Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by cartman

A nice continuation of Bush's policies...

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]

Biden: Paying higher taxes patriotic for wealthy - Yahoo! News

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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:

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]

Obama casts light on McCain's abortion stance - Yahoo! News

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

"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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

McCain says he would fire SEC Chairman Chris Cox - Yahoo! News

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]

Gallup tracking poll was just released with a 4 pt Obama lead, 48-44.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.


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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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:

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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]

The DailyKos/Research 2000 poll of 1100 Likely Voters shows a 49-43 Obama lead

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

It's the type of thing that would be great in the first post of a thread (the registered/likely list)

SI

[larrymcg421]

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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?

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.

[larrymcg421]

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh hai, Dick Cheney.


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.

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{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]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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]

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?"

[larrymcg421]

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