Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Fighter of Foo]

When has any politician put their religious views ahead of the Constitution?

You're joking right?

[molson]

You're joking right?

You don't have be smug, give an example.

Preferably, an example where a politican actually succeeded in subverting the Constitution for religion. I'll be patient.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm ambivalently pro-choice at best, so it has nothing to do with the abortion issue.

Banning books is a serious concern IMO. So is the desire to ban birth control. Hiring discrimination and editing out scientific information that contradicts a religious viewpoint matter to me.

If you seriously believe that any books will be banned or birth control will be banned under any Republican administration or any Republican-lead Congress, then your much more of left-leaning whacko than I ever gave you credit for in the first place. There's no way that any of that happens in our country and any attempt to say otherwise is fear-mongering at best.

[molson]

I thought Republicans had the market cornered on fear-mongering, but it's nice to see Dems have become so adept at is as well.

[Arles]

Banning books is a serious concern IMO. So is the desire to ban birth control. Hiring discrimination and editing out scientific information that contradicts a religious viewpoint matter to me.
What possibly could a sitting president (or vice president in this case) do to cause birth control to be banned or burning books? Even supporting either (let alone convincing the congress to do some legislation on it) would be a quick ticket out of office.

These are scarecrow fears. Not only are they ridiculous (does anyone honestly think Palin would be favor of burning books as president?), but they are completely infeasible.

It would be like me saying I'm afraid that Obama would institute a Muslim wing of the government and hire an arab terrorist as Sec of Defense because he visited some Muslim countries and hung out with people of Muslim descent. Both claims are ridiculous and the left would pepper me (with good cause) if I stated that. Yet, acting as if Palin would be in favor of burning books is a "serious fear we need to be aware of".

[molson]

I disagree - if anything, American religious ferver is growing, similar to that in Africa/India/Latin America as opposed to a more secular Europe. I'd guarantee that the next GOP president after McCain for example, will be far more religously motivated than a Gerald Ford or a Nixon before him.

Perhaps they've become emboldended by the liberals' attempts to squeeze them out of American life.

So much of our life involves the government in some way. "Seperation of church and state" has become "don't ask, don't tell". Or at the very least, that's a very strong perception.

My father's a Lutheran pastor (the least scary denomination possible), and he used to give a short, generic blessing at the high school graduation. One year they told him he couldn't do it anymore. No big deal, he'd rather be watching baseball anyway. But I can see how that stuff comes off to some people. They're not forcing anyone to believe anything. They're not punishing anyone who believes otherwise. You sit there, think about whatever, and then the blessing's over. Big deal. I personally don't care, but it's just out of control the lengths we go to to protect people from wayward religious ideas. It feels like something a government that wants to extinguish Christianity would do.

[Flasch186]

Perhaps they've become emboldended by the liberals' attempts to squeeze them out of American life.

So much of our life involves the government in some way. "Seperation of church and state" has become "don't ask, don't tell". Or at the very least, that's a very strong perception.

My father's a Luthern pastor (the least scary denomination possible), and he used to give a short, generic blessing at the high school graduation. One year they told him he couldn't do it anymore. No big deal, he'd rather be watching baseball anyway. But I can see how that stuff comes off to some people. They're not forcing anyone to believe anything. They're not punishing anyone who believes otherwise. You sit there, think about whatever, and then the blessing's over. Big deal. I personally don't care, but it's just out of control the lengths we go to to protect people from wayward religious ideas. It feels like something a government that wants to extinguish Christianity would do.


....or you can have a blessing for every religion and be there for 6 hours.

[molson]

....or you can have a blessing for every religion and be there for 6 hours.

My father's was non-denominational, it would would have fit for any religion, except maybe scientology.

Until the government banned it. The problem was that it implied that god exists. That's scary stuff, so they had to shut it down.

Perhaps the next step is banning religious books from government-funded libraries. If that hasn't happened already.

[panerd]

You don't have be smug, give an example.

Preferably, an example where a politican actually succeeded in subverting the Constitution for religion. I'll be patient.

Terry Schiavo

[JPhillips]

What possibly could a sitting president (or vice president in this case) do to cause birth control to be banned or burning books? Even supporting either (let alone convincing the congress to do some legislation on it) would be a quick ticket out of office.

These are scarecrow fears. Not only are they ridiculous (does anyone honestly think Palin would be favor of burning books as president?), but they are completely infeasible.

It would be like me saying I'm afraid that Obama would institute a Muslim wing of the government and hire an arab terrorist as Sec of Defense because he visited some Muslim countries and hung out with people of Muslim descent. Both claims are ridiculous and the left would pepper me (with good cause) if I stated that. Yet, acting as if Palin would be in favor of burning books is a "serious fear we need to be aware of".

Your example isn't remotely the same. We know that Palin did in fact ask the Wasilla librarian about banning books. Her actions in the past have been in favor of banning books. Is it not acceptable to at least learn from her the reasoning for that and her thoughts on book banning?

The other stuff doesn't necessarily apply to Palin, but those are views held by various Bush appointees. Are you saying we shouldn't care what people profess as their beliefs and goals? We should just assume that no matter what people say and no matter what people do that when they run for office or are appointed we should just pretend it never happened?

You also want to set the bar at legislation when that's not the only way to effect policy. The various executive agencies have a whole lot of authority to change policies on thousands of items. Often these changes have much broader effects than were at first realized. Look at what HHS was doing to try to classify contraception as a form of abortion and hence allow health care workers to refuse to dispense.

Look, believe what you want and draw your line where you will. For me when religion starts to effect policy decisions, not in the abstract, but to push a narrow agenda, that's too much. People who have made decisions or stated goals that are in contrast to what most Americans consider personal freedoms, at a minimum should at least be expected to clarify their positions.

[JPhillips]

Terry Schiavo

Roy Moore

[Flasch186]

My father's was non-denominational, it would would have fit for any religion, except maybe scientology.

Until the government banned it. The problem was that it implied that god exists. That's scary stuff, so they had to shut it down.

Perhaps the next step is banning religious books from government-funded libraries. If that hasn't happened already.

whoops, my bad you also have to do something for those who are atheists. I dont know what but there feelings need to be just as important as those who have religious faith.

Non-denominational doesnt cover any religion my friend and that is a very thin veil.

[molson]

whoops, my bad you also have to do something for those who are atheists. I dont know what but there feelings need to be just as important as those who have religious faith.

Non-denominational doesnt cover any religion my friend and that is a very thin veil.

So the compromise is to ONLY do something for atheists and nobody else?

Why do you have to do something for anyone? The Constitution doesn't require 6 hours of blessings or none.

[Flasch186]

eh, youre right, fuck 'em.

[Jas_lov]

helenair.com (http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/09/09/top/65st_080909_paul.txt)

Ron Paul will be on the ballot in Montana for some reason. Do you think this will have any effect on the outcome of the state or is it still solid McCain?

Is anyone else rooting for a 269-269 tie? I was playing around with rcp's create a map and it will happen if Obama wins all Kerry states except NH and he picks up CO, NM, and IA. Not that far fetched. It's only happened twice in history where the House of Reps. decided the Presidency.

[molson]

eh, youre right, fuck 'em.

No idea if you're sincere but.

The Constitution doesn't protect someone from being exposed to the expressions of other religions. That would contradict the 1st amendment anyway.

What if my sincerely held religious belief is that government is the root of all evil? How should I be protected? I'm exposed to that shit every day. Government makes me uncomfortable.

[Passacaglia]

So the compromise is to ONLY do something for atheists and nobody else?

Why do you have to do something for anyone? The Constitution doesn't require 6 hours of blessings or none.

Isn't that exactly in line with the current thinking on the separation of church and state...don't do anything for anyone?

[molson]

Isn't that exactly in line with the current thinking on the separation of church and state...don't do anything for anyone?

That's definitely the current thinking, but it's a policy decision, it's not required by the constitution (and may actually violate the 1st ammendment).

[Flasch186]

public and private are where were going to find ourselves at issue. If I go to a sponsored church event I can expect to find a blessing in said vein....If I go to a public event sponsored by a government entity (think broadly, on government grounds, etc) than it shouldn't be favorable to any one religion or religion for that matter. Are there some things in our government that ceremonially have incorporated some religious overtone? certainly, like the swearing in but those events and moments have lost their religious weight almost to nil but when a prayer is said at a public high school graduation it become problematic....but not in your view and thats ok as long as your not a public official trying to push for your line of thinking on others.

[Flasch186]

That's definitely the current thinking, but it's a policy decision, it's not required by the constitution (and may actually violate the 1st ammendment).

I hear cyndi lauper singing right now

[molson]

public and private are where were going to find ourselves at issue. If I go to a sponsored church event I can expect to find a blessing in said vein....If I go to a public event sponsored by a government entity (think broadly, on government grounds, etc) than it shouldn't be favorable to any one religion or religion for that matter. Are there some things in our government that ceremonially have incorporated some religious overtone? certainly, like the swearing in but those events and moments have lost their religious weight almost to nil but when a prayer is said at a public high school graduation it become problematic....but not in your view and thats ok as long as your not a public official trying to push for your line of thinking on others.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

We'd definitely managed to cram a lot of stuff over that over the years.

I'm not strict texualist or anything, but I don't see how the pledge of alliegence or non-mandatory school prayer (and especially mere references to religion) are even in the ballpark.

Oh, and if it matters, I'm not remotely religious. Haven't been to church in maybe 10 years. But I'm not threatened by Christianity.

[Flasch186]

there are plenty of ways to have 'non-madatory' school prayer, AAMOF, at my school BASIC met every morning in an empty class room to pray. Good for them and it didnt take up one minute of the school day for others. The pledge falls under the 'nil' i mentioned above. Like I said, Cyndi is singing and we can see it too.

[Passacaglia]

That's definitely the current thinking, but it's a policy decision, it's not required by the constitution (and may actually violate the 1st ammendment).

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing. You ask, "Why do you have to do something for anyone?" -- it sounds like you're in favor of not doing anything for anyone. But you're in favor of bringing in a pastor to do a prayer, which is doing something for one group?

[Arles]

Your example isn't remotely the same. We know that Palin did in fact ask the Wasilla librarian about banning books. Her actions in the past have been in favor of banning books. Is it not acceptable to at least learn from her the reasoning for that and her thoughts on book banning?
And Obama has had close friends that were Muslim. Do you think it more likely that Palin would inquire as VP about banning books as it would be for Obama to name a close friend (that happens to be Muslim) to his cabinet? The point is neither will happen as they are political suicide and to worry about either shows a lack of common sense.

The other stuff doesn't necessarily apply to Palin, but those are views held by various Bush appointees.
If this is the slope we are taking, there's a ton of democrats who think having Muslims in a president's cabinet would be a good thing. If we are going to start knocking McCain/Palin for Bush appointees, we can start knocking Obama for the beliefs of some of the main big wigs in the democrat/move on circles. Again, I'm not sure what this gains (outside of fear mongering).

Are you saying we shouldn't care what people profess as their beliefs and goals? We should just assume that no matter what people say and no matter what people do that when they run for office or are appointed we should just pretend it never happened?
No, I think it's perfectly fine to scrutinize the belief system of candidates. I just don't think it needs to go to the level of fearing a ban of birth control and burning books. Palin is going to be much more christian conservative than a lot of people prefer, and those people won't vote for her. But to act as if her goal would be to institute massive book burning episodes or a ban of birth control to scare people is a little over the top. Heck, if she didn't do that in Alaska, how would she be able to do it as VP (or even president)?

You also want to set the bar at legislation when that's not the only way to effect policy. The various executive agencies have a whole lot of authority to change policies on thousands of items. Often these changes have much broader effects than were at first realized. Look at what HHS was doing to try to classify contraception as a form of abortion and hence allow health care workers to refuse to dispense.
If you don't like that process, tell your congressman/woman and/or vote for a different candidate for office. It's the beauty of our American political system.

Look, believe what you want and draw your line where you will. For me when religion starts to effect policy decisions, not in the abstract, but to push a narrow agenda, that's too much.
OK, then. Looks like you won't be voting for Obama or McCain. Obama has routinely stated that his Christian faith is a big factor in trying to setup a heath care system for all people and his religious beliefs help lead him to try to have compassion for those less fortunate (which is way the wealthy should pay more in taxes). McCain has stated that his religious background impacts his feelings on helping those less fortunate as well. Heck, I even think Bob Barr may be out. Perhaps there's an atheist somewhere running on the green platform you can vote for.

[Flasch186]

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing. You ask, "Why do you have to do something for anyone?" -- it sounds like you're in favor of not doing anything for anyone. But you're in favor of bringing in a pastor to do a prayer, which is doing something for one group?

but it's the 'right' group.

and Arles she tried.

[molson]

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing. You ask, "Why do you have to do something for anyone?" -- it sounds like you're in favor of not doing anything for anyone. But you're in favor of bringing in a pastor to do a prayer, which is doing something for one group?

I meant to say "why do you have to something for everyone", but rather than correct my typo, I left it as is, to make the point, "if you decide to do one thing, why do you then have to do something for everyone else?". In that hypothetical scenerio, the government is REQUIRING to you to make a specific religious message (for the people that are left out). You can't get any more unconstitutional than that.

I don't care remotely if there's a blessing at a graduation or not. But if a public school wants one, I think they should be able to do it. If students want it there, and the school's OK with it, they should be able to have it without government interference.

I'm just not a huge fan of the enviornment where mentioning "god" sets off red flags of suppression for everyone.

[Flasch186]

I meant to say "why do you have to something for everyone", but rather than correct my typo, I left it as is, to make the point, "if you decide to do one thing, why do you then have to do something for everyone else?". In that hypothetical scenerio, the government is REQUIRING to you to make a specific religious message (for the people that are left out). You can't get any more unconstitutional than that.

I don't care remotely if there's a blessing at a graduation or not. But if a public school wants one, I think they should be able to do it. If Christian students want it there, they should be able to have it.

I'm just not a huge fan of the enviornment where mentioning "god" sets off red flags of suppression for everyone.

What public school do you know of that has ALL Christian students and just because theyre the majority or most vocal doesnt mean that the minority's feelings are of little or no concern. This is the crux of the problem and plain as day that you cannot see.

[larrymcg421]

The thing I don't understand is why does it have to be in the public sphere? There is so much energy and attention into trying to get religion in public and I think it could be better used for more productive things. I think there are many who want to force their beliefs on others and that is unfortunate. People like Pat Robertson, Roy Moore, etc. do more to harm Christianity than any athiest could ever dream.

[JPhillips]

Arles: If the very idea of having a Muslim on the cabinet is as offensive to you as banning books, we really have little to discuss.

[Arles]

and Arles she tried.
It's good to know that inquiring (while mayor) about the library in Wasilla's policies on removing books because some voters thought they had "inappropriate language" in them equates an attempt to ban books. Forget the fact that she never once asked for a ban or even a ban supported by someone else. Forget that it could have simply been a process of her investigating the city's option should it become a legislative attempt or ballot initiative.

No, because she asked a librarian on the policy of removing books because of citizen complaints, she wanted to ban books. Sound about right?

[larrymcg421]

Non-mandatory prayer in a school environment filled with peer pressure is anything but non-mandatory.

The big lie that gets told all the time is that prayer has been taken out of public schools. Not true. I prayed all the time at school, brought a bible on test days, and never had a problem. The problem is that for some reason people want the school to lead the prayer. Why is that necessary?

[Arles]

Arles: If the very idea of having a Muslim on the cabinet is as offensive to you as banning books, we really have little to discuss.
That's what you got from what I wrote? My statement was for Obama to create Muslim wing of the government or name a Muslim as Secretary of Defense would be political suicide. I made no moral judgment about the process, which is why I stated even if you were afraid of such a thing - Obama doing so would involve little common sense. The point is not make judgments about where Muslims as sec of defense or certain books being burned is "right" or not, but to look at the politically reality that neither will happen. So, why even worry about it.

But, I guess faking outcry at a scarecrow argument is a quick way to avoid the real points of my reply. So, kudos for doing that.

[molson]

What public school do you know of that has ALL Christian students and just because theyre the majority or most vocal doesnt mean that the minority's feelings are of little or no concern. This is the crux of the problem and plain as day that you cannot see.

I just don't buy that a atheiest or non-Christian is that freaked out by mentions of god by Christians.

And no, I'm not that concerned about their feelings, especially if they keep them to themselves. The Consitution is supposed to protect feelings now?

I should clarify that if you're just arguging generally, from a policy perspective, that you don't want any prayer in school, fine, I don't care enough to disagree or argue. I just don't think its a Constitutional/government issue, and I don't think the government should involve itself in such matters unless someone's rights are being violated (beyond hurt feelings). And you simply don't have a right to be shielded from things you find offensive. And I idea of the government "establishing a religion" is in a different stratosphere from school prayer, etc.

[Kodos]

I'm a green Atheist. Perhaps I should run!

[JPhillips]

Arles: The one quote we have about the books incident is:

"She asked the library how she could go about banning books,"

Since Palin won't answer any questions, we don't have any other info. Your phrasing of "inquiring" about the "policies on removing books" puts quite a positive spin on things. I'll assume you haven't had a private discussion with either Palin or the librarian, so how did you come to such a conclusion?

Maybe there's nothing there, but we know she asked about getting rid of books and then threatened to fire the librarian for not supporting her enough. If Palin would answer some questions we'd know a lot more.

[Flasch186]

It's good to know that inquiring (while mayor) about the library in Wasilla's policies on removing books because some voters thought they had "inappropriate language" in them equates an attempt to ban books. Forget the fact that she never once asked for a ban or even a ban supported by someone else. Forget that it could have simply been a process of her investigating the city's option should it become a legislative attempt or ballot initiative.

No, because she asked a librarian on the policy of removing books because of citizen complaints, she wanted to ban books. Sound about right?

That's not quite how the librarian has talked about the event. spin much?

[Kodos]

Would you like to have a Muslim prayer (and only a Muslim prayer) happen every day at your child's public school?

[JPhillips]

That's what you got from what I wrote? My statement was for Obama to create Muslim wing of the government or name a Muslim as Secretary of Defense would be political suicide. I made no moral judgment about the process, which is why I stated even if you were afraid of such a thing - Obama doing so would involve little common sense. The point is not make judgments about where Muslims as sec of defense or certain books being burned is "right" or not, but to look at the politically reality that neither will happen. So, why even worry about it.

But, I guess faking outcry at a scarecrow argument is a quick way to avoid the real points of my reply. So, kudos for doing that.

Again, Obama does not have a history of appointing Muslims nor has he ever stated he would appoint a Muslim as SecDef. Even if he would the mere fact that someone is a Muslim is inconsequential. If that person had a history of vitriolic statements or jihadist tendencies that would be a concern That's why your example doesn't have merit.

Palin has a history of trying to ban books and refuses to discuss it. It's not about political consequences, it's about a desire to wield authority to impose religious views on those who have different beliefs.

[molson]

Do we know what kinds of books she wanted to "ban" (or in reality, just remove from the government-funded library?)

There's lots of books that your neighborhood government library wouldn't think to carry. That doesn't amount to a "ban". Somehow, these libararies have to decide which books to carry and which ones not to. You're probably not going to find a lot of good porn down there. The ones that don't make the cut, for whatever reason, aren't "banned".

The government is allowed to show preferences for viewpoints in some ways ("sin taxes", etc).

If it's a private libarary, we'll talking a whole different kettle of fish.

And I'm not in favor of "book banning", but if that's your primary concern, Palin will have much less oportunity to regulate government libaries as VP than she would in Alaska politics.

[Fighter of Foo]

You don't have be smug, give an example.

Preferably, an example where a politican actually succeeded in subverting the Constitution for religion. I'll be patient.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


Congress shall have the power to...declare war...

"Earlier in 2005, President Bush claimed he was on a mission from God when he started the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." The US president told a Palestinian delegation in Sharm el-Sheikh."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68348&sectionid=3510203

[ISiddiqui]

Are you serious? You think that Bush declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq because of his religion?! Tell that to the PNAC guys.

[larrymcg421]

Palin pressured Wasilla librarian: Gov. Sarah Palin | adn.com (http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html)

Highlights:

Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.

According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn't fully support her and had to go.

Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.

[panerd]

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


Congress shall have the power to...declare war...

"Earlier in 2005, President Bush claimed he was on a mission from God when he started the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." The US president told a Palestinian delegation in Sharm el-Sheikh."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68348&sectionid=3510203

He already had a few examples that weren't a stretch to respond to and chose not to respond to either of them. I am sure he will jump all over this one, but I would love to hear his response to Terry Schiavo or the 10 commandments judge.

[ISiddiqui]

Obama appears to be getting scared:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/quietly_obama_campaign_flashes.php

After saying he wasn't going to support 527's, he appears to want to call them in.

[larrymcg421]

Obama appears to be getting scared:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/quietly_obama_campaign_flashes.php

After saying he wasn't going to support 527's, he appears to want to call them in.

The evidence in that blog is unconvincing.

An Obama adviser privy to the campaign's internal thinking on the matter

And my uncle's brother's sister's ex-husband's cousin twice removed says that McCain and Palin have a secret affair and he chose her as VP to keep it quiet.

[Arles]

Palin has a history of trying to ban books and refuses to discuss it. It's not about political consequences, it's about a desire to wield authority to impose religious views on those who have different beliefs.
If you can point to one executive order, piece of legislation or even ballot initiative she just supported as mayor, governor or while on the commission in Alaska, then I would agree she has a history of it. As it stands now, that does not exist.

Still, I have no problem with people asking her about it. I just don't think it's a fair fear for people to have about her being in office.

[ISiddiqui]

I'd imagine an Obama adviser would be far more privy to the campaigns internal thinking than your uncle's brother's sister's ex-husband's cousin twice removed who has no ties to the McCain campaign.

[DaddyTorgo]

Are you serious? You think that Bush declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq because of his religion?! Tell that to the PNAC guys.

I gotta agree with ISiddiqui here. Bush may have cloaked it as a "mission from god" to try to appease certain segments of his voter-base and drive up enlistment #'s in the rust belt and the heartland (traditionally religious areas), but it was much more PNAC-driven. To an absurd degree.

Then again, saying he cloaked it that way on purpose for a reason is really giving him too much credit - it must have been an advisor. I honestly don't believe the guy could think his way out of a paper bag (exaggeration, but you get my drift).

[JPhillips]

Obama appears to be getting scared:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/quietly_obama_campaign_flashes.php

After saying he wasn't going to support 527's, he appears to want to call them in.

It's about fucking time. Rarely do you win a fight by keeping your weapons locked up.

[Fighter of Foo]

He already had a few examples that weren't a stretch to respond to and chose not to respond to either of them. I am sure he will jump all over this one, but I would love to hear his response to Terry Schiavo or the 10 commandments judge.

Agreed, those are obviously much clearer examples.

[JPhillips]

If you can point to one executive order, piece of legislation or even ballot initiative she just supported as mayor, governor or while on the commission in Alaska, then I would agree she has a history of it. As it stands now, that does not exist.

Still, I have no problem with people asking her about it. I just don't think it's a fair fear for people to have about her being in office.

I don't fear for my reading list. I fear that she'll feel comfortable imposing her religious beliefs on the rest of the country in whatever way she can get away with. You guys used to fear what the executive agencies could do under the cloak of darkness.

[Fighter of Foo]

I gotta agree with ISiddiqui here. Bush may have cloaked it as a "mission from god" to try to appease certain segments of his voter-base and drive up enlistment #'s in the rust belt and the heartland (traditionally religious areas), but it was much more PNAC-driven. To an absurd degree.

Then again, saying he cloaked it that way on purpose for a reason is really giving him too much credit - it must have been an advisor. I honestly don't believe the guy could think his way out of a paper bag (exaggeration, but you get my drift).

There's no denying the theme of the modern crusades influencing neoconservative thinking though. Spreading Christianity and all that. I definitely don't believe it was a sole cause (that would be $$$), more like an added "bonus."

[DaddyTorgo]

There's no denying the theme of the modern crusades influencing neoconservative thinking though. Spreading Christianity and all that. I definitely don't believe it was a sole cause (that would be $$$), more like an added "bonus."

*nods* of course

[Flasch186]

Report: Palin tapped travel allowance at home - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/palin_travel_expenses)

WASHINGTON - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has charged her state a daily allowance, normally used for official travel, for more than 300 nights spent at her home, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

An analysis of travel statements filed by the governor, now John McCain's Republican running mate, shows she claimed the per diem allowance on 312 occasions when she was home in Wasilla and that she billed taxpayers $43,490 for travel by her husband and children.

Per diem payments are meant for meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business. State officials told The Post her claims — nearly $17,000 over 19 months — were permitted because her "duty station" is Juneau, the capital, and she was in Wasilla 600 miles away. The governor moved to Juneau last year but often stays in Wasilla and works 45 miles away, in a state office in Anchorage.

Palin's spending and record in office are coming under intense scrutiny as she is presented to the nation as a champion of ethics reform and frugal use of tax dollars — a leader who put the state jet on sale on eBay and drives herself to work.

The Post's analysis shows her husband Todd and their daughters were reimbursed by taxpayers for many trips between Wasilla and Juneau as well as for a variety of other travel that was also listed as state business. Palin's aides said travel by Alaska's first family is part of the job.

But it's not clear when children's travel expenses should be covered. State finance director Kim Garnero told the paper the government covers the travel costs of anyone conducting state business and, "I can't imagine kids could be doing that."

Palin took her daughter Bristol to New York in October for a conference on women and leadership, a tour of the New York Stock Exchange and various meetings, the analysis shows. Travel costs included three nights in a hotel room costing more than $700 a night.

Overall, Palin's travel spending pales in comparison with that of predecessor Frank Murkowski, who charged $463,000 for air fare in 2006. Palin charged $93,000 in 2007.

Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said Tuesday that the governor is expected to travel frequently. "This is part of her job and it's only reasonable her travel expenses — which were reduced dramatically from the previous administration — would be covered," Schmitt said.

[ISiddiqui]

Aren't most neocons (or at least the founders of the movement) Jews?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Report: Palin tapped travel allowance at home - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/palin_travel_expenses)

Given the logistics of travel regarding distance and locations in Alaska, I'm honestly surprised that it wasn't much higher than the amount they report. The distance between her home and the capital is roughly the same as the distance between Kansas City and Denver. For those keeping score at home, that's a LONG way from home. Also, when compared to the previous administration's expenses, she has cut travel expenses by the governor by 90%. I'm sure you could nitpick here or there, but that's pretty substantial savings for the state.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Report: Palin tapped travel allowance at home - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/palin_travel_expenses)

Yawn.

[Vegas Vic]

I think this column on Palin has a lot of merit, considering the perspective is from a Democratic consultant, Kirsten Powers:

YESTERDAY'S Gallup poll had John McCain ahead of Barack Obama by an astonishing 10 points among likely voters. A Washington Post poll had that lead at only two points, but clearly showed a McCain surge - especially among women. This wasn't what Democrats were expecting when they left Denver - yet they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Obama's toughest challenge has always been to connect with working-class swing voters. So attacking the poster child for small-town values, Sarah Palin, was a bad strategy.

No, Obama didn't engage in the mass sneering at Palin - but he did fall into the trap of disrespecting her. When McCain chose her, the Obama campaign's first response was to ridicule the size of her town. Then the candidate himself began referring to her as a "former mayor" when she is in fact a sitting governor.

When she retaliated (justifiably) by mocking his stint as a organizer, the Obama camp was clearly rattled. Obama himself actually began arguing about the importance of community organizing. His supporters amplified this cry - claiming Palin's attack was a racist slur and passing around e-mails titled "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Meanwhile, the rest of the country was probably wondering what being a community organizer has to do with being president.

Lured by the McCain camp, Obama supporters engaged in an argument about who had more overall experience - the top of the Democratic ticket or the bottom of the GOP ticket. This diminished Obama.

Meanwhile, the media lit up in all their cultural-elite splendor.

Alaska? they sneered. It has the population of Las Vegas! Funny how the coastal elite only sneers at red states with small populations. Howard Dean hailed from a blue state with almost the same population as Alaska and was a national phenomenon and front-runner for the presidency. Joe Biden's Delaware has a similarly small population - but no mocking was forthcoming there.

Evangelicals will never vote for a woman who works! they declared. This from people who've likely never met an evangelical in their lives. They could barely contain themselves when they found out Gov. Palin's daughter was pregnant, so sure were they that evangelicals would hang her from the highest tree. When evangelical leaders expressed support, there was a palpable disappointment that Palin or her daughter wasn't branded with a scarlet letter.

They claimed that the Palin announcement was some desperate pick that came out of nowhere. Had they been doing their jobs, or even perusing The Weekly Standard or right-wing blogs, they'd have known that she was on the list.

Since they didn't know anything about her, they started making things up. Anything that fit the caricature of a right-wing hypocrite was thrown up with, seemingly, no fact-checking.

They said she opposes contraception, when she said in a campaign debate that she is pro-contraception. They said she cut funding for pregnant teens, when she provided a massive funding hike.

They accused her of cutting funding for mentally disabled children, when she raised it 175 percent over the former administration. She was said to have been a member of the wacky Alaska Independence Party; The New York Times had to run a retraction.

Like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Palin has been deemed one of the GOP's rising stars. Since it's national reporters job to cover American politics, their ignorance of about her is distressing.

Most Americans think that the media are cheerleading for Obama, so they'll punish him for the reporters' and editors' sins.

So now he is weighted down with more baggage as he works to convince an important voting bloc that he and his party don't hold them in contempt.

The clock is ticking.

HOW OBAMA BLEW IT - New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/how_obama_blew_it_128132.htm)

[molson]

He already had a few examples that weren't a stretch to respond to and chose not to respond to either of them. I am sure he will jump all over this one, but I would love to hear his response to Terry Schiavo or the 10 commandments judge.

I'm beyond confused on how Terry Shiavo or the 10 commandments answers my question about how politicans are succesful subverting the constitution for their religion that I don't really know where to start.

Terri's Law was found unconstitutional, and she's dead now.

That judge isn't a politican. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I don't think you understood my question. I was mocking the implication that a VP might have the ability to ban birth control or ban books, and asked for examples where a politican was successful in doing their own thing despite the consitution. In the examples I got, there were long legal battles, and the courts decided things (not the politicans), which is the idea. I'm certainly aware that politicans have done things that have been found unconstitutional. There's about a billion of examples of that, but thanks for the two.

Congress has the power to declare war (and they did authorize this one), but the president has even broader powers as commander-in-chief.

[CamEdwards]

Flasch and JPhillips... y'all are coming off as a little shrill here.

First of all, regarding Palin and the library, here's what factcheck.org has to say:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html


She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

There's a LOT more background at factcheck.org, including the fact that the woman making these claims says that Palin 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."

As for the travel, it's true that she was reimbursed for travel expenses. But also from the Washington Post:


Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski. He traveled often in an executive jet that Palin called an extravagance during her campaign. She sold it after she was sworn into office.

"She flies coach and encourages her cabinet to fly coach as well," said Garnero, whose job is equivalent to state controller. "Some do, some don't."

Leighow said that the governor's staff has tallied the travel expenses charged by Murkowski's wife: $35,675 in 2006, $43,659 in 2005, $13,607 in 2004 and $29,608 in 2003. Associates of Murkowski said the former governor was moose hunting and could not be reached to comment.

Heavens to Betsy! This post at the Corner is worth reading as well:

The Corner on National Review Online (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTY4YjYyNzdjZmZmNzliY2I4MjM1YzYxYTM5MDUxNTI=)

[molson]

Great article Vic.

Obama and his supporters blowing this election is both hillarious and sad.

I wonder if Obama was so stingy as a Senator as Palin was as a governor? Did he fly coach? Somehow I can't picture that.

[ace1914]

I think this column on Palin has a lot of merit, considering the perspective is from a Democratic consultant, Kirsten Powers:



Most Americans think that the media are cheerleading for Obama, so they'll punish him for the reporters' and editors' sins.

So now he is weighted down with more baggage as he works to convince an important voting bloc that he and his party don't hold them in contempt.

The clock is ticking.

HOW OBAMA BLEW IT - New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/how_obama_blew_it_128132.htm)

An editorial named How Obama Blew It,(but about the media's mishandling of Palin?) The article's name isn't even original. This is like the 3rd or 4th article I've read stating how Obama has blown the election. He blew it not taking public funds, he blew it not picking Hillary, he blew it not denouncing Wright soon enough, he blew it not picking Hillary, he blew it not going hard enough at McCain, and now he blew it over something he has no control over? Give me break. Hilarious.

[molson]

An editorial named How Obama Blew It,(but about the media's mishandling of Palin?) The article's name isn't even original. This is like the 3rd or 4th article I've read stating how Obama has blown the election. He blew it not taking public funds, he blew it not picking Hillary, he blew it not denouncing Wright soon enough, he blew it not picking Hillary, he blew it not going hard enough at McCain, and now he blew it over something he has no control over? Give me break. Hilarious.

So how do you think he's blowing it?

He's clearly blowing it right? Thousands of screaming superfans everywhere, media support, a message of "change", huge party support, one of the greatest speakers in memory, a 72-year old broken down opponent of a damaged brand who stumbles his words, the lowest approval ratings ever for the current president of the opposing party.

You think he should be happy to be tied or worse in the polls?

Democrats can't and won't win over the undecideds by looking down on them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

As long as he manages to blow it, I'm content to wait until afterward to fully dissect it. And I (somewhat rhetorically) wonder how much money will be made by other people doing just that?

[Subby]

Yawn.
Agreed. This is the kind of petty horseshit that is going to make the democrats lose the election. You aren't going to win the character vote. You have to win on the issues.

[ace1914]

So how do you think he's blowing it?

He's clearly blowing it right? Thousands of screaming superfans everywhere, media support, a message of "change", huge party support, one of the greatest speakers in memory, a 72-year old broken down opponent of a damaged brand who stumbles his words, the lowest approval ratings ever for the current president of the opposing party.

You think he should be happy to be tied or worse in the polls?

No, I don't believe he's blowing it. The race has been tight and will continue to be close. Yes he should be happy. Gotta go pick up my wife from work, though talk to you in a bit.

[Subby]

So how do you think he's blowing it?
The moment he chose Biden that campaign stalled. Such a terrible choice.

[sachmo71]

that's it, im throwing in with the conservatives. i look down on people who look down on people.

[Flasch186]

I'm beyond confused on how Terry Shiavo or the 10 commandments answers my question about how politicans are succesful subverting the constitution for their religion that I don't really know where to start.

Terri's Law was found unconstitutional, and she's dead now.

That judge isn't a politican. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I don't think you understood my question. I was mocking the implication that a VP might have the ability to ban birth control or ban books, and asked for examples where a politican was successful in doing their own thing despite the consitution. In the examples I got, there were long legal battles, and the courts decided things (not the politicans), which is the idea. I'm certainly aware that politicans have done things that have been found unconstitutional. There's about a billion of examples of that, but thanks for the two.

Congress has the power to declare war (and they did authorize this one), but the president has even broader powers as commander-in-chief.

by nominating justices...

[molson]

by nominating justices...

If there's a potential supreme court justice out there that would help carry out the "scary" religious agenda of McCain/Plain and also get through Senate confirmation (no matter party what party controls) I'd love to hear about him

And just to sum up the two big fears about Palin as I understand them.

1. She's against birth control. I googled this and didn't find any reference to it except on liberal blogs. And even those didn't clarifty whether she personally didn't believe in birth control, or if she was in favor of a federal ban, or if she would only appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would overrule Griswold (or how she's have access to a time machine to find one).

2. She "tried to ban books", which is a total lie all over this thread, all we know is that she asked about how books could be removed from a public library. Nobody seems to know what books, or even if the conversation got that far.

And part of a vote for McCain is a vote for more conservative judges, but the implication that these judges will set off a revolution of book and birth control banning is nothing more than desperate fear-mongering.

[larrymcg421]

If there's a potential supreme court justice out there that would help carry out the "scary" religious agenda of McCain/Plain and also get through Senate confirmation (no matter party what party controls) I'd love to hear about him

Scalia, Thomas, Alito, etc. If McCain gets in, he will no doubt be going after justices in this mold. If he doesn't the conservatives who are gushing ove rPalin will be livid.

And just to sum up the two big fears about Palin as I understand them.

1. She's against birth control. I googled this and didn't find any reference to it except on liberal blogs. And even those didn't clarifty whether she personally didn't believe in birth control, or if she was in favor of a federal ban, or if she would only appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would overrule Griswold (or how she's have access to a time machine to find one).

Are you kidding? Conservative justices would love to overrule Griswold. There's at least 3 votes on the court for doing that right now (Scalia, Thomas, Alito), and Roberts might be a 4th.

2. She "tried to ban books", which is a total lie all over this thread, all we know is that she asked about how books could be removed from a public library. Nobody seems to know what books, or even if the conversation got that far.

The conversation never got that far because the public response to firing the librarian was so negative that she didn't go through with it.

[Arles]

I'm enjoying these new "smoking guns" on Palin that come out each day. Half are shown untrue, others are shown to be blown way out of proportion and maybe 1-2 have any kind of remote staying power (troopergate is probably the closest here). But, even for those 1-2 real issues that come out, the public has been so saturated with debunked crap on Palin that most probably don't even treat troopergate any different than the independent party garbage or the "her daughter's the real mom to her son" crud.

To me, the media is at the boy who cried wolf stage with Palin. Even if a real wolf came out tomorrow, the loss of credibility by the blogs/media after all these crazy charges would almost completely soften the impact. At this point, the democrats should just lay off her and focus on Obama-McCain. This is one thing the republicans have been smart on. There's plenty of red meat on Biden but the right hasn't touched it. The last thing they want to do is take the pressure off Obama right now.

Now, as I said earlier, if I am McCain I am sending Palin out to do interviews and secretly fanning the flames on all these anti-Palin stories. Check out some of the Rasmussen numbers:

As McCain has begun to chip away as Obama’s convention bounce, most of his gains have come among women voters. Obama still leads 51% to 44% among women, but that seven-point edge is just half the fourteen point lead he enjoyed last Tuesday. McCain leads by three among men, little changed in recent days.

Later in the same poll it says
Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain)

So, in reality, it wasn't just the naming of Palin that's helped McCain. It's the fact that people feel she's been unfairly treated by the media that's helping McCain and giving her sympathy. So, if I'm McCain, let's keep that up ;)

[Flasch186]

so you'd be cool if Troopergate turns out to be true in that she did do something wrong, because it'd be hidden by all the static. so spun you are that you'd be happy that the truth (if found that she acting unethically) would be 'hidden'.

If its true its true and you should be pissed too instead of pushing your angle. God, when will you strive for the truth in things?

she tried to fire the librarian, hello?!

you should be pissed at lies from both sides!!

[CraigSca]

I don't think it's right that she did that, either. But, I don't get it - who's perfect these days - I'll vote for him/her in a heartbeat.

[Flasch186]

vote for Ezekial Brewman! :)

[CraigSca]

He's a real as any of the politicians, anyway.

[QuikSand]

Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.

Okay, let's take this at face value. If we have learned *anything* at all from a thread like this one, it's that lots and lots of people on both sides have convenient filters that simply work to translate any news item into reinforcement for what they have already decided. If it's bad news about the guy they hate, it's true and very important. If it's bad news about the guy they already like, then it's suspect and probably irrelevant. We already see how this works.

So, it seems one person in four says that hearing news items saying that Sarah Palin did something untoward... and that makes them more likely to vote for her. Don't we honestly have to think that we're just seeing more of the same here, and that this is just the instinctive reaction from people who have already decided to vote for the GOP ticket and are just expressing their reactions in much the same way that the predictable back-and-forth occurs here? "I'm for her. Somebody said something mean about her? I'm even MORE for her now!" Same thing on both sides... I don't think this is a surprise that it would show up in a poll.

[ISiddiqui]

No, I don't believe he's blowing it. The race has been tight and will continue to be close. Yes he should be happy. Gotta go pick up my wife from work, though talk to you in a bit.

When he's running against a nominee of a Party whose President has an approval rating in the 30s... that's horrid to be this tight and even behind. He can't be happy at that.

[Big Fo]

It's about fucking time. Rarely do you win a fight by keeping your weapons locked up.

This. I'm so tired of the Democrats' obsession with "winning the right way." This is American politics, it's dirty, you must do anything and everything you can to win, no matter how cynical or untrue.

If the Republicans can spin the media asking questions about Sarah Palin to the Obama campaign attacking her, or flat-out lie about how their tax plan will affect middle class Americans and Palin's "opposition" to the Bridge to Nowhere, then there's no reason for the Democrats to try and keep it classy.

[larrymcg421]

Interesting article about Obama's efforts to steal an electoral vote in Nebraska. Could become key if the election stays close.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/nebraska_split_vote

[Young Drachma]

The Dems aren't doing themselves any favors in this election. Sure, Obama has a funny name and he's black. Ok, so what? People can think of lots of good reasons not to vote for him that have nothing to do with that. Even voting against their own economic interests. John Kerry and Al Gore both lost to the current regime and those guys didn't grow up anywhere near Indonesia.

The Dems needs to stop bitching, stop whining, stop trying to play a game that they are NOT cut out for. They need to get in the trenches and start fighting.

It'll be astounding and hilarious if they manage to blow this. Because they won't even be able to blame St. Barack. Sure, he's made missteps and gaffes and sure, folks who'd never vote for him think he's an empty suit.

But the issue is, the folks who purport to support him are turning off otherwise fair minded folks who might be induced to pull the lever for him in November.

They're preaching to the choir when they need to be caroling door to door.

I don't think the alarm is ringing and I still don't believe that Team Barack made it this far to lose to John Freakin' McCain, but...if you've seen The Devil's Advocate, surely the fact that he's sold his soul for infamy has to count for something.

But I fear that the screaming left will be feigning anger for so long that they'll lose on a TKO in November and be left wondering what happened.

Not that I'm massively opposed. McCain's health care plan will probably raise wages if it were fully passed through and it's likely to prevent tax increases, even as spending runs rampant and the bureaucracy continues to bloat.

Obama's coattails ought to provide a filibuster proof majority for the Dems in the Senate tho. Adding to the hilarity of Washington gridlock.

Then Obama can go on the lecture circuit, write a few books and continue to hit the college circuit forever, McCain can turn Washington into a reality show for 4 years and as it goes, it goes.

[molson]

Interesting article about Obama's efforts to steal an electoral vote in Nebraska. Could become key if the election stays close.

Omaha's electoral vote draws Obama's attention - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/nebraska_split_vote)

It doesn't sound like he can win there but great idea to try.

[CamEdwards]

This is American politics, it's dirty, you must do anything and everything you can to win, no matter how cynical or untrue.


And this, Flasch, is why you'll never convince me that religion and morality has no place in politics.

Obama's whole campaign was launched on the idea that Big Fo is wrong.. that we have to change politics because it's changed us... and not for the better. That's why he enjoyed such popularity. Somewhere along the way, however, it turned from a campaign based around an ideal to a campaign based around an idol.

What Big Fo is saying is that at some point folks become desperate (and that's what this is... desperation) enough that selling out their principles and ideals is acceptable in order to win. Now, there may be circumstances in which that's true, but I don't think it's good for the country to say that party comes before principle.

On a lighter note, I'm going to send a case of 5 Hour Energy to the folks at factcheck.org. I have a feeling their going to be working overtime for the next two months.

[JPhillips]

Flasch and JPhillips... y'all are coming off as a little shrill here.

First of all, regarding Palin and the library, here's what factcheck.org has to say:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

I'll assume you accidentally pulled a debunking for a chain email that I never referenced. Palin certainly inquired about banning books, I don't think anyone really is denying that, she certainly hasn't. No, she didn't actually get any books banned, but the inquiry and the threat to fire the librarian needs to be addressed by Palin.

As to your later point about cynicism, who's campaign manger said this election isn't about issues?

[Big Fo]

It's hard to change the game if you lose the election.

He's already changed his mind on some other things like the effectiveness of the surge, saying he would wait to push his tax cuts/raises through with the economy as it is, defended then denounced Rev. Wright, he's accepted public funding, etc. I don't really see 527s as any better or worse. Obama has shown that in important situations that he will bow to pragmatism even if it means going against what he had previously believed to be correct and/or said publicly.

[Vegas Vic]

I told you guys back in the primary season that North Carolina (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/politics&id=6380065) wouldn't be in play this fall, and I got some disagreement. I don't expect Obama to spend much time or money there now.

[VPI97]

Palin certainly inquired about banning books, I don't think anyone really is denying that, she certainly hasn't. No, she didn't actually get any books banned, but the inquiry and the threat to fire the librarian needs to be addressed by Palin.
The link that Cam provided yields there statements...

"Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned"
"The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books."

...so I'm not sure what you were saying there.

Obviously, I don't know what occurred during that conversation, so I'm not implying she did or didn't want to ban books, but based on factcheck.org, it sounds like the questions were simply "what if's" that an employer would ask an employee. Like if I were to ask on of my subordinates, "What would you do if I said you couldn't code this in Visual Studio?"...it's not me saying they can't use Visual Studio ever again...I just want to know how they would approach the situation.

Then again, maybe Palin is a fascist...I dunno.

[CamEdwards]

It's hard to change the game if you lose the election.


Ohhh... so you'll regain your ideals and principles AFTER your candidate wins. With an attitude like that, I think you're ready to be a candidate yourself!

[JPhillips]

I'm sure McCain will be redenouncing the agents of intolerance if he's elected.

[Big Fo]

Ohhh... so you'll regain your ideals and principles AFTER your candidate wins. With an attitude like that, I think you're ready to be a candidate yourself!

If it's not too late to run I can just copy Obama's "change" mantra like McCain has.

edit: Also I've never claimed to be as idealistic with regards to politics and elections as Obama has...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Now, there may be circumstances in which that's true, but I don't think it's good for the country to say that party comes before principle.

And that's one of the places things get into tricky ground I think.

Not picking on you or your comment at all, I just want to take a notion & run with it a bit and this snippet provides a good lead in for that.

At some point neither party is perfect. Short of having myself named benevolent dictator for live I'm going to find myself in disagreement on some behavior with a person/party no matter who is holding an office. So at what point do you end up throwing the baby out with the bath water? What I'm getting at is that, even if there's an occasional trick dirtier than I would care for personally, there's still situations where my values are more in synch with the person who played it than I am with their opposition.

Fighting dirty doesn't rub me (or most voters IMO) nearly the wrong way so much as other disagreements I have with the opposition. And when you know the ethically bankrupt folks on the other side (regardless of which side you're on) are going to fight dirty whether you do or not ... well, it really doesn't seem much wonder to me that this sort of thing gets largely ignored.
And I think that's pretty reasonable, since the only other viable alternative is not to vote at all.

[ISiddiqui]

This is why the reason for Carville's famous riddle (off the top of my head, so it may be somewhat paraphrased): "What do you call the candidate that relies on the youth vote? The loser."

Because candidates are more pragmatic, so the idealistic youth voters feel their change candidate abandoned his message for votes (ie, "politics as usual").

[JPhillips]

Josh Marshall calls it the Bitch Slap Theory of electoral politics. The public wants to know you're a fighter and complaining about being slapped doesn't win elections. Part of the appeal for the Republicans has been that people can expect them to be tough bastards if need be. The Democrats can't win until they prove the same thing.

[ISiddiqui]

Josh Marshall calls it the Bitch Slap Theory of electoral politics. The public wants to know you're a fighter and complaining about being slapped doesn't win elections. Part of the appeal for the Republicans has been that people can expect them to be tough bastards if need be. The Democrats can't win until they prove the same thing.

Which is why I thought Hillary Clinton would have been the better choice for the Dems. For all of her faults, there is no doubt she's a fighter.

[larrymcg421]

I find all this "Hillary would have been a better choice" talk to be mostly revisionist thinking. I was a Hillary supporter during the early primaries, switched to Obama before the GA primary. All I heard during those early primaries was a bunch of talk about her high negatives, and now people think she would have been a dynamite VP pick?

[ISiddiqui]

High negatives, but all you needed was Kerry + Ohio.

[bulletsponge]

Which is why I thought Hillary Clinton would have been the better choice for the Dems. For all of her faults, there is no doubt she's a fighter.


yes. she has bigger balls than Bill and Obama

[larrymcg421]

High negatives, but all you needed was Kerry + Ohio.

Which we still might get. Or maybe not Ohio, but some other combination. The experience issue would have been really problematic for Obama if he had selected Hillary. There's also the possibility that Obama selected Biden based on ability rather than politics.

I do think the eulogy is being written a little prematurely for the Obama campaign.

[Buccaneer]

I can't believe some of you are ignorantly suggesting that we'll have more of Roberts, Alito, etc. if McCain is elected. Is that the latest scare tactics? That's why we will have a Democratic Senate, not a Republican Senate and is why we need a split Senate/Executive. If we don't, it'll be no different than 2001-2007 and that's bad.

[larrymcg421]

I can't believe some of you are ignorantly suggesting that we'll have more of Roberts, Alito, etc. if McCain is elected. Is that the latest scare tactics? That's why we will have a Democratic Senate, not a Republican Senate and is why we need a split Senate/Executive. If we don't, it'll be no different than 2001-2007 and that's bad.

I don't know Buc, but while you're calling me ignorant, why don't you tell me what party was in charge when Scalia and Thomas were both confirmed?

Also, could you please describe what kind of shitstorm will happen among the religious right if Stevens steps down, making the Roe split 4-4, and McCain fails to deliver on a justice they want?

[Vegas Vic]

I do think the eulogy is being written a little prematurely for the Obama campaign.

Obama's goose isn't cooked yet, but it's in the oven now.

[CamEdwards]

I don't know Buc, but while you're calling me ignorant, why don't you tell me what party was in charge when Scalia and Thomas were both confirmed?

Also, could you please describe what kind of shitstorm will happen among the religious right if Stevens steps down, making the Roe split 4-4, and McCain fails to deliver on a justice they want?


I confess that abortion isn't my big issue, so I'm asking this question sincerely. Is there a case currently working its way towards the Supreme Court that could allow the justices to revisit Roe, or is this just more of a hypothetical?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Mentioning here since there was some talk many pages ago about whether Georgia might be in play this November.

Obama campaign shifting some people out of Georgia | ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/09/09/obama_campaign_georgia.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab)

Obama campaign shifting some people out of Georgia

Nearly three weeks after dropping its TV ads, the Democratic presidential campaign of Barack Obama will shift personnel out of Georgia into more competitive states like North Carolina, staffers confirmed Tuesday.

The movement of resources reflects a quickly tightening, state-by-state race for the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the White House.

Campaign officials declined to specify how many of approximately 75 paid Obama staffers will be redeployed, and denied that the move signaled reduced expectations in the state.

“Even if a huge number of people left, we’d still have the largest presidential campaign staff in the history of the state of Georgia,” said Caroline Adelman, spokeswoman for the Obama campaign in Georgia.

Voter registration drives will continue apace, and two new campaign offices will be opened this week in south DeKalb County and Savannah, Adelman said.

Democrats in Georgia are counting on an Obama-driven surge of voters to halt a six-year decline up and down the ballot.

But Republicans have belittled claims by Obama supporters that Georgia, which hasn’t cast its electoral college votes for a Democrat since 1992, is seriously contested territory.

Since the January primary season, Obama has aired more than $2 million worth of television ads in state. Republican John McCain has spent his money elsewhere, but in statewide polls — the most recent nearly a month old — the Republican maintains an average lead of more than 6 percentage points, according to the web site RealClearPolitics.com, which tracks polling data.

Two weeks ago, Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, issued a mocking invitation to Democrats, advising them to “spend as much money as possible in this state. Millions and millions of dollars.”

On Tuesday, it was the Republican National Committee’s turn to chortle. “After spending over $2 million dollars in ads and investing significant manpower, Barack Obama’s campaign has finally realized that his partisan record is out of step with the values of Georgia voters,” said RNC spokeswoman Katie Wright.

Even last month, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe declared that Georgia remained one of 18 targeted “battleground” states.

But that was before McCain and Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP pick for vice president, received a substantial bump in national polls from last week’s Republican National Convention in St. Paul. ...

[Buccaneer]

I don't know Buc, but while you're calling me ignorant, why don't you tell me what party was in charge when Scalia and Thomas were both confirmed?

Also, could you please describe what kind of shitstorm will happen among the religious right if Stevens steps down, making the Roe split 4-4, and McCain fails to deliver on a justice they want?

You have been bringing up this scare tactic all year long and it really does sound like a one-trick pony. Why are you bringing up stuff that happens 15-20 years when you know damn well that ever since Clinton, partisan politics have intensified to where if McCain nominates a social conservative (that's a big if since he never liked them, apart from trying to get elected), there would be a firestorm with a very, very hostile Senate (and Congress in general).

I am a strong advocate of putting the brakes on Congressional legislation and Executive powers, as per the Constitution. Even if a social conservative would get by the Senate, that would bother me far less than a single party passing special interest, election favor bills with the president having no balls to veto anything.

[larrymcg421]

I confess that abortion isn't my big issue, so I'm asking this question sincerely. Is there a case currently working its way towards the Supreme Court that could allow the justices to revisit Roe, or is this just more of a hypothetical?

There are always abortion cases making their way to the court, but they are usually about what kind of restrictions can be placed on Roe instead of an outright challenge. The last serious direct challenge the court heard was Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, I can guarantee you that thousands of briefs will be written the second Stevens steps down.

[Vegas Vic]

Nearly three weeks after dropping its TV ads, the Democratic presidential campaign of Barack Obama will shift personnel out of Georgia into more competitive states like North Carolina, staffers confirmed Tuesday.

Oops. On second thought, don't unpack your bags yet, boys. (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/politics&id=6380065) Maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan would be a better destination.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan would be a better destination.

At the rate things are going, maybe Illinois would be a better choice ;)

[larrymcg421]

You have been bringing up this scare tactic all year long and it really does sound like a one-trick pony. Why are you bringing up stuff that happens 15-20 years when you know damn well that ever since Clinton, partisan politics have intensified to where if McCain nominates a social conservative (that's a big if since he never liked them, apart from trying to get elected), there would be a firestorm with a very, very hostile Senate (and Congress in general).

You mean the same firestorm that took place when Alito was confirmed? The Democrats couldn't even muster up 40 to agree to a filibuster, and this was a nominee whose abortion views were well known because he participated in a circuit court ruling on the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. In fact, his abortion views were so extreme, he voted to uphold the spousal notification law, which was the only restriction that the Casey court rejected other than the outright reversal of Roe. McCain won't even have to appoint someone so blatantly conservative. He can appoint someone who is a little more friendly, but still a solid conservative vote, like Roberts.

I am a strong advocate of putting the brakes on Congressional legislation and Executive powers, as per the Constitution. Even if a social conservative would get by the Senate, that would bother me far less than a single party passing special interest, election favor bills with the president having no balls to veto anything.

Well that's a different argument then. I'm sure the Democrats will give a McCain administration problems with legislation that he attempts to pass. However, they can't just continue to block every nominee McCain appoints. At some point, it's going to look like stonewalling, and the public (the same public that favored Alito's confirmation 54%-28% In Poll, 54% Back Alito's Confirmation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122100354.html)) will not tolerate that for very long.

[JPhillips]

Given that McCain's convention bounce is already diminishing it seems odd to be so convinced of victory. Especially from people who have urged caution at every step when Obama led in the polls.

[ace1914]

A REAL substantive critique of Obama's chances. By a republican adviser.

Bloomberg.com-Opinion (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aB7zfbsSOGcE&refer=home)

Sept. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Now that the conventions are behind us, most Americans will now turn their attention back to the school year and the National Football League. There will be few moments when the campaigns can, as they did over the past two weeks, grab everyone's attention. That leaves the candidates with only one more high- visibility opportunity to reach undecided voters: the debates. There will be three debates between Senators John McCain (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John+McCain&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) and Barack Obama (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Barack+Obama&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in late-September and mid-October, with one vice- presidential meeting of Senator Joseph Biden (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Joseph+Biden&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) and Governor Sarah Palin (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Sarah%0APalin&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) between the second and third presidential debates.

One of the presidential debates will focus on foreign policy, another on domestic policy, and a third will feature a town-hall format where the public poses questions to each candidate. The vice presidential contenders will cover both foreign and domestic topics.

Make no mistake, these debates will be enormously important.
They have often been viewed as decisive in races that are, like this one, tight. Both John F. Kennedy (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John+F.+Kennedy&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) and Ronald Reagan (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Ronald+Reagan&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) probably became president because their powerful magnetism overwhelmed less-charismatic opponents. Gerald Ford (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Gerald+Ford&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) might well have lost his election to Jimmy Carter (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jimmy+Carter&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) because of his colossal debate blunder (http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Ford-Gerald-R.html), incorrectly saying the Soviet Union didn't dominate Eastern Europe. He became a laughing stock at just the wrong time.

Economics Lessons
This time, the debates may turn on subtle issues of character or unpredictable blunders, but voters will also be looking closely at substance, especially on economic policy. The good news is, if history is any guide, voters can expect to learn a lot about economic policy in the coming weeks. Economic policy has been front and center in presidential debates ever since the first televised Kennedy-Richard Nixon (http://www.archive.org/details/1960_kennedy-nixon_1)one in 1960. Surprisingly, at least for critics, the economic conversation has often been quite substantive.

Looking back over the debates that occurred from 1996 to 2004, a number of interesting patterns emerged. First, there are two big subjects that receive the lion's share of the attention. Out of 57 economic-related questions in presidential debates over that time, 18 addressed health care and 16 were about tax and the budget. Much of this year's debates will probably be devoted to those two issues. As McCain and Obama have extensive health-and-tax plans, there will be plenty to talk about.

Dodging Questions
The next two most frequently addressed topics are Social Security and trade. After that, all bets are off, with questions ranging from the state of the Cleveland economy to the impact of trial lawyers on the U.S. economy.
How will the candidates do? Looking at past debates, they often seemed to turn on questions that the candidates were able to dodge until the debate.
Four years ago, Democrat John Kerry (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John+Kerry&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) whiffed when moderator Charles Gibson (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Charles+Gibson&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) asked him to explain (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/08/politics/main648310.shtml) how he could cut the deficit in half while increasing taxes only on the rich. Al Gore (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Al+Gore&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) couldn't defend himself against the accusation that he proposed to boost spending more than Michael Dukakis (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Michael+Dukakis&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) and Walter Mondale (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Walter+Mondale&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) combined. On substance, it seems likely the Democrats will face the tougher and more treacherous questions, especially with regard to the two big topics -- health care and the federal budget.
On health care, the Obama plan calls for a large tax increase on businesses that have to ``pay or play'' with regard to health insurance. On taxes, the key distinction between Obama and McCain is Obama's desire to increase taxes on those with incomes of more than $250,000, and his opposition to McCain's proposal to reduce taxes on U.S. corporations.

Tax Increases
Both the health plan and the tax plan revolve around increasing taxes. But the economy is struggling. Nobody thinks it's a good idea to raise taxes during a recession. Obama and Biden will have a difficult and swaying tightrope to walk. The other tricky area for Obama will be trade. He has staked out a position that is hostile to free trade. Yet second-quarter gross domestic product grew 3.3 percent, with 3.1 percent of that coming from net exports (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GDPTNET%3AIND). Exactly how is it that one can make the case that our trade deals are hurting the country? The trade area is ripe territory for tough questions. After all, we now have trade deals with Panama, Colombia and South Korea that are ready for passage but are being held up by Democrats for purely political reasons. U.S. companies are paying millions of dollars in tariffs every day to the Colombian Treasury because of congressional obstructionism on trade. Isn't it more important to lighten the load on U.S. businesses now that the economy is weak? For McCain, the tax cuts will be easy to defend, especially now when the economy is weak. The challenge will be to make the case that he will be able to constrain government spending enough to make his fiscal program sustainable. Talking tough on spending comes naturally for the man, however, and one can expect that he will be up to this challenge. It seems likely that the story of these debates will turn on the dissonance lurking below the surface in Obama's economic plans, and on his team's ability, or lack thereof, to address it.



(Kevin Hassett (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Kevin+Hassett&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in his bid for the 2008 presidential nomination. The opinions expressed are his own.)

[SFL Cat]

*Sigh*

I thought the Apostle of Peace, the annointed Obama was above such things...

Obama Says McCain Is Offering Fake Change: 'You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig, But It's Still a Pig' (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-says-mc-1.html)

Besides...isn't talking about pigs against his Muslim...er Christian religion?

[SFL Cat]

dola -- lamest damage control spin ever...

UPDATE: Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs insists the senator was not referring to Palin. "That's an old expression," Gibbs says.

[SackAttack]

I can't believe some of you are ignorantly suggesting that we'll have more of Roberts, Alito, etc. if McCain is elected. Is that the latest scare tactics? That's why we will have a Democratic Senate, not a Republican Senate and is why we need a split Senate/Executive. If we don't, it'll be no different than 2001-2007 and that's bad.

Bucc, frankly, the way I see it is that if John McCain wins this election, it means that one of three scenarios is in play:

1) Senator Obama's get-out-the-vote efforts won't be half as successful in November as they were in the primaries, and the diminished Democratic turnout carries McCain to victory. Because that turnout would be unevenly distributed, we could see the Legislative/Executive split you refer to. Or, more likely, a split in control of the Senate (likely Democratic in this case) and the House (likely Republican, since many more seats are up for grabs).

2) Senator McCain's get-out-the-vote/swing-the-vote efforts benefit tremendously, allowing him to overcome the machine the Obama campaign has built. If that happens, I have to think it would have a rising-tide effect on Republican prospects in the House and Senate, UNLESS McCain's "maverick" brand enables him to escape what otherwise is a general Republican fatigue, resulting in Democratic gains in the Congress and a Republican President.

3) McCain's turnout doesn't dramatically increase as a result of the Palin pick, but somewhere along the line, people who would otherwise have been likely Democratic voters abandon the Obama campaign, for whatever reason. This is, I think, the least likely outcome, if only because of Ralph Nader and Florida in 2000.

Only in one, maybe one-and-a-half (if you want to split hairs) of those three McCain victory scenarios do I see the Democrats retaining full control of the Congress.

I guess I'm just not convinced that Obama could have a coattail effect but that McCain would have to resign himself to dealing with a Democratic Congress. I just can't see a plausible turnout scenario that benefits him without also benefiting the Republican Party at large.

[ISiddiqui]

Given that McCain's convention bounce is already diminishing it seems odd to be so convinced of victory. Especially from people who have urged caution at every step when Obama led in the polls.

:confused: Who exactly is convinced of victory?

[JPhillips]

Enough with the bullshit victimization card.

Was it a problem when McCain said the same thing about Hillary or when one of McCain's advisors wrote a book with that title?

[JPhillips]

:confused: Who exactly is convinced of victory?

Vic and Jon seem pretty confident.

[JPhillips]

You have been bringing up this scare tactic all year long and it really does sound like a one-trick pony. Why are you bringing up stuff that happens 15-20 years when you know damn well that ever since Clinton, partisan politics have intensified to where if McCain nominates a social conservative (that's a big if since he never liked them, apart from trying to get elected), there would be a firestorm with a very, very hostile Senate (and Congress in general).

I am a strong advocate of putting the brakes on Congressional legislation and Executive powers, as per the Constitution. Even if a social conservative would get by the Senate, that would bother me far less than a single party passing special interest, election favor bills with the president having no balls to veto anything.

Buc: Iask this sincerely. Given your preference for a split government, why didn't you believe in voting for Kerry in 2004? What's different?

[ISiddiqui]

Vic is quite rightly saying that NC isn't in play either. And Jon was making a joke.

Wow... quite an overreaction there.

[Subby]

Is there a thread where moderate undecideds can go to talk about this stuff? There is a lot of good information in this thread, but it is drowning in all of the partisan bullshit from both sides.

[SFL Cat]

Enough with the bullshit victimization card.

Was it a problem when McCain said the same thing about Hillary or when one of McCain's advisors wrote a book with that title?

Same old bullsh*t...It's okay if your team does it, but if the other team does it...where's the f*cking flag, ref!!!!!!!

[Groundhog]

Besides...isn't talking about pigs against his Muslim...er Christian religion?

LOL, do people still actually think Obama is a closet Muslim??? Seriously??? Didn't he, like, have a pretty big media issue regarding a certain rev. of his from a very un-Islamic church???

[CamEdwards]

Enough with the bullshit victimization card.

Was it a problem when McCain said the same thing about Hillary or when one of McCain's advisors wrote a book with that title?

I'm so tired of the Republicans obsession with "winning the right way." This is American politics, it's dirty, you must do anything and everything you can to win, no matter how cynical or untrue.


:p

[larrymcg421]

LOL, do people still actually think Obama is a closet Muslim??? Seriously??? Didn't he, like, have a pretty big media issue regarding a certain rev. of his from a very un-Islamic church???

There's someone at my work that says Obama shouldn't be President because he's a Muslim. There's also someone at my work that says the hit on Tom Brady was dirty because you should never try to make a tackle below the waist. I'm honestly which one of them annoys me more.

[ace1914]

Oops. On second thought, don't unpack your bags yet, boys. (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/politics&id=6380065) Maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan would be a better destination.

About that NC Poll.... (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/about_that_north_carolina_poll.php)

[ace1914]

dola -- lamest damage control spin ever...

UPDATE: Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs insists the senator was not referring to Palin. "That's an old expression," Gibbs says.


He wasn't.

[Buccaneer]

Buc: Iask this sincerely. Given your preference for a split government, why didn't you believe in voting for Kerry in 2004? What's different?

Someone asked this before in the primaries thread and my answer was that in the past 4 years, I have grown in my education and conviction of my liberatarianism. I have been talking about this for years but before, it was more of a protest against partisan polarization. While I still protest (it's the anarchistic side of libertarianism), I have come to view the only practical solution for Washington is to limit the damages both branches can cause. But more importantly, I have come to loath any solutions coming out of that place and those putting their faith in such solutions. Alternatively, the real solution can be done locally in the giving of our time, monies and resources in helping those around us, thus causing less reliance on federal solutions and political promises.

[adubroff]

Is there a thread where moderate undecideds can go to talk about this stuff? There is a lot of good information in this thread, but it is drowning in all of the partisan bullshit from both sides.


Shh, don't let this get out or we'll start getting power point presentations with each post. If they knew there was an undecided here they'd really have it cranked up.

[ace1914]

LOL, do people still actually think Obama is a closet Muslim??? Seriously??? Didn't he, like, have a pretty big media issue regarding a certain rev. of his from a very un-Islamic church???

In my short time here, I've learned that SFLcat likes to rustle the feathers of those who allow him to.

[JPhillips]

Vic is quite rightly saying that NC isn't in play either. And Jon was making a joke.

Wow... quite an overreaction there.

Did you see the goose is in the oven line? It doesn't matter though. No triumphalism on either side will matter come November. It's going to be a very close election no matter what.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Vic is quite rightly saying that NC isn't in play either. And Jon was making a joke. Wow... quite an overreaction there.

Thanks. Refreshing to know that all of my humor isn't completely lost on the FOFC ;)

[Young Drachma]

Interview with Cindy McCain and her son, talking about being drifting and NASCAR fans on E:60, the ESPN sports magazine. Probably a contrast to the Obama interview they did a few weeks ago. It's fine enough, haven't seen many interviews with her.

[Buccaneer]

Is there a thread where moderate undecideds can go to talk about this stuff? There is a lot of good information in this thread, but it is drowning in all of the partisan bullshit from both sides.

I actually have given this some thought (since I have complained about the same thing despite momentary weaknesses). The only solution I have come up with is taking from one of the Werewolf games: have a thread for each of the two partisan groups (and keeping the opponents out), and have a thread for those not falling into either group. The fallacy is that some (esp. some of the more vocal posters here) don't view themselves as partisans.

[JPhillips]

I'm so tired of the Republicans obsession with "winning the right way." This is American politics, it's dirty, you must do anything and everything you can to win, no matter how cynical or untrue.


:p

It's one thing to attack, it's another to whine like little children. I think I've been pretty consistent favoring the former and disparaging the latter regardless of party affiliation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is there a thread where moderate undecideds can go to talk about this stuff?

If you don't know by now, do the country a favor & just sit this one out.

[Buccaneer]

SackAttack/Josh, nowhere have I read talking about any chance the Republicans have of capturing either Congressional body. If there was a good chance that the Republicans would take the Senate, then I would change my tune since my main point has been for the Legislature/Executive to cancel each other out. Dreamingly, I would love for Congress to simply stop sending awful bills like the Energy, Farm and Mortgage bills to the president's desk.

[SFL Cat]

In my short time here, I've learned that SFLcat likes to rustle the feathers of those who allow him to.

Just trying to help the Senator keep it straight...kind of like Stephanopoulos did during their interview. :)

[SFL Cat]

He wasn't.

mmm hmmm.... when pigs fly.

[ace1914]

This is McCain talking about the issues. Disgraceful.

edit: BTW, I'm cool with the citing of the article comments, but to insinuate that thought that he's for education of sex education for kindergartners before they read is sad politics.
<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NseW0UPMLtg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

[Jas_lov]

dola -- lamest damage control spin ever...

UPDATE: Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs insists the senator was not referring to Palin. "That's an old expression," Gibbs says.

I thought it was an old expression.

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Obama Puts Different Twist on Lipstick (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/09/obama-attacks-gop-tickets-mantra-of-change/)

OMG! John McCain called Hillary Clinton a pig! He's a sexist and should apologize immediately! I'm a partisan hack!

sisu: "You can put lipstick on a pig" (http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/11/you_can_put_all.html)

Dick Cheney used the same line to attack John Kerry! Dick Cheney=Barack Obama

[Vegas Vic]

I'll stand by my assertion that North Carolina isn't in play, which I first pointed out in the spring when some people on here were swooning about Obama's chances of picking up North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee, and basically telling me I didn't know what I was talking about, and that we would have to throw away the old electoral college model because Obama "transcends" everything we've ever come to know about conventional electoral college politics.

I've pretty much been right on the mark with my prediction of how this presidential campaign was going to progress this summer and fall (which I made during the height of the FOFC Obama euphoria during the spring primary season).

The spotlight and scrutiny is now in full force, and the Democratic nominee for president has the thinnest political resume of any presidential nominee in 68 years, when Wendell Wilke headed the Republican ticket against FDR.

I'll stand by the statement that I made in the spring -- McCain is going to win this election comfortably.

[ace1914]

I'll stand by the statement that I made in the spring -- McCain is going to win this election comfortably.


If that happens, we will go to war with Iran and then we will really have problems.

[DaddyTorgo]

If that happens, we will go to war with Iran and then we will really have problems.


you all will. i'll be moving to fucking canada

[SFL Cat]

I thought it was an old expression.

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Obama Puts Different Twist on Lipstick (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/09/obama-attacks-gop-tickets-mantra-of-change/)

OMG! John McCain called Hillary Clinton a pig! He's a sexist and should apologize immediately! I'm a partisan hack!

sisu: "You can put lipstick on a pig" (http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/11/you_can_put_all.html)

Dick Cheney used the same line to attack John Kerry! Dick Cheney=Barack Obama


Well, if it is an old statement, it must be really old, because I'm not familiar with it. And considering the context of how he used it, hard not to think he's referring to Palin...if this resonates, it could be Obama's "Dean scream."

[SFL Cat]

you all will. i'll be moving to fucking canada

At least you won't have to worry about global warming up there, eh!

[Crapshoot]

*Sigh*


Besides...isn't talking about pigs against his Muslim...er Christian religion?

Please, someone tell me again how SFL is anything but a troll. I'd love to know.

[JPhillips]

Well, if it is an old statement, it must be really old, because I'm not familiar with it. And considering the context of how he used it, hard not to think he's referring to Palin...if this resonates, it could be Obama's "Dean scream."

It's still not as bad as McCain calling his wife a c*%#.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Please, someone tell me again how SFL is anything but a troll. I'd love to know.

As opposed to our beloved left wingnuts and their unbiased pearls of wisdom? Get a grip.

[ISiddiqui]

If that happens, we will go to war with Iran and then we will really have problems.

Did someone say fear tactics?

[Crapshoot]

Anyone read Nate Silver's latest? He pointed out that McCain's lead in national polling is interesting, but it actually increases the (still small) probability that Obama could lose the popular vote and win the election. I'm curious how much lawyering there would be this time. :D

[SFL Cat]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BobGQTMhxf8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BobGQTMhxf8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[CamEdwards]

Well, if it is an old statement, it must be really old, because I'm not familiar with it. And considering the context of how he used it, hard not to think he's referring to Palin...if this resonates, it could be Obama's "Dean scream."

No, it's an old saying. Frankly, I thought Obama's next line was the one that McCain would pounce on.


"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."


If that's not calling for an ad featuring some of the tens of thousands of "Change" signs that were held up during Obama's acceptance speech, I don't know what is.

Serious question for the Obama supporters here as well: How well do you think the Obama campaign has been managed/run since the Palin nomination?

[sterlingice]

Well, if it is an old statement, it must be really old, because I'm not familiar with it. And considering the context of how he used it, hard not to think he's referring to Palin...if this resonates, it could be Obama's "Dean scream."

Maybe we're stretching things just a wee bit (or a metric ton).

"lipstick on a pig" - 125000 google hits
"lipstick on the pig" - 24000 google hits

There are 5 books on Amazon that use the phrase:
Amazon.com: lipstick pig: Books (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=lipstick+pig&x=0&y=0)

It's even in the urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lipstick%20on%20a%20pig

Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

SI

[ace1914]

Did someone say fear tactics?

Call it what you like. He's alluded to his intentions, way too much.
Quite simple, we finally pull troops out of Iraq, Iran goes in and starts shit in the mess we leave, and we're right back where we started.

[SFL Cat]

Maybe we're stretching things just a wee bit (or a metric ton).

"lipstick on a pig" - 125000 google hits
"lipstick on the pig" - 24000 google hits

There are 5 books on Amazon that use the phrase:
Amazon.com: lipstick pig: Books (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=lipstick+pig&x=0&y=0)

It's even in the urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lipstick%20on%20a%20pig

Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

SI


But in this case, timing is everything...maybe Obama should leave the jokes to the speechwriters.

[Jas_lov]

Anyone read Nate Silver's latest? He pointed out that McCain's lead in national polling is interesting, but it actually increases the (still small) probability that Obama could lose the popular vote and win the election. I'm curious how much lawyering there would be this time. :D

Because Obama still has a good sized lead in IA and slim leads in CO and NM plus all of the Kerry states. That wins him the election. Even if he loses NH it would be tied and the House would elect Obama. He doesn't need FL, OH, or VA but he can't lose Michigan or Pennsylvania. It'll be interesting to see more state polls and if CO+NM is a lot more viable of an option for Obama.

[ISiddiqui]

Call it what you like. He's alluded to his intentions, way too much.
Quite simple, we finally pull troops out of Iraq, Iran goes in and starts shit in the mess we leave, and we're right back where we started.

Alright... drinking the DNC Kool-Aide!

I'm guessing in 1980, you'd be running around frantic thinking that Reagan was going to start a war with the USSR.

[Buccaneer]

Call it what you like. He's alluded to his intentions, way too much.
Quite simple, we finally pull troops out of Iraq, Iran goes in and starts shit in the mess we leave, and we're right back where we started.

Let me get this straight. Hillary and Obama were playing the "I can pull out the troops in X months" game but they didn't mean it because that would mean fighting Iran? Everyone appears to want to fight in Afghanistan but wasn't Pakistan also brought up?

[sterlingice]

Serious question for the Obama supporters here as well: How well do you think the Obama campaign has been managed/run since the Palin nomination?

Check back in 2 weeks. I think it's way too early to tell. There's a bit of a press embargo on all things concerning the other party during the conventions so we're only 1 week into how

I think the really interesting development I've heard over the last week is that, in theory, Obama has taken the brakes off the 527's that he's had them on all election. We'll see what comes of that since Palin has left a lot of low hanging fruit (in particular, the debunked stories about the bridge to nowhere, fired chef, and ebay plane that she won't only let go away but that she keeps repeating) and McCain, like any long running politician, has a lot of baggage that could easily be brought up.

SI

[SFL Cat]

Alright... drinking the DNC Kool-Aide!

I'm guessing in 1980, you'd be running around frantic thinking that Reagan was going to start a war with the USSR.

Apparently you've never heard of "The Day After" mini-series. I'm sure somewhere in the credits, there was a dedication to Ronald Reagan. :D

[ace1914]

I'm guessing in 1980, you'd be running around frantic thinking that Reagan was going to start a war with the USSR.

Yep. Especially since I was 3.

Now McCain=Reagan...lol.

[sterlingice]

But in this case, timing is everything...maybe Obama should leave the jokes to the speechwriters.

Except even the fake news cites that he has used the phrase before:

Obama camp response on "lipstick, " was talking about change (http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a9376e,2008-09-09)

Keep fishing

SI

[SFL Cat]

Serious question for the Obama supporters here as well: How well do you think the Obama campaign has been managed/run since the Palin nomination?

Well, if you want to compare the campaign to a prize fight, you'd have to say that that the past week = McCain getting some good shots in and putting Obama against the ropes.

[SFL Cat]

Except even the fake news cites that he has used the phrase before:

Obama camp response on "lipstick, " was talking about change (http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a9376e,2008-09-09)

Keep fishing

SI

Again, perception and timing is everything. Saying something like that a week after Palin's bulldog and lipstick comment probably isn't the smartest analogy for someone as brilliant as he's supposed to be to use in a speech. I'll concede the point...a lot of others might not.

[Jas_lov]

Well, if it is an old statement, it must be really old, because I'm not familiar with it. And considering the context of how he used it, hard not to think he's referring to Palin...if this resonates, it could be Obama's "Dean scream."

I agree. Generations from now, historians will be writing about how Barack Obama lost the election because he called Sarah Palin a pig. I think Obama should just drop out of the race entirely and let Hillary take over. Otherwise, John McCain might be up by 30% before the end of the week. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama lost his Senate re-election and dropped out of politics all together because of this.

[larrymcg421]

Because Obama still has a good sized lead in IA and slim leads in CO and NM plus all of the Kerry states. That wins him the election. Even if he loses NH it would be tied and the House would elect Obama. He doesn't need FL, OH, or VA but he can't lose Michigan or Pennsylvania. It'll be interesting to see more state polls and if CO+NM is a lot more viable of an option for Obama.

There's actually an archaic system in place if the House has to select the winner. It doesn't go by straight vote, but by state delegations. Looks like Obama still wins, though:

DEM: 27
GOP: 21
Tied: 2

[Groundhog]

Again, perception and timing is everything. Saying something like that a week after Palin's bulldog and lipstick comment probably isn't the smartest analogy for someone as brilliant as he's supposed to be to use in a speech. I'll concede the point...a lot of others might not.

:banana:

That's pretty much the appropriate response to any one of your posts I believe.

[Arles]

About that NC Poll.... (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/about_that_north_carolina_poll.php)
This is interesting:
In early August, 46% of the Survey USA sample was made up of Democrats and just 33% were Republicans. In the most recent poll, the margin was essentially even--40% were Democrats and 41% were Republicans. In other words, in a survey conducted less than a month later, Democrats made up 6% less of the sample and Republican representation increased by 8%.
So, is it normal for a NC poll to have only 33% republicans? I would think atleast 40% of the state's registered voters vote republican given Bush got 56% of the vote in both 2000 and 2004. Perhaps the issue was that the original poll had much too low of a republican sample?

[Vegas Vic]

Arlie, North Carolina has more registered democrats than registered republicans, but historically a fair amount of the registered democrats have voted for republicans, especially in the presidential and senate races.

[Crapshoot]

Going of what VV said - there are always more registered Democrats, because plently of those Dixiecrats, Yellow Dogs, or Reagan Democrats never bothered changing their affiliation. Hell, take Kentucky - registered Dems far outnumber registered Republicans, but no one would mistake it for a Dem-leaning state in general.

[albionmoonlight]

The Republicans freed the slaves. Some vestiges of Democratic registration by old-school conservatives in the South remain as a result.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, busting another lie about Governor Palin:

Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story)

Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

[JPhillips]

Serious question for the Obama supporters here as well: How well do you think the Obama campaign has been managed/run since the Palin nomination?

They've had the same problem for a couple of months. They don't take the attack initiative and their ads suck. But it's no time to panic. McCain just had his convention and the polls are already starting to settle. IMO this will be a one or two point race and either guy could win.

[Jon]

They've had the same problem for a couple of months. They don't take the attack initiative and their ads suck. But it's no time to panic. McCain just had his convention and the polls are already starting to settle. IMO this will be a one or two point race and either guy could win.

And if that happens, I still think the Obama ground game wins this for him in the electoral college, even if he doesn't win the popular vote.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think the really interesting development I've heard over the last week is that, in theory, Obama has taken the brakes off the 527's that he's had them on all election.

I think that the Obama campaign just needs to make better ads. I wouldn't trust some of the 527 groups to save my life. There's a lot of those groups that are more likely to make ads that hurt the campaign they support rather than help the campaign they support. I personally think the 'Swift Boat' ads were the exception rather than the rule. If the Obama campaign starts relying on those groups to help his numbers, I think he's in a lot of trouble.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, a reason Obama doesn't necessarily want to attack Palin too much on the Bridge to Nowhere:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2008/09/voting-for-the-bridge-to-nowhe.html

Turns out he voted for it. Wonder what his position is on it now?

[Jon]

Btw, a reason Obama doesn't necessarily want to attack Palin too much on the Bridge to Nowhere:

Mouth Of The Potomac - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2008/09/voting-for-the-bridge-to-nowhe.html)

Turns out he voted for it. Wonder what his position is on it now?

The issue isn't the earmark itself. A huge amount of infrastructure in this country is funded by earmarks. I think we tend to forget that and assume that all earmarks are bad.

The problem is the lie about the earmark. Palin is not being honest when she repeats the lie that she was against when the record shows that it simply wasn't true. To me, a bigger honesty problem is that she still kept the money and still built the road for the bridge to nowhere. It's the hypocrisy.

[ace1914]

This presidential campaign is about racial, social, and gender divisions in America, pure and simple. Its actually more and more depressing everyday I wake up.

[Flasch186]

*Sigh*

I thought the Apostle of Peace, the annointed Obama was above such things...

Obama Says McCain Is Offering Fake Change: 'You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig, But It's Still a Pig' (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-says-mc-1.html)

Besides...isn't talking about pigs against his Muslim...er Christian religion?

Funny, that's the title of a book written by someone working for one of the campaigns. I just cant find out whom it would be? anyone?

http://www.amazon.com/Lipstick-Pig-Winning-No-Spin-Someone/dp/0743271165/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221053344&sr=8-1

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516ZM9QPDJL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

McCain surely wasn't calling Clinton a pig. After all, McCain's former press secretary, Torie Clarke, wrote a book called "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era." Elizabeth Edwards told some health journalists that McCain's health care plan was like "painting lipstick on a pig."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/politics/animal/main4433795.shtml

[SFL Cat]

:banana:

That's pretty much the appropriate response to any one of your posts I believe.

Is that an Obamabot?

[Flasch186]

Well, if it is an old statement, it must be really old, because I'm not familiar with it. And considering the context of how he used it, hard not to think he's referring to Palin...if this resonates, it could be Obama's "Dean scream."

hmm, conveniently no commentary about McCain's usage of the old phrase. Is it not the same for him? You should be equally uproarious to both unless of course....youre spun.

[Flasch186]

Maybe we're stretching things just a wee bit (or a metric ton).

"lipstick on a pig" - 125000 google hits
"lipstick on the pig" - 24000 google hits

There are 5 books on Amazon that use the phrase:
Amazon.com: lipstick pig: Books (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=lipstick+pig&x=0&y=0)

It's even in the urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lipstick%20on%20a%20pig

Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

SI

Here's the thing...SFL cat simply doesnt care. He isnt for 'fair' and he isnt for 'and equal shake'. He's for one thing and one thing only and honesty and transparency left the building when he wakes up.

If you, SFL, were honest and even handed, there would be no point to concede because the truth is all that would matter. Like in troopergate. Unfortunately, you do not, in any way shape or form, care about truth.

[ISiddiqui]

Yep. Especially since I was 3.

That's why I said "you'd", which is short for "you would".

Reading is fundamental.

[Flasch186]

Btw, busting another lie about Governor Palin:

Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story)


If that is her stance, then I am happy that she is open to sex ed in school. If she continues to be exposed as a more moderate person she can get on people's radar, for the vote.

[Arles]

The only reason the comment has any relevance was because of Palin's "lipstick" comment during the convention. Even then, at best, it's a poor choice of words by Obama with no real intent (IMO). Still, comparing what McCain said before the "lipstick" comment context was out there to Obama's comment yesterday is meaningless.

Again, I don't think it's a big deal. But, much like the poor choice in words by congressmen who used "uppity", some may be offended by it given the close proximity to Palin's lipstick comment at the convention. That's the only reason it's relevant though (and even then it's still a stretch).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

hmm, conveniently no commentary about McCain's usage of the old phrase. Is it not the same for him? You should be equally uproarious to both unless of course....youre spun.

I certainly think it's fair to say that this is more about spin than any actual intended smear against Palin, although the old fish comment following that lipstick comment would lend a bit more to the idea that it was aimed at the McCain/Palin ticket.

With that said, even if it wasn't intended how the Republicans are portraying it, it was a big mistake to use that phrase given her previous reference to 'lipstick' in her speech. The Republicans have a minefield laid out in front of the Democrats and it puts them in a really tough position in regards to attacking the Republican ticket. Any attack on Palin which could be perceived as speaking down to a woman could blow up in the Dem's face. Any discussion about disabled or special needs people which appears to be talking down to Palin could also cause problems (Biden's comments yesterday were an example of that.). Any attack on McCain in regards to his leadership, patriotism, or pride could be seen as an attack on his service or status as a veteran. I'm not saying that any of these 'spin' maneuvers are fair or even correct, but from a strategic standpoint, the Republicans have to love their options at this point.

[Flasch186]

I certainly think it's fair to say that this is more about spin than any actual intended smear against Palin, although the old fish comment following that lipstick comment would lend a bit more to the idea that it was aimed at the McCain/Palin ticket.

With that said, even if it wasn't intended how the Republicans are portraying it, it was a big mistake to use that phrase given her previous reference to 'lipstick' in her speech. The Republicans have a minefield laid out in front of the Democrats and it puts them in a really tough position in regards to attacking the Republican ticket. Any attack on Palin which could be perceived as speaking down to a woman could blow up in the Dem's face. Any discussion about disabled or special needs people which appears to be talking down to Palin could also cause problems (Biden's comments yesterday were an example of that.). Any attack on McCain in regards to his leadership, patriotism, or pride could be seen as an attack on his service or status as a veteran. I'm not saying that any of these 'spin' maneuvers are fair or even correct, but from a strategic standpoint, the Republicans have to love their options at this point.

Where is the old MBBF? Youre actually typing things without spin. I love it and can actually have discussions than.

I agree that the Republicans have a laid a minefield out there and the Dems have done a terrible job negotiating it. Unfortunately, I hate dirty politics and will defer to jon in that regard as I cant stand it and wish it wasnt a necessity and pray for a day where it isnt. If it is a necessity, that now, the Dems resolve to be as dirty as the GOP than Im just going to go put my head under a pillow.

[JPhillips]

I certainly think it's fair to say that this is more about spin than any actual intended smear against Palin, although the old fish comment following that lipstick comment would lend a bit more to the idea that it was aimed at the McCain/Palin ticket.

With that said, even if it wasn't intended how the Republicans are portraying it, it was a big mistake to use that phrase given her previous reference to 'lipstick' in her speech. The Republicans have a minefield laid out in front of the Democrats and it puts them in a really tough position in regards to attacking the Republican ticket. Any attack on Palin which could be perceived as speaking down to a woman could blow up in the Dem's face. Any discussion about disabled or special needs people which appears to be talking down to Palin could also cause problems (Biden's comments yesterday were an example of that.). Any attack on McCain in regards to his leadership, patriotism, or pride could be seen as an attack on his service or status as a veteran. I'm not saying that any of these 'spin' maneuvers are fair or even correct, but from a strategic standpoint, the Republicans have to love their options at this point.

And if they're going to win the Dems need to stop worrying about this shit and start hitting McCain in the gut. McCain/Palin lie about the bridge to nowhere every time they campaign and they don't give a damn when people bring it up.

[ace1914]

That's why I said "you'd", which is short for "you would".

Reading is fundamental.

You are right, I was wrong. Now we all feel better. :redface:

You are using the same argument but some how mine is less valid. I expect us to go to war with Iran because Bush did it. You expect us not to because Reagan didn't. Opinions either way.

Quite frankly, both assertions are equally illogical.

[JPhillips]

Btw, busting another lie about Governor Palin:

Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story)

This is my fault for trying to merge two discussions. I never meant to imply that Palin wants to ban birth control, as I don't know that. The birth control issue was more about what's going on with the current admin.

I will say, though, that condoms aren't the big issue. A lot of hard core pro-life people see the pill as another form of abortion and want to at least have the right to ban it at the state level. Any desire to revisit Griswold is still tied up in the abortion wars.

[CraigSca]

Flasch - I'm surprised you haven't already. There really are no good guys and bad guys here. It's the same thing, over and over. Unfortunately, the political posturing and selling one's soul for office is pretty much inevitable - it's the nature of the game.

[CraigSca]

A lot of hard core pro-life people see the pill as another form of abortion and want to at least have the right to ban it at the state level.

Wow, is that really true?

[BrianD]

I railed pretty hard against making too much of the "my Muslim faith" comment, but the lipstick comment seemed slightly less benign. Reading the quote in context didn't seem to bad, but listening to the speech with the dramatic pause following the line and the roaring crowd makes me wonder if it was intended as a little shot at Palin. If he didn't mean it as a shot, did the members of the crowd think he did?

[ace1914]

The only reason the comment has any relevance was because of Palin's "lipstick" comment during the convention. Even then, at best, it's a poor choice of words by Obama with no real intent (IMO). Still, comparing what McCain said before the "lipstick" comment context was out there to Obama's comment yesterday is meaningless.

Again, I don't think it's a big deal. But, much like the poor choice in words by congressmen who used "uppity", some may be offended by it given the close proximity to Palin's lipstick comment at the convention. That's the only reason it's relevant though (and even then it's still a stretch).

I agree. Obama needs to quit trying to be the fuckin nice guy and tiptoe around offending people. Joe Scarborough actually said something that I agreed with this morning which was, call out McCain and Palin about this sexism stuff. Stop skating around the issues with this "Mccain couldn't define honor" press release crap. Get on and act real mad about being called a sexist, do not apologize, and call the Republican campaign out.

I retract my statement that Obama letting the presidency slip through his fingers.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

And if they're going to win the Dems need to stop worrying about this shit and start hitting McCain in the gut. McCain/Palin lie about the bridge to nowhere every time they campaign and they don't give a damn when people bring it up.

I disagree. A full frontal attack by the Dems could be the end of their presidential chances at this point. I think that tactic would have worked extremely well had they done it a month ago when they had McCain on his heels. But I think the window of opportunity for that kind of a move to be effective has since passed.

I'm honestly not sure what they should do at this point. I think that's the problem currently. I don't think the Obama camp is sure which move is best, which leaves them in a state of limbo until they chart a new course.

The first debate is going to be very important for Obama. Performing well in that debate will be better for the campain than any advertisement they could run.

[BishopMVP]

Craigsca - I'm pretty pro-abortion (as I think the vast majority of people under 40 or so are), but I'd consider the morning-after pill as part of the abortion debate. It's about the easiest and least painful abortion, but that's also why it's so vehemently opposed in the anti-abortion quarters.You are using the same argument but some how mine is less valid. I expect us to go to war with Iran because Bush did it. You expect us not to because Reagan didn't. Opinions either way.

Quite frankly, both assertions are equally illogical.Except unless I missed something big, neither Bush went to war with Iran. :confused:

[Flasch186]

well apparently obama meets will Bubba tomorrow so the dynamic may be, a changin'.

[JPhillips]

A full frontal attack by the Dems could be the end of their presidential chances at this point.

Why? Just like any negative campaigning you have to be careful not to go too far, but simply responding to McCain's attacks isn't good enough. There's so much out there to hit McCain and they're not using it. That's another reason why the 527s are important. The ammunition is at arms reach if someone just has the sense to use it. Where are ads on McCain's plan to tax health benefits? Or ads using Republican Senator's own words to question McCain's suitability for office? Or ads using his extensive voting record ala what happened to Kerry?

On the positive side Obama needs to be a part of his own commercials. His best skill is oratory and yet you never hear him speak in his ads. Crop some thirty second clips from speeches and run them as ads. That's bound to work better than people building a green house.

I'm not questioning your sincerity, but your advice to Obama is always sit back and don't do much of anything. I can't think of a more likely path to defeat than tha.

[molson]

I agree. Obama needs to quit trying to be the fuckin nice guy and tiptoe around offending people.

It's a tough call. I agree in principle, but Obama's one major gaffe away from falling hopelessly behind. McCain has much lower standards in that regard. Someone earlier was talking about how this campaign, and especially the debates, are all about expectations and I think that's dead-on. Obama has reached a tie creating huge expectations for himself, and McCan has reached a tie keeping expectations pretty low.

I don't think people really care about the Palin stuff unless they're already firmly on the other side. But Obama has a Hollywood unlikeability that can really fall apart for him at any moment with the undecideds. Just my impression.

[SFL Cat]

Funny, that's the title of a book written by someone working for one of the campaigns. I just cant find out whom it would be? anyone?

Amazon.com: Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game: Torie Clarke: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Lipstick-Pig-Winning-No-Spin-Someone/dp/0743271165/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221053344&sr=8-1)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516ZM9QPDJL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg



Lipstick On A Pig, By Steve Benen - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/politics/animal/main4433795.shtml)

In watching the video again, Obama was playing to his crowd...when he made the pig and lipstick comment, his crowd knew what he meant and obviously loved it.

I've also heard that Biden used the pig and lipstick comment the same day in another speech, so one wonders if maybe it wasn't just an off-the-cuff comment by Obama.

If you do take the Obama campaign at its word...in a day when careers are made and broken by sound bites, you have to question the wisdom of saying what was said. Intentional or not, you're handing the other side free ammo.

[JPhillips]

Wow, is that really true?

Do a search on "birth control pill abortion" and you can see for yourself. I don't know what kinds of numbers believe this, but I'm sure it's a sizable portion of the pro-life movement. Honestly, the argument is fairly consistent if fertilization is the most important moment for you.

Banning the pill won't ever happen as it would cause a backlash of epic proportions even in pretty conservative states, but make no mistake that there is a movement to revisit Griswold and to get rid of the pill.

[ISiddiqui]

It's a tough call. I agree in principle, but Obama's one major gaffe away from falling hopelessly behind. McCain has much lower standards in that regard. Someone earlier was talking about how this campaign, and especially the debates, are all about expectations and I think that's dead-on. Obama has reached a tie creating huge expectations for himself, and McCan has reached a tie keeping expectations pretty low.

I agree that its a tough call. Obama has gotten this far, in part, by campaigning against "politics as usual". If he starts going all negative and 'hitting back', he could lose the idealistic voters who jumped on his campaign because he was going to stop all this. Obama has to be VERY careful, as some of his youthful idealistic supporters are starting to get disillusioned with his move to the center for the general.

[molson]

Banning the pill won't ever happen as it would cause a backlash of epic proportions even in pretty conservative states, but make no mistake that there is a movement to revisit Griswold and to get rid of the pill.

I had the same question about abortion and was surprised with the answer - but if Griswold was overturned tomorrow, how many states are actually banning birth control? Even in the most conservative states (and maybe especially), I don't think the people want more poor kids running around to support.

Morning-after pill may be a different story, but I can't imagine getting the popular support for that either.

I'm one of the few people I know (as far as I know) that is super-pro abortion (I think everyone should have abortions), super-pro birth control, but don't think either are a fundamental constitutional right. If the people in a state don't want 'em, they deserve their fate. But we're getting closer to a national consenus where relevant constitutional ammendments are possible, which is the proper way to go, IMO (as opposed to appointed judges making shit up based on their own personal beliefs - which nobody seems to have a problem with as long as they agree with the practical effects of the decision)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This just seems like a poorly-formed argument that Jesse Jackson would make. The Republicans were laughing at the term 'community organizer' because the Obama camp had implied, right or wrong, that it increased his resume regarding leadership. It had nothing to do with his race. If the attacks by either side come down to finding ways to make segments of the voters pissed off at one candidate or the other, the Republicans are going to easily win. There are far more women out there that would switch their vote to McCain's ticket based on perceived sexism than their are black people that would switch to vote for Obama based on perceived racism.

http://wcbstv.com/politics/paterson.mccain.palin.2.813646.html

McCain Campaign Fumes Over Paterson's Racism Claim
N.Y. Governor Says Palin's Repeated Use Of 'Community Organizer' Is Another Way Of Saying 'Black'

Don Dahler ALBANY (CBS) ― On Monday, Gov. David Paterson angered some state lawmakers by comparing them to vampires, calling them a bunch of "blood suckers." On Tuesday, he raised eyebrows again, and tempers, by accusing the John McCain campaign of veiled racism.

At the Crain's Business Forum this morning, Paterson drew attention to a phrase used numerous times by speakers at the Republican National Convention to describe Barack Obama's leadership experience: community organizer.

"I think the Republican Party is too smart to call Barack Obama 'black' in a sense that it would be a negative. But you can take something about his life, which I noticed they did at the Republican Convention – a 'community organizer.' They kept saying it, they kept laughing," he said.

Paterson referred to McCain's running mate Sarah Palin who compared her work experience to Obama's.

"So I suppose a small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except with real responsibilities," she said at the convention.

Paterson sees the repeated use of the words "community organizer" as Republican code for "black".

"I think where there are overtones is when there are uses of language that are designed to inhibit other people's progress with a subtle reference to their race," he said.

But the McCain/Palin campaign quickly fired back in a statement, saying: "It is disappointing that Governor Paterson would launch accusations of racism. … Governor Palin's remarks about Barack Obama's work as a community organizer was in response to the Obama campaign's belittling of her executive experience."

The statement goes on to point out Sarah Palin's own experience of civic involvement and says Paterson's comments are "a sure sign of a flailing campaign that is bordering on desperation".

Paterson raises the question of whether the Presidential race has become desperate or devious.

"At this point, Americans wouldn't tolerate a racial appeal. What I'm saying is that there are sneaky ways to try to hurt someone," he said.

Paterson does say he's not certain that's happening.

But what disturbed him was what seemed like derisive laughter on the part of the Republicans at Obama's choice of helping his community rather than getting rich on Wall Street.

Paterson is New York state's first black governor.

[JPhillips]

McCain's folks should just cut to the chase and say that any discussions about race are sexist and demeaning to women.

[molson]

"But what disturbed him was what seemed like derisive laughter on the part of the Republicans at Obama's choice of helping his community rather than getting rich on Wall Street."

I'll make a bold prediction that by the time Obama is McCain's age, he'll have more houses and a higher net worth than McCain does now. (adjusted for inflation of course).

When McCain was Obama's age, he was only two years out of the Navy (where he was involved in some type of public service too, maybe not as cool as community organizing)

[Jas_lov]

YouTube - Lipstick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA)

McCain has a new ad out about the lipstick comment running in battleground states. Between this and the sex education ad, I think this is getting a little ridiculous.

[JPhillips]

I had the same question about abortion and was surprised with the answer - but if Griswold was overturned tomorrow, how many states are actually banning birth control? Even in the most conservative states (and maybe especially), I don't think the people want more poor kids running around to support.

I think you're looking at it too rationally. The people who want to revisit Griswold are doing so largely because of religious beliefs. God says... trumps all practical arguments about poor kids. I don't think it will happen, but it's just a fact that there are a lot of people that see the pill as part of the abortion debate and will stop at nothing to overturn Griswold.

[sterlingice]

Stupid yet sincere question: how is saying "there's no putting lipstick on that pig" a sexist attack? Because only women use lipstick?

SI

[JPhillips]

"But what disturbed him was what seemed like derisive laughter on the part of the Republicans at Obama's choice of helping his community rather than getting rich on Wall Street."

I'll make a bold prediction that by the time Obama is McCain's age, he'll have more houses and a higher net worth than McCain does now. (adjusted for inflation of course).

When McCain was Obama's age, he was only two years out of the Navy.

I'd would depend on how you define net worth. If Cindy's money is in the mix I'd be very surprised if Obama would match that total.

[JPhillips]

Stupid yet sincere question: how is saying "there's no putting lipstick on that pig" a sexist attack? Because only women use lipstick?

SI

McCain's explicit attacks on tranny-Americans are reprehensible.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re:"a sure sign of a flailing campaign that is bordering on desperation"

I'd say worthless crap like Paterson's is definitely flailing & desperate ... but I don't think it's accurate to ascribe that entirely to the campaign as a whole. This seems more like a supporter doing some freelancing (at least at this point).

[molson]

I'd would depend on how you define net worth. If Cindy's money is in the mix I'd be very surprised if Obama would match that total.

Fair point.

But Obama's going to be a bagillionare, with books and speaking engagements (and I don't fault him for that in anyway, except when he mocks McCain's wealth, or lack of knowledge of it)

[JPhillips]

YouTube - Lipstick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA)

McCain has a new ad out about the lipstick comment running in battleground states. Between this and the sex education ad, I think this is getting a little ridiculous.

That's just another video press release. Without McCain saying he approves it can't run. Will the cable outlets continue to provide free ad time for McCain by running this over and over?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This seems more like a supporter doing some freelancing (at least at this point).

I'm positive that it's freelancing. With that said, I've got to think that Obama would have asked him to not go down that path if Obama would have known what he was going to say.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Will the cable outlets continue to provide free ad time for McCain by running this over and over?

Dear JPhillips,

Yes, they will and they should.

Sincerely,
Al-Jazzera and Al-Qaeda

[JPhillips]

?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

?

Terrorist kill people -> Make video of killing or speech -> Post it to internet -> Get free air time

Obama makes comment -> McCain makes unofficial ad -> Post it to internet -> Get free air time

All sorts of organizations do the same thing. If you make a video and create enough waves, the cable media will play it every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day.

[albionmoonlight]

I really hate the "Even though what he said was right, he should still be punished because he should have know that lots of dumb people would not be able to understand him" argument.

This is just like the guy who got fired for saying "niggardly." People had to acknowlege that he was right, but he still got fired because he, apparently, didn't cater to the dumbness of his audience. That's fucked up.

So Obama's metaphors and big words confuse you*. OK. Fine. I know that I am niave, but I want to live in a world where your lack of education and vocabulary is your problem and not his.

Be it Obama, McCain, Bush, or the niggardly guy, I don't see why we want our public servants to strive to be pedestrian. We can and should expect more from them and ourselves.

(I will now go back to my imaginary world filled with bright rainbows and free beer and an American public that actually holds itself and its leaders accountable for anything. Mmmmm. Free Beer.)

*Not "you" personally, the reader of this comment. You, generically, the person who will change your vote based on the lipstick metaphor or who demanded that the niggardly guy get fired.

[CraigSca]

I think you're looking at it too rationally. The people who want to revisit Griswold are doing so largely because of religious beliefs. God says... trumps all practical arguments about poor kids. I don't think it will happen, but it's just a fact that there are a lot of people that see the pill as part of the abortion debate and will stop at nothing to overturn Griswold.

I think we're talking about two different things. To me, "the pill" refers to the daily hormone a woman takes to prevent conception. Your pill is the after-sex pill, and therefore after conception. Therefore, yes, I can see fundamentalists saying that they would want to outlaw this pill.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I really hate the "Even though what he said was right, he should still be punished because he should have know that lots of dumb people would not be able to understand him" argument.

This is just like the guy who got fired for saying "niggardly." People had to acknowlege that he was right, but he still got fired because he, apparently, didn't cater to the dumbness of his audience. That's fucked up.

So Obama's metaphors and big words confuse you*. OK. Fine. I know that I am niave, but I want to live in a world where your lack of education and vocabulary is your problem and not his.

Be it Obama, McCain, Bush, or the niggardly guy, I don't see why we want our public servants to strive to be pedestrian. We can and should expect more from them and ourselves.

(I will now go back to my imaginary world filled with bright rainbows and free beer and an American public that actually holds itself and its leaders accountable for anything. Mmmmm. Free Beer.)

*Not "you" personally, the reader of this comment. You, generically, the person who will change your vote based on the lipstick metaphor or who demanded that the niggardly guy get fired.

I don't think there's any question if you've watched the video how quickly the partisan crowd took it as such and the smile on Obama's face indicated he knew exactly what they were cheering about. I don't think there's a need for an apology like the McCain campaign requested. I think it was a small, relatively innocent barb that took on major spin implications. Anybody who has a wife or a mother knows the danger of associating the word 'pig' with any female, implied or otherwise. It usually involves an overnight visit to the couch.

[KWhit]

I think we're talking about two different things. To me, "the pill" refers to the daily hormone a woman takes to prevent conception. Your pill is the after-sex pill, and therefore after conception. Therefore, yes, I can see fundamentalists saying that they would want to outlaw this pill.

No, unfortunately, JP was talking about "The Pill." The one a woman takes everyday. There is a movement that believes it should be banned.

I don't think it will ever happen, but that was the pill he was talking about.

[KWhit]

I really hate the "Even though what he said was right, he should still be punished because he should have know that lots of dumb people would not be able to understand him" argument.

This is just like the guy who got fired for saying "niggardly." People had to acknowlege that he was right, but he still got fired because he, apparently, didn't cater to the dumbness of his audience. That's fucked up.

So Obama's metaphors and big words confuse you*. OK. Fine. I know that I am niave, but I want to live in a world where your lack of education and vocabulary is your problem and not his.

Be it Obama, McCain, Bush, or the niggardly guy, I don't see why we want our public servants to strive to be pedestrian. We can and should expect more from them and ourselves.

(I will now go back to my imaginary world filled with bright rainbows and free beer and an American public that actually holds itself and its leaders accountable for anything. Mmmmm. Free Beer.)

*Not "you" personally, the reader of this comment. You, generically, the person who will change your vote based on the lipstick metaphor or who demanded that the niggardly guy get fired.


Claps.

I agree with everything you said there. Especially the part about Free Beer.

[CraigSca]

No, unfortunately, JP was talking about "The Pill." The one a woman takes everyday. There is a movement that believes it should be banned.

I don't think it will ever happen, but that was the pill he was talking about.

I'm dumbfounded and never heard of this. I know the Catholic church for years was against any kind of birth control, but I've NEVER heard of this from fundamentalist Christians. That's ridiculous to me. Why the Pill? What's the difference between that and a condom?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What's the difference between the pill and a condom?

Lipstick?

[molson]

I really hate the "Even though what he said was right, he should still be punished because he should have know that lots of dumb people would not be able to understand him" argument.

This is just like the guy who got fired for saying "niggardly." People had to acknowlege that he was right, but he still got fired because he, apparently, didn't cater to the dumbness of his audience. That's fucked up.



It depends on the intention of the speaker.

If the guy saying "niggardly" just meant "niggardly", as opposed to wanting to insult blacks, than ya, it's ridiculous that he got fired. But if he really wants to project hatred and just throws around that word as a means to do it, that's just as bad as the other word. (No idea what the case was there).

If Obama was intentionally trying to appeal to the lowest base of his supporters, than he's as guilty as making an overtly sexist comment. The video sure makes it look like it was intentional, but we can't know for sure.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Did anyone else happen to see this? Biden was in Columbia, Missouri yesterday and wanted to recognize Chuck Graham, who is a state senator in Missouri. He asked Chuck to stand up and be recognized. Only one problem......he's confined to a wheelchair. No political ramifications, but it made for a pretty funny moment when he realized his error.

Newsmax.com – Biden Gaffe: Tells Cripple to &#39Stand Up&#39 (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/biden_chuck_graham/2008/09/09/129228.html)

[Jas_lov]

This is interesting:

So, is it normal for a NC poll to have only 33% republicans? I would think atleast 40% of the state's registered voters vote republican given Bush got 56% of the vote in both 2000 and 2004. Perhaps the issue was that the original poll had much too low of a republican sample?

North Carolina State Board of Elections (http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/content.aspx?ID=33)

33% seems like a reasonable estimate according to the NC State Board of Elections.

[CamEdwards]

Did anyone else happen to see this? Biden was in Columbia, Missouri yesterday and wanted to recognize Chuck Graham, who is a state senator in Missouri. He asked Chuck to stand up and be recognized. Only one problem......he's confined to a wheelchair. No political ramifications, but it made for a pretty funny moment when he realized his error.

Newsmax.com – Biden Gaffe: Tells Cripple to &#39Stand Up&#39 (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/biden_chuck_graham/2008/09/09/129228.html)

Well if we're going to start hyperventilating over language, Newsmax called Chuck Graham a "cripple". Criminy... ever hear of the word "disabled"?

BTW, I thought Biden handled himself very well there once he realized the situation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

BTW, I thought Biden handled himself very well there once he realized the situation.

Agreed. He did pretty well. It was reported that he went over to Chuck Graham afterwards and apologized by saying, "Can you tell I'm new at this?"

FWIW.....I think Biden is a pretty good guy, politics aside.

[larrymcg421]

RCP has listed two National polls today...

Rasmussen: Obama 48, McCain 47
NBC/WSJ: Obama 46, McCain 45

[JPhillips]

I'm dumbfounded and never heard of this. I know the Catholic church for years was against any kind of birth control, but I've NEVER heard of this from fundamentalist Christians. That's ridiculous to me. Why the Pill? What's the difference between that and a condom?

The issue is fertilization. Generally the pill prevents ovulation, but not always. Some pro-lifers believe that since fertilization can occur without implantation in the uterus that the pill is a form of chemical abortion. This is from prolife.com:

Most people don't know the real facts about how "contraceptives" work. And because of this lack of knowledge, most women are not aware that they may be having BREAKTHROUGH OVULATIONS, and conceiving children that are killed very early in the pregnancy. Women using these "contraceptives" almost never perceive that they have become pregnant, or that chemicals have killed their tiny baby.

[larrymcg421]

McCain may not want to go down the sexism road, because there's alot of chatter lately about comments he made in the past:

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno.

He said this at a GOP fundraiser in 1998. There are also some other sexist jokes he possibly made that are being discussed, but at the moment I don't see any good sources for them, so I won't mention them yet. This joke was reported by the AP and the Arizona Republic.

[ISiddiqui]

RCP has listed two National polls today...

Rasmussen: Obama 48, McCain 47
NBC/WSJ: Obama 46, McCain 45

Let's not forget the Gallup Tracking: McCain 48, Obama 43

Hotline Tracking (came out yesterday with the NBC/WSJ): McCain 45, Obama 44

[larrymcg421]

Let's not forget the Gallup Tracking: McCain 48, Obama 43

Hotline Tracking (came out yesterday with the NBC/WSJ): McCain 45, Obama 44

Yeah the Gallup tracking was posted there after my post. As for dates, I'm going by RCP's listing, which puts the NBC/WSJ as the 10th and Hotline as the 9th. They could be wrong, though.

[ISiddiqui]

Ah, the reason I said that was because the NBC/WSJ measures the same amount of time as Hotline (9/6 - 9/8)

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)

[flere-imsaho]

Crazy that, unless I'm wrong, we've not had a "non-close" election since what, 1996?

[molson]

McCain may not want to go down the sexism road, because there's alot of chatter lately about comments he made in the past:

He said this at a GOP fundraiser in 1998. There are also some other sexist jokes he possibly made that are being discussed, but at the moment I don't see any good sources for them, so I won't mention them yet. This joke was reported by the AP and the Arizona Republic.

I'm sure McCain himself won't make a big deal about, but again, it's all about expectations.

McCain is a crusty old man. Isn't there well-confirmed story out there about him calling his wife a C***? (Maybe even a video?). Obama is young and hip and enlightened. More is expected of him. I know Obama fans don't like to hear that, but they should get used to the dissapointment they'll experience after the debates when Obama dominates but the public sees it as a "tie".

[sterlingice]

I really hate the "Even though what he said was right, he should still be punished because he should have know that lots of dumb people would not be able to understand him" argument.

This is just like the guy who got fired for saying "niggardly." People had to acknowlege that he was right, but he still got fired because he, apparently, didn't cater to the dumbness of his audience. That's fucked up.

So Obama's metaphors and big words confuse you*. OK. Fine. I know that I am niave, but I want to live in a world where your lack of education and vocabulary is your problem and not his.

Be it Obama, McCain, Bush, or the niggardly guy, I don't see why we want our public servants to strive to be pedestrian. We can and should expect more from them and ourselves.

(I will now go back to my imaginary world filled with bright rainbows and free beer and an American public that actually holds itself and its leaders accountable for anything. Mmmmm. Free Beer.)

*Not "you" personally, the reader of this comment. You, generically, the person who will change your vote based on the lipstick metaphor or who demanded that the niggardly guy get fired.

Free Beer! (oh, and cheers on the rest of what you said ;) )

This also goes back to the "elitist" thing from earlier in the election. I *WANT* my politicians to be smarter than me. I wish everyone who votes on the premise of "someone I'd rather have a beer with" wasn't allowed to decide something so important as the fate of our country.

(Now, I realize that's too simplistic for politics and it ignores the nuances of populism and the concept of a candidate being able to understand their constituents' situation. )

SI

[albionmoonlight]

the dissapointment they'll experience after the debates when Obama dominates but the public sees it as a "tie".

yy

McCain has played the expectations card wonderfully here. The guy has been in the Senate for a long time and run for president twice. And he loves town halls. You could sit him down right now, ask any geopolitical question within reason, and he would be able to give you an impressive and presidential sounding answer.

But people seem to think that these debates are going to be like Grandpa Simpson v. Denzel Washington on a good day.

I think that the candidates will probably debate to something close to a draw and that it will be seen as a huge win for McCain.

[sterlingice]

McCain has played the expectations card wonderfully here. The guy has been in the Senate for a long time and run for president twice. And he loves town halls. You could sit him down right now, ask any geopolitical question within reason, and he would be able to give you an impressive and presidential sounding answer.

But people seem to think that these debates are going to be like Grandpa Simpson v. Denzel Washington on a good day.

I think that the candidates will probably debate to something close to a draw and that it will be seen as a huge win for McCain.

A couple of surrogates for Obama need to start running this message out there. Hell, that exact quote :D

SI

[mckerney]

I'm sure McCain himself won't make a big deal about, but again, it's all about expectations.

McCain is a crusty old man.

<embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/videoplayer/flvplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/85698/video&autostart=false&image=http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/GRIZZLED_MCCAIN_article.jpg&bufferlength=3&embedded=true&title=Old%2C%20Grizzled%20Third-Party%20Candidate%20May%20Steal%20Support%20From%20McCain"></embed><br/><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/old_grizzled_third_party?utm_source=embedded_video">Old, Grizzled Third-Party Candidate May Steal Support From McCain</a>

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I remain steadfast in my belief that nothing could sink Obama's ship quicker than loose lips in Hollywood. Matt Damon has decided to give it a try..........

Breitbart.tv » ‘Like A Really Bad Disney Movie’: Actor Matt Damon Condemns Sarah Palin (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/171553.html)

I'm not sure why Matt Damon believes that he deserves more credit for his opinion than Sarah Palin in regards to politics. His comments regarding her being an inexperienced hockey mom and it being 'like a bad Disney movie' are the kind of comments that the Republicans are begging the Dems to make. For the most part, Matt Damon is achieving just the opposite effect that he intends to create with his comments and I don't think he even realizes it.

[ace1914]

That's pretty funny. I like the Obama elitist though.

[larrymcg421]

I'm sure McCain himself won't make a big deal about, but again, it's all about expectations.

McCain is a crusty old man. Isn't there well-confirmed story out there about him calling his wife a C***? (Maybe even a video?). Obama is young and hip and enlightened. More is expected of him. I know Obama fans don't like to hear that, but they should get used to the dissapointment they'll experience after the debates when Obama dominates but the public sees it as a "tie".

Right, but Obama isn't saying anything. I think he could really score with a line like, "I agree that it is wrong when the media goes after Sarah Palin's children, just like it was wrong when John McCain called Chelsea Clinton ugly. We have serious issues in this country, blah blah change blah blah"

You're right that the McCain campaign has managed the debate expectations well, but so did Dole in 1996 and people still thought Clinton won the debates. The expectations game will help McCain, but it isn't a surefire win for him.

[ISiddiqui]

so did Dole in 1996 and people still thought Clinton won the debates

Clinton is a far better debater than Obama, though. Obama lost or tied plenty against Hillary.

[Subby]

I don't think there was anything wrong with that Damon interview. He is questioning her credentials just like millions of other voters are. Is he not supposed to answer the question?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't think there was anything wrong with that Damon interview. He is questioning her credentials just like millions of other voters are. Is he not supposed to answer the question?

I refer back to my post from this morning regarding the minefield laid before the Democrats. The Republicans have a great strategic setup right now with Palin. It's one thing to question her credentials. It's a whole different situation to use some of the comments that he used which could easily be seen as someone speaking down to women. Right or wrong, there are a lot of women who toss issue or party affiliation out the window now that a woman is in the mix. Any comments like the ones Damon makes could be easily construed as sexist and really turn off independent, female voters. Note that I'm not saying whether the perception is right or wrong, but it's definitely there.

The effect that these comments and Palin's presence are having is very evident in the poll numbers of white women and independent voters. McCain's number are drastically improved over the last 2-3 weeks in those two critical voting segments, thanks to the selection of Palin and the perceived sexist remarks/talking down to women from Obama and his supporters.

[BrianD]

Anybody know if any studies have been done to show the effectiveness of Hollywood Star endorsement of a candidate? My feeling has always been that celebrity endorsements have always been a major turn-off. I don't listen to celebrities for political views, I just like to see them perform in whatever venue made them famous. Seems like the ratio of worthwhile political knowledge versus people they can get to listen to them is pretty low.

[Vegas Vic]

Clinton is a far better debater than Obama, though. Obama lost or tied plenty against Hillary.

The problem with Obama in debates or unscripted interviews is that he pauses and stammers fairly frequently as he is parsing his words. When he is reading a prepared speech from a teleprompter, his delivery is flawless.

McCain has just the opposite problem. He stammers when he gives a prepared speech from a teleprompter, but he does much better in interviews and debates, especially the town hall format.

[JPhillips]

Since the game apparently has become "what would be embarrassing if the candidate meant some else"

"We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity," she said, drawing from a once-powerful, now forgotten mid-century conservative columnist named Westbrook Pegler.

It's an odd source because Pegler, who moved further right as his career went on, ended up very, very far out. Frank notes that he talked hopefully of the assassination of Franklin Roosevelt.

He was also known for what Philip Roth described as his "casual distaste for Jews," which had become so evident by the end that he was bounced from the journal of the John Birch Society in 1964 for alleged anti-semitism. According to his obituary, he'd advanced the theory that American Jews of Eastern European descent were "instinctively sympathetic to Communism, however outwardly respectable they appeared."

Sure she didn't write the speech and sure she didn't say anything about Jews, but even so it creates the impression that Palin hates Jews. When will Republicans learn that not hating Jews doesn't matter if your opponent can lie about it?