![]() |
These are just off the top of my head, so I'm sure I'm not getting everything.
McCain said she sold the plane on Ebay at a profit(didn't on either count) Palin said she said "thanks but no thanks"(she kept the money) McCain said she didn't request earmarks as a governor(she did) Palin's staff said she had been to Iraq(she hadn't) McCain's staff said the Secret Service told them huge crowd numbers(SS says they never do) McCain's staff said a fire marshall estimated the crowd in VA(Marshal says he didn't) Palin said she visited Ireland(only to refuel and she didn't get off the plane) McCain used FactCheck in a way that FactCheck said was dishonest McCain says Obama will raise taxes on the middle class(He may be right here as his definition of middle class starts at 4,999,999) McCain says Obama will put a government bureaucrat in charge of healthcare(Obama's plan doesn't have government mandates) Palin said Alaska produces 20% of domestic energy for US(the best possible number is around 14%) In a Spanish ad McCain says Obama cast votes to kill immigration reform(on the two votes that are agreed to have killed the bill Obama and McCain cast the same vote) You may quibble with one or two of these, but they don't really even get into much policy. McCain and Palin are liars plain and simple and it doesn't seem like there's much of anything they won't lie about. There was a time when the President telling lies was good enough for impeachment, but now we're all just supposed to pretend it's no big deal. It may win an election, but it is what it is. |
Quote:
You're right to an extent, but really it's a choice between no effect I like (vote Republican) and no power (vote Libertarian). Although some of the Dem stances on social issues appeal to me, I am very far from the Dems on most issues, and even the issues on which I am closer to them, those from that side would say I am very conservative from their POV. For instance, I am for gun controls. I am not for taking guns out of the hands of all private citizens, and I believe in the right of the people to carry arms. I am for abortion--in cases of incest, rape and medical necessity. I am more pro life than pro choice, otherwise, though. I am for homosexual rights, but I do not believe they should be allowed to religiously marry (but then I also don't think the government should be in the marriage business). I instead believe in the civil union concept for all legal unions of two people, homo or hetero. Meanwhile, I still believe that the Dems will spend even more than the GOP and tax the hell out of everyone, they will be weak on foreign affairs issues, they will emasculate our military, they will hurt our business climate, and they will give a whole lot of free money to people who don't deserve it (welfare; social programs). No, voting Dem is certainly not the answer for me. It still represents an ideology that is much further from my ideal than even a socially conservative Repub party. So you see my predicament. |
Quote:
Which would be great except that she did keep the money and only stopped supporting it after it had already been un-earmarked. You can't brag about being against spending and then keep the money. Quote:
No, but McCain said she sold it and using the word "sold" rather than the heavily implied "I put it on ebay". Quote:
I wasn't referring to the trooper incident as that is shrouded in who-knows-what and, as you said, we really don't know what happened here. I was referring to the "I cut the chef from the budget" quote from the convention (and repeated over the next week). Again, it was the third of her down home "aw shucks, I'm a reformer" anecdotes like the two above. Only, she reassigned the chef rather than firing her and got rid of the chef, frankly, because she spent all of her time in Wasilla rather than in Juneau. Again, not major things but, in my mind, out-and-out lies. And since we have so little information to go on about her, just saying "well, those aren't a big deal" to some of her biggest and repeated talking points seems like sweeping lies under the carpet. SI |
Quote:
It really is amazing that you are extra sensitive to people on the right backing their guy ;). On the other hand, I've been subtly posting polling numbers which benefit McCain to counter, larrymcg's constant posting poll news which is only good news for Obama (either the polls narrowing when McCain was leading or Obama taking a lead)... but the extra sensitivity ends there, eh? ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
IMO that just emphasizes how much of a lie her story is. It would have been perfectly acceptable, if a little dubious, for her to say she's against earmarks after seeing how the process works. This story, though, is nothing but cover to cover bullshit. |
Quote:
Speaking of lies... you do realize (though I realize Sen Obama doesn't) that McCain was joking when he said that, right? He even laughed after saying so, and Hell, even Factcheck defends him on that. Then again, I think Factcheck is pretty good for those who think Obama hasn't been fibbing all over the place either (we can start with the McCain wants a 100 year war in Iraq thing and work our way down). |
You realize that my line was a joke right? And if we want to get into interpretation of statements the lie list will grow much, much longer. I only posted those things that I could remember that aren't even questionable. If you've can write a list like that about Obama I encourage you to post it.
|
Quote:
A couple of changes since this post: Indiana is now considered likely to vote McCain, and Minnesota is now a tossup. The scorecard is McCain 227, Obama 207, with the following tossups: Nevada (5) Colorado (9) New Mexico (5) Minnesota (10) Michigan (17) Ohio (20) Pennsylvania (21) Virginia (13) New Hampshire (4) Intrade spread: McCain 52.1, Obama 47.3. |
Quote:
Her statement that she said "thanks, but no thanks" is in reference to the fact that once the money was in the state transportation budget, Murkowski started to fund the bridges from that initial $200 mil, but in the guise of it being a state project. This is what she was talking about being in favor of during her run for governor...that she was in favor of keeping the state project alive. Once the money from the state budget ran out in 2007, she then refused to go back to the federal government to get more money, as well as refusing to divert state funds towards the project due to other transporation projects being of a higher priority. |
She isn't saying she refused to ask for money her quote is, "I said thanks, but no thanks." She's clearly saying she refused something when she certainly didn't. What did she say "no thanks" to?
Again, she can be anti-earmark all she wants, but this story is a complete fabrication. |
Quote:
You're not the first person to make this claim or allude to it, but I don't think it's really fair. Examples: I post both the Obama +1 poll and McCain +3 poll: Quote:
The only poll I post here is McCain +3 Quote:
I post 4 separate polls here. One of them is McCain +4, another McCain +2, and two of them are tied. Surely I could have left out two of these polls to make it look much better for Obama if that's what I was trying to do. Quote:
This post analyzes 4 separate polls and went almost completely ignored by most people here. I even included the Fox News poll which showed McCain's best result... Quote:
I think I've been pretty fair in the polls I've been posting, so it'd be great if people would quit suggesting otherwise. |
By the way, I am of the opinion that McCain never seriously considered Lieberman for the ticket - that was just a rumor put out for the purpose of exciting independent voters.
|
Unlike nearly everybody else in this thread, I am completely biased.
|
Quote:
I think the line was "About that bridge to nowhere, thanks but no thanks". It looks like she decided to say "no thanks" to the project by pulling it and use the money for something else. It is unfortunate that when the federal government removes an earmark, they do not retain the funds. Silly system, maybe McCain and Palin can change it. :D |
Barack Obama's big blunder
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also every politician takes earmarks, and the context of McCain comments was that she didn't take as much as her predecessor (which she did - cutting from 63 the year she came in to 31 in 2008). The fire marshall stuff and visiting Ireland as opposed to just getting off the plane is really silly. People make this lists with a ton of fluff (there's fluff on some of the other Obama lists as well) as a reason for someone to be a "liar". It's a joke and I really so no difference from either side when it comes to these statements. Every word by all four candidates gets put through about 300 spin cycles by bloggers/media. So, the amount of secret service or whether someone refueled in Ireland is of no interest to me. But, when Obama (in a major, pre-written speech) says he'll only have to "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens" to pay for his spending programs - but actually plans to raise taxes on some small business (who file in the higher tax brackets) and investors. That's pretty deceptive. Same goes for saying the average family income went down under Bush. These aren't "off the cuff" campaign statements, these are from his pre-written and teleprompted acceptance speech at the convention. Again, I still say these things happen so it's not something I would brow-beat Obama with (I just wanted to address your other claim). But to say that McCain-Palin is the one "lying" is not being fair. |
Quote:
Oh yeah, nothing like a lil' Joementum to excite the fencesitters. As a fencesitter, I can't ever see how Joe Lieberman endorsing someone, much less being on a ticket would be a trial balloon with getting in a tizzy over. |
I watched a replay of the press conference with Ron Paul and four of the third-party candidates for President. Enjoyed Paul's remarks immensely.
|
Quote:
In the end, I think Palin's record is strong on reform. Cutting earmarks in half during her time as governor. Helping to indict members of her own party in ethics charges and increasing the ethics laws. And getting Alaska a better deal from "big oil" to help her citizens. Again, maybe this stuff is all trumped because she wouldn't hand back money already budgeted for in her general fund or because she just listed a private jet on ebay but sold it privately. In the end, I think she's done enough to be labeled a reformer in today's political climate and I have a feeling most fair-minded voters will feel the same way. |
Quote:
|
Tina Fey looks JUST like her. Voice is too Minnesota. But...man, the look is 100% |
Just in case anyone has forgotten about the Senate races, here are some recent polls:
(MN) R Coleman 41, D Franken 40 - Coleman has held double digit leads at times, but Franken seems to have narrowed the gap. Will definitely be a heavily watched race. Can't wait for the debates. (KY) R McConnell 52, D Lunsford 35 - McConnell looked like he could be a target when a May Rasmussen poll gave Lunsford a 5 pt lead. Since then, MCConnell has surged ahead and will be safe. (NJ) D Lautenberg 51, R Zimmer 40 - A June Rasmussen poll had this as a 1 pt race, but Lautenberg hasn't had a lead smaller than 7 since then. (AK) D Begich 48, R Stevens 46 - Begich has led most of the way here, but Stevens has recently narrowed the gap. It might be a Palin bump, but then again the McCain-Palin message of change could actually work against Stevens here. (ID) R Risch 58, D LaRocco 30 - Why do they bother polling this one? (NC) R Dole 48, D Hagan 42 - This is narrow enough that the Dems may make a big push, and also may account for the Obama campaign diverting resources from GA to NC. (NM) D Udall 51, R Pearce 44 - This is the closest the race has ever been. Udall held as much as a 28 pt lead at one point. Still, one wonders if the GOP has enough money to target a seat like this. (ME) R Collins 57, D Allen 38 - Collins has led comfortably the whole way, and unless she gets caught with a live girl or dead boy, she should be fine. (MS) R Wicker 48, D Musgrove 43 - Trent Lott's old seat. The fact that a D is even competitive here shows how popular Musgrove (who's won two statewide elections) is, and this is another one where the Dems will probably try to press their financial advantage. (MT) D Baucus 64, R Kelleher 31 - Baucus won by 30 pts six years ago and it looks like he will do it again. |
Quote:
Like I said, if you want to get to twisting words McCain's list will be much longer. The sex ed ad, visiting troops issue, balancing the budget, lipstick comment, etc. immediately jump to mind. I get why your argument is both sides do it, because in this case McCain/Palin are doing far more than Obama. Sure a lot of McCain's lies are trivial, but that's sort of the point. WHy is McCain lying about everything? And this isn't something accidental. Ever since the Palin pick the campaign has decided the truth doesn't matter. Campaign advisors have said that, "issues don't matter," "there's a bigger truth" and "the little facts don't matter," "We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it,” and “We ran a different kind of campaign and nobody cared about us. They didn’t cover John McCain. So now you’ve got to be forward-leaning in everything.” McCain's decided he can lie about everything. Right now it's working, but it is what it is. |
Quote:
By "better deal" do you mean, "raised a windfall profits tax"? |
Quote:
Wouldn't the fact that McCain voted against Bush's policies lead for it to be more justified for Obama to vote with the Democrats more often? Both statistics looks like Bush had fucked up policy stances. |
I said it a week ago and the events over the past week only further my comments. If the Democrats continue to attack Palin instead of McCain, they're in big trouble. Are there several things with Palin that they could go through and find inaccuracies or questionable decisions? Absolutely. But the more time they spend on Palin means more time that McCain sails free of attacks.
The general concensus about most VP candidates is that they don't decide an election. Palin appears to be bucking that trend, but not for the reasons you might think. Certainly, she has excited the far right base, but if McCain wins, he'll likely look back at all the political fodder that Palin took for him and thank her for it. I'm still shocked that the Dems continue to pound away at Palin. Not only does it help McCain as the lead candidate, it's drawing all kinds of sympathy from the female voters. It's a huge tactical error from a campaign perspective. Also, quoting Karl Rove is another misstep by the Obama campaign. Anyone who watched his full comments on Sunday will quickly realize that he was just as critical of Obama. I'm sure those will be circulated in upcoming articles. Also, I think that Rove is perceived as being in bed with Bush, much moreso than McCain. If anything, the critical comments by Rove could easily be seen by Republicans or Independents who aren't big fans of Bush as another sign that McCain isn't comparable to Bush. |
Dumb question since we're only a couple of weeks away from the first debate.
The way everything is so heavily spun coming out of the debates, does it even matter what is said unless one of the following happens: 1) a major misspeak by one of the candidates as this is in front of a major part of the voting electorate; Dan Quayle and potatoes comes to mind, tho I know that wasn't in a debate. We know what an unspun gaffe looks like- it's something that can't be hid by either side. 2) a great sound byte zinger on a night when only one of the candidates had one; I say when only one of the candidates had one because if they're trading barbs all night, as I suspect the third will be as they try to drop that zinger and get all the momentum, the media can just package it together in a "zinger highlights montage" like Sportscenter baseball highlights which are just home runs where you become numb to it. Never mind what I think of it on a personal level, but I'm pretty sure Bush's "fuzzy numbers" line in the third debate was where Al Gore lost the election in 2000 as that's what was talked about for the next week, fairly close to the election. 3) An entire evening where a candidate "looks bad", think Nixon v Kennedy; I could see this happening where Obama comes off bad with the stuttering and parsing or McCain just looks old and tired. SI |
Quote:
They don't even have to look bad on the entire evening. Just one question could suffice. I think some Dems are loath to admit that Senator Obama's "above my pay grade" response to an abortion question was a major gaffe and one that really helped McCain. |
Quote:
I think that would fit under one of the other categories, myself- basically a major mispeak answer. I'll argue how major of a gaffe it was as it doesn't get much run but I'll save that for another time- I was trying to make a non-biased illustration in the above questions. SI |
Quote:
Well, I can take one from the other side ;). McCain's house question thing... though that wasn't in a debate, although if it had been, would have been pretty bad. |
Quote:
well we differ there. Quote:
It wasn't my intention to blame Bush for that. I'm quite aware that it was during Clinton's term. My statement wasn't intended to be partisan there. I think both sides of the aisle are lacking in this regard - Republicans as well as Democrats (because with the exception of the PNAC-goons, foreign policy is largely not dependent on party-affiliation). I think the US as a whole needs to do a better job in regard to what I was saying. |
Quote:
there's no credible evidence for this. I'd argue (although TBH I haven't done the hard research - why didn't I think of this when I was in school?) that foreign policy is largely independent of party affiliation. We are all Americans, Obama and McCain, Red and Blue. Nobody wants to see this country get defeated, or invaded, or anything of the sort. Nobody's going to emasculate the military beyond what is prudent (there is a great deal of pork in the military budgetes - $100 million contracts for wrenches anyone?). And foreign policy on a day-to-day basis is largely moderated by the career diplomats, while the president certainly has a great effect I think it's not true to say that one party has been weaker than the other. Look at all the conflicts we got into under Clinton. Look at Kennedy. Look at FDR. All Democrats. Voting for one party, or one candidate over the other based on national security is just buying into the "hype machine" and "fear politics." And I'll state that I felt the same way when those "3am" ads were running during the democratic primaries. |
Quote:
It's important that any gaffe is jumped on quickly by the other so that everyone will see it or it can pass by and be cloaked by the subsequent debate. Michelle Obama's "first time I felt proud" wasn't really too bad in context but was blown up into something big and it stuck. Palen, for me, has made any number of gaffes but has been let off the hook. I've mentioned above one which I think could have a lot of mileage in it - the description of the Iraq war as "God's war" and of drilling in ANWR being "God's plan". Gibson took the first up but let her off when she waffled about her son in Iraq. You could see from the momentary look of panic on Palin's face as she said that no one knew God's thoughts and realised she could be asked to explain why she did. I mean, who would want a right wing politician in the WhiteHouse who believed they were carrying out God's plans? Oh, but wait ................................... :rolleyes: |
Quote:
There was an interesting study done on military cost overruns (i.e. $10 toilet seats). Please to enjoy. Why System Costs Go Sky High » Blog Archive » DoD Buzz |
Quote:
Fair nuff. |
Quote:
Snipped some stuff and added some bold. Why do you think that is? As far as I know, none of us are politicians. None of us have any kind of reputation that makes what we say worth anything. What difference does it make if anyone here trumps up their own candidate, or slams their opponents? Not to mention that most of the thread isn't any kind of new angle on anything, rather a regurgitation of things other people have said anyway. Is there a point to it all, or is it just an attempt to justify your support in your candidate to yourself, made publicly? |
You state:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
to me they're pretty much equally as bad. as a public figure, don't ask a church of people to pray that a task is from god (thus asserting that if it is it is "better" or "more rightous" or whatever you want to say that implies) instead of just saying "pray to god that our brave men and women come home safely" (which TBH i would have absolutely zero problem with). Bottom line is whichever way you took her quote she's inserting god into the "macro" (policy, decision) side of it, instead of keeping him on the "micro" (interpersonal) side. |
I think there are two things that are pretty obvious at this point:
#1 - Sarah Palin is already the most influential running mate in most of our lifetimes, and there's basically zero chance that will change. You can make arguments for LBJ or Eagleton, but for the contemporary political generation, she is breaking all the rules. You can't win with a good VP choice? Wanna bet? #2 - The GOP, whether by luck or design, has basically engineered the Palin phenomenon to land right in their wheelhouse. She's an ardent pro-life Christian woman, and that was the essential resume for the pick (one I think made a ton of sense anyway). But now she is also benefiting from the well-cultivated perception that the "liberal media" is unfairly trying to tarnish her -- and at this point, quite a lot of people would probably like her more if a major news organ published some truly damning information about her, just based on their views of the source(s). It's become a can't lose for the GOP, if she does something well they rally for her, if she does something wrong they rally against whomever points that out. Whatever your views on issues (pretty passe anyhow), you pretty much have to have a ton of respect for the GOP political machine. They do an outstanding job of winning elections, and they understand the nature of American voters so much better than their counterparts in that other "party" it's not even funny. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The quote I'm referring to is not one she made in Gibson's interview but one she made in a lecture to students. She referred to the Iraq war as "God's war" and to the drilling in ANWR as "God's plan". I assume that that was what triggered Gibson's question. Perhaps I was wrong in that. But the information you give changes nothing - she presents her opinion as representing God's plans. That I find extremely dangerous and a politician that believes this something to be avoided. I lived through Margaret Thatcher's "reign" :) |
Quote:
Quote:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” |
Quote:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” Again, not much different than what many leaders have done and it says nothing about presuming God's plan. Now, what ABC did in the interview is take the quote out of context and only show: "that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God" Quite a difference in meaning, isn't it? ;) Nowhere did Palin ever state or even insinuate that we are presumptuous enough to know that we are doing God's plan and smear job done by ABC editing is fairly irresponsible. |
Quote:
"our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God ........................................................ because there is a plan and that plan is God's plan" There's another much longer video in which she says that God has sent her to Alaska. Youtube it. EDIT I've listened to some more of the videos. Here's a couple of quotes "I think God's will has to be done .................................. to get that gas line built" "And he said "God make a way" (to make her governor). "And he did ...." You'll also be glad to know that when the apocalypse comes that Alaska will be a refuge (I'm sure the Alaskan tourist board will like this one). |
Well, you've done ABC proud. The clip you posted is this piece:
"that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God." of the following quote: “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” I challenge you to read the second and tell me the first clip doesn't completely take it out of context. |
Her faith is in her God. What's the big deal? She says she hopes that the military is doing what's right in the eyes of God. Do I agree? Hell no. But I can respect her being strong in her faith.
|
Quote:
It makes a small difference but doesn't alter the fact that there is a clear association in her mind between the war and God's plan. This idea that events are not the consequences of human behaviour but God's influence in human affairs is only slightly removed from the idea that floods and earhtquakes etc are visitations from God. It's medieval. And it continues. "God's will" is involved in building the pipe line, a preacher cries "Lord make a way, Lord make a way" (for her to become governor) and he did. "Alaska is one of the refuge states in the last days" according to the pastor alongside her. It's insane, Arles. What's wrong with you? |
![]() |
Virginia:
(total) (last week) Obama - 50 - 47 McCain - 46 - 49 among men: McCain up 11 last week, now tied. among voters 50+: McCain up 14 last week, now one. "lower income voters": Obama up 6 last week, now 20. Independants: McCain up 21 last week, now four. In the two polls before the Palin selection, 43% of women polled were for McCain, now it is 44%. SurveyUSA poll summary from a RCP.com link |
Today's state polls...
VA: Obama 50, McCain 46 (SurveyUSA) NY: Obama 46, McCain 41 (Siena) OH: McCain 46, Obama 42 (Suffolk) The NY poll is surprisingly close, but the VA poll is also surprising. If Obama holds the Kerry states, then a combination of VA and IA would get him the White House. However, if McCain steals a Kerry state then Obama is screwed. As for national polls, the only new one I see right now is Rasmussen's, which has narrowed the gap to a 2 pt McCain lead at 49-47 |
dola
Gallup's tracking poll still shows a 2 pt lead for McCain. |
Not a huge deal, but I found it interesting that at the end of this ad Palin is on the left. Given how we read left to right it's an interesting choice by McCain's people.
|
I'm sure this will get a lot of play in the coming days, though I'm guessing it will be explained away as something missed in translation. The Iraqi foreign minister is claiming that Obama requested that no troop withdrawals occur until the next administration was in place............
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL - New York Post Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
The reality is that nothing is odd with a politician to ask for the Lord's blessing in regards to their political actions. Numerous presidents and leaders have done it throughout time. I guess Winston Chruchill, Eisenhower, FDR, JFK, Reagan and even Clinton are all medieval loons for asking for God's blessing on their decisions. Quote:
|
Quote:
You're missing the point Arles and misquoting the videos in much the same way as you accuse others of doing. Let me tackle it this way 400 hundred years ago everything that happened was down to God. Something good happened, it was God rewarding you. Something bad, God was punishing you. The lightning strike - that was God. Everything that happened in the world was God influencing human existence. We've come a distance since then. We know lightning isn't God. We know that things happen randomly and it's not God that is punishing/rewarding us. Most of the things that go on in life are humans interacting and we don't have to use God to explain them. God's still around but we don't have to explain everything with God. But Palin sees God everywhere like the medievals. The Iraq war - must be God. The pipe line - clearly God. Her election - God must have intervened. And I love the stuff about Alaska being being a refuge from the apocalypse - was that in Revelation? Nostradamus perhaps? Window Twanky? Maybe God told them :rolleyes: You don't need someone in the Whitehouse who lives in the 16th century, Arles. You don't need someone whose decision making has the rigidities of believing God is in every one. You don't need the hypocrisy that goes along with those who believe God is involved in every decision they make. You don't need a whacko in the WhiteHouse and if you don't wise up that's what you're going to get. On the others: I don't know much about JFK and FDR but both Carter and Reagan were border line ;) |
Quote:
Taheri has a long history of making things up. He's going to need to provide a lot more evidence before this is credible. |
Quote:
Good point...probably similar to people giving their opinions on coke versus pepsi... |
Quote:
Keep in mind, Mac... we're talking about someone who will be the leader of the United States of America. Personally, I'd prefer to have someone in office who believes they answer to a higher power as opposed to someone who thinks they ARE the higher power (speaking generically there, not referring to Obama). You may not like what you know about Palin's religious beliefs. That's fine. I'm not comfortable with what I've seen from Obama's religious beliefs. But I (and I think a majority of Americans) don't see anything wrong with our leaders having religious beliefs in general. We trust that while they will pray their actions have the blessings of God, they will not seek to force us to believe as they do. And just as in every other civilization, there may come a time a policy decision is reasonable and practical as well as being morally virtuous. One should not preclude the possibility of the other. |
Quote:
Yes. I have decided to try and avoid as much of the entire election process as I can, but based on what I on everything I have read and heard, Point #2 is exactly where it's at. The Palin pick and the subequent treatment of it is just the most recent - and perhaps masterful to date - stroke of genius of the GOP political machine. They play the game so much better than that other "party" that it's almost not really fair. It's like watching the Lions play against actual NFL teams. |
Quote:
So credible information is now required to run a negative campaign ad in this election? ;) |
Quote:
Quite true. It's almost jaw dropping in its effectiveness. In a year they should be getting blown out, they pick the only candidate who could have had a chance for "maverick" credentials, even if the far right wing didn't like him. And then to appease the far right, they pick someone they love, who also happens to be a charismatic woman. And end up using the sexism angle that was oh so true when Hillary Clinton was running the primary and focus it on the attacks on the VP nom. I mean, wow! The Republicans have no business being even close in this election and they may pull it off by making the most cynically brilliant picks in the roles of Prez and VP. |
I wouldn't call the Palin pick genius, as I do believe the democrats wanted to pick a woman as well. It's obviously pandering, but has politics ever been any different? Unfortunately for the dems, Hillary Clinton got in the way. Independents/Republicans have an overwhelming negative impression of her, and picking a different woman would have turned off 18 million+ women in the democrat base. They were kinda screwed...and it's the main reason why the republicans will win this November.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Interesting bit from the Newsweek poll. On the question, "
"Shares your views on the abortion issue", 40% said "Does Describe" and 39% said, "Does Not Describe." The Democrats have got to highlight her abortion position more, because I seriously doubt 40% of the country agrees with it. |
Quote:
that means 40% of people want there to be babies with tails running around when father's rape their daughters! :eek: (or brothers raping their sisters, or mothers molesting their sons, etc) |
my mom is not hot.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107458/Ab...-Campaign.aspx |
Quote:
I'm not talking about pro-life vs. pro-choice (in that context, I agree with her). I'm talking about the fact that she's pro-life even in the case of rape. I'm trying to find recent polling info on this, but a Fox News poll last year showed 70% of voters abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest. I think this specific position would be particularly unpopular with females, which is why I think the Democrats should hit it hard. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I would be surprised if the percentage who did not have an opinion on abortion was as small as six percent. I think that there is a very good chance that many people who are pro choice will vote Republican and many pro lifers will vote Democrat. Very few people are going to select a candidate based on their support of abortion. Taxes, healthcare and the like are far more important to your average voter. |
Quote:
I think there are more pro-choicers voting Republican than pro-lifers voting Democrat (although I fall into the latter category). Quote:
That may be true, but if a candidate has a very unpopular position on an issue, it would be stupid to not make sure the voters know about it. I don't think the Democrats have done that very well on this specific issue. |
Out of people that vote on a single issue I'll almost guarantee that abortion is easily the biggest percentage. There are a lot of people on both sides of the issue that determine their vote solely on abortion. Personally, I don't understand it.
|
I'd also add that I think the number of pro-choicers voting Republican would drastically change if Roe v. Wade gets overturned as I expect it to if McCain gets elected.
|
New State Polls from Rasmussen:
Colorado: McCain +2 Florida: McCain +5 Ohio: McCain +3 Pennsylvania: EVEN Virginia: EVEN |
Not good in Colorado. Maybe they can stage a second convention there.
|
Maybe this time Obama will pick Hillary to be Veep ;).
|
Regarding abortion, where do you put one who is ardently pro-life but does not believe the federal govt should intervene? Or does everything have to be framed as a binary question?
|
Regarding the report that Obama now has to travel with a teleprompter (they were commenting how one was set up in the middle of a rodeo field down the road in Pueblo today). I recall 25 years ago during the Reagan years, he was widely criticized for not being able to speak unless he had a script in front of him (or Nancy by his telling him what to say). Not being able to speak without a script or not being able to speak with a script are probably better than not being able to do both, as we have now.
|
Quote:
There's no fun with a grey area. |
Apparently this election is going to play out like this:
Obama/Democrats: "Something that could be construed/spun as sexist" Palin/Republicans: (make no mistake, it's now Palin versus Obama) unleash the sensitive women brigade... Obama/Democrats: "What we really meant was..." Palin/Republicans: Check-mate... Rinse and repeat till November... |
Quote:
The Clintons want their script back, with a rewrite of the ending. |
Quote:
I think you'd still be considered pro-life. I don't think many people are suggesting that the federal government should outlaw abortion nationwide. The pro-lifers want Roe overturned so the states could make their own abortion laws. SCOTUS would have to overturn alot more precedent than Roe to force states to outlaw abortion. |
|
Troopergate
Um Arles, I have a substantial problem with this as you can imagine: Palin won't meet with 'Troopergate' investigator - Yahoo! News Quote:
|
Quote:
And that's why you need to learn a lot more about this woman (and important to me even as an Australian). Just as there have been demands to learn about Obama you need to know much more about her. Quote:
That's a lawyer's trick, Cam. That's not the choice. If that were I'd probably agree with you but that isn't the choice. Quote:
Search my posts and you'll see I was one of those insisting Obama explain fully his Rev Wright links. I still have some reservations about these. This is not a partisan thing. I've defended Palin over unreasonable attacks in this thread (the Bush's doctrine and defending Georgia criticisms where Palin was at no fault). But these religious aspects go to character and attitude and need to be investigated. Quote:
It's not the beliefs themselves - I'm resigned to a world where unsupportable religious beliefs have so much sway ;) - but the excess. It's not unknown to see God's will in war though I might have hoped that Dylans "With God on Our Side" had sunk in to politicians by now, but in the laying of a pipeline? And I would expect her to at least flinch when she's told to go out and tell America when the last days come Alaska will be a refuge. Now I dare say you can rationalise this but it really is out there with the fairies ;) Quote:
Unfortunately you can't trust to that as we found out last year here when we discovered the minister for health, a Catholic, buried legislation in a tax bill to limit abortion against the wishes of the Australian people (who voted in a referendum for the current situation). When this came out, years later after thousands of Australian woman had been forced to give birth against their wishes or had unnecessary invasive surgery, and he was criticised for abusing his position and lying to both parliament and the Australian people he even had the gall to accuse the criticism of being a Catholic witch hunt. That's the problem with religion - self-righteousness is often not far away. I also lived through the Margaret Thatcher years in Britain. She was worshipped when she arrived. She was positively hated by a majority of people when she was thrown out of politics by her own party. I see similarities in the personalities of Palin and Thatcher. The same right-wing, over confident certainty backed by God (and, as I said in another thread, "you can't argue with God") and doses of hypocrisy. Palin's appeal is that she's attractive, personable, feisty and, well, a woman - not generally thought of being the first criteria you look for in a VP candidate. It's clear she's selected to boost McCain's appeal to voters (what happened to "the nation first"?). But we've only had one speech, one interview and a few grainy videos and there's already evidence that she may be - to put it crudely - full of bullshit, hypocritical and a whacko. You need to know a lot more about this woman before you put her in the White House and unfortunately there is a mood in the nation that would preclude any real attempt to do that. The idea, expressed earlier in this forum and I suspect accurate, that if anything really does come out that renders her unsuitable then many will ignore that and put it down to a press that's out to damage her. Every time she's criticised the McCain vote rises. There's a dangerous form of censorship here. |
Palin's net favorability (R2K poll)
Sept. 11: +17 net positive Sept. 12: +14 Sept. 13: +9 Sept. 14: +5 Sept. 15: +4 The Gibson interview aired on September 11. Maybe people didn't like what they saw when she had to go off-script. |
Quote:
My faith in the American people has returned ;) |
Hey Brotha! Im not ready to be NWO Hulk :)
|
On the troopergate issue, it seems that the state congress leader who handed out the subpoenas (Sen Hollis French) is a massive Obama supporter:
“Senator Obama has a plan to end our dependence on foreign oil and reduce skyrocketing energy prices,” said Senator Hollis French of Anchorage, a former oil rig worker. “Having worked in the oil business in Alaska for twelve years, I know firsthand the importance of oil and natural gas to Alaska. Senator Obama will not only invest in renewable fuels and increase car fuel efficiency standards, he strongly supports construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline and accelerated drilling in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve which will provide affordable energy to Alaska and our country and good jobs for Alaskans.” Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | AK HQ Blog Also, we know that Palin has offered to have everyone come in and speak without subpoenas: Quote:
This was also posted as part of the Palin defense: Quote:
|
Dont flip flop on this issue Arles. EVERYONE should testify and if wrongdoing was done it should come out and if there was no wrong doing we should be able to find that out as well. The REPUBLICAN Legislature started this, the investigator was assigned, and we should all be going to the truthful end. I hope you're not changing youre tune...
Amazing timing that NOW that she's on the ticket, the campaign is in full spin mode on this instead of full truth mode. NOWWWWWW, it's been hijacked but a month ago it wasn't. Such BS. Seriously when will the truth become important? BTW on a more analytical note, If I were the Obama camp the ads would be flying since it is such a reminder of the W administrations unwillingness to cooperate with investigations. In all seriousness I think that this could be HUGE if the Obama Campaign uses this well. Those emails count more than the one's released from her personal email account? C'mon, i know youve admitted to being biased but this issue is about finding out what happened, the truth. |
Hmm, seems that the GOP has an 11-9 edge in the state senate and a 23-17 lead in the state house. Not sure how much traction McCain-Palin can get out of trying to spin this as a partisan witch hunt.
|
well they won Arles over in the last week when nothing changed except her unwillingness to cooperate.
|
Arles: How do you explain that in August she told the New Yorker that she didn't fire Monegan, but that he quit?
|
for reference:
Palin: Monegan wasn't fired, he quit - UPI.com Quote:
but... Palin warned about commissioner firing - UPI.com Quote:
Plus, if Im not mistaken she once said she never communicated with Monegan about the trooper but... Quote:
|
Have some more respect for your next Vice President, Flasch.
|
I'm sure this will all be cleared up in her next interview with...
Sean Hannity. |
Quote:
Flasch, Wouldn't you say we would have a better chance of finding out the truth and less of a chance of this matter being contaminated by politics if French were to recuse himself from handling the investigation? It seems to me like that would be the easiest thing to do, because there's going to be a ready made excuse of "Well, the guy in charge of the investigation is a huge supporter of Obama" if the investigation were to turn up evidence of impropriety. |
Palin basically reassigned him to a post that would be a demotion and he quit. So, he was removed from his current post, but not fired. So, by "fired" they are referring to his old post, not having a spot with the government.
Again, I think this may hurt Palin a bit in the short term, but I think she's handled everything very well. At this point, no fair-minded individual can think this hearing will not be a political witch hunt if left unfettered. |
Hannity won't go crazy on her like Charlie "Good Morning America" Gibson. No one should have to face the heat of a former morning show host. Next thing you know we'll want her to sit down with Matt Lauer. Oh, the horror!
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.