New U.S. President

[ewmayer]

AES: Apology accepted ... we all have bad days.

I admit having a bias in this matter, but I do always try to support my arguments with facts and links to at-least-somewhat-unbiased news sources.

[cheesehead]

AES,

I, too, accept your apology. (And, in return, I apologize for once having mistakenly called you "AEC".) It's the sort of thing that commonly happens in political discussions. C'est la guerre (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...%20la%20guerre).

Originally Posted by AES

National news organizations should adopt this format IMO.

You're such an idealist.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

increase taxes on natural gas and heating oil (as though Republican refuse-to-save-energy policy ...

It's electricity and home heating oil.

[cheesehead]

"Anti-Obama Smears About Religion or Race?"

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...itting_on.html

Originally Posted by Eboo Patel

. . .

I thought one of John McCain's most statesmanlike moments was when he congratulated Obama for the historic nature of his accomplishment on the night he received the nomination.

Which is exactly what makes the race/faith smear campaign against Obama so stomach-turning.

In his New York Times column on Sunday, Nick Kristof stated that almost one-third of Americans either "know" Obama is a Muslim, or believe he could be. Kristof was shocked to discover that columns he's written, especially one in which he quotes Obama expressing respect for the Muslim call to prayer, were being used as evidence of his secret Islamic beliefs.

That's like saying every tourist who strolls by St. Paul's Cathedral in London is Christian.

Here's Kristof's take on this: "Religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice. In public at least, it's not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate's skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian."

. . .

As Kristof states, the campaign to "otherize" Obama has no shame. There is no such thing as below the belt for people like Jerome Corsi, author of the hatchet job "The Obama Nation."

Corsi wrote a bestseller, but that doesn't give him the last word on this matter. The strategy of linking Barack's fictitious Muslim-ness with his dark skin might just backfire. After all, America has a creed that makes us proud and a dream to live up to and we don't like it when people try to gain advantage by violating our precious heritage.

. . .

Of course, conservative think-tank political strategy has managed to make Republicanism fairly synonymous with Christianity, so it's less of a wonder that we have

"Church Silence on the Economy"

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...?tid=informbox

Originally Posted by David Waters

I've been waiting for a week for at least one major Christian denomination to help us gain some spiritual or even scriptural insight into Wall Street's moral failings, first brought to our attention by Brother Alan Greenspan in 2002.

"An infectious greed seemed to grip much of our business community," the then-Fed chairman told Congress. "It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past. It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously."

Since Wall Street began melting down last week, the only avenue of greed the major Christian denominations have felt called upon to inspect this has been the one that leads to their church pensions. Good news, clergy and lay employees of the United Methodist and Episcopal churches. Your pensions are safe. No word on how your parishioners are doing during the current housing/credit/debt crisis, and not a hint of rebuke for the free enterprise faithful who caused all of this grief, but your billions of investment dollars are being looked after.

. . .

I'm not saying our religious leaders should threaten to withhold communion from the greedy sinners responsible for the economy's going to hell in a financial basket, because that might include just about all of us. I know I've taken advantage of lower interest rates, mortgage refinancing, home equity growth (remember that?), stock options and other little 'trickle-down' perks we get during the bubbles.

I'm not even saying our religious leaders should withhold endorsements from candidates whose policies, votes or views encourage the sort of risky business that blows parts of our economy into bubbles that burst all over us. Those are people we've all voted for.

I am saying that the best moral analysis of these financial failures shouldn't come from Alan Greenspan, who arguably is as responsible as anyone for our growing indebtedness.

. . .

Some comments to that article point out that churches _have_ expressed sympathy to their congregation's plight, but none seems to address the main point Waters made: there's a paucity of religious analysis of the causes of the financial mess.

Why did I write above that it's less of a wonder that we have church silence on (that aspect of) the economy? Because now that Republicanism has been made fairly synonymous with Christianity,

Christians may well feel uncomfortable about questioning Republican financial policies.

[ewmayer]

Biden Calls Ad Mocking McCain 'Terrible'

WASHINGTON (Sept. 23) - Barack Obama's running mate says a campaign ad that mocked Republican presidential candidate John McCain as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate was "terrible" and would not have been done had he known about it.

Obama, McCain's Democratic rival, launched the ad earlier this month, part of an aggressive push to slow McCain's rise in the polls after he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. It included unflattering footage of Sen. McCain at a hearing in the early '80s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit, interspersed with shots of a disco ball, a clunky phone, an outdated computer and a Rubik's Cube.

"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class," the ad says.

Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the "CBS Evening News," Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.

"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said.

Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it, and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it."

Late Monday, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton issued a statement from Biden. In it, Biden said he "was asked about an ad I'd never seen" and was "reacting merely to press reports."

Biden said that, as he said in the interview, there was nothing "intentionally personal" in the criticism of McCain's views.

"Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Sen. McCain's ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack's votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators," Biden said.

Biden was referring to a McCain ad that said Obama supported sex education for kindergartners, based on a bill he voted for as an Illinois state senator. Obama's campaign said the ad was a "shameful" distortion of his record because the bill's language meant young children would have been taught about sexual predators and concepts such as "good touch and bad touch."

Again, however, note the key difference - while Obama's ad may be unflattering and include some cheap shots, THERE IS NOTHING FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN IT. In fact, if Obama wanted to really "mock the 80s McCain" he could do so factually, by reminding people of McCain`s disgraceful role in the Savings and Loan scandal.

LOL, a disco ball...OTOH, if McCain actually knew how to *unscramble* a Rubik`s cube in best "Ah've taken on tougher enemies than this here [snort, spit] - ah'm a reformer, a real maverick, just lahk Tom Cruise in 'Top Gun', dagnabbit" fashion, I might actually be impressed.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

if McCain actually knew how to *unscramble* a Rubik`s cube in best "Ah've taken on tougher enemies than this here [snort, spit] - ah'm a reformer, a real maverick, just lahk Tom Cruise in 'Top Gun', dagnabbit" fashion, I might actually be impressed.

You Americans are remarkably impressionable. Even I can unscramble a Rubik's cube within a minute or two and I'm a self-confessed barely-competent at the process.

Now, if he could unscramble one, repeatedly, in under 10 seconds I'd be a bit more impressed. Not as the self-styled leader of the free world, mind you, but at least someone with manual dexterity and well-learned pattern recognition.


Paul

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by xilman

Now, if he could unscramble one, repeatedly, in under 10 seconds I'd be a bit more impressed. Not as the self-styled leader of the free world, mind you, but at least someone with manual dexterity and well-learned pattern recognition.

McCain probably thinks that "manual dexterity" is the leader of Uruguay.

[Xyzzy]

The ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ae409tJEI

[petrw1]

A little racy but some of you Americans will surely enjoy it (I hope) ...

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/this_land

[ewmayer]

Washington Post | Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 24, 2008; Page A01

Turmoil in the financial industry and growing pessimism about the economy have altered the shape of the presidential race, giving Democratic nominee Barack Obama the first clear lead of the general-election campaign over Republican John McCain, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll.

Just 9 percent of those surveyed rated the economy as good or excellent, the first time that number has been in single digits since the days just before the 1992 election. Just 14 percent said the country is heading in the right direction, equaling the record low on that question in polls dating back to 1973.

I`ve been telling friends that Obama`s big mistake post-convention was letting himself get sucked into the Republican "politics of distraction", rather than simply continuing to hammer McCain, the GOP and the Bush administration on their wrecking of the economy, similarly to Clinton`s "It's the economy, stupid" strategy in 1992. A couple of weeks ago, just after the Freddie and Fannie emergency bailout, I told them that the economy would most likely determine the outcome of the election - most scoffed. Then the credit-market shit suddenly hit the fan all at once. Whoops! sometimes it`s not much fun being right.

Gosh, haven`t seen much of the lovely Sarah Palin on the front pages of the papers lately ... disappointing, that.

[cheesehead]

McCain's calls for Obama to join him back in Washington, DC, to postpone their scheduled Friday debate, and to withdraw campaign ads, supposedly to demonstrate the seriousness of the financial crisis, is just opportunistic political bunkem.

AFAIK, neither McCain nor Obama is a member of any of the Senate committees that are involved in examining financial-crisis legislation, so neither has any actual need to be there until the bill reaches the floor for vote by all Senators. As has been pointed out, it would be sufficient for them to send their respective economic advisory teams to talk with other Senators prior to the floor vote.

Postponing Friday's debate? Why wouldn't McCain want to show us all that he can competently discuss other governmental subjects while other people more directly-involved take care of the nitty-gritty of crafting financial-crisis legislation? Isn't that the sort of thing a President needs to do -- delegate authority to handle details of crises of various types while keeping view of the big picture lest he miss something important elsewhere?

Oh, wait ... McCain's proposing to change the date to next week, when the only vice-presidential debate is scheduled, and postpone the vice-presidential debate until "a little later". (http://dyn.politico.com/blogs/jonath...ategory/Debate) Gives GOP advisors more time to prepare Palin.

Withdrawing all campaign ads? Did Obama propose that, too, or just McCain? Such a move would ... reduce the sort of spending that keeps the economy going (though campaign ads represent only a miniscule slice of the GNP, so this would have little effect, I think). Oh, wait ... McCain's campaign has been running short of money for months, hasn't it? So maybe there's a more practical reason?