Big reach even for you.

Celebrity is still a detriment for him. What's changed there?

Nobody's going to criticize him for being clear about his policy. It would just be more helpful from him to focus on the "how" instead of the "what". (and even being more likeable) But even the "what" isn't bad for him, nobody's saying it's bad.

Catchy saying though.

It's an interesting point. This may be the first election I've seen where a losing side took the talking points of the winning side, molded them into their own image, and then implemented that strategy better than the original campaign did. It's the last thing anyone expected, which is perhaps why it worked so well.

FWIW.....I know you intended to portray it as a negative, but I find it to be an amazing chess-like move.

:)

McCain now leads at 538.com. Some of that is convention bounce, but, as I said before, a lot of it is support that was always going to come to him and just waited until Palin to do so.

The 538 guy also pointed out that the map is starting to become pretty boring. After all of the shouting, it will come down, again, to two or three states. At least Virginia, Colorado, and Michigan are new this year.

curious why you give McCain/Palin a major advantage in foreign policy over Obama/Biden??

Are you planning on signing up and going to fight in one of the myriad of conflicts that McCain's hair-trigger temper will likely get us into?

When it comes to foreign policy the key ingredient you want is someone who isn't quick to anger and take offense, someone who doesn't jump into the pool without testing the water (so to speak). And I don't see in any way how you can possibly give McCain the advantage there.

And spare me the "he's a vet/he was a POW" argument. The homeless guy on the street corner is a vet, does that automatically make him more qualified in the field of foreign policy than Barak Obama, or even me? Bullshit. McCain wasn't even a high-ranking vet. He was what...4th from the bottom of his class at the academy, and we can all be sure that daddy's name+rank helped grease the wheels for him.

Heh! Risky proposal, and it didn't work so well for Bob Dole against Bill Clinton, even though Dole probably could make a stronger case.

Really? We do? No, we don't. She hasn't said a darn thing.

Then again, she's the VP so it's not as if she would do much but sit in a big office going "say, has the old man kicked off yet?"

SI

I can't disagree with that comparison. It's one of the main reasons I'd still support Dubya if he was up for re-election this year. Dubya had some screw-ups without question. But one thing I never questioned was exactly where he stood on the various issues, especially foreign policy. I feel the same way about McCain. I know exactly what he would do for the most part, mainly because he's a military man and his record is pretty clear. I don't agree with all of his policies, but at least I know what I'm getting into if he's elected.

There's nothing that concerns me more than a president who makes me wonder how he would react in regards to foreign policy. I felt that way about Gore, Kerry and now Obama. This after voting for Clinton in '92 and '96. Perhaps Obama would do just fine, but I'd personally rather deal with a known commodity.

Listen to and read what conservatives are saying about Palin. Every day there's talk about the size of the crowd, the wait time to see her, how amazing it is just to hear and see her. It's almost exactly the same things that the same people were criticizing Obama for just two weeks ago.

At that same time the message from McCain was that Obama was just an empty suit that wouldn't or couldn't tell America what he was going to do as President. Now McCain's campaign advisor says the election isn't about issues. It's remarkably cynical.

In the end this cynicism is what bother's me most about the Republican campaign. There are a lot of legitimate issues to discuss, and a lot of passionate disagreements that could arise. However, the majority of what McCain and some of his supporters have decided to be passionate about, they don't even believe. It's just a way to win the news cycle. It's effective as politics, but it's certainly not the campaign of an honorable man.

I liked the 2000 McCain and given the chance I might have voted for him, but the 2008 McCain is so different that I barely recognize him.

Hard to say after Cheney. The precedent has certainly been set for an activist VP.

It's only risky if it's too general, "McCain is lying when he says I won't defend America."

If Obama sticks to specifics, the tax issue, the Bridge to Nowhere, etc. there's zero risk. At worst that will make McCain have to get nuanced to defend his positions and that's a defensive posture.

This is another case of fear-mongering, much like the birth control and book burning argument made earlier in the thread. There's no doubt that McCain is more of a hawk than most politicians, but he still has to get past the Dem-lead Congress and the public to do that, especially after the flimsy reasoning behind the Iraq war has been discussed thoroughly over the past few years.

Quebec doesn't have to be concerned that McCain will pull a Putin and attempt to annex them anytime soon.

I don't know who Damon is, but a lot of that depends on what table is used. Daily Kos gives McCain a 68% probability of living through two terms in this article Daily Kos: State of the Nation which uses this table Actuarial Life Table -- so the most likely scenario does have him living through both terms.

I don't think he has to "get past" the Congress in order to get us in trouble. Be that due to "non-declared" wars, or just interpersonal issues (I can see him losing his cool with a foreign leader much more easily than Obama).

And I take offense at the charge it's fear-mongering. If anything it's concern for my cousin who's in the Army, and all the men+women wearing the uniform who could potentially give their lives because somebody didn't explore all the options before deciding to commit troops.

Agreed 100% on that. Heck, looking at my post history, I've already said it twice (once in April and here about a month ago). But people like to pretend they are undecided for whatever reason- the illusion of neutrality, the celebrity of being catered to, not paying attention at all to anything.

I've said it at least once more- if you can't figure out who you are lining up with right now, then you don't deserve to be able to vote because you haven't been paying enough attention. And, again, this isn't to say you can't change your mind- maybe someone unveils a new issue that tips the scales, maybe someone does something you really like, maybe someone gets caught in a closet with a 12 year old- I'm not talking about that. But you should easily be able to answer the question "If the election were held today, who would I vote for".

SI

+2

+3

SI

That would require a near-puppet or asleep-at-the-wheel President and ultra strong VP (I mean, really, this is the guy who was tasked with finding a VP during the 2000 Bush campaign and his answer was "me") and I don't think they have that relationship.

SI

McCain and Palin both have children currently serving in the military. So while you're concerned about your cousin, they're concerned about their own kids.

Additionally, while you may view military service as no big deal (hey, even the homeless have done it!), it seems pretty obvious to me that a guy who spent years as a POW would have a pretty good idea of the horrors of war. It doesn't mean, however, that the same guy will believe war is never necessary.

If you think that McCain will start a war based on 'interpersonal issues', we have little to discuss. In the wake of the Iraq war, there's no way in hell that he could get away with that. It would be political suicide for not just McCain, but the entire party.

You can take offense all you want. I have multiple members of my family overseas. Most all of us know someone involved in the multiple war fronts we're currently engaged in. Concern for loved ones doesn't chance what the U.S. has to deal with regarding foreign policy.

We're getting out of Iraq soon. We'll likely intensify our Afghanistan campaign to expidite its finish. We're entering another Cold War with Russia. Iran is intent on pissing everyone off. The threat of war always exists, but the cost of war is fresh in everyone's minds. We won't be starting any new battles anytime soon unless there's a damn good reason.

I think there is some amount of the population that declares themselves undecided because the don't like who they are going to vote for. Based on the issues and what we've seen so far...if I have to vote today I'm voting for McCain. I don't feel particularly good about that vote though.

I don't consider myself undecided, but I can see people keeping themselves on the fence holding out against hope that a better option will present itself.

Like their kids are ever going to come near a combat zone! Come on.

Just like McCain, right?

Minimizing the service of McCain's, Biden's, or Palin's sons in that manner is a lousy form of reasoning. They all deserve respect for defending your right to post stupid comments like that.

There's really no value in a debate on whether or not McCain is a war-monger, IMO. I don't think it's at all fair to portray him as indifferent to the dangers of war.

Through his statements and actions, he does, though, see the military as an effective means to achieve our interests. At various times he's advocated or threatened military options for Syria, Iran, and North Korea. He called for ground troops in Serbia and called for invading Iraq just a few weeks after 9/11.

There's a pretty good article in The Atlantic that tries to get to the bottom of McCain's foreign policy thoughts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/mccain

Well if McCain or Palin has any respect for the horrors of war, there's no way they'd allow their kids anywhere near it. If they would, then they don't. It's really not complicated.

Also, respect is earned, not deserved.

I'd like to hear more. You just gave me at least a half hour's worth of show material!

They haven't earned your respect for putting their life on the line in the service of their country? If we use your line of reasoning, what was your aunt and uncle thinking by letting your cousin enlist in the military knowing that war was a possibility? I personally think it's a ludicrous argument, but it appears that you find it to be valid reasoning.

Perhaps you can ask the country of Georgia how democracy works when little or no military force is available to defend that freedom against a military power.

Obama has already said he's going to raise taxes on the rich -- which is standard Democrat rhetoric, although lately he's been saying he might wait until we're out of the bad economic cycle. McCain could probably put that one out of the park by saying something like, "It's going to take American businesses to pull us out of the economic downturn we're in, and Mr. Obama plans on rewarding them by raising their taxes."

Kind of risky if you ask me. Talking taxes is usually a no win scenario.

Qunnipac-

FL- McCain 50 Obama 43
OH- Obama 49 McCain 44
PA- Obama 48 McCain 45

PPP-

CO- Obama 47 McCain 46

You do realize that a lot of people have had to endure the horrors of war in the past so that you can enjoy your current lifestyle, correct?

i didn't say "start a war based on interpersonal issues." but he could certainly make things more difficult when dealing with say Russia, or Iran, due to interpersonal issues (armed conflict aside).

The PNAC-idiots who got us deeply embroiled in this current mess would have more influence in a Republican-administration (being Republicans themselves) and they do far more harm than good.

And McCain has a demonstrated history of losing his temper (hell, he even admits it). Not really a man I want in command of the armed forces and the missiles with the ability to extinguish life on this planet.

Do I think that would happen, no. Do I think he'd get us into a war because somebody cracked a joke on him, no. But do I think he'd likely continue the foreign policies of the Bush administration which have seen us alienate traditional allies and essentially isolate ourselves with fewer friends in an era of increasing globalization, hell yes. Perhaps not INTENTIONALLY, but as a result of his personality and the Bush-appointees who would continue to wield power under his administration, yes.

Once again, a vast overgeneralization of the situation overseas that has little basis in fact. We had some allies who raised a pretty big fuss over the Iraq situation, and rightfully so, especially in hindsight. With that said, all of those allies are still allied with us and would be the first ones to jump to our aid if a true problem, here or overseas, were to occur. Don't confuse disagreement with allegiance. We still have a wide base of support and we still return that favor in kind. The U.S. and all our traditional allies in Europe along with some of the newer nations are still on the same page when it comes to defense of any of those countries.

eh. didn't say that they weren't our allies anymore. Or maybe it came off that way, but I didn't intend for it too.

Was just saying that instead of acting aloof and apart from the international community and expecting them to follow our lead and kowtow to us because we are the United States, we should be acting in concert WITH the international community, as a member of the community of nations, rather than as the leader and freelancing it.

Notable instances where we haven't: the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court of Justice (to name two).

But I'm sure that type of thinking won't be popular here on this board - but that's my opinion.

And it's also my opinion (and judgement) that we have a better chance of at least paying lip-service to that idea and possibly achieving some measure of it under a President Obama then we do under a President McCain.

PPP is a (D) polling firm, so that should be taken with a grain of salt, although it does fall in line with recent polls in CO.

The Ohio number is very good for Obama. Florida is not so good and PA is too close for comfort.

Just saw this link in one of the comments on fivethirtyeight:

Michigan Messenger » Lose your house, lose your vote

There's no military conflict we're currently engaged in that's in defense of our country. It's all offense.

If it were my kid, I'd be strongly opposed to their joining up RIGHT NOW. I'd also recognize they're adults and can make their own decisions.

I'm also not a politician and have no influence as to where my kid would go, unlike McCain and Palin. I have all the respect in the world for the people who are actually working. The one giving the orders and/or taking cushy jobs, not so much.

That OH result is interesting. Most of the OH polls over the past few days have shown a dead heat or a point or two for McCain. I'd be interested to see the party weight in that poll.

LOL, that could be a disaster. Why can't people just respect people's right to vote; it's fairly doubtful that people who are being foreclosed on will be hopping from county to county to vote multiple times. I wonder if there are systematic approaches that democrats try to keep people from voting...maybe all-day wine and cheese parties at local art galleries?

McCain, Biden, and Palin have absolutely no control over where their kids go. The military may decide that their kids could be strategic targets and move them to a different group to avoid increased danger for their fellow soldiers (see Prince Harry), but you can be sure that they don't have any control over where they are deployed.

As far as cushy jobs or the one giving orders, I wouldn't wish the job of president on my worst enemy. The weight of the world is on your shoulders and all you have to do is look at pictures of presidents entering office and the pictures of them leaving when their term is complete to see what it does to you from a mental and physical standpoint. It's a heavy burden to bear for one individual.

Lovely.

I'm sure 2000 McCain is going to denounce the hell out of this. It's too bad nobody knows where he went.

fuckin dirtbags:rant:

stop tryin to disenfranchise people (and yes i am equal-opportunity hater on that - if the Dems do it too, I blast the hell out of them).

You know my retort too - the simple solution would be: "one person, one vote." None of this electoral college BS that has outlived its usefulness.

Because it's the Republican party.

Bullshit. How naive are you?

One of McCain's sons has already served in Iraq. Palin's oldest kid is being deployed to Iraq. I suppose if they're not killed or injured, you'll just claim that it's proof they weren't put in harm's way.

What was it Lincoln said? Better to be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt, I think it was.

Why would I do that?

Wait, so since McCain's father was a very high up Admiral, he wasn't put in harm's way during Vietnam?

Didn't McCain get shot down going somewhere he wasn't supposed to be?

If McCain's dad wasn't OK with him being there he wouldn't have been. That goes for anyone with money and/or influence. How is this hard to understand?

Came across this in my internet travels:

McCain Released as POW
Damn look at that limp. Tough dude. Not automatically ready to lead because of it, but I respect him.