Campaign 2008

[The Niggardly King 0]

I know the media hasn't caught on to that yet (still giving Hillary a free pass on milking fabricated war experiences) but I'd kinda like to think we're all a bit smarter than them.

 

Because they only have about 20 seconds to catch the average person before they switch over to CSI or ESPN.

[Firestarter 0]

It's very amusing that Ripper, of all people, is the one who actually gets this.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

I have mostly stayed out of this thread because as many of you know, I hate politics, politicians, I think they are all lying assholes, party be damned, they are pretty much the same, and can suck my balls.

 

But I have been paying attention more now, because I didn't like any candidate. My question...why the fuck are people wanting to vote for Obama? He is STILL giving non answers, just points out problems and says "We are going to have to fix this" and people cheer. I can fucking do that? I am looking for policy suggestions and the like. HOW does he plan on changing things and I am having a hard time finding any. From all three candidates honestly.

 

Am I looking to pick someone to vote for but I am having a hard time giving a shit about any of them at this point because none of them are saying a goddamned thing.

 

I think I am closest to voting for McCain. At least he is openly admitting that you can't just pull out of Iraq immediately despite how you feel about the war instead of tap dancing bullshit like Obama and Hil-dawg are doing.

 

But I am getting off the subject. What exactly about Obama is selling people? The only way he is getting my vote is if my man John Edwards gets on his ticket, because I will vote for some John Edwards. I voted for Kerry's stupid ass for John Edwards.

 

Them not saying it and you not hearing it are two different things, man. If you wanna be a concerned citizen, go find Obama's stances, they're definitely out there. It's easy to blame the media, but blame the media and spit in the other and see which opinion like an asshole everyone's got two in a bush, anyway. I mean, kvetch all you want, but don't rely on the 4th estate to make all your choices on the first three.

[Guest Vitamin X]

but blame the media and spit in the other and see which opinion like an asshole everyone's got two in a bush, anyway

 

That's a hell of a cliche' overload there, Jew.

[godthedog 0]

It's very amusing that Ripper, of all people, is the one who actually gets this.

why? because he's black and thus should be the last one to get anything?

[The Niggardly King 0]

She more than likely means that he doesn't even follow politics, and the fact that more than likely his beliefs in the past might not lend themselves to his current stance on the issues.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Dan Senor is saying Condoleeza Rice is very interested in the VP spot, and several of the neo cons are urging Mccain to go with her (Mccain still hasn't won them over since he doesn't appear to be as 'controllable' as Bush).

 

 

It's an interesting move: But really, they can't think she'll take the black vote from Obama (she won't). Not to mention her fingerprints are all over the Iraq disaster. Also, her status as a happily single, child free woman freaks out a lot of conservatives anyway.

 

What scares me, is that Mccain is 72. So, he's got a higher than avergage chances of dying. President Condi?! The only thing worse would be Jeb Bush as VP (although I like to think even Mccain isn't so stupid to pick another Bush as his running mate)

[snuffbox 0]

Mark Penn is leaving the Clinton campaign after the Colombian thing.

[Firestarter 0]

I doubt very much that Dan f'n Senor, of all people, has any insight into Republican politics. The First Lady was talking up a Condi run a few years ago, but last I heard Dr Rice had ruled it out. All her behavior since then has been entirely consistent with what I saw back when I worked for her.

 

Threnody says (19:24):

TSM CE person taking a Dan Senor comment about Dr Rice as VP seriously. </facepalm>

Words are insufficient.

 

X says (19:27):

What do you expect.

 

Threnody says (19:29):

It's just that they manage to leap from one level of cluelessness to another without pause. You can't even anticipate it. It's like the mountain goats of stupidity all decided to get together and have a convention.

[At Home 0]

Mark Penn is leaving the Clinton campaign after the Colombian thing.

 

Thank god.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

I have mostly stayed out of this thread because as many of you know, I hate politics, politicians, I think they are all lying assholes, party be damned, they are pretty much the same, and can suck my balls.

 

But I have been paying attention more now, because I didn't like any candidate. My question...why the fuck are people wanting to vote for Obama? He is STILL giving non answers, just points out problems and says "We are going to have to fix this" and people cheer. I can fucking do that? I am looking for policy suggestions and the like. HOW does he plan on changing things and I am having a hard time finding any. From all three candidates honestly.

 

Am I looking to pick someone to vote for but I am having a hard time giving a shit about any of them at this point because none of them are saying a goddamned thing.

 

I think I am closest to voting for McCain. At least he is openly admitting that you can't just pull out of Iraq immediately despite how you feel about the war instead of tap dancing bullshit like Obama and Hil-dawg are doing.

 

But I am getting off the subject. What exactly about Obama is selling people? The only way he is getting my vote is if my man John Edwards gets on his ticket, because I will vote for some John Edwards. I voted for Kerry's stupid ass for John Edwards.

 

Them not saying it and you not hearing it are two different things, man. If you wanna be a concerned citizen, go find Obama's stances, they're definitely out there. It's easy to blame the media, but blame the media and spit in the other and see which opinion like an asshole everyone's got two in a bush, anyway. I mean, kvetch all you want, but don't rely on the 4th estate to make all your choices on the first three.

 

Why are you blaming the media? Obama himself has been pretty vague about his stances on the issues when he's up there giving speeches. I shouldn't have to go to his website to find out how he feels on a particular issue.

 

[snuffbox 0]

While Obama has given a ton of specifics on several topics, does anybody actually know what McCain or Clinton's plans are for, say, Iraq? McCain seems to go go no deeper than stay-the-course, an already known failure. Hillary has changed positions on that more times than I can count and that doesn't really translate to a strong, well-thought plan being made for when she takes office and has to actually do something.

 

I prefer Kennedy's quote on self-delusion to the recent plague of 'deliberately obtuse or' but the point remains. If you're still believing that Obama has no plan and the "experienced" candidates have the grand theses typed up and ready to go, you're only doing it to yourself.

[SuperJerk 0]

My question...why the fuck are people wanting to vote for Obama? He is STILL giving non answers, just points out problems and says "We are going to have to fix this" and people cheer. I can fucking do that? I am looking for policy suggestions and the like. HOW does he plan on changing things and I am having a hard time finding any. From all three candidates honestly.

 

The policy positions are there, but he doesn't emphasize them.

 

Most people aren't looking for policy positions, they are looking for someone they like and who they can trust. That's why people like Marney use most of their time attacking his character, and people like me think he walks on water.

 

Poll after poll after poll showed the majority of the American people disagreed with Reagan on most of the important issues of the day, but he got elected twice by sizable margins. But he could get people to trust him, and people really liked him as a person. Clinton, despite the fact that he positioned himself squarely in the mainstream of opinion on most important issues of his day, could never muster more than 49% of the popular vote.

 

Most of what the president deals with is reacting to unforseen emergencies, so trusting someone's judgement is crucial. A bidding war between candidates to see who can offer the flashiest program (which will only be diluted by the Congress anyways) is not as important.

 

I think I am closest to voting for McCain. At least he is openly admitting that you can't just pull out of Iraq immediately despite how you feel about the war instead of tap dancing bullshit like Obama and Hil-dawg are doing.

 

But I am getting off the subject. What exactly about Obama is selling people? The only way he is getting my vote is if my man John Edwards gets on his ticket, because I will vote for some John Edwards. I voted for Kerry's stupid ass for John Edwards.

You can't honestly tell me you only care about policy positions, and then switch from Edwards to McCain. They're not very alike. Perhaps its because those are two people you think you can trust, and issues are secondary.

[Firestarter 0]

Most people aren't looking for policy positions...

 

That's why people like Marney use most of their time attacking his character

I kind of have to do that, because as Ripper and Czech, among others, have pointed out, there's very little else there to attack. He's running pretty much solely on his vaunted judgement, his character, and his race (despite his absurd attempts to paint himself as a "post-racial" candidate). It seems a little disingenuous to criticize his opponents for bringing up his judgement and his character when that is what he's running on - and there's a wealth of problems there to criticize - and then shouting "RACISM!" when anyone tries to bring up the issues.

 

I mean really. The way it's set up you guys yell at us for criticizing him in ANY way. B.O. Hussein is the newest Jersey Girl.

 

You can't honestly tell me you only care about policy positions, and then switch from Edwards to McCain. They're not very alike. Perhaps its because those are two people you think you can trust, and issues are secondary.

Speaking for myself, I trust McCain on not one single issue.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

The scary thing is Clinton paid Penn $6 million....and for what?

 

 

The problem with Penn is outwardly he may have looked expereinced but only at a certain type of campaign. He worked for Clinton in 1996 when he was seeking election, and then for Hillary when she was running for the senate and both were against weak opponents. So, when he was up against a strong challager he went to peices. He was good at projecting inevitibility for a candidate, but unfortunatly Hillay wasn't inevitable this time.

[Firestarter 0]

That is, surprisingly, a fairly good point and well stated. It's a fact that Penn has never really been up against the wall.

[snuffbox 0]

She'll probably hire Shrum.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

who wants to get on a sinking ship?

[snuffbox 0]

Shrum.

[Firestarter 0]

She'll probably hire Shrum.

That's almost as much of a curse as an Al Gore endorsement.

[Firestarter 0]

who wants to get on a sinking ship?

Shrum.

Yeah, it's the only kind of ship he has any experience with.

[snuffbox 0]

Of all the people to ever catch the Mark Hanna bug, he's the absolute worst.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Bob Barr is running for the libetarians. This is possibly bad new for Mccain since he is very conservative and might get some of his voters. Paul's endorsed him.

 

Oddly,I thought Ron Paul running for the libetarians would have been worse for Obama, rather than the republicans since they have similar appeal (despite being at opposite ends of the politcal spectrum). It's the whole anti establishment thing.

[Firestarter 0]

Barr's a fucking joke... has been for years. I doubt he'd pull anything close to Nader.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I think Paul's endorsement might make a big difference.

 

I mean, if your a ron paul guy, do you vote for Mccain, the man who laughed at Paul during debates and is everything Ron Paul is fighting against? Or do you go for the guy he tells you to vote for?

[Firestarter 0]

I think Paul's endorsement might make a big difference.

Um no. Because Paul is a freaking nutjob.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

In those republican debates he was the sanest person there.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm not trusting a former drug-war-hawk and Patriot Act voter as a Libertarian. Working towards reducing the governemnt is not a matter of changed rhetoric. I will hope that the former Paul supporters will either support a legitimate libertarian or choose the one of the three major candidates left that will actually reduce the size of the government (Obama).

 

 

[Firestarter 0]

In those republican debates he was the sanest person there.

I'm going to borrow a page from my Leelee and give you a -20,000,000 point infraction here.

 

 

 

Sorry, but referring to Ron Paul as "sane" in any context puts you outside the bounds of reasonable discussion.

[Firestarter 0]

the one of the three major candidates left that will actually reduce the size of the government (Obama).

...

 

...

 

...please tell me this was extraordinarily heavy-handed sarcasm.