Campaign 2008

[snuffbox 0]

Mike DeWine will be running McCain's Ohio campaign. Awful.

 

I guess i shouldn't have been too shocked by this considering McCain hooked up with Ratfucker Segretti in 2000.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Oh and @Jerk: The direct quote says to me that right now and at this point in time a religous leader is needed, not the general sweeping statement you interpret it as.

Saying we need a religious president is the same thing as saying we don't need a non-religious president.

 

Welcome to America. Where nonreligious people are less trusted than Muslims & Mormons.

 

I don't think an atheist could win an election for state legislature.

[snuffbox 0]

Isn't Jesse Ventura an atheist?

[SuperJerk 0]

Oh and @Jerk: The direct quote says to me that right now and at this point in time a religous leader is needed, not the general sweeping statement you interpret it as.

Saying we need a religious president is the same thing as saying we don't need a non-religious president.

 

Welcome to America. Where nonreligious people are less trusted than Muslims & Mormons.

 

I don't think an atheist could win an election for state legislature.

 

I don't equate a belief in God with being religious or being a person of faith. I'm sure there have been a great many people of good moral character and sound judgement who believe in a higher power, but base their lives, ethics, and judgement on secular reasoning. I wouldn't characterize Thomas Jefferson as being a "person of faith," for example.

 

Also, I don't equate the political inviability of an atheist candidate with what the country "needs." I don't think someone's religious views are in any way an indicator of how competent a chief executive they'll be. The 2 worst presidents of my lifetime have also been the two most religious.

[SuperJerk 0]

McCain says he misspoke in saying U.S. lives 'wasted'

Story Highlights

• NEW: McCain says he wishes he had described loss of troops as 'sacrifice'

• Obama says McCain wasn't denigrating troops; loyalty not in question

• McCain announced that he would run in '08 on Wednesday's David Letterman

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican Sen. John McCain on Thursday became the second presidential contender to back away from saying the war in Iraq had "wasted" the lives of U.S. troops.

 

During a Wednesday night appearance on CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman," McCain announced that he would enter the 2008 race but said a formal announcement would come in April.

 

He also said the nation had paid a "grievous price" for mistakes made in the first years of the nearly four-year-old war in Iraq.

 

Americans "are very frustrated," he said, "and they have every right to be. We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives, over there."

 

More than 3,100 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein.

 

The Arizona senator has been harshly critical of the Bush administration's management of the war, but he is a prominent advocate of President Bush's deployment of more than 21,000 additional combat troops.

 

The Democratic National Committee called for an apology. However, in a written statement McCain said only that "I should have used the word 'sacrificed,' as I have in the past."

 

He added that U.S. leaders owe the armed forces "our best judgment and honest appraisal of the progress of the war."

 

"With a new commanding general and a new strategy, we are now trying to correct those mistakes, and I believe we have a realistic chance to succeed," he added.

 

"That does not change the fact, however, that we have made many mistakes in the past, and we have paid a grievous price for those mistakes in the lives of the men and women who have died to protect our interests in Iraq and defend the rest of us from the even greater threat we would face if we are defeated there."

 

His statement followed similar back-tracking by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a Democratic presidential contender. In February, Obama told an Iowa audience that "we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

 

Obama, who has called for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by next March, later called the remark "a slip of the tongue." But while his party's leaders called for an apology from McCain, Obama came to his defense Thursday.

 

"I don't think he can be questioned in his dedication to American troops," Obama told reporters.

 

"We have a duty -- a sacred duty -- to make sure we are honoring their sacrifice by giving them missions in which they can succeed," he said. "I'm positive that was the intent in which he meant it. It was the same intent that I had when I made my statement."

 

McCain was a Navy aviator during the Vietnam War and spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp after his jet was shot down.

 

Obama said that while he and McCain may disagree, "The one area that I don't think he can be questioned [on] is his dedication to American troops. He's been there. He's done that."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/01/mccain/index.html

[Boon 0]

Saying "we need a religious President" is the same as saying "we need a black President" or "we need a woman President." They're all bullshit blanket statements thrown out by people who want to frame themselves as what the country needs. What bothers me most about this upcoming election is the potential for votes being cast based on factors that have little to do with policy. This is not to say that any President won't be affected by their religion, race, gender, or whatever. But voters making their decisions based solely on these characteristics is dangerous.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Saying "we need a religious President" is the same as saying "we need a black President" or "we need a woman President." They're all bullshit blanket statements thrown out by people who want to frame themselves as what the country needs. What bothers me most about this upcoming election is the potential for votes being cast based on factors that have little to do with policy. This is not to say that any President won't be affected by their religion, race, gender, or whatever. But voters making their decisions based solely on these characteristics is dangerous.

 

I agree. That's one thing I'm worried about...it's all going to turn into a game of "top this" type of thing as far as "qualifications" that have nothing to do with actually being president.

[SuperJerk 0]

Saying "we need a religious President" is the same as saying "we need a black President" or "we need a woman President." They're all bullshit blanket statements thrown out by people who want to frame themselves as what the country needs. What bothers me most about this upcoming election is the potential for votes being cast based on factors that have little to do with policy. This is not to say that any President won't be affected by their religion, race, gender, or whatever. But voters making their decisions based solely on these characteristics is dangerous.

Sure, that's a stupid reason to vote for someone, but by saying that your meaning is more along the lines of "isn't it about time we had a black/woman president?"

 

The difference is that we've NEVER HAD a black or a woman president.

[snuffbox 0]

Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot. Class and a big ol' adam's apple all rolled into one.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot. Class and a big ol' adam's apple all rolled into one.

Seriously, is there anything this cunt does that's shocking anymore?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, because John Edwards screams flaming homosexual.

 

Can't wait to hear her backtrack on her next Fox News appearance.

[SuperJerk 0]

GOP hopefuls court restless conservatives

Story Highlights

• NEW: Giuliani asks conservatives to look beyond differences to common beliefs

• Former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee casts himself as lifelong conservative

• Most Republican presidential candidates are speaking at conference

• Arizona Sen. John McCain opts to skip conference for fundraisers elsewhere

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani acknowledged on Friday that conservatives don't always agree with him on gun control, abortion and gay rights, and urged them to look past the differences.

 

"You and I have a lot of common beliefs that are the same and we have some that are different," said the former New York City mayor, a moderate on several social issues. "The point of a presidential election is to figure out who you agree with the most."

 

Lesser-known White House hopefuls cast themselves as more appealing choices for restless right-wing activists still searching for a candidate because of unease over Giuliani and the other two strong GOP contenders -- Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

 

"We can't afford to elect people who simply reflect a culture and reflect a common view, but don't necessarily believe it," Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, said, indirectly referring to the three.

 

Nearly every Republican seeking the GOP's presidential nomination addressed thousands of activists attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

 

Romney was speaking later Friday, as was Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a darling of the religious right. Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Duncan Hunter also were appearing, as was former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore. Of the top contenders only McCain, a failed 2000 GOP candidate, skipped the event.

 

The series of speeches came a day after Romney assailed McCain and Giuliani -- an indication the GOP contest was taking on a sharper tone a full 10 months before the first primary votes are cast. (Full story)

 

Giuliani's lead over McCain in national popularity polls has widened in recent weeks, and he took the stage to raucous cheers before a star-struck crowd. The audience, packed into the ballroom, erupted in applause and cat calls several times throughout his 30-minute-plus long speech.

 

In it, he sought to prove that his performance as mayor -- on issues such as welfare and taxes, and his leadership qualities -- override any concerns voters may have about him.

 

At one point, Giuliani told activists gathered in a hotel ballroom that when he became mayor he thought he could reform the city's school system -- a remark that prompted the crowd to laugh.

 

"Okay, I made mistakes. I'm going to admit them and apologize for them," Giuliani said with a wry smile and a pause as the crowd howled.

 

It was an apparent reference to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the Democratic presidential front-runner who has been criticized for failing to call her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war a mistake.

 

Conservatives have questioning the credentials of Giuliani, McCain and Romney and aren't sold on any. Thus, several other little-known candidates like Huckabee are hoping to emerge as strong challengers by capturing the backing of that critical part of the GOP base.

 

"Maybe this weekend it might be renamed the conservative presidential anxiety conference," Huckabee said, reflecting the mood of the convention, to ripples of chuckles. "The theme might be 'Dude, where's my candidate?' "

 

"I'd like to think that maybe he's standing in front of you," Huckabee said before emphasizing his conservative positions on social issues, while seeking to reassure the activists that he's a fiscal conservative despite raising taxes as governor.

 

McCain's absence was sure to further irritate conservatives who already are skeptical that they can trust him because of his reputation of bucking the party. Even though he has a conservative social and fiscal voting record, McCain has angered conservatives with his work on campaign finance reform, immigration and other legislation they hate.

 

Aside from McCain, conservatives also question Romney's sincerity in opposing abortion and gay marriage. He has a record of equivocation on some major issues and outright switching on others. And, Giuliani is on the wrong side of many of the same social issues that conservatives hold dear, including abortion, gun control and gay rights.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/02/cpa...y.ap/index.html

 

Here's to the activists pulling the candidates so far to the right there's no way they can win a general election. Usually they're given just enough wiggle room to give them some plausible deniability when they move to the middle for the general election (i.e. "compassionate conservatism" and a "kinder, gentler nation"), but I don't see that happening this time. Guiliani, McCain et. al. are going to be forced to try and out-right-wing each other and defend failing policies at every turn.

[Boon 0]

Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot. Class and a big ol' adam's apple all rolled into one.

Seriously, is there anything this cunt does that's shocking anymore?

I didn't know you could say "faggot" on CSPAN.

[snuffbox 0]

Cspan isnt known for censorship. It's just that usually the people that make their air aren't retarded post-ops so they dont have to worry about such moments too often.

 

On a better note, Barack Obama brought his new brand of the Bobby K vibe to Selma today. Incredible moment.

[SuperJerk 0]

Mrs. Clinton wasted no time trying to steal his thunder.

 

Clintons, Obama hope to woo black support in Selma

Story Highlights

• Clintons to make first joint campaign appearance in Selma, Alabama

• Civil Rights commemoration headlined by Clinton rival Sen. Barack Obama

• Former President Bill Clinton to receive voting rights museum award

• Clinton, Obama battling for black support in 2008 Democratic primary races

From Mary Snow

CNN New York Bureau

 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- As they battle for support in the black community in their quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will attend Sunday's commemoration of the historic 1965 Selma voting rights march.

 

However, Clinton will bring along a not-so-secret weapon -- her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

 

"There is no white politician in America who is more popular in the African-American community than Bill Clinton," said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist. "So she has a very strong card to play."

 

The results of one recent poll suggest that card is one she may need.

 

An ABC News-Washington Post survey, taken late last week, found that Obama, from Illinois, was the choice of 44 percent of black Democrats, compared to 33 percent for Hillary Clinton, with a sampling error of plus or minus 8 percentage points. That was a marked shift from the beginning of the year, when she led Obama 60 percent to 20 percent. (Full story)

 

However, the poll found that the New York senator's favorable rating among black voters was 85 percent, compared to 70 percent for Obama, although his favorability has climbed 16 points since the beginning of the year.

 

Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, one of the leaders of the Selma march 42 years ago, said the competition for black voters between the senators is "a very difficult position to be in, but it's a good position to be in."

 

"We have choices," he said.

 

Simmons said that while black voters have a great deal of loyalty for Bill Clinton, "the question is whether that loyalty transfers to Hillary Clinton, and that's really the test she'll have to meet."

 

On Sunday in Selma, the former president will be inducted into the Voting Rights Hall of Fame. It will be the first major public appearance the Clintons have made together since Hillary Clinton announced in January that she would seek the Democratic nomination, and political observers will be looking keenly at how well she fares alongside her husband.

 

"There is, of course, something of a risk that when the Clintons appear next to one another, sometimes Bill can outshine her, and his connection to the community," said political analyst Stu Rothenberg of The Rothenberg Political Report.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/02/cli...bama/index.html

[snuffbox 0]

Hilary's speech was dismal in the wake of Obama's.

[SuperJerk 0]

Hilary's speech was dismal in the wake of Obama's.

You've just summarized the next 12 months.

 

You don't have to be a great public speaker to be a good president, but the real difference between the two is that Obama sounds like he geniunely believes what he's saying and has a real understanding of the problems of the average person, whereas Mrs. Clinton sounds like she got all of her opinions and ideas out of a briefing book.

 

If she suceeds in winning the nomination next year, it'll be a triumph of family connections over a genuine ability to inspire people.

[snuffbox 0]

Hopefuly the Bush Jr terms will have taught America what can happen when you allow somebody to rule based solely on family.

[EricMM 0]

I fervently hope that Clinton folds somehow.

 

It was just night and day with her and Obama. What was so telling to me was that they were both courting the same audiance in the same place, but one of them actually seemed like they belonged there. Clinton, for whatever reason, just seemed (seems) disingenuous.

 

That being said, Alabama isn't one of the first primaries, is it? I really really hate how the first three to five primaries decide the entire race.

[Boon 0]

That being said, Alabama isn't one of the first primaries, is it? I really really hate how the first three to five primaries decide the entire race.

* January 14, 2008 - Iowa (caucus)

* January 19, 2008 - Nevada (caucus)

* January 22, 2008 - New Hampshire (primary)

* January 29, 2008 - South Carolina, Florida

* February 5, 2008 - Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

RE: The "Person of Faith" requirement for President, but not directly related, I liked this thought on religion & nonreligion.

 

...the backlash against "arrogant" or "militant" atheists we see is absurd. We live in a society where large numbers of people believe they have "the one true faith." And a nontrivial subset of those people think part of that one true faith involves proselytizing and convincing the rest of us to join up. All fine, too. But the belief that you have the "one true faith," while you're welcome to it, is certainly more "intolerant" than someone like Dawkins or Harris calling you a complete moron for believing that. An atheist thinking your* beliefs are absurd is milder than your belief that all beliefs not yours are both absurd and potentially condemning someone to eternal damnation.

 

I'm not a proselytzing atheist myself, but they're no more intolerant than millions of religious people who, as they are entitled, think they have the "one true faith."

[snuffbox 0]

I just finished a really good bio of WJ Bryan. Both the final chapter of the book & his life, Dayton, play into this religion/politics stuff.

 

The sad thing about Scopes was how it caricatured Bryan as some sort of chronically proselytizing goon. While his performance in Dayton, as the Great Hope of Fundamentalism, was very embarassing it doesnt give any credit to how, for so much of his career, the only part religion played in his politics was as the foundation of his morals.

 

And yet, not much less than a century later, Bush Jr has been something of a chronically proselytizing goon with often horrid results. For whatever reason his caricature has not been drawn; somehow his dismal performance (and even waning support among Christians) has not stopped 2008 GOP hopefuls from massaging the empty heads of those Fundamentalists left disappointed by Bryan in Tennessee.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Enough with the p-word!

[snuffbox 0]

Peopleoffaith?

[Guest Banky Edwards]

I played Matt Brady in my high school's production of Inherit the Wind, but thankfully, my performance was not described as embarrassing. I bumped like a pro.

[SuperJerk 0]

I really really hate how the first three to five primaries decide the entire race.

 

I totally blame the news media for this. Think about it. Its mathematically impossible for 5 or 6 primaries or caucuses to determine the nominee, but the media keeps playing it that way. They give the winners of the early primaries so much coverage because they're the so-called "frontrunners" that everyone else gets drowned out to the point where they can't raise money to continue their campaign. We're already seeing that now, without a single vote being cast, with the constant focus who's ahead in the polls.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I almost wonder if there should be some law against networks publishing polls this early before an election. It really skews things.

 

Of course, Howard Dean looked like he was going to be the Democratic nominee about three years ago, and look how that turned out.

[2GOLD 0]

I almost wonder if there should be some law against networks publishing polls this early before an election. It really skews things.

 

Of course, Howard Dean looked like he was going to be the Democratic nominee about three years ago, and look how that turned out.

 

Violation of the freedom of the press, so it won't happen and the Supreme Court would never uphold it. The media has always influenced elections and that'll never change. Who they like is who we are going to be forced to like cause no one else will be seen.

 

It's not right and basically it requires citizens to take a more active approach and use their own common sense instead of what the head in the picture box tells them. Some do it, others don't. But no law will ever be proposed to fight it.

[snuffbox 0]

When was the last time a Democrat (non incumbent/VP) that was leading in the polls a year or so before the primary season actually won the nomination?

 

Has it ever happened?

[SuperJerk 0]

In the 60 year history of presidential polls, Walter Mondale comes the closest.

 

Fun fact: Bill Clinton didn't even declare he was running until October of 1991.