in on the secret and tell us what it is.

Here, this is where you imagined our reaction if the shoe was on the other foot:

> [quoting someone else]If the Obamas had a 17 year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if that they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.

> [you] That's quite an understatement.

Next:

> I tried to find a link to the show you mentioned, and I couldn't.

Then actually check the schedule and find it. Tivo is your friend.

And allegedly this link has the whole thing in 5 parts. Fortunately, it is in the first part, here:

> Go read the thread on this subject, which proves beyond any doubt that McCain lied.

Ah, so the argument is, what are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes:

> If any school district provides courses of instruction designed to promote wholesome and comprehensive understanding of the emotional, psychological, physiological, hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life, then such courses of instruction shall include the teaching of prevention of unintended pregnancy and all options related to unintended pregnancy, as the alternatives to abortion, appropriate to the various grade levels; and whenever such courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K through 12, then such courses also shall include age appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS.

Got that? Wholesome and age appropriate COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED. Funny, I don't think wholesome and age appropriate sex ed could ever be called comphrehensive. And neither did you, in that thread:

> "Age appropriate sex education" for kindergarteners basically consists of "avoid people and situations that make you uncomfortable." And some other concepts that are described in the BSA material I cited. This is all the bill calls for, and this is all that Obama advocated. This is not "comprehensive sex ed" for kindergarteners.

So even you thought that comprehensive sex ed couldn't be age appropriate.

Anyway, the effect of that law was to allow schools to provide such comprehensive sex ed to kindergarteners. And guess what that means? That means barack obama voted to allow comprehensive sex ed, for kindergarteners.

But don't let the facts bother you.

> Kids who get more parental attention are less likely to get into the kind of trouble that Bristol is in.

So in other words she would do it psychically. Gotcha.

I mean even if stay at home parents are less likely to have knocked up daughters, that is correlation, but not necessarily causation. For instance, stay at home mothers are more traditional, and are likely to have taught their children to be less promiscuous than the children of mothers who work. But that doesn't stop the Palins from being less traditional on the subject of where the mother works, but very traditional on sex. And that is just one example of how, rather than one being the cause of the other, they could both be signposts pointing to an discovered underlying cause.

Or for that matter, maybe stay at home moms are more likely to come from a culture that still uses chaperones on dates. Or hell, maybe they are more likely to come from a culture that practices genital mutilation which in turn makes the girls want sex less because they won't enjoy it. Indeed, do the figures you imagine include the Amish? I think they might actually use chastity belts (kidding). More seriously, I doubt the amish have the same teen pregnancy problem we do, but if you think its merely because mom is home, you are kidding yourself.

> It only permits it,

First, show me where McCain said otherwise.

Second, um, isn't that a problem? I don't want kindergarteners taught "comprehensive sex ed."

> And you should tell us why anyone should take York and NRO seriously, since they don't mind promulgating obvious lies.

Your source doesn't even contradict him. The fact he is singing a different tune today doesn't mean he never said the opposite. Notice that word "on record."

> More proof that the cited statement is an obvious lie can be found in the wiki article on that subject

Bwahahaha. Wikipedia. Well, sure, and I am sure that is one of those entries that have not been warped by partisanship. *rolls eyes*

> McCain and Palin are birds of a feather, in this regard. McCain decided to chase after the rich young beer gal even though he had kids at home.

This gets better. Now you are against divorce, too. But McCain is the first to say he had a serious moral failure in causing the end of his first marriage.

> All this reflects a lack of honor

By the way, how honorable is it to be a cokehead? Or to throw your grandmother under the bus in order to protect your racist preacher, who you then threw under the bus a few months later? Or to hang out with an unrepentant terrorist? Or for that matter, to kill a bill that would have prevented infanticide?

And what does this ad say about Obama's honor?
9.18.2008 9:20pm
Does it matter?:
Wow. Anderson criticizing Ace for not having a life. Don't you have a D&D game to get to or something?
9.18.2008 10:28pm
Does it matter?:
Juke Box

I'm guessing you're under 25 and have zero kids. Correct me if I'm wrong?
9.18.2008 10:32pm
LM (mail):
A.W.,

Jukebox

You are so full of it.

First, you are condemning the mother because of the behavior of the daughter. You can only do so if you also condemn the daughter's behavior. You cannot say the mother's behavior was bad without saying the daughter's behavior is bad, too.

That's wrong. If a mother lets her toddler play unsupervised in traffic, is it a criticism of the child to say that's bad mothering?
9.18.2008 11:01pm
A.W. (mail):
LM

Bristol is not a toddler.
9.18.2008 11:12pm
LM (mail):
So? If parents weren't presumed capable of protecting teenagers from harm, the legal age of majority would be 12.
9.18.2008 11:17pm
David Warner:
LM,

You really want to go down that road? My mom was working until six every day busting her own glass ceilings - I wouldn't want her career prospects affected by my 17-year-old stupidity. I got better.

"That's not fair. It's only because they hate it so much. Pat Buchanan's very smart, but I wouldn't hire him to run AIPAC."

Bush didn't seem to hate it so much. What they hate is the brain dead media, which is a great way to get elected but a lousy governing strategy.
9.19.2008 12:00am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace a/k/a aw:

You cannot say the mother's behavior was bad without saying the daughter's behavior is bad


You might have some kind of a point, if I thought there was no difference between adult responsibility and childhood responsibility. But of course there is a difference. An adult is responsible for their behavior in a way that a child is not. As LM explained.

Aside from that, there are lots of signs of irresponsible behavior on the part of the parents, before I even take into account the fact that Bristol is pregnant.

By the way, here's a fact: the daughter's behavior is bad. Are you going to claim otherwise? But the daughter's behavior is not my primary concern. Bristol is not asking me for a job.

so you are promoting an abstinence only approach to birth control... in a marriage


I'm not "promoting" anything. I'm pointing out that adults are responsible for the choices they make.

There are many other methods of birth control that are quite effective, especially when used in combination with each other. But if a couple is inexplicably unable or unwilling to figure out those other methods, then they are indeed obliged to abstain from sexual intercourse, if neither of them is available to take care of the baby. This is an extremely basic concept of personal responsibility. It's pretty amazing that I need to explain this to you.

You are mad that Todd actually had sex with Sarah!


Not exactly. I'm making a judgment about the fact that they had sexual intercourse (which is not the only way of having sex), without using some form of effective contraception, even though neither of them was prepared to take care of the baby they were conceiving. This tells me they are irresponsible. The irresponsibility is compounded when the child is born and they decline to make the necessary sacrifices to make sure that a parent is home with him.

Remember when all those Republicans attacked Obama for being raised by his grandmother?


It would be extremely silly to attack Obama "for being raised by his grandmother," since that wasn't his decision. It's pretty amazing that I need to explain this to you.

this is where you imagined our reaction if the shoe was on the other foot


That wasn't me doing the imagining. It was Byron York. Are you claiming he's wrong?
9.19.2008 12:02am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Fortunately, it is in the first part, here


In that video, Palin claims she did pageants for the money. It doesn't say anything about how she switched colleges because she allegedly couldn't afford to stay in one college. That's the claim you made. When are you going to show us your source?

And why should someone believe that going to five colleges in six years is less expensive than going to one college in four years?

If any school district provides courses of instruction …


Did you manage to notice the first word of this passage you cited? I guess not. It indicates what you and York both want to ignore: the bill permits sex ed. It doesn't require it. McCain's ad indicated the latter. Read the other thread.

even you thought that comprehensive sex ed couldn't be age appropriate


I never said that "comprehensive sex ed couldn't be age appropriate." I said that the bill doesn't call for "comprehensive sex ed" to be taught to kindergarteners.

barack obama voted to allow comprehensive sex ed, for kindergarteners … the effect of that law was to allow schools to provide such comprehensive sex ed to kindergarteners


The ad describes the bill as "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners." This implies that the bill requires that schools teach "comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners." But it doesn't do that. And it doesn't even permit the teaching of "comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners." What it permits is age-appropriate sex ed.

The interesting thing about York's article, that you cited, is that he very carefully avoids admitting what you admitted: that the purpose of the bill is to allow something, not to require something. McCain's ad is all about implying the latter. It's no accident that in York's 2,000-word article, he uses the word "allow" this many times: zero. Likewise for "permit."

York makes a key statement that is factually false. He says this:

Illinois' existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve


To support this claim, he quotes the following text from the bill:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.


But that text doesn't require a school to teach sex ed. It just says that if you teach sex ed, you need to include information about AIDS.

Anyway, you need to do a better job of coordinating your talking points with York. Because he's claiming (without saying it directly) that the bill requires K-12 sex ed. You, on the other hand, have admitted that "obama voted to allow" sex ed. Not the same thing.
9.19.2008 12:03am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
The fact he is singing a different tune today doesn't mean he never said the opposite. Notice that word "on record."


Monegan is not "singing a different tune." He has made multiple statements, "on record," that he was pressured. Period. It is a lie to claim otherwise. That's what York did. Here are the words York published on 9/2:

The man who was fired has said on the record that he was never pressured


This is what Monegan said on 7/19:

The fact that they tried for better than a year while I was there is kind of indicative that somebody was trying to pressure something.


This is what Monegan said on 9/15:

She's not telling the truth when she told ABC neither she nor her husband pressured me to fire Trooper Wooten.


Monegan made other similar statements, documented in the wiki article I mentioned.

You, York, Palin and McCain all have the same attitude about telling the truth.

Bwahahaha. Wikipedia. Well, sure, and I am sure that is one of those entries that have not been warped by partisanship. *rolls eyes*


Unless you're terribly click-impaired, you can check the references very easily and see the text in the original sources. But then you'll have to ignore what your lying eyes tell you.

Now you are against divorce, too


The problem is not just that McCain ended his marriage. It's the way he ended it.

how honorable is it to be a cokehead?


We can discuss that after you show your proof that Obama was or is a "cokehead."
9.19.2008 12:03am