US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #7

[Maoilbheannacht]

But this is really completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Do you agree with Southworth's statement?

No, I did not agree with his statement.

If you polled 10 people and asked them if the US was at war post-Desert Storm, I guarantee you that 10 out of 10 would say no. You're just talking about semantics here.

But you do realize Desert Storm was a war? US intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s could also be classified as a war, and of course so should the US movement into Afghanistan in 2001.

You could do a poll now, and many people would claim that the United States is not at war. I don't think the results of polling random strangers on the street determines if the United States is at war or not.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I knew that Bush was in the National Guard. I knew he completed his training. I know he technically served. He never fought in combat or spent years in the military as a career. That's what I was referring to. Don't tell me what I need to admit or not admit. If you misunderstood me or anyone else here, it's not our fault.

Well, technically, neither did Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, or Chris Dodd, but they all are considered to have served in the military which you claimed that Bush did not. I realize now the point I think you were attempting to make, but that is not what you said.

 

[anitram]

For all the talk of a Democrat disunity, yesterday in Las Vegas....

In opening remarks before Romney took the stage, a Nevada legislator made a strategic error — or at least overestimated the unity in the room.

In trying to rev up the crowd, state Assemblyman Lynn Stewart asked whether there were any Republicans in the auditorium, and received a strong response. But when he asked if there were any McCain Republicans out there, boos filtered back through the cheers.

Then Mitt came through:

"I don’t want the guys who ran the Katrina cleanup running my health care, I can tell you that," Romney said.

Here.

 

[U2isthebest]

Well, technically, neither did Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, or Chris Dodd, but they all are considered to have served in the military which you claimed that Bush did not. I realize now the point I think you were attempting to make, but that is not what you said.

Let it be said that while Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, and Chris Dodd technically served as well, I consider them in the same situation as W. They may have fulfilled their requirements at the time, but they weren't heroes who fought in combat like McCain and Kerry or those who made a lifelong career out of serving. I don't look down on them for that, I was merely stating that to claim military service experience as necessary to be president, was absolutely ridiculous.

 

[deep]

For all the talk of a Democrat disunity, yesterday in Las Vegas....



Then Mitt came through:



Here.

The snippets you posted

suggest one thing

but, the article makes a good case for a McCain / Romney ticket.

 

[deep]

Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war


SOCHI, Russia (CNN) -- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the United States of orchestrating the conflict in Georgia to benefit one of its presidential election candidates.

In an exclusive interview with CNN's Matthew Chance in the Black Sea city of Sochi Thursday, Putin said the U.S. had encouraged Georgia to attack the autonomous region of South Ossetia.

Putin told CNN his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are competing to succeed George W. Bush -- although he presented no evidence to back it up.

"U.S. citizens were indeed in the area in conflict," Putin said. "They were acting in implementing those orders doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader." VideoWatch Putin accuse the United States »

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino blasted Putin's statements, saying they were "patently false."

This is an interesting twist.

 

[U2isthebest]

The snippets you posted

suggest one thing

but, the article makes a good case for a McCain / Romney ticket.

She wasn't talking about a McCain/Romney ticket. She was talking about the amount of media attention that's been focused on the split in the Democratic party with the talk of certain Democrats not wanting to support Obama. This article clearly made mention of the fact that there's a similar feeling with quite a few Republicans when it comes to John McCain.

 

[Irvine511]

"I don’t want the guys who ran the Katrina cleanup running my health care, I can tell you that," Romney said.

reminds me of someone who once said, "Republicans tell you that government doesn't work, government is the enemy; and then they get elected, and they prove to us that government doesn't work, government is the enemy."

 

[U2isthebest]

reminds me of someone who once said, "Republicans tell you that government doesn't work, government is the enemy; and then they get elected, and they prove to us that government doesn't work, government is the enemy."

That's something I've honestly always had questions about when it comes to the Republican party. The Republicans, as we all know, say they want smaller government, less government control, etc. If that's the case why would they even want to be in government in the first place?

 

[anitram]

The snippets you posted

suggest one thing

but, the article makes a good case for a McCain / Romney ticket.

I never said otherwise.

I think Romney is the "best" of the three names bandied about now. Nobody knows Pawlenty and he is not that popular in MN, a state that the Republicans won't win anyway. Lieberman is a douchebag and the religious right can't stand him. So from a GOP point of view, Romney is the best.

Of course, then they can watch the ads where Romney calls McCain a liberal and implies he's a liar, back from the primaries.

 

[anitram]

This is an interesting twist.

I am not sure you can make heads of tails of this Georgia thing - I suspect about 60 things are happening behind the scenes.

Putin is a thug, but I thought W looked into his eyes and saw that he had a good (Christian) soul?

 

[Irvine511]

Putin is a thug, but I thought W looked into his eyes and saw that he had a good (Christian) soul?

when first they met, Putin wore his collar open and had a cross on a necklace, and this convinced Georgie of the above.

what a sentimental simpleton have for a president. this former head of the KGB played him for the fool he is.

 

[deep]

Putin is a thug, but I thought W looked into his eyes and saw that he had a good (Christian) soul?

That's what happens when people elect a President
that ask us to rely on his judgement.

I prefer practical experience, and a track record, for a reliable indicator of what to expect.

If the track record is bad, then you know you don't want them.

So when people keep saying Cheney, Rumsfeld had experience
what is the point?

One can say Bush/ Cheney / Rumsfeld had more experience than Kerry / Edwards in 2004, so what?

Kerry had enough and Bush was clearly a terrible President.

 

[Irvine511]

as ever, polls this week need to be taken with a grain of salt. a big one.

but Obama's already starting to move. he's up 48-42%, and this doesn't include Wednesday night.

we'll see what happens.

Gallup Daily: Obama Moves Ahead, 48% to 42%

 

[deep]

I am not sure you can make heads of tails of this Georgia thing - I suspect about 60 things are happening behind the scenes.

I agree there are multiple things in play here

it is a bit like a chess tournament

how many moves does one need to think ahead

and there are various combinations dependent on others moves



I do believe when BinLaden tapes were released right before the 2004 election attacking and taunting Bush

it was designed to boost Bush

 

[namkcuR]

That's what happens when people elect a President
relying on judgement.

I prefer practical experience, and a track record, for a reliable indicator of what to expect.

If the track record is bad, then you know you don't want them.

So when people keep saying Cheney, Rumsfeld had experience
what is the point?

One can say Bush/ Cheney / Rumsfeld had more experience than Kerry / Edwards in 2004, so what?

Kerry had enough and Bush was clearly a terrible President.

But judgement is directly influenced by intelligence, and all you have to do is listen to W and Obama speak to know that Obama has 10x the intelligence, 10x the intellect, 10x the ability to think, of W.

I find your relentless comparisons of W and Obama to be tiresome and illogical.

 

[anitram]

So when people keep saying Cheney, Rumsfeld had experience
what is the point?

Was Cheney's executive track record poor? Regardless of what I think of him politically, he is an exceptionally adept businessman whose executive experience was not poor. The fact that I may disagree with his views and policies does not negate the fact that he is a capable individual, unlike say, W.

I am looking at McCain's track record. He has a 0% NARAL rating. As a woman, I have never and would never vote for a person who is not pro-choice. His voting record on women's issues is appalling to me. That's enough for me, it's personal enough that I would not vote for him. Period. And that's to say nothing of his other policies (healthcare - appalling, judicial nominations - appalling, total lack of comprehensive plan addressing skyrocketing tuition costs - appalling) that are reasons enough in themselves.

deep, I think you really do want all of us to honestly consider experience and a track record. I have considered McCain's and I don't like it and I completely disagree with it. Done.

 

[deep]

Of course, then they can watch the ads where Romney calls McCain a liberal and implies he's a liar, back from the primaries.

I have been thinking about this.

most people think that the GOP are more pragmatic, and tend to vote RED.

So the right's base will turn out and vote against the two most librul candidates the Dems could have put up.




Romneys attacks were all from the Right. Romney became the darling of the more conservative Right.
Well, if we have Obama running ads saying this guy is not a true-blue conservative ?

So, what votes are in play? Moderates, independents, Reagan Democrats, some PUMAs?

 

[deep]

I am looking at McCain's track record. He has a 0% NARAL rating. As a woman, I have never and would never vote for a person who is not pro-choice. His voting record on women's issues is appalling to me. That's enough for me, it's personal enough that I would not vote for him. Period.

I except this 100 %.

and these are legitimate concerns that I share.

Why it is not a deal breaker for me?

If McCain is elected I hope he will stick to his word and appoint someone like Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.

If he does that we will have another David Souter.

The Senate will kill a Thomas or Bork,
then he can pick an unknown moderate/ lib (gasp)


Lately, I am thinking Bush chose his personal friend Miers, as a throw away, to clear the way for Alito.

 

[anitram]

Why it is not a deal breaker for me?

If McCain is elected I hope he will stick to his word and appoint someone like Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.

It is too personal to me to take that chance.

And he has been really amping up his judicial appointment comments lately to appease the right. He may just be telling them what they want to hear BUT the next 2-3 SCOTUS appointments will be the most crucial at maybe any time in the history of the court. This is not time to gamble on a man who you "hope" keeps his word, when he has shown himself to be so completely willing to pander to the right. It is bad enough we have Roberts and Alito, particularly the latter, who are young enough men that they can shape the views of this court for decades to come.

 

[deep]

But judgement is directly influenced by intelligence, and all you have to do is listen to W and Obama speak to know that Obama has 10x the intelligence, 10x the intellect, 10x the ability to think, of W.

I did respond to this last night

I said I agree, that is why after 4 years of Presidential experience
W was the worst President ever.

( I did not vote for him in 2000 or 2004 or ever. )

Experience (poor performance), bad judgment, low intelligence = WORST PRESIDENT

Carter is an intelligent man. He was an average/ many say below average President. He did have executive experience having been, Governor of Georgia (b4 the russins invaded).


I do expect Obama to win.

My concern is that he will be a one termer like Carter.
And the country will put more GOP back in the Senate and House.
And then in 2012, we will get 8 more years of Bush (Jeb!! )

 

[U2isthebest]

I did respond to this last night

I said I agree, that is why after 4 years of Presidential experience
W was the worst President ever.

( I did not vote for him in 2000 or 2004 or ever. )

Experience (poor performance), bad judgment, low intelligence = WORST PRESIDENT

Carter is an intelligent man. He was an average/ many say below average President. He did have executive experience having been, Governor of Georgia (b4 the russins invaded).


I do expect Obama to win.

My concern is that he will be a one termer like Carter.
And the country will put more GOP back in the Senate and House.
And then in 2012, we will get 8 more years of Bush (Jeb!! )

I absolutely agree with everything you said about President Bush. I was 12 when he got elected, and I could tell he was a complete moron. People who are shocked that he turned out to be such a terrible president clearly weren't paying attention to anything he said or did during the 2000 campaign. As for Carter, I would definitely say he was just an average president, but I think he (along with Clinton) have done the most good for the world since leaving office. I also think Carter has FAR superior intelligence to W. My question is, why do you feel that Obama would be a one-term president? After all, any president could end up being a one-term; no one is guaranteed 2 terms when elected. That's not unique to Obama. If you're concerned about having a Republican in the White House, it would be a pretty big gamble to vote for one.

 

[Irvine511]

I did respond to this last night

I said I agree, that is why after 4 years of Presidential experience
W was the worst President ever.

( I did not vote for him in 2000 or 2004 or ever. )

Experience (poor performance), bad judgment, low intelligence = WORST PRESIDENT

Carter is an intelligent man. He was an average/ many say below average President. He did have executive experience having been, Governor of Georgia (b4 the russins invaded).


I do expect Obama to win.

My concern is that he will be a one termer like Carter.
And the country will put more GOP back in the Senate and House.
And then in 2012, we will get 8 more years of Bush (Jeb!! )

you realize that Republicans (in general) don't make these calculations.

they line up and vote. we're going to see a positively North Korean "our Dear Leader" convention next week.

i think it has much to do with liberal vs. conservative acceptance of authoritarianism.

but this is why they win elections. they make very rational decisions. they don't outthink their vote.

that's why they win.

 

[deep]

I am not a big fan of Dick Morris (could be because I think Clinton was a good President and Morris is constantly attacking the Clintons)

but he makes very good sense, here

August 28, 2008
Dems’s Big Blunder and McCain’s Big Chance
By Dick Morris

Many political campaigns run against the wrong candidate. The opportunity to pick on a vulnerable target is so tempting that they are lured into attacking someone who isn't running.

In 1992, the Republicans unleashed their convention barrage at Hillary Clinton and left Bill unscathed. In 1996, Dole still ran against Clinton the liberal and ignored the changes in his political positioning. Campaigns go after the flaming red cape, so glittering a target, and leave the matador alone.

That's what the Democratic convention has been doing in Denver. They are so anxious to run against Bush, their animosity is so pent up, that they persist in running against a man who is not seeking a third term. In speech after speech, the Democrats knock the Bush record and then add, lamely, that GOP candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is the same as Bush. Or they call the McCain candidacy Bush's third term. It was no accident �" or Freudian slip �" when vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) spoke of John Bush instead of George in his litany of attacks.

This pattern of shooting at the decoy, not the duck, gives McCain a bold strategic opportunity. He can nullify the impact of the entire Democratic convention simply by distancing himself from Bush.

The truth is, of course, that McCain is the most unlike Bush of any of the Republican senators. (When Obama's people claim that Bush and McCain voted the same 94 percent of the time, they forget that most of the votes in the Senate are unanimous.) The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president.

The issues on which McCain and Bush differ are legion:

• McCain fought for campaign finance reform �" McCain-Feingold �" that Bush fought and ultimately signed because he had no choice.

• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.

• McCain went with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.

• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.

• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.

• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican Senators oppose.

• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.

• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.

• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).

Remember that McCain ran against Bush in 2000. McCain's Republican advisers need to realize that they won the primary and that they do not need to cotton to the delegates at their convention or to appease the Bush White House. The more they respond to Obama's and Biden's attacks on Bush by saying "It ain't me, babe," the more he will moot the entire purpose of the Democratic convention. It is a rare opportunity to nullify the entire Democratic line of attack and McCain should seize on it.

 

[anitram]

McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.

I'm not sure he wants to highlight this given his irrational flip flop in this regard given the current economic situation.

 

[anitram]

Romneys attacks were all from the Right. Romney became the darling of the more conservative Right.
Well, if we have Obama running ads saying this guy is not a true-blue conservative ?

So, what votes are in play? Moderates, independents, Reagan Democrats, some PUMAs?

I'm assuming this will be a good start:

Here are the Romney campaign's top 10 episodes of "the McCain way" of rage and fury. Only the heading for each is shown below; the details and list of references are provided in the full memo, which is available at the Boston Herald:

1. Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And Screamed, "F*ck You!" At Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
2. In 2000, Sen. McCain Ran An Attack Ad Comparing Then-Gov. George W. Bush To Bill Clinton.
3. Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) an "A**hole," Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, "I Didn't Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger."
4. Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A "F*cking Jerk."
5. In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A "Scuffle" With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor.
6. Sen. McCain Accused Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Of the "Most Egregious Incident" Of Corruption He Had Seen In The Senate.
7. Sen. McCain Attacked Christian Leaders And Republicans In A Blistering Speech During The 2000 Campaign.
8. Sen. McCain Attacked Vice President Cheney.
9. Celebrating His First Senate Election In 1986, Sen. McCain Screamed At And Harassed A Young Republican Volunteer.
10. Sen. McCain "Publicly Abused" Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL).

 

[Irvine511]

but he makes very good sense, here

but he would then lose the Republican "base" were he to follow this advice.

it's a delicate balance McCain has to walk, which is why they've tried their hardest -- and with some success -- to make this election between whether or not you believe Obama is "ready" to be president or not.

they know that McCain cannot run on his record and win.

 

[U2isthebest]

There have been times when McCain has broken with Bush, and he's been far more willing, in the past, to work bipartisan on issues. However, he's done a reversal since getting the nomination, and all of these issues John McCain Revealed : McCain And Bush where he's voted with Bush worry me.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm assuming this will be a good start:

let's note that the Obama people haven't used this stuff. maybe they should.

the Bushies in 2000 had no problems suggesting that McCain was an unstable psychopath with anger management issues who might just as well shoot up a McDonalds as pass legislation.

kind of makes the whole "STFU you cunt" stuff more believable.

 

[namkcuR]

let's note that the Obama people haven't used this stuff. maybe they should.

the Bushies in 2000 had no problems suggesting that McCain was an unstable psychopath with anger management issues who might just as well shoot up a McDonalds as pass legislation.

kind of makes the whole "STFU you cunt" stuff more believable.

Like I said last night, maybe, just maybe, Obama, his campaign, and the Democrats are trying to prove that an election can be won while taking the high road, while being honorable, without having to stoop to the level of Rovian tactics.