McCain: "Obama is not an Arab."

[agricola]

That is not the same, a manager is not elected and given power by the state. It is a private business.

The police officer CAN arrest people without justification.

Then they get done for malfeasance while in a public office.

I understand the point you are making, but you seem to be ignoring the major part of the report, that she abused her power. The fact that she could sack him without justification, doesn't mean she gets to sack people because of the role they are playing in her private life.

If that was this country, she would be liable for malfeasance in a public office for her behaviour. She has allowed her private problems to interfere in state business.

And no way you spin it will change that.

No, she would not be done for malfeasance over here in the UK - no more than (say) the Prime Minister is done for malfeasance when they dismiss a minister from the Government. Such appointments, here as they are in the US, are held at the whim of the executive and are not covered by employment laws (which is why Monaghan has not been able to sue for wrongful dismissal).

Also, the point you seem to make but blatantly misunderstand is that a police officer cannot arrest someone without justification. For a start, as you note it would probably lead to disciplinary (if not criminal) action, which one would assume to be sufficient reason not to do it. Secondly, such an arrest would have to be justified to a custody officer who would then have to authorise detention, or release the person if their detention is not justified.

Finally, you seem to have not read the part where the report states the "Wooten conspiracy" was a contributing factor to his dismissal, not the sole reason he was sacked.

 

[Dravinian]

Well lets not get into a debate about malfeasance.

Let us look at the simple facts.

Did she use her position to further a personal family problem. Yes.

That is an abuse of power.

As I said agricola you are arguing because you are blinded by idealogy, if you saw her eat a baby live on national TV you would be here talking about how it really was an argument against abortion or some other bullshit like that.

If she was a democrat you would be saying exactly what everyone else is saying.

She abused her power for her own ends and that is worrying in someone who could be President.

 

[Dillinger4]

I think Obama is running one of the best campaigns in recent history.

The republicans won most elections from Ronald Reagan onward through smears and negative campaigning, and Obama is turning it into a negative by not reacting to it.

 

[nino_savatte]

I don't think so.

I read something recently about John McCain getting visibly angry as the rallies empty when he comes on stage, because all the people who came to see Sarah Palin are leaving.

Palin hasn't been Mac's most inspired choice and, as I predicted, she's become a liability.

 

[Detroit City]

Palin hasn't been Mac's most inspired choice and, as I predicted, she's become a liability.

she wasn't his choice

 

[Dillinger4]

Palin hasn't been Mac's most inspired choice and, as I predicted, she's become a liability.

Obviously, nobody can say Obama made McCain chose Palin.

But I do think Obama is pushing McCain to act in a more volatile manner, going from short term tactic to short term tactic, whilst Obama calmly sticks to his long term strategy.

For example, he has moved seamlessly from being the candidate for change in the primaries to reassuring conventional politician without anybody noticing the seams in his campaign. That takes real skill. Like I said, this campaign is one of the smartest I have ever seen.

 

[BlueSquareThing]

she wasn't his choice

Bit like Chris Shelton - great for about a month... ;-)

 

[nino_savatte]

she wasn't his choice

Okay, their choice - as in the Republican choice. If it was meant to be a balancing act, it's resulted in them hitting the deck hard.

 

[nino_savatte]

Obviously, nobody can say Obama made McCain chose Palin.

But I do think Obama is pushing McCain to act in a more volatile manner, going from short term tactic to short term tactic, whilst Obama calmly sticks to his long term strategy.

For example, he has moved seamlessly from being the candidate for change in the primaries to reassuring conventional politician without anybody noticing the seams in his campaign. That takes real skill. Like I said, this campaign is one of the smartest I have ever seen.

Quite, Obama comes across as more dignified and, therefore, the more trustworthy of the two. In spite of his Senate seat, he is the outsider; the Mr. Smith (who goes to Washington), so beloved of American storytellers.

 

[Dillinger4]

Okay, their choice - as in the Republican choice. If it was meant to be a balancing act, it's resulted in them hitting the deck hard.

It has, but it has also revived the republican base who were feeling antipathy towards this election, not having a candidate that represents them.

This is the same crowd who are shouting that Obama should be killed.

 

[nino_savatte]

It has, but it has also revived the republican base who were feeling antipathy towards this election, not having a candidate that represents them.

This is the same crowd who are shouting that Obama should be killed.

Could all of this result in a possible split in the Repubs? It's an interesting thought, if nothing else.

 

[Detroit City]

its all for naught cause Obamamama will probably be assassinated between election day and Jan 20, 2009

 

[nino_savatte]

its all for naught cause Obamamama will probably be assassinated between election day and Jan 20, 2009

Is that your cherished hope?

 

[Detroit City]

Is that your cherished hope?

no, i'm voting for his ass but there are a lot of crazy racists about

 

[agricola]

Well lets not get into a debate about malfeasance.

Let us look at the simple facts.

Did she use her position to further a personal family problem. Yes.

That is an abuse of power.

As I said agricola you are arguing because you are blinded by idealogy, if you saw her eat a baby live on national TV you would be here talking about how it really was an argument against abortion or some other bullshit like that.

If she was a democrat you would be saying exactly what everyone else is saying.

She abused her power for her own ends and that is worrying in someone who could be President.

Yes, lets ignore you being wrong again and focus on what you are trying to say - even though the report actually says she was within her rights to sack him and directly contradicts your argument (in the same way as a Democrat sacking someone under the same circumstances would not be illegal). Go you!

Okay, their choice - as in the Republican choice. If it was meant to be a balancing act, it's resulted in them hitting the deck hard.

Not especially. The choice for McCain was always going to have to come from the religious right of that party (otherwise he would have leaked votes, because they hate him). The list of people who they would have found acceptable, who arent tarnished by Bush and who McCain can get along with is a very short one. Had McCain picked (as was suggested he wanted to) Lieberman, this election would be over - McCain would have even less of the vote than he has now.

Nor is the reason why the Republican ticket is down in the polls down to Palin - its far more to do with the economy, which (rightly or wrongly) is blamed on the Republicans, combined with the general uselessness of the current President, and the success of the Obama campaign in gathering favourable media coverage.

 

[Dillinger4]

Could all of this result in a possible split in the Repubs? It's an interesting thought, if nothing else.

They are were the Democrats have been for the last 30 years. The conservative consensus that started with Barry Goldwater has finished, and they have a lot of soul searching to do.

Here is an excellent article about it:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Could all of this result in a possible split in the Repubs? It's an interesting thought, if nothing else.

There's already a split, or splits - this is trying to paper over it or them. (Remember pbman slagging off Bush for being too liberal?) The two-party system is very solid though so voting patterns won't be affected too much IMO. Some in the hard fundie wing might not vote at all, and/or some in the moderate or technocratic side might switch to the Dems or maybe vote third-party, I suppose. The main problem is internal strife making it hard to co-ordinate and act effectively as a party, and making the party look weak and disunited to potential swing voters.

 

[Dillinger4]

There's already a split, or splits - this is trying to paper over it or them. (Remember pbman slagging off Bush for being too liberal?) The two-party system is very solid though so voting patterns won't be affected too much IMO. Some in the hard fundie wing might not vote at all, and/or some in the moderate or technocratic side might switch to the Dems or maybe vote third-party, I suppose. The main problem is internal strife making it hard to co-ordinate and act effectively as a party, and making the party look weak and disunited to potential swing voters.

I agree. I mentioned 'the republican base' earlier, but it is getting increasingly difficult to talk about it in any kind of homogenous way. They are splitting all over the place. I read another article about Reagan Democrats moving back towards Obama, solid conservatives since 1980.

Obama is also splitting the conservative catholic vote as well, which had been taken in almost whole by Karl Rove.

 

[nino_savatte]

There's already a split, or splits - this is trying to paper over it or them. (Remember pbman slagging off Bush for being too liberal?) The two-party system is very solid though so voting patterns won't be affected too much IMO. Some in the hard fundie wing might not vote at all, and/or some in the moderate or technocratic side might switch to the Dems or maybe vote third-party, I suppose. The main problem is internal strife making it hard to co-ordinate and act effectively as a party, and making the party look weak and disunited to potential swing voters.

Sure, I remember how peebs used to castigate W for being "too liberal", though I understand how he reached that conclusion. Whatever the case, they're beginning to look like the Dems during the Reagan-Bush years.

 

[nino_savatte]

Not especially. The choice for McCain was always going to have to come from the religious right of that party (otherwise he would have leaked votes, because they hate him). The list of people who they would have found acceptable, who arent tarnished by Bush and who McCain can get along with is a very short one. Had McCain picked (as was suggested he wanted to) Lieberman, this election would be over - McCain would have even less of the vote than he has now.

Nor is the reason why the Republican ticket is down in the polls down to Palin - its far more to do with the economy, which (rightly or wrongly) is blamed on the Republicans, combined with the general uselessness of the current President, and the success of the Obama campaign in gathering favourable media coverage.

Hence the reason for the selection of Palin. Johnson was a similar choice: a sop for the Southern Democrats. Palin is there to shore up the religious fundy support for the party.

 

[Treacle Toes]

its all for naught cause Obamamama will probably be assassinated between election day and Jan 20, 2009

Strange you say that, it is something that I can't stop thinking about.

 

[Detroit City]

Strange you say that, it is something that I can't stop thinking about.

its sad to say but it could happen...you never know around here

but i'm sure he'll have triple security

 

[Treacle Toes]

its sad to say but it could happen...you never know around here

It is sad yes DC, but it's important to be realistic.

 

[agricola]

its sad to say but it could happen...you never know around here

but i'm sure he'll have triple security

TBH I think whoever wins has to be at serious risk of being offed.

 

[Dravinian]

Yes, lets ignore you being wrong again and focus on what you are trying to say - even though the report actually says she was within her rights to sack him and directly contradicts your argument (in the same way as a Democrat sacking someone under the same circumstances would not be illegal). Go you!

I have stated and re-stated that taking action you are allowed to take for the wrong reasons, still makes it wrong.

You can't accept that and can't provide an argument against it.

 

[agricola]

I have stated and re-stated that taking action you are allowed to take for the wrong reasons, still makes it wrong.

You can't accept that and can't provide an argument against it.

No, just the arguments I have posted which demonstrate you are talking shite.

 

[Dravinian]

No, just the arguments I have posted which demonstrate you are talking shite.

What arguments?

You argument is she is allowed to do what she did....yes which completely ignores the reason behind the actions. Which is exactly the example I gave you at the very start, about the police officer.

Able to take those actions, but the reasons behind taking them decide whether what he does is right or wrong.

That it wasn't the ONLY reason she dismissed him.

Which is pretty tough to prove in the first place, the fact that it was a factor in his dismissal is the problem.

You don't seem to see any problem with someone sacking another person because of something in their personal life.

I suppose you have no problem with Bush sacking all those Attorney's either....I mean the reason he done it, well apparently this means nothing to you, and the fact that he did it for party political reasons rather then any reason relating to the Justice system?

All means nothing to you, which is one of the big problems in America, the fact that you are so utterly polarised that you will excuse or attempt to explain away any behaviour so long as it is your side doing it.

 

[Detroit City]

TBH I think whoever wins has to be at serious risk of being offed.

I disagree...theres quite a few who don't want a black man in the oval office

 

[agricola]

What arguments?

You argument is she is allowed to do what she did....yes which completely ignores the reason behind the actions. Which is exactly the example I gave you at the very start, about the police officer.

Able to take those actions, but the reasons behind taking them decide whether what he does is right or wrong.

That it wasn't the ONLY reason she dismissed him.

Which is pretty tough to prove in the first place, the fact that it was a factor in his dismissal is the problem.

You don't seem to see any problem with someone sacking another person because of something in their personal life.

I suppose you have no problem with Bush sacking all those Attorney's either....I mean the reason he done it, well apparently this means nothing to you, and the fact that he did it for party political reasons rather then any reason relating to the Justice system?

All means nothing to you, which is one of the big problems in America, the fact that you are so utterly polarised that you will excuse or attempt to explain away any behaviour so long as it is your side doing it.

For fucks sake.

Your understanding of the topic, as demonstrated by your police officer hypothesis is woefully inadequate - for specific reasons related to that example discussed above, and it extends to Troopergate.

The Troopergate controversy is less of a controversy than is being spun because - as you acknowledge, yet fail to understand - she has the right to fire anyone in an executive position. The report found that she was at fault under ethics legislation for doing something that the report said she was also within her rights to do. By that standard, Hollis French (the Democratic State Senator overseeing the investigation) is also guilty of breaching the same ethics legislation - since he as a public servant is seeing a personal benefit from this decision (even though he is mandated to oversee it).

It is different from the US Attorneys decision for reasons that will be obvious if you read this.

 

[Dravinian]

If you do something for the wrong reasons, whether you are entitled to do it or not, still makes it wrong.

What you fail to understand about that is anyones guess.