NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I was taking an inter-European flight the other day and I decided to purchase my favorite magazine. I was in mid-flight when I came across this interesting article and I thought, as NSG is infected with Obamamania, that I'd post it here when I got to a computer.

From The Economist: (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=most_commented&story_id=11885292&fsrc=nwlgafree)
Is America beginning to weary of “Yes we can”?

http://media.economist.com/images/20080809/D3208US0.jpg

THE most politically potent emotion of the past 18 months has been Obamamania. This condition allowed a neophyte senator from Illinois to seize his party’s nomination from the jaws of the formidable Clinton machine. The big question now hanging over American politics is whether Obamamania is giving way to Obama fatigue.

Mr Obama has everything going for him in the race for the White House. Almost 80% of Americans think that the country is heading in the wrong direction. People are disgruntled with George Bush’s Republicans and worried sick about the economy. Mr Obama is also running a far better campaign than his rival—smooth and professional where the McCain campaign is slapdash and amateurish.

Yet the polls tell a different story. A Gallup/USA Today poll showed John McCain beating Mr Obama by 49% to 45% among likely voters. The cash-rich Obama campaign has been pouring money into the battleground states. But, if anything, the polls in those states are tightening. Generic Democrats enjoy a 10-15 point advantage over Republicans. But add the names Obama and McCain to the mix and you get a statistical tie.

This suggests that, for all their energy and professionalism, the Democrats may have made a big strategic error: allowing the election to become a referendum on their candidate rather than a verdict on the Bush years. This was probably inevitable if you run a mould-breaking candidate (in retrospect, the Democrats might have been better advised to run a white male rather than getting into a slugfest between a woman and a black). But Mr Obama is hardly a master of deflecting attention from himself.

The junior senator from Illinois is strikingly self-obsessed even by the standards of politicians. He has already written two autobiographies. He seems to be happiest as a politician addressing huge crowds of adoring fans. His convention speech at Denver was always going to be an extraordinary moment, given that he will be delivering it on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. But Mr Obama decided to move it to a local sports stadium that has room for 75,000.

There are worrying signs, for the Democrats, that Obama fatigue is beginning to set in. A Pew poll this week showed that 76% of respondents named Mr Obama as the candidate they had heard most about compared with 11% who named Mr McCain. But close to half (48%) of Pew’s interviewees said that they had been hearing too much about Mr Obama—and 22% said that they have formed a less favourable opinion of him recently.

Mr Obama is undoubtedly an enormously talented public speaker. But his rhetorical tropes can begin to pall, particularly in a campaign that has already gone on for 18 months. How many more times can Americans hear the phrase “Yes we can” without wondering whether they really want to? George Will, a conservative columnist, notes that Disraeli’s gibe about Gladstone might well apply to Mr Obama—he is “inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”.

Mr Obama may be ill-served by his hallelujah corner in the press. The Pew survey suggests that the frenzy of media coverage of Mr Obama is creating a backlash. He may also be ill-served by some of his more over-the-top supporters who treat him like a rock star rather than a statesman. “Barack Obama is inspiring us like a desert lover, a Washington Valentino,” Lili Haydn wrote in the Huffington Post. “Couples all over America are making love again and shouting ‘Yes we can’ as they climax.”

The McCain team has been quick to spot its opportunity. It has released a series of advertisements that are designed to pummel the president-in-waiting. One quotes an NBC reporter confessing that “it’s almost hard to remain objective while covering Obama because the energy of the campaign is so infectious.” Another compares him to Moses. Mr McCain also keeps saying that Mr Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign. This onslaught cleverly tries to turn Mr Obama’s qualities—his youthful good looks and devoted supporters—into weaknesses. It also sends a clear message to voters: Mr McCain equals country first, Mr Obama equals Obama first.

Issues, not orgasms
This strategy is far from risk-free for Mr McCain. It threatens to dilute his brand as a straight-talking anti-Washington reformer. He has surrounded himself with veterans of the George Bush-Karl Rove machine: the man behind the latest ads, Steve Schmidt, was the person Mr Rove put in charge of the Bush war-room during the 2004 election. Mr McCain has also engaged in some decidedly unstraight talk. He has complained loudly that Mr Obama failed to visit wounded soldiers in Germany, ignoring the fact that his rival had visited injured troops in Iraq.

Mr McCain needs to win over undecided and independent voters if he is to have any chance of winning the White House. He also needs to come up with his own version of a “change” agenda for an electorate that is desperate for something new. But the more he employs Mr Bush’s footsoldiers and borrows from Mr Rove’s playbook, the more he opens himself up to the criticism that he is offering another four years of Mr Bush. The same polls that show the race narrowing also show that Mr McCain has not managed to break 46% in the Gallup tracking poll since Mr Obama won the nomination.

The Obama machine also remains formidable: it is impossible to wander around American cities these days without coming across enthusiastic young canvassers. But Mr Obama needs to reframe the election so that it is less about him and more about the issues. And he needs to abandon the rhetorical high ground for the nitty-gritty of policy. Otherwise the general election could prove to be the second coronation in a row, after Hillary’s implosion, that has ended with a surprise.
Anyway, I thought this was quite interesting, as it was the first article that I've read that has noted what many people I know, including myself, have been thinking. Either way, this election is going to be awful as, in my opinion, both McCain and Obama are awful candidates. How unfortunate.

What do you guys think of this article? Have you guys felt or spoken to anyone who has felt this Obama fatigue?

I deliberately stopped watching the news because of the Obama circle-jerk.

"Mr McCain needs to win over undecided and independent voters if he is to have any chance of winning the White House. He also needs to come up with his own version of a “change” agenda for an electorate that is desperate for something new. But the more he employs Mr Bush’s footsoldiers and borrows from Mr Rove’s playbook, the more he opens himself up to the criticism that he is offering another four years of Mr Bush. The same polls that show the race narrowing also show that Mr McCain has not managed to break 46% in the Gallup tracking poll since Mr Obama won the nomination."

Important.

Also important is that McCain doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly noteworthy. he releases a bunch of stupid attack ads which gain more support for Hilton's cause than his, and keep Obama in everyone's mind. This is a flaw in his campaign, and the more he mentions Obama and compares and contrasts with him, the more he will just keep Obama in the press.

What he could do with is a batch of campaigns which are just about him. And not anyone else. Just him.

"
What he could do with is a batch of campaigns which are just about him. And not anyone else. Just him.
Better yet, not about him, but about his policies. Nobody is attracted by McCain. He's old, not well spoken and old. Why not simply get to the point by campaigning just about his policies. Plain and simple, telling Americans what he's gonna do, how he's gonna do it and why it's the best option. Totally avoid Obama, but avoid his own character aswell, where people can pick at him for his age and such. And certainly relax about the war veteran stuff. It's admirable, indeed, but it is in no way THE qualification for assuming the highest office in the world. Plus, it's getting old.

*snip*

I don't know, if I was McCain I would hammer home the 'All-American' where his ads feature himself, and then 'Obama-fatigue' where featuring Obama.

Simple messages work, 'I'm a cowboy' seems to win elections these last 30 years.

I have had enough of the US election since the start of the year.

I am not even in America yet our news services felt as if the candidate selection should either be the first news story or one of the first and I am sick and tired of hearing about it now that both candidates have been decided it has dropped off but we still get stories quite often except when he was in Germany (for some bizarre reason is there a lot of voters in Berlin?) then that was quite a high news story, just have your election already please.

Better yet, not about him, but about his policies. Nobody is attracted by McCain. He's old, not well spoken and old. Why not simply get to the point by campaigning just about his policies. Plain and simple, telling Americans what he's gonna do, how he's gonna do it and why it's the best option. Totally avoid Obama, but avoid his own character aswell, where people can pick at him for his age and such. And certainly relax about the war veteran stuff. It's admirable, indeed, but it is in no way THE qualification for assuming the highest office in the world. Plus, it's getting old.
Aye, the war veteran stuff does my head in. Do Americans really see him as more qualified to handle foreign affairs because he was put in solitary and tortured by the Vietnamese?

I don't know, if I was McCain I would hammer home the 'All-American' where his ads feature himself, and then 'Obama-fatigue' where featuring Obama.

Simple messages work, 'I'm a cowboy' seems to win elections these last 30 years.

Its the 'Reagan Democrats' thing again. Many Americans who could vote Democrat prefer the concept of McCain the war-hero to Obama the arch-liberal.

"A Gallup/USA Today poll showed John McCain beating Mr Obama by 49% to 45% among likely voters."

but the exact opposite plus a bit for their actual sample. they had a massive swing between registered voters and 'likely voters', meaning that obama's lead among gallups 'unlikely voters' was 61% - 7%. this is because their 'likely voter' model is stupid.

see: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/on-likely-voters-and-long-tail.html

Obama...the worst thing to happen to America since its beginning.

Frankly, i've been sick of election news since April. Even here, every little thing is plastered widely on the media, and it sickens me totally. I sometimes wish it was Xmas. At least then we'll have all that @$%& behind us...unless we see a repeat of 2000, of course. :gundge:

Obama...the worst thing to happen to America since its beginning.

Care to explain?

Care to explain?

Well let me first state I'm not a big fan of McCain either, although I do think he is the better choice. I disagree with Obamas economic, social, and foreign policies. But that isn't the reason I think he is the worst thing to happen to America.

The reason I think he is the worst thing to happen to America is because what he repersents. He repersents the "Rock Star Canidate." He is showing that a few well placed words and charisma can get you into the White House. He is proving that experience counts for nothing, and that our country would rather elect someone with no foriegn policy experience and very little domestic experience instead of a politician whose been on the hill since the '70s. We've already seen what inexperience can lead to with the Bush Administration, so why do we want to elect another inexperience person to the presidency?

Was I the only one who thought this thread was going to be about sex?

The reason I think he is the worst thing to happen to America is because what he repersents. He repersents the "Rock Star Canidate." He is showing that a few well placed words and charisma can get you into the White House. He is proving that experience counts for nothing, and that our country would rather elect someone with no foriegn policy experience and very little domestic experience instead of a politician whose been on the hill since the '70s. We've already seen what inexperience can lead to with the Bush Administration, so why do we want to elect another inexperience person to the presidency?

yes history has shown us that experience (or rather being older) is everything when it comes to politics

Was I the only one who thought this thread was going to be about sex?

I don't really shout anything myself, but you can always tell who does can't you ;)

We've already seen what inexperience can lead to with the Bush Administration, so why do we want to elect another inexperience person to the presidency?

Well, Lincoln had almost no political experience, either, and look what he accomplished

yes history has shown us that experience (or rather being older) is everything when it comes to politics

It may not be everything, but it does have a lot to do with it.

yes history has shown us that experience (or rather being older) is everything when it comes to politics

Which is why JFK was such a failure.

Well, Lincoln had almost no political experience, either, and look what he accomplished

You can't compare 1860s America to 2008 America or the world for that fact.

I have not, but maybe that's because I tend to avoid the "soundclip" election style. I've read speeches and commentary transcripts, although, I do agree that the material is there for people to become overwhelmed with Obama.

Aye, the war veteran stuff does my head in. Do Americans really see him as more qualified to handle foreign affairs because he was put in solitary and tortured by the Vietnamese?
I think people usually see it as he's willing to put everything down for his nation, even himself....where as, like the article says, Obama puts himself before everything.

That's the idea, atleast. Anyway, I'm a conservative and the war vet thing has gotten old. I admire and respect him for it, but it's in no way what would stick out to me when reviewing a candidates resume for the job of President. Know what I mean?
except when he was in Germany (for some bizarre reason is there a lot of voters in Berlin?) then that was quite a high news story, just have your election already please.
It was to feed to his Kennedy-image.....He went there and gave a really pro-European speech to Europe's most important country...and the comparisons to Kennedy's [and even Reagan's] speeches in Germany were naturally unavoidable.

I was reading all about it in Swiss newspapers.:rolleyes:

Was I the only one who thought this thread was going to be about sex?

Join the crowd.

yes history has shown us that experience (or rather being older) is everything when it comes to politics
Tell that to William Pitt the Younger.

I'm fed up with everyone jerking off about how Obama is going to fix everything. He is just another bland candidate from a mono-ideology political system that is only "democratic" in the loosest sense of the word anyway.

My take on this whole "change you can believe in" hyperbole (http://honourablerekhyet.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/change-you-can-believe-in/)

I'd just like it noted that I was sick of Obama before it was cool.

I just think Obama would have done much better if he had stuck with the far left rather than moving to the centre.

I'd just like it noted that I was sick of Obama before it was cool.

Oh wow, fiddles got reborned!

It's true, H.N.'s post count is there for all to see, no longer unavailable, he is mortal...


...he bleeds...


...BURN HIM!

It's true, H.N.'s post count is there for all to see, no longer unavailable, he is mortal...


...he bleeds...


...BURN HIM!

*Ties him to Ruffy. Burns him*

I like Obama, but agree with the article. It's unfortunate, because I sincerely believe he is a decent candidate, when you get past the hype. Not messianic, but decent.

I was struck by the irony, though, of a large news magazine writing an entire story of how people are getting sick of hearing about Obama. I reckon in a few months they'll write how people are getting "'Obama Fatigue' Fatigue." The press really does love him.

I like Obama, but agree with the article. It's unfortunate, because I sincerely believe he is a decent candidate, when you get past the hype. Not messianic, but decent.

I was struck by the irony, though, of a large news magazine writing an entire story of how people are getting sick of hearing about Obama. I reckon in a few months they'll write how people are getting "'Obama Fatigue' Fatigue." The press really does love him.

The media are kneeling in front of him with his cock in their collective mouth.

Wait, wait, wait.

While he was the competitor in a closely contested nomination with Hillary, he's an underdog maverick.

Now that he's competing with John McCain, he's a media darling and that's a negative?

If I may ask, why?

I've been tired of Obama for months. I tune out Obama ads. In point of fact, I tune out political ads in general. Obama scares me because he has this following of idealogue liberals who keep screaming his name like Nazis screamed Hitler prior to WWII. McCain scares me because ... well he just scares me.

Wait, wait, wait.

While he was the competitor in a closely contested nomination with Hillary, he's an underdog maverick.

Now that he's competing with John McCain, he's a media darling and that's a negative?

If I may ask, why?

Because the media's bias is so painfully obvious, you just want to take a peen-ball hammer and just smash your brains in with it, over and over and over. You could actually hear the sucking sound when Obama shows up on the television.

I was struck by the irony, though, of a large news magazine writing an entire story of how people are getting sick of hearing about Obama. I reckon in a few months they'll write how people are getting "'Obama Fatigue' Fatigue." The press really does love him.
The Economist isn't necessarily "the press" though, primarily because it has an ideological basis that it doesn't make a point to hide. It informs people quite openly what its editorial staff believe in (and have believed in ever since it was first founded as a newspaper designed to further the free trade cause in industrialising Britain), and leaves them to read it or not. By the way, I don't think there's been any decision yet on who they support (they usually make that clear in advance once enough information is out there) - though Obama's recent protectionist populism would have annoyed them.

The Economist isn't necessarily "the press" though, primarily because it has an ideological basis that it doesn't make a point to hide. It informs people quite openly what its editorial staff believe in (and have believed in ever since it was first founded as a newspaper designed to further the free trade cause in industrialising Britain), and leaves them to read it or not. By the way, I don't think there's been any decision yet on who they support (they usually make that clear in advance once enough information is out there) - though Obama's recent protectionist populism would have annoyed them.
This is the most recent article about it I've seen, but there have been other articles about "Obama Fatigue" in what could be considered more mainstream sources. Most of these (http://news.google.com/news?q=obama+fatigue&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title), for instance.

The main problem is that we're in this boring lull between the debates, where I suspect Barack Obama will simply look much, much better than McCain, people will remember he actually has something to say and he says it well.

He's smarter, better organised, more in tune with todays world - he's simply better for America.

There was no doubt that his messianic pitch in the battle against Hillary Clinton placed him on a dangerous pedestal but he himself never actually promised any change other than in the way politics is currently done. To push past partisan politics and do what's best for America given the evidence rather than the ideology or the voter demographic.

Not that this is new either, we call them 'wet' or 'dry' in the UK, consensual or conviction politics.

Yet still, all this aside, he's simply a better choice for presidency on many levels.

The main problem is that we're in this boring lull between the debates, where I suspect Barack Obama will simply look much, much better than McCain, people will remember he actually has something to say and he says it well.

I don't know about the debates. I agree that Obama has better ideas, but debating isn't his strong point. McCain's not terrific, but he is competent at debating. (Or at least better at that than speaking to large rallies.)

Because the media's bias is so painfully obvious, you just want to take a peen-ball hammer and just smash your brains in with it, over and over and over. You could actually hear the sucking sound when Obama shows up on the television.

Bias is a matter of opinion.

Obama is something for the history books.

Obama is more interesting to listen then mccain.

I don't care for Obama but I will NOT vote for mccain. The shrub had his two terms. Time for someone else.....

I don't know about the debates. I agree that Obama has better ideas, but debating isn't his strong point. McCain's not terrific, but he is competent at debating. (Or at least better at that than speaking to large rallies.)

I can accept that, to be honest, where one person doesn't screw up the debate completely, supporters tend to think their candidate performed better no matter what, prejudging interferes with perception.

I'd say Barack Obama will need a couple weeks in the south, wearing a cowboy hat, riding some horses and hosting some BBQs, you heard it here first, hush-hush and on the QT.

I've been tired of Obama for months. I tune out Obama ads. In point of fact, I tune out political ads in general. Obama scares me because he has this following of idealogue liberals who keep screaming his name like Nazis screamed Hitler prior to WWII. McCain scares me because ... well he just scares me.

Godwin. /thread.

I can accept that, to be honest, where one person doesn't screw up the debate completely, supporters tend to think their candidate performed better no matter what, prejudging interferes with perception.

I'd say Barack Obama will need a couple weeks in the south, wearing a cowboy hat, riding some horses and hosting some BBQs, you heard it here first, hush-hush and on the QT.
It is refreshing that whichever candidate wins, the US will have at least four years of someone who speaks English as well as I did when I was seven.

Because the media's bias is so painfully obvious, you just want to take a peen-ball hammer and just smash your brains in with it, over and over and over. You could actually hear the sucking sound when Obama shows up on the television.

Ever just turn off the television?

Honestly, if the media offends you, ignore them so you don't carry some odd negative impression with you when the election comes around. Or are you expecting Obama to ask them to stop?

Godwin. /thread.

Except it kind of is relevant. Have you been to an Obama rally? The people there act like it's a god damned religious experience rather than a political event; to say the least, it's fucking disgusting. I actually support Obama over McCain, but after getting suckered into going to a rally and seeing the pathetic mass of people act like complete drones I almost said fuck it to the whole political process.

I never shouted out Obama's name during the height of passionate sex.

...well, maybe once just to try it out, but it did nothing for me. *nod*

Except it kind of is relevant. Have you been to an Obama rally? The people there act like it's a god damned religious experience rather than a political event; to say the least, it's fucking disgusting. I actually support Obama over McCain, but after getting suckered into going to a rally and seeing the pathetic mass of people act like complete drones I almost said fuck it to the whole political process.

No it's not. Stop listening to talk radio, and try a real news source for a change. Obama's just a man. Agree with him, disagree with him, but knock it off with the bitching and moaning. Criticize him for something legitimate or STFU.

No it's not. Stop listening to talk radio, and try a real news source for a change. Obama's just a man. Agree with him, disagree with him, but knock it off with the bitching and moaning. Criticize him for something legitimate or STFU.

Did you read what I posted, at all? My views come from attending an Obama rally. Have you attended one? If not, don't be an ass as you've no idea what the hell you're talking about. If you have, then surely you've seen the zealous fanaticism that transpires at those rallies. I could talk about whether or not I agree with his proposed policies, but that has nothing to do with being sick with certain aspects of his campaign (in this part, the type of people that seem to flock to his events).

But, really, I don't think I will STFU, regardless of your stance on the legitimacy of my complaints. I'd rather just talk about the silly-ness of his most rabid supporters and make comparisons to historical figures who also greatly benefited from a purely emotional reaction in their followers.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/JesusObama.jpg

:)

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/JesusObama.jpg

:)

That's funny; the artist put the body of Jesus of Nazereth with the face of the Messiah.

Hahahaha

Obama...the worst thing to happen to America since its beginning.

Sheer brilliance. How do you do it Sir? :$:rolleyes:

Well let me first state I'm not a big fan of McCain either, although I do think he is the better choice. I disagree with Obamas economic, social, and foreign policies. But that isn't the reason I think he is the worst thing to happen to America.

The reason I think he is the worst thing to happen to America is because what he repersents. He repersents the "Rock Star Canidate." He is showing that a few well placed words and charisma can get you into the White House. He is proving that experience counts for nothing, and that our country would rather elect someone with no foriegn policy experience and very little domestic experience instead of a politician whose been on the hill since the '70s. We've already seen what inexperience can lead to with the Bush Administration, so why do we want to elect another inexperience person to the presidency?

So basically you are saying "experience" is all that matters. I'd like to make you take notice that there were other "Rock Star" candidates who came from actual celebrity pasts. Ronald Reagan, the poster boy for today's Republican party was a real celebrity. Arnold is the governor of California and doing a surprisingly good job I might add. Republicans elected Sonny Bono for fuck's sake. I'd also like you to take note that spending all the years since the 70's on the hill doesn't make you any wiser.

Everyone says that congress is the worst and they can't accomplish anything. I guess the best thing you can do is elect the person who has more time in the same legislative body you say sucks. Are we understanding my representation of the disconnect in the logic of these talking points. I'll make a connection to sports. In baseball you can have a crafty veteran or you can have the rising 25 year old star. I'll take the up and comer in that race. I'd rather look at their ability to think critically and the pragmatism they show. I'll take a better decision maker to someone who has simply made more decisions.

The Economist isn't necessarily "the press" though, primarily because it has an ideological basis that it doesn't make a point to hide. It informs people quite openly what its editorial staff believe in (and have believed in ever since it was first founded as a newspaper designed to further the free trade cause in industrialising Britain), and leaves them to read it or not. By the way, I don't think there's been any decision yet on who they support (they usually make that clear in advance once enough information is out there) - though Obama's recent protectionist populism would have annoyed them.

Just a question Leon, do you read The Economist much? Nothing behind it I read a few articles which has provided some backgroud for my studies and I am just wondering if you read it that often.

It's true, H.N.'s post count is there for all to see, no longer unavailable, he is mortal...


...he bleeds...


...BURN HIM!

He hasn't done no where near as much as I thought he had.

It was to feed to his Kennedy-image.....He went there and gave a really pro-European speech to Europe's most important country...and the comparisons to Kennedy's [and even Reagan's] speeches in Germany were naturally unavoidable.

I was reading all about it in Swiss newspapers.:rolleyes:

Oh I'm sure it was but he isn't even president yet what the hell is he doing over there, and why should the Australian media care about it so much that it needs to be one of the headline stories?

After the last eight years, it boggles my mind that anybody is even remotely considering voting Republican, let alone voting for a man who has been pretty much lock-step with Bush all the way.

The Democrats could run a ticket featuring Socks The Cat and the reanimated corpse of Vincent Price, and it would be orders of magnitude better for the country than John McCain.

I don't care if Obama sucks. There is no possible way that his presidency could even approach the realm of being near to the same stratosphere of badness as a McCain presidency will be. No chance.

But hey, elect McCain. I've gotten to enjoy saying "I told you so" over the last eight years, as 90% of the people who voted for Bush have come to realize that they voted for a crook who has bankrupted the country, spied illegally on his own people, and ensured that America will forever be on the books as a country that starts wars of aggression and tortures at will. I'd be happy to continue telling people "I told you so" for another couple of terms. Especially since I've already got a Canadian job offer lined up.

But hey, elect McCain. I've gotten to enjoy saying "I told you so" over the last eight years, as 90% of the people who voted for Bush have come to realize that they voted for a crook who has bankrupted the country, spied illegally on his own people, and ensured that America will forever be on the books as a country that starts wars of aggression and tortures at will. I'd be happy to continue telling people "I told you so" for another couple of terms. Especially since I've already got a Canadian job offer lined up.

Is it ironic that most of the problems you mention here, McCain wants to reverse? Especially after describing him as in 'lock-step' with Bush.

Is it ironic that most of the problems you mention here, McCain wants to reverse? Especially after describing him as in 'lock-step' with Bush.
No, that's not remotely ironic, since Bush claimed to want to reverse every single one of them, too.

Let me guess: you're one of the people who still believes that McCain is a "maverick."

So basically you are saying "experience" is all that matters. I'd like to make you take notice that there were other "Rock Star" candidates who came from actual celebrity pasts. Ronald Reagan, the poster boy for today's Republican party was a real celebrity. Arnold is the governor of California and doing a surprisingly good job I might add. Republicans elected Sonny Bono for fuck's sake. I'd also like you to take note that spending all the years since the 70's on the hill doesn't make you any wiser.

Everyone says that congress is the worst and they can't accomplish anything. I guess the best thing you can do is elect the person who has more time in the same legislative body you say sucks. Are we understanding my representation of the disconnect in the logic of these talking points. I'll make a connection to sports. In baseball you can have a crafty veteran or you can have the rising 25 year old star. I'll take the up and comer in that race. I'd rather look at their ability to think critically and the pragmatism they show. I'll take a better decision maker to someone who has simply made more decisions.

The only thing years on the Hill usually does is corrupt you. Something McCain nobly avoided for a lot of years. Then 2002 hit.

No, that's not remotely ironic, since Bush claimed to want to reverse every single one of them, too.

Let me guess: you're one of the people who still believes that McCain is a "maverick."

Maverick is a strong word. But his Senate record has shown bipartisanship on issues such as immigration and the environment. He has also shown views atypical for the Republicans on Guantanamo and waterboarding, cap-and-trade taxes and multilateral foreign policy. So to say that he will be identical to Bush is rather inaccurate as he disagrees on a number of issues.

Maverick is a strong word. But his Senate record has shown bipartisanship on issues such as immigration and the environment. He has also shown views atypical for the Republicans on Guantanamo and waterboarding, cap-and-trade taxes and multilateral foreign policy. So to say that he will be identical to Bush is rather inaccurate as he disagrees on a number of issues.
McCain disagrees with Bush for precisely as long as he believes it is politically expedient for him to do so. For instance, he loudly decried the Bush tax cuts and loudly opposed them...and now states that he plans to make them permanent. Of course, he is somewhat out of lock step with Bush when it comes to taxes, since his economic plan is far more radical and even less fiscally responsible than what Bush has enacted, so I guess you're right: sometimes McCain is not in lock-step with Bush, because sometimes Bush isn't far enough to the extreme radical right wing. :)

But hey, by all means, support McCain. I'm sure your kids will thank you while they pay off the several lifetimes' worth of debt that you'll be helping to pass on to them. They'll certainly be glad to know that Bush/McCain have helped stop the godless Chinese commies from buying up all our debt, even if the way they've stopped it is by making the dollar so worthless that not even the Chinese want to bother with it.

McCain disagrees with Bush for precisely as long as he believes it is politically expedient for him to do so. For instance, he loudly decried the Bush tax cuts and loudly opposed them...and now states that he plans to make them permanent. Of course, he is somewhat out of lock step with Bush when it comes to taxes, since his economic plan is far more radical and even less fiscally responsible than what Bush has enacted, so I guess you're right: sometimes McCain is not in lock-step with Bush, because sometimes Bush isn't far enough to the extreme radical right wing. :)

Immigration reform and cap-and-trade are not what I would describe as 'exrteme radical right wing'. And his support for immigration reform was done when it was not 'politically expedient' to do so. I have seen no evidence that McCain will reverse his promises - his opposition to the Bush tax cuts was based on his opposition to huge deficits. Of course, none of this is guaranteed unless you can see into the future but the same could be said of any politician's proposals. Nothing McCain has done gives me any reason to suspect him of being more or less likely to live up to his promises than Obama.

But hey, by all means, support McCain. I'm sure your kids will thank you while they pay off the several lifetimes' worth of debt that you'll be helping to pass on to them. They'll certainly be glad to know that Bush/McCain have helped stop the godless Chinese commies from buying up all our debt, even if the way they've stopped it is by making the dollar so worthless that not even the Chinese want to bother with it.

Defense is not support. And it won't be my children. And I don't really care whether the Chinese have a God or if they pretend to be communists. As for their economic plans, both are so full of gaps that I have no other conclusion to reach than that neither candidate will offer any radical economic change. There won't be a McCain-led slash of taxes and spending and their won't be an Obama-led tax driven spending splurge.

Oh I'm sure it was but he isn't even president yet what the hell is he doing over there, and why should the Australian media care about it so much that it needs to be one of the headline stories?
Oh, well then. Agreed. I really think it's quite frustrating that he's acting as if he's already President. And those "Obama für Kanzler" posters I saw in Germany when Obama was there make my eyes roll the fuck out of my head.:rolleyes:

Oh, well then. Agreed. I really think it's quite frustrating that he's acting as if he's already President.

"In order to be successful, one must project an image of success at all times." - how's he supposed to portray himself? As non-Presidential? Is John McCain acting as though he himself is not President? John Stewart got it right, it's sad that it's so easy for him. "Vote McCain, I don't expect to be president, I don't really understand this 'economy', I'll pander to the religious right for votes, I'll do what people tell me because, frankly, I don't really understand what planet I'm on let alone a mobile phone and computer".

Barack Obama is outlining policy, he's making speeches, he's on TV! My, perhaps... can it be true? Is he running for...the presidency?

And those "Obama für Kanzler" posters I saw in Germany when Obama was there make my eyes roll the fuck out of my head.:rolleyes:

There's a difference between policy and people's perception, there's a difference between personality and failed character, regardless of how people view Barack Obama, given who he is, what he actually says and represents, he's still the better choice. Certainly not all he's made out to be but better than John McCain.

Join the crowd.

I love the promise of a massive orgy when visiting NSG.

Interesting poll results...

Although i have to say, the news is ALOT more arousing as of late...

Havent been this happy since Monica and Bill...*shivers pleasurably*

Also important is that McCain doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly noteworthy. he releases a bunch of stupid attack ads which gain more support for Hilton's cause than his, and keep Obama in everyone's mind. This is a flaw in his campaign, and the more he mentions Obama and compares and contrasts with him, the more he will just keep Obama in the press.

What he could do with is a batch of campaigns which are just about him. And not anyone else. Just him.

Yeah. Attacking Obama's tire platform by giving out free Obama tire gauges wasn't his best move.

Obama...the worst thing to happen to America since its beginning.

Yeah. It totally wasn't Andrew Jackson, the Great Depression, the Civil War or anything like that. It was the black guy.

The reason I think he is the worst thing to happen to America is because what he repersents. He repersents the "Rock Star Canidate."

And somehow that's worse than the "retarded candidate" model that we've been with since '00?

Yeah. It totally wasn't Andrew Jackson, the Great Depression, the Civil War or anything like that. It was the black guy.

Way to be racist, what has the colour of his skin got to do with anything?

And somehow that's worse than the "retarded candidate" model that we've been with since '00?

Well, it's not worse than the robot candidate (Gore) and the flipflop candidate (Kerry).

Seriously, what the hell was Kerry's policy? And why did it seem like he changed his stance on issues every other week?

I may not know what the hell Obama wants outside some Socialist, almost Communist, healthcare plan, but he's consistent at whatever the hell he wants, maybe.

All I know is, the more I get tired of something, the less I know about it.

Time to decide who I want to vote for: some old guy or, judging from his cult memb..... I mean supporters, Jesus, who came back as some black guy rather than the Hebrew he was originally.

Old guy or black, nonJewish Jesus.

I deliberately stopped watching the news because of the Obama circle-jerk.

I am so tired of this God damn lie. I don't know what news you're watching, but on CNN they have hammered Obama ever since Clinton accused the media of going easy on him. Their are statistics which back these claims, but I don't have them on hand right now.

When I watch the media lining up to kiss McCain's senile ass and then I have to read people like you swallow the lies like so many have swallowed the garbage about the "Liberal Media", its hard to describe my frusteration with the ignorance and gullibility of so many people, and the seeming inevitability of an America forever dominated by the party of electoral fraud, torture, and the death of Habeus Corpus.

Obama gets more coverage, yes, but the media's refusal to provide thorough coverage on so many McCain blunders is infuriating. I guess they were all too busy talking about Reverend Wright.:rolleyes: It is a simple statement of fact that the last "reporter" I can name who grilled McCain at all is probably John Stewart.

Well, it's not worse than the robot candidate (Gore) and the flipflop candidate (Kerry).

Seriously, what the hell was Kerry's policy? And why did it seem like he changed his stance on issues every other week?

I may not know what the hell Obama wants outside some Socialist, almost Communist, healthcare plan, but he's consistent at whatever the hell he wants, maybe.

All I know is, the more I get tired of something, the less I know about it.

Time to decide who I want to vote for: some old guy or, judging from his cult memb..... I mean supporters, Jesus, who came back as some black guy rather than the Hebrew he was originally.

Old guy or black, nonJewish Jesus.

Wow, its a special moment when you see that many GOP talking points and tired cliches trotted out in a single post. Of course, the racism added a little extra flavor.

First, I can't say that I remember the details of Kerry's policies that well, but I take any smear against him with a big grain of salt, given things like the notorious swift boat attacks.

Regarding Barak Obama, nothing about his policies is Communist, and this is 2008, not the Mcarthy era. You either have no understanding of what Communism is, are a lier, or get all your "news" from Glen Beck if you think Obama is Communist. And Obama has a lot of other policies, including withdrawl from Iraq, redeployment to Afghanistan, new forms of energy, and increases to education budget. As for taxes, his plan was not, last I heard, to wipe out the evil bourgeois, but rather to increase taxes on the rich back to the levels under Bill Clinton.

"All I know is, the more I get tired of something, the less I know about it."

Maybe you should start knowing a bit more before you start posting defamatory rhetoric that got tired in the Mcarthy era.

"Time to decide who I want to vote for: some old guy or, judging from his cult memb...I mean supporters, Jesus, who came back as some black guy rather than the Hebrew he was originally.

Old guy or black, nonJewish Jesus."

I would dismiss that merely as offensive rhetoric, if not for the instances of Obama opponents saying that he is the anti-Christ. In that context, your insinuation of Obama having a cult-like following to rival Christ takes on some very disturbing overtones. I also like how you refer to him as "some black guy", as if his most important distinguishment was his color, not his policies, his values, or his years of legal/political experience.

*Ties him to Ruffy. Burns him*

*rubs off some immortality on to Fiddles *