Ron Howard For Obama:
Although not particularly funny (like the Mac-PC commercials) or substantive (like the Mac-PC commercials) this celebrity endorsement is sort of amazing.
Ron Howard For Obama:
Although not particularly funny (like the Mac-PC commercials) or substantive (like the Mac-PC commercials) this celebrity endorsement is sort of amazing.
|
The incarnation of middle America itself!
His "compelling arguments" remind one of Donald Trump's, Eric Estrada's, Sylvester Stallone's endorsement of John McCain. Perhaps with the exception of Donald Trump though, since Trump does reflect some business and economic acumen.
But I definitely didn't need to see Ron Howard without a shirt, or getting his nosehairs trimmed.
Is this a Dadaist segue, or am I missing something? Dobie Gillis is (a) dead, and (b) not Ron Howard.
Who would it take? Buckley, Powell, Adelman?
Or by definition, if they endorse Obama they must be liberals?
Scott McLellan? Another long-time socialist?
If William F. Buckley stood up and endorsed Obama this week I might be moved...
Very good on the technical execution. Not remotely persuasive on the message (and I say this as a Republican Obama voter).
And let us hope Anne Pressly's more extreme attack is not also related to something like this. This is cautionary only in this latter case; to this point there is no evidence in support of that idea excepting for the purely circumstantial evidence that she briefly appeared in Oliver Stone's "W." as an enthusiastic reporter, favoring President Bush.
Of coursw, they disagree with you - they must be idiots.
Because, you know, the girl was attacked. So clearly, McCain would be a better president.
Yeah, the change to having a simultaneous Democrat Congress and executive branch does scare me. An extremely liberal Dem candidate, an economic crises, and particularly if the Senate becomes fillibuster-proof, we're likely f***ed for generations. The fear of that "change" would lead me to vote GOP for the first time in my life if I was in a state where it mattered.
Gnu, help us all.
I want celebrity endorsers to start disclosing their tax returns, too. These guys never have any skin in the game. Obama's election will not hurt their pocketbooks one bit.
So Howard will probably avoid all the new taxes. Unlike the CEO of Exxon. Poor guy.
"Is this a Dadaist segue, or am I missing something? Dobie Gillis is (a) dead"
Obama is from Chicago.
The video is small-town progressive boilerplate, complete with the reassurances for the poor dears who are afraid of "change". Go to any mainline Protestant church across the country and you'll hear it preached every week.
But if BHO really pulls this off, then after Iran nukes Israel, Russia invades The Ukraine and China takes over Taiwan, while Barry says we need to talk, the Democrats will be out of power for a generation!
Oops, yeah, I was thinking of Bob Denver.
Then maybe William F. Buckley will vote for him too.
Then why are they still undecided?
And isn't it more like 5-6% undecided?
But Ron Howard doesn't sway me. First, because I'm afraid of change. Second, because I'm waiting to hear who Ron Jeremy is endorsing.
Have they merged?
You really have no idea what is about to happen. Try not to have a complete mental collapse on the night of November 4th. The low turnout era is over and with it the Reagan coalition. The know-nothing wing of the GOP just pushed it off a cliff. Can you imagine this race with Tom Ridge on the ticket and Mike Murphy playing to the center? You couldn't stand the thought of losing that much influence, so now you'll get it twice as bad. It's what you deserve with Palin and a campaign of non-stop political flailing: a loss becomes a blowout.
Good riddance. Maybe the first quote was just hyperbole, but those last 2 comments were made by filthy bigots, filled with irrational rage. Pre-defeat derangement syndrome. Ugly, ugly stuff.
According to writer Mark Evanier, he's "actually talked politics with two of the three men in this video and I would have bet on Cindy McCain endorsing Barack Obama before I'd have put money on these guys."
So labeling them all "liberal Democrats" may be overstating things a bit.
Ron Howard's campaign donations:
1/30/02 $5,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
8/6/07 $1,200 Directors Guild of America
4/26/01 $1,000 Schumer, Charles E (D)
2/29/00 $1,000 Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D)
Andy Griffith's campaign donations:
6/4/04 $1,000 Kerry, John (D)
11/30/95 $500 Sanders, Charles A (D)
Henry Winkler's campaign donations:
1/14/93 $2,000 Emily's List
6/13/94 $1,000 Foley, Thomas S (D)
9/27/95 $1,000 Clinton, Bill (D)
12/29/95 $1,000 Berman, Howard L (D)
3/31/98 $1,000 Boxer, Barbara (D)
11/22/93 $1,000 Kennedy, Edward M (D)
4/25/94 $1,000 Harman, Jane (D)
$1,000 Clark, Wesley (D)
3/31/04 $1,000 Kerry, John (D)
$1,000 Foley, Thomas S (D)
4/29/94 $1,000 Braun, Carol Moseley (D)
4/29/94 $1,000 Braun, Carol Moseley (D)
11/13/97 $1,000 Berman, Howard L (D)
9/2/98 $1,000 Boxer, Barbara (D)
7/31/98 $500 Leahy, Patrick J (D)
2/19/94 $250 Women for:
3/9/98 $250 Miller, George (D)
7/22/93 $250 Women for:
11/5/07 $250 Emanuel, Rahm (D)
10/18/04 $-1,000 Kerry, John (D)
3/29/04 $2,000 Kerry, John (D)
Best summary about the election I've heard all month.
"Then maybe William F. Buckley will vote for him too."
He likely would have had he lived. The Wasilla phone book can't hold a candle to Boston's.
Link? Or can we trust that you left nothing inconvenient out?
And if the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the Republicans will get back into power that much sooner. Last time the Democrats had both houses and the presidency at the same time, they had an absolute electoral disaster the next election.
Proof that Obama cannot raise the dead.
He can. He's just waiting until after the election. Once he has taken power, than his divine metaphysical forces can be unleashed.
Then all will know Him, from the least to the greatest.
Then hurry over to Intrade and make some money. McCain is dropping like a rock. He's under 15. Hasn't been that cheap since January.
There you go again, living in the past. It's time for you to realize that it's not 2000. Although it's easy to understand why you're nostalgic for the time when Dubya was saying things like this:
Maybe things would have worked out better for Dubya if we had done a better job of teaching our kids to worship him. Or if we had erected more Mao-style billboards. Or written more books describing him as "The Messiah: The Chosen One."
Once upon a time, I was on the board of a small foundation that gave money to local charities. Usually we would get a written proposal about 3 pages long written by no one special. Once we got a videotape made by Ron Howard. It does give a sense of how good these guys are when you compare side by side.
You still have to decide on the merits.
He doesn't need to -- ACORN just registers 'em.
Um, did you really just hope for genocide, war, and communist oppression because it will revive the Republican party? I must be misreading that.
Gerbilsbite wrote:
You win the thread (though the undead William F. Buckley endorsement was funny too.
No. Zelda, on the other hand, is a California State Senator.
You have to realize that these are the same folks who exactly a year before 9/11 talked about the good that might come from "a new Pearl Harbor" (pdf).
True, that. The first midterm election of a Presidency is usually bad for the incumbent party. See: 1982, 1994 (and most others). That 2002 was not bad for the GOP gave some people the idea that we were in the midst of a gradual realignment just about to be cemented in the Republican's favor. Now, it looks like an obvious 9/11 outlier that caused the GOP to vastly overreach.
Given this history, I suspect the Congress will pass a blizzard of legislation next year that will have conservatives howling in pain, and yes, 2010 is unlikely to find a 3rd cycle of Democratic gains.
If Obama has a successful Presidency, what will conservatives do? The cognitive dissonance could be overwhelming.
Even a successful two terms will make the out-of-power party look refreshing and like agents of change.
Since 1952 (so the last 56 years), the only time the same political party has held the White House for more than eight consecutive years was 1981-1993, under Presidents Reagan and Bush41.
That doesn't mean the incumbent party hasn't come close to winning--Nixon (1960), Humphrey, Ford, and Gore all lost narrowly (and Gore, of course, captured more actual vote) (and an interesting aside is that the incumbent administration lost all of those times, since Nixon, Humphrey, and Gore were the incumbent Vice Presidents, and Ford was the incumbent President).
My guess is that if the election turns out as it appears likely to turn out--with Obama elected President, with 56 or 57 Democratic Senators, and 240-250 Democrats in the House--the Democrats will overreach like they did in 1993-1995 and "lose" the 2004 midterms.
The unpopularity of Congress will not change if Obama is elected President and in the 2010 midterms, Republicans will be favored (which is good news to the class of Republican Senators who took office, along with Barack Obama, in 2005).
As for 2012--too early to tell and anyone who thinks that they can predict Presidential politics a full cycle out is a fool.
I should note that historically, incumbent Presidents are re-elected. In the entire 20th century, only 4 elected incumbent elected Presidents lost (Taft, Hoover, Carter, and Bush41).
However, two of these defeated incumbent Presidents have lost in the last 28 years (it should also be noted that Clinton did not get 50% in 1996 and Bush43 was only narrowly re-elected in 2004).
Thus, assuming Obama is elected this year, Obama would be favored in 2012--but he certainly would not have a lock on re-election.
So I will amend the last paragraph in my the previous post to read:
As for 2012--it is too early to tell how a President Obama will do in office and anyone who thinks that they can predict who will win in 2012 solely on the basis of this year's race is a fool.
http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html
Officials believe the wound was self-inflicted. She is facing charges for filing a false police report.
Thanks for your little chat, but please be assured that I'm not some xenophobe who will vote for McCain simply because I'm afraid of change. Nor, however, am I some xenophile that will be swayed by the Obama mantra of "Hope and Change", unencumbered by any substance at all. And I do agree that it is time for a change - I am no fan of George W., and I agree that he has screwed up more than his fair share, although Dems like Obama, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Charles Shumer need to take a big heaping dose of blame for the current economic mess by their stifling Bush's attempts to beef up the regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae not once, but twice, in 2003 and 2005. Yes, we might still have had a credit crisis, but it would have been a lot smaller and easier to contain if Freddie and Fannie weren't out there buying subprime mortgages and selling bad securities with an implicit government guaranty.
But when I want change, I don't accept just any old change, regardless of how pretty the package is - I read the label, and I think that the change promised by Mr. Obama is not what is needed to get this country back to where it belongs. His tax policies are confiscatory on those who actually produce real jobs (as opposed to more overpaid and underworked bureaucrats working on all of the new government programs Obama has promised you), and his redistributionist tendencies are just offensive. I find it ironic that, when Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen A. Douglas on the issue of slavery, his strongest argument was that a man's labor ought to belong to himself and no one else; now we have an African American candidate for President who wants to take more and more of the proceeds of the labor of the hardest working Americans so that he can hand it out to others (all while the Government skims its share off the top).
Further, Obama's view of the role of the judiciary -- he wants judges who will "just be fair" -- is just abominable for a graduate of a major law school, and I believe that he knows better, but is willfully lying to take advantage of the ignorant masses. There is just too much at stake for me to trust Obama with the right to appoint judges, and Supreme Court Justices, for the next four years.
Finally, his inexperience and naivete on issues of foreign policy are just unacceptable. He has the same view as so many Democrats that negotiation is the panacea for every problem, but they all want to negotiate from weakness. Perhaps they forget that after decades of living under the fear of the Soviet threat it was finally Ronald Reagan who won the cold war - he knew that the socialist economic system was vastly inferior to free-market capitalism (a lesson I'm not entirely sure that Obama has learned, despite overwhelming historical evidence), and that all that was required to push the Soviets over the edge and into the abyss was to engage them in an arms race they could not afford to win.
So yes, Opie/Richie/Ron, I will vote with my head, which, after long and sincere thought, tells me that electing Obama would be one of the biggest mistakes this Country ever made. I have no ill feelings that you've expressed your views, that is your right as an American, and I'll continue to go see your films, as I really like many of them. But I will not be swayed by some emotional pitch by an ex-child actor, even if he is a very good film director; you simply have no relevant expertise to sway my political decisions.
Once again, thanks for the chat.
(C'mon, Arrested Development people. How did that one get away?)
On the other hand, there is this. There is also the fact police are preparing for riots should The One not be elected.