Anybody there??
foxysc...@yahoo.com
I love Dave with all my heart - you all know it - and, having stated
earlier that I was voting for McCain, in the last few weeks I'm
conflicted, I'll admit. I'm still not completely sure...Having said
that, I will say that Dave's Palin-bashing last night was, to me, mean-
spirited - it made me uncomfortable. Was there nothing about Biden
to mock? Dave had an agenda, hence taping the Friday show on Friday.
It was unrelenting, and I was relieved that Tim Robbins didn't keep it
going, because he sure could have.
randwill
<foxysc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41bc34b7-75a7-4283...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
I loved it. The only thing that I think was over the line was whatever he
said in the mincing Palin voice about "my hair", which came across as sexist
to me.
You have to remember that there are some people out there who are seriously
thinking of voting for McCain/Palin for the highest offices in the land.
Nearly half of them, at last count. Although this seems like insanity to
intelligent people, we have to accept that some are misguided and some are
just plain ignorant. Anything Dave can do to enlighten and educate these
unfortunate souls, though it may sometimes come across as mean-spirited, is
doing both them and the country a great service. Eight years of failure and
corruption and outright evil is long enough. More power to him!
Crash 'Strawman' Bandicoot
What bothered me was that about 85% of the show was political "humor".
Is Dave attempting to morph LS into "The Daily Show" because that's
who is winning Emmys?
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Bill's posts are like a Jackson Pollock painting;
as if a child threw paint haphazardly at the canvas,
then expected everyone else to do all the work
of finding the 'genius within the mess.'"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Brady
Google Groups hasn't updated for about 24 hours now.
If history is any indication, new (and backlogged) messages will start
trickling in, at some point, slowly but surely.
Brady
Rusty
earn her a sympathy vote more than anything. Remember Dave's antics
against GWB? Did that prevent GWB from being (re)elected? People will
probably see this as really petty and childish, whether it's justified
or not.
I don't think that attacking(or praising) a politician really works when
you're supposed to be running an entertainment show, perhaps the best
route is to just pretend they don't exist, or keep the humor light, and
let the pundits you interview do the real incisive commentary.
I got the feeling that the LS were expecting Palin to fall flat to below
the levels of the Couric interview, but instead she held her own fairly
well, and the LS writers didn't bother looking beyond the VP Debate for
any material.
With OJ's conviction, I wonder how much time will be spent on the
election...
Deborah
<rwilli...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
><foxysc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:41bc34b7-75a7-4283...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> No comments regarding last night's show? I find that hard to believe.
>> I love Dave with all my heart - you all know it - and, having stated
>> earlier that I was voting for McCain, in the last few weeks I'm
>> conflicted, I'll admit. I'm still not completely sure...Having said
>> that, I will say that Dave's Palin-bashing last night was, to me, mean-
>> spirited - it made me uncomfortable. Was there nothing about Biden
>> to mock? Dave had an agenda, hence taping the Friday show on Friday.
>> It was unrelenting, and I was relieved that Tim Robbins didn't keep it
>> going, because he sure could have.
>
>I loved it. The only thing that I think was over the line was whatever he
>said in the mincing Palin voice about "my hair", which came across as sexist
>to me.
Yes, but then he immediately chastised himself and said "That wasn't
fair".
Deborah
AFL Drifter
>I will say that Dave's Palin-bashing last night
> was, to me, mean- spirited - it made me
> uncomfortable. Was there nothing about
>Biden to mock? Dave had an agenda, hence
>taping the Friday show on Friday. It was
> unrelenting, and I was relieved that Tim
> Robbins didn't keep it going, because he sure
> could have.
Totally agree. Regardless of who the subject is, I really hate it when
they splice various snippets together to form a new sentence. As much
as I want the Republicans out of there, I thought that was horseshit
segment for the most part.
Deborah
wrote:
But the splicing is always so obvious. You can't take it seriously.
Deborah
Brady
Rich Lowry (*National Review*) really, *really* liked Palin's debate
performance ...
--------
Friday, October 03, 2008
Projecting through the Screen [Rich Lowry]
A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting
through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill
O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat.
Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the
only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a
little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked
at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing
well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little
starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of
America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something
you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
10/03 12:08 PM
[http://tinyurl.com/4haf92]
--------
Good god, man. Take a cold shower or something.
Brady
Crash 'Strawman' Bandicoot (Jess)
> I'm sure I'm not the
> only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a
> little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked
> at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing
> well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little
> starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of
> America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something
> you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
> --------
>
> Good god, man. Take a cold shower or something.
>
> Brady
Bill Maher mocked this article on his Friday "Real Time" show.
Marcia R.
lot of time on McCain/Palin withough mentioning Obama. I don't happen
to like either of them, but that's another story.
Marcia
AFL Drifter
>But the splicing is always so obvious. You
> can't take it seriously.
Of course nobody takes it seriously, it's just way too easy to take
cheap shots at anyone's expense. Lazy, bush league attempts at comedy.
There's plenty of material out there to work with without resorting to
that.
Traci
Equal time only applies to network appearances by the candidates, not
bashing of said candidates by TV hosts. ;p
Traci
--
"Not only do I want an *elite* president. I want someone who is
embarrassingly superior to me. Somebody who speaks 16 languages and
sleeps two hours a night hanging upside down in a chamber they
themselves designed."
--Jon Stewart, TDS
Helen Read
>
> What bothered me was that about 85% of the show was political "humor".
> Is Dave attempting to morph LS into "The Daily Show" because that's
> who is winning Emmys?
I think Dave is truly concerned about the future of this country, and is
just talking on the show about what is on his mind. I'm glad of it.
--
HPR
Crash 'Strawman' Bandicoot (Jess)
> I think Dave is truly concerned about the future of this country, and is
> just talking on the show about what is on his mind. I'm glad of it.
>
He can start by reducing his own usage of Jet fuel.
Keith Rose
>foxysc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> No comments regarding last night's show? I find that hard to believe.
>
>Is Dave attempting to morph LS into "The Daily Show" because that's
>who is winning Emmys?
My impression is that Dave isn't driven by recognition (Emmys, or
ratings), but that he has very strong personal feelings about the
current administration, and about Sarah Palin as a VP candidate
(and about McCain having chosen her).
I agree with you regarding the amount of political content in the
show last night, and I expect (hope) that it was just an anomoly
since that show was basically produced specifically to feed off the
VP debate.
Keith Rose
>
>You have to remember that there are some people out there who are seriously
>thinking of voting for McCain/Palin for the highest offices in the land.
>Nearly half of them, at last count. Although this seems like insanity to
>intelligent people, we have to accept that some are misguided and some are
>just plain ignorant. Anything Dave can do to enlighten and educate these
These statements come across as incredibly condescending. You know...
to intelligent people.
Keith Rose
I think Brian Williams hit the nail on the head with his statement
about Dave using Palin as a "pinata." I agree it seemed mean-
spirited.
Brady
Upon reflection, don't you think that sounds just the least bit ...
condescendingly insulting?
Brady
Bill Kawalec
"randwill" <rwilli...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:WeSdnS5WXYkBVHrV...@giganews.com...
>
> <foxysc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:41bc34b7-75a7-4283...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> No comments regarding last night's show? I find that hard to believe.
>> I love Dave with all my heart - you all know it - and, having stated
>> earlier that I was voting for McCain, in the last few weeks I'm
>> conflicted, I'll admit. I'm still not completely sure...Having said
>> that, I will say that Dave's Palin-bashing last night was, to me, mean-
>> spirited - it made me uncomfortable. Was there nothing about Biden
>> to mock? Dave had an agenda, hence taping the Friday show on Friday.
>> It was unrelenting, and I was relieved that Tim Robbins didn't keep it
>> going, because he sure could have.
>
> I loved it. The only thing that I think was over the line was whatever he
> said in the mincing Palin voice about "my hair", which came across as
> sexist to me.
>
> You have to remember that there are some people out there who are
> seriously thinking of voting for McCain/Palin for the highest offices in
> the land. Nearly half of them, at last count. Although this seems like
> insanity to intelligent people, we have to accept that some are misguided
> and some are just plain ignorant.
GO **** YOURSELF, YOU IGNORANT, INTOLERANT JACKASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bill Kawalec
"Deborah" <deb...@thislittleliberallightomineImgonnaletitshine.com> wrote
in message news:n9mfe4hg2ao85hoq4...@4ax.com...
yeah. just say "just kidding" and it's all good.
Bill Kawalec
"Marcia R." <Mar...@spamlessinlasvegas.net> wrote in message
news:ibSFk.4685$gY7...@newsfe19.iad...
> Deborah wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 16:16:16 -0500, Drift...@webtv.net (AFL Drifter)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Foxy writes,
>>>
>>>> I will say that Dave's Palin-bashing last night
>>>> was, to me, mean- spirited - it made me
>>>> uncomfortable. Was there nothing about Biden to mock? Dave had an
>>>> agenda, hence
>>>> taping the Friday show on Friday. It was
>>>> unrelenting, and I was relieved that Tim
>>>> Robbins didn't keep it going, because he sure
>>>> could have.
>>> Totally agree. Regardless of who the subject is, I really hate it when
>>> they splice various snippets together to form a new sentence. As much
>>> as I want the Republicans out of there, I thought that was horseshit
>>> segment for the most part.
>>
>> But the splicing is always so obvious. You can't take it seriously.
>>
>> Deborah
>>
> Isn't there some kind of equal time law?
not since the stone age...
Bill Kawalec
"Traci" <hoosie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2351be992...@news.newsguy.com...
nuh uh. There is no more "equal time" regulation at all.
Bill Kawalec
"Crash 'Strawman' Bandicoot (Jess)" <LateShoB...@xXaolXx.com> wrote in
message news:48e7e94a$0$4983$607e...@cv.net...
> Brady wrote:
>> I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her
>> first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I
>> think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly
>> knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing.
>> It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the
>> living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's
>> either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
>
>> --------
>>
>> Good god, man. Take a cold shower or something.
>>
>> Brady
>
>
> Bill Maher mocked this article on his Friday "Real Time" show.
>
>
Bill Maher should ** **** *******!!
> --
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "Bill's posts are like a Jackson Pollock painting;
> as if a child threw paint haphazardly at the canvas,
> then expected everyone else to do all the work
> of finding the 'genius within the mess.'"
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
Hey, CB, why is it you have to close EVERY post with some spew making fun of
someone who NEVER responds to your drivel?? Does that make you feel
important? Superiror? Literate? See, I hardly ever use the killfile, but,
you're one of the few in mine becaue you are NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Bill Kawalec
"Helen Read" <h...@together.net> wrote in message
news:pd2dnVrR5Pw0Z3rV...@earthlink.com...
> Crash 'Strawman' Bandicoot wrote:
>>
>> What bothered me was that about 85% of the show was political "humor".
>> Is Dave attempting to morph LS into "The Daily Show" because that's
>> who is winning Emmys?
>
> I think Dave is truly concerned about the future of this country, and is
> just talking on the show about what is on his mind. I'm glad of it.
>
that's just plain laughable.
> --
> HPR
>
> http://homepages.together.net/~hpr/daveorama/
Bill Kawalec
"Crash 'Strawman' Bandicoot (Jess)" <LateShoB...@xXaolXx.com> wrote in
go fuck yourself, CB.
Bill Kawalec
"Keith Rose" <xke...@xmayparkx.com> wrote in message
news:D8TFk.2559$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
No anomoly. It's been going on since the Republican convention.
>
Crash 'Strawman' Bandicoot (Jess)
> go fuck yourself, CB.
>
I thought I was in your kill file, Bill....
randwill
"Bill Kawalec" <billk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lZOdnSvowIIU8XXV...@comcast.com...
The stupid's so thick you can't stir it with a stick. That's how we ended up
with the last eight years of incompetence and evil.
Wiseguy
>
> "Keith Rose" <xke...@xmayparkx.com> wrote in message
> news:D8TFk.2559$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> I agree with you regarding the amount of political content in the
>> show last night, and I expect (hope) that it was just an anomoly
>> since that show was basically produced specifically to feed off the
>> VP debate.
>
>
>
> No anomoly. It's been going on since the Republican convention.
>
>
>
It's spelled "anomaly."
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
foxysc...@yahoo.com
> "Crash 'Strawman' Bandicoot (Jess)" <LateShoBandic...@xXaolXx.com> wrote in
> messagenews:48e7fd79$0$4960$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Helen Read wrote:
>
> >> I think Dave is truly concerned about the future of this country, and is
> >> just talking on the show about what is on his mind. I'm glad of it.
>
> > He can start by reducing his own usage of Jet fuel.
>
> > --
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > "Bill's posts are like a Jackson Pollock painting;
> > as if a child threw paint haphazardly at the canvas,
> > then expected everyone else to do all the work
> > of finding the 'genius within the mess.'"
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill!! Geez!!!!
foxysc...@yahoo.com
> "randwill" <rwilliams4...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:WeSdnS5WXYkBVHrV...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <foxyscrib...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill!!!! Geez!!!!
dsi...@yahoo.com
> "randwill" <rwilliams4...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:WeSdnS5WXYkBVHrV...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <foxyscrib...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I'm not quite clear here, Bill. How do you really feel?
That said, I think reasonable people can have reasonable differences
here. While I can't fathom why anyone would want to vote for McCain, I
don't think they're insane or ignorant; uninformed, maybe -- or they
just don't like Obama -- but not crazy.
By the way, Bill; wondering how you feel about the Bill Ayers story in
the Times yesterday? It pretty much debunked the story, but at least
it got some ink.
--Dave Sikula
Brady
> On Oct 5, 12:28 am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "randwill" <rwilliams4...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> You have to remember that there are some people out there who are
>>> seriously thinking of voting for McCain/Palin for the highest offices in
>>> the land. Nearly half of them, at last count. Although this seems like
>>> insanity to intelligent people, we have to accept that some are misguided
>>> and some are just plain ignorant.
>> GO **** YOURSELF, YOU IGNORANT, INTOLERANT JACKASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I'm not quite clear here, Bill. How do you really feel?
>
> That said, I think reasonable people can have reasonable differences
> here. While I can't fathom why anyone would want to vote for McCain, I
> don't think they're insane or ignorant; uninformed, maybe -- or they
> just don't like Obama -- but not crazy.
>
> By the way, Bill; wondering how you feel about the Bill Ayers story in
> the Times yesterday? It pretty much debunked the story, but at least
> it got some ink.
Can I just add something -- something that some people might consider
partisan?
I'll just say this. Over the course of the weekend, Governor Palin
seemed anything but 'folksy.' Some of her stump speech comments were
pathetic, frankly, and they make the McCain campaign look increasingly
desperate.
Forget it. I'll save it for the newsletter.
Brady
Marilyn
>> the Times yesterday? It pretty much debunked the story, but at least
>> it got some ink.
>
> Can I just add something -- something that some people might consider
> partisan?
>
> I'll just say this. Over the course of the weekend, Governor Palin seemed
> anything but 'folksy.' Some of her stump speech comments were pathetic,
> frankly, and they make the McCain campaign look increasingly desperate.
Obama fights fire with fire at noon today.
>At noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th, we're releasing a 13-minute
>documentary about the scandal called "Keating Economics: John McCain and
>the Making of a Financial Crisis" -- it will be available at
>KeatingEconomics.com, along with background information that every voter
>should know.
Tom W
>>
>> I'll just say this. Over the course of the weekend, Governor Palin seemed
>> anything but 'folksy.' Some of her stump speech comments were pathetic,
>> frankly, and they make the McCain campaign look increasingly desperate.
In a political campaign, two candidates start out with their visions, message,
and slogans. At some point, in most cases, one candidate pulls ahead and it
begins to become clear that his or her vision and message have more resonance
with the voters. The campaign team of the candidate who is behind goes into a
panic mode. The gut instinct is to be pragmatic: if the other candidate has a
successful message, use that one, too. But this late in the campaign a candidate
looks like a copycat and the voters know they already have someone to vote for
with that message. Since the trailing candidate knows his original message isn't
bringing results, sometimes there's a short period where the candidate will
throw out different messages and see if something sticks. This late in the
campaign, though, the candidate just looks unfocused and desperate. The
alternative is to drop the message and go completely negative.
Pundits say candidates go negative because it works. But it doesn't work 100% of
the time and if one attack backfires, the campaign is over as the candidate has
lost his credibility.
What I wrote above is based mostly on my own experience volunteering for local
and state campaigns. I've worked on losing campaigns more than winning ones.
Tom W
Sally
Tom,
I've also worked on losing campaigns more than winning ones, and have
started to fear I'm a hex. Maybe we should try working for the
candidate we oppose.
Second, I just want to say how relieved I am that Google fixed its
glitch, because for a couple of days I couldn't read any posts, or
even my own posts, and was desperately trying to get some help. Today
is a big relief for me. I saw a couple of other posts that indicated
others had noticed Goggle wasn't up to snuff. Wonder what was wrong? I
suggest we create a phone tree (half in jest) in case of a major
crisis...with everyone interested posting their phone numbers so we
could filt what we think of the show, etc. Anybody think this is a hot
idea or should we just rent a barn and put on a show? I know what I'm
suggesting is not practical or totally desirable (insert your own joke
here,) but being out of touch is ghastly. I couldn't read a new
message for 2 days. Am I normal in feeling anxious? (That's why I so
admire David D. Yoder's low HelloQuizzy anxiety score.) Do you know
they're still sending me e-mails?
Missed the show where Sarah took a licking (so to speak) from Dave on
the show. People I respect have agreed with him that she's a liar
(really well-informed people,) and if he went over the top...well, he
is passionate. Passion isn't limited to bed. If anyone feels he went
too far, then I'm sorry I missed the show, 'cause I can't tell if he
did. Maybe he's worried the Bush administration will last another 4
years or something.
Sally
Default User
> I saw a couple of other posts that indicated
> others had noticed Goggle wasn't up to snuff. Wonder what was wrong? I
> suggest we create a phone tree (half in jest) in case of a major
> crisis
Or get a real news service that isn't prone to periodic outages.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Sally
Which one do you use?
Sally
Default User
It costs 10 euros per year (currently about $16). There are a few free
text-only ones. I've heard good things about:
You will need a newsreader, of course. There are many fine ones out
there.
randwill
"Sally" <Sally...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:25fe3551-c938-4a96...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Sally
***********************************************************
Giganews is what I use.
Alan Page
"Default User" wrote...
> It costs 10 euros per year (currently about $16). There are a few free
> text-only ones. I've heard good things about:
Last year's subscription was that much, but now it's in the $13.54 range
today.
Go dollar!
--
Alan
~WWWWW~
What a Wonderful Web We Weave
Sally
> "Sally" <SallyDr...@aol.com> wrote in message
I appreciate the help from both of you. If no money is involved, I
appreciate it even more. :)
Thank you.
Sally
Default User
>
> "Default User" wrote...
> > > Which one do you use?
> > http://news.individual.net
>
> > It costs 10 euros per year (currently about $16). There are a few
> > free text-only ones. I've heard good things about:
>
> Last year's subscription was that much, but now it's in the $13.54
> range today.
Ah. I haven't been keeping up with fluctuations in currency.
Default User
> On Oct 6, 5:22�pm, "randwill" <rwilliams4...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> > "Sally" <SallyDr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:25fe3551-c938-4a96...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.c
> > om... On Oct 6, 4:15?pm, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sally wrote:
> > > > I saw a couple of other posts that indicated
> > > > others had noticed Goggle wasn't up to snuff. Wonder what was
> > > > wrong? I suggest we create a phone tree (half in jest) in case
> > > > of a major crisis
> >
> > > Or get a real news service that isn't prone to periodic outages.
> > Which one do you use?
> > Giganews is what I use.
>
> I appreciate the help from both of you. If no money is involved, I
> appreciate it even more. :)
>
> Thank you.
Giganews will cost you. It's a monthly service, with their lowest tier
at about $8 per month. I don't recommend those. Between extremely
inexpensive (or free) text services and block accounts, you can get
something that better fits your needs.
Brady
No mention of William Ayres or 'palling around with terrorists' nonsense
or 'seeing America differently than you & I' distractions during
tonight's debate.
Has anybody in the McCain campaign informed Govern Palin that it's not
sticking?
(No one told her they were pulling out of Michigan. She found out from
a reporter.)
Brady
Bill Kawalec
"Brady" <water...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TMSdnXBFBfDvyXHV...@earthlink.com...
Maybe not for you, but I'll guarantee you there's a large number of people
for whom it's huge. Unfortunately, too many have crossed the line from
tolerant to permissive, especially if a minority is involved. I'd be
tolerant if Ayers expressed *anything* resembling regret.
IMO, Palin should keep it up, cuz there's some who probably never heard this
crap.
Bill Kawalec
Tell ya what was really disgusting tonight;
NEITHER of these clowns would state the OBVIOUS truth, that the economy is,
indeed, going to get worse before it gets better.
Fasten your seatbelts, folks.
Maybe
> I appreciate the help from both of you. If no money is involved, I
> appreciate it even more. :)
Try Forte Agent. I've got the free version.
Maybe...there are a few free ones out there
Donz5
> "Brady" <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
I believe that there's a very small number of people for whom it's
huge. The guilt-by-association tactic isn't working, especially at
this late date.
Bill Kawalec
"Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:09fb597e-614e-401b...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
************************************
All things are relative. If it's not enough to swing the election, however,
then it is a "small" number, even if it's tens of thousands.
randwill
"Maybe" <Maybe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1e19ab9d-da1f-452b...@r38g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
****************************************
Forte Agent is a news reader like Outlook Express, which is a part of
Windows. A news reader is just a program on your computer. Any news reader
still needs to be connected to a news service (like Giganews, Easynews or
Newshosting) which sends the Usenet posts to your computer where the news
reader displays them.
katycren
Hey Don, did you happen to see Robert Gibbs taking on Sean Hannity
about the William Ayres issue? Gibbs argued to Hannity that attacking
Obama because he served on a board with Ayres (along with a number of
other people) or that he attended a Chicago political get-together at
Ayres' house is as illogical as branding Hannity an anti-Semite
because he had some anti-Semitic crackpot named Andy Martin on his
show.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/robert-gibbs-confronts-ha_n_132842.html
As for myself, it would make no difference if Obama sat on 100 boards
with William Ayres, as long as the respective organizations were
helping people. The citizens of Chicago saw fit to make William Ayres
their "Citizen of the Year" in 1997 so, obviously, he's done good
things in the community. It seems unremarkable, in fact, for Sen.
Obama, a Chicago politician who considers education to be a very
important issue, to be acquainted with a well-respected, nationally-
known University of Illinois professor of education, lecturer, and
textbook author, who was awarded the honor of being Chicago's "Citizen
of the Year." It certainly doesn't imply any connection other than a
professional one on Obama's part. What Ayres did in his youth was
horrible, but his actions for many years have indicated that he is
focusing his concern on reforming education, changing the future
through peaceful, legal, non-violent methods. Those who describe Ayres
as a domestic terrorist often "forget" to preface the phrase with the
words "reformed" or "former" and neglect to mention his impressive
resume in the field of education.
Kate
Donz5
I saw the You Tube version of it.
What gets unmentioned in the flailing about is that this was a
Republican-funded organization, with members from both political
parties on the board. The Annenberg Center was founded by Walter
Annenberg, a "backstage power-broker in the Republican Party."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/walter-annenberg-612968.html
All of which dilutes the smears against Obama. As I wrote yesterday,
it's too late in the game for this to get much traction, especially
when attention among the vast majority is on the economy.
We're looking at an electoral college count for Obama of 320
(Pollster.com), 345 (fivethirtyeight.com), or 364
(RealClearPolitics.com). And none of these numbers include Georgia --
yet. A couple of weeks ago I was dubious about the prospect of Georgia
turning blue; Pollster.com currently gives McCain a 10-point lead
(52.6 to 42.2).
But Chambliss's numbers have dropped precipitously lately, where his
Senate race is now in toss-up status (he leads Martin 45-44 [Research
2000] and 46-44 [SUSA] (Pollster.com's aggregate is 47.5-39.9).
And with the momentum continuing to be with Obama, who knows.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/robert-gibbs-confronts-ha_n_...
dsi...@yahoo.com
>
> All of which dilutes the smears against Obama. As I wrote yesterday,
> it's too late in the game for this to get much traction, especially
> when attention among the vast majority is on the economy.
>
> We're looking at an electoral college count for Obama of 320
> (Pollster.com), 345 (fivethirtyeight.com), or 364
> (RealClearPolitics.com). And none of these numbers include Georgia --
> yet. A couple of weeks ago I was dubious about the prospect of Georgia
> turning blue; Pollster.com currently gives McCain a 10-point lead
> (52.6 to 42.2).
As long as the Republicans and the former Diebold are counting the
votes, I have no faith in any numbers.
--Dave Sikula
Sally
>
> - Show quoted text -
Donzalah,
I am in full agreeance with you. Hope you don't mind my calling you
Donzalah. Tonight is Yom Kippur, so I'm feeling kind of, y'know,
affable.
The debate went Obama's way. Yet while I watched it with some friends,
one of them said he thought Barak was "arrogant, elitist, etc." I
translate that to mean that Obama has a quality of class about him
that I think a certain percent of the population are resistant to, and
mislabel. A lot of classy people engendar jealousy like that.
McCain, on the other hand, does not have the same quality. JFK had it.
And he was voted in, even though there were some unholy goings-on in
that election (I speak of Chicago voting,) and some other tomfoolery.
Having class can scare people who are insecure.
Sally
Sally
It's good to have friends. :)
Sally
R H Draney
>
>I am in full agreeance with you. Hope you don't mind my calling you
>Donzalah. Tonight is Yom Kippur, so I'm feeling kind of, y'know,
>affable.
Well, you know what they say...affable is better than none....r
--
Little-known fact: About 2% of the famous
quotations credited to "Anonymous" were actually
originated by Jasper D Anonymous, a 14th-century
maker of carriage wheels.
Bill Kawalec
"katycren" <Katy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80436c34-a4e4-4c73...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/robert-gibbs-confronts-ha_n_132842.html
*******************************
No, no, no!! He is ***NOT*** "reformed."" He has specifically stated that he
has no regrets, and wishes he had done more!
Bill Kawalec
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/walter-annenberg-612968.html
*******************************************
1) "Smear" implies untruth, which this is not.
2) It already has traction, with large numbers of people, but, I will
concede that the vast majority of them were already voting for the other
guy.
Bill Kawalec
On Oct 8, 5:03?am, Donz5 <do...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 4:18?am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Brady" <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:TMSdnXBFBfDvyXHV...@earthlink.com...
>
> > > Tom W wrote:
>
> > >> Brady wrote:
>
> > >>>> I'll just say this. Over the course of the weekend, Governor Palin
> > >>>> seemed anything but 'folksy.' Some of her stump speech comments
> > >>>> were
> > >>>> pathetic, frankly, and they make the McCain campaign look
> > >>>> increasingly
> > >>>> desperate.
>
> > >> In a political campaign, two candidates start out with their visions,
> > >> message, and slogans. At some point, in most cases, one candidate
> > >> pulls
> > >> ahead and it begins to become clear that his or her vision and
> > >> message
> > >> have more resonance with the voters. The campaign team of the
> > >> candidate
> > >> who is behind goes into a panic mode. The gut instinct is to be
> > >> pragmatic: if the other candidate has a successful message, use that
> > >> one,
Donzalah,
********************************
He is, and always has been
*****************************
I
translate that to mean that Obama has a quality of class about him
*************************************
And it's that very spin that allows so many people to blindly follow. Most
of those have the same attitude, so they''re not inclined to see it.
Sally
> "Sally" <SallyDr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not "blindly" following Obama. What would I be following if I were
blind? His favorite fragrance? He's calm, he's got a good education,
his demeanor suggests class to me, including his smile, infrequent
though it is. He's so serious. You're talking about "spin" about his
demeanor? What's the "spin" on McCain, then? That he exudes
grandfatherly security?
Sally
Brady
> Hey Don, did you happen to see Robert Gibbs taking on Sean Hannity
> about the William Ayres issue? Gibbs argued to Hannity that attacking
> Obama because he served on a board with Ayres (along with a number of
> other people) or that he attended a Chicago political get-together at
> Ayres' house is as illogical as branding Hannity an anti-Semite
> because he had some anti-Semitic crackpot named Andy Martin on his
> show.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/robert-gibbs-confronts-ha_n_132842.html
<snip>
I enjoyed that quite a lot.
Hannity ended up trying to defend himself by claiming that he's 'a
journalist' -- huh? -- who interviews people with whom he doesn't
necessarily agree.
OK.
But he presented the guy as a primary credible source, as part of his
(Hannity's) own effort to smear Obama. That was the whole point of the show.
So the question is: Did Hannity investigate this guy's background before
presenting him as a credible source? Or, did he *know* about his
background and decide to feature him anyway?
Tsk.
Brady
Maybe
> But he presented the guy as a primary credible source, as part of his
> (Hannity's) own effort to smear Obama. That was the whole point of the show.
>
James Carville said on Larry King tonight that it was over. He said
Obama had it in the bag. Karen Hughes said it is not over until it is
over and she didn't think it was over.
Maybe...and Michelle Obama said the same thing, that *of course* it
was not over.
Brady
Yes, I saw that. It seemed like an odd thing for James Carville to say.
Hey, I was just reading that Elisabeth Hasselbeck is *not* leaving "The
View" for a gig at Fox News.
Brady
Maybe
> Yes, I saw that. It seemed like an odd thing for James Carville to say.
Yes, it was pretty odd. I don't think he even predicted a Clinton win
when he was working for Clinton. It was down to the wire and in that
movie (what was the name of that movie?) both he and George
Stephanopoulos were crying on election morning they were so nervous.
> Hey, I was just reading that Elisabeth Hasselbeck is *not* leaving "The
> View" for a gig at Fox News.
Oh, everytime she has a fight with Barbara Walters, they say she is
disgusted and moving to Fox News. I'll believe it when it happens. I
was cracking up the other day when Sherri Shepard who usually agrees
with her, told Elisabeth that she was full of crap.
Maybe...So Sherri is finally getting some sense!
Traci
> On Oct 8, 9:32?pm, Brady <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Yes, I saw that. It seemed like an odd thing for James Carville to say.
>
> Yes, it was pretty odd. I don't think he even predicted a Clinton win
> when he was working for Clinton. It was down to the wire and in that
> movie (what was the name of that movie?) both he and George
> Stephanopoulos were crying on election morning they were so nervous.
The War Room. Fabulous, fabulous documentary worth putting in the
Netflix cue.
Traci
--
"Not only do I want an *elite* president. I want someone who is
embarrassingly superior to me. Somebody who speaks 16 languages and
sleeps two hours a night hanging upside down in a chamber they
themselves designed."
--Jon Stewart, TDS
Tom W
> Maybe wrote:
>>
>> James Carville said on Larry King tonight that it was over. He said
>> Obama had it in the bag. Karen Hughes said it is not over until it is
>> over and she didn't think it was over.
>>
>> Maybe...and Michelle Obama said the same thing, that *of course* it
>> was not over.
>
>
> Yes, I saw that. It seemed like an odd thing for James Carville to say.
>
> Hey, I was just reading that Elisabeth Hasselbeck is *not* leaving "The
> View" for a gig at Fox News.
Carville's right. There's nothing the McCain campaign can do to change the
numbers, especially as a lot of people are voting early by absentee ballot. Any
radical changes made now will be seen as a sign of desperation and doing
anything to get votes and thus won't work.
I'm ready to predict that Sarah Palin will find work at Fox News.
Tom W
Bill Kawalec
Sally
**************************************************
Last time (I hope):
I'm not defending McCain. I think they're both clowns. However, the thought
of Obama being president truly frightens me.
I have yet to hear one Obama apologist with a realistic take on his ""truth
squads.""
Bill Kawalec
ahhh, you're way off base here. Hanity's just a damn radio show host. He
ain't running for president, so what is even the point of "what about this
guy?"
A"smear" would involve untruths, and there are none here. The "political
get-together" at Ayers house was the launch of Obama's first campaign. Maybe
it's not a big deal, but the clown should come clean, and stop whining about
""smears.""
Democrats' chickens......
comin' home to roooost!
>
> Brady
Bill Kawalec
> Maybe wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 7:09?pm, Brady <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> But he presented the guy as a primary credible source, as part of his
>>> (Hannity's) own effort to smear Obama. That was the whole point of the
>>> show.
>>>
>>
>> James Carville said on Larry King tonight that it was over. He said
>> Obama had it in the bag. Karen Hughes said it is not over until it is
>> over and she didn't think it was over.
>>
>> Maybe...and Michelle Obama said the same thing, that *of course* it
>> was not over.
>
>
> Yes, I saw that. It seemed like an odd thing for James Carville to say.
Odd indeed. IF the lead is wider two weeks from now, **maybe** it will be
close to being over.
Bill Kawalec
Pollster: Don't believe the Dem hype
The presidential race is still too close to call and could come down to the
very last weekend before voters decide if they like or distrust Barack
Obama, a national pollster predicts.
"I don't think Obama has closed the deal yet," pollster John Zogby told the
Herald yesterday.
Zogby's latest poll, released yesterday in conjunction with C-Span and
Reuters, shows Obama and John McCain in a statistical dead heat, with the
Illinois Democrat up 48-45 percent.
Zogby said the race mirrors the 1980 election, when voters didn't embrace
Ronald Reagan over then-President Jimmy Carter until just days before the
election.
Bill Kawalec
http://www.mlive.com/grpress/news/index.ssf/2008/10/some_say_walgreens_candidate_d.html
dsi...@yahoo.com
> http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1124117&srvc...
>
> Pollster: Don't believe the Dem hype
>
> The presidential race is still too close to call and could come down to the
> very last weekend before voters decide if they like or distrust Barack
> Obama, a national pollster predicts.
>
> "I don't think Obama has closed the deal yet," pollster John Zogby told the
> Herald yesterday.
I'll agree that the deal is far from sealed -- and as I said
yesterday, counting the votes is a whole nother matter -- but Zogby is
notorious for his inaccuracies.
"But the performance of Zogby Interactive, the unit that conducts
surveys online, demonstrates the dubious value of judging polls only
by whether they pick winners correctly. As Zogby noted in a press
release, its online polls identified 18 of 19 Senate winners
correctly. But its predictions missed by an average of 8.6 percentage
points in those polls -- at least twice the average miss of four other
polling operations I examined. Zogby predicted a nine-point win for
Democrat Herb Kohl in Wisconsin ; he won by 37 points. Democrat Maria
Cantwell was expected to win by four points in Washington ; she won by
17. (Zogby cooperated with WSJ.com on an online polling project that
tracked some Senate and gubernatorial races.)
"The picture was similar in the gubernatorial races (where Zogby
polled only online, not by phone). Mason-Dixon's average error was
under 3.4 points in 14 races. Rasmussen missed by an average of 3.8
points in 30 races; SurveyUSA was off by 4.4 points, on average, in 18
races. But Zogby's online poll missed by an average of 8.3 points,
erring on six races by more than 15 points."
--Dake Sikula
Donz5
> http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1124117&srvc...
>
>
> The presidential race is still too close to call and could come down to the
> very last weekend before voters decide if they like or distrust Barack
> Obama, a national pollster predicts.
>
> "I don't think Obama has closed the deal yet," pollster John Zogby told the
> Herald yesterday.
>
> Zogby's latest poll, released yesterday in conjunction with C-Span and
> Reuters, shows Obama and John McCain in a statistical dead heat, with the
> Illinois Democrat up 48-45 percent.
>
> Zogby said the race mirrors the 1980 election, when voters didn't embrace
> Ronald Reagan over then-President Jimmy Carter until just days before the
> election.
John Zogby's polling outfit has been notoriously inaccurate throughout
this year. For example, it had Obama beating Clinton in California,
45-41.* (Clinton won, 52-42.) Its methodology (interactive polling)
has been subject to scrutiny. Same can be said for the horribly bad
ARG outfit, which is Democratic-leaning.
* http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/zogby_obama_romney_ahead_in_ca.php
The more reliable state polling outfits this election year have been
SurveyUSA, Marist College, and Quinnipiac. For the daily tracking
polls, the Republican-leaning Rasmussen has been shown within the last
cycles to have earned its credibility.
Here are today's national tracking numbers:
Gallup: Obama 52%, McCain 41% (unchanged from yesterday)
Rasmussen: Obama 50%, McCain 45 (yesterday: 51-45)
Hotline/Diageo: Obama 47%, McCain 41% (yesterday: 45-44)
Research 2000: Obama 51%, McCain 41% (unchanged from yesterday)
Zogby: Obama 48%, McCain 44% (47-45 yesterday)
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/tpm_track_composite_obamas_lea.php
When you've got 5 tracking polls, and four of them have Obama leading
by 11, 5, 6, and 10 points, respectively, and you've got Zogby with
Obama leading by 4 (or, according to the site you referenced, 3), it's
safe to tag Zogby's as an outlier.
Zogby is correct re mirroring the 1980 election, but only to a point:
to say that "voters didn't embrace Ronald Reagan over then-President
Jimmy Carter until days before the election," Zogby neglects to point
out the circumstances of that embrace -- it was the debate between
them that had occurred on October 28, one week before the election.
After that debate, Carter's numbers sank and Reagan's rose. In this
current election, Obama has already achieved that same embrace after
his first debate with McCain, and that embrace has since solidified.
That's what happens in October.
The numbers just aren't there for McCain anymore -- capturing _every_
"undecided" voter won't do it for him, and he won't be able to
persuade enough Obama supporters to switch.
The electoral map has made it highly improbable that McCain can pull
an inside straight: Obama's "strong and leaning" states have him up to
264 (CNN), 277 (RealClearPolitics), and 320 (Pollster.com).
RealClearPolitics' "no toss-ups" map gives Obama 364.
fivethirtyeight.com gives a predictive total of 347.6.
Barring a cataclysmic event, this election is indeed over.
Maybe
> Carville's right. There's nothing the McCain campaign can do to change the
> numbers, especially as a lot of people are voting early by absentee ballot. Any
> radical changes made now will be seen as a sign of desperation and doing
> anything to get votes and thus won't work.
But Michelle Obama said that they still have to get the people
registered and then get them to go out and vote. If they think it is
over and don't go out and vote, then it will be over for Obama in
favor of McCain.
The whole Larry King show was kind of odd last night I thought. I
know it was taped early because of the Jewish holiday but they showed
the Michelle Obama interview first and Larry was asking her about the
stuff Carville said and they didn't even show the interview with
Carville and Karen Hughes until later in the show. "Today on the
show, Carville said it is over, do you think it is over?" I was
confused for a little while, I thought I was having a spell and was
like, what time was Carville on because I certainly didn't see him.
> I'm ready to predict that Sarah Palin will find work at Fox News.
Well, she would be better at Fox News than Elisabeth Hasselbeck who
has no political experience at all. In fact, the only experience
Hasselbeck does have is being on Survivor for four weeks and that's
it. She has done nothing else since except The View.
Maybe...hoping people actually vote and don't just think it is over.
Alan Page
"Maybe" wrote...
> Maybe...hoping people actually vote and don't just think it is over.
It is Best-Page Farms, LLC company policy to vote at the earliest
possible time.
The top 2 officers have already done so.
Looking for #3.
;-)
--
Alan
~WWWWW~
What a Wonderful Web We Weave
Tom W
> On Oct 9, 8:44�am, Tom W <blee...@myway.com> wrote:
>> Carville's right. There's nothing the McCain campaign can do to change the
>> numbers, especially as a lot of people are voting early by absentee ballot. Any
>> radical changes made now will be seen as a sign of desperation and doing
>> anything to get votes and thus won't work.
>
> But Michelle Obama said that they still have to get the people
> registered and then get them to go out and vote. If they think it is
> over and don't go out and vote, then it will be over for Obama in
> favor of McCain.
>
Both campaigns are still running commercials and have field operations going.
There will be a huge GOTV (Get Out the Vote) effort from both sides on the last
4 days. The candidates will continue to hold rallies in battleground areas until
the election. But the GOP are on the defensive, trying to hold red states
instead of turning blue states and the campaign can't find a message that
resonates with the public.
Tom W
Maybe
> "Maybe" wrote...
> > Maybe...hoping people actually vote and don't just think it is over.
>
> � � It is Best-Page Farms, LLC company policy to vote at the earliest
> possible time.
> � � The top 2 officers have already done so.
>
> � � Looking for #3.
>
> � � � � � � � � � � ;-)
Number 3 is still waiting for her absentee ballot to come in the
mail. Ever since I moved, I've been having trouble getting the
absentee ballot and I only moved across the street.
Maybe...hoping it comes soon!
Donz5
> "Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
> All of which dilutes the smears against Obama. As I wrote yesterday,
> it's too late in the game for this to get much traction, especially
> when attention among the vast majority is on the economy.
>
> *******************************************
> 1) "Smear" implies untruth, which this is not.
> 2) It already has traction, with large numbers of people, but, I will
> concede that the vast majority of them were already voting for the other
> guy.
Seems there's no traction after all. Fox Poll out today:
"There has been some discussion of Barack Obama's relationship with
the former radical activist William Ayers. Because Ayers is linked to
plots to bomb the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol in the 1970s, and
because Ayres recently said he wished he had done more, some people
say Obama's association with Ayers calls into question his judgment.
Does Obama's connection with Ayers make you less likely to vote for
him for president or does it not really make a difference to your
vote?"
Less Likely: 32%
No Difference: 61%
Among independents:
Less Likely: 29%
No difference: 64%
Running a negative campaign:
McCain: 51%
Obama: 21%
The overall national:
Obama: 46% (previous Fox poll [9/22-23]: 45)
McCain: 39% (previous: 39)
Bill Kawalec
<dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:14c0e641-2525-4b43...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 11:01 am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1124117&srvc...
>
> Pollster: Don't believe the Dem hype
>
> The presidential race is still too close to call and could come down to
> the
> very last weekend before voters decide if they like or distrust Barack
> Obama, a national pollster predicts.
>
> "I don't think Obama has closed the deal yet," pollster John Zogby told
> the
> Herald yesterday.
I'll agree that the deal is far from sealed -- and as I said
yesterday, counting the votes is a whole nother matter -- but Zogby is
notorious for his inaccuracies.
****************************************************
There;'s also this thing known as the "Tom Bradley Factor," which I'm not
sure if I believe or not...
Bill Kawalec
On Oct 9, 2:01 pm, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1124117&srvc...
>
> Pollster: Don't believe the Dem hype
>
> The presidential race is still too close to call and could come down to
> the
> very last weekend before voters decide if they like or distrust Barack
> Obama, a national pollster predicts.
>
> "I don't think Obama has closed the deal yet," pollster John Zogby told
> the
> Herald yesterday.
>
> Zogby's latest poll, released yesterday in conjunction with C-Span and
> Reuters, shows Obama and John McCain in a statistical dead heat, with the
> Illinois Democrat up 48-45 percent.
>
> Zogby said the race mirrors the 1980 election, when voters didn't embrace
> Ronald Reagan over then-President Jimmy Carter until just days before the
> election.
John Zogby's polling outfit has been notoriously inaccurate throughout
this year. For example, it had Obama beating Clinton in California,
45-41.* (Clinton won, 52-42.)
***********************************************
Oh my. That **could** be the Tom Bradley Factor.
.
Bill Kawalec
"Maybe" <Maybe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a0802e26-ef13-4eab...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 8:44?am, Tom W <blee...@myway.com> wrote:
> Carville's right. There's nothing the McCain campaign can do to change the
> numbers, especially as a lot of people are voting early by absentee
> ballot. Any
> radical changes made now will be seen as a sign of desperation and doing
> anything to get votes and thus won't work.
But Michelle Obama said that they still have to get the people
registered and then get them to go out and vote.
****************************************************
...several times.
(In case you missed it, ACORN has registered that Dallas Cowboys roster in
several different cities already.)
Bill Kawalec
On Oct 8, 5:04 pm, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
> All of which dilutes the smears against Obama. As I wrote yesterday,
> it's too late in the game for this to get much traction, especially
> when attention among the vast majority is on the economy.
>
> *******************************************
> 1) "Smear" implies untruth, which this is not.
> 2) It already has traction, with large numbers of people, but, I will
> concede that the vast majority of them were already voting for the other
> guy.
Seems there's no traction after all. Fox Poll out today:
*******************************************
oh, there's lots of traction, but, as I've said before, the majority of
those were already decided.I'd merely ask that you pay attention. Pay
attention to Obama's attempts to intimidate and threaten anyone saying
anything negative about him, without regard to whether it's true or not.
Free speech?!?!?!? Yeah, like all good libs, free speech for those who
agree.
Donz5
Perhaps, but there's been no Bradley affect in other states.
I doubt there'll be a significant one in this election, and if there
is, it'll be offset by those who will be voting for Obama _because_
he's black.
Donz5
> "Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:803c892e-68bb-45c7...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 8, 5:04 pm, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > All of which dilutes the smears against Obama. As I wrote yesterday,
> > it's too late in the game for this to get much traction, especially
> > when attention among the vast majority is on the economy.
>
> > *******************************************
> > 1) "Smear" implies untruth, which this is not.
> > 2) It already has traction, with large numbers of people, but, I will
> > concede that the vast majority of them were already voting for the other
> > guy.
>
> Seems there's no traction after all. Fox Poll out today:
>
> *******************************************
> oh, there's lots of traction, but, as I've said before, the majority of
> those were already decided.I'd merely ask that you pay attention. Pay
> attention to Obama's attempts to intimidate and threaten anyone saying
> anything negative about him, without regard to whether it's true or not.
> Free speech?!?!?!? Yeah, like all good libs, free speech for those who
> agree.
The traction is among McCain's base, which, as you say, wouldn't have
voted for Obama in the first place and won't be enough to change the
outcome of the race.
As to Obama's "intimidations" and "threats," I'd suggest you're buying
into the right-wing paranoia/outrage machine.
Alan Page
"Donz5" wrote...
> As to Obama's "intimidations" and "threats," I'd suggest you're buying
> into the right-wing paranoia/outrage machine.
What are the dues to said machine?
Bill Kawalec
***************************************
Well, it is named after a California gubernatorial election.
**********************************
I doubt there'll be a significant one in this election, and if there
is, it'll be offset by those who will be voting for Obama _because_
he's black.
************************************************
I have a very low opinion of both of those reasons.
******************************************
Bill Kawalec
*******************************************
that's what I said. It does, however, have "traction."
For myself, even if you buy this "by the tme I knew him he was a college
professor," I end up saying 'why the f is this guy allowed in a position
like that?'
*********************************************
As to Obama's "intimidations" and "threats," I'd suggest you're buying
into the right-wing paranoia/outrage machine.
*********************************************
Nuh uh. Conversely, if the neocons were to do exactly the same thing, you
would be on the ceiling. IF he gets elected, promise me you will pay
attention? This IS the way Obama does business.
*******************************************
Bill Kawalec
"Alan Page" <alp...@spamsucceed.net> wrote in message
news:6l9sveF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Donz5" wrote...
>> As to Obama's "intimidations" and "threats," I'd suggest you're buying
>> into the right-wing paranoia/outrage machine.
>
> What are the dues to said machine?
>
>
> --
literacy
Donz5
When a Fox poll (Fox!) finds that, overall, 61% say it makes no
difference, and, among independents, that number jumps to 64%, then
that's traction one doesn't believe in.
> For myself, even if you buy this "by the tme I knew him he was a college
> professor," I end up saying 'why the f is this guy allowed in a position
> like that?'
It's still guilt by association, and the public isn't buying the
premise.
dsi...@yahoo.com
*******************************************
> oh, there's lots of traction, but, as I've said before, the majority of
> those were already decided.I'd merely ask that you pay attention. Pay
> attention to Obama's attempts to intimidate and threaten anyone saying
> anything negative about him, without regard to whether it's true or not.
> Free speech?!?!?!? Yeah, like all good libs, free speech for those who
> agree.
Bill, I don't want this to come off as argumentative, but what are
those attempts? I know we've previously talked about the DoJ thing,
but are there others? If there are, they certainly don't seem to be
doing any good this last week -- especially with the Times and Fox.
--Dave Sikula
Brady
> On Oct 8, 4:18 am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Brady" <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> No mention of William Ayres or 'palling around with terrorists' nonsense
>>> or 'seeing America differently than you & I' distractions during tonight's
>>> debate.
>>> Has anybody in the McCain campaign informed Govern Palin that it's not
>>> sticking?
>> Maybe not for you, but I'll guarantee you there's a large number of people
>> for whom it's huge. Unfortunately, too many have crossed the line from
>> tolerant to permissive, especially if a minority is involved. I'd be
>> tolerant if Ayers expressed *anything* resembling regret.
>> IMO, Palin should keep it up, cuz there's some who probably never heard this
>> crap.
>
> I believe that there's a very small number of people for whom it's
> huge. The guilt-by-association tactic isn't working, especially at
> this late date.
And now we have the spectacle of McCain being booed at his own rally for
defending Obama.
At this point, I don't know that McCain is running his own campaign.
--------
October 10, 2008 6:23
McCain Denounces Pitchfork-Wavers
Posted by Ana Marie Cox
Here in Lakeville, the traveling press was pretty sure we'd see more of
the kind of vicious anti-Obama attitude that's becoming a hallmark of
McCain rallies of late.
As the town hall started, McCain was off with more pep than usual.
Making the same old jokes, but with energy that reminded us of "the old
McCain." But would he use his power for good or evil? An audience member
teed up a great big softball that could totally hit a dark side home
run, asking, "We want you to fight at your next debate... we want to see
s REAL fight at the debate, we want a STRONG leader for the next four
years." That is Minnesota nice for "RevWrightACORNAyers," etc.
But then something weird happens: He acknowledges the "energy" people
have been showing at rallies, and how glad he is that people are
excited. But, he says, "I respect Sen. Obama and his accomplishments."
People booed at the mention of his name. McCain, visibly angry, stopped
them: "I want EVERYONE to be respectful, and lets make sure we are."
[...]
And then later, again, someone dangled a great big piece of low-hanging
fruit in front of McCain: "I'm scared to bring up my child in a world
where Barack Obama is president."
McCain replies, "Well, I don't want him to be president, either. I
wouldn't be running if I did. But," and he pauses for emphasis, "you
don't have to be scared to have him be President of the United States."
A round of boos.
[...]
UPDATE: Indeed, he just snatched the microphone out the hands of a woman
who began her question with, "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab
terrorist..."
"No, no ma'am," he interrupted. "He's a decent family man with whom I
happen to have some disagreements."
[http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/mccain_denounces_pitchforkwave.html]
--------
Brady
Donz5
> Donz wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 4:18 am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Brady" <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >>> No mention of William Ayres or 'palling around with terrorists' nonsense
> >>> or 'seeing America differently than you & I' distractions during tonight's
> >>> debate.
> >>> Has anybody in the McCain campaign informed Govern Palin that it's not
> >>> sticking?
> >> Maybe not for you, but I'll guarantee you there's a large number of people
> >> for whom it's huge. Unfortunately, too many have crossed the line from
> >> tolerant to permissive, especially if a minority is involved. I'd be
> >> tolerant if Ayers expressed *anything* resembling regret.
> >> IMO, Palin should keep it up, cuz there's some who probably never heard this
> >> crap.
>
> > I believe that there's a very small number of people for whom it's
> > huge. The guilt-by-association tactic isn't working, especially at
> > this late date.
>
> And now we have the spectacle of McCain being booed at his own rally for
> defending Obama.
>
> At this point, I don't know that McCain is running his own campaign.
Josh Marshall has an insightful take on the current state of McCain's
campaign:
Brady
Update: I don't think the woman said 'terrorist.' At least, I didn't
hear it on the video. (She did indeed say *Arab*, at which point McCain
took the mic from her.)
Ana Marie Cox was presumably reporting from the campaign trail, so I
suppose it's possible the woman said 'terrorist' after the mic was taken
away; she may have said it after the mic was out of range.
As of 1:45 AM ET, the transcript on *Time*, at least, still says she
said 'terrorist.'
Brady
Maybe
> As of 1:45 AM ET, the transcript on *Time*, at least, still says she
> said 'terrorist.'
In other news, Joe Biden is going to be on the Tonight Show on
Thursday.
Maybe...and it sounded like "terrorist" on Larry King tonight
Brady
> "Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:12223ab3-44ac-4a26...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 8, 11:17 am, katycren <Katyc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Don, did you happen to see Robert Gibbs taking on Sean Hannity
>> about the William Ayres issue? Gibbs argued to Hannity that attacking
>> Obama because he served on a board with Ayres (along with a number of
>> other people) or that he attended a Chicago political get-together at
>> Ayres' house is as illogical as branding Hannity an anti-Semite
>> because he had some anti-Semitic crackpot named Andy Martin on his
>> show.
>
> I saw the You Tube version of it.
>
> What gets unmentioned in the flailing about is that this was a
> Republican-funded organization, with members from both political
> parties on the board. The Annenberg Center was founded by Walter
> Annenberg, a "backstage power-broker in the Republican Party."
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/walter-annenberg-612968.html
>
> All of which dilutes the smears against Obama. As I wrote yesterday,
> it's too late in the game for this to get much traction, especially
> when attention among the vast majority is on the economy.
>
> *******************************************
> 1) "Smear" implies untruth, which this is not.
> 2) It already has traction, with large numbers of people, but, I will
> concede that the vast majority of them were already voting for the other
> guy.
Here's the thing. No normal person believes that Senator Obama supports
terrorists. Can we all agree on that? *No rational person believes that
Senator Obama supports people who set off bombs.* OK. So what do we
have? The fact that Obama served on a charitable board with a former
radical (Bill Ayres) who belonged to an organization that set off bombs
in protest of the Vietnam War. From all indications, Ayres is now a
law-abiding, productive member of society. When Obama was running for
the Illinois legislature, Ayres hosted a fundraiser for Obama in his
(Ayres') home. At some point during this campaign season -- it may have
been during the primaries -- an aide to Senator Obama said that Obama
and Ayres were 'friendly.' The aide did *not* say that Obama and Ayres
were 'friends.'
Regarding the fundraiser, what do you think is more likely: that Obama
decided to attend because he agreed with the actions of the Weather
Underground, or because he simply knew that Ayres' was a politically
active neighbor who could probably raise some money for him? I think
most people would agree that it was most certainly simply the latter.
So, flash forward to the last week: Governor Palin has said, without
elaboration or context, that Obama 'palled around with terrorists.' Note
that she said *terrorists* -- plural. If she was talking about Ayres,
why did she say *terrorists*? Why did she say 'palled around?' There's
absolutely no evidence that Obama was ever 'pals' with Ayres. Palin also
said that Obama 'doesn't see America as you see it.' The implication was
clear: that Obama isn't patriotic; that he doesn't love his country as
much as they do. Those are smears, Bill. Come on now.
John McCain finally jumped on the Ayres bandwagon himself. And a few
people at McCain-Palin rallies have yelled out ugly, awful things about
Obama. Now, finally, on a day when a new McCain campaign ad talking
about Ayres hit the airwaves, McCain finally pushed back at the ugliness
-- ugliness that his own campaign unleashed.
I really think the McCain campaign appears to be in disarray. Palin's
rhetoric certainly hasn't helped him. In fact, Obama has widened his
lead. McCain now not only looks desperate -- it appears that he may not
even be running his own campaign. Who's in charge of the campaign? Was
it his idea to have Palin be the 'bad cop' to his 'good cop?' Is he now
pushing back only because the strategy, such as it was, hasn't worked?
There was something kind of sad about seeing McCain tonight. It was kind
of sad to see him shaking his head as he took the microphone away from
that woman. It was kind of sad to see the look on his face as he
admonished his own crowd to be respectful to Obama. It looked like his
heart just wasn't in it; it looked to me like he regretted what his own
campaign had unleashed & become.
It's just kind of sad to me to see that this is how Senator McCain chose
to behave -- or at least the way he allowed Palin & his campaign to
behave -- in what increasingly appears to be the final weeks of his long
political career.
And that's the way I see it.
Brady
Deborah
wrote:
This is all a red herring. I can simplify it for you. The USA owes
China approximately 1 trillion dollars it has no way of repaying. If
the USA gets into a conflict with China, it will be getting into a
conflict with China's staunchest ally - Russia. Never mind Iran.
Russia already has nukes and plenty of them.
What you're going to need in the near future is a diplomat. Who do
you think is more capable of being diplomatic? McCain? Or Obama?
Vote accordingly.
Deborah
Brady
> This is all a red herring. I can simplify it for you. The USA owes
> China approximately 1 trillion dollars it has no way of repaying. If
> the USA gets into a conflict with China, it will be getting into a
> conflict with China's staunchest ally - Russia. Never mind Iran.
> Russia already has nukes and plenty of them.
>
> What you're going to need in the near future is a diplomat. Who do
> you think is more capable of being diplomatic? McCain? Or Obama?
>
> Vote accordingly.
It's all good. We'll just print more money.
Brady
Deborah
wrote:
>Donz wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 4:18 am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Brady" <watercl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> No mention of William Ayres or 'palling around with terrorists' nonsense
>>>> or 'seeing America differently than you & I' distractions during tonight's
>>>> debate.
>>>> Has anybody in the McCain campaign informed Govern Palin that it's not
>>>> sticking?
>>> Maybe not for you, but I'll guarantee you there's a large number of people
>>> for whom it's huge. Unfortunately, too many have crossed the line from
>>> tolerant to permissive, especially if a minority is involved. I'd be
>>> tolerant if Ayers expressed *anything* resembling regret.
>>> IMO, Palin should keep it up, cuz there's some who probably never heard this
>>> crap.
>>
>> I believe that there's a very small number of people for whom it's
>> huge. The guilt-by-association tactic isn't working, especially at
>> this late date.
>
>And now we have the spectacle of McCain being booed at his own rally for
>defending Obama.
>
>At this point, I don't know that McCain is running his own campaign.
He's having to undo the damage Sarah Palin is doing. But she was his
choice of running mate...
Deborah