....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.

"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?

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.

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.

Boater wrote:
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.


So are any number of corporations...and it was Arthur Andersen, dummy.
You should have stayed in high school a bit longer. You misspelled both
company names. Been hanging out with Justwaitaloogy?

You didn't have any problem understanding what I was saying. I guess you
are at my level.

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.


So are any number of corporations...and it was Arthur Andersen, dummy.
You should have stayed in high school a bit longer. You misspelled both
company names. Been hanging out with Justwaitaloogy?

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
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.


So are any number of corporations...and it was Arthur Andersen, dummy.
You should have stayed in high school a bit longer. You misspelled
both company names. Been hanging out with Justwaitaloogy?

You didn't have any problem understanding what I was saying. I guess you
are at my level.


It's not hard to get down to your intellectual level. I simply induce a
semi-coma.

I'm looking forward to the release of the Alaska Troopergate report
tomorrow, and hope it is really bad for Sancho Panza, er, Sarah Palin. I
hope you enjoy it, too.

"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of
good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices,


There were not predatory lending practices. The poor declining inner-city
was a bad investment. The poor could not put up the 20% down and even if
they could they could not make the payments. In the olden days the banks
had to carry the paper they wrote a loan on. They wanted to be paid for the
loan. But since the poor could not normally do this, the Federal Government
required Fannie Mae to buy the loans. Now the banks could loan money to the
bad credit risk, make money and not worry about a bad loan. F&F then
started packaging the bad and good loans and selling them, so they could
make more money. The Fed's were really behind F&F but if the officers of
F&F showed a large profit, they got large bonuses. They even went so far to
lie to get an extra $100 million in bonus money. Government settled for
$3.5 million and dropped charges. Sad. Then the smart people of wall
street, seeing a huge pool of profit to be made without risk, jumped on
these bad, government guaranteed loans. And since F&F exerted no real
oversight, the pool of inflated bad loans grew immensely. And now since the
government created this mess, by guaranteeing bad loans and no oversight on
how bad the loans and inflated prices they caused. We have a financial
crisis. And what is scary, is the same people who caused this mess are
supposed to recue us. Scarier than Holloween.

"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Spinning like a top.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of
good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices,


There were not predatory lending practices. The poor declining inner-city
was a bad investment. The poor could not put up the 20% down and even if
they could they could not make the payments. In the olden days the banks
had to carry the paper they wrote a loan on. They wanted to be paid for
the loan. But since the poor could not normally do this, the Federal
Government required Fannie Mae to buy the loans. Now the banks could loan
money to the bad credit risk, make money and not worry about a bad loan.
F&F then started packaging the bad and good loans and selling them, so
they could make more money. The Fed's were really behind F&F but if the
officers of F&F showed a large profit, they got large bonuses. They even
went so far to lie to get an extra $100 million in bonus money.
Government settled for $3.5 million and dropped charges. Sad. Then the
smart people of wall street, seeing a huge pool of profit to be made
without risk, jumped on these bad, government guaranteed loans. And since
F&F exerted no real oversight, the pool of inflated bad loans grew
immensely. And now since the government created this mess, by
guaranteeing bad loans and no oversight on how bad the loans and inflated
prices they caused. We have a financial crisis. And what is scary, is
the same people who caused this mess are supposed to recue us. Scarier
than Holloween.

Maybe everyone should dress up like Barney Frank for Halloweenie. 8)