Conceptual support... Is that like an "aspirational time horizon"?

Well life does begin at conception...

"Who's buying such transparent nonsense?"

About half the country according to the polls.

To answer your question: the nation. Get busy, everyone. He's not going away until we push him back under the rock...

Every day, the McCain campaign finds a new way to send the message "We believe that you, voter, are as dumb as a stump! Believe this pretty sounding nonsense!"

Sadly, quite a few fit the description. Add to them the people who would vote McCain no matter what, for theocratic or lobbying career reasons, and it adds up to a lot of votes.

It's funny but you never see anybody form an "X Truth Squad" unless "X" has gotten a reputation for lying.

Well this does make perfect sense for McCain, as he's not running on issues or policies or anything. He's running on personality. So all he has to do is to convince people of what a swell guy he is (much better than that uppity bitter Muslim elitist he's running against) and he's done. Why bother promising to do anything, as long as his surrogates can convince us of what a great guy he is?

This election is all about McCain and Obama, not about what McCain or Obama will do. As long as McCain's better than the policies he supports, everything's fine.

Off the topic as usual, but has anyone seen cnn's electoral map lately? florida is now a tossup from previously leaning McChameleon and New Mexico is now 'gay' blue from tossup.

Who ever said Barak is in trouble is stupid. Barak has now 240 favourable electoral college points. If the story about both major candidates being disqualified in Texas for late filing is true then the Chameleon loses 34 guaranteed points and ends up with 155 points according to cnn estimates. Factor in Barak's rise in the Florida polls then all of this has the makings of "the "PTA Mon" who almost was... ( a.k.a blowout!!!)

Where are the Obama surrogates?

YES, keep pushing and never let up...next news cycle will be taken up with the PALIN PUFF PIECE...betcha NONE of the serious issues (fine work by TPM) will be even addressed or her answers to same if they are ever fact-checked or rebutted. Don't count on FLorida coming around...we spend winters there...mentioned company excluded (HA) it's where lots STUPID goes to winter with STUPID that's already there...

zie @11:42:
Well according to this link http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/general/2008gensbs.shtml they are listed on the ballot. Initially they were not and a story listed at this link http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/27/democrats-republicans-miss-texas-deadline-to-certify-presidential-nominees/ made a big deal about it. There is no way that they will keep them off the ballot considering everything that happened in the Democratic primaries with FL and MI.

About half the country according to the polls. -thorin-1

Meh. Consider the source. I'd actually ask the same rhetorical question Steve closed with of the polls. Obama in an unprecedented landslide.

Indiana, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio. So many states going blue this time.

He's also 'conceptually' in favor of using diplomacy to solve international disagreements.

And running a honorable campaign.

And defending the US constitution.

"Where are the Obama surrogates?"

Apparantly Joe Biden tore into McCain and Palin yesterday...I'm still trying to find any mention of it. I have read and heard on NPR that Sarah Palin arrived back in Alaska yesterday in a plane with her name on it. See, that's news. Joe Biden isn't.

Well, let me restate: where is Bill? Where is Hillary? Where are the rest of the Democratic party? Why are they not doing the same thing that McCain is doing - going on news programs to talk about how foolish McCain is? Hillary seems to have disappeared at the moment she is most needed.

Palin Truth Squad

Oh, look---John McCain invented an oxymoron, and a very, very funny oxymoron it is, too. Maybe he can get a job in stand-up comedy---because the words Palin and Truth get along about as well as a chain-smoker in a napalm factory!

Now as for this new "lipstick-on-a-breakfast-sausage" comment of "supporting a concept without supporting the practice of that concept"---aren't we just looking at another way to define "the Lazy Lie?"

Jane Swift, former Gov of MA came out and said yesterday that "We really should be able to talk about Governor Palin's accomplishments without people raising on TV whether or not she's capable of doing the job." -Boston Globe 09/10/08-
She was appointed by a Gov who had a better job lined up and wanted out of the state as quickly as possible. Swift was exposed as spectacularly incapable.

By mistake she gave away exactly the McCain line of thinking...please please don't ask her any questions about whether she is capable of doing the job.

It is time to start throwing their words back in their faces. Jane Swift said this...Every man who ever ran for office had to make the case he is capable of the job. This is the worse kind of sexism from the McCain campaign the sexism of treating women as less able. We agree that Gov. Palin is very capable so why is the McCain camp hiding her from tough questions. We think she is more than capable...why doesn't John McCain?

Being against something in practice but "supporting the concept" is the very essence of what the Right says is wrong with effete liberals, etc. - phony, double talk, sophistry, etc. How hypocritical, how Orwellian. But as stupid and dishonest as McBushlin are, I fear the crude limbic/amygdalar tropism of US voters. We will have to go all out. Fight voter suppression (college students, foreclosers, etc.) to the greatest extent, and go all out registering and GOTV. Really, it will literally take a commitment from every sympathetic reader here. (And even Republicans, do you really want an inexperienced, religiously irrational, dishonest dame from out of the cold to be a heartbeat from the Presidency? I certainly expect some distaste for them from libertarians.)

Finally, evangelicals must be pressed on why they are so blasé about a daughter of one of their own becoming pregnant OOW - shouldn't that be a reflection on the young lady's upbringing?

At first, I thought this was an error, but on reflection, I see that it is quite correct . . .

also, wasn't one of our dumber trolls over at TCBR called Truth Squad? That's what I keep thinking whenever I hear this phrase. Why not just go all the way and call them Minitrue?

"At first, I thought this was an error, but on reflection, I see that it is quite correct . . ."

was supposed to follow a quote from above:

"Why are they not doing the same thing that McCain is doing - going on news programs to talk about how foolish McCain is?"

What they are saying is that women should not be complaining about their unequal pay and just be thankful they have a job.

sorry first post, not very clear.
Swift said this: "We really should be able to talk about Governor Palin's accomplishments without people raising on TV whether or not she's capable of doing the job." -Boston Globe 09/10/08

We should say this:
...Every man who ever ran for office had to make the case he is capable of the job. This is the worse kind of sexism from the McCain campaign the sexism of treating women as less able. We agree that Gov. Palin is capable so why is the McCain camp hiding her answering the hard questions American have about how she would do her job. We think she is capable...why doesn't John McCain?

Well, whoever is "buying this nonsense" is probably also buying these horrifying red shoes..

As Sparkle Pony reasons: "I mean... you have just got to be totally kidding me. If those shoes don't demonstrate her unsuitability for public office, nothing will."

Jane Swift, former Gov of MA came out and said yesterday that "We really should be able to talk about Governor Palin's accomplishments without people raising on TV whether or not she's capable of doing the job." -Boston Globe 09/10/08-

Jane Swift is a fucking idiot. Yes, she was spectacularly incapable in her own job, but look at the reason she gave for her failures: "I know now that it was virtually impossible for me to take advice and make decisions when I was responding emotionally as a mother, not thinking rationally as a public official.� Women everywhere thanked you for that remark, Jane. Good job making it harder on other women to dispel these stereotypes with an excuse designed to cover up your basic ineptitude.

This loser will say anything that pops into her walnut brain as long as it protects Der Party.

Have you got a citation for the Swift quote explaining her own failures, Shortstop? I know she was just awful, but I am going to he hard pressed to get the Republican leaning women I know to believe it without some attribution.

"Who's buying such transparent nonsense?"
Sorry to say, but a lot more people then one would think and most just because he is the Rep. candidate.

Swift is out doing this campaign scut work because she looking to get back to business in the party. She's had to pay her dues; she's spent her time in the wilderness after her flame-out in the MA governorship. But I hope she's not counting on too much, 'cause she's messing it up already. How, exactly, are we to talk about Palin's accomplishments without discussing her capabilities? Swift's gotta do better than this if she wants a big job in Republicanland.

I don't know why you are getting your panties all twisted about Ledbetter. That case had nothing whatsoever to do with "equal pay for equal work." It was solely about statutes of limitations. If you want to argue that employment discrimination cases are unique and should not be subject to statutes of limitations, well, go ahead, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether women are entitled to be paid the same as men for the same work.

Here you go, Eric. Ms. Swift wrote it herself in an essay for Boston magazine.

That case had nothing whatsoever to do with "equal pay for equal work." It was solely about statutes of limitations. If you want to argue that employment discrimination cases are unique and should not be subject to statutes of limitations, well, go ahead, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether women are entitled to be paid the same as men for the same work.

Bullshit. It was abolutely about equal pay for equal work -- Ledbetter was getting less pay for the same work, period full stop. The company was discriminating against Ledbetter with every unequal paycheck they wrote. And that at was the common -- no, the universal -- interpretation of the law.

The Surpeme Court invented a highly disingenous statue of limitation claim but pretending that the only actionble discrimination was the first one, and they did so because that was the only way they could achieve their desired result and still even pretend to consider the plain language of the statue. Dishonest conservatives like you, DBL, have a term for that -- "judicial activism."

But the case itself was indeed about equal pay for equal work, and Ledbetter was clearly denied justice. "Statue of limitations" was the outrageously phony excuse the conservative members of the Court cooked up that showed -- just as in Bush v Gore -- that they don't even have the balls to accept responsibility for their own decisions, instead blaming Congress for their own mendacious and totally unique interpretation.

It's revealing that you, DBL, appear to accept that explanation, but it's long been clear that movement conservatism requires a lack of critical thinking skills.

Jackass.

Note to McCain: senators are not hired to be philosophers, they are hired to weigh issues and then actually vote on them.

Also, McCain's "education and training" comment merely begs the next logical question: why aren't women who have been on the job as long as men getting the education and training they need to move up?

"Indeed, after the ridiculous Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter,"

The ruling might not have been ridiculous. It is possible that the law is ridiculous.

What we all can agree on is that the outcome is RIDICULOUS

Of course, the more important point that we agree on is that McCain is on the wrong side of the issue and is lying about it.

Wow, just "WOW"!

Farrow, a member of McCain's "Palin Truth Squad" and a campaign surrogate, repeatedly emphasized the notion that McCain supports "the concept" of equal pay, regardless of what he does in practice.

I have no idea what this defense is supposed to mean. -- Steve Benen

That McCain supports the idea of equal pay "rhetorically'. Or, maybe, "hypothetically". He'll have to ask Palin about that and, once she straightens him out, he'll get back to Farrow and Farrow will get back to you.

I don't understand why you're so picky about words anyway; as if they mattered... There's lipstick to be put on every barnyard animal (and some moose as well) and you're quibbling about words. Sheesh...

For some reason this reminds me of Bill Clinton and "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

Here is something I wrote up on the Today's Workplace blog for Labor Day on fair pay: http://www.todaysworkplace.org/2008/09/02/the-importance-of-fair-pay-this-labor-day/.

Key point:

The Ledbetter decision is inconsistent with the purposes of Title VII to both make victims of discrimination whole and to eradicate employment discriminatory practices from society at large. It leads to an absurd situation where employees must bring pay claims prematurely when they cannot be sure there has been unlawful pay discrimination. If the employee waits to a later time when there exists more substantial evidence of pay discrimination the employee will be barred from bringing the claim at all by the statute of limitations (as in Ledbetter). This inequitable state of affairs cannot stand and, it is my hope, it will be legislatively nullified.

Here is something I wrote up on the Today's Workplace blog for Labor Day on fair pay: http://www.todaysworkplace.org/2008/09/02/the-importance-of-fair-pay-this-labor-day/.

Key point:

The Ledbetter decision is inconsistent with the purposes of Title VII to both make victims of discrimination whole and to eradicate employment discriminatory practices from society at large. It leads to an absurd situation where employees must bring pay claims prematurely when they cannot be sure there has been unlawful pay discrimination. If the employee waits to a later time when there exists more substantial evidence of pay discrimination the employee will be barred from bringing the claim at all by the statute of limitations (as in Ledbetter). This inequitable state of affairs cannot stand and, it is my hope, it will be legislatively nullified.