In The News: McCain, Hillary, Obama Oh My!

I dont know dick about lou dobbs, but I do know several people who've had to change careers over the last 10 years because their industry wages were being driven down due to outsourcing and illegal (and sometimes legal) immigrant workers.

What's your stance here? Are you just disagreeing with what I'm saying or do you have ideas you'd like to enlighten us to?

You made several statements on several different issues that I didn't necessarily agree with, nothing more and nothing less. I do, however, take issue with several prominent news anchors and politicians scoring "points" by saying things like "we need to fight for average Americans," "the government is waging a war on the middle class," "we need to stop giving jobs away to foreigners and immigrants," "we need to stop giving breaks to corporations and start giving them to the public," etc. Most of those kinds of statements are vague and are lacking in real substance. I'm not taking issue with you, it's just your comments reminded me of other comments that I have a problem with.

McCain was helped tremendously by the Times story. It is the equivilant of Bush 41 picking a fight with Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News.


RATHER: "I don't want to be argumentative, Mr. Vice President."
BUSH: "You do, Dan."
RATHER: "No -- no, sir, I don't."
BUSH: "This is not a great night, because I want to talk about why I want to be president, why those 41 percent of the people are supporting me. And I don't think it's fair to judge my whole career by a rehash of Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off (http://www.ratherbiased.com/bizarre.htm#miamiWalkout) the set in New York?"
RATHER: "Mr. Vice President, the question is -- but you made us hypocrites in the face of the world. How could you sign on to such a policy? And the question is what does that tell us about your record?"
BUSH: "When a CIA agent is being tortured to death, maybe you err on the side of a human life. But everybody's admitted mistakes. I've admitted mistakes. And you want to dwell on them, and I want to talk about the values we believe in and experience and the integrity that goes with all of this, and what's -- I'm going to do about education, and you're--there's nothing new here. I thought this was a news program. What is new?" RATHER: "Mr. Vice President, I appreciate you joining us tonight. I appreciate this straightforward way in which you engaged in this exchange. Clearly, some unanswered questions remain."

Prior to this moment, Bush 41 was viewed with great skepticism by Conservatives. Remember he had called Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics". The above exchange fixed all that.

The people who should be alarmed by the Times story are professional journalists. I think a story rehashing the Keating 5 or investigating McCain's connection to lobbyists is worthwhile, but to include an allegation of a sexual nature based on an anonymous source that had no first hand knowledge of the activity in question, and who was probably fired by McCain* last year, is shameful. Of course, The Times at one point employed a guy who just made his stories up (and he was considered to be a real up and comer), so I suppose they are making strides.

*The only context the Times provides for these sources describes them as having "become disillusioned" with McCain. It's implied that their 'disillusionment" is somehow related to the activities described in the story, but their "disillusionment" failed to surface for eight years until right after McCain fired a bunch of his campaign staff.

Micheal Kinsley, who is not Conservative, but is a professional journalist has this (http://www.slate.com/id/2185134) very humorous take on the Times story.

as i have said about president Clinton, i don't give a damn who McCain is/ was screwing. the real story. to me. is the circle of lobbyists that McCain confides in

You made several statements on several different issues that I didn't necessarily agree with, nothing more and nothing less. I do, however, take issue with several prominent news anchors and politicians scoring "points" by saying things like "we need to fight for average Americans," "the government is waging a war on the middle class," "we need to stop giving jobs away to foreigners and immigrants," "we need to stop giving breaks to corporations and start giving them to the public," etc. Most of those kinds of statements are vague and are lacking in real substance. I'm not taking issue with you, it's just your comments reminded me of other comments that I have a problem with.


I think I understand you. Just like I get completely unnerved by bush supporters and bush himself constantly chiming in on the terrorists in order to win points...

I understand that terrorism is a problem that needs to be addressed... I just feel that it is being exploited and used as a manipulation tool.

Is that how you feel about the points I'm attempting to make, or do you not believe they have any validity?

tuna, i feel you. the whole terrorists thing is definitely being used by the republican party. the patriot act could have been a good thing, if it didnt get side tacked for other purposes

as i have said about president Clinton, i don't give a damn who McCain is/ was screwing. the real story. to me. is the circle of lobbyists that McCain confides in

Unfortunately I think it is this way for just about every politician.

I think I understand you. Just like I get completely unnerved by bush supporters and bush himself constantly chiming in on the terrorists in order to win points...

I understand that terrorism is a problem that needs to be addressed... I just feel that it is being exploited and used as a manipulation tool.

Is that how you feel about the points I'm attempting to make, or do you not believe they have any validity?

I certainly wasn't angry with the points you were making, I just disagreed with some of them. I think you raised some valid points; I just took note of those that I disagreed with. No offense intended.

I completely understand and take no offense, I just cant help but wonder which points you disagree with and why? Just looking for alternative points of view... that's all.:food-smil

You're right. And the bad thing is, that right now we have alaska, which should have been drilled. Osha and the EPA have gone berserk in maintaining environmental balances around pipelines and oil rigs. I lived in TX most of my life and there were oil pumps everywhere. We had a hunting camp full of them. There were no large environmental impacts.

Alaska is somewhere around 44% (if memory serves me) the size of the contintental US, and according to the 2005 census, has only 100k more pepole than the CITY of Washington DC. (with dc being around 550k and the state of alaska having around 650k)

I'd drill the piss out of it and say, when we use that up we're done.

I'd allow for more oil drilling in alaska for the time being (which would create jobs and keep more of our dollars domestic) and then focus more of our resources on developing a plan for alternative fuels, mainly making a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle more cost effective.
I agree but we do not have to go to the extent to which your talking. From what I read the place we want to drill is very small and has a hugh supply of oil. They said if Alaska was one arcer of land the area we want to drill is the size of a shoe sitting on that acre.

tuna, i feel you. the whole terrorists thing is definitely being used by the republican party. the patriot act could have been a good thing, if it didnt get side tacked for other purposes

This is ridiculous to me. Exploiting issues to their advantage is what politicians do. If I said, "I think health care is an important topic, I just don't like the way the Democrats use it to score points", wouldn't that be ridiculous? Why should terrorism be off limits in this regard? The reality is that the American people trust the Republicans more on terrorism and security, so the Democrats respond by implying that this is somehow offsides. I think that's weak.