I watched it as much as I could. A whole lot of it was a rehash of the prior debates. I was expecting something different to come out of the last debate and sadly nothing did. McCain seemed more hostile, mad and at times terribly condescending towards Obama. Obama held his temper for the majority of the time though if it had been me I am not sure I could have been so calm and collected. At times it seemed like kids at school telling on classmates to the teacher. IMHO I feel McCain should have laid out his plans for running this country and not so much pointing out the faults of Obama. It reminded me of trying to make your competition look bad so they fail to see how bad you are as well.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 53): IMHO I feel McCain should have laid out his plans for running this country and not so much pointing out the faults of Obama

That aspect of his performance wasn't lost on most independent voters. He had some good chances to do so (like the flash of brilliance on energy independence), but really failed to deliver. I know several people who were desperately looking for a reason to vote for him, but ultimately did not see the McCain they were expecting.

Anderson Cooper asked David Gergen after the debate: You've advised four presidents - where do you tell McCain to go from here till election day?

The answer?? Gergen: Beats the hell out of me.

That about sums up where the McCain camp stands after today if they were really counting on capturing the independent voters they need.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6): Joe the Plumber

I know who will be featured prominently on The Daily Show tomorrow.  

Quoting Kappel (Reply 25): Gimme a break man. Lenin was marxist. Chavez is marxist. Castro is marxist. Are you seriously throwing Obama on that same heap?

Actually, I think he's pretty serious. It escapes me as to why, though.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29): The president has no influence at all on the budget or the deficit. Responsibility for taxation and spending (and therefore the deficit) falls on the House of Representatives. The president can veto, but considering the difficulty in passing these huge budget packages, that is a big gun that is rarely used.

To say that the President has no influence on the budget just isn't correct. As you said, he can veto it if he doesn't like it (and McCain has said he would). The responsibility is shared, just like the checks and balances system designed it to be.

-Mir

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 50): What if you break your foot while rock climbing..it your choice to do so...

It's your choice to go rock climbing which under any definition is a risky business. If you are going to do those types of activities (rock climbing, scuba diving, parachuting, etc.) then same as doing 70 in a 55, sooner or later your luck will run out. If you want to pursue those activities you should be willing to set aside funds, or have an insurance policy, that will cover you. If you can't afford it, you can't afford the sport. As it stands now what Sen. Obama is aiming for is for me to have to pay for your good time turned bad. While that is the nature of all insurance, at least a private insurance carrier can mitigate risk. A government run agency won't.

I just read in the paper where Sen. McCain finally got smart, as he should have in the first debate, or even at the convention, and told Sen. Obama that he is not President Bush and if he wanted to run against President Bush he should have run 4 years ago. Unfortunately for Sen. McCain he's way too late with that statement. While Sen. McCains policies are not perfect and I have trouble with several of them, he could have won with them if he had more forcefully separated himself from President Bush. Instead, and I fault his campaign advisers for this, he has run a horrible campaign and even though his policies are slightly better than Sen. Obama's, he's going to lose because of it.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 56): I just read in the paper where Sen. McCain finally got smart, as he should have in the first debate, or even at the convention, and told Sen. Obama that he is not President Bush and if he wanted to run against President Bush he should have run 4 years ago. Unfortunately for Sen. McCain he's way too late with that statement.

It was absolutely his best line of the debate, maybe even the best line of his campaign. But you are right that it has come way too late.

-Mir

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 56): It's your choice to go rock climbing which under any definition is a risky business. If you are going to do those types of activities (rock climbing, scuba diving, parachuting, etc.) then same as doing 70 in a 55, sooner or later your luck will run out.

I've asked my health insurance company about the issue of rock climbing and mountaineering in the past. Both of the agents I asked said something to the effect "Don't worry about it, it's covered. Statistically speaking we're more concerned about a car accident on your drive to and from the place you climb, and falling in the shower after you get home at the end of the day"

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 56): Obama that he is not President Bush and if he wanted to run against President Bush he should have run 4 years ago. Unfortunately for Sen. McCain he's way too late with that statement.

That was a clever well delivered line, no question. At the same time, I think even a nice one-liner like that is unlikely to separate McCain from the Bush administration. Even if he had tried to distance himself earlier from Bush, it wouldn't have been effective in my view simply because McCain is a Republican and his party has held the White House for the last eight years. The majority of Americans think Bush has been a disaster and they are going to hold the party responsible. That seems completely reasonable.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 52): The average annual premium for a single person in 2007 was $4400. The average for a family of 4 was $12,100. These figures are rising at about twice the rate of inflation.

Let's be painfully honest, shall we? The biggest problem with healthcare is the triangular scam of physician/insurance/pharma. Since insurance companies routinely pay for anything, at seemingly any price no matter how ludicrous, the motivator of competition is removed from the mix. I haven't been to a doctor in over twenty years so I can only go on what I have observed secondhand (having to take and wait for friends at the doctor's office). One glaring observation is the lack of anyone asking about "cost", not the patients trying to weigh a procedure versus cost, nor the doctors inquiring whether a patient can afford it.

I feel the general public sees healthcare the way a pet dog sees a veterinarian. You jump up on the table, get the cold thermometer stuck "you know where", and lastly get your treat and go home. No worries about price as it is taken care of by your owner.

Hmmm, my -owner- ........ is that ironic or what?   

Competition in healthcare is the only way to get real dollar value again. I'm surprised there isn't a good doctor anywhere that will only deal with patients and never an insurance company.

Also I do not think it helped when asked about the VP's ability to step in, in the unlikely event, McCain only gave brief and vague replies about Palin and then for some reason boasted about Todd?

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 19): Haven't you guys heard this one? http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=D2MKG2hFWao&feature=related

              

Damn that was hilarious!  

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): Read your history. First, Bush didn't cause the economic crisis, it began under Carter, expanded under the Democratic Congresses and Clinton. The Republicans and Bush have been giving warnings about it since 2001.

Oh boy!   

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11): When looking at the Bush administration having caused and now overseeing the biggest honking nationalization program probably since the soviet October Revolution and at the same time the lack of health coverage amounting to an acute crisis, such feeble stereotypes look decidedly pale by comparison. Yes, they will still work on the shrinking core of the republican base, but that's not how elections can be won.

I was thinking the same.

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 13): He puts down "the mother's health" saying it's a talking point by the "pro-abortion crowd." Hey McCain, you are not a woman nor a doctor; who are you to tell people that a "mothers' health" is political.

He is catering to his base. No rational minded person or doctor would write "the mother's health"off as political.

McCain had the nerve to say that Obama has never been south of the border. Guess what McCain, Sarah Palin has never held a US Passport until 1 year ago and has never left North America. Obama has traveled, lived and gone on diplomatic missions to more countries in his short political career than John McCain has his entire life.
That was also childish for McCain to say that his "feelings were hurt" when Congressman John Lewis compared his rallies to George Wallace rallies 40 years ago. John Lewis would know about this first hand as he experienced that time.
Yet McCain nor Sarah Palin chastised or called out people at their rallies that shout "kill him", "tear his head off" and "terrorist" yet McCain is complaining that Lewis "hurt his feelings" by comparing his rallies to segregationist George Wallace rallies 40 years ago.
Cry us a river John McCain!


John McCain came off as a angry bitter old man that only was preaching to his choir. Obama kept his cool and thoroughly answered every question and debunked every lie and criticism thrown at him by McCain.

Quoting Mir (Reply 55): It was absolutely his best line of the debate, maybe even the best line of his campaign. But you are right that it has come way too late.

There would have been a comeback had Obama been desperate - which he clearly was not and never looked like being.

"Senator, if you think your policies are so much better than the Bush policies, why you did not stand in the 2004 election?"

Quoting AirCop (Reply 35): Point #3 - I'm still waiting for McCain to say flat out that his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, was qualified to sit in the Oval Office.

Just thinking that Sarah Palin could become President one day if Mcain wins scares me!

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 57): Since insurance companies routinely pay for anything, at seemingly any price no matter how ludicrous, the motivator of competition is removed from the mix.

Um... no they don't. This is why so many hospitals are having trouble staying afloat.

The first problem is that a good portion of a given hospital's patients aren't insured and can't pay. But hospitals are required by law to treat any patient, regardless of ability to pay.

What happens when you get competing insurance companies is that they want to keep the cheap patients and dump the expensive ones. They do this by harassing the expensive ones and I have (and currently am) a victim of this. I have been told that I have no coverage, that my coverage is termed, and that I am not eligible for coverage in spite of the fact that I pay for my insurance out of pocket and know very well what I am eligible for and entitled to.

A single-payer national plan will end that game.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 57): Since insurance companies routinely pay for anything, at seemingly any price no matter how ludicrous, the motivator of competition is removed from the mix.

You mean examples like mine? When after having abdominal pain for over 3 months, losing 20% of my body weight (wasn't overweight to begin with) and eventually being doubled over in pain, my insurance company wouldn't pay for so much as lab exams because my primary care physician said "give it a few more weeks?" I had to go to the ER and pay out of pocket to get someone to help me and get my money back long after the fact with the help of an attorney.

Since you don't go to doctors it's a little funny for you to claim to be such and expert on how things work (or don't work).

Quoting Dragon-wings (Reply 60): if Mcain wins scares me!

Dont be Scared , I wont be scared if Sen Obama wins. Disappointed that my side lost and my issues are not popular ... but not scared. Why are you SCARED of Palin ? Please . What has happened to us ? Scared ?

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 63): Dont be Scared , I wont be scared if Sen Obama wins. Disappointed that my side lost and my issues are not popular ... but not scared. Why are you SCARED of Palin ? Please . What has happened to us ? Scared ?

Lets see she abused her power in office.
She is totally inept.
She wants to take away choice from woman when it comes to abortion.
She can not name a single news source she reads.
Only got a passport in 2006.
She uses her office to further her religious agenda.
She shoots animals from a helicopter.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 62): Since you don't go to doctors it's a little funny for you to claim to be such and expert on how things work (or don't work).

Well I do pay $3600 per year for health insurance I do not use.....and thus am entitled to an opinion. If I had all I have paid into insurance....I could have bought a house with cash....or even paid for a doctor visit in cash (perish the thought).

I have a relative that spent two days in a hospital room waiting for a room in another hospital to open up. There was no other reason for her to be there except to be close if something were to quickly change regarding her condition. The two day room bill was over $17,000 USD.

Someone please tell me why we don't put patients like this in the Hyatt Regency, with an around the clock nurse? It would certainly be cheaper.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 63):

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 63): Dont be Scared , I wont be scared if Sen Obama wins. Disappointed that my side lost and my issues are not popular ... but not scared. Why are you SCARED of Palin ? Please . What has happened to us ? Scared ?

Ok scared may not of been the right word, worried maybe? I mean Palin has said she has foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia (geographically).

Quoting Nirmalmakadia (Reply 64): Nirmalmakadia

Is that photo proof that McCain is now desperate for the gay vote?

Lets see she abused her power in office. Who hasn't?
She is totally inept. Proof?
She wants to take away choice from woman when it comes to abortion. Proof?
She can not name a single news source she reads. It's none of your business anyway
Only got a passport in 2006. Point being?
She uses her office to further her religious agenda. Proof?
She shoots animals from a helicopter. So what?


I can't believe you bothered to write all that down.   

Quoting Greggarious (Reply 4): Barack Obama can't complete a sentence without stuttering all over the place.

I also noticed he says "you know" a lot in the middle of his sentences. I never picked up on that before, it's not something I expected from someone with his reputation as a great orator.

McCain's comment about ACORN threatening the "very fabric of democracy" was more than a bit melodramatic and over the top. And when talking about threats against Omaba shouted at rallies, he went off into some nonsense about being proud of the people at his ralllies; the veterans wearing hats from Viet Nam, Korea, WWII etc. A simple "those remarks are un-called for and not in keeping with our beliefs" would have been all that needed to be said. That faux-patriotic stuff was just pandering to his base.

On Joe the Plumber - I saw a story headline earlier that said he doesn't have a plumbers license, but I didn't get a chance to read it and now the link is gone. Anyone else see that?

I agree with those who noted that neither answered the question about how much they'd reduce depnence on foreign oil in their 1st term. Typical of most politicians - if you can't answer a question, talk around it.

Quoting Dragon-wings (Reply 66): Ok scared may not of been the right word, worried maybe?

Alright , I guess that fair. But dont you think that you may be overstating the concern just a bit .. I mean she will only be the VP. And even if she did become President ...its not like she just has unchecked power ?

Just to clarify .... Our soldiers manning a check point in Iraq , or protecting a convoy out of Kabul may be scared. Non of us should be scared .

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 69): She shoots animals from a helicopter. So what?

Just that you know; Congress passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972, which made it illegal for hunters to shoot animals from a plane or helicopter. That law does have a loophole for predator control, permitting state employees or licensed individuals to shoot from an aircraft for the sake of protecting "land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 71): Alright , I guess that fair. But dont you think that you may be overstating the concern just a bit .. I mean she will only be the VP. And even if she did become President ...its not like she just has unchecked power ?

Well I am sure Todd will not be able to hold meetings in her office, though who knows.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 65): She is totally inept.

If she were totally inept, she'd be unable to complete a phone call, much less handle a state budget. Stupid wording.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 65): She shoots animals from a helicopter.

What does Sarah Palin, who has hobbies we don't like, have to do with Sarah Palin the state executive of Alaska? Your other points about imposing her religion are certainly fair - she wears it on her sleeve to a fault.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 73): Well I am sure Todd will not be able to hold meetings in her office, though who knows.

Heck, she might not even qualify for a security clearance; based on the fact that her husband is a member of a group that basically wants to overthrow the US government in Alaska.

How i felt..........

Coming from a conservative, McCain really hit this one out of the park.

-He showed that he is more qualified by not pleasing a certain group he knows can't be helped at this point. Obama says he is going to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, when we all know that will only increase the national debt to amounts that make what it currently is look like chump change. We can't rely on five percent to get us out, and it is those five percent that create jobs in the U.S. which ultimately makes the economy better.
-McCain's economic plan actually has substance: getting off foreign oil is the best way to cure the economic struggle, because if we pursue our own resources, thus creating millions jobs, the economy will get better.
-McCain's views on abortion make me respect him. Obama just doesn't get it on this issue. His record shows that he consistently votes to uphold Roe v. Wade, even though all he has said during his campaign is "with respect to the life of the mother." Cut the B.S. Obama. 99.9% of all abortions happen out of pure choice, no health risks. One of the main reasons I can't vote for him.
-Education Voucher are proven solutions to bad schools, Obama doesn't support them fully and can't acknowledge their success rates in bad schools.
-He points the finger at President Bush too often. McCain is not Pres. Bush, and even if he was I would support him even more because in my opinion Pres. Bush is a great President. (Ready for arguing)

It is for these reasons I have no doubt in my mind that McCain will win handily and put Obama back where he belongs. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for him, but he is a socialist and will weaken this country in a time where we need to rebuild.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 76): McCain is not Pres. Bush, and even if he was I would support him even more because in my opinion Pres. Bush is a great President.

Again kid, generally speaking, it's easier to accept a person's opinion when they don't include sanity-challenging statements like that.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 76): Coming from a conservative, McCain really hit this one out of the park.

Naturally, because he was speaking to the base the entire debate. That's not who he needed to be reaching though, and that's why he failed to secure votes he desperately needs. Instead of talking nonsense for five minutes about Colombia being our largest agricultural importer, he could have outlined specific plans for restoring American export strength.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 76): He showed that he is more qualified by not pleasing a certain group he knows can't be helped at this point.

Check your facts. Both candidates have budget plans that are completely unrealistic. Scheiffer asked McCain if he could balance the budget, and he emphatically said yes. You actually believe that crap? Both of these guys are telling bald-faced lies to the public when they talk about the budget, any way you look at it. From factcheck.org:

McCain said he could balance the budget within one term.

Schieffer: Do either of you think you can balance the budget in four years? You have said previously you thought you could, Sen. McCain.
McCain: Sure I do. And let me tell you...
Schieffer: You can still do that?
McCain: Yes.

These are pie-in-the-sky predictions. We've looked at McCain's balanced-budget promise before – it's out of reach unless he cuts spending to an unrealistic degree. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that by 2013, at the end of his first term, McCain's tax plan would have him facing a $662 billion deficit. That could come to more than half of that year's discretionary spending, which the Office of Management and Budget projects to be $1.1 trillion.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 76): Obama says he is going to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, when we all know that will only increase the national debt to amounts that make what it currently is look like chump change.

But he would be taking in as much income tax as we are now.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 76): Pres. Bush is a great President.

Ohhh. Sigh. I guess we're done here.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 72): Just that you know; Congress passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972, which made it illegal for hunters to shoot animals from a plane or helicopter.

Oh gawd......I suppose she should turn herself in right now. How lame.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 78): Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 76): Obama says he is going to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, when we all know that will only increase the national debt to amounts that make what it currently is look like chump change. But he would be taking in as much income tax as we are now.

That's not true..His plan will cost over $3 Trillion Dollars:

"But under current law, all the tax cuts expire and the deficit disappears completely. Democrats in Congress have vowed to preserve the Bush tax cuts only if they can cover the cost and keep the budget in balance. Measured against current law and against the promises of his fellow Democrats, Obama would rack up huge deficits. According to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2008/08/09/AR2008080901860_pf.html

That doesn't take into account his spending plans either.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 58): Obama has traveled, lived and gone on diplomatic missions to more countries in his short political career than John McCain has his entire life.

??? Lets see some proof. Senator McCain was born into a military family and so moved around as a child, was in the navy as an aviator for 10 years which means carrier duty and foreign ports of call, he has served in the Senate since 1987. Do you really want to stick by that statement?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 58): Yet McCain nor Sarah Palin chastised or called out people at their rallies that shout "kill him",

Debunked.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Secr...ill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html

SCRANTON -- The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled "kill him" when presidential hopeful Barack Obama's name was mentioned during Tuesday's Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 59): "Senator, if you think your policies are so much better than the Bush policies, why you did not stand in the 2004 election?"

And the reply would have been because only an idiot runs against a sitting President in your own party in modern times. Idiots like Ted Kennedy.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 81): And the reply would have been because only an idiot runs against a sitting President in your own party in modern times. Idiots like Ted Kennedy.

So then Ronald Reagan was an idiot..

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 80): That's not true..His plan will cost over $3 Trillion Dollars

Hmm. Maybe. Maybe not.

What about McCain's plan and it's costs?

tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.2 trillion (McCain) and $2.9 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years.

I honestly don't have the energy to read through the whole document right now, but there's a wealth of info.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...dPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf

But with less than three weeks to go, CNN's latest poll of polls shows McCain trailing Sen. Barack Obama by 8 points nationwide -- a mid-October deficit that only one hopeful has overcome to win the White House in the last 50 years.

http://www.cnn.com/

Well he did say he enjoys being the underdog.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 84): But with less than three weeks to go, CNN's latest poll of polls shows McCain trailing Sen. Barack Obama by 8 points nationwide -- a mid-October deficit that only one hopeful has overcome to win the White House in the last 50 years.

Gallup has Obama at only a 2 point lead amongst likely voters. But of course this isn't a liberal leaning CNN poll. So your "mid-October deficit" point is mostly moot.....political fluff.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 82): So then Ronald Reagan was an idiot..

Only half an idiot since President Ford had assumed the Vice Presidency and then the Presidency without having been elected. But he learned from his mistakes.

Rush says "Yes, America is a racist nation – but not in the way Democrat presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama and his cohorts Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Otis Moss III and James Meeks would have us believe. Many of those whites who will cast votes for Obama on Nov. 4 are suffering from negrophilia, an inordinate affinity for blacks (as opposed to antipathy toward them)."

Read his thoughtful commentary here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78065

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 87): Rush says

Uh. Why does anyone listen to this hate-filled drug addict?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 88): Uh. Why does anyone listen to this hate-filled drug addict?

Didn't click the link, did you? You will wish you had retracted that claim, I promise. Hurry I believe you have 30 minutes to edit.  

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 89): Didn't click the link, did you? You will wish you had retracted that claim, I promise. Hurry I believe you have 30 minutes to edit

LMAO. You got me.

I didn't click on it because I've heard enough of Limbaugh for this lifetime. I never needed to hear anything from this piece of work.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 90): I've heard enough of Limbaugh for this lifetime.

You and me both.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 85): Gallup has Obama at only a 2 point lead amongst likely voters. But of course this isn't a liberal leaning CNN poll. So your "mid-October deficit" point is mostly moot.....political fluff.

I call the BS flag on you.

  

As usual you are presenting things as you would like them to be, not as they actually are, and you are doing so without any evidence or support for your position. The CNN Poll of Polls is an average of numerous different polls (three polls per state), not a CNN poll. If you want to look at some of the source data check out:

Pollingreport.com

As for the Gallop poll you so gleefully point to, are you aware that this election cycle Gallop actually presents two different results for each data set? First, the so called "Traditional" poll, using essentially the same Likely Voter Model (LVM) that they've used in the past, and a second result, called the "Expanded" poll, based on a newer and revised LVM. This was brought about, among other reasons, because Gallup's accuracy in the primaries was less than stellar using their traditional LVM model. For their most recent data set, the traditional model shows a 2% Obama lead, but the expanded model shows a 6% Obama lead.

As for the "Liberal" leaning of all those other evil polls that show McCain in a bad place, you offer no factual rationale or logical argument to support your contention that CNN and others are deliberately altering their results. You offer no evidence or data, just name-calling. That sort of ad hominem argument is weak-minded and I suspect it says quite a bit about your own willingness to throw objectivity and truthfulness out the window in the name of unrelenting partisanship. Just because you and Limbaugh and FOXNews seem to have no problem doing that, doesn't mean everyone else is equally as unprincipled.

Obsessing about national polls is not particularly useful anyway because of the Electoral College system. This election is going to be decided in a hand-full of large "Battleground" states mostly on the Eastern Seaboard. If you want to look at polls, look at Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. John McCain needs to win all, or at least four, of those states to get to 270. Obama gets there with just two, or even one, if it's Florida, and he currently leads in all five and all five are trending toward Obama. That is a very, very steep mathimatical hill for McCain to climb.

Could that change? Yes,... no question

Is there any data that suggests it is changing? No,... the trend data is moving the other way.

Look here for updates at the state level:

RealClearPolitics

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): Quoting AirCop (Reply 82): So then Ronald Reagan was an idiot.. Only half an idiot since President Ford had assumed the Vice Presidency and then the Presidency without having been elected. But he learned from his mistakes.

Mmm, er no I won't say it! But tempting you know, tempting. 

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 92): That sort of ad hominem argument is weak-minded and I suspect it says quite a bit about your own willingness to throw objectivity and truthfulness out the window in the name of unrelenting partisanship. Just because you and Limbaugh and FOXNews seem to have no problem doing that, doesn't mean everyone else is equally as unprincipled.

You were on a great track there until you lumped an a.net poster in with Limbaugh and Faux News. Just stick to the arguments - you really had a slam dunk there.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32): Independents regarded his education and energy independence plans on pretty favorable terms.

Kinda shows that they weren't really independants, or are not informed. It has been widely reported that Polosi and Ried plan on reconvening Congress immediately after Obama's victory, and the first item of business, apart from tax increases, is to reinstate the congressional ban on offshore drilling, which Americans want, and we can forget about ANWR, which Americans want as well.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32): his apparent refusal to disregard ideology when considering Supreme Court appointees

Ah, the forgotten issue of court nominations. I hope McCain hammers him hard in the next few weeks on this.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32): I don't see where the blanket socialist label applies with those kind of results - it's a convenient word that when grossly overgeneralized and misapplied only makes the person using it look like a fool

"Income redistribution" and "share the wealth" and "some people should give up some of their pie so others can have more" should be dead givaways. Those are staples of socialism. You know what they say - if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's a duck.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32): So the government, one way or another, is totally at fault here? You clearly don't understand the dynamics of this crisis.

Generally speaking, yes, Government created a vehicle for risk to be removed from private enterprise, and risk is what keeps private enterprise in line. They also threatened legal action against major lending institutions that did not meet certain levels of high risk loans, in order to promote "affordable housing". The government essentially tried to rewire the mortgage market to serve its own needs, and they ended up causing a short circuit.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32): I have just one question: which administration signed Sarbanes-Oxley into law?

Bush of course, but it's been clear since then that while it had some needed reforms, it was basically an over-reaction to Enron.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 95): "Income redistribution" and "share the wealth" and "some people should give up some of their pie so others can have more" should be dead givaways. Those are staples of socialism.

Must admit that, Dreadnought, that, to my shame, when travelling in the USA I tend to follow the principle of 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do.'

I recall staying with my daughter in her apartment (E. 29th. Street, I think, just off Fifth Avenue) - in the winter, not long after 9/11. Fifty yards off Fifth. there's a subway grating, and there were usually two or three guys huddled in their bedrolls on it as you walked by. I always 'did what the New Yorkers do', resisted the temptation to give each of them ten bucks for a bed, and went on walking. 'Out of sight, out of mind' - fifty yards further on and I was being welcomed into the central heating and bright lights of the lobby, and conducted to the elevator by the receptionist and the doorman.......

That's NYC. But here in Melbourne I'd know to ring the Salvation Army or the Social Services or the City Council or even the police - knowing that they'd be looked after and helped.

I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with, "...some people should give up some of their pie so others can have more." I've always managed to make enough money, anyway (not without effort), but I have no objection to some of my taxes going to help people who are 'down and out.'

Personally I much prefer that sort of system to seeing them shivering and maybe dying on the street for want of food and medical care. It's sort of part of my interpretation of the term 'civilisation.'

But you appear to have a very different outlook?

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 92): I call the BS flag on you.

I am just relaying to you what is the headline on this site.....

http://www.drudgereport.com

GALLUP's 'traditional' likely voter model shows Obama with a two-point advantage over McCain on Thursday, 49% to 47%, this is within poll's margin of error...

That's -yesterday- thursday.....not last week or any time prior.

If you have a problem with the poll, contact Drudge or Gallup. Throw the flag on them, why don't you.  

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 92): Obsessing about national polls is not particularly useful anyway because of the Electoral College system.

Exactly, I was just throwing something I saw out there.....just another datapoint indicating it's too early for Michelle to be measuring for new drapes.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 98): just another datapoint indicating it's too early for Michelle to be measuring for new drapes.

Of course it is, MD80fanatic.

But personally, knowing the United States well, and possibly even understanifding it's political system to an extent - I've never before seen the Democrats having such a clearcut advantage in terms of states.

This gives Onbama a cleracut advantage in almost all the 'battleground' states. Not just the obvious ones - like New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Illinois etc. - but also places like Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Missouri - even North Carolina appears to be a toss-up...........

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

If you'd asked me even two weeks ago, I'd have said that, in my view, the United States was not yet ready to elect a non-white president. But that 'electoral map' gives me pause..........

Sure, there's a 'margin of error' in all polls. And there will inevitably be a measure of the 'Bradley/Wilder Effect.' But things do appear to be looking pretty dire for the McCain/Palin ticket.

I'm just crossing my fingers that the Roves of this world don't get REALLY desperate and start playing the race card.......that would have dreadful consequences for the United States, for many years to come...........