Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I do think the eulogy is being written a little prematurely for the Obama campaign.

Obama's goose isn't cooked yet, but it's in the oven now.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't know Buc, but while you're calling me ignorant, why don't you tell me what party was in charge when Scalia and Thomas were both confirmed?

Also, could you please describe what kind of shitstorm will happen among the religious right if Stevens steps down, making the Roe split 4-4, and McCain fails to deliver on a justice they want?

I confess that abortion isn't my big issue, so I'm asking this question sincerely. Is there a case currently working its way towards the Supreme Court that could allow the justices to revisit Roe, or is this just more of a hypothetical?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Mentioning here since there was some talk many pages ago about whether Georgia might be in play this November.

Obama campaign shifting some people out of Georgia | ajc.com

Obama campaign shifting some people out of Georgia

Nearly three weeks after dropping its TV ads, the Democratic presidential campaign of Barack Obama will shift personnel out of Georgia into more competitive states like North Carolina, staffers confirmed Tuesday.

The movement of resources reflects a quickly tightening, state-by-state race for the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the White House.

Campaign officials declined to specify how many of approximately 75 paid Obama staffers will be redeployed, and denied that the move signaled reduced expectations in the state.

“Even if a huge number of people left, we’d still have the largest presidential campaign staff in the history of the state of Georgia,” said Caroline Adelman, spokeswoman for the Obama campaign in Georgia.

Voter registration drives will continue apace, and two new campaign offices will be opened this week in south DeKalb County and Savannah, Adelman said.

Democrats in Georgia are counting on an Obama-driven surge of voters to halt a six-year decline up and down the ballot.

But Republicans have belittled claims by Obama supporters that Georgia, which hasn’t cast its electoral college votes for a Democrat since 1992, is seriously contested territory.

Since the January primary season, Obama has aired more than $2 million worth of television ads in state. Republican John McCain has spent his money elsewhere, but in statewide polls — the most recent nearly a month old — the Republican maintains an average lead of more than 6 percentage points, according to the web site RealClearPolitics.com, which tracks polling data.

Two weeks ago, Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, issued a mocking invitation to Democrats, advising them to “spend as much money as possible in this state. Millions and millions of dollars.”

On Tuesday, it was the Republican National Committee’s turn to chortle. “After spending over $2 million dollars in ads and investing significant manpower, Barack Obama’s campaign has finally realized that his partisan record is out of step with the values of Georgia voters,” said RNC spokeswoman Katie Wright.

Even last month, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe declared that Georgia remained one of 18 targeted “battleground” states.

But that was before McCain and Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP pick for vice president, received a substantial bump in national polls from last week’s Republican National Convention in St. Paul. ...

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't know Buc, but while you're calling me ignorant, why don't you tell me what party was in charge when Scalia and Thomas were both confirmed?

Also, could you please describe what kind of shitstorm will happen among the religious right if Stevens steps down, making the Roe split 4-4, and McCain fails to deliver on a justice they want?

You have been bringing up this scare tactic all year long and it really does sound like a one-trick pony. Why are you bringing up stuff that happens 15-20 years when you know damn well that ever since Clinton, partisan politics have intensified to where if McCain nominates a social conservative (that's a big if since he never liked them, apart from trying to get elected), there would be a firestorm with a very, very hostile Senate (and Congress in general).

I am a strong advocate of putting the brakes on Congressional legislation and Executive powers, as per the Constitution. Even if a social conservative would get by the Senate, that would bother me far less than a single party passing special interest, election favor bills with the president having no balls to veto anything.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I confess that abortion isn't my big issue, so I'm asking this question sincerely. Is there a case currently working its way towards the Supreme Court that could allow the justices to revisit Roe, or is this just more of a hypothetical?

There are always abortion cases making their way to the court, but they are usually about what kind of restrictions can be placed on Roe instead of an outright challenge. The last serious direct challenge the court heard was Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, I can guarantee you that thousands of briefs will be written the second Stevens steps down.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by The Atlanta Journal Constution

Nearly three weeks after dropping its TV ads, the Democratic presidential campaign of Barack Obama will shift personnel out of Georgia into more competitive states like North Carolina, staffers confirmed Tuesday.

Oops. On second thought, don't unpack your bags yet, boys. Maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan would be a better destination.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan would be a better destination.

At the rate things are going, maybe Illinois would be a better choice

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You have been bringing up this scare tactic all year long and it really does sound like a one-trick pony. Why are you bringing up stuff that happens 15-20 years when you know damn well that ever since Clinton, partisan politics have intensified to where if McCain nominates a social conservative (that's a big if since he never liked them, apart from trying to get elected), there would be a firestorm with a very, very hostile Senate (and Congress in general).

You mean the same firestorm that took place when Alito was confirmed? The Democrats couldn't even muster up 40 to agree to a filibuster, and this was a nominee whose abortion views were well known because he participated in a circuit court ruling on the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. In fact, his abortion views were so extreme, he voted to uphold the spousal notification law, which was the only restriction that the Casey court rejected other than the outright reversal of Roe. McCain won't even have to appoint someone so blatantly conservative. He can appoint someone who is a little more friendly, but still a solid conservative vote, like Roberts.

I am a strong advocate of putting the brakes on Congressional legislation and Executive powers, as per the Constitution. Even if a social conservative would get by the Senate, that would bother me far less than a single party passing special interest, election favor bills with the president having no balls to veto anything.

Well that's a different argument then. I'm sure the Democrats will give a McCain administration problems with legislation that he attempts to pass. However, they can't just continue to block every nominee McCain appoints. At some point, it's going to look like stonewalling, and the public (the same public that favored Alito's confirmation 54%-28% In Poll, 54% Back Alito's Confirmation) will not tolerate that for very long.

[JPhillips]

Given that McCain's convention bounce is already diminishing it seems odd to be so convinced of victory. Especially from people who have urged caution at every step when Obama led in the polls.

[ace1914]

A REAL substantive critique of Obama's chances. By a republican adviser.

Bloomberg.com-Opinion

Sept. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Now that the conventions are behind us, most Americans will now turn their attention back to the school year and the National Football League. There will be few moments when the campaigns can, as they did over the past two weeks, grab everyone's attention. That leaves the candidates with only one more high- visibility opportunity to reach undecided voters: the debates. There will be three debates between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama in late-September and mid-October, with one vice- presidential meeting of Senator Joseph Biden and Governor Sarah Palin between the second and third presidential debates.

One of the presidential debates will focus on foreign policy, another on domestic policy, and a third will feature a town-hall format where the public poses questions to each candidate. The vice presidential contenders will cover both foreign and domestic topics.

Make no mistake, these debates will be enormously important.
They have often been viewed as decisive in races that are, like this one, tight. Both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan probably became president because their powerful magnetism overwhelmed less-charismatic opponents. Gerald Ford might well have lost his election to Jimmy Carter because of his colossal debate blunder, incorrectly saying the Soviet Union didn't dominate Eastern Europe. He became a laughing stock at just the wrong time.

Economics Lessons
This time, the debates may turn on subtle issues of character or unpredictable blunders, but voters will also be looking closely at substance, especially on economic policy. The good news is, if history is any guide, voters can expect to learn a lot about economic policy in the coming weeks. Economic policy has been front and center in presidential debates ever since the first televised Kennedy-Richard Nixon one in 1960. Surprisingly, at least for critics, the economic conversation has often been quite substantive.

Looking back over the debates that occurred from 1996 to 2004, a number of interesting patterns emerged. First, there are two big subjects that receive the lion's share of the attention. Out of 57 economic-related questions in presidential debates over that time, 18 addressed health care and 16 were about tax and the budget. Much of this year's debates will probably be devoted to those two issues. As McCain and Obama have extensive health-and-tax plans, there will be plenty to talk about.

Dodging Questions
The next two most frequently addressed topics are Social Security and trade. After that, all bets are off, with questions ranging from the state of the Cleveland economy to the impact of trial lawyers on the U.S. economy.
How will the candidates do? Looking at past debates, they often seemed to turn on questions that the candidates were able to dodge until the debate.
Four years ago, Democrat John Kerry whiffed when moderator Charles Gibson asked him to explain how he could cut the deficit in half while increasing taxes only on the rich. Al Gore couldn't defend himself against the accusation that he proposed to boost spending more than Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale combined. On substance, it seems likely the Democrats will face the tougher and more treacherous questions, especially with regard to the two big topics -- health care and the federal budget.
On health care, the Obama plan calls for a large tax increase on businesses that have to ``pay or play'' with regard to health insurance. On taxes, the key distinction between Obama and McCain is Obama's desire to increase taxes on those with incomes of more than $250,000, and his opposition to McCain's proposal to reduce taxes on U.S. corporations.

Tax Increases
Both the health plan and the tax plan revolve around increasing taxes. But the economy is struggling. Nobody thinks it's a good idea to raise taxes during a recession. Obama and Biden will have a difficult and swaying tightrope to walk. The other tricky area for Obama will be trade. He has staked out a position that is hostile to free trade. Yet second-quarter gross domestic product grew 3.3 percent, with 3.1 percent of that coming from net exports. Exactly how is it that one can make the case that our trade deals are hurting the country? The trade area is ripe territory for tough questions. After all, we now have trade deals with Panama, Colombia and South Korea that are ready for passage but are being held up by Democrats for purely political reasons. U.S. companies are paying millions of dollars in tariffs every day to the Colombian Treasury because of congressional obstructionism on trade. Isn't it more important to lighten the load on U.S. businesses now that the economy is weak? For McCain, the tax cuts will be easy to defend, especially now when the economy is weak. The challenge will be to make the case that he will be able to constrain government spending enough to make his fiscal program sustainable. Talking tough on spending comes naturally for the man, however, and one can expect that he will be up to this challenge. It seems likely that the story of these debates will turn on the dissonance lurking below the surface in Obama's economic plans, and on his team's ability, or lack thereof, to address it.



(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in his bid for the 2008 presidential nomination. The opinions expressed are his own.)

[SFL Cat]

*Sigh*

I thought the Apostle of Peace, the annointed Obama was above such things...

Obama Says McCain Is Offering Fake Change: 'You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig, But It's Still a Pig'

Besides...isn't talking about pigs against his Muslim...er Christian religion?

[SFL Cat]

dola -- lamest damage control spin ever...

UPDATE: Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs insists the senator was not referring to Palin. "That's an old expression," Gibbs says.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I can't believe some of you are ignorantly suggesting that we'll have more of Roberts, Alito, etc. if McCain is elected. Is that the latest scare tactics? That's why we will have a Democratic Senate, not a Republican Senate and is why we need a split Senate/Executive. If we don't, it'll be no different than 2001-2007 and that's bad.

Bucc, frankly, the way I see it is that if John McCain wins this election, it means that one of three scenarios is in play:

1) Senator Obama's get-out-the-vote efforts won't be half as successful in November as they were in the primaries, and the diminished Democratic turnout carries McCain to victory. Because that turnout would be unevenly distributed, we could see the Legislative/Executive split you refer to. Or, more likely, a split in control of the Senate (likely Democratic in this case) and the House (likely Republican, since many more seats are up for grabs).

2) Senator McCain's get-out-the-vote/swing-the-vote efforts benefit tremendously, allowing him to overcome the machine the Obama campaign has built. If that happens, I have to think it would have a rising-tide effect on Republican prospects in the House and Senate, UNLESS McCain's "maverick" brand enables him to escape what otherwise is a general Republican fatigue, resulting in Democratic gains in the Congress and a Republican President.

3) McCain's turnout doesn't dramatically increase as a result of the Palin pick, but somewhere along the line, people who would otherwise have been likely Democratic voters abandon the Obama campaign, for whatever reason. This is, I think, the least likely outcome, if only because of Ralph Nader and Florida in 2000.

Only in one, maybe one-and-a-half (if you want to split hairs) of those three McCain victory scenarios do I see the Democrats retaining full control of the Congress.

I guess I'm just not convinced that Obama could have a coattail effect but that McCain would have to resign himself to dealing with a Democratic Congress. I just can't see a plausible turnout scenario that benefits him without also benefiting the Republican Party at large.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Given that McCain's convention bounce is already diminishing it seems odd to be so convinced of victory. Especially from people who have urged caution at every step when Obama led in the polls.

Who exactly is convinced of victory?

[JPhillips]

Enough with the bullshit victimization card.

Was it a problem when McCain said the same thing about Hillary or when one of McCain's advisors wrote a book with that title?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Who exactly is convinced of victory?

Vic and Jon seem pretty confident.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You have been bringing up this scare tactic all year long and it really does sound like a one-trick pony. Why are you bringing up stuff that happens 15-20 years when you know damn well that ever since Clinton, partisan politics have intensified to where if McCain nominates a social conservative (that's a big if since he never liked them, apart from trying to get elected), there would be a firestorm with a very, very hostile Senate (and Congress in general).

I am a strong advocate of putting the brakes on Congressional legislation and Executive powers, as per the Constitution. Even if a social conservative would get by the Senate, that would bother me far less than a single party passing special interest, election favor bills with the president having no balls to veto anything.

Buc: Iask this sincerely. Given your preference for a split government, why didn't you believe in voting for Kerry in 2004? What's different?

[ISiddiqui]

Vic is quite rightly saying that NC isn't in play either. And Jon was making a joke.

Wow... quite an overreaction there.

[Subby]

Is there a thread where moderate undecideds can go to talk about this stuff? There is a lot of good information in this thread, but it is drowning in all of the partisan bullshit from both sides.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Enough with the bullshit victimization card.

Was it a problem when McCain said the same thing about Hillary or when one of McCain's advisors wrote a book with that title?

Same old bullsh*t...It's okay if your team does it, but if the other team does it...where's the f*cking flag, ref!!!!!!!

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Besides...isn't talking about pigs against his Muslim...er Christian religion?

LOL, do people still actually think Obama is a closet Muslim??? Seriously??? Didn't he, like, have a pretty big media issue regarding a certain rev. of his from a very un-Islamic church???

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Enough with the bullshit victimization card.

Was it a problem when McCain said the same thing about Hillary or when one of McCain's advisors wrote a book with that title?

I'm so tired of the Republicans obsession with "winning the right way." This is American politics, it's dirty, you must do anything and everything you can to win, no matter how cynical or untrue.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

LOL, do people still actually think Obama is a closet Muslim??? Seriously??? Didn't he, like, have a pretty big media issue regarding a certain rev. of his from a very un-Islamic church???

There's someone at my work that says Obama shouldn't be President because he's a Muslim. There's also someone at my work that says the hit on Tom Brady was dirty because you should never try to make a tackle below the waist. I'm honestly which one of them annoys me more.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Oops. On second thought, don't unpack your bags yet, boys. Maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan would be a better destination.

About that NC Poll....

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

dola -- lamest damage control spin ever...

UPDATE: Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs insists the senator was not referring to Palin. "That's an old expression," Gibbs says.

He wasn't.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Buc: Iask this sincerely. Given your preference for a split government, why didn't you believe in voting for Kerry in 2004? What's different?

Someone asked this before in the primaries thread and my answer was that in the past 4 years, I have grown in my education and conviction of my liberatarianism. I have been talking about this for years but before, it was more of a protest against partisan polarization. While I still protest (it's the anarchistic side of libertarianism), I have come to view the only practical solution for Washington is to limit the damages both branches can cause. But more importantly, I have come to loath any solutions coming out of that place and those putting their faith in such solutions. Alternatively, the real solution can be done locally in the giving of our time, monies and resources in helping those around us, thus causing less reliance on federal solutions and political promises.

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by Subby

Is there a thread where moderate undecideds can go to talk about this stuff? There is a lot of good information in this thread, but it is drowning in all of the partisan bullshit from both sides.

Shh, don't let this get out or we'll start getting power point presentations with each post. If they knew there was an undecided here they'd really have it cranked up.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

LOL, do people still actually think Obama is a closet Muslim??? Seriously??? Didn't he, like, have a pretty big media issue regarding a certain rev. of his from a very un-Islamic church???

In my short time here, I've learned that SFLcat likes to rustle the feathers of those who allow him to.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Vic is quite rightly saying that NC isn't in play either. And Jon was making a joke.

Wow... quite an overreaction there.

Did you see the goose is in the oven line? It doesn't matter though. No triumphalism on either side will matter come November. It's going to be a very close election no matter what.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Vic is quite rightly saying that NC isn't in play either. And Jon was making a joke. Wow... quite an overreaction there.

Thanks. Refreshing to know that all of my humor isn't completely lost on the FOFC

[Young Drachma]

Interview with Cindy McCain and her son, talking about being drifting and NASCAR fans on E:60, the ESPN sports magazine. Probably a contrast to the Obama interview they did a few weeks ago. It's fine enough, haven't seen many interviews with her.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Subby

Is there a thread where moderate undecideds can go to talk about this stuff? There is a lot of good information in this thread, but it is drowning in all of the partisan bullshit from both sides.

I actually have given this some thought (since I have complained about the same thing despite momentary weaknesses). The only solution I have come up with is taking from one of the Werewolf games: have a thread for each of the two partisan groups (and keeping the opponents out), and have a thread for those not falling into either group. The fallacy is that some (esp. some of the more vocal posters here) don't view themselves as partisans.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm so tired of the Republicans obsession with "winning the right way." This is American politics, it's dirty, you must do anything and everything you can to win, no matter how cynical or untrue.

It's one thing to attack, it's another to whine like little children. I think I've been pretty consistent favoring the former and disparaging the latter regardless of party affiliation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Subby

Is there a thread where moderate undecideds can go to talk about this stuff?

If you don't know by now, do the country a favor & just sit this one out.

[Buccaneer]

SackAttack/Josh, nowhere have I read talking about any chance the Republicans have of capturing either Congressional body. If there was a good chance that the Republicans would take the Senate, then I would change my tune since my main point has been for the Legislature/Executive to cancel each other out. Dreamingly, I would love for Congress to simply stop sending awful bills like the Energy, Farm and Mortgage bills to the president's desk.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by ace1914

In my short time here, I've learned that SFLcat likes to rustle the feathers of those who allow him to.

Just trying to help the Senator keep it straight...kind of like Stephanopoulos did during their interview.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by ace1914

He wasn't.

mmm hmmm.... when pigs fly.

[ace1914]

This is McCain talking about the issues. Disgraceful.

edit: BTW, I'm cool with the citing of the article comments, but to insinuate that thought that he's for education of sex education for kindergartners before they read is sad politics.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

dola -- lamest damage control spin ever...

UPDATE: Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs insists the senator was not referring to Palin. "That's an old expression," Gibbs says.

I thought it was an old expression.

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Obama Puts Different Twist on Lipstick

OMG! John McCain called Hillary Clinton a pig! He's a sexist and should apologize immediately! I'm a partisan hack!

sisu: "You can put lipstick on a pig"

Dick Cheney used the same line to attack John Kerry! Dick Cheney=Barack Obama

[Vegas Vic]

I'll stand by my assertion that North Carolina isn't in play, which I first pointed out in the spring when some people on here were swooning about Obama's chances of picking up North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee, and basically telling me I didn't know what I was talking about, and that we would have to throw away the old electoral college model because Obama "transcends" everything we've ever come to know about conventional electoral college politics.

I've pretty much been right on the mark with my prediction of how this presidential campaign was going to progress this summer and fall (which I made during the height of the FOFC Obama euphoria during the spring primary season).

The spotlight and scrutiny is now in full force, and the Democratic nominee for president has the thinnest political resume of any presidential nominee in 68 years, when Wendell Wilke headed the Republican ticket against FDR.

I'll stand by the statement that I made in the spring -- McCain is going to win this election comfortably.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I'll stand by the statement that I made in the spring -- McCain is going to win this election comfortably.

If that happens, we will go to war with Iran and then we will really have problems.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ace1914

If that happens, we will go to war with Iran and then we will really have problems.

you all will. i'll be moving to fucking canada

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

I thought it was an old expression.

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Obama Puts Different Twist on Lipstick

OMG! John McCain called Hillary Clinton a pig! He's a sexist and should apologize immediately! I'm a partisan hack!

sisu: "You can put lipstick on a pig"

Dick Cheney used the same line to attack John Kerry! Dick Cheney=Barack Obama

Well, if it is an old statement, it must be really old, because I'm not familiar with it. And considering the context of how he used it, hard not to think he's referring to Palin...if this resonates, it could be Obama's "Dean scream."

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

you all will. i'll be moving to fucking canada

At least you won't have to worry about global warming up there, eh!

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

*Sigh*


Besides...isn't talking about pigs against his Muslim...er Christian religion?

Please, someone tell me again how SFL is anything but a troll. I'd love to know.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Well, if it is an old statement, it must be really old, because I'm not familiar with it. And considering the context of how he used it, hard not to think he's referring to Palin...if this resonates, it could be Obama's "Dean scream."

It's still not as bad as McCain calling his wife a c*%#.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Please, someone tell me again how SFL is anything but a troll. I'd love to know.

As opposed to our beloved left wingnuts and their unbiased pearls of wisdom? Get a grip.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by ace1914

If that happens, we will go to war with Iran and then we will really have problems.

Did someone say fear tactics?

[Crapshoot]

Anyone read Nate Silver's latest? He pointed out that McCain's lead in national polling is interesting, but it actually increases the (still small) probability that Obama could lose the popular vote and win the election. I'm curious how much lawyering there would be this time.

[SFL Cat]