Considering you didn't even hear on the video what he said before that I don't see how you can draw that conclusion.

Then, same goes for you also, correct? You cant draw a conclusion that it wasn't directed at Palin by your logic.

Then, same goes for you also, correct? You cant draw a conclusion that it wasn't directed at Palin by your logic.

I'm already aware of what he said due to the articles I read earlier this morning and video clips I've seen.

Then, same goes for you also, correct? You cant draw a conclusion that it wasn't directed at Palin by your logic.

 

I HAVE seen the entire sequence and Senator Obama was talking about POLICY. He listed a number of areas whwere he contends that Senator McCain would follow the Bush program. These include tax policy, the war in Iraq, health care, Rove style politics etc. He then says that isn't change, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. The policy is the pig. The McCain change campaign is the lipstick. To the extent that Gov Palin is part of the McCain change campaign you could call her part of the lipstick, but even that is a real stretch. The McCain campaign made a lot of hay (another cliche) out of some truly outrageous charges made against Gov Palin. Charges, by the way, that did not come from the Obama campaign and which were immediately condemned by the Senator himself. This pig charge is a bridge too far (another cliche) by the McCain campaign. The charge is so far out of line that it will damage the credibility of any future complaints.

I have to wonder why he got the reaction he did before he ever delivered the punchline. Seems like many in the crowd thought it was in reference to Palin's comments to me, regardless of how he meant it.

 

Exactly! Clearly many in the crowd took it as a reference to Pallin. It's just too similar to one of Pallin's signature phrases not to make the connection. If Obama meant it as a reference to Pallin then that doesn't speak well of Obama. If he didn't mean it as a reference to Pallin then he is so lacking in awareness in how his words could be interpretted that it doesn't speak well of his diplomatic skills. The bottom line is that he stepped in it big time.

 

I do agree though that McCain and Pallin need to be careful in how they handle Obama's misstep. They are in danger of overplaying their hand.

Show me a link that connects the rising oil price with Bush?

You're the one that appears to be trying to pin blame on the Democrat-controlled Congress ...

When the Democrats took control oil was $50 a barrel. What is it now? But everyone wants to blame Bush. The economy was just fine two years ago. How's it doing now? Oh, but that's all Bush's fault right?

I'm not assigning blame to anyone, and I certainly haven't blamed it on Bush.

 

That would be a valid response if I was.

I have to wonder why he got the reaction he did before he ever delivered the punchline. Seems like many in the crowd thought it was in reference to Palin's comments to me, regardless of how he meant it.

 

Exactly! Clearly many in the crowd took it as a reference to Pallin. It's just too similar to one of Pallin's signature phrases not to make the connection. If Obama meant it as a reference to Pallin then that doesn't speak well of Obama's character. If he didn't mean it as a reference to Pallin then he is so lacking in awareness in how his words could be interpretted that it doesn't speak well of his diplomatic skills. The bottom line is that he stepped in it big time.

 

I do agree though that McCain and Pallin need to be careful in how they handle Obama's misstep. They are in danger of overplaying their hand.

If Obama meant it as a reference to Pallin then that doesn't speak well of Obama's character.

Given the tone of Palin's speech at the RNC, would the same sentiment apply if you switched the words "Palin" and "Obama" in your post?

:confused: Harry Reid made the rule that 60 votes are required to end a filibuster? News to me. I thought that was specified in the Constitution. In spite of their lack of a 60 vote Senate majority, the Republicans have a much weaker excuse for their poor governance from 2001-2006 because they controlled the executive branch. There was no veto threat. What we have had since 2006 has truly been gridlock.

No, but he (as well as his predecessor, Tom Daschle) worked to extend the 60-vote rules for almost anything including sending conferees to House-Senate conferences where bills are finalized.

 

Anyways, you want to place blame on that 60-vote minimum, you can place it straight on the Democrats' tireless leader Harry Reid, again. In 2005, when Bill Frist tried to do away with this:

In 2005, after Democrats had blocked a series of judicial nominations through threat of filibuster, then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., considered changing Senate rules to stop certain filibusters under what was called "the nuclear option." Democrats, including Reid, protested

 

Blame it on the veto, but don't mention the fact that Harry Reid extended these rules, and, when Frist tried to do away with them, he declined. He has no excuse now.

I have to wonder why he got the reaction he did before he ever delivered the punchline. Seems like many in the crowd thought it was in reference to Palin's comments to me, regardless of how he meant it.

 

This is the same thing I heard Sean Hannity say on his radio show this afternoon.

Due to rules set by Harry Reid while the Democrats were not a majority in the senate, you need 60 votes to do anything. The Republicans never had a 60-40 majority in the Senate, so if you want to defend the Democrats inactivity, then the same excuse is applicable to the Republicans

 

You need to go back and study up a little. In the beginning, both the House and the Senate allowed unlimited debate on any issue. The House later set rules that allow the members to vote to cut off debate. The Senate did not adopt such rules. In 1917, the Senate rules were modified to allow the Senate to vote to cut off debate by a 2/3 vote. I'm not sure when that was lowered to 60 percent. Under the constitution, each house of congress is allowed to set its own rules. Harry Reid had nothing to do with these rules (although it is rumored the Senators McCain and Byrd voted for them in 1917.:sssh:)

You're the one that appears to be trying to pin blame on the Democrat-controlled Congress ...

I'm not assigning blame to anyone, and I certainly haven't blamed it on Bush.

 

That would be a valid response if I was.

Yeah that's what I said, the Dem are to blame for everything. No where did I say there was enough blame to go around. I also said that you were blaming it on Bush. My original post was in response to H's post about the direction of the country. I was pointing out that things have taken a nose dive since the Dems took over congress.

I am not buying Obama's claim that his comment was not aimed at Palin and it was a stupid comment to make but not that big of a deal. The reason that I believe the comment was aimed at Palin was the pause Obama made and the anticipatory laughter of the audience during the pause before he delivered the punch line. The "put lipstick on a pig" line is a political cliche and was only greeted with laughter because the crowd immediately associated it with Palin.

 

I think McCain's ad was an appropriate response. Obama needs to grow a thicker skin if he is going to pick on a pit bull.:lol:

 

McCain is needling Obama with ads and Obama is not looking very presidential with his responses. The Obama campaign is self-destructing by having Obama to relentlessly attack Palin instead of McCain. If they want to attack Palin, then Joe Biden should be doing the attacking. Except for the wheelchair gaffe, Joe has not been getting much coverage.

Exactly! Clearly many in the crowd took it as a reference to Pallin. It's just too similar to one of Pallin's signature phrases not to make the connection. If Obama meant it as a reference to Pallin then that doesn't speak well of Obama's character. If he didn't mean it as a reference to Pallin then he is so lacking in awareness in how his words could be interpretted that it doesn't speak well of his diplomatic skills. The bottom line is that he stepped in it big time.

 

I do agree though that McCain and Pallin need to be careful in how they handle Obama's misstep. They are in danger of overplaying their hand.

 

You're just assuming that. Read an article or watch the whole video and you'll understand they were laughing about McCain, not PaLin.

This is the same thing I heard Sean Hannity say on his radio show this afternoon.

Not a fan, so I don't listen.

You need to go back and study up a little. In the beginning, both the House and the Senate allowed unlimited debate on any issue. The House later set rules that allow the members to vote to cut off debate. The Senate did not adopt such rules. In 1917, the Senate rules were modified to allow the Senate to vote to cut off debate by a 2/3 vote. I'm not sure when that was lowered to 60 percent. Under the constitution, each house of congress is allowed to set its own rules. Harry Reid had nothing to do with these rules (although it is rumored the Senators McCain and Byrd voted for them in 1917.:sssh:)

You are speaking about the 60 vote rule for filibusters. Harry Reid and Tom Daschle extended the rules to do nearly anything in the Senate. See my next post (post #68), it explains more.