Campaign 2008

[Jingus 0]

I'm sure if I asked most of the people who voted Republican in 2000 or 2004 why they did it, their answer would be along the lines of "I had no idea they were going to fuck up this badly."

 

I'm mean, how much evidence do you need that Republican policies don't work before you are ready to stop voting for them?

No doubt a whole hell of a lot of people are saying that, sure. But once again, refer to history. In 2004, twelve million more people voted for Bush than did four years prior. Despite all the shit he bungled in the first four years, despite his consistently declining approval ratings from 9/12 on forward, despite everything about the last four years they'd just lived through, twelve million new people decided "I want me some more of that!" and rushed to the poles. Never underestimate the (mad lib) of the American people.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I have no illusions Obama is a perfect candidate for my viewpoints. I’m opposed to the death penalty in any case (It’s hypocritical to say it’s ok for the State to kill, and teaches a horrible lesson that it‘s ok for those in authority to kill). Plus you can never be 100% certain about person’s guilt. I just say let the convicted enjoy the rest of their lives in the general population of a pound me in the ass prison.

 

And Obama is being hypocritical about not accepting public financing. But he is really running a grassroots campaign. Most of his financing is coming from small donors, (I gave him $40). I’ll take a little hypocrisy to avoid McCain continuing Bush’s failed policies. I’ve volunteered for his campaign expecting to be joined by fellow leftwing Dems. I was surprised that most other volunteers were independents who have never been involved in a political campaign or activism .

 

I’m so disappointed in McCain. If just given an A or B choice in 2000, I would have voted for him over Gore. McCain used to be pragmatic, and Gore was just trying to win by whoring himself out to opinion polls.

 

McCain is now just whoring himself out to the most far right and xenophobic parts of the GOP base.

 

Yes, you can be 100% certain that someone is guilty of murder, given enough evidence. No one has been wrongfully executed in the US (at least as far as having their sentence overturned afterwards) in the US in over 50 years. Modern evidence is pretty darn good at determining who was at the scene of a crime. I don't get how you can say that the state cannot determine who should die, but invidividuals basically have that right. I think that if someone willfully murders someone else, they are removing themselves from the boundaries of any civilized society, and we should then treat them as we would an animal that has killed a person. I always love the excuse of "Let's just put them in prison so they can be attacked and sodomized." So you're saying it's OK for convicts to carry out vigilante justice, but law abiding citizens should not have the same right? It's a ridiculous double standard, and not a real answer to criminal justice.

 

I don't really get the flap over the Obama financing thing, and don't really care either. I just figure all politicians are going to get their money one way or another. It doesn't bother me too much how it happens. It's a reality of American politics. Anyway, no one is going to remember this thing about Obama choosing public financing in another couple weeks, so it doesn't matter.

[Jingus 0]

Yes, you can be 100% certain that someone is guilty of murder, given enough evidence. No one has been wrongfully executed in the US (at least as far as having their sentence overturned afterwards) in the US in over 50 years.

No one has been officially proven to have been wrongfully executed in over 50 years. There have been many controversial cases where the evidence was far from airtight. There's a pretty common government reaction, whether state or federal or otherwise, to discourage digging around old cases after the convict has actually been killed. Nobody wants their system to be undermined. And considering the thousands of people who have been executed in that time frame, statistically speaking at least one of them had to have been innocent.

 

Keep in mind when I say stuff like this, or mentioning earlier that many execution methods are often neither quick nor painless, I am actually for the death penalty. But it's important to know all the filthy details about exactly what you support.

[Guest Smues]

And it doesn't always work out that way. I have a former relative (married into the family) who kidnapped a six year old girl, raped her, taped it, tried to sell it on the internet, and got busted. He's getting out of prison after only ten years. What the fuck is up with that shit? Not even life in prison.

 

She must have been dressed seductively.

[Just John 0]

Another ridiculous GOP ad from 2006:

Sign me up for having teenage girls to have their gentila connected with probes watching porn.

 

"Ron Kind spent your tax dollars to study something called the bisexual, transgendered, and two-spirited Aleutian Eskimos, whoever they are" is my favorite line from any political ad ever.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm sure if I asked most of the people who voted Republican in 2000 or 2004 why they did it, their answer would be along the lines of "I had no idea they were going to fuck up this badly."

 

I'm mean, how much evidence do you need that Republican policies don't work before you are ready to stop voting for them?

No doubt a whole hell of a lot of people are saying that, sure. But once again, refer to history. In 2004, twelve million more people voted for Bush than did four years prior. Despite all the shit he bungled in the first four years, despite his consistently declining approval ratings from 9/12 on forward, despite everything about the last four years they'd just lived through, twelve million new people decided "I want me some more of that!" and rushed to the poles. Never underestimate the (mad lib) of the American people.

 

Apparently, then, the key to Republican electoral victory is time travel, because if the 2008 election were taking place in the year 2004 you might have a point. Since Bush's approval ratings are NOW below 30%, I would think that a lot more keen to the idea that Republican governance is a bad idea than were aware of it in 2004. Here in the year 2008, there's more evidence that Republican policies don't work than there was in 2004. Unless the Republican Party can import voters via time machine from 4 years ago, I'm pretty sure most voters are aware of how big of a failure those policies are, and are probably having second thoughts about voting Republican for a third straight time.

[Jingus 0]

I'm not sure what your argument is here. McCain has no chance of winning and will get squashed in a Reaganesque manner come election day? The current polls don't seem to show any credence towards that. You seem to be assuming that personal dislike for the Bush administration automatically equals general dislike for the Republican party, and I don't think that's the case. Are more people unhappy with the Republicans now than ever before? Of course. But they've still got whole heapin' helpins of support out there. Consider that everything Bush has ever done to fuck shit up and alienate everyone (and it's been a lot of fucking up and alienation), he still has the apparently unwavering support of around 30% of the populace. I do think that Obama will probably be our next president, but I don't think the GOP is gonna just roll over and die come this November.

[SuperJerk 0]

I was only refuting your answer to the original question.

 

I actually think I know the real answer to the question.

 

(I can be a dick sometimes.)

[SuperJerk 0]

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

 

Reaching out to religious voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called for expanding President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — supported some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

 

Obama unveiled his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.

 

"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama said.

 

Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.

 

The candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies that are traditionally loyal to Republicans and oppose Obama on other grounds.

 

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a protest from those in his own party who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

 

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

 

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama's proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.

 

"I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration," he said. "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

 

John DiIulio, who in 2001 was director of Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said Obama's plan "reminds me of much that was best in both then Vice President Al Gore's and then Texas Governor George W. Bush's respective first speeches on the subject in 1999," according to a statement from the Obama campaign.

 

Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.

 

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

 

This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.

 

"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

 

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

 

Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

 

Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

 

"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he said.

 

Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.

 

"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."

 

Obama also talked bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.

 

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith

 

Since the money given to religious-based groups is only used to help people and not to push a religious agenda, I've actually come to think of President Bush's program as one of his better ideas as president. I'm glad that Obama is willing to keep what is good about the current administration, rather than a knee-jerk jettison just because Bush';s name is attached to it.

 

 

[Atticus Chaos 0]

 

 

NObama girl.

[Canadian Brandon 0]

This is my first time voting in a presidential election. I am completely torn in the middle. I guess you could call me an independent. Somebody sell me on either Obama or McCain. I don't hate either one, and I just want some more info from you all about them.

[Jingus 0]

Right here. This'll provide you with way more specific, unbiased information than anyone on a message board. It even has all those wacky third-party candidates in case you want to throw your vote away.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

So why has America never had a believable 3rd party?

[BorneAgain 0]

So why has America never had a believable 3rd party?

Election and balloting laws make it quite difficult for such parties to get much momentum.

 

Plus there's a a built in societal skepticism for them, especially those which seem only single issue parties.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

So why has America never had a believable 3rd party?

Election and balloting laws make it quite difficult for such parties to get much momentum.

 

Plus there's a a built in societal skepticism for them, especially those which seem only single issue parties.

 

So is it engineered that way to always make it a 2 Horse Race? Sorry, if I'm totally looking into this wrong. Just seems odd that its only been two parties for so long that seemingly appear to be pretty much the same now too. I know they're not, but its hard to see who's the lesser of two evils. Just seems worrying that the general belief is that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote wasted and that you'd rather vote against another party so they didn't get in.

[Jingus 0]

We have had a few, even relatively successful ones (like the Whigs), just not any in a long time which challenged the standard Donkey Vs Elephant battle of power. One big problem imho with the current Other Parties is that the same ones have been around too long, failing over and over again. Nader running for president again? Who cares, we all know he's got zero shot of winning. Same thing with the Libertarians, the Greens, and all the other also-rans who are always on the ballot but never get even one electoral vote. And all of the newly formed parties tend to be small, poorly funded, and based around causes which aren't popular with the mass public. (As much as I wish we would Legalize It, no candidate is going to be taken too seriously if he runs with that plank firmly in his platform.)

 

I could see a powerful third party forming, and could see it happening very soon if our current trend of crappy government continues into the next presidency. But for it to make a real impact, it would take a large number of important and powerful people from the established parties to defect to the new organization, and a sense among the voting populace that these guys aren't just going to continue doing the same old shit we're used to.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

In the UK its pretty much a 2 1/2 Horse Race too with Labor (Demo), Tory's (Rep) and Lib Dem (Libs), however in recent years the BNP (British National Party) have started to gain more and more momentum. The BNP is pretty much Britain for Britain and has for years been boarderline racist, sometimes not even boarderline. Does the US have a party like this? Just its a bit worrying that people would vote for a potentially racist faction other then another 3rd party, but I guess that's the state of the countries mind after the Blair Years.

 

What's your take on Parties getting big donations from powerful businesses and corporations? It happens in the UK too, but not really on the scale, as far as I'm aware, in the US. Seems like a public backhander to me, I don't get how it can be justified for them to give money to the potentially new President and then for that person to go and pass a bill in the business' favor. Or am I getting this all wrong?

 

Looking in at the American system, I found it odd that Obama and Clinton would dish the dirt on each other and go short of, sometimes all the way, character assassination to get into the White House. These guys are on the same team and they were happy to make the other look weak to get in the vote. Now all I see is a winner that has been belittled by his own party.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

We have had a few, even relatively successful ones (like the Whigs)

 

The Whigs weren't a third party.

[At Home 0]

The most powerful agent against a more-than-3-party system is the single plurality voting system. That, combined with the primaries. That combination prevents third parties and gives power to the dominant two.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

The most powerful agent against a more-than-3-party system is the single plurality voting system. That, combined with the primaries. That combination prevents third parties and gives power to the dominant two.

 

I know it'd be a lot of effort, but couldn't you guys, you know, protest against that? Really seems like its been set up to keep the 'main two' in the loop - what happened to your freedom of speech and choice, if you're being led down a narrow path into choosing just two parties?

[Jingus 0]

Does the US have a party like this?

Well, both of our parties frequently accuse each other of racism, since in this country a politician would much rather be caught embezzling money than be publicly known as being racist. No, we don't really have our own fascist new party which is worrisomely popular. Like I said, we've pretty much got the same old familiar faces that we've had for decades.

 

What's your take on Parties getting big donations from powerful businesses and corporations? It happens in the UK too, but not really on the scale, as far as I'm aware, in the US. Seems like a public backhander to me, I don't get how it can be justified for them to give money to the potentially new President and then for that person to go and pass a bill in the business' favor. Or am I getting this all wrong?

This gets covered under the "All Politicians Are Crooks" cliche which is mostly believed by voters. We actually expect these guys to all turn out to be total bastards. There's very little confidence in America that any honest people will ever get into office in the first place. There's often a feeling of "even if we throw out this crook, the next guy might be worse". Hell, that's kind of how Ron Paul got such a bizarre level of support, just because he appealled to those people who were so frustrated and felt disenfranchised with the whole process. In every election a lot of people make empty promises about campaign finance reform, but not much ever comes from it once they actually take office.

 

Looking in at the American system, I found it odd that Obama and Clinton would dish the dirt on each other and go short of, sometimes all the way, character assassination to get into the White House. These guys are on the same team and they were happy to make the other look weak to get in the vote. Now all I see is a winner that has been belittled by his own party.

I dunno, guess it's just an American individualism thing. This country has been founded on the lie principle that One Person Can Make A Difference, and individual personality is often considered to be more important than your party or your platform.

 

Plus, the Clintons are like the world's greatest character assassins, they could write entire sets of encyclopedias on dirty pool. Obama fired back a little bit every now and then, but chose the High Road method and it seemed to work for him.

 

The Whigs weren't a third party.

Well, yeah, coulda worded that better, technically they were the second party. They were primarily facing the Democratic-Republican party and then a bunch of little feuding factions, and not two equally big machines. But they were a newly formed party, different from what had come before (though of course the National Republicans and a bit of the Federalists combined forces together to start it) and wasn't just the same two opponents over and over again. It seems like the only thing the Reps and Dems agree on is that they'd prefer to be the only games in town and quietly try to discourage any other competition.

[Jingus 0]

I know it'd be a lot of effort, but couldn't you guys, you know, protest against that?

Some have tried. Part of it is the general apathy of the citizens here; less than 50% usually vote. But still, the parties in power have pretty clearly indicated that they're not at all interested in changing our current electoral system. Even though in the year 2000, the guy fewer people voted for still technically won according to the rules. Even though that's the fourth time that's happened in a presidential election. If THAT doesn't get the rules changed, nothing else will, not anytime soon.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

Vince McMahon "Its all about the moooooneeeeeeh"

 

I wasn't aware that it had happened before, in regards to the vote rigging. If that happened in the UK, I'm pretty sure we'd riot up into #10 and pull the guy out and dump him in the Thames. Really does sound like the US is a bit of a low moral Country in recent times. If I'm honest, I haven't voted before, but times around I will be (UK obviously) as I'm really worried that the BNP will gain some actual power and a voice outside of its newsletter.

 

I can understand why they're getting popular, claiming the UK has lost its identity - a powerful claim that is boarderline the truth.

[Jingus 0]

I wasn't aware that it had happened before, in regards to the vote rigging. If that happened in the UK, I'm pretty sure we'd riot up into #10 and pull the guy out and dump him in the Thames.

It's not a case of rigging per se. Our presidential election is set up under the Electoral College system, which is kinda weird and allows for various loopholes. The people don't actually directly vote for the president. In each state, the citizens vote for which candidate they want their state's electoral votes to go to; each state has a number of electoral votes equal to their number of Congressmen, which is roughly based on population count. This sets up a situation where more people can vote for one candidate, but the electoral votes happen to add up so that the other guy wins. It's happened four times, three in the 1800s and most recently in 2000, when half a million more people voted for Gore but the wonky rules still had Bush win. Though only once in our history has it really been a case of blatant cheating, in 1876 when backroom political deals basically stole the election and led to the nickname "RutheFraud B. Hayes".

[At Home 0]

The most powerful agent against a more-than-3-party system is the single plurality voting system. That, combined with the primaries. That combination prevents third parties and gives power to the dominant two.

 

I know it'd be a lot of effort, but couldn't you guys, you know, protest against that? Really seems like its been set up to keep the 'main two' in the loop - what happened to your freedom of speech and choice, if you're being led down a narrow path into choosing just two parties?

 

We like relative political stability.

[SuperJerk 0]

From the "OH NO HE DI-IN'T" file...

 

The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for "crude and hurtful" remarks he made about Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama after an interview with a Fox News correspondent.

 

The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized to Sen. Obama's campaign Wednesday over "hurtful" remarks.

 

The remarks came Sunday as Jackson was talking to a fellow interviewee, UnitedHealth Group executive Dr. Reed V. Tuckson. An open microphone picked up Jackson whispering, "See, Barack's been talking down to black people ... I want to cut his nuts off."

 

Jackson told CNN's "Situation Room" that he didn't realize the microphone was on.

 

"It was very private," Jackson said, adding that if "any hurt or harm has been caused to his campaign, I apologize."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/09/jes...ment/index.html

[EricMM 0]

This may actually help Obama.......

 

Obama should go out and to the Southpark "apologize" bit to Jackson.

[Perfxion 0]

Jackson thinking Obama is not for black people like he would like is only a good thing. It shows that he isn't a polarizing "civil rights leader", which is the biggest crock of shit and does not represent black people.

[SuperJerk 0]

No argument here as far as Jackson goes.

 

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle...

 

Republican John McCain distanced himself from an economic adviser who dubbed the United States "a nation of whiners" in a "mental recession" as Democrat Barack Obama turned the remarks against his rival....

 

 

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," Gramm told the Times. He noted that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

 

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," Gramm said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_...andidates_gramm

 

Rather than doing the fake righteous indignation routine everyone else is doing, I'll throw out this question...is the economy really that bad? Or are we just nervous and complaining about it? Or is Gramm out of touch?

[SuperJerk 0]

One of the Swift-Boaters has returned to back up McCain...

 

Fellow ex-POW eager to back McCain against Obama

 

In the decades since they shared a prison cell in North Vietnam, George "Bud" Day has remained a close friend of Republican John McCain and emerged as a staunch opponent of Democrats seeking the presidency.

 

As he did in 2004, when he took the lead in questioning Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's Vietnam War record, Day is eager this fall to do whatever he can to retain the White House for the Republicans — especially this Republican.

 

"I just want everyone to understand the difference between a board-certified physician and a student in medical school, because that is the difference," Day said, comparing McCain with Democratic rival Barack Obama. "Who would want a student in medical school operating on them?"

 

Day, 83, a former Air Force colonel who earned the Medal of Honor and dozens of other honors for his service during World War II, Korea and Vietnam, was held in a Hanoi prison for six years, off and on in the same cell as McCain.

 

"I know him extremely well, better than his wife," Day joked in a telephone interview.

 

That experience, Day said, has influenced his support for McCain and other Republicans as well as his contempt for the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 and 2008.

 

Born in Sioux City, Iowa, in 1925, Day quit high school to join the Marine Corps and then served 30 months in the Pacific. After earning a law degree, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Iowa Air National Guard in 1950. A year later, he was called to active duty for flight training and went on to serve two tours as a fighter pilot in Korea, then decided to make the Air Force a career.

 

He was flying an F-100, attacking missile sites in North Vietnam on Aug. 26, 1967, when his plane was hit. He ejected, breaking his arm and injuring his back in the process.

 

"I hit the ground real hard and when I woke up they had me," he said.

 

After escape attempts and torture, Day was imprisoned. McCain, a Navy pilot, was shot down two months after Day.

 

If McCain left a lasting impression on Day, then so did a young Navy veteran named John Kerry who spoke critically about the war before a congressional committee in 1971. Day was deeply offended, and in 2004 he had a chance for payback.

 

Day joined a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which accused Kerry of inflating his record in Vietnam. Other veterans and reporters disproved many of the accusations, yet Day stands by the group and its aims.

 

This campaign, Day hasn't been shy about criticizing Obama.

 

"He's basically never done anything, been anyplace," Day said. "John has been every place and proven himself as a leader. We're at war. We need a leader."

 

Day said he'll report for duty wherever he's needed by the McCain campaign. And he may be needed in Iowa. David Roederer, the chairman of McCain's campaign in Iowa, said most strategists believe Obama starts there with an edge over McCain.

 

"It's extremely helpful because Sen. McCain is, frankly, reluctant to talk about his own ordeal he went through as a prisoner of war," Roederer said. "Bud Day saw it firsthand and nobody is in a better position to say what happened and what didn't happen."

 

Others aren't sure that Day can do that much on the Republican's behalf. McCain's war record is already widely known, they say, and voters likely to be won over by it are probably already supporters.

 

"In a way, he's trying to create his own base and I think he sees his base as military-veteran types," said Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford. "Religious conservatives thus far have not been his base and he's still in the process, odd as it seems, of assembling his base."

 

Day still practices law, primarily representing veterans with service-related disabilities. He says he can always make time for McCain.

 

"He's probably one of the three or four best people in the world," Day said. "He's got the right stuff in spades."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_.../mccain_s_buddy

 

Must...resist...urge....to go on...another...anti-Swift Boat Vet....rant...

 

(And in case there's any doubt that the accusations against Kerry were baseless, read this article. http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded...ar_record.html)