https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

***Dave Does the Election

It’s the Friday night “this’ll be old news by the time you read it Monday, which is okay because I’ve already been accumulating some of these for the past…

It’s the Friday night “this’ll be old news by the time you read it Monday, which is okay because I’ve already been accumulating some of these for the past three or four days” edition …

I suppose it makes sense to, per tradition, begin with Gov. Palin. Not much new to contribute as to how “well” she did in the debate last night — though some increasingly amusing commentary about her content free presentation (see flow chart), especially if you were watching the debate on C-SPAN and could see what Palin was doing (studying furiously) while Biden was speaking.

Despite flow chart note cards, fact-checking of Palin keeps digging up more problems. She was wrong about troop levels, for example, and wrong about Biden’s support of McCain’s war policy until recently. Heck, it appears she was wrong about McCain’s policy on bankruptcy court protections for homeowners (at least that’s what the McCain camp says). It’s a toss-up whether she (or, rather, her script-writers) were either ignorant, or trying to really make a statement about health care programs, when her wrap-up Reagan quote turns out to be from a 1960s recording he made on behalf of the AMA … against Medicare.

Of course, outside the debate, fact-checking continues to ring up problems, like her (false) claim that she met with the British Ambassador. Funny thing for “Joe Six-pack” to be lying about.

Naturally, it’s okay for a liberal like myself to criticize Palin, since I’m speaking into the echo chamber. Woe betide any conservative commentators who aren’t enthusiastic Palin supporters — they get the equivalent of a fatwa from the “base.” Unlike other folk Palin knows who get Muslim fatwas for hanging out with such a flirtaceous girl. No Christian fatwas — yet — for her being so un-Biblical as to run for political office.

Back home, Palin’s having problems, too. A lawsuit to get the official Troopergate investigation (as opposed to the hand-picked Palin-appointee-run investigation) declared illegal has failed, and the state attorney general may actually have to turn around and compel people to obey those bothersome subpoenas. Including the “First Dude.”

On the other hand, she’s finally gotten a Fox-sponsored “do-over” on some of her more embarrassing Couric interview gaffes (like the whole Supreme Court decisions? What Supreme Court decisions? embarrassment. In the retake, Palin recites a brilliantly memorized answer — clearly she was well-briefed in case it came up during the debate. She also reveals that (I am not making this up) the reason she couldn’t name McCain reforms, or newspapers she reads, or SCOTUS decisions was that (I really am not making this up) she was annoyed (really) at being asked such questions. (You betcha!)

The only thing I will say in Palin’s defense is that while, yes, she utters that horrific mispronunciation of nuclear, “nucular,” no less a clever guy (and former nuclear sub engineer!) as Jimmy Carter had the same problem. So for that, even if it makes my teeth grind, she gets a pass.

Less passable is her populist appeal to mediocrity in the “base” — though, interestingly, some have suggested that Palin herself can be used as a “wedge issue” between the traditional conservatives (the Georgetown cocktail set that McCain despises so openly) and the social conservatives. It’s certainly an amusing idea.

But not as amusing as this.

Meanwhile … oh, yeah, there’s someone else on that ticket. Hmmm. Not much talk about Sen. McCain the past few days during all the Palin focus. The biggest news is that he’s pulling his campaign (as in “conceding”) pulling his campaign from (as in “conceding”) Michigan. That he did so before the VP debate indicates they didn’t think Palin’s performance would change anything — which may be why she didn’t know about it until today.

Of course, Palin was also out of the loop — as in, “agreeing with something that Obama said but that McCain criticized” — on interventionism in Pakistan. Though, of course, McCain used to say the same thing, before he didn’t.

A few other smatterings of McCain criticism out there, including a rather damning condemnation of his widely-touted support for veterans, as well as an observation that Candidate and Senator McCain is willing to vote for an earmark-laden bill that he’s promised President McCain would veto — which is perhaps why, after voting for it, he spoke out against it. Oh, and he

Which may be why his support among his “natural demographic” — seniors — is waning.

About Sen. Obama … well not much, except for the shocking news that he made Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person” List — and I’m sure even Margie would agree on that.

I won’t talk much about Sen. Biden, except that everything I would write about Biden and Obama’s views on gay rights and marriage (as described by Biden last night at the debate) was already written by Doyce first.

In more general election news, we have (i.e., I don’t want to come up with a paragraph to explain each one):

  • The Great Schlep – getting older Jews in Florida to vote for Obama like their kids are (humorous, NSFW).
  • Dead Candidate Options – what happens if (God forbid) a presidential candidate dies before the election … or after it.
  • Truth or Consequences – the plot thickens in the GOP “dirty tricks” scandal over using foreclosure rolls to challenge voters at the polls, as the official accused of saying that was the plan is suing for libel.

And so it goes.

 

55 view(s)  

5 thoughts on “***Dave Does the Election”

  1. Recently an insurance company nearly wind up….

    A bank is nearly bankrupt……

    How it affect you? Did you buy insurance? Did you buy mini note or bonds?

    Who fault?

    They bailout trouble finance company, but they will not bail out your credit card bills……You got no choice, and no point pointing finger but you can prevent similar things from happen again……

    The top management of the Public listed company ( belong to “public” ) salary should be tied a portion of it to the shares price ( IPO or ave 5 years )…. so when the shares price drop, it don’t just penalise the investors, but those who don’t take care of the company…..If this rule is pass on, without any need of further regulation, all industries ( as long as it is public listed ) will be self regulated……because the top management will be concern about their own pay check……

    Are you a partisan?

    Sign a petition to your favourite president candidate, congress member, House of representative again and ask for their views to comment on this, and what regulations they are going to raise for implementation…..If you agree on my point, please share with many people as possible….

    http://remindmyselfinstock.blogspot.com/

  2. Most CEO’s get part of their wages/bonus in stock, which is why they are always so keen at ‘efficiency savings’- ie sackings- which push up share prices. Bonuses usually are linked to profits, so they try any scheme to push up the bottom line (which also pushes up dividends and share price), hence the current can of worms. Unfortunately you are suggesting that they have their income even more dependent on what they were doing for short term gain.

  3. Agreed. It’s a delightfully tempting notion to have executive compensation tied directly to some sort of abstract notion of whether they did a good job — but that can be deucedly difficult to determine in a fashion that isn’t gameable. You’d need a multifaceted way of doing that — stock price, gross revenues, net margins, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, etc.

    I think what most people (extrapolating from a personal sample of one) get cheesed about is the “golden parachutes,” not what the execs draw year to year. The idea that someone can preside of a company crashing and burning, then walk away with gazillions of dollars, strikes a lot of people as ridiculous, unjust, and unfair. It would be nice to develop a system where that retirement/severance package is paid out over time, based on the ongoing performance of the company. That would certainly encourage long-term thinking.

    The problem, of course, is trying to dictate this, rather than encourage it. It’s an area of the economy I’m loathe to impose legal restrictions on (a minimum wage law makes sense; I’m not nearly so sanguine about a maximum wage law. I am a firm believer that “money finds a way” (cf. campaign finance laws), and except in exceptional cases (e.g., in a bailout bill), trying to mandate such things is ineffective at best, full of unintended consequences at worse.

  4. It’s too bad she was annoyed by the folks that interviewed her. In my book, that’s a legitimate excuse. Which is why, if she ever winds up in a position of power, I will surely be willing to accept that she didn’t negotiate the best possible deal for the US because she was annoyed with the other country’s leaders. Yup.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *