Los Angeles Times endorses McCain, Obama
US News
Feb 2, 2008, 10:01 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
i still look at that photo on the net with mccain hugging bush.
that alone should tell people to stay away from mccain...
What will Obama and Hillary really do for America? At least we read what the American Republic will do, and not mix its words because of fear of special business groups that have need for greed!
Hey Ben, George Bush says that you shouldn't jump off a building.
He (George Bush) said that whatever you do you should not jump off of a building...
George bush does not want you to find a tall building and leap to your death, George Bush says so...
So don't do it... it would hurt George Bush.
Obama, or McCain:
Inspiration; or perspiration.
Work our way out through dealing with Iraq's neighbors; or stay the course forever, or until al-Maliki can run the country (same thing)
Youth and new ideas; or a continuation of the status quo with massive deficits being engendered by a never-ending war. Focus on the economy, employment, and other pressing problems - or just Iraq. McCain's position on immigration is anathema to his own base, and he's too 'radical' for a party that values stodginess.
A fresh point of view; or the hackneyed leanings of a brave former POW who endured a great deal for his country, but who cannot objectively judge what to do next.
Since GOP candidates say pretty much what those at their NEXT appearance want to hear, it's hard to judge where McCain stands - he now does minor flip-flops with regularity.
www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html
(and from 2008)
thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/mccain-100-years/
Asked about the remark later by Mother Jones’ David Corn, McCain reaffirmed it, “excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for ‘a thousand years’ or ‘a million years,’ as far as he was concerned.”
McCain’s latest comments complete a full flip-flop-flip. He previously said that the Korea model was “exactly” the right idea for Iraq. But in late November, he abandoned it on PBS’ Charlie Rose Show:
ROSE: Do you think that this — Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?
MCCAIN: I don’t think so.
ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?
MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.
'American people have a clear choice
Obama, or McCain:'
Wrong again, it will be Clinton or McCain.
'Inspiration; or perspiration.'
Barack Hussein is too young to have perspired.
'Work our way out through dealing with Iraq's neighbors'
What is there to work out with Iran? They lynch children, stone human beings to death, take hostages and are developing a doomsday device. I don't think even Barack Hussein is that naive. Perhaps when he is done coloring he can ask Ahmadinejad not to be such a meanie.
'Youth and new ideas'
Here is the reality of the situation: If Barack Hussein Obama were white everyone would be asking how he got the stones to believe for a moment that he was qualified to be president of the United States. He has only been in the Senate since 2004. Since it would make some mentally challenged people feel self righteous to vote for someone specifically because he is the correct color they are willing to overlook the fact that he is an inexperienced child.
'or a continuation of the status quo'
McCain has unwaveringly served the United states for 50 years. Deny it. I dare you.
'with massive deficits'
how do you think all of Barack Hussein Obama's social programs are going to get paid for? Oprah?
'Focus on the economy, employment, and other pressing problems'
How do you think a socialist child is going to do with the economy? Employment? Do you think Harpo productions has that many positions on the payroll? Barack Hussein Obama would be death for the American economy.
'or just Iraq.'
McCain was right about Rumsfeld and right about Petraeus. Who better to be commander in chief then someone who has actually been in uniform? (I am not talking about the Mickey Mouse club uniform that Barack looks so cute in.)
'McCain's position on immigration is anathema to his own base, and he's too 'radical' for a party that values stodginess.'
He is the most electable, and he is ahead of both democrats in national polls.
'Since GOP candidates say pretty much what those at their NEXT appearance want to hear,'
As opposed to the democrats..
'it's hard to judge where McCain stands - he now does minor flip-flops with regularity.'
Coming from flipper himself.. should we invade Pakistan, what is your ever changing position this minute?
'www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com'
AAAh another one of your really objective sources... Here, from his 'about me' page:
'I'm the lead editor of Salon.com’s Blog Report (formerly the Daou Report), and have been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, the Guardian, Crooks & Liars, AlterNet, Political Wire, and Seven Days.'
'I worked as an intern at the Clinton White House’s Office of Speechwriting. From there I began writing campaign direct mail pieces for a major Democratic consulting firm. In 1996, I served as the communications director for an unsuccessful congressional campaign in Pennsylvania. Shortly thereafter, I joined the communications department at Americans United for Separation of Church and State,'...
Yeah, some really unbiased sources you use...
'thinkprogress.org'
Come on... 'Asked about the remark later by Mother Jones’ David Corn'... You couldn't come up with some propaganda from Dailykos?
Barack Obama has done it again. It's the same reason I am not voting for Senator Obama. He's a flip-flopper. Four years ago, I put all of my time and effort into a flip-flopper named John Kerry who has consequentially endorsed Barack Obama. With so many other candidates in the Democratic field four years ago, we shouldn't have picked the flip-flopper and we shouldn't pick one now!
In Iowa, Barack Obama's campaign pitched a huge fit because Hillary Clinton and John Edwards didn't denounce negative advertisements run by third parties (i.e. labor unions). However, now that said third parties are running ads against his opponents and in his favor Senator Obama doesn't seem to mind so much.
'In Iowa, Senator Obama and his campaign went out of his way to attack labor unions for independently promoting other candidates,' Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer said. 'But in Nevada, he’s looking the other way as they falsely attack his opponents.'
John Edwards also chimed in and he too came to the Clinton camaigns defense.
'Just three weeks ago Senator Obama was calling on me and Senator Clinton to demand that outside groups not run ads on our behalf,' Edwards said in a statement. 'These new ads look like the same old nasty divisive politics that both Senators Obama and Clinton denounced just two days ago. It is extremely important for us to quit focusing on fights between politicians and instead focus on what we need to do for working people, for the Latino community in Nevada and across the country.”
gaysocialites.com/2008/01/obama_flip_flops_again.html
(That is a source that you could get behind pb)
MANCHESTER, N.H. - Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential front-runner no longer, accused campaign rival Barack Obama on Saturday night of changing his positions on health care and 'a number of issues.'
'I have been entirely consistent in my position,' countered Obama, adding that he and Clinton have a philosophical disagreement over her proposal to require Americans to purchase health insurance or face a penalty from the government.
'You said you would vote against the Patriot Act. You came to Senate, you voted for it. You said you would vote against the Iraq war, you came to the Senate and voted for' funding, Clinton said.
www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-demsdebate0608jan06,0,6140621.story
'Well, you've changed positions within three years on, you know, a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate, and now you have changed,' Clinton said. 'You said you would vote against the Patriot Act. You came to the Senate; you voted for it. You said that you would vote against funding for the Iraq war. You came to the Senate, and you voted for $300 billion of it.'...
Clinton went on the attack when the subject turned to health care, saying Obama has changed his views on the issue enough times to lead The Associated Press to write that 'he could have a pretty good debate with himself.'
You know it's sad when Hillary bot is scoring zingers like that...
that McCain became President, he would be dead in no time. He's just a tired old man who couldn't handle the stress of the Presiduncy. If you take a close look at him, he is so shakey that he might be suffering from palsy. No, elect either Clinton or Obama. At least they are young enough to be worth that peculiar American passtime - shooting.
Mattel is putting out the new Romney doll. Instead of getting new clothes, kids can buy new political positions for it.
The 'Massachusetts' model, complete with positions on right-to-life and gay marriage now disowned.
The 'Michigan Campaign' model, where it lies about resurrecting the auto industry.
(Many more models to come, depending on where he campaigns)
In terms of debates, the GOP is the very model of incivility, with attacks instead of positions on issues beyond the usual bigotry and lies about tax cuts' growing the economy, in spite of Arthur Laffer himself noting that current tax rates cannot be lowered while yielding additional revenue, as they could under Reagan. A look at the National Debt from Reagan-era on reveals the fact that since Congress gets elected based on what they SPEND for constituents, generating all those earmarks, the system is always biased towards spending.
'No, elect either Clinton or Obama. At least they are young enough to be worth that peculiar American passtime[sic] - shooting.'
I love it when idiots who obviously resent my country try to give us advice on who we should vote for. You hate my country yet you are advocating for a particular candidate; it is telling that you are advocating for the democrats.
'Many more models to come, depending on where he campaigns'
Try to make them more amusing and factual...
'In terms of debates, the GOP is the very model of incivility,'
As opposed to the drama queen freak show we are subjected to from the child and the cackling phony shrew.
', with attacks instead of positions on issues beyond the usual bigotry'
Bigotry, like voting for someone who's only qualification is that he is black? Hummm...
'and lies about tax cuts' growing the economy,'
I guess that makes JFK, your demigod, a liar.
'in spite of Arthur Laffer himself noting that current tax rates cannot be lowered while yielding additional revenue'
ARTHUR LAFFER HIMSELF! Gasp... Here, from my equivalent of thinkprogress.org:
==================================================
But Laffer provides important statistics to support his argument that cutting tax rates on the rich provides higher, not lower, tax revenues over time. Laffer begins,
Since 1980, statutory marginal tax rates have fallen dramatically. The highest marginal income tax rate in 1980 was 70%.
Today the top rate is 35 percent, an apparent tax-break windfall for the rich. However, Laffer goes on:
In the year Ronald Reagan took office (1981) the top 1% of income earners paid 17.58% of all federal income taxes. Twenty five years later, in 2005, the top 1% of income earners paid 39.38% of all (federal) income taxes.
For the bean counters who like to whip out their inflation slide rules, Laffer provides statistics on a real (inflation-adjusted) basis:
In 1981, the total taxes paid in 2005 dollars by the top 1% of income earners was $94.84 billion. In 2005 it was $368.13 billion.
Now consider those middle- and lower-income folk who, Democrats say, have suffered during the Republican tax-cutting years. Here’s Laffer’s response:
From 1981 through 2005, the share of all income taxes paid by the bottom 75% of all income earners (as reported on the individual income tax returns) declined to 14.01% from 27.71% … the bottom 75% of all taxpayers today pay less than 35% of all the taxes paid by the top 1% of all income earners.
The data that Laffer provides refute the notion that supply-side tax-rate cuts favor the rich and hurt the poor. Yet the proposed economic platforms of the Democratic contenders for president commit to higher tax rates and the expiration of the stimulative Bush tax cuts. Laffer’s conclusion that cutting tax rates on the rich actually increases government revenue over time — while reducing tax rates on middle- and lower-income earners actually lowers government revenue — should serve as a warning to those who would do the opposite. Writes Laffer:
Mark my words: If the Democrats succeed in implementing their plan to tax the rich and cut taxes on the middle and lower income earners, this country will experience a fiscal crisis of serious proportions that will last for years and years until a new Harding, Kennedy or Reagan comes along.
Art Laffer has had the uncanny ability to recognize good economic policy and the impact of such policy on the economy. Given the accuracy of his past forecasts and his dire warnings about prospective tax increases, Americans should think twice before voting for populists who promise a free-lunch supplied by the entrepreneurs of this country.
article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjY3NzAzNDdhMDMwYTY2MzMzM2FhNjQ1YWE5YmNhY TQ=
===========================================================
' since Congress gets elected based on what they SPEND for constituents, generating all those earmarks, the system is always biased towards spending.'
And Obama or Clinton are going to straighten that right out... they are going to tax and spend... How do I know his? They are unashamed about it. They have said as much.
Funny... Even after the colossal screw ups of the Bush administration the democrats can't field someone who is going to be able to close the deal. No matter how bad the republicans shoot themselves in the foot the democrats seem determined to pull out the shotgun and go for their own kneecaps.
Someone like Biden might have actually pulled it off. But the democratic party has exercised the ghosts of Harry Truman and Andrew Jackson and even JFK... they are a distant memory. Were any of them around today they would have been tossed out on their butts like Joe Lieberman.
Somewhere along the line there was a fork in the road between Harry S. Truman and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga and boy did you chose wrong. Now, on some level at least that must be occurring to you. Too late for this cycle I am afraid... I would like to think of you sitting in your mothers basement eating your welfare cheese and saying over and over that it 'isn't fair', sort of like Burgess Meredeth in the Twilight Zone episode 'Time enough at last...' Only you all have done it to yourselves.
stumptownconfidential.com/media/1/20060703-itsnotfair.JPG
...a perfectly good reason not to vote for neither of them.
In 7 years, they have branded Bush stupid, then watched while he beat both of the so called 'intellectual' democratic candidates, then called him crazy, but watched as he passed piles of dem legialation, so they had to back off that, then called him a radical, but got the votes of liberals to pass every bill he's wanted.
After half a decade of calling it wrong, why would anyone, democrat or republican, even consider what the LA Times has to say??? This is why they are losing readers in droves.
Interesting about the Kennedys, huh? They seem to think Obama has something in common with JFK. JFK was a strong interventionist (Vietnam, Bay of Pigs) beleived in tapping peoples phones (Martin Luther King), and lowering taxes.
Heck, we already have a President, just like Kennedy!
Bush goes not get credit for anything except having a GOP Congress for the first 6 years abetting his failed policies; followed by a Democratic majority without the 60 votes necessary for cloture. Cheney has rearranged the tripartite system to assume powers to the White House never intended to it by the Constitution; or magnified existing or assumed powers such as over 1,100 'signing statements', turning a measure to be rarely used into a system of government. The weakness of Democracy is that without a public voice in dissent, and the ability to elect enough Representatives to offset those in power, the White House can (and did) expand its powers well beyond those envisioned by the Founders.
If the public wants 'change', it will not come from the GOP, which is intent on adding more influence, as that brings in money from lobbyists. That's how the game is played - the party in power raises more funds from special interests and lobbyists, since they can pass legislation, or block legislation from a party without 60 votes for cloture, or 67 votes to actually pass legislation.
The White House, as well as the imbecilically biased posters we have an example of hereabouts, ass-kissing every wrong move that the White House has made in their eagerness to grow their own miserable egos, want MORE division amongst the American people, NOT unity. That kind of increased division feeds the bigotry that they thrive on. Obama represents increased unity, and that's a threat to those who see an advantage in dividing the country along not only political lines, but also racial and ethnic blocs. Hillary potentially increases the women's interest and votes, which is fine, but Obama has more potential for gathering support from MANY places.
McCain has a severe problem with the GOP because he's a radical by nature, and because of his pro-immigration position. McCain is now pivoting so quickly to match who he's speaking to that he'll screw himself into the ground if left unattended.
Give the Democrats 67 votes, and things change. With Obama, who understands conciliation, 60 votes might be enough. Once the pressure of the 2008 elections is off, it will be back to business as usual, since incumbent seats will no longer be at risk.
The economic facts are working against the GOP, allegedly the party of fiscal responsibility - responsible for a major ramp-up in spending since 2001, and now deficits predicted of over $400 billion per year AFTER Bush leaves. The U.S. credit rating is likely at risk over the next few years, and the weaker dollar makes imported components for manufacturing more expensive, as well as Wal-mart purchases by the public.
The legacy of Bush’s spending record will be long-lasting, analysts say. The accumulated national debt – $5.77 trillion near the end of Bush’s first year in office – now stands at $9 trillion.
The White House already has estimated, before the new budget plan for 2009 that it spells out on Monday, that it will reach $9.6 trillion by the end of Bush’s second term. The cost of paying the interest on that debt – one of the expenses which must be met each year – ran to $250 billion in 2007, nearly half of what the government spent on the Department of Defense. The debt payment had amounted to $150 billion during fiscal 2003.
(The planned rebate will be financed by debt and borrowed funds, amounting to paying off a debt by using a different credit card, and increasing interest cost in the process. The tax cuts of Bush threw too much money to the top 5 percent, who did NOT create wealth by spending or investing it, since they were wealthy to begin with. A sane policy would be to hike the tax rate ON THE TOP 5 PERCENT, while CUTTING taxes for the middle class and below, who could actually USE the money in ways that would benefit the economy, including starting small businesses of their own. Instead of a rebate, declare a one-month moratorium on collection of FICA/payroll taxes, and let people get their hands that 7.65 percent of wages RIGHT AWAY to offset heating bills and to go out and buy things. For earners over $120,000, let them KEEP paying FICA, as they're limited in how much they have to conttribute in a year, and will pay it anyway).
========================================================
weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/white_house_defic it_on_the_ris.html
Some, such as Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, are not convinced by the president’s newfound approach to restraint in spending.
“I see no credibility to the notion that, after the equivalent of six years of binge drinking, now there is this enormous guilt and desire to make up for it at this moment,’’ Ornstein has told the Tribune.
The biggest news of the record $3-trillion-plus federal budget that President Bush plans to propose to Congress on Monday may be the potential deficit that comes with it. After years of White House boasting that it is getting the deficit under control – cutting it by $250 billion during the past two years – the administration appears ready to concede that the deficit will rise to $400 billion or more in the coming year. That’s a near-return to the record $413-billion deficit reached in 2004.
The deficit had come down to $163 billion, the Office of Management and Budget recently reported – with a projection that the U.S. should see a surplus in revenue by the year 2012. But the combination of a slowing economy and the new economic stimulus that Congress and the president are pursuing – with about $150 billion in tax relief promised this spring, could be reversing the trend.
As usual, Bush will propose a significant increase in defense spending this year, as he has from the start, the Washington Post is reporting, and he will seek to slow the growth of “entitlement’’ spending such as Medicare, but he will have to concede that the deficit for 2008 and 2009 is on the rise again. The president, who refrained from vetoing any spending bills when Republicans ran Congress, also is wielding the veto pen with a new vengeance now that Democrats are in control – promising to veto any spending bill that doesn’t cut the “earmarks’’ that members of Congress like to send home in half.
(The only thing dropping faster is dum-dum's intelligence, what little of it there is. SP4, I wrote off a long time ago)
(Unlike 2001 when the threat was deflation, the threat today is INFLATION, which limits what the Fed can do in terms of policy. OPEC is already looking to reduce oil output in expectation of an economic slowdown, lessening the chance of a reduction in oil prices. Meanwhile, Exxon made a profit of $40 billion, because they are NOT investing enough in oil exporation or energy alternatives. This is a good metaphor for the top 5 percent of earners who profited from Bush's tax policy - they take, but nothing is given in return)
www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/us-payrolls-contract-17000-jan/story.asp x?guid=%7B925AC561%2D3996%2D496A%2DB147%2D4B3F2DB3714A%7D
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Perhaps providing the smoking gun indicating that the nation's economy has entered a recession, government data released Friday showed a net reduction in U.S. nonfarm payrolls for the first time in more than four years. As employers cut back their hiring, nonfarm payrolls fell by an estimated 17,000 in January, the Labor Department said. This is the first decline since August 2003. The decline in payrolls came in stark contrast to the increase of 85,000 jobs that had been expected by Wall Street economists surveyed by MarketWatch.
'The loss of jobs may not be proof that a recession is here, but it is a clear warning that the economy is teetering on the brink,' said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors. 'On balance I would say the news overall is negative and it probably makes a recession more likely,' said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at Global Insight.
Softness in hours worked and wages indicates sub-par growth in Americans' personal income in the coming months, said David Greenlaw, chief U.S. fixed-income analyst at Morgan Stanley. Income is the fuel that drives spending and demand.
Your powers of discernment are outstanding. Out standing in left field. I do not resent your country. I abhor it. I do not hate your country. I have absolutely no use for it. There was, also, no advice as to how to vote, I leave that up to idiots like yourself and SPFool. IF, and that is a huge IF, you had a brain you would see that I am not advocating fo any particular candidate. If you had one iota of intelligence, you would see that I am not advocating for the democrats either, but what else could be expected from a redneck republican dog? Read it again. And then go load your gun. You are the type of inbred, brain-dead, mother-effing hillbilly I was referring to- shooting before thinking. You shot your mouth off, and missed, now do the Amercan thing and shoot someone you don't even know.
(Never before have economies been as closely linked, or as interdependent. Money now flows electronically, and traders can speculate on other currencies, directly influencing exchange rates, as does futures pricing. Countries whose currency is linked to a falling dollar may decide to de-link, and the oil producers are not happy being paid in dollars for oil.)
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arlKrFbn3pfY&refer=home
Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy may already be in recession; other countries might not be far behind.
Japan, Britain, Spain and Singapore, which together represent about 12 percent of the world economy, are vulnerable as fallout from the U.S. worsens their economic weakness. Even emerging markets, including China, are likely to suffer as exports to the U.S. wane. The result: Global growth may decelerate close to the 3 percent pace economists deem a worldwide recession, from a 4.7 percent rate in 2007. ``Some form'' of global recession ``is inevitable at some point,'' former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in a speech in Vancouver last week.
The contagion from the U.S., which according to the IMF represents about 21 percent of the global economy, is spreading via multiple channels. Less spending by American consumers and companies reduces demand for imported goods. The meltdown of the U.S. subprime-mortgage market has pushed up credit costs worldwide and forced European and Asian banks to write down billions of dollars in holdings. Tumbling U.S. stock prices are dragging down markets elsewhere.
The developing slump puts pressure on central bankers in Japan, the U.K. and the euro region to follow the lead of Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who last week accelerated interest- rate cuts in the U.S. with an emergency move to lower the benchmark rate by three-quarters of a percentage point. Policy makers may follow that with another cut of as much as half a point after a two-day meeting that starts tomorrow, futures trading indicates.
``The odds are shifting toward a more significant global monetary easing,'' says Richard Berner, co-head of global economics for Morgan Stanley in New York. Jim O'Neill, chief economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in London, says growth in the first half of 2008 may be the ``weakest since 2002 and maybe even 2001,'' during the last global downturn. ``The economy is slowing everywhere,'' he says.
A worldwide recession doesn't require a global contraction in output, which rarely happens; economists at the International Monetary Fund say it would take a slowdown in global growth to 3 percent or less. By that measure, three periods since 1985 qualify: 1990-1993, 1998 and 2001-2002.
He says: 'Heck, we already have a President, just like Kennedy!'
What planet does he live on? Kennedy was no lame duck. Bush is so lame, he's dead in the water. Also, Bush isn't dead, physically, but his administration sure is. I guess that his senile dementia is really bad these days. Speaking of out to lunch, what's for supper, you pervert?
RE:'He says: 'Heck, we already have a President, just like Kennedy!'
What planet does he live on? Kennedy was no lame duck. Bush is so lame, he's dead in the water. Also, Bush isn't dead, physically, but his administration sure is. I guess that his senile dementia is really bad these days. Speaking of out to lunch, what's for supper, you pervert?'
JFK became shot just as his lameness was about to become apparent.
...Bush is getting his legislation passed, not a usual attribute for a so called lame duck. In fact, he's even got democrats passing tax rebates!
Also, none of your comments makes me wrong about Kennedy.
Strong Interventionist - Just Like Bush - Invaded Cuba with a covert, paramilitary army
Spied domestically on prominent americans (Martin luther King) - just like Hillary did, too! (FBI records scandal) What is it about personal privacy and democrats??????
strongly anticommunist - like Bush
Believed in lower taxes - just like Bush
After all, where DO you think neocons came from, anyways????
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood focusing on healing after shootings
- 2. Fort Hood shooting investigation turns to possible terrorism ties
- 3. Fort Hood gunman conscious (Extra)
- 4. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (2nd Roundup)
- 5. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (Roundup)
USA
Your Talkback on this Story