US Elections 2008

[thermopyle]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Except all those other parents also don't educate their kids as much as they need to, and the kids don't listen anyway.


Also, when has an all encompassing sex ed worked?

And that disproves Palin's apparent hypocrisy how? She's been shown that her stance is false [by her own daughter no less] and she still holds that kids should only be taught abstinence.

I don't know, since when has there been an all encompassing sex education course implimented in schools without idiotic parents screaming 'Don't you DARE teach mah son/daughters aboot vaginas/penises!'.

[mg1942]

I just watched Romney speech... (Day 3)


Rudy must be slippin'. it took him 10 minutes into his speech to play the 9/11 fear card. Thank God Palin has the experience to know how to handle a terrorist attack. Not like she would sit there and read my pet goat for 10 minutes while the missles were falling.

[mg1942]

Now he's talking about how McCain would attack Russia for invading Georgia while Obama would negotiate.
Umm, what did Dubya do?

[mg1942]

The best one I thought was Mitt Romney..he contradicted himself with in 2 mins in part of his speech.

He mentioned in his speech that we need to "put an end to pornography in America's homes...", then goes on about how we need NOT have "Big Brother" looking over America!

lol well guess what Mitty boy yea can't have it both ways.. Either govt stays out of peoples private lives or it doesn't. Yea can't pick and choose what rights are ok and which ones aren't just to fit your own personal agenda.

oh and btw Mitt sure don't mind porn when it's helping make him rich.. Even Fox News called him on it...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288253,00.html

[solomon]

Napped through a lot of it unfortunetly, missed most of Palin. But it seems like a haven't missed much, just Obama sucks and all that.

[solomon]

I read a part of Mitt Romney's speech. We need a change from a liberal washington to a conservative washington, how the hell have we been a liberal washington?

Ok, I never really get too hot under the collar. But Mitt Romney's line "There has never been a day I've never been proud to be an american." I'm tired of people making digs at Ms. Obama, particularly, OLD WHITE MEN. SHE WAS A YOUNG BLACK WOMAN WHO GREW UP IN THE 60s YA SONS OF (bleep).

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Now he's talking about how McCain would attack Russia for invading Georgia while Obama would negotiate.
Umm, what did Dubya do?

If we try to attack Russia like McCain want to do, then we will be in alot of trouble with the Bear, Count on it. So I think we need to settle this issues peacefully without going in to attack.

I read a part of Mitt Romney's speech. We need a change from a liberal washington to a conservative washington, how the hell have we been a liberal washington?

That is a good question, when did Washington been Liberal, may be a long time ago but not now

[james0246]

I will try to answer some of these questions, but it is possible I will miss the point .

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

I'm more concerned about how both political parties are reacting to and dealing with the hurricane than people making speeches to their own political party, in which their own political party cheer in return. So far, I've hear McCain prioritize helping out with the hurricane over the convention. I've been shifting through news reports and other forms of media to see what Obama's doing about the hurricane, but I'm not finding anything. (Anyone have anything?)

Obama came forward awhile ago to specifically say that he was going to wait a few days to see what was happening before he headed to the area. Specifically, Obama, and McCain, did not want attention taken away from the possible problems that could occur.

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

So, in short, I can care less for either party's "What you can do, I can do better" national conventions. I've always been more for finding out what a person's worth is than what comes out of their mouths.

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

I know as well as many others that either party will probably continue to attack each other one way or another, as immature and pointless as it is. But, we, the voters, shouldn't be taking sides by jumping on the bandwagon to attack the other party. It makes those people's votes seem biased and unfair, as well as immature.

I understand what you are saying, and I do agree with your stance. But, you seem to be discounting that citizens, pre-debate, align themselves with the person they are comfortable with, not necessarily the person that could actually benefit them. Americans are seen as people that wear their heart on their sleeve. So, traditionally, many voters will lean toward a candidate strictly for emotional reasons first, and then take into account their political stance. Because of this, the candidates, and the media, prefer to focus on the, so-called, "narrative" that "speaks" to the voters. This "narrative" then becomes the sole focus being presented for any candidate by the politicians and the media. In the end, all the voter really knows about the candidate, pre-debates, is the "narrative".

We, consequently, discuss this presented "narrative" on these forums, either agreeing with it, or more likely disagreeing with the narrative, finding it contrived, silly, or just plain manipulative (for instance, the proliferation of the term "Hockey-Mom" clearly used only to manipulate the audience).

[Vexx]

About the only point I gave Ms. Palin (since she spent most of the speech discussing either Obama or McCain) was her characterization of the election as more "metro" versus "retro" (not her words) rather than "left" versus "right". In that respect, I tend to agree with her.

I'm watching the convention via a PBS digital channel. The camera frequently cuts to the crowd for reaction shots.... and it is rarely a flattering result :P

re jame's analysis above - I often get the feeling that the US "narrative" is breaking into two separate narratives that don't resemble each other in the slightest. This is not a good thing...

[Quarkboy]

I was watching the live internet feed over MSNBC and did anyone else see what happened after Palin's speach when Mccain came out and complimented the family?

Something was obviously supposed to happen, and/or the teleprompter got stuck or something because Mccain started gestering strangely to people on the side in like a really agitated manner (smiling the whole time, though), and pacing back and forth a bit... Then Palin says something to him and he makes another strange face and then after about a minute of this the applause has died down and he just sort of gives up and they all walk off the stage.

Something obviously screwed up and I wonder what it was? Maybe he had more to say than just "what a beautiful family"... or maybe baloons were supposed to drop or something.

In any case it was interesting because you could see his temper pop underneath the smiling and the waving.

[Vexx]

yeah, I saw that. Frankly the whole moment seemed to be intended to mirror the Biden surprise Obama moment and some technical flaw just deflated it (plus giving us another McCain veiled ballistic moment for those cameras that lingered).

Everyone,even his best friends, acknowledge that McCain has a triggerhair volcanic temper.... that single aspect of his temperament gives me pause.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by thermopyle

I don't know, since when has there been an all encompassing sex education course implimented in schools without idiotic parents screaming 'Don't you DARE teach mah son/daughters aboot vaginas/penises!'.

So, BOTH methods are unproven. Then how are you supposed to say that her beliefs are wrong?

Originally Posted by Vexx

Everyone,even his best friends, acknowledge that McCain has a triggerhair volcanic temper.... that single aspect of his temperament gives me pause.

We all know how he wrecked himself in 2000.....

[KholdStare]

In short, Palin's speech was better than I expect. I guess I won't make any early decisions this time and wait for the debates.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

So, BOTH methods are unproven. Then how are you supposed to say that her beliefs are wrong?

Um, that's not really true that "both methods are unproven" -- they've both been tested with statistical results. Ignorance/abstinence education fails. It isn't a question of "belief". This is a bit of derailing nitpick.

We all know how he wrecked himself in 2000.....

Actually, its quite alarming how many people -
1) don't remember the 2000 race (nor how Bush's campaign team slimed McCain).
2) don't know about McCain's temper explosions.
3) don't know about McCain's history with politics and banking (the Keating 5 scandal that he escaped from by skin-of-teeth... but its not called the "Keating 4" ....).
4) don't know that McCain has consistently voted against veteran's benefits.

I wonder how "Drill, baby, Drill" plays in coastal states and particularly in Florida where the fragile Everglades is part of the delicate ecosystem that provides the water supply for most of the state.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Um, that's not really true that "both methods are unproven" -- they've both been tested with statistical results. Ignorance/abstinence education fails. It isn't a question of "belief". This is a bit of derailing nitpick.

Perhaps. I'm mainly focusing on the hypocrisy argument more than the which method is better thing.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually, its quite alarming how many people -
1) don't remember the 2000 race (nor how Bush's staff slimed McCain).
2) don't know about McCain's temper explosions.
3) don't know about McCain's history with banking (the Keating 5 scandal that he escaped from by skin-of-teeth).
4) don't know that McCain has consistently voted against veteran's benefits.

I wonder how "Drill, baby, Drill" plays in coastal states and particularly in Florida where the fragile Everglades is part of the delicate ecosystem that provides the water supply for most of the state.

1) Yes, the South Carolina primary has entered national political lore as a low-water mark in presidential campaigns.

2) Yes.

3) That's questionable in my opinion.

4) May I have examples? Just curious.

[Archer]

A good speech in regards to appealing to the delegates of the convention. Hit a lot of points that the party agreed upon, most of which are red meat.

Horrible otherwise when considering that they barely touched upon the issues at all, instead opting to throw a bunch of mud at the opponent's faces.

I still have no idea what the campaign's policies are, though I have learned that community organizers don't have any actual responsibilities.

[Risky]

Honestly, I can't quite figure out what angle McCain hopes to sell to the public. It seems to me that he's decided to burn any chance of looking fresh or new, and has decided to go for the same old republican view of "Vote for us because Democrats are pussies", and it's getting so very, very old.

It's just my opinion, but going with the view that Obama lacks experience just isn't an impressive enough argument. It's not very new either, and quite popular back with John Kennedy. It's no surprise to me that this has been repeated over and over, because being the "young guy" always puts you down in the view of anyone older than you in politics, and you can't help looking like an upstart.

It's not like I'm on a soap-box for the Democrats here, after all they too have produced some real morons over the years. I'm glad I'm young enough to never had to hear about some of the previous presidential races, and I'm of the opinion there isn't ever really much choice between what either side has to offer.

That said, at least this time I think you Americans might actually have someone WORTH voting for. McCain looks just like every other douche-bag before him, and I really think that Obama is the clear choice here. Ok, maybe he's not all he's cracked up to be, but at least he's got workable solutions, rather than spin and criticism.

[Vexx]

In researching McCain's record, I find more of a mixed bag than I thought -- however most of his "yes" votes were for small amounts of money. He seems to vote "no" when larger sums are being considered.

Here's what I found from the least biased source I found:

• In 2006, McCain voted against a funding amendment (S. Amdt. 3704) to provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities [source: U.S. Senate].
• He voted against another 2006 amendment (S. Amdt. 3642) that provided the VA an additional $430 million in funding for outpatient care and treatment for veterans [source: U.S. Senate].
• McCain voted against S. Amdt. 3007 in 2006, which would have provided an additional $1.5 billion in funding for veterans' health care in FY 2007 by closing tax loopholes [source: U.S. Senate].
• In 2005, he voted in favor of an amendment to provide an additional $500 million for veterans' mental health care for each year between 2006 and 2010 (S. Amdt. 2634) [source: U.S. Senate].
• McCain voted for the successful passage of H.R. 2528 in 2005, which provided funding for veterans' benefits and service for FY 2006 [source: U.S. Senate]. [Vexx: basic department funding bill]
  
• In 2005, he voted in favor of providing emergency funding for veterans' services for FY 2005 (S. Amdt. 1129) [source: U.S. Senate].
• He voted in favor of an amendment in 2004 (S. Amdt. 3409) proposing a guarantee of funding increases for veterans' health care adjusted for inflation and population increases [source: U.S. Senate].
• McCain voted no on an amendment S. Amdt. 2745 in 2004, which would have increased funding for veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by "eliminating abusive tax loopholes" [source: U.S. Senate].
• McCain voted against an increase of $650 million for veterans' medical care in 2001 (S. Amdt. 1218) [source: U.S. Senate].
• Also in 2001, he voted in favor of a yearly increase of $1.718 billion in discretionary funding for veterans' health care (S. Amdt. 269) [source: U.S. Senate].

This information is out of context of course and I didn't look up to see which bills actually passed or what was actually needed to fund the items properly.

It was also noted in 2007 that he missed 10 out of 14 votes on Iraq-related bills (like troop deployment rotation).

Here's an alternative view from a prominent veteran's group in the US:
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9559
If naught else, it shows how it can be difficult to get basic information on a candidate's record.

What I get out of the exercise (I also looked at his voting on other issues) is that he prefers limiting budgets to addressing needs on almost any issue. That is pretty classic Republicanism dating from the 1980s Reagan period.

In Oregon, its why nearly all the bridges and road tunnels are close to collapse and the roads are terrible --- because the legislature (Republican dominated for decades) kept deferring maintenance rather than raising the funds.

Before the mid-1980s, Republicans were pretty big on spending what was needed for infrastructure and military and not so great on fuzzy social spending. Its one of the many "wrong" turns they've taken in the last 20 years as they evolved into the "robber barons looting the treasury" model of the last eight years.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Vexx

In researching McCain's record, I find more of a mixed bag than I thought -- however most of his "yes" votes were for small amounts of money. He seems to vote "no" when larger sums are being considered.

Perhaps he voted against because of other linking stuff that were pork barrels.....


Unless we see the exact stuff, I'll wait on judging. However, thanks for bring this up.

[mg1942]

Republican (GOP) Convention Day-3 - Palin's speech



I've had reservations about this lady...
The pick just didnt seem to make sense to me as all it did was make happy a group that was at worst hold their nose and vote for him anyway rather then vote for Obama.

After watching this speech, the entire ticket doesn't make sense.
Can we have a do over?


My impressions of the speech and the woman.

Impressive.
Very very impressive.


Now why doesn't this ticket make any sense to me? Because they (McCain, Palin) are assuming the wrong roles. SHE should be running for Pres and he should be the VP running mate.

Assuming all she said is true, she's obviously done a good job in Alaska. She obviously knows how to run an executive administrative position.

As far as Domestic matters are concerned. She is a better fit as president. McCain's experience in congress makes him better suited to foreign affairs and as a go between congress and the White House.

Based on my impressions of her as of now, and my impressions of McCain, I just think she would do a better job.


Anyway. VERY well delivered speech.
Nothing to really pick apart except maybe the abortion issue. And thats not going anywhere anyway. So its a non issue.

On a more humorous side note.
She kinda reminds me of a cross between the Flying Nun (Sally Field) and a librarian.

Other note.
Anyone else notice how her young daughter was loving the limelight?