US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - 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 05-22-2008, 08:52 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 26,566
Local Time: 04:48 AM
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6

[** last two pages of prior thread attached to this one per request ** ~y.]


(AP)WASHINGTON — Republican John McCain says same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into legal agreements for insurance and other purposes, but he opposes gay marriage and believes in "the unique status of marriage between and man and a woman."

"And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue," the likely Republican presidential nominee said in an interview to air Thursday on "The Ellen DeGeneres show."

McCain, who also opposes an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex unions, said people should be encouraged to enter into legal agreements, particularly for insurance and other areas where decisions need to be made.

DeGeneres needled McCain on the issue, arguing that she and the senator from Arizona aren't different.

Last week, after the California Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriage in that state, DeGeneres announced on her program her engagement to longtime girlfriend Portia de Rossi.

"We are all the same people, all of us. You're no different than I am. Our love is the same," she said. "When someone says, 'You can have a contract, and you'll still have insurance, and you'll get all that,' it sounds to me like saying, 'Well, you can sit there, you just can't sit there.'

"It feels like we are not, you know, we aren't owed the same things and the same wording," DeGeneres said.

McCain said he's heard her "articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness."

DeGeneres steered the conversation back toward the humor she's known for.

"So, you'll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you're saying?" she asked.

"Touche," McCain said.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-22-2008, 12:06 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,657
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
McCain said he's heard her "articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness."
Doesn't he realize that this might be more offending a sentence than just saying "We disagree"?
__________________

Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 05-22-2008, 12:43 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
Doesn't he realize that this might be more offending a sentence than just saying "We disagree"?
Sure, but it is much less offensive than anything and everything Bush and Cheney (with his gay daughter) have always done.

The fact that McCain shows up and supports an "inferior" equal will win votes with many independents.

The fact that he is going to address the NAACP and is comfortable doing so, again makes him light years ahead of Bush/Cheney.

It seems that Obama's only strategy,
is to say McCain is the same as Bush.

This should not fly with any reasonable, honest person.
deep is offline  
Old 05-22-2008, 01:00 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
Lawsuit seeks to seat Florida delegates

South Florida Business Journal - by Paul Brinkmann

Three prominent Broward County Democrats filed a federal lawsuit Thursday morning against the Democratic National Committee, seeking to force the committee to seat Florida's delegates at the upcoming presidential nomination convention.

The DNC could not immediately be reached for comment.

The suit was filed by state Sen. Steven Geller, an attorney for Greenspoon Marder in Fort Lauderdale; Barbara Effman, president of the Democratic Club in Broward County; and Percy Johnson, a convention delegate.

The suit alleges that the committee failed to "treat equally all similarly situated states and Democratic voters" when it decided not to seat Florida delegates because the state moved up its primary date against party rules. The suit also claims the committee's actions violated "due process" because the sanctions against Florida "flow from a constitutionally inadequate process that implements DNC rules in an arbitrary manner."


.



This is good news.

Of course, there will be those that say "Rules are Rules"

Thank goodness Rosa Parks would not accept that answer.
deep is offline  
Old 05-22-2008, 02:24 PM   #5
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,577
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Riiiiight. Because the plight of Florida is sooooo similar to Rosa Park's situation.

Excellent comparison, deep.
Diemen is offline  
Old 05-22-2008, 04:06 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Quote:
McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement and "Crazy" Comments on Holocaust

May 22, 2008 4:48 PM

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this afternoon rejected the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee after a sermon was publicized in which Hagen suggested Adolph Hitler and the Holocaust were caused by God so as to bring about the creation of the state of Israel.

A source close to McCain told ABC News the Arizona senator thinks these sentiments are crazy, and that back in February when the campaign accepted Hagee's endorsement, no one on the campaign, and certainly not McCain, had any idea that Hagee believed these types of things.

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them," McCain said in a statement. "I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."

Hagee had quoted the book of Jeremiah saying, "Behold I will bring them the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers. Behold I will send for many fishers and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks."

Hagee suggested that Hitler as a hunter, and as a result of the Holocaust, Jews had been brought back to the land God gave unto their fathers.
.
deep is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 03:28 PM   #7
Refugee
 
XHendrix24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,496
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Clinton mentions Kennedy assassination

May 23, 2008 04:12 PM

Hillary Clinton appeared to raise the specter of assassination in defending her decision to stay in the Democratic race despite Barack Obama closing in on the delegate number to clinch.

In an interview with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader in South Dakota, she dismissed calls to drop out, adding, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Obama last year received Secret Service protection earlier than any other presidential candidate, and his supporters have privately and publicly worried about his safety, citing the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968.

“Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

Clinton has had Secret Service protection since her days as first lady.


XHendrix24 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 04:07 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 12:48 AM


Just frisk Hillary (you can hide a lot in a puffy pant suit) before she is allowed to be near Obama.
deep is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 05:03 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,657
Local Time: 10:48 AM
So, by her timetable, which primary will turn the table? Puerto Rico on June 1, or Montana on June 3, or South Dakota on the same day?
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 05:14 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 08:48 AM
I'm going to take some deep breaths before I respond to what she said about the RFK Assassination...
U2democrat is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 05:21 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 12:48 AM
wink

deep breaths

your replies can be as insightful as mine
deep is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 05:49 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,932
Local Time: 04:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
This is good news.

Of course, there will be those that say "Rules are Rules"
Among those people was Hillary Clinton...up until she started losing.
anitram is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 08:43 PM   #13
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Are we all that surprised that a foreign nation would have a considerably lopsided opinion of another nation's leader? I'm pretty sure that we could see similar lopsided views if you asked the American public whether they had a favorable view of Iran's president, for instance. The media has long determined what the acceptable answer to that question is (just as it seems to be in every country), whether one likes it or not, and very few are going to study a subject like this in-depth and come to their own conclusions.

Canada, as expected, is obviously more nuanced when it comes to its own internal politics. Why else would they have elected a Conservative government into power, albeit even in a minority government position? One could argue that it was more of a vote against the Liberal scandals of the last several years--e.g., a vote against one party, rather than a vote in favor of another. I'd say that that pretty much sums up the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections here. It was less of a vote of confidence for Bush, and more of a vote against the Democratic Party. The American public sure did pick an odd time to vote that way, though.
The one difference between Canadians analyzing an American president and Americans analyzing other world leaders is that here, we're pretty much inundated with American media. Your media sources make up a large part (but not the whole, certainly) of what we receive here. It's extremely easy for Canadians interested in American politics to keep informed, and even those not interested probably know more about US politics than the average American knows about other nations.

And yes, I would argue that our current Conservative government is more the result of apathy toward the Liberal party. However, as I'm sure you're aware given your knowledge of Canada, being conservative here is a relative matter. Our Conservative government is much closer to your Democratic party than to your Republicans.
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:05 PM   #14
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by XHendrix24 View Post
Clinton mentions Kennedy assassination

May 23, 2008 04:12 PM

Hillary Clinton appeared to raise the specter of assassination in defending her decision to stay in the Democratic race despite Barack Obama closing in on the delegate number to clinch.

In an interview with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader in South Dakota, she dismissed calls to drop out, adding, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Obama last year received Secret Service protection earlier than any other presidential candidate, and his supporters have privately and publicly worried about his safety, citing the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968.

“Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

Clinton has had Secret Service protection since her days as first lady.


I'm almost afraid to post this, lest I gain even more of a reputation as a Hillary apologist, but let me preface this with an explanation: when I first heard of this story, my first thought was "Hillary, wtf are you talking about? You're insane."

However, reading it over just now, I think it's just an EXTREMELY poorly worded way of saying that both her husband's and RFK's Democratic nomination campaigns lasted until June, and that the assassination comment "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California" was probably meant as a way of her saying "remember, he was assassinated while seeking the nomination, and he was assassinated in June, therefore his campaign went into June, too."

As I said, very, very poorly worded, but I doubt it was meant in any malicious or disrespectful way toward RFK. It sounded to me more like she was thinking aloud, which is really stupid for someone in her position who should be choosing words more carefully.
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:14 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
The one difference between Canadians analyzing an American president and Americans analyzing other world leaders is that here, we're pretty much inundated with American media. Your media sources make up a large part (but not the whole, certainly) of what we receive here. It's extremely easy for Canadians interested in American politics to keep informed, and even those not interested probably know more about US politics than the average American knows about other nations.
It's an interesting phenomenon, because I've argued before that, by keeping the "focus" on U.S. politics, it has allowed a lot of things that's wrong with Canada (every country has something wrong with it, mind you) to go unnoticed. I think that it is not coincidental that an issue becomes "hot button" based on the media's reaction to that issue. But, more importantly, an issue can get brushed aside if it's neglected completely. And that makes the dominant hegemony of Canada--the two major political parties and Canadian big business--quite happy.

Quote:
And yes, I would argue that our current Conservative government is more the result of apathy toward the Liberal party. However, as I'm sure you're aware given your knowledge of Canada, being conservative here is a relative matter. Our Conservative government is much closer to your Democratic party than to your Republicans.
Is it, really? The core Conservative constituency is not terribly different from the "conservatism" of U.S. Great Plains states in the Midwest and South. The old Reform Party/Canadian Alliance that took over the PCs to form today's Conservative Party certainly held views that would have rivaled many of the beliefs that socially conservative Republicans hold. I do give Harper quite a lot of credit for finding a face-saving way of accepting gay marriage in Canada; it seems that the U.S. GOP would rather sink with its ship on this issue than accept it.

In many ways, U.S. and Canadian politics are quite different (the inherent differences between parliamentary versus U.S.-style representative democracy) and quite similar (two major political parties that both nations seem to be incredibly apathetic and distrustful about). I would argue that Canadians, as a whole, really are quite more educated about American politics than Americans about Canadian politics. However, what I do not think that Canadians are immune to is the fact that media coverage of foreign nations are rarely given the level of nuance that's required to understand it completely. There's always some level of nationalism that gets in the way of the whole story. And I think that's the subtext behind that very interesting poll about our presidential candidates.
melon is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:55 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,932
Local Time: 04:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
However, what I do not think that Canadians are immune to is the fact that media coverage of foreign nations are rarely given the level of nuance that's required to understand it completely. There's always some level of nationalism that gets in the way of the whole story. And I think that's the subtext behind that very interesting poll about our presidential candidates.
Except I get all of my media coverage of the US from US stations, not Canadian ones. I don't turn on the CBC to follow the US election - I will watch MSNBC or PBS or even CNN (hey I even had Fox this last year!). Additionally, there are a multitude of US networks which deliver to us local news. With time shifting, I have access to local networks from all four time zones. That is the difference between Canada and other foreign nations which do not live an hour away from the US and don't have the benefit of local American media.
anitram is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:17 PM   #17
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Except I get all of my media coverage of the US from US stations, not Canadian ones. I don't turn on the CBC to follow the US election - I will watch MSNBC or PBS or even CNN (hey I even had Fox this last year!). Additionally, there are a multitude of US networks which deliver to us local news. With time shifting, I have access to local networks from all four time zones. That is the difference between Canada and other foreign nations which do not live an hour away from the US and don't have the benefit of local American media.
I'll reply to the rest of your post later, Melon, but this is what I was saying, not that we've a lot of access to news about US politics through Canadian media, but that we are literally inundated with American news, originating on American networks that we receive here. As far as I know, any Canadian with basic cable gets all four main American networks at the very least, and almost everyone gets CNN/MSNBC/Fox as well. That's not even to mention that many US newspapers are readily available here, and that a great deal of the magazines we read are published in the US. This being the case, we receive US news in the very same manner that Americans do, from the very same sources, and framed in the very same way.
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:31 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Fair enough (although I certainly take issue with American media too ).

Unlike most Americans, I've lived an hour away from Canada my entire life, and I get Canadian broadcast media as clearly as anything local, so I've been lucky enough to be able to compare and contrast, as well.
melon is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 11:26 PM   #19
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
It's an interesting phenomenon, because I've argued before that, by keeping the "focus" on U.S. politics, it has allowed a lot of things that's wrong with Canada (every country has something wrong with it, mind you) to go unnoticed. I think that it is not coincidental that an issue becomes "hot button" based on the media's reaction to that issue. But, more importantly, an issue can get brushed aside if it's neglected completely. And that makes the dominant hegemony of Canada--the two major political parties and Canadian big business--quite happy.
I've already replied to this, but I just wanted to add that Canadian issues do get reported in great depth on Canadian news broadcasts. Canadian broadcasters do give a decent chunk of airtime to US news, though, much more than US network news broadcasts from American border town affiliates give to Canada. I'm not commenting on the equity of it one way or the other, I'm just saying it is, and it's always been that way, for various reasons.


Quote:
Is it, really? The core Conservative constituency is not terribly different from the "conservatism" of U.S. Great Plains states in the Midwest and South. The old Reform Party/Canadian Alliance that took over the PCs to form today's Conservative Party certainly held views that would have rivaled many of the beliefs that socially conservative Republicans hold. I do give Harper quite a lot of credit for finding a face-saving way of accepting gay marriage in Canada; it seems that the U.S. GOP would rather sink with its ship on this issue than accept it.

In many ways, U.S. and Canadian politics are quite different (the inherent differences between parliamentary versus U.S.-style representative democracy) and quite similar (two major political parties that both nations seem to be incredibly apathetic and distrustful about). I would argue that Canadians, as a whole, really are quite more educated about American politics than Americans about Canadian politics. However, what I do not think that Canadians are immune to is the fact that media coverage of foreign nations are rarely given the level of nuance that's required to understand it completely. There's always some level of nationalism that gets in the way of the whole story. And I think that's the subtext behind that very interesting poll about our presidential candidates.
As Anitram said earlier, we have our highest concentration of, and no doubt the most fervent conservatives in Alberta. However, I'm guessing that many of them are still more socially liberal than your Republicans. This holds even more true in other areas of the country, where the social conservatism is diluted to an even greater extent amongst Canadian Conservatives.

For all of Harper's flaws, he's been fairly innocuous as Prime Minister, and I'm sure that much of the reason for that is that he's fully aware that he wasn't elected with a mandate to lead (self-evident with the minority government), but instead his election was a sign of dissatisfaction with the long-serving Liberal party. It's *always* like that here - we're overwhelmingly Liberal, but every once in a while we have a spat and need to take a break from the party. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and all that. Harper never intended to address gay marriage because he knew it wouldn't fly here. Instead, he took a perfunctory glance in that direction, held a vote he knew he'd lose, and moved on. He knows what values most Canadians hold important, and what's not negotiable here.

Not much has changed since his election, but then again, with minority governments, nothing ever really does.
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 05-24-2008, 06:00 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,657
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
I'm almost afraid to post this, lest I gain even more of a reputation as a Hillary apologist, but let me preface this with an explanation: when I first heard of this story, my first thought was "Hillary, wtf are you talking about? You're insane."

However, reading it over just now, I think it's just an EXTREMELY poorly worded way of saying that both her husband's and RFK's Democratic nomination campaigns lasted until June, and that the assassination comment "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California" was probably meant as a way of her saying "remember, he was assassinated while seeking the nomination, and he was assassinated in June, therefore his campaign went into June, too."

As I said, very, very poorly worded, but I doubt it was meant in any malicious or disrespectful way toward RFK. It sounded to me more like she was thinking aloud, which is really stupid for someone in her position who should be choosing words more carefully.
This is what I meant with the three outstanding primaries. In 1992 the Primaries in June were:
June 2: Alabama, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio
June 9: North Dakota

and in 1968 only 13 states held primaries, as well as the system being completely different, and there was a primary in a state such as California. This time, however, the remaining primaries are in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. Even though Puerto Rico has 55 pledged delegates, this isn't going to turn the overall results upside down and Clinton is only trying to distract from the fact that the primaries are basically over; in a very poor way.
__________________

Vincent Vega 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 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×