The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

[Enigma869]

It was announced today Obama called Nancy Reagan and apologized for his remark

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/o ... 1200829083

[Skylorde]

I gotta say, I watched this presser today and O was completley lacking in substance. Stupid questions about him buying a dog and his daughter being allergic, the totally classless slam at Nancy Reagan,

I don't think he was lacking in substance at all.

You have to keep in mind the press is ENAMORED with Obama. Obama's choice for a puppy will gather far more interest from the general public than boring and difficult to understand stories like the economy or the bailout.

That's not a reflection on Obama or the media, it's a reflection of we the people. Sad but true.

The Nancy Reagan remark was completely classless but he owned up to it. Give him some credit.

This guy may give W a run on stringing a few sentences together.

That is in-fucking-possible. Period.

[Rick]

Wow, where did this guy come from? Is this what you would call an atypical Republican?

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/23/v ... verything/

[Jana]

Uh-oh, Democrats. Rasmussen Reports just released a poll as of Friday that says 64 % of Republicans polled would like Sarah Palin to be their next presidential nominee for 2012. . Obama better not screw up. I'd feel better if that 64 % was Romney.

[Enigma869]

Uh-oh, Democrats. Rasmussen Reports just released a poll as of Friday that says 64 % of Republicans polled would like Sarah Palin to be their next presidential nominee for 2012. . Obama better not screw up. I'd feel better if that 64 % was Romney.

This just proves how moronic the Republicans who were part of this poll are! Palin couldn't be less qualified if she tried! Romney would be a GREAT choice and may even get my vote, if Obama isn't making progress!


John from Boston

[Jana]

Unfortunately, John, I guess the question would be would the far right evangelical base of the Republican party ever allow Romney to be the nominee because he's a Mormon. My guess is a resounding no. Too bad. I respect Romney. So Obama better kick ass, and if not, my girl Hillary better be waiting in the wings.

[ProgRocker53]

Unless Obama screws up bad, I honestly cannot think of a Republican ticket thrown at him that could lead to a GOP win in 2012.

[strangegrey]

Unless Obama screws up bad, I honestly cannot think of a Republican ticket thrown at him that could lead to a GOP win in 2012.

There are plenty...but Sarah Palin isn't one of them....and sadly, unless the Repukelican party changes something fierce, they will *never* convince the people that are truly capable of knocking the Messiah off his perch to actually run under the repukelican ticket.

[Rick]

Unless Obama screws up bad, I honestly cannot think of a Republican ticket thrown at him that could lead to a GOP win in 2012.

If Obama's presidency is successful, the GOP will nominate a minority for their next run, for sure.

[RossValoryRocks]

Unless Obama screws up bad, I honestly cannot think of a Republican ticket thrown at him that could lead to a GOP win in 2012.

If Obama's presidency is successful, the GOP will nominate a minority for their next run, for sure.

Got news for ya...it will take more than 4 years for the GOP to get their collective shit together in any meaningful way.

Even if Obama is not a very successful President, it won't matter, the GOP won't have found it's true identity by then.

So they will probably run a Dole type in 2012...a man who's turn it is to run for President, but who has no hope of winning.

Hopefully I will be in Congress by then, but that depends on a lot of things...I wonder if I can get Deano to be my campaign manager?

[Rick]

Unless Obama screws up bad, I honestly cannot think of a Republican ticket thrown at him that could lead to a GOP win in 2012.

If Obama's presidency is successful, the GOP will nominate a minority for their next run, for sure.

Got news for ya...it will take more than 4 years for the GOP to get their collective shit together in any meaningful way.

Even if Obama is not a very successful President, it won't matter, the GOP won't have found it's true identity by then.

So they will probably run a Dole type in 2012...a man who's turn it is to run for President, but who has no hope of winning.

Hopefully I will be in Congress by then, but that depends on a lot of things...I wonder if I can get Deano to be my campaign manager?

He could be your Mary Matalin. Has anyone ever actually seen her mouth move? Like a robot.

[Rick]

Unless Obama screws up bad, I honestly cannot think of a Republican ticket thrown at him that could lead to a GOP win in 2012.

If Obama's presidency is successful, the GOP will nominate a minority for their next run, for sure.

Got news for ya...it will take more than 4 years for the GOP to get their collective shit together in any meaningful way.

Even if Obama is not a very successful President, it won't matter, the GOP won't have found it's true identity by then.

So they will probably run a Dole type in 2012...a man who's turn it is to run for President, but who has no hope of winning.

Hopefully I will be in Congress by then, but that depends on a lot of things...I wonder if I can get Deano to be my campaign manager?

He could be your Mary Matalin. Has anyone ever actually seen her mouth move? Like a robot.

LOL! I always tell my wife to look at Marys mouth, she looks like she trying to be a ventrilquist.

There you go. If she gets tired of politics, she's got that to fall back on.

[strangegrey]

So they will probably run a Dole type in 2012...a man who's turn it is to run for President, but who has no hope of winning.

Good lord...!! LOL...Does that mean another bid by mccain?

[Enigma869]

Does that mean another bid by mccain?

That will NOT happen! McCain would have ZERO shot if he were to run again, at 76 years old! This was his shot and he was in an election that simply wasn't going to be won by ANY Republican!


John from Boston

[strangegrey]

Does that mean another bid by mccain?

That will NOT happen! McCain would have ZERO shot if he were to run again, at 76 years old! This was his shot and he was in an election that simply wasn't going to be won by ANY Republican!


John from Boston

Well, I disagree. I think that the republicans *could* have beaten obama. McCain took almost half the votes in this country, with a piss poorly run campaign, a prom queen for a running mate, and enough idiocy by the both of them to deep six ronald reagan's historic landslide against Mondale. I've often wondered if some republican's threw this election for one reason or another...as at times, they were engaging in such stupidity, that my 5 year old would've picked it apart.

The problem, is that the republicans have identified themselves (and more to the point, allowed others to identify them with) with shitbags like George Bush and John McCain. I mean....holy fuck....McCain. McCain's the guy that the right has been bitching about for 10 fucking years and more!!! This guy was the best they had to offer?

I submit, that had the republicans put up a true right conservative...that it could have been a tighter race. While I'm not asying any of this to take away from what Obama accomplished during this campaign.....there was MOST definitely a factor here where the republicans pissed away several opportunities...

[Enigma869]

Well, I disagree. I think that the republicans *could* have beaten obama. McCain took almost half the votes in this country, with a piss poorly run campaign, a prom queen for a running mate, and enough idiocy by the both of them to deep six ronald reagan's historic landslide against Mondale. I've often wondered if some republican's threw this election for one reason or another...as at times, they were engaging in such stupidity, that my 5 year old would've picked it apart.

The problem, is that the republicans have identified themselves (and more to the point, allowed others to identify them with) with shitbags like George Bush and John McCain. I mean....holy fuck....McCain. McCain's the guy that the right has been bitching about for 10 fucking years and more!!! This guy was the best they had to offer?

I submit, that had the republicans put up a true right conservative...that it could have been a tighter race. While I'm not asying any of this to take away from what Obama accomplished during this campaign.....there was MOST definitely a factor here where the republicans pissed away several opportunities...

My opinion is based on the fact that FAR more people said that age was an issue in this past election than race was. Because of that, I don't think McCain has ANY shot 4 years from now. The guy would have been older than Reagan was, if he had been elected this year, and Reagan was a FAR better poltiician than McCain will ever be! I just don't believe that you'll see this country elect a guy who is closer to 80 than 70 be elected POTUS!


John from Boston

[Rick]

Does that mean another bid by mccain?

That will NOT happen! McCain would have ZERO shot if he were to run again, at 76 years old! This was his shot and he was in an election that simply wasn't going to be won by ANY Republican!


John from Boston

Well, I disagree. I think that the republicans *could* have beaten obama. McCain took almost half the votes in this country, with a piss poorly run campaign, a prom queen for a running mate, and enough idiocy by the both of them to deep six ronald reagan's historic landslide against Mondale. I've often wondered if some republican's threw this election for one reason or another...as at times, they were engaging in such stupidity, that my 5 year old would've picked it apart.

The problem, is that the republicans have identified themselves (and more to the point, allowed others to identify them with) with shitbags like George Bush and John McCain. I mean....holy fuck....McCain. McCain's the guy that the right has been bitching about for 10 fucking years and more!!! This guy was the best they had to offer?

I submit, that had the republicans put up a true right conservative...that it could have been a tighter race. While I'm not asying any of this to take away from what Obama accomplished during this campaign.....there was MOST definitely a factor here where the republicans pissed away several opportunities...

Had this been a normal election, you're right, McCain could have and might just have won. The fact that people didn't want anything to do with the GOP after Bush had poisoned their waters is the biggest reason that Obama won as big as he did. Normally that would have never happened. He may have eked out a win, who knows? But it wouldn't have been this land slide we had this time.

[annpea]

I thought it was a very tasteless joke - if this is any preview of "the One's" sense of humor then we are in for a long 4 years.

How "Presidential" of that one. Mocking a woman who is about 800 years old and frail as can be. Was that really necessary?

Barb! Barb! Barb! 800 years old; now you know like I do Nancy isn't a day over 650 and delicate not frail, shame on you.

[strangegrey]

No no...

you guys are missing my point. I'm sorry...I might not have been clear..

At no time, do I, did I or will I say that John McCain ever had a shot at being president, being a worthy candidate for president....or being a worth candidate for the jiz mopper position at the local peep show.

The point I was making was that i think the republican's *could* have thrown up a candidate that would've given obama a run for his money.....McCain was a turkey shoot for Obama....in all respects.

Granted, this is assuming that the Republican Party knew what it doing...and had a clear vision of it's objectives....which is something I don't agree with.

but assuming all of that, I do believe they could have found someone that would have made this a tighter (and quite possibly a tougher) race for obama...

[treetopovskaya]

what obama supporters are up to since election. }:C)

(haha!)

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/o ... dded_video

[separate_wayz]

[Skylorde]

Nice huh?

Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Identify Bank Loans

Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Identify Bank Loans

By Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry and Alison Fitzgerald
Enlarge Image/Details

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

``The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that's a big problem,'' said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. ``In a liquid market, this wouldn't matter, but we're not. The market is very nervous and very thin.''

Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.

The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

``It's your money; it's not the Fed's money,'' said billionaire Ted Forstmann, senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co. in New York. ``Of course there should be transparency.''

Federal Reserve spokeswoman Michelle Smith declined to comment on the loans or the Bloomberg lawsuit. Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis didn't respond to a phone call and an e-mail seeking comment.

The Fed's lending is significant because the central bank has stepped into a rescue role that was also the purpose of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailout plan -- without safeguards put into the TARP legislation by Congress.

$2 Trillion

Total Fed lending topped $2 trillion for the first time last week and has risen by 140 percent, or $1.172 trillion, in the seven weeks since Fed governors relaxed the collateral standards on Sept. 14. The difference includes a $788 billion increase in loans to banks through the Fed and $474 billion in other lending, mostly through the central bank's purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds.

Before Sept. 14, the Fed accepted mostly top-rated government and asset-backed securities as collateral. After that date, the central bank widened standards to accept other kinds of securities, some with lower ratings. The Fed collects interest on all its loans.

The plan to purchase distressed securities through TARP called for buying at the ``lowest price that the secretary (of the Treasury) determines to be consistent with the purposes of this Act,'' according to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the law that covers TARP.

`We Need Transparency'

The legislation didn't require any specific method for the purchases beyond saying mechanisms such as auctions or reverse auctions should be used ``when appropriate.'' In a reverse auction, bidders offer to sell securities at successively lower prices, helping to ensure that the Fed would pay less. The measure also included a five-member oversight board that includes Paulson and Bernanke.

At a Sept. 23 Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington, Paulson called for transparency in the purchase of distressed assets under the TARP program.

``We need oversight,'' Paulson told lawmakers. ``We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.''

At a joint House-Senate hearing the next day, Bernanke also stressed the importance of openness in the program. ``Transparency is a big issue,'' he said.

Banks Resist Disclosure

The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks, which gave the Fed collateral in the form of equities and debt, including subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed web site. The borrowers have included the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Banks oppose any release of information because it might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group.

``You have to balance the need for transparency with protecting the public interest,'' Talbott said. ``Taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going, but one piece of information standing alone could undermine public confidence in the system.''

Frank Backs Fed

The nation's biggest banks, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, declined to comment on whether they have borrowed money from the Fed. They received $120 billion in capital from the TARP, which was signed into law Oct. 3.

In an interview Nov. 6, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said the Fed's disclosure is sufficient and that the risk the central bank is taking on is appropriate in the current economic climate. Frank said he has discussed the program with Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a possible candidate to succeed Paulson as Treasury secretary.

``I talk to Geithner and he was pretty sure that they're OK,'' said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. ``If the risk is that the Fed takes a little bit of a haircut, well that's regrettable.'' Such losses would be acceptable, he said, if the program helps revive the economy.

Frank said the Fed shouldn't reveal the assets it holds or how it values them because of ``delicacy with respect to pricing.'' He said such disclosure would ``give people clues to what your pricing is and what they might be able to sell us and what your estimates are.'' He wouldn't say why he thought that information would be problematic.

`Unclog the Market'

Revealing how the Fed values collateral could help thaw frozen credit markets, said Ron D'Vari, chief executive officer of NewOak Capital LLC in New York and the former head of structured finance at BlackRock Inc.

``I'd love to hear the methodology, how the Fed priced the assets,'' D'Vari said. ``That would unclog the market very quickly.''

TARP's $700 billion so far is being used to buy preferred shares in banks to shore up their capital. The program was originally intended to hold banks' troubled assets while markets were frozen.

The Bloomberg lawsuit argues that the collateral lists ``are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression.''

AIG Lending

The Fed has lent at least $81 billion to American International Group Inc., the world's largest insurer, so that it can pay obligations to banks. The central bank is also responsible for losses on a $26.8 billion portfolio guaranteed after Bear Stearns Cos. was bought by JPMorgan.

``As a taxpayer, it is absolutely important that we know how they're lending money and who they're lending it to,'' said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia- based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Ultimately, the Fed will have to remove some securities held as collateral from some programs because the central bank's rules call for instruments rated below investment grade to be taken back by the borrower and marked down in value. Losses on those assets could then be written off, partly through the capital recently injected into those banks by the Treasury.

Moody's Investors Service alone has cut its ratings on 926 mortgage-backed securities worth $42 billion to junk from investment grade since Sept. 14, making them ineligible for collateral on some Fed loans.

The Fed's collateral ``absolutely should be made public,'' said Mark Cuban, an activist investor, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team and the creator of the Web site BailoutSleuth.com, which focuses on the secrecy shrouding the Fed's moves.

To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net; Bob Ivry in New York at bivry@bloomberg.net; Alison Fitzgerald in Washington at afitzgerald2@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 10, 2008 00:01 EST

[JrnySuxBalls]

It's been fun watching Hannity's hair turn grey this year.

[RossValoryRocks]

It's been fun watching Hannity's hair turn grey this year.

This is the best thing in the world for conservative talk...they are going to have even bigger audiences, and make more money...until the fairness doctrine gets established...

[The_Noble_Cause]

...until the fairness doctrine gets established...

Re-established.

[separate_wayz]

...until the fairness doctrine gets established...

Re-established.

Re-establishment of garbage -- the Un-Fairness Doctrine.

The (Un)Fairness Doctrine's purpose isn't to promote discussion of controversial topics. It's to shut down political opposition.

Gosh I hope we don't go down the road of threatening suppression of political opposition. Someone might just decide to respond by watering the tree of liberty, so to speak.

[RossValoryRocks]

...until the fairness doctrine gets established...

Re-established.

It was wrong then...and it is wrong now...it limits freedom of speech, and put unreasonable pressure on business owners to conform to a business model that can't sustain itself (That would be liberal talk radio: It has been tried and proven to NOT be successful.)

[The_Noble_Cause]

It was wrong then...and it is wrong now...it limits freedom of speech, and put unreasonable pressure on business owners to conform to a business model that can't sustain itself (That would be liberal talk radio: It has been tried and proven to NOT be successful.)

Has nothing to do with 50/50 equal liberal content...the only people saying that are the right wing liars on the radio.
The fact that you unquestioningly accept their version of reality just proves how desperately it needs to be reinstated.

[The_Noble_Cause]

...until the fairness doctrine gets established...

Re-established.

Re-establishment of garbage -- the Un-Fairness Doctrine.

The (Un)Fairness Doctrine's purpose isn't to promote discussion of controversial topics. It's to shut down political opposition.

Gosh I hope we don't go down the road of threatening suppression of political opposition. Someone might just decide to respond by watering the tree of liberty, so to speak.

And it would shut down political opposition how?

[mikemarrs]

On Oct. 1, President Bush deployed a battle hardened infantry brigade on US soil. Their stated purpose was to provide assistance in a terrorist attack or natural disaster and to provide assistance in crowd control.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/a ... d_090708w/

They were slated to have an exercise during Oct. 15 - 20. This was rescheduled (reason unknown) for Nov. 12 - 18. The name of this exercise is 'Vigilant Shield '08'. It's supposed to simulate nuclear attacks on three major cities.

http://www.northcom.mil/News/2007/083007.html


http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/110508.html

There have been six world leaders who have warned that the US is in imminent danger of terrorist attack. Three of these ominous warnings have come in the last 72 hours. A couple of the warnings have alluded to "nuclear". There have also been many anthrax related incidents happening lately. On Oct. 1st, a law was passed that made makers of anthrax vaccines and other bioterror vaccines not liable from any side effects or deaths that may occur from their vaccines or if the vaccines don't work.

http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/isr ... ours-.html


http://www.theage.com.au/world/warning- ... -5kxu.html