Look, my friends, this is the new POLITICS THREAD

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 13:00:24

TenuredVulture wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:By the way - anyone who watches the debate instead of watching the phillies tonight, or anyone who needs to post in this thread during the game, will be banned.

I'm serious, you have no business hanging out on a Phillies messageboard if politics is more interesting to you than game five of the NLCS, I don't care what the score is.

What if you flip to the debate between innings? Or have your wife yell at you to watch a particularly lively exchange? What if you set your DVR to record the debate? What if you actually watch the recorded debate?

You should be a lawyer, always looking for the angles.

Although I should have appended a qualifier to the first sentence, it should have read:

"anyone who watches the debate instead of watching the phillies tonight and I find out"

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 13:07:52

Not really an October Surprise, but this (from Investor's Business Daily)...

But on a campaign stop in Toledo, he couldn't assure self-employed 34-year-old plumber Joe Wurzelbacher to his face that he would get a tax cut. Poised to buy a $250,000-a-year firm, the working-class plumber of 15 years confronted Obama.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" he asked.

Obama responded with the promise of a 50% tax credit for health care, but the senator conceded that Wurzelbacher's income taxes would indeed rise.

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you — that they've got a chance at success too."

Wurzelbacher, who would shoulder all the responsibility and risk of such an investment, did not look impressed. Obama then let the cat out of the bag, saying:

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

He certainly does, and his unguarded statement to a voter in a key swing state is socialist economics distilled to its simplest terms.

... might start making the rounds (more than it has), with folks on the right yelling "wealth redistribution!", "he's a socialist!", et al. So far, it hasn't really made it's way much past the righty media outlets. Will McCain sieze on this in some fashion in tonite's debate, drop a couple of subtle "socialist economics" bombs? I won't know until after the fact, cuz of course I'll be watchin' the Phils!!!!!!!!!!

by **pacino** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 13:34:04

you know, taxes aren't the devil

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 14:22:39

If I were Obama, during tonight's debate I'd say something along the lines of "In this current period of economic uncertainty, I will consider revising my fiscal plan to ensure a strong recovery. If that includes a moratorium on raising dividend or capital gains taxes, so be it." I wouldn't really use the word moratorium, but I would indicate that right now, it might not make sense to increase capital gains taxes since heck, not many people are going to have capital gains to tax anyway.

by **dajafi** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 14:42:19

Ben Smith posted this e-mail from a Republican consultant about a focus group he conducted in the midwest, showing a harsh attack ad:

Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.

Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.

The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:

54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....

The first thing I thought reading this is how scary it is that there's this much factual ignorance among the electorate--can anyone even parse that first guy's second sentence, about Reagan and bankers and Wal-Mart, for me? You half expect him to go on about how things were much better when dinosaurs rode spaceships and arm-wrestled Hitler--but that's hardly surprising. I'm just not used to having it right in my face like that.

The second was Paul's thought from last week (?) about the unlikelihood of Obama having any kind of honeymoon, if he wins. Given that almost everyone--Hillary might or might not have been an exception--hits a steep learning curve among assuming the presidency, AND the possible/likely disaster conditions he'll be inheriting, AND the rage I fully expect among the Republican base when they're facing President Obama, 250 or so House Dems, and 57-58 Democratic Senators pulling their remaining federal officials into pretty much reflexive opposition to everything... I hope he isn't planning on taking a lot of time off this winter.

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 16:29:53

7.5% undecided seems hefty, do any of you wonks know if this is special or typical?

by **mpmcgraw** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 16:40:48

smart racists? idk.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 16:50:59

VoxOrion wrote:7.5% undecided seems hefty, do any of you wonks know if this is special or typical?

It depends on how you count--if you're including "leaners" as undecided, then it seems low to me. If you're talking about truly undecided people--those who have no idea who they'll vote for, but who are considered likely voters, I'd say a bit (though not as much as you'd think) high.

There's a percentage of voters who really will wait until the last debate before they commit.

by **Woody** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 16:58:04

Emmitt Smith's thoughts on tonight's rebate

by **VoxOrion** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 17:09:59

mpmcgraw wrote:smart racists? idk.

by **mpmcgraw** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 17:12:47

all i get when i see that is gay elvis

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 17:43:45

dajafi wrote:Ben Smith posted this e-mail from a Republican consultant about a focus group he conducted in the midwest, showing a harsh attack ad:

54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

The first thing I thought reading this is how scary it is that there's this much factual ignorance among the electorate--can anyone even parse that first guy's second sentence, about Reagan and bankers and Wal-Mart, for me?

He wants us to be like China?

by **BuddyGroom** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 17:45:27

TenuredVulture wrote:
BuddyGroom wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:His books that I'm familiar with are much harder on the left, but never brutal. It's pretty light satire.

I thought "Thank You For Smoking" was pretty much a "pox on all their houses" approach.

I've only seen the movie, which I thought was spectacular, but I wouldn't be surprised if the book were more conservative. It wouldn't be too tough to point out that the Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to corporate lobbyists.

Read the book. It is hysterical and a quick read. For some reason, when Buckley called the barely fictionalized Washington Times "the Washington Moon" I almost fell off my chair laughing.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 18:05:22

BuddyGroom wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
BuddyGroom wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:His books that I'm familiar with are much harder on the left, but never brutal. It's pretty light satire.

I thought "Thank You For Smoking" was pretty much a "pox on all their houses" approach.

I've only seen the movie, which I thought was spectacular, but I wouldn't be surprised if the book were more conservative. It wouldn't be too tough to point out that the Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to corporate lobbyists.

Read the book. It is hysterical and a quick read. For some reason, when Buckley called the barely fictionalized Washington Times "the Washington Moon" I almost fell off my chair laughing.

This reminds me--thinking about Buckley's ideological orientation--you can't really do good comedy and remain ideologically pure. Funny political comedians generally defy easy political labels.

by **Monkeyboy** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 18:19:10

gr wrote:Re: monkeyboy's post

i know "gotcha" stuff is fun, but this looks like a big old red herring. mccain spoke at an event that ACORN was a CO-SPONSOR of. without knowing the event, it's perfectly possible that there were 2 "co-sponsors" or 30. alot of times, being a "co-sponsor" of a forum, which has very little expense associated with it, is sometimes about as meaningful as "producer" credits in Hollywood. it might mean all they did was send out an e-blast and show up.

equating mccain with "historic support" for ACORN is, uh, overstating it a little?

I agree, it's gotcha politics.

Which begs the question, what does Obama have to do with ACORN? Are they connected to his campaign? No, they're not. I posted the McCain thing to show that stupid associations can be made with nearly anyone if you really look for them.

And like I said, it's a tempest in a teapot anyway, a complete non-story, for both Obama and McCain.

by **mpmcgraw** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 18:31:13

I just learned more about Obama's tax plan and while I still like him much more than McCain, we really need either central ish Dem's or republicans in the house because some of that shit is so close to socialism it's scary.

by **Monkeyboy** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 18:57:34

by **mpmcgraw** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 19:20:13

giving tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes?

by **Monkeyboy** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 19:56:39

mpmcgraw wrote:giving tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes?

Is that the definition of socialism?

by **Monkeyboy** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 19:58:02

I like how ads come on TV for this or that candidate and you can tell which ones are Republican ads because they won't mention they're republican. Where's the GOP pride?

Archived

Look, my friends, this is the new POLITICS THREAD