Sources indicate Tom Ridge the pick for VP - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

BarbaraGordon · 08-21-2008, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think it is like the spelling of "insure" v "ensure." Enough people couldn't get it right, so the dictionary went with either one being correct.

Perhaps. If it makes Americans spell better, I'm happy irregardless of how many non-words they want to add.

myboynoah · 08-21-2008, 12:13 AM

I'm sorry, I try hard to hide my sophisticated continental side, but sometimes it just screams to be free.

ChinoCoug · 08-21-2008, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

<self righteous voice of reason>
Hold up for a sec. Is there any reason to think that either McCain or Obama is any kind of economic expert? I mean, is there any worth in trying to rank the one over the other when they're both novices at best?

I'm not even certain that Romney's financial acumen is equivalent to true macroeconomic competency.

We don't choose our leaders because they're experts in any one facet of federal administration. We choose them because they know how to consult expert advisers, weigh the advice, make a decision, and well, lead.
</self-righteous voice of reason>

<Forrest>
And that's all I have to say about tha-at.
</Forrest>

Obama demonstrated substantial economics knowledge in Audacity of Hope. He recounted the entire economic history of the US, from its free-market origins to the safety net of the New Deal. He understands theories behind the minimum wage and inequality.

ChinoCoug · 08-21-2008, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Obama hasn't done anything with the quote. In fact, Obama hasn't done much advertising at all. The vast majority of his expenditures, to date, have been building grass roots support for election day. McCain is spending a ton on ads, and that is why the polls are shifting at the moment. McCain's ads are everywhere (he spent over $6 million on the Olympic ads alone). Obama is relatively quiet on that front (something that will change in the very near future, particularly given that Obama has so much more to spend than McCain does).

Krugman suggests Obama stop being a goody-goody and start getting down and dirty:

Quote:

Worse yet, he seemed to go out of his way to avoid scoring political points. “Back in the 1990s,” he declared, “your incomes grew by $6,000, and over the last several years, they’ve actually fallen by nearly $1,000.” Um, not quite: real median household income didn’t rise $6,000 during “the 1990s,” it did so during the Clinton years, after falling under the first Bush administration. Income hasn’t fallen $1,000 in “recent years,” it’s fallen under George Bush, with all of the decline taking place before 2005.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/op...18krugman.html

BarbaraGordon · 08-21-2008, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

He won the primary by refusing to go negative. Let's hope it works in the general too. Eventually somebody will go negative, though. The 527s won't stay quiet forever.

The problem is, that McCain has gone on the attack first, and it's been highly effective. I don't think Obama will have any choice but to go negative. He can take the high road if he wants to, but I gotta suspect the high road don't lead to the Oval Office anymore.

I've read that he's started airing aggressive ads in the swing states this week.

BarbaraGordon · 08-21-2008, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

We will see. Clinton went negative against him too, and we saw how that worked out. He may well decide he needs to get down in the dirt with McCain, but he has done a remarkable job so far to stay above the fray. Up til now, the contrast between Obama's and McCain's ads has been stark. McCain's ads are almost 100% about Obama. Obama's don't even mention McCain.

I know! I actually made a comment about this on a political board. The Obama-centrism of McCain. It's crazy. I'm on both their email lists. you get a McCain-mail, it mentions Obama ten times in the first paragraph. An Obama-mail doesn't mention McCain at all.

On your comment about the effects of Hillary going negative: There's a difference between Hillary going negative and McCain going negative. There was already the assumption that the Clintons don't play fair. So if she runs negative ads it just reinforces that notion. McCain is considered the "real American hero;" it's already assumed he's the morally superior guy, so if McCain publicizes all the dirt on Obama it simply provides the evidence needed to "prove" that Obama really is the bad guy and McCain is the good candidate. I'm a little cynical, but I really think that's true.

And there's an inherent danger in going on the offensive against McCain. It just keeps coming back to "how dare you say such a thing about a former POW and war hero!' " I think the backlash against Obama running neg ads against McCain would be much greater than whatever backlash McCain faces running neg ads about Obama.

il Padrino Ute · 08-21-2008, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Krugman suggests Obama stop being a goody-goody and start getting down and dirty:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/op...18krugman.html

Krugman is an arrogant, pompous Keynesian jackass. He is the one person that I would punch in the face if given an opportunity.

That said, he'd be the perfect campaign adviser for Obama, as he makes Rove look like Mr. Rogers.

YOhio · 08-21-2008, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I know! I actually made a comment about this on a political board. The Obama-centrism of McCain. It's crazy. I'm on both their email lists. you get a McCain-mail, it mentions Obama ten times in the first paragraph. An Obama-mail doesn't mention McCain at all.

On your comment about the effects of Hillary going negative: There's a difference between Hillary going negative and McCain going negative. There was already the assumption that the Clintons don't play fair. So if she runs negative ads it just reinforces that notion. McCain is considered the "real American hero;" it's already assumed he's the morally superior guy, so if McCain publicizes all the dirt on Obama it simply provides the evidence needed to "prove" that Obama really is the bad guy and McCain is the good candidate. I'm a little cynical, but I really think that's true.

And there's an inherent danger in going on the offensive against McCain. It just keeps coming back to "how dare you say such a thing about a former POW and war hero!' " I think the backlash against Obama running neg ads against McCain would be much greater than whatever backlash McCain faces running neg ads about Obama.

OMBO!! THIS IS SO UNFAIR!!!!

Rest assured my fellow servants of O____a, the truth will prevail.

BarbaraGordon · 08-21-2008, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOhio

OMBO!! THIS IS SO UNFAIR!!!!

Rest assured my fellow servants of O____a, the truth will prevail.

Now calm down, Y. Society always persecutes those who follow the true path to enlightenment. Don't get too upset. Just take a deep breath and think, WWOD?

il Padrino Ute · 08-21-2008, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

WWOD?

He'd raise taxes.

08-21-2008, 12:13 AM	#22
myboynoah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Memphis freakin' Tennessee!!!!! Posts: 4,530	I'm sorry, I try hard to hide my sophisticated continental side, but sometimes it just screams to be free. __________________ Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!! Religion rises inevitably from our apprehension of our own death. To give meaning to meaninglessness is the endless quest of all religion. When death becomes the center of our consciousness, then religion authentically begins. Of all religions that I know, the one that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Joseph Smith.