I'd like to ask you a couple of questions with respect to the federal deficit and Obama's plan VS McCain's plan.

You and I both know, that under Obama's plan, taxes for the majority of us, will go up SLIGHTLY, not much, probably almost unnoticeable in the pay check, but it will go up slightly. That's not a big deal, personally...

What I worry about is Obam's tax cut plan to allow the big business tax cuts to expire. It has been stated (and please correct my numbers if they are wrong) that taxes will increase in the neighborhood of 10-15% for most big businesses. Smaller businesses will see a reduction in taxes... but... with the exception of the occasional restaurant, I don't buy any of my consumer goods from small mom & pop stores. I buy all my clothes, food, consumer goods, all from big companies.

Big companies have the right to do whatever they want. If they suddenly see a 10% reduction in revenue... what do you think they are going to do? And I want you to answer this honestly.

They are going to do one of two things:

1 - Raise the price of their products

2 - Or cut labor costs and move production to another country (if they aren't there already... which is in part due to the tax hike on big businesses that occured during the Clinton administration)

There is NO positive result from this. In both instances, the cost of living for US citizens goes up, and more local jobs are lost. Do you deny that this would happen? How do YOU see this happening? I know you believe it's the wealthy's duty to distribute their wealth, but what if they don't want to? What if they decide to take it out? Are you going to hope that they'll just play nice and say... "ok... we'll take a 10-15% hike in taxes".

Regardless of allowing the tax cuts to expire, or the re-instantiation of the inheretence and death tax... the fact remains that Obama has no real plans at all to reduce federal spending. Pork budget is not really a issue for him. He will continue to make the entire United States pay for such projects as the Big Dig, and Levees for New Orleans. Both huge things that should have been paid for by the local state governments. Why is it my responsibility as a South Florida citizen to pay for an underground highway in Boston that does nothing other than to beautify the city?

If Obama was to get free reign, he would add quite a few things to the federal budget. Not only would he pass a national health care system (for the sake of this argument, it would be minimum of 4-5%, but I realistically belive from everything I've read that it would be more along the lines of a 7-8% increase), but he would allow significantly more pork and additional programs to be added to the federal budget's credit card. 

I'm not for a second going to excuse President Bush on where we are now. But moving forward, do I really want more of the same? No, I want someone who's going to come in there, turn things around, and stop spending money.

I don't give a DAMN about race, sexual preference, or gender. I could give two craps if Obama was green, and Palin was a hermaphrodite. My primary concern is making sure that our economy does not follow the path of Russia, and that our federal budget does not balloon into something much worse.

Explain to me, seriously... how you think Obama plans to correct this... with respect to the things I've mentioned to you... (IE: taxation on buinesses, etc). If you say... Obama want's change... I'm quitting tomorrow!!! (not really) 

Even though this is completely off topic and probably deserves another post, I'll just do a copy paste from what the tax policy center says.  Both candidates don't address your concerns which are also mine by the way.  Have you seen any of Obama's speeches lately?  Do you still think he's just saying "change" "vote for me"?

"Obama’s tax plan would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018. McCain’s plan would increase the debt by $5 trillion.

These projections are built on descriptions of the candidates’ plans provided by senior McCain and Obama staff (see Table 1). However, TPC has also projected costs based upon what candidates have actually said on the campaign trail, and those promises paint a quite different picture (see second panel of Summary Revenue Table)."

You may want to consider Bob Barr if you are serious.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf

No, I haven't seen any of Obama's speeches, why should I care? The way he speaks, and what he says now has no bearing whatsoever on my vote because of the things he said early on.

The link you sent me STILL does not cover the "REAL WORLD" situation.

You're basing everything on the hard numbers that would result from the tax change. You're not taking into consideration the federal SPENDING that McCain wants to reduce, or the INCREASED federal spending.

The document which you posted a link to, shows an increased revenue of 600 billion to the Federal government under Obama's plan. Who do you think, in the long run, ends up paying for that? You and me. While the big businesses might front the bill initially, I can ASSURE you that they will pass it on in their consumer costs. This is just how the economy works. You and I both know this.

Under McCain's plan, there would be a decrease in revenue to the Federal Budget by 500 million. Meaning that the government would get 500 million less per year.

This document states NOTHING about all of the plans that McCain has to completely eliminate pork spending (which I unbelievably agree with... I've been bitching about this for the past 8 years). Likewise, Obama has many plans to increase federal spending (which this doesn't list).

That's why there are soo many web sites out there that are misleading, that try to convince people that under Obama's "plan" you'll end up with more money. It's a farce. I'm trying to be non-biased, and when I look at Obama's tax provisions, they are pretty ridiculous. Mandating a 401k? You're going to force people to take money out of their pay checks to invest and save? So this is MORE government involvement... the people of the US don't know how to manage themselves? That's great. This is MORE socialism. Every item on there practically reeks of socialism. Why not slowly convert Social Security into a 401k, rather than force people to pay Social Security and then FORCE them to pay into a 401k also? (and in turn, force a company to sponsor it... which in turn leads to lower pay, and increased consumer costs).

Alex, Socialism is NOT the way... that is not the ideals with which this country was founded on.

Again, I say... it's more than just the basic tax plan that Obama has set forth. All the promises he's made to every group he's pandered to... that's all going to cost us money. In nearly every campaign speech McCain has made to the different groups he's pandered to, it's been the same... Cut federal spending... if you don't like it, deal with it.

This still doesn't answer my question. When all is said and done, and Obama gets his way, do you really think we're going to be better off? All of his plans on spending additional money, will result in more ways for government to learn how to spend it frivilously. Why does our federal government need more money?! They DON'T! They need to learn to be more fiscally conservative.

While we are off topic, I noticed on the recent activity that someone when to this post.  Quick update, they pushed it off until 2010!  Weak sauce.

Palin doesn't know what a VP does?  That's BS.

C, do YOU know what a VP does?

That seems to be her point if you listen to her entire statement, Todd.  I can't be certain, but it seems to me that she was saying she didn't want to sign up for VP until she heard McCain's job description for  his VP.    To answer your somewhat odd question and correct me if I'm wrong but there is very little in the constitution on the position and you can look that up for yourself.

btw, bikers are dorks, anyway

but back to the point, maybe Palin is the Manchurian candidate (if McCain isn't) and she'll make Alaska a sovereign nation after McCain wins and she kills him without getting caught

TLM when you gonna post the leather skirt photo?

dude, don't be sore just because our candidate picked a kick-ass vp and yours picked another  "same old washington" politician. 

So, "C", you don't know what a VP does either? Ok, that's what I wanted to know.

What would make you think she's a manchurian candidate? A Manchurian candidate is someone like Obama... someone who's charismatic, but has no substance, and someone who can be a puppet.

Todd, manchu candidate is an example of absurd sarcasm

TOdd, I figured it out.  The VP runs NASA

C, believe it or not... when it comes to NASA, if I could pick / vote for the person responsible for running it, I would vote for the most liberal person I could find.

I consider myself to be very religious. I talk to God all the time. He doesn't respond back in words (thankfully, or I'd probably get scared), so to speak, but I don't really talk about it very often. But, I've noticed that most evangelical Christians tend to not like NASA. It's kind of weird to explain really. Most of the discussions I've had, they tend to word it as "landing on Mars" and most space exploration as being a waste of money. But I tend to think that they might be afraid that certain findings would negate... or at least THEY feel that they would negate various readings from the Bible. It doesn't affect me at all, because I believe God created everything... so regardless of what anyone finds, God created it as far as I'm concerned.

But many hard-lined Christian groups disagree highly with money being spent on NASA. So with that, I would actually want someone who is as liberal as they get. You know, unless they start spending money on cloning human beings or something ridiculous like that.

I am all for a space station on Mars.

Although, with that said... I think we need to maintain (not increase) spending on NASA until we get our Federal Credit Cards in order...

 dude, don't be sore just because our candidate picked a kick-ass vp and yours picked another  "same old washington" politician. 

D.A. I'm truly not sore, I'm actually excited. 

Just imagine for a second how excited you would be if Obama had selected a far left wing female with very little experience.  Then you'll know what I'm feeling.

Todd, there's no messin' with you.  But I'm not so religious but spiritual where it's the relationship that counts for me and the relationship is with our LORD as you'd probably agree.  Sounds cliche but I've found it matters day to day.

Concurring with you on creation and no need to fear what NASA finds "out there."  I'm for a lot of things though but can't justify the expense beyond a certain percentage of GNP/tax revenue.  I didn't know liberals were big space enthusiasts.  Not much constituency out there.  But I don't want China to surpass us in a renewed space race.

I don't care for a lot of what the "hard-line Christians" have to say since I'm moderately conservative which explains why I tend to poke a stick in most comments here and elsewhere.  I'm sick and tired of liberals and I think they are sick and tired of conservatives but God has this area for action so not to worry.  I also think we (Chrisitans) need base our appeals on proven fact rather than the Bible for example.  The choir already agrees with the Bible.  Ben Stein showed how getting the truth even studied out there is not easy.

Keep strokin' bud.

on a lighter note Britt Hume:

Among the thousands of demonstrators in Saint Paul for the Republican National Convention, there is one group protesting bird-watching.

The group known as the Good Conduct Society says it considers bird-watching to be voyeurism. It says research suggests that those 48 million people who enjoy bird-watching across the country are more sexually active than the general population. The society's director says, "most disturbing are the groups of bird watchers seeking vicarious sexual gratification in the woods. Shamelessly, they blatantly observe God's defenseless creatures mating."

The group refuses to say if their protest is serious or a send-up.

Sarah doesn't have the experience that say, Dick Cheney, or Colin Powell, or someone like that would have. She certainly doesn't have as much experience as Joe Biden has.

But, she DOES have more experience than Barak Obama.

Obama has been in the Federal Senate for only 3 years now, most of which has been spent campaigning (meaning he hasn't been at work). Before that, he was only at the state level... and he's only been in government since 1997.

Sarah Palin has been the Governor of Alaska for 2 years now. She has an approval rating of 91%. She has been in politics since 1992. She's been a comissioner, a mayor, etc. While Obama has done nothing more than basically be a senator... Sarah Palin has worked her way up managing a city, and then an entire state. What more experience could you possibly ask for? She's the governor of one of the largest states in America. It may not have the population of New York, but it comes complete with a huge list of issues that she needs to deal with. AND she has managed it with a 91% approval rating.

As far as I'm concerned, the Democrats will attempt to push the "inexperience" card, but it doesn't REALLY exist. The Republican's VP candidate has MORE experience than the Democrats presidential candidate. THAT should scare you.

The thing is, I really believe that so many people are caught up in the emotion of change. The fact that he's black does play a big part. People see this as breaking the typical mold of a stodgy old white guy running the country. But I think the color of one's skin is no reason to vote for them. Obama is very charismatic, but he really, REALLY doesn't have much experience. The biggest problem I have with the guy is that he started running for presidency, almost as if he was just pushed into it. He didn't really seem to have a plan, or even any goals set with which he had hoped to accomplish if he did with the presidency. It really appears to me (and I have found nothing to the contrary) that he has basically formed all his views and goals within the last few months of his presidential campaign.

McCain on the other hand, from DAY 1, his primary goal was to reduce government spending. This has been his goal from before he even planned to run for presidency. He has worked across party lines on numerous issues.

Neither party really likes him, and that makes him the perfect candidate. What makes Sarah Palin a good candidate is that it helps bring the hard-line Republicans under the support of McCain (in which there was some lacking). In addition, Sarah Palin brings a new face to the Federal Government, in the same way that people hope that Obama would.

Fact is, Sarah Palin does have a lot of experience as it relates directly to management of cities and states. To me, this seems more valuable as a VP than the experience that your run of the mill senator would have.

I'm excited because I really like McCain, and I think he's the candidate that the Republican party needs to move forward. But at the same time, I like Sarah SPECIFICALLY because of her fiscal conservatism. She has been fiscally conservative even BEFORE McCain brought her on. Fact is... regardless of the fact that she's a woman, she would have been a good candidate.

I think two years of real experience ie governor is shakey for a VP but I like her a lot anyway.  Why isn't anyone saying Biden has time in office and on committees without pointing out his questionable foreign policy positions?

I for one would like to personally thank McCain for his choice for VP. He just made the worst possible choice he could have made. Any Hillary supporters who were undecided will certainly not be misguided enough to vote for McCain just because he decided to go with a woman for VP, how condesending can he be? Just because Palin can talk the talk, that does not mean she can lead a country if McCain keels over in office. Obama says the personal lives of candidates should be off limits, and in most cases I agree but when you run on a conservative platform that preaches abstinence and no sex education in schools and then your seventeen year old daughter comes up pregnant, that becomes a problem for me. She preachers family values, yet where was she when her daughter was doing the wango tango.....Shooting a moose...... or was it a polar bear? If she can't protect her own family, how can she possibly look after this country? Way to go McCain!!!

I was struck by how socialist the speeches at the DNC sounded last week.  Everything centered on fairness and redistribution of wealth. When Biden stated he couldn't remember a time when the government had done so little to help its struggling citizens I nearly spewed out my soda.  I don't know if there's been any time in American history, with the possible exception of FDR's New Deal, when the government has done more than they do now.  Commit to a mortgage you can't afford? No problem, the government will bail you out.  Need a little extra cash?  No problem, the government will borrow more money and go further into debt so that they can send a "tax rebate" check to families. Unbelievable. 

Momma C, you don't wanna start talking about families, do you?  Should I start with Obama's half brother who lives in a hut and makes $12 a year or should I start with Biden's son and brother who are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour?  Let me know when you're ready to play.

Except that Palin's daughter is a child, while Obama's and Biden's family members are not.  Do you consider yourself responsible for your father, brother, and adult children?  Also, Palin herself is under investigation.

Momma C:  So it's NOT ok to delve into people's personal lives, unless it's a Republican? But Democrats are off limits? Somehow, I don't think you had any intentions of voting for anyone unless they were a Democrat. The label is what you're voting for. Which is perfectly OK, mind you... but as long as you're willing to accept the realization of that, and not pretend that you otherwise WOULD have voted for someone else, then there's no reason to argue this.

Pickle: Palin is under investigation because she fired someone. That person didn't like to be fired, and is alleging that she did it because there was a disagreement with an extension of her family. Regardless of the outcome, however, she is within her right as governor to fire anyone she wants. She is fully co-operating, and the investigation is scheduled to be over by October. They have found no bias whatsoever.

Despite what the Democrats are trying to do... the truth is, most people think it was an excellent pick. Regardless of whether or not she is a woman, or whether McCain's ONLY sole purpose was bringing her on because she's a woman, her CORE values as they relate to the issues McCain is running on, are IDENTICAL to his. And that is... Fiscal Responsibility. McCain wants to significantly reduce federal spending. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in this next election is this:

Democrats want to increase taxes and spend more.

Republicans want to maintain taxes, and spend less.

Which sounds more responsible to you? Regardless of how you try to fake yourself into believing that Obama wants to spend less... the fact is that he has plans to add numerous social programs. He will cut some, (he'll need to), but if he had his way right now, he would add dozens of social programs.

Matt:   What I simply cannot believe is that so many people really do want to vote for Obama. I really, truly believe that the majority of the people who are voting Democrat this year, are doing so only because they've been raised to believe that those are the correct people they should be voting for and that Republicans are bad. I don't think they fully realize what they are voting for.

The thing is, Socialism is NOT what made this country successful. Socialism is what has been responsible for the downfall of nearlly every country that's failed in this world. Every time you see a country grow, and become prosperous, it's because of Capitalism, not socialism. Use ANY country as an example... every single country that's been successful in the past 150 years is due to capitalism. Some real obvious ones... East German VS West Germany, North Korea VS South Korea. Of course, they are Communist, but the difference is merely in the fact that there is a single ruler as apposed to a socialist cabinet body.

Europe was in shambles because they had become too far socialist. Unions pretty much took over the entire work force, and companies like Bosch had to relocate their plants to capitalist countries like Poland. The unemployment rate across Western Europe was unbelievable...

The FACT is... what made this country what it is is Capitalism. It is the spirit of capitalism that has caused this country to become the world's most powerful country. It is capitalism that is right now allowing China to become as powerful as it is.

It really kills me to see the direction this country could be headed... in this country right now... ANYONE... I mean ANYONE has the ability to basically take over the world if they want to (figuratively speaking). No one has an excuse to not fullfill greatness. I don't care what your handicap is...  Jim Abbot, Ray Charles, Steven Hawking... just to name a few. None of them came from wealth.

You can do ANYTHING in this country if you put in the effort. The socialist views of the Democrats are destroying the spirit which made this country great. They focus on the fact that some people have money, and others do not, and they focus on the fact that wealthy should be re-distributed... that the person who earned it, does not really deserve it... and that those who have NOT earned it, don't deserve it.

With every socialist program that the Democrats attempt to force on society (or try to convince that it's good for them), people become less and less reliant on themselves. They begin to expect the government to bail them out, and support them. WHY do they want to do this to our great country? They (the Democrats) want to do this simply because they want to get in power and they know that they can do this because they are preying on people's emotions for "fairness" and "re-distribution of wealth". I don't understand the animosty so many people in this country have for people who have money. I just don't understand it.

Granted, I was given every opportunity growing up, and I probably haven't taken full advantage of it. Everyone in my family worked their way from the bottom up, and if I had to compare myself to anyone else in my family, I would probably be the loser... or at least the one who hasn't yet "made it". I'm still young, so I have time... but it proves that you don't have to have money to make it. Money is not the means... if anything it can hold you back from greatness.

I am extremely proud of my grandfather. I won't go into the specifics about what he's accomplished on this web forum, but there are few people that I've met that even come close to his greatness. He was raised in a family with 4 other sibilings, in a small train town in Missouri. They had so little money, that they considered "Corn on the Cob" to be a luxury food that they got to eat once a month. The were so broke, that everyone in the family, including my grand father had to work odd jobs around the neighborhood to help pay for food on the table. My great grandfather worked 3 jobs to pay the rent. Did they complain and ask for money from the government? Did they bitch and cry that the guy down the street has more money than them? No... they sucked it up, worked hard, and made something of themselves. My grandfather worked his way through school... paid his own way at the University of Missouri. And you know what? When he graduated from the University of Missouri, he had the highest GPA in the school and was given the "Key" to the school (forget the specific name for this). He enlisted in the Navy during WW2, worked his way up through the ranks, met my Grandmother on tour. They got married... lived through the Depression... living in almost the same conditions that he did when he was a child. He worked hard, accomplished all his goals, published several books, raised several children who accomplished their own success stories.

"You and I both know, that under Obama's plan, taxes for the majority of us, will go up SLIGHTLY, not much, probably almost unnoticeable in the pay check, but it will go up slightly. That's not a big deal, personally..."

That's not correct.  I don't know this, I've checked the plan and have read a few independent reviews.  I've posted and sent these to you, but you continue to say my taxes will go up and then when I say they won't, you try and switch the argument to consumer prices.  May be your taxes will go up, but I don't make more than 227k a year.

"Did they complain and ask for money from the government? Did they bitch and cry that the guy down the street has more money than them? No... they sucked it up, worked hard, and made something of themselves. "

What if he had gotten really sick at an early age?  I would gladly give a few of my "hard earned" dollars to make sure that he had the health care he needed to fulfill his life.  He may have qualified for medicade, but there are still millions who fall in that gray area.

Alex, I'll go over each additional item that you're missing. You've got tunnel vision. You want to believe, but it's a farce. Obama's tricking everyone by fooling them into thinking they will have more money:

Capital Gains Tax

1. Any interest made from a savings account will be taxed at 25% under Obama's Plan
2. Any interest made from a Money Market account will be taxed at 25% under Obama's plan.
3. Any money made from a US Savings Bond will be taxed at 25% under Obama's Plan.
4. Any Money earned from stock dividends will now be taxed at 25% under Obama's plan.
5. Any money made on property will not be taxed at 25% under Obama's plan.
6. Any money made from the sale of commodities will be taxed at 25% under Obama's plan.

All of that money comes out of your taxes at the end of the year, so for me... no, my taxes will NOT go down.

The only people this does NOT affect, are those people who A) Never save any money, B) never invest in the stock market, C) Never invest in property, D) Never plan on selling property.

Now, lets talk about Consumer Spending

Obama wants to raise taxes on businesses by as much as 15%. Do you know what happens when the government does that? The businesses turn around and pass the overwhelming majority of that onto the consumer.

That means that the following will now cost 15% more:

1. Milk, Food, etc
2. Clothing
3. Supplies
4. EVERYTHING

Unless of course you buy everything from Osbourne's Hardware, or The Davie Hay Depot... oh wait... Osbournes went out of business. Didn't we read somewhere that the family couldn't afford to pay the estate tax so they sold the business?

Bottom line, under Obama's plan, while the person who basically does nothing, doesn't save, doesn't do ANYTHING... will end up with the price of a Pizza more on his pay check... everything he wants to buy will now cost 15% more. Plus, if he ever does decide to save, he'll be punished for it.

That is NOT EVEN INCLUDING any of the social programs that Obama plans to add... which if given free reign, would be at minimum, a 3-4% increase in taxes for the national health care system... although those are VERY optimistic numbers... most estimates are in the neighborhood of 6-7%. That doesn't include all the other programs he's promised to every group he's pandered to on his campaign trail.

McCain's plan is very simple... he wants to maintain the tax rate, but significantly reduce government spending in all areas. Republican programs, Democrat programs, military, social programs, everything.

I know this is a moot point since most people will vote Democrat or Republican based on how they've been raised and what they've been brainwashed to believe... but I really wish people would see McCain for what he is. Neither party really likes him... he is a reform guy. He wants to get into the white house, eliminate all the old stodgy crooked people, cut spending drastically, and focus on OUR economy.  THAT'S what he wants to do. If anyone has a brain in their head and can look past all the years of their ingrained beliefs, THIS is exactly what the white house needs... this is EXACTLY what the country needs.

McCain doesn't care whether you're gay, whether you are having an abortion, whether you like trees, or whether you drive a Volkswagen Bus. He just wants to go into the white house, smack some people around, take away their credit cards, and fix our national debt problem. THAT'S what he wants to do...

"Also, Palin herself is under investigation."

For firing a state trooper who beat up his wife.  The state trooper didn't like it and is now alleging unfair treatment. 

BTW, I never want to hear again about how the liberals don't run smear campaigns.  Palin has been smeared worse than anyone since Clarence Thomas. 

Tonight at 9 pm I am hosting a discussion on Palin and Biden and the presidential election here.  I would love to have some of you join the discussion.

The AP has this to say about it: 

Palin also is the subject of an ethics investigation involving the firing of the state's public safety commissioner after he wouldn't dismiss her former brother-in-law, a state trooper. Her efforts as mayor to gain millions of dollars in federal funding through the so-called "earmark" process appeared to be at odds with the McCain message of fiscal reform.

Regardless, that's still more pertinent to the election than investigations of Biden's father and son.

Pickle, the money you're talking about was the "Bridge to Nowhere". She originally supported the idea of building a bridge to link a city in Alaska. They negotiated money from the federal budget, and upon receiving some of it, they realized that the total expense would greatly outweigh the necessity and feasibility of building that bridge, so the project was cancelled. Hence, the "bridge to nowhere". It's not a scandal, there's no investigation on that, that is just something the AP decided to throw in, but you're misunderstanding it. The money they did receive was re-appropriated to other projects for the state.

The two have nothing to do with eachother. By the way, congratulations on your new job!!! I meant to send an e-mail but I've been busy.

Thank you!  I'm really excited!

I know the two aren't related, I just copied the entire paragraph.

In lighter news, I heard on the radio this morning that Sarah Palin is the most searched politician in the last 4 years (I believe).  However, most searches are "Sarah Palin sexy pics", "Sarah Palin bikini pics", and "Sarah Palin nudes".  Perverts.

Yeah, her brother-in-law was beating up her sister.  When a law enforcement officer is covicted of domestic violence it is an automatic firing.  When the public safety commissioner didn't fire her abusive brother-in-law she fired the public safety commissioner.  The investigation has been ongoing and so far nothing has turned up that Palin did anything wrong. 

Any police officer who commits an act of domestic violence is automatically dismissed from his/her job - as it should be I might add. 

I'm surprised you would not take her side on that Pickle.  Domestic violence is a serious crime against women, as I'm sure you know.  All measures in place to protect women from being victims should be upheld and enacted to the fullest extent of the law.  Palin knew this and didn't hesitate to fire the public safety commissioner when he balked at firing Palin's abusive brother-in-law.  Regardless of partisan politics I would think we could all agree she made the right choice there.

Here's what Pickle was referring to, not really about the bridge.

"BTW, I never want to hear again about how the liberals don't run smear campaigns."

Barack Obama said,"Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president."

Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother.

"How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits."

If you want to say that what some left wing bloggers are saying is a smear campaign, I will gladly go extremist blog vs extremist blog smearing if you want!  But you will hear about smearing as soon as the new McCain ads that are coming out soon arrive. 

"I'm surprised you would not take her side on that Pickle."

I don't think she was taking any sides, just saying that she was under investigation.  Now you are trying to spin it like she supports domestic violence?  I expect more from you MC, that's just pure cheese.  Just shows how defensive Repubs are about a poor choice for Veep!

Hahah, that's pretty funny (the search terms, not the abuse)

"I don't think she was taking any sides"

But this is something we should take sides on.  When a politician, regardless of what party they're in, does something to protect domestic violence victims it should be applauded.  Not questioned because Palin is now under investigation. 

"Just shows how defensive Repubs are about a poor choice for Veep!"

So all those posts and comments about Kerry and the swiftboat controversy was just you being defensive about a poor selection for a Democratic presidential candidate or because you wanted to protect the truth about a candidate you believed in?  Let's be consistent.  If I'm being defensive that means you've been defensive about Kerry for four years!

In lighter news, I heard on the radio this morning that Sarah Palin is the most searched politician in the last 4 years (I believe).  However, most searches are "Sarah Palin sexy pics", "Sarah Palin bikini pics", and "Sarah Palin nudes".  Perverts.

I wonder why Hillary never got those kind of hits???

Matt, obviously I support action to protect victims of abuse.  I hope that you are not implying otherwise.  I was simply pointing out that Palin being under investigation is far more relevant than Joe Biden's relatives, or Obama's half-brother.

“I think John McCain needs to make a real, substantive case about how he’s going to help average voters with their cost of living, on energy, on health care and on taxes,” Lowry said. “Barack Obama is offering more middle-class tax relief than John McCain.”

"So all those posts and comments about Kerry and the swiftboat controversy was just you being defensive about a poor selection for a Democratic presidential candidate or because you wanted to protect the truth about a candidate you believed in?  Let's be consistent.  If I'm being defensive that means you've been defensive about Kerry for four years!"

If you can't tell the difference between a millionaire funding negative political ads that attacked a veteran, and some left wing bloggers then there is no reason for us to go any further. 

"I was simply pointing out that Palin being under investigation is far more relevant than Joe Biden's relatives, or Obama's half-brother."

But it matters what she's under investigation for. Simply saying she's under investigation and leaving it at that is not fair. 

When you realize she's under investigation for protecting her sister from an abusive husband who was also a state trooper explains a lot.   Punishing Palin for protecting domestic abuse victims is simply not what politics should be about.

"Matt, obviously I support action to protect victims of abuse."

Obviously, but I do think you should have been more careful about saying Palin is under investigation and leaving it at that.  Palin protected her sister, a victim of domestic violence, and that should be applauded not questioned, regardless of whether she's under investigation for it or not. 

"If you can't tell the difference between a millionaire funding negative political ads that attacked a veteran, and some left wing bloggers then there is no reason for us to go any further."

Now who's being defensive.

Still you.

Pickle, lets call a spade a spare here... you were bringing up Palin's "Investigation" for no other reason than to add some ammo to the Democrat side of this discussion.

Matt, supporters of Obama will continue to do this until the election is over. Stating that Palin is under "investigation" does one and only one thing... it brings discredit to her selection as a vice president. That's the ONLY reason this was stated, it was not to lightly add to the conversation, but in an attempt to steer the direction of the post. Unfortunately, most people will not know the difference. When you hear investigation, you assume that they've done something wrong... IE: embezzeled money, cheated, lied, etc...

That was the point of posting that Palin was under investigation.

Actually if you look back it really wasn't the main point.  Some people here got overly defensive about it and made a big deal of it.  The original point was on the Biden issues.

Palin's experience vs. Obama's

Women reject Palin Pick, McCain looses big 35 point advantage in experience.

You are probably the only person I've ever met who is so excited / reliant on polls. I have never seen a poll come close to what the result ended up being when it was related to politics. If anything, I really believe a lot of these polls are skewed. They always show Democrats winning by landfall margins. I think they have the opposite affect of what they want. Like I mentioned before, they only serve to make the complacent, even more complacent, and the ones at risk, more energetic.

As far as your percentage of votes by women... women have always tended to vote Democrat. The fact that Obama is only getting 52% of the supposed female vote tells me that the Democrat party has actually LOST some pull with women. You can read an article any way you'd like... it all depends on how the writer decides to present the facts. The way I see it (from my point) is that there are 48% of women who are NOT going to vote for Obama. To me... that's significant considering there are more women than men in the United States.

You are probably the only person I know that can contradict themselves so badly in two paragraphs.  First you say who cares about polls, and the very next paragraph you start citing them as proof.  Ha!

You're completely ignoring everything I said and going straight to an insult, in hopes of bypassing the obvious.

The FACTS are... those people WERE polled, and the information based on those polls are facts since they were in fact polled. The facts are that the numbers are factual based on the polling, it does not necessarily mean that the polls were done to the best they could have been.

If the person conducting the poll decided to call people in only Democrat areas, that does not change the fact that the results from the polls are what they are.

I'm not sure what your point is?

The point I'm making (which you ignored) is that these polls show less women voting for Barak Obama than voted for other Democrat presidents in past elections. Regardless of what you might believe, this article is trying to flip this information in a positive light and show that Obama is getting the majority of the female votes in the same manner as General Motors spouting that it's the #1 Automotive Manufacturer in the United States (which is only by 1%, and continues to go down yearly). Based on these polls... Obama will have LESS votes than previous Democrats, and McCain will have more votes than previous elections.

That's what I call Bias... you can have numbers, statistics, whatever... but it's all in how you present it. That's the mark of a tricky journalist, and a fool reader.

If you think I'm going straight for insults then read your post I was responding to.  I used your exact first sentence and replaced it.  Just serving the same dish back to you is all.

Excellent article by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal today.  Her take on the Palin selection:

"The choice of Sarah Palin IS a Hail Mary pass, the pass the guy who thinks he has a good arm makes to the receiver he hopes is gifted.

Most Hail Mary passes don't work.

But when they do they're a thing of beauty and a joy forever.

Gut: The Sarah Palin choice is really going to work, or really not going to work. It's not going to be a little successful or a little not; it's not going to be a wash. She is either going to be magic or one of history's accidents."

More:

"She could become a transformative political presence.

So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.

And it's going to be brutal. It's already getting there.

There are only two questions.

1. Can she take it?

Will she be rattled? Can she sail through high seas? Can she roll with most punches and deliver some jabs herself?

2. And while she's taking it, rolling with it and sailing through, can she put herself forward convincingly as serious enough, grounded enough, weighty enough that the American people can imagine her as vice president of the United States?

I suppose every candidate for vice president faces these questions to some degree, but because Palin is new, unknown, and a woman, it's all much more so."

On Obama:

"Great respect goes to Barack Obama not only for saying criticism of candidates' children is out of bounds in political campaigns, but for making it personal, and therefore believable. "My mother had me when she was eighteen…" That was the lovely sound of class in American politics."

All good points.

"Perverts"?  I think you're mischaracterizing searchers of Palin pix.  We don't even know the gender of those entering such queries of the internet databases or their motivation.  Another free speech issue for you, Pickle.

If the liberal reaction to Palin hits this dB level, I don't know if I can handle a McCain Supreme Court nom. in 2009 or even better a Palin one in 201x.

McCain could say "Damn the torpedoes.  Full speed ahead!"  The pundits keep criticizing his reasons for selecting Palin such as he was desparate, he wanted to take advantage of Hillary not being prez or vp nom of the dems, etc.  I said months ago that he'd try to find someone like him and she's it and she was hard to find.  I don't think he picked her to game the vote.

Speaking of family members, momma c, this just in about michelle obama from human events:

Barack Obama says we have “an obligation” to fix the current health care system. In his plan, “No American will be turned away.” Michelle Obama disagrees. While an executive at the University of Chicago Medical Center, she developed the hospital’s Urban Health Initiative, a program to refer patients without private insurance to other health care facilities in their neighborhood. Those shown the door tend to be poor minorities, mostly blacks.

In order to sell the program to the community, the hospital hired ASK Public Strategies, co-owned by David Axelrod, a top aide to the Obama campaign. The recommendation to hire Axelrod’s firm was made by Obama’s wife and by his advisor Valerie Jarrett, who sits on the hospital’s board. Syrian national and Obama fundraiser “Tony” Rezko also had a hand in seeing the program move forward by recommending another Obama friend to take over the program in October 2007. Rezko seems to be the go-to-guy for the Obamas.

"Any Hillary supporters who were undecided will certainly not be misguided enough to vote for McCain just because he decided to go with a woman for VP, how condesending can he be? "

As Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright once said, "There is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women."

Some former Clinton supporters do get it.    A founding member of New Agenda, a watchdog feminist group, is saying she is supporting McCain and Palin and recognizes that the media is doing the same thing to Palin now that the media successfully did to Clinton during the primaries.  Makes you wonder which party is sexist and which party is truly tolerant.

Fat, the Democrats are so desperate right now to win... that they will literally do anything.

11:10pm RNC plays BARACUDA!!!!!  Sierra Hotel!!!

I just finished Going Rogue. Palin's my pick.  O'Reilly reported that Palin was one percentage point behind Hillary Clinton in a recent popularity poll.  THat's pretty darn good for a resigned governor from a three electoral vote state vs. a Sec. State from NY.