DVD Talk
2012 Republican Presidential Candidates - ptII [Archive] - Page 6 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates - ptII


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11

classicman2
09-27-11, 09:30 AM
Mitt Romney is kind of like the republican John Kerry. Moderate, flip flopping, not exciting, etc.

John Kerry was/is hardly a moderate.

Talkin2Phil
09-27-11, 09:43 AM
John Kerry was/is hardly a moderate.

Yep, anyone photographed with Hanoi Jane isn't a moderate.

dork
09-27-11, 09:46 AM
Yep, anyone photographed with Hanoi Jane isn't a moderate.
Wow.

Th0r S1mpson
09-27-11, 10:06 AM
I still hold out some hope Christie will jump (or waddle) into the race.

He'd make quite a splash.

There would be a cartoon about that. Count on it.

CRM114
09-27-11, 10:18 AM
John Kerry was/is hardly a moderate.

National Journal has him pretty much in the middle of the whole Senate and at the bottom of Democrats as far as a "liberal" ranking goes.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2010-vote-ratings-senate-20110225

Your idea of a moderate is a Republican.

sracer
09-27-11, 10:40 AM
Has anybody besides a sarcastic right-winger ever said this?
Morgan Freeman.

movielib
09-27-11, 11:42 AM
Has anybody besides a sarcastic right-winger ever said this?
I haven't listened to her for quite awhile but I heard that said or implied almost every day on the Stephanie Miller show. Not that it's the whole reason but that it is a reason. They said it so much they must think it's important. And true. I've heard it on other left wing talk radio too. I'm not saying they all do it.

Probably you've never heard it because no one listens to left wing talk radio. ;)

classicman2
09-27-11, 01:15 PM
National Journal has him pretty much in the middle of the whole Senate and at the bottom of Democrats as far as a "liberal" ranking goes.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2010-vote-ratings-senate-20110225

Your idea of a moderate is a Republican.

And On The Issues has him described as a hard-core liberal with a 90% liberal record.

And apparently your idea of a liberal is Karl Marx.

JasonF
09-27-11, 02:16 PM
I haven't listened to her for quite awhile but I heard that said or implied almost every day on the Stephanie Miller show. Not that it's the whole reason but that it is a reason. They said it so much they must think it's important. And true. I've heard it on other left wing talk radio too. I'm not saying they all do it.

Probably you've never heard it because no one listens to left wing talk radio. ;)

I actually listened to Stephanie Miller this morning (to be perfectly honest, I can count on one hand the number of times I listen to political talk radio in the typical year -- it just happened that this was one of those days).

As for the bolded sentence, you are kidding yourself if you don't think some of the opposition to Obama is motivated by racism.

Th0r S1mpson
09-27-11, 02:32 PM
Which demographic is more motivated by race: White voters or black voters?

DeputyDave
09-27-11, 02:50 PM
As for the bolded sentence, you are kidding yourself if you don't think some of the opposition to Obama is motivated by racism.

A very small part. Much, much smaller if you count only the people who would have supported a Democrat but for the fact Obama is black. If racist would never have supported him, regardless of race, is the opposition actually racist?

Now, how many people would have voted for another candidate if not for the fact Obama is Black? I know of three personally who have never voted for any non-conservative until this last election.

CRM114
09-27-11, 03:10 PM
And On The Issues has him described as a hard-core liberal with a 90% liberal record.

And apparently your idea of a liberal is Karl Marx.

And we all know "On the Issues" has much more credibility than the National Journal. :rolleyes: Love their term "hard core liberal."

classicman2
09-27-11, 03:40 PM
Ask one of our moderators about the credibility of the National Journal.

movielib
09-27-11, 03:46 PM
I actually listened to Stephanie Miller this morning (to be perfectly honest, I can count on one hand the number of times I listen to political talk radio in the typical year -- it just happened that this was one of those days).

As for the bolded sentence, you are kidding yourself if you don't think some of the opposition to Obama is motivated by racism.
Have I ever said I think none of the opposition to Obama is motivated by racism? Of course some is, but I don't think it is particularly high these days.

As for Stephanie Miller, the most common thing I would hear is she and the mooks playing some right wing opposition to Obama and then, in a fake under the breath voice saying something like "And did I mention... he's black." I heard it many, many times.

JasonF
09-27-11, 04:08 PM
Have I ever said I think none of the opposition to Obama is motivated by racism?

When every criticism of Obama is accompanied by a sarcastic "Oh, I guess this means I'm racist now," then forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that the people making those remarks think that any criticism of Obama is dismissed as racism.

movielib
09-27-11, 04:17 PM
When every criticism of Obama is accompanied by a sarcastic "Oh, I guess this means I'm racist now," then forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that the people making those remarks think that any criticism of Obama is dismissed as racism.
Who are these people? I've never met them. But then there are only six conservatives in Madison and I don't know any of them.

JasonF
09-27-11, 04:25 PM
Who are these people? I've never met them. But then there are only six conservatives in Madison and I don't know any of them.

movielib, meet DeputyDave

But Cain can't be leading in the poll, Republicans are racist. The whole reason they hate Obama is because he's black.

DeputyDave
09-27-11, 04:26 PM
When every criticism of Obama is accompanied by a sarcastic "Oh, I guess this means I'm racist now," then forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that the people making those remarks think that any criticism of Obama is dismissed as racism.

Maybe because it's a stupid criticism that is repeated constantly. Conservatives (Republicans and Tea Party members in particular) are told that racism plays a major part in the opposition to Obama (I hear that from black coworkers fairly often as well). If you hear something that silly (and untrue) often enough you are going to react to it.

Groucho
09-27-11, 04:35 PM
How about this? Address the racism issue if and when the poster you are replying to has brought it up.

Th0r S1mpson
09-27-11, 04:42 PM
Let's talk about racism.

Groucho
09-27-11, 04:58 PM
Let's talk about racism.Anybody who doesn't support Cain is racist. Including Obama supporters, because Cain has darker skin!

Superboy
09-27-11, 05:21 PM
Anybody who doesn't support Cain is racist. Including Obama supporters, because Cain has darker skin!

after sampling milk chocolate, America is definitely ready for dark chocolate.

Navinabob
09-27-11, 05:24 PM
A very small part. Much, much smaller if you count only the people who would have supported a Democrat but for the fact Obama is black. If racist would never have supported him, regardless of race, is the opposition actually racist?

Now, how many people would have voted for another candidate if not for the fact Obama is Black? I know of three personally who have never voted for any non-conservative until this last election.

Technically speaking, you are falling victim a likely mix of confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence. If it was him being a black man that propelled him to the presidency then any of the previous black presidential candidate's would have likely been similarly rocketed to the top.

Research on racial bias actually hurts Obama since it was a secret ballot voting method. People are typically more biased with anonymity, less so verbally. If voting was done verbally and in front of witnesses, your theory would hold up as people are more likely to obey social pressure to not appear racist.

As an example, below is the percent of people who said in exit polls that they voted to Obama. Note how most exit compare to actual numbers:

States Exit / Actual
Florida: 52 percent / 51 percent
Iowa: 52 percent / 52 percent
Missouri: 52 percent / 49 percent
North Carolina: 52 percent / 49 percent
New Hampshire: 57 percent / 50 percent
Nevada: 55 percent / 55 percent
Pennsylvania: 57 percent / 57 percent
Ohio: 54 percent / 55 percent
Wisconsin: 58 percent / 56 percent
Indiana: 52 percent / 50 percent
New Mexico: 56 percent / 57 percent
Minnesota: 60 percent / 60 percent
Michigan: 60 percent / 57 percent

Quickie math: Democrat states reported typically more verbal votes for Obama then actually voted for him. Again, most research shows that people are inwardly more biased against race then they publicly admit. In Republican states I expect things were worse, but I don't have exit poll data from red states (or most other states). If anyone finds a full state list we can see what trend we get there....

Of course, this is also ignoring the fact that most people cited Obama's younger age being a factor rather then his race in picking him over McCain.

Groucho
09-27-11, 05:27 PM
People could overly report their votes for Obama for reasons other than racism. Like if you're standing right next to granny, a lifelong Democrat, and don't want to give her a heart attack when she learns her grandson is a Republican.

Jason
09-27-11, 05:34 PM
Aren't most of those numbers within the usual +/- margin of error for polling? Since they can't ask every single voter who they voted for, it's not going to match up perfectly. Four out of the 13 were right on the money, 2 actually underreported Obama votes, and the others (with the exception of NH) were pretty close. I don't see what the problem is here.

wmansir
09-27-11, 06:03 PM
If I recall correctly Kerry performed better in the exit polls vs actuals, even though most were within the MoE. I recall because the left said it was indicative of widespread voter fruad while the right said it was because of media bias in conducting the polls (or outright fraud in order to suppress GOP voter turnout).

I read a couple of possible explanations. One being that GOP voters were more likely to refuse to participate in exit polling, aka old crabby old people. Another was that the pollsters are generally younger and so some respondents may have told them what they assumed the pollster wanted to hear.

Navinabob
09-27-11, 06:08 PM
Aren't most of those numbers within the usual +/- margin of error for polling? Since they can't ask every single voter who they voted for, it's not going to match up perfectly. Four out of the 13 were right on the money, 2 actually underreported Obama votes, and the others (with the exception of NH) were pretty close. I don't see what the problem is here.

True, there is a +/-. Statistically, it should fall about even (also those were states most likely to vote for Obama). When it doesn't you can compare it to similar race studies and see if it matches other observed trends in similar situations.

If you ask someone to sort resumes that sound good or bad at first glance, and toss the rejects in boxes that you are told everyone else tosses papers in (actors tossing in blank resumes) you will find more black applicants (Africanized sounding names or pictures) tossed in the reject box rather then if they had to initial each resume and turn them in by hand.

Anonymously we are more likely to show racial bias then when we have to look at another person.

DeputyDave
09-27-11, 06:18 PM
Regardless, Obama's election nulifies any argument eitherway.

Groucho
09-27-11, 06:24 PM
Regardless, Obama's election nulifies any argument eitherway.Or does it? There's a very vocal group of Democrats who are to this day screaming that Obama stole the 2008 primary election.

TheBigDave
09-27-11, 06:47 PM
Bad Lip Reading with Rick Perry:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BhDhDRvHaGs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhDhDRvHaGs

:lol:

Th0r S1mpson
09-27-11, 07:01 PM
What? :lol:

Navinabob
09-27-11, 07:05 PM
Regardless, Obama's election nulifies any argument eitherway.

Not really. It makes his victory a little bit more impressive, and statistically means a certain number of people who you'd speak with who said they voted for Obama likely didn't do so. You'd have to extrapolate a bit to get those numbers... but they exist.

The argument that people only voted for him because he was black was nullified previously.

Artman
09-27-11, 09:47 PM
The argument that people only voted for him because he was black was nullified previously.

That was definitely part of my decision to vote for him.

JasonF
09-27-11, 09:51 PM
That was definitely part of my decision to vote for him.

Who would you have voted for had the Democratic nominee been a white politician with the same positions and views as Barrack Obama?

dork
09-27-11, 09:53 PM
Wow, you know things are bad for Obama when JasonF forgets how to spell his name.

JasonF
09-27-11, 09:58 PM
Wow, you know things are bad for Obama when JasonF forgets how to spell his name.

The extra R is for extra racism.

dork
09-27-11, 10:02 PM
By the way, when 45% of Republicans think Obama is lying about where he was born and over 30% think he's lying about being a Muslim and prominent GOP leaders are too afraid of losing their support to say anything that contradicts those beliefs, that has nothing to do with race. It's just a policy difference, and I'm really tired of all the baseless scapegoating.

Groucho
09-27-11, 10:14 PM
Who would you have voted for had the Democratic nominee been a white politician with the same positions and views as Barrack Obama?http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/3846/1830841318308417large.jpg

Artman
09-28-11, 01:21 AM
Who would you have voted for had the Democratic nominee been a white politician with the same positions and views as Barrack Obama?

See, it wasn't necessarily the positions... on paper I agreed more with the other side. I guess you could say it was a sympathy vote. Never again will I give any consideration to skin color or ethnicity.

He doesn't need my vote in my particular state of course, but I'm wiling to bet there's more than a few of me out there in the swing states. Not lookin good for the prez is it?

classicman2
09-28-11, 07:44 AM
Would you withhold your vote from anyone who is somewhat rotund? ;)

Red Dog
09-28-11, 08:53 AM
I can't believe that some people think there were no people who voted for Obama simply to be part of history. His positions were typical Democrat stock positions. Yet nearly 10M more people turned out than in '04. And that's just the general.

I'm still flabbergasted that some people believe if Obama were white with the same resume, he would have ascended so quickly. Boggles the mind.

orangecrush
09-28-11, 08:59 AM
By the way, when 45% of Republicans think Obama is lying about where he was born and over 30% think he's lying about being a Muslim and prominent GOP leaders are too afraid of losing their support to say anything that contradicts those beliefs, that has nothing to do with race. It's just a policy difference, and I'm really tired of all the baseless scapegoating.I still find those numbers incredibly hard to believe. There are around 55 million registered Republicans. How can nearly 25 million adults actually believe that garbage?

Save Ferris
09-28-11, 10:32 AM
I still find those numbers incredibly hard to believe. There are around 55 million registered Republicans. How can nearly 25 million adults actually believe that garbage?

I can believe frustrated people giving bullshit answers on the phone to annoying pollsters asking about the president while they're jobless at home watching TV.

kvrdave
09-28-11, 11:01 AM
By the way, when 45% of Republicans think Obama is lying about where he was born and over 30% think he's lying about being a Muslim and prominent GOP leaders are too afraid of losing their support to say anything that contradicts those beliefs, that has nothing to do with race. It's just a policy difference, and I'm really tired of all the baseless scapegoating.

I love it. Especially since it is about a Kenyan born muslim terrorist.

Navinabob
09-28-11, 12:33 PM
I still find those numbers incredibly hard to believe. There are around 55 million registered Republicans. How can nearly 25 million adults actually believe that garbage?

You obviously give the US population far too much credit. Between 60-68% of Republicans do not believe in evolution, 44% of the US believed that the earth is under 10,000 old and that Adam & Eve is a true story, as does 40-60% of Republicans (depending on how you define a young-earth creationist). Today, 20% of the US thinks the sun circles the earth. We are a nation comprised of mainly idiots... unfortunately, several of them have learned to vote.

General Zod
09-28-11, 12:40 PM
Remember 92.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

sracer
09-28-11, 01:08 PM
You obviously give the US population far too much credit. Between 60-68% of Republicans do not believe in evolution, 44% of the US believed that the earth is under 10,000 old and that Adam & Eve is a true story, as does 40-60% of Republicans (depending on how you define a young-earth creationist). Today, 20% of the US thinks the sun circles the earth. We are a nation comprised of mainly idiots... unfortunately, several of them have learned to vote.
According to an article on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html), a Gallup poll reported:

With regards to political affiliation, a majority of Republicans (52 percent) subscribe to creationist beliefs. This is compared to only 34 percent among Democrats and Independents.

So although you focus on Republicans, over 1/3 of those enlightened Democrats and Independents believe in creationism.

What was your reasoning for including the stat about how many think the sun circles the earth?

Pharoh
09-28-11, 01:10 PM
You obviously give the US population far too much credit. Between 60-68% of Republicans do not believe in evolution, 44% of the US believed that the earth is under 10,000 old and that Adam & Eve is a true story, as does 40-60% of Republicans (depending on how you define a young-earth creationist). Today, 20% of the US thinks the sun circles the earth. We are a nation comprised of mainly idiots... unfortunately, several of them have learned to vote.

Since you are so much better with studies and numbers, could you please point me to where 40% of Americans believe the earth itself is less than 10k yrs. old?

Perhaps I am worse than I thought, (or lazier), or I just really don't understand what you meant.



Also, you do realise that most semi-reasonable people who speak about President Obama's election having to do with race aren't simply referring to people voting on that November Tuesday, don't you?

Navinabob
09-28-11, 01:35 PM
I can believe frustrated people giving bullshit answers on the phone to annoying pollsters asking about the president while they're jobless at home watching TV.

I'm not sure that logic follows. By what theory would people give those particular answers while at home & jobless? I can understand inflating unsatisfaction and president job performance, but nationality? I stands to reason that most people would just hang up the phone...

I don't know, so you could very well be correct... but it just does not have the ring of truth to me. Especially if you have ever read the old threads here where we had many typically intelligence people openly question his birthplace (and a few who stubbornly still do). Plus, we posted many links to articles of politicians and pundits who openly questioned felt the same way. Trump shot up to giant numbers by questioning the president. It appears you are justifying those embarrassing numbers by giving an "ad hoc" rationalization.

Navinabob
09-28-11, 01:42 PM
According to an article on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html), a Gallup poll reported:

With regards to political affiliation, a majority of Republicans (52 percent) subscribe to creationist beliefs. This is compared to only 34 percent among Democrats and Independents.

So although you focus on Republicans, over 1/3 of those enlightened Democrats and Independents believe in creationism.

What was your reasoning for including the stat about how many think the sun circles the earth?

Re-read my post. I noted both Republican and general US numbers. I didn't focus on Democrats or Independents because the post I was addressing was based solely on Republicans answering a survey. And I just used the sun/earth figure to show that we have millions and millions of idiots in this country. I'm typically not surprised by people's ignorance.

http://www.nutritionresearchcenter.org/healthnews/twenty-percent-of-americans-think-sun-revolves-around-earth/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?pagewanted=all

Th0r S1mpson
09-28-11, 01:43 PM
For what it's worth, I think Trump was just bored too. I don't think he actually had a doubt about Obama's birthplace.

Navinabob
09-28-11, 01:50 PM
Since you are so much better with studies and numbers, could you please point me to where 40% of Americans believe the earth itself is less than 10k yrs. old?

Perhaps I am worse than I thought, (or lazier), or I just really don't understand what you meant.

Also, you do realise that most semi-reasonable people who speak about President Obama's election having to do with race aren't simply referring to people voting on that November Tuesday, don't you?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.

It appears I was a bit off or the last study I read had different numbers... it is 52% of Republicans (not in the 60s%) think the earth is 10,000 years old.

And I don't get your last question. Can you re-state please?

dork
09-28-11, 01:54 PM
He's saying Obama's race benefited him in the primaries, which seems a fairly uncontroversial point. (Probably most people would even agree that it was a net benefit.)

Save Ferris
09-28-11, 02:00 PM
I'm not sure that logic follows. By what theory would people give those particular answers while at home & jobless? I can understand inflating unsatisfaction and president job performance, but nationality? I stands to reason that most people would just hang up the phone...

If all they're asking is if these negative things are true, and not doing a straightforward job approval poll, theres no way to express a negative feeling.

Its asking people to choose between supporting him verbally or agreeing with a rumor to a pollster. Some people just cant spit out a compliment to this guy even if it's true. So they get a chuckle and say yeah hes a Kenyan.

Pharoh
09-28-11, 02:05 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.

It appears I was a bit off or the last study I read had different numbers... it is 52% of Republicans (not in the 60s%) think the earth is 10,000 years old.

And I don't get your last question. Can you re-state please?

Since Gallup has been using that poll for years, I am sure everybody has seen those results.

So I will ask again, do you have a link to something credible stating 40% of Americans believe the earth itself is less than 10k years old? The Gallup poll does not.

Pharoh
09-28-11, 02:06 PM
He's saying Obama's race benefited him in the primaries, which seems a fairly uncontroversial point. (Probably most people would even agree that it was a net benefit.)

This. There is also the point brought up earlier by Red Dog about race playing a critical factor is President Obama originally being "selected" by Democratic party movers and shakers.


Personally, I have no idea.

Red Dog
09-28-11, 02:07 PM
He's saying Obama's race benefited him in the primaries, which seems a fairly uncontroversial point. (Probably most people would even agree that it was a net benefit.)

You apparently haven't seen the arguments I've had over that point in this forum. Some people got irate when I said that but for Obama's race, he would have not made it to the presidency. I think people took it as a slap in the face to Obama, but it's merely the reality that his meteoric rise was driven by the media, something that I don't believe happens if he's white.

Navinabob
09-28-11, 02:22 PM
Since Gallup has been using that poll for years, I am sure everybody has seen those results.

So I will ask again, do you have a link to something credible stating 40% of Americans believe the earth itself is less than 10k years old? The Gallup poll does not.

The poll appears to be updated yearly (as seen in the article). I'm confused by the statement that they have been using the same poll for years.

Regardless, there are several different polls that attest to the same, or at least similar +/-10%, numbers.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

Because the questions are worded differently, some use God and some don't, there is some variation. Harris has numbers that are a bit higher, Pew has numbers that are a bit lower. If you are looking for a giant census where everyone is asked, and everyone gets the same question, and everyone is honest, you will not find one. It is the nature of polling and one of it's limitations... should I have offered a brief primer on the survey-research method? Or are you just saying that the Gallup poll system is flawed in some way other then whatever inherent weakness all surveys share?

Th0r S1mpson
09-28-11, 02:23 PM
If Obama was white, his father would have been white. And he probably never would have hooked up with Obama's mom, so Obama would have never been born. Unless there is a queue of mixed-race souls and he would have been born to another father. But then Dreams from My Father could have been very different and might not have sold well if his father had lousy dreams. What if Martin Luther King Jr was also white though, and Lincoln was black? Then it might have worked out for Barack any way, and instead of being the first black president he could have been the first white president who does a good black Lincoln impersonation.

X
09-28-11, 02:28 PM
Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago.Do they believe God created humans the same time the world was created?

Pharoh
09-28-11, 02:32 PM
The poll appears to be updated yearly (as seen in the article). I'm confused by the statement that they have been using the same poll for years.

Regardless, there are several different polls that attest to the same, or at least similar +/-10%, numbers.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

Because the questions are worded differently, some use God and some don't, there is some variation. Harris has numbers that are a bit higher, Pew has numbers that are a bit lower. If you are looking for a giant census where everyone is asked, and everyone gets the same question, and everyone is honest, you will not find one. It is the nature of polling and one of it's limitations... should I have offered a brief primer on the survey-research method? Or are you just saying that the Gallup poll system is flawed in some way other then whatever inherent weakness all surveys share?

No, I am saying two things:

Saying that God created humans less than ten thousand years ago is not the same as saying the earth itself is less than ten thousand years old, despite one's bias in reading into the study. I thought this was fundamental, hence my previous follow up post.

Secondly, a great many people here are educated and know how to read, perhaps even structure and conduct, surveys. Many have advanced and post-graduate degrees. A few here even have the luxury of not working for a living. So I think you can stop with the lecturing and pretense that you alone possess enough knowledge.

Navinabob
09-28-11, 02:42 PM
You apparently haven't seen the arguments I've had over that point in this forum. Some people got irate when I said that but for Obama's race, he would have not made it to the presidency. I think people took it as a slap in the face to Obama, but it's merely the reality that his meteoric rise was driven by the media, something that I don't believe happens if he's white.

How that that premise explain the lack of support/success other black candidates have had? Or how they are underrepresented in politics by a giant margin (we've had 4 black governors in the United States, 4 black members of senate since the 60s). I don't deny that there was a certain percentage of people who voted for him based partly on his race... but then you also need to look at apathy towards him because he was black (or voted for McCain because he was the white candidate).

Poll: Many white Democrats hold racist views

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1120611&srvc=2008campaign&position=2

orangecrush
09-28-11, 02:42 PM
You obviously give the US population far too much credit. Between 60-68% of Republicans do not believe in evolution, 44% of the US believed that the earth is under 10,000 old and that Adam & Eve is a true story, as does 40-60% of Republicans (depending on how you define a young-earth creationist). Today, 20% of the US thinks the sun circles the earth. We are a nation comprised of mainly idiots... unfortunately, several of them have learned to vote.I can see a high % of young earth creationists (though those numbers do seem kind of high) and a large % believing the bible is literally true, but 20% of the US really believes the sun circles the earth? That is nuts. That is, unless 20% of the US population dropped out of school at the age of 8 or we are counting toddlers in those numbers.

Red Dog
09-28-11, 02:52 PM
How that that premise explain the lack of support/success other black candidates have had? Or how they are underrepresented in politics by a giant margin (we've had 4 black governors in the United States, 4 black members of senate since the 60s). I don't deny that there was a certain percentage of people who voted for him based partly on his race... but then you also need to look at apathy towards him because he was black (or voted for McCain because he was the white candidate).

Poll: Many white Democrats hold racist views

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1120611&srvc=2008campaign&position=2

The national media isn't going to go gaga over people running for governor or Senator because the vast majority of people aren't going to care. I don't remember the media going gaga when Obama ran for Senate.

As for comparisons to other blacks who ran for President, who are we talking about? Jesse Jackson, who was basically a bomb-thrower when it came to race (and still is)? He alienated a great many people. Obama was nothing like Jesse Jackson in that regard. Also, I believe the US changed greatly in the 24 years between the 2.

I'm sure there were people who voted for McCain simply because he was the white guy.

Like Pharoh said, my premise is more focused on the primaries and prior. But as I said before, given how much the general election total vote increased from 2004 to 2008, I can't help but believe that Obama enjoyed some support from those who simply wanted to be on a history-making bandwagon.

TheBigDave
09-28-11, 02:59 PM
How that that premise explain the lack of support/success other black candidates have had?

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." - Joe Biden

Red Dog
09-28-11, 03:02 PM
I forgot about that classic Old Joe quote. :lol::thumbsup:

CRM114
09-28-11, 03:03 PM
I can't believe that some people think there were no people who voted for Obama simply to be part of history. His positions were typical Democrat stock positions. Yet nearly 10M more people turned out than in '04. And that's just the general.

I'm still flabbergasted that some people believe if Obama were white with the same resume, he would have ascended so quickly. Boggles the mind.

Youth and charisma. Look at Bill Clinton. He was governor of a state that's a pimple on the ass of the country. Like anyone knew who he was. Youth and charisma - the two things the Repubs never seem to have. :lol:

Ky-Fi
09-28-11, 03:04 PM
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." - Joe Biden

I still love Al Sharpton's response when asked about Biden's statement:

"Hey, I take a bath every day." :lol:

Navinabob
09-28-11, 03:06 PM
No, I am saying two things:

Saying that God created humans less than ten thousand years ago is not the same as saying the earth itself is less than ten thousand years old, despite one's bias in reading into the study. I thought this was fundamental, hence my previous follow up post.

Secondly, a great many people here are educated and know how to read, perhaps even structure and conduct, surveys. Many have advanced and post-graduate degrees. A few here even have the luxury of not working for a living. So I think you can stop with the lecturing and pretense that you alone possess enough knowledge.

So to be clear, you're question is on the semantics/variance of the the view of young earth-style creationists? Many of the studies clearly spell things out as "biblical account" which has them planted here on the 6th day. Depending on how literally creationists spell out the age of the earth depends on how literally they do the math on genealogy (roughly 5 to 10 thousand years).

And I wasn't saying that I, alone, possess this knowledge or how to do a study or I would have spelled things out that way initially. Instead, I worked under the assumption that people both knew how research like surveys work, and had a working knowledge of creationism. My assumption is that we are a pretty sharp bunch, not the opposite.

CRM114
09-28-11, 03:06 PM
According to an article on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html), a Gallup poll reported:

With regards to political affiliation, a majority of Republicans (52 percent) subscribe to creationist beliefs. This is compared to only 34 percent among Democrats and Independents.

So although you focus on Republicans, over 1/3 of those enlightened Democrats and Independents believe in creationism.

What was your reasoning for including the stat about how many think the sun circles the earth?

Why do they group Democrats with Independents?

Red Dog
09-28-11, 03:12 PM
Youth and charisma. Look at Bill Clinton. He was governor of a state that's a pimple on the ass of the country. Like anyone knew who he was. Youth and charisma - the two things the Repubs never seem to have. :lol:
Everyone knows that Bill was the real first black President. ;)

Yeah. Republicans running for Prez have lacked youth and charisma. Speaks volumes about whom the Dems have offered up given the results of the elections over the last 50 years. ;)

CRM114
09-28-11, 03:16 PM
Everyone knows that Bill was the real first black President. ;)

Yeah. Republicans running for Prez have lacked youth and charisma. Speaks volumes about whom the Dems have offered up given the results of the elections over the last 50 years. ;)

Three extremely popular Presidents: Kennedy, Clinton, Obama.

Can't help most voters are codgy, old people.

Red Dog
09-28-11, 03:18 PM
Obama is an extremely popular President? Wow you really do have blinders.

Navinabob
09-28-11, 03:30 PM
The national media isn't going to go gaga over people running for governor or Senator because the vast majority of people aren't going to care. I don't remember the media going gaga when Obama ran for Senate.

As for comparisons to other blacks who ran for President, who are we talking about? Jesse Jackson, who was basically a bomb-thrower when it came to race (and still is)? He alienated a great many people. Obama was nothing like Jesse Jackson in that regard. Also, I believe the US changed greatly in the 24 years between the 2.

I'm sure there were people who voted for McCain simply because he was the white guy.

Like Pharoh said, my premise is more focused on the primaries and prior. But as I said before, given how much the general election total vote increased from 2004 to 2008, I can't help but believe that Obama enjoyed some support from those who simply wanted to be on a history-making bandwagon.

That is a good point and one I don't disagree with. I'm sure the way he was marketed helped him greatly. He stuck a cord with a lot of college kids. I'm just unsure of the total net gain/loss (could be either way). With his name sounding Muslim (and how FOX loved to say his middle name) and questions surrounding his faith and nationality, I have a hard time judging how good his odds were. He had a lot of things working against him. Since a lot of polls indicated that McCain's age was such a huge factor, I wonder if Obama would have beaten a guy 20 years younger. Did people go out and vote for Obama just to keep Palin out?

I think there were a lot more factors at play then is being stated.

wendersfan
09-28-11, 03:30 PM
Obama is an extremely popular President? Wow you really do have blinders.Obama's highest approval rating was 76%, his lowest, 41%. Compare to Clinton's, with 73% and 36%, respectively. If you think Clinton to have been popular I think you have to consider the same for Obama.

Subject to change.

Navinabob
09-28-11, 03:35 PM
Do they believe God created humans the same time the world was created?

On the 6th day. The christian church I went to for awhile had pamphlets for the kids complete with Jesus on a dinosaur.

Th0r S1mpson
09-28-11, 03:38 PM
And Bush peaked at close to 90%. Yay.

To say that Obama is a popular President, I don't think you can look at his ratings before Recovery Summer saved us all.

wishbone
09-28-11, 03:38 PM
However, among the younger voters surveyed, that enthusiasm apparently has waned somewhat, with 61% of those under 30 saying the president brings a new approach to politics, down from 73% in February.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-obama-polls24-2009apr24,0,3201069,print.story

A bit of a drop only after a few months for those most likely to buy into "hope and change." President Obama has enjoyed high approval ratings but now the numbers are bit more realistic.

Red Dog
09-28-11, 03:41 PM
Obama's highest approval rating was 76%, his lowest, 41%. Compare to Clinton's, with 73% and 36%, respectively. If you think Clinton to have been popular I think you have to consider the same for Obama.

Subject to change.

You may think I have to. I don't. ;)

Red Dog
09-28-11, 03:47 PM
That is a good point and one I don't disagree with. I'm sure the way he was marketed helped him greatly. He stuck a cord with a lot of college kids. I'm just unsure of the total net gain/loss (could be either way). With his name sounding Muslim (and how FOX loved to say his middle name) and questions surrounding his faith and nationality, I have a hard time judging how good his odds were. He had a lot of things working against him. Since a lot of polls indicated that McCain's age was such a huge factor, I wonder if Obama would have beaten a guy 20 years younger. Did people go out and vote for Obama just to keep Palin out?

I think there were a lot more factors at play then is being stated.

It was a perfect storm for Obama in '08 given the state of the GOP. I think any Democrat with a pulse would have beaten McCain given the prevailing winds at the time. But I'll give credit to Obama for winning handily (and picking up states that Dems hadn't come close to touching in years). I think he won some states that Hillary would not have won (such as my own - Virginia).

Pharoh
09-28-11, 03:59 PM
So to be clear, you're question is on the semantics/variance of the the view of young earth-style creationists? Many of the studies clearly spell things out as "biblical account" which has them planted here on the 6th day. Depending on how literally creationists spell out the age of the earth depends on how literally they do the math on genealogy (roughly 5 to 10 thousand years).

So you are making assumption about the respondents, incorrectly I believe, based on your personal experience and bias. Based on my experiences and bias, I believe it far more likely that more people than not who believe humans came into existence within the last ten thousand years also believe that the earth is older. The "evidence" supports neither of our assumptions. It isn't a matter of semantics.

And I wasn't saying that I, alone, possess this knowledge or how to do a study or I would have spelled things out that way initially. Instead, I worked under the assumption that people both knew how research like surveys work, and had a working knowledge of creationism. My assumption is that we are a pretty sharp bunch, not the opposite.

This is good, but then please stop trying to remind everybody all the time.

TheBigDave
09-28-11, 04:03 PM
With his name sounding Muslim (and how FOX loved to say his middle name)

I don't remember this happening on Fox News. I'm sure some pundits here and there have mentioned it, but that happened on all channels.

Pharoh
09-28-11, 04:09 PM
How that that premise explain the lack of support/success other black candidates have had? Or how they are underrepresented in politics by a giant margin (we've had 4 black governors in the United States, 4 black members of senate since the 60s). I don't deny that there was a certain percentage of people who voted for him based partly on his race... but then you also need to look at apathy towards him because he was black (or voted for McCain because he was the white candidate).

Poll: Many white Democrats hold racist views

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1120611&srvc=2008campaign&position=2

Remember that I initially stated that those at least semi-reasonable people hold race as an important factor in President Obama's election but that it was just one factor. Obviously other factors, including perceived electability, needed to be present as well.

It is also pointless to look at past races. There of course isn't enough data to make any interpretations, and even if there were it wouldn't matter; things change too much and there is too many unknowns.

To me the two questions on this issue are:
1. Would President Obama be asked to deliver the keynote address at the convention if he were white and running for a Senate seat in a state where victory was virtually assured?
2. How does one explain the change of support among black voters for Mrs. Clinton once Mr. Obama proved himself a viable candidate?


I feel that number one is the bigger issue since it was his launching pad. I feel he was a better campaigner and fund raiser than Mrs. Clinton and likely would have overtaken her regardless. Just my opinion though.

Navinabob
09-28-11, 05:17 PM
So you are making assumption about the respondents, incorrectly I believe, based on your personal experience and bias. Based on my experiences and bias, I believe it far more likely that more people than not who believe humans came into existence within the last ten thousand years also believe that the earth is older. The "evidence" supports neither of our assumptions. It isn't a matter of semantics.

This is good, but then please stop trying to remind everybody all the time.

I wasn't working off assumptions, but on data of key wording like "Exactly As Bible Describes" in questions. The view you are discussing is something closer to Intelligent Design (Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process), not one that is typically stated... Your view that most people feel that the earth is old, but people are recent is called "progressive creationism" and is typically shunned by both creationists and IDers as a bastard offspring.

If you want to look up associated concepts I advise you to look up Gap Theory, Theistic Evolutionists, and Day-Age theory. Progressive Creationism basically states that both plants and animals have been here about as long as science says, but that "people" didn't evolve from anything but put here by God a few thousand years ago (note: errors found in that summary are to keep the concept simple, I can argue fine points later). You sound like you are talking about the sub-set called Day-Age Creationism; that is where we had five "ages" called "days" in the bible and humans came at the last age/day so you get old earth and new people.

You would think that ID would be more popular then YEC views, but statistically it isn't by a wide margin. The fringe idea you are talking about typically is a small amount compared to either. Was this a concept you came up with because it is your personal faith, or was it an assumption that most people try and reconcile both religion and science together? Or have you studied creationism subsets and you incorrectly mixed up concepts? Regardless, Progressive Creationism falls under "other" and typically only has a fractional following even if you lump all the subsets together (although proponents say that they are growing... but no numbers exist).

Navinabob
09-28-11, 06:00 PM
I don't remember this happening on Fox News. I'm sure some pundits here and there have mentioned it, but that happened on all channels.

For awhile it was pretty big news as I recall. No clue on if every network did it evenly, I just recall FOX getting backlash for it. Looking at links it appears it was mostly pundits and shock-jock, but it was an old tactic that was used before against Obama.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/02/middle-name-cal.html

Even Palin and McCain distanced themselves from it:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/10/who-is-the-real/

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1718255,00.html

I'm not married to the idea that it was giant FOX conspiracy, I mostly said it off the cuff, I didn't see anyone chime in that "everyone said it" but I didn't really look that hard for it so I would not be surprised if you were 100% correct.

Pharoh
09-28-11, 06:31 PM
I wasn't working off assumptions, but on data of key wording like "Exactly As Bible Describes" in questions. The view you are discussing is something closer to Intelligent Design (Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process), not one that is typically stated... Your view that most people feel that the earth is old, but people are recent is called "progressive creationism" and is typically shunned by both creationists and IDers as a bastard offspring.

If you want to look up associated concepts I advise you to look up Gap Theory, Theistic Evolutionists, and Day-Age theory. Progressive Creationism basically states that both plants and animals have been here about as long as science says, but that "people" didn't evolve from anything but put here by God a few thousand years ago (note: errors found in that summary are to keep the concept simple, I can argue fine points later). You sound like you are talking about the sub-set called Day-Age Creationism; that is where we had five "ages" called "days" in the bible and humans came at the last age/day so you get old earth and new people.

You would think that ID would be more popular then YEC views, but statistically it isn't by a wide margin. The fringe idea you are talking about typically is a small amount compared to either. Was this a concept you came up with because it is your personal faith, or was it an assumption that most people try and reconcile both religion and science together? Or have you studied creationism subsets and you incorrectly mixed up concepts? Regardless, Progressive Creationism falls under "other" and typically only has a fractional following even if you lump all the subsets together (although proponents say that they are growing... but no numbers exist).

:lol:

I'll give up, but I kindly don't need you to advise me on any reading. (For a variety of reasons). I would only point out that the Gallup poll has no wording about the bible whatsoever.

wendersfan
09-28-11, 10:17 PM
I feel that number one is the bigger issue since it was his launching pad. I feel he was a better campaigner and fund raiser than Mrs. Clinton and likely would have overtaken her regardless. Just my opinion though.
It's not just your opinion.

I've long ago provided my explanation for why I think Obama won the nomination, so I won't repeat it here. But suffice to say, I think race was a factor, but not in the way most here think it was.

dork
09-28-11, 10:33 PM
Well, let's not forget that Clinton started out with the left pretty much hating her guts (kind of like Romney and the right in this cycle), whereas Obama may have been viewed as inexperienced but did not have many Democratic constituencies predisposed against him.

JasonF
09-28-11, 11:04 PM
Hillary Clinton's major problem was the fact that she refused to back away from her support for the Iraq AUMF.

kvrdave
09-28-11, 11:12 PM
Hillary Clinton's major problem was the fact that she refused to back away from her support for the Iraq AUMF.

True. I suspect that if she had won, we'd actually still be over there. Thank goodness we got Obama instead. :)

Artman
09-28-11, 11:54 PM
On the 6th day. The christian church I went to for awhile had pamphlets for the kids complete with Jesus on a dinosaur.

Well than that settles it! Look, I'm sorry you didn't have a good church experience growing up, I wouldn't have changed mine for anything, I was fortunate I guess.

But do you realize you're sounding as small and ineffectual as Obama?

Navinabob
09-29-11, 04:26 AM
:lol:

I'll give up, but I kindly don't need you to advise me on any reading. (For a variety of reasons). I would only point out that the Gallup poll has no wording about the bible whatsoever.

Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced
forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

:lol: I love how your point keeps changing after each answer as you are forced to move the goal post over and over again until you now need the word "bible" in the poll. Are you seriously now claiming that the poll most any American clearly would identify as a creationist/evolutionary question wasn't about the bible? After you asked for additional evidence (which I provided by showing several other similar polls) you are now jumping backwards to the Gallup poll again? I'm sorry that your bastardized Progressive Creationism isn't as popular as you think it was... facts often do that sort of thing.

I'm sorry I took you seriously and shook off the snide remarks as long as I did. Whenever you are done moving the goal-post, the lateral leaps in arguments, and the ad hom attacks I'll gladly address your points. Until then, on this topic, you are just a endless stream of logical fallacies.

Navinabob
09-29-11, 05:00 AM
Well than that settles it! Look, I'm sorry you didn't have a good church experience growing up, I wouldn't have changed mine for anything, I was fortunate I guess.

But do you realize you're sounding as small and ineffectual as Obama?

That was mighty Christian of you.

I enjoyed my church experiences growing up. I spent 20 years as a Roman Catholic (every Sunday), then time at two universal Christian Churches (the Jesus dinosaur pamphlet came from a tiny church near Troy, Montana) off and on for a few years after.

I love most everyone I ever had a strong contact with there and I wouldn't trade those memories for anything. I may not care for the way the Vatican dealt with priests touching kids or some christian groups pushing for creationism in science classes, but that is about it. Treated as allegory, I still think the bible can be beautiful.

If anyone still questions the fact that a certain percentage of Americans believe in Creationism and Intelligent Design I'll gladly provide more data or clarify wild misconceptions here. But if anyone wants to attack what they perceive my faith is (I'm not an Atheist btw), or my character, there is an active Atheist/Agnostic thread in "other talk" where that debate probably belongs.

Red Dog
09-29-11, 08:09 AM
Hillary Clinton's major problem was the fact that she refused to back away from her support for the Iraq AUMF.

That Obama didn't have to vote on it and have something on the record was the main difference IMO. That was his trump card. A lot of good that does us now.

CRM114
09-29-11, 08:12 AM
Obama is an extremely popular President? Wow you really do have blinders.

Who really has the blinders on?

CRM114
09-29-11, 08:17 AM
True. I suspect that if she had won, we'd actually still be over there. Thank goodness we got Obama instead. :)

Why do you continually act as if the withdrawal isn't happening as we speak?

JasonF
09-29-11, 08:18 AM
That Obama didn't have to vote on it and have something on the record was the main difference IMO.

Doubtful -- Obama was an early and consistent opponent of the Iraq War, and there is absolutely no reason to think he wouldn't have voted against it.

Red Dog
09-29-11, 08:28 AM
People tend to behave much differently when they get elected to office or when they get elected to higher office. Given what I've seen with Obama re: Iraq, Libya, etc.....

Groucho
09-29-11, 08:30 AM
Why do you continually act as if the withdrawal isn't happening as we speak?That's what she said!

classicman2
09-29-11, 08:45 AM
It's 'acceptable' to have a different view about war when you're one of a hundred - than when you're the CIC of the armed forces - "the buck stops here."

CRM114
09-29-11, 08:45 AM
People tend to behave much differently when they get elected to office or when they get elected to higher office. Given what I've seen with Obama re: Iraq, Libya, etc.....

So when you re: Iraq you are referring to the withdrawal? wha?

Red Dog
09-29-11, 08:51 AM
What withdrawl? Wha? What are the numbers now compared to Jan '09?

Red Dog
09-29-11, 08:52 AM
What was Obama's position on the Patriot Act in October 2004?

classicman2
09-29-11, 09:03 AM
He's changed (a little) on his view of the Patriot Act. He still supports portions of it.

CRM114
09-29-11, 09:08 AM
What withdrawl? Wha? What are the numbers now compared to Jan '09?

You really do have anti-Obama blinders on.

No troop decisions as Iraq withdrawal begins
By Donna Cassata and Robert Burns - The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Sep 7, 2011 14:00:08 EDT
WASHINGTON — The scheduled withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is on track, a Pentagon official said Wednesday, but the Obama administration has yet to decide how many troops might stay there on a revised mission to help train Iraqi forces.

“The drawdown has begun,” Navy Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters. He referred to the departure from Iraq this week of about 700 members of a headquarters unit. Their departure marks the start of the withdrawal of the final 46,000 U.S. troops there.

Yet to be decided is the size and mission of any stay-behind contingent. The Iraqi government said last month that it is interested in negotiating the terms for a U.S. military group to continue training Iraqi forces beyond Dec. 31, when the last U.S. forces are to have departed under a 2008 agreement.

The administration is considering a number of options that could leave several thousand troops in Iraq to do training and possibly other missions.

Continued (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/09/ap-iraq-no-troop-decisions-as-withdrawal-begins-090711/)


Starting now, 1000 troops a day are leaving Iraq.

In Jauary 2009, there were nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq.

Red Dog
09-29-11, 09:11 AM
So it's just started. Great. Lets see it continue. Then I'll give him credit.

BTW, in October 2008, when did he promise to have us out by?

CRM114
09-29-11, 09:25 AM
There were 150,000 in January 2009. There are 46,000 now. He vowed to have us out by January 1, 2012 which seems pretty plausible given 1000 a day are currently leaving.

Red Dog
09-29-11, 09:30 AM
Assuming what you say is true (I really don't remember), score one for Change then. :thumbsup:

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-11, 09:32 AM
We'll be out of Iraq, I have little doubt about that. It will be nice to talk about a War instead of Wars. Afghanistan is going to be the tricky one. I expect a significant draw down there to be announced before the election as well. Obama knows people have long since grown tired of that mess.

classicman2
09-29-11, 09:39 AM
I agree that it's somewhat of a mess, but what happens if we leave Iraq and things gone to hell there?

Will Obama get the blame - or will it still be Bush who gets the blame?

Red Dog
09-29-11, 09:42 AM
Bush will get my blame.

Just like I blame Ike for the mess in Iran. ;)

wendersfan
09-29-11, 09:59 AM
So it's just started. Great. Lets see it continue. Then I'll give him credit.

BTW, in October 2008, when did he promise to have us out by?

I would hardly say it's "just started."

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/members/wendersfan-albums-graphs-n-stuff-picture876-trooplevels.png

classicman2
09-29-11, 10:11 AM
Bush will get my blame.

Just like I blame Ike for the mess in Iran. ;)

If only we hadn't facilitated the overthrow of the democratic government in Iran that brought the Shah to power, things (the whole region) probably would have been a lot different than it is today - probably a whole lot better.

The Cold War hysteria made the U.S. make a number of decisions that we later, should at least, regret.

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-11, 10:25 AM
I don't understand the confusion over the Iraq withdrawal. I guess people haven't been following it too closely. Or maybe they just got confused when Obama kept trying to pass off savings for a war that would no longer exist.

Red Dog
09-29-11, 10:30 AM
I don't understand the confusion over the Iraq withdrawal. I guess people haven't been following it too closely. Or maybe they just got confused when Obama kept trying to pass off savings for a war that would no longer exist.

A little of column A and a little from column B for me. I admit that Iraq has definitely been off my radar - I just knew that we still had a bunch of troops there. I was definitely surprised by the numbers posted by CRM. It wasn't blindness. It was ignorance. It happens from time to time for me. ;)

Navinabob
09-29-11, 10:45 AM
People tend to behave much differently when they get elected to office or when they get elected to higher office. Given what I've seen with Obama re: Iraq, Libya, etc.....

Up until you are sitting in office everything lives in a hypothetical world. It is easy to say how you feel about a war when it is just a concept in your head. I think sitting in the war room, getting access to real unfiltered intelligence, and having to coordinate with dozens of military personnel is the first time anyone can make an informed decision.

I think election promises are a bit like talking to a doctor. A doctor will tell you what their medical opinion is, what their plan is, and what they intend to do if they find a tumor. But, until they cut you open and look around really well, all bets are off and they might have to adjust once they are in there.

Red Dog
09-29-11, 11:00 AM
Up until you are sitting in office everything lives in a hypothetical world. It is easy to say how you feel about a war when it is just a concept in your head. I think sitting in the war room, getting access to real unfiltered intelligence, and having to coordinate with dozens of military personnel is the first time anyone can make an informed decision.

I think election promises are a bit like talking to a doctor. A doctor will tell you what their medical opinion is, what their plan is, and what they intend to do if they find a tumor. But, until they cut you open and look around really well, all bets are off and they might have to adjust once they are in there.

Obviously. It's why I tend to be distrustful of what political candidates say. But I also think that the political calculus (once in office) is as big, if not bigger, than the things you mention.

arminius
09-29-11, 11:07 AM
If only we hadn't facilitated the overthrow of the democratic government in Iran that brought the Shah to power, things (the whole region) probably would have been a lot different than it is today - probably a whole lot better.

The Cold War hysteria made the U.S. make a number of decisions that we later, should at least, regret.

Just blame England for the whole middle east mess, they pretty much built that area.

slop101
09-29-11, 11:10 AM
Why are we talking about Obama and troop withdraws in the Repub candidate thread?

Anyhoo, I think, on paper (certainly not on TV), Ron Paul seems about the most sane, consistent Republican candidate in the race thus far. Not that I agree with him, but at least you know what you're gonna get.

CRM114
09-29-11, 11:16 AM
Someone incapable of being President?

Red Dog
09-29-11, 11:17 AM
Why do you think Ron Paul is more sane and consistent than Gary Johnson?

kvrdave
09-29-11, 11:19 AM
I agree that it's somewhat of a mess, but what happens if we leave Iraq and things gone to hell there?

Will Obama get the blame - or will it still be Bush who gets the blame?

I would predict Obama will blame Bush. Going out on a limb as it doesn't matter what the subject is.

slop101
09-29-11, 11:42 AM
Someone incapable of being President?Well, I think he could be president, I just don't think he ever will.

CRM114
09-29-11, 01:08 PM
He would be completely ineffectual as his ideas would have a devastating impact on the nation and the Congress would never go for them. Even a Repub Congress.

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-11, 01:10 PM
He would be completely ineffectual as his ideas would have a devastating impact on the nation and the Congress would never go for them. Even a Repub Congress.

Enough about Obama, let's talk about this Ron Paul guy.

CRM114
09-29-11, 01:26 PM
You think it's bad now. Let Paul propose bills to eliminate the FDA and EPA and Social Security and Medicare. :lol:

Red Dog
09-29-11, 01:31 PM
Enough about Obama, let's talk about this Ron Paul guy.

That was what exactly came to my mind when I read his post.

kvrdave
09-29-11, 01:32 PM
He can propose it, but it wouldn't happen.

Which is good because when a drug goes through FDA testing and turns out to be bad, they take the blame, right?

We could get rid of the EPA and leave it to the states and be fine. And that would stimulate the economy.

Sean O'Hara
09-29-11, 01:36 PM
You think it's bad now. Let Paul propose bills to eliminate the FDA and EPA and Social Security and Medicare. :lol:

Paul can already do that as a congressman -- in fact, he'd lose that ability were he to be elected President and would have to rely on Congressional allies to introduce the legislation.

This is third grade civics.

Navinabob
09-29-11, 01:37 PM
Enough about Obama, let's talk about this Ron Paul guy.

If people have to "ask" others to discuss him then chances are he won't become President.

On that note... which Republican candidate would you say has the most charisma? Say what you want about Obama, but the guy can do a great job in front of the camera. I absolutely think the republicans need someone that doesn't come off awkward or stiff beside Obama.

CRM114
09-29-11, 01:38 PM
Paul can already do that as a congressman -- in fact, he'd lose that ability were he to be elected President and would have to rely on Congressional allies to introduce the legislation.

This is third grade civics.

Oh duh. So when people say "Obamacare" they are full of shit, just like I thought. Or blame Obama for his socialist and out of control spending - also, full of shit. I wonder if the Repubs and Libertarians saying these things attended third grade?

Red Dog
09-29-11, 01:39 PM
Most charisma? Herman Cain.

Red Dog
09-29-11, 01:42 PM
Oh duh. So when people say "Obamacare" they are full of shit, just like I thought.

I call it Obamacare because I don't feel like typing out or saying Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I guess I could say PPACA, but nobody would know WTF I'm talking about.

CRM114
09-29-11, 01:45 PM
But according to Repubs and libertarians and tea baggers, Obama personally penned all of the legislation passed. And when faced with a stalemate, the Repubs, libertarians, and tea baggers demand the President's bill. Why is there no bill???????? Where is the bill, Mr. President.

:lol: Obama Derangement Syndrome.

You could simply say healthcare reform, BTW.

Red Dog
09-29-11, 01:50 PM
'Reform' implies something positive.

I think it's hysterical that you're so hung up over a label that you feel is erroneous. Meanwhile, you can't help yourself but label every living being that doesn't share all your political views a 'conservative.'

CRM114
09-29-11, 01:52 PM
"Conservative" is a label?

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-11, 01:52 PM
Didn't Obama say, like 47 times times, "Pass this jobs bill."

Asking where the bill is seems like a good question, no?

Red Dog
09-29-11, 01:54 PM
"Conservative" is a label?

Sure, particularly the way you use it.

CRM114
09-29-11, 01:56 PM
So now we are back to the President writing legislation.

CRM114
09-29-11, 01:57 PM
Sure, particularly the way you use it.

:lol: That you support old, curmudgeons in the GOP over liberals? You got me.

Sean O'Hara
09-29-11, 01:59 PM
But according to Repubs and libertarians and tea baggers, Obama personally penned all of the legislation passed. And when faced with a stalemate, the Repubs, libertarians, and tea baggers demand the President's bill. Why is there no bill???????? Where is the bill, Mr. President.


He negotiated with his allies and opponents in Congress to come up with a bill that they would pass and he would sign. He did not submit a bill to Congress for passage because that is not within the power of the President, which is why it's silly to suggest that if Paul becomes President he'll be proposing crazy bills to Congress -- he can do that already, while as President he can do nothing but ask his allies to introduce the legislation he wants.

wendersfan
09-29-11, 02:08 PM
This is third grade civics.
There isn't much left of civics education in this country, which explains so many, many things.

kvrdave
09-29-11, 02:35 PM
But according to Repubs and libertarians and tea baggers, Obama personally penned all of the legislation passed. And when faced with a stalemate, the Repubs, libertarians, and tea baggers demand the President's bill. Why is there no bill???????? Where is the bill, Mr. President.

:lol: Obama Derangement Syndrome.

You could simply say healthcare reform, BTW.

:lol: yeah, wouldn't want to be jerks.

orangecrush
09-29-11, 02:36 PM
But according to Repubs and libertarians and tea baggers, Obama personally penned all of the legislation passed. And when faced with a stalemate, the Repubs, libertarians, and tea baggers demand the President's bill. Why is there no bill???????? Where is the bill, Mr. President.

:lol: Obama Derangement Syndrome.

You could simply say healthcare reform, BTW.Health Insurance reform? Sure. Healthcare reform? Not so much.

kvrdave
09-29-11, 02:40 PM
Yeah, and Obama didn't have anything to do with it. Congress simply took up the idea while Obama was wondering what was going on. :lol:

CRM114
09-29-11, 02:58 PM
He negotiated with his allies and opponents in Congress to come up with a bill that they would pass and he would sign. He did not submit a bill to Congress for passage because that is not within the power of the President, which is why it's silly to suggest that if Paul becomes President he'll be proposing crazy bills to Congress -- he can do that already, while as President he can do nothing but ask his allies to introduce the legislation he wants.

Oh so you have a problem with me using the word "bill" as opposed to "proposed legislation." Guilty as charged.

There isn't much left of civics education in this country, which explains so many, many things.

Does it explain how when the President is a Democrat, legislation is all his idea and his doing but if the President was Ron Paul, he'd be completely removed from the legislative process?

CRM114
09-29-11, 02:59 PM
Yeah, and Obama didn't have anything to do with it. Congress simply took up the idea while Obama was wondering what was going on. :lol:

No, no, the President has nothing to do with the legislative process.

wendersfan
09-29-11, 03:02 PM
No, no, the President has nothing to do with the legislative process.
http://www.metroid-database.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalm_smiley.png

CRM114
09-29-11, 03:07 PM
I suppose you are missing my sarcasm.

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-11, 03:12 PM
Sarcasm is hard to detect around here lately, since everyone seems to be more inclined to rhetorically share what the other side thinks instead of defending their own views.

Like how you seem to think that Obama inherited his ears from George Bush but still claim his father was black. Can't defend it, so instead point the finger at wacko right wingers who don't believe earspan is genetic.

Red Dog
09-29-11, 03:13 PM
http://www.metroid-database.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalm_smiley.png

That's an awesome smiley, and well-played. :lol:

CRM114
09-29-11, 03:16 PM
It would be well-played if the statement was not sarcasm. Actually, the facepalm goes to the two of you for not following the thread. :lol:

http://www.metroid-database.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalm_smiley.png

wendersfan
09-29-11, 03:40 PM
I suppose you are missing my sarcasm.
No, I didn't miss it at all.

slop101
09-29-11, 04:43 PM
No, I didn't miss it at all.Now that's good sarcasm!

General Zod
09-29-11, 06:53 PM
Now that's good sarcasm!

It would only be good-sarcasm if that statement wasn't in response to the sarcasm of the faceplant which was posted due to the terrible sarcasm in response to something that shouldn't have had a sarcastic response to begin with.

Just trying to make this easier for folks to follow along..

So Christie, for umpteenth time, said "NO" to his running for President and he kinda chuckled about how the media keeps saying he's changing his mind... and then the media has once again said he's changing his mind. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/christie_feels_the_urge_QYtocnZuH6ArN54eGisgyL

As much as I'd love to see it happen - It's not going to. Hopefully in 4 years after whatever clown gets in office or stays in office screws things up even more. At this point I've zero confidence in anybody but him.

WCChiCubsFan
09-29-11, 07:11 PM
The bigger question is: Will Americans vote for a morbidly obese person like Christie?

X
09-29-11, 08:05 PM
The bigger question is: Will Americans vote for a morbidly obese person like Christie?Isn't that pretty much the average American?

kvrdave
09-30-11, 12:53 AM
The bigger question is: Will Americans vote for a morbidly obese person like Christie?

We voted for a Muslim from Kenya. You really think we'll care too much about a fat guy?

But seriously, a decade ago and back to JFK, I'd say not a chance. But I didn't think NJ would vote for him either. They did, and that might be enough to get him over the hump. But I don't think he will run, personally.

slop101
09-30-11, 01:36 AM
Isn't that pretty much the average American?Yes, but it's not quite that simple. Even if they're fat, the average American will be on the side of skinny people, just like they're on the side of billionaires, because they truly believe they can still be one. :lol:

Sean O'Hara
09-30-11, 07:32 AM
Does it explain how when the President is a Democrat, legislation is all his idea and his doing

Strawman.

but if the President was Ron Paul, he'd be completely removed from the legislative process?

Again, a strawman. The point is that if you're concerned about Paul proposing crazy shit in Congress, you should want him to become President since right now he's free to propose all the crazy shit he wants, while as President he'd have to have someone in Congress who agrees with his crazy shit.

CRM114
09-30-11, 08:02 AM
No, I didn't miss it at all.

Sure you didn't. :lol:

We voted for a Muslim from Kenya. You really think we'll care too much about a fat guy?

But seriously, a decade ago and back to JFK, I'd say not a chance. But I didn't think NJ would vote for him either. They did, and that might be enough to get him over the hump. But I don't think he will run, personally.

NJ voted for him because their property taxes are ludicrously high and he promised to fix it. Lets see the results.

General Zod
09-30-11, 10:43 AM
The bigger question is: Will Americans vote for a morbidly obese person like Christie?

I hope the American people learned a lesson during the last election for putting so much weight (pun intended) on the way someone looks instead of someone who can actually lead the country.

Navinabob
09-30-11, 02:52 PM
Hmmm... it appears that Ron Paul is against the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Paul, a staunch Libertarian, said in New Hampshire Friday that it's "sad" if "the American people accept this blindly and casually," adding that "nobody knows if he ever killed anybody," According to the Wall Street Journal. the Texas Republican lawmaker said United States officials "have never been specific about the crime."

I can't imagine the mental gymnastics that would be needed for a Tea Party member who once accused Obama of being a closet Muslim terrorist supporter to justify still supporting Paul.

CRM114
09-30-11, 02:58 PM
I hope the American people learned a lesson during the last election for putting so much weight (pun intended) on the way someone looks instead of someone who can actually lead the country.

Because John McCain and Sarah Palin would have led us through these dark times. Oh what could have been...

wendersfan
09-30-11, 03:15 PM
I hope the American people learned a lesson during the last election for putting so much weight (pun intended) on the way someone looks instead of someone who can actually lead the country.
I know you're being completely serious, but when I read your post all I saw was "I hope the American people learned that they should vote for an incompetent who thinks the way I do rather than an incompetent who doesn't."

JumpCutz
09-30-11, 03:31 PM
:lol:

kvrdave
09-30-11, 03:43 PM
Because John McCain and Sarah Palin would have led us through these dark times. Oh what could have been...

Now one could have lead this country to all it has become better than Obama. Best president ever.

WCChiCubsFan
09-30-11, 04:40 PM
I know you're being completely serious, but when I read your post all I saw was "I hope the American people learned that they should vote for an incompetent who thinks the way I do rather than an incompetent who doesn't.":lol:Classic, that's what it all boils down to for all of us.

classicman2
09-30-11, 04:41 PM
Sources close to Gov. Christie say that he is seriously reconsidering about his decision not run.

He is really torn between running or not; or, he's playing it for all it's worth.

dork
09-30-11, 04:48 PM
I think he should run. Or bike, or maybe just walk. Something. Jesus.

General Zod
09-30-11, 05:16 PM
I know you're being completely serious, but when I read your post all I saw was "I hope the American people learned that they should vote for an incompetent who thinks the way I do rather than an incompetent who doesn't."

:lol: With our current candidates.. I accept this. What the heck else have we got to hope for.

I think he should run. Or bike, or maybe just walk. Something. Jesus.

rotfl The term I've heard lately is "short for his weight".

kvrdave
09-30-11, 05:38 PM
NJ voted for him because their property taxes are ludicrously high and he promised to fix it. Lets see the results.

:lol: Obama promised to fix lots of shit, including some hope and some change. Let's see the results.

General Zod
09-30-11, 05:42 PM
:lol: Obama promised to fix lots of shit, including some hope and some change. Let's see the results.

Well.. he changed hope into despair. That's a change right there!

General Zod
09-30-11, 10:06 PM
Christie was on Piers Morgan tonight and said "I am 100% sure I am not going to run".

JasonF
09-30-11, 10:40 PM
Christie was on Piers Morgan tonight and said "I am 100% sure I am not going to run".

So ... mark him down in the "maybe" column?

;)

kvrdave
10-01-11, 12:31 AM
:lol: Exactly.

If a guy really wants to be president, and isn't freaking old, he is always better off waiting so that he isn't running against an incumbent. Ideally you wait until a 2 termer is up.

wendersfan
10-01-11, 04:49 AM
:lol: Exactly.

If a guy really wants to be president, and isn't freaking old, he is always better off waiting so that he isn't running against an incumbent. Ideally you wait until a 2 termer is up.
Problem is that in four years he might be up against a Republican incumbent.

classicman2
10-01-11, 06:52 AM
Problem is that in four years he might be up against a Republican incumbent.

I'm up early, because I can't sleep. What is your excuse? ;)

Josh-da-man
10-01-11, 07:20 AM
Anyone else getting a Fred Thompson vibe off of Christie?

In four years I think he's going to hawking reverse mortgages...

classicman2
10-01-11, 07:44 AM
Just maybe he'll go to Hollywood. Thompson did it.

Jason
10-01-11, 09:31 AM
Just maybe he'll go to Hollywood. Thompson did it.

Nah, they use CGI for Jabba the Hutt now.

classicman2
10-01-11, 09:48 AM
Maybe the governor can latch on to a trophy wife - Fred did.

Artman
10-02-11, 03:54 PM
I think he should run. Or bike, or maybe just walk. Something. Jesus.

No kidding, those pictures of him without his suit jacket on really showed just how bad it is. I don't understand how someone at that point cannot bring themselves to change things. Than again, I have 350lb friend who just doesn't seem to care about it. But I would think someone driven enough to be governor would.

JumpCutz
10-02-11, 05:10 PM
This is quite the crop of candidates the Republicans have assembled. rotfl :lol:


Obama, through no fault of his own, might actually get re-elected.

jfoobar
10-02-11, 06:21 PM
So ... mark him down in the "maybe" column?

;)

Skip to about 1:00 in.

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-28-2011/indecision-2012---indecision-edition---chris-christie-s-answer'>Indecision 2012 - Indecision Edition - Chris Christie's Answer</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:398330' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

jfoobar
10-02-11, 06:33 PM
Uh, Rick Perry's hunting camp was called what???

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/wait-rick-perrys-hunting-camp-was-called-what/43212/

wendersfan
10-03-11, 10:11 AM
I'm up early, because I can't sleep. What is your excuse? ;)
I'm normally up between 5:30 and 5:45 through the week. On weekends I sleep in until 6:30.

DeputyDave
10-03-11, 11:23 AM
Uh, Rick Perry's hunting camp was called what???

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/wait-rick-perrys-hunting-camp-was-called-what/43212/

I was (pleasantly) surprised by Cain's reaction.

Josh-da-man
10-03-11, 11:31 AM
Uh, Rick Perry's hunting camp was called what???

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/wait-rick-perrys-hunting-camp-was-called-what/43212/

Christ, what do they hunt there?

DeputyDave
10-03-11, 11:54 AM
Christ, what do they hunt there?

http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/IMAGES/Pennsylvania/white_tailed_deer_buck2.jpg

Save Ferris
10-03-11, 12:02 PM
Christ, what do they hunt there?

http://oi54.tinypic.com/zld9hw.jpg

I was thinking of the inconsistency of civilization. The beast of the jungle, killing just for his existence, is called savage. The man, killing just for sport, is called civilized. It's a bit inconsistent, isn't it?

crazyronin
10-03-11, 02:22 PM
I was going to put up an image of Jean Claude Van Damme in Hard Target, but that ship has sailed.

kvrdave
10-03-11, 03:57 PM
That will likely sink the Perry ship.

Venusian
10-03-11, 04:26 PM
I haven't kept up with this scandal (does it have a fancy name yet?). I did read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/perry-critics-defend-him-wake-racist-hunting-camp-202942404.html


if it is accurate, the name has been painted over...years ago. What's the issue? When it was painted over? If Perry's dad is on the lease, isn't it his dad's issue and not Perry's?

Groucho
10-03-11, 04:45 PM
I haven't kept up with this scandal (does it have a fancy name yet?).I think the name for this scandal is pretty obvious. I'll give you a hint: _________gate.

JasonF
10-03-11, 04:46 PM
I haven't kept up with this scandal (does it have a fancy name yet?). I did read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/perry-critics-defend-him-wake-racist-hunting-camp-202942404.html


if it is accurate, the name has been painted over...years ago. What's the issue? When it was painted over? If Perry's dad is on the lease, isn't it his dad's issue and not Perry's?

Governor Perry claims that when his father bought the camp in the early 80s, one of the first things the senior Perry did was paint over the sign. If that's the case, then I agree -- this is a non-issue.

However, several people have claimed that they visited the ranch as recently as a few years ago and the sign was still visible at that point.

JasonF
10-03-11, 04:47 PM
I think the name for this scandal is pretty obvious. I'll give you a hint: _________gate.

Since it has to do with what was at the entrance to Governor Perry's ranch, I think the most appropriate name is "Gategate."

JasonF
10-03-11, 04:50 PM
By the way, one of the leading candidates is frantically apologizing for his role in this scandal ... but it's not the one you'd think.*

Cain runs into far-right buzzsaw
By Steve Benen

Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain appeared on a couple of morning shows yesterday, and was asked about Rick Perry hosting events at a Texas hunting camp called “**********head.” The name was painted “in block letters across a large, flat rock standing upright at its gated entrance.” Cain said on Fox News, for Perry “to leave it there as long as he did … is just plain insensitive to a lot of black people in this country.”

That was yesterday. Today, Cain has decided he’s done with the issue altogether.

“All I said was the mere fact that that word was there was ‘insensitive.’” Cain told reporters outside his meeting with Donald Trump Monday. “That’s not playing the race card. I am not attacking Gov. Perry. Some people in the media want to attack him. I’m done with that issue!”

“I really don’t care about that word,” Cain said. “They painted over it. End of story! I accept Gov. Perry’s response on that.”

So, what happened over the last 24 hours? The right went after Cain pretty aggressively, and he quickly folded rather than take the criticism.

Common sense might suggest conservatives would be outraged by Perry, but that’s not what’s happened. As Dan Amira explained, “To understand why, you have to consider that there are two things Republicans hate more than anything. One is being accused of racism, which has happened with increasing frequency since President Obama became president, and, if you ask Republicans, is never, ever justified. Two is unfair treatment by the allegedly biased mainstream media. So among Republicans, the widespread response to the Post story was not, ‘wow, Rick Perry messed up.’ It was, ‘the liberal media is smearing another Republican as a racist!’”

And so Cain — the only Republican presidential candidate to criticize Perry over this, by the way — immediately felt the brunt of the right’s frustrations. Cain may have been offended by the name, but his party has a message for him: “Keep that offense to yourself.”

Indeed, the pushback was not at all subtle. Cain took heat from Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson, and The Daily Caller, among many others.

Cain, then, apparently felt like he had no choice but to reverse course. In the eyes of the GOP base, he’s the one who made a mistake.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_10/cain_runs_into_farright_buzzsa032582.php

* OK, you might think it would be him given how partisan politics work these days.

kvrdave
10-03-11, 04:59 PM
Is there any proof that "the right" went after Cain aggressively, or is his explanation correct? In the earlier article (presumably before the 24 hours where "the right" went after him) he is simply quoted as saying it was insensitive, which is what he says in that article.

JasonF
10-03-11, 05:08 PM
Is there any proof that "the right" went after Cain aggressively,

Cain took heat from Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson, and The Daily Caller, among many others.

Just for you, I delved into the sewer that is the Daily Caller and found this:

Herman Cain’s attack on Rick Perry was a mistake

After Sunday’s Washington Post reported that Texas Governor Rick Perry had utilized a Texas hunting camp named “Noogiehead,” GOP candidate Herman Cain (a former pizza exec. and the only black candidate running for the GOP presidential nomination) wasted little time in accusing Perry of being insensitive to racial issues.

“Since Gov. Perry has been going there for years to hunt,” Cain told ABC’s “This Week,” think that it shows a lack of sensitivity for a long time of not taking that word off of that rock and renaming the place.”

When anchor Christiane Amanpour pushed back — noting that the rock had actually been painted over — Cain doubled-down, saying: “But how long ago was it painted over? So I’m still saying that it is a sign of insensitivity.’’

(Cain made similar comments on Fox News Sunday — demonstrating that this was not a gaffe made in response to a question that simply caught him off guard.)

In a prepared release, Perry Campaign Communications Director Ray Sullivan responded to Cain’s attack, saying: “Mr. Cain is wrong about the Perry family’s quick action to eliminate the word on the rock, but is right the word written by others long ago is insensitive and offensive. That is why the Perrys took quick action to cover and obscure it.”

Sullivan reiterated that the rock had been painted and turned over, and that “The Perrys did not own, name or control the property, they simply rented hunting rights to 1,000 acres of the ranch.”

My take? Cain’s comments were — at best – premature — and at worst, highly irresponsible. It was a cheap shot, and, perhaps is a signal that Cain is willing to play the race card against a fellow Republican when it benefits him.

The fact that Cain spoke out so soon — basing his comments on a newly-posted and thinly-sourced article published by an outlet many conservatives believe to have a liberal bias — speaks to Cain’s lack of political judgment.

This isn’t the first time Cain’s penchant for talking has gotten him in trouble, but in this instance, Cain has aided and abetted those who wish to portray southern conservatives as racists. In so doing, Cain provides cover for anyone wishing to cast Perry as such.

Just last week, Sarah Palin noted that “Herb” Cain was the “flavor of the week.” By siding with the Washington Post and Al Sharpton — against a fellow Republican who appears to have done nothing wrong — Cain might just have proven Palin right.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/03/herman-cains-attack-on-rick-perry-was-a-rookie-mistake/

(Article edited to replace a word. You know which one.)

I'm not getting paid enough to go looking for Erickson's or Limbaugh's comments.

Groucho
10-03-11, 05:11 PM
I'm not getting paid enough to go looking for Erickson's or Limbaugh's comments.Pshaw to that! I'll double your salary!

Sean O'Hara
10-03-11, 05:15 PM
Herb Cain or Rick Perry ... Herb Cain or Rick Perry ... Herb Cain or Rick Perry ...

I dunno, is there anyway this scandal can end with both of them exiled to the Phantom Zone?

kvrdave
10-03-11, 05:15 PM
Huh. It would be nice to know the real story about the sign, when it was painted over, etc. They make it sound like this was Perry's ranch, but then other things make it sound like they just rent out the hunting rights.

I would hate to come down to actually looking at Perry's actions wrt race when we have such a good, juicy story, but that would likely push me more than this scandal.

I still like Cain.

General Zod
10-03-11, 05:53 PM
is there anyway this scandal can end with both of them exiled to the Phantom Zone?

It wasn't fun :(

jfoobar
10-03-11, 06:23 PM
http://i.imgur.com/R1CY8.gif

movielib
10-03-11, 06:43 PM
It wasn't fun :(
Well, thanks, jerk!

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/MED/37/3777/2MGIF00Z/posters/sarah-douglas.jpg

No more kneeling for you!

crazyronin
10-03-11, 07:25 PM
(Article edited to replace a word. You know which one.)


Trombone? Peristalsis?

Gimme a hint, I'm all awash.

MoviePage
10-03-11, 10:12 PM
Trombone? Peristalsis?

Gimme a hint, I'm all awash.

"black"

JasonF
10-03-11, 10:36 PM
I replaced "Herb" with "Herman."

CRM114
10-04-11, 09:06 AM
Wait, did Herman Cain actually apologize for using "the race card" when calling the sign "insensitive?" Wow, Republicans are fucked up. No offense.

CRM114
10-04-11, 09:09 AM
Huh. It would be nice to know the real story about the sign, when it was painted over, etc. They make it sound like this was Perry's ranch, but then other things make it sound like they just rent out the hunting rights.

In other words, it would be nice if you could make an excuse for this jackass and make it look like the lamestream media tried to destroy him.

DeputyDave
10-04-11, 09:11 AM
In other words, it would be nice if you could make an excuse for this jackass and make it look like the lamestream media tried to destroy him.

Yeah, because the truth just sucks.

CRM114
10-04-11, 09:14 AM
Perhaps you are looking at the truth? Nah.

raven56706
10-04-11, 09:24 AM
Chris Christie is holding a press conference at 1pm.


I bet he is announcing the iphone 5 is going to sprint.

printerati
10-04-11, 09:26 AM
Wait, did Herman Cain actually apologize for using "the race card" when calling the sign "insensitive?" Wow, Republicans are fucked up.

I didn't think it was humanly possible to make the leap from the first sentence to the second sentence. That's some Matrix-type shit right there.

DeputyDave
10-04-11, 09:29 AM
Perhaps you are looking at the truth? Nah.

I have no idea but when it comes to issues like this coming to light during a campaign I will always reserve judgment, regardless of which side they are from. I personally hope Perry doesn't get the nomination but I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

JasonF
10-04-11, 10:00 AM
I didn't think it was humanly possible to make the leap from the first sentence to the second sentence. That's some Matrix-type shit right there.

When a Republican presidential candidate is pressured by the Republican establishment into apologizing for calling the use of the n-word "insensitive," I don't think it's that big a leap to call the Republicans fucked-up.

JasonF
10-04-11, 10:02 AM
I have no idea but when it comes to issues like this coming to light during a campaign I will always reserve judgment, regardless of which side they are from. I personally hope Perry doesn't get the nomination but I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

There's two possibilities here:

1. Perry is telling the truth and his family painted over the slur pretty much as soon as they could.
2. Perry's detractors are telling the truth and Perry kept the slur up until as recently as a few years ago.

Eithe rway, the fact that Cain has to apologize for calling the use of the slur "insensitive" is fucked up.

raven56706
10-04-11, 10:02 AM
Chris Christie will not run... but will announce the Mcrib sandwich to NJ mcdonalds only!

General Zod
10-04-11, 10:10 AM
This whole thing with Christie cracks me up. He never said he was going to run. He never said he was considering running. He always said no. This whole thing was media contrived and at the same time the media says this whole "Will he or won't he thing is frustrating voters". Well who's causing that my fair minded media friends?

Red Dog
10-04-11, 10:15 AM
Because the media wants a race like the Dems had in '08. It's good for business.

Groucho
10-04-11, 10:20 AM
As opposed to the 2004 Democratic race?

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2850/77681167.jpg

CRM114
10-04-11, 10:21 AM
I didn't think it was humanly possible to make the leap from the first sentence to the second sentence. That's some Matrix-type shit right there.

Was that supposed to make sense?

CRM114
10-04-11, 10:24 AM
This whole thing with Christie cracks me up. He never said he was going to run. He never said he was considering running. He always said no. This whole thing was media contrived and at the same time the media says this whole "Will he or won't he thing is frustrating voters". Well who's causing that my fair minded media friends?

So if he does announce today at 1:00, he's a total douche. I've never seen a more unequivocal series of "nos" in my life.

tommyp007
10-04-11, 10:32 AM
Both CNN and NBC are reporting Christie will not run.

Red Dog
10-04-11, 10:36 AM
Both CNN and NBC are reporting Christie will not run.

We already know he doesn't run. ;)

slop101
10-04-11, 10:36 AM
Both CNN and NBC are reporting Christie will not run.Dude looks like he hasn't run in years, why would he start now? zing!

Groucho
10-04-11, 10:38 AM
Christie is more overweight than any of the current candidates. Zing!

kvrdave
10-04-11, 10:46 AM
:lol:

wendersfan
10-04-11, 10:59 AM
The bigger question is: Will Americans vote for a morbidly obese person like Christie?

Yes:

An Examination of the Effects of Obesity and Gender on Candidate Evaluation Using Subjective and Objective Physiological Methods (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1901950)

classicman2
10-04-11, 11:28 AM
Expect a new source (close to the thinking of the governor) to come out tomorrow and announce that Christie is seriously considering whether to run or not. ;)

This is getting rather tiresome. I wonder how many other sources (close to the thinking of the governor) will come forward with another announcement?

DeputyDave
10-04-11, 12:04 PM
There's two possibilities here:

1. Perry is telling the truth and his family painted over the slur pretty much as soon as they could.
2. Perry's detractors are telling the truth and Perry kept the slur up until as recently as a few years ago.

Eithe rway, the fact that Cain has to apologize for calling the use of the slur "insensitive" is fucked up.

I guess my question is (because I really haven’t been paying attention): ”Who is pressuring Cain?” Is it the “Republicans” or just a group of individual loud mouths? Also, what are they asking him to apologize for? Is it for saying the “N” word is insensitive or for criticizing Perry before the facts are known?

X
10-04-11, 12:28 PM
So Christie is saying "maybe"...

mcnabb
10-04-11, 12:53 PM
He was never going to run, and its just another time the press gets suckered by a politican who is enjoying his time in the spotlight. Once Christie said, "I just don't feel I ready to be President." back in the spring or summer, I knew he wasn't running because they would use that against him in the campaign.

I am a resident of NJ, so I'd rather have him as Governor as he has done a good job of cutting the fat out of our state budget (No pun intended!)

CRM114
10-04-11, 01:24 PM
Christie blathered on for a half hour before I had to leave. He's probably still talking. Or eating.

This guy probably figures that if he loses to Obama, he's finished in politics. He might as well suckle the teat of the governership for a while and make a run next time around.

slop101
10-04-11, 01:55 PM
Christie's got more issues and skeletons in his closet than all the other candidates combined. He knows full well that all his shit would be exposed as soon as he runs, so he wisely decided not to.

Venusian
10-04-11, 01:58 PM
Eithe rway, the fact that Cain has to apologize for calling the use of the slur "insensitive" is fucked up.


did he apologize? i missed it :(

he didn't say that the slur was insensitive, did he? the quote i heard had him calling Perry insensitive...then he backed off that

classicman2
10-04-11, 02:21 PM
Christie's got more issues and skeletons in his closet than all the other candidates combined. He knows full well that all his shit would be exposed as soon as he runs, so he wisely decided not to.

When is having skeletons in your closet ever stopped a candidate before?

dork
10-04-11, 02:27 PM
When is having skeletons in your closet ever stopped a candidate before?
When the bones have your tooth marks on them. :sad:

JasonF
10-04-11, 02:29 PM
Governor Christie keeps saying "no" and the media keeps reporting it as "Christie hasn't made up his mind yet." I think the real lesson is this: never let your daughter date a reporter.

DeputyDave
10-04-11, 03:18 PM
Next up: The media building the hype about Palin running. Man, I'll be glad when the deadline passes.

I will be sad if no one I like more than the current crowd doesn't get in, though.

Groucho
10-04-11, 03:25 PM
Governor Christie keeps saying "no" and the media keeps reporting it as "Christie hasn't made up his mind yet." I think the real lesson is this: never let your daughter date a reporter.By the time my daughter is of dating age, there will be no more reporters. Just bloggers and pundits.

Red Dog
10-04-11, 03:29 PM
Next up: The media building the hype about Palin running. Man, I'll be glad when the deadline passes.

I will be sad if no one I like more than the current crowd doesn't get in, though.

Given that IA & NH are now bound to be voting practically right after New Years (given how early SC is going), I think it's safe to say that you're stuck with this crappy lot (save Gary) and no more.

mcnabb
10-05-11, 07:19 AM
This guy probably figures that if he loses to Obama, he's finished in politics. He might as well suckle the teat of the governership for a while and make a run next time around.

Or maybe he's just doing what politicans used to do when they ran for President, wait til they get more experience. You get guys like Obama who didn't even finish his first term as Senator run for President. You get George W Bush who didn't even finish his 2nd term as Governor. I always said that both had no business running for that reason alone, just like Christie has no business running for President since he hasn't even finished his first term as Governor. Obama and Bush Jr. were in way over their heads as President, and Christie would probably be the same.

Times have changed, as atleast Clinton was governor for 12 years, Bush Sr. was head of the CIA and VP for 8 years, and Reagan was Governor for 8 years before he ran for President.

Today, as long as the guy has a great personality and is likeable, everyone thinks he can be President.

sracer
10-05-11, 07:40 AM
Today, as long as the guy has a great personality and is likeable, everyone thinks he can be President.
That's why I think that the classic "Johnny Bravo" Brady Bunch episode was prophetic... didn't matter if he could actually sing, the suit fit... and THAT was the important thing.

CRM114
10-05-11, 08:43 AM
Next up: The media building the hype about Palin running. Man, I'll be glad when the deadline passes.

I will be sad if no one I like more than the current crowd doesn't get in, though.

If Palin gets in, I will pop TWO bottles of Prosecco that night. :lol: It would make for a highly entertaining 2012. Perhaps she could get Christine O'Donnell to run with her?

classicman2
10-05-11, 08:49 AM
The two Floridians, Bush & Rubio, are torn. They don't want to see Obama re-elected; but, if a Repub is elected, then 2016 is probably out for them. 8 years is a long time to wait in an attempt to achieve your dream.

JasonF
10-05-11, 08:50 AM
Or maybe he's just doing what politicans used to do when they ran for President, wait til they get more experience. You get guys like Obama who didn't even finish his first term as Senator run for President. You get George W Bush who didn't even finish his 2nd term as Governor. I always said that both had no business running for that reason alone, just like Christie has no business running for President since he hasn't even finished his first term as Governor. Obama and Bush Jr. were in way over their heads as President, and Christie would probably be the same.

Times have changed, as atleast Clinton was governor for 12 years, Bush Sr. was head of the CIA and VP for 8 years, and Reagan was Governor for 8 years before he ran for President.

Today, as long as the guy has a great personality and is likeable, everyone thinks he can be President.

Presidents who had less political experience than George W. Bush or Barack Obama upon their election to the White House (not a complete list):
George Washington
Andrew Jackson
Abraham Lincoln
Dwight Eisenhower

Experience is a great thing, but it's not the be-all and end-all of what makes someone a good president.

Nausicaa
10-05-11, 11:07 AM
I thought conservatives hated career politicians now. Don't they like the 'everyman' candidates and Washington outsiders? Joe the Plumber 2012!

crazyronin
10-05-11, 11:09 AM
Presidents who had less political experience than George W. Bush or Barack Obama upon their election to the White House (not a complete list):
George Washington
Andrew Jackson
Abraham Lincoln
Dwight Eisenhower

Experience is a great thing, but it's not the be-all and end-all of what makes someone a good president.

You're going to put three generals on a list of people who supposedly have less experience than Obama? Obviously leadership is not one of your criteria.