See that makes no sense how you can vote one side but then preach the other. That's as bad as idiots that have big houses and large electricity bills, but then buy carbon offset credits... (from their own company - I'm looking at you Mr. Gore!).

Enough of this bickering back and forth. Why don't you guys get excited for tonight as the Republican Convention kicks off with a bang? I know I'm excited to hear what featured speaker Fred Thompson has to say. He ran a very spirited campaign during the primaries and he certainly knows how to light up a room. Also speaking tonight is Joe Lieberman, a popular figure among conservatives. And the fun doesn't end there. George W. Bush will be speaking to the convention via sattellite! I can't wait!

How much has it really changed? What are some examples? Outside of Galileo and changing the helio-centric concept I'm not too sure what they have changed. The Church has made some contributions to modern science (regardless of what others might have you think) and tends to be scientific in outlook. Remember science and religion are two different things and are not at odds with one another. Science is the way things works, religion is a philisophical reason why science is the way it is.

The Church has not changed any major dogma to my knowledge in centuries. Most other stances are minor issues in which it is weighing in about how the laity of the Church should look at things.

The church has always changed it's interpretation of the church. It depends on what century you'd like to start with. Let's remember you used to be able to pay for your sins in cash money...

As stated above, I don't want to attack anybody personally with this point, I just want to point this out:

Dogmatic obedience to what somebody else tells you, simply because it's what they tell you, or even out of fear of repercussions, is both lazy, and intellectually stifling.

It's also hugely symptomatic of a lot of problems in this country - people really need to stop accepting what they are told at face-value and start thinking for themselves, the world would be a much better place.

I don't consider myself strongly religious, however my parents are very religious. They are both lectors at church, my father teaches Sunday school, and has for years, etc. And yet both parents believes in evolution over creationism, is pro-choice, and are for gay-rights (up to and including marriage). I asked them one time when I was younger how they reconciled that with their faith, and my father said something to the effect of "you have to think for yourself - you can agree with the central message of the church, and disagree with the particulars."

Don't know if it was posted in this thread earlier or not, but it's truly amazing how the Christian message has been co-opted by the Religious Right, when in many respects, Jesus was the world's first liberal, and would find many of the stances of the Religious Right to be abhorrent. There have been numerous magazine articles (I bookmarked a great one at home but can't find it with a quick google here at work) that discuss this.

*note: not saying ALL of his ideas were liberal, but certainly that he might easily be construed as more liberal than conservative

The church is also not the pure uncensored "word of god" - let's keep that in mind. The writings of the Church are the writings of a bunch of human beings compiled over centuries -- very few of the actual writings in any versions of the Bible (accepting perhaps some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc) are direct first-hand accounts at this point, what there was that was first-hand has been corrupted over the years by the hands of so many that it's little more than hearsay at this point. Also, many of the positions of the present-day Church are deliberate constructs of the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages and the attempt by men in positions of power at those times to maintain their power.

The church is not infallible

I am always hesitant to get into debates when it involves things like religion or abortion or such. I tend to see many of them not end that well, but here it goes...

I don't know if I like the term "I call myself religious".. to me that brings a feeling of holier than thou, which I don't feel that I am. I do call myself a Christian, I do attend church regularly (2-4 times a month), I do try to live my life as a good life, and not do things that I feel are morally wrong.

I also am pro-choice, and feel that the greatest gift that God ever gave Man-kind was free will. I feel God is all powerful and if he wanted to, could have a world that would have no sin at all. Instead he gave us free will, where we could choose to have a relationship with him. We could choose to follow the moral teachings of the Church...

I don't feel that I am better than God, I don't feel that it is my place to pass judgement over others. I feel that each person will have some point to answer for their actions (right or wrong actions) in the future, so it is not my place to impose my will upon others at the current time.

So I would personally have a very difficult time ever choosing to have an abortion (me being a guy, I mean obviously my wife having one), but I absolutely don't feel it is my place to take away other people's right to choose. Maybe I oversimplify things in my head too much, but that is why roe vs wade isn't necessarily the most pressing issue for me in choosing a presidential candidate.

The only meat you can eat on Fridays is fish. That went away when I was younger (and still a member of the Catholic Church). One example.

I'm not talking about when she ran for mayor or gov, but when she ran for city council. At the time, she wasn't very political and maybe even believed in some of the ideals in the independent party. Then, 3-4 years later, she left and joined the republicans. Also, let's not forget, the Alaskan republican party was extremely corrupt in the early-mid 90s. So, you have to put that in context when looking at her "loyalty" comments and the fact she started out with the independent party.

Let's also not forget we are talking when she was in her late 20s and early 30s for a lot of this stuff. I think it's fair to say someone has learned a bit politically between the ages of 28 and 44. This isn't like Obama (ie, with Wright) where she was still attending Independent party ralies 6 months ago. All this stuff happened in a 3-4 year window 12-16 years ago.

Back to the election at hand, it looks like Obama got a nice six point bump from the Democratic convention, so we'll see if McCain can whittle that back down at the conclusion of his convention.

For the record the Catholic Chuch is not creationist. It supports evolution.

However, per my point that is not dogma. Dogma is stuff like Christ is our Lord and Savior, Communion is the body of Christ, etc., etc. A good list would be found in the Nicene Creed. Bringing this around to what your father said, dogma is the central tenets of the faith. Everything else is the side issues.

Additionally, there is nothing in the Bible that is against gay rights. Heck, I don't have a problem with gay-rights. Go for it. If you want someone to have the same rights as my wife, fine by me. Where I draw the line is calling it marriage and giving it a religious overtone. Maybe it is splitting hairs but why not just call it a civil union and be done with it? I can see why some one might be pro-choice and not consider themselves at odds with their faith (being for the law, essentially leaving the choice to others, but being personally against it).

That said, I find it abhorrent is all the people that think they have all the answers and that no one can think differently from them. One of the things that I love about the Catholic faith is that most things have a basis for it that make sense (not that they teach you any of this stuff in PRE, but that is a different story). I did much of this study on my own during and after college.

Again, science is the study of the framework of the universe and is the study of how things work. Philosophy and religion delve into the why the science is the way it is (who created the universe and the framework or the laws of science, etc. How should we act and what is our part in the framework, etc.).

To this last point, the Catholic Church has always followed Natural Law Theory. Sure, it has its faults, but it at least has a central philosophy that it follows which other faiths do not do.

DISCUSSION OF MARRIAGE VS. CIVIL UNION THAT DOESN'T BELONG IN THIS THREAD WITHIN SPOILER-TAG



I'm glad you didn't take my post as an attack on you - like I stated, it was certainly not intended in that light, glad you're a cooler-head.

Not dogma, and even there, that is the reason why you are supposed to give up something in lent. Give up something for 40 days, and you can eat meat on Friday's outside of lent.

Just for the record, I would back option #2 in that spoiler. Back to your regularly scheduled political debate! :D

Because she and the campaign refuse to answer any questions.

But this really isn't about her, it's about McCain. What does it say about a guy that he surrendered to the right wing of his party and didn't choose the guy he wanted, then made a hasty selection of a person that wasn't politically vetted? McCain made a reckless choice and now he's living with the consequences.

With everything happening so quickly it's hard to get a fix on what's happening with these Rasmussen numbers. Yesterday was the official marker for the bounce at +3 and would have included sampling from Fri-Sun. Today's would be Sat-Mon and shows a +6. What does that tell us? It could be noise. It could be delayed convention bounce. It could be the first signs of Palin weighing down McCain.

The RNC should provide some momentum in McCain's favor possibly with today's sampling, but more likely tomorrow's (so Thursday's poll). With another historical bounce coming, it will be very difficult to isolate Palin's effect, but I would expect the McCain staff are on alert.

Not if you are a wolf. Then the world would suck.

that's true. i do enjoy when that happens in WW.

Saw this little shot on a newspaper blog earlier, have to admit I got a chuckle out of it. (hey, sue me, funny is funny even when the situation behind it is anything but funny)

Coming to a theater near you: “Juno From Juneau — The Sequel”!

There's a big difference between politics and religion, and also personal opinions on policy v. constitutional questions, and I don't think these kinds views are necessarily inconsistent.

Someone can personally against abortion as part of their Catholic beliefs, but also believe that its a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

Someone can personally have no problem with abortion, think that abortion should be accessible to all women, but still believe that the Constitution does not protect it as a fundamental right.

Someone can think that abortions are a wonderful thing, but also think that if elected representatives from Alabama want to work towards limiting or banning abortion in their state, they should be able to.

Someone can be very verbal about the importance of family values even if they have an issue in their own family involving family values. Nobody's perfect! Who better knows the damage of alcoholism than an alcoholic! People can know they made mistakes but still feel strongly that those acts are wrong, and they can still have that opinion.

People can speak out against drugs and still be a user. I don't think that's inconsistent or hypocritical at all. Someone can hate what drugs have done to them.

Clever! I actually had been getting flashbacks of a "Mystery - Alaska" sequel, but I think that one is just as good.

+1 , right there with you Alan, except on the going to church 2-4 times a month. I don't go to church.

When did they change their stance?

But who gave the church ownership of marriage? Maybe those that are getting married because of their religious beliefs should think of a more appropriate word, such as a Religious Union...?

Sorry to sidetrack the debate. I'll stop this discussion now.

It does make one look hypocritical though... But good point.

Remember the guy who was behind the personal attack on John McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries? Tucker Eskew?


Well, that place in hell appears to be the McCain Campaign...

Pope John Paul II. I'll see if I can find the exact quote.

This seems to be the speech he gave when he said that evolution is compatible with Christian faith: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Don't need it, it just proves my point that they change philosophies.

Here's more.

Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution | Herald Sun

Well a lot of people attended churches that had preachers and priests molesting children and that doesnt mean that they support pedophilia. Therefore I dont attribute every crazy thing a preacher says as being the mantra of everyone within earshot of it. I guess you could say Im a little smarter than to think that a member of the Republican party or Democratic party or church or affiliation has to agree with every pillar of it. You, however, seem to be thinking that way so, unfortunately, if that's true McCain can't be your candidate of choice, right? You dont support him, right? I think you get my drift, youre pretty bright so you see it's not so black and white (no pun intended). I'm forgiving of her affiliation as much as believing that Obama didnt agree with Wright's every word.

Who really cares about what party she was in over 10 years ago? I hate the choice of Palin, but that is not the reason.

Obama and the minister are a non factor as well.

I agree with this as well. Bringing in Palin's party affiliation back in the early 90s means you need to also bring back in the Plagiarism charges against Biden and knock Obama for not vetting him well enough. Like with the Biden issue, none of this independent info is new (she dealt with it when she ran for Gov). Do those of you knocking McCain's choice for Palin because of this independent party issue knock Obama in the same manner for Biden's Plagiarism scandal when he was younger?

The only difference I could see between the Obama situation and the ones for Biden/Palin is that Obama was still a member of the church when he started his campaign. In the Palin/Biden situations, both had moved past these issues years ago. Still, I agree that the Wright issue isn't anything that would worry me personally about Obama - I think he's handled it the best he could and showed that Wright's views do not reflect his current views.

But, if I were a republican strategist, I would welcome debates on prior affiliations between the two tickets. IMO, Palin's association with a moonbat independent party in the early 90s pales in comparison to the Rezko/Wright/Ayers affiliations just a few years back (or even more recent) with Obama.

I think any strategist worth his salt would love a debate comparing a VP pick to a Presidental pick. The GOP gets a lot more milage out of both Obama and Palin being smeared than the DEMs do. Vice versa if Biden and McCain were to tear each other down.

The DEM playbook hasn't changed. They should set an internal rule for themselves. For every one time they mention the word "Palin," they need to say "McCain" five times and "Bush" ten times.

That's an excellent point, the dems really haven't gone after McCain on much and there's a ton they could have. At this point, you've almost lost the "dirt season" as well as once the debates start no one wants to see a lot of mudslinging.

It's all about Paris for President!

I think that theyre setting the tee up with her lack of "XYZ" and then folding that into a "how McCain makes decisions" discussion which is very very valid to the debate. Whether you agree or not with the decision or choice he made the way it has played out certainly has not been as planned and if so that would make me more scared.

Obama's in real danger here. So many opportunities are presenting themselves so fast that he'll be unlikely to capitalize on all of them. Apparently Phil Gramm, who's back as a top economic advisor to McCain, decided now was a good time to go back to the whiners argument.


McCain can still win this, but it surely feels good to be on the offensive for the first time in nearly a decade. The past few day have been an absolute trainwreck for McCain.

I'd argue that point. Before the VP selection you wouldn't even know McCain was Obama's opponent, because nobody even talked about him. Now, while his VP pick is being scrutinized, and it's obviously not all favorable coverage - he's atleast finally getting some press. In fact, they've pretty much stolen all the Democratic convention's thunder.

He still very well could lose, and some of the stuff coming up could play into it, but all of this has been the boost his forgettable campaign needed.

British oddsmaker William Hill has 8/1 odds on McCain dumping Palin before Election Day, slashed from 20/1 before her daughter's pregnancy became public.

williamhillmedia.com



Hardly surprising. The memories of "Maverick" McCain grow fainter by the day.

no way...if he dumped her the race would be over. Now if she dropped out or something and it didnt come out that she got pressured to do so, then perhaps it could be seen in a positive spin but otherwise there is absolutely no way she gets dumped.

EDIT - to add that of course, Im talking hypotheticals that really apply to either side....although she's in the crosshairs moreso than anyone right now, whether rightfully so or not.

Yeah, no kidding. What would be the point? If presidential candidates have survived last second affair claims (Clinton), DUIs (W) and a litany of terrible statements, I can't see what possible story on Palin that would negatively impact McCain's chances in two months. The only possible story with legs is the trooper one, but now it seems that trooper (brother-in-law) made death threats against her family and was disciplined for it. So, even that seems to have lost some bite.

I'll be shocked if any of these stories on Palin are still relevant in a month. After the republican convention, it becomes Obama vs McCain with a small sliver for the VPs (debate). I still don't think McCain will win, but if he loses it's not because of Palin (or, in better terms, the outcome would not have been different if he named Huckabee, Libermann or Romney).

Not to sound like a broken record, but I feel this election is a referendum on if people feel comfortable with Obama as president. The democrats lead on nearly every issue as party (outside of maybe the war on terror) and if enough people trust/approve Obama, he will win. All McCain/Palin can do now is continue to put doubts in people's minds on Obama's ability to be Commander in Chief. Anything outside of that is just fodder for the political junkies.

Two interesting things.

One) The post-convention bump has finally hit Obama, he leads by 5-9 points in some of the latest polls. Let's see if McCain can cut into that, but remember, he lost at LEAST a whole day of the convention to Hurricane Gustav. He's gotta be playing catch up quickly.

Two) The Republicans have asked that the major networks give more time on the remaining days to the convention due to losing that whole day. I think it would be good, but any extra time will be given VERY begrudgingly, as folks don't like giving up prime time ad revenue..

Palin as the president-in-waiting of our nation? Really?: Opinion | adn.com

I thought this was funny. Op-ed from a Democratic state representative in Alaska:

Link to your troopergate story?

here's one:

Is Wooten a good trooper? (7/27/08): Politics | adn.com

and I have no idea which way this site leans so it could be total garbage or spun.

If he was already disciplined and not fired and when the letter (if this is true) was sent he had no other issues then she shouldnt have needed to get him fired. The legs on this continue Arles, let it run it's course and we'll get to the truthyism of it without spin, one way or the other....you ok with that?

Speaking of Tucker Bounds on last page, it was funny watching him try and spin while being interviewed by Campbell Brown last night.

McCain got upset that the network asked real questions and canceled his scheduled appearance on Larry King Live.

CNN: McCain Cancels Larry King Live Appearance

That was what I was talking about. Nothing pisses me off more than when a talking head propagates a lie after it's been pointed out.

From an Alaska article:
Again, I don't know the whole story either. But I just don't see many legs here. But, I could be wrong. In the end, I doubt it impacts the election, but I lack the crystal ball flasch186 seems to have.

or you had a day ago in this very thread where you said it'd have legs.

The Democrats need more great thinkers like Sean Combs...

Diddy Puzzled After McCain Picks Palin

Maybe Paris is available to bring her impressive credentials to the party after being dissed by the McCain campaign.

Well the baby's father, Levi, is joining the Palin family shortly on the campaign trail...Im not sure that that is how you maintain privacy but it certainly will play to the base and make a story. Ok.

This story has been referenced on a few sites. Like with Palin, I think this is kind of crappy, but it looks like this is now politics as usual when running for president or VP:

Bidens Son Caught Up in Hedge Fund Troubles - Mergers, Acquisitions, Venture Capital, Hedge Funds -- DealBook - New York Times


It would be nice if families were off limits, but I guess that is not the case in presidential elections.

yeah its a shame that it seems to just be lip service for a few days and now the press will expose everything and both sides will leak the stuff that they claim is off limits. Soon they'll attacking the sons and duaghters equally. Oh well, Levi's coming to the trail and soon the spotlight will be squarely on that, and then im sure they;ll start attacking biden's son. here come the 527's...disgusting.

Well this doesnt have "many legs"; a he said she said issue that hasnt been settled yet. You want to wait til its resolved right? Like Troopergate.

Thompson did a good job. I think the real issue that the left + media are going to have to deal with, is the fact that the angrier they get, the more it's going to galvanize the right wing base. I have no idea whether it'll be enough, but those guys have already proven that they can get their people to come out to the polls.

The Dems? They've got to hope youth turnout is stellar and that their stalwarts -- women and the lunch pail crowd -- will turn out.

That seems iffy to me.

Aah, Joe

whose the goofy "yes" guy yelling on TV at every appluse....he cleared out the room im in.

I hate that guy. :mad:

I liked Lieberman holding up President Clinton at an RNC and acknowledged how weird it was :D.

So far he's made the Republicans cheer for fighting Republican lobbyists, combating climate change and Bill Clinton.

Man would have been a great Veep, eh? ;)

I can't wait to hear what the media will say about this...

Let me put it this way, I've been a member of the church since I was born and they never taught creationism. Yeah, we went over Adam and Eve but that was more from the standpoint of learning Genesis.

It was under JPII at the latest and might have been earlier than that. Got another tidbit for you... The precursor to the Big Bang theory was developed by a scientist at the Vatican. Basically, instead of a point singularity, he envisioned a primordial egg that held all of the matter in the universe.

Try again...

As I said, science and religion are not at odds. A Church changing tenants based upon scientific fact is not a problem. When it changes a underlying basis of the faith it is a problem. For example, if someone came out and proved conclusively that Christ did not exist.

Basically what you are saying is that a religion can never change a stance based upon fact. If so, they are going with the flow. This is very different from changing a view on gay marriage or abortion. Those are philosophical questions. Changing an view on evolution due to the weight of fact is not.

Again, repeat after me, science is the study of what is around. What the framework of the universe is and how it works. Religion and philosophy deal with the why are we here and how should we conduct ourselves.

From the don't believe all the slurs you hear file:

Alaska Party Official Says Palin Was Not a Member - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

If They IM'd: the Republican VP losers - 236 - News

ahaahahhahahaaha

OK, that's pretty funny.

On the scandal scorecard against Palin we have:
1. Daughter actually had her sone Trig - proven false
2. Palin was a member of an odd independent party - proven false.

Great record for the Palin critics. So, once this "troopergate" gets resolved here shortly with no real red meat and everyone's moved on from her 17-year old daughter's pregnant - what's next?

Maybe we'll have a debate on the inexperience of Obama vs the inexperience of Palin. This may have been the biggest "scandal flop" since the Bush DUI spam attack and the "Clinton fathered a black child" craziness.

Was that last as surreal for you as it was for me?

Bill Clinton getting a rousing cheer at an RNC convention?

Interesting article on the Times.

NY Times Advertisement

Some snippets:

Don't think the AIP stuff is over. Her husband was a registered member until 2002 and she has been involved in at least two AIP conventions. She could make this go away with a press conference, but apparently she's now sequestered because the media is too mean.

But again this is really about McCain. He didn't vet her and now he's paying the price.

I wonder about all those who think McCain didn't vet her properly. I mean have you seen how fired up the Republicans are? Do you think that would be the case if he picked Lieberman? Hell, they cheered for Bill fucking Clinton they are so high on cloud 9 right now!

Small sample size. She has great appeal for the base and will rally them for money and as volunteers. However, all the numbers say the base isn't enough in 2008. There's been a sizable shift in registration to wards Democrats and to win the Republicans have to pull independents and/or Reagan Democrats. As Mike Murphy said a couple of days ago, McCain can't win without a sizable number of split ballot voters.

For that group, the Palin pick has been a disaster. Nobody can play the "all publicity is good publicity" card. By that argument Rev. Wright was good for Obama. For the past few days a little has dripped out about Palin every day, most of it trivial, but all of it damaging to her credibility. After spending almost the entire campaign attacking Obama on trivial matters, McCain is having it come back to haunt him. We've even got controversial statements made in her church.

And it's not speculation that McCain didn't fully vet her, it's been reported by multiple sources that lawyers are in Alaska now fully vetting her. McCain rushed into this without knowing everything that would come out. Sometimes that works, but with Palin it's been pretty non-stop embarrassment after embarrassment.

McCain could still win. She'll kill tonight and I wouldn't underestimate her in the debates. But, while he's shored up the right with Palin, he hurt himself in the middle.

The religious right is in the bag.

You guys watch her speech tonight.

It will be very moderate. Very maverick. Very outside Washington. Very pro-female. Very "aw, shucks" appealling.

And it will be a hit.

She might be the most socially conservative person to ever be nominated to a major party ticket. And the right people know that and will vote for McCain because of it.

But she does not come off that way. And she will be packaged not to come off that way. And the only way that the Dems will be able to make her look that way is to attack her. And if they really dedicate resources to attacking the VP nominee and not McCain, then they are wasting limited resources and that will be a huge help to McCain.

I agree with those who think that she is a bad pick in terms of "heartbeat away" and all that. But I also agree with those that think she is a brilliant pick in terms of "makes McCain more likely to win the election."

there's the crystal ball. Hi pot.

...and that's where we disagree in your whole statement.

What's good for the goose...

I agree with albionmoonlight. Her choice was made specifically to win the election and for some reason the entire leftist machine thinks if they show her in a few questionable situations (trooper, daughter preggo, indep party) that everyone will just bail on McCain. What's interesting is not only is this rallying the base, but it's forcing women who were not really into her at first to come out and defend her against these attacks. I saw two fairly moderate/liberal women on the news this AM asking why people didn't ask George Bush or Bill Clinton if they were going to be able to be president and raise their daughter. The (non-militant) feminists are in a tough situation here. Most don't agree with Palin on policy, but they can't like all this scrutiny on whether she can be a mother and VP.

And, as albionmoonlight stated, McCain is pretty much skating away scott free on hard criticism. It seems the right is focusing their attacks on OBama while the left focuses on Palin. I think most on the right will take that tradeoff (esp when it comes to the experience argument).

Pretty good advice to Palin on tonight's speech:

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Palin's Goal Tonight: No Potatoe

I know. And it tears me up inside ;)

I disagree about any past associations hurting her. If Obama can survive being a member of a church whose pastor has said things like "The US of KKK" and "G*damn America" then I'm thinking it's next to impossible for a candidate's prior associations to ultimately sink their campaign -- unless their party just chooses to throw them under the bus.

The only real difference here is that Obama has had many months to backtrack and distance himself from his former reverend whereas this stuff for Palin is hitting the fan just a couple of months prior to the election. But if the press and Democrats get too heavy-handed with it, I think it backfires and generates sympathy for her.

And considering some of his prior associations with, shall we say, colorful characters, I think Hillary supporters' complaints that Obama wasn't properly vetted are just as legitimate as anyone saying Palin wasn't vetted.

Wow what a stretch. I saw that too and youre drawing way to much of a correlary IMO, the question was asked and loaded to 2 woman walking along the street. Had they asked me the question the way it was asked I wouldve reacted the same way and I wouldnt have voted for McCain/Palin thereafter. I dont think anyone with any level head is really asking that question unless the right wants to start asking it and blaming the left because its just as stupid as the trig is really a grandchild garbage....garbage, Arles.

The reason she's rallying the evangelical base is because she is as far right evangelically as possible.

The reason a very few segment of woman will vote with her that maybe wouldnt have is the, "I voted vagina" vote.

The reason a large amount of woman wont is due to her lack of support for freedom of choice.

It's just that simple (well not really but...), now spin away Arles. spin away. This is going to be a long day of spinning as I see it instead of just letting things come out as they should and draw conclusions when conclusions are there to be had.

Bingo. I fear the Dems are making the same mistakes they made with Dubya. When you underestimate your opponent, they can really sneak up on you.

How is McCain getting away? He's been hammered over the past few days for picking Palin. His judgment has been questioned over and over and over.

Yeah, McCain's getting hammered and even had to pull his spokesman off of Larry King last night. The hilarious part was earlier the journalist roundtable talked about a few phone calls to someone in AK and they got the answer to the question that the spokesperson couldve given to answer the question that was asked that got him all flustered.

Arles, the base is in the bag. Palin will not get a substantial amount of swing votes or Hillary supporters and to the troopergate issue (or Biden's sons), dont you want the truth to come out? Regardless of outcome dont you want the truth? that's what scares me the most about debating with you is that I get a sense that you would rather NOT get the truth and just create or spin your own.

The Dems are definitely hammering away, but it really doesn't appear to be sticking at all. Most of the criticisms of Palin appear to have only emboldened most of the Republican base behind their Prez/VP candidates. Honestly, I'm not sure the Republicans on their own could have ever rallied their voting base behind these two candidates nearly as well as the Democrat attacks have done. It's an amazing situation.

I have little doubt that Palin will continue her grounded, straight talking ways tonight in her speach and do VERY well.

the moment she was picked the base (Religious Right that is) was emboldened. The exposures and questions may add gas to that fire but I dont think it adds more evangelicals that wouldnt have been anyways.

The idea that the questikons arent sticking just isnt true, the polls this morning have widened (although theyre meaningless in the long run) and McCain has had to send a group of lawyers to AK to revet her....how is that not sticking? Well I know how to the right but in fact, that is an affect of the stick.

As has been mentioned many times before, the polls are a rolling average. The most worthless argument you could make right now is that Obama is surging in the polls and that somehow correlates to a reaction to any Palin issues, yet you managed to attempt exactly that. As I mentioned before the Democratic convention, any reference to polls is meaningless from the beginning of the Democratic convention until a couple of days after the Republican convention. Sit back and don't bother with the polls for the next week or so.

Um, that's only the first inning there, sport. The game is in the third - try to catch up.

you mustve missed when I said they were basically meaningless in the long run or your red tinted glasses were still on.

Yes, it was an excellent move to cover what was an obvious implication with no real merit. It's easier to make a 'glasses' argument rather than address the point. I've noticed that's one of your standard rebuttals. You're better than that.

As of today the polls show Obama stretching a lead, is that not clear enough? Than I will add that, in the long run polls are meaningless. It couldnt be more clear in this post or the one above. I mean it to be clear so if you wont look at that without partisanship I dont know what to tell ya.

Yet when the polls showed a McCain bump in the first few days of the Dem convention....



It took some asshole to point out that it was a rolling average...

You've got to be kidding. You don't think Hillary and Bill Clinton smirk at the first note of any Obama weakness? You're fooling yourself if that's the case. That was the only point of my comment.

heh, so only one tracker is a rolling average...the rest reflect when the poll is taken.....say today.

well apparently you should be more clear.

The poster who usually tries to point to others as being partisan is usually the one who is most partisan.

Probably just need to speak slower. I've obviously got to adjust to the intelligence of my audience.

a) Since they're both politically savvy, they understood the bit about the rolling average
b) I think they were both more interested in working on the kickass speeches they delivered for Obama
c) If Bill was smirking, it would be because some hot babe just slipped him her hotel key

MBBF is starting to get personal. You must be getting to him.

Keep it up.

Knocking on doors in my precinct in NoVA this weekend, I talked to 5 women in the space of an hour between the ages of 50 and 75 who had voted for Hillary and were various shades of unsure about voting for Obama in November. Only one said that she was seriously considering voting for McCain, but she added she wouldn't now because, in her words, Palin's selection was "offensive" to her -- simply a naked political move to to throw a woman on the ticket to pander to voters like her. Four of the five women made specific comments about Palin's lack of qualification for the office.

Interestingly, 2 Republican voters I talked to said the same thing. One Republican was critical to the point of almost cursing. She told me about the Independence Party thing.

Obviously this isn't even close to representative sample. But it supports the sense that I am getting that Palin has little appeal to disaffected Hillary voters. I also get the sense that more traditional main street Republicans aren't very excited about Palin.

I do think Palin is selling adequately to the religious base of the party, and she may get some of those folks to turn out who had been turned off by the top of that ticket.

Its just that the Obama ticket looks more appealing. America's outlook of the world is changing. Old folks don't like to change, young people do. They picked Palin to give the "appearance" of changing Republican politics but its not. Now the Republicans are piggy backing the idea of "changing politics?" I heard that so much last night I ALMOST thought it was their slogan. McCain's decision making has been horrible this whole campaign. He's going to lose BIG. 56-43 or something like that.

well clearly you should just leave this thread if you have little to no respect for others, than. The crazy thing is I dont feel like Im asking much:

Allow the troopergate thing to be resolved before assuming she did right or wrong.

Allow the Biden's son thing the same.

Look at polling data for what it is.

Understand that Palin is for abstinence only education in schools to help prevent teenage pregnancy.

Dont tell lies, either side.




Now you tell me, what of the above is partisan?

Right. I haven't seen that much from him.