What's your point? People without money or influence don't have to go to war either.

The whole "kids in the military" thing is silly on both sides. Like when McCain/Palin "send their kids off to war" (as if it's something we shold praise them for), or when Michael Moore challenges congressmen to "sign their kids up for war" in that awful movie (as if they have the authority to do that).

No idea - but it's not like it was his first misson.

Here's a handful of his war exploits from wiki:

-two and a half years of training at Pensacola as a naval aviator
-The planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries
-By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967, when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments. The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control
-He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi

Also, an interesting quote there regarding some of the critisims of Bush's handlings of the Iraq War:

"In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn't have the least notion of what it took to win the war"

We obviously would still be in Iraq if McCain were preisdent in 2000, but I'm guessing the war would have went a lot better.

So you decided to back up one baseless claim with another baseless claim? There's absolutely nothing to back that up. Obviously, you've altered your argument from 'they aren't even in a combat zone' to 'they wouldn't be there if their parents didn't want them there'. Both arguments fail miserably.

McCain's father actually made the decision to carpet bomb the city that his son was being held hostage in, fully knowing that it may end up killing his son. You want to explain to me how that shows that he had his son's interests as a priority?


He was on a bombing run over enemy territory. I'm sure the North Vietnamese didn't think he was where he was supposed to be.

sounds like he was an epic failure as a pilot. two and a half years of training and he crashed twice AND collided with power lines?? yikes!

You're the one doing all the twisting. OK so their kids are actually in Iraq. I'm wrong there. My second argument is spot on. All you've shown is McCain's dad had an enormously difficult decision to make. Why was he put in such a position? That's horribly reckless.

Situations like McCain's could be completely avoided if we weren't so busy fighting offensive wars as people such as yourself tend to advocate.

Too bad we got distracted from the GOP attack on people whose homes are being foreclosed.

Anyways, that NC poll that showed McCain with a huge lead appears to be a huge outlier, because RCP has a poll from a Republican polling firm showing McCain with only a 3 point lead.

This thread is like the ultimate exercise in futility. Combing two of the stupidest things you can do - arguing on the internet, and talking politics with people you can't rationalize with.

Throw in some keyboard jockeys discussing how the war really should have went while they sit in the comfort of their homes, and what soldiers are epic failures and you have a real treat.

Don't forget the on-lookers taking shots at the "logic" on both sides. :)

I have not read the whole thread but I am still an enthusiastic supporter of McCain.

Sarah Palin warns that war may be necessary if Russia invades another country according to abc news. The 1st part of Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin will air tonight.

They just read some of that interview on MSNBC, Palin has been well-coached in the last eleven days.

And if you listen to her gubernatorial debates, she was well coached for them, also.

FYP.

Hey, that's just what abc news reported on their website under breaking news so blame them not me.

The odds of Russia invading Georgia (or any neighbor) are SO much lower under a McCain/Palin US.

Even lower than a Bush/Cheney administration?

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this.

McCain is more hawkish than Obama, by a landslide.

As a foreign trouble-maker, you're much more likely to see Obama as an opportunity to cause trouble and increase your influence.

And I'm not just talking military action. I don't see Obama has being particularly tough in terms on foreign policy, but maybe I'm just confusing him with many of his supporters who would call for unanimous world approval before they did anything.

And I'm not saying there isn't potential downsides to McCain in this context. But Putin would be much more reluctant to invade with a hawkish angry vet like McCain running the show. The perception is that Obama would send kisses and fruit baskets and try to work thing out over coffee. (Though I'd love to see him at least talk tough during the debates, if only to neuter this perception of him in the world, for our own security)

I don't get the impression that Putin thinks on that level.

Yes. Putin knew that Bush/Cheney had already blown their foreign intervention wad for the administration, they're not going to do anything particularly bold for the rest of the term (despite all the liberals telling be a vote for Bush was a vote for an Iran war back in '04)

She didn't seem to make any obvious game-changing quotes, but it was pretty obvious why she's been on lock-down. I'm not at all thrilled with what ABC aired, though. I really hate it when answers are edited. Even under the best of circumstances editing answers changes what happened. Jump from question to question all you want, but candidates should be given their full answer.

Yeah, that's just not true at all and is a complete bastardization of the issues over the last 8 years.


You seem to be suggesting diplomacy can't work. I think that's where our disagreement comes from, and our hawkish current President didn't deter Putin this time. I'd suggest that Putin might be more reluctant because Obama would have more support globally to put pressure on him to withdraw.

Diplomacy doesn't work without some kind of implied threat (either military or otherwise). Diplomacy didn't work for Georgia - because they're no threat to Russia.

If you have a president that's not perceived as a threat, that's a problem

I'm not saying Obama can't necessarily be that "threat" - I'd just like to see that side of him. The way some of his supporters portray him is a little frightening.

Today's National Polls

McCain 48, Obama 44 (Gallup)
McCain 46, Obama 44 (Hotline/FD)
McCain 46, Obama 46 (InsiderAdvantage)
McCain 46, Obama 46 (Rasmussen)

Doubtful. If you take a look at the timing of incidents caused by "foreign trouble-makers" in the post World War II period, you'd probably see the incidence-rate to be about the same regardless of who the American president was. I am not saying that the ideology of the sitting president doesn't matter--but it is vastly overstated...

Considering Russia was right, I found McCain's reaction quite concerning. On the other hand, so was Obama's changing his tune on the issue.

I guess candidates have to pander to American's illogical fears of Russian power that stem from the Cold War.

There were errors on both sides but many Georgian civilians were slaughtered. I encourage you to read up on what happened and you'll learn why Russia was condemned by ALL world leaders.

Trust me, I've read up plenty about it. Check the thread on the subject.

I still feel Russia was justified.

Even the part about slaughtering civilians after the military objectives were reached?

And you're an Obama supporter???? (i.e. think that we should deal in diplomacy but not any other country??)

Does not compute...I'll drop it though

i saw the Palin interview (or a clip of it) and given, I dont like the editing of answers, it seems that she answered the question correctly:

If country X is a member of the union and that member is attacked would the union be obliged to attack...

the correct answer is "yes"

now is it that black and white? no, but she answered the question correctly in my view.

Those two paragraphs read together make it very difficult to believe that you have.

I agree that it sounds like she answered it correctly, but as we've already talked about here, perceptions are what matters. This is a headline I've already sene:

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia

I wonder how that's going to play amongst the voter base.

but i do NOT agree that that is an accurate headline and it is spun. Again, I dont care the spin...spin is bad and the truth is what matters. Its as if the Bizarro SFL wrote that headline :)

No, I agree with you. I'm just saying it could look bad, right or wrong.

Her (well, the GOP) existing base? Or the group of likely voters as a whole (regardless of whom they're going to voter for)?

It'll play well with the hawks, poorly with the doves, and I would hope it would be understood as appropriate by whatever middle isn't one or the other.

It's always an option. Whether it's the best option, a reasonable option, an unreasonable option, or whatever else you might qualify it with, it's still "an option".

Re: Age of death/life expectancy.

You guys were missing the point. The health care provided to presidents/and other mucky-mucks blow the normal charts out of the water. You don't use normal actuaries for presidents, which was all of them since FDR (except for JFK of course) lived or will live to an extraordinary old age.

On the forum for national service, they weren't exactly lobbing up softballs. McCain wasn't being grilled but there were some questions that the moderators pressed decently on.

SI

It's good to see that it's on a neutral site, with a neutral crowd.

RCP just put up a Research 2000 poll that has McCain +17 (McCain 55 Obama 38). Something funky is going on with polling in NC.

Ok, so in the interview she obviously danced around the "bush Doctrine" question and apparently the Dems are going to hammer home the fact that she didnt know the definition of the Bush Doctrine is...

I dont know, that most people even know what it is, anymore, at least on Main Street. I guess her handlers may have missed this one but if it were golf, it would be the slightest slice and the ball still landed on the fairway. If anything I didnt like the fact that she squirmed in the chair when thinking about it but otherwise I think it's silly and I hope the Dems realize that. They probably wont.

Alright but her spin of the comment that she made in her church about the "Iraq mission from god" is absolutely ridiculous. she said it was a repeat of an Abraham Lincoln statement and that she wouold never presume to know God's motivations. Garbage. She spun it and she meant it when she said it in her church.

Im trying to find out if it was a lie when Palin answered Gibson's question about if she'd met a foreign head of state with 'many Vice President's hadn't met foreign heads of state' is true because Anderson Cooper cited Factcheck.org in saying that she was very wrong. I cant find the information to prove her right or wrong, anyone?

She came off as a first time job interviewee IMO. Like I said earlier, I don't think she said anything particularly noteworthy, but she's clearly not ready to handle the press on her own let alone be VP.

Are you fucking kidding? The Russians don't nor have they have cared what the fuck we think. Believe that I am sure they would have qualms calling Palin's bluff and thus resolve on that one.

Like bombing entire city blocks where civilians are? Yeah Russia is the only one in war who kill innocents.

yup, they couldnt give 2 shits who the Pres is...it had much more to do with their speculation on the strength/weakness of our military and the resolve of the American people to go to (another) war at this time.

Agreed.

I'll concede the Russians went too far, but the original scope of the mission and the annexation of Georgian territory was completely justified in my mind.

Perhaps Georgia should have chosen the diplomacy route since they were the ones that initiated the aggression and paid a very steep price.

Being an Obama supporter doesn't have much to do with this. I'm admittedly biased towards the Russians, and I also find Vladimir Putin to be a very compelling figure, for a variety of reasons that work very well for Russia, but not here in the United States.

And I'll also shutup about this conflict since we've discussed it plenty in the other thread and it doesn't have any place in this thread besides my belief that both candidates are wrong. But being right in my mind would likely be close to political suicide here.

You can say what you want, but that was as close as we've ever come to getting into a shooting war with Russia...including the time when Reagan was president, at least according to a golfing buddy of my boss who was career Air Force.

That one must be another outlier, along with the other one just released that had McCain up by 20.

No worries for the Obamamaniacs...McCain mumbled something about appointing Obama to his cabinet today.

One thing that I find fairly surprising is that Obama and McCain are both at about +20 in their favorable vs. unfavorable ratings. In fact, Biden and Palin also have a higher favorable vs. unfavorable ratings. I don't know if this has happened before, but it certainly hasn't happened over the last few election cycles.

Please explain why annexation of Georgian territory was "completely justified"??


Yes. It was just a coincidence that Russia had a large invasion force ready to roll as soon as the "incident" occur, and immediately began the invasion. There is, of course, no possibility that they played a large part in inciting Georgia to do what they did.

Of course, I'm not saying that what Georgia did was the right move; clearly it wasn't, and it was exactly what Russia wanted and expected them to do. But I honestly can't for the life of me see how you can consider their actions justified, given how much they have encouraged and incited the problems between Georgia and South Ossetia.

What other one just released? The one that shows McCain up by 20 is the one I already called an outlier. And at the time I said that, there were two polls showing McCain with a 3-4 point lead, and one of them was a Republican poll. I certainly don't think it was unreasonable to call the +20 an outlier at that point.

The Research 2000 poll certainly makes things very confusing in NC. We have two polls with wide margins (+17 and +20) and two polls with small margins (+3 and +4). I wonder what's going on there.

What's going on there is that Obama doesn't stand much of a chance now in North Carolina. There just isn't a big enough coalition of African Americans statewide and elitist liberals and college students in Charlotte and the Research Triangle Park area to pull it off.

John Edwards didn't even win his own precinct for John Kerry in 2004, and North Carolina has been a solid Republican state in modern presidential elections, with the lone exception being Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford in 1976.

So you're just going to skip past your smarmy "outlier" comment because you realized you didn't know what you were talking about? That's fine, but I would have preferred a real answer to the question. I'm wondering why we have two polls with +3 and +4 and two other polls with +17 and +20. That seems strange to me, but I understand if you just want to believe the latter two polls.


Okay, but that's not really true if the Republican poll that shows a 3pt difference in NC is correct. I mean it's certainly possible that the Republicans just don't have a fucking clue and are actually 14-17 pts off in their polling.


Again, this doesn't mean much if, as I've said, the Republican poll is accurate. I could be wrong, but at least I'm trying to analyze the data instead of just throwing out generalities.

-- Somebody's screwing with the pollsters?
-- Some really quirky responses that happened twice in four tries? (wonder if one of our probability grognards could work out the chances of that happening)
-- Different methodology for either selection of respondents and/or attribution of answers that are common to each pair of polls
-- Difference in timeframe for gathering of responses

There's any number of reasons that could account for the gap.

But why would the number of people deciding screwing with pollsters vary so widely over a few polls?


See above. I'm not a probability grognard, but I'd say it's pretty low, but sure it's not impossible.


They were all measures of likely voters. I haven't looked beyond that, but sure the methodology could be different. I do wonder why the Republican poll wouldn't use a methodology that would be favorable to them, especially since they obviously intended to release the poll.


What's odd about that is the earliest timeframe is the +20, the +3 and the +4 covered were in the middle, and the +17 is the end. I doubt North Carolina is that schizophrenic.


Sure, but I'm wondering why we're getting such a wide gap here, and I'm also wondering which of these is correct.

That could go right back to selection of respondents.


Yeah, I'd think so too. I was just curious to see what the actual odds might be, how low it really was, figured I'd throw that out there & see if a grognard might have pity on me.


The latter could be strategic. Closer races might stave off voter apathy (a big issue for the GOP with this candidate), also might lure Obama into wasting money in a state that isn't really in play.


When you talk about those timeframes, is that the release of the data or the gathering of the data? Presumably you meant the latter but I just wanted to make sure.

Research 2000 (09/08-09/10) - McCain +17
Civitas R (09/06/-09/10) - McCain +3
PPP D (09/09-09/09) - McCain +4
SurveyUSA (09/06-09/08) - McCain +20

I counted the Civitas as earlier than R2000 because it contains earlier data.
I'm not sure it much matters, though. The better point to note might be that the latter 3 polls all contain more recent data than the SurveyUSA one.

I guess what kind of bugs me about this thread is people want to mix the two different discussions we're having. There's a political discussion about who is the better candidate, and it's expected that strong personalities will clash with varying viewpoints. The other discussion is analyzing the race and how the candidates are doing. However, it seems that people want to be snarky and attack someone's analysis because they're supporting candidate X or Y. I would hope we could separate the two discussions, but if not maybe there should be a separate thread.

However, if anyone's interested, I've called an Obama poll an outlier in the past and will continue to do so in the future if I see one...

Quote reported by the mainstream media:

Actual quote from Palin:

Minor context left out there...

As neutral as Saddleback.

I wasn't aware that John McCain attended college at Saddleback.

I wasn't aware that Evangelicals supported Obama.

I've found more details on the different respondent data for two of the polls, I think it gets even more odd when you look at those since conventional wisdom would seem to make an older/whiter poll skew McCain.


Research 2k has McCain +17%
Their sample included 29% of answers from 18-29 year olds and was 28% non-white voters (african-american & "other" combined).

Civitas has McCain +3
Their sample included only 4% of answers from 18-25 year olds and was 25% non-white voters

*note that the ages I've typed here are correct, the two polls broke their demographic cells down differently

So the somewhat whiter & older poll skews Obama. WTF?

Meanwhile, some of the source of the different totals in the two are pretty easily spotted FWIW.

White voters
R2k - McCain 74-21
Civ - McCain 58-33

Afr-Amer voters
R2k - Obama 87-6
Civ - Obama 94-1

Data for the Civitas was broken down by 6 geographic regions, while I don't see respondent geography for R2k but only response broken down for three areas ("Charlotte", "Ral-Dur", and GBO-WS) so I don't know if they only polled those areas or if they classified everyone as one of the three (unlikely) or if they only showed partial data there. But if the geographies are the same, there's another dramatic difference showing there too.

Charlotte -- R2k has McCain 60-34, Civ has it 52-36
RDU -- R2k has McCain 49-43, *Civ has it 58-36 Obama
GBO-WS - R2k has McCain 62-33, Civ has it 49-44
* if Civitas "Research Triangle" corresponds to Ral-Dur for R2k. With that skew, my guess would be that Civ included Chapel Hill in the area while R2k did not.

Very minor.

Shaking her fist, at the interviewer....constantly...scary. Over-ambitious soccer mom becomes Veep. Barf.

I would say that if someone says they "pray that the war is god's plan"; it is quite a bit different than stating "the war is god's plan". JFK, FDR, Lincoln and Gen Grant all prayed that they were indeed doing god's plan/will. There's nothing "scary" in that.

Coming out and being so presumptuous and stating that an action we are taking is indeed god's will is a much different comment (which is how Palin is being depicted by the media).

Eh, people are going to believe what they want to believe about Palin. She's pretty much a cipher to everybody.

...because this is the line before it, "task that is from God" and yes, hard as it is to believe in your stubborness but that can be 'scary' to people who aren't exactly like you. spinster. You'll never say, "it is what it is" because it's gotta go through the Arles machine first.

The interview occured over 1 1/2 days. I'm really not interested in watching a minimum of 4-6 hours of interview video. I understand what you're saying, but there's no way that any skeptic of Palin wouldn't complain if they saw any hint of editing, which there were plenty. I have no doubt that any sound bites that would be of note are in the video.

nook-lee-er

nook-yoo-ler

Honestly, is this a red/blue issue?

I don't know who else watch the 9/11 forum last night. Outside of both candidates calling out Columbia University for the fact that they still don't have the ROTC on campus, the interviews were rather uneventful.

One thing I'm always struck by is the Jeckyl/Hyde transformation that occurs with McCain depending on the forum. When doing a pre-written speech, McCain is about as stiff as they come. It's like he's so worried that he's going to miss something that he involves himself in reading every single word while showing less than average presentation skills. But when he gets into a forum like last night where he doesn't have a script, he's very good and comes across as very knowledgable and likeable, politics aside. His brief 'nap' on the stage provided for great comic relief.

FWIW......Obama also performed well. Looked very comfortable back at his alma matter. The stark policy differences between the two candidates were very apparant. Obama says more programs, McCain says more personal involvement.

Oh, Judy Woodruff and the editor from Time were absolutely TERRIBLE. I'm surprised the candidates did so well given the woeful moderation of the forum.

It has nothing to do with being a Palin skeptic, plenty of folks on the right have the same complaint. I also don't think you understand what I'm talking about. They can jump from question to question all they want, but when they ask a question the full answer should be provided. It's especially troubling when there is an initial edit before the answer starts.

IMO, regardless of the candidate, it's bad journalistic practice. At a minimum, if you're going to edit answers at least post the full video the same day.

I agree that you don't use normal tables for presidents, but I think there's other factors that go into it, too. Being President is different from being a normal old man in a lot of ways -- I'd imagine the stress level is much higher, and the schedule is much different than most people his age.

I'm not saying the best answer is to go back to a 'normal' table. The best answer is to create a table consisting only of Presidents in office. The problem is that the data is ridiculously small, since there are few lives to look at (especially if you only use recent data), the few lives that do exist are limited to at most 8 years of data each, and the table ends at an age earlier than what McCain's age would be in 2016, since no one has reached it.

That's a really good point. In this day and age, it would be an easy thing for a media outlet to post online the raw interview for all to see. Of course, then people might visit your non-moneymaking website to view the story, rather than visiting your revenue-producing television station.

EXACTLY!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

So if Obama is the anti-christ, don't people have to vote for him to fulfill the prophecy?

I certainly won't fault McCain for every dodging an interview. He's a brave man to take on 'The View' ladies............

McCain Gets Grilled on ‘The View’ Over Palin - America’s Election HQ

Didn't expect that....

Whoopi Goldberg is an idiot.

Edit: I expected Goldberg to be an idiot, didn't expect McCain to be on the view.

New Gallup poll has McCain ahead 48-45.

I get what you mean, but this is still one funny sentence.

Arles glad to see you were watchingnthe interview yesterday too and you also got that Abe Lincoln reference down too.:banghead:

Yeah, suggesting that slavery may be brought back under a McCain administration probably isn't the best way to establish credibility.

he's a walking talking point but at least he can make a good game.

More polls...

Hotline/FD has Obama up 45-44 and Rasmussen has McCain up 48-45

I'll agree that Whoopi is an idiot. Will you agree that McCain is a liar for saying Palin didn't request earmarks as a governor?

Apparently the new angle today is that Biden released 10 years of tax returns and is asking the McCain campaign, since theyre promoting their transparency and openness to change, to do the same. I guess its to show McCain's willingness to be open about it but also apparently to show that Palin collected Per Diem in AK while at home. If so she wouldve been obliged to pay taxes on it...we shall see but this, I think, is a pretty decent tactic to get something that main street wouldnt have "gotten", to actually put on their radar.

personally i don't understand how any candidate gets away with lying. with the staff's that they have, why not have someone watching every public appearance and every advertisement and every taped interview of the opponent and fact-checking EVERYTHING. Then you could put out a weekly list of "here's the lies : here's the truth". It really seems so damn obvious that I'm surprised that neither side does this.

way to go joe!

Oddly enough, I was just reading this page earlier today:

Fight the Smears | Fight the Smears Home

Palin's husband is being subpoened in AK Troopergate by the Special Council. Now bear in mind that this is not a right v. left issue as the legislature is a republican legislature that initiated the investigation.

aaaah! see! brilliant...brilliant i tell you!

and i suppose factcheck fits the picture too. i'm just surprised we don't see more of it referred to in ads or anything. and the ones on obama's campaign are all debunking lies about him -- why doesn't he (for example) have a staffer compiling lies that john mccain has told to voters in speeches or appearances or interviews, and then base an ad on those, or distrubte mailings with those on them to independent-registered voters or something?

I'm sure the spin will be that the Republicans in AK are out for revenge because she went against them in trying to clean up the corruption.

i highly doubt that that will be the spin, Lar.

Wow. I just watched he Palin interviews on Youtube and am not sure what I just heard. First off, the fact she had zero I mean zero, nil none NADA idea what the Bush Doctrine was tells me alot about her. It was really embarassing when Gibson had to tell her what it was.
The second thing that caught me was did she not only say if need be we should go to war against Russia but invade Pakistan if need be? I do agree with the later adneven the first could be necessary some day but this is not the place state those types of things.

If it's any consolation, I have no idea what "it" is, either.

I'm a Dubya supporter and I had honestly forgot what the Bush Doctrine was. I think the left are far more aware of its meaning because they disagree with it and have it transfixed in their mind. Once Gibson explained it, I knew what he was talking about, but I had the same reaction as her initially.

Well Gibson didn't really press her on it either. She stated support for a policy of pre-emptive attack, which has been the policy for generations. If there is overwhelming evidence of a strike, the US policy has never been that we have to be hit first.

What makes the Bush doctrine different, and what she failed to address, is that now the policy is that we don't have to wait for threats to develop. Remember the whole, smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud stuff? That's what she should have been pressed on as that's the significant difference in US policy over the last eight years.

Obama Camp Says "Enough is Enough" -- Political Wire

Given the backlash regarding the Iraq situation, it's going to be a lot more difficult for a president to make a pre-emptive move without much better intelligence proof that there is a threat. I think the public in general would have a much tougher reaction unless the president could make his case that it's needed.