View Full Version : U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[
8]
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 04:46
Right - McCain is good in 1 on 1's that are televised.
Luckily for us, Obama is sub-par off the top of his head. He fills the air with um's and trips over his words. It's like they are polar opposites. I hope he lives down to my expectations.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-05-2008, 04:52
After watching the speech I'll be interested to see the debates. A lot of what he said I don't think will hold up well in a debate.
The republicans have done a very good job energizing their base this convention. But I wonder if they'll regret not going for independents more.
Was entertained by the guy with the "You can't win an occupation" sign in the audience--especially after all that "victory" talk last night. McCain's rhetoric on the war was about peace which was nice.
Funny stat, republican delegation 93% white, 5%hispanic, 2% black. George W got 14% of the black vote in ohio in 2004. What happens this year if he loses a few percentage points of that?
Sasaki Kojiro
09-05-2008, 04:55
Right - McCain is good in 1 on 1's that are televised.
Luckily for us, Obama is sub-par off the top of his head. He fills the air with um's and trips over his words. It's like they are polar opposites. I hope he lives down to my expectations.
I think that's your imagination...
Big_John
09-05-2008, 04:59
I think that's your imagination...no. obama is definitely more thoughtful in his responses to direct questioning. thoughtful polls badly in the US.
OverKnight
09-05-2008, 05:32
Do you think the RNC audience was in a "USA! USA!" chant off against the DNC audience from last week?
I thought McCain's best line, which was off the cuff in response to the protesters, was "Americans want us to stop yelling at each other, OK?"
I wish I could believe that, but. . .I don't think it'll pan out.
Crazed Rabbit
09-05-2008, 05:40
I think it probably boils down to the fact that she represents views which are so anti-women and plain wrong,
She's anti-herself? How can you define what's 'pro-women' and what's not for every woman?
It's astonishing that you can attempt to claim you know better than women themselves what is good for them.
That's a definite reason for the left's hate; they thought they could define women's issues and how women should feel about them, and along comes a smart successful woman who doesn't agree.
So of course they feel threatened, and instantly try to destroy her.
CR
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 05:54
I think that's your imagination...
You think what is my imagination, the part about Obama, McCain or both? Obama "Buh and Uh's" and is a slow natural speaker off-the-cuff. If we're all about seeing things as they really are here, I've admitted that we will likely lose this thing and that McCain is weak in speech delivery, you should at least admit the reality that your guy isn't that impressive when he is responding to questions. He seems friendly and confident in his small address settings, but when he hasn't prepared answers he stutters and trips and lets out the majority of his gaffes - he also doesn't seem as confident, which is understandable.
You can obviously disagree, but try to call a spade a spade.
McCain is playing the "CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE"" card as well, I guess he forgot to mention what he's going to change.
"And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd: Change is coming," McCain declared
CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "He admonished the old, do-nothing crowd in Washington but ignored the fact that he's been part of that crowd for 26 years, opposing solutions on health care, energy, and education."
Shut up. CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE.
McCain has cited her authority over the Alaska National Guard as one example. But in a memo last spring, Air Force Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell warned that "missions are at risk" in the state's units because of a personnel shortage. The lack of qualified airmen, Campbell said, "has reached a crisis level."
Looks like we need a CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE in the Guard, too. Funny how she never led the guard in combat, and I doubt she had much involvement other than activating them to go to Iraq.
"I think she's got a compelling story, but I assume she wants to be treated the same way that guys want to be treated," he said. "I've been through this 19 months, she's been through it — what — four days so far?"
Best quote I've heard so far.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-05-2008, 06:39
You think what is my imagination, the part about Obama, McCain or both? Obama "Buh and Uh's" and is a slow natural speaker off-the-cuff. If we're all about seeing things as they really are here, I've admitted that we will likely lose this thing and that McCain is weak in speech delivery, you should at least admit the reality that your guy isn't that impressive when he is responding to questions. He seems friendly and confident in his small address settings, but when he hasn't prepared answers he stutters and trips and lets out the majority of his gaffes - he also doesn't seem as confident, which is understandable.
You can obviously disagree, but try to call a spade a spade.
I thought McCain's speech tonight was good aside from a few stumbles. From what I recall of the debates obama says "uh" in his answers but that's what all the candidates do when they answer a question they don't have a prepared answer for. It only looks unimpressive in obama because his speeches are so precise. I tend to think speaking style is overplayed by the media because they're avoiding talking about specific policies in any way that could be seen as biased.
But anyway, what I was really disagreeing with was the idea that the speech was weak for McCain but that he'd do better in a debate format. The problem with the debate format for him is that he's not going to be able to get away with "obama will raise income taxes" like he can in the speech format. I also doubt he'll get the question "Senator McCain, could you please show us a lengthy video detailing your experiences as a POW?" followed by the question "Senator McCain, could you explain how your experience as a POW prepared you to lead America?".
But then, I'm assuming that most american's will prefer Obama's policies to McCain's...
Tribesman
09-05-2008, 07:39
Rather wrong about Mexico's gun laws, weren't you? So kindly provide links to prove you're not lying through your teeth in some sort of attempted cleverness.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Ah that topic the one where I made the mistake ofgetting information from one of your gun nut sites and you followed with a lengthy episode showing your total ignorance .:yes:
I showed the one statement I found, from 2006. Have you seen more? That statement I looked at does not show her to be a 'just say no' abstinence education supporter.
You showed one statement which was a response to a question , well done , what was the question that was asked that elicited that response ? What are the important words in that question that show without doubt that you are talking bollox ?
It's astonishing that you can attempt to claim you know better than women themselves what is good for them.
What ? you mean like abortion:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
She's anti-herself? How can you define what's 'pro-women' and what's not for every woman?
It's astonishing that you can attempt to claim you know better than women themselves what is good for them.
That's a definite reason for the left's hate; they thought they could define women's issues and how women should feel about them, and along comes a smart successful woman who doesn't agree.
So of course they feel threatened, and instantly try to destroy her.
CR
ha - I am not an industrial worker but I think I can have a thought out opinion on the matter politically, I am not a pensioner, prisoner, politician, economist... But I have positions on them all, just because I am not a woman it doesn't mean I can't understand women's issues. Just as women, simply because they are not men, can have an understanding of mens political issues.
You might have something with the whole women tending to be on the side of left in public life and because of this it makes it hard to adjust to when there are women so vehmently on the other side. But I dunno, for me I think it just might be that women with the views she holds who actually run for office just seem even more twisted, demented and abhorently disgusting, than men. Hence the hate. But then again there are some women politicians which I disagree with completely, yet I have no more feelings of disgust than a bloke. I think it is probably just her.. and Thatcher.
no. obama is definitely more thoughtful in his responses to direct questioning. thoughtful polls badly in the US.
I can see that being true.....and that is just scary :shame::wall:
Kralizec
09-05-2008, 10:46
ha - I am not an industrial worker but I think I can have a thought out opinion on the matter politically, I am not a pensioner, prisoner, politician, economist... But I have positions on them all, just because I am not a woman it doesn't mean I can't understand women's issues. Just as women, simply because they are not men, can have an understanding of mens political issues.
You might have something with the whole women tending to be on the side of left in public life and because of this it makes it hard to adjust to when there are women so vehmently on the other side. But I dunno, for me I think it just might be that women with the views she holds who actually run for office just seem even more twisted, demented and abhorently disgusting, than men. Hence the hate. But then again there are some women politicians which I disagree with completely, yet I have no more feelings of disgust than a bloke. I think it is probably just her.. and Thatcher.
I take it you're one of those people who think that ethnicity, (lack of) religion and gender deterimines who you're obligated to support?
ha - I am not an industrial worker but I think I can have a thought out opinion on the matter politically, I am not a pensioner, prisoner, politician, economist... But I have positions on them all, just because I am not a woman it doesn't mean I can't understand women's issues. Just as women, simply because they are not men, can have an understanding of mens political issues.
You might have something with the whole women tending to be on the side of left in public life and because of this it makes it hard to adjust to when there are women so vehmently on the other side. But I dunno, for me I think it just might be that women with the views she holds who actually run for office just seem even more twisted, demented and abhorently disgusting, than men. Hence the hate. But then again there are some women politicians which I disagree with completely, yet I have no more feelings of disgust than a bloke. I think it is probably just her.. and Thatcher.
but how is she anti-woman............?
CountArach
09-05-2008, 11:01
She's anti-herself? How can you define what's 'pro-women' and what's not for every woman?
How about we let Democracy decide... Women are 50-43 Pro-Choice (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110002/Will-Abortion-Issue-Help-Hurt-McCain.aspx)
More to the point, if I can't know what is best for a woman (Which I don't), then what makes you think that the Government does?
but how is she anti-woman............?
Pro-Life.
Pro-Life.
Pro-Life = Anti-Woman ?????????? :inquisitive:
Ignoramus
09-05-2008, 11:34
How about we let Democracy decide... Women are 50-43 Pro-Choice (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110002/Will-Abortion-Issue-Help-Hurt-McCain.aspx)
More to the point, if I can't know what is best for a woman (Which I don't), then what makes you think that the Government does?
Pro-Life.
Excuse me, but that's absurd. Your statement is effectively condemening every single minority there is out there. Democracy is not about the majority is always right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That's political correctness. Sadly, the two often go together.
CountArach
09-05-2008, 11:57
Excuse me, but that's absurd. Your statement is effectively condemening every single minority there is out there. Democracy is not about the majority is always right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That's political correctness. Sadly, the two often go together.
No, I never condemned those people... nor would I. I hold many, many minority positions. Where did I say I condemn those people for being in the minority? All I am saying is this - Abortion is a women's issue... why shouldn't women decide it?
I take it you're one of those people who think that ethnicity, (lack of) religion and gender deterimines who you're obligated to support?
You got that opinion from that post of mine? Blimey, dunno how you done that. Of course I don't think ethnicity / religion / gender/ how many times you orgasm a day / number of toes / hair loss.... determines who you should vote for, but a lot of things are factors as to why people vote the way you do. How you even get onto this whole thing from my posts is beyond me however.
but how is she anti-woman............?
It is not only her pro-choice position, as CA stated, it is her whole social philosophy - her whole moral and ethical positioning as well. I describe her as anti-women because her whole outlook of life is set in the 1920's. Seems fair to me.
i'm not convinced that she is anti-woman, but mainly because i have not seen specifics that could be seen as indicative of the position.............?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on a separate note; who is the gamers candidate:
http://www.edge-online.com/features/who-gamer%E2%80%99s-candidate
CountArach
09-05-2008, 12:31
John Bush (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ZnHTWWErM) is his own man. :laugh4:
KukriKhan
09-05-2008, 14:04
Idle thought: Does it bug anyone else that the #2 person in the Presidential succession list is neither selected/elected by we the people, not even confirmed by our Senators?
Since FDR, the VP gets picked by the Prez candidate. Before that, party bosses did it in 'smoke-filled' rooms. Before that, the #2 guy was the one who got the second most actual votes cast in the Electoral College - at least then somebody actually voted for the position. Back in those days, a McCain-Obama or Obama-McCain administration would have been possible.
Maybe we ought to tweak that part of the system, as it seems a bit "Royal" to me.
CountArach
09-05-2008, 14:13
I dunno, it seems like now you guys get a complete package which you vote on, thus ensuring there is at least some unity at the head of Government. I couldn't see a McCain/Obama or Obama/McCain Presidency working too well, simply because of the backroom fights. It would also further entrench the two-party system (More so even than now...).
I suppose now the party bosses still, in a way, pick the candidate as they are usually very highly placed within the presidential campaign, or are present in the form of occasional advisors on these matters. Sure, one guy makes the final decision, but still - his party leadesr have sort of ratified it.
Crazed Rabbit
09-05-2008, 15:04
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Ah that topic the one where I made the mistake ofgetting information from one of your gun nut sites and you followed with a lengthy episode showing your total ignorance .:yes:
There ya go, lyin' again:
http://www.davekopel.com/espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm
makes possession of firearms of greater than .22 very difficult.
Not what you said, is it?
It's clear you aren't interested in discussion. If you are, bring some links next time.
ha - I am not an industrial worker but I think I can have a thought out opinion on the matter politically, I am not a pensioner, prisoner, politician, economist... But I have positions on them all, just because I am not a woman it doesn't mean I can't understand women's issues. Just as women, simply because they are not men, can have an understanding of mens political issues.
How can you claim to know better on women's issues than a woman herself? How can any group claim to have a monopoly over what stance an entire gender should, according to them, take on a variety of issues?
It is not only her pro-choice position, as CA stated, it is her whole social philosophy - her whole moral and ethical positioning as well. I describe her as anti-women because her whole outlook of life is set in the 1920's. Seems fair to me.
Susan B Anthony was pro life as well, you know. And excuse me, but did women back in the 1920s get elected governor? No, I didn't think so. You lefties are just trying to find flimsy excuses for justifying your hate of a woman who doesn't toe the line of what you declare to be 'pro-woman'.
CR
Susan B Anthony was pro life as well, you know. And excuse me, but did women back in the 1920s get elected governor? No, I didn't think so. You lefties are just trying to find flimsy excuses for justifying your hate of a woman who doesn't toe the line of what you declare to be 'pro-woman'.
CR
that does seem to be the problem, she doesn't fit the mold for what a woman 'should' be and must therefore be considered a hateful being.
on a related note, wasn't that the whole purpose of emelines original protests; preconceived ideas of what women should be on the part of a male dominated society?
poor creatures, they threw off one form of tyranny only to have a replaced by another. :no:
CountArach
09-05-2008, 15:29
that does seem to be the problem, she doesn't fit the mold for what a woman 'should' be and must therefore be considered a hateful being.
on a related note, wasn't that the whole purpose of emelines original protests; preconceived ideas of what women should be on the part of a male dominated society?
poor creatures, they threw off one form of tyranny only to have a replaced by another. :no:
Yes poor Sarah Palin, lambasted by the Feminists for not taking the opportunity she has...
Devastatin Dave
09-05-2008, 15:30
I think that's your imagination...
I think Obama sounds like George Bush after an aneurism without his teleprompter. So no, its not his imagination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL50PyJ4f-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeW4UyPzdGk&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5QxTxUbUoc&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgH5i8ug6E&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc
We interrupt your regularly scheduled playing of the "sexism!" card to bring this important update: Dave Barry has another column (http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/gp_20080904_8230.php) about the convention out.
Critics continue to ask how much McCain really knew about Palin before he selected her as his running mate, especially in light of that fact that he keeps referring to her, in speeches, as "Whatshername." But McCain's staff insists that it conducted a thorough investigation of Palin, which included not only inspecting her driver's license, but also, according to a campaign spokesperson, "reading almost her entire Wikipedia article."
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 17:06
We interrupt your regularly scheduled playing of the "sexism!" card to bring this important update: Dave Barry has another column (http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/gp_20080904_8230.php) about the convention out.
Critics continue to ask how much McCain really knew about Palin before he selected her as his running mate, especially in light of that fact that he keeps referring to her, in speeches, as "Whatshername." But McCain's staff insists that it conducted a thorough investigation of Palin, which included not only inspecting her driver's license, but also, according to a campaign spokesperson, "reading almost her entire Wikipedia article."
Palin now more popular than Obama or McCain (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain)
I'm not saying it will stay like that, but it might help get the job done.
Oprah refuses to have Sarah Palin on to the dismay of half of her supporters. (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3os.htm)
Says she would be happy to "pencil her in after the election"... (http://www.tmz.com/2008/09/05/oprah-to-palin-i-can-pencil-you-in-later/)
I was always much more concerned about Oprah's support of Obama than I was about the Daily Show or Colbert Report. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert have become hatchet men against the G.O.P. or anyone who crosses the democratic party and their viewers largely reflect that reality. Oprah appeals to centrists as well as the left and some on the right and her support of Obama at the expense of the others was always more troubling to me. Hopefully she can be pressured into opening up and stop being so partisan this year, a position that doesn't suit her and may hurt her broad appeal going forward.
PS - Maybe Obama should focus more on the Chicago killing rate than he does on the one in Iraq. The Chicago Murder rate for this summer has been about double the death toll of U.S. servicemen and women in Iraq. (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html)
I was always much more concerned about Oprah's support of Obama than I was about the Daily Show or Colbert Report. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert have become hatchet men against the G.O.P. or anyone who crosses the democratic party and their viewers largely reflect that reality.
Do you really know the point of the Daily Show? :inquisitive:
I was always much more concerned about Oprah's support of Obama than I was about the Daily Show or Colbert Report. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert have become hatchet men against the G.O.P. or anyone who crosses the democratic party and their viewers largely reflect that reality. Oprah appeals to centrists as well as the left and some on the right and her support of Obama at the expense of the others was always more troubling to me. Hopefully she can be pressured into opening up and stop being so partisan this year, a position that doesn't suit her and may hurt her broad appeal going forward.
To be fair It as always seemed to me that Stewart and Colbert´s fodder is the lunacy and ilogic steps taken by government....now....if you look at the last few years is it any surprise that they have hammered the Republicans more than the Democrats?......are the level of ****-ups both parties were responsible for even comparable???
I have seen them go after Democrats when it is warranted.....the reason you may not notice it so much is because the Democrats don´t start bitching about it...
As for Oprah....well...she publically supported Obama....so yeah...she´s partisan...and she has the right to be......but then again she just airs a silly talkshow.....it´s not like we´re supposed to take everything she says as fact...like for example Fox News. :idea2:
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 18:23
Do you really know the point of the Daily Show? :inquisitive:
The point? As far as I've understood it it was to make the young part of the electorate cynical about the political system as it exists and to have them change it by electing Obama. I listen to Stewart as often as I listen to Limbaugh which is hardly ever. Colbert used to be a bit less biased, but since he has been supporting Obama it has been one hatchet job after another.
I don't like hatchet men and I try not to listen to them unless I want to hear what the enemy is saying. Keith Olberman, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the most effective voices that the left has today in Media. I lump them in with guys like Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity. They have different styles but those styles appeal to their respective halves of the electorate.
They are interesting to listen to when you want new and aggressive talking points, but they hardly ever report facts. Startlingly O'Reilly has seemed to be less aggressive in his attacks on the left due to his disenfranchisement with the Bush administration. His interviews with Clinton and Obama seemed pretty fair.
As far as I've understood it it was to make the young part of the electorate cynical about the political system as it exists
you underestimate the political system...it can accomplish that goal itself.
Tribesman
09-05-2008, 19:27
There ya go, lyin' again:
http://www.davekopel.com/espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm
Quote:
makes possession of firearms of greater than .22 very difficult.
Not what you said, is it?
Please read your link
In practice, possession of firearms above .22 caliber is severely restricted.
It is you who always insists that such severe restictions = a ban , like for example.....
A ban that forbids all but the lowest* rifle caliber and almost all useful-for-self-defense handgun calibers is basically equivalent to a general ban on firearms. ...your own words from another link you provided.
How can any group claim to have a monopoly over what stance an entire gender should, according to them, take on a variety of issues?
What ? you mean a group like a government deciding what a woman can or cannot do if she is pregnant .:yes:
So I take it you are against a ban on abortions now then :yes: So that means you don't like Palin because her group wants a monopoly on what every pregnant women can and cannot do by taking away their choice .
Come to think of it , that conservative family values group that did the question and answer with Palin at the time of the gubernatorial elections , what is their leaderships views on working mothers of young children ? Not of course suggesting that Palin would share the views of such traditional patriotic christian conservatives commited to fighting the liberal scourge that is underming the american way of life eh :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The point? As far as I've understood it it was to make the young part of the electorate cynical about the political system as it exists and to have them change it by electing Obama. I listen to Stewart as often as I listen to Limbaugh which is hardly ever. Colbert used to be a bit less biased, but since he has been supporting Obama it has been one hatchet job after another.
I don't like hatchet men and I try not to listen to them unless I want to hear what the enemy is saying. Keith Olberman, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the most effective voices that the left has today in Media. I lump them in with guys like Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity. They have different styles but those styles appeal to their respective halves of the electorate.
They are interesting to listen to when you want new and aggressive talking points, but they hardly ever report facts. Startlingly O'Reilly has seemed to be less aggressive in his attacks on the left due to his disenfranchisement with the Bush administration. His interviews with Clinton and Obama seemed pretty fair.
You are aware that they are fake news shows though, right? The Daily Show basically TiVos every news show in the country, and uses that archive to rip both politicians and media alike. The whole point is to highlight hypocrisy and doubletalk, regardless of where it comes from. Fox News and the current administration have made their job very easy, but they do target Dems as well. Jon Stewart himself is left of center, but that doesn't really drive the show.
As for Colbert, apparently there are a lot of right-wingers that don't get what he is doing. It's always been an overt parody of O'Reilly (or some conglomeration with him at the top), but he still sucks some into thinking he's serious. Which usually leads to hilarious situations, like speaking at the correspondents' dinner.
Even though they are fake news shows, they draw an audience that is fed up with the way the MSM presents the news. That, and stoned slackers. People who have Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc piped into their heads 24/7 are not their audience (but they should watch it, to see how they are being manipulated).
Palin....an actual member of the Alaska Independence Party?????
uhmmmmm....not sure...
a sympathizer at the very least???
uhm....looky here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI)
TERRORIST!!!! :laugh4:
uhm....looky here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI)
TERRORIST!!!! :laugh4:
Teh old.
As for Daily Show and Colbert, I think you're missing the obvious, TuffStuff: Their primary goal is to be funny. If they stop being funny they lose their audience and they die. This has ramifications that you are completely missing when you classify them as "hatchet men" or whatever.
Humor involves misdirection, kinda like a magic show. You lead someone to think you're going to look at a problem from one direction, then you flip it on its head. This is the reason that purely partisan humor is hard, if not impossible to do well consistently. If you're just preaching to the choir, you ain't gonna be very funny. Certainly not night after night. Just look at the grizzled remains of the ½ hour news hour (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5CL8SbPRVc). That's a good example of trying to be completely partisan and funny. Watch it for yourself -- you're its target market. Not very funny, is it?
If you had been watching the Daily Show lately, you would have noticed how often they slam Obama and how uncomfortable it makes the audience. Still funny, though.
Check out how they mock the Dems (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=183523). Here's them going after Obama personally (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183519&title=guess-whos-coming-to-denver). Much, much funnier than that junk from Fox.
PanzerJaeger
09-05-2008, 20:03
I think Obama sounds like George Bush after an aneurism without his teleprompter. So no, its not his imagination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL50PyJ4f-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeW4UyPzdGk&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5QxTxUbUoc&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgH5i8ug6E&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc
Jesus Christ. George Bush can at least carry a thought to its logical conclusion, albeit in a roundabout sort of way. :laugh4:
Full video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOBWZ7Jocc8) of an ABC report on Troopergate.
-edit-
Here are some words worth considering from The American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/09/04/nose-face/):
Dreher is free to vote for McCain to spite the Kos Kretins; but he will also be voting for war with Iran and pointless brinksmanship with Russia, funded by another mountain range of debt. A McCain vote also gives a ringing endorsement to the last eight years of unnecessary war, torture and incompetence. In other words, it is a vote to cut off his nose in order to spite his face.
Big_John
09-05-2008, 21:06
oh man, the half-hour news hour.. what a painful experiment that was.
Lemur, save your breath. Tuff is the local emo-con. funny doesn't interest him.
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 21:14
Emo-con? What do you mean?
Noonan has an article about Sarah Palin's speech out
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
'A Servant's Heart'
September 5, 2008 11:24 a.m.
Sarah Palin killed. And more than killed.
Much has been said about her speech, but a few points. "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick" is pure American and goes straight into Bartlett's. This is the authentic sound of the American mama, of every mother you know at school who joins the board, reads the books, heads the committee, and gets the show on the road. These women make large portions of America work.
She has the power of the normal. Hillary Clinton is grim, stentorian, was born to politics and its connivances. Nancy Pelosi, another mother of five, often seems dazed and ad hoc. But this state governor and mother of a big family is a woman in a good mood. There is something so normal about her, so "You've met this person before and you like her," that she broke through in a new way, as a character vividly herself, and vividly genuine.
***
Her flaws accentuated her virtues. Now and then this happens in politics, but it's rare. An example: The very averageness of her voice, the not-wonderfulness of it, highlighted her normality: most people don't have great voices. That normality in turn highlighted the courage she showed in being there, on that stage for the first time in her life and under trying circumstances. Her averageness accentuated her specialness. Her commonality highlighted her uniqueness.
She seemed wholly different from, and in fact seemed a refutation to, all the men of Washington at their great desks who make rules others have to live by but they don't have to live by themselves, who mandate work rules from which they exempt Congress, for instance. They don't live by the rules they espouse. She has lived her expressed values. She said yes to a Down Syndrome child. This too is powerful.
***
What she did in terms of the campaign itself was important. No one has ever really laid a glove on Obama before, not in this campaign and maybe not in his life. But Palin really damaged him. She took him square on, fearlessly, by which I mean in part that she showed no awkwardness connected to race, or racial history. A small town mayor is kind of like a community organizer only you have actual responsibilities. He wrote two memoirs but never authored a major bill. They've hauled the Styrofoam pillars back to the Hollywood lot.
This was powerful coming from Baberaham Lincoln, as she's been called.
By the end, Democrats knew they had been dinged, and badly. After the speech they descended on cable news en masse with the dart-eyed, moist-browed look of the operative who doesn't believe his talking points. They seemed like they were thinking, "I've seen this movie before and it doesn't end well." Actually they haven't seen it before in that Palin is something new, but they have seen it before in terms of what she said.
Which gets me to the most important element of the speech, and that is the startlingness of the content. It was not modern conservatism, or split the difference Conservative-ish-ism. It was not a conservatism that assumes the America of 2008 is very different from the America of 1980.
It was the old-time conservatism. Government is too big, Obama will "grow it", Congress spends too much and he'll spend "more." It was for low taxes, for small business, for the private sector, for less regulation, for governing with "a servant's heart"; it was pro-small town values, and implicitly but strongly pro-life.
This was so old it seemed new, and startling. The speech was, in its way, a call so tender it made grown-ups weep on the floor. The things she spoke of were the beating heart of the old America. But as I watched I thought, I know where the people in that room are, I know their heart, for it is my heart. But this election is a wild card, because America is a wild card. It is not as it was in '80. I know where the Republican base is, but we do not know where this country that never stops changing is.
***
It all left me wondering if this campaign is about to take on a new shape, with the old time conservatism on one side, and a smoother, evolved form of the old style liberalism on the other.
It doesn't get more dramatic, or dramatically drawn, than that.
***
I don't like the new media war. I don't like what it has the potential to do to the election, and the country.
The media overstepped. The Republican party resented it. GOP strategists saw a unifying force rising: anger in the base. They too had seen this movie before. They slammed the media. The media shot back: "You're attacking us for doing our job!"
How did the media overstep? By offending people by going so immediately and so personally into issues surrounding Mrs. Palin's family. They did not overstep by digging, by deep reporting, by investigating Palin's professional record.
Campbell Brown of CNN did nothing wrong for instance in pressing a campaign spokesman on Palin's foreign policy credentials. She was unjustly criticized for following an appropriate and necessary line of inquiry. But endless front page stories connected to Mrs. Palin's 17-year-old daughter? Cable news shows that had people insinuating Palin, whom America had not yet even met, was a bad mother, and that used her daughter's circumstances to examine Republican views on abstinence education? That was ugly.
In the end it made Palin the underdog, and gave her the perfect platform for the perfect dive she made Wednesday night.
We have had these old press fights in the past – they were a source of constant tension when I was a child, when Barry Goldwater came forward as a conservative and the press scorned him as a flake, and later when Ronald Reagan came up and the press dismissed him as Bonzo.
But this latest fight commences on a new and wilder battlefield. The old combatants were old school gentlemen, Eric Sevareid and Walter Cronkite; the new combatants are half-crazy cable anchors, the lower lurkers of the Internet, and the anonymous posters on the comment thread on the radical website.
This new war on new turf is not good, and carries the potential of great harm. Everyone really ought to stop, breathe deep, and think.
I am worried they won't. A friend IM'd the day after Palin's speech, and I told him of an inexplicable sense of foreboding. He surprised me by saying he shared it. "Calling all underworlds reporting for duty!," he wrote. "The bed is about to fly around the room, the puke is about to come out." He meant: this campaign is going to engage unseen powers and forces. He meant: this campaign, this beautiful golden thing with two admirable men at the top and two admirable vice presidential candidates, is going to turn dark.
***
It is starting to look to me like a nation-defining election. And in this it seems almost old-fashioned. 1992 for instance didn't seem or feel nation-defining, not as I remember it, nor did 2000. 1964 did, and '80 did, but they both ended in landslides. Landslide is not what I'm seeing here.
Where are the Democrats going to go? I suspect to foreign policy. In politics it used to be called Tolstoy: war and peace. McCain-Palin will mean more war, Obama-Biden will mean peace.
This campaign is about to become: epic.
***
John McCain also made a speech. It was flat.
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 21:27
I've had too many people tell me that they learn their current events solely from the daily show and Colbert report. The Daily show tends to attack from a certain angle. If he attacks Republicans it is because they are on the right, if he attacks the democrats it is usually because they resemble Republicans. It is deeply partisan if he criticizes people solely for being on the right or out of touch with Stewart brand liberalism. People here from other countries have said it themselves - American democrats are centrists and Republicans are center-right. Stewart condemns Republicans and democrats when they do conservative things.
It isn't about being funny then, it is about a news show that reports propaganda. What is the most effective form of propaganda? I think that it is humor. Republican propaganda appeals to different types of thought right now because we are in transition - we have one leg out of the leadership role in government, I agree. We have the man who would be king and we are starting to get some humorous ideas, but he isn't in power yet, so we haven't switched from defense.
Shows like Limbaugh and O'Reilly appeal to their die-hards and they are filled with other types of emotive propaganda that appeals to their target market. I don't liek hearing too much propoganda - My favorite way to get news is to watch c-span and read various sources. I watch the daily show to learn what points I need to counter in everyday discussions with friends.
Crazed Rabbit
09-05-2008, 21:29
I'm glad Noonan thought the speech was good.
As for Daily Show and Colbert, I think you're missing the obvious, TuffStuff: Their primary goal is to be funny. If they stop being funny they lose their audience and they die. This has ramifications that you are completely missing when you classify them as "hatchet men" or whatever.
True, but their target audience leans left. They certainly make fun of the dems as well, I can't argue there.
The one thing that stops me at times from watching is what stops me from enjoying some other humor; I know that the joke they make isn't accurate. Like if a person who doesn't know anything about engineering tries to make a joke that relies on an average person's level of knowledge about engineering. It's not funny to me because I know the punchline is wrong.
It's similar for political humor because the truth is simplified and exaggerated to score laughs.
Please read your link
It is you who always insists that such severe restictions = a ban , like for example.....
A ban that forbids all but the lowest* rifle caliber and almost all useful-for-self-defense handgun calibers is basically equivalent to a general ban on firearms. ...your own words from another link you provided.
I said 'basically equivalent to' not 'equal to'. And don't you disagree with that? The thing is what you claimed Kopel said, and I have nothing to do with it.
But what you're now claiming, is that you lied about what Kopel said in order to excuse your lie about Mexico's gun laws, because I would have framed Kopel's statement in the same way, even though the quote of me you provide shows I would not?
Looks like you got caught out on a limb, tribesy. :laugh4::laugh4:
What ? you mean a group like a government deciding what a woman can or cannot do if she is pregnant .:yes:
So I take it you are against a ban on abortions now then :yes: So that means you don't like Palin because her group wants a monopoly on what every pregnant women can and cannot do by taking away their choice .
Wow. Your obtuseness knows no bounds.
CR
PanzerJaeger
09-05-2008, 21:32
McCain smashes Obama.. (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/09/mccain_tv_ratings_beat_obama_i.php)
McCain TV Ratings Beat Obama in Preliminary Numbers
By Andrew Krukowski
Presidential candidate John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention drew more television viewers than his rival Barack Obama attracted at the Democratic party's event last week, according to preliminary ratings from Nielsen Media Research.
Across all broadcast networks Thursday, Sen. McCain’s speech ended the night with a 4.8 rating/7 share, compared to Sen. Obama’s 4.3/7 average, according to overnight numbers from metered households in 55 U.S. markets measured by Nielsen. These ratings are preliminary, however, and are subject to change.
NBC’s coverage of Sen. McCain’s speech started directly at the tail end of the opening game of NFL season, with the speech pulling in a 6.3 rating/10 share, topping Sen. Obama’s speech last week by 26%. That lead-in may have boosted audiences who last night turned out in droves to watch Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin introduce herself to the country.
ABC’s showing of the McCain speech averaged a 4.5/7, down 2% from the same night of the Democratic convention last week, while CBS’ coverage took in a 3.4/5, an increase of 3%.
For updated numbers, click here.
If he attacks Republicans it is because they are on the right, if he attacks the democrats it is usually because they resemble Republicans.
Hey, I understand what you're saying, but this little sentence leaped out at me as inaccurate. When TDS mocks the Dems, it mocks them for being Dems. Lots of jokes about impotence, not being able to get anything done, being pushovers, being wimps. And watch the clip about Obama; there's nothing about transposed Republican criticism there. They are mocking the man based on his mockable qualities.
I'll agree that people getting all their news from TDS is a bad idea. On the other hand, sometimes when the news of the day is too depressing, I'll skip the Nightly News and watch TDS instead, just so that I can have a laugh. And you can tell very easily when they're getting too partisan; they stop being funny.
PJ, well then, I guess the elction's over, and McCain won. Well done!
PanzerJaeger
09-05-2008, 21:50
PJ, well then, I guess the elction's over, and McCain won. Well done!
You just can't help yourself can you? :beam:
It is interesting that Johnny Mac pulled in more people than Barack's soaring(and unusually angry) rhetoric, spectacle, and lame fireworks show.
What's even more interesting are the numbers for Sarah Palin's speech, and the subsequent polling (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain), despite the liberal onslaught.
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 21:51
Hey, I understand what you're saying, but this little sentence leaped out at me as inaccurate. When TDS mocks the Dems, it mocks them for being Dems. Lots of jokes about impotence, not being able to get anything done, being pushovers, being wimps. And watch the clip about Obama; there's nothing about transposed Republican criticism there. They are mocking the man based on his mockable qualities.
I'll agree that people getting all their news from TDS is a bad idea. On the other hand, sometimes when the news of the day is too depressing, I'll skip the Nightly News and watch TDS instead, just so that I can have a laugh. And you can tell very easily when they're getting too partisan; they stop being funny.
PJ, well then, I guess the elction's over, and McCain won. Well done!
Stewart mocks them from a liberal point of view - as someone on the left. He is pissed when they roll over to republicans or conservatism, he is pissed when they aren't getting his idea of reform through, when they agree with Republicans, when they are too incompetent not to go after conservatives.
I do think that you see where I'm coming from. Limbaugh does the same thing. He goes after dems when they are being liberals, not when they are being conservatives. He went after McCain when he wasn't Conservative enough. He supports dems who are pro-life.
I think you are very smart Lemur, but it seems as though you look at partisanship through a very limited glass sometimes. When the daily show mocks Obama they seem to do it like conservatives used to mock Bush - lovingly and in a jovial manner (not so much anymore).
HoreTore
09-05-2008, 21:53
Emo-con? What do you mean?
Haha, perfect response :laugh4:
woad&fangs
09-05-2008, 21:54
I can think of 3 possible explanations for McCain's higher ratings.
1. Obama probably had more people watching via video streaming or youtube videos then McCain did. The nielson ratings wouldn't count those.
2. Sarah Palin got everyone excited to hear McCain speak.
3. Blue Staters watched both speeches whereas Red Staters only watched McCain.
It was probably a combination of the 3.
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 21:57
Haha, perfect response :laugh4:
I'm assuming he meant emotional-conservative, but how does me pointing out how humor is a form of propaganda in the strictest sense lead you to that label?
PanzerJaeger
09-05-2008, 21:59
I can think of 3 possible explanations for McCain's higher ratings.
1. Obama probably had more people watching via video streaming or youtube videos then McCain did. The nielson ratings wouldn't count those.
2. Sarah Palin got everyone excited to hear McCain speak.
3. Blue Staters watched both speeches whereas Red Staters only watched McCain.
It was probably a combination of the 3.
Maybe, just maybe, more people wanted to hear what McCain had to say. Once you've heard an Obama speech, having to hear about hope and change and hope and change and a little more about hope and change is equivalent to a weekend at Gitmo. The man is a broken record of weak platitudes...
Somehow I'm having a hard time picturing PJ getting this bubbly about ratings news if it were going any other way. But hey, if his ticket gets good ratings, that's it! Everybody line up for the victory party!
Maybe, just maybe, more people wanted to hear what McCain had to say. Once you've heard an Obama speech, having to hear about hope and change and hope and change and a little more about hope and change is equivolent to a weekend at Gitmo. The man is a broken record of weak platitudes...
you mean like Mr. "did I mention I was a POW before?" McCain?
The difference in ratings is easy to understand....Palin.....her positions might be crap but DAMN!!!!
I´d tune in to watch that :2thumbsup:
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 22:08
Who knows why the ratings were higher. Woad and Fangs is probably right, aside for the 3rd claim that implies red-staters are ignorant and not interested in options. Maybe more people are available on Thursday nights?
I would agree that more people had probably heard about how good Palin's speech was and it piqued their interests for a while.
Not to pay too much attention to this ratings silliness, but I believe the numbers also omit PBS. Since we all know that Dems are a bunch of gorp-eating, chablis-swilling, hippie-cuddling Trotskyites, which channel do you figure they'd favor?
Meanwhile, looks like Governor Palin is going to play out the clock (http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/516641.html) on Troopergate. I don't think anyone can prevent her, either.
PanzerJaeger
09-05-2008, 22:19
Somehow I'm having a hard time picturing PJ getting this bubbly about ratings news if it were going any other way. But hey, if his ticket gets good ratings, that's it! Everybody line up for the victory party!
You say that like you're revealing something I'm trying to keep under wraps. Unlike certain folks.. err.. you, I'm not attempting to feign objectivity or independence or whatever you're calling it.
It is very cool that McCain's numbers actually beat the Rockstar's. Who would have thought old, boring, telepromter challenged John would crush Osama? Maybe Americans do value substance over style. What's even cooler is that Sarah essentially tied him, and is even more popular that The One himself! Fun times.
you mean like Mr. "did I mention I was a POW before?" McCain
I'd rather hear a compelling story such as his than vague references to community organization masking a rather inglorious climb through chicago machine politics.
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 22:24
There is a new ad out linking Obama with Kilpatrick. I think it lacks scope - the phrase "know who Barack's friends are" is weak. What should be said of the video is "this is what Barack's rhetoric is worth". He used beautiful praise for kilpatricks promise when the reality was much different and his administration was a crappy disgrace. Just some thoughts - simply linking the men isn't really too fair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SODIFZXIPA
PanzerJaeger
09-05-2008, 22:24
Not to pay too much attention to this ratings silliness, but I believe the numbers also omit PBS. Since we all know that Dems are a bunch of gorp-eating, chablis-swilling, hippie-cuddling Trotskyites, which channel do you figure they'd favor?
Is it really that infathomable? If we're counting PBS, we also have to factor in all the elderly who watch, and the Are You Being Served? crowd... Liberals aren't the only ones who watch, especially later at night.
The Kilpatrick ad was good as it used Obama's own words. I wish they'd start taking quotes out of his books. Scary stuff.
Hey, just because your pet statistic omits online viewers as well as PBS viewers, don't let that stop your party. Mission accomplished, baby! Woo-hoo!
-edit-
You know, if you want to do some chest-thumping and victory laps, why not look into numbers that actually mean something (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/from_the_eye_of_the_storm.php)? Ask CountArch about the lost art of poll-smoking ...
woad&fangs
09-05-2008, 22:30
Who knows why the ratings were higher. Woad and Fangs is probably right, aside for the 3rd claim that implies red-staters are ignorant and not interested in options. Maybe more people are available on Thursday nights?
I would agree that more people had probably heard about how good Palin's speech was and it piqued their interests for a while.
I was also implying that blue staters are nasty creatures without a social life who only watched McCain's speech so they could mock every little hypocrisy, and bushism in it by posting arrogant snarky comments on their blogs* the next day.
On the other hand, red staters prefer to mock Obama for being an American hating, communist, Muslim, celebrity. They don't need to watch Obama's speech to continue these accusations. They then had that evening free to drink beer, go to the beach, or gaze into the mirror and remember how awsome it is to be Texan.
*the only reader of this waste of the internet being the author himself
Ye gods, another brilliant line from a conservative blog (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021433.php):
"Is she the one we've been waiting for?" So asks the Weekly Standard (with, I assume, at least a touch of irony) on the cover of its September 8 issue.
We conservatives have had a good time ridiculing the Obama phenomenon, especially its messianic feel -- the willingness of its adherents to pour so much hope and belief into such an empty, or at least incomplete, vessel -- and its elevation of "narrative" over substance.
It turns out that we were dying to have basically the same experience.
There's a very simple reason why the ratings were higher, and McCain had to be loving the way the schedules worked out. McCain's speech on NBC followed the first NFL game of the season on the very same network. If Obama's speech had followed American Idol, he would have killed in the ratings as well.
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2008, 22:45
Ye gods, another brilliant line from a conservative blog (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021433.php):
"Is she the one we've been waiting for?" So asks the Weekly Standard (with, I assume, at least a touch of irony) on the cover of its September 8 issue.
We conservatives have had a good time ridiculing the Obama phenomenon, especially its messianic feel -- the willingness of its adherents to pour so much hope and belief into such an empty, or at least incomplete, vessel -- and its elevation of "narrative" over substance.
It turns out that we were dying to have basically the same experience.
That's true to an extent. I don't think the Sarah Palin thing is the same at all. People went full bore into attacking her.
My main point about Palin is that it is good to see that we arn't dead. We've got guys like Jindal, and Ryan in the works who have an intellectual, clear and charismatic view of conservatism. We've got gifted people and Sarah Palin and she is only the tip of the iceberg. Liberals are used to having bright and young representatives. Conservatives are an older group and have hangups about that.
PanzerJaeger
09-05-2008, 22:46
Hey, just because your pet statistic omits online viewers as well as PBS viewers, don't let that stop your party. Mission accomplished, baby! Woo-hoo!
I'm intrigued at your reaction. Obama's much hyped speech set a record, and then, surprisingly Palin met it and McCain broke it. As this is supposed to be the year of the Democrat and Barack's Rockstar status is a media fact, it seemed like an interesting topic. You seem offended that I even posted it.
My main point about Palin is that it is good to see that we arn't dead. We've got guys like Jindal, and Ryan in the works who have an intellectual, clear and charismatic view of conservatism.
Yeah, I can see that; there's a good crop of Republicans coming up, and they will do good things in time. But they're going to need to outlast the shadow of Bush 43, in much the same way that Democrats had to outlive the legacy of Carter.
Louis VI the Fat
09-06-2008, 00:13
If you're just preaching to the choir, you ain't gonna be very funny. Certainly not night after night. Just look at the grizzled remains of the ½ hour news hour (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5CL8SbPRVc). Blimey. :dizzy:
It hurts to watch that. Simply embarrasing.
Big_John
09-06-2008, 01:20
emo-con does in fact mean "emotional conservative", and is essentially my play on terms like "neocon", "theocon", "corporatecon" etc.
Tuff, you have always struck me as a bit of an emotional lad, and i've gotten the sense that much of your conservativism stems from that temperament. but i haven't been around the backroom much recently, and that assessment is based on the Tuff of about a year or two past.
also, 'emos' strike me as a fairly humorless sort, or at least i imagine they would strike me so, if i knew any (based on the popular representations of 'emos').
KukriKhan
09-06-2008, 01:57
There's a very simple reason why the ratings were higher, and McCain had to be loving the way the schedules worked out. McCain's speech on NBC followed the first NFL game of the season on the very same network. If Obama's speech had followed American Idol, he would have killed in the ratings as well.
drone nails it, I think. The fellas at work (with whom I'm in an NFL Pool) all said they watched McCain after the Wash-NYGiants matchup.
woad&fangs
09-06-2008, 02:07
how the states are voting
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
graph of electoral college votes
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html
Obama has gained 25 electoral college votes since the RNC started. Apparently the 41 million who saw McCain speak didn't like what they saw:grin:
CountArach
09-06-2008, 02:47
You just can't help yourself can you? :beam:
It is interesting that Johnny Mac pulled in more people than Barack's soaring(and unusually angry) rhetoric, spectacle, and lame fireworks show.
What's even more interesting are the numbers for Sarah Palin's speech, and the subsequent polling (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain), despite the liberal onslaught.
Actually her numbers, and Biden's numbers, are relatively poor for a VP Candidate:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/palin-biden-less-popular-than-cheney.html
Palin: +17.3
Biden: +17
Cheney (2000): +28
Lieberman (2000): +33
Edwards: +25
And of course:
And on preparedness measures, Palin polls unusually poorly: by a 42-50 margin (-8), voters in the ABC poll did not think she has the right experience to serve effectively as President; Biden's rating is 66-21 (+43).
EDIT: And if anyone wants a good read about why the Tracking Poll results are very bad for the Republicans, then read this article (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/crackin-trackin-poll.html). To summarise - even with the Convention bounce and Palin's speech, Obama still won the night by 1 point. It is just that prior to that, Obama's lead was much higher, because it was coming off his own convention bounce. The GOP can expect these to be their best nights of polling because of their own bounces, and if Obama won last night it is not good news for the Republicans.
Good post from NRO (http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2ZiYzllODgxNTY2YjMzNzQxZDQwYjI1Y2JhMTFmNjM=) about why Palin shouldn't hide from the press.
Did you happen to see this clip featuring Jay Carney of Time and Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign? If not, do please click (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/no_questions_please_were.html) - it's very short. Carney asks when Palin will take questions from the press. Wallace dismisses the idea. "Who cares?" she answers.
So here's why I care.
A question I am often asked when I give talks or lectures is: Why did the Bush communication effort end so badly? How did an administration that once commanded such public support end by losing all ability to make its case?
My answer is that the ultimate failure was encoded into the initial success. The president's communication team - of which Nicole Wallace was an important part - shared the same disdain of "elites" that permeates so much of my pro-Palin correspondence. It was not just the media elite that they disregarded. (Who could blame them for that?) It was the policy elite too. When the president wished to advocate, eg a tax cut, he did not argue his case before the Detroit Economic Club or send a surrogate to Jackson Hole. He made a rally speech before cheering supporters. That made for effective soundbites and exciting images. But it abdicated any effort to make an argument that could convince people who were not predisposed to be convinced.
At first, this abdication did not much matter. The president was popular, the public was united. But once the administration encountered trouble and adversity, it discovered - it found itself disarmed. It had no advocates other than its own in-house communicators and the most committed partisans. There were pitifully few respected independent voices ready to join the discussion on behalf of the administration's policies. They could not convince, because they had not been convinced.
Speaking directly to the people works when the people are intensely engaged. But big publics pay only intermittent attention to politics and policy. When that attention is diverted, specialists and enthusiasts reclaim their usual disproportionate impact.
By that time however the argument may well have been lost among that portion of the public that is still paying attention.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-06-2008, 03:32
Biden's take on the republican convention...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2008, 04:56
Good post from NRO (http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2ZiYzllODgxNTY2YjMzNzQxZDQwYjI1Y2JhMTFmNjM=) about why Palin shouldn't hide from the press.
Did you happen to see this clip featuring Jay Carney of Time and Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign? If not, do please click (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/no_questions_please_were.html) - it's very short. Carney asks when Palin will take questions from the press. Wallace dismisses the idea. "Who cares?" she answers.
So here's why I care.
A question I am often asked when I give talks or lectures is: Why did the Bush communication effort end so badly? How did an administration that once commanded such public support end by losing all ability to make its case?
My answer is that the ultimate failure was encoded into the initial success. The president's communication team - of which Nicole Wallace was an important part - shared the same disdain of "elites" that permeates so much of my pro-Palin correspondence. It was not just the media elite that they disregarded. (Who could blame them for that?) It was the policy elite too. When the president wished to advocate, eg a tax cut, he did not argue his case before the Detroit Economic Club or send a surrogate to Jackson Hole. He made a rally speech before cheering supporters. That made for effective soundbites and exciting images. But it abdicated any effort to make an argument that could convince people who were not predisposed to be convinced.
At first, this abdication did not much matter. The president was popular, the public was united. But once the administration encountered trouble and adversity, it discovered - it found itself disarmed. It had no advocates other than its own in-house communicators and the most committed partisans. There were pitifully few respected independent voices ready to join the discussion on behalf of the administration's policies. They could not convince, because they had not been convinced.
Speaking directly to the people works when the people are intensely engaged. But big publics pay only intermittent attention to politics and policy. When that attention is diverted, specialists and enthusiasts reclaim their usual disproportionate impact.
By that time however the argument may well have been lost among that portion of the public that is still paying attention.
That has always been my main criticism of the Bush administration. He wasn't a gifted think on your feet guy so they avoided discussing any policy moves on a detailed level at all. This made it seem mysterious in the begging, but later just made it seem like they were afraid to defend their positions. By the beginning of the second term, they literally gave up defending their policy in any way shape or form.Transparency is the name of the game in this election.
Crazed Rabbit
09-06-2008, 05:35
A point for Palin in my book (and hopefully anyone who cares for an additional barricade against oppressive government):
http://www.fija.org//index.php?page=displaytxt&id=222
Governors from Alaska, Washington and New Hampshire sign Proclamations commemorating Jury Rights Day. Other governors across the nation have signed such Proclamations in other years.
Friday marks the 338th anniversary of when jurors refused to convict William Penn of violating England's Conventicle Acts, despite clear evidence that he acted illegally by preaching a Quaker sermon. In refusing to convict Penn, the jurors ignored what they knew to be an unjust law. This is known as jury nullification.
And a point for Gregoire as well, even if its the only plus for her in my book.
CR
Seamus Fermanagh
09-06-2008, 05:53
you mean like Mr. "did I mention I was a POW before?" McCain?
You wonder (sneer at?) why he references this life-altering experience so often? Every day when McCain gets dressed someone has to help him put on his shirt; he can't even comb his own hair. With that kind of reminder, I'd assume its a little hard not to think about it a bit.
McCain, however, was one of the first to work toward normalizing relations with Vietnam.
All in all, I think a little forbearance is due on this issue. He earned the right to bring it up if he wants to do so.
Obama and Obama supporters often reference his ethnic background. While some find it annoying, I believe a little forbearance is due there as well. He's the first major party nominee of African descent after more than 140 years since the end of the Civil War. He's entitled to bring it up a bit.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-06-2008, 06:05
Can I have a w00t! (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain) please? Go Palin!
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2008, 07:35
Can I have a w00t! (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain) please? Go Palin!
I already posted that exact article yesterday!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2007893&postcount=1782
LEAVE PALIN ALONE! ALL SHE WANTS TO DO IS BECOME VP!!!!!1 YOU JERKS! ~:(
I don't get it. Obama's been dealing with accusations of his background and former associations since he announced his running. Palin has been dealing with it for, what, a week? And already, it's turned into a "OH NOEZ U LIBERALZ R JUST HATIN AND U SHULDNT SAY THAT!!!!!1". While there are people who still think Obama is a Muslim Communist who will ressurect Lenin and let in all the Sharia Soviet Jihadist Nazis.
And to McCain's, "IM A WAR HERO". I'm as sick of hearing this as hearing about Obama's race. I could care less. Spending the Vietnam War in a cell in Hanoi does not qualify one to be president, and it actually concerns me, seeing as sustaining that long of a torture can mess you up.
CountArach
09-06-2008, 11:52
I already posted that exact article yesterday!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2007893&postcount=1782
And I already pointed out why the numbers aren't good for her:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2008341&postcount=1823
KukriKhan
09-06-2008, 13:36
And to McCain's, "IM A WAR HERO". I'm as sick of hearing this as hearing about Obama's race. I could care less. Spending the Vietnam War in a cell in Hanoi does not qualify one to be president, and it actually concerns me, seeing as sustaining that long of a torture can mess you up.
Speechless.
KukriKhan
09-06-2008, 14:15
On another front*, the Wilson sisters, members of the 70's band Heart, are miffed (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/05/2008-09-05_use_of_barracuda_for_sarah_palin_nets_go.html) that the RNC used "their" song Barracuda twice during the convention, in reference to Palin's "Sarah Barracuda" nickname.
"Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women," Heart members Ann and Nancy Wilson told Entertainment Weekly after the song played at the Republican National Convention.
"'Barracuda' was written in the late '70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women."
Sadly for the women, they signed away veto rights over public performance of the song to ASCAP, the music licensing agency, who the RNC paid the appropriate royalty fee. So the Wilsons are getting royalties on the performance along with their hurt feelings.
*my original post on this subject discussed the disconnection between the usually copyright-protecting Repubs and their using material without permission. Further inquiry led to the ASCAP payment info.
Speechless.
Yeah I thought the same thing :thumbsdown:
m52nickerson
09-06-2008, 16:16
And to McCain's, "IM A WAR HERO". I'm as sick of hearing this as hearing about Obama's race. I could care less. Spending the Vietnam War in a cell in Hanoi does not qualify one to be president, and it actually concerns me, seeing as sustaining that long of a torture can mess you up.
Agreed.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-06-2008, 17:10
And to McCain's, "IM A WAR HERO". I'm as sick of hearing this as hearing about Obama's race. I could care less. Spending the Vietnam War in a cell in Hanoi does not qualify one to be president, and it actually concerns me, seeing as sustaining that long of a torture can mess you up.
You don't think that honoring the 'first in, first out' rule shows strength of character?
You can criticize him for bringing up his pow experience to deflect questions all you want.
Crazed Rabbit
09-06-2008, 17:17
Speechless.
Me too.
No use trying to talk with them, I think.
CR
What? I can't be sick of hearing the same thing over and over? Hell, I watched Palin's speech. Most of it was attempting to "slam" Obama while praising McCain for his past. I want to hear what they're going to do in the future not what happened in the past.
Crazed Rabbit
09-06-2008, 18:24
That's not the bit that made people speechless.
CR
That's not the bit that made people speechless.
CR
You mean torture can't screw with people?
Gregoshi
09-06-2008, 19:42
Sure it can, but you'd think that after 30-40 years, McCain would be showing some signs of being screwed up by now - besides any half-baked politcal policies - if that were the case.
And speaking of torture, I can't say I'm looking forward to the next two month...:wall:
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2008, 20:24
Sure it can, but you'd think that after 30-40 years, McCain would be showing some signs of being screwed up by now - besides any half-baked politcal policies - if that were the case.
And speaking of torture, I can't say I'm looking forward to the next two month...:wall:
Why not? This is way better than the playoffs and Superbowl.
seireikhaan
09-06-2008, 20:29
Why not? This is way better than the playoffs and Superbowl.
Blasphemy!
:wink:
Some days it just isn't easy to play the victim card (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-accuses-o.html):
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin sent out a fundraising solicitation today that charged that "the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain."
I asked spokespeople of the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee just which "Obama/Biden Democrats" they're referring to.
The response I got was that Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski erroneously attacked Palin as a supporter of Pat Buchanan.
That's it. That's the evidence.
An attack on Palin herself.
In other words, they can't name one person affiliated with the Obama-Biden campaign who attacked the Palin family.
But she made the charge anyway, to help raise money.
Lemur, don't you get it? You cannot say anything bad against Palin. Feel free to say anything about the Muslim Commie Nazi Fuhrer Osamabama though......
Sasaki Kojiro
09-06-2008, 22:56
Lemur, don't you get it? You cannot say anything bad against Palin. Feel free to say anything about the Muslim Commie Nazi Fuhrer Osamabama though......
Well...name one person in the McCain/Palin campaign who has called obama a muslim or a commie or a nazi...
CountArach
09-06-2008, 23:53
Well...name one person in the McCain/Palin campaign who has called obama a muslim or a commie or a nazi...
Yeah, you're right. It's only Fox News :laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
09-07-2008, 00:12
Saw on cnn today that palin didn't sell the plane on ebay and not for a profit and cut the funding for special needs education by 62% despite saying that parents with special needs education would have a friend in the white house.
I guess refusing to be interviewed has a downside...
Well...name one person in the McCain/Palin campaign who has called obama a muslim or a commie or a nazi...
No, it seems the Republican camp is trying to forbid and condemn any accusations or attacks on Palin.
cut the funding for special needs education by 62% despite saying that parents with special needs education would have a friend in the white house.
Lol.
Maybe 38% of a friend.......
CountArach
09-07-2008, 00:20
Saw on cnn today that palin didn't sell the plane on ebay and not for a profit and cut the funding for special needs education by 62% despite saying that parents with special needs education would have a friend in the white house.
Sexist!
m52nickerson
09-07-2008, 00:33
Saw on cnn today that palin didn't sell the plane on ebay and not for a profit and cut the funding for special needs education by 62% despite saying that parents with special needs education would have a friend in the white house.
I guess refusing to be interviewed has a downside...
Supported abstinence only programs and having her 17 year old get pregnant.
Cutting funding to special education then having a child born with Down's syndrome.
Karma can really come back to bit you in the backside.
Supported abstinence only programs and having her 17 year old get pregnant.
Cutting funding to special education then having a child born with Down's syndrome.
Karma can really come back to bit you in the backside.
Of course, these are all lies created and funded by the Muslim Fuhrer Osamabama.
Man, this guy over at NRO? Every conservative I know should give him a good, hard listen. He speaks caution to hysteria (http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDg5NzEzNGUyNmNlMGZhMjI0YmJmOWJhYzE0NWE0ZmU=).
George W. Bush had very slight executive experience before becoming president. His views were not well known. He won the nomination exactly in the same way that Palin has won the hearts of so many conservatives: by sending cultural cues to convince them that he was one of them, understood them, sympathized with them. So that made everything else irrelevant in 2000 - as it seems again to be doing in 2008. [...]
I am not denying that Sarah Palin may have great skills. She may well. I am insisting that neither you, nor I, nor John McCain has any valid reason to believe that she does. This is not an argument about the attributes she lacks. It's an argument about the information we lack. I am pleading with my fellow conservatives: Please demand more and better knowledge before you commit yourselves to a political leader. That's all.
GeneralHankerchief
09-07-2008, 04:31
Yeah, but did W have the same reputation of being a reformer that Palin has? I think that's a big reason why the conservatives like her so much.
ICantSpellDawg
09-07-2008, 04:43
Man, this guy over at NRO? Every conservative I know should give him a good, hard listen. He speaks caution to hysteria (http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDg5NzEzNGUyNmNlMGZhMjI0YmJmOWJhYzE0NWE0ZmU=).
George W. Bush had very slight executive experience before becoming president. His views were not well known. He won the nomination exactly in the same way that Palin has won the hearts of so many conservatives: by sending cultural cues to convince them that he was one of them, understood them, sympathized with them. So that made everything else irrelevant in 2000 - as it seems again to be doing in 2008. [...]
I am not denying that Sarah Palin may have great skills. She may well. I am insisting that neither you, nor I, nor John McCain has any valid reason to believe that she does. This is not an argument about the attributes she lacks. It's an argument about the information we lack. I am pleading with my fellow conservatives: Please demand more and better knowledge before you commit yourselves to a political leader. That's all.
Right - so I'm glad that she's the vice presidential nominee. Anyone who regrets voting for Bush in 2000 should avoid Obama for the same reason; sounds great on paper, but that's all we've got.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-07-2008, 04:50
Yeah, but did W have the same reputation of being a reformer that Palin has? I think that's a big reason why the conservatives like her so much.
You should look more closely at palin's reputation as a reformer. (not) selling planes on ebay isn't impressive.
Right - so I'm glad that she's the vice presidential nominee. Anyone who regrets voting for Bush in 2000 should avoid Obama for the same reason; sounds great on paper, but that's all we've got.
You don't nominate anyone for vice president who you wouldn't want as president!
You also missed the point of the article. We know way more about obama than we do about palin. Palin won't even give an interview for chrissake. You can't go gaga over someone who you don't really know anything about.
GeneralHankerchief
09-07-2008, 04:57
You should look more closely at palin's reputation as a reformer. (not) selling planes on ebay isn't impressive.
Her reputation among the general public is still the same, however. We'll talk if the ebay thing gets wider press.
Anyways, I saw Newt Gingrich speak today. He said that Obama's made two major errors that has kept things close: First, he got too confident after winning the nomination and started doing stupid things like making his own seal and going to Europe. Second, he lost too much confidence and picked Biden, which kind of depleted his "change" message. He (Newt) pretty much admitted that Obama should be blowing McCain out of the water by now and that Hillary was the only VP option.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-07-2008, 05:14
Her reputation among the general public is still the same, however. We'll talk if the ebay thing gets wider press.
Eh, that's exactly the point the author was making. He was asking the republican base to take a closer look at her.
Anyways, I saw Newt Gingrich speak today. He said that Obama's made two major errors that has kept things close: First, he got too confident after winning the nomination and started doing stupid things like making his own seal and going to Europe. Second, he lost too much confidence and picked Biden, which kind of depleted his "change" message. He (Newt) pretty much admitted that Obama should be blowing McCain out of the water by now and that Hillary was the only VP option.
Wasn't obama polling pretty well while he was abroad?
Biden is a better vp than hillary. I don't see what makes him say the biden choice was based on loss of confidence. Hillary was never a likely choice. Biden works because he's experienced. Hillary wouldn't have been a help to his ticket (did newt explain why that would have strengthened his "change" message :dizzy2:).
If you look at the state by state polling and do some electoral math obama is way ahead of mccain. He has a bunch of states essentially locked up which gives him many paths to victory. McCain has to win a number of very close states to come out ahead. Obama has been polling ahead of him consistently in the national poll as well, Mccain will probably go ahead a couple points in the next couple days from his convention bounce, but bounces are temporary.
So, I'm not sure what newt gingrich is smoking ~:confused:
ICantSpellDawg
09-07-2008, 05:22
You should look more closely at palin's reputation as a reformer. (not) selling planes on ebay isn't impressive.
You don't nominate anyone for vice president who you wouldn't want as president!
You also missed the point of the article. We know way more about obama than we do about palin. Palin won't even give an interview for chrissake. You can't go gaga over someone who you don't really know anything about.
The point of the quoted paragraph was that people didn't really know GWB even though he was a governor. He said things and did none of them. People were in the bag for a president they didn't get. Be careful of Obama - he says even more and has less of a record. For whatever reason you regret putting Bush in office, you will probably regret Obama just as much, maybe more. We should have chosen McCain in 2000.
I know it was meant to deter conservatives from viewing Palin as the messiah, but I don't see that happening. We are just excited from the surprise and we like her style so far. I wouldn't compare her with Obamania at this point.
So, I'm not sure what newt gingrich is smoking ~:confused:
The American Flag! Commie!
CountArach
09-07-2008, 05:26
Wasn't obama polling pretty well while he was abroad?
Not to get involved in this discussion, but no he wasn't (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/lessons-from-overseas-trip.html). That article is a good read, actually - it explains why it could be considered a negative for Obama in that it shifted the narrative focus.
I know it was meant to deter conservatives from viewing Palin as the messiah, but I don't see that happening. We are just excited from the surprise and we like her style so far. I wouldn't compare her with Obamania at this point.
Well, hell, when Obama, a relatively new face in Chicago politics, runs for president, Conservatives are shouting "INEXPERIENCE! NO NO! HE'S GOING TO DESTROY AMERICA! HERE COMES THE MUSLIM COMMIES!". But when a relatively inexperienced Alaskan governor is picked as VP, they're practically :daisy: themselves.
KukriKhan
09-07-2008, 05:51
You mean torture can't screw with people?
In fairness to SwedishFish: millions of men and women have killed and hurt many millions of other men and women, and had the same hurt and murder done to them, to get him to the comfortable, arrogant, academic, entitled, place where he lives, safely esconsed in enough boredom to think that their (those millions') sacrifice was a mere gesture of goodwill - not a painful, hard-fought, struggle to attain freedom for them, their families, their neighbors, their fellow citizens.
He is what we've fought for, 'lo these many years.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-07-2008, 05:52
Well, hell, when Obama, a relatively new face in Chicago politics, runs for president, Conservatives are shouting "INEXPERIENCE! NO NO! HE'S GOING TO DESTROY AMERICA! HERE COMES THE MUSLIM COMMIES!". But when a relatively inexperienced Alaskan governor is picked as VP, they're practically :daisy: themselves.
Relatively experienced as compared to what? Compared to Obama she's a relative gold mine of experience.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-07-2008, 05:54
Relatively experienced as compared to what? Compared to Obama she's a relative gold mine of experience.
Nuh uh.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-07-2008, 06:09
Nuh uh.
Uh huh.
Relatively experienced as compared to what? Compared to Obama she's a relative gold mine of experience.
Well, I'd rather not vote for someone who, as mayor, fired a police chief and a librarian for not supporting her administration :sweatdrop:
Or someone who associates herself with Ted Steven's isn't exactly so smart nowadays, eh?
Well, she may not be getting the Environmentalist vote, seeing as she supported drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And supported biologists killing wolves for mooses :sweatdrop: Or denying the polar bear it's spot on the endangered species list :2thumbsup:
Flip flopping on the bridge issue didn't exactly woo me either.
Man, McCain had better choices.
CountArach
09-07-2008, 07:31
Nuh uh.
Uh huh.
Well, I can see why the Backroom has such a high reputation for quality debate.
Relatively experienced as compared to what? Compared to Obama she's a relative gold mine of experience.
Fine, let's compare the two:
Obama
1980-84 - BA in Political Science (International Relations major)
1985-90 - Community Organiser. During his leadership (3 of those years) the budget grew to $400 000. Moves to Harvard and becomes editor and President of the Harvard Law Review.
1991-95 - Fellow and later Lecturer in Constitutional Law at Chicago Law School. Leads efforts to register African American voters (150 000 in 7 months).
1996-2000 - Promoted to Senior lecturer. Elected to Illinois State Senate, sponsors more than 800 bills. Loses primary run in 2000 for House of Representatives.
2001-2004 - Re-elected in 2002 and becomes Chairman of the Illinois' Senate's Health and Human Services Committee. Speaks out against Iraq. Speaks at Democratic Convention. Elected to US Senate in November 2004.
2005-Present - Sworn in as Senator. Worked with Republican Senator Lugar to author and implement a program to locate and dismantle stray Russian WMD's. Worked with Russ Feingold to pass a major ethics/lobbying reform bill. Cosponsored, with John McCain, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. Called for increased fuel efficiency standards (3 percent every year for 15 years). Assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Veterans' Affairs, and Homeland Security. Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.
Palin
1985-90 - Bachelor of Science in Communications-Journalism (I don't know how that works, but whatever...) and a minor in Political Science. Briefly works as sports reporter.
1991-95 - Elected to Wasilla City Council
1996-2000 - Elected Mayor of Wasilla and re-elected in 1999. $8 million budget. Brings $27 million in earmarks to the city. Constructs a $15+ million hockey stadium with debt-spending.
2001-2004 - Prevented from running for Mayor again due to term-limits. Unsuccessfully runs for Lieutenant Governor. Chairs Alaska Oil and Gas Commission from 2003-2004, also Ethics chair. Serves as chair of "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.".
2005-Present - Elected Governor of Alaska. High approval rating. Challenges Sen. Stevens, but stands by him politically. I know that any of her policies I type in here will just be ignored, so I won't bother, but there are a lot of crazy things out there. Under investigation for firing an Alaska State Trooper involved in a child custody battle with her sister.
CA- all lies and liberal Muslim propoganda.
Banquo's Ghost
09-07-2008, 09:34
Supported abstinence only programs and having her 17 year old get pregnant.
Cutting funding to special education then having a child born with Down's syndrome.
Karma can really come back to bit you in the backside.
You know, I have to read this thread and get depressed about the standards of the world's greatest democracy.
But the above is just repulsive. You really take glee in the misfortune of others to this extent, merely because they seek public office? Even leaving aside that these sad events have affected her children - apparently struck down because of Governor Palin's own adult choices.
You sound like the worst of the Phelps' Religionistas.
No wonder the left is despised over there, if that's the level of debate offered. It's a shame, as is 60% of this thread.
(And no, it doesn't somehow make it right that some of the right wallows in this stinking mud either).
:shame:
American politics is like AIDs. I have no idea where I'm going with this, but they both suck.
(And no, it doesn't somehow make it right that some of the right wallows in this stinking mud either).
LOL.
m52nickerson
09-07-2008, 15:01
You know, I have to read this thread and get depressed about the standards of the world's greatest democracy.
But the above is just repulsive. You really take glee in the misfortune of others to this extent, merely because they seek public office? Even leaving aside that these sad events have affected her children - apparently struck down because of Governor Palin's own adult choices.
You sound like the worst of the Phelps' Religionistas.
No wonder the left is despised over there, if that's the level of debate offered. It's a shame, as is 60% of this thread.
(And no, it doesn't somehow make it right that some of the right wallows in this stinking mud either).
:shame:
At what point did I say I enjoyed that fact that Palins daughter is pregnant or her youngest has Down's?
I was merely pointing out the irony of the situation.
What gets me is the fact that the Right can spread lies and half truths about someone, but when the Left brings up the truth about someone it is repulsive.
Gregoshi
09-07-2008, 15:14
American politics is like AIDs. I have no idea where I'm going with this, but they both suck.
There is no cure for either...yet (let's keep some optimism).
Gregoshi
09-07-2008, 15:38
What gets me is the fact that the Right can spread lies and half truths about someone, but when the Left brings up the truth about someone it is repulsive.
And what gets me is how the campaign (and a good bit of this thread) have degenerated into what sounds like an argument between two 6 year olds. "He touched me!" "Because he was looking at me!" The tongues oughta be sticking out any day now.
And how about the candidates tell me why I should vote for them rather than why voting for the other guys is scarier. Oh, and to both candidates, "change" and "hope" aren't policies - jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire is a change and a hope...
m52nickerson
09-07-2008, 15:50
And what gets me is how the campaign (and a good bit of this thread) have degenerated into what sounds like an argument between two 6 year olds. "He touched me!" "Because he was looking at me!" The tongues oughta be sticking out any day now.
And how about the candidates tell me why I should vote for them rather than why voting for the other guys is scarier. Oh, and to both candidates, "change" and "hope" aren't policies - jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire is a change and a hope...
....and the fact that Palin supports abstinence only sex education and has cut funding for special education are policies, flawed ones at that.
She also supports teaching creation in science classes, which undermines the principles of science.
It would also seem she has a policy of firing anyone that disagrees with her.
All these and more go to show how she in not a good pick for VP and she is not someone I would want to become president if the situation arose.
If you what to know way to vote for them read their plans.
KukriKhan
09-07-2008, 16:03
And what gets me is how the campaign (and a good bit of this thread) have degenerated into what sounds like an argument between two 6 year olds. "He touched me!" "Because he was looking at me!" The tongues oughta be sticking out any day now.
LOL. Me, I blame free-agency for this mess.
-edit-
And EMFM's hero had it right:
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
~Otto von Bismarck
Crazed Rabbit
09-07-2008, 19:41
No wonder the left is despised over there, if that's the level of debate offered. It's a shame, as is 60% of this thread.
Did you see the front page article the NYT had on her (another hatchet job portraying itself as news), about how she shouldn't try to be a governor when she has children? Or any of the slime-flinging entries at the DailyKos blog?
Well, she may not be getting the Environmentalist vote
Wow, the GOP not getting the envirowhacko vote. Clearly unforeseen.
CR
Gregoshi
09-07-2008, 19:59
....and the fact that Palin supports...
Gregoshi swings...and a miss!
Sasaki Kojiro
09-07-2008, 21:21
hatchet job ... slime-flinging
Wow, the GOP not getting the envirowhacko vote. Clearly unforeseen.
CR
:sweatdrop:
I didn't know it was whacko to oppose legally killing wolves :sweatdrop:
TevashSzat
09-07-2008, 22:01
No wonder the left is despised over there, if that's the level of debate offered. It's a shame, as is 60% of this thread.
Well, I think its more like that the left is despised by the right which will always happen.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-07-2008, 22:03
On September 5, the ballot-qualified Constitution Party of Montana submitted its presidential elector candidates to the Secretary of State. The party informed the Secretary of State that its electors are pledged to Ron Paul for president and Michael Peroutka for vice-president. Ron Paul was aware that the party planned to do this, and has said that as long as he can remain passive and silent about the development, and as long as he need not sign any declaration of candidacy, that he does not object.
Will be interesting to see if this splits the republicans enough to let obama carry montana.
Crazed Rabbit
09-07-2008, 22:08
Are the wolves endangered, or are they just a normal animal in Alaska that can do significant damage to humans and livestock?
Will be interesting to see if this splits the republicans enough to let obama carry montana.
#($&#, I'd lose my faith in humanity if Obama won Montana. Lousy Californians moving in.
And Sasaki - I'm talking about the people who want to destroy my family's livelihood and want to send humans back to the pre-industrial age.
CR
Are the wolves endangered, or are they just a normal animal in Alaska that can do significant damage to humans and livestock?
Apparently, it's neither. It's "For teh mooses!" which could easily be helped without killing other animals.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-07-2008, 22:34
#($&#, I'd lose my faith in humanity if Obama won Montana. Lousy Californians moving in.
Montana is probably more libertarian than republican.
And Sasaki - I'm talking about the people who want to destroy my family's livelihood and want to send humans back to the pre-industrial age.
CR
No, you said environmentalists were crazy while complaining about hatchet jobs and slime throwing :smash:
One can be against drilling in alaska and offshore without wishing to send humans back into the pre-industrial age (in fact since we would see no benefits for 8 and 30 years respectively, making drilling neither a short term nor a long term solution, it makes perfect sense to oppose drilling).
Crazed Rabbit
09-07-2008, 22:48
Apparently, it's neither. It's "For teh mooses!" which could easily be helped without killing other animals.
But that wouldn't be as much fun.
Montana is probably more libertarian than republican.
Which means Mr. Old School Socialist definitely should not win it.
No, you said environmentalists were crazy while complaining about hatchet jobs and slime throwing
I said the only people who will care enough about the polar bear, wolf, and ANWR thing not to vote for the GOP ticket wouldn't anyway.
CR
CountArach
09-07-2008, 22:55
Which means Mr. Old School Socialist definitely should not win it.
As I said the last time you complained about the exact same thing - What if they vote on Social issues?
Unfortunately, Montana hasn't been polled much. The most recent was on 7/29 with Rasmussen showing a dead heat 47-47. Their previous one on 7/1 had shown Obama leading 48-43. However, the poll before that was a McCain lead, so it has been fluctuation a lot. Either way, its a close race.
I like to think of it as defeating terrorism by killing all the Muslims.
Are we fifth-column commutards who despise freedom if we talk about Governor Palin's record as mayor (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html)?
The biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor of this small town was an indoor sports complex, where locals played hockey, soccer, and basketball, especially during the long, dark Alaskan winters.
The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla [...]
"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities," Ms. Palin said Wednesday in her acceptance speech at the Republican convention. Litigation resulting from the dispute over Ms. Palin's sports-complex project is still in the courts, with the land's former owner seeking hundreds of thousands of additional dollars from the city.
Based on what I'm reading in that font of evil liberalism called "the free press of the United States," Wasilla was debt-free when Palin became mayor. By the end of her term the town had accrued $19 million in liabilities, or $3000 per resident. But hey, she's a tough fiscal conservative, right? And she makes the base happy.
ICantSpellDawg
09-08-2008, 02:45
"MSNBC drops Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from anchor chair... David Gregory will anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night.... Developing..."
Awesome. Their comments these past weeks have been so inappropriate it has been absurd.
Olbermann is the O'Reilly of liberal media.
Don Corleone
09-08-2008, 02:54
Are we fifth-column commutards who despise freedom if we talk about Governor Palin's record as mayor (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html)?
Not to me. This is exactly the sort of valid criticism and questioning I'd be looking for in any of the candidates, as well as Sasaki's claim about her not actually selling the governor's jet (if it turns out she sold it, but technically not on E-bay, that's a bit lame).
I own Banquo's scorn. I let myself get carried away. We have two good men who care about this country running for president, and I need to take a deep breath, step back from the edge, and remember that. I also need to remember that at the end of the day, if you hit the mute button and focus exclusively on voting records, it's pretty darned tough to tell any of them apart.
I apologize for getting carried away with my retorts. I still think attacking Bristol Palin in the media and in the backroom was in poor taste, but I certainly overreacted.
I would like to know the sources of Obama's funding that enable him to forgo public campaign financing, and in fact require it so that he can avoid disclosure. I would also like to know why he likes hanging out with the founders of the Weather Underground, but I would also like some questions about Palin answered, when they actually pertain to her service, her competency and her views, as Lemur's and Sasaki's do.
I would also like to say, I do think it's possible to be pro-woman and pro-life. I'm pro-choice*, but I can tell you that I do know lots of feminists that don't believe in abortion. And I'd remind people with their knee-jerk pro-life=anti-woman reactions, speaking from unfortunate experience, when your political calculus appears that simple, you've missed a few important parts of the equation.
Anyway, I think it's time to take myself out of this discussion. I'm for the guy who's going to cost me the least amount of money, and that would be McCain. But I believe Obama would do what he thinks is best for the county as a whole should he be elected.
*Edit: Actually, that's not true, but in the sound-byte world, that's as accurate as I can be. Jillian and Allison have altered my views on this subject. I suppose a better way of describing my position is "focusing on means other than the legal system to bring about positive change". I think abortion as it currently exists in the USA is an abomination, and I think it has unfortunately become a form of birth control, and that should be remedied. But I don't think outlawing it is a particularly effective way of improving the current situation.
Are we fifth-column commutards who despise freedom if we talk about Governor Palin's record as mayor (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html)?
The biggest project that Sarah Palin undertook as mayor of this small town was an indoor sports complex, where locals played hockey, soccer, and basketball, especially during the long, dark Alaskan winters.
The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla [...]
"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities," Ms. Palin said Wednesday in her acceptance speech at the Republican convention. Litigation resulting from the dispute over Ms. Palin's sports-complex project is still in the courts, with the land's former owner seeking hundreds of thousands of additional dollars from the city.
Based on what I'm reading in that font of evil liberalism called "the free press of the United States," Wasilla was debt-free when Palin became mayor. By the end of her term the town had accrued $19 million in liabilities, or $3000 per resident. But hey, she's a tough fiscal conservative, right? And she makes the base happy.
LEAVE PALIN ALONE YOU COMMIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
''I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ...'' she said in a letter.
Not to me. This is exactly the sort of valid criticism and questioning I'd be looking for in any of the candidates, as well as Sasaki's claim about her not actually selling the governor's jet (if it turns out she sold it, but technically not on E-bay, that's a bit lame).Yeah, that's exactly what happened. It didn't sell on eBay, so they sold it through standard channels.
I would also like to say, I do think it's possible to be pro-woman and pro-life.Of course it is. Roe, of Roe v Wade fame is now herself pro-life and wants the decision overturned. :yes:
----
On a more humorous note, watch Obama as he talks with ABC about his "muslim faith (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw)". I can't help but find this funny. After going to such lengths to knockdown rumors, he makes a slip of the tongue like this. :laugh4:
Gregoshi
09-08-2008, 03:15
I got a phone call from Sarah today telling me about a rally she and John are holding in nearby Lancaster Pennsylvania and she invited me out. She seemed like a nice enough recording of a lady.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-08-2008, 03:53
Not to me. This is exactly the sort of valid criticism and questioning I'd be looking for in any of the candidates, as well as Sasaki's claim about her not actually selling the governor's jet (if it turns out she sold it, but technically not on E-bay, that's a bit lame).
I saw a clip on cnn of mccain saying she'd sold it on ebay for a profit when she'd sold it off ebay for a loss. It was on a segment where they called them out on some of the dishonest things they'd said. The others mentioned were cutting funding for special needs education by 62% and then saying in her speech that parents of special needs children would have a friend in the white house, and of being for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.
I would like to know the sources of Obama's funding that enable him to forgo public campaign financing, and in fact require it so that he can avoid disclosure.
He has millions of donors. 2 million individuals was the last number I saw. Certainly his campaign is very smart about getting lots of people to give money.
I would also like to know why he likes hanging out with the founders of the Weather Underground,
Obama was 8 years old at the time of the bombing. They served on non profit committees related to poverty reduction and education (along with republicans).
Michael Kinsley, a longtime critic of Ayers,[30] argued in Time that Obama's relationship with Ayers should not be a campaign issue: "If Obama's relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others — including Republicans and conservatives — who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children's issues." "Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd."
but I would also like some questions about Palin answered, when they actually pertain to her service, her competency and her views, as Lemur's and Sasaki's do.
There were bunches of these posted back when she was announced. The stuff about her daughter was just a few bloggers and the media going for a scandal.
Anyway, I think it's time to take myself out of this discussion. I'm for the guy who's going to cost me the least amount of money, and that would be McCain. But I believe Obama would do what he thinks is best for the county as a whole should he be elected.
Do you make over 250K? Because otherwise you might want to look into that...
I'm glad to see that not everyone on the right has lost their minds in a love-swoon over Governor Palin. Cato Institute (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/29/palin-uninspiring-tax-policy-record/):
Palin supported and signed into law a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil companies in the form of higher severance taxes. One rule of thumb is that higher taxes cause less investment. Sure enough, State Tax Notes reported (January 7): “After ACES was passed, ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s most active oil exploration company and one of the top three producers, announced it was canceling plans to build a diesel fuel refinery at the Kuparuk oil field. ConocoPhillips blamed the cancellation on passage of ACES [the new tax]. The refinery would have allowed the company to produce low-sulfur diesel fuel onsite for its vehicles and other uses on the North Slope, rather than haul the fuel there from existing refineries.”
There are good reasons for an oil-rich state to tax oil production, but a fiscal conservative would usually use any tax increase to reduce taxes elsewhere. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I see no evidence that Palin offered any major tax cuts. She did propose sending $1.2 billion of state oil revenues to individuals and utility companies in the form of monthly payments to reduce energy bills, but that sounds like welfare to me, not tax cuts.
Don Corleone
09-08-2008, 04:02
Do you make over 250K? Because otherwise you might want to look into that...
No, I don't make that much, but I'm pretty sure Obama's so called 'cuts', are predicated on he'll lower taxes after he removes all previous tax cuts. So sure, he'll cut taxes 10%, after he raises them by 30%. That math might work for you, a student, but for me, a laborer in the workplace, not so much.
Crazed Rabbit
09-08-2008, 04:03
Obama is going to harm the overall economy, which will harm everyone. And then he wants to raise taxes significantly on stocks. And then there's the prospect of the greenhouse tax/cap and trade scheme, perhaps worst of all.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
09-08-2008, 04:10
No, I don't make that much, but I'm pretty sure Obama's so called 'cuts', are predicated on he'll lower taxes after he removes all previous tax cuts. So sure, he'll cut taxes 10%, after he raises them by 30%. That math might work for you, a student, but for me, a laborer in the workplace, not so much.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693
The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.
The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate's policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain's proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama's plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and could completely offset any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group-seniors -and an already favored activity-borrowing for housing-which could probably be better directed elsewhere.
edit: btw, I'm a laborer in the workplace too :tongue3:
Don Corleone
09-08-2008, 04:25
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693
edit: btw, I'm a laborer in the workplace too :tongue3:
You graduated? Congratulations! How did I miss that? So where are you working?
As for your link, you'll have to forgive me if an editorial from the Brookings Institute telling me Obama's tax plan is better than McCain's without offering any critical analysis of either plan fails to persuade me. Instead of "interpreting" the results of each plan, why wouldn't they state the respective plans in plain language?
Sasaki Kojiro
09-08-2008, 04:42
You graduated? Congratulations! How did I miss that? So where are you working?
I'm actually in the process of transferring (had a distinct lack of interest in my major) and I'm working for a while to save a bit of money (of course McCain voted against expanding pell grants :smash: ).
I work as a canvasser. Fun job, decent wage.
As for your link, you'll have to forgive me if an editorial from the Brookings Institute telling me Obama's tax plan is better than McCain's without offering any critical analysis of either plan fails to persuade me. Instead of "interpreting" the results of each plan, why wouldn't they state the respective plans in plain language?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm
That's a side by side comparison. And a handy graph, although I'm guessing the washingtonpost isn't your favorite newspaper:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif
Don Corleone
09-08-2008, 13:57
I'm actually in the process of transferring (had a distinct lack of interest in my major) and I'm working for a while to save a bit of money (of course McCain voted against expanding pell grants :smash: ).
I work as a canvasser. Fun job, decent wage.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm
That's a side by side comparison. And a handy graph, although I'm guessing the Washingtonpost isn't your favorite newspaper:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif
Actually, I'll generally accept the Washington Post a valid source. According to them, I come out very slightly ahead with McCain. I do have a question about the graph though...
For the bottom two groups, if they're not paying any taxes, how are Obama and McCain saving them money on their taxes?
CountArach
09-08-2008, 14:15
Actually, I'll generally accept the Washington Post a valid source. According to them, I come out very slightly ahead with McCain. I do have a question about the graph though...
For the bottom two groups, if they're not paying any taxes, how are Obama and McCain saving them money on their taxes?
I don't understand the US tax system too well, but is it possible that stuff like a Medicare levy comes out of it? According to wiki:
2. Medicare Tax: As of 2007, the employer must withhold 1.45% of an employee's wages and must pay a matching amount for Medicare tax. The combined total for the employee and the employer is equal to 2.9% of gross compensation. Unlike the Social security tax, there is no maximum wage base for the Medicare portion of the FICA tax. Both the employer and the employee continue to incur and pay Medicare tax on each additional amount of gross compensation, with no limit on the amount of gross compensation on which the tax is imposed.
Crazed Rabbit
09-08-2008, 20:32
A "Feminist Defense" of Palin:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2009979
A Feminist's Argument for McCain's VP
By Tammy Bruce
In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.
Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.
Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.
The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.
Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, "Fatal Attraction," noting, "Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career...". These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was "Bros Before Hoes," to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.
The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.
There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?
Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.
Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us - but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.
Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.
The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.
They are deciding women's rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.
Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.
The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.
It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line - the abortion card - where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.
The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats - a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don't count.
Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.
On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman - who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.
Tammy Bruce is the author of "The New American Revolution" (HarperCollins, 2005) and a Fox News political contributor. She is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter.
CR
good article, it calls me to recollect my as yet unanswered question:
but how is she anti-woman............?
the only response i got was vague and waffley mumbles that indicated nothing to me expect that people thought she wasn't the right brand of liberal/left woman. she isn't Democrat approved therefore she isn't a genuine woman and unable to represent the rest of womankind..........
Don Corleone
09-08-2008, 21:27
To be fair, Furunculu5, this is a pretty common phenomenon in our politics, which are given to bipolar fits of insanity. Apparently, not so much yours.
Examples:
-Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice aren't "Black enough", because they've worked in Republican administrations (some prominent black voices going so far as to label them "Toms", and "house n------s".
-A whole plethora of politiicans on the Left, who are consistently villified as "Not really Christian". Not sure how the pundits on the right, particualarly the religious right, know for a fact that Jesus would not count them as among his followers, but...
Basically, we allow a particular special interest group, Left or Right, to decide who are representative members and who are not. The NRA gets to say who is and who is not toeing the line on the 2nd ammendment, La Rasa gets to say who is and who is not supportive of Latino issues.
If Sarah Palin does nothing else, breaking this modern paradigm of our politics would be a service to her country she could be proud of for the rest of her life. The odds are against her in this regard, however, no matter how she and McCain do in the election.
Strike For The South
09-08-2008, 21:32
Palin is no different than obama biden or McCain
Here's a piece by Ed Rollins at CNN on the other VP pick- Joe Biden.
Obama wrong to spurn Hillary, pick Biden (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/rollins.convention/index.html)
And before someone flips out- yes, it's commentary.
On another note, McCain's bounce continues with the latest USA Today/Gallup poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/2008_09_05topline.html) showing a 10pt lead.
woad&fangs
09-08-2008, 22:55
Hey, if you want to think McCain is winning by 10% then you can, but Gallup's website is reporting only a 3% lead for McCain.(still very impressive for him)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx
Strike For The South
09-08-2008, 22:58
State by State polls mean so much more
woad&fangs
09-08-2008, 23:00
Unfortunately state by state polls are all way out of date unless they are for Ohio or some other swing state.
Hey, if you want to think McCain is winning by 10% then you can, but Gallup's website is reporting only a 3% lead for McCain.(still very impressive for him)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx
You're talking about the daily tracking poll of registered voters. I'm talking about the USAToday/Gallup Poll of Likely voters. (and besides, the current tracking poll of RV shows 5% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110110/Gallup-Daily-McCains-Bounce-Gives-Him-5Point-Lead.aspx))
I usually prefer likely voters polls to registered voters. As the name implies, likely voters are more likely to vote- which generally makes for more accurate polling. Registered voters, means only that they are registered to vote- a much broader category. From Gallup's own website:
In general, most poll consumers agree that the likely voter model is most predictive in the final poll before an election
Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to declare McCain is incontrovertibly winning by 10%. One poll isn't enough to show that imo- more will have to come in.
CountArach
09-08-2008, 23:23
Here's a piece by Ed Rollins at CNN on the other VP pick- Joe Biden.
Obama wrong to spurn Hillary, pick Biden (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/rollins.convention/index.html)
And before someone flips out- yes, it's commentary.
On another note, McCain's bounce continues with the latest USA Today/Gallup poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/2008_09_05topline.html) showing a 10pt lead.
Gallup overstates short term changes in enthusiasm. The registered voters number is considered far more accurate.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to declare McCain is incontrovertibly winning by 10%. One poll isn't enough to show that imo- more will have to come in.
Most national polls are showing a small McCain lead (Pretty much in line with Gallups RV numbers) and the few state polls we have are showing a tightening race (For example Obama up by only 1 in Michigan). Here is what we have:
Gallup Tracking: McCain +5
Rasmussen Tracking: McCain +1
Diageo Tracking: Tied
CBS News/NYT: McCain +2
ABCPost: McCain +2
Not too many state-by-state, but those that we do have point to a much closer race in the swing states (For example McCain up in Colorado, Virginia and only 1 behind in Michigan - these are all against the trend)
So it is safe to assume McCain would win slightly if the election were held today. I would expect that once his bounce wears off he will still be behind by a couple of points, which is better than the 3 points he was losing by before the convention. It is likely that Palin has energised the Evangelical base and that will help.
Louis VI the Fat
09-08-2008, 23:28
I'd be lost in this election if it weren't for CA. :2thumbsup:
CountArach
09-08-2008, 23:37
Thanks Louis, I do what I can :bow:
Don Corleone
09-09-2008, 00:56
Changing the tone of the discussion a bit about who we want to win and why the other side is a bunch of losers for not understanding, I heard a scenario analysis that made my blood run cold today. This was on Imus this morning.
Imagine it's Wednesday, November 5, 2008. After a counting and a recounting, it turns out that we have the perfect storm of American politics.
Barrack Obama has won the popular vote by >500K, in such a way that no contesting the counts can make a significant differernce. But he did what Hillary did during the primaries, he hit his base states hard, getting as much as 70% of places like California, New York and Massachussets. But he just barely squibs Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, again with wide enough margins to render recounts pointless.
Can anybody see this NOT developing into riots?
Seamus Fermanagh
09-09-2008, 00:56
Given the electoral system in use, state-by-state assessment is crucial to gauging likely results. In almost all locales (ME and NE exceptions), the winner by even 1 vote gets ALL of the electoral votes for that state.
So, a 3 point lead for McCain nationally isn't helpful if he's leading by 97-3 in Arizona and Texas but losing by 0.002% in OH and PA. We all know AZ and T are going to end up in his column anyway. In fact, only about 15 of the states are close enough for them to go one way or another this time (swing states) and the rest are pretty well known results.
However, most of our polls are of limited predictive quality until the last two weeks, which is when a sizeable portion of the uncommitted voters wake up and start making decisions.
We really do have the government we deserve.
Here's (http://www.retireted.com/category/real-estate/gravina-bridge/) an anti-Ted Stevens website run by the Alaska Democrat Party. They have an interesting take on the "Bridge to Nowhere" issue.:
Former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s administration set aside about $113 million of the appropriation for the Ketchikan bridge. However, Gov. Sarah Palin said the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it. She said it was clear Congress had little interest in spending any more money for it and that the state had higher priorities.
Another issue that's been in the news is Freddie and Fannie. McCain (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0737516220080908) says the goal should be the eventual dismantling of the organizations, meanwhile, Obama (http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=94394596&m=94394551) hints at more regulation without mentioning any plans.
If anyone has anything more substantive that Obama has said on the issue, I'd like to read it.
m52nickerson
09-09-2008, 03:57
If anyone has anything more substantive that Obama has said on the issue, I'd like to read it.
From his statement it sounds like he is still formulating his plan.
Given the substantial role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in our housing system, I believe that some form of intervention is necessary to prevent a larger and deeper crisis throughout our entire economy. I will be reviewing the details of the Treasury plan and monitoring its impact to determine whether it achieves the key benchmarks I believe are necessary to address this crisis.
First, this plan must not focus on the whims of lobbyists and special interests worried about their bonuses and hourly fees, but instead on strengthening our economy and helping struggling homeowners who are also being hit by lost jobs, stagnant wages and spiraling costs of everything from gas to groceries. Second, the plan must protect taxpayers, not bail out the shareholders and management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Third, once we ride out the current crisis, the plan must move toward clarifying the true public and private status of our housing policies. In our market system, investors must not be allowed to believe that they can invest in a “heads they win, tails they don’t lose” situation.
To be fair, Furunculu5, this is a pretty common phenomenon in our politics, which are given to bipolar fits of insanity. Apparently, not so much yours.
Examples:
-Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice aren't "Black enough", because they've worked in Republican administrations (some prominent black voices going so far as to label them "Toms", and "house n------s".
-A whole plethora of politiicans on the Left, who are consistently villified as "Not really Christian". Not sure how the pundits on the right, particualarly the religious right, know for a fact that Jesus would not count them as among his followers, but...
Basically, we allow a particular special interest group, Left or Right, to decide who are representative members and who are not. The NRA gets to say who is and who is not toeing the line on the 2nd ammendment, La Rasa gets to say who is and who is not supportive of Latino issues.
If Sarah Palin does nothing else, breaking this modern paradigm of our politics would be a service to her country she could be proud of for the rest of her life. The odds are against her in this regard, however, no matter how she and McCain do in the election.
interesting thanks. still, its a shame to see orghers coming out with that rubbish too.
i still find it weird that obama is considered a black candidate, when he is not actually black because his momma was a cracker*!?!?!? :inquisitive:
* as am I.
don't know if this has already been posted:
Wassila resident viral email:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_an_alaskan_writes
CountArach
09-09-2008, 12:08
don't know if this has already been posted:
Wassila resident viral email:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_an_alaskan_writes
Interesting read, thanks for posting that.
CountArach
09-09-2008, 14:28
Man, Palin is so anti-waste...
Palin charges taxpayers to live in her own home. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html?hpid=topnews) (The link is WaPo and everything!)
ANCHORAGE, Sept. 8 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.
The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.
don't know if this has already been posted:
Wassila resident viral email:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_an_alaskan_writes
FactCheck.org claims they're going to look into the claims in the email. Meanwhile, they have a Sliming Palin (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html) entry up already addressing some of the Internet myths out there- including at least one that I've seen here:
We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.
* Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
* She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
* She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
* Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
* Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
We'll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.
Saw on cnn today that palin didn't sell the plane on ebay and not for a profit and cut the funding for special needs education by 62% despite saying that parents with special needs education would have a friend in the white house.You really saw that on CNN? :inquisitive:
* Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-09-2008, 17:38
FactCheck.org claims they're going to look into the claims in the email. Meanwhile, they have a Sliming Palin (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html) entry up already addressing some of the Internet myths out there- including at least one that I've seen here:
You really saw that on CNN? :inquisitive:
CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:
:shame:
Ah, I missed that in the analysis section. Admittedly, I only skimmed that part. :shame:
Apparently Soledad got a little overzealous in wanting to ask Palin the "tough" questions and ended up leaving the facts behind....
Crazed Rabbit
09-09-2008, 18:41
don't know if this has already been posted:
Wassila resident viral email:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_an_alaskan_writes
It sounds like it's from a woman who has declared herself as trying to tear down Palin.
CR
ICantSpellDawg
09-09-2008, 18:49
I've been reading the last few pages - leftist Orgahs have become so repetitive in their attacks on Palin that we must be doing something right. It wasn't like this before the announcment. Americans respond favorably to attacks from the right and unfavorably to attacks from the left.
We've finally gotten them to come out guns blazing and help us bang the nails into their november coffin. By the time the election rolls around the'll have pulled a boy who cried wolf and lost all credibility by attacking McCain as a pawn of the right.
I can't help but smile everytime I here a Brand on MTV, a movie star rip McCain, or someone nastily rip into Sarah Palin's family. This is what we need more of - we need them to ramp it up. Republicans win because Democrats lose it and it is beautiful.
Republicans win because Democrats lose it and it is beautiful.
do you´re admitting it´s not because of better ideas? just because the other side loses it?
Crazed Rabbit
09-09-2008, 19:16
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN097920080909
Poll shows big shift to McCain among white women
Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:20am EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain has gained huge support among white women since naming Sarah Palin as his running mate and now leads Democrat Barack Obama among those voters, according to a survey published on Tuesday.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that much of McCain's surge in the polls since the Republican National Convention is attributable to the shift in support among white women.
The race for the White House is now a virtual tie, with Obama at 47 percent support of registered voters and McCain at 46 percent, the poll found.
Before the Democratic National Convention in late August, Obama held an 8 percentage point lead among white women voters, 50 percent to 42 percent, but after the Republican convention in early September, McCain was ahead by 12 points among white women, 53 percent to 41 percent, the poll found.
I love the Obama campaign response:
Asked about the findings during a briefing on Monday before the poll was published, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told a Washington Post reporter, "Well, your poll is wrong."
CR
now come on...I saw someone write here that it was offensive to think that women would vote for her just because she´s a woman too :juggle2:
seireikhaan
09-09-2008, 19:28
I've been reading the last few pages - leftist Orgahs have become so repetitive in their attacks on Palin that we must be doing something right. It wasn't like this before the announcment. Americans respond favorably to attacks from the right and unfavorably to attacks from the left.
We've finally gotten them to come out guns blazing and help us bang the nails into their november coffin. By the time the election rolls around the'll have pulled a boy who cried wolf and lost all credibility by attacking McCain as a pawn of the right.
I can't help but smile everytime I here a Brand on MTV, a movie star rip McCain, or someone nastily rip into Sarah Palin's family. This is what we need more of - we need them to ramp it up. Republicans win because Democrats lose it and it is beautiful.
Go team!1!1~:rolleyes:
seireikhaan
09-09-2008, 19:32
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN097920080909
I love the Obama campaign response:
CR
Hmm... that's interesting. I guess women really are as shallow as stereotyped.
On the other hand, McCain hasn't gained much in the overall polling; an indication of lost votes elsewhere?
Gregoshi
09-09-2008, 20:27
do you´re admitting it´s not because of better ideas? just because the other side loses it?
You read my mind Ronin. Of course, if we vote on a president based on who is the better mud-slinger, then I guess we get what we deserve. :shame:
CrossLOPER
09-09-2008, 20:34
I've been reading the last few pages - leftist Orgahs have become so repetitive in their attacks on Palin that we must be doing something right.
:rolleyes2:
Big_John
09-09-2008, 22:43
months ago, a comedian on the daily show, larry wilmore, said that while obama will excite people for a while, eventually america will remember that he is black, and that a 70 year old white republican will be the kind of change that we're ready for.
edit: link (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156702&title=obamas-february-wins)
CountArach
09-09-2008, 22:53
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN097920080909
Poll shows big shift to McCain among white women
Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:20am EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain has gained huge support among white women since naming Sarah Palin as his running mate and now leads Democrat Barack Obama among those voters, according to a survey published on Tuesday.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that much of McCain's surge in the polls since the Republican National Convention is attributable to the shift in support among white women.
The race for the White House is now a virtual tie, with Obama at 47 percent support of registered voters and McCain at 46 percent, the poll found.
Before the Democratic National Convention in late August, Obama held an 8 percentage point lead among white women voters, 50 percent to 42 percent, but after the Republican convention in early September, McCain was ahead by 12 points among white women, 53 percent to 41 percent, the poll found.
There are a few caveats for that poll. For one another poll by the same agency shows Palin having decreasing support amongst women. Secondly the small sub-sample of women alone would have at least a 6% MoE. She does do well amongst women with children, and here I toss it over to FiveThirty Eight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/mommy-quotient.html):
With that said, there is a subheadline in the ABC poll that I find both more interesting and more believable. Sarah Palin polls very well among women with children -- specifically white women with children, who give her an 80 percent favorability rating. In fact, it appears to me that Palin's high favorability ratings among women are entirely owing to her popularity among women with children. Roughly one-third of registered female voters should have children at home, which means that among white women without children, her favorability rating is around 60 percent -- still pretty decent, but barely different from the 58 percent she received in the poll overall.
Nate then comes up with the following graph, which is very useful. It shows the number of white women with children as a percentage of population. Highlighted in purple are those state which are swing-states in this election:
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/2842547912_5fb599b95b_o.png
Make of that what you will.
Tonnes of State-by-state polling today. I'll post it up later... ie - when it isn't 10 to 8 in the morning.
woad&fangs
09-09-2008, 23:01
Tonnes of State-by-state polling today. I'll post it up later... ie - when it isn't 10 to 8 in the morning.
The big news being that Ohio and Virginia turned slightly Republican.
CountArach
09-09-2008, 23:04
The big news being that Ohio and Virginia turned slightly Republican.
Yup, and Michigan has tightened.
And for all your Ron Pauls upporters (I seem to recall we had a couple) - Ron Paul on the Ballot in Montana (http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/05/montana-constitution-party-submits-presidential-electors-pledged-to-ron-paul-and-michael-peroutka/)
I've been reading the last few pages - leftist Orgahs have become so repetitive in their attacks on Palin that we must be doing something right.
You mean the same way you rightist's have been repetitive in your attacks on Obama? Did you :daisy: as well when Palin was chosen?
Strike For The South
09-10-2008, 01:34
Yup, and Michigan has tightened.
And for all your Ron Pauls upporters (I seem to recall we had a couple) - Ron Paul on the Ballot in Montana (http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/05/montana-constitution-party-submits-presidential-electors-pledged-to-ron-paul-and-michael-peroutka/)
:2thumbsup:
Crazed Rabbit
09-10-2008, 03:19
Obama: more classy than ever. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-says-mc-1.html)
"You know, you can put lipstick on a pig," Obama said, "but it's still a pig."
The crowd rose and applauded, some of them no doubt thinking he may have been alluding to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's ad lib during her vice presidential nomination acceptance speech last week, "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick."
Part of a wider trend (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13315.html), it seems.
EDIT: I wonder how much Obama and Biden want to push the Bridge to nowhere thing:
http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/
Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, chosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.
However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.
And when the Alaska Democrats credited Palin with helping to kill it:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:szpJxaSZwiMJ:www.retireted.com/real-estate/gravina-bridge/ted-earmarked-funds-for-bridge-that-goes-nowhere/+
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
09-10-2008, 03:23
I've been reading the last few pages - leftist Orgahs have become so repetitive in their attacks on Palin that we must be doing something right. It wasn't like this before the announcment. Americans respond favorably to attacks from the right and unfavorably to attacks from the left.
We've finally gotten them to come out guns blazing and help us bang the nails into their november coffin. By the time the election rolls around the'll have pulled a boy who cried wolf and lost all credibility by attacking McCain as a pawn of the right.
I can't help but smile everytime I here a Brand on MTV, a movie star rip McCain, or someone nastily rip into Sarah Palin's family. This is what we need more of - we need them to ramp it up. Republicans win because Democrats lose it and it is beautiful.
We got fed a bunch of "scandals" and went into a feeding frenzy. At the end of the day though, McCain/Palin is not much different from McCain/XXXXX.
Do you think Sarah Palin would make a good president?
Big_John
09-10-2008, 03:45
Obama: more classy than ever. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-says-mc-1.html)it's a fairly old and common idiom. it's also obvious that he was referring directly to mccain's newly adopted 'change' rhetoric.
but yes, the right will no doubt try to run this into the ground as hard as possible.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-10-2008, 03:53
it's a fairly old and common idiom. it's also obvious that he was referring directly to mccain's newly adopted 'change' rhetoric.
but yes, the right will no doubt try to run this into the ground as hard as possible.
And if a Republican had said that about Obama, he would've been racist.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-10-2008, 03:53
Obama: more classy than ever. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-says-mc-1.html)
R
Title should read:
McCain and CR: more dishonorable than ever
"John McCain says he’s about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is ‘Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education, policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove style politics -- we’re really going to shake things up in Washington,'" Obama said today at a town hall in Lebanon, VA.
He then added, "That's not change. That's just calling the same thing something different. But you know, you can ... put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change; it's still going to stink. After eight years, we've had enough of the same old thing. It's time to bring about real change to Washington."
...
“Enough is enough. The McCain campaign’s attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy -- the same analogy that Sen. McCain himself used about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year," said Obama senior adviser Anita Dunn. "This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run.”
...
"I think they put some lipstick on a pig," he said to the Des Moines Rotary Club when asked if he could put a price tag on Hillarycare, "but it's still a pig."
Seems to be part of a recent trend, aka politics
The ad says Obama has a weak record on education and that his only accomplishment was legislation to teach sex education to kindergarteners.
"Learning about sex before learning to read?" the ad says. "Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."
But the legislation was not Obama's, it never became law and it would have required age-appropriate information in schools. Obama has said that means warning young children about sexual predators and explaining concepts like "good touch and bad touch."
"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.
Burton noted that in a recent interview with Time magazine, McCain refused to define 'honor.' "Now we know why," Burton said.
And if a Republican had said that about Obama, he would've been racist.
No he wouldn't and you KNOW that.
Big_John
09-10-2008, 04:06
And if a Republican had said that about Obama, he would've been racist.do you really believe that?
Sasaki Kojiro
09-10-2008, 04:12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html
In a year in which Democrats have a lead of 11 million registered voters over Republicans, and have been adding to that advantage through a robust field operation, are pollsters over-sampling Republicans?
Despite a raft of advantages in the electorate for Democrats, in September's first Gallup tracking poll, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats were surveyed (including "leaners") from Sept. 3-5, compared to a 10-point Democratic identification advantage two weeks ago. That partisan makeup of the polling pool resulted in a 5-point lead for McCain in Sept. 5 tracking poll. Meanwhile, the new CBS poll features a 6-point swing in partisan composition toward Republicans, which plays some role in the poll's two-point lead for McCain. Finally, the latest USA Today poll, which claims a four-point edge for McCain, was arrived at after a 10-point swing in partisan makeup toward GOP respondents.
woad&fangs
09-10-2008, 04:16
Newly registered voters aren't included in the POLLS? :freak:
Isn't that like 90% of Obama's supporters:dizzy2:
ICantSpellDawg
09-10-2008, 04:37
Here is a new article by Camille Paglia. If you know anything about her, you will view this as an interesting and rather independent take.
Fresh blood for the vampire
A beady-eyed McCain gets a boost from the charismatic Sarah Palin, a powerful new feminist -- yes, feminist! -- force. Plus: Obama must embrace his dull side. By Camille Paglia
Sep. 10, 2008 (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/print.html) | Rip tide! Is the Obama campaign shooting out to sea like a paper boat?
It's heavy weather for Obama fans, as momentum has suddenly shifted to John McCain -- that hoary, barnacle-encrusted tub that many Democrats like me had thought was full of holes and swirling to its doom in the inky depths of Republican incoherence and fratricide. Gee whilikers, the McCain vampire just won't die! Hit him with a hammer, and he explodes like a jellyfish into a hundred hungry pieces.
Oh, the sadomasochistic tedium of McCain's imprisonment in Hanoi being told over and over and over again at the Republican convention. Do McCain's credentials for the White House really consist only of that horrific ordeal? Americans owe every heroic, wounded veteran an incalculable debt of gratitude, but how do McCain's sufferings in a tiny, squalid cell 40 years ago logically translate into presidential aptitude in the 21st century? Cast him a statue or slap his name on a ship, and let's turn the damned page.
We need a new generation of leadership with fresh ideas and an expansive, cosmopolitan vision -- which is why I support Barack Obama and have contributed to his campaign. My baby-boom generation -- typified by the narcissistic Clintons -- peaked in the 1960s and is seriously past it. But McCain, born before Pearl Harbor, is even older than we are! Why would anyone believe that he holds the key to the future? And why would anyone swallow that preening passel of high-flown rhetoric about "country above all" coming from a seething, short-fused character whose rampant egotism, zigzagging principles, and currying of the gullible press were the distinguishing marks of his senatorial career?
Having said that, I must admit that McCain is currently eating Obama's lunch. McCain's weirdly disconnected persona (beady glowers flashing to frozen grins and back again) has started to look more testosterone-rich than Obama's easy, lanky, reflective candor. What in the world possessed the Obama campaign to let their guy wander like a dazed lamb into a snake pit of religious inquisition like Rick Warren's public forum last month at his Saddleback Church (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/08/18/sunday_at_saddleback/index.html) in California? That shambles of a performance -- where a surprisingly unprepared Obama met the inevitable question about abortion with shockingly curt glibness -- began his alarming slide.
As I said in my last column (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/08/13/mercury), I have become increasingly uneasy about Obama's efforts to sound folksy and approachable by reflexively using inner-city African-American tones and locutions, which as a native of Hawaii he acquired relatively late in his development and which are painfully wrong for the target audience of rural working-class whites that he has been trying to reach. Obama on the road and even in major interviews has been droppin' his g's like there's no tomorrow. It's analogous to the way stodgy, portly Al Gore (evidently misadvised by the women in his family and their feminist pals) tried to zap himself up on the campaign trail into the happening buff dude that he was not. Both Gore and Obama would have been better advised to pursue a calm, steady, authoritative persona. Forget the jokes -- be boring! That, alas, is what reads as masculine in the U.S.
The over-the-top publicity stunt of a mega-stadium for Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention two weeks ago was a huge risk that worried me sick -- there were too many things that could go wrong, from bad weather to crowd control to technical glitches on the overblown set. But everything went swimmingly. Obama delivered the speech nearly flawlessly -- though I was shocked and disappointed by how little there was about foreign policy, a major area where wavering voters have grave doubts about him. Nevertheless, it was an extraordinary event with an overlong but strangely contemplative and spiritually uplifting finale. The music, amid the needlessly extravagant fireworks, morphed into "Star Wars" -- a New Age hymn to cosmic reconciliation and peace.
After that extravaganza, marking the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s epochal civil rights speech on the Washington Mall, I felt calmly confident that the Obama campaign was going to roll like a gorgeous juggernaut right over the puny, fossilized McCain. The next morning, it was as if the election were already over. No need to fret about American politics anymore this year. I had already turned with relief to other matters.
Pow! Wham! The Republicans unleashed a doozy -- one of the most stunning surprises that I have ever witnessed in my adult life. By lunchtime, Obama's triumph of the night before had been wiped right off the national radar screen. In a bold move I would never have thought him capable of, McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his pick for vice president. I had heard vaguely about Palin but had never heard her speak. I nearly fell out of my chair. It was like watching a boxing match or a quarter of hard-hitting football -- or one of the great light-saber duels in "Star Wars." (Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A4fN7FEzjc) are the two Jedi, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn, going at it with Darth Maul in "The Phantom Menace.") This woman turned out to be a tough, scrappy fighter with a mischievous sense of humor.
Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.
In the U.S., the ultimate glass ceiling has been fiendishly complicated for women by the unique peculiarity that our president must also serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. Women have risen to the top in other countries by securing the leadership of their parties and then being routinely promoted to prime minister when that party won at the polls. But a woman candidate for president of the U.S. must show a potential capacity for military affairs and decision-making. Our president also symbolically represents the entire history of the nation -- a half-mystical role often filled elsewhere by a revered if politically powerless monarch.
As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women's studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances. I have repeatedly said that the politician who came closest in my view to the persona of the first woman president was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose steady nerves in crisis were demonstrated when she came to national attention after the mayor and a gay supervisor were murdered in their City Hall offices in San Francisco. Hillary Clinton, with her schizophrenic alteration of personae, has never seemed presidential to me -- and certainly not in her bland and overpraised farewell speech at the Democratic convention (which skittered from slow, pompous condescension to trademark stridency to unseemly haste).
Feinstein, with her deep knowledge of military matters, has true gravitas and knows how to shrewdly thrust and parry with pesky TV interviewers. But her style is reserved, discreet, mandarin. Sarah Palin is like Annie Oakley, a brash ambassador from America's pioneer past. She immediately reminded me of the frontier women of the Western states, which first granted women the right to vote after the Civil War -- long before the federal amendment guaranteeing universal woman suffrage was passed in 1919. Frontier women faced the same harsh challenges and had to tackle the same chores as men did -- which is why men could regard them as equals, unlike the genteel, corseted ladies of the Eastern seaboard, which fought granting women the vote right to the bitter end.
Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics -- which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama's campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don't see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.
One reason I live in the leafy suburbs of Philadelphia and have never moved to New York or Washington is that, as a cultural analyst, I want to remain in touch with the mainstream of American life. I frequent fast-food restaurants, shop at the mall, and periodically visit Wal-Mart (its bird-seed section is nonpareil). Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones -- nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days. Ambitious professionals in those cities, if they want to preserve their social networks, are very vulnerable to received opinion. At receptions and parties (which I hate), they're sitting ducks. They have to go along to get along -- poor dears!
It is certainly premature to predict how the Palin saga will go. I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin's boffo performances at her debut and at the Republican convention, where she astonishingly dealt with multiple technical malfunctions without missing a beat. A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.
Perhaps Palin seemed perfectly normal to me because she resembles so many women I grew up around in the snow belt of upstate New York. For example, there were the robust and hearty farm women of Oxford, a charming village where my father taught high school when I was a child. We first lived in an apartment on the top floor of a farmhouse on a working dairy farm. Our landlady, who was as physically imposing as her husband, was another version of the Italian immigrant women of my grandmother's generation -- agrarian powerhouses who could do anything and whose trumpetlike voices could pierce stone walls.
Here's one episode. My father and his visiting brother, a dapper barber by trade, were standing outside having a smoke when a great noise came from the nearby barn. A calf had escaped. Our landlady yelled, "Stop her!" as the calf came careening at full speed toward my father and uncle, who both instinctively stepped back as the calf galloped through the mud between them. Irate, our landlady trudged past them to the upper pasture, cornered the calf, and carried that massive animal back to the barn in her arms. As she walked by my father and uncle, she exclaimed in amused disgust, "Men!"
Now that's the Sarah Palin brand of can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism -- a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism represented by Gloria Steinem, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be. Sarah Palin, if her reputation survives the punishing next two months, may be breaking down those barriers. Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.
Here's another example of the physical fortitude and indomitable spirit that Palin as an Alaskan sportswoman seems to represent right now. Last year, Toronto's Globe and Mail reprinted this remarkable obituary from 1905:
Abigail Becker Farmer and homemaker born in Frontenac County, Upper Canada, on March 14, 1830
A tall, handsome woman "who feared God greatly and the living or dead not at all," she married a widower with six children and settled in a trapper's cabin on Long Point, Lake Erie. On Nov. 23, 1854, with her husband away, she single-handedly rescued the crew of the schooner Conductor of Buffalo, which had run aground in a storm. The crew had clung to the frozen rigging all night, not daring to enter the raging surf. In the early morning, she waded chin-high into the water (she could not swim) and helped seven men reach shore. She was awarded medals for heroism and received $350 collected by the people of Buffalo, plus a handwritten letter from Queen Victoria that was accompanied by £50, all of which went toward buying a farm. She lost her husband to a storm, raised 17 children alone and died at Walsingham Centre, Ont.
Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today's pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else.
But what of Palin's pro-life stand? Creationism taught in schools? Book banning? Gay conversions? The Iraq war as God's plan? Zionism as a prelude to the apocalypse? We'll see how these big issues shake out. Right now, I don't believe much of what I read or hear about Palin in the media. To automatically assume that she is a religious fanatic who has embraced the most extreme ideas of her local church is exactly the kind of careless reasoning that has been unjustly applied to Barack Obama, whom the right wing is still trying to tar with the fulminating anti-American sermons of his longtime preacher, Jeremiah Wright.
The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances.
Let's take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body. (Hence I favor the legalization of drugs, though I do not take them.) Nevertheless, I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women's movement -- leading to feminists' McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton's support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women -- an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.
But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae," (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FSexual-Personae-Decadence-Nefertiti-Dickinson%2Fdp%2F0679735798%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1210721176%26sr%3D8-1&tag=saloncom08-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.
On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?
What I am getting at here is that not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing. Because pro-choice Democrats have been arguing from cold expedience, they have thus far been unable to make an effective ethical case for the right to abortion.
The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences. I have written about the eerie silence that fell over campus audiences in the early 1990s when I raised this issue on my book tours. At such moments, everyone in the hall seemed to feel the uneasy conscience of feminism. Naomi Wolf later bravely tried to address this same subject but seems to have given up in the face of the resistance she encountered.
If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society's acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life. If McCain wins the White House and then drops dead, a President Palin would have the power to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, but she could not control their rulings.
It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism -- one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.
But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.
Camille Paglia's column appears on the second Wednesday of each month. Every third column is devoted to reader letters. Please send questions for her next letters column to this mailbox (ask_camille@salon.com). Your name and town will be published unless you request anonymity.
Crazed Rabbit
09-10-2008, 07:45
We got fed a bunch of "scandals" and went into a feeding frenzy.
Never stopping to question if there was any truth to any of the scandals. Hey, they said, there's been malicious whisper campaigns about Obama! So let's have an orgy of over-the-top shellacking of a woman based on a hundred different lies!
A bit from the article TSMF posted:
The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances.
it's a fairly old and common idiom. it's also obvious that he was referring directly to mccain's newly adopted 'change' rhetoric.
HA! This is the Obama who oh-so-slyly flipped up his middle finger as he mentioned Hilary in one of his speeches, and smiled at the applause it got.
Anyway, all the hyperventilating leftists, so quick to leap to the defense of Obama, ought to take a long, hard look at this list of what is true and what is not true regarding rumors about Palin:
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
There are some others who don't fall into that category who should look at that list as well.
:inquisitive:
CR
CountArach
09-10-2008, 08:25
Newly registered voters aren't included in the POLLS? :freak:
Isn't that like 90% of Obama's supporters:dizzy2:
Some pollsters change the numbers to reflect the likely turnout at an election - I believe that some are increasing numbers of blacks and the young that are polled. Sasaki's article is why people should be wary about Gallup's likely voters model - they change their partisan identification numbers based on enthusiasm at that point in time, which means that recently they have interviewed more Republicans.
the "lipstick on a pig" comment was not aimed at Palin, it was just a phrase that happened to use a word Palin has made her own.
i don't like it when that kind of trash-talk is aimed at either of the parties.
seireikhaan
09-10-2008, 14:05
No, believe it or not, even fundamentalist Christians don’t have to believe every litle thing their pastor believes. Hmm... I seem to recall some kind of stuff earlier this election cycle about a pastor of sorts...:idea2:
BTW, CR, that was an EPIC dodge of admitting you're own frothiness.:smash:
Crazed Rabbit
09-10-2008, 14:50
My frothiness is between me and my closest friends.
Hmm... I seem to recall some kind of stuff earlier this election cycle about a pastor of sorts...
I don't think the dems want to go that route; Palin actually left her AoG Church several years ago (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/06/and-no-shes-not-a-religious-extremist-either/).
Barack had a painful experience of dumping his crazy pastor (along with his grandmother I suppose) after 20 years. Quite amusing.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
09-10-2008, 14:52
Never stopping to question if there was any truth to any of the scandals. Hey, they said, there's been malicious whisper campaigns about Obama! So let's have an orgy of over-the-top shellacking of a woman based on a hundred different lies!
You just posted an article about the lipstick on a pig comment :laugh4:
On the one side, you have some liberal blogs and pundits smearing palin. On the other side you have John McCain smearing obama (like I just posted).
HA! This is the Obama who oh-so-slyly flipped up his middle finger as he mentioned Hilary in one of his speeches, and smiled at the applause it got.
Seriously now? I can tell when I'm being partisan, usually as I'm typing the post. It's the game we all play. But I'm starting to worry that you can't...
Crazed Rabbit
09-10-2008, 15:05
You just posted an article about the lipstick on a pig comment
Yes, because I do think Obama meant that to refer to Palin. I've given my reasons.
Seriously now?
Yes. You didn't see the video? EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj1jn3Xr0hM
Or just search for "Obama flips off hilary"
And yes, I think McCain's ad probably crossed a line (though I haven't read the bill, it does seem like the attack takes things out of context).
CR
Tribesman
09-10-2008, 15:37
You just posted an article about the lipstick on a pig comment
Be quiet , its bollox like this that makes the campaign fun .
You know stuff like this...
I don't think the dems want to go that route; Palin actually left her AoG Church several years ago.
...when her new pastor also does funny sermons just like her old one , but of course you can't link Palin with what some preacher says , you can only do that with Obama :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
And as for
Yes. You didn't see the video? EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj1jn3Xr0hM
Or just search for "Obama flips off hilary"
how pathetic can people get ?
Hold on thats a silly question isn't it , after all this is a normal crazy US election topic .
ICantSpellDawg
09-10-2008, 16:21
I forgot that Barack and Michelle have their kids in a private school.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/the-rantings-of-a-pta-mom/index.html
They talk about making public schools better, but they don't even have a horse in that race. I'm actually suprised at this, but not really - I wasn't all that suprised that Michael Moore had his kids in private school either. Even Biden, the "working class hero" sends his kids to the Archmere Academy. These guys are hosing us and we drink it up.
Palin injects an average angle to this election - and she has tried very hard to do it, by cutting luxurious expenses in her admin, by not living in the mansion, by driving herself to work, by sending her kids to normal schools, by firing the chef, by giving herself a pay cut as mayor.
Hate her if you will for her policies, but she helps bring you, me and our families, with all of our concerns and frustrations a heartbeat away from the white house. One less reason to object in an almighty furor to the possibility that she will has a shot at the big white house?
Strike For The South
09-10-2008, 16:58
I forgot that Barack and Michelle have their kids in a private school.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/the-rantings-of-a-pta-mom/index.html
They talk about making public schools better, but they don't even have a horse in that race. I'm actually suprised at this, but not really - I wasn't all that suprised that Michael Moore had his kids in private school either. Even Biden, the "working class hero" sends his kids to the Archmere Academy. These guys are hosing us and we drink it up.
Palin injects an average angle to this election - and she has tried very hard to do it, by cutting luxurious expenses in her admin, by not living in the mansion, by driving herself to work, by sending her kids to normal schools, by firing the chef, by giving herself a pay cut as mayor.
Hate her if you will for her policies, but she helps bring you, me and our families, with all of our concerns and frustrations a heartbeat away from the white house. One less reason to object in an almighty furor to the possibility that she will has a shot at the big white house?
There kids are out of bounds :rolleyes:
Seconded. Leave the kids out of the campaign rhetoric, please. Let's have some limits to how low we want to stoop, mmkay?
Sasaki Kojiro
09-10-2008, 17:02
Palin injects an average angle to this election - and she has tried very hard to do it, by cutting luxurious expenses in her admin, by not living in the mansion, by driving herself to work, by sending her kids to normal schools, by firing the chef, by giving herself a pay cut as mayor.
Hate her if you will for her policies, but she helps bring you, me and our families, with all of our concerns and frustrations a heartbeat away from the white house. One less reason to object in an almighty furor to the possibility that she will has a shot at the big white house?
How'd the "well he's someone I'd like to have a beer with" strategy work out for you guys last time? It's still about the economy and health care.
Besides:
https://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9994/slide2010jm3.jpg
Those are McCain's $520 "Salvatore Ferragamo 'pregiato' moccasins" with the silver-tone "Gancini" buckles :laugh4:
ICantSpellDawg
09-10-2008, 17:10
A parents decision about where they send their kids for their education is different than their kids decision to have sex too young. One is in bounds and the other isn't.
ICantSpellDawg
09-10-2008, 17:12
Besides:
https://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9994/slide2010jm3.jpg
Those are McCain's $520 "Salvatore Ferragamo 'pregiato' moccasins" with the silver-tone "Gancini" buckles :laugh4:
He needs all the dressin' up he can get. "You can put Ferragamo's on a pig...". I almost bought a pair of those when I sold watches. They last for quite some time.
Strike For The South
09-10-2008, 17:15
A parents decision about where they send their kids for their education is different than their kids decision to have sex too young. One is in bounds and the other isn't.
Maybe the schools in Chicago are crap. thats why he want to IMPROVE them.
Thats like saying "If Palin had taught her daughter how to use a condom she wouldnt've had a kid"
I guess the only in bounds ones are when hes batting for your side?
Communist
ICantSpellDawg
09-10-2008, 17:20
Maybe the schools in Chicago are crap. thats why he want to IMPROVE them.
Thats like saying "If Palin had taught her daughter how to use a condom she wouldnt've had a kid"
I guess the only in bounds ones are when hes batting for your side?
Communist
I don't think that they are the same. I'm not lambasting his kids. If he bought his kid an aston martin and was going around saying how important it was to buy american or help fix the automobile manufacturing sector, that would be one thing. If his kid bought herself an aston martin it would be irrelevant in discussion.
One involves the action of the adult in question, the other involves the action of the child not in question.
Strike For The South
09-10-2008, 17:24
I don't think that they are the same. I'm not lambasting his kids. If he bought his kid an aston martin and was going around saying how important it was to buy american or help fix the automobile manufacturing sector, that would be one thing. If his kid bought herself an aston martin it would be irrelevant in discussion.
One involves the action of the adult in question, the other involves the action of the child not in question.
Maybe the schools in Chicago are crap. thats why he want to IMPROVE them. Maybe he wants other children to have the same level of education as his kids and not have them pay for it! What a novel idea! Unlike Palin who seems to want to put social restrictions on people and not let them learn safe sex or inquire about banning books!
One involves the action of the adult in question, the other involves the action of the child not in question.
You could just as easily make the argument that no teen girl gets knocked up without negligence and bad parenting, making all sorts of things relevant. But you know what's a better solution?
LEAVE THE KIDS OUT OF THE ARGUMENT.
Is that so very hard to do? Are you short of things to talk about unless you drag kids into the picture? Do you have trouble formulating an argument unless you can talk about a candidate's children? Is this election sufficiently issue-free that all you can think to bring into the arena are children?
In other words, what the hell is wrong with you?
I forgot that Barack and Michelle have their kids in a private school.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/the-rantings-of-a-pta-mom/index.html
They talk about making public schools better, but they don't even have a horse in that race. I'm actually suprised at this, but not really - I wasn't all that suprised that Michael Moore had his kids in private school either. Even Biden, the "working class hero" sends his kids to the Archmere Academy. These guys are hosing us and we drink it up.
If they want to make schools better it´s because they think they´re not good enough right now.....they can send their kids to a better option so they do....seems to make sense...don´t see the logic error there....
if they were saying that the public schools were good and didn´t send their kids to them then I´d understand what you where comming from.
You could just as easily make the argument that no teen girl gets knocked up without negligence and bad parenting, making all sorts of things relevant. But you know what's a better solution?
LEAVE THE KIDS OUT OF THE ARGUMENT.
Is that so very hard to do? Are you short of things to talk about unless you drag kids into the picture? Do you have trouble formulating an argument unless you can talk about a candidate's children? Is this election sufficiently issue-free that all you can think to bring into the arena are children?
In other words, what the hell is wrong with you? I think that you're right in that this certainly isn't the only issue- or even one of the best. However, I disagree that talking about a choice Obama made is dragging the kids into it either.
It's the difference between saying "Obama chose X" and saying "Obama chose X, and his kids are Y because of it." It's similar to saying "Palin believes in abstinence only programs*" vs saying "Palin supports abstinence only programs*, and her daughter is pregnant because of it." Let's not get irrational here.
If they want to make schools better it´s because they think they´re not good enough right now.....they can send their kids to a better option so they do....seems to make sense...don´t see the logic error there...Could be. And that would be a possible defense Obama could use to charges similar to Tuff's. Personally, I'd say it makes the case for Obama supporting vouchers.
*Palin doesnt support abstinence only programs, but it's a charge that's been levied, so it made for a good example.
It's the difference between saying "Obama chose X" and saying "Obama chose X, and his kids are Y because of it." It's similar to saying "Palin believes in abstinence only programs*" vs saying "Palin supports abstinence only programs*, and her daughter is pregnant because of it." Let's not get irrational here.
Well that's a lovely fine line you're dancing on, and I think it's far safer to apply a blanket rule of candidates' kids being off-limits. Do I need to point out that TuffStuff was also very vocal about discussing Palin's pregnant daughter?
You can make a legitimate argument that anything a kid does or is results from the parenting, making everything about a kid relevant to the race. That doesn't make it right or tasteful or appropriate.
Leave the kids alone. Is that so very hard to do?
-edit-
The dead walk and bullets talk in Pennsylvania? Man, finally I understand why that state is so messed up ...
Well that's a lovely fine line you're dancing on, and I think it's far safer to apply a blanket rule of candidates' kids being off-limits.I don't think the line is that fine, but I also think it's not really worth arguing over.
The dead walk and bullets talk in Pennsylvania? Man, finally I understand why that state is so messed up ...Have you seen how many dead people vote in our state? :clown:
Actually, it's a line I lifted from the sweet House of the Dead: Overkill (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKUD2sLE5rM) trailer.
the "lipstick on a pig" comment was not aimed at Palin, it was just a phrase that happened to use a word Palin has made her own.
i don't like it when that kind of trash-talk is aimed at either of the parties.Whether the comment was a deliberate reference to Palin or not, I think the McCain camp is making a huge mistake by trying to make hay with it. It makes them look oversensitive and petty.
It's highly doubtful the quote means (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10memo.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221059408-z1x+B2DLjxKI+ypW/VPaqg) what they're suggesting it means, anyway:
“John McCain says he’s about change, too — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That’s just calling the same thing something different.”
With a laugh, he added: “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.”
Besides which, why try to place so much importance on such a common cliche (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w)?
ICantSpellDawg
09-10-2008, 18:29
It's highly doubtful the quote means (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10memo.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221059408-z1x+B2DLjxKI+ypW/VPaqg) what they're suggesting it means, anyway:
“John McCain says he’s about change, too — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That’s just calling the same thing something different.”
With a laugh, he added: “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.”Besides which, why try to place so much importance on such a common cliche (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w)?
Both Biden and Obama have been using lipstick monikers more frequently and it may be an attempt to counter Palin's lipstick statement in public discourse. Is she the lipstick and McCain the pig? Is she the paper called change, he the old fish?
McCain has referred to himself as a pig before though, so I'm sure he wasn't offended.
Seconded. Leave the kids out of the campaign rhetoric, please. Let's have some limits to how low we want to stoop, mmkay?
agreed, but politicans in parties like UK Labour who are frequently found to be lauding the public sector schools and in favour of knackering selective/private schooling, whilst sending their children to private schools should be publicly ridiculed.
i don't know if that applies to the US Dems...........?
Louis VI the Fat
09-10-2008, 18:52
Some brief, assorted thoughts:
- I want Biden for president. I rather like him.
- Lipstickgate is ridiculous. I hope it will bounce back and hurt the Republicans.
It probably won't. In the end, all it does is solidify partisanship. In two weeks time, all that the Dems remember is that there was some sort of mudslinging, and all that the Reps will remember is that Obama made some sort of slur against Palin.
- The election seems to have entered a new phase since 'Palin'. More partisanship, more mudslinging, more divisiveness. Meh.
The 'two America's' have become more pronounced ever since her nomination. Or maybe the hard right, the religious right, was simply quiet up until now, until Palin energised them.
- Children, especially underage children, ought to be firmly off-limits for my liking. But deciding on a school is a parental decision. It only involves the children in a very indirect, impersonal manner.
ICantSpellDawg
09-10-2008, 19:05
Some brief, assorted thoughts:
- I want Biden for president. I rather like him.
I like him too. I like him better than Obama. I wouldn't mind him as VP that much at all, maybe even President.
- The election seems to have entered a new phase since 'Palin'. More partisanship, more mudslinging, more divisiveness. Meh.
The 'two America's' have become more pronounced ever since her nomination. Or maybe the hard right, the religious right, was simply quiet up until now, until Palin energised them.
Maybe, but I think that it is more likely that the right woke up and was energized with McCain's selection of Palin.
- Children, especially underage children, ought to be firmly off-limits for my liking. But deciding on a school is a parental decision. It only involves the children in a very indirect, impersonal manner.
I agree.
Biden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRV5Y1JCGRI) asks man in wheelchair to stand up to be recognized. :dizzy2::smash:
Biden is going to be so much fun as the campaign grinds on....
CrossLOPER
09-10-2008, 21:28
Biden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRV5Y1JCGRI) asks man in wheelchair to stand up to be recognized. :dizzy2::smash:
At least he didn't ignore him and walk away swiftly like someone we know...:smash:
Big_John
09-10-2008, 21:30
"you can tell i'm new". lol
Louis VI the Fat
09-10-2008, 22:11
Biden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRV5Y1JCGRI) asks man in wheelchair to stand up to be recognized. :dizzy2::smash: Oopsy. :sweatdrop:
Biden (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Biden_bows_to_Clinton_.html) is a goldmine:
Biden, today in Nashua, NH, in response to an inaudible question from an audience member:
“Make no mistake about it Hillary Clinton is as qualified as or more qualified than I am” to be vice president, Biden said. “And quite frankly, she may have been a better pick than me.”
Ah well, the odd gaffe is not important, apart from providing us with endless amusement. These people have a microphone in front of them 24/7. They're bound to make mistakes. Asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up is a bit too painful too be funny. Biden looks a bit uneasy over it.
Now that you've brought it up, Chuck Graham, the wheelchair-bound Missouri senator from the video, is a strong and vocal supporter of stem-cell research. Vote Democrat this election, overturn the Republican's ban on stem-cell research, and America's next generation might be free from the plight this man has to endure. :2thumbsup:
Or alternatively, buy the medicine for your children at a hefty price from the stem-cell researching Euros and Asians. ~;)
Devastatin Dave
09-10-2008, 22:27
. But deciding on a school is a parental decision. It only involves the children in a very indirect, impersonal manner.
You obviously do not know the platform of the democrat party my friend...
Devastatin Dave
09-10-2008, 23:03
The qualifications for being a liberal woman has really been ramped up a bit I guess...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/SC_Dem_chair_Palin_primary_qualification_is_she_hasnt_had_an_abortion_.html?showall
Man, what a wonderful thing say, how enlightened.:laugh4:
ICantSpellDawg
09-10-2008, 23:16
At least he didn't ignore him and walk away swiftly like someone we know...:smash:
That kid asked Romney a question that he already answered and he answered it a few times. Boo to you my friend!
m52nickerson
09-11-2008, 00:41
So at some point can we get back to the issues at hand.
Like how much Obama's tax plan will safe you. http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
....and again looking at this chart
http://www.stefanhayden.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/obama_mccain_taxcut.gif
It shows that 60% of US tax payers really don't get much from McCains plan.
Crazed Rabbit
09-11-2008, 00:51
nickerson; that's cause the bottom 60% of taxpayers don't pay a lot in taxes.
Vote Democrat this election, overturn the Republican's ban on stem-cell research, and America's next generation might be free from the plight this man has to endure.
Let me be perfectly clear; There Is NO Republican or Government Ban On Stem Cell Research of ANY Kind. George Bush gave more funding to embryonic stem cell research than Clinton did.
GAH!!
:inquisitive:
Or alternatively, buy the medicine for your children at a hefty price from the stem-cell researching Euros and Asians.
Or maybe we could make like you Euros and put price caps on all the medicine your companies want to sell here so they can't make back their investment with sales in America and have to bump up European prices!
CR
Democrat congressman: Obama is like Jesus, Palin is like Pontius Pilate (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/10/dem-compares-obama-to-jesus/) :laugh4:
"Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus."
"Pontius Pilate was a governor,"
It shows that 60% of US tax payers really don't get much from McCains plan.I don't know how he calls it a "tax cut" when 40% of filers pay no federal income tax (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1390&topic2ID=40&topic3ID=41&DocTypeID=2). That's called a hand out. It's not saving them money, it's giving them money. McCain's tax cuts will have little effect on the lower income brackets for the simple reason that they pay little income tax- there isn't much/any to cut.
KukriKhan
09-11-2008, 01:17
Democrat congressman: Obama is like Jesus, Palin is like Pontius Pilate (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/10/dem-compares-obama-to-jesus/) :laugh4:
"Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus."
"Pontius Pilate was a governor,"
Heaping irony upon irony, Rep (D-Tenn) Steve Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cohen) is Jewish, and represents Panzer Jaeger's hometown. "Six degrees to Bacon", indeed.
woad&fangs
09-11-2008, 01:47
Obama is going to raise taxes on the top 1%
McCain runs nonstop ads about how Obama is going to raise taxes and take away little Jimmy's lunch money.
51% of America now thinks Obama will raise their taxes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903727.html?hpid=topnews).:brood:
Tons of dissapointing mudflinging from both sides is pointed out in that article.:shame:
ICantSpellDawg
09-11-2008, 01:51
Obama is going to raise taxes on the top 1%
McCain runs nonstop ads about how Obama is going to raise taxes and take away little Jimmy's lunch money.
51% of America now thinks Obama will raise their taxes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903727.html?hpid=topnews).:brood:
Tons of dissapointing mudflinging from both sides is pointed out in that article.:shame:
Americans will pay more if Obama is elected. Prices will go up if taxes on businesses go up, in order to offset the new cost. If prices go up, Americans will not only pay more for goods and services, they will also pay more in consumption taxes.
It is technically correct to suggest that Americans will pay more in taxes if Obama is elected. It is even more correct to suggest that goods and services will become more expensive if he is elected.
Businesses do not just eat increased costs. They pass them on to the consumer and the employees. Businesses keep a constant profit margin if they know what they are doing.
Tribesman
09-11-2008, 01:55
Or maybe we could make like you Euros and put price caps on all the medicine your companies want to sell here so they can't make back their investment with sales in America and have to bump up European prices!
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
If you put on the euro price cap will you also go for the euro investment research and development grants that the drugs companies recieve (American companies as well as Euopean)?
don't know how he calls it a "tax cut" when 40% of filers pay no federal income tax.
Wow thats a hard one to understand isn't it .
Whats the other taxes involved with wages ? you know them tax thingies that are taken from peoples earnings ?
woad&fangs
09-11-2008, 02:15
Americans will pay more if Obama is elected. Prices will go up if taxes on businesses go up, in order to offset the new cost. If prices go up, Americans will not only pay more for goods and services, they will also pay more in consumption taxes.
It is technically correct to suggest that Americans will pay more in taxes if Obama is elected. It is even more correct to suggest that goods and services will become more expensive if he is elected.
Businesses do not just eat increased costs. They pass them on to the consumer and the employees. Businesses keep a constant profit margin if they know what they are doing.
Yes, because prices have remained so stable under Bush:dizzy2:
m52nickerson
09-11-2008, 02:21
nickerson; that's cause the bottom 60% of taxpayers don't pay a lot in taxes.
Define a lot.
See that the bottom 60% are the ones that could use extra money, and they represent the majority of the consumers in this country, especially when you consider that with the next bracket it make 80% of tax payers, it is Obama's plan that will help simulate the economy.
Devastatin Dave
09-11-2008, 02:22
Go Joe!!!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html
Man, if this is the guy that Osama Bin Obama Messiah used his best judgement to pick for a VP, I'd hate to see what decisions Mr Umm, Uhh, Where de Telaprompta would make as president. Thanksfully that'll never happen since the Head Soclialist in charge of the Brits endorsed the Chosen One already. :laugh4:
Okay, you guys can all resume admiring your Obama posters now...:smash:
GeneralHankerchief
09-11-2008, 02:26
Man, we sure got to 2,000 replies a lot faster than we did 1,000. Seamus, you can thank Palin for that. :yes:
m52nickerson
09-11-2008, 02:29
Americans will pay more if Obama is elected. Prices will go up if taxes on businesses go up, in order to offset the new cost. If prices go up, Americans will not only pay more for goods and services, they will also pay more in consumption taxes.
It is technically correct to suggest that Americans will pay more in taxes if Obama is elected. It is even more correct to suggest that goods and services will become more expensive if he is elected.
Businesses do not just eat increased costs. They pass them on to the consumer and the employees. Businesses keep a constant profit margin if they know what they are doing.
Sorry, were is it that Obama stated that he will raise taxes on business?
Okay, you guys can all resume admiring your Obama posters now...:smash:
People tend to get excited when a candidates plans accurately make sense.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.