Decision '08.

[Tommycat]

Ya know one thing that always bugs me about "homeless statistics" is I'm not sure how that data is collected. How much fact checking is done, and the reason they aren't still in the service. I think that last one may be the most important one.

 

Honorable discharge: They left for their own reasons after completing their service.

Dishonorable Discharge: They were forced out for doing something bad.

Other than honorable(yes it's different than Dishonorable): Did something bad, but not bad enough to get the dishonorable. These are usually the ones that have a harder time getting a job.

Administrative: Left for their own reasons PRIOR to completing their terms of service. Note you can also get one of these for drug use. Often times it looks bad for future employment.

Medical: Had some medical problem which prevented you from either doing your designated rate, or sompleting your service. This is generally considdered one of the better ones, as it allows you to receive benefits, but you can still work.

Psyhiatric: Pretty self explanitory. But again you also receive full benefits, so you might be better off. Depending on the reason for the psych discharge.

 

With many of those, it would be understandable why an employer might look harshly at the person that is no longer in the servce. In some cases it may even bee reason enough to go with someone else.

 

Considdering that around 10%(and I'm rounding down for simplicity) of the total US population has prior military service, the numbers may look a bit better. If the majority of those homeless vets had a discharge other than an honorable, that could give insight into why they are homeless. Keep in mind also that the majority of the service comes from poor families.

 

Might give a better view of the service when you look at it with all of that in mind.

[Achilles]

I would like to think that ~200 years worth of uranium would provide us with enough time to find something better. Like fusion, perhaps?

 

As for disposal, the waste can be recycled to the point that the final amount is much less, and this can be stored until we have the technology to send all of it into the sun.

Assuming your numbers are correct. Also assuming that it's only used for that, that energy demands don't increase, and that only the U.S. is using it. At least that's what I'm assuming that you're assuming. If you're actually assuming something else, please feel free to set me straight.

[Tommycat]

Assuming your numbers are correct. Also assuming that it's only used for that, that energy demands don't increase, and that only the U.S. is using it. At least that's what I'm assuming that you're assuming. If you're actually assuming something else, please feel free to set me straight.

 

Even with around 100 years worth(basing it on the rough percentage of the US using around 50% or the uranium), that would still be a good alternative to what we use now for power generation. Coal and Oil are used to a greater degree. If we could move to more Uranium based power plants, we get more power generation, and decrease the use of the fossil fuels. So while it may not be a permanent solution, it is a better solution. It's a bit like saying that we shouldn't use a hybrid car until we get cars that run on renewable fuels.

 

Wind power has a lot of problems. The main one being the inconsistency of wind itself. It also takes a great deal of maintenance to keep it effective. Of course the biggest problem is the NIMBY's. Lets face it, very few people like having the noisy wind turbines near their homes(yes they are noisy). They require a lot of land, wind and of course a whole lot of turbines.

 

Solar is an excelent source of power generation, IF you live in an area like Southern Arizona. Not so great if you live in an area like Seattle. But then each area should come up with the best solution for their area.

 

At any rate... back to the topic. I heard McCain's speech today(yesterday). Sounded pretty good. Said what I liked to hear. Talked about cutting congressional spending. I hope I can believe it. Spoke about change... very common theme... and Hope... another popular theme. anyone really believe there will be any change? Seemed pretty humble through the whole thing(well most of it).

[Astor]

So McCain made his speech last night, and 'Change is Coming', apparently.

 

He once again congratulated and praised Senator Obama, and declared that they aren't so different.

 

He did actually did declare that he will win the election. That's the first time i've properly heard anyone actually say that. Now, as I don't know enough about the domestic issues of America (not being from there) I won't focus on that. So I'll just pick up on things like foreign policy.

 

Today, the prospect of a better world remains within our reach. But we must see the threats to peace and liberty in our time clearly and face them, as Americans before us did, with confidence, wisdom and resolve. [/Quote]

 

That's all well and good, but does it really have to mean marching into other countries?

 

We have dealt a serious blow to al Qaeda in recent years. But they are not defeated, and they'll strike us again if they can. Iran remains the chief state sponsor of terrorism and on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons. [/Quote]

 

In Iran by 2010, anyone?

 

Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power.

 

As President I will work to establish good relations with Russia so we need not fear a return of the Cold War. But we can't turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people. [/Quote]

 

If he wants to establish good relations, it might be an idea to lay off the insults. All I see here is a bit of saber-rattling.

 

I hate war. It is terrible beyond imagination.

 

Then why does he continue to support war? And even possibly threaten people with it?

 

Can't see much change on the foreign relations aspect.

[SD Nihil]

Astr

So McCain made his speech last night, and 'Change is Coming', apparently.

 

He once again congratulated and praised Senator Obama, and declared that they aren't so different.

 

He did actually did declare that he will win the election. That's the first time I've properly heard anyone actually say that. Now, as I don't know enough about the domestic issues of America (not being from there) I won't focus on that. So I'll just pick up on things like foreign policy.

 

I've always heard at these things them say and the next president of the united sates. They sometimes say and we will win. Buddy I've always heard candidates say that because they want to win.

 

He congratulates Obama because that's called being gracious. It's saying you are for this country and he thanks him for what he's done, but at the same time saying in his opinion (McCain's) he thinks he can do it better.

 

In Iran by 2010, anyone?

 

Well hey, if they get nukes and sanctions and all fails then yes we will go in. But that's the last thing we want to do. That's why you try to do all else before the last resort.

 

Then why does he continue to support war? And even possibly threaten people with it?

 

Can't see much change on the foreign relations aspect.

 

Meaning good relations after we get Russia to stop their taking back of their old empire. And if McCain is elected I'm sure well do everything short of military action. But if the again end result is war then to not take action at that point would be foolish.

 

We're not to kiss Russia's butt and say we want good relations with you even though your doing what your doing. Like McCain said he thinks we should stop giving money to countries who don't like us very much. I mean hey it's not like it's going to make them like us any less and if it does who cares. No skin off our nose. We are a generous, past wars have defended the world, and have spread freedom.

 

So if they don't like us for our power, our generosity, our freedom, and the fact we're helping them out then okay we don't have to give you money then thankless country.

 

To those here that are not from the U.S. if your not a U.S. citizen you won't be voting anyway.

[Totenkopf]

I apologize for people talking like Obama's already won annoys you. To be fair it annoys me too.

 

Same with people saying McCain or Nader.

 

It doesn't bother me at all that people talk like they think he's already won, people have a right to believe whatever they like. Afterall, it's only politics.

Btw, just who's saying Nader? I appreciate that people have strong feelings about their choice of candidate, but that seems borderline delusional. Now, if only I could find someone to feel strongly about......

[Astor]

Well hey, if they get nukes and sanctions and all fails then yes we will go in. But that's the last thing we want to do. That's why you try to do all else before the last resort.[/Quote]

 

Well when his supporters have said that he will 'destroy radical Islam', it doesn't sound like diplomacy is the first thing on everybodies minds.

 

Meaning good relations after we get Russia to stop their taking back of their old empire. And if McCain is elected I'm sure well do everything short of military action. But if the again end result is war then to not take action at that point would be foolish.[/Quote]

 

Who says that America has to take action? Why not just keep its mind on it's own issues, and not everyone else's. Russia feels threatened because of the American Missile defense system that's being set up in Europe.

 

If I were Russia, i'd probably be feeling the same.

 

I mean hey it's not like it's going to make them like us any less and if it does who cares.[/Quote]

 

That's a great foreign policy right there.

 

No skin off our nose. We are a generous, past wars have defended the world, and have spread freedom.

 

So if they don't like us for our power, our generosity, our freedom, and the fact we're helping them out then okay we don't have to give you money then thankless country.[/Quote]

 

Words like freedom and generosity mean squat when you just march into other people's countries and 'liberate' them because you feel you can.

 

To those here that are not from the U.S. if your not a U.S. citizen you won't be voting anyway.

 

That doesn't mean we (non-americans, that is) can't comment, as whoever becomes President is likely to affect the rest of the world as well.

[EnderWiggin]

Dang the election's over already? That's part of the reason I don't like Obama. Too many people assuming he's going to win.

 

Honestly, I don't think that. I was just saying it because I was annoyed and I wanted to be a prick.

 

1) He's not telling me that he's going to raise taxes. He may have to, but at least he's not telling me he intends to raise taxes.

Read: I vote for the candidate that lies to me, because I'm a tool.

2) I feel that prior military service gives one a better perspective on a military involvement. Plus, maybe a bit of it is that I used to be in the Navy, so there might be a bit of Navy Pride involved.

 

A nice little old boy network.

3) He's been a POW, been tortured, and in fact opposed the Bush Admin on the issue of Gitmo.

 

Please elaborate as to how being tortured qualifies you to be president of a world superpower. Obama is also against torture and is in favor of closing Guantanamo as well, so the only thing that you could be possibly basing this point on is the fact that he was a prisoner. I don't see the connection.

 

5) Not pretending that getting out of Iraq will be easy or quick. Regardless of your opinion of the war, assuming that it is even possible is wrong.

Source on where BHO said that it would be easy or quick? Otherwise, you're blowing smoke, friend.

6) I think Congress will remain Democratic. Actually I hope it does. That way the White House and Congress HAVE to put aside differences to get anything done. If not, then I want them both to have a very hard time getting anything done.

 

I don't understand how that is a reason as to why you want to vote Republican.

 

 

Ya know one thing that always bugs me about "homeless statistics" is I'm not sure how that data is collected. How much fact checking is done, and the reason they aren't still in the service. I think that last one may be the most important one. {snip}

 

So our government shouldn't take care of those vets discharged with PTSD? I mean, just because war screwed them up doesn't mean they deserve to be homeless.

 

I mean hey it's not like it's going to make them like us any less and if it does who cares. No skin off our nose. We are a generous, past wars have defended the world, and have spread freedom.

 

This makes me want to move to Canada. Problem #1 with America today: this mindset.

So if they don't like us for our power, our generosity, our freedom, and the fact we're helping them out then okay we don't have to give you money then thankless country.

 

If you could for one second stop spouting praises for America you might be able to see that some countries don't want our "help".

To those here that are not from the U.S. if your not a U.S. citizen you won't be voting anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure they've figured this out, but thanks for your revelation. Guess what? They can still have an opinion on foreign policy (and etc), which that will affect them depending on who we elect.

 

Btw, just who's saying Nader?

 

Bob Barr 2008!

 

Words like freedom and generosity mean squat when you just march into other people's countries and 'liberate' them because you feel you can.

 

And words like imperialism become much more important.

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

I'm not sure how to explain it other than, "The type of pre-prepared speech that makes one seem that she's lying. Utterly lying."

I saw a nervous woman trying hard to make sure she didn't screw up when giving a speech to not only thousands in a crowd but millions on TV. It was clearly not her element, but accusing her of dishonesty is completely unfair, particularly when you have zero evidence of any untruth on her part. Have you given a speech to more than a classroom full of people? Have you given one on TV to millions? Can you honestly say you weren't nervous when you gave any speeches you've given?

 

So far the only person here that's been proven wrong is you. If you want to continue to believe all Democrats inherently waste money then that is your issue.

 

You obviously haven't experienced Chicago Democratic politics, or IL politics for that matter. IL is in debt up to its eyeballs because of wasteful spending. The bigger the gov't, the more likely we are to see waste--not necessarily intentional, but due to different departments duplicating services, inefficient delivery of services, and so forth. Sometimes it is intentional--politicians sending projects to a community that doesn't really need it (e.g. earmarks for new buildings or unnecessary services, etc.) in order to make some constituents happy. The more gov't you have, the more room there is for misuse and even abuse to happen.

So you feel Obama is unfit to lead this country because he tells you what is going to happen?

I don't think saying he's going to raise taxes makes him unfit. However, expecting everyone to love that idea is unrealistic. If someone told me s/he was going to raise my taxes to 67% of my income, I'd vote for the opposing candidate because I don't want my taxes raised that high, not because of a fitness issue. Anyone who thinks that his raising taxes on corporations and big business won't somehow transfer to individuals is naive. The tax costs will get passed on to consumers via higher costs for goods and services. The question a lot of people will be asking the next couple months is if Obama's proposed programs make it worth that increase that we'll all experience.

 

On another note, yes, it slightly annoys me when both candidates act like they've already one, but in any competition, we see that. Look at any football team in the playoffs and they'll talk with that same kind of confidence/bravado. It's part of the game.

 

That's all well and good, but does it really have to mean marching into other countries?

I never heard McCain say anything to that effect.

If he wants to establish good relations, it might be an idea to lay off the insults. All I see here is a bit of saber-rattling.

What insult? What saber rattling? All I'm seeing there is that he's letting the world know we're not going to be wimps.

 

Then why does he continue to support war? And even possibly threaten people with it?

He supports the war right now because he knows that failure in that region is not an option. We screwed up going into Iraq, but we need to fix it. Waving good-bye to the Iraqis as they tear themselves apart because of our screw-up is a bad option. In fact, the US turned back over al-Anbar province to Iraqi control last week, so progress is happening.

 

I saw no overt threats to any specific country of going to war with them.

 

Wasn't aware this was a BO pep rally.

No surprise to see that here since the demographic of LFers tends to be younger, and younger people are more likely to be Dems. There is a certain level of Obama fan-boyism here, to be sure. Unless something bizarre happens in the next few months I'm more likely to vote for Obama myself since the issues I'm particularly concerned about I think he'd handle better. However, I also understand McCain is going to be a formidable opponent, and I like him a lot for how he's reached out to Democrats in defiance of his party at times and gotten things done. I want to give both candidates a fair hearing, and comments about whether he said he was going to be Pres or not, and was that offensive, don't address the issues.

 

@Tommycat--I think I'd rather have a Republican congress and Democratic President at this point--Pelosi as speaker of the house has been an utter disaster. I've never seen so many moves done strictly for political party maneuvering to the detriment of actually getting something done as I have in this Congress, and I'm quite disappointed with the conduct on both sides of the aisle. They waste time with petty bickering about whether the lights and microphones should be on for people to speak over the summer recess instead of doing something constructive with the taxes that I send them to spend. Pelosi is not acting like the leader of the party she could be and should be in facilitating negotiations.

[Astor]

I never heard McCain say anything to that effect.

 

Apologies, that was a little presumptuous on my part.

 

What insult? What saber rattling? All I'm seeing there is that he's letting the world know we're not going to be wimps.

 

I don't think he needs to let the world know, as most already know that. I don't have a problem with standing up for oneself, but calling the Russian Government a bunch of corrupt thugs isn't the way i'd go about it.

[EnderWiggin]

Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power.

 

I believe Medvedev would take that as an insult, Jae

 

_EW_

[tk102]

I have to agree with this blog when it came to Guilliani's and Palin's critique of Obama' community organizer credential. Somehow at the convention, the term "community organizer" became a laughing point in and of itself. Maybe I just don't get the joke.

[Web Rider]

I was watching the Colbet Report(in before: the Colbet Report, that's your problem), and he brought up that line as well. Jokingly pointing out that a community organizer helps keep kids off drugs and that's obviously so hilarious.

 

It's why I really didn't care to watch any of the RNC speeches, it's all just making fun of Obama. You underestimate the enemy, and you LOSE. End of story. The GOP has yeat to grasp this.

[mimartin]

Maybe I just don't get the joke.

I don't either, but I get why some may want to ridicule community organizers.

Why, if I'm not mistaken, they even make sure that voters can get to the polls on those odd Tuesdays in November.[/Quote]

Here's a little bit of delicious irony. It's been pointed out to me tonight that on September 11, Senators McCain and Obama will appear in New York City, participating in a forum for Service Nation. The topic? Community service and volunteerism.[/Quote]

 

I really don’t understand these attacks. Don’t these people know that not all community organizers are left winged wackos? Every community organizers I personally know are actually from a religious background.

[El Sitherino]

You obviously haven't experienced Chicago Democratic politics, or IL politics for that matter.

 

I'm afraid I was never made aware that Illinois is the building block of our nations financial state. Or that it was the model for the Democratic party.

 

 

PS: Thread has been cleaned up. If anyone has problems with this then perhaps you should re-read over the thread title. Also I will be handing out heavy marks on any members that break this off topic again.

[Litofsky]

I saw a nervous woman trying hard to make sure she didn't screw up when giving a speech to not only thousands in a crowd but millions on TV. It was clearly not her element, but accusing her of dishonesty is completely unfair, particularly when you have zero evidence of any untruth on her part. Have you given a speech to more than a classroom full of people? Have you given one on TV to millions? Can you honestly say you weren't nervous when you gave any speeches you've given?

I guess it was just my impression. I realize that giving speeches is incredibly difficult. However, I was just noting that it didn't seem to be coming from the heart (which is where I would have expected it to come from). And, truthfully, I've never given a speech in front of more than thirty people. However, I was extremely nervous. Though, for me, once I get into the groove of something (in this case, once I've been speaking for a minute or so), it usually sounds more natural. When I was listening to Mrs. McCain, I didn't hear that.

 

To recap, I'm not saying that she was dishonest, only that her speech seemed to be a tad insincere.

[Jae Onasi]

I'm afraid I was never made aware that Illinois is the building block of our nations financial state. Or that it was the model for the Democratic party.

Let's see--3rd largest city in the country, heavily Democratic, one of the key states for Democrats to win and thus heavily involved in national politics, economic center of the entire Midwest.

removed sassy TX comment. Sorry, Sithy. --Jae

[Totenkopf]

Well, given that not everyone is comfortable talking in front of large crowds, that likely could account for her apparent inability to sound sincere to you. Perhaps it was visual cues as well that contributed to that impression. If you look at presidential debates, Nixon is believed to have won the debate he had with Kennedy by those listening to the radio. Kennedy appeared the victor to many watching it on tv.

 

Given how close the last 2 elections were, and that most serious pundits and analysts would give neither side an obvious edge right now (most polls have them running neck and neck w/in the probability of error), how will people here react if your candidate doesn't win in November?

[El Sitherino]

I don't think saying he's going to raise taxes makes him unfit. However, expecting everyone to love that idea is unrealistic. If someone told me s/he was going to raise my taxes to 67% of my income, I'd vote for the opposing candidate because I don't want my taxes raised that high, not because of a fitness issue. Anyone who thinks that his raising taxes on corporations and big business won't somehow transfer to individuals is naive. The tax costs will get passed on to consumers via higher costs for goods and services.

I understand this, I just hardly see where any of the high concern/hate is coming from.

 

As of yet we have to see a comprehensive overview of Obama's economic plan, we are already aware of what McCain/Palin plan to do, therefore judgement is getting passed. Whether you agree with the judgement or not.

 

I also find it odd that the things people are claiming their support and bolstering McCain for, are the things they used to condemn him for.

 

What I ask of people is to post actual facts, support their claims that Obama's plan will ruin the country because so far what we know of is rather sound (See Biden's suggestions for economic recovery)

 

 

The question a lot of people will be asking the next couple months is if Obama's proposed programs make it worth that increase that we'll all experience.

Indeed, and I think these questions are expected.

 

However people claiming to already know what Obama's campaign will be doing seem to be unwilling to listen.

 

 

 

The point of this discussion is to show why your candidate is more qualified. Simply saying "omgobamasucks" "commie/marxist/socialist" as arguing points does not make a debate.

 

I understand very well Obama's known ideas and plans aren't all great, however he has my trust that he'll listen to others. After all, he actually went on O'Reilly. Obviously he's willing to listen.

I don't think he's the best or some holy bringing, but I do have more faith in his ideals than I do McCain's as I have seen little from McCain other than completely backtracking his prior good efforts and deeds in Washington.

[El Sitherino]

Let's see--3rd largest city in the country, heavily Democratic, one of the key states for Democrats to win and thus heavily involved in national politics, economic center of the entire Midwest.

So does that mean since they also have one of the largest American museums that all American Museums under same organizational funding are subject to the same standards as the Chicago Museums?

No.

 

Again I have to ask how what happens in Chicago dictates what all Democrats will do. I'll agree they're corrupt, everyone knows this, but to lump all Democrats into the category of dirty money thieves simply because of particular people doesn't make sense.

 

Does that mean all Christians support right to life even if a woman is raped?

[Tommycat]

Read: I vote for the candidate that lies to me, because I'm a tool.

Negative. And an ad hominem. Nice! I vote for the candidate that would rather NOT raise taxes. See Obama has no problem with raising taxes. He's saying it right from the get go. McCain knows what happened to the last president that said "No New Taxes" and raised taxes. So being a person with more than two brain cells he would know that raising taxes after the promise would be political suicide. So I'd rather have someone that doesn't want to and may have to than someone who guarantees that he will raise taxes.

 

A nice little old boy network.

Yeah didn't work to change my opinion of Carter even though, like me, he was on Subs.

 

Please elaborate as to how being tortured qualifies you to be president of a world superpower. Obama is also against torture and is in favor of closing Guantanamo as well, so the only thing that you could be possibly basing this point on is the fact that he was a prisoner. I don't see the connection.

He's seen the worst part of war. the inhumanity forced on people. Knowing first hand the ugly side of something tends to give you a better perspective. I'd rather have someone that saw real combat lead the country. Clinton didn't and we went into several countries. GW Bush didn't and we went to war. Perhaps it's time to have someone that DOESN'T like war to lead the country.

 

Source on where BHO said that it would be easy or quick? Otherwise, you're blowing smoke, friend.

My bad, all of the talk of him getting our troops out now made me miss the qualifier he put on there. He did say that he would give that decision to the commanders in the field.. Which is exactly the same thing W says, as well as McCain. He just starts it out prettier.

 

I don't understand how that is a reason as to why you want to vote Republican.

Vote republican on the pres ticket and dem on the contressional side. Until they get rid of the parties altogether, I won't vote for the same on both tickets. I want the two parties to quit dealing in partisan politics and start dealing with the real issues the US has.

 

So our government shouldn't take care of those vets discharged with PTSD? I mean, just because war screwed them up doesn't mean they deserve to be homeless.

Um... WHAT? That falls under Psych discharge. They do get full benefits. They also get full medical, and a check monthly. Not to mention they can still work. And quite a few actually do. Considdering there's roughly 25 million veterans and around 200k(up to around 400k through the year) of them are homeless, that means that a majority of our veterans are working.

 

This makes me want to move to Canada. Problem #1 with America today: this mindset.

 

Not to be rude, but, "Bye! Bring a thicker coat"

 

@Tommycat--I think I'd rather have a Republican congress and Democratic President at this point--Pelosi as speaker of the house has been an utter disaster. I've never seen so many moves done strictly for political party maneuvering to the detriment of actually getting something done as I have in this Congress, and I'm quite disappointed with the conduct on both sides of the aisle. They waste time with petty bickering about whether the lights and microphones should be on for people to speak over the summer recess instead of doing something constructive with the taxes that I send them to spend. Pelosi is not acting like the leader of the party she could be and should be in facilitating negotiations.

If I really believed the Republicans had a shot at retaking congress, I'd vote for Obama. As for the taxes we send them... I would really like to see CAGW get the federal budget and be able to trim out the fat(and pork) before it even sees the white house. All that wasteful spending has got to stop...

 

I guess it was just my impression. I realize that giving speeches is incredibly difficult. However, I was just noting that it didn't seem to be coming from the heart (which is where I would have expected it to come from). And, truthfully, I've never given a speech in front of more than thirty people. However, I was extremely nervous. Though, for me, once I get into the groove of something (in this case, once I've been speaking for a minute or so), it usually sounds more natural. When I was listening to Mrs. McCain, I didn't hear that.

 

To recap, I'm not saying that she was dishonest, only that her speech seemed to be a tad insincere.

 

Just as a head's up, there were some issues with the teleprompters. Ever give a speech where your notes would randomly dissappear haha...

 

I remember my first time on stage when I was performing at a show. There were only about 300 people there, but it was my first show ever. The lights were on me and I had my big solo(neat for a bass player to get a solo haha). Just before the part I jumped into the solo, I completely lost it. Couldn't remember a thing. So I had to make it up on the spot. I had practiced it for almost a month to get it right, and in the end it turned into a jumbled mess.

[Web Rider]

Just as a head's up, there were some issues with the teleprompters. Ever give a speech where your notes would randomly dissappear haha...

 

Which is kinda interesting, how dependant should a president or VP be on notes and telepromting? I know every speech I gave was so memorized as to what I wanted to say all I needed was one 3x5 note card.

 

I mean, this goes for any president or candidate, but this makes an interesting situation, personally, I'd rather trust pen and paper and my own brain than a teleprompter to tell me what I need to say.

 

Also, Huckabee once more impressed me in his interview with Colbert today. Ah, if the GOP wanted a conservative christian republican, why couldn't they have gone with him?

[Jae Onasi]

Sarah Palin's teleprompter went off for a while.

 

Ever try to memorize an hour long speech? You're talking probably about 15 page's worth of material to go through, if not more.

 

I think the line-up of Thompson-Giuliani-Palin was quite a bit better than Graham-Mrs. McCain-Sen. McCain. Graham is not a very dynamic speaker.

[Achilles]

I don't know how much I trust the source I heard this from, but one of the local talk radio guys said that he was in the press box and while the timing of the teleprompter was off a little in some places, it wasn't that far ahead and it was never off.

 

If it was liberal talk radio, I would cynically wonder if he had an agenda, but this was the #1 conservative station (in McCain's home state). *shrugs*

 

EDIT: P.S. I'm pretty sure that people gave speeches before the teleprompter was invented. Difficult to memorize? No doubt. Probably unnecessary in this day and age? Possibly. Using "too hard" as an excuse? Not wise, IMHO.

[Jae Onasi]

I heard about the problem with Palin's teleprompter from the local political analyst Paul Green who is arguably a Dem, but he's so fair about politics he's very reliable. He happened to be in a position to be able to see Palin's teleprompter--how he pulled strings to get there I don't know, but he did. It's on WGN radio's website--you might be able to pick up the podcast for Paul Green or Spike O'Dell. It was on Thursday morning's show sometime after 7am if you want to hear what Paul said. I didn't hear anything about Thur night problems, but I missed a lot of the morning programming where Paul was talking.

 

I wouldn't say 'too hard', but if you're expecting the teleprompter to be on and it suddenly goes on the fritz, and you're not used to giving speeches as I suspect is Cindy McCain's case, I can see where she'd get a bit flustered. Palin never missed a beat, but she's used to giving speeches, obviously.