Conservative Columnist Calls For Palin To Drop Out

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Sep 26, 2008.

  1. wjk

    wjk

    And if Palin steps down, that would be his best choice. Might not be a bad idea to have some business experience on the ticket, especially with congress freaking out in a panic.

    Just curious: How do the traders who hang out in this section feel about democrat proposals being tossed around for a securities transaction tax to help fund the bailout? Won't happen this time, but would still like to hear from the traders in this forum that vote left. Good idea? I personally think it's a clear sign of things to come if BO gets elected and has a veto proof congress.
     
    #11     Sep 28, 2008
  2. He was my pick for Prez. Hell of a resume, speaks well, and even looks like a President!

    I can't really stomach either of what we are left with.
     
    #12     Sep 28, 2008
  3. There are two threads currently running about this that are very active, especially the one in Trading. Consensus is its the end of the daytrader in America as they want to base the tax on the value of transaction, not just a set dollar value per transaction. .25% of millions per day would crush any daytrader. Would kill liquidity. Much of Wall St would be gone. Would kill Wall St revenue to the Feds as well. Totally counter productive.
     
    #13     Sep 28, 2008
  4. It's giving me serious pause ... and you are correct in your statement.
     
    #14     Sep 28, 2008
  5. This is UNBELIEVABLE - We now have The Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol speaking out (in the New York Times :p) on the McCain Collapse



    September 29, 2008
    Op-Ed Columnist
    How McCain Wins
    By WILLIAM KRISTOL
    John McCain is on course to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama. Can he turn it around, and surge to victory?

    He has a chance. But only if he overrules those of his aides who are trapped by conventional wisdom, huddled in a defensive crouch and overcome by ideological timidity.

    The conventional wisdom is that it was a mistake for McCain to go back to Washington last week to engage in the attempt to craft the financial rescue legislation, and that McCain has to move on to a new topic as quickly as possible. As one McCain adviser told The Washington Post, “you’ve got to get it [the financial crisis] over with and start having a normal campaign.”

    Wrong.

    McCain’s impetuous decision to return to Washington was right. The agreement announced early Sunday morning is better than Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original proposal, and better than the deal the Democrats claimed was close on Thursday. Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.

    But the goal shouldn’t be to return to “a normal campaign.” For these aren’t normal times.

    We face a real financial crisis. Usually the candidate of the incumbent’s party minimizes the severity of the nation’s problems. McCain should break the mold and acknowledge, even emphasize the crisis. He can explain that dealing with it requires candor and leadership of the sort he’s shown in his career. McCain can tell voters we’re almost certainly in a recession, and things will likely get worse before they get better.

    And McCain can note that the financial crisis isn’t going to be solved by any one piece of legislation. There are serious economists, for example, who think we could be on the verge of a huge bank run. Congress may have to act to authorize the F.D.I.C. to provide far greater deposit insurance, and the secretary of the Treasury to protect money market funds. McCain can call for Congress to stand ready to pass such legislation. He can say more generally that in the tough times ahead, we’ll need a tough president willing to make tough decisions.

    With respect to his campaign, McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her — aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she’s a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.

    I’m told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff’s handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They’re supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice-presidential debate on Thursday.

    That debate is important. McCain took a risk in choosing Palin. If she does poorly, it will reflect badly on his judgment. If she does well, it will be a shot in the arm for his campaign.

    In the debate, Palin has to dispatch quickly any queries about herself, and confidently assert that of course she’s qualified to be vice president. She should spend her time making the case for McCain and, more important, the case against Obama. As one shrewd McCain supporter told me, “Every minute she spends not telling the American people something that makes them less well disposed to Obama is a minute wasted.”

    The core case against Obama is pretty simple: he’s too liberal. A few months ago I asked one of McCain’s aides what aspect of Obama’s liberalism they thought they could most effectively exploit. He looked at me as if I were a simpleton, and patiently explained that talking about “conservatism” and “liberalism” was so old-fashioned.

    Maybe. But the fact is the only Democrats to win the presidency in the past 40 years — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — distanced themselves from liberal orthodoxy. Obama is, by contrast, a garden-variety liberal. He also has radical associates in his past.

    The most famous of these is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and I wonder if Obama may have inadvertently set the stage for the McCain team to reintroduce him to the American public. On Saturday, Obama criticized McCain for never using in the debate Friday night the words “middle class.” The Obama campaign even released an advertisement trumpeting McCain’s omission.

    The McCain campaign might consider responding by calling attention to Chapter 14 of Obama’s eloquent memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” There Obama quotes from the brochure of Reverend Wright’s church — a passage entitled “A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.”

    So when Biden goes on about the middle class on Thursday, Palin might ask Biden when Obama flip-flopped on Middleclassness.
     
    #15     Sep 29, 2008
  6. William Kristol is an elitist conspiring low-life and Neo-conservative that is on turbo-charge from his father (Neo-con founder).

    They were all behind Giuliani as "their candidate" early on, and later concerted their efforts for getting Lieberman as VP. They luckily got snubbed, and I hope these Neo-conservative ideology cookers get booted far away from anything politics wise - as pariahs.

    :p
     
    #16     Sep 29, 2008
  7. McGoo drops 70 electoral votes in 4 days - Obama has 300 this morning.

    Meanwhile here at ET:

    Braceletgate: The Soldier Obama Couldn't Remember
    Obama and free speach- Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missou
    Obama playing nice guy for now.
    I admire the House Republicans for growing some BALLS
    Obama- The over hyped unproven theory.
    More Threads »


    :p
     
    #17     Sep 29, 2008
  8. For once we agree. How many disasters does someone have to back before they lose credibility? These neo-cons can't even deliver the votes of other jews, yet they presume to tell the republican party what to do.

    Ron Paul has been right all along. They haven't.
     
    #18     Sep 29, 2008
  9. jem

    jem

    agreed

    these neo cons were a big deception.

    However, their choices are rational. Presuming they are Pro Isreal - Evangelical republicans are they best ally.

    What I find intriguing is that Hollywood is backing a guy who is very likely to support Palestinian self determination and a division of Jurusalem.

    Hollywood is also breaking down the culture that has supported zionism and jews for years.

    Anti Semitism or a least a back lash against Jews is on the rise all through out Europe.
    Here in the states Jews are starting to go from a "favored, protected, wealthy minority" to unfavored. More and more I hear - why the hell should we be supporting Isreal?

    I understand Jews have a fear of majority control. But the majority that controlled the U.S. -- here protected them and supported zionism.

    Now by supporting immigration and a breakdown of our traditional cultural values - they have forced open a vacuum - which will no doubt. That hole is unlikely to be pro Isreal or even pro jew. It will most likely be pro Muslim. And the funny thing is this seems to be the goal of liberal Hollywood, and activist judges.

    What am I missing here.

    Is hollywood no longer pro isreal?
    Do liberals Jewish people really not understand if we get any more tolerant we may turn the corner and start becoming anti Isreal and anti Jew like Europe?
     
    #19     Sep 29, 2008
  10. Neo-cons came along as a movement change from radical Trotskyism and Shacthmanism when the Soviets started treating Jews badly and then became strongly anti-communist - returning to conservative values - i.e "neo-conservatives". The founder of this ideology, Irving Kristol, also outright despise countercultures, and neo-cons are very intolerant.

    The whole neo-con ideology is founded on this uprising reverberating from the plight of Israel, and the idea that "something must be done". This is then researched and "supported" through "scientific work" supporting their views - and apologist formulations and "logic" for them "seizing leadership" to shape the world and "destroy their enemies". This is a red thread in the elite theories of the Kristols, James Burnham and Charles Murray. The American Enterprise Institute (www.aei.org) is chock full of ideological research and articles opinionating support for these views.

    The neo-cons and their rampaging through Bush has led to a surge in anti-americanism and anti-semitism, as well as anti-islamism and islamophobia. They managed to polarize most of the world, and tried to "win over" people to their struggle and destroy US and Israeli "enemies". It strongly backfired, and all the human abuses in the wake of the interventions are frankly just appalling.

    James Burnham called for the US to use every means available to destroy the "enemies" - cultural, economic and military. Hollywood has been fuelling anti-europeanism and islamophobia for many years, so it is no wonder they now are renouncing their old ideology - just like Germans did after the fall of Nazi-Germany. The parallels to the persona led by Bush and Hitler are just striking. The US has loaded up big time on nationalism and symbolism, "strong leadership" and numerous authoritarian abuses - polarizing the world into "us and them" and using basic emotional responses of fear for social control. Now people have started to "wake up" somewhat and realize how deceived they have been.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_control
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_conditioning
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior_modification


    For outsiders it has been much more apparent to understand what has been happening in the US, while the US population still seems like in a smoky haze.

    There are still strong voices supporting the "anglosphere", "heartland control", "managerial state" and "cognitive elite"...
    www.anglospherechallenge.com
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_politics
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
     
    #20     Sep 29, 2008