Obama Opens Up a 9-Point Lead

[Naked Gents Rut]

Yes, I'm delighted that the only candidate capable of fixing this mess is poised to win.

Neither candidate is capable of fixing this mess; both of their answers about the financial crisis at the first debate were embarrassing. At least McCain talked about having to restrain federal spending in the wake of the bailout, but I imagine he did that out of some knee-jerk ideological desire for small government rather than as a reasoned response to the perils of the ballooning U.S. federal debt.

You were alive during Vietnam?

I fought in Vietnam. Danang, 1968. ****ed up, man...

[Theben]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the numerous examples of this on the internet.

Hell, even their fellow liberals are disgusted.

Even liberals get taken in by wingnut rhetoric from time to time.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Neither candidate is capable of fixing this mess; both of their answers about the financial crisis at the first debate were embarrassing. At least McCain talked about having to restrain federal spending in the wake of the bailout, but I imagine he did that out of some knee-jerk ideological desire for small government rather than as a reasoned response to the perils of the ballooning U.S. federal debt.

Obama had the better answer on this question, actually. McCain's response was absurd, and as Obama stated, applying a hatchet where one needs a scalpel. A total freeze on spending is untenable. Obama listed several areas in which spending could be curtailed without resorting to a knee-jerk ideological position, as you say.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What is so untenable about a spending freeze? I mean if the outlays are going to be so much, shouldn't the government keep spending the same instead of increasing it by 3-4%, as it does every year?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What is so untenable about a spending freeze? I mean if the outlays are going to be so much, shouldn't the government keep spending the same instead of increasing it by 3-4%, as it does every year?

He didn't say to just stop the increase in spending, he said a freeze on everything except defense, entitlement programs and veteran's affairs. Unless "spending freeze" doesn't mean what those words together actually says...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
He didn't say to just stop the increase in spending, he said a freeze on everything except defense and veteran's affairs. Unless "spending freeze" doesn't mean what those words together actually say.

In government speak, spending freeze means keep it at the same level.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=FB652769-3048-5C12-006563F0B10EB827

A one-year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction. A one-year pause in the growth of discretionary spending will be imposed to allow for a comprehensive review of all spending programs

If it meant to stop funding everything except defense and vet affairs, more people in my office (I work for the federal government) would be scared utterly to death.

[Boris Godunov]

Fair enough, but I still don't think that's remotely realistic, given that A) the overwhelming bulk of our spending is defense and entitlement programs, and B) he is still advocating huge tax cuts for the wealthy. If he backs off the tax cuts, that *might* make more of a dent in the deficit. But more tax cuts would be disastrous. Even Bush Sr. had the integrity to realize the only way to dig out of a hole like that is to increase tax revenues.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What is so untenable about a spending freeze? I mean if the outlays are going to be so much, shouldn't the government keep spending the same instead of increasing it by 3-4%, as it does every year?

For one example, Obama is planning massive grants for research and development of alternative fuels. This is important (a) to insure future energy supplies and economic growth; (b) to ween us off of foreign oil and to reduce our trade imbalance and (c) to fight global warming.

Why would we prevent ourselves for achieving this by freezing the budget while simulantiously protecting pork barrel projects, which have already been written into the budget?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obama has actually, IIRC, backed away from that due to the economic crisis. I think he actually used that as his example to cut in the debate.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Obama has actually, IIRC, backed away from that due to the economic crisis. I think he actually used that as his example to cut in the debate.

He stated SOME portions of it might have to be cut.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wouldn't that make it... well... non-MASSIVE?

[Boris Godunov]

Here's a roundup of the latest tracking polls:

Latest Trackers
Rasmussen Reports
O 51%
M 44%

Gallup
O 49%
M 42%

Diageo Hotline
O 48%
M 42%

R2K
O 51%
M 40%

Tracking National Average
O 50%
M 42%

Now, if you want to see some seriously hilarious spin, I present to you this nugget from the McCain campaign:

"I am sure that Barack Obama and his campaign today are frustrated because despite the unmitigated negative campaign they have run for the last three weeks, despite the financial crisis that is facing our nation, despite their massive spending in the last ten days, they are having a tough time breaking 50. And certainly they are concerned that the same thing that happened to them in the primaries, where all the undecided voters broke against them in the end, is weighing heavily on their minds."

That's right. Obama has to be so very worried that he's only broached 50% a few times in the national polls, but McCain is in a great spot, mired in the low 40s. Mmm-hmmm

Jebus, I have to wonder how these people don't break down laughing/crying when they spew this nonsense.

[Velociryx]

Boris, I second your point.

What I haven't quite figured out yet is how Club McCain can cast themselves as a "Maverick"...sort of the naughty repug, the outsider, etc....when he is ANYTHING but, and a quick look at his voting record reveals him to be essentially more of what we've had for the last eight years (how's that worked out for us? Oh...total clusterfvck, that's right...yeah, let's sign up for some more of that!...."you darned right!" - thank you Ms. Palin, for your one contribution to this election).

Anybody want to help me understand where the "maverick" image is supposed to be coming from?

My God in heaven, if the Dems can't win in this election year, they should disband as a party. My cat (who died two weeks ago), could pwn these "mavericks."



-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

I think Biden did particularly well when he called Palin on that. He said that supporting every Bush policy isn't being a maverick. All Palin could say is that McCain didn't support not sending enough troops to Afghanistan or something stupid like that.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Anybody want to help me understand where the "maverick" image is supposed to be coming from?

It comes from the actual record of bucking his own party and working across the aisle that McCain has and Obama doesn't. It's pretty lame when the best example of bipartisanship that Obama can trot out is an uncontroversial bill to extend a threat reduction program that Sam Nunn actually did all the hard work in creating.

I guess Obama also set up a website with Tom Coburn. That's certainly more bipartisan and important than McCain-Feingold or McCain-Kennedy.