Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

thats my point...Ive heard about 'em....A LOT for many many years yet McCain kind of said I'd probably not heard of them so it ticked me off but im sure 'joe six pack' maybe hasnt...i dont really know.

sorry, clarity in posts is not one of my strong points.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people don't have a clue about them. Seriously, we're the country with people who can't find Brazil or even Mexico on a map, you know? Freddie and Fannie are way above their heads (even if the names of those institutions are all over their mortgages ).

[DaddyTorgo]

but the point also about if the obama campaign can drive the youth vote up that may mitigate the bradley effect, because young voters are less concerned with race, racial voting bias being tied to age fairly strongly one would believe

[CraigSca]

Frankly, both of these guys are out of touch. I realize you don't win an election with sweeping spending cuts and the raising of taxes, but that's what is really needed here. Oh, and Obama wants health care for everyone?! LOL - how are we supposed to pay for that?! McCain wants tax breaks for wealthy Americans?! What a joke! Fiscal responsibility thrown out the window just because everyone wants to pass the buck. Yay, America!

[Young Drachma]

The Bradley effect is done. Harold Ford's race in Tennessee effectively ushered in a new methodology in racial American politics. The "I don't want him to marry my daughter, but he's the only one in this thing who gets my situation" factor.

I think it'll play a huge part, coupled with the historical precedent and the highest youth vote since the 18-20 were given the vote, to tip the scales in the end.

I don't think it'll be close, no matter how much the media has a vested interest in making it look that way.

That said, I'm with some of the earlier posters who've effectively said that there are no winners in this system and in this election year, that we're not getting real answers, real solutions or real change with either of these yahoos or their parties.

[Swaggs]

I wonder if George Bush even watches these debates anymore.

He gets thrown under the bus so much, by both candidates... It would be fun to have him do a running commentary on one of these pointless debates.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I wonder if George Bush even watches these debates anymore.

He gets thrown under the bus so much, by both candidates... It would be fun to have him do a running commentary on one of these pointless debates.

I've found it fascinating that the RNC is running ads attacking Bush. Has a party ever attacked it's sitting President before?

[DaddyTorgo]

haha - to Swaggs' point - Begala just pointed out that Bush's approval rating if you subtract out republicans, so his approval rating among democrats and more importantly independents, is 10%.

[Cork]

I like John McCain, I really do and tonight was a decent outing for him. That being said, I think we are seeing the polls reflect a very wise campaign decision from the Obama camp.

Time and time again tonight we heard Obama hammer home the point that John McCain supported the policies of the Bush administration and that a vote for him would be a vote to continue those policies. He hardly ever failed to find an opportunity to make this point very clear. His strategy was very clear. Tie McCain to Bush and the very troubled economy. I think that is one of the biggest reasons why Obama is ahead in the polls. Of course a bad economy doesn't hurt either.

McCain to be fair did try several times to distance himself from the Bush administration, but should have done it more. Right now McCain is running against two people. Obama and Bush. If I were on McCain's staff and seeing that he is trailing, I would start spending some resources denouncing Bush as much as possible without losing the right wing base. I think he has to take some risks at this point in the campaign by saying that the Bush administration is a failure and that he does not support it. The problem with this is that he can't go back to 2004 and undo his decision to support Bush. I also think that trying to tear down Obama is not the way to go as it appears that it is not working very well.

McCain looked "angry" at times and would be wise to try and project a calmer more "presidential" image. I honestly believes that McCain dearly loves the US and deeply cares about it's future. I just don't know if he has what it takes to be a president. I fear his best chance to become president vanished back in 2000 when he was a maverick.

Obama probably won the debate tonight, but needs to watch the debate and learn to stop meandering at times. I was frustrated at times by watching him side step several questions and launch back into his canned "stump speech' material. It's good material, but better served for reving up the masses out on the trail. To be fair, McCain was also guilty of this as well at times.

I thought McCains best moment was during the last question where he really seemed to connect with the retired Navy man. He seemed to relate on a personal level and looked very genuine while answering the question.

I thought Obama's best moment was when he rebuted McCains assertion that he "doesn't understand". That was a great comeback and I am surprised why the Obama camp has not used it before now. I think Obama could have also twisted the "experience" factor around by posing the following question to Mccain. "If having experience means that all one can do is to support the failed policies of the Bush administration that have caused the financial mess that we are in now, then what good is experience?"

Overall I found the debate very interesting and was glued to the set until it was over. I shall very much look forward to the final debate next week. I still wonder how much race will ultimately factor into the final election reults.

-Cork

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The Bradley effect is done. Harold Ford's race in Tennessee effectively ushered in a new methodology in racial American politics. The "I don't want him to marry my daughter, but he's the only one in this thing who gets my situation" factor.

For a million different reasons I hope that is true... But I think Bush and Clinton were helped big time because they were guys that the "middle" felt they could understand. "One of us." Obama is hardly that.

[Daimyo]

In general McCain seemed old, angry, and condescending to me. Obama came off less decisive on foreign policy issues (outside of Iraq/Afghanistan), but McCain seemed out of touch on the economy and health care. I thought it was a knock out punch win for Obama half way through, but McCain did make a come back in the last half. I'd still call it a clear win for Obama though given that the economy dwarfs the other issues right now.

"cares about safety or something"
"that one"
"fixing social security is easy"
"you probably never heard of FREDDIE or FANNIE before this crisis"
"a country americans can't even identify on a map right now"

WTF?

[Daimyo]

Are there any details on McCain's plan to renegotiate mortgage principles down to the current value of the home?

[Deattribution]

Obama and McCain aren't terribly different, Obama just has better rhetoric (and at times, lacks substance) while McCain lacks rhetoric (and at times, has more substance).

McCain attempts to be personal but ends up coming off condescending and demanding, while Obama plays an even keel pretty well never seeming too emotional or too distant but it makes him seem empty at times.


These debates have been a huge waste of time, arguing who won or lost has come down to who articulated themselves best more than who has the best policies, ideas ect which is completely subjective.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

Obama and McCain aren't terribly different, Obama just has better rhetoric (and at times, lacks substance) while McCain lacks rhetoric (and at times, has more substance).

McCain attempts to be personal but ends up coming off condescending and demanding, while Obama plays an even keel pretty well never seeming too emotional or too distant but it makes him seem empty at times.


These debates have been a huge waste of time, arguing who won or lost has come down to who articulated themselves best more than who has the best policies, ideas ect which is completely subjective.

that's your opinion, but i disagree

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Man, that was an invigorating, insightul debate!

Oh wait, no it wasn't.

What a rhetoric-filled waste of time. I declare nobody the winner (though at least Obama appears human and some-what genuine), and declare the two-party system and us poor suckas stuck under it as the losers.

i was gonna chime in, but this sums it up. i turned it off after the 124th "my friends..." answer that wasn't filled with any substance.

the answers they give are akin to the answer you give a kid when they ask how can they be successful: "just work real hard and your dreams will come true." really? that's all? there's no substance, no concrete answer in "work real hard".

those are the answers to the questions we heard in this debate. no one speaks in particulars, only generalities. for once i really would like to see a debate where the moderator interrupts the candidate to say "you are verring off-track and are now starting to not answer the question. please stay on course instead of trying to answer the question with campaign rhetoric". or if the candidate steps around the answer with a political non-answer, i'd love the moderator to chime in at the end and say "you still haven't adequately answered the question with specifics, we're not going to continue until you come up with something better than 'we all have to change' or "we, the american people, can bring about change if we all work together'".

until then, i am now refusing to watch any more debates. tonite was my last one.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

For a million different reasons I hope that is true... But I think Bush and Clinton were helped big time because they were guys that the "middle" felt they could understand. "One of us." Obama is hardly that.

Do you mean to say McCain is "one of us"? Obama I identify a hell of alot more than with McCain and I am white and ex-miltiary.

[Anthony]

its very obvious, these debates have basically boiled down to "who can stand up here the longest and say the most without saying something that will get blown up by the talking heads immediately after the debate". no one wants to make any gaffes or youtubeable clips. no one wants to say too much that could possibly used to hang themselves with at a future date. how does this help the country to watch two people speak so that someone can try to be the first to yell "a ha! you messed up! say good bye to your presidential hopes!!". what a sad country we live in.

[Front Office Midget]

A human being tonight said this:

"But the fact is, America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world."

THE GREATEST. FORCE. FOR GOOD. IN WORLD HISTORY.

I suppose the racist imperialist Teddy Roosevelt is also his hero, so I shouldn't be surprised at such an outlandish statement. But I sort of am.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Anthony

its very obvious, these debates have basically boiled down to "who can stand up here the longest and say the most without saying something that will get blown up by the talking heads immediately after the debate". no one wants to make any gaffes or youtubeable clips. no one wants to say too much that could possibly used to hang themselves with at a future date. how does this help the country to watch two people speak so that someone can try to be the first to yell "a ha! you messed up! say good bye to your presidential hopes!!". what a sad country we live in.

This is nearly word-for-word what I said to my brother (who is interested in, not to mention also directly involved in, politics) back when we had our elections in Australia, too.

Basically you just try not to make a dick of yourself and say something stupid, while attacking the other candidate as often as you are able, with any ammo you can get your grubby little paws on.

Maybe it's always been like this, but it seems to have gotten a hell of a lot worse the past decade or so.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Maybe it's always been like this, but it seems to have gotten a hell of a lot worse the past decade or so.

Might as well have some fun with it - 5 Presidential Elections Even Dumber Than This One (Somehow) | Cracked.com

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

New rule in image politics - Town Hall debates can never ever be the strength of the candidate who will look old and uncomfortable with the added element of movement. Did no one in the McCain campaign consider this? Did no one on the campaign trail watch McCain move around and think "You know, he is going to look stiff and old next to Obama... Maybe we should stick to regular podiums..."

Yeah, He just doddered like a every old man. I don't think this format that was supposed to help him so much, helped him so much.

I can't help but feel McCain was sort of doomed canindate from the start. From the time he sold his soul to Bush, he hasn't been able to make anyone happy. He lost the middle to have a chance to win the nomination, and he'll never be truly liked by the far right. Add to the fact that any republican would be behind the 8-ball with this economy, it is amazing that the election is even this close right now.

[Butter]

"That one" FTL.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

This is nearly word-for-word what I said to my brother (who is interested in, not to mention also directly involved in, politics) back when we had our elections in Australia, too.

Basically you just try not to make a dick of yourself and say something stupid, while attacking the other candidate as often as you are able, with any ammo you can get your grubby little paws on.

Maybe it's always been like this, but it seems to have gotten a hell of a lot worse the past decade or so.

for the VP debate, my wife and i mocked all the evasive answers and laughed at how much was not being said, and i did say "not for nothing, imagine having to stand up for 2 hours or so and have enough info to answer 2 hours worth of questions - all the while not stuttering or stammering and being able to speak eloquently, be engaging, most importantly *not mess up* with bad answers or ammunition for the other party to use against you". it's really hard, i know i couldn't do it. say what you want about how poor these debates are, but i don't think these candidates are looking to hit grand slams at these things. too risky. much easier to just hit bloop singles and get on base.

its an impressive quality to be able to speak at length at a debate, it's just unfortunate this is what most people are gonna base their opinions off of - "how much less did their guy mess up than the other guy".

and for the part about McCain being too stiff, i would think being a POW for 5 years would prevent anyone from auditioning for the lead role in Lord Of The Dance. give him a pass on that.

[boberot]

I agree with both of your past two posts, HA -- let's play it safe and make it seem like we're just about to answer the question any second now, but spin it off into a topic you want to cover, but also make it sound very thoughtful and compelling. The viewer is left wondering, "Wait, did he just answer the question or not?"

The debates are increasingly frustrating for me. This supposed "town hall" debate was about as far from what I imagine a town hall meeting to be as possible.

I laugh out loud when I hear people say, "I'm still not sure. I'm going to watch the last debate to get more information." That's hilarious.

It's the same old answers, and throwing out the same old fuzzy facts and figures, half-truths and manipulations.

The notion of either of these guys as "agents of change" verges on the absurd.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think that one of the best things that came out of last night was DaddyTorgo bipartisan reporting on the debate. Who knew he was so neutral?

But in all seriousness, I actually stopped watching the debate last night after 40-45 minutes. Two things were blatently obvious to me after hearing the candidates speak and watching their mannerisms and the audience for non-verbal tells of truthfulness (or lack thereof):

1. Neither of those candidates is sincere in any way about their 'concern' for the average American. It was obvious from the reactions of the people in the audience that they did everything in their power not to strangle both candidates after some of those non-answers. I think a much better measure of which one should be president would have been to let those 80 people loose with whiffle bats for 90 minutes and see if either candidate would survive.

2. The policies suggested by both candidates were insane at best. The thought that either candidate will be able to put even 10% of their campaign promises into law is foolhardy. From a party perspective, I think it's becoming painfully obvious that whoever wins this race will be a 'one and done' president. They face an economic mess that neither candidate has the tools to fix in a four year period.

As far as who won, I didn't watch it all so I couldn't tell you. I was bored to tears with the weak promises from each candidate and the same old attacks repeated again that we've heard in previous forums. The fact that neither of these candidates is equipped to deal with the issues facing the country will only further compromise the public confidence in the government and the weakening economy.

[boberot]

DOLA

Originally Posted by Front Office Midget

A human being tonight said this:

"But the fact is, America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world."

THE GREATEST. FORCE. FOR GOOD. IN WORLD HISTORY.

Yeah, I thought that was a helluva line, too.

Don't forget that we have the greatest workforce in the world, too.

[Subby]

The New York Times

October 8, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

Mud Pies for ‘That One’
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

Some of John McCain’s friends, from the good old days when he talked straight, feared that his Greek tragedy would be that he would be defeated by George Bush twice: once in 2000, because of W.’s no-conscience campaigning, and again in 2008, because of W.’s no-brains governing.

But if McCain loses, he will have contributed to his own downfall by failing to live up to his personal standard of honor.

John McCain has long been torn between wanting to succeed and serving a higher cause. Right now, the drive to succeed is trumping any loftier aspirations. He cynically picked a running mate with less care than theater directors give to picking a leading actor’s understudy. And he has been running a seamy campaign originally designed by the bad seed of conservative politics, Lee Atwater.

It was adapted in 2000 in Atwater’s home state of South Carolina by Atwater acolytes in W.’s camp to harpoon McCain with rumors that he had fathered out of wedlock a black baby (as opposed to adopting a Bangladeshi infant girl in wedlock). Sulfurous Atwater-style rumor-mongering by Bush supporters — that McCain had come home from a Hanoi tiger cage with snakes in his head — aimed to stop him during that primary after he had zoomed in New Hampshire.

Atwater relished teaching rich, white Republicans to feign a connection to the common man so they could get in office and economically undermine the common man. In the 1988 campaign, the Machiavellian ran to help George Bush Sr. defeat Michael Dukakis with this unholy quintet of charges:

The Democrat was a ’60s-style liberal who would raise taxes and take away guns. He was weak and would not protect the country militarily. He was a member of the elite “Harvard Yard’s boutique.” He had a foreign-sounding name and was not on “the American side.” He was on the side of the Scary Black Man.

Sound familiar?

Certainly, at some level, John McCain must be disgusted with himself for using the tactics perfected by the same crowd that used these tactics to derail him in 2000. He’s now curmudgeonly, even hostile, toward the press — the group he used to spend hours with every day and jokingly describe as his base.

He unleashed Sarah Palin to slime their opponent and suggested that the Democrat with the foreign-sounding name who came from the Harvard Yard boutique is not on the American side.

Campaigning last weekend, Palin cast their Democratic rival as “someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

The woman is sounding more Cheney than Cheney. Palin said that Obama’s relationship with the former Weatherman William Ayers proved that he did not have the “truthfulness and judgment” to be president. Asked by William Kristol if the Rev. Jeremiah Wright should be an issue, she said, “I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more.”

Atwater gleefully tried to paint Willie Horton as Dukakis’s running mate. With a black man running, it’s even easier for Atwater’s disciple running McCain’s campaign to warn that white Americans should not open the door to the dangerous Other, or “That One,” as McCain referred to Obama in Tuesday night’s debate. (A cross between “The One” and “That Woman.”)

On Monday, McCain made Obama, who has been campaigning for almost two years now, sound like an ominous intruder, questioning his character and motives, telling a New Mexico crowd that “even at this late hour in the campaign, there are essential things we don’t know about Senator Obama ...

“All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama?”

The new McCain TV ad, “Dangerous,” calls Obama “dishonorable,” “dangerous” and “too risky for America.”

McCain aides have been blunt in their need to change the subject from the economy. But, as with Bush Senior’s re-election campaign, slithery character attacks don’t scare as well when Americans are already scared about keeping their jobs and retirement savings. Maybe that’s why McCain didn’t bring up Ayers or Wright during the debate, instead leaving it to Sarah Barracuda.

Palin finally took questions on Tuesday from her traveling press corps on her campaign plane. Asked if she thought Senator Obama was dishonest, McCain’s Mean Girl meandered:

“I’m not saying he’s dishonest, but in terms of judgment, in terms of being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts to this. The judgment and the truthfulness and just being able to answer very candidly a simple question about when did you know him, how did you know him, is there still — has there been an association continued since ’02 or ’05, I know I’ve read a couple different stories. I think it’s relevant.”

Of course she does.

[GrantDawg]

Anybody catch all this hub-bub? SNL did a skit basically pointing out the Dems role in the current Sub-Prime mortgage crisis. It was funny, and hit some pretty big players in the Democratic party right between the eyes. On Monday, the skit disappeared from online without explaination, raising an uproar among some conservative bloggers. Now it is back up, but edited because of "legal reasons."

Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily » Mystery Of That Missing SNL Bailout Skit Solved: NBC.com Took It Down For Legal Reasons; Has Put Up Edited Version Today

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More developments surrounding ACORN as the Nevada office is raided following complaints about fradulent registrations being submitted........

ACORN Vegas Office Raided in Voter Fraud Investigation - FOXNews.com Elections

Tennessee man is indicted on charges he broke into Palin's e-mail account. Faces up to 5 years in jail and a large fine........

Palin E-Mail Hacker Indicted - FOXNews.com Elections

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Anybody catch all this hub-bub? SNL did a skit basically pointing out the Dems role in the current Sub-Prime mortgage crisis. It was funny, and hit some pretty big players in the Democratic party right between the eyes. On Monday, the skit disappeared from online without explaination, raising an uproar among some conservative bloggers. Now it is back up, but edited because of "legal reasons."

Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily » Mystery Of That Missing SNL Bailout Skit Solved: NBC.com Took It Down For Legal Reasons; Has Put Up Edited Version Today

Really stupid move by the SNL writers. The editing of the skit will do little to stop the likely lawsuit that will be filed by the family it portrayed.

[Fidatelo]

I saw that skit on Saturday and really enjoyed it. SNL is thriving in all of this political/economic madness.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Really stupid move by the SNL writers. The editing of the skit will do little to stop the likely lawsuit that will be filed by the family it portrayed.

Yeah. I didn't even realize those were real people (and also heavy dem contributors). I don't know if they even would have a lawsuit, but the "People who should be shot" caption, while funny, probably wasn't the smartest thing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Yeah. I didn't even realize those were real people (and also heavy dem contributors). I don't know if they even would have a lawsuit, but the "People who should be shot" caption, while funny, probably wasn't the smartest thing.

There was info on a few political blogs that the family had already retained legal council and was looking at their options for a lawsuit. It's not a question of 'if', but 'when'.

[molson]

Since when is SNL anything but parody and satire? When have they ever banned a skit that makes fun of someone?

The only thing that compares is Norm McDaonald being fired for making too many OJ jokes, against the orders of the NBC exec. who was an OJ buddy. I'm sure this is a similar deal.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There was info on a few political blogs that the family had already retained legal council and was looking at their options for a lawsuit. It's not a question of 'if', but 'when'.

I guess "if" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was I'm not sure lawsuit would have "legs." Satire gets a lot of lee-way in this sort of thing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I guess "if" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was I'm not sure lawsuit would have "legs." Satire gets a lot of lee-way in this sort of thing.

Might be, though these people certainly weren't considered public figures for the most part before Saturday.

[Daimyo]

I thought the skit was hilarious. Seems everyone is being so careful not to give any blame to the individuals who actually took out the bad mortgages, when they do actually share in it. Obviously some were victims of predatory lending and the Bush "culture of ownership", but they must have known on some level they were getting into situations they could never afford.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some interesting polls on the national level today. Reuters has +4 Obama, Hotline has +1 Obama, and Battleground has +2 Obama. Those are down from previous levels. Rasmussen is the only one showing Obama with a higher 9 point lead. Wonder if the negative campaigning is causing Obama to take a hit. Will the debate aftermath boost Obama or will it remain steady?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Might as well have some fun with it - 5 Presidential Elections Even Dumber Than This One (Somehow) | Cracked.com

That was a fun read. Tho I'd have preferred a little cleaner verbage. "Look, I can swear every other word because I'm on the interweb!"

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm still unsure what to think about the "fixing Social Security is easy" line, for me the most memorable of the night from either candidate.

On one hand, I want to be a responsible citizen, to press for a real response, and to pin both guys down on a criminally under-reported issue that I actually care a lot about.

On the other hand, if I'm rooting for my candidate and want him to win the election, the pragmatist in me realizes that you simply can't say anything at all about SS without making people go batty. Raising taxes, reducing benefits, indexing, age limit increases, cutoff points -- the whole damned thing is high voltage stuff. So, I guess the McCain response, while far from being "straight talk," was probably ideal for what he wants -- to not turn off the voters by saying something objectionable.

For me, that sort of thinking becomes a really tough issue. I don't want to "settle" for the practical, safe, triangulated answer. But I'm smart enough to realize that anyone who speaks candidly enough to satisfy me (I'm a big boy, I can take my medicine if you explain to me why I need to) is going to alienate twenty other voters with the exact same candor. People like me don't get to determine elections - it's the other twenty people who do.

Kinda sucks. Easier to pick sides and just make fun of the other guy than it is to actually feel invested in some of the issues, and to constantly be frustrated that there's really nothing that happens on the campaign trail that bears directly on some of the issues that we know are lying in wait for the winner.

The annoying thing about it is that of all of our entitlements, Social Security is the easiest to fix. You raise the payout age by about 5 years and it's not only solvent but profitable in the long term. However, you do immediately cause AARP to put you on your crap list and vote out every single one of you.

If you're really sneaky about it, you say that you won't touch it in the next 5 years, then phase it in with some yearly increments, say, increasing the age 1 year every other year the next 10 years after that, moving the age to 70.

Oh, and once again, the idea that most horrified me about Bush in 2000- privatizing social security- yeah, I think we're all glad that didn't come to pass at this moment.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

From a party perspective, I think it's becoming painfully obvious that whoever wins this race will be a 'one and done' president.

I disagree. If Obama wins (still a big IF), then I think that he has the potential to win another election. If he runs the country like he has run the campaign, we might be seeing a re-election along the lines of Regan in 84 or Clinton in 92.

I also think that, if Obama wins, the GOP might need an election cycle or two to hash out its internal civil war. A lot of Republicans (like most of the GOP-leaning posters in this thread) are what I call "good" Republicans--you guys are focused on small government, and individual liberty, and personal responsibility--the traditional ideals of conservatism, in other words. Government should provide a hand-up and not a hand-out and all that.

But a lot of Republicans are in the party because they beleive that if the government obtains credible information that a man has touched another man's penis in a sexual manner, then the police should have the right to swear out a warrant against that man, break into his house, drag him out of his bedroom, throw him into the back of a police car and, upon proving to a jury that he did engage in sodomy, lock him in a cage. These people also want the federal government, to the extent permissible, to mandate the teaching of Biblical creationism instead of evolution in local schools. Or, as the GOP platform was recently amended to hold, they don't want to stop at simply barring federal funds for stem cell research--they want to make private industry engaging in such research a crime.

If my tone does not make it clear, I really hope that you guys win whatever civil war the GOP does end up having. But, more immediately, I think that this civil war, if it does happen, will make it very hard for the GOP to win national elections until it is resolved.

[Fidatelo]

This is going to sound quite naive, but what stops someone from creating a third party? Does the US constitution mandate that only 2 parties are allowed to exist?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If my tone does not make it clear, I really hope that you guys win whatever civil war the GOP does end up having. But, more immediately, I think that this civil war, if it does happen, will make it very hard for the GOP to win national elections until it is resolved.

Couldn't disagree more. The more conventional portion of the GOP controls the party and lets the far right 'believe' that it somehow has a say in it. The only thing that the far right can do in protest is to not vote, and that rarely happens because the alternative is to allow a left-leaning candidate into the Oval Office, which is much worse in their eyes. They just like to grandstand to pretend they have some sort of pull.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

This is going to sound quite naive, but what stops someone from creating a third party? Does the US constitution mandate that only 2 parties are allowed to exist?

To put a third party candidate on the ballot, you just have to get a certain number of signatures in most states. You can create your own party and put yourself on the ballot if you want to depending on the state.

[digamma]

A lot of state legislatures would disagree with you MBBF.

(that was in response to the republican infighting.)

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I disagree. If Obama wins (still a big IF), then I think that he has the potential to win another election. If he runs the country like he has run the campaign, we might be seeing a re-election along the lines of Regan in 84 or Clinton in 92.

I also think that, if Obama wins, the GOP might need an election cycle or two to hash out its internal civil war. A lot of Republicans (like most of the GOP-leaning posters in this thread) are what I call "good" Republicans--you guys are focused on small government, and individual liberty, and personal responsibility--the traditional ideals of conservatism, in other words. Government should provide a hand-up and not a hand-out and all that.

But a lot of Republicans are in the party because they beleive that if the government obtains credible information that a man has touched another man's penis in a sexual manner, then the police should have the right to swear out a warrant against that man, break into his house, drag him out of his bedroom, throw him into the back of a police car and, upon proving to a jury that he did engage in sodomy, lock him in a cage. These people also want the federal government, to the extent permissible, to mandate the teaching of Biblical creationism instead of evolution in local schools. Or, as the GOP platform was recently amended to hold, they don't want to stop at simply barring federal funds for stem cell research--they want to make private industry engaging in such research a crime.

If my tone does not make it clear, I really hope that you guys win whatever civil war the GOP does end up having. But, more immediately, I think that this civil war, if it does happen, will make it very hard for the GOP to win national elections until it is resolved.

I agree that for Obama it could definitely be a two term election here but not for McCain.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

This is going to sound quite naive, but what stops someone from creating a third party? Does the US constitution mandate that only 2 parties are allowed to exist?

Funding makes it really difficult. The parties are giant money making apparatuses. Even if you got a giant party of independently wealthy people to create a third party, things would eventually settle back into a 2 party system as it would wipe one of the other two out since we vote on plurality and not proportional elections.

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

This is going to sound quite naive, but what stops someone from creating a third party? Does the US constitution mandate that only 2 parties are allowed to exist?

No one is stopped from creating a third party. There are a ton of them out there. Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Natural Law, numerous Socialist Communist Worker style parties. The problem is getting access. One of the few things the two major parties have been able to work together on is creating rules to prevent these parties from participating in debates and making it difficult for them to even appear on the ballot in most states.

[larrymcg421]

In two full debates...

Number of times McCain mentions the middle class: 0

Again I ask is he is trying to lose the election?

[Big Fo]

Biden with some good lines in Florida today.

-"Last week I had a debate with Gov. Palin, at least I think it was a debate."


-"You can't call yourself a maverick, when you've always been a sidekick."


-"At 9 AM John McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong"

"At 11 AM he said we were facing a crisis"

"We Catholics call that an epiphany"

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Couldn't disagree more. The more conventional portion of the GOP controls the party and lets the far right 'believe' that it somehow has a say in it. The only thing that the far right can do in protest is to not vote, and that rarely happens because the alternative is to allow a left-leaning candidate into the Oval Office, which is much worse in their eyes. They just like to grandstand to pretend they have some sort of pull.

I disagree with you. Lincoln, Teddy, and Regan would have trouble recognizing the GOP in 2008. It is naive or willfully ignorant to think that the far right/religous right does not have a lot of control over the GOP right now or that supporting the current GOP is supporting the party of Lincoln or Teddy.

Just off the top of my head, I can think that under Bush, the federal government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on abstinence-only education programs that have been proven not to work. The Department of Justice illegally hired people--not based on merit or who would be the most qualified lawyers--but on who had the right positions on "God, guns, and gays." And the GOP platform was just amendend to call for making private industry research into stem-cells a crime.

I think that the religious right might say the same thing about you that you say about them. They control the party and let you beleive that you have some say in it. The only thing that you can do in protest is to not vote, but because you hate the alternative more, they know that they have your vote.

I am not paying attention to what the party says, but what it does. And what it does is driven by the religious right. And what I would like is for the "good" Republicans to see that and take the party back.