About Us

BAR[_3_]

wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, 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.

Oh, you mean just like the government of the United States? Many
government officials have ended up in prison, or will in the future.
That isn't an argument for condeming the institution itself.

Private enterprises are treated differently that governments.

ACRON is a criminal enterprise. ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a
pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. You can only use the we
didn't know what our subordinates were doing for about a minute or two
before you are deemed incompetent.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us