Bill-
So many Ossetians want to join Russia if they get independence from Georgia - does that make it OK to force them to be part of some other nation? Most nations that gained independence from the British Empire ended up creating something worse, but that doesn't mean it would be right to have forced them to stay under British rule. Do we support a master's right to keep his slave for fear that the slave wouldn't know what to do with freedom and just sell himself back to slavery?

Sudetenland analogies fail on a number of levels - number of people in the areas wanting to leave Czechoslovakia vs. Georgia, whether the area already has a large degree of de-facto independence, whether the takeover implies an expulsion of all those not of some ethnic background, etc. But I'll go along with a very flawed analogy to explore what you think of Chamberlain..

I think badly of Chamberlain for some reasons - regardless his actual actions, his 'peace for our time' speech itself was ridiculous, and he aborted plans for assassination of Hitler. But what he actually did in Munich was just declare England wouldn't go to war to stop Sudetenland becoming part of Germany - and, apparently not trusting Hitler so much as his speech, returned home to support massive military buildup. Had England gone to war in 1938 (or issued some ultimatum like don't-you-dare-go-in-the-Sudetenland, which would quickly amount to the same thing), it would have been far militarily weaker than in Sept 1939. It would also have been fighting for a very unpopular cause - who wants to prevent areas where the majority wants to (stupidly..) join another country from doing so? UK would have had a weak military, little domestic support, and no significant allies (maybe France ). I agree he should have been more honest in his speaking - 'We won't go to war for Czechoslovakia, but we're building up our defenses and that Hitler chap is not to be trusted!' - but do you really think his actions concerning Sudetenland could/should have been different?

And if you think he should have gone to war in 1938, and you truly consider your Sudetenland analogy valid, do you follow that to the logical conclusion concerning August 2008?

Aaron

"What I can't understand is how the hell American voters got the impression the Obama is more competent on economic matters?

Where is the evidence for that?"

The Republicans have stupidly let the Democrats cast all the blame for the current fiasco on them, plus Obama promises a lot of government candy, which is always "nice" in a crisis for those who refuse to see where that candy comes from and what it actually costs.

Remember your Bastiat, the consequences of what Toohey clones like Obama propose are usually prima facie hidden and even more so with an ignorant and mendacious media eager to shill for collectivism.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

...American voters got the impression the Obama is more competent on economic matters?

Where is the evidence for that?

Aaron,

Again, the Ossetians and Abkhazians don't want independence. They want to be part of Russia, a dictatorship. No one has the right to lead others, including his own children, into a life of servitude.

Robert Bidinotto made this point eloquently a few weeks ago on his blog, http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/

Rather than Cubans before the Spanish-American war, it would be better to compare the separatists in Georgia to the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia before WWII. The strategic situation is very similar because, to defend itself from a much larger enemy, Georgia, a small nation, needs the mountains as a defensive shield. Western pissing and moaning over a handful of disgruntled minorities gives Russia the moral figleaf it needs to cross the mountains without a fight. They cross, not primarily to grab Ossetia and Abkhazia, but to conquer Georgia. And that in turn primarily to bring their other former satrapies to heal.

Chamberlain's Munich betrayal of the Czechs, over the alleged Sudetenland issue, or Western pressure today on Israel to give the Golan heights to Syria, are similar cases from a strategic point of view.

When I was a boy growing up in the American South, The FBI came down from Washington, making arrests and taking names. They came to stop, among other things, the lynching of blacks at the hands of disgruntled whites. I don't see why the initial Georgian military action in Ossetia was morally all that different from what the G-men did in the 60s.

-Bill

Scott Disalvo lets us know he distrusts any poll but his own.

While polling gives us little more than a snapshot of voter intentions at a given moment, there are differences between a 'good' poll and a 'bad' poll.

A decent poll tries and succeeds in measuring what it says it measures -- if it claims to measure voting intentions of the broad electorate, then the sample should correspond to the population in most important ways. A crappy poll fails on the measure by having little correspondence to the larger population. The numbers have little validity if the pool of respondents does not represent the larger population.

For example, SOLO polls tell us opinions of the people who bother to respond. They are not representative of any larger group, except perhaps by accident.

Matty makes the point: It seems silly to me to discount polls out of hand.

It's only silly if one cherry picks the polling results one likes.

On the subject of the presidential polls, we consult polls out of curiosity -- what are the intentions of voters? what is the likely outcome of the actual poll? Presently, national numbers favour Obama. Whether one likes those numbers is not the issue.

As for polling who 'won' the debate, it's a argument without issue -- Scott Disalvo is among a group that believes McCain won. The pundits on average seem to favour a draw. Voters are split mostly by party allegiance, while public opinion polling gives the advantage to Obama.

My point is it's a difference in opinion. And the only opinion that matters is the opinion of those who trudge to the polling places on November 4th.

WSS

Scott-
Concerning freedom, are you sure you're not confusing Georgia with another former Soviet state, maybe Estonia? As for news of the events, there's little doubt Russia has ulterior motives. However, I haven't seen anything to back the 'freedom fighter[s] attack[ed] Georgians on Georgian soil' claim. Most news coverage I saw at the time was BBC since it kept plenty of up-to-date coverage of the event while, as Bill pointed out, the US media was more concerned with the Olympics and lagged with fewer articles. Checking around now at most I see claims from Georgia that they invaded in response to violence within South Ossetia, not in response to an attack from the seceding territory into the remainder of Georgia.

Bill-
*laugh* OK, you had fun with that. For analogies, how about let's just go with a real world one: Georgia/South Ossetia/Russia to Spain/Cuba/US in 1898. South Ossetians like Cubans had a right to be independent, Georgia like Spain had a weak hold but tried forcibly to prevent independence, and Russia like the US helped what was a moral cause but primarily for ignoble ulterior motives.

Maybe a key question to ask to see if we're even on the same page: regardless the practicality of doing so since it will likely be violently suppressed, do you believe individuals have a moral right to secede from an unfree country?

Aaron

1989.

I think the Bradley effect is a load of hype but we'll see. 

"Anyway, if the polls are off I would expect the actuals to favor obama by several points..."

Actaually the Democrats are worried about the Bradley or Dinkins effect. David Dinkins (a black candidate) ran against Rudolph Giuliani for NY mayor in 1989. The polls always showed Dinkins leading by 15 points, but he only just won by the narrowest margin.

It is assumed that fear of being thought of as a racist caused many white voters to not tell the truth about who they would vote for when asked by pollsters.

I am not sure that is the case with Obama, I think his potential white voters are genuinely in love with him. However, it may cause him to lose a few points in some states.

each poll is different. Five Thirty Eight is one of the places I check every day and they make some very convincing arguments about the validity of pollig in general. It seems silly to me to discount polls out of hand.

Anyway, if the polls are off  I would expect the actuals to favor obama by several points given that pollsters can't touch many newly registered voters (voter registration has been through the roof this year)

Aaron,

No, no, no. The Quebecois aren't declaring independence from Canada. They are going for anschlaus with Russia.

First, they opened hostilities against Canada, with Russian sponsorship. The UN brokered a peace deal, with Russian troops left as "observers" in Quebec. These troops harrassed Canadians from the other provinces who were living in, or traveling through, Quebec. Then, the Canadian Army intervened to stop the violence against its other citizens. But the Olympics were on, so nobody paid attention to the history or the causality.

Now, a full scale invasion of Canada by Russian panzer divisions is taking place. Tank columns and artillery units have approached the suburbs of Ottawa and Toronto, and are setting up camp. They were rapidly advancing, with an implicit green light from the Bush White House and US State Department. They only stopped their offensive when their actions were publicly denounced, from the campaign trail, by Senator McCain.

A ship laden with military supplies has put into port in Montreal. Satellite photos show that it left Russia days before the outbreak of the current round of hostilities, (i.e. that the invasion was planned by Putin in advance, waiting for the Canadian Army action to begin, to use it only as a fig leaf in hiding his own culpability.)

Canada is young, small, and far away. So the average Obama voter doesn't give a rat's ass about it, or about the facts.

There. Now that's an analogy.

-Bill

...which, I might add, are readily available all over the news and the internet, it is FAR from a foregone conclusion that Georgia was shelling innocent secessionists. To the contrary, while there is a seccessionist movement in South Ossetia, your innocent freedom fighter attack Georgians on Georgian soil, at the behest of and with the support, training and blessing of Russia.

Georgia responds, and, just as Comrade Putin calculated, confused Westerners with short attention spans paint GEORGIA, with no recent history of aggression towards ANYONE, a booming capitalist economy, and a more freedom-supporting Constitution than America's, as the aggressor?

"That said, it simply doesn't make sense to just automatically assume Russia is evil in everything they do."

Yes, it is, as long as that K.G.B.astard Putin is pulling the strings.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Never trust the polls, that's what I always say.

If your CRITERIA for "winning" is what "the polls" say, then, yes, whoever gets a bump in the polls "wins."

Not my definition of what a winner is.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Russia is the biggest foreign threat to the US. They still have several thousand nuclear warheads, with effective delivery systems, and which can be trivially set for coordinates of targets within our country. I've held that they remain the biggest threat even though many people think that's a 'stuck in the Cold War' mentality and that we should instead be more wary of the terrorist or dictator-de-jour. That said, it simply doesn't make sense to just automatically assume Russia is evil in everything they do. All the Russian-new-world-order, Nazi allusions, etc. are irrelevant and miss one key fact of reality: What Georgia was doing was wrong.

Seceding from a non-free government of course is properly anyone's right. Attempting forcibly to prevent this is a violation of individual rights, an initiation of force. Residents of South Ossetia have been attempting to secede from Georgia. The Georgian military was shelling and preparing for full invasion of the seceding region. Russia backed the secessionists against Georgia.

So at least draw your analogies right- Assume those living in Quebec want to secede from Canada, but Canada attempts forcibly to prevent it by shelling the cities and stationing troops on its border for invasion. The Quebecoi are justified, and Canada an aggressor. Any third party would be morally justified in using their own life and property to help defend those in Quebec against this aggression. If the US government (as opposed to individuals) wanted to intervene on behalf of Quebec, I would be against such action only because it would be using resources stolen from US taxpayers to do so, *not* because it was aggression against Canada (or a prelude to empire or something else ominous) because it wouldn't be. Likewise, any individual would have been justified in putting their own life or property on the line if they wanted to defend South Ossetians from Georgian aggression. I do not support the Russian government intervening only because it used force against its own citizens to acquire the resources used, not because the action of intervening against Georgia was unjustified since in fact such action was just.

Palin's comments that if Georgia joined NATO the US would defend its interests amount to this: The US would support Georgia in its sovereign 'right' to oppress and kill civilians attempting to secede, and would even risk nuclear annihilation fighting on the side of such evil.

Thanks, I'll try to respond to your specefic points later if I have the time...I'll get back to ya! For now:

"Rely on the liberal skewed media if you will, but McCain won that debate handily."

Polls don't have a liberal bias, at least not generally. Obama won in the polls big time. If the polls say he won the debate, he won the fucking debate.  

WHAT exactly did McCain "let" Obama do?

"What he mostly needed to do was wipe the floor with Obama."

And when he is aggressive, he is criticized as nutty and over the top. Bet your ass if he was not confrontational, you same lot would be calling him a tired, done old man, instead of an angry old man. How can he win with you?

"He's behind in the polls (so much for the 'nominating Sarah Palin was a stroke of genius' argument, right? RIGHT???)"

The same Americans who came out of the woodwork to fight this ridiculous bailout ought to come out of the woodwork and fight this Socialistic Obama Presidential run. I can take a poll on the South Side of Chicago if you want. I can wipe my ass with the results.

"...McCain needed to slaughter Obama, he didn't"

And HOW was he supposed to do that? I thought he did exactly what he could--he attacked Obama, and most of the time, Obama was on the defensive, sounded like he was on the defensive, and provided a poor defense for himself.

"Obama needed to prove he had a command on foreign policy issues, he did this convincingly"

Rubbish, I say. His moral equivalence position on the Georgia situation and his "invade Pakistan" position show his foreign policy to be a jumbled, unprincipled mess. "Command" of foreign policy, you say? Bollocks, I say.

"He beat the expectations game handily."

Believe what you read in a liberal media about expectations. I expected McCain to be boring and I expected Obama to fly. Instead, McCain was game, Obama was stammering and had nothing menaingful to say.

"Whenever McCain attacked, Obama responded immediately."

Inadequately, and often without ananswer, changing the topic.

"And he barely ever let McCain slip from his gaze."

McCain was being professional, Obama needed a hug, and McCain wasn't giving him one.

Rely on the liberal skewed media if you will, but McCain won that debate handily.

Free country, quibble if you will. Being from Chicago and seeing the racists scum political base Obama came from, I was never taken in by his "charisma" and I find it sad that he is not immediately identified for what he is.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

The polls are in on that one.

On substance I think it was a virtual draw, maybe a slight edge to McCain. But when judging an election debate you don't just focus on the substance of the arguments, in fact it's secondary. What you look at 1st is what each candidate has to demonstrate in order to improve their standing with voters. When you look at it that way Obama won by a country mile.

McCain pulled out a silly stunt days prior with the suspension of his campaign and his suggestion of postponing the debates. Obama called his bluff and so the night began essentially with the backdrop of McCain running back with his tail in between his legs and Washington arguably worse off than before he arrived. What McCain needed to do was justify convincingly why he did what he did, the subject was barely touched upon. What he mostly needed to do was wipe the floor with Obama. He's behind in the polls (so much for the 'nominating Sarah Palin was a stroke of genius' argument, right? RIGHT???) and the debate is about foreign policy, McCains clear strength and something McCain's camp argues Obama knows next to nothing about. This was no time for a tight win. McCain needed to slaughter Obama, he didn't.

Obama needed to prove he had a command on foreign policy issues, he did this convincingly, eliminating one of his main problems with thoughtful swing voters. That's why the polls went for him so strongly. He beat the expectations game handily.

Whenever McCain attacked, Obama responded immediately. And he barely ever let McCain slip from his gaze. The looking at your opponent thing IS important. It shows you're not afraid. Obama painted himself as a man on par with his opponent. McCain let him.

Dominic Lawson: Why should anyone trust Joe Biden?

The Democrats' candidate for VP doesn't deserve to be called a sage

Tuesday, 30 September 2008

"The Republican vice-presidential candidate had been unable to elaborate on the way in which John McCain had attempted to enforce greater regulation on the finance industry, beyond his demand for more supervision of the biggest mortgage lenders; and she struggled to justify her claim that being Governor of Alaska gave her a special insight into the threats from Russia.

Neither of her responses was articulate. But they weren't factually incorrect. She didn't make anything up. That's Biden territory. When he faced the deceptively easy-going Ms Couric, he told the CBS anchorwoman, a propos deals to rescue Wall Street: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened'." As others, but not Ms Couric, have since observed, the US President at the time of the 1929 stock market crash was not Roosevelt, but Herbert Hoover; and Roosevelt didn't go on television, probably because no-one in America owned one at the time.

Such dedicated and inarticulate imprecision with the facts of history should not disqualify Joe Biden from being taken seriously as the next-in-line for the Presidency; he got away with his goof, as easy-going and genial men tend to do. But imagine what hysteria would have ensued if it was Mrs Palin who had constructed a fictitious account of the circumstances surrounding the great Wall Street Crash."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic...

"I'm struck by two tendencies in political threads both here and on h.p.o. One is that those favoring McCain frequently use Rand- and Piekoffisms in a race for the last word on given a point, and I'm puzzled with an otherwise intelligent and articulate population resort to this."

I haven't seen anyone do that here.

Now that Palin is running mate why does everyone suddenly care whether she has her own policies or not? In the past, the running mate was simply called upon to support the policies of the Presidential candidate, not to lay out a new manifesto.

Even if McCain were to die in office, the instruments of Government would already be running and in place. She would just rely on McCain's advisors until the next election, when people could vote her out of office if they wished.

No offense taken, Scott. Was taking a friendly jab at you.

I think Palin is in over her head. If she's going to choose to take on such a big job -- one step away from the Oval Office -- she should do her homework and make sure she *doesn't* sound like a boob.

Given McCain's behavior this past couple of weeks, I think they are both digging themselves a very big hole. As you inferred, our generation does not remember the ass-kicking presidents of the past, and unfortunately McCain now looks like a lunatic running amok.

I don't like either candidate (what else is new?), but the "small town girl makes good" theme of Palin isn't working for me. I don't think she will be respected internationally, and dammit, if she's going for the brass ring she should at least know what in hell she's talking about. "I'll get back to you" when asked a question about important fiscal policies just doesn't cut it, not this late in the game, and not at this time of economic frailty.

Jennifer

@nevin:

"I was dreading watching it, but it was much more interesting and lively than I had feared. The format was much more like a debate than were the joint press conferences that had become standard in recent elections."

I'm glad somebody noticed that, too. Though for some viewers it was a deadly dull 90 minutes, compared to Bush-Kerry and Bush-Gore the uptick in energy was notable. McCain and Obama did agree beforehand to a more open, less-tightly moderated format:

This became apparent to viewers when Jim Lehrer directed the pair to "talk to each other about it" after the second round of exchange. I don't recall a moderator ever making such a suggestions. After that the number of deliberate interruptions and under-the-breath mutterings was quite remarkable given what we're used to in American debates.

@Marcus:

"McCain's lack of eye contact was weird. It either suggests cowardice or an extreme dislike of Obama. As McCain kept attacking Obama, I doubt it was cowardice."

Regarding McCain's apparent reluctance to turn and face Obama, other explanations seem at least as likely. For example, McCain's consistent use of "Mr. Obama" is indicative of deliberate coaching on "worthy opponent"-speak,which makes sense given Sen. Short Fuse's reputation (MSM's coinage, not mine) when pressed for specifics. Of course, his formality could signal nothing more than habit and/or to highlight generational, read, experiential differences. (I don't know, just pointing out the obvious for consideration.)

There is also some evidence to suggest that McCain is rather known for perferring not to turn his head to the left, id est stage right, under certain lighting conditions:

McCain's two most significant injuries are to his
shoulders and his history of melanoma. The shoulders are a visible sign
of his captivity in Viet Nam, leaving the Senator unable to raise
either arm significantly above his head. While it prevents a vigorous
Nixonian wave of victory, it isn't noticeable and without prompting,
most voters don't notice a deficit. The signs of melanoma, a puffy
cheek and a long, five-inch scar on his left cheek, are far more
noticeable. His appearance on "Saturday Night Live" highlighted his
need for careful control of the media environment. McCain needs to be
seated head-on to his audience, lit from his right and does not like to
turn his head to stage right, exposing his scar. While the signs of
melanoma have not recurred, the data does raise some concerns.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/candidate-health-report-john-mccain.html

As for the debate scorecard, the upshot after Round One in the parlance of baseball is, "Tie goes to the (front)runner."

Going into Friday's telecast, Obama held a slim lead (+/- 3%) on the popular vote yet owned 57% of the electoral vote -- the same figures as before McCain's RNC bounce. As of this morning, BHO's popular gain is only a few tenths of a point but now holds 60% of the EC vote. Wishful thinking over the marginal popular vote isn't enough to overcome the reality of the trend since Obama's nomination. The EC tends to amplify the popular vote since all but two states and the
District of Columbia operate under Winner-takes-all-delegates Rules.

Some prognosticators on both sides of the Objectivist divide vilify the Electoral College by branding it with the ever-popular "collectivism" iron. But if the principle of states' rights is something to be taken seriously then it is the electorate -- "We, The People" -- who ultimately are responsible for EC reform by citizen-sponsored referendum or prodding their state legislators. If Americans want to move toward more direct representation then there are 51 different mechanisms in place for advancing that change.

.....

A quick comment (or perhaps question) on the topic Objectivist buzzwords.

A close friend and fellow Oist explained his reasons for favoring McCain: "Both McCain and Obama are fundamentally fascists, it's just a matter of which flavor I prefer. Robert [Bidinotto] has a good point about McCain. He says that McCain is an awful chaos of ideology... but that hidden in amongst that chaos is a smattering of small-government ideas. With Obama, there's nothing but statism and collectivism from the top to the bottom. The Dems will also keep Congress, so McCain is at least a speed bump."

As a non-aligned Oist, I increasingly find myself playing devil's advocate with other Oists. In response to my friend, my pawn met his open with, "But if fascism is evil, then voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil." For the record, I usually avoid this type of patter because I don't think it illuminates matters much when both parties are Oists to begin with. (In this case I did it to advance my specific point about the vague use of the word evil.) So, why the heavy reliance on Rand's words so often?

I'm struck by two tendencies in political threads both here and on h.p.o. One is that those favoring McCain frequently use Rand- and Piekoffisms in a race for the last word on given a point, and I'm puzzled with an otherwise intelligent and articulate population resort to this. My other observation is why the curious asymmetry when weighing the economic against the civil liberty ramifications of a candidate's given policy position. Why the apparent imbalance of moral condemnation between the War on Terror and War on Poverty when pursuit of either has the same economic result?

Going back to my friend's point, if it's inevitable that the Dems will retain control of Congress, then the dilemma over who to vote for is moot, because whatever smattering of small-government ideas McCain claims to have will never be realized. In which case, it would be better to support a third-party candidate in an effort to break the Republocat deadlock.

"It wasn't an obscure Georgian secessionist movement. It was Putin's opening move in reestablishing Russian rule over the independent states of the former USSR. If we stand firm now, it would cause him to fail, which in turn could undermine his domestic political support and sweep him from power. (Similarly, Britain and France could have avoided WWII if they had discredited Hitler with his own electorate by standing up to him when he first violated the Versailles treaty by rearming the Rhineland.)

Palin and McCain showed themselves to stand head and shoulders above the Washington crowd by being able to understand that."

Putin was, is, and always will be a KGB bully. Do you think, for one moment, if the US military was not entangled as it is in the Middle East, that Putin would have done what he did? There is this strange American tendency NOT to take crackpot dictators at their word. Muslims vow to destroy America. We ignored them. Iran vows to get nukes and destroy Israel--we only half-listen, complaining about not wanted to start a war. Russia bullies all of its former satellite states, makes clear moves to bring them to heel--even great new Republics and fledgling capitalist states like Lithuania (read their Constitution--better than than USA's) and Georgia. And we balk. Dummies like Obama want "both sides" to show restraint. Probably the same people who criticized Ron Paul for being an isolationist, now criticize Palin for being willing to punch Putin in his big, fat mouth.

Appeasement does not work. Did not 1000 years ago. Not 100 years ago. Not 50 years ago. Does not work now. You either scare evil into behaving or you destroy it. Until something changes in Russia, we are going to have to go to war with them, unless they get stupid with China first, which would be a great blessing for us, but is unlikely to happen.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Jennifer, I did not mean to suggest that you would vote for a candidate solely based on appearance, so I apologize if I offended you. But every time one of us perpetuates the myth of Obama's Presidential-ness, magic powers, et.al., we do harm to the entire process and take the focus off what really matters: character.

We have not seen much of her. She climbed the ladder of success. She comes from a simpler part of the United States. She has that rustic accent. She does not have city sophistication. But she seems to me to have common sense. You can have your erudition. It seems the erudite and urbane are mostly Socialists and those who are overly impressed with a man's manicure. I'll take a simple, good-hearted, intelligent person who is not erudite but knows what she knows, is brave and true, and does good. Being coached to death and paying overmuch attention to your diction does not prove intelligence any more than paying less attention to affectation indicates someone is a dummy.

At least no one has found that her mentor and spiritual advisor is a racist Pastor, like Prince Obama.

Who cares if she knows everything about international geography? Who cares if SNL's Tina Fey is single-handedly making her look like a boob? Who cares if she knows the name of every former Soviet satellite? How many Congressmen have even half the sense we do? Or one quarter the character? Who says she's a boob? Certainly not her Alaskan constituents.

Take away alot of the coaches these politicians have and they are all boobs.

So in a choice between a highly polished, faux image career politician who is image over substance, versus a woman who bore children, built a family, climbed the ladder of success, and who can shoot a rifle, we have to ask ourselves--what kind of person got us into the mess we are in in this country--and what kind of person will lead us out?

Obama looks Presidential because we have forgotten what Presidential is supposed to be. It should be the genius with the lisp and the bent back, whose back was bent in the service of industry and freedom, and whose lispy voice was never silenced in the defense of capitalism. Not the good looking fool who will sell us all for personal power on the road to a Socialist nation along the lines of those abominations in Europe.

I honestly do not understand the Obama love affair, other than it being based on superficial attributes or his race, or acceptance of platitudes such as "Change" "Hope" or "Progress" [I mean, ~really~--what do any of those mean, and how can you disagree with them?], nor do I understand the Palin smearing that goes on, unless it is a misguided feminist reaction to her being a family woman, or merely fear at a more real, untainted person getting close to the White House--and what might happen to the gravy train if we get an honest, real person in there.

Career politicians, as much as anything, are destroying this country. Rather than asking whether Palin has ENOUGH experience to run the country, we should be asking whether all of our Congressmen have TOO MUCH experience being on the public dole, getting special treatment, lining their pockets and those of their friends, all on our dime. McCain made a brilliant point during his thrashing of Obama--the corruption is staggering.

I think we could USE a President who takes a household budget approach to our economy. No more candy for the kids until we pay off those credit cards. It may take a Mom to give us the medicine we need.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"Incidentally, when Marcus says he cannot understand how anyone can see Obama as 'presidential' . . . all I can say is 'get used to it.'"

For the last 8 years I've had to put up with people telling me that the US president is a moron.

If Obama is elected then I will be the one telling everyone else for the next 4-8 years that the US president is a moron!

Lurking on CNN to see if the sky is falling or not, and note along with everyone that the 700 and seven more zeros buyout package has failed the first vote in the US House. Dow falls five hundred . . .

Though CNN is as usual breathlessly jogging along with the bullet points of the pundit class, there is one chilling paragraph in their breaking story online:

Banks and Wall Street firms, worried about both their own needs for cash and the condition of other institutions, essentially stopped loaning money to one another in recent weeks. That choked off the money being made available on Main Street in the form of mortgage loans, business loans and other consumer borrowing.

It makes me think of the scenes in Atlas Shrugged where the strike has somehow caused skyscrapers to get seedy and crumbly. As if the removal of the movers and shakers caused paint to peel and concrete to crumble.

It's like a strike of the bankers and underwriters and securities dealers. "I won't lend to you, and you won't lend to him, and I can't make my payroll. If the Dow drops another 500, and if the fucking windows in my office could open, you would be hosing me off the sidewalk."

Is this liquidity crisis going to go away even if and when the Republicans squeeze out six more votes?

Incidentally, when Marcus says he cannot understand how anyone can see Obama as 'presidential' . . . all I can say is 'get used to it.' The die was cast during the debate -- a close look at succeeding polls shows that the vast unwashed and frightened American public now accepts Obama as fitting the role he seeks -- much to Republican surprise. You don't have to understand it, Marcus. Most of our opinions here are irrelevant anyway.

McCain was also all over the tube today in a campaign appearence speech, declaring that his week was spent cobbling together the deal in Washington ('See? I'm the king. Make me king. I know kinging').

Which is stretching the truth, of course.** He spent about the same time on the phone as the darker-haired candidate -- and with less effect (since the Demscum and his harridan Pelosi managed a majority of his party hacks).

In the end, of course, he counted the chickens too soon. Will he jet back from Ohio to carry the day? He can't get a simple frigging majority of his House colleagues. He can't let frigging Sarah Palin out of the corral.

This old man is seemingly hungry to be President -- in a very different way than the one with sex appeal. McCain wants his hands on the levers, he wants respect and he wants the big fancy chair. Obama surely wants it too, but he is not a maverick, but a grooved player setting out to hew the line history has laid out for him.

Obama is the guy I would go see at the bank, if I had a forced choice between him and the old crabby guy with the maverickiness.

WSS

** McCain's attacks on Obama were especially harsh, signaling that McCain is not going to let up as the election nears it's conclusion. The choice America faces, he told the crowd, is "Country First or Obama First, and I have a feeling I know which side you're all on."

In fact, McCain spent very little time in face-to-face negotiations on Capitol Hill, leaving his advisers to explain, as top aide Mark Salter did, that "He's calling members on both sides, talking to people in the administration, helping out as he can.... He can effectively do what he needs to do by phone."
[ from The Trail Campaign Diary -- worth a read in full, unless you think 'nuance' and 'detail' is a commie plot ]

..and I can't understand how anyone can claim that Obama's performance was Presidential.

Whenever Obama starts to talk it always sounds like there is an introductory, 'oh gosh, shucks'.

Not only that, but when Obama starts talking for longer stretches, I almost fell asleep!

McCain's lack of eye contact was weird. It either suggests cowardice or an extreme dislike of Obama. As McCain kept attacking Obama, I doubt it was cowardice.

I don't think that is a bad thing. I think the public quite likes it when politicians genuinely dislike their opponents. Obama during the debate said that John McCain was 'right' nine times! Obama is a slimy, sleep-inducing, teeth-flashing, populist compared to McCain!

...that Sarah Palin being pro-drilling in Alaska, is America's best hope in the fight against an ever enroaching green communism.

I don't actually care about the religion thing. As long as Palin doesn't want to force her religious views on anyone with new laws, and her time as Governor for Alaska proves she doesn't, then it is relatively benign.

The positives of her political position defintely outweigh the negatives in this case.

Hey Aaron! Great to see you too!

Gents, I'll try to post more tomorrow. Right now I'm typing my little fingers off writing ominous letters to congress. Hope they don't interpret them incorrectly, or I might be asking for bail money.

It's days like this that remind me why my father came to this country -- and why he never missed an Election Day.

Jennifer

Jennifer,

I respect McCain's ability to hold up under Communist torture, and his stubborness in sticking up for the minority of his ideas that are correct. I loath him for the way he limited freedom of political speech, betrayed his party, and sucked up to the drive-by media while he was its token Republican darling for opposing Bush.

The less said the better about the level of respect I have for terrorist William Ayers, his political protege and sidekick B. Hussein Obama, or B. Hussein's own sidekick Neil Kinnock, ... er, I mean, Joe Biden.

Palin, by contrast, is the only candidate I really think of in positive terms. I'm glad we have someone from outside the current presidential selection process, which otherwise seems to produce only losers, especially under McCain-Feingold.

She cleaned up poltical corruption in her state as a reformist governor. She's in favor of drilling ANWR. She's pro 2nd amendment. She's a sportswoman, hunter, beauty pageant winner, and mother. What's not to like about her? The White House doesn't need an Einstein. It just needs someone of good character who can stick up for individual rights domestically and put America's interests first internationally.

The only thing going against her is the religion thing. But that puts her so far outside the beliefs of the Washington cocktail party set, and its willing accomplices in the media, that I can't see how she would do much harm there.

Her nomination, and the public reaction to it, reminded me of nothing so much as Robert Heinlein's short story "Over the Rainbow."

Aaron,

It wasn't an obscure Georgian secessionist movement. It was Putin's opening move in reestablishing Russian rule over the independent states of the former USSR. If we stand firm now, it would cause him to fail, which in turn could undermine his domestic political support and sweep him from power. (Similarly, Britain and France could have avoided WWII if they had discredited Hitler with his own electorate by standing up to him when he first violated the Versailles treaty by rearming the Rhineland.)

Palin and McCain showed themselves to stand head and shoulders above the Washington crowd by being able to understand that.

-Bill

Don't worry you have company in regards to Palin.

And Aaaron, you seem to still be taking her public stand on issues seriously. She doesn't know what she's talking about. She's a blank slate who has been cramming to try and catch up with her own parties platform. You can't take anything she says seriously.

Since much of the scoring seems to be on presentation and style, I'll put in my $.02 there - McCain's brand of evil sounds much better, while Obama's wins on looks.

And Jennifer, welcome back, great to see you!

For Palin, I was moderately impressed the first week or so after the announcement - she's less involved and corrupted (yet) by big government, easily is better on guns than any of McCain/Obama/Biden, and her record seems at least a tad better economically than any of them. She completely put me off though once she weighed in about Georgia and Russia, basically saying she'd being willing to start WWIII over some Georgian secessionist movement of no concern to us. I don't know if she'd really amount in practice to something worse than the other three, but I sure don't want her in the whitehouse either!

Without question, based upon appearances alone, Obama simply "looks" more presidential.

That is not the premise upon which I'm going to vote, but thanks for that vote of confidence, Scott.

But I ask very seriously: Are those of you in love with McCain comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin potentially taking over the White House? The mere idea of it horrifies me -- how can it not horrify you? The woman is an idiot. If you think the Bushisms have been amusing, the Palinisms will take parody to a whole new level.

Jennifer

"Obama is the sleaziest thing ever to crawl out from under a rock"

Linz you only have to go back one presidency to find the sleaziest politician to ever run for (or preside over) the oval office, and no I'm not talking about his sex life.

Marcus, Obama does stutter a lot but I haven't seen anything comparable to, 'are we putting enough food on our children?'

For the record I am apparently dyslexic and I don't hold Bushes verbal slips against him. They are funny though.

"McCain had the eloquent, beautiful, radiant, perfect, flawless, god-like Obama STAMMERING."

Obama does tend to stutter, stammer and mis-speak quite often. For instance when he said Muslim faith, instead of Christian faith.

That's the sort of thing the left have been bashing George Bush with for years as a sign of having a low IQ. Of course, in contrast, Obama gets handled as if he were the Messiah by the press!

Take note all you soft cocks! He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!

Part of what likely informs my impression of the debate is this--McCain has a reputation for being a weak speaker and Obama has been hailed as Jesus Christ himself reborn.

I do not agree that Obama is quite that good. He is a healthy, young (for a Presidential running)tall, good looking man with a deep voice and a he is very well spoken.

I thought it was going to be a slaughter. I thought Obama would out-charm McCain to such a degree that it would be laughable.

My impression is that the lot of you "Obama won" folks are carried away by his looks. Looks or personal charisma are the worst reason possible to decide upon a President.

McCain, let's face it, IS an old guy. I defy any of you to stand at a podium for 2 hours and deliver on non-stop KASS. It would be exhausting for anyone, and I thought McCain did as well as Obama in the energy department.

On IDEAS and the TIDE OF ARGUMENT, I think McCain crushed Obama. I think McCain made is crystal clear that he is the candidate who wants to shrink government spending and try to cut taxes. He exposed Obama for wanting close to a billion dollars of extra spending in his proposed budget--but does not say how any of it is going to be paid for. In fact, McCain challenged Obama TWICE to deny it or explain in--and Obama never even touched it. McCain had his number.

Obama advocated invading an ally--Pakistan--without notice or warning. McCain smacked Obama around on that issue--and showed a real savvy for international politics and made Obama look like an idiot, with McCain adding in the exchange something to the effect that: you don't invade an ally nation, and even if you do, when you have a swelling angry Muslim population, you do not announce that as your plan--even if you are going to do it, you tell your allied leader you're going to do it so he can act surprised and angry.

Obama said that "both sides should show restraint" regarding Russia's invasion of Georgia. Pure moral equivalence, pure evil. McCain exposed it. Made Obama look confused.

McCain--openly and clearly and passionately--discuss government corruption and porkbarrel spending. He spoke of numbers in Congress which corrupt people. He spoke of federal indictments of Congressmen. BRAVO, MR. MCCAIN, BRAVO. That takes KASS and it is one of the main reasons why this country is not financially solvent. It is a reason why officials are not representing their constituents' interests. McCain pointed out MASSIVE porkbarrel earmarks signed by Obama. Obama said that he vetoed every porkbarrel earmark that has come across his desk. MCCAIN CLARIFIED THAT THIS HAS ONLY BEEN THE CASE WITH OBAMA SINCE HE BEGAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, AND BEFORE THAT HE SIGNED ALL SORTS OF PORK BARREL BILLS. Obama's response--I will never forget this--he looks down at his notes and has NOTHING to say about it. Changes the subject.

Obama attacked McCain about supporting tax loopholes for business, and McCain responded as perfectly as any Objectivist would have wanted--and shut Obama up. If Ireland has an 11% tax rate, and you say you want to keep businesses here and make sure Americans have jobs, how are we supposed to do that if we are taxing them at 35%? Simple, and brilliant, and Obama had no OAnswer for that OArgument. Priceless.

Obama seemed like a radical trying to look like a milquetoast Democrat. McCain looked like your grandfather who was pissed off about government waste and earmark spending, and who, thought you do not like to admit it, might know a bit more about things that it is cool to admit.

McCain had the eloquent, beautiful, radiant, perfect, flawless, god-like Obama STAMMERING. Stumbing over his words, using the wrong names for John McCain 3 different times. When you are hailed as other-worldly, it benefits you, but you'd better be able to meet that standard. As regards his performance at that debate, the Emperor has no clothes.

Pretty women get dismissed out of hand based upon their looks. Pretty men, it seems, are assumed to be intelligent and infalliable--until they are exposed.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

...whilst Obama was a sleazy Spaniard from Barcelona called Miguel.

you are harsh madam.

McCain is a silver-back alpha, whereas Obama is just a camomile tea making dwarf-monkey.

Ordinarily I dig the silver-back alpha type... but McCain would've been that pre-sixtyfive, not now.

I don't think Obama is camomile tea, I think unbridled ambition and a very ruthless spirit lurks within that human being. Out and out socialists are like that, they're the ones who usually end up trampling unashamedly over other people, because eventually being your brothers' keepers makes you hold your brothers in contempt - and Obama has all the raw material in abundance. As he said about Pakistan... "just take 'em out."

(Must remember elocution, not allocution - much obliged Lord Whopper Flopper).

...both candidates just energized their bases in the deabate but did not cause any huge swings they needed.

But come on girls, McCain is a silver-back alpha, whereas Obama is just a camomile tea making dwarf-monkey

"Many women will tell you that one of the most irritating things about life is that alpha males - great silverbacked gorilla types - strike us, maddeningly, as being rather more attractive than their kinder, gentler, more considerate dwarf-monkey counterparts. We know intellectually that it shouldn’t be so, since the gorillas are often sexist pigs (just to mix the animal metaphors); but when push comes to shove and we’re picking a boyfriend rather than a friend, few of us find beta males especially appealing.

In real life as in Georgette Heyer, the reprehensible, oddly sexy brute fares rather better than the sensitive flower. Now it turns out that the unreconstituted, sexist male chauvinist is not only more attractive to many women, but earns more money and is more professionally successful than the kind man who sympathises when you have period cramps and offers to make you a nice cup of camomile. Not fair, is it?"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article...

McCain *can be* macho and KASS, but that's not what we saw. And yes, Obama is the sleaziest thing ever to crawl out from under a rock, but on this occasion he just oozed presidentiality, with beautiful elocution and all (note spelling, Lady S). Of course it's an act, but don't fool yourself that the airhead voters *won't* be fooled.

McCain as "pathetic and elderly", whereas I saw him as macho KASS.

McCain to me was "total man" whilst Obama was a sleazy Spaniard from Barcelona called Miguel.

"Who is John Galt?"

Obama is pure virility, where McCain is elderly - and the contrast is very clear in this debate. Obama exudes Presidential mana.
Man he has beautiful allocution and a powerful voice! Pity his ideas are so wrong.

I thought McCain made his cases well regarding Iraq and Iran, and there is no contest between the two men as to who has the most experience with war.

Both appeal nakedly to emotionalism in the shameless way that politicians do, it is nauseating... "I've got a bracelet too from another Mom...."

Overall though, Obama was thoroughly classy and will make a huge impression on the public, as a man fit and ready for leadership. Oh dear.

Hi, Jenn!

 I'm not an expert, but my two cents is thrown in with Linz and Jenn; Obama won the debate. Obama presented himself much better than McCain. For a brief moment, I lost all context and thought he would be a good president (his unqualified comments about taking out Bin Laden.) He LOOKED presidential, looked McCain in the eye...stood tall. McCain did NOT seem presidential, just goofy. If Obama shared our ideas, I could see it. I can see why there is hype around Obama, even if I dislike his platform and ideas. Not voting FOR him, but can see the attraction... 

.............................................................................................................. 

SuperheroBabylon.blogspot.com

Not much time for cooking lately, but no complaints! We are traveling a lot and growing two companies, so there's not much time for...well, anything else.

We did, however, rearrange a trip to Belize to be here on Election Day, because we don't trust the absentee ballot system. I want to tick that box myself, thanks.

Regarding the debate, I also didn't like McCain's transparent pleas to the heartstrings about "the veterans" and all the sappy bullshit. I used to like him, but he seems so desperate, and is trying anything and everything to regain his footing. Hail Mary passes everywhere!

Jennifer

... I just saw Regina Dildo post.

Where ya bin, gal? Cookin' up a storm?

I'm relieved to see your comments on the debate. I was starting to think my Alzheimers must be even more advanced than I didn't realise.

...and hi everyone. Long time no see

Jennifer

Wow, did you guys watch the same debate I did?

I thought McCain looked pathetic. Shaky, contemptuous -- and cowardly for not even looking at his opponent. He was utterly outclassed. Perhaps I am seeing it through the same media lens as Linz, but I saw McCain as an angry old man. And his grandstanding ("Throw a woman in there!"..."Wait, now let's call off the debate and put on our superhero capes!") makes me want to vomit.

Don't get me started on what happens if he kicks the bucket in office and we're left with Vice Presidential Barbie.

Naturally, I feel the same contempt when I hear Obama say "I am my brother's keeper. We are our brother's keepers."

This election is a fucking nightmare.

Jennifer

He had Obama's number. Obama was flustered--misspoke several times. Couldn't answer alot of what McCain had to say. Couldn't answer the issues of his budget's increased spending or the issue of Obama's porkbarrel spending in Congress--ended immediately once he began running for President.

I thought that Obama was more even and McCain and strong points and week points. But overall, I thought McCain kicked Obama's ass pretty clearly.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

...McCain.

A review of expert verdicts on the first 2008 presidential debate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7639103.stm

...but in the Indpendent they interpreted the lack of eye contact completely differently to you

"Mr Obama, seen by voters as weaker on foreign affairs, was judged to have held his own in the debate, while Mr McCain did not manage to expose any major weaknesses in his opponent. But his contempt for his rival was on display throughout, as he could not bring himself to look his opponent directly in the eye during the debate."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/race-for-whitehouse/obama-and-mccain-c...

... and of course, it confirms what I've always said: women should be disenfranchised forthwith.

The UK media is leaning towards McCain.

"The Republican senator from Arizona revelled in his superior knowledge and experience of overseas policy, the main theme of the night’s questions, reeling off names of countries he had visited and leaders he had dealt with."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/presidentialde...

"In snap polls after the debate, men gave the debate to Mr McCain by a significant margin, while women gave it to Mr Obama overwhelmingly. It perhaps reflected the fact that Mr McCain appeared firmer and more experienced on issues of foreign policy; Mr Obama crisper and more focused on the economy."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections...

"McCain unsettled Obama when he claimed that US military leaders suggested Obama's plan to pull all US troops out of Iraq by the middle of 2010 was dangerous. Obama interrupted several times, saying this was not the case.

McCain went on the offensive too over Obama's plan to negotiate with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the country's alleged nuclear weapons programme, suggesting it made no sense to sit down without preconditions.

"Here is Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the state of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we're going to sit down, without precondition," McCain said, shaking his head in apparent incredulity."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/27/uselections2008.barackobama1

Yawn! Wake me up 4 years from now . Barack Obama looked too much like a French diplomat. The polls seem to favor Obama, but I don't see how he'll win Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri and other battleground states.

Also, it would help if the candidates didn't look like someone had taken a dump in their morning Corn Flakes. I try to imagine Reagan looking that boring, but he couldn't if he tried.

Jim

Jeepers! I didn't know McCain was so out of energy.
He needs uummmpphhhh! To speak from the gut and to stare at the audience and camera.
kkulak

...but I just heard the morning BBC news.

Now they are a pretty pro-Obama-biased left-wing broadcaster.

Quite telling is that pronounced that on balance of reactions to the debate McCain came out slightly ahead.

That's encouraging for McCain. If there was any hint that Obama had won the debate (no matter how undeserved) - you can be sure that the BBC would be clucking over it!

I've heard it said that polls of television viewers of the famous Nixon/Kennedy debate showed Kennedy the winner, but polls of people who heard it on the radio came out with Nixon ahead. Something similar might have been afoot tonight in the showdown between the drive-by media's favorite Republican candidate and the drive-by media's favorite candidate.

McCain, one of the most detested Republicans in my book, was much better than I expected in both delivery and, surprisingly, content. I thought he edged out Barack Husseinovich in style, but put him on the defensive repeatedly in what was said. B. Hussein was left floundering with lines like "I agree with you, John" and the uber-lame "I've got a bracelet, too" (and let me glance down at my wrist for a second to read the name of the sergeant it commemorates, since I can't fish that out of a teleprompter...)

I was dreading watching it, but it was much more interesting and lively than I had feared. The format was much more like a debate than were the joint press conferences that had become standard in recent elections.

-Bill

Yes, the KGB line was very good ... but was lost in the delivery. Perhaps this is just me seeing the thing through a broadcaster's lens. I hope most folk saw it as you did Sandi.

He had me punching the air on more than one occasion.

McCain thoroughly outclassed Obama through the entire debate. Obama's time was spent bent over backwards trying desperately to justify himself whilst McCain eloquently slapped Obama's clueless butt with experience, passion and solid logic.

A few memorable moments which delighted me. First when
Obama placed Georgia in the same light as Russia and then went on to intentionally down play his messiah tag by "NOT looking into Putin's eyes to see his soul rather than using logic (something like that). McCain came right out and said he looked into "Putin's eyes and all he could see was K.G.B" and then lambasted Obama for equating Georgia to Russia. It was fabulous to hear his desire to have Georgia as a member of NATO.

Then he once more mentioned "A league of democracies" - Fan bloody tastic!

Almost every place or country that was mentioned, McCain had been there!!

Oh and as for meeting with Ahmadinejad. McCain said that it would be like sanctioning his words "Israel is a stinking corpse" and then said something like Obama was naive if he thinks he would meet with such a man. I can't remember what Obama said but it was along the lines of he wouldn't meet anyone without any preparation. McCain to his absolute credit said (I am going by memory here so don't quote me) "So you meet with him and Ahmadinejad says
that "he is going to wipe Israel off the face of the world" and you say "No your not" - Oh please!!!

McCain really impressed me.

Geesh, when I see and hear McCain speak and I think of what we have in John Key it is downright embarrassing.

"Who is John Galt?"

Obama was a media man's dream. Made eye contact with his opponent, seized the initiative at every opportunity, projected aplomb and self-assurance. *Very* presidential looking. McCain: nervous, fixed smile, staring resolutely at the moderator and refusing to look his opponent in the eye, stumbling too often, timorous even when his points were strongest, e.g. re the Surge. I wanted McCain to come out KASSing, to be the warrior I've sometimes seen, but he seemed diffident and back-footed throughout. He should have been able to nail Obama's ass on foreign affairs, but somehow missed the jugular, to mix metaphors. Hell, Obama was actually more hawkish on Pakistan! And on the economy, of course, they're both equally pathetic.

These two are model candidates for President. Maybe the best available for this kind of mass media debate forum. Obama is a brilliant man and McCain is a gutsy, game candidate. Philosophically McCain wins by a good margin but neither can be considered principled. Both tend toward a moderate approach. McCain has more machismo, and is least likely to be a purely moderate President. This would be a good thing.

Unfortunately, we are in an era where fear, semi-socialism, and “the common man” win by default. America will run scared, and in exactly the wrong direction in this election.