US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6

[BVS]

More liberal hypocrisy. When Republicans say something like that, its offensive, yet the woman herself refers to her husband as her baby's daddy, and there is no uproar.

Please, please, please stop listening to Rush it's affecting your judgement.

You can't honestly tell me you don't see the difference?!



This post should be really quite embarassing for you given that it was posted right after stating liberals don't talk about the issues.

 

[2861U2]

Liberals lose when they talk about the issues?

Ok, let's do talk about the issues, let me know when you are ready?

There is a BIG difference between these ads and the actual VP promising a terrorist attack if they aren't re-elected. Even you have to be able to see the difference.

No thanks. That was never the intention of that post. However, based on sentences like this...

Ok, let's do talk about the issues, let me know when you are ready?

... I'd be more than happy to help you with your grammar.

Well then, what do you think of the messages in that video saying that Republicans don't care about AIDS (despite the current president doing more for AIDS worldwide than any other), breast cancer, and the other ridiculous claims in those two videos? What do you think of that dopey mother, who seems unaware that her son, when grown, may choose to join the military and want to serve in Iraq? Do you think videos like this (remember, organizations like MoveOn are producing similar ads and videos by the dozens) are honest? Do they help? These videos are laughable. I really don't understand how the actors kept a straight face. Even they must have known what nonsense they were creating.

 

[2861U2]

You can't honestly tell me you don't see the difference?!

I wish I knew why Michelle can use the phrase no problem, yet a 10 second banner on a news network is getting so much attention.

 

[deep]

Laura Bush told ABC last week the remarks must have been misinterpreted.

"I think she probably meant 'I'm more proud,'" said the first lady, adding that "you have to be very careful in what you say" when you’re campaigning.

"That's one of the things you learn and that's one of the really difficult parts both of running for president, and for being the spouse of the president, and that is everything you say is looked and in many cases misconstrued."

Obama said Wednesday she had sent The First Lady a note that took her “a while” to write, but wouldn’t divulge any details because she didn’t know whether it had been received yet.

" a note that took her “a while” to write"?



How many re-writes did it take to write:

"For the second time in my life. You have made me proud of my country"?

 

[BVS]

I wish I knew why Michelle can use the phrase no problem, yet a 10 second banner on a news network is getting so much attention.

You're kidding right? You still don't see the difference?

You think if a blind person makes a joke about being blind, that you have the right to make the same joke? It's different when it's yourself, you have to be able to see the difference. If not, I can't help you.

 

[BVS]

Well then, what do you think of the messages in that video saying that Republicans don't care about AIDS (despite the current president doing more for AIDS worldwide than any other), breast cancer, and the other ridiculous claims in those two videos? What do you think of that dopey mother, who seems unaware that her son, when grown, may choose to join the military and want to serve in Iraq? Do you think videos like this (remember, organizations like MoveOn are producing similar ads and videos by the dozens) are honest? Do they help? These videos are laughable. I really don't understand how the actors kept a straight face. Even they must have known what nonsense they were creating.

I actually thought the Alex one was pretty creative.

The other one had it's moments. Hyperbole isn't your strong suit, I know.

What do you think about the ad posted in here that was actually paid for by McCain showing Ahmadinejad side by side with Obama?

 

[Strongbow]

since you're willing to believe polls in June, here's one for you:

and the fact remains that the only reason that McCain is even viable is because of the great lengths he's gone to separate himself from President Bush, even if the substance doesn't support his claims (though we can think back to the days when McCain was thinking about becoming a Democrat). there was never any question in my mind that McCain was the only viable Republican candidate, and the party wisely did the right thing and nominated the only candidate who would have a fighting chance against the Dems.

but when it comes to Congress, the Republicans are posed for heavy, heavy losses in both houses due to the abject failure of the Bush presidency. even of Obama should somehow lose, McCain will have to work will a Democratic House and Senate.

There is no one here that has put more faith in polls than you. You claimed that the new polls showing McCain 6 points behind after Obama won the nomination would only grow larger as time went on, and would never get any closer than that. But, 3 days later, Obama's lead was cut in half.

In addition, you should take anything from Quinnipiac University polling with a grain of salt.

McCain has always been his own person with views different from Bush but has NEVER seperated himself from Bush on the necessity of removing Saddam from power. Unlike Obama, he is never going to claim that the world would be a safer or better place with Saddam still in power in Iraq. He also supports only withdrawing from Iraq when conditions on the ground warrent it, not because of a silly campaign promise or simply yanking troops out without any consideration for the damage that could cause.

Ironically, you hear more about Obama labling McCain as Bush than you do about McCain distinguishing himself from Bush. When Obama actually gets into specifics, something he rarely does, he talks about the past, while McCain talks about the future.

McCain has a long history of working with Democrats in the Senate, but as the past two years of shown and certainly the Reagan/Bush Sr. years showed, the President does not need for his party to have a majority in the House and Senate to get what he wants.

 

[Strongbow]

Liberals lose when they talk about the issues?

Ok, let's do talk about the issues, let me know when you are ready?

There is a BIG difference between these ads and the actual VP promising a terrorist attack if they aren't re-elected. Even you have to be able to see the difference.

All elections are essentially won and lost on the issues. Its only the losers who claim otherwise.

 

[BVS]

All elections are essentially won and lost on the issues. Its only the losers who claim otherwise.

I do admire your rose colored view of voters.

I could think of a lot of examples where this isn't exactly true, but like I said I do admire this kind of optimism.

 

[deep]

I do admire your rose colored view of voters.

I could think of a lot of examples where this isn't exactly true, but like I said I do admire this kind of optimism.

sounds kind of odd coming from you
with your support for Obama, and his success over Hillary

 

[BVS]

sounds kind of odd coming from you
with your support for Obama, and his success over Hillary

What does Obama and Hillary have to do with this? I'm just being honest, history has shown that not all elections are won based on the issues.

 

[yolland]

Can we not discuss campaign politics without constant fits of melodramatic indignation and catty sarcasm?

Is it not possible to introduce a new story without overwrought asides to the effect that This!! reveals the deeply sinister, treacherous true face of [liberalism, conservatism, Fox News, MoveOn, McCain, Obama etc. etc. etc.]?

Is it not possible to tell someone you find their arguments unreasonable without ridiculing them?

These threads make me want to put needles through my eyeballs, and we've got more than four months to go yet.

 

[Irvine511]

There is no one here that has put more faith in polls than you. You claimed that the new polls showing McCain 6 points behind after Obama won the nomination would only grow larger as time went on, and would never get any closer than that. But, 3 days later, Obama's lead was cut in half.

Sting, grow up. i have said, REPEATEDLY, that polls are worthless at this stage in the game. good gosh, i made an off-the-cuff prediction, with the knowledge that, yes, things change. i know you're desperate for some kind of gotcha! moment, but it just makes you look even more silly and foolish than you normally do.


[q]In addition, you should take anything from Quinnipiac University polling with a grain of salt.[/q]


we'll take your word for it!

in the future, the only polls i'll trust are the ones quoted in sensationalistic news articles by ABC's Jake Trapper that make the race look closer than it actually is.

McCain has always been his own person with views different from Bush but has NEVER seperated himself from Bush on the necessity of removing Saddam from power. Unlike Obama, he is never going to claim that the world would be a safer or better place with Saddam still in power in Iraq. He also supports only withdrawing from Iraq when conditions on the ground warrent it, not because of a silly campaign promise or simply yanking troops out without any consideration for the damage that could cause.

Ironically, you hear more about Obama labling McCain as Bush than you do about McCain distinguishing himself from Bush. When Obama actually gets into specifics, something he rarely does, he talks about the past, while McCain talks about the future.

McCain has a long history of working with Democrats in the Senate, but as the past two years of shown and certainly the Reagan/Bush Sr. years showed, the President does not need for his party to have a majority in the House and Senate to get what he wants.

i don't know what this has to do with anything. you continue to write half-baked generalities and treat your own self-serving misimpressions as if they were facts. you are absolutely no more credible than Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or any other individual who makes a living off of a conservative publishing industry that banks on selling such deceptions to a naive public.

 

[Irvine511]

Can we not discuss campaign politics without constant fits of melodramatic indignation and catty sarcasm?

Is it not possible to introduce a new story without overwrought asides to the effect that This!! reveals the deeply sinister, treacherous true face of [liberalism, conservatism, Fox News, MoveOn, McCain, Obama etc. etc. etc.]?

Is it not possible to tell someone you find their arguments unreasonable without ridiculing them?

These threads make me want to put needles through my eyeballs, and we've got more than four months to go yet.

while i totally understand what you are getting at, i think this thread is yet another example of certain conservative posters baiting liberal posters, and then these are the same posters who will sob about some sort of biased, gang-bang, coordinated liberal effort to "silence" their voices because they don't like dissent.

how am i supposed to respond to a post that says, "no one believes in polls more than you" when this is not only not true, but a direct contradiction of what i've said, and intended to do nothing other than pathetically try to set up some sort of zing! moment? how does one respond to a post designed to incite and antagonize without withering sarcasm?

i'm really at a loss here. i held my tongue at some of the posts, but when it's directed at me, just how can we reasonably expect someone to take the high road?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Very interesting.

 

[Irvine511]

Well then, what do you think of the messages in that video saying that Republicans don't care about AIDS (despite the current president doing more for AIDS worldwide than any other), breast cancer, and the other ridiculous claims in those two videos? What do you think of that dopey mother, who seems unaware that her son, when grown, may choose to join the military and want to serve in Iraq? Do you think videos like this (remember, organizations like MoveOn are producing similar ads and videos by the dozens) are honest? Do they help? These videos are laughable. I really don't understand how the actors kept a straight face. Even they must have known what nonsense they were creating.

i'm eagerly awaiting your post decrying the Swift Boat ads from the 2004 election!

 

[Yahweh]

Sounds like a bunch of "Talking Heads" in here on both sides, I for one am glad that I can't hear you speak though. I for one whether a Dem or Republican wins would just like to see a President that is not just a Talking Head and can do their best to bring some respect back to a country that is seriously lacking respect on the world wide scene.

A president that believes in cooperation rather than corruption would be a start. Every President since I have been alive has been corrupt, and that is sad. Innovation, integrity, respect, these are all things that the next president needs to have at the forefront of their plans in order to make politics relevant again.

 

[yolland]

how does one respond to a post designed to incite and antagonize without withering sarcasm?

It's not my job to tell people how to stay calm. The reason I wasn't singling out anyone before is because it's obvious that the pathetic My-tribe-good!-Your-tribe-bad! mentality our politics are saturated with is at fever pitch during election season, and the campaign threads tend to reflect that dynamic from beginning to end; it's not just the 'usual' problem of one or two people being rude (though there's plenty of that). If you--I mean 'you' in a general sense here--start out smirking Gotcha! or shrilly inflating the significance of whatever story you're posting, then Surprise Surprise!, yes, people are gonna get withering, because they know hyperbole when they see it, and especially if they already disagree with you anyway, they'll be itching to take you down a couple notches too. Likewise, if you opt to get withering and let whoever you're responding to know just how worthless you think their thoughts are, then Surprise Surprise!, yep, they're gonna get their noses out of joint, because they'll notice you're not nearly so hard on your own kind, and especially when multiple people reply like that to them at once, they'll feel resentful that the patience granted to others isn't extended to them.

This forum generally works best when there's some actual idea or problem being examined, but these campaign threads often fail to make it past the polemical blasts level, when they even make it that far. Of course staying as calm and nonadversarial and objective as possible isn't by itself a solution to that, but it's certainly a prerequisite. Look for points you can build on in the post you're responding to, not just its flaws. You're here to discuss political issues, not to grab The Enemy by the jugular and take him down in defense of your team. Leave that kind of pointless crap to the losers whose silly rants we all see every day in the Reader Comments section of most any election article online.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Muslims barred from photo at Obama event - USATODAY.com

There's no justification for that, none at all. I think it's more than a judgment call by a few volunteers, when you read the background info in the article it seems obvious that these events involve concerted efforts by both campaigns to create a certain "look" and to avoid same. And that is a well known fact already, how these things are orchestrated. So I find it hard to believe that they did that on their own for their own motivations. Or maybe some of his supporters and volunteers aren't as high and open minded and without prejudice as they purport themselves to be. They're even ignorant about what a headscarf is, according to what they said. It's hardly the same as a "baseball".

 

[phillyfan26]

There is no one here that has put more faith in polls than you. You claimed that the new polls showing McCain 6 points behind after Obama won the nomination would only grow larger as time went on, and would never get any closer than that. But, 3 days later, Obama's lead was cut in half.

In addition, you should take anything from Quinnipiac University polling with a grain of salt.

McCain has always been his own person with views different from Bush but has NEVER seperated himself from Bush on the necessity of removing Saddam from power. Unlike Obama, he is never going to claim that the world would be a safer or better place with Saddam still in power in Iraq. He also supports only withdrawing from Iraq when conditions on the ground warrent it, not because of a silly campaign promise or simply yanking troops out without any consideration for the damage that could cause.

Ironically, you hear more about Obama labling McCain as Bush than you do about McCain distinguishing himself from Bush. When Obama actually gets into specifics, something he rarely does, he talks about the past, while McCain talks about the future.

McCain has a long history of working with Democrats in the Senate, but as the past two years of shown and certainly the Reagan/Bush Sr. years showed, the President does not need for his party to have a majority in the House and Senate to get what he wants.

I don't think a single thing written in this post is true. Makes it difficult to open up dialogue, you know?

 

[Irvine511]

[q]"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice."

They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism," - Barack Obama[/q]

 

[Strongbow]

[q]"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice."

They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism," - Barack Obama[/q]

If Barack Obama knew anything about the history of US Foreign Policy, US National Security, he would know that the policy decisions of the Bush administration are far away from being the most disastrous of Foreign Policy decisions in recent history.

Thousands of members of Al Quada all across the world have been captured or killed since 9/11. So the idea that no one responsible for 9/11 has been brought to justice is simply a statement that shows Obama's dishonesty or his total ignorance of the issue.

I've got news for you Obama, foreign policy and national security are a lot more complex and involve a variety of risks and problems that often require simultanious action. You don't have the luxury of simply solving one problem at a time.

In order to better educate yourself, you should sit down with former CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks. In doing so, you would learn that the United States increased the number of troops in Afghanistan as it went to war in Iraq. None of this taking the eye of the ball dung.

It was not hype that Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions and had failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. It was not hype what Saddam had already done to the region, 4 invasions and attacks on neighbors in a area of the world critical to the planets economy and energy. Its not hype that the United States had to send over 500,000 troops to the region to remove his troops from Kuwait in 1991, and had to send another 100,000 troops to Kuwait in 1994 simply because he moved two Republican guard divisions to the border. Bill Clinton was not hyping anything the multiple times he took military action against Saddam, when he stated in clear terms that Saddam was both a threat to the region and the world, and devoted the United States to a policy of regime change in Iraq. It was not hype that Saddam retained all of the necessary technical and scientific capacity to restart any weapons program he wanted at any time regardless of whether he had actually disposed of all the previous weapons he built as many have alleged but have never proven.

The only thing misleading and foolish is the idea that the world would be safer today if Saddam were still in power in Iraq which is the policy you support and favor given your opposition to the only effective means of removing Saddam from power.

Bush removed the Taliban and Saddam from power in Afghanistan and Iraq and in doing so has removed two terrible threats from the world. Persian Gulf Oil supply vital to the planets energy needs has never been more safe and secure. The occupation of Afghanistan has been the most successful foreign occupation in Afghanistan's history. Thousands of Al Quada terrorist in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed or captured. Both countries are rebuilding themselves and have reached new levels of development exceeding where they were prior to the invasions in many different area's. No terrorist has been able to launch a successful attack on the United States since 9/11. Yes, a few of them have been able to make video tapes inside Pakistan which seems to be your primary concern when it comes to US security as opposed to actual terrorist attacks, actions, leaders and capabilities that really do threaten or harm US security.

 

[deep]

Obama could win vote, lose election

Harry Siegel Wed Jun 18, 9:35 PM ET

Until 2000, it hadn’t happened in more than 100 years, but plugged-in observers from both parties see a distinct possibility of Barack Obama winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College — and with it the presidency — to John McCain.


Here’s the scenario: Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete — but not to win — in the South. Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such as Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins than Bush’s in 2004 and ekes out narrow victories in places such as North Carolina, which Bush won by 12 points but Rasmussen presently shows as a tossup, and Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points but McCain presently leads by just 11.

One possible result: Even as the national mood moves left, the 2004 map largely holds. Obama’s 32 new electoral votes from Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia are offset by 21 new electoral votes for McCain in Michigan and New Hampshire — and despite a 2- or 3-point popular vote victory for Obama, America wakes up on Jan. 20 to a President McCain.

According to Tad Devine, who served as the chief political consultant for Al Gore in 2000 and as a senior adviser to John F. Kerry in 2004, “it certainly is a possibility. Not a likelihood, but it is a real possibility.”

I hope this happens

and I hope it happens big

not by 500,000 votes - like it did in 2000

but by several million, I'd like to see the next president have 5- 7 million less votes than the loser

I absolutely HATE the electoral college and want to see it obliterated

 

[deep]

Commentary: Obama's Flip-Flop on Public Financing

Sam Donaldson on What Motivated Obama's Switch

by SAM DONALDSON

June 19, 2008—

The following is a commentary by ABC News' Sam Donaldson. Click here to view a video version of Sam's latest essay

Senator Obama has announced he will opt out of public financing for the general election. He says he will "forgo" more than $80 million in public funds and go it alone.

How was that decision made?

This reporter obtained a transcript of the meeting during which the Obama team made the decision.

Someone said, "We want to do this but we've got a problem last September you wrote that you would aggressively pursue an agreement with your Republican opponent for public financing. And then last February, when Tim Russert asked you why you wouldn't keep your word on that, you said you would sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair for both sides."

"Yes," says someone else, "but you didn't really promise to do it, just to 'pursue an agreement,' and let's face it, if we're free to raise a ton of money above the public financing limit we can bury McCain with more television ads than any candidate has ever been able to run in the history of presidential politics."

"Okay," says someone else. "But we've got to word the announcement in a way that makes it sound like we are actually taking the high ground in this matter. That we are the ones fighting against the big money in politics."

Well of course, I have no such transcript, I don't know what they said to each other, but I do know what Sen. Obama said on his Web site about this.

He said it was not an easy decision because he supports a robust system of public financing of elections & but the system as it exists today is broken and his opponents are masters of gaming the broken system.

Therefore, said Sen. Obama, he wants to declare his independence from such a broken system and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far.

All I can say is, here's to the high ground and here's to change ain't it great?

How does this square with what Obama said to Tim Russert?

 

[yolland]

^ That's been brought up in here several times, the expedient about-face on public financing. I think realistically how much that matters will come down to how high a priority voters place on campaign finance issues at the ballot box.



Obama is correct about the safe-havens; pretty much every attempted or completed al-Qaeda attack in Europe or Africa since 2004 has been traced to the Afghan-Pak border zone (and General McNeill made a similar point at his DoD press conference after relinquishing ISF command a couple weeks back: "[M]y view is [that the 50% increase in cross-border attacks since last spring is] directly attributable to the lack of pressure on the other side of the border"). No surprises there--the increasing Talibanization of FATA/NWFP, despite a series of "peace agreements" between Islamabad and the rebels, is now such that Peshawar itself is under threat of siege; Islamabad is politically in shambles; and General Kayani, apparently not the compliant successor to Musharraf Washington had hoped for, hasn't shown up for the 'Tripartate Committee' meetings between the Pakistani, Afghani and NATO military heads in months. It's not that there hasn't been "diplomacy" or adequate financial support; Negroponte's been to Pakistan multiple times this year alone, then there's the $11+ million we've contributed since 9/11 for GWOT purposes (most of which has apparently wound up going to Kashmir). But the lack of facilitation of regional coordination, the continued neglect of the Kashmir issue, the ill-advised continued loyalty to Musharraf, and yes, the inadequate troop numbers in Afghanistan--especially for reconstruction and training (McNeill said 400,000 is "what you'd really need," acknowledging in the same breath that to even hope for that would be "absurd")...all of those will need to change. I have yet to hear either candidate say anything about the situation that indicates a solid grasp of its complexities, though.

 

[corianderstem]

I don't like that he's changed his mind about it ... but that doesn't mean I'm going to switch teams.

 

[BVS]

I think realistically how much that matters will come down to how high a priority voters place on campaign finance issues at the ballot box.

I think this is true, and to be honest, campaign finance always "pops up" on the radar but never seems to be THAT important with voters...

To be honest I can understand both sides of this issue.

 

[deep]

I don't like that he's changed his mind about it ... but that doesn't mean I'm going to switch teams.

I respect your response

thanks for not just trying to sweep it under the carpet.

 

[corianderstem]

I have to say I agree with BVS that it's probably not going to be high on a list of concerns for a lot of voters.

And to be honest, I'm never shocked when a politician says one thing and does another. Isn't that what they do? If he changed his mind on something I really cared about, I might have a different response, but at least in this election, it's very unlikely that it would make me not vote for him.

 

[deep]

^ That's been brought up in here several times, the expedient about-face on public financing. I think realistically how much that matters will come down to how high a priority voters place on campaign finance issues at the ballot box.

really ?

I don't think it is about how high a priority voters place on campaign finance at all.


If Obama had always said he would choose not to accept public financing
> but only money from actual people that support him people would not care that he was not taking tax payers money, they would have probably been impressed.


I think what it comes down to, is that he is going back on his word.

The bloom is off, Obama really is not that "breath of fresh air".