US 2008 Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread - Part 9 - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-19-2008, 10:53 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 07:29 AM
This is the first time since 1996 that I have wanted to make sweet love to one of the 4 candidates.
__________________

__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 11:01 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
A correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
McCain on banking and health - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

And let's also privatize social security!

They should pound him on this again and again and again.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 11:07 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
This is the first time since 1996 that I have wanted to make sweet love to one of the 4 candidates.
You have the hots for John McCain?
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 11:16 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by indra View Post
You have the hots for John McCain?
Hell yes! I dig a man without a neck.
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 11:16 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Shoulders and ears - that's all I need.
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 11:43 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think FL is going to be closer than anyone thinks. i don't think Palin will play well there. we're hearing about the 600,000 african-americans who didn't vote in 2004 who've now been registered. and the Obama campaign is going to spend $40m there alone.
McCain is going to win Florida, but I'll try my best to make sure he has a hard time doing so. My friends who don't vote have decided to vote this time around (and I didn't badger them too much ) so we'll see how many of those stories can echo across the state. If I had to rate it, it would be a 78% chance that McCain wins. And that's a proven number.
__________________
Tiger Edge is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 11:48 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Hell yes! I dig a man without a neck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Shoulders and ears - that's all I need.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 09:05 AM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 06:29 AM
I'm Catholic and I'm voting for Obama/Biden. They don't tell me how to think or how to vote. My mother is old school Catholic in many ways and will be voting the same way, even though she is most definitely pro life and most definitely believes that abortion is a sin. If people think that Catholics aren't independent thinkers, they better think again. She wouldn't vote for John McCain if you paid her.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 09:19 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
September 20, 2008
McCain’s Camp Tests Fund-Raising Limits
By MICHAEL LUO

Senator John McCain toiled for years to push a campaign finance overhaul through Congress. After the measure finally passed, Trevor Potter, a lawyer and vigorous advocate for reforming the system, was instrumental in defending the law from challenges and pressing for strict enforcement.

Now, as Mr. McCain makes his final sprint for the White House, Mr. Potter is again helping Mr. McCain, but this time by maneuvering to wring the maximum out of campaign finance laws in ways that some contend are at odds with the spirit of the reforms they championed.

The tactics appear to be legally permissible. And some argue that the McCain campaign is simply doing what is necessary in the face of the record fund-raising by his Democratic rival for president, Senator Barack Obama, and Mr. Obama’s decision to bypass public financing and its attendant spending limits.

But critics point out Mr. McCain is capitalizing on legal loopholes that a watchdog organization headed by Mr. Potter has fought against.

“There are very, very few lawyers in the country that are better at exploiting campaign finance loopholes than Trevor Potter,” said Bradley A. Smith, a former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Of course, that’s one of the odd things about the McCain campaign: ‘Here’s the rules we want, but we’ll play by the rules that are here.’ ”

Mr. McCain was an author of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold law, an ambitious measure that supporters hoped would help drive big money out of politics. He has also helped sponsor legislation to improve the public financing system for elections and attacked Mr. Obama for backing away from a pledge to participate in it for the general election if his opponent accepted public money as well.

But now, as Mr. McCain’s top legal adviser, Mr. Potter, a former F.E.C. chairman, and his team have been helping the campaign finesse the strict spending limits it faces under public financing. Although Mr. McCain is supposed to be out of the business of private fund-raising after he received his $84 million infusion from the Treasury this month, it is sometimes difficult to tell.

This month, the McCain campaign began running banner Web advertisements asking for donations to the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund, a fund-raising vehicle rooted in a 1980s F.E.C. ruling that candidates who accept public financing can still collect private donations for legal and accounting costs for complying with campaign finance laws.

Only a careful observer, however, would have noticed the advertisements’ fine print, which said donations to the fund would be used to pay for “a portion of the cost of broadcast advertising,” as well as other expenses.

That would seem to be a far cry from the legal and accounting exemption. But the F.E.C. issued an advisory opinion last year that said Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign could use its compliance fund to cover up to 5 percent of its advertising costs, because of the several seconds candidates must devote in their advertisements to a disclaimer.

The Campaign Legal Center, founded by Mr. Potter, joined with Democracy 21, a watchdog group, to file a strongly worded brief opposing the practice, warning that it would be exploited.

The McCain campaign declined to make Mr. Potter available for an interview. Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the campaign, said in a statement that the campaign had not yet paid for advertising with its compliance fund but “reserves the option to do so under this recent, clear F.E.C. precedent.”

The centerpiece of McCain-Feingold was its efforts to rein in “soft money,” or unregulated contributions, in national elections. But McCain fund-raisers continue to build much of their efforts around the solicitation of large contributions of up to about $70,000 for a special joint fund-raising account for the Republican National Committee and several state parties, which can spend money on behalf of the campaign, called McCain-Palin Victory 2008.

Campaigns have used the joint fund-raising committees in the past, but the McCain campaign took the practice to a new level by linking them with state party accounts, which can accept contributions of $10,000, on top of the $28,500 collected for the national party, $2,300 for the compliance fund and, until recently, $2,300 for the campaign’s primary coffers.

Critics have contended that the large donations to the joint fund-raising accounts amount to a form of soft money. The Obama campaign has been using its own joint fund-raising committee with the Democratic Party, but it only recently created a separate account for the state parties, so the checks are not nearly as big.

“The real irony here,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a watchdog group, “is we fought so hard to get B.C.R.A. through, McCain-Feingold through, with the whole intent of getting rid of those large donations, which everyone, including McCain, realized were potentially corrupting. And we’ve gone full circle with these large donations for the joint fund-raising committees.”

McCain fund-raisers certainly seem to pitch donations to the victory committee as supporting the ticket. The McCain campaign Web site attracts donors with a prominent “Contribute” button that sends them to a donation page for the committee, along with some lengthy disclaimers of the various entities that benefit from it.

By contrast, the Kerry campaign’s contribution button on its Web page in 2004 was more clearly labeled “Contribute to the Democratic Party.” The Obama campaign is not soliciting contributions for its joint fund-raising committee on its Web site.

Some lawyers said that some of the ways the McCain campaign is pushing its victory committee fit awkwardly with the broader mandate of public financing to halt private fund-raising, as well as rules that ban the designating of funds to party committees for specific candidates.

“I think it’s both an appearance and a legal question,” said Lawrence H. Norton, who left his post as general counsel to the F.E.C. last year.

But Mr. Rogers pointed to explanatory language used in literature by the joint fund-raising committees and said they undertook “substantial efforts to avoid any potential misunderstanding.”

Mr. Potter built his reputation as an activist while he was F.E.C. chairman in the 1990s and later founded his reform-minded legal center. He took a leave this year from his position as president to devote himself to being the McCain campaign’s general counsel while also still maintaining a private practice.

Guided by Mr. Potter, the McCain campaign is also adopting one of the most controversial innovations introduced by the Bush campaign in 2004: the use of so-called hybrid advertisements, which allowed it to split the cost of television commercials with the Republican Party. The practice was later copied by the Democrats.

The F.E.C. deadlocked on the legality of the advertisements last year, paving the way for the McCain campaign to rely heavily on them. But Mr. Potter’s Campaign Legal Center joined Democracy 21 last year in a vigorous objection to the practice, labeling it a “scheme to evade the spending limits.”

Some election law lawyers speculated that the McCain campaign might push the envelope further and try to split the costs of its hybrid advertisements with state parties as well, or produce some advertisements in which the party picks up more of the cost.

Mr. Rogers said the campaign had no plans to change the 50-50 ratio for dividing the advertising costs but declined to comment on the state parties question.

Mr. Rogers said Mr. McCain’s detractors often insinuated that because of his reformist reputation “almost anything he does to raise or spend money is a violation of his principles.”

But Mr. Rogers said the campaign was complying with all laws.

Indeed, some lawyers argued that Mr. Potter and Mr. McCain were simply dealing with the realities of a close race.

“They’re taking full advantage of opportunities the law provides for them,” said Robert D. Lenhard, a former Democratic F.E.C. chairman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/us...donate.html?hp
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 10:10 AM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Normal

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

Adjectives that describe blacks

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.

On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

But in an election without precedent, it's hard to know if such models take into account all the possible factors at play.

The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.

Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes — including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 10:29 AM   #56
Babyface
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4
Local Time: 07:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post

"It would be a disgrace and a humiliation if Barack Obama does not win."
Woody Allen - elitist, celebrity

touché
__________________
Burger is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 10:41 AM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

Heckuva job.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 03:08 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 11:29 AM
I just got back from kicking off a town hall meeting with Madeleine Albright I love talking in front of a crowd of enthusiastic Democrats
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 03:58 PM   #59
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:29 AM
it continues ...

Gallup Daily: Obama 50%, McCain 44%
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-20-2008, 04:13 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2democrat View Post
I just got back from kicking off a town hall meeting with Madeleine Albright I love talking in front of a crowd of enthusiastic Democrats

I am sure it was an enthusiastic crowd.
Madeleine is a hottie.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com