All Political Posts Go Here!

[ajmccarrell]

I saw that, but what it amounts to is that each candidate has a gaffe machine for a running mate. No more, no less. Either running mate stepping down would be disastrous for either candidacy. The big problem with this is that Palin set the base on fire and it would be suicide to throw her under the bus at this point. She is still extraordinarily popular and attracts crowds of Obama magnitude at her rallies.

[GoS]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I saw that, but what it amounts to is that each candidate has a gaffe machine for a running mate. No more, no less. Either running mate stepping down would be disastrous for either candidacy. The big problem with this is that Palin set the base on fire and it would be suicide to throw her under the bus at this point. She is still extraordinarily popular and attracts crowds of Obama magnitude at her rallies.

Yeah, I agree. And besides, she is a big help to Obama, the more she goes out there, the more popular he will be

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by GoS

Yeah, I agree. And besides, she is a big help to Obama, the more she goes out there, the more popular he will be

Eh, I doubt it. Obama is seeing a surge because, as Americans, we don't understand how the economy works. For some odd reason democrats get the edge on this issue. I've never really understood it. Frankly, any president has little to do with the economy besides setting tax policy. If we boom or bust, it's because of market forces and not the president either way.

[GoS]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Eh, I doubt it. Obama is seeing a surge because, as Americans, we don't understand how the economy works. For some odd reason democrats get the edge on this issue. I've never really understood it. Frankly, any president has little to do with the economy besides setting tax policy. If we boom or bust, it's because of market forces and not the president either way.

The President can control what the oversight situation looks like. And besides, 10 billion dollars a month freed up and who knows where that money could have been put to use.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by GoS

The President can control what the oversight situation looks like. And besides, 10 billion dollars a month freed up and who knows where that money could have been put to use.

Unfortunately, government money tends to "crowd out" private money and in the end hurts market forces. It's vastly less efficient than private money because government cannot really create wealth, it more or less redistributes it. If you factor in the money multiplier, it gets even less efficient, etc.

[GoS]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Unfortunately, government money tends to "crowd out" private money and in the end hurts market forces. It's vastly less efficient than private money because government cannot really create wealth, it more or less redistributes it. If you factor in the money multiplier, it gets even less efficient, etc.

I meant places like bridge building (remember that horrible collapse everyone?) and government things rather than the economy. Maybe some tax cuts for working people or alternative energy. We have sent so much money there that hurts to think what else we could have used it for.

[David]

Originally Posted by GoS

Maybe some tax cuts for working people or alternative energy.

I favor tax cuts for all sectors of the population: rank & file employees, shopkeepers, corporations, blue-bloods, blue collars, white collars, butchers, bakers, & candlestick makers. But I also favor a complete overhaul of the tax code -- initiation of flat or fair or consumption tax on goods & services, elimination of sneaky loopholes & gross kickbacks & entitlements, regulation of lobbyists & PACs -- as well as a very drastic reduction of wasteful spending at all government levels.

Smash the tyranny of the two major parties by not voting for either of them!!

[estranged4life]

aka "WTF did she just say?"

[BombaySapphire3]

a parody of a parody ..how odd.

[Sorceress]

This is the best argument I've seen yet for people to come to their senses.
Palin will never do it and McCain can't, at this point, admit he was wrong. Of course, let's see what happens after the debate on Thursday.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/p...dy_please.html

Palin Is Ready? Please.
Will someone please put Sarah Palin out of her agony? Is it too much to ask that she come to realize that she wants, in that wonderful phrase in American politics, "to spend more time with her family"? Having stayed in purdah for weeks, she finally agreed to a third interview. CBS's Katie Couric questioned her in her trademark sympathetic style. It didn't help. When asked how living in the state closest to Russia gave her foreign-policy experience, Palin responded thus:

"It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where--where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to--to our state."

There is, of course, the sheer absurdity of the premise. Two weeks ago I flew to Tokyo, crossing over the North Pole. Does that make me an expert on Santa Claus? (Thanks, Jon Stewart.) But even beyond that, read the rest of her response. "It is from Alaska that we send out those ..." What does this mean? This is not an isolated example. Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological mantras that she repeats and repeats as long as she can. ("We mustn't blink.") But if forced off those rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly, gibberish.



Couric asked her a smart question about the proposed $700 billion bailout of the American financial sector. It was designed to see if Palin understood that the problem in this crisis is that credit and liquidity in the financial system has dried up, and that that's why, in the estimation of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the government needs to step in to buy up Wall Street's most toxic liabilities. Here's the entire exchange:

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the--it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

This is nonsense--a vapid emptying out of every catchphrase about economics that came into her head. Some commentators, like CNN's Campbell Brown, have argued that it's sexist to keep Sarah Palin under wraps, as if she were a delicate flower who might wilt under the bright lights of the modern media. But the more Palin talks, the more we see that it may not be sexism but common sense that's causing the McCain campaign to treat her like a time bomb.

Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. The next administration is going to face a set of challenges unlike any in recent memory. There is an ongoing military operation in Iraq that still costs $10 billion a month, a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is not going well and is not easily fixed. Iran, Russia and Venezuela present tough strategic challenges.

Domestically, the bailout and reform of the financial industry will take years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Health-care costs, unless curtailed, will bankrupt the federal government. Social Security, immigration, collapsing infrastructure and education are all going to get much worse if they are not handled soon.

And the American government is stretched to the limit. Between the Bush tax cuts, homeland-security needs, Iraq, Afghanistan and the bailout, the budget is looking bleak. Plus, within a few years, the retirement of the baby boomers begins with its massive and rising costs (in the trillions).

Obviously these are very serious challenges and constraints. In these times, for John McCain to have chosen this person to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, it is simply not true.

Posted by Fareed Zakaria on September 28, 2008 10:56 PM

[SuzeQuze]

Wow. Scary how closely Tina's dialog followed the real thing!

[TrueFaith77]

it's down already

[Musicman408]

Yes, I want her as my VP.......

[SuzeQuze]

SNL are Nazis about pulling their stuff off of YouTube.

[omigodstevie]

I thought it was once again, genius. I liked the first one better, though.

But some people haven't gotten that what Tina was saying wasn't just an exaggeration of the real thing. A good chunk of it WAS the real thing! How sad.