once again the jokes write themselves...

Note that the McCain surge in the polls is already fading out, and fading out fast:

Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls

Still not too worried about the outcome. The economy is going to completely negate the Palin impact, and require her to have more nuanced, detailed policy positions. Obama's sharper focus on McCain's record is also having an impact.

My prediction: Obama back up by 2-3 points in the polls within two weeks; he might even open a larger lead than that. Then we hit the debates and the game changes again.

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:

i thought the fundementals of the economy were still good

that's the point.

so obama was doing what he should do?

but that's not what he said…

Originally posted by vansmack:
"If John McCain hadn't said that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' on the day of one of our nation's worst financial crises, the claim that he invented the BlackBerry would have been the most preposterous thing said all week."

so, if the economy is in such terrible shape, as the obama campaign says, then it's quite something to head out for a $28.5K a plate fundraising event, followed by another $2,000 a ticket event to hear barbara streisand sing. surely if a republican had said such a thing, then went off to a high-paying fundraiser, he/she would be accused of being out-of-touch with the electorate. instead, the press says nothing and let's obama float on by as they continually protect him.

You leave Barbara Streisand out of this….

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, if the economy is in such terrible shape, as the obama campaign says, then it's quite something to head out for a $28.5K a plate fundraising event, followed by another $2,000 a ticket event to hear barbara streisand sing. surely if a republican had said such a thing, then went off to a high-paying fundraiser, he/she would be accused of being out-of-touch with the electorate. instead, the press says nothing and let's obama float on by as they continually protect him.

i dont think obama has ever said that the economy is bad for people that can afford $28k a plate dinners (according to drudge). in fact, isnt that his whole point, that the rich have benefitted from deregulation on the backs of the middle class, yet still seem protected from the economic down turn?

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, if the economy is in such terrible shape, as the obama campaign says, then it's quite something to head out for a $28.5K a plate fundraising event, followed by another $2,000 a ticket event to hear barbara streisand sing. surely if a republican had said such a thing, then went off to a high-paying fundraiser, he/she would be accused of being out-of-touch with the electorate. instead, the press says nothing and let's obama float on by as they continually protect him.

Yes, clearly the economic problem resides with people who can afford a $28.5k per plate fundraiser and $2,000 ticket prices. Especially those supporting a candidate that wants to increase taxes on the rich to help support the middle and lower class.

In fact, we should probably cut taxes for every donor attending this fundraiser…

Originally posted by vansmack:
You leave Barbara Streisand out of this….

<img src="http://mystuffs.uw.hu/pic/112.jpg" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, if the economy is in such terrible shape, as the obama campaign says, then it's quite something to head out for a $28.5K a plate fundraising event, followed by another $2,000 a ticket event to hear barbara streisand sing. surely if a republican had said such a thing, then went off to a high-paying fundraiser, he/she would be accused of being out-of-touch with the electorate. instead, the press says nothing and let's obama float on by as they continually protect him.

i dont think obama has ever said that the economy is bad for people that can afford $28k a plate dinners (according to drudge). in fact, isnt that his whole point, that the rich have benefitted from deregulation on the backs of the middle class, yet still seem protected from the economic down turn?

do i really need to re-post the list of congressmen who have gotten the most money in campaign donations from freddie mac, fannie mae and lehman brothers. it's almost like you don't care.

as for banking deregulation. . .would someone let me know when the gramm-leach-bliley act was passed? thanks.

your logic is getting more and more tortured as this thread progresses - what is your point here?

are you implying that McCain has postponed fundraising out of respect for the bad economy? I don't think McCain is being portrayed as out of touch by the media, maybe by the Obama campaign but not the media. Everyone knows he's had the media in his pocket for years until this recent barrage of lies and distortions caused some of them to wake up and take notice.

High dollar fundraising is part and parcel of this noxious political process.

so, if the economy is in such terrible shape, as the obama campaign says, then it's quite something to head out for a $28.5K a plate fundraising event, followed by another $2,000 a ticket event to hear barbara streisand sing. surely if a republican had said such a thing, then went off to a high-paying fundraiser, he/she would be accused of being out-of-touch with the electorate. instead, the press says nothing and let's obama float on by as they continually protect him.

its not that i dont care about the economy, its that i dont care to think that there is some vast media conspiracy protecting obama

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
do i really need to re-post the list of congressmen who have gotten the most money in campaign donations from freddie mac, fannie mae and lehman brothers. it's almost like you don't care.

Sure. But you could you break it down for me between individuals in lower and middle management (presumably thousands) vs. decision makers at the top (say, about 50)?

Originally posted by brennser:
your logic is getting more and more tortured as this thread progresses - what is your point here?

are you implying that McCain has postponed fundraising out of respect for the bad economy? I don't think McCain is being portrayed as out of touch by the media, maybe by the Obama campaign but not the media. Everyone knows he's had the media in his pocket for years until this recent barrage of lies and distortions caused some of them to wake up and take notice.

High dollar fundraising is part and parcel of this noxious political process.

i'm implying that if a republican was doing what obama was doing. . .saying the economy is in the dumps then jetting off to, let's say, texas to hob-nob with, how about, oil executives, people would be up in arms. as it is, obama says the economy is in terrible shape, then jet's off to california to hob-nob with hollywood, and no one says a thing.

and thank you for saying this is an absolutely normal part of the election process. . .change you can believe in indeed.

which republican is saying or has said the economy is bad

since it's getting late in the day out there in d.c., and no one has guessed, i'd figure i'd give you the answers.

senator a is obama
senator b is biden
senator c is mccain

why. . .lookie there. . mccain's female staffers make more than his male staffers, on average. also, why does obama have more staff than either biden or mccain. . .i have no idea, just asking.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Anyone wanna match the politician to the salaries? Can choose between Biden, McCain and Obama.

Senator A pays his 27 male staffers an average salary of $56K a year, but pays his 30 female staffers an average salary of $45K a year.

Senator B pays his 15 male staffers an average salary of $85K a year, but pays his 25 female staffers an average salary of $56K a year.

Senator C pays his 17 male staffers an average of $53K a year, but pays his 25 female staffers an average salary of $56K a year.

so its ok for mccain to say things are fine before jetting off to his multi million dollar fundraisers?

I don't think Obama's (or McCain's) fundraising is in anyway hypocrital. Its a voluntary payment/investment. How does the donation hurt any individuals? You can't claim price gauging on a voluntary payment.

However, McCain/Palin have (past tense?) scored points with more retarded arguments lately ("I put the thing on ebay") so I could see them saying with a straightface "How can Obama accept $66 million in one month while American families are hurting" and then demand he use the money to send each American a 25 cent stimulus check.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:


as for banking deregulation. . .would someone let me know when the gramm-leach-bliley act was passed? thanks.

Sure. 1999.

It was 54-44 in the Senate (53 Republicans and 1 Dem voting yes, 44 Democrats and no Republicans voting no, and 1 Rep voting "Present" and 1 repub not voting.)

In the House it was:

Yeas Nays NV
Republican 207(Y) 5(N) 10 (NV)
Democratic 155 (Y) 51(N) 5(NV)
Independent 1(Y)
TOTALS 362 57 15

And signed into law by President Clinton.

The Bills Author, Senator Phil Graham, left Congress and is now a VP at UBS Investment Bank, the world's biggest manager of other people's money, and was Presidential Co-Chair of John McCains campaign and his most senior economic advisor until July. While advising the McCain campaign, Gramm was being paid by UBS to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis.

Since then he has been seen with McCain during the campaign, and continues to be an unofficial adviser on economic and financial matters.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
senator a is obama
senator b is biden
senator c is mccain

I don't see sex. I only see competence.

thats sexist, charlie

also, it sure doesnt pay to work on the hill. damn

Originally posted by brennser:
so its ok for mccain to say things are fine before jetting off to his multi million dollar fundraisers?

that would be more honest than what obama said. if mccain believes, rightly or wrongly, that the "fundamentals" are strong, then goes out an fundraises, at least he's being consistent. and the democrats can ridicule his statement on the economy. . .it's the exact opposite scene with obama. . .says the economy is in the dumps and then goes high stakes fundraising. yes, he has to do it, since he said no to public funding. if all these rich democrats want their taxes raised, fine, but there's nothing keeping them from paying more to the government right now. the government takes checks, money orders and credit cards.