KLB1

There's a big difference between someone making a mistake during a live speech and a campaign aid coming to the striking realization that his VP candidate doesn't know what a continent is.

It was a bad idea for McCain to choose a VP candidate that would lose in a game of "Who's Smarter than a Fifth Grader."

And the only reason I point it out is because Imight have voted for McCain if he had chosen someone who could fog a mirror. This lady is a total quack.

Evensplit

I hope your jaw doesn't hurt too bad from the hook becuse you've been fished in by the party - both of them.

And I'll ask again - who would have been a better pick? I'm honestly curious because I couldn't think of anyone that would have been a better call <U>at this time</U>. A republican senator would have been crucified by the press for having helped cause all of this mess anyway, and one of the other governors that hasfuture plans would have been a fool to jump into a largely doomed campaign.

Xanadu

You're right. The republicans got us into this mess so any choice from them would have been bad. If you want the truth, the strategy from McCain was pretty good. He avoided GWB at all costs. He didn't let W campaign for him or endorse him and he didnt' trot out the entombed body of Cheney or George HW Bush. He didn't trot out Nancy Reagan - partly because she hates him because he's a wife cheating dirtbag - and he didn't march out Powell or Schwarzkopf because they wouldn't endorse him.



The best strategy the GOP could have taken this time would have been to bad mouth Bush, declare that they're not rightwing ideologue religious fundamentalists, endorse Obama or Hillary and declare that the only reason they're Rs is because that's what they had to do to get on the ballot.



then, they might have won. Otherwise, it was a slaughter because the US populace, as dumb as it is, knows that deregulation brought on the financial collapse and that GOP fat cats were the only ones getting rich over the past 8 years. despite all the 'redistribution" bs, the regular guy on the street knows Exxon is run by Rs and that the big money Lobbyists are Rs and that WalMart supports Rs and that Obama was not an R.



Easypeasy.

captwesrozier

hal...<H3 class=entry-header>Richer Americans are Democrats</H3><DIV class=entry-content><DIV class=entry-body>

An article in The Washington Times alerted me to research from 6th November by Michael Franc at The Heritage Foundation. Mr Franc shows that the wealthiest Americans are increasingly likely to vote Democrat:<BLOCKQUOTE>

"Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats. This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence."</BLOCKQUOTE>

And if that's surprising to some we should also remember the recent Arthur Brooks research that showed that conservatives give more to good causes:<BLOCKQUOTE>

"People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes. It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families." (Thomas Sowell for RealClearPolitics).</BLOCKQUOTE>

To greater and lesser extents the same breakdown of the income-voting relationship is happening across the world. The path to conservative voters is not necessarily along a gravel path anymore. George W Bush had to win over the soccer moms. John Howard won four times with the votes of 'battlers' - and lost the premiership when they deserted him. Stephen Harper has his 'Tim Horton' voters. Electoral coalition-building is much more interesting as values compete with income as a determinant of voting behaviour.</DIV></DIV><DIV class=entry-footer><P class=entry-footer-info><SPAN class=post-footers>November 25, 2007 at 02:56 PM in The big picture in 2008 <SPAN class=separator>| Permalink <P class=entry-footer-info><SPAN class=dateline>November 28, 2006 <H2 class=h2-article>Who Really Cares?</H2><P class=entry-footer-info>By Thomas Sowell


More frightening than any particular beliefs or policies is an utter lack of any sense of a need to test those beliefs and policies against hard evidence. Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision.

One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring. It is liberals who advocate "forgiveness" of loans to Third World countries, a "living wage" for the poor and a "safety net" for all.

But these are all government policies -- not individual acts of compassion -- and the actual empirical consequences of such policies are of remarkably little interest to those who advocate them. Depending on what those consequences are, there may be good reasons to oppose them, so being for or against these policies may tell us nothing about who is compassionate or caring and who is not.<DIV id=article-box-ad> </DIV>

A new book, titled "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks examines the actual behavior of liberals and conservatives when it comes to donating their own time, money, or blood for the benefit of others. It is remarkable that beliefs on this subject should have become conventional, if not set in concrete, for decades before anyone bothered to check these beliefs against facts.

What are those facts?

People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.

You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.

So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.

Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

According to Professor Brooks: "If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent."

Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find -- so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.

What is the reason why some people are liberals and others are conservatives, if it is not that liberals are more compassionate?

Fundamental differences in ideology go back to fundamental assumptions about human nature. Based on one set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a liberal. Based on a different set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a conservative.

The two visions are not completely symmetrical, however. For at least two centuries, the vision of the left has included a belief that those with that vision are morally superior, more caring and more compassionate.

While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts.

Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test -- and how completely it failed that test.

The two visions are different in another way. The vision of the left exalts the young especially as idealists while the more conservative vision warns against the narrowness and shallowness of the inexperienced. This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds.<DIV id=article-author></DIV><DIV id=article-footer>

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

HAL i think we both know who is getting rich!

tight lines and living off "HAL and TOP CONSTRUCTION INC" in 2009!</DIV></DIV>

Evensplit

I didn't say that the Republicans put us in this mess, and to try to limit the responsibility in such a way is the simpletons way out - not your style, and Iknow you're smarter than that.

As the president, W will bear the responsibility, and the Republicans will pay the price in the long term, but the shallow argument could just as easily be made that we were fine 2 years ago before the democrats gained power in congress. Bill Clinton himself stated in an interview that the seeds of the economicproblem weresewn a long time ago, and that it was allowed to grow even during his administration as well. I've actually gained a lot of respect for ol slick willie here lately because he's been pretty straight forward about the issue, and has been largely reluctant to throw stones.

I hope that Obama is able to make the world a better place and fix all the BS, but if he cannot, what responsibility will he ultimately bear?

Tuna Man

Geee I wonder what role Christianity plays into that?????</DIV>

Tuna Man

NEW YORK -- MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

David Shuster, an anchor for the cable news network, said on air Monday that Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a FOX News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent.

The Eisenstadt claim had mistakenly been delivered to Shuster by a producer and was used in a political discussion Monday afternoon, MSNBC said.

http://www.foxnews.com/

deepsixrich

#1- Did we ever hear anything about Slick Willie being a Wife Cheating Dirtbag? Just Wondering.

#2-I know the republicans have let Washington change them instead of them changing Washington. But with all the liberal media bias slanting Everything against conservatives I LOVED watching O'Reilly rip ole Barney Frank a new one. This Democratic bumbling stumbling piss poor excuse for a "Chairman of the Financial Services Committee" was suppose to be watching out for this exact thing for the last 2 years! He should have been shouting warnings from the house tops. THIS GUY IS AT THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM!

Deregulation does no more than excessive regulation to destroy the economy. Find out who lied, cheated, cooked the books etc... and through them under the jail.

And please tell me that the bleeding hearted liberals that wanted everybody to be able to afford a home, pushed for these bad loans, and anybody with any financial fortitude could easily see they would be Bad Debt, are not responsible.

Palin vrs. Barney Frank, side by side in Hi-Def, with 5.1 digital sound surround, I would pay to see that!



If you missed O'Reilly/Franks;