WilliamK

Why? It is no secret that the Huffington Post is biased in its opinions, but it has a good record when it comes to the accuracy of its facts. If you believe otherwise, I challenge you to prove it rather than merely asserting it. That Eagleburger criticized Palin's readiness is true, and can be easily confirmed through other sources. For example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=96329379 http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/newsreader/story/574206.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail...t_ready_to.html http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart...in.html?showall He has since tried to recant, but his defense boils down to "she's a fast learner", coupled with a lame attempt to distract from the issue by attacking Obama, leaving his original claim of Palin's unpreparedness intact. It looks like his opinion on the subject is exactly what he said the first time, and it's only the public expression of it that he is sorry for and now regards as stupid. You can see that here: http://washingtonindependent.com/16296/eag...-a-fast-learner

A clue for the obviously clueless: Families making under 250K will see no increase. Families under 200K will see a decrease. Those in between will remain about the same. Individuals making under 200K will see no increase. Individuals making under 150K will see a decrease. Those in between will remain about the same. In all cases, the cut-off points can vary somewhat because of variables like child care expenses, the size of one's mortgage, etc. Obama has an online calculator that can give you some feel for that: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/ Besides those distinctions, different numbers also come from comparing Obama's and McCain's tax plans to each other, vs. comparing them to current rates. For example, a family making $70K with one child and a 100K mortgage balance under McCain's plan will pay more compared to Obama's plan, but less compared to current rates. As to Richardson's comments, he defines "middle class" as being below 120K and said that people in that group would see lower taxes under Obama's plan, which they will. He did not say that 120K was a cut-off point. Also worth noting is that Bill Richardson is not the architect of Obama's tax plan. Any thinking person can see that there is no conflict between any of those statements. But there appears to be a widespread inability, especially among Republicans, to comprehend the difference between the concepts "no increase" and "decrease", "individual" and "family", "compared to now" and "compared to McCain's plan", and "Bill Richardson" and "Barack Obama". Palin, Libaugh, the RNC, etc. are milking this incomprehension for all it's worth. Say "moo", 2Smart.

Yeah! How dare he use campaign donations for campaigning. What an absurd criticism. This is exactly the sort of thing that a surplus of campaign donations should be used for. To do anything other than spend it on campaigning, including not spending it, would be unethical and disrespectful to all the supporters who donated that money. There's only so much traveling and rallying that can be done in the time remaining, so a major ad buy makes perfect sense. As for treating our tax dollars any differently, I would certainly hope he doesn't. Using that money ethically, intelligently, and for the purposes it's meant for is a GOOD thing.

It appears that some inside the McCain campaign itself would, at least privately, agree with that conclusion. It's starting to come to the surface now that the McCain campaign is going into a self-destructive finger pointing mode in the face of what is now a near-certain defeat in the upcoming election. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/200...me-game-begins/

NEW YORK CITY? Get a rope.

An iceberg of what? No-good workers trying to cover up their slacking? Pranksters who get a kick out of filling out ridiculous registration cards? Legitimate voters who make mistakes or leave important information out? What would be cause for suspicion would be registrations that are credible enough to potentially be used for voting, provably fraudulent, and provably linked to the ACORN organization and not just a rogue canvasser or an unassociated individual filling out cards through them. Mickey Mouse is nothing like that. Of course "more devious things might be happening". That's always possible whether it's about ACORN or anyone else. But if you're going to sling accusations, you need more than the mere possibility that something devious might be happening. You need some indication that it is happening.

Why? Do you put Liddy in that category too? If not, why not?

I think these kinds of guilt-by-association smears are dishonest and dishonorable no matter which side they come from. Two wrongs don't make a right. But I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing up McCain's seedy associations when the purpose is not to smear McCain in the same way that he and the RNC have smeared Obama, but to illustrate what's wrong with their use of those tactics. One cannot accept the smears against one candidate and reject analogous smears against the other without applying two different standards. There are three options: 1. accept both 2. reject both 3. be a hypocrite I think that's essentially the point you were making, correct?

Another point worth noting is that ACORN has 13,000 canvassers. What is the chance of hiring 13,000 workers without having a few bad apples in the bunch? Pretty much none. All you can do is to discourage bad behavior, and take action to correct it when it does happen. So far, there is every indication that ACORN has made reasonable efforts to do that. In 2004, they had some canvassers make up bogus registrations in order to get more money, since they were paid per registration. So this year, they pay by the hour. But to ensure that they don't have workers ripping them off by logging hours that they spent sitting around twiddling their thumbs or smoking cigarettes, they have quotas that have to be met in order to stay employed. Unfortunately, the bad apples are still gaming the system. Instead of making bogus registrations to cheat ACORN out of the per-piece payments, they make bogus registrations, or they give cigarettes to street people for filing bogus registrations, in order to cheat ACORN out of wages for time spent doing something other than their jobs. Really, right-wingers. Are you so mind-bogglingly stupid that you think ACORN actively encourages its workers to cheat it out of money? Are you so mind-bogglingly stupid that you think that obviously bogus registrants like Mickey Mouse, or the Dallas Cowboys (in Nevada, at that) are part of some nefarious plan to have someone actually show up at the polls and try to vote with those registrations? That requires no ordinary level of stupid. It requires over-the-top, hair on fire from trying to light the grill with gasoline stupid. Pecker caught in the drainpipe stupid. Drivers license left at the scene of the crime stupid.

Wow, Bern, I agree with everything you just said. On energy: Both candidates promote development of multiple energy resources, which is great. Both would be moves in a good direction. But I think that Obama's stronger and faster push away from oil is very important. McCain/Palin's "drill, baby, drill" philosophy would give more short term relief while alternatives are develolped, but it would also prolong the dependency and deplete reserves faster, and I believe it would reduce the resolve to develop those alternatives in a timely manner. By pushing towards alternatives and away from oil harder and earlier, we can switch the majority of energy consumption away from oil before all of the cost-effective oil reserves run out, allowing the remaining oil consumption (legacy uses, or uses for which it is simply the est choice) to be supported for a longer time at lower cost and with less dependence on foreign suppliers. If we prolong the oil dependence by keeping prices down in the short term by raped exploitation, we could very well find ourselves with depleted reserves and corresponding extreme costs and excessive import dependence before the move to alternatives is complete. And then we'd have no cost effective reserves to support those legacy uses that are likely to remain significant long after the point where we've moved the majority of consumption to other sources. I do wish Obama was more pro-nuclear, though. Obama's energy plan does include nuclear, but it seems more of a grudging acceptance of a necessary evil rather than advocacy. I still prefer Obama's plan, but if you could add McCain's pro-nuclear position to it, it would be better.

Do you mean leftist newspapers like Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6065490.html), The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10741576), Austin American Statesman (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/10/19/1019president_edit.html), or The Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10750163), all of which endorsed George W. Bush in 2004. Or maybe you meant the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story), which has never endorsed a Democrat for president in it's entire 1.6 century history. All of the above links are the endorsements from the newspapers themselves. All match the Huffington Post's claims. Confirming who these papers endorsed in the previous election is a little more difficult, as some require paid subscriptions to retrieve archived articles. But it can still usually be found somewhere. Every one I've found so far agrees with what the Huffington article claims. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6065490.html (hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since 1960) http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cands/natendorse5.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_end..._election,_2004 http://toys.jacobian.org/endorsements/full.html Here's a much needed clue: When you don't know what you're talking about, stop talking. Go learn something first. It is embarrassingly obvious that this self-proclaimed "Reality Checker" checked nothing. Instead, he went blathering in total, willful ignorance. If he had actually checked into it, he would have discovered that the Huffington Post article is accurate, and that he would be painting himself as a moron by posting what he did. Perhaps "Reality Checker" was just "2Smart" to figure that out.

Translation from Moronese to English: "The NY Times is one of the finest and most respected news organizations in the country. It exhibits an outstanding journalistic quality and integrity that leaves right-wing ideologues distinctly uncomfortable, much like the vermin that scurry for cover when the rock they were hiding under has been lifted, exposing them to the light."

The panel consisted of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats, the investigation was initiated by the Republican dominated state legislature, and this issue predates Palin becoming McCain's running mate. This leaves you in a poor position to call other people "idiot", or even to use the word "fact".

Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, Columnist for National Review, former speechwriter for George H. W. Bush, supporter of John McCain during the primaries and still having some admiration for the man, has endorsed Barack Obama. He announces, and explains, his decision here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-sto...-case-for-obama It's an interesting and very thoughtful article, regardless of whether you agree with him or not. With the ugly turn McCain's campaign has taken, coupled with his faulty economic ideas and increasingly obvious poor judgment in choosing his running mate, I expect to see more intelligent and conscientious conservatives crossing over in the coming weeks. Maybe not many high visibility ones like this, but the effect will show up in the polls and in the voting booths on election day. They won't be turning into Democrats, but they will recognize that John McCain has lost his bearing and that Barack Obama, even if out of alignment with some of their ideals, is the better candidate for President.

That's what the campaign's spokeswoman said, but this is what the investigator's report said:

The real story on that: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...S0502/810100535 Some excerpts from the above linked article: This is, of course, much different from what right-wing talking heads, and many rank-and-file Republicans as well, are saying about it. Some of them proclaim absolute certainty that this is the product of massive voter fraud by Democrats, and that Barack Obama's campaign is directly involved in it. There's nothing that supports that belief. But no matter. For the faithful, the desire to believe is all the evidence they need.

Nah, that would be "nucular", don't cha know.

"Spin" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "telling a truth that disagrees with my ideology". Your post is an example of that. Here's a clue for all you right-wingers, since you're obviously in need of one: When your ideology conflicts with reality, it isn't reality that's in error.

3 weeks? She's had the entirety of her career and her education to learn, just like all the other candidates have had. That she has had to cram in the last few weeks to be able to debate competently, shows just how far removed all of her oft-touted "executive experience" is from the kinds of skills and knowledge that are needed for the presidency. She has surely learned a great many things in her life and career, but it is painfully obvious that they are not the kinds of things that would make her competent for a VP debate, much less for the job itself. Barack Obama has spent about as much time in politics as she has, but he hasn't had to cram and be coached like she has. That's because his experience, his education, and very likely even his personal interests, are far more relevant to the job he's applying for. Palin supporters love to use the word "executive" over and over, to try to convince themselves and others that she's a better choice for VP. The problem is that relevance can stand without "executive". But "executive" loses all value without relevance. The reality is that as far as presidential-quality experience goes, Sarah Palin is a first-year student among seasoned professionals. Yes, that includes Obama. Her inexperience showed badly in her two interviews. And it was still visible in the debate, though the preparatory effort did yield considerable improvement. "3 weeks to get up to speed" is not a valid defense, 2smart. It's an inadvertent admission that she's not ready for the job. She did reasonably well, though that is due in no small part to getting away with evading some of the questions by glossing over, or simply ignoring them, then talking about something else. She returned to "energy" (which for her, seems to be a synonym for "oil") over and over, as a sort of safe haven whenever the topic turned to something that was awkward for her. Luckily for her, Gwen Ifill let her get away with it. Charlie and Katie pressed her to actually address the questions that were asked. The could not have been any "gotcha" in those interviews if not for the fact that Sarah Palin sometimes just had no idea what the hell she was talking about, and not enough sense to quit talking. Still, she managed to do fairy well overall. A little bit of weaving from time to time, but she never drove completely off into the ditch. Of course it is. I doubt you would believe any different if she had frozen up with stage fright and puked on her shoes. She's a Republican, and a Christian, and once you've seen that, it colors everything else you see. Your political beliefs are as faith-based as your religious beliefs.

It's weak, but it beats the heck out of citing refutations of unrelated claims. Munger's claim also happens to be very plausible. Her involvement with Assemblies of God and other Pentacostal/Evangelical churches is well established. Having attended numerous AoG and other Pentacostal churches as a child (well into my teens), that's something I have some familiarity with. Pentacostal churches are very explicitly creationist, and typically of the Biblical literalist variety. These are the sort of churches where you might find Jack Chick comics (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1038/1038_01.asp?wpc=1038_01.asp&wpp=a) displayed in a rack in the foyer, or handed out to the kids at Sunday school. In that subculture, creationism of the young-earth, dinosaurs walking with men variety is the rule, not the exception. The AoG's web site says that they believe in a literal interpretation of the 7 days of creation and that they reject such non-biblical embellishments as theistic evolution. This is consistent with what I remember from many years ago. Their web site doesn't mention the age of the earth or man co-existing with dinosaurs, but within the confines of a literal 7 days and no non-biblical embellishment, co-existence with dinosaurs is pretty much unavoidable regardless of how long ago you place the 7 days. The claim is unproven, but quite plausible. Palin is atypical of her religious affiliation if she doesn't believe that dinosaurs co-existed with humans.

It was all over the news at the time. If you think it wasn't, you must have had your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears. But it's in the past. It would be rather silly for it to get anything more than an occasional passing mention now.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7560/807/1600/view.jpg http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=11168

Unless someone can show that she knew about or condoned this, it has no relevance. Trying to spin it as something negative about Palin is just a sleazy guilt by association attempt. A dishonest smear. I know that the guilt by association tactic has been used extensively against Obama, and perpetrated by several here on this board, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Looks like he overestimated their intelligence too.

Yep, Obama screwed up. He greatly overestimated the honor of his opponents.