The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

[matapule]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

Here is the latest "sleaze" from the McCain camp. If Obama doesn't get "foaming at the mouth" mad about this ad, he doesn't deserve to be President.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

Yet another instance of a prominent evangelical leader being blind to his own hypocrisy.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cf...s-000002947340

Some critics of Perkins and other evangelical leaders have said their mostly positive response to news that Palin’s 17-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant was hypocritical. Perkins disputed that notion, saying his response was consistent with his pro-life beliefs.

“Even though she made a poor choice, she made a good choice by bringing the child to birth,” he said.

Interesting viewpoint, Tony. You say you're pro-life, and yet, you compliment Bristol Palin on her "good choice" to have her child. Yet by being pro-life/anti-abortionist, you and your like-minded peers are in favor of laws that would deny other women that very choice that Bristol made. In fact, by being a anti-abortionist zealot, shouldn't you have said that was the "only" choice for her, or that she would be condemned to the gates of hell? Heck, that's what pro-life activists who picket family planning clinics do.

Ohhhhh, but she just so happens to be the daughter of the GOP nominee for VP. For her, it's a "good" choice. Right on, Tony.

While the McCain campaign has argued in favor of Palin’s executive experience as a qualification to be vice president, Perkins surprised reporters in the room by acknowledging that he believes her selection was “purely a political pick.” “Yeah, I think so,” he said.

A religious leader like Tony "surprising" the media by actually being honest about what he thinks of the Palin pick? I give Tony some credit for this, but at the same time, you know that other influential evangelical leaders won't be as candid with their own followers. Like shepherds leading their flock to the slaughter.

This GOP pandering to the evangelical, Moral Majority faction that has increasingly alienated me over the years. Believe it or not, I started off being a political independent with no affiliation with any party. But it is these type of religious hypocrisy that has made my voting record probably appear more liberal than my political POV is.

[matapule]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

There will come a day of reckoning for people like Perkins and Palin. It's called blasphemy. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

Here are excerpts from the much anticipated Charlie Gibson interview with Sarah Palin, which will be shown in 3 parts on ABC World News Tonight.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...5782924&page=1

This particular exchange stood out to me:

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

So if Israel suddenly executes a pre-emptive strike against Iran, we could commit to cooperating with them, with no questions asked. No second-guessing, as she emphatically repeated herself. Hmmmm.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

Here is a link to an excerpt of the Gibson-Palin interview, part deux:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/131148

As this part shows, foreign policy is not the only area of weakness for Gov. Palin.

GIBSON: The state of Alaska, under OMB figures in 2008, got $155 million in earmarks for a population of 670,000. That's $231 per person in Alaska. The state of Illinois, Obama's state, got $22 per person. You got 10 times per person as much. How does that square with your reforms?

PALIN: We have drastically, drastically reduced our earmark request since I came into office.

GIBSON: But you still have multiple of any other state.

Message to Palin: Bad, bad idea to criticize Obama (or even Biden) for whatever earmarks they bring to their state, when your state is the worst offender when it comes to pork barrel spending.

GIBSON: Governor, this year, requested $3.2 million for researching the genetics of harbor seals, money to study the mating habits of crabs. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that John McCain is objecting to?

PALIN: Those requests, through our research divisions and fish and game and our wildlife departments and our universities, those research requests did come through that system, but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar. That's the abuse that we're going to stop.

Message to Palin: Your running mate hasn't differentiated between good pork and bad pork. Gotta come up with a better response to explain Alaska's pork projects or you're going to end up undercutting McCain's pledge to institute reforms on congressional earmarks.

GIBSON: So let me summarize the three things that you'd change in the Bush economic plans. One, two, three.

PALIN: Reduce taxes, control spending, reform the oversight and the overseeing agencies and committees to make sure that America's dollars and investments are protected.

GIBSON: So let me break some of those down. You talk about spending. How much smaller would a McCain budget be? Where would you cut?

PALIN: We're going to find efficiencies in every department. We have got to. There are some things that I think should be off the table. Veterans' programs, off the table. You know, we owe it to our veterans and that's the greatest manifestation that we can show in terms of support for our military, those who are in public service fighting for America. It's to make sure that our veterans are taken care of and the promises that we've made to them are fulfilled.

GIBSON: So you'd take military off the table, the veterans' benefits. That's 20 percent of the budget. &Do you talk about entitlement reform? Is there money you can save in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

PALIN: I am sure that there are efficiencies that are going to be found in all of these agencies. I'm confident in that.

GIBSON: The agencies are not involved in entitlements. Basically, discretionary spending is 18 percent of the budget.

Message to Palin: Don't confuse entitlement programs with agencies. This kind of gaffe will make you look foolish in your upcoming debate with Biden.

[matapule]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

I was just reviewing the financial disclosures of the individuals (actually only 3 since Palin hasn't released the information yet) in the Presidential campaign. Some interesting things come to light.

Obama reports the most annual earnings of the candidates with about 95% of his $4.2M income resulting from the sales of his two books. McCain was next (which includes approx. $24K a year in Social Security) but he did not include his wife's income, Obama and Biden did. Biden came in last with a reported annual income of about $320,000 between he and his wife, a community college professor.

Charitable giving is interesting. Last year McCain gave 27% of his annual income to charity, $211,000. But maybe he could afford to if living off his wife's income (about $6M per year) from one of the largest beer distributorships in the US. If you include McCains wife's income, their contributions would be around 0.3% of annual income. Obama was next, with 6% of their combined income going to charity, but that was $240,000. And certainly last and least were the Biden's who gave 0.3% to charity, a whopping $995......and that was the most they have given in the last 10 years! Biden spokesman David Wade said in an e-mail that the Bidens "also contribute to their favorite causes with their time as well as their checkbooks." Wade said Jill Biden has volunteered to help military families and the family "pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina."

I have read that Biden has the 2nd lowest net worth of all the Congressional membership. He is relatively as poor as a churchmouse and certainly not a Mormon where tithing to the Church is the norm.

Other notable charitable skinflints are Al Gore and Dick Cheney, who are both multi-millionaires.

I have compared my income and charitable giving to the candidates (no I am not going to disclose them here) to see how I stack up. Interesting, veeeery interesting.

"Nationally, more than two-thirds of U.S. households reported giving to charity in 2004, with average contributions of $2,047 that year, according to a study released in January by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Those households who gave to charity averaged donations of about 3% of their income, says Patrick Rooney, the center's interim executive director."

Interesting. Veeery interesting. I need to write a book!

[matapule]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

Greenspan Says McCain Tax Plan Needs Corresponding Budget Cuts

By Scott Lanman
Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the country can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without corresponding spending reductions.
Greenspan, a lifelong Republican and longtime friend of McCain, said today on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt'' that ``I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.''

Read the whole story here.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

Alan Greenspan[/URL] said the country can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without corresponding spending reductions.
Greenspan, a lifelong Republican and longtime friend of McCain, said today on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt'' that ``I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.''

As Palin said in her interview with ABC, they would look to make cutbacks in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. So if anybody here receives assistance from these programs, consider your warned if you think of voting for the McCain/Palin ticket.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign has been airing commercials that don't just contain smears and mud-slinging,.... they also contain outright lies. Almost every news organization, from the Associated Press to the women on The View, have been calling out McCain on this. But his campaign persists in telling these lies over and over. Why? Because they want to win. And his campaign spokesperson admits they will do whatever it takes. How sad that the one time straight-talking maverick has sold out whatever personal honor and principles he once had, that everyone (from conservatives to liberals) respected.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13412.html

McCain tells people to put "Country First." But after reading the article and looking at his campaign tactics, his slogan rings hollow.

[Kalalau]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

I wanted to find out if it was true that McCain used that 'C' word to his wife in public and found the following link:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain...n_92_0407.html

He does seem to have a nasty temper.

If you find that word offensive, either don't click the link or be prepared to see it. He said it, not me.

[tutusue]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

If McCain will do something that awful to his wife in public I can only imagine what he says or does to her in private. I wouldn't believe for a second that his low-life name-calling was an isolated incident.

The man (I use that word loosely) has a lengthy history of anger management problems and it predates his PoW years. Just what we need in a president.

[timkona]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

I see no problem with a little swearing combined with some anger. Those with soft shells, weakened by decades of political correctness, simply won't understand. The reality is that some folks do things that make others mad. Getting angry is natural.

[tutusue]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

I see no problem with a little swearing combined with some anger. Those with soft shells, weakened by decades of political correctness, simply won't understand. The reality is that some folks do things that make others mad. Getting angry is natural.

Anger is a human emotion and is not in question here. McCain's inability to adequately manage his anger is in question. I hold presidential candidates to a higher standard than vulgar name calling in public.

A question not politically motivated...Timkona, does your wife have a hard enough shell to withstand you calling her the "c" word in public? And, is name-calling in public "PC" in your book?

eta: Now that I think about it, McCain is the one with the soft shell otherwise he'd be better able to manage his anger.

[timkona]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

C word never goes over very well.
When Cheney said Go #%$& Yourself, I'm not offended.
I especially like to see reporters catch the brunt of a verbal storm.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

Anger is a human emotion and is not in question here. McCain's inability to adequately manage his anger is in question. I hold presidential candidates to a higher standard than vulgar name calling in public.

A question not politically motivated...Timkona, does your wife have a hard enough shell to withstand you calling her the "c" word in public? And, is name-calling in public "PC" in your book?

I'm totally with you on this one, Sue. Any man who would act abusive (physically or verbally) towards his family is not a real man. It's true today, just as it was true 50 years ago. Has absolutely nothing to do with being politically correct.

[tutusue]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3

C word never goes over very well.
When Cheney said Go #%$& Yourself, I'm not offended.
I especially like to see reporters catch the brunt of a verbal storm.

I prefer to see anger dealt with in a much more mature fashion.

So...the "c" word never goes over well. Ok, but I was asking if your wife has a hard enough shell to withstand hearing you call her that in public. How would she handle it?

I'm totally with you on this one, Sue. Any man who would act abusive (physically or verbally) towards his family is not a real man. It's true today, just as it was true 50 years ago. Has absolutely nothing to do with being politically correct.

Of course it has nothing to do with being politically correct, FM. Just trying to put it in TK's context!

Abusive behavior is a sign of insecurity. Just what we need in the White House, huh?!