By Hanlon, on September 28th, 2008 at 10:31 PM
 I’d say McCain needs to fire Tucker Bounds right now, but he offers sooooooo much entertainment I’d be sad to see him go.
Asked if McCain would return to Washington for the vote, “It’s impossible to know until the vote has been announced,” Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman, told Politico.
So, it’s absolutely crucial that McCain drop everything and sit in a room quietly, but when it comes to actually voting on the damn thing, eh. He could take it or leave it.
There’s a good reason he might skip it though. As we’ve said already, McCain may have fallen into a trap. If he votes for legislation that puts the burden on the taxpayer, he can kiss his “limited government” credentials goodbye, not to mention he’d be voting with the president. If he votes against it, then he obviously didn’t do jack during his “suspended campaign” to get an acceptable bill drafted.
McCain’s showboating may have made this a lose-lose-lose situation for him, and if he skips it he’ll reveal just how “unserious” he really is. So kudos to John McCain for screwing up as badly as can be imagined in no time flat.
By Will, on September 28th, 2008 at 08:07 PM
 Lies and obfuscations are standard in major elections. They’re accepted. Let’s face it, considering how the public reacts to them, they’re outright encouraged. They also can only go so far until people start calling bullshit so often they put it on their speed dial. McCain’s campaign has gone so far past lying that they’ve outright started to deny all form of reality.
I’m not talking about McCain’s accusations about Obama’s policies, or even the bulk of his accusations about his campaign. Those are normal lies. They’re standard. No big deal. I’m talking about the statements McCain made about Palin, the debate, and the entire election.
After Friday’s debate, McCain was caught saying this at his campaign headquarters:
“I was a little disappointed the media called it a tie but I think that means, when they call it a tie, that means we win.”
Roll that around in your head for a few minutes. It’s okay, I’ll wait. I’m text. This is a good place for a jump, anyway.
Read More ->
Lies and obfuscations are standard in major elections. They’re accepted. Let’s face it, considering how the public reacts to them, they’re outright encouraged. They also can only go so far until people start calling bullshit so often they put it on their speed dial. McCain’s campaign has gone so far past lying that they’ve outright started to deny all form of reality.
I’m not talking about McCain’s accusations about Obama’s policies, or even the bulk of his accusations about his campaign. Those are normal lies. They’re standard. No big deal. I’m talking about the statements McCain made about Palin, the debate, and the entire election.
After Friday’s debate, McCain was caught saying this at his campaign headquarters:
“I was a little disappointed the media called it a tie but I think that means, when they call it a tie, that means we win.”
Roll that around in your head for a few minutes. It’s okay, I’ll wait. I’m text. This is a good place for a jump, anyway.
Read More ->
By Hanlon, on September 28th, 2008 at 06:34 PM
 Not only has a deal been reached, but it seems like everyone’s pretty happy with it.
The measure’s main elements were proposed a week ago by the Bush administration, with Paulson heading efforts to push it through the Democratic-controlled Congress. Democrats insisted on greater congressional oversight, more taxpayer protections, help for homeowners facing possible foreclosure, and restrictions on executives’ compensation.
To some degree, all those items were added.
At the insistence of House Republicans, who threatened to sidetrack negotiations at midweek, the insurance provision was added as an alternative to having the government buy distressed securities. House Republicans say it will require less taxpayer spending for the bailout.
So we’ve got the insurance idea, the oversight, the ability to block the second $350bil if Congress feels like they money isn’t being used well. The Democrats got what they want, the Republicans seem pleased, and even the White House is speaking favorably on the agreements.
Now, how will John McCain try and take credit, and will anyone buy it?
By Hanlon, on September 28th, 2008 at 06:28 PM
 During the debate, McCain used the line that he’d never been elected “Miss Congeniality” roughly four times. The man said he was suddenly for regulation, only to jump ship again and pump a bill promoting further deregulation apparently just to please House Republicans.
Now we find that his “bipartisan” talks were crap and he talked to no one but Republicans while he was in Washington. For 90 minutes. Not that this curried much favor, as the video below of Mitt Romney illustrates. Additionally, Boehner is reportedly “pissed” at McJohn.
If you really want to know why McCain’s campaign has gone so crashingly terribly in the past month or so, you just need to compare the GOP’s strategy to theirs in past elections. Long-time readers here know that the one thing I’ve always had to give Republicans credit for is their ability to work like a unit. They took down John Kerry and Al Gore (sorta) in large part because the Democrats were fragmented, while the GOP was wholly united.
That worked in most elections between 1996 and 2004 because at that time they could say that Republican policies would lead to nirvana. But now they have to be the “party of reform”. Considering they controlled Congress until 2006 and their president is still in the White House, they’re in a terrible position politically.
McCain wants to prove he’s bipartisan, the Republicans want to distance themselves from Bush, Bush wants to salvage his legacy. So when Bush says he wants a bailout plan, the GOP pushes for a more conservative one and excoriate Bush and Paulson’s plan. What is a “maverick” to do? He’s stuck siding with one or the other.
Instead, he’s been dancing a line, alternately speaking out against both sides and ending up pissing both off. The base feels abandoned, the middle has no idea what he’s talking about, and the disorganization is making the pundits remark on the trainwreck image of it all. It’s no wonder Obama’s poll numbers go up every day. The Democrats united, the GOP split into pieces, and look at who’s doing better.
By Hanlon, on September 28th, 2008 at 05:15 PM
Muahaha.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY5Plqs5d98&NR=1
By Hanlon, on September 28th, 2008 at 09:33 AM
Fareed Zakaria on Sarah Palin:
Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start.
By Hanlon, on September 28th, 2008 at 08:40 AM
 I had been under the impression that this issue was dead, buried, and on its way into turning into a fossil, but apparently I was wrong. Recently a school in North Carolina decided they were going to “consider” teaching creationism in science class. Here we go again…
“It’s really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism,” county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday’s meeting. “The law says we can’t have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists.”
I’m going to try and make this simple, because I think simple language is best suited to these discussions.
First of all, there seems to be this bizarre linkage between “evolution” and “atheism”, as though this is the only subject where science butts heads with the Bible. Take your pick between agricultural theory, anthropology, astronomy, biology, chemistry, they all contradict something in there. Evolution vs creationism is only hanging on like a barnacle because it’s the only one that can’t be directly debunked.
Secondly, you can’t “teach” creationism. There’s nothing to “teach”. What does the lesson plan involve? What could a course on creationism possibly put on its final exam?
- God created everything. []T []F
There is no science in creationism. None whatsoever. Keep in mind here I’m simply defining “science” to mean “evidence found through observation”. There is nothing involved in the concept of creationism (or its bastard cousin Intelligent Design) that is not either a weak refutation of evolution or rooted in the Bible.
By its very nature Creationism cannot be taught as science. The idea that a deity snapped his fingers and poofed everything into being precludes the ability to offer any evidence of it. We can support the theory of evolution by finding more links in the chain between the primordial ooze and all the varied life we have today, but when your theory is “there was nothing then God put stuff here”, unless you have video of things appearing out of nowhere your theory is pretty well sunk.
Creationism isn’t taught because there’s nothing to teach. It isn’t a theory, it’s a lack of a theory. Creationism says “we cannot explain X, therefore Y.” There may be no evidence of Y whatsoever, but that’s not important.
|
|
|
