United States Presidential Election 2008

[ClayMeow]

I don't really think the two are comparable.

 

To be fair, I think Obama's 30 minute "commercial" or "infomercial" or whatever he wanted to call it was silly. Just the concept of him renting that big of a time block to just sit and talk himself up is ridiculous to me. But it's not surprising. I guess that's the difference to me. I'd feel stupid doing it, but then again I'd feel stupid doing a LOT of the things these people do. But that's what campaign money is for. Advertising. I mean everything you would normally think of to do with that money probably boils down to some form of advertising. He's using that money exactly how the people who donated had envisioned and in probably a very similar way to how his competitor would use it if he had it.

 

Palin's $150k extreme makeover, on the other hand, is NOT what most people would think of when they think of campaign funds. At least I don't think so. That's certainly not how I think campaign funds are intended to be spent. Maybe it's just a matter of perception, though. Maybe if I didn't have such a low opinion of her to begin with, I might cut her more slack. To me, it just enforces the whole "dog and pony show" vibe that I've gotten from her from the beginning. Plus it's so funny that she tries to sell that folksy, winking, "hockey mom" image wearing those clothes. To me, it just proves how much depth she really lacks.

To me they are the same. Both Palin's wardrobe and Obama's infomercial were to better their image in the public eye. One cost $150k and the other $4mil. One will have its purchase donated to charity after the election, one went to TV execs and is nonrefundable.

[suchuwato]

To me they are the same.

 

They are both the same, and they're both perfectly fine... there shouldn't have ever been a fuss about Palin's wardrobe in the first place.

[LoArmistead]

It's good that Obama can raise so much money, but I fault him for pledging to accept public financing along with McCain, and then reneged when he found he'd get more from private donations... while McCain accepted public financing as promised even though he probably would've done better without it.

[LoArmistead]

So...a couple months ago, the tax breaks were for people making under 250k...

 

Then sometime last week...it becomes 200k.

 

And over the weekend...suddenly 150k.

 

Don't worry people, I'm sure it'll make it into our salary ranges soon.

 

Oh hell yes it will. It's the 1992 Clinton campaign all over again. The tax hikes were supposed to affect the rich only, and ended impacting the middle class as well. Once they sit down and realize they aren't going to get as much as they think they are from the top 5%, their tax increases will lower until those few who do pay taxes pay a LOT, while everyone else is simply on the government dime.

 

It's how liberals get their power. It's how liberals stay in power. "Don't elect that conservative, he'll take away your $500 refundable credit and actually make you PAY for the roads you drive on and the Social Security check you'll be getting in 30 years!! How fair is that?!"

[Verran]

To me they are the same. Both Palin's wardrobe and Obama's infomercial were to better their image in the public eye. One cost $150k and the other $4mil. One will have its purchase donated to charity after the election, one went to TV execs and is nonrefundable.

Like I said, I do believe Obama's ad last night was silly. But I guess my question to the people who put him down for it is "What do you think McCain would have done with that money if he had it?" Do you expect us to believe that he would not have advertised in some similar fashion? Both candidates will use all of their funds to campaign. That's the way it works, whether we like it or not. To me, the criticism for Obama's spending is disingenuous. People paint McCain as taking the "high road" simply because he was unable to do anything else. He'd do just the same if he could, but he can't.

 

Since when is it wrong to spend campaign funds on advertisements? And why does his expensive commercial imply that he's ignoring the financial crisis? Doesn't spending boost the economy? Wasn't that money given to him expressly for spending on the campaign? I think people put the crisis in a sentence with the $4M figure and think it's damaging, but to me I don't see a solid connection there.

 

They are both the same, and they're both perfectly fine... there shouldn't have ever been a fuss about Palin's wardrobe in the first place.

You're probably right. Like I admitted, I don't like her and I think the wardrobe thing just enforces what I dislike about her. It'd probably be best to drop it and focus on the more concrete things I dislike about her.

 

It's good that Obama can raise so much money, but I fault him for pledging to accept public financing along with McCain, and then reneged when he found he'd get more from private donations... while McCain accepted public financing as promised even though he probably would've done better without it.

I agree. I don't know what the circumstances were for that pledge, but I do know that he made it. If he promised to do it that way, that's the way he should've done it.

[j2t]

Yep gotta love that shrinking bracket...but honestly does anyone really feel like they are paying too much in taxes anymore? To me this is almost a non issue, but once again the Dem's start spouting tax cuts again to garner some votes.

[Rehit]

do you realize she had absolutely nothing to do with the purchase of the clothes?

it was done by a staffer without her even having knowledge of the purchases...

this is why many of the same exact items were bought in several sizes.

[Kash]

The thing that scares me about Obama getting elected is the fact that the Dem's will control the Senate and the Presidency..what kind of crap are they gonna sneak through now? And for everyone that wants to blame this all on Bush, who has controlled the Senate for the last 2+ years while this downfall has been happening?

 

because there are so many damn sheep in this country.

 

Honestly what this country really needs is a third party to come along because this two party system is sending us into the crapper. Oh Ron Paul where art thou lol

 

 

To me this is almost a non issue, but once again the Dem's start spouting tax cuts again to garner some votes.

 

Please stop spouting nonsense if you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm glad everyone else has been ignoring these ridiculous posts of yours.

 

As for the wardrobe thing, it's not that big of an issue. It's one of those things that the press cares more about than the American public, just like most process stories. If the people cared enough, then her poll numbers would have dropped after they ran the wardrobe thing for a couple of days, but they didn't, so like I said, the people don't care because there are already enough substantive things to dislike the woman for.

 

As for the commercial, what's the problem? Like Verran pointed out quite succinctly, you get campaign money, you spend it to win. Every single dime of his campaign war chest is allocated for, there's no reason for him to have any left over after the campaign is over. Was it disingenuous that he reneged on his promise for public financing? Sure it was, but look at the circumstances under which both he and McCain promised to take it. They were both underdogs, with McCain almost on the brink of being knocked out for lack of any funding. Obama picked up steam faster than McCain did, so McCain was forced to take public financing to his ultimate detriment whereas Obama benefited heavily from private donations. If the tables were reversed, McCain would also have raised quite a bit of money, but actions have consequences, and so he got stuck because he needed the public financing just to stay in the race whereas Obama managed to get by just long enough to become viable on his own. Yea, it was a broken promise, but we must look at context before judging people for their decisions. I would make the same assessment if the tables were turned.

[j2t]

Oh ok, so I basically say the same thing that LoArmistead said about taxes, but mine is nonsense? So explain to me how what I have said is nonsense? While I haven't read through this entire thread so I'm not sure what your exact position is...are you saying this entire mess is on the Republican's hands? If thats what you think than you are the one spouting nonsense.

[LoArmistead]

do you realize she had absolutely nothing to do with the purchase of the clothes?

it was done by a staffer without her even having knowledge of the purchases...

this is why many of the same exact items were bought in several sizes.

 

Why are so many people even concerned about the clothes that were bought for her? At least they were purchased! Most politicians still get their clothes donated to them by the designer simply for brand publicity... which is now illegal. I say we launch an investigation into who isn't paying for their clothes... :thumbs-up:

 

 

Oh ok, so I basically say the same thing that LoArmistead said about taxes, but mine is nonsense?

 

Because I'm immune, annoying and unrelenting! Stick around longer and they'll ignore your posts just like they do mine!

[Kash]

Oh ok, so I basically say the same thing that LoArmistead said about taxes, but mine is nonsense? So explain to me how what I have said is nonsense? While I haven't read through this entire thread so I'm not sure what your exact position is...are you saying this entire mess is on the Republican's hands? If thats what you think than you are the one spouting nonsense.

 

No, you're not saying the same thing Lo is saying. Let's have a look at your post.

 

The thing that scares me about Obama getting elected is the fact that the Dem's will control the Senate and the Presidency..what kind of crap are they gonna sneak through now? And for everyone that wants to blame this all on Bush, who has controlled the Senate for the last 2+ years while this downfall has been happening?

 

because there are so many damn sheep in this country.

 

Honestly what this country really needs is a third party to come along because this two party system is sending us into the crapper. Oh Ron Paul where art thou lol

 

You say that you're scared of the Democrats controlling both the White House and Congress. So when the Republicans control both branches for six years it's no problem, but when it's the Democrats, all of a sudden it's some thing to get worried about?

 

Then you blame all of our current problems on the Democratically controlled Congress for the past two years. Actually, you specifically stated the Senate in your post, so either you don't know that the House exists or that the Senate is the only half of Congress we should worry ourselves with. Anyway, back to the two year thing. Yes, the Democrats have a majority in the House, but there is a very slim margin in the Senate. Add that to a Republican President hell bent on vetoing anything the Democrats will pass by the slimmest of majorities, it's no wonder the Democrats haven't done anything publicly substantive in the last two years. So they've been working to clean house, modifying rules and other non-glamorous things.

 

Now, I do recognize that Democrats are just as much to blame for the financial crisis as the Republicans, but saying that all of this happened because of the Democrats being in control for the last two years showcases nothing more than ignorance or blind loyalty to anti-Democratic sentiment on your part. Your statements are nothing but disingenuous as they make false claims and representations.

 

I'm not even going to get into the third party bit.

 

To me this is almost a non issue, but once again the Dem's start spouting tax cuts again to garner some votes.

 

Democrats spouting tax cuts to garner votes? Do you know anything about each party's platform? It's the Republicans who always wave tax cuts in front of the masses to try and get votes. You're either really clueless or totally ignorant in your hatred for the Democratic party.

 

What I find most ironic about your entire post is that you call other people sheep when you yourself are completely oblivious to what's going on. This is the difference between your post and Lo's posts. He actually knows what he's talking about, you're just another blind loyalist.

[ExRoadie]

You say that you're scared of the Democrats controlling both the White House and Congress. So when the Republicans control both branches for six years it's no problem, but when it's the Democrats, all of a sudden it's some thing to get worried about?

Sorry Kash, but it's not the same situation.

 

During the time that the Republican Party controlled the President, House and Senate, they did not have a filibuster proof majority.

 

This is why the Democrat Party was able to tie up Judicial appointments for almost three years forcing President Bush to fill posts with "recess appointments" as a stop gap measure.

 

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

 

This means that the minority party still has power, albeit limited, up until the point of cloture is reached, after that point the majority party can force the legislation to a floor vote without further debate and the bill can pass with a simple majority which isn't a problem if you already have 60% of the vote.

 

The Republican Party only had simple majorities during the six years due to the defection of Senator Jim Jeffords in 2001 which left a split of 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats.

 

Since 2001 the US Senate has been under Republican control only during the term of Bill Frist as Senate Majority Leader from 2003 to 2007.

 

Once again I want to be clear on the point that just having a simple majority of 50% plus 1 is not like having a super majority of 60% control even if you are the Majority Party.

 

The last two times the Democrat Party had filibuster proof control of the House and Senate we ended up with "The New Deal" and "The Great Society" and we both know how that turned out for the country.