| Author | Post |
|---|
4string Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 03:58 pm |
|
waboc wrote: Considering the past two reps in that district (Foley then Mahoney) let's just hope Rooney knows he'll be under the microscope BIG TIME and hopefully he won't embarrass Florida - again.
Agreed.... He SEEMS to be a moral person, but they all do.
|
waboc Member

| Joined: | Sun Jul 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 03:55 pm |
|
| Considering the past two reps in that district (Foley then Mahoney) let's just hope Rooney knows he'll be under the microscope BIG TIME and hopefully he won't embarrass Florida - again.
|
4string Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 03:50 pm |
|
AGCS wrote: 4string wrote: AGCS wrote: Presuming Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is expelled or resigns from the Senate, I would very much enjoy seeing Governor Palin appoint herself to fill the vacancy.
Mahony gets blown out of the water by Rooney who had no chance untill the affairs were made public, but Stevens gets re-elected after being convicted of felony charges?????? What is wrong with this picture? The Democrats turned on Mahony, but the republicans stuck with Stevens. It just gose to show Consevatives will not vote out of thier party no matter who the candidate is.
Just a guess on my part, but, I would not at all be surprised if the Republican motivation in Alaska to re-elect Stevens was entirely for the benefit of Palin. You should consider the saying of Democrat Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neill: "All politics is local." As for Mahoney, he has only himself to blame. Just like Bill Clinton, he couldn't keep it in his pants!
True,,, the only thing with both Clinton and Mahony I don't get is. If I was going to screw up (pun intended) my career, and life, by having an affair, I would have picked some one better looking to have done it with. At least JFK got Marilyn Monroe.
So the Dem's can't keep it in their pants, and the Rep's can't keep others out of their pockets.
|
Bilgerat Member

|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 03:48 pm |
|
4string wrote: AGCS wrote: Presuming Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is expelled or resigns from the Senate, I would very much enjoy seeing Governor Palin appoint herself to fill the vacancy.
Mahony gets blown out of the water by Rooney who had no chance untill the affairs were made public, but Stevens gets re-elected after being convicted of felony charges?????? What is wrong with this picture? The Democrats turned on Mahony, but the republicans stuck with Stevens. It just gose to show Consevatives will not vote out of thier party no matter who the candidate is.
1) Alaska law prohibits Gov. Palin from appointing anyone. If Sen. Stevens is expelled (and he is expected to be) there will be a new election, at which time Gov. Palin can "throw in".
2) The STATE OF ALASKA elected Sen. Stevens, NOT the Republican Party. If you recall, Washington DC was more than hapy to re-elect Marion Barry, weren't they 
|
AGCS Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 03:41 pm |
|
4string wrote: AGCS wrote: Presuming Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is expelled or resigns from the Senate, I would very much enjoy seeing Governor Palin appoint herself to fill the vacancy.
Mahony gets blown out of the water by Rooney who had no chance untill the affairs were made public, but Stevens gets re-elected after being convicted of felony charges?????? What is wrong with this picture? The Democrats turned on Mahony, but the republicans stuck with Stevens. It just gose to show Consevatives will not vote out of thier party no matter who the candidate is.
Just a guess on my part, but, I would not at all be surprised if the Republican motivation in Alaska to re-elect Stevens was entirely for the benefit of Palin. You should consider the saying of Democrat Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neill: "All politics is local." As for Mahoney, he has only himself to blame. Just like Bill Clinton, he couldn't keep it in his pants! Last edited on Sat Nov 8th, 2008 03:43 pm by AGCS
|
4string Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 02:44 pm |
|
AGCS wrote: Presuming Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is expelled or resigns from the Senate, I would very much enjoy seeing Governor Palin appoint herself to fill the vacancy.
Mahony gets blown out of the water by Rooney who had no chance untill the affairs were made public, but Stevens gets re-elected after being convicted of felony charges?????? What is wrong with this picture? The Democrats turned on Mahony, but the republicans stuck with Stevens. It just gose to show Consevatives will not vote out of thier party no matter who the candidate is.
|
AGCS Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 01:20 pm |
|
| Presuming Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is expelled or resigns from the Senate, I would very much enjoy seeing Governor Palin appoint herself to fill the vacancy.
|
waboc Member

| Joined: | Sun Jul 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 11:46 am |
|
I'm sure it's not the last we've seen of Sarah
|
ic517 Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 86 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 03:30 am |
|
| did you hear that big thud? that was the mccain campain throwing palin under the bus
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 6th, 2008 07:45 pm |
|
It looks like we dodged a bullet with Palin and her inexperience and lack of basic knowledge. This was on O'Reilly last night:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214383
What's amusing is how pathetic Bill attempted to downplay her ignorance - tutoring the potential Vice-President on basic government and geography? Too funny.
|
OkeeNarnie Member

|
Posted: Thu Oct 30th, 2008 01:29 am |
|
IMHO wrote: OkeeNarnie wrote: Sarah Palin is not the first little known person that we will have placed in Washington in fact we have placed people in Washington who had even less experience with elected positions.
We welcomed a Peanut Farmer from Georgia and a Movie Star from Hollywood, AND we elected them TO THE BIG CHAIR in the oval office not Vice President.
Past experience isn't always what it takes to do a good job. Born and raised loving The United States Of America is important.
I don't mean to belittle your comparison, but from the Bio's it says Carter studied nuclear power and nuclear physics and served aboard a nuclear submarine. Pretty impressive military background. Regan was Governor of California where the population of LA alone is over 10 times larger than the entire population of Alaska.
Being head of the Alaska National Guard by virtue of being Governor and being mayor of a town about the same size as Okeechobee hardly compares to either of the other two.
I did not mention the Military background of either Presidents Carter or Regan as Sarah Palin, Joe Biden and Barack Obama have no Military service in their bio's. I did not want anyone to think I was saying Presidents Carter and Regan were better because they had served this country through Military Service.
I did indeed notice the Military service of both Presidents Carter and Regan.
OkeeNarnie
|
Bilgerat Member

|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 02:53 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: OkeeNarnie wrote: ...Past experience isn't always what it takes to do a good job.
Gee, you just wrecked about 90% of Senator McCain's campaign.
And 100% of his opponents 
|
Don Horner Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 02:42 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote: ...Past experience isn't always what it takes to do a good job.
Gee, you just wrecked about 90% of Senator McCain's campaign.
|
IMHO Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 01:05 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote: Sarah Palin is not the first little known person that we will have placed in Washington in fact we have placed people in Washington who had even less experience with elected positions.
We welcomed a Peanut Farmer from Georgia and a Movie Star from Hollywood, AND we elected them TO THE BIG CHAIR in the oval office not Vice President.
Past experience isn't always what it takes to do a good job. Born and raised loving The United States Of America is important.
I don't mean to belittle your comparison, but from the Bio's it says Carter studied nuclear power and nuclear physics and served aboard a nuclear submarine. Pretty impressive military background. Regan was Governor of California where the population of LA alone is over 10 times larger than the entire population of Alaska.
Being head of the Alaska National Guard by virtue of being Governor and being mayor of a town about the same size as Okeechobee hardly compares to either of the other two.
|
OkeeNarnie Member

|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 12:39 pm |
|
Sarah Palin is not the first little known person that we will have placed in Washington in fact we have placed people in Washington who had even less experience with elected positions.
We welcomed a Peanut Farmer from Georgia and a Movie Star from Hollywood, AND we elected them TO THE BIG CHAIR in the oval office not Vice President.
Past experience isn't always what it takes to do a good job. Born and raised loving The United States Of America is important.
James Earl Carter, Jr - Successful Peanut Farmer
Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.), thirty-ninth president of the United States, was born October 1, 1924, in the small farming town of Plains, Georgia, and grew up in the nearby community of Archery. His father, James Earl Carter, Sr., was a farmer and businessman; his mother, Lillian Gordy Carter, a registered nurse.
He was educated in the public school of Plains, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, New York, where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf, the second nuclear submarine.
On July 7, 1946, he married Rosalynn Smith of Plains. When his father died in 1953, he resigned his naval commission and returned with his family to Georgia. He took over the Carter farms, and he and Rosalynn operated Carter's Warehouse, a general-purpose seed and farm supply company in Plains. He quickly became a leader of the community, serving on county boards supervising education, the hospital authority, and the library. In 1962 he won election to the Georgia Senate. He lost his first gubernatorial campaign in 1966, but won the next election, becoming Georgia's 76th governor on January 12, 1971. He was the Democratic National Committee campaign chairman for the 1974 congressional and gubernatorial elections.
On December 12, 1974, he announced his candidacy for president of the United States. He won his party's nomination on the first ballot at the 1976 Democratic National Convention, and was elected president on November 2, 1976.
Ronald Wilson Regan - Actor (And a darn good one too)
On February 6, 1911, Ronald Wilson Reagan was born to Nelle and John Reagan in Tampico, Illinois. He attended high school in nearby Dixon and then worked his way through Eureka College. There, he studied economics and sociology, played on the football team, and acted in school plays. Upon graduation, he became a radio sports announcer. A screen test in 1937 won him a contract in Hollywood. During the next two decades he appeared in 53 films.
From his first marriage to actress Jane Wyman, he had two children, Maureen and Michael. Maureen passed away in 2001. In 1952 he married Nancy Davis, who was also an actress, and they had two children, Patricia Ann and Ronald Prescott.
As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan became embroiled in disputes over the issue of Communism in the film industry; his political views shifted from liberal to conservative. He toured the country as a television host, becoming a spokesman for conservatism. In 1966 he was elected Governor of California by a margin of a million votes; he was re-elected in 1970.
Ronald Reagan won the Republican Presidential nomination in 1980 and chose as his running mate former Texas Congressman and United Nations Ambassador George Bush. Voters troubled by inflation and by the year-long confinement of Americans in Iran swept the Republican ticket into office. Reagan won 489 electoral votes to 49 for President Jimmy Carter.

Last edited on Wed Oct 29th, 2008 12:42 pm by OkeeNarnie
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:44 am |
|
outside the box wrote: waiting to see the game on sunshine network. I was in Hondouras at the time.
Just be sure to sit tight for a wild ride in the first half!
|
outside the box Member

| Joined: | Thu Jul 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:37 am |
|
waiting to see the game on sunshine network. I was in Hondouras at the time.
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:30 am |
|
outside the box wrote: I need your smiley puky face for this one.
GO GATORS
Ha!
Quite a game though. That was a good ole Gator thumpin'.
|
outside the box Member

| Joined: | Thu Jul 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:29 am |
|
I need your smiley puky face for this one.
GO GATORS
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:25 am |
|
Alaskan paper endorsement
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-26-alaska-obama_N.htm
Alaska's largest newspaper endorses Obama
ANCHORAGE (AP) — The Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's largest newspaper, has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president.
The newspaper said Sunday the Democrat "brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand."
The Daily News said since the economic crisis has emerged, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has "stumbled and fumbled badly" in dealing with it.
"Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it," the paper said.
The Daily News said Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has shown the country why she is a success as governor. But the paper said few would argue that Palin is truly ready to step into the job of being president despite her passion, charisma and strong work ethic.
"Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency — but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation," the paper said.
"Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time," the paper concluded.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:27 am by okeegator
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 08:27 pm |
|
Want a gander at what Sarah Palin's responsibilities were as mayor of Wasilla? Watch this hilarious video. This is funny no matter where you stand.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=188638&title=Understanding-Real-America-in-Wasilla
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:45 pm |
|
I thought Palin was a reformer? A maverick? According to usatoday, government spending increased under her leadership both as mayor and as governor.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-23-palinspending_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
|
Pixi Member

| Joined: | Sat Oct 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 11:46 pm |
|
okeegator wrote: BlueStarMom wrote: Noonan says "But it’s unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn’t think aloud. She just . . . says things."
Why does the democratic nominee get a free pass when he just "says things?" For example, "There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."
Because even fellow conservatives recognize Palin's lack of substance. And because Palin is always talking in circles and never makes much sense. Biden almost always does, so when he he makes a blunder everyone knows is out of the ordinary.
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 11:21 pm |
|
BlueStarMom wrote: Noonan says "But it’s unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn’t think aloud. She just . . . says things."
Why does the democratic nominee get a free pass when he just "says things?" For example, "There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."
Because even fellow conservatives recognize Palin's lack of substance.
|
AGCS Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 01:12 pm |
|
BlueStarMom wrote: Noonan says "But it’s unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn’t think aloud. She just . . . says things."
Why does the democratic nominee get a free pass when he just "says things?"
Sexism and the Liberal bias of the news media.
|
BlueStarMom Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 12:40 pm |
|
Noonan says "But it’s unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn’t think aloud. She just . . . says things."
Why does the democratic nominee get a free pass when he just "says things?" For example, "There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 05:26 am |
|
Here is a column by conservative and former Reagan speech writer, Peggy Noonan about Palin:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122419210832542317.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop
Palin's Failin'
What is it she stands for? After seven weeks, we don't know.

"Sometimes the leak is so bad that even a plumber can't fix it." This was the concise summation of a cable political strategist the other day, after the third and final presidential debate. That sounds about right, and yet the race in its final days retains a feeling of dynamism. I think it is going to burst open or tighten, not just mosey along. I can well imagine hearing, the day after Election Day, a lot of "You won't believe it but I was literally in line at the polling station when I decided."
John McCain won the debate, and he did it by making the case more effectively than he has in the past that Barack Obama will raise taxes, when "now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes." He also scored Mr. Obama on his eloquence, using it against him more effectively than Hillary Clinton ever did. When she said he was "just words," it sounded like a bitter complaint. Mr. McCain made it a charge: Young man, you attempt to obscure truth with the mellifluous power of your words. From Mrs. Clinton it sounded jealous, but when Mr. McCain said it, you looked at Mr. Obama and wondered if you'd just heard something that was true. For the first time, Mr. Obama's unruffled demeanor didn't really work for him. His cool made him seem hidden.
There is now something infantilizing about this election. Mr. Obama continued to claim he will remove wasteful spending by sitting down with the federal budget and going through it "line by line." This is absurd, and he must know it. Mr. McCain continued to vow he will "balance the budget" in the next four years. Who believes that? Does even he?
More than ever on the campaign trail, the candidates are dropping their G's. Hardworkin' families are strainin' and tryin'a get ahead. It's not only Sarah Palin but Mr. McCain, too, occasionally Mr. Obama, and, of course, George W. Bush when he darts out like the bird in a cuckoo clock to tell us we are in crisis. All of the candidates say "mom and dad": "our moms and dads who are struggling." This is Mr. Bush's former communications adviser Karen Hughes's contribution to our democratic life, that you cannot speak like an adult in politics now, that's too austere and detached, snobby. No one can say mothers and fathers, it's all now the faux down-home, patronizing—and infantilizing—moms and dads. Do politicians ever remember that in a nation obsessed with politics, our children—sorry, our kids—look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound?
There has never been a second's debate among liberals, to use an old-fashioned word that may yet return to vogue, over Mrs. Palin: She was a dope and unqualified from the start. Conservatives and Republicans, on the other hand, continue to battle it out: Was her choice a success or a disaster? And if one holds negative views, should one say so? For conservatives in general, but certainly for writers, the answer is a variation on Edmund Burke: You owe your readers not your industry only but your judgment, and you betray instead of serve them if you sacrifice it to what may or may not be their opinion.
Here is a fact of life that is also a fact of politics: You have to hold open the possibility of magic. People can come from nowhere, with modest backgrounds and short résumés, and yet be individuals of real gifts, gifts that had previously been unseen, that had been gleaming quietly under a bushel, and are suddenly revealed. Mrs. Palin came, essentially, from nowhere. But there was a man who came from nowhere, the seeming tool of a political machine, a tidy, narrow, unsophisticated senator appointed to high office and then thrust into power by a careless Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose vanity told him he would live forever. And yet that limited little man was Harry S. Truman. Of the Marshall Plan, of containment. Little Harry was big. He had magic. You have to give people time to show what they have. Because maybe they have magic too.
But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.
But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.
Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.
No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.
In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.
I gather this week from conservative publications that those whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives. In one now-famous case, Christopher Buckley was shooed from the great magazine his father invented. In all this, the conservative intelligentsia are doing what they have done for five years. They bitterly attacked those who came to stand against the Bush administration. This was destructive. If they had stood for conservative principle and the full expression of views, instead of attempting to silence those who opposed mere party, their movement, and the party, would be in a better, and healthier, position.
At any rate, come and get me, copper.
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11th, 2008 03:28 am |
|
I don't know if you all heard about this:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/10/mccain-gets-boo.html
McCain shows his integrity and gets booed by Republicans.
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11th, 2008 03:26 am |
|
Another interesting and insightful article on Palin by one of my favorite columnists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
|
sportsnut Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11th, 2008 03:14 am |
|
Guess she's not-ready that is! Wow--saw it on the news. I was waiting to make a decision about whether I liked her or not--seems like she'll fit right in with the Big Guys in "Warshington" (Go McCain-once he figures out he'll be living in Washington!) It's only a shame that she and her republicans friends in Alaska couldn't get that Trooper gate thing taken care of after she takes the oath of office.
Sorry Palin you lost me girl! I don't usually like to debate religion or politics, but couldn't resist this one.
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 02:49 am |
|
Here's another conservative who thinks that Sarah Palin is not only unqualified but also dangerous for the Republican Party. Watch the video:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/10/conservative-pu.html
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:49 pm |
|
| How about just posting the link for each one?
|
The Republican Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:48 pm |
|
Obama's Oil Spill
March 31, 2008
Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.
Summary
In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."
Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.
We find the statement misleading:
- Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
- Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
Analysis
|
The Republican Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:46 pm |
|
Obama's Inflated Health "Savings"
June 16, 2008
He claims that a shift to electronic medical records will help save families up to $2,500 a year in his first term. Independent experts say that's wishful thinking.
Summary
Obama says his health care plan will garner large savings – $120 billion a year, or $2,500 per family – with more than half coming from the use of electronic health records. And he says he’ll make that happen in his first term. We find his statements to be overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers. And it masks the true cost of his plan to cover millions of Americans who now have no health insurance.
- Obama cites a RAND study that found widespread use of electronic health records could save up to $77 billion a year in overall health care spending. But the study says that level of savings won’t be reached until 2019, when it projects 90 percent of hospitals and doctors would be using electronic records systems.
- Much could be done to speed up the adoption of electronic record-keeping. But experts, including the lead researcher on the RAND study, are extremely doubtful the U.S. could see widespread adoption in the first term of an Obama presidency, or even a second term. Even a campaign adviser acknowledges Obama’s plan likely won’t reach the full savings potential until five years into implementation, by which time Obama could be out of office.
- Obama says he’ll "lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year” by investing in electronic health records as well as other efforts. But his adviser tells us that $2,500 figure includes savings to government and employers that could, theoretically, lead to lower taxes or higher wages for families – so we shouldn't necessarily expect insurance premiums that are "lower" by that amount.
- The RAND study on which the campaign partly bases its estimates is one of the only reports available on possible cost savings. It may well be correct – no one knows for sure. But it looks at potential savings in an ideal situation and recently has faced criticism.
Many, if not most, health care experts and professionals agree that the use of electronic health records or health IT would have various benefits, in terms of quality of care as well as spending. But doctors and hospitals in the U.S. have been slow to adopt it for several reasons. Whether Obama can effectively bring about widespread adoption and large savings is an open question and not as concrete as his pronouncements imply.
Analysis
In a town hall meeting on health care on June 5, Obama talked about the savings his plan will provide within the next four years.
Obama (Bristol, Va., June 5): In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year. And we’ll do it by investing in disease prevention, not just disease management; by investing in a paperless health care system to reduce administrative costs; and by covering every single American and making sure that they can take their health care with them if they lose their job. ... And we won’t do all this twenty years from now, or ten years from now. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
This is far from the first time that Obama has mentioned the importance of "a paperless health care system" – in other words, electronic medical records and other health information technology – to his projected savings. In a memo, his panel of health care experts wrote: "Greater use of information technology is one key to a more efficient health care system, along with incentives to use that technology wisely. The Rand Corporation conservatively estimated that significant investment in health IT could save $77 billion per year.”
Similarly, his health plan touts the figure: "A study by the Rand Corporation found that if most hospitals and doctors offices adopted electronic health records, up to $77 billion of savings would be realized each year through improvements such as reduced hospital stays, avoidance of duplicative and unnecessary testing, more appropriate drug utilization, and other efficiencies." This $77 billion is part of the $120 billion to $200 billion in total annual savings that Obama's health care experts say will come from his plan.
These rosy projections make universal health care seem almost painless, particularly when the savings estimates far outweigh the costs of Obama's plan (his campaign projects $50 billion to $65 billion a year in new government funds). But it's highly questionable that Obama could reach the level of savings he touts within one term. The RAND study on which the Obama campaign partially bases its savings estimates assumes we won't see widespread adoption – or the full $77 billion in estimated savings – until 2019. Experts we interviewed doubted Obama could prompt widespread adoption within one or even two presidential terms. Adoption of electronic health records has been crawling along in the U.S. In fact, even an Obama adviser says it will take at least five years to foster widespread use. Plus, it's unknown whether the RAND estimates will turn out to be correct: The study recently was criticized by the Congressional Budget Office as an overly optimistic best-case scenario.
In One Term? Unlikely.
If electronic medical records can save $77 billion a year (and no one knows for sure), it won’t happen during an Obama presidency, even in a second term, according to the RAND study itself. The $77 billion figure represents savings that could occur once 90 percent of doctors and hospitals have adopted and are effectively using electronic medical records, a process RAND estimates will last through the end of 2018. The study assumed a 15-year adoption period, from 2004 through 2018, a span based on the implementation of complex technology in other industries. Savings are substantially less during this period.
RAND study: At 90 percent adoption, we estimate that the potential HIT-enabled efficiency savings for both inpatient and outpatient care could average more than $77 billion per year (an average annual savings of $42 billion during the adoption period).
In other words, RAND predicts the health care system overall will save $42 billion a year on average throughout the next president's term, and even during a second term – not $77 billion as the Obama campaign says. That also means some of these savings are occurring right now. The amount would be less than the estimated $42 billion and would increasingly grow as more and more providers adopted electronic records.
So, the health care system is reaping some amount of these savings already, and the Obama campaign is including them in its calculations. John Shiels, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, a health care research organization, criticized Obama (and Clinton, who also had cited the RAND figures) for inflating the savings he could produce. The Democratic candidates "can't take credit for savings that are already occurring because of that," he told FactCheck.org in a February interview. "You could accelerate the adoption of new technology ... but savings would be far less than they're saying."
Richard Hillestad, a RAND senior principal researcher who led the study, confirms that the health care system won't reach $77 billion in savings until 2019, according to RAND's model. And he adds that the figure doesn't represent net savings; there would be some costs for maintaining the systems.
Obama adviser Dr. David Cutler of Harvard told us the campaign's savings estimates included the full $77 billion figure but didn't include a number of other expected savings, which would have made the estimates higher. Thus, says Cutler, the estimate remains conservative even if the $77 billion figure is artificially high.
When Will IT Happen?
Hillestad says steps could be taken by the government to speed up that 15-year adoption period, but he also says he's "not real confident" there will be 90 percent adoption by 2019. "It could take a lot longer if there’s not something in the health care system that gets beyond the disincentives that physicians have for adopting these systems," Hillestad told us. "Basically, they have to buy the system and yet many of the benefits go to the insurers or the payers of public health care insurance."
Dr. Rainu Kaushal, a professor of public health at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, agreed that the right policies could make 90 percent adoption achievable, but that success wouldn't come quickly. "I think it's pie in the sky for the next five years," she told FactCheck.org. "I think we're looking more in the eight to 10 [year] range, but I think it's achievable."
Near universal adoption of electronic health records by 2014 was a goal set by President Bush, but it's one that Catherine Desroches calls "unlikely." Desroches, an instructor at the Harvard Medical School and a researcher at the Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital, was part of a team that conducted a survey on the adoption of health IT that will run in the New England Journal of Medicine this week. She also doesn't believe the U.S. will see 90 percent adoption, or even 75 percent, in the next four years. "It could be anywhere from tens of billions to hundreds of billions of dollars to really have a fully interoperable national system," she told us. "And whether any administration is going to have the financial resources to pull something like that off is really an open question, I think."
Cutler, the Obama adviser, was more confident that Obama's plan could generate its full projected savings within a two-term presidency, but he also acknowledged that the system won't be seeing significant savings right out of the gate. "It's kind of a full system transformation," he told us, and "it takes a while to get anything transformed." The Obama plan phases in health information technology over five years, after which the full savings potential could still be years away.
Show Me the Savings
If health information technology can save so much money, why don't more people use it? There are a number of reasons, one of which is the financial disincentive that Hillestad mentions. In 2006, only 12 percent of physicians and 11 percent of hospitals had electronic records systems, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Estimates vary, however, and RAND used a higher level of adoption as of 2004 – 15 percent to 20 percent for doctors and 20 percent to 25 percent for hospitals. Both organizations laid out similar benefits and barriers to the use of paperless records.
Electronic health records can lead to fewer medical errors or bad drug interactions or duplicate tests. The systems could also allow doctors and hospitals to transfer or share patient records, shorten hospital stays, increase prevention efforts that lead to better health, and make getting a prescription filled as easy as hitting the send key. But all of that mostly reduces costs for the insurance companies paying the bills and, to some degree, uninsured patients who are footing the cost of their health care.
Individual physicians' offices and hospitals are the ones that have to pay to implement the systems. But, particularly at small practices, the only financial benefits they'll see are lower costs for maintaining records and transcribing data. And even health insurance companies, which stand to benefit the most, don't have incentive to push for faster adoption, because the savings benefit would go to competing insurance providers as well.
"It's really expensive to buy these systems, particularly for small, one and two doc practices," which are half of all physician practices, says Desroches. And the various records systems – CBO says there are 40 different vendors – can't communicate with each other. Desroches says doctors tell her that they're not implementing electronic records because of the cost, the limited value in terms of interoperability and the slow down in efficiency they'll face as they change the way their practices operate.
Carrots and Sticks
Hillestad says the government could speed up adoption by offering incentive money to physicians, requiring doctors to report measures of quality of care (which is easier to do with electronic records) or providing subsidies, particularly to physicians with a high proportion of disadvantaged patients – physicians who are less likely to buy electronic records systems. Desroches, too, says the government could "offer significant financial incentives combined with sticks," such as requiring electronic records for those getting Medicare payments.
Obama has proposed spending $10 billion a year over five years and phasing in requirements for adoption. Hillestad didn't want to comment on how that might affect the percentage of health care providers with electronic records. Both the RAND study and CBO agree, however, that adoption would be a lot faster if the government played a larger role.
There have been some efforts on the federal level: Bush set up a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to set standards for such systems; Congress modified laws to prevent kickbacks so hospitals could give a system to outpatient providers at a heavy discount; Medicare gives additional money to physicians who submit performance data electronically. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services gave out $98 million in state grants, much of it for electronic records or e-prescribing systems, and in the future the agency will give bonuses to small practices that have electronic records.
Obama's health plan says he'll "commit the necessary federal resources" to make health IT happen. But Kaushal, who is also the director of a group of independent evaluators who are assessing health IT improvement efforts in New York state, thinks that sticks and carrots alone will not be enough, and that the entire system will need to be overhauled to make information technology an integral part of daily operations. "It's not sufficient to take existing physician workflow and make it electronic, not sufficient to just go from paper to a computer," Kaushal told FactCheck.org. "What we want is to really wire the system; we want doctors and office practices and nursing homes and pharmacies to all be communicating. Adoption of health information technology becomes a byproduct of the requirement to wire the system." This will require guidance and vision, Kaushal says, not just incentives and disincentives. Realizing the kinds of savings that Obama cites will take much more than federal resources. It also requires a big-picture approach, and a lot of time.
Money in Whose Pocket?
Obama says his plan will "lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year," partly through the use of electronic records. But experts say large savings from health IT are unlikely to flow to consumers.
Desroches points out that the average voter may never see the savings that the RAND study postulates. "Definitely insurance companies and federal and state payers would see savings," Desroches says. "I’m not sure individuals will see savings, [except] in the unlikely event that payers realize these savings and pass them on in the form of lower premiums."
The Obama campaign is counting on that unlikely event. Obama health adviser Cutler confirmed that the campaign's $2,500 per family projection doesn't represent only out-of-pocket savings for individual Americans. It includes savings to the government, employers and insurers, savings that could, Cutler says, trickle down to families in the form of lower taxes, higher wages or reduced premiums. In fact, Cutler says the $2,500 figure simply comes from dividing an overall savings estimate that's somewhat larger than $120 billion by an approximate number of four-person families in the U.S. "[W]e take the total and divide by the total population, then consider a 4 person family," he explained in an e-mail to FactCheck.org.
That's a bit of misleading math. It assumes individual Americans will share in all of the savings for the health care system, which includes insurance companies, the government and health care providers. Obama claims families will save $2,500 under his plan, but they won't see at least some of those savings directly in the form of lower premiums. And they may not see them indirectly either.
Questioning RAND
Even if Obama can beat the odds and implement widespread health IT in less than four years, it's unclear whether savings can reach $77 billion a year, as RAND said. Some have found RAND's figures to be optimistic. "There's definitely been a lot of rumbling about the RAND study," says Desroches, who adds she's skeptical of the dollar amounts. "I'm not sure we're going to see enormous savings."
In late May, the Congressional Budget Office published a report that was highly critical of the RAND study. It cited three main points:
- First, it says, RAND measures the potential impact of health information technology, rather than the likely impact. The RAND study looked at what would happen if 90 percent of doctors and hospitals had adopted health IT and implemented and used it perfectly. CBO points out that there are many factors impeding widespread adoption and limiting efficient use. These have to be figured into any truly realistic calculation of costs and savings.
- Second, CBO points out that RAND based its conclusions only on studies that found positive effects of health information technology, throwing out data that showed negative effects. The study acknowledges that “we chose to interpret reported evidence of negative or no effect of HIT as likely being attributable to ineffective or not-yet-effective implementation.” Hillestad told FactCheck.org that the researchers assumed electronic records systems that had led to increased errors would be fixed or wouldn't be adopted by other health care providers.
- Finally, CBO says, the RAND researchers were estimating the savings based on the actual level of adoption in 2004, not the possible level of adoption – even without any changes in policy – in the years covered by the study. That means RAND was using an inaccurate baseline, one that doesn't account for the doctors and hospitals that would have implemented health IT systems from year to year.
None of these points are huge “gotchas.” The RAND authors are up front about the fact that they are examining potential impact of HIT, that they are discounting studies that found negligible or negative effects from HIT, and that their calculations are based on 2004 adoption levels. Kaushal told us that in her opinion, the CBO and RAND studies were trying to answer different questions: CBO wanted to look at likely outcomes, and RAND wanted to look at potential savings. But CBO is of the opinion that RAND's projections are overly rosy.
Obama’s advisers disagree, calling the RAND estimate “conservative.” Hillestad also told FactCheck that “we felt our numbers were relatively conservative,” adding that RAND had left out some factors that could have resulted in even higher savings estimates. Kaushal agreed, with a caveat: "I personally don't think that the RAND numbers are going to be found to be completely off. I don't think they'll be off by an order of magnitude. But it depends on the way things are being implemented." Because RAND predicts potential savings in an ideal situation, there's a lot of room for its estimates, and those of the Obama campaign, to be wrong.
FACTCHECK.ORG
|
The Republican Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:46 pm |
|
Last edited on Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:58 pm by The Republican
|
The Republican Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:46 pm |
|
Last edited on Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:56 pm by The Republican
|
The Republican Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:43 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: Here is just a brief summary of Obama's accomplishments in legislature:
* Senator Obama’s fight for universal children’s health care in Illinois.
* His success bringing Republicans and Democrats together on bills such as the one in Illinois requiring police interrogations and confessions to be videotaped.
* His leadership on ethics reform in Washington (the bill that lobbyists and special interests are complaining about right now has his name on it).
* His bill to make the federal budget far more transparent and accessible to Americans via the Internet – we could use that openness in Texas.
* And his vital work with Republicans to lock down nuclear weapons around the world.
There is more for anyone who wants to know the facts, and none of the lists include his work on valuable bills that did not succeed because someone else's "core principles" stood in the way.
So far, so good. But Obama goes on to tout his legislative accomplishments, and those claims don't stand up as well under scrutiny. In order to establish his bona fides as a politician who cares about working families, Obama cites his success with three relevant bills. But he doesn't mention that two of the three pieces of legislation were actually passed by the Illinois Senate, not the U.S. Senate. Obama's campaign tells us that when he says, "I passed laws moving people from welfare to work," he is referring to the bill that created Illinois’ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program in 1997. Obama was one of five original sponsors of the bill, which set limits on public assistance and required welfare recipients to outline plans for moving into the workforce. The law that "cut taxes for working families" is a 2000 bill, on which Obama and 35 others were later added as cosponsors, instituting an earned income-tax credit for the state. Both bills affected only Illinois residents.
The only national law in Obama's ad is the one that "extended health care for wounded troops," and it's dubious whether he can claim full responsibility for that one. [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR04986:|TOM:/bss/d110query.html|]H.R. 4986[/url], which became public law 110-181 in 2008, includes provisions from several Obama-sponsored bills. His ideas made it into law, but Obama was not a sponsor or cosponsor of H.R. 4986 itself.
Finally, it has always been our position that it's misleading when a member of a legislative body says that he or she "passed a law," "cut taxes" or makes any similar claim to single-handed lawmaking. It takes more than one legislator to get these things done. In addition to the sponsors and the cosponsors, sometimes dozens of them, the bill needs the support of a majority in both houses. Usually, a governor or president needs to then sign a bill into law, unless the legislature comes up with a veto-proof majority.
So for Obama to say that he "passed a law" casts him as a legislative Lone Ranger, hogging credit that properly belongs to other parties as well.
FROM FACTCHECK.ORG
|
okeegator Member

| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:42 pm |
|
The Republican wrote: okeegator wrote:
| | |