[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

Regardless, it's not an issue I'm getting all worked up about - I've heard the promises before, haven't you?

Spot on as always (normally).

It's not a matter of unbiased, although I am leaning more and more towards McCain the more I hear. It's just that all the discussion has been so anti-Palin lately and I wanted a topic change. I dislike anti-anybody discussions.

To answer your question about who I'd like to see benefit (middle class aside): it's a tricky question. Yes, I'd like to see lower income people profit - a few dollars means a lot more to them. And I'm not rich, but I suppose I can stand to lose some income if it would really help others. I'm not totally hard-hearted. I vote for the school and MRDD levies, and all that. I can see in my community how that money is helping. But I still remain the cynic, and your quote above indicates you are - at least - a realist. Is Obama going to keep his promises? Can he keep his promises? I'm not doubting his integrity, but he still has to make it happen, and there will be resistance. And yes, all politicians flip-flop.

But even while I acknowledge Obama's plan is better off for the lower income while not hurting us middle incomers, what about the rest of the plan he's not talking about? Surely, he's not telling us everything. His past comments, even if retracted or explained, ought to give us an idea what he's thinking.

My wife and I plan to retire in a few years, if Ben ever stops being a college student, and sell our house, which we have a second mortgage on for Ben's college expenses.

If I have to pay a captial gains tax of even 15% (or 20% - not more than 28%), then I'm going to have to go in the hole to sell my house - not something I planned on when I set up this method of paying tuition. So I'm wary.

There's also more to the economy than taxes.

But while the Republican Party has to overcome the stigma of the Iraq war, the situation in Iraq has been taking second seat to the economy. Not too long ago I would have thought the GOP didn't have much of a chance for re-election, but recently the public whim seems to have been shifting. When it comes to handling the economy, McCain seems (last poll I saw sponsored - I think - by MSNBC) to be favored in that catagory.

And finally, has anyone thought about what's going to happen to the economy when the soldiers do start returning home and hit the labor force?

Anyway, we each take our best guess in the poll booth. As you said, Laura, we see eye-to-eye on a lot things, but you're willing to take a chance on new blood, and I'm not sure I am.

We'll see.


[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited September 11, 2008).]

[Andrew Frisardi]

And finally, has anyone thought about what's going to happen to the economy when the soldiers do start returning home and hit the labor force?

Ah, but that's before they turn right around and head back to the Middle East. The Republicans are just waiting for the election to pass, and then some, before they get going with Iran. The Republican economy is a war economy.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally posted by Jerry Glenn Hartwig:
But even while I acknowledge Obama's plan is better off for the lower income while not hurting us middle incomers, what about the rest of the plan he's not talking about? Surely, he's not telling us everything. His past comments, even if retracted or explained, ought to give us an idea what he's thinking.

ROFLMAO - What rest of the plan are you talking about, Jerry? The link I provided pretty much covers the whole income tax question - for both parties. Surely McCain is not telling us everything, either. Surely Obama is not the only candidate who's retracted or explained a position, is he?

You're right - the election this year is a carnival crap-shoot - pay your money, throw your ball, win the prize (or not.) (Did I mix my metaphors there?)

You're right, I don't know everything about Obama as he's a relative newcomer - nor do you know everything about Palin who is an even newer newcomer. She may have a year or two more experience (depending on what you consider experience) but she's a newcomer to me - and to this election. There's not been time to vet her, examine her, listen to her or appraise her. The fact that the entire campaign from McCain on down seems hell-bent on keeping it that way sets off way too may alarms for me. Why does she need "handlers?" What person, if considered fully qualified to be 2nd in line as President of the United States, needs to be "handled," to be "treated with deference" to be shielded from press and public alike?

And I'm not picking on her, Jerry, I'm not bad mouthing her or trashing her or being a sexist - I'm just stating fact. Doesn't it make you (a self admitted cynic) the least bit uncomfortable, if not downright suspicious, that no one is being allowed to interview her? That she's not allowed to campaign by herself? That she's given not one speech that consisted of anything other than a rehash of her original acceptance speech (and that speech contained a whole mishmosh of untruths and half-truths such as the "I vetoed the Bridge to Alaska" and the "sold the plane on eBay" misrepresentations?) That on the 10 1/2 hour plane ride to Alaska she did not once speak or joke with the onboard journalists? Does this sound like "Miss Congeniality" behaviour to you? I don't think we know Sarah at all. I think it's been planned that way by her first "handler," John McCain. Do you really think a young, intelligent, vivacious and attractive former beauty queen is silent on a 10 1/2 hour trip by nature? More like by executive order if you ask me. So the next logical question to ask ourselves is this: "Why?" "What does he know that he doesn't want us to know?" Mystique is fine for spies and such - not so fine for a candidate running for the second highest office in our country.

Yes, Obama's had his share of mistruths and scandals - I'm not denying that. Am I happy with it? Nah, actually I'm not. But jeez-louise, he stood there and took it. And he either explained it or he apologized for it, and, either way, he tried to fix it. I can respect that. I've had to do it myself, and I know it's not always easy to do.

But he didn't hide from it. He didn't run away from it. He didn't refuse interviews, he didn't claim racism or sexism or anything else. He doesn't have handlers who run interference for him. He doesn't demand "deference," he doesn't scream racism. He just eats it and kept coming back for more. Same goes for Biden.

I'm not looking for perfection in a candidate, Lord knows they've all got to have something defective in them in the first place to even RUN for the office, but I am looking for someone who's willing to take a question and answer it.

If it sounds like I'm railing at Palin, I'm not. I'm railing at McCain who was arrogant enough and calculating enough to put his own wish to win ahead of the country's best interests by choosing her, using her and for refusing to let her speak for herself.

What does that say about his own opinion of her abilities?

If anyone's being a sexist in this whole thing, it's him.

I can't vote on what I think will happen in the future, I don't know the future, I don't know what the president of the future is going to face. But I can only vote on what I see in the now....and from what I see of the whole McCain/Palin ticket, of the way he manipulates her and the news media and the general public (which includes myself) I can't, in good conscience, even entertain the thought that he'd manipulate any of us any the less were he our president.

What I don't know about Obama scares me a whole lot less that what I do know about McCain.

L

P.S. to Jerry - I'm still waiting for you to prove that Obama asked any of us to read his lips.
(Give them the right mission and even women who don't wear lipstick can be pitbull tenacious.)
(God, it's going to suck to be me if you really CAN back it up.)




[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 11, 2008).]

[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

Laura - you don't bad-mouth anyone. One of the reasons I'm comfortable talking with you. I wasn't refering to you when I made the 'anti-' comment.

What rest of the plan are you talking about, Jerry?

Every politician has more in mind than they're telling us. That was not a comment against Obama personally. I certainly hope any politician with a plan has more in mind - at least more specific ideas. McCain has other agendas in mind, also, that he's not talking about. The nature of the beast.

Read my lips: Laura, I quoted a bad source. I am chagrined. I generally try to do better, but I have to eat crow this time.

Yes, Obama's had his share of mistruths and scandals - I'm not denying that. Am I happy with it? Nah, actually I'm not. But jeez-louise, he stood there and took it. And he either explained it or he apologized for it, and, either way, he tried to fix it. I can respect that. I've had to do it myself, and I know it's not always easy to do.

I kind of feel that way about Palin. Several things she supported (the bridge to nowhere / the state owned industry) she later came back on and said she was wrong and changed her position. (She tried to keep the industry open because it was employing Alaskans, but she finally had to sell it.)

Yea - she's a pawn, but hey! Did you expect her to turn the job offer down? It also appears to be working in McCain's favor, so he may be insulting a lot of people but he also judged a lot of them correctly. The ones who feel insulted proabably wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally posted by Jerry Glenn Hartwig:



I kind of feel that way about Palin. Several things she supported (the bridge to nowhere / the state owned industry) she later came back on and said she was wrong and changed her position.

That's true enough, Jerry, but why, then, does she keep repeating them in the manner she does? Each speech she gives she reuses the same, "I said no to the bridge to nowhere" without even mentioning that she had once said "yes to the bridge to nowhere" and, in fact, parlayed that "yes position" into being elected govenor?

I'd respect her a lot more as a woman and as a politician if she'd not keep having such a selective memory and for telling such half-truths.

There's nothing wrong with reversing a decision or changing an opinion - there is, however, something wrong with conveniently and consistantly forgetting that you did so and/or neglecting to say so.

Lo

P.S. Thank you for the grudging crow. At least I didn't demand you eat moose instead.

Let it serve as a warning, tho, that often we all read things that are being quoted from "bad sources" and not get too attached to believing that they're true. Therein lies the source of all things evil - If a lie gets repeated often enough it becomes the "truth."

My fear is that not only does the McCain campaign (probably with some distant guidance from Karl Rove) know this - but that they are capitalizing on it. To use it occasionally is expected - to rely on it to win an election is downright Machiavellian.



[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 11, 2008).]

[Michael Cantor]

Jerry - Bush the Elder is so associated with "Read my lips. No new taxes!" that he'll be fortunate if it isn't engraved on his tombstone. If you somehow were led to believe that Barack Obama made that statement, well, I guess it explains why Palin and McCain believe they can continue to get away with outrageous lies and distortions.

[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

Let it serve as a warning, tho, that often we all read things that are being quoted from "bad sources" and not get too attached to believing that they're true. Therein lies the source of all things evil - If a lie gets repeated often enough it becomes the "truth."

LOL - I know! How many imes have I ragged on people for accepting a source. That's why I'm so pissed at myself. I didn't double-check it.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally posted by Jerry Glenn Hartwig:

LOL - I know! How many imes have I ragged on people for accepting a source. That's why I'm so pissed at myself. I didn't double-check it.

I know.

I did.

LOL

Changing the subject for a minute - as a cop you should know the answer to this one -

Who pays for the rape kit, the collection of evidence and the resultant forensics in your town?

Lo

[Donna English]

Originally posted by Jerry Glenn Hartwig:
Did you expect her to turn the job offer down?
[/b]

I wouldn't have known what to expect of her, I, like millions of others, don't know her at all. On the other hand she knows herself, her vison for America, her experience and her stands on the issues and hopefully she knew that McCain's differed from hers in ways. She surely knew that being the vice president she has the potential to take on the responsibilities of the president should something happen. She knew what she'd be getting into. She either believes she's experienced, smart and educated, and far thinking devoted enough to lead our country or she knows she isn't and is willing to let us take the risk. If it's the latter, perhaps it isn't mostly the ideal of doing public service she's aspiring to, but putting herself in the public eye--it shows a lot about judgment and character. Of course, she wouldn't be the first or only one to seek office for that reason. There's no way to truly know.

[Janice D. Soderling]

It is prudent to have a back-up plan in case worst comes to worst.

The backup plan of Mr. McCain for the administration of the United States government in the event of his death is Ms. Palin. Weighing the odds that the event might occur, I don't even want to think about his backup plans for current or future wars or for improving the economy.