And now for the next question

[DrTodd13]

Perhaps it is better to have someone who is "filthy rich" as President rather than someone relatively much poorer. I don't believe for a second that either of these jokers are in it for the good of the country. At least the filthy rich person may just be in it for the power. Whereas you can't tell me the poor guy isn't going to make sure he rubs the right elbows to enrich himself after he's done. Maybe the country would be better if run by childless pensioners expected to die before their terms are up. That way you take away a lot of the motive for self/familial enrichment

[mike777]

After a few good hikes iin the Shenandoah I came back to find the thread has a life of its own. No one seems to have had the same reaction to the "How many houses.." that I did: Hilarity first, analysis later if at all. I read the question and answer, I laughed out loud, refilled my coffee cup and laughed some more, read it to my wife and we both laughed. This was essentially the reaction I had to Dukakis in a tank, "Show that clip again, it's hilarious",  hence my question. Whatever Dukakis' qualifications for being Commander in Chief, the clip was devastating. A voter walking into the booth and reaching for the Dukakis lever could not help but remember it.

 

I am a professor and, worse, a mathematician. I have never known anyone, no matter how absent minded, who cannot answer the question "How many houses do you own?" Of course if you ask a real estate speculator he may not know his current total but no one would understand the question in that sense. I sat there visualizing a scene in the McCain household: "Cindy, the MasterCard bill is a bit high this month. There is something about a castle in Scotland, do you know anything about that?".

 

This has no real bearing on McCain's abilities, neither did the shot of Dukakis in a tank relate to his abilities. But it has an effect. And as for the immediate politics, the next time McCain's forces call him an elitist I imagine the response to be "Uh huh. Well, I do know how many houses I own."

 

As mentioned before, I don't care if he owns ten houses. I expect a guy to be able to say how many kids he has, what their names are, and how many houses he owns.

The truly rich are truly different from you and me.

 

There are reports there may be as many as 6 houses on one piece of property.

Granted upon reflection he could answer better but when asked a thousand questions a day we all would answer some of them silly and not politically correct.

At the very least I think it reinforces he has no idea just how much money Cindy has and where it is at. We already knew he is not an economic policy wonk or has that much interest beyond the tag lines, cut taxes...veto spending......B)

[Al_U_Card]

At least his writers could have supplied him with:

 

"I have one home and that is wherever Cindy and I lay our heads at night."

 

Food for thought...

[jtfanclub]

No, but perhaps I worded this incorrectly so let me rephrase: I do not think any presidential candidate has much chance being elected in the U.S. if AIPAC is stongly opposed.

 

Well, that makes more sense, at lease. It's actually the reverse. If a politician has a strong chance of winning AIPAC won't strongly oppose them, because AIPAC will lose a lot of power if they try and fail.

 

The same goes for the Vatican, for example. Everybody knows who the Vatican supports in the election, but the Vatican won't 'strongly oppose' anybody who has a decent chance of winning. They may not like Obama, but if they directly opposed him, and he won, the Vatican would lose a great deal of power, not to mention their tax-exempt status. Did you know that outside of the U.S. and state governments, the Vatican owns the most property in the U.S.?

 

Perhaps you mean ignorant rather than stupid.

 

No, what I'm referring to is not ignorance. Most people are ignorant of the inner workings of AIPAC. I'm only on the margins myself.

 

What is stupid is to say "If a politician is successful, then he must be approved by AIPAC", and then say "I'm waiting for a successful politician not approved by AIPAC".

 

See where the problem is here? It's not ignorance, except maybe an ignorance of logic. It's your definition. You say Barack must be approved by AIPAC because he's successful. But by this definition, any candidate X, if they were successful, must be approved by AIPAC. So you're waiting for something that you've defined as impossible.

 

Earlier this year, Obama went to an advocacy group primarily based on religion, and phrased answers to their questions in ways that he thought the group would approve of, when possible. Although the group still opposes him, the group won't do so outwardly, in part because they were mollified by his willingness to come to them, and mostly because if they did oppose them and he won, there would be serious repercussions for the group.

 

Obama has shown a willingness to go to groups that oppose him and declare his willingness to work with them and show that he isn't such a bad guy after all. He did it with the evangelicals at Saddleback, and he did so with conservative Jews at AIPAC. But I don't think anybody's going to come here and claim that evangelicals approve of Barack Obama.

 

EDITED TO ADD: Now, Biden, on the other hand, he's AIPAC. So maybe Obama picked him in part to keep the Zionists from getting too upset.

 

And why would he be concerned about upsetting the Zionists if the Zionist lobby wasn't critical, especially if his own non-AIPAC support is slighted at the same time?

 

Biden is also Catholic, and was picked in part because he was concerned about upsetting Catholics. Biden is also from a working class family from Pennsylvania, and was picked in part because Obama was worried that working class families from the Midwest would oppose him. There's lots of lobbies in the U.S. you don't particularly want to piss off. AIPAC is certainly one of them, but it's not even the most powerful one. That would be the AARP. Did I mention that Biden is 65 and well known for passing pro-AARP legislation?

 

The magazine The Nation is a good indicator of Jewish support outside of AIPAC. They're very upset by the Biden pick.

[TimG]

There are reports there may be as many as 6 houses on one piece of property.

Does the pool house count as a home?

[kenberg]

There are events in lie that we remember not because they were so important but simply because they were so out of the blue. Over fifty years ago I was bicycling with a group from St. Paul out to (nearby) White Bear Lake. The parents of a girl in our group owned a lake house there along with a boat powered by an inboard Mercury. We were going water-skiing. All this was new to me. We were chatting while riding along and the girl explained that her parents were thinking of selling their house in Florida since three houses seemed excessive, and what did I think? Mostly I thought I had just been transported to a different planet.

 

I suppose that it is possible to lose track of how many houses you have, or to be unsure whether you should count the pool house or the servant's building, but I still find it a source of great amusement.

[Al_U_Card]

There are reports there may be as many as 6 houses on one piece of property.

Does the pool house count as a home?

Only if it was built for the pool table... ;)

[y66]

From today's Washington Post:

 

Allan Lichtman is predicting a political "earthquake" this November: The incumbent party will crumble and Senator Barack Obama will be elected president.

 

Lichtman's "quake" model has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in every election since 1981 and, he claims, would have correctly predicted the winner in all elections going back to 1860.

 

Of course, the "quake" model does not take race into account. Or age. Or number of houses owned.