Max

The national polls have begun to turn back in the President's favor and he has held his lead in Ohio. All Obama has got to do tonight is show empathy for the struggles of women and the middle class and show confidence in his plans to improve the economy and their lives. But he also has got shut down Romney's lies. He has got to show Romney for the liar, flip flopper, and hypocrite that he is, just Biden did with Ryan.

I am pissed how Obama supporters have gone on and on about Romney's "lies" since the first debate; it's as if they think their candidate is an honest man. I guess these people have forgotten that Obama pledged to close Gitmo, never waver on the issue of gay marriage, reduce the deficit, heal the red state/blue state divide, agree to stay within the limits of public financing during his 2008 campaign, etc.

If Obama doesn't win tonight I think he is through.

I wish I felt the same way, but I feel that he will still win even if he flubs all the debates (which I highly doubt will happen). That's because Obama is getting all the breaks in Ohio, and he is still ahead there even as he falters in the popular vote and in several other swing states. While it is possible for Romney to win without carrying Ohio, it is an extraordinarily difficult task, as he would have to win North Carolina (which I am pretty confident he will win), Florida, Virginia, and just about every small swing state in order to get to 270.

Wow, so Hillary Clinton is to blame for what happened in Libya? Guess she wasn't ready for that 3am call...

Or was she?

My question is, does Barack Obama take responsibility for ANYTHING that happens under his watch?

It's crap. As President the buck stops with him. Perhaps it was the state dept that denied the embassy in Libya's plea's for beefed up security, which is Hilary's domain, but he is the president. The presidential thing to have done would have been for him to step up and accept some responsibility or at least talk directly to the American people about what happened. I hate this because it seems like its being done to deflect attacks on Obama.

For the record I'm not enamored with either candidate.

The fact that Obama loves to blame others is proof that he is such a coward. Getting Hillary Clinton to take the fall for him represents a new low in this regard. At least he is not blaming Bush or McConnell this time.

I would have said this long ago regarding the debate, but I had to be away from SON for the last week and a half (in order to study for a test on an accounting software program). That is, while I am thrilled that Romney won that debate so decisively, I just cannot get my hopes up thinking that he will actually win the election (and I urge other Republicans to follow suit, unless they want to be even more depressed on Election Day). I have a sinking feeling that any good news for Romney will be short-lived. I guess I should be thankful for any good news Romney has, because prior to the debate, this election was so incredibly depressing day after day.

Arlen Specter has died.

R.I.P.

While Arlen Specter was far from my favorite senator, I did not hate him. I did get really pissed how the Democrats went on and on about how the GOP has "no room for moderates," only to then turn their backs on Specter after he switched parties. (He was defeated by somebody considerably more liberal than him in the 2010 Democratic primary.) As far as it appeared to me, the Democrats felt the only thing Specter was useful for was a (temporary) 60th seat in the Senate.

"Crying in the Chapel" by the Orioles (#11, 1953)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Nru5sd8Nxuw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"Gee" by the Crows. This song was recorded and released in 1953, but didn't take off in popularity until nearly twelve months later. In early 1954, it peaked at #17, becoming one of the first rock and roll records to reach the top twenty.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MQCyQd-LsMU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I am curious how this show would have evolved after the space race died down.

Does anybody know what Manya Starr's biggest accomplishment was prior to creating this show?

I never before knew that Vendig wrote for the show.

"The Glory of Love" by the Five Keys (1951). This song did not make the pop chart, but peaked at #1 R&B. It is a completely different song from Peter Cetera's #1 hit of the same title from thirty-five years later.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Hlx-uKJGKQ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

We have another "bird" group, the Ravens, who had what I consider to be the first doo-wop song, "Count Every Star" (1950). The single did not chart.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LJoQyTjdVME" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yep, that's who you want for POTUS. A RINO who wonders why planes traveling at 500 mph do not roll down the windows. He must have that jet that the X-Men use.

This is the first time I have ever heard of an Obama supporter refer to Romney as a RINO. (Usually, only those like Rush Limbaugh make that charge.) If he is in the RINO league like Michael Bloomberg and Lincoln Chafee, then there is little reason for Democrats to fear him.

To switch subjects (on to a topic that hasn't been discussed much), I'd like to talk about control of Congress. The majority of competitive Senate races have broken the Democrats' way in the past month (most likely because of a reflection of the presidential race). It is way to early to make final predictions, but if the elections were held today, I think that the GOP would have a net gain of only one seat (which means a new Democratic majority of 52-48). Below is a summary of how I think the races would go if held today:

GOP Gains: Montana, Nebraska, & North Dakota

Dem Gains: Maine & Massachusetts

Competitive Races GOP Will Win: Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, & Nevada

Competitive Races Dems Will Win: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri (which still remains somewhat close), Virginia, & Wisconsin (I really don't consider the races in Florida & Ohio all that competitive, but the Democrats will win those as well.)

The House is the only bright spot for the Republicans. If the election was held today, they would still retain their majority, as political expert Larry Sabato (whose track record is one of the very best) predicts a net Dem gain of only four seats.

I am going to post the following two tables from his "Crystal Ball" website. The first are the toss-up races that are currently held by Democrats, as well as races rated as lean and likely Democratic. (If a bold name appears in the latter two columns, it means that a Republican currently occupies that seat.)

Here is a similar table for the GOP:

I will make my final predictions for the House and Senate shortly before Election Day. The same holds true for the presidential race as well, though if it was held today, it would be 332 electoral votes for Obama and 206 for Romney. The only two states that would change party affiliations from 2008 would be Indiana and North Carolina, which Romney will win (but McCain lost by the slimmest of margins). Also, while McCain won the state of Nebraska, he lost one electoral vote because he barely lost a Congressional District (one which Romney is very likely to carry). (Maine and Nebraska only award two electoral votes to the statewide winner, and then award one electoral vote to the winner of each Congressional District.)

I am going to post (if available) all 101 songs on my favorite album, "The Doo Wop Box." Of course, not all of these songs I enjoy, and that holds true for the first tune (although it is tolerable).

Many argue that "It's Too Soon to Know" by the Orioles (which peaked at #13 in 1948) was the first doo-wop record ever made. Though I consider it to be more like blow harmony as opposed to doo-wop, I have read that this song had a huge impact on the R&B scene.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/O1q7xXXVoCY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You may call it like you see it, but that type of bigotry is something most of the planet left behind a long time ago.

I have avoided this forum lately (because politics is simply one thing you can't change others' minds about), but I do have to say that any statement that Qfan is a bigot is total bulls-hit. He is far from an apologist for Israel, as evidenced by his comment, "Israel isn't a country of saints, they did a lot of crappy things to the Palestinians en route to becoming a country and treat them unfairly today. Whoever came up with the map for Israel and Palestine had to have known it was unworkable." He was very even-handed in criticizing the Jews for their faults. But, he accurately pointed out that Muslims/Palestinians have much bigger flaws:

That said, Israelis don't go around knocking down skyscrapers, make videos of decapitations, and generally behave like savages treating their own people like crap. Israelis don't stone you if you want to send your daughter to school, they don't kill you if you are raped. israelis don't behave like mindless animals anytime someone makes an insulting cartoon of Moses, they don't go attacking embassies when someone puts up anti jewish youtube videos, and they don't tell you god is good when someone kills a few dozen people. Israelis don't kill you because you are gay. Israel's jews do not issue fatwas and do not demand that any citizen adhere to jewish orthodoxy lest they suffer the consequences.

Of course, there are a sizable number of moderate Muslims who condemn these atrocious behaviors. The sad truth, however, is that the number of Muslims condoning these actions is still way too high. Simply pointing this out most definitely does not make one a bigot.

While Romney gets trashed for everything under the sun, Obama is "too busy" to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu (yet he strangely finds the time to spend with Letterman, Beyonce, and Jay Z). Again, he doesn't have to agree with everything the Prime Minister says, but how incredibly disrespectful is it to not meet with the him. It speaks volumes that maintaining his cool guy image comes first.

Arthur Alexander had a minor hit with "Anna (Go to Him)," a good song that only reached #68 in 1962. It later became the subject of a "Married...with Children" episode.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2rHcvYa93sU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I really wish there was more early 90s AW on YouTube like there use to me.

P&G sucks so much.

I am sort of surprised that no AW DVD sets were ever issued, simply because of the vast number of ATWT and GL DVD sets that were issued.

Thanks so much for the very nice message, Brian.

The personal animosity toward Max in this thread is uncalled for. Yeah he calls Obama "Barry" and "Obummer", but I go to Crooks and Liars and they call Romney "Mittens". It's harmless contempt.

Thank you so much for defending me, Qfan. You have always been such a class act.

Some people here have been nasty to me, but Marceline was not one of them. I took her criticism of Romney and personalized it, and then made a very nasty remark. That is totally unforgivable.

I have been getting more temperamental over this election recently, perhaps as a result of my employment situation. If there is any silver lining to the likely Obama victory, it is that the lives of many gay folks here would be much better with a Democratic president instead of a Republican one. In the rare event Romney wins, I could totally relate to the despair they would be feeling.

It is probably for the best that I no longer participate in this thread (or at SON at all) for quite some time, as to prevent my emotions from getting the better of me again.

All the over top ranting and anger about Obama aside, let's be rational for once. Romney opened his mouth,

I'm sure Romney would have been villified if he said nothing either (because he has been trashed for not having many press conferences). Even though Dole and McCain--two of the most honorable people to ever run for president--were absolutely savaged by the press, I have never seen such a universally negative portrayl of a nominee until now.

That's a really cheap personal attack. Once again, even though we've disagreed, I always thought you were better than that. Fine. Since you've apparently lost the ability to engage me on the issues how about you and I just agree not to talk to each other? Let's put each other on "ignore" and move on.

You've have never criticized this president for failing to turn the economy around. You have even bragged about how you and other African Americans in Ohio are going to fully take advantage of early voting to help Obama. What you say that, it makes me believe that you (and like minded people) are voting for him just because of his skin color. THAT MAKES ME SICK. And you have the nerve to say that Romney voters are racists.

When you have been playing the race card to (1) first get a wholly unqualified person elected president and (2) get a president with a horrendous economic record re-elected, don't expect the other side to sit quietly.

Oh let's go there. I have no problem with a politician lying about his sex life.

Clinton wasn't impeached because he lied about sex. He was impeached because he lied under oath in a court of law. It's very convenient how you forgot that.

David Vitter broke the law, and should have been expelled from Congress. There's no hypocrisy from me on this matter (though it was shameful how the GOP had no problem with his conduct). John Ensign did resign, and almost no Republican came to his defense.

Romney is an self-serving, incompetent, entitled pathological liar who looked at the murder of these people who were killed serving our country and humanity and thought to himself, "How can this benefit me?" He's a man who talked about the death of innocents with a smile on his face. If you think Bill Clinton's sex lie is worse than that then...I have no response for that.

It was reprehensible for Romney to politicize this. But is it not also reprehensible for this tragedy to happen on Obama's watch? Of course, not one peep was made about that today. The economy still sucks? It's Bush's fault. American's get killed in Lybia? It's Romney's fault. Navy Seals take out Bin Laden? Well, that's singlehandely Obama's doing. GM is saved? Again, all credit goes to Obama (even though the bailout began under Bush). I have never f-ucking heard of a president who is so eager to take sole credit for a select few accomplishments yet never admits to having a hand in the things that are wrong with the country.

Romney is running a terrible campaign (the worst of any nominee since Dukakis) and deserves to lose. Obama has been a terrible president and also deserves to lose.

Romney was never my choice to be the nominee. Huntsman was. However, what pisses me off is this phony love affair that partisan Democrats have with the man (as it was the same type of phony love affair the Democrats had with McCain prior to 2007). Aside from the facts that he worked for Obama, and that he is not a partisan flame thrower, there is nothing in Huntsman's background to indicate a groundswell of liberal support for his presidential bid. Apart from civil unions, there is not a single issue I can think of where Huntsman is to the left of Romney; on some issues--such as guns and abortion--he has always been further to the right than Romney. (And the pro-gun control, pro-choice Giuliani was savaged by Democrats, so I can't imagine why they would take somebody who is considerably more conservative than him.) And like Romney, Huntsman is "filthy-rich" and part of the "cult" of Mormonism, but--in contrast to the former Massachusetts governor--he became the head of a big business solely because he inherited it from daddy. (Romney at least attained his position at Bain Capital without family connections, and gave away his inheritance to BYU.)

There's no doubt that the GOP would be in better shape right now if Huntsman was the nominee. But, he would still face a big charisma deficit compared to the president, and he also is/was not an aggressive campaigner. More problematic is the fact that the Obama machine would be hammering him for being a super-wealthy one-percenter (anybody would be delusional to believe otherwise), who headed a company that did a large amount of business with China. (These criticisms were never waged against Huntsman because he was never a serious threat to get the nomination, but if he had been, you can bet the Democrats would turn on him on a dime. Just as in 2000, when McCain was far behind Bush, every liberal and his mother praised the Arizona Senator, yet the living s#it was kicked out of him eight years later when he had a real chance at the White House.) If Huntsman actually was the GOP nominee, I could imagine Jane and Wales (who aren't nearly as partisan as the rest of the Obama supporters here) considering voting for him. However, it is a total fairy tale for me to believe that the die-hard liberals here would honestly vote for Huntsman over Obama, especially after tons of negative advertising that would have drilled home the point that Huntsman is a conservative.

Sociopaths are much better at lying.

With all due respect, I really don't think you want to go there. No sociopath lies with more ease than Bill Clinton. This perjurer is the most vile and disgusting man to ever occupy the White House. Everybody on the left claims to love him now, and remained shamefully silent in 1998. But, when push comes to shove, it is far from "right-wing extremists" who acknowledge this man's chronic lies:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M-X9tEOp19o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The ironic thing is that Hillary's chances in 2016 would be far improved with a Romney victory (so I am perplexed why Bill is going all out for Obama). Even if the economy if doing decently four years from now, it is always very hard for a party to keep the White House for more than eight years. And if the economy is still in shambles, no Democrat (even one as strong as Hillary) has a chance of winning in 2016. (We saw this in 2008, when McCain was the strongest and most popular candidate the GOP could have nominated, yet he was doomed to lose because of the unpopularity of Bush and the terrible economy; though, if the Republicans had nominated anyone else, that person would have done twice as badly.)

Kerrey is desparate. He's double-digits behind his oppenent and thinks slamming Obama will pull him through. Politics and idealogy aside, Kerrey is rotten for throwing his president under the bus while attempting to politically position himself.

Even though Kerrey is desperate, you don't honestly disagree with his assessment of ObamaCare, do you?

When Charlie Crist was desperate in his run against Marco Rubio and praised Obama, he was hailed as a hero by liberals.

Former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, who again is running as the Democratic candidate for Senator in that state, slams Obama and points out the flaws in ObamaCare:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120907/NEWS/709079931

Democratic Senate candidate Bob Kerrey said Thursday that he hates the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act and that his own businesses might drop employee insurance and pay the federal fine for doing so if the mandate goes into effect in 2014.

Kerrey said wealthy Americans pay their fair share in taxes. And he said President Barack Obama made a big mistake by not following the recommendations of his own bipartisan budget deficit commission.

Kerrey wasted no opportunity to remind the Rotary audience that he’s a longtime co-owner of Nebraska small businesses — Grandmother’s Restaurants and Prairie Life health clubs.

His remarks about the Affordable Care Act, the law often called “Obamacare,” came in response to a question from Kutler, 85, a small-business man and Republican.

“Do you find anything about (Obamacare) that you disagree with?” Kutler asked.

“Oh, yeah — yes, I do,” Kerrey replied.

He singled out a portion of the plan that says if a company with more than 50 workers stopped offering health coverage it would face a fine of $2,000 per employee.

Questions have been raised about whether companies would stop paying for employees’ insurance and send them to obtain their own coverage from new insurance exchanges.

“I hate the employer mandate,” Kerrey said. “I think it’s going to have a counterproductive impact. We don’t have any (insured employee) that costs us less than $7,000 (a year), and the fine’s $2,000. We’ll dump ’em off. We won’t call it dumping, we’ll say ... ‘Go get it from the exchange.’”

He said the employer mandate “will accelerate an already breaking-down employer-based system.” That portion of the law should be repealed, he said.

Asked later if he meant that his Nebraska businesses would stop providing health insurance to its employees, Kerrey said he had not talked about the matter at length with co-owner Dean Rasmussen, but that businesses would have an incentive to drop health coverage.

“I don’t know for certain what Dean will do, but it is likely that he’s going to have a very powerful incentive to tell the employees ‘You can get your insurance from a private plan,’” Kerrey said.

For Pete's sake, Max.... accountant? Screw getting a job as a corporate accountant, just be a personal accountant for small businesses. There are quite a few of those around here, small businesses are always needing accounting services, and you could provide services for less than a larger company could. And you could set your own hours and have a degree of freedom. Don't depend on someone else to hire you, just drum up your own business, You could easily set up a DBA, and work as your own company.

Thanks again for your sincere concern, Alphanguy. I may just end up having to do that, although I would need to become a CPA first. (In my home state of NJ it sucks, because they force you to earn an additional 30 credits before one can earn the CPA designation. I personally feel that passing that extremely difficult test should be enough.)

I forgot to mention an important milestone that was reached yesterday (September 7): Jimmy Carter's ex-presidency is now the longest of any of our prior leaders (surpassing the previous record held by Herbert Hoover). It was sad that his presidency was so horrendous, but I'm glad he had a stellar career since leaving office.

Obama says he made mistakes and has learned from them? In the absence of anyone out there who can present an viable alternative, I'll have to trust in him and hope he means what he says. I think you have an opinion and believe he's a dishonorable man. Me I don't feel that was. I think he's an honorable man who didn't understand the political climate in Washington and got in over his head. I can only hope he's learned from his mistakes as Bill Clinton did.

Jane, we'll have to agree to disagree, but nobody could have written a more eloquent defense. In regards to your excellent point that he didn't understand Washington and was in over his head, Obama would have served himself--and the country--far better had he accumulated more experience in the Senate prior to running for president.

The Dems have always cared about what Fox News says about them. Hence the reason I call them pussies. They're weak and hypersensitive to criticism from a source that should be dismissed right out of the gate. It's a big part of my problem with the Democrats. Nobody else was talking about the God thing. Just Fox and the right wing blogosphere. If the Democrats truly had the courage of their convictions they would've said "consider the source" and stuck to their guns but they never do. It's part of the reason I don't consider myself a Democrat. I consider myself a liberal who votes Democratic because that's my only choice. (I don't buy into the third party stuff.)

Marceline, I heard on the news that it was Obama himself who caved in to the God issue and demanded the change in the platform. He is the pus-sy.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8A9gzYWOwEs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have no idea how some Democrats can still think Obama is a man of such conviction.

On another topic, I don't vote third party for the same reason that you do: it would result in the greater of two evils being elected.

Edit: Jane, when I originally made this post, your above post had yet to appear. Sorry for the repetitive point.