The Republican Thread

[lostfan]

Isn't it really up to her how she handles it once she finds out though? If she wants to stay silent, it's her marriage and her business.

[Balta1701]

Isn't it really up to her how she handles it once she finds out though? If she wants to stay silent, it's her marriage and her business.

I'd like to agree...but the other side of the issue is...by helping her husband campaign, she made her business and her family's private matters public.

 

I just keep coming back to the thought...let's say he won Iowa and turned that in to a juggernaut somehow (He was only a few votes behind there). Then you get to July, and suddenly the affair comes pouring out. If she believed one bit in all the things she supposedly supports...then by standing by and campaigning hard for her husband while he kept that secret, she'd basically be handing John McCain the White House. If she wanted to keep her family's private dealings private...then she shouldn't have let her husband run for public office.

[lostfan]

I'd like to agree...but the other side of the issue is...by helping her husband campaign, she made her business and her family's private matters public.

 

I just keep coming back to the thought...let's say he won Iowa and turned that in to a juggernaut somehow (He was only a few votes behind there). Then you get to July, and suddenly the affair comes pouring out. If she believed one bit in all the things she supposedly supports...then by standing by and campaigning hard for her husband while he kept that secret, she'd basically be handing John McCain the White House. If she wanted to keep her family's private dealings private...then she shouldn't have let her husband run for public office.

Ultimately, it's her husband's fault.

[Balta1701]

Ultimately, it's her husband's fault.

That doesn't excuse her willingness to cover it up to protect him while he campaigned for the job.

 

She was willing to sacrifice the party and the whole election to protect her husband. It makes sense that the party is going to be unhappy about that.

[southsider2k5]

Isn't it really up to her how she handles it once she finds out though? If she wants to stay silent, it's her marriage and her business.

 

When a politician makes their private life a part of their public campaign, it ceases to be their private life. A central part of their campaign WAS their marriage and her cancer. At that point in time, she becomes complicit in a lie, and a central one in his run for the White House. It'd be different if that hadn't have been a central theme for them. To me it would be akin to finding out Frank Thomas was a juicer, after all of those years of b****ing about other people doing it, and leading a campaign against it.

[Balta1701]

When a politician makes their private life a part of their public campaign, it ceases to be their private life. A central part of their campaign WAS their marriage and her cancer. At that point in time, she becomes complicit in a lie, and a central one in his run for the White House. It'd be different if that hadn't have been a central theme for them. To me it would be akin to finding out Frank Thomas was a juicer, after all of those years of b****ing about other people doing it, and leading a campaign against it.

Except the only ones at risk from Frank Thomas's guns were the opposing pitching staffs...

[Cknolls]

Word is McCain is making his VP pick today, not publicly, but internally, and they will have an 11:00 A.M. rally Fri. morning in Dayton, Ohio.

 

I believe he will pick Eric Cantor from Virginyaaa. He's pro-life, House Whip, member of Ways&Means, and he is Jewish, which could help in Florida.

[southsider2k5]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080828/D92R51M81.html

 

Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology

Email this Story

 

Aug 28, 3:13 AM (ET)

 

By RACHEL ZOLL

 

Politics can be treacherous. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walked on even riskier ground in a recent TV interview when she attempted a theological defense of her support for abortion rights.

 

Roman Catholic bishops consider her arguments on St. Augustine and free will so far out of line with church teaching that they have issued a steady stream of statements to correct her.

 

The latest came Wednesday from Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, who said Pelosi, D-Calif., "stepped out of her political role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion."

 

It has been a harsh week of rebuke for the Democratic congresswoman, a Catholic school graduate who repeatedly has expressed pride in and love for her religious heritage.

 

Cardinals and archbishops in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York and Denver are among those who have criticized her remarks. Archbishop George Niederauer, in Pelosi's hometown of San Francisco, will take up the issue in the Sept. 5 edition of the archdiocesan newspaper, his spokesman said.

 

Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press" program, Pelosi said "doctors of the church" have not been able to define when life begins.

 

She also cited the role of individual conscience. "God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions," she said.

 

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement defending her remarks that she "fully appreciates the sanctity of family" and based her views on conception on the "views of Saint Augustine, who said, 'The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.'"

 

But whether or not parishioners choose to accept it, the theology on the procedure is clear. From its earliest days, Christianity has considered abortion evil.

 

"This teaching has remained unchanged and remains unchangeable," according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."

 

The Rev. Douglas Milewski, a Seton Hall University theologian who specializes in Augustine, said Pelosi seems to be confusing church teaching on abortion with the theological debate over when a fetus receives a soul.

 

"Saint Augustine wondered about the stages of human development before birth, how this related to the question of ensoulment and what it meant for life in the Kingdom of God," Milewski said.

 

Questions about ensoulment related to determining penalties under church law for early and later abortions, not deciding whether the procedure is permissible, according to the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

 

Augustine was "quite clear on the immorality of abortion as evil violence, destructive of the very fabric of human bonds and society," Milewski said.

 

Regarding individual decision-making, the church teaches that Catholics are obliged to use their conscience in considering moral issues. However, that doesn't mean parishioners can pick and choose what to believe and still be in line with the church.

 

Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theologian at Boston College, said conscience must be formed by Catholic teaching and philosophical insights. "It's not just a personal opinion that you came up with randomly," she said.

 

Catholic theologians today overwhelmingly consider debate over the morality of abortion settled. Thinkers and activists who attempt to challenge the theology are often considered on the fringes of church life.

 

However, there is a rigorous debate over how the teaching should guide voters and public officials. Are Catholics required to choose the candidate who opposes abortion? Or can they back a politician based on his or her policies on reducing, not outlawing, the procedure?

 

The U.S. bishops addressed this question in their election-year public policy guide, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."

 

They said that voting for a candidate specifically because he or she supports "an intrinsic evil" such as abortion amounts to "formal cooperation in grave evil."

 

In some cases, Catholics may vote for a candidate with a position contrary to church teaching, but only for "truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences," according to the document.

 

It is a complex discussion. The Rev. Thomas Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, has some advice for candidates who seek to join the debate: Stick to politics - and support programs that truly help reduce the number of abortions.

 

"It is a big mistake," Reese said, "for politicians to talk theology."

[southsider2k5]

Another move by the party of inclusion to stiffle free speech...

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-to...cago-radio-show

 

Members of Barack Obama’s campaign HQ in Chicago tried to shut down a local radio show on the City's most powerful radio signal, WGN 720, because they didn't like a conservative guest that was on going on the air to discuss Senator Barack Obama's ties to local terrorist William Ayers. This is a shocking attempt at stifling political free speech and a bald attempt to quash debate by the office of the Democratic Party's nominee. The funny thing is, WGN is the most liberal station in the City with every host but one slavishly supporting the junior Senator from Illinois.

 

Show host Milt Rosenberg, the station's only conservative leaning host (probably to be considered more libertarian than Republican), had on short notice asked conservative writer Stanley Kurtz to come on the air to discuss his work on uncovering Obama's ties to terrorist Wiliam Ayres and the Annenberg Challenge project. Kurtz was just in Chicago for his investigation and Rosenberg contacted Kurtz only that morning to appear. At the same time, Rosenberg's producer contacted the Obama campaign's HQ -- which is but blocks from the radio station in downtown Chicago -- to offer some time on the air with Kurtz to debate Kurtz' claims about Obama and Ayres. The campaign, however, flatly refused the offer of the equal air time and instead tried to drum up via email a protest of the show, trying to get it stopped.

 

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

 

After the refusal of host Rosenberg's offer to appear on the air with Kurtz, the Obama campaign issued an extensive email (The Chicago Tribune has the full text) to drum up protests of the radio station, which said in part...

 

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.

 

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

 

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

 

 

The email gave the Rosenberg show contact info and told people to call and protest Kurtz' appearance. The email also lied to its supporters by acting as if the Obama campaign was not offered fair rebuttal time.

 

It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies.

 

 

I happen to live in Chicago and by chance was listening to the Milt Rosenberg show and heard for myself the host assure listeners that he offered the air time to the Obama campaign, an offer that was refused. Rosenberg even went so far as to offer any other show date for the Obama campaign's rebuttal to Kurtz' work.

 

Then, in compliance with the Obama campaign’s email instructions, a parade of callers was aired all telling Rosenberg to shut down the Kurtz interview. Each caller was quite insensible to the unAmerican reaction in which they were indulging and each one was entirely unreasonable and uninformed on the facts. Sadly, this anti-American attitude seems typical of Obama supporters nation wide.

 

Now, Dr. Rosenberg's show is one of the most intelligent, even high brow, shows on the radio, so schmaltzy, exploitation radio is as far from his style as one can get. Rosenberg interviews authors of the highest standing and show topics range from philosophy, to Opera, to physics and political science. He even does a delightful yearly show on the misuse of the English language as well as one on the year's best literary offerings. Like I said, exploitation radio he ain't.

 

So, for the Obama campaign to act as if this particular show is an affront to reasoned debate is an outrageous charge. Just as outrageous is the Obama campaign's obvious desire to destroy free political speech. It makes one quake to wonder what sort of oppressive climate an Obama presidency would impose on the country?

[whitesoxfan101]

The Obama campaign has made it pretty clear that they are TERRIFIED of William Ayers. I mean, they have reason to be very afraid of him, but to see them going to the level of trying to stifle free speech is fascinating.

Edited August 28, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[mr_genius]

The Obama campaign has made it pretty clear that they are TERRIFIED of William Ayers. I mean, they have reason to be very afraid of him, but to see them going to the level of trying to stifle free speech is fascinating.

 

They really are. Their attempts to skirt the first amendment really opens a window to the poor character and lack of intellectual integrity the Obama campaign is embracing.

[mr_genius]

Another move by the party of inclusion to stiffle free speech...

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-to...cago-radio-show

 

This whole move by the Democrats is very troubling. We are seeing a heavy censoring, psychotic (our political leader is sent from god to lead) creepiness from the Dems. Fortunately I don't think it will work at all. I actually see them losing this election because of this type of thing. This election is nearly impossible to lose because of the massive disdain currently for the Republicans; but the dailykos types running the Obama campaign are going to wreck him.

[whitesoxfan101]

This whole move by the Democrats is very troubling. We are seeing a heavy censoring, psychotic (our political leader is sent from god to lead) creepiness from the Dems. Fortunately I don't think it will work at all. I actually see them losing this election because of this type of thing. This election is nearly impossible to lose because of the massive disdain currently for the Republicans; but the dailykos types running the Obama campaign are going to wreck him.

 

"Creepy" is the PERFECT word for Obama. The way the democrats are proclaming him as the G.O.A.T. is creepy, the demeanor of his supporters, especially towards non-Obama believers is creepy, the way the majority of the media treats him is creepy. I think all of this "creepy" will lose Obama the election too. The American people don't like being told what to do, and I think a lot of them (especially undecided voters) are becoming tired of the hype.

Edited August 28, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[southsider2k5]

http://online.barrons.com/article_print/SB...glenews_barrons

 

John McCain's and Barack Obama's tax plans hold vastly different implications for the U.S. economy. Required reading before you vote.

 

WITH HOUSING IN A DEPRESSION, FINANCIAL COMPANIES in crisis, stocks slumping and a recession gathering or under way, you'd think that Wall Street would have a strong opinion about whether John McCain or Barack Obama is better-suited to steer the ship of state away from the rocks. But interviews with dozens of money managers, economists and industry analysts over the past few months indicate that, while most would be more comfortable with the Republican candidate, the vast majority don't think that either man would affect the economy much differently than the other.

 

 

Scott Pollack

The vast majority, however, is wrong.

 

In McCain and Obama, the electorate is presented with dueling visions of what shape the economy, and particularly the nation's tax structure, should take. Obama's stated belief is that the best way to revitalize America is by raising taxes on the rich and redistributing wealth to the poor and middle class. McCain, in contrast, would retain all of President Bush's tax cuts, including those for the wealthy, and cut corporate taxes markedly, with the aim of boosting investment in businesses and creating jobs.

 

Whichever concept prevails will have profound implications for the economy over the next decade. And, if Obama's plan prevails, it could well be for the worse. While both candidates' proposals have their pros and cons, Obama's appears to have a few too many cons. There's no question about that if you happen to be in the top 1% of income-tax payers. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan would boost the average tax bill for that group by $93,709, to $652,890. McCain's plan would reduce that group's average by $48,862 to $510,319.

 

But far more is at stake than the size of any single fat cat's tax bill. With adjusted gross incomes totaling $2 trillion, or $1.6 million per capita, the top 1% of taxpayers account for more than 20% of all adjusted gross income. And these folks tend to plow a lot of their money into businesses -- from family operations to blue-chip stocks -- to say nothing of shopping trips and travel. In other words, cutting their after-tax income could deal another blow to an already-hobbled economy.

 

The problem would only be compounded by Obama's stand on capital-gains and dividends taxes -- he'd hike them both. He also would institute a more onerous estate tax than McCain would.

 

It's almost as if Obama wants to repeat the mistakes of Herbert Hoover. During the Great Depression, Hoover raised the top marginal rate to 63% from 25% and hiked corporate taxes, too, says Michael Aronstein, chief investment strategist at Oscar Gruss & Son in New York. The moves siphoned needed investment capital out of the markets and into the hands of bureaucrats, delaying the turnaround.

 

Of course, taxes aren't the only part of Obama's and McCain's economic programs, and the economy isn't the only issue in the election. Barron's, in highlighting the weaknesses of Obama's tax plans, is not taking a position on his entire candidacy, or on McCain's. It is Barron's policy not to endorse candidates. We do, however, see taxes as a crucial issue for the economy and markets, and Obama's positions have troubling implications. With the Democratic convention starting this week, it's not too late for him to change.

 

SO FAR, WALL STREET has reacted to Obama with relative warmth. He's attracted such advisers as Warren Buffett and former Fed chief Paul Volcker. And many seasoned observers maintain that the Democrat's economic policies are quite similar to those of his Republican rival. "There are attempts to make the Obama-McCain difference big; but they are not that big, really," avers Martin Barnes, the managing editor of the Bank Credit Analyst.

 

Because of the budget deficit, now approaching $500 billion a year, the next president, regardless of party, will have his hands tied, many observers say. He will have little choice but to raise taxes and cut spending.

 

Obama's tax plans, however, point to a philosophy that historically has worried market pros. Raising taxes on the investor class simply doesn't help investment.

 

That lesson evidently was lost during the Clinton administration, which promoted tax policies similar to Obama's. Democrats argue that Clinton proved that higher taxes can go hand-in-hand with stronger growth. The U.S. added 2.8 million jobs annually in the Clinton years, and markets soared. The S&P 500 stock index, with reinvested dividends, rose 256% during Clinton's two terms, handily topping the 178% gain for tax-cutting icon Ronald Reagan, according to data from Bianco Research. Better still, the federal budget deficit under Clinton turned into a $236 billion surplus. Consequently, the total returns on bonds, measured by the Lehman Aggregate Index, rose 73%.

 

There's a good case to be made, however, that if Clinton had been given a free hand, he would have hurt the economy and the markets. Critics maintain that he was saved from himself by a string of fortuitous events, including the GOP taking control of the House in 1994.

 

If Obama wins, there will be no credible opposition to his tax plans. In fact, he might well enjoy the largest Democratic majority in Congress since 1937, with his party likely to pick up seats in the House and Senate as the Republicans suffer from a "throw the bums out" backlash against the Bush years.

 

Obama's team, for its part, insists that the tax proposals would be a boon to the economy. Obama adviser Lawrence Summers, who was Clinton's Treasury secretary, argues: "At a time when the 10-year interest rate is in the threes, at a time when it is clearly lack of demand for products rather than the cost of capital that is inhibiting investment, the idea that a return to the tax policies of the 1990s would somehow damage the economy in a substantial way seems to me supported by neither theory nor evidence nor the longer-term history."

 

But leverage is dead for the moment, so those low rates are not as alluring as they once were. And Summers assumes that raising someone's tax bill by multiple thousands will not curb their investment activities. That assumption is dubious at best.

 

 

The reductions of tax bills under President Bush certainly helped the economy. They spurred consumption, investment and entrepreneurial activity. Without the cuts, GDP growth would have been 0.7% less each year from 2001 through 2006, and the unemployment rate would have been 1.2 percentage points higher over the period, according to an analysis prepared for the American Council for Capital Formation by independent economist Allen Sinai.

 

IT'S HARD TO PIN down the details of Obama's tax proposal because they keep changing. Follow the bouncing tax rates. Until this month, he said he would raise taxes on only those making $250,000 or more, hiking the marginal rate from 35% to 39.6%, exactly where it was when Clinton was president. He said that he'd raise capital gains and dividend taxes, now 15%, to 20%, where they stood before 2003, and possibly as high as 28%, where they were when Ronald Reagan was president. Obama also promises to apply a Social Security tax on this cohort of 2% to 4%.

 

This month, however, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, his top economic advisers, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that Obama would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more. Their top marginal rate would go from 33% to 36%. Asked about this apparent change, the Obama campaign declined to provide an explanation.

 

Obama's tax plan, at least in the original version, would generate $131 billion a year in new revenue for the government, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint operation of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute in Washington. His proposal to make the wealthiest taxpayers pay higher Social Security taxes than everyone else could net Uncle Sam another $40 billion a year. He's recently had second thoughts about this proposal and said that he might delay its implementation to 2018, way beyond his term.

 

Over all, he would raise $800 billion more over 10 years than the government would if the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, according to the Tax Policy Center. McCain's plan, which keeps all the Bush cuts and trims corporate taxes to 25% from 35%, would cut revenue by $600 billion.

 

Obama would use the money he takes from the wealthy to keep rates low for everyone else and to fund universal health care (estimated cost: $55 billion a year when up and running). For the nation's poorest households, there also would be benefits for child care, mortgage interest and education. He wants to make amends for a Bush expansion that saw incomes rise at the top while real incomes slid for the middle and lower classes, owing to higher fuel and food costs.

 

Cognizant that his tax hikes might retard job growth, Obama plans a zero capital-gains rate for small businesses and start-ups -- details to come later. But that might not be broad enough to offset the damage of his tax hikes.

 

Wachovia's chief economist, John Silvia, says corporate and capital-gains tax hikes would crimp the flow of foreign capital to the U.S. and slow growth and job creation relative to the rest of the world: "If foreign investors perceive that our tax rates are going to go up over time, they are not going to invest as much in this country as they otherwise would. And this is bad not only for Wall Street but for Main Street."

 

MCCAIN'S TAX PLAN is more growth-oriented than Obama's because it punishes no one group and, by lowering corporate tax rates, makes U.S. businesses more attractive to American and foreign investors. Workers with corporate health benefits would be pinched by McCain's proposal to end tax exclusions for that coverage and replace it with a tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. If you wanted a more expensive policy, then you would have to shell out additional dollars for it. But that's part of a health-care reform proposal aimed at bringing down medical costs by making consumers more savvy shoppers, not a revenue-raising scheme.

 

McCain's tax plan, which includes a reduction in the alternative minimum tax, is lacking in progressivity and thus, like the Bush cuts, would benefit the top brackets the most. According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain would cut taxes for 60% of households -- but less than one in five households in the bottom fifth and less than half of those in the next-to-last fifth would see a reduction in their IRS bills.

 

McCain promises that his fiscal plan will lower deficits, not raise them, because he will be austere on the spending side of the ledger. Whether he'd succeed at that is open to question, but he does have a lengthy track record of opposing pork-barrel projects and has been known to take on special interests. It's as if he's been paying penance these past 20 years for his association with S&L rogue Charles Keating back in the 1980s. McCain was one of the Keating Five -- five senators accused of improperly helping Keating fight regulators.

 

His mantra on the campaign trail is that he will veto wasteful spending and make the authors of such bills "famous," meaning infamous. And since he is a Republican -- though more in the vein of centrist Nelson Rockefeller than conservative Reagan -- he would have an easier time than would Obama in bucking a Democratic Congress.

 

 

Nevertheless, plenty of Wall Streeters see no threat to the economy from Obama. Investors like unconventional economic approaches when conventional ones seem to be failing, says Tom Gallagher, an analyst with ISI Group in Washington. Gallagher also notes that in three previous contests where a Democrat won a close contest, there was a selloff after Labor Day, followed by a pre-election rally. He expects this pattern to be repeated if Obama is the frontrunner going into the fall.

 

The last of those Democrats to win, Bill Clinton, went on to defy the tax-hike worrywarts -- with some help from Lady Luck. Not only did a GOP Congress hold his tax and spending plans in check, but a loose-fisted Fed also brought interest rates to rock-bottom levels and pumped $40 billion into the economy on the eve of Y2K.

 

Obama could get lucky, just like Clinton. Oil prices could fall to $50 a barrel, or a Tom Edison might turn crab grass into jet fuel. Better yet, Obama, who's no dummy, might think twice about raising taxes during the worst financial crisis in 78 years.

[mr_genius]

lol the Goracle is on tv

[southsider2k5]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/nav...=rss_topstories

 

Commentary: Obama's confusing blend of left-right economicsStory Highlights

Navarette agrees: Barack Obama's speech at Democratic Convention was masterful

 

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Special to CNN

 

Ruben Navarrette Jr. says he's part of a generation that learned you wait a long time for government to save you.

 

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- You knew Barack Obama would deliver a magnificent speech in accepting the Democratic nomination for president. And he did.

 

CNN contributor David Gergen -- my graduate school professor and an adviser to four presidents -- called the speech a masterpiece. And it was.

 

Most of the speech dealt with economic issues. The last thing Obama wanted to do was channel Lyndon Johnson or some other Great Society, tax-and-spend Democrat.

 

Nor did he want to come across like a laissez-faire, no-tax-but-spend-anyway George W. Bush Republican.

 

That's a tough needle to thread, and Obama settled on a hybrid of left-right economic theory that sounded like a bundle of contradictions.

 

Obama talked about "America's promise," the belief that "through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well."

 

He explained it as "the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise and fall as one nation" and described it as blending "individual responsibility and mutual responsibility." Simply put: You have to do what you can for yourself, but that you also have to do for others.

 

There is the rub: If everyone were to adhere to the first part, there will be no need for the second. Besides, even if we buy the idea that, as Obama said, "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper," there is still the question of whether government should do the keeping.

 

The same question came to mind during Joe Biden's speech Wednesday. The Democratic vice presidential nominee also talked about "America's promise," but he defined it differently. For Biden, it's about what his working-class parents told him "about how anyone can make it if they try."

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

Then Biden got tangled in his own contradiction. He talked about his dad who, when he fell on hard times, would tell his son: "Champ, when you get knocked down, get up."

 

Then he lamented that he had "never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up."

 

Wait a minute. Who said anything about government helping folks get back up when they get knocked down? Is that what Papa Biden was talking about? It sounded like he was saying people should get themselves back on their feet.

 

I'm a big fan of getting back up, personal responsibility, educating yourself, making good choices, and getting over the idea that the world owes you a living.

 

I'm also keen on people not playing the victim, not feeling a sense of entitlement, and not fearing competition. And when you're struggling in a tough economy, you don't give up or lay blame or ask for a government bailout, you work harder.

 

Those are my principles -- but they carry a dose of pragmatism. I can't remember the last time I saw government do something right. As a 41-year-old, I'm part of a generation that learned not to wait for government to save you because you could be waiting a long, long time.

 

Case in point: On this third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, there are people in New Orleans who are still waiting for the federal government to rebuild that city. Good luck with that, folks.

 

The waters have long since receded and residents are no longer standing on rooftops holding signs that read: "Help save us!" But they might as well be.

 

The same goes for the Democrats who convened in Denver. This is a party that maintains power by trying to convince people that our country is a dark place, devoid of opportunities, and that the answer is to elect more of them.

 

Now they're seeking a change in the White House, a change in policy, and a change in national priorities --even if they aren't ready to change their tune.

 

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

[bmags]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/nav...=rss_topstories

 

ss, that was a great commentary. I wish you posted more of that and less of some of the other stuff

[southsider2k5]

ss, that was a great commentary. I wish you posted more of that and less of some of the other stuff

 

After what I see in some of the other threads, I don't post anywhere near the amount, the partisian, or the complete garbage that I see here on a daily basis.

[bmags]

maybe I'm thinking of kap articles.

[kapkomet]

maybe I'm thinking of kap articles.

I doubt it. I don't post any articles, I just ramble without factual basis.

[bmags]

well whoever posts newsmax articles.

[mr_genius]

the University of Illinois is paying John Edwards $65,000 to give a speech

 

what a bulls*** waste of school funds.

Edited August 29, 2008 by mr_genius

[bmags]

this was going in the Palin VP thread:

 

Alright.

 

Perhaps my initial reaction being so critical of this pick was a reaction to McCain's campaign's heavy push that Obama is too inexperienced and running off of his celebrity status. I've in the past shown why I think experience is a load of bunk. Some posters, balta and lostfan, have echoed these sentiments in a way I agree with. I'd add, historically, some of my favorite presidents (Polk, Lincoln, Truman) had little experience compared to their peers, but personality and drive to do what they thought was right. In my posts, I was hypocritical.

 

I do think this helps Obama eliminate one attack against him from McCain, that he is inexperienced. This doesn't mean that Obama is going to attack Palin for being so, rather that McCain won't be able to effectively use it. I say this, because in my opinion your VP pick is someone you are saying is qualified to be president and will fight for your agenda. McCain in picking Palin, is saying that her drive and personality and work as a reformer qualify her for president.

 

I would like to know more about Alaskan politics. My view right now is it is in shambles due to many scandals, and that Palin enjoyed heavy favorables for taking on these. Although, she herself is in a scandal. And Alpha dog made a good point, that Biden's son Hunter is going to get him into trouble. The NYTimes has already ran coverage of his son's lobbyist ties and questionable practices. This is troublesome to me, in addition to Biden's cozy relationship to the credit companies. However, the reason I think Palin's scandal could hurt her more than Biden, is that even if you taint Biden with lobbyist ties, it's a bit watered down because that has been a story with aides in this campaign and none of them have gotten too far. And if you taint his populist cries, he still has his foreign policy experience. With Palin, if you taint her reformist agenda with a scandal such as she has, she has little else except her social conservatism, and I don't think that will win too many moderates.

 

All in all, this actually was probably a good pick for McCain. Clearly, Pawlenty and Romney were not exciting people, as this day was mostly met with dread in the lead up from the conservatives here it seemed. She, a fresh face and history-maker of her own, adds conservative credentials - and most of all - enthusiasm to this campaign. I can see her closing the enthusiasm gap vs. Obama, and in that sense she was probably a good choice.

 

In the end, this will come down to Obama vs. McCain, and probably on foreign policy on whether Obama can convince enough of the country that he is ready to take over our country during 2 conflicts and rising super powers. And as opposed to certainly Romney and in my impression Pawlenty, Palin will add youth and charm and be in asset in these town halls McCain runs.

Edited August 30, 2008 by bmags

[DABearSoX]

Since the thread was closed I will post this here. The best thing about McCain's pick is that it was so surprising to everybody and there is so much to talk about the lady governor from Alaska that every single news station is spending all its time on this rather than Obama's speech last night. It was a great move to announce this today.

 

Some of the TVs at the gym were on and I noticed that MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News all were either playing the speech from today or talking about the pick.

 

Even Oberman was talking about it, but he did try to put in as much about Obama's speech as he could.

[mr_genius]

and Alphadog points out how bad the anti-Palin posts have been in the GOP VP thread so what to do? close it. wouldn't want any one to feel uncomfortable blasting a GOP candidate with sexist remarks.

 

*sigh*

Edited August 30, 2008 by mr_genius