is that James Carville ?

He's starting to look a bit like a James Carville impersonator

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

the carville impression was pretty sharp. very talented man.

Why are you so supprised ?
The guy is an RNC mouthpiece, they love pandering to the religious ignorant, and the religious claim to morality is one of the cornerstones of its arrogance over other / non-religious.

It'd be a shock if he agreed with carville.

Dont even get me started on his claim to separation of church and state...there's plenty of states with religious tests before gaining office.
Its a fucking shame.

There was a time QM when people gave a shit what you had to say, even if they disagreed with you. But those days are over. You've gone from having a relevant message from a certain point of view, to meaningless immature insults based on someones looks or childish plays on their names etc ..
Worthless.

>> ^quantumushroom:
This from folliclly-challenged Skeletor with a face dunked in lemon juice.

"you have the eggheads pointing fingers at the dittoheads . . . " James Carville

^ Hey OperationMindCrime, nice try

Check out 1:13 into the video, a clear (if indirect) reference to Obama. SHE brought him up first, with that weird labotamy gaze of hers. SHE brought him into it, Carville just responded to her insinuations.

Also, aside from the creative name calling, whats yer beef with Biden or Obama? Or are you just one of the Palinistas and don't feel like others are allowed to question your assertions?

Carville is bald for the same reason vultures don't have feathers on their heads. When you constantly stick your head in crap, you don't want hair/feathers to give it something to stick to.

Carville is a professional turdpolisher and he's rather good at it. He's so smooth with his attack that none of *YOU* people even noticed that he's not arguing apples-to-apples. Congratulations on a successful smokescreen which compares the Democrat Presidential candidate to the person who will only become important if McCain dies or becomes otherwise incapacitated.

If you all want to compare Palin with someone, the correct counterpart is the liberal-holocaust-on-legs, Joe Biden.

These political jousting shows just keep getting angrier. I'd love to see a tag team cage match between Robert Novak-Tucker Carlson and James Carville-Paul Begala.

>> ^deedub81:
I understand that the kind of vetting that you refer to holds value. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a deep examination into his career.

Yeah, we've done that too.

I understand exactly why people vote for him. That's why I debate the issues. Because there isn't enough of that going on.

I agree. I think if there were, we'd be seeing Obama at 60%+ in the polls.

It's mostly just propaganda. I believe my point is still valid: Just because people are comfortable, doesn't mean they know much about his policies and voting history. According to something I heard on the radio today, while serving on the Illinois State Senate, despite the fact that he was present, Barack Obama was unable to decide yea or nay, 130 times.

Actually, you just proved your own point about propaganda. Have you even heard the reason for the present votes? It's a convention available in the Illinois state senate to communicate that you support a bill in principle, but can't vote for it because of some the details you disagree with.

Also, that was 130 present votes...out of over 4,000.

My argument is one-sided because I'm not defending anyone who is running for President. I'm not Pro-McCain, I'm Anti-Obama.

Big cop out. So you're not for anything, just anti-Obama? Why? You don't know enough about him? Have you even read his positions on his website, or his many, many rebuttals to the concerns you've raised?

If not, why not?

If it's an ideological schism, shouldn't you be boning up on Palin, Barr, or McCain? If none of them suffice, why not try to figure out who would, and help them out with a 2012 run?

Do you realize how much our deficit, the weakening dollar, and the high price of fuel have in common. It's a snowball effect that trickles down to the price of food and the wages we're paid. Getting the country out of debt is on my top 3 list of things for the next Pres to accomplish. I want him to whittle the deficit down as much as possible.

Yes, I do, and all three have different fixes. As for deficit, did you vote for Bush? Did you encourage the impeachment of Clinton? Did you like Ronald Reagan?

If you answered yes to one or more, I think you should be explaining to me why you helped get us where we are today, and how much extra tax money you're willing to pay to fix it, rather than trying to tell others that Obama isn't going to help.

If you don't mind, could you cite your sources on those projected deficit figures you references? I'd love to read up on that.

I did. There's a PDF with the full details. The deficit numbers are given as a full 1st term total, I just divided them by 4.

It would definitely change my opinion of Obama if they turn out to be accurate. I just can't imagine that they are. I wouldn't think he's been specific enough for somebody to put together numbers like that (Although, I have been wrong once or twice before).

Read the link yourself. As I said, they're a pretty elaborate straw man, but they do cover the commitments made (except for "emergency spending" requests for war). My favorite part is the diagram showing whose tax plan benefits who most.

The weakest part is that they include those "unverified savings provided by the campaign". Part of me wants to delete those from consideration, but doing that just narrows the gap, it doesn't reverse who has the lower deficit.

^NetRunner: That's what vetting for political office entails -- searching a candidate's past for any tabloid-style scandals that could come out of nowhere to torpedo your chances, regardless of your policy positions. People have been doing that to Obama all over the world for some 20 months now.

I understand that the kind of vetting that you refer to holds value. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a deep examination into his career.

Not to be too snide, but you do understand how elections work, right? People very often will vote for who they feel "comfortable" with, above any other consideration. Generally speaking (and I realize that the 2000 and 2004 elections didn't work this way), the person who gets more votes gets the Presidency. I suppose that's a popularity contest.

I understand exactly why people vote for him. That's why I debate the issues. Because there isn't enough of that going on. It's mostly just propaganda.
I believe my point is still valid: Just because people are comfortable, doesn't mean they know much about his policies and voting history. According to something I heard on the radio today, while serving on the Illinois State Senate, despite the fact that he was present, Barack Obama was unable to decide yea or nay, 130 times.

Before I address your specific concerns, I'll note that you're phrasing the argument in terms of Obama's plan, rather than touting the superiority of another candidates'. Perhaps you're part of the media elite that the DNC controls who can't stop talking about Obama?

I also need to ask when Republicans are planning on holding Bush accountable for his deficit? You know, that $482 billion one you mentioned, plus the "emergency" spending levied for the war in Iraq that wasn't on the budget. Never? Is McCain somehow immune from being held responsible for the Republican party's failings over the last 8 years, despite being that party's standard-bearer?

Politics aside, you're making a valid (if one-sided) argument -- based purely on policy promises from Obama, the proposed tax plan doesn't pay for the spending proposals. But McCain's doesn't either.

My argument is one-sided because I'm not defending anyone who is running for President. I'm not Pro-McCain, I'm Anti-Obama.

If a balanced budget is your primary economic concern (and it's not my primary one, personally), here's what the two candidates offer:

Obama does not commit to balance the budget, just reduce the deficit, and his plan looks to reduce the level to approx $250bn/yr.

McCain on the other hand commits to balancing the budget in his first term, but his proposals point to a $370bn/yr deficit.

Which makes you more comfortable?


Do you realize how much our deficit, the weakening dollar, and the high price of fuel have in common. It's a snowball effect that trickles down to the price of food and the wages we're paid. Getting the country out of debt is on my top 3 list of things for the next Pres to accomplish. I want him to whittle the deficit down as much as possible.

If you don't mind, could you cite your sources on those projected deficit figures you references? I'd love to read up on that. It would definitely change my opinion of Obama if they turn out to be accurate. I just can't imagine that they are. I wouldn't think he's been specific enough for somebody to put together numbers like that (Although, I have been wrong once or twice before).

>> ^Jinx:
Never ever criticise a woman guys, you'll be accused of sexism.


Criticizing anyone who is not a 25-35 year old, white, healthy, affluent man is SOME sort of -ism.

>> ^deedub81:
You think Obama has been vetted? By whom? The only thing about Obama that has been under the microscope is his personal life before politics. The media has spoken about his mother and his place of birth and his religion and his skin color and his wife until they were blue in the face.

That's what vetting for political office entails -- searching a candidate's past for any tabloid-style scandals that could come out of nowhere to torpedo your chances, regardless of your policy positions. People have been doing that to Obama all over the world for some 20 months now.

Just because people are comfortable with him, doesn't mean they know anything about him. It's because he won the popularity contest that is the DNC by first landing in the good graces of the media.

Not to be too snide, but you do understand how elections work, right? People very often will vote for who they feel "comfortable" with, above any other consideration. Generally speaking (and I realize that the 2000 and 2004 elections didn't work this way), the person who gets more votes gets the Presidency. I suppose that's a popularity contest.

As for winning the media's attention, I would point out that even the right-wing media spends more time covering Obama than McCain, just the nature of the coverage is even more negative than other outlet. He's new, and he's interesting -- people are going to naturally talk about him more.

They've kinda forgotten him for Palin in the last week, 'cause she's newer, and potentially more interesting.

Again, I don't like McCain and I know that there are people out there that are much more qualified to be VP than Palin.

On this we agree.

Obama favors "pay-as-you-go" accounting so new spending or tax cuts are offset by program cuts or increased revenue, but he hasn't said how he would pay for all his tax proposals.
One thing in particular eats at me: How is he going to pay for universal-health-care and all his other promises? Is he going to give us all heath care by the time he leaves office? WHEN he doesn't make that happen, are the democrats going to hold him accountable?
What about the $482 Billion deficit? He's gonna save the American economy by cutting taxes, providing $300 Billion in guarantees for mortgage renegotiations, providing universal-health care and still, somehow, he'll manage to pay down the deficit?

Before I address your specific concerns, I'll note that you're phrasing the argument in terms of Obama's plan, rather than touting the superiority of another candidates'. Perhaps you're part of the media elite that the DNC controls who can't stop talking about Obama?

I also need to ask when Republicans are planning on holding Bush accountable for his deficit? You know, that $482 billion one you mentioned, plus the "emergency" spending levied for the war in Iraq that wasn't on the budget. Never? Is McCain somehow immune from being held responsible for the Republican party's failings over the last 8 years, despite being that party's standard-bearer?

Politics aside, you're making a valid (if one-sided) argument -- based purely on policy promises from Obama, the proposed tax plan doesn't pay for the spending proposals. But McCain's doesn't either.

In fact, the Tax Policy Center's most recent study shows that McCain's plans would put us about $500bn further in debt than Obama, even with his "unspecified spending cuts provided by the campaign" included.

I haven't read the fine print of the study, but Obama's health care plan does include charging people for its use (even if it is a sliding scale based on income), and I'm not sure if that revenue is being factored in. For that matter, I'm honestly not sure if the sliding scale with actual prices has even been developed or published.

I would also point out, that Obama has ruled out balancing the budget in his first term. Restoring PAYGO rules just means new spending has to be offset, it doesn't put the existing set of taxes & spending back into balance after the Republican party's drunken sailor policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending.

McCain's promised to balance the budget, but he's offered no numbers or collection of promises that would make that even remotely possible, even if he gets a full 8 years.

I think politician's policy proposals aren't worthy of a study like the TPC did -- they're not going to become word-for-word policy if the candidate is elected. They're just there to give you an idea of the kinds of changes the candidate plans on making.

If a balanced budget is your primary economic concern (and it's not my primary one, personally), here's what the two candidates offer:

Obama does not commit to balance the budget, just reduce the deficit, and his plan looks to reduce the level to approx $250bn/yr.

McCain on the other hand commits to balancing the budget in his first term, but his proposals point to a $370bn/yr deficit.

Which makes you more comfortable?

*obligatory thanking of you for your service* It doesn't matter that you've served twice! You think the best way to curb illegal immigration is not amnesty or guest worker programs, but driving them to the INS building and laughing as they scatter! Vote no on MG for President!

Also, he uses toilet paper completely wrong. Vote NO!

>> ^MarineGunrock:
I've been deployed overseas. Twice. I win.