Front Office Football Central
Page 50 of 111 « First < 40414243444546474849 50 51525354555657585960100 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=65622)

Honolulu_Blue 09-17-2008 02:03 PM
This is well put.

Richard Cohen - The Ugly New McCain - washingtonpost.com

Quote:
The Ugly New McCain
By Richard Cohen
Wednesday, September 17, 2008;

Following his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain did something extraordinary: He confessed to lying about how he felt about the Confederate battle flag, which he actually abhorred. "I broke my promise to always tell the truth," McCain said. Now he has broken that promise so completely that the John McCain of old is unrecognizable. He has become the sort of politician he once despised.
The precise moment of McCain's abasement came, would you believe, not at some news conference or on one of the Sunday shows but on "The View," the daytime TV show created by Barbara Walters. Last week, one of the co-hosts, Joy Behar, took McCain to task for some of the ads his campaign has been running. One deliberately mischaracterized what Barack Obama had said about putting lipstick on a pig -- an Americanism that McCain himself has used. The other asserted that Obama supported teaching sex education to kindergarteners.

"We know that those two ads are untrue," Behar said. "They are lies."
Freeze. Close in on McCain. This was the moment. He has largely been avoiding the press. The Straight Talk Express is now just a brand, an ad slogan like "Home Cooking" or "We Will Not Be Undersold." Until then, it was possible for McCain to say that he had not really known about the ads, that the formulation "I approve this message" was just boilerplate. But he didn't.

"Actually, they are not lies," he said.

Actually, they are.

McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: They lie. He tells the truth. He internalizes the code of the McCains -- his grandfather, his father: both admirals of the shining sea. He serves his country differently, that's all -- but just as honorably. No more, though.

I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician's lap.

Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.

McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.

At a forum last week at Columbia University, McCain said, "But right now we have to restore trust and confidence in government." This was always the promise of John McCain, the single best reason to vote for him. America has been cheated on too many times -- the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and Iraq. So many lies. Who believes that in Afghanistan last month, only five civilians were killed by the American military in an airstrike, instead of the approximately 90 claimed by the Afghan government? Not me. I first gave up on the military during Vietnam and then again when it covered up the death of Pat Tillman, the Army Ranger and former NFL player who was killed in 2004 by friendly fire.

McCain was going to fix all that. He was going to look the American people in the eyes and say, not me. I will not lie to you. I am John McCain, son and grandson of admirals. I tell the truth.

But Joy Behar knew better. And so McCain lied about his lying and maybe thinks that if he wins the election, he can -- as he did in South Carolina -- renounce who he was and what he did and resume his old persona. It won't work. Karl Marx got one thing right -- what he said about history repeating itself. Once is tragedy, a second time is farce. John McCain is both.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-17-2008 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1836286)
Hasn't that been talked about dating back to the primaries?

Yes, it was discussed early on in the primaries, but went away as he pulled ahead of Clinton. Now that his polling lead has disappeared, the 'R' word has emerged again. Also, the writer implies that there's no other explanation for why Obama isn't way ahead at this point. That's a pretty hefty assumption.

ISiddiqui 09-17-2008 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1836284)

I this crap silly. Like I said before, race is a factor, but it isn't that large of one... the proof? Look at how the polls have been moving for McCain. Recall that during the DNC, Obama had about an 8 to 9 pt lead. Are these people saying that some of those people magically became racists?

Toddzilla 09-17-2008 02:08 PM
Seems the motivated group over at 4Chan was able to hack into Sarah Palin's personal Yahoo! account. Info is available via teh google.

Flasch186 09-17-2008 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1836287)
Missed this earlier. I still think that the investigator should step down. That was the easiest thing for me to argue from the other side, because I guarantee you liberals would be livid if Biden was being investigated by someone who said the result of the investigation could be an "October surprise." French should step down, and then it would be much harder for Palin to argue the investigation is partisan, and would look much worse for dodging it.

stepping down or not is small potatoes to me. If it means a cleaner result, no matter the result, than fine, he should go but she should cooperate with the investigation like she said she would.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-17-2008 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toddzilla (Post 1836298)
Seems the motivated group over at 4Chan was able to hack into Sarah Palin's personal Yahoo! account. Info is available via teh google.

This kind of stuff is going to only cause more of a backlash. Not sure why they would even consider this to be a good idea.

Vegas Vic 09-17-2008 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1836295)
I this crap silly. Like I said before, race is a factor, but it isn't that large of one... the proof? Look at how the polls have been moving for McCain. Recall that during the DNC, Obama had about an 8 to 9 pt lead. Are these people saying that some of those people magically became racists?

During the democratic primaries, I remember several discussions amongst some pollsters about a "hidden racism" factor -- something to the effect that a certain percentage of people would tell a pollster that they would be voting for Obama (because they wanted to "seem" to be open minded), but in the privacy of the voting booth they voted for Clinton. It remains to be seen if this will show up in the general election, but given the closeness of the polls, even a small occurance of this could be very significant in how accurate the final polls are in predicting the actual outcome of the election.

Flasch186 09-17-2008 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1836312)
This kind of stuff is going to only cause more of a backlash. Not sure why they would even consider this to be a good idea.

in anything, anything, there is fatigue so if the right (or left) goes to the well too often the ROI will get smaller and smaller until that return goes negative.

JPhillips 09-17-2008 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1836317)
During the democratic primaries, I remember several discussions amongst some pollsters about a "hidden racism" factor -- something to the effect that a certain percentage of people would tell a pollster that they would be voting for Obama (because they wanted to "seem" to be open minded), but in the privacy of the voting booth they voted for Clinton. It remains to be seen if this will show up in the general election, but given the closeness of the polls, even a small occurance of this could be very significant in how accurate the final polls are in predicting the actual outcome of the election.

That's basically the so-called "Bradley Effect". However, recent studies seem to show that the Bradley Effect isn't a statistically relevant issue this year. I think race will play an issue, but as I've argued before the effects will be much more subtle. I don't think conscious racism is going to make the difference anywhere.

DaddyTorgo 09-17-2008 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue (Post 1836291)

whoa - yeah...very well put. even moreso because it was coming a self-professed former media-backer.

larrymcg421 09-17-2008 02:44 PM
Harold Ford actually performed better than the final poll numbers in the 2006 TN senate race, suggesting the Bradley effect may no longer be in place. But I think we'll need to wait and see before letting one election determine that.

Flasch186 09-17-2008 02:48 PM
Stakes high in Palin trooper probe - CNN.com

Quote:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- What was once an ugly divorce involving Gov. Sarah Palin's sister is now at the center of a political showdown in Alaska and on the campaign trail.
Gov. Sarah Palin is under fire for allegations that she put pressure on a state official to fire her ex-brother-in-law.

The question: Did Palin, her husband, Todd, or any of her staff put pressure on the state's top cop to fire the governor's ex-brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten?

An investigator hired by Alaska lawmakers plans to subpoena Palin's husband and several of her staff.

"He's made many comments about how it appeared that DPS [the Department of Public Safety] is not doing its job because of Wooten. He wanted him fired, and I'm hoping that the subpoena, if issued, will permit me to interview him," said investigator Stephen Branchflower.

Now, Republican lawmakers in Alaska argue the investigation has become a political circus. They call it partisan payback. It's already a distraction, if not yet an embarrassment, for the governor. Five state lawmakers have sued to block the investigation.

They said the two Democrats and the former Anchorage prosecutor leading the probe "are unable to hold the balance between vindicating their own political interests and the interests of those who are being investigated."

On Monday, the McCain-Palin campaign announced that Palin will not cooperate with a "tainted" legislative investigation.

Former Palin Press Secretary Meg Stapleton told reporters in Anchorage that the investigation has been "hijacked" by "Obama operatives" for the Democratic presidential nominee -- namely, Alaska state Sen. Hollis French, the Democratic lawmaker managing the investigation and an Obama supporter. French has denied working on behalf of the Obama campaign.

The Obama campaign described Stapleton's charge as "complete paranoia." It has denied sending campaign staff to Alaska to work with the legislative committee's investigation.

So how did the investigation get here?

Claims by Palin and her family that three years ago in the middle of the divorce, Trooper Wooten repeatedly threatened them -- even allegedly threatened to kill her father.

Wooten denies that. Palin conceded her staff expressed concern about Wooten to Walt Monigan, the top cop.

"The state trooper has threatened, you know, to kill my dad," Palin has said.

But she insists as governor she did not pressure anyone to fire Wooten. She told ABC last week her husband had met Monigan but did not pressure him to fire Wooten.

"He did, very appropriately though, bring up those concerns about a trooper who is making threats against the first family and that is appropriate," she said.

Now, the McCain campaign says, Palin "did not learn of these contacts by Todd Palin, until August of this year" even though Todd Palin met Monigan in her office soon after she became governor. Monigan insists he was fired in July because he didn't sack the trooper, though he says he wasn't told directly to fire him.

"I believe I was fired because I did not fire Mike Wooten," Monigan has said.

The McCain campaign is now providing dozens of e-mails that it says show Monigan lost his job for "egregious insubordination."

"This final straw came in late June and early July of this year when Commissioner Monigan arranged for yet another unauthorized trip to Washington, D.C. to request more financial assistance from Congress," said Palin campaign spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton.

Still, even some Republicans in Alaska say Monigan's firing was badly handled and hurt Gov. Palin's credibility. They include a former U.S. attorney who was an informal ethics adviser to the governor.
advertisement

In a letter dated July 24, Welby Shay told Palin he had "grave concern" about the "naive, unprofessional" counsel she'd received in the Monigan case. He declined to speak on camera but told CNN, "If they would have done what I said, I think it would have been over."

A spokeswoman for the governor said that "while we can't always act on every idea, Gov. Palin thanks Mr. Shay for his counsel."

Jas_lov 09-17-2008 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue (Post 1836291)

That's good. McCain is a shadow of his former self. I don't even understand what McCain's stance is on the most recent economic failures. McCain and Palin say we need more regulation one minute and deregulation the next. Obama has retaken the lead and what a difference a week makes.

Flasch186 09-17-2008 03:07 PM
rolling average.

BrianD 09-17-2008 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 1836340)
whoa - yeah...very well put. even moreso because it was coming a self-professed former media-backer.

I'm not sure how that is so well put. Talking about the Lipstick ad and the sex education for kindergarteners ad:
Question: "Wow, those two ads are untrue. They are lies."
Answer: "Actually, they are not lies."
Response: "Actually, they are."

Are the ads lies? They might be misleading...Obama called for age-appropriate sex education of students in K-12, so how is sex education for K a lie?

Someone upthread mentioned that the word "lie" is thrown around way too much, and I am inclined to agree.

gstelmack 09-17-2008 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas_lov (Post 1836366)
McCain and Palin say we need more regulation one minute and deregulation the next. Obama has retaken the lead and what a difference a week makes.

That's okay, it will change next week when Obama flips on one of his key messages again.

Seriously, have there ever been two campaigns botched this badly in a single presidential election cycle? Or this much flipping by everybody in this short a period of time?

Arles 09-17-2008 03:20 PM
Given Palin appointed Monigan and his role was simply to serve a post "at the pleasure of the governor", couldn't Palin have relieved him from his post one morning because she didn't like the color of his tie? While I certainly see the argument for her not handling all these things in a professional manner, I don't really see a crime (which would be the point in an investigation, correct?).

larrymcg421 09-17-2008 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1836402)
Given Palin appointed Monigan and his role was simply to serve a post "at the pleasure of the governor", couldn't Palin have relieved him from his post one morning because she didn't like the color of his tie? While I certainly see the argument for her not handling all these things in a professional manner, I don't really see a crime (which would be the point in an investigation, correct?).

There's a difference between how state governments work and the federal government, so it depends on Alaska state law, which she may or may not have violated, hence the investigation.

For example, there was a battle between Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue and Attorney General Thurbert Baker over a Supreme Court redistricting case. Perdue wanted to drop the case that was initiated under his predecessor, but Baker was able to continue arguing it because the AG is independent from the Governor. Obviously the same thing would not have happened at the federal level.

SirFozzie 09-17-2008 03:26 PM
Actually this would fall under an ethics violation rather then a "Crime" so to speak.

Jas_lov 09-17-2008 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 1836386)
That's okay, it will change next week when Obama flips on one of his key messages again.

Seriously, have there ever been two campaigns botched this badly in a single presidential election cycle? Or this much flipping by everybody in this short a period of time?

I don't know. A week or two ago we were talking about the doom of the Obama campaign and all the mistakes they were making. Now it's McCain making a gaffe, Fiorina getting banished, apparently McCain invented the blackberry, and we're back where we were a month ago. 538 still has McCain up but there haven't been any state polls today except ARG but ARG sucks. I think CNN will be out with some new ones later today.

Jas_lov 09-17-2008 03:39 PM
And here are the CNN polls:

Florida: Obama 48, McCain 48
Indiana: McCain 51, Obama 45
North Carolina: McCain 48, Obama 47
Ohio: Obama 49, McCain 47
Wisconsin: Obama 50, McCain 47

Not bad for Obama. I liked this Obama line today- "The old boys network? In the McCain campaign that's called a staff meeting." What a difference a week makes.

larrymcg421 09-17-2008 03:41 PM
nvm, beat to it.

The Wisconsin poll is not very good, but the rest of them are very nice for Obama.

larrymcg421 09-17-2008 03:50 PM
"Two years ago, I warned that the oversight of Fannie and Freddie was terrible, that we were facing a crisis because of it, or certainly a serious problem."

-- Sen. John McCain, in an interview earlier today, via ABC News.

"So, I'd like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not."

-- McCain, in an interview with Keene Sentinel on the mortgage crisis in December 2007.


McCain's straight talk is going in all sorts of different directions.

ISiddiqui 09-17-2008 03:55 PM
Did anyone post the Fox News/Rasmussen poll numbers released yesterday? If not:

Pennsylvania: Obama 47, McCain 47
Ohio: McCain 48, Obama 45
Florida: McCain 49, Obama 44
Virginia: Obama 48, McCain 48
Colorado: McCain 48, Obama 46

larrymcg421 09-17-2008 04:05 PM
Those are a couple days old. Vic mentioned them here.

Jas_lov 09-17-2008 04:11 PM
And those polls look good for McCain. One thing about the CNN polls is that they are for registered voters. I think rasmussen polls likely voters.

http://wiscadproject.wisc.edu/wiscad...ase_091708.pdf

Here's a study of the money being spent by both campaigns for ads if you're interested. Both are putting a lot of cash into ads in Florida and McCain has spent the most for ads in Pennsylvania. Obama has barely spent any on ads in Minnesota. McCain has spent 0 in Montana, North Dakota, and Indiana.

Arles 09-17-2008 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1836428)
"Two years ago, I warned that the oversight of Fannie and Freddie was terrible, that we were facing a crisis because of it, or certainly a serious problem."

-- Sen. John McCain, in an interview earlier today, via ABC News.

"So, I'd like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not."

-- McCain, in an interview with Keene Sentinel on the mortgage crisis in December 2007.


McCain's straight talk is going in all sorts of different directions.
They're completely different situations. The first quote is about the terrible public/private setup regarding the running of Fannie and Freddie - many "free market advocates" have been railing on it for years (including McCain - who's not even that free market). The second is about the sub-prime craziness that came from a combination of Greenspan keeping rates too low too long and some questionable lending risks by mostly private corporations.

I would expect many fairly knowledgeable financial people could see the issues with Fannie and Freddie, but need some 20-20 hindsight to know the full impact of the Greenspan rates and private mortgage risks. McCain was in that camp and actually being honest about it (not just taking credit like most politicians do).

A few pages back I posted McCain's co-sponsored bill back in 2005 that was spiked by the senate democrats to add some oversight to Freddie and Fannie. One has to wonder why the senate democrats were so against the oversight legislation proposed by Hagel and McCain back in 2005 - especially if protecting against corruption was such a major concern. There were clear signs that steps needed to be taken:

Quote:
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.

In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown - Yahoo! News

TazFTW 09-17-2008 04:25 PM
Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Oregon, Obama 51 McCain 47. Previous Rasmussen poll (8/07) Obama 47 McCain 37

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Wisconsin, Obama 48 McCain 46. Previous Rasmussen poll (08/05) Obama 47 McCain 43. (note the Wisconsin trends chart on the right has the newest numbers flipped it reads McCain 48 Obama 46 when it is the other way around)

Vegas Vic 09-17-2008 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas_lov (Post 1836451)
And those polls look good for McCain. One thing about the CNN polls is that they are for registered voters. I think rasmussen polls likely voters.

The CNN/Time polls had Kerry consistently higher in 2004 than most of the other polls, but that might not be the case now.

lungs 09-17-2008 04:39 PM
Democrats need not worry about Wisconsin. We'll cheat if we have to.

Fidatelo 09-17-2008 04:39 PM
All these polls tell me is that this election is far closer than it should be after the last 8 years, and that McCain is likely going to win when the dust settles. Couple that with a likely Harper victory up here and I'm pretty pessimistic about the next 4-5 years.

CamEdwards 09-17-2008 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidatelo (Post 1836474)
All these polls tell me is that this election is far closer than it should be after the last 8 years, and that McCain is likely going to win when the dust settles. Couple that with a likely Harper victory up here and I'm pretty pessimistic about the next 4-5 years.

I hope I'm not threadjacking with a question about the upcoming Canadian election, but I read somewhere that there's a chance the NDP could replace the Liberal party as the 2nd largest party (assuming the Conservatives win the election). Is it really that close between the NDP and the Liberals?

larrymcg421 09-17-2008 06:24 PM
CBS News/NY Times poll just released...

Registered Voters: Obama 48-43
Likely Voters: Obama 49-44

Obama now leads 47-45 among White Females, whereas he was behind 53-34 after the GOP convention.

Big Fo 09-17-2008 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by st.cronin (Post 1835802)
McCain 50.7
Obama 48.1

Obama 51.0
McCain 48.6

Mac Howard 09-17-2008 10:25 PM
Isn't it depresssing that even the (scientifically researched?) polls reflect the bias of their paymasters :rolleyes:

lighthousekeeper 09-17-2008 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Fo (Post 1836768)
Obama 51.0
McCain 48.6

Obama 39.J
McCain -Y^4

st.cronin 09-17-2008 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper (Post 1836792)
Obama 39.J
McCain -Y^4

I have no idea what this means but it made me lol.

Vegas Vic 09-17-2008 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidatelo (Post 1836474)
All these polls tell me is that this election is far closer than it should be after the last 8 years, and that McCain is likely going to win when the dust settles.

It's not "likely" that McCain is going to win, but being in a coin flip at this point is astonishing given that his party's two term incumbent president has the lowest approval rating in history.

Mac Howard 09-18-2008 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by st.cronin (Post 1836797)
I have no idea what this means but it made me lol.

I thought my video card was up the wall :)

Passacaglia 09-18-2008 06:49 AM
You forgot to add: Flasch186 --but then that would invalidate the whole list itself.

Flasch186 09-18-2008 06:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 1836860)
You forgot to add: Flasch186 --but then that would invalidate the whole list itself.

I deleted the list because in actuality Mac's statement covers both sides.

Fidatelo 09-18-2008 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1836553)
I hope I'm not threadjacking with a question about the upcoming Canadian election, but I read somewhere that there's a chance the NDP could replace the Liberal party as the 2nd largest party (assuming the Conservatives win the election). Is it really that close between the NDP and the Liberals?

I haven't seen any polls related to expected number of seats, but I'm positive the popular vote still favors the Liberals over the NDP by a significant margin. I'd also be extremely surprised if the NDP did win more seats, but as I haven't seen any polls, I suppose it could be working out that way. The Liberals are in disarray right now, and the NDP have a strong, well-known leader in Layton.

So far the Canadian election has been flying somewhat under the radar, which is exactly what Harper wants. Although, I'm a little bit under-informed at the moment because I was too busy over the last week to really read the newspaper, and when that happens I tend to get all of my news from the internet sites I visit, which tend to be American. So I might be the wrong guy to ask right now.

Galaril 09-18-2008 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1836802)
It's not "likely" that McCain is going to win, but being in a coin flip at this point is astonishing given that his party's two term incumbent president has the lowest approval rating in history.

As a number of my non-american friends have pointed out what this really shows is how many stupid Americans there are. Which I agree appears to be the case at this point. (No personal slight intended BTW)

gstelmack 09-18-2008 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1836980)
As a number of my non-american friends have pointed out what this really shows is how many stupid Americans there are. Which I agree appears to be the case at this point. (No personal slight intended BTW)

Or how poorly the Democrats are running ANOTHER campaign. This should seriously have been a slam dunk, but when Obama keeps hemming and hawing on everything he said during the nomination campaign, it gets folks wondering if he really IS a change candidated and if he really CAN be trusted. I think his image is tarnishing fast, which is just sending folks back to the old standby of voting party.

CamEdwards 09-18-2008 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1836980)
As a number of my non-american friends have pointed out what this really shows is how many stupid Americans there are. Which I agree appears to be the case at this point. (No personal slight intended BTW)

I'm disappointed that your reaction was one of agreement, because I believe I would have told my non-American friends to go fuck themselves.

Mac Howard 09-18-2008 10:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1836980)
As a number of my non-american friends have pointed out what this really shows is how many stupid Americans there are. Which I agree appears to be the case at this point. (No personal slight intended BTW)

:lol:

I would never dare say that :)

A few years ago Australia held a referendum on whether it should become a republic (currently it still has constitutional links with Britain). One of the debating points was how the president would be elected. Part of the "anti" campaign was "there's no way we want anything like the US presidential election". It wasn't the only argument against but it certainly helped defeat the referendum.

DaddyTorgo 09-18-2008 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1836980)
As a number of my american friends have pointed out what this really shows is how many stupid Americans there are. Which I agree appears to be the case at this point. (No personal slight intended BTW)

there are a lot of stupid people in this country (on both sides)

:+1:

cartman 09-18-2008 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1836997)
I'm disappointed that your reaction was one of agreement, because I believe I would have told my non-American friends to go fuck themselves.

A nice continuation of Bush's policies...

:D

Flasch186 09-18-2008 10:24 AM
GOP senator: A 'stretch' to say Palin is qualified - Yahoo! News

Quote:
GOP senator: A 'stretch' to say Palin is qualified

32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said his party's vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, lacks foreign policy

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said in an interview published Thursday by the Omaha World-Herald. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

Could Palin lead the country if GOP presidential nominee John McCain could not?

"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Hagel said.

McCain and other Republicans have defended Palin's qualifications, citing Alaska's proximity to Russia. Palin told ABC News, "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Hagel took issue with that argument. "I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,'" he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

Hagel, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In July, Hagel traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Though he didn't expect to be asked, Hagel had said he would have considered serving as Obama's running mate.

Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 6,500, before becoming Alaska's governor in December 2006.

Palin visited soldiers in Kuwait and Germany last year and said in an interview with ABC News that her only other foreign travel had been to Mexico and Canada. She also said she had never met a foreign head of state.

Hagel told the newspaper that other governors have been elected to serve in the White House without experience in Washington. He said judgment and character were also important for the job.

"But I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."

see if I can parse through articles I post to highlight which side the argument might be for. It's at least a little more fun for me.

DaddyTorgo 09-18-2008 10:27 AM
that's pretty cool flaschy.

wow - won't say i'm "surprised" that the GOP senior-senators are turning on her, but that's...interesting at least

CamEdwards 09-18-2008 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 1837004)
A nice continuation of Bush's policies...

:D

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

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

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

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

Flasch186 09-18-2008 10:31 AM
Biden: Paying higher taxes patriotic for wealthy - Yahoo! News


Quote:
Biden: Paying higher taxes patriotic for wealthy

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."

Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

McCain released a television ad Thursday charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.

"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork," the ad says. "And we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"

The McCain campaign said the ad is set to run nationally.

cartman 09-18-2008 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1837022)
Oh I'm sorry. What is the proper Obama-like response to "Haw haw, Americans are so stupid"? Besides agreeing, of course.

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

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

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

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

DaddyTorgo 09-18-2008 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1837022)
Oh I'm sorry. What is the proper Obama-like response to "Haw haw, Americans are so stupid"? Besides agreeing, of course.

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

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

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

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

CamEdwards 09-18-2008 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 1837019)
that's pretty cool flaschy.

wow - won't say i'm "surprised" that the GOP senior-senators are turning on her, but that's...interesting at least

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

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

Quote:
THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.

Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

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

Flasch186 09-18-2008 10:41 AM
Obama casts light on McCain's abortion stance - Yahoo! News

Quote:

Obama casts light on McCain's abortion stance

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain, an abortion rights opponent with a conservative Senate record on the issue, seems content with the public's perception that he's more moderate on the subject.
ADVERTISEMENT

Democrat Barack Obama, who supports abortion rights, is only too happy to remind voters where McCain stands, but he tries to make his case without attracting too much attention.

Both presidential candidates are gingerly trying to strike the right chord on abortion as they reach out to a critical voting group — independents and moderates, primarily women in swing-voting suburban regions of crucial states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.

The candidates' carefully targeted ads on abortion and stem-cell research, topics that enflame passions among both abortion-rights proponents and opponents, illustrate how Republicans and Democrats alike are tailoring their messages to specific groups of voters.

Obama criticizes McCain in ads that say the GOP nominee takes an "extreme position on choice" and "will make abortion illegal." That misrepresents McCain's position. The Arizona senator favors overturning the Supreme Court's guarantee of abortion rights but would let states decide their own abortion laws, and he is not seeking a constitutional ban.

Obama is using low-profile radio ads and campaign mailings to make his point about McCain. He hopes to avoid being tagged as too liberal on abortion.

McCain, for his part, is responding with radio commercials promising to support stem cell research to "unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease." He doesn't mention that he supports embryonic stem cell research, which many anti-abortion Republicans oppose.

Cultural issues have largely taken a back seat in this campaign to the frail economy and the Iraq war, as well as questions of character and promises of change.

But with the race close, each candidate is trying to woo voters concerned about particular issues in hopes they will help tip the balance on Nov. 4. As with abortion, the candidates are likely to use radio and campaign mail on other social topics, such as gun control and gay rights.

Independent groups also are getting into the act with TV ads. One is trying to make Obama look out of the mainstream even among abortion rights supporters by casting him as far left. Another is encouraging McCain to "embrace a pro-life agenda."

Unlike Democratic presidential nominees Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, Obama has not shied away from using abortion to reach out to independents and moderate Republicans.

Democrats say President Bush's Supreme Court selections of conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito gave Obama an opening to press the issue.

"Women are more worried now about the future of the court than in either of the last two election cycles, and Obama has been tapping into that and making this issue a big difference between him and McCain," said Democratic analyst Jenny Backus.

Republicans say Obama doesn't understand that people generally are more conservative than liberal and tend not to be single-issue voters on abortion.

"For the Obama people to try to make McCain into this passionate pro-lifer, it doesn't make any sense," said Rich Galen, a Republican operative.

Obama's radio ad, running in Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and elsewhere, features nurse practitioner Valerie Baron telling voters: "John McCain's out of touch with women today. McCain wants to take away our right to choose."

Glossy fliers with the same messages fill the mailboxes of women in Florida, Virginia and other states.

Countering that effort, McCain rolled out his own radio ad suggesting he's not as far right on abortion as Obama makes him seem — though he never mentions that procedure.

Instead, McCain's commercial focused on stem cell research and said he will invest more money in research to prevent disease and find medical breakthroughs to "help free families from the fear and devastation of illness."

Like Obama, McCain backs relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research while running mate Sarah Palin — along with many conservatives in the GOP — opposes that method because human embryos are destroyed.

McCain opposes abortion rights except when the life of the mother is in danger and, unlike Palin, in cases of rape or incest. He has voted for abortion restrictions permissible under Roe v. Wade and has said the 1973 decision that guaranteed abortion rights should be overturned, leaving states to decide.

Obama and his running mate Joe Biden favor federal money for embryonic stem cell research and largely agree on abortion. But Biden was among a minority of Democrats in voting several times in favor of banning the procedure that opponents call partial birth abortion.


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

CamEdwards 09-18-2008 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 1837031)
if you object to the word "stupid" - would you be okay with "uneducated?" How about "ignorant?" "Small-minded?" Or can we only say nice things?

"Progressive" might be acceptable.

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

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

DaddyTorgo 09-18-2008 10:45 AM
the thing that worries me about making abortion the decision of individual states is that you are in some way removing the choice from some segments of the population then, through making it financially less affordable (if I'm a poor pregnant woman and i have to travel two states away to get an abortion that's money out of my pocket when i could barely afford the abortion in the first place).

albionmoonlight 09-18-2008 10:46 AM
The "you can see Russia from Alaska" thing was always stupid and always very easy for the Democrats to make fun of.

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

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

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

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

Kodos 09-18-2008 10:47 AM
I love how each successive democratic candidate is tabbed as "the most liberal member of the senate" or whatever body of government he comes from. I thought John Kerry was the most liberal guy. At least he was last election. Funny, I thought Ted Kennedy was the most liberal guy in Washington.

DaddyTorgo 09-18-2008 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1837035)
"Progressive" might be acceptable.

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

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


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

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

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

Flasch186 09-18-2008 10:52 AM
Quote:
GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (CNN) -- Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin took questions with her running mate Wednesday night, offering at one point to play "stump the candidate" with a mostly friendly Michigan crowd.

Gov. Sarah Palin greets supporters at a town-hall meeting in Michigan Wednesday night.

Asked for "specific skills" she could cite to rebut critics who question her grasp of international affairs, she replied, "I am prepared."

"I have that confidence. I have that readiness," Palin said. "And if you want specifics with specific policies or countries, you can go ahead and ask me. You can play 'stump the candidate' if you want to. But we are ready to serve."

GOP presidential nominee John McCain stepped in, pointing out that as governor of a state that is oil and gas plentiful, Palin was familiar with energy. She knows it to be "one of our great national security challenges," he said.

He also cited her nearly two years as commander of Alaska's National Guard. "I believe she is absolutely, totally qualified to address every challenge as the next vice president of the United States," McCain said.

The Alaska governor has largely avoided national news outlets since McCain named her his running mate August 29. Mostly unknown outside her home state, she has sat for interviews with ABC, People magazine and Fox News and had not taken questions at a campaign appearance before Wednesday.

"I think because I'm a Washington outsider, that opponents are going to be looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize, and they can kind of beat the candidate here who chose me as his partner, to try to tear down the ticket," she said Wednesday night.

Palin also took questions about her family and women's rights during the hourlong forum. Asked at one point how she would respond to people who say she can't be both a mother of five and vice president, she said, "Well, let's prove them wrong."

Speaking after the federal government announced plans to rescue ailing insurance giant AIG and after Wall Street took its second nosedive in a week, McCain and Palin both called for reforming the financial markets "in Wall Street and Washington," as McCain put it.

"We're going to reform how Wall Street does business and put an end to the greed that has driven our markets into chaos," McCain said. "We'll put an end to multimillion-dollar payouts to CEOs who have broken the public trust. We'll put an end to running Wall Street like a casino. We'll make businesses work for the benefit of their shareholders and employees, and we'll make sure your savings -- IRA, 401(k) and pension accounts -- are protected."

After a week of being on the defensive, the economic crisis has given Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama an opportunity to go on offense. Most Americans see Obama as better equipped to handle the economy, polls show.

Earlier Wednesday, Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden blasted McCain on the subject. Biden drew parallels between McCain's statements about the economy and the GOP candidate's health care plan, saying McCain favors deregulation that wouldn't allow states to protect residents from insurance companies.

"So John, you got back on the same horse, you continue to push a plan that's designed to deregulate the health insurance industry," said Biden, asking people in the crowd to raise their hands if they trust insurance companies to take care of their needs.

"I got one person [who] raised their hand. I got also a bridge I got to sell you and guess what? It's in Alaska, and it goes to nowhere."

The senator from Delaware told supporters they have a choice between those who allow corporations and the wealthy to go "unfettered" and those who want "common sense rules" to protect transparency.

Biden said McCain is more "out of touch" on the current financial turmoil than any other issue.

The McCain campaign was quick to respond to what it called "Biden's economic distortions."

"If Barack Obama's running mate wants to criticize distortions and misrepresentation, he should aim his accusations at Obama's tax talk versus his tax record," said Ben Porritt, a McCain-Palin spokesman. "Ohio voters prefer John McCain's maverick record of reforming government and fighting for change."

Biden on Tuesday said an Obama-Biden administration would "increase regulatory oversight of the very people John [McCain] has refused to regulate."

Until recently, McCain consistently described himself as an opponent of most government regulation. In 1995, he proposed an across-the-board moratorium on all federal regulations, but that measure failed in Congress.

In a March interview with The Wall Street Journal, he said, "I'm always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight."

"As far as a need for additional regulations are concerned, I think that depends on the legislative agenda and what the Congress does to some degree, but I am fundamentally a deregulator," he said.

On Tuesday morning, McCain said the U.S. economy is "fundamentally sound." McCain later in the day sought to clarify the remark, saying that it was the American worker who was "fundamentally sound."

Obama continued to criticize the remark Wednesday at an event in Elko, Nevada, "His campaign must have realized that probably wasn't a smart thing to say on the day of a financial meltdown, so they sent him back out a few hours later to clean up his remarks."

In an interview with Fox's Sean Hannity, Palin said Wednesday that Obama launched an "unfair attack on the verbiage that Sen. McCain chose."

"He means our workforce. He means the ingenuity of the American people. Of course that is strong," she said.

Obama and McCain went on the airwaves Wednesday with new economic messages.

The two candidates have been pushing their economic plans all week as voters deal with the failures of major investment banks on Wall Street and fears of a recession.

"This isn't just a string of bad luck. The truth is that while you've been living up to your responsibilities, Washington has not. That's why we need change. Real change," Obama says in the ad, which begins airing Wednesday nationally and in battleground states.

In McCain's new ad, he praises American workers as "the best in the world" and says, "Your economic security has been put at risk by the greed of Wall Street."

"My opponent's only solutions are talk and taxes. I'll reform Wall Street and fix Washington. I've taken on tougher guys than this before," McCain says.

Also on Wednesday, for the first time in 10 days, Obama regained the lead in CNN's poll of polls.

The latest poll of polls shows Obama with an edge over McCain by 1 percentage point, 46 percent to 45 percent.

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

DaddyTorgo 09-18-2008 11:20 AM
can we just drop the whole idea that being governor and having "command" over the national guard makes one qualified to be commander-in-chief?? it's really ludicrous and insulting, particularly because in cases where there's an emergency the guard is federalized anyways

digamma 09-18-2008 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1837033)
The problem with describing Allison as a conservative is that he himself apparently believes "conservatism may be dead". I'm also not impressed by the reasoning Allison demonstrates: "I disagree with him on the issues, but I LOVE how thoughtful he'll be in implementing policies I don't agree with!"

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

larrymcg421 09-18-2008 11:38 AM
I think it's a bit silly to say the election being close means the Americans are stupid or Obama's image is tarnishing (which isn't even supported by the most positive McCain polls). What really has happened is that McCain's image has improved among both conservatives (by picking Palin) and among independents (his sudden talk about change reminded them of the 2000 McCain that they loved). They don't all see him the same as Bush or other Republicans because he's taken enough public stands against them, so the last 8 years don't really matter. Another problem is confusing what Bush's low approval numbers mean. Alot of conservatives disapprove, but that certainly doesn't mean they're going to vote for Obama.

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

National

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

State

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

Big Fo 09-18-2008 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 1837043)
I love how each successive democratic candidate is tabbed as "the most liberal member of the senate" or whatever body of government he comes from. I thought John Kerry was the most liberal guy. At least he was last election. Funny, I thought Ted Kennedy was the most liberal guy in Washington.

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

gstelmack 09-18-2008 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1837013)
GOP senator: A 'stretch' to say Palin is qualified - Yahoo! News



see if I can parse through articles I post to highlight which side the argument might be for. It's at least a little more fun for me.

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

gstelmack 09-18-2008 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Fo (Post 1837096)
If Republicans repeat something enough times, certain kinds of Americans accept of the truth without the need of evidence. And when they get called out on it, their defenders will be right there to shout out "teh librul media is so bias" before sitting down to watch some Fox News.

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

What was your point again?

larrymcg421 09-18-2008 11:48 AM
As for Obama being the most liberal Senator, that's certainly not supported by the Conservative or Liberal interest groups.

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

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

JonInMiddleGA 09-18-2008 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1837033)
Hagel "turned" on the GOP in many ways a lot longer than yesterday.

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

Quote:
The problem with describing Allison as a conservative is that he himself apparently believes "conservatism may be dead".

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

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

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

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

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

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

larrymcg421 09-18-2008 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 1837077)
can we just drop the whole idea that being governor and having "command" over the national guard makes one qualified to be commander-in-chief?? it's really ludicrous and insulting, particularly because in cases where there's an emergency the guard is federalized anyways

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

cartman 09-18-2008 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 1837104)
And if the Democrats repeat something enough times, certain kinds of Americans accept the truth without the need of evidence. And when they get called out on it, their defenders will be right there to shout out "racist" or "bigot" or "elitist" before sitting down to watch some CNN.

What was your point again?

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

Fighter of Foo 09-18-2008 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1837107)
I believe there might be a reasonable argument that "unhyphenated" conservatism may at least be fairly diagnosed as terminal. There's fiscal conservatives, there's social conservatives, there's some portion who are both too I suppose. But typically I find one aspect or the other is the primary reason someone could be most identified as "conservative".
The viability of the GOP as a party that can win a national election seems to depend on maintaining an ability to appeal to both groups in sufficient combination to find the votes they need. I don't believe either element alone is enough to win nationally, and there are certainly signs that the voting solidarity of the two blocs could be eroding.

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

Flasch186 09-18-2008 12:01 PM
McCain says he would fire SEC Chairman Chris Cox - Yahoo! News

Quote:
McCain says he would fire SEC Chairman Chris Cox

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - Republican presidential candidate John McCain says he would fire Securities and Exchange Commissioner Christopher Cox if he were president.

McCain told supporters at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Thursday that Cox had, in McCain's words, "betrayed the public's trust."

Stocks on Wall Street have tumbled this week amid the worst financial meltdown in the U.S. since the Great Depression.

Cox was appointed SEC chairman by President Bush in 2005. Before that, Cox was a Republican congressman from California for 17 years.

An SEC spokesman didn't immediately return a telephone call seeking comment on McCain's statement.

The Securities and Exchange Commission oversees regulation of U.S. markets.

larrymcg421 09-18-2008 12:06 PM
Gallup tracking poll was just released with a 4 pt Obama lead, 48-44.

JonInMiddleGA 09-18-2008 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo (Post 1837115)
There is NOTHING fiscally conservative about the GOP under Bush. They have created more debt and made our country more corporatist/socialist than any liberal ever could. Anyone who can't see that is either blind, retarded, or both.

{scratches head}

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

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

JonInMiddleGA 09-18-2008 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1837131)
Gallup tracking poll was just released with a 4 pt Obama lead, 48-44.

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

flere-imsaho 09-18-2008 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1836997)
I'm disappointed that your reaction was one of agreement, because I believe I would have told my non-American friends to go fuck themselves.

Oh hai, Dick Cheney. :D


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

:p

larrymcg421 09-18-2008 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1837138)
I can't keep 'em straight these days it seems ... is Gallup "registered" or "likely"?

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

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

flere-imsaho 09-18-2008 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1837033)
The problem with describing Allison as a conservative is that he himself apparently believes "conservatism may be dead". I'm also not impressed by the reasoning Allison demonstrates: "I disagree with him on the issues, but I LOVE how thoughtful he'll be in implementing policies I don't agree with!"

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

Quote:
Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

Emphasis added by me, of course.

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

JonInMiddleGA 09-18-2008 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1837142)
In all seriousness, though, I think I'm going to have to start listening to your show, Cam. You see, previously I was concerned that I might hear you, like other talk show hosts, call one half of the country (the half that doesn't agree with you on a particular issue) stupid, dumb, ignorant, or even "moonbats". But since now I know that you're against that kind of talk, I can listen without fear. Even better, I'll bet you never call citizens of another country (perhaps ones with tough gun-control laws) that kind of thing. :p

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

larrymcg421 09-18-2008 12:20 PM
The DailyKos/Research 2000 poll of 1100 Likely Voters shows a 49-43 Obama lead

JonInMiddleGA 09-18-2008 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1837144)
Gallup is registered, but that's a good point.

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

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

sterlingice 09-18-2008 12:23 PM
It's the type of thing that would be great in the first post of a thread (the registered/likely list)

SI

larrymcg421 09-18-2008 12:31 PM
Well, as I said, I'll post the LV or RV with each poll I list from now on, so you guys won't have to keep referring to the list.

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

flere-imsaho 09-18-2008 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1837148)
If it makes you feel any better, you can continue to not listen to any of my shows (and trust me, on the occasion I get wound up, it's a show).

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

Quote:
I though Cam might have erred on the side of gentility in his suggested reply.

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

larrymcg421 09-18-2008 12:40 PM
Here are some National Journal/FD state polls of Registered Voters.

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

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

DaddyTorgo 09-18-2008 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1837180)

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


:lol:

CamEdwards 09-18-2008 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1837142)
Oh hai, Dick Cheney. :D


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

:p


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

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

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

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

JonInMiddleGA 09-18-2008 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1837172)
I honestly didn't know you had a show (shows?).

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

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

JonInMiddleGA 09-18-2008 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1837180)
Also, Rasmussen decided to waste time and money by polling Vermont. Obama is up 60-36 among Likely Voters there.

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

Vegas Vic 09-18-2008 01:47 PM
I have to admit, I don't understand the McCain/Palin campaign strategy over the past few days. They're in Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. He's behind in all of these states, and even if he did win them, they are not states that are going to get him to 270 (if he won these states, they would be getting him to 290 or 300). I don't know why they're wasting their time and resources in these states.

JonInMiddleGA 09-18-2008 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1837238)
I have to admit, I don't understand the McCain/Palin campaign strategy over the past few days. They're in Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. He's behind in all of these states, and even if he did win them, they are not states that are going to get him to 270 (if he won these states, they would be getting him to 290 or 300). I don't know why they're wasting their time and resources in these states.

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

Fighter of Foo 09-18-2008 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1837219)
So why would I tell a foreigner friend to **** himself if he let loose with a "Boy, there sure are a lot of stupid Americans"? I tried to explain earlier, but I'll try again. Let's say my son does something incredibly dumb. The conversation that I will have with my wife and my son about his actions will be completely different than the conversation I would have with my neighbor. Hell, if I did something stupid, I would totally accept my wife calling me a dumbass, but if my neighbor piped up with the same comment, I'd not have the same reaction.

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

Fighter of Foo 09-18-2008 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1837132)
{scratches head}

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

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

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

JonInMiddleGA 09-18-2008 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1837246)
As the campaign with fewer resources (I'm assuming this is still the case - if not, ignore the question) is that really a good strategy? From what I understand that was what Obama was trying as well. It seems like with the fund advantage Obama had he could afford to be more frivolous.

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

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

larrymcg421 09-18-2008 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1837246)
As the campaign with fewer resources (I'm assuming this is still the case - if not, ignore the question) is that really a good strategy? From what I understand that was what Obama was trying as well. It seems like with the fund advantage Obama had he could afford to be more frivolous.

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

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

GrantDawg 09-18-2008 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1837161)
It's the type of thing that would be great in the first post of a thread (the registered/likely list)

SI


Your wish is my command....

flere-imsaho 09-18-2008 02:14 PM
Cam - I was mostly having fun an being snarky, but I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful response.

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

larrymcg421 09-18-2008 02:58 PM
Wow, lots of polls today. Here are some more state polls..

Insider Advantage/Poll Position (Likely Voters)

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


Big 10 Battleground (Registered Voters)

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.
Page 50 of 111 « First < 40414243444546474849 50 51525354555657585960100 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.