SuperJerk

I think there's a line in there about God knowing you in the womb, or something like that, which could be interprated as saying life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong. Can someone track that down for me? But that's a pretty spurious connection, regardless...a baby just a few minutes from being born is technically still "in the womb." Yeah, there's a point where a fetus goes from being a mass of cells to a organism capable of thoughts and feelings. But I don't know exactly what that point is, and I don't think its conception. I don't think the position of the government should be that life begins at conception, because there's no proof that's when life begins. According to our best estimates, 1 out of 4 pregnancies results in a early term miscarriage...if we are going to adopt the idea that life begins at conception, then does that mean all of those unviable fetuses were really people? Are we going to treat that like a health epidemic?

My rebuttal to that would be that: (a) it innoculates us from charges we are taking stuff out of context, and (b) sometimes people used to provide links to articles and then claim they said the opposite of what they really did. But, hey, if you'd rather read what I have to say than the works of professional journalists and pundits, that's your call.

Yeah, but he's got nothing on Superman.

I thought Clone Wars would BE better because it being associated with Star Wars.

Here's where I have a real problem. Abortion shouldn't even be a religious issue. Was it ever mentioned in the Bible? Christians are so sure life begins at conception, but there is no theological case to be made for this belief.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...a-and-michigan/ CNN's message board for this article is full of angry Clinton supporters claiming this is too little, too late, and they're voting for McCain. Clinton's campaign, of course, wasn't just fighting to get full votes for Florida and Michigan, but if you recall, they were trying to make sure Obama got 0 delegates from Michigan. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080825/pl_politico/12782

No! There's going to be some tiny problem with that! We have to keep doing the same thing! Our jobs depend on it! Why do scientists hate America?

Maybe. It might be harder to convince people he's new and different than typical Washington politicians when the person who he is essentially saying "this person can take over for me someday" about someone who has been part of the power establishment since before most of us were born. Obama's "Washington is broken" message is in danger of being overwhelmed by a "only Washington insiders can lead" message. Interesting, though, we may be seeing a return to Washington-insider domination of the executive branch. No governor was elected president from FDR to Carter, and then after that (with one exception), we elected nothing but governors president. In the post-9/11 world, like in the generation following WW2, foreign policy may play a bigger role in presidential politics and some Washington experience will be considered essential to the job.

Obviously this is a ploy to get more support among blue-collar voters that backed Mrs. Clinton in the primaries. The press has been fawning over the idea of Biden as the running mate for quite some time, so there's not going to be a problem with them criticizing this choice right out of the gate. Still, a 35 year veteran of Congress on the "Change" ticket? Risky. I'm not sure how Biden's record on Iraq is going to help or hurt this campaign, but I've said before that Biden's on what do do with Iraq was probably the best one.

The rumor is floating around that the "short list" was a red herring and Obama's going with Jack Reed. Damn, I hope that's true.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_...c3097lMHsVh24cA I was hoping for Kaine the most out of the 4 names being floated right now. I'll say this again: I think its a HUGE mistake for Obama to name someone with ties to starting the Iraq War. Chet Edwards, Joe Biden, and Evan Bayh all supported the war in the beginning. I'm now crossing my fingers for Kathleen Sebelius.

I'm not going say I agree with all FCC policies, but abolishing all regulation of broadcasters seems like it would create more problems than it would solve. In other news, here's some polling analysis from Charlie Cook that I found informative: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25801742/

Should private firms own the airwaves, then? Or should we just not regulation of them altogether? Because if there's one thing the free market has proven in the last 150 years, its that the public's best interests are served when industries can operate completely unregulated.

Just an aside, I hate that bullshit about "the public owning the airwaves." Maybe in 1949, they had to worry about the public interest because there were so few avenues of media, but with thousands and thousands of television and radio channels available on digital cable and satellite, not to mention the Internet, there's not much of an argument that over-the-air stations are required to broadcast in "the public interest"--whatever the hell that even is--anymore, while everyone else is free from these constraints. Obviously, we don't need the Fairness Doctrine either; the fact that we're knee-deep in truthers demonstrates that nobody's opinions are being hidden. No, the public DOES own the airwaves. Cable networks have to negotiate with service providers to get into homes. Broadcast networks only need a license from the government to use the airwaves. In exchange for that license, they agree to provide a specified amount of information to the public. Not everyone has the internet, cable, or satelitte, and broadcast networks are the only media that has the capability to reach almost 100% of U.S. households.

I think the biggest problem right now is the press. They focus on things that don't matter to most people (the veep-hype is interesting to US, but not the average person), instead of issues. While coverage of Obama has been favorable, people are tired of hearing stories about fist-bumps, ties to celebrities, and how much Europeans love him. McCain, on the otherhand, only seems to get on TV when he's attacking Obama (giving a voice to the annoyance from over-exposure a lot of people are feeling). His ridiculous comments about Iran, Iraq, and the economy aren't being exposed. I'm pretty sure the conventions will help draw a contrast in people's minds between the parties and the issues they champion. Hopefully, the networks don't scale back on convention coverage again. Every four years they complain how no news is coming out of these things, forgetting that the public owns the airwaves and that this is the only chance most people will have to hear the candidates unfiltered by network editing and commentary.

The standard practice I laid out in the conventional wisdom on presidential campaigns. I don't think it always works, but it is the general practice campaigns tend to follow. Bush didn't have to move that far to the right because the country shifted right, at least on foreign policy, after 9/11. The country didn't want their tax-cuts repealed, so he had the majority of public support there (he never differentiated between the income groups on this, blurring the line between middle class and wealthy). His NCLB Act, the centerpiece of his domestic agenda that he touted every time someone asked him about domestic policy back in 04, was a law that was more or less a bipartisan effort. Bush never talked about his opposition to abortion or his desire to privatize social securty during the campaign. Thus, according to what I saw, he did campaign from the center. The reason McCain is camapaigning to the right is because the right doesn't completely trust him (usually this support is earned during the primaries). He has the dilema of having to shore up his support with conservatives at the same time he is trying to appeal to independents. Obama doesn't completely have the support of ex-Clinton supporters, but he is bringing new voters into the fold (who aren't always reflected in polls), so his numbers usually beat McCain's. That's my take on it, anyways.

The voters in Republican primaries, and this has been proven time and again, are far more conservative than the majority of Americans. A Republican needs to move to the right to get the nomination, then move to the "center" to win the general election. The voters in Democratic primaries are more liberal than the majority of Americans, so Democrats campaign as liberal in the primaries, then move to the "center" for the general election.

You mean his support for spreading democracy and fighting terror, cutting through red tape so that businesses can operate in the most efficient manner, cutting unnecessary taxes to give money back to the little guy, protecting the lives of helpless unborn children, and spreading more democracy and fighting more terror? It's almost painful to read some of the discourse with Jerk because it seems like he really truly cannot believe that anyone really holds those views. Like he thinks they're all just kidding and have some kind of hidden ulterior motive. But that's the problem here; there are people who believe exactly what I just typed. And not just a few of 'em. We're talking millions (AND MILLIONS) of folks who literally believe in that manner. Hell, don't some polls in this country still say that about fifty percent of Americans still disbelieve the theory of evolution? Trying to act like the conservatives are a loose collection of scattered fringe lunatics who are out of touch with the general population will not help the liberal cause. They are the general population. Or, like I said weeks ago, don't expect the Republicans to just roll over and die come November. It'll still be a fight. Yes, I see what you're saying...the Republicans are going to drag out the same tired old talking points. And I'm saying that the talking points are pretty easy to refute, so long as you can get the public to listen. I don't think its that hard to get the public to acknowledge the complete failure of the Republican Party to govern the country for the last 8 years. Bush's approval rating is in the toilet. So, yes, I honestly DO have a hard time believing people still think the Republican way is best, and recycling George W. Bush's campaign speeches isn't going to win any elections anytime soon. Conservatives are not the general population. A majority of Americans believe the Iraq War was a mistake. A majority of Americans probably think rich people don't pay enough taxes. A majority of Americans are probably worried about the mortgage crisis. A majority of Americans don't want the government telling women they can't have an abortion. A majority of Americans would rather focus on fighting terrorists than reshaping the world in our own image. The Democrats are actually where the general public is on these issues, but there is no general population that the majority of Americans fit into. Conservatives, at most, make up 1/3 of the country. In order to win an election, the liberals (also probably about 1/3) have to convince the remaining third that they deserve a chance instead of doing things the old way. You see, that's the advantage the Democrats have this time around...its pretty easy to effectively demonstrate the Republican way DOESN'T WORK because of how screwed up the country is right now.

Obama starts talkin' about religion and all of a sudden the conservatives think there should be some kind of wall of separation or something... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_...n_politics_poll

Good for a start, but going after the number of houses McCain owns seems trivial when you can attack his unequivocal support for one of the worst foreign policy disasters in American history, the economic deregulation that helped cause the mortgage crisis, the tax cuts that helped cause our current budget crisis, taking away a woman's right to choose, and expanding the war into Iran. Here's what some governor of Virginia or possible V.P. nominee or something had to say on the matter... Tim Kaine is Vice President of Cheap Jokes!

None of the polls are saying the same things, but most polls are saying Obama is ahead. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...t/national.html McCain is using every thing he has right now, and Obama is holding back for some reason. McCain has SO MANY weaknesses left to exploit that haven't been tapped yet.

The prospect of legalizing someone picking up a drunk high school girl at a bar is pretty disturbing.

Someone should look into what the effects of raising the drinking age to 21 were. It was raised to 21 back in the 80s to lower drunk driving incidents, but nobody seems sure if it worked or not.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/19....war/index.html

Jack Cafferty takes McCain to task for his percieved lack of depth. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html