Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45991)	9/11/2008 11:15:03 AM
From: longnshort	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

no it's not. rushlimbaugh.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45991)	9/11/2008 11:24:09 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

Obama Can't Win Against Palin By KARL ROVE September 11, 2008 Of all the advantages Gov. Sarah Palin has brought to the GOP ticket, the most important may be that she has gotten into Barack Obama's head. How else to explain Sen. Obama's decision to go one-on-one against "Sarah Barracuda," captain of the Wasilla High state basketball champs? It's a matchup he'll lose. If Mr. Obama wants to win, he needs to remember he's running against John McCain for president, not Mrs. Palin for vice president. AP Michael Dukakis spent the last months of the 1988 campaign calling his opponent's running mate, Dan Quayle, a risky choice and even ran a TV ad blasting Mr. Quayle. The Bush/Quayle ticket carried 40 states. Adlai Stevenson spent the fall of 1952 bashing Dwight Eisenhower's running mate, Richard Nixon, calling him "the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, and then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation." The Republican ticket carried 39 of 48 states. If Mr. Obama keeps attacking Mrs. Palin, he could suffer the fate of his Democratic predecessors. These assaults highlight his own tissue-thin résumé, waste precious time better spent reassuring voters he is up for the job, and diminish him -- not her. Consider Mr. Obama's response to CNN's Anderson Cooper, who asked him about Republican claims that Mrs. Palin beats him on executive experience. Mr. Obama responded by comparing Wasilla's 50 city workers with his campaign's 2,500 employees and dismissed its budget of about $12 million a year by saying "we have a budget of about three times that just for the month." He claimed his campaign "made clear" his "ability to manage large systems and to execute." Of course, this ignores the fact that Mrs. Palin is now governor. She manages an $11 billion operating budget, a $1.7 billion capital expenditure budget, and nearly 29,000 full- and part-time state employees. In two years as governor, she's vetoed over $499 million from Alaska's capital budget -- more money than Mr. Obama is likely to spend on his entire campaign. And Mr. Obama is not running his campaign's day-to-day operation. His manager, David Plouffe, assisted by others, makes the decisions about the $335 million the campaign has spent. Even if Mr. Obama is his own campaign manager, does that qualify him for president? A debate between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Palin over executive experience also isn't smart politics for Democrats. As Mr. Obama talks down Mrs. Palin's record, voters may start comparing backgrounds. He won't come off well. Then there was Mr. Obama's blast Saturday about Mrs. Palin's record on earmarks. He went at her personally, saying, "you been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person." It's true. Mrs. Palin did seek earmarks as Wasilla's mayor. But as governor, she ratcheted down the state's requests for federal dollars, telling the legislature last year Alaska "cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government earmarks." Her budget chief directed state agencies to reduce earmark requests to only "the most compelling needs" with "a strong national purpose," explaining to reporters "we really want to skinny it down." Mr. Obama has again started a debate he can't win. As senator, he has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks, ratcheting up his requests each year he's been in the Senate. If voters dislike earmarks -- and they do -- they may conclude Mrs. Palin cut them, while Mr. Obama grabs for more each year. Mr. Obama may also pay a price for his "lipstick on a pig" comment. The last time the word "lipstick" showed up in this campaign was during Mrs. Palin's memorable ad-lib in her acceptance speech. Mr. Obama says he didn't mean to aim the comment at Mrs. Palin, but he deserves all the negative flashback he gets from the snarky aside. Sen. Joe Biden has now joined the attack on Mrs. Palin, saying this week that her views on issues show she's "obviously a backwards step for women." This is a mistake. Mr. Obama is already finding it difficult to win over independent women and Hillary Clinton voters. If it looks like he's going out of his way to attack Mrs. Palin, these voters may conclude it's because he has a problem with strong women. In Denver two weeks ago, Mr. Obama said, "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." That's what he's trying to do, only the object of his painting is Sarah Palin, not John McCain. In Mrs. Palin, Mr. Obama faces a political phenomenon who has altered the election's dynamics. Americans have rarely seen someone who immediately connects with large numbers of voters at such a visceral level. Mrs. Palin may be the first vice presidential candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson to change an election's outcome. If Mr. Obama keeps attacking her, the odds of Gov. Palin becoming Vice President Palin increase significantly.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45991)	9/11/2008 11:44:36 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224750

Dear kenny, I provided a link showing the source material that shows the ad 100% correct. yet you persist in posting your lies. Motormouthing in denial of the facts is Kenneth E. Phillipps repeating past history. This is your messiah.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45991)	9/11/2008 12:30:53 PM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 224750

According to USA Today in the 28 states that register voters by party affiliation the Democrats have added 2 million new voters in 2008 while Republicans have lost 344,000. Among the states with the largest number of new registrants are Ohio and Pennsylvania, two hotly contested states between Obama and Clinton (yet another reason to debunk the notion that a protracted nominating season hurt Obama). Add to this the vastly superior ongoing voter registration efforts by the Obama campaign which should result in an even greater Democrat to Republican registration advantage by November 4th. Given voter self identification numbers, even if Republicans get organized there are far fewer Republicans to register in 2008. Demographics also favor the Democrats big time in 2008. It is generally conceded that Obama will win the youth vote by a healthy margin, and if primaries are indicators of fall turnout (historically they are) the youth vote will increase substantially over 2004. Millions of new voters have reached 18 since 2004. Some examples according to the US Census Bureau: • In Ohio (which John Kerry lost by only 120,000 votes in 2004), 750,000 eligible voters between 18 and 22 who could not vote in 2004 can vote in 2008. • In Colorado (Kerry lost by 99,000) 293,000 between 18 and 22 have become eligible to vote in 2008. • In New Mexico (Kerry lost by 6000 votes) 145,000 kids have reached voting age. • In Michigan 690,000 have become eligible. • In Virginia 465,000 (Kerry lost by 260,000). • In Florida alone over 1 million young people have reached voting age since 2004. Then there are black voters. According to the Census Bureau there are 24 million eligible black voters in America of which 16 million (64%) are registered. In 2004 blacks cast 14 million votes or only 56% of the eligible black population. Blacks are registering to vote at historic rates in 2008 and turnout will soar above 2004 levels. Some examples: • In Colorado there are 110000 eligible black voters. Only 50,000 voted in 2004. • In Ohio there are 860,000 eligible black voters. Only 380,000 voted in 2004. (Remember Kerry lost by only 120,000 votes). • In Virginia, 945,000 eligible black voters, 465,000 voted in 2004. • Florida; 1,750,000 eligible blacks, 770,000 voted in 2004. Not to get morbid but there is another statistic that is working against the Republicans. The Center for Disease Control estimates there have been, on average, 2.5 million deaths in America each year since 2005, the overwhelming number of whom were 65 years and older. Since it is generally conceded that John McCain will win the over 65 vote the actuarial tables present a problem. But you say millions have turned 65 since 2004. Correct, but among the people who were 61-64 in 2004 the vote split evenly between Kerry and Bush. Put it all together and the conclusions are fairly obvious. Sarah Palin may help turnout marginally on the Right but mostly in states that will vote Republican like Alaska. In battleground states, voter registration, newly eligible young voters, eligible nonvoting blacks, and even death rates all favor Obama. Excuse the pun but Palin's impact on the 2008 election pales in comparison to the Democrats' demographic advantages. In the end all the Palin "boom" you hear today will be a whimper come Election Day. Bob Beckel managed Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign. He is a senior political analyst for the Fox News Channel and a columnist for USA Today. Beckel is the co-author with Cal Thomas of the book "Common Ground."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45991)	9/11/2008 12:49:59 PM
From: MJ	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

" While it is true that Obama supported the bill, he was not one of the sponsors. As far as kindergartners were concerned, the principal purpose of the bill was to make them aware of the risk of inappropriate touching and sexual predators. Other states, including California and Massachusetts, have passed similar legislation. " It doesn't matter that he was not a sponsor-----"support of the bill" is support. This is Obama's Nanny Government pushing his and their mores, whatever they be, on the least able to understand via sex education. Time to protect our children and grandchildren from the likes of Obama. No Obama mj