Obama, McCain roll through western swing states

Michelle Obama delivered the Democrats’ weekly radio address Saturday. In it, she urged voters to the polls while reminiscing about tagging along with her father as a young girl while he worked to register voters.

And what a terrific First Lady she will make!

"McCain, a Republican weighed down by the economic crisis"

This economic crisis is a gift to Obama. Without it, it'd be a Republican landslide. Unfortunately, too many Americans think: Economic crisis... Republicans currently in the White House... CHANGE! Doesn't matter that it was caused by Democrat policies.

Meanwhile, it's been announced this morning that Palin is going rogue in a lot of her appearances and even SHE is distancing herself from McCain! HAHAHAhaha... the remaining time of the presidential campaign is going to see a lot of that; Obama simply raking in the votes and talking about what he plans to do as president, while McCain tries to distance himself from Bush and Palin to save what remains of his career, and Palin distances herself from McCain for the same reasons.

smith - What else do you expect the media to announce? "Going rogue" - ha ha ha! Next they'll be announcing she's "going insane" or something.

Get ready for Vice President Palin.

Get ready for Vice President Palin.

Sarge you keep saying this. I'm ready already. I hope my preparations were not in vain.

Politicians mocking each other, that's new. About as new as politicians promising everything and delivering nothing.

sarge: "What else do you expect the media to announce? "Going rogue" - ha ha ha! Next they'll be announcing she's "going insane" or something."

Well, kudos for throwing in more than two words in your answer. Unfortunately, it's not much of an answer at all. I don't expect the media to announce she's 'going insane' at all (perhaps that she IS insane, but the fact that she is mentally incompetent being mentioned would not be a surprise), but I've been reading about the 'rogue' reports and it seems to be true. Most of the reports are coming from the republican party -- they are not merely media attempts at smearing. It seems the McCain supporters in the party are getting ready to blame Palin for the inevitable fall to Obama; and those loyal to Palin are getting angry about it and allowing her 'handling' to slip and for her to go against 'the script'. There's more than a little in-fighting going on, my friend, and it's funny to watch.

As for 'Vice President Palin', you can keep saying it, but that is most certainly not going to make it so. In fact, your 'predictions' always prove to be like a bush endorsement -- basically handing the victory to the other team. Mind you, I don't actually believe you have any sway in what happens; Obama's winning on his own credibility and character, where McCain is losing on the lack thereof.

Dude - "McCain's unworthy to be President"

Colin Powell, who's supporting Obama ( Obama's promised him an important post in his administration ) would disagree.

"you don't have to call him a thug"

I didn't know McCain was from Chicago! :D

sarge: even if Colin Powell believes McCain is unworthy, he supports Obama more than the former to be president! haha.

Colin Powell, who's supporting Obama ( Obama's promised him an important post in his administration ) would disagree.

Powell would disagree that the guy he's voting against is unworthy to be President? That's reaching, Sarge, even for you! xD

PS: Wherever McCain's from, I'm sure the citizens of that place are busy planning McCain's consolation return home after he suffers his landslide defeat to President Obama.

smith - Powell DOESN'T believe McCain is unworthy. Check it out.

It's over, let's not get worked up.

McCain may have lost because of the economic crisis but he would also have lost on the Palin factor. It was such a stupid choice of VP. He's 72 so stastisically his chance of dying in office is very high, greater than one in three. Palin is more clueless than even George Bush, plus she's a wacko with extreme right wing views and has very few ideas or leadership skills of her own.

But had there been no economic crisis or Palin I think Obama would have won anyway. America is in love with him.

Sarge: the definition of delusional is continuing to believe something despite all evidence to the contrary. The Republicans will be lucky if the electoral college doesn't turn into a landslide. Palin is setting herself up for 2012, but she is so polarizing, the Greedy Ole Party would be smart to go with Gov. Jindal of Louisiana in 2012 and forget they ever heard of that horrible moose-hunter from Alaska. Prepare to welcome President-elect Obama!

sarge: "Powell DOESN'T believe McCain is unworthy. Check it out."

The point is moot; he's voting for Obama.

Chessnutroastin - You're right, the election's over, Republicans and McCain-Palin supporters might as well stay home on election day. But then here's the latest AP poll which has Obama leading McCain by ONE percentage point, which, taking into account the margin for error, could have McCain in the lead again!

Meanwhile, here's some bad news for Obama - the average price for a gallon of gas is now down to $2.78.

Anyway, sarge, now that Palin has gone rogue I'm curious about where your support lies. I'm going to try and get this straight:

You love and support GWB, who is now officially in the books as the worst president of the US, even though he still has a little more than a week on the job.

You love and support John McCain, who hates and is clearly making a point of distancing himself from your beloved bush.

You love and support Palin, who is now going against her running mate McCain.

Gosh darn it must be frustrating being a republican right now -- and here McCain and Palin claim the have UNITED the party! hahahaha! A 'maverick united'.

sarge: "You don't know much about Sarah Palin."

What's clear is that YOU don't know much about Palin: she is now ripping apart what fledgling support remains in McCain's bid to be president. She won't be the next vice president sargie, and it's time to drop the denial. She'll be lucky if she doesn't get canned from her job in Alaska -- she deserves to be, but it's JUST remote enough from the rest of the country that she can hide and try to lay low.

But then here's the latest AP poll which has Obama leading McCain by ONE percentage point,

Right, except that nearly every other poll shows Obama ahead by 7-11 points...so I guess this AP poll is a maverick, so it's natural to cling to its maverickosity.

smith: "now that Palin has gone rogue"

Yeah, according to Palin haters.

"GWB, who is now officially in the books as the worst president of the US"

Yeah, according to GWB haters.

"Palin, who is now going against her running mate McCain"

She is not, but perhaps you missed McCain's introduction of Palin in front of a roaring crowd in Dayton, Ohio:

"She stands up for what she believes, and she doesn't let anybody tell her to sit down."

green: "it must be even more confusing to support Bush-McCain-Palin while chanting the lotus sutra. I have a gut feeling Palin would call a certain militant group (cough cult) of Buddhists a bunch of evil witchcraft doers, that is if she even knew who the SG are."

Ah, there you are, pasky... moot points in the holsters and all. Anyway, I doubt there is a single buddhist in the world who would vote for Bush-McCain-Palin, not that it has anything to do with the topic. Only fools who want war, hate peace, and have no idea about anything much would vote Republican this round.

smith - You'd be surprised how many Buddhists and people of all faiths are going to vote for McCain-Palin.

sarge: don't worry about pask... errr... courophob... err... I mean greensatindress.

As to Palin, again, it's not the 'Palin haters' who are circulating the news of her going rogue, it's from the Republican camp itself. The introduction you quoted was way back in the day, before she started disobeying McCain's order not to open her trap for reporters. Now she is openly flaunting his authority and very literally going against him.

greensatindress: despite all of sarge's flaws and inabilities to actually argue a point with any evidence or original thought, at least the poor little tucker makes an honest effort. You, on the other hand, have merely come on here to troll. Do you have a point?

sarge: "you'd be surprised how many Buddhists and people of all faiths are going to vote for McCain-Palin."

Oh yeah? Where's your stats to back this up? I know a whole hell of a lot of evangelicals who don't want to lose their grip on pressuring the president into trying to do things are predicting nothing but doom and gloom for when Obama wins, but please do show me a buddhist voting for McCain/Palin. I won't hold my breath, sarge... in fact, I'm quite positive you made your whole statement up and have zero proof, as usual, to back it up.

I have two questions:

If "it's over," and Obama has won/McCain s toast, why is Obama still wasting money and precious fuel campaigning all over the country?

I see Obama finally went to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother. Who announces days in advance that his grandmother is ailing, then continues campaigning in a race that's said to be over?

You'd be surprised how many Buddhists and people of all faiths are going to vote for McCain-Palin.

Yes, but the key is that many more Buddhists and people of all faiths are going to be voting for Obama-Biden...

Sarge, I don't want to disrespect anybody but anyone who believes, like Palin, that men were walking around with dinosaurs is indeed "wacko." Her denial of all scientific evidence and belief in fantasies leads one to believe that her brain does not function normally, ergo she is "wacko."

sarge: "If "it's over," and Obama has won/McCain s toast, why is Obama still wasting money and precious fuel campaigning all over the country?"

It'll be all the more a landslide for Obama when it's done. And anyway, even when it's over and won, Obama still has an obligation to address his constituents. I have no doubt in an alternate universe where McCain might possibly have a chance in hell of winning he would announce he's going back to Camp David -- errr... one of his many palaces -- I mean mansions, and relax with a prostitute like he's done in the past, but not Obama. He's still going around and getting out his message to the people voting him in in droves.

"I see Obama finally went to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother. Who announces days in advance that his grandmother is ailing, then continues campaigning in a race that's said to be over?"

Obama went almost immediately to see and spend time with his grandmother. He spend some time with her, cancelling all the campaign activities that were to be held during that time, and then resumed a couple of days later. He has shown his family values, and also that he has an obligation to his job as well. He and his grandmother, who received overwhelming support on the issue, expressed their thanks before showing the need to keep on working. You don't just stop because you know it's already over, sarge.... McCain probably would, which is yet another reason why he's unfit to be president, but not Obama.

McCain is never going to walk away from the Bush legacy however hard he struggles. A failed Bush administration is a failed Republican administration

greensatindress - That's easy. I want a better world for all of us. Does that make me your enemy?

I want a better world for all of us.

So vote Obama. Oops, it's too late and you threw your vote away.

smith: "It'll be all the more of a landslide for Obama when it's done"

So, Obama likes overkill and wasting money and precious fuel... hmmm...

"So vote Obama"

I said I want a BETTER world.

sarge: "I want a better world for all of us."

You have a funny way of showing it; supporting GWB who has led to increased terrorism and a complete lack of safety in the world, and supporting McCain, who is against bush and yet wants more of the same. Obama wants dialogue and to make the world better, and you believe he is therefore a 'threat'. You can't even see the irony.

Anyway, Statistician is 100% correct; McCain can verbally oppose and state his distance from bush, but he's more of the same package.

I said I want a BETTER world.

So vote OBAMA. Oops, it's too late and you threw your vote away.

"So vote OBAMA"

I said I want a BETTER world.

coulrophobic: "I think she'd mock it as the Amway of religions, a pseudo-Buddhism for people who like/need to take orders from others."

You switch back from greensatindress already, pasqi? That didn't take very long. Anyway, greensatin did make one valid point on the subject; the woman is by and large too much of a dolt to know anything outside her own greed and handicaps (and by that I mean hers, not her grandchild's). She can't see beyond spending heaps of her party's money on clothing, and your taxes so her kids can stay in hotels you'll never see the inside of (despite it being YOUR money), and then she pretends that others are the problem! haha. So, no, I don't suspect she would have the slightest clue what SG is.

sarge: "Lieutenant, you're really making yourself look silly now. Give it up."

That's rich, sarge, coming from you. Even if Lieutenant is making himself look silly, it's still lords above where you are.

I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government. I am tired of labels like Republicans and Democrats, these separate people. Instead, lets all join a human chain around the whole world and sing the song from Barney, or Kumbaya if you prefer. Who you vote for is not as important as voting.

I respect John McCain.I don't think he's necessarily a Republican or Democrat, ... He is part of the `Blame America Last' crowd. Mostly, he just wants to get those bastards -- whoever they are. They know who they are, and they know they're going to get gotten if he is elected.

I also respect Barack Obama. If elected, like Obama, we'll grab the most important word out of every sentence, ... The,' for example. Also,then say,I'm angry,' and the graphic will read, `America angry.'

They are both great men, and both are capable to lead a great nation.

Lieutenant: "If they are not in power by November 5"

Whoever wins the election won't take power until next January. You really should think before posting.

Looks like the anti-American hero's Sarah Palin is going rogue.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html

You really should think before posting.

Thing is Sarge, they've already taken power. Get your noodle around that one.

I wonder what GWB was thinking when he cast his vote. He must have hated voting for McPalin with cheese after they've been dogging him this week.

Tracey Schmitt, Palin's press secretary, was urgently called over after Palin wandered over to the press and started talking.

I hate it when the VP candidate just goes and does that.

But two sources, one Palin associate and one McCain adviser, defended the decision to keep her press interaction limited after she was picked, both saying flatly that she was not ready and that the missteps could have been a lot worse.

They insisted that she needed time to be briefed on national and international issues and on McCain's record.

"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."

My goodness.

I think President Bush secretly admires Obama and wishes he could openly support him like Colin Powell. Who knows? Maybe he did vote for Obama just to support a winner.

Sushi: Don't tell Sarge that she's gone rogue... he seems to deny it by thinking it's a Democratic conspiracy, even though it's coming from Republican sources.

"Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me...

"We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections..."

Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61631

Meanwhile, here's some bad news for Obama - the average price for a gallon of gas is now down to $2.78.

And some worse news for McCain. People no longer have the money to buy it.

The Republican National Committee on Saturday released a TV ad questioning whether Obama has the experience to be president. The 30-second spot, featuring the image of a stormy ocean, says the nation is in “uncertain times” that could get worse and asks whether voters want a president “who’s untested at the helm.”

I doubt that there is a single person posting here who has not at one time or another been tested at the helm. As far as I know, however, none of us have been tested at the presidential helm. That would be only the two Bushes, Clinton and Carter.

both Obama and McCain are untested as far as the presidency is concerned. I think that when it comes to selecting untested presidential helmsmen there are three important questions:

(1) Are they strong enough to steady the helm in rough weather?

(2) Are they skillful enough to read the swells and adjust?

(3) Where are they taking us anyway?

My assessment of McCain is that his strength is on the wain and long past the peak of his power, that his judgment as reflected in this campaign is quirky and erratic and that I wouldn't be surprised if his heading is back to the Isle of Tortuga.

And that parrot on his shoulder has got to go.

one of his many palaces -- I mean mansions, and relax with a prostitute like he's done in the past

You're engaging in very negative, dirty politics, smith. You're a radical.

Super: The truth hurts, eh?

Super: Anyway, I know it was kind of a low blow, so to speak, but since I was replying to people who enjoy engaging in dirty politics to show them how easy it is to bash their candidate if they want to play that way. In McCain's case it's especially easy because it's all true.

Sez - "People no longer have the money to buy it ( $2.78 gas )"

But just 2 months ago they had the money to buy $4 gas. Wow, I didn't know the average person's disposable income has dropped over 25% in 2 months.

smith - SuperLib had done gone and voted for Team Obama. Lay off him.

Someone needs to set up a 12 step program to help these republicans get over this fixation that they are going to win.

Someone needs to set up a 12 step program to help these republicans get over this fixation that they are going to win.

Real Clear Politics switched New Hampshire solid for Obama to just leaning yesterday. Lot's of folks are taking a second look at Obama after that "spread the wealth" remark and are now seeing that the guy actually means it. That isn't exactly change we can believe in, that is good old fashion classic liberal soak the rich tax and spend philosphy.

People are really paying attention now to this election and what an Obama Presidency and administration would really be like..........Nanny State. That's a hard sell and why even this late in the game he still hasn't closed the deal. I'd keep the cork on that champaign bottle you want to open right now. This is far from over yet.

sarge: "smith - SuperLib had done gone and voted for Team Obama. Lay off him."

Point out to me where I was arguing against him? Every single one of my comments was in fact supporting him.

"Obama is a condescending person. Anyway, like McCain said, if he wanted to run against GWB, he should have ran four years ago."

There is no couple in this race more condescending than McSame and Palin; both abuse their power and talk down to people; both call areas that support Obama not 'the real America' or call it socialist area, etc. If mocking McCain/Palin means you are condescending then the whole world is condescending except for McCain/Palin! No news stations are condescending; Saturday Night Live sure isn't condescending... bla bla bla. You get the point of your hypocrisy, I'm sure (but won't admit it).

"DXXJP - The cops are going to need extra help in quelling the riots when Obama loses."

Why, because he has a lot of black supporters? That's pretty low of you, sarge. Meanwhile, people angry at McCain and Palin clearly losing attend their rallies and shout out "Kill him!" and "He's an Arab! I don't trust him!" etc., proving if anything that it's the few remaining McCain supporters that haven't turned around and endorsed Obama that are the one's who will probably riot. You notice I say, "will", because Obama has this election in the bag and we're going to see if indeed idiots like those who shout the aforementioned out will riot when McCain loses on the 4th.

Bye-bye, and good riddance, McCain!

Wow! This just in:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081026/ap_on_el_pr/palin_pipeline

According to AP:

"Gov. Sarah Palin's signature accomplishment — a contract to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48 — emerged from a flawed bidding process that narrowed the field to a company with ties to her administration, an Associated Press investigation shows."

"Despite Palin's boast of a smart and fair bidding process, the AP found that her team crafted terms that favored only a few independent pipeline companies and ultimately benefited the winner, TransCanada Corp."

Sneaky Palin. And to think that there are Americans out there that actually want this kind of person in office.

Consequences of a John McCain win (v.cool video):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE

HotBox08 - thanks for posting that link about Sarah Palin's attempt to skew business in favor of specific companies.

The contract was 'big' news, but work has not even started.

Democrat or Republican, its the same party once the elcetion is over. In front of the cameras they're after each others throats, but behind the scenes they're patting each other on the back and getting rich off lobbyist money. As the Who sang, "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Don't get fooled again."

I'm hearing McCain may lose Arizona....

Obama the best man for the worst time.

Viva Obama!

Sarge,

I think you've got some faulty math going there, sarge. A 25% increase in gasoline does not require a 25% increase in disposable income. A 25% decrease in gasoline does not free up 25% of disposable income. I'm assuming though that most Americans are not spending all their income on gasoline.

Make no mistake. It's good news that the price of gasoline has dropped. However for the 250,000 people who were laid off in September, they won't be able to afford to buy it. You'll see more layoffs this month and in the months to come and very few jobs to replace that income at the same level.

As long as people had jobs, I'm sure the majority found a way to buy the gasoline to get them there. But there's a new group of folks whose income has dropped to $0--while McCain's economic fundamentals remained sound. Those are the people who can't buy gasoline.

SushiSake3 thats not only what I am hearing, McCain camp is now fighting with Sarah Palin on how they have shield her from the media and that she has not adhere to the scrip. hahahhahahah

mcain will win. remember how bush won in both elections.

sailwind,

Nanny State? A lot of people will be deceived by name-calling--which is what you have just done. This doesn't mean that they're taking a look at anything. It just means they're reacting.

Obama isn't goint to "soak" the rich. He is going to tax them more than previously, yes--3% more on taxable income over $250K. It will be a great pity if people start reversing their votes because of this kind of hysterical and misleading hyperbole.

McCain and Palin could win. But neither is particularly qualified--McCain by his age and uneven temperament and Palin her lack of understanding of what is going on in the world. Neither of them have a clue about what is required to fix the economy and the economists who have studied it seem to give the edge to Obama.

Nanny State? A lot of people will be deceived by name-calling--which is what you have just done.

You have a nicer name to package it with......Activist Government perhaps to make it more palatable.

He's the same old big Government activist dressed up in a new package that hopes people will not observe.

Best piece about Obama and his political objectives your going to read and it is not a hit piece in no way shape or form.

Mr. Obama explains: "if fate causes us to stumble or fall, our larger American family will be there to lift us up." He doesn't explain who get to be the parents in our new national family. Membership in this community confers or protects our "dignity," in the sense of guaranteeing "a basic standard of living" and effectively sharing "life's risks and rewards for the benefit of each and the good of all." Conservatives prefer to leave us "to face fate by ourselves," he notes, because they believe in "the Social Darwinist idea," which "requires no sacrifice on the part of those . . . who have won life's lottery."

Thus unity is for the sake of "dignity and respect," which require both "social justice" and "economic justice." The latter ramifies widely, demanding, for instance, that "if you work in America you should not be poor"; that a college education should be every child's "birthright"; and that every American should have broadband access. Mr. Obama does not follow FDR, who turned such socioeconomic goods into rights and called for enshrining them in a Second Bill of Rights. Chastened by the right-wing and middle-class backlash against welfare rights, MR. Obama again follows the example of Bill Clinton, who reconceived such benefits as components of "opportunity." As Mr. Obama presents it: "Opportunity is yours if you're willing to reach for it and work for it. It's the idea that while there are few guarantees in life, you should be able to count on a job that pays the bills; health care for when you get sick; a pension for when you retire; an education for your children that will allow them to fulfill their God-given potential." These are not rights, exactly, because that would imply big government to provide them. These are things that government will guarantee or help guarantee, so that you can take advantage of your opportunities and be protected in case your opportunities take advantage of you. Not big but merely "active government" will be needed to provide these "guarantees," Mr. Obama promises.

The difficulty is that the logic of these provisions is not very different from that of Rooseveltian socioeconomic rights. Mr. Obama says, "It matters little if you have the right to sit at the front of the bus if you can't afford the bus fare; it matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch." Actually, it matters a great deal (for human dignity, in fact), but the larger point is that this argument, that formal rights matter little without accompanying substantive or socioeconomic advantages, leads easily to turning those advantages into rights. Doesn't the little old lady have a right to a decent lunch? And if she can't afford it, shouldn't government pay? One doesn't know whether to regard the new formulation of provisions for "opportunity" as a prudent step away from big government, or as a covert invitation to it. Jobs at a "living wage," universal health insurance or even a single-payer system, generous (and rising) Social Security coverage, universal support for college tuition, tax increases to pay for it all—Mr. Obama's will be a very active government, indeed.

I read Nanny state all over it, do you have a nicer more P.C term I should use?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122453350967951279.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The how about we try a system of Social Darwinism flair with a Socialist style. Americans are intelligent and creative enough to create and try such a system. I think it would rock.

sailwind,

You can call it Nanny State if you like. But don't complain if people tell you that this is a derogatory term which doesn't really say anything about what Obama is going to do. I think you shouldn't use any term at all for what kind of state you think he envisions. I think you should just concentrate on the problems as you see them.

For example, in the three paragraphs that you excerpted, you might try to state your objections to Obama's intent as the author describes it. What exactly do find so problematic? that Obama wants us to provide a bigger safety net for Americans? that he wants workers to have jobs with incomes which support their families and allow their children to improve themselves? that he has ideological similarities to Roosevelt? What is the problem?

The article that you submitted is interesting. However, if you self-identify as a conservative--as Kesler does (and I don't know anyone who would dispute his call)--and you found yourself liking the piece, I suspect that you liked it for its tone. For the tone was clearly an academic anti-Obama tone. Now when Kesler writes a similar piece on McCain (has he done so?) then we can compare and begin to weigh the who the best candidate might be--at least from Kesler's point of view, which we will then know much more about.

Sez - There's nothing wrong with my math. if the average American was paying $4 for gas 2 months ago, he/she can pay $2.75 now.

Hotbox08: "Sneaky Palin"

I thought it was "Rogue" Palin.

Sushi: "I'm hearing McCain may lose Arizona."

I'm hearing Obama may lose the election.

McCain should roll right on home to his rocking chair.

He can and remember all his mavericking. heh...heh...heh < :-)

Sez,

For example, in the three paragraphs that you excerpted, you might try to state your objections to Obama's intent as the author describes it. What exactly do find so problematic? that Obama wants us to provide a bigger safety net for Americans? that he wants workers to have jobs with incomes which support their families and allow their children to improve themselves?

I think this quote by Thomas Jefferson sums up my objections pretty well.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.

I do expect to counter-argument that Obama's tax and economic plan will not take from the mouth of labor and bread that it has earned but just only on the top 5 percent. I'm not buying it at all, after all our Government just passed a 700 billion bailout and stuck all of us with the bill. I think I can trust for the most part for Government to screw up most everything they promise on doing for the people and in the end getting stuck with an even bigger bill. The bail-out is a prime example, and no Sez this is not a Republican / Democrat thing.

We have a big bloated Goverment that has to be reformed and once again be accountable to the tax payer for the mess they have made with our money, (just another reason the top 5 percent isn't just going to willingly let money they can shelter available to Uncle Sam, I know I sure wouldn't after what they've managed to accomplish with the revenue they are getting now!).

This should be job one for the next President before he even thinks of trying to enact any new ambitious social programs. Get our Government back under control and instill some fiscal sanity, in short LEAD again and set the example for the country to follow. Then you just might get the top 5 percent to cough up a little more because they see the Government can be trusted to actually do a good job with the nations purse.

We can't afford idealism right now in the next Administration it will not pay the bills we have already incurred, we need to address the problems that we have now and solve them and after that job is done only then should we start to look at how best to move our country forward toward a better social compact that would be acceptable to all of us as Americans.

I have much more to say on this but I'll leave it at this for now as I feel you might be starting to catch my drift as to my position on dare I say it 'nanny state' like Government programs and how Uncle Sam manages them once they in place.......Badly very Badly.

Sailwind,

One quick question. Should our government have purchased the large banks as the Bush administration did that were ready to dissolve?

Joe Biden wrapped up his 170th interview on Friday night after being picked by Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin, the Savior of the Republican Party, has appeared in only a handful of interviews, been trashed for her performance in nearly all of them, totally ridiculed on Saturday Night Live (and subsequently driven ratings for the show out of the stratosphere), spent weeks turning down interviews, been found to have violated ethics regulations in Alaska, billed GOP donors for $150K in clothes, cosmetics and a 'celebrity stylist' (no doubt she needs an image makeover to substitute for her complete lack of substance), and to cap off yet another great week for the McCain-Palin ticket, news has just rolled out that she is resisting advice from 4 Bush-handlers who have been instructing her.

The Obama-Biden victory on Nov 4th rolls yet another step closer :-)

"Joe Biden wrapped up his 170th interview on Friday night"

Palin concedes "The Most Interviews" contest.

"Palin... totally ridiculed on SNL"

Oh, well, that would definitely disqualify her from being vice president.

Sailwind,

One quick question. Should our government have purchased the large banks as the Bush administration did that were ready to dissolve?

On principle no. On a moral obligation to ensure people who through no fault of their own other than being encouraged by the Government to take out home loans that they never should have been never given in the first place. On the moral obligation that these very same people might now very well end up on the street without shelter. Yes.

Imperfect solution and a solution to put it in old Navy talk, sucks. And is just another reason we need to work on the mess we've got now instead of any new social programs in the near future. I have to be honest it's kinda mindboggling to me in the first place that we should even be considering anything else on the National plate except getting our house back in order after our national credit card, easy mortgage binge, all that was encouraged by Uncle Sam to keep the inevitable recession that we are now seeing at bay as long as possible.

Both parties are equally to blame as both benefited mightily from staving off the recession to their respective constituents all those years to get re-elected.

Sarge,

You got the first part right. The average price declined by 25%--over 25% actually using your figures. The part that you got wrong was here:

But just 2 months ago they had the money to buy $4 gas. Wow, I didn't know the average person's disposable income has dropped over 25% in 2 months.

Your math is right only if all of a person's disposable income is spent on gasoline. I'm not sure you mean disposable income. For example, the cost of the gasoline that you spend driving to and from work is not disposable income, but a necessary expense. But let's let that go.

Let's suppose that we are considering that all gasoline expenses are taken out of disposable income. And let's further suppose that gasoline expenses amount to, say, 20% of that income. Then a 25% reduction in gasoline prices is good unless your disposable income has decreased more than 5%: 25% of 20%. So a 5% drop in disposable income would constitute hardship.

But lets take it a step further. A lot of people don't have so much disposable income. Suppose your disposable income after food, clothing, shelter, work expenses, and taxes amounts to, say, 20% of your entire income. A 5% decrease in disposable income would generate a decrease in income of only 1%: 5% of 20%.

So disposable income would not have to decrease by nearly as much as you say in order for gasoline still to be burdensome. So, I still think your math is bad. But more than that, you have avoided all my points. It's not that people's income is lower, but that they don't have any.

sailwind,

The quote from Jefferson is false on its face. The sum of good government consists in much more than simply not taking from labor what it has earned. Good government must ensure a stable society with opportunities for its citizens. Good government must provide for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure. Good government must regulate commerce. Unfortunately, good governments must build and maintain armies. There are a host of things that good government must do and unregulated private contractors do not get the job done.

You refuse to believe Obama perhaps because you have the notion that anyone who espouses social programs must of necessity increase taxes and increase the debt. After all, that is what those with idealistic, socially-oriented programs do, isn't it? Tax and spend? Yet you will credit McCain because you have the notion that the lowering taxes and reducing the size of government is good and those who espouse that are "realistic". And yet look at the administration that have said exactly the same thing while increasing the bureaucracy and increasing the debt.

So, it's fine with me if you don't believe Obama. I don't believe McCain. It is actually McCain who is pursuing idealistic (ideological) solutions with respect to the economy. Those have failed and I don't think we need stronger doses of medicine that didn't work.

I must give you kudos as always Sarge, you try to see that bright light at the end of this dark tunnel for the Republicans. At this rate your party will soon lose both the House and the Senate not to mention the White House.

Too bad McBush picked such a poor speaker that she sank him.

If only she had the smarts to not stick her foot in her mouth. Your only hope is that maybe all the voting machines in the US break down for the exception of those in Texas. Then your party will win.

But at least we can say that this fun ride the Republicans have been on is almost over. To bad for the American people it was not over 4 years ago.

If only Kerry would have pulled out that victory 4 years ago. Maybe just maybe this great land would be better off than it is now.

Oh well, the good thing for some of us is that we are in Japan and not riding that crazy train back in the states.

Bravo zulu to you Sarge, I respect you for your hope and will, but at this time you of all people know it is all but over. I know you would never admit it, I would not either if I were in the shoes you wear.

But oh well, in the words of that famous American commentator, Live long and prosper! LOL

Alaska!!!!!LOL

Moderator: Please do not refer to McCain as McBush.

sailwind,

We should not be worried about the working poor, working 40 hours a week or more, who don't have enough to eat along with paying for shelter and heat? Most of the poor in America are working poor. Are we still subsidizing sugar beet farmers? I know we were for a very long time and I don't know that we still aren't. We have had corporate welfare for a long time under Republican plans. I am not for mass government give-aways. I do find it appalling that we do not make advanced education more affordable. That will always be my pet peeve. I believe everyone can learn and that it would immensely help our economy. While in Germany I saw how their competition in education was reduced. There was a lot less ridicule of those who could not advance in the traditional intellectual areas. Their technical education was not seen as the last resort for those who were stupid. Of course this is now known around the world and praised. I believe it is best to help people help themselves. But we really do pamper some companies in America. There will always be corruption if you try to help the poorest of the poor. It is just too easy to do. I would love to see the Federal government arrange food stuff items to get to more pantries. But someone would find a way to sell huge pallets of food to someone undeserving and pocket the money. I don't think we can use corruption as an excuse not to attempt to get food to everyone in need. That is no excuse for people going hungry. And I will admit that the bottom line for me is that nobody should go hungry. Lazy people should at least be able to go to a soup kitchen for sustenance. That is incredibly cheap.

I have not signed on to giving people who did not pay taxes money from the government. But that pales in comparison to the $700. billion bailout, the bank purchases and the unneeded war that sucked up hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. I do believe the main reason for handing money to people who did not pay taxes is to stimulate the economy. It is the quickest way to inject an influx of money into a struggling economy.

I just want things to be put into perspective. And above that all this lying about Obama being a socialist is ridiculous. Like I said on another thread if it is political rhetoric to win a campaign it is one thing (whether it is honorable is another question) but to try to sell it as truth on these threads is outright dishonest. I don't want to call Bush a socialist; I think he did the right thing. But I have to use him as a comparison to say what he did is the most socialistic activity that our government has engaged in, in decades. Government ownership is the truest form of socialism. Again, I believe it had to be done. I believe a depression is not an option.

Meanwhile the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's biggest newspaper, has endorsed Obama:

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation. Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Since his early acknowledgment that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.

I think that's the way "real Americans" will see it too. Having a mercurial personality does not make one a maverick. McCain has been all over the map; remember his attempt to paint Obama as a celebrity? Pretty funny in light of the fact his highest pay campaign staffer is a make-up artist. This reflects a poor sense of priorities as the economic crisis deepens.

Obama just kept honing his message in the face of guilt by association smears. He could have made something of Todd Palin's membership in the Alaskan Independence Party which in the mid-1990s approached the government of Iran about using some of its UN time to make an international pitch for independence. "The First Dude" would face grave difficulties in getting a security clearance, yet he would be the husband of the Vice-President????

By not getting down in the mud and going tit for tat, as many people wanted him to do, Obama demonstrated he's the guy you want to lead in a crisis, focused and calm.

You can call it Nanny State if you like.

Who's been expanding government, particularly presidential power for the last eight years? And this after Clinton cut back welfare state. Plenty of nannies in the GOP.

Nessie,

You'll get no argument from me on the expansion of power. But it seems to me more like big brother than a nanny state. McCain tries to leverage the nanny state notion. Obama, I think, is speaking into the silent outrage at the creeping big-brother-ism.

It's all Newspeak to me.

You'll get no argument from me on the expansion of power. But it seems to me more like big brother than a nanny state.

Yeah, a bit of both. Big brother if you're a peon. Nanny state if you're rich or a business.