http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13216.html

McCain will ask cabinet members to work for $1 a year. Also, McCain talks about Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

For Roman:

We were basically on the same page about Obama appearing on Fox News and you held out hope for Murdoch. I don't know if this means anything but during the primaries he took credit for influencing the NY Post to endorse Obama. Now that they've endorsed McCain, it remains to be seen whether or not he'll take credit for this too.

And for those who think McCain canceling an interview on CNN is the same as certain Democrats avoiding Fox, I disagree. CNN has increasing fallen off in quality over the years but Campbell Brown asking a McCain rep a question does not compare to Fox referring to Mche;e Obama as Barack's baby mama, calling the Obamas bumping fists a terrorist jab, and calling Rachel Ray's scarf in a Dunkin' Donuts ad terrorist garb (causing Dunkin' Donuts to pull the a out of fear), among others.

For Roman:

We were basically on the same page about Obama appearing on Fox News and you held out hope for Murdoch. I don't know if this means anything but during the primaries he took credit for influencing the NY Post to endorse Obama. Now that they've endorsed McCain, it remains to be seen whether or not he'll take credit for this too.

And for those who think McCain canceling an interview on CNN is the same as certain Democrats avoiding Fox, I disagree. CNN has increasing fallen off in quality over the years but Campbell Brown asking a McCain rep a question does not compare to Fox referring to Mche;e Obama as Barack's baby mama, calling the Obamas bumping fists a terrorist jab, and calling Rachel Ray's scarf in a Dunkin' Donuts ad terrorist garb (causing Dunkin' Donuts to pull the a out of fear), among others.

See I disagree there too. Who made those remarks on FOX? Was it Brit Hume? Chris Wallace? They are the news anchors for Fox News. Sean Hannity, Greta Van Sustern, Bill O'Reilly, Alan Colmes are all commentators. There is a difference. Just like Wolf Blitzer is different than comentators like Al Franken etc. (and sorry, I'm totally using Al Franken at the first hard core left winger that comes to mind).

Should McCain talk to Wolf Blitzer? Yes. Should he grant an interview to Al Franken? No, if he so choses.

Should Obama talk to Brit Hume? Yes. Should he be forced to sit down with Sean Hannity? No, if he so choses.

I do give credit to Obama for sitting down with Bill O'Reilly. That was walking into the lion's den and Bill O'Reilly is a flaming idiot of a talking head that is not even remotely rational in his opnions.

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by wiccachick_1

See I disagree there too. Who made those remarks on FOX? Was it Brit Hume? Chris Wallace? They are the news anchors for Fox News. Sean Hannity, Greta Van Sustern, Bill O'Reilly, Alan Colmes are all commentators. There is a difference. Just like Wolf Blitzer is different than comentators like Al Franken etc. (and sorry, I'm totally using Al Franken at the first hard core left winger that comes to mind).

Should McCain talk to Wolf Blitzer? Yes. Should he grant an interview to Al Franken? No, if he so choses.

Should Obama talk to Brit Hume? Yes. Should he be forced to sit down with Sean Hannity? No, if he so choses.

I do give credit to Obama for sitting down with Bill O'Reilly. That was walking into the lion's den and Bill O'Reilly is a flaming idiot of a talking head that is not even remotely rational in his opnions.

You have hit it on the nose, wiccachick. Campbell Brown is supposed to be an unbias anchor, not a commentator.

Just out of curiosity, did anyone in this thread equate Republicans avoiding CNN to Democrats avoiding FOX?

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by Casey008

You have hit it on the nose, wiccachick. Campbell Brown is supposed to be an unbias anchor, not a commentator.

Just out of curiosity, did anyone in this thread equate Republicans avoiding CNN to Democrates avoiding FOX?

I think I did. I'll own it anyway.

I think someone complained about McCain not talking to Campbell Brown and I said it was no more noteworthy than Barack Obama not talking to FOX. Now if Campbell Brown steps over the line (which is SO common in today's media) into political commentary, then it makes sense that Brown is treated as a commentator and I think that is the candidate's discretion.

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by wiccachick_1

I think I did. I'll own it anyway.

I think someone complained about McCain not talking to Campbell Brown and I said it was no more noteworthy than Barack Obama not talking to FOX. Now if Campbell Brown steps over the line (which is SO common in today's media) into political commentary, then it makes sense that Brown is treated as a commentator and I think that is the candidate's discretion.

Oh, okay. I didn't see it anywhere. I must have scrolled past it...

Jess, you've completely forgotten that the cost of doing business has shot sky high due to the high cost of a barrel of oil. That has nothing to do with Bush tax cuts. The lower tax burden has most certainly helped SAVE JOBS given the high costs of fuel. Don't underestimate the damage oil prices have done... and I don't see how you can blame the current administration for that. If you must blame someone, then blame every administration in the past 30 years for not breaking our dependence on foreign oil long before this... By the way, I didn't think much of the latest economic stimulus. I didn't feel it was necessary. I deposited mine into my savings account and did NOT put it back into the economy.

I have, however, been eating out a lot lately.

As for the mortgage crisis, greedy real estate brokers, agents, and banking institutions are at fault, riding the wave of "good times" and trying to milk all they could from it by offering the irresponsible and uninformed "too good to be true" deals and manipulating numbers to force qualification for home loans. Bush had nothing to do with that, either.

Bush has screwed a lot of things up... but none of the things you have described in your post.

With regard to who is lying or not in this campaign, I think it is safe to say that no party has a monopoly on dishonesty. I've gotten to the point where I don't even care anymore what the candidates are saying while on the stump... History speaks volumes -- their records while in public office is what I consider fact.

Wrong again. The economic downturn started long before the price of gasoline. Price of gasoline does effect inflation. The Bush tax cuts did not do as promised and stimulate economic performance. It just did not. His tax cuts had the same effect on the economy as Reagan's tax cuts, and in fact were the same thing. They drove up the deficit, the deficit increases the national debt, the national debt increases what we owe other countries. Right now 14 percent of the national budget goes to the debt. I will argue with you all night because you are wrong. Bush's tax cuts were counterproductive.

As far as the mortgage crisis, yes you are right on the causes, but an interest rate inflated by the national debt does not help and in fact contributes to problems. When the national debt increases, it takes money out of the market place. It also means more of the fed's loaning capacity is going to the federal government rather than to consumers.

You are right, no party has a monopoly on dishonest, but it also totally wrong for people who pretend to be leaders to stand up and just say crap. The GOP is the worst about that.

McCain leading in 3 of the latest national polls:

McCain is now up 2.1% in average of national polls.

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by Casey008

Wrong again. The economic downturn started long before the price of gasoline. Price of gasoline does effect inflation. The Bush tax cuts did not do as promised and stimulate economic performance. It just did not. His tax cuts had the same effect on the economy as Reagan's tax cuts, and in fact were the same thing. They drove up the deficit, the deficit increases the national debt, the national debt increases what we owe other countries. Right now 14 percent of the national budget goes to the debt. I will argue with you all night because you are wrong. Bush's tax cuts were counterproductive.

As far as the mortgage crisis, yes you are right on the causes, but an interest rate inflated by the national debt does not help and in fact contributes to problems. When the national debt increases, it takes money out of the market place. It also means more of the fed's loaning capacity is going to the federal government rather than to consumers.

You are right, no party has a monopoly on dishonest, but it also totally wrong for people who pretend to be leaders to stand up and just say crap. The GOP is the worst about that.

I will see if I can find the GDP and unemployment date for the past couple of years and see where we stand.

I'll get back to you. I like data. I'm a data junkie.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/us.html

The rise in GDP in 2004-07 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage in the Gulf Coast region in August 2005, but had a small impact on overall GDP growth for the year. Soaring oil prices in 2005-2007 threatened inflation and unemployment, yet the economy continued to grow through year-end 2007. Imported oil accounts for about two-thirds of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. The merchandise trade deficit reached a record $847 billion in 2007. Together, these problems caused a marked reduction in the value and status of the dollar worldwide in 2007

Seems like we have an inequity in world trade that is driving down the American economy but since it appears to be a global inflationary period, that makes sense. Post-tax cuts, the GDP and unemployment was still in line and according to this site soaring gas prices did have an effect in 2005 through 2007 althought we still have positive growth.

I will be looking for more data. One source is not good enough for me. It's that stupid journalism degree that forces me to have multiple sources.

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by wiccachick_1

Well the way I understand it, each party has a central headquarters and individual coalitions that are all able to donate to major campaigns. They have the organization and wherewithall to control advertising and most importantly electoral control. Minor parties have little access to the electoral control which therefore discourges third party alternatives opportunities for success. I shouldn't have just focused on the money aspect (which through their coalitions is significant) they control through the electorate system.

That is significant control over party candidates and a lot of leverage to get them to tow the party line.

And I would be seriously surprised if the Gators do not roll out tonight. The Canes have a young team and a coach that's good but hasn't been there long. They should be good in the near future but the Gators are a machine and god knows as a Georgia Bulldog fan it pains me to say that! LOL!

That is NOT right. They do not have that control, in fact, the parties are limited in what they can provide candidates as far as direct assistance. That was done by McCain-Feingold. The United States has candidate=centered not party centered campaigns. Go google in the phrase candidate=centered campaigns and read away. I personally wish the parties did have more control over the process because it was diminish the influence of far-right and far-left wing factions of each party.

As far as the electoral college, yes it does limit and third-party candidacies. But ANY suggestions that the electoral college is somehow controlled by the parties is just flat wrong. Our system discourages third-party candidacies, particularly in presidential elections. Third parties are discouraged by our plurality voting system, petition requirements and the electoral college. The parties do play a part in that because they are instrumental in petition requirements. Our system of government, however, is geared toward a two-party system.

I will see if I can find the GDP and unemployment date for the past couple of years and see where we stand.

I'll get back to you. I like data. I'm a data junkie.

I'm a big data junkie also. The best information is available at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov.)

All the polls today are showing McCain taking the lead. I think they are probably correct.

Wrong again. The economic downturn started long before the price of gasoline. The Bush tax cuts did not do as promised and stimulate economic performance. It just did not.

The tax cuts pulled us out of the 2001 recession.

Price of gasoline does effect inflation.

It most certainly does. Gas is almost to the point of necessity in the US. It would be calculated into the "cost of living" that is a hot topic right now with Democrats who are pushing for another increase in the minimum wage.

The rate of inflation is influenced by so many economic factors that blaming one element such as a raise in the minimum wage or gas prices appears to be short-sighted, but they certainly do have a very strong culminated impact.

His tax cuts had the same effect on the economy as Reagan's tax cuts, and in fact were the same thing. They drove up the deficit, the deficit increases the national debt, the national debt increases what we owe other countries. Right now 14 percent of the national budget goes to the debt. I will argue with you all night because you are wrong. Bush's tax cuts were counterproductive.

The biggest impact on the deficit has been the war. If the unexpected events of 9/11 not occured then the tax cuts would have been far more successful.

You are right, no party has a monopoly on dishonest, but it also totally wrong for people who pretend to be leaders to stand up and just say crap. The GOP is the worst about that.

I will strongly disagree with that comment. The Democrats (especially in this campaign) have been guilty of a lot of populous double-talk (or "crap" as you call it). For one example (among many) Obama has been promisiong to give tax breaks to companies that "invest" in America, while at the same time he promises to roll back the Bush tax cuts and increase corporate "windfall" profit taxes, income taxes, and capital gains taxes. How will he accomplish both of these goals at the same time?

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by Casey008

For Roman:

We were basically on the same page about Obama appearing on Fox News and you held out hope for Murdoch. I don't know if this means anything but during the primaries he took credit for influencing the NY Post to endorse Obama. Now that they've endorsed McCain, it remains to be seen whether or not he'll take credit for this too.

And for those who think McCain canceling an interview on CNN is the same as certain Democrats avoiding Fox, I disagree. CNN has increasing fallen off in quality over the years but Campbell Brown asking a McCain rep a question does not compare to Fox referring to Mche;e Obama as Barack's baby mama, calling the Obamas bumping fists a terrorist jab, and calling Rachel Ray's scarf in a Dunkin' Donuts ad terrorist garb (causing Dunkin' Donuts to pull the a out of fear), among others.

Well, it's up to RM himself, but it doesn't appear likely. The hypocricy is there, that he would pull in private for Obama but let his network appear to not give him a fair shake. And somne of the stuff they have said......horrendous. Unfortunately, some of the other nets have went along with the same crap at times, especially the JW debacle, so once again, I guess we'll see.

But I'm not holding my breath on any of the tv news nets.

That is NOT right. They do not have that control, in fact, the parties are limited in what they can provide candidates as far as direct assistance. That was done by McCain-Feingold. The United States has candidate=centered not party centered campaigns. Go google in the phrase candidate=centered campaigns and read away. I personally wish the parties did have more control over the process because it was diminish the influence of far-right and far-left wing factions of each party.

As far as the electoral college, yes it does limit and third-party candidacies. But ANY suggestions that the electoral college is somehow controlled by the parties is just flat wrong. Our system discourages third-party candidacies, particularly in presidential elections. Third parties are discouraged by our plurality voting system, petition requirements and the electoral college. The parties do play a part in that because they are instrumental in petition requirements. Our system of government, however, is geared toward a two-party system.

McCain - Feingold has limited the central organization of the DNC or the RNC to "directly" contribute to campaigns beyond limits. It just changes the framework of how those donations are received within the campaigns and encourages the creation of smaller coalitions throught the country. The money is still the same. The electoral college by party control over balloting does have a large influence on candidates. Opinions on this are subjective. You don't agree with it but as an independant voter with no party affiliation, my perspective is different which does not invalidate the symbiotic relationship between the electoral college and the two major parties in the US.

http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-engl...s0.6480067.html

When the Founders of the American Republic drafted and ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for political parties. Indeed, they sought through various constitutional arrangements — such as separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; by federalism; and by indirect election of the president by an Electoral College — to insulate the new republic from parties and factions.

In spite of the Founders' intentions, the United States in 1800 became the first nation to develop nascent political parties organized on a national basis to accomplish the transfer of executive power from one faction to another via an election. The development and expansion of political parties that followed was closely linked to the broadening of voting rights. In the early days of the Republic, only male property owners could vote, but that restriction began to erode in the early 19th century as the result of immigration, the growth of cities, and other democratizing forces, such as the westward expansion of the country. Over the decades, the right to vote was extended to ever larger numbers of the adult population as restrictions based on property ownership, race, and sex were eliminated. As the electorate expanded, the political parties evolved to mobilize the growing mass of voters as the means of political control. Political parties became institutionalized to accomplish this essential task. Thus, parties in America emerged as a part of democratic expansion, and, beginning in the 1830s, they became firmly established, and powerful

It's fairly telling how much control they have over major elections by the following information:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/parties.htm

The pervasiveness of partisan influences also extends to the party in government. The two major parties now dominate the presidency, Congress, the governorships, and the state legislatures. Every president since 1852 has been either a Republican or a Democrat, and in the post-World War II era, the two major parties' share of the popular vote for president has averaged 94.8 percent. After the 2002 congressional and local elections, there was one lone independent senator among the 100 members of the U.S. Senate, and just two of the 435 representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives were independents. At the state level, all 50 governors were either Republicans or Democrats, and only 21 (.003 percent) of more than 7,300 state legislators were elected as other than Republicans or Democrats. It is the two major parties that organize and dominate government at both the national and state levels.

I have the opposite opinion as you do as far as party control lessening the influence of the far right and far left. Splintering the parties into smaller mulit-party systems would have the greatest effect in jarring the control of the far right in the Republican party and the far left in the Democratic. They would form their own party on the ballot and the more moderate on both sides would represent more of the typical American voter with either right or left leanings.

That is my opinon and disagree if you like but I stand by it.

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by wiccachick_1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...;feed=worldnews