What's said is this - when McCain's campaign wasn't bringing in enough,
people hired to work with him got fired, layed off, etc. and those who
were
still working, like my mother, didn't get paid what they were due for
MONTHS. All the while, she was being told that many were having to make
sacrifices for this worthy candidate to get elected. Heck, sacrifice my
electric bill, sacrifice my meds, sacrifice my own personal expenditures
so
someone else, who now has proven he cannot manage a campaign and hire the
right people to stick to a budget and not spend it before it comes
in????....I don't think so!!! It's a shame but I feel that if they
cannot
manage a campaign, they sure as heck cannot manage a country.

Doug, have you heard anything about a group in the DNC moving to make
changes in the party? My political buddy called me the other day and said
they were moving to oust the "Clinton" rule that had been going on and
speaks to what you mention below. The Clinton, unbeknownst to many have
pretty much ruled a lot of the party for some time and set the "rules" as
mentioned. They are moving to make some BIG changes, according to my friend.
I have been out of it for about a week with some medical issues so am not
too with it. Have you heard any of this?

"Anne V." <ahvasquez at (no spam) NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:H4gZj.133$ZE5.37 at (no spam) nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

I think that number was mistaken; I saw that yesterday as well, then
later on saw several retractions. The debt is closer to "only" $20
million!

What's said is this - when McCain's campaign wasn't bringing in enough,
people hired to work with him got fired, layed off, etc. and those who
were
still working, like my mother, didn't get paid what they were due for
MONTHS. All the while, she was being told that many were having to
make
sacrifices for this worthy candidate to get elected. Heck, sacrifice
my
electric bill, sacrifice my meds, sacrifice my own personal
expenditures so
someone else, who now has proven he cannot manage a campaign and hire
the
right people to stick to a budget and not spend it before it comes
in????....I don't think so!!! It's a shame but I feel that if they
cannot
manage a campaign, they sure as heck cannot manage a country.

((I think it's ridiculous that by the time a
candidate actually wins, they'll have formally been on the campaign
trail for TWO YEARS! ))

Doug, don't these three Senators have a day job...as actual Senators
working in the Senate? I hear of them going back now and then to cast
a vote, but is that all we expect our Senators to do? Supposedly they
are getting paid to be Senators, but what are we as the public getting
for our tax money from them for these two years?

Judity

Jeannie Wrote:
"Anne V." <ahvasquez at (no spam) NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:H4gZj.133$ZE5.37 at (no spam) nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

I think that number was mistaken; I saw that yesterday as well, then
later on saw several retractions. The debt is closer to "only" $20
million!

What's said is this - when McCain's campaign wasn't bringing in enough,
people hired to work with him got fired, layed off, etc. and those who
were
still working, like my mother, didn't get paid what they were due for
MONTHS. All the while, she was being told that many were having to
make
sacrifices for this worthy candidate to get elected. Heck, sacrifice
my
electric bill, sacrifice my meds, sacrifice my own personal
expenditures so
someone else, who now has proven he cannot manage a campaign and hire
the
right people to stick to a budget and not spend it before it comes
in????....I don't think so!!! It's a shame but I feel that if they
cannot
manage a campaign, they sure as heck cannot manage a country.

In everyday pedestrian life, I think it is called "living beyond your
means," which is a crappy way to live.

However, in macroeconomics, "living beyond your means" or what
economists call as "deficit spending" can be a good thing. FDR used it
to get us out of a depression.

To ask how they can manage the country if they cannot manage their own
campaign finances, is really a streeeeetch and a fallacy. It is a great
soundbite, but will not hold water.

In everyday pedestrian life, I think it is called "living beyond your
means," which is a crappy way to live.

However, in macroeconomics, "living beyond your means" or what
economists call as "deficit spending" can be a good thing. FDR used it
to get us out of a depression.

To ask how they can manage the country if they cannot manage their own
campaign finances, is really a streeeeetch and a fallacy. It is a
great
soundbite, but will not hold water.

Not quite. There's also the matter of overall campaign management.
The money is just one part of it, and the most obvious. But, anyone
who has looked at Hillary's campaign objectively has seen a train
wreck in action. Incompetent staffing. Inability to adapt to
changing situations. Lack of a clear focus. Inept strategy. On and
on, you name a way to screw up, it's happened. This does not speak
well of her managerial capabilities, her ability to choose and manage
subordinates, policy, and strategy. All of which *are* germane to how
she'd run the country.
There was a similar story regarding a candidate (I forgot his name) who

Gisele <Gisele.39varc at (no spam) no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in
news:Gisele.39varc at (no spam) no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au:

I don't know anyone like that. Not one.

Consider yourself lucky. I know of too many people who are voting for H
because she is a woman and for O because he is an African-American. It's
honestly ridiculous.

There was a similar story regarding a candidate (I forgot his name)
who
had family problems. His opponent questioned how he can manage the
country if he cannot even manage his problems at home? It was a
fallacious argument with holes as big as that Texas sinkhole, but
nevertheless effective, and the poor guy lost.

I don't have inside info into the Clinton campaign, but assuming there
is management ineptitude, it is *not* germane to how she'd run the
country. It is undeniable that we had the best economy in modern times
in the 90s under the Clinton management. To project that she will
somehow bungle the country's management because she bungled her own
campaign is a *quantum leap* of unbelievable proportions. If their
past
economic management (track record) of the country is the only basis,
then I'd be comfortable with the Clintons back in the White House (but
unfortunately, that's not going to happen this time).

Actually, it's very germaine.

It's incredibly fallacious of you to project what SHE would do based
on what her HUSBAND did. She has the same problems Bush has. She
values loyalty over competence. She's let her staff run her, instead
of the other way around. She's hasn't shown focus, but has instead
been doing "message of the day" or "style of the day" for the past few
months. She hasn't handled adversity well.

Management styles don't change, and what she's shown in her campaign
does not bode well for her administration.
I don't know if all your info inside the Clinton campaign are factual

But, Anne, didn't you know the Clintons selflessly dug into their own
limited finances to help out her campaign? The last figure I heard she
"borrowed" was $11M, which you know she will put back into their
account if Senator Obama is fool enough to help settle her debts.

Judity

I guess I have more faith in people than you do. We had some very well
qualified people running on the Democratic side this year. There are
always people who come up with a stupid reason for their vote, but that
doesn't say anything about the people who are running.

Gisele


--
Gisele
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gisele's Profile: http://www.scribera.org/forum/member.php?userid=317
View this thread: http://www.scribera.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6718

I wish all the people I know were like the ones you know, Gisele, I really
do, but I've heard several people come right out and say that they're not
voting for a black man and others say they don't trust a woman to be able to
run the country. It floors me every time I hear it, but I've sure heard it.
:-(

Anne


Yep--it isn't just black people I see at work or women I see/know,

Yep, the change is noteworthy and admirable, but people's actions
aren't necessarily as healthy. I can't begin to guess how many black
people I know who are voting for Obama "...because he's black" and for
Hillary "...because she's a woman." These are qualifications to some.
AGGHHH!

Anne/OH

I don't know anyone like that. Not one.

Gisele


--
Gisele
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gisele's Profile: http://www.scribera.org/forum/member.php?userid=317
View this thread: http://www.scribera.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6718