once again the jokes write themselves...

So is the GOP secretly on a campaign to get America comfortable with increasingly stupid Presidents?

Why would they do this? Because that enables puppetmasters that the American public might find unpalatable to be the real forces in Government.

If you think about it, who was the last intelligent Republican President?

That would be Richard Milhous Nixon, whom despite his many flaws was inarguably bright and well-educated.

Consider the cast since then:

Ronald Reagan – main career, actor; brief Governor stint; evidently descending into senility even before beginning his first term

George HW Bush might seem like an exception, until you consider his foolhardy VP, Dan Quayle, remembering again the long-term GOP goal of dumbing down the public's expectation of the land's highest offices

Even during the Clinton years, the Republican "revolution" in the House was driven by pandering to wild-eyed, poorly educated slackjaws, the gun-loving militia "movement," religious nutters, and fixations primarily on non-policy matters such as the President's penis and real estate investments

George Dubya Bush – perhaps the most ineffective, least intelligent, weak executive ever, with the country primarily run by Cheney and his shadowy cabal

It's hard to imagine topping Dubya, but the beady-eyed Palin, who blatantly speaks from a script every time she opens her mouth and has trouble even forming those scripted words, tops him.

And McCain, once a man possessed of great dignity, is now debasing himself by campaigning on non-issues such as whether Obama was referring to Miss Piggy with his "lipstick" comment.

If McCain wins, the odds are very high that Palin will ascend to the Presidency.

It's hard to imagine that true Conservatives – I mean the types who are educated, and appreciate limited but effective government – I'm not talking the frothing mouthed ideologues who have hijacked the GOP, who take the Bible literally, and are more concerned with stem cells than the economy – can be very comfortable with that thought.

Originally posted by vansmack:
I love how your response to Phil Gramm was "well more UBS employees give to Obama then McCain" and then you point to Goolsbee, who was wrong in his analysis without ever once acknowledging that McCain's economic advisor drafted this de-regulation legislation that is ABSOLUTLEY responsible for this mess. Just so I get ahead of your next delfection "sure Phil Gramm wrote it, but Clinton should have vetoed it!" - or how about the 54 Republican Senators shouldn't have let him get away with it!

So, answer me how Phil Gramm is not responsible for this legislation.

wait. . .according to this, gramm-leach-bliley passed by a 90-8 senate vote, not the 54-44 vote you said previously (the House voted 362-57). btw, biden voted yea, but it appears that mccain missed the vote.

so, it wasn't just republicans pushing this onto clinton (who still could have vetoed it, but probably supported it), lots of senators and representatives voted for it.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by sweetcell:
thank you for saving me the trouble of looking this up, this was just as i suspected…. the reason why mccain pays his women more than his men: he has more higher-ranking women on his staff. this is indeed a good thing, but it proves NOTHING about mccain's stance on pay equity - which was the implication of your deceitful "which senator is a-b-c" quiz.

how does it prove nothing? whatever mccain's "stance," he has hired and placed more women at higher levels in his staff than either obama or biden. so, you can either talk about pay equity or you can do something about it. you can either talk about putting women in to higher ranking positions, or you can put women into higher ranking positions. which one would you choose?

what it proves is that mccain doesn't believe in paying women equally. he has more women than men in high positions, yet average women's salary is the same as men. if women were paid equally, womens' average salary would be higher then men since there are more women in high-paying positions. THAT is what i was getting at - the initial "guess which senator pays his women most" implied that mccain practiced pay equity, when in fact it appears that he doesn't. although i will give him credit for being an economic rationalist when it comes to staffing: place competent women in high positions, they're cheaper than men!

and i'd advise you to be careful when getting preachy about the republicans' support of womens' rights. come back to me when the GOP believes that a women is allowed doing what she wants with her body.

Originally posted by sweetcell:
what it proves is that mccain doesn't believe in paying women equally. he has more women than men in high positions, yet average women's salary is the same as men. if women were paid equally, womens' average salary would be higher then men since there are more women in high-paying positions. THAT is what i was getting at - the initial "guess which senator pays his women most" implied that mccain practiced pay equity, when in fact it appears that he doesn't. although i will give him credit for being an economic rationalist when it comes to staffing: place competent women in high positions, they're cheaper than men!

then pity the poor female obama staffers. . .there are 5 more than mccain and they're getting paid, on average, $10k less than women who work for mccain.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
then pity the poor female obama staffers. . .there are 5 more than mccain and they're getting paid, on average, $10k less than women who work for mccain.

obama's ladies are being paid less - because they are in lower-paying positions. i'd expect admin assistants to be paid less than senior advisers.

what was your point again?

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
wait. . .according to this,

You tell me.

Yours must be the conference vote.

And here is the conference house vote.

Originally posted by sweetcell:
obama's ladies are being paid less - because they are in lower-paying positions. i'd expect admin assistants to be paid less than senior advisers.

what was your point again?

I love this justification. "Obama has a long record of hiring women as secretaries and calling them sweetie, but apparently not appointing them to any position of any importance! What's a you problem?"

Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I love this justification. "Obama has a long record of hiring women as secretaries and calling them sweetie, but apparently not appointing them to any position of any importance! What's a you problem?"

hi jules! you seem to be a latecomer to the discussion, and you've obviously misunderstood the intent of what i said, so let me bring you up to speed: this was not a justification of anyone's HR practices. i was pointing out that having more women in higher positions will naturally lead to higher average salary. Venerable seemed to be making two supposedly unrelated points about mccain, when in fact they are flip sides of the same coin.

however, mccain isn't practicing pay parity: he has more women in higher positions, yet on average they make the same as their lower-ranking male counterparts. hiring women into higher positions but not paying them accordingly ain't much of a horn to toot.

the real problem is that we only have very partial data about the two candidates' staff's make-up, and here we are making generalizations about their views on gender and pay equity.

addressing your lies: obama does have women in high positions around him, just not as many as mccain - good for the old man. obama does not have a record of calling anyone on his staff "sweetie". he did use "sweetie" when referring to a reporter recently. much has been made of it, yet strangely enough the reporter at whom the term was directed took no offense - another right wing-sponsored tempest in a teacup. even if he did use that term with one of his staff, it would still be much less misogynistic than dictating to women what they can do with their bodies.

congrats on stirring up a bee's nest of non-issue. OMG OBAMA USED THE WORD "SWEETIE"! HE WAS PROBABLY THINKING "LIPSTICK" TOO!!! it's a good thing this election will be decided on the candidates' usage of diminutives :roll:

I'm hearing talk that if McCain is elected, Sarah Palin is going to push for a constitutional amendment outlawing blowjobs and porn. These are the stakes people.

Originally posted by sweetcell:
congrats on stirring up a bee's nest of non-issue.

Have you READ Julian's America?

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."

well, i guess obama was feeling lonely

In Vienna, Ohio, this afternoon, McCain said that Obama today "claimed that the Congressional stimulus package was his idea. Thatâ??s news to those of us in Congress who supported it. Senator Obama didnâ??t even show up to vote."

Originally posted by sweetcell:


however, mccain isn't practicing pay parity: he has more women in higher positions, yet on average they make the same as their lower-ranking male counterparts. hiring women into higher positions but not paying them accordingly ain't much of a horn to toot.

the real problem is that we only have very partial data about the two candidates' staff's make-up, and here we are making generalizations about their views on gender and pay equity.

addressing your lies: obama does have women in high positions around him, just not as many as mccain - good for the old man.

oh sweetcell. . .in the comparison between the 3 senators, it's readily apparent that mccain is the only one of the three who pays their female staffers more than their male staffers, on average. you can call it whatever you want, that fact still remains a fact.

see, there's this webpage called legistorm, which has the salaries of congressional staffers. what we find is that first of all, obama spent more on his staff than mccain, $1.3 million for obama and $1.03 million for mccain. let's look at the legislative director. . .obama's LD is a guy who makes $60K, mccain's LD is a female who makes $65K. conveniently, mccain's female LD is the highest paid staffer on mccain's staff and higher than any staffer on obama's staff.

as noted earlier:

"Only one of Obama's five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain's five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women.

Of Obama's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women."

so, mccain has 25 female staffers, of which 13 are 20 of the highest paid staffers. obama has 30 female staffers of which only 7 are among the top 20 paid staffers. whether or not mccain is the paragon of equal pay, women are more likely to be paid higher working for mccain than for obama. if there's any result that can be reached from these numbers, it's that congressional staff get paid like crap, regardless of gender.

i could say that mccain picks people on vaginas over merit. but i wouldnt do that, cause thats sexist charlie

and you were wrong on the media giving obama slack on the fundraiser. was even on access hollywood last night

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

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."

well, i guess obama was feeling lonely

In Vienna, Ohio, this afternoon, McCain said that Obama today "claimed that the Congressional stimulus package was his idea. Thatâ??s news to those of us in Congress who supported it. Senator Obama didnâ??t even show up to vote."

You always have to read all of what Jake Tapper has to write:

"The Obama campaign argues that in January 2008, Obama "was the only candidate to propose a fiscal stimulus plan centered on tax rebate checks for the broad majority of Americans. The bipartisan bill that passed less than a month later was centered on rebate checks to the broad middle class along the lines of what Obama proposed."

That is true.

Obama proposed a tax rebate aimed at middle class families. Clintonâ??s approach, conversely, focused on specific programs targeted at individuak problems, such as home-heating and mortgage subsidies."

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
wait. . .according to this,

You tell me.

Yours must be the conference vote.

And here is the conference house vote.

surely you don't need me to explain legislative process. . .the senate vote you link to is the initial senate vote on the bill. . however, due to differences between the house and the senate versions, it goes to conference. . .the conference report is the compromise between the two houses. . .so, yes, mine was on the conference report, which is the version of the bill that was signed by clinton, yours was on the version that ended up in conference.

Originally posted by callat703:
You always have to read all of what Jake Tapper has to write:

"The Obama campaign argues that in January 2008, Obama "was the only candidate to propose a fiscal stimulus plan centered on tax rebate checks for the broad majority of Americans. The bipartisan bill that passed less than a month later was centered on rebate checks to the broad middle class along the lines of what Obama proposed."

That is true.

Obama proposed a tax rebate aimed at middle class families. Clintonâ??s approach, conversely, focused on specific programs targeted at individuak problems, such as home-heating and mortgage subsidies."

well then, how convenient of him to not vote on his own proposal.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well then, how convenient of him to not vote on his own proposal.

You mean the proposal that passed 81-16, two days after Super Tuesday? While Obama was locked in a heated primary campaign with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards? And the proposal that John McCain did not vote on, despite being present in Washington?

Tell me, how would Obama's vote have affected the known outcome?

EDIT: I double checked on McCain's vote; while the source I link to above says McCain did not vote on it, I believe it refers to the cloture vote, and not the final vote on the bill itself. McCain voted yes to the bill itself.

Originally posted by callat703:
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.

This trend continues:

Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls - 9.17

Today's Gallup poll has Obama up by 2 points. I may revise my prediction above and guess that Obama will be up 4-6 points going into the debates.

Originally posted by callat703:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, i guess obama was feeling lonely

In Vienna, Ohio, this afternoon, McCain said that Obama today "claimed that the Congressional stimulus package was his idea. Thatâ??s news to those of us in Congress who supported it. Senator Obama didnâ??t even show up to vote."

You always have to read all of what Jake Tapper has to write:

"The Obama campaign argues that in January 2008, Obama "was the only candidate to propose a fiscal stimulus plan centered on tax rebate checks for the broad majority of Americans. The bipartisan bill that passed less than a month later was centered on rebate checks to the broad middle class along the lines of what Obama proposed."

That is true.

Obama proposed a tax rebate aimed at middle class families. Clintonâ??s approach, conversely, focused on specific programs targeted at individuak problems, such as home-heating and mortgage subsidies."

yes, let's read more of jake tapper while we at it. . .

"those involved in the drafting of the legislation say it was more a matter of agreeing on a good idea and was not a matter of, as Obama claimed, his proposal having "formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress."

why did you cut off "But though the bill that eventually passed more closely resembled Obama's than either Clinton's or McCain's"

besides, blog with no named sources