One simple reason why I will vote for McCain

[MartaK]

I know my tax bracket will go up to 49% because ge wants basiclly the same tax structure that hillary was advocating. She was going to go back to what her husbands administration imposed, whuch was 49%.

49% for whom? based on what?
I never paid 49% during the Clinton years.

 

[MartaK]

I will only vote in this election because of Palin. My purpose would be to show my support for the person who most closely represents a conservative outsider.

(posting whole article because link doesn't work for some reason)
Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”

September 5, 2008

by Charley James –
“So Sambo beat the bitch!”
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.
“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.
Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”
Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska” and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.
Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical” swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs” – how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful “mukluks” along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimo’s,” according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.
But being openly racist is only the tip of the Palin iceberg. According to Alaskans interviewed for this article, she is also vindictive and mean. We’re talking Rove mean and Nixon vindictive.
No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it’s in their genetic code. So much for McCain’s pledge of a “high road” campaign; Palin is incapable of being part of one.
Tough Getting People Who Know Her to Talk
It’s not easy getting people in the 49th state to speak critically about Palin – especially people in Wasilla, where she was mayor. For one thing, with every journalist in the world calling, phone lines into Alaska have been mostly jammed since Friday; as often as not, a recording told me that “all circuits are busy” or numbers just wouldn’t ring. I should think a state that’s been made richer than God by oil could afford telephone lines and cell towers for everyone.
On a more practical level, many people in Alaska, and particularly Wasilla, are reluctant to speak or be quoted by name because they’re afraid of her as well as the state Republican Party machine. Apparently, the power elite are as mean as the winters.
“The GOP is kind of like organized crime up here,” an insurance agent in Anchorage who knows the Palin family, explained. “It’s corrupt and arrogant. They’re all rich because they do private sweetheart deals with the oil companies, and they can destroy anyone. And they will, if they have to.”
“Once Palin became mayor,” he continued, “She became part of that inner circle.”
Like most other people interviewed, he didn’t want his name used out of fear of retribution. Maybe it’s the long winter nights where you don’t see the sun for months that makes people feel as if they’re under constant danger from “the authorities.” As I interviewed residents it began sounding as if living in Alaska controlled by the state Republican Party is like living in the old Soviet Union: See nothing that’s happening, say nothing offensive, and the political commissars leave you alone. But speak out and you get disappeared into a gulag north of the Arctic Circle for who-knows-how-long.
Alright, that’s an exaggeration brought on by my getting too little sleep and building too much anger as I worked this article. But there’s ample evidence of Palin’s vindictive willingness to destroy people she sees as opponents. Just ask the Wasilla town administrator she hired before firing him because he rebelled against the way Palin demanded he do his job, or the town librarian who refused to hold the book burning Walpurgisnach Mayor Palin demanded.
Ironically, Palin was pushed into hiring the administrator by the party poobahs who helped get her elected after she got herself into trouble over a number of precipitous firings which gave rise to a recall campaign.
“People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day,” states Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident and one of the few Alaskans willing to speak on-the-record, for attribution, about Palin. In fact, Kilkenny actually circulated an e-mail letter about Palin that was verified and printed by The Nation.
For good measure, Palin booted the Wasilla police chief from office because, she told a local newspaper, he “intimidated” her.
Running on Extreme Fringe Evangelical Views
Sarah Palin drew early attention from state GOP apparatchiks when, during her first mayoral campaign, she ran on an anti-abortion platform. Normally, political parties do not get involved in Alaskan municipal elections because they are nonpartisan. But once word of her extreme fringe evangelical views made its way to Juneau, the state capitol, state Republicans tossed some money behind her campaign.
Once in office, Palin set out to build a machine that chewed up anyone who got in her way. The good, Godly Christian turns out to be anything but.
“She’s doesn’t like different opinions and she refuses to compromise,” Kilkenny notes. “When she was mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t hers. Worse, ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them.”
Sound familiar? Palin may well be Dick Cheney’s reincarnate.
Something else has a familiar Republican ring to it: Her tax policies, and a “refund surpluses but borrow for the future” attitude.
According to Kilkenny and others in Wasilla as well as Juneau, Palin reduced progressive property taxes for businesses while mayor and increased a regressive sales tax which even hits necessities such as food. The tax cuts she promoted in her St. Paul speech actually benefited large corporate property owners far more than they benefited residents. Indeed, Kilkenny insists that many Wasilla home owners actually saw their tax bill skyrocket to make up for the shortfall. Two other Wasillian’s with whom I spoke said property taxes on their modest, three bedroom homes rose during the Palin regime.
To an outsider, it would seem hard to do, but an oil-rich town with zero debt on the day she was inaugurated mayor was left saddled with $22 million of debt by the time she moved away to become governor – especially since nothing was spent on things such as improving the city’s infrastructure or building a much-needed sewage treatment plant. So what did Mayor Palin spend the taxpayer’s money on, if not fixing streets and scrubbing sewage?
For starters, she remodelled her office. Several times over, as a matter of fact.
Then Palin spent $1 million on an unnecessary, new park that no one other than the contractors and Palin seemed to want. Next, Sarah doled out more than $15 million of taxpayer money for a sports complex that she shoved through even though the city did not own clear title to the land; now, seven years later, the matter is still in litigation and lawyer fees are said to be close to at least half of the original estimated price of the facility.
She also worked hard to get voters approval of a $5.5 million bond proposal for roads that could have been built without borrowing. Anchorage may not be the center of the financial universe but, like good Republicans everywhere, Sarah Palin knows how to please Alaskan bankers and bond dealers.
For good measure, she turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots.
Sarah Barracuda
En route to the governor’s igloo, Palin managed to land what Anne Kilkenny says is the plumb political appointment in the state: Chair of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC), a $122,400 per year patronage slot with no real authority to do anything other than hold meetings. She took the job despite having no background in energy issues and, as it turned out, not liking the work.
“She hated the job,” an OGCC staff member who is not authorized to speak with the news media told me. “She hated the hours and she hated what little work there was to do. But she couldn’t figure out a way to get out of the thing without offending Gov. Murkowski” and the state Republican Party regulars, some of whom were pissed off they didn’t get appointed.
But ever the opportunist, Palin quickly concocted a way. First, she waged a campaign with the local news media claiming that the position was overpaid and should be abolished – despite the fact that she lobbied Murkowski hard to get it. Then, mounting what she saw as a white horse, Palin raised a cloud of dust by resigning from the OGCC and riding away with an undeserved reputation as a “reformer.”
But when a local reporter dared to suggest that the reformer Empress has no clothes, Palin tried to get her fired.
“She came at me like I was trying to steal her kids,” said the targeted reporter, who now works for an oil company in Anchorage. “I heard she had a wild temper and vicious mean streak but it’s nothing like you can imagine until she turns it on you.”
Not surprising since some of her high school classmates still openly call her “Sarah Barracuda,” Kilkenny insists.
Still, as a Republican Party hack Palin managed to get herself elected running under the false flag of a “reformer.”
And what did she bring to the job? No legislative experience other than a city council of a village of 5,000 people, which is smaller than some high schools in Chicago. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; after all, she needed to hire a city administrator to run Wasilla. No executive experience, except for almost being recalled as mayor. A philosophy of setting public policy based on one word: No.
And what has she done since winning the job?
According to Kilkenny, nothing. Well, nothing other than suggesting the state’s multi-multi-million dollar, oil-generated surplus be distributed to residents and finance future state needs by borrowing money. Gee, doesn’t that sound precisely what George Bush did with the surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton in 2001 and we all know in what great shape Bush’s economic policies left the nation.
It may explain why, when asked by reporters, including me, what she thought about Palin being picked to be McCain’s running mate, her mother-in-law replied with a sardonic, “What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president?” Of course, when the woman – said by many I spoke with to be well-respected in Wasilla – was running to succeed Palin as mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her, so that may explain the family tension.
As Governor, Palin gave the legislature no direction and budget guidelines, according to the chair of a legislative committee. But then she staged a huge grandstand play of line-item vetoing countless projects, calling them pork. “They were restored because of public outcry and legislative action,” the aide said. “She vetoed them mostly because she had no idea what they were or why they were important.”
But it was enough to get the McCain, who is mostly unobservant of the world around him anyway, to think Palin has a reputation as being “anti-pork”.
In fact, Juneau observers note that Palin kept her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork ladled out by indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be politically unwise to keep supporting it, these same insiders assert. Then, Palin fell back on her old habits and publicly humiliated him for pork-barrel politics.
As for being “ready on day one” to be commander in chief, despite the repeated public claims she’s made, the Alaska National Guard commander said that, “she has made no command decisions, other than sending some troops to help fight a few brush fires and march in parades at county fairs.”
“Sambo Beat the Bitch”
“Palin is a conniving, manipulative, a**hole,” someone who thinks these are positive traits in a governor told me, summing up Palin’s tenure in Alaska state and local politics.
“She’s a bigot, a racist, and a liar,” is the more blunt assessment of Arnold Gerstheimer who lived in Alaska until two years ago and is now a businessman in Idaho.
"Juneau is a small town; everybody knows everyone else,” he adds. “These stories about what she calls blacks and Eskimos, well, anyone not white and good looking actually, were around long before she became a glint in John McCain’s rheumy eyes. Why do I know they’re true? Because everyone who isn’t aboriginal or Indian in Alaska talks that way.”
“Sambo beat the bitch” may be everyday language up in the bush. Whether it – and the outlook, politics and worldview Palin reflects when she says such things in public – should be part of a presidential campaign is another thing altogether. The comment says as much about McCain as it does about Palin, and it says a lot of things about Americans who overlook such statements (as well as her record) and vote anyway for McCain.
by Charley James
Charley James is an American journalist, author and essayist who lives in Toronto.

Article reprinted from here: The Progressive Curmudgeon®
and from this site but has bad link: Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is ?Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean.? | The LA Progressive

 

[MartaK]

One of the simple reasons I will vote for McCain is that I really do not feel like giving 49% of the money that I earn to the government.

Please feel free to put your thoughts out there on this subject and give one simple reason why you will be casting your vote the way that you do.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

 

[AVG-JOE]

In other words, I am intellectually lazy and I will vote for him because the media tells me too....

Where in the MEDIA have you seen the concept of Obama rebelling against his own party and refusing to wait his turn? I'd really like to know because I thought I was pretty much a lone wolf in this battle cry!

-Joe

 

[Silence]

For Bush's terms Republicans, Reagan's presidency was controlled by Democrats. Let me ask you this though, why is it, that the defecit is larger than ever before in US history? With whom in charge?

are you insinuating that the defict sprung up in the last TWO YEARS?

I'm voting for Obama because like Joe, this is the first time in my adult life that I'm TRULY excited about an election. I feel hopeful that things will change and that my daughter's future won't be spent paying for the mistake of this generation.

I, like Joe, love the fact that Obama out manuvered Hillary. Hillary is an insider and both she and the entire country thought it was a forgone conclusion that she would be the Democratic nominee for PResident. She was so cock-sure that she didn't really start putting effort into her campaign until Obama swept in and won Iowa.

Obama's campaign has also been majorly financed by INDIVIDUAL donors not special interest groups and not public finance. That makes his campaign unique because it really feels like when I give money to his campaign that I'm investing in the future of this country not just throwing money at another politican with overstuffed coffers.

 

[Red Dawn]

For Bush's terms Republicans, Reagan's presidency was controlled by Democrats. Let me ask you this though, why is it, that the defecit is larger than ever before in US history? With whom in charge?

Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have repeated the "Democrats controlled congress during Reagan" meme to many times, that uninformed conservatives accept it as truth.

Congress was split for most of Reagan's two terms. The GOP controlled the Senate from 1981-1987. So, the GOP controlled two of the three bodies that propose and approve spending: Senate and White House.

And before any spin starts, Congress, per the US Constitution, as two components: US House of Reps, and US Senate.

 

[Care4all]

are you insinuating that the defict sprung up in the last TWO YEARS?

I'm voting for Obama because like Joe, this is the first time in my adult life that I'm TRULY excited about an election. I feel hopeful that things will change and that my daughter's future won't be spent paying for the mistake of this generation.

I, like Joe, love the fact that Obama out manuvered Hillary. Hillary is an insider and both she and the entire country thought it was a forgone conclusion that she would be the Democratic nominee for PResident. She was so cock-sure that she didn't really start putting effort into her campaign until Obama swept in and won Iowa.

Obama's campaign has also been majorly financed by INDIVIDUAL donors not special interest groups and not public finance. That makes his campaign unique because it really feels like when I give money to his campaign that I'm investing in the future of this country not just throwing money at another politican with overstuffed coffers.

Hillary was NOT the insider of the DNC, Obama was, from the very beginning....so on that, i think you are being slightly fooled....

also, Obama IS NOT change when it comes to the money even though he is pretending to be such, it's sorta a scam on to you when you read FINE DETAILS.....

"The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."

But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics.

His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall.

Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise - The Boston Globe

I guess what I am trying to say to you, is that when it comes to Obama, he is no different than any other politician....he went back on his WORD also when it comes to Public Financing.

That being said, he has pulled in many new voters and contributers of small amounts and should get credit for such, but he is in NO WAY CLEAN when it comes to the money machines out there and made it to the Senate on such lobbyists and PACS....please don't be fooled by his rhetoric on this....

Setting all of this aside, Obama still has visions of where many Americans want to go and supports some programs that are key to the Democratic party...and our country...and could be a good reason for why to vote for him.

But as far as him being an outsider, hogwash....he WAS THE INSIDER, which is evident on how the DNC supported him over Hillary imo.

Care

 

[Silence]

Care, I guess I'm not sure how Obama became the washington insider in such a short time?

as for his campaign fiancing, I'm not sure where you get YOUR numbers and if you have a link please provide same but I have a link and here it is

Summary data for Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

Obama:

Source of Funds
Individual contributions $374,333,800 96%
PAC contributions $1,635 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $15,087,667 4%

Summary data for Hillary Clinton | OpenSecrets

Hillary:
Source of Funds
Individual contributions $208,833,221 89%
PAC contributions $1,365,179 1%
Candidate self-financing $13,175,000 6%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $11,556,102 5%


so unless you can provide a link I'm going to assume you're attributing the 1.3 million from hillary to obama

 

[editec]

You know what? I don't care. I don't doubt what you say enough to try and prove otherwise, I don't even care enough to look it up and see if I can read between the spins or spin it myself back at you.

Obama was unexpected and Hillary was unable to abort him. That makes this election different.

I suspect there's something to that.

That is the reason I am supporting him. We have all thought and dreamed of it... fixing the stupidity of governing by the highest bidder. He's about to pull it off... and bloodless, from the inside.

-Joe

I also suspect that if he truly starts to make a difference in the fundamental way things are done, that the whole bloodless business will be off, and it will be his blood we'll be seeing shed, too.

I don't think there's much a a chance of that happening, given the fact that a POTUS doesn't necessarily control Congress... not even if his party controls it.

But should O truly become popular enough to be able to force the American people to apply pressure to their Congress?

He's so dead, folks.

Then what will happen is Biden will come to office, he'll talk about how he'll be pushing though whatever O's issues were, and then, as far as fundamentals for how government works?

It will be business as usual...a veneer of representational republic covering a shamocratic system of governance by an elite.

 

[Modbert]

I suspect there's something to that.



I also suspect that if he truly starts to make a difference in the fundamental way things are done, that the whole bloodless business will be off, and it will be his blood we'll be seeing shed, too.

I don't think there's much a a chance of that happening, given the fact that a POTUS doesn't necessarily control Congress... not even if his party controls it.

But should O truly become popular enough to be able to force the American people to apply pressure to their Congress?

He's so dead, folks.

Then what will happen is Biden will come to office, he'll talk about how he'll be pushing though whatever O's issues were, and then, as far as fundamentals for how government works?

It will be business as usual...a veneer of representational republic covering a shamocratic system of governance by an elite.

You mean Obama will end up like JFK essentially? I can see that plenty of groups in this country don't want to see Obama as the President just like plenty of groups didn't want to Kennedy as President.

I DON'T think that Joe Biden is Lyndon Johnston though. I believe if he becomes President, he will continue Obama's policies. Joe Biden has always spoke off the cuff, he's one of type of Politicans who can't help but speak their mind and really can't lie well.

Besides, we must remember that Obama picked this man who originally didn't seem to have that great of a shot. I think Obama has been a great judge of character so far.

 

[Care4all]

Care, I guess I'm not sure how Obama became the washington insider in such a short time?

as for his campaign fiancing, I'm not sure where you get YOUR numbers and if you have a link please provide same but I have a link and here it is

Summary data for Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

Obama:

Source of Funds
Individual contributions $374,333,800 96%
PAC contributions $1,635 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $15,087,667 4%

Summary data for Hillary Clinton | OpenSecrets

Hillary:
Source of Funds
Individual contributions $208,833,221 89%
PAC contributions $1,365,179 1%
Candidate self-financing $13,175,000 6%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $11,556,102 5%


so unless you can provide a link I'm going to assume you're attributing the 1.3 million from hillary to obama

Silence, he was pegged to do the speech in 2004 at the Democratic convention, and since then the DNC WRAPPED their arms around him and helped him run for the us senate.

During his runs for the Illinois Senate and as us senator he took PAC and Lobbyist money from those INSIDE the system....in fact, 8% of the money he took in was from lobbyists and pacs, while all of the money hillary took from lobbyists and PACS for the presidential race total a little more than 1%, all of her other contributions that she collected WAS FROM INDIVIDUALS....which means she has taken in 98.6% of her money from individuals is what i just read on FACTCHECK>org....

And a Lobbyist is a lobbyists, whether for the State or for Washington.

Obama for this presidential race said he would not take money from WASHINGTON Lobbyists....as though any other lobbyist is an okay lobbyist or as if he has not taken any money from lobbyists, but this is deceiving because he never would have gotten the highspeed climb to fame if he had not taken the money from oil companies and other lobbyists and other PACS for him to make it in to the two senates.

So, basically, he has FLIP FLOPPED for political posturing....now it helps him to not take money from lobyists but it was OKAY when he did such himself just a very shortime ago in his 2006 run for the Senate...

to me, this is like Palin saying she was for the Bridge to no where before she was against it...

a FLIP FLOP and all for political posturing...like Sarah Palin....

now, i don't like what sarah palin has done with her flip flops, and the same with Obama, i don't like it and it is deceiving....that's how i see it.

What i find awkward with other fellow Democrats, is that they seem to think that Obama is above all of this and he is not...and many think he is somekind of different kind of politician, and he is not.

This does not mean that Obama doesn't have some good plans for the country, I just feel many will be let down when they realize he too makes his moves, to win his elections and whatever is right for him to win he will do, like with any other politician...and for his two senate runs, it took him taking the Lobbysist money....so that's the way he ran....

just don't get your hopes up that he is different, he is not different, when it comes to THIS.....

that's all.....

Care

 

[plt42]

Post the tax bracket that shows you'll be paying 49% under Obama's plan or lick my balls, mod wanna-be.

Was that the best way you could express your request?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Don't you think the size of government would shrink naturally if all Americans had fair access?

As you must be aware, you are NOT alone in thinking that government is too big and too bureaucratic... Don't you think that if everyone who felt the same way were to have actual access to the government, that it would help?

I'm telling you man... I agree that government needs to be reduced in size drastically, but if we don't regain access to our representatives, it will be a yo-yo diet at best.

The bloated size is a symptom, not the disease.

-Joe

Im not sure what you mean by "acces to the govt"

The ONE sure way to reduce govt is to reduce spending, plain and simple.
The one sure way to increase it is to increase spending, plain and simple.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Im not sure what you mean by "acces to the govt"

The ONE sure way to reduce govt is to reduce spending, plain and simple.
The one sure way to increase it is to increase spending, plain and simple.

Simple. Right now, your choices in the voting booth are controlled by lobbyists, PAC's and special interests.

The persons representing you in all levels of government are more beholding to their party and the special interests, PAC's and lobbyists who funded their campaigns than they are to you.

The authors of much of the legislation we currently live under are lobbyists, who's interest in the legislation is certainly not shared by me. I do not feel accurately represented. Do you?

Complicating the problem is that the lobbyists and special interests are in competition with each other - this is why we see record campaign spending every political season and an inefficiency in our government that is to the point of embarrassing.

If our access to our government was not filtered, at best and more likely outright blocked, by the special interests and lobbyists who can afford to maintain offices in DC, If 85% of Americans 'felt' like they were accurately represented instead of the current 9%, I can't help but think that this would be a step in the right direction.

How in the hell are We, The People going to work out the details of some of these issues if We are not involved in the process beyond rubber-stamping the party selection into office for yet another term on the DC gravy train?

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have repeated the "Democrats controlled congress during Reagan" meme to many times, that uninformed conservatives accept it as truth.

Congress was split for most of Reagan's two terms. The GOP controlled the Senate from 1981-1987. So, the GOP controlled two of the three bodies that propose and approve spending: Senate and White House.

And before any spin starts, Congress, per the US Constitution, as two components: US House of Reps, and US Senate.

The question you have to ask is 'who controls the GOP and the Dems?'
Follow the money!

-Joe

 

[editec]

I think the mistake most of us are making is assuming that we can sweeping statments about Obama v Hill.

He isn't entirely an outsider, but he did unseat Hill which was, I think very unexpected.

I suspect O was being groomed for a high position AFTER Hillary, or perhaps even as her VP choice. He was definitely being groomed though.

His speech before the Dem, nation convention in the last election cycle was his introduction to national politics and the DNA INSIDERS decide who get gets that honor and exposure to the national scene, don't they?

But Hillary is SO a DNC insider, folks.

For goodness sakes, her husband was the last DEM POTUS and she carpet-bagged her way into a Senatorial seat in New York.

I'm not faulting her for that, but she is the quintesstial DNA insider to a degree that Obama was not.

But neither of them is completely an outsider, folks.

Both of them have made compromises with devils that it takes if one want to attain Federal office.

It is encouraghing that O has been able to get so much money tht is not PAC or corporate money, though.

It gives him the ability to make decisions that someone more beholding to big money cannot make.

I can only hope that he can get a Democratic Congress to go along with the fundamental changes we need to make to clean up the mess that is our government.

I have small hope that some changes can be made.

Campaign finance reform is the FIRST Thing that we must do if we want to take our nation back from special interests.

 

[sealybobo]

Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have repeated the "Democrats controlled congress during Reagan" meme to many times, that uninformed conservatives accept it as truth.

Congress was split for most of Reagan's two terms. The GOP controlled the Senate from 1981-1987. So, the GOP controlled two of the three bodies that propose and approve spending: Senate and White House.

And before any spin starts, Congress, per the US Constitution, as two components: US House of Reps, and US Senate.

So why will you vote for McCain? Yes he would block Democratic spending, but he would also make it impossible to fix all the things Bush broke AND McCain's appointees won't investigate any of the GOP corruption that went on for the past 8 years. All the Alberto Gonzales, Scooter Libby, Rove ignoring sobeona's, etc.

We need answers to what the fuck happened over the past 8 years. McCain will obstruct justice.

PS. Do you know McCain admitted in an interview that he called his wife a trollip and a F'ing C word? How many republicans have denied he said that to me? Well would it make a difference to them if he did say it?

 

[editec]

We need answers to what the fuck happened over the past 8 years. McCain will obstruct justice.

Sadly, I think that Obama will ignore the past no less than McCain will.

With luck, he'll be som busy doing positive things for the nation he won't want to waste political capital punishing the gangsters that he replaced.

Too bad, that's poltics.

You have to choose your battles wisely, and choosing to go after Bush and co. would waste political cpaital he's going to need if he wants to to have a Congress that can get things done.

 

[sealybobo]

Sadly, I think that Obama will ignore the past no less than McCain will.

With luck, he'll be som busy doing positive things for the nation he won't want to waste political capital punishing the gangsters that he replaced.

Too bad, that's poltics.

You have to choose your battles wisely, and choosing to go after Bush and co. would waste political cpaital he's going to need if he wants to to have a Congress that can get things done.

They were saying yesterday that because Pelosi never put impeachment on the damn table, the Democrats haven't been able to use all the shit Bush & the GOP congress did over the past 8 years during the campaign. Torture, spying on Americans, lying us into a war, leaking valerie plames name, deleting white house emails, forging names, obstructing justice. Forget all the things we THINK they did but can't prove, they did enough provable stuff we could use it against them.

Do you think the GOP wouldn't make all that corruption the main focus of the election if it was a Republican president in office?

A democrat wouldn't have a prayer if it were a Democrat president for the past 8 years. NO way.

All the shit the GOP did for the past 8 years and none of it is being mentioned in the campaigns. At least not yet.

I think Pelosi screwed up by not holding hearings and investigating GOP corruption.

 

[sealybobo]

The more I think about it, the more I'm sure that if things were in reverse, this election would be all about Larry Craig, Foley, Vetter, Libby, Gonzales, Katrina,

The Democrats should be forcing McCain to either defend or condemn everything Bush & company have done over the last 8 years. That way people don't forget what the GOP has done.

For example, the lost money and guns in Iraq. Ask the McCain camp how they would prevent all that corruption that happened on Bush's watch.

Or deleting white house emails. Make McCain explain why that is wrong and how it happened in Bush's white house.

Make McCain defend the Libby pardon.

Make him defend predatory lending,

Make him defend taking American's rights away, like Habius corpus.

Make him defend loopholes, etc.

Make him defend the 8 US attorney firings for political reasons.

Make him explain how nuclear bombs were mistakenly flown over the USA.