Reality Check – President
Oct 15th, 2008 by RSmitty
If anyone was ever unclear, let’s settle this right now. I am not a Kool-Aid drinker. I prefer to know the reality of any situation, not what I wish it is or want it to be.
Reality Check – if the election were tomorrow, McCain loses. Tonight was his best showing of the three debates and possibly the least of Obama’s debates; but objectively speaking, Obama again came across as much more in command of his points, beliefs, and most of all, delivery. In possibly his worst showing, this REPUBLICAN thinks Obama still beat McCain in his best showing.
Sorry friends (if any of you will still call this realist a friend – some of you have already stopped), but McCain only hurt himself in the debate series. The way this campaign has gone in the last few weeks, of the new TV ads, I am expecting only negative ads the rest of the way, as well. Sad thing is, I will no longer be shocked if some of those chain e-mails end up as a subject of a future ad. Heck, I kind of expect it.
I was huge on McCain-2000. He’s not today’s McCain and that’s a reality.
They both had a prime opportunity to cut the negative personal attacks and be “the better man” by calling off the hounds live on TV, but noone took advantage of it.
If McCain did openly denounced the personal attacks during the debate, told his supporters to stop with the “Hussein” bit, and the Muslim bit, etc… , he’d be winning right now.
I guess we have all read the national blogs from time to time and the tone of the anti-Obama folks is amazing (scary amazing)! I keep seeing Marxist Socialist Hussein Chavez Communist evil one stuff. If I were voting for McCain, I would be ashamed knowing I was on the same side as these simpleminded low information voters. After this election, no matter what happens, America needs to get serious about raising the level of political thought. The crisis of Capitalism affects more than just the financial markets. Elevating shareholders profit to the central goal in mass media has caused the wheels to come off our civic understanding. How else do you explain more people know Britany Spears ex-husband’s name than know who the VP is? Not good for a nation that depends on democracy to survive. Not sure what the answer is, but there are way too many hostile misinformed low information citizens in this country.
This should sum it up. Al Franken opposed the bailout and McCain supported it.
Al Franken will potentially win a US Senate seat because he listened to the public!
McCain deserves to lose for not being a fiscal conservative, I just pray he doesn’t.
Fortunately, the election is still far enough off for people to get their heads leveled before casting their votes.
.
My wife thinks its hysterically ironic that Joe the Plumber may be the guy who flushes Barack Obama’s big-government dreams down the toilet.
.
How out of touch is McCain – even his token working guy makes a quarter-million a year.
That’s it, True Believers, line up behind your Fearless Leader and attack that token working guy.
.
(Shhh, be vewy vewy quiet, it could be a twap.)
.
Al, Joe the Plumber (Joseph Wurzelbacher) is not what he at first appeared to be. And he certainly was never under attack.
He’s an unlicensed and unregistered employee of a small plumbing and heating company in suburban Toledo, Ohio, for one.
For two, Joe does not understand the difference between gross income and net income. If he bought out his bosses company, he would not net anywhere near $250K, therefore he would get the proposed Obama tax cut on his income.
For three, if Joe bought this small plumbing business, Obama’s campaign said he would get a 50% tax credit to pay for his employees’ health care and have a zero per cent capital gains rate.
So registered Republican plumber Joe would benefit greatly from a tax standpoint under Obama’s tax cut proposal, a benefit I am sure he would gladly accept.
He better be sure to vote for Obama!
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=885575
Oh, thanks, Perry, now I understand. Joe’s a pathological liar, clearly unqualified to offer an opinion about such a complicated government policy as taxation, and just plain too dumb to be allowed to vote even once.
.
On the other hand, the enlightenened Barack Obama supporter should be assiduously sought out by their friendly neighborhood ACORN agent and registered to vote seven or eight times.
.
Thanks for clearing that up for me, bud.
.
Yep, Al.
That is exactly why “the plumber’s” views were picked by McCain to rejuvenate his campaign now fallen flat from the last person he picked, who was clearly unqualified to do the same…
How was John to know that underneath those boobs, lurked someone who didn’t read, didn’t understand anything but Roe vrs Wade, and had a twitch in her left eyelid?
I don’t think Perry called Joe a pathological liar or dumb, but if ramping up the rhetoric helps… The real shame is Smitty wrote a post that everyone is treating like an open thread. There’s a topic on the table. Care to address it?
In my liberal opinion, McCain did well in the first part of the debate. I know this because I felt nauseous.
The second half didn’t go so well for him. It’s obvious McCain is uncomfortable with Ayers being the main issue. I think he can’t believe his campaign has evolved into 100% anti-Obama. This is not his style, and he doesn’t wear it well.
Wow. Nothing beats the sweetly resonant tone of a struck nerve.
.
The end-game issue is taxation.
.
The end-game issue is taxation.
Bring it on. Obama wins that one too. The tax cuts for the rich didn’t work; they produced nothing but failure and debt. The results are in and are naked for all to see.
Republicans are wedded to the theory that if you give investors tax cuts and deregulation, prosperity will trickle down on everybody. Not only did prosperity fail to trickle down, we had to trickle it back up in a bailout (actually more of a gusher than a trickle).
Anyone who still says supply-side tax cuts produce prosperity should be given a Fisher Price telephone and a box of crayons.
You’re right, of course, noman: confiscatory taxation is the “mother’s mik” of economic growth.
Al – if your laptop gets stuck, just turn it upside down and shake it.
Way to debate, slowman.
.
And, Pandora, on Smitty’s open thread: I agree with Smitty. McCain comes across as erratic and unfocused. Obama presents himself and his ideas more clearly and with greater discipline.
.
Bring it on. Obama wins that one too. The tax cuts for the rich didn’t work; they produced nothing but failure and debt. The results are in and are naked for all to see.
Uh, no. That’d be due to the war and lack of control over endless government spending.
Oh, and Perry? Joe the Plumber isn’t a registered plumber, that’s true. That’s b/c he doesn’t have to be if his employer IS. Which he IS. You’d know that if you didn’t get your daily news from Kos.
lack of control over endless government spending.
The “prosperity through spending cuts” theory was disproven by Ronald Reagan in 1982; ever after that it has been a monumental fraud. I’ll admit it is a seductive lie though.
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” If the American people are foolish enough to elect Barack Obama to the presidency, we will have the equivilent of the triumvirate in Rome: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. With no checks or balances from the House or Senate (all liberal controlled) all America loses. Our system was designed and set up to contain itself through the opposing political systems. This one issue is far and away enough reason to elect John McCain as the next president.
Trouble with one party rule? Where were you in 2000?
On taxation, do you really want to be part of the free lunch welfare crowd? We have a $10 billion a month war, an expensive new Homeland Security, but nobody wants to pay for it? We want it handed to us for free? We want to borrow? That’s not conservative, that’s free lunch welfare. It is hilarious to hear people “worried” about Obama. Worried about what? He might socialize the banks and insurance companies or run us into impossible debt? I say regime change for the USA. Get radical.
He may not be the choice of many, for they are not informed, but McCain would win hands down — HANDS DOWN — if middle class Americans get the chance to watch this video before it’s too late!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY
As Farrakan says “A new beginning for Islam” and Obama says he’s going to “Change the World…” I see Joe the Plumber being more investigated than most of Obama’s advisors who are also being investigated for tax liens. Ohio Supreme Court says no go on the Acorn voter registration. The news keeps getting more outrageous! Yes, the McCain campaign doesn’t possess the vigor and message that it carried in 2000 and resonated with the voters. But holy cow, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that what Obama offers is more of the unknown. He is an enigma. He’s managed to rewrite his own history, play smoke and mirrors with the voters and non-voters, the lavish amounts of money given him both from our countries and other countries, we are laughed at. I don’t want this man and his ideas elected. I will proudly vote for John McCain because I believe in smaller government, lower taxes, strong defense, entrepreneurship, education and job skills, and of course someone who loves his Country.
Mister Dillen, aka Dan Gaffney (I think), I’ll post here the same reaction I had when this link was posted on The Talk of Delmarva blog on September 27th:
September 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
“This is pure, unadulterated, right wing propaganda, put out at a time when we are in dire need of a solution. For shame!!!
Anyone who goes through this carefully, and I did, can see it as no more than a partisan blame game attempt to cherry pick what the Dems did or did not do, when an honest evaluation would put the blame on both parties, but more on the GOP.
Don’t forget, the GOP held total power, all three branches, when this sub-prime problem and the housing bubble was becoming an obvious problem.
I say obvious, because even a novice like myself was calling attention to it on the older version of this very forum, as early as 2002 – 2003. I was worried when the Fed kept driving interest rates lower at a time when consumer debt (credit cards and mortgages) was increasing rapidly, along with the Federal deficit.
I had long discussions over this on the forum with “Rick”, “Weekend at Bernies” and others, pointing out how TV economist Kudrow was cherry picking and shilling for the Bush administration.
The main point is this: Bush and the GOP Congress could have acted to rein in Fannie and Fredie, and enact oversight on the investment banks. They did not. Neither did the Dems!
The CRA legislation in the late ’70’s, amended by Clinton and the GOP in the mid-’90’s, certainly greased the skids for the excesses that followed, but with good intentions, to expand the housing market to lower income folks. Lack of oversight by Bush and the GOP permitted these practices to continue. There were no Dems stepping up to the problem either, in fact, their opposition was unforgivable.
Getting back to the propaganda, please note the absence of blame placed on the excesses on Wall Street. These people must be held responsible and accountable, because they allowed greed to overwhelm any sense of propriety. Is there anyone today doubting their culpability?
As far as politicians receiving contributions from the likes of Fannie, Freddie, and the Wall Street investment bankers, why single Obama out? Most of them did! That’s one indication that we have propaganda going on here, certainly not truth seekers.
Dan, you ought to be ashamed putting this up as some kind of truth. You demean yourself and your party by behaving like this in the middle of perhaps the worst domestic crisis since the Great Depression.
We need solutions now, not propaganda and blame gaming.
You know how serious this is when we have Secretary of the Treasury Paulson getting down on his knees begging Congress to take quick action.”
And to you, Annie, I don’t share your claims, as I think most are inaccurate.
Nevertheless, I simply say that Barack Obama has been running for the Presidency for 18 months during which time he has been attacked by members of his own party, now by the GOP, from the extremes of both parties, and it continues.
My point is that through all this he has been thoroughly vetted and has emerged on a very positive note in terms of his readiness to take on this formidable task.
Admittedly there are a few like yourself who remain unconvinced, as always in any political contest; nevertheless the nation seems positioned to select Obama on November 4th, provided there is no large scale voter suppression, as there was in both 2000 and 2004.
I have a sneaky suspicion there’s still a lot we don’t know about Obama’s past financial and political dealings. So far, three major shady/questionable figures have been linked to Obama: Rezko, Ayers and Wright. Coincidentally, his response to each of these associations was that he either barely knew them or he was not aware of their behavior. Clearly, many take him at his word. I’m a little more inclined to think he’s either not being forthright or he is entirely too trusting, especially in terms of Tony Rezko. From everything I’ve read about Mr. Rezko, his sliminess was no secret in Chicago. I find it difficult to believe that Obama was completely unaware of his shenanigans.
I think the McCain campaign’s worst mistake was focusing on Ayers. If they were going to focus on anyone from his past it should have been Rezko. The core of Obama’s campaign has been an emphasis on bringing change in the form of a ‘different kind of politics’. His association with Tony Rezko (with whom he was way more involved than he was with Ayers), flies in the face of that.
I started out supporting Hillary. She ran an awful campaign. Now I’m supporting McCain and he’s running an awful campaign. Obama will win this election because he’s running a brilliant campaign. Unfortunately, a well-marketed candidate will not necessarily be a good leader.
The New McCain is a lot better than the old McCain but either would be preferable to Comrade Obama.
Obama is the greatest threat to the Republic that any major party has ever offered. His agents have already shown a bully-boy attitude towards any criticism of his rather thin but telling record. In the minds of the ‘selective civil libertarians’ who are part of his base, there are rights and there are rights. NAMBLA is worthy of support but nary a word is said against the New Censorship of Political Correctness.
The Obama attitude (and record) on the Second Amendment might be defined in the ditty that ended ‘hang your clothes on a hickory limb but don’t go near the water”. The truly criminal element is part of his natural base so why expect more of him?
He can preach Marxist redistributionism in the guise of ‘fairness’ and appeal to the economically ignorant who will consume gallons of snake oil in a time of possibly impending crisis. Yet who will blame the true culprits, the hustlers running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the politicians who recueved their campaign contributions?
Perhaps those Democrats who saw the McCain of 2000 as “GOP-Lite” thought of him as their favorite Republican. He has matured and tried to give an early warning about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but had as much impact as the mythical Cassandra. McCain has matured and is the only barrier to what could become a vanishing of both rights and prosperity and a new politics with a bais of a dependant class.
Art, it appears that you are a more astute observer of the political sphere than Colin Powell is — no way! To Powell, Obama is a transformational figure, well ready and qualified to be our next President.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but in my view you are out of touch with reality, as exemplified by: “Obama is the greatest threat to the Republic that any major party has ever offered.”
Again, Colin Powell says Obama is a transformational figure. Who is closer to the truth?
Then you follow that absurd statement by a series of unsubstantiated allegations, really nonsense, unconvincing to anyone but the extremes of the GOP base, who are already convinced. So of what merit is your invective?
Obama supports the 2nd Amendment, believes in the rule of law which Cheney/Bush have violated, believes in our tradition of a progressive tax system. And by the way, Fannie and Freddie were misbehaving before the unwatchful eyes of the GOP, who were in possession of all three branches of government at the time, as McCain’s warning was ignored. The Dems share in the blame too, for sure, as they ALL had their fingers in the Freddie/Fannie jar. But what about the investment bankers, mortgage brokers and realtors that you failed to mentioned, aren’t they accountable for this mess as well? You’re quite selective with your cherry picking, Art, excusing only the GOP from responsibility.
With the campaign that McCain has run and with his choice of VP, how can you possibly think that McCain has “matured”? Most, including many Conservative commentators and pundits, are saying that he has digressed, that we have here a different McCain now than the maverick he used to be, that we have pretty much another Bush all over again.
In my view, Art, you are not in touch with the realities of the times.
Where have you been, Art?
Dominique: “I have a sneaky suspicion there’s still a lot we don’t know about Obama’s past financial and political dealings.”
I disagree, based on the fact that Obama has been vetted about as thoroughly as any candidate ever in his almost two years in this campaign, first by Hillary, then by McCain.
It is not a question of marketing his campaign, as you can believe that the Hillary and McCain campaigns combined have some up with many allegations, but they are not sticking. Guilt by association, those that you have brought up, are a stretch to begin with. For example, what behavior do you see in Obama which could be even remotely described as terrorist?
You have a point about Tony Rezko and the 2005 land deal. Obama does not deny that charge, in fact he admits it was a mistake and regrets it. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
I suggest you check on Obama’s defenses on the charges that have been leveled at him to see if he meets your standards, at fightthesmears.com/search.
Obama is the greatest threat to the Republic that any major party has ever offered.
Art – Colin Powell all but mentions you by name:
youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_c5bbvmqc
The tent is getting a little too big on the right side.
Secretary Powell is a great American and a thoughtful respected leader. I think the basis he endorsed Senator Obama may help sooth the fears of some soft Obama voters which may be all Senator Obama needs. I don’t think it will be impactful. The reasons he gave fly in the face of almost everyone leaning McCain. Who wants more liberals on the court? Over 60% of the people want conservative judges according to Rasmussen. The war is on a path to success so should we elect a guy that doesn’t understand how to end it?
I don’t agree with his basis, but it was reasoned. The saving grace for McCain is that he won’t campaign for Obama. That could have sealed the deal. The picture of an elder statesman republican like Powell with Obama could have done more good than Ayers or Wright have done harm. I trust General Powell with national security. The fact that he trusts Obama Biden says something to some voters. We shall see how many.
Over 60% of the people want conservative judges according to Rasmussen.
No they do not.
The word “conservative” or “liberal” do not appear in the survey questions:
Here is the question that got the 60% response; it is actually a ridiculous poll question:
2* Should the Supreme Court make decisions based on what’s written in the Constitution and legal precedents or should it be guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice?
60% What’s written in the constitution
30% It should be guided by fairness and justice
11% Not sure.
The thing about conservatives is that we follow principles not people. All of our current “leaders” could endorse Obama and the conservative base would remain unchanged, unless there are real conservative principles behind it. Insomuch as a person lives by the principles we follow, we will accept their representation. However, I didn’t find anything in Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama that really represented my principles. The same is true of all the so-called conservative leaders that hopped on the Obama train. They can’t be conservative leaders if they don’t lead in a conservative direction.