I don't think it was here, but I was definitely talking about this Milbank article on the Alito hearings the other day. It's one of my favorites.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), in his first 12 minutes of questioning the nominee, managed to get off only one question. Instead, during his 30-minute round of questioning, Biden spoke about his own Irish American roots, his "Grandfather Finnegan," his son's application to Princeton (he attended the University of Pennsylvania instead, Biden said), a speech the senator gave on the Princeton campus, the fact that Biden is "not a Princeton fan," and his views on the eyeglasses of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

FTN wrote:if its Biden, I'll probably slit my wrists. Thankfully my vote won't count anyway.

I don't like Biden much, but I would take him over Bayh in a heartbeat. I love Feingold, but he has too many personal issues right now and he's close to McCain, which might make attacking McCain more difficult.

Schweitzer is the guy I like, but he doesn't have any foreign policy experience and Obama really needs someone to fill that gap in his credentials. Biden, Clark, or Gore might do the trick.

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't think it was here, but I was definitely talking about this Milbank article on the Alito hearings the other day. It's one of my favorites.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), in his first 12 minutes of questioning the nominee, managed to get off only one question. Instead, during his 30-minute round of questioning, Biden spoke about his own Irish American roots, his "Grandfather Finnegan," his son's application to Princeton (he attended the University of Pennsylvania instead, Biden said), a speech the senator gave on the Princeton campus, the fact that Biden is "not a Princeton fan," and his views on the eyeglasses of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

I remember that. Stewart absolutely skewered him, and deservedly so.

But his shot at Giuliani--"a noun, a verb, and 9/11"--showed that he can be concise and devastating. (Or at least that he can deliver good material. Who knows who writes any of those zingers.)

FTN wrote:Abe Vigoda

Still alive

www.abevigoda.com

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

FTN wrote:Abe Vigoda

Still alive

www.abevigoda.com

it'd be better if it had a dethclock.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

FTN wrote:Abe Vigoda

Still alive

www.abevigoda.com

my favorite part

Page loaded Monday August 18 2008 5:34:26 PM PT

Reload page for update

BuddyGroom wrote:As for McCain and flip-flopping:

1) Torture.

In an earlier thread I gave ten Youtube links of McCain being interviewed that torture is morally wrong, doesn't work, and he doesn't believe in it. Including an argument with Bill O'Reilly over it. If he'd only flip flop on this issue he'd curry favor with Republicans. He hasn't. He did compromise in a bill. But that's what you need to do to get it past.

BuddyGroom wrote:2) He's for respecting the boundaries and authority of sovereign nations, like Georgia. Except when he's not, like Iraq. Except that when it pleases him, he will be critical of the Iraq war, unless he's trying to curry favor with Bush, in which case he won't.

You're not serious, here, are you? Georgia is a nation with a Democratically elected government with a human rights record that Human Rights Watch called "moving closer to acceptable" since the Rose Revolution. Iraq was run by a dictator who tortured and killed his own people, supported Hamas with large amounts of cash, and invaded Kuwait. There is no inconsistency here. Was Bill Clinton about respecting the boundaries? He went into Kosovo, a territory that internationally was recognized belonging to a sovereign nation. Barack Obama has already said that if he can get Al Quaeda he will go into Pakistan, regardless that it's a sovereign nation. Is Obama a flip-flopper or someone who doesn't believe in boundaries and authority of sovereign nations?

How is agreeing with the President from your own party flip flopping? Sometimes he agrees with Bush. Sometimes he doesn't. Is he only supposed to be critical?

BuddyGroom wrote:3) He thinks right-wing evangelists are divisive hate-mongers. Except for when he's kissing up to them.

Not entirely accurate. In a moment of tempestuousness John McCain called Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance." Of course he meant it. His temper is legendary. He later realized that if he wanted to represent all Americans calling people names is childish. So, yes, he's talked to right wing evangelists. Just like Barack Obama has. How has he kissed up to them? While Obama is effusive when talking about his Christianity, McCain barely talks about his. He won't change his position on stem cell research. He still opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Even voting for DoMA wasn't enough for them.

BuddyGroom wrote:4) He's against the influence of high-paid lobbyists in U.S. politics. Unless, of course, they are working for his campaign. Without lobbyists, I'm not who would be working for McCain.

He's against legislators doing what's in the best interests of the lobbyists and not the American people. Yes, he has people who've been lobbyists. Many of the smartest most experienced people have been lobbyists. Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod is a lobbyist. Since he doesn't lobby the Federal government it's supposed to be okay.

You seem to want everything black and white. Not everything can be explained simply. John McCain's stance on torture, foreign intervention, religious and lobbyist influence remain the same as it has been for years.

Stop criticizing McCain, Buddy.

Don't you know he was a POW? If you so much as question his absolute integrity (I'm looking at you, Tom Friedman...), the enemy--whoever it happens to be today--wins. If it seems he's being dishonest, it's really modesty. If it seems he's being vicious or might be confused, it's because you're simply incapable of grasping his exceptional moral clarity. I suggest you get a journalism degree, which seems to confer the ability to sympathetically understand McCain.

Meanwhile, more reporting that the Obama veep decision is made, though not public:

I won't post sources on this, so any folks are welcome to consider this my fanciful speculation.

But sources close to Obama report to me that after the "surge of concern" on the net about Evan Bayh, he has not been selected as Obama's VP running mate.

I have been informed that the decision has been made, and I don't know who that person is.

I also have been told that Tom Daschle is not the running mate. I also happen to know that it is not Wesley Clark.

I just received word that it is not Senator Jack Reed either, though Obama thought very highly of him.

In my estimation, that leaves Joseph Biden, Chuck Hagel, and Sibelius. I don't think that Tim Kaine would be the nominee given the elevation of Mark Warner as the keynote speaker at the Dem convention.

As much as I would love Hagel to be the nominee, I don't think that will happen. . .and while I could be wrong here, I have heard next to nothing about Sibelius.

That leaves Joe Biden. [...]

One well placed political expert just told me on the phone that we may all be wrong and that Obama could come out with something completely unexpected -- a Hillary Clinton or even (and this shocked me) Al Gore or John Kerry. I don't have any info on such surprising possibilities as these.

Who is that guy, dajafi?

It's hard to take him too seriously when he can't even spell the last name of the Kansas Governor.

Obama shouldn't pick Hagel. He can't pick Hagel. How the hell do you sell a pro-life, pro-tax cut, pro-drilling in ANWR, pro-gun type guy to your base? I just don't see how Warner getting the nod as the convention speaker somehow nullifies Kaine's chances in that guy's eyes, but the fact that Hagel is a pretty damn conservative dude doesn't.

If anything, the full court press for Virginia, at a convention that is taking place in Colorado makes some good sense since these are the two states in the country Dems are most enamored with picking up.

Whatever, we'll know soon enough, I guess.

Laexile wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:As for McCain and flip-flopping:

1) Torture.

In an earlier thread I gave ten Youtube links of McCain being interviewed that torture is morally wrong, doesn't work, and he doesn't believe in it. Including an argument with Bill O'Reilly over it. If he'd only flip flop on this issue he'd curry favor with Republicans. He hasn't. He did compromise in a bill. But that's what you need to do to get it past..

...and I posted his actual voting record and the loopholes he allowed to occur without the type of fight he's supposedly known for. These interviews are just covers for the deals he made with the devil. Abused kids often become abusers. Sexual molested young adults often sexual molest as adults. And apparently, people who are tortured can become torturers when given the chance, I guess. It's another of life's sad cycles.

I remember when you used to post at Phillesphans about the Bush administration. I had some respect for you because you called them out when it was obvious what they were. But here's McCain showing all the same signs and you are blind to it. I mean, explain to me why I should take any candidate seriously who would have Scheunemann as his foreign policy advisor? What's next, Chalabi as Secretary of the Interior and Curveball as Embassador to Iran? Or maybe install Graham, the man largely responsible for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as the main economic advisor responsible for trying to fix the mortgage mess? Oh, wait, he did that last one.

The really sad thing is that the old stiff actually might win. It took people about 5 years to finally see that Bush was a fool with incompetent/evil handlers. I wonder how long it will take this time. Hopefully, it will happen sometime before November.

jerseyhoya wrote:Who is that guy, dajafi?

It's hard to take him too seriously when he can't even spell the last name of the Kansas Governor.

Obama shouldn't pick Hagel. He can't pick Hagel. How the hell do you sell a pro-life, pro-tax cut, pro-drilling in ANWR, pro-gun type guy to your base? I just don't see how Warner getting the nod as the convention speaker somehow nullifies Kaine's chances in that guy's eyes, but the fact that Hagel is a pretty damn conservative dude doesn't.

If anything, the full court press for Virginia, at a convention that is taking place in Colorado makes some good sense since these are the two states in the country Dems are most enamored with picking up.

Whatever, we'll know soon enough, I guess.

I agree with you about Hagel, though I do think Obama can afford to take someone from further to the right than usual because his base is pretty motivated. He could pick practically anyone for VP and I would still vote for him over McCain. That might not be true for a good chunk of McCain's base.

dajafi wrote:Meanwhile, more reporting that the Obama veep decision is made, though not public:

I won't post sources on this, so any folks are welcome to consider this my fanciful speculation.

But sources close to Obama report to me that after the "surge of concern" on the net about Evan Bayh, he has not been selected as Obama's VP running mate.

I have been informed that the decision has been made, and I don't know who that person is.

I also have been told that Tom Daschle is not the running mate. I also happen to know that it is not Wesley Clark.

I just received word that it is not Senator Jack Reed either, though Obama thought very highly of him.

In my estimation, that leaves Joseph Biden, Chuck Hagel, and Sibelius. I don't think that Tim Kaine would be the nominee given the elevation of Mark Warner as the keynote speaker at the Dem convention.

As much as I would love Hagel to be the nominee, I don't think that will happen. . .and while I could be wrong here, I have heard next to nothing about Sibelius.

That leaves Joe Biden. [...]

One well placed political expert just told me on the phone that we may all be wrong and that Obama could come out with something completely unexpected -- a Hillary Clinton or even (and this shocked me) Al Gore or John Kerry. I don't have any info on such surprising possibilities as these.

Supposedly, the announcement will be made this week, possibly as early as tomorrow (Tuesday).

I did not realise this until yesterday, and this may be old news to you, but apparently one of McCain's foreign Policy Advisors has worked as a lobbyist for Saakashvili in Georgia. Anyhow, nice overview of the last two weeks here by Misha Glenny of the New Statesman:

The Russians, of course, knew all about Defensive Shield and the tens of millions of dollars worth of Israeli military equipment that Georgia had been purchasing. Just over a week before the conflict erupted, Putin put in a call to the Israeli president, Shimon Peres. His message, according to a western intelligence source, was simple: "Pull out your trainers and weapons or we will escalate our co-operation with Syria and Iran." Peres does not suffer the same illusions as Georgian ministers and the Israeli set-up left Tbilisi within two days.

Monkeyboy wrote:...and I posted his actual voting record and the loopholes he allowed to occur without the type of fight he's supposedly known for. These interviews are just covers for the deals he made with the devil. Abused kids often become abusers. Sexual molested young adults often sexual molest as adults. And apparently, people who are tortured can become torturers when given the chance, I guess. It's another of life's sad cycles.

Hold on, so McCain's torturing people now (by proxy) because he was tortured as a PoW?

we got some wacky heads up on this

Step away from the hyperbole.... no good can come of this....

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

pacino wrote:Some people already answered your stupid questions. No one needs to justify their vote to you.

I didn't see any responses?

The question is not stupid, in fact, its the most important question we should be asking.

Except you're not really asking that question for the reason you should be asking that question. If you were planning on considering the answers and giving them thought that'd be one thing. You've given the board the impression that you're not interested in that. I could say that Senator McCain will enact comprehensive immigration reform. Yet all I'd get from that would be an answer like "he doesn't believe in his own bill" or something else bashing McCain. If you're request was meant to spur on debate and knowledge it'd be welcome. People don't see your motives that way.

My motives weren't that complicated. It was pretty-much face value.

Obviously, most here know that I'm not a Republican or supporter of Republican agenda(s). I'm also a very reluctant Democrat, and much of my thinking, views and values (and notions for what would better our country and what would better th eworld) would in 2008 mainstream political landscape -- be seen as far left or radical. I prefer to see it as a view that would lead to great health, balance, fairness and above all else -- common sense.

I don't think the big bad world is nearly as scary as has been sold to us, and that much of the agitation and forces that would wish to strike against US interests, have been fomented with over 100 years of US Imperialism, interference and hypocrisy.

We are in the election season and most agree its down to two personalities. Much of this thread, has been devoid of detailed conversation about actual policies, appointments, and the like that would follow if said candidate makes it to the White House. As well, both politicians have said things -- changed or ammended those statements - and have some (Obama is only a first term Senator) track record in office.

While it is unlikely anyone could convince me that a McCain White House would be good for the country, or equal and or better than an Obama White House, I'm always open to hear a reasonable perspective and or facts that could support that case. As well, with so much Obama-mania, I personally am convinced that Obama is no liberal at all, and the compormises or evolving of his political-self in the process of trying to reach the White House has made him even less liberal and more hawkish and more a product of the system. So I was asking for people who think Obama is a CLEAR superior choice, to lay out a few points, not abstract things like -- "change" or "jobs", but likely policies, appointments, steps, actions, whatever -- something tangible that we could likely bet on, to actually occur if either of these candidates takes the office. That's all I was trying to get at.

I missed a couple responses. Your seems to indicate one point for McCain, which is "immigration reform", but I'm not familiar with what you/he means by "reform"? This could be a case for McCain, and I can say broadly that 'reform' is needed -- (and not in micro-cosm -- as I beleive that many who are coming to the US illegally are doing so partly as a direct or in-direct result of other US policies or corproate interests) -- but I'm not clear on what a McCain "reform" would look like? It might be a policy I totally abhor or disagree with, or it might be an improvement. It's a valid point to support your candidate.

Do I already have a view of both candidates, and parties? Yes. Will anything here likely change my vote in November? Unlikely, but remotely possible. Am I genuinely curious as to some of the posters here on th eboard sharing any clear views they have that demonstrate basis for their clear support of one over the other? Absolutely.

My motivation for this line of question and discussion at all? Because I found a lot of the discussion here focused on the "competition" and the "minutiae of an election contest" and growing very distant from actual policy and substance -- that would result or not result, if one or the other takes office.

Laexile wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote: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.

Buddy, you blow me away. Does the world only exist from your POV? No Democrat will admit that Obama has flip-flopped on the issues. I'm amazed that people don't comprehend that the core of Obama's candidacy, "McCain is a Bush third term," is negative campaigning. But I would never tell anyone they have to admit something.

I can't think of an issue that McCain had a long held firm belief in that he suddenly changed for the election. And don't throw out the Bush tax cuts. McCain has voted for tax cuts 73% of the time. He has always been for low taxes. He thought the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea. They generated record revenues, especially from the wealthy. I'd hope that when faced with reality six years later he'd see he was wrong. Off shore drilling? McCain has never been against drilling. He was against off short drilling. But faced with the new reality of high oil prices he's had to come around. If a candidate must hold the same view forever to not be a flip-flopper, then I guess McCain is one.

I'm sure you can argue my points. They are certainly worth discussion. But the idea that McCain is flip-flopping to appeal to conservatives doesn't hold water under close scrutiny. The #1 issue Republicans have with John McCain is immigration. I know this because I've been harassed, yelled at, and cursed at by many Republicans this year over McCain's guest worker program. His stance on this hasn't changed. It may have taken the back burner but if you check his website you'll see the policy that offends so many Republicans. Surely, if he were a flip-flopper he'd abandon this stance. Republicans hate him for it. But think what you want. Don't let facts get in the way.

Both candidates have been carefully shifting rhetoric as the political winds have necessitated. I don't hold either one up as "un-soiled" in this regard. To your comment that McCain voted for Bush tax cuts 73% --

"I'd hope that when faced with reality six years later he'd see he was wrong."

Unfortunately, your "hope" isn't enough to secure me.

Monkeyboy wrote:...and I posted his actual voting record and the loopholes he allowed to occur without the type of fight he's supposedly known for. These interviews are just covers for the deals he made with the devil.

What voting record? Voting for the torture compromise? That's bad? You posted nothing that indicated what "loopholes" McCain supported. The article you linked supported McCain as anti-torture. He got 95% of torture outlawed. I'd say that was successful. What deal with the devil? He clearly got you, a liberal, upset and yet he also has all the conservatives angry with him over torture. No one, other than his supporters, was happy with him after the torture bill. He won over no one.

I remember when you used to post at Phillesphans about the Bush administration. I had some respect for you because you called them out when it was obvious what they were. But here's McCain showing all the same signs and you are blind to it.

I appreciate that you had respect for me. I can't take your lack of respect now to mean anything since you've bought the Democratic Party line on McCain of "he used to be good, but now he's sold out." You show no objective critical analysis.

I mean, explain to me why I should take any candidate seriously who would have Scheunemann as his foreign policy advisor?

Randy Scheunemann misread Iraq. I don't think that disqualifies him from giving campaign advice. I don't know Mr. Scheunemann, so I'm not in a position to make a full judgement on him, but I wouldn't want anyone who misread Iraq that badly to be National Security Advisor or the Secretary of Defense. I wouldn't have a problem with him being in the administration. While I don't think you put them in key positions I don't think you throw everyone who misread Iraq under the bus. Everyone has misjudgments. I have no idea if Scheunemann will be in the administration though.

Or maybe install Graham, the man largely responsible for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as the main economic advisor responsible for trying to fix the mortgage mess? Oh, wait, he did that last one.

I can only assume you're talking about Phil Gramm. He wasn't the author of that act. It was passed by the House before he got involved. It was signed by President Clinton. He has never been Senator McCain's main economic advisor. Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are his main economic advisors. Senator Gramm was affiliated with the campaign but wasn't responsible for trying to fix the mortgage mess.

I suppose I could say that how could you possibly support Obama when Tony Rezko was one of his chief financial backers for years and the suspiciousness of Obama's home purchase. I'm sure that you'd point out that Rezko isn't part of Obama's life any more and that one thing isn't part of a pattern to be concerned about. And you'd probably be right.

Barack Obama has never done what John McCain's done, compromise on a controversial partisan bill. He's carefully avoided being involved in any controversial partisan bills since he's been in the Senate. You don't get criticism when you don't play the game.

Since we're operating on a double standard here. McCain gets scrutiny to the last detail. Which he should. My explanations may not be good enough for you and I suppose there isn't room for you to see that they may be convincing to other people. Senator Obama's supporters believe he should get no scrutiny.

If the press gives him any scrutiny he gets indignant and says, "As I've said before..." Of course that Obama is skating by is to the detriment of the American public. Democrats have no interest in holding him to the standard they want to hold Senator McCain to. If McCain becomes President Democrats and Republicans will hold his feet to the fire. As they should. If Obama becomes President Democrats won't care what he does, because he's above scrutiny. Whatever he does is good and right.

Consider FISA. If McCain supports it Democrats yell that he's trying to subvert the Constitution. If Obama supports it, well it's no big deal. He'll do everything right.

We'll get good governance in a McCain administration because we'll demand it. Won't get it from an Obama administration because Democrats have put their heads in the sand. When Republicans did that for several years the results were a disaster. Yet Democrats want to repeat the same formula. I've seen the job Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has done. I shudder at the idea of a Democratic President along with those two. We'll probably be in Obama's third term before Democrats wake up.

Quote Warkakke Redux!!!!