Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[JPhillips]

These are just off the top of my head, so I'm sure I'm not getting everything.

McCain said she sold the plane on Ebay at a profit(didn't on either count)
Palin said she said "thanks but no thanks"(she kept the money)
McCain said she didn't request earmarks as a governor(she did)
Palin's staff said she had been to Iraq(she hadn't)
McCain's staff said the Secret Service told them huge crowd numbers(SS says they never do)
McCain's staff said a fire marshall estimated the crowd in VA(Marshal says he didn't)
Palin said she visited Ireland(only to refuel and she didn't get off the plane)
McCain used FactCheck in a way that FactCheck said was dishonest
McCain says Obama will raise taxes on the middle class(He may be right here as his definition of middle class starts at 4,999,999)
McCain says Obama will put a government bureaucrat in charge of healthcare(Obama's plan doesn't have government mandates)
Palin said Alaska produces 20% of domestic energy for US(the best possible number is around 14%)
In a Spanish ad McCain says Obama cast votes to kill immigration reform(on the two votes that are agreed to have killed the bill Obama and McCain cast the same vote)

You may quibble with one or two of these, but they don't really even get into much policy. McCain and Palin are liars plain and simple and it doesn't seem like there's much of anything they won't lie about. There was a time when the President telling lies was good enough for impeachment, but now we're all just supposed to pretend it's no big deal.

It may win an election, but it is what it is.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by adubroff

Aren't you stripping yourself of that power if you continue to vote Republican? You are voting for something you don't like (social conservatism) and something you won't get(fiscal responsibility). The longer people like you keep letting the social conservative agenda get advanced at their expense, the further it's going to go. You're not putting any kind of pressure on the Republicans to stop running out this sort of agenda, you're encouraging them to continue on their path.

Voting Liberatarian might be reasonable and in a small way effectual. I would argue that voting Democrat(where you'd atleast be guaranteed a social agenda you agree with) would go further toward that goal.

You're right to an extent, but really it's a choice between no effect I like (vote Republican) and no power (vote Libertarian). Although some of the Dem stances on social issues appeal to me, I am very far from the Dems on most issues, and even the issues on which I am closer to them, those from that side would say I am very conservative from their POV.

For instance, I am for gun controls. I am not for taking guns out of the hands of all private citizens, and I believe in the right of the people to carry arms.

I am for abortion--in cases of incest, rape and medical necessity. I am more pro life than pro choice, otherwise, though.

I am for homosexual rights, but I do not believe they should be allowed to religiously marry (but then I also don't think the government should be in the marriage business). I instead believe in the civil union concept for all legal unions of two people, homo or hetero.

Meanwhile, I still believe that the Dems will spend even more than the GOP and tax the hell out of everyone, they will be weak on foreign affairs issues, they will emasculate our military, they will hurt our business climate, and they will give a whole lot of free money to people who don't deserve it (welfare; social programs).

No, voting Dem is certainly not the answer for me. It still represents an ideology that is much further from my ideal than even a socially conservative Repub party.

So you see my predicament.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think it's fair to be for a major funding project when you are running for governor, then change your tone after 8-9 months in office. In fact, I would call that fairly decent leadership. The chicken way would have been to keep doing it as not to piss off the people who had lobbied for the funding.

Which would be great except that she did keep the money and only stopped supporting it after it had already been un-earmarked. You can't brag about being against spending and then keep the money.

She said she listed it on ebay and she did. Again, maybe a little deceptive as she sold it privately after no one purchased it on ebay. Still, the point was she put a plane that the prior governor sunk money and time into and sold it. Again, not much deception here.

No, but McCain said she sold it and using the word "sold" rather than the heavily implied "I put it on ebay".

We really don't know what happened here. We know the guy had issues with driving while drinking, tazing his 10-year old son and (if you believe the Palin family) threatening them. Now, I'm willing to admit that she overstepped some boundaries on trying to get the guy fired. But, the case hasn't been settled yet and while the most damning issue you've posted, it's not something that's likely to have an impact once the Palin spin comes out.

I wasn't referring to the trooper incident as that is shrouded in who-knows-what and, as you said, we really don't know what happened here.

I was referring to the "I cut the chef from the budget" quote from the convention (and repeated over the next week). Again, it was the third of her down home "aw shucks, I'm a reformer" anecdotes like the two above. Only, she reassigned the chef rather than firing her and got rid of the chef, frankly, because she spent all of her time in Wasilla rather than in Juneau.

Again, not major things but, in my mind, out-and-out lies. And since we have so little information to go on about her, just saying "well, those aren't a big deal" to some of her biggest and repeated talking points seems like sweeping lies under the carpet.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Honestly, Im incredulous but im extra sensitive to it, so be it.

It really is amazing that you are extra sensitive to people on the right backing their guy . On the other hand, I've been subtly posting polling numbers which benefit McCain to counter, larrymcg's constant posting poll news which is only good news for Obama (either the polls narrowing when McCain was leading or Obama taking a lead)... but the extra sensitivity ends there, eh?

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Palin said she said "thanks but no thanks"(she kept the money)

Just wanted to point out that Palin wasn't Gov of Alaska when the decision was made to "keep" that money. In 2005, Sen. Stevens was the one who had the language changed so that the money was earmarked for the Alaskan general transportation fund, instead of specifically for the bridge projects. I guess you could argue that Gov Murkowski should have given the money back to the federal government at that point, but I'd find that laughable.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Just wanted to point out that Palin wasn't Gov of Alaska when the decision was made to "keep" that money. In 2005, Sen. Stevens was the one who had the language changed so that the money was earmarked for the Alaskan general transportation fund, instead of specifically for the bridge projects. I guess you could argue that Gov Murkowski should have given the money back to the federal government at that point, but I'd find that laughable.

IMO that just emphasizes how much of a lie her story is. It would have been perfectly acceptable, if a little dubious, for her to say she's against earmarks after seeing how the process works. This story, though, is nothing but cover to cover bullshit.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

McCain says Obama will raise taxes on the middle class(He may be right here as his definition of middle class starts at 4,999,999)

Speaking of lies... you do realize (though I realize Sen Obama doesn't) that McCain was joking when he said that, right? He even laughed after saying so, and Hell, even Factcheck defends him on that.

Then again, I think Factcheck is pretty good for those who think Obama hasn't been fibbing all over the place either (we can start with the McCain wants a 100 year war in Iraq thing and work our way down).

[JPhillips]

You realize that my line was a joke right? And if we want to get into interpretation of statements the lie list will grow much, much longer. I only posted those things that I could remember that aren't even questionable. If you've can write a list like that about Obama I encourage you to post it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Intrade has McCain at 50.8, Obama at 48.7. This is the first time McCain's been pricier since before either had emerged as a frontrunner.

Looking at RCP's electoral map, the following states are tossups:

Nevada (5)
New Mexico (5)
Colorado (9)
Michigan (17)
Indiana (11)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
Virginia (13)
New Hampshire (4)

Obama is likely to win 217 electoral votes, McCain 216. The magic number is, of course, 270. So Obama needs to collect 53 evs from the tossups, McCain 54.

Edit: my guess is Obama swings Nevada and New Hampshire, McCain gets Colorado and New Mexico, making the score Obama 226, McCain 230, and leaving these 5 states to decide the election:

Michigan (17)
Indiana (11)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
Virginia (13)

A couple of changes since this post: Indiana is now considered likely to vote McCain, and Minnesota is now a tossup. The scorecard is McCain 227, Obama 207, with the following tossups:

Nevada (5)
Colorado (9)
New Mexico (5)
Minnesota (10)
Michigan (17)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
Virginia (13)
New Hampshire (4)

Intrade spread: McCain 52.1, Obama 47.3.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

IMO that just emphasizes how much of a lie her story is. It would have been perfectly acceptable, if a little dubious, for her to say she's against earmarks after seeing how the process works. This story, though, is nothing but cover to cover bullshit.

Actually, you're wrong.

Her statement that she said "thanks, but no thanks" is in reference to the fact that once the money was in the state transportation budget, Murkowski started to fund the bridges from that initial $200 mil, but in the guise of it being a state project. This is what she was talking about being in favor of during her run for governor...that she was in favor of keeping the state project alive. Once the money from the state budget ran out in 2007, she then refused to go back to the federal government to get more money, as well as refusing to divert state funds towards the project due to other transporation projects being of a higher priority.

[JPhillips]

She isn't saying she refused to ask for money her quote is, "I said thanks, but no thanks." She's clearly saying she refused something when she certainly didn't. What did she say "no thanks" to?

Again, she can be anti-earmark all she wants, but this story is a complete fabrication.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It really is amazing that you are extra sensitive to people on the right backing their guy . On the other hand, I've been subtly posting polling numbers which benefit McCain to counter, larrymcg's constant posting poll news which is only good news for Obama (either the polls narrowing when McCain was leading or Obama taking a lead)... but the extra sensitivity ends there, eh?

You're not the first person to make this claim or allude to it, but I don't think it's really fair. Examples:

I post both the Obama +1 poll and McCain +3 poll:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

More polls...

Hotline/FD has Obama up 45-44 and Rasmussen has McCain up 48-45

The only poll I post here is McCain +3

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

New Gallup poll has McCain ahead 48-45.

I post 4 separate polls here. One of them is McCain +4, another McCain +2, and two of them are tied. Surely I could have left out two of these polls to make it look much better for Obama if that's what I was trying to do.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Today's National Polls

McCain 48, Obama 44 (Gallup)
McCain 46, Obama 44 (Hotline/FD)
McCain 46, Obama 46 (InsiderAdvantage)
McCain 46, Obama 46 (Rasmussen)

This post analyzes 4 separate polls and went almost completely ignored by most people here. I even included the Fox News poll which showed McCain's best result...

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Trying to get this back on track. I find it curious that people are acting like Obama is having some kind of Dukakis-esque free fall. Here's a look at some national polls pre-convention and today...

Gallup (Then) - McCain 46, Obama 44
Gallup (Now) - McCain 48, Obama 43
Result: McCain +3

Rasmussen (Then) - Obama 46, McCain 46
Rasmussen (Now) - Obama 47, McCain 46
Result: Obama +1

CNN (Then) - Obama 47, McCain 47
CNN (Now) - Obama 48, McCain 48
Result: Wash

FOX News (Then) - Obama 42, McCain 39
FOX News (Now) - McCain 45, Obama 42
Result: McCain +6

So if you combine the 4 polls, McCain has an average gain of 2 points over the whole convention period, and we're still only a few days removed from the conventions. It will be interesting to see where things are at next week.

I think I've been pretty fair in the polls I've been posting, so it'd be great if people would quit suggesting otherwise.

[st.cronin]

By the way, I am of the opinion that McCain never seriously considered Lieberman for the ticket - that was just a rumor put out for the purpose of exciting independent voters.

[st.cronin]

Unlike nearly everybody else in this thread, I am completely biased.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

She isn't saying she refused to ask for money her quote is, "I said thanks, but no thanks." She's clearly saying she refused something when she certainly didn't. What did she say "no thanks" to?

Again, she can be anti-earmark all she wants, but this story is a complete fabrication.

I think the line was "About that bridge to nowhere, thanks but no thanks".

It looks like she decided to say "no thanks" to the project by pulling it and use the money for something else.

It is unfortunate that when the federal government removes an earmark, they do not retain the funds. Silly system, maybe McCain and Palin can change it.

[st.cronin]

Barack Obama's big blunder

"John McCain has shown that he is willing to go into the gutter to win this election," Plouffe wrote in a memo circulated Friday. "His campaign has become nothing but a series of smears, lies and cynical attempts to distract from the issues that matter to the American people."

That rant might be comfort food for the nervous base, but will likely alarm independents who already aren't sure about Obama. By further scaring them with scorched-earth partisanship, the Obama team will only cede to McCain the label of the real independent.

...

The decision is extra odd given what seemed a growing consensus before the Democratic convention that Obama needed to better connect with middle-class voters. That consensus was that hammering home an economic message of hope and help was the answer and the plan, supporters said then.

But Obama didn't do it in his acceptance speech, and he hasn't done it since.

...

There was even more ominous language in the Plouffe memo. After throwing in the name of Karl Rove, which is boob bait for Bush haters, Plouffe promised to summon the furies of the liberal press to expose McCain and Palin. "We trust that the obvious conflicts between their rhetoric and records, their promises and their plans will not go unreported in the last 53 days of this campaign," Plouffe wrote.

Ah, yes, the press. I guess that means more Charlie Gibsons of the world looking down with disgust at Palin as though she was soiling his shoes. Even The New York Times allowed that Gibson, in his ABC interview, came off as "supercilious," which is a fancy way of saying arrogant.

By all means, more arrogance toward the heartland. Just what Obama needs.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You realize that my line was a joke right? And if we want to get into interpretation of statements the lie list will grow much, much longer. I only posted those things that I could remember that aren't even questionable. If you've can write a list like that about Obama I encourage you to post it.

It's fairly simple using the same site you did (just from Obama's acceptance speech alone):

* Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.

* He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.

* He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

* Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

* Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.

* He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

* Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.

Again, I would put the bolded ones as much more worrisome than quibbling whether Palin actually sold a plan on ebay (or just listed it there before selling it privately) or whether aids said she went to Iraq when she just went to the outskirts of Iraq.

Also every politician takes earmarks, and the context of McCain comments was that she didn't take as much as her predecessor (which she did - cutting from 63 the year she came in to 31 in 2008). The fire marshall stuff and visiting Ireland as opposed to just getting off the plane is really silly. People make this lists with a ton of fluff (there's fluff on some of the other Obama lists as well) as a reason for someone to be a "liar". It's a joke and I really so no difference from either side when it comes to these statements.

Every word by all four candidates gets put through about 300 spin cycles by bloggers/media. So, the amount of secret service or whether someone refueled in Ireland is of no interest to me. But, when Obama (in a major, pre-written speech) says he'll only have to "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens" to pay for his spending programs - but actually plans to raise taxes on some small business (who file in the higher tax brackets) and investors. That's pretty deceptive. Same goes for saying the average family income went down under Bush. These aren't "off the cuff" campaign statements, these are from his pre-written and teleprompted acceptance speech at the convention.

Again, I still say these things happen so it's not something I would brow-beat Obama with (I just wanted to address your other claim). But to say that McCain-Palin is the one "lying" is not being fair.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

By the way, I am of the opinion that McCain never seriously considered Lieberman for the ticket - that was just a rumor put out for the purpose of exciting independent voters.

Oh yeah, nothing like a lil' Joementum to excite the fencesitters.

As a fencesitter, I can't ever see how Joe Lieberman endorsing someone, much less being on a ticket would be a trial balloon with getting in a tizzy over.

[Young Drachma]

I watched a replay of the press conference with Ron Paul and four of the third-party candidates for President. Enjoyed Paul's remarks immensely.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

She isn't saying she refused to ask for money her quote is, "I said thanks, but no thanks." She's clearly saying she refused something when she certainly didn't. What did she say "no thanks" to?

Again, she can be anti-earmark all she wants, but this story is a complete fabrication.

The money was already given to Alaska, she just pulled the plug on the project. It would have hurt her state to take already allocated money (that was needed for other infrastructure projects). But, she did ensure that no future money was sent (after the expiration of the first part). Heck, imagine if someone would have done that with the "big dig" in Boston

In the end, I think Palin's record is strong on reform. Cutting earmarks in half during her time as governor. Helping to indict members of her own party in ethics charges and increasing the ethics laws. And getting Alaska a better deal from "big oil" to help her citizens. Again, maybe this stuff is all trumped because she wouldn't hand back money already budgeted for in her general fund or because she just listed a private jet on ebay but sold it privately. In the end, I think she's done enough to be labeled a reformer in today's political climate and I have a feeling most fair-minded voters will feel the same way.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I watched a replay of the press conference with Ron Paul and four of the third-party candidates for President. Enjoyed Paul's remarks immensely.

I enjoy Ron Paul as well. I'm not sure I could ever vote for him, but he's got some interesting ideas and even better ways of presenting them.

[Young Drachma]

Tina Fey looks JUST like her. Voice is too Minnesota. But...man, the look is 100%

[larrymcg421]

Just in case anyone has forgotten about the Senate races, here are some recent polls:

(MN) R Coleman 41, D Franken 40 - Coleman has held double digit leads at times, but Franken seems to have narrowed the gap. Will definitely be a heavily watched race. Can't wait for the debates.

(KY) R McConnell 52, D Lunsford 35 - McConnell looked like he could be a target when a May Rasmussen poll gave Lunsford a 5 pt lead. Since then, MCConnell has surged ahead and will be safe.

(NJ) D Lautenberg 51, R Zimmer 40 - A June Rasmussen poll had this as a 1 pt race, but Lautenberg hasn't had a lead smaller than 7 since then.

(AK) D Begich 48, R Stevens 46 - Begich has led most of the way here, but Stevens has recently narrowed the gap. It might be a Palin bump, but then again the McCain-Palin message of change could actually work against Stevens here.

(ID) R Risch 58, D LaRocco 30 - Why do they bother polling this one?

(NC) R Dole 48, D Hagan 42 - This is narrow enough that the Dems may make a big push, and also may account for the Obama campaign diverting resources from GA to NC.

(NM) D Udall 51, R Pearce 44 - This is the closest the race has ever been. Udall held as much as a 28 pt lead at one point. Still, one wonders if the GOP has enough money to target a seat like this.

(ME) R Collins 57, D Allen 38 - Collins has led comfortably the whole way, and unless she gets caught with a live girl or dead boy, she should be fine.

(MS) R Wicker 48, D Musgrove 43 - Trent Lott's old seat. The fact that a D is even competitive here shows how popular Musgrove (who's won two statewide elections) is, and this is another one where the Dems will probably try to press their financial advantage.

(MT) D Baucus 64, R Kelleher 31 - Baucus won by 30 pts six years ago and it looks like he will do it again.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's fairly simple using the same site you did (just from Obama's acceptance speech alone):


Again, I would put the bolded ones as much more worrisome than quibbling whether Palin actually sold a plan on ebay (or just listed it there before selling it privately) or whether aids said she went to Iraq when she just went to the outskirts of Iraq.

Also every politician takes earmarks, and the context of McCain comments was that she didn't take as much as her predecessor (which she did - cutting from 63 the year she came in to 31 in 2008). The fire marshall stuff and visiting Ireland as opposed to just getting off the plane is really silly. People make this lists with a ton of fluff (there's fluff on some of the other Obama lists as well) as a reason for someone to be a "liar". It's a joke and I really so no difference from either side when it comes to these statements.

Every word by all four candidates gets put through about 300 spin cycles by bloggers/media. So, the amount of secret service or whether someone refueled in Ireland is of no interest to me. But, when Obama (in a major, pre-written speech) says he'll only have to "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens" to pay for his spending programs - but actually plans to raise taxes on some small business (who file in the higher tax brackets) and investors. That's pretty deceptive. Same goes for saying the average family income went down under Bush. These aren't "off the cuff" campaign statements, these are from his pre-written and teleprompted acceptance speech at the convention.

Again, I still say these things happen so it's not something I would brow-beat Obama with (I just wanted to address your other claim). But to say that McCain-Palin is the one "lying" is not being fair.

Like I said, if you want to get to twisting words McCain's list will be much longer. The sex ed ad, visiting troops issue, balancing the budget, lipstick comment, etc. immediately jump to mind. I get why your argument is both sides do it, because in this case McCain/Palin are doing far more than Obama. Sure a lot of McCain's lies are trivial, but that's sort of the point. WHy is McCain lying about everything?

And this isn't something accidental. Ever since the Palin pick the campaign has decided the truth doesn't matter. Campaign advisors have said that, "issues don't matter," "there's a bigger truth" and "the little facts don't matter," "We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it,” and “We ran a different kind of campaign and nobody cared about us. They didn’t cover John McCain. So now you’ve got to be forward-leaning in everything.”

McCain's decided he can lie about everything. Right now it's working, but it is what it is.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

The money was already given to Alaska, she just pulled the plug on the project. It would have hurt her state to take already allocated money (that was needed for other infrastructure projects). But, she did ensure that no future money was sent (after the expiration of the first part). Heck, imagine if someone would have done that with the "big dig" in Boston

In the end, I think Palin's record is strong on reform. Cutting earmarks in half during her time as governor. Helping to indict members of her own party in ethics charges and increasing the ethics laws. And getting Alaska a better deal from "big oil" to help her citizens. Again, maybe this stuff is all trumped because she wouldn't hand back money already budgeted for in her general fund or because she just listed a private jet on ebay but sold it privately. In the end, I think she's done enough to be labeled a reformer in today's political climate and I have a feeling most fair-minded voters will feel the same way.

By "better deal" do you mean, "raised a windfall profits tax"?

[ace1914]

* He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

Wouldn't the fact that McCain voted against Bush's policies lead for it to be more justified for Obama to vote with the Democrats more often?

Both statistics looks like Bush had fucked up policy stances.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I said it a week ago and the events over the past week only further my comments. If the Democrats continue to attack Palin instead of McCain, they're in big trouble. Are there several things with Palin that they could go through and find inaccuracies or questionable decisions? Absolutely. But the more time they spend on Palin means more time that McCain sails free of attacks.

The general concensus about most VP candidates is that they don't decide an election. Palin appears to be bucking that trend, but not for the reasons you might think. Certainly, she has excited the far right base, but if McCain wins, he'll likely look back at all the political fodder that Palin took for him and thank her for it. I'm still shocked that the Dems continue to pound away at Palin. Not only does it help McCain as the lead candidate, it's drawing all kinds of sympathy from the female voters. It's a huge tactical error from a campaign perspective.

Also, quoting Karl Rove is another misstep by the Obama campaign. Anyone who watched his full comments on Sunday will quickly realize that he was just as critical of Obama. I'm sure those will be circulated in upcoming articles. Also, I think that Rove is perceived as being in bed with Bush, much moreso than McCain. If anything, the critical comments by Rove could easily be seen by Republicans or Independents who aren't big fans of Bush as another sign that McCain isn't comparable to Bush.

[sterlingice]

Dumb question since we're only a couple of weeks away from the first debate.

The way everything is so heavily spun coming out of the debates, does it even matter what is said unless one of the following happens:

1) a major misspeak by one of the candidates as this is in front of a major part of the voting electorate; Dan Quayle and potatoes comes to mind, tho I know that wasn't in a debate. We know what an unspun gaffe looks like- it's something that can't be hid by either side.

2) a great sound byte zinger on a night when only one of the candidates had one; I say when only one of the candidates had one because if they're trading barbs all night, as I suspect the third will be as they try to drop that zinger and get all the momentum, the media can just package it together in a "zinger highlights montage" like Sportscenter baseball highlights which are just home runs where you become numb to it. Never mind what I think of it on a personal level, but I'm pretty sure Bush's "fuzzy numbers" line in the third debate was where Al Gore lost the election in 2000 as that's what was talked about for the next week, fairly close to the election.

3) An entire evening where a candidate "looks bad", think Nixon v Kennedy; I could see this happening where Obama comes off bad with the stuttering and parsing or McCain just looks old and tired.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

3) An entire evening where a candidate "looks bad", think Nixon v Kennedy; I could see this happening where Obama comes off bad with the stuttering and parsing or McCain just looks old and tired.

SI

They don't even have to look bad on the entire evening. Just one question could suffice. I think some Dems are loath to admit that Senator Obama's "above my pay grade" response to an abortion question was a major gaffe and one that really helped McCain.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They don't even have to look bad on the entire evening. Just one question could suffice. I think some Dems are loath to admit that Senator Obama's "above my pay grade" response to an abortion question was a major gaffe and one that really helped McCain.

I think that would fit under one of the other categories, myself- basically a major mispeak answer.

I'll argue how major of a gaffe it was as it doesn't get much run but I'll save that for another time- I was trying to make a non-biased illustration in the above questions.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think that would fit under one of the other categories, myself- basically a major mispeak answer.

I'll argue how major of a gaffe it was as it doesn't get much run but I'll save that for another time- I was trying to make a non-biased illustration in the above questions.

SI

Well, I can take one from the other side . McCain's house question thing... though that wasn't in a debate, although if it had been, would have been pretty bad.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'd be disappointed if any President, Democrat or Republican, agreed to allow our troops to be tried under the International Court of Justice. We simply aren't going to cross that line.

well we differ there.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

On Kyoto. This is a pretty ridiculous thing to hold against Bush. This went down on the order of 97-1, something close to that, in the Senate when Clinton was in office. Before you can blame Bush for a treaty, you need to consider the reality.

It wasn't my intention to blame Bush for that. I'm quite aware that it was during Clinton's term. My statement wasn't intended to be partisan there.

I think both sides of the aisle are lacking in this regard - Republicans as well as Democrats (because with the exception of the PNAC-goons, foreign policy is largely not dependent on party-affiliation). I think the US as a whole needs to do a better job in regard to what I was saying.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

they will be weak on foreign affairs issues, they will emasculate our military

there's no credible evidence for this. I'd argue (although TBH I haven't done the hard research - why didn't I think of this when I was in school?) that foreign policy is largely independent of party affiliation.

We are all Americans, Obama and McCain, Red and Blue. Nobody wants to see this country get defeated, or invaded, or anything of the sort. Nobody's going to emasculate the military beyond what is prudent (there is a great deal of pork in the military budgetes - $100 million contracts for wrenches anyone?). And foreign policy on a day-to-day basis is largely moderated by the career diplomats, while the president certainly has a great effect I think it's not true to say that one party has been weaker than the other.

Look at all the conflicts we got into under Clinton. Look at Kennedy. Look at FDR. All Democrats.

Voting for one party, or one candidate over the other based on national security is just buying into the "hype machine" and "fear politics." And I'll state that I felt the same way when those "3am" ads were running during the democratic primaries.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, I can take one from the other side . McCain's house question thing... though that wasn't in a debate, although if it had been, would have been pretty bad.

It's important that any gaffe is jumped on quickly by the other so that everyone will see it or it can pass by and be cloaked by the subsequent debate. Michelle Obama's "first time I felt proud" wasn't really too bad in context but was blown up into something big and it stuck.

Palen, for me, has made any number of gaffes but has been let off the hook. I've mentioned above one which I think could have a lot of mileage in it - the description of the Iraq war as "God's war" and of drilling in ANWR being "God's plan". Gibson took the first up but let her off when she waffled about her son in Iraq. You could see from the momentary look of panic on Palin's face as she said that no one knew God's thoughts and realised she could be asked to explain why she did.

I mean, who would want a right wing politician in the WhiteHouse who believed they were carrying out God's plans? Oh, but wait ...................................

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

We are all Americans, Obama and McCain, Red and Blue. Nobody wants to see this country get defeated, or invaded, or anything of the sort. Nobody's going to emasculate the military beyond what is prudent (there is a great deal of pork in the military budgetes - $100 million contracts for wrenches anyone?).

There was an interesting study done on military cost overruns (i.e. $10 toilet seats). Please to enjoy.

Why System Costs Go Sky High » Blog Archive » DoD Buzz

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

There was an interesting study done on military cost overruns (i.e. $10 toilet seats). Please to enjoy.

Why System Costs Go Sky High » Blog Archive » DoD Buzz

Fair nuff.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Arles

This subject has been more eloquently dealt with by many others to this point, but I'll take a stab at it as well. Both sides are going to try and depict their candidate in the best possible light and slam their opponents. There are moments where both will go over the line, they will get called on, but life will go on. It's the way US politics has been for a long time. For me, I'm OK with it all and actually enjoy the reactions from both sides (which is why I regularly watch AC360, Matthews and Fox). If this process really creates this amount of indignation - especially for something as innocuous as the Palin Iraq theatre/border of Kuwait issue, then perhaps there are better activities for you with your blood pressure in mind than following politics.

Snipped some stuff and added some bold. Why do you think that is? As far as I know, none of us are politicians. None of us have any kind of reputation that makes what we say worth anything. What difference does it make if anyone here trumps up their own candidate, or slams their opponents? Not to mention that most of the thread isn't any kind of new angle on anything, rather a regurgitation of things other people have said anyway. Is there a point to it all, or is it just an attempt to justify your support in your candidate to yourself, made publicly?

[Arles]

You state:

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Michelle Obama's "first time I felt proud" wasn't really too bad in context but was blown up into something big and it stuck.

But then state:

Palen, for me, has made any number of gaffes but has been let off the hook. I've mentioned above one which I think could have a lot of mileage in it - the description of the Iraq war as "God's war" and of drilling in ANWR being "God's plan". Gibson took the first up but let her off when she waffled about her son in Iraq.

You do realize that Gibson completely took the quote out of context:

The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

But in the version shown on television, a video clip of her original statement was inserted in place of her objection, giving a different impression of how Palin views the Iraq war.
In the interview, Gibson asked Palin: “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a Holy War?”

Palin’s response, which appears in the transcript but was edited out of the televised version, was:

“You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

“It’s exact words,” Gibson said.

But Gibson’s quote left out what Palin said before that:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

The edited televised version included a partial clip of that quote, but not the whole thing.

Gibson’s characterization of Palin’s words prompted a sharp rebuke from the McCain campaign on Thursday.

“Governor Palin’s full statement was VERY different” from the way Gibson characterized it,” read a statement circulated by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

“Gibson cut the quote — where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

You state:

But then state:


You do realize that Gibson completely took the quote out of context:

to me they're pretty much equally as bad. as a public figure, don't ask a church of people to pray that a task is from god (thus asserting that if it is it is "better" or "more rightous" or whatever you want to say that implies) instead of just saying "pray to god that our brave men and women come home safely" (which TBH i would have absolutely zero problem with).

Bottom line is whichever way you took her quote she's inserting god into the "macro" (policy, decision) side of it, instead of keeping him on the "micro" (interpersonal) side.

[QuikSand]

I think there are two things that are pretty obvious at this point:

#1 - Sarah Palin is already the most influential running mate in most of our lifetimes, and there's basically zero chance that will change. You can make arguments for LBJ or Eagleton, but for the contemporary political generation, she is breaking all the rules. You can't win with a good VP choice? Wanna bet?

#2 - The GOP, whether by luck or design, has basically engineered the Palin phenomenon to land right in their wheelhouse. She's an ardent pro-life Christian woman, and that was the essential resume for the pick (one I think made a ton of sense anyway). But now she is also benefiting from the well-cultivated perception that the "liberal media" is unfairly trying to tarnish her -- and at this point, quite a lot of people would probably like her more if a major news organ published some truly damning information about her, just based on their views of the source(s). It's become a can't lose for the GOP, if she does something well they rally for her, if she does something wrong they rally against whomever points that out.


Whatever your views on issues (pretty passe anyhow), you pretty much have to have a ton of respect for the GOP political machine. They do an outstanding job of winning elections, and they understand the nature of American voters so much better than their counterparts in that other "party" it's not even funny.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Snipped some stuff and added some bold. Why do you think that is? As far as I know, none of us are politicians. None of us have any kind of reputation that makes what we say worth anything. What difference does it make if anyone here trumps up their own candidate, or slams their opponents? Not to mention that most of the thread isn't any kind of new angle on anything, rather a regurgitation of things other people have said anyway. Is there a point to it all, or is it just an attempt to justify your support in your candidate to yourself, made publicly?

I'm not really following. I think we're both saying the same thing which is why get all worked up over statements in a political thread or tactics used by posters? Instead, just read it and enjoy the banter back and forth. No one is really going to be persuaded, but the doesn't mean the thread can't be entertaining and even informative at times.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Arles

You state:

But then state:


You do realize that Gibson completely took the quote out of context:

The quote I'm referring to is not one she made in Gibson's interview but one she made in a lecture to students. She referred to the Iraq war as "God's war" and to the drilling in ANWR as "God's plan". I assume that that was what triggered Gibson's question. Perhaps I was wrong in that.

But the information you give changes nothing - she presents her opinion as representing God's plans. That I find extremely dangerous and a politician that believes this something to be avoided.

I lived through Margaret Thatcher's "reign"

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

to me they're pretty much equally as bad. as a public figure, don't ask a church of people to pray that a task is from god (thus asserting that if it is it is "better" or "more rightous" or whatever you want to say that implies) instead of just saying "pray to god that our brave men and women come home safely" (which TBH i would have absolutely zero problem with).

Bottom line is whichever way you took her quote she's inserting god into the "macro" (policy, decision) side of it, instead of keeping him on the "micro" (interpersonal) side.

I don't know, I think it's perfectly fine to pray that our actions in a serious matter are indeed god's will if you are a religious person. Grant did it, FDR did it, Eisenhower did it, JFK did it, Reagan did it. She's not saying that what we are doing is "God's war". She's praying that our actions in Iraq end up being God's will and we are acting properly.

Originally Posted by JFK

The world is a very different now...and yet the same
revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought
are still at issue around the globe--the belief that
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the
state but from the hand of God.

And, therefore, as we set sail we ask
God's blessing on the most hazardous and
dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has
ever embarked.

I don't see much of a difference from these quotes (esp the second) and what Palin said:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The quote I'm referring to is not one she made in Gibson's interview but one she made in a lecture to students. She referred to the Iraq war as "God's war" and to the drilling in ANWR as "God's plan". I assume that that was what triggered Gibson's question. Perhaps I was wrong in that.

But the information you give changes nothing - she presents her opinion as representing God's plans. That I find extremely dangerous and a politician that believes this something to be avoided.

I lived through Margaret Thatcher's "reign"

For about the 10th time in this thread, here's the exact quote she made in the lecture to the students:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Again, not much different than what many leaders have done and it says nothing about presuming God's plan. Now, what ABC did in the interview is take the quote out of context and only show:
"that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God"

Quite a difference in meaning, isn't it? Nowhere did Palin ever state or even insinuate that we are presumptuous enough to know that we are doing God's plan and smear job done by ABC editing is fairly irresponsible.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Arles

She's not saying that what we are doing is "God's war".

"our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God ........................................................ because there is a plan and that plan is God's plan"

There's another much longer video in which she says that God has sent her to Alaska. Youtube it.

EDIT

I've listened to some more of the videos. Here's a couple of quotes

"I think God's will has to be done .................................. to get that gas line built"

"And he said "God make a way" (to make her governor). "And he did ...."

You'll also be glad to know that when the apocalypse comes that Alaska will be a refuge (I'm sure the Alaskan tourist board will like this one).

[Arles]

Well, you've done ABC proud. The clip you posted is this piece:
"that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."

of the following quote:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

I challenge you to read the second and tell me the first clip doesn't completely take it out of context.

[ace1914]

Her faith is in her God. What's the big deal? She says she hopes that the military is doing what's right in the eyes of God. Do I agree? Hell no. But I can respect her being strong in her faith.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Arles

Well, you've done ABC proud. The clip you posted is this piece:
"that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."

of the following quote:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

I challenge you to read the second and tell me the first clip doesn't completely take it out of context.

It makes a small difference but doesn't alter the fact that there is a clear association in her mind between the war and God's plan. This idea that events are not the consequences of human behaviour but God's influence in human affairs is only slightly removed from the idea that floods and earhtquakes etc are visitations from God. It's medieval.

And it continues. "God's will" is involved in building the pipe line, a preacher cries "Lord make a way, Lord make a way" (for her to become governor) and he did. "Alaska is one of the refuge states in the last days" according to the pastor alongside her.

It's insane, Arles. What's wrong with you?

[Young Drachma]

[Big Fo]

Virginia:
(total) (last week)
Obama - 50 - 47
McCain - 46 - 49

among men: McCain up 11 last week, now tied.
among voters 50+: McCain up 14 last week, now one.
"lower income voters": Obama up 6 last week, now 20.
Independants: McCain up 21 last week, now four.

In the two polls before the Palin selection, 43% of women polled were for McCain, now it is 44%.

SurveyUSA poll summary from a RCP.com link