Like I said in the other post, PA is almost always under a 10% spread in Presidential elections. Don't write us off just yet.

I've never understood the theory that by weakening the US we're somehow becoming safer. Or that by bleeding those who provide jobs, we're somehow increasing the supply of those jobs and the amount those jobs will pay. Or that we can't drill our way out of an oil shortage. (Admittedly, it's not a short-term solution - but you're looking to the long run, right?)

I'm starting to think an automatic contrarian position to any Democratic proposal has a much better chance of working in the real world (as opposed to a 'reality-based' construct) than any other course of action. If Dems say we HAVE to do something, it's pretty much a given it's the wrong thing to do. If they say we DON'T need to do something (like fix Social Security) then we'd better figure out what to do, and real damn soon...

So if Dems are trying to persuade REAL HARD that they've already won the election and Repubs should just stay home... they're REALLY worried.

JLawson,
I agree with you except for the part about drilling now not being a short term solution. There are many places in this country that could bring oil to market within a year or less. This would help reduce demand here and send a message to other producing countries that we are working towards independence. The percentage of oil we bring in from the middle east could be replaced by our own production in a relatively short time. However, San Fran Nan has already said that the offshore ban will be re-instated right after the election so this is academic.
A big reason not to stay home.

Steve:

That was not a test of a new missile, it was a test of an old one for the purpose of determining shelf life. We don't know how much went into preparing it for the shot. Given the military budget constraints, I suspect that the real purpose was to get money for the "Navy" Strategic Missile Troops, which puzzles me since the main SMT have been underfunded for a long time starting in the early 90's. Maybe it is the usual Service Wars that we see here in the US.

If ordered out of the silos, I have no idea how many would fly and how many would blow up over Russian soil.

Of course even a few hundred successful launches would create a nuclear wasteland over most of the Northern Hemisphere. MAD seems to be alive and well.

Larry -

You're right. Pardon my haste. Should not deter from the point, however.

It is amazing how purely defensive systems - with no offensive attributes - can so rile the Left. They should be the one type of systems that they whole-heartedly champion.

But they don't. Why? It's not about defense. It's about the gradual creep toward socialism, a 50-year creep that has enough confidence now to roll into a dead sprint.

How effective has the pervasive message been through co-opting the education and media establishments of this country over the past 40 years? Effective to the point that their candidate can say "spreading the wealth around is good for everyone" and still be championed as the favorite.

The next two election cycles will be defined as 'blowback' and the awakening of the American people.

And the venom from ed/media and political elites will be unmatched, and only to the detriment of their own cause.

Sarah Palin is doing a couple of stops in Iowa this weekend. I wonder if their internals are showing a much tighter race there as well.

MPR -

I'm aware of what we could do re 'land-based' oil, but I'm looking at offshore drilling and the lead time to get platforms in place. (Thus the 'long-term solution'...)

Re Pelosi and oil - sigh. SHE doesn't live in the same world the rest of us do. Gas goes up to $4-5-6-7 a gallon? Who cares? She's got HER millions, so what if the rest of us peons have to pay more?

Only difference between her and 18th Century French Royalty is that she bathes much more often and her hairstyles and clothing aren't so ornate.

I'm very happy to hear about Pennsylvania. Thank you Pennsylvanians for seeing that the biggest threat to our nation at this very time is an Obama Presidency!

Get the new unabridged Obama Dictionary. Over 1000 pages of words and definitions, though every entry states:

Syn. black (see racism)

Re Pelosi and oil - sigh. SHE doesn't live in the same world the rest of us do. Gas goes up to $4-5-6-7 a gallon? Who cares? She's got HER millions, so what if the rest of us peons have to pay more?

What a silly straw man. The speaker believes that more drilling would be a crutch to lean on and prolong American dependence on fossil fuels. Disagree with that if you want, but don't misrepresent. Don't try to tell me that the champion of the fair minimum wage act doesn't care about the poor and middle classes. Just more of the same old 'dems are elitists' malarkey.

Yea Parthy! Nancy Pelosi represents the average person. Golly! I can't stop laughing at that. Not because you said it, but because you believe it. ww

Doesn't look good.

parthenon:

Well, maybe.

What a silly straw man. The speaker believes that more drilling would be a crutch to lean on and prolong American dependence on fossil fuels. Disagree with that if you want, but don't misrepresent. Don't try to tell me that the champion of the fair minimum wage act doesn't care about the poor and middle classes. Just more of the same old 'dems are elitists' malarkey.

The Speaker may or may not believe. It is that she decided to buy into Boone Pickens' energy play on the first day either at preferential rates or first day rates as the case may be. She now has a financial interest in wind power and natural gas as a fuel alternative for gas.

The problem is that there is no current substitute for crude oil as an energy supply. Ethanol is a joke and natural gas has no distribution. Wind power is a sometimes thing, but at best, would only supply a bit less than 10% of our needs and only then if there are "Standby systems" that power the rest of the time.

See columns by Ed Wallace for more detail. And yea, he is a pragmatic expert.

Problem is that our elitist Left Wing establishment lacks the unfiltered facts to get it right. That may or may not include you. We need as much internally produced energy as we can get. And that currently can only come from drilling either on or off shore. Off Shore, some supply could be flowing in less than a year.

"All of the above" is the approach that works if you exclude ethanol from the equation. That would be best for the "average" person, who the Democratic Party claims to represent. When gas gets over $3.00 per gallon, Mr. and Mrs. Average American have to start making choices that squeezes their need life style instead of their want life style. "Let see Dear, do we get winter clothes for the kids and cut back on what we eat, or wait on winter clothes hoping that gas prices will come down."

BTW, please define a "Fair" minimum wage. And then sell it to the high school kids who can no longer get a job in the summer and who are having a hard time getting one after graduation because the supply of "Starting" jobs has declined under the increase in minimum wage. Please note that I am not saying the minimum wage should be lower, just pointing the inconvenient and unintended consequences.

You won't think it's silly to spend money on missile defense if Iran and N. Korea get what they want.

Steve:

Many, many years ago, I have vague memories of a so-called KGB long term plot to infiltrate our journalism schools and the education programs of Universities. I seem to remember that it was a budget thing in that long term plots and schemes were actually better funded for the KGB than was current spy activities.

I have a bunch of disjointed and unconnected facts that seem to support that impression.

What say you?

We don't need no stinkin missile defense system. All of the terrorists nations will go back to flying kites and playing skip rope when the 'chosen one' is elected.
I'm just glad I don't live in any medium to large city. Slow Joe Biden's prediction will come true and then and only then will the democrats realize their mistake. But by then Hussein may have his civilian defense force made up of the Nation of Islam and black panthers, aka Gestapo, in operation and become president for life. The always cowardly anti-american democrats will roll over and lick his hand, and other parts of his body.

IMHO, for McCain to win this election, he has to aggressively distinguish himself from Obama on the economy, and come up with a way of selling why his economic plan would be different and better. Big news that favors McCain has to happen on that front between now and then, or it's over. If (in my opinion, when, not if) McCain loses the election, you'll be able to trace it back to when McCain suspended his campaign to assist in the writing of this spectacularly stupid bailout fiasco. That's when he sent the message to every American that he's no different than Obama on this topic.

Republicans will never win elections by trying to be more liberal than their opponents, which is exactly what McCain has attempted to do on the biggest topic of the election right now.

Oh, and one more thing about Ms. Speaker (And Obama).

Both of those turkeys come from a Metropolitan area - city - where mass transit is available.

A large part of the country lives outside of the availability of mass transit, and I actually think it is a majority.

Another thing that McCain campaign is allowing the Democrats and the media to do is to paint him as exceedingly partisan and dirty; as though the Democrats are somehow above all that, when they're not. He's allowing the narrative to control him, rather than redefining it.

Sorry to be negative, but McCain is flailing and I don't think he'll carry Pennsylvania for that reason. Unless Murtha and Biden say a few more incredibly stupid things between now and November 4th, which seems to be a good possibility.

"the champion of the fair minimum wage act doesn't care about the poor and middle classes"

Yeah, quite a champion what with her family business using non-union labor.

Just when will the energy technology replacing fossil fuels be available? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? There has been no reasonable replacement POC'ed much less alpha or beta tested. In the meantime our fine, accomplished speaker will continue to "champion" the poor and middle class...lolol.

Here's a little secret for you. The people you say she cares so much about are the ones paying the highest % of their disposable income to energy, They are the first to get layed off when high energy costs force their employer into layoffs. They are hit the hardest when the price of goods and services increase due to energy prices.

And all this is occurring while lefties and their "chosen one" meet in San Francisco and discuss how the poor and middle class are so bitter and cling to their guns. No elitism there!!!

Of course I'm sure this paragon of concern, Ms. Pelosi, wouldn't be pandering to the psycoenviro left......nahh, couldn't happen.

sorry guys.. its over. next month mccain loses and obama wins

maybe mccain and palin can reunite and try again in 2012?

Code words for reading stupid MSM opinion pieces:

Waste of Time.

This has got to be the most idiotic election of all time. Every Leftist has literally lost his mind.

I weep for this country, but I suppose we deserve what we get if it's The One. If only our educational and news systems would support this democracy . . .

Sorry peabody300,

It ain't over till William Ayers is in jail where he belongs.

Obama and the media would like folks to believe it's over, but it's not and Obama, the empty suite from Kenya will not win even after all the voter fraud, illegal donations, and his inability to hide his subversive past.

I'll be wearing a raincoat on Nov. 5th to protect me from the exploding heads of Kos Kids when they figure their messiah lost in a landslide. I'll also be packing for protection from those very tolerant liberals too.

ok piso good luck with that =)

mitchell im curious..

from what i see, the US is collapsing in many ways. obviously wall st is a huge issue but we also have a huge loss in our international standing, which is where a lot of our economic power came from, and a loss of moral standing from most of the world, which we had depended on to keep a balanced foreign policy. with or without the bailout on the balance sheet, our budget deficit has topped half a trillion and the nat'l debt over $10 trillion, plus a great deal of off-the-books debt. thanks to the iraq war which revealed none of the threats that bu$h lured us to war with, we have almost no resources left to bargain and harball it with iran, or with russia as they embark on remaking their empire

this has all transpired in the last 8 years

do you:
a) feel that we dont have these problems
b) feel that these problems are the dems fault
c) feel they are bu$h and co's fault

thx

Parthoen said
" Don't try to tell me that the champion of the fair minimum wage act doesn't care about the poor and middle classes. "

Know what happens when the minimum wage goes up? Union wages go up. Who does the union vote for and give money to? Democrats.

Know what else happens?

Business offset increased costs by a. raising prices or b. cutting workforce.

Who is going to get fired? Minimum wage workers.

Champion of the poor my behind. You are lost and truly clueless with that kool aid glass stuck to your mouth.

Pennsylvania? Good luck!

The big problem with such a strategy, however, is this:

4,060,647
2,917,747
869,707

Those are the current numbers of registered and active Democrats, Republicans and independents in Pennsylvania. Democrats make up more than half the total -- 52 percent, in fact -- well outdistancing the Republican's 33 percent. Suppose that McCain were to split Pennsylvania's independents with Obama and win Republicans 92-8. He would need to carry 23-24 percent of Pennsylvania's Democrats to win the state; George Bush carried 15 percent.

cf.

Mantis, figure in Murtha calling the west half of Pa. racist rednecks. True or not, it helps McCain.

Pea(brain) it is funny you did not add a forth choice. GW and Congress (both parties) approved of the Iraq war. Plain and simple plus constitutional. This is the dems war as much as GW's. ww

you are addressing just a small piece of the woes that have come down on our country lately, but lets examine that:

the dems may have helped pass the resolution, but as im sure youre aware, it was not a war resolution and the dems were on record as opposing an invasion of iraq, and the resolution had several conditions that were to be met in the event that any force was to be used. none of those conditions were met to the democrats satisfaction (or the int'l community's, for that matter), as they were again on record about, and the subsequent invasion was performed by the bu$h administration going against the spirit of the resolution with the heavy backup of the bare GOP congressional majority, not to mention a great deal of falsified intel

you remember that, right?

Live you your world pea. Your clouds are marshmellows and the sky is green.

I guess what you are saying is the democrats are extremely stupid. They do not know what they are authorizing. ww

Don't feed the troofer trolls.

ah but there is no wiggle room for you, bu$h apologists. the resolution was not a war resolution, and dems never approved of its use under the conditions that were present. that is a matter of record

you might ask yourselves why the country and the world were united with the first bu$h as he warred against saddam, and why a decade later everything reversed...

is it because libbies hate freedom?

LOL

ah well. i see you guys are well armed against incursions of actual facts. its fascinating to watch

Mantis, figure in Murtha calling the west half of Pa. racist rednecks. True or not, it helps McCain.

Yeah, Abscam Murtha is an idiot, but I seriously doubt many Democrats are going to vote for McCain because of what he says. They might not vote for Murtha, and I hope they don't, but it ain't gonna translate up the ballot.

There doesn't seem to be any polling of the PA 12th, so I don't know if Russell's making any headway against Murtha.

First of all, Larry, thanks for the intelligent, well-reasoned reply. The troll-kool-aid-drinker stuff is fun, but once in a while it's nice to hear from you and/or Oyster. I'm with you on the 'all of the above' energy plan. The speaker and I disagree on that one. And, in my opinion, 'all of the above' is what will eventually happen. Sometimes in politics it seems that one must feign intransigence to get a better compromise deal later on. Put another way, if what I'm really aiming at is six and you're calling zero, well I can't claim I want eight because then I'll more than likely get four. I have to claim I want twelve.

BTW, please define a "Fair" minimum wage. And then sell it to the high school kids who can no longer get a job in the summer and who are having a hard time getting one after graduation because the supply of "Starting" jobs has declined under the increase in minimum wage. Please note that I am not saying the minimum wage should be lower, just pointing the inconvenient and unintended consequences.

Yeah, there's no easy answer. My point was more about the speaker's stated beliefs, that it's fair ridiculous to say 'she's got hers so what does she care' when she's supporting the presidential candidate who wants to cut taxes drastically for the poor and middle classes (to the point of rebate checks beyond their tax bill) and supported the higher minimum wage. My guess is she feels the benefit accrued to workers because of the higher min. wage outweighs the detriment caused by increased layoffs.

But since you asked for my opinion of a fair minimum wage, it would be tied to company receipts and production. A certain small share of profit would be divided among the employees on top of a low base pay, so that when if the company did well, all boats were lifted, and if it had to tighten its belt, its labor costs fell as well. This would be a much more direct incentive to make sure one's company did well, because you'd see it in your paycheck immediately, not at some point down the road in the form of a raise you may or may not receive.

And that wasn't a hijack! I was responding to a question! I'll stay on point from now on, I swears!

I do remember Pea,

Read this, and tell us all where the "several conditions that were to be met in the event that any force was to be used" are.

And since you can't do that stop taliking out your ass for a change and stop proving to us all that you're a information-retarded Marxism supporter.

You only get to make shit up on DU, KOS, or HuffPo, not here.

mantis:

Thanks for reminding me of the demographics in your comment #27, I'd forgotten about that after reading it or hearing it somewhere else.

Russia should realize that a new arms race and development of new missiles is certainly not to their benefit as their oil revenues are sharply dropping with falling oil prices due to the sinking world economy deflating oil prices. Further, Russia's image has suffered since their Georgia misadventure as well.

Off topic a little here, but what do readers think about the Al Qaeda endorsement of John McCain as their best terrorist weapon left to destroy the American economy? Al Qaeda seems to view McCain as big enough of a threat to the U.S. that they are endorsing him. That's not a very good endorsement.

I have been reading this blog for a couple of weeks now and have really enjoyed it. I live in Las Vegas now but I grew up in PA. I lived in Armstrong county which is just north of Pittsburgh and the county is part of Murtha's district. Armstrong went Bush in 2004 even though the area is a heavy union area with a lot of little towns that were built around the steel and glass industry of the area. The Democrats there as in the counties of Indiana, Butler, Westmoreland, and even Allegheny county. . .even though Allegheny always goes for the Dem. . .are not your fierce, staunch, "till they die" Democrat. They are definitely Reagan Democrats who have NOTHING in common with Obama.
In fact, all of these counties went Bush in 2004, except Allegheny, even though Kerry echoed alot of the sentiments of the Democrats of that region. Obama has WAY less in common with the Dems of this area than Kerry. These Dems carry guns, carry Bibles, and are fiercely pro-life. So, I would expect this area to be even more red in 2008 than 2004. And Bush only lost Penn by 2.5. . .between those counties and a few more Dems in Allegheny the gap can do nothing but get smaller. The problem for Obama is that overall, yes, there are more Dems than Reps. BUT. . .it's like expecting Jumping Jim Jeffords to vote for any real Republican. . .it ain't gonna happen. Obama and most of the Dems in Penn. are similar in Party affiliation only.
A few more things. . .I would urge everyone to check out the Survey USA polls from Oct. 6 and 13. This is exactly what I am talking about. In both, it looks like obama is running away with it. BUT, not really. Here's why: In the Oct. 6 pool, Dems outnumber Reps 50% to 39%. Could be possible. Sure. BUT. . .in the Oct. 13 pool, they had to increase the spread from 11% different to 19%!!!! to get the same Obama advantage of 15 percentage points. So, in the end REALLY, it's a net loss for Obama. Had the difference between Reps and Dems stayed the same in the Oct. 13 poll. . .obama's advantage would be 7 points if not less if the Inds break the same way in both polls. And on top of everything. . .these pools are before Murtha's comments, Joe Biden's comments, the leaked memo, and Rendell's request. As a former Pennsylvanian I see this state as definitely in play given all of this info.
Finally, MANTIS. . .as for Dems outnumbering Reps by one million in Penn.. . .having lived there for 28 years, those numbers are misleading. And I know that the Dems really added to their vote rolls this year. But the Dems have some problems in Penn. . .1. Dems there are not reliable Dem voters as is evidenced by Gore and Kerry only winning by a few percentage points even though Dems outnumber Reps by hundreds of thousands of voters. 2. Dems in this state as they get older are more likely to become conservatives and never change their party affiliation. I personally have several family members who are registered Democrat but have not voted for a Dem pres. candidate since Jimmy Carter. So, as young Dems are signed up, the older Dems are converting. So, it's almost a wash in the end. . .and maybe even a net gain for Republicans because young voters don't show up.
3. Gore won by 4 percent, Kerry won by 2.5 percent. . .do I see a trend here? And Kerry got out more Dems than any candidate in history and the gap still narrowed. And Obama makes both of them look like middle of the roaders. Your avg. Penn. Dem. . .black, white, red, purple, etc. . .does not like a liberal tax and spend Dem candidate. Penn. at its core is a VERY conservative state. 4. Yes, I know Santorum got his butt kicked in 2006 but had he been running this year in a Pres. campaign year, it would probably be close. There was just too much workin against him. But even in his case, the polls showed that many Dems voted for him.
I believe the internal memo saying Obama is only up by 2 points for the reasons stated above. Plus, Penn. has a ton of military vets and McCain's record is attractive to a lot of them even though these vets might be Dems.
On top of everything. . .and this is totally anecdotal. . .of the people I still know in PA, more are going from Kerry '04 to McCain '08 than Bush '04 to Obama '08. I'm just sayin'. . .

Great blog. Keep it up.

the resolution was not a war resolution, and dems never approved of its use under the conditions that were present. that is a matter of record

It most certainly was a resolution to authorize war. My condolences to you, other leftists and Democrat politicians who have such a reading comprehension problem. It must be rough to make in in todays world when you don't understand the things you read and agree to.

p bunyan:

uh, do you really think the resolution was a blank check? really? and even though you have presumably read it?.... uh, really?

even though the cooked-up intel is unfortunately open to interpretation, the dems intentions are not. they made clear before, during, and after the invasion that the requirments for it were NEVER met. the world-at-large agreed and still agrees

now, i know you have plenty of tall tales left up your sleeves, and that youll have a standard neocon quick answer for this, but heres the section that rather weakly placed some expectations on bu$h, which i fault the dems for, for gambling on the hopes that he wasnt already intent on invading iraq "no matter what"

====================================
PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Al Qaeda endorsing McCain? In your wet dreams Hooson.

And Russia dosen't have to worry unless the Reps take back congres. The Dems will re-instate their oil embargo against America as soon as the election is over and oil prices will be right back where they were.

to sue and everyone else, please recommend this post if you STILL think saddam was behind 9/11

i want to count the total retards in here

thanks

=]

O.k. Pea, I'll buy that as long as you're admitting that they are "weakly placed some expectations" and not "several conditions that were to be met"

And the President did meet those "expectations". And the second largest coalition of nations in the history of the human race agreed to them also even though Obama might not have.

B. Bunyan, an Al Qaeda website did indeed endorse John McCain as their best terrorist hope to destroy the American economy today. Incidentally, the stock market was down by 500 points today as well under the current GOP government.

On the hand, it's a good sign that the terrorists have taken such a big hit that their best terrorist weapon in now John McCain, who is unlikely to be elected president. At least that proves that Al Qaeda has suffered significantly.

obviously those expectations were conditions if they were part of the resolution. the fact that the invasion never, ever uncovered any of the supposed iraqi threats bu$h and co lured us to war with doesnt exactly help your case that any such conditions were met

I'm really enjoying Peabody's ruminations here. How many Dems did we hear say, yes, they signed a declaration giving the President the power to declare war, but they didn't think he'd actually do it? What were they waiting for? The declaration that says, "I know we said you could go to war, but we didn't really mean it. We didn't say "really, really"."

Oyster, do you not see a difference between 'we're using force' and 'we will use force once all other options have been exhausted?' That language is a little different, is it not?

Hoosen still doesn't know how to provide links, so I'll help him out:

On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain

There's also this:

KKK endorses McCain

I know you were all excited when Hamas endorsed Obama back in the spring (before they decided he supports Israel too much, that is), so I'm sure these endorsements will not be brushed off with a "why would we listen to them?", right? Gotta be consistent, right?

And no, I don't believe unsought endorsements should reflect poorly upon the candidate.

Well, it's nice to see that you so closely monitor the "Al Qaeda website", Hooson.

Even if that's true (which I still doubt), it's because they learned their lesson in 04, when Bin Laden tried to scare people into voting for Kerry. This time they endorsed McCain (if they actually did- Hooson has never once proven anything he's said) because they know their perceived allies and supporters are already voting for Obama so maybe if they say they want McCain to win it will get some clueless independents to vote forObama, the guy whose top campain issue in the primaries was his pledge that the US will loose in Iraq if he's elected and Al Quada can have the country.

Pea, "the fact that the invasion never, ever uncovered any of the supposed iraqi threats"

Have you ever heard of the Dulfer Report? Do you know what it actually said, not what the press told people it said?

Why was it the Dulfer Report instead of the Key Report?

(Yeah, I know this is such an old argument...)

Once again. Don't feed the troofer trolls. The topic here is Pennsylvania voting, not something that's been debunked a trillion times over.

"That language is a little different, is it not?"

Please point to where that language is in the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

Okay, just ran out of troll food. Tom has warned me :) He's right.

ohhh tom... its bu$h that has been debunked

and thats why obama is about to win very, very big in this country, in case youre still scratching your head as to what happened...

What I'd like to know is, given the information Mantis provided at comment #27, why Rendell is so anxious to get the Obama campaign back in PA?

Parthenon:

Yeah, there's no easy answer. My point was more about the speaker's stated beliefs, that it's fair ridiculous to say 'she's got hers so what does she care' when she's supporting the presidential candidate who wants to cut taxes drastically for the poor and middle classes (to the point of rebate checks beyond their tax bill) and supported the higher minimum wage. My guess is she feels the benefit accrued to workers because of the higher min. wage outweighs the detriment caused by increased layoffs.

You and I don't see the Speaker in the same light. I believe she is an ideolog. I base that on observations made by a San Francisco journalist with whom I maintain a back and forth sometimes email conversation. The person I mention has told me that Pelosi is generally considered a moderate in her home town.

In my opinion, she is an elitist of the left wing category; one who a guy like Bobby Rush (D-Chicago) sneers at because they are so disassociated from the reality of how the average person lives. She is also an unrepentant partisan, so if Newt is for it, she is against it.

She is no Tip O'Neil. Dang it.

Now leave us go willy nilly to what is in it for the vast middle class. I believe strongly in something that could be called "Trickle Down Taxes." In other words, tax allocations often find their way down the food chain and present a burden on those not able to pass it on and least able to absorb the change in their circumstance of less money for necessities like food, clothing, transportation, etc.

A primary example is the corporate tax.

Now it is that I know a lot about the Chinese miracle. And I know why corporations have chosen to make a lot of their products over there instead of over here. And it mostly is NOT because of labor costs. Except for detailed hand work, our own workers far exceed that of Chinese productivity. It takes anywhere from two to five workers in China to even come close to what one person here can do in many tasks. And the Chinese are sloppy except when closely supervised, which is a cost in and of itself.

The reasons for the Chinese deal is fourfold, capital, taxes, regulation and liability issues.

Japanese, German, Taiwanese, offshore Chinese, American, and to an extent, French and English capital found a better return AFTER taxes on investments in China. And there are no horde of Lawyers waiting to sue over anything. We can argue the morality of a lack of regulation and liability issues like the cost of insurance, and that doesn't add one single job here in the States. Interestingly enough, some jobs are coming back. It is becoming less expensive to produce here compared to China.

Ireland has an 11% corporate tax rate.

Now you go to the concept that Corporations pass along the taxes. Yea, they do. BUT, competition and lower prices is always a good thing, so they first look to the lowest place to produce and go from there.

Oh, and Parthenon, I have recently converted to an advocate of the Fair Tax. I am that mostly because the concept takes away the ability of Congress to "manage" the economy through the Tax Code. Given how things are right now, I am all for taking Congress out of the equation.

Back on the subject of this particular thread and comment, Ed Rendell is one of the smartest Democratic politicians in the known universe.

And he is a fair pragmatist when he can get away with it. I like Rendell. At least he has a sense of humor.

If Rendell thinks there is a problem in PA, there IS a problem in PA, period.

why Rendell is so anxious to get the Obama campaign back in PA?

He's not "so anxious"; he's "a little nervous".

Bryin:

LOL! Nice nitpick. Do you have anything intelligent or cogent to add to the discussion, or are you going to continue to try to be your annoying, contrarian self?

It's a "nitpick"? It was the main point of your one-sentence comment! I'm sorry you think it's annoying to point out when you misrepresent someone just so that you can make your comment sound more ominous.

Oh, boo-hoo. *rolls eyes*.

Yes, it's a nitpick, and you're exaggerating my comment to try to make it sound "ominous". I can assure you I didn't attempt to misrepresent poor Ed Rendell.

However, let's go to the link, shall we?

With Sen. John McCain making a new push in his state, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) "has sent two separate memos to the Obama campaign in the past five days requesting that the Democratic Presidential candidate -- as well as Hillary and Bill Clinton -- return to campaign in Pennsylvania," CNN reports.

Sounds pretty anxious to me, especially since he's requesting Bill and Hillary Clinton to go there, too. But fine, Drama King, I'll re-word my "horribly misrepresenting" statement.

Why is Rendell a "little nervous" enough to send two memos in 5 days asking for The One to make an appearance in Pennsylvania?

Better? Once again, do you have anything intelligent or cogent to add to the conversation or do you want to continue to be your annoying, contrarian self, Bryin?

I'm sure your next comment will be another nitpick or an attempt to change the topic. Again. SOP for you.

Bryin:

Try not to fit this description with your comments. I know it's difficult for you, but if you work hard enough, I'm confident you can do it.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Tell you what Bryin. Just forget it. I'm done wasting my time with you.

Alrighty then, any honest Dems want to contribute some insight on this? Mantis? Hyperbolist?

Are you guys surprised Ed Rendell is "a little nervous" enough to send 2 memos in 5 days to the Obama campaign requesting him, and both Clinton's, to make appearance? Especially given the demographics Mantis kindly provided in comment #27?

I am, and I'm actually surprised the McCain campaign thinks he has a chance there, given the results in 2004.

and you're exaggerating my comment

Oh, good, I say that you're exaggerating the comment, and you respond by saying... I'm exaggerating your comment! Very original.

Why is Rendell a "little nervous" enough to send two memos in 5 days asking for The One to make an appearance in Pennsylvania?

Hmm, maybe because he doesn't want to take any chances?

off-topic messages in an online community

So my commenting directly on your misrepresentation is off-topic? If it is, then your comment was off-topic too.

with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response

Such as exaggerating Rendell's emotional state?

I'm actually surprised the McCain campaign thinks he has a chance there, given the results in 2004.

We agree on something.

Brian's being a child. It's what he does.

Bryin:

LOL! You could have made it a lot easier by simply saying, "I don't have anything intelligent or cogent to add to the discussion."

Congratulations on being a first class jackass. And with that, I'm ignoring you from now on.