The Gary Sutton Show/Main Street of America will come to you LIVE on Monday from The Thaddeus Stevens College in Lancaster.
The show will include a 10 minute interview with Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, as well as comments from Dr. Terry Madonna of Franklin and Marshall College, and the Town Hall Meeting starting at 10:00am.
This is another effort to give all prospective voters a chance to become acquainted with the candidates first-hand. The Main Street of America will continue to try explore every opportunity to get each of the candidates in front of you.
Listeners outside of our broadcast area can stream the show over the internet, as always. Click on the "LISTEN LIVE" button near the top of the right-hand sidebar.
Link to more information about the town hall meeting
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Gary at Obama's Town Hall in Lancaster...10 minute 1 on 1 interview!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Let's predict Gary's questions:
--------
First, I want to ask you to please answer my questions with the greatest degree of specificity. Here on Main, we want to hear real answers.
My first question deals with your promise to bring us together again. Please tell us, in as much detail as you can, just how great it'll be once you bring us together.
My second question is about your former paster. Remember, no spin please. Question: I am one of the few capable of rising about petty party and ideology labels but I did notice that many people, mostly conservatives, gave you a hard time over your pastor. I don't agree with them. You're just great. Your pastor is kind of mean, but you aren't, right?
Now, I don't want to say anything bad about your pastor. Please understand that.
And now my last question:
I've often told my audience that I just can't make up my mind who to vote for this year. All three candidates have strong points and, being of Main Street, I like them all and must continue to carefully and deeply study the issues. I like to look at all sides, unlike most people. And like all Main Streeters, we just can't stand the bickering in politics.
So, my last question is - in your opinion, why is it that Hillary and McCain do so much bickering? To put it another way, why can't they get us to all to come together so we can hold hands and never say a cross word like you can?
That, I think, is the question of the ages.
------------------
This is about what I expect.
t. paine,
The interview and subsequent program airing Obama's speech from Lancaster wasn't anything like you predicted.
GS's pre- and post-speech comments and observations were politically neutral. I have agreed and disagreed with Gary Sutton via email, blogging and as a caller to his show. When he says he thinks politics blows, I believe he means it.
My gosh!
Obama leaves no stone unturned when he speaks.
He's direct, detailed, and focused on the issues.
What a contrast with the other lamebrain egoists who have campaigned for higher office . . !
Barack reminds me of Kennedy a lot--Of John Kennedy, but even more of Bobby Kennedy, who spoke so beautifully to equality and fairness.
My fear is that he will be killed-----not because he's black in a white supremicist nation, although that will be the official excuse for his elimination---but because he is proposing changes to the way America does business, the way the corporations make their profits.
Anybody who messes with the way the corporations make their money is seen as an enemy, and getting rid of them is seen as just good business.
I have grown to be very callous in my assessment of this, after seeing what happened to good men who had a message and who were in that message perceived as threats to the prevailing order.
Anyone who threatens to change the operative system is perceived as dangerous.
Christ!--they even killed their own god when he threatened the established government. (Note: It's called "religion" when you kill a god.)
I really wouldn't mind if Obama went the whole nine yards of pretective paranoia, and had a public double do every live presentation while he stayed safely hidden where they couldn't get him.
But nobody is safe. The best security in the world can't protect you against an inside job.
And that's how they would do it.
Besides, as everyone who knows him knows----Obama is not about secrecy and hiding.
It's not his style.
As long as he doesn't threaten the military establishment, they might let him alone----but if he challenges those bloody profits, he's history.
That is what the American system has come to be.
Bloodmoney rules.
Huh? Did you see some other Obama in some other Lancaster? I saw the one here on planet Earth. I don't know where the other one was.
The speech was a total mishmash of empty promises designed to make the clueless feel good and the lazy feel like they've got another handout coming.
I especially liked the part about "parents being parents". For the most liberal Senator and avowed tool of the teachers unions, that's rich.
Of course, Gullible Gary lapped it up like a dog provided a bowl of gravy. I lost count, but he must has described the Empty Suit as "transparent" about 561 times.
He's being played like a 2 cent whistle.
t. paine,
Gotta disagree with your assessment of Obama.
I'm assuming you are a McCain supporter or a member of the Republican Club. That's ok, but since I'm not a big fan of the current president's:
1. involving us in Iraq's Civil War
2. his economic strategies (or lack there of)
3. his cronyism practices and surrounding himself with recycled chums from as far back as the Nixon era
4. his 'borrow and spend' philosophy plunging us into to debt and causing the value of the dollar to drop like a rock
5. allowing the government to continue to grow bigger than any government in our history
6. not addressing the illegal immigration issue with any solid plan
7. twiddling his thumbs as healthcare costs rise out of control while schmoozing with drug and insurance companies as they help to write legislation
8. not coming up with any real energy policies
I haven't heard how John McCain would change any of the Bush administration's policies, but instead has indicated he would 'stay the course' with the policies already in place.
"If you like GW, you'll love Senator McCain" is the message I get, so if you like the way things are going in America, then I suppose John McCain is your guy. I respect that if that's how you feel. It's just not for me.
Actually, I'd rather eat a bug than vote for McQueeg, but it appears I have no choice. It's either someone who will raise taxes and take away freedoms, or it's the pair of leftist loons who will discard freedom on a wholesale basis to build their workers paradise.
Who's up for a little wage garnishing?
It's a poor choice for sure, but it's easier if you don't suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Last time I checked, we were talking about Obama. A list of imaginary Bush faults doesn't make Obama sound any more coherent.
I especially like the complaint that he grew government. I can honestly make that complaint - but no one who supports the government sticking it nose into heath insurance can.
T. Paine, or should I say Trenton in your current incarnation,
What were you listening to as far as my comments yesterday? I was at an event as I will be for any candidate who has one in the area during the time of my show. As far as using the words transparent or "judging" his performance in any way, I simply did not do that yesterday. I wanted each of you to make up your own minds by what you heard. That is the respect I have for each listener, that they can do that. My questions in the interview of 10 minutes asked for specific answers, again for you to consider in hearing each candidate. Nothing more. I tried to be pointed and get him to answer each within the time confines. In that regard, you all will have to be the judge if you are able to do so objectively. If being played like a 2cent whistle means that I am making all sides available for your consideration while I offer my own opinions on subjects and candidates, then I plead guilty.GS
Gary,
I appreciate the comments, but I'll leave it to the tape to show the use of the word "transparent". Obama didn't use it, but the host did several times in his wrap up of Obama's comments. I'm sure it's easy to get carried away when in a moment of quasi-religious fervor.
So here's my question - does it serve your listeners to always present Obama as a cross between and Aw-Shucks Andy of Mayberry and a Horatio Alger? The list of fantasy he spouted yesterday was unbelievable - we're going to take away the tax cuts so the middle class will be better off - we're going to sock it to oil companies so that the price of gas will come down - we're going to "invest" in solar and wind (dead ends) - and many many more.
How about "we're going to let parents be parents"?
Do your listeners deserve to hear their host honestly tell him opinion of these ludicrous promises and claims by Obama?
Or do they deserve a feigned aloofness from one who is above the "fight for the future" that is politics.
I know that as a listener, I'd like a bit less contrived objectivity and bit more of your honest analysis of is health care plan, his war plan, his plan for the taxes, etc.
Many democrats love his plans. As a listener, if you don't disagree with them, I'm forced to conclude you endorse them as well.
t. paine,
I would like to include you in my standard offer to anyone who claims their federal income tax will go up under an Obama administration.
I will agree to take you annual salary off your hands in the event this actually happens. Because if your income tax goes up you are making over $250K/yr. I understand you may not be able to make ends meet after your tax increase, so I will be happy switch salaries with you for a year (or more!).
Hmmm. . .
I know you really put a lot of thought into this offer and all, and that I may have just missed it, but I didn't notice you putting up anything in your little offer. Are you agreeing to fork over your full income when my taxes do go up?
That's assuming there is some income, of course. If there's not, I can see why higher taxes wouldn't matter.
And BTW, I don't believe for one second that anyone could possibly really believe that an Obama win wouldn't mean higher taxes for just about everyone. That is, anyone with a sense of reality.
Talk about a sense of reality, big guy: How about we just continue to borrow and print more money forever while giving everybody another tax cut?
Seems to have worked so far hasn't it? Throw it on the communal credit card and let some other poor bastard pay for it later. That seems to be the plan......the 'fiscally responsible' political party runs up the debt and the other political party can figure how to pay it off.
Oh goody. Another fiscal conservative just like me. Hopefully, we can talk some sense into some others.
So, I agree 100% that the cost of government is too much. Let's cut it a bit to get things back in balance.
Let's start with eliminating the dept of Education. Oh wait, some political party wouldn't allow that to happen when it was tried.
Ok, then. Let's privatize socialist security. This will make every worker wealthier over time and result in more taxes.
Dang it - tried and failed because of you know who.
How about we cut out some social spending? No you say? I see, it'll hurt the children. How compassionate.
Ok, here's one we'll all agree on - let's cut out earmarks. That's save at least some bucks. But wait, the party in charge hasn't exactly been chomping at the bit to do this. So sorry.
What if we simply cut each department, except defense (there's a little thing called the war on terror going on) by 10%. That should be a no brainer, right? No way, you say? OK, how about 5%? 2%? How about we simply hold each department to exactly the same gross spending as last year?
Can't do it. I see, it would cause mass panic and starvation. Especially to children and seniors. Dang it.
At least us fiscal conservatives are consistent in our beliefs. Not like that party running congress.
t. paine,
I see you read as well as you reason.
I'll type slower this time. I said I would 'switch salaries'. That means I would get yours and you would get mine.
As far as this:
"And BTW, I don't believe for one second that anyone could possibly really believe that an Obama win wouldn't mean higher taxes for just about everyone. That is, anyone with a sense of reality."
You are free to believe anything you want about "everyone's" income tax rates, but unless and until you have any data or statements to back it up it doesn't mean too much, does it?
Oh this bickering is just more than us Main Streeters can take.
I see now that you did use the word switch. The typo in that sentence made it hard to be sure what was meant. You can't be too careful with folks who believe that Obama won't cause taxes to go up.
So, in order to know if this deal is a good one, tell us, exactly how much is your salary?
As to backing up my certainty that B. Obama will raise taxes - how about his own words. Would that do?
"Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent. I would—and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. If it—and if it, you know—when I talk to people like Warren Buffett or others and I ask them, you know, what's—how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range, then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making."
"And I am an economic dunce". No, I made that part up.
Now I sure hope you make enough to make it worth this education.
Ratcheting my typing down to super-slow mo for you t. paine.
The deal would be fantastic for me...not so good for you.
Here is what I wrote before:
I would like to include you in my standard offer to anyone who claims their federal income tax will go up under an Obama administration.
I will agree to take you annual salary off your hands in the event this actually happens. Because if your income tax goes up you are making over $250K/yr.
I'll just say I make much less than $250K/yr. Your federal income taxes going up puts you, by definition above that line.
Now as to your quote, I can only assume you know the difference between capital gains taxes and income tax. You are addressing a different question, but let's talk about it.
As a (very) typical working schlub I fall into the category of only entering the capital gains game when or if I sell my house. Even then my taxes won't go up because I will not be making more than $250K (there's that number again) on the sale.
Care to move the goalposts again?
I think it's great to slow down the typing. That way it's easier to be accurate.
I begin to get the impression that some folks want others to pay more taxes just because it'll make them feel better about themselves.
Those with this streak of petty jealousness are, of course, catered to by B. Obama.
There are other ways to deal with the pain of being a "typical schlub". Alcohol has been known to provide some relief.
It's not going to help the schlub when the government takes more from everyone who's done a bit more in their life.
They aren't going to give it to you, after all.
Or do you think they will?
If money in the bank is your measure of who's "done a bit more in their life" so be it.
Good luck with that.
t. pain (Atrenton),
Your government cut suggestions don't go far enough, but hey let's put John McCain into the presidency (along with a pile of buddies from his political club) and everything will straighten itself out.
My theory is that super rich people will do what's best for America because they are the TRUE patriots.
Why do you all keep feeding the troll ????
Post a Comment