Ferny Grover at 491 said:
… you seem to have the impression that Americans are interested in real issues when they are showing every indication of being a nation in complete denial.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. I think most Americans have trouble facing reality. The worse things get, the more they want to escape.
The Republicans know this, so they gave the people Sarah Palin as the ultimate distraction. Now Americans don’t have to confront the hard stuff anymore in this election. They can talk about whether Palin was the right pick for VP. They can dream about the small-town hockey Mum suddenly making the big time. They can debate whether Bristol Palin should have kept her baby or not and what led her to a teen pregnancy. They can wonder whether Palin would be someone they could have a coffee or beer with.
Sure, there are plenty of people hurting in a declining economy, but for those who aren’t, they now have Palin to occupy them rather than having to be concerned for their fellow citizens or the overall decline in their country’s international standing.
This is a country that has lost its way under the Republican leadership as people were continually frightened into voting for the Republicans. Now that the Republicans have made the world seem so scary, they are exploiting American’s desires for escaping that world… no more big issues, no more things to worry about, just a fascination with Sarah Palin. The MSM have complied. The alternative media has complied. And now we are two weeks into this great scam and Americans are still chugging along besotted in some way with Palin, either loving or hating her.
The Republicans will be trying to make the most of this. She has now had one major interview. Expect them to hide her a way for a little, then bring her back out for another, anything to stretch it out until election day, drip feeding the country with bits and pieces of Sarah Palin.
The only way Obama can turn this around is to stir Americans in an emotional way, a DEEP emotional way. If he simply bangs on about the issues, people will keep resorting to the Palin distraction. He needs to reignite his message of hope and change so people can shift from escapism to a future dream. It is still about avoiding the here and now, which many Americans are inclined to do, but at least Obama can take them to a place that can inspire something better in them and in future generations rather than seeking solace in a temporary distraction.
1,030 replies on “Lipstick on a Pig”
Now this is very handy.
McCain Seen as Less Likely to Bring Change, Poll Finds.
Registration maybe required.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/politics/18poll.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1221721226-DnyF2/BBgJqa/GI+qeE+dw
800 jen The general consensus is, that the battle between Obama and Hillary helped hone his skills, and also helped him attract grass roots support.
jen at 800,
I think there are two issues: the first is the question of when it was clear that she could not win, and the second is the question of assistance to Obama.
Ignoring the first issue, I cannot see what harm she did to Obama by continuing to campaign.
As to help, 1.) it was wonderful practice for Obama, 2.) helped keep his name in the headlines for months, 3.) it registered Democrats like nothing ever seen before, 4.) it enabled him to build ground organisations that could then practice for the election in November and 5.) it actually created healthy debate within the Democratic Party.
I cannot see a negative.
DG at 796
This is where we disagree. I feel that had the race ended after Texas, Obama would have been far better off now then he is then.
The quicker a race ends, the more time there is to reunite the party and concentrate on the opposition. Whilst a valid argument stands that the fighting helped rally Democrats, my view is that it caused more harm then help. I simply point to the number of incredibly disgruntled Hillary supporters out there. Whereas, if the race ended after Texas with Hillary gracefully withdrawing, Obama would be in a much stronger position now.
I have no issue with Hillary staying in on a sensible basis.
If it was a nonsensical basis its pure selfishness.
The biggest issue was her choice to fight the Michigan and Florida despite Obama not being on the ballot and despite pledging not to campaign.
This was a dishonourable decision that had little prospect of success yet succeeded in alienating many Democrats from Obama who felt disenfranchised.
If Hillary didn’t pull that tactic, I would have been okay with her staying on.
However, if Hillary didn’t pull that tactic, she would have been forced to withdraw even earlier.
Catch 22.
The honourable decision would have been to withdraw early when there were no realistic prospects of success, and that would have been for the good of the party.
(Well, other than that Hillary lost, of course. 😉 )
Obama may have had most of the major issues running for him such as Iraq, corruption, health care, education, McCains age and health. But none of those matter now. Its just the economy, nothing else matters.
803 David Gould. I 100% agree with you David.
Jen, I would also agree with David here, if there was no battle between the two Democrats, there would have been a lot less publicity. Not that I would have advised such a battle, but since Hillary seemed wholehearted in her support at the end, it worked out to be a positive.
DG at 803
1. Partially Disagree. It helps the Republicans arguments against Obama if they can point to his Democratic opponent who pushes the same arguments.
2. Partially Disagree. It depends if you consider all publicity (even negative) to be good 🙂
3. Partially Disagree. Lots of registered Democrats, the question is how many will now vote for McCain, when otherwise in a less contested primary, would have voted Democrat.
4. Disagree. He could have done that anyway, and saved up more money for fighting the repugs.
5. Disagree. My view is the debate was anything but healthy 🙂
David G- I disagree with you 100%.
Bring out the jousting sticks 😆
asanque at 804,
Hillary supporters would have been more disgruntled if she had pulled out early. They would have seen it as something forced on her by the party machine, which is controlled by Dean and other people opposed to the Clintons.
As to honourable decisions, screw that. This was a chance for the highest political office in the land. That is why Obama took the ‘honourable decision’ of changing his mind on taking public funding; that is why he ran television ads in Florida during the primaries despite pledging not to; that is why he, like McCain, Hillary and anyone else serious about getting the chance to have their hands on the levers of power, run ads that stretch the truth a tad.
People still seem to think that this is all some kind of game, and an article posted earlier from the Huffington Post made the point that this is not scrabble, people. This is politics. Things are actually at stake here.
kerneels- I am not saying that there should have been no debate/contest – just that she dragged it out to a point where it became destructive both to her and Obama, their relationship and the party as a whole. (Not to mention the division and ugliness it created on PB!!)
I have to admit some of it it was good fun though 😈
# 809 asanque
3. “Partially Disagree. Lots of registered Democrats, the question is how many will now vote for McCain, when otherwise in a less contested primary, would have voted Democrat.”
Very, very, few. The economy is the issue, nothing else matters.
In case anyone missed it, I am one who thinks that winning is incredibly important and if you have to dump some principles along the way, no problem. That is not to say that the ends justify the means, but some ends certainly justify some means.
811 – DG
True, but my view is that they would have been less disgruntled, and had more time to heal 🙂
True, in relation to public funding. However, in relation to television ads in Florida, it was actually a national ad, and he received DNC approval. So that was a myth promoted by Clinton supporters to justify Hillary having fund raisers in Florida despite the pledge.
The problem with politics, just like anything else, is if you don’t comply with the rules, you must be punished. Unfortunately, this like many other aspects of real life, is rarely enforced.
This is healthy debate and I guess we will never know one way or the other, which one of us is right. 🙂
And also one unintended consequence was the bounce the division over Hillary possible gave to Sarah Palin … and we all could have done without that.
There will be some Democrats that vote McCain to spite themselves.
I will also say that if there is lingering bad feeling among Democrat supporters, Obama has not done all that much to reduce it. Hillary and Bill have been fabulous. Yet they have got … nothing. (Oh, except for continued criticism from Obama supporters, of course, which helps tremendously …)
815 asanque Yeah, but it’s good fun speculating.
jen,
And if Obama had picked Hillary as VP, there would have been no Sarah Palin. If something is divided, then you take action to bring it together. Obama has not done that.
Jen,
I suspect the division and ugliness at PB would have happened anyway, maybe not directed at this particular set of posters, but to some-one. After all, the totally over the top posts are still going on, even though we seem to be mostly ignored now. In any case, just think how dull it would have been if it was a sure thing all the way through!!
814 – DG
I empathise with that viewpoint, and I am a realist.
Nevertheless from a realistic point of view, Hillary had no hope after Super Tuesday and no amount of means would have created the ends she wanted 🙂
Obama received DNC approval, sure. But who was controlling the DNC? This is what Hillary supporters have always been concerned about, and it is one of the reasons why they believe that she has not been fairly treated.
I am a Hillary supporter, obviously. 🙂 I am not one who would not vote for Obama, but I know why some Hillary supporters might still be feeling disgruntled.
David- I partially agree with that (my that hurts),- but it was the result of the rancour and tactics used by Hillary when she could have departed with good grace that made it almost impossible for Obama to then pick her as VP, as the perception was that she would undermine him. She created that situation herself.
kerneels @821 –
as I said some of it was great fun. Shame it got so nasty 🙁
Oh, and I do not actually believe that Dean controlled the DNC – obviously, the Clintons had a lot of power there, too. But I am talking about perception among Hillary supporters.
jen at 824,
I honestly still do not see what tactics that Hillary used that were a problem. I simply saw politics being played out as normal.
820 – DG
At the start of the primaries, I thought Hillary or Obama would make a great president/VP combo in any order.
However, by the end, the relationship became far too toxic.
If Hillary had withdrawn after Texas, there likely would have been a very good chance she would have been VP.
Although, I’m still not entirely against Hillary at VP, even at this stage.
823 David Gould and other Hillary supporters may feel gruntled. 😈
asanque,
If Obama has offered Hillary the VP spot, the relationship would have been healed sufficiently. Kennedy and Johnson worked fine together. Hillary and Obama would have done so, too – better, in fact. But we will never know, I guess. 🙂
826 David Gould. Dean is the one who helped design the Internet strategy, starting from his run in 2004.
Chris B,
Yes. He did a good job with that. But his ’50-state strategy’ was not quite so hot …
David-
I am sorry Hillary put herself in a situation where Obama would have looked weak by nominating her as VP. I still hope he gives her a vital role – Sec of State?? and I really believe if the race had been settled in a more timely, less hostile manner she should have been VP. She snookered herself.
I am not suggesting she should have not competed as hard – just not for as long once it was clear she couldn’t win. Then it became destructive.
jen,
He would have looked strong nominating her if he and Hillary had handled it correctly, and their campaign would have done.
Interesting back and forth between the WSJ and Daily Kos over McCain’s voting record on Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
http://andreneil.dailykos.com/
827 – DG
What about pledging not to campaign, and then keeping your name on a ballot, whilst your major opponents withdraw their names, and then trying to legitimate the votes whilst ignoring votes cast for undecided, and then blaming your opponent for delegitimising a vote that you pledged not to count in the first place?
That’s not just dishonourable.
Its Dishonourable with a capital D.
That’s also an awfully long sentence above, for which I apologise 🙂
There was really no way he could have given her the VP role as things rurned out. If she had just made the reconciliatory moves a little earlier there would have been no issue with her as VP.
turned out
Or perhaps I should say, its dishonourable with a capital McCain/Palin 🙂
asanque at 835,
Was it against the rules to have it on the ballot? I think not.
The Democratic Party handled the whole thing badly. Punishing Democratic voters for breaches of the rules by the local Democratic Party was nonsensical in the first place. It was always going to lead to problems. Hillary played hardball with those problems, and if Obama had not played hardball if he had been in her position then he would not be worth electing as president. It is my belief that he would have done so – he is a Chicago politician, after all.
HusseinWorm @835-sprung from the spambin.
VP is not given to reward or punish; it is given to the candidate most up to the job of convincing the right people in the right states to vote for the ticket. That is why Hillary should have got the ticket – not because she got ’18 million votes’ or whatever the figure is. Not picking Hillary was a mistake. It will not cost him the election, but it does mean that – despite what Chris says – it will not be an electoral vote landslide.
We need a new thread. 🙂
832 David Gould 50 state strategy we won’t know till the first Thursday in November.
Asanque at 809:
Abso-bloomin’-lutely. She attritted his kitty something fierce!
http://www.outbackonline.net/Advent%20Calendar/Advent_WetCat.jpg
Gouldie at 820:
Please explain why you think this is so, David?
I think the choice of Sarah Palin will end up to the advantage of the Democrats.
842 David Gould I saw that. Yes it will. 😆
840 – DG
I disagree that Obama would have taken the same position as Hillary, but I guess we will never know 🙂
And I agree that it was handled badly by the DNC.
Nevertheless, the problem arose from all the candidates pledging to accept the decision by the DNC (otherwise why have a DNC in the first place?), and then one candidate breaking their pledge.
Do I think Hillary would have made a better VP then Biden in terms of votes?
Yes.
Enemy Combatant at 845,
Sarah Palin was an opportunistic pick by McCain. If Hillary had been on the opposing ticket, there would have been no point in picking her as she would have had zero chance of bringing in the voters that McCain needs to win this election (and that is the only valid reason behind selecting someone as VP).
As such, Sarah Palin would not have been selected. McCain would have either have gone against Rove and picked Lieberman, which would not have worked, or he would have picked Romney. Romney might have been able to get McCain home in Michigan, but not in Ohio against Clinton. And that would have been the ballgame.
Anyhoo – we re rehashing old ground and as has been rightly said, we will never know. (although I could go on about it ad finitum , so to spare you all the boredom..I won’t).
What we have to deal with is what is happening right now and what’s ahead- and it’s the economy, or what’s left of it.
although…(can’t resist) I really hate this idea that women who support Hilary would somehow move to support Palin because she is female. They are direct opposites in so many policy areas particulaly regarding reproductive heaklth and rights, that the idea that women vote for someone based on gender rather than their policies is frankly insulting.
Now i’ll try and desist from dragging up old arguments.
I’m still hoping someone asks her if she believes in dinosaurs.
jen,
Many Hillary supporters are culturally conservative Democrats who were voting for her on other grounds – mainly economic ones. These are the voters who Palin was picked to grab. No matter how much you dislike it, gender and race and age play a part in politics. This is because politics involves humans. 🙂
852 asanque I can’t understand how anyone anywhere in the world let alone Australia can get a qualification of any sort, when according to your beliefs nothing happened before 10,000 years ago. Because that encompasses a lot of History, Geography and Science. A friend of mine from the Wide World Church of God, said she just skipped those classes. Yet she is a teacher. WTF?
asanque at 852,
In the US, if she says ‘No’ she will get more votes … although not in the right areas for McCain.
Chris- where did you get the idea that asanque doesn’t think anything happened before 10,000 years ago??
854 – Chris B
Just for the record, I do believe in dinosaurs.
Given Palin is a creationist, and most likely a young earther, one suspects she doesn’t 🙂
It will be really interesting to see how the god vote goes in this economic disaster. I think everyone will be surprised.
855 – DG
Correct, she will get the fundies which she already has, at the cost of most of the independents (hopefully)!
857 asanque Yes I new that. You’re on the wrong side of politics, for that.
858 Chris
I won’t be surprised.
‘Most’ fundamentalists vote via their values, no matter how badly the world is collapsing around them.
They already live their world in denial so they are specialised in it 🙂
Poll: Obama Retakes Lead Over McCain.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/opinion/polls/main4456249.shtml?source=mostpop_story
McCain engaging in Big Lie politics.
I reckon there will be a big rush to see who the first of the MSM to expose the next big lie.
Whoops link.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/379343_schramonline17.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html
A nice, untruthful ad from Obama. It will play well in the Hispanic communities. As I have said previously, Obama is a politician, just like any other. This is a GOOD thing, by the way: if he was not, he would not be able to get elected president.
I just posted a link to a lie that Obama is telling, but it is in the spam bin. I also pointed out that I do not object to lying in political advertising. That is simply part of politics. It is not scrabble. Anyone seeing any politician as anything but a politician is not living in the real world. Our system is set up such that in most cases lying is necessary in order to win.
Obviously, though, you need to be clever about the lies you tell.
DavidG@ 865 set free from spam.
Frankly Megan, I’d be leaving David in the spam bin.
Anyone who justifies an ethics-free zone on the basis that politics “is not scrabble” (as if those who aspire to something better than mediocrity are merely childish) is a contributer to the lack of character, honesty and leadership that typifies politics today. I hear the same excuse every day in business and even in sport. Where’s there’s money or power involved then honesty or decency or character no longer matter.
Well here’s some news – they do matter. The disaster befalling world economic markets today is as much a witness to a lack of ethics as to anything else. Greed and self-interest masquerading as ‘commercial reality’. But what’s a few untruths and dirty deeds if the end result is a good one? Trouble is, the end result won’t be a good one. What makes you think you can build a better, more honest and just world by dishonest means? What makes you think that those who have operated according to self interest will suddenly do what’s in the best interests of the nation once elected?
Here’s a message that leaders in the post-Bush, post subprime crisis world will be hearing again and again – the bigger the stakes, the GREATER the need for honesty and openness. Leadership requires CHARACTER and if you lack it, bugger off.
Funnily enough, that’s a message Obama has been spruiking since day 1. It’s a change we can believe in.
Yeah Ferny, Machiavelli might have been extremely clever, but like Leo Strauss, the neocon guru and philosophical father of Project for a New American Century, both reckoned that is was perfectly OK to lie to the people in order to achieve politcal goals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
I spit on their graves! Metaphorically, naturellement.
—————————————-
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59275
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59314
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59267
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59316
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59325
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59322
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59271
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59278
Not so long memories:
When the I.M.F. pledged $20 billion to help South Korea survive the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, one of the conditions it imposed was that the Korean government allow ailing banks and other companies to collapse rather than bail them out, recalled Yung Chul Park, a professor of economics at Korea University in Seoul, who was deeply involved in the negotiations with the I.M.F.
While Mr. Park says the current crisis is different — it is global rather than limited to one region — “Washington is following a different script this time.”
“I understand why they do it,” he added. “But they’ve lost credibility to some extent in pushing for opening up overseas markets to foreign competition and liberalizing economies.”
NYTimes
…heaps of irony oozing out of all of this, isn’t there?
Ta Ecky. Reading the Strauss article it’s interesting to see the link between lying and strong leadership. Truth is that it’s the weak who need to lie – it’s the easy way out and generally is done for the purposes of self-interest.
But I would say that – I’m an ethicist.
So spit away dear Eck. It’s time for new beginnings. Let’s be done with mediocrity and those who perpetuate it.
I wonder, KR, if Keynes is smiling out there in the ether somewhere.
Yep, and Johnny Galbraith too.
—————————-
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59132
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59281
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59327
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd6M9RxY0fI&NR=1
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59093
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59272
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/59250
[I also pointed out that I do not object to lying in political advertising. That is simply part of politics. ]
DG, I find this view of yours almost incredulous. Lying is not simply a part of politics. Yes, historically, many politicians have twisted the truth or outright lied – that is the disappointing thing about politics as it stands today – but to go a step further and basically endorse lying as a valid tactic is pretty disappointing. It doesn’t have to be this way. And I can only disagree with your view on this.
#827
[I honestly still do not see what tactics that Hillary used that were a problem. I simply saw politics being played out as normal.]
I will probably regret bringing up Hillary again (!), but since we are talking about dirty tactics…
DG, the damage caused to Obama by Hillary is a consequence of her “playing dirty to win” approach that you have endorsed ona a number of occasions. This damage did not come about by staying in the race. That wasn’t the problem. It was HOW she was playing the game that was the problem. By employing Rovian-style tactics, she either stoked the fires of the various smear-based narratives now being used against Obama or planted the seeds.
I’ll give you some examples. “Bittergate”. It was Hillary and her surrogates who amplified Obama’s comments about guns and religion that she then used to paint him as elitist. That is now a theme that is still sticking to Obama after being further fed by McCain and other Republicans.
The Rev. Wright saga. The tapes were obtained by Hillary’s campaign and then sent to the media. Obama’s patriotism was already in question over not wearing a flag pin and Michelle Obama’s misquoted comments about being really proud of her country for the first time, but this was the one that really turned a flame into a bonfire.
You can argue that Hillary saved Obama by bringing up potential issues early in the race and therefore depriving McCain of these opportunities closer to the election, but by going in early with Republican-style tactics she helped foreshadow some of these potentially destructive (but blatantly false) narratives that we are still dealing with today.
And the ironic thing is that these and other tactics that you are endorsing as the sort of things politicians need to do in order to win actually didn’t get her over the line. She lost. But she left a trail of damage behind her by turning the nomination battle into something nasty and disingenuous. In fact, I believe it was those very tactics that stopped her from making better progress against Obama in the dying days of the primaries campaign.
Don’t make the mistake of believing that just because Republicans have won in the past by playing really dirty these are the ONLY ways of playing a successful game.
David Gould at 703
Nah, nah, na, nan, nah, na!
😆
873
Ferny Grover
I’m almost certain Karl Marx is having a chuckle or two! LOL
Watching the USA nationalising these financial behemoths is truly, truly incredible.
Warren Buffet called derivatives, ‘ financial weapons of mass destruction’ some years ago but nobody bothered to listen. You can’t say we weren’t warned. Ironic then that Bush trotted off to Iraq to find WMD that didn’t exist (accept as a nice pretense to invade), while they let Wall Street cook up financial Armageddon with some WMD of their very own creation.
(Maybe bin Laden is having a bit of a chuckle too, but I haven’t heard anyone suggest this)
Rachel Maddow rips into John McCain …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26764294#26764294
But that’s not all – Rachel has a few choice words for Palin’s record on women’s rights…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26764592#26764592
And just to go back to our discussion earlier about how smart or how dumb the American population is – well, this little interview should convince all of you that aside from Rachel and Kieth – there is at least one other thinking American and his name is Bill Maher.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26764546#26764546
Goodnight all!
‘It’s terra incognita, a place no one expected to visit.’
Almost dwalfy like neh? 🙂
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1842123,00.html
PS the wife of the man that Monica is dead…
‘Then there’s the right way, which involves asking the questions that really matter: How did we get here? How do we get out of it? And what does all this mean for the average joe? So take a deep breath and bear with us as we try to explain how financial madness overtook not only Wall Street but also Main Street. And why, in the end, almost all of us, collectively, are going to pay for the consequences.’
And that’s the way it is; for ron Ron’s & GG’s & even DG’s and why the Kid has skipped clear yet again.
Camel update pending…Next Wed, AIG will have unravelled, toilet paper will have been triggered & Kiss UR Super Ass Parties will be all the go; but no one is going to raise taxes! 🙂
LOL. Guest post from Soros anyone?
879 Catrina Timely, considering our discussion yesterday. Bill Maher does a lot of good stuff, if you enjoyed that. You can find him on You Tube.
Gotta love Big Mo.
Yesterday was the day he stopped, looked around at the national disaster surrounding him, realised he’d taken a wrong turn, noticed the old geezer and the brain-dead Barbie gasping alongiside him weren’t the company he wanted to keep, pooped himself at the thought, then darted back in the opposite direction.
And that’s the story of how The Kid got Big Mo back.
G’day Ferny. As one financial analyst said:”None of us have ever seen this, and it’s no market for old men, but risk aversion is the order of the day.”
It’s a good article about where this collapse is going (and how long it will take to work through the system):
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/worst-yet-come-investment-strategist/story.aspx?guid=55B21789-3A26-495A-B0D3-5AF3F6ABDA18&dist=SecMostRead
…I’m not exactly sure he meant McCain, but it seems an appropriate interpretation, eh?
Top o’ the mornin’ to ya KR!
No market for old men eh? Let’s hope the article is better than the dog of a movie he pinched the quote from.
And yes….the comments earlier this week of the old man in question (ie. “the fundamentals of our economy are sound – um …ah….I mean…the fundamental American workers are sound and they are the basis of our economy, right?! Um…er…I mean….the fundamentalists are far right….um…shuddup Palin I didn’t mean that. Umm…ok…What’s an economy and why is it making weird gurgling sounds?”)….were an indication that this is no country for this particular old man.. or Flopsy .. to be running.
Not much of a time for Republicans I’m afraid Ferny. They had many days to prepare for Katrina and didn’t, but with this they had years to do something, and didn’t. (And let’s not even mention al Qaeda and 911)
Not a good report card is it?
You’d have to think a lot of voters have noticed! LOL
Poor GoPers. The economy is being sucked down into the sticky ooze of The Tar Pit of No Return – and McWrinkly and Barbie are stuck to it – like it’s Brer Rabbits tar baby.
Down they go together……gurgle and pop.
I see I’ve missed a couple of discussions, but god I’m so sick of hearing about poor disgruntled Hillary supporters. If they really think the McCain/Palin ticket is the best one – whatever. It’s their vote. But it’s hard to believe that would be their genuine position given the divide between Hillary and the McCain?Palin ticket. If they’re sooking in the corner, refusing to vote for Obama because Hillary didn’t win, or didn’t get VP, then they stuff them. They’re just being selfish and petulant – Hillary asked them to rise above that. If they won’t, and McCain/Palin gets in, they deserve the government they get.
And about politicians lying – I’m deeply disappointed when politicians I support lie. I think as a participant in democracy, we have to hold politicians to account for that. I’ve generally found that those on the Democrat or Labor side of things are better able to criticise their politicians when they disagree with their actions or policies.
Short video of Ron Paul refusing to endorse John McCain – rips inot him on a few matters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOb3cC2FVIg
Ron Paul is working with Nader – who’s claiming 6% in Michigan
Interesting how I point out that Obama is using exactly the same tactics and people still talk about ‘Change We Can Believe In’ …
Campaign finance? Justified – because Obama was raking in the cash, not on any other grounds.
Lying in regards to McCain and Limbaugh? Well, we hate Limbaugh, so who cares? And McCain started it. And it is not as bad as what McCain did, anyway.
What happens is that people in general view the actions of people on their side of the ideological fence in a kinder light than the actions of those on the opposite one.
I am a pessimist and a cynic. Politicians need to lie to some extent in order to win simply because that is the way the system works. Human society has evolved many orders of magnitude times faster than human biology. One day, we may – and I think we will – reach the high ideals that people like Obama talk about (but do not completely follow through on, because they know that it is impossible …). But we are not there yet.
Until then, we simply vote for the liar who agrees with our ideology. And excuse them because they are working towards a higher cause.
As a simple question: how many things do you value that it is worth lying to keep or to get them?
And when the inevitable bleatingings of “Who would have thought this could have happen” start, point people to
Molly Ivins, dateline Oct 26th 1999
And I will give a few answers: my family, my friends, my life, the lives of others, the Republicans out of the Whitehouse …
If you do not think that keeping or getting any of those things is worth lying, then I think that your value systems is a little upside down. But each to their own, I guess.
891 DG
I don’t condone Obama’s position on campaign finance, but I am a realist. So if that’s what it takes to beat the Republicans so be it. Its not like the Republicans couldn’t also take up the option to raise their own funds.
That Latin ad was a mountain out of a molehill issue. Limbaugh is a racist and is getting what he deserves. McCain has flipflopped on his position on immigration multiple times. Regardless, I have no issue with giving right back to a pack of liars what they started.
If I was an idealist, I wouldn’t condone this behaviour and not support the candidate, but I don’t see the world in black and white.
I merely choose which side is the bigger pack of lying scumbags and turn my support the other way.
On an aside
Just how crazy and senile is McCain getting?
Spain is an enemy now??
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/McCain_camp_stands_by_tough_talk_on_Spain.html
Is there no-one indignant about Obama lying? No-one indignant about Obama over the whole campaign finance thing?
(Note that I am not indignant – these were smart political moves made by a politician fighting to win the highest of prizes.)
asanque at 894,
You and I seem to view the world in very similar ways.
There should be an agency that regulates politicians and awards fines or docks votes for egregious lying.
All politicians need accountability. Just like the financial markets need regulation. Without it, eventually one bunch of lying schmucks just wrecks the system.
However, to get to that stage, sometimes its necessary to fight fire with fire.
DG, I think a healthy democracy depends on voters holding their politicians to account. We can’t afford to rationalise lying, or cronyism, or corruption, or civil rights abuses or hegemony – it undermines a true democracy. Voters have a responsibility.
Katielou,
With both sides lying, how do you hold each side to account? I guess you can vote for neither of them, but how does that change the system in any way?
And I presume that you would, if given the opportunity, vote for Obama anyway … or am I mistaken?
896 DG
I do agree with you on a lot of issues DG 🙂
However, I am naturally contentious and we do differ in minor shades of grey and degrees.
However, its a lot better to have an intelligent debate then argue with the morons like GG and co. on the old board.
Anyway, back on point, I refer everyone to http://www.fivethirtyeight.com to check out the vast number of new polls today.