The Democrat Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

FYI: Bubba is holding a rally for Obama in Orlando and is on top of his game.

:headbang

[bmags]

politics seem so trivial compared to sports.

[BigSqwert]

politics seem so trivial compared to sports.

 

Indeed

[longshot7]

How was Obama wrong about Iraq?

 

I'm so tired of McCain's lies.

 

Because Johnny Mac invented the surge in 1995!!!!

[longshot7]

My favorite part of last week's debate, and I’m surprised no one has mentioned this yet, is McCain’s strange assertion that South Koreans are, on average, 3 inches taller than North Koreans.

 

What did this tidbit have to do with Presidential politics?!!

[Steve9347]

My favorite part of last week's debate, and I’m surprised no one has mentioned this yet, is McCain’s strange assertion that South Koreans are, on average, 3 inches taller than North Koreans.

 

What did this tidbit have to do with Presidential politics?!!

HE'S BEEN THERE!! HE ALSO KNOWS HOW TALL PEOPLE FROM CUBA AND RUSSIA ARE!!! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS?

[bmags]

taller populations would be so due to proper diet. It's an example of the starvation of the people of North Korea.

[Balta1701]

taller populations would be so due to proper diet. It's an example of the starvation of the people of North Korea.

So, I conclude from the fact that the average American is now shrinking relative to the states in Europe that have better health care systems than we do that we should follow their health care systems with our own.

 

Think the Senator would like that extension of his logic?

[Soxbadger]

No thats actually very important.

 

Imagine that you are the President in a room full of Korean's, how do you know which one is the Northern Communist spy?

 

The answer is simple, look for the shortest man in the room and the odds are they are the Communist.

[bmags]

I don't think there is any debate that the people of North Korea are being starved by their government.

[BigSqwert]

How Fast You Can Read This Essay Online

 

How John McCain’s techno-monopolism

will hurt the economy

 

By Nicholas Thompson

 

John McCain is an AT&T guy; Barack Obama is a Google guy. And that’s one of the most important policy differences between the two.

 

Think of the Internet as working at different layers. There are all the pipes that go into your home, and then there’s all the stuff on your screen—from e-mail to eMule. The telecom companies like AT&T control the pipes; the software companies, like Google, create the stuff.

 

In an ideal world, both these layers would be sites of great innovation and creativity. But in the United States, that isn’t so. The software industry may seem like a team of Gandalfs, constantly producing magic. But the average telecom company resembles Jabba the Hut: it moves slowly and slobbers a lot.

 

The United States created the Internet, but it’s the rest of the world that can really use it. People in Japan are twice as likely as Americans to have broadband connections, and their pipes are ten times as fast. Compared to France, U.S. Internet access is twice as expensive and one-fourth as quick. Since 2000, the United States has gone from fifth in the world to twenty-second in broadband penetration. We have become a nation of buffering YouTube videos.

 

What went wrong? It’s not that telecommunications companies are inherently lazy. Such companies innovate, after all, in East Asia. And it’s not just that the United States is a big rural country. That explains some of our lag, but not all. Canada and Australia are thumping us too.

 

The real reason things went wrong is that we haven’t regulated our telecom markets properly. And that’s where John McCain comes in.

 

The problem is primarily the lack of competition among Internet providers. In most places, you have, at best, two choices—the local cable company or the local phone company. And these behemoths know that they don’t have to worry about new competitors. With the government’s help, they spent decades digging up roads and building lines into everyone’s home, creating an infrastructure that no start-up can replicate. Now they sit, fat and happy, neglecting customer service and innovating about as much each year as Google does each Tuesday.

 

John McCain’s culpability is both specific and philosophical. For much of the Clinton and Bush administrations, he chaired the Senate Commerce Committee, overseeing the Federal Communications Commission and the telecom industry. Just before taking the post, he voted against the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the one big effort to solve the problem of anemic competition in the telecom sector. When the act nevertheless passed, he

helped to make sure that its main provision for opening the market—mandating that phone companies lease their local lines to competitors—wasn’t enforced. Eventually, he, and the people he put on the FCC, helped to roll that law back. France, by contrast, implemented and enforced just the kind of law that McCain opposed. And now the country mocked here for its thirty-five-hour workweek is far more wired than the United States.

 

As committee chair, McCain also oversaw, and often encouraged, the incredible competition-stifling consolidation in the telecom industry. The country is now served almost entirely by three local phone, four cellular, and four cable companies. In his tenure as chairman, McCain supported nearly every merger. In 1999, he coauthored a bill that would strip the FCC of its ability to veto telecom mergers.

 

McCain’s mistakes derive partly from a lack of technological curiosity (he doesn’t use e-mail) and the presence of all sorts of Bell guys around him. His campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, Senate chief of staff, and chief political adviser have all worked as lobbyists for Verizon or AT&T.

 

But more blame lies with his philosophy. McCain espouses what he calls a deep belief in free markets and in keeping government off the backs of business. That’s all well and good, except for when a market—like telecommunications—requires intervention in order to create competition. Unrestricted freedom for the big guy often means death to the little guy.

 

Given McCain’s poor record on the issue, Obama could ignore the topic and still come out ahead. But the forty-seven-year-old, it turns out, is something of a geek. He presented a sweeping technology plan early in the campaign that is full of good ideas. He suggested that the government

create the post of national “chief technical officer.” He proposed taking the money that is now used to subsidize rural telephone use, and spending it on subsidizing rural broadband instead. Not only would people and businesses get Internet access; they’d be able to switch to vastly cheaper Internet phones. Not surprisingly, Obama has won over Silicon Valley. According to opensecrets.org, 555 employees of Google have donated to his campaign, compared to just twenty-six for McCain. When the author of McCain’s technology plan, Michael Powell, was pressed to name supporters from the tech world, he came up with the name of one person who’s actually written code—and then it turned out that guy didn’t even support McCain.

 

Obama also clearly gets that government has an ongoing role to play in making sure markets work—a fact reflected in the debate over net neutrality. The question here is whether the telecom companies can discriminate over the kind of information that flows over their pipes. AT&T, the other telecom companies, and McCain argue that of course they should. They own the pipes, and in a free market they should be free to do whatever they want. Obama’s position is: Hold on a minute. Do we really want the phone and cable companies deciding what kind of software people can use? Do we really want Comcast to, say, decide to start monkeying with your ability to access iTunes.com or Vonage?

 

Obama, in other words, understands that actual market freedom sometimes requires tough love from the feds. McCain still seems to believe in the chimera of naturally existing total freedom—the freedom for his country to fall further and further behind as AT&T and the other telecom leviathans sit back, ignoring your customer service calls and just watching the $90 monthly checks roll in.

[BigSqwert]

Heh

 

http://mccainsforobama.com/

[DukeNukeEm]

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

 

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …

 

Couric: Can you think of any?

 

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

 

-------

 

Unreal. The video should be floating around in the next half hour. EDIT- Hear It Is

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4493093n

 

BARF

Edited October 1, 2008 by DukeNukeEm

[lostfan]

That is another case of her trying to regurgitate basic conservative talking points against what should be a simple question, and can't. I'm actually kind of starting to feel bad for her, almost. Almost.

[BigSqwert]

The film Idiocracy becoming a reality.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

 

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …

 

Couric: Can you think of any?

 

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

 

-------

 

Unreal. The video should be floating around in the next half hour. EDIT- Hear It Is

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4493093n

 

BARF

 

That's not as bad as it was being portrayed. I was hearing that she couldn't name ANY landmark Supreme Court cases like Marbury v Madison, Brown v Board of Education, etc. Asking for decisions you don't like is tougher to answer.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

That's not as bad as it was being portrayed. I was hearing that she couldn't name ANY landmark Supreme Court cases like Marbury v Madison, Brown v Board of Education, etc. Asking for decisions you don't like is tougher to answer.

Because were all such fans of Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Balta1701]

That's not as bad as it was being portrayed. I was hearing that she couldn't name ANY landmark Supreme Court cases like Marbury v Madison, Brown v Board of Education, etc. Asking for decisions you don't like is tougher to answer.

Dred Scott comes to mind. She also spoke out about the decision earlier this year on the Exxon Valdez.

[kapkomet]

That's not as bad as it was being portrayed. I was hearing that she couldn't name ANY landmark Supreme Court cases like Marbury v Madison, Brown v Board of Education, etc. Asking for decisions you don't like is tougher to answer.

Keep in mind I do NOT support Sarah Palin. However, two things come to mind here.

 

1- These questions were meant to throw her off. Most of the time, these questions are vetted well in advance and you can almost tell by her reaction to the questions, she's like WTF are you asking me this for?

 

2- Of course Katie Couric was trying to make Palin look bad and incompetent and stupid. That's her job. This was absolutely "GOTCHA" journalism at its best.

 

I'll add:

 

3- The debate tonight is going to be just as bad, if not worse. You know the moderator is going to play "GOTCHA" as much as she possibly can. Again, it's her job. These people are in the tank for RSO and don't anyone try to defend that, because it's true.

[BigSqwert]

Keep in mind I do NOT support Sarah Palin. However, two things come to mind here.

 

1- These questions were meant to throw her off. Most of the time, these questions are vetted well in advance and you can almost tell by her reaction to the questions, she's like WTF are you asking me this for?

 

2- Of course Katie Couric was trying to make Palin look bad and incompetent and stupid. That's her job. This was absolutely "GOTCHA" journalism at its best.

 

I'll add:

 

3- The debate tonight is going to be just as bad, if not worse. You know the moderator is going to play "GOTCHA" as much as she possibly can. Again, it's her job. These people are in the tank for RSO and don't anyone try to defend that, because it's true.

 

It's funny that she asked Biden the same question regarding supreme court cases and he wasn't phased. But you can keep making excuses for her.

[lostfan]

It's funny that she asked Biden the same question regarding supreme court cases and he wasn't phased. But you can keep making excuses for her.

Biden sounded like... um like a guy with a law degree who was actually familiar with the subject matter.

 

All of the questions that I've heard Palin asked (that she has blown horribly) have been perfectly fair, reasonable questions that I could see Obama, McCain, or Biden answering with relative ease, but Palin literally cannot stay on track once she deviates more than a few words away from a basic GOP talking point. It's like what would happen if *I* was being interviewed.

[BigSqwert]

David Letterman: Top Ten "Things Overheard At Palin Debate Camp"

 

10. "Let's practice your bewildered silence."

 

9. "Can you try saying 'yes' instead of 'you betcha'?"

 

8. "Hey, I can see Mexico from here!"

 

7. "Maybe we'll get lucky and there won't be any questions about Iraq, taxes or healthcare."

 

6. "We're screwed!"

 

5. "Can I just use that lipstick-pit bull thing again?"

 

4. "We have to wrap it up for the day -- McCain eats dinner at 4:30."

 

3. "Can we get Congress to bail us out of this debate?"

 

2. "John Edwards wants to know if you'd like some private tutoring in his van."

 

1. "Any way we can just get Tina Fey to do it?"

[HuskyCaucasian]

Anyone have Dish? Obama now has his own channel!

 

Channel 73 on the Dish Network is now The Obama Channel.

 

Obama's media buying strategy has been marked by a willingness to work the angles and to try to pick up a few votes at the margins. The decision to go to everything from extensive radio buys to odd-hour infomercials reflects the fact that the campaign media buyers spend a lot of time thinking about how much persuasion any given dollar can buy, and given a very cheap format — late night cable channels that need filler, for instance — will settle for a thimblefull of persuasion.

 

The satellite channel is the latest of these marginal gambits: Three readers from different parts of the country email that Channel 073-00 on the Dish Network is now labeled OBAMA. ("What is up with Sen. Obama having his own channel?" asks a St. Louis reader.) The channel plays his two-minute ad laying out his economic plan on a loop, over and over.

 

The only explanation: The media buyers think they can reach enough people per dollar to make it worth the odd buy.

 

The channel's appearance has provoked scorn and alarm on conservative blogs, though, and some discussion on a forum for Satellite TV aficionados, where one user writes that a Dish Network executive e-mailed to reassure the user that it "is paid advertising by the Obama campaign and is not an endorsement of Sen. Obama by DISH Network" and will broadcast through Nov. 4.

 

Dish Network spokesman Parker McConachie confirmed the forum account and stressed that the channel is paid advertising, not a corporate endorsement.

[bmags]

That is another case of her trying to regurgitate basic conservative talking points against what should be a simple question, and can't. I'm actually kind of starting to feel bad for her, almost. Almost.

 

well, I mean she couldn't blink when asked if she wanted to.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama iPhone App:

CNET reports on the applications fairly rich set of features:

 

The most notable feature "organizes and prioritizes your contacts by key battleground states, making it easy to reach out and make an impact quickly," according to the software....

 

The application anonymously reports back the number of calls made this way: "Your privacy is important: no personal data or contacts will be uploaded or stored. Only the total number of calls you make is uploaded anonymously."