1) Iraq: Were such a need to arise, judged by the US President, that we needed the assistance of Canadian military troops on US soil (for whatever reason), how long would you trust this President and his administration while the foreign military forces maintained a presence in our country? If after 5+ years and they still hadn't left, and Canada's government was publicly dictating US policy, would you be united under the leadership of this President, or would you be working against him and for the expulsion of the foreign forces?

The US military presence must be removed from Iraq for any Iraqi government to have credibility with the people of Iraq.

2) Abortion: Mirroring your question, if 66% of Mississipians believe that slavery should be legal, the federal government should stay out of it? The "federal mandate" of which you speak is also referred to by some as Constitutional rights, which the federal government is mandated to uphold.

3) "Death tax": If you wish to present yourself as someone open to unity and compromise, then you need to start shelving some of the divisive, misleading, and disingenuous rhetoric purchased from Frank Luntz et al. If it were a "death tax", then everyone would pay it. If the movement were "pro-life" then they would, by necessity, be anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-stem cell research, anti-poverty, etc.

The "estate tax" is a healthy tax, wisely instituted long ago in part to preclude an aristocracy of inheritance from effectively becoming American royalty.

4) Energy/market decide: If you haven't noticed, the free market has failed miserably to position the country for the needs of the future. This is the basic problem with the free market, it is reactive, not proactive. A problem as large as our energy independence is not going to elicit necessary funding without government mandates that lessen the risk to investors. "Free market" is another term that should discarded, along with "death tax", "pro-life", etc, as there is no such thing as a free market.

Brazil is almost entirely energy independent now, and not because the free market led the way to fueling their automobiles on ethanol. It was government regulation, government mandates, taxation, and prolonged commitment. Ironically, Brazil and the US were headed in the same direction at one time, until Ron Reagan nixed the energy independence initiatives of President Carter. (Ask yourself where we'd be as a country, today, if we'd continued down Carter's path towards energy independence.)

---

Re: McCain/Obama points... I don't see the pro-McCain points as based on reality or on specific policies; they're just general fear-inducing talking points we've heard for years -- and note that none are really detailed specifics of why to vote FOR John McCain, as opposed to reasons to not vote for Obama. Your Obama points were somewhat more policy-based, but then we get a list of what you don't like about Obama without a similar list for McCain. Again, if you're looking for unity, this is an aggressive approach, rather than the conciliatory approach the Right *should* be offering, given the Right's ultimate and almost sole responsibility for our current situation.

Oh, as for Supreme Court justices, add "strict constructionist" and "judicial activist" to the list of talking points to retire. It's been documented that Scalia, Thomas et al, have been the MOST activist of Supreme Court justices, based on their records of overriding legislation -- putting aside the travesty that was Scalia's halting the vote-counting on December 9th, 2000 and the court decision on the following Tuesday.

... but it's been posted on DU, by sfam, and another version on Photobucket

fwiw, I modified sfam's version to better fit on our pumpkin, and to make the message more relevant for the home-stretch...

home.comcast.net/~krkweb/du/VOTE_Obama.jpg


home.comcast.net/~krkweb/du/VOTE_Obama2.jpg

edit: p.s. If you need to get the Obama patterns to some last-minute carving party lacking an Internet connection, I've zipped 'em all up (plus a few other campaign/political) stencils as a single zip file, at home.comcast.net/~krkweb/du/Obama_Pumpkin_Patterns.zip Of course, you'll need a laptop & printer (and the ability to open PDFs).

 
Compare the Obama interview vs the McCain interview

Contact WFTV, especially you Floridians, and let 'em know what you think...

p.s. NOTE McCain's slip in his video, at 00:50, where he begins to say "we're tampering with" ... "America's most precious right"

... before criticizing Franken's position on the bailout:

 
... adding the following as the ending:

(1) switch the final McCain "last 8 years haven't been so good" clip w/ one from his (?)recent campaign stump speech, interview, or debate(?) where he says "I'm not George Bush."

(2) append the Bush "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... can't get fooled agin" clip to the video, including a laughtrack w/ (derisive) laughter

(3a) And, finally, append one of the various still images of McCain giving Bush some up-close love, a hug, etc. (Ken Burns effect optional)

(3b) ... and do a voice overlay on the still image, along the lines of:
• "Don't get fooled again."
• "Someone's trying to fool you again", etc.
  
  (you might even want to have Bush's "fool me once, shame on me" line lightly echo in the back ground.)

I've been wanting to do this the last coupla days, but have been too busy. I'm very glad to see they've updated the previous mash-up, as this is a much improved version.

Afterthoughts...
- if video editing software and skills are there, might want to find a way to intermix McCain's "I've given Bush rimjobs throughout the last 8 years", "voted with Bush 90% of the time", and endorsement clips with his newfound protestations against Bush and the last 8 years.
- the music style doesn't seem to fit
- some sort of transition (narrator) needs to be inserted after the initial McCain "last 8 years" clip; maybe asking "who's to blame, Sen. McCain?", "who's supported Bush's policies of the last 8 years?), ...?

... and putting aside the fact that he appears, in the video, to be satisfied with Obama's interraction with him at the end, based on his nodding and body language... ... he's full of s**t.

Obama spent SIX MINUTES with the guy, detailing his tax plan's workings, fighting through an initial interruption. The fact that Wurzelbacher doesn't like Obama's answer, that he doesn't agree with Obama's approach, does not equate to Obama being evasive -- or in Joe's suspect wording, "tap dancing."

Show me *ANY* time that McCain has put himself out there like Obama did, spending that much time with any one voter, let alone one in opposition to his positions.



What baffles me is... Where the hell is the praise for Obama for having spent that time talking to a voter so obviously opposed to his policy? And where's the outrage over McCain and Palin failing to make themselves more available to the press, let alone the public?

 
In reference to Rachel's discussion w/ Bob Herbert on Wednesday night's show, Bob suggested that using Palin as "the attack dog" may have contributed to her high unfavorability ratings. This is likely true, though Palin's lack of preparedness (and qualifications) is also a factor.

The problem with using Palin as the attack dog is that she was the least known of the four candidates now in the race, so she didn't really have any foundation of credibility with the public, any standing, from which to make such an assault on Obama, whom much of the public has been getting to know for the last 2 years. Palin's negative, personal attacks against Obama may not have been successful this year, regardless, but her lack of standing became a multiplier in the blowback against her.

Similarly, Palin's lack of preparedness, lack of substantial qualifications, really, also acted as a multiplier against both Palin and the McCain ticket when the economic crisis emerged. The new, sassy candidate from up North might be a refreshing twist to enliven the campaign, but her shallowness, exposed in a series of TV interviews, became politically cancerous in the context of the economic crisis.

One hour later and they're now at $348k & $340k, for Al and El. Franken's pulled-in $8,000 in the last hour.

Franken for Senate '08

I've seen a few articles and a post discussing the McCain campaign's response to the news articles reporting al Qaeda would prefer a McCain Presidency:
The McCain campaign response to this news, in a conference call Wednesday morning, was to suggest that the al Qaeda supporters were using reverse psychology: that what they were saying was the opposite of their belief (aQ member “not speaking from his heart”)... and that their statements were actually intended to harm McCain's chances (aQ “clearly trying to damage John McCain”).

Putting aside, for the moment, that this logic contradicts the findings of the CIA regarding al Qaeda's tactics relative to the 2004 US election, I am wondering if anyone is going to note this response as YET ANOTHER case of hypocrisy and incoherence from Republicans and the McCain campaign.

This instance of al Qaeda commentary, potentially damaging to the McCain campaign, is reverse psychology... but, according to both members of the Republican ticket, McCain & Palin, we're supposed to base our Middle East policy directly on the comments of Osama bin Laden (where bin Laden's statement provides support for McCain's continuation of the Iraq occupation)...


So which is it? al Qaeda's statements can be taken at face value, or we have to consult elementary school students to help determine whether we know that al Qaeda knows that we know what al Qaeda knows, etc.

Do we really want an Administration that isn't perceptive enough to consider the likelihood that basing our policy on the recommendations of our enemy (i.e. continued occupation of Iraq) may not produce results to our benefit? The American people deserve to know on what other matters of US policy might a McCain/Palin Administration seek the advice of Osama bin Laden? (Would McCain/Palin have Osama bin Laden as National Security Advisor? They could certainly argue that he wouldn't be much more strategically destructive than Condoleeza Rice and Stephen Hadley.)

It's time we have an Administration that understands the strategic goals and tactics of the enemy, and works to defeat the enemy ... as opposed to assisting the enemy in checking-off the items on their to-do list.

Ayers isn't denying his advocacy and involvement in bombing. Ayers just doesn't view the WU's bombings as terrorism, because they weren't intended to terrorize -- or to cause any harm to people -- but to bring attention to America's policies. (Sort of like the WU was using the bombings as slaps to the face of the American consciousness, trying to wake-up the public to the actions the US government was taking supposedly on behalf of its citizens.) Though the WU was certainly more extreme, they were no more terrorists than extreme environmentalists who light Hummer dealerships afire. Both are destruction of property, alone, and pretty serious criminal activity, but in neither case is anyone being terrorized.

And it's almost never noted during these "discussions" that no one died as a result of the WU bombings -- aside from three members of the group, itself, when they still called themselves The Weathermen. When one of the bombs they were building blew-up in their faces, sending the rest of the group on the lamb, they changed their name to The Weather Underground. Again, the Weather Underground planned its bombing to avoid any casualties or injuries; which stands in stark contrast to the works of Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, murderers and true domestic terrorists, and people like John McCain's close personal friend, G. Gordon Liddy, who advocated the murder of federal agents.

Finally, was WU made-up of extreme radicals, or were they patriots? If one were to listen to G. Gordon Liddy types, they proclaim their patriotic right to forcefully resist government overreaching and illegality; which is just what drove the Weathermen to turn away from strictly pacifist civil disobedience. Without know there was a name for it, COINTELPRO, the SDS members who became The Weathermen were reacting to the violence they saw being perpetrated by the government against its own citizens, in the form of violence against and political assassinations of members of the black activist movement. Research the times, and one will quickly see that the Weather Underground was a reaction to the illegal, violent, state-sponsored murder and terrorism conducted as part of COINTELPRO. *THIS* is why charges were never brought against members of the Weather Underground; it would be impossible to get convictions once COINTELPRO had been exposed.


p.s. As for the source of the Ayers quotes, the most-often cited is the New York Times interview of Ayers, coincidentally published the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, where his book is discussed. The article starts with the now infamous quote -- though we'll never know if the article's author didn't splice Ayers' phrases together.

 
(YouTube: The McCain Campaign in 6 Seconds)

Charlie Brown represents McCain, the football McCain's Presidential hopes, and Lucy represents those who convinced McCain that selecting Sarah Palin as his VP nominee was his only chance of winning.

Thanks for posting, Cat. Hoping to move beyond the forums, I've emailed friends and family the following message, asking them to, in lieu of a vote, "cast a buck against Bachmann."

And Ayers didn't kill anyone; while Liddy's 1994 anti-government rantings on AM radio, including instructions to his listeners on how best to kill federal agents, were part of the environment that inspired Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, killing 168 (including 19 children) and wounding more than 800.

But John McCain still attended a fund-raiser on his behalf at Liddy's home in 2008, and praised Liddy in November 2007 for "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." Does McCain include among those principles the defiance of the rule of law and the murder of federal agents?

John McCain needs to explain exactly what his relationship with Liddy is, and whether the principles he's praising include Liddy's unrepentant defiance of the rule of law and the authority of the government.

Okay, now I'm wondering in which of two ways does Palin appear worse...

1. Twisting Albright's statement regarding oppressed and exploited women into a self-serving quip in support of her own political career; or
   
   
2. Interpreting her "providential" moment, using her words, that the message being communicated was that more women should support HER, as opposed to, perhaps, a rebuke, that maybe that she should do a better job of helping out women, from her position of power, by, say, not charging for rape kits.

Startling narcissism.


p.s. And then there's the hilarious side... the small town hockey mom who's just like the average person, paying $5 for a latte. And she doesn't read newspapers... but reads Starbucks cups? Are we going to have a foreign policy based on fortune cookies and matchbooks when she takes over for McCain?