Brian,

You are twisting the issue. DTL made a very important point about over-zealous Obama supporters who inappropriately used their children to make a propaganda video. But instead of acknowledging that the video of young children singing messianic songs of praise to Obama was creepy and went too far you instead replied, "What about children singing bothers you?" That certainly gave the impression that you thought the video was A-OK. Worse yet, you actually defended the group that produced the video by stating, "It is wrong for you to equate patriotic Americans with the criminal leader and his cult of personality he has built in North Korea". How odd that you not only defended the video, but actually characterized these parents as "patriots". Then in the end you conveniently diverted the issue away from the Obama supporters by stating, "But what can we expect from someone that doesn't want to defend Tony Strickland?"

In this thread you are again changing the topic and mis-representing the issue. The criticism of the video is about the use of children as a political propaganda tool, and the overtly messianic tone of the video. The comparison to footage of children singing praise to evil murderers is to demonstrate the obvious dangers of using these types of propaganda tools
in society. We are on a dangerous path when we begin to worship our political leaders and indoctrinate our youth into believing that they somehow posess superhuman qualities. I also take issue with your characterization of the so-called "right wingers" when you imply that they have a problem with Obama inspiring kids to try harder in school and take responsibility for their lives. You seem to have pulled that one out of thin air since there isn't a single person who has ever said such a thing.

Again you engage in topic switching when you state, "Next time you hear a dumb debate about something a supporter said or did somewhere ask the person why they are avoiding talking about the economy." If that statement were true, then why do you create threads that dissect McCain ads, or threads that explore arguments to prosecute GWB for murder? If you followed your own advise you would redirect the conversation toward the economy. What is apparent is that you only want to redirect the conversation whenever the critcism is directed toward your candidate or his supporters.

I didn't see the video of the kids singing. Was it anything a crass as the footage of a national leader, surrounded by kids, caught in the headlights on the morning of 9/11. Now THAT was creepy!! Or as frightening as the kids singing en masse at the fundamentalist madrases they call summer camps for soldiers of God?

OK - I just got back from watching the debate at CLU which also had a panel discussion afterwards.

I'm a Republican and a McCain (not Palin) supporter. But I have to admit that Obama has charisma out the ying-yang. He makes McCain look old and white and angry. But I could not stand what Obama said when he was talking about Iraq, 911, Pakistan, Putin, etc. I think he is totally wrong on foreign policy. I also don't like him taxing businesses that make more than $250K per year. I hope I heard that wrong because many, many small businesses make more than that - inventory, payroll, etc. That's nothing!!!

The panel discussion had about 7 people. Five of them thought that Obama would win. They mentioned the polls and the economy and the fact that Republicans were going to take a beating.

All of them mentioned how important it was to vote, not just for President, but for the ballots and the senate, assembly on down. They encouraged the audience to register and get involved.

I still don't get the singing kids controversy. Is the far Right now saying that parents may not teach values to their kids? And exhibit those values in public?

Bubba,

I think the singing and another video that I was referring to showing African-American teenagers doing a dance routine are unintentionally funny and odd. But I feel the same way when I see a young child at a rally waving a sign that they were obviously asked to wave and contains an argument they don't understand, even at the periphery, at their age. In either case it is obvious that adults are raising their kids with their values. Both sides do it, but somehow we are only talking about one side doing it.

Having kids sing about why their families support Barack Obama might be distasteful, unintentionally funny, or even weird, but at the end it isn't a Nazi rally and they aren't shouting to exterminate people. Nazi analogies are usually dumb and show an argument is weak many times.

Now, why do I post stuff I disagree with? I thought it was clear I post things from almost every group that sends in their press releases. It doesn't mean I agree with them. I post almost every press release from Tony Strickland and Hannah-Beth Jackson. I post stuff from almost every club that sends in their events. This isn't because it all interests me or because it discusses the most vital issues of the day. I post it because I want to be the place where a person could go to get all sorts of political information.

I am not like the hyper partisan blogs that you see come and go designed to only attack their political opponents. Of course I have my opinions and I make them known. But I don't try to act as a gatekeeper to stop information from coming to you from local political groups.

Did you see the other video I was referencing? I would post it like another blog did, but the comments section of that video has become a place for racists to yell epithets and I'd rather not link to it. It was on Drudgereport.com for a few days and on other blogs.

I mentioned Tony Strickland in the other entry because that was the topic of the entry. Someone posted there, instead of the countless Barack Obama post in an attempt to distract from the debate going on. This isn't the first time the same person has tried to end conversations by brining up other, unrelated issues.

Feel free to be the next Simon Cowell for Barack Obama fan videos but it is losing my interest.

Now onto the economy. How did you think the candidates did tonight? I will post my thoughts on that debate as another post, right after this long winded explanation.

Thanks for reading my blog.

Uh oh, have we reached the point in the campaign where both sides are swapping fascist and nazi taunts? Let me know if I should trot out my summer with the Mussolini's story. *yawn*

I haven't seen the video either but I have heard the overused themes and accusations highlighted above, as well as in news articles, emails (touting false Bible verse et al.), and it is truly astounding.

What is the fascination the right has with words like Messianic and "The One?"

Religious imagery mixed with fascist hyperbole are a frightening combination. But then nobody is better at selling that kind of fear than the Revelations-based far right - anxious to bring about the end while simultaneously suggesting an American politician has anti-Christ similarities.

And then they have the gall to call themselves patriotic.

Have you no issues left to discuss that you stoop that low or have you truly come to believe the cynical rhetoric you have been selling to the masses?

Clearly, McCain won this debate (again). Katie's comment on Obama making McCain look old, white, and angry are quite interesting. Especially, given the fact that he is, indeed, old and white (I think we can all agree on this). However, I see his age as an advantage, not a liability, in the race for the presidency. He has tons of experience dealing with foreign policy and economic issues that Obama will have to learn on the job.

The "angry" comment I do not agree with. While it's true that he has a forceful personality and is quite assertive and confident in his statements during the campaign, I don't see this as a weakness, but, rather, a strength. Especially, when he's going eye-to-eye with folks like Putin, Chavez, and Castro.

The reason I said angry was that he is stiff (because of the POW torture) and his tone when he took some jabs against the moderator (which fell flat) and of course Obama. He seems old especially one shot of him walking across the stage.

He was supposed to come out swinging in this debate but I didn't get that impression. It seemed like he kept his anger inside and it was leaking out.

Now, the President is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with - which guy will make better picks? I'm not a Palin fan. I was very curious to hear the answer to who would they pick to be Finance Sec. Whitman would be excellent. So would Buffett.

I can see why the undecideds are undecided.

McCain showed his "surly, ready to attack" side that his Republican colleagues have warned us all about. Not very "Presidential" but then his VP is not exactly "Presidential" either. I think the intense nature of this campaign and time on the trail has taken its toll.

Not a good confidence builder to suddenly see a bitter man who will need to serve 4 years in one of America's most trying times in history.

Brian, after I posted on this thread you completely changed the language from your original post. Originally you were attacking "right wingers" on your blog for bringing up the Obama Youth video in another thread. But after I posted my response you subsequently replaced all of the original language and changed it to a detailed discussion about the economy and the presidential debate. I'm fine with moving on and discussing another subject, but I find it annoying that you would alter the content of your thread after bloggers have posted responses. In doing so it alters the context of responses after the fact. I have no problem with you appending additional comments, as you have done many times. But radically altering the initial subject is like asking a question, getting an answer, then changing the question while leaving the original answer in place.

The post was shifted in what order it appears after the debate but look above. It is all there.

Ah, I guess I just needed to scroll down about 3 pages.

Bubba Kidd,

After the debate I posted my thoughts about the economic plans of the candidates. I then moved the less important story down.

What are your thoughts about the housing bail out McCain proposed?

I don't support the McCain plan to bail out homeowners. I don't see how you could differentiate between homeowners who were victimized by mortgage lenders from those who simply over-extended themselves. If you were to do such a thing it should be limited to a primary residence or maybe to first time home buyers. But this would seem to also cover people who participated in speculative real estate investment, such as buying and flipping houses. I also don't see any restrictions that would prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to bail out people who bought second homes, or who upgraded to larger homes that they simply couldn't afford.

An argument could be made that the wealthiest individuals in this country already benefit disproportionately from mortgage interest tax write-offs, something that lower income Americans generally don't enjoy. This would be a huge transfer of wealth to homeowners, many who are already very affluent.

I don't like to see people lose their homes, and there are certainly many examples of people who have been caught up in this mess through no fault of their own. But the majority of Americans who are in trouble did this to themselves were just as responsible for the speculative real estate bubble as the various Wall Street financiers. If the government did come to the rescue of homeowners then the taxpayers should get an ownership share in the each homes they save, otherwise this is a gift of public funds to irresponsible people.

Bubba Kidd,

I agree with you on this issue. Maybe some people could help stabilize the market by buying a less expensive home instead of getting bailed out.

Your point about lower income people that don't own a home is true. But what about people that accurately saw the market was going to collapse and chose to wait to buy a home? Are we going to tax them more for their accurate prediction? That seems like it punishes people for what used to be considered smart financial acumen.

Did you see that many are turning towards CHINA to "save" capitalism?

Personally, after the dust settles I think we'll find out that the percentage of bad loans held by buyers who knew (ir should have known) they were getting in over their heads will be surprisingly small.

Another issue no one seems to be asking about is our present culture of home ownership. Can we expect a 100 year old mortgage system to accommodate a global economic model where most workers can't depend on a 20 or 30 year career and who may be permanently unemployed after the age of 40? Maybe it's the system itself that's collapsing...indefinitely.

The apocalypse is here! I have found agreement with Bubba on the issue of bailing out homeowners.

But I don't believe AIG & GM & Ford should be bailed out either.

McCain is demonstrating that the surest way to make a frustrated old dog show his true colors is to back him into a corner (*snarl* *bite* *growl*)

OMG, if Former Republican agrees with me then the end must truly be near! You'll find a bunch of Wall Street traders who will agree with his sentiment. Time to break out the 5000 sunblock.

GS,
I don't think that there is anything wrong with our old school mortgage system. What got us into trouble was moving away from traditional 30-year fixed rate mortgages into more exotic types of home financing. We never had a problem when borrowers were required to have a 20% down payment, a good credit history, reasonable debt to income ratios, and a stable income that allowed them to afford their payments. I would also add that most people could afford to retire comfortably if they simply paid off their mortgages instead of using their homes as an ATM machine. My grandparents paid off their house and retired just fine, living out their years on a modest income from social security. They never re-financed their house to take out more money, and they never up-sized to a home they couldn't afford. All it takes is common sense.

Old school is fine, as long as most 30-yr mortgages come with a 30-yr career but they no longer do. No one today can count on a stable income. No one, and that's the problem the old school system's facing.

The newly employed can count on jobs lasting 1 to 3 years, with extended periods of unemployment and virtually no meaningful employment after the age of 45. How does one manage a 30 yr fixed mortgage if that turns out to be the case?

THIS JUST IN...

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) — No, hell has not frozen over, but a Buckley is backing a Democrat for president.

Christopher Buckley, the son of the late conservative icon William F. Buckley, said Friday he's decided to back Barack Obama's White House bid, the first time in his life he will vote Democrat.

“It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup [sic] are no longer alive. They’d cut off my allowance," Buckley, a columnist for the conservative National Review, wrote on the Web site The Daily Beast Friday.

Buckley, who praised McCain in a New York Times Op-Ed earlier this year and defended the Arizona senator's conservative credentials against wary talk-radio hosts, said McCain is no longer the “real� and “unconventional� man he once admired.

"This campaign has changed John McCain," Buckley wrote. "It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget 'by the end of my first term.' Who, really, believes that?

"Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis," Buckley added. "His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?"

But Buckley made clear he's not just voting against McCain, praising Obama for his "first-class temperament and first-class intellect.

"Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy 'We are the people we have been waiting for' silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for," Buckley wrote.

GS, I've changed jobs many times since I became a homeowner and have never once had a problem making my mortgage payments. You don't need a 30 year career at a single employer in order to own a home or to have a stable income. The mortgage meltdown had nothing to do with unemployment or with people changing jobs. And don't forget that mortgage payments remain fixed while most people have incomes that increase over time. The overwhelming majority of people who lost their homes simply lived beyond their means and borrowed more money than they could afford to repay. People who stuck with conventional 30-year mortgages are just fine, even in an era where multiple career changes is the norm.