2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 10.

[anitram]

Oh, STING, I won't bother even arguing with you. I know you're busy coming up with a whole new set of talking points, seeing as to how you'll need them in 22 days. Best of luck, chap.

 

[Strongbow]

Its funny, there are probably only 10 people on this board that support McCain or Bush, but clearly, some people in this forum wish that it was zero.

 

[Diemen]

Some people wish those who supported McCain were more compelling debaters.

 

[Strongbow]

Some people wish those who supported McCain were more compelling debaters.

Those same people would never acknowledge there being any.

 

[financeguy]

Liberal intellectuals and elites have been scorned by Republicans in the past, but not intellectuals and elites in general. Have you not heard the praise for General Patraeus? Have you not heard the praise for the United States military? Do you really think Republicans despise someone like Alan Greenspan?

Greenspan is a curious example to put forward as a Republican intellectual heavyweight, particularly at this juncture. As I predicted here over a year ago, history will not be kind to Mr Greenspan.

Market fundamentalists like Greenspa believed that the system of US banks using CDOs and passing on risk as packaged securities spread out risk in the system to those who could afford it, and made the system more stable. Obviously, he was completely wrong.

 

[Strongbow]

It'd be interesting to have Sting explain away what we witnessed in that video.

I found that video as discouraging and the McCain/Palin mob flick. Equally dishonest, equally deplorable. And again it was the people making the video not the "baddies" in the video that I found most dishonest and most deplorable.

Sad.

What I find ironic, is that we have had people in this forum claim that Bush is a Terrorist with the majority in here not stepping in to voice their opposition to that type of a statement. If your looking for wild and crazy things said about politicians, you don't need to look any further than what many have said about Bush in FYM.

 

[Diemen]

Example, please.

 

[toscano]

What I find ironic, is that we have had people in this forum claim that Bush is a Terrorist with the majority in here not stepping in to voice their opposition to that type of a statement.

Maybe it's because Bush HAS been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.

I'm not saying that makes him a "terrorist" necessarily, but certainly tactics of terror have been used fighting a conflict for.............what was the reason again ????

 

[Diemen]

You didn't just give Sting an open invitation to explain the reasons to us (again), did you?

 

[namkcuR]

What would possess you to ask Sting why we went to war?

Do you WANT to hear about Res...I can't even type it out...again?

 

[anitram]

Serenity now...insanity later.

 

[toscano]

What would possess you to ask Sting why we went to war?

Do you WANT to hear about Res...I can't even type it out...again?

My bad, but the reason is still valid, bombing civilian targets when your intelligence isn't very good would make him a "terrorist" in the eyes of more than a few people

Maybe the November surprise will be the finding of the mythical WMDs ? Although personally I think he has a bigger chance of finding a colony of Unicorns....

 

[A_Wanderer]

The drink sodden ex-trotskyist popinjay that came in from the cold

Vote for Obama
MCCAIN LACKS THE CHARACTER AND TEMPERAMENT TO BE PRESIDENT. AND PALIN IS SIMPLY A DISGRACE.
By Christopher Hitchens

I used to nod wisely when people said: "Let's discuss issues rather than personalities." It seemed so obvious that in politics an issue was an issue and a personality was a personality, and that the more one could separate the two, the more serious one was. After all, in a debate on serious issues, any mention of the opponent's personality would be ad hominem at best and at worst would stoop as low as ad feminam.

At my old English boarding school, we had a sporting saying that one should "tackle the ball and not the man." I carried on echoing this sort of unexamined nonsense for quite some time—in fact, until the New Hampshire primary of 1992, when it hit me very forcibly that the "personality" of one of the candidates was itself an "issue." In later years, I had little cause to revise my view that Bill Clinton's abysmal character was such as to be a "game changer" in itself, at least as important as his claim to be a "new Democrat." To summarize what little I learned from all this: A candidate may well change his or her position on, say, universal health care or Bosnia. But he or she cannot change the fact—if it happens to be a fact—that he or she is a pathological liar, or a dimwit, or a proud ignoramus. And even in the short run, this must and will tell.

On "the issues" in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, and their "debates" have been cramped and boring affairs as a result. But the difference in character and temperament has become plainer by the day, and there is no decent way of avoiding the fact. Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him.

Vote Obama. McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

It does go on.

 

[namkcuR]

My bad, but the reason is still valid, bombing civilian targets when your intelligence isn't very good would make him a "terrorist" in the eyes of more than a few people

Maybe the November surprise will be the finding of the mythical WMDs ? Although personally I think he has a bigger chance of finding a colony of Unicorns....

I know what you're saying and I agree.

 

[BVS]

Its funny, there are probably only 10 people on this board that support McCain or Bush, but clearly, some people in this forum wish that it was zero.

Name one... Just one.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

The drink sodden ex-trotskyist popinjay that came in from the cold.

Love him.

 

[diamond]

I wasn't being dishonest before.

I don't know the first thing about Cheyenne or SLC society, so I'll guess no.

.

good guess.

thank u.



<>

 

[diamond]

Perhaps Sen. O is facing the "rope a dope" from San Mac but hasn't figured it out yet.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

interesting thoughts from one, Mark Penn:

One-time Hillary Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn acknowledged -- sort of -- that Barack Obama had passed the infamous 3 A.M. test that Penn and his aides had artificially created as a criteria to be elected president.

Appearing at the Time Warner Summit conference on the 2008 election, Penn proclaimed that the state of the presidential race had broken down along the lines of which candidate voters assumed was best able to handle that late-night crisis moment.

"McCain really faltered in terms of answering the call, being contradictory and he blew a lot of electoral points that had been building up to that," he said. "The dynamic of this election is about who will be able to handle the economic crisis. They have looked to the response so far and voters have said this is the type of crisis that Obama can handle," and they don't see that with the McCain campaign.

The remark represents a full-circle moment of sorts for Penn, who throughout the Democratic primary was highly critical of Obama's experience and ability. The famous 3 A.M. ad that he engineered before the Ohio and Texas primary -- which questioned which candidate could handle a unexpected terrorism scare -- was, Penn said, the most discussed spot of the cycle.

Moreover, since the Democratic primary ended Penn has remained hostile towards Obama. On Monday he did not offer anything that could be interpreted as a measure of endorsement or support. But he did seem bullish on the Illinois Democrat's chances (at this point, who isn't)?

Penn had harsh words to say about Gov. Sarah Palin, who he said had wilted under press criticism.

"I don't think you will see her in politics again unless she goes back and gets the experience that she doesn't have right now," he said.

In addition, he admonished the media for -- among many things -- being too easy on John McCain.

"No one has really gone back on McCain and gone through the Keating Five and whether or not it is fair or unfair," he said, "which will be particularly relevant considering we have a banking crisis. And yet the background stories on that, whether favorable or unfavorable, have been zero."

this is really the story here. it's not the economic crisis, as the Republican apologists/sympathizers will try to explain on November 5th. it was how each man reacted to the economic crisis. Obama was cool, calm, collected, and didn't panic. McCain lapsed into hysterics, like he did in the Russia/Georgia crisis, and this is now exactly what voters don't want in a president. no one wants a drama queen. no one wants a Chicken Little.

as many predicted over a year ago, especially when HRC seemed inevitable, after 8 years of overreactions and incompetence, the overriding qualification for the presidency is going to be who is the adult in the room. who can handle a crisis. who can deal.

overwhelmingly, we have our answer. no one wants a hysteric. good bye, Grandpa Walnuts.

and nice CYA, Mr. Penn.

 

[anitram]

I have to hand it to Hitchens for calling Palin a "proud ignoramus" because hell that's exactly what she is.

 

[Irvine511]

I have to hand it to Hitchens for calling Palin a "proud ignoramus" because hell that's exactly what she is.

that's what Bush has always been.

lucky for him, he had the blue-blood credentials that made the economic conservatives think that he was being all wink-wink, nudge-nudge about the Christian thing. that held the tenuous GOP coalition together enough to eek out two electoral victories (well, only one, really, and we were in the midst of a war).

Palin, however, actually is authentically proud to be ignorant.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

She is, but from what I gather they don’t see it as ignorance at all, proud of it or otherwise, but a kind of enlightenment. She clearly has the same black/white, good guys/bad guys view of everything as Bush (“there are good guys and bad guys and I know who they are and what to do about them” seemingly being the extent of her personal policy beliefs), and there seem to be plenty out there who think that sort of simplification is all that’s necessary, and not a proud step below an ‘elitist’ intellectual response, but a higher more enlightened response above it. Ignorance truly is bliss, right?

Hitchens is good, and if you think it’s a blind bias, you’d be wrong – he’s spend plenty of time and ink ranting and raving about how ridiculously overhyped he thinks Obama is. He is certainly not enamored with Obama at all, to say the least. But as he says, it’s increasingly been shown to be about personality. Obama is calm and sensible, McCain is erratic and knee jerk, and Palin is dangerously stupid and that choice is in itself the best sign that McCain isn’t up to it.

 

[Strongbow]

Example, please.

Whats wrong, do you actually think that there has not been a single Bush basher over the past 8 years that has refered to George Bush as a terrorist or that he belongs in the Hague?

 

[Strongbow]

Name one... Just one.

There is no one that has ever openly admitted that, but their actions strongly suggest it.

 

[diamond]

i nominate dread.

 

[diamond]

Btw-

How do my friends on the Left feel about the integrity of ACORN and late breaking sex scandal of Mahoney-the guy that replaced Foley?

<>

 

[corianderstem]

I find any sort of shenanigans regarding voting - on either side - to be reprehensible, and they all make me both angry and sad.

Whether it's phony registrations or any sort of disenfranchisement (?), like telling people they won't be able to vote if x, y, or z, it's inexcusable.

 

[toscano]

Btw-

How do my friends on the Left feel about the integrity of ACORN and late breaking sex scandal of Mahoney-the guy that replaced Foley?

<>

I'm sure the far left is just as outraged as the far right were over possible improprietaries in voting stations and with diebold in the last election

 

[Diemen]

Whats wrong, do you actually think that there has not been a single Bush basher over the past 8 years that has refered to George Bush as a terrorist or that he belongs in the Hague?

No, but I'd like to see this evidence that we all just sit here and do nothing when someone is clearly out of line. I can think of a few instances where I and others have spoken up when a poster went over the top in their "critique" of the Bush administration.

Besides, I think the environment, reach and overall raison d'etre (ooh, damn my elitist ways!) of this small little corner of the internet are considerably different than a public and internationally televised rally held by a candidate seeking the highest office in the land. So I don't think your distraction comparison holds much weight.

 

[Vincent Vega]

^But not every single left poster called that person out, so they are clearly simpathizers. You know, "their [in]actions strongly suggest it."