But I do think I've been too hard on you and I'm sorry about that. I love your posts in the GARM. I'm just really prickly about this "everything sucks," "all politicians are crooks" stuff. It makes it really easy for the real crooks to get away with things that really suck.
That's not too surprising. They were aiming it at you guys. It seems pretty clear they accomplished their goal. The more interesting question is was that a smart goal.
Is the reason that you make more than $250,000/year and don't want higher taxes? If so, I can understand that. If it's some other reason I'd be interested in talking about it.
Given the last two elections... and the two before it (in which Republicans threw votes at Perot, and Clinton had less than 50% of the vote)... why "yes, of course." SOLIDIFIED = WIN
Party ID has changed dramatically since the last two presidential elections, IROC it. Maybe you missed that memo along with the various ones that demonstrated that that myth about Al Qaeda in Iraq before Saddam was just some lies the Bush folks told you. (And, again, if I were you I'd be really pissed about getting played like that.) I agree with this take on tonight: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/great-speech-for-both-bases.html A Great Speech, For Both Bases St. Paul delegates are giddy with Sarah Palin’s speech. The mood is buoyant, enlivened, energized. It’s a party. There are revelers. The faces shine with joy and pleasure at a convention finally fully underway. Their VP nominee did it – she hit it out of the park. There is joy in Mudville, here on the ground. And it worked wonders – for the Dems. In the past several hours, Dems I’ve spoken with and who’ve flooded my inbox are energized. A woman friend and Democrat who had not worked for Obama’s campaign: “I am volunteering tomorrow.” An Obama organizer who was operating on fumes five months ago: “They are not getting away with this. 10 hours of call time tomorrow.” A shorter read of the mood: “Let’s get it on.” The mockery went too far. They played the “Obama doesn’t love America, just himself” card, over and over and over. For people already inclined to believe that (i.e., the hardcore Republican base), the speech was a smashing success. Maybe they will work a little harder, volunteer a few more hours, dig a little deeper into their pockets. But so will partisan Dems, who are far more plugged into watching the election coverage. So my reaction: St. Paul loved this speech… and so did Chicago. Palin swung for the fences, mocking the very notion of community organizing. So did Giuliani. This was the day after “Service” was the theme, and Republicans fell all over themselves praising their party’s commitment to give back to the community. Jarring. Fire up both bases equally, it’s not even close. Obama wins going away. In 2008, there are so many more Democrats, numerically. So, everyone on both partisan side has reason to celebrate tonight. Republicans can celebrate a true champion in the VP role. Dems can celebrate because the numbers don’t lie, and no energy occurs in a vacuum. Republicans can’t tie this year.
Well we completely disagree that it's good for America either way, but that was a nice, civil response. I really do wish you'd go look into that Al Qaeda/Iraq thing though, IROC it. I think you would be very surprised to learn how you've been misled. And I think it would be a shame if you just let them get away with it by not checking it out.
As I have said before I am an undecided moderate... been that way since I voted for the first time for Humphrey in '68 at the age of twenty-one. As for her speech it was ok. It was what was needed. It will help Mccain's camp get its bump in the polls that will come out for it in the next 6-8 days just exactly like what happened for Obama's campaign. But what I took away from it was pretty much nothing. Just like I took absolutely nothing away from Biden's and Obama's collective speeches as well. I expect to take absolutely nothing away form Mccain's speech as well. These speeches have and always fallen under the category of "great speeches with no substance". They are great for revving up a crowd and a base for the parties. After Mccain is done lets get to the debates. The serious stuff and not these over-hyped pep rallies that don't mean a thing. As for where I lean right now. After the DNC, PailnGate (which out of all the stories I have taken about two serious that I will watch with interest) and now Palin's speech I still remain split right down the middle on Obama/Biden and Mccain/Palin. As it is right now I doubt the next and final speech will change that and as I said before after Mccain is done lets get to the debates and finally see if some worthwhile substance can be squeezed out of either of these campaigns that can help those who haven't already decided like me start the process of making a final choice.
You don't think it's great history for a woman to possibly be a Veep? How strange... I've done all the checking I need to do. Right here in this bbs. It was all brought up, ad nauseum. I've also read the full 9/11 report (own a copy). I also don't think JFK was killed with more than one bullet... Nor did Roswell have real aliens. It'll be okay. I'm not "pissed" as you say.
^That's cool. I'm unclear on this though: do you still believe the Al Qaeda-Iraq connections or did you figure out that you were mistaken about that? If you're implying that what I posted was a conspiracy theory, you have it backwards. No serious person in public life right now (politician or media) would tell you that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq before we invaded. They would all tell you the opposite. I just wanted to make sure you were clear on that now since you had it backwards as recently as earlier tonight.
Im a college student at UT.. and believe it or not, a hobo I talked to on 6th street brought up a very good point and before you make a comment, 1. I wasnt drunk 2. I wasnt high 3. He wasnt high or drunk AS much as Id love to deny, there will obviously be concerns for McCain or Obama to finish their terms. As much as Id hate to say it, there are people out there willing to assassinate him just on the basis of his skin color and McCain is a old guy and you can never deny the fact that he may die in office from age. Thus, VP becomes a big factor... of the two VPs, which would you have lead the nation if something happens to the president? Joe Biden- at age 30, he became Senator of USA... he is now 65 years old. So a good 30+ years of governmental experience. Sarah Palin-44 years old, mayor of Wasilla from 96-02, knowledge in oil/gas/energy, failed attempt @ governor election in 2002 but elected few years later. Now, dont get me wrong, the vote should be based on the presidential candidates but there will be various voters out there that will have changed their vote not too long ago based on the VP picks. So... go with an old but experienced McCain (somewhat moderate compared to conservatives) with a "Dave" story with Palin? Or go with the young charismatic, but inexperienced Obama(very liberal) with an experienced Joe Biden?
Interpreted that way... I had it - we invaded Afghanistan to chase down the Taliban and Al-Q... by the time we got to Iraq, they conveniently had shown a presence.. then reinforced themselves there with insurgents.. we finally surged, etc. I get it. But... there was misinformation... but is it still possible that the misinformation was not entirely the fault of the POTUS? Perhaps those he trusted? And then still, not exactly 100% his fault? DC is different than TX... in DC thar be sharks!
The criticism was targeting that work as his "preparation" for the Chief Executive's job-- not for the work itself. I guess we hear what we want to hear. An unimpressive legislative record (both state and federal) is heaped upon that and what kind of candidate do you get.... a good speaker. Hell, I'm not sure that Obama is even that great a speaker. It's the crowd that makes the speech seem great and the Obamatrons are in sync.
No, the opposite is true. Bush (and Cheney) systematically ignored any intelligence that undermined their agenda for Iraq, which was set from day 1 (yes, before 9/11). There are mountains of evidence for this fact.
That is incorrect. Al Qaeda didn't show a presence in Iraq until AFTER we invaded. Not by the time we got there.
