Saturday, October 04, 2008

Last Note From Australia

In a few hours I will be in the sky, flying back home from Australia.

We've been staying in a hotel in Adelaide, actually this is a nice place, the Grand Stamford Hotel at Glenelg, we are right on the beach. The springtime weather has been beautiful and Glenelg is the place to go, it's crazy with teenagers and tourists and folks from the city out to enjoy the day. The hotel is not luxurious but it's nice. The room is just a room, but downstairs there are nightclubs and bars and pokies. What's a pokie, you ask? "Pokie" is Australian for "slot machine." They're everywhere here. I'm told that the government makes fifty cents out of every dollar that goes into one of these things. The hotel has a jewelry store, several restaurants, it seems to be the place on the beach for weddings, conventions, dancing. Walking up to my room just now I noticed that someone has just married a very pretty blonde.

The vice-presidential debate occurred at a time when we are awake here -- we're thirteen hours off from the East Coast of the US, our day is your night -- so we thought we'd watch some of it, but the TV wouldn't come on. It was the first time since we got here that we had tried to watch television, and the stupid thing wouldn't come on.

We called the desk and the maintenance guy came up. We explained that we were Americans and wanted to watch the debate, and he laughed. Turns out he's from Baltimore, married an Aussie girl and moved here four years ago. He'd been sitting in a vacant room of the hotel watching the debates himself, so he filled us in. He got the TV working in a few minutes, and we found the debate on BBC. As the maintenance guy was leaving, he said, "Enjoy your stay and good luck to ... the whole world." This last was said with a sweep of the arm toward the television set where Sarah palin and Joe Biden faced one another. It was a poignant gesture. Out here in the rest of the world, people are watching our upcoming election carefully. They couldn't believe that we re-elected George Bush the last time, they might have forgiven our mistake in 2000 but in 2004 we did it on purpose, we knew what he was and we voted for him again. Now we are considering another four years of Republican leadership, and the people of the world are watching very carefully.

We only caught the final statements of the debates. It was canned stuff, memorized stuff. Then the commentators came on, and even the BBC acted as if the only thing that mattered was that Sarah Palin got through it. The immediate summary: "She didn't look like a deer in the headlights and she smiled a lot." That is almost an exact quote from the BBC. Then they went through every answer she gave to every question and talked about how she didn't seem entirely confused by it all, this wasn't as hard as talking to Katie Couric. They weren't being sarcastic, either; to the BBC, to the entire world, the fact that Sarah Palin survived the debate without a complete meltdown was exciting news. Not much was said about the other guy.

I have noticed that over the following day the tone shifted. People went back and reviewed the tapes, listened to what the two candidates had said, and discovered that one of them was knowledgeable and had answers, while the other was able to recite her lines in a charming small-town way, you know?

We were talking to a guy in a jewelry shop yesterday, and he made an interesting observation. The greenback, he noted, is doing very well against the Australian dollar. This guy was very knowledgeable about our economic collapse, even though, as he put it, "I have no money in the stock market, actually I have no money." A few months ago, he said, the American dollar was about 98 percent against the Australian dollar, now it's closer to 78 percent. So you go into a place and they want ten bucks for breakfast, say, we're really only paying seven-eighty American for it. Pretty nice for us tourists. My wife is looking at opals, which are a big commodity here, she wants to get a ring for her sister. I think the currency difference is going to be very welcome. The jewelry store guy was completely baffled about why the dollar is still strong internationally. Oh, the other effect of all this is the price of gold. That opal ring is going to be more expensive because gold has gone up as the American markets fail.

The guy in the jewelry store had some interesting objects for sale. He makes special riding crops, little whips with tassels on the ends, or leather flaps that sting. He doesn't make the whips themselves, but he makes a silver ornament to go on the head of them. Somebody else makes the whips. One was a braided leather crop with a few strands of leather hanging off the end, perfectly balanced, with a silver head on the top. The other was a shorter whip, a quirt I think, with a silver head on it, too, not so perfectly balanced but very pretty. You'll be glad to hear that I did not buy one of these.

I did splurge and get a didgeridoo. I have been hearing recordings of them, and it is a cool sound. A guy played one for me today in a store and gave me a chance to try, but I couldn't get a sound to come out of it. Hopefully I will, eventually, now that I own one. The didgeridoo is a wind instrument that is essentially a hollow stick about a yard long, with beeswax on one end where you put your mouth. You blow it like a trumpet or a tuba, and they use a circular-breathing technique where you blow out through your mouth while you inhale through your nose to keep the sound going. I didn't realize how they are made. It is a branch of a eucalyptus that has been hollowed out by termites. Eucalyptus is really hard wood, I expect it will travel okay, with airline guys throwing it around.

Strange thing here, one art gallery we went to had signs saying that women were not allowed to touch the didgeridoos because of cultural traditions. We asked the guy about this and he explained some crazy thing about how playing the didgeridoo is bad for women because they injure their diaphragm and that somehow affects their fertility. Let's say, I have searched the Internet for confirmation of this and found none. It does turn out that some aboriginal people believe that playing the didgeridoo is bad for women, and violating the taboo may result in bad things happening to them, including it may make them unable to have babies. A saleslady told me there is no problem with non-aboriginal women playing the didgeridoo, and in fact she had a page of citations of medical research showing that it is good for you. Whatever, it seemed weird to me. I think the Citizens for Responsible Didgeridoo Playing should make sure that women stay away from those things. Otherwise, you know what can happen, pretty soon the family will disintegrate.

The people here have been great. There is a kind of national sense of humor, taxi drivers and people in the shops and on the street have a fresh way of looking at things that just makes you laugh. They are a lot like Americans, and this is the easiest place to adapt to. They pronounce things a little differently from us, which works to our advantage because they immediately recognize that we are foreigners and so we are forgiven for not knowing how to do anything or where anything is. At the same time, their accent is not hard to understand and they understand us perfectly well, so we can do everything including joke around with the locals. If you travel you know that it can be frustrating to try to share a laugh with people in a language that one of you doesn't know.

It'll be about thirty hours flying back. Yes, that's a long time, you feel like you've been in that seat your whole life. This has been a terrific visit, and we will have memories forever. It will be good to get home though, that's always a bittersweet thing when a trip ends and you get ready to leave a place, and at the same time you know you're going to be coming back to your normal everyday routine, family and friends and people who love you.

112 Comments:

Blogger Tish said...

Walking up to my room just now I noticed that someone has just married a very pretty blonde.

I read that and I think, "was the bride attractive too?"

October 04, 2008 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe Biden's 14 Lies at the debate

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

October 04, 2008 11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
So we now have FIOS-lots of junk out there. I saw an animal show where the smartest(?) animal can win $25,000 for its owner. There was a parrot that could sing the words to a number of songs when prompted. I'm just sayin'.


Anyone catch McCain saying he had consulted Palin many times in the past- when he had only actually spoken to her twice before she became "his" nominee.

October 04, 2008 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Thanks for the nice cut and paste job from the most partisan source possible, John McShame's website, AH.

Here's the non-partisan report on the lies told by the candidates during the Biden-Palin debate from FactCheck.org, a group that both candidates have cited in their ads:

Biden and Palin debated, and both mangled some facts.

Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year, at least.

Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year.

Biden wrongly claimed that McCain “voted the exact same way” as Obama on the budget bill that contained an increase on singles making as little as $42,000 a year. McCain voted against it. Biden was referring to an amendment that didn't address taxes at that income level.

Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain's plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.

Biden wrongly claimed that McCain had said "he wouldn't even sit down" with the government of Spain. Actually, McCain didn't reject a meeting, but simply refused to commit himself one way or the other during an interview.

Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.

October 04, 2008 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I see Palin told two more lies at the debate.

She said she "called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren't doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur."

But the Washington Post reports "...the record shows that her administration was against the divestiture movement before it was for it."

Of course either way, bringing up whatever Palin did almost 2 years ago, that's just pointing backwards, again.

And during the debate Palin also said "We're going to fight for the middle-class, average, everyday American family like mine...In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives..."

I guess she was using McShame's "joking" definition of the middle class -- people who are worth less than $5 million because today's Washington Post also reports, Palins' Assets Are Worth Up to $2.1 Million

Well golly gee! In the small town where I grew up, folks who are worth more than a million bucks are called "millionaires," not "middle class."

October 04, 2008 5:38 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

like i said before anonymous, please cite your sources. you make it sound like your press statement came from a legitimate source

October 04, 2008 6:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BT

The list of lies by Biden is correct. I've heard them noted right after the debate by the pundits that run the gamut from Fox to MSNBC. I used the McCain campaign list because it collects all the major lies is one place.

AB even confirmed several and her list of misstatements by Palin is pretty weak. Biden's lies are of a completely different nature. Biden's lies are things like saying McCain voted for something he didn't which Biden knows is not true. Palin, on the other hand, said things like the troop level is at pre-surge level. She should have said "almost" but she was close enough.

Biden, with his poor fitting dentures, comb-over and plastic surgery in desperate need of a touch up looked like a contestant on the old Match Game- some washed up celebrity. Palin, on the other hand, is an extraordinary leader that would represent and fight for America competently.

You have to admit that performance by Palin the other night demonstrated nerves of steel. The whole media establishment ganging up on her, a moderator whose writing a book exalting the top of the other ticket and a guy with 36 years of memories in the Senate to call on.

She stared them all down.

Enemies of America around the world are scared. They would love to see people like Biden stay in power. They fear that America will find leaders and fighters like Palin.

October 04, 2008 7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well golly gee! In the small town where I grew up, folks who are worth more than a million bucks are called "millionaires," not "middle class.""

Ridiculous. Palin is indeed middle class.

October 04, 2008 7:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You idiot, millionaires like Palin are not in the middle class.

October 04, 2008 8:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And of course just as we knew would be the case Biden won the debate.

Before the debate undecided voters were leaning 56 percent to 44 percent for McCain. The day after the debate, the numbers tilted 52 percent to 48 percent for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama:


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/713320.html

Obama now leads in all the key battleground states and Mccain realizing the hopelessness of his position has desperately gone to all negative advertising in a futile move to reverse the inevitable tide against him.

October 04, 2008 8:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The London Telegraph, cites Obama insiders as saying they think he's going to win big with well over 300 electoral votes. They think this because they're convinced that they have the upper hand in the "ground game" of turning out their constituencies to the polls, especially young people and poor and minority voters, who typically vote in lower numbers than other groups.

Barack Obama's senior aides believe he is on course for a landslide election victory over John McCain and will comfortably exceed most current predictions in the race for the White House.
Their optimism, which is said to be shared by the Democratic candidate himself, is based on information from private polling and on faith in the powerful political organisation he has built in the key swing states.


Here's the reason for that optimism:

But his aides are convinced that he has a strong chance of winning no fewer than nine states won by George W.Bush in the closely contested 2000 election, including former Republican strongholds like North Carolina, Virginia and even Indiana, which have not voted Democrat for a generation.
David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, said last week that Obama had "a lot of opportunity" in states which Mr Bush won four years ago.

But in private briefings in Washington, a member of Mr Obama's inner circle of policy advisers went much further in spelling out why the campaign's working assumptions far exceed the expectations of independent observers.

"Public polling companies and the media have underestimated the scale of new Democratic voters registration in these states," the campaign official told a friend. "We're much stronger on the ground in Virginia and North Carolina than people realise. If we get out the vote this may not be close at all."


"If we get out the vote" is the key, of course. AP reports on some of the ways the Obama campaign is working to make sure those folks actually show up at the polls.

Obama's campaign plans to send staffers to Ohio State University, with about 53,000 students, to encourage early voting among the sometimes hard-to-engage young. Polls show Obama easily carrying the demographic against McCain.
Obama's campaign plans to arrange concerts with John Legend, who will hold early voting rallies on Monday in Columbus, Springfield, Dayton and Cincinnati. For campuses far from election boards, Obama aides are organizing car pools to make sure students get to the polls.

On Saturday, Obama's campaign targeted the 100,000-strong college football crowd at Ohio Stadium with a flyover advertising early voting and visits from staffers to surrounding bars.

The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless believes it can round up 2,000 people from homeless shelters in the Cleveland area and get them to polling places. A donated van will shuttle voters from two shelters, including the city's largest downtown. Seventeen other shelters are providing their own transportation.

Project Vote will go door to door in minority neighborhoods and use vans to transport people to election sites in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton and Toledo.

The senior Obama advisor said that the Democratic nominee is confident of winning all the states held by John Kerry, the Democratic candidate four years ago, a total of 252 votes.
But his team believes he can also bank victories in Iowa, where he first emerged as a force in the campaign in January, and New Mexico, where Mr Kerry only lost by 20,000 votes in 2004. Those states would leave him just six votes short of outright victory.

Taking Colorado, as Mr Obama's team are very confident of doing, would put him over the top. Even winning the smaller state of Nevada, with its five electoral votes, would be enough to guarantee a 269-269 tie with Mr McCain. If that happens, the US consititution would hand the decision over to the Democrat dominated US House of Representatives, which would presumably come down in Mr Obama's favour.

Most pollsters would regard those expectations as uncontroversial. But the Obama camp is also confident of winning Ohio and Virginia, which commentators believe are "toss up" states with the two candidates chances at 50/50.

Last week Mr Obama began investing heavily in advertising in Indiana, Florida and North Carolina, which many had supposed to be a waste of time and money.

A Washington official who has discussed the electoral mathematics with one of Mr Obama's senior advisers told The Sunday Telegraph that the campaign is spending money only in states which it believes can, and indeed ought to, be won.

"Obama has many more paths to the nomination than McCain," the source said. "They think they can defend the Kerry states. Iowa is gone. That's five votes. New Mexico is in the bag. Then Obama has four or five different ways of winning. He can go Nevada or Colorado, Virginia, any of those, even Indiana.

"McCain has got to run the board, the whole Bush table. He can probably lose New Mexico and Iowa. He can't afford to lose anything else."

The official added: "The poll numbers say Florida's back in play. McCain hasn't spent a single penny there and that's Obama's calculation, that he can capitalise on that. The Republicans can't lose Florida or they're done for."

October 04, 2008 9:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You idiot, millionaires like Palin are not in the middle class."

She's not a millionaire, you moron.

The two of them made about 167K combined and their house is worth about 500K. The have a couple of other assets. His business may be worth about 50K and they have a fishing leasehold on a river worth about 100K. They have some mutual funds that bring the total assets to about 880K but they also have a mortgage. Probably, after the last few weeks, all these assets have probably decreased in value.

They're typical middle class Americans.

October 05, 2008 12:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's no one as Irish as Barack Obama

O'Leary, O'Reilly, O'Hare and OHara

There's no one as Irish as Barack Obama

From the old Blarney Stone to the green hills of Tara

There's no one as Irish as Barack Obama

October 05, 2008 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymoid asked some time ago whether I "advocate homosexual behavior."

The question as it was written is meaningless, of course, and designed to elicit a response useful to Anonymous, and perhaps his allies.

Here is what I in fact do: I advocate behavior among lgbt people in the type and to the degree (with similar caveats and limitations) as I do among straight people. I turn out to a bit of a fuddy-duddy and fairly conventional.

There are some important differences:

I emphasize to lgbt adults and youth to accept no application of shame, indeed to take pride in their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. There is a need for such emphasis, which by and large does not appear to be needed among straight people; and,

I remind members of my community that there are times, places and situations in which it is useful to be out, and such times and places when it is dangerous. We must weigh these considerations and come to a decision about the matter, situation by situation. Again, there does not seem to be a need to suggest such caution among the straight population.

rrjr

I remain puzzled and amused by the appellation "homsexual behavior advocate."

October 05, 2008 10:39 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

I don’t normally watch Saturday Night Live because it just isn’t as funny as it used to be. However, last night’s intro was absolutely hilarious, and captured the essence of the two VP candidates very well. I disagree with Biden’s assessment about Scranton, PA being the worst place on earth though – I’ve lived in Terre Haute, IN for four years. It has often been described as the place where God would stick the tube, were he to give the world an enema.

Enjoy.

Cynthia

October 05, 2008 10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While Ms. Palin is old news now and irrelevant to the outcome of the election, I thought this comment from a reader at Andrew Sullivan's blog site was exactly on target:
"A reader writes:

Really any woman who considers herself a conservative or identifies with the Republican party should be embarrassed by Sarah Palin. Seriously, this is the female face of the party. The debate was a joke, setting the bar so low that as long as she didn't drool all over herself it's considered a victory. That is what Republican women should be proud of? Her winking and talking "folksy", you betcha goshdarnit, that's the way the party wants to represent itself to the country and the world?

The fact that so many other qualified women in the party, like Olympia Snowe (whom I admire greatly), Kay Baily Hutchinson, Christie Todd Whitman (my former governor) are able to communicate and connect with the American people, were passed over for this disaster of a candidate, is greatly disheartening to me as a young woman. Say what you want about Hillary Clinton, but she didn't ask to be treated differently. She was able to take on the big boys and even throw some elbows, too. I just can't believe this is the example that the Republicans want to set for the future and for young women especially." (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/)
Question to "Anonymous": Can a Republican woman be sexist? Are you?
Love Michigan

October 05, 2008 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

What an interesting development. Click the link and check out the map.

Karl Rove says:

Election 2008: State of the Race
39 new state polls released in the first three days of October have given Barack Obama his first lead over the magic number of 270 since mid-July. Minnesota (10 EV) and New Hampshire (4 EV) both moved from toss-up to Obama, giving him 273 electoral votes to McCain’s 163, with 102 votes remaining as a toss-up. If the election were held today, Obama would win every state John Kerry won in 2004, while adding New Mexico (5 EV), Iowa (7 EV), and Colorado (9 EV) to his coalition. Remember, though, that these state polls are a lagging indicator and most do not include any surveying done after the vice-presidential debate on Thursday night. According to Nielsen Media Research, debate was the most heavily-watched since 1992, with nearly 70 million Americans tuning in. That’s 18 million more viewers than the first presidential debate, although the fact that the Obama-McCain contest was held on a Friday undoubtedly cost it some viewers. Polls by the middle of next week should tell us more about what impact, if any, the VP debate had on the race.

October 05, 2008 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

In 2000, the old John McCain told us:

Many years ago, a scared American prisoner of war in Vietnam was tied in torture robes by his tormenters and left alone in an empty room to suffer through the night. Later in the evening, a guard he had never spoken to entered the room and silently loosened the ropes to relieve his suffering. Just before morning, that same guard came back and re-tightened the ropes before his less humanitarian comrades returned.

He never said a word to the grateful prisoner, but some months later on a Christmas morning as the prisoner stood alone in the prison courtyard, the same Good Samaritan walked up to him and stood next to him for a few moments. Then with his sandal, the guard drew a cross in the dirt. Both prisoner and guard stood wordlessly there for a minute or two venerating the cross until the guard rubbed it out and walked away.

This is my faith, the faith that unites and never divides, the faith that bridges unbridgeable gaps in humanity. That is my religious faith and it is the faith I want my party to serve, and the faith I hold in my country. It is the faith that we are all equal and endowed by our creator with unalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the faith I would die to defend.

Don't let anyone fool you about me, my friends, or about this crusade that we have begun. If you want to repair the people's confidence in the government that represents us, join us. If you want to restore the people's pride in America, join us. If you want to believe in a national purpose that is greater than our individual interests, join us.

We are the party of Ronald Reagan, not Pat Robertson. We are the party of Theodore Roosevelt, not the party of special interests. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, not Bob Jones.

Join us, join us, join us and welcome anyone of good faith to our ranks. We should be, we must be, we will be a party as big as the country we serve.

Thank you and God bless, and thank you for being here today.


In 2000, he impressed everyone on both sides of the aisle with his straight talk, but he is unrecognizable today, blurred by all the spin his handlers dictate. In 2000, Bush's campaign smeared him mercilessly and now he has hired those same handlers to work for his campaign. It's like he's saying "if you can't beat them, join them," which does not sound like a maverick IMHO. He's already begun using the same smear tactics against Obama, sending the pit bull out to spit venom.

Who is John McCain these days? He is not the same old straight talker he once was.

What a shame.

October 05, 2008 2:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The latest national polls show Obama taking a commanding lead of 8%:


http://www.electoral-vote.com/icon.html

This projects to Obama taking 329 electoral votes to Mccain's 194. Start your crying now anonfreak, contrary to your wishful thinking Mccain's circling the drain.

October 05, 2008 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man, do things move fast. Just two hours ago, CBTS said Obama had 273. Now, American political expert, Priya the Canadian Hockey Puck says it's 329.

I'll let you in on a secret. If you total up the electoral and just assume they come out accurately even when Obama leads by less than the margin of error, Obama has had 273 since the Democratic convention.

Things haven't changed much. They may if McCain can get the word out about the Democratic involvement in the economic collapse. I was actually encouraged by the SNL skit last night.

Bush, Pelosi and Frank were announcing passage of the bailout bill and Frank whispered to Pelosi, "You know, technically Bush has been warning us for six years that we need to place some regulations on Fannie Mae."

Pelosi shot back, "Shut up, you fool. He doesn't remember that."

Little by little the truth is getting out.

If Democrats control both Congress and the White House, the country will face a disaster we may not recover from.

October 05, 2008 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A brilliant idea for $10, or even $5

Instead of (in addition to?) us all sending around more emails about Sarah Palin, let's all make a donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name. And here's the good part: when you make a donation to PP in her name, they'll send her a card telling her that the donation has been made in her honor.

Here's the link to the Planned Parenthood website:

https://secure.ga0.org/02/pp10000_inhonor

You'll need to fill in the address to let PP know where to send the "in Sarah Palin's honor" card. I suggest you use the address for the McCain campaign headquarters, which is:

McCain for President
1235 S. Clark Street--1st Floor
Arlington , VA 22202

PS make sure you use the link above or choose the pulldown of Donate--Honorary or Memorial Donations, not the regular "Donate Online"

October 05, 2008 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Democrats control both Congress and the White House, the country will face a disaster we may not recover from.

How much worse can it be than when the Republicans held such control from 2000-2006?

9/11, Iraq, tax cuts, massive deficits, Katrina, Abu Ghraib, torture, domestic spying, job losses, the U.S. attorney scandal, the list goes on and on and on and on . . .

There's a reason your guy is losing, and it can be summed up in one word: incompetence. Republicans like to say that government is not efficient, and they've spent eight years showing us just how inefficient and incompetent it can be in Republican hands. It's a standard that may never be met again by any administration. I'm very confident that the Democrats will do better, if for no other reason than they can't do any worse.

October 05, 2008 5:06 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Just two hours ago, CBTS said Obama had 273.

Correction. I posted a link to Rove.com and posted Karl Rove's words. Rove is the one who determined that if the election was held today, Obama would win 273 EC votes.

Anyone who goes to the websites Priya and I provided and reads about the methodologies each used will see how they arrived at different figures.

October 05, 2008 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Democrat Barack Obama's campaign called his Republican rival "erratic" in a television commercial released Sunday as both campaigns stepped up personal attacks."

I see Joebama is rising above, as always.

No more hypocritical complaints, guys.

"Instead of (in addition to?) us all sending around more emails about Sarah Palin, let's all make a donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name."

Great idea.

Then you can find a way to support other groups which support victimizing the innocent.

"How much worse can it be than when the Republicans held such control from 2000-2006?"

Obviously, much worse. Were you around when Jimmy Carter was President?

"9/11,"

Clinton's fault.

"Iraq,"

Posterity will say it was Bush's best decision.

"tax cuts,"

After 9/11, it was the only thing that kept us out of recession.

"massive deficits,"

mainly due to the Afghan and Iraq wars which were mainly Clinton's fault

"Katrina,"

Bush and the local governement were incompetent. It had nothing to do with Republican policy.

"Abu Ghraib,"

John McCain denounced from the beginning.

"torture,"

John McCain denounced from the beginning.

"domestic spying,"

Obama voted for it although that usually means a Democrat opposed it.

"job losses,"

Historically low over the period of Bush's presidency.

"the U.S. attorney scandal,"

Individual not Republican policy.

"the list goes on and on and on and on . . ."

It never really started.

"There's a reason your guy is losing, and it can be summed up in one word: incompetence."

Incomptence is personal not party-wide. Democratic policies will be disastrous.

Economists worldwide agree that marginal tax rates reduce economic growth when the are increased. Obama proposes to make ours the second highest in the world.

Our dollar is sinking because we import so much oil and yet Democrats resist nuclear energy and offshore drilling.

October 05, 2008 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anyone who goes to the websites Priya and I provided"

You're right, CTBS, I just went to realpolitics and they have preya's number.

October 05, 2008 5:48 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Obama's campaign called his Republican rival "erratic" in a television commercial released Sunday as both campaigns stepped up personal attacks."

I see Joebama is rising above, as always.


Yes, and the Wall Street Journal reports the electorate is "rising above" too:

...Republican polices that loosened regulation of the financial services industry are being blamed by many.

...Sen. McCain probably didn’t help himself by suspending his campaign and returning to Washington, D.C. without being able to deliver a solution.

Quinnipiac University polls found that a third of voters in the key battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania thought he had hurt, rather than helped, the situation.

October 06, 2008 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sen. McCain probably didn’t help himself by suspending his campaign and returning to Washington, D.C. without being able to deliver a solution."

McCain has run a bad campaign although thirty days is still time to set things right. He has a history of coming back at the last moment after being written off.

In the above situation, however, he acted honorably while slick Barack did nothing. He came to Washington to get dissenting freshman Republicans on board. He succeeded but Pelosi wanted to make sure McCain didn't get good press for it so she gave an inflammatory speech to blow up the deal right before the vote.

Remember how Barack got off a good line by saying McCain didn't need to suspend campaigning because presidents need to be ab;e to do two things at once.

Hopefully, McCain will point out tomorrow night that while McCain actually did both of those things, Joebama only did one.

"Republican polices that loosened regulation of the financial services industry are being blamed by many."

The media has mislead the American people into believing this and it is patently false. The parts of the financial sector that were unregulated were the ones that survived this mess. I posted a quote from Bill Clinton acknowledging this a few days ago. Here's Sebastian Malaby, a Joebama supporter, in today's Washington Post op-ed section to explain it to you dunces:

"The financial turmoil has pushed the Obama campaign into the lead, and this is mostly justified. Barack Obama is more thoughtful on the economy than his opponent, and his bench of advisers is superior. But there's a troubling side to the Democratic advance. The claim that the financial crisis reflects Bush-McCain deregulation is not only nonsense. It is the sort of nonsense that could matter.

The real roots of the crisis lie in a flawed response to China. Starting in the 1990s, the flood of cheap products from China kept global inflation low, allowing central banks to operate relatively loose monetary policies. But the flip side of China's export surplus was that China had a capital surplus, too. Chinese savings sloshed into asset markets 'round the world, driving up the price of everything from Florida condos to Latin American stocks.

That gave central bankers a choice: Should they carry on targeting regular consumer inflation, which Chinese exports had pushed down, or should they restrain asset inflation, which Chinese savings had pushed upward? Alan Greenspan's Fed chose to stand aside as asset prices rose; it preferred to deal with bubbles after they popped by cutting interest rates rather than by preventing those bubbles from inflating. After the dot-com bubble, this clean-up-later policy worked fine. With the real estate bubble, it has proved disastrous.

So the first cause of the crisis lies with the Fed, not with deregulation. If too much money was lent and borrowed, it was because Chinese savings made capital cheap and the Fed was not aggressive enough in hiking interest rates to counteract that. Moreover, the Fed's track record of cutting interest rates to clear up previous bubbles had created a seductive one-way bet. Financial engineers built huge mountains of debt partly because they expected to profit in good times -- and then be rescued by the Fed when they got into trouble.

Of course, the financiers did create those piles of debt, and they certainly deserve some blame for today's crisis. But was the financiers' miscalculation caused by deregulation? Not really.

The key financiers in this game were not the mortgage lenders, the ratings agencies or the investment banks that created those now infamous mortgage securities. In different ways, these players were all peddling financial snake oil, but as Columbia University's Charles Calomiris observes, there will always be snake-oil salesmen. Rather, the key financiers were the ones who bought the toxic mortgage products. If they hadn't been willing to buy snake oil, nobody would have been peddling it.

Who were the purchasers? They were by no means unregulated. U.S. investment banks, regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, bought piles of toxic waste. U.S. commercial banks, regulated by several agencies, including the Fed, also devoured large quantities. European banks, which faced a different and supposedly more up-to-date supervisory scheme, turn out to have been just as rash. By contrast, lightly regulated hedge funds resisted buying toxic waste for the most part -- though they are now vulnerable to the broader credit crunch because they operate with borrowed money.

If that doesn't convince you that deregulation is the wrong scapegoat, consider this: The appetite for toxic mortgages was fueled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the super-regulated housing finance companies. Calomiris calculates that Fannie and Freddie bought more than a third of the $3 trillion in junk mortgages created during the bubble and that they did so because heavy government oversight obliged them to push money toward marginal home purchasers. There's a vigorous argument about whether Calomiris's number is too high. But everyone concedes that Fannie and Freddie poured fuel on the fire to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

So blaming deregulation for the financial mess is misguided. But it is dangerous, too, because one of the big challenges for the next president will be to defend markets against the inevitable backlash that follows this crisis. Even before finance went haywire, the Doha trade negotiations had collapsed; wage stagnation for middle-class Americans had raised legitimate questions about whom the market system served; and the food-price spike had driven many emerging economies to give up on global agricultural markets as a source of food security. Coming on top of all these challenges, the financial turmoil is bound to intensify skepticism about markets. Framing the mess as the product of deregulation will make the backlash nastier.

The next president will have to make some subtle choices. In certain areas, markets need to be reformed -- by pushing murky "over-the-counter" trades between banks onto transparent exchanges, for example. In other areas, government needs to fix itself -- by not subsidizing reckless mortgage lending. But a president who has a mandate only to reregulate will be a boxer with a missing glove. By going along with the market skepticism of his party, Obama may end up winning an election while compromising his presidency."

October 06, 2008 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
BWAHHAHA- Biden lies but Sarah "Mistates". Oh, Anon- you are so funny. I'm going to find the reciting parrot's name and see if the republicans want to nominate him next time. Truly, anon,and you know it- educated republicans are mortified by this woman. even the true morons like Hannity and Buchanan will be changing their tune after the election is over. Instead of turmpeting her as saving the election as they are now- they will blame her for the loss.

October 06, 2008 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right, Biden lied and Palin misstated.

Do you seriously think that Biden was just mistaken when he sat there and told the American people that McCain voted for two bills he didn't vote for?

Do you really think Palin is lying when she says we are at pre-surge levels when we're actually a couple thousand over?

McCain's big surge came when Palin was selected because pro-family groups are unsure if McCain actually supports them.

They were relieved when he chose Palin. Not they're not so sure since he hardly let her out of the house for about a month.

We'll see what happens over the next month but if Obama wins, look for a Palin presidential nomination next time against either Obama or Hillary.

Unfortunately for McCain, that's what many pro-family advocates would prefer.

October 06, 2008 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I think anon is right: McCain chose Palin to shore up his standing with the anti-lgbt anti-choice Republican 'base,' and that paid off when that segment of the right was energized, while other parts of the electorate suspended judgement until they got to know her better.

Now his choice is backfiring, as people learn more about her knowledge base and her positions on a variety of issues which are important to the American people.

October 06, 2008 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert, Americans have no problem with Palin's positions. They have bought into the malarkey about her knowledge base but Biden's 36 years in the Senate haven't bought him any wisdom or integrity. Can Palin fight off the one-sided attacks by SNL and David Letterman? Those two shows have gone so over the top that they may backfire on themselves and Obama.

Did you watch Brian Williams on Letterman last week?:

Letterman: Like, what she going to do when the Russians attack, fix her hair?

Williams: (long uncomfortable stare)

Letterman: ahem, I guess you think I'm being unfair just because she's a woman.

Williams: well, yeah

Funny how Jim put up a post complaining about how Palin would appeal to voters in the debate even though she lacked knowledge and intelligence.

Then, as soon as the debates where over, the majority of knowledgable experts on the cable news shows and PBS said Palin won. Later, polls showed Americans didn't agree. Kind of a flip, uh?

here's an editorial from Wall Street Journal today:

"In the popular media wisdom, Sarah Palin is the neophyte who knows nothing about foreign policy while Joe Biden is the savvy diplomatic pro. Then what are we to make of Mr. Biden's fantastic debate voyage last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin mocked from New York to Los Angeles?

Start with Lebanon, where Mr. Biden asserted that "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.' Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel."

The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria, except that the U.S. also didn't do that. The Lebanese ousted Syria's military in 2005. As for NATO, Messrs. Biden and Obama may have proposed sending alliance troops in, but if they did that was also a fantasy. The U.S. has had all it can handle trying to convince NATO countries to deploy to Afghanistan.

Speaking of which, Mr. Biden also averred that "Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan." In trying to correct him, Mrs. Palin mispronounced the general's name -- saying "General McClellan" instead of General David McKiernan. But Mr. Biden's claim was the bigger error, because General McKiernan said that while "Afghanistan is not Iraq," he also said a "sustained commitment" to counterinsurgency would be required. That is consistent with Mr. McCain's point that the "surge principles" of Iraq could work in Afghanistan.

Then there's the Senator's astonishing claim that Mr. Obama "did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad" without preconditions. Yet Mr. Biden himself criticized Mr. Obama on this point in 2007 at the National Press Club: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected President? Absolutely, positively no."

Or how about his rewriting of Bosnia history to assert that John McCain didn't support President Clinton in the 1990s. "My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked." Mr. Biden's immodesty aside, Mr. McCain supported Mr. Clinton on Bosnia, as did Bob Dole even as he was running against him for President in 1996 -- in contrast to the way Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders have tried to undermine President Bush on Iraq.

Closer to home, the Delaware blarney stone also invited Americans to join him at "Katie's restaurant" in Wilmington to witness middle-class struggles. Just one problem: Katie's closed in the 1980s. The mistake is more than a memory lapse because it exposes how phony is Mr. Biden's attempt to pose for this campaign as Lunchbucket Joe.

We think the word "lie" is overused in politics today, having become a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we won't say Mr. Biden was deliberately making events up when he made these and other false statements. Perhaps he merely misspoke. In any case, Mrs. Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at least most of what she knows is true."





Remember Americans are sick and tired of career politicians.

October 06, 2008 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Americans have no problem with Palin's positions.

Most of her positions on important issues are unknown -- her Rovian handlers won't let her sit for national media interviews to espouse them. The positions we do know about -- wanting victims of rape and incest to be victimized twice, wanting abstinence-only education in schools leading to shotgun weddings, thinking that ID has any validity -- are problems for many Americans, especially the Hillary voters she was supposed attract. After the little post-convention bump, her presence on the McBush ticket has not prevented its poll numbers from sinking.

All the opinions you cite, Malloy's, whoever's, don't change these facts.

The only opinions that count will be the recorded on November 4. If the trend continues as it has been going, Obama/Biden will head to the White House, McCain will return to the Senate and Palin to Alaskan wilderness, where she belongs.

October 06, 2008 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The positions we do know about -- wanting victims of rape and incest to be victimized twice,"

Oh yeah, the second time around you think we should victimize a child instead.

In contrast to the time of Roe v Wade, most Americans now feel abortion is immoral. They may have varying opinions over what role government should play in preventing this evil, but they don't have a problem with a politician who believes it should be illegal.

"wanting abstinence-only education in schools leading to shotgun weddings,"

Could you provide any evidence that comp sex ed actually affects teen pregnancy?

I've never seen any so I think you're no compus mentis.

"thinking that ID has any validity"

Most Americans believe in both ID and evolution.

Sure, they're a little confused but they have no problem with a politician who believes God created and designed life.

"-- are problems for many Americans,"

Americans have no problem with any of those positions. Indeed, those positions are why Palin provided a boost to McCain.

Get your head out of your @#*&*@. Americans believe in life.

"The only opinions that count will be the recorded on November 4."

Thanks for admitting that victory in the election is all that "counts" with you. That's apparently true for Obama and Biden too.

Truth is not just in second place with those guys.

It's way down the list.

October 06, 2008 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
I see we don't want career politicians so we want someone who is barely educated and doesn't want to be more educated(and seems like her kids won't be either). well, anon, maybe that kind of person is who you would trust to run this country. I don't want that kind of person working in my office.

October 06, 2008 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I see we don't want career politicians so we want someone who is barely educated and doesn't want to be more educated(and seems like her kids won't be either)."

Your accusations are baseless. Palin's education is fine as is her desire to continue learning.

The attack on her kids seems despicable but we have to be understanding. You are a TTFer after all.

Not exactly the epitome of class.

October 06, 2008 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

All the polls show moral issues like abortion are very low priority on the list of issues that are important to voters. What's most important to most voters these days are bread and butter issues like our soaring unemployment rate and tanking economy. And who do American voters trust most to handle these economic issues by a factor of 2;1, the Democrats.

We realize in your fantasy world, everybody thinks like you, but we also realize that in the real world, they don't.

October 06, 2008 4:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "In contrast to the time of Roe v Wade, most Americans now feel abortion is immoral. They may have varying opinions over what role government should play in preventing this evil, but they don't have a problem with a politician who believes it should be illegal.".

You have no proof of this, its just wishful thinking on your part.

Red Baron said "Americans have no problem with any of those positions. Indeed, those positions are why Palin provided a boost to McCain.".

Once again you have nothing to back up your baseless assertion. The "boost" Palin gave Mccain was very brief indeed and since that time Mccain's fallen father behind in the polls than he was before he got Palin on the ticket. Clearly Americans DO have a problem with her positions, they didn't know about them at first but now as they gradually leak out increasingly more Americans are turning against Palin and Mccain.

October 06, 2008 4:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All the polls show moral issues like abortion are very low priority on the list of issues that are important to voters."

I agree. You're the one that said Palin's positions would be a "problem" for Americans.

They actually have no problem at all with her traditional stand on moral issues.

"What's most important to most voters these days are bread and butter issues like our soaring unemployment rate and tanking economy. And who do American voters trust most to handle these economic issues by a factor of 2;1, the Democrats."

They need to be educated. The unemployment rate has been remarkably low for most of the 28-year-old Reagan era.

What's causing a problem now is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to make home loans to people who couldn't afford them by regulations dating back to Jimmy Carter's presidency. Although Republicans tried to end this regulation, they were always blocked by Democrats. Compounding this is our trade deficit which is largely caused by oil imports since Democrats have for decades blocked offshore drilling and nuclear energy that would have made us energy independent. When the resulting real estate bubble burst, the whole thing fell apart.

This is all a little complicated for the average taxpayer. Can McCain get them to understand it in the next thirty days?

We'll see. The future of our country probably depends on it.

October 06, 2008 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have no proof of this, its just wishful thinking on your part."

I live here, Preya.

You notice no Americans are giving me any argument about that statement.

October 06, 2008 4:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "You have no proof of this, its just wishful thinking on your part."

Red Baron said "I live here. You notice no Americans are giving me any argument about that statement.".

Your living there doesn't take the place of a national randomly sampled statistically significant poll. Your suggestion that it does only highlights your idiocy. The number of Americans commenting on this blog is an insignificant percentage of all americans. When you've presented your opinion to 1000 representative Americans and gotten their response to your statement then and only then are you in a position to state what Americans think. At this point you have no clue whatsoever.

October 06, 2008 6:44 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And I might add that a number of the Americans on this blog HAVE disagreed with you. Your assurances of what Americans think has no more validity than did your assurances that Huckabee would be president and the trans-inclusive law against discrimination would be overturned. Learn from your mistakes.

October 06, 2008 6:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "Joe Biden's 14 lies at the debate".

For the most part that's nothing but spin and distortion. The fact is there are 105 lies (and counting) by Mccain/Palin:


http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Count_the_Lies

October 06, 2008 6:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Sarah Palin's 18 debate lies!


1. FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC: Palin said “it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures,” but fact checkers say that’s “Quite A Stretch” And “Barely True,” and that McCain was a “latecomer” to the discussion.

2. FUNDAMENTALS ARE STRONG: Palin tried to say “John McCain saying our economy was strong” but McCain has used the phrase “The Fundamentals Of The Economy Are Strong” At Least 16 Times This Year.

3. PARTISAN POLITICS: Palin said McCain is “known for putting partisan politics aside to just get the job done,” but he has voted with Bush 90% of the time in the Senate and bragged about his support for Bush on important issues.

4. TAXES ATTACK: Palin repeated the attack that Obama voted for higher taxes 94 times, which the New York Times says is “false,” CNN says is “Misleading,” and FactCheck.org says is “inflated.”

5. TOBACCO REGULATION: Palin said to “look at the tobacco industry” as an example of McCain pushing for even harder and tougher regulations. But McCain opposed expanding the SCHIP children’s health insurance program for 5.8 million children because it would increase tobacco taxes.

6. SPENDING INCREASES: Palin said Obama is is proposing “nearly a trillion dollars in new spending,” but didn’t mention that he has also proposed cuts to balance it out, an attack CNN has already debunked as “misleading” and that ignores the far larger cost of McCain’s tax cuts and spending hikes.

7. HEALTH CARE: Palin claimed Obama’s health plan is “government run” which has been widely debunked as a “canard.”

8. HEALTH CARE. Palin says taxes wouldn’t go up under the McCain health care plan, a fact even his own campaign has acknowledged isn’t true. She also said that McCain's plan was "budget neutral" when in reality, it would increase the deficit by 1.3 trillion dollars over the course of 10 yrs.

9. TROOPS: Palin repeated what the AP called the “highly misleading” attack that Obama opposed funding for the troops, and Factcheck.org notes that the same methodology would lead to the same conclusion for McCain.

10. GLOBAL WARMING: Palin said “I don’t want to argue about the causes” for global warming, when she has clearly taken the position that she doesn’t not believe it is man-made.

11. MCCAIN IS CONSISTENT: Palin said McCain” doesn't tell one thing to one group and then turns around and tells something else to another group,” when that is exactly what he has done on immigration, telling Hispanic leaders he was for comprehensive reform instead of the enforcement focused approach he has taken with conservatives.

12. MCCLELLAN NOT MCKIERNAN: Palin referred to the US commander in Afghanistan, David McKiernan as “McClellan.”

13. MCKIERNAN ON “SURGE:” Palin said that [McKiernan] did not say a surge wouldn’t work in Afghanistan, when just yesterday he said “The word I don’t use for Afghanistan is ’surge,’ ” McKiernan stressed, saying that what is required is a “sustained commitment” to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution. [http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/02/mccain-mckiernan-afghanistan/]

14. KILLING CIVILIANS. Palin said “Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air raiding villages and killing civilians and such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment again hurts our cause. That's not what we are doing there.” Unfortunately, the Associated Press says that Obama was right in discussing a critically important point about avoiding civilian casualties.

15. TEACHING: Palin said we need to make sure “that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line,” when McCain has repeatedly favored tax cuts for the wealthy over funds for more teachers and class size reduction.

16. PARTISAN APPOINTMENTS: Palin said “You do what I did as governor. And you appoint people regardless of party affiliation. Democrats, independents, Republicans, you walk the walk, don't just talk the talk” when she repeatedly appointed friends and supporters to positions for which they weren’t qualified.

17. FOCUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE: Palin falsely claimed that she was the first governor to form a climate change subcabinet, when at least 28 states had already taken action.

18. DARFUR DIVESTMENT: Palin claimed that “when I and others” found out that the state had money invested in Sudan that “we called for divestment,” when the reality is that Palin’s appointees worked to kill a Darfur divestment plan.

October 06, 2008 7:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Another funny by Sarah- after she couldn't think of a single publication she might have read, her handlers had her say a day ago "while I was reading my copy of the New York Times". yeah, right.

October 06, 2008 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh for goodness sake Andrea.
She probably didn't answer that question because whatever she answered they would jump all over.
So she choose not to.

October 06, 2008 9:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that where she read this?:

"Barack Obama was much older than 8when William Ayers was photographed stepping on a US flag in 2001, for an article in which Ayers said he had “No Regrets” for his violent actions in the Weather Underground.

In fact, at the same time Ayers was in a Chicago alley desecrating the flag, he and Barack Obama were serving on the board of the Woods Fund together"

You think when another member of a Board you're serving on is featured in a national magazine article, you wouldn't hear about it?

Please. Obama knew about Ayers beliefs and actions long before he denounced them on the campaign trail this Spring. Ayers was working on Obama's campaign last year. He threw Obama's first fundraiser at his house.

Just like he knew Rev. Wright's anti-American views long before he denounced him this Spring. Obama gave this guy tens of thousands of dollars in contributions over the last 20 years. You don't go to a church that long without knowing the views of its pastor.

Have you heard how Obama amassed millions in contributions from a huge number of small contributors? The FEC is investigating whether large contributors broke up their donations in smaller parts to create that impression.

October 06, 2008 9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your living there doesn't take the place of a national randomly sampled statistically significant poll. Your suggestion that it does only highlights your idiocy. The number of Americans commenting on this blog is an insignificant percentage of all americans."

Preya

The people who comment on this blog are among the most liberal in Anerica. They uniformly believe that a woman should have a legal right to abortion. But they also know that most Americans believe the morally correct position is that the life of the child is more important than the burden it places on the mother.

That's true regardless of the circumstances of the child's conception.

Palin has the morally correct view.

October 06, 2008 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your list of "lies" by Palin was partly sad and partly laughable. I wasn't going to make much of it at first but thought I'd mention one:

"Palin said Obama is is proposing “nearly a trillion dollars in new spending,” but didn’t mention that he has also proposed cuts to balance it out"

Since you're apparently very knowledgable about American politics could you tell us what trillion dollars in spending is Joebama planning to cut?

October 06, 2008 9:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More about Joebama's buddy from the Woods Foundation Board:

"Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days."

Bombed NY. Bombed the Pentagon. In an interview in the NY Times published in September 2001, Ayers said his only regret is that he didn't do enough bombing.

How exactly does he differ from Osama Bin Laden?

Is this the guy Joebama wants for Secretary of Education?

I think Americans better ask Joebama who he is planning to appoint to his cabinet before the November election.

October 06, 2008 10:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"(Oct. 6) - Watch your back, Tina Fey. Your doppelganger up there in Alaska is eyeing a chance to counterpunch all those barb-filled jokes in an upcoming "Saturday Night Live" appearance, sources tell the Chicago Sun-Times.

After three "SNL" skits that at times turned her own words into the punchline, VP hopeful Sarah Palin will appear on the late-night show in the coming weeks to turn the tables and mock Fey's American Express commercials, Sun-Times columnist Bill Zwecker is reporting."

October 06, 2008 10:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, how hard would it be to link Sarah Palin and some armed, anti-American rightwing militia group? Say, an Alaskan secessionist group that would fight the US for sovereignty... This "Weatherman" connection you keep talking about is spurious and silly and an embarrassment for the McCain campaign. There may be some core group of idiots who believe that Barack Obama "pals around" with terrorists, but I will count on the populace being smarter than that.

October 06, 2008 10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like we're about to learn some new interesting things about Joebama. One of his fundraisers is going to sing to the Feds. Should be a catchy tune:

"CHICAGO -Federal prosecutors moved Monday to delay indefinitely the sentencing of convicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, sending their strongest hint yet that he is ready to spill his political secrets.

The filing asks for a postponement while prosecutors and defense attorneys "engage in discussions that could affect their sentencing postures."

Speculation has simmered for weeks that the key fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama was whispering what he knows about corruption in Illinois government to federal prosecutors in hopes of getting a lighter sentence."

October 06, 2008 10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

most Americans believe the morally correct position is that the life of the child is more important than the burden it places on the mother.

That's true regardless of the circumstances of the child's conception.


Teh Google is your friend. Use it. The term I used was "abortion poll" and all of the following came up within about 1.3 seconds. Not one of these polls showed "most Americans" agreeing with a complete ban on abortion.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal, September 6-8, 2008

"Which comes closest to your view on abortion: abortion should always be legal; should be legal most of the time; should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life; or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?"

10% illegal without exceptions.

ABC News/Washington Post, August 19-22, 2008

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

18% illegal in all cases.

Pew Research Center, July 31-August 10, 2008

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

15% illegal in all cases.

I could go on, but instead I'll suggest that you stop citing yourself as an authority on what "most Americans" think and actually try to find some data. Your alleged majority position is actually a fringe viewpoint -- not that I'm surprised, but others might be. If you're really lazy, you can just look here.

October 06, 2008 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This "Weatherman" connection you keep talking about is spurious and silly"

Not when you combine it with the Wright connection and a public affirmation of Ayers of the Weatherman tactics right around 9-11-2001 when he was serving on a Board with Joebama and Michelle Obama getting on TV and saying she was recently proud to be an American for the first time.

We have to wonder what Obama's views really are. Why was he attracted to this type. Why he is so comfortable with radicals. What gets said in his household that would cause his wife to so casually make such an offensive statement.

How about his refusal to wear a flag pin. Why did he choose to make such an issue out of that.

If he dislikes America so much, why does he want to lead it?

Does he want to change it to his liking?

October 06, 2008 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From FireDog Lake:

So Sarah Palin wants to accuse Barack Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists" because he has a very distant acquaintance with a member of the Weather Underground? Really?

That's an awfully daring strategy, considering that not only is she sleeping with a former member of the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), a radical separatist movement whose founder died in an explosives deal gone bad, she's cc'ing him on government e-mails and letting him sit in on government meetings.

And if that's not enough, she tried to install a right-wing militia member on Wasilla's city planning board when she was mayor, and she recorded a very supportive video address for the AIP's convention this year, telling the secessionists to "keep up the good work."

So, what's worse? Being vaguely associated with anti-American radicals, or marrying them and giving them pep talks and a prominent role in your government?

And I haven't even mentioned John McCain's good friends Charles Keating and G. Gordon Liddy. Whoops! I guess I just have.

October 06, 2008 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/poll-shows-obamas-lead-widening/202548?icid=200100397x1210687985x1200644302

Poll Shows Obama's Lead Widening

By PAUL STEINHAUSER, CNN
posted: 2 HOURS 14 MINUTES AGO
comments: 904filed under: Election News, Barack Obama

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Oct. 6) - A new national poll suggests Barack Obama is widening his lead over John McCain in the race for the White House.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Monday afternoon suggests that the country's financial crisis, record low approval ratings for President Bush and a drop in the public's perception of McCain's running mate could be contributing to Obama's gains.

Fifty-three percent of likely voters questioned in the poll say they are backing Obama for president, with 45 percent supporting McCain.

That 8-point lead is double the 4-point lead Obama held in the last CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, taken in mid-September.

Monday's CNN national Poll of Polls -- incorporating our new CNN survey, as well as new tracking numbers from Gallup and Hotline taken October 3-5-- shows Obama leading McCain by 7 points -- at 50 to 43 percent.

President Bush may be part of the reason why Obama's making gains. Only 24 percent of those polled approve of Bush's job as president, an all-time low for a CNN survey.

"Bush has now tied Richard Nixon's worst rating ever, taken in a poll just before he resigned in 1975, and is only 2 points higher than the worst presidential approval rating in history, Harry Truman's 22 percent mark in February 1952," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

And that's bad news for McCain, because the poll suggests a growing number of Americans believe the Republican presidential nominee would have the same policies as the current Republican president. Fifty-six percent say McCain's policies would be the same as Bush, up from 50 percent a month ago.

The financial crisis also appears to be contributing to Obama's increased lead in the poll. Sixty-eight percent are confident in the Democratic presidential nominee's ability to handle the financial crisis, 18 points ahead of McCain, and 42 points ahead of Bush.

More Americans appear to have an unfavorable view of Gov. Sarah Palin, and that may also be helping Obama in the fight for the presidency. Forty percent now have an unfavorable view of Palin, up from 27 percent a month ago and from 21 percent in late August, when McCain surprised many people by picking the first-term Alaska governor as his running mate.

"A majority of Americans now believe that Sarah Palin would be unqualified to serve as president if it became necessary, and her unfavorable rating has doubled," Holland said.

October 06, 2008 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I could go on, but instead I'll suggest that you stop citing yourself as an authority on what "most Americans" think and actually try to find some data. Your alleged majority position is actually a fringe viewpoint --"

You might want to stop and think before you fly off to Google land.

We weren't talking about legality, we were talking about morality.

Most Americans, regardless of what they think the government should do about it, believe abortion is immoral.

Even when Google something, you still have to use your reading comprehension skills.

October 06, 2008 10:39 PM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

anon: The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria

No. He was clearly referring to United Nations Security Resolution 1701 (it ended the 2006 Lebanon War). The entire paragraph makes that clear, but probably not to a general audience. Biden could have made it clearer by not using short-hand when he said 'kicked out'.

Drafted by France and the U.S. (i.e. the first clue about Biden was referring to), it achieved the remarkable -- a unanimous vote at the Security Council. The resolution called for the complete disarmament of all paramilitary groups, including Hezbollah.

Coming at the end of a war Hezbollah had kick-started with rockets attacks into Israel, UNSCR 1701 did indeed "kick out" Hezbollah. It was a diplomatic coup.

Unfortunately, next step... walking the talk. The UN forces claimed to have no mandate to disarm the groups. The Lebanese Army was too weak to do it. Using Israel was out of the question. There had been talk of sending in a more determined NATO force (even before the vote on the resolution), but no NATO nation offered the resources. Two years later, and Hezbollah's paramilitary not only remains but has rearmed. A wasted opportunity.

Biden's warning about what Hezbollah could achieve in Lebanon in the political vacuum that occurred was also spot-on. Sadly, for that small nation the tragedy continues.

There has been a load of nonsense on various attack blogs about this (and even by those who should know better), but I think most of them wouldn't recognise Hezbollah as having been "kicked out" unless they were to personally witness Joe Biden loading up a bus and driving them across the border to, urgh, well, somewhere.

ps: also need to keep in mind that 'Hezbollah' has two wings -- a political and a paramilitary. It's arguable how much connection there is between the two (ie Australia and the UK recognise only the paramilitary wing as a terrorist organisation, the U.S. recognises both as. We tend to the U.S. view.) Whether by that or another name, there will undoubtedly be some form of Shi'a Islamist political group. Wish it wasn't Hezbollah.

(As for the 'Katies' nonsense -- I don't know about anyone else here, but we constantly refer to local landmarks by the old name even when they've long since vanished or changed hands. Long time residents of an area do that. Worst example -- our NZ relatives gave us driving directions that included 'turn right at the pink house'. The house painted a rather bold pastel pink had indeed been a local landmark... but had also been demolished some 30 years before! We eventually pulled into a farm for directions and the farmer laughed her head off. She knew instantly what intersection we wanted, and boy did we give our relatives a hell of a ribbing when we finally found the cemetery.)

October 06, 2008 10:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sixty-eight percent are confident in the Democratic presidential nominee's ability to handle the financial crisis, 18 points ahead of McCain, and 42 points ahead of Bush."

That's really sad. Has anyone thought how Obama's policies will screw this country up? We're at a crucial point, we might never recover. Obama is proposing some of the most inappropriate policies to the current situation since Herbert Hoover.

Raise taxes in a recessionary climate? It will be a disaster and Joebama hasn't got a clue.

"More Americans appear to have an unfavorable view of Gov. Sarah Palin,...

A majority of Americans now believe that Sarah Palin would be unqualified to serve as president if it became necessary, and her unfavorable rating has doubled," Holland said."

Gee, how did they get that idea when the head of the other party has only three years experience as a Senator and spent most of the time on the road?

Oh, that's right. There has been a full-scale media barrage.

How can we have the government control of spending on campaign advertising and yet let the public airwaves be used as a one-sided media blitz?

Does that make any sense?

Well, we'll find out if a citizen can overcome the financial resources of the media oligarchy.

October 06, 2008 10:54 PM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

Also, glad to hear the trip went so well Jim -- sounds like you had a great time. Sorry about the 30 hour flight but come back in January when the thermometer reads over 100degF for weeks at a a time and all this red dust blows in from the North. Then you'll think Adelaide is cursed :)

(And thanks for the 'AB' photo Zoe. Sigh... brings back memories of one too many hangover cures. As do pie floaters.)

We're also having visions of Jim's "Party Trick" that he'll be assailing people at BBQs with for the next decade or two... the didgeridoo.

"Oh Daaad, put that bloody thing away will you! We've all heard it enough."

October 06, 2008 11:01 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

So far there is no danger, I can't make a sound on the thing! And of course you feel like such a tourist walking around the airport with it!

jIMk

October 06, 2008 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most Americans, regardless of what they think the government should do about it, believe abortion is immoral.

On the basis of what? You picking lint out of your navel? What's the basis of that statement? You made the statement, now back it up. I was simply pointing out that polls about abortion are completely contrary to what you claim.

And your legality/morality distinction is ludicrous. When the question is asked in a poll "Do you think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances?" are you really dumb enough to think that respondents don't bring their moral judgment to bear in answering that question? If someone finds the abortion process morally loathsome, is he or she likely to say "hey, but it's OK with me if it's legal"?

Of course not. The fact is that you have no basis whatsoever for your claim, and are now trying to change the subject. We're done here.

October 06, 2008 11:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't change the subject.

You didn't pay attention.

Go back and read all the comments.

And concentrate.

btw, when you say this:

"And your legality/morality distinction is ludicrous."

Do you mean to say that you think everything immoral should also be illegal?

October 06, 2008 11:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can didgeridoo like the Pied Piper and all your dirty little rats will follow . . .blindly. . into oblivion.
Ah, the thought.
Or, you can all jump on a ship and head back to Australia.
Ah, a better thought.
Mess up their continent.

October 06, 2008 11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uh, Anon, you might want to lay off the JD for the evening.

October 07, 2008 12:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why?

October 07, 2008 12:14 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 07, 2008 12:19 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "Most Americans, regardless of what they think the government should do about it, believe abortion is immoral.".

Wishful thinking on your part. Absent a randomly sampled nationally represesentative poll of 1000 people you have no clue what most Americans think - you just pulled that thought out of your butt. Your opinion of what most Americans think has no more validity than did your assurances that Huckabee was going to be president and the trans-inclusive anti-discrimination law was going to be overturned.

Good anonymous said "I could go on, but instead I'll suggest that you stop citing yourself as an authority on what "most Americans" think and actually try to find some data. Your alleged majority position is actually a fringe viewpoint --"

Bad anonymous said "You might want to stop and think before you fly off to Google land. We weren't talking about legality, we were talking about morality."

No, you specifically referred to the legality of abortion. You said "In contrast to the time of Roe v Wade, most Americans now feel abortion is immoral. They may have varying opinions over what role government should play in preventing this evil, but they don't have a problem with a politician who believes it should be illegal.".

The polls posted by good anonymous clearly showed your out of your butt opinion is wrong - most Americans DO have a problem with a politician who believes it should be illegal.

October 07, 2008 12:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why?

No, I take it back, go for it man, you are just getting smarter and smarter.

October 07, 2008 12:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The polls posted by good anonymous clearly showed your out of your butt opinion is wrong - most Americans DO have a problem with a politician who believes it should be illegal."

No, they don't, and, again, you don't understand America.

Even those who believe it should be legal here still understand that it is wrong and thus they wouldn't reject a politician on that basis.

Oh, there are a fringe few that are stridently committed to the right of abortion but most who favor legalization have their doubts and wouldn't have a problem with a politician that wants to save human life. Indeed, part of their conflict is that they know it is wrong but also know the Supreme Court has ruled it a legal right.

btw, I notice you've come down with an affliction that seems to be peculiar to lunatic fringe gay advocates. Whenever they feel they are losing an argument they start making references to excrement. If you are comforted by talking about pulling things out of your butt, share it with your- ahem- roommate not the blogosphere.

And, get help.

October 07, 2008 1:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey-a Preya,

you never answered this:

"Since you're apparently very knowledgable about American politics could you tell us what trillion dollars in spending is Joebama planning to cut?"

You said Palin lied because she didn't tell us that Joebama is going to cut a trillion dollars in spending.

Please tell us what trillion in spending Joebama will cut.

This is important. We need to know what Joebama is going to cut out before we vote for him.

I can't believe Sarah Palin is hiding this from us.

What a liar!

Thank heaven Preya is on the case!

October 07, 2008 2:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I posted the 14 lies that Biden made in the debate.

Preya's response:

"For the most part that's nothing but spin and distortion."

Here's the first five. Preya, please explain how these are spun or distorted:

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

I'll admit, Biden is good at lying. He's a career politician.

Now, why don't you admit it, Preya.

You don't care if he lies.

October 07, 2008 2:10 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Spin yourself into an insomniatic tizzy, AH. That that way you won't have to focus on the bad news coming your way in November.

"btw, I notice you've come down with an affliction that seems to be peculiar to lunatic fringe gay advocates. Whenever they feel they are losing an argument they start making references to excrement. If you are comforted by talking about pulling things out of your butt, share it with your- ahem- roommate not the blogosphere.

And, get help."


You mean like when you told me on October 06, 2008 at 3:07 PM

"Get your head out of your @#*&*@. Americans believe in life."

after I had told you

Most of her positions on important issues are unknown -- her Rovian handlers won't let her sit for national media interviews to espouse them.The positions we do know about -- wanting victims of rape and incest to be victimized twice, wanting abstinence-only education in schools leading to shotgun weddings, thinking that ID has any validity -- are problems for many Americans, especially the Hillary voters she was supposed attract.

Today's Washington Post, in it's front page, above-the-fold-story titled Obama Leading in Ohio, Poll Finds confirms my statement. The article links to the poll data. Scroll down to question number 5 and see how voters in that swing state rate the issues. You'll see a whopping 3% say abortion "is the single most important issue in your choice for President."

Three percent is not most Americans. Our Canadian friend, Priya Lynn, got it exactly right and this American disagrees with your asinine assertions too.

October 07, 2008 7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where is Obama going to cut our costs? From the biggest sinkhole we've got, thanks to George W. Bush and his neocons.

Obama's going to bring the troops home from the disaster in Iraq, which is currently bleeding our budget for $12 billion and too many soldiers every month.

October 07, 2008 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You'll see a whopping 3% say abortion "is the single most important issue in your choice for President."

Three percent is not most Americans. Our Canadian friend, Priya Lynn, got it exactly right and this American disagrees with your asinine assertions too."

This is typical of you idiots. Preya claimed that Americans have big problems with Palin's views on abortion. I said they didn't.

Now, your "proof" that I'm wrong is that only 3% of voters in Ohio consider abortion THE most important issue? I never said it was. I said it didn't affect the voters' opinion of Palin.

Maybe if you'd get your head out of your @#*&*@, you'd be able to rise above fallacious thinking.

Preya may your friend but Preya is no more a friend of Americans than William Ayers or Michelle Obama is.

And, yes, most Americans believe abortion is wrong.

You disagree with that, CBTS?

October 07, 2008 8:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama's going to bring the troops home from the disaster in Iraq,"

Barring some change in conditions, McCain and Obama will bring troops home about the same time. The timetable has been negotiated with the democratically elected governement of Iraq which wouldn't exist if the country had taken obama's advice two years ago.

Iraq is another American success.

October 07, 2008 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I agree that most Americans do not support Palin because of her extreme views on abortion. Palin is out of touch with most Americans on the abortion issue. In fact, she is on the far right radical fringe because she believes rape and incest victims should be denied safe and legal abortion. She supports a Constitutional Amendment that would disallow abortion even when an unwanted pregnancy results from rape and/or incest. In other words, she supports forcing her religious views of reproduction onto every American citizen. That's not freedom of religion, in fact, it's a lot like China's one child policy, where the state makes reproductive decisions for the people.

October 07, 2008 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Daniel said...

Why does Sarah Palin pall around with secessionists like Joe Vogler, the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party who said:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government, and I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson, and when Alaska is an independent nation, they can bring my bones home, back to my country. You renounce allegiance and you pledge your efforts, your effects, your honor life to Alaska, that how I do. I am an Alaskan, you see."

If Palin isn't a secessionist, then why did she address the 2008 Alaskan Independence Party and say:

"I am delighted to welcome you to the 2008 Alaskan Independence Party Convention. We have a great promise to be a self-sufficient state. Keep up the good work and God bless you."

October 07, 2008 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

As I said, the more people learn about Sara Palin, the less they want her to be president.

October 07, 2008 11:07 AM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

Joe Biden's 14 Lies at the debate

No McAnon, all you did was copy 14 McClaims made by McCain and his McTruth Squad.

Can't tell the difference, right?

I know you don't read all that well, but if you really wanted to know what Biden thought about, say, dialogue with Iran -- all you really need do is some basic research. I know, I know... doing that always hurts your pea-brain and tells you mean things about people you'd "take a bullet for" and all, but...

Trust me, being informed is (apparently) so much less painful that having to slink through life shamefully hiding your identity because you are ignorant and stupid and everyone would point and laugh if they knew who you really were.

In the spirit of teaching, here's an Op-Ed by Joe from May. See how easy it is!

Is it clear enough for you? Or shall I keep looking and see if it's been released in comic book form?

Feel free to provide any evidence "Biden attacked him". Where did he ever do that? Date. Time. Place. Witness.

Yeah, thought not.

*** For Free *** Here's an early warning sign of BS, poor Anon. If there are no references ever given, such as with McCain's 14 claims, you can be fairly sure it's because they don't want to make it easy to check if something is true or false. Not that a PEE-OH-DUBBLE-YA War Hero would ever stoop that low, of course.

October 07, 2008 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Ready to see some donkey kick some elephant butt again tonight, AnonBigot?

Don´t put up with the lies and pity drama, vote Obama!!

October 07, 2008 12:11 PM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

Anon writes:
"Iraq is another American success."

I fear the best we can say about Iraq at this time is that we MAY have averted an immediate catastrophe in which Sunnis and Shiites engage in a genocidal civil war, in which the Sunni Al Qaeda in Iraq (which did not exist prior to our invasion) would be wiped out by Hezbollah (just as much of an enemy of ours as Al Qaeda)-- along with lots of other Sunnis, leading Saudi Arabia to come in on the Sunni side, leading Iran to come in on the Shiite side, leading to a conflagration which could lead to huge cessation of oil exports, collapse of the Saudi regime and emergence of a Wahabi/Al Qaeda regime in Riyadh. None of which would ever have happened had we left Iraq alone and concentrated on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So if your definition of success is the temporary avoidance of a catastrophe that we created, then maybe we have a success.

The best we may be able to say is that the US military bailed out W, just like his father's friends bailed him out of all his previous failures. Unfortunately, even Daddy's friends do not have enough money to bail him out of the economic mess he is leaving us.

October 07, 2008 12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Biden say alot of critical things about Obama in the primaries. You'll alot of this and more in TV commercials soon but here's a little preview:

Biden played the race card in January:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man."

He must not have met many African Americans.

Then, there's his take on Obama's readiness for office, from late 2007:

"I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

What, a year of sitting on the Senate floor and two years of touring America's best diners don't prepare you for the Presidency?

Whadsup with that?

Of course, Obama own website shows Biden lied last Thursday:

"Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."

Joe, man, if you're gonna be makin' a statement like that, you want to make sure the campaign website doesn't prove you're lyin'.

I betcha y'knew it all along.

That's why you said this in 2007 at the Press Club when everyone was talking about how ignorant Obama was to support such a thing:

“Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected President? Absolutely, positively no.”

Maybe Biden should quit before this gets embarassing!

October 07, 2008 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I fear the best we can say about Iraq at this time is that we MAY have averted an immediate catastrophe"

An irrational fear is called a phobia, David. Talk it out woth your therpaist.

Iraq is poised to become a stable democracy and reliable ally of ours in the most unstable region in the world.

That's a little better than a catastrophe. It's a victory of enormous import.

"The best we may be able to say is that the US military bailed out W, just like his father's friends bailed him out of all his previous failures."

He supported military action and he was right.

What kind of messed-up spin is it to say that's the military's "bailing" him out?

Bush was right. He proved people like you to be wrong.

"Unfortunately, even Daddy's friends do not have enough money to bail him out of the economic mess he is leaving us."

The mess is the fault of Democrats, David.

You won't believe how bad things will get if they have the presidency and the congress.

Put your money into gold and bury it.

October 07, 2008 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I agree that most Americans do not support Palin because of her extreme views on abortion."

You're entitled to your opinion but it's a baseless fantasy.

October 07, 2008 1:09 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

AH seems to fear telling the truth, especially the WHOLE TRUTH. In the interest of helping AH over his WHOLE TRUTH PHOBIA, here's the full text from Obama's website. I have highlighted the parts AH failed to mention. for Vigilance readers:

Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

October 07, 2008 1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In fact, she is on the far right radical fringe because she believes rape and incest victims should be denied safe and legal abortion."

Abortion is never safe. A human life is destroyed for the sake of convenience.

"She supports a Constitutional Amendment that would disallow abortion even when an unwanted pregnancy results from rape and/or incest. In other words, she supports forcing her religious views of reproduction onto every American citizen."

All worthy religions believe innocent life should be protected. It is not particular to any one religion.

Only extreme evolutionists like Nazis and supporters of eugenics support exterminating weaker segments of our society for the benefit of stronger segments of our society.

Liberal hedonists also believe this but rationalize it with a bunch of babble about privacy rights and about how some lives aren't worth living.

October 07, 2008 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have highlighted the parts AH failed to mention."

I posted the first sentence because that's where Obama differs from McCain and Biden and Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

The rest of the stuff you included is simply things that everyone agrees with. Those are properly done at lower level diplomatic circles. You give Iran the big PR boost of a meeting with the leader of the free world when they agree to something reasonable.

Just ask John and Joe and Hillary and Sarah.

October 07, 2008 1:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "The polls posted by good anonymous clearly showed your out of your butt opinion is wrong - most Americans DO have a problem with a politician who believes it should be illegal."

Red Baron said "No, they don't, and, again, you don't understand America.".

Of course they do you moron. The vast majority of Americans do not want abortion to be illegal, the idea that they wouldn't have a problem with a politician who wants to make it illegal is preposterous and profoundly stupid. Not only do you not understand the U.S., you don't understand reality.

Red Baron said "Even those who believe it should be legal here still understand that it is wrong".

You don't know that because you don't have at least one randomly sampled nationally representative poll demonstrating that. That's just wishful thinking on your part. Your assurances about what most Americans believe is no more valid than was your previous assurances that Huckabee would be president.

Red Baron said " Preya claimed that Americans have big problems with Palin's views on abortion. I said they didn't."

No, I never said that. I said Americans have big problems with her views in general. Unlike with your fantasies about what Americans think the polls back me up rather than contradicting me. Palin/Mccain have slid steadily in the polls as her outrageous views on a variety of topics have leaked out to the American people.

Red Baron reiterated "most Americans believe abortion is wrong.".

You have no idea what most Americans believe. The polls posted by good anonymous prove you wrong, accept reality for a change.

Red Baron said "Barring some change in conditions, McCain and Obama will bring troops home about the same time."

Wrong. Mccain intends for American troops to stay in Iraq another 100 years, he said so himself.

Red Baron said "Iraq is poised to become a stable democracy and reliable ally of ours in the most unstable region in the world."

LOL, and Huckabee's going to be president, Huckabee's going to be Mccain's running mate, Condoleeza Rice is going to be Mccain's running mate, Colin Powell...etc. etc.

You're a fool. Iraq is a quagmire the U.S. will be committed to forever or will leave to degenerate into civil war, just like Afghanistan.

David said "Unfortunately, even Daddy's friends do not have enough money to bail him out of the economic mess he is leaving us."

Red Baron said "The mess is the fault of Democrats, David.".

Don't be absurd. Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a federal surplus of 559 billion. Bush squandered that legacy and his buried the U.S. in the biggest hole its been in since the depression.

Red Baron said "You won't believe how bad things will get if they have the presidency and the congress.".

The Democrats have a record of balancing budgets versus the Republican record of massive deficits. A republican president would only make the current mess massively worse while a Democrat government will improve things although it will almost certainly be unable to get the U.S. out of the massive hole Bush has put it in, a hole the size of which won't be completely apparent until the Democrats take control and then fools like you will try to claim its their fault.

October 07, 2008 2:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Aunt Bea said "I agree that most Americans do not support Palin because of her extreme views on abortion."

Red Baron said "You're entitled to your opinion but it's a baseless fantasy.".

LOl, talk about projecting one's beliefs on others. The polls showing Americans vastly favouring legal abortion and rejecting Mccain/Palin prove you wrong and Aunt Bea right. Your assertions about what most americans believe are the baseless fantasies.

Red Baron said "Abortion is never safe."

Nonsense the vast majority of abortions are free from complications. Giving birth is actually much more dangerous. Far more women die giving birth than do from abortions.

Red Baron said "All worthy religions believe innocent life should be protected."

The bible calls for innocent gays to be put to death. Glad that you're finally admitting that Christianity is not a worthy religion.

Red Baron said "Only extreme evolutionists like Nazis and supporters of eugenics support exterminating weaker segments of our society for the benefit of stronger segments of our society."

The Nazis weren't evolutionists, they were creationist christians. They banned Darwin's origin of species:

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm


Hitler was a creationist, he explicity rejected Darwinism and the evolution of man:

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate Hitler's words, which were recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)



And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Crudely translated by bablefish:

What humans of the animal ahead-have, who are perhaps most marvelous proof for the superiority of humans that he understood that there must be a creator strength

Hitler was a creationist....

October 07, 2008 2:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Hey everybody, do you remember the 1999 financial best seller "DOW 36000"?

Ever wonder what happened to that financial Nostradamus, Kevin Hassett?

He currently serves as a senior economic adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign.

LOL, that helps explain why Republicans are such a disaster for the economy.

October 07, 2008 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Preya

You're so messed up in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.

Perhaps if a team of psychologists were to observe you 24/7, they could come up with a plan.

Did you know that Hitler was a liar?

I don't how deeply they teach history up in the less sophisticated provinces of Canada but you apparently haven't heard that Hitler tried to manipulate the masses by telling them lies about his beliefs. He admits this in the book he wrote while hanging out with his gay friend in prison.

You can probably find other positive statements from him but he should be judged by his evil actions. He believed Aryans had evolved into a master race and applied survival of the fittest to the human race, being influenced by the writings of Nietsche.

Regardless, proponents of eugenics and other evolutionsts believe that the strong should benefit at the expense of the weak because they think that was process by which life was created.

Philosophically and ethically, this is where strident abortion promoters fit in.

October 07, 2008 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"LOL, that helps explain why Republicans are such a disaster for the economy."

Laugh it up, funny boy.

It might have happened had the Democrats not sabotaged the economy by forcing Fannie Mae to make home loans to people who couldn't afford them.

Americans need to learn about this.

We'll see if McCain is up to the job of educating them.

October 07, 2008 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

October 5, 2008

Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached Tipping Point
By CHARLES DUHIGG

“Almost no one expected what was coming. It’s not fair to blame us for not predicting the unthinkable.“— Daniel H. Mudd, former chief executive, Fannie Mae

When the mortgage giant Fannie Mae recruited Daniel H. Mudd, he told a friend he wanted to work for an altruistic business. Already a decorated marine and a successful executive, he wanted to be a role model to his four children — just as his father, the television journalist Roger Mudd, had been to him.

Fannie, a government-sponsored company, had long helped Americans get cheaper home loans by serving as a powerful middleman, buying mortgages from lenders and banks and then holding or reselling them to Wall Street investors. This allowed banks to make even more loans — expanding the pool of homeowners and permitting Fannie to ring up handsome profits along the way.

But by the time Mr. Mudd became Fannie’s chief executive in 2004, his company was under siege. Competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans.

So Mr. Mudd made a fateful choice. Disregarding warnings from his managers that lenders were making too many loans that would never be repaid, he steered Fannie into more treacherous corners of the mortgage market, according to executives.

For a time, that decision proved profitable. In the end, it nearly destroyed the company and threatened to drag down the housing market and the economy.

Dozens of interviews, most from people who requested anonymity to avoid legal repercussions, offer an inside account of the critical juncture when Fannie Mae’s new chief executive, under pressure from Wall Street firms, Congress and company shareholders, took additional risks that pushed his company, and, in turn, a large part of the nation’s financial health, to the brink.

Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data.

“We didn’t really know what we were buying,” said Marc Gott, a former director in Fannie’s loan servicing department. “This system was designed for plain vanilla loans, and we were trying to push chocolate sundaes through the gears.”

Last month, the White House was forced to orchestrate a $200 billion rescue of Fannie and its corporate cousin, Freddie Mac. On Sept. 26, the companies disclosed that federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission were investigating potential accounting and governance problems.

Mr. Mudd said in an interview that he responded as best he could given the company’s challenges, and worked to balance risks prudently.

“Fannie Mae faced the danger that the market would pass us by,” he said. “We were afraid that lenders would be selling products we weren’t buying and Congress would feel like we weren’t fulfilling our mission. The market was changing, and it’s our job to buy loans, so we had to change as well.”

Dealing With Risk

When Mr. Mudd arrived at Fannie eight years ago, it was beginning a dramatic expansion that, at its peak, had it buying 40 percent of all domestic mortgages.

Just two decades earlier, Fannie had been on the brink of bankruptcy. But chief executives like Franklin D. Raines and the chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard built it into a financial juggernaut by aiming at new markets.

Fannie never actually made loans. It was essentially a mortgage insurance company, buying mortgages, keeping some but reselling most to investors and, for a fee, promising to pay off a loan if the borrower defaulted. The only real danger was that the company might guarantee questionable mortgages and lose out when large numbers of borrowers walked away from their obligations.

So Fannie constructed a vast network of computer programs and mathematical formulas that analyzed its millions of daily transactions and ranked borrowers according to their risk.

Those computer programs seemingly turned Fannie into a divining rod, capable of separating pools of similar-seeming borrowers into safe and risky bets. The riskier the loan, the more Fannie charged to handle it. In theory, those high fees would offset any losses.

With that self-assurance, the company announced in 2000 that it would buy $2 trillion in loans from low-income, minority and risky borrowers by 2010.

All this helped supercharge Fannie’s stock price and rewarded top executives with tens of millions of dollars. Mr. Raines received about $90 million between 1998 and 2004, while Mr. Howard was paid about $30.8 million, according to regulators. Mr. Mudd collected more than $10 million in his first four years at Fannie.

Whenever competitors asked Congress to rein in the company, lawmakers were besieged with letters and phone calls from angry constituents, some orchestrated by Fannie itself. One automated phone call warned voters: “Your congressman is trying to make mortgages more expensive. Ask him why he opposes the American dream of home ownership.”

The ripple effect of Fannie’s plunge into riskier lending was profound. Fannie’s stamp of approval made shunned borrowers and complex loans more acceptable to other lenders, particularly small and less sophisticated banks.

Between 2001 and 2004, the overall subprime mortgage market — loans to the riskiest borrowers — grew from $160 billion to $540 billion, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication. Communities were inundated with billboards and fliers from subprime companies offering to help almost anyone buy a home.

Within a few years of Mr. Mudd’s arrival, Fannie was the most powerful mortgage company on earth.

Then it began to crumble.

Regulators, spurred by the revelation of a wide-ranging accounting fraud at Freddie, began scrutinizing Fannie’s books. In 2004 they accused Fannie of fraudulently concealing expenses to make its profits look bigger.

Mr. Howard and Mr. Raines resigned. Mr. Mudd was quickly promoted to the top spot.

But the company he inherited was becoming a shadow of its former self.

‘You Need Us’

Shortly after he became chief executive, Mr. Mudd traveled to the California offices of Angelo R. Mozilo, the head of Countrywide Financial, then the nation’s largest mortgage lender. Fannie had a longstanding and lucrative relationship with Countrywide, which sold more loans to Fannie than anyone else.

But at that meeting, Mr. Mozilo, a butcher’s son who had almost single-handedly built Countrywide into a financial powerhouse, threatened to upend their partnership unless Fannie started buying Countrywide’s riskier loans.

Mr. Mozilo, who did not return telephone calls seeking comment, told Mr. Mudd that Countrywide had other options. For example, Wall Street had recently jumped into the market for risky mortgages. Firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs had started bundling home loans and selling them to investors — bypassing Fannie and dealing with Countrywide directly.

“You’re becoming irrelevant,” Mr. Mozilo told Mr. Mudd, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting who requested anonymity because the talks were confidential. In the previous year, Fannie had already lost 56 percent of its loan-reselling business to Wall Street and other competitors.

“You need us more than we need you,” Mr. Mozilo said, “and if you don’t take these loans, you’ll find you can lose much more.”

Then Mr. Mozilo offered everyone a breath mint.

Investors were also pressuring Mr. Mudd to take greater risks.

On one occasion, a hedge fund manager telephoned a senior Fannie executive to complain that the company was not taking enough gambles in chasing profits.

“Are you stupid or blind?” the investor roared, according to someone who heard the call, but requested anonymity. “Your job is to make me money!”

Capitol Hill bore down on Mr. Mudd as well. The same year he took the top position, regulators sharply increased Fannie’s affordable-housing goals. Democratic lawmakers demanded that the company buy more loans that had been made to low-income and minority homebuyers.

“When homes are doubling in price in every six years and incomes are increasing by a mere one percent per year, Fannie’s mission is of paramount importance,” Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, lectured Mr. Mudd at a Congressional hearing in 2006. “In fact, Fannie and Freddie can do more, a lot more.”

But Fannie’s computer systems could not fully analyze many of the risky loans that customers, investors and lawmakers wanted Mr. Mudd to buy. Many of them — like balloon-rate mortgages or mortgages that did not require paperwork — were so new that dangerous bets could not be identified, according to company executives.

Even so, Fannie began buying huge numbers of riskier loans.

In one meeting, according to two people present, Mr. Mudd told employees to “get aggressive on risk-taking, or get out of the company.”

In the interview, Mr. Mudd said he did not recall that conversation and that he always stressed taking only prudent risks.

Employees, however, say they got a different message.

“Everybody understood that we were now buying loans that we would have previously rejected, and that the models were telling us that we were charging way too little,” said a former senior Fannie executive. “But our mandate was to stay relevant and to serve low-income borrowers. So that’s what we did.”

Between 2005 and 2007, the company’s acquisitions of mortgages with down payments of less than 10 percent almost tripled. As the market for risky loans soared to $1 trillion, Fannie expanded in white-hot real estate areas like California and Florida.

For two years, Mr. Mudd operated without a permanent chief risk officer to guard against unhealthy hazards. When Enrico Dallavecchia was hired for that position in 2006, he told Mr. Mudd that the company should be charging more to handle risky loans.

In the following months to come, Mr. Dallavecchia warned that some markets were becoming overheated and argued that a housing bubble had formed, according to a person with knowledge of the conversations. But many of the warnings were rebuffed.

Mr. Mudd told Mr. Dallavecchia that the market, shareholders and Congress all thought the companies should be taking more risks, not fewer, according to a person who observed the conversation. “Who am I supposed to fight with first?” Mr. Mudd asked.

In the interview, Mr. Mudd said he never made those comments. Mr. Dallavecchia was among those whom Mr. Mudd forced out of the company during a reorganization in August.

Mr. Mudd added that it was almost impossible during most of his tenure to see trouble on the horizon, because Fannie interacts with lenders rather than borrowers, which creates a delay in recognizing market conditions.

He said Fannie sought to balance market demands prudently against internal standards, that executives always sought to avoid unwise risks, and that Fannie bought far fewer troublesome loans than many other financial institutions. Mr. Mudd said he heeded many warnings from his executives and that Fannie refused to buy many risky loans, regardless of outside pressures .

“You’re dealing with massive amounts of information that flow in over months,” he said. “You almost never have an ‘Oh, my God’ moment. Even now, most of the loans we bought are doing fine.”

But, of course, that moment of truth did arrive. In the middle of last year it became clear that millions of borrowers would stop paying their mortgages. For Fannie, this raised the terrifying prospect of paying billions of dollars to honor its guarantees.

Sustained by Government

Had Fannie been a private entity, its comeuppance might have happened a year ago. But the White House, Wall Street and Capitol Hill were more concerned about the trillions of dollars in other loans that were poisoning financial institutions and banks.

Lawmakers, particularly Democrats, leaned on Fannie and Freddie to buy and hold those troubled debts, hoping that removing them from the system would help the economy recover. The companies, eager to regain market share and buy what they thought were undervalued loans, rushed to comply.

The White House also pitched in. James B. Lockhart, the chief regulator of Fannie and Freddie, adjusted the companies’ lending standards so they could purchase as much as $40 billion in new subprime loans. Some in Congress praised the move.

“I’m not worried about Fannie and Freddie’s health, I’m worried that they won’t do enough to help out the economy,” the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, said at the time. “That’s why I’ve supported them all these years — so that they can help at a time like this.”

But earlier this year, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. grew concerned about Fannie’s and Freddie’s stability. He sent a deputy, Robert K. Steel, a former colleague from his time at Goldman Sachs, to speak with Mr. Mudd and his counterpart at Freddie.

Mr. Steel’s orders, according to several people, were to get commitments from the companies to raise more money as a cushion against all the new loans. But when he met with the firms, Mr. Steel made few demands and seemed unfamiliar with Fannie’s and Freddie’s operations, according to someone who attended the discussions.

Rather than getting firm commitments, Mr. Steel struck handshake deals without deadlines.

That misstep would become obvious over the coming months. Although Fannie raised $7.4 billion, Freddie never raised any additional money.

Mr. Steel, who left the Treasury Department over the summer to head Wachovia bank, disputed that he had failed in his handling of the companies, and said he was proud of his work .

As the housing crisis worsened, Fannie and Freddie announced larger losses, and shares continued falling.

In July, Mr. Paulson asked Congress for authority to take over Fannie and Freddie, though he said he hoped never to use it. “If you’ve got a bazooka and people know you’ve got it, you may not have to take it out,” he told Congress.

Mr. Mudd called Treasury weekly. He offered to resign, to replace his board, to sell stock, and to raise debt. “We’ll sign in blood anything you want,” he told a Treasury official, according to someone with knowledge of the conversations.

But, according to that person, Mr. Mudd told Treasury that those options would work only if government officials publicly clarified whether they intended to take over Fannie. Otherwise, potential investors would refuse to buy the stock for fear of being wiped out.

“There were other options on the table short of a takeover,” Mr. Mudd said. But as long as Treasury refused to disclose its goals, it was impossible for the company to act, according to people close to Fannie.

Then, last month, Mr. Mudd was instructed to report to Mr. Lockhart’s office. Mr. Paulson told Mr. Mudd that he could either agree to a takeover or have one forced upon him.

“This is the right thing to do for the economy,” Mr. Paulson said, according to two people with knowledge of the talks. “We can’t take any more risks.”

Freddie was given the same message. Less than 48 hours later, Mr. Lockhart and Mr. Paulson ended Fannie and Freddie’s independence, with up to $200 billion in taxpayer money to replenish the companies’ coffers.

The move failed to stanch a spreading panic in the financial world. In fact, some analysts say, the takeover accelerated the hysteria by signaling that no company, no matter how large, was strong enough to withstand the losses stemming from troubled loans.

Within weeks, Lehman Brothers was forced to declare bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch was pushed into the arms of Bank of America, and the government stepped in to bail out the insurance giant the American International Group.

Today, Mr. Paulson is scrambling to carry out a $700 billion plan to bail out the financial sector, while Mr. Lockhart effectively runs Fannie and Freddie.

Mr. Raines and Mr. Howard, who kept most of their millions, are living well. Mr. Raines has improved his golf game. Mr. Howard divides his time between large homes outside Washington and Cancun, Mexico, where his staff is learning how to cook American meals.

But Mr. Mudd, who lost millions of dollars as the company’s stock declined and had his severance revoked after the company was seized, often travels to New York for job interviews. He recalled that one of his sons recently asked him why he had been fired.

“Sometimes things don’t work out, no matter how hard you try,” he replied.

October 07, 2008 3:52 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, Priya is a woman. I'll allow this time that you may have simply been mistaken, so am not deleting your comment, but if you get this wrong again I will delete it.

JimK

October 07, 2008 3:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "Did you know that Hitler was a liar?".

Not about his religion. He lived his religion day in and day out and it permeated his life just as it did all the Nazis. If it weren't for the support of millions of Christians the Nazis never would have come to power and there wouldn't have been ANY Nazis. Every Nazi had "Gott Mitt Uns" (god with us) on his belt buckle. They were all devout creationist christians.

Red Baron said "evolutionsts (sic)believe that the strong should benefit at the expense of the weak because they think that was process by which life was created."

Nonsense. You don't derive an ought from an is. Believers in evolution don't think that just because something happens a certain way in nature that social policy should mirror that. That's called a naturalistic fallacy. Christians are the ones that believe that sort of hogwash, its only them you hear talking about "natural" law as something they hold sacred.

Red Baron said "It might have happened had the Democrats not sabotaged the economy by forcing Fannie Mae to make home loans to people who couldn't afford them.".

The sub prime mortgage fiasco took place on the Republican's watch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

"The crisis began with the bursting of the United States housing bubble[1][2] and high default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), beginning in approximately 2005–2006. The subprime mortgage crisis is an ongoing economic problem that became more apparent during 2007 and 2008."

It was republicans like Mccain who pushed the deregulation that lead to this Republican disaster. It'll be the Democrats who make progress towards pulling the U.S. out of the gigantic hole Bush, Mcsame, and She-Bush have dug.

October 07, 2008 4:34 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "He believed Aryans had evolved into a master race and applied survival of the fittest to the human race, being influenced by the writings of Nietsche.".

Those are desperate Christianist lies. As demonstrated to you the Nazis banned Darwin's "Origin of Species" and Hitler condemned the idea of evolution while supporting creationism.


Hitler never wrote about Nietsche in "Mein Kamph" or any other writings or speechs, there is no record of him mentioning Nietsche anywhere, something that clearly wouldn't be the case if as Christianists like you falsely claim he was a great fan.


http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm


Perhaps the most notorious misrepresentation of connecting Hitler and Nietzsche came from a photo-op of Hitler visiting the Nietzsche archive. Many have incorrectly believed that Hitler visited the archive on his own volition. Not so. The photo-op idea came from Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Förster, a wealthy Nazi supporter, who established the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, It was she who invited Hitler (after much persuasion) to visit the archive for publicity purposes. Hitler visited the archive exactly once and only for political purposes to appease Nietzsche's anti-Semite sister.

Note that Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau invented the theory of the superior Aryan race in the 1800s in his book, An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. This was prior to Darwin's writing of the Origin of Species. Gobineau believed that racial mixture would bring about the decline of "superior" peoples. Gobineau influenced Richard Wagner (beloved by Hitler), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (whom Hitler read and met), both of who influenced early National Socialism (and both mentioned in Mein Kampf). Popular in Germany in the 1900s, many Germans accepted Gobineau's ideas and, no doubt, influenced Hitler either directly or indirectly. Moreover, Hitler's "superior" race ideas come directly from Biblical race laws and Gobineau's Aryan race ideas, but are not at all like Nietzsche.

It make no sense that the Christian Hitler would admire an atheistic Nietzsche. Hitler loathed atheism. In his writings and speeches, he admonished atheists. For example:

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.


-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

October 07, 2008 5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama's position is beginning to deteriorate.

Realpolitics shows 4 out of 9 polls released yesterday and today have Obama's lead down to three or less.

He won't win at that level.

What happened?

The masterful performance by Palin on Thursday night is now included in all days of the polling samples.

And word is getting out about the Democratic Party's responsibility for our current economic disaster.

C'est la vie

say the old folks

it goes to show

you never can tell

October 07, 2008 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, Johnny, No: Chuck Berry joins chorus of musicians snubbing McCain's campaign
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Wednesday, 11 June 2008

For a US presidential candidate, there is nothing better than a rocking anthem to pump up the crowds and project the sort of imagery that could help win the keys to the White House.

The Republican hopeful John McCain may be pushing 72, but his "town hall" events can be as noisy as the stadiums where Barack Obama appears on stage to the strains of U2's "Beautiful Day." But the McCain camp is having trouble settling on a suitable campaign anthem. After searching for months, it finally picked "Johnny B Goode" – Chuck Berry's rock 'n' roll classic from 1958. The high-power guitar licks and "Go, Johnny, go" chorus put a spring in Mr McCain's step. When asked why he chose it, he quipped: "It might be because it is the only one [the artist] hasn't complained about us using."

Berry, 81, may not have complained about his song being appropriated by Mr McCain, but he has made it clear he would prefer Barack Obama in the White House. "America has finally come to this point where you can pick a man of colour and that not be a drawback," Berry said. "It's no question, myself being a man of colour. I mean, you have to feel good about it."

The anointment of Mr Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate was, he added, "definitely a proud and successful moment for all the people of this country – not just black people, but Americans in general".

Berry, known as the "father of rock 'n' roll", recounted: "In the Fifties there were certain places we couldn't ride on the bus, and now there is a possibility of a black man being in White House." "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, free at last," he added, quoting Martin Luther King.

There was a groan at McCain headquarters as it suffered yet another musical derailment. An attempt to use Abba's "Take A Chance On Me" also bombed. "We played it a couple times and it's my understanding [Abba] went berserk," Mr McCain said.

Mr McCain is not the first political candidate to stumble into a musical minefield, only to discover their theme song is not what was originally imagined. Objections often come in the form of letters to "cease and desist" by offended songwriters or musicians. Sometimes the lyrics are discovered to be off message. The McCain team had earlier alighted on John Cougar Mellencamp's "Pink Houses". The Mellencamp back-story as a hard-living rocker who had cleaned up his act seemed to perfectly project Mr McCain's maverick image as a rule-breaking but deeply conservative sonofabitch.

That scenario went into meltdown when aides realised Mellencamp is a Democrat activist who supported the presidential contender John Edwards, even appearing with him on the campaign trail. Mellencamp asked Mr McCain to cease and desist. Not only that, but "Pink Houses" is a song about missed opportunities and wasted potential, so the lyrics are not exactly on-message for a presidential campaign.

Mr McCain then used the theme from Rocky after the head of MGM, a McCain backer, gave his approval. But MGM did not own the rights to the track.

Republicans seem to have a tin ear for music. For a while in 2004, George Bush's re-election theme was the rock standard "Still The One". However, it turned out that the songwriter John Hall was an environmental activist who had been campaigning against nuclear power since 1979.

David Cameron will have some sympathy with Mr McCain. The Tory leader recently incurred the wrath of Paul Weller for expressing his liking for The Jam's song "Eton Rifles".

October 07, 2008 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hitler was not a practicing Christian, but believed in Arthur de Gobineau's ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the "Aryan race" — guided by a pantheistic providence — was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization. In Hitler's conception Jews were enemies of all civilization and the Jews were the enemy of the Volk, this was rooted in an ideology based on Darwinism and antisemitism. His understanding of Darwin was incomplete and based on the survival of the fittest in a social context as popularly misunderstood at the time.

In 1998 documents were released by Cornell University from the Nuremberg Trials that revealed Nazi plans to exterminate Christianity at the end of World War II. The documents cover the Nuremberg trials of leading Nazis and demonstrate the deliberate genocide of Jews during the Holocaust, in which some six million Jews were killed. One senior member of the U.S. prosecution team, General William Donovan, as part of his work on documenting Nazi war crimes, compiled large amounts of documentation that the Nazis also planned to systematically destroy Christianity.

Donovan's documents include almost 150 bound volumes currently stored at Cornell University after his death in 1959; these documents state

"Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion," said an OSS report in July 1945. "The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself.

They also show the different steps involved in the persecution, including the campaign to suppress denominational and youth organizations, denominational schools, and the use of defamation against the clergy, orchestrated to started on the same day over the Reich and supported by the press, Nazi Party meetings and by traveling party speakers. The documents show that the Nazis early on wanted the churches neutralized because they feared that the Churches would oppose Nazi plans based on racism and aggressive wars. The Nazis planned to infiltrate churches and use defamation, arrest and assault or the killing of pastors plus the re-education of church congregations. They also suppressed denominational schools and Christian youth organizations."

October 07, 2008 5:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Berry, 81, may not have complained about his song being appropriated by Mr McCain, but he has made it clear he would prefer Barack Obama in the White House. "America has finally come to this point where you can pick a man of colour and that not be a drawback," Berry said. "It's no question, myself being a man of colour. I mean, you have to feel good about it.""

Might be nice if these musicians would stop using their gift as a political weapon.

October 07, 2008 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would be nice if the old white guy paid these performers the royalties they are due for their work.

October 07, 2008 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gallup has Obama up by 9 and Rasmussen has Obama up by 8, based on data collected through yesterday.

RealClearPolitics.com shows.

RCP Average 10/01 - 10/06 -- 49.6 44.1 Obama +5.5
Gallup Tracking 10/04 - 10/06 2747 RV 51 42 Obama +9
Rasmussen Tracking 10/04 - 10/06 3000 LV 52 44 Obama +8
Hotline/FD Tracking 10/04 - 10/06 908 LV 46 44 Obama +2
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby Tracking 10/04 - 10/06 1237 LV 48 45 Obama +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/04 - 10/05 658 RV 49 43 Obama +6
CBS News 10/03 - 10/05 616 LV 48 45 Obama +3
CNN 10/03 - 10/05 694 LV 53 45 Obama +8
GW/Battleground Tracking 10/01 - 10/06 800 LV 50 43 Obama +7
Democracy Corps (D) 10/01 - 10/05 1000 LV 49 46 Obama +3

October 07, 2008 6:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron wrote ""Hitler was not a practicing Christian, but believed in Arthur de Gobineau's ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the "Aryan race" — guided by a pantheistic providence — was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization. In Hitler's conception Jews were enemies of all civilization and the Jews were the enemy of the Volk, this was rooted in an ideology based on Darwinism and antisemitism.".

Not true. Hitler was a devout practicing christian. He affirmed his christianity repeatedly in one speech, proclaimation, and announcement after another:


http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Hitler and the Nazi party rejected Darwin and were devout creationist christians. The Nazis banned Darwin's Origin of Species:


http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm


Hitler was a creationist, he explicity rejected Darwinism and the evolution of man:

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate Hitler's words, which were recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)



And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Crudely translated by bablefish:

What humans of the animal ahead-have, who are perhaps most marvelous proof for the superiority of humans that he understood that there must be a creator strength

Hitler was a creationist....

While its true that a handful of Nazis like Boreman (who faked the "Table Talk" documents to make Hitler appear anti-christian) opposed Christianity the vast majority of Nazis were devout christians and Hitler himself favoured and promoted his own version called "Positive Christianity".

Hitler stated "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people." and declared late in the war "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"

Hitler never moved against the church and the church never excommuinicated him or any other Nazi. Hitler and the church were in close cooperation having signed the Concordat in an agreement to cooperate together.

October 07, 2008 6:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "Realpolitics shows 4 out of 9 polls released yesterday and today have Obama's lead down to three or less.".

LOL, you're hilarious, nice reality filter you've got there, like how you ignored with the other 5 polls have to say - Obama is still leading by a landslide.

The polls are going to bounce up and down so don't go getting your hopes up every time there's a slight drop in Obama's lead, it'll soon expand again and Obama's going to be president - get used to it.

October 07, 2008 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hitler himself favoured and promoted his own version called "Positive Christianity"."

Tell us about this version, Preya.

It was an anti-Christian ideology designed to replace Christianity.

In Christian prophecy, the anti-Christ is not an atheist but someone who replaces Christianity with another religion.

October 07, 2008 8:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"nice reality filter you've got there, like how you ignored with the other 5 polls have to say - "

Preya says while ignoring 4 out of 9 current polls. On Sunday, all the polls had him leading by the same 8 points. That's changed.

Something's happening.

"Obama is still leading by a landslide"

Never has been leading by a landslide.

"The polls are going to bounce up and down so don't go getting your hopes up every time there's a slight drop in Obama's lead,"

What you don't understand is a small lead in the polls won't be a win for Obama on election day.

He'll have to hope the bounce is up to 8 points on election day or he'll by dealing with disappointment.

"it'll soon expand again and Obama's going to be president - get used to it"

Those chickens won't hatch for four weeks.

There's still time to make an omelet.

October 07, 2008 8:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "Preya says while ignoring 4 out of 9 current polls. On Sunday, all the polls had him leading by the same 8 points. That's changed.".

I'm not ignoring polls, you are. You were trying to say Obama's lead is at 3 or less, the average of the polls has his lead at 5.5%. Nothing surprising about a slight variation int the polls, its fun watching you get your hopes up for nothing only to later have them dashed again as Obama's lead inevitably expands once again.

Obama'll be back to an 8 point lead soon enough and in any event he is consistently leading and that means an Obama win on election day. I know it, you know it, and Mccain knows it - that's why he's desperately gone negative in a vain attempt to turn the public's attention away from the economy, his weakness and Obama's strength.

October 07, 2008 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm not ignoring polls, you are. You were trying to say Obama's lead is at 3 or less, the average of the polls has his lead at 5.5%."

You're an inveterate liar, Preya. I said from the beginning that 4 of 9 polls show Obama's lead has slipped below the margin of error. That's a trend because all the polls were reporting in unison a few days ago.

"Nothing surprising about a slight variation int the polls,"

No there isn't. Although dropping from an 8 point lead to a 2 or 3 point lead is significant.

But you're right. McCain's resurgence and eventual victory will only be surprising to foreigners.

Obama needs a lead of around 7 to 8 points on election day to win.

"its fun watching you get your hopes up for nothing only to later have them dashed again as Obama's lead inevitably expands once again."

It's hard to tell from your whining that you're having fun but then I remember you once said here that S&M gay play was the "ultimate" in pleasure so I guess it goes to show that you never can tell.

"Obama'll be back to an 8 point lead soon enough and in any event he is consistently leading and that means an Obama win on election day. I know it, you know it, and Mccain knows it - that's why he's desperately gone negative in a vain attempt to turn the public's attention away from the economy, his weakness and Obama's strength."

I didn't hear any desperate negativity form McCain last night. Interesting to hear that the economy is Obama's strength. He is proposing to raise taxes is a recessionary environment. The last president to do that was Herbert Hoover.

So I guess, if history repeats itself, Sarah Palin would be the next FDR.

October 08, 2008 6:51 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I remember a sermon by my pastor speculating that the anti-christ would be gay.

That be my move away from fundamentalist Christianity.

rrjr

Anon seems to be saying that the Nazis were both gay and the antichrist. Mmmmh.

October 08, 2008 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, one of the prophecies is that the anti-Christ will hate women but I wouldn't think that would necessarily mean gay.

October 08, 2008 10:38 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "You're an inveterate liar, Preya. I said from the beginning that 4 of 9 polls show Obama's lead has slipped below the margin of error. That's a trend because all the polls were reporting in unison a few days ago."

No, I told the truth. You looked at the average of the lowest 4 of 9 polls and ignored the higher numbers in the other five. You distorted the truth.


I said "Nothing surprising about a slight variation int the polls,"

Red Baron replied "No there isn't. Although dropping from an 8 point lead to a 2 or 3 point lead is significant.".

See there you go again lying. The poll of polls shows a 5.5% lead, not a 2 or 3 percent lead. If you're going to average polls you have to look at all of them, not cherry pick the lowest ones to mislead people with your biases. Peronally I don't recall the previous average being 8% although some of the individual polls showed those numbers. I think you're lying again and the current 5.5% Obama lead is roughly the same as it was in the previous average of polls.

Red Baron said "I remember you once said here that S&M gay play was the "ultimate" in pleasure so I guess it goes to show that you never can tell.".

I never said that, you're a liar. I don't engage in S&M. Your pathetic attempt to change the topic with lies just emphasizes your desperation in the face of the impending Mccain loss, and a huge loss it'll be with Obama getting over 320 electoral votes.

Red Baron said "I didn't hear any desperate negativity form McCain last night.".

Of course you didn't you were wearing the same reality filter that you use to focus on the lowest polls on Obama while ignoring the highest polls. That's confirmation bias. You ignore the facts that contradict your desired conclusion and put on the blinders to look only at the fewer points that support your desired conclusion. You really are desperate and pathetic.

October 08, 2008 2:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home