HRC back on the stump for Obama-Biden
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton is back on the stump for Democrats this weekend, including the Obama-Biden ticket.
Her schedule calls for her to campaign in West Virginia and Arkansas today before making a two-day swing through Pennsylvania on Sunday and Monday.
In West Virginia, she’ll attend a campaign event for congressional candidate Anne Barth. Later today, in Arkansas, she’s set to participate in a rally on behalf of Obama and Biden on the steps of the state capitol in Little Rock.
Sunday she and former President Bill Clinton will join Biden for an afternoon rally in Scranton, Penn.; Monday she’s scheduled for events in the Philadelphia area, details TBD.
| 
Email This
Advertisements
Go home and cook some dinner for your husband!
Nice one Solomon. But I don’t think Bill is home. He’s out finding some new interns for his global initiative. He’s already fished the pond dry here in America.
It’ll be funny to see Hillary do her little pseudo-rally for Obama without ever praising him. How could she after pointing out what a danger he would be to the country with his lack of experience and dangerous associations. Hillary isn’t even the biggest female politician anymore. That’s Sarah Palin, who’s 100 times hotter too.
Thats just great..hotness is certainly one of the criteria
for voting for a vice president…Hillary knows where her
bread is buttered …she knows who the next president will
be and that is at this point in time barack obama…
she might end up majority leader of the senate..or
maybe even secretary of state…you never can tell
but it is now clear that whatever reservations voters
may have had about Obama’s name, his race, his associations
etc have now been trumped by the economic meltdown..which
is not only not over but won’t be over for many months
when you are drowning and need someone to save you
and their happens to be a liberal black democrat standing
on the shore with a rope in his hand..you really don’t
care what he looks like or how his name sounds or
what his ideology is…you just want him to throw you
the lifeline…
If anyone seriously believes that a very liberal Democrat like Obama will resolve the economic crisis, then those people are NUTS, like in ACORN.
Obama’s core beliefs are the opposite of what needs to be done to end the financial crisis. But so far, although McCain is showing signs of finally “getting it,” the Dems have been able to falsely blame the entire mess on Wall St.
The fact is that while Wall St. was complicit and bears its own blame, the entire meltdown began in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is the Democrats who are by far the most responsible for that very important phase of this crisis.
It was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and the like who kept pushing and pushing for unqualified people to be given mortgages. And that is where and how it all began.
I think that given the severity of this crisis
if the conservative president sec of treasury
and chairman of the fed are using socialist means
to stablize the crisis..then it really doesn’t make
a difference who the next president is..not only that when
your retirement plans are worth next to nothing government
health care starts looking good no matter what your
ideology..and that is the way its going to go down
Jiminy,
It’s you who doesn’t “get it.” I see you have never looked up the Commodities Deregulation Act of 2000. Read that and lets see you keep spinning your Partisan blame game.
1. Repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 was REPUBLICAN proposed legislation that was veto-proof and Clinton had to sign it into law. It allowed banking institutions to trade Mortgaged Backed Securities.
2. Commodities Deregulation Act of 2000 forbade any government regulation of Credit Default Swaps and created the Enron Loophole. Because of this act people were essentially able to insured MBS’s for face vale as opposed to their real value and then traded the insurance. This act was proposed and passed by Republicans.
3. Graham-beach-Bliley Act. The actual bill that ended Glass-Steagall. Was passed in the Senate by 54-44 with only one Democrat in favor. This allowed banks and Insurance agencies to merge. This bill began from financial sector lobbying. Republicans “bought” Democrat votes for this bill by agreeing to a stronger Community Reinvestment Act.
4. Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by the relevant banking regulatory agencies to determine if the institution has met the credit needs of its entire community in a manner consistent with safe and sound operations. The law also does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution, instead the law emphasizes that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner. There are no specific penalties for non-compliance with the CRA. However, an institution’s CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The reason for it; “The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live.” The problem with the CRA and how it pertains to the crisis now is that most of the Sub Prime Loans do not fall under the jurisdiction of CRA at all. In fact they estimate 50% are not at all under CRA, 25-30% are partially covered, and the rest are. Also the treasury has found that the majority of sub prime loans under CRA are actually profitable.
The problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is that they were too outrageous with the Mortgage Backed Securities and Derivatives they offered. The CRA has nothing to do with that. The other bills do because they deregulated them.
The reason there is a credit crisis now is not because people didn’t pay their mortgages, it’s because these institutions sold these mortgages as securities and then insured them for face value which was insanely stupid because when housing prices fell everyone lost money.
Both Democrats and Republicans were involved with deregulating the Financial industry and both sides of the aisle were protecting Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. This is Predatory lending at it’s finest. Those regulated Sub Prime people were doing pretty well. It was those who were not regulated that messed it all up.
and who may I ask is most responsible for the lack of
regulation of which you speak…was it the poltiicians
who received lobbying money from fannie and freddie
ie Obama..or was it the guy who called for re regulation
of freddie and fannie..McCain…
Obama had nothing to do with any of that regulation since he was not in Congress during all of that. John McCain voted for the Graham-Beach Act, against Glass-Steagall, for the CDA of 2000, and allowed the CRA to be strengthened.
The warning signs had hit in as early as 2002 when many people were screaming about a problem. Bush, Hagel, McCain, and others tried to push more de-regulation the problem is that the banks weren’t regulating at all and were basically hiding how much risk they were exposed to in order to boost stock prices.
P.S. there is no law that FORCES banks to loan money to people they think can’t pay it back.
Nor is there a law which prohibits rich people from sleeping under bridges. I remember from youth, my father saying to me (after delivering his opinion on my actions,) “Do what you want,” all the while knowing, (both he and I) that he had the keys to the car. No law, just the tacit reality of the consequences of not taking his advice.
SR’s name should be “Maytag.” He’s on permanent “spin cycle.”
But his spins above say NOTHING about the Dems in the House and Senate. Which makes SR disingenuous, at best.
SR is a blazing socialist.
What is above is the TRUTH. Repealing Glass Steagall by the republicans allowed these companies to become so large they couldn’t fail. The Commodities Deregulation Act was also passed by Republicans and allowed Derivatives to go unregulated.
the Dems were behind the CRA which was traded by the Republicans to get veto-proof vote for the repeal of Glass Steagall that Clinton would have vetoed.
So if it doesn’t say much about the Dems thats the point. You keep saying it is all their fault sadly the facts don’t support you.
the Dems didn’t step in until Fannie Mae cam under fire and they protected them. Also Obama had nothing to do with any of this because he wasn’t in office yet.
You are spinning because you don’t understand what the problem is.
And if I am a Socialist then why the heck am I so against the bailout at all???
Your point that the Democrats forced banks to lend money to people who couldn’t pay it back is completely wrong. No such legislation exists. How do you continue an argument for which you cannot support??? All you have is a partisan video on YouTube that is also wrong. Heck even the McCain/Palin ticket blames the banks, not the borrowers.
That’s because everyone’s afraid to tell the truth. You tell the truth, you risk vilification from academe, the liberal media, those educated beyond their intelligence, and from the people who thought Hitler was okay so long as he didn’t get too greedy. They would have conceded him half the world while scratching their heads and having Friday night discussion at the Library. Were we to suffer another Pearl Harbor today, many would say we asked for it and that we should just try to sit down and talk to the perpetrators about what we did to deserve it. Peace and prosperity is the goal. Clearing the streets of thugs, thieves, murderers, bankers who can be proven to have recklessly gambled with our futures and our hard-won way of life for their own personal greed – and changing the minds of those who, in the face of overwhelming evidence of their evil, continue to coddle them and make excuses, is a necessary first step in that direction. Obama, though given every chance, has shown no inclination to even understand the rationale, much less to implement the necessary corrections. And I’ll close by saying that Wall Street is deathly afraid of him, and the market’s latest free-fall is a sobering reflection of that reality.
I agree with you Ed.
Sadly I feel McCain is in no way better than Obama.
And the market volatility is more in regards to Hedge Funds dumping stocks like made to pay off debt before the end of the year rather than fear of Obama. Remember McCain would be no better to the markets.
the public needs to take responsibilty..it is something
that both candidates won’t say…living beyond their means
on credit..buying houses that are too big and too costly
buying mercedes and bmw’s to show off..shopping till they
drop..thats the real problem..its the failure to postpone
gratification…I want it now…and you all know who
you are
for those of you who really didn’t grasp what it meant
when I refered to charlie black’s dismal record:
The first was the Rick Davis/John Weaver battle. Weaver and Mike Murphy, one of the best media strategists in the business, were the key players in the 2000 McCain effort and Weaver was the political guru who guided McCain’s efforts since then. Davis, with a major assist from Cindy McCain and his former lobbying partner, Charlie Black, ousted Weaver.
Davis and Black, who masterminded Bob Dole’s unsuccessful 1996 campaign and Phil Gramm’s aborted presidential effort before that, are super lobbyists, and they opened the doors to their K Street allies.
Davis was then replaced—in reality if not in title—by Steve Schmidt, part of Karl Rove’s operation. Schmidt is a first-rate tactician but new to McCain’s world, and he still shares power with Black and Davis. This campaign would have been a much different operation if Weaver and Murphy had been brought back; but that was never going to happen with Davis and Black.
In the end, it’s not relevant who holds what title in the McCain operation, because it is not being run by campaign professionals, but by the Washington lobbying class.
in other words ..McCain’s judgment is lacking both
in administrative ability and in his vice presidential
selection because he is letting the lobbyists make the
calls…
Ed hit another one out of the park at 11:16 last night.
Tell the truth you are branded a racist, a bigot or even a fan of TV’s former blockbuster “Dallas.”
The Dems, the liberal media and their academic friends have been playing the race card for years as a way to intimidate critics of their irresponsible, socialistic giveaways.
The Consultant also nailed part of the problem at 8:20 today—a part that often doesn’t even involve race.
And I have never said Wall St., greedy mortgage brokers and some of their Republican allies are blameless. But I am very tired of all the efforts being made to protect very culpable individuals like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters and other Democrats.
its very easy to blame “wall street” but who is “wall
street”..nothing more than a compilation of all the banks
in the US and all the trading companies ie investment
banks…they are no more greedy than the investors who
wanted to make a killing in the stock market..the average
guy who knows nothing about finance, but thought that
the market could never go down..of course there has
never been a shortage of hawkers out there starting
with Jim Cramer..but where is the common sense of the
average american …sure you can take part of your net
worth and invest in conservative instruments and funds
but people were rolling the dice…Diversify they
said..so people bought stock market investments
in Russia, in Brazi, in India, in China..great stuff
real capitalist nations…5% wasn’t good enough
investors wanted to make 10-20% a year…so they
bought houses worth far more than they could afford
never considering the value could go down…and they
leased automobiles figuring ..hey we don’t have to own
them…just borrow them for a time..nevermind the yearly
cost over 20 years….and then they borrowed money
for vacations…fly now pay later..well guess what
ITS LATER
It is later, indeed. Despite our differences, I think we all agree on the fundamentals. Consultant, despite his (for good or not) consultant mentality in his latest post has defined it at the base level. Jiminy took on level two and nailed that. SR tells it like it should be, but sees a way to get there that I, personally, do not agree with, but he gets the problem. None of us are delighted with the candidates this go-round, but it is what it is, and (my thinking) this is not the time to be reckless and start wholesale political experimentation at that high office. Good people are willing to play, ante-up and share if they have confidence in the game. Too many contemporary politicians have bought into and joined a kind of narcissistic subculture wherein they like to yak a lot and accomplish little and, as a result, prefer to do “noble” deeds rather than useful ones. Like it or not, our leaders’ primary job is to represent the USA, not some Wilsonian ideal of universal kumbaya. That’s admirable and ultimately valuable, but, as a nation, we can’t waste time discussing Joyce’s Ulysses until we first learn to read.
that to me means that we need to elect a man who understands
that if the government is going to enter into a spending
program it has to be directed at the middle class..they
are the ones who have lost jobs…they are the ones
who live from paycheck to paycheck…they own the businesses
that create 95% of the jobs…Obama’s economic plan is
lasered to deal with those issues…this is no longer
about McCains cuts in spending and taxes..its far
more serious …its now about creating domestic
jobs as we did in the 1930’s to fix our roads and
bridges…its about providing health care at reasonable
costs and notwithstanding pre existing conditions
its about stimulating investment in small and
medium size businesses…its not about capital gains
cuts on the investor class…they have enough and
are in a position to live welll and make more
they do not need government help..and they do not
need to be encouraged to buy stocks….
the country needs to try a different direction
the reagan-bush economic policies have resulted
in a very unhealthy situation primarily because
they over rely on the markets to correct the imbalances
I understand the mistakes that the democrats have made
Frank Dodd etc..but trickle down theory does not
work in a global environment…and this country
needs a concerted effort with one party rule
and no gridlock
Who do you think PAYS for all of this? Maybe you wish that we operate like a socialist nation and put nitwits into a hundred million civil service jobs and tax THEM do death since you will have no entrepreneurial class to pay for it all. This will insure that we have masses of people who are unqualified for their positions “serving” the public good. We, even now, are burdened with hordes of persons with questionable credentials making decisions beyond their ken. Every time there is a capital gains tax cut, the economy benefits greatly. It is not simply my opinion, it is a fact of historic economic reality. Sometimes I wonder if the consultant is living in a world of “yesterday I thought that, today I think this.” That’s fine when you’re advising aspiring officeholders, but you need a cogent philosophical base from which to shoot rockets. Equivocating depending upon a wavering public opinion serves only to feed pablum to adult children to gain or maintain political power. Reminds me of old man Kennedy who, having only the interests of himself and his family at heart, tried to educate his children in capitalism, socialism, and communism not to make them smarter on these issues, but to ensure that they would be able to gain and control power no matter what the political climate.
Lets talk basic economics..when you cut taxes and the benefit goes largely to higher income earners you
are spending money…because you are loosing revenue
forget the argument that revenues go up when tax
rates go down..that only works in limited situations
when you tax health benefits and then give a 5000
tax credit to buy health insurance you are spending
money and discouraging employers in the process.
when you want to win in Iraq..instead of giving
the Iraq’s responsiblity you are spending money
point is republicans have spent the economy into
oblivion…they havent’ been at all fiscally conservative
so if we are going to spend it ..lets spend it on
infrastructure, education and restoring a real middle
class….
to consultant + other idiots – the beauty of this ‘republic’ is that you and your ‘brain-impared’ ilk can showcase your miniscule knoweldge of economics – are you a ‘special needs’ child??? your lack of knowledge on all subjects including ‘foreign policy’ is outstanding!!! do you ever get outta your basement and take the bus into the big city of NY??? YOUSE REALLY HAVE NO CLUE AS TO WHAT YOUR POSTING/TYPING DO YOU???
Reminds me of the eminent sociologist Michael Harrington from Larchmont who wrote incessantly about the evils of capitalism and the joys of socialism (for everyone but himself, who lived like a capitalist while espousing the reverse for everyone else.) Fore! Reminds me, too, of the noted novelist from New Rochelle ( a nice man, and one of my old teachers) Ed Doctorow who espoused leftist and socialist thinking while living large in various houses while cashing humungous checks and one day inadvertantly almost ran me off the road while speeding around in his new Mercedes.
ed I am afraid you don’t get it..neither does Jaimot…
I am not for spending wildly..I am not for governments
running deficits..apparently whether republican or democrat
spending has become a disease..so the choice we have to make
is how we spend it not whether we spend it..you are confusing whether or not capitalism vs socialism is
good or bad with dealing with the real life habits
of both parties…some people live in the “what should
be”..and some people live in the “what is”.
John McCain is proposing that the government purchase
mortgages from the banks AT FACE VALUE…not at market
do you know what that means…it means the government
is spending your money to bail out the banks who have
lent the money to unworthy borrowers…why is that
good? why is it fiscally responsible and why should
we allow this republican to do that when it is bad
policy and bad economics…the point is I would
perfer to have the money spent on tax credits for
small businesses to hire new employees which is
what senator Obama wants to do…IF THE MONEY IS
GOING TO BE SPENT IN ANY CASE…
Why is it that for the past three years that every time someone disagrees with you or calls you on your incongruous logic, you reply that they “don’t get it?” Don’t get what? Seems to me you continuously fail to see the big picture and fall back on insignificant talking points. Even on the occasion when someone agrees with something you say, you respond by expounding on some issue within the issue to explain to them that they missed something and “don’t get it.” Some of us are talking about the survival of this nation based on the tenets upon which it was founded and you talk about sidewalk repair.
Hey Ed…”Well-Respected Man” and “Sunny Afternoon.” The Kinks nailed the Consultant 42 years ago.
Both songs are on YouTube. There’s a too-fast video version of “Well Respected Man”...but the original record itself is there too.
stop with the tenets argument..we are way past that
what you don’t get is the complications of the global
economy..it tells me you are not a young man…probably
over 55..it tells me that your education is liberal arts
maybe..and that you have no busines or economic experience
it tells me that you don;t get it because you belittle
those people who are able to convert a political position
into what effect it will have on the US economy….
nothing personal but none of this is about ideology
because only 28% of americans go to college…
its about solving problems …On this blog I try
to have an intellectual exchange ..but clearly
the offer I have to teach at Florida Atlantic would
be more rewarding
There you GO again.
If you’re going to teach, brush up on your spelling, phraseology and logic. Then again, at Florida International, maybe it won’t be necessary.
Or, Florida Atlantic, whatever that is.
Jiminy – the consultant accuses me of being over 55, that I am a liberal arts major, and that I have no business or economic experience. In effect, he’s deduced that I am an aging, pointy-headed academic northeast knee-jerk liberal. As Bill Medley and Bobby Hatfield (the Righteous Brothers) used to sing: He’s Lost that Lovin’ Feelin’.
not at all ed..some of my best friends are liberal..its just
that they don’t undertand anything about economics..doesn’t
make them bad people..though..in fact they are very nice
Just checking in.
Thank you Jiminy for the music selections :]
I am going to let the others spend their time typing while I go out to campaign.
While I agree that during times of financial uncertainty folks tend to want consistent and reliable leadership, not questionmarks, but I just don’t see McCain as fitting that mold.
1. He has been running a campaign of reform and being a Maverick. He also has been screaming that Washington is broken. This means he is trying to make the same promise of big reform and changes as Obama is. They are both unreliable by these standards.
2. McCain is not the same Senator he was 8 years ago. he is very different and the exact opposite on many issues. I should know, I worked on his campaign. Everyone I worked with on that campaign are not supporting him this year because they don’t recognize him anymore. This to me shows that he is unpredictable and doesn’t always stick to his morals under hard times. It says to me he is willing to play the Political games that broke Washington in the first place.
3. McCain flip flopped from an Anti-establishment Maverick to a Bush talking point less than 8 years ago. He went from being strictly against most of GWB’s policies to being a supporter 95% of the time. Many Americans realize that Bush’s insane spending policies and continued cow tailing to massive corporations and their abilities to lobby and drive legislation have really driven this country into a very bad corner. McCane’s voting record and outspoken suport for the President contradicts his claims that Washington is broken and needs reform and a new direction.
It’s hard to see how he is the “safe choice” when he has been all over the map the past decade.
Now that is not to say Obama is much better however he does have the distinction of not being a strong Bush supporter. (Even though Obama does say he has voted for a lot of Bush legislation)
Obama would be more inclined to bring Glass-Steagall back and possibly even repealing the Commodities Deregultion Act among many other major regulations that need to come back pertaining to short selling and others.
Unfortunately my questions to Obama (have nothing to do with Ayers or even Wright) are how does he propose to pay for his new programs? He ha promised cuts however he has offered no specifics. I also would like to know what he sold out to allow him to get such strong support in the Democratic Party and ultimately the nomination with so little experience.
Much like Bush to McCain in 2000 Obama is inferior to Hillary in many respects. All I can assume is that Obama’s clebrity status since his National coming out in 2004 and charismatic demeanor may have helped but thats not enough. he had to make some promises somewhere in the Democratic party and it is not apparent where yet. McCain lost the nomination to name recognition and because he was a Maverick. he has now since sold out to the GOP and this has allowed him the nomination. We know what McCain flippe don, what did Obama?
As to taxes I don’t care who wins they have to cut spending and lower taxes across the board. Right now both would have to raise taxes without any serious cuts. tax revenues = 18% GDP, spending = 22% GDP. No one can cut taxes without making massive spending cuts. Republicans try and claim to be the fiscally responsible party but thats not so right now. 10 trillion under Bush and McCain wa supporting him every step of the way. McCain supported the pork filled bailout and is now proposing hundreds of billions more to buy up unrecoverable debt. Housing prices have fallen. buying them up at face value is basically giving away free money. He is taking all of the responsibility away from the lending institutions that caused this. Thats not a good way to sell his message.
Obama is doing what any marketing person would be telling him. Nothing. he is way ahead in the polls and therefore doesn’t need to say much now. Let McCain flop around and fight with his own wavering base. But realistically the Democrts resist making spending cuts and there is no way Obama can pay for his programs without cuts and without raising taxes. taxing the rich is a losing game. They just find new and unique ways to avoid taxes or they will just stop investing or send more jobs overseas.
neither are really lighting my fire right now. Ron Paul should have been the GOP nominee and I wish he was running. It is nice that he endorsed Nader but Paul could easily grab 10% maybe even 15% or more in this election. he missed a golden opportunity to maybe even pull out a huge upset.
Makes overall sense, at least in regard to McCain, and I do know what you are saying. Barack, however, has proven by his voting record to be an inveterate uber liberal who just holds too many views anathema to mine.
I’ve wasted my time posting to Jiminy. The Giants are about to kick-off and he will not emerge for three hours minimum unless NY takes a 40 point half-time lead. But, as did MacArthur, he’ll return.
If you listened or read each of the candidates economic
speeches yesterday.you learn that Obama is specific in his
proposal and targets his tax credits to small businesses
the auto industry and the elderly..MCain unfortunately
simply says he knows how to fight for american…is
this because he has no specific economic proposal
or because he can’t articulate them..who knows
but Obama is driving the news cycle and with the
250 billion bank bailout on the front pages
there is not enough time for McCain to catch up
In addtion McCain’s negatives are now going up…in spite
of the right winge talking heads like hannity and limbaugh
raising doubts about obama’s past associations, his
reverend etc…its all backfiring on McCain..thats
what happens when you fire your political consultants
and hire lobbyists to run your campaign
Ed…After that game, I didn’t want to return. Oh well, they are bound to lose a few. But that was awful. Next Sunday’s another day.
Isn’t that Righteous, brother? :) That’s how they got their name, BTW. But the Consultant probably thinks the Righteous Brothers are a brokerage house.
He will never see “Rock and Roll Heaven.”
Jiminy: I fear the consultant might be failing. Yesterday he all but accused me of being a liberal, and then posted soon after that I shouldn’t feel bad because some of his best friends were liberals. I’ve noticed this kind of thing before from him, but not so blatantly ridiculous. I realize lately that I am not only talking to the wall, but with him, I’m too often trying to figure out what the wall is saying in response. He continually tells me and others that we “don’t get it,” and ironically, he’s correct about that. Whatever he’s trying to say lately, I DON’T get. HE seems to be happy. It’s me he’s driving crazy.
Ed1 “It’s me he’s driving crazy.”
Yes, the consultant loves to get you and Jiminy all riled up then let you spin your wheels in refuting him-time better spent on getting Palin-McCain elected, and if your in the district, Murtagh elected.
Just keep mentioning how great Palin is for the ticket and his head will surely explode ;o)
well its the old saying I don’t get ulcers I give them
Palin is the number one reason the MCain ticket is tanking
next to McCain himself…read christopher buckley WFB’s
kid. oh and by the way I chartered YAF at Lehigh in the
1960”s and william f buckely debated the old socialist
norman thomas..what a kick…
I worked for William F. Buckley, Jr – and you consultant are no William F. Buckley.
yes but you didnt charter YAF…got a clue as to what it
is…in the days when Johnson was president..and you
didn’t host a debate between WFB and Norman Thomas
and I don’t claim to be anything like him..I am
a true conservative not a religious zealot..which
is what the republican party has turned into..barry
morris goldwater and my dad played golf together
I know the difference between libertarian and
evangelical..the republican party as it now stands
is totally bankrupt..driven by neocons in foreign
policy and bigots in domestic affairs…and here
is a bulletin I am not voting for John McCain
sorry..but sarah palin will NEVER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO BE PRESIDENT….and that is the same position of
every conservative commentatator of note including
buckleys son
Oh Darlin’
Yes, I was born in the 60’s, but I know who the Young Americans for Freedom are-while I was not a part of their group we ran into each other all the time in D.C. My dear friend Eugene Delgaudio was very active in YAF. Yes, so I cut my political teeth on Ronald Reagan’s campaigns in the 80’s, was involved with the College Republicans locally, state-wide, and nationally and then the Young Republicans locally, state-wide, and nationally. I was a member of the Conservative Network-where I met my husband, frequented The Heritage Foundation Events, and after we moved to NY, frequented the Fabiani Society events.
So puhleese don’t try to belittle my experiences or intelligence.
well then you can understand my frustration…in the 60’s
with SDS on campus I was a conservative..maybe a lone
conservative voice….but conservatism then is not what it
is now…up through Bush 42..it was fiscal and tax
policy..not nation building ….george w..who i have known
since 1978…(we hung out together in dc.during the campaign
for congress)..was overwhelmed by cheney and the neocons
this is not conservatism..this is imperialism..don’t let
anyone fool you .conservatives don’t intervene in other
nations just because they think its good for israel
or they want to “foster democracy”//that is anything
but conservative…and WFB would be in complete agreement
Consultant just about summed up my opinion of the GOP these days.
It is interesting that the true Conservative organizations have turned their back on Bush and have been campaigning against him. McCain is now in that crew. Sad really because he was always against what the Republican party now stands for.
THANK YOU SR…AT LEAST WE AGREE ON CORE PRINCIPLES
NICE TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO “GETS IT”
RE: Palin is the number one reason the MCain ticket is tanking next to McCain himself….....
What??????? (To much Westchester politics here)
I know as a fact that the McCain camps has the two of them rallying together because it would look bad that Palin draws more people the McCain.
Palin should (And the McCain Campaign has been warned) to get Palin to rural areas of Pa, Ohio etc….Palin connects like none other. Problem is she draws more of a crowd and it looks bad for McCain.
Palin MUST get to rural areas of the swing States. Remember Pa is a large State…....
At both ends of PA you have two liberal cities Pitts & Philly…....IN BETWEEN THOSE CITIES IS ALABAMA!
Palin must get to those areas!
SARAH IS A NET NEGATIVE…FORCED ON MCCAIN
BY “YOUSE” GUYS”.. you really don’t understand
the dynamic in us politics today..its about
the middle not about the base
“the consultant
October 14th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
yes but you didnt charter YAF…got a clue as to what it
is…”
Why didn’t you want to respond to my response? Am I giving you ulcers?
You can’t win without a base (Fact)
Palin solidified that GOP base.
And yes, I understand dynamics in US politics….
If you remember I was the one who swore to you that Rudy would not be (Or even get close) to winning the Primaries. You swore to me that Rudy would be the candidate.
Not to cut you, but I understood the dynamics of the National elections.
On another matter…In short…..
The dynamics of winning this race is in the “Battle Ground States” ...Those States are really Red as Bush won those States…
We need to get them back. Palin is the one to do it. In fact, word is McCain will listen to a number of people now on getting Palin to the rural areas.
Ed…Have you considered it possibile that the time of day may now and then impact the coherence of the Consultant’s comments? Ya never know :)
Or, it might be that he is a lawyer and will gladly argue either side of an issue while believing in neither. It’s no coincidence there are about three million “lawyer” joke.
The Consultant and others may be interested in Obama supporter Jesse Jackson’s rather specific warning to “The Zionists” and Israel under an Obama presidency. Jesse spoke out pretty loudly about it.
See Amir Taheri’s column under opinions in today’s http://www.nypost.com.
LOL. I just noticed the Consultant said he’s not voting for McCain. What a shock. I’ve said it before—I believe he’s thinking about jumping the fence with Mike Spano and Janet DiFiore to become a Democratic consultant.
If he does, Palin is just his excuse. And he’s been overstating that excuse for weeks. There had to be a reason for all his repetitive drum-beating.
I don’t get it. Here’s what I don’t get:
I don’t get people who have a teenager or two in the house and are so wishy-washy in their beliefs to listen to their naive opinions on politics, the economy, and history in general. Many of these parents are probably playing Eminem CDs in their car radio in order to counteract baldness and impotence.
I don’t get people who think they hear an imaginary anti-semitism or racism in every argument from someone whom they disagree with.
I don’t get people who think the rest of the world has better ideas and a better sense of humanity, justice, and freedom than do we.
I don’t get people who have no memory of how this nation has repeatedly saved the rest of the world from dictatorship, confiscation both monetary and psychic, rule by gun, and intellectual dilettantism.
I don’t get people who are educated beyond their intelligence.
I don’t get people who would gamble with our future based upon some self-flagellant, subconscious belief that they must make up for some past evil in their life by forcing the rest of us to pay for it.
I don’t get people who didn’t serve in the military, would not serve in the military, and/or trash the military, or blithely praise the military only when and because it is in fashion, all the while enjoying the fruits of freedom that those who did.
I don’t get people who live as capitalists and espouse socialism for everyone else because they have already cushioned themselves with so much moolah, either earned or inherited, that socialism will no longer affect them but for the better.
And I could go on and on (and perhaps will at some future date.)
provided.
Yeah Jiminy, Palin-McCain no way-I told you the consultant’s head would explode. He has no response to me.
Jim,
Palin is only energizing the folks at rallies who are already voting for her and McCain. Thats the problem. McCain can’t win without the Reps and he can’t get the Reps without Palin. the problem is, as Consultant has pointed out, that the GOP needs the Independents to win the election yet Palin scares them off.
Democrats can win with their party but Republicans need to branch out. there are not enough Republicans to win.
Since most campaign stops are all just fronts with prescreened crowds they are always favorable. But the polls tell the real story and thats McCain is not being viewed favorably by a large majority of the country. Palin is part of the reason that is so. She is a polarizing figure, not a uniting force.
I am a fiscal conservative but tend to be more progressive with social issues. Palin does not reach me in any way shape or form and McCain turned his back on me a few years ago to get the nomination in the first place. I don’t trust him and Palin scares me.
SR is a fiscal conservative like Barney Frank is a fiscal conservative.
Ed and GOP Girl…here’s another one for the Consultant, and maybe for SR too.
Lou Christie’s “Two Faces Have I.” Yep, it’s on YouTube.
RE: SR comment above…..
Battlegrounds are really Red…..Bush never hid his Conservatism in his Campaigns. He won those States.
I can go on and on but….I can just tell you what I am hearing from the Camp.
BTW…Polls are really closer then some indicate. Further, there is also a small Bradley effect & last minute trust factor that will bring a couple of points at the end. Wait and see.
Good choice of consultant’s campaign song, Jiminy. But, only two faces? He’d find a way to make Jack the Ripper an acceptable candidate, just for the fun of it.
Dear Consultant.
I answered your question-why, no response?
GOP Girl
October 14th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
“the consultant
October 14th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
yes but you didnt charter YAF…got a clue as to what it
is…â€
Ed…If the Consultant had Jack the Ripper for a client, their theme song would include the line “Slip out the back, Jack” from “Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover.” Jack would leave her d-e-a-d.
Jack The Ripper would be a good client for the Consultant. “Vote for Jack. He’ll slash taxes, and cut all the pork from the budget.”
Their commercials would run on Chiller Theater and on closed circuit TV throughout the back alleys of Albany.
As per the consultant, “just because the Wolf Man worked with Jack on a few committees to halt prostitution does not mean that Wolfie approves of Jack’s methods or shares his philosophy.” No matter how you slice it, as SR said, you, Mr. Cricket, probably associate with people like this and don’t even know it.
bottom line today is that many in the white house
at high levels think palin was a big mistake…
add that to her 41% UNFAVORABLES and her drop
to 32% in favorables..you can discount completely
what Jim Kelly thinks he is hearing…there will
be a bradly effect..but the enthusiasm for Obama
from African American voters who although they
usually vote democrat will now vote absolutely
for Obama will cancel bradley out…Obama
is ahead with white males and independents
now all he needs is the “great schlep” to work
( there’s a really creative GOTV move)
gee look what I found on CNN after I posted…
is the flip side of the “race debate” in Campaign 2008: While the Obama campaign and its Democratic allies are aggressively working to address the concerns of blue-collar and rural whites who are reluctant to support a black candidate for president, there is an enthusiasm in the African-American community that Democrats believe could lead to dramatically increased turnout and perhaps tip the scales in several key battlegrounds, Missouri among them.
Don’t Miss
Democrats target voters who think race is an issue
Commentary: Anti-Obama vote doesn’t make you racist
In Depth: Election Center
African-Americans cast 10 percent of the ballots for president in 2000 and about 12 percent in 2004. Obama aides believe if that percentage increased just modestly in 2008, it could make the difference in at least a half-dozen states: Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Wisconsin and Nevada are additional battlegrounds where Obama organizers are counting on an increase in African-American turnout in their Election Day game plan.
To reach its goal, the campaign is counting on a combination of newly registered African-Americans and aggressive outreach to tens of thousands black voters who are registered to vote but have stayed home in past elections. See why African-Americans are finding hope in Obama »
Jim Kelly just hit what I was talking about earlier and got slammed for. I just got an e-mail from some wacko Neo-con website who was telling his readers not to worry about the polls because no God fearing Patriotic American would willingly pull the lever for a black Barrack Hussein Obama once inside the booth. It went further to explain that he felt the polls were high for Obama because folks were finding it popular to do so like it’s a fad but will “come to their sense” when in the booth.
So keep on banking on your “Bradley effect” and then accuse the Democrats of playing the race card… Too funny.
your analysis is right on SR….anecdotally I have run
into people who are republicans who keep saying that
a black man cannot be elected…this is a mindset
that is dated to say the least..I don’t hear it from
young people only from over 55 group…and they
are sadly miscalculating the mood of the nation
Well my personal opinion of the issue is tht of the un-PC position. I do believe that a lot of people in this country will not vote for Obama because he is black. However, that doesn’t mean he cannot win. Especially since McCain really isn’t offering anything better or even different.
The GOP has had to walk a very fine line this year and it is hurting McCain. The very campaign strategy that defeated McCain in 2000 they are trying to employ now with bogus whisper campaigns and racial tones but it doesn’t seem to be working.
not only is it not working it is backfiring!
It is also ironic that McCain is now proposing a plan to cut taxes AND increase spending. Not only is his plan socialistic but it is against his mantra of cutting spending.
I sincerely, apologize consultant-you did answer me and I missed it.
I did read Chris’s DailyBeast column and his resignation.
I also agree with you that it is the economy that will be driving the race and, hold your breath, I do not think the Bradley Effect is going to be that big.
But I still like Sarah.
no need to apologize..no biggie..but i always answer both
my critics and those who agree.its just common courtesy.
but you should know that in a poll released today which asked voters why they had a lesser opinion of Mccain now than before 22% said sarah palin….
liking her is not the issue..I am sure she is a very
nice lady..would you trust her to govern the nation
I would not…and neither would 60% of those polled
who find her unacceptable as president
A number of points.
Buckley’s son is only notable because as he admits in his piece his last name is Buckley. I would add that Buckley’s son justification is basically Obama is more intelligent than McCain. Which is probably true but this isn’t an IQ test and I know plenty of intelligent people with wacky ideas. Just go down to Berkeley… I find it incredibly obnoxious that Buckley did what many in the msm did, tell Republicans to support McCain in the primary and then turn around and tell Republicans they aren’t supporting McCain. Buckley, really doesn’t justify his change in position other than perhaps he was planning to vote against any Republican.
The Bradley effect is an overhyped phenomenon. In only two elections involving African-Americans has it happened. In 2006, Harold Ford Jr. actually did better than exit polling in Tennesseee. If Obama is ahead in polling at the end by a substantial margin, he will be the next President.
If one who was previously planning to vote for the Presidential nominee doesn’t vote for the Presidential nominee because of the Vice Presidential nominee that is absurd. A VP does hardly anything. Palin, will get a voice in energy policy and that is it. If you were undecided before her selection that would be one thing but if you were previously planning to vote for McCain and now won’t, that is another. If you don’t like McCain or you are no longer happy with the Republican party that is one thing but to claim you are not voting for McCain (at a time when he is getting crushed in the polls) because of Palin is like only rooting for A-Rod when he is winning the MVP. It strikes one as wanting to be on the winning side.
SR, I believe Obama being African-American actually helps him more than hurts him. A lot of white people and African-Americans who would either not come out to vote or alternatively not vote Democratic (more of the latter group) are voting for him precisely because he is Black. Many whites feel better about the country’s past if we have a black man as President. This number far outweighs the limited number of people that won’t vote for Obama because of his race.
Consultant-Cheney is not a neocon but a traditional conservative who is hawkish on foreign policy. His views on foreign policy are not that different from Henry Kissinger. Cheney served in both HW’s and Ford’s administration in senior positions. In general, that is a slur that is thrown around way too often and typically inaccurately.
Thank you Consultant,
I believe the choice currently is McCain or Obama. McCain is infinitely more qualified than Obama to run our country.
Or do you disagree?
If the campaign were Palin against Obama – I still believe Palin is more qualified.
IMHO
Mike Murphy and John Weaver are not two of the best in the business. Weaver was forced out after he helped lead McCain’s campaign into a large deficit. After he left the campaign, it turned around. I agree that McCain’s staff is not top-notch but Weaver (who hasn’t ever won a presidential race) is not the answer. Murphy, is a media consultant so it is difficult to judge his performance. I have never been impressed with his analysis on Meet The Press but perhaps behind the scenes he is better. However, the one campaign where he had greater control was Rick Lazio’s and we know how that turned out (“Sign it.”)
In general, McCain needed a better staff but unfortunately, there is a dearth of talented political consultants in the GOP right now. Bush’s 2004 team was about as good as it gets in the GOP and I wouldn’t say they were any better than the Democrats on the other side tactically (although I would take Rove or Mehlman over Shrum).
Buckley inherited from his distinguished father nothing more than a train of money and an odd sense of humor. He, along with Susan Cheever, is the Arlo Guthrie of the printed word – small talents with a large name.
hey Ian ..Mike Murphy was the one who guided McCain
in 2000..his instincts are that of a consultant who
understands the dynamic…charlie black is a lobbyist
who lost the dole effort and lost the gramm effort
in short..they should not be the ones telling Mccain
what he should do to capture the middle..and their
insistance on palin is proof of the pudding..
Correction, Mike Murphy was part of a team that guided McCain in 2000 that included Rick Davis, McCain’s current campaign manager. Murphy had a chance to be part of McCain’s team but chose not to in the primary because of his relationship with Romney. After the primary, it was too late as didn’t get along with Rick Davis. Other than Weaver and Murphy, the team is pretty much intact. If memory serves me right, McCain didn’t win in 2000 and Murphy also does lobbying. Almost every campaign strategist is either an exclusive strategist or does lobbying, it is the nature of politics. Lobbying per se is not inherently bad just some lobbyists happen to give the profession a bad name.
I don’t think anyone blames Charlie Black for Dole losing.
I don’t think anyone in the campaign is responsible for McCain picking Palin other than McCain himself. It is clear that McCain’s campaign and any independent politico felt that McCain had to do something with his VP selection to excite people and MCCAIN decided that Palin was the right choice. If McCain didn’t want her, he wouldn’t have picked her.
Wow. You guys are playing with yourselves. I do want Ed1 somewhere in our loop, next year.
If my Republican ticket is elected this year, it might spell the end of the GOP for twenty years. The next four years are going to be a disaster, and we have no Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan to save us. Or even a Bill Clinton, the next best thing to an elected Republican president.
Disclosure: I LOVE John McCain. Admire him to the hilt. I WANT him to be president. John McCain DESERVES to be president. In other times, say, eight years ago, over that fool Bush. (I have never liked him.)
Do we, as Republicans, want our next president to preside over a 5,000 DOW?
Little Bush is about to go down with (James) Buchanan and (Herbert) Hoover as one of the worst presidents in history. He has been a public relations DISASTER for us Republicans the past three years.
When I was twelve, in Los Angeles, in 1966, the great RWR initiated his famous “Eleventh Commandment.” It had purpose at the time. Now, weak, thin-skinned Republicans use it as an excuse to avoid criticism. What BS.
Just some food for thought.
In the words of Lyndon Johnson, as savvy a politician as ever lived: “It’s better to be on the outside of the tent, pissing in, than (vice versa).”
Think of that in November.
May God save us in America.
Tim, in 2006, some very prominent right-of-center columnists claimed Republicans were better off losing and that somehow it would help Republicans in 2008. I never bought that argument and it has beeen proven to be untrue. Losing is almost never beneficial and it won’t help Republicans this time, either.
Tim, I am not sure what your argument is. In general, you post a lot of conflicting statements. In another post, you bemoan the anti-illectual sentiment within the Republican Party yet at the same time you repeatedly on this blog have praised Nixon/Agnew and denounce 60’s radicals. Nixon, started the anti-illectual trend in the GOP and if anything cost us a lot of fairly succesful baby boomers’ votes to this day.
If Democrats win the Presidency and expand their House and Senate majorities (hopefully, Republicans turn it around), you can look forward to a liberal renaissance for at least a few decades. If you think Obama is better for the country give him your vote but if you think McCain would be a better President than vote for him. To use McCain’s silly campaign slogan, “put country first” and not worry about the future of the GOP (which I believe you are wrong on). I happen to believe McCain would be better than Obama and if nothing else will at least temper the inclinations of a very Democratic Congress.
The market is cyclical. It will pick up and Democrats will get credit for it, despite doing very little. Remember Clinton in the early 1990’s.
Sorry, I meant to write, “anti-intellectual”. I should start proofreading my posts.
Ian:
My Dodgers are losing, so I am here back on the blogs.
Yes: I am full of contradictory statements, and you, my friend, have a great memory.
I DID applaud Nixon/Agnew, undoubtedly the romantic in me speaking.
I DID—and DO—disdain the “anti-intellectuals.” For the record: I hate them. Well, not “hate.” I don’t “hate” anybody. Except radical extremists abroad.
But those who are anti-intellectual cause great destruction in our country.
So far as my Republican Party is concerned: last week, George Will (in the Post) and David Brooks (in The Times) spoke for me. I couldn’t have put it any better.
This is not the best year for a Republican to be elected president. In fact, McCain winning might end the Republican Party as we know it. Though I love and admire him.
I apologize for this, but George W. Bush was an idiot. Still is. I am ashamed for his presidency, over the past three years, as a lifelong Republican.
Read my lips: “No NEW Texans!”
I am a Romney Republican. Kill me, should you wish.
I hope only for the greater good of our nation.
Any Democrats done better?
Tim, I don’t have any desire to harm anyone. I just think you are wrong about this election and about G.W. and I still have troubling following your rationale. It looks like you will get your wish as I think barring any unforeseen event that Obama is going to win. I preferred Romney as well and I think he would have done better at tonight’s debate in which McCain needed a big win and didn’t deliver.
And yes, the Dodgers like the Yankees are done. I am hoping the Red Sox are out tomorrow as well.
Ian, on one issue that fries my gonads, criticizes Tim for having disdain for 60’s radicals. What new Republican Party wing is this that sings the praises of rioters, looters, bomb-tossers and people who would not only not serve this country (other than in Congress over shrimp cocktails and small napkins) but attempted to communize it? What wing is this that equates intellectualism with unsanctioned violence and categorizes a class of college students (who had then a vested interest in political opinion driven by the draft,) as “intellectuals. When I was in college, I knew three of four. When did we decide that “intellectuals” were persons not with a 150 IQ, but one of 110? I have little or no disagreement for you opinion generally, Ian, but this issue aggravates me and I am sorely disappointed to hear revisionist history of the 60’s and an attempt to make appealing “successful baby boomers” who have done little for long except to self aggrandize and criticize those who have throughout history spilled blood in a splendid altruism for this nation’s benefit.
Ian:
First, thank you for understanding my pain. That is, the Dodgers losing.
Truth is: the candidate whose advisors would have been best was. ..Mrs. Clinton.
They’ll throw me out of the Republican Party for saying that. And I’ve been a member for 35 years.
Bush screwed us. I voted for him twice. Kill me. What a stupid human. He should be charged with treason. Along with the fools who enabled him. Republican loyalty goes only so far.
I love Chris Buckley.
The old Reaganite,me—
Tim
“Tim Hays
October 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Wow. You guys are playing with yourselves. I do want Ed1 somewhere in our loop, next year.”
I hope you are still planning on inviting jiminy.
SORRY- SORRY – SORRY – major cut and pasting error-should read:
“Tim Hays
October 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I do want Ed1 somewhere in our loop, next year.â€
I hope you are still planning on inviting jiminy.
GOP Girl: Sometimes, as with James Joyce, Tim’s language must be delicately edited to receive the papal imprimatur. Good company, though.
Ed1,
Thank you. I just spent a beautiful weekend with Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Brothers, Sisters and Lay People – and I won’t mention what the Holy Father gave to us – but your timing couldn’t have been more perfect.
Thanks
Ed1, I wasn’t defending 60’s radicals (before my time). I was mentioning that many anti-Nixon young people now dominate in areas like academia and even in business (e.g. Steve Jobs). By pissing them off, many successful business people who now should be voting Republican vote Democratic to this day.
Nixon said he represented the silent majority and publicly disdained elistists and the intellectual crowd. So my point was it is difficult to claim you are against the anti-intellectuals in today’s GOP while praising Nixon who continuing with Goldwater’s campaign with modifications was the one who helped start the GOP’s campaign against “intellectuals.”
Thanks, Ian for the clarification. I’m sitting in front of this computer, trying to finish a story for deadline, and your comment came up. Guess we’re the last two (sober) people up this balmy Thursday morning. Spiro Agnew, an intellectual himself, called the elitists “nabobs of negativity” shortly before he pleaded no lo contendere to bribery charges. I think the word “intellectual” is today poorly defined and used (oddly) almost exclusively as a pejorative. And it’s thrown around like the word “genius,” which is used to describe everyone from Einstein to the guy who figured out how to fix his broken lawn mower. Perhaps among the last true intellectuals that we’ve had on the political scene in recent memory are W. Buckley, Jr. and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, two people with very different viewpoints, right and left, but both worthy of listening to even when one disagreed with them. Cheers.
the debate last night was better for McCain except for
his facial demeanor..not calming at all..and for his
failure to say that his running mate was qualified to
be president although specifically asked by Bob Schiefer
I’m starting to wonder if Tim Hays is actually Professor Irwin Corey.
I found your blog doing a web search Monday night. Look forward to more from you next time around. (If I can get the Briggs & Statton fixed!)
The company brokerages network will give you access to some big pool of people who have the details about businesses for sale and buyers or investors looking for a organization venture. By making good use from the information you’ve, you may be cutting a offer and make a handsome profit out of the transactions.
I’ve truly liked reading your articles. You obviously know what that you are talking about! Your website is so straightforward to navigate also, I’ve bookmarked it in my favourites :-D