Continued from http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=538658 using the guidelines outlined here http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8917037&postcount=35

Stock Market is tanking again today, what else is new (dow down 333 points). Please tell us in your acceptance speech tonight John how you support Bush's plan for privatizing social security. This is JUST the time to bring it up. I've lost $30,000 in my private retirement account this year & am damn glad my SS isn't invested in the markets.

Stock Market is tanking again today, what else is new (dow down 333 points). Please tell us in your acceptance speech tonight John how you support Bush's plan for privatizing social security. This is JUST the time to bring it up. I've lost $30,000 in my private retirement account this year & am damn glad my SS isn't invested in the markets.

Fair enough. Admittedly I'm leaning toward Obama simply because his message about corporate America shifting jobs overseas hit home. Personally, I think Obama isn't ready yet to be President but I'm willing to guess he's smart enough to surround himself with some smart folks.

Point being, that if McCain has a chance of getting my vote he better be talking about the economy hard and often tonight and he better tell me what he plans to do that's different from the Bush Administration.

McCain will probably talk about the economy, which will parlay nicely into another tax cut speech. For better or worse, I think the American people want to hear something more than that.

Yeah, like how I can avoid getting destroyed by taxes in an Obama administration.

Fair enough. Admittedly I'm leaning toward Obama simply because his message about corporate America shifting jobs overseas hit home. Personally, I think Obama isn't ready yet to be President but I'm willing to guess he's smart enough to surround himself with some smart folks.

Point being, that if McCain has a chance of getting my vote he better be talking about the economy hard and often tonight and he better tell me what he plans to do that's different from the Bush Administration.

Obama may have a "message" about shifting jobs, but he isn't going to do anything about it if elected. The democrats will cry that it is because of our education system, when really all it is about is corporate greed.

This is a big issue for me, as I'm a IT worker and I see all the time the shifting jobs. But I don't think either candidate is going to do jack about the situation. It will only get worse.

Yeah, like how I can avoid getting destroyed by taxes in an Obama administration.
From reading some of your posts, you might be in trouble.

My lifestyle didn't change one wit from the Bush tax cuts and considering I don't make more than $250,000 a year I'll take my chances on an Obama vote.

Just how much would it take to change your lifestyle?

My lifestyle didn't change one wit from the Bush tax cuts and considering I don't make more than $250,000 a year I'll take my chances on an Obama vote.

My lifestyle changed during the Bush year, mainly from raises and taxes remaining low, and I don't make anywhere near $250k either. I just don't trust that Obama is going to be able to do everything it sounds like he wants to do and only raise taxes on those making more than that amount.

What I want from Obama is that he will seriously attempt to target a tax cut for the middle-class.

He says he will, but I remember another Democrat saying he would.

Stock Market is tanking again today, what else is new (dow down 333 points). Please tell us in your acceptance speech tonight John how you support Bush's plan for privatizing social security. This is JUST the time to bring it up. I've lost $30,000 in my private retirement account this year & am damn glad my SS isn't invested in the markets.You should take out all your money from the market today. Then when you're ready to retire, and all during your retirement, you'll have it to spend.

Just how much would it take to change your lifestyle?
More than a couple of hundred bucks a year. ;)

Did I hear this correctly? I thought I heard that according to polls Obama & McCain are even as far as which has the most experience to become president.

If that's correct, that's a pretty good change.

Did I hear this correctly? I thought I heard that according to polls Obama & McCain are even as far as which has the most experience to become president.

If that's correct, that's a pretty good change.It seems that the Republican talking point about "only executive experience counting" might be backfiring on them.

I have a solution to determine who should be president.

A machine that tells which candidate can make the best decisions under real pressure - hook 'em up to it. ;)

Unfortunately, most voters probably wouldn't pay any attention to the results.

I have a solution to determine who should be president.

A machine that tells which candidate can make the best decisions under real pressure - hook 'em up to it. ;)

Unfortunately, most voters probably wouldn't pay any attention to the results.
You wouldn't happen to own a patent on that machine would you?

You wouldn't happen to own a patent on that machine would you?Better him than Diebold. ;)

Better him than Diebold. ;)
No kidding. I had my voter card blow up the touch screen machine I was trying to vote on 2 years ago. :down:-eek-

I just can't envision McCain and Palin winning. Not just because I think it would be nightmarish if they won, I mean I really can't envision McCain and Palin in the White House. What do you guys envision for 08, and what were your previous election envisions, and were you right?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uQG3z7A3gac&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uQG3z7A3gac&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I thought somebody ought to bump the issues thread before it falls off the first page.

So ... it looks like Governor Palin just lost her gaffe virginity:

A Confusing Comment on Fannie & Freddie From Gov. Sarah Palin
September 08, 2008 2:56 PM

Saturday in Colorado Springs, Colo., Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said, "The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

"Too expensive to the taxpayers?"

They're private entities.

Though they're private entities ultimately backed up by the taxpayers.

But the only way Fannie and Freddie are "too expensive to the taxpayers" is if you're talking about the bailout announced over the weekend.

Is that what she meant?

So, does "too expensive" mean that Palin opposes the bailout?

Or did she misstate how these entities function?

I asked the McCain-Palin campaign for an explanation.

Its response was to send an e-mail from domestic policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin:

“John McCain supports the steps needed to keep the financial troubles at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from further squeezing American families, and endorses the idea that management and shareholders should not benefit from government backing," Holz-Eakin said. "While details are not yet available, the actions taken today are consistent with those objectives. Fannie and Freddie have been the poster children for a lack of transparency and accountability, and remind us of the needed reforms to financial markets in general. We need to create jobs and get the economy going — and get way from the practice of sticking Main Street Americans with these bills. If elected, John McCain will continue his crusade for the right reform of the institutions. Sen. McCain will get real regulation that limits their ability to borrow, shrinks their size until they are no longer a threat to our economy, and privatizes and eliminates their links to the government.”

Right.

That doesn't really answer my question.

A McCain aide e-mails on background that Fannie and Freddie "have $5 trillion in exposure. They either own or insure this much in loans, as such, they are too big a part of the economy to be allowed to fail. Their failure would pose a systemic risk to the economy, which is why treasury is stepping in, and has committed billions in taxpayers to keep them afloat. They are too big, and now, too expensive."

So -- according to this aide, speaking on background -- Palin meant they are CURRENTLY too expensive, though presumably she supports the Bush administration's bailout.

What do you think? You buy that explanation?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-confusing-com.html

I thought somebody ought to bump the issues thread before it falls off the first page.

So ... it looks like Governor Palin just lost her gaffe virginity:

A Confusing Comment on Fannie & Freddie From Gov. Sarah Palin
September 08, 2008 2:56 PM

Saturday in Colorado Springs, Colo., Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said, "The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

"Too expensive to the taxpayers?"

They're private entities.

Though they're private entities ultimately backed up by the taxpayers.

But the only way Fannie and Freddie are "too expensive to the taxpayers" is if you're talking about the bailout announced over the weekend.

Is that what she meant?

So, does "too expensive" mean that Palin opposes the bailout?

Or did she misstate how these entities function?

I asked the McCain-Palin campaign for an explanation.

Its response was to send an e-mail from domestic policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin:

“John McCain supports the steps needed to keep the financial troubles at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from further squeezing American families, and endorses the idea that management and shareholders should not benefit from government backing," Holz-Eakin said. "While details are not yet available, the actions taken today are consistent with those objectives. Fannie and Freddie have been the poster children for a lack of transparency and accountability, and remind us of the needed reforms to financial markets in general. We need to create jobs and get the economy going — and get way from the practice of sticking Main Street Americans with these bills. If elected, John McCain will continue his crusade for the right reform of the institutions. Sen. McCain will get real regulation that limits their ability to borrow, shrinks their size until they are no longer a threat to our economy, and privatizes and eliminates their links to the government.”

Right.

That doesn't really answer my question.

A McCain aide e-mails on background that Fannie and Freddie "have $5 trillion in exposure. They either own or insure this much in loans, as such, they are too big a part of the economy to be allowed to fail. Their failure would pose a systemic risk to the economy, which is why treasury is stepping in, and has committed billions in taxpayers to keep them afloat. They are too big, and now, too expensive."

So -- according to this aide, speaking on background -- Palin meant they are CURRENTLY too expensive, though presumably she supports the Bush administration's bailout.

What do you think? You buy that explanation?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-confusing-com.html

So important, you did it twice ;)

You can only lose your gaffe virginity once so I think that merits a double post. ;)

I only hit "post" once, I swear!

Sounds like she doesn't have core understanding of the issue yet. I doubt McCain has any better understanding of it either. It sounds like a talking point more than her own voice. I'm sure they are cramming stuff in her head.

I think this shows that Governor Palin is both ignorant of, well, just about everything the Federal government does when it's not sending millions of dollars of pork to Alaska, and prone to knee-jerk reactions to anything and everything.

I think this shows that Governor Palin is both ignorant of, well, just about everything the Federal government does when it's not sending millions of dollars of pork to Alaska, and prone to knee-jerk reactions to anything and everything.

But she's a better shot than Cheney.

I believe Palin has a better understanding of our energy problem than does Obama, Biden, or McCain.

She seems to understand that our principal goal should be to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I'm not certain the other three understands that.

can someone please find and release a photo of Michelle Obama in some revealing photo so that I can have something to hit back with? I am so sick and tired of hearing my black co-workers making fun of Palin because of the bikini photo (which is fake, I believe), and I'd love to have something to shove back in their ignorant, racist faces.

I believe Palin has a better understanding of our energy problem than does Obama, Biden, or McCain.

She seems to understand that our principal goal should be to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I'm not certain the other three understands that.You've got to be joking. I don't think there's an adult with a brain in this country who doesn't think that. The difference between her and the other three is she seems to think we can reach that goal simply through an increase in domestic oil production.

No - she believes that is the first step you have to take.

We're certainly not going to reach our goal with the unrealistic Democratic energy bill that was presented in the Congress.

I think this shows that Governor Palin is both ignorant of, well, just about everything the Federal government does when it's not sending millions of dollars of pork to Alaska, and prone to knee-jerk reactions to anything and everything.Hockey-Mom's don't need to know about financial stuff, that's man talk! :shrug:

;)

You've got to be joking. I don't think there's an adult with a brain in this country who doesn't think that. The difference between her and the other three is she seems to think we can reach that goal simply through an increase in domestic oil production.

Link?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091851312912585.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Obama learning about how taxes affect economic output? He's toning down his tax raising rhetoric?

Though I somewhat expected DVDTalkers to be smarter than this, risk exposure is a cost. Too much risk exposure can be too expensive. See how that works?

Dan Rather on MSNBC this morning: 'In all my years of covering politics I have never seen the selection of a VP that has changed the dynamics of the election like the selection of Palin has.' Pat Buchanan agreed with him.

Which thread to we talk about the election in? This two thread thing is sort of lame.

Which thread to we talk about the election in? This two thread thing is sort of lame.

See http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8917037&postcount=35

People were complaining about the single thread so we opened it up a bit more. The "issues" thread was to be more about the actual topics/election issues (aka "serious stuff"). The "non-issues" thread was to be more about all the other stuff that comes up during elections (personalities, Palin's kid/pregnancy, Obama's racist pastor, etc).

So where do polls and general stuff go? Here?

yeah, here. stuff that matters goes here.

stuff that doesnt matter goes in the non issues thread

Who knows what belongs where. :lol:

The SCt doesn't seem to matter to most, but it matters to me so I'll stick this here. :shrug:

http://www.reason.com/news/printer/128686.html

Straight Talk Slowdown

Why isn't John McCain criticizing Joe Biden over Supreme Court nominations?
Damon W. Root | September 9, 2008

Speaking last Thursday at the Republican National Convention, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) received a roar of approval after declaring his support for "judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench." Similarly, at the recent Saddleback Forum hosted by bestselling self-help author Rick Warren, McCain cited "the criteria of a proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States and not legislating from the bench" as his standard for selecting a potential Supreme Court justice. His official website goes even further, stating: "John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives."

Given the strength of such rhetoric, which seems clearly designed to shore up support among conservatives, it's notable that McCain hasn't made more noise about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) choice of running mates. After all, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1987 to 1995, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) played a central role in perhaps the two most controversial events in modern judicial history: the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judges Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.

Bork, a federal appeals court judge and former solicitor general in the Nixon administration, was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 to fill the vacancy created by retiring Justice Lewis Powell. As Bork sees it, he faced unprecedented opposition from desperate left-wing groups aided and abetted by the Judiciary Committee's leading liberals, Sen. Biden and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). In his book The Tempting of America (1990), Bork describes the Biden Report, a legal brief prepared for Biden that critiqued Bork's views on issues ranging from abortion to executive power, as having "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."

Four years later, Biden was in the thick of it once more, overseeing the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. Though today the Thomas hearings are remembered almost exclusively for the sexual harassment charges leveled by Anita Hill, Biden actually kicked it off by trying to discredit Thomas as a wild-eyed libertarian. Among other things, Biden waived around a copy of Richard Epstein's landmark book, Takings (1985), which argues that under the Fifth Amendment the government must pay just compensation to property holders affected by certain regulations, demanding to know if Thomas agreed with the book's content. As Epstein later told reason, "I took some pride in the fact that Joe Biden held a copy of Takings...and said that anyone who believes what's in this book is certifiably unqualified to sit in on the Supreme Court. That's a compliment of sorts."

Clarence Thomas is a bit less charitable. In his recent memoir My Grandfather's Son (2007), he alleges that Biden was intentionally dishonest throughout their dealings, claiming that the senator told him, "since I'd be nervous at first, he would start the questioning with a few ‘softballs' that would help me relax and do my best." Instead, as Thomas recounts it, Biden "threw a beanball straight at my head...[and] wrenched my words out of context."

All of which makes you wonder why the McCain camp is holding back on the Democratic VP nominee. If the judiciary is so important to conservatives, why not bring up Biden's roles in keeping Bork off the Court and in nearly derailing Thomas? Perhaps the best explanation is McCain's own record. Unlike Biden, who's been a fierce partisan on the courts for two decades, McCain is a very recent convert to the cause of conservative jurisprudence.

Audience members at the Saddleback Forum, for example, might have been surprised to learn that McCain voted to confirm Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, despite the fact that he made a point of describing each of them as the wrong sort of justice for the Court (he held up Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito as his models).

Moreover, McCain was a key player in the so-called Gang of 14, the seven Republican and seven Democratic senators who joined forces in 2005 to end the Democratic filibuster of conservative judicial nominees and to forestall the Republican "nuclear option" of banning such filibusters outright. In the eyes of many conservatives, this compromise crippled the GOP's efforts and effectively killed several of the nominations. Focus on the Family leader James Dobson, for instance, cited the Gang of 14 as one of the reasons why he "will not vote for Sen. John McCain as a matter of conscience."

Which leaves McCain in the lurch. On the one hand, he needs to deliver red meat rhetoric about the courts, something that Biden's actions seem tailor-made to fit. But on the other hand, spelling out his opponent's misdeeds threatens to remind conservatives of his own. For a self-styled straight talker, it's got to be an uncomfortable spot.



The reason why John McCain isn't hammering this point is because like I've said all along: he doesn't really want Scalias or Alitos or Roberts on the bench. They won't share his view on free speech.

The article mentions Thomas' memoir. I just read it last week. Very interesting read. Let's just say that Biden is probably his least favorite person in Washington. I can't say that I blame him for feeling that way. He was a complete douche during that spectacle and he was a complete douche in the 2 most recent SCt nomination hearings.

World wants Obama as president: poll

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may be struggling to nudge ahead of his Republican rival in polls at home, but people across the world want him in the White House, a BBC poll said.

All 22 countries covered in the poll would prefer to see Senator Obama elected US president ahead of Republican John McCain.

In 17 of the 22 nations, people expect relations between the US and the rest of the world to improve if Senator Obama wins.

More than 22,000 people were questioned by pollster GlobeScan in countries ranging from Australia to India and across Africa, Europe and South America.

The margin in favour of Senator Obama ranged from 9 per cent in India to 82 per cent in Kenya, while an average of 49 per cent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 per cent preferring Senator McCain. Some four in 10 did not take a view.

"Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents," GlobeScan chairman Doug Miller said.

"Given how negative America's international image is at present, it is quite striking that only one in five think a McCain presidency would improve on the Bush administration's relations with the world."

In the United States, three polls taken since the Republican party convention ended on Thursday (local time) show Senator McCain with a lead of 1 to 4 percentage points - within the margin of error - and two others show the two neck-and-neck.

The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations were America's NATO allies, including Australia (62 per cent).

A similar BBC/Globescan poll conducted ahead of the 2004 U.S presidential election found that, of 35 countries polled, 30 would have preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry, rather than the incumbent George Bush, who was elected.

A total of 23,531 people in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone in July and August 2008 for the poll.

Check my sig. There's a reason I've had that quote on there for ~6 months now.

You start mucking with free trade and you'll find out how much the rest of the world likes us. I'm wondering how long it's going to take Colombia to turn away from us just due to Congress' little stunt on shelving the free trade agreement with them.

So where do polls and general stuff go? Here?

Actually I wouldn't be opposed to a separate poll/EC thread myself...

I asked this in a previous thread in response to a post matta made about Obama raising taxes, but I don't think I saw a response.

By all accounts (and the calculator someone posted), people in my income bracket will receive a tax cut under both of these guys' plans. But all of my income is generated through a small business (LLC partnership). How does that fact change the expected tax cut/raise under the taxation proposals between the two candidates?

Is one of them more biased towards small business taxes? The suggestion was that Obama would cause an increase in my taxes, but I am interested in where that comes from. The brief amount of research I have done indicates that it may not be true. It is hard to say though, since I am not a start-up with large capital gains (where he gives some savings) and health insurance covers only my family, not any other employees.

I asked this in a previous thread in response to a post matta made about Obama raising taxes, but I don't think I saw a response.

By all accounts (and the calculator someone posted), people in my income bracket will receive a tax cut under both of these guys' plans. But all of my income is generated through a small business (LLC partnership). How does that fact change the expected tax cut/raise under the taxation proposals between the two candidates?

Is one of them more biased towards small business taxes? The suggestion was that Obama would cause an increase in my taxes, but I am interested in where that comes from. The brief amount of research I have done indicates that it may not be true. It is hard to say though, since I am not a start-up with large capital gains (where he gives some savings) and health insurance covers only my family, not any other employees.

How is your LLC set up? I assume you have pass through taxation with the LLC registered as a partnership with the IRS?

How is your LLC set up? I assume you have pass through taxation with the LLC registered as a partnership with the IRS?

Correct.

Correct.

I'm no CPA, but I think it won't matter for you in that case since the company isn't taxed, only you are taxed. Well, assuming you're not making $200,000 per year, or whatever Obama is using as his cutoff today.

But still vote McCain!

But still vote <s>McCain</s> Palin!

Corrected.

Slowly but surely, the clouds around Obama are lifting only to settle in around the McCain camp.

We haven't had a good abortion thread in a while, but i'm resisting the temptation to start one for now...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080909/D933GK981.html

Asked on the program about when life begins, Biden said: "Look, I know when it begins for me. It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I am prepared to accept the teachings in my church."

He added that while he believes life begins "at the moment of conception," it would inappropriate to impose that view on others in a pluralistic society.

If he really believes that life begins at conception and the Constitution says someone can't be deprived of life without the due process of law, shouldn't he be against the way abortion is practiced in the country right now. Beyond that, as a moral issue, shouldn't he be against abortion. It's one thing to push your values on someone else, its another when the other people's values are depriving someone else of life.

You start mucking with free trade and you'll find out how much the rest of the world likes us. I'm wondering how long it's going to take Colombia to turn away from us just due to Congress' little stunt on shelving the free trade agreement with them.


Absolutely! People like to claim that America's image has been lessened, and that because of that we have suffered negative consequences. That simply isn't true, but it will be if our government turns to isolationism.

It also won't help if Senator Obama continues his pattern of being at complete odds with all of our allies, as he is on Iran.

We haven't had a good abortion thread in a while, but i'm resisting the temptation to start one for now...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080909/D933GK981.html



If he really believes that life begins at conception and the Constitution says someone can't be deprived of life without the due process of law, shouldn't he be against the way abortion is practiced in the country right now. Beyond that, as a moral issue, shouldn't he be against abortion. It's one thing to push your values on someone else, its another when the other people's values are depriving someone else of life.


This is by far the most hypocritical position for practicing American Catholics to hold. I can not fathom how any practicing Roman Catholic could vote for such a person. Yet they do.

Slowly but surely, the clouds around Obama are lifting only to settle in around the McCain camp.

?

This is by far the most hypocritical position for practicing American Catholics to hold. I can not fathom how any practicing Roman Catholic could vote for such a person. Yet they do.


Because perhaps they are more than a 1-issue voter or else they smartly realize that the President (or a single Senator, even one on the Judiciary Committee) has very little to do with the abortion issue.

This is by far the most hypocritical position for practicing American Catholics to hold. I can not fathom how any practicing Roman Catholic could vote for such a person. Yet they do.It's no less hypocritical than Catholics voting for someone who is pro-death penalty or for someone who invades another country. Voters* are hypocrites, just like everybody else. :shrug:



*There are at least two people who post here frequently who are not hypocrites regarding these issues.

It's no less hypocritical than Catholics voting for someone who is pro-death penalty or for someone who invades another country. Voters* are hypocrites, just like everybody else. :shrug:



*There are at least two people who post here frequently who are not hypocrites regarding these issues.

Of course it is, it for no other reason than for the scope. There are approximately 1000 times more abortion performed in the US each year than executions. And abortion is a far more central concern of the Roman Catholic Church.

As for the invasion aspect, even forays into foreign nations can be, and have been, held justified under Catholic theology. Whether our most recent incursions fall into that category or not is obviously debatable.

Because perhaps they are more than a 1-issue voter or else they smartly realize that the President (or a single Senator, even one on the Judiciary Committee) has very little to do with the abortion issue.

The President, though Supreme Court nominees, can greatly influence the debate. He obviously can't overturn Roe v Wade or pass a constitutional amendment, but he can certainly appoint pro-life justices.

Now should the president appoint justices that will legislate from the bench? Nope. And I wouldn't support a candidate who would do that. But the point is, the president does have a role in the abortion debate.

It's no less hypocritical than Catholics voting for someone who is pro-death penalty or for someone who invades another country. Voters* are hypocrites, just like everybody else. :shrug:


*There are at least two people who post here frequently who are not hypocrites regarding these issues.

I'm anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. Unfortunately, there's not enough iterations of political platforms for me to choose one that fits both of those positions. So I have to choose between the pro-death penalty, pro-abortion democrats or the pro-death penalty, anti-abortion republicans. That doesn't seem hypocritical to me, at all.

So by your reasoning, if someone doesn't 100% agree with every position of his/her party, that person is a hypocrite? It's not like people have to prioritize their positions and choose how to vote based on a party or individual candidates' position on those prioritized sets of issues?

Because perhaps they are more than a 1-issue voter or else they smartly realize that the President (or a single Senator, even one on the Judiciary Committee) has very little to do with the abortion issue.

Then that shows more the hypocrisy of their faith than of their politics. I was referring more to that point.

So by your reasoning, if someone doesn't 100% agree with every position of his/her party, that person is a hypocrite?No, someone who is simultaneously pro-life and pro-death penalty, or pro-choice and anti-death penalty, because they espouse a "culture of life" (e.g., The Roman Catholic Church's position) is being hypocritical. One could base their positions on these two issues from other rationales - "pragmatic" public policy, "gut" instinct, whatever, and there wouldn't be an inherent hypocrisy. I would never say that someone should 100% agree with every position of their party, especially in the U.S., since our party system isn't as formally rigorous as ,say, Britain's, and because the positions of parties are not fixed. For instance, prior to 1976 it was the stated position of the Republican Party (in party platforms) that abortion was not something that should be prohibited by the government.

No, someone who is simultaneously pro-life and pro-death penalty, or pro-choice and anti-death penalty, because they espouse a "culture of life" (e.g., The Roman Catholic Church's position) is being hypocritical. One could base their positions on these two issues from other rationales - "pragmatic" public policy, "gut" instinct, whatever, and there wouldn't be an inherent hypocrisy. I would never say that someone should 100% agree with every position of their party, especially in the U.S., since our party system isn't as formally rigorous as ,say, Britain's, and because the positions of parties are not fixed. For instance, prior to 1976 it was the stated position of the Republican Party (in party platforms) that abortion was not something that should be prohibited by the government.

So how is voting policy tied in to this, then?

You basically said that voting for Bush or McCain is hypocritical, because both support the death penalty and supported the regime change in Iraq (much like Biden). However, you then admit that there's no way to be 100% in agreement with any candidate. So couldn't someone support McCain or Bush, while "they espouse a 'culture of life'", but not be hypocritical?

Hell, I could even see a situation where a person could "espouse a 'culture of life'", but support the less expousing candidate (Obama) because he agreed with absolutely everything else on Obama's platform, and the sum total of that agreement outweighs the expousing difference of the platform. That doesn't seem entirely hypocritical to me.

So calling someone a hypocrite because of how they vote is a little far fetched to me.

What I do think is hypocritical would be a Catholic who supported abortion or the death penalty out-right (e.g. Kerry and Biden). A non-Catholic (McCain, Obama, and now Palin), could support either platform without being entirely hypocritical, depending on that person's individual denomination or beliefs.

So how is voting policy tied in to this, then?

You basically said that voting for Bush or McCain is hypocritical, because both support the death penalty and supported the regime change in Iraq (much like Biden). However, you then admit that there's no way to be 100% in agreement with any candidate. So couldn't someone support McCain or Bush, while "they espouse a 'culture of life'", but not be hypocritical? Voting for an anti-abortion, pro-death penalty candidate either because you are Catholic or because you believe in a similar "culture of life" is hypocritical. The Catholic Church officially opposes abortion and it officially opposes the death penalty. You can't pick and choose.

(Well, of course you can, and people do it all the time).

Either admit that there are other factors influencing your views and vote choice, or get in line. Personally, I don't care. People can vote how they want for whatever reason they want. It's just sorta funny to see all these Catholics opposing abortion because their church tells them to, but not seeming to notice the Church also has an opinion on the death penalty. Oops!

Voting for an anti-abortion, pro-death penalty candidate either because you are Catholic or because you believe in a similar "culture of life" is hypocritical. The Catholic Church officially opposes abortion and it officially opposes the death penalty. You can't pick and choose.


Really? Please show me the magical anti-death penalty, anti-abortion candidate with a decent chance of winning? Because if you show me that person, and I don't vote for him or her, feel free to call me a hypocrite all you want. *

Otherwise, you're exposing the belief that a person who doesn't agree 100% with his political candidate is a hypocrite, and as such, I'm free to call you (and everyone else here) that whenever I feel the need.

And those who are anti-abortion aren't always that way because they're blindly following a church. It might have something to do with when people define the beginning of life. As Obama himself stated at Saddleback, if someone believes that life starts at conception, then it's impossible to support abortion.

* of course, that assumes that 100% of my voting decision is based on the "right to life" topics, which is not the case. I also strongly consider fiscal policy, national security, immigration, energy, and a host of other issues.

As Obama himself stated at Saddleback, if someone believes that life starts at conception, then it's impossible to support abortion.


did he say that? how does biden explain it to him then

Really? Please show me the magical anti-death penalty, anti-abortion candidate with a decent chance of winning? Because if you show me that person, and I don't vote for him or her, feel free to call me a hypocrite all you want. *So only "viable" candidates are worthy now? It doesn't seem your convictions run very deep.Otherwise, you're exposing the belief that a person who doesn't agree 100% with his political candidate is a hypocriteNo I'm not actually. I'm discussing two very specific issues. You are the one who keeps talking about this "100%" crap. I would really appreciate it if you would either

A) Take the time to read what I wrote and understand it, or
B) At least stop misrepresenting what I'm writing.

And those who are anti-abortion aren't always that way because they're blindly following a church. It might have something to do with when people define the beginning of life. As Obama himself stated at Saddleback, if someone believes that life starts at conception, then it's impossible to support abortion. I'm pretty sure I discussed people who base these decisions on other criteria, and mentioned that I think they are exempt from the criticism I'm talking about here.
* of course, that assumes that 100% of my voting decision is based on the "right to life" topics, which is not the case. I also strongly consider fiscal policy, national security, immigration, energy, and a host of other issues.And quite rightly so. But there are some people who are literally single-issue voters and that issue is abortion. My complaint is that some (but not all) of them should really be "double-issue voters" if the reason they give for being opposed to abortion is genuine.

Essentially, I'm talking about a very finite number of people who vote based on very specific set of circumstances. You are trying to generalize my argument to the point of ridiculousness. Since you are either unwilling to or incapable of grasping my point I'll just stop.

Just think - if McCain wins we may only have 7 justices on the Supreme Court for quite some time.

did he say that? how does biden explain it to him then

At Saddleback, Obama started debating his position with Rick Warren and said "Look, if you believe that life starts at conception, then I can't debate this with you. We'll never agree."

Biden argues that he's anti-abortion, but that he doesn't feel it's right to impose his view on others.

Of course, if he truly believes in the Church's teachings, then he believes that every single abortion is the murder of a defenseless baby. And a person who believes a defenseless baby is being murdered, but doesn't raise a finger to help that baby isn't the sort of person I want running my country.

It's no less hypocritical than Catholics voting for someone who is pro-death penalty or for someone who invades another country. Voters* are hypocrites, just like everybody else. :shrug:

Reminds me of those who have made their decision strictly on the color of the candidates skin rather than his positions on matters of importance.

Just think - if McCain wins we may only have 7 justices on the Supreme Court for quite some time.And the decisions would probably be less the way the people holding up the appointments would like than if they approved the new nominees.

So only "viable" candidates are worthy now? It doesn't seem your convictions run very deep.

That gets into the 3rd party paradox. A vote for Nader in 2000 was ultimately a vote for Bush. If I vote for a fringe candidate, I might as well hand the election to Obama. I may agree with McCain only 50% on this issue, but I agree with Obama 0%. And I'd rather have someone I partially agree with in office then someone I completely disagree with.

No I'm not actually. I'm discussing two very specific issues. You are the one who keeps talking about this "100%" crap. I would really appreciate it if you would either

A) Take the time to read what I wrote and understand it, or
B) At least stop misrepresenting what I'm writing.

But I'm not misrepresenting your argument. And I'm certainly "capable" of understanding it. If anything, there's a complete failure to properly communicate your issue on your part.

Your argument is that if someone believes in the teachings of the Church, and is therefore anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, voting for a candidate that does not support BOTH of those issues in inherently hypocritical.

I think I understand where you're going with that statement, but until you can effectively communicate that argument, I have no choice but to accept your words on face value, which is clearly and obviously wrong.

I did take time to read your comments. And I do understand what it says. I think you're the one that doesn't understand it.

I'm pretty sure I discussed people who base these decisions on other criteria, and mentioned that I think they are exempt from the criticism I'm talking about here.And quite rightly so. But there are some people who are literally single-issue voters and that issue is abortion. My complaint is that some (but not all) of them should really be "double-issue voters" if the reason they give for being opposed to abortion is genuine.

So your argument now is that single-issue voters who vote on that single-issue solely because of a Church teaching, but pick and choose how that teaching is applied, are hypocritical. That still doesn't make sense, because you're neglecting the severity of the issues that derive from the source of morality. It also neglects to consider the choices available to a voter.

Reminds me of those who have made their decision strictly on the color of the candidates skin rather than his positions on matters of importance.

To some degree, people want to vote for someone with a common perspective as them. Historically underrepresented groups (whether it's women, african americans, hispanics, asians, etc.) view a person that is a member of their group as someone with a common social background, who possibly understands the framing of their problems.

You also see the same thing with states. People from Alaska (or Chicago) will vote heavily for Sarah Palin (or Obama) just because she's from Alaska and they feel that she understands the problems framed from their perspective.

So your argument now is that single-issue voters who vote on that single-issue solely because of a Church teaching, but pick and choose how that teaching is applied, are hypocritical.That's been my argument all along.

The President, though Supreme Court nominees, can greatly influence the debate. He obviously can't overturn Roe v Wade or pass a constitutional amendment, but he can certainly appoint pro-life justices

And the GOP has had a smashing success making headway on appointing Justices ready willing and able to overturn Roe v. Wade over the last 28 years.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Roe v. Wade (really Casey) ain't going to be overturned. I don't care how many Presidential elections are won by Republicans.

And the GOP has had a smashing success making headway on appointing Justices ready willing and able to overturn Roe v. Wade over the last 28 years.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Roe v. Wade (really Casey) ain't going to be overturned. I don't care how many Presidential elections are won by Republicans.That's because it's one of their most potent fundraising issues. Why kill the golden egg-laying goose?

If McCain is elected and Stevens & Ginsburg retire or die, wouldn't there be a chance that Roe v. Wade would be over-turned.

And the GOP has had a smashing success making headway on appointing Justices ready willing and able to overturn Roe v. Wade over the last 28 years.


The problem is that there's no way anyone interested in overturning Roe v. Wade would ever make it through the Senate. Besides, there's so much precedence behind Roe v. Wade, that it would take 5 justices legislating from the bench to overturn it in most cases.

However, the Republicans have been successful in other areas, such as overturning the gun ban in DC and upholding the bans on partial birth abortions and late term abortions.

However, the Republicans have been successful in other areas, such as overturning the gun ban in DC and upholding the bans on partial birth abortions and late term abortions.If Red Dog is correct in his assessment (and I believe he is), then McCain's choices for SCt nominees will be severely limited by his self-imposed litmus test issue of "campaign finance as speech - yes/no?".

If McCain is elected and Stevens & Ginsburg retire or die, wouldn't there be a chance that Roe v. Wade would be over-turned.


A chance? Sure. A snowball's chance....

Between McCain's desirable jurist and the fact that the Senate will be controlled by Democrats for 2 years and likely (barring a huge GOP swing in 2010) 4 years, it ain't going to happen. At best, from a conservative-right perspective, you'll see an O'Connor or Kennedy type.

I know it is from yesterday, but from the latest WaPo-ABC poll:

Both candidates solidified support among party loyalists during their parties' conventions, but it is the Republican nominee who enters the campaign's final stretch with newfound momentum.

Much of the shift toward McCain stems from gains among white women, voters his team hoped to sway with the pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate. White women shifted from an eight-point pre-convention edge for Obama to a 12-point McCain advantage now.


Anybody think Mr. Obama is having second thoughts about not picking Ms. Clinton? Any Democrats/independents regretting pulling the lever for Senator Obama?

I know it is from yesterday, but from the latest WaPo-ABC poll:FWIW, based on ANES data, the 12% difference among white women is almost exactly the same as between Bush and Kerry (55.6% - 43.7%).

There were a lot of problems with choosing Hillary. First of all, there's the potential operational conflict between their two camps. But even if you can get past that, Hillary is such a polarizing figure that her pick would solidify the republican base without a pick such as Palin.

A unified republican base (because of Hillary) behind a McCain-Lieberman ticket would be nearly unstoppable.

FWIW, based on ANES data, the 12% difference among white women is almost exactly the same as between Bush and Kerry (55.6% - 43.7%).

And if Senator McCain maintains that lead, he wins in November.

Anybody think Mr. Obama is having second thoughts about not picking Ms. Clinton? Any Democrats/independents regretting pulling the lever for Senator Obama?

Some are starting to ask that:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/13317;_ylt=AgIWyEDTa2X.BAJEO9ra3I2s0NUE

Could Clinton have Palin-proofed Dems?

are there any other polls on the white women vote? Obama's camp is right saying that a 20 point shift in them over a few days is questionable at best

There were a lot of problems with choosing Hillary. First of all, there's the potential operational conflict between their two camps. But even if you can get past that, Hillary is such a polarizing figure that her pick would solidify the republican base without a pick such as Palin.

A unified republican base (because of Hillary) behind a McCain-Lieberman ticket would be nearly unstoppable.

Such unification would not have been possible with said ticket.

A chance? Sure. A snowball's chance....

Between McCain's desirable jurist and the fact that the Senate will be controlled by Democrats for 2 years and likely (barring a huge GOP swing in 2010) 4 years, it ain't going to happen. At best, from a conservative-right perspective, you'll see an O'Connor or Kennedy type.

It doesn't matter whether the Senate is controlled by Democrats if there 4 votes in a 7 member court to overturn Roe, does it?

Wouldn't Scalia, Thomas, Alito, & Roberts vote to overturn?

Anybody think Mr. Obama is having second thoughts about not picking Ms. Clinton? Any Democrats/independents regretting pulling the lever for Senator Obama?


Yes
Yes

It doesn't matter whether the Senate is controlled by Democrats if there 4 votes in a 7 member court to overturn Roe, does it?

Wouldn't Scalia, Thomas, Alito, & Roberts vote to overturn?


:hscratch: A 7-member court?

I've also told you this a million times - I do not believe that Roberts would be willing to cast a deciding vote to overturn it. He might be willing to be a 4th dissenter, but that's a whole different deal.

Anybody think Mr. Obama is having second thoughts about not picking Ms. Clinton? Any Democrats/independents regretting pulling the lever for Senator Obama?

Concern troll is very concerned.

:hscratch: A 7-member court?

I've also told you this a million times - I do not believe that Roberts would be willing to cast a deciding vote to overturn it. He might be willing to be a 4th dissenter, but that's a whole different deal.

As I said - if Ginsburg & Stevens should retire or die, you have a 7-member court.
I don't believe the Democrats in the Senate would approve any SC nominee that President McCain would make.

Yes
YesYou voted for Obama? :eek:

Doesn't matter. Obama will still win the election.

You voted for Obama? :eek:

No, I didn't vote for Obama.

Doesn't matter. Obama will still win the election.


Keep that optimistic outlook.

Now rather than optimistic, it's looking more and more like a rose-colored glasses outlook. :)

As I said - if Ginsburg & Stevens should retire or die, you have a 7-member court.
I don't believe the Democrats in the Senate would approve any SC nominee that President McCain would make.


Sure they would. He'll have to nominate a wishy-washy moderate, which will fit very nicely in with his views on free speech (it gives him a convenient out). It's just like when Reagan had to settle on Kennedy with a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Keep that optimistic outlook.

Now rather than optimistic, it's looking more and more like a rose-colored glasses outlook. :)

Which states adding up to 270 or more electoral votes do you think Senator McCain will win?

This election has, over the last several months, wavered back-and-forth between a relatively even contest to one that Senator Obama is almost certain to win (in large part, but not exclusively, as Ohio swings back and forth). It has never been, and is not currently, a contest where Senator McCain is the favorite. That may change over the next 8 weeks, but I wouldn't count on it.

Keep that optimistic outlook.

Now rather than optimistic, it's looking more and more like a rose-colored glasses outlook. :)

:shrug: I say it as an opinion based on months of paying close attention to the race + historical precedent.

You did not find me saying the same about the Democratic candidate in 2004.

Which states adding up to 270 or more electoral votes do you think Senator McCain will win?

This election has, over the last several months, wavered back-and-forth between a relatively even contest to one that Senator Obama is almost certain to win (in large part, but not exclusively, as Ohio swings back and forth). It has never been, and is not currently, a contest where Senator McCain is the favorite. That may change over the next 8 weeks, but I wouldn't count on it.

As we've discussed before, the RCP state count is now Obama 273, McCain 265. And that's with mostly older polls from before the Palin pick. But even with those numbers, McCain is just one state away from winning. NH (Obama +0.3) or Colorado (Obama +1.0) could do it.

Sure there are plenty that could swing the other way, but there seems to be a clear path to victory for both candidates here. Saying that one is guaranteed victory or defeat is just silly right now.

Edt: And here's the latest Ohio polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html McCain +7 was the last one. But I agree, if Obama takes Ohio, it gets very, very difficult for McCain without PA. PA is getting closer, but I still can't see it going Red.

No, I didn't vote for Obama.Then how could you regret voting for him?

As we've discussed before, the RCP state count is now Obama 273, McCain 265. And that's with mostly older polls from before the Palin pick. But even with those numbers, McCain is just one state away from winning. NH (Obama +0.3) or Colorado (Obama +1.0) could do it.

Sure there are plenty that could swing the other way, but there seems to be a clear path to victory for both candidates here. Saying that one is guaranteed victory or defeat is just silly right now.

When Senator Obama is doing well in the polls, he is almost certain to win.

When he is doing poorly -- like right now, while Senator McCain is still riding his convention/VP pick double-bounce -- it's a tight race.

Again, things could change. The bounce could stick around over the long term. But I don't think it will.

I also think you're wrong about most of the polls being pre-Palin (at least with respect to the battleground states).

This race will come down to 8 or 9 swing states.

I'll take voter demographics over historical precedent any day.

I don't bet on elections - only on horses & bridge; but, if I were betting on elections, and the election was held today, I would bet that McCain would win.

I can't wait for the 269-269 tie, which is a distinct possibility with D pickups of IA/CO or IA/NV/NM.

What will be the likely House breakdown (D v. R) by state? Can we get a 25-25 tie there too, Acting President Pelosi? ;)

I'll take voter demographics over historical precedent any day.

I don't bet on elections - only on horses & bridge; but, if I were betting on elections, and the election was held today, I would bet that McCain would win.


Then you should bet on the election because you are getting better than even odds with McCain.

This race will come down to 8 or 9 swing states.

Wow. Really?!

Wow. Really?!

:lol:

Then how could you regret voting for him?

Pharoh said 'any Democrats..................'

I answered yes. There are Democrats out there who wish he had selected Hillary; and, there are Democrats out there who regret voting for Obama in the primary.

I'll take voter demographics over historical precedent any day.

Good for you. Show me the math that favors McCain.

Then you should bet on the election because you are getting better than even odds with McCain.

:confused:

good for you. Show me the math that favors mccain.

1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004

:confused:

If you think McCain is the favorite and, in fact, he is an underdog on betting sites, then why not bet him and take advantage the generous odds?

1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004

I'll just assume from this that you have no idea.

If you think McCain is the favorite and, in fact, he is an underdog on betting sites, then why not bet him and take advantage the generous odds?

Is that legal?

What will be the likely House breakdown (D v. R) by state? Can we get a 25-25 tie there too, Acting President Pelosi? ;)http://i35.tinypic.com/15zk01v.jpg

I'll just assume from this that you have no idea.


And I'll just assume you don't have any idea of what voter demographics are.

If you did, you wouldn't have made that silly statement.

Is that legal?

Intrade is legal.

If you think McCain is the favorite and, in fact, he is an underdog on betting sites, then why not bet him and take advantage the generous odds?

Intrade has the odds very close now: Obama to win: 49.9, McCain to win: 49.5

Just a week and a half ago, it was about 65/35.

And I'll just assume you don't have any idea of what voter demographics are.

Of course I do. The question is, do you? Providing a list of Republican presidential victories certainly doesn't mean anything. What exactly does the 2000 election prove about long-term voter demographics? Or the 1984 election?

Intrade has the odds very close now: Obama to win: 49.9, McCain to win: 49.5

Just a week and a half ago, it was about 65/35.


OK - I had it checked in a while.

His odds have dropped (improved) by more than 50% since August on the site I 'know.'

I also think you're wrong about most of the polls being pre-Palin (at least with respect to the battleground states).

You would think that they would poll more often in battleground states, but apparently they don't. As an example, PA's last 4 polls are 9/5-9/7, 9/7-9/7, 8/24-8/26, and 8/17-8/24. So two polls after the pick, two before in the RCP average. The two before have Obama +6, the two after have Obama +2, the aggregate is Obama +4.

OH: 09/07-09/07, 08/31-09/02, 08/17-08/24, and 08/12-08/21. Again, 2 before, 2 after. The two before had it tied, the two after have McCain +2.5. The aggregate is McCain +1.3.

Of course I do. The question is, do you? Providing a list of Republican presidential victories certainly doesn't mean anything. What exactly does the 2000 election prove about long-term voter demographics? Or the 1984 election?

It means that, IMO, voter demographics haven't changed that much since 1980.

Intrade has the odds very close now: Obama to win: 49.9, McCain to win: 49.5

Just a week and a half ago, it was about 65/35.


I can get a hell of a lot better odds than that at Belmont. ;)

I can get a hell of a lot better odds than that at Belmont. ;)

You have to win though. :lol:

You have to win though. :lol:Win, show, place -- whatever it takes.

Concern troll is very concerned.

:lol:

Now Jason, what do you have against the concern of Messrs. Thrush & Kady?

You would think that they would poll more often in battleground states, but apparently they don't. As an example, PA's last 4 polls are 9/5-9/7, 9/7-9/7, 8/24-8/26, and 8/17-8/24. So two polls after the pick, two before in the RCP average. The two before have Obama +6, the two after have Obama +2, the aggregate is Obama +4.

OH: 09/07-09/07, 08/31-09/02, 08/17-08/24, and 08/12-08/21. Again, 2 before, 2 after. The two before had it tied, the two after have McCain +2.5. The aggregate is McCain +1.3.

It's only been a week and a half since Governor Palin was picked. A poll every 5 days isn't enough for you?

McCain says he'll veto any bill with earmarks when he's president.

I guess that means he will be vetoing any Iraqi Supplemental bills that come to his desk.

I for one am disappointed that the election issues thread now has as many pages as the election non-issues thread. This is America, people!!

:shrug: I say it as an opinion based on months of paying close attention to the race + historical precedent.

You did not find me saying the same about the Democratic candidate in 2004.

Well, at least 30 Rock fans can be glad that Alec Baldwin hasn't pledged to leave the country if McCain wins.

I heard a guy say Obama was the most "proabortion" candidate we've ever had. I know its hard to judge but what do yall think? What about Dukakis and Mondale? They were before my time so I dont know much about them

Since change is an issue in this election...The changing terms of 'change'
Obama, McCain compete to define an idea of change voters can believe in
By Amy Walter, National Journal
Wed., Sept. 10, 2008

WASHINGTON - Remember when this presidential race was a referendum on experience? Or celebrity? Or Barack Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16438329/)? Now it seems it's a referendum on this thing called "change."

When almost 75 percent of the country thinks things are on the wrong track, change is a pretty obvious dynamic. Yet the candidates aren't fighting over what their change would look like; instead, they are fighting over the definition of change itself.

Obama would seem to have the easier argument. He's for a change of basically everything President Bush stands for. Yet even after 19 months on the campaign trail and hundreds of millions spent, it's hard to say exactly how his change would manifest itself. To be sure, Obama's been trying to keep the focus on middle-class tax cuts, expanded health care and an end to the war in Iraq. But it's also clear that he hasn't been able to stay on offense. John McCain (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16438320/) has been trying to force Obama into a debate not about who's the "change" candidate, but who's the "maverick." For if Obama is voting with his fellow Democrats almost 100 percent of the time in the Senate (oh, and don't forget he was designated most liberal (http://www3.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/) by National Journal), is he really a guy who's gonna change anything?

Clever -- and another example of the newly disciplined McCain campaign's daily attempts to keep Obama off-kilter and off message. Even so, when Democrats are seen as better stewards than Republicans on pretty much every issue -- even taxes -- the need for Obama to distance himself from his party label isn't as crucial as it has been for other Democratic candidates.

For McCain, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/co_20080831_8485.php) is his most obvious and salient symbol of change. But what happens when his running mate is no longer the focal point of his campaign? Hard to believe that's possible -- especially when all of the major weekly magazines have her on their covers. At some point, however, the uniqueness will wear off. There are just so many stories that can be written about her hunting prowess or the "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy.

Attempts to keep her in the spotlight, meanwhile, could also backfire. My e-mail inbox has exploded with the back-and-forth between the camps over just what Obama meant when, referring to his opponents as dubious agents of change, he used the well-known phrase, "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig." The McCain camp erupted, accusing Obama of sexism, with former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift noting in a conference call hastily arranged by the campaign that only one candidate in this race wears lipstick.

I'm not interested in getting into a postmodern discussion of feminism -- and most voters aren't, either. But raising the flag of "sexism" every time Palin is criticized puts the camp at risk of failing the credibility test. And that, in turn, would make it harder to take McCain's change message seriously.

McCain can tell a very real and effective story of standing up to his party. Indeed, voters are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that they aren't willing to extend to other GOP candidates. In the latest Diageo/Hotline poll (http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/documents/diageohotlinepoll/DiageoHotlineTracker090908data.pdf) [PDF], 31 percent of those who say they think the country is on the wrong track say they're voting for McCain. In 2004, when far fewer people said the country was on the wrong track (46 percent, compared to 69 percent today), Bush got just 12 percent of those wrong-track voters. Among voters who disapprove of the job Bush is doing -- 65 percent -- one-quarter say they'll vote for McCain, including 16 percent who say they "strongly" disapprove of the job Bush is doing. Four years ago, 20 percent of those voters who disapproved of the job Bush was doing voted for him anyway, and just 2 percent of those who "strongly" disapproved did so.

Just as Obama needs to leave voters with a clear understanding of what his "change" would look like, McCain must give voters more specific examples of how he would go about breaking with the Bush years. Taking his party to task for losing its way, as he did in his acceptance speech (http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/co_20080905_3847.php) last week, was a start. But it was far from confrontational.

The outcome of the "change" argument may come down to who more effectively seizes the terms of the debate. Will it be who's the more authentic maverick? Or who's more of a departure from Bush? If voters can come away with a clear idea by Nov. 4, that would be a change.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26641593/

I think the honeymoon period has ended for Gov Palin. She needs to get out and answer some questions to demonstrate that she is no shrinking violet (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8915174&postcount=213) as a veep nominee.

Is anyone really "pro-abortion?"

some crazy feminazis might be (the ones who proudly wear "I got an abortion" tshirt)...but i dont think Obama is. But its a term used by the other side

Olbermann from last night:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P3WKhfuk138&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P3WKhfuk138&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Wow. I only got through 1 minute before I decided that continuing to listen is not worth my time.

Talk about something that should be considered "hate speech".

some crazy feminazis might be (the ones who proudly wear "I got an abortion" tshirt)...but i dont think Obama is. But its a term used by the other side

Wasn't Obama the only person to vote against the Induced Infant Liability Act, meaning that he gave permission for doctors to murder a fully formed baby that was able to live on it's own after a failed partial birth abortion?

I know that he represented the most liberal area in Illinois, but come on, if that's not pro-abortion, what is?

Is anyone really "pro-abortion?"It turned out to be a scam (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24189690/) but it caused quite the stir initially.

Wasn't Obama the only person to vote against the Induced Infant Liability Act, meaning that he gave permission for doctors to murder a fully formed baby that was able to live on it's own after a failed partial birth abortion?

I know that he represented the most liberal area in Illinois, but come on, if that's not pro-abortion, what is?

No, he was not the only person to vote against the act (which did not pass). He -- and others on the left -- voted against it because it was perceived as a backdoor attempt to limit reproductive rights, and because they felt that Illinois law already requires medical personal to provide medical care to a baby that is born alive during an abortion attempt.

they felt that Illinois law already requires medical personal to provide medical care to a baby that is born alive during an abortion attempt.

They may want to talk to those Chicago nurses on FoxNews that cried while telling stories of babies born alive only to be left on tables alone in storage closet to die.

But maybe I should be a little clearer: wasn't Obama the one that killed that bill twice in Committee, then refused to bring it up after he became chairman of the committee, effectively making him the sole killer of that bill?

And didn't that bill come up later in the US Senate and pass unanimously?

Good for you. Show me the math that favors McCain.

I'll take a stab

McCain
286 baseline from 2004

-IA (7)
-CO (9)

+NH (4)

274. Even if he doesn't carry NH in this scenario, he still wins with 270.

I'm sitting here watching the 9/11 Presidential Forum with John McCain, and I continue to be impressed with the way McCain comes off in interviews and the such. I think he does such a great job of explaining exactly what he believes, no matter if I agree with this or that or not.

I love how when he's asked a question, for the most part, he has a firm answer, and reveals where he stands. I think a lot of other Americans are starting to realize this as well, and it's a trait that a lot of people appreciate and admire.

I am also watching the forum and I agree with your sentiments BrentL, McCain does come right out without much nuance.

On a side-bar, the official title of this event is the "ServiceNation Presidential Candidates Forum;" Two Cable networks have this titled as the "Candidates forum on service" and "Ready to serve." Another has it titled "The 9/11 Presidential Forum." I know Olbermann is a blowhard, voted as such on that poll, but to tack on 9/11 as if that's what's being debated is such a cheap ploy and proves to a degree the point he was making.

I caught this on PBS DTV last night -- it was very refreshing to hear both candidate's thoughts without a lot of partisan rhetoric.

For the side pieces about service outside of the candidate discussions, which I presume were PBS productions, there was a lot of Led Zeppelin being used for the background music. They must have bought the rights to Physical Graffiti. :D

On a side-bar, the official title of this event is the "ServiceNation Presidential Candidates Forum;" Two Cable networks have this titled as the "Candidates forum on service" and "Ready to serve." Another has it titled "The 9/11 Presidential Forum." I know Olbermann is a blowhard, voted as such on that poll, but to tack on 9/11 as if that's what's being debated is such a cheap ploy and proves to a degree the point he was making.


They might have used 9/11 because it was the date of the forum and "ServiceNation Presidential Candidates Forum" didn't fit on the bottom of screen caption.

Out of curiosity, which station did that? I watched it on CNN and they had "Candidates forum on service" with "Ready to serve" on the side of the HD picture (I don't think it made the rest of the screen - CNN likes to put random things on the side for HD viewers only).

McCain should stick to sharing his views instead of the putrid campaign approach they have been taking lately.

If Congress is pretty much guaranteed to be Democratic Majority, is it better to vote for McCain hoping for a divided govt?

If Congress is pretty much guaranteed to be Democratic Majority, is it better to vote for McCain hoping for a divided govt?That's my largest consideration lately.

I thought I'd take a chance on all Republican since I'd never seen it in my lifetime and found I didn't like it. I've already seen all Democrat and I'm sure it would be even worse than it was before. So I have a real voting problem.

but Dem Congress and Rep President hasn't been good the last two years either

but Dem Congress and Rep President hasn't been good the last two years eitherIt's been better than it would have been. At least there were some vetoes.

but Dem Congress and Rep President hasn't been good the last two years either

How much of that is because of the specific players involved though? Once Bush is out things are going to be different.

How much of that is because of the specific players involved though? Once Bush is out things are going to be different.

:lol: You're so cute when you're being naive.

JasonF: Finally admitting that an Obama presidency being different from a Bush presidency is "naive."

JasonF: Finally admitting that an Obama presidency being different from a Bush presidency is "naive."

Ooh, you and nemein tricked me! No fair! That's not what I meant!

:lol:

rotfl

They might have used 9/11 because it was the date of the forum and "ServiceNation Presidential Candidates Forum" didn't fit on the bottom of screen caption.

Out of curiosity, which station did that? I watched it on CNN and they had "Candidates forum on service" with "Ready to serve" on the side of the HD picture (I don't think it made the rest of the screen - CNN likes to put random things on the side for HD viewers only).

Fox News had that chyron and they could have made some mash up fit; the 9/11 was bigger than the wording and it was large font. And it's a two day forum that had the candidates speak yesterday.

Take the McCain Challenge!

HpmfBzz4Ay4

"I’ve been through this litany before, where I say, “ok, what specific area have I quote changed?” Nobody can name it."

Nobody except, for example, the people at Think Progress who have put together a list of 42 McCain flip-flops (http://thinkprogress.org/mccain-flip-flops/).

If Congress is pretty much guaranteed to be Democratic Majority, is it better to vote for McCain hoping for a divided govt?

I think it is a given the Dems will control congress. I am hoping they dont have a fillibuster proof margin. Since it is issues we are talking about, I am scared of the "Equal Pay act" and the "Employee Free Choice Act", so I am definitley hoping for divided government.

I wonder if Senator McCain's supporters are bothered by the constant lying?

Thursday, his campaign was criticized by Factcheck.org for lying (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-onthemedia12-2008sep12,0,7479339.story) about what that website had said

Yesterday, he lied (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080913/NEWS/809130272&title=McCain_on_the_spot_as_Palin_defends_earmarks) about Governor Palin's record on pork -- on the View, he claimed she hadn't requested any as governor, when she had in fact request $200 million in pork.

Today, it was reported that he is lying (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics) about the sizes of the crowds he is drawing at his rallies.

What will he lie about tomorrow?

Apparently, Senator McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

I wonder if Senator McCain's supporters are bothered by the constant lying?

Thursday, his campaign was criticized by Factcheck.org for lying (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-onthemedia12-2008sep12,0,7479339.story) about what that website had said

Yesterday, he lied (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080913/NEWS/809130272&title=McCain_on_the_spot_as_Palin_defends_earmarks) about Governor Palin's record on pork -- on the View, he claimed she hadn't requested any as governor, when she had in fact request $200 million in pork.

Today, it was reported that he is lying (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics) about the sizes of the crowds he is drawing at his rallies.

What will he lie about tomorrow?

Apparently, Senator McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.


I think the McCain 'supporters' are more troubled by Obama's truths than McCain's lies.

http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml

...McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes....

Not very Messiah-like, mocking someone for this sort of thing.

http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml


Not very Messiah-like, mocking someone for this sort of thing.

Did the Messiah-like Barack Obama who's taken residence inside your mind invent that quote? Because the current presidential nominee isn't mentioned anywhere in that article from the 2000 election.

You know, generally, before making silly statements I click the link provided if there is an excerpt. This is the title of the article that I posted:

"McCain character loyal to a fault "

You know, generally, before making silly statements I click the link provided if there is an excerpt. This is the title of the article that I posted:

"McCain character loyal to a fault "

I did click your link, and found a nice little fluff piece for McCain from the 2000 election. This quote was in there somewhere, and in your post:

...McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes....

But, where did Obama ever criticize him for "this sort of thing", as you suggest?

Unless you meant something else by Messiah-like. It's just, in bhk vernacular, Messiah is always this really funny and hilarious codeword for Obama.

But, where did Obama ever criticize him for "this sort of thing", as you suggest?
Did you miss the Obama campaign's latest ad in which they mock McCain on the hot-button issue of not being able to send e-mail?

Did you miss the Obama campaign's latest ad in which they mock McCain on the hot-button issue of not being able to send e-mail?

I did miss the latest ad.

http://graphics.boston.com/news/poli