Archive for October 2008

What does this mean?

October 30, 2008

From Steve Benen @ Political Animal:

The combined overall household rating for Senator Barack Obama’s Wednesday night infomercial, in the top 56 local television markets where Nielsen maintains electronic TV meters, was 21.7.

But looking solely at the numbers, I’m left with the impression that there are actually quite a few Americans interested in politics this year. Think about [it] — one in five households tuned into a political commercial, which lasted a half-hour.


Biting the hand that feeds you

October 30, 2008

From the NYT:

Big banks have formed an unusual alliance with consumer advocates to urge the government to allow huge portions of credit card debt to be forgiven, a turnabout from recent years when the banking industry lobbied strenuously to make it harder for consumers to erase their credit card debts in bankruptcy.

Remember the bankruptcy bill?  I do:

Bankruptcy reform has been a top priority of banks, credit-card companies, and retailers for the past decade. The credit card industry has given $25 million to federal candidates and the political parties since 1999 and commercial banks have given $76.2 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group. More than 60 percent of the donations went to Republicans.

Opponents of the first revamp of the nation’s personal bankruptcy laws in more than a quarter-century said the legislation would deal a ruinous blow to the overwhelming majority of those forced to declare personal bankruptcy: moderate- and low-income families, many of them black or migrant or with only one parent; and individuals of modest means hit with large divorce losses or medical expenses.

What happened?  Oh, right – it was a terrible idea in the first place.  They got (more) greedy and it came back to haunt them.  I say tie debt forgiveness to a whole new set of lending laws, a set that really, really cracks down on predatory lending and increase bankruptcy protection.  Don’t provide another giveaway to another set of giant companies.

For a detailed recount of how it passed way back in 2005, see this incredible DK diary.

Oregon ballot measures according to Oregon newspapers

October 30, 2008

Courtesy of Loaded Orygun:

I think 57 is terrible, but other than that, I tend to agree.  In fact, it appears that I agree with the GT’s recommendations. How about that….

P.S.  This is post #1003!  Somehow I missed post #1000…. oh well.

I think it’s called ‘chilling’

October 30, 2008

No, not that kind.  This kind:

“I saw a couple that had been escorted out and they were confused as well, and the girl was crying, so I said ‘Why are you crying? and she said ‘I already voted for McCain, I’m a Republican, and they said we had to leave because we didn’t look right,’” Elborno said.

“…because we didn’t look right.” Hell of a way to run a campaign, right?

I wonder exactly what ‘looks’ were out of fashion that day…. or what would happen if certain ‘looks’ become inappopriate at future Republican events.

The Economist endorses Obama

October 30, 2008

This discovery prompted several long seconds of speechlessness in the room.

One particularly notable bit:

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him…

Bottom line?  The Economist is apparently run by people who still have a grip on reality.  (And therefore realize that Obama really isn’t that far to the left.)

Also, according to their website, the world supports Obama as well.

Where ‘straight talking’ takes on a whole new meaning

October 29, 2008

I think McCain is either confused (possible) or actually confident that people will believe this (also possible).  Needless to say, neither option is good.  McCain in July:

Americans have got to understand that we are paying present day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers…and that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace.

Yes, he was actually talking about Social Security.

McCain being interviewed by Hannity a day or two ago:

McCAIN: Now, of course we have an obligation to take care of citizens in our society who can’t care for themselves. That’s why we have those programs, those Safety Net Programs. But you know, the Safety Net Program, a lot of Americans pay in to Social Security, they pay in to a number of those programs. So the point is, yes, a society and government takes care of citizens who need our help. That’s what America is all about.

What do you think?  Is he dumb, or does he not think it matters that he completely contradicts himself?  I would have never guessed dumb until he picked Palin (and not because she is or isn’t dumb, but because that sort of judgment is just terrible).

Also, as someone who takes an interest in rational argument and consistency, this just pisses me off.  It’s insulting.

Were I a better blogger, I would write some long explanation about how McCain made a decision early on to win the daily news cycle, which leads to him saying whatever is convenient at the time, and how that decision is, AFAIK, one of the biggest reasons he is losing the election:  He’s flipped more than the bird in NYC.

Picking Palin, of course, doesn’t seem to have helped.

It’s not funny

October 29, 2008

From a frequent letter-writer to the DH:

Next time, sign thief …

I had my McCain/Palin sign stolen off my property the other day. At first I though it might be someone following the Obama mantra, you know, take from those who have and give to the have-nots. Thought it would be nice to give a McCain/Palin sign to some poor soul who did not have one.

Then I checked and found that an overabundance of McCain signs have been stolen off private property so therefor, by mere deduction, it had to be a Marxist-leaning liberal who believes that the First Amendment only applies to liberal free speech.

I can assure this person that should I catch him on my property again I will give him a lesson on the Second Amendment.

Larry Crompton, Scio

That sure sounds like he’s threatening to shoot someone, doesn’t it?  Over a presidential election sign?

Call me whatever you’d like, but this is the kind of thing I would be passing on to local law enforcement were I employed by the newspaper that received the letter.