U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Wait, so now Republicans are Constitution-minded folk who have a problem with Homeland Security, wiretapping, torture, the Patriot Act...?

It is really annoying how you guys cheerlead for this stuff when your party is doing it, and then later, if it fails miserably, or proves unpopular, or exceeds its boundaries, it's the Dems fault for enabling it. If you want any credibility in being a Republican and criticizing these policies, saying that the Dems did it all does not serve your cause, whatsoever. Especially since the one power Dems might have been able to wield while a minority, filibustering, was threatened with the nuclear option and the arbitrary changing of the rules of Congress.

Obama didn't vote for war in Iraq. That alone makes him smarter than almost every single Republican and a majority of the rest of the Democrats.

---

Again you need to be careful with the "you" pronoun. Neither party is ideal. Both want power, which is the point of KukriKhan's question. You aren't cynical enough yet to understand that both parties do not have the country's best interests at heart. They just want to be reelected. They will promise change, instill fear, and lie, lie, lie. Anything to win that vote. The only difference between the two is the segment of population that they pander to.

Anytime Congress votes on a bill that gives them or the president more power, they need to ask themselves, "What would the opposing party do with this if they take over in the next election?" Being the short-sighted, election-cycle driven creatures that they are, they fail to think like this. So when Pres. Obama has the NSA wiretapping the staff of GOP congressmen, they only have themselves to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

No, McCain had been doing nothing BUT attacking since the very beginning of campaign season. It was Palin, not the attack strategy, that created McCain's surge.

---

Agreed, McCain's lead was from a huge bounce he got from Palin and the convention. She was a surprise and something new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Again you need to be careful with the "you" pronoun. Neither party is ideal. Both want power, which is the point of KukriKhan's question. You aren't cynical enough yet to understand that both parties do not have the country's best interests at heart. They just want to be reelected. They will promise change, instill fear, and lie, lie, lie. Anything to win that vote. The only difference between the two is the segment of population that they pander to.

Anytime Congress votes on a bill that gives them or the president more power, they need to ask themselves, "What would the opposing party do with this if they take over in the next election?" Being the short-sighted, election-cycle driven creatures that they are, they fail to think like this. So when Pres. Obama has the NSA wiretapping the staff of GOP congressmen, they only have themselves to blame.

---

Well this is where we veer off from each other then, I do not believe both parties are equally poorly performing, equally Constitution shredding, or equally power grasping-at-any-cost, or equally incompetent and equally corrupt on every possible and conceivable issue that has ever come before Congress. Yes, there are bipartisan failures. But Republicans excuse trends or even dominant efforts over the course of years by pointing out a few Dems that voted with them, or vice-versa. If the Congress is dominated by your party, pursuing the things in line with your ideology, take some responsibility for it. Don't hide behind "oh well um that guy over there, he voted for it too, even though his party was in the small minority and we bullied them into not wasting their filibustering credits." I'm not going, as a Dem, to say my party is blameless, or has always voted wisely on every issue. I refuse as a Dem, however, to take upon my shoulders equal responsibility for things Reps do, with Rep Congressional majorities, Rep judiciaries, a Rep executive, even if some Dems foolishly went along with them, or were right-of-center Dems I didn't help elect. Look how quickly since Dems taking the slim majority with Congress, the Reps have been quick to wash their hands of any and everything it has done-- even if they were bills that started with their own party, or were heavily stumped for by their party leadership. Thats the kind of double standard that is intolerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Well this is where we veer off from each other then, I do not believe both parties are equally poorly performing, equally Constitution shredding, or equally power grasping-at-any-cost, or equally incompetent and equally corrupt on every possible and conceivable issue that has ever come before Congress. Yes, there are bipartisan failures. But Republicans excuse trends or even dominant efforts over the course of years by pointing out a few Dems that voted with them, or vice-versa. If the Congress is dominated by your party, pursuing the things in line with your ideology, take some responsibility for it. Don't hide behind "oh well um that guy over there, he voted for it too, even though his party was in the small minority and we bullied them into not wasting their filibustering credits." I'm not going, as a Dem, to say my party is blameless, or has always voted wisely on every issue. I refuse as a Dem, however, to take upon my shoulders equal responsibility for things Reps do, with Rep Congressional majorities, Rep judiciaries, a Rep executive, even if some Dems foolishly went along with them, or were right-of-center Dems I didn't help elect. Look how quickly since Dems taking the slim majority with Congress, the Reps have been quick to wash their hands of any and everything it has done-- even if they were bills that started with their own party, or were heavily stumped for by their party leadership. Thats the kind of double standard that is intolerable.

---

Koga, I'm trying to dial in your age. You're what... 19? 20? I'm guessing things like "Project Carnivore" and Ruby Ridge mean nothing to you, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Koga, I'm trying to dial in your age. You're what... 19? 20? I'm guessing things like "Project Carnivore" and Ruby Ridge mean nothing to you, correct?

---

I know exactly what Carnivore is. I have a friend who was an Arabic language translator for Carnivore back in the earliest days. She actually spends a good deal of her time these days debunking hate sites which are mistranslating the Qu'ran, or quoting bits of it out of context. One of the rather glaring ones she debunked had put up a translation of the chapter on 7alal (Muslim version of Kosher food preparation) and said it was referring to the decapitation and bloodletting of infidels. She had previously done translation work for the army, mostly in Bahrain.

I'm 29. And, I've been listening to people tell me I'll be more cynical and more conservative as I age since I was 17 or 18. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I know exactly what Carnivore is. I have a friend who was an Arabic language translator for Carnivore back in the earliest days. She actually spends a good deal of her time these days debunking hate sites which are mistranslating the Qu'ran, or quoting bits of it out of context. One of the rather glaring ones she debunked had put up a translation of the chapter on 7alal (Muslim version of Kosher food preparation) and said it was referring to the decapitation and bloodletting of infidels. She had previously done translation work for the army, mostly in Bahrain.

I'm 29. And, I've been listening to people tell me I'll be more cynical and more conservative as I age since I was 17 or 18. ;)

---

So, explain to me exactly then how a computer program developed under the Janet Reno Justice Department that opened and read everyone's emails and monitored their phone conversations exempts the Democrats from blame when it comes to respect for Constitutional Law? Were Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft active leaders in the Clinton administration?

Now, I know what you're thinking... that Don Corleone, there he goes again, defending the Republicans. But I'm not. I don't agree with the transgressions against liberty of the past 8 years. But that doesn't mean that it all began on January 19th, 2001. It is entirely possible for me to criticize the Democrats without playing apologist for Republican transgressions, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do here.

All I'm trying to say is if you put on your rose-colored glasses and assume that your party will behave perfectly admirably once given both houses of Congress and the Presidency, you're in for a big shock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So, explain to me exactly then how a computer program developed under the Janet Reno Justice Department that opened and read everyone's emails and monitored their phone conversations exempts the Democrats from blame when it comes to respect for Constitutional Law? Were Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft active leaders in the Clinton administration?

Now, I know what you're thinking... that Don Corleone, there he goes again, defending the Republicans. But I'm not. I don't agree with the transgressions against liberty of the past 8 years. But that doesn't mean that it all began on January 19th, 2001. It is entirely possible for me to criticize the Democrats without playing apologist for Republican transgressions, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do here.

All I'm trying to say is if you put on your rose-colored glasses and assume that your party will behave perfectly admirably once given both houses of Congress and the Presidency, you're in for a big shock.

---

I'm not viewing anything through rose colored glasses. You made a specific case and I agree with you, though I would argue with you that the Carnivore program, which is now inactive, did not establish the entrenched, presumably permanent violation of privacy that the Patriot Act did/does.

What I'm responding to, if I need to clarify, is a lazy thinking, no-blame, no-guilt mindset of "well, everyone involved is all so equally corrupt, all so equally ideologically bent in the same direction, that it really makes no difference. Every party has participated equally in everything we don't like." On a lazy level that is probably true if you count even a single vote as the whole party endorsing something. And I see a lot of that around here. Or someone's record on a single vote either condemning, or vindicating, them, even if the rest of their career was work towards the opposite direction. As convenient for character assasination.

To give an example, the same sort of thinking that Katrina was stateandlocalstateandlocalstateandlocalstateandlocal. No Federal blame, no poor Federal response, the problem was stateandlocalstateandlocal. And there are people who listen to too much Rush Limbaugh and think the problem was either black racial apathy and/or corrupt Democratic politicians not addressing the problem, even though they'd screamed on the floor of Congress for attention for the levees year after year and been dismissed. Katrina was a case of (IMHO), that maybe people who think the best policy is no government should not be entrusted to run a government. Someone who said "oh well, all the parties are equally corrupt, they all stick in incompetent lackeys" would be overlooking, for instance, Clinton actually appointing someone well qualified, and Bush appointing a horse rancher to run FEMA. Just as one example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

If you could sneak one question into tomorrow's McCain-Obama debate, what would it be?

---

What is the substance of the 10th ammendment to the Constitution of the United States and why is it important?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Interesting. The Obama campaign puts out a film about McCain and the Keating scandal. I guess they're showing that dredging up old scandal is a game two can play.

---

Lemur:

Every Presidential election I've witnessed has featured negative advertising regarding the opposition either by the candidates themselves or by their fellow travelers. Every election, I hear someone say that this is "so negative it will cause a backlash." I have yet to see it. Negative works as well as any tool in the kit.

What hasn't changed and what won't change before November is that we are embroiled in a lengthy war that many Americans do not understand and cannot understand when we will have achieved victory AND we are poised on the brink of the deepest recession in a generation -- which most still don't understand but can sense coming. Since this all happened on Bush's watch (yes, I'm aware the issues underlying both issues go back several administrations from both parties, but our electorate mostly slept through history class :wall:), it's going to be uphill for McCain no matter how negative he goes.

Add in, as Kukri said, the fact that Obama hasn't really done anything evil -- no "smoking gun" and McCain-Palin don't have a lot of ammo to put down range.

I still stick with my original call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

What is the substance of the 10th ammendment to the Constitution of the United States and why is it important?

---

Simple- its not important anymore because its nearly an imaginary concept, sans the death penalty.:no:

beleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

What is the substance of the 10th ammendment to the Constitution of the United States and why is it important?

---

The answer is that there is none and it is not. I can't imagine either candidate answering anything else if they were being honest.

I don't know why we have a Constitution anymore. It has become like the bible. "This means that, even though it more obviously means this, this is literal, this is figurative and this part shouldn't be in there because I don't want it to be".

It doesn't protect anything anymore because people don't even recognize it as having authority unless it agrees with their point.

If the 10th is moribund, then let's stop the :daisy:, abolish the states and all the useless and expensive folderol, and set up regional administrative zones under regional gauleiters governors.

:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The answer is that there is none and it is not. I can't imagine either candidate answering anything else if they were being honest.

I don't know why we have a Constitution anymore. It has become like the bible. "This means that, even though it more obviously means this, this is literal, this is figurative and this part shouldn't be in there because I don't want it to be".

It doesn't protect anything anymore because people don't even recognize it as having authority unless it agrees with their point.

---

People don't even read it Tuff. Honestly. And even the ones who do half the time don't understand it, or walk away with a misunderstanding of it which they insist is the Constitutional truth.

The reason our democracy is dysfunctional, is because the framers never intended for it to be an unwatchdogged system where the people either just trusted in the leaders to handle things or were cynical and apathetic and figured all the leaders were all bad and so we should shrug and ignore politics. Which I think constitutes a big majority of the electorate. What brings them out to voting day anyway, usually one or two issues, taxes or prejudices. That's it, pretty much. You can't fester and broil over the evil of the Supreme Court or this party or that party, you ultimately have to blame the complacent citizen who thinks his civic duty extends no further than dodging jury duty and paying sales tax on a latte.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

If the 10th is moribund, then let's stop the :daisy:, abolish the states and all the useless and expensive folderol, and set up regional administrative zones under regional gauleiters governors.

:shame:

---

Ah, but Seamus, then the peasantry and serfs er, citizens, might start sniffing that something was awry in their constitutional rights.:smash:

I've got my fingers crossed, hoping that DevDave will be Proconsul of my Administrative Region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

People don't even read it Tuff. Honestly. And even the ones who do half the time don't understand it, or walk away with a misunderstanding of it which they insist is the Constitutional truth.

The reason our democracy is dysfunctional, is because the framers never intended for it to be an unwatchdogged system where the people either just trusted in the leaders to handle things or were cynical and apathetic and figured all the leaders were all bad and so we should shrug and ignore politics. Which I think constitutes a big majority of the electorate. What brings them out to voting day anyway, usually one or two issues, taxes or prejudices. That's it, pretty much. You can't fester and broil over the evil of the Supreme Court or this party or that party, you ultimately have to blame the complacent citizen who thinks his civic duty extends no further than dodging jury duty and paying sales tax on a latte.

---

I believe in the Constitution, I was begin facetious. Would you say that you acknowledge the 10th amendment in your ideological outlook, or that you ignore it? What about the 2nd? The Third?

I try to go out of my way to acknowledge the Constitution in my outlook. Can you say the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I believe in the Constitution, I was begin facetious. Would you say that you acknowledge the 10th amendment in your ideological outlook, or that you ignore it? What about the 2nd? The Third?

I try to go out of my way to acknowledge the Constitution in my outlook. Can you say the same?

---

I am not sure how that question even follows what I was saying. You may take the Constitution seriously but what I was saying was that most Americans have not even bothered to read it since they were forced to in the fifth grade. One citizen can't be a watchful eye over the government. Two citizens can't. It has to be a civic commitment or else it's gone. And I think it's long gone, in the case of the U.S. The viewership of American Idol outshines the election debates. What does that say about American people?

In my view, you could replace all the judiciaries in the country, you could vote everyone in Congress out on their rear ends five times straight. But that's not the source of the cancer, the source of the cancer is a spoiled and sheltered American citizen who thinks the point of being in a "free country" is to be free from even worrying about government or politics or other boring and tedious and depressing stuff, and get back to his sitcoms.

Do you disagree with that, or no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I am not sure how that question even follows what I was saying. You may take the Constitution seriously but what I was saying was that most Americans have not even bothered to read it since they were forced to in the fifth grade. One citizen can't be a watchful eye over the government. Two citizens can't. It has to be a civic commitment or else it's gone. And I think it's long gone, in the case of the U.S. The viewership of American Idol outshines the election debates. What does that say about American people?

In my view, you could replace all the judiciaries in the country, you could vote everyone in Congress out on their rear ends five times straight. But that's not the source of the cancer, the source of the cancer is a spoiled and sheltered American citizen who thinks the point of being in a "free country" is to be free from even worrying about government or politics or other boring and tedious and depressing stuff, and get back to his sitcoms.

Do you disagree with that, or no?

---

I'll answer if you answer. What do you think about the 10th amendment? Do you think the Federal government should be legally bound by it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I'll answer if you answer. What do you think about the 10th amendment? Do you think the Federal government should be legally bound by it?

---

Let me answer it delicately as I can. Yes, with the caveat that even the framers had an eye towards the future, in terms that there would be laws or amendments necessary to "bring about a more perfect union", things which intersected either the general welfare, or human civil rights which transcend the rights of states to intersect. That is basically already understood since other amendments to the Constitution recognized specific things; freedom of religion, freedom of speech, later, the prohibition of slavery (which was legal and hotly defended as within states' rights for a lot of our history.) So let me be clear, and say, that yes, in principle, those things not empowered to the Federal Government fall to the States. Which is not the same thing as saying those things in the domain of the states are forever and sacredly held as states only issues, especially where the argument can be made that allowing such permits wide latitudes in qualifying or even restricting either the general welfare or the civil rights of individual citizens. A good example being, the eventual recongition of slavery as an issue not of property and state based regulation of trade, but a human rights issue which transcended the right of individual states to decide for themselves on the matter. Does that make sense?

That would be my "diplomatic" answer. On a blunter note, Tuff, I'm part Native American. You will not get so much as a raised eyebrow out of me that the U.S. government can, does, has, and will continue to break its own precepts left and right as expedient, or as political pressure or social pressure demands, or as economic considerations dictate. The U.S. Government "assigned" itself all kinds of rights that it had no right to declare for itself, such as plenary power over Indian peoples. Whether or not you agree with that, let me phrase it to you this way. The U.S. government recognizes the sovereignty of Indian nations. Simultaneously, it declares plenary (fancy legalese for "complete") power over Indian nations. Does that make any sense to you, logically speaking? Yet that is the case. So, a failure to correspond perfectly to the strictest interpretation of the letter of the ideals in the Constitution, is not a shock to me, is not new, didn't start with "activist judges" or Roe V. Wade or any of the other things that people get ideologically bent out of shape over. That's a pragmatic answer, even though it's not pleasant.

P.S. You would not get any argument out of me that the Federal government has bloated into something that exists too much to expand and protect itself and perpetuate its own power. The problem I have with the "Fundamentalist" (excuse the term) interpretation of the strictest narrow reading of the Constitution is that few people outside of Constitutional scholar circles literally want to return to the bare precepts in a consistent fashion. Ideologues want to SURGICALLY apply those precepts just for specific topics, such as Roe v Wade or other wedge issues. That is the reason I have issue with much of the crowd that cries for small government and returning to states rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Let me answer it delicately as I can. Yes, with the caveat that even the framers had an eye towards the future, in terms that there would be laws or amendments necessary to "bring about a more perfect union", things which intersected either the general welfare, or human civil rights which transcend the rights of states to intersect. That is basically already understood since other amendments to the Constitution recognized specific things; freedom of religion, freedom of speech, later, the prohibition of slavery (which was legal and hotly defended as within states' rights for a lot of our history.) So let me be clear, and say, that yes, in principle, those things not empowered to the Federal Government fall to the States. Which is not the same thing as saying those things in the domain of the states are forever and sacredly held as states only issues, especially where the argument can be made that allowing such permits wide latitudes in qualifying or even restricting either the general welfare or the civil rights of individual citizens. A good example being, the eventual recongition of slavery as an issue not of property and state based regulation of trade, but a human rights issue which transcended the right of individual states to decide for themselves on the matter. Does that make sense?

---

Technically, slavery isn't a good example here. By ratifying the 13th Amendment, the abolishment of slavery became part of the Constitution, and therefore covered as a Federal power under the 10th.

The 10th isn't just states rights, it's the people's rights as well, and the limitation of federal power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

The Constitution is meant to both define the framework of the federal government, and define the limit of it's power. Since the federal government (i.e. the Supremes) no longer really gives the 10th a second glance, I'm not really sure where this country stands.

I would be curious to hear the response to this question from the candidates. And I would be even more curious to see Ron Paul's head explode as he hears the responses. :bomb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Technically, slavery isn't a good example here. By ratifying the 13th Amendment, the abolishment of slavery became part of the Constitution, and therefore covered as a Federal power under the 10th.

The 10th isn't just states rights, it's the people's rights as well, and the limitation of federal power.
The Constitution is meant to both define the framework of the federal government, and define the limit of it's power. Since the federal government (i.e. the Supremes) no longer really gives the 10th a second glance, I'm not really sure where this country stands.

I would be curious to hear the response to this question from the candidates. And I would be even more curious to see Ron Paul's head explode as he hears the responses. :bomb:

---

Exactly. People used to know what the Constitution said and then strove to change the bad and add the good. Now we just ignore it - it is sick. We are Constitutional Republic that rejects its own Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Since the federal government (i.e. the Supremes) no longer really gives the 10th a second glance, I'm not really sure where this country stands.

---

Eh, I wouldn't say that. The 10th showed some life a little over a decade ago with the Lopez decision and then in 2000 with the Morrison decision that struck down Biden's Violence Against Women Act that he loves to bring up.

It's still not to the point where I would like, but the Tenth isn't totally dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Technically, slavery isn't a good example here. By ratifying the 13th Amendment, the abolishment of slavery became part of the Constitution, and therefore covered as a Federal power under the 10th.

The 10th isn't just states rights, it's the people's rights as well, and the limitation of federal power.
The Constitution is meant to both define the framework of the federal government, and define the limit of it's power. Since the federal government (i.e. the Supremes) no longer really gives the 10th a second glance, I'm not really sure where this country stands.

I would be curious to hear the response to this question from the candidates. And I would be even more curious to see Ron Paul's head explode as he hears the responses. :bomb:

---

I think that most (sane) people believe that in practice, a balance between no right of government to interfere and a duty of government to interfere is necessary to make a lot of the other things "happen", or "work." I do not dispute that you or Tuff's interpretation is correct in the most stringent sense. But I do disagree that the strictest interpretation would create a freer, better society overall, especially because of my previously stated concerns that people tend to want to adopt that philosophy just for specific political agendas and not overall.

And Tuff, you said you'd answer if I did.

Well, Koga, the Constitution itself IS the balance most sane people look for. It enumerates what the federal government can and cannot do. The 10th ammendment is pretty darn direct, for Constitutional language. Considered in context of being the very last statement of the original document, it's very telling.

It says: If this document didn't already authorize the federal government to do something, then it's not authorized. If the federal government wants to do it anyway, they'll have to change this document. Ala the 13th ammendment, et. al.

Your point that "well, we want the government to work around it anyway" rings a little hollow to me. You're making an argument for limitless government, whether you're aware of it or not.

If I may shift focus back to the election for a moment, I am getting a little concerned with the October negative-fest from McCain. I don't think this strategy can help him win (here's a good analysis of why), but it may encourage certain loony people. It's one thing to question your opponent's capabilities and character, it's quite another to suggest that he's evil. This could make the Secret Service's job a lot harder ...

"One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," [Palin] said. ("Boooo!" said the crowd.) "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,' " she continued. ("Boooo!" the crowd repeated.)

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...afpgetty_2.jpg

-edit-

Also, The Economist has a series of articles about the election which begin here. If you can't access it because it's subscriber-based, let me know and I'll reprint the articles under spoil tags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, Koga, the Constitution itself IS the balance most sane people look for. It enumerates what the federal government can and cannot do. The 10th ammendment is pretty darn direct, for Constitutional language. Considered in context of being the very last statement of the original document, it's very telling.

It says: If this document didn't already authorize the federal government to do something, then it's not authorized. If the federal government wants to do it anyway, they'll have to change this document. Ala the 13th ammendment, et. al.

Your point that "well, we want the government to work around it anyway" rings a little hollow to me. You're making an argument for limitless government, whether you're aware of it or not.

---

I'm just stating it as it is, Don. Not as a strict interpretation of the law would entail. Everyone's always looking for the ideological slant around here. I never said "I want gov't to work around it anyway." I gave my answer as to why I think it has never fully observed it in a strict sense, and then I gave a blunt answer about how contradictions of our governing principles is nothing new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If I may shift focus back to the election for a moment, I am getting a little concerned with the October negative-fest from McCain. I don't think this strategy can help him win (here's a good analysis of why), but it may encourage certain loony people. It's one thing to question your opponent's capabilities and character, it's quite another to suggest that he's evil. This could make the Secret Service's job a lot harder ...

"One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," [Palin] said. ("Boooo!" said the crowd.) "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,' " she continued. ("Boooo!" the crowd repeated.)

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...afpgetty_2.jpg

-edit-

Also, The Economist has a series of articles about the election which begin here. If you can't access it because it's subscriber-based, let me know and I'll reprint the articles under spoil tags.

---

I've heard quite a lot of this, not only people yelling that he's a terrorist but to kill him. And yes, it's a concern. But I would not expect it to stop or for McCain to call for moderation.

Neither candidate is doing anything practical to shut up the rabid supporters from his side of the aisle. Both sides have them and all of the rabid fringers would serve us best by qualifying for Darwin awards -- not that it's likely to happen. But at least the rabid hate-mongers from both sides keep the bulk of the public disgusted with the whole process and willing to ignore who gets elected.:dizzy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Neither candidate is doing anything practical to shut up the rabid supporters from his side of the aisle. Both sides have them and all of the rabid fringers would serve us best by qualifying for Darwin awards -- not that it's likely to happen. But at least the rabid hate-mongers from both sides keep the bulk of the public disgusted with the whole process and willing to ignore who gets elected.:dizzy:

---

Let's not be obtuse though. I don't think McCain supporters are sincerely afraid at any moment McCain might be assasinated, unless it's by mother nature. At least that concern must be nowhere near as high as it is on the other side. You know, the old "glass ceiling" of how high black men go. ;)