U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

[CountArach]

If you thought a 50 state strategy was impressive...

[drone]

Now for something different, your third party candidates!

Bob Barr has announced his intention to become the Libertarian party candidate. He must first win the nomination at the convention. Next Thursday. Talk about an accelerated schedule....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you thought a 50 state strategy was impressive...

Limbaugh had a blast noting that there ARE 57 states in the Organization of Islamic States Council....



Not that Limbaugh is trying to cause anyone any grief....




His "operation chaos" effort is seeking to keep the Democrats at each others throats as long as possible -- and I think he has aided that end.


I put Obama's mistake down to a brain-numbing schedule that has gone on for more than a year. The only value to this prolonged Democrat contest is that, should either of them win the general, there can be little doubt as to their stamina.

[TB666]

And now for something completely different, Clinton stating that Obama can't win because white people don't support him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0

[Tribesman]

Clinton stating that Obama can't win because white people don't support him.

Even better , uneducated white people prefer her

[CountArach]

Now for something different, your third party candidates!

Bob Barr has announced his intention to become the Libertarian party candidate. He must first win the nomination at the convention. Next Thursday. Talk about an accelerated schedule....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

He will easily win.

I can do a write-up on each of the third party candidates if anyone wants me to - I had to research them for a mod for an American politics game I play. Its a great game.

http://www.theoryspark.com/political...info/index.htm

[drone]

It will probably finally lay to rest the rumors that Dr. Paul is going to run as the Libertarian candidate. Barr used to be GOP, but thinks they have lost their way. I wonder if this will hurt McCain any. Probably not if Hillary scams her way to the Dem nomination, but maybe against Obama.

[Lemur]

[Rush Limbaugh's] "operation chaos" effort is seeking to keep the Democrats at each others throats as long as possible -- and I think he has aided that end.

Actually, every time I've seen someone break down the Republican crossover vote, it's been pretty evenly divided between Clinton and Obama, much along the lines of the Dems in each state. So it's very difficult to say that Limbaugh's jihad is having any measurable effect. It has, however, been excellent theater for himself and his faithful, so on that level it's a roaring success -- and Limbaugh is all about preaching to the converted, so hey, mission accomplished.

Meanwhile, it looks as though Senator Clinton may get back to her day job within three weeks. Fantastic if true. Also it appears that due to FEC rules, the most she will be able to recoup from her $11 million loans to her campaign may be $250,000. Even for people on the Clintons' level of wealth, that's a hit.

If she loses this race, and hasn't raised enough to pay herself back by the time Obama becomes the official nominee at the Democratic Convention in August, she's out for all but $250,000 of it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Actually, every time I've seen someone break down the Republican crossover vote, it's been pretty evenly divided between Clinton and Obama, much along the lines of the Dems in each state. So it's very difficult to say that Limbaugh's jihad is having any measurable effect.

I'm pretty sure than in the early states the crossover vote went heavily for Obama,

[Xiahou]

It will probably finally lay to rest the rumors that Dr. Paul is going to run as the Libertarian candidate. Barr used to be GOP, but thinks they have lost their way. I wonder if this will hurt McCain any. Probably not if Hillary scams her way to the Dem nomination, but maybe against Obama.

I'd be more likely to vote for a 3rd party if Hillary were the Democrat nominee. Hillary's presidency might be bad, but I firmly believe an Obama presidency could be near disastrous.

Either way, I don't want to vote for McCain- but I would be more likely to do so if it might mean keeping Obama out of office. I don't know a whole lot about Barr, but what I have seen would make him a better choice than McCain.

[Lemur]

George Will said we should watch the special election in Mississippi to gauge how deep the anti-Republican sentiment has set in. Here are the results.

Democrats picked up a northern Mississippi House seat in one of the most conservative-minded districts in the country Tuesday night -- an upset that will reverberate darkly through a House Republican caucus already reeling from losses in special elections in Illinois and Louisiana.

With all precincts reporting, the Democratic nominee, Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers, defeated Republican Greg Davis, 54 to 46 percent. Childers was able to expand his three-point margin of victory from the race's first round of balloting last month -- even as he faced an onslaught of Republican attacks. [...]

The results amount to a rebuke of the Republican strategy of trying nationalize the race by tying Childers to Sen. Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Obama held low approval ratings in the district, but the nearly $2 million that GOP groups poured into northern Mississippi failed to make the race a referendum on the national political landscape.

Republicans dispatched a lineup of heavy hitters in the campaign’s final week, including a pre-election stop Monday by Vice President Dick Cheney. President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and First Lady Laura Bush recorded automated calls urging voters to support Davis.

A GOP House leadership aide told Politico last week that “if we don’t win in Mississippi, I think you are going to see a lot of people running around here looking for windows to jump out of.”

-edit-

Bonus video clip: McCain versus O'Reilly on torture. Naturally, McCain comes off as a classy guy, while O'Reilly comes off like a sweaty idiot.

[Geoffrey S]

(contains swearing)

Saw this on tv yesterday. Is it real? What a nutter.

[KukriKhan]

That clip has to be 15 years old, at least (from his old gig at Inside Edition, before anyone knew he had a political opinion).

[Lemur]

Besides, that clip is an obvious imitation of the original.

[Xiahou]

Obama, again shows his inexperience and general cluelessness by claiming that the war in Iraq is draining much needed Arabic translators from Afghanistan... where they don't speak Arabic.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Edwards endorses obama.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...ZotbmUH5jiHaTQ

[CrossLOPER]

Obama, again shows his inexperience and general cluelessness by claiming that the war in Iraq is draining much needed Arabic translators from Afghanistan... where they don't speak Arabic.

Arabic speakers are vaporised instantly when they try to cross into Afghanistan.

[KukriKhan]

Obama, again shows his inexperience and general cluelessness by claiming that the war in Iraq is draining much needed Arabic translators from Afghanistan... where they don't speak Arabic.

Big whoopsie there. And I wonder when someone will ask why it's appropriate to now sport a flag-pin on one's lapel, when it wasn't OK in March (or February, or January...).

Somehow, I thought he'd explain how it wasn't necessary, was in fact non-american, to fly the flag on one's lapel, or SUV bumper... himself being the embodiment of the american dream and all.

:sigh: My high expectations* dashed again to the ground, in the service of political strategy.

*Full Disclosure: I've had a few beers.

[Beirut]

*Full Disclosure: I've had a few beers.

I checked with my sources; you're allowed.

[Lemur]

I'm old enough to remember the time when wearing a flag pin indicated that you were a military veteran. I distinctly remember the first time I saw a politico who wasn't a vet wearing one, and thinking, hey now ...

[Tribesman]

Big whoopsie there.

Not at all , since the pre invasion studies by the US military on Afghanistan stressed the importance of arabic in Afghanistan ,though for the life of me I can't think why but at a really wild guess I think that just possibly it has something to do with the students
Oh and another so called gaffe the article Xiahou posted picks up on , agriculture . Before the coilition turned Iraq into a basket case wasn't it known as the bread basket of the middle east .
So is it Obama making mistakes or is it Abc being dumb ?

[Geoffrey S]

Last I checked, Iraq was indeed the bread basket of the Middle East. At least, before Saddam ruined an up-and-coming economy by attacking first Iran and then Kuwait in attempts to shore up his regime - not a great idea when the opponents can blow up all the recently made infrastructure from a distance.

[Tribesman]

Last I checked, Iraq was indeed the bread basket of the Middle East.

Yep and the coilition countries are spending a fortune and sending lots of specialists in an attempt to get Iraqs second biggest industry back on track , but of course if they are sending so many to Iraq they cannot send them to Afghanistan , so Obamas "gaffes" were not gaffes at all .
So not only does it show that Abc reporters are indeed the clueless ones but it also shows xiahou as clueless for siezing on its report as an example

[Adrian II]

Obama, again shows his inexperience and general cluelessness by claiming that the war in Iraq is draining much needed Arabic translators from Afghanistan... where they don't speak Arabic.

McCain made similar mistakes, for instance when he said that Iran is training Al Qaeda terrorists and sending them into Iraq.

These are bloopers. Big deal. Politicians make bloopers, particularly during campaigns when they are asked to hop, skip and jump from one subject to the next and the public demands clear-cut answers on every one of them. But they aren't specialists. Look at past Presidents. Ronald Raegan for instance didn't have a clue about foreign policy, economics and a host of other subjects when he took office.

What is important is how they handle the real experts once they are in office: will they put the right people in the right spot to make sure they get the information they need to make the right decisions and to make sure that these decisions are carried out properly.

Lyndon Baines Johnson used to give people what was known as 'the Treatment'. His Wiki quotes two journalists about it:

Central to Johnson's control was "The Treatment",[20] described by two journalists:[21]

The Treatment could last ten minutes or four hours. It came, enveloping its target, at the LBJ Ranch swimming pool, in one of LBJ's offices, in the Senate cloakroom, on the floor of the Senate itself — wherever Johnson might find a fellow Senator within his reach.
Its tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint and the hint of threat. It was all of these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breathtaking, and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless.

They might have added that one of Johson's favourite punchlines used to be: 'I badly need your help on this one, you see. I can't run this country on my own.'

Could any of you Americans who follow this campaign tell me how the candidates compare when it comes to the quality of the people they appoint? Are they good judges of character? Can they work with people with whom they disagree?

[Lemur]

Adrian, all three candidates have good records of working with people whom they disagree. You can quibble with all three, but the truth of the matter is that they're all on record doing well in the bipartisan area.

I don't know about the quality of McCain's hires and appointees, and would be glad to hear anyone with solid info. Sen. Clinton's campaign has been a long, tawdry tale of in-fighting, wasted money, lack of communication, everybody pulling in different directions, etc. Does not look good. Sen. Obama's campaign, on the other hand, has been a first-rate operation from top to bottom. In all three candidate's cases, the campaigns are the largest organizations they've ever run.

Going back to the Republican malaise, I found this comment poignant:

The Republican Party does not represent conservatives.

Conservatives support Constitutionally-limited government, fiscal prudence, respect for individual rights, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and peaceful international relations.

The Republican Party currently supports unlimited government, runs catastrophic deficits, disdains individual rights, sees law as a tool for the powerful to crush the powerless, espouses an omnipotent and un-American “unitary executive,” and seeks to enrich its patrons with unlimited wars of aggression around the globe. It is conservative only in its rhetoric.

At least the Democrats are relatively honest about their philosophy of government.

I worked on Capitol Hill during the 1980s and I still revere President Reagan.

I’m supporting Barack Obama in 2008.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The California Supreme Court does its part to help the GOP by declaring a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

Yep and the coilition countries are spending a fortune and sending lots of specialists in an attempt to get Iraqs second biggest industry back on track , but of course if they are sending so many to Iraq they cannot send them to Afghanistan , so Obamas "gaffes" were not gaffes at all .

Can you back this up? I have no idea, but it seems as though you are making a leap. What if, and this may sound crazy, we have enough agricultural advisors for both countries?

Adrian, all three candidates have good records of working with people whom they disagree. You can quibble with all three, but the truth of the matter is that they're all on record doing well in the bipartisan area.

Now I know he is looking forward to shaking the hands of every dictator who has called for the death of America and Israel, but his record in the Senate has been quite partisan on all major issues and on most of the minor ones as well.

John McCann, on the other hand, seems too eager to work with liberals. He doesn't seem to have an affinity for terrorists though. +1

[Tribesman]

The California Supreme Court does its part to help the GOP by declaring a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional:

So they ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as it was discrimanatory and that a tradition of discrimination doesn't make that discrimination constitutionaly legal ...and that helps the GOP eh .
Says a lot about the GOP doesn't it since the basis of the ruling is the case that said you cannot ban legal unions based on the colour of someones skin .

But hey Rabbit I thought you loved the constitution , surely you should be in favour of this ruling

[Xiahou]

The California Supreme Court does its part to help the GOP by declaring a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

CR

Yeah really. We'll be seeing more "ban" amendments on the ballots in the near future I predict.

McCain made similar mistakes, for instance when he said that Iran is training Al Qaeda terrorists and sending them into Iraq.

Well first of all, I'd readily agree that McCain's comment made him look stupid too. But at least Iran is sending fighters into Iraq- just not Al Qaeda. He accidentally (apparently) said "Al Qaeda" instead of "terrorists" or "insurgents".

However, what could Obama have possibly meant? It wasn't just one term that was off the mark, it was the entire notion. By and large, Iraq and Afghanistan use entirely different sets of translators because they speak different languages. His entire point was erroneous as opposed to just misplaced verbage. It was definitely a gaffe.

Going back to the Republican malaise, I found this comment poignant:

The Republican Party does not represent conservatives.

Conservatives support Constitutionally-limited government, fiscal prudence, respect for individual rights, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and peaceful international relations.

The Republican Party currently supports unlimited government, runs catastrophic deficits, disdains individual rights, sees law as a tool for the powerful to crush the powerless, espouses an omnipotent and un-American “unitary executive,” and seeks to enrich its patrons with unlimited wars of aggression around the globe. It is conservative only in its rhetoric.

At least the Democrats are relatively honest about their philosophy of government.

I worked on Capitol Hill during the 1980s and I still revere President Reagan.

I’m supporting Barack Obama in 2008.

I guess that's the benefit of being a blank slate candidate. The easily-duped can put whatever values they want into his mold. Obama is the virtual antithesis of Reagan- Obama and Hillary even were insultingly accusing each other of supporting Reagan's policy at a debate and they both vociferously denied it. Yet a person who "reveres" Reagan endorses Obama.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tribesy, are you being purposely obtuse or do you really not understand?

I can see a lot of conservative discontent with the GOP, well put if exaggerated by the comment Lemur posted, but saying "McCain isn't close enough to my values so I'll vote someone much farther from my values" doesn't make sense. Throw your vote away in a manner that will make the GOP say "Hey, there's a bunch of people unhappy with us" by voting Libertarian or something.

CR