I would disagree. The Republican Party is the party of anti-nuance. They believe (or claim to believe) that everything is black and white. No gray areas. Either you are for cutting everyone's taxes or you are a socialist. Either you are for terrorism or against it. Either you love America and forgive it all its faults or you are unpatriotic. That's what the Republican Party is. That's what it has been since Reagan at least. Maybe back to Nixon.
Honestly, if you changed your entire worldview because you missed a promotion at a job when you were 17, you may want to revisit your own priorities. I've had lots of crappy jobs, and none of them made me question myself. More likely, you had simply adopted the beliefs of your parents growing up (as I did to some extent) and over the years, your beliefs began to diverge because of personal experience. No problem with that, my views did the same thing. We just moved in opposite directions. But don't try to convince us that the Monday after that job you woke up and said "Yep, I'm a conservative now. F#$k all the little people, let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps."
What is the likelihood of huge early vote totals for Obama driving down Republican GOTV efforts? It could end up being extremely helpful to downticket Dems on election day. We also should all have 1-866-OUR-VOTE ready in our phones, especially those of us that live in states like PA, OH, FL, and VA. I don't trust Diebolt as far as I can throw them.
You have to think that if $300,000 is required to ensure a McCain win in MT (which I think will be the result), he has no chance. McCain seems to be ignoring all the states like Montana (think Georgia, North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona), knowing that if those states require his money and presence, he is sunk. McCain is all in on Pennsylvania, knowing that he needs to win this state and somehow get lucky and win all the other close red ones. Competing in those close states is a waste, because if those states require his money and presence, he's already lost. I would feel sorry for him if he wasn't revealed to be an a$$hole. I used to like him, but he's become (become?) a mean old man.
The really strange thing to me is why McCain felt the need to try to name them all in the first place. I mean, he didn't try to name all 200 generals supporting him. Why not just say "Five former Secretaries of State support me; Obama now has two [are Albright and Powell the only ones?]."?
And it is clear that McCain was trying to rattle them off as a memorized list, which is why he starts over. He clearly has no strong relationship with any of them to draw on to remember them. Otherwise, he could have just said "Oh, I forget his name all of a sudden! Reagan's Secretary of State."
Not that Obama likely knows Albright and Powell all that well either, but the point is that everyone else does. It's an odd moment for McCain but not so much the forgetting as it is the odd sighs and exasperated remarks he makes. Won't make a lick of difference to any voter, but it does reinforce the theme of McCain as erratic and confused.
That's obviously part of the joke. It was the official title of the party we now all remember as the Know Nothings (their unofficial title). They were virulently anti-immigration (well, anti-non-British immigration) in the 1840s and 1850s.
You forget that it also means that is a 30-minute block in which McCain can't buy any ads. More importantly, it's likely that it will dominate the news cycle the next day. I would be surprised if it was live, so I wouldn't worry about a gaffe. It's essentially a chance to have a recorded debate without anyone debating against you. At worst, it's neutral. At best, it reaches people in states that are not seeing those 30-second ads.
I am sure it's illegal (at least in Paulson's case), but if I were Paulson or Roubini, I'd be short-selling EVERYthing. God, it's ridiculous. "Hmm...I'd like the markets to go down today...what should I do? I know, I'll unnecessarily predict a terrible outcome that we can't do anything about. Tada!"
The real question is, do the Democrats try to demolish the filibuster the way the Repubs tried? I don't know if they could even get the votes, and I personally think the filibuster option is important (though I think it should be 55 votes, not 60 for cloture), but I'm curious.