I Approve This Thread
Yes, it’s voting time again. And since I’ve seen enough grumbling pop up in other threads, I thought I’d just go ahead and piece together an election thread here. Not to take away from Scott’s popular slot machine thread, but I just figured something generic for this, the voter’s holiday season, might be nice.
Of course, this means that I’ve done no work of my own, but that I have moved a few of your related comments to this thread for easy access…
Maybe I only care about myself, and to a slightly lesser degree tackiness, but I think this year’s election just comes down to campaigns — not the content of the person/party’s campaign, but their methods. Whose commercials are poorly done or bugging the crap out of me, who’s sending me the most junk mail, etc. They get my NO vote. I’m smarter than that, but man, I’m so close to just voting out of spite…
Why does it seem like more often than not I’m inspired to vote against someone instead of for someone?
So from the fruits of your labor, here’s your place to gripe about politicians, campaigns, and of course women’s suffrage.
This November 7th, I have decided to take a new, although still mature and responsible approach, to voting for candidates. In trying to decide between sleazy/corrupt muckraker candidates A & B, I have decided to not vote for any politician who ends an ad with, “….blah, blah, blah, & I have proved this message.” I’m thoroughly sick of it, so if you want my vote, knock it off! I’m keeping track. Your level of dishonesty and other immoral behavior is secondary to me this year to the use of this highly annoying, way overplayed catch-phrase.
On November 7th I’ll be buying the new Josh Groban CD. And maybe I’ll vote too. There’s a new ad out that basically says when women vote democrats win. And well, that’s bad. And we all know how truthful ads are.
Oh and Darren, I think they say, “…blah, blah, blah & I APPROVED this message.”
* I have proved — ?
I’ve approved — ?
– Assuming you are correct — Yeah…., that does make a large difference.
I’ve changed my mind & take back my rant.
* Lisa, errrr, “Darren” — It’s ok, we all look the same.
It always amazes me when I read things like this. There’s so much subtlety to thinking like we humans do. And yet, so often things as obvious as this get completely missed. When I read things like “Female vote important this year”, I drift off into some nebulous world of statistics, but all of it is self-conjured bunk that doesn’t ever settle into one opinion or another — I spend time thinking about thinking about it.
It makes me wonder if this is somehow a side effect of being bombarded by media stimulation day in and day out for my entire life. If, somehow, someone like Pa Ingalls could read this bit of news, he would respond with an anachronistic “Duh”.
Well, he’d probably remark at how women managed to gain suffrage, and then he’d say “Duh”. But I think my point is well-formed regardless.
Cue Lisa and The Price Is Wrong commercial. Wish I could find it…
The Pryce is Wrong commercial is the best of the worse commercial. Followed in a close second by the commercial for Issue 4 (I think – it’s the smoke less Ohio thingy backed by the tobacco industry) where they have the geeky girl saying no smoking any where and Joe Cool shedding light and speaking the, er, “truth” about the issue. BTW, if you like bars smoke free, this geeky girl says to vote no for this issure.
Gripe #2: Why is it so hard to find good information on what the issues are and who the candidates are in your area?
Also, why are we forced to choose between Mike DeWine and Ted Strickland? Aren’t there good candidates running for Senate this year?
I guess it doesn’t matter. I moved back in January and was unaware of the requirement to re-register at my new address 30 days prior to the election. So much for my voice being heard. Hope you guys do right by me. Maybe I can still vote for state issues in my old location… have to check that out.
Ask and you shall receive.
And here’s the geeky girl and Joe Cool.
Can I please be dubbed a prude for not wanting to be smoked on?
I dunno though. The dude is rather casual like me, and comes across as *very* level headed. & he does agree that “we” need a smoking ban… Oh, he also uses the word “freedom.”
I’m not a smoker, but I also don’t care for the lady in this commercial, and I’m concerned about my image — that ppl will think I’m a prude too — so I think I’m gonna have to take the guy’s advice…
When not traveling, Deborah Pryce enjoys…
strickland is runnnig for gov. not senate. I would vote for him over blackwell, if anyone cares.
my fav. negative ad is the one that says, “why is zack space running such a negative campaign.” then the ad goes on to slam zack space. And there is another anti zack space ad making fun of him for being a trial lawyer. i just found it interesting that they are using slander to talk about how someone elses slander is wrong. and for the record i have not seen a zack space attack ad.
Seth, I agree with you that there is a serious lack of unbiased or even minimally biased information on the issues and candidates. If you don’t want either DeWine or Sherrod Brown, there is apparently a write-in candidate named Richard Duncan or something from Aurora, OH. Not that he has a chance, and I couldn’t find any info on him really (to highlight the above frustration), but for what it’s worth.
I’m also in the same situation where I brilliantly forgot to change my address in time. If you feel your vote will be needed to break a tie on some issue, you can cast a provisional ballot at your new polling place if you bring tons of info with you to prove where you live and probably your first born child.
Bill, I know you hate Jon Stewart- but I LOVE my roommate for getting me a ticket to see him this weekend when he does his thing at Ohio State for the Midwest, Mid-term Elections. I hope he brings up some of these stupid commercials.
Zack (Space) Attack!!!
And the lyrics…
Found out two things since last time:
1. We can submit a provisional ballot that will apparently be counted, though I’m sure that will put me squarely in the category of “unexpected voters whose votes may or may not be contested as bought or bribed or coerced” by whichever candidate loses.
2. Ted Strickland is not doing a very good job at campaigning:
Obviously I thought it was a three-way race with him, DeSwine and Sherrod Brown. I’m against all three. Can Ken Blackwell be in the Senate AND be our Governor? I mean, he’s no pro-wrestler or bodybuilder, but at least he’s demanding fiscal responsibility from the Ohio legislature… wouldn’t be a bad thing to push northwards to the US Senate.
I’m voting for Brown based soley on his ability to find goofy looking photos of Mike DeWine. Whoever he’s got on his staff to dig up those pics should be given a plush position in his Senate office. That one with him and Bush laughing while the kids singing the song in the backround is my favorite political commercial of all time.
1) I love how the tobacco industry wants to have less smoke now. I would have an easier time believing their sincerity if they’d been pushing for that all along, and not just once there’s a total ban on the ballot.
2) I’m not saying I’ve made up my mind in the governors’ race, but this Dispatch Q&A with Strickland really made an impression on me:
Q: Are non-Christian religions true?
A: They’re true to those who embrace them.
I would much rather hear something like “Heck yes, Shiva exists” or even “That depends on the meaning of ‘are’.” But the pc wishy-washiness of what he said is such an incredible turnoff that I think Blackwell will have to murder someone for me not to get my vote. Plus, I think it would be cool to have only the second elected black governor in the country’s history, especially in a state that is so rich in abolitionist/equal rights history.
a vote for blackwell is a vote for rod parsley, just want to throw that out there. and scott blackwell got an “A” from the NRA.
as for the tobacco industry, they are a business trying to make money. so i have no problem with them making insincee commercials. i will probably vote against them, but they still have the right to protect their product.
Still can’t find a comprehensive source for all the ballot issues in my local area.
I’m becoming increasingly disappointed with elections these days. Turns out (if I have my memory straight) the R Senator from VA (who called someone maccaca — a racist term) found out that his opponent, a novelist, wrote child sex scenes and a lot of filth about women that is fairly gross and demeaning.
The poor Virginians get to choose between a racist and a perverted chauvanist. And their choice will affect 1% of all national senate decisions that the rest of us have to live with.
Here in Ohio, our choices for all manner of races are “better”, but nothing that you see or hear is really about the issues — it’s all just smoke and mirrors. Issue three is about “education” (aka gambling); our senators and governors candidates are all lame; tons of my local races are nothing but smear ads. Does anybody really CARE about Ohio, or just making a little more money and a few more connections for themselves??
Looks like I need to go over the requirements for Ohio public office. Doesn’t look like anybody else is going to be able to do a good job at this.
State Issues on the November 7, 2006 Ballot
Here are all the local ballot options & questions.
And the first link I posted contained all the other candidates appearing on ballots for state & federal in Ohio.
I love the fact that there is someone running named Kevin Bacon. That was awesome.
I saw the debate between Blackwell & Strickland and it really turned me off to both of them. Blackwell did horrible. He was like a robot reading his cues where Strickland was more relaxed. But in my opinion, Strickland is a super-liberal that has no backbone and will say whatever popular opinion wants him to say. Anyone that wants God out of the pledge (or out of anything), approves of partial birth abortion, and is just against traditional Christian values will never get my vote. The bottomline for me when it comes to voting for a candidate are their values and what they stand for, period.
And yes, I realize I just opened up a huge can of worms with this comment.
Good luck. It’s a matter of trading evils. If you can find someone who really represents your beliefs… well maybe you should be running for office. I think it’s more along the lines of deciding which issues are most important to you & then averaging it all out. Like, I can usually say that most of my “beliefs” jive w/ what a lot of Republicans support, but then there’s a lot of additional moral stuff that often doesn’t. But not voting is a lame way to sulk about a lack of perfect candidates, so that’s no good.
But settling for the lesser of two evils seems a very bad way to go.
Best way to get Evil Politician elected, in a world where voters settle for the lesser of two? Ensure that her opponent is More Evil Politician. You don’t have to hope that More Evil will get elected (even though that might be a nice bonus), because the only other “option” is your real goal.
I will be voting, but also abstaining from several races (including Ohio Senator) for which I believe there are no good options. In this society, if no one casts a vote for a candidate, there will be another election. And it is possible to run for election yourself, as much as some might think that’s a dumb idea.
& that happens how often? So if you can’t have the total package you don’t want any of it? Not voting (and therefore not being “part of the problem,” as the kids say) isn’t gonna fix anything. The election will go on w/o you, and someone’s going to get elected. & it may be someone who represents *nothing* you agree with. Something is usually better than nothing. I think when the perfect choice isn’t there for us (as it rarely is) we still have a responsibility to do as much as we can, hence the personal scales & balances as we weigh the importance of the various issues and then vote accordingly.
To be perfectly clear, I mean not voting for a particular candidate or issue. (Unless there is absolutely NOTHING on a given ballot that meets a threshold)
And contrary to your position, I believe that voting is a solemn responsibility. You have been entrusted with the power to elect candidates — your voice at the very least recommends to the electorate who to appoint to be a representative of your values. Not voting, in and of itself, does not solve anything. However, coupled with actively working to produce candidates or spreading the word about those that share your values will accomplish as much as can be hoped for. I also strongly believe that it is an endorsement of a candidate to vote for them. In my opinion, randomly picking or choosing the “best answer” makes you partially accountable for any actions that align with their pre-election policy.
No, I don’t believe that people are generally responsible for anyone but themselves. However, if for example a candidate is 95% in your area of values but the other 5% of their advertised policy is “will oppressively tax the indigent”, if you vote for them then you bear some responsibility if they follow through on that promise when elected. Obviously if they don’t mention something beforehand and after election turn out to be terrible, it’s their own burden to bear.
That’s what I meant by saying that I would not vote for an Ohio Senator in the upcoming race — for those particular candidates on the ballot, I cannot morally support any of them. I may write in a qualified person of upstanding character, who also meets the federal requirements for office.
True, but I gotta stress my point one last time… Bear w/ my word problem:
You agree with Candidate X on major issues A and B, but not on minor issue C. Candidate Y would not represent your beliefs on any of those three issues though. If you voted for Candidate X to at least do your part to ensure that issues A and B are handled the way you believe they should, then yes, you could say that you share some responsibility in issue C b/c you voted for X. However, I would also say that if you do not vote at all and Candidate Y wins, you are responsible for how all three issues are handled.
Not voting does not give you clean hands.
Or as Mr. Tweedle would say, “Johnson, if you mix A, B, and C with chemical “X”, and C, B, and A with chemical “Y”, are you saying the end product would be the same? (smiling) I don’t think so.”
nice call darren
Whoooaaa, Johnson. You’re working on algebra stuff. This is…chemistry…
That’s a very effective rebuttal, and I think I’m in agreement with the spirit of it.
But it doesn’t cover the board fairly. A and B are listed as major issues, but do you believe that if C were a major issue that you are justified in voting for X (2/3 agreement) over Y (0/3 agreement)? I can see voting for candidates where I don’t agree 100% on minor issues. However, if issue C is decimation of the American population (literally killing 1 in 10 residents) does your argument hold true? My rebuttal word problem: Domitian (Can X) and Nero (Can Y) are running for election in the Roman Senate. Domitian has great plans for improving roads in the empire and in solidifying trade agreements with the Carthaginians — Nero’s just plain crazy and has no good solution for either problem. But they both agree on that pesky third issue: the scapegoating and slaughter of Christians…
Second, it does not follow that by not voting you didn’t do your part to prevent the election of Y in the failure case. If you vote for X and Y wins, your logic would still hold you culpable — you did not prevent Y from attaining office. In the theoretical of Y winning, a vote for X or a vote for noone is equal. The only difference is the margin of victory for Y (because victory for Y is assumed).
But the second point isn’t incredibly strong. Thanks for your views on the issue, it’s certainly food for thought.
I’m not in the Shamansky vs. Tiberi district, but I have to recommend voting for Shamansky or at least voting for neither. I think it’s one thing for Tiberi to call Shamansky a Nazi or something, but it’s just unconscionable to make fun of his name by calling him “Sham”ansky. It’s childish to run a campaign where your platform is “Don’t be a panda, vote for Amanda”, but it’s beyond childish to basically say, “I’m going to mock something my opponent was born with, and that will prove that I’m the better candidate.” It’s like saying, “Vote for Sherrod Brown because Mike DeWine has a lazy eye.”
I didn’t even know brother Rod was running. He’ll certainly get my vote. Seriously, though, this seems like a good place for me to mention that I’m fairly “apolitical”…which is to say that while occasionally it’s necessary to go to the polls and make sure David Duke doesn’t get into office, I think we would probably all do well to be independents, not obsess so much about politics, and concentrate way more on following Jesus.
* Jesus wouldn’t vote for Nero or Domitian. (What WOULD Jesus do?) And He is more concerned about what we become versus what we are “born with”. If more citizens would have “voted” before Pilate, He wouldn’t have been crucified. Sadly, the “masses” were either silent or at home. Hmmmm.
* Darren’s post was terrific, and a much needed palate cleanser in this thread.
* “Major” and “Minor” issues are relative to a person’s point of view, as values are assigned.
* You can’t “NOT” vote based on moral grounds. That makes absolutely no sense to me — Its thoroughly contradictory.
* I am hearing much from people re: not voting at all. There is much apathy, and I hear that. There are few good choices, and seemingly little difference at times among candidates — most seem corrupt at some level — and we are finding ourselves picking between the lesser of evils, but pick we must. And I believe people are tired of the mudslinging and bickering. They want to hear the issues, but then want the elected to actually follow-though with their campaign promises. (Watch “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” sometime soon.)
* Americans, as a whole, take the privilege to vote for granted, by their attitudes and actions. Others in foreign countries risk death to have the opportunity. (THERE’S a moral inconguence for you)
* Voting is the RESPONSIBILITY of every able American — to educate themselves on the issues, to register, to know the location where they cast their vote, to bring ID, to get there with time to spare while anticipating crowds, to ask for assistance if they are unsure of the ballot specifics, and to actually cast a vote for all issues presented. To not do so is irresponsible, on various levels.
Your double negative really confused me, & made me quite grumpy for a minute until I went back & re-read it. So you’re saying it’s “thoroughly contradictory” to not vote your morals, correct?
I realize most here didn’t follow that little tangent — Mr. Tweedle was our beloved chemistry/physics teacher at Millersport HS. Kyle, Kevin, Scott & us Johnson boys all had him, & I’m confident all would describe him as cash money.
Scott, your tag on there is a bit like asking the crowd, “Who likes pizza?!!” You could semi-validate anything you have to say by tacking on “and focus more on being Christ-like.” Nobody can disagree w/ that. No matter who you are, or even what the topic is (happens to be politics here), you can always stand to concentrate more on following Jesus. The world is what it is though, and we Christians have a responsibility *in that world* to do what we can. If there are ways for us to have an impact on how our society is morally governed (grain of salt, pls) in this country, then it’s our responsibility to do so. This includes voting for or against candidates/bills that play a part in the values in this country.
Yes, it’s tough. But that’s why you have to weigh this stuff. I mean, the fact still remains that major issues A & B are at stake, even if it appears that you have not been given a candidate who represents your feelings about MAJOR issue C. Issues A & B are no less important.
I put “Not” in quotes in hopes to avoid that confusion. You really are short-fused, you know? :) Anyhoo, the contradiction is to NOT vote on an issue, citing moral reasons, when VOTING ITSELF, is a moral responsibility. You can’t have it both ways on a moral level. You can’t agree voting is a responsibility but then shirk voting for a specific set of candidates or an issue on moral grounds bc you don’t agree/like your options.
I’m not sure if I disagree with your argument or if I just don’t misunderstand you at some level. In this paragraph, I don’t agree one is culpable if the candidate I didn’t vote for wins. I did what I could to assure that didn’t happen by voting for his/her opponent. No contest’s outcome is assumed so such theoreticals are difficult to apply in advance when considering my actually voting next tues.
Tom Tweedle was/is “cash money”.
What if, lets just say, a known terrorist maeks a phone call to some guy in Denver. All i know is mary jo kilroy would want to go through weeks of paper work before we intercept the call, and by then the known terrorist would probably have hung up. That is why i will not vote for her cause i don’t like terrorists, and i don’t think they should be bothering people in Denver.
Also if we know where the call is coming from couldn;t we raid the house it is coming from??welll unles mary jo kilroy has her way.
What? So it’s OK for Jesus to not vote for Nero or Domitian, but if it’s voting day I must, in an effort to be Christ-like AND moral, vote for ONE of them??
So you are saying that morality is relative? Or that for a given voter, one issue might more or less major for Candidate X, but has no bearing on how that same issue is weighted when considering Y?
What about the case of a candidate paying lip service? Consider an incumbent Republican who says A & B are important and would act aligned with my morals, but would not do so for issue C. The challenging Democrat says he would NOT align with me, morally, on A, B or C. However, the track record of the incumbent shows that he would in fact NOT align with me on A, B or C. Nobody else seeing this happen in their precincts?
I think this is the only solution, though it is certainly less desirable than working ahead of time to get qualified, morally upstanding candidates on the general ballot ahead of time. Yes, I think votes should be cast, but nobody has yet been convincing to the question of NEITHER candidate being worth spit. I’ll spin back to Nero and Domitian: which do you vote for? If your position is that the world is better without Christians, perhaps Domitian is a good candidate.
Perhaps I’m sticking my neck out, but wasn’t there a Simpsons Halloween where both candidates were evil aliens? Prove your moral point — both candidates wish to enslave the human race. What is the correct action at the poll? My guess is that action was required earlier to ensure that a third candidate appeared at the time of election, but we can’t help ourselves yet in time for Nov 7…
Don’t forget that’s what we like about this site. I’m gonna go ahead & say that there are others reading who have equally strong feelings on the matter but are too timid to voice them for whatever reason. Nothing else has been taboo here, so why politics?
And just to respond briefly, if I have three choices, voting for someone who openly declares they won’t represent my values, voting for someone who *says* they will but I suspect maybe they won’t, and not voting at all and letting the rest of my peers decide, I’m going w/ choice number two. Choice one is right out, and choice three may wind up w/ the same result as choice one. Choice two is the only hope in this particular case. Politicians are often swayed long after the election — that’s prob a lot of the reason why we see a change of heart after they take office. It is always possible that your candidate will flip-flop (*ahem*) and not represent you as they said they would, but that’s beyond our control (unless you’re hard into lobbying). We have a certain degree of power available to us as ordinary, card-holding citizens, and we should exercise that.
Regardless, this is an enjoyable game of king-of-the-soapbox — I hope all involved see is that way too…
I’m not seeing the practical relevance. Jesus wouldn’t vote. The Christians in Rome couldn’t vote. The Aliens wouldn’t let us vote.
YES
For the sake of discussion…
Domitian
No, not to me, but that’s my point. Could it be to you? It may be Major to me, but Minor to you, by our definitions, yet we each get 1 vote and they count the same. My value placed on a particular moral issue differs from yours, for example, therefore it is relative in the context of my assigning value to a particular issue in contrast to yours, thus dictating our opposite votes on for a candidate or issue.
Kevin’s post on Mary Jo Kilroy is a good example. You see his stance and the high value he places on this “Major” issue — TO HIM. Well, maybe to me, the terrorist thing is not that big a deal — “Minor” issue — TO ME. It’s relative.
Seth, if I may put words in your mouth, :), you seem to have more of a problem with the nomination process versus the election process, yes? And I hear that, I really do. But I don’t feel you can in good faith forfeit the election because your candidate didn’t get nominated, can you? Isn’t that what you’re doing?
Amen!
Not to detach from this discussion but I need clarification on Issues 4 & 5. Maybe anyone Bill referred to who may also be reading but not posting yet could assist me – someone who’s more knowledgeable than me and has the time and energy to share with me the high points, and if I am correct that if both pass, 4 trumps 5. Thanx.
This has been and still is, a very interesting discussion. We both hold to the view that, as Americans, we have a great privilege to vote. We can influence change. If we are faced, and we are, with two candidates of whom we don’t agree on their stance on issues–particularly morally or in holding with our values as Christians, then we vote the party. The party’s stance on the values and morals we hold to will sometimes influence the candidate. Also, after the election, we can contact the one voted in and remind him, he works – the people. He is to represent us.
We are pasting an exerpt from an email on voting from Dr. James Dobson who says it well:
Ok, just a hypothetical…what if a candidate was gay, yet stood for all the issues that you agreed with, A, B, & C? ie fight against terrorism, against partial birth abortion, lower taxes, etc etc. Would you vote for him/her?
Good grief, Darren. This fire hardly needed stoked…
My effort is simply to provide an example that isn’t related to this election in question — a hypothetical. Sure, Jesus wouldn’t vote. But assume that the entire populace of Rome could. In the episode of the Simpsons I’m thinking of, the Aliens relied on the vote.
For expediency, I also follow you on the relativity thing. But for some clarification:
I have a problem with both. It’s still early in my voting career, and I didn’t take these things seriously enough before my 18th birthday to really develop a personal interest in the process. Trying to reverse that, but not yet “mature” in my processes. In the future, I hope to be more active in getting real candidates at least on the ballot to provide good options. For example, I voted for a third-party candidate named Mike Peroutka in the 2004 Presidential election. He didn’t get close, but was a candidate that aligned very well with my views on just about every issue (all the major ones), including Federalist gov’t reform.
Here’s an example of why I can’t vote for Mike DeWine. The man has been a Senator for 2 terms. He’s “100% pro life” and per his web site, even imposed this legislation:
This is the most duplicitous and disgusting law I’ve ever seen. Abortion is legal in the United States, but in my research this appears to be unconstitutional. DeWine rests on his laurels, but doesn’t do a thing to get this reversed. Instead, he’s OK to consider a law that says violence against pregnant women is a two-victim crime, yet still there is no crime in aborting the baby. Nothing on his Pro-Life page for the election, or on his page as a Senator, makes any note that he’s TRYING to get abortion illegalized (even at least until it’s not the SCOTUS that’s making the decision for us). This is a major issue, and symptomatic of LOTS of Republicans that claim to have values — this is not the lesser of two evils, it’s just another arm of the same vandal.
I don’t want to get us off-track here with my “ultra-conservative” beliefs, but I got tired of dancing around the issue. It’s not the only issue, but it’s a big one. Neither of the major parties has your best interests in mind. We need a sea change to get anything worthwhile done in this country — unfortunately, there’s a lot of deception and “let’s settle” going on. The country is spiralling downward and we’re being polarized by the parties and the media. There is another option besides “Us” and “Them”.
Back in the 1800s, Americans still understood that there was no rule from the government to the people — the government existed as the will of the people. Early last century we also tried Bull Moose, but it wasn’t a major effort. Today, we live understanding that the government rules us, we just get which flavor of government we want, Big Business or Big Labor. My point is that we’d be well served by a major effort in the Third Party. Something that would be capable of knocking one of them out of the way. In my view, we’d be well served to get a party that stole the traditional values votes from both the Republicans and Democrats and got momentum of its own. This would probably pull support away from the Republicans, because they’re considered the “values” party today, but I think the effort is necessary.
To summarize: Yeah, I’m probably throwing my unvote away. But maybe next time I can get a good, real candidate on the ballot and cast my vote there. I may even be served to get the “opposition” party into power — perhaps their total failure would allow a phoenix of true values to rise from the ashes and get something accomplished. The Republicans couldn’t do it, the Democrats won’t be able to either — maybe it’s time to see something from the Neo-Whigs.
Another Election Day note:
Issue 1 is to be removed from the ballot and Issue 5 is to remain on the ballot.
Also, as many have noted, Issue 4 is a State Constitutional Amendment, and Issue 5 is only a proposed law. Looks like if both pass, 4 wins.
Goodness boys and girls. I fellow has a little baby girl and all heck breaks loose with election matters! Just a few comments, some of them going back to the early part of the thread:
Chris J wrote:
That’s the law. If I remember correctly, it is a campaign finance issue. That way the viewer is supposed to be able to differentiate between ads put on by the candidate and ads put on my other groups.
With regard to the provisional ballots (someone asked about them I think). Those are a new item that the Help America Vote Act requires states to have (as a funny side note, the Help America Vote Act has brought about a number of good changes to the voting laws and funneled tons of money to states to buy newer voting machines, voter education, etc. Know who one of the writers of that law was – future prisoner Bob Ney). What was happening before was that if someone showed up to vote and something wasn’t right (like your address was wrong in the book, etc.) depending on what state you were in, you could be turned away. Now what happens is that if something is wrong, then they can’t turn you away. You always can vote by provisional ballot. The provisional ballot is put aside and then after the election day they go back and try to figure out if you are a valid registered voter and then they count it if you are. Well have a heck of a lot of them this year because of voter i.d. requirements (people forgetting to bring a valid drivers license, utility bill, pay check, etc.).
I’ve got to blow my own horn here. Provisional ballots are the reason I would never vote for the Democrat candidate, Jennifer Brunner, for Secretary of State (the chief elections officer). I had the pleasure of pointing out she was wrong on election law in front of a Senate committee last year. We were hearing the bill that would create provisional ballot voting. She showed up to testify and starting saying how the provisional ballot voting the bill would allow was all wrong and bad and that we should continue with the provisional ballot voting system we currently had in place. The Senators were all confused wondering why we would have a bill creating provisional ballot voting if we already have provisional ballot voting in the state. It was at that point that I had to step up to the mike and tell the Senators that, at that time, we did not have provisional ballot voting in Ohio and that the words “provisional ballot” didn’t appear anywhere in the Ohio Revised Code. I had to play it off by being diplomatic, saying that she probably was referring to a way that absent voter ballots had been used. I figure if you can’t get the law straight when you come to testify, you aren’t qualified to be Secretary of State in my book.
Chris J wrote:
As someone noted, Issue 4 (the Tobacco) is a consitutional amendment and Issue 5 is a statutory enactment. Because the constitution always trumps statutory enactments (refer to School House Rocks “I’m Just a Bill” for a refresher), if Issue 4 passes, it would trump any statutory law (and if I remember, the langugage of the amendment specifically states that to avoid any confusion). If I remember correctly, under either scenerio, the local smoking bans (like in Hilliard, Toledo, etc.) wouldn’t be enforced and the new law or consitutional amendment would apply.
Basically, Issue 4 is a less strict ban compared to Issue 5. Beyond that, the differences are that one is a constitutional provision and one is a statutory enactment (which has its own implications)
I had a really hard time with these two because, as I’ve noted before, I’m a libertarian/free market capitalist. I really don’t think it is the government’s role to tell businesses to stop allowing smoking (I say let your customer base decide that). So on that part, I prefer the constitutional amendment. But I also hate having crap like that in the constitution because it makes it so difficult to change it if needed, so I like the fact that Issue 5 is a statute, which means the General Assembly can change it if needed. I ended up voting no on each.
Seriously guys and gals, in my last three or so years working for the General Assembly, I was around a ton of this stuff, so if you have questions, ask me. Now that I’m with the Supreme Court, I don’t have to watch what I say publically as much as I did in the past.
John, thanks for the info, and public congratulations on the procreation achievement.
If this is a new change and there are also new ID requirements, won’t this probably mean that we’re not gonna know the outcome of a close race for a long time since they have to do all this verification & then additional counting? And geez, haven’t they harnessed the power of computers for this kind of thing yet? That’s the fail-safe method for voting…
I had read/understood that by changing your address w/ a state agency (as I did w/ the BMV) that you’re good to go — since I moved last summer. Now I’m really starting to wonder… I’m just taking soc# card, license, utility bills, BMV stuff… I’m preparing for the worst, but whether it’s as a normal vote or a provisional, I’ll toss my marble in.
Bill — I didn’t change my address at the Board of Elections when I moved, but did w/the BMV. You can vote by provisional ballot any time up until the day of election, just take ID.
did anyone see the anti dan dodd commercial that kmakes fun of him for not wanting to kill a guy.
dod dodd does not want this guy executed!!
dad dodd not a murderer, so don;t vote for him.
did anyone see the anti dan dodd commercial that kmakes fun of him for not wanting to kill a guy.
dod dodd does not want this guy executed!!
dad dodd not a murderer, so don;t vote for him.
From the front of my uncle’s house:
Scott – that may have taken over as my favorite ad this year – it’s so ridiculous. Reminds me of the Sideshow Bob ad when he was running for mayor against Quimby.
kyle that was actually me, not scott.
Voted this am. I was surprised at the turnout — I got there quite early and still had to wait 10 minutes. MAYBE a good sign.
Fixed it. Kev, you & your boyfriend really need to use separate computer accounts. Or separate browsers or something.
I can’t believe this wasn’t recognized as Kevin’s handiwork:
i voted this AM as well, at first i was upset with myself for not taking the opportunity to vote absentee, knowing that turnout would be high and i have practice and a dentist appointment, and last nov election i had to wait 2 hours. however, if i would’ve i would’ve missed the fun times of people complaining about a simple task.
There are two precincts where i go cols 45-i and cols 45-j, apparently this causes a lot of confusion.
I admit my fisrt time i didn;t know what i was doing mainly because my only experience was voting at fairfield beach and eveyone who worked there knew me already and there was only one precinct so it wasn;t hard to figure out. but after that i figured it out.
Well these women were 2nd or 3rd in line then they realized they were in line for 45-I when they should’ve been in line for 45-J then they bad mouthed the hardworking volunteers saying how are we supposed to know, then some nice old black lady says you should’ve gotten something in the mail. Then the douchebag lady says I didn;t get nothing in the mail did you, where i said yes i did (just like stanley) then looked at the nice old volunteer lady and rolled my eyes. There response was maybe i just won;t vote i can;t be late for work. I was just mad because they were mean to the nice lady when it wasn;t her fault they didn;t read their mail.
anyway i found it somewhat amusing, no patience and little brainpower can go a long way. i hate the way some people choose to be.
for teh record i got about 10 pieces of mail that had my precinct and voting location both on there.
I have this feeling that asking someone how they voted is somehow more offensive to most people than asking them to clarify their, oh, say, race or sex.
Good story, Kev. Amazing how difficult the alphabet can be.
That’s what I mean when I refer to taking personal responsibility. Ridiculous.
I voted at 2:30 or so. Waited maybe 5 min.
So my voting attendants (that’s what I’ll call them) were *maybe* 12 yrs old.
“Homeschooled” illegal immigrants, no doubt.
Over-privileged Dublinites, actually. The guy behind me called them on it. Asked if they were even old enough to vote. They said yes. But then his wife asked them if anyone checked their ID. They actually said no. So she checked it.
Hmmmm….CLEVER homeschooled illegal immigrants.
Had some equally young attendants at my voting place. Also, they had no clue what they were doing. As I was handing my ID over to one girl, she started writing some numbers down, stopped and scoweled at the paper and called the other girl over nervously whispering “I think we’ve been doing this wrong.” Apparently there were two locations they were supposed to be recording numbers in for identifying voters or something. And they wrote the wrong number in one space and just decided to leave the other blank for all entries.
When they realized their mistake, they called over the only other attendant – some woman who was approximately eleventy. She told them to just not say anything to anyone and do it right from there on out.
Is that something to be worried about? Anyway, I got my sticker, so I’m happy.
Umm I just got back from voting. They didn’t even ask for my I.D. I gave them my name and I signed something and that was it. I love the savvy cracksquad security personnel that we have monitoring this process.
Wow. That is really disturbing. This is how Al Gore almost ended up as president, people…
Everyone knows Darren. Heck, they even asked for his autograph.
Dispatch’s results graphic for some of the OH issues we’ve talked about here:
Scott, WE WON!!!
How is Issue 2 a win for anyone?
Seth, if you’re referring to my comment above to Scott about “winning,” that was a general piece of sarcasm (private joke, at that) & not even in reference to this election in particular. I just like to poke at Scott…
OK, cool. I’m just a little miffed at everybody taking a $1.70/hr pay cut, adjusted downwards annually for inflation (cost of living).
And sad for all the people that are gonna lose jobs in my community when their bosses realize that a mandated 33% wage increase may result in ~33% staff decrease.
I think I found the only bad thing about DVRs: if I’m not paying attention & don’t FastFWD through the commercials quickly, I’m subjected to political ads from the shows I taped before this past Tuesday…
Not as traumatizing, but I’ve found myself having a similar problem with the 11 o’clock news. For example, I often hang on to old episodes of the Office. Sometimes I’ll watch the episode straight through, other times I skip the adverts.
More than once I’ve thought “That’s terrible! Another shooting at… oh wait, this is the same one from last fall.”
Could’ve done w/o Obama dancing. At least The Soup will make it all better though.
The First time I’ve heard of Mike Huckabee, and I think I like him. Just ask Walker TR.
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
My Candidate was Mitt Romney…. surprise surprise. I’m still voting for him in the primaries if he is listed in the ballots. I’m stubborn like that. In regards to my previous entry above, I have since moved away from supporting Huckabee.
I’m a wishy-washy republican, I guess.
Huckabaa – 29
Romney – 23
McCain – 22
Seriously, is this the best pic they had of gravel?
No, that’s what he always looks like all the time.
I scored 48 for McCain and 48 for Ron Paul. That’s just ridiculous. This thing should’ve let me rate how much I disapprove of racist Texas nutjobs; Paul would’ve dropped to like -4.
Chances are, I’m still gonna write in Fred Thompson. Though Mike Gravel does seem to have a compelling face… as if to say “Waaa! I wanna be President! Nyaa!”
Clinton – 43
Obama – 43
Gravel – 34
Romney – 23
Paul – 18
McCain – 16
Huckabee – 13
I voted for Obama today out of extreme Clinton fatigue and annoyance. I doubt I’ll vote for the Dem candidate in November, but I wanted to make a statement!
Here was my breakdown, and this surprises me–my Libertarian views usually point me towards Paul on these quizzes (I also think he is somewhat of a whack-job!)
McCain–31
Romney–26
Huckabee–24
Paul–21
Obama/Clinton–20
An interesting note from sci-fi author & political writer Orson Scott Card (aka my favorite Democrat):
The Insanity of Parties
Romney – 46
Clinton — 27
McCain — 27
Huckabee — 27
Obama — 24
Paul — 17
Gravel — 12
Not good for me.
This still makes me giggle…
Mccain – 29
Rommney – 26
Paul – 22
Clinton – 19
Huckabee – 14
Obama – 12
Gravel – 11
I don’t like Clinton, but she wins points because she is the only one who says teacehrs shouldn’t be paid by the performance of their students.
Romney – 48
McCain – 43
Huckabee – 34
Paul – 28
Clinton – 16
Obama – 11
Gravel – 5
Oh my, these results scare me…
Clinton – 41
Obama – 41
Romney – 32
Gravel – 24
Huckabee – 16
McCain – 16
Ron Paul – 14
I really dig Hucabee’s stance on art eduction. From his site, “Music and the arts are not extraneous, extra-curricular, or expendable – I believe they are essential. I want to provide every child these “Weapons of Mass Instruction.”" We’ll ignore the weapons of mass instruction comment.
I second that. I was surprised that I agreed with her on anything, but even more surprised that she was the ONLY person who I matched for education. Why do the conservatives continue to support national education standards and programs like these? So ridiculous.
Pushing for compensating teachers on the basis of student performance will drive away some of the last, best teachers. Consider the teachers of Special Education and MR/DD classrooms whose students cannot acheive acceptable testing levels. Why should these teachers suffer under this policy if there is physiologically nothing that can be done to improve test scores? Their service is still very important, but gets neglected by such a policy.
My sentiments exactly. & I agree w you, Kevin.
Romney – 58
McCain – 49
Huckabee – 49
Paul – 27
Obama – 17
Clinton -12
Gravel – 5
Obviously, a republican all the way. Since Mitt is out, this doesn’t help me much in deciding between McCain or Huck.
I think I would puke if Clinton rated in my top two. Sorry Chris.
George W. Bush singing some U2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjFTRREI6T8&feature=related
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/clinton-stories-yarns.php
These sentences were on the front page of the Dispatch today. It got me thinking, “Why is Obama labeled a black person?” I think the rule among Hebrews is that you are a Jew if your mother was a Jew. Apparently, it doesn’t work the same way with Negroid/Caucasoid. So is he black because:
A) It’s a self-identification thing
B) “Black” is the dominant trait
C) We (by which I mean the media) don’t like the term “mixed-race person”
D) other???
Yeah, I’m going with B). It’s the dominant trait. I don’t get that either. Is it so dominant that we overlook the other half? Or do we not like Kansas, maybe? It makes me think of Peter Griffin being black b/c he had a black ancestor way back when.
But no matter how you slice it, I wish I’d never seen that clip of him dancing with Ellen. (Side-note: why has Ellen DeGeneres risen to the rank of single-named folk?)
If Hillary is Obama’s running mate, that ticket is going to be hard to beat. It’d be different if the Republicans were unified behind McCain, but he doesn’t have the full backing of his own party. He’s probably the most liberal of Republicans so far.
I know I’ve mentioned this to my brothers, but does anyone see any irony if our next president’s name is Barak Hussein Obama? It concerns me that the radical Muslims in the middle east say they want him elected.
A) It’s a self-identification thing
B) “GAY” is the dominant trait
C) We (by which I mean the common folk) don’t like the term “DeGeneres”
D) other???
A few years ago Tyler and I were watching a Charlie Brown video. Out of the blue Tyler asks if Peppermint Patty was gay b/c she dressed like a boy.
Wow, I thought subtext was only for adults.
Wait – didn’t she have a rather blatant crush on Charlie Brown?
I think she did, but it was probably the fact Marcy called her “sir,” she wore sandels, played sports and was stronger than Charlie Brown.
Playing catcher didn’t help.
P. Patty was the star pitcher for her team, not catcher.
To disagree with Bill, I play catcher for my softball team…
Also, to agree with Bill, the image of Obama dancing on Ellen also freaks me out. a lot. I’m not a fan.
Darren, the reason why McCain is losing a lot of the Republican votes is because he’s not a Republican. The only thing I like about the guy is his military history. At least he has some political in comparison to Obama. Honestly, this nation is scaring me riding the whole “we need a change” wave. I’m already looking foward to the 2012 elections.
To add to the mix, I think for the first time in a long time, the choices for VP will be critical in an election, as either of them could possibly be moments from being president. I know thats always the case, but w McCain’s age/health issues, and, to be frank, Obama being black in a country full of racists….
This scares me about Obama. But not nearly as much as the fact that none of his followers (acolytes?) seem to care that these statements are true.
We’re in for a rough ride, folks.
Yep, very disconcerting. We know little about the man aside from he’s accomplished little politcally, has a muslim name, comes from a racist church, and is black. I cant help but wonder how Jesse feels.
I got notice of my IRS check that’s being mailed to me within the week. pretty much it covers the cost of the taxes I’ve paid x2 yrs. Maybe, finally some people will show Pres Bush some gratitude for all his hard work these past 8 yrs.
Mary, remember that perfect love drives out fear…
On the flip side of fear and loathing in November, I watched a CNBC special comparing the economic policies of both candidates. As the Democrats are downplaying the successes in Iraq, they seem to have turned national attention away from the war (McCain’s strength) and to the economy (where both candidates have similarly poor policies, but McCain is less articulate).
If the idiots in Congress would let us drill some oil here at home, we could weather this rough period and move toward better options. I’d even be fine with putting alternative fuels research as a stipulation of increased domestic drilling. Let’s just get past this ridiculous cycle.
Does anyone else have a problem with this? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/15/obama.fathers.day.ap/index.html
I mean, aren’t white and hispanic fathers just as guilty for being absent in their childrens’ lives? I think black leaders are the worst at singling out and dividing race in our country. We are going to have alot more of this type of focus if Obama is our president. I know he meant well when he spoke about this topic, but why say, “black fathers”? Why not include all men?
this was on the colbert report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G9jA-FGGd8
Jesse Jackson is one class act.
Note the name of the video in this article. “Jesse Goes Nuts Over Obama.” That’s journalism of the highest quality there, folks.
The cover of the New Yorker:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/15/obama.cover/index.html
I think we’ve always known the media has favored the Democratic party even before this article.
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/17/why-does-obama-get-more-news-coverage-than-mccain/
Dave Barry takes on Obama’s
coronationnomination.I’m fairly interested in some of what’s going on, so I watched the roll call vote and DVR’d Barack’s speech last night. The part about Maine is 100% accurate, I’m so glad Barry picked up on it for his piece. Quality Dave Barry, and accurately capturing my feelings as always.
McCain made an interesting choice. Strategic, that is. I don’t know anything about her, but it seems like a tricky move.
So she’s got five kids, all with ridiculous names (Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow, and Piper), the oldest son is 19 and shipping off to Iraq on 9/11 next month, and the youngest is 4 months and has down syndrome. She’s a woman, she’s young, easy on the eye (and looks a little like Liz Lemon in this pic), she’s supposedly a strong opponent of abortion, and she was chairman of the Alaska oil and gas conservation commission.
Very interesting indeed.
Yes, very interesting move by McCain. Although, he isn’t going to be able to play his “more experience” card now. And I have to admit, it’d be kinda scary if something happened to him and she became president though. I still am intrigued about his choice and it may work out pretty well. Talk about stirring up the election race.
Did any of you watch Palin’s speech last night? I must admit, I am not easily impressed when it comes to politics & speeches, but she did an excellent job and I was totally impressed. Very likeable lady…spunky, very good speaker, and seems to be an all-around good person.
I just got done watching it, although the DVR cut off the end. I think she’s done a really good job w/ her speaking so far. She certainly seems comfortable. Credit to the speech writers too.
The republican suits are fun to watch. I kept giggling, thinking of this line in that Dave Barry article Seth posted above:
Great article…be sure and read the very end.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/beck.mccainspeech/index.html
I meant to post on here before this, back to 3 months ago when her name was first tossed around. In my humble opinion, his selection of her was nothing short of brilliant; an extremely shrewd, calculated political move. Across the spectrum, I find her very impressive.
That’s pretty funny. I am DEFINITELY voting for McCain/Palin now. Thanks Stinky!
Facts about the current financial crisis, and some ties to the current candidates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o
Broken link, Seth.
Not sure what the blog is doing to it. Looks like the two – - between H and o are being turned into an endash or something. Here is an alternate: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021622.php
Some people at work are talking about some rumor spreading around that Biden will step down in the beginning of next month as Obama’s VP and that Obama will choose Clinton as his new running mate. I freaked out and found this article talking about how it is false: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/biden-to-step-down.htm
Has anyone else heard about this?
I refuse to accept the word “eRumor.”
Yeah, Ive heard about it too, Mary, but I cant see it happening.
How does this stuff happen? The woman moderating the VP debate tomorrow night actually has something personal to gain if Obama wins the election. How is this not a massive conflict of interest? We’ve all heard about the media fueling the Obama craze, but this is just blatant. Absolutely ridiculous.
That’s insane. I’m surprised we haven’t heard anything about this.
Greta says McCain didn’t know and seems to imply that she ended up informing them about it at around midnight last night by emailing them to make sure this was disclosed prior to agreeing that Gwen Ifill should moderate.
As you prep your voting fingers to hang some chads, here is the official report on Ohio Issues for 2008.
The Sarah Palin children’s name generator
So I’ve had Seth’s video open in a tab all week (this is kind of a testament to how messy my browser gets sometimes) and I just typed up this comment about it and for the heck of it I refreshed the video and don’t you know, now it says “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner Music Group.” Doesn’t that figure? For those of you who didn’t watch it before, it was a video comprised of text and images but had a soundtrack behind it. Why do I feel like Time-Warner didn’t find it on their own?
Anyway, here’s my comment in case you watched it, or in case we find another link (which I hope we do b/c it was a good video)
Is anyone noticing that the closer we get to election day how the gasoline prices are dropping significantly ($3.35 last I checked) and are supposed to continue to decline? Ironic.
I disagree, Darren. In fact, this REALLY gets under my skin — for months now, the market price has been the focal point of high prices (they say – a whole other thread rant). So now, gas is trading at its lowest levels in quite a darn while yet gas prices remain proportionately very high!! Its NOT properly proportionate, and we are getting screwed at the pump more now than before, if we follow their rational. Dropping a cent a day is NOT lower prices, not when compared to the leaps of 5, 10, 25 a day they were making before. Gas could trade at $70 a barrel, and we’ll not see sub $2.50 gas. Its just wrong, and I dont know why we arent hearing more about it.
Okay I found a new copy of the video Seth posted. It no longer has the cool soundtrack (thanks Time-Warner) but the content is there and it’s definitely worth watching.
Um, has anyone noticed that Obama has his own channel? I have Dish Network and # 73 is the Obama Channel. It appears Obama’s Plan for America is being shown 24 hrs a day. I’ve never seen anything like this….that had to cost a fortune.
Came across this while researching your Obama channel on the Dish Network:
(If you don’t recognize her you will after tomorrow night’s debate)
It’s never occurred to me before this year how worthless I think political bumper stickers and yard signs are.
Are they supposed to create awareness of whichever candidate is on the sign? In the case of the presidential election, I think that if you don’t already know which dudes are running, you probably shouldn’t be able to cast a vote. If it’s for a lesser election, and someone only knows that Stivers is the name of someone running for representative because he saw it on a sign, then I hope that person won’t really vote for him just because he recognizes the name on the ballot.
Are they supposed to convince me to vote for that person? How? How can a candidate’s qualifications fit on a sign (not that there’s ever anything on there except a name anyway)? Maybe if it was like “Twig Palin 4 Senator” I’d vote for him/her because that’s a sweet name and a sweet way to write the word “for”. Otherwise, I’d say save the money you spent on the sign for something more useful.
This rant paid for by Quimby for Mayor mayoral committee
I got my McCain sign for free from the office. I think generally it shows your support for political philosophy in an impersonal way. Everyone who drives by knows what I think, generally, about the Presidential race. I also like to think of it as a way to vote without having to make it to the polls. And if enough un-knowledgeable people show up at the polls and think “my neighbors like McCain, I don’t want to be different”, maybe that will push him over the edge.
I think the real problem with my strategy is that the Obama sign I have right next to the McCain sign is slightly cooler, slightly more articulate, and generally a much more likable sign. The kind of sign you’d want to play basketball with or organize a community around.
People who don’t like election signs are probably the same people that would support revolving door prisons. Those same prisons that let convicted felon Sideshow Bob free.
Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor!
In this case the guy saved money but also got the facts out there:
Tree House of Horror spoiler: Homer Simpson votes Obama (or attempts to, anyway)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/beck.future/index.html
Is it wrong to say that Glen Beck is a rather attractive looking man in that picture? And go Ted Williams!
It’s not wrong, but I’ve never heard anyone say that about him. I guess if gray is your thing………….
Well, I think Palin did fine. She certainly didn’t win the debate, but she didn’t crash and burn, and frankly, that in itself was a victory. I know I was planning on grimacing an awful lot, but really all that made me groan was all the stupid buzz words — “maverick” multiple times in one sentence? Joe Six-pack, hockey mom, etc.
Biden’s experience is just way too much for her, so even at her best I don’t think Palin could’ve come across with any kind of authority. But what was his deal when he started talking about his family? Did he stumble or was he pulling a Hillary (emotional) moment?
I don’t know how much of a boost the debate was for either, but I think it could’ve been a bad thing for McCain if she hadn’t done as good as she did.
Yes, we also think Palin did fine. Actually, more than fine. With trust in politicians gone down the tubes, she is refreshing. She doesn’t have ‘authority’ and experience yet, but certainly has the grit, intelligence and desire to clean up and stand for right in Washington. As Glenn Beck said “remember this golden rule and you should be fine: Your Constitution will never fail you, but your leaders will.” Palin and Sen. McCain stand for the values and position of the men who wrote our Constitution; and that includes protecting unborn children. She is impressive and, to us, the real deal. There is now a McCain/Palin sign in our yard.
I agree with Bill’s analysis….I understand why she used the words she did such as “hockey moms” etc, because that is her strong suit, but I felt like she really milked the “I’m like every Americans’ mom.” Someone compared her “down-home” demeaner to Reagan, and she does have a sense of innocence that hasn’t been tainted by Washington as of yet, and that is a refreshing thing to see, but I’m not sure if that is enough in this day & age to beat experience. Then again, it’s possible Americans are tired of the greedy, crooked politicians and are wanting someone genuine. I guess we will find out in about a month.
I think she did fine too. She did not back down but she seemed to talk in generalities alot. Biden’s little emotional moment there was interesting, and sadly enough, I was immediately skeptical wondering if he staged that to come across as a “sensitive single-dad” who knows the struggles of raising children. I wonder how many nannies he has?
Every American’s hot mom.
Yes, she definitely spoke in generalities, and surely because she had to. I find it hard to believe that the public didn’t pick up on that, but who knows, the public can be pretty stupid.
But you know, you sit there and you look at them and you think, okay, if something happened to the president (and certainly something could), which of these two would I be most comfortable with stepping in and leading us? I think the cabinet is going to be particularly important this time around… I’m not used to considering the VP quite this much, although I suppose I should each time, regardless of the presidential candidate, since the worst could happen no matter who’s in office. Did everyone scrutinize GHW Bush b/c of Reagan’s age, or was age not a huge concern until Reagan’s 2nd term, at which point the country was already comfortable with Bush and the staff?
I think the headline on Drudge after the debate tonight summed it up. It simply said “BORING”. I’m glad it wasn’t just me. On both sides, all questions just circled back to the same half dozen canned answers.
I loved how McCain would wrap up his speaking by letting his mic drop though.
And “that one” was the best part of the night.
Not all issues are equal.
I liked how McCain would always refer to his audience as friends. If you didn’t pick up on it, I was being sarcastic.
Speaking of which…..the official count is 22. McCain said “my friends” 22 times last night.
I heard this same topic yesterday on the radio about the fact if Obama has a consistent 5 point lead going into voting day and doesn’t win the election, that there will be riots. Glenn Beck’s article addresses the fact if you say anything negative about Obama, then you’re accused of being racist.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/beck.issues/index.html
Nothing says classy like rioting. If you want to be respected as a collective, yes, break and burn things when something doesn’t go your way.
And yes, I did go to OSU. Why do you ask?
I’m not really sure why you had to bring class warfare into this. Racist.
My prob w the racist angle is that in the majority of poll demographic breakdowns I see, 96-98% of blacks vote for Obama – that’s a staggering, statistically significant figure. THAT is racist, yet you hear nothing about it.
Doesn’t the black majority typically vote democrat anyway though?
http://www.helpbringohioback.org/atf/cf/%7BEE48930A-5429-40DD-86DC-E00A1A6DAD23%7D/BEERGUT_compMix_001.mov
i kind of find it funy when he imitates mccain saying,”ehhh the recession is not real…it’s a figment of your imagination.”
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
for those of you who can;t get enough political commercials, here you go. I came to find out not everyone liked Ike.
All things considered, I think McCain did a good job on Letterman tonight. Honestly, I wasn’t looking forward to watching it b/c Letterman’s a witty guy & he’s obviously been pissed at McCain, but I think overall it went pretty well (except for Dave bringing up Gordon Liddy and immediately going to commercial).
The Al Smith Dinner speeches were very good. I think it’s good for folks to get to see the candidates joking around and (seemingly) getting along with each other. And it’s interesting how McCain seemed more in his element than Obama did, even though it’s the other way around in debates. Obama had his moments, but I thought McCain’s speech was hilarious. Maybe it’s just that I was expecting Obama’s routine to be more like Chris Rock…
Anyway, here are the links to the speeches:
McCain Part 1
McCain Part 2
Obama Part 1
Obama Part 2
Wow, McCain’s was great! I enjoyed watching that.
Nice little Obama video for everyone who has been living under a rock the past year…
The great election day cheat sheet begins again. I try to have this sheet ready to take in with me when I vote, so I don’t make any last minute decisions to sway myself. Two of these issues I wanted to toss out for general discussion:
Issue 3 – Private ownership of waterways, by Constitutional amendment
Issue 5 – Law against excessive interest charged by payday lenders
Issue 6 – Monopoly gambling
So on Issue 3, I’m not in possession of any waterways (tho I probably have groundwater I may want to exploit for fun & profit).
On Issue 5 — I’m all for people not being abused by payday lenders. A close friend of mine is still trying to dig his way out of the debt cycle that was amplified by payday lending, and I can clearly see the trouble it causes. I think I have sorted all the answers to the obvious questions, but I was curious about your thoughts on the following:
Issue 6 – Monopoly Gambling
I’d not heard of Issue 3 until just reading your post, Seth. Not sure what I think about it at present. Issue 4 is interesting because it could possibly shut down someone’s business. Aren’t people told when they sign the papers that they will be giving a huge chunk of their paycheck to get cash on the spot? Are these companies really crooked or are they just protecting their own interest for fear of bad checks?
Issue 6 is a definite NO for me. However, in my family it is crucial to own all the railroads. If someone lands on one they owe you 200$. And there are cards directing people to do so. One holds a very good chance of winning if they own the railroads, the reds (KY Ave, IL Ave, and IN Ave) and yellows (Ventnor Ave, Marvin Gardens, and Atlantic Ave), aka the Path of Doom.
Issue 3 reminds me of the time on The Big Valley when the Barkley boys had to put the hammer down on some no-goodniks who damned up the creek, cutting off the cattle’s water supply. I see this issue (mind you, I’d never heard of it before this post) as protecting the guy downstream, as opposed to upstream. Am I wrong? So I can see the use of this sort of thing. Does it belong in the constitution? I don’t really see the need for that, but what do I know.
Issue 5 — So here’s how I see these joints (and it may seem harsh but you know that’s how I blurt out things):
I’m sure that situations arise where a person may (very) rarely have to resort to using one of these payday lenders for some legitimate reason. However, I think (without research) that many of the people using these places for cash advances are doing it to support vices they can’t afford: booze, smokes, drugs, gambling, etc.
So ignoring such an insensitive and potentially ignorant generalization, are such institutions enablers to “bad” living? Yeah, probably. Do they have a right to do business though? Yeah. If they didn’t legally take advantage of these people would someone else? Sure. (Does that make it right? Of course not, but that’s the free world we live in, and this kind of thing is nothing new. At least these guys don’t break kneecaps.)
Now, considering the legitimate reasons someone might need such a loan, if it were me I’d understand that paying high percentages is the cost of doing business. That said (and here’s where I get wishy-washy), it sounds like the bill also limits the frequency an individual can obtain such a loan (which to me “encourages” responsibility) and also sets up a state-wide database tracking those who are getting advances (surely a necessity if they’re to regulate frequency, but couldn’t that also be useful in sniffing out illegal activity?).
Issue 6 sounds like as good a time as any to point people back to Scott’s “Gamblor” thread.
Does a 97 acre casino complex sound ridiculously large to anyone else?
I am really getting tired of this Joe the Plumber stuff.
OK, and now I’m starting to think more and more about Issue 1. The gist of 1 is that there would be something like a 105 day pre-qualification deadline to get issues on the ballot. This would allegedly benefit absentee voters because they might have a clearer idea ahead of time what issues would ultimately exist on the ballot.
The way I see it, though, it seems like what they really would accomplish is a control to potentially keep issues from coming before the voters. Does anyone see anything in Issue 1 that is good? I can’t help but think that it’s bad for us all in the long run.
And since the only other one that I’ve left out is Issue 2, I will just say that I’ve seen the Happening. Either the plants will kill us all for not taking care of them, or they will use their newfound hive-mind to do something to help themselves. Either way, we get sentient plants. I’m going to not vote on this issue, and let the elderberries sort this out for us.
What if we all did as we were told? What if we all called off work next Tuesday? Not so much to vote, as is our right as citizens, but specifically to campaign one day (either in a battleground state or answering calls) for Barack Obama, and then of course vote for him. Does this strike anyone else as an irresponsible thing to encourage? So in a struggling economy we should all… do our part to slow business to a grinding halt in a collective effort? (or rather let republicans/independents/anyone not voting Obama shoulder the load of keeping things running)
Can somebody tell me why I should care which candidates various newspapers or celebrities or Wal-Mart or al Qaeda endorse? Am I supposed to be swayed by who the owners of the Dispatch are voting for and supporting?
A (biased?) history of some endorsements by the NYT and WSJ, over the past 150 years or so.
I think endorsements used to make more sense than they do now. Basically, they still work to some degree. If I don’t know who Barack Obama really is (I think that’s a fair statement at this point in the campaign), I should check out who endorsed him.
Taking a quick glance we see:
Not Johnny Depp
Alec Baldwin
Wilmer Valderama
Mila Kunis
Topher Grace
And on the McCain side, we see:
Stephen Baldwin
Lou Ferrigno
Clint Eastwood
Tom Selleck
Sylvester Stallone
So the math goes like this, somewhat. The baldwins cancel out. The lack of Johnny Depp gives Obama +1147 and the endorsing members of the 70s Show cast give +3 (would have been +10, but no “Hyde”, so they lose major cool points). McCain gets +742 for Clint Eastwood, +413 for Tom Selleck, -5 for Sylvester Stallone (due to head injuries and for losing to Apollo Creed) and plus some inaudible amount from the Hulk.
Clearly tied, we look at a few more. On Obama’s side, we see Bill Ayers (I thought they hardly knew each other?) and on McCain’s we see Tommy Joe Alexander of Irondale, Alabama.
Not convinced yet? These things are critical.
I heard today that the University of California is the largest campaign contributor for Obama…contributing more than $ 777,000 so far. Is it just me, or is there something wrong when a state university, which is funded by taxpayers, gives money towards a specific political party?
And why does the media tell me it’s a blowout when (maybe?) it isn’t? And why are there sometimes such wildly different numbers? Are the polls wrong? Shouldn’t the media be careful in their wide reporting if the polls sound like they might be unreliable? People are sheep. If they think everybody is already on board, they’ll jump on board too. So telling the whole country that Obama’s a sure thing is essentially more votes for him in the end.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that the media is largely liberal anyway.
http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/zoolander.gif
Obama doesn’t seem like an Orange Mocha Frappuchino – type guy to me. Maybe more of a carmel mocha….
haha Mary made a racist comment!
I have a story to tell.
After realizing that voting on election day before heading to work at 7am would not be a great idea due to possible lines, I decided to head downtown Columbus with my friend, LeAnn for some early voting action. It was outside of the Veteran’s Memorial building, parking was fairly easy at 0940 in the morning. The line, however was a different story. We were at the the end of a line that was through the doors and wrapped around 2 corners of the building.
We got to know the people around us pretty well, and thank goodness we were standing around some semi-normal folks. We stood in front of an ornery 10 month old who was affectionaly dubbed “Fatty Fat” by her plus-size family. People were generally optimistic, patient, and black. A few people were passing out their left-over Halloween candy, while others were passing out free water bottles. Everyone was obeying the ropes and no line-jumping was ever an issue. All in all, it was fairly pleasant considering the circumstances.
As we approached the doors to get inside we were definitely excited, having stood in line at that point for around 90 minutes. When we got inside, we went up stairs and into a huge lobby with white rope creating a huge maze with a much longer line inside than out.
My friend and I wasted a good hour playing MASH ( I married Colin Firth, live with 2 monkeys, and drive a mint green Gremlin ).
At 2:15pm, I finally walked into the polling room and had my vote cast by 2:30. I still have my “I voted today” sticker in my car. I felt better about voting this election than I thought, even though I found myself voting more against something than for something.
My dad did sent me this link to a video: catholicvote.com which I would encourage any person who is still unsure about voting to watch.
Not unsure of my vote but appreciated this video, Mary. Fowarded it on to others. Thanks. A Long 5 hour wait in line—-you’re a great American!
Just a reminder for you first-timers, “attending” election on facebook or myspace or whatever isn’t the same thing as participating in the election. You’ll need to exit the internets and go to an actual voting location and select a candidate in order to rock the vote. No, that bumper sticker doesn’t count either. And be sure to look around while you’re in there. You may be surprised to see that there’s even more to vote on besides Obama or Palin.
Gee, thanks for the information Bill!
Went and did the early voting thing this afternoon. Only an hour and a half wait, not bad.
*shakes fist at Kelsey*
I feel threatened.
It crossed my mind to move this comment to some arbitrary thread. Would be a humorous thing to read out of the blue…
I know what you mean. I’m so glad that I’ve voted in polls every day they call my house. I wanted to make sure I did my part.
I’ve done so much, in fact, that I’m probably going to take tomorrow off and spread some wealth around, my friends. Maverick-style.
I got in line to vote at 6:30 this morning and was in and out within 25 minutes. I’m happy.
My voting location wasn’t even in the thriving city of Thornville, but in nearby Brownsville (which is merely a 45 mph zone on Rt 40). There were 9 people ahead of me. I was in and out in 20 mins. And the only reason it took that long was due to the elderly ladies working the desk. Out of the 6 voting machines, no more than 2 or 3 were in use at one time.
Win or lose, it’s an amazing thing to be a part of.
Vote Quimby.
Free Starbucks, Chick-fil-a, Ben & Jerry’s, and Krispy Kreme today:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=957263
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkZDug9EuV1uHWF1h8Rn1Wy4IagAD947QH1G0
Might do well to call before you drive though…
I also heard that Sonic is giving away free drinks with your I Voted sticker. Haven’t gotten down to our’s yet, but I plan on taking advantage of both that and Starbucks today.
Had a 15 min wait at 7am – chatted with old high school classmates and neighbors. Fun. And so true, Bill, it IS an amazing thing to be a part of. Would never vote absentee unless necessary.
And congrats, Kels, on your first. I remember mine well….
The Sonic rumor was, in fact, just a rumor. And our Starbucks was closed because of a boil order. *sigh*
Interesting article on “The Chosen One” in case you don’t happen to read anything on Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_re_as/us_elections_world_view
Thanks, Mrs. Yade, for submitting your entry to the Overstatement of the Millenium contest. We will notify you if you are removed from the running, but we’re pretty confident you have a winner with that one.
I find the kind of comments that are in this article disturbing. I sincerely hope the American majority elected who they felt was the best available candidate and not just an arbitrary person from a particular race (or mixture of races).
Does the appointment indicate some sort of advancement regarding racism in our country? If America picked who they felt was the right man for the job regardless of race, then yes. And that’s a very good thing and certainly worth celebrating, regardless of whether I, personally, felt he was the right choice and voted for him. But if that’s not the reason Obama is our president elect then that’s a whole other issue, and in my opinion doesn’t indicate that race is finally becoming less of an issue, but is in fact as much an issue as ever.
I did not vote a race, but it would be absurd to assume that was the case for all voters. Just as many, no doubt, voted against Obama b/c he’s not white, I’m sure many voted for him for that same reason. So if what pushed Obama over the edge this election was voters selecting a black president or half-black president or whatever — whether b/c of racist views, or even good intentions with legitimate aspirations of breaking color barriers — I think that’s indicative of a country that’s still very much focused on skin colour. (And the same would be true if Obama was voted down due to his race.) I think that eliminating the roots of racism that might prevent a non-white person from becoming president is real progress (easier said than done, I know); electing a black man president despite underlying prejudices still leaves us with a racist country, just led by a person of a different colour.
And so I find it frustrating when so much focus is placed on Obama’s race today (and no doubt it would be equally frustrating if McCain had won and today’s news focus was still on Obama’s race). I think I would be even more frustrated today if I were black and an Obama supporter. Surely I would feel the man has much more to offer than his skin colour.
It is somewhat interesting though that I’m not seeing articles today regarding complaints from women’s rights activists… Maybe they’re looking at Palin and just kind of nodding their heads and saying, okay, yeah, I can see that…
But perhaps we’re on our way to an election where a candidate’s skin color is not notable, I dunno. Racism is still right where it’s always been today, but Americans are funny and maybe the fight for the “first of” something is out of their systems and we will get back to concentrating on the fact that regardless of who this person is — black, white, man, woman — they’re the leader of the free world so we’d better make our selection based on qualities that really matter.
I would be happy if in the future race is a non-issue and we can all be focused on voting for the most qualified candidate, which is the only responsible way to vote.
Tom forwarded me a message from facebook that kind of seems to explain my question above. There is apparently a “one drop rule”. Why one drop of Negroid blood trumps one drop of Caucasoid blood and how you distinguish Negroid blood from Caucasoid blood are still mysteries to me. No tasteless sickle cell jokes please; however, Bill may make a Dale Gribble “Get some Caucasoid blood…taint the Caucasoid blood” reference.
“Obama will win its not a matter of race it a matter of progression,we as Americans are finally moving beyond petty social constructs such as race,creed and that other trivial dogma the Republicans throw at him.And granted Obama is Mulato but since the one drop rule inception he will be considered black,but thats a good thing because the States are way behind when it comes to progressive thought. OBAMA”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1857862,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner — a good read; fairly short.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/bush-obama-meeting-hard-feelings-hand-sanitier/ — another
I remember reading Obama’s take on his meeting with President Bush in The Audacity of Hope, and feeling that it was interpreted (if not distorted) through a lens with clear political agenda…
As a semi-germaphobe I can totally see appointing an aide to follow me around with hand sanitizer.
So this may end me up in a camp someday, but I’m with Broun. This is really scary.
How can you hear “civilian national security force” and “as powerful as the military” and not get that cold chill?
Maybe I’ll feel better once Obama Day comes around.
I was thinking similar things when I first read about that, Seth.
How Obama Got Elected (kinda long):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
I was at Barnes & Noble yesterday and this book was featured prominently in the children’s section.
i noticed that too, were you at the one on 156?
the only bush books i could find were in the humor section
yeah, 256, there by the movie theater. I picked it up & flipped through it but it made me feel weird…
http://bushnhammerbros.ytmnd.com/
My initial thought was that this was an interesting move: Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church, to perform invocation at Obama inauguration. But I suppose thanks to “A Purpose Driven Life,” Warren is so mainstream that it makes sense to get someone much of America has heard of but who is still somewhat new(er) to the scene.
I see Warren looking to take over the role of spiritual advisor to the President, now that Billy Graham has stepped down from there. Not sure what I think of that, or why I think of it that way, but that’s what came to mind as soon as I heard it.
Considering that Warren did that not-quite debate with McCain and Obama, and that Dateline this Friday will be reviewing the life of Rick Warren, I think there is more to this than just an invocation at the inauguration.
I know there are many things to consider on inauguration day, but what I can’t help wondering about is the bathroom situation. With so many people and such tight security, how are they handling these kind of basic needs? And how do you pee without wondering if a sniper’s got a bead on you anyway?
Why would someone snipe a random person in the bathroom?
I’m just sayin it’s hard enough to pee when someone’s waiting on you so how much harder if that person’s watching you through the scope of a high-powered rifle. Makes perfect sense to me.
This pic really made my inauguration day:
I lol’d at this one:
Make sure you click on everything.
Wow, that’s pretty extensive, Kelsey.
If you’re having trouble finding them all, try tabbing.
how’d this guy not win the election???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8
I’d like to unload some things I’ve been stressing about here considering our new President…
1. In his first week in office, he reversed the Mexico City Policy, which is considered a very touchy subject on both policital sides for years. This policy states “any organization receiving U.S. family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development cannot offer abortions or abortion counseling”. It has been a political pawn for the past few elections, Reagan passed it, Clinton nixed it, Bush re-instated it, and now it’s overturned again. What is this guy thinking sending my hard-earned money overseas to help aid some poor woman or girl to have an abortion? And what makes me most upset is that he did this within the first 7 days of being President. He did this without hearing the voices of concerned Americans paying for this crap.
2. For once Jon Stewart got it right. You may find it hard to believe that our President wanted to save the government some money by passing a bill that would force veterans to seek health care via private insurance, reportedly saving the government 500 million dollars a year….. Do I need to mention something called a Bailout? or Abortion clinics? What’s your priority here, sir?
3. How much is 1 Trillion dollars? Glenn Beck can help us with this one here. Why do I feel like I’m the only person here who wants to slap some sense into congress’ head? Does it worry anyone here that China now holds over $700 Billion worth in U.S. Treasury bonds? This is so embarassing to me. We are a nation that can’t stop spending money (i.e. abortion clinics) and we keep borrowing money from other countries who not only have their own problems but also haven’t had a friendly raport with the U.S. for very long.
Meanwhile, our President is probably sitting in the oval office watching some good ol’ basketball to see how is bracket is doing. Either that or he’s reviewing some of the humerous banter between himself and Jay Leno from last night.
Someone just got the FOX News channel…
i did enjoy his joking about the special olympics.
I thought this follow-up headline was good: Special Olympics bowler: I can beat the president!
Well stated, Mary. “he reversed the Mexico City Policy” Permitting abortions has been priority for Obama since before the beginning. He doesn’t care if American’s don’t have a say where our tax dollars are going. All of your points are right on. China will one day be on our doorstep to collect their debt. Keep unloading, Mary — you speak for us as well.
What do you all think of this article?
Mary,
I think excise taxes are much more appropriate than income taxes, as a general statement. But “sin” taxes, like the one recently levied against cigarettes (in Ohio, or Federally?) do not make sense to me whatsoever. If you are paying for your health program through a tax on the unhealthy, you will eventually lose your revenue stream, or your taxation was not designed appropriately to begin with.
Either:
1) People will stop consuming soda because of the higher price entirely, and the healthcare goes unfunded. People are generally healthier.
2) People will not stop consuming in any significant quantity, in which case healthcare is fully funded as expected, but health is not improved in any significant factor.
3) Some moderate change occurs in both taxation and consumption, but as the two populations diverge (pop drinkers stop drinking pop, get healthier and pay lower taxes) the tax rate must increase on those still drinking pop or be transferred to other consumers of other items.
Items 1 and 2 solve nothing. Item 3 is by far the most likely, and serves only to put more money into the hands of government, at the expense of free enterprise (the “poor” soda companies).
Also, I think both taxes have been unfairly designed. Shouldnt the taxes apply to the unsafe components of the items in question? High Fructose Corn Syrup, tobacco and the other ingredients aren’t found solely in one product. If they are health risks, other items should be fairly taxed. HFCS in candy, cookies, cake mixes, whatever should be included.
Well once again I took too long to post my canned quip. But here it is anyway so it can look like Seth is frowning at my humour:
So Seth, I get that if we tax, say, smokers, eventually the smokers all die from their vice and our healthcare will in the future go unfunded. But on the other hand, no more smokers. (And aren’t they a drain on healthcare anyway?) Really though, I think Big Tobacky will continue to raise more smokers, as they always have — if for no other reason than that smooth menthol taste and the timeless, homoerotic lure of the Marlboro Man — and then we can keep harvesting them for funding and also for their charred organs.
I do agree that this proposal is unfair though, and if I were a tie-wearing fellow I would check real quick to see if the rumblings have affected Pepsi or Coke’s stocks. I find it hard to believe that Americans would stop drinking though, especially when the increase is only “several cents more for a soft drink.” But I know I for one have been furiously drinking Mountain Dew all afternoon to avoid having to pay back-taxes on the contents of my basement fridge.
Some questions on this though:
- If the basis for this is taxing “unhealthy” drinks with lots of sugar, what loop holes exist that might allow soft drink makers to change their production methods and not have to pay, which could result in lack of funding. And shouldn’t diet soda be exempt right off the bat? The article says drinks like Gatorade and Capri Sun would be subject to the tax as well, so how can they justify this by saying they’re only targeting unhealthy drinks?
- As Seth kind of pointed out, what’s next? As we need more and more money, will we be taxing additional, similar items? And how will that ultimately affect the sugar industry and the oompa loompas?
- Will taxing soda eventually lead to taxing pop?
I think the British had it right back in the day to throw a tax on tea. After all, it does make one’s teeth turn yellow after a while, which isn’t good for anybody.
The biggest problem I have with this article isn’t the fact that the government is trying to take more of our hard earned money or even that it would be for the purpose of enabling the president’s “comprehensive” [universal] health care plan. It’s this quote: ” ‘Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it’s something government should discourage the consumption of,’ Mr. Jacobson said.” The government has no right to tell me how I should live. If I choose to smoke a carton of cigarettes a day while drinking 2 liters of Pepsi that’s my right. That is why America is so great. I can smoke and drink all I want. It’s like the president and his washington goons slap my hand and tell me “you’re going to get diabetes and cancer if you drink/smoke that so maybe you should have this Aquafina Purified water and this genuine organic Brazilian grapefruit instead”.
We’re heading for times where the government knows what’s best for its people. Not the people knowing and deciding what’s best for government. I heard this quote on a Glen Beck program, “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. ” (Thomas Jefferson).
Sorry for the soap box but I’ve been reading George Orwell’s 1984 and this kind of struck a cord with me.
Ha! Are you new? “Comprehensive” healthcare means exactly this. How you should live, what care you should get, at what point they should stop paying for current treatment, and at what age they should decide that it’s not economical to continue to care for you.
But at least no one will go without care. Or is it that no one will receive care? I always mix that up.
this is one of my main issues. I feel its an clever avenue to tax, tax, tax, and get more of our $ to line someone elses pockets. Now, that said, I also have a problem wtih every Billy Bob not working, sitting on his arse all day, eating cheetos, smoking a carton, drinking 2 liters….then getting diabetes, cancer, heart probs, etc, and consequently MY health ins rates contiue to balloon while he’s getting a free ride on the gov med train that I pay into every 2 weeks. If anything is a facilitant to bringing change to this, Im open to hearing about it. Bottom line – I dont trust the guvment w my $.
It’s not the only avenue, and it may have come around too late to make a difference for the country as a whole, but we use a Health Savings Account to have a more direct understanding of the costs of our healthcare. The cost is comparable to normal insurance, but the work for us is a little more, and sticker shock is having the necessary effect on the healthcare that I choose to take on, vs. preventive care.
For what it’s worth.
I don’t hear a lot of support for universal health care, partly for this reason, I think. I’m curious, does anyone here support it or have you heard good arguments for it? Obviously health care is extremely important and currently a problem, but nobody’s convinced me that giving the government control of it is the way to fix things.
Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!
Book in the Chinese book store the other day: “Follow Barack Obama to Learn English!”
English language learning is the one unifying factor among all the young Chinese we have met so far. Many will come say hello just to get into a practice conversation. Obama is also pretty spectacular around here. He, Shaq, and Yao Ming could do pretty well as a traveling basketball team.
What is that, like the 13th issue of Time magazine he’ll have been on so far this year?
This belongs in the Universal Healthcare thread. Which I’m not sure exists, but should.
Here is a most ridiculous article about the “racist” Joker Obama poster shown a couple comments above. Be sure to check out the comments too since that’s half the fun.
OMG, Heath Ledger was black?
Oh, no, he wasn’t. All people with wounds are black.
I really don’t get what he’s saying. Obama wasn’t the first black president, GWB was? Or is it that Karl Marx is black? Or is it that if we can make this poster all about race, no one will pay attention that the word at the bottom is “Socialism”?
unusual paintings of Obama naked with unicorns
I swear, if they do this and if it works…
this was the opening sentence of a yahoo headline
which is like something i would’ve wreote in high school.
… then the public option’s
“death panels”“life completion commissions” will be administered by Chappaquiddick Mutual Life?this (This) was the opening sentence of a yahoo (Yahoo!) headline(.)
which (Which) is like something i (I) would’ve wreote (written) in high school.
In high school? Really? :)
Sorry, had to.
it’ll be a cold day in hell before i ever check my grammer on a bill-johnson.com post
Obama’s national address to your kids
Students! Hearken to my voice!
This thread needs more Democrat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/03/obama-schoolchildren-spee_n_276544.html
Kelsey, your article is extremely biased with colorful rhetoric and therefore is not sufficient evidence for me. Keep ‘em coming though.
I found the PDF files that are handed to the teachers from http://www.ed.gov website. To be honest, I can’t help but get and uneasy feeling with all of this. Some of the questions in the documents can be construed as political propoganda but it may only seem this because of all the hype. We may not know until the actual speech. I guess I’m wondering why the President is adressing the school children to begin with. And if most think that’s okay (because yes, it is good to say in school and don’t do drugs), does it make anybody else nervous that the person who is the leader of an already very controversial administration is now taking it upon himself to adress every school-age kid in the U.S. with the government backing him up? I’m am curious as to what goals he is going to talk about during his speech. And Kelsey, there’s always an agenda, whether it is blatently obvious or not.
I do think it’s odd that some of the articles are stating that both Reagan and Bush adressed schoolchildren publicly. But I read elsewhere that Reagan addressed the schools after the a space shuttle crash, and Bush adressed one classroom, not an entire nation. In any case, my hard-earned tax dollars are paying for this HD broadcast when all I had as a kid was slate board + chalk to do my numbers on and an old fashioned typewriter where the keys constantly stuck to the paper, and if you made one mistake there was none of this “delete” crap, you had to tear the paper out and start all over again, or use that blue paper which allegedly blotted out the mistake. Okay, so maybe pencils were invented when I was younger but you get the point.
Yeah it was really biased, I was in a pretty snarky mood, so apologies about that. It wasn’t really meant to be proof of a non-agenda on the Obama administrations behalf. It was just me being annoyed. Again, apologies.
I just feel like there’s a lot of paranoia surrounding something that will most likely encourage learning and give credit to America’s teachers. The activities are pro-Obama, but the kids always have the option to disagree with him and his policies. After all, everyone has a different opinion. And the discussions that the assignments seem to encourage leave room for debates from every angle. But is it really so wrong to encourage patriotism and respect for the government and our democracy? It’s hard to put my trust in anyone completely these days, but I think it’s even harder to carry on with a negative outlook. Maybe I’m being too optimistic and look too much at the bright side, but I still have a lot of faith in this administration. And a little thing like an address to school kids is the least of our worries right now.
I have no idea if that’s true, but I doubt it to a degree. I’m guessing my tax dollars are going toward something like clunkers or perhaps illegal immigrants’ abortions. But if I can share HD video of my dog licking itself on youtube I doubt it’s setting me too far out for the White House to stream
propagandaencouragement to our little tikes during milk break.Really? When I was in grade school I was primarily concerned with things like the Booger Corner. Communism… err, policies were the furthest thing from my mind and comprehension. Children will believe whatever’s shoved down their throats, as will most of the adult population. The difference is that children turn up their nose if it’s not properly sugar-coated.
And for the record, I happen to agree that this thread needs more democrat.
I agree that there are other issues that are on the top of my list. But I also think that little kids are very impressionable. I have no idea how much a first grader will remember about the video, but the fact that the activities are pro-obama, as you put it and I agree, seems a little suspicious. A 7 yr old can hardly present a case against the Obama administration. In any case, I’m all about high school age kids having a fair discussion on politics and current issues in class.
Also, the government works for us so I think it’s good to question the government. I don’t trust anybody in politics.
OK, I’ll admit that hearing that the President was going to address school children struck me as something a little too “cult of personality” for my tastes. But his opponents really need to understand which battles to fight. If Glenn Beck froths every time something happens, and someone from East Republicton gets on the evening news to say that the government has no right to be telling our kids what to do in public schools, there will be no room for sane arguments. All of the idiots will run the discussion and those of reasoned discourse will just flock to the side that doesn’t look like it has “tickets on sell“.
Though it would be sweet if there were a document somewhere in which Rahm Emanuel proposed that the end of the presentation were a Five Minutes Hate for a picture of W.
I’m not sure I really understand what all the uproar is about – isn’t this just a “stay in school, take responsibility for your education” type speech? At this point, every time I try to find something about the content of the upcoming speech that’s upsetting everyone, all I can pull up are articles about people that are cross with the president for having the audacity to address children at all. Is it just the supplemental classroom materials stuff? I understand that some people took issue with the bit that said “What can I do to help the president?”, but isn’t their reaction because they are taking the question out of context? As I understand it, it was meant as “President Obama wants more children to graduate with a quality education, how can you help the president?” not “How can you help the president promote universal healthcare and other socialist agenda items?”. This could be me just being naive, but I honestly don’t anticipate an attempt to promote policy with this speech.
He’s giving a stay in school speech at one school that is being broadcast so that other schools can see it too. Is this not what Bush Sr. did in 1991? Motivating kids to get a good education is still a good thing, yes? I suppose making sure kids see the value of education *is* technically an agenda item, but one assumes everyone would be generally agreeable to the idea.
Hmm – now that I’m thinking about it, I suppose there is the chance that he may bring up something like whether intelligent design should be included in the curriculum. I still kinda doubt he would, just because it seems out of place for what the speech is intended to be. I didn’t see that brought up anywhere in any article that I looked at, it’s just my wild guess.
I agree with what Seth said, pick your battles. But it is something that definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. I do know that the dept of education had to re-write a few of the questions to word them better so the final product was not as it was seen in the beginning when all this hoopla started. In any case, with this administration already being so controversial and the pres’s rating hovering around 50%, I find it irritating that pres would do something that