at least it's funny
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7592/originalhw8.jpg

Yes, indeed, the Republicans are good at order. My girlfriend and I joke about this sort of thing; in law school, she was involved in National Lawyer's Guild, which is pretty far left (it used to be the communist lawyer's society); I was involved in the Federalist Society, and a few of our friends were involved in the ACLU. The Federalist Society was very well organized; the liberal organizations were not at all organized.

But I *like* having a President and Vice-President who don't always agree with each other. Better than the one just being a rubber stamp; helps prevent groupthink.

Just have to chime in. When Barack chose Biden, he specifically said he wanted someone willing to disagree with him and give him an alternative viewpoint.

Biden has never criticized Obama's tactics or strategy the way Palin has criticized McCain's. Palin has remarked that robocalls are inappropriate, her reasoning being that they should take the message straight to the people. Truth being that they're running robocalls because they can't afford commercials. Palin has also said that McCain should be bringing up Rev. Wright, meanwhile McCain has already promised not to make that an issue. Palin has not been a silent trooper and I suspect she wouldn't be in the White House either.

I don't care whether your a Republican, Democrat I can't see how anyone paying attention could possibly think that Governor Palin is qualified to be President, and this reasoning comes from the way she has conducted herself since she's been cast into the spotlight. Many conservative Republicans have admitted she is a horrible choice and some have gone as far as endorsing Obama because of it.

yup pretty much hit the nail on the head. The problem here is the lack of image cohesion. We are finding out plenty of things about Obama in the weeks and months leading up to the election, plenty of associations with people (some of whom are questionable) but at the end of the day they all fall in line with what he has (purported to) stand for. He is a christian with an outspoken reverend, a "hopemonger" (whatever that means) with associations with anti-war protesters in his distant past. He honestly admitted early on in the campaign that he smoked weed to get high. He was in the Senate, went to Harvard...we are getting a pretty strong image here. One man, many pieces but all of them at least match.

Hence the arguments regarding the GOP ticket as being the "joe sixpack" everyman ticket and then spending enormous amounts of money on her wardrobe. The money itself isn't really the issue, it's the fact that it contradicts the image. Just like when McCain says he's a maverick (isn't a maverick a card-playing cowboy from that western movie?) who just happens to have decades of washington insider experience, that is self contradicting. The same is true when Palin claims to be ready to shake up Washington and it turns out she's just as corrupt as any other politician. Pretty hard to reform something you have benefited from your entire career. Again it's not the fact that she is corrupt that bothers me but the obvious contradiction. Another example being of course McCain's campaign of "experience over youthfulness" vs Obama, then choosing an inexperienced young VP. How can you argue that inexperience is a terrible burden and then pick a VP with no more experience than Obama?


Conclusion: the reason that people (democrats, independents, etc) get so worked up about the GOP ticket/campaign is not just the politics, but also the glaring contradictions and muddled, confusing messages. It's not being hypocritical, it's being inconsistent.

ok, so
i didn't know or think NC was that much in favor of going blue...until i was driving home today..and on the radio, "Barack obama needs your votes...but he also needs the votes in congress...to outlaw your guns...barack obama wants to take away your handguns and make us all criminals if we use those guns in self defense...so vote for mccain..bc obama needs your votes...to take away your guns"

seriously...wtf..it's also almost word for word the ad the rnc took out for libby dole against hagan...basically "vote for the republican or your gun rights will be stripped...'

what's funnier is that it was followed by an obama ad saying "Healthcare is in trouble...obama's plan for healthcare would allow you to keep your doctor and your coverage and force companies to pay for preventative medicine and pre-existing conditions... i'm barack obama and i endorsed this message'


note the difference....

Hahaha...
RNC: A black guy is going to date your virgin daughter!!! AND HE'S ON YOUR PORCH! Don't vote for Saddam Hussein Obama! RUN!

DNC: We're going to go ahead and end the Iraq war. Have a fantastic day!

it was just striking since both attacks were aimed directly at gun owners. On tv, though, there is an NRA group out who is in favor of barack obama, so i'm hoping people see this for the nonissue it is.

You're right. Absolutely. Now John Edwards $400 haircut in the primaries was a TOTALLY different thing!

Because someone was asking about how much Obama's outfits have cost, from the right-wing blog townhall.com:

arack Obama spent at least $1,500 on his convention suit according to the Chicago Sun-Times. He ordered a custom made worsted worsted wool two-button suit from the high-end men's suit retailer Hartmax for the occassion. That same suit off the rack, meaning NOT custom made, is priced at $1,500.

The colorful Thakoon wrap dresses (here) Mrs. Obama has worn, and was applauded for wearing to her husband's convention speech, are priced around $1250 each. Mrs. Obama's favorite Chicago designer Maria Pinto, who crafted Michelle's convention speech dress (here), charges anywhere from $900-$5,000 for her dresses. Other Pinto pieces, like shirts and accessories, start at $300 each.

The black Azzedine Alaia belt Mrs. Obama wore over her purple Mario Pinto sheath dress (here) when she gave her husband the infamous "fist bump" retails for $635, according to various fashion spreads. Fashion designer Nina Garcia called the belt a "wardrobe essential" earlier this year for the NY Post.

and don't forget mrs mccain's $300K rnc dress that looked like a ...err, i hve no freaking clue bc i couldn't look at her...

I'm not even sure why this is being talked about. Who really cares what they are spending on clothing? It is all about image and dressing right is essential to winning. Period.

i dunno, if i were a normal RNC backer and i'd donated enough for a small house..and then i saw that it was being spent to buy her a new wardrobe instead of ads in swing states...i'd be a bit aggravated.

that's just me

McCain should be losing based on a number of factors most pundints agree are in the favor of Obama, factors that would be in the favor of any Democratic Party nominee, and McCain is losing based on the polls. You suggest McCain's tactics are "stupid". I would measure the intellect of his tactics based on his results relative to expectations. It is possible for his tactics to be brilliant and he could still lose or his tactics can be "stupid" and he can lose, however, In my view, the race is more competitive than I expected. And I think his tactics are less than brilliant but much better than "stupid".

McCain not only needs the Republican base but he needs independent voters. In order to reach both audiences he has to communicate separately to both. I think that is what people see, when they call him erratic. Obama has the benefit of having his base solidly in his control, so he has been playing more and more to the middle to get the independent vote. This is one reason why I ask so many questions about the "real" Obama and what his "real" plans are. It is ironic that his campaign information was more detailed 6 months ago than it is now. I find that troublesome.

If you concede the point that it is all about image, then it is worth talking about.

The image of Palin they are trying to present is of moose-hunting "Real American" woman Just Like You. You will vote for her because she's more like you than That One. The Very Expensive Wardrobe works against this identification, because we don't have 150K to blow on clothes. It even exceeds the costs of the wardrobes people dream about.

You can have disagreement, discussion, debate, etc. and still have one strong leader, one who takes accountability for a course of action and expects the others to support the final decision 100%.
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 11 : 30 : 06-----
Are you focused on "image"? I find it more important to look at, values, principles, actions and results. I could careless about "image". If a person is doing good, what difference does it make if they have on a $20 jacket from Goodwill or a $2,000 jacket from wherever people buy $2,000 jackets (I don't know).
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 11 : 33 : 25-----
This is why I am more inclined to donate my time to causes rather than money. Once you give the money you have to assume it may be spent in ways you don't support. Also, one reason why I support lower taxes, government tends to spend money on stuff that "aggravates" me all the time.

Only it is the McCain campaign who said they're going to talk about image & identification and not hard stuff like the economy. That's the campaign you've been defending.

I think the McCain campaign has been talking about the economy. Lately that is all they have been talking about. Obama's plan to raise taxes is the absolute wrong thing to do to stimulate the economy. Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around" is a socialist approach to helping people. They have been hitting those points for a couple of weeks now.

You mean the same plan McCain has proposed in the past?

And here's video!

thanks, that's the vid ive been looking for.

plus, it's not socialism, i think i'ts just going back to the taxes the wealthy paid under reagan.

ace---first off, the only way the mc-cain campaign can be seen as operating in an intelligent fashion is if the idea from the nomination of palin onward has not been to win the election, but to attempt triage on the republican coalition in a context shaped by the wholesale destruction of conservative economic ideology.

second,:
the right has nothing to say about this economic fiasco because it is their politics, their views, their prescriptions, which are at the source of it.

welcome back to jurrasic park, ace.
the herbert hoover rides are located to your far right.

I'd be more than aggrieved, I'd go ballistic!

I think it's OK for parties to spend money on the images of their candidates, but yeah, if they'd spent my mortgage on a few dresses I'd be pretty upset.

I think it's an example of the disconnect between the people at the top and the rest of humanity.

In my view McCain is a lesser of two evils choice. I did not vote for him in the primary and I have never liked him much and I don't like how he flips-flops on issues.

Here is what I find most amazing. First, if you don't know, I am a "capitalist". I am proud of being a "capitalist", on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being as "capitalist" as you can get, I am about a 9.9. If on the other extreme you place "socialism" on the scale, and I am not saying Obama or anyone else is a pure "socialist" or at 1, but why aren't the people who favor "socialism" or have "socialism" tendencies proud of what they believe in. Obama's approach to economic policy is clearly more "socialist" than "capitalist", why is he trying to hide what he really believes?

Oh, and...

Don't tell me that the "bailout plan" is this or that, I did support it.
Don't tell me our tax code has always had some "redistribution" qualities - I think our tax code needs to be scrapped and re-written.
Don't tell me "corporate welfare" is socialism - I don't support government subsidies of private business.
Don't tell me Republican support "socialism" too - I don't.

Like I said I am a "capitalist". And, being a "capitalist" doesn't mean I don't care about people, I just prefer to help people on my terms, not the governments. Just like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who made billions and are now doing good things with their billions on their terms. the Gates Foundation is likely to do more good on causes like Aids and education than our federal government - simply because $1 spent can more directly go to the cause or those needing the $1.

O.k., thanks I am done blowing off steam.

good, glad you're done blowing off steam.
most of what you posted was bullshit.

regardless of your apparent desire to use whatever definitions of terms you think apply, there is an actual definition to capitalism and socialism and you are apparently aware of neither.

Crack a book and inform yourself before people just start ignoring your ignorant and tiresome posts.

Again, your charge is vague. I don't understand your point or what you think is bullshit.

I am open to being corrected if I am wrong.


Many here already ignore my posts. I am pretty offensive at times. However, I don't post for your benefit or anyone's. In the case of my last post here, I simply blew off a little steam. It made me feel better. I am engaging you now, because I am curious about what I specifically wrote that was offensive to you, it is not clear. I am a "black and white" thinker, don't do well with shades of gray and reading post from those who are in the "gray" is intriguing to me, I truly don't understand you folks - other than the fact that you get easily flustered.

Well, you claim Obama is a 'socialist' because he favors a progressive tax scale. But McCain also favors a progressive tax scale. Everyone who doesn't favor a flat tax favors either a progressive or a regressive tax scale. So which do you favor?

when conservatives use the word "socialism" all it means is "i dont like it."
so hawaiian pizza can be socialist (pineapple on pizza? obviously...) so izod lacoste sweaters can be. the ramones can be socialist in the same way as mahler symphonies are, and of course the collected works of wagner are socialist in the same way as can be peanut butter with bananas on toast in the same way as "happy days" was after the series jumped the shark.

I'm not flustered, I just have better things to do than argue over things with someone who regularly ignores factual evidence, decides to use definitions for things either incorrectly or out of context, and then formulates faulty conclusions based on shaky or outright wrong premises.

If I tell you that the various -isms you're talking about are defined by who owns the means of productions, you'll answer with some bullshit about how you're using what you think is the common meaning of the word. Like the other thread, I pointed out that punitive damages and back pay have a legal definition that you're wrong on. You replied that you're using them in the way you understand them to mean, not a legal one. Well, tough shit, we're talking about a bill, and a supreme court case, so if you don't want to look like an idiot, it behooves you to use them in the legal sense regardless of your personal beliefs. I guess I should add that even the common use version of punitive means punishment, and paying someone for wages owed is not "punishment" by any stretch of reasonable imagination.


I mean, if you start a thread about regulations on bumpers for Ford Escorts, and then after we've been discussing the length, size, hardness of car bumpers and then on the 2nd page you post, well, I am using bumpers in the pool table bumper sense of the word... then the conversation has just taken an idiotic turn by any standards. I don't see how employing definitions correctly within the context being used can get anymore black and white than that, by the way.

If you think it's funny to annoy people with those kinds of discussions, I could actually see how that would be achieving at least something. But just because I say hmm, I think I'll go spend some time discussion incest taboos with other members of tfp it's not because I became flustered or agitated or even offended by what you wrote, I just think your posts are dumb and not really worth working through. There's always going to be a few people who don't catch on, but for the most part, you're not even going to have your little fun of annoying liberals if you don't at least make points that aren't above the level of ridiculousness.

I mean, there's really really intelligent people who subscribe to capitalism, understand what it means, know how far along its scale this economic system is on it, how the law works, strict adherents to conservative ideology, and on and on. But you don't really seem to be aware of how they understand the issues or even how to discuss them. How can you be gung-ho about something you don't even seem to get? Justices on the Supreme Court or writers for the Wall Street Journal who think about and discuss concerns from the same spectrum you claim to represent would be less likely to engage with you than I do. I don't know why you are proud of that irony.

You don't support your claims with specifics, why?

Getting back to the OP, can anyone explain to me why a Democrat spending $400 on a haircut is a bad thing, but a Republican spending $150,000 on her appearance is a non-issue?

It seems that the Republican campaign has style at the forefront, but the Democratic campaign has substance.

From this side of the atlantic it looks as if all the McCain adverts and commentaries state "Don't Vote Obama Because [bad thing he'll do, or not prevent]", whilst the Obama ones state "Do Vote Obama Because of the [good thing he'll do, or injustice he'll right]".

From the coverage, I have a rough idea what Obama intends. I haven't got a fucking clue what McCain intends, beyond that he intends to be President.

daniel, that is exaaaactly how the ads are in my hometown: "vote for mccain..bc obama will rescind your gun rights' followed by an nra for obama ad saying "Obama supports your gun rights..and he wants to create jobs, put resources into alternative energy, givet he middle class a tax cut, and stop tax breaks for companies that outsource our jobs...."

followed by a mccain ad, "the country is in crisis, the economy is in the tank, and we want to elect a man with teh least executive experience ever..to face his first crisis...in this chair"..cue ominous music. I wish i were joking

back and forth..all..day..long
my favorite ads, though, are the ones where you have young people saying "talk to your parents, please...explain to them that even voting republican once could have disastrous effects" bc it's just sooo funny

I guess when I was told that I was a male chauvinist, the person who made the charge is correct. When a man spends $400 on a haircut, I assume it is a joke and lol. When a woman spends money or has money spent on her clothing, I don't think it is a big deal. I am clearly a sexist and have different standards for men and women. I enjoy looking at women dressed well and looking good, I expect it.

ace, i hope you are married or get married one day and find out your wife spent 125K in clothes and has an insanely priced, 11K/week makeup artist...she'll look better and you'll be expecting the charges :)

I am married. We don't spend lavishly on my wife's appearance, but I have no problem when she spends money on her appearance and I would have no problem with the amount spent going up in proportion to our wealth. To be clear, I am not talking "glamor" or "sexuality", I am simply talking about a woman putting effort into her appearance. It has nothing to do with party lines, I would assume Hilary Clinton would spend more money and time on her appearance than Bill Clinton. I would expect men to invest time in the "gym", rather than getting their hair styled, eyebrows waxed, and fingers manicured. Birkenstocks, T-shirts, khaki shorts with unshaven arms and legs don't work for women wanting to be credible in my book. I can honestly accept my bias and what I am, I don't think I could have admitted that a few months ago. I am making progress, slowly, but it is progress.

I dont think Palin will be asked about her clothes anymore.

She might have to explain her close association to Sen Ted Stevens, one of her political mentors in Alaska (she was on the board of his 527 org and he actively campaigned for her for governor), who was convicted today on seven counts of making false statements on his financial disclosure regarding $250,000 in home renovations and other gifts he received from an oil contractor.

They were praising each other as recently as July:


She had “great respect for the senator. He needs to be heard across America. His voice, his experience, his passion, needs to be heard across America.”

Will she now throw him under the bus (conservatives seem to like that notion with Obama associations)....will she publicly suggest he should resign his Senate seat immediately and not run for reelection?

I think she might rather talk about clothes.

If they lose, is there a possibility that she will be removed from being governor? She shouldn't be left in charge of a book club, let alone a state.

Not on the basis of her association with Stevens.

But she still faces several internal investigations herself....by the state personnel board (in addition to the recent finding by the legislative committee) on the abuse of power for firing the state public safety director and by another body for shenanigans on the natural gas pipeline deal that she brags about but that she potentially rigged so that it would go to a major political contributor.

Its not likely she will be removed from office...more likely slaps on the wrist....but the Stevens connection is a distraction that she and McCain dont need during this last week of campaigning...."sarah....you got some 'splaining to do!"

And all of the above, particularly her ethics (or lack of) in office, wont be forgotten if she thinks she has a future as the face of the party.

I was more thinking a combination of things. Troopergate alone concluded she was guilty of unethical behavior.

Where do you draw the line on the relevance of"associations"?

Many people had "great respect for the senator" before they knew of his illegal activity. I think it proper for the Senator make his intentions clear before others start calling for his resignation, etc.

...And the way she has paraded around her kids, especially her developmentally disabled baby...almost as a "prop". It's shameless! :no:

She is trouble and a car wreck ready to happen IMHO. ** See "Post Turtle" for a Texas land man's description of her "rise" to the position.

She needs to go back to Alaska and leave the rest of the USA untouched by her weirdness. Really, what DOES she bring to the table? And how about her hubby leading the Party that Proposed to Secede from the US? How come we never here more about that?

Those GOP guys are tricky devils, heh?/Said in my best "hoser accent", eh, dude?