Thanks for Commenting
Here's a few things you neglected to mention:
Palin has a track record of seeking congressional earmark pork for both her town while she was mayor ($24 million) and for the state of Alaska as governor ($755 million). Sarah Palin was enthusiastically in favor of the $400 million bridge to nowhere until it because a national laughing stock, then flip-flopped to pretend to be against it. Regardless, she took that $400 million for Alaska and authorized the building of the now supposedly unneeded road leading to the construction site of the bridge to nowhere. She also supports the other pork barrel bridge to nowhere that the vastly corrupt Republican Senator Ted Stevens secured for Alaska.
Sarah Palin's husband is a member of a political party dedicated to seceding Alaska from the United States.
Sarah Palin's supposed ethics reform were called weak and ineffective by the Republican legislature of her own state.
Sarah Palin thinks that the illegal war in Iraq was God's will for America.
Sarah Palin supports forcing schools to teach abstinence-only sex education, a policy that has been scientifically shown to increase the rate of teen pregnancy, even extending to the oh-so-pious Palin family's eldest daughter.
Sarah Palin has been accused and is currently being investigated for more corruption and abuse of power cases in only 20 months in office than your poster boy for corruption, Bill Richardson, who has been in office for nearly 7 years.
Sarah Palin is a pretty face that the GOP is hoping to distract the electorate with so that we don't notice the GOP's well-demonstrated complete and utter corruption and incompetence. Her speech last night proposed no policies to correct the GOP excesses of the last seven years and consisted entirely of attacking her boss's opponent.
Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience consists of governing a state which is kind of close to Russia, although she has had absolutely no contacts with the Russian government.
Sarah Palin attacked and denigrated people who volunteer their own time to improve the lives of others, claiming that her paid position as the mayor of a tiny suburb makes her morally superior to people who spent years doing unpaid work to help the lives of others.
Lastly, you claim that McCain/Palin has the proven track record of change, but McCain has voted with the corrupt and incompetent Bush administration over 90% of the time and Palin has not one single significant difference in policy opinion than George W Bush.
In short, as usual you're full of shit.
Dan "full of shit" that's what we expect from a dem. Just like their 'peaceful' riots happening at RNC. When are the dems going to stop using Bush to describe every republican. It's old.
Leave it to a Republican to ignore the substance of the post and complain about the summary.
I'll stop tying McCain and Palin to George W Bush when they stop supporting his idiotic failed policies.
Also, I forgot to mention that a month ago, Sarah Palin claimed that we *can* drill our way out of the gas crisis but last night she said we *can't*. Which is it Sarah?
There are rumors going around on the radio that the democrats are trying to find a way to slide Bidden out and Hilary in as the vice president candidate. This should be interesting.
Correction. Biden
You swallowed; hook, line, and sinker.
A pitbull in lipstick?
This "Border Collie" in lipstick is just another workin' Jane and finds her rhetoric to be insulting and downright misleading.
I can hardly wait for questions to be posed toward both her and McSame but I doubt we'll get real answers.
She's extreme with a pretty face.
Thanks, Dan. It's about the truth and you laid it out well.
Don't forget that as mayor she ran up a debt of about $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the town. That's small in comparison to GWB's efforts ($10,000 per person for the Iraq war alone) but it puts her firmly in the McCain-Bush borrow-and-spend big government party.
Oh, and let's not forget experience. She's running for understudy and stand-in for a job that requires her to defend the constitution of the United States, and to execute the laws of the United States. Clearly her experience as mayor is far, far better qualification than 3 years studying the US laws and constitution at some eastern school, and more years teaching US constitutional law at some midwestern school. She knows that the founding fathers wrote the pledge of allegiance - what more could she possibly need to know?
I wish I could claim this quote for myself but I read it on another blog:
"[M]aybe someone needs to remind Sarah Palin that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor."
It's nice to see the bombastic bloviators of the left spending their time on a right wing blog. Bring all your fellow blabbers and show us the truth.
Did you ever stop to think (not likely) that the more time you spend here, the less time you can spend stroking your partners on The Daily KOS.
Demodips ... Live with one. They make great toilet paper.
People cry for a female leader, then they (lefties) cry when a great Republican is in that position. I wonder if it's fear or jealousy that drives their bad behavior towards women that have values, family and religious beliefs. Maybe stupidity. This is whats wrong with today's society.
Gee Chuck I didn't know you were hoping this would be a fringe right-wing circle jerk like AM Radio and Fox News are. Why are you so upset about hearing opinions (and facts) you don't agree with?
Maybe you should go stroke your fellow true believers on right wing wackjob sites that ban dissenters like redstate, littlegreenfootballs or freerepublic? As someone mentioned yesterday, Mario is to be lauded for allowing free and open comment on his blog posts.
I suppose that the type of dead-enders who support George W Bush and his "free speech zones" can be expected to try to stifle opposing points of view.
Last time I checked the bill of rights designated the entire country as a "free speech zone" though.
Dan,
Not only can you not reason you can't read either.
Show me when or where I said you couldn't post, speak or defecate from your oral cavity.
Just remember, A second spent on this site means you'll have to spend several hours catching up on the collected offal at The Daily KOS.
Personally, I don't remember ever seeing anything in your posts except for the same old rage, so your posts appear to be self-stiffling.
"Show me when or where I said you couldn't post, speak or defecate from your oral cavity."
I'm sorry, but I can't bring myself to quote the rest.
This has crosed the line between reasoned exposition into childish name calling. Dan has adduced facts. I've adduced facts. He and I have drawn inferences and conclusions from those facts. The facts relate to issues and policies. The conclusions relate to issues and policies. That's called political discourse.
In response we see name calling, ad hominem attacks on character, and personality issues. Words such as bombastic, bloviators, blabbers, and epithets such as stroking and toilet paper should have no place in civilized discourse.
I can only infer that Chuck has no facts or reason to support any conclusion favoring Governor Palin, and thus can only resort to a form of speech I'd hope not to hear from anyone of intelligence.
I'm not sure why I expect rational arguments from Republicans anymore. I post fully expecting a reasoned response and get accusations of being a socialist.
Its a shame, the GOP actually was once the party of ideas and now its the party of smear and spin. I can only hope that after their massive defeat in november (and it will be massive, even if McCain manages to win the Dems are going to pick up 6-7 seats in the Senate and upwards of 20 in the House) the GOP will reexamine its approach and return to its intellectual roots.
As it is the RNC discussed no actual issues whatsoever. It spent the entire time alternating between attacking Obama and trying to convince people that McCain has better character. It produced its first female VP candidate ever and reduced her to a petty attack dog.
Chuck, keep calling me names as much as you want but you haven't introduced a single fact to the discussion and are only engaging in smear tactics, just like the rest of the GOP.
Single issue politics
I have always believed that single issue politics is mistaken.
I have rethought the premise and now offer;
the candidate(s) that promise reform of the system
are the ones we must support.
I really don't believe that any of us
has a seat at the table where decisions are made.
Without a seat at the table, our opinion on any single issue
will remain nothing more than our opinion.
Governmental reform is a tide that lifts all boats.
There is no legitimate political agenda that does not move
forward on the day that, our individual opinions on issues
actually make a difference in the decision about the issues.
McCain/Palin promises reform more convincingly than Obama/Biden promises
real honest to God governmental reform.
imho
Thanks to Sarah the country is waking up and seeing Obama for what he is…
“The emperor marched in the procession under the beautiful canopy, and all who saw him in the street and out of the windows exclaimed: “Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!” Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid. Never were the emperors clothes more admired.
“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people”. Hans Christian Andersen (1837)
I wonder if Mr. Obama, much like the emperor in the Hans Christian Andersen story, is the willing victam of deceptive minipulating power brokers who 'choose' the new emperor at the 2004 DNC. Wake up America! The “One" has no clothes.
If you had asked me a few months ago who I would most likely vote for the answer would have been Obama.
Since then I have been Obamaized to the point that I put the TV on mute whenever he appears.
I don't blame him. I blame the democrat media that have made him into a star. Watching Katy Couric talk about Obama was like a school girl talking about the high school quaterback.
Someone on this blog said that Jesus Christ was a community organizer. Are we supposed to take from that a comparison to Obama?
I am a belierver that we get what we deserve. If Obama is elected we get a media created president.
"McCain/Palin promises reform more convincingly than Obama/Biden promises real honest to God governmental reform."
What do you mean by reform? What sorts of reforms?
For example, GWB reformed the US Department of Justice. Where it had been a group of widely respected professionals pursuing justice, he turned it into a group of poorly educated inexperienced people pursing partisan political advantage out of personal loyalty to GWB. That's reform, but it's not the sort of reform I think is good. What sort of reform do you expect from McCain/Palin?
Second, why do you find their promises of reform convincing? Again, GWB promised such things as a humbler foreign policy, smaller government, being a uniter not a divider. At the time, McCain opposed a lot of GWB's efforts. And, indeed, GWB spectacularly failed to deliver on these promises. In the last couple of years, however, McCain has stood with GWB more than 90% of the time, supporting the very failed policies he once opposed. After this, why do you find McCain's promises of reform convincing?
Dan and Michael,
The same old stuff becomes more than tiring after a while, i.e., McCain supports/supported Bush 90% of the time. Left unsaid, because it lets the truth out, is how much of that 90% was in regards to rather mundane legislation or how much of the support falls right into the demoflips list of things to do.
You guys don't post facts ... you post the same old spin that is found on your bible, The Daily KOS (KOS), not to mention similar out of control leftist blogs. Then you seek to attack with a mouth with no teeth, people who correctly point out your lack of reason.
What happened to "KOS's" venture out in left field when they posited that Palin's baby was really her daughter's. That's pure pablum for the political infants that travel in the same baby buggy, i.e., the two of you and those similar to you in thought and action (no thought, bad action).
Read something other than the KOS and manure from sites such as "MOOVEON" and join in true enlightenment.
You guys are scared and you should be. Very scared. After the election, you'll be scared and scarred.
One more thing, Mr. Dan and Mr. Michael, when you have a single thought of your own, I might take you serious.
"Left unsaid, because it lets the truth out, is how much of that 90% was in regards to rather mundane legislation or how much of the support falls right into the demoflips list of things to do."
Okay, tell us how much of that 90% shouldn't count, and why, and give us a source.
Just to go well beyond fair, I'll start the citation of sources:
"During the September 1 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor and columnist Dick Morris asserted that while Democrats say "things are terrible, [President] Bush is awful, and [Sen. John] McCain is more of same," "[t]hat statistic that 90 percent of the time they vote together? Ninety percent of the votes in the Senate are unanimous. Bush, [Sen. Barack] Obama, and McCain probably vote together 90 percent of the time on resolutions congratulating the New York Giants and stuff." While McCain has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time over the seven-and-a-half years of Bush's presidency, according to a presidential support study by the nonpartisan publication Congressional Quarterly that McCain himself has cited, CQ found that Obama has voted with Bush 40 percent of the time since becoming a U.S. senator in 2005."
That's from
http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200809020021
And if you go there you'll find further information and sources for their figures.
"One more thing, Mr. Dan and Mr. Michael, ....
I have a last name. It's at the bottom of each of my comments because I believe in taking responsibility for what I say. You may call me Michael, or Mike, or Mr. Schneider. Calling me "Mr. Michael" is simply childishly insulting.
When I say "reform" I don't mean change; I mean improve; like ethics reform, transparency and the like.
I find the "sided with Bush 90% of the time" to be a specious argument.
Just because they feel the same way on any issue, doesn't mean that one is following the other.
Frankly, I would be surprised if republicans and democrats did not vote together 90% of the time on most issues; it makes logical sense.
It doesn't make McCain a lackey.
I think the argument appeals to people who cannot understand the paradigm and seek to simplify it illogically.
That's a fair definition of "reform". Thank you.
So, am I correct in understanding that when you said "McCain/Palin promises reform more convincingly ..." you meant that McCain promises improvement?
I don't see how you reach that conclusion, and it gets us back to the 90% problem.
If McCain has agreed with / voted together with / supported GWB and GWB's policies 90% of the time, are you pinning all your hopes and expectation of improvement on that other 10%? That doesn't make sense to me, because I think Bush's policies have been dreadfully wrong far more than 10% of the time. Of course, if you think Bush's policies have been correct 90% of the time, I see why you support McCain, but not why you think he offers much improvement.
I'm not claiming that McCain is Bush's lackey, or that McCain is following Bush. I'm claiming that they agree, and support the same policies, the vast majority of the time. If they support the same things, expecting McCain to offer improvement over Bush doesn't seem to make sense.
How often did Obama support Bush's policies?
"How often did Obama support Bush's policies?"
According to the Conressional Quarterly report I cited above, Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time.
I'm not sure how we could get a figure for verbal support - how often Obama may have said "I support thus and so policy of Bush".
Thanks for the correction Mr. Michael, er, Schneider. Wearing our brain on our sleeve, are we?
So Obama's 40% support of Bush is just fine in your estimation. For once and the only time I believe I agree with you.
Tell us more.
I am wondering why McCain can only be discussed in terms of Bush?
Would it be fair to discuss Biden only in terms of Clinton?
How about we look at what McCain promises to do, as opposed to what we think he may or may not of "supported Bush" on?
How much does Obama talk about the need to really reform Washington? It is a serious question; my impression is, not much.
I would argue that the need for reform surpasses the need to put either a Democrat or a Republican in the Whitehouse.
The party that is more likely to do what the people, as a whole, want done, is the party that the people, as a whole, want in the Whitehouse.
With some obvious limitations, I don't see governing according to (accurate and reliable) polls as a bad thing.
No matter what your opinion, you have no seat at any table where your opinion amounts to more than a hill of beans;
unless and until there is substantial reform in the way government does business.
No matter who is in office;
somewhere around 20-25% of your tax dollar is wasted due to corruption and incompetence.
No matter who is in office.
"How about we look at what McCain promises to do, as opposed to what we think he may or may not of "supported Bush" on?"
No. While past performance does not guarantee future returns, I think that what a person actually did in the past is a better guide to what they're likely to do in the future than are campaign promises. That was one of my points in contrasting Bush's promises with Bush's actions. Just as he promised one thing and delivered another, I'd rather look at what McCain and Obama have delivered in the past rather than what they're promising now.
"With some obvious limitations, I don't see governing according to (accurate and reliable) polls as a bad thing."
I do see it as a bad thing. One of the themes of the US Constitution is to limit the power of majorities, to protect the rights and privileges of those who are in the minority. This was a very sensible precaution in light of the history of abuse and oppression of smaller groups during the 1600s and 1700s. I think it's still a good idea. For example, I'd prefer to keep the prohibition on laws 'respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', even if a majority would prefer that the government favor, for example, Christianity over Islam.
"I think that what a person actually did in the past is a better guide to what they're likely to do in the future than are campaign promises."
I guess I have a little trouble conceding that John McCain is lying about what he intends to do; regardless of what he may or may not have done.
I trust his word.
We don't need to go quite as far as 'lying'.
For example, I could promise that I'm going to get up at 6am tomorrow morning and go on a one mile run. I could truly, sincerely mean it when I said it.
On the other hand, I haven't done such a thing even once in the last several thousand mornings, so the smart money is probably on my sleeping as late as possible and then sitting around drinking coffee.
On the other hand, I believe McCain when he promises to cut taxes a lot for the very, very rich - and little if any tax cut for the rest of us. That's what he has promised, and that's what he has supported. So if you think that's a great idea, well, you vote for him.
On the third hand, I don't believe it when he claiims he'll reduce the deficit. He hasn't given us anything like a believable plan for how he's going to cut taxes on everyone and yet reduce the deficit. I don't believe that there's anywhere near 20-25% waste in the federal budget. I look at sites such as
http://www.kowaldesign.com/cgi/B...t.pl?
estimates=
and I can't figure out where to cut anywhere near that much without absolutely destroying something I consider vital. We could do it by simply eliminating the Defense Department, or Medicare, or Social Security - but I think those are good things to keep.
I'm just wondering when NM Republicans decided that earmarked pork was bad. They've been worshiping Domenici for decades for bringing it home.
That's right Barb, St. Pete is the Big Pig for New Mexico. And, we get a disproportionate share of the pork pie in comparison to some others because of him.
There are jobs, facilities, educational institutions and many other benefits packed under the pie crust, so being a selfish Republican, I appreciate St. Pete.
Chuck, spare us the attitude - please.
The question is valid; are the people we send to Washington supposed to do everything they can to bring home pork, even though other Americans might have a greater actual need for federal assistance?
Is their obligation only to their state, or do they have some obligation to the greater good.
The debate over closing military bases is a perfect example; there is an over all need to close bases, just not the ones in our state.
It's a fair question, and one worthy of a civil discussion.
The point is that McCain and Palin are suddenly running on the issue of getting rid of earmarked pork because they are going to "clean up Washington." Why would NM Republicans be supporting that when their biggest hero is a pork earmark king?
According to the AP and Citizens Against Government Waste, Palin asked for almost $300 per person this year in federal earmarks via Sen. Ted Stevens, more than any other state. The average take per state was $34 per person in local project money from the feds.
Alaska, like NM, operates with a ton of money from the federal government yet Republicans are now cheering efforts to cut all that money off? How ironic.
Barb,
Your homepage has a timer running on Palin's not meeting with the press.
In all fairness, shouldn't there be a clock running on Udall's refusal to debate Pearce?
"In all fairness, shouldn't there be a clock running on Udall's refusal to debate Pearce?"
I say No (although I'm not Barb).
A politician in our democracy is the people's representative, answerable to the people. Part of being answerable to the people is answering the peoples' questions, or the questions of the peoples' stand-in, the press.
There's no similar duty to debate politicl opponents.
Answering the uestions of the press, or the people, is an aspect of transparency. Debating opponents may be merely theater.
Ched,
What you seem to call attitude is simply my way of stating that pork is an integral part of life in New Mexico and I am thankful for it. I believe what we call pork benefits New Mexicans in many serious and valid ways.
While we all decry pork in general and berate each other and our politicians for "giving it away" and taking it; pork in New Mexico(some of it)can end up benefiting our nation as a whole. For instance, the inventions and general discoveries developed through the missions of our two national laboratories AND the operation of our military bases that help our military proficiency would seem to benefit the nation as a whole and not just the population of our state.
Is there waste when the pork barrel spills over or develops foolish or silly leaks? Of course, but I'm not sure we'll ever get rid of all waste. The resolve may be with us, but the solution is not unless we always elect politicians that agree and actually carry through with their promise to rid us of pork. What I have just said does not mean that I believe we should quit trying to rid our system of waste, it just means we should realize that the solution is not simplistic in that our system is based in large measure on the promises and politicians to bring home the bacon, i.e., what we call pork.
And Ched, please moderate your supervision of me and try not to take everything you read in the literal sense. There is some benefit in being able to read between the lines and I don't believe what I said can be reduced or deduced to my taking an attitude. But, I do appreciate the spirit in which your comment was offered ... I think.
Ah, the downtrodden rural folk who struggle to have their voices heard.
Please. These are the same people who, wildly overrepresented in the US House and Electoral College and madly, preposterously overrepresented in the US Senate, use their position of power to vote themselves ever increasing portions of their urban cousins' wealth (Farm Bill, anyone?) while feigning distaste for government and affecting a rugged DIY sensibility. Alaska is testament to this way of life, the conservative welfare state. Please secede already and let me know how that goes...
I do find it hilarious that Sarah Palin of all people is now claiming to be an anti-pork crusader.
John McCain can make that claim with nearly 100% legitimacy and I respect him for it. In his time in office he's walked the walk by not only fighting earmarks requested by other legislators but consistently refused to request earmarks of his own (in all by a very few cases.)
Sarah Palin... not so much. Alaska has by a large margin the highest earmark dollar/population ratio in the entire country, and Palin, although she did belatedly oppose the "bridge to nowhere" (only after it became a nationally known disgrace) still accepted those earmark funds. She even hired a lobbyist to bring home the federal pork for Wasilla while she was mayor. Can you imagine a town that small with a federal earmark lobbyist? That's equivalent to Aztec, NM hiring a federal lobbyist.
Its really funny to me how many right-wingers I know who see Palin as some great savior. Leaving aside the experience debate, what is it about this woman that the far right loves so much? Are they just really happy that they found someone who can deliver a speech competently? Otherwise I don't see whats compelling about her.
On the radio this morning they had a few brief interviews with people who attended the McCain/Palin rally on Saturday and none of them had anything to say about McCain and could only gush about Palin and the fact that she has a family and that she's attractive. I thought it was supposed to be the Dems who were swooning over a good looking candidate who speaks well and has no substance?
Maybe its just foreign to my mindset. I can't take anyone seriously who actually believes (or at least claims to believe) that the invasion of Iraq was God's mission for America, or that God wants us to build a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. Is this really the level of debate that the GOP has sunk to? Anything controversial/pointless/outright evil that my lobbyist buddies want to do is God's will? Really?
Also, Chuck since the Daily Kos and Moveon.org are such bogeymen to you I thought I'd lay your fears to rest by letting you know that I've never been to moveon and I've only read Kos when someone else has sent me a link to it.
Since you're keen to accuse me of getting my opinions from someone else I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that your opinions differ not one single iota from those of well-known right wing lunatic Sean Hannity. I won't claim to know whether you consume his fountain of daily bile or not but since you claim to be so full of original thought I just thought I'd point out that you've independently arrived at the same conclusions as that well-known fleshy prevaricator.
Dan,
I am interested in your opinion.
What do you think is the probability that McCain/Palin can start a reform movement in Washington that will "substantially" change the culture of corruption and incompetence in government?
What do you think the probability is that Obama/Biden can start a reform movement?
I'd give Obama about a 30% chance and McCain about a 15% chance, mostly because McCain would have a hostile Congress and Obama will not.
I believe both candidates are forthright in their desire for reform but both of them are much too intelligent to believe that the rural states are going to give up their federal welfare without a fight, or that the old warhorses of the House & Senate are going to stop taking fact finding trips to Bermuda.
Additionally, if McCain does somehow manage to win, it will be by such a narrow margin that nobody will believe he has anything approaching a mandate. Obama can still win by a landslide and have a mandate.
In other news, Palin's latest display of cluelessness came today when she claimed that the cause of the need to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was that they had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."
As I'm sure anyone who isn't a moron knows, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private corporations who have never been taxpayer-supported.
I have to admit it's brave of the GOP to put all their eggs in a basket that likes to run its mouth without having the slightest idea of what its talking about. Kind of like having Ann Coulter as a candidate. I wonder if the McCain campaign will continue hiding their Presidential candidate and shoving their VP candidate out front if she's going to display such an embarrassing degree of ignorance about the most important issues currently facing the country.
So Dan. Go to the Wikipedia you rely on so much or google and type in GSE or Government Sponsored Enterprise. While you are technically correct about their being private corporations, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sally Mae((sp?)are all Government Sponsored Enterprises and created by the government. For that reason, if no other they had government money spent to form their charters. A lot of money, I suspect. It is easy to see why the "government" felt the need to seize them and it is not exactly false that they "got to big, etc." for the taxpayers". I didn't see or hear the quote. I'm taking you at your word, which I'm sure I do at my peril.
While we're here, is there absolutely nothing that Palin says that might resonate with you? Just wondering.
Here's a link. Although it might not be germane to anything that has been posted on this thread, it probably will be for future threads/articles.
http://www.factcheck.org/
electio...ming_palin.html
Here's a link to Palin's Fannie/Freddie gaffe:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politic...fusing-
com.html
You're right, Fannie and Freddie were originally set up by the Feds, but they were not "too expensive for the taxpayers" or even any expense at all to to the taxpayers until last weekend.
Palin's anti-corruption message resonates with me.
Do any of Obama's messages resonate with you? For that matter, do any of McCain's?
If Obama could fill that empty suit with straw then he could be a straw man. That would resonate with me.
The man is good at manipulating a crowd, but without a little substance, touchy-feely is not something I crave in politics.
Otherwise not much.
I am not really concerned with people's previous positions. I think reasonable people can change their positions.
If you believe that the change is earnest, then it really doesn't make any difference what their previous position was. It makes more difference what they are going to do, than what they have done.
The way I look at it, no matter whether a republican or a democrat gets elected, 20-25% of every tax dollar will continue to be wasted or stolen.
I'll take an reformer over a democrat or a republican any day.
I still believe, despite many good arguments that I've read on this thread, that there is a greater chance that McCain/Palin are reformers than Obama/Biden.
And it isn't just about the 20-25% waste, it is also about us having a seat at the table where decisions are made.
I can see McCain/Palin sitting at the table before I can see Obama/Biden hosting the soiree.
"And it isn't just about the 20-25% waste, it is also about us having a seat at the table where decisions are made."
It's worth noting that McCain's campaign has a large number of lobbyists in important positions. He may say he's against the lobbyists, but he is depending on them to get him elected.
Accoring to one list I saw, 24 lobbyists are big in his cammpagn. They are in positions such as campaign manager and national finance committee co-chairman and deputy campaign manager and state co-chairman.
http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200802260009
Obama has some connections to lobbyists too, as the Gop points out
http://www.gop.com/images/
resear...08Research2.pdf
But as Slate concludes:
"That’s not to say there isn’t a distinction between Obama and McCain. “The McCain campaign, you can’t spit without hitting another lobbyist there,” says David Donnelly, director of the Public Campaign Action Fund.
Likewise, Obama has kept lobbyists at arm's length all along, while McCain’s campaign only instituted its ethics policy last week after two embarrassing departures. "
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs...bying-
ties.aspx
Mr Dan and Mr Michael do have a job?
Chuck,
Its interesting that you believe that Obama is running on image when in fact he is the one talking about issues and who has presented policies to address the issues while McCain is in full image-only campaign mode.
"Look at me! I'm a maverick! I'll fight pork!"
Commenting by HaloScan
