Jump to content

Some tutorials on the new software have been pinned here.

  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
No_Fear

The October Surprise

Recommended Posts

Who Built Sarah's Half-Million Dollar House? Another Palin Scandal On The Way?

The Palin family home is a two-story, 3,450-square-foot, four-bedroom, four-bath, wood house situated on Lake Lucille (see photo and video below). According to Palin's income tax returns, the house was assessed at more than half a million dollars — $552,000 to be exact.

 

Todd Palin told Fox News that he built the 3,450 square-foot, half million dollar home himself with the help of some "buddies." Since Sarah Palin blocked an effort to require the filing of building permits as mayor of Wasilla, there is no record of who Todd's "buddies" were.

 

Coincidentally, at the same time that Todd and his "buddies" were building the Palin house, the $12.5 million dollar Wasilla sports complex and hockey rink was under construction right down the road.

 

The architect who was awarded the $12.5 million sports complex, Blase Burkhart, is the son of Roy Burkhart, a Palin campaign contributor and the head of the local Republican party. Additionally, several of the subcontractors on the sports complex - including Spenard Builders Supply - were also contributors to Palin's campaign.

 

In addition to contributing to Palin's political campaign, Spenard Builders Supply happens to be the sponsor of Todd Palin's snow-machine team. Atoine Bricks, a Spenard Builders Supply employee, stated that Spenard supplied the materials for the Palin house. If the Spenard name sounds familiar, that's because they are one of the contractors that worked on Senator Ted Stevens house.

 

Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens was indicted recently, for accepting $250,000 worth of free renovations to his house from oil pipeline company VECO. Spenard Builders Supply is one of the contractors that worked on Stevens house.

 

Palin worked on Senator Ted Steven's 527 group. Palin's name is listed on 2003 incorporation papers of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. The group was designed to serve as a political boot camp for Republican women in the state. She served as one of three directors until June 2005, when her name was replaced on state filings.

 

Though there is nothing definitive here, Palin's history of cronyism - coupled with the recent finding that she abused her power as an elected official - certainly make this an item worth looking into. Due to the fact that Palin is still new on the national scene and has been shielded from the main stream press from by the McCain campaign, the fabled October Surprise could be the questions and eyebrows that House-gate is bound to raise. And frankly, with his current standing in the polls, McCain doesn't have time to fend off another Palin scandal.

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently Mr. napfirst, you didn't absorb the significance and irony that McCain's bashing of Obama's alleged 'palling around with terrorist Ayers' when some of Ayers biggest funding came from a Reps and that the CAC in turn donated large amounts to not only the RNC, but numerous Rep candidates, including Buch and Romney.

 

If the Ayers/CAC are in fact terrorists, then one could say that the above noted people accepted campaign funds from terrorists, couldn't they? Guilt by association, right?

 

No rhetoric on the alleged 'Ayers connection' in mainstream media? You have got to be kidding. . . or totally without a clue. It was widely reported on every news forum that I saw in the last two weeks - since McCain/Palin inserted in their stump speeches.

 

Drink a Mountain Dew or something and get those brains cells clicking. OR, maybe you just cannot read (quote from link):

Here's the icing on the cake
: just yesterday, the McCain campaign put out a
bragging about the fact that Leonore Annenberg has endorsed him for president. Yes, you heard it-- a McCain backer bankrolled William Ayers with millions of dollars.

 

More icing
: You know that Republican Arnold Weber I mentioned earlier? The one that served on the board of the CAC with Barack? Not only did he work with William Ayers in the 90's, he has also
. That's right-- McCain is accepting money from associates of William Ayers, and so far has not given the money back.

 

Are you stupid or just don't read the post.....it has nothing to do with CAC or anyone associated with it.....it's about ayers and his radical past with the weather underground and his late hate-America comments...why is that so hard for you to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you stupid or just don't read the post.....it has nothing to do with CAC or anyone associated with it.....it's about ayers and his radical past with the weather underground and his late hate-America comments...why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

Well Mr Nap,

 

It is almost time to face the music. It appears that unless there really is an October surprise, Mr Obama will be our next President.

 

We must all support him for sure if he really is elected, as his road will be a tough one to hoe. While we can easily opine about the fact Socialism will come home to roost here in America, we must also understand that if that is what most Americans want to live their lives under, then they have that right if they can get their Socialist elected. It is WE who either do not have the numbers to stop it, or our candidate can not mobilize through ideas enough of the people who are complacent to turn the tide in his/her favor.

 

Political tides are like a pendulum. If we go to far one way, then the arm of that pendulum swings back. We have seen it over, and over again in our lifetimes, and it will happen again for sure. Do not fret an Obama Presidency, figure out how to increase your wealth from it, even if they tax you more, lolol. It will not be hard to do so, cause everyone knows just about what he has intentions of doing.

 

I suppose the point of that last paragraph is really quite telling if you look beneath the words to the meaning------------->those who fight to get him elected for the most part, have no idea how to improve their lives through the creation of wealth by leveraging his policys. They expect him to hand it to them, and you know what; they will will take what he gives them and STILL BE POOR.

 

The evil businessmen will play to his creations, and they will get richer; doing exactly what the poor people demanded, and within 5 yrs, they will be lambasted again for bending their ways to fit and make money under Obama. A new set of bogeymen will be born, lolol. Probably in the alternative fuel sector, or maybe green tech, who knows, but born they will be. The liberals will whine again that somehow it is not fair that someone (people) got that rich, and the cycle will start again; just as it has for years on top of years. History teaches all things, and it has taught everyone one thing about liberals--------->no matter how much money the government takes, it is not enough for them as long as those with a buck more than they have pay it.

 

But you must also remember this----------->under liberals, government expansion means government spends, and doesn't make the price fair market. In other words--------->what they taketh in taxes, you can get back through government largess in contracts. In it revenue neutral to smart people. Again, it will be the middle class who are not aware of how to manipulate the system who will pay; my suggestion to you regular conservatives is------------>use your head, get out of the middle class by using the system, and wave bye-bye to the liberals who will be still whining at the bottom of the barrel as you pull away........using their own system!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ima, I think that you are correct in that unless McCain can all of a sudden present HIS case to the American people much better than he has – and forget about the attack mode of campaigning, chances are (barring any reversals) that Obama will be our next President.

 

It is not surprising that you go off on many of the normal GOP talking points but this one is the most humorous: "History teaches all things, and it has taught everyone one thing about liberals--------->no matter how much money the government takes, it is not enough for them as long as those with a buck more than they have pay it"

 

Of course, as the record shows (history teaches us all things), the best path to prosperity is to elect Democratic presidents.

 

The superior performance of Democratic presidents covers virtually the entire spectrum of economic indicators. There have been all sorts of numerous reports, such as University of Nevada 2006 paper, that have concluded that since 1949 Democratic administrations have done better than Republican ones when it comes to unemployment, job creation, GDP growth rate, and even corporate profits as a share of GDP.

 

And guess what? It was also found that the Dow benefits more when Democrats are in the White House. There's no shortage of studies to show that stock market returns are higher under Democratic leadership and Wall Street's performance is also better when Democrats control Congress.

In 2000, an analysis conducted by UCLA's Anderson School of Business concluded that ". . . the average excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than Republican presidents - a difference of 9 percent per year for the value-weighted portfolio and 16 percent for the equal-weighted portfolio."

As the New York Times reported from the UCLA study in 2003:

 

"It's not even close. The stock market does far better under Democrats...

 

...Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov look at the excess market return - the difference between a broad index of stock prices (basically the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index) and the three-month Treasury bill rate - between 1927 and 1998. The excess return measures how attractive stock investments are compared with completely safe investments like short-term T-bills.

 

Using this measure, they find that during those 72 years the stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents and 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference."

 

In 2002, Slate similarly concluded that "Democrats, it turns out, are much better for the stock market than Republicans" in that when you run the numbers (since the year 1900), Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return.

 

In 2000, the Stock Trader's Almanac, which slices and dices Wall Street performance figures like NFL stats, came up with nearly the same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price appreciation.

 

A quick review of the 20th century's bear markets coincidently have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current situation of course, all occurred under GOP presidents. According to almanac editor Jeffrey Hirsch, the presidential party figures are among the most significant he's found. "I don't know why people are convinced Republicans are good for the stock market."

 

 

Now there are some Rep water carriers like Larry Kudlow who continually try and convince people and perpetuate the myth that the regulation-free policies of the GOP benefit us all – when in fact they only benefit a relative few. Of course, anyone that knows anything about a capitalistic economy realizes that the more that benefit from a rising tide – the better the economy is as a whole. Back in April, Kudlow compared the economic downturn to an enema, declaring, "Recessions are therapeutic." I believe in karma and I suspect he will get his just deserts . . . sooner or later.

 

 

So how about jobs? Some will rant and rave about those in our society that are too lazy to work, or as you put it : "use your head, get out of the middle class by using the system, and wave bye-bye to the liberals who will be still whining at the bottom of the barrel as you pull away...."

 

Well I think that most agree that having fully employed populace would be a good goal (so that everybody is earning their own way), right? Of course, any one that took economics knows that the so-called ideal for a capitalistic market is not full employment – no, no, the ideal is around 4% unemployment (unemployment rate is determined by the BLS - Bureau of Labor Statistics who take a census and then divides the total unemployment count by the total employed count). Get any lower than that and Wall Street gets nervous as it is considered inflationary if the rate drops below 4% and so the lower the rate of unemployment drops (below 4%) – the greater the inflation and lower corporate profits (negatively affecting stock prices).

 

 

So that merely means that according to economic analysts, we should always ideally have around 4% (currently over 9 million Americans are unemployed) of our people that are employed and/or could be employed – sitting on the sidelines unemployed – and unable to find gainful employment. Looks like to me that there will always be those that are forced to sit-on-the-sidelines (for the benefit of the rest of us) and left behind (and not able to be out there spending money in our economy and , hopefully, saving some too). So what does "history teaches all things" about jobs?

 

 

No Republican President -- not with Eisenhower, not with Nixon, not with Reagan, not with Bush41 or Bush43 – were more jobs created during their administrations, or jobs created at a faster rate, than during his Democratic predecessor. It's not even close.

 

 

The contrast has been especially stark over the past 16 years, when 23.1 million jobs were created under Clinton and less than 5 million were created under Bush. On average, job growth under Democrats is more than twice that under Republicans. More jobs means more people that are able to pay their own way, right? That's a good thing, right?

 

 

High unemployment seems to be part of the neocon strategy. High unemployment drives wages down. The neocons and their big business sponsors blame the usual suspects; unions, environmental laws, government regulations, and corporate taxes, and taxing the top 1% -- for the loss of jobs, but they are the ones who benefit from it.

 

 

So I submit that, although those damn liberals may be at odds with your personally held beliefs, "history teaches all things" and chances are that it will repeat itself and you and many millions of Americans can expect to have a better chance in the future to better yourself with a Democratic president and/or Congress. So I agree with you in that one should not get depressed, no, get moving and remember, hard work and working smart will be expected – if you want to maximize and raise your boat with the tide. . . as "history teaches all things" and you stand a better chance of doing so starting next year (assuming, of course, things turn out like they currently appear). Of course, if you can provide proof of the opposite, we'd all like to see it.

 

 

Might want to remember that when you cast your vote and temporarily leave those social conservative 'values' behind. For example, ask yourself this, "If Roe v Wade really was that important to Bush & the Rep Congress (and a majority on the Supreme Court), why didn't they get it overturned during those first six years when they were in total control? Or is that just a election campaign hook that they want to keep and never want to give up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Razor, I would not dispute your claims, because I know them to be true also. I could add the caveat as to why most of these things happen, but the fact is that your facts are correct as I also know them too. Government spending creates tons of jobs, period.................and that is especially good if the jobs are NOT created because of a war; meaning military.

 

But to you Razor, I say this, which is also truthful----------->the government can not really create wealth, it can only create the atmosphere to where it can be made. Also, the government is running out of room to BORROW money to expand the economy through spending.

 

And now, I will let you chew on one caveat---------->look at the percentage of people working for the government, or really getting paid by the government today, then look back at the percentage in say, Nixons time since he was a dizzy President too, lolol. You will see where many a job has been created!!! Take those out, and you need the private sector much, much, more.

 

You see, taking money from citizens to pay for expansion of government has one flaw, and that is---------->you can't export the product.

 

Regardless of what you think of my views personally, remember that last sentence and place it in your memory bank for future reference. You will discover that under Mr Obama, my words will be prophetic as that will be the next crisis to come. And just like the current banking crunch, we won't see it coming, will fight over it, and most won't understand it.

 

At least we both agree that Mr Obama is now a slam-dunk unless an October surprise appears, but it more than likely is just on some peoples wish list, and a wish is not enough to stop the Obama train from entering the station now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right about government jobs, time will tell, but I suspect that by the end of the first Obama term, there will be a drop in overall numbers of Federal employees - just like there was during the Clinton admin. Under Bush, of course, the was a rather large growth in that area. Here's another good article that I did not link to in previous post.

NY TIMES

 

You may or may not have caught a short news report about a month ago about the horrendous Federal payroll waste that has been occurring for last several years - because a rather large number of Fed employees just haven't bothered to show up for work - regularly. I suspect that we will be hearing that many of those will be gone - not too far into the year - why Bush didn't is anyone's guess - they were aware of the problem.

 

Back in 2002, Bush requested and received the authority to hire, fire and move workers in the 22 agencies that were merged into the new Homeland Security Department.

 

In addition to merging government agencies, the Bush Admin hired a whole new flock of government agents to 'enhance our security'. That ran smack in the face of Bush's pledge to shrink government. In order to hire more workers without appearing to increase the size of the federal government something had to change. Imagine the hay day Dems would have if the number of federal employees swelled during the Bush Administration. The answer of course was to privatize many jobs. I seem to remember something in the order of 860k jobs. And yet by the end he still ended up with a net growth of jobs. It's sorta like Iraq, in that there are actually more private contract 'security people' there than we have troops.

 

My guess (and I hope I am right here) is that Obama will prove to a much better administrator and will prioritize and surgically remove much waste in the Fed gov't.

 

By the way, when Bush got "elected" back in 2000, I moved a lot of my investments into bonds . . .as bonds always have done better when the GOP is in the WH - stocks not so good. . . and so far my portfolio has not really been impacted very much . . . even with the recent happenings on WS. Now it looks as though it's time to start converting back into the stock market again and the 'deals' are looking very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Mr Nap,

 

It is almost time to face the music. It appears that unless there really is an October surprise, Mr Obama will be our next President.

 

We must all support him for sure if he really is elected, as his road will be a tough one to hoe. While we can easily opine about the fact Socialism will come home to roost here in America, we must also understand that if that is what most Americans want to live their lives under, then they have that right if they can get their Socialist elected. It is WE who either do not have the numbers to stop it, or our candidate can not mobilize through ideas enough of the people who are complacent to turn the tide in his/her favor.

 

Political tides are like a pendulum. If we go to far one way, then the arm of that pendulum swings back. We have seen it over, and over again in our lifetimes, and it will happen again for sure. Do not fret an Obama Presidency, figure out how to increase your wealth from it, even if they tax you more, lolol. It will not be hard to do so, cause everyone knows just about what he has intentions of doing.

 

I suppose the point of that last paragraph is really quite telling if you look beneath the words to the meaning------------->those who fight to get him elected for the most part, have no idea how to improve their lives through the creation of wealth by leveraging his policys. They expect him to hand it to them, and you know what; they will will take what he gives them and STILL BE POOR.

 

The evil businessmen will play to his creations, and they will get richer; doing exactly what the poor people demanded, and within 5 yrs, they will be lambasted again for bending their ways to fit and make money under Obama. A new set of bogeymen will be born, lolol. Probably in the alternative fuel sector, or maybe green tech, who knows, but born they will be. The liberals will whine again that somehow it is not fair that someone (people) got that rich, and the cycle will start again; just as it has for years on top of years. History teaches all things, and it has taught everyone one thing about liberals--------->no matter how much money the government takes, it is not enough for them as long as those with a buck more than they have pay it.

 

But you must also remember this----------->under liberals, government expansion means government spends, and doesn't make the price fair market. In other words--------->what they taketh in taxes, you can get back through government largess in contracts. In it revenue neutral to smart people. Again, it will be the middle class who are not aware of how to manipulate the system who will pay; my suggestion to you regular conservatives is------------>use your head, get out of the middle class by using the system, and wave bye-bye to the liberals who will be still whining at the bottom of the barrel as you pull away........using their own system!!!!

didn't conservative george W increase gov. size and spending more so than any of his predesseors?

maybe they got those labels mixed up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
november suprise is more like it, or december if the supreme court has to pick this time!

 

 

I heard that! Hopefully the filing below doesn't complicate the previous court proceedings.

 

"A state lawsuit has been filed in Washington state challenging the eligibility of BHO.

 

Steven Marquis, a resident of Fall City, WA filed suit in Washington State Superior Court against Secretary of State Sam Reed demanding verification of Barack Obama’s citizenship status.

 

The complaint seeks specifically that the office of the Washington Secretary of State verify and certify that Mr. Obama is or is not a "natural born" citizen by producing original or certified verifiable official documents. The lawsuit argues that this certification should take place before the election to preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest should such certification, after the election, prove that Mr. Obama was not qualified for office.

 

The Complaint argues that the Secretary of State has the authority and duty to not only certify the voters but also and most importantly the candidates and in so doing prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters who would had had an opportunity to choose from qualified candidates had the certification preceded the election process."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the government is running out of room to BORROW money to expand the economy through spending.

 

And just like the current banking crunch, we won't see it coming, will fight over it, and most won't understand it.

We have been out of room to borrow money, I believe we already passed the tipping point.

 

Now now, some saw it coming just they were called the "doom and gloomers" and laughed at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WaPo reports on yet another example of how John McCain has abused his position on the Commerce Committee and his stable full of telecom lobbyists to make sure he got cell phone coverage in the desert.

 

 
Early in 2007, just as her husband launched his presidential bid,
Cindy McCain
decided to resolve an old problem -- the lack of cellular telephone coverage on her remote 15-acre ranch near Sedona, nestled deep in a tree-lined canyon called Hidden Valley.

 

By the time Sen.
John McCain's
presidential bid was in full swing this summer, the ranch had wireless coverage from the two cellular companies most often used by campaign staff -- Verizon Wireless and AT&T.

 

Verizon delivered a portable tower know as a "cell site on wheels" -- free of charge -- to Cindy McCain's property in June in response to an online request from Cindy McCain's staff early last year. Such devices are usually reserved for restoring service when cell coverage is knocked out during emergencies, such as hurricanes.

 

In July, AT&T followed suit, wheeling in a portable tower for free to match Verizon's offer. "This is an unusual situation," said AT&T spokeswoman Claudia B. Jones. "You can't have a presidential nominee in an area where there is not cell coverage."

 

Over the course of the past year, Cindy McCain had offered land for a permanent cell tower and Verizon embarked on an expensive process to meet her needs, hiring contractors and seeking county land-use permits even though few people other than the McCains would benefit from the tower.

 

Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain's dealings with the wireless companies stand out because Sen. John McCain is a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunications services.

 

Let's see now, if I remember correctly weren't AT&T and Verizon the two companies who--according to reports--collaborated most enthusiastically on Cheney's illegal warrantless wiretap program. Hmmm, could there be reasons--aside from just wanting to schmooze up a Senator on the Commerce Committee--to stay on the good side of a potential President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Razor, You have done a nice job of carrying the water for the Democrats. I doubt that any one here thinks you are just a citizen... you might try to be a bit more subtle next time around. and I am an Obama supporter.

 

Ima, sorry about the way this looks like it is turning out for you. I think you will recall that my analysis of the situation was that this election would be won by a majority of minorities. Middle class white men do not play a meaningful role this time around. If Hillary had been in the number two spot, it would be a landslide. Imagine the comparisons between Hillary and Palin.

 

Just as all politics are local, so is the economy. I am more concerned about the welfare of my family than the welfare of the country. If I take care of my family, and you take care of yours, the country will take care of itself. The best opportunity for money making is when the deck gets reshuffled. If we had been through 8 years of Democrat presidents, then we would need to go Republican. As you have correctly assessed, the smart money will do well regardless of who is in the White House. I am looking forward to trading carbon credits, getting a piece of the new health insurance business, and landing some of that alternative energy money. There will be a lot of opportunity. I hate to admit it, but it is a lot easier to get the money from the government than from the market. So keep your head up! There is going to be a lot of money on the table.

 

Frankly, the Republicans have just done a terrible job of marketing, and they deserve to loose. These guys will all get fired, and hopefully, they will hire better next time. I regret that Hillary didn't get the number two spot. She is clearly the smartest one in the Democrat party right now. McCain is a good man, he has seen a lot of hardship in his life so I suspect that compared to 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton, losing an election will not be so bad. Romney had some skills, but again, the marketing was just terrible.

 

Imagine that half of the Coke commercials were dedicated to how bad Pepsi was, without also saying how Coke was better? Look at the Obama negative ads and you will see that they remembered to boost Obama every time they kicked McCain. I think the Big O logo is pathetic, but at least the marketeers realized that they had to create a brand and did a very cohesive job of it. No one has really nailed a campaign quite like Reagan's Morning in America, but you have to give credit where it's due.

 

The interesting part will be to see how the Bush years are treated in the future. Right now, we are still on the roller coaster. We are still feeling the ups and downs. In the future we will look back and see the events that shaped our circumstances: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and so on. Those events will loom large, and the emotions we felt at the time, will pale. We will start to compare the results with the circumstances and see things perhaps differently. If you doubt this, remember when Bill Clinton was impeached? (some one will chime in and try to disclaim this...) well, at the time it was everything in the world, but today, it is already fading into the footnotes.

Edited by xr7g428

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razor, You have done a nice job of carrying the water for the Democrats. I doubt that any one here thinks you are just a citizen... you might try to be a bit more subtle next time around. and I am an Obama supporter.

 

Ima, sorry about the way this looks like it is turning out for you. I think you will recall that my analysis of the situation was that this election would be won by a majority of minorities. Middle class white men do not play a meaningful role this time around. If Hillary had been in the number two spot, it would be a landslide. Imagine the comparisons between Hillary and Palin.

Personally, I don't think McCain would have picked Palin, in the first place, had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination. Just my view.

 

Just as all politics are local, so is the economy. I am more concerned about the welfare of my family than the welfare of the country. If I take care of my family, and you take care of yours, the country will take care of itself. The best opportunity for money making is when the deck gets reshuffled. If we had been through 8 years of Democrat presidents, then we would need to go Republican. As you have correctly assessed, the smart money will do well regardless of who is in the White House. I am looking forward to trading carbon credits, getting a piece of the new health insurance business, and landing some of that alternative energy money. There will be a lot of opportunity. I hate to admit it, but it is a lot easier to get the money from the government than from the market. So keep your head up! There is going to be a lot of money on the table.
You're right - the smart is just that, smart. They'll find a way to win regardless of which way the political winds blow.

 

Frankly, the Republicans have just done a terrible job of marketing, and they deserve to loose. These guys will all get fired, and hopefully, they will hire better next time. I regret that Hillary didn't get the number two spot. She is clearly the smartest one in the Democrat party right now. McCain is a good man, he has seen a lot of hardship in his life so I suspect that compared to 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton, losing an election will not be so bad. Romney had some skills, but again, the marketing was just terrible.

 

Imagine that half of the Coke commercials were dedicated to how bad Pepsi was, without also saying how Coke was better? Look at the Obama negative ads and you will see that they remembered to boost Obama every time they kicked McCain. I think the Big O logo is pathetic, but at least the marketeers realized that they had to create a brand and did a very cohesive job of it. No one has really nailed a campaign quite like Reagan's Morning in America, but you have to give credit where it's due.

Very good analogies. The GOP couldn't have run a worse campaign, so far, and the move to make Palin the V.P. may have exacerbated their problems. Her appeal is proving to be very narrow, and it's hard to mass market a niche item. She certainly appeals to that niche, but she has no broad appeal (no pun intended). McCain's "brand image" is...not sure of what his brand image is, especially the last three weeks.

 

The interesting part will be to see how the Bush years are treated in the future. Right now, we are still on the roller coaster. We are still feeling the ups and downs. In the future we will look back and see the events that shaped our circumstances: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and so on. Those events will loom large, and the emotions we felt at the time, will pale. We will start to compare the results with the circumstances and see things perhaps differently. If you doubt this, remember when Bill Clinton was impeached? (some one will chime in and try to disclaim this...) well, at the time it was everything in the world, but today, it is already fading into the footnotes.
The anger toward Bush will subside with time, but as long as we have any troops in Iraq, it may be a generation before it becomes merely a footnote in history. Bill Clinton may not have kept his zipper up, but at least that didn't cost American lives. As long as American soldiers are in Iraq, Bush's "legacy" won't completely disappear. At the same time, the circumstances of the day will continue to shape public opinion, and that will always be in a state of flux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
november suprise is more like it, or december if the supreme court has to pick this time!

 

Just remember this folks... The President has "emergency powers" he can use if he declares "a national emergency". That means he can stay in office for long as he sees fit to. Look at the executive orders that were signed over the years and do the research for yourselves. And just keep watching the financial sector, and any activity after Election Day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

october surprize....McCain is going to announce he had a bowel movement and something other than dust came out.....last nights debates didn't last on my TV....circus of fingerpointing...and a majority of the fingers being pointed were wrinkled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
october surprize....McCain is going to announce he had a bowel movement and something other than dust came out.....last nights debates didn't last on my TV....circus of fingerpointing...and a majority of the fingers being pointed were wrinkled.

 

 

Obama did his usual tapdancing performance. Yes, I guess you could call it a circus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
october surprize....McCain is going to announce he had a bowel movement and something other than dust came out.....last nights debates didn't last on my TV....circus of fingerpointing...and a majority of the fingers being pointed were wrinkled.

That was a debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama did his usual tapdancing performance. Yes, I guess you could call it a circus.

 

Along with his chesire cat grin at times too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama did his usual tapdancing performance. Yes, I guess you could call it a circus.

ahhh, an obvious Republican.... MC Cain didn't??????? maybe because of arthritus.....he mud slung half of the night...hes too busy trying to dis-credit rather than adressing the agenda, and public is reacting against those tactics as witnessed by the polls....acts of desperation are NOT cutting it...Republican death throws.....at least Obama is ATTEMPTING to steer clear of stooping to similar tactics.....truth be told, either has a real mess to contend with when elected.... :reading:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama did his usual tapdancing performance. Yes, I guess you could call it a circus.

 

Well, one could say the "circus" was McNasty's "Joe the Plumber" - as it turns out he's a partisan Republican who also happens to be a member of McCain's old friends, the Keating family (of the Keating 5 S&L scandal)

 

event is a close relative of Robert Wurzelbacher of Milford, Ohio. Who's Robert Wurzelbacher? Only Charles Keating's son-in-law and the former senior vice president of American Continental, the parent company of the infamous Lincoln Savings and Loan. The now retired elder Wurzelbacher is also a major contributor to Republican causes giving well over $10,000 in the last few years.

And there's more. . . .

 

Apparently Joe the Plumber is not even licensed as a plumber and had lien filed against him last year AND to top it all off -- isn't registered to vote.

 

But it appears that the McCain campaign met with prior to last night to prep him on post debate media interviews.

 

Seems like they would have checked out some facts about this guy BEFORE they tried to use him for a plant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, one could say the "circus" was McNasty's "Joe the Plumber" - as it turns out he's a partisan Republican who also happens to be a member of McCain's old friends, the Keating family (of the Keating 5 S&L scandal)

 

And there's more. . . .

 

Apparently Joe the Plumber is not even licensed as a plumber and had lien filed against him last year AND to top it all off -- isn't registered to vote.

 

But it appears that the McCain campaign met with prior to last night to prep him on post debate media interviews.

 

Seems like they would have checked out some facts about this guy BEFORE they tried to use him for a plant.

 

A "close relative" of the son-in-law of the cousin of the friend of the president's barber's butcher.... :rolleyes:

 

Discredit the man all you want. He made a valid point to which Obama has no acceptable answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A "close relative" of the son-in-law of the cousin of the friend of the president's barber's butcher.... :rolleyes:

 

Discredit the man all you want. He made a valid point to which Obama has no acceptable answer.

And Joe promised to clean out McCains pipes.....serously though...the personal attacks have gotten old, and using "Joe" as an attempt to pull "heartstrings" struck me as pretty weak.....sheesh, next up puppies.......or should I say POOPies.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Joe promised to clean out McCains pipes.....serously though...the personal attacks have gotten old, and using "Joe" as an attempt to pull "heartstrings" struck me as pretty weak.....sheesh, next up puppies.......or should I say POOPies.....

 

In NBC's interview with "Joe", he seemed pretty annoyed by anyone even mentioning him. Yeah, he's definitely a plant. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In NBC's interview with "Joe", he seemed pretty annoyed by anyone even mentioning him. Yeah, he's definitely a plant. :rolleyes:

instant notoriety....CNN graphed Joe Plumber hits on google....hes going to send MCCain a poo in a box for Xmas.....seriously a weak attempt at trying to appeal to sentiment...Joe was but a pawn...an UNWILLING one no less....

Edited by Deanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In NBC's interview with "Joe", he seemed pretty annoyed by anyone even mentioning him. Yeah, he's definitely a plant. :rolleyes:
Did he seem annoyed? He couldn't stop talking to the local CBS affiliate earlier today.

 

Whatever point he made, the tax lien, the lack of a plumbers license, and not being registered to vote don't help him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×