US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

[BVS]

Its the economic news of the past 4 days, nothing more, that is responsible for Obama's new bounce. Obama benefits simply by not being a member of the party in the White House.

And McCain's jumpboard(Palin) has lost it's spring...

Too bad he couldn't have announced her a week before the election.

 

[phillyfan26]

-- formerly known as flip-flopping

see also: indecisive, wishy-washy, without principles, opportunistic and pandering

Yes. We all want to be like George W. Bush and believe the same thing on Wednesday we believed on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday.

 

[Utoo]

Sarah Palin's a dufus:

From CNN:

Palin's transparency proposal already exists in D.C.
Posted: 02:10 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby




CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (CNN) – Sarah Palin likes to tell voters around the country about how she “put the government checkbook online” in Alaska. On Thursday, Palin suggested she would take that same proposal to Washington.

“We’re going to do a few new things also,” she said at a rally in Cedar Rapids. “For instance, as Alaska’s governor, I put the government’s checkbook online so that people can see where their money’s going. We’ll bring that kind of transparency, that responsibility, and accountability back. We’re going to bring that back to D.C.”

There’s just one problem with proposing to put the federal checkbook online – somebody’s already done it. His name is Barack Obama.

In 2006 and 2007, Obama teamed up with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn to pass the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, also known as “Google for Government.” The act created a free, searchable web site – USASpending.gov — that discloses to the public all federal grants, contracts, loans and insurance payments.


In June of this year, Obama and Coburn introduced new Senate legislation to expand the information available online to include details on earmarks, competitive bidding, criminal activities, audit disputes and other government information.

Palin might also have noted that her running mate, John McCain, was an original co-sponsor of the 2006 transparency bill that became law.

 

[2861U2]

^ and that makes her a "dufus" how?

I don't recall that she ever said she was the first politician to do this. She did it at the state level. Obama's thing was at the federal level.

 

[Strongbow]

the focus on issues such as the economy and not sideshow distractions are what is directly contributing to Obama's clear and continued rise in the polls. in addition, Palin's novelty factor is wearing off and her demonstrated lack of knowledge in the Gibson interview didn't help either.

you are correct that it is Republicans, including McCain, who are to be faulted for the current crisis. this is why he is suffering in the polls. it is because of the policies that McCain has supported that have turned out to have damaged the American economy that are contributing to his slide in the polls. Americans don't want any more of the economic policies championed by McCain, and they are concerned that he doesn't know anything about economics, as he himself has admitted on many occasions.

Lets not get carried away. The results of the past 4 days would benefit any party that is not currently in power in the White House. It has little if anything to do with Obama/Biden or their plans for the future.

The focus was definitely on issues just before the conventions and Obama and McCain were in a statistical tie at that time.

i speculated that it was one scenario. you seem to want to use it as some sort of evidence that i've been incorrect about something at some point in time, and then use it in whatever current debate you're trying to have with me in order to score points you're unable to at present.

On multiple occasions you discussed that Obama and the Democrats were going to crush the Republicans in November 2008.

When Obama won the nomination and bounced to a lead of 6 points in the gallup poll, you claimed that McCain would NEVER get within 6 points of Obama for the rest of the election.

If you really believe that Obama is going to win by a Tsunami like margin, thats ok. I'm just saying I have yet to see it. If Bush was as bad a President as you claim him to be, there should indeed be a Tsunami.

but, hey, if the election continues to be about issues and not culture wars and lipstick on pigs, then we might well see this Obama tsunami. either way, the more reality encroaches, the more McCain struggles.

Was that the situation just before the start of the conventions?

Again, if people really felt the same way you do about Bush, the Republicans, the last 8 years, that its this once in a century disaster, there would not be any need to have an election.

The reality though, is despite all of these outlandish claims, Obama/Biden might be returning to their Senate jobs for several years on November 5th.

 

[Strongbow]

Quite an interesting qualifier considering what were the economic news of the past four days.
And interesting as well that it is just the economy that pushes Obama.

Given how tight the race is, the only thing that explains his slight lead is the past 4 days.

 

[Vincent Vega]

^ and that makes her a "dufus" how?

I don't recall that she ever said she was the first politician to do this. She did it at the state level. Obama's thing was at the federal level.

Exactly, Obama did it at the federal level. Now she comes and suggests: "We will do something new, like putting transparency on the federal level."

Given how tight the race is, the only thing that explains his slight lead is the past 4 days.

Yes, hence I was alluding to your "nothing more" in the sentence.

 

[Utoo]

^ and that makes her a "dufus" how?

I don't recall that she ever said she was the first politician to do this. She did it at the state level. Obama's thing was at the federal level.

She's a dufus because she's claiming that she wants to do something "new" and bring it to Washington.






It's already there.

 

[Harry Vest]

could it be that Americans aren't quite as distracted by bright, shiny governors as McCain thought they were?

Gallup Daily: Obama 48%, McCain 44%

These "polls" will bounce one way to the next up until election night. They always do. I wouldn't put too much faith in them one way or the other.

 

[Popmartijn]

One other thing from that CNN article about "Google for Government".

Sarah Palin's a dufus:

From CNN:

Palin's transparency proposal already exists in D.C.
Posted: 02:10 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby




CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (CNN) – Sarah Palin likes to tell voters around the country about how she “put the government checkbook online” in Alaska. On Thursday, Palin suggested she would take that same proposal to Washington.

“We’re going to do a few new things also,” she said at a rally in Cedar Rapids. “For instance, as Alaska’s governor, I put the government’s checkbook online so that people can see where their money’s going. We’ll bring that kind of transparency, that responsibility, and accountability back. We’re going to bring that back to D.C.”

There’s just one problem with proposing to put the federal checkbook online – somebody’s already done it. His name is Barack Obama.

In 2006 and 2007, Obama teamed up with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn to pass the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, also known as “Google for Government.” The act created a free, searchable web site – USASpending.gov — that discloses to the public all federal grants, contracts, loans and insurance payments.


In June of this year, Obama and Coburn introduced new Senate legislation to expand the information available online to include details on earmarks, competitive bidding, criminal activities, audit disputes and other government information.

Palin might also have noted that her running mate, John McCain, was an original co-sponsor of the 2006 transparency bill that became law.

(all emphasis mine)

Gasp! Obama is bipartisan too!

 

[Irvine511]

Lets not get carried away. The results of the past 4 days would benefit any party that is not currently in power in the White House. It has little if anything to do with Obama/Biden or their plans for the future.

you're right -- John McCain is as much to blame for this crisis as any member of the Republican party in Congress. this is why he is falling in the polls. voters are looking at his record and the record of the Republican party, and they are comparing it to the record and proposals of the Democrats and Obama, and the poll numbers are shifting correspondingly.

On multiple occasions you discussed that Obama and the Democrats were going to crush the Republicans in November 2008.

When Obama won the nomination and bounced to a lead of 6 points in the gallup poll, you claimed that McCain would NEVER get within 6 points of Obama for the rest of the election.

If you really believe that Obama is going to win by a Tsunami like margin, thats ok. I'm just saying I have yet to see it. If Bush was as bad a President as you claim him to be, there should indeed be a Tsunami.

you know what STING? you need to grow up. you need to stop putting words in people's mouths and you need to stop twisting thoughts, speculation, and theories into fist-shaking declarations. i speculated that it was indeed possible that there was going to be a Democratic landslide in the fall. it is indeed *very* likely that the Democrats are going to win many more Republican seats. and it is indeed likely that Obama will win, and that Obama will win by a comfortable margin.

but you know what i just did there? i'll give you a hint -- it was what i did when the election first began and we were tossing around ideas. i said it was LIKELY that certain things would happen. that's called a qualifier.

i never "claimed" anything. i said it was LIKELY that McCain might never get within 5 points. i said other things were LIKELY, based on information at the time.

if you want to spin old posts that contain guesses and speculation and turn them into whatever you need to do to make yourself feel better, you just go ahead and do so. it's only going to add to the consensus that, 1) you're dishonest, and 2) you're every bit the troll that most people who ignore you already think you are.

if you do this again, if you take speculation on my part from months ago and twist it so that you can pretend that it's some kind of passionate argument that's entirely different from what i originally said and then use that as some sort of jumping off point into a line of thought that you wish had been put forward, then i am going to put you on my Ignore List.

Again, if people really felt the same way you do about Bush, the Republicans, the last 8 years, that its this once in a century disaster, there would not be any need to have an election.

have you taken note of the fact that John McCain doesn't mention Bush by name? not even in his acceptance speech? that bush *literally* phoned in a speech to the RNC? that McCain is touting "change" from Bush? that McCain considered running with Kerry in '04? that the only reason he's alive in the polls is because he has thrown Bush under the bus? that Bush struggles to get to 30% on a good day? that the Democrats made historic gains in 2006 and are posed to increase their margins in the House and Senate in 2008?

it's not my opinion that Bush and the Republicans have been a disaster. it is the opinion of over 70% of the American people. and history.

The reality though, is despite all of these outlandish claims, Obama/Biden might be returning to their Senate jobs for several years on November 5th.

yes, they might. but i have yet to say anything "outlandish." what's "outlandish" is how you twist everything so that you can respond to the statements you wish were made because you need them to be made for your statements to have any semblance of coherence.

 

[anitram]

Lets not get carried away. The results of the past 4 days would benefit any party that is not currently in power in the White House.

It would probably also benefit the candidate whom the overwhelming majority of economists support and the candidate who hasn't preached deregulation from the pulpit for almost 3 decades.

Either way, if you think that the polls are a result of the current economic situation then I can only assume that you are extremely pessimistic given that no sentient being could possibly think that this economy will head anywhere positive in the next 7 weeks. How much more bad news is on the horizon?

 

[anitram]

Survey USA has polled New Mexico (Obama is quite a bit ahead) but also found this:

LATINOS
McCain 28
Obama 69

YOWZA.

Why don't Latinos like John McCain? Is Harry gonna come in here and tell us that Obama looks kind of Hispanic if you squint so that's why McCain is losing by over 40 pts among this cohort?

 

[kellyahern]

^ and that makes her a "dufus" how?

Actually, this makes her a dufus:

"gov.palin@yahoo.com"

It sounds like an e-mail a 419 scammer would use, like "presidentsoludo@yahoo.com" .

A yahoo account? With "gov.palin" as the username? I'm surprised it took this long to get hacked.

 

[deep]

Actually, this makes her a dufus:



A yahoo account? With "gov.palin" as the username? I'm surprised it took this long to get hacked.

she was showing McCain how to set up an email account.

 

[kellyahern]

^ good one

 

[Diemen]

 

[hiphop]

you know what STING? you need to grow up. you need to stop putting words in people's mouths and you need to stop twisting thoughts, speculation, and theories into fist-shaking declarations.

if you want to spin old posts that contain guesses and speculation and turn them into whatever you need to do to make yourself feel better, you just go ahead and do so. it's only going to add to the consensus that, 1) you're dishonest, and 2) you're every bit the troll that most people who ignore you already think you are.

we´ ve really moved on haven´t we? 5 years ago the same tone towards Sting would have meant something like: "Dear whenhiphopdrovethebigcars, could you please be a little less hostile towards blah someone anonymous has complained to King Elvis, no personal remarks, join the Spanish Inquisition" type of mail in my PM inbox..

 

[purpleoscar]

Are you sure?

They are the only ones with the hope I can see militarily that can keep dictators from going to town on their neighbors. Europe, Canada, South America don't seem to be in the game or are willing to stop bullies.

If Obama wins he says he will talk to Iran without preconditions. Yikes!

Nancy Pelosi already asked Syria and Iran to help the U.S. to get out of Iraq. Yikes!

If they win the bullies of the world will be happy.

 

[purpleoscar]

Uh, yeah, that's why we're in the hole we're in...


Well this should always be the goal.


Not sure what you mean by this...


Um yeah, and world peace would be nice...

Yes. That's why we are in the hole we are in. Don't overspend on social programs unless you intend to increase taxes. The government likes to use debt as a way to keep taxes as they are while increasing spending. They like to have their cake and eat it too.

On the military question I was saying that attacking the Bush Administration for spending money on military seems to ignore the fact that U.S. military is a necessity to keep the freedoms we have (including NATO).

Cut military down to a bare minimum only when there is no threat in the world. Of course that means not in our lifetimes.

 

[BVS]

They are the only ones with the hope I can see militarily that can keep dictators from going to town on their neighbors. Europe, Canada, South America don't seem to be in the game or are willing to stop bullies.

If Obama wins he says he will talk to Iran without preconditions. Yikes!

Nancy Pelosi already asked Syria and Iran to help the U.S. to get out of Iraq. Yikes!

If they win the bullies of the world will be happy.

You've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid man...

 

[hiphop]

If they win the bullies of the world will be happy.

And if they not only win but restore US foreign policy without violating international law instead of bullying the UN, the pacifists will be happy too!

Rumors say Carla Bruni (french fries) likes Obama!

 

[Vincent Vega]

They are the only ones with the hope I can see militarily that can keep dictators from going to town on their neighbors. Europe, Canada, South America don't seem to be in the game or are willing to stop bullies.

If Obama wins he says he will talk to Iran without preconditions. Yikes!

Nancy Pelosi already asked Syria and Iran to help the U.S. to get out of Iraq. Yikes!

If they win the bullies of the world will be happy.

Of course, the US has considerable weight and another standing than any other country. However, you are exaggerating the overall military power of the US when it comes to countries like China or Russia. I would say, economic interests are a far greater driving factor than fear of US military intervention.
With the current situation, the US probably couldn't even invade North Korea or Iran. It was even said Darfur would be too much of a stretch.

By the way, the Bush administration is already talking to Iran. Remember the press conference where Dana Perino went out of her way to tell the press that there is no negotiation going on?

The times of "You have to earn and deserve me talking to you" are hopefully over soon, which nevertheless doesn't mean they are giving in or allowing Iran and other regimes to do whatever they want.
It's just easier to get to some kind of agreement when you engage with each other in talks. Something the Bush government apparently eventually realized and yet tries to deny at all cost.

 

[purpleoscar]

You've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid man...

If you mean Kool-Aid as in propaganda I could say the same for you. I would be tempted to have Obama win to prove my point but then just the weakness of the U.S. having a campaign was enough for Russia to make a move on Georgia. They also are egging on the U.S. sabre-rattling style in regards to another cold war. China has already threatened to use military action on Taiwan by 2020 if Taiwan doesn't join them. N. Korea never listens to the U.S. and now has leadership issues like Cuba.

Kool-Aid or no, there are definately enemies out there and asking our enemies for help is like pouring blood into the ocean and then going for a swim in it.

Pelosi could possibly be the stupidist American politician I've ever seen.

 

[BVS]

Yes. That's why we are in the hole we are in. Don't overspend on social programs unless you intend to increase taxes. The government likes to use debt as a way to keep taxes as they are while increasing spending. They like to have their cake and eat it too.

This isn't what you said originally. You brought up Bush Sr. and the Dems.

On the military question I was saying that attacking the Bush Administration for spending money on military seems to ignore the fact that U.S. military is a necessity to keep the freedoms we have (including NATO).

Then you completely misunderstood my post... I said nothing about military spending. I said you don't fight a war that costs your country 10 billion a month while making tax cuts! That's just fuzzy conservative math for you...

 

[hiphop]

Vincent, do you really want to discuss US military now? I´m pretty sure our fellow sportsmen ready for the Navy Cross would love to, but my radar says this thread title is election.. and we´re too used to get long winded 2 paged derailing replies on that topic..

 

[purpleoscar]

Of course, the US has considerable weight and another standing than any other country. However, you are exaggerating the overall military power of the US when it comes to countries like China or Russia. I would say, economic interests are a far greater driving factor than fear of US military intervention.
With the current situation, the US probably couldn't even invade North Korea or Iran. It was even said Darfur would be too much of a stretch.

I'm looking at the U.S. as the only one with the chance. Yes Americans are usually not the best at ground forces (though they are improving as they gain experience) but my point is that cutting military for budget purposes weakens the west in its deterrance of bullies around the world. The U.S. doesn't have that option. If your comment is correct then the U.S. is already in a weak position. I wish Europe was on side but they rely heavily on Russian oil (hence Russia's dislike of U.S. trying to have Georgia subvert their economic stranglehold). Sarkozy at least is supportive.

 

[BVS]

Kool-Aid or no, there are definately enemies out there and asking our enemies for help is like pouring blood into the ocean and then going for a swim in it.

Yes there are enemies, but when did peace talks become a bad word? The conservative superhero Reagan knew when to use them, but now all of a sudden all conservatives have short term memory(must be caused by the Kool-Aid) and sabre rattling is the only way...

 

[purpleoscar]

This isn't what you said originally. You brought up Bush Sr. and the Dems.




Then you completely misunderstood my post... I said nothing about military spending. I said you don't fight a war that costs your country 10 billion a month while making tax cuts! That's just fuzzy conservative math for you...

Bush Sr. campaigned on "no new taxes" and then he decided to raise them in a bipartisan effort to balance the budget. Then during the campaign vs. Clinton democrats said "he said no new taxes, he lied." The democracts continued overspending in congress. Knife in the back. McCain better watch out. Everybody is partisan in the end.

The fuzzy math has to do with democrats focussing on the cost of the war and not health care and education entitlements that costed more. Boondoggle spending needs to be looked at first before the war. The war is a necessity. This goes along with my point that if America is barely keeping the bullies at bay cutting and running in Iraq and Afghanistan because it costs too much then western democracies are in a jam. Dictators can make actions with confidence that the U.S. will do little to stop them.

 

[BVS]

but my point is that cutting military for budget purposes weakens the west in its deterrance of bullies around the world.

Which no one ever suggested