Philly the Kid wrote:Whatever you think, in threads that I really care about, I read everyone's posts.

So... I guess this isn't one of those threads?

Philly the Kid wrote:I simply have found the discussion here to have devolved mostly into a discussion of the day-to-day vagaries and high-points low-points of the campaign season. The McCain this and Obama that, hasn't really articulated to me tangible policy implementation. Who will be in Obama's cabinet for instance? How will the Fed be handled? What will happen with Russia? Cuba? Iraq? Military spending? Star Wars programs? Solar investment? Roads and Bridges? Union and skilled job creation? Housing costs?

Please.

There are people here very capable of writing about policy. And we do it a lot. The truth is that the way campaigns are covered in this country, the president is attributed virtually unlimited powers; until Bush, abetted by DeLay and Frist and a terrified Democratic minority in the Senate from '03-'06, this wasn't really the case. So considerations of context--how much the president's popularity moves waverers in Congress, how closely he works with his party there, what concerns are on the public's mind--do actually matter.

And we have some people, jerseyhoya especially, who are just damn good at highlighting and discussing that day-to-day stuff you evidently disdain. I almost never agree with that guy, and I almost always enjoy his posts. There's a reason Vox (another guy I never agree with in here and almost always like to read) ghettoized the political thread; after initially being unsure about his call on that, I'm now absolutely convinced he did a smart thing. As a mod, I can say that if you want more policy discussion, initiate it. And do it here.

At the same time, there are policy papers available for both candidates that discuss all these issues--and Obama certainly has talked about infrastructure investment ("roads and bridges"), perhaps not as much as I for one would like but more than Gramps McWarandTaxCuts. "Solar investment," more so. The fact that the unions have all endorsed the Dem--indeed, almost always endorse the Dem--should tell you who'd be better for their concerns. "Russia, China and Iraq"... well, you really shouldn't need me or Paul or the Doctor to explain how they'd be juuust a little bit different.

Philly the Kid wrote:He can say "singe payer" all day long so Clinton talk health care, instead we got NAFTA and GATT two things that failed to pass udner Bush 1.

I have no idea what this even is. I know when you're outputting at the sort of the volume you deal in, quality control can be a bear, but at least, y'know, try.

I don't hold my time as particularly valuable, but responding to stuff like this is bad use of it.

Can someone prove to me that Nader wasn't paid by Rove to run in 2000 in order to help Bush win?

TenuredVulture wrote:Can someone prove to me that Nader wasn't paid by Rove to run in 2000 in order to help Bush win?

Tough to prove a negative. But if you want to spread that rumor, I'm in.

Apparently the French president gave Russia an ultimatum regarding Georgia.

This should be fun.

TenuredVulture wrote:Can someone prove to me that Nader wasn't paid by Rove to run in 2000 in order to help Bush win?

You can't be serious?

And it's been debunked long ago that Nader did not cost Gore the election. And pretty well indicated how the Dems wimped out and let it be stolen.

I'd still take Nader over any Rep or Dem even old and kermudgeony as he is. Won't waste my vote this time round, but will be holding my nose as I pencil it in for the Obameister.

"...Those in the Democrat party who supported Hillary Clinton's campaign seem to be taking a certain bleak pleasure in Obama's recent triangulations – or rather headlong plunge into Republican territory. One such is the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who put the knife in most elegantly: "Progressive activists during the Democratic primary... convinced themselves that Obama was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade. They may have had it backward."

Those who actually supported Obama during this process now divide neatly, if unevenly, into two groups. The first, smaller, group is full of buyer's remorse. The blogosphere is hissing like a catherine wheel with their anger with Obama, obviously, but above all with themselves. The second, much bigger group, continues to buy Obama's story. They argue that everything and anything is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them add that "of course" Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the "redneck states" and that once in the White House he will revert to his "true beliefs".

To this group we must address a simple question. How do you know what Obama really believes in, other than his own destiny – and, of course, his conscience?

..."

full essay here

The whole race will change in the next three weeks, with both conventions and both VP choices named, but McCain's in as good of position to pull off the upset as he has been at any point since Obama sewed up the nomination, according to 538.

Should be a really interesting few weeks coming up, but I am really happy that it seems like McCain has made it through the summer without losing contact with Obama.

I cant wait for the Republican Convention, I've got my scorecard ready.

I'm just hoping McCain can make it through without needing a nap on stage, and that some cops beat up some hippies.

The thing I'm happiest about is that McCain's speech is right after the first Giants game of the year, so I'll either be so mad or so happy that I won't give a shit how bad his speech is.

terror tax cuts iran no gay marriage tax cuts terror ban abortion tax cuts vote for me or the terrorists win iraq iran terror tax cuts abortion bad

I expect thats what the speech will sound like.

^ with one of those patented douche-chill giggles thrown in

Joe Biden? pacino?

So has Jack Cafferty been suspended yet for actually daring to criticize McCain within the corporate media?

LAExile - after Obama wins the election, I hope you'll be able to admit, at least to yourself, that McCain is an astonishing "flip-flopper" - such an egregious and obvious one, in fact, that I have difficulty coming up with a comparison.

Oh, and that spoof of Michael Moore. 2,000 theatres? I'll bet it grosses less than the new X-Files movie, which I don't believe reached $20 million.

If the Dems screw up November, which I think is still a possibility, then the party should just fold. Seriously. Just tear it down and start over.

They're gonna have at least a ten seat majority in the Senate, and about a 50 seat majority in the House regardless of who wins the White House.

We'll see. They SHOULD come out well ahead in both houses. And they SHOULD win the White House. But of course in this game, things change quickly.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfngOsvmA0[/youtube]


Are you ready for a 3rd Bush term?

Pretty much the worse voice ever in that clip

FTN wrote:If the Dems screw up November, which I think is still a possibility, then the party should just fold. Seriously. Just tear it down and start over.

Hey, we're talking about a party that couldn't win the WH last time, after GWB had 4 years to prove his idiocy

BTW, rumors floating around that Obama is picking Kerry as his VP. Any credence? Who knows. You know... rumors.

Woody wrote:Pretty much the worse voice ever in that clip

It was done by a regular Joe, not a campaign. As such, I think it's pretty good. I'd love to see the Obama campaign put out something similar, with some of the rough edges (like the voice) smoothed out.