A housing issue: McCain not sure how many they own

Finishing 894th out of 899 in his class

I swear, this should be mentioned in every Obama speech. There should seriously be academic standards a candidate must meet in order to run for office. Yeah yeah yeah, not everyone goes to or has to go to college. But please excuse my opinion that if you wish to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA you damned sure better have gone to and graduated from college with TOP HONORS. I expect no less and neither should every other self respecting American citizen that wants only the best candidates to choose from.

No kidding, arcanebliss. The greatest country in the world, elects George W. Bush, who's not the smartest guy; looks what's happened, and now on the verge of possibly electing this guy. Obama needs to go after McCain in ads in many ways, go negative, or else he gambles with allowing John McCain to look like the "strong guy."

It was the teachers! Not him! :)

Just what the hell is John McCain sure about? I'm begining to think it's nothing.

• Not sure about Sunni or Shia
• Not sure about what to do with the economy
• Not sure if torture is illegal, immoral or both
• Not sure if it's ok to have ambition to be President
• Not sure if he likes GWB or not
• Not sure if Rev Hagee is a religious bigot or not.
• Not sure if war is something to be avoided at all costs or not
• Not sure what he said yesterday, a week ago, or two months ago

Go back to making keys at the hardware store John. Come to think of it, it would be a full-time job just making keys for your own houses. If only you could remember how many to make.

Yeah, Jimster. You should send the Obama camp these comments of yours, and tell them the people want it in a political ad. The type of ad that just totally goes for broke.

The Obama's and the Clintons are wealthy, too.

By the time Obama is McCain's age, he should be just as wealthy as McCain.

Personally, I want my president to be successful. If the guy can't be successful in his personal life, how could he be successful at leading a country.

The fact is that today, all politicians are wealthy.

As for grades, Obama did not get good grades, either.

Obama only received better grades after er working for quite awhile, and going back to school at an older age.

Most older students get better grades.

If the guy can't be successful in his personal life, how could he be successful at leading a country.

Maybe he can marry into a successful country that can financially back everything his country does.

There should seriously be academic standards a candidate must meet in order to run for office.

Agreed completely. I simply don't comprehend how the Republicans, supposedly the party of pulling one up by one's own bootstraps, can stand behind a man who got everywhere by luck of his birth (Bush) and another who is far from a success, who got where he is by virtue of marrying a rich heiress (who also did nothing to earn her wealth except to be born to it).

There should seriously be academic standards a candidate must meet in order to run for office. Yeah yeah yeah, not everyone goes to or has to go to college. But please excuse my opinion that if you wish to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA you damned sure better have gone to and graduated from college with TOP HONORS. I expect no less and neither should every other self respecting American citizen that wants only the best candidates to choose from.

arcanebliss... While I don't argue with your suggestion, there are quite a few Americans who may not hit those high standards.

And then... there's this guy.

I can't believe this guy is still in the running. I find it harder to believe there are those who support him. Bare witness the downfall of our country and proof of the overwhelming ignorance that is our election.

Come to think of it, it would be a full-time job just making keys for your own houses. If only you could remember how many to make.

The first thing I thought was,"Why doesn't he just sit back and count his house keys?" but he probably doesn't remember where those are....

It must be rough to have millions of dollars and so many houses that you lose track of how many you have.

And how can he call Obama an elitist? His definition of rich is $5 million and last year the Obamas only made $4.2 million...........

Obama has not always been wealthy, however. He is, as the French aristocrats say, 'nouveau riche'. McCain has always been well off, being the son and grandson of high ranking military officials. Being successful and being rich are two entirely different things, Shaun. I hardly see how McCain has successfully obtained any of his wealth.

shaun v@1.6-

As for grades, Obama did not get good grades, either.

This is a lie.

• He graduated from Columbia University in 1983
• He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard in 1991, where he became the president of the Harvard Law Review.
• Barack graduated MAGNA CUM frickken LAUDE from Harvard Law school.

McCain's record? 894 out of 899 in his class.

Stop posting lies Shaun

Next the Republicans will be saying that at least McCain did better than 5 others in his class!

Most likely they will paint paint doing well in school is elitist and say "Look at this guy he's as dumb as you, So come and vote for him."

...yeah and those five are Bush supporters too.

TJG:

Next the Republicans will be saying that at least McCain did better than 5 others in his class!

What if...

"Out of an elite group of six midshipmen at the Naval Academy, John McCain finished first!"

Personally, I want my president to be successful. If the guy can't be successful in his personal life, how could he be successful at leading a country.

So if McCain is elected President, which beer heiress will America have to marry so the country can be successful?

missdynamite@1.11-

The first thing I thought was,"Why doesn't he just sit back and count his house keys?" but he probably doesn't remember where those are....

Let's buy this man a Clapper!
Just clap, and all his houses light up!

Let's buy this man a Clapper! Just clap, and all his houses light up!

Oh hell........................ I just spit coffee all over my keyboard and my boss asked what's so funny.

But he'd probably forget how to work the clapper. Or he'd assume that all homes with lights on belong to him.

The Obama's and the Clintons are wealthy, too.

Obama may be well off, but he's not even close to the league with the Clintons who had an extra $10 million to loan the campaign and pull down tens of millions per year or McCain who can't count the homes he owns. Get it right please.

Great another potential presidential under-achiever. Who is a bad orator, an elitist and can't even manage his own life!

Just what our country needs, a 3rd-term under-achievor...

[wake-up republican sheep]

Hey Shaun,

Obama only received better grades after er working for quite awhile, and going back to school at an older age.

Yeah, poor guy had to work to make a living. He didn't get an appointment to the Naval Academy handed to him. Obama had to make money and rely on student loans.

Most older students get better grades.

So the kid who worked for a while and then went back to school got better grades than McCain and Bush. If older students get better grades then maybe it's not too late for McCain to go back to school and redeem himself. I'll donate my GI Bill to him if he'll do it.

Has any presidential nominee in any of our lifetimes not been a millionaire? The left right quibble is pointless. The point that McCain will no doubt forget his own name soon should be the main issue.

I HATE to bring this up because I DO think its relevant but, class rank ALONE does not mean anything. I was pretty low in the class rankings in my law school and I'd like to HOPE that I don't come across as an idiot, fool or moron. No, I wasn't prepared for law school and had to play catch-up. The fact that I stuck it out should count for something.....my determination and actual intellect did show.

What matters with McCain however are the reports of his lack of interest, enthusiasm or maturity while at school. For someone at the ACADEMY, training to be an officer, he needed to show he was something more than the average Joe.....he failed to do so. Also, HOW you finish is more important than WHERE you finish....had something happened, had he fought back through adverse conditions, overcome some adversity and squeaked out a passing grade at the end, THAT would say something....however, doing 'just enough' to get by tells me that he is lazy and intellectually incurious. And after 7 years of that in the Oval office and 4 years prior to that in Texas, I think many of us have had enough.

Shaun V, I want my president to be successful The GOP is simply connected to success and propped up by successful people, they themselves haven't been all that successful.

I would prefer an intelligent president over a massively rich and connected one any day, if only so that I can believe them when they are lying to me.

shaun v@1.6-

As for grades, Obama did not get good grades, either.

This is a lie.

1.13.
Good catch, Jimster. Do not expect that poster will come back and reply. He has a known history of avoiding such stuff. Typical hit-and-run tactics hoping somebody will think it's true.

McCain is so out of touch with average Americans that it's not funny. He's never had to pay for an education or buy health care on the open market. His wife is worth several hundred million and he's been in lockstep with George Bush 90% of the time. Yet, with the help of a fawning and compliant media, he sells himself as some sort of champion of the little people. What a joke.

McCain's record? 894 out of 899 in his class.

Next the Republicans will be saying that at least McCain did better than 5 others in his class!

...yeah and those five are Bush supporters too.

One was Bush.

Please do not infer that President Bush would ever get his coke snorting nose into the US Naval Academy. Purely insulting to those who serve this country and defend our right to free speech.

and mistakes Sunni and Shia in front of a press corpse.

This talk of zombie reporters intrigues me. Tell me more ...

Obama has an excellent comebacker ad out already on this.

Just what the hell is John McCain sure about? I'm begining to think it's nothing.

And yet he was "sure" of all of his canned answers for the Rick Warren interview.

The emptiness of this fellow makes Ron Reagan look like a full house.

And how can he call Obama an elitist? His definition of rich is $5 million and last year the Obamas only made $4.2 million...

(1.11)
because the GOP definition of 'elitist' has nothing to do with wealth. It's about eating arugula and having a penchant for latte. One is also labeled an 'elitist' if you're a celebrity and publicly espouse views contrary to the GOP platform.

LOL

Good one

McCain's low rank in his class wasn't entirely due to poor academic performance. At the Naval Academy, "conduct" can bring your rank in class down, and his was atrocious. For the same reason, he also scored very low on "leadership."

McCain's admirers will probably say that his tendency to party and break every rule in sight in his student days is proof of his charmingly maverick personality. Maybe so, but we've had a hard-partying frat boy in the White House for 8 years, and we all know how that has worked out. Are you sure you want the nuclear codes in the hands of another "maverick?"

Speaking of which, if your image of the typical hot shot aviator is Tom Cruise's "Maverick" character in Top Gun, think again. Men who have been to Top Gun say that no one that reckless and irresponsible would ever be allowed near a million-dollar aircraft. Of course, Tom Cruise's character wasn't the son and grandson of admirals with lots of highly placed friends, either.

Thank you Jimster for correcting shaun v and the truth MAGNA CUM fricken LAUDE from Harvard Law School. Nuf Said.

Bud is nasty beer, I'm alcoholic and I wouldn't drink it.

He graduated from Columbia University in 1983
He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard in 1991, where he became the president of the Harvard Law Review.
Barack graduated MAGNA CUM frickken LAUDE from Harvard Law school.

Big difference though is McCain didn't get stupid and out of touch with America by reading Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Obama is a left winged radical power hungry elitist.

He needs to cool his jets, slow down on his perpetual drive for power and get some experience in actually being a senator and do a little more than vote "present" After that he can run again 4 years from now.

A vote for him now is a guarantee for him to fall on his face learning because right now he doesn't have a clue how to lead a country

There should seriously be academic standards a candidate must meet in order to run for office.

What a repulsively undemocratic notion. So only college elitists can run for office? I can't vote for someone with less education? Talk about class warfare at its worst. Isn't one of the most important things about our country the fact that it's a democracy, and silly "academic criteria" are not existent for possible candidates? Shouldn't voters be allowed to chose whether this is important for each candidate?

Big difference though is McCain didn't get stupid and out of touch with America by reading Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Nah, McCain got stupid for rather mysterious reasons, and out of touch for marrying a bank account heiress.

He needs to cool his jets, slow down on his perpetual drive for power and get some experience in actually being a senator and do a little more than vote "present" After that he can run again 4 years from now.

A vote for him now is a guarantee for him to fall on his face learning because right now he doesn't have a clue how to lead a country

Funny. Sounds like McCain, except McCain didn't even vote "present." He just slept in.

What a repulsively undemocratic notion. So only college elitists can run for office?

meh. There's already a lower age limit. Apparently, we're already repulsively undemocratic in that only middle-aged age elitists can run for office.

There's already a lower age limit. Apparently, we're already repulsively undemocratic in that only middle-aged age elitists can run for office.

I say do away with the age limit as well. Nothing democratic about it at all. But at least its a standard that everyone eventually will meet, if they live long enough. It won't cost you anything to achieve the age of 35....

What a repulsively undemocratic notion. So only college elitists can run for office? I can't vote for someone with less education? Talk about class warfare at its worst. Isn't one of the most important things about our country the fact that it's a democracy, and silly "academic criteria" are not existent for possible candidates? Shouldn't voters be allowed to chose whether this is important for each candidate?

ED

I totally agree with you. Are not some of these statements the ultimate manifestation of elitist thought?

Its basic class warfare fueled by marxist communist doctrine with the ultimate aim being the culturally astute intellectual elite looking out for the well being of the poor illiterate masses who cling to their guns and bibles.

With people spewing nonsense like that..... the tanks and barb wire camps won't be far behind.....Sad, really sad!

How about a basic IQ test, then? My sister-in-law's father didn't even finish elementary school, yet he runs the technology department at one of the nation's largest universities. This is because he is incredibly intelligent and worked his way up from, quite literally nothing, to where he is now.

Also, after going to an excellent college and watching a slew of trust fund babies coast through school on money alone, I am rather cynical about the actual value of a college diploma.

(On the point that someone made above about college being elitist since only certain people can afford it - I completely agree and that's one of the issues I care most about - giving every child the chance to go for a higher education without worrying about the money issue).

Yeah, take money out of the equation... free college for those who can make the grade on merit alone.

BTW, military academies don't charge tuition, and not everybody can get into those. Food for thought.

when your have a LEGACY, you can get into the academy....two generations of admirals kinda helps. - just food for thought.

Even with two generations of admirals, if you can't make the grade, there's no "No Child Left Behind" program to coddle you through it. You either make it on your own merits, or you're out. Imagine the same standards in universities. Trust fund babies who can't make the grade, they'd be out. A 2.0 gpa would not be sufficient. Education would come to be a valued thing in our society again.

*(For the record... I had an appointment to Annapolis... would have been in the first class with females... I turned it down and chose enlistment instead. I went to college when I got out of the Navy on the GI Bill. And yes, I do think veterans should get a free shot at it, but they have to make the grade to stay.)

Shaun v

The Obama's and the Clintons are wealthy, too.

By the time Obama is McCain's age, he should be just as wealthy as McCain.

Personally, I want my president to be successful. If the guy can't be successful in his personal life, how could he be successful at leading a country.

Your definition of success is dumping your loyal crippled wife in order to marry a rich heiress? What's wrong with you?

I never said anything about making grade to STAY - yes, he squeaked by.....but he sure and hell didn't get IN on merit did he?

LOTS of people don't get in on merit, webslinger, but the way the system is set up, it favors the wealthy and connected, not the brightest or the best. Our schools were set up by the captains of business and industry as a means of supplying human resources to industry, not as a means of furthering Enlightenment or Platonic philosophy (which would have been a better ideal, imho). The plan was not to open minds to create free-thinking individuals... no, no... far from it. (The link is to a book all Americans should read. The full text is freely accessible at that link.)

The whole system needs revamping, but you'll find that the educational community is so entrenched that even those well-meaning people who truly want to change the educational system from within are stymied at every turn... in no small part due to vested interests.

For ethical reasons, McCain doesn't handle a lot of family-related business; Cindy, who is independantly wealthy, does. There is good reason for him not to be "hands on" in some of these dealings. No wonder he doesn't know exactly how many properties the family owns.

Like the "$5 million is rich" joke he told, and the "possible 100 years in Iraq" misconstrued comments, the Left wants to create scandal and controversy over NOTHING.

So What ... McCain Family Owns 8 Properties

The presumptive Republican nominee, though, may have some wiggle room in explaining why he couldn't immediately provide an answer when asked by Politico how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own. Sen. McCain himself does not own any of the properties. They're all owned by Cindy McCain, her dependent children and the trusts and companies they control.

Nice try, Tom, but in 2004 the right went after Kerry viciously with the "gigolo who married for money" smear, and they took every opportunity to jeer at his wife's supposed snootiness, elitism, multiple homes, multiple SUV's, you name it. Your side wrote the script; all we have to do now is plug in the name "McCain" and the work is done for us. And no whining about how his wife and her property are off limits. They weren't off limits for attacks on Kerry in '04, and they're fair game now.

Based on the petty history of our Presidential campaigns it seems the only thing off limits is the real issues and the legislative changes that relate to them. It's a time to dwell on hate, fear and smears!

Nice try, Tom, but in 2004 the right went after Kerry viciously with the "gigolo who married for money" smear, and they took every opportunity to jeer at his wife's supposed snootiness, elitism, multiple homes, multiple SUV's, you name it. Your side wrote the script; all we have to do now is plug in the name "McCain" and the work is done for us. And no whining about how his wife and her property are off limits. They weren't off limits for attacks on Kerry in '04, and they're fair game now.

Isn't it hilariously funny then that Obama, given all of the advantages you could ever imagine in this presidential race (lousy economy, hated GOP president, John McFrikkin McCain to run against, the war in Iraq, etc.) has fallen five points behind old Gramps and is freefalling like Dick Cheney shot him out of the air while duck hunting! When he ends up losing by fifteen percent I'm going to laugh my ass off!

Jeff--1.52-yes, obama is falling.....and he is as a result trying to pivot and go negative on the elder statesman war hero---we'll see how that plays out in the polls.

I believe in evolution. If we as a country are stupid enough to put McCain in the White House with his finger on the nuclear trigger it would seem to me that evolution is alive and well and working. (For those who don't get it…a lot of stupid people may be eliminated.)

obama is falling.....and he is as a result trying to pivot and go negative on the elder statesman war hero---we'll see how that plays out in the polls.

More like we'll see how McCain's foot in mouth over his houses plays out in the polls. That was a giant gaffe that will hit hard and not go away...then we have McCain saying he supports a draft.

A "Statesman" McCain is not, he's more a career politician who has lived off of others coattails (Cindy's, his dad's, the government's) his entire life.

Oh jeez Jones girl!

What's wrong with you!

don't you know you're not allowed to say anything critical of McCain once they play the "war hero" card?

-you must hate your country...

greck---well if obama can use the race card we have to have some kinda card to play now don't we?

lisa,

Obama's not really using the race card.....but McCain and his people are using the POW card on every play. As Howard Fineman and others have pointed out (including SEVERAL vets and POWs), its getting old and it is cheapening what he went through....being a POW does not give him the keys to the White House outright....he hasn't earned it.....and, he can't simply claim to be a POW while being married to a multi-millionaire, own 7 homes and claim to be the average joe. Living for 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton does not allow him to sidestep any question he doesn't want to answer either.

webslinger---McCain doesn't sidestep....look at how he handled that bogus New York Times story about an alleged affair with that lobbyist. McCain scores major points for having handled that by hitting them back head on in a press conference where he answered all questions put to him by reporters. Did Edwards have the guts to do that--and his affair was for real......see the difference?

webslinger,

Re: #1.58, You're trying to debate with a dyed-in-the-wool, unyielding, to-the-death Republican. Any effort on your part, sans a supernatural event, will be fruitless.

visioncoast---so what if I'm dyed-in-the-wool? That's true and darn proud of it---that doesn't mean I'm not fun for democrats to debate with. Try it. You'll like it.

lisaed,

Thanks for the invite, I do appreciate it. But I don't like beating my head with a hammer. ;o}

Cut the old fogey some slack....given the turbulence of the economy and the nightmare that is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, LOTS of people are uncertain about their home ownership....

:)

lisaed, What does it even mean, to be a "dyed-in-the-wool" Republican anymore? Time was, being conservative meant keeping the government's hand out of your pocket and out of your life. Now-a-days, Republicans are just as much (technically...MORE so) tax and spend as the liberal Democrats they love to demonize...they differ only in what problems are viewed as solvable by blindly throwing our money at. And the regulatory interference in our daily lives the liberals for are faulted for areNOTHING compared to the erosion of my (and your) rights as a citizen of this nation by so-called "conservatives" of the Republican Party.

The only thing conservative about Republicans anymore, is the militant rhetoric on a religious moral code they expect all but their own leaders to adhere by.

This is a great comment and very, very true. GWB has increased the size of the government more than any Republican in history!

I believe in evolution. If we as a country are stupid enough to put McCain in the White House with his finger on the nuclear trigger it would seem to me that evolution is alive and well and working. (For those who don't get it…a lot of stupid people may be eliminated.)

So, Ez, by your own mind-boggling logic, if Obama wins, then evolution is a lie?

Rich people do remember how many houses they own. They just do not want you to know.

BA McCain married his money, just as George Washington did. Being the son/grandson of Admirals doesn't mean much, money-wise. Even flag-rank military don't get paid a whole lot. Hence the need for a rich wife.

Let us remember, though, that John McCain is a best-selling author, so it's not like he was a pauper or a "kept man." But he and Cindy's business affairs are kept separate and arm's length for good reason.

Tom he's only a best selling author because he was a recognized name being a Senator and all that. Oh, who got him hooked up in politics in the first place? Yep, Cindy's daddy. And it was Cindy's daddy that bankrolled his first run as well. So much for being his own man I say.

but,

but,

he has BARBECUES!

...and he drinks Bud. ;)

...now owned by Belgian InBev...

...does this mean he gets a piece of the Belgian waffle action?

"My friends, I likes me the Bud on my waffles"

Oh come on now guys, hasn't ever true-blooded American at one point or another forgotten how many houses they own? Surely the average citizen can relate.

hasn't ever true-blooded American at one point or another forgotten how many houses they own?

Only when playing Monopoly :p

I once forgot to make a house payment... does that qualify?

I think he should just look at his last Costco receipt and look at the number of cases of Depends he bought.

That's probably the number of houses he has.

*Best Comment Thread of the Article*

//bwahahahaha

I think he should just look at his last Costco receipt and look at the number of cases of Depends he bought.

That's probably the number of houses he has.

Friggin' awesome!!

Can't remember how many houses he has, is worth $100 million and has a wife that spent $175,000 in one month. WOW and he said he is the average American male. I looked around my house for my average American male and didn't see him. Where is he?

"I'm so stinking rich I don't even know how many houses I own." John McCain, Man of the People, Champion of the Common Man, Non-Elistist Understands Your Problems.

What is this the people's republic of something or other or is it America?

Lets see

Do Oprah and Trump know how many homes they own?

How many does that filthy rich crook Resko, the one that helped Obama get his...... own?

How about the Kennedy's ...Obama's good friends

Anyway here is a list of the wealthiest senators

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 $234,549,004

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 $235,262,100

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 $101,579,003

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,341,462 $98,630,021

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 $64,096,019

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 $90,733,019

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $20,571,136 $32,043,011

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 $93,043,004

9 Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) $13,508,152 $49,829,007

10 Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore) $12,994,660 $62,261,641

11 Bill Frist (R-Tenn) $11,667,041 $41,735,006

12 Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) $11,542,483 $43,639,427

13 Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) $11,488,475 $47,410,001

14 Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $10,080,005 $50,200,000

15 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $8,780,208 $37,243,002

Old list. Not all those people are in the Senate anymore (e.g. DeWine). McCain's worth doesn't appear to include Cindy McCain's value, either, which is estimated to be about $100 million.

Old list. Not all those people are in the Senate anymore (e.g. DeWine). McCain's worth doesn't appear to include Cindy McCain's value, either, which is estimated to be about $100 million.

Doesn't really matter....they all earned it. Don't know what parts of the world you admire but here in America, people are allowed to be rich

Thats why from all over the world ...they comin to America!!!

They're all rich. Who cares? We're supposed to make money in this country. Obama has more money than any of my friends, and good for him! McCain has money, so what? What's the point?

They're all rich. Who cares? We're supposed to make money in this country. Obama has more money than any of my friends, and good for him! McCain has money, so what? What's the point?

Exactly!

I don't know about anyone else but .....One thing for sure I can't afford to wind down and take a break by going to Hawaii and playing golf at the drop of a hat!

But its okay..its his money, he earned it!

The phoney part is this.......its the height of hypocrisy for Obama to even infer that he's not trying to be rich as his richest friends and rich as he wants to be!

And its a lie to boot

Doesn't really matter....they all earned it.

No, they all did not. An inheritance is not "earning" in any meaningful way.

No, they all did not. An inheritance is not "earning" in any meaningful way.

So in your America, anything anyone inherits should be what......taken away?

In your America should the state assume ownership of the estate of people when they pass away?

Being born into a family a person inherits the legacy of the family..whether good or bad.

Its another incentive for a parent to make the right choices and do the right things and attain those achievements and goals they set for themself!

We should pass on a legacy and an inheritance to our children and our children's children. Its extremely marxist socialist to knock that...don't you think?

Hey, thanks for trying to speak for me, but I'm quite capable of speaking for myself. Back off.

We're talking about the difference between "earning" and "inheriting". There is a difference. I never said people with inheritances had to forfeit those inheritances, only that claiming they "earned" their inheritances is a bit silly.

You can try to make this about those scary Communists all you want, but the fact is that your argument is with standard English usage. Take it up with the OED or Webster's, if you must.

Its extremely marxist socialist to knock that...don't you think?

Coming from the guy who supports communist China. Priceless. I mean the hypocrisy.

Only a totalitarian minded marxist socialist autocrat would be concerned with making a distinction between the two!

Oooh, scary communists again.

Do you ever obsess over the Kennedy wealth? Do you think they started out from the same starting line as other people or do you think they had a head start? How they got it was a moot point to all America!

Red herring; this isn't about the Kennedys.

The fact of the matter is its none of your business how someone came to have whatever they have as long as they aquired it legally. Thats a principle and a benefit of a free society you apparently missed!

The fact of the matter is that I don't particularly care how people come by their wealth until they (or others) try to attribute virtue to them they didn't earn. That's what you missed.

So McCain married a beer heiress multi-millionaire. Big deal. Just don't try to tell me he "earned" his money through hard work. It's clear he didn't.

Lastly...... If you've gotten this far through my response you can save the elitist comments regarding my usage of the English language for your next trip through a McDonald's drive through...!

I see. When you don't have an argument, your default fallback is to try to belittle me. Look up "earn" in either dictionary I referenced. Seriously. Your argument isn't with me.

I swear, there's something in the water lately.

Something that makes people go "I don't have to address what so-and-so actually said, I'll just pull and argument out of my ass and then slap it down!" OMGWIN

So McCain married a beer heiress multi-millionaire. Big deal. Just don't try to tell me he "earned" his money through hard work. It's clear he didn't.

What I'm telling you and you don't care to hear is.... .so what!

Its still his!

Who are you the big earning sheriff of America.....??

Who are you to evaluate someones effort? Thats something only an elitist will do. Thats what smacks of marxist / socialist thought!

American's don't typically trip on how other people get their money...thats more typical of marxists.

Its not a scare tactic on my part I'm merely just pointing out to you we live in a free market capitalistic society....don't worry about Obama's money or McCains money..as long as they didn't steal it or kill someone to get it...who cares!

My point is.....you're out of place to speak on the means of anyone's wealth!

"out of place"? Pardon me? People should know their place and not speak up? Talk about elitist...

Who are you the big earning sheriff of America.....??

Sure. Yes, I'm the big, bad earnings sheriff of America. But you can call me Mr. BBESOA.

Who are you to evaluate someones effort? Thats something only an elitist will do. Thats what smacks of marxist / socialist thought!

Who am I (aside from Mr. BBESOA, I assume you mean)? Why, I'm an American voter. Evaluating someone's effort, qualifications, and demeanor is kind of what a voter is supposed to do before voting (or not) for a candidate, isn't it? Who are you to tell me I'm not supposed to take character issues into account when I'm making my choice? Sounds kind of like you're the Stalinist, Maoist, authoritarian, totalitarian, undemocratic (did I forget any?) meanie-head around here.

American's don't typically trip on how other people get their money...thats more typical of marxists.

Oooh more scary communists.

You can throw communist around as much as you want. It doesn't really bother me all that much. It seems you have some misperception that by calling me socialist or communist you can scare me into silence. Listen, buddy, it's not the 1950s anymore. The Red Scare was a long time ago, and people aren't fooled by your tactics.

Again, I'm not "tripping" on McCain's money. I'm "tripping" that some people (including, in my opinion, McCain himself) are trying to assign virtue to McCain that is undeserved.

Americans, last I checked, believed in a fair shake, not in a free ride.

My point is.....you're out of place to speak on the means of anyone's wealth!

Not if that person is running for president I'm not. Why is it, do you think, that presidential candidates release their tax returns? Because it's of direct interest to voters. You know, like me.

Thanks for being the voice of reason in here spiffie. I was getting ticked off reading some of these responses but when I came back you had addressed most of them even if you were attacked in the process.

Whatever propriety John McCain may have expected or deserved with regards to his wealth and how he earned, he sacrificed long ago when he decided to go after his opponent with character attacks that painted him as "elitist" and "out of touch."

Seriously, I think we would all prefer an election based on the issues and the candidate's positions, rather than seizing on gaffes and making character attacks... but that is not the kind of campaign McCain decided to run, and you can't expect Obama not to respond in kind.

So, boo fricken hoo hoo for John McCain. "Tis sport to see the engineer hoisted on his own petard."

Couldnt McCain just have easily lost all the money and done nothing with his life?

Just because you come from a wealthy family or a priveledged life doesnt mean you will turn out to be successful.

He obviously works hard, I would say that for all the 535 in Congress

And on the surface Obama came out of the most corrupt political system in America, Chicago!
My point is, we dont know what any them have been through, really.

Im not painting anyone. I'd rather hear about issues, but apparently splitting hairs on if he EARNED or inhereted his money is of national importance.

And BTW tax returns are to make sure taxes have been paid and all money is accounted for, NOT to see how much they made. Gimme a break. Lets just debate policy stances and issues please!

I'd rather hear about issues, but apparently splitting hairs on if he EARNED or inhereted his money is of national importance.

And BTW tax returns are to make sure taxes have been paid and all money is accounted for, NOT to see how much they made. Gimme a break. Lets just debate policy stances and issues please!

Hear hear
...spoken with much more grace and class than I've been able to muster uu in this exchange

Couldnt McCain just have easily lost all the money and done nothing with his life?

Just because you come from a wealthy family or a priveledged life doesnt mean you will turn out to be successful.

You're right, it doesn't. But I never claimed it did. Despite my having said it three or four different ways you're ignoring what my objection is: the objection is not "McCain is rich" or "McCain married into his wealth." The objection is whether or not McCain deserves the implicit virtue inherent in having "worked his way up" (i.e. fulfilled the prototypical American dream of class mobility). Americans love an underdog; they love to see someone who has gone from virtually nothing to become a captain of society. Some (in my view) seem to be trying to assign such a story to McCain, when the truth couldn't be any more different.

He obviously works hard, I would say that for all the 535 in Congress

(I think you might be very lonely in claiming that about Congress. ;) Regardless, I agree with you. Most in Congress have done phenomenal work to be where they are today.)

And on the surface Obama came out of the most corrupt political system in America, Chicago!
My point is, we dont know what any them have been through, really.

New Orleans would probably argue your first point.

Im not painting anyone. I'd rather hear about issues, but apparently splitting hairs on if he EARNED or inhereted his money is of national importance.

*Sigh* I really don't know why this is so complicated. I'm not splitting hairs. The timeline was: McCain attacks Obama for celebrity and elitism, implying that "celebrity" means Obama doesn't have the chops to be president and that "elitism" means than Obama is out of touch with normal Americans. McCain presses this argument through several methods, the most (in)famous of which was the Britney/Paris campaign ad.

It is valid to respond to the attacks by the McCain campaign. By not responding, Obama merely cedes the point, a lesson that Kerry learned too late to save his campaign. It would be, frankly, idiotic for Obama not to respond to McCain. It is likewise valid to respond that the very detriments McCain attempts to assign to Obama are, actually, detriments of McCain himself.

McCain is the original celebrity senator. It's McCain who has appeared on SNL more than any other politician. It's McCain who has appeared in television and movies. It's McCain who referred to the press as "my base."

Regarding elitism, it's McCain who's a member of a family of privilege (grandfather and father both four-star admirals). It's McCain who enjoyed a privileged childhood and family connections. It's McCain who married into a wealthy family. And it's McCain who can't remember how many houses he and Cindy own.

Meanwhile, it's Obama who grew up a mixed-race child in the '60s. It's Obama who came from a broken home. It's Obama who put himself through undergrad and law school, and only in the last few years paid off his student loans. It's Obama who earned his wealth by actually writing two books (while McCain hired ghostwriters). It's Obama who worked his way up from community organizer for US-PIRG to presidential candidate.

It's Obama who, despite all the challenges of his station at birth, managed to realize and validate the American dream, and it's frankly obscene that McCain would attempt to belittle that.

So, no, responding to the baseless and offensive attacks by McCain is not hairsplitting; it's an important view into the character of McCain that he would project his own shortcomings onto others.

And BTW tax returns are to make sure taxes have been paid and all money is accounted for, NOT to see how much they made. Gimme a break. Lets just debate policy stances and issues please!

Tax returns are used for a lot of reasons, including to check for conflicts of interest and to see whether candidates "walk the walk" they claim.

As for debating the policy issues, I would personally be delighted. How about you tell McCain to drop the dirty campaign, like he promised at the outset?

Couldnt McCain just have easily lost all the money and done nothing with his life?

He seems to be doing that.

I even understand that he's a big time gambler (craps).

Boy, you guys are loving this blog, you all get to reassure each other that McCain is now the devil, no longer is it Bush, even though yo all loved him 4 years ago when he was the 2nd pick to become VP and almost become Kerry's running mate. Keep patting each other on the back and seperating yourselfs from the mainstream. I'm sure you're all painting me as a right winger, but too bad, I'm not christian, I'm pro-choice, I'm registered independant, and I voted Dem in about half of all elections. So sorry to break your radical far left uneducated hearts.

The further you get from the middle, the better off republicans are, and you wonder why they have dominated every aspect of government in the past 20 years.

even though yo all loved him 4 years ago when he was the 2nd pick to become VP and almost become Kerry's running mate

*Bzzt* Wrong-o.

The further you get from the middle

I haven't moved (further) from the middle, McCain has been sprinting to the right so fast that he could give Usain Bolt a race.

2.37: Well said, trex.

You haven't moved from the middle because you were never in the middle, you can lie to all of us and say you actually examined the isues of both like I have(and I still haven' decided fully yet) but you know you never considered anyone other than who the democratic party put up.

You haven't moved from the middle because you were never in the middle,

I never said I was in the middle, which is what the parenthetical indicated. My byline on my column is "Signature Lefty!" which was left by a rightwing Newsvine member, and I liked it so much I decided to keep it. Yes, I'm an evil pinko, left-lib, and I never denied it.

you can lie to all of us and say you actually examined the isues of both like I have(and I still haven' decided fully yet)

Except I didn't lie, you just can't read. And, regardless of the statements I made immediately above, just because I am an avowed liberal does not mean I cannot examine the issues on both sides and reach valid conclusions. In 2000 I found McCain an interesting candidate who said some very interesting things, but I was already a Gore supporter. So, although I had a candidate, I did keep my eye on McCain after 2000 because I thought "At least here's a Republican I can respect and who seems willing to work with the other side on some issues."

Sadly, after 2000 (particularly beginning in 2003 and 2004), McCain's career has been little but disappointment for those of us on the left who are genuinely interested in compromise and consensus between the extremes as a fundamental principle of governance in America. McCain has compromised virtually every position he once claimed in his run for the presidency. He's pandered to every group he once recognized as poisoning our political process. He speaks out against lobbyists, and then stacks his campaign with them. McCain is not the man I once respected; his turnaround has been so abrupt and so total, one has to wonder if he's been switched out by body snatchers.

You're very much mistaken if you think I haven't been examining, considering, and following McCain's career these last eight years. On the contrary, I've followed it quite closely, and I find it to be lacking.

but you know you never considered anyone other than who the democratic party put up.

Yes, I am a Democrat. I've been (literally) a card-carrying member since I was old enough to vote, about a dozen years now. That doesn't mean I won't vote for a good Republican. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, ex-comptroller of Texas, received my vote on more than one occasion.

you can lie to all of us

1) Spiffie? Lie? Don't make me laugh.
2) "All of us" meaning who, precisely?

Well I hope it's true, only you can know for sure, and I respect anyone who actually does know the issues , so atleast some of us can speak intelligently about what is going on, but I love playing devil's advocate and exciting people. But I did mistate, I meant to say if you're as far left as it seems, you couldn't have moved further from the middle, I don't know if you were ever in the middle or not.

"All of us" referred to the readers on this blog.

Oh, that's okay. I could be a lot more left than I am. I like to think of myself as a "tough love" pragmatic liberal. I'm definitely well left of center, but I'm not a complete nutjob. ;-)

I'll volunteer to be "the complete nutjob" if you want, spiffie. I'm prepared to handle the idea that I'm a non-conformist. *chuckling*

Only thing is, for a long while I thought my "lefty philosophy" might possibly be completely unworkable,... you know, maybe I'm just too radical and detractors of my ideas might be right; I was willing to accept such a possibility... so I decided to test out my ideas in a game on Facebook called "Nations". And maybe the game has little relation to reality, I don't know... that would be up to the people who coded the game,... but my "Nation" is very prosperous and ranks consistently high among my peers. It's been a pleasant surprise, over all. Apparently even this old "nutjob" knows a thing or two about governing and law.

But here in the real world, among real nations, we are blogging freely and boldly on a site and with computers that were created by a free market capitalist system that is protected by American heroes bearing arms on our behalf, throughout the centuries, across the globe, powered by energy sources that many on the Left would eliminate immediately (with no practical option on the horizon).

In other words, we are free to engage in far Left dialogue here because of the success of Conservative values.

People all over the world are freely blogging... on computers made of parts manufactured in various Asian countries for wages that most Americans couldn't survive on. As for energy, there are many Americans producing their own and selling the excess back to utility companies at a profit. More and more will be doing the same in the future, and jobs will be created to manufacture and install those systems... provided we don't outsource them.

You mean on the Internet, started with government funding at universities (and you know what kind of people are in universities!), with protocols largely developed by European (and you know what kind of people are in Europe!) academia. Sure, business came along 15 years later or so, and they've done great things, but that initial innovation was hardly a product of the capitalist system, Tom.

Additionally, the fact that we can say what we want on the Internet without fear of local "obscenity" laws restricting and choking the free flow of ideas has more to do with liberals fighting for expansive free speech than it has anything to do with conservatives or conservative ideas. You guys were dragged kicking and screaming (and you're still kicking and screaming over obscenity on the Internet) into the 21st century.

The countries where people are freely blogging owe much to concepts such as Democracy, Free Market economics, and - yes, American military strength, and that of our allies.

But, just to be clear: you, Spiffie, and I, are enjoying the blessings of being American and - unless the far Left continues to undermine the principles upon which we were founded - we will continue to enjoy one of history's most prosperous and free societies. Free, even, to discuss our weaknesses.

By the way, I like the idea of Americans personally producing their own energy and selling the excess back to utility companies. That sounds like robust free market principles and entrepreneurial genius to me.

Tom Bombadil shared the following:

"But here in the real world, among real nations, we are blogging freely and boldly on a site and with computers that were created by a free market capitalist system that is protected by American heroes bearing arms on our behalf, throughout the centuries, across the globe, powered by energy sources that many on the Left would eliminate immediately (with no practical option on the horizon)."

So Tom what are you really saying? Are you saying that the US is the only country where you are free to blog? That's rediculous to say the least.

Or are you saying that the computers you and I are using are 100% American made products? I assure you if open up your computer, you will find alot of Made in China, made in Taiwan, made in (any country other than the US) in there.

Or are you saying that Democrats would turn off the hydro-electric generators, shut down the nuclear plants, put out the fires in the coal burning power plants, lock the turbines of the wind mills that are powering our country? You do know the rest of the world also uses all of those and more.

Or are you just being a bit shall we say antagonistic cause it makes you somehow feel superior?

Dang it Aine and spiffie both beat me! Can't even go to make a sandwich, geez.

Are you saying that the US is the only country where you are free to blog?

No.

Or are you saying that Democrats would turn off the hydro-electric generators, shut down the nuclear plants, put out the fires in the coal burning power plants, lock the turbines of the wind mills that are powering our country?

I am saying radical environmentalists are quick to say no to many present forms of energy without offering the kind of immediate short term solutions that are necessary to meet the world's sharply spiking energy demands.

Or are you just being a bit shall we say antagonistic cause it makes you somehow feel superior?

No. I am disagreeing civilly, which is not the same thing as being antagonistic. I like Aine and Spiffie, though I do not agree with them politically. I just wanted to mention that many principles of Democracy and Free Market have brought good results, including our freedoms to comment here. And, wherever you are, JaRagga, it is likely that your ability to blog here owes something to those principles as well.

By the way, the Chinese economic juggernaut is not the result of Communism, but their adaptation of many aggressive free market principles. However, because of Communism, they have not fully adapted, which is why freedom of speech is stifled there, and the environment is truly a catastrophe.

Tom Bombadil shared this: and don't you step on me this time Aine and spiffie! ;)

"But, just to be clear: you, Spiffie, and I, are enjoying the blessings of being American and - unless the far Left continues to undermine the principles upon which we were founded - we will continue to enjoy one of history's most prosperous and free societies. Free, even, to discuss our weaknesses."

Ah, it's the left that is undermining our principles and no one else?

You do know we're in the worst debt we've ever been in and that's after 8 years of a "conservative" administration right?

You also realize that gas prices are through the roof because of oil speculators that were allowed to flood into our financial markets due to the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act which included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 co-authored by Phil Graham R-TX and which led to the current mortgage crisis.

Or that the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 both of which Phil Graham R-TX co-wrote and on the Futures Modernization Act of 2000 was assisted by Enron and is also blamed for opening the door to speculators to flood the oil market and has led to the highest oil prices in history. Which I will point out, some industry analyst attribute up to 60% above what the market may have supported prior to the CFMA of 2000.

Lastly Tom, I can call you Tom I hope, how much longer do you think we're going to be this bastion of free and prosperous society if we can't pay our bills and Washington is allowing us to be robbed blind by corporations.

Don't get me wrong, I can point at alot of Democrats too, including Bill Clinton for signing both of those pieces of legislation just to name the most obvious one. There's more but I want to give you enough rop. . . err, the opportunity to state your case.

But, just to be clear: you, Spiffie, and I, are enjoying the blessings of being American and - unless the far Left continues to undermine the principles upon which we were founded - we will continue to enjoy one of history's most prosperous and free societies. Free, even, to discuss our weaknesses.

Right, Tom. Once again when you can't argue against the history, you resort to mere assertion. "Undermine the principles?" Really?

I don't see this argument going anywhere, since we're both pretty bullheaded. It's just frustrating that you're always so quick to implicate me and mine in "undermining the principles" of our nation when you don't have an argument. Why can't you ever seem to engage in civil discussion, Tom, instead of accusing your opponents of, essentially, treason?

Just plain rude.

"Old Tom Bombadil was a merry fellow... bright blue his jacket was, and his boots were yellow..."

Tom, if it were up to me, I wouldn't go shutting down power plants until I had a viable alternative that was environmentally-friendly... that would be irresponsible and would create an immediate crisis, and I think more long-term than that. *smiles*

Spiffie, I am not accusing you of treason or anything of the sort. I made a critique of the Far Left. Besides, you asserted - and I never disagreed - that you are not part of the Far Left.

And again, I like Aine's point about Americans generating enough energy personally to sell excess back to energy companies.

Okay Tom, I too enjoy a good argument as well so let me throw this out to you.

The Patriot Act and how it allows for alot of intrusion into American lives? Some would argue has totally gutted the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, damage the 1st and 5th severely and is in many way shall we say un-American. I'm also being civil though albeit a bit sarcastic because I like you love this country but unlike you I feel we're on a ever increasing and downward spiral into something far different from the USA I was a child in.

Communism is a failed form of government I give you that. However, I'd like to point out that our "capitalist" society in America also borrows from other ideologies and we have dare I say used social programs (socialism) like The New Deal and Medicare and Social Security and that neither pure communism or capitalism has ever existed in any country ever.

I would argue that the greater the degree of socialism, the more troubles we have had in the long term. Great Society and the War on Poverty was, by and large, a catastrophe economically and socially, which destroyed many of the families it was (nobly) intended to help.

The New Deal could be said to have largely failed, until WWII pulled the US out of the Depression.

But, you are correct, the US has at times moved into Socialism. And China is moving towards capitalism, as is India, with great results.

As for the Patriot Act, I think that it has flaws, but overall, it has accomplished much good with very limited negative infringements upon the lives of the vast majority of Americans. There have been some errors, some overstepping of bounds, but we are at war, and Bush's security programs have been much more sensitive than either FDR or Lincoln.

Those are just my opinions, of course, and are not likely to be popular here on a Left-leaning website such as Newsvine.

Thanks for putting up a fight Tom :)

I'd argue that the less regulation, then the more likely it is to have monopolies develop. Markets get cornered and prices start getting manipulated. Corporations begin to run rampant as they did in the lead up to the Great Depression and it forces a sharp retreat from what you may call more pure form of capitalism with significant regulation and only the little guy (common folks like me) get squeezed. The affluent well they don't hurt as bad because they can absorb alot more price fluctuation and by and large many would be profiting during these wildly free market periods.

I give you today's financial market and ask you to compare what's happening today with what happened in the 1920's leading up to the Great Depression.

Here are some other examples of what Alan Greenspan likes to call 'irrational exuberance in the 1920's:

"We will not have any more crashes in our time."-John Maynard Keynes in 1927 (The authenticity of this one is a little suspect) DOW ~ 175

"There will be no interruption of our permanent prosperity."-Myron E. Forbes, President, Pierce Arrow Motor Car Co., January 12, 1928 – DOW ~ 200

"There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash." - Irving Fisher, leading U.S. economist, New York Times, Sept. 5, 1929 – DOW ~ 375

Then we had this happen:

"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S." - President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933 – DOW ~ 65

If you have been paying attention there has been alot of this same kind of exuberance in the last few years, but it's yet to be seen whether or not it's irrational. The DOW has skyrocketed up until it hit it's highest point ever in October at 14,164. Yesterday it was 11,628 a drop since October 2007 of around 20%.

Granted that's not a crash like in the 1920's but we have a ton of things hanging over our heads right now including increase production costs being driven by high oil prices which many are blaming on the rampant speculation that has been allowed by deregulation of the critical financial markets and oil futures markets.

We are facing mortgage and credit crisis that are still threatening our financial institutions, and Americans are losing equity in their homes, sharp increases is prices across the board for everything including food, medicine, gas and health care.

Here's some of what George Bush said in his State of the Economy Address January 31, 2007. "When people across the world look at America's economy what they see is low inflation, low unemployment, and the fastest growth of any major industrialized nation. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in the United States. There is one undisputed leader in the world in terms of economy, and that's the United States of America. "

Other Quotes:

"Our capital markets are the best in the world and so is our financial reporting system."-May 2007-Henry Paulsen, United States Treasury Secretary

"Dramatic changes have occurred in capital markets in recent years. Globalization and innovation are two of the most significant forces driving that evolution. Today, I would like to focus my remarks not just on the benefits and challenges resulting from the remarkable wave of financial innovation that is sweeping across global markets"-June 2007-Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets Anthony W. Ryan

Mike Eskew CEO of UPS, 2006 "Globalization started as a trend for large multinational companies, but it is increasingly becoming one for small and mediums. We see 2007 - our 100th anniversary - as the year when small and medium-sized companies push harder to go global. They look as big on the Internet as anyone else. They look as if they can do as much. Technology virtualizes their location and camouflages their size. And they are asking us to expand their markets so that they can sell anywhere."

Tom, I hope it won't be as the Great Depression but I have feeling it's going to be pretty bad and we're just starting to see the realities. What do you think?

I'll be honest, I don't pretend to know what's going to happen in upcoming months and years. I will say I have a bad feeling, a really bad feeling.

I have to take issue on the idea that corporations are moving overseas because of US taxes. Seen the GAO study on this?

Dang it I forgot to mention many, many economic scholars believe the New Deal is what pulled us out of the Depression. Sorry, I should have included in previous post.

And the company that started "an American tradition" sold it to a foreign investor. Their heart is in their wallet, not in the country. Now its "a Belgian tradition", so drink up.

Actullay about 4 to 1 economics scholars argue that the new deal had nothing to do with coming out of the depression. It was WWII, no the poor socialist ideas of Roosevelt.

JR, like you and probably most of us here, I am deeply concerned about our economy. I just returned from an extended trip in Michigan, and that state is in dire straits economically, for a variety of reasons. And fingers could be pointed at the Federal Government, as well as their State Government and also certain Mayors who shall remain unmentioned here.

I should say that I do not believe unfettered capitalism is a good idea. By that, I do not mean that I favor a lot of government regulations, but I do believe that capitalism apart from a sense of individual and personal responsibility and - yes - compassionate ethics, can become a dangerous and corrupt animal.

This is why things went so wrong with Russia's experience with free market. It was based on a corrupt Mafia system, plus former Communist bullies who merely changed their uniforms for Armani suits, rather than the sense of ethics that had developed in some Western economies.

I am tempted to go off on a lengthy ramble here about how theology affects culture and understanding of economic responsibility and behavior (Protestant Reformed Theology being a primary driving force in America's earlier economic practices), but I am limited on time and such detailed discussions are - to borrow a phrase from Obama - "above my pay grade" for today, heheheh.

A good discussion, JR. I appreciate your perspective, and what Aine and others are saying also.

Excellent Comment Tom

Don't the Obama's own a "rather nice" mansion in Chicago?

Think it a georgian style mansion about 1.32 million?
And didnt Obama go to that exclusive academy in Hawaii? And don't the Obama's have a net worth of SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS? And doesnt Obama get paid 169,300 for his part time job as a US Senator( he has the 3rd worst number of missed votes).

Yeah that Barack Obama's are just your average normal guy.

Neither one of them have a clue what the economy is like.

No McG repeat, you'd have a hard time finding a candidate for President who isn't financially well off. The difference is that the Obamas made it up the hard way, and earned their own money, rather than inheriting and marrying it.

Remember GHWB's trip to the supermarket back in '90?

Don't the Obama's own a "rather nice" mansion in Chicago?

Think it a georgian style mansion about 1.32 million?
And didnt Obama go to that exclusive academy in Hawaii? And don't the Obama's have a net worth of SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS?

Yeah that Barack Obama's are just your average normal guy.

nope, he's way way better than an average normal guy.

he earned all that stuff himself (apart from the tuition, which was earned by his grandparents) rather than inheriting or marrying into it.

you have something against people who work hard for what they have or something?

What is it people have against a self made man?

Actually, his net worth as of 2007 according to Money is $1.3 million. He's not even a multimillionaire! He must be...in the bottom 25% of senators by net worth. He has a house. One. It's nice. I'd hope so, he's worked his ass off to get where he is, so I'm not going to begrudge him that.

McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns and married a multimillionaire. His net worth is estimated at over $100 million.

Let's keep this in perspective.

No Mcgovern repeat 08,

The house the showed on television didn't look like a mansion to me. It just looked more like a very nice home. It didn't look very large or fancy. Also, Obama and his wife went to college and got their education in good fields so they should be making good money. They were by no means considered wealthy growing up.

As for your absenteeism comment, Barack has missed much fewer votes than John McCain. I'm not sure where you're going with this as even HRC is in the same boat.

McCain is number 1 in missed vote Obama is number 3, he would be number two except for thr aenurism that one sentor had.

My Ppoint two of laziest men in the senate want a "job Promotion".

There are No good choices this year!

The house the showed on television didn't look like a mansion to me. It just looked more like a very nice home. It didn't look very large or fancy

Six bedrooms, four fireplaces, a four-car garage and 5 1/2 baths, including a double steam shower and a marble powder room. It had a wine cellar, a music room, a library, a solarium, beveled glass doors and a granite-floored kitchen.

The Obamas bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price of $1.95 million, while Rezko's wife, Rita, bought the neighboring lot for the full asking price of $625,000. Rita Rezko later sold a portion of the undeveloped lot to the Obamas, enlarging the senator's yard.

Tony Rezko already had been linked to a grand jury investigation involving public corruption. Last month, he was convicted of 16 counts in an influence-peddling scheme that reached the highest levels of Illinois state government.

Wish I had some nice friendslike the Rezko's to buy the vacant lot that is next door to me?

Yeah those Obama's are "everyday people", Do you have any friendsconvicted on 16 counts of influence peddling?.

Don't the Obama's own a "rather nice" mansion in Chicago?

Think it a georgian style mansion about 1.32 million?

As a Chicago resident I can guarantee you that $1.32 million doesn't get you a mansion here.

And didnt Obama go to that exclusive academy in Hawaii?

Pretty sure he got in on a scholarship.

As a Chicago resident I can guarantee you that $1.32 million doesn't get you a mansion here.

In the Bay Area, a decent home costs you around $700,000 at the very least. In some areas $1.32 million might get you a nice place.

So, wait a second. Let me get this logic straight. If a terrorist buys the house nice to me. And, then sells, not gives, sells a portion to me. All the while never knowing who this person actually is. I'm now linked to a terrorist? But, this property was sold to me by the terrorists wife. So, that makes me even more linked to this terrorist?

If you want to link Obama to Rezko by his campaign donations, or whatever. Do it up. Don't say something ridiculous like this. Especially when the actual discussion at hand is McCain forgetting how many houses he owns.

What the hell kind of logic is this?

Six bedrooms, four fireplaces, a four-car garage and 5 1/2 baths, including a double steam shower and a marble powder room. It had a wine cellar, a music room, a library, a solarium, beveled glass doors and a granite-floored kitchen.

all bought and paid for by their hard work; again, what do you have against self made people?

Boston, like SF, while in a housing "slump" still enjoys high prices. $1.32 mil in the Back Bay or Beacon Hill will get you no more than a condo- about a nice three bed, 2 full bath. In Brookline it's even worse.

McCain has missed 63% of his votes compared to 45% for Obama. But, that's understandable. House-keeping takes up a lot of McCain's times. It's especially hard when you don't even know how many houses you have.

McCain has missed 63% of his votes compared to 45% for Obama.

well, but to be fair, it wasn't cause he didn't show up, he was just not allowed to vote cause he was in time out for fighting alot of the time. I bet if he could control his behavior, McCain would have gotten in more like 50% of his votes.

I personally think they should have just made him stay inside for recess instead

Mc Cain 08: "that's right Ice man, I am dangerous..."

Why rag on him everytime he didnt vote benefitted the country!

cappiez, in 2005 Obama purchased a new home in the Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million ($300,000 below the original price) on the same day that Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, purchased the adjoining empty lot from the same sellers for the full asking price. Obama acknowledged bringing his interest in the property to Rezko's attention, but denied any coordination of offers. According to Obama, while the properties had originally been a single property, the previous owners decided to sell the land as two separate lots, but made it a condition of the sales that they be closed on the same date.

Obama purchased a 10 foot (3.0 m) wide strip of Ms. Rezko's property for $104,500, $60,000 above the assessed value. Which is right around the time Rezko needed money for legal fees.

Obama also did legal work for Rezko.

Well Ryan, you may be right, you may be wrong.....It SOUNDS pretty fishy to me, however, making a claim like that has ZERO credibility without a cite......If true, cite it and we'll go from there, but for all we know, that could be another Corsi-esque claim or something found on the Sludge Report.

First off, re the Obama's house, remember that a huge housing bubble just burst. That means that if you really want to pay the heating costs for a McMansion, there are a lot of people who'd practically give you one to get it off their hands. Second, the issue isn't that McCain is rich, we knew that. The issue is that he either avoided answering a simple question with an implausible excuse, or worse, he really can't remember something that important.

Jace: Because releasing an ad with that video is all Obama would need to paint McCain as a true out-of-touch elitist and seal the deal for November.

Jace,

Please do not confuse McCain with "elitist." Elitist means "best." We need to start using the word with its correct meaning if we're ever going to reclaim it.

No Mcgovern repeat 08,

Hey, one of my relative's home has 6 bedrooms and 3 1/2 baths, a library, a office, workout room, a room for his hobbies, a big yard and some more acreage next to it that they own but it isn't a mansion. It's very pretty. What do you consider a mansion?

The Obamas' house I saw on televison wasn't a mansion.

No Mcgovern repeat 08 said the following:

"The Obamas bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price of $1.95 million"

Okay, let's put that into perspective shall we. Asking prices are often higher than what the final selling price is. In this particular instance, the savings of $300,000 equate to roughly 15%. According to several realtors I contacted 15% is in the "typical" range of actual selling prices when compared to the original asking price.

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

Asking prices are often higher than what the final selling price is.

Yeah, one of my acquaintances bought a house in a posh area of L.A. for $2.8 million. The asking price was $3 million. That was already lowered from the original $3.5 million from a few months ago. That's just the way the market is. Buyer's market right now.

Don't the Obama's own a "rather nice" mansion in Chicago?

Not only that but check out the O Force One jet he travels in .....pretty lavish living for a po' man

Saul Alinsky would cringe! LOL

nobody said he was poor.....but he did EARN what he has.....and he paid for his education....McCain didn't do either.

nobody said he was poor.....but he did EARN what he has.....and he paid for his education....McCain didn't do either.

Yea but did you see the big swanky jet....wow! Obama is rollin like a real G, puttin it down pimp style!

Got it going on

Obama apprently played right into McCains hands it seems liek he was ready with a new ad
all about Rezko and the Gop website has a ton of info on the rezko deal on it.

Apparently McCain's "memory lapse" may have been to get Obama to take the bail and run an ad soe McCain could legitamately 'come back" with the Resko ad.

Am I missing something or did Obama not buy the house from someone COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than Resko and only the additional land at a premium from Reskos wife?

Is the house purchase the issue or the extra land the issue?

Don't expect logic. They are just going to try to put Rezko and Obama in the same sentence, as often as possible.

Agio,

They are just going to try to put Rezko and Obama in the same sentence, as often as possible.

Now, when you say, "they are just trying to put Rezko and Obama in the same sentence," exactly who do you mean by "they" or indeed, by "Rezko" or "Obama," for indeed, I am wondering if you are talking now about "Tony Rezko, sleazy slumlord of Chicago and his good friend and political debtor, Barack Obama," or "Frank Rezko, plumber from Bettendorf and his neighborhood mailman, Hank Obama," or maybe you mean "Rezko and Obama" as a metaphor for the troubled housing market, whereby "Rezko" represents Democratic limosine liberalism at its most flagrant and "Obama" represents the perpetual victimhood/needy entitlement mentality?

Help me, I'm confused about your references here to "Rezko" and "Obama" and hope you can clear up what you mean by "Rezko" or "Obama". Thanks for addressing this Rezko and Obama issue. Or Rezko and Obama question, whichever terminology you prefer with regard to Rezko and Obama. Whoever Rezko and Obama may be.

McCain has other looks?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with being wealthy but when you have so many houses until you don't know how many you own, it appears that you are living in excess.

It's not a comment on excess, really.

But, the fact that he cares so little about money, to the point where he forgets how many houses he's bought, then throws out $5mil per year as the "rich" threshold, really drop-kicks any "elitist" accusation regarding Obama clear into the next star system.

McCain was not only born with a silver spoon in his mouth, his mouth now houses a silver spoon collection.

Jack Huang: McCain was not only born with a silver spoon in his mouth, his mouth now houses a silver spoon collection.

Touché!

Lin Nil-435903I said the following: "I am not saying there is anything wrong with being wealthy but when you have so many houses until you don't know how many you own, it appears that you are living in excess."

Lin from where I sit I'd call it wretched excess, but it isn't that far from what many other politicians have. Still it doesn't seem right does it?

Cheney is taking the codes and "The Football" with him.

Good point douglasq-

but if can't remember ho many he has...

He remembers that phrase because he had to use it a lot in the Keating5 scandle hearing/coverup

Ah, but Obama won't eat junk food. That proves that he's elitist, you see? For eight years we've had a President who obsesses about his weight and physical fitness, spends a lot more time working out in the gym than at his desk, and still claims to be just a regular guy. But when a Democrat watches his health, he's a food nazi or something who's going to make YOUR CHILDREN take phys ed as well as learning foreign languages.

Follow-up thought - follow the money, as they said in Watergate days. I'd be interested to see where McCain's real estate holdings lead us. Probably some very interesting connections.

P.H.

Follow-up thought - follow the money, as they said in Watergate days. I'd be interested to see where McCain's real estate holdings lead us. Probably some very interesting connections.

Excellent idea.

Let's get Bob Woodward on the phone... seriously.

After the election it will not surprise me in the least to see Dick Cheney puttering off to any number of villas that he owns through corporatist largesse, but probably especially Dubai, which is a very secure, undisclosed location for corporatists.

Did you read Obama's own words in the book that he wrote that he was a drug dealer while he was at Harvard? A drug dealer! This man that you would make our president has admitted in his own book that not only did he frequently use marijuana and cocaine, but he actually peddled this garbage to the children who attended Harvard University! Is that the kind of moral fiber you're looking for in our next president? I sure hope not!

Jeff,

Many of us from the 60s and 70s made drug mistakes. I "sold drugs" (agggg...what a cardinal sin so many of us were guilty of ) to friends when I had something they didn't and wanted. Was Obama a $2,000-a-day drug dealer? Probably not.

I've turned out to be a rather productive member of society, successfully raising children, owning and keeping a home, having a career. My drug use was illegal but it didn't ruin my life. I have no doubt that there are millions out there just like me, and Obama is just one of them. I'd suggest that as the election years come and go and the old guard dies off, we're going to see more and more candidates who have drugs in their history.

Children go to Harvard? I thought college was for high school graduates seeking higher education. Don't confuse college kids with children—they're lightyears apart.

I haven't read the book, but I'd be interested to know what page that was on... or even a quote citing which page in the book said he dealt drugs. I'm not willing to take anyone's word on that without a cite... that would be hearsay.

Many of us from the 60s and 70s made drug mistakes.

visioncoast 14.4---don't make me laugh---were you among those hootin and hollerin about the GWB DWI---the dems little October surprise from 2000? Don't be so hypocritical.

about the GWB DWI---the dems little October surprise from 2000? Don't be so hypocritical.

Yeah, he could have just killed someone, how funny! Bush's DWI wouldn't have been an issue had he just owned up to it.

Its been said in the streets (for those who don't know, that means it was rumored) that his (GWB) wife sold weed while she was in college..Also rumored that GWB himself had a problem with illegal drugs and alcohol...Bill Clinton stood in front of millions and said "He didn't inhale"....and America STILL elected both of them...TWICE.

Everyone has their secrets...Lets get back to the point of the matter of this converstation....which is the fact that McCain doesn't know how many homes he and his wife own...Does it matter to me? No? That's what rich people do; They buy property; Its called investing.

So back to the REAL campaign questions...already in progress on your local news stations

lisaed: visioncoast 14.4---don't make me laugh---were you among those hootin and hollerin about the GWB DWI---the dems little October surprise from 2000? Don't be so hypocritical.

Sorry to disappoint, lisaed, but I don't know anything about the GWB DWI. When did it occur? Wanna share some info on it so I can catch up?

I accept your apology for calling me a hypocrite.

lisaed, where did you go?

Can anyone say "hypocrit"

(McCain - not you, John).

yep ythats right.. anythign negaitve about mccain even if true.. is a hit piece....a llt he crap about making obama admit the surge worked or suggestions that obama is a secret muslim.. well those are just news. youy mccainites ae hilarious..w e cant talk about mccain unless it is praising him as a POW.

Exactly Joules.. I just read an article about exactly that. Somehow smearing Obama with outright lies is perfectly fine, but when anything is raised about McCain, even when it is unequivocally true, it's somehow not acceptable.

because the author took something on which John McCain said, "I'll get back to you on that"

That McCain can't answer how many houses he owns is a major gaffe, proving either he doesn't have memory or is too rich to care.

That, my friend is an inflammatory comment.

Reported as such.

Exactly Joules.. I just read an article about exactly that. Somehow smearing Obama with outright lies is perfectly fine, but when anything is raised about McCain, even when it is unequivocally true, it's somehow not acceptable.

Why do you keep saying that? It happens on both sides. But is your argument, "They did it, so it's OK if we do?" You're making my point, not disproving it, and certainly not helping the situation. (And don't lump me in with "them," is disagree with hit pieces no matter the subject.

That McCain can't answer how many houses he owns is a major gaffe, proving either he doesn't have memory or is too rich to care.

Real estate is an investment tool. It's like asking someone, "How many stocks do you own?" You probably can't answer off the top of your head. Also, much of McCain's wealth is his wife's and as such, they're her investments.

Finally, an apology on the first sentence of #15.3. It came off differently than I intended. Consider this a retraction.

"But seriously, I don't think you can — I don't think seriously that — the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously — and I'm sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues."

Not the same subject, but sounds pretty bumbling to me.

John Whittet,

So does this mean that McCain doesn't know or doesn't check on his own wealth/investments? If so, how will he manage the White house? This is the question he would be asking Senator Obama if the shoe were on the other foot.

Why do you keep saying that? It happens on both sides

No, it doesn't. I can name 5 outright lies perpetuated by the GOP campaign against Obama. But not a single lie going the other way. Hitting McCain with the truth is different than smearing Obama with lies.

We would all like to believe that our politicians can relate to us in some way. The reality is that most don't. You are correct in that it is not newsworthy in that sense.

However, the reason that this is newsworthy is that McCain has been exploiting that idea, by attempting to paint Obama as an out-of-touch elitist and himself as the common man.

It's not even a tactic that is unique to this campaign, we saw the same thing with Al Gore, and the same thing with John Kerry. And the thing is - it works. We actually do have this mentality that rich Democrats are by default elitist, hell, middle and working class Democrats are elitist, because they like coffee or some such nonsense, while wealthy Republicans who constantly work against the interests of the working class and have absolutely no empathy for the very real problems that affect those that aren't in the top 5% income bracket are somehow the champions of the heartland. This is not an happy accident, it's a strategy.

Things like McCain fumbling about the number of houses he owns are damaging to that strategy. So any chance we get to tear this talking point apart should be taken, so that we can start to dismantle this nonsense and start focusing on actual issues.

Not the same subject, but sounds pretty bumbling to me.

Many statements do if quoted word-for-word. The text you quoted proves the author was trying to hit the bumbling angle.

So does this mean that McCain doesn't know or doesn't check on his own wealth/investments? If so, how will he manage the White house? This is the question he would be asking Senator Obama if the shoe were on the other foot.

A valid point, though undermined a bit by the fact that John and Cindy have very separate financial lives. She files her own tax return and has most of the money in the marriage. Whether or not he has his own wealth/investments in check (saying nothing about the ability to accurately recall them in an instant) is a bit different than keeping tabs on her investments as well.

Running the White House (or, more accurately, the country) has little to do with such details or the ability to recall them on cue. To be President of the United States, micromanagement is not a desired skill. The president does not know the exact number of tanks on foreign soil or the exact national debt at any moment.

No, it doesn't. I can name 5 outright lies perpetuated by the GOP campaign against Obama. But not a single lie going the other way. Hitting McCain with the truth is different than smearing Obama with lies.

Out of curiosity, what are those five? 'Muslim' is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

Politics is a nasty business, and both sides are mudslinging. This article is a smear, just as articles about Obama and troop surges are smears. They both smack of gamesmanship and a lack of journalistic integrity, and that's what gets my goat. Hitting McCain with a politically-spun smear is no different than a similar article aimed at the Democrats.

However, the reason that this is newsworthy is that McCain has been exploiting that idea, by attempting to paint Obama as an out-of-touch elitist and himself as the common man.

True, but that's not news. It's opinion, and belongs on the OpEd page, not the front page.

... while wealthy Republicans who constantly work against the interests of the working class and have absolutely no empathy for the very real problems that affect those that aren't in the top 5% income bracket are somehow the champions of the heartland.

Do you think that it's someone else's strategy to make you think that way?

Things like this are damaging to that strategy. So any chance we get to tear this talking point apart should be taken, so that we can start to dismantle this nonsense and start focusing on actual issues.

Agreed this article is damaging to one strategy, but at the same time, it's paying hearty gains to another strategy. And if we're arguing for morals, a lack of nonsense, and the actual issues, we shouldn't accept anyone's "strategy."

Running the White House (or, more accurately, the country) has little to do with such details or the ability to recall them on cue. To be President of the United States, micromanagement is not a desired skill. The president does not know the exact number of tanks on foreign soil or the exact national debt at any moment.

You really generalized that to the absurb. He has run a campaign to suggest Obama is out of touch but ask 99% of Americans how many homes they own and they can tell you without thinking about it. Dont say how out of touch someone is and then at the same time cant answer a question like that.

True, but that's not news. It's opinion, and belongs on the OpEd page, not the front page

Huh? It's not someone's opinion that McCain probably doesn't know how many houses he owns, McCain said that he doesn't know how many houses he owns. That you don't like what the news is highlighting doesn't make it opinion.

Do you think that it's someone else's strategy to make you think that way?

It should be. But no, Democrats are usually pretty bad at putting class on the table. The accusations of "class-warfare" from the right whenever Democrats have the audacity to talk about these issues have been pretty effective.

Agreed this article is damaging to one strategy, but at the same time, it's paying hearty gains to another strategy. And if we're arguing for morals, a lack of nonsense, and the actual issues, we shouldn't accept anyone's "strategy."

Failing to counteract these talking points is what turned them into dogma. I don't see how continuing to let them slide is going to make them go away.

You really generalized that to the absurb.

How did I generalize what I said? I was fairly specific. What does a candidate's ability to recall minute facts (and you can argue about the significance of the number of homes an individual owns, but it's a different point altogether) have to do with being president?

He has run a campaign to suggest Obama is out of touch but ask 99% of Americans how many homes they own and they can tell you without thinking about it. Dont say how out of touch someone is and then at the same time cant answer a question like that.

I'll agree with you there. I'll let Johnny know the next time I see him.

Huh? It's not someone's opinion that McCain probably doesn't know how many houses he owns, McCain said that he doesn't know how many houses he owns. That you don't like what the news is highlighting doesn't make it opinion.

That's not what I was categorizing as opinion. This is opinion (as I quoted): "McCain has been exploiting that idea, by attempting to paint Obama as an out-of-touch elitist and himself as the common man."

And you're right. McCain can't recall how many houses he has off the top of his head. Fact. But all opinion pieces contain facts. Or the good ones do. Just because an article contains a fact doesn't mean it's objective.

An article titled, "John McCain Promises to Get Back to Reporter on Number of Houses Owned by He and Wife" is news, but not very exciting or readable. What this article highlights (that John McCain is a bit of a hypocrite for calling Obama elitist) is political commentary, and falls under the category of opinion.

The accusations of "class-warfare" from the right whenever Democrats have the audacity to talk about these issues have been pretty effective.

That statement being made with the assumption that a) that always happens, b) the Democrats are righteous crusaders and c) it isn't class warfare. How does that translates to a broad statement of "working against the interests of the working class" and "having absolutely no empathy for the very real problems that affect those that aren't in the top 5% income bracket?" That reads like rhetoric, too.

Failing to counteract these talking points is what turned them into dogma. I don't see how continuing to let them slide is going to make them go away.

Agreed, but last time I checked, "they did it, so we're going to do it to teach them a lesson" is an ineffective, elementary way to approach, well, anything. Accepting an opposing strategy, as you suggest, accelerates the slide on all fronts, and exacerbates the problem at hand by making it de rigeur.

John Whittet: An article titled, "John McCain Promises to Get Back to Reporter on Number of Houses Owned by He and Wife" is news, but not very exciting or readable. What this article highlights (that John McCain is a bit of a hypocrite for calling Obama elitist) is political commentary, and falls under the category of opinion.

It might not be exciting news, but it is most revealing, particularly given McCain's I'm-one-of-you campaign stance. It underscores the fact that McCain is in disguise: He wants you to believe he's the common man when in fact he's filthy rich. That is pertinent to his integrity, which is blown, as far as I can tell.

McCain is "...a bit of a hypocrite for calling Obama elitist"? Really, just a bit? How about full-blown when he's got six more properties than the Obamas?

Ask Obama how many stocks he owns. If he doesn't know off the top of his head, then your argument fails.

At some level, real estate is an investment tool, like stocks or bonds. Is it a matter of how he chooses to invest his money?¹

Both Barack and John are richer than you or I will probably ever be. McCain and his wife outscored the Obamas by about $2M on income: not very different. The average American house is about $275k; Obama's is six times as much.

By your argument, both candidates are out of touch.

You said:

He wants you to believe he's the common man when in fact he's filthy rich. That is pertinent to his integrity, which is blown, as far as I can tell.

Without context, 'He' could be McCain or Obama, and your point is valid either way.

Both candidates are mudslinging and soap-boxing. This is not a one way street.

Are we mad because one's richer than the other, even though both are in the top 1%? Is marrying a wealthy spouse a black mark on your character?

^{1: Even though, technically, it's his wife's money. What if he had a rich girlfriend?}

Ask Obama how many stocks he owns. If he doesn't know off the top of his head, then your argument fails.

You neocons never fail to impress with your "logic".

Dude, stocks ain't the same thing as houses. No one who invests has only one stock. No one. Whereas, the overwhelming majority of the country has just a single home. Heck, I own 500 stocks in just one company.

So, your analogy fails big time. Except maybe with the Rush Limbaugh type audience.

Next.

Of course it fails for the average American. The average American doesn't use real estate as an investment device alone. Most American's can't afford it.

My point is that, at a certain point, homes and stocks share similar properties. Not for the "overwhelming majority," no, but we're not talking about averages. What if we were talking shares of BRK-A?

It's a simplification, even though "stocks ain't the same thing as houses."

Actually, investing in real estate is not for the rich only. My grandpa was a school counselor. My grandma was a house wife. They had eight kids. They also invested bit by bit in land and properties, built condos and duplexes which they later rented and then sold, re-invested in housing, and so on and so forth.

This benefited some of their children in that later on they were able to live in some of these properties temporarily. It also benefited my grandparents, who did not have a lavish salary (obviously) and had lots of expenses with their eight children.

They later retired very comfortably due to their wise investments in property. At one point, I think they owned at least ten properties between their various houses, condos, and duplexes. This is off of hard work (my grandpa was also a carpenter and built some of these with his own hands; purchased others) and determination. Not out of exorbitant wealth.

Sounds like my grandfather, too, E.D. Also not wealthy. There were probably times where, if you'd put him on the spot, he wouldn't have remembered how many he owned at any given time.

In a forum last week with the Rev. Rick Warren, McCain was asked to define the word "rich" and to give a figure. After promoting his tax policies, McCain said: "I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?" The audience laughed, and he added: "But seriously, I don't think you can — I don't think seriously that — the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously — and I'm sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.

If all those dashes are pauses then the right should have blamed him like they did Obama. He used the word seriously three times and then failed to answer the question at all just gave just gave the tax thing to make brownie points.

Now before anyone calls me on not answering the question he said right after he said 5 mil -But seriously

Yeah, it was for more than just money. It was for MORE money. She's an investment as well. LOLOLOL....I'm just joking. I couldn't resist.

But seriously, he should never try to call Obama an elitist because he is the one who appears to be one by several of his statements. I never got the impression that Obama acts like he knows more than everyone. I guess that's a matter of perception.

He married a rich woman and that makes him wrong how? Obviously theyve been married for some time so it was more than just money stop letting your mind be twisted and look at the situations with truth.

McCain dumped his first wife, who stood by him during his heroic time giving military secrets to the Viet Cong, after she was disfigured in a car accident. His excuse upon returning to the U.S.? "I wanted to start my life fresh."

Apparently to him "fresh" meant dating another woman while he was still married to his first wife and admitting to lying to Cindy about his age when they first met.

Certainly marrying money and Republican party influence (this is how he "earned" his first run for Congress) is a much easier that going out and making something of yourself. In that regard, I guess it is the American way. McCain has been suckling off the American taxpayer since he was a child. He has never held a job outside the government.

Obama's not being portrayed as an elitist for being rich, that was never stated. He is because he acts like he knows more than everyone. He certainly is smart graduating cum laude from harvard.

God forbid we should have an intelligent and knowledgeable president!

God forbid we should have an intelligent and knowledgeable president!

Yep! We're much better with a rich, bumbling president with the long-term memory of a goldfish -- a white-haired trust-fund baby. ;-)

Patty, Just wait for the negative portion to hit McCain. Remember he was one of the Keating 5? He resigned his Naval commission immediately after his fathers (the Admiral) death. He assisted in transferring California coastline formerly Ft Ord to one of his buddies Mr Diamond through a bidless process where Diamond flipped it immediately for a tidy 20M profit. When deciding to carpetbag for a seat in the House, he didn't own a house in Arizona or was concerned about which district to focus on until the incumbent decided to retire. Somehow the zonners keep electing him.

It's always really close though, never a landslide in AZ for McIneedacain. Part of the issue is that no one else is as well funded as he is. However, he doesn't even have a landslide support in AZ for his campaign for president. Obama, however, is dearly loved in Illinois!

To further McCains line of thought on how rich people are unhappy. We can make them much happier by taxing them thus relieving them of their money that causes them to be so unhappy.

It matters because he tries to act like he is a "man of the people" and he tried to portray Senator Obama as an elitist. It also matters because he has made several statements in the past that show that he is out of touch with the average American.

Never accuse someone of being something you appear to be. Well, John McCain did just that and he was at that church making some flowery statement about what it means to be rich. LOL.

I don't think that most of the politicians at this level are "in touch" with the American people. Even Obama-I mean-he made how much last year? His house cost how much? Yet people still think he is "in touch" with the American people?

Obama and his wife went to college got a good education in good fields and got good jobs. While growing upp as children they were by no means considered wealthy. They did what they were supposed to do in order to become successful. They worked hard and earned their money.

I can surely relate to Senator Obama more than I can relate to Senator McCain. I bet he is more in touch with the average American than John McCain. McCain has made several statements in the past that prove he is out of touch with the average american.

re housing costs.

its scary to think that 1.2 million (or was it 1.7?) actually is a middle class home (though still a NICE home) in many places around this country.....so Obama's not as out of touch as you might think when it comes to that.

Lin Nil-435903 You got that right. They didn't pay off their student loans until he wrote the book so he carried substantial debt for some time. Michelle cooks their meals at home and if she like leafy green vegetables so be it, I wonder how much home cooking miss Cindy does?

As for their home it is still in south Chicago and they only have one.

Sally,

It took me and most of my friends a long time while to pay off our student loans as well and some of them are still paying on their loans. I understand what it means to struggle and to work hard to achieve what you desire. I can't relate to John McCain one bit.

I have heard some in the media keep trying to portray Senator Obama as "different", "not one of us", and "exotic". Well, he may not look like me physically, but I sure can relate to him. He doesn't have to look like me in order for me to know that he is "one of us" meaning for me, one of us average Americans.

I concur he is sure more like me then Mccain and I sure hope the rest of the common person can see the relationship.