BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Boater[_2_]

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
...commentary from conservative pundit George Will:

WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was
Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when
cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are
you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully,
only one debate to go, that is the question about John
McCain's campaign.

In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency,
McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first
serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before
Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might
be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less
that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person.

This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is
demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as
with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the
McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is
benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many
millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes
containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k)
and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its
portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts
have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin
campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's
Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British
politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like
being savaged by a dead sheep."

Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke
conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's
"greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse
Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician
distancing himself from another African-American Chicago
politician by associating McCain with him.

After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats
eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election
in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters'
minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success
of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much
credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the
margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the
subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is
Obama's largest vulnerability.

Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable
economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is
$800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving
target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several
hundred billions more for his American Homeownership
Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under
it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot
-- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them
with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives
participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in
a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval.

Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw
caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so
many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa,
Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he
could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes.

If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and
2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the
25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even
though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New
Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of
the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only
447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections
from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood,
allocated only 531.

In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates
won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson
with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry
Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat
candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman.
After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average
winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000
cliffhanger, was 421.4.

In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's
third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a
visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our
job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners
of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better
hope they have held on long enough.

++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless.

Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote.
What's you opinion of ACORN?

ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his
absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate
Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote.

ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a
lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory
lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and
in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware
of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done
wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this
country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney.

Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it.
ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt
organization.

Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to
be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole
organization
for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem, shall
we?
I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their
members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication that
leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything
wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves in an
extremely wrongheaded effort.

A pattern of corruption and alleged criminal activity is a stretch?
You have to be kidding. There are people who worked for who are
ACORN in jail, serving probation, paid fines for their criminal
conduct while performing these so-called get out the vote drives.
It's all in the public record.

ACORN is a criminal enterprise hell bent on subverting the election
laws and disenfranchising voters who follow the the law.

Pretty funny coming from Bertiepoop, an unabashed supporter of the
Bush-Cheney Criminal Enterprise.

How much money did your buddies a Ullico and you have to disgorge in
illegal profits form illegal stock purchases and sales? Talk about
screwing the working man.

Nice try, schitt-for-brains, and just another example of your not
knowing what you are talking about. Oh...no one at ULLICO was running
the federal government or running for high federal office or
participating in the Bush-Cheney criminalities...

But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned
money.

Wrong again, schitt-for-brains.