Oh I'm sorry. What is the proper Obama-like response to "Haw haw, Americans are so stupid"? Besides agreeing, of course.

"No, no, you're getting America all wrong. Despite the fact that many small town Americans feel let down by their government and so therefore cling bitterly to xenophobia, faith in God, or their 2nd Amendment rights, they're still basically decent.

You know, they may listen to the wrong talk radio shows, or watch the wrong television networks, but that doesn't mean they're stupid."

I guess I'm just a jingoist freak, because despite our flaws, I still think this is the greatest country in the world. It's like someone insulting my family. We may have internal arguments, but if someone insults them, I'm going to stand up for my family.

Biden: Paying higher taxes patriotic for wealthy - Yahoo! News

That would be an acceptable answer, because you listened to what they had to say, and presented a well-reasoned counter argument. The Bush response to someone who has a different viewpoint outside the country is "too bad, we're the US, go fuck yourself."

if you object to the word "stupid" - would you be okay with "uneducated?" How about "ignorant?" "Small-minded?" Or can we only say nice things?

Hagel "turned" on the GOP in many ways a lot longer than yesterday. Hagel's sort of the Lieberman of the right, at least when it comes to the war in Iraq.

There was another conservative who came out in support of Obama yesterday. Wick Allison, the editor-in-chief of D magazine (and former publisher of National Review) had this to say:


The problem with describing Allison as a conservative is that he himself apparently believes "conservatism may be dead". I'm also not impressed by the reasoning Allison demonstrates: "I disagree with him on the issues, but I LOVE how thoughtful he'll be in implementing policies I don't agree with!"

Obama casts light on McCain's abortion stance - Yahoo! News



This one iss a tough one because some of the things that the Left would argue is to their advantage, the right would say is to their advantage. for example, Palin's stance on life (no choice at all), Im fairly certain satisfies the 'religious' right but perhaps isn't good for the 'pro-choice' right. This article is interesting and I may need to go back through it with a finer tooth comb and maybe even make some things neutral.

"Progressive" might be acceptable.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at. Are you suggesting that Americans should listen to being called "stupid", "uneducated", "ignorant", "small-minded", or something else and just nod our heads?

Folks don't have to only say nice things, but if you're going to say something not so nice, I certainly get to speak my mind in return. Or is this the articulation of the DT policy: "First we turn our cheeks, then we spread 'em."

the thing that worries me about making abortion the decision of individual states is that you are in some way removing the choice from some segments of the population then, through making it financially less affordable (if I'm a poor pregnant woman and i have to travel two states away to get an abortion that's money out of my pocket when i could barely afford the abortion in the first place).

The "you can see Russia from Alaska" thing was always stupid and always very easy for the Democrats to make fun of.

It would have been better for the GOP to just not mention anything or to mention how Alaska is chock full of military bases and vital national energy concerns and how the governor of Alaska is uniquely situated among chief executives in terms of international security concerns. Which I think is actually true. No other governor has to worry about helping protect from terrorist attack 800 miles of oil pipeline vital to the country.

By phrasing it in terms of "you can see Russia from here almost sorta," they took a decent argument and made it silly.

Though it seems like it all might not matter because Palin was fast-tracked into Hillary Clinton territory--you can count the amount of voters who don't have a strongly held opinon about her on one hand.

Nothing good she does will sway the haters, nothing bad she does will sway the fans.

I love how each successive democratic candidate is tabbed as "the most liberal member of the senate" or whatever body of government he comes from. I thought John Kerry was the most liberal guy. At least he was last election. Funny, I thought Ted Kennedy was the most liberal guy in Washington.

No, you absolutely get to speak your mind in return. I have absolutely no problem with freedom of speech.

I wouldn't say progressive is the right word - if anything people are "regressive" (I know that word doesn't really have a connotation for this type of discussion, but maybe it makes sense?).

And I'm not going to dignify your last sentence with a response - just going to let it be. Turn the other cheek, etc.

im finding a few things that you cant label since one side would attack on while the other wears as a badge.

can we just drop the whole idea that being governor and having "command" over the national guard makes one qualified to be commander-in-chief?? it's really ludicrous and insulting, particularly because in cases where there's an emergency the guard is federalized anyways

I understand where you're coming from, but I read his reasoning slightly differently. I read something more to the effect of, "I disagree with Obama on many issues, but I agree with his central world view, and that's the most important thing to me in this election."

I think it's a bit silly to say the election being close means the Americans are stupid or Obama's image is tarnishing (which isn't even supported by the most positive McCain polls). What really has happened is that McCain's image has improved among both conservatives (by picking Palin) and among independents (his sudden talk about change reminded them of the 2000 McCain that they loved). They don't all see him the same as Bush or other Republicans because he's taken enough public stands against them, so the last 8 years don't really matter. Another problem is confusing what Bush's low approval numbers mean. Alot of conservatives disapprove, but that certainly doesn't mean they're going to vote for Obama.

Having said all of that, here are the recent polls...

National

Rasmussen: Tied 48-48
Quinnipiac: Obama 49-45
Battleground: McCain 47-45

State

FL: McCain 51-45 (SurveyUSA)
NM: Obama 52-44 (SurveyUSA)
GA: McCain 57-41 (SurveyUSA)
IN: Obama 47-44 (Indianapolis Star)

If Republicans repeat something enough times, certain kinds of Americans accept of the truth without the need of evidence. And when they get called out on it, their defenders will be right there to shout out "teh librul media is so bias" before sitting down to watch some Fox News.

Now you just need to switch the black text for white and you'll be set :D

And if the Democrats repeat something enough times, certain kinds of Americans accept the truth without the need of evidence. And when they get called out on it, their defenders will be right there to shout out "racist" or "bigot" or "elitist" before sitting down to watch some CNN.

What was your point again?

As for Obama being the most liberal Senator, that's certainly not supported by the Conservative or Liberal interest groups.

For example, the liberal groups rate him as the 9th most conservative Senator and only two spots from Lieberman. The conservative groups don't go quite that far, but they still rate 30 Senators as being more liberal and also have him only two spots from Lieberman. Biden is also not close to being the most liberal on either chart.

As for McCain, his position varies widely between the two groups. The liberals have him as the 5th most conservative Senator, whereas the conservatives have him as the 12th most liberal GOP Senator.

You beat me to that point, but summed it up pretty well so I don't feel much need to beat that horse any deader. But there was something else in the same post that caught my eye for at least two cents worth.


I believe there might be a reasonable argument that "unhyphenated" conservatism may at least be fairly diagnosed as terminal. There's fiscal conservatives, there's social conservatives, there's some portion who are both too I suppose. But typically I find one aspect or the other is the primary reason someone could be most identified as "conservative".
The viability of the GOP as a party that can win a national election seems to depend on maintaining an ability to appeal to both groups in sufficient combination to find the votes they need. I don't believe either element alone is enough to win nationally, and there are certainly signs that the voting solidarity of the two blocs could be eroding.

Look at the primary and consider the differences between the McCain-Huckabee-Romney camps. I don't believe the voters on the short side of equation had a strong "oh well, McCain's still good" reaction to his nomination, instead it been "at least he isn't Obama". If the Dems had managed to run someone who wasn't as deplorable then I don't believe McCain would have stood a chance of winning, he couldn't have held the two elements together well enough.

Look at the primary results in the truly red states - those that have voted GOP for President for the last four elections (or even 3 of 4)

Red states (4 of 4 GOP for President)
Wyoming (c) 1/5 - Romney wins 67%, McCain zero delegates
South Carolina 1/19 -- McCain wins 33%, Huck second with 30%
Alabama 2/5 - Huck wins with 41%, McCain second with 37%
North Dakota 2/5 - Romney wins 36%, McCain second with 23%
Oklahoma 2/5 - McCain wins 37%, Huck second with 33%
Utah 2/5 - Romney wins 90%, McCain second with 5%
FEBRUARY 7 ROMNEY DROPS OUT
Kansas 2/9 - Huck wins 60%, McCain second with 24%
Virginia 2/12 -- McCain wins 50%, Huck second with 41%
Texas 3/4 - McCain wins 54%, Huck second with 38%
MARCH 4 HUCKABEE DROPS OUT
Mississippi 3/11 -- McCain wins 79%
North Carolina 5/6 -- McCain wins 74%
Indiana 5/6 -- McCain wins 77%
Idaho 5/27 -- McCain wins 70%
South Dakota 6/3 - McCain wins 70%
Nebraska -- none?

Pink states (3 of 4 GOP Presidential votes)
Florida 1/29 - McCain wins 36%, Romney second with 31%
Georgia 2/5 - Huck wins with 34%, McCain second with 32%
Colorado 2/5 - Romney wins 60%, McCain second with 16%
Montana 2/5 - Romney wins 38%, McCain third with 22%
Arizona 2/5 - McCain wins 47%, Romney second with 35%
Alaska 2/5 - Romney wins 44%, McCain fourth with 15%

Point being, McCain was the first choice for only about 1/3rd of the core of the GOP's electoral strength, that solid group that should be there's in November. He may eventually hold onto many of them come November but it's pretty clear that he wasn't "the guy" until the field started dropping out. And when it's not "your guy", it's a lot harder to get motivated ... unless the other side runs an anathema.

Shhh. I'm still holding out hope that she'll do a publicity stunt where she pops out of a National Guard tank wearing an oversized helmet.

That the Republicans are much better at it. That has pretty much been agreed upon by everyone in this thread that the Republican political machine is that much better than the Democratic machine.

There is NOTHING fiscally conservative about the GOP under Bush. They have created more debt and made our country more corporatist/socialist than any liberal ever could. Anyone who can't see that is either blind, retarded, or both.

McCain says he would fire SEC Chairman Chris Cox - Yahoo! News

Gallup tracking poll was just released with a 4 pt Obama lead, 48-44.

{scratches head}

I can't help but wonder how the Bush administratino got dragged into a conversation about the two distinct elements of the GOP voting bloc.

See, the point to this sub-topic was whether McCain could hold the two together, not whether Bush hypothetically could. For the record, Bush went two-for-two in those attempts and is ineligible to try a third time so that's a moot point.

I can't keep 'em straight these days it seems ... is Gallup "registered" or "likely"?

Oh hai, Dick Cheney. :D


In all seriousness, though, I think I'm going to have to start listening to your show, Cam. You see, previously I was concerned that I might hear you, like other talk show hosts, call one half of the country (the half that doesn't agree with you on a particular issue) stupid, dumb, ignorant, or even "moonbats". But since now I know that you're against that kind of talk, I can listen without fear. Even better, I'll bet you never call citizens of another country (perhaps ones with tough gun-control laws) that kind of thing.

:p

Gallup is registered, but that's a good point. Here's a list, and I'll start noting that when I list the poll results.

Gallup (RV)
Rasmussen (LV)
CBS News (Both)
Quinnipiac (LV)
Battleground (LV)
Hotline/FD (RV)
Reuters/Zogby (LV)
Newsweek (RV)
Associated Press (LV)
NBC News (RV)
ABC News (RV)
FOX News (RV)
CNN/OpinionResearch (RV)

That's odd, I thought his concluding point was, in fact:


Emphasis added by me, of course.

When I originally read this editorial (about a day before you posted it), it struck me as being very similar to why I support Obama (aside from being aligned with him on the issues, of course). I think he'll bring a thoughtful and pragmatic approach to the White House, which will be very refreshing after 8 years of dogmatic leadership.

If it makes you feel any better, you can continue to not listen to any of my shows (and trust me, on the occasion I get wound up, it's a show).
I though Cam might have erred on the side of gentility in his suggested reply.

The DailyKos/Research 2000 poll of 1100 Likely Voters shows a 49-43 Obama lead

That laundry list is a good reference point I think, thanks for doing it. Although with the speed this thread moves, finding it latter will be it's own special challenge.

Given the close nature of things, how ... I dunno the word, "warped" maybe, is it that the election might be decided by whether it rains in certain places or not?

It's the type of thing that would be great in the first post of a thread (the registered/likely list)

SI

Well, as I said, I'll post the LV or RV with each poll I list from now on, so you guys won't have to keep referring to the list.

The RV certainly seems to favor Obama as expected, although that CBS News poll had the same margin with both the LV and RV polling.

I honestly didn't know you had a show (shows?). Linky?


But let's be honest, Jon, and put that into context, which is that you'd be OK with reducing the rest of the world to a pile of smoking rubble. :p

Here are some National Journal/FD state polls of Registered Voters.

OH: Obama 42-41
FL: tied 44-44
VA: McCain 48-41
CO: Obama 45-44
NM: Obama 49-42

Also, Rasmussen decided to waste time and money by polling Vermont. Obama is up 60-36 among Likely Voters there.

:lol:

Hey, I'm as imperfect or more so than everyone else, so if you're expecting the Jesus Christ of talk show hosts I'm gonna disappoint. But I'd like to think that I'm still learning and becoming more mature. I do try to talk about specific individuals and not paint with a large brush, which includes discussing the fact that the gun issue doesn't necessarily break along strict party lines these days (for instance, 82 Democrats voted in favor of a piece of pro-gun legislation in the House yesterday). I also try not to use cheap language like "stupid", though I confess to using "ignorant" a lot. That's because when it comes to specific issues in this country, I think there is a lot of ignorance (which I would call a lack of knowledge on an issue, not a lack of ability to educate yourself).

But you probably would be surprised at how civil I am. I view my job as an opportunity to TALK about the 2nd Amendment issue, not yell at people. I want people who disagree with me to feel just at home listening to me as people who DO agree.

So why would I tell a foreigner friend to **** himself if he let loose with a "Boy, there sure are a lot of stupid Americans"? I tried to explain earlier, but I'll try again. Let's say my son does something incredibly dumb. The conversation that I will have with my wife and my son about his actions will be completely different than the conversation I would have with my neighbor. Hell, if I did something stupid, I would totally accept my wife calling me a dumbass, but if my neighbor piped up with the same comment, I'd not have the same reaction.

I see America as one big dysfunctional family. We may not always get along, we certainly don't always agree with each other, but because we're family we can get away with certain things that an outsider cannot. You may not agree, but that's where I'm coming from.

It appears my parenthetical remark didn't explain me as well as I was shooting for. The days of Jon having a regularly scheduled show of his own are well past and gone and that's probably for the best (at least for me anyway). The only "show" I do any more is impromptu & usually for a live audience (i.e. if someone happens to randomly trip my trigger in the course of my daily routine).

I was just shooting for a little light comedy there, meaning to suggest that if I did still have a show then you'd be welcome to continue not listening to it ;)

O NOES. If we've lost Vermont, we've lost middle America. ;)

I have to admit, I don't understand the McCain/Palin campaign strategy over the past few days. They're in Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. He's behind in all of these states, and even if he did win them, they are not states that are going to get him to 270 (if he won these states, they would be getting him to 290 or 300). I don't know why they're wasting their time and resources in these states.

Only thing I can figure is they're trying to force Obama to waste time & resources defending those states.

Why???? Sorry if I'm being an idiot here, but I really do not understand. What does the source of criticism have to do with its validity?

My point was and is that Bush & Co have eviscerated whatever was left of the fiscal conservative wing of the GOP. To even call it a wing is generous at this point.

I believe McCain has basically pulled even for the stretch run.

Of course, it really depends upon how much of their fundraising goals each hits and what the reports due this month covering through Aug 31st show too.

I think it is more about time than money. If they can force Obama to divert attention to defending his own state, then they might be able to hold off challenges in some vulnerable Bush states: VA, CO, and OH. (I think Obama is already going to take IA and NM, so any one of those three would give him the election.) Obama has ignored Minnesota (look at the ad spending osmeone linked above), and he will certainly have to divert some time there at some point.

Where Obama's financial advantage will really be felt is in organization on election day. He will most likely have a superior field operation out there, and that will help him in the close states. I read an article on RCP that talked about how much more effort they've put into New Mexico than Kerry did, with extra field offices and a great volunteer program.

Your wish is my command....

Cam - I was mostly having fun an being snarky, but I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful response.

I guess I don't have as direct a response to a non-American putting down Americans as you do. Maybe it's because I spent so long living abroad. When one of my friends in England would say something like "wow, a lot of Americans are really stupid", I'd usually respond by saying "Yeah, but so are a lot of Brits. I mean, do you know how many people support Everton?" :D

Wow, lots of polls today. Here are some more state polls..

Insider Advantage/Poll Position (Likely Voters)

VA: McCain 48-46
CO: Obama 51-41
GA: McCain 51-43


Big 10 Battleground (Registered Voters)

OH: Obama 46-45
MN: Obama 47-45