NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not convinced that Barr would take away Republican votes. Remember what voters we are talkng about here. Remember what it is they want, and that McCain has already sold out to them, in spades. Just look at his recent position shifts. And his running mate.

There are plenty of people who have no issues with gays and lack misogynistic tendencies who just have this idealistic and naive notion that the market is infailable and will always sort itself out, so the government should just stay out of it and that the government should also not help the less fortunate (so they merely hate poor people), and that is why they vote Republican rather then Democrat. We call them Libertarians.


They would be the ones who would jump ship from McRambo and the Saint to Barr.

I'm just saying that oil dependency is an issue that McCain is much more "attackable" on than the subprime crisis. Both Obama and McCain would do the exact same thing in regards to the subprime crisis: bail out the healthier companies and let the unhealthier ones go down in flames.
You're right, but that doesn't matter. :eek2:ECONOMY:eek2: is a scary word that few Americans understand but all respond to with immediate demands for :mad:ACTION:mad: Forget Jesus and Bibles and defense of marriage and the unborn -- The Great and Holy Economy is what almost all Americans rely on to safeguard everything that matters to them, what almost all Americans are unquestioningly, unthinkingly loyal to. American reaction to economic problems is so strong, it is possibly the only thing that can cancel out their knee-jerk reactions to shouts of "Terrorist!"

If you are looking for a political weapon, then yea verily, "It's the economy, stupid."

No matter what McCain is weak or strong on, Obama can only gain points by tying ALL of it back to the economy.

There are plenty of people who have no issues with gays and lack misogynistic tendencies who just have this idealistic and naive notion that the market is infailable and will always sort itself out, so the government should just stay out of it and that the government should also not help the less fortunate (so they merely hate poor people), and that is why they vote Republican rather then Democrat. We call them Libertarians.


They would be the ones who would jump ship from McRambo and the Saint to Bar.
I do not believe there really all that many such poeple on the Republican side. I think Barr is likely to take away just as many votes of rightwing-leaning Dems.

I do not believe there really all that many such poeple on the Republican side. I think Barr is likely to take away just as many votes of rightwing-leaning Dems.

Im not sure, but youve managed to make me worried, so now I say Barr is out of the debates too:tongue:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/palin-tops-list-of-online-political-search-terms-but-no-joe/



So does this mak Palin a celebrity now? Or are you only a dirty unelectable celebrity when youre a democrat (as is evident by Ah-nold and the Republican Messiah Reagan)?


Yes, I do know the answer.

Despite my disagreements with posters here, you can be sure that I hate no one. :)


Obviously the feeling is mutual.

See? We can play nice. But back to the Palin getting weaker and weaker argument I made the other day.

ARCHIVES
Poll: Palin’s Favorable Rating Slips 10 Points in 3 Days
Jon Ponder | Sep. 16, 2008

More evidence of a slide, cited by Newsweek:
Over the course of a single weekend, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.

Since Sept. 13, Palin’s unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That’s a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12) of any of the Final Four. Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.

What happened? I’d argue that Palin’s considerable novelty is starting to wear off. In part it’s the result of a steady stream of unhelpful stories: her unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine during last Thursday’s interview with Charles Gibson … her refusal to cooperate with the Troopergate investigation; her repeated stretching of the truth on everything from earmarks to the Bridge to Nowhere to the amount of energy her state produces. That stuff has a way of inspiring disapproval and eroding one’s support. (Interestingly, Palin’s preparedness numbers–about 50 percent yes, 45 percent no–haven’t budged.)

Caveats apply, of course. This is one data set, not yet a trend, but it could be a glimpse into future direction, especially if McCain and Palin continue to shred the credibility of their ticket by persistently lying about themselves, each other and their opponents.

There is a precedent for a precipitous slide, however. In 1984, the only other time a woman was named to a major party ticket, Democrats Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro received a nine-point bounce after their convention, but Ronald Reagan, the incumbent, went on to win in a 49-state landslide, receiving 58.8 percent to Mondale-Ferraro’s 40.6 percent in the national popular vote.

Admittedly, any comparison between Republicans McCain-Palin and Democrats Mondale-Ferraro is superficial and, yes, sexist, especially because it is unclear, particularly from this poll, what role, if any, gender may be playing in Palin’s nosedive.

In 1984, Ferraro was undermined by questions about her husband’s business dealings, and her ticket’s opponent, Reagan, was still popular, in part because the economy had weathered the recession in 1982, and his administration’s illegal deals with terrorists in the Iran-Contra affair did not occur until the following year, and weren’t revealed until 1986.

The problems facing McCain and Palin today are primarily of their own making. Both have been caught lying on issues big and small. And there are serious questions even from conservatives about the readiness of Palin — the short-term governor of Alaska, the 47th largest state; a former beauty pageant Miss Congeniality winner; and sportscaster — to become president, if McCain, who is 72 years old, were unable to fulfill his term.

Then there's the Healthcare Issue that was also championed by HRC. It seems Obama's plan does far more with the same money as McCain.

New Studies Report Wide Disparity in Health Care Plans

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Barack Obama and John McCain are both proposing more than $100 billion a year in spending for health care, but the candidates' plans have vastly different goals, and vastly different outcomes.

New studies from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the policy journal Health Affairs suggest that Obama's proposal would eventually cover more than 34 million of the roughly 47 million Americans currently without insurance, while McCain's would cover at best 5 million uninsured.

Then there's the new polls actually showing Obama back up again.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1642854220080917

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/palin-tops-list-of-online-political-search-terms-but-no-joe/



So does this mak Palin a celebrity now? Or are you only a dirty unelectable celebrity when youre a democrat (as is evident by Ah-nold and the Republican Messiah Reagan)?


Yes, I do know the answer.

I find it amusing that because people are trying to find out information about a complete unknown from a hick town in the lowest populated state in the union she's "energizing".

See? We can play nice. But back to the Palin getting weaker and weaker argument I made the other day.



Then there's the Healthcare Issue that was also championed by HRC. It seems Obama's plan does far more with the same money as McCain.



Then there's the new polls actually showing Obama back up again.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1642854220080917



Gee, the more you are exposed to the media and the more coverage your totally batshit insane ad undefendable claims get, the less popular you get.

Who woulda thunk it?

I find it amusing that because people are trying to find out information about a complete unknown from a hick town in the lowest populated state in the union she's "energizing".

That was my thoughts exactly. Shes a bumpkin from some little backwater town in fuckin Alaska. Shes never been in the national spotlight. No one has even heard of her. Shes a total unknown.

OF COURSE she'll be getting the most internet searches. Obama and McCain have been in this race for a long time, and Biden has been in politics for a very long time. Theyre alll known names on the national stage. Of course they have less searches.

But you know, anything Fox can say to make it seem like the neocons have a chance.

I should clarify my views, because I realize that some of the things I've posted separately can be taken to contradict each other.

I have said that the social conservative block is so committed to their agenda that they will even vote against their own economic interests in order to advance it. Then I turned around and said that almost all Americans put the the economy above all other political considerations. Let me justify that:

We have seen over the past two elections that the US is nearly evenly split between social conservatives on one side and liberals/progressives/non-social conservatives on the other. We have also seen that chipping votes off the social conservative block is extraordinarily difficult because of their commitment to their social agenda.

However, in-depth analysis of voting and public opinion over the past 8 years also indicate that the unity of that block, though strong, is not 100% uniform. The hardcore "base" who would not be swayed by anything account for only about 30-40% of the block. Now, don't get me wrong. The remainder are still entrenched in their rightwing position, just not quite as deeply as the others.

Historically, we have seen only two ways to reduce the effect of the social conservative voting block:

1) You discourage/embitter the hardcore base to the point where they don't vote at all. For years, before Reagan, this was the trend, but since Reagan it has been going strong the opposite way. Especially now that he's taken on Palin, I see no chance of convincing those people that McCain is not their man after all. (Note: When these people do get discouraged, they do not vote someone else; they just stay home.)

2) You overwhelm the slightly less committed portion of the block with the uber-weapon of US politics, the economy. It helps that our economy really is disastrously bad at the moment. When it comes to which master Americans fear more -- God or Mammon -- well, when the pressure is strong enough, American pragmatism usually comes to the surface, if it exists in the person at all, and many will vote with their bank accounts in mind.

Since the US split is so close, the non-social-conservative side absolutely must do one thing and absolutely must avoid doing another.

The thing we must do is chip away as many votes from the other side as we can. It will amount to very few votes, but considering how close our elections have been lately, every vote really does count. And so we must hit them with the economy over and over, without cease.

The thing we must avoid doing is anything that could possibly fracture our own voting block. This is because our greatest weakness is our lack of unity compared to our opponents. We are far more susceptible to fractures than they. This is why I believe it will be tactically bad to give a platform to alternative parties right now. It is far more likely that we will lose voters to them than that the rightwing will.

I have a resentment against those alternative parties -- and against the Dem party, too -- because if they really were looking to serve the nation, rather than promote their own agendas just as the rightwing do, then they would be building a multiparty coalition and giving their party endorsements to Obama (and the Dems would be accepting them), if only for the sake of breaking the rightwing which is a greater threat to all other parties than we can be to each other.

*points out the obvious 273 Obama 265 McCain numbers*
* refers you to the more obvious:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

I'm sure I've pushed this point before but I think the chances for Barack Obama come from getting out the youth vote.

them, minorities, and women. only he isn't just hoping for it like the usual dem strategy, but has a fucking massive organization dedicated to registering every one of them he can, and is collecting fairly detailed data on all of them to aid in targeted gotv operations on election day (and earlier, for places with early voting). in east lansing, which is one of the lesser key places to turn people out for winning michigan, the obama campaign has had people registering door to door and on every block downtown and all over campus. presumably a similar effort is underway everywhere else it makes sense to do it.

and he has the resources and the people and the organizing fortitude to actually pull it off, as we have already seen this year.

* refers you to the more obvious:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

I'll point out some interesting things on that map:

Minnesota, 4.7% favor for Obama is listed as "Toss Up". Indiana listed 4.7% in favor of McCain is credited as "Leaning". He has four states listed as "Leaning" where has a more than 2% average lead on McCain. Only one state of McCain's has a lead of more than 2 points listed as "Toss Up".

* refers you to the more obvious:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

"No Toss Ups: Obama 286, McCain 252"

what about it?

"No Toss Ups: Obama 286, McCain 252"

what about it?

Oh that's handy. I didn't see the little "Hide editorial bias" link.

Oh that's handy. I didn't see the little "Hide editorial bias" link.

its not entirely editorial bias. minnesota appears to have seen obama's lead cut way down from a huge lead awhile ago (though i don't expect that situation to last), while mccain has consistently led in indiana by a small margin for quite some time, for example. it would be nice if they were more explicit about how they are determining 'toss-ups' though.

its not entirely editorial bias. minnesota appears to have seen obama's lead cut way down from a huge lead awhile ago (though i don't expect that situation to last), while mccain has consistently led in indiana by a small margin for quite some time, for example. it would be nice if they were more explicit about how they are determining 'toss-ups' though.

I have a guess. Obama's states are toss ups. McCains are not. RealClear has a pretty consistant right wing bias.

I have a guess. Obama's states are toss ups. McCains are not. RealClear has a pretty consistant right wing bias.

It could be based on recent poll variation, or on past presidential election variance. Though it's a mystery.

I have a guess. Obama's states are toss ups. McCains are not. RealClear has a pretty consistant right wing bias.

except that they give obama washington, which also has a +4.7 rcp average for him. so i'm thinking it really is because of the apparent collapse of his numbers in mn from +12 at the end of august to +2 or a tie as of last week.

"No Toss Ups: Obama 286, McCain 252"

what about it?
Perhaps this article will help explain more about what is going on:

What States Are Really in Play (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/what_states_are_really_in_play.html)?

The best news for McCain is that he has opened a solid lead in Florida (27 Electoral College votes) of 5 points or more in every recent survey, and has built a modest lead in Ohio (20 Electoral College votes) of 3-4 points in every recent survey but one (Quinnipiac). Obama ran poorly in Ohio in its March primary, carrying only 5 of 88 counties and losing the state to Hillary Clinton by 10%, despite coming in with all the momentum and a huge financial advantage. Many registered Democrats in Ohio are not political liberals and share more cultural values with Sarah Palin than Barack Obama. The condescension the Obama campaign has demonstrated toward blue collar voters will not help it in Ohio come Election Day. It is telling that in one recent survey, 31% of Ohio voters said they best relate to Palin, about 20% each to McCain and Obama, and barely over 10% with Biden. If Ohio and Florida are McCain states (and Ohio is certainly not yet "done" for McCain, as Florida may be), there are few ways for Obama to reach 270 Electoral College votes.

Assuming Obama holds all the Kerry states, not nearly so certain anymore, Obama begins with a likely pickup of Iowa and its 7 Electoral College votes. He would then need 11 more. In the latest Rasmusssen surveys, Obama trails in Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), and is even in Virginia (13). These are the four tossup states where his chances to turn a red state blue are the best. Admittedly, McCain's lead in the Western states is small -- 2 to 3 points in each case. For Obama to win, he will need to pick up Virginia, which has not gone Democratic since 1964, or Colorado and one of the smaller Western states to win. Colorado has been a reliable GOP state in recent years and Nevada has been in the McCain column pretty much all year.

The Obama campaign has bragged of its superior ground game and how that will deliver victory, and in a very close state race, it could help. However discussions with campaign professionals in Virginia and Ohio suggest that the Obama ground team, mostly passionate young out of state workers, are not connecting very well with local voters, even registered Democrats, many of whom are for more culturally conservative than the propagandists for Obama. There is the possibility of a backlash against the harassment, as occurred with Howard Dean's yellow jacketed throng in Iowa in 2004. The McCain team, thanks to the Sarah Palin selection, now has its own energized army of field workers -- but they tend to be in-state people talking to their neighbors, arguably a more effective approach than the one Obama's campaign has chosen. In Ohio in 2004, the Bush ground game won the state and the election for him.

At one time, the Obama team talked of 22 targeted states, then 18 (14 of them Bush won states), but now the real number is smaller than that. And the good news for the McCain side is that they have a real shot in many more Kerry states than they did a few months back. The latest Rasmussen survey has Pennsylvania (21 Electoral College votes) even for the first time all year. It is hard to see how Obama wins the presidency if he does not win the Keystone state. Pennsylvania is another state in which Obama was buried in the primary, despite a huge spending advantage over Hillary Clinton. Like Ohio and Michigan (17), the state has many registered Democrats who hunt and who are regular church goers, neither of which demographic segments provide fertile ground for Obama, who does best among African Americans and very highly educated secular whites who do not own or use guns. If McCain wins Pennsylvania, he will almost certainly also win Ohio, which is historically about 4-5 points friendlier to the GOP than Pennsylvania.

Other blue states now clearly in play include Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), New Hampshire (4), and Michigan (17). I am very skeptical that McCain can win New Jersey (15) despite two recent polls showing him only 3% behind (others show him further behind) or Washington State (11), where two recent polls give Obama a 2-4% lead. Oregon (7) may be a slightly better prospect, given its recent voting history, but is still a long shot for McCain.

Many of Obama's once-targeted red states are now safely in McCain's corner. These include Montana (3), North Dakota (3) Alaska (3), and Georgia (15). North Carolina (15), Indiana (11) and Missouri (11) do not look too promising for Obama either. Of course, if the race breaks hard for either candidate in the last month, such that the current near-deadlock in the national popular vote becomes a 5% or greater margin of victory, then some of the second tier targets may come into play. But they won't matter. If Obama opens up a 5% national lead, he will win Ohio, and Virginia and Colorado. If McCain opens up a similar sized national lead, he probably wins Michigan and Pennsylvania. Neither candidate would need any other states from the other party's column -- these would amount to gravy, allowing the winner to claim a mandate.

The race is close to a national tie in the popular vote, in the number of safe electoral college votes for each side, and in the number of tossup electoral college votes that are blue or red. We have in other words, a 50-50 race.
* watches Obama team throw away the 50 State playbook.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0MSoQeC0h5g&refer=home


Fliiiiiip flopper!

I have a guess. Obama's states are toss ups. McCains are not. RealClear has a pretty consistant right wing bias.
I certainly don't see a "right wing bias" by RCP and as matter of fact, that site was the favourite go to site, by the Obama crowd, during the nomination process.

Dude, she was having a baby. She wasn't there on state business. Can I collect per diem when I go to Disney world because my job doesn't station me there?

I'm trying to work out what, exactly, the requirements are you'd have to fulfill for 'having a baby' to count as state business....

Short of scifi (or Freddy Kreuger) scenarios where that baby is the hybrid offspring of everyone in the state.... I'm a little stuck.

* watches Obama team throw away the 50 State playbook.

so you still don't understand what the 50 state strategy is?

Remember what I was saying about how I wish the Obama campaign would have some teeth? Looks like they got some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3Y1KPzW9k

So does this mak Palin a celebrity now? Or are you only a dirty unelectable celebrity when youre a democrat (as is evident by Ah-nold and the Republican Messiah Reagan)?


Yes, I do know the answer.You mean a runner up Miss Alaska isn't a celebrity?

Remember what I was saying about how I wish the Obama campaign would have some teeth? Looks like they got some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3Y1KPzW9k

Nailed.

Plus, the Republican Party itself came out and said that McCain won't be getting rid of earmarks, after all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080917/pl_politico/13525

I certainly don't see a "right wing bias" by RCP and as matter of fact, that site was the favourite go to site, by the Obama crowd, during the nomination process.

As I recall the only person who favored using RCP was, you. We were just humoring you.

http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html

Nailed.

Plus, the Republican Party itself came out and said that McCain won't be getting rid of earmarks, after all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080917/pl_politico/13525

Wait. That means that McCain and Palin have been lying to me.


Oh Gawds I dont know what to do or who to believe!:eek2::eek:

Oh Gawds I dont know what to do

Pray with me for McCain to lose sphincter/bladder control during a debate.

Pray with me for McCain to lose sphincter/bladder control during a debate.

Im still hoping for him to lose his temper once Obama backs him into a corner and call him a "******".



Which would be glorious.

Im still hoping for him to lose his temper once Obama backs him into a corner and call him a "******".



Which would be glorious.

I doubt he'll go that far, but I think the fact there's been no debates yet has definitely worked to McCain's advantage. Gods know Palin would be helpless too.

Im still hoping for him to lose his temper once Obama backs him into a corner and call him a "******".



Which would be glorious.

Well, IF McCain's early (first 10 years of his life, a time in which racism was socially acceptable and even encouraged) language included that word, he might let it slip in a moment of tension, yes. I do hope for that as well. Of course, were BOTH to happen I'd have an orgasm, and McCain's fate would be sealed then and there. Well, were EITHER to happen it would seal McCain's fate, really.

I doubt he'll go that far, but I think the fact there's been no debates yet has definitely worked to McCain's advantage. Gods know Palin would be helpless too.

Biden is going to devour Palin's soul, and with it, any chance she will ever have of high office outside of Alaska.

Im actually looking foward to the VP debate more then the presidential debate.

Biden is going to devour Palin's soul, and with it, any chance she will ever have of high office outside of Alaska.

You're making a mistake here. Primarily assuming I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary has a soul to devour.

Im actually looking foward to the VP debate more then the presidential debate.

Oh, definitely. Hopefully Biden will unload a payload without hesitation.

Obama Leads McCain in New Poll (http://news.aol.com/elections/article/obama-leads-mccain-in-new-poll/141796?icid=200100397x1209423855x1200572908)

Eh? What was that about throwing away the 50 States Playbook?

:D

Oh, definitely. Hopefully Biden will unload a payload without hesitation.

Calm down, he has to look sympathetic too...

Calm down, he has to look sympathetic too...

VPs don't have to look sympathetic. They're attack dogs. The last time the Democrats played nice we got 4 More Years. Never Again.

VPs don't have to look sympathetic. They're attack dogs. The last time the Democrats played nice we got 4 More Years. Never Again.

Some outlets say - and I'm inclined, not agreeing but inclined to agree - that he should look like a "nice teacher", one that's TEACHING her stuff but being amiable...

Some outlets say - and I'm inclined, not agreeing but inclined to agree - that he should look like a "nice teacher", one that's TEACHING her stuff but being amiable...

Theres truth to this. If he just rips into it, he'll get called a sexist and Fox News will talk about how Biden talks down to women.

Obama Leads McCain in New Poll (http://news.aol.com/elections/article/obama-leads-mccain-in-new-poll/141796?icid=200100397x1209423855x1200572908)

also, he is up in 3 of the 4 tracking polls, and down by 1 in the other. convention bounce receding; quick, everyone acted shocked!

As I recall the only person who favored using RCP was, you. We were just humoring you.

http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html
Then your memory is clearly fogged up.

I always liked using the term "junk science (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13749680&postcount=206)" when talking about RCP's "average".

Theres truth to this. If he just rips into it, he'll get called a sexist and Fox News will talk about how Biden talks down to women.

And if he plays nice, he'll get called a sexist and FOXNews blathers about how Biden is patronizing to women. I say he needs to shoot her down like a cheap Chinese airplane.

Then your memory is clearly fogged up.

I always liked using the term "junk science (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13749680&postcount=206)" when talking about RCP's "average".

You're gonna make me dig through all your old posts ain't you?

Oy vey.

Ok, the democratic nomination threads ran 114 pages with my settings. I ain't reading through that bullshit again.

You're gonna make me dig through all your old posts ain't you?

Oy vey.
Be my guest (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=1075250).

As I recall the only person who favored using RCP was, you.

wasn't ch's site of choice the day-to-day fluctuations of electoral-vote.com?

wasn't ch's site of choice the day-to-day fluctuations of electoral-vote.com?

I believe so. Electoral-vote currently has the election hung, with Pennsylvania and Virginia both in "tied" status. (Those two are the states I think most likely to go to contentious recount this year, more so than Ohio or Florida.)

wasn't ch's site of choice the day-to-day fluctuations of electoral-vote.com?

Saw him source that several times in the few hundred posts I read before I gave up out of ADD induced boredom.

John McCain's Pork Problem:

Source (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1841380,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn).
Gotcha! It turns out that John McCain, while crusading against wasteful spending, specifically objected to three earmarks that Sarah Palin requested as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, including a dubious agricultural-processing facility designed to promote local produce. In fact, Palin has a consistent record of chasing the bacon that McCain has fought for years. She pulled in $27 million in earmarks as mayor, requested $450 million in earmarks as governor and even supported the state's notorious Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it. There isn't enough lipstick in Alaska to cover all that pork. (See photos of Sarah Palin campaigning here.)

But as awkward as it was to watch Palin try to explain to ABC's Charles Gibson why taxpayers should pay to study the mating habits of Alaskan crabs, voters probably won't mind that Palin doesn't really hate pork as long as it's hers. What could be a real problem for the GOP ticket would be voters recognizing that McCain really does hate pork — not only when it's Palin's, but when it's theirs.

Through his work as a pork buster, McCain has opposed flood-prevention projects in swing states like Missouri and Virginia, drought aid for Nevada and New Mexico, and economic development for Pennsylvania and West Virginia. His has been a lonely vote against funding for the Florida Everglades and Yellowstone National Park. He has opposed money for schools, bridges, military bases, disaster relief, military housing, senior housing, renewable energy programs, job training programs, health care for veterans, services for disabled kids and just about everything else his Senate colleagues have stashed into spending bills, which is to say just about everything. The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences and the Center for Ecology Research and Training might be boondoggles, and the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary might not have needed $1.786 million for a new exhibit, but they're all located in the must-win state of Michigan, and McCain is on record against all of them.

Americans may despise pork in someone else's district, but they tend to view it as vital infrastructure when it comes home; that's why so many Americans despise Congress but still support their local members of Congress. And that's why McCain's steadfast opposition to all earmarks requested by individual members of Congress — the common definition of pork — could be a political liability. As a procedural matter, it makes sense to stop Representatives from slipping pet projects into law, although some legislators argue that earmarking is a useful check on executive power, and that earmarks are just a tiny sliver of the federal budget. As a moral matter, McCain's heresy on pork has made him all the right enemies, including shameless Republican porkers like Ted Stevens of Alaska; I was especially sympathetic to McCain's unpopular stand blaming the Minnesota bridge collapse on highway pork, because I took the same position. But as a political matter, McCain is on the wrong side of tens of thousands of popular goodies.

This wasn't a problem when McCain was just an Arizona Senator, burnishing his maverick credentials by blasting the explosion of earmarks under the GOP Congress and highlighting the role of earmarks in GOP scandals. But when he became the Republican nominee, his across-the-board opposition suddenly became inconvenient. Aid to Israel and military housing is funded through earmarks, so McCain had to make it clear he'd protect those programs from cuts. He made a similar exception during his anti-poverty tour in April, when he visited an African-American community in Alabama that got ferry service through an earmark. He then met a Pennsylvania woman with ovarian cancer who was being treated through a clinical trial funded by an earmark; he assured her that program was worthwhile too. "It's the process I object to," McCain explained.

That's not just political double-talk. With two or three debatable exceptions, McCain has abstained from pork for Arizona, and he's been a principled gadfly objecting to the pork-making process. For example, McCain has consistently voted against Army Corps of Engineers water projects, Capitol Hill's most popular form of pork; he and Democrat Russell Feingold have fought a quixotic battle to reform the dysfunctional Corps and the haphazard process by which its projects are funded. McCain has even argued that water pork contributed to the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, another argument I have made. But that fealty to principle has required him to vote against funding for the Everglades and new levees for New Orleans, as well as a ridiculous Mississippi flood-control project he's been trying to kill for years. He was right to do so, but Barack Obama's campaign pounded him for his Everglades votes when he visited the River of Grass this spring. And not too many voters noticed his admirable stand against the Mississippi project outside Mississippi, where it was considered a must-have before the Bush Administration killed it.

Obama hasn't said much about McCain's pork-bashing; on a national level, it would just play to McCain's maverick strengths. But on a local level, when McCain has spoken at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Lehigh Valley Hospital and the city of Youngstown, Ohio, the Obama campaign has released lists of earmarks those places have benefited from. And in a speech to aerospace workers, Obama himself recently accused McCain of hurting the American economy by battling Boeing, even though McCain's investigations into a sweetheart deal for Boeing helped expose a Pentagon scandal.

With the modern tools of niche marketing, Obama might be able to punish McCain for his pork-busting, not only by highlighting his general opposition to farm subsidies in farm country, but also by highlighting his specific opposition to Youngstown State's engineering program, Youngstown Air Reserve Station's logistics facility, the Ursuline Sisters of Youngstown's HIV/AIDs Ministry and Youngstown's sewage overflow project. When it comes to sewage overflows, most Youngstown residents probably agree with what Palin told Gibson: "It's not inappropriate for a mayor or a governor to request and work with their Congressmen, their Congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget — along with every other state — a share of the federal budget for infrastructure."

It is to McCain's credit that he so steadfastly disagrees, and it is unfortunate that voters might end up punishing him. But it's hard to feel too sorry for McCain. His distaste for earmarks is a byproduct of his distaste for deficits, following his belief that the government ought to live within its means. But McCain's current economic plan would explode the deficit, mainly by making permanent the Bush tax cuts he once opposed. The Brookings Institution has estimated that that would add $5 trillion to the national debt by 2018; meanwhile, the plan would eliminate only $18 billion in earmarks — and much less if McCain truly intends to preserve aid to Israel and other worthy programs.

The larger point is that opposing earmarks is not the same thing as shrinking government or balancing budgets or getting the economy going again. President Bush opposes earmarks too, but spending and deficits have soared on his watch. McCain was right to fight the Bridge to Nowhere, but it's worth keeping in mind that when Palin finally gave up on it, the money didn't go back to the Treasury — it stayed in Alaska to be used for a different project. Most pork, even egregious pork, doesn't go Nowhere.

I think this highlights one of the major problems with McCain's campaign on his anti-spending schtick. It won't sell well to the voters.

I have a guess. Obama's states are toss ups. McCains are not. RealClear has a pretty consistant right wing bias.

RCP is an average of polls. We are still 48 days away. We'll have plenty of time to fight about numbers in the near future. Another hit on Palin. Not only did she not sell the jjet ion ebay, not sell it for a gain, not really oppose the bridge to nowhere until the fiunding was kiled, etc. She also lied about the "strong case" for her energy policy that Alaska provides 20% of the national energy. By no means is she right. The more she lies the more her #'s go down. The more she gets a closer look the more her numbers go down. As for the "free market economists" out there...How is it a free market if government keeps having to bail banks out? Shouldn't we let ciompetition kills the weak?

FAIRBANKS — A nonpartisan fact-checking organization says Gov. Sarah Palin is “not even close” to the truth in her claims that Alaska supplies 20 percent of the country’s energy.

FactCheck.org said Sen. John McCain also is wrong when he touts Palin as being in charge of 20 percent of America’s energy supply.

Both candidates issued the claims in interviews with ABC’s Charles Gibson. Palin also made the claim at a campaign event Monday in Golden, Colo.

Palin was interviewed several times during two days last week in Alaska by Gibson. According to the transcript on ABC’s Web site, www.abc.com, Palin said, “Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.”

Hold it right there, FactCheck.org says. Twenty percent?

“If you’re going to be an energy expert — if that’s going to be your credential for being vice president of the United States — you should at least be able to get the numbers straight,” said Brooks Jackson, director of FactCheck.org.

For 2007, Alaska is credited with 14 percent of U.S. domestic oil production, or 263.6 million barrels, according to the federal Energy Information Administration. However, Alaska accounts for only 5 percent of U.S. oil supplies, which come from foreign and domestic sources. But, Palin failed to qualify the stats as oil-only production. Alaska was responsible for 3.5 percent of domestic energy production and only 2.4 percent of total energy consumed in the U.S.

“Either way, whether she meant total energy production or total energy consumption, she was off by a full order of magnitude,” Jackson said. “I’m sure it was true once, that Alaska produced 20 percent of the oil produced in the U.S., but certainly not 20 percent of the oil consumed in the U.S.”

In a Sept. 3 interview with Gibson, McCain, talking about his running mate, said: “This is a very dynamic person. (Palin has) been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America’s energy supply.”

According to the fact-checking group, McCain used the figure again in an interview Thursday with a Maine news station.

When questioned, a campaign spokesman said Palin was referring to “oil and gas production,” Jackson said. “Lumping oil and gas in together really gets you farther away from the 20 percent figure. ... Her statistics were way off.”

The factcheck.org account says that McCain’s campaign pointed to the Resource Development Council for Alaska for the citation.

The nonprofit council is funded by its members, businesses and individuals from many resource sectors to promote responsible development of Alaska’s resources, including support for mining, oil and gas, fishing, timber and tourism industries.

The McCain campaign did not return a call by press time asking for comment.

Jackson said political reporters seem to be paying more attention to the factual accuracy of what candidates are claiming this year — and that they’re getting frustrated when candidates called out on factual errors keep handing out the same message.

In particular, he said, Palin and McCain were put to task last week on claims that Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks,” on the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, as she has repeated often on the campaign trail. Yet, Palin kept using the phrase in speeches.

“For a lot of reporters, this was kind of a slap in the face,” Jackson said.

“I think you saw quite a reaction to that.”

Palin hadn’t even taken office when Congress removed a controversial earmark on money for two Alaska bridges, the Knik Arm bridge near Anchorage and a separate bridge that would have linked Ketchikan with its airport on Gravina Island.

The state got the money anyway, based on a federal transportation funding formula.

Her claims about the bridge are wrong in another sense, which has earned her a “flip-flopper” tag from another fact-checking group, PolitiFact.com.

After winning the gubernatorial primary but before the 2006 general election, a Palin spokesperson, Curtis Smith, told the Associated Press that Palin supported the Ketchikan bridge project.

By early February, the new governor, Palin, had cut funding for Ketchikan’s bridge from a state budget proposed by former Gov. Frank Murkowski.

In September 2007, Palin directed the state Department of Transportation to find a fiscally responsible alternative for access to Ketchikan’s airport. She said that without federal funding, the state would not be able to afford a bridge and should instead upgrade the existing ferry system, according to an Associated Press news article.

FactCheck.org is a consumer advocate for voters, “a place where perplexed, confused voters can go when they hear dubious claims from candidates … or when they hear conflicting claims,” Jackson said.

The organization is not so bold as to think its work will change politicians’ behavior. But, Jackson said, voters should know candidates are at best giving only one side of the story, and, at worst, embellishing or falsifying.

Fact-checking groups can iron out the talk and offer up straight information.

“You can’t count on just listening to the candidates to get the full picture,” he said.

Faulty claims can be even more damaging when they’re tied to a basic premise.

McCain is zeroing in on Palin’s experience with oil and gas issues as a way to ground his claims that she is ready for the vice presidency.

After her tenure as mayor of Wasilla, Palin served about a year on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a $118,000-per-year appointment. The quasi-judicial state agency manages oil and gas drilling, development and production and other matters on land that falls under the state’s jurisdiction.

The commission’s general concern is protection of health, safety and the environment.

Palin also is credited with securing a deal that could spur construction of a 1,715 mile long natural gas pipeline from Alaska’s far north, with an estimated 224 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources, to a major natural gas hub in Alberta, Canada.

The deal, forged under the state’s Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, gives TransCanada $500 million in state funds as reimbursement for costs incurred in obtaining pipeline regulatory approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The license does not guarantee that the project — billed as the largest construction project in North America — will actually get off the ground.

Alaska political leaders have sought a natural gas line for years. When Palin took office, she scrapped plans made by her predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, with producers. Instead, in early 2007, Palin proposed AGIA as a transparent, competitive process.

After more than a month of hearings, the Legislature granted an AGIA license to TransCanada in August, as the project that would “maximize benefits to Alaskans,” according to findings by the state Department of Natural Resources.

TransCanada was the sole applicant to meet all the state’s criteria.

Palin actively promoted TransCanada’s proposal before a legislature that was, at times, divided on whether to issue the license.

At a Fairbanks rally Sept. 10 welcoming her return to Alaska, Palin said national energy dependence will start in Alaska with the gas line.

“When the last section of that pipeline is laid and the valves are open, our state — our state — Alaska will be a leader in energy policy and our state will have brought Americans one step closer to energy independence and one step closer to an America free of foreign suppliers that do not have our interests at heart,” Palin said.


Keep the lies coming Sarah.

I certainly don't see a "right wing bias" by RCP and as matter of fact, that site was the favourite go to site, by the Obama crowd, during the nomination process.

I agree, I do not see the bias. RCP and 538 are probably the best out there among them all. Isn't it fun when we can agree? Now back to our regularly scheduled bickering

Then your memory is clearly fogged up.

I always liked using the term "junk science (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13749680&postcount=206)" when talking about RCP's "average".

Once again I must agree with CH. DAMNIT! Although I disagree it's junk science, or science at all. It just averages to point to a trend.

I kinda liked the new Obama ad. It focuses on the issue, and offers some pointers to what his economic plan is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONM7148cTyc
And it's two minutes long! Unheard of! :eek2:

You're gonna make me dig through all your old posts ain't you?

Oy vey.

Ok, the democratic nomination threads ran 114 pages with my settings. I ain't reading through that bullshit again.

I'm pretty sure also that that falls under the list of things Ard said not to bring up, grouped in with the rest of the "Democrat Primaries" stuff that is now, or at least should be, long past us.

I guess my point is: Let it go.

Biden is going to devour Palin's soul, and with it, any chance she will ever have of high office outside of Alaska.

Im actually looking foward to the VP debate more then the presidential debate.

Ah, you know, I don't think Palin has it all together, but she's going to do much better than we all seem to think in the debates. You don't have to be smart, you don't have to be correct, you don't have to be sound...you have to be photogenic and produce good sound bites-and she's got that over Biden in leaps and bounds. He'll sound off the hook and she'll fluctuate between 'picked on unfairly' and 'tough cookie.' The debates are going to be the strongest part of her campaign, since the rest of it simply won't hold up.

I suspect it will be the most frustrating part of the election.

I kinda liked the new Obama ad. It focuses on the issue, and offers some pointers to what his economic plan is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONM7148cTyc
And it's two minutes long! Unheard of! :eek2:

More of that!!

Kind of makes the "celebrity" ad look pretty silly, huh?

wasn't ch's site of choice the day-to-day fluctuations of electoral-vote.com?

He supported it after he opposed it. He tends to select evidence based on what it supports.

It's not that unusual on NSG, really.

More of that!!

Kind of makes the "celebrity" ad look pretty silly, huh?

Yes it does.

This is what is meant by rising above petty attacks, and by addressing the real heart of the manner. Rather than sleazy attack ads, Obama has been consistently putting out this sort of informative, quality advertisement. He has attacked, but even when he attacks, he attacks policies, rather than his opponent directly as a person.

I'm becoming more and more happy about my decision to vote for him every single day.

In response to a few comments I saw about Palin:

Nowhere did she claim she "sold the jet" on Ebay, or for a profit - in fact, McCain was the one who said that, and yes, he was mistaken. Palin, however, simply stated she "put the jet up on Ebay". Which she did. And estimates show that the jet would have cost more in maintenance and fuel costs than the "deficit" she sold it for. Ergo, it was still good policy to sell the thing at whatever they got for it.

Yes, she was wrong about the amount of energy supplied by Alaska. Alaska does produce 14 percent of domestic oil (as opposed to purchased foreign oil) but not 20% of total energy supplied.

Palin's numbers are far from going down, however. They are going up. Republican numbers are going down slightly, but that's pretty much expected as their convention bounce decreases. They are not, alas, tanking as the democrats probably hoped.

And Palin still draws in the enormous crowds...

14% of total oil, 2.4% of total energy. She was off by an order of magnitude. That's not a mistake, that's a goddamned lie.

Also Palin's numbers are down by 10 points over a week ago. She's a liar, people are starting to figure that out.

And Palin still draws in the enormous crowds...

So does Britney Spears, depending on what she wears. How many people would vote for her again?

So does Britney Spears, depending on what she wears. How many people would vote for her again?

Well there's at least one person in this thread who'll vote for any ticket with a vagina.

Well there's at least one person in this thread who'll vote for any ticket with a vagina.

Aside from those, I mean.

Yes it does.

This is what is meant by rising above petty attacks, and by addressing the real heart of the manner. Rather than sleazy attack ads, Obama has been consistently putting out this sort of informative, quality advertisement. He has attacked, but even when he attacks, he attacks policies, rather than his opponent directly as a person.

I'm becoming more and more happy about my decision to vote for him every single day.

Ah, quality has so many levels.

Obama's "quality" advertisment: "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn’t,” says the announcer. “He admits he still doesn’t know how to use a computer, can’t send an e-mail, still doesn’t understand the economy and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class." All the while it shows ancient computers and a cordless phone that looks like a walkie-talkie.

Yet in 2000, Forbes magazine called him the "Senate’s savviest technologist." That same year, Slate’s Jacob Weisberg gushed that McCain was the most "cybersavvy" of all the presidential candidates, a crop that included none other than Al Gore. Being chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Weisberg explained, "forced him to learn about the Internet early on, and young Web entrepreneurs such as Jerry Yang and Jeff Bezos fascinate him."”

Now Weisberg, an Obama booster, disingenuously mocks McCain as "flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer." Now that is change you can count on if you ask me.

Perhaps one reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate, and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCain’s injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him e-mails and Web sites, though he says he’s getting up to speed.

"It’s extraordinary," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn’t know how to send an e-mail."

For the record, President Clinton sent exactly two e-mails while in office.

So please go on. Tell me how out of touch McCain is with this new-fangled technology stuff and then tell me how making fun of a man who can't operate a keyboard due to injuries suffered during torture is fair game. Oh yes, Obama is a class act. Rising above all the time he is.

Care to source your statements, please?

Care to source your statements, please?

I have 10 bucks running on "he doesn't".

Perhaps one reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate, and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCain’s injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him e-mails and Web sites, though he says he’s getting up to speed.

"It’s extraordinary," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn’t know how to send an e-mail."

For the record, President Clinton sent exactly two e-mails while in office.

So please go on. Tell me how out of touch McCain is with this new-fangled technology stuff and then tell me how making fun of a man who can't operate a keyboard due to injuries suffered during torture is fair game. Oh yes, Obama is a class act. Rising above all the time he is.

did you post this to make us giggle? bless your heart!

if you havent noticed this is not 2000, its 2008. technology has progressed; mccain has not.

and "YOU CAN'T SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT HIM HE WAS A POW!" is soooooo last month.

did you post this to make us giggle? bless your heart!

if you havent noticed this is not 2000, its 2008. technology has progressed; mccain has not.

and "YOU CAN'T SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT HIM HE WAS A POW!" is soooooo last month.

If he didn't want to be a POW in Vietnam, why did he GO to Vietnam anyways?

Care to source your statements, please?

You elitists and your "sources." Sources are part of a liberal-media east coast ivory tower conspiracy to destroy True American Values.

And Palin still draws in the enormous crowds...

So, what you're saying is - Palin is a celebrity?

Ah, quality has so many levels.

Obama's "quality" advertisment: "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn’t,” says the announcer. “He admits he still doesn’t know how to use a computer, can’t send an e-mail, still doesn’t understand the economy and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class." All the while it shows ancient computers and a cordless phone that looks like a walkie-talkie.

Yet in 2000, Forbes magazine called him the "Senate’s savviest technologist." That same year, Slate’s Jacob Weisberg gushed that McCain was the most "cybersavvy" of all the presidential candidates, a crop that included none other than Al Gore. Being chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Weisberg explained, "forced him to learn about the Internet early on, and young Web entrepreneurs such as Jerry Yang and Jeff Bezos fascinate him."”

Now Weisberg, an Obama booster, disingenuously mocks McCain as "flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer." Now that is change you can count on if you ask me.

Perhaps one reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate, and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCain’s injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him e-mails and Web sites, though he says he’s getting up to speed.

"It’s extraordinary," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn’t know how to send an e-mail."

For the record, President Clinton sent exactly two e-mails while in office.

So please go on. Tell me how out of touch McCain is with this new-fangled technology stuff and then tell me how making fun of a man who can't operate a keyboard due to injuries suffered during torture is fair game. Oh yes, Obama is a class act. Rising above all the time he is.

So - what you object to is the comments about how McCain is somewhat less than cutting-edge when it comes to technology... and to prove those claims false, you wish to introduce evidence that is almost a decade old?

Yes it does.

This is what is meant by rising above petty attacks, and by addressing the real heart of the manner. Rather than sleazy attack ads, Obama has been consistently putting out this sort of informative, quality advertisement. He has attacked, but even when he attacks, he attacks policies, rather than his opponent directly as a person.
No, Obama would never resort to personal attacks. :rolleyes:

The new Obama Ad makes fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer. (http://freevoiceonline.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/new-obama-ad-mocks-mccains-inability-to-use-a-computer/)

Ah, quality has so many levels.

Obama's "quality" advertisment: "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn’t,” says the announcer. “He admits he still doesn’t know how to use a computer, can’t send an e-mail, still doesn’t understand the economy and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class." All the while it shows ancient computers and a cordless phone that looks like a walkie-talkie.

Yet in 2000, Forbes magazine called him the "Senate’s savviest technologist." That same year, Slate’s Jacob Weisberg gushed that McCain was the most "cybersavvy" of all the presidential candidates, a crop that included none other than Al Gore. Being chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Weisberg explained, "forced him to learn about the Internet early on, and young Web entrepreneurs such as Jerry Yang and Jeff Bezos fascinate him."”

Now Weisberg, an Obama booster, disingenuously mocks McCain as "flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer." Now that is change you can count on if you ask me.

Perhaps one reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate, and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCain’s injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him e-mails and Web sites, though he says he’s getting up to speed.

"It’s extraordinary," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn’t know how to send an e-mail."

For the record, President Clinton sent exactly two e-mails while in office.

So please go on. Tell me how out of touch McCain is with this new-fangled technology stuff and then tell me how making fun of a man who can't operate a keyboard due to injuries suffered during torture is fair game. Oh yes, Obama is a class act. Rising above all the time he is.

So, youre arguement is not only out dated, but relies heavily on "GOD DAMNIT MCCAIN WAS A POW DONT ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS OR EXPECT ANYTHING OF HIM OR YOU HATE OUR TROOPS!!!"


Tell me, do you work for the McCain campaign? Because I see similarities in the powers of your logic and in the power of theirs.

14% of total oil, 2.4% of total energy. She was off by an order of magnitude. That's not a mistake, that's a goddamned lie.

i'm actually beginning to think that she isn't exactly a liar per se, but rather what harry frankfurt was getting at in "on bullshit".

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

mccain, on the other hand, he's a fucking liar.

No, Obama would never resort to personal attacks. :rolleyes:

The new Obama Ad makes fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer. (http://freevoiceonline.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/new-obama-ad-mocks-mccains-inability-to-use-a-computer/)

In a day and age in which digital technology is de rigeur, saying that someone isn't qualified to use those tools is hardly a personal attack.

Would you say it was 'a personal attack' if the candidate was incapable of speaking English, and someone pointed that out?

In a day and age in which digital technology is de rigeur, saying that someone isn't qualified to use those tools is hardly a personal attack.

Would you say it was 'a personal attack' if the candidate was incapable of speaking English, and someone pointed that out?
The fact is that it IS a personal attack, contrary to what Kyronea posted.

The fact is that it IS a personal attack, contrary to what Kyronea posted.

No, it isn't. It's saying he's out of touch with the electorate.

KNOWING HOW to send email (not the actual sending - he could get someone to do that FOR him - he doesn't know HOW) is part of the everyday life of the average American now.

But, that is only a small part of the ad - an EXAMPLE of 'out of touch'. The tax cuts, the admitted lack of understanding of economics.

McCain is out of touch with the average American. That's not a personal attack - that's an observation of what to expect from a McCain Whitehouse.

The fact is that it IS a personal attack, contrary to what Kyronea posted.

define 'personal attack'

define 'personal attack'

Anything bad about the McCain-Palin ticket. After all, it has a vagina.

It's a personal attack in one sense, yes, Canuck, but in another sense, as Cruci says, it's not, because it's demonstrating that McCain is out of touch with the electorate, which he is. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be advocating a number of positions that a large portion of the electorate simply do not want to see happen, period.

Anything bad about the McCain-Palin ticket. After all, it has a vagina.

Don't forget, all personal attacks against the McCain-St. Palin ticket are sexist.

It's a personal attack in one sense, yes, Canuck, but in another sense, as Cruci says, it's not, because it's demonstrating that McCain is out of touch with the electorate, which he is. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be advocating a number of positions that a large portion of the electorate simply do not want to see happen, period.

The way I figure it, talking about things that are relevent to the job, is not a 'presonal attack', it's a 'professional' one.

Objecting to a school-teacher being hired because they have a history of molesting children - not a personal attack. Their 'personal' issues affect their professional capacity to do the job.

What McCain said about Obama being a 'celebrity'? Personal attack - it has no bearing on his ability to do his job, if he is popular.

Asking if Obama is quailified to do the job, given his short span of experience - professional attack. (Just not a very good one).

The way I figure it, talking about things that are relevent to the job, is not a 'presonal attack', it's a 'professional' one.

Objecting to a school-teacher being hired because they have a history of molesting children - not a personal attack. Their 'personal' issues affect their professional capacity to do the job.

What McCain said about Obama being a 'celebrity'? Personal attack - it has no bearing on his ability to do his job, if he is popular.

Asking if Obama is quailified to do the job, given his short span of experience - professional attack. (Just not a very good one).

Exactly my point.

Another light aside, this one was sent to me so I don't have a link but the reporter is Caitlin Moran, I think she's the Times but I could be wrong...

I've selectively quoted as well....

In the UK, the continuing revelation of Palin's autobiographical facts have
been reported with a nervous, blinky amazement. She named one of her
children - Piper - after a make of snow plough! She believes that victims of
incest or rape should be denied abortion! She thinks the world was made in
seven days! She regularly kills things - not like just wasps, or even a
chicken - but stuff like bears! And mooses!

Imagine if there was a British candidate for Deputy Prime Minister who had a
child called "JCB", believed raped children should endure labour, dismissed
evolution and regularly shot gigantic animals. It would be regarded as
borderline sectionable behaviour.

It does amaze us that someone like Sarah McCain has a good chance of running your country.

In America, however, it makes them even hotter for Palin. To be crude, a
tough chick with great hair who shoots things - that just turns America on.
They like the idea of politicians who could hold their own in a bar brawl.

Speaking to, perhaps, why Europeans are overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in Europe, it's not that he's fashionable, he's just a little closer to what we call sanity.

The British are only into living so long as it's civilised and
pleasant. As soon as we have to poo in a hole and lose reception of BBC4,
we're quite happy to become extinct. We are not into all this forceful,
effortful, yippy, yappy, living-and-winning-at-any-cost stuff. We don't want
ripped, renegade leaders, like Gerard Butler in 300, shouting, "Tonight, we
dine in Hell!" We want someone who is, ultimately, very good at accounts,
shouting, "Tonight, we dine in the dining room!"

Russia elects Vladimir Putin, on the other hand - a man who releases
topless, buff shots of himself - and suddenly there's nuclear and Chechnya
and Cold War all over the place. It's almost as if, should you vote in a
leader who appears to have a "surviving a geo-political meltdown, merely
with the power of his fists" function, you shouldn't be surprised if, one
day, he wants to test it.

Even our hardest politician - John Prescott - is a man who merely hit another man, once, and would refer to a gun as an "automatic revolvamator". Sarah Palin would shoot him, skin him and turn his head into a handbag in under a minute.

Don't forget, all attacks against the McCain-St. Palin ticket are sexist.

Fixed.

Speaking to, perhaps, why Europeans are overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in Europe, it's not that he's fashionable, he's just a little closer to what we call sanity.

And this is exactly why half of America doesnt like him.

Don't forget, all statements about the McCain-St. Palin ticket are sexist.Fixed.

fixed more

Some perspective on this election and polls:

The first map is a month after Hillary had conceded (July 18):

Obama 325 McCain 199 Ties 14

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Jul18.png

The second map is before the DNS and the RNC (Aug. 16):

Obama 275 McCain 250 Ties 13

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Aug16.png

And the third one is from today:

Obama 247 McCain 257 Ties 34

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Sep17.png

So despite the pick of Sarah Palin, it would appear that there was some serious erosion in regards to the Obama campaign, and/or the Republican campaign was gearing up.

In regards to the economy, what does Obama know?

Obama was against Free Trade before he was for it (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061810).

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.
So he is kinda making up this stuff as he goes, despite having superior technological tools at his disposal?

fixed more

So statements supporting their campaign are sexist too?

So statements supporting their campaign are sexist too?
*reads and listens to various statements made in support of McCain/Palin, particularly in reference to Palin*

Yep, they sound pretty sexist to me.

*reads and listens to various statements made in support of McCain/Palin, particularly in reference to Palin*

Yep, they sound pretty sexist to me.

Okay, just checking.

Some perspective on this election and polls:

The first map is a month after Hillary had conceded (July 18):

Obama 325 McCain 199 Ties 14

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Jul18.png

The second map is before the DNS and the RNC (Aug. 16):

Obama 275 McCain 250 Ties 13

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Aug16.png

And the third one is from today:

Obama 247 McCain 257 Ties 34

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Sep17.png

So despite the pick of Sarah Palin, it would appear that there was some serious erosion in regards to the Obama campaign, and/or the Republican campaign was gearing up.

In regards to the economy, what does Obama know?

Obama was against Free Trade before he was for it (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061810).


So he is kinda making up this stuff as he goes, despite having superior technological tools at his disposal?

You're honestly going to be disappointed if Obama wins, aren't you?

"Fuck the world, I wanna be right, dammit."

You're honestly going to be disappointed if Obama wins, aren't you?

"Fuck the world, I wanna be right, dammit."

CH sounds like the kind of guy in a horror movie who'd throw the rest of the group to the zombies just because he didn't get things his way.

Clearly he's praying for 4 More Years of Bushevism even if he isn't going to admit it.

CH sounds like the kind of guy in a horror movie who'd throw the rest of the group to the zombies just because he didn't get things his way.

Clearly he's praying for 4 More Years of Bushevism even if he isn't going to admit it.

Im actually sure that CH really is a right wing Bushevik despite all his claims to the contrary, and really does want a neocon back in office.

And now back to your regular scheduled programming. Sometimes I wonder who is more upset... CH that Hillary didn't win or some of you people who are upset CH won't come back to the "fold".

The "fold".

The "fold".

The "fold".

And now back to your regular scheduled programming. Sometimes I wonder who is more upset... CH that Hillary didn't win or some of you people who are upset CH won't come back to the "fold".

The "fold".

The "fold".

The "fold".

Odd that you would say this, considering your the one who often brings up CH's bitterness and continues to do so.

Odd that you would say this, considering your the one who often brings up CH's bitterness and continues to do so.

Read what you wrote and what I wrote. Seriously, man, let it go.

CH isn't going to change his position. Attack the position. It's one thing to occasionally joke with him about how he's supporting McCain. It's another to compare him sociopaths and lunatics.

And now back to your regular scheduled programming. Sometimes I wonder who is more upset... CH that Hillary didn't win or some of you people who are upset CH won't come back to the "fold".

The "fold".

The "fold".

The "fold".

You're right, there should be more threads about origami.

Read what you wrote and what I wrote. Seriously, man, let it go.

CH isn't going to change his position. Attack the position. It's one thing to occasionally joke with him about how he's supporting McCain. It's another to compare him sociopaths and lunatics.

Which I never have compared him to sociopaths and lunatics, unless you assume me saying hes a right winger means I think hes a sociopath, which is your own failing. I dont think right wingers are inherantly lunatics, just wrong (all though some of them are lunatics). I could care less what CH thinks, which is why I have him on ignore. I care so little I dont even waste my time reading his comments.

Its just curious you would make this claim when you tend to bring up his bitterness more then me. Anyway, enough about the Canadian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/politics/18poll.html?ref=us

Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates “the Palin effect” was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest. The contest appeared to be roughly where it was before the two conventions and before the vice-presidential selections: Mr. Obama had the support of 48 percent of registered voters, compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News poll, in mid-August

And now back to your regular scheduled programming. Sometimes I wonder who is more upset... CH that Hillary didn't win or some of you people who are upset CH won't come back to the "fold".

The "fold".

The "fold".

The "fold".

Could care less if he "came back to the fold" or not. I'm starting to become annoyed with his doom-and-gloom "Obama cost the Democrats the White House Again" bleatings.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/palin-tops-list-of-online-political-search-terms-but-no-joe/

From the article:
"The Republican National Committee has a Biden gaffe clock, which measures the time between what it says are misstatements, mistakes and miscues by Biden on the campaign trail."

Man, if they made one for McCain, not only would it be a freakin' fan it'd prob be fast enough to power half the national grid!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0MSoQeC0h5g&refer=home


Fliiiiiip flopper!

no no no no no.
Haven't you understood anything yet?
When McCain does it, he's just 'changing his opinion' based on new facts.
It's only a flip-flop when a Dem does it, like for example Obama saying he doesn't like the idea of off-shore drilling but would consider it if it was necessary.
See? That's a classic flipflop.

What McCain did here, in saying taxpayers can't bail-out AIG then a day later saying it's necessary isn't a flip-flop. It's just a 'change of opinion'.

Got that? good. Now we can continue.

In response to a few comments I saw about Palin:

Nowhere did she claim she "sold the jet" on Ebay, or for a profit - in fact, McCain was the one who said that, and yes, he was mistaken. Palin, however, simply stated she "put the jet up on Ebay". Which she did. And estimates show that the jet would have cost more in maintenance and fuel costs than the "deficit" she sold it for. Ergo, it was still good policy to sell the thing at whatever they got for it.

Yes, she was wrong about the amount of energy supplied by Alaska. Alaska does produce 14 percent of domestic oil (as opposed to purchased foreign oil) but not 20% of total energy supplied.

2.4 and 3.5 percentage points are far different than 20%

Palin's numbers are far from going down, however. They are going up.

Since Sept. 13, Palin’s unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That’s a three-day net swing of -10 points. Newsweek: "Over the course of a single weekend, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least."

Republican numbers are going down slightly, but that's pretty much expected as their convention bounce decreases. They are not, alas, tanking as the democrats probably hoped.

And Palin still draws in the enormous crowds...

Still? You mean for a whole two weeks? Please show us the numbers where her approval ratings/favorability ratings are going up. We've already shown where they are going down. It is up to you now to refute it with some evidence.

Ah, quality has so many levels.
Perhaps one reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate, and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCain’s injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him e-mails and Web sites, though he says he’s getting up to speed.

"It’s extraordinary," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn’t know how to send an e-mail."

For the record, President Clinton sent exactly two e-mails while in office.

So please go on. Tell me how out of touch McCain is with this new-fangled technology stuff and then tell me how making fun of a man who can't operate a keyboard due to injuries suffered during torture is fair game. Oh yes, Obama is a class act. Rising above all the time he is.
can't use a keyboard?
what a joke!

People with no fucking arms can still use keyboards. People paralysed from the neck down can still use keyboards.
I've seen videos of McCain. He doesn't appear to have too much trouble shaking hands, writing letters and holding microphones. How can he do that, yet not 'use a keyboard'.
Here:
this sentence was typed using my nose.
this one was made using one finger held straight.
and this one with my toe.

Didn't take much time at all to do all three.
If he really can't use a keyboard (which makes him rare, almost unique amongst the other 6.5Billion ppl on this planet) he could always get some voice recognition software or writing pad. Or does his severe POW torture mean he's unable to speak or hold a pen as well?

all this shows is what a class act McCain is, dragging his POW experience into everything and using it to attack Obama. Good Lord, is there no level he won't stoop to?

all this shows is what a class act McCain is, dragging his POW experience into everything and using it to attack Obama. Good Lord, is there no level he won't stoop to?

I wonder if he fell down and took the torture FOR future political gain...

You're honestly going to be disappointed if Obama wins, aren't you?
Well, that is kind of a mixed bag. I won't be disappointed IF he does the right thing. Right now, I am truly skeptical that he would, especially in regards to his foreign policy, which is continuing Bush's war of terror, and fighting the "war we need to win", which means that "battlefield in Pakistan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/ftn/main4275864.shtml)". I believe that taking on Pakistan will be far more grevous than the picnic in Iraq. On this matter alone, Obama scares the hell out of me.

"Fuck the world, I wanna be right, dammit."
You know, I am not too sure that I buy that Democratic packaging of McCain as being lock step with Bush, but time will tell. I certainly don't believe that McCain would buy into Obama's "war we need to win" philosophy, especially since he has actually participated in a war that the US couldn't win.

Well, that is kind of a mixed bag. I won't be disappointed IF he does the right thing. Right now, I am truly skeptical that he would, especially in regards to his foreign policy, which is continuing Bush's war of terror, and fighting the "war we need to win", which means that "battlefield in Pakistan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/ftn/main4275864.shtml)". I believe that taking on Pakistan will be far more grevous than the picnic in Iraq. On this matter alone, Obama scares the hell out of me.


You know, I am not too sure that I buy that Democratic packaging of McCain as being lock step with Bush, but time will tell. I certainly don't believe that McCain would buy into Obama's "war we need to win" philosophy, especially since he has actually participated in a war that the US couldn't win.

You mean the same thing that Clinton said and Bush already did. You mean that? Right, Obama's gonna "invade". Not like that claim wasn't debunked 6 months ago or anything.

So we'll forget the mental disconnect that your own candidate said the same thing, endorses Obama and nearly completely agrees with Obama across the board. You just keep arguing that McCain is the better man.

And set aside the FACT that McCain has a number of health risks. He'd be the oldest first term President in history. He's already beating the odds. He's taking one of the most stressful jobs in the country and the survival rate isn't particularly great.

You can't logically look at this without recognizing that Palin is reasonably going to end up President. Want her picking Justices? Sure, why not? Of course. I mean, she's not anti-choice or anything.

Yup. No need to decide on the issues. I mean, this really is just a race for President of the class. It's not like it's an important role or anything, a role that can decide the justices, the policies and the patterns of the US.

all this shows is what a class act McCain is, dragging his POW experience into everything and using it to attack Obama. Good Lord, is there no level he won't stoop to?

And we all know how well Republican candidates dragging their personal experiences into every campaign speech works wonders.

CoughcoughGiulianicoughcough9-119-11coughcough.

Since Sept. 13, Palin’s unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That’s a three-day net swing of -10 points. Newsweek: "Over the course of a single weekend, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least."

Still? You mean for a whole two weeks? Please show us the numbers where her approval ratings/favorability ratings are going up. We've already shown where they are going down. It is up to you now to refute it with some evidence.
All you have shown is one polling firm (Diageo/Hotline (http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/documents/diageohotlinepoll/DiageoHotlineTracker091708data.pdf)) with the poll weighted to Democrats.

Some comparators would be in order?

I wonder if he fell down and took the torture FOR future political gain...

I doubt he was that far seeing back then. But that doesn't mean he's above throwing every advantage he can scrounge up. And with his record, that's one of the very few he has.

I wonder if he fell down and took the torture FOR future political gain...

Wow. Lowest attack I've seen on McCain. Completely uncalled for. Lemme guess, was that the Ace of Hatred?

You mean the same thing that Clinton said and Bush already did. You mean that? Right, Obama's gonna "invade". Not like that claim wasn't debunked 6 months ago or anything.

So we'll forget the mental disconnect that your own candidate said the same thing, endorses Obama and nearly completely agrees with Obama across the board. You just keep arguing that McCain is the better man.

And set aside the FACT that McCain has a number of health risks. He'd be the oldest first term President in history. He's already beating the odds. He's taking one of the most stressful jobs in the country and the survival rate isn't particularly great.

You can't logically look at this without recognizing that Palin is reasonably going to end up President. Want her picking Justices? Sure, why not? Of course. I mean, she's not anti-choice or anything.

Yup. No need to decide on the issues. I mean, this really is just a race for President of the class. It's not like it's an important role or anything, a role that can decide the justices, the policies and the patterns of the US.
McCain can't be President because of his age. Gotcha.

McCain can't be President because of his age. Gotcha.

Canuck Heaven, master of the "I'll Read Whatever I Want To" technique.

His age alone wouldn't be that much of a factor. It's the age COMBINED with his various health risks, including cancer.

Reagan was older when he was inaugurated for his second term. No one said he was too old to be President. (He was too incompetent to be President, but that's another thing entirely.)

McCain can't be President because of his age. Gotcha.

I'm sure it's all fun and games for you CH, but there are real issues that you essentially look to support by clamouring for McCain.

A local conservative radio personality, Eddie Burke, who had lambasted the organizers as "a bunch of socialist, baby-killing maggots," was on hand with a sign reading "Alaska is not Frisco."

"We are one Supreme Court justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade," he excitedly told me.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/17/opinion/edowd.php)

I simply don't believe you associate with these views but these are the people with which you align yourself, seemingly driven by spite.

Wow. Lowest attack I've seen on McCain. Completely uncalled for. Lemme guess, was that the Ace of Hatred?

No, that was the Ace of I'm Tired of Him Using His Time At The Hanoi Hilton As a Prop, So I'll Propose Such Hypotheses to Have My Fun.

But can I save "Ace of Hatred" for a different occasion? One of the most badass names I've ever seen!

Now even McCain's top advisors are being sexist!
Carly Fiorina, a key surrogate for John McCain on economic issues, said on Tuesday that Sarah Palin does not have the experience needed to run a major company like the one that Fiorina formerly headed.
"Do you think [Sarah Palin] has the experience to run a major company, like Hewlett Packard?" asked the host.
"No, I don't," responded Fiorina.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/16/fiorina-palin-couldnt-do_n_126827.html

How awfully sexist of her to make such a critical comment of Palin!

Now even McCain's top advisors are being sexist!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/16/fiorina-palin-couldnt-do_n_126827.html

How awfully sexist of her to make such a critical comment of Palin!

Actually, she didn't think any of the candidates could run a multinational company, then again, neither could she so it's really a non-story.

McCain can't be President because of his age. Gotcha.
wow.
Jocab wrote 188 words and you only managed to see one - "oldest" - and used it to dismiss his entire argument.

That's impressive even for you.

Now even McCain's top advisors are being sexist!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/16/fiorina-palin-couldnt-do_n_126827.html

How awfully sexist of her to make such a critical comment of Palin!

Naw, the Right Wing Noise Machine'll just throw out some tripe about how Fiorina wanted to violate the privacy of HP employees and got her ass thrown out so she should shut the fuck up stay home and make babies, etc. etc.

Actually, she didn't think any of the candidates could run a multinational company, then again, neither could she so it's really a non-story.
She only made that comment (that none of the candidates could run HP) hours later in an attempt to cover her ass.

It is a story because one of the chief McCain campaign strategies has been to harp on about how much better experienced Palin is over Obama. If you're going to do this, you best not admit you think she's incapable.

Naw, the Right Wing Noise Machine'll just throw out some tripe about how Fiorina wanted to violate the privacy of HP employees and got her ass thrown out so she should shut the fuck up stay home and make babies, etc. etc.

I just don't think these kinds of stories help either side really, twisting someone's word to make some kind of 'oh my, that totally discounts her for the VP position' when it's simply a comment, taken out of context, applied to all candidates and, ultimately, of little interest whatsoever.

I mean, there's so much more to worry about with Sarah Palin and John McCain in charge that these snipes simply trivialise the election, entrench positions and continue the mockery of tit-for-tat insults that have little to do with a candidate's suitability for VP or president.

Sarah McCain is simply not a candidate for the 21st century, nor is John McCain, if America wants to show the world it's as backward as some people think, then vote away, go regressive.

I suspect what allows CH to sustain his position is that the debate is over who said what, petty bickering.

If he actually thought about the positions he was supporting, he might have a change of heart, but that's not what people seem to want to debate.

McCain can't be President because of his age. Gotcha.

Yeah, because that's what I said. You want rational discourse? What I said was McCain has health issues. As such, we have to consider the likelihood that his VP will end up as President.

I'm not complaining about his age. I'm saying he picked a VP that NO reasonable liberal would want to see in the driver's seat. That would be worriesome with any Presidential candidate, but it is particularly so with any candidate with the age AND health problems McCain has.

Are you seriously so unwilling to debate that any mention of McCain's age is going to be skewed as ageism? Is it ageism that I consider my grandmother a more likely candidate for assisted care because of her advance age and health issue than I would consider my mother?

How about you debate and leave the strawmen in the fields?

I just don't think these kinds of stories help either side really, twisting someone's word to make some kind of 'oh my, that totally discounts her for the VP position' when it's simply a comment, taken out of context, applied to all candidates and, ultimately, of little interest whatsoever.

I mean, there's so much more to worry about with Sarah Palin and John McCain in charge that these snipes simply trivialise the election, entrench positions and continue the mockery of tit-for-tat insults that have little to do with a candidate's suitability for VP or president.

Sarah McCain is simply not a candidate for the 21st century, nor is John McCain, if America wants to show the world it's as backward as some people think, then vote away, go regressive.

I suspect what allows CH to sustain his position is that the debate is over who said what, petty bickering.

If he actually thought about the positions he was supporting, he might have a change of heart, but that's not what people seem to want to debate.

^this

This is what is said about CH claiming he supports McCain. Everyone here, including CH, knows that he'd be sniping at McCain if Clinton would have won. Instead he's acting like even reasonable statements about McCain are out of bounds. The disconnect there is astounding and damages credibilty beyond repair.

Give it a rest, people. CH is not the candidate.

Let's face it, when you're arguing with someone who is cherrypicking evidence, it's not unreasonable to point out a pattern.

It's not actually possible to completely leave the poster out of the argument. And I can't think of a more important case where letting disingenuous arguments stand would be problematic.

I'm not suggesting that's reason to talk about him throwing people to zombies or whatever was going on there, but addressing a pattern of argumentations is relevant.

It is, however, unreasonable to keep doing it over and over when there's such a fascinating orchard of real political plums awaiting.

I realise it's probably a sign that the campaign's quiet at the moment, but there's a point when it becomes petty bickering about petty bickering.

I'm not saying the state of a candidate's health is not an issue.

I am saying that if debaters have to keep assuring each other that they really don't hate them, just their arguments, then they may need to reconsider the way they're putting those arguments.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html

From the Fact Check Desk: Obama's New Spanish Language TV Ad Es Erróneo
September 17, 2008 5:53 PM

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has launched a new Spanish-language TV ad that seeks to paint Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as anti-immigrant, even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh.

As first reported by the Washington Post, Obama's ad features a narrator saying: "They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with…the intolerance…they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much."

The screen then shows these two quotes from Limbaugh:

“…stupid and unskilled Mexicans”
—Rush Limbaugh

"You shut your mouth or you get out!”
—Rush Limbaugh

The narrator then says, “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote…and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain…more of the same old Republican tricks.”
There are some real factual problems with this ad, which is titled “Dos Caras,” or two faces.

First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.

Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.

Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.

Railing against NAFTA in 1993, Limbaugh said, "If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Not one of his most eloquent moments, to be sure, but his larger point was that NAFTA would mean that unskilled stupid Mexicans would be doing the jobs of unskilled stupid Americans.

I’m not going to defend how he said it, but to act as if this was just a moment of Limbaugh slurring Mexicans is not accurate. Though again, certainly if people were offended I could understand why.

The second quote is totally unfair. In 2006, Limbaugh was mocking Mexican law, and he wrote:

“Everybody's making immigration proposals these days. Let me add mine to the mix. Call it The Limbaugh Laws:

“First: If you immigrate to our country, you have to speak the native language. You have to be a professional or an investor; no unskilled workers allowed. Also, there will be no special bilingual programs in the schools with the Limbaugh Laws. No special ballots for elections. No government business will be conducted in your language. Foreigners will not have the right to vote or hold political office.

“If you're in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers. You are not entitled to welfare, food stamps, or other government goodies. You can come if you invest here: an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If not, stay home. But if you want to buy land, it'll be restricted. No waterfront, for instance. As a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to the property.

“And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our President or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail.

“You think the Limbaugh Laws are harsh? Well, every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico today! That' how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country. Yet Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets!

“How do you say ‘double standard’ in Spanish? How about: ‘No mas!’”

But even if one is uninclined to see Limbaugh's quotes as having been taken unfairly out of context, linking them to McCain makes as much sense as running a quote from Bill Maher and linking it to Obama.

Asked for backup as to how Obama could link McCain to Limbaugh, the campaign provided this interview with McCain refusing to condemn the Minutemen from from the Kansas City Star:

Q: ‘Are they a good thing? The Civil Defense Corps, do you think -- do they help in the immigration fight, or not?’

A: ‘I think they're citizens who are entitled to being engaged in the process. They're obviously very concerned about immigration.’

Q: ‘Are they helpful?’

A: ‘I think that's up to others to judge. I don't agree with them, but they certainly are exercising their legal rights as citizens.’

Asked about the “lies” they’re accusing McCain of telling, the Obama campaign provided evidence that McCain in July 2008 told La Raza that he would have voted for the DREAM act, a bill that provides scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, even thought he earlier in the campaign season said he would have voted against the bill.

Let’s delver further into this.

In the November 2007, Myrtle Beach Sun-News, McCain said of the DREAM Act, which he had cosponsored in the past, "I think it has certain virtues associated with it. And I think other things have virtues associated with it. But the message is they want the borders secured first."

The newspaper noted that McCain said he’d vote against a temporary worker program, even though he supports the idea. "I will vote against anything until we secure the borders," he said. "There is no way we're going to enact piecemeal immigration reform."

Before La Raza, McCain was asked by a young Latina if he’d support the DREAM Act, and he said, “Yes. Yes.”

The full exchange, however, goes like this:

QUESTIONER: Hi. I’m a part of One Dream 2009 and I am one of the 6 million who either have an undocumented parent or is undocumented and I wanted to know if you would support humanity all around the world and support our Dream Act that we are trying to pass.

MCCAIN: Yes. Yes. Thank you. But I will also enforce the existing laws of a country. And a nation’s first requirement is the nation’s security, and that’s why we have to have our borders secured. But, we can have a way and a process of people obtaining citizenship in this country. And, we cannot penalize people who come here legally and people who wait legally. And so, that’s a fundamental principle on which we have to operate. Thank you.

The Obama campaign also provided a number of seemingly conflicting comments McCain has made about offering greater funding for education programs in the No Child Left Behind act -- telling the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in June that he “would fully fund those programs that have never been fully funded,” while not suggesting any greater funding for the bill when he’s talked about education in front of whiter audiences.

That ignores the fact that McCain has suggested reallocating the way the $23 billion for NCLB is spent.

McCain has changed his rhetoric and his emphasis when discussing immigration after almost losing the GOP presidential nomination because of it.

He now says the borders must be secured before anything else happens. And in that, he’s opened himself up to charges of flip-flopping, though the Obama campaign is quoting him selectively and unfairly to make their points.

The greater implication the ad makes, however, is that McCain is no friend to Latinos at all, beyond issues of funding the DREAM act or how NCLB money is distributed. By linking McCain to Limbaugh’s quotes, twisting Limbaugh’s quotes, and tying McCain to more extremist anti-immigration voices, the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad. In Spanish, the word is erróneo.


Obama lying about McCain? What a shock, trying to paint him as anti-immgrant. Isn't that immigration stance why conservatives hate him so much? Unfairly connecting McCain to Limbaugh and taking both men out of context is beyond low and unfair. Obama shouldn't attack McCain on this, both men are similar on the subject and Obama attacking him like this only hurts Obama and helps McCain. Change your lines Obama, this one didn't work.

I'm sure it's all fun and games for you CH, but there are real issues that you essentially look to support by clamouring for McCain.
First of all, I am not "clamouring for McCain". In all honesty, at this point, I would prefer that Nader wins this election. I have never, as in never, voted conservative in my life.



Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/17/opinion/edowd.php)

I simply don't believe you associate with these views but these are the people with which you align yourself, seemingly driven by spite.
There are all kinds of fruitcakes on both sides of the fence, who hold views that neither you or I would associate with, nor would we believe that we are "aligned" with them in any significant matter.

As far as Roe vs. Wade is concerned, I do believe that Democrats are using fear tactics on a non-issue. The likelihood of that being repealed are slim and none?

First of all, I am not "clamouring for McCain". In all honesty, at this point, I would prefer that Nader wins this election. I have never, as in never, voted conservative in my life.


There are all kinds of fruitcakes on both sides of the fence, who hold views that neither you or I would associate with, nor would we believe that we are "aligned" with them in any significant matter.

As far as Roe vs. Wade is concerned, I do believe that Democrats are using fear tactics on a non-issue. The likelihood of that being repealed are slim and none?

Next to none, I think republicans just say they will as a campaign promise to sucker conservatives into voting for them. One whould think they might have wised up to it by now.

As far as Roe vs. Wade is concerned, I do believe that Democrats are using fear tactics on a non-issue. The likelihood of that being repealed are slim and none?

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

There's no need for Democrats to use fear tactics, it's right there in John McCain's issues section. Up to 3 positions on the Supreme Court are going for grabs and the person I quoted previously is right, they're just one away.

Roe vs. Wade has been chipped and chipped away at already, it's not beyond the bounds of reason that it returns to the states, and plenty of states will immediately ban it.

As far as Roe vs. Wade is concerned, I do believe that Democrats are using fear tactics on a non-issue. The likelihood of that being repealed are slim and none?
last time it came up it was upheld 5-4.
All 4 dissenting judges were Bush nominees (either Bush I or Bush II) and are all the youngest judges currently serving on the court (with 3 under 60).
Of the 5 that upheld the statute, 3 of them are in their 70s and one is in his 89th year. The two oldest voted for upholding Roe (they're 88 and 75 respectively)

Two questions:
1. What do you think are the chances of those two - especially the 88yr-old - lasting out another 4 years?
2. What are, if McCain/Palin were elected, the chances that they would pick a right-wing judge whose viewpoints are more aligned with the 4 judges who voted against Roe?

Yeah, because that's what I said. You want rational discourse? What I said was McCain has health issues. As such, we have to consider the likelihood that his VP will end up as President.

I'm not complaining about his age. I'm saying he picked a VP that NO reasonable liberal would want to see in the driver's seat. That would be worriesome with any Presidential candidate, but it is particularly so with any candidate with the age AND health problems McCain has.

Are you seriously so unwilling to debate that any mention of McCain's age is going to be skewed as ageism? Is it ageism that I consider my grandmother a more likely candidate for assisted care because of her advance age and health issue than I would consider my mother?

How about you debate and leave the strawmen in the fields?
Nope, the strawman is all yours. Your focal point was John McCain's health due to his age, and that Sarah Palin was practically sitting in the oval office. The rest of your post was just window dressing.

Before I disconnect from debating further with you in this thread, perhaps you might want to consider the Senator's health?

McCain in 'excellent health,' doctor says (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/05/23/mccain.health.records/)

A team of doctors from the Mayo Clinic declared Friday that there appears to be no physical reason why Sen. John McCain, the 71-year-old presumed Republican presidential candidate, could not carry out the duties of the office.

"Sen. McCain enjoys excellent health and displays extraordinary energy, and, while it is impossible to predict any person's future health, I and my colleagues can find no medical reason or problem that would preclude Sen. McCain from fulfilling all of the duties or obligations of the president of the United States," said Dr. John D. Eckstein, an internist who has been overseeing McCain's treatment for 16 years at the famed research center's campus in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Now, if you want to slide back into your usual routine, that is up to you, but I want no part of it.

If you want to debate then let's debate. :)

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

There's no need for Democrats to use fear tactics, it's right there in John McCain's issues section. Up to 3 positions on the Supreme Court are going for grabs and the person I quoted previously is right, they're just one away.

Roe vs. Wade has been chipped and chipped away at already, it's not beyond the bounds of reason that it returns to the states, and plenty of states will immediately ban it.
Presidents can appoint but the Senate gets the final say (http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/4/652)?

I agree with Moon Knight's comment.

Presidents can appoint but the Senate gets the final say (http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/4/652)?

I agree with Moon Knight's comment.

We can quibble on the risk % yet why support the risk at all, I say it's very real. It's also the mentality of the type of people the Republicans choose to represent, choose as an election strategy over and above laying out proper policy.

All this pandering is aimed at one thing alone, keeping the rich as rich as possible in the clearly wrong belief that it, in some way, helps the poor, or even the middle-income bracket. The idea that if you can't help yourself, you're not worth helping.

They prey on the fears of traditionalist blue-collar workers, the fear of anything slightly different - foreigners, gays, long hair, environmentalists, damn atheists - using false emotional touch points - which you seem to indicate they're not even serious about, as though John McCain and Sarah Palin won't push, and won't succeed, in tipping the balance - while giving them no help overall.

It's been outlined why John McCain is the wrong choice in term of foreign policy, the same failed economic plans are hardly worth considering, he doesn't work on so many levels aside from 'he's one of us and that them Barack is too damn suspicious for my liking'.

Alas, that's the strongest pull of all, works a treat.

last time it came up it was upheld 5-4.
All 4 dissenting judges were Bush nominees (either Bush I or Bush II) and are all the youngest judges currently serving on the court (with 3 under 60).
Of the 5 that upheld the statute, 3 of them are in their 70s and one is in his 89th year. The two oldest voted for upholding Roe (they're 88 and 75 respectively)

Two questions:
1. What do you think are the chances of those two - especially the 88yr-old - lasting out another 4 years?
2. What are, if McCain/Palin were elected, the chances that they would pick a right-wing judge whose viewpoints are more aligned with the 4 judges who voted against Roe?

CH being Canadian doesn't care about Roe vs Wade. He just wants to keep his petty grudge because a ****** dared beat his princess.

CH being Canadian doesn't care about Roe vs Wade. He just wants to keep his petty grudge because a ****** dared beat his princess.


That's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Doesn't add anything to the debate, stirs up another poster needlessly. Cut it out.

Don't know how many of you have seen this, but food for thought surly.

I would have linked to it, but it comes from another forum that I belong to, also I have checked the validity of it, it is kosha.

'ABOUT SARAH PALIN
by Anne Kilkenny


I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone
here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis.
Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite
substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and
mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her
administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.


She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular girl in
middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for
her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".


It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept
her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven
months.


She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There
is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.
She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there"
and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion
snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly sought-after because of


the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for
salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the
imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style
ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.


Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.
She's smart.
Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at
the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000
residents.


During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this
small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this
administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some
trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.


Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years
as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During
those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by
38%.
This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced
progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food.
The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way
more than they benefited residents.


The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't


enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was
needed,too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of
over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for?
Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment
plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for
construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build
on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was
still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The


sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money
pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds
for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any
borrowing.


While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated
more than once.


These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.


As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in
Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us
energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution
of this surplus to every individual in the state.


In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended
that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed
distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.


She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or
compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her
staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who
proposed them.


While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City


Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the
library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense
of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so


Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her


attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.


Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for Mayor,
so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of
the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or
elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally
dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to
the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has
acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State's top cop (see
below).


As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her,
she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has
the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every
legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her
decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a


State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit
that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the
person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She
tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for
sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her
support.


She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help.
The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her
to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first
targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City
Administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this
ruthlessness.


Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything
publicly about her.


When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the
best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the
few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil &
gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she
was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated
that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a
member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican
Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some
undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in
one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media
attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys'
club" when she dramatically quit, exposing this man's ethics violations (for

which he was fined).


As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator
Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly
humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became
clear that it would be unwise not to.


As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines,
then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them
pork.
Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these
projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their
importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as "
anti-pork".


She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders
hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members
of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.


Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They
call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory
ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated
around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school
basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of
the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse
her.


As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of
legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the
beat of her drum.


Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She
campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiaitive that would
have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b)
tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She
has pushed the State's lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to
list polar bears as threatened species.


McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a
heartbeat away from being President.


There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable
and experienced than she.


However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are
regretting it.


CLAIM VS FACT
•"Hockey mom": true for a few years
•"PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school,
not since
•"NRA supporter": absolutely true
•social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that
would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she
did this because it was unconsitutional).
•pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote
it.
•"Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT
declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
•"Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has
residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No
legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory
or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of
about 5,000.
•political maverick: not at all
•gutsy: absolutely!
•open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at
explaining actions.
•has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
•"a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and
disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
•fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
•pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city
without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early
20th century standards.
•pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on
residents
pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in
Wasilla's history.
•pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't make
her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is
pro-labor/pro-union.


WHY AM I WRITING THIS?


First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I
am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the
schools.
If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to
my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.


Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when
good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone
to as many City Council meetings.


Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I
don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is
immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in
the future: that's life.


Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so


people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at
censorship.


Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say
anything because they were somehow vulnerable.


CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in
spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information
supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't
recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for
population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info
out of City Hall--they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.


You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the
population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day
Palin's selection was announced a city official told me that the current
population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have
used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was
growing rapidly in the mid-90's.

Snip.

Mail this, people, to everyone you know! Tell them to do the same! Talk about it, divulge it well! Dying is the day worth living for, people, move, move!

Nope, the strawman is all yours. Your focal point was John McCain's health due to his age, and that Sarah Palin was practically sitting in the oval office. The rest of your post was just window dressing.

Before I disconnect from debating further with you in this thread, perhaps you might want to consider the Senator's health?

McCain in 'excellent health,' doctor says (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/05/23/mccain.health.records/)


Now, if you want to slide back into your usual routine, that is up to you, but I want no part of it.

If you want to debate then let's debate. :)

So you ignore the rest of my point as "window dressing" and that's my fault?

The doctor might say he's in excellent health, but McCain has the deadliest form of malinoma. You know what that means? That means McCain is already beating the odds. His age makes that doubly so. You want to focus on everything buy my point, go for it, but I'm not the only one who's going to notice.

By the by, I enjoyed how you slipped a personal insult in there and then acted like you were taking the high road. No one noticed that. Completely opaque that was. I'm also not sarcastic at all.

snippity

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/sarahpalin.asp

So yeah that one is legit. There are a couple others on that page.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110446/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-45.aspx

Obama pulling ahead in the polls again.

Quinnipac (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1215):

September 18, 2008 - Women, Blacks Give Obama 4-Pt. Lead Over McCain, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Dem Tax Plan Helps Middle Class, Poor

Word format

With a 14-point lead among women and a 91-point lead among blacks, Democrat Sen. Barack Obama leads Republican Sen. John McCain 49 - 45 percent among likely voters nationwide, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

This compares to a 47 - 42 percent Sen. Obama lead in an August 19 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

In this latest survey, 51 percent of voters say Sen. McCain's proposed tax cut will benefit the rich, while 9 percent say it will help the middle class and 1 percent say it will help the poor.

Obama's tax cut plan will help the rich 9 percent say, while 33 percent say it will help the middle class and 22 percent say it will help the poor.

In the matchup, McCain leads 50 - 43 percent among men, compared to 46 - 41 percent August 19, and 52 - 43 percent among white voters, compared to 48 - 40 percent last month. He also leads 71 - 21 percent among white Evangelical Christians, up from 65 - 25 percent.

Obama leads 54 - 40 percent among women, compared to 53 - 39 percent last month, and 93 - 2 percent among black voters. The Democrat leads 57 - 37 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old while McCain inches ahead 49 - 47 percent among voters 35 to 54. Voters over 55 tilt to Obama 47 - 45 percent.

Independent voters shift from 45 - 39 percent Democratic to a 46 - 45 percent split.

"Sen. Obama is right back where he was before the so-called convention bounces with a four-point lead. The Democratic discombobulation after the selection of Gov. Palin as GOP running mate seems to be steadying. Women, black voters and young people favor Obama. Men, white voters and Evangelical Protestants pick Sen. McCain," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"But bringing Clinton voters aboard remains a problem for Obama. One in four who voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primaries say they're for McCain now," Carroll added.

"Obama wins the perception war on taxes. About half think McCain's tax plan would favor the rich. More than one half say Obama's tax plan favors the middle class and the poor."

By a 56 - 33 percent margin, American likely voters have a favorable opinion of Obama. McCain gets a 54 - 34 percent favorability.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's favorability is 40 - 30 percent, with 28 percent saying they don't know enough to form an opinion. Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden gets a 40 - 23 percent favorability, with 36 percent who say they don't know enough to form an opinion.

Seventy-eight percent of voters say they are "entirely comfortable" with an African- American president, while 12 percent are "somewhat comfortable."

Only 37 percent of voters are "entirely comfortable" with a 72-year-old president, while 23 percent are "somewhat comfortable."

And 77 percent say they are "entirely comfortable" with a woman vice president, with 14 percent who are "somewhat comfortable."

The economy is the most important issue in their vote, 47 percent say, as 15 percent list the war in Iraq; 11 percent cite terrorism; 9 percent say energy and 8 percent list health care.

The media favors the Obama-Biden Democratic ticket, 34 percent of voters, including 67 percent of Republicans, say. Only 14 percent of all voters, including 23 percent of Democrats, say the media favors the McCain-Palin Republican ticket. But 49 percent of all voters, including 64 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of Republicans, say the media treats both parties equally.

"Those complaints against the news media at the Republican Convention are echoed among the rank and file. Two thirds of Republicans think news coverage has tilted toward Obama and Biden," Carroll said.

From September 11 -16, Quinnipiac University surveyed 987 likely voters nationwide, with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and nationwide as a public service and for research. For more data -- http://www.quinnipiac.edu/polling.xml, or call (203) 582-5201

Rasmussen Report (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) for today:


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama gaining ground on John McCain for the third time in four days. The race for the White House is now tied with both candidates attracting 48% of the vote. Just a few days ago, McCain enjoyed a three-percentage point lead (see trends). Results are released every day at 9:30 a.m. Eastern and a FREE daily e-mail update is available.

The closeness of the race is confirmed by new state polling from Wisconsin and Oregon. While the ugliness of campaigns is always annoying to voters, just 23% believe that Election 2008 is more negative than most.

As the financial sector meltdown continues, consumer confidence has plummeted, falling 8% overnight. Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters now rate the economy as the top issue of Election 2008. That’s up from 41% this past Saturday morning. The number saying the country is heading in the right direction fell from 23% on Saturday to 18% now.

The financial crunch provides both opportunity and risk for the candidates. Voters are closely following the story but only one-in-four believe that either Obama or McCain is Very Likely to bring about the changes that are needed on Wall Street. Adding to the complexity for politicians everywhere is the fact that 49% worry that the federal government will do too much while just 36% are more worried that it won’t do enough.

As for the political implications, polling conducted last night shows that 47% trust McCain more than Obama on economic issues while 45% trust Obama.

New state polling data will be released today at noon, 3:00 p.m., and 5:00 p.m. Eastern. Rasmussen Reports will be releasing results from all 50 states this month. State polling has already been released this week for Wisconsin, Oregon, Colorado, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Demographic crosstabs for state polling data is available for Premium Members. Learn More.

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows McCain leading in states with 200 Electoral College votes while Obama has the edge in states with 193 votes. When “leaners” are included, shows Obama leading 259-247 (see Quick Campaign Overview). A total of 270 Electoral Votes are needed to win the White House (see 50-State Summary).

Rasmussen Markets data gives McCain a % chance of victory while expectations for Obama are at %. These figures are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 3,000 Likely Voters--is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for the full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. During the final two months of Election 2008, party weighting targets are updated each Sunday (see additional information). For polling data released during the week of September 14-20, 2008, the targets are 38.7% Democratic, 33.6% Republican, and 27.7% unaffiliated. For the previous week, the targets were 39.7% Democrat, 32.1% Republican, and 28.2% unaffiliated.

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

Here:
this sentence was typed using my nose.
this one was made using one finger held straight.
and this one with my toe.

I was going to say bugger off to the first and third one but then I could do it with my nose, and my toe, this was typed using both those techniques, I didn't use the second as I don't really need to prove to myself that something like that can be done easily.

-End typing with my nose and receiving strange looks from my roommate-

You mentioned how low can he stoop, wouldn't it be more of the case of how low can his campaign team stoop?

John McCain insults Spain, apparently confused as to whether they were an ally or not:

You gotta feel for José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Here the Spanish prime minister is only four months from an end to his government's strained relations with that of President George W. Bush and blam! — along comes John McCain to suggest the next four years might not be any better. During an interview in Miami earlier this week with Spanish-language station Union Radio, a reporter asked McCain whether, if elected, he would receive Zapatero in the White House. McCain answered, "Honestly, I have to analyze our relationships, situations, and priorities, but I can assure you that I will establish closer relationships with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to harm the United States."

Ouch. The question about Zapatero, clearly framed by the reporter as a question about Spain, came after inquiries on Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba. As a result, much of the Spanish press has decided that the Republican candidate, who hails himself as the experienced foreign policy choice in this election, confused Spain — a NATO member and key ally in the fight against terrorism — with one of those troublesome Latin American states. That was certainly the interviewer's impression, for she followed up with a gentle reminder that Spain was a country in Europe. As Spanish newspaper El País put it, "In the best-case scenario, [his answer] demonstrates his ignorance with respect to Zapatero."

Of course, there's a worse-case scenario: that McCain would, if elected, maintain his predecessor's chilly relationship with Spain. Spaniards may, on the whole, revile American politics and American comida de basura (junk food), but they still tend to measure their prime minister's international worth by the esteem in which the U.S. president holds him. And so, for the past four years, the Spanish prime minister has tried, ever so earnestly, to prove that he's one of the big boys. At every international summit he has tried to maneuver himself into position for a photograph with Bush. The press has breathlessly reported on every perfunctory exchange the two have had. And the much-longed-for invitation to the White House — let alone to a certain ranch in Texas — has been the object of countless pages of speculation. But for all the aspiration, Zapatero has never managed to achieve anything like that famous 2003 photo of his predecessor, José María Aznar in the Azores looking like he just got invited to the cool kids' party.

Of course, the fact that the cool kids' party happened to be taking place in Iraq explains a lot of the distance between the two current leaders: upon taking office in April 2004, Zapatero immediately pulled Spanish troops out of "the alliance of the willing." Which is one of the ironies of this situation — that Spain can so strongly support a foreign policy opposed to Bush doctrine (whatever that is), while so strongly hoping for a show of respect from Washington. On Thursday, Spanish newspaper ABC's regret was palpable when it lamented that "the coldness between the governments of the U.S. and Spain could continue if the Republican candidate John McCain reaches the White House. "

As for Zapatero himself, the prime minister is apparently taking this latest attack to his ego with characteristic equilibrium. McCain may not know who Spain's leader is, but Zapatero promised to work with the new administration "whatever it is."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842156,00.html?cnn=yes

Oh yes, international affairs and foreign policy guru there.

For the record, the number of Presidents who have died in office? 8. That's not considering health or age.

If the survival rate of military men and women was that low we would be appalled. This is an 8 year job that 20% of people don't survive. (4 of them were assassinated, but even 10% is a huge number.)

Yeah, it's totally absurd to consider the VP as a potential President.

Several of them died during their first term. Kennedy, Lincoln died just after being re-elected, That fellow who died after about a month in office who's name escapes me. William Henry Harrison! Warren Harding died in his first term, James Garfield, and Zachary Taylor. 5 died in their first term, Lincoln technically being on his second.

In regards to the economy, what does Obama know?

Obama was against Free Trade before he was for it (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061810).

Because, of course, finding problems in NAFTA means that you're against free trade.

Clearly.

John McCain insults Spain, apparently confused as to whether they were an ally or not:



http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842156,00.html?cnn=yes

Oh yes, international affairs and foreign policy guru there.One should hope the next president of the United States would have known the name of the Spanish politician that pulled out of Iraq and that he got reelected, regardless of whether they claimed international experience or not.

One should hope the next president of the United States would have known the name of the Spanish politician that pulled out of Iraq and that he got reelected, regardless of whether they claimed international experience or not.

Well you'd think so, it was fairly embarrassing at the time. An ally suddenly changes political leaders on the promise to get the hell out of Iraq, Bush's pet project. That's pretty memorable, then again it has happened a few times.

Well you'd think so, it was fairly embarrassing at the time. An ally suddenly changes political leaders on the promise to get the hell out of Iraq, Bush's pet project. That's pretty memorable, then again it has happened a few times.I dare say Spain was probably the biggest contributer of troops that it happened to, and Spain is a NATO ally. Not to mention there were these terror attacks all over the news that helped Zapatero come to power.

I dare say Spain was probably the biggest contributer of troops that it happened to, and Spain is a NATO ally. Not to mention there were these terror attacks all over the news that helped Zapatero come to power.

They caved, it'll only encourage more terrorist attacks, blah blah blah. Gods you'd think he'd remember that.

They caved, it'll only encourage more terrorist attacks, blah blah blah. Gods you'd think he'd remember that.

Well, I see no attacks since then, and Spain was right to leave Iraq. ;)

Of course, they'd have been smarter if they had listened to me in the first place and never invaded, but, then, so would America. But do you see me rubbing it in people's faces?

Yes.

You know, I am not too sure that I buy that Democratic packaging of McCain as being lock step with Bush, but time will tell. I certainly don't believe that McCain would buy into Obama's "war we need to win" philosophy, especially since he has actually participated in a war that the US couldn't win.

So it's your contention that McCain would not continue the "war on terror" and would not go after bin Laden? Seriously?

So it's your contention that McCain would not continue the "war on terror" and would not go after bin Laden? Seriously?

And that that would make him a good leader. :p

So it's your contention that McCain would not continue the "war on terror" and would not go after bin Laden? Seriously?

Well McCain is pretty old. Maybe he'll forget, like he forgets our allies. As for Palin just drop a 20 on the ground and she'll be too distracted to notice.

Well McCain is pretty old. Maybe he'll forget, like he forgets our allies. As for Palin just drop a 20 on the ground and she'll be too distracted to notice.

I think anything shiny would do.

Oh, and before some people start going "PERSONAL ATTACKS ON THE CANDIDATES, SEXIST, EVIL OBAMA SUPPORTER!!", I'd like whoever it is to take into account before posting the fact that I don't care. ;)

Could someone please answer to Moon Knight's post here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14019931&postcount=876

I can't help but notice it was entirely ignored.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html

Obama lying about McCain? What a shock, trying to paint him as anti-immgrant. Isn't that immigration stance why conservatives hate him so much? Unfairly connecting McCain to Limbaugh and taking both men out of context is beyond low and unfair. Obama shouldn't attack McCain on this, both men are similar on the subject and Obama attacking him like this only hurts Obama and helps McCain. Change your lines Obama, this one didn't work.

*sigh*

On the one hand, I want to say something like, "Having your own tactics used against you is a bitch, ain't it?"

On the other, I'm thinking "Come on Obama, don't sink to their level!"

Could someone please answer to Moon Knight's post here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14019931&postcount=876

I can't help but notice it was entirely ignored.

I agree. Obama should stick to the truth rather than dealing with distortions. There's plenty of factual shit to hang McCain on.

*sigh*

On the one hand, I want to say something like, "Having your own tactics used against you is a bitch, ain't it?"

On the other, I'm thinking "Come on Obama, don't sink to their level!"

I'm sticking with the first. Whatever it takes for the candidate that DIDN'T favor the War in Iraq to win.

Could someone please answer to Moon Knight's post here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14019931&postcount=876

I can't help but notice it was entirely ignored.

That's because we were busy discussing McCain's "lipstick on a pig" stunt.

So despite the pick of Sarah Palin, it would appear that there was some serious erosion in regards to the Obama campaign, and/or the Republican campaign was gearing up.

or, just maybe, the number of undecideds started dropping as people started paying attention, and undecideds are disproportionately likely to be low-information voters who would initially feel more comfortable with a name they'd heard connected with politics for years? hmm, if only there was some way to find out...

Presidents can appoint but the Senate gets the final say (http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/4/652)?
they need just a simple majority to pass. Clarence Thomas - that outstanding proponent of affirmative action and womens rights - squeaked in 52-48.
Right now, the Senate is 49-all, with two independents. All GOP need is to have those 2 indys vote along with them and the judge nomination is done and dusted. Heck, just 1 voting for and 1 abstaining would do it, afaik!

As you didn't bother answering my questions previously, I'll ask them again:
1. Considering the oldest serving member of SCOTUS is 88, do you think he will last serving out another 4 years?
2. Considering the already publicly stated views of McCain & Palin, do you think they would nominate a judge for SCOTUS whose viewpoints are more in line with the 4 judges who voted against upholding Roe v Wade? Bearing in mind that those four judges were all nominated by the Bushes.

They're simple yes/no questions so it surely can't be too hard for you to answer.

they need just a simple majority to pass. Clarence Thomas - that outstanding proponent of affirmative action and womens rights - squeaked in 52-48.
Right now, the Senate is 49-all, with two independents. All GOP need is to have those 2 indys vote along with them and the judge nomination is done and dusted.

As you didn't bother answering my questions previously, I'll ask them again:
1. Considering the oldest serving member of SCOTUS is 88, do you think he will last serving out another 4 years?
2. Considering the already publicly stated views of McCain & Palin, do you think they would nominate a judge for SCOTUS whose viewpoints are more in line with the 4 judges who voted against upholding Roe v Wade? Bearing in mind that those four judges were all nominated by the Bushes.

They're simple yes/no questions so it surely can't be too hard for you to answer.

Further, consider the political landscape. If the democrats try to block a Supreme Court nomination, even if they have a legitimate reason (such as, protecting reproductive rights), they'll be nominated obstructionists, especially if they do it more than once. All McCain/Palin need to do is keep nominating crazy people, and eventually, they'll *have* to let one pass for fear of political consequences. Further, they'll likely have three chances to nominate a batshit insane judge-- and they only need to be successful with one to overturn Roe.

To be fair, CH can be forgiven for not realizing this-- I mean, I certainly don't know nearly as much about Canadian politics as I do about those in my own country. (Of course, I don't pretend I do either...)

But really, it is a frighteningly real possibility that Roe could be overturned. Women could be denied the right to control their own bodies for a generation, not to mention all the other rulings such a court would produce. With the number of potential appointees, I think it is no exaggeration to say that the day when gays finally get marriage rights (and it is bound to happen eventually) could be pushed back for decades. I think it no exaggeration to think that Creationism will be taught as science, in addition to, or even in place of, actual science.
These are real possibilities-- but people are afraid to admit it. They bury their heads in the sand and pretend that our rights won't ever be taken away from us.

But at least we'd put that uppity n***** in his place for daring to run against Hillary Clinton, right?

So I just watched the stump speeches in Iowa, and I'm confused about something. Isn't Palin too busy dodging subpoenas to lecture us on transparency and accountability?

So I just watched the stump speeches in Iowa, and I'm confused about something. Isn't Palin too busy dodging subpoenas to lecture us on transparency and accountability?

Sexist!

Sexist!

Ah, touche. :D

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110446/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-45.aspx

Obama pulling ahead in the polls again.

Quinnipac (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1215):



Rasmussen Report (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) for today:

Gallup has him up too: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

Looks like the more people learn about Reichschancellor Palin the more popular Obama gets. The awful economy and McCain saying the fundamentals are strong every chance he gets probably helped too.

I called this back when McCain picked her. Looks like I was right.

So I just watched the stump speeches in Iowa, and I'm confused about something. Isn't Palin too busy dodging subpoenas to lecture us on transparency and accountability?

Of course not. She's not dodging anything but a corrupt investigation that Obama's people went back in time to begin.

Of course not. She's not dodging anything but a corrupt investigation that Obama's people went back in time to begin.

All the more reason to vote for Obama! Time travel is awesome.

Gallup has him up too: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

Looks like the more people learn about Reichschancellor Palin the more popular Obama gets. The awful economy and McCain saying the fundamentals are strong every chance he gets probably helped too.

I called this back when McCain picked her. Looks like I was right.

While I agree with you, I have to add: for now. I really hope it holds out, but the polls could shift again.

All the more reason to vote for Obama! Time travel is awesome.

I would vote for a time traveller.

While I agree with you, I have to add: for now. I really hope it holds out, but the polls could shift again.

Unless a letter from Obama adressed to Bin Ladin turns up (and is legit, dont get any ideas Hannity) I cant see that happening, especially with the state the economy is in and with all the new dirt showing up on Palin.


That, and a poll I just saw (Ill try and find it again) shows that the majority of Americans still think McCain = Bush. Which is epic.

I would vote for a time traveller.

Titor '08!

Unless a letter from Obama adressed to Bin Ladin turns up (and is legit, dont get any ideas Hannity) I cant see that happening, especially with the state the economy is in and with all the new dirt showing up on Palin.


That, and a poll I just saw (Ill try and find it again) shows that the majority of Americans still think McCain = Bush. Which is epic.

Aye, well that's good news.

I would vote for a time traveller.

It'd have to be for prime minister, it seems...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/TenthDoctor.jpg

He's old and experienced, but he won't die in office! :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7623771.stm

Top Republican says Palin unready

Senior Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has voiced doubts about Sarah Palin's qualifications for the vice-presidency.

John McCain's running mate "doesn't have any foreign policy credentials", Mr Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald.

Mr Hagel was a prominent supporter of Mr McCain during his 2000 bid for the US presidency, but has declined to endorse either candidate this year.

He was opposed to the Iraq War, and recently joined Mr McCain's rival Barack Obama on a Middle East trip.

'Stop the nonsense'

"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Mr Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald newspaper.

And he was dismissive of the fact that Mrs Palin, the governor of Alaska, has made few trips abroad.

"You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

Mr Hagel also criticised the McCain campaign for its suggestion that the proximity of Alaska to Russia gave Mrs Palin foreign policy experience.

"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia'," he said.

"That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

BBC North America editor Justin Webb says Mr Hagel's opinion of Mrs Palin will have an effect on independent voters.

A senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr Hagel was a close ally of Mr McCain, but the two men parted company over the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Mr Hagel skipped this year's Republican National Convention in favour of a visit to Latin America.

Mr Hagel's decision to accompany Mr Obama this summer on a trip to Iraq and Israel, as part of a US Congressional delegation, led to speculation that he would throw his support behind the Democratic nominee.

However, a spokesman for the Nebraska senator insisted in August that "Senator Hagel has no intention of getting involved in any of the campaigns and is not planning to endorse either candidate".
How interesting. Not surprising, either.

*sigh*

On the one hand, I want to say something like, "Having your own tactics used against you is a bitch, ain't it?"

On the other, I'm thinking "Come on Obama, don't sink to their level!"

I agree. Obama should stick to the truth rather than dealing with distortions. There's plenty of factual shit to hang McCain on.

I agree. I'm also a little disappointed, since this was revealed just after I had admired Obama for not doing this sort of thing.

A pity.

More of that!!

Kind of makes the "celebrity" ad look pretty silly, huh?

I agree.

John McCain insults Spain, apparently confused as to whether they were an ally or not:



http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842156,00.html?cnn=yes

Oh yes, international affairs and foreign policy guru there.

what the fuck is wrong with mccain?

his campaign says that he purposely said that he couldnt commit to meeting with the leader of one of our allies. he wasnt mistaken, he wasnt confused, he was being a prick.

if he wants to say he wont meet with our enemies, FINE. thats a point of view i dont subscribe to but it makes sense. but to say that you might not want to meet with FRIENDS is crazy. is there some reason to dis spain at this time?

John McCain insults Spain, apparently confused as to whether they were an ally or not

remember the maine!

Chris Matthews just kills this guy. I've not seen him like this in such a long time. He is just lambasting this guy for his BS.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1016473-chris-matthews-lights-up-eric-cantor

if he wants to say he wont meet with our enemies, FINE. thats a point of view i dont subscribe to but it makes sense. but to say that you might not want to meet with FRIENDS is crazy. is there some reason to dis spain at this time?

Spain dared to leave his pet war.

Some perspective on this election and polls:

The first map is a month after Hillary had conceded (July 18):

Obama 325 McCain 199 Ties 14

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Jul18.png

The second map is before the DNS and the RNC (Aug. 16):

Obama 275 McCain 250 Ties 13

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Aug16.png

And the third one is from today:

Obama 247 McCain 257 Ties 34

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Sep17.png

So despite the pick of Sarah Palin, it would appear that there was some serious erosion in regards to the Obama campaign, and/or the Republican campaign was gearing up.


It was always expected that polls would close. The problem with being first to declare the candidate (especially by such a considerable distance) is that the GOP lost the 'bounce' off that announcement long before Obama was declared (and - of course, there was the somewhat fickle nature of Obama's bounce). The problem with declaring Biden a noticable distance before Palin, was that the Democrats lost that bounce. Conventions also have a 'bounce' of their own.

Ignoring all the bounces, which are statistical blips, it would have taken something pretty spectacular for a landslide at this stage.

The Republicans have played a smart game - given that McCain is basically the Republican version of Biden, they had to come up with any mechanism that would pull attention from Obama... if they hadn't, maybe we'd be seeing a bigger division.

All you have shown is one polling firm (Diageo/Hotline (http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/documents/diageohotlinepoll/DiageoHotlineTracker091708data.pdf)) with the poll weighted to Democrats.

Some comparators would be in order?

Right, and as soon as they come out I'll be sure to update you.

Spain dared to leave his pet war.
thats not a good reason.

I'm not complaining about his age. I'm saying he picked a VP that NO reasonable liberal would want to see in the driver's seat.

A lot of more moderate Republicans might not be too keen on her 'total package' as President, either. The GOP has already said they won't honour the McCain-campaign 'no earmark' policy, and not all Republicans are sold on the continuation of the neocon quasitheocratic agenda.

I bet there's a lot of Republican party members, right now, that are wondering if they've made a deal with the devil.

As far as Roe vs. Wade is concerned, I do believe that Democrats are using fear tactics on a non-issue. The likelihood of that being repealed are slim and none?

The Democrats don't need to 'use it' - McCain is doing it for them. I caught a youtube clip of McCain as a guest on The View where he pretty much stunned them all into silence by explaining how he was going to seek to overturn Roe V's Wade because it's unconstitutional.

thats not a good reason.

You asked for some reason, not a good reason. That McCain is an insane warmonger who is only able to get hard by seeing photos of the multilated children his pet wars create, we already know. This is not a good reason for him disliking people who leave his pet wars, but it is a reason.

You asked for some reason, not a good reason. That McCain is an insane warmonger who is only able to get hard by seeing photos of the multilated children his pet wars create, we already know. This is not a good reason for him disliking people who leave his pet wars, but it is a reason.
and it COULD be the reason

or his campaign could be scrambling to cover up that mccain forgot who he was talking to and who the president of spain IS by pretending that he would dis a fellow nato member because he doesnt like his politics.

and it COULD be the reason

or his campaign could be scrambling to cover up that mccain forgot who he was talking to and who the president of spain IS by pretending that he would dis a fellow nato member because he doesnt like his politics.

So that at least HIS base votes for him? :p

I would vote for a time traveller.

Titor '08!

It'd have to be for prime minister, it seems...

He's old and experienced, but he won't die in office! :D

The most obvious and perfect punchline was waiting and you all let it slip past.

SHAME, SHAME.

:gas:

i, for one, am glad that someone is finally promising to stand up to the spanish menace. for too long have we been crushed under the jackboots of madrid.

A lot of more moderate Republicans might not be too keen on her 'total package' as President, either. The GOP has already said they won't honour the McCain-campaign 'no earmark' policy, and not all Republicans are sold on the continuation of the neocon quasitheocratic agenda.

I bet there's a lot of Republican party members, right now, that are wondering if they've made a deal with the devil.

Maybe they'll finally kick the social conservatives and religious fundamentalists out on their ass where they belong. Then the Republican party could become respectful again, and a group I could respectfully disagree with. We'd still disagree on economic policies, but at least with the economic conservatives you can debate, disagree, and compromise effectively.

You can't do that with social conservatives, in general, simply because the positions are so utterly opposing.

Maybe they'll finally kick the social conservatives and religious fundamentalists out on their ass where they belong. Then the Republican party could become respectful again, and a group I could respectfully disagree with. We'd still disagree on economic policies, but at least with the economic conservatives you can debate, disagree, and compromise effectively.

You can't do that with social conservatives, in general, simply because the positions are so utterly opposing.

It's always difficult to find compromise on something, when the person you are talking with claims to have an untouchable source for the rules they want to apply to you.

It's always difficult to find compromise on something, when the person you are talking with claims to have an untouchable source for the rules they want to apply to you.

Especially when they see the exact same version of themselves in a foreign flavor and ironically cry out that it's oppressive and barbaric. Pure comedy.

i, for one, am glad that someone is finally promising to stand up to the spanish menace. for too long have we been crushed under the jackboots of madrid.
its risky but mccain is a maverick.

Well, Spain HAS a lot of Arabic influence in its culture...

Well, Spain HAS a lot of Arabic influence in its culture...

That must be it, as well as mystic Judaism. Clearly this is John McCain's way at stopping magic radical, Jewish Terrorist that speak the Espanol. God Bless his soul.

what the fuck is wrong with mccain?

his campaign says that he purposely said that he couldnt commit to meeting with the leader of one of our allies. he wasnt mistaken, he wasnt confused, he was being a prick.

if he wants to say he wont meet with our enemies, FINE. thats a point of view i dont subscribe to but it makes sense. but to say that you might not want to meet with FRIENDS is crazy. is there some reason to dis spain at this time?

Keep in mind that the war on terror has focused on combating Islamic extremism and, in his defense, the last time McCain was in Spain, it was controlled by the Moors.

Keep in mind that the war on terror has focused on combating Islamic extremism and, in his defense, the last time McCain was in Spain, it was controlled by the Moors.

Nice!

As far as Roe vs. Wade is concerned, I do believe that Democrats are using fear tactics on a non-issue. The likelihood of that being repealed are slim and none?

Next to none, I think republicans just say they will as a campaign promise to sucker conservatives into voting for them. One whould think they might have wised up to it by now.

Thanks for demonstrating once again how poor your concept of American politics is (and for exposing Moon Knight as being as ignorant as you are).

The Republicans -- particularly Republicans like John McCain and Sarah Palin -- have been working for 35 years to overturn Roe v. Wade. They have come very close to doing so on more than one occasion and have successfully chipped away at the rights protected by Roe.

I suggest you go learn a little bit about the politics of reproductive freedom before you shoot your mouth off about how unimportant they are.

The likelihood of that being repealed are slim and none?If the Republicans win, the likelihood of Roe being overturned is as close to 100% as any prediction about the future can be. The chance of every Justice who would vote to retain Roe surviving for another four years is between slim and none; the chance that either McCain or Palin would nominate any Justice who would not vote to overturn Roe is between slim and none.

Well, according to CNN, the "palin bump" is winding down, as Obama takes the lead (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/palin.appeal/index.html)

Especially since the controversies mount against her, and she shows herself to be more and more out of touch, recently putting forth a proposed initiative, saying that she would put the government budget and all expenditures online for public viewing.

One problem with that. Somebody already proposed that particular bill to congress. Who did that you may ask? The junior senator from Illinois.

That's right folks, Palin stated that she would get congress to propose a bill, that was already proposed three months ago, by Barak Obama.

Well, according to CNN, the "palin bump" is winding down, as Obama takes the lead (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/palin.appeal/index.html)

Especially since the controversies mount against her, and she shows herself to be more and more out of touch, recently putting forth a proposed initiative, saying that she would put the government budget and all expenditures online for public viewing.

One problem with that. Somebody already proposed that particular bill to congress. Who did that you may ask? The junior senator from Illinois.

That's right folks, Palin stated that she would get congress to propose a bill, that was already proposed three months ago, by Barak Obama.
she is a bi partisan maverick who has taken on the republican party in her own state and will reach across the aisle to democrats when there is reason to do so.

i wonder if she is already planning what she would put into the man sized safe in dick cheney's office.

So it's your contention that McCain would not continue the "war on terror" and would not go after bin Laden? Seriously?
Let's put it this way...Obama's detailed plan is the Bush plan+++ (read scary).

Any politician is going to claim Osama's scalp, if they can get it. After all he is enemy number 1. Capturing Bin Laden surely would be superior to killing him.

Let's put it this way...Obama's detailed plan is the Bush plan+++ (read scary).

Any politician is going to claim Osama's scalp, if they can get it. After all he is enemy number 1. Capturing Bin Laden surely would be superior to killing him.

I'm trying to work out if that's agreement or not.

You're saying both Obama and McCain would follow through? Or that they'll both SAY they will, but fail to live up to it?

Let's put it this way...Obama's detailed plan is the Bush plan+++ (read scary).

obama's detailed plan is the ghengis khan plan+++ (read scary).

prove me wrong

obama's detailed plan is the ghengis khan plan+++ (read scary).

prove me wrong
ghengis khan did not have nuclear weapons and neither did his opponents

therefore your analogy fails :)

ghengis khan did not have nuclear weapons and neither did his opponents

that is clearly irrelevant. still looking for disproof.

Okay, I am wondering how all of this will shake out in the next week or two:

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm)


Some people have suggested that Obama may be in violation of the Logan Act.

I can see why Obama would want to delay the passage of this agreement, because it might hamper his Presidential bid if the Bush administration signs an agreement before the election, but is he violating the law and/or being dishonest to the electorate?

It's Been Done. And Shot Down. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566113)

Are you that desperate for a McCain/Palin victory just so you can tell everyone they should have picked Hillary Clinton as President or VP?

Okay, I am wondering how all of this will shake out in the next week or two:

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm)


Some people have suggested that Obama may be in violation of the Logan Act.

I can see why Obama would want to delay the passage of this agreement, because it might hamper his Presidential bid if the Bush administration signs an agreement before the election, but is he violating the law and/or being dishonest to the electorate?

Welcome to last week...

Okay, I am wondering how all of this will shake out in the next week or two:

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm)


Some people have suggested that Obama may be in violation of the Logan Act.

I can see why Obama would want to delay the passage of this agreement, because it might hamper his Presidential bid if the Bush administration signs an agreement before the election, but is he violating the law and/or being dishonest to the electorate?

These people are wrong, as has been discussed in another thread and possibly also this one.

The Democrats don't need to 'use it' - McCain is doing it for them. I caught a youtube clip of McCain as a guest on The View where he pretty much stunned them all into silence by explaining how he was going to seek to overturn Roe V's Wade because it's unconstitutional.

Link it. That sounds hilarious.

An interesting article (completely opinionated, of course), which sums up what I think of Palin.

What's the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/09/palin_fundamentalist/print.html)

It just seems, from an outsider's perspective, like all our biggest fears about America are realised in this woman. The fact that you have an amazing, intelligent, centrist candidate like Obama up for election, and yet he is STRUGGLING against this ridiculously backward, conservative, dishonest woman because she appeals to some sort of "core American value", makes us question said values. The world will be so disappointed if on November 5 we wake up to hear you've elected the McCain/Palin ticket.

You can't blame us for all being Eurofags if you do. It'll be your own damn fault.

It's Been Done. And Shot Down. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566113)

Are you that desperate for a McCain/Palin victory just so you can tell everyone they should have picked Hillary Clinton as President or VP?
Post deleted and sent into space.

Link it. That sounds hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D8sFhe9WwU

It's not that funny actually.

He explicitly states that he and Sarah Palin would be appointing judges specifically to overturn it, that it was a 'bad idea', and he makes it a pretty central issue of the campaign.

It's funny that he thought it would get a better reception with THAT audience, maybe...

This is why I was saying earlier, it's not a Democratic invention to scare voters - it's McCain's own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D8sFhe9WwU

It's not that funny actually.

He explicitly states that he and Sarah Palin would be appointing judges specifically to overturn it, that it was a 'bad idea', and he makes it a pretty central issue of the campaign.

It's funny that he thought it would get a better reception with THAT audience, maybe...

This is why I was saying earlier, it's not a Democratic invention to scare voters - it's McCain's own words.

Yet the Liberal Media™ seems to not know this exists. Go figure.

Has the Democratic 50 State strategy backfired?

Poll: GOP brand making comeback (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080918/pl_politico/13584)

New polling suggests that the Republican Party is beginning to regain some of its luster and, perhaps as important, is experiencing a surge in excitement among its political base.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reports that independent voters have an equally favorable opinion of both parties, 50 to 49 percent, a one-point edge for the GOP. That compares to an 18-point Democratic advantage as recently as August, a wide gap that had generally held for more than a year.

And half of registered voters overall now have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, the highest GOP ranking in three years. Slightly more voters, 55 percent, continue to have a favorable view of the Democratic Party......

The findings come as the Gallup Poll recently found that the Democratic generic lead among voters, when asked which party they prefer to control Congress, has withered to only 3 points, 48 to 45 percent. Democrats had a double-digit generic congressional advantage on the eve of the midterm elections.
The Obama down ballot appeal has crashed?

Well, according to CNN, the "palin bump" is winding down, as Obama takes the lead (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/palin.appeal/index.html)

Especially since the controversies mount against her, and she shows herself to be more and more out of touch, recently putting forth a proposed initiative, saying that she would put the government budget and all expenditures online for public viewing.

One problem with that. Somebody already proposed that particular bill to congress. Who did that you may ask? The junior senator from Illinois.

That's right folks, Palin stated that she would get congress to propose a bill, that was already proposed three months ago, by Barak Obama.


Why are you so sexist?


Hes ahead in every poll Ive seen, including gallup:http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

This is a combination of Mr. Ten Houses saying the fundamentals of our (shitty) economy are strong and the Saint being exposed for the batshit crazy Christian extremist she is. Oh, and her being indited probably has something to do with it to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D8sFhe9WwU


He explicitly states that he and Sarah Palin would be appointing judges specifically to overturn it,
False. Listen to it again.

that it was a 'bad idea'
Yes, he did say it was a "bad idea". Actually he stated that it was a "bad decision".

and he makes it a pretty central issue of the campaign.
He didn't say that at all.

False. Listen to it again.


Yes, he did say it was a "bad idea". Actually he stated that it was a "bad decision".


He didn't say that at all.

No matter his exact words, the point remains that he intends to appoint strict interpreters of the constitution, those who would overturn Roe vs. Wade though he does say there's no litmus test on any issue.

Yet Roe vs. Wade is pretty much the standard bearer in terms of the debate over interpreting the Constitution and by appointing those on one side of that debate, you're effectively appointing judges with the aim of overturning Roe vs. Wade.

His motivation comes from disagreeing with abortion, as per the first line on his own campaign website under that issue, as linked before.

Sarah Palin even more so.

Again, it's the people he represents in order to get the vote, people he'll ironically betray when coming to power by continuing the economic 'spend and spend' policy under the illusion that this helps middle and lower bracket America, it doesn't.

In this particular election, those voting for a Republican presidency are simply blind, blind through loyalty or blind through dislike of Barack Obama because, on the issues and overall outlook, there's really only one viable choice.

remember the maine!
And all that rain that falls mainly on the plain!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html

Obama lying about McCain? What a shock, trying to paint him as anti-immgrant. Isn't that immigration stance why conservatives hate him so much? Unfairly connecting McCain to Limbaugh and taking both men out of context is beyond low and unfair. Obama shouldn't attack McCain on this, both men are similar on the subject and Obama attacking him like this only hurts Obama and helps McCain. Change your lines Obama, this one didn't work.
So when McCain does this:
2008 McCain: "I will vote against this 'controversial immigration legislation'... We've got to secure the borders first." (Jan 30, TV debate)
2008 McCain: "At a moment of great difficulty in my campaign, when my critics said it would be political suicide for me to do so, I helped author with Senator Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform, and fought for its passag. Obama declined to cast some of those tough votes....These (Latin Americans who died attempting to cross the border) simply were God's children who wanted to be Americans." (Speaking at the National Council of La Raza conference)
2006 McCain: Votes for said 'controversial immigration legislation'
2005 McCain: Co-Sponsors, with Ted Kennedy, said 'controversial immigration legislation'.

On the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act,which would allowe "illegal immigrants under age 30 to remain in the United States and gain legal status if they attend college or join the military."
2003 McCain: co-sponored and supported DREAM legislation
2005 McCain: co-sponored and supported DREAM legislation
February 2007 McCain: co-sponored and supported DREAM legislation
October 2007 McCain: absented himself from voting on DREAM bill; states he is now against it: "I will vote against anything until we secure the borders."

It doesn't show that he's now against immigration?
It doesn't show he's changing his position to whatever suits the crowd he's standing in front of?
Obama shouldn't attack him over these flipflops because....?
Oh I get it. Because McCain's 180 is indefensible to even diehard Republicans so the only strategy left is to try to shame Obama into not mentioning it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D8sFhe9WwU

It's not that funny actually.

He explicitly states that he and Sarah Palin would be appointing judges specifically to overturn it, that it was a 'bad idea', and he makes it a pretty central issue of the campaign.

It's funny that he thought it would get a better reception with THAT audience, maybe...

This is why I was saying earlier, it's not a Democratic invention to scare voters - it's McCain's own words.

Yeah not very funny at all, all he said was that he would prefer that legislation is done by the people rather than by unelected judges. And while he may have gone on the show to try and get the votes of that audience, at least he isn't telling them what thy want to hear and sticking by his message.

because, on the issues and overall outlook, there's really only one viable choice.
You are correct and that one is:

RALPH NADER

You are correct and that one is:

RALPH NADER

Please tell us, oh great one, why exactly Ralph Nader is the most qualified and best candidate for President of the United States. Because I have the strong feeling you don't actually know that much about Nader's candidacy.

I know he doesn't have a vagina, so he doesn't meet your usual criteria for high office.

You are correct and that one is:

RALPH NADER

Ha ha, fair reply.

Except he's not 'viable' since he doesn't have a hope in hell :)

Yeah not very funny at all, all he said was that he would prefer that legislation is done by the people rather than by unelected judges. And while he may have gone on the show to try and get the votes of that audience, at least he isn't telling them what thy want to hear and sticking by his message.

So, your point is he doesn't understand what a Constitution is for?

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Please tell us, oh great one, why exactly Ralph Nader is the most qualified and best candidate for President of the United States. Because I have the strong feeling you don't actually know that much about Nader's candidacy.

I know he doesn't have a vagina, so he doesn't meet your usual criteria for high office.
He is a pussy though.

So, your point is he doesn't understand what a Constitution is for?

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Maybe? But he was saying they interpreted the constitution wrong, so yeah, and if his message is that elected officials and the people should be allowed to decide what laws are enacted rather than a bunch of unelected judges or people who died over a hundred years ago then that is his message. If that is what it is.

Now you may disagree with what he thinks the way the system should work, or you may agree with it, that hardly matters but if he thinks that is how it works and wants the system to be like that with elected state officals having more say than unelected judges than that is his message.

Maybe? But he was saying they interpreted the constitution wrong, so yeah, and if his message is that elected officials and the people should be allowed to decide what laws are enacted rather than a bunch of unelected judges or people who died over a hundred years ago then that is his message. If that is what it is.

Now you may disagree with what he thinks the way the system should work, or you may agree with it, that hardly matters but if he thinks that is how it works and wants the system to be like that with elected state officals having more say than unelected judges than that is his message.

so the message of a man who seeks the office dedicated to upholding the constitution is "I don't want to uphold the constitution"?

Odd message that.

Maybe? But he was saying they interpreted the constitution wrong, so yeah, and if his message is that elected officials and the people should be allowed to decide what laws are enacted rather than a bunch of unelected judges or people who died over a hundred years ago then that is his message. If that is what it is.
So in effect you're saying John McCain thinks he can interpret the constitution better than 9 judges who have spent their entire working lives doing little else other than interpreting the constitution? This doesn't strike you as ever-so-slightly wrong (or at the very least arrogant)?

fyi, those judges are elected - by the Senate, who are in turn elected by the people to represent their views.

So in effect you're saying John McCain thinks he can interpret the constitution better than 9 judges who have spent their entire working lives doing little else other than interpreting the constitution? This doesn't strike you as ever-so-slightly wrong (or at the very least arrogant)?

fyi, those judges are elected - by the Senate, who are in turn elected by the people to represent their views.

Slightly irrelevant but I personally think the entire focus on the constitution as the be all and end all of discussion is one of the weaker aspects of government in the US.

I mean, come to reasonable discussion of gun control, not banning it all but simply reasonable restrictions and the cry goes out - but it's in the constitution!

The fact that Congress is simply too cowardly to enshrine the right to abortion at a federal level, and leave it to the courts to take the heat, making it a 'constitutional' issue rather than a basic right, it's shameful really but the fact is that they can.

Being able to point to what was written 220 years ago as the final arbitrator on current issues absolves legislators from the blame of sensibly dealing with them.

It's partly why John McCain's whole schtick about interpreting the constitution is simply BS, he's against abortion, he wants it overturned and that's it.

so the message of a man who seeks the office dedicated to upholding the constitution is "I don't want to uphold the constitution"?

Odd message that.

Well, I must have interpreted what he was saying wrong and more than likely drew the wrong conclusion.

Pray tell Neo what is he saying, but no the message is that he wants the constitution interpreted differently.

Turn on your sound and enjoy this:

http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

:D

So in effect you're saying John McCain thinks he can interpret the constitution better than 9 judges who have spent their entire working lives doing little else other than interpreting the constitution? This doesn't strike you as ever-so-slightly wrong (or at the very least arrogant)?

fyi, those judges are elected - by the Senate, who are in turn elected by the people to represent their views.

No in effect he wants other judges who have spent their entire working lives doing little else other than interpreting the constitution, but interpret it differently and I am sure they are judges like that.

I never said they was something right about it, nor did I say there was something wrong about it. Perhaps he thinks that state legislators should decide what laws should be implemented at the time rather than relying on a 300 year old document.

False. Listen to it again.


No, it's really pretty explicit.

He has a set idea of what a 'strict interpretation' is - he points out that Roe v's Wade wasn't it. And he intends to 'nominate' (his cute little correction for his 'appoint' suggestion) judges that have a 'strict interpretation' of what constitutional means.

He tries to obfuscate - he says there'd be no 'litmus test'... but then he says that they would only be looking for people that fit (what he describes as) 'strict interpretation'.


He didn't say that at all.

I didn't say he said that, I said he is doing that.

Yeah not very funny at all, all he said was that he would prefer that legislation is done by the people rather than by unelected judges. And while he may have gone on the show to try and get the votes of that audience, at least he isn't telling them what thy want to hear and sticking by his message.

That's not 'all he said' at all.

In fact, the thrust of your argument was made by the girl (sorry, I don't know the names, it's not a show I watch) at the far right that became an apologist for him in that clip (and pledged him her vote in an extended version I've seen).

What he said was - he doesn't think the current judges are up to the job. Only - he lacked the balls to actually say that, so he pussyfoots around and talks about 'appointing', no 'nominating' new judges who have a 'strict interpretation' of the constitution.

Since he expands on what that means to him - and that includes Roe v's Wade being a bad decision, although he says there are a number of others - 'all he said' was that he would push for a new selection of judges that would uphold constitutional law as he sees it.


It doesn't matter to him that the judges are trying to fit a 20th century 'problem' to an 18th century code of laws. Apparently, he considers himself better qualified than they - after all, he uses his own belief that 'Roe vs Wade' was a 'bad decision' as reason to contest them.

mccain also wants to fire the chairman of the SEC because, apparently, HE Is the source of this economic mess we are in.

...not that he specifies HOW mr cox has failed us or how he could have done anything but enforce the laws passed by mr mccain....

not that mccain will have a chance since mr cox has said he is resigning when this administration ends...

not that mccain CAN fire the chairman of the sec. the president gets to appoint the chairman but is barred from firing him.

mccain wasnt kidding when he said the economy isnt his strong point.

No matter his exact words, the point remains that he intends to appoint strict interpreters of the constitution, those who would overturn Roe vs. Wade though he does say there's no litmus test on any issue.

Precisely. "Strict interpretation", when used by politicians, is merely a codeword for "makes decisions I agree with." In other words, it is a litmus test.


Yeah not very funny at all, all he said was that he would prefer that legislation is done by the people rather than by unelected judges.

....which is an obvious statement - one that has nothing to do with the topic at hand is is meant only as misdirection. Roe v. Wade wasn't legislation. It was a court decision striking down certain legislation as unconstitutional.

Maybe? But he was saying they interpreted the constitution wrong,

Wait. Did they "interpret it wrong" or "legislate"? Which one was it?

so yeah, and if his message is that elected officials and the people should be allowed to decide what laws are enacted rather than a bunch of unelected judges or people who died over a hundred years ago then that is his message. If that is what it is.

And that is a "message" that would be completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand because, again, the people (or rather, their elected officials) do decide what laws are enacted.

And, in doing it's job, the courts determine which of those laws go outside the bounds of the Constitution and strike them down when it happens.

The really funny thing about this discussion is that McCain also refers to the Kelo decision as "legislating from the bench." In other words, he is advocating for the court to overturn the decisions made by elected officials in some cases, but not in others - further proof that his "message" is really "I only like judges who agree with me."

Now you may disagree with what he thinks the way the system should work, or you may agree with it, that hardly matters but if he thinks that is how it works and wants the system to be like that with elected state officals having more say than unelected judges than that is his message.

...except, as I pointed out above, that isn't his message. If it were, he would agree with the Kelo decision, in which the court ruled that they did not have a basis by which to overturn the elected officials of the city of New London.

His message is quite clearly, "Judges have to agree with me."

I never said they was something right about it, nor did I say there was something wrong about it. Perhaps he thinks that state legislators should decide what laws should be implemented at the time rather than relying on a 300 year old document.

Wait.....so now his message is, "Ignore the Constitution"?

Wait.....so now his message is, "Ignore the Constitution"?

Only when he doesn't agree with it. Sound familiar?

Only when he doesn't agree with it. Sound familiar?

McCain is a war hero! How DARE you say he disrespects the Constitution, just because he's willing to take your rights away? You better be GLAD to have your rights taken away, because when John McCain was a POW, he didn't HAVE rights to take away in the first place!

McCain is a war hero! How DARE you say he disrespects the Constitution, just because he's willing to take your rights away? You better be GLAD to have your rights taken away, because when John McCain was a POW, he didn't HAVE rights to take away in the first place!

It's true! *worships*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-kurtzman/sarah-palin-by-the-number_b_127355.html

Sarah Palin may lie, but numbers don't. Her record speaks for itself:

2007: the year in which Sarah Palin first obtained a passport

312: the number of nights during her first 19 months in office that Palin charged taxpayers a "per diem" totaling $16,951 for staying in her own home -- an allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business

$500 to $1,200: the fee that Wasilla charged rape victims to pay for post-sexual assault medical exams, after the city cut funds during Palin's tenure that had previously covered the exams

$150: the cash payment offered by the Palin administration to hunters who turn in legs of freshly killed wolves gunned down from airplanes

3: the number of times during her first few weeks as mayor that Palin inquired with the Wasilla librarian about banning books

3: the number of months after the censorship discussion that Palin fired the librarian

100: the approximate number of Wasilla residents who rallied to support the librarian, prompting Palin to withdraw her termination letter

0: the number of foreign heads of state Palin has met

0: the number of commands Palin has issued as head of the Alaska National Guard


(more on the link, with full sources available)

it's official, the republican campaign is being run by the onion.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html
The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells.
i mean, come on, really?!

it's official, the republican campaign is being run by the onion.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html

i mean, come on, really?!

If anything, this will make evangelicals like her more. Really the only thing they might criticize is that he let the witch escape instead of killing her.

it's official, the republican campaign is being run by the onion.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html

i mean, come on, really?!

And yet the liberal media has gone "WRIGHT! WRIGHT! WRIGHT!" and says not a word on the pastor that is trying to bring back the Burning Times.

Well of course! They're the liberal media, so they're attacking the Wright!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110533/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-Leads-McCain-Points.aspx

Obama now enjoys a 5 point lead over McCain. McCain's numbers are mid way between his record high and low.

Well of course! They're the liberal media, so they're attacking the Wright!

/Winner

If anything, this will make evangelicals like her more. Really the only thing they might criticize is that he let the witch escape instead of killing her.

Read the comments.