Home > Community Lounge > Politics > NY Times Endorses Obama

NY Times Endorses Obama

  1. so, they wait until he has a 10% lead to endorse him? Way to go out on a limb, NYT...
  2. The Times is just shilling for Obama's smalll business, under 250 tax credit which they will qualify for next year... [​IMG]
  3. The New York Times has not endorsed a republican in the general election for president in almost 50 years.
  4. "S&P slashes New York Times rating to junk"

    Apparently readers have too... [​IMG]
  5. Just thought I'd check your claim, and the New York Times website had 14 million unique visitors in August alone.

    That seems pretty good to me.
  6. Oh you can do your own internet research - glad to hear it. Guess you won't have to ask me to do it for you anymore... [​IMG]
  7. I give the NYT's two years before it shuts and goes online.
    The New York Times Co. reported a steep drop in third-quarter profits on Thursday, the latest gloomy earnings report in an industry battered by online competition and falling print advertising revenue.
    The New York Times Co. said net profit fell by 51.4 percent in the third quarter to 6.5 million dollars, or five cents per share, from 13.4 million dollars, or nine cents per share, in the same period a year ago.

    The company, which owns About.com, The Boston Globe, International Herald Tribune and 16 other daily newspapers besides the flagship The New York Times, said overall advertising revenue fell by 14.4 percent during the quarter.

    Shortly after the release of its results, Standard & Poors said it was lowering the Times's credit rating to "BB-," or junk status, while Moody's Investors Service said it was placing it on review for possible downgrade.

    The Times said print advertising revenue fell by 18.5 percent in the third quarter while online revenue from NYTimes.com and other websites rose by 2.5 percent.

    "The decline in print advertising revenues this quarter accelerated as the economy slowed," New York Times chief executive Janet Robinson said in a statement.

    While print advertising revenue fell, online advertising revenue grew by 10.2 percent in the quarter to 74.4 million dollars, The New York Times said, and now accounts for 12.4 percent of revenue, up from 10.6 percent in the third quarter of 2007.

    It said total revenue fell 8.9 percent in the quarter to 687 million dollars from 754.4 million in the same quarter last year.
  8. Please see the other thread. I investigated your claims since you wouldn't support them.

    Turned out you were wrong.
  9. You sound pretty confident. I'll bet you any amount of money that you're wrong.
  10. And after the NYT goes online they will find that everybody checks Drudge and Fox for their news nowadays.

    I live in LA Times land. I never could stand that paper, long before I formed political opinions. It's formulaic, stories of misery, misery, and oh, did I mention misery? And the information to misery ratio is very low as well.. unless it's African misery and a Sunday edition, then they can outdo the CIA factbook on details about places I never knew existed... and after I toss the paper I still don't know they exist.

    I'm not miserable at all, rarely have been, why would I read that shit? Anyhow, I recommend boycotting liberal rags, read them when they are free only, never pay for one...
  11. Hee hee, speaking of papers, the IBD has McCain closing on Obama with 10% of voters undecided... and with Obama not able to admit he's a Socialist /Marxist protege of some ass clown marxist we forgot from the 60's... well, bring on the riots then..
  12. "online advertising revenue grew by 10.2 percent in the quarter to 74.4 million dollars, The New York Times said, and now accounts for 12.4 percent of revenue"

    two years, give or take. Online is 12.4% of revenue. Once that gets to be 25-50%, maintaining overhead costs of printing daily papers becomes counter-productive.
    I see them doing a Sunday paper and holiday papers only.
  13. Holy shit! The New York Times, bastion of objective journalism, endorsed Obama?!? No freakin' way!

    Who could have seen that one coming!

  14. Granted - but there are many that are endorsing Obama that have never endorsed a Democrat before (I should say backed a Democrat for President). The Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune.

    Obama has a 3 to 1 lead on endorsements:


    "The Sun-Times announced the selection in a banner notice on its Web site Friday afternoon, shortly after the Chicago Tribune released its own endorsement of Obama, the first time in that paper's 161-year history it has backed a Democrat for president."
  15. Camp Followers
    by Patrick J. Buchanan

    "Perhaps the only institution in America whose approval rating is beneath that of Congress is the media.

    Both have won their reputations the hard way. They earned them.

    Consider the fawning indulgence shown insider Joe Biden with the dripping contempt visited on outsider Sarah Palin.

    Twice last weekend, Biden grimly warned at closed-door meetings that a great crisis is coming early in the term of President Obama:

    "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. ... Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said … we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

    A "generated crisis"? By whom? Moscow? Beijing? Teheran?

    This is an astonishing statement from a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has access to the same intelligence as George Bush. Joe was warning of a crisis like the Berlin Wall of July 1961, where JFK called for a tripling of the draft and ordered a call-up of reserves, or the missile crisis where U.S. pilots like John McCain were minutes away from bombing nuclear missile sites in Cuba and killing the Russians manning them.

    Is Russia about to move on the Crimea? Is Israel about to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites? What is Joe talking about?

    If one assumes Joe is a serious man, we have a right to know.

    Instead, what we got was Obama's airy dismissal of Joe's words as a "rhetorical flourish" and a media -- rather than demanding that Joe hold a press conference -- acting as Obama surrogates parroting the talking points that Joe was just saying that new presidents always face tests.

    Had John McCain made that hair-raising statement, he would have been accused of fear mongering about a new 9/11. The media would have run with the story rather than have smothered it.

    Contrasting McCain with his hero, Joe declared a few weeks back, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and ... said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

    Nice historical reference. Except when the market crashed in 1929, Hoover was president, and there was no television.

    Can one imagine what the press would have done to Sarah Palin had she exhibited such ignorance of history. Or Dan Quayle?

    Joe gets a pass because everybody likes Joe.

    Fine. But Joe also has a record of 36 years in the Senate.

    Has anyone ever asked Joe about his own and his party's role in cutting off aid to South Vietnam, leading to the greatest strategic defeat in U.S. history and the Cambodian holocaust? Has anyone ever asked Joe about the role he and his party played in working to block Reagan's deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe, and SDI, which Gorbachev concedes broke the Soviets and won the Cold War?

    In the most crucial vote he ever cast -- to give Bush a blank check for war in Iraq -- Joe concedes he got it wrong.

    Is Joe's record of having been wrong on Vietnam, wrong in the Cold War, wrong on the Iraq War, less important than whether Sarah Palin tried to get fired a rogue-cop brother-in-law who Tasered her 10-year old nephew to "teach him a lesson"?

    "I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know," says Joe humbly. Given his record, it is understandable Joe has forgotten so much of it.

    Saturday, the New York Times did a takeout on Cindy McCain that delved back into her problem with prescription pills. Yet when Hillary's campaign manager, Mark Penn, brought up Obama's cocaine use on "Hardball," he was savaged by folks for whom the Times is the gold standard.

    The people apparently had a "right to know" of Bush's old DUI arrest a week before the 2000 election, but no right to know about how and when Obama was engaged in the criminal use of cocaine.

    The media cannot get enough of the "Saturday Night Live" impersonations of Palin as a bubblehead. News shows pick up the Tina Fey clips and run them and run them to the merriment of all.

    Can one imagine "Saturday Night Live" doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud" of my country, this "just downright mean" America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent?

    "Saturday Night Live" would be facing hate crime charges.

    How do we know? When the New Yorker ran a cartoon of Michelle in an Angela-Davis afro with an AK-47 slung over her shoulder, New Yorker editors had to go on national television to swear they were not mocking Michelle, but the conservatives who have so caricatured Michelle and The Messiah.

    Is there a media double standard? You betcha."
  16. We forgot to include Rolling Stone and most of Hollywood.
  17. And this proves what, exactly?

    Newspapers, IMO, shouldn't be endorsing ANYONE.
  18. I agree, reporters should report the news. Not try to make news.
  19. I'll give you one small example of how anti-newsworthy the L.A. Times is. You heard a few months ago about the arrest of an ex-Chicagoan in the murder of Ashton Kutcher's former girlfriend? I was visiting L.A. around the time so the ghoul in me wanted to check out where she lived. I looked for the original 2001 article in the Times (I have a way of back dooring the Times internal search engine, :p) figuring they'd have her specific address rather than the generic "Hollywood Hills apartment" contained in the fresh reports. Turns out the Times didn't report the murder! Now one would think the murder of a model, ex-girlfriend of a sit-com actor in an apartment north of Sunset would be a pretty notable homicide. Not to the L.A. Times. Similarly I was reading about a home for sale above the Strip-something like 7mil-and there was mention that a previous owner had been murdered there in the late 90's in a possible home invasion., no arrest ever made. The Times gave it one paragraph! Can you imagine a homeowner being murdered in one of the most expensive residences in the city and it receives virtually no print? Yet if a drive by slaying happens in Compton there's a follow-up on it the next day!

  20. Its in the OPINIONS section. There really isn't much news and facts in that section...deceptive as its title may be...
  21. It was just anorther moronic, partisan endorsement. Unlike the media I see NOTHING cutting edge, innovative or outside the box about Obama's policies. It's as if he read a Lyndon Johnson playbook from the 1964 election.

    Do you want a viable example of why the endorsement was inane? The word Pakistan isn't even mentioned. Within a year Pakistan will be the most talked about nation in the world......
  22. Haha Pabst. Obama is going to be at civic center park in Denver Sunday, about 2 blocks from my apartment. I'll send you pics and tell him "hey" for you if you want! :p
  23. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire......
  24. That's very wise: Obama is charged with misleading the nation... :)
  25. Haha nice. I doubt you would for anyone that may adversely affect your net worth, no matter what the cause :)
  26. He is on fire, and you're just pissing in the wind. (As an aside, There's that grammar thing again. No doubt, you're too busy trading size to notice.)
  27. And that's the other half of the idiotic liberal "one size fits all" solution to political debate: those who disagree are either greedy or stupid. You guys produce no coherent arguments - just hurl insults across the political spectrum. Got it. :)
  28. You'd never guess how many cars I've processed today. ZERO. :)
  29. Err. You're an idiot. I argue with Pabst all the time. Its all in good humor, and I know his reasons for hating Obama. Its ironic that you accuse me of having a "one size fits all" approach when in fact thats not at all my thinking. You assumed it was because..well...you're an idiot, and didn't think that maybe pabst and I have talked and argued before. Maybe one day my arguments will be as coherent and thought out as those copy/pasted links you always post. When your best stuff in a discussion is a pasted youtube link well, what can i say? Well done.
  30. There will always be a print version. But I suspect that NYT will do massive reductions in costs, from buying most of their stories, to cutting out fluff, to eliminating "routes" that are not profitable 9in the same way Circuit City is closing 150 stores), to mergers with other papers to cut fixed costs such as HR, to layoffs, to moving production overseas to cheaper locales, to outsourcing almost anything not directly related to bringing in revenue (IT, payroll to ADP, supplies, etc.), etc. etc.
  31. Yeah, I hear you, the dreaded "you should have seen the one that got away" defense. OK fine, no harm done.

    Imo, everything we do represents us: what we write ourselves and what we choose to cut and paste. Almost 90% (imo again) of the "Politics and Religion" posts ar either vacuus or dumb. Posting well thought through articles by the bigger players in this field, and an occasional light-hearted videoclip, is healthy and constructive. Please do the same from time to time.

    But, of course, my best work and most valuable contributions are in the "Jokes" thread. That's how I get through the day. Can't you tell? :)
  32. But you see cutting edge, innovative, outside-the-box thinking from the McCain policies? I'm going to assume the answer is no, because no one with an IQ of 141 like you have could possibly interpret the following as cutting edge, innovative, outside-the-box thinking.

    McCain-Palin: Obama is a terrorist!! Troops home with honour and victory!! I've been tested! Wall Street bigwigs!! Joe the Plumber! I'm not Barack Obama!!

    I've been listening to McCain's actual speeches and that's about all I hear from him. As I've said before, I'm stunned that the GOP made the identical mistake the Kerry campaign made in '04 - running on the 'I'm not my opponent' platform.
    The only guy to point out that the war that needs to be fought is not in Iraq at all, but in Pakistan and the hills on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is...

    yep, the terrorist Obama.
  33. Why the post? You didn't refute a single point I made. No I don't think McCain has enough needed qualities either. Nothing could express my contempt for a Democratic President coupled with a near super-majority Dem Congress better than my vote for John McCain. Until this election I wouldn't have voted for McCain in a dog show. My vote is 100% anti-Obama. McCain is one of my least favorite Republicans yet he'd be LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than Obama.

    Biden's remarks were honest and correct. The world will be ablaze within months. Who needs that kind of shit?
    Cowboy diplomacy might not be popular in the over hyped bistros of Paris and Columbus Ave but it served America fairly well. In the narrow sense of Iraq specific the war was wasteful. In the BIG PICTURE of keeping weirdos at bay, yes IMO the Iran's, Pakistan's, North Korea's, Libya's, Venezuela's and even Russians and Chinese behaved like the thief who knows which homeowner on the block gets an itchy trigger finger with the .44 on his nightstand. Except for an ingeniously planned black swan this nation didn't suffer in eight years a single domestic death due to foreign terror. Yes we paid a price. But not an inordinate price. Half a bailout. We got some utility out of it.

    Obama of course is a hawk-as I predicted YEARS ago-and yes he'll sell to an economically ravaged America the glory of fighting against the "real terrorists." Sounds good. Except for two little things. Pakistan's a big, populated place. 7x Iraq. With nukes. Choked with a populace that hates infidels. So two choices: wantonly kill millions of Pakistani civilians-because that's how wars like that hinge-or instead we get our ass kicked. Simple outcome choice. One or the other. Jihadists can't be bought off with some limp wristed peace branch. Ask Israel. So if Obama feels the need to get even with fundamentalist Islam where the "war on terror is centered" then I'm sure he'll find a way to get 75% of America right there with him. Wish us luck.

  34. I think that's a massive overstatement. Just my humble opinion. And even though I know how you feel about Sarah Palin, (as bizarre as your views seem to me - "a Revolutionary", the "President of the U.S. in 2012"), I believe she represents a huge liability to the ticket now that people are actually realizing what her presence means.

    I wonder why you would vote for someone you 'wouldn't vote for in a dog-show'. Why not write someone in? Wouldn't that be truer to your principles?
    C'mon man. The world ablaze? Everyone knows Biden is a blowhard who can talk himself into a corner without even trying. He just fucked up his speech - what he was trying to say was that foreign leaders will test Obama and he will respond. That's common.

    I cannot believe the bogeyman fear-mongering tactics of the Republicans in this election. If they had spent some time talking about their vision for the future as opposed to playing the fear card, they might be in better shape.

    I still say this will be very tight in the end, as those who don't want a black man in the White House make themselves heard.
  35. What does her "presence" mean? Other than someone with common sense-the only of the four to tell Americans honestly that they too fucked up with over extension of credit-someone without globalist ambition is close to being President? Gee and she's not even a lawyer.

    I would never "write in" because it's TRULY a wasted vote-busy election judges just throw those ballots away-and my McCain vote is Palin. It's funny how libs go ape-shit that the regressive conservatives are "scared" of Obama yet the left has an equally weird Palin paranoia. Exactly why I love the challenge of trading. The best looking price action can be the start of something substantial or a pure fade.

    I look upon 90% of decision outcomes as random-Dependant on unrelated or abstract variables. The idea of favoring policy because it's well articulated or even "thoughtful" has no bearing on effectiveness or results. Good ideas are good ideas even if uttered by a bum on the street. As a society we take no quarrel with the chances of an impoverished, uneducated artist putting colors, notes or words together in a never before seen pattern of unique beauty but we narrowly consider the domain of ideas to be the exclusive domain of the elites.

    Like many good traders Palin is smart enough to get out of her own way. That's an important concept of libertarianism. I should not think for you nor dictate to you because it's YOU with power of ideas and action who can best discover your own life. Thos loking up Obama for leadership or guidance are lambs. Like Eric Hoffer said, "if you have a hero, think again. You've diminished yourself in some way"....

  36. IBD poll was the most accurate in 2004. They missed by 0.4%.
  37. Obviously, you are out of touch with reality.

    Unlike Ron Paul, who refused to play any of the games the republicans wanted him to play, Palin has done everything that McCain and company told her do to, told her what to say, told her what to wear, etc. She is nothing but a damn puppet parrot.

    If she had any integrity as a reformer, she lost every bit of that integrity by aligning herself with McCain, who sold his own soul as a genuine Maverick to become president.

    Palin, like McCain put their own ambition for power above their own personal principles.

    I know you want to think she is the answer, but to thinking folks who can see through her obvious political nature, she doesn't have any integrity left.

    Huckabee has more integrity than this woman, and that is not saying much...

  39. I still say this will be very tight in the end, as those who don't want a black man in the White House make themselves heard.

    It's nagging me that it's so "obvious" to overwhelming majority that Obamarx wins.
    More self-assured mob gets much better chance for upset.
  40. Neither candidate is offering anything revolutionary, just variations of their parties slant.

    Remember you're electing a party not an individual. And those parties are protecting their constituents. Ask yourself what type of constituent are you?

    Should the wage earner be favored over the employer. Should the poor be favor over the investor. Or should the employer and investor be allowed , with least resistance, to provide dynamic growth and wealth building in this economy.
  41. Not going to build much if the bottom 80% are too broke to do anything but stay home and play board games.
  42. Her presence means precisely this: that if something happens to John McCain and he is unable to carry out the duties which devolve upon him by virtue of his position, she will become the President of the United States, and she is obviously not ready to fill those shoes. In the end, the #1 responsibility of a Veep is to be there in case something happens to the Prez.

    I saw a speech given by McCain this afternoon. Was he talking about the economy? Nope. Was he talking about American security and foreign policy? Nope. Was he talking about the environment? (No, and you'd think that the environment was a total non-issue for the Republicans. I haven't heard either one of them mention it except for Palin's 'Drill now, drill deep' or whatever it is she says).

    No, what he said was this, and I quote,

    "Who is the real Barack Obama?"

    The Bogeyman!!!

    Looks like the RNC has decided to either eke out a slim victory or go down in flames on the 'I'm not Barack O-terrorist' platform.
  43. Nik, I honestly don't see why that is an unreasonable question given his alliances with people such as Ayers, and 20 years of worshipping at the altar of Rev Wright's black liberation theology.
  44. Hey Hap

    Well, I know he worshipped at Rev. Wright's Christian altar, which is definitely a bit disturbing (that footage of Wright's ranting is ridiculous). Whether he worshipped at the altar of Black Liberation Theology, I don't know. Maybe you have better info than I do. Certainly it can't be true that Wright's entire congregation subscribed to the more radical tenets of his philosophy.

    Re: Ayers, I do think there's a difference between seeing Ayers on campus or being there when he was drinking in a pub and actively participating in the planning of domestic terrorism. No one seems to be able to come up with evidence of the latter - I'm sure it would be made available if it existed.

    I hung out with some very questionable characters in my youth as well : )

    In the end, Obama just looks to me like a guy who has been sucked into the power game and is trying to grab the brass ring, which is what most pols are doing. I don't buy the argument that he has some nefarious plan for Black Domination or that he will plan domestic terrorism from the Oval Office. Do I think he'll make a good Prez? I don't know. I do admit that he's an ivory tower type guy and not someone who has the battle scars, either literal or figurative, that McCain has. McCain just doesn't 'read' well in a media age - that's a big part of his problem.

    I have been pretty consistent in my claims that the most relevant thing about McCain/Palin's focus on Obama is not the veracity of the charges they are making, but the fact of the approach. John Kerry lost in '04 when GWB's approval was extremely low and the Iraq war was getting very unpopular. How did he manage to lose? By running on the 'I'm not GWB' platform. Americans rightly said 'You lose' because he didn't define himself, except to say 'I'm not him'.

    Now, the RNC is trying the same strategy! I just find it bizarre.
  45. Nik, thanks for the response.

    What bugs me about Obama's relationship with Wright is that you're talking about two decades of friendship and mentoring by a veritable nutcase. Wright married the Obama's and baptized their children. Wright is close to Louis Farrakhan - the two of them went to Libya together to meet with Qaddafi (when he was a very bad boy - before the invasion of Iraq scared the shit out of him to the point he abandoned his nuke program). Wright rails against whitey, damns America, and claims the AIDS virus was designed by Uncle Sam and targets black people.

    Two decades, Nik....and only now, when he's running for Prez, and Wright's philosophy becomes publicized, does Obama distance himself from Wright. At least on the surface...Holy shit, if McCain had attended a White Supremacist rally for five minutes, let alone over the course of 20 years, would he be getting a free pass from the media?!? Fuck NO!! Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, and Co. would be hounding him 24/7 about it.

    As for Ayers, I don't believe that he's out there planning the next 9/11 or anything. But I also do not believe the claims that he and Obama were nothing but casual acquaintances. From what I've heard and read, the two served together on various boards that funded ultra-lib "educational programs" with millions of dollars, and Obama launched his political career at a coming out party at Ayer's home. I'd have a lot more respect for Obama if he would simply own up to the relationship instead of trying to deny it.

    That's just a couple of things. At the end of the day, we have this guy who comes out of nowhere and we really don't know much about him. What is the deal with his family in Kenya? Did he support the Kenyan politician who wants to enact Sharia law there? What was his relationship with Tony Rezko? What specifically does he disagree with Ayers and Wright about (if anything)? Other than this campaign, what enterprise has he actually managed, and how successful was it?

    There are so many questions about Obama that his supporters don't seem able to answer, except to say to refer to his website.

    Obama is benefitting from a perfect storm of events - distrust of Bush, dissatisfaction with Iraqi war, and now the economic crisis. I think his greatest strength is that he is not a Republican, and that is enough for tens of millions of people. To them, he is, quite simply, the only alternative. Never mind that they really don't know anything about him...
  46. Very well said.
  47. You think that Obama should come out and say something like this?:
    "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." - John McCain to G. Gordon Liddy, 11/07

    Personally, I wouldn't advise Obama to make a similar statement about Ayers.
  48. Liddy didn't participate in the planning of events violently targeting American lives. Plus I doubt McCain has raised money in Liddy's home.

    It's apparent Ayers and Obama had a relationship beyond "serving" on boards and seeing each other in the parking lot at their children's school. Why is it obvious? Because Obama doesn't deny it. Given that Obama spent hours being grilled by the Feds on Rezko he knows how to keep his lawyer hat on tight when speaking of Ayers.

    All he ever needed to say was "other than being on a board with Ayers I hardly know him." Obama doesn't answer the question directly. Out of all the people Obama worked with while performing community work who was it who threw him his first fundraiser? Given Obama's political ideology am i surprised he'd be tight with ayers? Not at all. Troubled? No. Like Nik I've cultivated radical relationships so I view those things a bit liberally. What pisses me off about Obama is the sneakiness. He's like Peter. Denies friendship with Ayers, didn't hear any of the bizarre Wright sermons, denies being at Rezko's home when Rezko feted Nadhmi Auchi even after a Federal witness placed him there, uses Harvard as the ultimate resume prop but doesn't release earlier transcripts or test scores, the flip flopping on issues from campaign finance to drilling to NAFTA to Jerusalem.

    When one has little public record these things become important-the equivalent of votes on the Senate floor. Sen Obama do you support Black Liberation theology? Then why did you vote with your feet and stay in Wright's church until tapes were made public? Sen. Obama do you side with corruption in Chicago politics? Then why didn't you vote with your feet and not accept contributions from Rezko until he was indicted?

  49. Among his supporters that don't want to find answers are the majority of the media, who seem more interested in finding out every last detail of a common nobody citizen than they are about the next leader of the most powerful position in the world.
  50. Uh, did Liddy break the law?

    Liddy may not have targeted events of violence against Americans, but what he was involved in was much more insidious than anything Ayers ever did or tried to do.

    Ayers was a punk outsider revolutionary with zero chance of impacting the way government functions...Liddy on the other hand was part of a vast conspiracy that threatened the very fabric of our Constitution.

    Who did greater harm to America?

    Perhaps it is finally time to stop blaming people for the books they read, the beliefs they hold, the churches they go to...and look to the actions they take that have actual ramifications on the political process.

    The absolute truth is that you have no idea what Obama would do if elected, none.

    And that fact is what probably worries you the most...

    I don't know what he will do, I have no idea at all. The facts I do have is that he has done nothing to actually warrant the level of hatred seen against him, and I do know that McCain is 72 years old and is slipping mentally, and that McCain betrayed himself and his real principles for one last chance to be president.

    Both McCain and Obama are driven to have power. Palin equally, if not more driven. Biden? I don't see Biden driven by much at all really.

    So it comes down to what we actually know, and what we actually don't know.

    McCain likely means more of the same, which most Americans don't want. Blame Bush and the republicans for that, a McCain loss is all about Bush in actuality.

    Obama? He is the Ace of Spades, and if he is playing a game of hearts he might be killed by having to take the queen, and if he is playing poker, he might take the pot by trumping every other card.

    At least be honest for once, stop hiding behind your third person bullshit, and just call a spade a spade...

    Obama could be the worst president we have ever had, or he may end up being one of the best.

    No body knows, but we do know what we get with McCain...a person who was nearly universally hated by the ET republicans, who now have to make false attempts to support him, and/or fawn over Palin hoping that she becomes more than she actually is.

    Let's get real and stop the insanity, okay?

    Obama is a player, no doubt. He is as much of a politicians as I have ever seen, which means he has a secret and hidden agenda. The question is what that agenda really is?

    Does he want to go down like Bush, who will be viewed in history as one of the worst presidents ever but did as he damn well pleased because he could, or does Obama have an agenda to use his talent to do what is necessary to get a second term and go out a popular president.

    I don't see Obama's core at all. I don't have a clue what his core is, beyond an unhealthy (like most all pols) need for adoration and a lust for power.

    But who knows, even bad people have done good things....and some very good people have done some very bad things.

    If Obama is elected, why not at least give him a chance. Give him a year or two.

    Why not put your love for America (if there is any real love for America) in hoping for the best for America despite whomever is elected...

  51. What DID Liddy participate in?

    "In a March 9, 1998, article (retrieved from Nexis), The Washington Post's Al Kamen reported that Liddy hosted a fundraiser for McCain's 1998 Senate re-election campaign."


    'Liddy hosted' : 'held in Liddy's home'.
    'fundraiser' : 'event to raise money'

  52. Accurate.

    "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." - John McCain to G. Gordon Liddy, 11/07
  53. "G. Gordon Liddy's comment in 1995, when discussing how he'd used stick figures of the Clintons for target practice. "Thought it might improve my aim," he said."


    "This gave Liddy hope "for the first time in my life" that he too could overcome weakness. When he listened to Hitler on the radio, it "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," he explains. "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]."

    "In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year."
  54. "Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton."
  55. You would be one awful lawyer.
  56. Ayers and Liddy are on top of the American voters priority list right now. Right !? And you blame politicians for being clueless. I haven't seen a single exchange in this thread debating how a single voter's life will be impacted if this or that candidate's proposal were enacted. Economic policy, foreign policy.

    All what you guys seem to care about is who has been in whose living room 20 years ago. Bingo.

    ET is worse that Bill Ayers's living room. Anybody hanging out here should be disqualified from ever running for political office.

  57. Umm not of all of us discuss that kind of BS only.
  58. Reading your post does make one stop and think. Let's look at a few points in reverse order

    1. Re: Ayers, the biggest objection that both you and Pabst seem to have is that Obama won't just come clean about his relationship with Ayers. To me, this isn't very surprising... for a lawyer. As you know Hap, lawyers tell their clients one thing before all else - do not volunteer any information. So if the Ayers thing is more about Obama's lawyerly refusal to acknowledge anything for which his opponents have less than complete evidence, I would say again that this isn't that unusual in politicians and I am dead sure we could find a bunch of examples of Republicans who have some less than savoury past associations and who won't simply serve up an admission on a silver platter.

    2. The Rev. Wright thing is the most distrubing for me. Yep, the fact is that he sat in church and listened to the good Reverend spew that incredible bullshit about AIDS and whatever else he was spewing. Then he had the good Reverend marry him and finally baptize his kids. I am very surprised that McCain has not decided to bring this up - and I still say that we will see him do so next week.

    You mentioned that Obama is benefitting from the a perfect storm of events and this is defininitely true to some extent. However, I place blame on the RNC and McCain as well. They have handled this campaign very badly in my view, and the biggest mistake the are making is focussing 100% on Obama as the bogeyman. It didn't work for Kerry in '04 and it isn't working now. In part, it isn't working because McCain and Palin just do not 'read' very well on camera when they are making these charges. McCain has that smirking thing going on, sort of sarcastic, and Palin has the sarcasm as well, constantly referring to Biden as "ol' Joe" when she's running him down. Like she's just saying what everyone knows to be true. That 'folksy' way of denigrating Obama isn't working either, regardless of the veracity of what she's saying. It's just not working, and the RNC media consultants should be fired tonight.
  59. McCain has said that negative campaigning works, and he's used it a little bit. As to why he isn't plastering images of Wright all over the media with his "GODDAM AMERICA" I don't really know. Some speculate he won't do it because he was attacked by people who say he fathered a mixed race daughter out of wedlock, (he actually adopted a girl from a Bangledash orphanage). It seems pretty clear he is going to lose this election regardless of the NYT, (nobody reads newspapers anymore). If he were going to start pulling out all of the stops to make up lost ground in the polls, the time to start doing it was last week. I don't think he'll start doing it this week either. It's bizzare because there is nothing more important in a politicians career than winning a presidential election. You never see a football team that is down by a touchdown in the final minutes of the game playing conservative football, but McCain refuses to go to the two minute drill.
  60. I do.