Combining the effortless elegance of Maria Von Trapp's Meadow with the austere functionality of a Trapper Keeper since 2005.
Is McCain really quoting Irish tax rates on businesses? Does he not know that he's not as Irish as Barack Obama? He's playing with fire here.
I'm watching the CNN broadcast and Obama's been flatlining on the Uncommitted Ohio Voters reaction line. McCain's been up and down. Here comes the Ayers line, let's see what happens...
boring boring. crap.though I loved the way that Obama spun off McCain's talk on Palin's concern for special needs into pointing out that research on special needs requires funding, not a funding freeze. Drop the Hatchet, McCain!
Is Joe The Plumber the same guy as Joe Six Pack? Joe's a popular guy.Obama" "I'll tell you how much, Joe. Zero."McCain: "zero?" His mouth was open for about 6 seconds after that. did he forget to close it? He keeps referencing Herbert Hoover. How fucking old is this guy? The blinks are off the charts right now. Biden may have had botox, but I think McCain is on steroids (and not just the normal amount for his skin cancer and shoulder problems).
Strong second half of the debate for Obama on the CNN Uncommitted Line. We'll see how the snap polls go. McCain's definitely not getting the game-changer he needed.Does Sarah Palin's child have autism? How does she "know more about autism than most"? What?
I said that McCain had his mouth open for 6 seconds after the "zero?" comment. I was way off. 14 seconds.wow.
I'm pretty sure that "Joe the plumber" is neighbors with "Bob the Builder". McCain must be going after the youth vote. Brilliant!
McCain owns the under 10 and over 65 demographics.
I think Sam the Butcher is like "what the fuck?...." tonight.-N-Lo
Sam's been a troop-supportin Republican for years. And no props. For shame, Senator McBlinky.How's that game-changer going:CBS poll of undecided voters:Who won the debate?McCain (R) 22Obama (D) 53
and:CNN poll of voters who watched debate:Who won the debate?McCain (R) 31Obama (D) 58The game. She ain't changed.
from kos:Michael Grunwald: I'll tell you one thing: joe the plumber is laying some pipe tonight. Tonight is definitely going to be sacred for mrs. Wurtzelfarfegnugen.
The autism reference: according to this article, a child with Down's Syndrome has a 1 in 15 chance of getting autism - much higher than the chance of a non-DS child.
F' the undecideds. These "undecided" voters the networks keep interviewing are perhaps some of the stupidest american's I've seen in a while. Their analysis of the debate is weak at best, at this point if you haven't decided to lean one way or the other your opinion means nothing to me. I'm not saying you have to vote Obama or McCain, but to be undecided about the two at this point is just stupid. Pick one of them, or a third party candidate and move along people.
("anonymous" - if you want to repost your screed with some indication that you're a reader of this blog and responding to this post, I'll be happy to leave it up. But everything about your comment smacked of a generic conservative robo-post, in which we have no interest.)
Maybe I was trying to put some reality back into your blog, stop looking at the polls and stop your pathetic live blogging and hanging on every word of these debates.Kicking the Mcain Palin ticket now is like kicking a three legged dog, accept the victory with grace and class and maybe a little pity for that tired old man (Mcain).Dan,I challenge you to turn the corner and try to blog with a little bit more conviction on the facts not the fluff, I would like to think that you are more than ball washer for the dems.I am one of those perky upstart independents thats trying to find his way through all of this bullshit.Maybe I should drink some of your Kool Aid and kick back and not worry about it, if only it were that easy.Lets hope you don't delete this one.
anon,No, I won't delete this one. While I'd be more impressed if you used your name or at least assigned yourself a fake name or handle of some sort, I give you credit for at least responding with direct reference to the ongoing conversation in this blog as opposed to your previous more general rant, which I'll now reprint below in its entirety. After that, I'll respond to both of your comments.
the deleted anon comment:As Americans render what Catholics call temporal judgment on George Bush, are they aware of the radical course correction they are about to make?This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history. Consider.As of today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, anticipates gains of 15-30 seats. Sen. Harry Reid, whose partisanship grates even on many in his own party, may see his caucus expand to a filibuster-proof majority where he can ignore Republican dissent.Headed for the White House is the most left-wing member of the Senate, according to the National Journal. To the vice president's mansion is headed Joe Biden, third-most liberal as ranked by the National Journal, ahead of No. 4, Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders.What will this mean to America? An administration that is either at war with its base or at war with the nation.America may desperately desire to close the book on the Bush presidency. Yet there is, as of now, no hard evidence it has embraced Obama, his ideology, or agenda. Indeed, his campaign testifies, by its policy shifts, that it is fully aware the nation is still resisting the idea of an Obama presidency.In the later primaries, even as a panicked media were demanding that Hillary drop out of the race, she consistently routed Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania and crushed him in West Virginia and Kentucky.By April and May, the Democratic Party was manifesting all the symptoms of buyer's remorse over how it had voted in January and February.Obama's convention put him eight points up. But, as soon as America heard Sarah Palin in St. Paul, the Republicans shot up 10 points and seemed headed for victory.What brought about the Obama-Biden resurgence was nothing Obama and Biden did, but the mid-September crash of Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, the stock market, where $4 trillion was wiped out, the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street that enraged Middle America – and John McCain's classically inept handling of the crisis.In short, Obama has still not closed the sale. Every time America takes a second look at him, it has second thoughts, and backs away.Even after the media have mocked and pilloried Palin and ceded Obama and Biden victory in all four debates, the nation, according to Gallup, is slowly moving back toward the Republican ticket.Moreover, Obama knows Middle America harbors deep suspicions of him. Thus, he has jettisoned the rhetoric about the "fierce urgency of now," and "We are the people we've been waiting for," even as he has jettisoned position after position to make himself acceptable.His "flip-flops" testify most convincingly to the fact that Obama knows that where he comes from is far outside the American mainstream. For what are flip-flops other than concessions that a position is untenable and must be abandoned?Flip-flopping reveals the prime meridian of presidential politics. If an analyst will collate all the positions to which all the candidates move, he will find himself close to the true center of national politics.Thus, though he is the nominee of a party that is in thrall to the environmental movement, Obama has signaled conditional support for offshore drilling and pumping out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.While holding to his pledge for a pullout of combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, he has talked of "refining" his position and of a residual U.S. force to train the Iraqi army and deal with al-Qaida.On Afghanistan, he has called for 10,000 more troops and U.S. strikes in Pakistan to kill bin Laden, even without prior notice or the permission of the Pakistani government.Since securing the nomination, Obama has adopted the Scalia position on the death penalty for child rape and the right to keep a handgun in the home. He voted to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding in Bush wiretaps. This onetime sympathizer of the Palestinians now does a passable imitation of Ariel Sharon.No Democrat has ever come out of the far left of his party to win the presidency. McGovern, the furthest left, stayed true to his convictions and lost 49 states.Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial-birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades' demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse and Wright have long dreamed of?Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Barack wins, a backlash is coming.
vtk responseWell, anon, I left my Catholic beliefs behind years ago, but it sounds like what you're referring to as "temporal judgment" entails some sort of immortal higher judgment. Any judgment that I render on George Bush is not temporal in reference to some other judgment. He's being judged on his own failures in this world, on this planet. And spare me any argument about the existence of God, because this is not my first time in that philosophical rodeo.Your comments about a radical left "regime" in the US does not scare or intimidate me. I doubt that Obama and a Democratic Congress will move the center-right country significantly past the center, and if it did, I'd welcome it. Let me be clear, anon: I'm a leftist. If you disagree, you're entitled. But my opinions are not naive or uncritical. I'm doubtful that the Senate will get a 60 seat filibuster-proof majority, but I'd welcome it if it did. You make a point to mention what is a common Republican talking point / scare tactic: that Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate (based on his voting record). Then you point out how he flip flopped away from those positions towards the prime meridian, the true center of national politics. You then pose a the question: "Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades' demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse and Wright have long dreamed of?" I reject that the agenda of the left is the agenda of Ayers and Wright. The most liberal of Senators does not espouse their more radical philosophies (which is clearly what your comment is intended to imply). As for ACORN or Jesse Jackson, I don't have any problem allying myself with them. But, for the sake of argument, let's just take the general version of the question: Will President Obama, with a Democratic Congress, revert to the politics of the left that nominated him or continue the politics of the center-right that will (probably) get him elected President? I'm quite sure he'll choose the latter over the former. Why? Because he starts his reelection campaign on November 5th. With the country in a recession, he'll need to do everything he can to keep the middle of the electorate on his side. As you point out, McGovern and Jackson would never get elected in this country. Or to update that, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun, can't get elected in this country. So he's not going to revert to what you call "radical" politics. Not going to happen, anon. You interpret this as "at war with his base". He's already at war with the far left (think Green Party range) as a result of all the flip flops you point out. He will continue to be challenged by these people, as he should. In fact, I was saying last night that while I support the election of Obama, the work to hold him accountable starts the day after the election. The only real exception that I could predict to Obama's residency in the Center would be in his judicial selections which I believe will be center-left. He's not going to be radicals on the benches. Certainly no further from the center than George Bush went with his picks (and a market correction in judicial selections would be more than welcome).I think that covers my response to most of your original comment.
vtk response 2Your "reality" is relative. And again, hiding behind "anonymous" and telling me to stop my "pathetic" live blogging is, well, it's pathetic. If you know anything about presidential debates, you know that they are rarely won on facts or debating points, but rather on "fluff", appearances, manor, attitude, etc. This was true of George Bush in his debates and it's true of Obama in these debates. Consequently, being analytical about fluff, is hardly pointless. If you don't find it interesting, you don't have to read this blog. I happen to find the polls, and the strategy, and the ramifications of the different campaign decisions and statements very interesting. Which is why I blog about them. On my blog. If you need "the facts", I'm pretty sure they're out there somewhere on this wild wild web for you to focus on.If and when Obama wins the election, I will stop kicking the tired, pitiful, old, three legged dog, and accept the victory with grace and class (the total lack of grace and class in the dog's campaign notwithstanding). And, as I said in my last comment, if/when Obama wins, I'll start holding him accountable for his presidency. Your suggestion that I'm blogging on fluff not facts, that I'm a ball washer for the dems, that I'm serving Kool Aid indicate to me that you are a new reader to my blog. If you want to continue your attacks along those lines, do yourself a favor and educate yourself by reading a post I did earlier this summer called Erosion of Hope - Shame on you Obama. Read it and read all 59 comments that followed it. If you still think I'm a ball washer for the Democrats, then I'll agree to disagree with you and say that you're entitled to your perky opinion. (please also note the "Democrats are lame" label under the label list on this blog) I'm an "independent" too. And not an anonymous one.
I have read your blog and I do know on occasion you will hit hard on your post's, but recently I thought you were going that road of political bloodlust that seems to be so prevalent in the main stream media aswell as pop culture.By default we will all be better off when GB is gone but there are some very scary and difficult times ahead for this country and just as the republicans did with 9/11 i.e. the "knee jerk" reaction for what they claimed was "homeland security" patriot act etc... If Obama falls flat on his face in the next four years I fear that the dems won't see the white house for a long time ala the Jimmy Carter effect.And as far as you claiming to be a leftlist I'm cool with that but Jesse Jackson is a Jack Ass as well a rampant anti-semite saying our foreign policy is being run by the "great zionist agenda" wow!!What statement kinda sounds like Davis Duke huh!or maybe you like the corporate shake down artist well any I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.Thank you for taking time to respond to my first post you make some compelling arguments and I look forward to jousting again in future posts.And with regard to my anonymity I felt that the words where more important then my Identity.Brendan
Brendan,Regarding the name-v-anonymous thing, it's not that big of a deal and yes it's the words that matter, but when people I don't know start taking shots, it seems a little lame (considering I'm blogging under my real identity and all). Assuming you're not my cousin Brendan then it's all good (if you are my cousin Brendan, we're scrapping next time I see you!). In any case, thanks for recivilizing the discussion.No one's mistaking me for mainstream media. I don't feel any need to be unbiased. I think McCain and Palin have run a despicable campaign and I thirst for their political blood. I want them to lose badly. I want the direction this country has gone in the last 8 years to get a major rebuke in this election. I agree with you that there's a good chance that Obama and the Dem Congress will inherit a mess of a country and their performance may not be judged in that context, which may have negative consequences for their ability to get reelected. I think Congress has more to lose than Obama though, which is why I'd like to see a massive win in both the Senate and the House - so that they can withstand an electoral backlash next election and maintain their advantage. Again, my agenda is clear here.As far as the Jesse Jackson issue goes, I'm not going to defend everything the man says, but I would take issue with him being called a rampant anti-semite for calling out a US foreign policy that is unconditionally pro-Israel. I don't know the quote or the context, but every time someone criticizes the actions of the Israeli government or the US government's unconditional support of it, they get branded an anti-semite or a self-loathing Jew. That's bullshit. I have Jewish friends with vastly different opinions on Israel and US foreign policy on Israel, I've been very critical about "zionist" perspectives to them, and none of them have called me an anti-semite. The notion that Israel is beyond criticism is beyond reason. There's nothing David Duke about denouncing the extreme and oppressive actions of Israel.
Nice scam, "Brendan". Posting a Pat Buchanan opinion piece in its entirety as a comment, then allowing people to believe that they're your own words, and representing that you are a "perky upstart independent".what a tool. Buchanan would have at least left his comment non-anonymously. Learn how to think for yourself and then have the courage to back it up. Then you'll be a proper American.
I finally had a chance to watch the little Irish ditty about O'Bama, which I loved and was going to comment on, when I happened upon this lively, if not dated, debate. Since you pretty much eviscerated Brendan's / Pat Buchanan's arguments, I won't add to it. I really just want to say that I love that the Irish ditty was sung by a fellow over in Berkeley at the Starry Plough, a great Irish bar/cultural club that is sadly on the wrong side of the bay for me to go to regularly (or much at all). I'll try to, soon, though, and will report if the O'Bama ditty is sung.Also, this being a few hours after Game 7 of the ALCS, I feel that I must acknowledge the great game played by the Rays and especially the awesome pitching by Garza (one hitter into the 7th????) and also by Price, who my father-in-law wants everybody to know was very recently a Vanderbilt All-American and therefore the pride of Nashville, TN. It was a great series (and season, for that matter) and the Rays deserve every bit of it. I know I'm going to regret putting this emotion in print, but this feels a lot like watching the Celtics let one slip away in 85 or 87 or watching the Giants upend the Patriots this past Super Bowl. Like Barack says, these times call for a little bit of spreading of the wealth.
One other note on Brendan's cowardly plagiarism: it's particularly ironic that he plagiarized Pat Buchanan and then later called Jesse Jackson a rampant anti-semite for saying our foreign policy is run by a zionist agenda. I didn't know this ditty was sung out in Berkeley. I thought it was in Ireland. Good call.If memory serves correctly, Price is actually from Nashville, in addition to having gone to Vandy. I must admit that I am very surprised that they pulled it out. I thought they were done the moment the Sox tied game 5 at 7-7. Shocking. Good for the Rays. I did some time in Tampa so I've got a soft spot for them. Philly will be tough, especially if Cole Hamels gets 3 starts.
Dan,I think your last post's about me have been a little unfair and immature.1.I never made a claim that I wrote those words,I merely posted them.2.As I said in my previous post the reason why I signed anno was take attention away from me and put focus on another point of view (Pat Buchanan).3.And if referenced the author of the article you would have immediately dismissed him as right wing cook and pulled it which you did anyway, IMOthat was a cowardly act!4. After I called you out you had the balls to take on some of those points I felt you brought up some compelling arguments and as said before you would have never done if you know it was PB.Your responses are sometimes loaded with a lot of venom, you don't know me but you have accused me of some pretty agrigious things which is wrong of you to do that. and you called me a (tool) are you still an undergrad? I will take responsibility for being loose with my punctuation, but I never once claimed to be the author of that article and was accused unfairly.So get your FACTS together.Best,Brendan SummersCambridge
P.S.Do you really believe that Jesse Jackson isn't anti-semite??http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/jackson.htmAgain Dan you should get you facts together before you respond on your blog.Brendan SummersP.S.and the I have a lot of "Jewish friends" comment was a little insulting to some of the Jewish people who read your blog.
Brendan,What I said was that you allowed people to believe that they were your own words. When I replied to the (non-quoted) comment with repeated reference to "your" words (which was reasonable of me to have assumed they were), you made no attempt to distance yourself from them or correct me in any way in your response. You may not have actually claimed authorship, but I still find it to be less than intellectually honest. Were you trying to lure me into a position and then spring the Pat Buchanan trap on me? Also, why do you assume that I would be prejudiced by the knowledge that the author was PB? Despite disagreeing with PB on most things, I happen to think he is at least an intellectually honest pundit, something I wouldn't say about the O'Reilly's, Hannity's, etc of the world - the right wing kooks. Don't stereotype me.If I was a coward, I would have pulled the comment and not made any comment about having done so. It does happen that people spam-comment their political rhetoric and never come by to continue the discourse. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about screening that sort of spam, especially when you leave the door open for reposting and discussion, which I did. I obviously don't have any problem with fielding arguments from those who disagree with me. I'd challenge you to use your own words rather than reprinting an entire op/ed article from someone else. I think you'll find I'm much less venomous in response to that.Thanks,Dan
Brendan,That's a quote from 1984. I guess I'll just quote my own comment on this post that you appear to be taking issue with: As far as the Jesse Jackson issue goes, I'm not going to defend everything the man says, but I would take issue with him being called a rampant anti-semite for calling out a US foreign policy that is unconditionally pro-Israel. Take a look at the history of anti-semitic commentary from your boy Pat Buchanan sometime before you start throwing those stones.I'm sure that "some Jewish people" would be insulted by my "I have a lot of Jewish friends" comment, but I'm also sure that my Jewish friends would not. Oops, did I insult more Jewish people by making that comment?Dan
Brendan,Your boy PB just said that Obama would almost definitely be a centrist president because he knows going left is going nowhere. That's paraphrased but it's almost word for word. That was on the David Gregory Race For The White House show on MSNBC.Dan
Post a Comment