Yes, I heard that. I think they upgrades since the original incident. There were about 5 locks on the door if I recall.

But really, all kidding aside, the roundness of the building with the center courtyard does provide a good viewing of the other rooms. You’d think they would have been a little more careful.

It was fun staying there. The feather pillows were marvelous. I would have never known a pillow could be such a joy, I know sounds weird, but try a good one some time and you’ll be convinced.

Sadly the time machine app on the iPhone store was pulled down pretty quickly. Turns out it was causing quite the disruption on the AT&T 4G networks that will go live in another 6 years. It was also a bit limited, because once you went far enough in either direction, the phone would lose cell signal due to the towers not existing, and strand people.

I have to say, I thought choosing Palin was absurd at first, but I've come to see it as an inspired stroke of genius.

Forget about what the candidates actually do and who they actually are for the moment (the truth is they are probably much more similar than different on 95% of the "issues"). But let's set this aside and look at it from the drama of the election.

By choosing Palin, McCain seeks to take away the "change" message from Obama. As a first-term Senator, Obama doesn't have much of a record yet, so being a "change" candidate and "outsider" and a "historical candidate" is pretty much all he's got to run on. That and some good oratory skills. John Kerry had the whole country saying "anyone but W" and he lost. The "we're not Republicans" platform will only get 45% of the vote. So the change message is vital.

Seen that way, this is very much like the Kennedy / Nixon race of 1960. Establishment vs. new blood.

So McCain tries to blunt that strategy by picking (whatever else she may be) a charismatic Washington outsider and a historic candidate of his own. The subtle point is that it doesn't need to be 100% effective. All they need to do is establish parity on the "change issue", and McCain will win because he's the father figure. Americans traditionally love a tough-talking, hard-ass father figure for a president, especially in times of "war".

Seen purely as a strategic move, I think it's high risk, but potentially election winning for McCain.

Mmm.. that didn't quite pan out for the first Bush, though.

I agree with almost all of this. But seriously, do you think it's ANY different for the Democrats? None of them will do an interview they don't control. As far as obsequious media, why isn't Biden's plagiarism history being reported as much as the Palin bastard grandkid? They all suck, folks, and they're all in it primarily for their own aggrandizement.

It's a complete farce, certainly. But the atrocities are embedded in the system. You can't say they're the sole province of the candidate you dislike. The side you support is just as sleazy.

What made Frodo Baggins the right choice for ring bearer is that he DIDN'T WANT THE JOB. Frodo for president, I say.

No war.

Because Biden isn't a hot 17yo?
I'll take 'Sex Sells' for $500, Alex.

I think he tried. He saw how his popularity surged during Just Cause (Panama 1989) and again during Operation Desert Storm (1991, but Desert Shield started late 1990). I believe Operation Restore Hope (1992-1993) was an attempt at capitalizing on that surge in popularity that occurs during a successful operation. The operation started a month late and didn't factor into the polls, though (it started 03 DEC 1992).

This is the mantra of the low-information independent voter, and in this election, it's completely divorced from reality. I can probably name a dozen major issues off the top of my head where McCain and Obama are *diametrically* opposed. For starters: withdrawal from Iraq, direct diplomacy with Iran, taxes, abortion, capital punishment, gun control, and universal healthcare. Those are all areas where there is almost no overlap in their positions. Other issues with major differences, but some overlap, are education policy, free trade, energy policy, and gay marriage/civil unions. Even on those issues, however, I don't think a case can be made that they are more similar than different. The only issues I can think of that they agree more than 50% on (at least in terms of McCain's *current* positions) are federal funding for stem cell research, social security (McCain's very vague on this one) and climate change.

Please list any other issues McCain and Obama mostly agree on that I may have forgotten.


Right, winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. Nevermind that peoples' lives and livelihood hang in the balance.

Obama regularly takes questions from the press after nearly every one of his prepared speeches. He has a pool of reporters that follow him from event to event. He goes on the Sunday talk shows. McCain does all of these things as well. This is basic stuff for any politician who's been on the national stage.

Palin, the GOP nominee for the Vice Presidency, hasn't done any interviews or taken any questions at all since being picked. I can't think of another time when this has ever happened. Usually, it is advantageous to get your VP pick out there, to show people that you made a good choice, and to get voters excited about them. The campaign's reluctance to do so shows that she wasn't picked for her abilities, she was picked for her biography. They can't even trust her to answer questions from a press that rarely asks tough questions to begin with!


Every profile I saw of Biden when he was announced as the VP pick mentioned his plagiarism. However, it happened in 1987, and it was a big national story that forced him to end his Presidential campaign in 1988. It's old news. The various Palin controversies are all current events, and are being covered as such. And, yes, there's a tabloid aspect to the pregnancy story that keeps it on the front page as well.


"A pox on both their houses" is only valid if you have a binary definition of pox. The folks that reinvented sleazy politics with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney at the helm are to be given a pass because Joe Biden didn't credit a British Labor leader in a political speech? Really?

Well, that's sort of my point. You're extremely biased toward one party in this nonsense. Where were these great Democrats of conscience when we needed people to oppose the Patriot Act or giving essentially a blank check to the President? Almost every single one of them voted the politically expedient way and supported that unconstitutional crap. That makes them EVERY BIT as much to blame as the executive branch, IMHO.

You happen to agree with a consistent side all of those policy differences. Many people, including non-Republicans like myself, consider some of them to be wrong headed, immoral or extremely naive, such as the immediate withdrawal from Iraq (immoral) and direct negotiations with Iran (naive). I also think that National (socialized) Healthcare is an abomination (wrong headed). It's fine if you agree with all of that, but to a non-party affiliated voter, they will both require holding your nose when you cast your vote.

I'm not sure why you're going into our policy differences when the section you're quoting me on has to do with how the candidates interact with the media, not who is right about Iraq or healthcare. I went into policy stuff in my response to your other post, but in that post, I didn't say anything about which side was right or wrong.

You originally asked me "do you think it's ANY different for the Democrats?" and said "none of them will do an interview they don't control." I pointed out that, in fact, Obama and Biden have been available to the press many times for unscripted questions, and Palin has not. Those statements have nothing to do with policy, and the fact that my policy positions line up much more closely to Obama than McCain have nothing to do with who's manipulating the media more.

Hey, it's cool if you think both sides are equally sleazy, I was just hoping for more evidence than you gave. I do recognize both sides try to work the refs and use the media to their advantage. But your "both sides do it" statement simply does not apply to the case of Palin ducking the media for a couple weeks while the McCain camp trains her. This is unprecedented, cowardly, and shows that she's not capable of speaking until she's told what to say.

Adding: You aren't going to see me defending Obama's unconscionable FISA vote, or the actions of other Democrats (before Obama was in the Senate) in the run-up to the war. Just because I think Obama is correct on many more issues than McCain is doesn't mean I like everything he's done, and just because I support him for President doesn't mean I support everything that every Democrat in Congress has done. (That being said, a lot more would have been done in the 110th Congress if Republicans hadn't shattered the record for filibusters.)

That's me.

Can anyone recommend resources to learn about both candidates? Thanks.

My state may always be blue, but I still want to make an informed choice. (why can't the electoral college have more swing voters)

OnTheIssues.org is a pretty comprehensive "just the facts, ma'am" resource for the Presidential candidates as well as state races. You'll basically get info from their voting records and some public statements they make. For one-stop shopping, that's as good as I've found. The devil is always in the details, but for simple high-level views of where the candidates stand, you can start with the candidate grid by topics or the frontrunner grid, and then drill down to the specific votes or statements which led to that assessment.

There are also a bunch of "answer a bunch of questions and we'll pick your ideal candidate(s)" sites, but I think they're bogus, and in some cases, bankrolled by certain political interests.

If you want to wade deeper into the muck, political blogs can round out your knowledge, but the signal-to-noise ratio can get a bit low at times.

It's important to point out, at least for President, that you're not just just voting for one person. You're voting for the head of the entire executive branch. The President populates all the top offices with political appointees, who then implement the president's policies. Unsurprisingly, most of these appointees are people who tend to share common politics with the president.

For some political appointees, they actually just bump up the top career bureaucrat or get somebody with a clue. In other cases, they pay off political favors. The biggest example of how to do this, both right and wrong, is the head of FEMA. No question about it, Brown didn't do a heck of a job. Clinton appointed somebody for that office with a serious clue. And, now, Bush similarly has a clueful person in the office.

So, for all of this talk about the "issues", when you're voting for president also consider that they really drive the bureaucracy. The question you have to answer, and the question to which you'll never get straight answers from either side, is exactly how they're going to do this. Instead, you're forced to look at weird proxy issues, like whether you think their economic advisors or vice presidential candidates seem to be clueful. Or, you get even further removed and start asking questions like whether you think McCain will keep all of Bush's people around or whether he'll clean house. Needless to say, I doubt you'll find a straight answer on that question.

No doubt, though, that electing a different candidate would result in a rather straight answer there.

The closer we get to November, the more I may agree with you.


Even as an historical "LII" low-information independent, I don't think I'd agree re: 95 percent. But stuff like Obama's sucking up on "faith" and travesties like FISA vote do not inspire confidence. I think the stated positions follow their polling. "Yikes, look at the numbers in Minnesota! Gotta talk more about the 2nd amendment!"


It's pretty good BS, the whole "maverick" and "change" shtick coming from McCain. Interesting choice to surrender their "inexperience" bludgeon, though (when he picked Palin).


I don't see it. McCain has the same anger problems and disagreeability as Nixon, but Palin doesn't look at all like Henry Cabot Lodge


Ah, so you are saying it looked like Nixon-Kennedy *before* palin, I think. OK

Not with this electorate, it doesn't.


I think the Republican strategy is simply to do everything they can to keep Sarah Palin away from reporters until November 5th (save for highly controlled "deals" such as with ABC. Blech.)

So I think she is going to appear on the ballot and the percentage of voters willing to vote McCain/Palin will just be a handy indicator of how brain dead we have become.

I want to print a bumper sticker: "You deserve John McCain!"


(edit: I picked Minnesota at random. No offense intended)

Maybe I could be more optimistic if I lived in Toronto!

Can't find much fault in this guy's "we're going to lose...":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html

Sarah Palin will talk to reporters occasionally on the bus or the plane just so long as they don't report anything that she says. It's that or no bus ride.

No press left.

Yes, but you don't really know exactly who they'll appoint. Ultimately, the best predictor of what policies will come from the executive branch is the stated policy platform of the candidate himself, along with his voting record. It's a pretty good bet that whoever he appoints to the cabinet and adviser positions will line up with his overall ideology on the issues.

That being said, it's pretty clear to me that an Obama Presidency wouldn't keep people like Michael Mukasey, Robert Gates, Condi Rice, or Michael Chertoff around. He might keep one or two of the more moderate folks around, or he might not, but as Mark alluded to, he's much less likely to go with the status quo than McCain is simply due to the fact that McCain's policies line up much more closely with Bush's than Obama's.

I'm curious to know if Obama's people are talking with Andrew Bacevich.

I think it's abundantly clear that Obama would clean house. It's a deeply interesting question whether McCain would do the same.

re: Bacevich

[color: orange]He also goes on to mention that "For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion."[/color]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

tanstaafl.

I caught almost all of his appearance on Bill Moyers (video available) in August and was really impressed. So then I was in Boston last week and tried to get his most recent book but it was backordered thanks to all the Moyers watchers.

Finally my unloved alma mater hired somebody interesting. In the age of fake Rovian "lipstick" controversies, it is interesting to find atypical conservatives (and perhaps lapsed conservatives) who have a clear head and who are eloquent.

Gag.. she's like another Dubya, except slightly smarter (not a difficult achievement, that).

Given that the USA elected and then *reelected* Dubya, there's more than a fair chance we'll see her and McCain in office this winter.

Ugh.

Please, don't make me more depressed than I already am...

Just the fact that this election is as close as it is, is scary enough. The interview wasn't as much as a fluff piece as I feared it would be, but that only reinforced that she is a W clone. How can you combat ignorance (in the voter) in a short pre-election campaign?

Yup electoral-vote.com has McCain ahead now. The American people just don't get it, they only care about personalities not issues. The only good news is that the Democrats will probably cement their lead in the Senate, oh and their will probably be another Great Depression coming, that will be good for the next presidential candidate.

It's close enough still though that it's easy to go either way, especially since all these maps and predictions are based off known unreliable random polling. Clicking "This day in the 2004 cycle" on that site shows Kerry winning. 2000 should have taught us that the election isn't over even hours after people have voted. Though 2000 should have also taught us major reform in the process was needed since basically the Supreme Court decided who won, and not the electoral college or voters.

I am no economist, but the magnitude of this most recent bubble -- the zero-down, sub-prime, ARM, flip-my-house, mortgage-derivatives bubble -- seems pretty staggering to me.

I am much more inclined to share Doug's pessimism.

It is remarkable. The administration that was so contemptuous of government and that might have briefly been seen as a beacon of hope by "big L" libertarians is now printing money faster than Palin can gut a moose and shoveling it to the AIGs of this debacle. Apparently we, as taxpayers, will be taking an interest in AIG; an ownership stake. Not exactly what the Libertarians had in mind.

It's almost comical to hear McCain talk about how more regulation would be a bad thing. But in the vein of "Just how different are the Democrats from the Republicans" and after listening to some of the recent Obama campaign rhetoric, I have to ask: which Democrats did *anything* to put a spotlight on this huge iceberg and steer hard to port (or starboard)? Barney Frank is a smart guy and talks a lot, but I just didn't see any effectual effort from the Dems.

I don't see it. I am a complete dumbass when it comes to higher-order economics, but the inevitable end of a greedy flip-my-house bubble with get-rich-quick funny-money derivatives seemed pretty obvious. Some greedy people got rich. Not us.

TonyC, you may be in the most observant position to point out what the Dems did (at great risk to themselves and their careers, and in a fashion that distinguished the Dems from the Republicans) to try to save us from this mess. Why did *I* see it coming and not the professionals?

Greed. I don't know for a fact that Hell is around the corner. I just feel like we surely haven't seen the end of this yet.

Non sequitur: it was interesting to see this Sarah Palin thread slowly drop down the Off-Topic Forum. BBS art imitates life?

Maybe not on paper, but in reality, privatized profits and socialized risk is basically the underpinning of free market ideology. Let the markets decide, until the magical market forces cause the economic system to collapse, at which point regulation is okay, if "regulation" means pumping taxpayer money into the same entities that fucked things up in the first place, then spinning off those entities when they become profitable again.


None of the Democratic efforts pass your "at great risk to themselves and their careers" test. These are politicians, after all. But they did try to do something. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 as originally written was a pretty good bill, but as with many bills, it had to be watered down to pass Republican (and conservative Democratic) opposition the house, and by that time, it was such a disaster, the Senate wouldn't touch it.

I do not give Congressional Democrats a pass for rolling over and capitulating on these important issues, but I do recongize that what Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the house leadership is dealing with is a congress where there's a Democratic majority, but a progressive minority. This is due to two Democratic caucuses within Congress: The Blue Dog Coalition (47 House members) and the New Democrat Coalition (44 House members). While members of these caucuses are unlikely to blindly vote with Republcans, they are pro-business (especially big business) just like the GOP, often socially conservative, and generally not dependable when it comes to voting for progressive legislation.

Then, in the Senate, the Democrats have had to deal with a record number of GOP filibusters, so any time a good bill somehow makes its way out of the House, you can bet the GOP senators will kill it. Throw Joe Lieberman into the mix, and true, honest-to-goodness Democrats are a minority in both houses.

Again, do not interpret this as me absolving the Democrats for their sins... I just tend to weigh sins of commission a bit more than sins of omission. I will continue to vote for the shitty party that tries to do good but lacks the balls to make it happen over the shitty party that is actively working to undermine democracy, economic regulation, civil rights, etc. There is a good amount of daylight between the two, both on paper and in practice, and even though the end result is still not to my liking, I believe we can get there.

My notion of "Big L" Rand-ish Libertarianism limits the government to providing:

1) A miltary to defend the nation
2) Police agencies to protect citizens and
3) A court system to adjudicate criminal cases and property disputes.

Now many of the state Lib parties don't like to be so hard core because they figure it will turn people off. Duh!

So we just *nationalized* AIG. That's something they do in Bolivia or Russia or Venezuela, right? I agree with your characterization of the behaviour (privatize when we can make a buck, nationalize when we want the public to pick up the tab). It is just so far away from the strident ideology of the Necon and Lib right.

BUSH NATIONALIZES AIG!

Next the tin mines and oil fields!

Amazing.!



Yeah, I just kind of threw that "great risk to themselves" thing in there to mock their general spinelessness.

Sure the issue of predatory lending was/is a big issue, but I didn't see anybody getting out ahead of it. Nor any effort at the SEC-type level with respect to insane securitization and mortgage-backed securities.



I am a little more harsh in my judgement. All Pelosi had to do was say "Impeachment is off the table" and I became convinced that she needed to be impeached, too. Where are the guts, the principles? The Wexlers, Leahys, and Wellstones are the sad exceptions.



Up to a point, I try hard to admire the the ability to be optimistic. Stiff upper lip and all that!

But, as you can imagine, i wish that there were a *lot* more daylight between them. Just imagine a Democratic Party that didn't curry favor with health insurers and pharmas. Imagine a Democratic candidate who might actually not *need* or accept $1.5 Million collected by Lehman Brothers.

I think special interests still rule and that the light between these parties is not as bright as you would guess.

I haven't re-read it, but I always think back to Kevin Phillips Wealth and Democracy when I consider whether I am being fair with respect to the Democrat-Republican difference. I wonder if Phillips publishes a 2nd edition that covers 1990-2010 what will he say?

Edit: I picked that link to Moyers' interview with Phillips as a contemporary link to publication of _Wealth and Democracy_. Fascinating, though, to see his ambivalent judgement (as an independent in 2004) of McCain as the "one possible lifeline". No mas.