9:12 Having recently suffered a water pipe leak, I am second to none in my appreciation of the many contributions that plumbers make to Our American Way of Life. Nonetheless, I am slightly concerned that we are spending so much time focusing on the effect of our national policy on Plumbing-Americans
9:13 Obama looks surprisingly hesitant. I suppose he can afford to be--at this point, barring some shocking development, he is going to be the next occupant of the Oval Office.
Meanwhile, John McCain stands up for eliminating the corporate income tax. I could hug him. I still won't vote for him, but goddammit, someone had to say it.
9:18 The moderator, like every other moderator, tries to get the candidates to say what they will actually cut in order to deal with our sudden financial reversal. Obama: taking money away from Medicare insurers, which appears to be the entire budget problem facing These United States. McCain: I don't know, but I'm in favor of higher home prices, energy independance, and telling foreigners to go to hell. Also, he will cut wasteful spending. Everyone's going to cut wasteful spending. Then they get elected and realize that in Washingtonese, "Wasteful spending" means "money going to some voter who will get very angry if you take it away".
9:20 Barack Obama implicitly promises that if we elect a Democrat, we will have the economy of 1999. I say we elect John McCain, who can bring back the Frug, and then we'll have the economy of 1962!
9:22 John McCain actually just claimed that he can balance the budget in four years. Also, he invented cute puppies.
9:24 HDTV is not kind to John McCain. In normal resolution, he looks vigorous. On CNN HD, he looks like that guy in the science fiction movie who has had half his body replaced by bionics--which are slowly failing.
9:29 CSPAN has a pretty cool live site for the debate. And don't forget AI favorite livebloggers Alex Massie and Culture11.
9:30 I cannot believe that John McCain's extended whining about how mean Obama has been to him in his ads is proving so popular with CNN's uncommitted voters.
9:32 That said, Obama's defense of Lewis' over-the-top remarks is pretty weak.
9:39 Markets dropped 8% today, and John McCain wants to spend 20 minutes of the debate discussing the critical question of just how nice Obama was to Bill Ayers, and who has the meaner co-ideologists.
9:40 The people with whom I am watching the debate have given up listening to the blather and are now focusing on the analyst ratings which CNN displays on either side of the screen. Mostly, they are wondering whether David Gergen, who has barely updated for thirty minutes, has fallen asleep, or is simply refusing to analyze in protest of the utter banality of this discussion.
9:47 McCain tries to draw a distinction between good foreign oil from Canada, and bad foreign oil from Venezuela. Can someone sit down with him and explain, using small words and charts, the meaning of the words "global market" and "fungible commodity"?
9:48 Not to be outdone, Barack Obama claims that he, too, thinks we can get off that nasty Venezuelan oil in 8-10 years. All right, let's get down to brass tacks: which one of these two candidates has more pull with the Fairy King? Because that's where you get the really cool sustainable technology. You never see fairies using fossil fuels, do you? No you don't.
10:12 A friend who has a young special needs child emails: "I like that McCain and Obama are using the VP question to talk about
who will be better for families with autistic children and other
special needs, but only McCain could take a great point about Palin's
willingness to raise a special-needs kid and make a hash of it: he just
said that Palin "understands (special needs families) better than
almost every American I know." Let's be blunt here: she has NO [expletive deleted] IDEA what it is like to raise a special-needs kid -not because of any
personal failing, but because her kid is only six months old and she
hasn't had to deal with most of the issues that come up with raising a
Down's kid yet. And yes, we have NO [censored] IDEA either, because we
haven't experienced so much of what is undoubtedly in store for us over
the next several years and decades. I am sure that if you check in with
us then, we will look back at us now and say that we had no idea what
we were doing."
10:13 Okay, I wasn't voting for him anyway, but I find McCain's focus on attacking Obama, rather than his own policy, unbelievably grating. His strongest performance of the night has been talking about the benefits of his own health plan, drawing a reasonable distinction between his philosophy and Obama's, and coherently explaining that difference, without resorting to either whining or calumny.
10:16 I don't know why it's so hard for these two candidates to admit that each election is, in part, a war over Roe and who gets to cram the court with justices who support their position. The kabuki ritual in which both claim there is no litmus test, while attempting to clearly indicate that they will not nominate any justice who disagrees with them, is both ridiculous and tiresome. I believe we may have actual issues that could be discussed during this useless time.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Your comment on Plumbing Americans is cute, but the debate is over whether it's good to raise taxes on the small businesses that create the most jobs. Obama's claim to give 'tax relief' to 95% of all workers is nonsense, since so many of them don't pay income taxes (yes, he's going to give them money, but that's not tax 'relief', that's welfare).
Obama had some figure for the proportion of small businesses that make less than $250,000 a year, but those are the businesses that aren't going to create new jobs. The smallest businesses are, for instance, people selling some merchandise on the side, part time, and they can't hire anyone.
If Joe the plumber is any good and has a chance of hiring people, he'll cross Obama's line and get hit with a big tax increase. Perhaps he'll also get Obama's subsidy to businesses that create jobs, which is a good example of the Obama approach - give me all the money, and I'll distribute it as I see fit, giving back some of what you earned if and only if you do everything I want you to do. Obama wants to micro-manage.
"if we elect a Democrat, we will have the economy of 1999"
You mean another unsustainable bubble about to pop, and corporate corruption such as Enron?
"I cannot believe that John McCain's extended whining about how mean Obama has been to him in his ads is proving so popular with CNN's uncommitted voters."
I blame the Bradley effect
Yeay cute puppies! I'm voting McCain!
In all seriousness it's good to have you back.
I think that Obama's association with Ayers -- and why an unrepentant terrorist like Ayers (yes, it's an inflammatory term, and yes, I use it in its precise meaning) would want to pick out Obama to support, and why it's so hard for Obama to repudiate that jerk's radical education agenda -- is far, far more important to me than the statistical noise represented by a manic-depressive stock market.
The Dow... thirty stocks... were down 700 points+ today. Big deal. They were up 900+ the day before. What changed in the 24 hour period to warrant such a swing? Nothing. And there was nothing in the 24 hours before that to warrant the 900 point rise.
Liquidity is worth talking about in a presidential debate. Stock market volatility? A waste of breath. You ought to know better than that, Megan.
"Obama's defense of Lewis' over-the-top remarks is pretty weak."
Yeah, considering he didn't actually bother to defend the remarks. And why should he?
What was truly weak was McCain's defense of his demented, pathetic running mate. Oh, yeah, she's igniting people. Uh huh.
Megan,
You're an excellent blogger, a nice girl, and I dearly wish you would post more photos of your tall self.
Mocking John McCain for looking like he "has had half his body replaced by bionics" (9:24) is pretty low. As you know quite well, he has had multiple surgeries both for melanoma and for extensive wounds received while serving in the U.S. Navy.
Yes Meg, please post more photos of yourself. Preferably in a bikini, holding a machine gun.
I agree with Jason that Obama's work with Ayers is important. Ayers' education goal was to radicalize students, and he and the other founders chose Obama to be in charge of implementing that goal by funneling money to Ayers, Dohrn and ACORN, among others. This raises questions about what type of people Obama will appoint to be part of his administration, both in education and in other areas.
At the very least, Obama's willingness to shrug off ACORN's problems should raise questions. According to Obama, we shouldn't blame ACORN for having had consistent problems for more than a decade in State after State after State, due to institutional arrangements that are just asking for trouble. How could ACORN possibly have forseen that it was a bad idea to hire ex-cons that have served time for identity theft, sending them out on the streets with a promise that they'll be paid per signature with no attempt at verifying accuracy?
If one association is important than all associations are important.
Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, as we all know, a group whose express goal was secession from the United States.
Surely no one is arguing that Barack Obama is closer to Bill Ayers than Sarah Palin is to Todd Palin. Yet none of us are accusing Sarah Palin of being a secessionist. Why? Easy common sense.
Guilt-by-association is a dumb standard that stands up in no court of law or even respectable, common company among people. The only reason the Ayers thing matters, is because people are dumb enough to subliminally buy into the whole Barack Obama is a terrorist nonsense even though they know it isn't true every time they hear him speak.
It's mass hysteria and stupidity. Sort of like the existence of UFOs. Everyone KNOWS it's not the case, but they just sort of kind of want to believe it. So mass percentages of the American public engages in its favorite activity: suspending reality while the actual country faces the worst economic crisis we've ever seen. Dumb.
"I don't know why it's so hard for these two candidates to admit that each election is, in part, a war over Roe and who gets to cram the court with justices who support their position. The kabuki ritual in which both claim there is no litmus test, while attempting to clearly indicate that they will not nominate any justice who disagrees with them, is both ridiculous and tiresome."
Because maybe it's not kabuki. Both Reagan and George H.W. Bush nominated Justices who voted to uphold Roe. Three of them, actually.
What's wrong with a litmus test? It's called a decision about philosophy and jurisprudence. Aren't those reasonable questions to ask a supreme court nominee? And what's wrong with understanding that there are differences of opinion about philosophy and jurisprudence that come out in electoral politics?
His strongest performance of the night has been talking about the benefits of his own health plan, drawing a reasonable distinction between his philosophy and Obama's, and coherently explaining that difference, without resorting to either whining or calumny.
I agree. I also thought his point about Hoover's raising taxes and restricting trade was pretty telling as it is the traditional, pre-Friedman, explanation for the Great Depression.
You know, in the blog about Taleb, Soros' son was said to say that Soros needed to change his mind when he had a backache. 'Grating' may serve for you similarly. McCain was complaining about the ads which are negative; I saw them in NY. Also he has played very fair about race and The One and black people will benefit from it. Could the Lewis comment be a 'distraction' from asking reasonable questions about his background with that 'fellow in the neighborhood.'
Do Joe Six-pack and Joe the Plumber know each other?
And are they married to hockey moms?
John -
We don't know much about when or why Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, if he was. But at most he was a run-of-the-mill member for a time, and what is so horrible about people advocating peaceful secession?
Ayers, on the other hand, was the founder of a violent group, someone who said that his goal was to kill all rich people. He designed bombs for the group and probably designed the bombs that went off in a judge's home while the family was sleeping. Obama launched his political career from the home of two key members of a group that tried to kill a child in his sleep and wanted to set off a bomb on a dance floor.
But the main question regarding Ayers is why Obama agreed to administer the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, funding Ayer's goal of radicalizing students. Does he feel that we need less learning and more politics in our schools? And, if he didn't believe in Rev. Wright's racist, separatist rhetoric, why did he fund it with Annenberg money? Obama didn't just sit there in church and passively listen to those sermons for all those years, he funded those ideas, along with the ideas of Ayers and Dohrn. Is that the kind of judgment he plans to show in his administration?
Ann writes: If Joe the plumber is any good and has a chance of hiring people, he'll cross Obama's line and get hit with a big tax increase. Perhaps he'll also get Obama's subsidy to businesses that create jobs, which is a good example of the Obama approach - give me all the money, and I'll distribute it as I see fit, giving back some of what you earned if and only if you do everything I want you to do. Obama wants to micro-manage.
Only if Joe takes over 250,000 as personal income does he get a tax hit. If he incorporates, and keeps his personal income from his business below that figure, not only does he avoid that hit on personal income, but then he gets a tax credit for every new job he creates, according to Obama's plan.
In other words, it discourages salary inflation on the top end while incentivizing job creation. Sounds like a win to me.
John:
If one association is important than all associations are important.
Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, as we all know, a group whose express goal was secession from the United States....
...It's mass hysteria and stupidity.
No. You know what stupidity is? It's your assertion that a terrorist who tried to murder a sleeping family and hundreds of soldiers and who advocated "killing your parents" is equivalent to membership in the Alaskan Independence Party.
Sheesh.
Anyone who claims to know what “should be the driver of our economy for the next century” hasn’t read their Hayek.
What's scary is not only does Obama believe that hooey, he thinks its his job to pick and choose what drives our economy (presumably he can only pick from those things he knows about).
"Anyone who claims to know what “should be the driver of our economy for the next century” hasn’t read their Hayek."
Interesting to note that this is a failing shared by 'Jackie' Fisher and Dwight Eisenhower, for better and worse.
"Sheesh." Brilliant retort.
A tad bit sensitive that someone pointed out the intellectual flaw in your argument there.
Do you have any actual rebuttal for my point or not?
Guilt-by-association is an absurd standard that is not accepted by any reasonable person. It can be used to paint anyone with any brush you want.
How about this one?
"William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.
During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through."
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who committed genocide, supported terrorists and we went to war with twice. The man John McCain hired to head his transitional team once lobbied to work with Saddam Hussein.
Do I then assume that John McCain worked with terrorists? Do I ask that John McCain explain his association with William Timmons and why he would hire Timmons to head his transition team? Do I automatically read sinister, alterior motives into it?
Of course not, that's absurd.
The bottom line remains: You and Anne both want to hold Senator Obama to a standard you do not want to hold Senator McCain or Governor Palin to. That is the DEFINITION of a double standard.
You know it's a moronic, intellectually dishonest, inherently contradictory standard as well as I do.
If you choose to not admit this to yourself that's on you not me.
I'll put it even more succinctly for you: If we are going to ask one candidate to explain his questionable associations, then we must ask ALL candidates to explain their questionable associations.
That is a fair standard.
Do you or do you not agree with this?
John,
Do you have any actual rebuttal for my point or not?
Yes, I do. And I stated it the first time. The fact that you failed to grasp it is your problem.
You might note that the post was rather longer than the single word you deigned to quote.
Again, sheesh.
is equivalent to membership in the Alaskan Independence Party.
I would say that a party who's entire goal is to secede from the US is a group who hates this country. Why don't we ask Sarah Palin why she hates this country enough to support a group that wants to secede from it?
"then we must ask ALL candidates to explain their questionable associations."
Wouldn't require something drastic like.....oh, I don't know.....expecting the mainstream media to do their job?
I won't hold my breath.
Again, for the final time: If one candidate is going to be questioned on their associations, then ALL candidates must be questioned on their associations.
That is a uniform standard. Do you or do you not agree with it.
The fact that you find somehow don't find joining a secessionist party objectable is not my problem. That is a SUBJECTIVE judgement you're making.
The best, and only fair way to deal with the situation is very simple: Ask ALL of the candidates questions about their problematic associations.
I
John,
Your obtuseness is getting tiresome.
"No. You know what stupidity is? It's your assertion that a terrorist who tried to murder a sleeping family and hundreds of soldiers and who advocated "killing your parents" is equivalent to membership in the Alaskan Independence Party."
The founder of the AIP, Joseph Vogler, was an enthusiastic seditionist, and his denunciations of the United States were anything but peaceful. He appears to have agitated for violent insurrection more than once, and his mysterious death has been claimed to be linked to a botched purchase of plastique explosives.
Sounds like a terrorist wannabe to me. The fact that the Palins have been intimately involved with this group, including attending meetings and actually delivering official speeches as Governor TWICE to their annual conventions should be disqualifying.
The Ayers Issue does not stick because there is nothing in Obama's Public Persona that is either radical or frightening.
If Ayers were McCain's Foundation Buddy, a real possibility since so many people who work with Ayers the last 20 years are conservative and/or middle-of-the-road, the so-called left would be going crazy about "What Ayers shows about McCain."
The best issue that can be dredged (Drudge-ed?) against Obama is that he sometimes changes his actions to fit a changing situation.
In a Real Culture, as opposed to our Reality Television, Bill Clinton & Sarah Palin-Pathological-liar-producing, over written underread and underthought 29 hour a day 11 day a week endless commentary cycle Shop-a-thon Vale of Crowded Emptiness....
in a Real Culture, we would not hold Obama's catholic intellectual journey against him.
However, as someone who will vote for Obama, I wish either or ANY candidate would be forced to talk about how we really can work to solve our problems.
But in Politics, Vagueness=Victory.
We have no idea what ANYONE running for office can do, much les what choices they will make.
p.s. I love Andrew Sullivan, so don't take this the wrong way, but the way Modern America works Joe Six Pack & Joe The Plumber are probably married to each other.
Re: Obama's claim to give 'tax relief' to 95% of all workers is nonsense, since so many of them don't pay income taxes
Someone really needs to shut down this ridiculous meme from the Right. Pretty much anyone working pays income tax, period. If anyone doubts this please just check your paycheck stub. It shows how you paid out of that check. Unless you make very little money the amount will not be 0. You may get some minor fraction of this back next April but you not anywhere near all, or even most, of it.
JonF, you apparently have little real-world experience of federal taxes. I've had many years when I got back every cent that had been taken from my paychecks in the category covered by the IRS. Things sucked but I was not in danger of starving nor was I homeless, or even especially deprived. It would have been a lot tougher if I wasn't sharing expenses with other family members but the fact is that a substantial number of people do not make any permanent payments to the IRS. A number far too high for Obama's 95%.
The only way this could happen is if money were to given to such people far in excess of their returned taxes. This isn't tax relief, it's welfare pure and simple. A grotesque bribe to buy votes from the low-income earners.
John, you are just plain silly. Yes, any politician is going to have some unsavory contacts in his lengthy list of employees, among others. This is a given by the very nature of politics. I have a hard time getting worked up about Timmons because there is little to suggest he was a true believer for Saddam Hussein's interests rather than just cynically taking money he'd done little to earn. You might note that Saddam got little back for his investment. In fact, it was Saddam's efforts to cut a deal to remove the sanctions that made the 'No blood for oil' crowd look like such idiots. If we just wanted the oil, we'd have just bought the stuff and for bargain prices.
The Ayers thing matters, a lot. The evidence is there that this person had a huge influence on Obama's career path, and as Ayers very openly advocates some quite loathsome beliefs, this is cause for concern about the candidate. Ayers' despicable history isn't a matter of conjecture like the AIP founder, it's documented fact. Much of it proudly documented by Ayers himself. He doesn't pretend to be anything other than what he is. I give him credit for honesty but also know I don't anyone he regards as likely to further his agenda in the Oval Office.
Obama doesn't rant and rave on the podium like Ayers' ilk in their youth but that only shows he is benefiting from Ayers' experience as well as his intent study of Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals.' Examining that book and Obama's campaign is a chilling thing. Alinksy would be immeasurably proud of what Obama has achieved. That Obama has some capacity for subtlety does not make me believe he is anything other than a socialist radical who wants to reshape this country in horrendous ways.
Corporations should be taxed at exactly the same rate is individual proprietorship's. They should not be given favorable treatment by the government. One would think a libertarian would know that. Besides which since corporations are not individuals or individualistic in any sense but are actually creations of government they cannot even be allowed to exist in any Libertarian utopia.
There is a perception that corporations are some kind of natural phenomenon. They are everywhere and ubiquitous. Instead in their modern form they are perhaps 150 years old. They are the antithesis of individualism whose founding principal was limiting the liability of individuals. The exact opposite of the Libertarian ideal. The failure of Libertarianism to even perceive these things much less consider them renders the ideology schizophrenic.
Megan,
Voters don't vote on "issues". They vote on narrative.
On the other hand, Gov. Palin's sister does have an autistic child as well. I think we can perhaps agree that autism is nothing like Down's syndrome, and that you really do have NO IDEA what it's like until you go through raising a special needs child. Still, I have absolutely NO IDEA what it's like, and almost all people I know fall into that situation, so it still seems plausible that she could know a lot less than people who have through it, but still understand more than "almost every American" Sen. McCain knows.
I find McCain's focus on attacking Obama, rather than his own policy, unbelievably grating.
Huh. That didn't seem to bother you so much in 2000 or 2004.
Voters don't vote on "issues". They vote on narrative.
And one narrative this time is "this time it's about the issues, not narrative!" (see also Megan's quote above).
Indeed. Things no one votes on, not even libertarians (at least not in the marginal vote-swaying sense):
1) Decreasing the corporate income tax
2) Voting against the prescription drug benefit
3) Being against ethanol subsidies, and saying so in the debate
4) Being for free import of Brazilian ethanol, and saying so in the debate
5) Being for the Colombian free trade agreement, and saying so in the debate (while Sen. Obama is just incorrect on the violence trendline)
6) Voting against ag subsidies
7) Voting against sugar tariffs
No one votes for someone on the basis of these positions; they just aren't as important as the other things. Some people vote against based on these positions, though.
Positions like being for school choice, being pro-life, or even the health care plan have at least a chance of winning some marginal votes based on the issue (while losing others), but those seven above just don't decide any votes.
Well, except for weirdos like me. I simply can't vote for Sen. Obama after being bombarded nonstop with his negative ads about Sen. McCain's health care plan here in Fairfax County. I know that there are a bunch of centrists and libertarians out there hoping that Sen. Obama is just continuing to play people on economic issues and is really going to govern just like post-1994 Clinton. Why? Megan says good things about Goolsbee and Furman, and I agree, but political considerations drive campaigns and politicians as well, and eventually ads do have consequences.
I haven't seen any McCain ads to get upset about; campaign ads from any candidate tend to make me less likely to for the candidate approving the message.
I thought that Megan's friend's comment on raising a special needs child was petty, and I say that as the mother of a special needs teen. I have to admit that my teen is very high-functioning, which means that I've been far luckier than most (although some of his success today is due to a heck of a lot of therapy over the last decade and a half, haggling with the insurance companies, doing my own research to make sure he got the right therapy and support, etc.).
Yes, the Palins still have a long way to go. For example, Sarah Palin hasn't sat through those endless IEP meetings, signing a ridiculous number of forms each time even a minor change is made in her child's schedule. So what? I'd say that hearing that initial diagnosis about one's child has more of an effect than anything that follows. She'll continue to learn, but Palin already has more insight than most into the concerns of families with special needs children.
The kabuki ritual in which both claim there is no litmus test, while attempting to clearly indicate that they will not nominate any justice who disagrees with them, is both ridiculous and tiresome.
Blame the Supreme Court for doing this to themselves and to all of us by interfering in the first place. Roe v. Wade was one of those undemocratic and unjust decisions that turned Judges into Philosopher Kings. There is nothing in the Constitution specifically legalizing abortion. If the "right to privacy" and "due process" were applied as broadly to all parts of our lives, government wouldn't be able to do most of the things it does now. But they didn't do that, they took the "do what we say without questioning it" path that neither stuck to the strict interpretation of the Constitution nor applied a liberal interpretation consistently across all functions of government.
"The Ayers thing matters, a lot. The evidence is there that this person had a huge influence on Obama's career path"
No. Full Stop. This is a blatant lie. Holding a coffee fundraiser with a dozen people for a state senate run and serving on a charitable board together is *it*. That's *all* you've got. You're completely making up shit here, and you deserve to be called out on it.
A Chicago Reporter named Lynn Sweet has investigated Obama's "Launching his political career", and the McCain assertion is absurd:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/ayers_alone_did_not_launch_oba.html
The Ayers and Acorn charges do not stick because Obama is a thoughtful, maybe TOO thoughtful, political leader. His substance and his style is to listen, project confidence and rationality, and to inspire people to think if we work hard and smart we can solve our problems.
Most of you may be too young to remember the man who ran for Senate in New York in 1970, but accusing Obama of being a radical is as absurd as to make the same case against Arthur Goldberg.
Bill Clinton/Sarah Palin are reckless liars, whom one can understand how they inspire people to look at their associations.
Obama is an even-tempered pragmatist who wants to listen to all the voices and find some common ground.
Obama has the temperament and intelligence and confidence and skepticism and catholocity to be a great president.
10:16 I don't know why it's so hard for these two candidates to admit that each election is, in part, a war over Roe and who gets to cram the court with justices who support their position. The kabuki ritual in which both claim there is no litmus test, while attempting to clearly indicate that they will not nominate any justice who disagrees with them, is both ridiculous and tiresome. I believe we may have actual issues that could be discussed during this useless time.
And yet McCain voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while Obama voted against Sam Alito and John Roberts. All were qualified and well respected. Obama shows here that he is the more ideologicaly inflexible and hence less believable in the "litmus test kabuki". Besides which, McCain would have to appoint justices who can survive confirmantion in a Democratic Senate, so it is not like a hard-core constructionist (NTTIAWWT) will never get through anyway.
Lenin said "A capitalist will sell you the rope you use to hang him".
Megan, it is unwise for you personally to vote for Obama. You are too closely tied to capitalism to successfully recant. You will not be offered re-education.
"I don't know why it's so hard for these two candidates to admit that each election is, in part, a war over Roe and who gets to cram the court with justices who support their position"
Because that part is tiny; the ovewhelming majority of the population doesn't give a rat's ass about Roe. I'll concede the minority that does makes an incredible amount of noise.
"HDTV is not kind to John McCain"
I've noticed since purchasing my HDTV that's it's not kind to a lot of people, particularly women.
Some of what that 'catholicity' includes: From what I understand, he completely misrepresented the situation with regard to Illinois law in regard to aiding a live born infant in an attempted abortion. His success the last 2 weeks is predicated on the syllogism that since Bush is for deregulation, he was for the deregulation that put the banks in a credit crisis. One of the funny debating points that Obama used last night was to uphold the Hippocratic Oath as being of any sufficiency in protecting that infant. The Hippocratic Oath prohibits participating in an abortion for catholicity sake. If that was sufficient, we wouldn't even be having a discussion about Roe v. Wade; abortions couldn't happen. In any other context he would be deriding the Oath as 'not twenty first century.'
"MY obtuseness is getting tiresome. "
There, fixed that for you, Jason
Anybody who doesn't think Obama repeatedly lied last night (McCain did as well, of course), on many issues, must own stock in the company which sells Kool-Aid. Either that, or they think Obama is an idiot, and plan to vote for him anyways.
"Obama shows here that he is the more ideologicaly inflexible and hence less believable in the "litmus test kabuki"."
Obama wrote a long Kos diary supporting the justification for Feingold's yes vote on one of the justices (while personally not agreeing with it), for which the netroots was utterly killing him. If you'll recall in the debate, McCain actually said he could not possibly consider nominating any judge who wouldn't overturn Roe. You heard his theory last night: the president in power basically gets to appoint whoever he wants because he won. If he wins, he's nominating rabidly anti-abortion judges because he feels he has the right to, and there'll be gridlock until one's approved.
"His success the last 2 weeks is predicated on the syllogism that since Bush is for deregulation, he was for the deregulation that put the banks in a credit crisis."
No, I think only you've come to that conclusion. His success is a combination of: the incumbent's party getting punished during economic difficulties, the (by far) more calm and collected candidate getting an advantage over the erratic one, and a massive Palin backlash. Undecided voters aren't economists.
"One of the funny debating points that Obama used last night was to uphold the Hippocratic Oath as being of any sufficiency in protecting that infant."
And your debating point, apparently, is that because doctors perform abortions that means they're not violating the oath by killing live babies. Yeah, that'll find a lot of mainstream supporters. The infanticide charge is farcical, and that you seem to still want to push it shows how utterly out of touch you and your ilk are.
"Anybody who doesn't think Obama repeatedly lied last night (McCain did as well, of course), on many issues"
There are many degrees of mistruth. For you to equate stretching the truth with something that's blatantly untrue is highly disingenuous, which I'm sure you already know but are just trying to muddy the waters.
"Holding a coffee fundraiser with a dozen people for a state senate run and serving on a charitable board together is *it*. That's *all* you've got."
Obama and Ayers both served on the Wood Foundation board, but more importantly, the two together ran the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). Ayers wrote the grant proposal and was a driving force behind the CAC that Obama administered for years, out of the same building (on the UIC campus) that Ayers worked in. The CAC funded projects by Ayers and his wife, Dorhn, among others.
Granted, after the first year, they because aware of how incestuous it looked for Ayers to be so involved in running the CAC while it was funding his other activities, so Ayers became somewhat less involved on the management end. But the Obama/Ayers relationship is more than simply serving on a charitable board together.
And it would be nice to hear Obama talk about the approach of the CAC, to focus on radicalizing rather than educating students. Under Obama, CAC also funded African separatist groups whose goal was to keep African-American students from feeling as if they were part of the US. I believe some money went to Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger, so they could help students to avoid middle-classedness. How does Obama's past work on implementing Ayers' ideas about education relate to what he'll do and who he'll appoint as President?
No, Adam, what is disingenuous is to pretend that when a person repeatedly says things with the intent to deceive, that person is not a stone liar. That isn't to concede that your characterization of the two liars' lies is accurate, either. Stop muddying the waters.
Obama is friends with and works with a murderer. A murderer who is proud he murdered, and wishes that he had murdered more people. A murderer who launched his political career from his home and works on boards with him. And when asked to repudiate this murderer, Obama refuses.
There is NO RECANTING FROM AYERS. HE LIKED MURDERING PEOPLE AND WISHES HE DID MORE OF IT.
That is a far cry from someone who has repudiated their former beliefs and is sorry for their actions. For example, if a 60's radical had said: "Killing people was wrong. I was wrong to do it. I am sorry," then the question is hazy. Does he mean it, or is he just trying to save himself politcally? Then its a judgment call about whether you believe him.
But this is black and white. If a good person has a friend and coworker who murders people and is happy about it, the good person stops being friends and coworker with the murderer and denounces his influence. Obama does not.
Good people do not pal around with unrepentant murderers and work with them. If OJ were on charitable boards, would you all be saying we should forgive the juice and Obama shouldn't worry about working with him?
I know that many of you are so anti-Bush you're not seeing this clearly. Try to put your rage against Republicans/Conservatives/War Hawks aside and see the bare facts:
Friends, beneficiary, supporter, and coworker with unrepentant murderer.
Friends, beneficiary, supporter, and coworker with unrepentant murderer.
Friends, beneficiary, supporter, and coworker with unrepentant murderer.
Friends, beneficiary, supporter, and coworker with unrepentant murderer.
Lucy got some 'splaining to do.
Obama is friends with and works with a murderer. A murderer who is proud he murdered, and wishes that he had murdered more people. A murderer who launched his political career from his home and works on boards with him. And when asked to repudiate this murderer, Obama refuses.
There is NO RECANTING FROM AYERS. HE LIKED MURDERING PEOPLE AND WISHES HE DID MORE OF IT.
That is a far cry from someone who has repudiated their former beliefs and is sorry for their actions. For example, if a 60's radical had said: "Killing people was wrong. I was wrong to do it. I am sorry," then the question is hazy. Does he mean it, or is he just trying to save himself politcally? Then its a judgment call about whether you believe him.
But this is black and white. If a good person has a friend and coworker who murders people and is happy about it, the good person stops being friends and coworker with the murderer and denounces his influence. Obama does not.
Good people do not pal around with unrepentant murderers and work with them. If OJ were on charitable boards, would you all be saying we should forgive the juice and Obama shouldn't worry about working with him?
I know that many of you are so anti-Bush you're not seeing this clearly. Try to put your rage against Republicans/Conservatives/War Hawks aside and see the bare facts:
Friends, beneficiary, supporter, and coworker with unrepentant murderer.
Friends, beneficiary, supporter, and coworker with unrepentant murderer.
Friends, beneficiary, supporter, and coworker with unrepentant murderer.
Friends, beneficiary, supporter, and coworker with unrepentant murderer.
Lucy got some 'splaining to do.
Ann's point is one that conservatives make all the time to convince themselves that Obama is a radical.
It is, however, completely specious to take the grants that ONE board that Obama sat on that is funded by the ultra-Conservative Anenberg Foundation and includes several very conservative College Presidents and others, and say that that those experimental programs represent Obama's thinking rather than the actual work he has been doing on Education and the actual range of Educational Reformers Obama has been listening to as he thinks about how to get our schools to save children who are born into dysfunctional communities and families at a time when we as a society are finding it difficult to handle the change-over from one Global Economy to another.
The work that Obama does and the people he associates with are all efforts and people that are acceptable to most Main Stream Americans.
It is the sign of a weak argument to say that the 99% of a person's life and associates don't matter because there is some secret 1% that is a shocking scandal.
Americans see Obama; Americans listen to Obama; Americans know Obama is neither radical nor dangerous.
"Obama's claim to give 'tax relief' to 95% of all workers is nonsense, since so many of them don't pay income taxes"
Anybody who makes a claim like this is a Really Bad Person who ought to be horse-whipped.
Payroll taxes are just taxes. The guy making your burger pays them. There is no magic lock-box keeping the government from spending those tax dollars - they are, to all intents and purposes, just dollars obtained via a separate, flat, income tax, and they are getting spent, today. Period.
Many Republicans are making claims like this. This ought to tell you which party has a greater claim to ethics and the truth.
tjproudamerican:
"Americans see Obama; Americans listen to Obama; Americans know Obama is neither radical nor dangerous."
It is quite clear that tj is so far down the bag for Obama he's seeing the burlap bottom. How much Kool-Aid did you drink to get stuffed in their so deeply? Obama could shoot up a mall and tj would be repeating this garbage.
"The work that Obama does and the people he associates with are all efforts and people that are acceptable to most Main Stream Americans."
-----Like Reverend Wright, a man who gets pure joy out of Sept. 11th.
-----Like Tony Rezko, a convicted felon.
-----Like William Ayers, a murderer.
-----Like radicalization of children into America-bashing welfare cases.
tj, man, you really are off your rocker. At least have something more than Obama's cult mantra when you try to argue with the big boys.
No matter how long and loud conservatives scream about Ayers being a "murderer", it is ineffective as a tactic against Obama.
The American People have taken their measure of Obama and they know that Obama is a person who will help them effect real changes in the country that Obama loves as much as they do, Obama will do it calmly, intelligently, and openly.
The Establishment has welcomed Ayers; Conservative Foundations and Business people and The City of Chicago has welcomed Ayers.
It is difficult for conspiratorial thinkers to see that just because YOU believe a series of assertions of nefariousness exist and are important, that doesn't mean those allegations are true or in any way proportional.
Right to Life voters always think if everyone knew what happened in the act of abortion, no candidate that favored legalized abortion would ever win just based on that issue. But people seldom vote on issues that way.
Obama has his own life. The man and husband and father and thinker and politician Obama is impressive to all but the Limbaugh-Ingraham-Katherine Lopez faction and all they have to attack him is secret and untrue allegations.
Adam, The Hipocratic Oath actually binds you to a patient you have accepted and your relations to the family of the patient. So, given that abortion is an exception to the Oath, and the 'mother' is your patient, your duty to the infant is at best unclear under the Oath.
VOR, you have just put forth an excellent argument for slashing payroll taxes, espcially for people who don't make much money. I agree. Let's lower FICA taxes on the first 20k in wages to 5%. Of course, let's avoid taking Obama's suggestion of raising the limit on the wages payroll taxes are placed on, since this would also eventually raise the benefits of wealthy people.
I still can't believe libertarians would be for Obama. This man, notwithstanding his qualities, lacks any hardwired respect for true liberty because he believes that people can't be trusted with it.
The poor need to be helped and the others reigned in. He will decide the details, in his infinite wisdom. How can any libertarian support that?
Libertarians voting on libertarian principles should sit this one out (again.)
If you want to vote for Obama, that is nobody's business, but there is no libertarian case for him. None. Period.
Micheal wrote..abortions couldn't happen....
Micheal, you don't believe that outlawing abortion will stop them do you? Or that only doctors can perform them?
They were illegal in most places before Roe v. Wade and a few years before that illegal all places in the U.S. They still happened. Some of them by doctors who had the skills to make them reasonably safe. Some by abortionists who mostly had the skills to make them safer than the do it yourself option and some by women who took the do it yourself option. Making them illegal won't stop them, it just means that all those retired doctors and nurses, the ones who have experience in dealing with botched abortions, will have to come out of retirement to train a new generation.
Let's saddle up, partners, 'cause ol' cult member tj just trucked in a whole lotta b.s. and lies for us to toss around:
"No matter how long and loud conservatives scream about Ayers being a "murderer","
---love the quotes their, tj. Because Ayers never killed people with his bombs---oh wait he did!---or attempted to kill hundreds more with bombs that he tried to set-----oh wait, he did!
Nope, not a murderer, because he's an Obama buddy.
"it is ineffective as a tactic against Obama."
--um, tj, are you really saying that "facts" don't matter here?
"The American People have taken their measure of Obama and they know that Obama is a person who will help them effect real changes in the country that Obama loves as much as they do, Obama will do it calmly, intelligently, and openly."
---wow, tj, just wow.
1. You know how The American People (trademark tj) all think about Obama? Every single one? 'Cause if I point out just one that doesn't think that way, that makes you a liar.
2. Obama loves America about as much as his wife does (rim shot). What Obama loves is power and the position--if his career says anything, its a do nothing, hide in the back political climber.
3. Obama loves Europe more than America--heck he even campaigned there!
4. Apparently, tj not only has psycho-analysed the Obamamessiah, he can predict the future. If he does things so "calmly, openly, and intelligently" how come he frantically, secretly, and stupidly has tried to dodge and hide his friend ship with murderer?
"The Establishment has welcomed Ayers; Conservative Foundations and Business people and The City of Chicago has welcomed Ayers."
---I'm glad tj also speaks for The Establishment (trademark tj). The city of chicago is a cesspool of corruption. Saying that Ayers got his daddy to buy him a a few jobs in Chicago does not =establishment welcoming. Afetr all, I can find quite a few "establishments" that would toss the killer out the door.
But its who accepts him that matters, right? So long as everyone loves him, his past murders don't matter, right? I mean, so long as he supports Obamamessiah.
"It is difficult for conspiratorial thinkers to see that just because YOU believe a series of assertions of nefariousness exist and are important, that doesn't mean those allegations are true or in any way proportional."
--Um, never said CONSPIRACY, moron. I said he buddies around with a murderer and refuses to denounce him. And now tries to say that's not a big deal. RIIIIIIGHT. Because the people who hang out with hitmen and know they are hitmen and are happy to be hitmen are not bad people. No way--as long aws they vote like you, of course.
It is difficult for you cult following bush haters to see the noses right on your faces.
"Right to Life voters always think if everyone knew what happened in the act of abortion, no candidate that favored legalized abortion would ever win just based on that issue. But people seldom vote on issues that way. "
---Bizarre segue. And what proof do you have of this, other than your own assertion? And what does this have to do with Obama being buddy-buddy with a killer?
"Obama has his own life."
---Riiight. He's deep into Chicago politics, receives political, financial and social help from a murderer, a felon, and arace riot starting minister--but he's not affected by them AT ALL.
"The man and husband and father and thinker"
---Thinker? LOL. riight., the adjunct professor, who never wrote an article; the community organizer who left everyone right in the ghetto where they started with him; the senator who never votes and never sponsored any legislation. The guy who had his bios ghostwritten (note: every politician does this, but it erodes support for his being a thinker). Right. He's freakin' Voltaire.
"and politician Obama"
---politician. You finally found the word that describes him.
"is impressive to all but the Limbaugh-Ingraham-Katherine Lopez faction and all they have to attack him is secret and untrue allegations"
---allegations that he works and is friends with and won't denounce an UNREPENTANT MURDERER for SAYING THAT HE WISHES HE KILLED MORE PEOPLE. WHICH OBAMA ADMITS.
face it, tj, this might work as anargument in your wittle stone-out hippie head, but over here in logic land, you sound like what you are: a stupid, one-sided, brainless little follower who only knows what the left has brainwashed him to repeat.
Back to the KosKids with you, follower.
I love when the abortionists say, "Well, you'll nevber stop it, so keep it legal!"
Because, following that logic, we should legalize other forms of murder, and all rape, theft, and assault. because by your logic, Adirondacker, they'll never stop, either.
But of course, you'll change your argument now. Proceed, dummy.
Adirondacker, No I'm not saying that there wouldn't be one abortion. What I was taking up was Obama's argument that the Hippocratic Oath would, by itself, have provided that the live born infants be cared for. There are historical and analytical ways to look at a text, for instance Leviticus prohibits homosexuality, but there are now now Reformed Jewish congregations that love the Torah and have homosexual rabbis. Certainly there could be doctors who took the text of the Oath in a more inductive way and decided that the mother being the patient and their surgical skill being such etc. Still the Oath is not a 'do good to all socially' text and the infant's existence is at tension with the pregnant woman's desire not to have him/her; so the Oath is maybe not decisively helpful in dealing with the live born infant.
BeeDoo is an example of why the conservative movement is broken into two factions: the flame-throwers like BeeDoo and the Limbaugh-Ingraham Camp and the ACTUAL conservatives like Larison-Frum-Mccardle-McDonald.
BooDoo alleges:
"allegations that he works and is friends with and won't denounce" Ayers.
LAST NIGHT (!!!!) Senator Obama denounced Ayers and called his actions and organization "despicable".
You can see the exchange here:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1243705446?bclid=1201016315&bctid=1858976511
In my answer to BooDoo's assertion above, I used facts. Facts are the enemy of the Limbaugh clique. One of the great ironies of this clique is that they accuse others of all sorts of ignorance and name-calling. But when they speak, only another True Believer can agree with them, mostly because they themselves argue so intemperately.
BooDoo somehow suggests I am wrong about Obama because not all Americans respect Obama. The fact is that most Americans do, and most Americans DID respect John McCain before he chose Sarah Palin.
Palin is a Bill Clinton class Liar. Liars ruin the party that supposedly benefits from their popularity and charisma. As a Liberal, I hope Sarah Palin IS the Future of the Republican Party. It took us Democrats 17 years to recover from the lies of Bill Clinton being wedded to that great smiling "Natural Campaigner".
Choose Palin and the Republicans will get someone who will lie directly to someone who has the facts before them (see Palin's abominable insistance NOT that the Ethics Report was unfair or any other defensible claim, but that The report that came out also was very clear in that there was no unethical or unlawful behavior on my part," Palin told a local CBS affiliate in Pittsburgh, adding, "No abuse of power there at all," as has been widely covered. The Report says Palin "abused her power" and that she "violated" the "Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."
(Read the Report. It is in pdf format and many plaes give access: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/10/the-palin-repor.html)
As an American, I hope that Palin stays in Alaska. One Male pretty liar, Bill Clinton, is enough. Palin cannot tell the truth.
Adirondacker,
Before Roe v. Wade, a lot of states had legal abortions, including NYS. Legalized by their legislatures, mind you, not by some self aggrandizing judges. As I recall, about half the states had legal abortion and half didn't.
Was that unfair to those poor women in non-abortion states who could not afford to travel? Depends on your view, but if Roe were nullified today, that would only place the decision back on the states, and I think there are darned few states which would outright outlaw abortion. And Planned Parenthood would be able to pay for those poor who needed to travel for an abortion.
Given the modern tendency of the Supreme Court to heed the popular culture in their decisions, I really don't think that appointing more so-called conservative judges to the bench would result in overturning Roe. (Even though it doesn't have a constitutional leg to stand on.)
A Final Point, if I may:
BooDoo thinks that his rhetorical mode will convince people if he can just say the same point (Ayers Ayers Ayers) over and over.
People see Obama. Obama is visible. All that shouting about how evil he is because Ayers falls flat because people see that Obama is a rational man of ideas who is looking to solve our problems.
The Rhetoric of the Limbaugh Right suggests that Obama is a cross between Paris Hilton, Vladimir Lenin and Jim Carey on speed. When the informed, well-spoken, mediator Obama speaks, it makes the right seem crazy.
Obama IS ambitious and intelligent and articulate and educated. Young people won't believe this, but the right used to value those traits. William F. Buckley as a young man would have laughed Sarah Palin and John McCain off the stage.
tjproudamerican: 'Limbaugh clique.. Liars.. Obama open.' Traditionally societies in their religious literature have an end time utopia. Sounds like you're about to have yours. The best that Megan can hope for in McCain is the 'Frug.' Good Luck.
He is, but he's blatantly wrong and incorrect about Colombian violence and about Brazilian sugar ethanol. So much so that I, and most libertarians, devoutly hope that he's lying about those issues. I really hope he is a liar.
Politically, of course, you're absolutely right. There's no way in a short debate to explain those issues effectively, certainly not if you're John McCain up against a gifted rhetorician like Sen. Obama. Plenty of people have not studied the issue and are not going to care enough anyway. It certainly lowers my opinion of Obama, though.
John Thacker: Thank you for calling Obama out on issues you disagree with him on. There are probably plenty of issues where Obama should listen to the other side and we should have a Congress that debates those issues and a Media that allows us to hear and evaluate the different cases.
I am voting for Obama but I do not think every decision he makes will be the correct one. Last night's debate, like all the debates I have seen in my fairly long (soon to be 60) life, was disappointingly vague. We don't need a Revolution, but we definitely need big changes in our politics, culture, and discourse.
It is too bad that John McCain did not explain why he, and you, disagree with Obama's understanding of those issues. It is too bad that Bob Schieffer didn't actively participate by explaining what the candidates were talking about and whose facts were straying, or uninformed.
As long as we have this split personality in our Public Discourse, where we value the process while we complain about the avoidance of content and understanding, our elections will be a crap shoot.
Liveblogging debates tends to prove how vapid bloggers are and how shallow their thoughts are. I normally stick up for Megan, but her comments on this debate are truly third-rate.
BooDoo thinks that his rhetorical mode will convince people if he can just say the same point (Ayers Ayers Ayers) over and over.
"I cannot believe that John McCain's extended whining about how mean Obama has been to him in his ads is proving so popular with CNN's uncommitted voters."
McCain is whining? Obama may be the kingpin of the liberal illuminati and all, but at least he didn't launch a campaign ad depicting McCain as the antichrist. Now, that's mean.