That's right! And she did a good job in much rougher conditions than 9/11. I think Palin would be a good leader if the Cylons attacked Earth and we had to escape on spaceships looking for a new home.

Although it should be noted that Roslin is a bit of a religious nut too.

Looks like the "kill him" story was more fantasy than reality:

Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded | Wilkes-Barre breaking news | timesleader.com - The Times Leader

This is pretty disappointing and seems to be an example of a reporter trying to make a name for himself at the expense of McCain supporters. It's a shame these major networks couldn't have done an inch of verification before slamming the McCain supporters on one apparently mistaken account.

Arles, thanks. That is a very good revelation.

but i thought it was on a video on youtube they heard it (which couldve been edited in afterwards)?

+1

They make over $250,000 of profit a year? That's not an average American. Or an average small business.

It's really interesting to me that whether or not someone yelled something at a rally is news.

I agree that it seems to be a reporter trying to make a name for himself. What's interesting to me is why Obama supporters love to invoke this kind of stuff as somehow supportive of their candidate. You see it all over the blogs and the last few pages of this thread - trying to connect any opposition to this racist element.

Though in terms of "kill him" (though it didn't actually happen) - not sure that's necessarily racist. I've heard plenty of hippie west coast liberals yell similar (and worse) things about Bush the last 8 years, including at political rallies. Why is that not news?

exactly...YOU keep implying racism. I keep implying violence (including using the hot button and insinuating word 'terror[ist])'. Please stop blending the two for your convenience.

I'm not directing this at you - mostly that article a few pages back, and similar sentiment on blogs. Collecting racist misdeeds from around the country and then implicating the entire Republican party (and by looser implication, anyone who votes against Obama) to support your preferred candidate is about as low as it gets. That's all.

And the violence is based on racism anyway, isn't it?

not necessarily.

It could be but not always.

It's even more disappointing that people are making a big deal about this. Never understood the link between independent crowd behavior and a candidate. Some of the logic leaps we make when it comes to politics baffle me.

Well, I think the claim was 1) the campaign was inciting these remarks by the nature of their attacks and 2) Palin, unlike McCain, wasn't standing up to these people.

Have you been reading anything about this guy? Joe is not similar to "Joe." He does not make 250k per year, the business he may one day want to buy does not make 250k per year and anyone that does "make 250k per year" would not have increased taxes. If someone DID happen to make it over the 250k per year TAXABLE INCOME mark, it would only be the amount beyond 250k that would be subject to an increased tax.

slippery slope but you cant make this claim. At a David Duke rally youre certainly going to get behaviour even on the fringe that's different than another rally. Its the fact that the statement or rhetoric arent tamped down when visible.

Fair enough.

I don't really evaluate Palin anymore, except in terms of entertainment value. It's just a waste of time.

The point is that the party has allowed the fringe to take numerous leadership positions. Sure they're crazies on both sides, but what's distressing about the current Republican party is that the crazies are too often in charge.

The Obama bucks were sent out by the leader of a Republican Women's group.

The "Waterboard Him" page was set up by the Republican Party of Sacramento County.

The photoshopped Obama/Osama picture was sent out by the Virginia GOP.

Obama sock monkeys were sold at the Texas GOP convention.

Obama Waffles were sold at the Family Values meeting in Washington.

A minister called on God to defend his name and keep Obama from being elected as the opening prayer of a campaign rally.

We can go on if you'd like. The problem isn't that every Republican is a racist or that being against Obama is racist. The problem is that the party has largely been taken over by an angry, narrow-minded fringe. The great and noble tradition of the GOP isn't anywhere to be seen these days. The change in McCain from honorable conservative to whatever he's become is clear proof of what it takes to appeal to these folks.

I'd love to see a principled conservative party as a counter to the Democrats even though I'd largely disagree with their policy positions. The current incarnation of the Republican party, however, isn't in any way principled or conservative. If the most xenophobic and theocratic voices aren't pushed aside the Republican party runs a great risk of being little more than a Southern and Great Plains regional party for the next generation.

I can certainly see why you don't like them if you believe that.

It seems like a huge exaggeration and political grandstanding though - "largely been taken over"?

Anybody can set up a "Republican women's group", or a "Family Values Meeting". If there's larger state groups doing this stuff at conventions funded by the actual GOP, I agree that's a much bigger problem and they need to take a more active stand in quashing that stuff

But they can't stop people from meeting and doing racist shit. I'm not even sure they own the name "Republican".

As the party going against an African-American presidential candidate, they're OBVIOUSLY going to attract the racist element. What do they do about it exactly? Most of the stories involving these things include a statement from a real GOP official condemning the racist sentiment.

scales
eyes

Chicago Tribune endorses Obama.

First time they have ever endorsed a Democrat.

it's easy. Do what McCain did in Minny at the rally. Just a simple, "Let's tone down the rhetoric guys." or "That's unacceptable and whle we disagree with the opponent over XYZ we're all americans blah blah blah."

That's a pretty significant endorsement. Those critical of the "Chicago Machine," of which the conservative leaning tribune is a part, have certainly been critical of Obama.

After this election, the Republican party is likely to be in the worst shape nationally since 1964. They'll likely lose the White House, be outnumbered by 70-80 in the House and by 14-20 in the Senate. Much of this IMO has less to do with how great the Dems are than with people seeing what the GOP has become.

November 5th is going to be a reckoning day for the GOP. Will they further retrench around policies that only attract a regional majority or will they rebrand themselves ala Cameron in the UK?

The sad part is, if Palin did this she would get more center of the road support and understanding. Unfortunately for her, I don't think she is politically savvy enough to realize it, and her part of the ticket seems to be run by the attack oriented Neo-con faction of the campaign.

Condemn it and make an honest, actual effort to understand the issues of folks from those communities, in the same way the Dems have made a conscious effort to court the faith communities in this country.

There are lots of conservatives of color in the country of varying stripes, but no one wants to be part of a party that they don't feel welcome in. Maybe do more than just assume that picking someone who is black will be enough to get blacks to cross over.

I know it's hard for folks to believe in 2008, but minority (specifically, blacks) aren't a monolith.

Very true. When I worked in the polling world, I was always astounded that 20% of the gay population consistently voted Republican, in spite of that party's generally hostile policies with regards to gay rights.

Voters (especially when they are talked about in terms of demographic blocs) are often more complicated than they are given credit for. At the heart, voters are issues-driven: but the issues that drive any individual voter may not be the ones you think ought to be important to them, merely based on demographic identification. For example, why would those 20% of gay voters vote Republican? Maybe there are issues more important to him or her than gay marriage, etc.

With that being said, it is often the case that a political party can do poorly with vast majorities of a demographic group, such as the Republican Party with 80% of the gay population. But the reason why party x does poorly with demographic group y isn't because of something inherent about demographic group y, it's because party x's policies are often really not in the interests of the vast majority of demographic group y.

DC is right. We just saw in 2006 that simply presenting African-American candidates didn't translate to many votes for the GOP. Blackwell, Swann, Steele all went down. While they got a higher% of the African-American vote than usual, it was still a very low number. I think Steele had the highest and it was only around 25%.

As for condemning each racist thing, after a while, that's not enough. It's like the whole thing we saw with Hillary this year. Some surrogate would say something stupid and insulting. Hillary condemns it. The person apologizes and/or steps down. Another surrogate says something stupid or insulting. Hilary condemns it. Rinse and repeat. It's one of the reasons I stopped supporting Clinton and switched to Obama.

At some point, you've got to go beyond issuing one sentence condemnations to the press, or refuting some crazies at a campaign rally. There comes a time where you need to do something broad and sweeping. I haven't seen it yet. Obama gave his race speech. Maybe it's time McCain gave his.

One of the most conservative people I know is a lesbian. She's also a racist, so I don't know what that says.

There's some buzz going around that Colin Powell will soon endorse Barack Obama, possibly this weekend on Meet the Press.

As an aside:

this goofball shoud be run out of town"

Agreed. Step down. Not after the election, but NOW. As I said in the thread I created on this issue, is there something in the water in Florida, that makes their congressmen think with their dicks? (and their various preferences).

They've had reports and buzz like this for about 6 months now. What I do know is that the GOP is a sinking ship right now and if you like politics and aren't a Democrat, there isn't really anything for you to do! So who knows.

MN Republican Michelle Bachman went crazy on Hardball. She claimed Obama is anti-American and asked for a press investigation of congress to find out which other Dems are anti-American.

This came after Palin told a NC crowd that she likes visiting the pro-America parts of the country.

And in really crazy land a few talk show hosts and a bunch of blogs spent time decrying Obama's alteration of the US flag. It appears he added an O and changed the shape. Luckily the altered flag was just the state flag of Ohio.

she really did call for investigations into who in congress is un-american. Supposedly her competitor in the MN race has seen a substantial spike in donations since it happened.

nice!! HUACx2!!!!

$30,000 since she appeared on Hardball at 5pm EST.

Here's the youtube.com link

Arguably a new low for the Republicans this election season, if that's still possible.

edit: Make that $70,000

It would appear that the only Republicans not ashamed of the GOP brand in this election cycle are the ones who made the brand something to be ashamed of in the first place.

She's riding on that train to nuts-ville.

Investor's business daily/TIPP poll from Thursday shows Obama 45, McCain 42. It's a phone poll of likely voters (don't know the internals though):

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/PollsPo...09042090194597

This was from the site:

Dang, it's weird to see Obama up in the 25-44 and 45-64 age groups while McCain is up in the 18-24 and 65+ age groups. It could be sample size related, there aren't that many 18-24 year old voters relative to the other groups.

Today's poll from the same firm shows a 46-41 lead.

This sign was at the John McCain headquarters in Pompano Beach.

That's terrible. I'll be glad when this election is over. People on both sides just have too much invested in their candidates. And, whenever one is down and looks like he will lose, their side goes bananas.

agreed Arlie. Someone called the breakdown between "hardcore Red" states and "Hardcore Blue" states a "Cold Civil War", and I'm not so sure that doesn't fit the situation.

fear.....8 years of it led us to this space were in now, IMO.

I don't buy that. It was worse back in 2000 by both sides. You had leftist groups says black churches would burn if Bush was elected, the despicable ad showing a black man drug by chains in texas saying it would happen again if Bush was elected (because he wasn't in favor of hate crimes) and people burning signs of "Bush" after he was elected. On the right, you had the terrible claim against McCain in South Carolina about fathering a child from a black woman, Gore was going to destroy the combustible engine and kill the morality of the country because of Clinton.

Whatever season we are in always seems to be the "worst ever", but there have been some pretty terrible things done by both sides in the past 20 years. Basically, whomever is losing in the final 4 weeks goes nuts and makes all kinds of crazy claims to make up ground. In 2000 and 2004, Bush was called a terrorist, there were movies made about his assassination, the Rather made-up documents, the DUI claim, dolls of him were burned in effigy and you had signs like "kill the real terrorist - George Bush" and pictures of him with blood and knives stuck in them. 2008 is like a choir party compared to the anger/insanity against Bush four years ago.

In fairness, the right went pretty nuts against Clinton, but 2004 was about as bad as I can remember. I can't imagine what the left would do if signs were made at an event saying ""kill the real terrorist - Barack Obama" with a picture of his face with a knife in it and blood rolling down. That was par for the course against Bush in 2004.

Yeah, you're right. We get pretty myopic around election times and forget how ugly it truly got 4 years before. The far left definitely went extreme 4 years ago, and we be seeing a lot more of that now if Obama was down. That's not to say there isn't going to be even worse things coming from the far right as we get closer to the end, and if Obama gets elected. It will probably get worse.

Im sorry Arles, when Cheney linked Iraq to 9/11 in the debates after that theory had been debunked it was a play on fear. When they played ads of wolves creeping through the forest it was a play on fear. When they said if you vote for Kerry you'll be opening our country up for attack (insinuating that a vote for W would secure our country moreso) was a play on fear. When W says the words, "Axis of Evil" it is a play on fear.

This isnt a specific claim of fear in an isolated campaign but an overall theme that the GOP has perpetrated since 9/11 and a successful one at that.

My point wasn't that the left was by far the worst. My point was that both sides have been doing this for 20 years and it always worse on the favorite. It was terrible against Carter in the early 80s, awful against Reagan, despicable against Clinton in the 90s and almost scary against Bush in 2004. The only real exception was in 2000 when there really wasn't a clear favorite and both sides went a little nuts.

But, hey, if you want to blame the terrible treatment of Reagan, Carter and Clinton on George W Bush and Dick Cheney, have at it. I'm sure it's a compelling argument.

More than that. :)

Flasch, you really don't have much perspective do you? Do you realize how myopic you sound?

Yep, listen to the old man ;).

Really this worst ever crap gets a bit old. Something to do when you are bored is read how utterly nasty campaigns were in the 1800s, when people were accusing the other side of all sorts of shit, like fathering bastards all over Washington and things like that.