You CANNOT compare Sarah Palin to Anne Richards. Please, that’s so insulting to Ms. Richards who was a real fighter and survivor. Sarah Palin hasn’t run in a real political campaign. If she were alive, Anne would be on the phone right now giving out what for…

I found it telling that McCain was not even able to mention to his Republican devotees the two key maverick issues - campaign finance reform and immigration - that he’s championed. How strong will he be, if he can’t even stand up to his fans?

Right on Kathy. Let’s get to work now and help Obama win not by a hair, but by a landslide.

Are your callers party talking heads? I have heard some of them before - Josh, always starts with “As an independent” then goes into his republican spiel. You had him on as “Tom” yesterday - same voice.

When an earlier caller mentioned increasing unemployment and blamed Republicans, they overlooked the Democrat’s plan to raise the minimum wage, which went up a month ago. That’s the most significant difference I know of in the economy in the last month. If raising the Minimum Wage wasn’t bad, we wouldn’t have to diminish its impact by spreading it out over a few years.

Most economists can tell you, the Minimum Wage hurts the poor and small businesses, it helps the rich and large business, it triggers unemloyment and inflation.

Obama’s plan to raise the wage, then index it to inflation will only cause runaway inflation and devaluing the dollar. He could actually destroy our economy, and I wish Rupublicans would call him on it. And I wish people would stop blaming Bush now, since Democrats control Congress, and that’s where the real power comes from.

If Mr. Cain is a man of honor, I certainly hope we never have to see a craven, dishonest, hypocritical, self-serving, and self-involved man.

I’m getting a little tired of the Rep. party touting Palin’s ability to field dress a moose as qualifications to run a country.

Please talk about the republican party platform

George W Bush proved that a C Average guy has failed at governing.

John McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at Annapolis of 889.
Sarah Palin took six years and five colleges (or vice versa) to finish a BA in journalism.

It’s not just about experience. It’s having the mind and a base of knowledge and intelligence to be able to ask the right questions.
To be able to sort through conflicting information and intelligence, be able to ask questions, and arrive at nuanced judgments and decisions, rather than either shoot from the hip or rely on party dogma.

How will Palin know how to sort through the briefings she gets - or doe she just swallow it whole from the likes of the Kagans, Kristols and Norquists?

Where is the intellectual pushback from the Republican Party? Or are the willing to dumb-down their party, and the country, in order to win?

Obama get criticised for being part of the Eastern elite because he went to UChicago (same as David Brooks) and Harvard (as did Charles Krauthammer)…

Where are the intellectual arguments in this country - or is that too elitist a question to ask?

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT WAR WAR WAR

I’m an independent who has had democratic tendencies in the last few elections. I was on the fence this year, but after last nights speech, my democratic tendencies will continue. The many references to war, fighting and the deeply rooted military mentality scares the hell out of me.

John McCain also seems to alienating himself from both parties which will make it so much harder to get things done. I am also guessing that it can get mighty lonely in WARshington.

Joe - Manchester,MA

The republican party platform is in direct contrast and conflict with John McCains long held positions.Immigration and choice specifically.He let the far right of the party write the platform to be able to tap the foot soldiers he needs and funds.What importance does the platform hold given that it represents as far as I can tell a very small percent of their own party.

Does anyone get the feeling that what is really going on here is a way to get Palin to be president.

McCain has struck some kind of deal here.
Of all the Women in the republican party he picks this zealot. She is not only getting the base energized but she is appealing to the emotions of people who don’t know better. She’ll take away peoples benefits and do it with a smile.

I heard interviews with at least 3 delegates at the RNC saying Palin could be their next Reagan. Unbelievable.(not that Reagan was the hero the republicans make him out to be) But I can’t believe this “folksy” unexperienced governor is suddenly becoming the embodiment of republican hope for the future after one dazzling Rovian speech. She has proven nothing. Yet the party faithful are so easily smitten with her. UUHHG!

jeff… how very well said. Republican policy for the most part hurts the very people they claim to relate to so well. Thats their ace card. Will those people ever figure this out?

Bill (or McKenzie?) -

I apologize if this is a bit distracting to the central conversation, but as the father of two daughters I feel I must comment.

Please be consistent in your nomenclature. McCain/Obama/Bush/Palin works, as does John/Barack/George/Sarah. What does not work, and is still far too prevalent in the media today, is McCain/Obama/Bush/Sarah. This …. difference (bias, maybe, maybe not) became abundantly clear in the primary between Obama and Hillary

thank you,

Corey

“I found it telling that McCain was not even able to mention to his Republican devotees the two key maverick issues - campaign finance reform and immigration - that he’s championed. How strong will he be, if he can’t even stand up to his fans?”-George Wagner

1. He mentioned both those things though only briefly

2. Even though there’s a nativist segment among the party especially in the grassroots most of the GOP leaders(Bush, McCain, Lindsey Graham, Schwarznegger…) are pro-immigrant rights and the candidates who adopted nativist stances in the primaries(Giuliani, and Romney) lost out

Tom!
I love your show, but sometimes your callers are not challenged immediately by either you or one of your panel. This morning, one of the callers said that Obama votes present more often than taking a position in the Senate. That is NOT true! He did that in the Illinois Senate not the US senate. Jack Beatty ( my favorite guest) might have jumped all over him. Misinformation is part of the problem in this campaign. Due to the time difference(I’m on the west coast), I am unable to call in for the 2nd hour. Thanks for all the great work you do. Erika

Frederic C… you are absolutely right. Bush accomplished exactly what he was supposed to. Put all the wealth into the top 1% of the population, and create a situation for a permanent military presence in the middle east. Neocon mission accomplished.

Two observations:

Observation # 1:
Cindy McCain’s dress was estimated to cost $300,000. We have a real problem in this country, when a ‘maverick’ presidential candidate’s wife is wearing a dress that costs 6X more than the average American makes!

Observation # 2:
Second, my initial reaction to the Palin choice was “wow, what an obvious gimmick…no way that will work…the American people are more clever than that”. The American voters have a lot of redeeming to do for their choice in 2000 and 2004…we’ll see if the electorate has become wiser. It will be a great day when the impoverished stop voting against their economic interest on the basis of ‘values’ professed by a party that has endorsed military actions that have caused widespread human suffering.

Most economists can tell you, the Minimum Wage hurts the poor and small businesses, it helps the rich and large business, it triggers unemloyment and inflation.

“Most” economists? SOME economists take that position - some economists say just the opposite. The effect of minimum wage is one of the most hotly debated topics in economics. What is your source for citing “most”?

The many references to war, fighting and the deeply rooted military mentality scares the hell out of me.

Indeed. Two days ago the Bush Administration reiterated their support for NATO membership for Georgia. Yesterday they advocated NATO membership for Ukraine. (all this while the media are distracted by the RNC convention) The Bush Administration is seeking every possible opportunity to provoke Russia and make it feel threatened. So instead of trying to lower tensions in a dangerous and volatile part of the world they are deliberately trying to raise tensions.

And McCain is a continuation of that philosophy.

Second, my initial reaction to the Palin choice was “wow, what an obvious gimmick…no way that will work…the American people are more clever than that”. The American voters have a lot of redeeming to do for their choice in 2000 and 2004…we’ll see if the electorate has become wiser

There’s no reason to assume they have. There has been plenty of serious research on the topic of how well- informed voters are, how well they understand the issues, history, geography, civics, who their elected officials are, how those politicians voted, what’s in the federal budget, etc. In general these studies have found that US voters are among the most ignorant of voters in major western democracies, and that there’s no reason to think that things have gotten any better recently. Granted knowledge and “wisdom” are not quite the same, but you do need to have SOME knowledge to exercise wisdom.

Please be consistent in your nomenclature. McCain/Obama/Bush/Palin works, as does John/Barack/George/Sarah. What does not work, and is still far too prevalent in the media today, is McCain/Obama/Bush/Sarah. This …. difference (bias, maybe, maybe not) became abundantly clear in the primary between Obama and Hillary

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. The reason why Obama was called “Obama” and Hillary was called “Hillary” was not some sexist dimunition of women - it was because that’s what they called themselves. Hillary Clinton’s campaign posters mostly said “Hillary” (presumably to distance herself fron Bill, or perhaps to give herself a less formal, distant image).

Josh in kansas city didn’t say that Obama voted present more than actually taking a stance he said that Obama didn’t vote often which is true.

As for Mr. Beatty I have to say that he was somewhat disgraceful when he referred to the quote “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”. There were several democrats who also chanted USA to unfair partisan record that’s what happens at party conventions.

Also, how about this wacko Katherine from Standford who seems completely convinced that masses of people are going to unemployed or employed based soley on the results of this election.

What sacres me most the shouts of the secularist whose sole rule of law his own feelings. He may greet you if he feels or he may kill you if he is upset. Ultimately if there is no God we are not accountable to anyone save our own whims. I am not as smart, nor am I as strong as many of you here. I do trust in a God who is just and will not be bought by money, sex or job offer. He is wonderfully good and knows me by name.

As much as the secularists are afraid of religious people, so are the religious one like me afraid of secular people. They make arbitrary laws with no basis to truth, for them truth does not exist. It is the agreed upon law, and the majority decides whether one should live or die. For the secularist, what is in the constitution of the United States “All men are created equal and are endowed by their creater certain in-alienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is just a fable created by the founding fathers.

I am reminded of a little history that I heard about the democrats in Athens, Greece, who killed the Philosopher Socrates mainly because he annoyed them with his teaching that “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

It is also said that more wars and deaths have occurred under secular governments in history than among any religious governments. That is why I am scared of those who say (just like their for-bearer Pontius Pilate who condemned the one and only son of God) “What is truth!” “I have my truth, and you have your truth!” They end up killing truth and anyone who speaks the truth. When they do this many times, they are perfectly persuaded that it is for the good of the masses that they pretend to represent.

Eleanor Clift picky and churlish about the McCain speech? And so Obamafied? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!!!

Mose in Boston

What sacres me most the shouts of the secularist whose sole rule of law his own feelings.

To the contrary - it is the religious person whose sole rule of law his own feelings. If you take a Christian, a Muslim and a Hindu and ask them to resolve which of them is right they have no means to do so, because ultimately each is only left with their own personal feelings about what holy book to believe or how to interpret it.

The sedcularist believes in objective truth and empirical evidence, testability, falsifiability, to test and discern that truth. This is why physics, biology, etc, and have made far more progress resolving their disputes and differences of opinion, and thus move on, in the last century than religion has made in 2000 years.

I am reminded of a little history that I heard about the democrats in Athens, Greece, who killed the Philosopher Socrates mainly because he annoyed them with his teaching that “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

I suggest that the unexamined history is not worth quoting, since that is not why they killed Socrates.

Too much attention is paid to the question of experience on both sides of the political parties. No one knows what experience is necessary to be the President of the United States, there is no other job like it. Additionally, who would ever have enough knowledge of every political subject, foreign, or domestic, to be prepared on day one? What is important is the ability to think critically, and yes that means “flip-flop” on occasion. Or in other words, change your mind after new facts become available, something everyone does on a daily basis but apparently our politicians are not supposed to do. We tried that approach for the last eight years and here we are.
We have a leader who we would like to drink a beer with, or in this case a lot of beer, and maybe some whiskey. Thank God he is NOT an elitist. In this country we admire elite athlete, chef or scientist to name a few. Why would we want anything different in the most powerful position in the world? It is not a comfort to know that the average citizen is as smart or smarter than the president. Just like I want the elite quarterback on my fantasy football team, I want the elite politician leading my country.
And yes this might mean they are out of touch with some of us little people, but that’s what we get when we make politics a career and not a service.

Senator McCain makes much of being a “maverick”. Being a maverick resulted in his inability to control his platform at the convention and get his first or second choice candidate for Veep. If he can’t lead his own party, how can he ask us to let him lead the nation?

As to Governor Palin, fact checking the claims in her RNC speech about her record and that of Senator Obama reveals nearly all half truths. I expect much more from self professed Christians.

Too much attention is paid to the question of experience on both sides of the political parties. No one knows what experience is necessary to be the President of the United States, there is no other job like it. Additionally, who would ever have enough knowledge of every political subject, foreign, or domestic, to be prepared on day one?

I disagree that experience has no relevance or cannot be evaluated because the job is so unique.

Being a national leader (of the US or any other powerful nation) is certainly not a job lacking in precedent. We DO know some of the important traits needed to do it effectively, and candidates for the job CAN be evaluated for those traits based on prior experience.

Good judgement in a crisis is an important trait.

Pragmatism over politics (i.e., choosing a course of action because it has a high likelihood of succeeding based on objective facts, instead of choosing a course of action based on abstract philosophy) is a good trait.

A willingness to put the obligations of one’s office over political or personal gain is a good trait.

An ability to “cross the aisle” - gain a consensus from people of diverse political persuasions is a good trait.

The ability to actually get things done - to marshall the powers of one’s office and gain support for one’s ideas well enough to execute a large, complex plan to completion is a good trait.

A willingness to tell the truth - actually doing, or attempting to do, what one has promised in a political campaign.

There are many others, but ALL of the above can be evaluated from a candidate’s prior experience - if they have much. Both Obama and Palin have had so little experience in major offices that there’s not enough data to say with confidence how well they meet the above criteria.

“There are many others, but ALL of the above can be evaluated from a candidate’s prior experience - if they have much. Both Obama and Palin have had so little experience in major offices that there’s not enough data to say with confidence how well they meet the above criteria.”

Except that Palin graduated near the bottom of her class. Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho.

She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

Obama graduated graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983 near the top of his class where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.

Went to Harvard Law School in late 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review based on his grades and a writing competition. In his second year he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review’s staff of 80 editors.

Some are going to say Obama is an elitist due to his education. I disagree his education journey speaks more to the drive and intelligence of Obama than some notion of being an elitist. Bush was an elitist.

Palin’s education journey tells us that it took 6 years to get BA and then to graduate near the bottom of the class after such an epic journey. What does this say about her, she’s below average academically when she is compaired to Obama, that’s what it tells me.

Dear Peter Nelson:
Thank you for the response. I think you may have missed what I was saying. For the secularist since man is the ultimate measure of things, he is bound to make his own feeling (desires,pleasures,and fears) as the ultimate rule of law. You may see that in our political debates of Perjury, Greed, Lying, Cheating, Abortion, Homosexuality, etc. For the religious person right and wrong are not a matter of ones feelings, or preference, but of revealed truth.

That was what I was trying to communicate. Since science can not tell us whether it is right or wrong to steal, cheat, abort a baby, engage in illicit sexual behavior, or kill, the secularist follows his feelings. Is that an exaggeration? I did live in a socialist country and spent some time in a political prison, and the jailers tortured the prisoners but went home to sleep with their children. They were not able to see that what they did offended a just God who would one day judge them. Since they did not believe in objective truth outside themselves, no one can hold them accountable to that standard. They are “the Law”.

The religious person has to subject his feelings to revealed truth. Whether one is Jewish, Christian or Muslim he is commanded to deny himself and follow God. One can also test religious faith empirically, examine its claims, and check its internal consistency. Have you ever examined the truth about the man Jesus? Did you study history, archeology, and the Bible to see if what he said and did is true?

As for the death of Socrates by the Athenians, could you please provide your version? I presented what I learned from my sources.

Since science can not tell us whether it is right or wrong to steal, cheat, abort a baby, engage in illicit sexual behavior, or kill, the secularist follows his feelings. Is that an exaggeration?

It’s factually incorrect.
One can determine objectively what values must be enforced to have a happy, peaceful society. Societies where stealing, cheating, and murder are tolerated do not turn out to be very satisfactory places to live.

Empirically, plenty of countries with lower rates of religious belief and religious practice than the US nonetheless also have lower rates of violent crime.

Also I suggest you look at Transparency International’s ratings of corruption in different countries. You’ll see that there is no correlation with religious practice.

One can also test religious faith empirically, examine its claims, and check its internal consistency.

Internal inconsistency is irrelevant. One can create any number of belief systems that are internally consistent. In fact one can do a lot better in that respect than religion, because one can create systems of symbolic logic which are internally consistent, and being symbolic logic they can be reliably evaluated by multiple people. (for example if I have a mathematical proof, another mathematician can evaluate it, and its either true or it isn’t true - if doesn’t depend on your point of view). This is not true for religion since the “language” of religion is not formal, i.e., different people can read, say, the Bible, and interpret it differently.

Nor is religion testable in any other non-subjective way - it cannot, for example, make predictions.
As I said in my earlier post, the reason why the world’s major religions are still debating the same theological points thay have been for millenia is precisely because religious epistemology doesn’t work - they have no way to test their models to determine which are right and which are wrong. Science, for example, does, which is why it resolves its disputes and advances.

I did live in a socialist country and spent some time in a political prison, and the jailers tortured the prisoners but went home to sleep with their children.

But socialism is also based on the same epistemology as religion - “revealed knowledge” combined with “one-true-way-ism”. As H.L. Menken said, “Communism, like any other revealed religion, is largely made up of prophecies.”

As for the death of Socrates by the Athenians, could you please provide your version?

Try Wikipedia.

You said you lived in a socialist country and spent some time in a political prison. You claim that the jailers tortured the prisoners but went home to sleep with their children. I don’t think this has anything to do with being religious or having faith. In some countries they stone adulteresses to death and murder their wives, sisters, and mothers for just the rumor of bringing shame to the family name. All in the name of faith and religion. They murder the ones they are supposed to love and then go home and sleep well.

The commandants of Auschwitz-Birkenau lived with their families in nice houses with nice gardens minutes from one of the worse genocides of the 20th century. No doubt some believed in God. They loved and cherished their children and wives. One made home movies of his children playing in the yard, posing with his wife as if they were on a holiday. They slept soundly and in the morning they rose ate breakfast kissed their children and wives and went to work.

It seems part of humane nature to use the demonization others to justify our actions. Look at what happened in Abu Ghraib prison, I am sure some of the people involved went to church on Sundays and think of themselves as good Christians.

Religion and faith should be a private matter and not have any bearing on how our country is run. In fact I seem to remember a little thing called the separation of church and state as one of the laws of our country set forth by the founders for a reason. They did not want a theocracy.

I listen to NPR every day because I appreciate two things: 1) clear-handed analysis of the news, and 2) intelligent, progressive discussion. On this show, I haerd little of either. The main culprit was Jack Beatty.

On the first point, Mr. Beatty offers absolutely no analysis of the news. His prognostications are rarely correct. (I remember back in May, when he predicted McCain was at a high point, and would soon start sinking like a rock.) If I want to just hear pro-Obama, anti-McCain talking points, I’ll check out Daily Kos. I must give kudos to Eleanor Clift, who can yell with the best of them on The McLaughlin Group and act as the “partisan liberal” on that program, but who can offer calm, even-handed analysis on this program.

I was more aghast, though, at Mr. Beatty’s sexist and xenophobic commentary. First, he referred to Gov. Palin multiple times as “Sarah.” I never hear him refer to “Barack” or “John.” Then, as a German-American, I was aghast to hear Mr. Beatty say that Guiliani’s speech was “better in the original German.” In that obvious allusion to Hitler, I was offended that Mr. Beatty would 1) suggest that anything spoken in German is somehow abhorrent, and 2) equate Mr. Guiliani with Nazism. High-minded discourse, indeed.

As a graduate student living in Cambridge, many of my friends are NPR, and On Point, listeners. Many of us agree that this program’s coverage of politics has become increasingly ludicruous and uninsightful. Much of this is due to Mr. Beatty.

So Eleanor Clift, ends the show with the statement….” They can magine Sara Palin in their kitchen…” as the reason Republican voters are connecting with Sara. Can you imagine her saying such a thing about Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic woman–let me tell you it would not happen, she would have her Liberal credentials stripped from her. Isn’t it incredible that women’s rights do not apply to conservative women–what hypocrisy! It’s amazing that these liberals can be as sexist as they are with other women just because they do not hold the values they hold. Or maybe they are just jealous of Sara Palin and other conservative, Republican women who have shown they can have a all: a great family, loving husband, family values, a successful career all without having to turn into bitter b…..s

I will leave it at that.

I agree with the previous comment that “Many of us agree that this program’s (Tom Asshbrook’s) coverage of politics has become increasingly ludicruous and uninsightful. Much of this is due to Mr. Beatty.” But it is not only Mr Beatty, Mr. Beatty is merely Tom Ashbrook’s attack dog–he says all the things that Tom would like to say but he can’t without dropping the illusion that he is being unbaised. Tom allows the far-left loon: Mr. Beatty to go off on one of his ranks and then gets to reinforce his ranting or at the best try to bring it abit back into the center. If Tom was even attempting to be fair he would have a conservative voice on the air to counter-act Beatty. And when those rare times that Tom does have that center of the road, more conservative voice, you can really hear the disdain dripping from his voice.

I think the left-wing is worried, really worried about McCain winning and they are absolutely livid about it and are finally showing their real colors. They know that McCain can offer security, experience, and now a true Change story (unlike Obama’s mere rhetoric) to the people and after the Left threw Hillary over board they are very worried that those are the stories for which Obama is weakest. All the Republicans need to win is to develop a good economic plan and the election has been lost.

Although I agree with many of your, and the prior poster’s comments about the increasing stridency, superficiality, and tastelessness of many of On Point’s recent shows, this part doesn’t seem to have any basis in reality . . .

They know that McCain can offer security, experience, and now a true Change story

McCain’s energy policy, Iraq policy, healthcare policy and tax policy are all the same as what George Bush has been promoting. McCain has basically been voting for the Bush plan for the last 8 years. The mess the country is in is largely the result of the programs McCain has been supporting. Today McCain endorsed the nationlization of the Fannie and Freddie, which puts the taxpayers in it for $100 billion. How does McCain square THAT with his fiscal conservatism? And this after the Bush administration failed to oversee the two mortgage institutions, which they had a fiduciary responsibility to do.

Also the Wall Street Journal reported today that Obama and McCain have come out in favor of federal bailout money for US Detroit auto industry! Arguably that might seem like a liberal Democrat thing to do, so the fact that Obama supports it should be no surprise. But McCain?! How do you defend this, consistent with his stated principles? I know the answer - Michigan is a swing state. I used to think McCain was the real deal - genuine, straight-talking. But now it’s clear he’s just another pandering politico.

And then there’s Palin. The Associated Press quotes her as sying the the Iraq war is a mission from God and that she intends the governior’s office to be used to advance God’s will. That’s the sort of thinking they use in Iran. In the US it’s a violation of the Constitution to use the government to promote or enforce a particular religion’s views. If Palin doesn’t understand the Constitution she has no business being in government in any capacity.

Peter -

Get a life!

Get a life!

That’s it? I demolished your entire “change” thesis and that’s the best you can do?

I’m glad to see that people who post here share the sentiments that I and many of my colleagues have about Mr. Beatty’s influence on this show.

But I do want to add that I consider myself a progressive. And I can no longer stomach the idea of voting for Sen. Obama–I began having very strong doubts after the “sweetie” comments–after the rampant misogyny I have seen come from his campaign surrogates and his allies in the media in the last ten days.

I hope that like-minded individuals who support equal opportunities for women will join me in refusing to support such tactics.

Peter -

I didn’t get on this web site to debate you. Its not your web site whether you know that or not and I don’t believe that other people are here to read our debates. So why not leave this web site to be what it is intended to be: responses to Tom’s shows. If you want to debate everyone so badly get your own blog.

Andy