Chicagoist: Letterman Does Not Take McCain Rejection Lightly

fremo

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:20:39 -0600

Ingrid, that's what I ended up looking up after I posted. Thanks, though. I got the United Way thing myself a little while ago from my company. Not happy that I am "strongly" being encouraged to give.

Ingrid

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:25:28 -0600

fremo, Social Security has a formula for how much you get if you continue to work while you are receiving benefits. For every dollar, over a specified amount of money you make, they will deduct a certain amount. So it's up to you to figure out when it makes sense to stop working, or to keep working and either not get the benefits or a reduced amount. I have mixed feelings about people of 'a certain income' collecting benefits. It's not right that someone with 13 houses would collect those benefits...but at what point do you cut them off? And it is true...you did earn that money...right? I mean, you would think they'd give it to charity or not take them, but it's their money. It kind of reminds me of how United Way bullies employees into giving money. My ex works at a big firm in Chicago...I remember when he first took the job he got this packet from United Way and they had a chart that someone had circled his income and the correlating amount that he should give to United Way based on that (and it was no small amount either). Well, this really ticked me off because No. 1: You don't tell me what to do with my money and No. 2: I already have my charities I give to, how dare you presume to just take my money for your use. Not to go off subject, but I don't like to give to charities where such a huge part of the pie goes to fundraising. So, my point is, you just can't tell people what to do with their money.

ophmarketing

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:58:34 -0600

Navin, while I may not always agree 100% with every stance the Democrats take, I can honestly say that would sooner perform a self-appendectomy than EVER vote for a Republican. For ANYTHING.

fremo

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:33:13 -0600

"I have to nitpick: If someone pays into Social Security, why would you deny them benefits that they have legally earned? I would support extending the income brackets subject to SS taxes, though, but not robbing people of their legally-earned benefits. In any case, that would never fly politically, and I think you know that." The trick with SS is "retiring". I got my statement the other day - says I can start drawing mine when I am 62, but I can't draw full benefits till my retirement age at 67. What I am not sure of is what classifies you as retired. If you are working part-time, or another job that is whatever % of your former earning power, is that how it works? My beef with McCain on this one is that he is ashamed of it but still cashes that check every month.

matilda

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:05:26 -0600

Albany: Also meant trade schools, too. You are 100% correct on that one. We need to get away from this notion that you are dumb without some four-year degree. Leave college to those who really want it--those elites such as me who want a classic liberal arts education, or something approaching it--and let's get more people into well-paying trades. Nothing wrong with ignoring French lit if you'd rather be a welder or do CAD--most of my friends in the trades earn much more than I do, of course. Business school should be vocational, too. But that's all fantasy. No way those colleges are giving up that money. I have to nitpick: If someone pays into Social Security, why would you deny them benefits that they have legally earned? I would support extending the income brackets subject to SS taxes, though, but not robbing people of their legally-earned benefits. In any case, that would never fly politically, and I think you know that.

Albanyparkour

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:50:12 -0600

Any specific ideas? Sure. Homeowners who invest in clean energy tech get a five year freeze on property taxes. That's a two-fer, as the money going into the clean tech boosts the economy and creates jobs. Would pay for itself in payroll taxes too Cut off people like John McCain who are drawing a social security check and a salary and a pension. Even if you cut back on the, hopefully, small people getting double and triple dips, you save millions. Encourage full-spectrum community development. Uptown has a borders. Great, but it's not just over-priced books that will reshape the community. Community policing the works with businesses, non-profits, faith groups and private citizens. Tax encentives tied to lower crime rates and higher property values. Give businesses and incentive to not only build, but to invest in their community. yet am pretty fierce about the need for this country to become greener and to make college more affordable. Neither party really speaks to me anymore. I disagree about college, we need more skilled tradespeople. A degree in communications? Great. Can you do CAD? Then I can get you a job at my firm paying 40K today, no degree required. Not everyone should go to college. My family are in the trades, they make better money, have better benefits and get more vacation than I do with a host of educational paper on my wall. A greener america with more skilled professionals. I can dig that.

BeeRockafeller

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:49:36 -0600

Yeah who are these people that insist on every single thing being 100% Chicago related? What, do we live in a bubble? Let me explain this, it's a site with a Chicago theme, but occasionally issues and events in the national news warrant a mention. Undastand? Woulju like sum juice? And editors, please don't even bow down to these weirdos by justifying why you're posting something. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere. Otherwise, yeah, rock the vote and all that shit.

Navin

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:39:27 -0600

Ha, ha, Debates should be interesting: Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government. Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this? Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today. Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation. Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

Navin

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:14:40 -0600

Unless of course you're a billionaire with legions of high paid lobbyists. In that case both parties do represent you.

Navin

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:06:41 -0600

oph, I feel sorry for anybody who feels that either the Democratic or Republican parties represents their interests.

huffybike

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:24:59 -0600

Oh man. Go Dave.

matilda

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:54:12 -0600

Oph: That really makes no sense. "Accountable to their party's platform?" Really? The winning candidates so often--and rightly--deviate from the stated platforms that your statement borders on fantasy. And few parties are going to run candidates against its own incumbent presidents just because they strayed from party line. What you are arguing for, it seems, is more idealogically-based decision making. I argue for more pragmatic decisions based on context and individuals. That seems far more American, even if we do live in a city has embraced one-party rule.

ophmarketing

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:45:10 -0600

I vote for the party. Always have, always will. Once the primaries are over, the candidate is almost irrelevant to me. Because ultimately, whoever the candidate is will be held accountable to their party's platform. I know what each party stands for, and I vote accordingly. I'm always amazed by people who disagree with just about everything a political party stands for, but then go and vote for one of that party's candidates because they "seem nice" or they gave a better speech or looked better on TV or some such b.s. Then they get all bent out of shape when that party is in control of the government and doing crap that appalls them. It's like planting tomatoes in the spring, and then come summer wondering where all the damned tomatoes came from.

Slaphappy

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:34:21 -0600

Bloomberg would have never signed up to be McCain's VP. Why? Because if he had run as an independent, he would certainly be competitive and might even be leading in the polls. He, like Perot in 1992, has the kind of positions that would steal votes from both sides. And I would have greatly considered voting for him.

Slaphappy

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:30:16 -0600

Actually, it is Chicago related because it's what people in Chicago are talking about. Bingo. By the logic of some, nothing about 9/11 would have posted. Didn't happen here, so it's not relevant, right?

Stealth

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:26:35 -0600

Why couldn't he have sent Sarah in his place? Wasn't she in NYC too? Letterman squaring off with Palin... that might have been worth watching.

matilda

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:10:05 -0600

Plus, Albany, Bloomberg is green, green, green. Not saying he is perfect. Only better. And McCain would have competed for my vote more strongly. I see her more as Condi without all those qualifications and education. Funny.

matilda

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:04:57 -0600

, I believe in economic empowerment through tax incentives. Any specific ideas? I ask because the entitlement "time bomb" is one of the biggest challenges this country will face in the next decade or so, whether we like it or not. That and the debt. The current economic crisis is a cat's meow compared to the dangers we face from entitlement funding and our debt. As for gun ownership and your views on abortion, I know many indies who share them, and think they are pretty wise. That is why people shouldn't be pigeonholed as D or R. It just doesn't make sense anymore. I tend to be fiscally conservative/pragmatic, a national security hawk (though one always opposed to the strategic stupidity of Iraq) and socially liberal. I don't find it odd to support greater investment in mass transit and oppose affirmative action (including for rich, connected people). I support lowering corporate tax rates by double-digit percentage points (in theory; might be reckless to do now) and offering more school vouchers, yet am pretty fierce about the need for this country to become greener and to make college more affordable. Neither party really speaks to me anymore.

Albanyparkour

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:54:35 -0600

If only McCain had picked Bloomberg for VP. What a choice that would have been. Instead, we get W in heels. He'd be up 10 in the polls and Bloomberg's financial knowledge would do wonders for them now. I see her more as Condi without all those qualifications and education.

Albanyparkour

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:53:12 -0600

Oh please, moderate one. Please tell us the issue you ponder before voting that allows you to claim "independent!", "independent!". Sure. I'm staunchly for private gun ownership actually. Mind you I believe in registration and think that firearms safety training (like the kind that used to be the NRAs big push before they went completely cat's pajamas) should be part of the process. But I think people can responsibly own firearms, many of them even, if they so choose. I have a FOID card myself. I don't believe entitlement programs are the answer to social ills, I believe in economic empowerment through tax incentives. I think social security and medicare/medicaid are time-bombs that my generation (20-somethings) will have detonate on us. I'm against abortion as a choice, but believe strongly it should BE a choice. I'm not a social conservative, but I'm not all for income redistribution and pummeling business owners for "making too much money" as our Mayor so eloquently puts it. I voted for Judy Barr Topinka and would have voted against Obama in the senate election if Jack Ryan had not imploded.

Dave!

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:44:22 -0600

I think Letterman was pissed because McCain lied to him... which is valid. But I also think Letterman hit the nail on the head... in a time of crisis (which I think this is somewhat overblown) it's fine to step up to the plate, but a *president* needs to be able to handle more than one thing at a time. And McCain could easily have gone back to DC and left the campaign in Palin's hands. The fact that he didn't shows he has no real faith in her...

just_saying

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:43:19 -0600

#[1] said: "And you [Letterman] apparently think your show is the venue to address a huge economic crisis." Au contraire. Rachael Ray is obviously a more appropriate venue. Below is the video from McCain's appearance on that show on Monday. http://www.yumsugar.com/2071278

matilda

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:16:26 -0600

I can't wait until he "boldly" bombs Tehran or something similar. Don't worry. Israel will do it first. If only McCain had picked Bloomberg for VP. What a choice that would have been. Instead, we get W in heels.

Chicago D

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:11:04 -0600

Ward Up, you utterly misunderstood Dave's rant. He was pissed that McCain lied to him. You know, personally told him that he was getting on a plane immediately to go to DC. Instead, he was in the neighborhood, getting his "face" on for Katie F-ing Couric. Who knows if it would have mattered, but Dave may not have gone off if McCain would have said that he could not yuk it up on Dave's show during a crisis. Frankly, I don't see any benefit of McCain's "experience" in his "bold" actions. Picking Palin was sort of good politically, but seemed to be ill-considered, and this stunt seems pointless. I can't wait until he "boldly" bombs Tehran or something similar.

Ingrid

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:58:52 -0600

@Actually, this isn't Chicago related at all....and if the logic to it is that McCain is running against a "Chicagoan" for president, then what news about the election would not be "Chicago related." Actually, it is Chicago related because it's what people in Chicago are talking about. And since I live here, I like to hear what other people in Chicago are thinking about this issue which will have a pretty big effect on all of our lives.

matilda

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:58:13 -0600

I really don't get the whole "I haven't decided who I'm voting for" concept. Speaking for other indies I know, some still are waiting for more details about how a McCain administration and an Obama situation would deal with snowballing economic problems. These are people who care greatly about debts, deficits, borrowing cost for the federal govt and the like. As an indie, I have decided whom I will vote for, and the vote will be made with significant reservations. That you think people should fit into two defined political categories by age 25 scares the hell out me, as you seem to suggest that 1) A voter should vote party, not candidate; 2) That voters should give lifelong allegiance to a particular party; 3) That voters should do less critical thinking at each and every election. I have voted for candidates of both major parties and at least one minor party in recent years, and expect to continue to do the same for the rest of my life. That is the type of thinking that has greatly harmed our country in my lifetime.

irishman1

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:56:03 -0600

"If you are over the age of, say, 25 and locked in to one party or one worldview so much that you 'know' who to vote for based on the 'r' or 'd' after their name, I pity you." Oh man, I would love to hear an "AlbanyParkour" Republican view. Something safe, right? You think people should be able to own a gun, so that is your Republican view...right? Oh please, moderate one. Please tell us the issue you ponder before voting that allows you to claim "independent!", "independent!". Because from here, you come off as if you look for the 'd' and carry on.

tc3

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:44:46 -0600

Your show is not the place for a presidential candidate at this moment. Ward, did you watch the clip? Letterman seems pretty understanding at the beginning of it, until he saw the live feed. He's clearly upset because McCain personally (and unnecessarily) lied to him about hopping on a plane. Nothing wrong with calling him out for that.

fremo

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:22:15 -0600

oph, Neither party represents me or my views. My views fall onto both sides, and sometimes onto neither. I am a firm believer in efficient government, your right to own a firearm, believe in mass birth control education, believe in animal rights...what I hate, more than anything, is the two party system that we can't seem to break out of. I hate that if you lump yourself in the Republicans, that must make you a Creationist, and anti-abortion. Or that if you are a Democrat, you have to buy the entire party line. So that makes me an independent. Sure, there's some independent parties out there, but to be honest I don't fall 100% in with them as well. So I have to think about what matters to me and what I believe will better us all in the long run. I will say that the current slate of politicians - Dems and GOP - have blown it. I really wish there were term limits.

Albanyparkour

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:13:58 -0600

Dear Chicagoist, Could you please stop posting things you like on your web site? It offends me greatly and causes blindness. Any time I read something not completely Chicago related on your site one of my many cats develops epilepsy. Chicagoist, I only have 8 cats. Think of them the next time you want to post something that is not utterly and completely related to Chicago Sincerely, A pack of idiots. ... Ophmarketing: If you are over the age of, say, 25 and locked in to one party or one worldview so much that you 'know' who to vote for based on the 'r' or 'd' after their name, I pity you.

ophmarketing

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:41:10 -0600

I really don't get the whole "I haven't decided who I'm voting for" concept. I can understand it in the primaries, because you want to make sure that your party's chosen candidate is one who has the best chance at winning the White House. But honestly, if you're over the age of, say, 25, and you still haven't figured out whether your views are best represented by the Democratic Party or the Republican party, I don't see how "politicking" ("base" or otherwise) is going to make a difference.

mikely1

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:38:29 -0600

Dave was the only talk show host who didn't go off the air following 9/11, making his show the venue to address an immense crisis. I second fremo ... Dave can do whatever he wants. If Obama had stood him up, I think he would have reacted the same way. That being said, I can understand why McCain stood up a talk show, since it was the same day he announced that he wants to suspend his campaign and back out of a debate. It'd look kida bad to be on Letterman laughing it up.

Sears Tower

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:37:58 -0600

Two past their prime older gentlemen on one show. Too bad we missed the excitement!

fremo

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:30:25 -0600

"But...newsflash. Your show is not the place for a presidential candidate at this moment. Maybe you think that you're in the News Division of CBS and Katie Couric is in the Entertainment Division." Ward, old sport, its his show. He can do/say whatever he wants. Can't label it. If people get annoyed and don't watch anymore because of his rantings or upset bitching because McCain ditched him for Couric, so be it. You and I don't get to tell him what his show is or isn't the place for. I thought his bitching was immature, but then again so is his show. I don't really watch anymore but that's me. And Ward, "Messiah" is bitchy and immature. Just like "McSame", "McLame", "McDumb", or whatever. My two cents. But you know how I feel about base politicking. I still haven't decided who I am voting for, but this crap annoys the hell out of me.

mss2400

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:35:09 -0600

er..."thousands"

mss2400

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:34:05 -0600

Actually, this isn't Chicago related at all....and if the logic to it is that McCain is running against a "Chicagoan" for president, then what news about the election would not be "Chicago related." Look, I understand that sites like Chicagoist are generally run by the far-left-of-center crowd. From a business perspective, however, why would the editors want to use this site -- which I actually like to read -- as a platform for their personal political views when there are hundreds (if not thoustands) of lefty political sites out there?

Ingrid

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:23:10 -0600

I saw this last night. Oh boy...is Dave pissed. And rightly so. I do want to take umbrage though with McCain's status as 'war hero'. I'm getting a little tired of hearing about what a hero he is when there is so much coming out about how he has hidden evidence concerning POW's who were left behind and never heard from again. Whenever Dave or anyone else wants to spout off about McCain being such a hero, they should balance that with the information about the hundreds of POW's who never returned home after the peace treaty was signed. "McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero people would logically imagine to be a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books." -from The Nation

Ward Up

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:16:13 -0600

Letterman, we get it. You want The Messiah to win. And you apparently think your show is the venue to address a huge economic crisis. Maybe your show is the best place for Chris Elliot to do the "Panicky Guy." Or for Times Square shopowners to help with skits. Or for Stupid Pet Tricks. But...newsflash. Your show is not the place for a presidential candidate at this moment. Maybe you think that you're in the News Division of CBS and Katie Couric is in the Entertainment Division.