Campaign 2008

[The Niggardly King 0]

where can I still vote for Ron Paul?

 

I'd write in Lou Dobbs. Red White and Fuckin' Blue Hero

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Simply put, all he needed to say was "All parties treat outsiders with some level of condescension, so it's unfair to single out the Democrats on it. More to the point, Obama isn't being condescending, as evidenced by his demeanor at the debate. If anyone is being "elitist", it's McCain for constantly saying he 'Doesn't understand' how things work." Is it really too much to expect something like that?

When someone says something to the effect of, "for people who sure to welcome so many minorities, the Democrats sure run cold when it comes turns to welcoming someone they disagree with," they're almost always talking about culture war issues.

 

It's like when you hear someone say that the ACLU "won't defend my rights," that person is almost always an NRA member.

[panthermatt7 0]

He never talked about squelching debate. Re-read his post; he talked about ridiculing the other side's view.

Democrats today cry for everyone to have an equal voice (i.e. womens' rights with abortion, gay marriage with homosexuality), up until it comes to people that differ from their opinion.

 

How can I interpret this as other than something along the lines of this?: "Democrats today want everyone to have an equal say in matters, until it comes to people whom they disagree with, which they want to shut out entirely." That's wanting to stifle debate. I don't know how he also can say that only Democrats do this. Both parties are somewhat guilty of doing it.

 

Allow me to elaborate:

Both parties attempt to stifle debate, but in two very different ways. Republicans stifle it through believing that the "liberal" school of thought is wishful thinking, a Utopian sense of imaginary success for everyone. (Believe me, this is how it's spun... in high school, I was a big listener of Rush Limbaugh.) They also spin "liberals" as Communist haters of free market capitalism, punishers of America's successful, and abortion-loving sodomites.

 

Democrats, on the other hand, tend to be guilty of what I indicated above -- the "if you disagree with me, you clearly don't think as much as me" mentality. I apologize if I didn't lay into Republicans enough to match my level of criticism for Democrats.

[Firestarter 0]

Is that really the best you can do?

You know it's not.

 

We know it's just a half-ass attempt at wit by an inferior mind.

<cocks eyebrow> "An inferior mind?"

 

Really?

 

[snuffbox 0]

Good Obama speech in La Crosse this morning. He said that we have seen the "final verdict" on the philosophy of trickle-down economics.

[NoCalMike 0]

So I see the new Republican strategy over the past couple of weeks has become If Sarah Palin can't answer a simple question it's because it's a "gotcha moment"

[SuperJerk 0]

...you're only repeating the Obama camp's talking about Amhamahdaingnaindahajajdadnad not being the central authority in Iran to demonstrate your OH SO PRECIOUS understanding of Mohammedan culture... which is to say... rather tedious at best. The fact is that the President of Iran commands the military forces of Iran. The fact that the successor of the Ayatollah Khomeini (whom I once met, by the way) could, technically, assert his authority over the President of Iran is immaterial because Khamenei AGREES with everything Ahmedingianghahginahdjaad is doing right now. So would you kindly shut your half-educated mouth and sit in the corner over there, please?

 

I don't know everything about Islamic culture, but I know enough to know that its not uniform. There's the lunatic fringe that we're having problems with, then there's everyday Muslims who don't deserve to die just because they were brought up believing Mohammed was the last prophet of God. Beyond the stereotype of the jihad-crazy terrorist there a very reasonable group of people who probably don't buy into the Quran 100%, follow a more peaceful interpretation of Islam, and have as much a right to life as we do.

 

Ahmadinejad was elected by the Iranian people, and I beleive is up for re-election next year. He is not a dictator like John McCain and Sarah Palin claim. However, Iran is an elected theocracy ultimately controlled by the Supreme Leader (appointed by the Assembly of Experts) and the Assembly of Experts (who are elected). The National Supreme Security Council runs national defense, and it answers to the Supreme Leader, though it has members appointed from the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the government. The Supreme Leader is not always been supportive of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric or polcies.

 

Please note, this source I'm about to cite is not from the Obama campaign:

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/Wo...how/1319950.cms

 

Simply put, Ahmadinejad is a loud-mouth jackass that is using the world stage to make himself look like a tough-guy for the hard-line elements in his own country, and to distract attention away from the fact that his domestic policies have been disasterous and he's unfit for office. His travelling circus-show of holocaust denial and tough talk against Israel is popular with a lot of Iranian voters, unfortunately, but ultimately is meaningless because he is out of the loop when it comes to actually making foreign policy.

 

We know it's just a half-ass attempt at wit by an inferior mind.

<cocks eyebrow> "An inferior mind?"

 

Really?

 

I honestly don't know who first made up the "B.O. Hussein" joke, but whoever was I exactly don't think is coloring with a full box of crayons.

[SuperJerk 0]

 

Not as bad as it was made out to be, but I'm very bothered that her criteria for determining a bad decision is that it takes power away from state and local government. By this standard, we'd have never gotten Brown v. Board of Education, Gibbons v. Ogden, McCulloch v. Maryland or a crap-load of other important decisions where states were either exceding their authority or trying to deny equal rights to its people.

[NoCalMike 0]

Not as bad as it was made out to be, but I'm very bothered that her criteria for determining a bad decision is that it takes power away from state and local government. By this standard, we'd have never gotten Brown v. Board of Education, Gibbons v. Ogden, McCulloch v. Maryland or a crap-load of other important decisions where states were either exceding their authority or trying to deny equal rights to its people.

 

Except for the fact that you just named off three additional examples off the top of your head and Palin spent three minutes speaking nonsense in order to hide the fact that she couldn't name a single example. And also, I would be earger to see her and McCain's opinion on California (and I believe a few other states) passing medical marijuana laws and if they would continue to support federal interference, because of how "pro-states rights" they are.

 

Look, honestly I can careless about her "intelligence" or lack thereof, or commentary about "Is she ready to lead"

To me, it's just a distraction from the real problem which is her ultra-right wing viewpoints on most issues. The whole "she's ready, no she's not ready" is just a convoluted argument about nothing, all it does is give the right-wing a rallying cry to play a game of cat & mouse. The more discussion given to actual issues, the more people are going to walk, no run away from Sarah Palin.

[Maztinho 0]

Not as bad as it was made out to be, but I'm very bothered that her criteria for determining a bad decision is that it takes power away from state and local government. By this standard, we'd have never gotten Brown v. Board of Education, Gibbons v. Ogden, McCulloch v. Maryland or a crap-load of other important decisions where states were either exceding their authority or trying to deny equal rights to its people.

 

Except for the fact that you just named off three additional examples off the top of your head and Palin spent three minutes speaking nonsense in order to hide the fact that she couldn't name a single example. And also, I would be earger to see her and McCain's opinion on California (and I believe a few other states) passing medical marijuana laws and if they would continue to support federal interference, because of how "pro-states rights" they are.

 

Look, honestly I can careless about her "intelligence" or lack thereof, or commentary about "Is she ready to lead"

To me, it's just a distraction from the real problem which is her ultra-right wing viewpoints on most issues. The whole "she's ready, no she's not ready" is just a convoluted argument about nothing, all it does is give the right-wing a rallying cry to play a game of cat & mouse. The more discussion given to actual issues, the more people are going to walk, no run away from Sarah Palin.

 

Honestly I was leaning toward McCain before the VP's where announced, and after looking into Palin's ideas, I'm going to "throw my vote away" on Obama, because she scares the living shit out of me if she was a policy maker in this country.

 

*note I say throw my vote away, because I'm in Utah. It's electoral votes are already counted for McCain.

[BigPoppaKev 0]

I am no expert on any of this but my mother is 55 years old and she leans semi-to the right. After seeing Palin's performance in he past few weeks my mother has never been more disgusted in a Republican VP candidate that I can remember. I'm not saying she nor I am an expert but a lot of the crowd McCain is going for the middle class older white crowd and my mother is voting democrat for the first time since I can remember.

[Mecca 0]

Has anyone else noticed anyone that uses the both candidates suck or lesser of 2 evils lines are always McCain supporters? I've yet to see someone supporting Obama say that.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Some of that has to be people who want to vote McCain but don't want to have to spend time explaining away all the retarded things he's been doing.

[snuffbox 0]

where can I still vote for Ron Paul?

 

Ballot.

 

[Guest]

I decided to vote for Barr because it's the easiest way for me to make my point.

[bob_barron 0]

I've been considering Barr too, but it seems a little too convenient that the guy suddenly changed his position on everything

[snuffbox 0]

Yes, after going in the big govt direction on every issue when he was in power (doing vs. speaking).

[Guest]

When I look at it, it is more a vote for anyone but the two main parties. I'm not necessarily voting for Barr, I'm voting for anyone but Obama or McCain, and Barr happens to be the one which will receive the most percentage points in that case. It's convenient for me to add to his total and voice my displeasure that way.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm not sure that Barr will get more votes than write-ins for Paul. Actual conservatives are kinda picky and many seem to see right through Barr. It's too bad the LP didn't but that isnt particularly surprising.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

John McCain pulling out of Michigan

 

Presumably McCain is going to put all his eggs in the "flip Pennsylvania" basket or something.

[Firestarter 0]

...God in heaven as my witness, McCain is an ass.

[RonL21 0]

Sarah Palin's Strategy

 

Apparently, Sarah Palin's strategy is to attack Biden tonight on his foreign policy and taxes.

Either these people have some master plan or Palin's been playing Possum with

Katie Couric.

[BUTT 0]

Hey Marv, your boy Glenn is on CNN right now saying McCain just cost himself the election by voting for the bailout.

[ZGangsta 0]

Hey Marv, your boy Glenn is on CNN right now saying McCain just cost himself the election by voting for the bailout.

I read a piece by Glen Beck on CNN.com a few days ago talking about how, becuase this was such an epic crisis, the bailout is absolutely neccessary.

[Brett Favre 0]

That was a gotcha moment though.

[Nightwing 0]

Hey Marv, your boy Glenn is on CNN right now saying McCain just cost himself the election by voting for the bailout.

I read a piece by Glen Beck on CNN.com a few days ago talking about how, becuase this was such an epic crisis, the bailout is absolutely neccessary.

To be fair, he was talking about the pork that was added, and saying that McCain was completely ignoring what he said earlier about the bill and how he wouldn't vote for one that had earmarks (Which this is apparently full of).

 

A broken clock is right twice a day, I suppose.

[SuperJerk 0]

...God in heaven as my witness, McCain is an ass.

 

McCain brings liberal and conservatives together in their mutual hate for him.

 

 

 

Based on footage of her 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debates, I fully expect Palin to "shock the world" tonight. She wasn't exactly playing possum with Couric and Gibson, but probably not wanting to give direct answers to the questions she actually did know the answers to because being specific just opens you up to direct attacks later on. She does that all the time in her speeches, and distracts people with her sarcastic wit. She couldn't play to her strengths during the interviews, though, because she was doing a one-on-one interview with no audience in the room with her. She had no one in the room with her to play against in her answers. She's not a details person at all, and she'll still dance around the question without giving a real answer, but this time she'll deflect attention away from her non-answers by attacking Democrats.

[Firestarter 0]

McCain brings liberal and conservatives together in their mutual hate for him.

Indeed.

 

She's not a details person at all, and she'll still dance around the question without giving a real answer, but this time she'll deflect attention away from her non-answers by attacking Democrats.

No argument. Her Couric interview was AWFUL. What you suggest she should do tonight is what she should have been doing all along.

[At Home 0]

It's good that the Kouric interviews have taken their effect, but they've lowered the bar very low for Palin. She can do less than satisfactory and score major points, which is pretty shitty. Palin has been studying for this debate like it's some midterm, and will be scant on details. She'll flash a few and the talking heads will throw her a bone. Biden will win this debate, there is no doubt about it. Palin will dance around the issue and recite lines and anecdotes. Some people will inevitably empathize with whatever she'll be talking about, and the analysts will either chalk it up to be a respective victory, or what it will most likely be, an unmitigated win for Biden.

 

It's unfortunate that Biden can't shred her. He'll almost certainly be viewed as beating up on her if he did that, which shouldn't be viewed negatively if he does it with grace. Nevermind that McCain repeated ad nauseam that Obama "didn't understand" or told him, "YOU CAN'T SAY THINGS LIKE THAT OUT LOUD!", Biden truly owning this debate as his territory would just be unfair territory. Biden should be the stylistic mouthpiece for a lot of people here, who are pining for candidates to drop the bullshit and actually tell us what we want to hear, but this isn't the most graceful move on the political spectrum.

 

But the problem I have with her is that she represents a sort of populism that puts forth the thought that any Joe Blow is qualified enough to be president, and Palin is about as Joe Blow as they come. This notion is absolutely absurd, and, frankly, dangerous. The real test isn't these debates for Palin, but everything leading up to this point, which she failed miserably. She's going to keep on reciting talking points in the debates, that's a given. What people should be looking at is her performance up until this point. She's woefully underprepared, no matter which way you turn it. The points she'll be reciting tonight are McCain's aides', not hers.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

The thing I find most fascinating about that video is how much less pronounced her accent was back then. I mean, it's still there, but it's nowhere near as affected and "folksy" as it's been since she hit the national stage.