Ahhh...the "Elite Panel" would be a fascinating thing to watch. Of course, no candidate would ever put themselves in a position where they could demonstrate their intellectual reasoning so nakedly and without the safety net of their talking points. Ever since the LWV stopped running these debates, the level of discourse has suffered tremendously.

I thought that Brokaw was a terrible moderator. His "discussion" questions seemed to be no different than many from the first debate.

While I certainly understand your frustration, if I were to change anything about how folks run for political office, the first thing wouldn't be debate format.

First and foremost, let's reduce the time and cost of our campaigns, and funnel those resources back into our infrastructure. Then, we can work on how the opponents engage each other and inform Americans how they would sail the ship.

In this day and age, how would panels of topical "experts" be any less political or more fair minded? During the primaries for example, Krugman was clearly in the bag for Hillary. How many "gotcha" moments could he have embedded in any of his questions, while appearing to be high-minded? And, since real people are still the ones who elect our officials, citing the Laffer curve as an argument against increased taxation would simply lose a lot of us.

As you point out, what's missing is the follow-up. Whether by design or otherwise, the press continues to abdicate their role in the evaluative process. A Joe Six-Pack or Hockey Mom could moderate these debates as currently crafted, you betcha. That's not the fault of real people, it's because the campaigns are apparently allowed veto power over the debate formats, and as a result, neuter the role of the press, or anyone for that matter seeking further clarification/explanation of a particular position. Who gave them that power? I certainly didn't.

The citizen questions were fine last night, but until someone can compel these candidates to actually answer them and wrest control away from their campaigns, this is all we'll get.

LAMBERT: I'd like to read a transcript of the negotiations for these debates. My guess is that the moderators are warned against using follow-ups and pushing for specific answers. But why have a "real people" debate and constrain the "real people" from saying, "huh?" or "run that by me again?" My point is that you can keep all this heavily-formatted stuff. But find a way to encourage one high caliber interrogation.

The debate was a bore. I think if the people would have been able to ask the questions without Brokaw vetting them, it would have been more interesting. The attraction of the townhall format is the people and the unpredictability of what they might ask but in such a tightly controlled atmosphere, that was lost. All we got was predictable questions and more rhetoric. What I wanted was more personality, more intimate looks at the candidates rather than more of their scripted, ever-fluid "positions."

LAMBERT: If Brokaw actually chose the questions, which is my understanding, it might be time to ride off to the ranch. The respect for conventional wisdom is tedious to the point of being counter-productive.

While the angel on my left shoulder applauds your idea of a panel of elites, the devil screaming at me from the other side thinks that a contest between the candidates, a la Fear Factor, would be far more interesting and revealing of character. I'd pay good money to watch John McCain stick his face into a vat of large beetles.

LAMBERT: Of maybe, a la medieval satanism, we hurl candidates into a moat attached to a 1000 pound ingot. If they float, we elect them.

I thought the Israel question from a citizen was good. On the whole I agree with your observations.

Why the quotes around 'domestic terrorism'? I think here at least not only is no one entitled to a different set of facts - there isn't a different set of facts.

LAMBERT: I can only imagine what your "facts" are there.

No "panel" in America can change or hide the fact that Obama is the most unqualified candidate ever to run for President.

Country first.

Obama has zero experience in the financial or national security arenas.

Period.

To vote for him is to vote for the terrorists who seek our demise.

Recently I have been unable to access the internet due to a computer problem that has prevented me from voicing my opinion. Those of you close to me have already heard the story and I am forbidden from typing it. The rest of you will just have to call and ask me.

In the time I've been unable to blog, I've been collecting new information to share with you. Most shocking is voter fraud. I urge you to go to youtube and type in: "Diebold voting machine flips votes". I also urge you to visit blackboxvoting.org and check the voting machines your state uses. You can call 1-800-345-VOTE and ask.

You may already know that in 2000, Gore actually won the election. You may not know how. 16,000+ votes were flipped in a small county in Florida. Also, over 20,000 voters were turned away because they were african-american and they were told that convicted felons were not allowed to vote. Republicans cross-checked for this information, but went a rude step further and added any names that were similar. A pastor was turned away, he'd never committed a crime in his life. His name just happened to be similar to that of a convicted felon.

Diebold, the maker of these bad voting machines that have been hacked, already had to pay one lawsuit in Sacramento, Ca., for over 2 million. Hopefully the civil action brought on by the state a few years ago will keep them and other voting fraud equipment out of California. One can only hope. I'll be checking MY vote and I urge YOU to do the same.

I suspect that since the wealthy are dumping stock like nasty, exposed roaches scrambling for cover, this is an indication that they know they cannot win this election and have no plans for trying. The public is watching! Obama and the Democratic Party are aware of the previous stolen elections. Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, was given a demonstration on how the process works.

So why are they keeping quiet? Why hasn't the mainstream media been covering this? Why hasn't it come up in the debate? Or on any news channel? The Democrats, I hear, did the math. They determined that Obama is doing well, and that they don't want to discourage Americans from voting. Be comforted that they know - and that they will be checking the voting process. Since the 2000 election, there are no more cards to physically punch. The touch screens leave NO paper trail for a re-count. So make SURE you get a receipt. Then just pray.

For more information, you can also google Clint Curtis. His dog was killed the day he signed an affidavit in to law in Washington, D.C. You see, he wrote the software for Diebold. He passed a polygraph, and Rep. Tom Sweeny asked him to write the program. Clint Curtis has been very brave. One man he told his story to was murdered, although it was ruled a suicide.

WAKE UP AMERICA - STAY WITH ME! STAY ALERT!

98% of reason is unconscience, so WAKE UP and LISTEN! Don't fall for the "Joe six-pack" comments that appeal to simple minds. Tune in and remember that studies have been done to determine the public mind and your preference for simple talk. But listen carefully and recognize when you are being S-N-O-W-E-D !

Love ya,
Sharon Jenson

I think taking debate moderation away from people who make millions as on-air personalities would go a long way toward advancing your stated goals for the
debates. Network-level anchors, even on PBS, cannot risk their "Q" ratings asking questions that might strike the groundlings in the audience as in some way untoward, i.e. "elitist," "liberally biased," etc. Their hugely compensated lives cannot bear such enmity from public.

The scrutator's role should go to rumpled, anonymous to only an "elite" readership, print reporters who do not appear on cable, who do not see a direct connection between their likability and their ability to command huge salaries.

This corps of discerning observers could ask the sort of question and follow up questions we all yearn to hear answered. And then, after their one stint, they should be rotated with a different panel, before they develop an on-air following and start playing to their audience share instead of their fourth estate duties.

LAMBERT: Amen. The suggestion that you stand candidates up before some kind of "bloggers' board" has been mentioned, using the likes of say, Glenn Greenwald and Glen Reynolds, or Mickey Kaus. That'd be invigorating.

You know Brian, I think you are close with this idea, that you are in the right church, but the wrong pew...or maybe more accurately, mixing up the pulpit with the pews.

These candidates are supposed to be presidential, to be the guy sitting among the experts, asking the tough questions, setting the tone, and making the big decisions at the end.

So I think the candidates should be forced to bring in 1-2 of their choices for major cabinet positions--Treasury, Energy, Defense come to mind quickly--and be forced to make these geniuses address the candidates positions on the major issues facing the nation.
--no moderator (other than maybe a timekeeper)
--no questions from pundit-headed panels
--no undecided voter malaise
--no in-studio audience, just viewers on TV

The candidates and their big brains asking their potential cabinet nominees to expose their big brains to the world.

Then, at the end of each segment, the candidate is allowed a closing statement to wrap up the discussion and explain why their approach is best. It exposes some of the cabinet-underbelly of the candidates and frees the presidential candidates to actually be presidential, to speak to the people of his cabinet and this country directly, to lead them toward the vision they feel the country needs to go on major issues?

Now wouldn't that beat winking and you betcha answers?

LAMBERT: Bill O'Reilly and Barney Frank would beat winking and you betcha.

BL - I can only imagine what your "facts" are there.

Ayers is/was a domestic terrorist. You'd be one who'd dispute this?

LAMBERT: Oh, Christ. Go ahead. Make a coherent argument that Obama was "palling around" ... My observation was that even McCain knows that this is such foul junk he couldn't bring himself to float it in front of 50-60 million possible voters.

BL - Oh, Christ. Go ahead. Make a coherent argument that Obama was "palling around" ... My observation was that even McCain knows that this is such foul junk he couldn't bring himself to float it in front of 50-60 million possible voters.

Obama had, what, a 5 year (more?) collegial relationship with Bill Ayers? He had his political coming out party at Ayers house. That’s quite literally palling around. Palling is as good and accurate a word as any.

What’s foul about it?

I don’t have any illusions this will matter in the election, and certainly recognize much of the population wouldn’t ‘get it’. I’m just again bemused. Bemused this has to be treated with Orwellian double speak, that it has to be erased from Obama’s past.

LAMBERT: I see that Team McCain today has abruptly dropped your "domestic terrorism" complaint. Perhaps they got an earful from their polling that this stuff is so foul -- the point is he condones terrorism and could very well be one himself -- and so far off the beam voters give a damn about that it wasn't worth the time it takes to spew it.

Your idea has merit. Unfortunately, merit has no merit these days.

Instead of a reasoned, intelligent debate, we received two hours of soundbites aimed at the lowest common denominator. And the problem with aiming to provide for the lowest common denominator is it tends to provide the lowest quality product. We've seen this over and over in our politics and politicians.

The situation, supported by both major, is unlikely to change barring a massive voter revolt. So, the best we can do is hold our collective noses, and "pull the lever" for the person(s) we pray is (are) the least damaging to our county, economy, and society as a whole.

LAMBERT: There's a lot of "standards" up-grading I expect Obama to do if elected. One of which is some kind of "Prime Minister's Question Time". Clinton should have done it.

"Palling around", which is quite well documented, with an unrepentant advocate of bombing federal buildings, is grounds to dismiss ANYONE who would be running for Commander in Chief.

To insist otherwise is quite simply, the mark of serious mental instabilty.

Aiding and abetting the lowering of mortgage lending standards for minorities is grounds for immediate irrelevancy as it relates to leadership in addressing the financial market.

Again, what has become of common sense and decency in America, where a charlatan like Obama is even given a second glance?

The mind reels.

LAMBERT: Have you peeled that "Mentally Unstable for W" sticker off your truck?

Obama looked and sounded like a sleazy car salesman during this last debate and McCain looked and sounded like a stiff penguin. As Americans we are in deep trouble. Both candidates are morons. By the time these two are done with our economy, Americans will be fist fighting over a loaf of bread. As far as immigration both candidates want to give amnesty to all illegal aliens including the ones with significant criminal history which includes murder, rape, child molestation, burglary etc.

LAMBERT: Really? Amnesty for rapists? Is Palin using that one today?

Sitting together on a four person board of the Annenberg Foundation?

What do you call that?

BL - seemingly capable of nothing but snark when faced down by the truth....

We now know that Obama will be sworn in this January. The "Mrs. Dave" who doesn't really follow politics stuck a fork in McCain last night.

To the right leaning commentators here. I get why you dislike Obama, that's a given. But give me a reason to vote for McCain, other than he is not Obama. Another $300B tossed out there last night by McCain for helping people with mortgages? That is a Republican? Hell, why don't we just mail out huge checks to everyone who has a house. We can just print more money right?

Like it or not, McCain is tied to Bush and the sitting party. He needs to prove why he is better than Bush and last night he didn't. Not even close.

But I guess I should feel comfortable with McCain. Tina Fey is right around the corner to take over. You betcha!

LAMBERT: I think I've said this before, but I'm astonished at how bad a candidate McCain is and what a ridiculous campaign he's run. In 2000 he could have won in a walk. But he gives every sense of being another of these guys who feel the presidency is their due, and when they realize they've got serious competition they throw ethics, manners and judgment to the wind. The choice of Palin was full and final confirmation of his sense of desperation and willingness to do "anything" to get back in the game.

1. Brian, you've somewhat nailed it, but to continue the point -- I don't think they will ever agree to any format that would prevent them from recycling their stump speeches into the answer to any question. The questions weren't that bad last night, and for sure the lack of follow-up detracted, but they were just determined not to answer directly. If I were one of the "real people" questioners, I would have been outraged by the bloviating non-answers. (Has any publication or station tried to talk to those people about whether they were satisfied or not?)

The New Hampshire woman's "zen" Q was good one (what don't you know and how will you learn it), but they refused to answer it. They answered that they didn't know what the future held. Duh. That's not what she meant. On other questions, where the "real person" sought a real answer, the candidates talked about themselves. Both wasted almost their entire time, just running out the clock.

Anyway, the town hall format was powerless vs. the windbag imperative.

2. Both candidates need to be pushed more about their outrageous claims regarding the opponents. For example, the moderator in the next (last) debate should ask this question: "Sen. McCain, many supporters at your rallies are making a point to emphasize Sen. Obama's middle name. What do you think they are trying to accomplish with this? Do you think it is a blatant attempt to paint Sen. Obama as not a true American? And do you CONDONE this constant stress on his middle name? Why? Have you ever asked your supporters to stop doing it?"

I don't know about experts, or blow-dried network TV celebri-anchors, but a rumpled print journalist would ask that.

LAMBERT: I'd suggest a "Meet the Press" style panel of rumpled wretches, but Republican operatives believe every journalist other than Shep Smith (FoxNews) is in the tank for the Democrats. So fine. Just experts. The way to break this syndrome is for a smart guy like Obama to hold regular one-on-ones with credible questioners, thereby creating a new standard for high office-holders.

Com'n BJ...FACE CARD ISSUES, not these 7 of club issues.

How about this then--I say the fact McCain cannot handle the real issues of the day and is forced to rely on Schmidt-Rove issues instead...that puts a Jack of Diamonds into Obama's hand.
--care to address that?
--care to address the 'solution' McCain is offering for the Iraq War = stay there until we are VICTORIOUS! Even though it is widely acknowledged that fighting insurgencies in ethnic civil wars means there will never be a victory, right? Your comment, sir?
--care to address the 'bailout'...oh, sorry, I hear from McCain now that it is a 'RESCUE", do you feel rescued? Won't this raise your precious taxes? Your comment, sir?
--care to address health care...McCain says my boys will get a tax credit, except if they had enough money to afford to pay taxes, they could probably afford health coverage, right? Won't any hospitalization for all these uninsured people continue to plague your hospitalization costs being lumped onto your cozy covered care? Where is the solution in a tax credit, eh? Your comment, sir?

I've been waiting weeks for you to address the real issues...just like I've been waiting for you to stay on topic of these postings...guess I'll just have to keep waiting, even a blind pig finds ACORNs, seems any day now BJ will too, law of large numbers and all.

LAMBERT: As I say Mike, bertram's purpose here is to provide a constant reminder of the large, empowered crowd of people for whom rationality, proportionality and legitimacy mean nothing. They are what I call "the talk radio Right". They display command of no information other than what has been shoveled at them by highly-commercialized fake "news" outlets. The rest of us need to keep in mind both that they exist and that they exert significant power over the "balanced" media.

Brian, While I understand the importance of politics, especially during this time of year, I also miss your articles regarding the local media. I'd appreciate hearing your comments about: 1) KARE ignoring Diana Pierce's silver anniversary at the station in September, especially after celebrating 25 years of the Backyard in May [Di has maintained greater longevity in the market than other notables such as Cyndy Brucato, Pat Miles and Colleen Needles]; 2) Amy Hockert and Terri Gruca leaving their weekend anchor gigs; 3) The addition of Phil Aldridge as Sports Director at KSTP; 4) WCCO replacing Paul Douglas with Chris Shaffer, as well as adding its own weather/jock boy counterpart to Sven Sundgaard; 5) Ratings flucuations, etc. Thanks!

LAMBERT: Thanks, man. I do intend to shift more time to that kind of thing after the election is over. FYI -- Chris Shaffer worked with Sarah Janecek and me at KTLK. You could tell he was way up on the brain power curve even then. The new weather guy, I guess, is not Bud Kraehling. But Chris's suits look a half to one size too big.

I don't recall any local station "celebrating" an anchors longevity - unless they leave or die.

Oh, and Bill Ayers is a terrorist buddy of Obama's.

BL: "rationality, proportionality and legitimacy"

Oh, that's rich.

Where is the "rationality" in an Obama candidacy?

No one knows who he is, or what he has done, or what he plans to do, except raise taxes. What we do know is he never authored a thing except his two biographies, and that he consorts with felons and terrorists.

Where is the "proportionality", for example.in the media's coverage of Palin's family . governing vs. the non-existant, even cursory exposure of Obama's "family-tree" and ties to Wright, Rezcko, and Ayers.

Legitimacy? Enough said.

Oh, it's so very, very, rich.

But you are right about one thing - we are powerful, and that power will be evident on November 4th.

The Obama Fan-Dance Must End [Mark R. Levin]

As someone who has written critically of John McCain on a host of issues, including the Keating Five, none of it compares to the life that Barack Obama has led and his belief system. Obama is not merely associated with domestic terrorists, Palestinian radicals, Marxists, and black liberation ideologues — he was their favorite candidate. They groomed him. They befriended him. He befriended them. He socialized with them. In other words, these people saw Obama as representing their views and aspirations and he saw them the same way. I am not among those who raise Obama's associations but add "of course, it doesn't mean Obama shares their views." Oh really? These miscreants include Obama's former pastor, political mentors and allies, and friends. Obama attempts to downplay and distance himself from his own circle of allies now that he is running for president. But he is one of them. Obama is getting a pass that no other candidate in my memory has ever received.

If John McCain had belonged to a church for 20 years and that church advocated white supremacy and the pastor of the church spewed racist propaganda wrapped in Biblical verses — much of which was caught on video-tape — what would we say? If McCain's good friends included people involved in blowing up abortion clinics instead of the Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and police stations, what would we say? If McCain was socially close to a professor with ties to neo-Nazi groups in Berlin, as opposed to a professor who had ties to the PLO, what would we say? If McCain spent his formative years schooled in fascism as opposed to Marxism, what would we say?

Every time Obama's life experiences and character are raised, the response is a diversionary tactic. Today, we're supposed to be impressed with the moral equivalency argument (Ayers = Keating Five), or Obama's associations and friendships aren't what they appear to be, or Obama really isn't like all those people he drew around him, or those raising these issues are guilty of McCarthyism. There are 30 days left in this election. It's high time the Obama fan-dance ended.

10/06 01:43 PM

I think it speaks well of you that you avoided sarcasm when speaking about Glen Reynolds. He runs a good blog.

Any thoughts about Obama’s membership in the New Party? (see Powerline). Are those docs Killian like fakes, or are they real?

Mike, et al: If you want to know to what constituency Bertram, Jr. belongs, check out the baying know-nothings at an Ohio Palin rally. Brings to mind the waning days of the Weimar Republic. "We don't know who Obama is," they mewl, while they worship at the feet of a woman whose name they'd never heard before five weeks ago, and who has since been reluctant to be interviewed, and when she did submit, could not bring herself to disclose what she reads, while claiming that she does, a woman who consorts and even shares a bed with a group currently espousing secessionist aspirations and hate language toward the lower 48. That's US, Bertram, Jr., as in you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/09/mccain-palin-rally-attend_n_133240.html

For those who need more facts, but of course, BL et al will give a pass on this one, too!

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Barack ACORN Obama Facts

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 12:31 PM
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the first national candidate ever to hire ACORN, a controversial non-profit accused of voter fraud across the country, to conduct get out the vote activities for his campaign.

Obama’s campaign paid $800,000 to a subsidiary of the liberally-leaning non-profit Association of Community Organizers for Reform called Citizens Services Incorporated campaign to help increase voter turnout.

This information, however, was not properly disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. The Obama campaign said it hired CSI to do “polling, advance work and staging events” according to reports submitted to the FEC during the Democratic primary.

The FEC said the Obama campaign needed to disclose ACORN was engaging in get out the vote activities last August. At the time, the Obama campaign called the mistake a “clerical error.”

ACORN has been accused of voter fraud in 15 states this election cycle.

Obama has close ties to the organization. Before becoming a member of the Illinois State Senate, Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit to help push for “Motor Voter” laws to make it easier for low-income persons to vote.

Later, as director of the Woods Fund and Chairman of the Board of Chicago Annenberg Challenge Obama helped steer funds to ACORN through various grants.

Obama sought ACORN’s endorsement in the Democratic primary telling ACORN members, “Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

“Project Vote” is the name ACORN’s voter registration drives are called. Obama worked for Project Vote for a period of roughly seven months in 1992.

ACORN endorsed Obama for president in February 2008.
______________________________________________

So essentially, if you support Obama, you support VOTER FRAUD, too!

Right, Bri?

Still a 7 of clubs BJ.

McCain and your silence on the face card issues is still a Jack of Diamonds in Obama's hand.

I'm still waiting on you to address the face card issues...but, not for long, because soon I'll be moving on to solutions, not attacks.

Bertram, just who is your man, levin supporting for president? He's no McCain fan and apparently has felt for some time now that the American people are somehow being prevented from getting to "know" the "real" McCain:

January 11, 2008 12:00 PM

The Real McCain Record
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.

By Mark R. Levin

There’s a reason some of John McCain's conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

— Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

LAMBERT: For America's bertrams, hearing is believing.

Yes, with just a month to go, let' all start looking to 25-year-old Ball State grad, Amanda Carpenter, who's never written for anything but right-wing fringe publications the likes of Town Hall and Human Events for a sober and fair-minded analysis of the campaign.

Does the phrase, "consider the source," have no meaning for you, Bertram? You, sir, are the lead in the venison here on LTTS.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/10/021724.php

There’s a few options for Obama and the media:

A) deny
B) ignore
C) explain and embrace the relevance of socialism in today’s Democratic party.

I think C would be a first, and quite refreshing, but I anticipate we’ll get B until after the election – then we’ll get C.

LAMBERT: Wait until HANK PAULSON moves us toward "the Swedish model" for restoring trust in the U.S. banking system ... then call me about socialism. Personally -- just me here - given a choice between where (anything but) "free market" corporatism has taken us, and Swedish style "socialism", I'll take my chances with the latter.

Step 1 is admitting. I think we're making progress here Brian.

I've been to Sweden. It aint that great.

Yea, and I think we're all just going to love it when the US Government starts to exercise their proxy power within these companies. That will just be grand...

LAMBERT: Just for the sake of the argument ... how would that be worse?

108: Oh, brother, so this obscure group endorses Obama? Who would you expect them to endorse, McCain and his secessionist running mate (no protests, she's guilty by association, as in sleeps with one of 'em, by your and bertram's rules), Palin?

Everyone endorses someone, I imagine. Given the socialistic orgy going on among the likes of Paulson and his pals on Wall Street, this tiny group of Chicago socialists may well be rethinking their endorsement.

This is so weak, 108. You getting enough iron?

JL - Oh, brother, so this obscure group endorses Obama?...weak..

It’s weak insofar as we’ve perhaps reached the point where it wouldn’t matter even if Obama acknowledged it. It’s obscure insofar as it’s a very small third party. But you can’t play dumb on this Jim, you possess a deep understanding of labor history, you’ve covered the fringes, you know what this and these people are about. When they declare they’re a socialist party, you can take them at their word. Ayers, Wright, ACORN – they’re completely invested in (ridiculous) ideas of Marxian class struggle.

And I say fine – I’m completely prepared to have that conversation at an adult level if the Democrats are willing to bring socialism out of the closet.

BL - Just for the sake of the argument ... how would that be worse?

It erodes property rights, the trend over the long term would be institutions that aren’t very dynamic and aren’t concerned about productivity. They’d also be competing with private business and giving themselves the upper hand via legislation.

Bill Ayers is a RED HERRING for McCain and the failed economic policies of the last eight years and the foreign adventurism that continues to cost American taxpayers billions of dollars a week with no end in sight.

These Republican extremists have no policies and direction of our country in major economic crisis and so they have to resort to guilt by association and low level character assasination

We don't need four more years of lazy, dimwitted, and poor leadership by extremists with no hope and no solutions.

David Gergen just got done speaking a little sanity to the McCain campaign on The Daily Show regarding Sarah Palin's sociopathic hate mongering to her barking-at-the-moon-crazy mobs of know-nothings:

"They ought to rein her in...He [McCain] ought to rein her in...In the old days we called that rabble rousing."

Gergen went on to criticize McCain for failing to strongly (or at all) speak out in condemnation of the remarks heard by anyone with YouTube access at Palin's hateful rallies directed at Obama: "Terrorist...kill him" Not to mention the racist taunts from Bertram's peers at black members of the TV crews.

David Brooks calls her a "cancer on the Republican Party." But McCain picked her and staunchly defends her. Oh, and her campaign staff has just cleared her of any wrongdoing in Troopergate. Not the Alaska ethics board. Her campaign staff. What?! Who but a dictator operates that way?

This is what you want for America? Really? Why?

In case anyone wonders why I am standing up to BJ so strongly, it is out of fear.

Not the fear of a McCain-Palin presidency, as sad as that possibility might be for an average american such as me, my fear has been better (and more briefly) expressed by Andrew Sullivan--
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-dangerous-p.html

It is good that Sullivan is saying this, but he is preaching to his choir if it only is said in his publication. Someone in the red triangle of righty media has to break ranks and say it too--someone like Rush, Hannity, Beck, Coulter--if not McCain-Palin themselves.

I totally agree with Andrew...this pandering to people's fears will soon touch off a nutcase, just like anti-abortion, anti-war, and anti-tax movements have all ended up with shootings and bombings.

There are amazing numbers of unstable people in the world on all sides of issues, and they need to be told to calm down, to become part of the solution and not adding to the problems we are facing already.

The world is not ending with this election and our country will survive this economic downturn, that we can work together regardless of our feelings of any one president or any single issue.

If McCain-Palin wants to gain my respect, they will step up to stop the attacks their campaign encouraged, indeed, it might be their first truly 'Country First' moment.

And end the rant please.

Thank you Other Mike. There will always be crooks and liars in the world but Americans' gluttony and dangerous tendency to “let the other guy worry about it” created the environment in which they thrived. Blaming the politicians is too easy. Fareed Zakaria, on the growing competition and decline of America’s position in the global economy writes, “The reforms needed are obvious but because they mean some pain now for the long-term gain, the political system cannot make them.” We want our politicians to fix the current financial situation, end the energy crisis and protect America’s 'God given' superiority, but at no cost to our personal comfort or busy schedules. We are all responsible for the mess we’re in and we all need to pay attention and participate in resolving it.

LAMBERT: A the risk of playing the utterly delusional optimist, there may be an opportunity here for a kind of reverse "shock doctrine", where -- with a "sustainable majority" in Congress -- a lot (OK, a few) of the reforms Zakaria talks about can be added to the various emergency packages. Clearly, an Obama administration -- with a large Democrat majority in Congress -- has a long slate of corrective measures piled up and awaiting quick legislation.

I too, Other Mike, am very concerned that the character-assassination campaign being waged by the Republicans right now is a precursor to worse violence and zealotry by their extremists.

The vicious attacks are dividing the nation so that it may severely impede our ability to make changes, being unified as a country and in some cases make individual and collective sacrifices necessary to correct the course we are on toward economic melt-down and a foreign policy conundrum.

I recall in the days of the civil rights movement, one of its leaders in Washington, D.C., if I remember correctly it was Jackie Robinson, said that the zealotry that lead to cross-burnings, lynchings, murders in the middle of the night that incited fear in the hearts of all Americans were actually just the actions of a fanatical few. When silent, hardworking, and generous hearted mainstream Americans stood up and said no to the violent extremists who preyed upon fear, than peace and prosperity could come back to all Americans seeking a better life and safer communities.

If McCain truly believes in his "Country First" motto he should quit his the extremely negative attack on Obama's character and act like a gentleman and statesman. Not for the sake of Obama but for the sake of the country and the unity needed to confront and solve the problems we face. What does McCain campaign have to loose? It is pretty clear that their positive numbers flat-line when Palin and McCain start their negative assaults.

Does that sound delusional and too optimistic enough for you Brian? That peace and respect could break out in the course of a present day American political campaign?

LAMBERT: Half of my glass is worst case scenario stuff, the other is cockeyed optimist. But let's remember that what McCain is hearing (and what his managers have been exploiting up until now) is standard issue commercialized demonization and irrationality, heard on literally hundreds of radio stations across the counmtry every day. The upside to this latest incident(s) is that more people get a look at what you get when you play with fire.

When and if an Obama presidency is birthed by teh midwives of racial guilt and socialism, and plunges us into a true economic depression, check back with me, you socialist apologists for terror and anarchy.

Character and judgement still count to the majority of America.

We shall be heard on Nov. 4.

LAMBERT: Oh I expect we'll hear you -- speaking in tongues and firing guns in the air.

Our right to blog counteracts and far outweighs the right-wing a.m. radio personalities!

We are not owned by the powerful corporations that sensor our mainstream media. We are free to blog away!

I do believe that Obama is far from elite and that Palin has shared her elite secret wardrobe costs with us, while it is widely known that McCain owns more homes and cars than Obama and Biden combined!

Just a touch on those dangerous voting machines: Why can't I get a receipt from those machines like I do when I buy gas, groceries, or go to the atm? This voting system REALLY needs changing!