Palin Options

[HammaTime]

Damn you!! Now I'm going to be late! LOL.

Your question intrigued me so much, I had to do a quick search. Looks like the search may have to employ Lexis/Nexis as there is so much noise in the system thanks to Gramm's infamous "nation of whiners" remark. I did find an interesting article published by Texas Observer last May that does a great job of shedding light on the McCain-Gramm connection. It really is no wonder why Gramm is the one who continues to be mentioned.

[HammaTime]

Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

... good thing our financial system is melting down this very moment! Maybe no one will notice the presumptive nominee has a little too much air space!! LOL!

No wonder John McCain is desperate to cause a distraction. I've come to the conclusion that her "trainers" have decided she isn't trainable. And is that a surprise? A 4-year communications degree can teach you how to read from a teleprompter, but it certainly is no preparation for the myriad nuances of playing World Leader.

[Blitz]

Exactly why Obama will never speak without a teleprompter.... Oh thats right he will do townhall style debates versus McCain.....

what was your point? that when a politican has a tought question they fold?
Well just let a little girl ask chosen one a question and watch him stutter.... not exactly the partisan questions that the Repubs get from the press ehhh?


At any rate Nice topic, with you and Druid... I wanted to post a lot, just did not want to break up the flow.... Keep it going and we all may learn something. Mostly what I'm learning is that all politicians practice dirty tricks, lies, and smear campaigns against their opponents that have nuggets of fact, that are spun for maxximim effect.

On principal I still cannot vote for Obama because the Dem's of today compared to the Kennedy era are so liberal they are socialists and marxcist. the repubs of today are closer to the old school dems, and no-one is really looking out for the people or the country, they are looking at getting re-elected.

on the + side the politicans have done a wonderfull job of dividing people into their voting block groups, controlling the rest, and only pander to the middle 10%.
So just vote within your group, and they will continue to ignore you...Err all will be good later

All you christions to the right... All you minority cultures to the left..... and to everyone else we promise.....

[Hellfighter]

..........
Exactly why Obama will never speak without a teleprompter.... Oh thats right he will do townhall style debates versus McCain.....

Well just let a little girl ask chosen one a question and watch him stutter..........

All you christions to the right... All you minority cultures to the left..... and to everyone else we promise.....

Well that's not true;
Alot of those in minority cultures are Christians, And some in minority cultures are Republican. The main divide of 'blocks' going on that count significantly is between classes.

That slight stutter Obama has is pretty insignificant compared to the fact that he he shows himself to be a thinker and weighs judgement. Fast smart-mouthed talkers like Palin and McCain seem to have the main problem with being impressive communicators. By all accounts, most 'experts' were saying McCain should be destroying Obama at this point in the race.

You must not be watching alot of Obama's speeches to see that he engages audiences lengthily without teleprompters.
Also why does he have to feel obligated to play into McCain's obvious tactic of trying to seem like he's controlling the tempo of the race regarding townhall meetings [and more recently the cunniving sham by McCain to suspend his campaign and call for Obama to do the same-which McCain actually never did -at least nobody in his troupe besides himself did!]. It's a childish ploy. Obama has his own campaign strategy-why should he play second fiddle to a desperado? There's this thing called debates which will give them both an opportunity to go at each other nationwide and globally
..... Oh that's right, McCain is trying to duck out of the debate versus Obama .... on the pretense he's got crucial business to do in Washington> which leads to something very interesting...........


Why does a person like McCain -self-professed as a fundamental deregulator- who 2 weeks ago stated boldly that the economy was 'fundamentally sound' THINK that he of all people is a crucial part of the equation regarding the current financial bail-out negotiations.
Was everyone in the negotiations ROFL when they heard the GURU of economics McCain was coming into Dodge to save them all!
Is this some kind of incredible morbid joke!? Or is he that desperate to duck out of the debate? Or is he again gambling by playing 'Saviour' of the situation - Maverick Johnny on the Spot to appear 'leaderly' -
Why is he gambling with screwing up the negotiations and risking collapsing the economy GLOBALLY just as part of strategy to become President.
He gambled on the surge working too- which was fumbling until the Sunnis revolted against Al quaeda -now may be that in itself was a spin-off from the Surge, but the Surge would never have succeeded with its deep thrust without the Awakening Councils. McCain never mentions this unexpected turnaround of events as the propulsion for the Surge's success -instead he claims he somehow orchestrated its success - never mind the Dems in congress feeding funding for the Surge to continue..... a few conveniently ommitted facts.

back on topic---->
And then there's Palin lately - McCain campaign shielding her from reporters recently at a small international chat. And in recent interviews, Palin is showing NO aptitude for International Affairs. She's having a hard time giving her vision of the world stage repeatedly- alarming.....

And then there's this.... media seems to be letting her off the hook lately; if this was Obama, we'd see this played up for weeks, 24/7.... It's a clip showing Palin being blessed in her 'church' by a pastor/witch-hunter -who also prays [in an exorcist/demon voice] to Jesus that she receives financial blessings too - and Palin is all fine with it,..... Geezus.
The Conservatives that were worried about her as 'the' VP choice are now seeing their fears materialize.
When trumpets fade...........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAWM7E_WMfo







This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/26/08 6:11am

[Blitz]

You must not be watching alot of Obama's speeches to see that he engages audiences lengthily without teleprompters.

There is a huge difference between giving a canned s[ech, and answerng debate style questons.
There is just as large a difference between townhall debates where any question is possible, and a made for TV debate with known questons and rehearsed answers.

To actually here what a politican believes from their heart about the answer to questions from the american people woul be refreshing, rather than rehearsed evasive answers that spew a lot of words but don't really say anything.

As ar as McCain going back.... Umm Chriss Dodd and Barney Frank are neck deep in the creation of this problem, and they are tasked to solve it?
Seems stupid to me

[Hellfighter]

You must not be watching alot of Obama's speeches to see that he engages audiences lengthily without teleprompters.

There is a huge difference between giving a canned s[ech, and answerng debate style questons.
There is just as large a difference between townhall debates where any question is possible, and a made for TV debate with known questons and rehearsed answers.

To actually here what a politican believes from their heart about the answer to questions from the american people woul be refreshing, rather than rehearsed evasive answers that spew a lot of words but don't really say anything.

As ar as McCain going back.... Umm Chriss Dodd and Barney Frank are neck deep in the creation of this problem, and they are tasked to solve it?
Seems stupid to me

I'll agree Obama is not the strongest of debaters.
However I'm asserting that he gives many talks in front of large audiences without using teleprompters as was implied.
Working from home I get to regularly watch Obama, McCain, Palin speaking live at their various campaign destinations so I do know for a fact about how Obama speaks.
Stutterers don't 'spew words' - Obama's fairly thoughtful about his words and he doesn't say what people want to hear; is his policy for raised taxes what people want to hear?

Meanwhile we have McCain trumpeting "No new taxes".... Over a decade ago a former Repub prez [who I liked] said that once and look how things turned out regarding that wishful campaign promise.
The way McCain is flip-flopping and continuously nudging and hedging on various points in the last 2 months shows he's the one saying what the Conservative base he's trying to draw to his 'maverick' self wants to hear.
On McCain going to Washington - there are a whole bunch of people -Dems and Repubs- attempting to get something together pronto -some more than others. I'm not sure why the 2 'problem-makers' are being depicted by you as the ones solely going to solve the mess.
Just tell me what is McCain going to do that helps anything -apart from political reasons- all he's done since getting there is appear on camera to state what the current non-progress is -why is he there exactly as someone whose opinion was 180 degrees 2 weeks ago on the true state of the economy. He's revealing himself to be too much of a reckless gambler on huge issues in my view. Now he's seen how useless he is in the negotiations but has compelled himself to be stuck in Washington and missing the long awaiited crucial debate tonight because of his promise not to attend if no solution is set in Washington.
And that's too bad for him since he was much expected by Repubs and many Dems to show some ownage of Obama in the debate.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/26/08 10:27am

[HammaTime]

Hey Blitz, glad to have more input into these discussions.

Perhaps I shouldn't have posted what I did, I was just absolutely stunned by Palin's answer. I'm not alone, headlines around the world shared my sentiment.

Sarah Palin flunks CBS interview - Daily Telegraph UK
Palin talks to Couric -- and if she's lucky, few are listening - Los Angeles Times
Shameless and clueless Sarah Palin - Seattle Post Intelligencer
A Question Reprised, but the Words Come None Too Easily for Palin - New York Times
U.S. has achieved victory in Iraq, Palin tells Couric - Washington Post
I’m sorry — Sarah Palin is a bad joke - Atlanta Journal Constitution

And it isn't just newspapers, the right-wing author of "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back," Andrew Sullivan has posted some incredible statements on his blog such as:

"After reluctantly watching the Couric interview of Palin, I felt more strongly than ever -- viscerally -- that she and McCain must be stopped for the good of the nation and the globe. And it occurred to me that, should they lose, we will eventually hear the inside story from the campaign: that from the moment McCain impulsively picked her, every single move the campaign made, every hail Mary, the war on the press, the suspension of the campaign, etc., was focused first on containing the damage they knew would be caused by letting Palin open her mouth without a teleprompter. "

and

"To my mind, her constant public lies about almost anything, large and small, and the proximity of this strange, unvetted blank slate of a candidate to the Oval Office render all usual assumptions of good faith on the part of a candidate moot. The refusal of the McCain campaign to allow her to hold a press conference - unprecedented in modern American history - reinforces this skepticism. It is simply incredible that a vice-presidential candidate who is the governor of a state cannot hold an open press conference to clear the air on any number of issues of fact that are out there. Worse than incredible: dangerous. When we have six weeks to go and we still know very little about someone who could technically be president next January, I don't think we should lean on the side of complacency and 'deference'."

And now conservative columnist Kathleen Parker of the National Review is calling for Palin to step down!

If you missed it, here is the video of the interview.

I can't speak for Robert, but one of the things I most enjoy about these discussions is that we are seemingly trying to uncover provable fact. Robert's ability to pull Palin's name out of the air a month before the rest of the world shows all of us that he goes beyond the spin and the headlines and digs deeper into the issues. He certainly makes me think through an issue and he knows how to bring the facts. I try to show him the respect by only speaking in terms of readily provable information.

Your statements about Obama are perhaps justifiable, but I'd have to ask you to back up your claims. I can certainly point you to some interviews in just the last few days that he has done without a teleprompter. These show that your statement, "Exactly why Obama will never speak without a teleprompter," can not be backed up with reality. I certainly don't know how you can ever claim that Couric's asking Palin to clarify a previous statement is "partisan." Defies explanation.

Fox News's Brit Hume interviews Obama last night.

NBC's Brian Williams interviews Obama last night.

Obama answers questions at new conference last night.

This post has been edited by HammaTime: 09/26/08 10:39am

[Robert]

Personally I would like to see a mix of classic moderated debates an open town hall style. I've gotten a lot of laughs from Dems over the last two days who have tried to push the idea McCain did this because he was afraid to debate Obama. That's plain laughable, Obama is the one who wanted to limit the debates, not McCain. Not to mention how the main stream news has conveniently overlooked Obama's current stance about how important it is the candidates answer the questions America is asking. Wouldn't that be the perfect description of town hall debates that he refused to do?

The current news machine when it comes to Palin goes far beyond typical liberal bias.
For example, the near constant rehashing of the Bridge to nowhere an how that stories plays out against her. I've only seen a single story pointing out the fact both Biden an Obama voted for the bridge to nowhere. Not once, but even the 2nd time when it was already starting to become a joke. Then to make it worse they voted against a Rep amendment to diverted the money to Louisiana.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/bid...arks/index.html

Then we have the ever popular, it's the Republican deregulation which caused the current financial crisis.
The fact McCain sponsored a bill to stop Fannie an Freddie from helping enable the subprime mess in 2005 an 2007 wasn't considered newsworthy. I guarantee you if Obama or Biden or any other leading Democrat had predicted the problem with F&F an tried to do something years ago, it would me the leading news story for days. Even poor dumbass Bush tried to call attention for the need of more oversight an regulation of F&F back in 2003
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...agewanted=print

Something else that drives me nuts about this whole notion Republican deregulation was the sole or even main cause for the current financial meltdown. Several economist also point to CRA ( Community Reinvestment Act ). This is a program dating back to 1977 which forces banks to take on a certain percentage of bad mortgage loans and was made even bigger by Clinton in 95. Then there is finally the consumers who turned to ARM loans to allow them to buy more of a house then they could afford. There is plenty of blame to go around but all you hear in the news is how it's a result of Republican deregulation.
I normally hate stuff like this but it sums up the problem very well.
Government has their hands all over this mess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY

Speaking of government regulation, the latest news about how bad it failed when it comes to health care
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26860289/

If someone wants to vote for Obama, thats fine.
What was he running on.....
* Smaller government? No, A large increase in Government
* Cheaper government? No, The biggest list of entitlements since FDR
* Immediate or quick pull out in Iraq? has increasingly backed away from his initial time lime, plus has always given himself several outs to allow him to change his stance on Iraq if needed.
* Experience? Nope
* Energy plan? Total BS 10 year plan with no specific on how he will achieve his goal.
* Fair Taxes? Nope, classic class warfare here. Going to raise the Corp taxes because those evil companies don't pay enough. One small problem, the US has one of the highest corporate taxes on the planet.
Obama will kill US competitiveness by raising corp taxes while ever other country is lowering theirs to become more competitive.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23561.html
BTW he is still using the line "lower taxes for 95% of Americans" when the best independent review puts that number closer to 80%. Which would still be a lie because it includes people who don't pay taxes. If they don't pay taxes, how can he lower them?
Also, the increased corp tax problem will only aggravate the already weakening dollar.


Hamma
Your question intrigued me so much, I had to do a quick search. Looks like the search may have to employ Lexis/Nexis as there is so much noise in the system thanks to Gramm's infamous "nation of whiners" remark. I did find an interesting article published by Texas Observer last May that does a great job of shedding light on the McCain-Gramm connection. It really is no wonder why Gramm is the one who continues to be mentioned.
Gramm continues to be mentioned for the same reason the Keating 5 are, both are bogus.
BTW I couldn't find a single legitimate source say McCain planned on making Gramm sec. of the Treasury.

Something else of interest which I just read about. So much positive press has been given to the fact Obama was an editor of the Harvard Law review. There was a time when it use to be based solely on grades, not anymore.
"seven to nine are selected by a discretionary committee, either to fulfill the reviews race-based affirmative action program, to select students who just missed the cut by either of the other two processes, or by some other criteria as the committee sees fit."
Linkage
This would go a long way to explain why Obama has never released his grades from Colombia or Harvard.
BTW he wasn't on the honor roll at Colombia, so it's pretty much a given he didn't get accepted to Harvard based on his grades.

Concerning Palin's poor performance with reporters which Hamma linked to.
You previously said everyone should be open to harder press scrutiny.
There is the problem, they are not. Go back an look at the comparison between the Gibson/Obama interviews and the Gibson/Palin interview I previously pointed out in this topic. The exact same could be said for almost every single interview given over the last few weeks. Hell even O'reily tossed Obama softballs.


I'll be very curious to see where the polls and news heads after the debate tonight.

[HammaTime]

I agree that McCain hasn't been pulling this stunt because he wanted to avoid the debate. What the McCain campaign was putting out was they wanted to RESCHEDULE tonight's debate to replace next week's VICE presidential debate. It was a feeble effort to push back Palin's show down with Biden.

The stunt now provides McCain with a potential upside if he does well. He has managed to create such a ruckus, this will undoubtedly be the most highly watched debate in Presidential history.

As for the Bridge to Nowhere - the reason it has endured "near constant rehashing" is because Palin continued to lie about her role - "I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks.'" That is what brought what should have been a minor issue to the front a center. I can't recall when a major candidate continued to spout a proven falsehood.

If you are going to criticize Obama for not supporting the Coburn Amendment which would have diverted those funds to Louisiana, you should first check to see if your guy supported it. McCain is on record as also having voted against the amendment ... oops.

And, you certainly can't blame anyone for "voting for" the Bridge to Nowhere if they supported the Omnibus bill. You yourself have stipulated the need for a line-item veto for just this sort of problem. If you are going to advocate that position, you certainly can't have both sides of the debate and claim a lawmaker was wrong for "supporting" a bill that's main purpose was to keep the budget flowing.

I would love to read a thoroughly researched piece on this financial crisis that can point anywhere else but the Republican deregulation as one of the major causes, but I doubt you could come up with one. Obviously, there were a lot of mitigating factors, and efforts like the Community Reinvestment Act were well in line with Bush's "ownership society" mantra.

As for any claims that either candidate has made about taxes, all of them are out the window at this point and hardly worth discussing. $700 Billion has a way of denting the most well-meaning plans. Maybe McCain can pound the rostrum and urge the viewers to "read my lips," but I doubt that will get him very far.

The debate I'm anxious to hear is over the concept of free market versus a regulated market economy and add to that the now twice-failed notion of the Trickle Down Economic Theory.

[Robert]

It doesn't matter much that McCain also voted for the bridge to nowhere. Whats interesting is the two people ( Obama/Bind ) who have mocked Palin over it, also voted for it.
Kind of the pot calling the kettle black.
This same plays right into bogus criticisms that Palin is the queen of earmarks. They come up with that by comparing Alaska with the rest of the US. A different story is told when you you compare Palin to the previous Alaskan Governor, which i think would be the more fair comparison. Then she comes out looking pretty goos since she cut spending by 20%.

I am intrigued by your suggestion the purpose of McCain's stunt was to increase the viewership of the debate. I can see why the McCain campaign would see it as a plus. Don't agree with the assessment it was to push or delay the VP debates. On an interesting note, I think this will probably be the most watched an discussed VP debate ever. I also think people will be surprised how well Palin does, same as they were at the RNC. Not that it will really matter, VP debates won't win or loss an election, do you even remember any of the previous VP debates? The only one I can remember is when Quayle was insulted by the other VP " You're no Kennedy!" . I can't think of another single memory from a VP debate.
There of course is this famous moment from the 80 Presidnetial debates.
Before this, Bush was actually ahead in all the polls.
The moderator got a little uppity an was put in his place
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE

[HammaTime]

Oh, come on, surely you remember the unforgettable "WHO AM I? WHY AM I HERE?" from Admiral Stockdale?

This one clip from the debate shows how even slight hiccups in delivery can effectively throw a candidacy down the drain. I thought that was such a tragic example of how an absolutely outstanding person can be made to look so foolish in a debate. Stockdale was someone we all should thank and admire for his lifelong service to our country. What a shame he had to have that blemish on his otherwise stellar record.

And there is this snippet from Qualye/Gore and, by the way, historians have shown that Quayle was knowingly misrepresenting what was in Gore's book, Earth In the Balance. One of the guys who helped Quayle prepare, Kenneth Adelman, later explained how they rationalized sending Quayle out prepared to deliver the lie, "on balance it seemed justified. And it had the advantage of suggesting that he had read the whole book and could remember the page number."

This has since been cited as the opening salvo in the Bush-Quayle campaign's well executed plan to label Gore as a liar.

And as far as black pots, I would argue in return that there is nothing more tarnished than McCain, the champion of earmark reform trying to pretend his selection of Palin was because she was a crusader against earmarks. You can't soften the blow by comparing her to previous governors. I'm amazed that you don't see that clear hypocrisy.

And where do you come up with the idea that Palin cut Alaska state expenditures by 20%?? The reality, according to the Alaska legislative finance office is that their budget has INCREASED 30% in the last two years. They've managed to salt away money because we are all paying $4.00 for a gallon of gas! See the following:

"Fueled by oil taxes, Alaska spending soared under Palin" - Boston Globe 9/13/2008

I'm starting to think that you are still falling for the same tricks that Quayle used in his debate. They just lie their asses off to you and you swallow it.

[Robert]

If you are going to criticize Obama for not supporting the Coburn Amendment which would have diverted those funds to Louisiana, you should first check to see if your guy supported it. McCain is on record as also having voted against the amendment ... oops.

You may want to check your link again.
McCain did not vote to kill the amendment, he was one of the 3 who did not vote.

And, you certainly can't blame anyone for "voting for" the Bridge to Nowhere if they supported the Omnibus bill. You yourself have stipulated the need for a line-item veto for just this sort of problem. If you are going to advocate that position, you certainly can't have both sides of the debate and claim a lawmaker was wrong for "supporting" a bill that's main purpose was to keep the budget flowing.

Actually I can argue that point because McCain did vote no
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00220

I would love to read a thoroughly researched piece on this financial crisis that can point anywhere else but the Republican deregulation as one of the major causes, but I doubt you could come up with one. Obviously, there were a lot of mitigating factors, and efforts like the Community Reinvestment Act were well in line with Bush's "ownership society" mantra.

I don't know why you bring up Bush's name, it was initiated by Carter an greatly expanded by Clinton.
I consider the rest to be splitting hairs.
The the Republican deregulation is a great catch all to blame the current crisis on. My problem with it is the lack of link between subprime mortgages an the actual deregulation resulting from Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The GLB act allowed the different financial services ( banks, securities companies and insurance companies ) to intermix, it had nothing to do with subprime mortgages.
Everyone automatically points to the GLB act because it was the largest banking deregulation to pass. What people are not as quick to do is point out how the GLB act directly caused the increase in subprime mortgages, because it didn't.
In fact the increase in subprime mortgages wasn't a result of deregulation, it was a result of government regulation of CRA an Fannie & Freddie enabling banks to write crappy paper.
This crisis is a result of a housing boom mostly financed on phantom money. Much the same way dot-coms created a market collapse over money tied up in products an business models which didn't exist.
I would agree with you about The commodity Future Modernization Act was part of the problem because it allowed banks a way to cook their books, hiding their true asset to risk ratio.
If you want to argue that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is the cause. Then you need to show me how allowing a bank to sell insurance or an insurance company to offer long term investments caused the subprime mess. Sorry but I don't see the connection.


You are correct about the Alaskan budget, I meant a comparison between her request for earmarks an the previous governor. I thought I had read it was 20% but it turns out a lot more after checking the numbers.
The previous Gov. Frank Murkowski. had $550 Million
compared to Palins $200 Million
Sorry for the confusion, I was doing other things at work while I was writing my post.

[Blitz]

Your statements about Obama are perhaps justifiable, but I'd have to ask you to back up your claims. I can certainly point you to some interviews in just the last few days that he has done without a teleprompter. These show that your statement, "Exactly why Obama will never speak without a teleprompter," can not be backed up with reality.

Here are some classics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws...feature=related

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/...a.iraq.trip.cnn

http://boortz.com/more/video/obama_faith.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLZ9nRlyzN8...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5QxTxUbUoc...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nTHV980ZOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgH5i8ug6E...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUURYlgEAWI

Either way, I dont think that should be a disqualification, look what we have now.

I think his policy stinks. at least what little change he would tell us about.

[Blitz]

Robert, you are doing a great job at digging thru the noise.

Here was an article on Bloomberg that has some good links in it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Have you looked into the whole Mark to market issue?

http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakin...inancial-crisis

I still need to do some research on it, but because most ofthe issues are mortgages it makes sense that the values would go back up in most cases. the talk is that the suspension of Mark to Market would limit the crisis to around 100 billion?

THoughts?

[Hellfighter]

.......I also think people will be surprised how well Palin does, same as they were at the RNC. Not that it will really matter, VP debates won't win or loss an election, do you even remember any of the previous VP debates?........

I speculate things will go badly for Palin judging by even more recent interviews she's participated in lately.
I had a feeling this would be her achille's heel a week after she was in as VP choice. I didn't know of course, but I had a feeling judging by her 'home-lyness' demeanour-which is a good thing too.
I think the coming VP debate might trump the Dan 'Kennedy' episode and be quite memorable.
What her new role is pointing out is that whatever prominent independant qualities she had in attaining being a governor are now being stifled by the line she must tow according to mccain campaign guidelines, as well as her obvious disinterest in being comfortable in foreign affairs in depth and intricasies.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/26/08 10:09pm