Election '08: Super Tuesday [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Election '08: Super Tuesday

Lemur

01-30-2008, 23:34

What is it, 21 states voting on one day? Who thought that was a good idea?

Ice

01-30-2008, 23:36

Paul

McCain will win though. I can tolerate that.

Caius

01-30-2008, 23:38

What is it, 21 states voting on one day? Who thought that was a good idea?
I do think its a good one. I'm tired to see US polls with the same to select, the same answer, and no GAH!.

Lemur

01-30-2008, 23:39

Look at that list of names. Aren't they all a little Gah? Why do you need your Gah spelled out and explicit? Find your inner Gah, and all will be well.

Marshal Murat

01-30-2008, 23:50

I'm going with Obama, as I have done, and will do. I'm just surprised that Edwards dropped out, rather than play 'kingmaker' as the Drudge Report goes.

Lemur

01-30-2008, 23:54

I'm torn. I want McCain to be the Repub nominee and Obama to be the Dem nominee. I'm okay with Romney, and Ron Paul would be tremendous fun. The only serious contender I'm dead set against is Billary.

I guess I'll vote for Obama this time, since he's a bigger underdog than McCain right now.

KukriKhan

01-30-2008, 23:57

So, from your list, I assume that you assume Rudy and Huck-Chuck are both out before next week?

Lemur

01-30-2008, 23:59

Yes, I expect Rudy to be out, and Huck has neither the money nor the momentum to do much of anything. The only reason I included Dr. Paul is that his supporters are legion, and he's got plenty of cash to keep going. Can't see him bowing out anytime soon.

Louis VI the Fat

01-31-2008, 00:00

Give it up, guys. We all know who's going to win. :knight:

https://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5761/billaryvh7.jpg

KukriKhan

01-31-2008, 00:03

Bwa-ha-ha! Were'd ya find that?

Crazed Rabbit

01-31-2008, 00:05

You know, Louis, although you may see connections between Hillary and a different , current, President, remember that Billary would say and do anything to become presdient, depending on what they think would work. They mold their positions on the latest polls - they have no real principles.

And Hillary would go down so very hard against McCain.

CR

PS I voted Paul.

CountArach

01-31-2008, 00:30

lol, nice picture Louis... I'm gonna get nightmares...

New Rasmussen poll in Connecticut:
Obama - 40%
Clinton - 40%
Edwards - 11%

This could be a fluke, but its certainly a nice thought.

Now, what about Edwards dropping out? Who will this help? I would assume that in the South it would help Hillary because she is then hte White candidate, however I think that elsewhere in the US it would help Obama because he can pick up all of the liberals who were following Edwards and want the next-most-liberal choice.

woad&fangs

01-31-2008, 01:53

If I remember correctly, Obama said that he would make Edwards his attorney general, so Edwards supporters would most likely support Obama unless Hillary names Edwards as her top choice for either that or VP.

McCain seems to be in the lead for the republicans so I'd vote Obama.

Did anyone see the videoclip of Romney saying "Who let the dogs out, who, who." during a photo-op with black voters in Florida? That was pretty sad to see a gaff from such a smart guy.

Xiahou

01-31-2008, 02:09

Since there's no "Gah", I'll do the next best thing and lodge a protest vote for Paul.

seireikhaan

01-31-2008, 03:01

Lemur

01-31-2008, 04:23

The latest poll-smokings (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/01/obama-edges-closer-to-clinton.html) ...

Obama Edges Closer To Clinton, McCain Atop Republicans

Read the full Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/104017/Gallup-Daily-Where-Election-Stands.aspx)

Gallup’s daily report on the presidential race show Barack Obama continuing to close the gap nationally with Hillary Clinton and John McCain still comfortably atop the Republicans, with Mitt Romney’s recent advances having stalled out, at least for now. The poll was conducted Jan. 26-28. It included part of the period after Sen. Edward Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama and was conducted before McCain’s victory last night in Florida. Gallup said its interviewing yesterday initially indicated that the Kennedy endorsement did not have a “dramatic effect,” but it will be interesting to see if that changes in later polls.

McCain leads Romney 31 percent to 19 percent with Huckabee at 17 percent and Rudy Giuliani at 13 percent. Exit polls in Florida yesterday showed that Giuliani tended to take moderate voters from McCain while Huckabee took conservatives from Romney, so that may be a clue to what will happen if Giuliani drops out after his poor showing in yesterday’s primary.

On the Democratic side, Clinton leads Obama 43 percent to 34 percent, with John Edwards - who is expected to drop out today – at 14 percent. Clinton’s lead is down 17 points since Jan. 24. Again, if past history provides any clue, polling during the campaign in some states indicated that Obama was the second choice of many Edwards supporters.

The margin of error was 3 percent.

-edit-

I hadn't thought about it, but this makes sense (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1435522760162795549&q) ...

CountArach

01-31-2008, 06:25

Also from Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104044/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

It has this particularly attractive graph:
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/013008DailyUpdateGraph2.gif

Vladimir

01-31-2008, 14:34

Internet P*oll

*aul

Oh yes, thanks Louis for making me soil myself.

ICantSpellDawg

01-31-2008, 16:47

Seamus Fermanagh

01-31-2008, 17:30

Last night's debate was the last straw.

McCain is incompetent. I think that he may be moderately retarded. His inability to answer simple economic questions without naming other, smarter people who are supporting him is infuriating. His topic changes when he doesn't want to answer to criticism makes me grind my teeth. I have never loathed a Republican this much.

I will vote for him ONLY in the eventuality of a Clinton nomination. I now believe the G.O.P. and it's constituency to be a dying breed in this election.

The only thing that would drive me to vote for McCain is his more likely appointment of strict constitutionalist judges. I'm approaching a realization that Obama would be even better for our economy than that windbag codger. This is a sad turn of events, even more sad for the Republican party. Romney is finished and so is my flirtation with the G.O.P. for the next 4 years.

McCain belongs in a museum, not the White House. Same with the G.O.P. this round.

The GOP is not dead -- it's just swinging over to the blue-blood CC wing again. There is no articulate and passionate leader for true conservatism at the moment. G.W. Bush, whatever his strengths as a leader, is -- at least when the rubber hits the road -- a big government Republican in the mode of Ford or Nixon or his Father. Since we lack a Goldwater or Reagan to take up the gauntlet, the "establishment" GOP -- a group reasonably similar to old-style JFK and pre-JFK Democrats in goals and methods -- are going to select the nominee. These "establishment" types tend to linger in positions of power, build compromise, go along to get along, trend toward the liberal side in social issues (though not econ or fopo), accept the primacy of the federal government etc., and so they are the more consistent representation of the GOP unless someone wakes up the more conservative but more quiescent base and takes up the role of standard bearer. Nobody fits that bill this time, and so....

ICantSpellDawg

01-31-2008, 17:41

I agree. DEAD is a strong word. Dormant is probably better. McCain will be a good fall guy in this election, then we don't have to hear from him again 4 years from now.

I wish things went better for Romney. I firmly believe that he is the best choice to lead the country, but I see his campaign as having made almost unavoidable errors (such as the pro-life issue) and others that were much more avoidable.

The American voting public in general doesn't seem to know their asses from their elbows. The G.O.P. is literally going to nominate a testament to their old, failed, ignorant caricature painted by the left in: John McCain.

New ideas? Smart ways out of old problems? Thems lefty ideauhs.

Romney is a smart business man. He would be well served to jump ship now or at least stop contributing to his own campaign. Leave Huckabee and McCain to get nasty with each other and further cement their impending doom.

macsen rufus

01-31-2008, 17:58

Being "out of the jurisdiction" I won't sully the vote, however, I'd like to ask opinions on Rudi bombing out, and how his campaign "strategy" appeared to you folks over the pond?

From my perspective, when I heard that his great plan was to ignore the early States and pitch it all on Florida, I thought "That's a sure-fire recipe for failure" - it comes across as though he was telling one lot they didn't really count, and the others he was taking for granted. I have no opinions on his policies etc, I haven't followed them, just his strategy - which seemed to be extremely dumb. Anyone else agree?

Vladimir

01-31-2008, 18:02

Lemur

01-31-2008, 21:14

ICantSpellDawg

01-31-2008, 21:31

Inflatable '80s Action Hero Update

So Schwarzenegger is endorsing McCain, and Hulk Hogan is an Obama man. I would feel a lot better if I knew where Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren stood. The public has a right to know!

You missed it? Stallone was on Fox and friends when he endorsed McCain.

Here's a fun article about McCain

Rally for Romney
Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.
link (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEzMDYzZjBkMDNhYjk0ZjdhZmJlZWNkMWQ1NjI4MGI=)

By Mark R. Levin

I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement — from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.

I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagan’s name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.

Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.

I don’t pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.

Let’s get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.

Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit” and someone who has “laid-off” people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions” or “fortune” to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.

And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?

As for McCain “the straight-talker,” how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.

Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?

But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.

Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.

But wouldn’t the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasn’t enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it won’t be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there won’t be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).

McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesn’t make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCain’s bandwagon — the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed California’s Republican party.

Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.

— Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.

Vladimir

01-31-2008, 21:45

Levin may be a good guy but on his radio show he reminds me of a NAZI propagandist. Different message, same tactics. He's a real big troop supporter though. :2thumbsup:

Ice

01-31-2008, 21:46

Yes,we get it, you like Mitt Romney.

By the way, Reagan wasn't a real conservative. He was a neoconservative. Real conservatives don't cut taxes without cutting spending. Real conservatives don't increase the federal debt by 2 billion dollars.

Edit: I found a wiki of Romney and I found this excerpt:

Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including raising fees for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.[44] Romney increased the state gasoline tax by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional tax revenue.[45] Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years.[45] The state legislature with Romney's support also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[46] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63%.[45] Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget. All of those vetoes were overturned by the legislature.[47]

The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship.[45] According to the Tax Foundation, that per capita burden was 9.8% in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3%), and 10.5% in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8%).

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call increasing the tax burden by .7% a real conservative move. The only conservative move I can see here is cutting spending.

ICantSpellDawg

01-31-2008, 22:22

Yes,we get it, you like Mitt Romney.

By the way, Reagan wasn't a real conservative. He was a neoconservative. Real conservatives don't cut taxes without cutting spending. Real conservatives don't increase the federal debt by 2 billion dollars.

Edit: I found a wiki of Romney and I found this excerpt:

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call increasing the tax burden by .7% a real conservative move. The only conservative move I can see here is cutting spending.

Did you listen to the debate in Cali? Or any other debate over the past 5 months when this was brought up? He explains the fee increase and why it was different than a tax increase. In MOST cases the fees that the government charged for things like road signs hadn't been increased in a decade - he brought them up to market prices so that the government didn't lose money on the deal. Either way, fee hikes are not the same as tax increases when they are for unnecessary government services. If you look at it like that, then only a few of the fees for necessary things were increased (driver's licenses, marriage licenses). He left Mass with positive job and business growth (up from the previous governors negative job and business growth), eliminated the deficit and left a 2 billion dollar surplus in the form of a rainy day fund.

When you hear about the "tax burden" what they really mean is average tax burden - taken as the state income divided by state citizens - not an accurate way of seeing what the average citizen paid.
AND he cut spending. He found a way for nearly everyone in the state to get affordable health care, raised fees to make sure that the government was competing with the market (a conservative move because any government that keeps it's fees artificially low destroys private competition), eliminated the deficit and create a surplus in the billions. ALL WITHOUT RAISING THE TAXE BURDEN OF THE EVERYMAN.

Give me a break

Even liberals in Mass realize that he helped the situation. Somehow an intelligent, successful, conservative governor of Mass is being overlooked in favor of a Senator who bungles everything he touches.

Xiahou

01-31-2008, 22:31

I found a wiki of Romney and I found this excerpt:Raising fees, and especially the gas tax is bad. But closing loopholes in the tax code- if they truly are just loopholes- is reasonable. And obviously, all the cuts seem pretty good.

So Schwarzenegger is endorsing McCain, and Hulk Hogan is an Obama man.Well, as governor of California, his endorsement should be worth more than a bunch of other washed up celebrities. However, to me, a Schwarzenegger endorsement is a net negative if anything. As governor, he's been a textbook RINO who's only succeeded in making an even bigger mess of CA's budget. :no:

KukriKhan

01-31-2008, 23:10

Less than 2 weeks ago, my Guv-a-nator said "I will not endorse anybody." (http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2008/01/schwarzenegger.html). Rudy bailed, and now, all of a sudden, a week before the Cali primary - he endorses McCain.

What changed?

Maybe the prospect of finding another (appointed) poli job after this one, say the local wagging tongues. He's not likely to win another term here.

Lemur

02-01-2008, 00:01

Hysteria, sweet hysteria: (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24726)

With John McCain’s all-too-easy road to the nomination paved through Florida and now nearly complete one thing is clear: The Republican Party has been hijacked. Over the past month a new Axis of Evil has emerged -- not one based in Damascus, Tehran or Pyongyang -- but instead in Cedar Rapids, Charleston, South Carolina, Derry, New Hampshire and Boca Raton, Florida. It is the liberal and “independent” voters in these 4 states that have nearly completed a deed that makes Kim Jong Il envious -- the near crippling of the American Electoral System. These four states have combined their native liberal populism with an imported liberal electorate and have forced the GOP to accept a nominee so distasteful that in more than one poll -- the numbers of voters choosing not to vote and those choosing to vote third party actually exceed those who will hold their nose and vote for Maverick, War Hero, Amnesty Supporter, John McCain.

Lord Winter

02-01-2008, 00:16

Wow talk about far right, no wonder our polticans can't get anything done if liberalism is seen as the equivilent to treason. If they don't respect the options of moderates what shape will our country be in when we need to make decsions that go beyond that partisain bickering.

The one thing I agree about though is that we should just have a single primary date or else mix around everytime, its redicoulous that some parts of the nation are completly kept out of the process.

gibsonsg91921

02-01-2008, 02:25

Ron Paul - he's the future.

But if he drops out or loses (likely at this point), I'm for Obama. I'm homophobic-phobic. Anyone who uses the Bible as their main vehicle for election is not a friend of mine - Huckabee is gone. McCain and Romney are conservatives in name only. Ron Paul is conservative, but not a zealous nutjob - he's learned how to evolve a brain. Hilary seems fake to me.

ICantSpellDawg

02-01-2008, 02:53

Vladimir

02-01-2008, 13:51

We are the world (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/2204)...

JimBob

02-01-2008, 19:08

We are the world...

OH **** HE'D TALK TO THE ISLAMS, HE'LL PROBABLY COME BACK AND BLOW UP THE WHITE HOUSE.

Nowhere does it say he'll bend over backwards and do whatever they said, he said he'd have a dialog. He'd treat them like humans, not villains out of a James Bond movie. Maybe if we're seen as willing to talk anti-Americanism might have less support, bombing sure hasn't been a success. It's easier to be angry at people who are bombing you than who are trying to talk.

Lemur

02-01-2008, 19:11

It's a good thing we never talked to the Soviets during the Cold War, too. Oh, wait ...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/ReaganGorbachev.jpg

Lemur

02-01-2008, 19:45

Looks as though some very old-fashioned conservatives are warming (http://www.vnews.com/02012008/4601389.htm) to the "empty suit":

Jeffrey Hart sat at his kitchen table in slippers, reading Barack Obama's words aloud. The retired Dartmouth professor, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, wore on his shirt an artifact of the 1900 Republican presidential ticket -- a McKinley-Roosevelt pin.

“I am not opposed to all wars,” Hart intoned, quoting a 2002 speech before the Illinois State Legislature in which Obama, then a state senator, had warned of the perils of invading Iraq. “I'm opposed to dumb wars.” Looking up from the page, Hart nodded his approval.

“Very Burkian,” he said, referring to the 18th century Irish political writer Edmund Burke, hailed by many as the founder of modern conservatism. “Prudential. A sense of history, and what we're up against there.”

Hart wore another campaign pin on his shirt: It displayed a now-familiar rising sun, and the words Obama '08.

The 2008 presidential campaign has not been short on surprises, some of which have confounded the physics of the political universe: former Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman endorsing GOP front-runner John McCain, or Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Capitol Hill veteran, spurning the Clinton machine to support Obama's upstart candidacy.

But even in this unsettled campaign season, the conversion of Hart -- speechwriter for two Republican presidents, former writer for the National Review, and patron saint of the notorious Dartmouth Review -- to Obama's banner is cause for a double take. Nancy Hart said she believes her husband is emblematic of a larger class of old-school Republicans disenchanted with the status quo.

“People who are disgusted with Bush,” she said. “A lot of them are.”

And so it is that Jeffrey Hart counts himself a member of Obama's “new American majority” -- a group of voters the Illinois senator says are fed up with the partisan excesses and wrangling of the last two decades and eager for a practical, cooperative approach to the issues that have divided Washington.

“It turns out that these political parties are not always either liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican,” Hart, a 77-year-old with thick white hair who lives in Lyme, said in an interview at his home yesterday. “The Democrat, under certain conditions, can be the conservative.”

Vladimir

02-01-2008, 20:37

“I am not opposed to all wars,” Hart intoned, quoting a 2002 speech before the Illinois State Legislature in which Obama, then a state senator, had warned of the perils of invading Iraq. “I'm opposed to dumb wars.” Looking up from the page, Hart nodded his approval.

America: You're dumb.

Iraq: No, you're dumb.

Seriously...

It's a good thing we never talked to the Soviets during the Cold War, too. Oh, wait ...

/=

“Once I’m elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West.”

Try harder.

There comes a time
When we head a certain call
When the world must come together as one
There are people dying
And it's time to lend a hand to life
The greatest gift of all

We can't go on
Pretneding day by day
That someone, somewhere will soon make a change
We are all a part of
God's great big family
And the truth, you know love is all we need

[Chorus]
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

Send them your heart
So they'll know that someone cares
And their lives will be stronger and free
As God has shown us by turning stone to bread
So we all must lend a helping hand

[Chorus]
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

When you're down and out
There seems no hope at all
But if you just believe
There's no way we can fall
Well, well, well, well, let us realize
That a change will only come
When we stand together as one

[Chorus]
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

Xiahou

02-01-2008, 20:48

Looks as though some very old-fashioned conservatives are warming (http://www.vnews.com/02012008/4601389.htm) to the "empty suit":
Yup. It seems there are lots of people who should know better that like Obama simply for the fact that he can read a good speech. :shrug:

I remember posting elsewhere that Obama was rated as the 10th most liberal member of the Senate in 2006. Well, the 2007 numbers are now in and last year, Obama was the number one liberal in the senate (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/). But, you know, he makes good speeches- so I'm sure there won't be anything divisive about his administration. :dizzy2:

Personally, I think voters are being sold a bill of goods by Obama. But, they only have themselves to blame by basing their opinions of him almost entirely on a couple speeches and some soundbytes. :no:

CountArach

02-01-2008, 20:51

Ron Paul is conservative, but not a zealous nutjob - he's learned how to evolve a brain. Hilary seems fake to me.
:laugh4:

You are the first person I have ever heard say that...

Vladimir

02-01-2008, 20:53

He's still young and has a lot of promise. I can't wait to see how he'll do in 4-8 years. Remember how Regan started out, as a democrat. Obama just needs to grow up a little bit and gain some wisdom.

Lemur

02-01-2008, 21:13

America: You're dumb.

Iraq: No, you're dumb.

Seriously...
So calling a war "dumb" equates countries insulting each other? Whatever floats yer boat.

Xiahou, it must be strangely pleasant to have nobody left to argue for, only people to argue against. Interestingly, when the votes are tabulated by a liberal group (http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/members.jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&scoreSort=current_close), Obama scores as one of the less liberal Senators. Funny how the numbers stack up depending on which partisan is frothing at the mouth.

-edit-

Latest daily tracking poll for the Dems:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/020108dailyupdategraph2.gif

FactionHeir

02-01-2008, 21:20

According to the ORG, Obama would be president and in a break with tradition, Paul his VP? :laugh4:

Lemur

02-01-2008, 21:35

Vladimir

02-01-2008, 21:40

So calling a war "dumb" equates countries insulting each other? Whatever floats yer boat.

Come on, keep up. That's the kind of language he used in the senate, imagine him taking it to the white house. Of course, if we had just sat down and talked to Hussein, I'm sure everything would have turned out peachy.

Xiahou

02-01-2008, 22:16

Interestingly, the National Journal also claimed that John Kerry and John Edwards were the most liberal Senators ever. But that was when they were campaigning for President. I guess the need to haul out a convenient talking point changes as the years go by. Funny coincidence, isn't it? I guess Kerry got a lot less liberal in the intervening four years. Or maybe some clever little neo-con is cooking the figures, perhaps?
I love how you came up with a liberal blog to counter the claim of the National Journal. As a frothing at the mouth conservative rag, it's managed to win numerous National Magazine Awards as a non-partisan, Washington insider publication. If it makes you feel better about drinking the Obama kool-aid, you can believe what you want though. :shrug:

Q: What's the purpose of the vote ratings?

Green: To see how House and Senate members compare with each other on an ideological scale.

Q: How do you pick the votes?

Green: Toward the end of every year, several National Journal reporters and editors separately sift through all of the year's roll-call votes to identify ones that might be appropriate for the vote ratings. The reporters and editors then meet and make the final selections.

Q: How do you determine which votes are "appropriate"?

Green: First we try to identify the most important House and Senate votes of the year. Then we look for votes that show ideological distinctions between members, even if the votes aren't necessarily pivotal. Finally, we try to make sure that a wide range of issue areas are represented, such as abortion, the budget, energy, environment, immigration, Iraq, national security, and taxation.

Q: Can you give an example of votes that show ideological distinctions?

Green: The Senate voted last year on whether to repeal the federal minimum wage. The outcome of the vote was never in doubt -- only 28 senators voted for the repeal; 69 voted against it. But the vote seemed to us to be worth including in the ratings because it showed the ideological differences between senators who thought that setting a minimum wage is an appropriate function of the federal government (what we termed the liberal position) and those who thought that such matters should be left to the states (what we termed the conservative position).

Q: Why don't you base the ratings on all of the roll-call votes, rather than just some of them?

Green: Last year there were 1,186 roll-call votes in the House and 442 in the Senate. Many of them are on relatively minor matters and are noncontroversial. Other votes fall along regional or other nonideological lines. We think that a rating based on key votes is more informative.

Q: When you selected the Senate votes for 2007, did you know that Sen. Obama was going to have the most liberal rating?

Green: No. In fact, we didn't even know whether he would qualify for a score. Under our system, a member of Congress gets a liberal and conservative score in each of three broad issue areas -- economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. A member must participate in at least half of the votes in a category to get a score in that category. If a member gets a score in all three categories, he or she also gets a composite score, essentially an average of the three scores. If a member doesn't get a score in all three categories, he or she doesn't get a composite score. Obama and other presidential candidates were absent a fair amount in 2007, so we weren't sure if they would get composite scores. Obama's composite score is the basis for his label as the most liberal senator in 2007.

Q: When you selected the votes, were you keeping track of how Obama (or any other member of Congress) had voted?

Green: No.

Q: What happens after you select the votes?

Green: Polidata, a nonpartisan political data-analysis firm, downloaded lists of members' votes on our key votes from the House and Senate websites. We sent the lists to the Brookings Institution, which is under contract with National Journal to compute the vote ratings, based on a methodology that we devised.

Q: What does Brookings do?

Green: The Information Technology Services division of Brookings subjects each vote to something called a principal-components analysis. That's a statistical procedure designed to determine the degree to which each vote resembled other votes in the same category (the same members tending to vote together). Each roll-call vote was assigned a weight from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest) based on the degree to which it correlated with other votes in the same issue area. A higher weight means that a vote was more strongly correlated with other votes and was therefore a better test of economic, social, or foreign-policy ideology. Members were then ranked from the most liberal to the most conservative in each issue area.

Q: Who came up with that process?

Green: The ratings system was first devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal.

Q: Does Obama's rating mean that he's the most liberal senator?

Green: The rating is just for his votes in 2007. For his votes in 2006, he was ranked the 10th-most-liberal senator. For his votes in 2005, he was ranked the 16th-most-liberal senator.

Q: How often did Obama vote the liberal position in 2007?

Green: He participated in 66 of the 99 votes used for the ratings. He voted the liberal position 65 times.

Q: Aren't the labels "liberal" and "conservative" open to interpretation?

Green: Yes. On some matters, most people would agree on what constitutes a liberal position or a conservative position. On other matters, it's not as clear-cut. Some critics of the war in Iraq, for instance, argue that opposition to the war is a conservative position because it reflects a belief in limited government involvement in international affairs. But in National Journal's ratings, votes in opposition to the war are categorized as liberal. Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" are just that -- labels. They are subject to debate. But as long as National Journal thinks there's a broad consensus about what these labels mean, we'll continue using them in our vote ratings.

Q: Why are you releasing the scores for Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton before you release the scores for all other members of Congress?

Green: Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season.

Q: Can't you be accused of trying to influence the Super Tuesday election results by releasing the ratings now?

Green: The Super Tuesday timing is coincidental. We received the final vote ratings from Brookings on January 25. We decided to publish the Obama and Clinton scores in the next issue of National Journal. We spent the time between January 25 and January 31, when the magazine was sent to the printer, double-checking the ratings and preparing stories and tables about them.

Q: You keep referring to Obama and Clinton. What about John McCain?

Green: He didn't get a composite score for 2007 because he missed too many votes.

Q: Are you concerned that National Journal's 2007 rating of Obama as the most liberal senator will become an issue in the presidential campaign?

Green: We can't control how the vote ratings are used in the campaign. One reason for this Q&A is to try to anticipate possible questions and be as open as possible about how the ratings were determined.

Q: Didn't you go through the same situation four years ago?

Green: Yes. In 2004, National Journal rated Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as the most liberal senator in 2003. The rating quickly became a talking point in the campaign, with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other Republicans using it to attack Kerry. For his part, Kerry called the rating a "laughable characterization." He said it was "absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life."

Q: Have you made any changes in the vote rating system since then?

Green: We made one change. We decided that in order for a member of Congress to receive a composite rating, he or she needed to vote often enough to qualify for scores in each of the three issue categories-economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy-that we measure. In Kerry's case, he didn't vote often enough in 2003 to merit scores in the social-policy and foreign-affairs categories. His overall ranking was based on his score in the economic category.

Q: Why did you make the change?

Green: We didn't want to continue giving composite scores to members of Congress who missed most of the votes we selected.

Q: Why didn't you make the change before Kerry's rating was announced?

Green: The method we used to give Kerry a composite score was the method we had used in the past. To change the rules in the middle of the game, so to speak, after we learned Kerry's ranking, would have exposed us to charges of manipulating our rules for partisan reasons. We instituted the change the following year, before we knew the scores of any lawmakers.

Q: Do you think that the National Journal vote ratings are a valid way to judge a member of Congress?

Green: It's one way to assess a member of Congress, but by no means the only way. It's important to look at a member's effectiveness, character, judgment, and policy proposals, among other things. It's also valuable to look at vote ratings from other organizations -- from publications such as Congressional Quarterly and interest groups such as the League of Conservation Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Conservative Union -- to get a rounded view. link (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/qanda.htm)

Now, Lemur. If you stopped to think about it at all- instead of chalking it up to a dubious bias claim, what other reason could there be for a presidential candidates record changing? Maybe it could be at least partly due to the fact that Obama has missed several rated votes while campaigning, but has made a point of showing up to vote for issues that appeal to the Democrat base. :idea2:

Nah, they're probably just partisan hacks....

Sasaki Kojiro

02-01-2008, 23:11

Come on, keep up. That's the kind of language he used in the senate, imagine him taking it to the white house. Of course, if we had just sat down and talked to Hussein, I'm sure everything would have turned out peachy.

Did you miss the news article where it turned out we could have bribed Hussein out of power? Would that have been better or worse than our current war?

Yup. It seems there are lots of people who should know better that like Obama simply for the fact that he can read a good speech.

***
I remember posting elsewhere that Obama was rated as the 10th most liberal member of the Senate in 2006. Well, the 2007 numbers are now in and last year, Obama was the number one liberal in the senate. But, you know, he makes good speeches- so I'm sure there won't be anything divisive about his administration.

Yes--as you say yourself, good speeches have gained him support in the election, and so they will make his presidency less divisive. Also, liberal isn't a bad word.

Here's a summary of his policies btw:

Economic and social policy

Obama's current economic advisors are Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago and Jeffrey Liebman of Harvard University.[1]

His 2006 rating by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) on Economic Policy is 87% liberal, 0% conservative. (2005: 87% liberal, 12% conservative.)[2]

Obama wrote: "we should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility [...] we should be guided by what works."[3] Speaking before the National Press Club in April 2005, he defended the New Deal social welfare policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, associating Republican proposals to establish private accounts for Social Security with Social Darwinism.[4]

[edit] Corporate governance

On April 20, 2007, Obama introduced in the Senate a bill (Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act - S. 1181) requiring public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive compensation, popularly called "Say on Pay." A companion bill introduced by Rep. Barney Frank passed the House the same day.[5] Several corporations voluntarily have begun to give shareholders such a vote because of concerns about excessive CEO salaries. Some critics have said that the federal law would interfere with the traditional state oversight over corporate governance.[6]

[edit] Education

During an October 2004 debate, Obama stated that he opposed education vouchers for use at private schools because he believes they would undermine public schools.[7]

In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers."[8] Obama also called for higher pay for teachers.[8] Obama's plan is estimated to cost $18 billion annually and would be partially funded by cutting funding to NASA. The bulk of the cuts would be derived from delaying the Constellation program for five years.[9]

[edit] Energy policy

Obama and other Senators introduced the BioFuels Security Act in 2007. "It's time for Congress to realize what farmers in America's heartland have known all along - that we have the capacity and ingenuity to decrease our dependence on foreign oil by growing our own fuel," Obama said.[10] In a May 2006 letter to President Bush, he joined four other midwest farming state Senators in calling for the preservation of a $0.54-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.[11]

Regarding the domestic use of Nuclear power, Obama has expressed support: "...it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration."[12]

Obama and other Senators introduced a bill in 2007 to promote the development of commercially viable plug-in hybrids and other electric-drive vehicles in order to shift away from petroleum fuels and "toward much cleaner – and cheaper – electricity for transportation".[13] Similar legislation is now in effect in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007[14] Obama proposes that the US Government invest in such developments using revenue generated from an auction-based cap-and-trade or emissions trading program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[15]

Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential Campaign complete energy policy is available on his website. It includes:

* Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent from 1990 levels by 2050
* Invest in a Clean Energy Future
* Support Next Generation Biofuels
* Set America on Path to Oil Independence
* Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
* Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

[edit] Health care

On January 24, 2007 Obama spoke about his position on health care at Families USA, a health care advocacy group. Obama said, "The time has come for universal health care in America [...] I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country." Obama went on to say that he believed that it was wrong that forty-seven million Americans are uninsured, noting that taxpayers already pay over $15 billion annually to care for the uninsured.[16] Obama cites cost as the reason so many Americans are without health insurance, and claims his health care plan would cut the cost of insurance more than any of his Democratic rivals' plans in the 2008 Presidential race.[17]

[edit] Network neutrality

In a June 2006 podcast, Obama expressed support for telecommunications legislation to protect network neutrality on the Internet, saying: "It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it."[18]

[edit] Taxation

Obama spoke out in June 2006 against making recent, temporary estate tax cuts permanent, calling the cuts a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses."[19] Speaking in November 2006 to members of Wake Up Wal-Mart, a union-backed campaign group, Obama said: "You gotta pay your workers enough that they can actually not only shop at Wal-Mart, but ultimately send their kids to college and save for retirement."[20] Obama has also proposed his own tax plan, including $80 billion in tax cuts for the poor and middle class.[21]

[edit] Budget deficit

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama advocates responding to the "precarious budget situation" by eliminating "tax credits that have outlived their usefulness", closing corporate tax loopholes, and restoring the PAYGO policy that prohibits increases in federal spending without a way to compensate for the lost revenue. [4].

In January 2008, a comprehensive analysis by the National Taxpayers Union found that Obamas presidential campaign proposals would increase the federal budget by $287 billion.[22]

[edit] Lobbying

Obama has spoken out numerous times against the influence of lobbying in the United States.[23][24]

However, Obama has cooperated with lobbyists in some cases while in Senate.[25]

[edit] Foreign policy

Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers include Mark Lippert, Anthony Lake, Susan Rice, Gregory Craig, Dennis McDonough, Daniel Shapiro, Scott Gration, Sarah Sewall, Ivo Daalder, Jeffrey Bader, Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Clarke, Roger Cressey, Richard Danzig, Philip Gordon, Lawrence Korb, James Ludes, Robert Malley, Bruce Riedel, Dennis Ross, Mona Sutphen, and Samantha Power.[26][27][28]

His 2006 rating by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) on Foreign Policy is 85% liberal, 12% conservative. (2005: 76% liberal, 15% conservative.)[29]

His first major speech on foreign policy was delivered on April 23, 2007 to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He identified the problems the current foreign policy has caused, and the five ways America can lead again, focused on "common security", "common humanity", and remaining "a beacon of freedom and justice for the world":[30]

* "Bringing a responsible end" to the war in Iraq and refocusing on the broader region.
* "Building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it."
* "Marshalling a global effort" to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
* "Rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats," including climate change.
* "Invest in our common humanity" through foreign aid and supporting the "pillars of a sustainable democracy – a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force."

During the speech Obama called for an expansion of the United States Armed Forces "by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines", an idea introduced by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

In an address on national security to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on August 1, 2007, Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda, even if the Pakistani government did not give approval.[31] Obama said, "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America."[32] He also said "As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations".[33] Tariq Ali, a British-Pakistani historian, criticized Obama for his comments regarding attacking terrorists inside Pakistan and stated "Were the United States to start bombing raids inside Pakistan, there would be a massive increase of support for the jihadi fundamentalist groups in that country, and it would weaken not just secular political groups, it would weaken even the moderate religious parties who are not associated with that."[34]

[edit] Arab-Israeli conflict

Referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in January 2006, Obama denounced Hamas while praising former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. At a meeting with then Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on the eve of Hamas' sweeping election victory,[35] Obama stated that Sharon's role in the conflict had always been "absolutely important and constructive."[36] At a meeting with Palestinian students two days later, Obama stated opposition to Hamas in favor of rival party Fatah, noting his desire to "consolidate behind a single government with a single authority that can then negotiate as a reliable partner with Israel." In a comment aimed at Hamas, he said that "the US will always side with Israel if Israel is threatened with destruction."[37]

Obama was also a cosponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which in part calls on "members of the international community to avoid contact with and refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas until it agrees to recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm, and accept prior agreements, including the Roadmap."[38] However, on March 11, 2007, Obama said that "if we could get some movement among Palestinian leadership, what I'd like to see is a loosening up of some of the restrictions on providing aid directly to the Palestinian people."[39]

He defended Israel's response to the Zar'it-Shtula incident on August 22 in an interview with Tim Russert, saying, "I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response to take some action in protecting themselves." A month earlier he said, "I don't fault Israel for wanting to rid their border with Lebanon from those Katyusha missiles that can fire in and harm Israeli citizens, so I think that any cease fire would have to be premised on the removal of those missiles."[40]

Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on 2 March 2007, Obama called Israel "our strongest ally in the region," and stated: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." On the Palestinian Authority's new unity government, Obama said: "We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month."[41]

Obama has also discussed in general terms some thoughts about Palestinians vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On March 11, 2007 Obama said: "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people."[42] On June 4, 2007 Obama stated that "resolution [to the conflict] and a better life for all people" "is something that can be achieved, but it's going to require some soul-searching on the Palestinian side. They have to recognize Israel's right to exist; they have to renounce violence and terrorism as a tool to achieve their political ends; they have to abide by agreements. In that context, I think the Israelis will gladly say, 'Let's move forward negotiations that would allow them to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace and security.'"[43]

[edit] Immigration

Obama supports a guest worker program.[44] Obama has said that he "will not support any bill that does not provide [an] earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population."

Obama does not believe that twelve million illegal immigrants can be sent back. He said "It's not going to happen. We're not going to go round them up ... We should give them a pathway to citizenship."[45]

In September 2006, Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act, authorizing the construction of 700 miles (1,100 km) of fencing along the United States–Mexico border.[46]

In January 2008 Obama campaigned on a policy to grant drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.[47]

[edit] Iran

During his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama stated that he had not ruled out military action against Iran. In a meeting with the Chicago Tribune editorial board, Obama stated: "The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to take military action, if any?" Obama stressed that he would only use force as a last resort.[48] Obama has not declared a change in this stance since the 2004 campaign. In 2006, he called on Iran to "take some ownership for creating some stability" in Iraq.[49]

In an interview with Tim Russert on October 22, 2006 Obama said, "I think that military options have to be on the table when you're dealing with rogue states that have shown constant hostility towards the United States. The point that I would make, though, is that we have not explored all of our options...We have not explored any kind of dialogue with either Iran or North Korea, and I think that has been a mistake. As a consequence, we have almost no leverage over them."[50]

Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on 2 March 2007, Obama stated that he regards Iran's government as "a threat to all of us," stating that the US "should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."[51] Diplomacy would include "more determined U.S. diplomacy at the United Nations," "harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners," and "a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs."[52] he formulated a strategy of "direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War."[53]

Obama has criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor of classifying the Iranian Quds Force as a terrorist organization, saying the measure could enable Bush to launch military action against Iran,[54] stating that he would have voted against it if he had not been in New Hampshire campaigning.[55]

[edit] Iraq

Senator Obama was an early opponent of Bush administration policies on Iraq, when other Democratic leaders supported the legislation that led to the war. Obama was not in the United States Senate, and was therefore unable to vote during the Iraq Resolution of 11 October 2002, authorizing the use of force against Iraq. During a fall 2002 anti-war rally at Chicago's Federal Plaza, while still an Illinois State Senator, and in a speech alongside Jesse Jackson, Obama stated: "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. [...] You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."[56] Speaking before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in November 2006, he said: "The days of using the war on terror as a political football are over. [...] It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America's efforts on the wider struggle yet to be won." In his speech Obama also called for a phased withdrawal of American troops starting in 2007, and an opening of diplomatic dialogue with Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran.[57]

On January 30, 2007, Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 into Congress. Among other things, the Act calls for capping the level of troops in Iraq at January 2007 levels, and for commencing a phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq "with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.[58][59] Announcing the act on the Senate floor, Obama stated that "no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war."[60]

However, Obama has not consistently supported cutting funding to the war as a way to end U.S. involvement in the conflict.[61]

[edit] Pakistan

On August 1 2007 Obama declared in his foreign policy speech that the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, with or without the consent of the Pakistani government. He claimed that if elected, "If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will".[62] On the same day in response, then-White House press secretary Tony Snow highlighted the policy's shift from the position established by the Bush Administration, he said: "Our approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government, but is also designed to work in a way where we are working in cooperation with the local government,"[63]

ABC News described the policy speech as "counterintuitive", and commented on how "one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush"[64]

After weeks of discourse surrounding the policy, Obama said there was "misreporting" of his comments, claiming that, "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan." He clarified that rather than a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, there needs to be a "diplomatic surge" and that if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists.[65]

[edit] Social policy

His 2006 rating by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) on Social Policy is 77% liberal, 21% conservative. (2005: 77% liberal, 18% conservative.)[66]

[edit] Abortion and contraception

In his write-in response to a 1998 survey, Obama stated his abortion position as: "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade."[67]

While serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council[68] due to his consistent voting in favor of legalized abortion, family planning services, and having female contraceptives covered by health insurance.[69] Since his election to the United States Senate Obama has maintained a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood (as of 2007) and NARAL (as of 2005).[70] While serving in the Illinois State Senate, Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which requires medical care for aborted fetuses that survive. He argued that the legislation's wording defined the fetus as a child — a measure he said would "essentially bar abortions."[71]

[edit] Environment

Obama has taken the stance that global warming is human-caused, and that it must be addressed. He has a record of supporting environmentally friendly bills.

The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.[72]

He has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 by creating a market-based cap-and-trade system.[73] Obama also has plans for improving air and water quality through reduced pollution levels.[citation needed]

[edit] LGBT issues

Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, but personally believes that marriage is defined as a religious bond between a man and a woman. He supports civil unions that would carry equal legal standing to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believes that decisions about the title of marriage should be left to the states.[74][75][76]

Obama stated on 15 March 2007, that "I do not agree...that homosexuality is immoral."[77] During the 23 July 2007 CNN/Youtube debate, Obama further stated that "... we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples."[78]

Obama was recently criticized for inviting allegedly anti-gay individuals Reverend Donnie McClurkin, Mary Mary and Reverend Hezekiah Walker, to participate in a three-day gospel music campaign tour called "Embrace the Courage", as part of Obama's "40 Days of Faith and Family" campaign in South Carolina.[79] The Obama campaign responded to criticism in a press release, saying, "I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as president of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."[79] For events held Sunday, 28 October 2007, Obama added Reverend Andy Sidden, an openly gay pastor.[80]

[edit] Gun control

As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.[81] He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.[82] He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home.[83] Although out of line with most of his anti-gun voting history, in 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1.[84] Illinois allows lawmakers to abstain from issues by voting present instead of yes or no.

Obama was also a board member[85] of the Joyce Foundation which funds and maintains several gun control organizations in the United States.

He supported several gun control measures, including restricting the purchase of firearms at gun shows and the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[86] While in the US Senate, Obama has voted against legislation protecting firearm manufacturers from liability.[87]. Obama did vote in favor of the 2006 Vitter Amendment to prohibit the confiscation of lawful firearms during an emergency or major disaster, which passed 84-16.[88]

He is rated F by the National Rifle Association.[89] The NRA describes the recipient of its F grade as a "true enemy of gun owners’ rights."[90]

[edit] Death penalty

Obama believes the death penalty is used too frequently and inconsistently. However he is still in favor of it for cases in which "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."[91] Speaking as a state senator about the Illinois legislature's constant additions to the list of factors that render a defendant eligible for the death penalty, Obama said, "We certainly don't think that we should be... have this laundry list that does not make any distinctions between the run-of-the-mill armed robbery that results in death, and systematic killings by a terrorist organization. And I think essentially what the reduction of aggravating factors does is it says, 'Here's a narrower set of crimes that we think potentially at least could deserve the death penalty.'"[92]

[edit] Civil liberties

Obama voted in favor of the 2006 version of the Patriot Act.[93] He voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006[94] and later voted to restore habeas corpus to those detained by the U.S. (which had been stripped by the Military Commissions Act).[93] He has advocated closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but has not supported two specific bills that would have done so.[95] Obama opposes the use of torture[96] and warrantless domestic wiretaps by the U.S.[97] He voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2006, arguing that flag burning didn't justify a constitutional amendment, but said that he would support a law banning flag burning.[98] The ACLU has given Obama a score of 80% on Civil liberty issues.[99]

[edit] Religion

Obama has encouraged Democrats to reach out to evangelicals and other church-going people, saying, "if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at—to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own—we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse."[100][101]

[edit] Stem cell research

Obama supports embryonic stem cell research and was a co-sponsor[102] of the 2005 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act which was passed by both houses of Congress but vetoed by President George W. Bush. Obama condemned Bush's veto, saying "Democrats want this bill to pass. Conservative, pro-life Republicans want this bill to pass. By large margins, the American people want this bill to pass. It is only the White House standing in the way of progress - standing in the way of so many potential cures." He also voted in favor of the 2007 bill for embryonic stem cell research that was passed but was also vetoed by President Bush.[103]

[edit] Marijuana decriminalization

Barack Obama opposes legalization of marijuana, but supports decriminalization, which eliminates jail time and other penalties, including a criminal record, for possession of a small amount of marijuana.[104] Obama's campaign has said that as president, he "will review drug sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the blind and counterproductive sentencing of non-violent offenders, and revisit instances where drug rehabilitation may be more appropriate."

He's said just as much as any other candidate about them during the debates. I recall one question where hillary's answer was that she "believed in fiscal responsability" and he concisely stated what he would actually do.

Lemur

02-02-2008, 00:48

Nah, they're probably just partisan hacks....
Out of the mouths of babes ...

-edit-

Interesting that any vote opposing the war in Iraq is, by definition, liberal. I also note that a vote to create an independent ethics oversight office was scored as liberal, even though it was co-sponsored by Lindsey Graham, R-SC.

Sorry, dude, but it all looks a bit fishy, especially two presidential campaigns in a row. Teh most libral person EVAR! Run! Run! Run!

Oh, and when you went into your little slap about Obama Kool-Aid, you forgot to get me for supporting McCain, too. Since you support nobody at all, you're free to attack as you like. Don't leave ammo on the ground, "conservative."

Xiahou

02-02-2008, 01:30

Interesting that any vote opposing the war in Iraq is, by definition, liberal. I also note that a vote to create an independent ethics oversight office was scored as liberal, even though it was co-sponsored by Lindsey Graham, R-SC.I'm sorry, but do you really have any idea how foolish that sounds? You're basically saying that if a Republican attaches his name to a bill, it must be conservative? I'm not even going to waste the time to list examples of how wrong that is. :dizzy2:

This is truly amusing to me though- what with your previous accusations of so-called ideologues around here that dismiss anything they don't agree with as biased. I'm glad you're above it though....

Oh, and when you went into your little slap about Obama Kool-Aid, you forgot to get me for supporting McCain, too. Since you support nobody at all, you're free to attack as you like. Don't leave ammo on the ground, "conservative."So saying that you also support McCain has what exactly to do with you supporting Obama? My whole point was that Obama is selling himself as some sort of great moderate unifier, when his policies and positions are anything but. I don't support any candidate at the moment- as I've said often, I think they all stink for various reasons. I'm sorry if that doesn't leave much room for you to pick on me- but it's just how I feel. :shrug:

If it would be somehow cathartic for you, feel free to pretend I support any candidate of your choosing so you can slam me for it. :wink:

Yes--as you say yourself, good speeches have gained him support in the election, and so they will make his presidency less divisive. Also, liberal isn't a bad word.If you generally support "liberal" policies , Obama looks like a great candidate. My whole point is that he is a liberal (moreso than most) and that he's doing his best to hide the fact in his campaigning.

Lemur

02-02-2008, 02:42

Well, Xiahou, it's clear that you will never support any of the people running for President, just heap varying degrees of scorn on the ideologically impure. You should be quite comfortable in the upcoming contests, with nothing at stake, no candidate to support, and nothing to defend. Sounds relaxing, and intellectually restful.

-edit-

Are you finally having your own Ann Coulter moment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2JoSo17Azk)?

KukriKhan

02-02-2008, 02:43

By November, there are likely to be a good percentage of folks like Xiahou who just don't like either of the major party candidates, or whatever local third-party guy managed to get on the ballot.

So: Is it time to consider a nationally-mandatory "None of the Above" line on all ballots?

What would happen if 'NotA' got more votes?

Doesn't Australia do that? How's it work?

Or should we all just do our duty, hold our noses, and vote for the least disagreeable?

ICantSpellDawg

02-02-2008, 03:58

My hatred of McCain is subsiding. I will vote for a Republican in the November election - but I must say; I usually bring my entire family, my girlfriends family, my friends and (most of) my coworkers with me when I vote (I am actually a very persuasive speaker in spite of my inability to convey my opinions in print). This time I don't have the passion. I just find it to be a shame that Mitt won't be in the White House - I believe that he would do tremendous good for us.

This change of opinion has not occurred because of hearing McCain, but because I swished it around in my mouth for a while and realized that, despite the taste, it was more swallow able than a Giuliani, Clinton or Obama.

My only real agendas for this term are:

-Lower taxes for Individuals and companies. Bigger tax breaks for companies that hire U.S. citizens predominantly. Incentives for technological innovation. Slash spending.

-Private health insurance for everybody with minimal to zero tax increase. Preferably on the State level with people encouraged to buy more and more comprehensive plans.

-A Strict constitutionalist judiciary (overturn Roe v Wade). Insightful and cautiously progressive legislature.

-Walk softly carry a big stick. Get our guns/butter ratio back in order. Stay in Iraq until they can stand on their own 2 feet.

That's pretty much it.

I will bet money that Xiahou votes G.O.P. in November...:fishing:

LittleGrizzly

02-02-2008, 11:43

Sorry, dude, but it all looks a bit fishy, especially two presidential campaigns in a row. Teh most libral person EVAR! Run! Run! Run!

It is quite funny that this line came out about Kerry 4 years ago, not that it makes it untrue just seems a bit of a coincidence

ICantSpellDawg

02-02-2008, 16:26

Lemur

02-02-2008, 18:50

A discussion (http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476) of yet more Republicans who either support or endorse the "empty suit." Now it's fair to say that no Democrat will ever calm the raging waters of the most extreme right-wing partisans, but it's nice to see some crossing over, in much the same way it was cool to see Reagan Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat).

Barack + GOP = ‘Obamacans’

Some prominent Republicans have caught Obama fever.

By Richard Wolffe | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 1, 2008 | Updated: 7:02 p.m. ET Feb 1, 2008

Susan Eisenhower is more than just another disappointed Republican. She is also Ike's granddaughter and a dedicated member of the party who has urged her fellow Republicans in the past to stick with the GOP. But now Eisenhower, who runs an international consulting firm, is endorsing Barack Obama. She has no plans to officially leave the Republican party. But in Eisenhower's view, Obama is the only candidate who can build a national consensus on the issues most important to her--energy, global warming, an aging population and America's standing in the world.

"Barack Obama will really be in a singular position to attract moderate Republicans," she told newsweek. "I wanted to do what many people did for my grandfather in 1952. He was hugely aided in his quest for the presidency by Democrats for Eisenhower. There's a long and fine tradition of crossover voters."

Eisenhower is one of a small but symbolically powerful group of what Obama recently called "Obamacans"--disaffected Republicans who have drifted away from their party just as Eisenhower Democrats did and, more recently, Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. They include lifelong Republican Tricia Moseley, a former staffer for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, the one-time segregationist from South Carolina. Now a high-school teacher, Moseley says she was attracted to Obama's positions on education and the economy.

Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough, who anchors MSNBC's "Morning Joe," says many conservative friends--including Bush officials and evangelical Christians--sent him enthusiastic e-mails after seeing Obama's post-election speeches in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. "He doesn't attack Republicans, he doesn't attack whites and he never seems to draw these dividing lines that Bill Clinton [does]," Scarborough told NEWSWEEK.

Plenty of Republicans are immune to the Obama swoon, of course. The Republican National Committee has emphasized a recent analysis suggesting that Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate last year. But even small numbers of Obamacans can help reinforce the candidate's unity message and bolster his "electability" argument. In Iowa, the campaign identified more than 700 registered Republicans who committed to caucusing for Obama (although staffers say they don't yet know how many showed up to vote). And in the Super Tuesday state of Colorado, campaign staffers say they found more than 500 erstwhile Republicans who were willing to switch their party registration.

Even if Republicans don't convert in more significant numbers, the friendly outreach may blunt the ferocity of GOP attacks. One senior aide to John McCain has already said he's reluctant to attack Obama: last year, McCain's adman Mark McKinnon wrote an internal memo promising not to tape ads against the Illinois Democrat if he were the nominee.

Xiahou

02-02-2008, 20:03

Xiahou

02-02-2008, 20:07

You know what's funny? Romney is leading Republicans in Mass with 57%. McCain has 41% of Republicans in his home state.

The people who know them best, huh?

If that jerk Huckabee would just crash and burn, Romney would have a much easier time. Huckabee is just doing this to screw Romney - he has no chance of winning the nomination - I bet that Huck has been the other guy on the McCain ticket since the beginning. Nobody would campaign this hard unless they they either saw the constituency waiting to support them or they knew that they would have a room at the White House.

Which one is Huck?
I definitely think the the Huckster is angling for a VP slot. This guy has been the consummate spoiler for this primary. I think it would've been vastly different a vastly different landscape had he not been a factor.

And to respond to your earlier comment, if the GOP ticket is McCain/Huckabee- I can assure you that I will not be voting GOP this election.

ICantSpellDawg

02-02-2008, 20:34

Check this out.

Patrick J. Buchanan
What McCain Means
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: 01/25/2008
link (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24666)

In 2004, the voters of Arizona, by 56 percent to 44 percent, enacted Proposition 200, requiring proof of citizenship before an individual may vote or receive state benefits. Forty-six percent of Hispanics voted for Prop. 200, giving the lie to those who say Hispanics support the illegal invasion of their country.

Over 190,000 Arizonans petitioned to put Prop. 200 on the ballot. As it simply required proof of citizenship before receiving the benefits and privileges of citizenship, who could oppose it? Answer: the entire GOP congressional delegation, led by Sen. John McCain.

This is the same John McCain who battled the border fence and colluded with Teddy Kennedy on the amnesty bill rejected by Congress last year after a national uproar.

Bottom line: If the presidential race is between Hillary and Amnesty John, the border security battle is over and lost. As Laura Ingraham asks, "If Congress passes McCain-Kennedy in 2009, would President McCain sign it?"

For conservatives, the stakes could not be higher.

For on the great controversies, McCain has sided as often with the Democrats and the Big Media that pay him court as with conservatives.

Where President Bush has been bravest, on taxes and judges, McCain has been his nemesis. Not only did McCain vote against the Bush tax cuts twice, he colluded to sell out the most conservative of the Bush nominees to the courts.

In 1993, McCain voted to confirm ACLU liberal and pro-abortion Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when Bush set out to restore constitutionalism, McCain colluded with Democrats who wanted to retain power to kill Bush's most conservative nominees.

McCain helped form the Gang of 14, including seven Democrats, who agreed to block a GOP Senate from using the "nuclear option" -- allowing a simple GOP majority to break a Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees -- unless the seven Democrats approved. McCain thus conspired with liberals to put at risk the most courageous conservatives nominees of President Bush.

With his record of voting for liberal justices Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and of colluding with Democrats in their campaign to kill the most conservative Bush nominees, what guarantee is there a President McCain will nominate and fight for the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

In the battle over campaign finance reform, McCain colluded again. The McCain-Feingold law denies to gun folks and right-to-lifers their basic First Amendment right to name friends and foes in ads run before elections.

As for the policies that have transparently failed Bush and the nation, McCain remains an obdurate advocate.

After America has run five straight record trade deficits that have denuded the nation of thousands of factories and 3 million manufacturing jobs, McCain is still babbling on about Smoot-Hawley.

"When you study history, every time we've adopted protectionism, we've paid a very heavy price," McCain told a Detroit paper after informing Michiganders their auto jobs are never coming back.

But what history is John McCain talking about?

Was the Tariff of 1816, which saved infant U.S. industries from the malicious dumping by British merchants after the War of 1812, a failure? Were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Calhoun and Henry Clay fools to support President Madison's tariff?

From Abraham Lincoln through Calvin Coolidge, the Republican Party -- the Party of Protection -- put 12 presidents in the White House to two for the Democrats, and the United States became the mightiest industrial power in history, producing 42 percent of the world's manufactured goods.

This is failure -- while Bush free trade is a success? Tell it to Ohio.

Even Hillary Clinton, whose husband enacted NAFTA with McCain's support, has begun to question the NAFTA paradigm. Not McCain.

Where Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon came to office determined to extricate the nation with honor from a war whose costs had begun to outweigh any benefit, McCain is talking about spending 50 or 100 years in Iraq.

Where Bush, by moving NATO onto Russia's doorstep, planting bases in Central Asia and intervening in the affairs of Russia's neighbors, has undone the work of Reagan in making Russia a friend, he sounds like George McGovern alongside the braying McCain, who can't wait to get into Vladimir Putin's face.

Where Bush finally cleansed his administration of neocons, if not of their legacy, a McCain candidacy is the last, best hope of a neocon restoration and new military adventures in the Middle East.

If Rudy Giuliani founders in Florida, neocons will be chanting, "Mac is back!"

The three issues that ruined the Bush presidency are this misbegotten war in Iraq, the failure to secure America's borders from invasion and a mindless trade policy that has destroyed the dollar and left foreigners with $5 trillion to buy up America at fire-sale prices.

McCain remains an unthinking advocate of all three.

But where Bush was at his best, on taxes and judges, McCain was collaborating with Hillary. The question conservatives may face if McCain is nominated is not whom should I vote for, but should I vote.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "The Death of the West," "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

I had no idea McCain voted for Ginsburg and Breyer.
I also had no idea that in 1999 he said: “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

Maybe I will vote for Obama.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-02-2008, 21:13

Both Ginsburg and Breyer were qualified picks for the bench. Barring evidence of incompetence/malfeasance, the GOP usually votes in favor of a presidential nominee.

The Dems ar more likely to block an appointee purely on political views --which is more brutally practical than the GOP stance.

It would be nice to hear them say that in so many words, however, and skip the parsiflage.

Lemur

02-02-2008, 21:35

Who are these people?
Since you asked (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html?nav=hcmodule):

Why I'm Backing Obama

By Susan Eisenhower
Saturday, February 2, 2008; Page A15

Forty-seven years ago, my grandfather Dwight D. Eisenhower bid farewell to a nation he had served for more than five decades. In his televised address, Ike famously coined the term "military-industrial complex," and he offered advice that is still relevant today. "As we peer into society's future," he said, we "must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Today we are engaged in a debate about these very issues. Deep in America's heart, I believe, is the nagging fear that our best years as a nation may be over. We are disliked overseas and feel insecure at home. We watch as our federal budget hemorrhages red ink and our civil liberties are eroded. Crises in energy, health care and education threaten our way of life and our ability to compete internationally. There are also the issues of a costly, unpopular war; a long-neglected infrastructure; and an aging and increasingly needy population.

I am not alone in worrying that my generation will fail to do what my grandfather's did so well: Leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found.

Given the magnitude of these issues and the cost of addressing them, our next president must be able to bring about a sense of national unity and change. As we no longer have the financial resources to address all these problems comprehensively and simultaneously, setting priorities will be essential. With hard work, much can be done.

The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a better future is our own apathy, fear or immobility. We have been living in a zero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avert being lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that Barack Obama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation's impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.

No measures to avert the serious, looming consequences can be taken without this sense of renewal. Uncommon political courage will be required. Yet this courage can be summoned only if something profoundly different transpires. Putting America first -- ahead of our own selfish interests -- must be our national priority if we are to retain our capacity to lead.

The last time the United States had an open election was 1952. My grandfather was pursued by both political parties and eventually became the Republican nominee. Despite being a charismatic war hero, he did not have an easy ride to the nomination. He went on to win the presidency -- with the indispensable help of a "Democrats for Eisenhower" movement. These crossover voters were attracted by his pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify the nation.

It is in this great tradition of crossover voters that I support Barack Obama's candidacy for president. If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help.

Given Obama's support among young people, I believe that he will be most invested in defending the interests of these rising generations and, therefore, the long-term interests of this nation as a whole. Without his leadership, our children and grandchildren are at risk of growing older in a marginalized country that is left to its anger and divisions. Such an outcome would be an unacceptable legacy for any great nation.

Susan Eisenhower, a business consultant, is the author of four books, most recently "Partners in Space: US-Russian Cooperation After the Cold War."

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-02-2008, 21:40

Raising fees, and especially the gas tax is bad.

It's political suicide, yes, but why would you say raising the gas tax is bad? If America can increase public transportation will revenue from an increased gas tax, don't you think that would be a good trade-off?

ICantSpellDawg

02-03-2008, 01:12

Everybody and their mother in the conservative and G.O.P. think tank is coming out in favor of Romney.

Jerks like Schwarzenegger and Giuliani are going for McCain.

What the heck is happening? Where do conservatives go if McCain gets the nod?

I'd like to see total party re-branding. Part of me would love to see the G.O.P. go down in flames for betraying its base.

Ps. I said that he has a bi-polar relationship with America. He's up sky high one day, then everybody remembers that he has no business being in Washington and he plummets back into obscurity. This is how the pattern goes - look at the most recent polls.

On the plus side, he embodies sub-prime mortgage lending - nobody can say he isn't a monument of our times.

Crazed Rabbit

02-03-2008, 04:41

Bah, I don't think I'm going to vote for McCain. We sure don't need another 'republican' pres who will tear the party apart with moronic ideas on immigration. Heck, he's a global warming fearmonger and seems to think being a business man is bad and greedy. Not to mention McCain-Feingold.

I hope McCain goes down, and the idiots and jerks like him and Huckabee learn to join the democrat party.

CR

Lemur

02-03-2008, 20:28

gibsonsg91921

02-03-2008, 20:30

Vote Ron Paul! He's the future... today. Remember that when my facebook group becomes the fastest to 2 million members.

Lemur

02-03-2008, 20:38

File this under can't say I'm surprised: Hard evidence (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/breaking-news-p.html) that Billary is using push-polling in CA.

Breaking News: Pro-Clinton push poll erupts in California

Ed Coghlan was just starting to prepare his dinner in the northern San Fernando Valley the other night when the phone rang. The caller was very friendly. He identified himself as a pollster who wanted to ask registered independents like Coghlan a few questions about the presidential race and all the candidates for Super Tuesday's California primary.

Ed, who's a former news director for a local TV station, was curious. He said, "Sure, go ahead."

But a few minutes into the conversation Ed says he noticed a strange pattern developing to the questions. First of all, the "pollster" was only asking about four candidates, three Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, who was still in the race at the time -- and one Republican -- John McCain.

Also, every question about Clinton was curiously positive, Coghlan recalls. The caller said things like, if you knew that Sen. Clinton believed the country had a serious home mortgage problem and had made proposals to freeze mortgage rates and save families from foreclosure, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for her?

Ed said, of course, more likely.

Every question about the other candidates was negative. If Ed knew, for instance, that as a state senator Obama had voted "present" 43 times instead of taking a yes or no stand "for what he believed," would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?

"That's when I caught on," said Coghlan. He realized then that he was being push-polled. That malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll had arrived in Southern California within days of the important election.

It could become an issue in the closing hours of the campaign.

Someone who obviously favors Hillary Clinton is paying an unidentified company to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters, who can, according to California party rules, opt to vote in the Democratic but not the Republican primary on Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will choose a large chunk of the delegates to the parties' national conventions next summer.

Coghlan said he was offended by such underhanded tactics and knew he was going to get out a warning about this dirty trick, but he said he played along for the full 20-minute "poll."

"The guy was very slick, very personable," Coghlan told the Ticket. "He never fell out of character as a pollster the entire time. He seemed interested in my answers and just kept going through his list of questions as if he was noting my answers. He was very good, very smooth."

For instance, the caller inquired, had Ed watched a recent Democratic debate? Ed said yes. And who did Ed think had won the debate? the pollster inquired.

Coghlan replied, honestly, that he thought Edwards had won because he was calmer and more reasoned didn't get involved in all the petty arguing and finger-pointing like the other two. Now, the pollster said, if Ed knew that most people believed John Edwards could not get elected in a general election, would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?

Ed said, oh, well then, less, of course. And the caller appeared to make a note of that.

"He was not pushy at all," Coghlan said. "And at the end he thanked me for giving him my opinions."

Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign. was contacted by e-mail last night. He answered that he was there. He was asked if the Clinton campaign was behind the push-poll, knew who was behind it or had any other information on it. That was at 5:27 p.m. Pacific time Saturday. As of this item's posting time, exactly eight hours later, no reply had been received.

ICantSpellDawg

02-03-2008, 20:40

Latest poll smoking (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1444). Looks as though Romney is starting to get some momentum against McCain, although he's going to need a real boost to be competitive on Tuesday. Meanwhile, things are looking better for Obama, who's definitely gaining momentum against Billary.

If Romney doesn't win CA, he'll cut and run on Wednesday.

1976 presidential campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#1976_presidential_campaign)

In 1976, Reagan challenged incumbent President Gerald Ford in a bid to become the Republican Party's candidate for president. Reagan soon established hims Ron Paulelf as the conservative candidate; like-minded organizations such as the American Conservative Union became the key components of his political base, while President Ford was considered a more moderate Republican.[56] He relied on a strategy crafted by campaign manager John Sears of winning a few primaries early to seriously damage the lift-off of Ford's campaign, such as his victories in North Carolina, Texas, and California, but the strategy disintegrated. Reagan ended up losing New Hampshire and later Florida.[57]

As the party's 1976 convention in Kansas City, Missouri neared, Ford appeared close to victory. Acknowledging his party's moderate wing, Reagan chose moderate Republican Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as his running mate. Nonetheless, Ford narrowly won, with 1,187 delegates to Reagan's 1,070.[57]

Reagan's concession speech emphasized the dangers of nuclear war and the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Although he lost the nomination, he received 307 write-in votes in New Hampshire, 388 votes as an Independent on Wyoming's ballot, and a single electoral vote from a Washington State "faithless elector" in the November election.[58] Ford went on to lose the 1976 presidential election to the Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter.

Romney will be back 4 years from now to challenge Hillary and Obama (pres and vice pres). The G.O.P. does poorly when it runs democratic collaborators. We need an alternative, if we can't get one, I hope that there is a 3rd party to sink the G.O.P. Ron Paul anyone?

Lemur

02-04-2008, 06:35

At last we find out how Billary will enforce universal health care (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp;_ylt=AreQ9GL0Bon12cF85fwJDgGs0NUE): Garnish their wages. Nice.

Hillary Clinton made news by saying she might allow workers' wages to be garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance. She has criticized Obama for pushing a health plan that she says would not require universal coverage.

Pressed on how she would enforce her mandate, Clinton said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

She said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income."

-edit-

She must be down in the polls again, 'cause the waterworks (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_crys_in_connecticut.html) are turned on.

ICantSpellDawg

02-04-2008, 17:51

This is a pretty good article, even though I don't like McCain.

McCain and the Supreme Court
By STEVEN G. CALABRESI and JOHN O. MCGINNIS
February 4, 2008; Page A14

The conservative movement has made enormous gains over the past three decades in restoring constitutional government. The Roberts Supreme Court shows every sign of building on these gains.

Yet the gulf between Democratic and Republican approaches to constitutional law and the role of the federal courts is greater than at any time since the New Deal. With a Democratic Senate, Democratic presidents would be able to confirm adherents of the theory of the "Living Constitution" -- in essence empowering judges to update the Constitution to advance their own conception of a better world. This would threaten the jurisprudential gains of the past three decades, and provide new impetus to judicial activism of a kind not seen since the 1960s.
[John McCain]

We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.

We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.

The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, for judicial conservatives electability must be a paramount consideration. By all accounts, Mr. McCain is more electable than Mr. Romney. He runs ahead or even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the national polls, and actually leads the Democratic candidates in key swing states like Wisconsin. Mr. Romney trails well behind both Democratic candidates by double digits. The fundamental dynamic of this race points in Mr. McCain's way as well. He appeals to independents, while Mr. Romney's support is largely confined to Republicans.

With many more Republican senators up for re-election than Democrats, the nomination of Mr. Romney could easily lead to a Goldwater-like debacle, in which the GOP loses not only the White House but also its ability in practice to filibuster in the Senate. Thus, even if we believed that Mr. Romney's judicial appointments were likely to be better than Mr. McCain's -- and we are not persuaded of that -- we would find ourselves hard-pressed to support his candidacy, given that he is so much less likely to make any appointments at all.

In fact, there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006. His pro-life record also provides a surety that he will not appoint judicial activists.

We recognize that there are two plausible sources of disquiet. Mr. McCain is perhaps the foremost champion of campaign-finance regulation, regulation that is hard to square with the First Amendment. Still, a President McCain would inevitably have a broader focus. Securing the party's base of judicial conservatives is a necessary formula for governance, as President Bush himself showed when he swiftly dropped the ill-conceived nomination of Harriet Miers.

Perhaps more important, because of the success of constitutionalist jurisprudence, a McCain administration would be enveloped by conservative thinking in this area. The strand of jurisprudential thought that produced Sen. Warren Rudman and Justice David Souter is no longer vibrant in the Republican Party.

Others are concerned that Mr. McCain was a member of the "Gang of 14," opposing the attempt to end filibusters of judicial nominations. We believe that Mr. McCain's views about the institutional dynamics of the Senate are a poor guide to his performance as president. In any event, the agreement of the Gang of 14 had its costs, but it played an important role in ensuring that Samuel Alito faced no Senate filibuster. It also led to the confirmation of Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor, three of President George W. Bush's best judicial appointees to the lower federal courts.

Conservative complaints about Mr. McCain's role as a member of the Gang of 14 seem to encapsulate all that is wrong in general with conservative carping over his candidacy. It makes the perfect the enemy of the very good results that have been achieved, thanks in no small part to Mr. McCain, and to the very likely prospect of further good results that might come from his election as president.

Messrs. Calabresi and McGinnis teach at Northwestern University Law School.

Louis VI the Fat

02-04-2008, 18:37

File this under can't say I'm surprised: Hard evidence (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/breaking-news-p.html) that Billary is using push-polling in CA.
Gah! Some push-polling. Big deal. Here are the questions concerned Americans ought to ask themselves:

Do you think it is wise for America to have a Muslim president while under the current threat from terrorism?
Do you know that Obama's full name is Barack Hussein Obama?
If it turns out that Hussein is a slumlord (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article), would you support the continuation of extorting America's vulnerable underclass by voting Barack Hussein?
If it turns out that Hussein has a self-declared drug addiction (http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v03/n1786/a06.html) problem, would you make this crack junkie the Commander in Chief of America's armed forces?

/ God, I love American politics. :jumping:

Lemur

02-04-2008, 18:52

I see Louis has taken up the mantle of Rove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove)/Atwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater). You forgot to mention the biggest slam on Obama: I hear rumors he fathered two black children.

Ronin

02-04-2008, 19:01

ICantSpellDawg

02-04-2008, 21:42

I like this one for obvious reasons.

Sen. McAmnesty is here to thumb nose at Mitt
Howie Carr By Howie Carr
Monday, February 4, 2008 - Updated 17h ago

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?&articleid=1071093&format=&page=1&listingType=col#articleFull
(link)

Welcome to Boston, Sen. McAmnesty. How ’bout them Patriots [team stats]? Er, I mean, never mind.

It’s odd that on the eve of Super Tuesday, the 71-year-old Republican front-runner would be here, in his top challenger’s home state, where he’s running a mere 32 points behind.

Why isn’t he stumping in California, the nation’s biggest state? Out there he’s running neck and neck, or just a little behind, Mitt Romney ahead. If Mitt somehow pulls out a victory in the Golden State tomorrow, he stays alive.

McCain’s already wrapped up the three big winner-take-all states on the East Coast - New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. He shouldn’t be within three time zones of here. He ought to be out in L.A. trying to give Mitt a headshot, rather than kicking him in the groin back here in Boston.

Especially when the local team was playing in the Super Bowl. Did McCain think he was going to get a big ride on the 11 o’clock news last night?

Pre-Super Bowl, it was a disconcerting day for any Republican with a listed phone number. Robo calls were coming in all afternoon from politicians who’ve been MIA most of this century.

“Do you know what it’s like to pick up your phone and hear, ‘Hi, I’m Jane Swift,’ ” one still-shaken registered Republican told me. “And before that it was Bill Weld, and Paul Cellucci, and Barbara Anderson.”

McCain’s plane touched down at 3:45 and then the schedule said “downtime.”

Or, as they say at Marian Manor, a nap.

Then, off to the Green Dragon Tavern in the Quincy Market district. That was appropriate - one of the oldest bars in Boston, visited by one of the oldest men in America. And it’s right near Faneuil Hall, where McCain will be having a rally this morning.

You may not have heard, but McCain picked up some big Republican endorsements here over the weekend. In addition to Cellucci, he acquired ex-Treasurer Joe Malone on waivers from the Rudy Giuliani campaign. The rest of McCain’s endorsees read like a roll-call of the forgotten-but-not-gone brigade - Jim Rappaport, who couldn’t beat Muffy, and ex-state reps Brian Cresta, Andrew Natsios and Bill Ryan, who doesn’t turn 70 until July.

They were going to have a press conference but they couldn’t find a hall that could accommodate all the walkers. Suffice to say, McCain’s over-the-hill gang agreed on one thing: This Mitt Romney whippersnapper, he’s no Christian Herter.

The only reason McCain is here this morning is to rub Mitt’s nose in the fact that he, not Mitt, is winning. He resents Romney, because in the Dreaded Private Sector, Mitt was a runaway success, while McCain’s only experience was in the son-in-law business.

When he got out of the Navy, his second wife Cindy’s father, a fabulously rich Budweiser beer distributor in Arizona, put McCain to work in “public relations.”

Hey, Cindy was the old man’s only child. So what if she’s 18 years younger than McCain? It was a storybook marriage.

When McCain first ran for Congress, according to The New York Times [NYT], “His wife’s fortune allowed him to lend $167,000 to the campaign.”

How dare Mitt finance his own campaign? That’s not nearly as ethical as using your second wife’s father’s money to bankroll you. No wonder McCain and John Kerry and Ted Kennedy all get along so swimmingly. They look down their noses at people who made their own money.

See ya, Sen. McAmnesty. Better hope you don’t lose California because you had to give Mitt one final kick while he was down. What goes around comes around.

Lemur

02-05-2008, 18:32

I found this strangely hilarious: The loneliness of a college-aged Clinton supporter (http://www.slate.com/id/2183594).

My Obama-loving friends—that is, all my friends—have tried to rationalize my support in a number of ways. Maybe I have a thing for older women? Or it's some sort of latent Oedipus complex? Dear God, I hope not. Am I just doing it to get a date? No, and unfortunately, it's having the opposite effect. Being a college guy who supports Hillary is a like being the jock who takes the women's studies class to pick up girls. It just does not work. It is as if my lack of a second X chromosome sends a signal to women that I am an interloper in Hillaryland, and my support is less than genuine.

Although we are rarely seen in the wild, young Hillary supporters do exist (not that I've ever met another one).

Sasaki Kojiro

02-05-2008, 20:08

https://img246.imageshack.us/img246/5932/020420turnout20so20farqe2.png

Does this mean an easy democrat victory in november?

Also, how do you guys think super tuesday is going to turnout? Obama's campaign says he'll be happy if he comes within 100 delegates of clinton for the day (the later states favor him), which means he must be pretty sure that he will.

rvg

02-05-2008, 20:15

I'd go out on a limb here and say that the *only* reason why Obama is remaining competitive is his skin color. *That* more than anything else makes him the new kid on the block and wins him votes and endorsements, as there is very little difference between him and Hillary on the ideological front. Had he been white, he wouldn't register a single blip anywhere, because let's be honest, who cares what Barry Oman, the junior senator from Illinois has to say...

Lemur

02-05-2008, 20:37

rvg

02-05-2008, 20:45

rvg, if that's the case, why wasn't Jesse Jackson more competitive in '84 and '88? Why wasn't Al Sharpton a serious contender in '04? If being black is an inherent advantage that negates all comers, why hasn't a black candidate done better in the past?

You could say, with much more justice, that Hillary would not be a contender if she had not married her way into power by being first lady of Arkansas and the United States. When she cites her "35 years of experience," she's definitely counting that.

Sure, Hillary is a nobody without Bill, but Jackson and Sharpton never were and never could be serious candidates because they antagonized the white vote. Obama does not antagonize whites, which is why he so far is successful. What I'm saying is that a white candidate with a message identical to Obama's would be unlikely to succeed at all.

Ser Clegane

02-05-2008, 21:35

What I'm saying is that a white candidate with a message identical to Obama's would be unlikely to succeed at all.

I tend to disagree. I am not American so I have to rely on impressions that I get from e.g my US colleagues at work or from the media - but from what I gathered Obama managed to get beyond the point where skin color is actually an issue.

It seems that it is rather the feeling of a "fresh start" that he and his campaign survey that is the driver behind his current success - apparently something that a lot of US citizens are looking for and something that e.g. Clinton cannot really stand for as she is seen more as part of the "establishment".
I think a "white" candidate of a similar age and the ability to convince people that he might offer a new start and a way out of partisan bickering (at least to a certain extent) would also stand a pretty good chance.

NB: I will not judge to which extent Obama really will be able to deliver on what he seems to stand for - the above is just my impression of how he is perceived (which does not seem to be linked to color)

Lemur

02-05-2008, 22:11

rvg, I'm not sure where you can go with your assertion. It's obvious that other black candidates have not found their skin color to be a free pass at election, and you're not debating that.

Let's try this from another angle -- who's the last Presidential candidate with a comparable level of charisma, oratory skill and optimism? I'm tempted to say Ronald Reagan.

rvg

02-05-2008, 22:14

Let's try this from another angle -- who's the last Presidential candidate with a comparable level of charisma, oratory skill and optimism? I'm tempted to say Ronald Reagan.

How 'bout John Edwards?

Lemur

02-05-2008, 22:19

John Edwards is not as charismatic as Obama. I realize this is subjective, but you don't read columns praising or damning Edwards' charisma, as you do with Obama. Edwards is not a great orator, not by a long shot.

And optimism? Edwards chose to campaign on class warfare. His message was that the little man was getting the shaft, and it didn't get him very far. I certainly don't see how you can spin Edwards' campaign as "optimistic."

Nope, you have to look back to Reagan to see the kind of political qualities you find in Obama, and previous to him Kennedy. And you can argue that these qualities don't matter, or that they disguise [insert evil quality here]. But it's foolish to deny that Obama has charisma, oratory skill and optimism. Powerful cocktail.

ICantSpellDawg

02-05-2008, 22:32

Did you see West Virginia? I hate McCain and his minion Huckabee. I will pencil my vote in for a turd in a bag on fire this november.

Scumbags.

Xiahou

02-05-2008, 23:19

Did you see West Virginia? I hate McCain and his minion Huckabee. I will pencil my vote in for a turd in a bag on fire this november.

Scumbags.
I think it's telling of Huckabee's intentions that he spends most of his time tearing down Romney instead of campaigning against the actual frontrunner. He seems to have his nose pretty far up McCain's butt and is running as little more than a surrogate. If McCain wins the nomination and names Huckabee as is VP, I look forward to seeing them crash and burn in the general election. :yes:

Here's a quote I found from Limbaugh that I think makes some sense:

"If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle," he said. "And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative."

Lemur

02-06-2008, 00:19

Tell me, has Rush gotten around to questioning McCain's war record, or is that being saved for later?

-edit-

NVM, it seems the Swiftboating (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRkNzI1NDk5M2I4MDVkM2NjZWQ3MmZjZDUxYmJhNDc=) is already well underway.

But so far today I have gotten the usual daily spam e-mail from various fringe and self-acclaimed conservative groups and personages — variously alleging that McCain was not a real war hero, questioning his conduct during capture, commenting on his marital situation, and suggesting he was unhinged and identical to Ted Kennedy, Hillary (fill in the blanks). I think for most the level of vituperation is astounding and completely unforeseen.

Based on the right wing's treatment of, variously, McCain, Kerry, Bush and Cheney, serving in a shooting war is a serious disadvantage.

Xiahou

02-06-2008, 00:59

Based on the right wing's treatment of, variously, McCain, Kerry, Bush and Cheney, serving in a shooting war is a serious disadvantage.Wow, another sweeping generalization attacking all conservatives from our resident moderate. Ignoring the fact that VDH is a conservative and would support McCain and that he's citing "fringe" groups, you can't pass up the chance to take some anecdotal evidence and use it to sling some mud. :rolleyes:

Is there such a thing as a fringe moderate?

As to the rest of the article, he actually does a decent job of outlining the deep flaws that both GOP candidates have.

econ21

02-06-2008, 01:13

Did you see West Virginia?

For us non-Americans, what happened in West Virginia?

Xiahou

02-06-2008, 01:28

For us non-Americans, what happened in West Virginia?
Basically, Romney was in danger of winning in the WV caucus. When this became apparent, the McCain campaign told their voters to all switch to Huckabee in order to prevent Romney's win.

Here's (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/huckabee-wins-west-virginia-mccains/story.aspx?guid=%7B8B789026-D057-4A35-B72F-F05AAA134084%7D) a quick link I googled up.

McCain's strategy has been to encourage Huckabee's campaign as a spoiler to Romney's ambitions.

Lemur

02-06-2008, 01:29

Wow, another sweeping generalization attacking all conservatives ...
Yeah, I liked the article too. Glad you enjoyed it!

rvg

02-06-2008, 02:07

Basically, Romney was in danger of winning in the WV caucus. When this became apparent, the McCain campaign told their voters to all switch to Huckabee in order to prevent Romney's win.

Deliciously devious.

CrossLOPER

02-06-2008, 02:51

Huckabee! I want my constitutional theocracy!

ICantSpellDawg

02-06-2008, 03:04

I think that the only way I would vote this November is if McCain held HIS nose and picked Romney as his running mate.

Otherwise I am out. So are a number of other voters.

rvg

02-06-2008, 03:06

I think that the only way I would vote this November is if McCain held HIS nose and picked Romney as his running mate.

Otherwise I am out. So are a number of other voters.

Sadly, that will only mean your silent endorsement of the Dem candidate. Voting 3rd party == voting Dem, not voting at all == voting Dem.

Strike For The South

02-06-2008, 03:10

Pual. Simply becuase if elected he will make sure we dont quietly step down. We'll go down screaming and cussing China India and the EU's good name.

Lemur

02-06-2008, 03:11

Sadly, that will only mean your silent endorsement of the Dem candidate. Voting 3rd party == voting Dem, not voting at all == voting Dem.
In other words:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/kodos.jpg

rvg

02-06-2008, 03:13

LOL. Yes, Lemur, sad but true.

Lemur

02-06-2008, 03:18

Strike, this should make you happy: CNN is reporting that Ron Paul is dominating (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MN) in Minnesota. See? Up here in the icy wastes, we have good sense.

-edit-

What a difference a half hour makes. Now it's TuffStuff's turn to be happy.

CountArach

02-06-2008, 04:25

I will pencil my vote in for a turd in a bag on fire this november.
I thought you said you weren't going to vote Republican?

Lemur

02-06-2008, 04:36

rvg

02-06-2008, 04:42

Dang, Huckabee's picking up way more states than I expected. Is this entirely attributable to his deal with McCain, or is his support deeper and broader than anyone supposed?

Or is it just the Chuck Norris factor?

He is a feel-good candidate for the deep south. Let them have a laugh because, heck, even the ultracons know that Huck is unelectable.

Mikeus Caesar

02-06-2008, 04:43

So, what have i missed? Has Obama won yet? Please say he's won. If that damn woman wins i will cry. She's bad news for the world, and so damn untrustworthy that it's scary.

Lemur

02-06-2008, 04:46

It's looking pretty even right now. I think the only thing you can say about the Democratic race right now is that it's going to keep going. My vote may actually mean something.

-edit-

Here's the latest (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Bermans_count_606534.html):

David Plouffe, on a conference call just now, offered the Obama campaign's estimate of where they stand at this moment in terms of delegates.

"We are, in terms of delegates, ahead currently: about 606 to 534, in terms of pledged delegates awarded tonight," he said.

The Obama campaign's delegate guy, Jeff Berman, caught and corrected the inaccurate early reports of Nevada's delegate count, so they've got credibility on this count.

Plouffe cited wide margins in Kansas and Minnesota, as well as the fact that Obama had a larger margin in Illinois than Clinton did in New York.

-edit of the edit-

Hmm, ABC says it ain't necessarily so. (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/delegates?ref=ipb)

ICantSpellDawg

02-06-2008, 05:28

Romney's speech was great. I freaking' love that guy.

Again, I hope he runs again in 4 years, just like Reagan when he lost the nomination to Ford in '76 (in NH and FL no less). This could be a blessing in disguise - preview and practice for Romney to run a successful campaign when we may actually win. Republicans will be used to his style, be less sore from an 8 year problem presidency, and will most likely recognize the merits of having a candidate WHO DOESN'T LOOK LIKE HE'S READING A CUE CARD OR SOUND LIKE A MORON IN EVERY SPEECH!!!!!!

maybe an idea man instead of a fossil?

Conservatives vs. McCain

By David Harsanyi
Article Last Updated: 02/04/2008 09:12:25 PM MST

Why do so many conservatives detest — and yes, "detest" is the most accurate word — John McCain?

Why are radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Hugh Hewitt abandoning their customary stance on Republican unity by endorsing or supporting Mitt Romney?

Why would the right-wing queen of provocation, Ann Coulter, claim that she would rather campaign for Hillary Clinton than the longtime Republican senator from Arizona?

Why, many talking heads marvel, are conservatives ambushing their only real shot at a general election victory in November?

Well, just maybe, to conservatives, the principle is worth more than the victory.

After all, hadn't conservatives won the presidency with George W. Bush? Hadn't they won both houses of Congress in 2002? How many conservatives are celebrating this week's news of the first-ever $3 trillion budget unveiled by the president?

Anger towards McCain, despite the spin of his supporters, isn't exactly irrational. McCain has shown an elastic sense of principle. To conservatives, it seems like temperamental predilections are just as likely to determine his positions as poll numbers. He's a man they have trouble trusting.

Conservatives may remember that after losing the South Carolina primary in 2000, McCain derided conservative evangelical leaders as wielding "evil influence" on the Republican Party. ("Evil influence" apparently means convincing people not to vote for John McCain.)

Now, he's one of the believers.

Conservatives may wonder why McCain joined Russ Feingold in writing legislation that allows the federal government to dictate free speech in ways never before imagined. Or that he joined Ted Kennedy on an immigration bill that was opposed by most conservatives. Now, McCain sounds like he's ready to join the Minutemen.

Free-market types may wonder why John McCain supports cap-and-trade schemes. Others may wonder why he not only buys into end-of-world global warming scenarios, but opposes drilling in ANWR — comparing that stretch of tundra in Alaska to the Grand Canyon and Florida Everglades.

Fiscal hawks may wonder why McCain was one of two Republican senators to vote against Bush's across-the-board tax cuts. He justifies the position by claiming he believes it should have been tied to spending cuts.

A perfectly reasonable stand — if McCain has actually taken it. But the maverick must have kept those concerns to himself, instead brandishing the liberal rhetoric of "tax cuts for the rich" during the debate.

None of these issues, on their own, would be deal breakers. No candidate can meet all ideological expectations. But conservatives have been asking themselves: Other than Iraq, what does McCain offer us?

We'll soon find out. This week McCain will be stopping in at the Conservative Political Action Conference to cultivate the hard hearts of the rank and file.

He will, self-effacingly, forward the fable that he was a mere "foot soldier" in the Reagan Revolution. Serving in the house beginning in 1983, McCain was, at best, a soldier in mop-up operations.

Who knows? The mood of the country might be swinging towards John McCain pragmatism. Conservatives might be an ideological minority in the Republican Party, once again. But things change.

After all, one day Karl Rove is planning a permanent Republican majority, the next day he's a Fox News analyst, pondering whether Democrats will have a veto-proof majority in the Senate in 2009.

And perhaps conservatives are dead wrong. Maybe McCain will become a great Republican president. Still, there's nothing shameful about holding your ground on principle.

Reach columnist David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com. Ed Quillen's Tuesday column will now appear on Wednesdays.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-06-2008, 06:59

Really good night for Obama. He picked up Connecticut and Missouri, and msnbc is calling a delagate count of Obama-841, clinton-837.

Everything so far in the campaign has shown that when obama has time to use his money advantage and superior grassroots he wins votes.

Lemur

02-06-2008, 17:17

Is anybody else amazed at how many states Huckabee picked up?

drone

02-06-2008, 17:37

Is anybody else amazed at how many states Huckabee picked up?
Kind of, but not surprised which states (the South). It just highlights his unelectability with the rest of the nation, but I can see his appeal amongst Southern Republicans (at least over the other candidates).

Definitely happy to see the Democratic race still even. The landlord primaries (MD/VA/DC) will get some action this year. We have to live with them and their cronies, we should at least get a say. ~D

seireikhaan

02-06-2008, 17:41

I am, to a degree. Certainly, if he was going to win any states, it would be the ones he won. But he isn't going any further than this, with the possible exception of winning Louisiana. His message simply doesn't appeal to non evangelicals and non-hicks.

Xiahou

02-06-2008, 18:22

Is anybody else amazed at how many states Huckabee picked up?The funniest joke of this primary season would be if Huckabee actually managed to become a threat to McCain's candidacy. Yeah, it's a longshot given their implicit alliance and McCain's current dominance- but it'd still be funny. :smash:

Rameusb5

02-06-2008, 18:46

Are you finally having your own Ann Coulter moment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2JoSo17Azk)?

Allow me to be the first person to volunteer to counter her vote.

It amazes me the number of Republicans who downright HATE McCain.

For Ann Coulter to actually say she'd campaign for Hillery if McCain is nominated just goes to show the amount of grandstanding the pundits are capable of.

I wish she'd follow the lead of certain Buddist Monks...

Sasaki Kojiro

02-06-2008, 18:59

Holy crap.

New mexico primary

98% precincts reporting

Obama: 65,036
Clinton: 64,965

71 votes!?

Lemur

02-06-2008, 22:27

Interesting ... apparently Hillary took a page from Mitt's playbook, and self-funded her campaign (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/clinton_loaned_herself_5m_in_j.php) in January to the tune of $5 million.

Not a good sign for Billary. They don't have the kind of fortune to draw on that Mitt does, and they can't keep this up for long.

If you look at their relative net worth (http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/saloncom-presidential-candidates-net-worth/), $5M is a much bigger hit for the Clintons than all the money Romney has spent. I guess they're getting desperate.

-edit-

Too good not to share:

"The 'could we beat Obama?' conversation is purely academic. It's over. The Clintons have defeated him already, because he is leaving South Carolina as 'the black candidate.' He won't win another state."

-- National Review's (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2NmNTBkZmUwYTA0YWQzNWNhNWExNjY4NjA1Zjg0Mjg) Michael Graham.

Xiahou

02-07-2008, 00:49

In other election news, apparently voters in Chicago were told that touchscreen stylus that they were given to full out paper ballots were really magic pens that wrote in invisible ink. Of course, they obviously were not and their votes were not counted as a result. :dizzy2:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/779528,CST-NWS-magic06.article
Maybe this should have been in the news of the weird.....:help:

Redleg

02-07-2008, 02:06

I was listening to Satellite Radio today while I was out and about driving in North Dakota. The Railroad sends me to all kinds of interesting places....

Well the thing was how much the Democrates are talking about not only Hillary's releasing the information about using her own money, which the neatly tied up with the fact that her pundits were alreadly calling to get others to donate even more funds to her war chest. They also raised the question about what happen to her very large campaign fund that was one of the largest of all. So some interesting developments might be forthcoming from the Democrates concerning the primaries.

Should make for an interesting next round of primaries and such - I really hope they bring it up in a debate with her, and get her to speak about how she is spending her campaign funds. It might wake some people up about how she is doing business to get elected. From what I have heard is that she is doing a high pressure sales process in her attempt to get elected.

Makes me wonder if some backlash is beginning to develop?

Then the McCain/Hucklebee connection is still be talked about. I personally think it was about keeping Romeny from getting the delagates, versus some other cordinated effort.

Hucklebee or Romeny could be in a position to force McCain to deal with either one of them to actually get the nomination at the convention.

I would really like to see both parties have to decide who the nominee is at the convention because none of them have the required number of delegates to actually capture the nomination on their own. It truelly is shaping up as a possiblity with neither party having a candidate that has a solid lead to gain the nomination. McCain is close but if Hucklebee or Romny capture the same percentage of states that super tuesday demonstrated - I dont think McCain will reach the required number of delagates to capture the nomination outright by the convention.

This has the possiblity to tearing both parties apart at the convention and maybe the outcome will be third party becoming viable in the future of the Untied States election cycles.

CountArach

02-07-2008, 03:39

KukriKhan

02-07-2008, 04:27

With Super-Tuesday having come and gone, we'll put this thread to bed, and redirect attention to The new US Election Thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=98953), which we'll use until the party conventions.

Thanks for all contributions. :bow: