Who did the best in Friday night's presidential debate?

jbowen43 writes:

I don't agree with either on most of the foreign policy issues. If it wasn't for the idiots in the Bush administration we wouldn't be having difficulties with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, North Korea, or Russia. These neocons haven't a clue on how to conduct diplomacy and neither does McCain. Obama can learn . McCain won't. By the way Ahmadinejad NEVER said he wanted to "wipe Israel of the face of the earth". Thats a McCain/Lieberman/Republican/Israeli lie. Same goes for his claims for the success of the surge. Saakashvili is a fool and our state department will confirm that.
On the economy I think McCain's tax plan will impoverish me and Obama won't. I cannot afford to have my health benefits taxed or cut as McCain plans. I cannot afford to have my pension frozen as McCain plans. We need a change away from the republicans who caused this with their greed to the Democrats who always put people first.

Schell77 writes:

I thought it was pretty much a draw. I was disappointed that Obama wasn't stronger about the decline of our international prestige over the last eight years (and by implication his unique ability to correct that), and that he didn't match McCain on any kind of commitment to cut runaway federal spending (what a great way that would have been to outflank McCain to the right). I also hate that both candidates seem more interested in poking the Russians in the eye than in preserving US interests, which might not always line up with those of countries like Latvia and Georgia (we seem to be forgetting the history of Germany’s perceived humiliation after World War One). But Obama clearly passed the Commander-in-Chief, and struck me as more measured and sensible leader, less likely to get the country into yet another nasty mess abroad.

McCain that had more that he needed to accomplish tonight, like explaining what the hell he’s been doing the past two days, and delivering a strong blow to Obama on his strong suit of foreign policy. This was like the home team in hockey getting only a draw, when they need a win to reach the playoffs. Obama should be happy to have played it safe and held his own. Nevertheless, it’s been amply obvious to me for some time that I don’t see things the way the great American electorate sees them, so probably 90% of the population will perceive this totally differently.

Props to the audience for being so well behaved, and to Jim Lehrer for actually asking some substantive questions.

dakar writes:

Obama was in his element, standing up and talking. But he was schooled by McCain tonight. McCain did very well in this debate and he knows his stuff.

homeradam writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Sue3275 writes:

Obama's answers were memorized and practiced. He is CLUELESS regarding all issues.

Obama will FORCE more businesses to move out of the country by increasing their taxes. Obama will PREVENT many businesses from opening due to increased taxes. Obama will FORCE many businesses to begin laying off employees due to increased taxes.

In regard to the national defense of our country and our children/grandchildren-----I cannot believe that any of you would want to put the security of your families in Obama's hands!!!

DrFitz writes:

I thought Obama owned this and seemed much more confident, competent, and intelligent. I also agree with his views and policies. But the media will probably judge it a near draw because there weren't startling new zingers. But I don't see how anyone still has any doubts that Obama should be our next President. They're just not in the same class.

Sensible writes:

A note to RMN:

Arrange your polls to only allow 1 vote from 1 IP address (i.e. a fair poll, not an Obamamamamamama style poll).

THERE IS NO WAY 94% OF YOUR READER'S THINK OBAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMMAMA WON THIS DEBATE.

CALL ANY I.T. COMPANY IN DENVER, THEY CAN ARRANGE YOUR POLLS TO BE FAIR!

THANKS!

ConservativeCO writes:

Gee, do you think some liberal site posted a link to this poll?

jbowen43 writes:

homeradam
I won't tll you what I really think of know nothing fools like yourself, but for your information I had a good job with benefits and I am retired from that job. My health benefits are subsidized by my former employer and this nitwit McCain wants to tax those benefits. He also voted for a bill that would substantially reduce my pension. Those are facts. Any retired American that would vote for McCain is basically ignorant just like you.

MavrickG writes:

If Obama wins, and raises my taxes, I will be moving my company overseas, and I told all my employees this. You can bad mouth me, you can say I am evil, but in the end I started this business to make money and support my family. You make it so I can no longer do that here and I will go where I can. My family comes first. We have struggled to keep 100% of our manufacturing here, when our competitors have all moved off-shore, but you make it any harder and it wil be time for us to go as well.

SensibleOne writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

maya writes:

I was undecided until tonight, but Obama's answers on nearly every point persuaded me to vote for him. He understands that we need to restore our standing in the world, and I agree, and think that is the path to greater security. He is against the old Bush policies of isolation and sanctions for our enemies, without negotiation, and I agree that diplomacy must be used to engage and dialogue with those we disagree with. Most of all, his economic vision is most important to me. He understands the middle class needs help, and needs it now, and that tax cuts for the rich and corporations is just "more of the same." So he convinced me. Plus, I thought his demeanor was presidential. He was not overly attacking like McCain was, and he was generous in giving McCain credit where credit was due. I thought McCain seemed out of touch and just kind of mean, and overstating his foreign policy experience. It made me wonder, with all that experience, why was he so wrong so often on things like going to war in Iraq, saying it would be fast, saying we'd be greeted as liberators, etc. With all that experience, he should have known better, but he bought the Bush policies hook, line and sinker. My family and friends simply do not want another four years of Republican policies. I thought Obama really did well.

zivo24 writes:

Yeah, I think the RMN's poll is off to.

Most of the polls I've seen only have Obama winning by 65-75 percent.

And when all the people who didn't watch the debate wake up tomorrow and see these polls..and think about the fact that the topic was foreign policy..which was supposed to be McCain's area of expertise...it's going to give Obama a big bump in the polls.

Debates are for fence-sitters, which clearly none of us are.

But if you were, which would you be more impressed with tonight?

The guy who gave thoughtful, informed replies to the questions he was asked...or the snarky, condescending guy who wouldn't look this opponent..or America via the camera..in the eye?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...

Alethia writes:

Republicans have caused ALL the problems in American and Democrats have ALWAYS put people first - thanks for the good laugh, jbowen43! I don't favor either of these candidates. But anytime someone overstates his case as badly as this, it makes it hard for others to take him seriously.

Republicans AND Democrats have contributed significantly to the present mess, and BOTH have consistently put self-interests ahead of their country. We need a genuinely humble, unselfish, competent leader. Now where are we going to find a politician like THAT?

marksashton writes:

I think McCain came off as a bit mean and condescending and...very 20th century. It's like he's living in the past and assumes that the old solutions to our problems will still work. I value widom and experience but only to a point. Obama strikes me as smart and reasonble...just a calm man. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says but it seems like a change would be good.

SteveM writes:

Hi MavrickG,
Gee, just wondering why you haven't already moved your company over seas like so many other neocons who moved during Bush's first term? Are you for real? Blackmailing your employees as to who to vote for to keep their job? You are a whack job. If I worked for you, I'd quit.

SteveM writes:

To the people that think that liberals are the only ones voting or that Obama supporters are voting multiple times, um, I don't think that's the case. Why? Well, because Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck could get 1000 people to log on and vote for McCain in 10 seconds each. If the numbers are this decisive this early, it's a sign that these are more likely genuine numbers. Hate to break it to you.

Meanwhile, according to electoral-vote.com, the electoral numbers have flipped back to Obama with a host of new polls today: Obama 286 McCain 252 . It will be interesting to see how they go after this first debate. What Palin-McCain supporters need to recognize is the following: this was to be McCain's homerun debate. This is his turf. He's the ELDER 'statesmen' blah, blah, blah. If that was all the better he could do on his main area of expertise, well, then I'd say it's probably over for his ticket. He was declining in the polls steadily for a week, and without a home run here? Watch for there to be some very, very, very good reason why Palin cannot show up for the debate on Thursday. If she cannot answer cheeseball questions from Katie Couric, how's she going to stand across from Joe Biden and answer anything? I loved the CNN analyst who said, "Oh, wait, be prepared for her. She's been the underdog before and yet, she's been elected Mayor twice and the Governor." Huh? Do you know the margin of vote in her mayoral elections? Well, there were only 6,800 people to win over in the 5th largest population center in Alaska. Anyway, whatever. Every poll I've seen about the debate has Obama winning except one. Guess which one? The Fox News text poll. Of course, that's sort of like Palin polling her family to see who won the debate, isn't it?

marael writes:

Barack was his usual focused (on the issues), respectful (a breath of air in politics) self. He will look at all the issues with a new view...if anyone is a maverick it Barack and his willingness to not offer more of the same. He keeps the people of the United States in forethought not afterthought!

McCain on the other hand was his bazaar self. He goes from one end of the spectrum to the other on the turn of a dime. The fact that McCain did not look at Barack throughout the debate shows his inability to contain himself in situations with even the slightest amount of pressure. I’ve observed his short fuse in other interviews (Morning Joe). He lashed out an Mika who seemed to be on the republican side. Go figure.

I think a vote for McCain—he focus on the war and military concerns me as well. A vote for him may mean more war, war, war.

Vote OBAMA for America!!

zivo24 writes:

Hey MaverickG,

Just wondering...do you make and sell Bentley's or something?

Do you understand that if we, the middle classes, don't have discretional income to spend on things other than necessities...mortgage/rent, food, gas, etc...we aren't going to be able to support your business at all?

And if you actually read Obama's tax plans on his website..you would already know what impact it would have on your business based on it's revenues.

If you have a big business, McCain may help you get more of a tax cut but if the rest of us can't afford to buy what you're selling...what good does that big tax cut do you?

SteveM writes:

Just to prove my point, here's the latest numbers from the cnn.com poll:

Who fared better in the first presidential debate?
Sen. John McCain 27% 40956
Sen. Barack Obama 68% 103797
Neither 6% 8940
Total Votes: 153693
as of 12:08 am Mountain Time--oh, and they do block IP and repeat votes on their poll!

Of course, the Republican analysts had this to say, "Oh, well, of course, traditionally, more Democrats than Republicans watch the debates." Huh? (That's a scratching the head worthy bit of analysis isn't it?) Maybe if the Neo-Cons actually watched the debates, they wouldn't vote for the Republican candidates who create more government, waste billions of tax dollars, put us in the worst debt our nation's ever seen (China owns $1 trillion of our debt according to tonight's debate...is that for real? $1 trillion? That's just sick. When Bill Clinton left the office and turned it over to W. we had no trade deficit and we had a budget surplus. Now we owe the Chinese $1 trillion? How much is the interest on that? How do we ever pay that off. We have nothing for sale that they want? We need to wean ourselves off our own oil and sell it to them. Come on! With all due respect to the elder statesmen from Arizona, we don't need 4 more years of you and your kind! And wasn't if funny how all the Fox analysts were going on and on about how McCain's experience showed in true colors. They are back to the experience thing that then forces us to take a look again at HIS beauty queen second runner up (3rd place) running mate who with her bionic vision can see Russia from her front porch. Don't preach experience because if you average the Palin-McCain ticket vs. the Obama-Biden ticket, it's pretty laughable.

Oh, and one last thing...did anyone else get the impression from tonight's debate that McCain is very sad he's not running with his good friend Joe Lieberman instead of Palin? How many times did Palin get mentioned vs. Lieberman? Think about it!

paratyper writes:

MaverickG: Sorta seems like when you start a company, you accept responsibility for your employees as well. They have families, too. A 'me first' attitude about entrepreneurship is just what this economy doesn't need. If your taxes go up, you are doing very well -- congratulations. Perhaps under a new plan, more people will be able to buy what you sell. Then you'll be enriched for running good company, not for just being well-off.

SteveM writes:

Here's the Denver Post results too: (as of 12:19 am MST)
Total Votes = 1280
Sen. John McCain 16.95 %
Sen. Barack Obama 76.95 %
Too close to call 3.515 %
I did not watch the debate 2.578 %

What do you say to all this? Neo-cons, you're suddenly very quiet!

JGJ4664 writes:

***DEBATES POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS:

The Garbage outfit DailyKos prints out a list of all the online polls, and then the little Obamabots go running to vote in every one of them. The list tonight included newspapers in Denver and Atlanta, something called Michigan Live, AOL and of course CNN and MSNBC,

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/200...

JGJ4664 writes:

This debate clearly shows that McCain is ready to lead. I am not sure Obama should even be a U.S. Senator after tonight's debate.

McCain crushed Obama tonight. Even MSNBC'S LIBERAL Biased crew thought McCain won.

Jack_Durden writes:

I think SteveM is one of my heroes...

no_more_republicans writes:

"MavrickG writes:

If Obama wins, and raises my taxes, I will be moving my company overseas, and I told all my employees this."

What a patriot!

You know, please - go. Same to all the companies that think it's more important to pay lower taxes than it is to BE IN AMERICA. If I were president, I wouldn't allow companies to do business in America, unless they were American companies. It's a great thing, being an American, and we're all really lucky to be have been born here, rather than to have been born in, say, Jamaica. Sure, Jamaica might have not have business taxes, but, I'd rather have been born and raised here.

And, by the way, I'm a small business owner, too. I'm proud to be an American, and I won't move my business out of this country, regardless of what happens. But, Obama's got my vote, because he actually cares about the people and not just the businesses. And, he's NOT raising taxes on small business owners, regardless of how the right wingers spin it.

Seems to me that, after the recent financial crisies, that right wingers that defend a vote for McCain as a vote for lower spending have their heads straight up their *****.

So, MavrickG - go. We don't need you here. America wasn't built so that you could profit from it. All of these richies think the most important thing in the world is money - we could use less of that type here.

llaura33 writes:

I'm surprised that more people weren't bothered that in spite of the direct instructions from Jim Lehrer to do so, McCain did not engage Obama by speaking to him directly. Obama struggled with the concept in the beginning, but adapted and then looked at McCain when replying to McCain's stance on an issue. McCain spent his time looking at Jim Lehrer, the lecturn and the audience - he didn't even look at the camera to the people watching the debate or watch Obama when Obama was speaking. What does that tell you about his ability to engage the "enemy"? It was creepy. I think the world will be a much safer place with Obama in the White House.

dilligaf writes:

no_more_republicans
Maverick doesn't own no business and if he does how in the h--l does he make any money or keep good people working for him. I have been in the work force for 45 years and if an owner came to me and said if Obama wins you will be out of a job because I'm moving my company out of the country I would have a decision to make. Walk out on him right there or punch him right in the mouth. Tough call. What an a--hole!!!!!!

GetaCluePlz writes:

Hey Sensible... I can tell you are a person who doesn't value research, sensibility, or fact, but rather relies on and prefers snap judgments leading to an incorrect conclusion. No wonder you are so upset Barack is leading in the poll, and McCain is not.

Instead of calling out RMN like you knew for certain their polls could be submitted multiple times, you could have just checked before you looked silly.

If you try to vote a second time it clearly says this message:
"We didn't record your vote, because you or someone from your computer's address has already voted."

And, you will notice the vote count doesn't go up, unless someone else has voted between your votes. I tried several times and did it quick enough where I was able to get the same result, so I know it is not counting duplicates.

"Arrange your polls to only allow 1 vote from 1 IP address (i.e. a fair poll, not an Obamamamamamama style poll).

THERE IS NO WAY 94% OF YOUR READER'S THINK OBAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMMAMA WON THIS DEBATE.

CALL ANY I.T. COMPANY IN DENVER, THEY CAN ARRANGE YOUR POLLS TO BE FAIR!"

Feel a bit foolish now, huh?

Nobama writes:

Gosh, how could the RMN vote be so skewed. Take a look at the Drudge poll with over 400,000 votes. Maybe the RMN Liberal constituency would be a factor?

no_more_republicans writes:

"Nobama writes:

Gosh, how could the RMN vote be so skewed. Take a look at the Drudge poll with over 400,000 votes. Maybe the RMN Liberal constituency would be a factor?"

Yeah, the Drudge Poll - that bastian of political evenhandedness. And, you think the Rocky Mountain News has a LIBERAL constituency? The same Rocky that endorsed Bush TWICE, and (I'll bet you dollars for donuts) will likely endorse McCain? The same Rocky that gives editorial space to Mike "No Basis in Reality" Rosen?

The poll is obviously not a scientific poll - it says it right underneath. But, it does tell you something - McCain has an enthusiasm gap that's undermining his campaign, especially considering that the "foreign policy" debate was supposed to be his strong suit. Instapolls all over the web show that viewers across the political spectrum saw Obama and McCain as equally presidential - and, that's gotta hurt Grandpa McCain, since he spent the whole night, grumpily complaining that Obama "doesn't understand."

Seems like he's got it exactly backwards.

GetaCluePlz writes:

MavrickG, why wait? Just go now, America doesn't need sellouts. That is why Obama won't give tax breaks to companies who send jobs overseas.

You should only hope Obama wins, so it levels the playing the field when it becomes a net gain for companies to keep the jobs in the US, then you can increase your profits.

The fact is, if your business will be crippled by an increase of a 3% tax liability, which isn't likely unless you are a really big business, then you either have a terribly ran business, or a poor business model, which is your fault, not the IRS's.

Did you know that an extra 3% in taxes across the board would actually give you somewhere around a 2 - 3% net GAIN in wealth as a counter to inflation on dollar weakness due to debt?

As a business owner, you seem fairly uninformed on the way the economy works. How was your business doing during Clinton era? If it was bad, then it reinforces my point the blame lays with you, because if you review the business growth/earnings data, you will see most businesses were doing great.

Taxes aren't everything... it's a common myth that is believed since we all hate taxes, that taxes hurt the economy. Historically, reasonable taxes that equal spending have been shown to keep an economy healthy, there is a link there.

Think it all over one more time please.

ruzicka writes:

That's the biggest thing regarding the foreign ploicy mess we're in that Obama got right and McCain got wrong. We need the world to actually like us and look up to us. Not simply to stroke our ego, or anything like that. It comes down to security. If a neighbor of yours likes and respects you, they going to watch your back and help you out whenever they can. If they do NOT like you, they'll probably turn their back on you in times of trouble. If a person in Pakistan, Morroco, or some other country happens to overhear someone plotting against the USA, they might actually alert our embassy there if they consider us a friend. However, if they hate our guts, they'll do nothing. This is probably THE BIGGEST way we can effectively counter global terrorism. After 9/11, most of the world would have tried to help us. The Bush Administration destroyed all of that goodwill. McCain would continue down that same road.

FAClone writes:

sensible:

I just did a test on the polls. If I vote multiple times, the count does not change after the first one. Looks like it does work.

It DOES concern me, though, that so many thought O did a better job. I personally thought Mc had him shaking in his Johnston Murphy's, which surprised me a bit.

Quite frankly, I would like to put both of their feet to the fire by asking how many lobbyists they BOTH have on their campaign staff (because they both do) *and* how that coincides with their stand on special interest groups.

I believe it's the special interest groups that are ruining our country more than any other single issue.

America1st writes:

jbowen43

You are simply a moron. Put down the kool-aid and get a clue.

SteveM writes:

Hey All,
Here's an interesting analytical tool from CNN
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/2...) where you get to give Obama and McCain a grade (A-F) on their debate performances. What is pretty striking, I thought was that the usually biting analysts were far kinder than the people
CNN Analysts Average Grades:
Obama B (3.0)
McCain B (3.2)

CNN Readers Average Grades:
Obama B 18743 grades
McCain D 19855 grades

Looks to me like the analysts are being kinder realizing that anything can happen in an election, and you need to have both sides on your side, but the people can be more honest.

I also think some of the people who graded McCain so low, must have been thinking pre-emptively about the upcoming debate between Palin and Biden, but that's pure supposition on my part.
The interesting thing about this tool is that, unlike a regular vote for a winner, it allows each visitor to rate each candidate. If the natural reaction for those who care enough to vote is to rate their guy high and their opponent low, you'd think they'd both have Cs. But for one to have a D and one a B doesn't fit with conventional wisdom unless either very few McCain supporters graded the speeches or, in fact, people on both sides were just plain honest. There are also about 1,000 more rating for McCain than Obama. What's that about? Worried McCain supporters just rating him to get his ratings up and not bothering to work to lower Obama? That doesn't quite make sense either does it?

SteveM writes:

Sue,
with all due respect, you are wildly out of touch with reality. How can you dare question the safety of this nation under the watch of Barack Obama when your obviously favored candidate put Sarah Palin on his ticket. Dear Lady, are you for real? Seriously? You cannot have watched her interview with Katie Couric and thought, "This is the person I want to lead our country." If so, maybe you should be held for treason. In fact, John McCain should be held for treason for nominating her. If any of the Troopergate controversy is true, and I'm not prepared to say it is because in America you are innocent until proven guilty--not that she'll allow that to be determined by illegally avoiding subpoenas--but it it is, she would be the first person elected who would enter already convicted of crimes, and not just any crimes but the crime of abuse of power. It would seem that this should be a red flag out there for some of you. And no, this wasn't brought to light by anyone in the Obama campaign, this was an ongoing investigation started this summer. Naturally, if I were in the Alaska statehouse and found my governor suddenly nominated to be vice president, I'd want to accelerate things too to let my fellow national citizens know the truth before voting for her. The fact that she is still on the ticket while under investigation is a travesty to the reputation of this country and is akin to the kind of nightmare governments we read about in the former Soviet Union. In all good conscience, how does one put a person with an ongoing criminal investigation in her home state on your ticket unless you are making a mockery of the entire process. But, that aside, which is "no go" for me, watch her interview with Katie Couric on YouTube. She's the most unintelligible politician in history. If you distill each of her 85-word sentences to their essence, they convey nothing but random gibberish. She's incoherent. She babbles. She never answers the questions posed. There must be a new team of advisors sitting with her 24-7 prepping her for Thursday's debate. She would need a Cyrano de Bergerac to get her through that thing, not just to prevent a blunder, but just to get her through it at all. If I were Joe Biden, I'd just go, answer the questions asked of me, and let her trip herself up. I think the McCain people are counting on him being mean to her and calling her on the carpet. Saying "Now, Sarah, come on!" 900 times. But, he doesn't have to do anything. He just has to answer the question posed in 20 words or less and then shut up. She cannot answer a question in fewer than 85 words because it takes her 25 just to figure out what the question means, 20 to realize she doesn't know, 5 to pull a pad answer, 10 to transition to the pad answer, 15 to put the pad answer out there, and 10 to say, "Oh, those reporters, yeah, mocking me, I'm a hockey mom."

SteveM writes:

Look, I don't mean to be mean to Sarah Palin. I'm sure she's fine up there in oil country where every person gets a huge oil check every year, but the rest of us, well, we need and want somebody with credentials, better ability to speak on her feet, and a more seasoned politician than one can become being the mayor of and city council woman of a town the size of Castle Rock (in 1990--it now has over 40,000)!

angryman1n writes:

JBowen... the only reason Clinton didn't have problems is because he largely IGNORED THEM!!!!

angryman1n writes:

JBowen... Do you realize how much Obama's "Universal Health Care" farse would cost???? Lets explore some numbers. There are 300+ Million people in America. Say the average person uses ~$2000 in services each year. That is $600 BILLION in additional tax dollars. That is now larger than Social Security.

Social Security currently accounts for more than 20% of all federal spending. It is even larger than our defense budget.

So what happens in the future... People live longer, we continue to have babies (aren't they so gosh darn cute ;-p), and inflation runs its natural course. That $600 Billion goes north of $1 TRILLION in only a few years. It exceeds $30 Trillion within a 100 years. How does he expect to pay for it without significantly increasing our taxes?????

It has taken us over 200 years to accumulate ~10 Trillion in national debt. This program will triple that in only half the time.

lappy writes:

This poll speaks for itself - thank goodness people are seeing reason and listening to Obama - not once did McCain look Obama in the eye to show his integrity and belief in his own words or show respect for another person - McCain had the look of guilt through the whole debate - and so he should as he is a member of a party who has ruined USA's standing in the world by wrecking the economy, and who has sent over 4000 young people to their deaths in Iraq while Bin Laden lives on....other countries watched in disbelief when George W was voted back in last time, let's not be laughed at again - let's get serious

TnT writes:

Possessing the same arrogance and condescending approach as George Bush, John McCain implied that by having been to the countries that harbor terrorism some how equates to responsible discussion and diplomacy from the same countries that hate us for John McCain and Bush’s administration “visiting” them in the first place! Is he going to wear fake glasses and a mustache if he visits again? Simply have been there isn’t enough. Pilots and Flight Attendant’s have been to these countries too, and I’m sure they leave those counties with a clearer picture of American diplomacy than John McCain and the Bush administration. Watching John McCain trying to detach himself from the Bush administration is like watching a child trying to lie to his parents for his big brother. Watching Republicans trying to defend Sarah Palin is like listening to your buddy trying to tell you the girl he picked up at 1:30 in the morning just might be the one! Right before you tell him you’ve been with her too. After the hangover clears and the election is over you’ll be saying “What the hell was I thinking?” McCain the same guy you hated in 2000 and Sarah Palin will be calling the wrong number you gave her the night before!

TnT writes:

I received this via e-mail...it pretty much sums it up! Fill free
to pass along

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have
this straight.....(hope I'm not offending anyone)

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your
Grandparents, you're "exotic, different."

* Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers and shoot wolves from a plane, a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical,
unpatriotic Muslim.

* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track,
you're a Maverick.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are
unstable.

* Attend 5 different small colleges before
graduating, you're well grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a community organizer(Country First), become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the
state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and
serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a
state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for
19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within
Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich
heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the
heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex
education, including the proper use of birth control, you
are eroding the fiber of society.

* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate
abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in
your state's school system while your unwed teen
daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who
gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the
betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to
raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

* If you're husband is nicknamed "First
Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college
education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and
once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of
Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

NobodyElseButMe writes:

The republican party has every intention of dropping Ms. Palin before the election.

NobodyElseButMe writes:

FACIone: fact is, one can delete the cookies immediately following their vote and vote again. It can be done at ANY internet voting 'booth'. The poster who complained probably does this on a regular basis (which would explain the numbers in favor of McCain). What he fails to realize is that most people who voted in favor of Obama have other things to do with thier time than vote, delete cookies, vote, delete cookies, etc. Not sure if I should laugh or cry at this guy.

TnT writes:

Can somebody answer this? Where has Sarah Palin been during this financial crisis? Isn't she supposed to be a government reform /financial kickass specialist?

dirkle writes:

Bogus poll or no bogus poll, most national professional polls gave the debate to Obama. What most seem to forget is that the topic was foreign policy - supposedly McCain's "strength." He was supposed to KILL Obama on this topic.

And he did NOT. It's all uphill for McCain from now on, with the economy (McCain's self-admitted weak point) being the main focus.

I think Obama dodged the bullet, and unless some major gaffe takes place, McCain (especially with the liability of Sarah "I can see Russia from my HOUSE" Palin on his ticket) may be "cratering" himself soon.

jugdish writes:

jbowen43

Your post reads like a socialist wrote it.

Am I that far off?

jugdish

BroncoDan writes:

Go Colorado, GO BLUE!!!

susanai writes:

I am an Australian and find your elections fascinating. I thought Obama was the clear winner and McCain's barely hidden anger a bit scary. What I don't understand is the need for your press and media to constantly undermine both McCain and Obama - especially Obama. What I find most offensive about your country is that you exported 'Fox news' to our country. I suppose we end up even, seeing that we exported Murdoch to your country. Can't Fox be exiled to Russia?

PonchoVia writes:

What MavrickG and many other folks don't understand, or conveniently fail to mention, is that there are many, many reasons BESIDES TAXES that any company chooses to incorporate in a given country. To think that a company will just up and move because the taxes go up or down somewhere is ludicrous! How about the ability to find educated employees? How about government regulations? How about just wanting to live/work in a particular (free) country? How about having business and personal connections in a given country; e.g., for the supply chain?

And what Americans need to understand is that we are spending billions of dollars on wars every month. In WWII Americans actually rashioned and worked in factories to support and pay for the war. Sorry to say it folks, but at some point we MUST pay for this boondoggle. If we don't pay NOW, our children and their children will pay later.

Hey MavrickG, what do you think about DEBT? Let's talk about the US debt on this boondoggle of a war, and how the h3ll it's going to be paid for. You taking your company to another country will just be a clear indication of how unAmerican you are - just running away from the debt this country has to pay for.

SteveM writes:

angryman1n,
McCain wants to give every family $6,500 for medical care. How much is that going to cost?

You are a bogus, angryman, as you're name states. Now maybe you could get with the program, sit out this election if you don't plan to vote FOR OBAMA, and maybe you won't be so angry in a year.

taxidave writes:

Pretty cool how the Dim-o-crates screw the country by insisting nothing is wrong with loaning to people with no credit, then blaming everything on Bush after Republicans voted a couple years ago to create more oversight and regulation. ALL Dim-o-crates voted against the measure. McCain has been screaming for reform for years! A marxist inspired Obama combined with a far left House and Senate?? God help us all!!

dorfs writes:

jbowen43 writes
By the way Ahmadinejad NEVER said he wanted to "wipe Israel of the face of the earth". Thats McCain/Lieberman/Republican/Israeli lie. "Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" is a more accurate quote. How about "a stinking corpse". Face it, Obama has no clue about foreign policy, clearly he was out classed on world events.

dirkle writes:
Bogus poll or no bogus poll, most national professional polls gave the debate to Obama. What most seem to forget is that the topic was foreign policy.

The same national polls like nbc, abc, cbs, cnn, the nytimes, or the dailykos?

lappy writes:

hey malachi constant - my sentiments exactly! I can only imagine the team at republican central will be madly writing down all they can including answers galore for Sarah Palin to memorize for the debate she is going to be in, so she won't look like such a goofball who knows nothing...she is such an embarrassment to USA and it says alot about McCain for having chosen her...

JayBen writes:

Let's see, GOP presides over worst economic and international collapse for the U.S. in ... history.

But it's Barack's fault.

At some point I do believe the wingnuts will wake up in paroxysms of self-loathing.

Or someplace more fiery.

zivo24 writes:

Ask anyone what they believe about a person who won't look them in the eyes while talking to them and you'll know they'll say?

That person is either lying or hiding something.

zivo24 writes:

Taxidave,

It's quite obvious from your post that you don't have a clue with how this financial crisis came about.

I don't claim to be an expert but unlike you I've bothered to do a little research.

The deregulation of the financial industries was cemented during Reagan's first years because he believed that unfettered competition would spur economic growth.

The problem is that all these lending institutions now didn't have any governmental oversight establishing legal standards for which them all to abide by.

The result is that they competed against each other by continuously lowering the bar on the qualifications for lending money through mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc.

They were competing to lend money to people who under regulation probably wouldn't have gotten mortagages, loans or credit.

They conspired to make more money off people with poor credit by burdening them with ever increasing interest rates that made it extremely difficult for most of them to ever pay off their debts.

Just a few years ago, it was discovered that credit card companies had conspired to raise interest rates on card holders who were late paying even one of their credit cards.

I had this happen to me. I paid my bill, in advance, for one of my cards online but mistakenly selected a date from the drop down menu that was past my due date. I didn't even realize I had done it and didn't catch it till a couple months later.

That credit card company accepted my explanation because they saw that I had scheduled a payment and returned the late fee and returned my interest rate to what it had been.

But two of my other cards raised my interest rates substantially after that late payment was reported to my credit bureau and they refused to lower them. It didn't matter that I had never made a late payment to either of them.

I paid those cards off as quickly as possible and cancelled them and refuse to do business with either of those companies ever again. One of them was WAMU, so I guess I won't even have to worry about that.

I was furious. My credit was and is excellent, but these companies were penalizing me..not because I presented a credit risk...but because they saw an opportunity to squeeze more money out of me than they would have gotten otherwise.

This kind of collusion to wouldn't have happened if there had been greater regulation and oversight all along.

Competition is a great thing because it spurs innovation - but unfortunately we don't live in a world where people or businesses are honest...so competition in business...like in sports... does require rules and referees to make sure they are playing by them.

angryman1n writes:

SteveM.... Gotta link to support that? It's the first I've heard of it.

gregu710 writes:

Hey, Maverick, take your greedy self to China. Good cheap labor so you can make more money for your family, and I'm sure you'll like the non-interference style of Beijing. Well, that is until you say one wrong thing to your employees (other than "GET BACK TO WORK!") Or the fact that you will own a minority share in your own company! Go, get out, and don't let the door hit you in the a$$. Your the kind of business owner that this country doesn't need!

angryman1n writes:

SteveM... Actually, the McCain website states that it would be a $2500 (individual) or $5,000 tax credit that would off set the costs of services used.

People would not just get cash. The website states that it would be paid directly to the insurance provider.

Eitherway, I oppose nationalizing health care.

This is not the original analysis report I had found. That one was written by a Doctor for a major health care network. However, neither analysis were particularly supportive of Obama's plan.
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_...

angryman1n writes:

I forgot to add that McCain's plan kinda means that it would be post-fact repayment. It sounds like, this means the total cost would only be for the cost of procedures. Thus, people will only get the care they truly need.

Additionally, according to the analysis above. McCain's plan is a slower more deliberate method that focuses on reducing health care COSTS FIRST. Meanwhile, Obama's number one priority is to get people covered. I'll always take the more methodical path.

gregu710 writes:

For all of you screaming that Obama will raise your taxes, have you people completely forgotten how the Government works, or just never took the time to learn. Taxes are raised and lowered by CONGRESS, not the Executive Branch, END OF STORY! Yes, the President can exhort them to do something, like go to War in Iraq, but the Congress (if it has any spine) can refuse to do so as was almost the case with House Repubs and the Bailout. NOW, if Congress is 75% Dem and Obama says "do this,do that" then it is theoretically possible for this doom and gloom scenario, but the reality that is unless people totally revolt against the GOP in this election, there will still be a narrow margin in Congress for the Dems. That means Obama is going to have to sell the "fiscally conservative GOP" (hold on, i just got laughing and blew coffee out of my nose) on a National Healthcare Plan or new tax code or whatever, that is supposedly going to "Raise your taxes". Of course, he could have our intelligence community drum up data about an impending health crisis and tell us we HAVE TO ACT NOW to push healthcare or face dire consequences...

Bot writes:

What is the Root Cause of the “Mortgage Meltdown”? (Social Activism)

While it is true that there’s corporate greed on Wall Street, it is important to understand the chronology of how our Country got into the “Mortgage Meltdown” mess: The Mainstream Media would have us believe there was insufficient government intervention by the Bush administration, which did nothing while “Rome burned”. That couldn’t be further from the truth! We must look at the root cause:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8...

• The Democrats in Congress over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage industry so hard to increase minority homeownership, that it undermined the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal of “social activism”.
• The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, at the urging of Congressional Democrats, produced a manual in the early 1990’s that warned mortgage lenders they can no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income.
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised mortgage lenders – like Countrywide and Bear Stearns – because they adopted weakened policies toward minority applicants.
• Fannie Mae agreed in 1999 with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to commit half its business to low- and moderate-income borrowers.
• A September 1999 New York Times article says that Fannie Mae had been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply. The article warns “In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."
• Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, was concerned in 2003 with weakened underwriting standards; Congress ignored him. The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., as criticizing Greg Mankiw "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than 'concern about housing.'"
• Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for regulating the mortgage industry in, saying, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
•

gregu710 writes:

So, Bot, what you say in your last 2 points is that even though the Republicans had majority in the House and Senate during this time, and a Republican President, one minority Senator (Frank) had enough power to stymie the whole discussion? WOW, that Barney Frank is one powerful Dude! This whole thing ignores the major fact that although all of the industry experts and economists have been warning strongly about the burst of the Housing market bubble, that we could not continue to support these inflated home prices, investors and companies continued to base too much of their portfolios on the Housing market. And that, sir, has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, other than perhaps through the weakening of Bank regulation by the GOP during the early part of this decade. We're now seeing the same trend with oil, everybody is jumping on the oil bandwagon, and if by some miracle, that bubble should burst, we'll have the same scenario again. Lack of diversification in investment and greed are the primary drivers here, not a political party or policy. If we look at the total number of mortgage defaults vs the total number of solvent mortgages, I think the percentage is low. However, if we look at these mortgages which are based on hyperinflated prices vs those based on somewhat more "realistic" prices, then you will see a much more truthful picture. These mortgages and the investments based upon them are all based upon unsustainable and unproportionately inflated values, and when the housing bubble collapsed due to the sudden spike in foreclosures and the ensuing panic, the virtual worth of this investment base collapsed.