|
Post by gailkate on Aug 24, 2008 9:47:11 GMT -5
Well, Joe, that sure is as lackluster as the most rock-ribbed Republican could hope for. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Damning with the faintest of praise. Obviously, I think Obama is quite capable of taking the helm, and choosing Biden is a perfect example of why he's able. Obama is smart, thoughtful and pragmatic - when he needs other hearts and brains to help him, he'll find the right ones, just as he has with Biden. I can't wait to get my T-shirt. One minor observation - this could make a definite difference in McCain's choice. Our Gov. Pawlenty, the cleancut rising star being touted as a good veep, is no match for Biden. A debate between those two would be Terminator vs. Andy Hardy.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Aug 24, 2008 9:51:01 GMT -5
Sorry, I missed the page change, as usual.
BL, please listen to the speech. It was excellent and his objections to McCain's positions were perfectly fair. It's only the media who frame things in terms that inflame - "attack dog" will be bandied about foolishly. Rove was an attack dog. You'll hear nothing like that from Biden.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 24, 2008 18:23:50 GMT -5
gailkate, you're right about the media telling us what to think. Today's Boston Globe had references in a couple of different stories to Biden's loquaciousness and "gaffe"-proneness. Actually, I like the fact that he will explain his position in enough detail to show that he knows what he is talking about and to give his reasons for his position — an attempt to persuade, not rabble-rouse. And the "gaffes" are a big deal only because the media plays them up.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Aug 24, 2008 19:11:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 24, 2008 21:10:51 GMT -5
Well, some of the stuff they don't like about Biden is stuff I like, especially Iraq. I can see why it would give a liberal pause, but I think that on balance, it is likely to bring more votes to Obama than it costs him.
The business about the debt "reform" is disappointing. if understandable in light of his representing Delaware.
I had forgotten his role in the assassination of Bork.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Aug 24, 2008 23:24:21 GMT -5
I heard a very smart person say, the other day, that if McCain chooses Lieberman (sp?) as his running mate, he may as well go to work forwarding Obama's mail to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Considering that Lieberman is pro-choice, and McCain has stated that his will be a "pro-life administration", it would be political suicide to pick Lieberman.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Aug 25, 2008 23:14:19 GMT -5
I worked from 12 noon to 8 pm today, so I missed all the Democratic Convention speakers. It sounds like Michelle Obama and Ted Kennedy were very good speakers, so I'm sorry I missed them. They must have begun the festivities in early afternoon in Denver, as for those of us on the Left Coast, all the coverage is over by 8 pm. Oh well.
I liked the Rick Warren discussion with both candidates at Saddleback Church. A whole hour for thoughtful, civil interchange. No soundbites, and minimal pontificating.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Aug 25, 2008 23:39:37 GMT -5
I thought both speeches were moving. So was Caroline's introduction of Uncle Teddy. She did a fine job of hitting the highlights of a very effective career in the Senate. To me it was a tribute to how he remade his life. From suffering and loss to drunken carelessness to a life of public service. Heaven knows he didn't need the money. Michelle is a fine speaker. Maybe after Barack wins, she can run.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 26, 2008 0:30:32 GMT -5
…Michelle is a fine speaker. Maybe after Barack wins, she can run. Just like Bill and Hilary. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Aug 26, 2008 9:11:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 26, 2008 14:15:29 GMT -5
Jeb in '12! Because McCain won't seek a second term. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Sept 4, 2008 23:19:22 GMT -5
I'm not making this up...
My dentist's office is in a house about 6 miles down the road toward town. In the front yard is a sign. I think it's political, but.......
The sign reads "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less".
Really.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Sept 4, 2008 23:39:01 GMT -5
Al Sharpton at the RNC? View THIS.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Sept 18, 2008 18:38:56 GMT -5
More on taxes from Fact.Check: There He Goes Again September 18, 2008 McCain ad misrepresents Obama's tax plan. Again. Summary The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new ad that once again distorts Obama's tax plans. The ad claims Obama will raise taxes on electricity. He hasn't proposed any such tax. Obama does support a cap-and-trade policy that would raise the costs of electricity, but so does McCain. It falsely claims he would tax home heating oil. Actually, Obama proposed a rebate of up to $1,000 per family to defray increased heating oil costs, funded by what he calls a windfall profits tax on oil companies. The ad claims that Obama will tax "life savings." In fact, he would increase capital gains and dividends taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, or singles making $200,000. For the rest, taxes on investments would remain unchanged. The McCain campaign argues in its documentation for this ad that, whatever Obama says he would do, he will eventually be forced to break his promise and raise taxes more broadly to pay for his promised spending programs. That's an opinion they are certainly entitled to express, and to argue for. But their ad doesn't do that. Instead, it simply presents the McCain camp's opinion as a fact, and it fails to alert viewers that its claims are based on what the campaign thinks might happen in the future. Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site: www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html
|
|
|
Post by joew on Sept 18, 2008 20:58:21 GMT -5
Meanwhile, the "honest" campaign is up to this.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Sept 18, 2008 21:04:04 GMT -5
Wonder whose side the hackers were on.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 18, 2008 23:01:59 GMT -5
It's my impression that most hackers hack for the challenge, not because of partisanship, or even with deliberate criminal intentions. Particularly so in this case, since the alleged hacker is reported to be a 20 year old college student. Still, I suppose it is a crime, but I'm not sure how private email really is.
I am puzzled why it would be illegal to use a private email account for some state business, as long as it is not confidential. The reverse - using government of business accounts for personal use is another story.
I recall many occasions when I was a road warrior and the corporate VPN was down; I would have been incommunicado had it not been for my AOL account. I didn't send anything confidential via AOL, and I did not use my corporate account for personal messages.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 19, 2008 9:41:08 GMT -5
Here in the Washington State gubernatorial campaign, the Democratic candidate is running some very effective ads against the Republican candidate Dino Rossi. They feature a local Bellingham man who has Parkinson's disease lamenting that Mr. Rossi is against stem cell research which could save his life; a similar ad features a tear-choked mom wanting to know why Mr. Rossi won't allow stem cell research which could help her 2 year old son with diabetes.
I'm a Republican who voted for Dino Rossi in the last election (though I think Governor Gregoire has done a good job and I like her) and the ads made me not want to vote for him.
But actually - is it not the case that the federal law prohibits only public funding for stem cell research? Private money can be, and is being, spent on this. And there are some stem cell lines that can be studied even with federal research dollars. States are free to spend state money on research subjects of choice, no?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Sept 19, 2008 9:54:16 GMT -5
As I recall, there was some objection to the - very few - stem cell lines Bush had okayed for research. And since a huge amount of research is dependent on federal funds, I resent the notion that political/religious considerations can curtail what might be life-saving research. I know, the argument is that "might" and there are new techniques being explored.
But the fact remains that these embryos will be destroyed if not used for research. I think it is immoral NOT to use them. The idea of their contributing to the circle of life is beautiful and comforting.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 19, 2008 10:36:30 GMT -5
Because of my medical background and my own health issues, I agree with the use of embryos that would face destruction anyway (they were created for IVF) for research. Rather like donating organs for transplants to save other lives when a person is declared brain dead.
Now adult stem cells are the subject of much research - obviating the embryo question to some degree. I just find it odd that the divisive topic is used so intensely in a state election, when a governor has no influence on federal funding for stem cell research.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Sept 19, 2008 11:01:51 GMT -5
I agree, it's odd. Do people have reason to believe his positions could influence state funding or votes on related issues? For example, our very rightwing governor appointed commissioners whose personal views had to be reined in (one commissioner was finally refused confirmation). The health commissioner put on the agency's web site the fallacious theory that abortions led to breast cancer. After a furious outcry from people like me, the information was removed. So positions on national issues may indicate likely votes on related state funding or public information distributed by the state.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Sept 19, 2008 11:04:11 GMT -5
I've been trying to check on the immigration ad story. I heard something about it on CNN last night but can't find it. What I did find was reference to an earlier Latino-targeted ad by McCain's campaign that may have led Obama's people to a tit-for-tat retaliation. But I don't know enough yet.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Sept 19, 2008 11:10:03 GMT -5
Interesting that doc characterizes the ads as saying that Mr. Rossi is against "stem cell research." We are well enough informed to know that what many people oppose is embryonic stem cell research and that, as doc noted, there is lots of other stem cell research which nobody that I know of opposes; but I'm afraid that much of the public is not so well informed, and those who want to use opposition to embryonic stem cell research as a political issue against their opponents have not seemed too anxious to inform them of the distinction
If the ads do not specify that it is the embryonic research that Rossi opposes or if they imply that that is the only kind of stem cell research possible, they are misleading.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 19, 2008 20:34:33 GMT -5
The ads say "stem cell research" and are not more specific. I do not know what Mr. Rossi's exact position on stem cell research is, nor do I think it is likely to be relevant to my choice of best candidate. As you say, I suspect most voters are unaware of the difference between various forms of stem cell research. The two people in the two ads probably know the difference, but obviously are Gregoire supporters to begin with.
It will probably be a close election again since Gregoire won by only 129 votes in 2004, so both sides are bringing out all possible arguments. Gregoire is vulnerable on economic grounds, which Mr. Rossi's ads stress; that topic resonates right now.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 23, 2008 2:17:01 GMT -5
The anti-Rossi stem cell research ads have changed slightly, reflecting the above concern.
Now the man with Parkinson's says "opposes embryonic stem cell research" not just "opposes stem cell research." However, as the man makes the statement "opposes embryonic stem cell research", the screen reads "opposes stem cell research." It's repeated twice.
I suppose the campaign wanted to be accurate in its oral statement, but figures the written message sticks better.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Sept 23, 2008 10:22:57 GMT -5
Well, that's some progress. They should change the graphic too, but at least they've made a correction in the text.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Sept 23, 2008 14:14:33 GMT -5
I just saw the ad with the mother of the diabetic child again. It hasn't changed. The mother asks at the end "Who is Dino Rossi that he lets his personal religious beliefs interfere with my son's health?" A very powerful ad - who wouldn't feel for a mother fighting for her child's life? This other guy opposed to stem cell research must be a monster.
Throughout it refers only to "stem cell research," no adjective "embryonic. (Aside - is embryonic research really relevant any more, or is it pretty much all adult stem cells now?)
I'm waiting for the "Voters' Pamphlet" the state should send out any day, with side by side comparisons of every candidate. Informative and surprisingly entertaining too - for the primary, some gubernatorial candidate was from the "Salmon Party." What the heck is that? There were about 15 governor wannabes. Still boils down to Chris v Dino.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Sept 25, 2008 23:52:33 GMT -5
So Doc what do you think of I - 1000, The Death with dignity initiative. I would respect your right to decline to answer.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Sept 27, 2008 10:18:10 GMT -5
I'm curious, too. What exactly is in this initiative?
|
|