Today's state polls...

VA: Obama 50, McCain 46 (SurveyUSA)
NY: Obama 46, McCain 41 (Siena)
OH: McCain 46, Obama 42 (Suffolk)

The NY poll is surprisingly close, but the VA poll is also surprising. If Obama holds the Kerry states, then a combination of VA and IA would get him the White House. However, if McCain steals a Kerry state then Obama is screwed.

As for national polls, the only new one I see right now is Rasmussen's, which has narrowed the gap to a 2 pt McCain lead at 49-47

dola

Gallup's tracking poll still shows a 2 pt lead for McCain.

Not a huge deal, but I found it interesting that at the end of this ad Palin is on the left. Given how we read left to right it's an interesting choice by McCain's people.

I'm sure this will get a lot of play in the coming days, though I'm guessing it will be explained away as something missed in translation. The Iraqi foreign minister is claiming that Obama requested that no troop withdrawals occur until the next administration was in place............

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL - New York Post

I guess JFK, FDR, Carter and Reagan were "medieval" as well. There's nothing wrong with hoping our actions have God's blessing if you are religious. If you can't find the difference between that and the Crusades mentality, then you clearly have an agenda that prevents you from seeing clearly on this issue.

Having your preacher ask for the Lord's blessing for your candidacy is nothing strange. Heck, before the rev Wright situation blew up, he openly prayed for Barack to be the next president numerous times. I guess Obama should be feared for having his preacher ask God for him to become president, right?

The reality is that nothing is odd with a politician to ask for the Lord's blessing in regards to their political actions. Numerous presidents and leaders have done it throughout time. I guess Winston Chruchill, Eisenhower, FDR, JFK, Reagan and even Clinton are all medieval loons for asking for God's blessing on their decisions.

I agree it's insane. It's insane that you are trying to make a mountain out of this molehill using out-of-text/snipped quotes and a complete lack of reference to the national leaders of the past 50 years. According to the standard you are holding Palin to, JFK and Winston Churchill were medieval in their mentality and leaders to be feared because of their religious beliefs.

You're missing the point Arles and misquoting the videos in much the same way as you accuse others of doing. Let me tackle it this way

400 hundred years ago everything that happened was down to God. Something good happened, it was God rewarding you. Something bad, God was punishing you. The lightning strike - that was God. Everything that happened in the world was God influencing human existence.

We've come a distance since then. We know lightning isn't God. We know that things happen randomly and it's not God that is punishing/rewarding us. Most of the things that go on in life are humans interacting and we don't have to use God to explain them. God's still around but we don't have to explain everything with God.

But Palin sees God everywhere like the medievals. The Iraq war - must be God. The pipe line - clearly God. Her election - God must have intervened. And I love the stuff about Alaska being being a refuge from the apocalypse - was that in Revelation? Nostradamus perhaps? Window Twanky? Maybe God told them :rolleyes:

You don't need someone in the Whitehouse who lives in the 16th century, Arles. You don't need someone whose decision making has the rigidities of believing God is in every one. You don't need the hypocrisy that goes along with those who believe God is involved in every decision they make.

You don't need a whacko in the WhiteHouse and if you don't wise up that's what you're going to get.


On the others: I don't know much about JFK and FDR but both Carter and Reagan were border line ;)

Taheri has a long history of making things up. He's going to need to provide a lot more evidence before this is credible.

Good point...probably similar to people giving their opinions on coke versus pepsi...

Keep in mind, Mac... we're talking about someone who will be the leader of the United States of America. Personally, I'd prefer to have someone in office who believes they answer to a higher power as opposed to someone who thinks they ARE the higher power (speaking generically there, not referring to Obama).

You may not like what you know about Palin's religious beliefs. That's fine. I'm not comfortable with what I've seen from Obama's religious beliefs. But I (and I think a majority of Americans) don't see anything wrong with our leaders having religious beliefs in general. We trust that while they will pray their actions have the blessings of God, they will not seek to force us to believe as they do.

And just as in every other civilization, there may come a time a policy decision is reasonable and practical as well as being morally virtuous. One should not preclude the possibility of the other.

Yes. I have decided to try and avoid as much of the entire election process as I can, but based on what I on everything I have read and heard, Point #2 is exactly where it's at. The Palin pick and the subequent treatment of it is just the most recent - and perhaps masterful to date - stroke of genius of the GOP political machine.

They play the game so much better than that other "party" that it's almost not really fair. It's like watching the Lions play against actual NFL teams.

So credible information is now required to run a negative campaign ad in this election?

;)

Quite true. It's almost jaw dropping in its effectiveness. In a year they should be getting blown out, they pick the only candidate who could have had a chance for "maverick" credentials, even if the far right wing didn't like him. And then to appease the far right, they pick someone they love, who also happens to be a charismatic woman. And end up using the sexism angle that was oh so true when Hillary Clinton was running the primary and focus it on the attacks on the VP nom.

I mean, wow! The Republicans have no business being even close in this election and they may pull it off by making the most cynically brilliant picks in the roles of Prez and VP.

I wouldn't call the Palin pick genius, as I do believe the democrats wanted to pick a woman as well. It's obviously pandering, but has politics ever been any different? Unfortunately for the dems, Hillary Clinton got in the way. Independents/Republicans have an overwhelming negative impression of her, and picking a different woman would have turned off 18 million+ women in the democrat base. They were kinda screwed...and it's the main reason why the republicans will win this November.

This is completely ridiculous. First of all, her pastor made comments on the last one in a much more reasonable manner than Wright made similar comments about Obama. Second, she does not attribute actions in Iraq or the pipeline to "God rewarding us". She prays to God to give us strength and hope that we are making the proper decisions. This is no different than most Christians in this country. If you can find full quotes from her stating that God is in her corner on these issues, please post them. But, you are twisting Palin into what you would like her to be - some loon in the image of the early crusaders. The problem is there is no data to back that up and you've resorted to out of context quotes and snipped comments by her preacher.

When did Palin say anything about Alaska being a refuge from the apocalypse? Oh wait, you were talking about a preacher at her church. So, should we have a debate on who's preacher is more scary - Obama's or Palin's?

Every leader that the US (and Britain) have had in the past 50 years has referenced God's will or God's "plan". If that is the mark you have for "wacko-ness" then I certainly hope we get another "wacko" in the White House in 2009.

According to your measures above, both McCain and Obama would be classified as wackos. So, it looks like we won't have a choice ;)

Interesting bit from the Newsweek poll. On the question, "

that means 40% of people want there to be babies with tails running around when father's rape their daughters! :eek: (or brothers raping their sisters, or mothers molesting their sons, etc)

my mom is not hot.

Given it's 50-44 pro-choice/pro-life, I don't think it's that odd to see a 50-50 breakdown on the question in reference to Palin. Plus, there's this as well:

So there's even a decent chance that people (esp women) who disagree with Palin on abortion may still vote for her.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107458/Ab...-Campaign.aspx

I'm not talking about pro-life vs. pro-choice (in that context, I agree with her). I'm talking about the fact that she's pro-life even in the case of rape. I'm trying to find recent polling info on this, but a Fox News poll last year showed 70% of voters abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest. I think this specific position would be particularly unpopular with females, which is why I think the Democrats should hit it hard.

Ah, I agree there then. Most people just look at it as Pro-life v Pro-Choice. But, in the context of rape, I think democrats could hit that hard and get some mileage out of it.

I would be surprised if the percentage who did not have an opinion on abortion was as small as six percent.

I think that there is a very good chance that many people who are pro choice will vote Republican and many pro lifers will vote Democrat. Very few people are going to select a candidate based on their support of abortion. Taxes, healthcare and the like are far more important to your average voter.

I think there are more pro-choicers voting Republican than pro-lifers voting Democrat (although I fall into the latter category).


That may be true, but if a candidate has a very unpopular position on an issue, it would be stupid to not make sure the voters know about it. I don't think the Democrats have done that very well on this specific issue.

Out of people that vote on a single issue I'll almost guarantee that abortion is easily the biggest percentage. There are a lot of people on both sides of the issue that determine their vote solely on abortion. Personally, I don't understand it.

I'd also add that I think the number of pro-choicers voting Republican would drastically change if Roe v. Wade gets overturned as I expect it to if McCain gets elected.

New State Polls from Rasmussen:

Colorado: McCain +2
Florida: McCain +5
Ohio: McCain +3
Pennsylvania: EVEN
Virginia: EVEN

Not good in Colorado. Maybe they can stage a second convention there.

Maybe this time Obama will pick Hillary to be Veep ;).

Regarding abortion, where do you put one who is ardently pro-life but does not believe the federal govt should intervene? Or does everything have to be framed as a binary question?

Regarding the report that Obama now has to travel with a teleprompter (they were commenting how one was set up in the middle of a rodeo field down the road in Pueblo today). I recall 25 years ago during the Reagan years, he was widely criticized for not being able to speak unless he had a script in front of him (or Nancy by his telling him what to say). Not being able to speak without a script or not being able to speak with a script are probably better than not being able to do both, as we have now.

There's no fun with a grey area.

Apparently this election is going to play out like this:

Obama/Democrats: "Something that could be construed/spun as sexist"
Palin/Republicans: (make no mistake, it's now Palin versus Obama) unleash the sensitive women brigade...
Obama/Democrats: "What we really meant was..."
Palin/Republicans: Check-mate...

Rinse and repeat till November...

The Clintons want their script back, with a rewrite of the ending.

I think you'd still be considered pro-life. I don't think many people are suggesting that the federal government should outlaw abortion nationwide. The pro-lifers want Roe overturned so the states could make their own abortion laws. SCOTUS would have to overturn alot more precedent than Roe to force states to outlaw abortion.

Troopergate

Um Arles, I have a substantial problem with this as you can imagine:

Palin won't meet with 'Troopergate' investigator - Yahoo! News

And that's why you need to learn a lot more about this woman (and important to me even as an Australian). Just as there have been demands to learn about Obama you need to know much more about her.


That's a lawyer's trick, Cam. That's not the choice. If that were I'd probably agree with you but that isn't the choice.


Search my posts and you'll see I was one of those insisting Obama explain fully his Rev Wright links. I still have some reservations about these. This is not a partisan thing. I've defended Palin over unreasonable attacks in this thread (the Bush's doctrine and defending Georgia criticisms where Palin was at no fault). But these religious aspects go to character and attitude and need to be investigated.


It's not the beliefs themselves - I'm resigned to a world where unsupportable religious beliefs have so much sway ;) - but the excess. It's not unknown to see God's will in war though I might have hoped that Dylans "With God on Our Side" had sunk in to politicians by now, but in the laying of a pipeline? And I would expect her to at least flinch when she's told to go out and tell America when the last days come Alaska will be a refuge. Now I dare say you can rationalise this but it really is out there with the fairies ;)


Unfortunately you can't trust to that as we found out last year here when we discovered the minister for health, a Catholic, buried legislation in a tax bill to limit abortion against the wishes of the Australian people (who voted in a referendum for the current situation). When this came out, years later after thousands of Australian woman had been forced to give birth against their wishes or had unnecessary invasive surgery, and he was criticised for abusing his position and lying to both parliament and the Australian people he even had the gall to accuse the criticism of being a Catholic witch hunt. That's the problem with religion - self-righteousness is often not far away.

I also lived through the Margaret Thatcher years in Britain. She was worshipped when she arrived. She was positively hated by a majority of people when she was thrown out of politics by her own party.

I see similarities in the personalities of Palin and Thatcher. The same right-wing, over confident certainty backed by God (and, as I said in another thread, "you can't argue with God") and doses of hypocrisy.

Palin's appeal is that she's attractive, personable, feisty and, well, a woman - not generally thought of being the first criteria you look for in a VP candidate. It's clear she's selected to boost McCain's appeal to voters (what happened to "the nation first"?). But we've only had one speech, one interview and a few grainy videos and there's already evidence that she may be - to put it crudely - full of bullshit, hypocritical and a whacko.

You need to know a lot more about this woman before you put her in the White House and unfortunately there is a mood in the nation that would preclude any real attempt to do that. The idea, expressed earlier in this forum and I suspect accurate, that if anything really does come out that renders her unsuitable then many will ignore that and put it down to a press that's out to damage her. Every time she's criticised the McCain vote rises. There's a dangerous form of censorship here.

Palin's net favorability (R2K poll)

Sept. 11: +17 net positive
Sept. 12: +14
Sept. 13: +9
Sept. 14: +5
Sept. 15: +4

The Gibson interview aired on September 11. Maybe people didn't like what they saw when she had to go off-script.

My faith in the American people has returned ;)

Hey Brotha! Im not ready to be NWO Hulk :)

On the troopergate issue, it seems that the state congress leader who handed out the subpoenas (Sen Hollis French) is a massive Obama supporter:

“Senator Obama has a plan to end our dependence on foreign oil and reduce skyrocketing energy prices,” said Senator Hollis French of Anchorage, a former oil rig worker. “Having worked in the oil business in Alaska for twelve years, I know firsthand the importance of oil and natural gas to Alaska. Senator Obama will not only invest in renewable fuels and increase car fuel efficiency standards, he strongly supports construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline and accelerated drilling in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve which will provide affordable energy to Alaska and our country and good jobs for Alaskans.”

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | AK HQ Blog

Also, we know that Palin has offered to have everyone come in and speak without subpoenas:


This was also posted as part of the Palin defense:
If I were Palin, I would also be very careful before allowing my staff and husband to enter some "kangaroo court" setup by two major Obama supporters. I agree it looks bad for her right now, but it's probably the right move. All these two legislatures have to do is agree with their wish to properly handle confidential personnel files and they'll speak without a subpoena.

Dont flip flop on this issue Arles. EVERYONE should testify and if wrongdoing was done it should come out and if there was no wrong doing we should be able to find that out as well. The REPUBLICAN Legislature started this, the investigator was assigned, and we should all be going to the truthful end. I hope you're not changing youre tune...

Amazing timing that NOW that she's on the ticket, the campaign is in full spin mode on this instead of full truth mode. NOWWWWWW, it's been hijacked but a month ago it wasn't. Such BS. Seriously when will the truth become important?

BTW on a more analytical note, If I were the Obama camp the ads would be flying since it is such a reminder of the W administrations unwillingness to cooperate with investigations. In all seriousness I think that this could be HUGE if the Obama Campaign uses this well.

Those emails count more than the one's released from her personal email account? C'mon, i know youve admitted to being biased but this issue is about finding out what happened, the truth.

Hmm, seems that the GOP has an 11-9 edge in the state senate and a 23-17 lead in the state house. Not sure how much traction McCain-Palin can get out of trying to spin this as a partisan witch hunt.

well they won Arles over in the last week when nothing changed except her unwillingness to cooperate.

Arles: How do you explain that in August she told the New Yorker that she didn't fire Monegan, but that he quit?

for reference:

Palin: Monegan wasn't fired, he quit - UPI.com


but...

Palin warned about commissioner firing - UPI.com


Plus, if Im not mistaken she once said she never communicated with Monegan about the trooper but...

Have some more respect for your next Vice President, Flasch.

I'm sure this will all be cleared up in her next interview with...

Sean Hannity.

Flasch,

Wouldn't you say we would have a better chance of finding out the truth and less of a chance of this matter being contaminated by politics if French were to recuse himself from handling the investigation?

It seems to me like that would be the easiest thing to do, because there's going to be a ready made excuse of "Well, the guy in charge of the investigation is a huge supporter of Obama" if the investigation were to turn up evidence of impropriety.

Palin basically reassigned him to a post that would be a demotion and he quit. So, he was removed from his current post, but not fired. So, by "fired" they are referring to his old post, not having a spot with the government.

Again, I think this may hurt Palin a bit in the short term, but I think she's handled everything very well. At this point, no fair-minded individual can think this hearing will not be a political witch hunt if left unfettered.

Hannity won't go crazy on her like Charlie "Good Morning America" Gibson. No one should have to face the heat of a former morning show host. Next thing you know we'll want her to sit down with Matt Lauer. Oh, the horror!