# Presidential election may be up for grabs



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2008)

An interesting analysis of the situation: Many American voters are split along different lines than the fairly simple narrative promoted by the MSM

http://www.riponsociety.org/forum607c.htm



> *Running on Iraq:*
> What's a Northeast Republican to do?
> 
> JOHN MCLAUGHLIN
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Feb 2008)

Tuesday night may tell the tale or it may not. Evidently 20-25% of the California vote has been done through absentee ballot which wont be counted until Wednesday, so if its close no one will get the results until late on Tuesday or late Wed. I dont care who the democrats nominate either is way too much of a socialist for me. McCain while he has been a patriot he isnt conservative for me on key issues like the economy,taxes,illegal immigration and conservative judges. He has been way too cozy with the democrats during his time in Washington.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Tuesday night may tell the tale or it may not. Evidently 20-25% of the California vote has been done through absentee ballot which wont be counted until Wednesday, so if its close no one will get the results until late on Tuesday or late Wed. I dont care who the democrats nominate either is way too much of a socialist for me. McCain while he has been a patriot he isnt conservative for me on key issues like the economy,taxes,illegal immigration and conservative judges. He has been way too cozy with the democrats during his time in Washington.



Well that's part of the reason why McCain has been described as a "maverick" politician, because he does not always fit the traditional Republican mold and would rather vote for his constituents depending on the issue rather than follow the rest of the GOP. I don't agree when Ann Coulter says that Hillary is "more conservative" compared to McCain and is therefore "our girl" as she said as a sort of insult to him; a politician who is willing to step across the aisle and be willing to work with differences rather than emphasize them (as Romney does when he touts how he is the more conservative "CEO-type politician" than McCain ever was) would therefore be more appealing to the public and less polarizing. 

On a side, slight hijack, anyone here know or have any idea what McCain's call sign was when he was a USN Crusader fighter pilot?


----------



## a_majoor (5 Feb 2008)

While this may be the "Dream Ticket" for some democrats, I tend to believe the writer in thinking why there will not be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket in November:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/roland.martin/index.html?iref=newssearch



> *Commentary: Forget an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket
> *
> By Roland S. Martin
> CNN Contributor
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (7 Feb 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While this may be the "Dream Ticket" for some democrats, I tend to believe the writer in thinking why there will not be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket in November:
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/roland.martin/index.html?iref=newssearch



Dream tickets aside, here's the fair maiden who is partially responsible for Obama's momentum in the Democratic Primaries (at least compared to the other candidates who rival Clinton among the Dems.) in the United States right now!  

 :rofl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1366280


----------



## observor 69 (7 Feb 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Well that's part of the reason why McCain has been described as a "maverick" politician, because he does not always fit the traditional Republican mold and would rather vote for his constituents depending on the issue rather than follow the rest of the GOP. I don't agree when Ann Coulter says that Hillary is "more conservative" compared to McCain and is therefore "our girl" as she said as a sort of insult to him; a politician who is willing to step across the aisle and be willing to work with differences rather than emphasize them (as Romney does when he touts how he is the more conservative "CEO-type politician" than McCain ever was) would therefore be more appealing to the public and less polarizing.
> 
> On a side, slight hijack, anyone here know or have any idea what McCain's call sign was when he was a USN Crusader fighter pilot?



"Playboy"

  http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message495961/pg2


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2008)

The Republicans need to move very carefully indeed. A McCain Administration may well be able to create a bipartisan consensus in the House, and we should remember the Congress is polling at about 1/2 the approval rating of President George W Bush right now, so the Democrats might discover their hold on the Congress isn't as strong as they might wish.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27493,filter.all/pub_detail.asp



> *Beware the Coming Democratic Sea-Change*
> By David Frum
> Posted: Friday, February 8, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (12 Feb 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Republicans need to move very carefully indeed. A McCain Administration may well be able to create a bipartisan consensus in the House, and we should remember the Congress is polling at about 1/2 the approval rating of President George W Bush right now, so the Democrats might discover their hold on the Congress isn't as strong as they might wish.



Before Romney dropped out of the race, he accused McCain as "not being conservative enough"; it seems Ann Coulter agrees with him, since she recently had been apt to announce that she would rather have Hillary as "our girl", as she said, since Hillary seems to be more conservative compared to McCain; to say that a leading Democrat like Clinton is more conservative than you is definitely an insult to any Republican like McCain.


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 Feb 2008)

I agree that this election is too close to call but I recall reading a politico writing years ago that Americans tend to be broken into 3 camps. 
40% of Americans vote Republican no matter who is running.
40% of Americans vote Democrat no matter who is running
The remaining 20% is what candidates need to aim for. The swing vote that actually reads candidates platforms and votes on conscience rather than party affiliation.

You could even say the same thing in Canada in regards to Conservatives, Liberals, and the Lunatic Fringe. 8)


----------



## observor 69 (12 Feb 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I agree that this election is too close to call but I recall reading a politico writing years ago that Americans tend to be broken into 3 camps.
> 40% of Americans vote Republican no matter who is running.
> 40% of Americans vote Democrat no matter who is running
> The remaining 20% is what candidates need to aim for. The swing vote that actually reads candidates platforms and votes on conscience rather than party affiliation.
> ...



Along the same line of thinking:

http://206.75.155.198/showfile.asp?Lang=E&URL=/archivenews/080212/GM/0802124N.htm

POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS Obama's success shows the power of new voters 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## CougarKing (13 Feb 2008)

Obama makes more gains.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23123924/



> *Obama sweeps Maryland, Va., D.C. *
> ‘Tonight we’re on our way,’ senator says as he extends lead in delegates
> NBC News and news services
> updated 11:42 p.m. PT, Tues., Feb. 12, 2008
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (13 Feb 2008)

Another reason to like Obama and proof that not all Liberals/Democrats are anti-military: he plans to permanently increase the size of the US Army and USMC by 65,000 troops and 27,000 Marines, respectively, as stated below:

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=6195



> *Barack Obama’s American Exceptionalism*
> 
> By Christopher A. Preble | Friday, May 25, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2008)

After reading this, I had to wonder about the people who always accuse the American Right Wing of being in the thrall of religion.....

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/obamas_politics_of_collective.html



> *Obama's Politics of Collective Redemption*
> By Kyle-Anne Shiver
> 
> _"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much.  Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic."   Pope Benedict XVI_
> ...


----------



## wannabe SF member (15 Feb 2008)

I dunno, I mean I find the comparison between Obama and Hitler a bit over the top but i agree that the phenomenon is getting kinda religious.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Feb 2008)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> I dunno, i mean i find the comparison between Obama and Hitler a bit over the top



+1 incongruous. Still, I think it's a bit premature to call Obama's charisma among his base as a Pied-piper like religious fervor or personality-cult-worship-like fervor.


----------



## Yrys (15 Feb 2008)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> the comparison between Obama and Hitler a bit over the top



More then over the top for me.  I can understand Obama when he's talking. I tried to read
Mein Kampf once, as I wanted to understand what was so charismatic about the man. 
I don't know if it was the traduction, but it seems a pile of gibberish and lunatic raving to me.

Really bizarre comparison.


----------



## tdr_aust (15 Feb 2008)

Reading this in one of the previous posts:


> Then, consider these numbers on  recent Google searches using only Obama's name plus one other word:
> 
> Obama + messianic  75,200
> * Obama + savior  226,000
> ...


Reminded me of the following in a recent column in the Australian paper:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23182456-28737,00.html


> Obama's first coming
> Washington correspondent Geoff Elliott | February 09, 2008
> 
> IT was early 1994 when Nelson Mandela gave a speech in a slum outside Cape Town and spoke in grand terms of a new beginning and how when he was elected president every household would have a washing machine.
> ...



What always worries me with US elections is that who ever ends up in the Hot Seat seems want to imprint the world with their ideas one way or the other.


----------



## Yrys (15 Feb 2008)

tdr_aust said:
			
		

> What always worries me with US elections is that who ever ends up in the Hot Seat seems want to imprint the world with their ideas one way or the other.



Isn't always the case of all leaders of all parties ? They all want to be Prime minister or President 
for imprinting theirs country, no?


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2008)

tdr_aust said:
			
		

> What always worries me with US elections is that who ever ends up in the Hot Seat seems want to imprint the world with their ideas one way or the other.



That seems to be the question. Senator Obama's speeches are very vague on specifics, what exactly are the ideas he wants to implement?

(Of course you might say the same about Senator's Clinton and McCain as well)


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2008)

And now a look at the Republican's presumptive candidate:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/739qqkcd.asp



> *The Model for McCain?
> Not Reagan, but Churchill.*
> by Michael Makovsky
> 02/15/2008 12:00:00 AM
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2008)

If the Clinton campaign manages to use insiders to steal the nomination, I can see lots of bad blood being spilled in the US Democratic party. I wonder if they will be able to effectively govern under these conditions (although the separation of powers means they won't have the "Stephan Dion" problem).

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/16/top-clinton-adviser-says-superdelegates-will-decide-election-obamas-victories-irrelevant/



> *Top Clinton Adviser Says Superdelegates Will Decide Election, Obama’s Victories ‘Irrelevant’*
> by FOXNews.com
> Saturday, February 16, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2008)

Obama's Texas state campaign HQ has an Ernesto (Che) Guevarra flag hanging on the wall.  A photo of which is now making the rounds of the conservative cyber-space.  When working-class Americans start calling him "Osama Obama", you know Clinton has a good chance.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2008)

So many possibilities:

http://thecanadianrepublic.blogspot.com/2008/02/could-al-gore-throw-his-hat-in-ring-for.html



> Saturday, February 16, 2008
> *Could Al Gore Throw His Hat In The Ring For A Second Democratic Ballot?*
> 
> My money is still on a Clinton/Obama ticket but an Obama/Gore combo isn't beyond the realm of possibility either. In fact, it makes a lot of sense. Most people I've talked to who thought a Clinton/Obama ticket would never happen cited their egos and the acrimony the campaign has stirred up between the two Democratic frontrunners. If the problems between them are as deep as they are said to be, could this save the Democrats from a bitter and divisive second ballot, if it comes to that?
> ...


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2008)

- Clinton-Gore would be the result.  If I was Gore, I would let Hillary take the lead.  With Hillary as vice, Gore would know that his existance was depending on the whim of a VERY ambitous woman.  

 ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Feb 2008)

I was looking at the _Globe and Mail_ web edition early this Sunday morning (17 Feb 08) and noted two juxtaposed headlines:

•	Clinton aide argues for seating Michigan, Florida delegates; and

•	Fears of vote-rigging, violence, hang over Pakistan elections.

Maybe the headline writers could have saved some brain cells and presented a more accurate picture by simply saying:

•	Fears of vote-rigging hang over Pakistan elections; and

•	Fears of vote-rigging hang over US Democrats' primary elections.


----------



## observor 69 (17 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was looking at the _Globe and Mail_ web edition early this Sunday morning (17 Feb 08) and noted two juxtaposed headlines:




So you have that G&M fix even if it is only the online version ? 
It's all your fault that I am buying that paper every day now. Even got my wife hooked on it. 
Seriously I have great respect for the paper and share my wife's addiction.


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> So you have that G&M fix even if it is only the online version ?
> It's all your fault that I am buying that paper every day now. Even got my wife hooked on it.
> Seriously I have great respect for the paper and share my wife's addiction.



- Since they poached a lot of good scribes from the National Post, they have gotten a bit better.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2008)

More on the Republican side. Interesting choices for Presidential running mates (I would think Dr Rice would be a very interesting candidate for VP, but the others mentioned have much more political experience)

http://thecanadianrepublic.blogspot.com/2008/02/who-will-mccain-choose-as-his-running.html



> Sunday, February 17, 2008
> *Who Will McCain Choose As His Running Mate: The Charmer Or The Quarterback?*
> 
> The debate surrounding McCain's likely choices for a running mate has been drawing a lot of speculation on the right in recent days. There have been a lot of interesting, and in some cases even exciting, names thrown out there as possibilities. Early on there was talk about Romney or Huckabee filling the slot but McCain really doesn't like Mitt and that acrimony, combined with their divergent policies, would be more than enough to make for an awkward campaign. On the other hand, Huck shares some of McCain's more centrist convictions but would do little to nothing to satisfy the socially and fiscally conservative base that simply cannot be left behind for this election to yield a Republican to the White House.
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Feb 2008)

From this article in the Aspen Times: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324



> In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man
> 
> 
> Gary Hubbell
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2008)

More on Senator Obama by the incomparable Mark Styen

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGJkMWFmZmIxMDY0M2Q5NzdjN2I0ODU4MGFiNDdmNzA=



> *You Say You Want a Revolution*
> Political worshippers of the new Messiah.
> 
> By Mark Steyn
> ...


----------



## tdr_aust (20 Feb 2008)

Fundamentally the whole US elections are about “change”.. 
But what that change will really deliver is still very vague as per norm with anything of this nature. Unfortunately I don’t see much being offered by the Democrats nor really lots from the Republicans. 
But Change there seems to be a coming..

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/geoffelliott/index.php/theaustralian/comments/stumping_up_my_two_cents_worth


> *Stumping up my two cents’ worth*
> Geoff Elliott Blog | February 08, 2008 |
> *I TRAVELLED with Barack Obama this week. I saw him deliver a bunch of his stump speeches. I’ve seen about a gazillion of them now and, as inspirational as they are, they can get a bit, well, the same to your journo covering them.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately there are bigger world issue hanging about I do not see anything really being addressed. America is going to have to take a new approach to Pakistan, Iraq id unfinished, Afghanistan is still in a mess, now there may be a small hiccup with Kosovo/Serbia not to mention Bosnia. But I gather there is Obama Change on its way not to mention silence from other quarters.. 

Are these candidates really doing their own thinking or is it a case of waiting to see who gets to the Big Seat of Power and then the backroom supporters, (the money) will come out with their real agendas?


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Feb 2008)

This may help you to understand the players. Hillary and Bill will do anything to regain power so even if Obama has more delegates the Clinton's may well have many of the 700 some odd super delegates in their pocket which would surely antagonize the Obama supporters. Hillary is a leftist but Obama is even more extreme he is either a socialist or a closet marxist. McCain is what I call center left, my friends joke that he is the manchurian candidate. He is strong on national defense and the war on terror, whereas Hillary or Obama would pretty much abandon the effort or limit the scope of our operations. On the domestic front McCain would be fiscally responsible unlike Bush and would be a piker compared to Hillary or Obama. Taxes would go up with either democrat. Illegal immigration would be condoned by any of the candidates this is why conservatives arent supporting McCain fully. McCain is a believer in the global warming red herring another issue he is at odds with the conservative base. Obama on the other hand has a bill in the Senate that if enacted would require the US taxpayer to fund a global program to reduce world poverty - foreign aid isnt popular in the best of times this proposal would see tax going up big time.

What might get interesting is if the Clinton's are seen to "steal" the nomination from Obama he may join as an independent with NY Mayor Bloomberg to form a 3d party.If this happens the democrat party would well fail.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Feb 2008)

And if the Clintons steal the nomination by the use of super delegates, there wold probably be a huge backlash from the flood of voters who are flocking to Senator Obama. He is a charismatic, attractive personality with little experience and what seems to me some loopy ideas. He can grip an audience while saying absolutely nothing of consequence. It reminds me a bit of Trudeaumania in 1968, but without Trudeau's experience ( limited as it was) as Minister of Justice in Pearson's cabinet. 

The media seem to be actively promoting him, perhaps for the sense of drama that fills the blank spaces between the ads, perhaps because he is progressive, or perhaps they are just caught up in the excitement.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Feb 2008)

The Obama mania must be like Hitler's effect on the German public. We see people voting for a Senator with 3 years of legislative experience and no executive experience at all.


----------



## observor 69 (20 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Obama mania must be like Hitler's effect on the German public. We see people voting for a Senator with 3 years of legislative experience and no executive experience at all.




This is the probable next President of the United States you are comparing to Hitler. 

Also while Obama has no executive experience he still sounds qualified to me:

"OBAMA, Barack, a Senator from Illinois; born in Honolulu, Hawaii, August 4, 1961; obtained early education in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Hawaii; continued education at Occidental College, Los Angeles, Calif.; received a B.A. in 1983 from Columbia University, New York City; worked as a community organizer in Chicago, Ill.; studied law at Harvard University, where he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, and received J.D. in 1991; lecturer on constitutional law, University of Chicago; member, Illinois State senate 1997-2004; elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2004 for term beginning January 3, 2005. 

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Feb 2008)

What I'm hearing down here (US Southwest) from neighbours and acquaintances (Democrats, Independents and Republicans, alike) is:

•	In a Clinton vs. McCain contest McCain is the _*better*_ choice and will, likely, win; but

•	In a McCain vs. Obama contest there is no consensus on who is _*better*_ but Obama is the more attractive candidate and will probably win.

Those opinions seem to be fairly consistent across the ideological board. McCain has few enemies, except I guess amongst the "hard right" _paleo-conservatives_ (a group not at all well represented in our particular circle of neighbours and acquaintances), and Clinton has (surprisingly) few friends. (But, in fairness, our _circle_ is light on the working poor, etc, who appear to be the mainstays of her 'base.') Obama is much liked, even admired, but for what he says and who he *might be* rather than for what he has done.

People are unsure about what an Obama administration might do but they seem clearer on the nature and likely actions of a Clinton or McCain administration and, on that basis, they prefer McCain to Clinton. It is more difficult to ascertain why they seem to prefer Obama to McCain.

By the way, our neighbours/acquaintances' preference seem to mirror the national view which, according to Real Clear Politics, says McCain beats Clinton by 2.4% but loses to Obama by 4.1%.


----------



## CougarKing (20 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Obama mania must be like Hitler's effect on the German public. We see people voting for a Senator with 3 years of legislative experience and no executive experience at all.


As said earlier in the thread, comparing Obama to Hitler may be a bit over the top. And as for experience, even the current President George W. Bush was a relative unknown in the late 1990s before the 2000 election. Yes, he was the governor of Texas back then, but if you want to count and compare both men's experience before they went to DC, Obama was also a State Senator for Illinois before he was a Senator on Capitol Hill, so he has more legislative experience than you give him credit for.


----------



## Flip (20 Feb 2008)

> It is more difficult to ascertain why they seem to prefer Obama to McCain.



I disagree. Obama provides a novelty factor. Someone new instead of someone old.
It's easier to invoke the spirit of JFK and return to the mythilogical 60s than to 
peddle a "steady as she goes" choice.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Feb 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> I disagree. Obama provides a novelty factor. Someone new instead of someone old.
> It's easier to invoke the spirit of JFK and return to the mythilogical 60s than to
> peddle a "steady as she goes" choice.



I daresay you're right, but that's not what people say when the topic comes up. When I ask, "Why would you vote for Obama rather than McCain?" I get wishwashy answers, like "_Time for change from the 'Old Washington Establishment'_" or "_Time to give us hope instead of old 'solutions' that don't work._" No one, at least no one in our little circle is willing to admit to the 'novelty' factor.

Now, I've heard more than one person quote Bill Clinton, who said something like: "I've been waiting my whole life to vote for a woman or an African-American for president." That may be the 'novelty' factor at play.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Hillary is a leftist but Obama is even more extreme he is either a socialist or a closet marxist. McCain is what I call center left, my friends joke that he is the manchurian candidate.




Oh puullease.  Come to Canada and view our field before you start using that rhetoric.  Obama would probably be trounced out of the NDP for being a "neocon"....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Feb 2008)

Ya know, I'm loathe to comment on foreign domestic politics.  Canadians who say "I wish I were American so that I could vote for XXX" always grate on me.  I have nothing to offer as to who would be the better president - Democrat or Republican, black, white, male or female.

However, I'll offer this:  _if_ Obama were ever to be elected, the effect on US international policy would, I believe, be immediate and electric - even if he did nothing to alter current US policies.  His election would "prove" that the US system "works" to the huge array of jaded America-bashers out there, who could say very little against a nation that elected an African American with "Hussein" as a middle name.

I'm not sure that this would be the case if Clinton gets in, despite her gender. 

Could be an interesting dynamic...


----------



## Yrys (20 Feb 2008)

Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote



> Correction Appended
> 
> Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from
> the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama. That anomaly was not unique.
> ...


----------



## Flip (20 Feb 2008)

> No one, at least no one in our little circle is willing to admit to the 'novelty' factor.


 I think you keep wise company. 
If one were to cast aspersions one might say there is some reverse racism attached to it.
 I don't think color *should be* an issue but I'm not naive enough to think that it won't be.
Just as GWB didn't quite fit the mold that was cast for him when he became president,
I sure Obama would surprise everyone at least a little.

Teddy Ruxpin, you are probably right in the short term. America would gain some cred.
In the long term - there's this issue of circumstance. We don't know.
Personally, I'd vote for McCain.  Small c Conservatives have been underrepresented of late.

As for opining about American politics - It's a little like talking about who will be the next Caesar
when you live in another part of the empire.  Not all that foreign really.  It *WILL * affect us all.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Feb 2008)

I did not compare Obama to Hitler,rather it was the mindless cult mania that is quite similar of the supporters.After WW2 people wondered how anyone could have voted a nutter like Hitler into power.However,Hitler told the German people what they wanted to hear.He made them feel good about themselves and their country.The public got caught up in Hitlers spell and it didnt end until Germany lost the war.Obama appeals to black voters and leftists as his base. he has been able to appeal to independents and rank and file democrats. I just wonder if the attention he is getting is because of strong anti-Hillary feeling and whether this support will transition to the general election.

As Obama is forced to discuss policy I think his appeal may wain. His limited policy statements seem to be along the same line that Senator Edwards advocated but didnt reasonate with voters.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (20 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I did not compare Obama to Hitler,rather it was the mindless cult mania that is quite similar of the supporters.After WW2 people wondered how anyone could have voted a nutter like Hitler into power.However,Hitler told the German people what they wanted to hear.He made them feel good about themselves and their country.The public got caught up in Hitlers spell and it didnt end until Germany lost the war.Obama appeals to black voters and leftists as his base. he has been able to appeal to independents and rank and file democrats. I just wonder if the attention he is getting is because of strong anti-Hillary feeling and whether this support will transition to the general election.
> 
> As Obama is forced to discuss policy I think his appeal may wain. His limited policy statements seem to be along the same line that Senator Edwards advocated but didnt reasonate with voters.



+1 

Once the actual election gets underway, we will see who stands where. Hopefully, if Obama does receive the nomination, he doesn't simply play the race card to avoid answering the tough questions before him.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Feb 2008)

Obama's camp today suggested to Hillary that she concede. That is pretty arrogant and will only fire up the Clinton's. Obama is in for a street fight. Neither side can win enough delegates to win on the first ballot. I dont see either side backing off and the super delegates who are party elites will pick the nominee. The Clinton's hold alot of IOU's.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/20/uselections2008.usa1


----------



## Yrys (20 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Obama's camp today suggested to Hillary that she concede.



They are maybe trying to make people forget the latest hip about a Obama supporter, Senator Kirk Watson :

Youtube video of a debate :

"Hardball" Way Too Hard for Obama Supporter Kirk Watson


Senator Kirk Watson's Statement on the Debate


----------



## observor 69 (21 Feb 2008)

From today's Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5557189.html

Feb. 21, 2008, 5:14AM
Road to redemption for Clintons: Embrace Obama
The train's leaving — Bill and Hillary should be aboard

By DAVID BERG
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Acouple of summers ago, my wife and I attended a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, before she announced her candidacy for president, but long after it was obvious she was running. Earlier that week, we attended a town hall meeting with the recently elected Sen. Barack Obama, who, ironically, assured the audience that Sen. Clinton would be the next presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, that no one else was even close.

Hillary spoke first at the fundraiser, but each time she began to talk, Bill interrupted her and monopolized the floor. The situation quickly became uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the assembled Democrats were not likely to be upset with Bill Clinton, who, like Lazarus, had risen from the dead, ending his troubled presidency with a 66 percent approval rating and emerging through ubiquitous good works as one of the most respected men on Earth.

Republicans and Democrats agreed: If Bill Clinton could run for president, he would win.

That is why it was so shocking to hear Bill Clinton, regarded by many as the "first black president," try to marginalize Obama's impending win in the South Carolina primary as a mere consequence of his race. That was the moment — when Bill Clinton made comments dismissing Obama's strong showing because Jesse Jackson had won that state's primary twice in the 1980s — that many of his admirers turned away from him. It was also the moment when Hillary, having forfeited center stage to her husband, also forfeited whatever chance she had to gain the nomination.

There are consequences beyond losing elections for the Clintons. I wish the two of them could have overheard, as I did, the young African-American prosecutor behind me at the Obama rally in Houston Tuesday night, who told his friend how shocked he was by those comments, and how — I was surprised by this — it had made him cry when President Clinton said that voting for Obama was like "rolling the dice."

I wish the two of them could have seen the ocean of black faces, brown faces and white faces, and felt the good will that permeated that arena. I wish that they could have heard the excited 10-year-old next to me, jumping up and down on her seat, waiving her Obama sign and chanting, "Si, se puede" with the crowd. (In the interest of full disclosure, that child is my daughter, Caitlin, and in truth, as excited as she was over Obama, when he suggested that we have to do a better job as parents and turn off the TV, her mood darkened, and she asked anxiously, "What about new episodes"?)

I guarantee you, as the oldest living man in America who has actually attended a Hannah Montana concert, my daughter is completely colorblind. From what I have seen of her generation, and that of my grown sons', that is the norm, not the exception. Racial politics simply won't work; not this time — and if all that good will seeps into the wider world — perhaps never again.

I wish, frankly, that the Clintons, who in many ways helped make Obama's candidacy possible, could hear firsthand how they let down so many people who cared about them and supported them through many tough years — how by their divisive tactics they have become the people and politics they deplore.

In short, I wish they could have been there Tuesday night to understand clearly how times and mores have changed and, perhaps, to understand how important it is that a new generation be given a chance.

Despite all this, there is a road to redemption for the Clintons. Hillary should simply admit the obvious: It's all over. If she has any lingering doubts, just look to Wisconsin, where she lost overwhelmingly in the state that practically invented white people. If she needs more proof, take it on faith from one who has lived here forever: She's going to lose the Texas primary, too. Against all odds, Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Hillary should concede the race now and, along with her husband, throw her wholehearted support to Obama.

By doing that, by taking the high road that seems to elude them presently, Sen. Clinton will reclaim her place as a central figure in the Democratic Party, and President Clinton, his iconic role on the world stage.

Even in defeat, Bill and Hillary probably can do more than any other Americans to unite the Democratic Party behind Obama and help him become the next president.

But they had better act quickly, because it's going to happen, and that train, with their disappointed friends aboard, is about to leave the station.

Berg, a Houston trial lawyer and writer, became a contributor to the Obama campaign after the South Carolina primary. He can be e-mailed at dberg@bafirm.com .


----------



## a_majoor (21 Feb 2008)

I have a dream:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/opinion/main3831288.shtml



> *Rice Is Right For McCain's VP*
> The Nation: Putting Condoleezza Rice On The Republican Ticket Would Cause Indescribable Angst For Dems
> Feb. 14, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2008)

Businessman and former Congressman and start athlete JC Watts is also being touted as a potential VP candidate.


----------



## CougarKing (21 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Businessman and former Congressman and _star_ athlete JC Watts is also being touted as a potential VP candidate.



You mean for McCain? It says in the link you provided that he's Republican. Well if this Watts guy is picked by McCain as a running mate, this could neutralize Obama's playing the race card.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> You mean for McCain? It says in the link you provided that he's Republican. Well if this Watts guy is picked by McCain as a running mate, this could neutralize Obama's playing the race card.



Yes, indeed: for McCain.

Watts is on the conservative side of the Republican Party and would help, maybe even more than Rice, with the bible thumpers (having been a Baptist preacher, too).

He has the advantages of being young, conservative, black and a (modestly) experienced legislator. Coming from Oklahoma he doesn't really do a lot to garner support in the _Deep South_ or the populous Northeast or vote-rich California, but you can't have everything.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Feb 2008)

Plus, he played CFL FOOTBALL!


----------



## TCBF (21 Feb 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Plus, he played CFL FOOTBALL!



- A CFLer in the White House.  That's good.  I think the current 'high' is LGov Norm Kwong of Alta.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Feb 2008)

This kinda says a lot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTo0iGc_Dw&eurl=


----------



## Gimpy (21 Feb 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> This kinda says a lot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTo0iGc_Dw&eurl=



This isn't much better from McCain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzcPpZEs4t0  

And yes I know the video was made by a nut, but its all freely available clips and its the message, not the person people should be focusing on. And that's a good message for this entire election. Whether people choose a black man, a woman, or a man who could become the oldest ever president, people shouldn't focus on those aspects, just the message, but unfortunately that probably won't happen.


----------



## Bane (21 Feb 2008)

For all those looking for legislative accomplishments of various peoples.  Its all here, just pick the name from one of the drop-downs and see for yourself. 

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Count of pieces of legislation introduced during current Congress: (obviously no indicator of quality)
McCain - 37
Clintion - 150
Obama - 113


----------



## CougarKing (21 Feb 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> This kinda says a lot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTo0iGc_Dw&eurl=



 : Let's be fair. Just because the surrogates don't do their homework doesn't necessarily mean the man they are working for is the same.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Feb 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> : Let's be fair. Just because the surrogates don't do their homework doesn't necessarily mean the man they are working for is the same.



The point is that Obama has no legislative accomplishments to name. People are turning out for him based on likeabilty/race.


----------



## Gimpy (21 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The point is that Obama has no legislative accomplishments to name. People are turning out for him based on likeabilty/race.



Did you not read the link Bane posted? It goes through every senators legislature they put through, and while it might be subjective on what is an accomplishment he has certainly done a hell of a lot more than McCain and gotten a lot more co-sponsors in the process.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Feb 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> This isn't much better from McCain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzcPpZEs4t0
> 
> And yes I know the video was made by a nut, but its all freely available clips and its the message, not the person people should be focusing on. And that's a good message for this entire election. Whether people choose a black man, a woman, or a man who could become the oldest ever president, people shouldn't focus on those aspects, just the message, but unfortunately that probably won't happen.



I don't get it.  How is feeling that a prolonged presence in Haiti and Somalia nearly 15 years ago wasn't in America's national security interest inconsistent with (or even remotely related to) the idea that a presence in Iraq today, is?



			
				Bane said:
			
		

> For all those looking for legislative accomplishments of various peoples.  Its all here, just pick the name from one of the drop-downs and see for yourself.
> 
> http://thomas.loc.gov/
> 
> ...


You are right about the quality (those statistics are pretty much meaningless): 





> Obama's year in the Senate. The Illinois Senator sponsored or co-sponsored 63 bills this year. As with Hillary, some of them would have immediate practical effect--such as S. 1306, the Lead Free Toys Act of 2007-- and some are less urgent--such as S. Con. Res. 5 which honors the life of Percy Lavon Julian, the first African American to be inducted into the Academy of Sciences.
> 
> *Of Obama's proposed legislation, 3 bills passed in 2007.
> 
> ...


 http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/01/09/hillarack-oblinton/ The point is that after more than a decade in public life, no-one seems to be able to account for his accomplishments ... his prominent qualities seem to be limited to his likeability and perceived electability. _(EDIT: Sorry tomahawk6, I read right past your post ... at least we're consistent)_



			
				CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> : Let's be fair. Just because the surrogates don't do their homework doesn't necessarily mean the man they are working for is the same.


 _Homework?_ The guy's a (State) Senator, and it's not like they are randomly picking these people off the street!


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Feb 2008)

Obama has only been in the Senate 3 years compared to McCain's 22 years in the Senate.McCain retired from the Navy after a 22 year career rising to Captain. His injuries from captivity and the lack of a command kept him from making Admiral like his father and grandfather.

Obama:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

McCain:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/


----------



## Gimpy (21 Feb 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> I don't get it.  How is feeling that a prolonged presence in Haiti and Somalia nearly 15 years ago wasn't in America's national security inconsistent with (or even remotely related to) the idea that a presence in Iraq today, is?



"For us to get into nation-building, law and order, et cetera, I think, is a tragic and terrible mistake"

So McCain thinks its OK if the US does those things in Iraq, but it was a mistake to do so in Haiti and Somalia? Is that not a double-standard? He also stated that soldiers should immediately be withdrawn from those countries and that any deaths should be blamed on congress, and now he says the exact opposite about Iraq. It just seems like from that clip McCain thought that Haiti and Somalia weren't worth an American presence and help in re-building and now he feels Iraq does?

Somalia of all places in the world has deserved the most effort for nation-building, and especially law and order in what has been a failed state since the late 80's.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Feb 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Somalia of all places in the world has deserved the most effort for nation-building, and especially law and order in what has been a failed state since the late 80's.



Somalia is a failed state for a reason - nothing works there.


----------



## Gimpy (21 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Somalia is a failed state for a reason - nothing works there.



Hence it being a failed state, but according to the Failed State Index Iraq is higher than Somalia, and if McCain wants to stay as long as it takes to fix Iraq then why wasn't he as committed to spending that much time to fix Somalia?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Feb 2008)

America's national security interest involves more than simply trying to turn every failed state into a model of Jeffersonian Democracy.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Feb 2008)

Maybe we can take a second look at Somalia if oil is found there.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Maybe we can take a second look at Somalia if oil is found there.


 Dammit, I think we just opened Pandora's Box!


P.S> Sorry about the cross-post back there!


----------



## Gimpy (21 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Maybe we can take a second look at Somalia if oil is found there.



I'm not sure if this is a dig at me or just a light-hearted barb, but I've never stated that the War in Iraq was only for oil. Sorry for being a bit paranoid, but I'm no georgeharper and am most certainly not a nut like that. Reasoned debate is quite fun, and sarcasm/jokes are hard to pick out on the internet at times.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Feb 2008)

Thank god for smilies.
On a serious note Obama displays his military knowledge in tonights debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kda4_5lFkZM&eurl=http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/


----------



## Bane (22 Feb 2008)

Does Obama's army anecdote check out?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Feb 2008)

Nope.In the US Army Captains dont command platoons. It just shows his ignorance. Scary in a possible commander in chief.


----------



## Bane (22 Feb 2008)

I  see what you're saying on the one hand; there is a certaingly a minimum level of knowledge that any federal politician should have regarding military matters simply to be effective in the job.  This would hold far more so for a CiC.  On the other hand, it seems like you're nit picking on semantics a bit in this particular case. 

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who *was* the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," 

"Prior to deployment the Captain -- then a Lieutenant -- took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum."


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Feb 2008)

At best its very dated maybe 05. 10th Mountain being a light infantry formation had very few vehicles unlike today most of the units have vehicles.


----------



## CougarKing (22 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Obama has only been in the Senate 3 years compared to McCain's 22 years in the Senate.McCain retired from the Navy after a 22 year career rising to Captain. His injuries from captivity and the lack of a command kept him from making Admiral like his father and grandfather.
> 
> McCain:
> http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/



Didn't McCain spend a number of years as a PoW at the "Hanoi Hilton" PoW camp during the Vietnam War? It takes incredible will to survive a North Vietnamese prison camp, one would imagine.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Feb 2008)

Both McCain's father and grandfather were Admirals too so he has a better grounding in military affairs.He retired as a Captain. He just didnt play well with others.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Feb 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Didn't McCain spend a number of years as a PoW at the "Hanoi Hilton" PoW camp during the Vietnam War? It takes incredible will to survive a North Vietnamese prison camp, one would imagine.



Too lazy to look up the refs. right now, but the short 'n' sweet version is that he somehow survived Forrestal fire (after being caught in the middle of it), then volunteered to stay on another carrier.  Was shot-down and barely survived (injuries + near drowning) ... he was refused medical care, and tortured, because he refused to divulge information and became suicidal (though likely would have D/W anyway), until the Vietnamese realized that both his father and grandfather were famous admirals and felt he would thus serve as a valuable bargaining or propaganda tool.  He spent the end of the war in the Hanoi Hilton (cheering the Christmas Bombings from his cell).  Much of it sounds like a Hollywood script, but it has all been verified (as best as it can be).


----------



## Mike Baker (24 Feb 2008)

Ralph Nader enters presidential race

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced Sunday.

In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," the consumer advocate said great changes in U.S. history have come "through little parties that never won any national election."

"Dissent is the mother of ascent," he said. "And in that context I've decided to run for president."

Nader, who turns 74 this week, complained about the "paralysis of the government," which he said is under the control of corporate executives and lobbyists.

It marks his fourth straight White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included.

Nader's entry into the race did not come as a surprise to political watchers.

On Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama criticized him. "My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive," Obama told reporters when asked about Nader's possible candidacy.

"He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work."

Obama added that Nader "is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anyone for consumers." 

And Obama added, "I don't mean to diminish that." But he added, "There's a sense now that if someone's not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, he says they're lacking in some way."

Responding to those remarks during his "Meet the Press" interview, Nader encouraged people to look at his campaign Web site, votenader.org, which he said discusses issues important to Americans that Obama and Sen. John McCain "are not addressing."

Nader called Obama "a person of substance" and "the first liberal evangelist in a long time" who "has run a good tactical campaign." But he accused Obama of censoring "his better instincts" on divisive issues.

He also said political consultants "have really messed up Hillary Clinton's campaign."

Nader also wrote off any suggestions that his entry into the race could draw enough votes from the Democratic candidate to help the Republican win. "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," he said.


Well, good luck Ralph, you'll probably need it


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Feb 2008)

Nader split off enough votes from Gore in 2000 to enable Bush to win. He may have the same effect this time around.


----------



## Flip (24 Feb 2008)

Or more immediately, Obama might tick off just enough people with remarks against him that Hillary gets the nomination.  Really, there is no smart thing for Obama to say about Nader at this point.  Better to just smile and ignore him.


----------



## karl28 (24 Feb 2008)

It will be an interesting race to see who the  next president will be and the after effect of the changing of the guard to see how they conduct the war in Iraq and Afghanistan  .


----------



## Flip (24 Feb 2008)

> It will be an interesting race to see who the  next president will be and the after effect of the changing of the guard to see how they conduct the war in Iraq and Afghanistan  .



That's what gives us all(me anyway ) fantom pains where our wisdom teeth used to be.  Obama might do something bold and heroic  : that screws up the whole effort. 

Democrats love to forget that GWB didn't start the war on terrorism, OBL did.


----------



## CougarKing (24 Feb 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Obama might do something bold and heroic  : that screws up the whole effort.



Flip,

Speaking of doing bold (or reckless) things, what do you think of what Obama might do with proposing military intervention into Pakistan's Waziristan region, as already discussed in the ff. thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70801.0.html


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (24 Feb 2008)

2 articles:





> *Obama basic training
> Volunteers told to share personal conversion stories with voters - not policy views.*
> 
> ... the clincher came on March 17, when she met the Democratic contender face to face. She describes how he lit up the room with his wide smile, shook her hand and thanked her for volunteering.
> ...


 http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/649427.html

And; 





> February 23, 2008: *Bobby Kennedy and Why Obama Unnerves Me*
> 
> Two or three days before Robert Kennedy was assassinated in the early morning hours of June 5, 1968- its hard to remember now - I attended a rally for RFK in East Los Angeles. The audience was almost entirely Mexican or Mexican-American - there were very few of us gringos. The crowd was wildly enthusiastic, to put it mildly. Cries of "Viva! Viva!" rang out everywhere. It felt as if I was at a rally in Central America and Kennedy was not running for President. He was running for "caudillo." I am sure if it were put to a vote of those present, they would have installed him as "maximum leader" for life in a landslide.
> 
> ...


 http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2008/02/bobby_kennedy_a.php


----------



## Flip (24 Feb 2008)

Aden, if you are hoping that we infer that Obama has found a copy of "the Evangelists Handbook"  I think you are on to something.  While he might be brilliant at campaigning it's fair to point out that  when the campaigns are over we have no idea what  we're in for. He might be a brilliant success or a dismal failure. I don't think anyone ( on earth )knows.

Cougar Daddy - Thanks for pointing that thread out.

By "Bold and Heroic" I was sarcastically referring to a premature withdrawl from Iraq.
Your point deserves consideration of course but there are way to many unknowns................... in short, I have no idea.  ;D

What concerns me is the arrogance of youth and that cult of personality.
Under the current situation I would be more comfortable with someone more experienced in the Oval Office.  I'm sure no one is more aware of Bill Clinton's shortcomings than Hillary.  ;D

I've said it before - if had a vote to cast - John McCain.


----------



## Yrys (25 Feb 2008)

Robed Obama picture ignites row



> US Democratic front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have traded accusations over a photo of Mr Obama circulating on the internet.
> 
> The picture, sent to the Drudge Report website, shows Mr Obama wearing traditional African dress during a visit to Kenya in 2006. The Obama camp said it was circulated by
> Mrs Clinton's staff as a smear. Mrs Clinton's team denied the accusation.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2008)

Andrew Sullivan makes a prediction. Given the Clinton's access to the party machinery and how many uncalled favors and secrets that still might be out there, I don't quite see this as a done deal; the Superdelegates might well be the deciding factor after all:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/the-clintons-la.html



> *The Clintons' Last Stand*
> 
> 24 Feb 2008 05:44 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2008)

The Clinton team may be starting to self destruct.......but it is not a done deal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502501_pf.html



> *Team Clinton: Down, and Out of Touch*
> 
> By Dana Milbank
> Tuesday, February 26, 2008; A02
> ...


----------



## Yrys (29 Feb 2008)

Opponents slam Obama after CTV story on NAFTA



> Allegations of double talk on NAFTA from the Obama and Clinton campaigns dominated the U.S. political landscape on Thursday.
> 
> On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Barack Obama's campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month saying that when Senator Obama talks
> about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.
> ...



More on 
link


----------



## a_majoor (29 Feb 2008)

Some insight by Jerry Pournelle:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view507.html#scope



> It's a long time to the Convention; Clinton and Obama have quite a while to pound on each other, and there's little Clinton can do but go negative now. She spent all her money early and in a spendthrift fashion -- sort of like the Republicans once they got rid of Newt Gingrich -- and now she's got little left. She also shows us her contempt for other people's money. Her crew stayed at five star hotels, her consultants were the highest paid hacks in the business, *and her management style was about what you would expect from someone who has never actually managed anything.* Of course Obama hasn't much more experience, but he's a bit smarter, and seems to have chosen his team with a bit more care.
> 
> It ought to get interesting as the Clintons get desperate.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Feb 2008)

Hillary has two options stick it out until the August convention or she can throw in the towel after March 4. That is the only way for Obama to win outright. If it goes to the convention its up to the superD's which could sway the vote either way. Obama has 1,303.5 delegates and Hillary has 1,212.
Hillary needs to get Florida and Michigan seated at the convention which would upset Obama. Hillary is aware of Obama's ethical problems in Chicago and the longer that this goes on may be enough for him to take a fatal hit. Hillary and Obama have identical positions so its a popularity contest. There are enough republicans voting in the democrat primary as an anti-Hillary effort. If Obama gets the nomination I dont see him getting enough votes to win. He has no real experience compared to McCain and the difference between them are stark. If either democrat wins and the they keep control of Congress I see a return to the Jimmy Carter era long lines at the gas pump,high taxes,high food prices ect.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Feb 2008)

CTV calls out Obama on NAFTA.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080228?hub=TopStories

Obama campaign mum on call to Canadian gov't

Updated Fri. Feb. 29 2008 12:18 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama's campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team called the Canadian government about comments Obama made about NAFTA.

Allegations of double talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement from both the Obama and Clinton campaigns dominated the U.S. political landscape on Thursday. 

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month -- saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously. 

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated. 

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago. 

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters. 

During a candidates' debate Tuesday, both Democratic party leadership contenders -- Obama and Hillary Clinton -- suggested they would opt out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if core labour and environmental standards weren't renegotiated. 

The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim. The story caught the attention of Republican front-runner John McCain on Thursday. 

"I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," McCain said, referring to Obama. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk." 

On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial. 

"At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement. 

But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication. 

The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from Senator Obama. 

"The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don't know who the sources were," said Obama. 

Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position. 

NDP Leader Jack Layton said in question period Thursday that Canada should take advantage of any openings to renegotiate NAFTA. 

"Why won't the prime minister take the lead here, exercise some sovereignty and bring about some change here that would be good for workers?" he asked. 

However, Harper had a warning to anyone contemplating renegotiation of the trade deal. 

"If a future president actually did want to open up NAFTA, which I highly doubt, then Canada would obviously have some things we would want to discuss," Harper said. 

But Harper also noted that assertions made in the heat of political campaigns should be taken with a grain of salt. During the federal election in 1993, former prime minister Jean Chretien threatened to back out of NAFTA's precursor -- the Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by the Tories in the 1980s. 

With a report from CTV's Washington Bureau Chief Tom Clark and files from The Canadian Press


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Feb 2008)

I think a floor fight (to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates) would be a disaster for Clinton. It would appear - and the Republicans would make sure it appeared again and again and again - as if she couldn't win _'fair and square'_ so she (and Bill) decided to try to win the old fashioned way - by chicannery.

A brokered convention is almost as bad - whichever candidate won would be somewhat _tainted_ and it is likely that the Democrats would go into the election badly divided.

If, as it appears from down here in Texas (where I have been for the past several weeks), that:

1. Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat in Texas;

2. Clinton is ahead, but not too far ahead in Ohio; but

3. Clinton needs decisive victories in both states to overtake Obama and have a shot at the nomination through a brokered convention; and

4. McCain can beat Clinton (today) but Obama can beat McCain (today);

then a principled withdrawal, by Clinton, is the best course for the Democratic Party. If she fails the party and continues fighting she will, I think strengthen McCain's appeal to moderates and independents, more than making up for his current difficulties with the hard right wing of the Republican Party, almost certainly guaranteeing another Republican in the White House and deeply dividing her own party.


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Feb 2008)

Agree. I have been in Texas a bit longer, and this is also what appears to be going on. Although, a lot of Republicans are calling radio talk shows saying they will vote Obama vice McCain. It is scary indeed that charisma/ability to be a motivational speaker can fool so many Americans. The next leader of the free world may be Obama. That's akin to having Martin or Dion (who have no charisma/motivational ability) as President of the USA. 
Do you watch O'Rielly, No Spin Zone on FOX?


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Feb 2008)

The problem with the Texas primary system is that its complicated. You essentially have to vote twice caucas then primary or is it primary then caucus ?

Update. Looks like Hillary might want to take matters to court. 

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/502960.html

State's Democratic Party braces for lawsuit

AUSTIN -- The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its primary night caucuses could be delayed or disrupted after aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an "imminent" lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process, officials said Thursday night.

In a letter sent late Thursday to both the Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party attorney Chad Dunn warned that a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats' effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers.

Spokesmen from both campaigns maintained that there were no plans to sue before the primary on Tuesday.

"It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party," Dunn said in the letter, obtained by the Star-Telegram. "Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process."

Democratic Party sources who asked not to be identified because of the potential for litigation said that representatives from both campaigns had made it clear they are keeping all their options open but that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.

'Imminent threat'

"Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign," said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Another Democratic source who was privy to the often intense discussions confirmed that representatives of the New York senator's campaign had issued veiled threats in a telephone call this week.

"Officials from Sen. Clinton's campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of 'challenging the process,'" the official said. "The call consisted of representatives from both campaigns and the Democratic Party."

The source, who was not authorized to speak about the matter on the record, said Clinton's political director, Guy Cecil, had pointedly raised the possibility of a courtroom battle.

Seeking agreement

But Adrienne Elrod, Clinton's top Texas spokeswoman, said that campaign and party officials had merely discussed primary night procedures and that the campaign was seeking a written agreement in advance. She could not elaborate on the details of the agreement the Clinton campaign is seeking. "It is our campaign's standard operating procedure that we need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it," Elrod said. "No legal action is being taken. We have no reason to take any legal action."

Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said the campaign had no plans to sue.

"We're confident that by working closely with the Texas Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign we'll have a caucus that Texans can be proud of -- because every eligible voter will be allowed to participate and have their vote counted in a timely manner," Earnest said.

The letter to the two campaigns did not specify what procedures or rules might trigger a lawsuit. But one party official said the campaigns were most concerned about the caucus process, or, as the party refers to it, the "precinct conventions." Texas has 228 delegates, the biggest single cache remaining.

But only 126 delegates are doled out based on the selection voters make at the ballot box. Sixty-seven delegates -- more than many states' entire share -- are to be apportioned based on the number of people who participate in the caucuses that begin in over 8,000 precincts once the polls close at 7 p.m. Tuesday.

The remaining 35 are so-called superdelegates, high-ranking party officials free to support whomever they choose and can switch votes when they wish.

Every delegate counts

The intense competition between Obama and Clinton has made every delegate a precious commodity. In past years, the caucuses generated little attention or interest. Now, questions are being raised about procedures, whether there's enough space to accommodate participants and how the results will be recorded and reported. Democrats have described the enthusiasm in Texas, as evidenced by the record turnout among early voters in the most populous counties, as a sign that the party is undergoing a revival after years of decline under virtually unchallenged Republican rule.

Dunn, the Democratic Party attorney, said it could all be for naught if the Texas nomination battle winds up in court.

We need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it. No legal action is being taken. We have no reason to take any legal action.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2008)

More on Senator Obama and NAFTA:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-hidden-agenda.html



> *Obama's Hidden Agenda*
> 
> Obama claims he has opposed NAFTA from the beginning despite that *NAFTA has resulted in an increase in trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico of 129% between 1993 and 2004*. Trade increases essentially mean an increase in industrial production and commercial activity. While it is true that there will be some movement of jobs to areas where labour is cheaper, the net result has been a period of unprecedented economic growth for all three nations. After all, no one would complain that saddle makers and carriage construction has migrated overseas since the development of the automobile. It's called creative destruction.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Mar 2008)

Obama and Hillary are trying to appeal to the union guys.Obama's comments illustrate why he isnt ready to be President at this time.He neeeds to go back to Illinois and run for governor that will give him experience running something.


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Mar 2008)

Here's the feeling in Arizona....


----------



## TCBF (2 Mar 2008)

- Darn.  How do I post a picture, anyway?


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (2 Mar 2008)

McCain's been around the block a few times and then some. He has the wisdom that comes with experience and it shows. Even though some of his own republicans say he isn't conservative enough. He's no bible thumper and he's more middle of the road.

Obama speaks a good piece but tends to have a frequent reocurrance of foot in mouth disease. He has no experience other than his one year in the senate and he's to young. His Nafta escapade really shed some light on his inexperience. 

 Hillary the old girl is still hanging onto that dream, she has the experinece but her campaign is beginning to lose steam. If she doesn't pull a rabbit out of the hat soon, she'll soon be saying adios.


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Mar 2008)

I am sitting out the winter in Mission, Texas deep in the Rio Grande Valley. One of the local TV stations ran an item the other day re fund raising for the Democrats in one county here in February. According to it, Clinton had raised about 250K compared to 7.5K for Obama. The area here is heavily Hispanic, a group that the punditry claims supports Clinton.

Tuesday will be interesting.


----------



## CougarKing (2 Mar 2008)

Hmmm....Interrrrresting...there could be a role for former USAF Chief of Staff General McPeak in the administration of Barack Obama, if he is elected.

http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/obama-responds-nat...eaturing-gen.-mcpeak

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/GeneralPledgeLetter.pdf

He's been with Obama since early in the campaign, endorsing at least as far back as November 7th, 2007. 

So, what if any role do you see Gen McPeak having in an Obama administration?


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Mar 2008)

General Zinni and Republican Chuck Hagle are also mentioned.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2008)

More on Senator Obama's Free Trade gaffe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080304.wPrimary04/BNStory/Front



> *Will Obama's 'wink wink' on free trade help Clinton win precious votes in Ohio?*
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is the _Globe and Mail_’s John Ibbitson’s take:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wprimaryibbitson05/BNStory/Front


> The Comeback Kid still faces an uphill battle
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...



I think:

1. Ibbitson is right. It remains a steep, uphill struggle for Clinton; not necessarily unwinnable, but hard to win and especially hard to win without doing serious damage to the _brand_; and

2. The big winner last night was John McCain. It goes well beyond just locking up his party’s race – but that’s important because it allows him access to the Republican National Committee’s considerable resources. He needed a Clinton victory to prevent an Obama coronation. The polls say he has a chance, maybe even a good chance, against Clinton but he’s toast against Obama – right now. He can now count on Clinton further damaging Obama’s credibility and, if he’s lucky, Obama will counter-attack: reminding Americans of the sleaze that clings to the Clintons.

Clinton’s attacks on Obama seemed to have had some effect. He finally stumbled. The question is: will he, in a desperate attempt to regain the initiative, open a ‘dirty’ campaign against Hillary (as she has done against him)? The Republicans are, I believe salivating at the prospect because it means they can conserve their big, mean, dirty attacks for the fall.

Finally, McCain can now focus on everybody but the hard right (Limbaugh, etc) wing of his party. The hard right wing has nowhere to go, except to sit on its electoral hands and be, rightfully, accused of giving the White House to the Democrats – that should be enough to neuter them. McCain can appeal to a lot of independents if Hillary is the nominee because, as an acquaintance of mine put it, while a lot of people rather like Clinton a whole lot more really, really hate her: she has weak _positives_ but really strong _negatives_ while both Obama and McCain have strong _positives_ and (Limbaugh etc excepted) weak _negatives_. My acquaintance also opined that every Limbaugh type attack on McCain actually works in his favour by attracting less extreme voters form all wings of both parties.


----------



## GAP (5 Mar 2008)

In addition, Clinton is suggesting that they both run on the same ticket...obviously with her for president.

Not likely, but if they did, with Obama in the lead....McCain would have a tough time, even if he picked a black for VP. With Clinton for president and Obama for VP, McCain would win if he had a black for VP....

some of the matchings out there......


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Mar 2008)

Clearly you are no Limbaugh fan and you would no doubt be astounded to learn that I am a frequent listener of his program.;D I and many conservatives dont like McCain's stand on immigration,his blocking of conservative judges [gang of 14] and other liberal light positions. I guess the one word that sums up how conservatives feel about McCain is trust - we dont trust him. I will vote for him simply for his position on the war on terror and hope that in 4 years time a true conservative can be found to run.The fear of the right is that McCain may so damage the Republican party that it would open the way for Obama or whoever in 2012. The truth is McCain cant win in November without conservatives. He has to arrive at some form of accomodation. Everyone is waiting to see who he asks to be his running mate.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Mar 2008)

With Hillary as the nominee she has close to 50% negatives no matter who she picks. After August I doubt Obama would feel like being #2,because Bill will be calling the shots.Who would want that ? This election will come down to who will be the best leader in a dangerous world and McCain wins that going away. News today was that a message on the FARC laptop captured was a reference to Obama and his marxist leanings.The more the press digs into Obama the less appealing he will become as both he and his wife have strong marxist leanings and that doesnt sit well with white voters.My guess is that when the Clinton's are done with Obama he will have run his last Presidential campaign.


----------



## GAP (5 Mar 2008)

In the past I was a fan of Limbaugh.....but he is so far right he's touching the left, the same goes for Coulter...

McCain isn't going to damage the Republican party any less than Bush Jr. has done.....Not just the Iraq war handling, although that is part of it, but the guy comes across as having a severe case of ADD.....


----------



## observor 69 (5 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> News today was that a message on the FARC laptop captured was a reference to Obama and his marxist leanings.The more the press digs into Obama the less appealing he will become as both he and his wife have strong marxist leanings and that doesnt sit well with white voters.My guess is that when the Clinton's are done with Obama he will have run his last Presidential campaign.



I can not imagine Candians regarding Obama and his wife as "Marxist."  Perhaps that kind of innuendo works in the states but my guess is most Canadians regard him as just a solid Democrat and proud American.

Can you provide a reference to your comment on the FARC laptop ?


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Mar 2008)

I found this, but it's not much...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335128,00.html



> References to U.S. diplomatic overtures are scintillating, if vague.
> 
> In a Dec. 11 message to the secretariat, Marquez writes: "If you are in agreement, I can receive Jim and Tucker to hear the proposal of the gringos."
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Mar 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I can not imagine Candians regarding Obama and his wife as "Marxist."  Perhaps that kind of innuendo works in the states but my guess is most Canadians regard him as just a solid Democrat and proud American.
> 
> Can you provide a reference to your comment on the FARC laptop ?



Actually it isnt innuendo rather its based on the comments of both Obama's[husband/wife].Obama believes in income redistribution.If that isnt a marxist concept I dont know what is. If you notice I dont include Hillary in that characterization because he is so far to the left of her it isnt funny. She is just a good old fashioned socialist the kind found all across Europe and in Canada. Its customary to see US politicians wear a US flag lapel pin. Obama evidently doesnt see the need.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (5 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Obama believes in income redistribution.If that isnt a marxist concept I dont know what is.



This I was not aware off - I still believe he will clinch the nomination though due to his charisma and "change" theme.  Now when it comes down to the actual election against McCain...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2008)

There will be no Clinton/Obama ticket: the more I read this the more sense it makes

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70531/post-671254.html#msg671254

Senator Clinton is going to race to the end no matter what the damage to the Democratic Party, this is all about *her*, and devil take the hindmost. Senator Obama and his supporters are on the wave of something similar to a religious revival, there is no turning back (and once people lose the faith, things get ugly indeed).

I will suggest the Democratic party will be crippled by internal divisions no matter who wins, and this will translate into an unimpressive campaign come November. Consider also that neither Senator Clinton or Obama have much on their legislative resumes and fairly thin CV's outside their being members of the Congress and the bubble might pop pretty quickly: John Kerry Mk II but without a polarizing figure in the white house to run against.

Even if one of the two becomes the President, they will discover the Democratic Houses are not beholden to them, and end up having terribly frustrating and ineffectual Administrations. Future historians will have a ball.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Mar 2008)

More political shenanigans. One can only wonder what the Democrat "base" will think of this:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=816A5016-3048-5C12-0045B280DB1ACED5



> *Superdelegates play hardball*
> By: Josephine Hearn and Amie Parnes and Josh Kraushaar
> March 6, 2008 06:57 AM EST
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2008)

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/captured-farc-computers-name-barack.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/michelle-barack-heart-che-supporters.html

Here are a couple of links to the types of thing T6 is referring to.  Good, Bad or Indifferent.


----------



## CougarKing (7 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More political shenanigans. One can only wonder what the Democrat*ic* "base" will think of this:



You don't have to mock them by implying that their base doesn't exist by using quotes with the word "base" above.  ;D Well, the Democrats obviously appeal to young, newer voters in the States, such as many university/college students whose influence in any election should not be underestimated, aside from the Dem.'s more traditional voting blocs, such as union members and certain minority voting blocs such as the Black-American and Hispanic voters (though Chicanos would more probably vote for Democrats, while the Cuban-American vote will most probably vote Republican) and so forth.

November will certainly be an interesting time for our neighbors to the South.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Mar 2008)

The nomination process could very well destroy the democrats unless Clinton or Obama come to terms. Neither will have enough delegates as I have stated from the outset to win the nomination outright. Its going to take the superdelegates to cast the deciding vote and that wont happen until August. Hillary has to damage Obama enough to get the support of the superD's.That process is well underway. The press began asking Obama tough questions and he walked out of a news conference rather than answer. If Hillary wins the nomination she will have trouble with black voters. She cannot afford to alienate any group with her high negatives. I for one will enjoy watching the dem's carve each other up from now until August.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2008)

And don't forget the Florida, Michigan  delegates.



> Michigan, Florida dilemma: 'Idea of a redo absurd'
> by Mark Silva
> 
> The protracted contest between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could circle back around to Michigan and Florida again before it is finished -- or one side in a colossal party standoff may have to back down.....



Seat Florida (and Michigan) and Howard (The Scream) Dean and Obama and all the Instant Dems are perturbed.  Don't seat  them and Hilary and all those "Hanging Chad" Gore fans are perturbed.  Either way the Dems are going to be hurting for a "base" in November.

Have a run-off and Obama's position on keeping them out is not likely to help him get their votes in a run off vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2008)

A few points:

1. I am indeed no great ‘fan’ of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter – for the same reasons I am no ‘fan’ of Judy Rebick and Linda McQuaig: I dislike blinkered oversimplification wherever it resides on the political spectrum. There are many good and valid reasons to oppose all of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. On balance, as a Canadian, I find McCain least objectionable; thinking Canadians should always wish that bad things happen to American isolationists of the Lou Dobbs variety.

2. I am impressed by the enthusiasm of the Democratic ‘base;’ in Texas the losing Democrat got more votes than all three Republican candidates combined. Clinton and Obama are reaching and energizing their base – as the candidates’ fund raising figures indicate. In fairness, the same data show that the GOP is _waaaaay_ ahead of the nearly broke Dems at the party level.

3. I think the super-delegate issue is terribly dangerous for the Dems. T6 and I agree: neither Democratic candidate can earn enough _pledged_ (elected in caucuses or primaries) delegates to win; it will have to be decided by the _super-delegates_, perhaps even at the convention. The GOP will be crowing (no matter who the Dems select), “Look at him/her: picked by the _insiders_ rather than elected by the people, like our fellow!”  That being said, I think that good, practical politics means that the party leadership (elected legislators and elected party executive members) have earned and _*deserve*_ some _special_ status in major party decisions – such as selecting the leader. We do that in Canada, the British do it, what’s wrong when the Americans do it, too?

4. My _guesstimate_ remains:

•	Obama can beat McCain with relative ease (say, 52% vs 46% (the rest going to 3rd party candidates, etc); but

•	McCain can, just, beat Clinton because her _negatives_ are so much higher than anyone else’s. I repeat: those who like her like her a bit; those who dislike her do so with a deep and abiding passion.

Therefore: as a Canadian _observer_, I hope the super-delegates overturn the ‘will of the people’ and ‘select’ Hillary Clinton as the Democrat’s flag-bearer; then I *really, really hope* that McCain does beat here because I fear she would be a weak, protectionist, isolationist president.


----------



## observor 69 (7 Mar 2008)

I heard reps from both camps, Hilary and Obama, on CNN yesterday and they are in agreement that a new vote, fully endorsed by the DNC must be held.
But I am unsure if even this event would allow one of them to win a majority.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I heard reps from both camps, Hilary and Obama, on CNN yesterday and they are in agreement that a new vote, fully endorsed by the DNC must be held.
> But I am unsure if even this event would allow one of them to win a majority.



But, see my link to finances just a few minutes back, there is a cost. I heard $20 Million per state bandied about.

I'm not sure which is which, but: if it's a caucus then the party (or state?) has to pay the costs and the Dems only have $3 Million in the bank, while if it is a primary the states (or party?) have to pay and neither legislature (especially not the Republican controlled one in Florida) is willing to do that.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> You don't have to mock them by implying that their base doesn't exist by using quotes with the word "base" above.  ;D



The fact that the Democrats actively engage in "Identity politics" was the reason I used the quotation marks around the word "base". While it is true all political parties tailor their message to appeal to different voting blocks, most voters for classical liberal parties such as the Republicans or the CPC usually coalesce around a set of ideas: Freedom of Speech, Free Association, Property Rights and the Rule of Law.  I think this explains why we see functional coalitions of Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and small "l" libertarians under the party tents working in relative harmony. 

Since from my observation the Democrats are much more concerned with identifying and appealing to voters by group categories such as race, social and economic class, they run a very real risk of fracturing along these lines. Watch or read pundits in the US media and they immediately talk about how well Senator Obama does among black voters while Senator Clinton does well among Latino voters. Discussions on how well the senators do with women voters have an uncomfortable subtext; do black females vote for Senator Obama or Senator Clinton? (Actually, the implied subtext is how do white females vote.....).  

The other subtext is these are monolithic blocks of Democratic voters, and contraexamples like General Colin Powell or Dr Condelezza Rice are either ignored or attacked as "unauthentic", rather than seen as proof people can make up their own minds and are not part of a monolithic block. Interestingly enough (and I have noted this in other threads in the Politics section), the idea that people are categorized in indivisible and monolithic blocks is one of the defining features of Socialism.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Mar 2008)

Interesting maps based on polling by SurveyUSA. The maps indicate that the DNC needs both Florida and Michigan if they are to win, by not seating thier delegates they risk losing the election.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/new-electoral-maps-to-be-released-today-based-on-30000-just-completed-interviews/

Clinton vs McCain






Obama vs McCain


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2008)

A wry view of the Democrats self inflicted wounds:


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2008)

E.R.

That energized base the you remark on:  Is it truly a Democratic Base or is it a combination of the old base and a couple of personality cults?  I gather that Clinton has enemies of longstanding in the Democrats.  Presumably they are supporting Obama.  But equally she has her true Clintonista following.  Obama on the other hand seems to be bringing non-base people to the game.  That in turn seems to be energizing dormant Clintonistas and getting them to turn out.

The question in my mind is will those "cult followers" stick with the party and the "opposition" in the event that their Chosen is not selected by the party.  Or will they sit on their hands?


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> E.R.
> 
> That energized base the you remark on:  Is it truly a Democratic Base or is it a combination of the old base and a couple of personality cults?  I gather that Clinton has enemies of longstanding in the Democrats.  Presumably they are supporting Obama.  But equally she has her true Clintonista following.  Obama on the other hand seems to be bringing non-base people to the game.  That in turn seems to be energizing dormant Clintonistas and getting them to turn out.
> 
> The question in my mind is will those "cult followers" stick with the party and the "opposition" in the event that their Chosen is not selected by the party.  Or will they sit on their hands?



I think the _"personality cult"_ aspect is real -especially amongst young (university aged) people who are, overwhelmingly, if what I see* is representative, pro-Obama.

I also think Obama has reached a lot of independents in the primaries - many of whom may go (back) to McCain in the presidential election.

I agree that many, many Democrats detest (the) Clinton(S) but I'm not sure if they are campaigning for Obama or just voting against Hillary.


----------
* My 'sample' is on an upper-middle class university campus


----------



## Yrys (7 Mar 2008)

Obama aide quits in 'monster' row



> An adviser to Barack Obama has resigned after a Scottish newspaper quoted her calling rival US Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton "a monster".
> 
> Samantha Power has expressed "deep regret" over the comments and said she had tried to retract them. The Scotsman newspaper quoted Ms Power as saying:
> "She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything." Ms Power is a Harvard professor who has advised Mr Obama on foreign policy.
> ...



Rest of article on link


----------



## CougarKing (8 Mar 2008)

Al GORE AGAIN?  ;D

Oh Oh. It looks like Al Gore may be the only possible presidential contender if both Obama and Hillary Clinton can't get enough delegate votes from all the state primaries to win the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party.

The way the primaries are going right now, an Al Gore nominee scenario may not be too far-fetched; it has been said that he may be the only one who can unite the party whose strength has currently been divided between Clinton and Obama.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119851



> What If There is No Back Room?
> The search for a way out of the Democrats' dilemma.
> 
> Eleanor Clift
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2008)

And another view of Mr Gore:

http://thecanadianrepublic.blogspot.com/2008/02/could-al-gore-throw-his-hat-in-ring-for.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Mar 2008)

I dont see Gore getting the nomination. The super delegates will select either Clinton or Obama.I do see a joint ticket though but whoever is the VP wont be a happy camper. I guess an option if Obama is passed over and he could decide to make a third party run.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Mar 2008)

Or a fourth party run, as Ralph Nader's hat is already in the ring. For a party that is supposed to attract the best and the brightest of the activist set, the Democrats seem to be incapable of practicality. They are quite capable of analysing all the possible choices and then picking the worst one. I fully expect them to exceed my expectations in this regard.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Mar 2008)

Obama now has ruled out being VP nominee.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/obama-you-wont.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Mar 2008)

Amongst my acquaintances down here (Texas) – admittedly a pretty non-representative sample – there is broad general agreement on only one issue: the key to the Democratic nomination is the _popular vote_ which, like the delegate count, currently appears to favour Obama by about 600,000 votes or 2½%.

Their assessment is that the _super-delegates_ will not be willing to replace a winner who has both the most delegates and the most votes. The difficulty will come if Obama has the most delegates and Clinton wins the most votes – which she might do when ‘blue collar’ Pennsylvania is counted and if ‘blue collar’ Michigan and ‘seniors-heavy’ Florida are allowed to vote.

The argument then will be between the “let’s follow the traditional rules” camp (delegate count matters most, à la the US electoral college system) and the “let the people decide” camp (popular vote matters most). My acquaintances suggest that the _popular vote_ will win out.

I wasn’t impressed with how Obama withstood his first really well aimed and concerted attack by Clinton (I thought Bill’s attacks in/around SC and _Super Tuesday_ were badly aimed) and his first really tough questions from the media. If Clinton can continue to score well against him and if her campaign can derail the _children’s crusade_ aspect of his campaign (no deep media attention) then she might do very well in PA, FL and MI – all relatively large states – even though Obama has, until now, done better at ‘getting out the vote.’

Since I favour McCain, as the better choice for Canada’s interests, I rather hope Clinton does well, despite the fact that I detest the woman. (There are those _high negatives_ again.)


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Mar 2008)

The biggest argument in Clinton;s favor is that Obama's strength has been in caucus states. In texas' two tier system he lost the popular vote but got the lion's share of 67 delegates that came out of the caucus. In states with primaries Obama lags. Clinton has won the big states which is another argument for her as nominee.With Obama's Rzeko problem some of the luster will be worn off.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/29/105154/627


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2008)

NAFTAgate gets even weirder. Maybe this explains why the Canadian Left wants our government to apologize for Senator Obama's gaffe:

http://dubyadubya.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/ignatieff-soulmate-fired/



> *Ignatieff soulmate fired*
> March 7, 2008 · No Comments
> 
> Strange. We were looking for a connection between the Obama campaign and the Liberal party the other day because we thought how well this leak on NAFTA fit into the Liberal strategy to pin something, anything on Harper. And we found this.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2008)

And a look at the new Republican ads. Will this be the theme for their campaign?

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/03/we-can-we-must.html


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2008)

Back to the Democrats. I strongly suspect the Clintons will lo literally anything to win the nomination, regardless of the consequences. I am also not as dismissive of the Republican campaign, they are starting now and defining the themes of the election months before the Democrats even start.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-over-2008-03-06.html



> *It’s over*
> By Dick Morris
> Posted: 03/06/08 06:02 PM [ET]
> 
> ...



Another long post, with interesting insights:

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/03/my-thoughts-on-us-presidential-race.html


----------



## GAP (10 Mar 2008)

In listening to Dave Rutherford this AM, apparently Clinton is now cliaming that it was she, who set up an initial meeting, was responsible for solving the Irish troubles.....


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2008)

Another view of Senator Obama. Frankly, if he and his wife have a hard time budgeting household expenses on a $500,000/year income (as she seems to say) then the Bush 3 trillion dollar budget will look like chump change in 2012 if he is elected President ;D. Not so funny are his formative influences described below.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0308/jkelly031008.php3?printer_friendly



> *Why the Obamas don't advertise their standard of living*
> 
> By Jack Kelly
> http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Campaigning for her husband in Zanesville before the Ohio primary, Michelle Obama described to a group of women how hard it had been for her and Barack to make ends meet:
> ...



BTW, Dr Condeleezza Rice is the anti Michelle Obama, who also grew up under segregation and economic hardship (no trust funds.....) but despite or because of this has become the most powerful woman in the world today as Secretrary of State and #4 in the line of succession. Makes you wonder about the "nurture vs nature" argument.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2008)

> The University of Chicago Hospital, where she is vice president for community affairs, bumped her pay from $121,910 in 2004 to $316,962 after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate that year.



I'm flashing back to the 60's and Rowan and Martin.......Verrrrrry Interesting.

The Dems put up a ward heeler and his wife gets a raise.  Who sits on the board of The University of Chicago Hospital?  Any Daley's?

Maybe it's not just me that is flashing back to 1968 ( and before the wise-cracks start - I was young enough to actually remember that year without a Purple Haze).  Are the Dems sticking to the tried and true?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2008)

Lets look at the Republicans again, this time from the POV of one of the fixtures of the Paleo Conservative movement:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view509.html#Monday



> *McCain and Conservatives*
> 
> John McCain is the Republican nominee. Nothing we can do will change that.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (13 Mar 2008)

McCain may very well win in November if Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to divide the Democratic Party and use issues like race and gender against each other.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23605070/



> *Racial issue bubbles up again for Democrats*
> Clinton, Obama have each used race, sex against the other
> By Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny
> The New York Times
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Mar 2008)

Its definitely getting fun to watch. Now Obama is on the hot seat because of the church he attends.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs&eurl=http://ace.mu.nu/


----------



## observor 69 (13 Mar 2008)

Thanks for the video. Loved it.  8)


----------



## GAP (13 Mar 2008)

Dragging up his preacher's oratory from 2003?.....that's the equivalent of OBamma being politically knee high to a grasshopper at that time....


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Mar 2008)

The problem with Obama's church is that he joined 20 years ago to burnish his "black" credentials but being a member of a radical church if you are running for a national office and you need white votes,then it will hurt you big time. How Obama deals with this issue could kill his campaign. This issue will help Hillary in Pennsylvania and maybe the rest of the way. At the convention the party leadership will decide who the nominee will be and there is a strong chance that Obama wont get the nomination.

http://www.tucc.org/home.htm


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2008)

A suggestion for John McCain:

http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/mccaingetting-serious/



> *McCain…getting serious*
> 
> March 14, 2008 |
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Mar 2008)

Jindal just got elected Governor and he has his work cut out for him. Maybe in 4 years Jindal can jump onto the national stage. Conservatives are watching McCain's selection of a VP very closely. An acceptable choice to conservatives will help him but selection of a democrat or RINO as VP would hurt his campaign severely.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Its definitely getting fun to watch. Now Obama is on the hot seat because of the church he attends.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
> 
> ...



Well, Obama just denounced that same pastor's controversial 9/11 comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080315/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor



> Obama denounces pastor's 9/11 comments
> By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
> 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Mar 2008)

Not a very convincing statement by Obama. His troubles arent over.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2008)

Doing a little damage-control on Fox News(!): http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29288&only&rss


----------



## CougarKing (15 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Not a very convincing statement by Obama. His troubles arent over.



I find it very surprising to learn from a CNN projection from last week that they estimated that even if Clinton won every remaining Democratic State Primary from now until the convention, she would still be slightly behind Obama. Let me dig up any article link which may corroborate or confirm this.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2008)

There I was, opening the lid of my Becel, when: Joy to the World!!! He is come!!!!







 http://blogquebecois.com/2008/03/and_ebay_saw_that_it_was_good.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Mar 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I find it very surprising to learn from a CNN projection from last week that they estimated that even if Clinton won every remaining Democratic State Primary from now until the convention, she would still be slightly behind Obama. Let me dig up any article link which may corroborate or confirm this.



Unlike the R's the democrats have a convoluted primary system that is hurting them badly. There are
dlegates which are won in the state primaries/caucus' and super-delegates which are the party big wigs and they arent bound to vote for either candidate and they account for 20% of the votes needed to elect a nominee.Right now neither Hillary or Obama can get enough pledged delegates to get elected without the super-delegates. Right now both camps are doing eberything they can to sway super-delegates.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Mar 2008)

".....maybe Howard Dean and Al Gore, they have some credibility....."

As compared to Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Bill Clinton......? 



> For Democrats, Increased Fears of a Long Fight
> 
> By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY
> Published: March 16, 2008
> ...





George Bush may only appeal to 35% of Americans when up against a variety of notional candidates but I can't help but believe his numbers will continue to rise as real alternatives are considered.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Mar 2008)

Congress' poll numbers were at 12% last time I looked.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2008)

Senator Obama panders to a particularly nasty form of "Identity politics", and I am sure this sort of news is manna to both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. How the end game will play out is anyone's guess, there will be a pretty vicious fight on the Democratic Convention's floor and in the back rooms with the Superdelegates, and this could lead to a splintering of the Democrats "base" (although the probable end result will be various blocks of voters sitting on their hands in November rather than defections to the rival party. For the Republicans, this might offset the possibility that disenchanted "Movement Conservatives" will also stay home).

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html



> *The Religious Wright*
> 
> Are we wrong to think that Barack Obama's campaign is imploding? For the past few days the national spotlight has been on Jeremiah Wright, pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ and Obama's so-called spiritual mentor, who turns out to be a certifiable America-hating crackpot. As ABC News reported last week:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2008)

Hmmmm. Despite _Dief the Chief_’s wise words about polls, predictions and elections results, and dogs and poles, too, this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act fron today’s _National Post_ will provide some (temporary? – remember, also, Harold Wilson’s wise words about a week being an eternity in politics) relief to McCain supporters:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/uselection/story.html?id=386258


> Obama’s lead over Clinton evaporates
> 
> Steve Holland, Reuters
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Mar 2008)

White men are the segment of the population that a Presidential must carry if he is to win.Obama has probably lost that category and Hillary wont do much better.Barring a McCain meltdown I'd say the election is his to win.Hillary and Obama will be battling tooth and nail right up to the convention and key democrat leaders have ruled out the "dream ticket".


----------



## observor 69 (20 Mar 2008)

New York Times editorial reply to Bush's five years in Iraq:


March 20, 2008
Editorial
Mission Still Not Accomplished 
It has been five years since the United States invaded Iraq and the world watched in horror as what seemed like a swift victory by modern soldiers and 21st-century weapons became a nightmare of spiraling violence, sectarian warfare, insurgency, roadside bombings and ghastly executions. Iraq’s economy was destroyed, and America’s reputation was shredded in the torture rooms of Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret prisons.

These were hard and very costly lessons for a country that had emerged from the cold war as the world’s sole remaining superpower. Shockingly, President Bush seems to have learned none of them.

•

In a speech on Wednesday, the start of the war’s sixth year, Mr. Bush was stuck in the Neverland of his “Mission Accomplished” speech. In his mind’s eye, the invasion was a “remarkable display of military effectiveness” that will be studied for generations. The war has placed the nation on the brink of a great “strategic victory” in Iraq and against terrorists the world over. 

Even now, Mr. Bush talks of Iraqi troops who “took off their uniforms and faded into the countryside to fight the emergence of a free Iraq” — when everyone knows that the American pro-consul, L. Paul Bremer III, overrode Mr. Bush’s national security team and, with the president’s blessing, made the catastrophically bad decision to disband the Iraqi Army and police force.

Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that Iraq was on the verge of “full-blown sectarian warfare” when he boldly ordered an escalation of forces around Baghdad last year. In fact, sectarian warfare was raging for months while Mr. Bush refused to listen to the generals, who wanted a new military approach, or to the vast majority of Americans, who just wanted him to end the war.

All evidence to the contrary, Mr. Bush is still trying to make it seem as if Al Qaeda in Iraq was connected to the Al Qaeda that attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. He tried to justify an unjustifiable war by ticking off benefits of deposing Saddam Hussein, but he somehow managed to forget the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Vice President Dick Cheney was equally deep in denial on Monday when he declared at a news conference in Baghdad that it has all been “well worth the effort.”

Tell that to the families of nearly 4,000 Americans who have been killed — far too many of them because Mr. Bush and his arrogantly incompetent secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, failed to plan for an insurgency that many others saw coming. Thousands more Americans have been wounded and deprived of adequate post-conflict care while Iraqis have died by the tens of thousands. More than five million have been driven from their homes.

Add in a cost to the United States that some say could exceed $3 trillion, the new political opening created for Iran, the incalculable damage to America’s reputation and the havoc wreaked on Iraqi society. Few lament Saddam Hussein’s passing, but the war has left Iraq a broken country, made the United States more vulnerable, not safer, and stretched the American military to a point that compromises its ability to fight elsewhere.

The increase in American forces last year initially produced a steep decline in insurgent attacks. But the conflict has drifted into a stalemate with the levels of violence remaining constant, and unacceptably high, from November 2007 through early 2008, according to a Government Accountability Office report. As Mr. Cheney visited Iraq, a bombing killed 43 people.

•

One of the cruelest ironies is that Iraqis have not taken advantage of the American troop surge, which was intended to create space for them to resolve their political differences. After much foot-dragging, they passed a 2008 budget and a law granting amnesty to thousands of Sunnis and others in Iraqi jails. But a law on sharing oil wealth is stalled and one aimed at allowing former Baathist Party members back into government may actually drive many out. Another bill, mandating provincial elections by October, was passed by Parliament, then vetoed by the Presidency Council of Iraq’s top leaders. Only after pressure from Mr. Cheney was it suddenly revived.

The plight of Iraqis uprooted by violence is further proof of how broken the country is. Some 2.7 million Iraqis are displaced internally and another 2.4 million have fled as refugees, mostly to Syria and Jordan. That’s nearly 20 percent of Iraq’s prewar population — the kind of inconvenient truth the Bush administration would rather ignore.

Although thousands of refugees returned to Iraq last year, most ended up leaving again because they did not feel secure. American, Iraqi and international aid to Iraqi refugees is insufficient, and many refugees, their savings depleted and barred from most jobs, are despairing, aid workers say. No one knows when — or if — they can ever return. Syria and Jordan generously allowed Iraqis in, but the huge numbers could destabilize both countries and fuel anti-America resentment. 

The United States agreed to admit a paltry 12,000 Iraqi refugees in fiscal year 2008; so far, only 2,000 have been processed. 

Brighter spots — Iraq’s economy is projected to grow 7 percent this year — are offset by problems: millions of Iraqis still don’t have clean water and medical care, thousands are jobless and the Iraqi Army, while improving, cannot defend the country on its own.

•
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney refuse to let these facts interfere with their benighted notion of keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely and insisting that Iraq — not Afghanistan and Pakistan where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have gained ground — must remain America’s top priority. 

It was clear long ago that Mr. Bush had no plan for victory, only a plan for handing this mess to his successor. Americans need to choose a president with the vision to end this war as cleanly as possible. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/opinion/20thu1.html?hp


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Mar 2008)

My abortive post was trying to incorporate a bunch of graphs to support a new hypothesis:  Jeremiah Wright has saved the American economy with his G-damned sermon.

Up until March 13 John McCain was trailing both Obama and Hilary. http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx
Oil was rising through 106 USD/bbl http://www.oilnergy.com/1opost.htm
Gold was rising through 1000 USD/ounce http://goldprices.com/30day.htm
The Canadian Dollar was at around 1.02 USD/CAD http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/CAD/graph120.html 

All of those rising prices are reflective primarily of a weakening US dollar, occasioned by declining faith of the markets in the future of the US economy.   The prices continued to rise, and volatility continued to grow despite increasing interventions by the US Federal Reserve and more and more government and "industry" interventions, like Chase-Manhattan "rescuing" Bear-Stearns.

I believe, that the markets were significantly affected by the prospect of an isolationist and protectionist Democratic Government that would lock out the world from the US economy and also leave US "friends" (interests) overseas isolated.  I think the fear can be linked to the prospect of the Obama/Pelosi Democrats treating foreigners the way that Pelosi is treating Uribe of Colombia and the way that Jimmy Carter treated the Shah (precipitating both the Ayatollah and Saddam).  

The Democrats harping on about how poor the US economy is when the sub-prime "crisis" affects about 7% of the mortgage market and employment is about the same as it was during Clinton's years (~5%) doesn't help.  The market is not rational.  It is sentient.  It is all about feelings and can be affected/manipulated on that basis.

Whether the current turmoil is a planned event or not it certainly plays to a widely held belief that elections are won or lost on the basis of the economy.  No crisis. No reason for change.

With a perception of a poor and troubled economy then domestic voters were turning away from the Republicans and McCain and towards the Democrats and the agent of change - Obama.

Obama looked to be the front runner, despite a strong rear-guard action by Hillary, meaning a reasonable prospect of Obama in the Whitehouse with Pelosi in Congress, Reid in the Senate and Moveon.Org cheering from the stalls.

On March 13 the Wright story broke. http://bp3.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R-QIAcRIfaI/AAAAAAAAMOs/4KX01u0br-Y/s1600-h/kithbridge.JPG
Obama's approval rating plunged from  50% on March 13 to 42% on March 20. http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R-QIMsRIfcI/AAAAAAAAMO8/qlVaWgG7ym0/s1600-h/barack-+wright+approval.JPG

Initially both Clinton and McCain benefited from Obama's pastor. McCain drew even with Obama by the 14th but had drawn ahead by three points by the 15th.  A lead he still holds a week later.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx

At the same time McCain drew even with Clinton who had overtaken Obama as the favourite to take the Democratic nomination. But McCain couldn't shake her.  They stayed even in the Gallup tracking poll until March 17 at 46% apiece.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx

I believe that this is due to it taking some time for CNN to report on the issue (it had just been a blogosphere matter), people waiting to see how Obama would respond and finally people realizing that even if Obama lost the battle to Hillary then the divided, perhaps violently, Democrats would likely lose the war for the Whitehouse to McCain's Republicans.  

When that happened McCain opened up a 3 point lead over Clinton as well. http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx

Once that sunk in then faith in the US economy and US politics increased, strengthening the US dollar.  The consequence of a stronger dollar is that it buys more things: oil, gold and Canadian Dollars.  All of those commodities required fewer US dollars to buy following March 17th.  Refer back to the graphs posted at the beginning of this post.

I think it is safe to say that the hateful Reverend Wright has cost not only Obama the nomination and the Democrats the Whitehouse (and maybe Congress as well) but has also set back the "Revolution" that would put America "in its place" that he so ardently seems to desire.

If this hypothesis is validated I think I shall be thanking someone for the Reverend Wright's intervention.

Of course the simultaneous demonstration of the internal weakness of the rival hegemon, China, probably didn't hurt either.

It has been a good week for Capitalists and the heirs of Adam Smith.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2008)

It looks like Bill Clinton may have given Obama another helping hand.

His comments, suggesting that only John McCain and Hillary are true patriots, allowed Obama to show of his support from Gen (Ret’d) Merrill McPeak and, simultaneously, to tar Clinton as another Joe McCarthy.

Commentators down here (USA) are suggesting that Clinton might, just might be able to win the popular vote race if, great *Big IF*, she can win all the remaining primaries by 60%-40%, something she has managed, to date, only in New York, Arkansas and Rhode Island. Failing that, say the pundits, not matter what happens in Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan, Obama goes to the convention with more delegates and more, albeit just a hair more, of the popular vote. The _Super Delegates_ will be hard pressed to overturn the _will of the people_, even if they decide that Hillary has a better chance against McCain than does Obama – something that the current polls do not suggest. Plus, I am told by some Americans who follow this sort of thing quite closely, there is great fear that if Hillary is chosen, apparently by the *white* political _establishment_, the black voters – mainstays of the Democrat’s support since FDR – will abandon the party and stay home or, worse, vote for McCain if he chooses a black running mate, J.C. Watts, or Condoleezza Rice for example.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from Saturday’s _National Post_, is more fuel for the fire:

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=392200


> Obama seems inept at patriot games
> *Clinton wisely mum as troubles engulf rival*
> 
> Sheldon Alberts, National Post
> ...



An acquaintance down here (Texas), the one I cited a few days ago suggesting that the popular vote will be key, agrees - up to a point. He suggests that:

•	Clinton can be neither nominated nor elected – not without destroying the Democratic Party, for at least a generation, by driving black voters away;

•	Obama is badly damaged – maybe fatally against genuine hero/patriot McCain;

•	Americans, broadly, have given up on Iraq.* They no longer care if America wins or loses because they think any kind of meaningful victory is impossible – wasn’t impossible in 2004 but is, now, because of Bush’s failed execution of what should have been a simple, slam-dunk war. If McCain wants to ensure an easy victory he’ll remind Americans, without comparing himself to Nixon, that sad, unwinnable wars can be ended – and that he will end this one, with more honour than (the unmentionable) Nixon, managed 35 years ago;

•	The economy now matters a lot and neither McCain nor Obama scores well on economic issues – but Hillary, even if (miraculously) nominated, will not stand up well to scrutiny on that front either;

•	Immigration and “free trade/fair trade” are economic issues. Most Americans understand that no one is going to round-up and deport 15 million Mexicans – the political trick is to find a way to allow them to stay in the USA as lawful taxpayers with a route to citizenship – after they are, in some form or another, penalized for jumping the queue; and

•	Americans are worried about their declining power – soft and hard. They recognize, intuitively, that the recent solo-superpower situation is unsustainable but they wish it would stay just a bit longer. They tend to blame Bush/Republicans for frittering away their power but they also, equally intuitively, understand that the Democrats don’t have any answers, either.  

But, back to Harold Wilson and his dictum that: _”A weel is a long time in politics.”_ There’s a lot more than a week to go before our good friends and neighbours elect the next leader of the West 
----------

* Tomahawk6 will disagree but my acquaintance presents a substantial volume of poll data to support his contention


----------



## observor 69 (24 Mar 2008)

Interesting way to watch the contest:

http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/

https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=23190&eventSelect=23190&updateList=true&showExpired=false


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Mar 2008)

Polls dont show much more than how people feel today.The election is in November and as has been stated thats a long time off and anything can happen. The economy is being touted by the leftist media as a failure but I dont know of a recession where unemployment was at 4.8%.If that was a measuring stick most of the economies in Europe would be classed as being in recession with their 9-11 % uneployment levels.

As for the war as I have said before,if the war was so unpopular why cant the anti-war nuts get more protestors out. Families that have lost loved one's are telling Bush to stay the course" so that our scarfice wont be in vain".


----------



## Red 6 (24 Mar 2008)

Tomahawk: There isn't a significant anti war movement because there's no draft. The anti war movement during the Vietnam War was focused on campuses. (Plus, today there isn't the outside ideological twist to it that the Soviet Union financed and fomented back in the 60s.) 

cheers, Mark


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Mar 2008)

No one was getting drafted in the UK and Canada yet we saw hundreds of thousands of protestors in the streets. The same would be true in the US if the public was really anti-war. The reason I dont think the war is unpopular is that the american public living in fly over country remember 9-11 and are intent on seeing us win.The troops in their emails and letters home are telling a story much different than how the media has portrayed the war.Even in WW2 the public grew weary but cutting and running wasnt in the cards.


----------



## Red 6 (24 Mar 2008)

Well, talking in the international realm, it's much more complex. In my opinion, a lot of the anti-American sentiment is due to our superpower status and the fact that many, many folks are leery of unbridled power. The burden of the war in Iraq here in the US has fallen on the shoulders of a very few Americans and thank God they're up to the task.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Mar 2008)

The democrat nomination has 10 more primaries to go and its getting crazier by the day. Someone today likened the democrat party to the Donner Party [they ended up eating their dead to survive].


----------



## Red 6 (25 Mar 2008)

I wouldn't worry about the Democratic Party. If you look back into history, what's happening now isn't all that uncommon. It's actually a healthy sign (as far as I see it) that folks are engaged in the party and care deeply about who they select.


----------



## time expired (25 Mar 2008)

Very little terrorist activity in the run-up to the US election,are
the security efforts paying off,are al-Qaida tired or could it be
that al-Qaida would like to see a Democrat in the White House.                                                          They must know an attack in the US or on any US facilities
would mean a Republican win.
                                    Regards


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2008)

Oh how the wheel turns:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?fta=y&adxnnlx=1206453661-TDSVc9s1n%20YIFxAL539/0g&pagewanted=print



> March 24, 2008
> *Clinton Backer Points to Electoral College Votes as New Measure*
> By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (25 Mar 2008)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080325.wwibbitson25/BNStory/National/columnists

McCain faces rocky road to victory
JOHN IBBITSON 

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

E-mail John Ibbitson | Read Bio | Latest Columns 
March 25, 2008 at 3:02 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — Life is sweet right now for John McCain.

The Republican nominee for president spent last week swanning around Europe and the Middle East, meeting with presidents and prime ministers and showing off his foreign policy bona fides - though there was a hiccup, when he confused Shiite extremists with Sunni al-Qaeda.

He was in California yesterday, raising money and holding another one of his many town halls, where the Arizona Senator offers his famous "straight talk," answering every question thrown at him until he exhausts the audience.

With Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton locked in a mortal embrace that could split the Democratic Party, and polls showing Mr. McCain running ahead of both of his potential contenders, it almost seems possible that Mr. McCain could actually lead the Republican Party to victory in November's presidential election.

 Which means we need to give ourselves a good shake.

"McCain's path to the nomination may be smooth, but his path to victory in November is very rocky," warns Clyde Wilcox, a political scientist at Georgetown University. "His campaign faces formidable obstacles to victory."

A confluence of forces and issues will converge this autumn that could present Mr. McCain with insurmountable challenges. This may be why, even after a year and more on the election trail, he has no election infrastructure in place. He lacks a pollster, reports The New York Times, and Mark McKinnon, Mr. McCain's media consultant, has said he won't run a campaign against Mr. Obama.

Maybe those who should be lining up to work for Mr. McCain just don't like what they see ahead.

They would see Iraq. Last weekend marked another grim milestone: the 4,000th American soldier killed in that unhappy place. Mr. McCain argued, long before it was fashionable, that the United States needed to greatly increase its troop commitment in Iraq. That surge of deployment, belatedly endorsed by President George W. Bush, has stabilized the situation. But things remain far from encouraging and the war far from popular.

Mr. McCain vows to carry on till victory. Both Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton maintain that only by bringing home the troops will the Iraqi government and people be forced to take responsibility for their own future. If the situation in Iraq stagnates or deteriorates, Mr. McCain will find his doctrine of staying the course harder and harder to sell.

They would see the economy. Mr. McCain, by his own admission, doesn't know much about economics, and doesn't seem much interested in it. Yet voters rank the threatened recession their greatest concern. The Republican candidate's inability to convincingly demonstrate he knows why middle and working-class incomes are flat or declining, and what can be done about it, could cost him dearly in November.

Most of all, they would see Mr. Bush. The current President is one of the most unpopular in modern American history. Mr. McCain, whether he likes it or not, is asking the public to validate that presidency by giving the Republicans a third term in the White House.

Of course, Mr. McCain could always repudiate his President: he did it often enough in the past, over global warming, tax cuts and prosecuting the war on terror. But Mr. McCain is already in trouble with the conservative base of his party. On his overseas trip last week he took his good friend and ideological soul mate, Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman. Mr. Lieberman, who now sits as an independent, was the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, a job in which Mr. McCain is known to have expressed some interest in 2004. Mr. McCain's repeated flirtations with the Democratic Party is exactly the sort of thing that drives the grass roots crazy.

"Add it up and you have a candidate who will struggle to win the base of his own party, who will be constantly confronted with the decision of whether to endorse or repudiate the legacy of the administration that is from his party, in a year when the economy is weak and the war that he supports is unpopular," Prof. Wilcox concludes. Piece of cake.

He has only one ace, and that is the Democratic Party. If the Democrats cannot settle on a candidate, if the contest goes all the way to the convention in Denver, if that convention splits the party, with one half accusing the other half of betrayal, then it is possible they could leave the convention so divided that the voters, disgusted, give the presidency to Mr. McCain.

It might be true to say that Mr. McCain cannot win the election in November, unless the Democrats do the job for him.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2008)

How things may shape up after the Democratic convention:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html



> *Hillary's List of Lies*
> By Dick Morris
> 
> The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were "honest and trustworthy," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2008)

A look at the delegate problem the Democrats have gotten themselves into:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657950286167233.html?mod=fpa_mostpop



> *Hillary's Last Hope*
> By LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY
> March 27, 2008; Page A15
> 
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Mar 2008)

(Supposedly) here is John Cleese's take on the whole thing:


> A Message from John Cleese
> 
> To the citizens of the United States of America:
> 
> ...


----------



## Richie (31 Mar 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> (Supposedly) here is John Cleese's take on the whole thing:



*Gotta love it:*

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. 



6. ...you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.



13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

 :rofl:


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2008)

Actually, #5 (You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent.  Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.) makes so much sense it should be part of the UN Charter!


----------



## Red 6 (31 Mar 2008)

Well, if we accept this proposal, at least it might go a ways toward fixing the weak dollar. You'd have a fight on your hands with #13 though....  :gunner:


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2008)

I agree that Americans and other assorted _Phillistines_ will hold out for gridiron football but real men play Rugby! 

:argument:


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Apr 2008)

Indeed. Rugby requires a fair degree of mental and physical dexterity as shown by the ability to swill beer and sing dirty songs at the same time.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2008)

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120718359261185135.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks



> *Hoover's Heirs*
> April 3, 2008
> 
> Democrats may not be able to agree on a Presidential nominee, but at least they're united on one thing: The ghost of Herbert Hoover now stalks the land.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (6 Apr 2008)

US Senator and former Presidential race candidate John Edwards says no to VP possibility.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/04/accepting-his-fate.aspx?GT1=38001



> *Accepting His Fate*
> By Chadwick Matlin
> 
> John Edwards has finally given up on the presidency. Even as he was standing behind a podium in New Orleans announcing his withdrawal in late January, we didn’t really believe he was done. Remember, this is the same guy who mounted a failed campaign to be the Democratic nominee in 2004, went along for a failed vice presidential ride, and got back on the saddle for a failed campaign in 2008. Moreover, after he fell on his face in New Hampshire this year, he kept on begging for the country’s vote like a spurned teenage lover. When a politician that determined to become president claims he’s dropping out of the race, it’s hard to take his words at face value.
> ...


----------



## Yrys (8 Apr 2008)

John Cleese offers to write for Barack Obama



> Monty Python comedian John Cleese is to offer his services as a speechwriter to Barack Obama if he wins the Democratic nomination to become US president.
> Cleese, who lives in California, told the Western Daily Press newspaper that his jokes could help the Illinois senator get into the White House."I am due to come to
> Europe in November but I may be tied up until then because if Barack Obama gets the nomination I'm going to offer my services to him as a speechwriter because I
> think he is a brilliant man," the 68-year-old said.
> ...



Link


----------



## CougarKing (15 Apr 2008)

In the same way that one cannot deny the influence of "racial identity" politics, perhaps the same can be said of religious group politics, although candidates have to keep the issue of religion within a context of an increasingly secular society.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24117505



> *NYT: Candidates battle for Catholic votes *
> 
> All three contenders hope to parlay pope's visit into November support
> By Robin Toner
> ...


----------



## geo (15 Apr 2008)

Was listening to the news last night... looks like Obama has put his foot in it and has burnt his bridges in advance of the Pensylvania primaries.....


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Apr 2008)

Agreed the next primary is in Pennsylvania 7 days away.A recent poll showed him down as much as 20 points to Hillary but the poll that counts is on election day.If the primary tallies bear out that poll then there will be alot of soul searching by the super d's. I think Obama is just too liberal to get elected. The worrying thing for the party elite is that if he is the nominee and he goes down to a huge defeat ,that could also drag down alot of congress folks and senators. A ripple effect that the dem's dont want thats for sure.


----------



## geo (15 Apr 2008)

Hillary's liability is Bill while Obama's liability is his mouth....... Neither appears to know when to shut up.

The Super Delegates are gonna have to watch and listen real well if they are gonna chose a candidate that will be palatable to the public


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Agreed the next primary is in Pennsylvania 7 days away.A recent poll showed him down as much as 20 points to Hillary but the poll that counts is on election day.If the primary tallies bear out that poll then there will be alot of soul searching by the super d's. I think Obama is just too liberal to get elected. The worrying thing for the party elite is that if he is the nominee and he goes down to a huge defeat ,that could also drag down alot of congress folks and senators. A ripple effect that the dem's dont want thats for sure.



The longer and more difficult the Democratic Party's primary campaigns are the better for John McCain who, in my opinion, will be friendlier to Canada than either Clinton or Obama.


----------



## geo (16 Apr 2008)

heh... Populist candidates do have their drawbacks.


----------



## Long in the tooth (17 Apr 2008)

John McCain is the only leader who can either exit Iraq or keep troops there with any integrity.  I wouldn't trust the dems to run a lemonade stand, let alone abrogate NAFTA.


----------



## geo (17 Apr 2008)

Watched a little bit of CNN & other news reports last night.  They drew exerts from Hilary's position on NAFTA.
She's pointing and waving a pretty big finger our way for how "cavalier" we are with the NAFTA rules WRT Agricultural imports to Canada - talking about how our thumbing our nose to the US is costing Americans jobs.... She does not talk about same said thumbing of rules done by Americans for agriculture, cattle and lumber.....

talk about a pot calling a kettle black


----------



## TCBF (17 Apr 2008)

- And the Canadian Left - who adore Billary - are strangely silent on this issue.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2008)

More analysis. Given the egos and personalities involved, this really may become a war to the knofe:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary-obama-down-to-wire.html



> April 21, 2008
> *Hillary-Obama Down to the Wire*
> 
> Tomorrow is basically do or die for Hillary, and many think she's already history. If Hillary wins PA tomorrow, she'll likely fight on into June. But if Obama pulls out a win, the pressure may be overwhelming for her to pull out of the race so that the Dems can unite against John McCain. The latest polls according to RCP, however, show Hillary with a approximately a 6 point lead on Barack Obama.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (22 Apr 2008)

Interesting...former US Sec. of State Colin Powell praises Obama. This is interesting, coming from a man who served in and strongly supported both Bush administrations. Wasn't he the chair of the JCS in the first Bush administration?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/us/politics/11campaig.../qsiMxMuZdwFiw4Lq97A



> GARY, Ind. — *Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell may have contributed $2,300 to the Republican presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, but he is reserving his strongest praise for the Democratic candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.
> 
> In a television interview that was broadcast Thursday, Mr. Powell said he “admired” how Mr. Obama handled a speech last month on race. He also said he agreed with much of what Mr. Obama had said about the controversial sermons of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.*
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Apr 2008)

Powell is a private citizen and if he wants to support an uber socialist like Obama he is free to do so. Obama is the most extreme person we have ever had run for President and as such is unelectable because the country is more to the center. Bill Clinton got 8 years in the White House because he was able to capture the center. Obama has the most liberal voting record in Congress which would make it very hard in the general for him to claim he is a centerist. He has $1.4 trillion in new spending. He wants to spend 350b on aid to Africa. I suspect that he will gut the defense budget and he will probably create a Dept of Peace to siphon off defense funding.Then of course there will be the global warming legislation that will see income redistribution. Of course with a McCain victory you will see much the same legislation but with some budget discipline and I dont see McCain gutting the defense budget.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2008)

A look at the Clinton campaign:

http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/is-2008-really-senator-clintons-only-chance-nope/



> *Is 2008 really Senator Clinton’s only chance? Nope.*
> 
> Much of the scuttlebutt surrounding the nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama deals with the motives of the former.  Conventional wisdom holds that this is Clinton’s “one shot” at the White House, and thus she is desperately going all-in, party be damned.  While, I certainly believe the Clintons would put their own interests over those of their party, I don’t by the CW here.  Senator Clinton could easily run again in 2012 - depending upon what happens this fall.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (24 Apr 2008)

Yet another look at the Clinton campaign's chances in the wake of her own victory from last Tuesday; perhaps she can win this nomination so that she and her party can lose to McCain later, since either T6 or Mr. Campbell said, IIRC, that Clinton was less electable for the national election than either Obama or McCain.  :blotto:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24276527/



> *Clinton's Pa. win comes with cash prize
> Camp claims $3.5 million donated following victory over Obama*
> 
> The Associated Press
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2008)

A couple of recent articles in the _Globe and Mail_ and in the _National Post_ make the same point: race maters and it could matter more in the _main event_.

As I read the data:

•	Few working class white males will agree to vote for a black man – but relatively few working class white males were going to vote Democrat anyway. They may *be* registered Democrats; they may vote Democrat for the Senate, House of Representatives, State House or state legislature but they are _Reagan Democrats_ and will vote for John McCain in November.

•	If, and it’s still a Big *IF*, Clinton manages to win the nomination few blacks will vote for her because it will be assumed that she used guile to overturn the _will of the people_ and stole the nomination from Obama. 

Thus, the Democrats have the most to lose by selecting Clinton but that does not prevent her from playing the _race card_ again.

For those of us who prefer John McCain – in my case because I think he will be the best choice for Canada’s interests – the never-ending campaign is a godsend. Clinton is _playing dirty_ and some of the dirt is bound to stick. But everyone can see she’s practicing dirty politics and so her _negatives_, already above 50% and already greater than those of McCain and Obama combined, continue to rise. The Democrats get either a charismatic, attractive but damaged Obama or a thoroughly disliked Clinton: both are ‘good’ for John McCain.

I still think Obama is the harder to beat. He is charismatic, he is attractive, he is new, Americans, broadly, do want *change*  - from George Bush, to be sure, but from the Clintons, too. I think Clinton’s anti-Obama campaign can and will be turned against her (if she becomes the nominee) because whenever she compared Obama to herself, to her advantage, McCain can say “Obama was, indeed, a bad choice but I’m the best choice in that situation.”


Edit: typo


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Apr 2008)

Edward,

I agree with your analysis, but would like to add that both Obama and Clinton have a lot of negatives, some of which they share, while others are unique to the individual. Their positives are not as great assets as we tend to assume here. 

Some of this is race based (and the hispanic voters may be more likely than anglos not to vote for Obama), some is gender based, but a lot of that is more dislike of Hillary than sexism. The Democrats have managed to divide their house in a way that will cause the urban coastal liberal voter an outbreak of angst. The key to power does not lie with that demographic, and both candidates, both for reasons of persona and ideology, are non-starters with many Americans in the "great unwashed middle." 

The Democratic convention will be very interesting, and given the Democrats' propensity to self-destruct, whoever wins may well face a house divided. The Clintons are poor losers and may well sabotage the convention and campaign to deny the White House to Obama. Whether this would enhance her chances in 2012 is another matter. In this scenario the campaign is McCain's to lose, except for the economy.  Like Waterloo, the election will be a near run thing.


----------



## observor 69 (25 Apr 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK TIMES

April 25, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Self-Inflicted Confusion 
By PAUL KRUGMAN
After Barack Obama’s defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: “Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race.”

He may well be right — but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.” 

This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out.

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.

What’s gone wrong?

According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.

But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security. 

It wasn’t. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?

Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme. 

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage. 

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it. 

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton. 

The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.

They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.
But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.

And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.


----------



## observor 69 (25 Apr 2008)

And also FYI:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

General Election: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread   

RCP Average 04/07 to 04/24 44.5% 46.1% 6.0% Obama +1.6%  

Rasmussen 04/21 - 04/24 45% 45% 10% Tie 
Gallup Tracking 04/19 - 04/23 45% 45% 4% Tie 
USA Today/Gallup 04/18 - 04/20 44% 47% --% Obama +3.0% 
Cook/RT Strategies 04/17 - 04/20 44% 45% 9% Obama +1.0% 
Newsweek 04/16 - 04/17 44% 48% 8% Obama +4.0% 
ABC/Wash Post 04/10 - 04/13 44% 49% 2% Obama +5.0% 
Reuters/Zogby 04/10 - 04/13 45% 45% --% Tie 
AP-Ipsos 04/07 - 04/09 45% 45% 3% Tie 

Edit: for copy error


----------



## time expired (25 Apr 2008)

It seems to me as if the Democrates have maneavered themselves
into a lose lose situation.The way I understand it no matter who
wins whats left of the remaining states, neither of the candidates
can win enough delegates to have the required majority.This will
lead to the special delegates having to pick the Presidential
candidate,this will lead to the supporters of one or the other 
candidate being very unhappy with the outcome and either not
voting in the election or in the worstcase scenario voting for the
Republicans.At least that the way I hope it goes.
                                          Regards


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2008)

From the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-top-ten-list-of-undis_b_98280.html



> Lanny Davis
> 
> *The Top Ten List of Undisputed Facts Showing Barack Obama's Weakness in the General Election Against John McCain*
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an interview by Margaret Wente of American political insider David Gergen: 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080426.GERGEN26/TPStory/?query=David+Gergen


> * INTERVIEW: DAVID GERGEN, EDITOR, BESTSELLING AUTHOR AND ADVISER TO PRESIDENTS*
> In the U.S., 'ordinary leadership will not be sufficient'
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> ...



There, is, for me at least, some food for thought there, especially re: the challenges facing the next president.


----------



## CougarKing (29 Apr 2008)

Did Obama do this-denounce Rev. Wright- too little, too late?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor



> *Obama says he's outraged by former pastor's comments *
> By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
> 52 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (29 Apr 2008)

The only thing I could suggest to Hillary.... get Bill to keep his mouth shut!
Barak and his friends are doing enough to screw things up on their own.


----------



## a_majoor (7 May 2008)

I agree we can't count out the Clintons until they're carried out, but a week is a long time in politics.......

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011274.html



> It's Obama?
> After North Carolina and Indiana, pretty much everyone says it's all over for Hillary. Allahpundit:
> 
> _...as of this moment, even if Florida and Michigan are counted RCP gives her a popular vote lead of just 3,000+ votes — a margin of less than one-tenth of one percent. And that’s assuming that the popular vote totals from the caucuses in Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada (which weren’t reported) aren’t counted at all. If you estimate for those states, he ends up with a lead of more than 100,000. Which means she has nothing left to commend her to the supers except an electabilty argument unsupported by a single key metric or even circumstantial evidence that Pastorgate has done Obama grievous damage at the polls. Are they going to take the nomination from the first serious black candidate for president without any compelling data to hang their decision on? Not a chance. It’s over. Let’s move on._
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (8 May 2008)

More fun for you all at Obama and Clinton's expense:  :rofl:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008...sults.aspx?GT1=38001



> *Obama Doomsday Scenario Contest Results!*
> Yesterday, Trailhead invited readers to imagine what would have to happen for Barack Obama to lose the Democratic nomination. And boy did you respond. You, dear readers, are a motley assortment of creative and disturbed geniuses.
> 
> Scenarios tended to fall into a few categories: embarrassing revelations, major screw-ups, Clinton ex machinas, and unfortunate occurrences. Others involved Obama turning out to be someone—or something—other than himself, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (“note that you never see the Rev. & Obama in the same place!”), “the smoke monster from Lost,” Dennis Kucinich in disguise, and John McCain’s illegitimate black child. Several other scenarios involved zombie attacks and alien invasions. Yet another described a heinous Aristocrats-like stage performance by the Obama family.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 May 2008)

Gas prices continue to go up and voters tend to vote pocket book issues.Congress has resisted efforts to expand domestic exploration for not ready for prime time alternative energy.Obama,Clinton and McCain are all against domestic drilling,nuclear power and more refineries which is the only path to lowering gas prices.Coal liquification would be an alternative to drilling but they dont want to do that either.Pressure on Congress to create more oil supply will drive this election and may sweep the dem's out of power if they dont bend to the will of the voters. A windfall profits tax on the oil companies was tried and ended up reducing oil supplies and was eventually abandoned.


----------



## TCBF (10 May 2008)

- Counting their ecological 'No Drilling" zones and the capacity of modern extraction methods applied to old wells, the USA has a lot of 'strategic' oil left.

- Then, there is oil shale: Of the estimated 2.6 trillion bbls of oil shale on earth, 2 trillion bbls is in the US of A.

- Conclusion: What oil shortage?


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2008)

The real problem is that Middle Eastern oil can be pumped from the ground for about $5/bbl, so alternative sources of oil will never be competitive until _that_ source dries up. Even if there was an infinite source of sweet crude in space, there would be no economic incentive to tap it since the Saudis etc. could always undercut your production.

If political or economic factors take that source of oil out of play, then these alternative sources will become economical to exploit. (Not the physical oil might still be there, it just has to become inaccessible.


----------



## TCBF (11 May 2008)

- Right.  This is all smoke and mirrors to use up everybody else's cheap oil FIRST.  Then the USA (and probably us as well) become the worlds blue-eyed sheikhs.


----------



## CougarKing (12 May 2008)

The Nader factor returns in the form of this guy: Bob Barr?  :

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008...who-is-bob-barr.aspx



> *Who Is Bob Barr?*
> 
> Former Georgia congressman and Clinton impeacher-in-chief Bob Barr announced today that he will be seeking the presidency as a candidate of the Libertarian Party. The first name that pops to mind is Ralph Nader. Republicans fear a repeat of 2000, with Barr siphoning votes from John McCain (although it’s also possible he’d sabotage Obama). Others wonder how Barr’s candidacy will play with Ron Paul supporters.
> 
> ...



And Ron Paul is just living in denial!!!!  :rofl:


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 May 2008)

Obama is the most liberal Senator in the Senate and his statements seem to confirm his love affair with socialism and perhaps communism.In a recent interview he expresses admiration for the kibbutz for its community lifestyle.As the campaign progresses Obama will have to reveal more of his views which should turn off older voters,but wont affect his black support and youth support as they are voting on identity rather than substance.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05...ionism_and_hamas.php


----------



## CougarKing (14 May 2008)

Just a couple of updates: Former presidential candidate and Senator John Edwards endorses Barack Obama, which I think may lead to him to eventually become Obama's VP candidate if Clinton does not throw her lot with Obama if she loses the nomination at the convention. However, Clinton won West Virginia with a wide margin, so she is still in the race. 



> May 14, 2008
> Edwards to endorse Obama
> Posted: 05:08 PM ET
> (CNN) — CNN's Mike Roselli and Suzanne Malveaux have confirmed that former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama at a Michigan campaign event about an hour from now.
> ...



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/



> McCain, Obama offer Clinton congratulations
> Posted: 09:50 PM ET
> (CNN) — A senior McCain adviser tells CNN's Dana Bash the presumptive Republican nominee called Hillary Clinton to congratulate her on her primary win in West Virginia.
> 
> ...


----------



## Yrys (19 May 2008)

Byrd, former member of KKK, endorses Obama for president


If wikipedia is to be believe, it's different from his point of view of 1945 :

"Byrd commented on the 1945 controversy about racially integrating the military. Byrd, when he was 28 years old, wrote to segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo, of Mississippi, vowing never to serve in such a military:

    Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.[5]

He had earlier written "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side".[6][7]"


----------



## a_majoor (20 May 2008)

If the Republicans want to maintain the Administration and make any gains (or at least hold the line) in the Congress, they need to do more than hope the Democrats self destruct in the nomination race. VDH has some ideas:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-problem-is-not-conservatism-but-conservatives-who-arent-conservative/



> May 16th, 2008 4:01 pm
> 
> *The Problem is not conservatism, but conservatives who aren’t conservative*
> 
> ...


----------



## Richie (23 May 2008)

*Obama is really a loose cannon when it comes to foreign policy; this guy's definitely out of his league.*  

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203016_pf.html">Link To Washington Post Article</a>

Quote from article:

"Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Should the president ever meet with enemies?"


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 May 2008)

Under certain circumstances meeting with an enemy might become necessary. With Obama though he may actually view those countries we now regard as enemies as friends. He has had very friendly contacts with persons who are definitely pro-Islamist if not actually terrorists.In Chicago he actually worked for Bill Ayres who himself as a domestic terrorist and helped Obama politically and socially with introductions with islamists and others.Probably wouldnt raise an eyebrow for a Senator but for one who wants to become President wont cut it with the great unwashed in flyover country.Obama has tried to distance himself from Professor Rashid Khalidi who the Obama's were friendly with on a social basis and actually helped funnel money to Khalidi's anti-israel foundation. I have said from the outset that Obama is a marxist in philosophy if nothing else.Recent calls from democrats to nationalize segments of our economy like oil and healthcare is just a start.With Obama in the White House and democrats running the house and senate Canada or Australia may actually look good.Personally though I dont think Obama is electable,but we have 6 fun months ahead of us and quite possibly Hillary might yet get the nomination.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=57231


----------



## Richie (24 May 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> With Obama in the White House and democrats running the house and senate Canada or Australia may actually look good.



Uh yeah, actually Canada is quite a livable country. We even have sidewalks now!  

I agree with you about Sen. Obama's political leanings and I don't think he's been entirely frank about them during the Democratic campaign. There are a lot of things that he hasn't been upfront about, starting back with Rev. Wright. The man just doesn't seem trustworthy to me (I know, I know, what politician does...)

Have a good Memorial Day Weekend!  :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (26 May 2008)

I suspect part of the difficulty for the Republicans is they seem unable to articulate what they really stand for. "Compassionate Conservatism" and "Big Government Conservatism" are internally inconsistent formulations, to say the least. How much (if any) of this sort of thinking preveils in the upper echelons of the Republican party is open to question:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150049025115903.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



> *The Death of Conservatism Is Greatly Exaggerated*
> By FRED D. THOMPSON
> May 23, 2008; Page A13
> 
> ...


----------



## Richie (26 May 2008)

If the GOP is having a hard time defining itself, I think a lot of the problem is the ongoing internal party debate between social conservatives and libertarians. The rise of the religious right over the last twenty five years has changed the Republican Party. The GOP of today is _not_ the GOP of the Goldwater era. The religious right has its own agenda and has been steadily gaining in power within the Republican ranks, this has resulted in policies such as faith based initiatives which blur the line between Church and State. This is something new for the Republicans and until they settle this internal debate between activist social conservatives and true libertarian conservatives, their party platform will not be as clear cut as it should be going into a presidential election.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 May 2008)

There has been a tug of war of sorts between conservatives and the so called moderate wings of the party.Bush obviously hasnt been a conservative with his big domestic spending programs.McCain except for his national defense stance is closer to the liberal democrats than he is to the conservatives of his own party.With McCain leading the GOP he is pulling the party to the left which is why the GOP is having a crisis and explains why disaffected democrats dont have a hard time voting for McCain. Its going to be an interesting election with McCain trying to win without conservative's and Obama trying to win without the working man.


----------



## CougarKing (26 May 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> Should the president ever meet with enemies?"



Well Nixon met with Mao when China was still pretty much one of the United States' enemies during the Cold War, although the US back then was only taking advantage of the huge schism that developed between Moscow and Beijing over who led the Communist world; China back then mainly decided to ally with the US since they both viewed the USSR as a greater threat than each other. While W. Bush himself did not ever meet with the heads of state of any of America's current enemies, there have been lower-level State Dept. talks with both Libya and North Korea that eventually led the former to open up to the world when Qaddafi had previously isolated that country and the latter to supposedly come clean about its nuclear program, partially through the 6-party talks. My point is that Democratic administrations do not have the monopoly of meeting with their enemies, even though the most recent meeting between a Democratic figure and an enemy occurred when former Pres. Carter met with Hamas; IIRC, he even met with Fidel Castro not too long ago as well, although in both cases he was not acting as an official representative of the US government.

Regardless, whichever party LOSES this coming US election will inevitably have a civil war within their own ranks, as the below article states:

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24794971/



> *Todd: Civil war waiting for losing '08 party?
> What happens to the Dems, Republicans should their candidates lose in '08*
> By Chuck Todd
> Political Director
> ...


----------



## Richie (26 May 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Well Nixon met with Mao when China was still pretty much one of the United States' enemies during the Cold War,...



True, but as Krauthammer states in his WP article, that meeting occurred only _after_ the Americans had obtained certain preconditions leading up to "Nixon in China". Summits never decide anything, they just put the stamp of approval on what has been hammered out by the diplomats and bureaucrats from both sides. 
Obama seems to think that he can just waltz on over to Iran, North Korea et al and solve all of the "misunderstandings" between these regimes and the USA. As I said, Obama is out of his league when it comes to foreign affairs and I have no doubt that the folks in the State Department are shuddering at the thought of his winning the White House.

On a different note, I definitely agree with you about the aftermath of this election: whichever party loses will have some nasty house cleaning to do!


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 May 2008)

Jimmy Carter was out of his depth as well. Recently he made comments revealing the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal and suggested that the US should give nuclear fuel to Iran. For a guy thats supposed to be a chritian he sure is anti-Israel and quite cozy with terrorists[PLO/Hamas] and their patron Iran.


----------



## Richie (27 May 2008)

Aren't there laws in place that would prohibit a former President from divulging state secrets or information that he obtained while in office?

Perhaps Washington is using Carter as an informal go-between to see what Hamas is up to and by extension what Iran and Syria are up to in regards to Israel. 

As far as the current crop of Presidential candidates goes (assuming Obama gets the Democratic ticket) McCain would be a far better choice in my view both because he has a better understanding of foreign relations and also because Democratic Presidents have usually been protectionist and that would be bad for Canada's export based economy. A Republican win would be best for both our nations.


----------



## Kalatzi (27 May 2008)

Jimmy Carter was out of his depth as well. Recently he made comments revealing the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal and suggested that the US should give nuclear fuel to Iran. For a guy thats supposed to be a chritian he sure is anti-Israel and quite cozy with terrorists[PLO/Hamas] and their patron Iran.

Maybe He's kinda like Lawrence of Arabia, someone tried to help the particpants see the situation as something other than a zero-sum game. Hmm, Fomer  USA CINC, seems to have some experience. 

Seems kinda Christian to me.


----------



## muskrat89 (27 May 2008)

Seems Obama was a little confused...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/recollection-of-obama-familys-service-missing-key-details/



> Barack Obama is getting called out again for his knowledge of history, including his own family’s, after declaring to veterans on Memorial Day that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II.
> 
> Two problems with the tale: Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army, and Obama’s American mother was an only child.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (3 Jun 2008)

Obama effectively clinches the nomination. Now will this mean that Hillary Clinton will finally shut her mouth?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp



> *AP tally: Obama effectively clinches nomination *
> By DAVID ESPO and STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writers
> 1 minute ago
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jun 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Obama effectively clinches the nomination. Now will this mean that Hillary Clinton will finally shut her mouth?



Should she?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jun 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Should she?



Not if she's picked as his running mate for VP


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2008)

Oooh the paiinn.


----------



## CougarKing (4 Jun 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Oooh the paiinn.


 :rofl:

Anyways...now here's a source which confirms that OBAMA did win the nomination, not just an unofficial tally as above. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_...s0IPHZC_Mdh24cA



> By TOM RAUM and NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writers
> 10 minutes ago
> 
> ST. PAUL, Minn. - Cheered by a roaring crowd, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois laid claim to the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday night, taking a historic step toward his once-improbable goal of becoming the nation's first black president. Hillary Rodham Clinton maneuvered for the vice presidential spot on his fall ticket without conceding her own defeat.
> ...


----------



## geo (4 Jun 2008)

Obama should keep his conversations with Hillary civil... she did pick up more of the popular vote than he did... just didn't translate into delegates.  When the US goes to the urns this fall, he/she will want all democrats shooting in one direction VS a divided caucus.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> ... she did pick up more of the popular vote than he did...



Only if you use a particularly _creative_ branch of arithmetic - one which adds convenient, albeit imaginary numbers and then subtracts the inconvenient results from states that select delegates by caucus rather than election.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Jun 2008)

Speaking of creative arithmetic, both Obama and Clinton are fairly junior senators without a substantial record of legislative achievement. In her political calculations, it might be to her advantage to sit this one out, thus increasing McCain's chances. As he is likely to be a one term president, and Obama will be discredited, especially if the contest is not close, she could then win the nomination and perhaps the election in 2012.

I saw a note by someone, I can't recall where, that if she was to be nominated and then win this year's election, either a Bush or a Clinton would have been president for six or possibly seven elections in a row.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2008)

Clinton is an interesting character:

•	First, of course, she isn’t a single character, she comes as part of _*Billary*_ – one of the most entertaining political phenomena in American political history;

•	Second, she comes with *baggage* – _Whitewater_ and sundry political scandals and _”stand by your man”_, and, and, and ...

•	Third, while she has a large and loyal following she also has the highest _*negatives*_ of all the candidates – people love her or, in about the same, maybe even higher numbers, hate her;

•	Fourth, her resumé is, despite the propaganda, spotty. How much useful policy experience does the _’first lady’_, even that particular first lady, garner?  

We tend to forget that Bill Clinton was just as divisive in the ‘90s as George W. Bush is today. Putting Hillary on the ‘ticket’ might do more than anything else to unite the *Republicans* – even those who don’t like John McCain (and there are many on the _religious right_) will rally behind him rather than risk having Clinton, either Clinton, “a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

That being said, she is a formidable campaigner with a great ‘machine.’ If there were sixty states she would likely be the nominee.

On balance and because I, for reasons related to Canada’s best interests, want John McCain to win, I hope Obama puts her on the ticket but I suspect he’s smart enough not to do that.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Jun 2008)

I agree with your preference, Edward.

Yesterday was my wife's birthday. Our dog got her a card with a drawing of Hillary sitting behind the desk in the oval office on the front. On the inside the card said "See, there are worse things that could happen than getting old. Happy Birthday"


----------



## observor 69 (4 Jun 2008)

I am saddened by the nasty, mean and tasteless statements Hilary has made during her campaign. 
 My admiration for Bill as an extremely smart individual and politican has dropped after his dumb and thoughtless comments.
Overall the campaign team Hilary built has time after time failed to provide her with winning guidance.
She is increasingly making Bill and herself a Democratic problem versus an assest.


----------



## CougarKing (4 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> On balance and because I, for reasons related to Canada’s best interests, want John McCain to win, I hope Obama puts her on the ticket but I suspect he’s smart enough not to do that.




We shall see. Anyways, it appears that she just quit the race for the Presidency, according to the article below, although she probably will try to scare off everyone else who tries to buck for the VP spot.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/democrats.wednesday/index.html



> *Clinton to suspend campaign, bucking for VP bid?*
> Story Highlights
> NEW: Clinton will suspend presidential campaign Friday, sources say
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (4 Jun 2008)

I always liked McCain.  I was sad when he lost to Dubya in 2000.

Mr. McCain has a much better record of bi-partisanship than Mr. Obama, which is what the US needs at this time.


----------



## Bane (5 Jun 2008)

I find it very interesting that both parties have chosen candidates that have have significant issues with their respective party 'bases'.  This should be an interesting one to watch indeed. I happen to think Obama will win, with room to spare, though I would have to agree with Mr. Campbell that a McCain win holds certain positives for Canada, it just seems that the political winds are blowing against him.  That said, the election is still far away much can, and no doubt will, happen.  Either way, it will be nice to get away from the Bush administration; its brand (whether deserving or not) is old and disliked and some fresh air from McCain or Obama will be welcomed.


----------



## larry Strong (5 Jun 2008)

He's got to make it till November first. I can easily see some idiot south of the border taking a shot at him, now that he is officially the Democrat candidate.


----------



## geo (5 Jun 2008)

Ummm... why bother taking a shot at him when, in all likelyhood, he's going to shoot himself in the foot repeatedly over the next couple (many) months ???


----------



## larry Strong (5 Jun 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm... why bother taking a shot at him when, in all likelyhood, he's going to shoot himself in the foot repeatedly over the next couple (many) months ???



Because he's an African/American and that won't sit well with segments of the American population.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2008)

_Anyone_ aspiring to the highest office in the world is bound to attract negative attention from someone; and often for reasons that make no sense to the rest of us. The man who shot President Reagan did it to attract the attention of a movie star after all.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2008)

I wonder how well Senator Obama will be able to paper over the cracks in the Democratic Party?

http://www.josephlavoie.com/?p=32



> *Angry Clinton supporters launch website supporting McCain*
> by Joseph
> 
> Watching coverage of the final primaries this week on CNN, you couldn’t avoid pundits speculating the extent to which Clinton’s supporters would act out against Obama. Well, they’ve started their campaign - and they’ve started it online: http://hcsfjm.com/. It’s an awkward url — an acronym for “Hillary Clinton Supporters For John McCain,” and the design grotesque, but they’ve managed to get attention.
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jun 2008)

I had a very long talk with an American in a bar in Manhattan during Fleet Week last month on the subject of Obama as a suitable candidate.  The Yank was of the firm opinion that Obama does not bring anything to the table as a possible President.  He felt that he does not have a grip or intelligent answer to many issues he will need to face in this position.  The electoral college system that they use does not always pick the most suitable or popular candidate.  Hillary he said was taking all the big states that have the largest amounts of voters, but Obama was winning with the smaller states that in a general election will not cut it against McCain.

Obama he said "has virtually come out of nowhere with little or no experience in the political arena, he "pretends" to be of the common people when it suits him, but in reality he does come from a very privileged background."  

He also had an issue with Obama's local church in Chicago.  All of a sudden after 20 years as a parishioner he has trouble with what is being shouted from the pulpit??  Was he asleep during the sermons prior to that??

Also he felt that as neighbours, we here in Canada might not do as well as we could with another person in charge.  This man was not rabid about his objections to Obama and did put his points forth in an objective, logical manner.  I apologise for being as vague as I have, but quite a bit of ground was covered, plus beers and time has past since the conversation.

Whenever I did speak with Yanks in Florida, New York or Virginia I did come across quite a bit of resistance to the present administration but no real sense of support for any one candidate from any party in particular.  I honestly was surprised by this as I expected to hear noise about whomever the person I spoke with was supporting.  Maybe it it too far away from the big day for the average Joe to get all excited.


----------



## TCBF (5 Jun 2008)

- The pathological sense of entitlement of the Clintons is gigantic.  Billary will no doubt DEMAND the vice-presidency. Obama, however, no doubt realizes that having Billary one bullet away from the presidency might drive his life insurance rates through the roof.

- Both Obama and McCain will need 'Bubbas' as running mates.  Obama to bring back the Democrats in Dixie, and McCain to re-assure the 'Real Right' that he is not a pinko.

- Once Billary realizes this, she will run as an independant.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Once Billary realizes this, she will run as an independant.



Umm...she did say that she would endorse Obama this Saturday to help unite the party, though I really doubt that he will pick her since he did say that he would take his time in making his choice. Names like Senator James Webb did come up among possible VP choices.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jun 2008)

She did not say she would endorse Obama, the media assumes/hopes that is what she will do. Hillary doesnt want Obama to win because she wants another shot at the White House. I think she will bide her time until the convention in the hope that Obama stumbles badly.Today he backed off his statements he made to a Jewish group after Hamas and others protested.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/05/oba...ks_on_jerusalem.html


----------



## CougarKing (7 Jun 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> She did not say she would endorse Obama, the media assumes/hopes that is what she will do.



Apparently, this was not an assumption at all; her PR people probably told all the major networks ahead of time.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/07/clinton.unity/index.html



> *Clinton endorses Obama, calls for party unity
> Story Highlights
> NEW: Sen. Obama: "I am thrilled and honored to have Sen. Clinton's support"
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2008)

> Democratic voters appear to like an Obama-Clinton ticket. A CNN poll released Friday suggested that nearly half of Democrats, 54 percent, would support a joint ticket, but 43 percent would oppose it. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.



Somebody else reading that might come to the conclusion that the Democrats "are deeply divided".  Half of them support a course of action.  Half of them vehemently oppose it.

Funny things facts.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2008)

More arguments for the Democrats to tear each other apart on. David Frum has a similar piece in the National Post. If Ann Coulter is correct, Hillary Clinton and her supporters can actually make a case at the convention (but not in the general election):

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/06/04/obama_was_selected,_not_elected?page=full&comments=true



> *Obama Was Selected, Not Elected*
> By Ann Coulter
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2008)

Mark Styen on Senator Obama. Despite the wall to wall coverage in the MSM and the vast money raising machine (and outspending the Clinton machine by a very considerable margin), Senator Obama really only squeaked past the post to victory. This makes me wonder how credible a candidate he really is in the general election? 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzUyM2EzMjVmNDAxNzVjZTYyYzE5YzI1OWJjZTc0OGM=#more



> *Obama, Political Viagra*
> Now is when you get worried.
> 
> By Mark Steyn
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jun 2008)

Events between now and November will shape the decision of the voters. Gas prices continue to escalate and the pressure on Congress to act will mount. If the democrat position doesnt change then this issue alone could sweep them from power. If they get on the domestic drilling/oil shale band wagon they would take this issue off the table and help their cause. Iraq is looking more like a victory every day and the democrats who were against the war may be on the wrong end of this issue.Obama's economic policy is going to be a legitimate issue as well.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief


----------



## geo (10 Jun 2008)

From a personal perspective, I believe Sen Clinton is keeping her cards close to her chest.
As the front runner (but still unconfirmed Dem Pres Candidate), Sen Obama and Sen McCain have started to joust.  Should Obama $crew the pooch between now and National convention time.... Sen Billary may yet become the Dem Pres candidate.


----------



## squealiox (11 Jun 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More arguments for the Democrats to tear each other apart on. David Frum has a similar piece in the National Post. If *Ann Coulter *   is correct, Hillary Clinton and her supporters can actually make a case at the convention (but not in the general election):
> 
> http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/06/04/obama_was_selected,_not_elected?page=full&comments=true



A word to the wise.
you might want to be careful about citing that particular person in a forum like this.
she has some rather "interesting" opinions about some of our nation's fallen soldiers. rather reminiscent of toobis, in fact.
here's a link to what she had to say about some troops killed on UN duty in Lebanon in july 2006, including one of our own:
http://www.spockosbrain.com/MelanieMorganAnnCoulterOfficerVicjokingaboutdeadUNpeacekeepers07272006H08M06.wma
(WARNING: this is stomach turning stuff. don't click on it if you're worried about your blood pressure.)


----------



## CougarKing (15 Jun 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Jimmy Carter brought us Op Eagle Claw too.
> Obama is without question closer in ideology to the communists in Beijing than to Ottawa or London. I dont say that idly.Read his position papers on his own web site. He even states that he would bring war crimes charges against Bush administration officials as well as massive new taxes [income redistribution]. After the convention I expect his proposed policies will come under scrutiny by October. I just dont think the country is ready for the most liberal Senator in the Senate.



Comparing Democrats to commies is an old, flawed argument that I am getting tired of considering that Democrats from earlier periods such as Truman and JFK and LBJ sought to contain the spread of Communism during the first two decades of the Cold War; we have Truman with his policy of "containment" formulated just before the Korean War, then JFK with his actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the unfortunately failed Bay of Pigs invasion and then LBJ during the Vietnam years. Advocating more government intervention into the economy to help the lower classes- especially the poor and the homeless, etc.- is not akin to communism where private ownership is totally suspended or even full-blown socialism where the state has complete control of every facet of production; even during the Clinton or Carter years, it was still business as usual and you didn't see the private sectors nationalised. And furthermore, you don't see Democrats shutting down the stock market. 

And as for your remarks on Carter, I remember hearing from a documentary that during the Iran hostage crisis, he spent his time at the White House keeping vigil for constant updates to the hostages' situation there, as opposed to campaigning in the final months before he had to stand for reelection, which was where he was supposed to be considering that implies he considered the hostages' lives more important than his reelection. To blame the failure of Operation Eagle Claw wholly upon him is not justified, since I assume he would be only involved in the approval of the plan and the failure of its execution or any flaws in the plan should be blamed on his subordinates. 

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml

Going back to Obama, even he does not have typical Democratic policies, since he also plans to implement a reduction of the Capital Gains and dividends tax, IIRC. Therefore he is not totally for raising taxes as some opponents argue. 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

One point that I will concede to you is the fact that Democrats usually are more wary of international trade and often put up trade barriers, which will be a negative due to the volume of Canada's trade with the US. But the fact that they will put up higher tariffs on trade shows how dependent they are on tariffs as an another, alternate source of revenue/taxes since they would rather not raise taxes on US wage-earners; still this makes moot the argument that they will let foreign enemies threaten foreign trade, since they need that foreign trade so they could raise tariffs on it. 

McCain will be better for Canada in this respect, though the auto workers' unions in Ohio, and Michigan, IIRC, would probably want to vote Democrat to put more trade barriers back into place to help protect their jobs, most probably. But isn't there also a similar situation happening to auto workers in Ontario where they are worried about their jobs and striking or making a current mass protest/rally right now since one of the GM/Ford plants closed due to the lack of demand for gas-guzzling vehicles such as trucks and SUVs?

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=586148


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2008)

Well Cougardaddy like I have stated before todays democrats are a different animal than those of yesteryear.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Jun 2008)

I don't agree, because if they were that different, they wouldn't be getting that much support from older Democrats like Sen. Ted Kennedy, who is one of the last links to "Camelot".

Anyways, McCain has yet another good idea: cutting the tax on foreign ethanol imports. This should go hand in hand with his proposed Federal Gas tax suspension, IIRC.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Jun 2008)

An interesting article which shows a unique, though conflicted perspective of Black Republicans in the United States:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080614/ap_on_el_pr/black_conservatives_obama



> *Black conservatives conflicted on Obama campaign *
> By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press Writer
> Sat Jun 14, 7:18 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jun 2008)

And amongst the enlightened elite gender and race don't matter......

Except that the Blacks are lining up behind Obama while Whites, Jews and Hispanics are running away.   Women are lining up behind Hillary while men look to Obama or McCain.

And Party and Ideology bedammed.

And yes, I am talking trends and tendencies and not absolutes - but 95% of Blacks supporting Obama in some of his primaries comes pretty close to absolute.  Hillary only manages to draw 50 to 70% of women.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Jun 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And yes, I am talking trends and tendencies and not absolutes - but 95% of Blacks supporting Obama in some of his primaries comes pretty close to absolute.  Hillary only manages to draw 50 to 70% of women.



Speaking of women, why doesn't McCain choose Condi Rice as a VP? She could take some of Hillary Clinton's and Obama's voters who vote by identity politics.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2008)

It may be opportune for we Canadians to remind ourselves of how our American neighbours elect their president and why there is so much attention to red states (Republicans) and blue states (Democrats) (opposite to our colour scheme where red = Liberal and blue = Tory).

This _Wikipedia_ article is pretty clear and accurate. For those who resolutely abhor _Wikipedia_ here is the *official* word from the National Archives and Records Administration - maybe not quite as clear, but they have a neat tool here.

Another useful resource is CNN's Electoral College Map that they promise to update on a regular basis based on current polling data.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Jun 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And amongst the enlightened elite gender and race don't matter......
> 
> Except that the Blacks are lining up behind Obama while Whites, Jews and Hispanics are running away.   Women are lining up behind Hillary while men look to Obama or McCain.
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html?ei=5087&em=&en=157adb17eb6d3493&ex=1213761600&pagewanted=print

June 15, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Angry Clinton Women ♥ McCain? 
By FRANK RICH
TEN years ago John McCain had to apologize for regaling a Republican audience with a crude sexual joke about Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno. Last year he had to explain why he didn’t so much as flinch when a supporter asked him on camera, “How do we beat the bitch?” But these days Mr. McCain just loves the women.

In his televised address on Barack Obama’s victory night of June 3, he dismissed Mr. Obama in a single patronizing line but devoted four fulsome sentences to praising Mrs. Clinton for “inspiring millions of women.” The McCain Web site is showcasing a new blogger who crooned of the “genuine affection” for Mrs. Clinton “here at McCain HQ” after she lost. One of the few visible women in the McCain campaign hierarchy, Carly Fiorina, has declared herself “enormously proud” of Mrs. Clinton and is barnstorming to win over Democratic women to her guy’s cause.

How heartwarming. You’d never guess that Mr. McCain is a fierce foe of abortion rights or that he voted to terminate the federal family-planning program that provides breast-cancer screenings. You’d never know that his new campaign blogger, recruited from The Weekly Standard, had shown his genuine affection for Mrs. Clinton earlier this year by portraying her as a liar and whiner and by piling on with a locker-room jeer after she’d been called a monster. “Tell us something we don’t know,” he wrote. 

But while the McCain campaign apparently believes that women are easy marks for its latent feminist cross-dressing, a reality check suggests that most women can instantly identify any man who’s hitting on them for selfish ends. New polls show Mr. Obama opening up a huge lead among female voters — beating Mr. McCain by 13 percentage points in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls and by 19 points in the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey. 

How huge is a 13- to 19-percentage-point lead? John Kerry won women by only 3 points, Al Gore by 11. 

The real question is how Mr. McCain and his press enablers could seriously assert that he will pick up disaffected female voters in the aftermath of the brutal Obama-Clinton nomination battle. Even among Democrats, Mr. Obama lost only the oldest female voters to Mrs. Clinton. 

But as we know from our Groundhog Days of 2008, a fictional campaign narrative, once set in the concrete of Beltway bloviation, must be recited incessantly, especially on cable television, no matter what facts stand in the way. Only an earthquake — the Iowa results, for instance — could shatter such previously immutable story lines as the Clinton campaign’s invincibility and the innate hostility of white voters to a black candidate.

Our new bogus narrative rose from the ashes of Mrs. Clinton’s concession to Mr. Obama, amid the raucous debate over what role misogyny played in her defeat. A few female Clinton supporters — or so they identified themselves — appeared on YouTube and Fox News to say they were so infuriated by sexism that they would vote for Mr. McCain.

Now, there’s no question that men played a big role in Mrs. Clinton’s narrow loss, starting with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. And the evidence of misogyny in the press and elsewhere is irrefutable, even if it was not the determinative factor in the race. But the notion that all female Clinton supporters became “angry white women” once their candidate lost — to the hysterical extreme where even lifelong Democrats would desert their own party en masse — is itself a sexist stereotype. That’s why some of the same talking heads and Republican operatives who gleefully insulted Mrs. Clinton are now peddling this fable on such flimsy anecdotal evidence.

The fictional scenario of mobs of crazed women defecting to Mr. McCain is just one subplot of the master narrative that has consumed our politics for months. The larger plot has it that the Democratic Party is hopelessly divided, and that only a ticket containing Mrs. Clinton in either slot could retain the loyalty of white male bowlers and other constituencies who tended to prefer her to Mr. Obama in the primaries.

This is reality turned upside down. It’s the Democrats who are largely united and the Republicans who are at one another’s throats.

Yet the myth of Democratic disarray is so pervasive that when “NBC Nightly News” and The Wall Street Journal presented their new poll results last week (Obama, 47 percent; McCain, 41 percent) they ignored their own survey’s findings to stick to the clichéd script. Both news organizations (and NBC’s sibling, MSNBC) dwelled darkly on Mr. Obama’s “problems with two key groups” (as NBC put it): white men, where he is behind 20 percentage points to Mr. McCain, and white suburban women, where he is behind 6 points. 

Since that poll gives Mr. Obama not just a 19-point lead among all women but also a 7-point lead among white women, a 6-point deficit in one sliver of the female pie is hardly a heart-stopper. Nor is Mr. Obama’s showing among white men shocking news. No Democratic presidential candidate, including Bill Clinton, has won a majority of that declining demographic since 1964. Mr. Kerry lost white men by 25 points, and Mr. Gore did by 24 points (even as he won the popular vote). 

“NBC Nightly News” was so focused on these supposedly devastating Obama shortfalls that there was no mention that the Democrat beat Mr. McCain (and outperformed Mr. Kerry) in every other group that had been in doubt: independents, Catholics, blue-collar workers and Hispanics. Indeed, the evidence that pro-Clinton Hispanics are flocking to Mr. McCain is as nonexistent as the evidence of a female stampede. Mr. Obama swamps Mr. McCain by 62 percent to 28 percent — a disastrous G.O.P. setback, given that President Bush took 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, according to exit polls. No wonder the McCain campaign no longer lists its candidate’s home state of Arizona as safe this fall.

There are many ways that Mr. Obama can lose this election. But his 6-percentage-point lead in the Journal-NBC poll is higher than Mr. Bush’s biggest lead (4 points) over Mr. Kerry at any point in that same poll in 2004. So far, despite all the chatter to the contrary, Mr. Obama is not only holding on to Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic constituencies but expanding others (like African-Americans). The same cannot be said of Mr. McCain and the G.O.P. base.

That story is minimized or ignored in part because an unshakable McCain fan club lingers in some press quarters and in part because it’s an embarrassing refutation of the Democrats-in-meltdown narrative that so many have invested in. Understating the splintering of the Republican base also keeps hope alive for a tight race. As the Clinton-Obama marathon proved conclusively, a photo finish is essential to the dramatic and Nielsen imperatives of 24/7 television coverage.

The conservative hostility toward McCain heralded by the early attacks of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and James Dobson is proliferating. Bay Buchanan, the party activist who endorsed Mitt Romney, wrote this month that Mr. McCain is “incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls” and “has a personality that is best kept under wraps.” When Mr. McCain ditched the preachers John Hagee and Rod Parsley after learning that their endorsements antagonized Catholics, Muslims and Jews, he ended up getting a whole new flock of evangelical Christians furious at him too. 

The revolt is not limited to the usual cranky right-wing suspects. The antiwar acolytes of Ron Paul are planning a large rally for convention week in Minneapolis. The conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec has endorsed Mr. Obama, as have both the economic adviser to Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” Lawrence Hunter, and the neocon historian Francis Fukuyama. Rupert Murdoch is publicly flirting with the Democrat as well. Even Dick Cheney emerged from his bunker this month to gratuitously dismiss Mr. McCain’s gas-tax holiday proposal as “a false notion” before the National Press Club.

These are not anomalies. Last week The Hill reported that at least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Mr. McCain. Congressional Quarterly found that of the 62,800 donors who maxed out to Mr. Bush’s campaign in 2004, only about 5,000 (some 8 percent) have contributed to his putative successor. 

It was just this toxic stew of inadequate fund-raising and hostility from the base — along with incompetent management — that capsized the McCain campaign last summer. Now the management, at least, is said to be new and improved, but the press is still so distracted by the “divided Democrats” it has yet to uncover how that brilliant McCain team spent weeks choreographing the candidate’s slapstick collision with a green backdrop and self-immolating speech in prime time two weeks ago. 

The only figure in the McCain camp who has candidly acknowledged any glitches is his mother, the marvelous 96-year-old Roberta McCain. Back in January she said that she didn’t think her son had any support in the G.O.P. base and that those voters would only take him if “holding their nose.” 

The ludicrous idea that votes from Clinton supporters would somehow make up for McCain defectors is merely the latest fairy tale brought to you by those same Washington soothsayers who said Fred Thompson was the man to beat and that young people don’t turn up to vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2008)

John McCain has a chance to reunite the _Reagan Democrats_. It’s been 30 years since Ronald Reagan captured the whole country – including the large white working class _block_ that was, traditionally, firmly in the Democrat’s camp.

In the 2008 primaries those _Reagan Democrats_ (white middle class voters, again) voted, in large majorities, for Hillary Clinton. In 1992 and 1996 they appear to have abandoned the Republicans (George H.W. Bush – Kennbunkport, Yale and Washington - was hardly a neat ‘fit’ with laid off workers in rust belt states) in favour of a _good ol’ boy_. But, in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections they appear to have modestly favoured George W Bush over Al Gore and John Kerry or, perhaps, just stayed home.

Can McCain do it? Yes:

•	If he appeals to the traditional _Middle American_ virtues of patriotism and prudence. But he has to walk a fine line: reminding older, working class voters of his own sterling record of service and courage while leaving unsaid the question: do you want a Black Man in the White House; but

•	He also has to find a new, better campaign style. Obama is a great _stump speaker_, and he is telegenic. McCain is wooden, to be charitable. He must work the small rooms and church basements, where he shines and where Obama is a surprisingly weak performer; when he has to work a huge event he must make it _small_ by focusing on just a few people up on stage and allowing the rest to see and hear him in a small group setting.

Actually, _conservative_ hostility towards McCain may be neutralized by a concomitant degree of respect and support that will earn him from the independents.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jun 2008)

Perhaps all that is true Edward but without conservative support he cant win. However,the prospect of an Obama presidency may be frightening enough for them to hold their nose and pull the lever for McCain.


----------



## GAP (16 Jun 2008)

> He also has to find a new, better campaign style. Obama is a great stump speaker, and he is telegenic. McCain is wooden, to be charitable. He must work the small rooms and church basements, where he shines and where Obama is a surprisingly weak performer; when he has to work a huge event he must make it small by focusing on just a few people up on stage and allowing the rest to see and hear him in a small group setting.



He also needs to distance himself from "Bush" policies....he has been agreeable to maintaining a lot of the controversial actions that are presently creating so much distaste for Bush, and , while he may agree, he had better not say so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ are two highly partisan ‘takes’ on the forthcoming US election.

First, Lawrence Martin, another of the _Good Grey Globe_’s foaming at the mouth anti-Conservative columnists, gives us an anti-McCain and anti-Harper diatribe that, for all its obvious faults, does have some sound political logic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080616.wcomartin16/BNStory/specialComment


> John McCain should stay out of here
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



Then, military expert David Bercuson (University of Calgary) explains how an Obama presidency might help Harper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080616.wcobama16/BNStory/specialComment


> How an Obama presidency will play in Canada
> *He will not be a convenient stick to beat the Harper Tories over the head with *
> 
> DAVID BERCUSON
> ...



US elections matter for Canadians. Like it or not we *depend* upon the US for a huge share of our (relative) prosperity.

Personally, I would welcome cancelling the NAFTA IF it (cancellation) has no bearing on the pre-existing Canada/US FTA. Free trade with Mexico is problematic for the US and Canada because, like it or not, Mexico is not a 'first world' economy nor does it have 'first world' social and political systems. Beyond that, however, we - Canada and the USA - *need* to secure our external borders and, concomitantly, ease the controls on our _internal_ ones (including, for Canadians, our inter-provincial ones).


----------



## CougarKing (16 Jun 2008)

I guess no one took my question of Condi Rice as a possible McCain VP from earlier seriously. Thoughts?


----------



## GAP (16 Jun 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I guess no one took my question of Condi Rice as a possible McCain VP from earlier seriously. Thoughts?



If you plant you flag in the Republican camp, why would you flip over to the Democrats simply over color?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I guess no one took my question of Condi Rice as a possible McCain VP from earlier seriously. Thoughts?



According to what I'm reading/hearing, the VP candidate needs to bring some of those electoral votes I discussed a few posts back with him/her. This is why popular state governors/senators are regular choices. Harry Truman brought traditionally Republican Missouri to Roosevelt; Lyndon Johnson brought Texas to JFK; etc. Rice doesn't have a major state constituency - it's not clear that even Rice + the _Governator_ combined can deliver California.

Go to that CNN map I referenced earlier today and look at the swing states and you might find a likely candidate there.

I was surprised to read that black conservative Republican J.C. Watts is talking openly about supporting Obama. I’m not surprised that *any* black American might decide to vote for Obama – given the history of race in the USA it might be difficult for any black American not to vote for him. What surprises me is that such a well known Republican would say so in public - especially one who was, briefly, mooted as a potential VP candidate.

Here is an old article about some of McCain’s potential VP choices. 

I think:

•	Given his age, McCain needs to bring a really credible “heartbeat away from the presidency” candidate to the race – no more Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle types;

•	Given his age, McCain needs to bring an attractive, media savvy (relatively) *young* person to the race; and

•	Given the history of race in America, McCain doesn’t need a black candidate – Obama’s race is already divisive enough.

Regarding that last comment: I’m not an American, but I do spend quite a bit of time there and I do have a fair number of American acquaintances and I think I have _some_ understanding of he race issue . I was surprised, last winter, at the number of people who admitted, to me, that they did not think they would/could vote for a black candidate or did not think a black candidate could be elected – suggesting that they weren’t _racist_ but they know a bunch of folks who were. I was, therefore, not surprised when CNN raised race in some of their exit poll questions and also got a highly negative response.


----------



## CougarKing (16 Jun 2008)

Mr. Campbell,

Thank you for your long response.

Another problem for McCain could also be Ron Paul, who intends to be a thorn for the rest of the Republican Party by holding his own shadow convention of his million or so supporters, IIRC, when the GOP holds its convention in September.

Anyways, here is another article links which confirms that now even Al Gore has endorsed Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_el_pr/obama_g...yeyCNxPmrGQKWtOs0NUE



> *Gore endorses Obama and promises to help him *
> 
> By NEDRA PICKLER,
> Associated Press Writer
> ...


----------



## AlphaQup (16 Jun 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And amongst the enlightened elite gender and race don't matter......
> 
> *Except that the Blacks are lining up behind Obama while Whites, Jews and Hispanics are running away.   Women are lining up behind Hillary while men look to Obama or McCain.*
> And Party and Ideology bedammed.
> ...


How did he manage to beat Hillary if Jews, Hispanics and Whites were all running from him?  ???


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Jun 2008)

In any "small" election like a primary, organization and getting out the vote wins. Obama had the advantage of the youthful enthusiasts that also energized the JFK campaign. The Clintons made some very dumb decisions, which might not have cost them, oops her, the prize, but Obama got an early lead and the opposition was not able to catch up, even though Senator O is less than an attractive candidate in much of the blue blobs on the map, and that is much, much more than his skin colour.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jun 2008)

I agree Old Sweat Hillary lost the primaries because she underestimated Obama. Obama got alot of his early lead based on wins in caucus states which wont help in the general.Also some of Obama's vote was an anti-Hillary vote just as some of McCain's vote came from democrats in the early states who had crossed over. Obama is strong among blacks who I think are 12% of the population. He is going to need alot of white voters to win.McCain has to outdraw the democrats among the hispanic community.Dissatisfied dem's may help McCain but if he doesnt get the conservative vote its a toss up.

Map of black population.
http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Jun 2008)

Obama may be in trouble according to this article. If the campaign is writting off Ohio and Florida its not a good sign. I think they might lose Michigan and Pennsylvania as well. California should be solid for Obama but McCain puts the state in play. Alot can happen between now and the election and gas prices may be the democrats undoing with the democrat controlled Congress refusing to do anything of substance. This one issue could turn out the democrat majorities in Congress or if they are smart they will take the issue off the table by passing a real energy bill one that includes drilling,new oil refineries and nuclear power.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Jun/16/obama_camp_sees_possible_win_without_ohio__fla_.html

Barack Obama's campaign envisions a path to the presidency that could include Virginia, Georgia and several Rocky Mountain states, but not necessarily the pair of battlegrounds that decided the last two elections — Florida and Ohio.

In a private pitch late last week to donors and former supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe outlined several alternatives to reaching the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House that runs counter to the conventional wisdom of recent elections.

At a fundraiser held at a Washington brewery Friday, Plouffe told a largely young crowd that the electoral map would be fundamentally different from the one in 2004. Wins in Ohio and Florida would guarantee Obama the presidency if he holds onto the states won by Democrat John Kerry, Plouffe said, but those two battlegrounds aren't required for victory.

Florida, which has 27 electoral votes this year, gave the presidency to George W. Bush in the disputed election of 2000. Ohio, with its 20 electoral votes, ensured Bush of re-election in 2004 in his race against Kerry. Neither state was hospitable to Obama this year. Clinton handily won in Ohio and she prevailed in Florida although the national party had punished the state and the candidates didn't campaign there.

The presumed Democratic nominee's electoral math counts on holding onto the states Kerry won, among them Michigan (17 electoral votes), where Obama campaigns on Monday and Tuesday. Plouffe said most of the Kerry states should be reliable for Obama, but three currently look relatively competitive with Republican rival John McCain — Pennsylvania, Michigan and particularly New Hampshire.

Asked about his remarks, Plouffe said Ohio and Florida start out very competitive — but he stressed that they are not tougher than other swing states and said Obama will play "extremely hard" for both. But he said the strategy is not reliant on one or two states.

"You have a lot of ways to get to 270," Plouffe said. "Our goal is not to be reliant on one state on November 4th."

Plouffe has been pitching such a new approach to the electoral map in calls and meetings, according to several people who discussed the conversations on the condition of anonymity because they were meant to be private. Plouffe confirmed the descriptions in the interview.

Plouffe and his aides are weighing where to contest, and where chances are too slim to marshal a large effort. A win in Virginia (13 electoral votes) or Georgia (15 votes) could give Obama a shot if he, like Kerry, loses Ohio or Florida.

Plouffe also has been touting Obama's appeal in once Republican-leaning states where Democrats have made gains in recent gubernatorial and congressional races, such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota.

Obama's campaign has spent heavily on time and money in Virginia, where a Democratic presidential candidate hasn't won since 1964. In recent elections, however, high-profile Republicans have lost there. And in a sign of how serious Obama is taking the state, Plouffe dispatched to Virginia many aides who helped Obama stage his upset win in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.

The key, Plouffe told supporters, will be to register new black voters and new young voters in Virginia.

Likewise, Georgia has many unregistered black voters who could turn out in record numbers to support the first major-party nominee who is black, he argued. Plouffe said the campaign also will keep an eye on Mississippi and Louisiana as the race moves into the fall to see if new black voters could put them within reach.

In a telling bit of scheduling, Obama declared himself within reach of the nomination at the statehouse in Iowa, yet another state he hopes to put in play.

Plouffe is warning Democrats that McCain is an appealing candidate who has proved he can take votes from the middle before and could do so again. McCain won New Hampshire as a GOP candidate in 2000 and 2008, thanks in large part to the state's high number of independent voters.

Clinton won Michigan's renegade primary after the national party stripped the state of its delegates for moving its contest to January. Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. Clinton handily won the Pennsylvania primary in April, gaining strong support from white, working-class voters.

Plouffe argues that McCain squandered his opportunity to reach independent voters in the past three months.

McCain's aides acknowledge frustration among fellow Republicans for the slow-to-start campaign. Even though McCain clinched his party's nomination in early March, his supporters didn't name operatives to run the must-win states, let alone open offices in key states. While Democrats hammered each other in their marathon contest, McCain left aides from his primary states sitting still, waiting for orders. It took more than two months for McCain's national headquarters to approve budgets for the battleground states.

The task, Plouffe said, is to define McCain as tied to Bush on the economy, the war and abortion rights. He said the campaign will go on offense against McCain, besides playing aggressive defense when criticized.

That promise was also given by Obama, who said Friday night, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Critics have questioned why a candidate who promotes a new kind of politics planned such bare-knuckles tactics.

Among independent voters, McCain and Obama are about tied in favorability ratings in recent polls.

Plouffe in recent days has been making his pitch aggressively — part cheerleading, part sales job. Many of Clinton's supporters remain frustrated with how national Democrats resolved the issue of Michigan's delegates, agreeing to seat all of them at the nominating convention but penalizing them by half for violating the calendar, and Plouffe has tried to quell that frustration.

He wraps up the pitches by asking Democrats to imagine Obama taking the oath of office. On Friday at the Capitol City Brewery, about a block from where that would happen, Plouffe pointed toward the Capitol steps to reinforce the visual.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2008)

Part 1 of 3

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the current issue (July/August 2008) of _Foreign Affairs_, is an interesting article by Robert Pastor one of the co-chairs (along with John Manley of Canada) of the *Independent Task Force on North America* and, therefore, one of the authors of its (May, 2005) Report: Building a North American Community:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87406-p0/robert-a-pastor/the-future-of-north-america.html


> The Future of North America
> *Replacing a Bad Neighbor Policy*
> 
> Robert A. Pastor
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2008)

Part 2 of 3



> *A TWO-FRONT STORM*
> 
> Assaults from both ends of the political spectrum have transformed the debate on North America in recent years. From the right have come attacks based on cultural anxieties of being overrun by Mexican immigrants and fears that greater cooperation with Canada and Mexico could lead down a slippery slope toward a North American Union. Dobbs, among others, viewed a report by a 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force (which I co-chaired), Building a North American Community, as the manifesto of a conspiracy to subvert American sovereignty. Dobbs claimed that the CFR study proposed a North American Union, although it did not. From the left came attacks based on economic fears of job losses due to unfair trading practices. These two sets of fears came together in a perfect storm that was pushed forward by a surplus of hot air from talk-show hosts on radio and television. In the face of this criticism, the Bush administration was silent, and the Democratic candidates competed for votes in the rust-belt states, where unions and many working people have come to see NAFTA and globalization much as Dobbs does.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2008)

Part 3 of 3


> *A NORTH AMERICAN COMMUNITY*
> 
> It might seem strange that President Bush would host his final North American summit meeting in New Orleans, as he did in April. His response to Hurricane Katrina was deservedly criticized for its mismanagement. But New Orleans was, at the same time, an appropriate site: both Canada and Mexico mobilized to assist the people of New Orleans after Katrina, with Mexico even sending troops to bring food and undocumented Mexican workers helping to rebuild the city.
> 
> ...



I agree with Pastor re:

•	The importance, to all three partners of the North American economic/trade relationship; and

•	The failures, of the Bush administration, to manage that relationship well. 

But, the (failed) “dual bilateral” system (Canada/US and Mexico/US) is, in fact, the only one that makes any sense to all three partners. There is no important Canada/Mexico relationship, NAFTA or not, and the nature of the Canada/US and Mexico/US relationships are quite different. One of the reasons Lou Dobbs and his _ideas_ are so popular is that, insofar as they concern Mexico, they make sense. It is intuitively obvious that the Mexico/US border is an economic, social, political and security nightmare; the Canada/US border is not without problems but there are orders of magnitude in the differences between the two.

Therefore, I disagree with Pastor re:   _”A North American Community”_. I do not believe it can work because I do not believe that the sorts of integration envisioned in the 2005 Report are possible on a *trilateral* basis. The report makes sense for Canada/US _integration_ but I doubt that either Canada or the US would agree to the sorts of things Manley, Pastor _et al_ proposed for Mexico.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> I agree with Pastor re:
> 
> •	The importance, to all three partners of the North American economic/trade relationship; and
> ...



Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a comment by former US Ambassador Gordon Giffen that supports my earlier comment:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.wcocanam20/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Thou must not forsake a beneficial partnership
> *We have become too complacent in dealing with each other*
> 
> GORDON GIFFIN
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is the text of Sen. McCain’s speech, given to the Economic Club, in Ottawa, today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.wmccaintext0620/BNStory/Front/?pageRequested=3


> John McCain's prepared remarks in Ottawa to the Economic Club of Toronto
> *Prepared remarks by John McCain on 'The Relationship Between The United States And Canada'*
> 
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...



In reminding Canadians of Dean Acheson and Hume Wrong McCain is reminding us all of the halcyon days of the Truman-Eisenhower/St Laurent era – something of a _golden age_ for Canadian policy and influence and for Canada/US relations. There is also a lot in this speech that mirrors Ambassador Giffen’s remarks, posted earlier.


----------



## CougarKing (21 Jun 2008)

Another interesting development:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080621/ap_on_el_pr/obama_hagel



> *Hagel says he'd consider VP offer from Obama *
> By ANNA JO BRATTON, Associated Press Writer
> 2 hours, 28 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## larry Strong (21 Jun 2008)

Is there any precedence of someone from the other partry running on the same ticket? I know we have a mitt full of politicians who change their colors when it suits "Them". But has it happened in the US of A?


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jun 2008)

None for VP-yet. We have had some in the Senate and House that have changed parties.Lieberman couldnt get the democrats to back him in his Senate race so he became and Independent but he still caucus' with the dem's.Jumpin Jim Jeffords went from being a Republican to a Democrat.Hagel wouldnt help Obama nor would Bloomberg as they are both very liberal.Some think that Obama might go with Sam Nunn who could help him down south.Bottom line few people vote for President because they like the VP choice its always the guy at the top of the ticket that matters.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2008)

This is a hilarious and potentially very effective campaign tool:

http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2008/06/pork-invaders.html



> *Pork Invaders *
> 
> At long last the video game we have all been waiting for, Pork Invaders! It is a game where any freedom loving individual can do mighty battle against the forces of waist and government excess. Who do we have to thank for this wonderful game? Could it be Sega or Sony? No! This unique yet oddly familiar game comes to us thanks to the John McCain campaign team.
> 
> ...


 is the link to this awesome new game, enjoy kids!
[/quote]


----------



## CougarKing (23 Jun 2008)

Whoever is elected, they must face the ff. issue with China:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25288252



> *China quandary will confront next president *
> Trade deficit and Chinese holdings of U.S. bonds complicate relations
> By Tom Curry
> National affairs writer
> ...


----------



## YZT580 (24 Jun 2008)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Is there any precedence of someone from the other partry running on the same ticket? I know we have a mitt full of politicians who change their colors when it suits "Them". But has it happened in the US of A?


 Actually the original setup in the U.S. if I remember correctly was for the runner-up candidate to become the VP.   The premise was that the runnerup had received the second largest number of votes and therefore was well-placed to provide replacement should the in-office president become incapacitated (either permanently or otherwise).  It is, I suppose, a precedent of sorts.


----------



## geo (28 Jun 2008)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Actually the original setup in the U.S. if I remember correctly was for *the runner-up candidate to become the VP. *   The premise was that the runnerup had received the second largest number of votes and therefore was well-placed to provide replacement should the in-office president become incapacitated (either permanently or otherwise).  It is, I suppose, a precedent of sorts.


Don't know when that last happened.  The Rep & Dem Presidential candidates select their running mates at the nomination convention and are "running mates" thereafter.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Jun 2008)

Retired US general Wesley Clark questions McCain's war hero status being a qualification to run for the Presidency.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/clark.mccain/index.html



> *Clark: Getting 'shot down in plane' doesn't make McCain qualified*
> Story Highlights
> Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark questions John McCain's executive experience
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jul 2008)

I dont think that anyone cares,outside of the nutroots,what Clark has to say.He will say anything to gain favor.He hopes for some type of post in the Obama regime in exchange he will say anything to further that cause.I wont say that he almost started WW3 as SACEUR but if the UK general had followed orders and denied the airfield to the Russians things would have gotten very tense very fast. Later Clinton eased him out as he was a complete disaster as a commander.The classic photo of the period that I saw was Clark exchanging hats with the Bosnian Serb commander Radic [spelling ?].

Alot of things are being said on the left to smear McCain as a war hero as Obama didnt serve[thankfully]. Obama has flipped on a number of issues lately to try and position himself in the center,which I dont think is possible. If McCain looses this election it will be because of a poorly run campaign. Obama has zero experience which matters not at all to the democrats. McCain has no executive experience either which is why senators are rarely elected President. This election is going to get very ugly on the democrat side and McCain doesnt have the stomach for this fight. The problem Obama has is that he has sold himself as a new kind of politician but all we see and hear is the same old thing. Four years of Obama will be very expensive. More taxes.Less energy.Less freedom.More government.


----------



## TCBF (4 Jul 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ...I wont say that he almost started WW3 as SACEUR but if the UK general had followed orders and denied the airfield to the Russians things would have gotten very tense very fast. ...



- That UK General MIGHT (  8) ) have had some VERY good product coming from the Coyote Observation Posts of Recce Sqn LdSH(RC).  

- A bold move by the Russians, but justified if you believe they were securing their technology from foriegn eyes. 

- Rumour has it the Russians ran out of water and got some by asking for water from the Canadians.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2008)

Senator Obama certainly outspent and out politiced the Clintons to gain the nomination (although by only a small margin, something the MSM seems to overlook), now he needs to keep his head screwed on tight for the campaign. This article hints things might get wobbly out there:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/07/09/sheldon-alberts-obama-s-short-fuse.aspx



> *Sheldon Alberts: Obama's short fuse*
> Posted: July 09, 2008, 12:00 PM by sheldon alberts
> U.S. Politics, Sheldon Alberts, Barack Obama
> Testy, testy.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (9 Jul 2008)

US Senator James Webb has declined Obama's offer of a VP spot. If he had accepted, it would have given the Obama camp some needed military credentials since Webb not only is a USMC Vietnam vet, but also used to be a SECNAV (Secretary of the Navy). His novel, titled "Fields of Fire" is so popular among his readers that even it was suggested as required reading for the USMC's 10-week OCS and its TBS course at the Marine base at Quantico, VA, IIRC. He even speaks Vietnamese fluently.

Anyways, one thing that Obama and McCain do both agree on is immigration and immigration reform, since both voted for an immigration act legislation back in 2006 during the immigration hype of that year, which saw all these Latino-Americans protesting or rallying by the millions to call for immigration reform and to seek an humanitarian way to solve the immigration crisis without dehumanizing the illegal immigrants of which Hispanic form a huge part; 15% of the US population are Hispanics and both Obama and McCain are trying to attract their vote, although the Hispanic vote has traditionally been a Democratic stronghold.

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/07/jim-webb-says-he-wont-be-candidate-vice-president



> By Warren Fiske
> The Virginian-Pilot
> © July 8, 2008
> RICHMOND
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jul 2008)

Looking back at some stuff from the 2004 election, I am struck by the optomistic picture Republicans actually had at the time (some even suggesting the changes in demographics predicted a "permanent Republican majority"). Now of course, they have lost control of the House, and ma loose the Executive office as well.

This series of articles suggests to me that the reason the Republicans got drubbed is they have become disconnected with the core values of Republicanism, and indeed America. (Left wing Democrats are connected with _their_ values and highly organized, which overcomes their disconnect with many Anerican values). While probably too late for this election cycle (unless Senator Obama flames out, which may yet happen), American Republicans will need to do some serious reevaluation to reconnect with the "base".

Right Nation
By John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/micklethwait_wooldridge200406140836.asp

A Different Conservatism
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/micklethwait_wooldridge200406150848.asp

The Right Rules
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/micklethwait_wooldridge200406160902.asp

Right Roots
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/micklethwait_wooldridge200406170930.asp

Faith, Fortune, and the Frontier
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/micklethwait_wooldridge200406180914.asp


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2008)

A look at Senator Obama's record of achievement:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/



> BARACK OBAMA
> 
> *Obama's $100K Garden That Didn't Grow*
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (21 Jul 2008)

Barack Obama's excellent adventure
By Muhammad Cohen Jul 22, 2008  
Article Link

HONG KONG - As he began his tour of overseas war zones present and past, the Iraq issue bounced Senator Barack Obama's way. As he demonstrated with US troops in Kuwait on Saturday, presidential hopeful Obama knows basketball, and in hoops, as in politics, it's not the bounces but putting the ball in the basket that matters. 

On this trip, the all-but-official Democratic presidential nominee needs to show more than just a dazzling floor game. Obama needs to score throughout the trip, not just with foreign leaders, 

  
their constituents, US troops in the field, and the media troupe in tow, but with American voters who are staying home because petrol above US$4 a gallon makes it too expensive to go out. 

Obama got off to a good start with the release on an interview with Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Germany's Der Spiegel magazine. Obama is due to stop in Germany and meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday. 

Obama's 'right timeframe'
In the interview, Maliki said he wants US troops withdrawn from Iraq as soon as possible. Asked specifically about Obama's 16-month schedule for pulling out, Maliki called it "the right timeframe for a withdrawal". Obama can welcome this Arab leader's endorsement of his plan, in contrast to the kind words about his candidacy from Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousuf that Republicans claim makes Obama the terrorist candidate. 

Despite feeble efforts to deny the quote, Maliki's words seemingly cut the legs out from President George W Bush, who has maintained that US troops will remain in Iraq only as long as the host government wants them there, and putative Republican nominee Senator John McCain, who advocates fighting to a yet undefined "victory" in Iraq. Republicans have been adamant in rejecting a timetable for withdrawal that Democrats want and last week tried to fudge the issue in talks with Iraqis. But, while they've been disastrous in handling the war, Bush and his party have been adept at manipulating the American public on Iraq. 
More on link


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2008)

What he said:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/07/25/david-frum-on-obama-s-berlin-speech-mixed-metaphors-and-soggy-logic.aspx



> *David Frum on Obama's Berlin Speech: Mixed metaphors and soggy logic*
> Posted: July 25, 2008, 11:06 AM by Dan Goldbloom
> David Frum
> 
> ...



There could be hard days ahead....


----------



## time expired (26 Jul 2008)

Maybe I could bring a little light on how Obama could bring
150,000 people onto the streets of Berlin.Berlin throughout,
the cold war, was the place people went if they wished to ,
avoid serving in the Bundeswehr,paying taxes,or go to a
university until they were 50+ at the tax payers expense.It
became Germany's version of a larger Berkeley the scene
of constant unrest, riots,etc.by mostly left wing groups.They
have at various times sympathized with such world shakers
as Mao,Ho Chi Min,Arafat,Saddam Hussein,and now Obama,
obviously suckers for "soothing clouds of meaningless words",
that was all I could gain from this speech.To compare it to JFK's.
speech is something only the most uninformed journalist could
possible do,however that is what happened here in Germany.
                        Regards


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2008)

A Poll the MSM Will Never Take  
by Douglas MacKinnon 
Article Link

Over the last few weeks, I ran a very basic resume poll. I knew the only way this poll would work would be to talk to people outside of the egotistical, out-of-touch bubble that is our nation's capital. To get an honest reaction, I'd have to talk with average Americans who are more concerned about real life and the welfare of their families, than the names, education, wealth, or accomplishments of those who seek their support. 

My premise was very simple. You have two people who are being considered to run your county, head up your local school board and manage your police force. Based on the background and experience listed below, who would you choose? 

Candidate A: Middle-aged. Studied overseas. Attended two different colleges in the U.S. before getting a degree. Went on to get a law degree. Worked community affairs in his adopted home city. Was elected to local office. Served in local politics for just over six years. Got elected to a federal state-wide office. Has one real year of experience in that job. 

Candidate B: Middle-aged. Went to college and got a degree. Served in the National Guard for six years. Became a sergeant. While in the National Guard, earned a law degree. Became an investigator for a consumer-protection division. Was elected to a federal office. Was re-elected to a federal office. Was elected to a federal statewide office. Was re-elected to a federal state-wide office. Served in the executive branch for four years

Either in person or over the phone, I showed or recited exactly as written above, the background of these two candidates to voters who don't follow politics very closely. I ended up speaking with twenty different people from diverse backgrounds. 

To be sure, some of those I spoke with rightfully said, “In reality, I'd need to know a lot more than you're giving me.” Accepting that caveat, all 20 people picked Candidate B.

 Candidate B is Dan Quayle. 

Candidate A is Barack Obama. 
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Jul 2008)

A new poll out by USA Today/Gallup taken since Obama's world tour shows McCain with a 4 point lead. While polls at this stage dont mean alot it does show that Obama continues to have a problem with white voters. As we get closer to November the Obama campaign will alter their message to say that white voters are racists if they dont vote for Obama. The problem is white voters dont like Obama's mixed messages,his lack of experience and his radical background/politics. He hasnt won over Clinton supporters as of yet and there still is a chance that Obama wont get the democrat nomination - he doesnt have enough delegates to win on the first ballot. I think Clinton's people have been working the super delegates. So the convention may get very interesting. The fear among democrats is a McCain landslide if Obama is the nominee. Usually landslides have a coat tail effect which could see democrats losing power in the House and Senate. The democrats are on the wrong side of the oil drilling issue which might be the biggest motivator for the average voter.


----------



## TCBF (29 Jul 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... The democrats are on the wrong side of the oil drilling issue which might be the biggest motivator for the average voter.



- And on the wrong side of the snatching corn out of the mouths of the world's poor and making bio-fuel out of it issue.

- As for the oil, if you factor in the oil shale reserves in the USA, PLUS the oil reserves in the vast offshore areas in which drilling is banned, there is no shortage of oil in the USA.  With all of the known oil reserves in NAFTA countries, the mid-east is looking more and more like we don't need it.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2008)

Identifying a possible avenue of attack for Senator McCain

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27720



> *McCain Campaign Should Become More Sun Tzu and Less Sun Dole*
> by Charles Adler (more by this author)
> Posted 07/28/2008 ET
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Jul 2008)

Congress' approval rating has dropped to the single digit's. A recent poll shows that 75% of americans now approve of more oil drilling and 71% want more offshore drilling.Still the democrats in Congress are ignoring the will of the people. We are spending $700b annually buying oil which weakens the dollar.By reducing this with increased domestic production we will strengthen the economy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jul 2008)

When you are faking a pose  for a camera photo opportunity with the American  flag, always remember.....

...at least get the phone turned in the right direction!!!


----------



## GAP (30 Jul 2008)

This is almost as good as a "*Victory Yell*" !!


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2008)

Here I was thinking the Illuminati were in control of the US government...

http://dustmybroom.com/content/view/4824/1/



> *One for your Summer "Must-Read" list*
> Written by WL Mackenzie Redux
> Tuesday, 29 July 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (31 Jul 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When you are faking a pose  for a camera photo opportunity with the American  flag, always remember.....
> 
> ...at least get the phone turned in the right direction!!!



uh-huh. While McCain recently called Russian President Putin the President of Germany.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvk0IhGBXbs


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> uh-huh. While McCain recently called Russian President Putin the President of Germany.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvk0IhGBXbs



I'm an equal opportunity employer when it comes to poking fun at politicos. Probably explains much of my fondness for Bush Jr


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Aug 2008)

McCain and Obama in dead heat.
"Intensified attacks by Republican John McCain on the character of his Democratic opponent have coincided with *Barack Obama losing a nine percentage point advantage * in a national poll, which showed the candidates running dead even over the weekend."


I know it's only a poll, and I know it's a long way from November, but this looks as though it will be a race to the White House, vice a coronation of Barack Obama.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Aug 2008)

This is one of the more respected sources of poll numbers and it looks like Obama by a little over of 2%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/


----------



## TheHead (4 Aug 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When you are faking a pose  for a camera photo opportunity with the American  flag, always remember.....
> 
> ...at least get the phone turned in the right direction!!!



About as real as this one is.


----------



## Kalatzi (6 Aug 2008)

Seems Paris Hilton has responded to McCain's Ad. Says she enterered the race
Link here

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080806.wparismccain0806/BNStory/Entertainment/home

CNN is running a poll on the energy policies
Mcain 27%
Obama 33%
Hilton 39%

Never thoiught I'd say good on her.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Aug 2008)

In my opinion, John McCain's ad was bang on.  Barack Obama's _celebrity status_ is no different from persons such as Paris Hilton, who has no credibility at all, other than as a fellow human being.  In other words, people like Obama for president for all the wrong reasons.  He is photogenic, he is a good speaker with plenty of personality.  Now, in the words of Aristotle, the skillset required to _run for office_ is a different skillset required to _lead from office_.  That's McCain's message, anyway.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Aug 2008)

August 6, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
McCain’s Green-Eyed Monster 
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

Not since Iago and Othello obsessed on the comely Cassio, not since Richard of Gloucester killed his two nephews, not since Nixon and Johnson glowered at the glittering J.F.K., has there been such an unseemly outpouring of boy envy.

Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards have all been crazed with envy over the ascendance of the new “It” guy, Barack Obama.

Unlike his wife, Bill Clinton — the master of fake sincerity — still continues to openly begrudge his party’s betrothed.

Asked by Kate Snow of ABC News in Africa whether Obama was ready to be president, Clinton gave a classic Clintonian answer: “You could argue that no one’s ever ready to be president.”

As always, the Big Dog was more concerned with himself — asserting that he’s not a racist — than his party. Bill Clinton is not a racist. We can posit that. But he did play subtle racial politics in the primary. It’s way past time for him to accept the fact that there’s a new wunderkind in town. 

Just as Bill Clinton looks at Obama and sees his own oblivion, so does Jesse Jackson. As Shelby Steele wrote in The Wall Street Journal, Jackson and his generation of civil rights leaders “made keeping whites ‘on the hook’ the most sacred article of the post-’60s black identity,” equality pursued by manipulating white guilt.

Now John McCain is pea-green with envy. That’s the only explanation for why a man who prides himself on honor, a man who vowed not to take the low road in the campaign, having been mugged by W. and Rove in South Carolina in 2000, is engaging in a festival of juvenilia.

The Arizona senator who built his reputation on being a brave proponent of big solutions is running a schoolyard campaign about tire gauges and Paris Hilton, childishly accusing his opponent of being too serious, too popular and not patriotic enough.

Even his own mother, the magical 96-year-old Roberta McCain, let slip that she thought the Paris Hilton-Britney Spears ad was “kinda stupid.”

McCain’s 2000 strategist, John Weaver, was equally blunt with Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter: “It’s hard to imagine America responding to ‘small ball’ when we have all these problems.” 

Some of McCain’s old pals in the Senate are cringing at what they see as his soulless transformation into what he once scorned.

“John’s eaten up with envy,” said one. “His image of himself was always the handsome, celebrity flyboy.

“Now somebody else is the celebrity,” the colleague continued, while John looks in the mirror and sees his face marred by skin cancer and looks at the TV and sees his dashing self-image replaced by visions of William Frawley, with Letterman jokes about his membership in the ham radio club and adventures with wagon trains.

For McCain, being cool meant being a rogue, not a policy wonk; but Obama manages to be a cool College Bowl type, which must irk McCain, who liked to play up his bad-boy cool. Now the guy in the back of the class is shooting spitballs at the class pet and is coming off as more juvenile than daring.

Around the McCain campaign, they grouse that Obama “hasn’t bled.” He hasn’t bled literally, in military service, just like W., the last holder of an E-ZPass who sped past McCain. And he hasn’t paid his dues in the Senate, since he basically just stopped by for directions to the Oval Office.

As a new senator, Obama was not only precocious enough to pounce on turf that McCain had invested years in, such as campaign finance lobbying, ethics reform and earmarks. When Obama did reach across the aisle for a mentor, it was to the staid Richard Lugar of Indiana, not to the salty Republican of choice for Democrats, McCain.

When the Illinois freshman took back a private promise to join McCain’s campaign finance reform effort, McCain told his aide Mark Salter to “brush him back.” Salter sent an over-the-top vituperative letter to Obama. “I guess I beaned him instead,” Salter told Newsweek’s Howard Fineman.

McCain could dismiss W. as a lightweight, but he knows Obama’s smart. Obama wrote his own books, while McCain’s were written by Salter. McCain knows he’s the affirmative action scion of admirals who might not have gotten through Annapolis without being a legacy. Obama didn’t even tell Harvard Law School that he was black on his application.

McCain upbraids Obama for being a poppet, while he’s becoming a puppet. His mouth is moving but the words coming out belong to his new hard-boiled strategist, Steve Schmidt, a Rove protégé, nicknamed “The Bullet” for his bald pate.

Schmidt has turned Mr. Straight Talk into Mr. Desperate Straits. It’s not a good trade. 


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/opinion/06dowd.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


----------



## a_majoor (7 Aug 2008)

Never, ever, count out the Clintons, until you see the bodies and have DNA.....

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-hillary-scheming.html



> *Is Hillary Scheming?*
> 
> It is increasingly appearing that Barack H. Obama can't finish. Hillary beat Obama badly in almost every state in the dying days of the Democrat primary, unfortunately for her it was too little too late. Meanwhile, McCain is the comeback kid. Early on in the campaign he was suffering from money problems and it was speculated he might have to drop out.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (7 Aug 2008)

Hillary wants the nomination so bad she will do/scheme/backstab/whatever to get it....Obama is going flat, but McCain isn't doing much better....he needs to light a fire under his ass and become coherent...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Aug 2008)

In a rather bizzare Canadian counterpoint, we see the NDP (a violently Anti-American party) debating changing their name to the Democratic Party, and now the Liberals are apparently debating timing a fall election for Nov in an attempt to rub off a bit of that Obama glow. 

It must be nice to belive in a universe where everything moves on crystal spheres in serene and predictable epicycles. I will probably bust a gut if the Liberals pull the plug in time to discover the Clinton faction is indeed forcing a vote on the convention floor, and laugh even harder if the Democratic Party (USA) goes into a violent internal struggle during the election campaign allowing John McCain to win the Presidency. Getting that Obama bounce will be a bit of a chore, eh?


----------



## geo (8 Aug 2008)

I hope the NDP does change it's name to the Democratic Party
Their logo will look like a mule (just like the Dems) 
But, we'll just call it a "Jack-ass"  >

Purrrr-fect


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2008)

An interesting development Obama has dual citizenship since 1963 in the US and Kenya.However Kenya doesnt recognize dual citizenship which may exlain why Obama has never provided a birth certificate.This situation I am sure is very much to Hillary's advantage.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Aug 2008)

A trend that should not be ignored?
http://www.military.com/news/article/military-donations-favoring-obama.html?col=1186032310810&wh=news



> *Military Donations Favoring Obama*
> August 15, 2008
> Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Aug 2008)

Its their right to support the candidate of their choice. If Colin Powell can support Obama they surely can. What is scary is the number of people that will vote for the man simply because of skin color rather than his policies. His policies if enacted will weaken the country.


----------



## Adamant (15 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> An interesting development Obama has dual citizenship since 1963 in the US and Kenya.However Kenya doesnt recognize dual citizenship which may exlain why Obama has never provided a birth certificate.This situation I am sure is very much to Hillary's advantage.



Mr. Obama is a  US citizen, only.  He was born in Hawaii.  If you want to be picky, Mr. McCain was born in Panama, albeit on a US Military base, Funny there are no rumours that he has dual US - Panama citizenship.

Kenya does not recognize any dual citizenship, one MUST be a NATURAL BORN U.S. citizen to be president, the Democratic party (Democratic Rules Committee) would have amply checked (especially if there was actually any doubt, which I would suspect there wasn't) that he is CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED to be president before allowing him to run.  

Come on now...


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Aug 2008)

Obama's defense plans. As for Obama's birth certificate he can make his public and scuttle the questions about his citizenship. Maybe he's the real Manchurian candidate ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&eurl=

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

...I will not weaponize space.

...I will slow development of future combat systems.

...and I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

...I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

...and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons.

...I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material.

...and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert.

...and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Aug 2008)

As fall approaches, voters will begin really looking for answers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/politics/17elect.html?_r=4&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin



> *Seeing Tougher Race, Allies Ask Obama to Make ‘Hope’ Specific*
> 
> Jens Meyer/Associated Press
> Opinion about Barack Obama’s address to a huge gathering in Berlin last month has been divided, mainly along party lines.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (18 Aug 2008)

Looks like that Clinton won't be getting the VP spot if Obama gets the nomination. 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/vp.picks/index.html



> *Analysis: Countdown is on for Obama's VP announcement*
> 
> Democratic convention starts next week; VP candidate speaks Wednesday
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Aug 2008)

This is a very tight race, so the VP pick will be cruicial. For various reasons I don't believe that Senator Obama will choose Senator Clinton for VP, similarly I suspect many of the people being touted for Republican VP are more a reflection of the pundits hopes and dreams (personally, I would have said Secretary of State Condelezza Rice would be the killer choice, but that's just me...)

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/08/conventions-could-be-disaster-for-both.html



> *Conventions could be a disaster for both Obama and McCain*
> 
> 
> Starting this Monday, the real election kicks off in the US as both parties are due to hold their conventions. While everything will be tightly scripted with both parties trying to demonstrate unity and enthusiasm; there is potential on both sides to host a disaster based on who they choose as their running mates.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Aug 2008)

To be honest I cannot remember an election where the VP made a difference. Obama is going to pick a white guy.McCain is doing well at this point but if he picks the wrong guy as his running mate his gains may vanish overnight.By wrong I mean a democrat or former democrat,or someone with pro abortion views.I think he will pick Ron Paul[not my choice] but thats just me.


----------



## CougarKing (20 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> To be honest I cannot remember an election where the VP made a difference. Obama is going to pick a white guy.McCain is doing well at this point but if he picks the wrong guy as his running mate his gains may vanish overnight.By wrong I mean a democrat or former democrat,or someone with pro abortion views.I think he will pick Ron Paul[not my choice] but thats just me.



I really doubt it will be Ron Paul, seeing how he and his supporters will be holding their own seperate convention during the GOP convention on September, but in the same city, and only a few blocks away from the main GOP venue, IIRC. 

Ron Paul is too Libertarian in his thinking, and it is a little surprisng that he hasn't joined his friend Bob Barr with the Libertarian party.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Aug 2008)

Senator Joe Biden will be Obama's VP nominee.He is getting a Secret Service detail.I dont see this selection as helpful to Obama's cause. Biden loves the spotlight and is prone to gaffe's.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Aug 2008)

Clinton supporter Phil Berg has filed for an injunction to block Obama's candidacy.Essentially he is contending that Obama isnt a natural born citizen.Might be an interesting week ahead of us.

Document here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2066207/posts


----------



## KevinB (23 Aug 2008)

Biden, geez Osama shot himself with that one...

 Change - hahahaa


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Clinton supporter Phil Berg has filed for an injunction to block Obama's candidacy.Essentially he is contending that Obama isnt a natural born citizen.Might be an interesting week ahead of us.
> 
> Document here:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2066207/posts



From the filing:



> ......Obama's birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. *Wikipedia* English Version under the subject "Barack Obama".....



Ohhhh Dearrr.  Will we have to reconsider OUR standards of proof??


----------



## TheHead (23 Aug 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Biden, geez Osama shot himself with that one...
> 
> Change - hahahaa




With all due respect why would you call Obama, Osama?


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2008)

"Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain" - by a classmate at the naval academy, who was also a POW in Vietnam with McCain - for 2 1/2 years longer.

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859,00.html


----------



## GAP (23 Aug 2008)

It sounds like he has his own agenda, and it has nothing to do with the Republicans.....


----------



## CougarKing (23 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Clinton supporter Phil Berg has filed for an injunction to block Obama's candidacy.Essentially he is contending that Obama isnt a natural born citizen.Might be an interesting week ahead of us.
> 
> Document here:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2066207/posts



No offence but that kind of logical fallacy is retarded on Berg's part- then the same should apply for McCain then for being born in Panama on a US base.


----------



## CougarKing (23 Aug 2008)

This should help shore up Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.He also hsas a son in Iraq who is serving as a JAG and Biden has served on the Senate's Foreign policy and Judicial committees, IIRC.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes



> *Biden pick draws Democratic praise, GOP criticism *
> By BETH FOUHY and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers
> 6 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Aug 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain" - by a classmate at the naval academy, who was also a POW in Vietnam with McCain - for 2 1/2 years longer.
> 
> http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859,00.html



So he wont vote for McCain with all his warts,but I am assuming he WILL vote for a man with none of McCain's values or attributes ? Dont get me wrong I would prefer to be voting for a conservative but failing that I WILL NOT vote for Obama because he doesnt share my values and he has virtually no experience to be President.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Aug 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> No offence but that kind of logical fallacy is retarded on Berg's part- then the same should apply for McCain then for being born in Panama on a US base.



The difference Cougar is that both of McCain's parents were US citizens and the Canal Zone was US territory.


----------



## CougarKing (23 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The difference Cougar is that both of McCain's parents were US citizens and the Canal Zone was US territory.



I think that is irrelevant that Obama had one parent who was a foreign citizen. IIRC from immigration law, you only need to have one US citizen parent to be considered a US citizen. And futhermore the fact that he was born in Hawaii means _Juris Soli _ applies- because he was born in US territory.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I think that is irrelevant that Obama had one parent who was a foreign citizen. IIRC from immigration law, you only need to have one US citizen parent to be considered a US citizen. *And futhermore the fact that he was born in Hawaii means Juris Soli  applies- because he was born in US territory.*



_*IF*_ he was born in Hawaii. I guess we'll have to let the court decide that fact now.

And Mcain: *John McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station* in the Panama Canal Zone to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).[3] At that time, the Panama Canal was under American control.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

The naval air station would have been soveriegn US Territory for legal purposes, no? Making him born in the US.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Aug 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The naval air station would have been soveriegn US Territory for legal purposes, no? Making him born in the US.



Its more a case of the canal zone being considered american soil that the NAS itself, IMHO.  I was born at the base hospital at CFB Lahr but am not Canadian-born. My birth certificate is German and held dual citizenship.

The again, if the US had a SoF agreement with Panama that dealt with citizenship issues.......


----------



## LineDoggie (23 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> To be honest I cannot remember an election where the VP made a difference. Obama is going to pick a white guy.McCain is doing well at this point but if he picks the wrong guy as his running mate his gains may vanish overnight.By wrong I mean a democrat or former democrat,or someone with pro abortion views.I think he will pick Ron Paul[not my choice] but thats just me.



"Ron Paul"? I think McCain has a Higher chance of picking Ron Jeremy than Ron Paul.......


----------



## KevinB (23 Aug 2008)

If I where McCain -I'd grab Condi Rice.

  Excellent thinker, Current Sec State, Female and Black --


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Aug 2008)

Obama would have been much better off selecting Governor Bill Richardson.Richardson has chief executive experience,he's hispanic and was UN Ambassador.He probably had more experience than all of the democrat candidates combined.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Obama would have been much better off selecting Governor Bill Richardson.Richardson has chief executive experience,he's hispanic and was UN Ambassador.He probably had more experience than all of the democrat candidates combined.



Selecting an experienced VP will only highlight Obama's own lack of experience, IMHO.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2008)

LineDoggie said:
			
		

> "Ron Paul"? I think McCain has a Higher chance of picking Ron Jeremy than Ron Paul.......


Now, THAT would be interesting!

Though truth be told, Mr. Jeremy is a rather well-spoken individual.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Now, THAT would be interesting!
> 
> Though truth be told, Mr. Jeremy is a rather well-spoken individual.



........and already has a following almost as large as that other aging porn star Monkhouse.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ........and already has a following almost as large as that other aging porn star Monkhouse.


:rofl:

I'll have to take your word for it.  On both counts ;D


----------



## a_majoor (24 Aug 2008)

After hearing about _this_ speech, maybe a Ron Jeremy/Bruce Monkhouse ticket wouldn't be so bad after all. I nominate Vern for Secretary of State....

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/08/did-obama-just.html



> *Did Obama Just Lose The Election?*
> 
> It's lost in the Veep hype for now. Down the stretch that won't be the case. After he is softened up and a growing number of Americans are given reasons for concern over Obama's Leftism - there's this and some pertinent facts on China below.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (24 Aug 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> After hearing about _this_ speech, maybe a Ron Jeremy/Bruce Monkhouse ticket wouldn't be so bad after all. I nominate Vern for Secretary of State....
> 
> http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/08/did-obama-just.html



As much as I disagree with your article, I think it probably belongs more with the China Superthread instead of here.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Aug 2008)

If you think thats bad you should hear him justify infanticide. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDwNpgIUQc&eurl=http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/38017/#372558


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Aug 2008)

I disagree Cougar,this thread is about the US election and Obama happened to make some comments about China and how great and modern it is without being hampered by democracy.


----------



## KevinB (24 Aug 2008)

Hence why I call him Osama...

I dont trust him, or his 'vision'


----------



## stegner (24 Aug 2008)

> Selecting an experienced VP will only highlight Obama's own lack of experience, IMHO.



What exactly is McCain's experience?  I keep hearing that he is more qualified.  Is this by virtue of his age?   The amount of time he spent in the Senate?  Because, McCain has had _no_ executive level experience-just like Obama.


----------



## KevinB (24 Aug 2008)

McCain has severed in the Senate - has done a lot of foreign policy work, and served as a USN Aviator coming back to duty after his interment in a POW Cam during Vietnam.

   Just some things nice to have in a Commander in Chief.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Aug 2008)

It seems to me that executive level experience is just one factor. Having reviewed the careers of the men who have held the job during my lifetime, executive level experience is not an indicator of success in the oval office. To wit:

Roosevelt - assistant secretary of the navy, governor of New York,
Truman - senator,
Eisenhower - supreme allied commander in Europe,
Kennedy - senator,
Johnson - representative,
Nixon - vice president for Eisenhower,
Ford - representative,
Carter - governor of Georgia,
Reagan - governor of California,
Bush 41 - represntative, head of the CIA,
Clinton - governor of Arkansas, and 
Bush 43 - governor of Texas.

You can juggle names all you wish into lists of successful, unsuccessfuls and also rans, but it appears to me that there are other qualities required to thrive in the political culture in Washington. The ability to herd cats comes to mind.


----------



## observor 69 (24 Aug 2008)

THE NEW YORK TIMES

August 24, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Last Call for Change We Can Believe In 
By FRANK RICH
AS the real campaign at last begins in Denver this week, this much is certain: It’s time for Barack Obama to dispatch “Change We Can Believe In” to a dignified death.

This isn’t because — OMG! — Obama’s narrow three- to four-percentage-point lead of recent weeks dropped to a statistically indistinguishable one- to three-point margin during his week of vacation. It’s because zero hour is here. As the presidential race finally gains the country’s full attention, the strategy that vanquished Hillary Clinton must be rebooted to take out John McCain.

“Change We Can Believe In” was brilliantly calculated for a Democratic familial brawl where every candidate was promising nearly identical change from George Bush. It branded Obama as the sole contender with the un-Beltway biography, credibility and political talent to link the promise of change to the nation’s onrushing generational turnover in all its cultural (and, yes, racial) manifestations. McCain should be a far easier mark than Clinton if Obama retools his act. 

What we have learned this summer is this: McCain’s trigger-happy temperament and reactionary policies offer worse than no change. He is an unstable bridge back not just to Bush policies but to an increasingly distant 20th-century America that is still fighting Red China in Vietnam and the Soviet Union in the cold war. As the country tries to navigate the fast-moving changes of the 21st century, McCain would put America on hold.

What Obama also should have learned by now is that the press is not his friend. Of course, he gets more ink and airtime than McCain; he’s sexier news. But as George Mason University’s Center for Media and Public Affairs documented in its study of six weeks of TV news reports this summer, Obama’s coverage was 28 percent positive, 72 percent negative. (For McCain, the split was 43/57.) Even McCain’s most blatant confusions, memory lapses and outright lies still barely cause a ripple, whether he’s railing against a piece of pork he in fact voted for, as he did at the Saddleback Church pseudodebate last weekend, or falsifying crucial details of his marital history in his memoirs, as The Los Angeles Times uncovered in court records last month.

What should Obama do now? As premature panic floods through certain liberal precincts, there’s no shortage of advice: more meat to his economic plan, more passion in his stump delivery, less defensiveness in response to attacks and, as is now happening, sharper darts at a McCain lifestyle so extravagant that we are only beginning to learn where all the beer bullion is buried. 

But Obama is never going to be a John Edwards-style populist barnburner. (Edwards wasn’t persuasive either, by the way.) Nor will wonkish laundry lists of policy details work any better for him than they did for Al Gore or Hillary Clinton. Obama has those details to spare, in any case, while McCain, who didn’t even include an education policy on his Web site during primary season, is still winging it. As David Leonhardt observes in his New York Times Magazine cover article on “Obamanomics” today, Obama’s real problem is not a lack of detail but his inability to sell policy with “an effective story.”

That story is there to be told, but it has to be a story that is more about America and the future and less about Obama and his past. After all these months, most Americans, for better or worse, know who Obama is. So much so that he seems to have fought off the relentless right-wing onslaught to demonize him as an elitist alien. Asked in last week’s New York Times/CBS News poll if each candidate shares their values, registered voters gave Obama and McCain an identical 63 percent. Asked if each candidate “cares about the needs and problems of people like yourself,” Obama beat McCain by 37 to 23 percent. Is the candidate “someone you can relate to”? Obama: 55 percent, McCain: 41. Even before McCain told Politico that he relies on the help to count up the houses he owns, he was the candidate seen as the out-of-step elitist.

So while Obama can continue to try to reassure resistant Clinton loyalists in Appalachia that he’s not a bogeyman from Madrassaland, he must also move on to the bigger picture for everyone else. He must rekindle the “fierce urgency of now” — but not, as he did in the primaries, merely to evoke uplifting echoes of the civil-rights struggle or the need for withdrawal from Iraq. 

Most Americans, unlike the press, are not obsessed by race. (Those whites who are obsessed by race will not vote for Obama no matter what he or anyone else has to say about it.) And most Americans have turned their backs on the Iraq war, no matter how much McCain keeps bellowing about “victory.” The Bush White House is now poised to alight with the Iraqi government on a withdrawal timetable far closer to Obama’s 16 months than McCain’s vague promise of a 2013 endgame. As Gen. David Petraeus returns home, McCain increasingly resembles those mad Japanese soldiers who remained at war on remote Pacific islands years after Hiroshima. 

Economic anxiety is the new terrorism. This is why the most relevant snapshot of voters’ concerns was not to be found at Saddleback Church but at the Olympics last Saturday. For all the political press’s hype, only some 5.5 million viewers tuned in to the Rev. Rick Warren’s show in Orange County, Calif. Roughly three-quarters of them were over 50 — in other words, the McCain base. By contrast, a diverse audience of 32 million Americans tuned in to Beijing that night to watch Michael Phelps win his eighth gold medal.

This was a rare feel-good moment for a depressed country. But the unsettling subtext of the Olympics has been as resonant for Americans as the Phelps triumph. You couldn’t watch NBC’s weeks of coverage without feeling bombarded by an ascendant China whose superior cache of gold medals and dazzling management of the Games became a proxy for its spectacular commercial and cultural prowess in the new century. Even before the Olympics began, a July CNN poll found that 70 percent of Americans fear China’s economic might — about as many as find America on the wrong track. Americans watching the Olympics could not escape the reality that China in particular and Asia in general will continue to outpace our country in growth while we remain mired in stagnancy and debt (much of it held by China).

How we dig out of this quagmire is the American story that Obama must tell. It is not a story of endless conflicts abroad but a potentially inspiring tale of serious economic, educational, energy and health-care mobilization at home. We don’t have the time or resources to go off on more quixotic military missions or to indulge in culture wars. (In China, they’re too busy exploiting scientific advances for competitive advantage to reopen settled debates about Darwin.) Americans must band together for change before the new century leaves us completely behind. The Obama campaign actually has plans, however imperfect or provisional, to set us on that path; the McCain campaign offers only disposable Band-Aids typified by the “drill now” mantra that even McCain says will only have a “psychological” effect on gas prices. 

Even as it points to America’s future, the Obama campaign also has the duty to fill in its opponent’s past. McCain’s attacks on Obama have worked: in last week’s Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, Obama’s favorable rating declined from 59 to 48 percent and his negative rating rose from 27 to 35. Yet McCain still has a lower positive rating (46 percent) and higher negative rating (38) than Obama. McCain is not nearly as popular among Americans, it turns out, as he is among his journalistic camp followers. Should voters actually get to know him, he has nowhere to go but down.

The argument against Obama’s “going negative” is that it undermines his message of “transcendent politics” and will make him look like an “angry black man.” But pacifistic politics is an oxymoron, and Obama is constitutionally incapable of coming off angrier than McCain. A few more fisticuffs from the former law professor (and many more from his running mate and other surrogates) can only help make him look less skinny (metaphorically if not literally). Obama should go after McCain’s supposedly biggest asset — experience — much as McCain went after Obama’s crowd-drawing celebrity. 

It is, after all, not mere happenstance that so many conservative pundits — Rich Lowry, Peggy Noonan, Ramesh Ponnuru — have, to McCain’s irritation, proposed that he “patriotically” declare in advance that he will selflessly serve only a single term. Whatever their lofty stated reasons for promoting this stunt, their underlying message is clear: They recognize in their heart of hearts that the shelf life of McCain’s experience has already reached its expiration date. 

Is a man who is just discovering the Internet qualified to lead a restoration of America’s economic and educational infrastructures? Is the leader of a virtually all-white political party America’s best salesman and moral avatar in the age of globalization? Does a bellicose Vietnam veteran who rushed to hitch his star to the self-immolating overreaches of Ahmad Chalabi, Pervez Musharraf and Mikheil Saakashvili have the judgment to keep America safe?

R.I.P., “Change We Can Believe In.” The fierce urgency of the 21st century demands Change Before It’s Too Late. 


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24rich.html?hp=&pagewanted=print


----------



## stegner (24 Aug 2008)

> McCain has severed in the Senate - has done a lot of foreign policy work, and served as a USN Aviator coming back to duty after his interment in a POW Cam during Vietnam.
> 
> Just some things nice to have in a Commander in Chief.



Sure.   But, I don't see McCain, aside from his fight with Big Tobacco, having a lot of domestic experience.  He is more of a foreign policy guy, which is good, but I think he is vulnerable on domestic issues, like the economy.  McCain is also not very decisive.   He could have picked his VP months ago and certainly before Obama, but he waits to see who the other guy picks.    I think that contradicted assertions that he is decisive and more able to respond than Obama.     I think a President needs to act and not to react.   



> It seems to me that executive level experience is just one factor. Having reviewed the careers of the men who have held the job during my lifetime, executive level experience is not an indicator of success in the oval office.



Agreed.  My point was that Senator McCain and Obama have pretty much the same experience, but in different fields.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Aug 2008)

> [Agreed.  My point was that Senator McCain and Obama have pretty much the same experience, but in different fields.




Hardly.Obama has been a Senator 3 years ? Before that a state legislator for 7 years.Before that a community activist.McCain is 71 and Obama is 47.


----------



## stegner (24 Aug 2008)

> McCain is 71 and Obama is 47.



So just because McCain is older that makes him more qualified?  I question this.  McCain is not the self-made man that Obama is.   He was fortunate to come from a wealthy family.   His father and grandfather were both Admirals in the U.S Navy.   He married rich too.  As Ross Perot who had been supporting McCains's first wife and his family during McCain's imprisonment noted, "After he came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."    What I am trying to say is that few of McCain's accomplishments are his .   While I realize that he was tortured in the Hanoi Hilton, so too, were many many others.   I think there is a willingness by the media to question if he was the right stuff.   Many on here applaud his military background.   However, this alone does not qualify him for President-though it seems that it is his only qualification.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Aug 2008)

I question just how well off his father was. While there may well have been some family money, when the senator was born, his father was a junior officer who had graduated from the Naval Academy in 1931 and was based in the Panama Canal Zone. His father commanded a submarine on operations in both the Atlantic and Pacific Theatres during the Second World War, which made him perhaps a commander by the end of the war. 

Senator McCain's father might have made flag grade before the son was selected for Annapolis, but that still hardly makes him a rich man, except for whatever family money there was. As an aside, it is interesting that during his incarceration, his father was the four star commander of all the US forces in the Pacific Theatre, which included responsibility for the Vietnam War.

Being rich should not disqualify one automatically. JFK's father was extremely wealthy, albeit from dubious pursuits, and no one held that against the president.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Aug 2008)

His age means that he has experienced more of life than Obama has.Before he entered politics McCain served in the Navy retiring as a fourstriper in 81 after 21 years of servide.Before retiring he was notified that he would be selected for Rear Admiral but he declined as he was determined to run for congress. I think that outweighs any experience Obama has.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Aug 2008)

Obama is hardly a pauper with a networth of around $2 million. Obama's annual income as Senator is $165,200  and his wife makes $317,000 so they are hardly poor.McCain has his retired pay/disability pay and his salary of $165,200 .The real wealth is in his wife's name alone.Politics in the US is a great way to make money just look at the Clintons.Bill never made more than $35,000 before he became President. Now with his speaking fee's the Clintons are doing quite well.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/index.html


----------



## stegner (24 Aug 2008)

> Obama is hardly a pauper with a networth of around $2 million. Obama's annual income as Senator is $165,200  and his wife makes $317,000 so they are hardly poor.McCain has his retired pay/disability pay and his salary of $165,200 .The real wealth is in his wife's name alone.Politics in the US is a great way to make money just look at the Clintons.Bill never made more than $35,000 before he became President. Now with his speaking fee's the Clintons are doing quite well.
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/index.html



I realize this.  However, my point was that Obama earned his money himself.   The same cannot be said for McCain.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Aug 2008)

Obama earned his money by writing a book. McCain married money isnt that every guy's dream. ;D


----------



## stegner (24 Aug 2008)

> Obama earned his money by writing a book. McCain married money isnt that every guy's dream. Grin



Indeed.  Especially when that money comes with an insanely hot wife.  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I realize this.  However, my point was that Obama earned his money himself.   The same cannot be said for McCain.



This proves that Obama is more suited for POTUS how ?


----------



## stegner (24 Aug 2008)

> This proves that Obama is more suited for POTUS how ?



Heck it is America if you can't make your own money and lots of it you are a bad American.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Aug 2008)

Many would argue Kennedy was a great president. He didn't work for his money either. That fortune was originally built on slavery and bootlegging IIRC.

It's a stupid criteria to base an informed opinion on of who to vote for.





			
				stegner said:
			
		

> Heck it is America if you can't make your own money and lots of it you are a bad American.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Heck it is America if you can't make your own money and lots of it you are a bad American.



Seems to me like he's a shining example of the american dream......

Served his country. Went from fighter pilot to POW. Rose to high rank , became as US senator and now candidate for POTUS. 

BTW, the new american way of getting rich is to sue somebody, get with the times.  ;D


----------



## stegner (24 Aug 2008)

> BTW, the new american way of getting rich is to sue somebody, get with the times.  Grin



Many apologies.  I am behind the times.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (24 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I disagree Cougar,this thread is about the US election and Obama happened to make some comments about China and how great and modern it is without being hampered by democracy.



Indeed. China has pulled off a fantastic showcase with the 2008 Olympics, and seeded a certain perception among a relatively uncritical viewing audience as to China's modernity and power. Senator Obama seems to have "bought into" that vision of China, with a rather uncritical endorsement of China's modernization program and an implicit suggestion that the United States should be more like China in that speech.

Eliminating the arguments about the ramshackle and inconsistent nature of China's total infrastructure outside of the southern coast and the Olympic showcases (see the Chinese Superthread); we still have the arguments of command economy vs free market economy. Is Senator Obama suggesting that he will make the "trains run on time" with his seeming preference for command economies?


----------



## stegner (25 Aug 2008)

> Senator Obama seems to have "bought into" that vision of China, with a rather uncritical endorsement of China's modernization program and an implicit suggestion that the United States should be more like China in that speech.
> 
> Eliminating the arguments about the ramshackle and inconsistent nature of China's total infrastructure outside of the southern coast and the Olympic showcases (see the Chinese Superthread); we still have the arguments of command economy vs free market economy. Is Senator Obama suggesting that he will make the "trains run on time" with his seeming preference for command economies?



Some proof of this would be nice.   Otherwise it sounds suspiciously like the ole Republican vitriolic standard that the Democrats are really commies.   How does Obama demonstrate a preference for the command economy?  If we want to get really nasty about who is actually a commie we could ask why McCain chose to remain in a POW camp for five years when he was offered frequent attempts to leave.   There are all those propaganda tapes that McCain made with the North Vietnamese.    These guys are like Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, so perhaps they too should be given the benefit of the doubt that the ant-Kerry group was: http://www.youtube.com/user/VETSAGAINSTMCCAIN  In sum,  maybe it's best if we don't refer to Obama as a commie.


----------



## time expired (25 Aug 2008)

STEGNER, Lt.Comdr. McCain stayed in the Hanoi Hilton because 
he did not wish to let down his comrades,something you as a
civilian student would never understand.
                                       Regards


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> If we want to get really nasty about who is actually a commie we could ask why McCain chose to remain in a POW camp for five years when he was offered frequent attempts to leave.



Yes, and the price for leaving?  Saying that your country was wrong and to throw away everything you believed in and/or fought for.  IMHO, he did not *choose* to remain in a POW camp.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> If we want to get really nasty about who is actually a commie we could ask why McCain chose to remain in a POW camp for five years when he was offered frequent attempts to leave.



From someone who has never served a day  :


----------



## stegner (25 Aug 2008)

> STEGNER, Lt.Comdr. McCain stayed in the Hanoi Hilton because
> he did not wish to let down his comrades,something you as a
> civilian student would never understand.
> Regards



So the 32 propaganda tapes he made with the Vietnamese didn't let his comrades down?



> Yes, and the price for leaving?  Saying that your country was wrong and to throw away everything you believed in and/or fought for.  IMHO, he did not choose to remain in a POW camp.



He said those very things in the 32 propaganda tapes.  Perhaps you are right.  Maybe he was never offered a chance to leave.    Why let a huge propaganda prize leave?


----------



## aesop081 (25 Aug 2008)

Stegner, when your little smug ass has completed some form of SERE training, then you can come on here and be a critic.

For now, STFU


----------



## Trinity (25 Aug 2008)

Wow Stegner,  that man is a hero.  I can't recite properly the honourable reasons that he stayed 
but Wikipedia can (as much as I hate wikipedia, HOWEVER, they have links to back up their facts)

Note the BOLD part below.  It explains clearly why he refused.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Prisoner_of_war


> Prisoner of war
> 
> John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[30][31] McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.[30] After he regained consciousness, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him.[30] Lieutenant Commander McCain was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[31]
> McCain being pulled from Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi and becoming a POW[32] on October 26, 1967
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Some proof of this would be nice.



Insofar as we can figure out Senator Obama's policy proposals, there are continual vague promises to raise marginal tax rates against "the rich" (making the standard invocations of "Fairness" rather than discussing tax efficiency [i.e will raising taxes really increase income, or cause the economy to stall]), enroll Americans in ill defined national service initiatives and "require" (i.e. set by government fiat) changes in the American econony wrt renewable energy generation, electric or hybrid vehicles and "carbon caps". 

If the Senator was actually forthcoming with specifics then we could nail this down some more, but the speech referenced above only adds to the impression that he has given throughout the campaign of a preference to command economy solutions.


----------



## CougarKing (26 Aug 2008)

They're not as bitter as some say.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12824.html




> *Clinton supporters warm to Obama*
> By: Amie Parnes
> August 26, 2008 08:34 AM EST
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2008)

I watched and then reviewed last night’s performances at the Democratic National Convention. Hillary Clinton gave a real ‘barn-burner of a speech. It was a classic piece of political rhetoric: very well crafted and beautiful delivered; she’s an impressive campaigner. The McCain camp has much for which to thank Sen. Clinton; she completely overshadowed the important and potentially damaging speech – the keynote address delivered by Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia.

Warner’s speech, in contrast to Clinton’s, was poor televisions but first rate policy. He addressed the real, significant failures of the George W. Bush administration: strategic, economic, social and so on. He set out the important issues that will face America and the West for the next generation and, potentially worse for McCain, he offered some useful proposals.

But, thankfully, for those of us who believe that a McCain administration will be better for Canada than an Obama one, Hillary Clinton completely overshadowed Warner so real, serious damage was not done. In fact, one hopes that the McCain team is parsing Warner’s speech, line by line, and will shamelessly steal most of it.


----------



## observor 69 (27 Aug 2008)

A purty map:  

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2008)

was watching some US TV last night.... saw a couple of Republican adds that showed Hillary backing McCain....
Taken outa context for sure but.... on TV... priceless advertising.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> was watching some US TV last night.... saw a couple of Republican adds that showed Hillary backing McCain....
> Taken outa context for sure but.... on TV... priceless advertising.



She's already been on TV about that saying "I'm Hillary Clinton and i did not aprove this message" in one of her speeches.


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2008)

Yeah - she might not approve of the message, but it is a message that she did express during her own run.
That,s the problem with all the personal video devices and mass storage of data.... once you said it, you can't make it dissapear.


----------



## stegner (27 Aug 2008)

Ok given that McCain has a reputation for being a maverick and is making such a big deal about the Hillary thing.  I propose that he her the Vice-Presidency-otherwise he is just being a hypocrite.   If she is so qualified for the position and since he is such a maverick this should not be a problem.


----------



## YZT580 (27 Aug 2008)

You know Stegner that is actually an idea that is worth considering if I were trying to mount an effective campaign against Obama.  The only problem is, if Maccain dies you end up with Bill in the white house again


----------



## CougarKing (28 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> A new poll out by USA Today/Gallup taken since Obama's world tour shows McCain with a 4 point lead. While polls at this stage dont mean alot it does show that Obama continues to have a problem with white voters. As we get closer to November the Obama campaign will alter their message to say that white voters are racists if they dont vote for Obama. The problem is white voters dont like Obama's mixed messages,his lack of experience and his radical background/politics. *He hasnt won over Clinton supporters as of yet and there still is a chance that Obama wont get the democrat nomination - he doesnt have enough delegates to win on the first ballot. I think Clinton's people have been working the super delegates. So the convention may get very interesting.*



The roll call has been made and they overwhelmingly went for Obama. So much for that. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080828/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp



> *Democrats choose Obama in historic acclamation*
> By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
> 4 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Aug 2008)

Polling this week shows that 30% of Hillary's supporters will either not vote or vote for McCain. Perhaps those numbers will change after the convention.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Polling this week shows that 30% of Hillary's supporters will either not vote or vote for McCain. Perhaps those numbers will change after the convention.



While I think the convention _hoopla_ will bring some of Clinton's supporters into the Obama camp, there is, still, an undefined number of Americans who will not vote to put a black man in the White House. Some of those will not just sit on their hands; they will cross party lines and vote against Obama.

One problem is that there is almost no 'hard' data on that subject. It is off limits for polling. Even if it wasn't I think many people would not admit that pure, simple, old fashioned racism might drive their political choice.

This is not unique to the USA, although it has a well documented history of institutional racism. Canadian politicians who are visible minorities also face some degree of opposition just because they are not lily white.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> While I think the convention hoopla will bring some of Clinton's supporters into the Obama camp, there is, still, an undefined number of Americans who will not vote to put a black man in the White House. Some of those will not just sit on their hands; they will cross party lines and vote against Obama.
> 
> One problem is that there is almost no 'hard' data on that subject. It is off limits for polling. Even if it wasn't I think many people would not admit that pure, simple, old fashioned racism might drive their political choice.
> 
> This is not unique to the USA, although it has a well documented history of institutional racism. Canadian politicians who are visible minorities also face some degree of opposition just because they are not lily white.



I think you have hit the nail on the head.   I think that factor plays a greater role in some of those die-hard Clinton supporters than most people think and would explain to a degree why some of these folks are going to be voting for McCain.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Aug 2008)

Explanation of the Bradley Effect which is the term for white voters that tell a pollster one thing and vote another.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=268328

NASHUA, NH – Barack Obama was supposed to win New Hampshire. 

The polls going into Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary had him running ahead of Hillary Clinton by up to 13 points. 

Yet, when the returns came in on Tuesday night, Obama lost by three points to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton. 

Were the polls flawed? 

Or was it just another instance of The Bradley Effect? 

The Bradley Effect refers to an electoral phenomenon first identified in a 1982 California gubernatorial election. 

Tom Bradley, the popular mayor of Los Angeles, was the supposed frontrunner in an open race for the state's top job. Polls showed the African-American Democrat running well ahead of white Republican candidate George Deukmejian. Yet, when the returns came in, Bradley lost by more than 50,000 votes. 

The result made no sense. The gubernatorial election was one of the few Democratic losses in what was a good year for the party. Bradley was an able politician with a sound record. Analysts took a new look at the polls, which seemed to have been conducted appropriately. 

They asked: What are we missing here? 

Then they hit on the notion that white voters, not wanting to be thought of as prejudiced against an African-American candidate, had told pollsters they were for Bradley when they had always intended to vote for Deukmejian. 

The phenomenon came to be referred to as The Bradley Effect. 

It was to be seen again in 1989, when Virginians were electing a new governor. African-American Democrat Doug Wilder held a solid lead over white Republican Marshall Coleman – nine points in some polls. Yet, on election night, results showed him winning by less than one point. 

In 1990, when African-American Democrat Harvey Gantt challenged white Republican incumbent Jesse Helms for a North Carolina Senate seat, polls had Gantt ahead by four to six percentage points. On election night, however, Helms prevailed by four points. 

Again and again, in elections in the north and south, The Bradley Effect has come into play. 

But, skeptical observers will note, there was no evidence of a Bradley effect in last week's Iowa caucuses. Obama led in the polls and he led on election night. What explains this? In Iowa, voting took place in a very public caucus setting where neighbors saw who neighbors backed. 

In New Hampshire, as in California in 1982, in Virginia in 1989 and North Carolina in 1990, the presidential primary voting took place in private--behind the curtain of a voting booth. It was possible for voters who had said they were for Obama to cast their ballots for Clinton. 

That's how The Bradley Effect works. 

And there is good reason to suspect that The Bradley Effect was at work in New Hampshire. This is not to suggest that everyone who decided against voting for Obama was a racist. Nor is the point here that all those likely Democratic primary voters who said they were excited about Obama were lying. Rather, what needs to be understood is that voters in New Hampshire -- like voters in other states -- come to the polls with backgrounds and attitudes toward African-American candidates. 

New Hampshire's population boomed in the 1970s and 1980s, when white residents of the Boston area fled north during a period of bitter dispute over busing to achieve racial integration. Many of these people grew up with a charged, racially defined politics that created long-term impressions about whether African-American candidates are electable. Thus, it is entirely possible that voters told pollsters that preferred Barack Obama but did not vote for him because they really did not think he could win in November. 

Whatever the precise reasoning, The Bradley Effect offers a credible explanation for why the polls were so very wrong. 

It also offers a cautionary note regarding the New Hampshire results and what they mean for the rest of the primary process: If The Bradley Effect was in play in New Hampshire, then Barack Obama may face a greater struggle as he seeks to bridge those rarely-mentioned gaps that remain in a nation that has long been divided along lines of race and class. 

It is not merely Obama's struggle, however. It is America's struggle, as well. And Obama's opening remains. If he is ready to wrestle with The Bradley Effect -- and if his campaign is willing to challenge opponents who seek to exploit it with coded questions about "electability" -- Obama might well succeed in opening the American political debate up in a way that has been needed for a very long time.


----------



## geo (28 Aug 2008)

T6
I would contend that it is just as much a "White / coloured" issue as it is a "man / woman" issue.

People being polled would say they are for the female candidate..... without necessarily intending to vote for the female presidential candidate.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Aug 2008)

The problem that I see with Obama/Biden is that it may be too far to the left for a majority of voters which is why Obama tends to avoid specifics.He shows disturbing non-democratic outlook. A recent effective McCain ad attacking Obama's ties to close friend and former terrorist Bill Ayers caused his campaign to send a letetr to the Dept of Justice asking for the maker/financial backers to be arrested.Yet George Soros on the left has financed similar ads on behalf of democrats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The problem that I see with Obama/Biden is that it may be too far to the left for a majority of voters ...



Agreed. So long as some crises (Russia/Caucuses, sub-prime mortgages, Afghanistan/Iraq) continue to simmer away Americans are likely to want to trim their sails. Obama is _*perceived*_ to be big on change, new things, experimentations and so on - that may not be what Americans want.

McCain *appears* to offer a return to more familiar, stable policies - not necessarily George W Bush's policies but ones which Americans think they had under Bush Sr. and Clinton. That may be a very attractive offering.


----------



## CougarKing (28 Aug 2008)

McCain makes decision on a running mate?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080828/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes



> By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
> 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2008)

I think its going to be Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. By the way her son is serving in the Army and McCain's is serving in the Marines. Both are around the same age - 19ish.


----------



## stegner (29 Aug 2008)

Joe Biden's son has served in Iraq.  He is a captain in the Army National Guard.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2008)

He is a JAG officer.


----------



## Sheerin (29 Aug 2008)

McCain picks Gov. Palin 
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/08/29/mccain-vp.html


> McCain to name female Alaska governor as VP pick: reports
> 
> Hoping to steal some thunder from Barack Obama's Democratic nomination, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain will announce Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate on Friday, according to U.S. media reports.
> 
> ...


----------



## stegner (29 Aug 2008)

Is it just me or does she have no experience?  This makes it harder for McCain to go after Obama for having no experience.  It also raises questions about McCain's decision-making capacity.  This is the person he picks to be one heart beat away from the Presidency.  Given that McCain turns 72 today and is not in the best health-this decision is a bit discomforting-though not to the enemies of the West.  I imagine the Axis of Evil is having a kegger right now in celebration of McCain's choice.   This decision may not be the best for Canada's arctic  sovereignty assertions.  Gee I wonder what an Alaskan ex-Governor as VP would think about the border, which the U.S already asserts is fungible.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2008)

Too funny Stegner,she has more executive experience than the three guys in this race.McCain,Obama and Biden have zero executive experience. She has been a mayor,a member of the State Ethics Commission and she was the chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.By the way she has been Governor for 2 years.


----------



## stegner (29 Aug 2008)

Indeed the city of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,4751) gives incredible executive experience ;D   Let's face it-she is not qualified to be VP, let alone P.   Her executive experience is basically zero.   You also forgot that she was the 1984 runner-up to Miss Alaska!  But surely her good looks has nothing to with her appointment.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ... Let's face it-she is not qualified to be VP, let alone P.   Her executive experience is basically zero...



A short time state governor is, surely, about as well qualified as a short time US senator. If Obama is qualified to be president then so is Palin: she appears to be a naive born American, over 21 and able to breathe on her own.

There are, now, two reasonably balanced tickets: McCain/Palin bring a mix of compelling personal narratives, experience and youthful hope, foreign/defence policy _street cred_ and some, albeit limited, executive experience. Obama/Biden also bring compelling personal narratives, a mix of experience and youthful hope and considerable _street cred_ in social policy and foreign/defence policy fields.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ... she was the 1984 runner-up to Miss Alaska!  But surely her good looks has nothing to with her appointment.



And that sure doesn’t hurt ‘cause this is the 21st century and TV/Internet video are the *main* campaign tools. She appears, thus far, to be telegenic and, unlke McCain, comfortable on TV.

But, I think the important things she brings to McCain’s campaign include, but are not limited to:

•	Appeal to the religious right – she is much, much more socially conservative than is McCain. The religious right won the last two (quite close) elections for George W Bush but, to date, anyway, they have been cool to McCain; if Palin can ignite them then she may just win the election for the GOP;

•	Appeal to the gun crowd – the NRA doesn’t like McCain. Palin is a NRA darling;

•	Appeal to the reformers – McCain has tried to sell himself as a maverick reformer, but he’s been in Washington for _soooo loooong_. Palin has god, recent reformer and maverick credentials;

•	Appeal to women – women have traditionally favoured the Democrats, and Obama, despite beating and then snubbing Hillary, appeals to women. Palin will, at least, keep Republican women onside and maybe bring a few Democrat and Independent women over, too; and

•	Appeal to *real* fiscal and small government conservatives – many of whom are Independents. 

My guess is that the McCain/Palin campaign is, right now, feeding both McCain and Palin with fire hoses:

•	Economic and social policy for McCain; and

•	Foreign and defence policy for Palin.

On balance I think Palin is a good choice – she nicely counters several of McCain’s real weaknesses. 

Some commentators have been saying that the _’experience’_ factor was not working, at least not very well, for McCain. Every time someone raises experience one need only mention Harry Truman – he was totally _unready_ to be president but he did an admirable job; he grew nto the job very, very quickly.

Anyway, she is the nominee and the GOP will have to get the best they can from her, but this is a *presidential* campaign and the VP candidates are side shows. McCain needs to run on his own personal _narrative_ as a trustworthy, loyal, maverick hero. He has to convince enough Americans that now, in strategically and economically perilous times, he has the better mix of attributes and that his weaknesses are less dangerous than Obama’s.


----------



## stegner (29 Aug 2008)

Mr. Campbell as usual a great analysis.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2008)

She does command the Alaska National Guard and she likes the military, unlike Obama and Biden. She is a life member of the NRA which helps secure the 2d Amendment folks - unlike Obama and Biden.She has experience dealing with the oil companies and is conversant about energy policy. If McCain becomes President she will have the inside track for replacing McCain.What better place to get experience on a national level than as VP ?


----------



## CougarKing (29 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> She does command the Alaska National Guard and she likes the military, *unlike Obama and Biden. *



Here you go again painting the US Democrats as extremely anti-military. I guess Obama just went to that other convention for Veterans of Foreign Wars recently cause he felt like it. : And I suppose both retired Generals Shalikashvilli and Wesley Clarke both support the Dems because they hate the US military. And US Democratic Senator- a former SECNAV who has a son in the USMC in Iraq, IIRC- James Webb also helped author the new GI bill since he hates the US military. Yup- it all fits.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Aug 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Here you go again painting the US Democrats as extremely anti-military.



Actualy, what he said was :



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> unlike Obama and Biden.



So he specificaly indentified 2 individuals.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2008)

Well Cougar you are extrapolating. I didnt say all democrats - just Obama and Biden. They are the party of defeat in the US. The democrats have a history of underfunding the military so it is safe to say they are soft on national defense. Sort of like a certain Canadian party. If you notice leftists no matter the country underfund their military.I have served both democrat Presidents Carter and Clinton as well as Republican Presidents Nixon,Ford,Reagan and both Bush's so I think I have some experience in this regard Cougar. As for Shali and Clark they seem to support the democrat's defense policies which is their right just as it is my right to disagree.I might add just for the record Clark was fired as SACEUR by Clinton.


----------



## stegner (29 Aug 2008)

Tomahawk.  Carter served in the U.S Navy for seven years and was a good pretty naval officer, as he got to into the nuclear sub fleet when it was still a fairly new thing.   Carter also started the arms buildup that Reagan continued.


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Aug 2008)

It's fascinating to me that spending your whole life in a country, and much of your adult life in their military garners no weight when it comes to discussing that country's politics on a message board with some people who can make neither of those claims.

Really.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2008)

Carter did no such thing as President. We had a hollow force which the Reagan buildup had to overcome.


----------



## KevinB (30 Aug 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> It's fascinating to me that spending your whole life in a country, and much of your adult life in their military garners no weight when it comes to discussing that country's politics on a message board with some people who can make neither of those claims.
> 
> Really.



Bingo,  I always love Canadian "experts" on US politics and military activities...


----------



## stegner (30 Aug 2008)

> It's fascinating to me that spending your whole life in a country, and much of your adult life in their military garners no weight when it comes to discussing that country's politics on a message board with some people who can make neither of those claims.



I am confused about this.   Do soldiers know more about politics than the average citizen?   I am guessing on average, given that the CF is a cross-section of Canadian society, that some soldier's know a lot, some a reasonable amount and some don't really know anything (just like any other profession).  So I am really not seeing your point.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2008)

One of the things that struck me, as I surfed the channels yesterday evening, was how *annoyed* the US political _’commentariat’_ is, was, anyway, at McCain’s choice. Campbell Brown (CNN) nearly blew a gasket as she tried to get a GOP campaign official to “tell the truth!” The ‘truth’ being that Palin is ‘unqualified.’ I’m guessing all this angst has more to do with being caught flat-footed than with any real consideration of Palin’s qualifications – thin though they may be – or of what she adds to the ticket.

Some commentators resorted to football analogies. The “Hail Mary” pass was trotted out by at least two of them. Bill O’Reilly said something about taking your star running back (the ‘experience’ factor) out of the game and relying only upon the quarterback to win.

By the end of the evening cooler heads were prevailing. “Look,” one commentator said (approximately), “Spiro Agnew and Dan Quail were on winning tickets while Walter Mondale and Joe Lieberman were losers; so much for the value of ‘qualified’ candidates!”

McCain has chosen to select a VP who should help to secure his own base – especially with the prototypical _gun toting, rural red-neck and religious_ conservatives who helped George W Bush so much. Obama did much the same – trying to appeal to the _rust belt urban, union member, working class_ Democratic base that rallied to Hillary Clinton after she reinvented herself, in mid-campaign, in their image.

One part of the platform where Palin may be a real help is on maverick-reformer plank. Obama, rather like self described maverick McCain, is a professional politician, à la Stephen Harper; he’s never held a ‘real’ job; he’s been an academic, _community activist_ or elected official all his life. Now, to be fair, Palin’s resumé isn’t much thicker but she can (almost certainly will) claim that she is more of a “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” type who went into politics – city council, then mayor then governor, only to do battle *for* the ‘little guy’ and to fight the lazy, corrupt, entrenched political establishment. There’s just enough truth in all that to make it appealing to a lot of people.

This is still an uphill fight for McCain/Palin; don’t let Obama’s weak performance this summer fool you – he *will outspend* McCain by three, four or five to one and he is a first rate campaigner, especially when he addresses a big crowd on a philosophical topic. Obama is a real, certified *celebrity* – based in part upon being the first black person, in a country captivated by racial matters, to have a real shot at he highest office in the land. America is, also, a celebrity obsessed place and just being famous – celebrated – is a ‘qualification’ of sorts. But, McCain is a genuine *hero* and heroics, especially the stoical heroism* he displayed, plays well, too. Americans may, enviously, _worship_ celebrities but they *want to be* heroes. I’m guessing that authentic heroism will trump celebrity.

McCain and Palin also have the _advantage_, if one can call it that, of having sons on active service: McCain’s son Jimmy is a marine and Palin’ son Track is a soldier. There is a perception in America that the rich and powerful manage to shield their sons from combat. ‘Ordinary’ folks, so goes the myth, bear the burdens and risks of combat while the children of privilege hide out in e.g. the Air National Guard.

But, I repeat, this is a *presidential* election and it will be won and lost by the *presidential* candidates: McCain and Obama. The role of he VP is, as _Cactus Jack_ Garner (FDR’s VP from 1933 to 41) said, "not worth a bucket of warm piss." And that’s about the impact Joe Biden and Sarah Palin will have on the election, too.


-------------------
* Consider the words of the US national anthem: It is a story of heroic endurance and the marvel of seeing, in “the dawn’s early light” that, after a night of ferocious bombardment, their “flag was still there.”


----------



## stegner (30 Aug 2008)

> * Consider the words of the US national anthem: It is a story of heroic endurance and the marvel of seeing, in “the dawn’s early light” that, after a night of ferocious bombardment, their “flag was still there.”



Though, I would question the myth of historic endurance seen in the U.S in this respect.  The U.S anthem is about the War of 1812, which the Americans started and lost.  



> McCain and Palin also have the advantage, if one can call it that, of having sons on active service: McCain’s son Jimmy is a marine and Palin’ son Track is a soldier. There is a perception in America that the rich and powerful manage to shield their sons from combat. ‘Ordinary’ folks, so goes the myth, bear the burdens and risks of combat while the children of privilege hide out in e.g. the Air National Guard.



Biden has a son who has seen active duty.  Obama's children are too young for combat.  The father of young children is something that has appeal also.  That's why in our own country the PM is playing on precisely that  in the pre-election ads.  



> But, I repeat, this is a presidential election and it will be won and lost by the presidential candidates: McCain and Obama. The role of he VP is, as Cactus Jack Garner (FDR’s VP from 1933 to 41) said, "not worth a bucket of warm piss." And that’s about the impact Joe Biden and Sarah Palin will have on the election, too.



I do think that McCain is more vulnerable on the VP pick as due to his age and health problems.  There is a reasonable risk that if McCain wins the presidency for four or eight years that he will become _non compos mentis _, too sick to remain in office and even possibly die in office.  If McCain wins for eight years he will exit the White House at 80.  While there have been many elder statesman, Konrad Adenauer for one, with all due respect, McCain is no Adenauer.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2008)

I maintain that John McCain is a better choice, for Canada, for the office of President of the United States, but this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, says that I may be wrong:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=756804


> Democrats in office are TSX's best friend
> *Performs Better*
> 
> Jonathan Ratner, Financial Post
> ...



Well, I accept the data for whatever it’s worth, but I think that Canada’s interests go a wee bit beyond the TSX and, broadly, I think we will be less well off under Obama than McCain.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Aug 2008)

> Though, I would question the myth of historic endurance seen in the U.S in this respect.  The U.S anthem is about the War of 1812, which the Americans started and lost.



I quibble with this statement Stegner. At least in US history books the war of 1812 was a win,maybe not pretty but a win.Yes we might have started it because the British were impressing our sailors - an intolerable circumstance.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I quibble with this statement Stegner. At least in US history books the war of 1812 was a win,maybe not pretty but a win.Yes we might have started it because the British were impressing our sailors - an intolerable circumstance.



T6 - Edward did refer to the "Myth"  ;D.

One bad day, and after the ref had blown time, and you lot claim victory.     

Cheers.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Aug 2008)

The problem Kirkhill is that word traveled alot slower in those days - thankfully. ;D


----------



## aesop081 (30 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I am confused about this.



Let me "un-confuse" you.

Do you , or have ever, lived in the United States ?


----------



## stegner (30 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Let me "un-confuse" you.
> 
> Do you , or have ever, lived in the United States ?



Nope


----------



## GAP (30 Aug 2008)

> But, I repeat, this is a presidential election and it will be won and lost by the presidential candidates: McCain and Obama. The role of he VP is, as Cactus Jack Garner (FDR’s VP from 1933 to 41) said, "not worth a bucket of warm piss." And that’s about the impact Joe Biden and Sarah Palin will have on the election, too.



I disagree ER....I watched the introduction of Palin into the race yesterday, and I think it is going to solidly lock the conservative vote to McCain, and if she can continue to carry it off, will stifle, if not attract the people who are uneasy about Obama, either because he is black, or because he seems to good to be true....


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The problem Kirkhill is that word traveled alot slower in those days - thankfully. ;D



Yeah, yeah.  I've used that excuse myself.  "Honest Ref, I never heard the whistle".


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I disagree ER....I watched the introduction of Palin into the race yesterday, and I think it is going to solidly lock the conservative vote to McCain, and if she can continue to carry it off, will stifle, if not attract the people who are uneasy about Obama, either because he is black, or because he seems to good to be true....



ON TOPIC:

And if, as I understand from some reports that I have read, it turns out to be someone that is legislatively "Pro-Choice" but personally "Pro-Life", for traditional marriage but in favour of gay rights and civil unions, and a "Creationist" that only asks that Creationism be given a hearing alongside evolution so that debate and individual choice is possible..... she may end up pulling some moderate-centrist (Blue-Dog?) Hillary supporting women from Obama.  

In a 50:50 race it only needs one vote.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Nope



Then i'm going to venture out and say that T6 has a better grasp and perspective on US politics than you do. Not simply for his residency but hes a pretty smart guy and is more involved in the process down there than you are.

Being a pretty long serving officer in that country's armed forces tend to give you a pretty good understanding of the inner working of its politics. A perspective i doubt you have, i this country or the US.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> ... I watched the introduction of Palin into the race yesterday, and I think it is going to solidly lock the conservative vote to McCain, and if she can continue to carry it off, will stifle, if not attract the people who are uneasy about Obama, either because he is black, or because he seems to good to be true....



I agree with you and I said yesterday that she will appeal to the highly social conservative base that delivered for George W Bush. It remains to be seen if that base will answer the call.

But, when the campaign heats up, in October, it will be Obama and McCain who will matter. *IF* Palin helps McCain to secure the social conservative activists then the race is close, it is McCain’s ace to lose.

Some time back I saw an analysis that went *something* like this (I’m too lazy to go look for it):

Most Likely Voters:                          Advantage to:
Middle class white adults (over 30)     Even split
Seniors                                          McCain
Lower middle class white adults          McCain – *IF* Palin can bring them over	
Upper middle class blacks                  Obama
Hispanics                                        Even split
Young voters (under 30)                   Obama
All other blacks                               Obama, massively

In other words, Obama has an overall, numerical advantage but McCain leads amongst the most likely voters. The middle class whites also move towards McCain IF Palin can win over the religious right. Palin can help energize the social conservatives but, finally, McCain as to sell himself to most of the voters, including an overwhelming majority of Republicans, many Independents and some of the _Reagan Democrats_, too.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Aug 2008)

Events in the world could hurt the democrats. Georgia helped McCain. The democrat position on energy helps McCain. If the democrats were smart they would allow domestic drilling and development of oil shale in Colorado and take that issue off the table. This is going to be the most exciting campaign since 2000. Polling data the week before the election will tell the story.Obama needs to be up 15 points to win. If McCain is up by 10 points it would indicate a landslide for McCain. This election will be a referendum on Obama. Whats strange is that with the economy and war the democrats should be a lock on the White House but so far Obama is far from closing the deal.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree with you and I said yesterday that she will appeal to the highly social conservative base that delivered for George W Bush. It remains to be seen if that base will answer the call.
> 
> But, when the campaign heats up, in October, it will be Obama and McCain who will matter. *IF* Palin helps McCain to secure the social conservative activists then the race is close, it is McCain’s ace to lose.
> 
> ...



I am inferring from the above post that identity politics do play a large role in your analysis. What happened to Mr. Thucydides' principle that Conservatives place more stock on individual or personal stances on issues as opposed to voting by ethnic or class bloc, which he emphasized earlier in this thread, IIRC? So one must now admit that group or identity politics cannot be totally ignored?


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2008)

I think 'identity' politics are hugely important.

Classical liberals, like me, are supposed to value the individual, regardless of race, creed etc, but the only barely smart liberals, classical or not, and conservatives and independents recognize that most people share values that can be roughly defined by age, sex, race, education, income level and (despite 21st century communications) region.

I think classical liberalism will never succeed for the same reason communism is always bound to fail: humanity is not perfectible.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I am inferring from the above post that identity politics do play a large role in your analysis. What happened to Mr. Thucydides' principle that Conservatives place more stock on individual or personal stances on issues as opposed to voting by ethnic or class bloc, which he emphasized earlier in this thread, IIRC? So one must now admit that group or identity politics cannot be totally ignored?



CougarDaddy, perhaps you might want to review my post on populations, set theory, Venn Diagrams and kaleidoscopes.  Averages allow you to predict the probability of a group acting in a given manner.  However, even though a specific individual may share many traits with the group I will still maintain it is impossible to predict that individual's actions.

If you don't mind having the odd individual act outside of the parameters of your predicted model then it is safe to rely on probabilities and group theory.  (Losing an individual voter who changes her/his mind in the booth does not present a catastrophic failure risk)

If however there is a risk of any given individual gaining access to the US's nuclear arsenal then you might not find it sufficient to rely on group dynamics and probabilities.   One "Outlier" may make for a very bad day.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Aug 2008)

Why do people vote the way they do ? The $64,000 question. People vote based on heritage - I vote democrat because my parents did. They vote the party despite the party's stance on issues. Identity voting is unique to this cycle as historically its been 2 white guys running for President. I am an issues voter. If the candidate is strong on national defense he/she has my vote . Others vote on their own hot button issues like taxes,economy,war or the environment.This cycle we have seen blacks and minorities supporting a black candidate irregardless of his policies. The democrats have spent alot of money trying to get the MTV vote and so far they just dont vote.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Aug 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I am inferring from the above post that identity politics do play a large role in your analysis. What happened to Mr. Thucydides' principle that Conservatives place more stock on individual or personal stances on issues as opposed to voting by ethnic or class bloc, which he emphasized earlier in this thread, IIRC? So one must now admit that group or identity politics cannot be totally ignored?



Conservatives do place more stock on the individual than the "group", but Kirkhill has set the context of appealing to voting blocks and "strategic" campaigns. Perusing the "Blogging Tories" demonstrates these ideas; individuals as diverse as Ezra Levant. "Blazing Catfur" and "Gay and Right" share similar sets of values, hence their appearance on the Blogging Tories, but are also parts of larger demographics as well.

Where Classical Liberals and Progressives diverge is Progressives would like to lump Ezra Levant into the "Jewish" block; "Blazing Catfur" into the large annoyed mammals category ( ;D), and Gay and Right into the GBLT demographic; Classical Liberals wish to look beyond the simplistic labels and "group identities", certainly the writings of these individuals demonstrates more commonalities between them than the "group identities" that Progressives wish to pigeon hole them into.

The ideal Classical Liberal campaign would be to set forth a platform which appeals to the common ideals (i.e. the CPC five election planks campaign of 2006), whereas Progressives try to appeal to specific group identity blocks (as MSM and Progressive obsession with race, class and demographics indicates). Progressives obviously have difficulties with people who don't toe the line, look at their treatment of American black conservatives like Dr Rice.....

So I would expect to see the US campaign moving into some variation of these two modes; the McCain campaign will have a straightforward narrative (with subtle emphasis changes for various audiences as Kirkhill suggests); while the Obama campaign will offer widely divergent promises designed to appeal to specific "groups".


----------



## a_majoor (31 Aug 2008)

Oh, Mark Steyn on Senator McCain's VP pick (outstanding as always)....

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODNhOTk2YTU0NWY4ZjY5ODNhZTgyOWZkNjY5YjFlMmY=



> *The hostess with the moosest*   [Mark Steyn]
> 
> Over in the Frumistan province of the NR caliphate, our pal David is not happy about the Palin pick. I am - for several reasons.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (1 Sep 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Oh, Mark Steyn on Senator McCain's VP pick (outstanding as always)....
> 
> http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODNhOTk2YTU0NWY4ZjY5ODNhZTgyOWZkNjY5YjFlMmY=



The other side's response to balance out Mark Steyn's comments:  ^-^

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/palin/

(Note that the article titles listed below further down the excerpt are actually hyperlinked in the webpage link above.)




> Given McCain’s age and health history, the choice of Vice President has unusually great significance.  He chose someone who looks good, sounds good, and fits his marketing needs.  She is, however, grossly unqualified to be President of the United States.  Perhaps her primary qualification is to make Obama look over-qualified.
> 
> McCain treats the election as if it were a reality TV show, to be won by tricks.  It mocks the McCain campaign’s slogan of “Country First.”   This choice not only demonstrates his well-known erraticness plus, in my opinion, displays contempt for the American people.  Are we as stupid as he believes us to be?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2008)

Governor Palin's speech:

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/515148.html



> *Vice Presidential Nominee To Address the 2008 Republican National Convention*
> 
> Published: September 3rd, 2008 07:09 PM
> Last Modified: September 3rd, 2008 07:09 PM
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2008)

It appears that I guessed right: Gov. Palin did, indeed use the _”Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”_ analog but she used it to bash Obama and the media. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is the story as seen by John Ibbitson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080904.wconventionsb04/BNStory/Front
My *emphasis* added


> Republican Barracuda bites back
> *After five days of scrutiny, Palin lashes out at Washington elites and the media*
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> ...




I know some of us here on Army.ca believe that the _blogosphere_ is an essential counter to a lazy, ill-informed and biased mainstream media, an essential bulwark for the defence of our liberties against the massive _collectives_, including a collectivist media, that confront us. True enough, I guess, as far as it goes, but Ibbitson is also right: the _blogosphere_ is, also, a totally irresponsible gang of gossipy old rumour mongers unfettered by any standards at all. They – some? many? most of them - spread rumours, they totally eschew fact checking and they are unburdened by anything like ethics. _Pace_ to all the bloggers here but the _blogosphere_ is so large (and barriers to entry are so low (Got a PC and Internet connection? Great, you’re _”approved!”_)) that it cannot help but be overwhelmed by an ignorant, irresponsible majority – or, at least a huge minority.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Sep 2008)

But where in her speech does she speak to the major American problems, the economy, national debt and deficit, health care etc etc.
All we got was grandstanding and a lot of bluster.
Who would you want to step into the Presidential shoes Biden or Palin?


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> Who would you want to step into the Presidential shoes Biden or Palin?



Since, as a Canadian looking solely at Canada's vital interests, I *much* prefer McCain to Obama then I have to 'want' Palin. Having an experienced big taxing and big spending Democrat backstopping an inexperienced big taxing/big spending Democrat does not fill me with confidence - in fact it scares the bejeezus out of me.


----------



## GAP (4 Sep 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> But where in her speech does she speak to the major American problems, the economy, national debt and deficit, health care etc etc.
> All we got was grandstanding and a lot of bluster.
> Who would you want to step into the Presidential shoes Biden or Palin?



They have 60+ days to count the number of angels and devils on the head of a pin.....ad infinum.....patience.....last night was all about introducing her in the right light, and finding out if she was going to wilt under the scrutiny......she didn't, a bit stilted, but so would we all be in those circumstances....

Let's see....do I want a 30+ year political gameskeeper to have the handle of power, or someone who has some actual experience....tough one..


----------



## YZT580 (4 Sep 2008)

Kim Campbell was right when she said that an election campaign is no place to discuss policy.  As the liberals proved in their attacks on Harper, elections are all about trust.  The speech last night was all about why the Americans should trust McCain and not Obama.  But you have to admit, she has just brought life to an otherwise dull campaign.  The next 8 weeks will be very interesting.  

That said, there are a lot of very vicious attacks going on in this media. The hoovers are out checking under every bed.  Hillary Clintons web page is out in full support: but not for Obama.  They like McCain's choice or maybe they just don't like Obama.  The attacks on family values just don't stop and Obama's colour and religion also feature prominently on both sides>  If you vote for McCain you are racist and if you vote for Obama it is because he is black and you don't want to be seen as racist.


----------



## CougarKing (4 Sep 2008)

Maybe she wanted to let Alaska secede so that they can later become part of Canada.  >



> *New revelations about the Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin — including her membership of a party that wants Alaskans to vote on becoming a separate country — are raising questions about how thoroughly John McCain's campaign vetted her background before adding her to the ticket.*
> 
> Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence party (AIP) before becoming an elected Republican official, according to party members, and recorded a video message for the AIP convention this year. The AIP's chief goal is securing Alaska a vote on seceding from the US, a goal that party leaders believe the state was denied before it became part of the US almost 50 years ago.
> 
> ...





Guardian


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Sep 2008)

Because of Palin's backing the gas pipeline from the North Slope to Edmonton and then routing through another pipeline for transmission to the US this project will finally be built after 40 years of dithering.


----------



## stegner (4 Sep 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Because of Palin's backing the gas pipeline from the North Slope to Edmonton and then routing through another pipeline for transmission to the US this project will finally be built after 40 years of dithering.



How does this benefit Canadians?


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> How does this benefit Canadians?



An American economy that is more insulated from energy price shocks is a more stable market for 80-85% of Canadian exports, with corresponding positive effects on GDP, income and earnings for Canadians, that's how.


----------



## 2 Cdo (4 Sep 2008)

Palins speech was amazing. The perfect blend of rhetoric and common sense, with a few pointed barbs at Obama. A contrast to Obamas speech which was all rhetoric and no common sense. McCain just might have made the perfect choice as a running mate. :warstory:

I know it's early, but one can hope can't I.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Sep 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> How does this benefit Canadians?



In a word JOBS. There is probably another upside to a transCanada pipeline that as Canadian exploration in the arctic continues it would be more practical getting the gas to market by linking to the TCP. Just a thought.
This project was hung up by cost and the low price of natural gas. One plan was to build the pipeline alongside the oil pipeline which would require it to be shipped by tanker. The other plan was the TransCanadian pipeline one argument against it was the fear that Canada could shut the pipeline off. This plan was also the most costly. I am glad that the state is spending some of its oil wealth to bring gas to market which should be a great return on their investment and I think it helps to bring our two countries together.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Sep 2008)

Think Hillary fans won't swing to Palin?

This is pretty interesting: http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=26179


----------



## GAP (5 Sep 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Think Hillary fans won't swing to Palin?
> 
> This is pretty interesting: http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=26179



I wonder how it will actually translate, but it sure is a hopeful sign....nice to see..


----------



## GAP (5 Sep 2008)

McCain just did an excellent speach (for McCain)....should improve their numbers...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Sep 2008)

I just caught the last 2/3 of Senator McCain's speech at the RNC.  I was impressed;  I thought he came across as experienced, sincere..humble; and I was (somewhat) surprised that he even went as far to say that the way the Republican's do business needs to change.  Distancing himself from GWB...atleast in the sense of 'how business is currently done'.  I am anything but a political expert, but I liked him.  I guess its average voters like me that make a difference though.

From what I've watched of the 2 candidates to date...I'd give my vote to him.  The 3 upcoming debates should be interesting.


----------



## Flip (5 Sep 2008)

Until last night I feared thought the election would be an Obama coronation.

Tonight, I was telephoned by the widow of a order of Canada recipient and prominent journalist.  She was vexed.  She wanted me to know that Sarah Palin didn't write her own speech.  She has been an Obama fan for years.

I don't care. As an introduction last night was amazing.  I laughed and cried  etc......
In particular, the point at which she introduced her sons.- both service men.

Now, I know the republicans are on the right track.   ;D


----------



## aesop081 (5 Sep 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> She wanted me to know that Sarah Palin didn't write her own speech.



They never write their speeches. Kennedy didnt write his famous speech during the Cuban missiles crisis. They have speech writters, its a well know fact.

"mayor of a small town...thats kind of like community organizer !! "

Priceless.......


----------



## Flip (5 Sep 2008)

> They never write their speeches.



Of course! and that goes for all the other crap they trot out as criticism!   

Sarah Palin  rocks - and there's nothing the Dems can do about it!   >


----------



## armyvern (5 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I wonder how it will actually translate, but it sure is a hopeful sign....nice to see..



Them wicked women may be his downfall yet.

This post had me cracking up ...



> OB: FAMOUS LAST WORDS:
> 
> "I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee. It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee." -- Barack Obama, February 1, 2008



Poster's response:

_We'll see about that, kiddo..._


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2008)

As one of the _commentariat_ said last night, if McCain is going to win this election it will not be because of his oratory. Try as they might, his handlers could not make him look like a good speaker – and Obama is a *near great* one. 

The message, however, seemed to surprise some journalists and ‘talking heads.’ It was, compared to Obama less than a week earlier, full of reasonably detailed proposals about economic and ‘social’ (mainly education) issues and, especially on education, he is starkly different from Obama, who is beholden to the _education workers’_ unions.

On balance, and if I’m reading the _Monday morning quarterbacks_ correctly:

•	Palin brought the Christian right/social conservative base back on board and energized it; and

•	McCain offered the moderate middle and the working class _Reagan Democrats_ a real and attractive choice.

His courageous personal narrative remains compelling and a great ‘draw.’ He is on display as exactly what so many Americans like and respect, indeed *revere* so much: a modest hero. 

I think, I’m *guessing* that Bush’s totally unfair and really dishonest attacks on McCain in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 will not work, will, indeed, backfire, if the Democrats try anything like them on McCain. There are a few anti-McCain/McCain’s no hero naysayers out there already but Obama has been, wisely, I believe, quick to disavow them.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Sep 2008)

The thing I dislike about Obama is that he uses third parties to do the smears and then he acts like he is above it all.If you look at how he got to this point in his career he did so by disqualifying his opponents a tried and true Chicago strategy. He asked the Department of Justice twice to bring charges against the people behind a campaign ad,his request was file thirteened but if he was President I could see him going after people ge didnt like.They already have stated that if elected they will prosecute Bush,Chaney,Rove for war crimes something out of the communist playbook.


----------



## stegner (5 Sep 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> something out of the communist playbook.



Tomahawk you have provided absolutely no hard evidence of Obama being a communist, instead you proffer innuendo.  This is not the first time either.   If you continue to do so without providing any I will be forced to think you academically lazy.  But I know you are vastly more intelligent than this.    While I will defend your right to dislike Obama I ask that you do so for intelligent reasons  (i.e. he is weak on national security, he is a snake oil salesman with few concrete plans or as simple as I just don't like him).   However, I resent your labeling of anyone that does not share your views as a communist-this is not an intelligent argument.  Was Bush a communist when he outed Plame?  Certainly not.   What about the Republicans with Whitewater, Monica and etc.  Revenge is not limited to communists.  Capitalists and Republicans do a mighty fine job in this respect.  Obama is not like Clinton who traveled to the Soviet Union as a student.  The same work for those folks that label Bush a fascist: hard evidence please.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Sep 2008)

I didnt call Obama a communist. But some of his tactics seem to be the same as practiced by communist/totalitarian regime's.Its certainly not normal actions for US politics. Try not to read more into my comments than I actually post. I dont have a personal bias toward Obama I just dont agree with his VERY liberal views.For many Americans his close association with former domestic terrorists and extremist religious figures isnt acceptable for a Presidential candidate,but hey we just have a couple of months before the voters make their will known.

Here is his letter.Simmons by the way is doing exactly what Soros does for the left through groups like moveon.org.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_aip_letter_082608.html

Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121918996082755013.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Sep 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Tomahawk you have provided absolutely no hard evidence of Obama being a communist, instead you proffer innuendo.  This is not the first time either.   If you continue to do so without providing any I will be forced to think you academically lazy.  But I know you are vastly more intelligent than this.    While I will defend your right to dislike Obama I ask that you do so for intelligent reasons  (i.e. he is weak on national security, he is a snake oil salesman with few concrete plans or as simple as I just don't like him).   However, I resent your labeling of anyone that does not share your views as a communist-this is not an intelligent argument.  Was Bush a communist when he outed Plame?  Certainly not.   What about the Republicans with Whitewater, Monica and etc.  Revenge is not limited to communists.  Capitalists and Republicans do a mighty fine job in this respect.  Obama is not like Clinton who traveled to the Soviet Union as a student.  The same work for those folks that label Bush a fascist: hard evidence please.



I might think you academically lazy for reading too much into a statement.   I honestly don't think Obama is a communist but he does have some very left-wing ideas. Along with his fear of NAFTA and his wanting to bring the US into a more protectionist, isolated country. This idea alone should cause Canadians to fear him being elected.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Sep 2008)

New York Times

September 5, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Resentment Strategy 
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts — the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business — really keep a straight face while denouncing “Eastern elites”?

Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it, “marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu” — that was between his second and third marriages — really get away with saying that Barack Obama doesn’t think small towns are sufficiently “cosmopolitan”?

Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into itself — until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were reserved for loyal Republicans — really portray herself as running against the “Washington elite”?

Yes, they can.

On Tuesday, He Who Must Not Be Named — Mitt Romney mentioned him just once, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin not at all — gave a video address to the Republican National Convention. John McCain, promised President Bush, would stand up to the “angry left.” That’s no doubt true. But don’t be fooled either by Mr. McCain’s long-ago reputation as a maverick or by Ms. Palin’s appealing persona: the Republican Party, now more than ever, is firmly in the hands of the angry right, which has always been much bigger, much more influential and much angrier than its counterpart on the other side. 

What’s the source of all that anger?

Some of it, of course, is driven by cultural and religious conflict: fundamentalist Christians are sincerely dismayed by Roe v. Wade and evolution in the curriculum. What struck me as I watched the convention speeches, however, is how much of the anger on the right is based not on the claim that Democrats have done bad things, but on the perception — generally based on no evidence whatsoever — that Democrats look down their noses at regular people.

Thus Mr. Giuliani asserted that Wasilla, Alaska, isn’t “flashy enough” for Mr. Obama, who never said any such thing. And Ms. Palin asserted that Democrats “look down” on small-town mayors — again, without any evidence. 

What the G.O.P. is selling, in other words, is the pure politics of resentment; you’re supposed to vote Republican to stick it to an elite that thinks it’s better than you. Or to put it another way, the G.O.P. is still the party of Nixon.

One of the key insights in “Nixonland,” the new book by the historian Rick Perlstein, is that Nixon’s political strategy throughout his career was inspired by his college experience, in which he got himself elected student body president by exploiting his classmates’ resentment against the Franklins, the school’s elite social club. There’s a direct line from that student election to Spiro Agnew’s attacks on the “nattering nabobs of negativism” as “an effete corps of impudent snobs,” and from there to the peculiar cult of personality that not long ago surrounded George W. Bush — a cult that celebrated his anti-intellectualism and made much of the supposed fact that the “misunderestimated” C-average student had proved himself smarter than all the fancy-pants experts. 

And when Mr. Bush turned out not to be that smart after all, and his presidency crashed and burned, the angry right — the raging rajas of resentment? — became, if anything, even angrier. Humiliation will do that.

Can Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin really ride Nixonian resentment into an upset election victory in what should be an overwhelmingly Democratic year? The answer is a definite maybe.

By selecting Barack Obama as their nominee, the Democrats may have given Republicans an opening: the very qualities that inspire many fervent Obama supporters — the candidate’s high-flown eloquence, his coolness factor — have also laid him open to a Nixonian backlash. Unlike many observers, I wasn’t surprised at the effectiveness of the McCain “celebrity” ad. It didn’t make much sense intellectually, but it skillfully exploited the resentment some voters feel toward Mr. Obama’s star quality. 

That said, the experience of the years since 2000 — the memory of what happened to working Americans when faux-populist Republicans controlled the government — is still fairly fresh in voters’ minds. Furthermore, while Democrats’ supposed contempt for ordinary people is mainly a figment of Republican imagination, the G.O.P. really is the Gramm Old Party — it really does believe that the economy is just fine, and the fact that most Americans disagree just shows that we’re a nation of whiners.

But the Democrats can’t afford to be complacent. Resentment, no matter how contrived, is a powerful force, and it’s one that Republicans are very, very good at exploiting. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


----------



## Adamant (5 Sep 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Along with his fear of NAFTA and his wanting to bring the US into a more protectionist, isolated country. This idea alone should cause Canadians to fear him being elected.



I personally don't think either of them is a tremendously good candidate, however, I do not in  any way fear the economic backlash.  Quite the opposite I see it as an opportunity to realize that there are other countries who would be more than willing to purchase our resources (the first one being...us) 

Exporting natural resources and importing manufactured goods is a plight of the third world, and more and more the Canadian economy is relying on this kind of trade, leaving resources such as fresh water hanging in the balance. 

If an elected big-D Democratic president wants to renegotiate NAFTA more power to him if they think they are getting the short end now, they will realize what a deal they had when the next Conservative Canadian government steps up and protects our resources.  

American citizens aside, the American government sees us a one big mine, a mine of uranium, lumber, oil, water, etc...  And one that when their industries complain their first reaction is to shut down imports thereby shuntting our economy.  Free-trade isn't free-trade when one side is constantly shutting it down crying not fair.


----------



## GAP (5 Sep 2008)

John McCain: One Prisoner of War's Fresh Appraisal of U.S. in 1973
Interview with Cdr. John S. McCain III Posted July 30, 2008
Article Link

This story originally appeared in the Dec. 31, 1973, issue of U.S.News & World Report.

Commander McCain spent 5½ years as a war prisoner. Because he was the son of a top U. S. admiral, his captors made every effort to wring propaganda from him. His first-person story appeared in this magazine's May 14, 1973, issue. Now, nine months after his return, he reports on what being home has been like.

Commander McCain, what has life been like for you in the nine months since your release from prison camp in Hanoi? Was there, for example, a big letdown after the initial joy of being free?
There certainly has been no letdown. The reception that we, as prisoners of war, received was overwhelming and somewhat embarrassing, because we felt that we were just average American pilots who had been shot down. We never anticipated such a feeling of warmth. It still shows no signs of letting up.

The only thing that has been somewhat of an adjustment is the difference in the pace of living now, as compared to in prison.

There, the big event of the day usually was when it came your turn to go out of your cell to bathe. I still seem not to have enough time to do all the things that I want to do—or have to do.

Readjustment has its amusing aspects, too. The other day I was talking with some friends about a movie star I remembered and somebody said, "Why, she's dead now."

I said, "What? She can't be!" And my wife, Carol, said: "You have to excuse John. He's only caught up to 1969 so far." It's become a big family joke.

Do the memories of those long years haunt you in any way? Do you, for example, have nightmares?
No, I sleep very well. But sometimes, a little thing can bring back those days in a flash. For instance, one of the most unpleasant aspects of living in a cell is to hear the keys rattle in the door at an unusual time of day—or night—when you know it isn't routine. That usually meant you were going for interrogation, and that could often turn into a long period of no sleep, no food, or severe torture.

A couple of times recently, I've heard keys rattle at a door, and for a very brief instant I've tensed up just as I did over there. But that's very rare.
More on link


----------



## TCBF (6 Sep 2008)

sophia jane said:
			
		

> WASHINGTON (WOMENSENEWS)--Some groups working to send New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to the White House are preparing to ...
> -------------------------------------------------------
> sophia jane



- What they be smokin'?


----------



## TCBF (6 Sep 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - What they be smokin'?



- Guess she can't answer me now, can she?


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Sep 2008)

Obama in the no spin zone tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1vSgA-MVBw&eurl=http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2008)

An interesting chart on this link. The blogger has tried to quantify the "experience" of each past American president and the current crop of contenders (Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Governor Palin, Senator Biden and Senator Clinton) using the same criterion. While this is somewhat subjective, at least each person is measured with the _same_ metrics. Look at where everyone stands:

http://powinca.blogspot.com/2008/09/presidential-experience.html


----------



## TCBF (12 Sep 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... I could see him going after people ge didnt like. ...



- Gadzooks...  shades of Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An interesting chart on this link. The blogger has tried to quantify the "experience" of each past American president and the current crop of contenders (Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Governor Palin, Senator Biden and Senator Clinton) using the same criterion. While this is somewhat subjective, at least each person is measured with the _same_ metrics. Look at where everyone stands:
> 
> http://powinca.blogspot.com/2008/09/presidential-experience.html



As expected, Palin, up in Alaska, and fairly new to it all didn't rank very high.....but the surprise is where the guy who wants to be the next Democrate President ranks.....9....really?


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2008)

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Sunday, September 14, 2008 
Article Link

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows John McCain reaching the 50% level of support for the first time since Barack Obama wrapped up the Democratic Presidential Nomination. McCain retains a three-point advantage for the third straight day, 50% to 47% (see recent daily results). 

Tracking Poll results are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day and a FREE daily e-mail update is available. Earlier, Rasmussen Reports reported tracking poll results both with and without leaners. Now that Election Day is drawing near, we will report only the results with leaners. 

Voters are evenly divided as to who they think will win, but McCain voters are now more excited about the election than Obama’s. Rasmussen Markets data gives McCain a 52.3% chance of victory while expectations for Obama are at 46.5%. These figures are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants. 

McCain is viewed favorably by 57% of the nation’s voters while Obama earns positive reviews from 53% (see trends). McCain is supported by 90% of Republicans and has a six-point edge among unaffiliated voters. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Democrats say they’ll vote for Obama. 

Other key stats of Election 2008 can still be seen at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers. 

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows McCain leading in states with 200 Electoral College votes while Obama has the edge in states with 193 votes. When “leaners” are included, shows Obama leading 259-247 (see Quick Campaign Overview). A total of 270 Electoral Votes are needed to win the White House (see 50-State Summary). 

This week, Rasmussen Reports released polling data for Nevada, Missouri. Washington, Michigan, Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 3,000 Likely Voters--is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.  
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Sep 2008)

Zogby has McCain leading in the key states of Ohio,Florida,Pennsylvania and Va. Pennsylvania is a must win for Obama to be elected.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2008)

A couple of weeks ago, former US House of Representatives majority leader Dick Armey told USA Today that the *Bubba Vote* will hurt Obama in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Others say it will work both ways: blacks will vote in unprecedented numbers for Obama, maybe even by enough to offset the *Bubba Vote*.

Traditionally blacks are *weak* voters – that is to say few of them bother to vote at all, ever. But vote they did in the 2008 primaries, in those very same unprecedented numbers – offsetting Hillary’s share of the *Bubba Vote* that came out strong for her thanks to Bill, the _*Bubba* in Chief_.

Recent data, cited earlier here on Army.ca, says 90% of registered Republicans support McCain but only 82% of registered Democrats support Obama – that ‘missing’ 8% *might* the _Bubba Vote_, and if only half of it actually goes out and votes for McCain it would, if the current polls hold up for another seven weeks, put John McCain in the White House.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A couple of weeks ago, former US House of Representatives majority leader Dick Armey told USA Today that the *Bubba Vote* will hurt Obama in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
> 
> Others say it will work both ways: blacks will vote in unprecedented numbers for Obama, maybe even by enough to offset the *Bubba Vote*.
> 
> Traditionally blacks are *weak* voters – that is to say few of them bother to vote at all, ever. But vote they did in the 2008 primaries, in those very same unprecedented numbers – offsetting Hillary’s share of the *Bubba Vote* that came out strong for her thanks to Bill, the _*Bubba* in Chief_.



But my sense is that the Bubbas have the edge on two counts.  

They are more numerous (Whilte Males - Bubbas or Not, outnumber All Blacks (Male and Female) by 119,000,000 to 38,000,000) US Census  Assuming that only half of the White Males are Bubbas, they still outnumber All Blacks by 60:38  or roughly 3:2.

Also the Bubba vote is likely more efficient.  The Black vote is concentrated in a urban centres - many of which already vote Democrat. (This is the same problem the Tories have with Alberta and the Libs have with Toronto). Bubbas are spread across the country in rural districts. Bubbas, and their wives,  could potentially have a greater impact on selecting the Electoral College.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> As expected, Palin, up in Alaska, and fairly new to it all didn't rank very high.....but the surprise is where the guy who wants to be the next Democrate President ranks.....9....really?



Senator Obama is in 38 spot, James Monroe was #9.


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Senator Obama is in 38 spot, James Monroe was #9.



I was pointing to his score, but you are right...wrong use of the word rank..


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2008)

Well this is a real "change" we can believe in:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=0



> *OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL*
> 
> By AMIR TAHERI
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (18 Sep 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I didnt call Obama a communist. But some of his tactics seem to be the same as practiced by communist/totalitarian regime's.Its certainly not normal actions for US politics. Try not to read more into my comments than I actually post. I dont have a personal bias toward Obama I just dont agree with his VERY liberal views.For many Americans his close association with former domestic terrorists and extremist religious figures isnt acceptable for a Presidential candidate,but hey we just have a couple of months before the voters make their will known.
> 
> Here is his letter.Simmons by the way is doing exactly what Soros does for the left through groups like moveon.org.
> http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_aip_letter_082608.html
> ...



Obama fights back .....Truthfightsback.com 

Smears We're Fighting   http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/smear_archive/


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Sep 2008)

Obama wouldnt know the truth. His positions on his own web site is enough of an indication that he is a socialist. Socialists believe in income redistribution - taxes, higher taxes. He believes that government can solve everyone's problems. Conservatives believe in the individual and smaller government.Fortunately the state polls are moving toward McCain.


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2008)

I was reading an article today where Obama is advocating shouting down/getting into dissenter's faces as a tactic....apparently this same tactic was used against Hillary supporters.....

bit of a bully tactic.... ???


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2008)

The economy card turns out to have razor sharp edges for the Democrats (part 1):

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/21/baracks-wall-street-problem-is-now-americas/



> Current Article
> *Barack’s Wall Street Problem is Now America’s*
> 
> By Larry JohnsongravatarcloseAuthor: Larry Johnson Name: Larry Johnson
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2008)

The economy card turns out to have razor sharp edges for the Democrats (part 2):

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/21/baracks-wall-street-problem-is-now-americas/




> The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) concluded:
> 
> During the period covered by this report—1998 to mid-2004—Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter. Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by the Enterprise’s senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2008)

The economy card turns out to have razor sharp edges for the Democrats (part 3):

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/21/baracks-wall-street-problem-is-now-americas/



> The analysis of Joe Stocks:
> 
> Goldman gave us Robert Rubin, former Chairman of Goldman. He is the gentleman President Clinton called on to be Secretary Treasurer of the United States in 1995. During his tenure he orchestrated the bailout of Mexico, Asia, Long Term Capital Management, and Y2K. He is no stranger to moral hazard. His actions show that he actually embraced it. I think he was also responsible for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan to change his ways. After Greenspan uttered those famous words - “irrational exuberance” and knocked the equity markets for a loop in 1996, Greenspan became much more respectful of those that kept him in power. I thought that Greenspan meant what he said at the time with strong foundation, but his actions afterwards where of a different tune. Enough so that he bowed to the whims of both the Clinton and Bush administrations, taking irrational exuberance to bubble proportions.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (22 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I was reading an article today where Obama is advocating shouting down/getting into dissenter's faces as a tactic....apparently this same tactic was used against Hillary supporters.....
> 
> bit of a bully tactic.... ???



 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKVPay1eBH8


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I was reading an article today where Obama is advocating shouting down/getting into dissenter's faces as a tactic....apparently this same tactic was used against Hillary supporters.....
> 
> bit of a bully tactic.... ???



And more evidence is bubbling up:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/009602.html



> *Palin Attacks Orchestrated*
> 
> Rusty Shackleford has turned his attention (and his skills) from bringing down jihadist websites to investigate the origin of the Palin smears;
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (22 Sep 2008)

> Palin Attacks Orchestrated
> 
> Rusty Shackleford has turned his attention (and his skills) from bringing down jihadist websites to investigate the origin of the Palin smears;
> 
> ...



Interesting Blog......I wonder if this will grow legs.....

The Jawa Report


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Sep 2008)

Jawa has been on my daily reading list for several years now. Good stuff and well researched.


----------



## CougarKing (23 Sep 2008)

Some interesting statements from Obama's running mate.

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_el_pr/biden



> BALTIMORE - *The National Guard deserves a stronger voice within the Defense Department, given its role in the war on terror, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Monday. *
> 
> Addressing the annual conference of the National Guard Association of the United States, Biden noted that more than half of the veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are guardsmen and reservists.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (24 Sep 2008)

McCain has suddenly called for his campaign and the the Pres. Debate this Friday to be put on hold as he claims he wants to focus on the current Financial/Economic Crisis.

Obama has responded that he would be willing to participate in such a bipartisan move to help with the current hearings/negotiations, though stated also that the debate must go on this Friday, arguing that the severity of the crisis made it even more important to the American people that the candidates made their positions clear on not only the major issues, but also on how they would handle such crises as the current one.

So is this a general show of concern on McCain's part or an unprecedented political stunt?

 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html



> *McCain suspends campaign, Obama plans to continue*
> Story Highlights
> NEW: Obama says he plans to continue to prepare for Friday's debate
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2008)

It makes life tough for Obama: if he refuses then it appears that only McCain has "taken the high road" and put duty to country - his strong suit - ahead of partisan politics. But, if Obama follows suit then it makes him look like he's just  _copy-catting_ McCain's good idea.

Smart move for the McCain team when the polls are all, so I read, all going Obama's way.


----------



## GAP (24 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It makes life tough for Obama: if he refuses then it appears that only McCain has "taken the high road" and put duty to country - his strong suit - ahead of partisan politics. But, if Obama follows suit then it makes him look like he's just  _copy-catting_ McCain's good idea.
> 
> Smart move for the McCain team when the polls are all, so I read, all going Obama's way.



From what I can see it is only a pretty fluid 3% difference nationally. I think the Democrats are putting a brave face on the impact Palin is having on them.....men and women....the undecideds are still there...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Sep 2008)

Obama says: *and that taxpayers should "not be spending one dime to reward the same Wall Street CEOs  whose greed and irresponsibility got us into this mess."*

Boy, he's not just biting the hand that feeds him, he swallowed it up to the wrist and is chewing on it. ;D He'll have to be careful, should those same benefactors decide to pull their support.


----------



## CougarKing (25 Sep 2008)

At least both candidates have supposedly put aside their partisan bickering in order to deal with this crisis; however, there is still no deal at this time, although they supposedly agree on certain principles on how to deal with it, such as ensuring that none of the bailout money becomes financial rewards for the CEOs of the affected companies. 

IIRC from the CNN interview today of Georgetown professor and former Clinton economic adviser Paul Begala that both said that they didn't need an injection of Presidential politics in these exceptionally complex negotations. Begala in particular said that these financial bailout and negotiations are not necessarily in McCain's expertise since he was on the Senate Armed Services committee and that if this was a question of troop levels in Iraq, McCain would certainly be in his element.

Both the candidates can be seen at the extreme left and right end of this picture with Bush and other key officials involved.







http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/25/political.risk/index.html

Still some would argue that  McCain must still go on with the debate not only because Obama has vowed to go on, but because a good leader would be able to handle both the debate and the aforementioned bailout talks. 



> *McCain's move: Putting priorities or politics first?*
> Story Highlights
> John McCain suspends campaign, says he won't go to debate without bailout deal
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2008)

Cougardaddy:

I don't find Paul Begala to be a particularly useful source of info on any subject in this campaign as he is a very committed and highly partisan Democrat, guaranteed to provide pro-Obama, and before him pro-Clinton soundl-bites.

You may as well ask Rush Limbaugh for his opinion.  You know hwat you are going to get in advance.


----------



## CougarKing (26 Sep 2008)

And McCain steps up to the debate challenge.  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_debate



> *McCain agrees to attend debate in Mississippi *
> By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
> 26 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (27 Sep 2008)

I thought that both held their own when it came to tonight's debate, though  obviously McCain had a lot of anecdotes to throw in from his long experience in order to shore up the position that he was the better candidate when it came to foreign policy. Still, Obama had an edge when it came to US domestic economic issues and when it came to his emphasis on winning the war where it started- the war in Afghanistan and the need to eliminate Al Qaeda- as well the as the need for America to restore its image to the rest of the world.

 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.friday/index.html



> *McCain: 'New 9/11' less likely now than after attacks*
> Story Highlights
> Barack Obama says John McCain wrong about Iraq
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (27 Sep 2008)

Even though I support McCain, I really wanted to hear something solid from Obama tonight. We may have to live with him in the White House for the next 4 years, and I wanted to hear something, anything that would make it less palatable.....I heard a lot of standard lines, stroking of the voter, but little tangible......

McCain won the foreign policy, the rest is a toss up.


----------



## stryte (27 Sep 2008)

I agree with you GAP. A great deal of the debate was about the state of the American economy which I felt neither candidate won outright. McCain was definitely stronger on the foreign policy aspects.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Sep 2008)

Obama didnt hurt himself in the debate and so I dont see much of a bounce for McCain. Next week is the VP debate which will probably be entertaining. In the economic debate between McCain and Obama Mav needs to point out Obama's socialist tendencies. Ultimately people will make their decision based on how comfortable they are with either McCain or Obama.


----------



## JackD (29 Sep 2008)

Not perhaps overtly relative, but these are the issues the next President of the USA must deal with - according to these two individuals: 
Opinion
A conversation with Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft
Two former national security advisors look at how the world has changed.

September 28, 2008

This spring, two of the most respected figures in American foreign policy sat down to talk about the United States and its place in the world. Zbigniew Brzezinski served as national security advisor to President Carter. Brent Scowcroft was national security advisor to presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald R. Ford. Their conversation was moderated by David Ignatius, a columnist for the Washington Post. The following are edited excerpts:the most respected figures in American foreign policy sat down to talk about the United States and its place in the world. Zbigniew Brzezinski served as national security advisor to President Carter. Brent Scowcroft was national security advisor to presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald R. Ford. Their conversation was moderated by David Ignatius, a columnist for the Washington Post. The following are edited excerpts: * 

Zbigniew Brzezinski: I was struck the other day that the president, in his State of the Union message, said the war on terror is the defining ideological challenge of the century. And I said to myself, "Isn't that a little arrogant?" This is the year 2008, and here we are being told what the defining ideological challenge of the century is. Suppose in 1908 we were asked to define the ideological challenge of the 20th century. Would many people say right-wing and left-wing, red and brown totalitarianism? Or in 1808, the challenge of the 19th century, how many people would say on the eve of the Congress of Vienna, a conservative triumph, that the 19th century would be dominated by nationalist passions in Germany, France, Italy, Poland and throughout much of Europe?

It's not going to be the war on terror that defines the ideological challenge of our century. It's something more elusive. I think it involves three grand changes. 

One is what I call the global political awakening. For the first time, all of humanity is politically active. That's a very, very dramatic change. Second, there's a shift in the global center of power from the Atlantic world to the Far East. Not the collapse of the Atlantic world, but the loss of the domination it's had for 500 years. And the third is the surfacing of common global problems that we have to address, lest we all suffer grievously. I mean climate and environment, but also poverty and injustice. 

David Ignatius: Zbig, just to complete that thought, what in our ability to deal with those changes today has broken?

Brzezinski: If I had to reduce it to one factor, I would say it is the loss of American confidence. My experience as an adult has been wrapped up in a big global struggle, the Cold War. But we waged it with confidence. What I find dismaying these days is this culture of fear that one encounters everywhere.

It's wrapped up with the shock of 9/11, clearly. The fact that the whole country watched it on television shook American confidence. And sad to say, I think fear has also been propagated. That has not been helpful. The kind of issues we have to address are not going to be addressed well if the country is driven by fear.

Ignatius: Brent, how would you lead off in assessing the nature of our problem? What's broken in our ability to respond?

Brent Scowcroft: I look at the world in much the same way Zbig does. But let me start from a more historical background. I think the end of the Cold War marked a historical discontinuity in the world environment. 

The Cold War was an intense concentration on a single problem. It mobilized us. It mobilized our friends and allies against a single bloc. It affected our thought processes. It affected our institutions, everything we did. I don't know if there's ever been a time we were more concentrated.

And suddenly, historically in the blink of an eye, that world came to an end, and it was replaced by a world without the existential threat of the Cold War. If we made a mistake, we might blow up the planet -- that was gone. Instead, there were 100 pinprick problems. Instead of looking through one end of the telescope, at Moscow, we were looking through the other end at this myriad of little problems. And we were dealing with them with thought processes and institutions geared for that one end of the telescope.

* 

Ignatius: What was it like to sit in the White House in a world where the great fear was nuclear annihilation?

Scowcroft: There was the ever-present thought that if either side made a serious mistake, it could be catastrophic for humanity. Did we spend all our waking moments thinking about that? No. But it was a combination of that and a struggle to understand what the Soviets were up to, and what was their capability of, for example, a technological development that could suddenly make us vulnerable, and change this standoff to an asymmetry.

Ignatius: Zbig, what did it feel like for you to be in the cockpit?

Brzezinski: Well, one of my jobs was to coordinate the president's response in the event of a nuclear attack. I'm not revealing any secrets, but it was something like this: We would have initial warning of an attack within one minute of a large-scale launch by the Soviet Union. Roughly by the second minute we'd have a pretty good notion of the scale and the likely targets. By the third minute, we would know more or less when to anticipate impact and so forth. By the third minute, the job of the national security advisor was to alert the president that this was ongoing, that we have this information. And the president then decides how to respond.

It begins to get complicated immediately. If it's an all-out attack, the response is presumably easier. You just react in total. But suppose it's a more selective attack. There are choices to be made. The president is supposed to weigh the options. How will he react? There's an element of uncertainty here. In any case, the process is to be completed roughly by the seventh minute. By which time -- I assume this was roughly the same with you guys, right? 

Scowcroft: So far, uh-huh.

Brzezinski: By the seventh minute, the order to execute had to be transmitted and whatever we decided had to be carried out. Roughly by the 28th minute, there's impact. That is to say, you and your family are dead. Washington's gone. A lot of our military assets are destroyed. But presumably, the president has calmly made the decision how to respond. We're already firing back. Six hours later, 150 million Americans and Soviets are dead. That is the reality we lived with. And we did everything we could to make it as stable, as subject to rational control, as possible. To be nonprovocative but also to be very alert and determined so that no one on the other side could think they could pull it off and survive.

It's very different now. I think Brent has described it very well -- 100 pinpricks. The new reality is a kind of dispersed turbulence. And that requires, I think, a different mind-set, a more sophisticated understanding of the complexity of global change. 

* 

Ignatius: I want you to talk a bit more about the nature of American leadership in this very complicated world. First, is American leadership necessary? 

Brzezinski: It can be a catalyst. Not for actions directed by the United States but for actions that the local community -- maybe we can call them stakeholders in a global system -- is prepared collectively to embrace. That kind of leadership is needed. But for that kind of leadership to emerge in America, we not only need very special people as leaders -- and they do come up occasionally -- but we need a far more enlightened society than we have.

I think Americans are curiously, paradoxically, simultaneously very well-educated and amazingly ignorant. We are a society that lives within itself. We're not interested in the history of other countries. 

Today we have a problem with Iran. How many Americans know anything about Iranian history? Do they know that it is a bifurcated history? There have been two Irans. And those two different periods, pre-Islamic and post-Islamic, dialectically define the tensions and the realities of Iran today. [Americans] know nothing about it.

Quite a few Americans entering college could not locate Great Britain on the map. They couldn't locate Iraq on the map after five years of war. Thirty percent couldn't identify the Pacific Ocean. We don't teach global history; we don't teach global geography. I think most Americans don't have the kind of sophistication that an America that inspires, and thereby leads, will have to have if it is to do what this 21st century really will demand of us.

Scowcroft: I could easily just say amen. But again, this is a part of who we are and from where we have arisen. For most of our history, we've been secure behind two oceans, with weak neighbors on each side. Americans don't have to learn foreign languages. They can travel as widely as most of them want and never leave the United States. So most Americans instinctively just want to be left alone. I don't think they want to mess with the problems of the world.

Brzezinski: They want to enjoy the good life.

Scowcroft: They want to enjoy the good life. 

And our political structure seems more and more to cater to the narrow interests of Americans rather than their broader interests. Only in time of peril do our leaders really focus decisively on the international scene -- the beginning of the Cold War, for example, or when Roosevelt tried to steer us in the right direction in the prelude to World War II, or when Eisenhower reached out to Europe to form NATO. It takes that kind of leadership.

When Americans can be stimulated, I think we're good-hearted. We're not narrow and avaricious. But our political structure doesn't seem to play to that. And as I said before, in the world as it is now, only the United States can exercise enlightened leadership. Not direct people what to do. But say, "Gather round. This is the way the world community needs to go."

Brzezinski: Amen.

Scowcroft: We're the only ones who can be the guiding light.

The Brzezinski-Scowcroft conversation has been gathered into a book, "America and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy," published by Basic Books and the New America Foundation and available this month.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brzezinski28-2008sep28,0,5471933,print.story


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2008)

ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess
By Mona Charen September 30, 2008 
Article Link

The financial markets were teetering on the edge of an abyss last week. The secretary of the Treasury was literally on his knees begging the speaker of the House not to sabotage the bailout bill. The crash of falling banks made the earth tremble. The Republican presidential candidate suspended his campaign to deal with the crisis. And amid all this, the Democrats in Congress managed to find time to slip language into the bailout legislation that would provide a dandy little slush fund for ACORN.

ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a busy hive of left-wing agitation and "direct action" that claims chapters in 50 cities and 100,000 dues-paying members. ACORN is where Sixties leftovers who couldn't get tenure at universities wound up. That the bill-writing Democrats remembered their pet clients during such an emergency speaks volumes. This attempted gift to ACORN (stripped out of the bill after outraged howls from Republicans) demonstrates how little Democrats understand about what caused the mess we're in.

  ACORN does many things under the umbrella of "community organizing." They agitate for higher minimum wages, attempt to thwart school reform, try to unionize welfare workers (that is, those welfare recipients who are obliged to work in exchange for benefits) and organize voter registration efforts (always for Democrats, of course). Because they are on the side of righteousness and justice, they aren't especially fastidious about their methods. In 2006, for example, ACORN registered 1,800 new voters in Washington. The only trouble was, with the exception of six, all of the names submitted were fake. The secretary of state called it the "worst case of election fraud in our state's history." As Fox News reported:

"The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms."

ACORN explained that this was an "isolated" incident, yet similar stories have been reported in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, and Colorado -- all swing states, by the way. ACORN members have been prosecuted for voter fraud in a number of states. (See www.rottenacorn.com.) Their philosophy seems to be that everyone deserves the right to vote, whether legal or illegal, living or dead.
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Sep 2008)

ACORN voter fraud,intimidation by unions pretty much anything goes if you are a democrat running for office. In Ohio the democrat Sec of State has launched a 1 week open registration/absentee voter on college campus'. This affects maybe 500,000 college students who the dem's feel will vote for Obama or else they wouldnt be doing it. Very sad.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2008)

Some more details about the links between Senator Obama and Freddie and Fannie. If this sort of information makes it out to the MSM it will seriously damage the Democrat's credibility and possibly their hold on the House and Senate as well:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2008/09/acorn-obama-and-financial-mess.html



> *Acorn, Obama and the Financial Mess*
> 
> In my past posts, I've attempted to demonstrate the current financial crisis is not a result of deregulation, but rather of government interference in the free market through the GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is interesting to note that the radical organization, Acorn, has been a major proponent of sub-prime lending and the CRA which punished lenders who did not offer risky loans to questionable borrowers. More interesting is that Barack Obama has strong ties to Acorn, and it is no surprise that the original bailout bill had earmarks to Acorn and similar groups. Those earmarks were eventually removed by GOP lawmakers after much wrangling, but the bailout still failed.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (30 Sep 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Some more details about the links between Senator Obama and Freddie and Fannie. If this sort of information makes it out to the MSM it will seriously damage the Democrat's credibility and possibly their hold on the House and Senate as well:
> 
> http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2008/09/acorn-obama-and-financial-mess.html



and something to balance out the spin:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/bailout.candidates/index.html



> *McCain takes hit from bailout collapse*
> Story Highlights
> NEW: Sen. John McCain says Congress has put the economy "at the gravest risk"
> 
> ...



And Bill Clinton stars in a McCain ad?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/30/bill-clinton-the-star-of-new-mccain-ad/



> September 30, 2008
> *Bill Clinton the star of new McCain ad*
> Posted: 01:40 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2008)

I was curious about how the Electoral College functions and how they arrive at the decision of who will be president...here's some of what I found..

How the Electoral College Functions
03 September 2008
Article Link

The Constitutional Basis

Excerpt from Article II, Section 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

• The Electoral College is not a place. It is a process that began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College was established by the Founding Fathers of the United States as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by direct popular vote. The people of the United States vote for electors, who then vote for the president. The National Archives is the federal government agency that oversees the process.

• Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (always two) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which is based on the census of population conducted every 10 years.  Currently, the populous state of California has 55 electors, while a state with fewer residents, such as North Dakota, might have only three or four. 

• The Electoral College now consists of 538 electors (one for each of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators, plus 3 for the District of Columbia, the national capital, Washington). A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president and vice president.

• The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II provides that no member of Congress “or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States” shall be appointed an elector.

• The process for selecting electors varies state by state. Generally, state political party leaders nominate electors at their state party conventions or by a vote of the state party's central committee. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be state-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have an affiliation with the presidential candidate.

The voters in each state choose the electors pledged to a presidential candidate on the day of the general election -- the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 4 in 2008). The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for president, depending on the procedure in each state.

• The electors in each state meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15 in 2008) to select the president and vice president of the United States.

• No constitutional provision or federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state. But some state laws provide that so-called faithless electors be subject to fines or be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The U.S. Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

• Today it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout U.S. history, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

• The Electoral College vote totals determine the president and vice president, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nationwide popular vote totals. Four times in U.S. history -- 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 -- the candidate who collected the most popular votes nationwide failed to win the majority of electoral votes.

• In 2008, 48 out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. For example, all 55 of California's electoral votes go to the winner of that state’s popular vote, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent. Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-take-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through a proportional allocation of votes.

• Congress meets in joint session in January of the year following the presidential election to count the electoral votes.

• If no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the presidential election to be decided by the House of Representatives. The House would select the president by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state delegation having one vote. If no vice presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the Senate would select the vice president by majority vote, with each senator choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes.

• The House has selected the president twice, in 1800 and 1824. The Senate has selected the vice president once, in 1836.

• Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject.

• Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties -- ones other than the Democratic and Republican parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. In 1948 and 1968, third-party candidates with regional appeal won blocs of electoral votes in the South, which may have affected the outcome but did not come close to seriously challenging the major party winner. The last third-party candidate to make a strong showing was former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. He finished a distant second in electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes then needed to win). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any state. 

Source: The National Archives
End of Article


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2008)

Here's an interactive map depicting how many electors per state.What determines the winner is a minimum of 270 electoral votes no matter how many popular votes. The winner of each state earns that state's electoral votes. Its a nice check and balance by our prescient founding fathers.

http://www.270towin.com/


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Here's an interactive map depicting how many electors per state.What determines the winner is a minimum of 270 electoral votes no matter how many popular votes. The winner of each state earns that state's electoral votes. Its a nice check and balance by our prescient founding fathers.
> 
> http://www.270towin.com/



I see the Democrats have dropped from a high of 248 electoral votes to 202...The republicans have dropped some, but not as much...


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2008)

Its interactive so you can play with it. The polls vary per state. A recent poll showed Florida,Ohio and Pennsylvania with a strong Obama showing. I wont trust the polls until the weekend before the election.I just dont see Obama winning in Florida. Its quite possible that he could take Ohio and Pennsylvania as he should do well in the cities. The democrats run both states so I dont doubt that they will try to tilt things in favor of Obama. We are already seeing this in Ohio. Alot of time left.


----------



## CougarKing (1 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Here's an interactive map depicting how many electors per state.What determines the winner is a minimum of 270 electoral votes no matter how many popular votes. The winner of each state earns that state's electoral votes. Its a nice check and balance by our prescient founding fathers.
> 
> http://www.270towin.com/



Sir,

You thinking of watching the Palin-Biden VP debate this Thursday night- 9 PM ET on many networks including CNN?


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Oct 2008)

I think it was very nice of the VP Debate Moderator to take time away from her book release to perform moderation duties....

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/01/vp-debate-moderator-pens-pro-obama-book/


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2008)

Yes Cougar I will be watching,probably FOX News.


----------



## observor 69 (2 Oct 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I think it was very nice of the VP Debate Moderator to take time away from her book release to perform moderation duties....
> 
> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/01/vp-debate-moderator-pens-pro-obama-book/



Seeing as how the book won't even hit print until Jan.20 2009 it could be hard for her "to take time away from her book release ."

http://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Politics-Race-Age-Obama/dp/038552501X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222969770&sr=8-1


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Oct 2008)

I was being rhetorical


----------



## CougarKing (3 Oct 2008)

I tuned in to the US VP debates at CNN simply because I found them more interesting than the CBC debates between Harper, Duceppe, Layton, Dion and Elizabeth May. 

When it came to the debate tonight, I thought that both seemed solid in spite of the disparity in experience between Biden and Palin. Still, I have a number of key points and observations that I would like to point out:

1.) Both essentially tried to defend their respective economic philosophies of themselves and their respective running mates, with Palin again emphasizing deregulation and the need for less government while at the same time going negative with the assertion that the Dems. will always increase taxes to fund huge government bureaucracy expansion. Biden responded in line with Obama's mantra that Dem.s actually intended just to raise taxes only for the rich and on corporations while at the same time cutting taxes for the middle class and working class Americans. 

2.) When it came to the issue of climate change and energy, Palin thought that global warming was only partially caused by man and had more to do with the planet's cyclical climate changes, while Biden thought it was wholly caused by man- both did agree on the need for capping emissions. Interestingly, Biden pointed out that John McCain actually voted against that the same bills to drill for more oil that Barack Obama supposedly opposed.
  -Palin actually said that Senator Biden opposed clean coal energy when Biden rebutted by saying he actually wholly supported it and even wanted to export it to countries like China to so that they can also reduce their emissions.  

3.) Biden also pointed out that John McCain actually voted against the same legislation to fund the troops that Obama opposed simply because the bill contained the mention of a timeline to withdraw the troops- at timeline which McCain did not like because it was tantamount to defeat. Even Palin confirmed that by saying that setting a clear timeline was waving a white flag of surender, when Biden pointed that the current Bush government and the Iraqi government under PM Maliki were actually in talks right now to set a clear timeline to start withdrawing US troops form Iraq, which shows the support the Iraqi government has to Obama's timeline notion. Like Obama, Biden said that the war in Iraq was a mistake since the focus should have been ON AFGHANISTAN all along since that was where they began the war against the US.
  - Palin also said that Obama said that US-Allied troops were just in Afghanistan destroying and bombing villages when Obama never said such a thing. Palin also said that both Al Qaeda spokesmen and General Petraeus both said that the central front in this war was Iraq, not Afghanistan, although Biden clearly disagreed by emphasizing that the central front sould have been on Afghanistan all along. Biden also said that General Mcllelan of the US forces in Afghanistan said that the surge strategy used in Iraq would not work and emphasized the need for more shoring up of the Afghan government and infrastructure as well as the redeployment of some troops in Iraq to Afghanistan, IIRC.

4.) Both emphasized that their respective campaigns did not support gay marriage, although Biden said that he thought it should be left just to the states to decide and both did seem to agree that civil unions short of marriage could still be eligible for some benefits, visitation rights, etc.

5.) Again, like McCain, Palin bashed Obama for wanting to meet with Pres. Achmedinijad of Iran to resolve some issues like Iran's stance on nuclear weapons and Israel, though Biden responded by saying that Achmedinijad did not even control the security apparatus in Iran- the THEOCRACY did- like their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei who was one of the successors to Ayatollah Khomeini who started the Iranian Revolution at the end of the 1970s, IIRC. He also emphasized that America's other allies had been actually pressuring on the US to meet with Iran's government for a while and that even the Bush administration after 5 years of just ignoring Iran actually sent a high delegate to joint talks with the Iranians and other nations in Switzerland, IIRC from what he said. Regardless, both stated that their respective camps would support Israel.

Another thing that I like about Senator Biden is that fact that he is a Liberal interventionist (meaning that one is willing to use the country's military for intervention in countries for reasons that don't necessarily serve America's interests, like peacekeeping/peacemaking missions that I infer that many of you here have a low opinion of)  since Biden also stated that he was the one who introduced the notion in Congress to intervene in Bosnia during Clinton's time, a move which many Republicans opposed. He also said that he was willing to send US troops to Sudan to support the African Union peacekeepers there since it was the right thing to do; he said that he had actually been to the camps in Chad which housed the refugees from the genocide in Sudan and he even brought up the possibility of "no-fly zones" over Sudan, IIRC from the debate.

6.) Lastly, while both said that it would be a national tragedy , if elected, if their running mate was to die in office, both still did pledge to continue their colleague's policies if it ever came to that.

Overall, it was an interesting, intense debate like last week, and Palin seemed like a quick study on some issues, though from what I observed she seemed to give more anecdotes about her small town and governor experience and just some more meaningless platitudes-like saying that she was willing to tolerate others who differed from her views and saying she had a "diverse family"- but overall I think that Biden won not only by virtue of experience (or any bias on my part), but also because I thought that he gave clear, articulate and effective counterarguments to some of the negative accusations that she threw against his running mate(Biden gave some interesting arguments about how McCain is a false maverick). 

And here is a CNN commentary about tonight's debate:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/vice.presidential.debate/index.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Oct 2008)

Joe Biden’s outright lies during the debate:

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.” 

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more. 

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2008)

Afghanistan, Pakistan split over US presidential hopefuls
Article Link

ISLAMABAD (AFP) — From Pakistani tribesmen to violence-weary Afghans there are hopes but few expectations, on the frontline of the "war on terror", that the next US president can solve the problem of Islamic militancy.

US military incursions in Pakistan have made next month's US election a big deal in the nuclear-armed nation, while Afghanistan is entering its eighth year as host to thousands of American troops fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

But with Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Republican John McCain split on what is increasingly a key foreign policy issue in the White House race, opinions are divided in this corner of the world too.

Afghans largely welcome Obama's pledge, made in a recent debate with McCain, to "take out" extremist havens in Pakistan -- while Pakistanis resent it.

"We do not expect any positive change in US policy towards tribal areas, but Obama's gestures are aggressive," said Malik Habibullah Khan, a tribal elder from the remote Pakistani region of Bajaur.

His tribe joined an anti-Taliban military operation launched by the army last month -- but it has also pledged to take up arms against any US forces which intrude into Pakistani territory.
More on link


----------



## CougarKing (6 Oct 2008)

Wow. Just wow. The Dow Jones just fell below 10,000 and all Sarah Palin could do is accuse Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists". Smells of desperation if you ask me. She forgot to note that Obama and that former terrorist Ayers are not close at all in spite of the way the GOP wants to paint them as such. And Barack Obama was just about 8 years old when Ayers was committing his terrorist acts.


A video of Obama's response to that:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/06/acosta.obama.palin.cnn

And an article about the continuing US crisis.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/06/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2008100610



> *Dow falls below 10,000
> Blue-chip average falls below the milestone for the first time in nearly 4 years as fears about financial crisis grow. *
> 
> AMERICA'S MONEY CRISIS
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2008)

Sorry, but Ayers was not an "eco-terroist" but a member of the Weather Underground, which carried out a campaign of bombings in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html



> As well, his connection with Senator Obama was much more recent, both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.



from National Review, the reason some people have questions:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2NmN2Q3NjRiMjgxZmUyZTk2NmJiOGJhMDIyNDRiNGE=



> The Chicago Tribune's John Kass jumps on the story of Stanley Kurtz, the library at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and 132 boxes full of documents pertaining to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - the project that Bill Ayers founded and Barack Obama chaired.
> 
> Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley offers his non-answer on whether the library, named after his father, should release the documents:
> 
> ...



Why withhold these documents? I would have thought that something like this should be a source of pride for Senator Obama, who has been characterized as a man with few accomplishments. (Then again, Senator Kerry has never released his military records, despite the damage he received from the "Swiftboaters"). People will draw conclusions from these actions, regardless of the reason for withholding records.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2008)

http://www.upstatefilms.org/weather/main.html



> [In October 1969 hundreds of young people, clad in football helmets and wielding lead pipes, marched through an upscale Chicago shopping district, pummeling parked cars and smashing shop windows in their path.
> 
> This was the first demonstration of the Weather Underground's "Days of Rage." Outraged by the Vietnam War and racism in America, the organization waged a low-level war against the U.S. government through much of the 1970s, bombing the Capitol building, breaking Timothy Leary out of prison, and evading one of the largest FBI manhunts in history.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (6 Oct 2008)

Does the name "Keating 5" ring a bell?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008157607_mckeating04.html



> *Revisiting McCain's Keating 5 history*
> At one time, John McCain said the worst thing that ever happened to him, Vietnam included, was the so-called Keating 5 scandal. "The Vietnamese," he would...
> 
> By Los Angeles Times
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Oct 2008)

The Senate Investigator Bob Bennett said:



> "It was clear that McCain should not have been at the table nor should Glenn," Bennett said. "I felt it was unfair for McCain to be included as part of the Keating Five." Bennett stressed that he was not speaking as part of the campaign, though he noted he also represented McCain in his recent battles with the New York Times.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Oct 2008)

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter7.html



> Despite the reprieve, Keating's businesses continued to spiral downward, taking the five senators with him. Together, the five had accepted more than $300,000 in contributions from Keating, and their critics added a new term to the American lexicon: "The Keating Five."
> 
> The Keating Five became synonymous for the kind of political influence that money can buy. As the S&L failure deepened, the sheer magnitude of the losses hit the press. Billions of dollars had been squandered. The five senators were linked as the gang who shilled for an S&L bandit.
> 
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Oct 2008)

> Wow. Just wow. The Dow Jones just fell below 10,000 and all Sarah Palin could do is accuse Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists". Smells of desperation if you ask me. She forgot to note that Obama and that former eco-terrorist Ayers are not close at all in spite of the way the GOP wants to paint them as such. And Barack Obama was just about 8 years old when Ayers was committing his terrorist acts.


*
Even Obama Has Previously Referred To Ayers As "A Guy Who Lives In My Neighborhood" And Not Someone He Exchanges Ideas With "On A Regular Basis." *Obama: "George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George." (_Sen. Barack Obama, ABC Democrat Candidates Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)_

There you have it.....  

or not.

From the GOP website, which obviously isn't very objective, but references cited for everything:



> But Obama's Connections With Bill Ayers Are Much More Extensive Than He Or His Campaign Staff Is Willing To Admit:
> 
> In 1995, During Obama's First State Senate Campaign, William Ayers And Wife Bernadine Dohrn Hosted A Meeting Of Chicago Liberals At Their Home For Obama, Which One Attendee Said Was Aimed At "Launching Him." "In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they're better known nationally as two of the most notorious -- and unrepentant -- figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement. ... 'I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,' said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the info rmal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. '[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.' ... Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. 'They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'" (_Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08_)
> 
> ...



My point being it is obviously not as cut and dry as this: *She forgot to note that Obama and that former eco-terrorist Ayers are not close at all*


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Oct 2008)

> My point being it is obviously not as cut and dry as this: She forgot to note that Obama and that former eco-terrorist Ayers are not close at all



Wrong.Obama and Ayrs/Dorn have been close for twenty years.They baby sat Obama's kids.Ayrs and Obama worked closely on a $100m radical education project. The point is there is a pattern here if anyone cares to see it of hanging out with radicals whether its at church,business or socially.Not a problem if you are a Senator but its a problem if you want to be President.He is THE most liberal Senator in the Senate and thats saying something.This is substantiated by his voting record. We may end up electing this guy which would be most unfortunate for the taxpayer.


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Wrong.Obama and Ayrs/Dorn have been close for twenty years.They baby sat Obama's kids.Ayrs and Obama worked closely on a $100m radical education project. The point is there is a pattern here if anyone cares to see it of hanging out with radicals whether its at church,business or socially.Not a problem if you are a Senator but its a problem if you want to be President.He is THE most liberal Senator in the Senate and thats saying something.This is substantiated by his voting record. We may end up electing this guy which would be most unfortunate for the taxpayer.



There is much that is being glossed over about Obama. Color has little to do with it, but his past connections, actions, affiliations speak of an agenda that does not bode well for America in general......I wonder why people refuse to see the questions?


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Oct 2008)

The left wing MSM is in love with Obama. Anyone can see that. 
I don't think the McCain/Palin Combo is great, in fact I think it's weak.


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The left wing MSM is in love with Obama. Anyone can see that.
> I don't think the McCain/Palin Combo is great, in fact I think it's weak.



While the combination may be weak, I don't see any comparative strength in the Obama team. At least McCain has a history of railing against earmarks, and crap such as some of the wildass spending Congress embarks on, there is no such history from Obama.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Oct 2008)

T6 - Not sure if you misread my post, or were agreeing with it. CougarDaddy made the statement _*"She forgot to note that Obama and that former eco-terrorist Ayers are not close at all"*_

I was providing information that demonstrates they are more than "not close at all".

Or - maybe I misread your post.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Oct 2008)

I disagreed with the highlighted sentence.


----------



## CougarKing (7 Oct 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> T6 - Not sure if you misread my post, or were agreeing with it. CougarDaddy made the statement _*"She forgot to note that Obama and that former eco-terrorist Ayers are not close at all"*_
> 
> I was providing information that demonstrates they are more than "not close at all".
> 
> Or - maybe I misread your post.



"Eco" terrorist comment edited out. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2008)

An interesting look at how voters are divided by incomes:

http://www.omnivoracious.com/2008/10/red-blue-roun-1.html



> *Red-Blue Roundtable: Andrew Gelman*
> by Election 2008 on October 06, 2008
> 
> Gelman_andrew_150 The big message of our Red State, Blue State book is that the "culture war" between red and blue America is real, but it is concentrated among upper-income voters.  Richer Americans tend to be more politically involved and more ideological in their voting patterns.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (8 Oct 2008)

Thoughts, folks? I only was able to watch the first 30 minutes since I had to get to a volunteer group meeting. 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate/index.html



> *Obama, McCain draw contrasts in second debate
> Story Highlights
> NEW: Candidates slam each other on foreign policy
> 
> ...


----------



## TCBF (8 Oct 2008)

"Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley offers his non-answer on whether the library, named after his father, should release the documents:

    "Bill Ayers—I've said this—his father was a great friend of my father," the mayor said. "I'll be very frank. Vietnam divided families, divided people. It was a terrible time of our country. People didn't know one another. Since then, I'll be very frank, [Ayers] has been in the forefront of a lot of education issues and helping us in public schools and things like that."

- Mayor Daley's father was the Mayor of Chicago during the DNC riots of 1968.  I believe he exhorted his police force to "Shoot to Maim! Shoot to Kill!" 

Edit: My memory failed me.  Acording to Wiki, he said this after the riots sparked by Martin Luther King's assassination (also in 1968):

 "I said to him very emphatically and very definitely that an order be issued by him immediately to shoot to kill any arsonist or anyone with a Molotov cocktail in his hand, because they're potential murderers, and to shoot to maim or cripple anyone looting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Daley


----------



## CougarKing (8 Oct 2008)

Someone else passed this to me but somehow I am wary of using this source. 

http://www.thenewsvault.com/cgi/xtra.pl?go=12234638434



> *McCain Linked To Group In Iran-Contra Affair
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain's ties to the U.S. chapter of a group linked to 1980s Central American ultra-right-wing death squads are under new scrutiny after his campaign criticized Barack Obama for associating with a former 1960s-era radical.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (8 Oct 2008)

It appears that the current US election has divided American Catholics over which values and issues they should consider first and as priorities, such as abortion vs. capital punishment and racism and immigration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27023915/



> *NYT: Election divides Catholic Church
> Liberals, conservatives skirmish over church’s teachings on war, racism *
> By David D. Kirkpatrick
> The New York Times
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2008)

A little humour:


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2008)

Up for grabs in a way we should not like at all:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-acorn-fraud-kansas-city-officials.html



> *MORE ACORN FRAUD! Kansas City Officials Find Hundreds of Bogus Registrations!*
> 
> Like Barack Obama says... "The ACORN does not fall far from the tree."
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Oct 2008)

Sarah is still lots hotter than Hillary.....or Liz May. Rona Ambrose is hot too.


----------



## CougarKing (9 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Sarah is still lots hotter than Hillary.....or Liz May. Rona Ambrose is hot too.



I certainly hope a lot of US voters aren't using the superficial reason of "hotness" as a determining factor on how they vote.  :


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Oct 2008)

hell I would! LOL


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I certainly hope a lot of US voters aren't using the superficial reason of "hotness" as a determining factor on how they vote.  :



Americans are exact carbon copies of Canadians when it comes to voting. Superficiality can always be counted upon to outscore reason in the politics of both countries.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2008)

This intrigued me, although I doubt how effective it'll be - a YouTube video promo for a series of videos on why Muslims in the US shouldn't elect "disbelievers to kill Muslims overseas?"  Subtle, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUmte1x8Krc&fmt=18


----------



## TCBF (9 Oct 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This intrigued me, although I doubt how effective it'll be - a YouTube video promo for a series of videos on why Muslims in the US shouldn't elect "disbelievers to kill Muslims overseas?"  Subtle, eh?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUmte1x8Krc&fmt=18



Tony, an election campaign is not the time for subtlety.

 8)


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Oct 2008)

I think Sarah is the hottest woman in politics, not that she has a ton of competition. >


----------



## CougarKing (10 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I think Sarah is the hottest woman in politics, not that she has a ton of competition. >



HA! What about Obama girl?!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

Since we are talking "hotness" here, I don't think whether or not holding office matters in this context. heheehe.  ;D


----------



## chanman (10 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I think Sarah is the hottest woman in politics, not that she has a ton of competition. >



Right off the bat, I think she's got serious competition in Yulia Tymoshenko


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Oct 2008)

chanman said:
			
		

> Right off the bat, I think she's got serious competition in Yulia Tymoshenko



Yeah she's good looking too.


----------



## CougarKing (10 Oct 2008)

Interesting. This guy is a really BIG Conservative. And he just endorsed Obama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/10/a-buckley-endorses-obama/



> October 10, 2008
> *A Buckley endorses Obama*
> Posted: 07:08 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Oct 2008)

Chris Buckley isnt a conservative.His dad William F was.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Oct 2008)

Another example that shows that McCain is trying to reach across the aisle and more bipartisan, by not letting the extreme fringes of his party get the better of him. I believe that shows some true character on McCain's part compared to Barack Obama, who seems to be self-promoting on some events, though obviously not as egotistic as Jack Layton on his commercials. But then again every one of them are politicians trying to present themselves as how they would like be perceived by the public. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_angry_crowds



> McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd
> By PHILIP ELLIOTT and BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writers
> 1 hour, 48 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2008)

Free and unfettered debate is *the* keynote of American culture, and one of the three legs of their astounding success over the past 300 years. Any actions that threaten or suppress free speech can only work to their detriment:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308354689539729



> *The Coming Counterrevolution To Hush The Alternative Media*
> 
> By BRIAN C. ANDERSON | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Oct 2008)

To be able to shut down the alternative media would require the government to ignore the 1st Amendment.Frankly I think its too large and fluid for an Obama administartion to crush. That doesnt mean they wouldnt try. It might also depend how many new seats the dem's pick up so as to increase their majority.

By the way this video shows Obama talking to a plumber about his tax plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNuqV7N_bj0&eurl


----------



## CougarKing (15 Oct 2008)

BTW, just a reminder: the last US Presidential Debate is tonight at about 6 PM Pacific time, 9 PM, ET on both CNN and various North American networks.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/presidential.debate/index.html



> *McCain must clarify economic plan in debate, analysts say*
> Story Highlights
> NEW: McCain must present economic vision to win over voters, analysts say
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (16 Oct 2008)

And here is an article about tonight's debate which I could only watch part of before I had to head to a night class.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debate



> *McCain, Obama get tough, personal in final debate*
> By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
> 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## Yrys (16 Oct 2008)

Hip-Hop-Dancing Colin Powell Fuels Speculation He'll Endorse Obama



> Colin Powell has his dancing shoes on, fueling speculation that he's gearing up to do the Obama Two-Step.
> 
> The normally staid former U.S. secretary of state and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff performed an impromptu hip-hop dance alongside
> well-known rap stars Tuesday following a speech at a festival in London celebrating African-American music and fashion. His address at the
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Oct 2008)

McCain's comments tonight.Pretty funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRSmQqw65Pg&eurl


----------



## GAP (17 Oct 2008)

Beautiful shots!!!  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Oct 2008)

Sarah! Sarah! Sarah! :blotto:


----------



## Drag (17 Oct 2008)

McCain could not keep his cool.  In my opinion he set himself back with that debate performance...  There are so many better issues to hammer Obama with than Bill Ayers.  The people who care about Ayers are already voting for McCain...


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2008)

And the people that don't are already voting for Obama.


----------



## Drag (17 Oct 2008)

It is not an issue that expands McCain's electorate and makes him seem aloof to actual problems the country is facing ie. the economy.  Obama has been hammering him by focusing on the economy while McCain is farting in the wind by focusing on Ayers


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Oct 2008)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420151553142939.html

Some Surveys Indicate Tighter Presidential Race 

A spate of widely publicized newspaper and network polls over the past week have shown Barack Obama opening a big lead over John McCain. But other surveys tell a somewhat different story, suggesting the presidential race is still close, and the Republican has even gained ground in recent days.

The reason for the divergence: Pollsters are facing new challenges this year, trying to gauge whether the electorate is changing, and how much.

Surveys giving Sen. Obama a large and growing lead tend to assume that a growing proportion of voters are Democrats, and a shrinking percentage Republicans. They also point to a big increase in turnout, particularly among voters under the age of 30. Surveys showing a closer race assume less change in party affiliation in particular.

To be sure, Sen. Obama leads in every national poll, and the Electoral College map appears to favor the Illinois senator, who campaigns this weekend in Republican-leaning states that all voted for President George W. Bush.

Real Clear Politics, a nonpartisan Web site that tracks major polls, reported Thursday that Sen. Obama led Sen. McCain by 49.5% to 42.7%, based on an average of 13 national surveys taken in the past week.

The polls feeding into that conclusion show a wide range, from a CBS/New York Times poll giving Sen. Obama a 14-point lead, to a Gallup poll showing the Illinois senator with just a two-point edge, equal to the margin of error.

A Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll this week shows the Illinois senator leading by nine points, while a Pew Research Center survey gives him a seven-point lead. But an Investor's Business Daily-TIPP poll shows Sen. Obama with a nearly four-point advantage. Recent polls by Rasmussen Reports and Zogby International show Sen. Obama leading by four and five points, respectively.

One Gallup poll shows the Democratic nominee's lead has shrunk since last week, falling to six points from 10. "Clearly, the race has tightened," says Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Daily.

The polls owe their wide variations, in part, to differences in how they determine likely voters. Gallup actually conducts two separate daily polls, one that includes all surveyed adults who say they will vote, and a second that is more restricted, using a decades-old methodology that determines "likely voters" in part by examining historical models on the types of voters who have showed up at the polls.

In the first Gallup sample, Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain by six points. The second group yields the two-point gap. Both polls were conducted from Oct. 13-15.

Differences over how to accurately gauge party affiliation also help account for the discrepancies. Some pollsters argue polls should be statistically "weighted" so that their results achieve a partisan composition that reflects long-term national averages -- particularly if a poll shows that one party gets an unusually large share among the respondents, compared with past elections.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen, for example, weights current polls so that Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 39.3% to 33% margin, while pollster John Zogby adjusts polls so that Democrats account for around 38% of the electorate and Republicans, 36%. So even if a particular sample of calls shows different ratios, the pollsters adjust to fit that formula.

"What troubles me is when I see some of my colleagues have 27% of the respondents that are Republicans. That's just not America, period," says Mr. Zogby, whose polls have shown Sen. Obama with a lead ranging from two to six points this month. He argues that while party affiliation fluctuates over time, it doesn't change "day-to-day, and it never fluctuates by eight points in a short time period."

Other pollsters argue that polls should use whatever partisan mix results from a particular survey rather than arbitrarily establishing party affiliation weights. "How do you know that's right? I mean, they're making up numbers," says Susan Pinkus, who conducts the Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, which isn't weighted. In this week's poll, the respondents were 34% Democratic and 26% Republican.

Both campaigns are running large vote turnout operations, and the Obama campaign is counting on unprecedented turnout from young voters, which further complicates efforts to determine likely voters. "It's more art than science in many cases. They're very difficult decisions to make," says Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster who conducts the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll.

Predicting turnout among young voters remains particularly challenging because many of those voters don't use landline phones that pollsters traditionally rely on to achieve a balanced sample. Pollsters have also struggled with accurately predicting minority turnout and how race could influence the current election.

Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2008)

Time is tight, but the "Joe the Plumber" momentmight have hurt Senator Obama when he inadvertently revealed his program of income redistribution. Lots of "Joe's" out there would like to achieve financial success and buy their own business, hearing from the candidate's own mouth that won't happen on his watch might be a bit much to take.

The other thing which might turn the tide is the increasing realization that the Democrats are responsible for this financial crisis. Most people might not be too interested in the historic roots of the crisis in the Carter Administration, but they sure will get in a knot when they really wake up to discover the Bush administration tried to correct the problem in 2003 and 2006, but was blocked by the Democratic house. I wonder if there isn't something like the Swiftboat movement trying to get this out:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2008/Q4/mail540.html#Swiss



> "The average American listening to all the news of bank failures, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who?) being taken over by the government, and now a "bail-out" of large, privately owned and well known companies, is at first bewildered, and then angry. The average American should be furious.
> 
> But with whom should Americans be furious? That seems to be the big question as political fingers are pointing in every direction. Was it greedy CEO's with their "golden parachutes?" Was it the Democrats? Was it the Republicans? Was it Wall Street? (Who, exactly IS "Wall Street?") The simple answer is that it is all of the above.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Oct 2008)

"Income redistribution"?

Sounds like good old socialism to me. Take from the hard working and give to the lazy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2008)

I wonder if the award of the Nobel to such a well known critic of Bush and, increasingly, McCain, will have any measurable impact on the election. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a ‘feature’ article on 2008 Nobel laureate Paul Krugman:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.wkrugman1017/BNStory/International/


> A laureate who loves to beat around the Bush
> 
> SINCLAIR STEWART
> 
> ...



For good or ill, Krugman’s _bona fides_ just got a HUGE lift so his criticisms will carry more weight, but it’s not clear to me that any significant number of people know what he thinks – beyond “Bush is an idiot.”


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2008)

As many expected, Colin Powell endorses Obama. He did so very publicly, on _Meet the Press_, and blasted McCain for a dirty campaign and for picking an unqualified running mate.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2008)

The US risks becoming ungovernable.

With 95% of Blacks clinging to their race and whites split amongst those that support blacks, those that know they should support blacks and those that just can't support blacks the outcome is fraught (to use an archaic word).

If Obama loses there is a risk of a reaction not on Rodney King lines but more on the scale of Watts-Detroit 1968.

If Obama wins I don't expect an equivalent white reaction immediately but I fear that the possibility exists that with an Obama-Reid-Pelosi Washington the policies will drive locals further away from the centre and more likely to challenge or ignore the centre.  And that way takes you back to the days of Whiskey Rebellions, Revenuers and Prohibition, as well as the Ungovernable West, Jacksonian Mountains and "independent-minded" not to mention secessionist states.

One term of Obama the US will survive handily.  Two terms are a problem.  But if the O-R-P philosophy takes hold in Washington then I think that the Great Post Partisan could end up being seen as the catalyst for the greatest division that the US has seen since their Civil War.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2008)

I don’t agree.

Thanks to a Constitution that is a work of genius and the _evolution_ of a wondrous array of e.g. foundations, _institutes_ and _centres_ woops, I mean  _centers_ that embrace the whole political spectrum: right, centre and left, the Americans have managed to create a slow moving, cautious (dare I say conservative?) system that is hard to shift too far too fast, even during a crisis.

There is, always, an eloquent _’government in waiting’_ that is countering whatever the president and/or the congress propose. The _new media_ makes it faster and easier for the foundations, institutes and centers to get their message out.

The American president’s powers are relatively restricted – even when he has a same-party congress. And the congress is powerfully influenced by local people and their issues – like a hanging, having to get re-elected every two years focuses the mind  - and by the industry group lobbyists on K Street who fund all the election campaigns.

There are a lot of checks and balances in the American system – beyond the ones taught in grammar schools. American legislators show a commendable independence – especially when someone tries to _whip_ them into a nice, neat, partisan line. And powerful voices whisper into the ears of presidents and speakers, cabinet secretaries and congressmen and political advisors, too.

Knee jerk shifts in policy happen – just as they do here, but they are fairly rare.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2008)

Problem that I see Edward, is that politicians are elected by their constituents every two years.  And you are right, they do get elected by pandering.  But when downtown Detroit sees the world differently than Sabetha, Kansas and both of those entities have the capability of creating their own day to day existences, through locally elected Mayors, Sheriffs and Judges, then the risk is that the unifying Federal can be inched (Kansas) or shoved (Detroit) out of the way.

In places like Sabetha, the long term strategy for dealing with the Federal intruders is to adopt Trudeau's strategy for the Governor-General and do nothing: just let it wither to irrelevance.  And that attitude prevails across much of Red State America  (dominated by Joel Garreau's Empty Quarter aka Flyover Country aka Jesusland).  They are defiantly proud to be Americans but they find little comfort in anything Washingtonian.  For most of them Washington is seen as a place that takes, and takes too much).

In Detroit, (and Washington proper) Washington is seen as a place that gives, and gives too little.

Generally speaking Americans get along, but the level of discourse I am observing during this election cycle seems to be incrementally more divisive than it has been in previous campaigns and those were progressively more divisive as partisans on both sides became more and more frustrated with the "Other".

While I accept your "Checks and Balances" argument as it applies to Washington directly, Washington has to fight to impose itself, make itself relevant, to Americans. I would argue that geography, politics, history and demography all work against a "United" country.

The Federals have been remarkably successful in holding the country together, and their is NO reason why it cannot continue to hold together in the future.  I just point out that there are many faultlines that require will and energy to bridge.   Lacking will and energy then the bridges will fail.  This is especially true if others find advantage in exploiting the faultlines.

My concern is that, at this moment in time, the bridging forces are weakening while the exploitative forces are strengthening.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Oct 2008)

If Obama is elected we may see the greatest challenge to the Constitution since the Civil War.Obama is out to force the US into a marxist box.His big stumbling block will be the states.The one's that are already blue states will be less of a problem for him than the red states.

As for General Powell if he thinks the McCain campaign is negative he obviously is blind to the outragous lies,fraud and intimidation that is the Obama campaign.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/07/16/oklahoma_rebellion

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence. 

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key. 

The resolution's language, in part, reads: "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers." 

Key's resolution passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a 92 to 3 vote, but it reached a bottleneck in the Senate where it languished until adjournment. However, Key plans to reintroduce the measure when the legislature reconvenes. 

Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution's framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, "The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government." 

Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders. One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles. 

State efforts, such as Oklahoma's, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states. A bit of rebellion by officials in other states will speed that process along.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2008)

> One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War,



A Tennesseean of my acquaintance, way back in the 80s, was adamant that the proper name for the discussion was "The War for States Rights".


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2008)

Besides the Civil War (which made the subtle but fundamental change to America's name, from "*These* United States" to "*The* United States"), I think the greatest legislative change to the character of the United States was the Congress making very broad and sweeping interpretations of the "Interstate Commerce Clause" in a well intentioned move to enforce Civil Rights.

Once the Congress realized they had the ability to reach past the States and local legislators, (with the support of the Judiciary, which *could* have stopped this), then the expanding reach of the State was no longer checked, with results as diverse as the "Great Society" and the "Sub Prime" mortgage crisis. If all the Red States stood together with Oklahoma, I suspect the US Supreme Court would act to strike down these initiatives and the Congress would work to subvert the process through whatever means necessary for them to prevail.


----------



## Drag (20 Oct 2008)

As far as I remember slavery fell under the domain of states' rights....  And it took the Civil War to abolish it.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2008)

Instapundit notes there is a lot of internet "scrubbing" going on. Winston Smith's workplace called it "The Memory Hole". Luckily there is still the Google cache and the "Wayback Machine", for now, anyway....

http://www.patterico.com/2008/10/20/evidence-of-obama-ayers-tie-sent-down-the-memory-hole-almost/



> *Evidence of Obama-Ayers Tie Sent Down the Memory Hole . . . Almost!*
> Filed under: 2008 Election, General — Patterico @ 7:05 am
> The best evidence that Barack Obama launched his political career from Bill Ayers’s living room has disappeared . . . down the memory hole.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (20 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If Obama is elected we may see the greatest challenge to the Constitution since the Civil War.Obama is out to force the US into a marxist box.His big stumbling block will be the states.The one's that are already blue states will be less of a problem for him than the red states.
> 
> As for General Powell if he thinks the McCain campaign is negative he obviously is blind to the outragous lies,fraud and intimidation that is the Obama campaign.
> 
> ...



Wait, so let me get this straight from what I am reading and inferring  above- so you think the right to secede is a state RIGHT? So you think the 1st Republican President- Abraham Lincoln- was wrong to try to keep the Union together simply because he didn't think those states had a right to secede simply becasue they disagreed on things like slavery? 

And just because the CSA didn't try to take over Washington DC and the rest of the Union doesn't mean it shouldn't be called a Civil War. The fact of the matter is that there was still a conflict of governance of OVER PART OF THE COUNTRY over who ruled- the states themselves with their own Confederacy or the US Federal goverment which didn't allow them to secede.  Obviously your definition of a Civil War must be strictly a conflict where it involves the whole country and central goverment control being fought over. But regardless it is the victors who write the history and the CSA never gained independence. Therefore it will still probably be called the American Civil War for generations to come and not a "2nd War of independence for the Southern States" no matter who is right on this thread in this clash of definitions. 

And for God's sake, Obama is not a Marxist. Socialist undeniably, but definitely much closer to the socialists of Europe (Scandinavian Socialism etc.) than the various Marxist/Maoist regimes or rebel factions that have existed throughout the world. To suggest that someone like Obama is anything like Marxist like Kim Jong Il is plain absurd. Obama is not calling for an ABSOLUTE one-party system as a Marxist government would require; he has mentioned he has worked with Republicans in Congress in on a number of times- does Congressman Dick Lugar  of the Foreign Policy committee and his work with Obama on limiting nuclear proliferation ring a bell?   If you're gonna use labels you should ones that more accurately reflect someone without resulting to such extremist labels.  Like the extremist voters of the GOP base who called Obama as a "terrorist" in a Ohio rally presided over by Palin. Living in the same neighborhood with Ayers or even meeting him does not make Obama a terrorist. You convince people through facts and persuasion as you well know, not slander and _reductio ad absurdium_ as stegner pointed out earlier.


----------



## muskrat89 (20 Oct 2008)

For someone who likes to set people straight about things going on in China, you sure seem to get excited about someone who lives in the US expressing their opinions...

 ???

As far as this:


> If you're gonna use labels you should ones that more accurately reflect someone without resulting to such extremist labels.  Like the extremist voters of the GOP base who called Obama as a "terrorist" in a Ohio rally presided over by Palin



What about these?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/pds-mobsters-in-philly-lets-stone-her-old-school/

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/blatant-anti-palin-bias-in-the-liberal-media-a-collection/

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/crush-the-obamedia-narrative-look-whos-gripped-by-insane-rage/

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/16/baffled-secret-service-cant-find-anyone-to-corroborate-reporters-kill-them-claim/


----------



## CougarKing (20 Oct 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> For someone who likes to set people straight about things going on in China, you sure seem to get excited about someone who lives in the US expressing their opinions...
> 
> ???



If I come on as being overenthusiastic, then it's perhaps I believe there should be a balanced perspective when discussing the United States as well, having studied taken my undergraduate studies and half my high school there(1999-2005). T6 is entitled to what he says, but I do not seek to silence his opinions. And what I say is moot anyways as I cannot vote in that country, while he can. 

And as for China, I base what I write here on my experiences as an expatriate living not only in Hong Kong for 3 years (1994-97) before the handover back to the mainland and Taipei, Taiwan for 2 years (1997-1999), but also on that semester abroad I spent in Beijing (2003)during my undergrad. I have strong opinions on both China and the United States, having studied in both nations, although I have called Canada my home since I became a landed immigrant (originally from another country in Southeast Asia, not China or Taiwan, which I prefer not to say) here back in 2006.

But enough justification and boasting of credentials that no one cares about. Back to TOPIC.







 (back in Taipei in December 2002 return visit)


----------



## muskrat89 (20 Oct 2008)

> And as for China, I base what I write here on my experiences as an expatriate living not only in Hong Kong for 3 years (1994-97) before the handover back to the mainland and Taipei, Taiwan for 2 years (1997-1999), but also on that semester abroad I spent in Beijing (2003)during my undergrad



Which is my point. Your opinions of things far eastern are given "ooomph" by your life-experiences there. It just really irks me when opinions of people who live in the US are brushed aside, ignored, mocked, or generally declared irrelevant by "experts" on US Policy and History, who do not live here (not you, specifically - it happens a lot on this board)

I think I have a pretty good feel for what is on topic, and what is not, thanks.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Oct 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> If I come on as being overenthusiastic, then it's perhaps I believe there should be a balanced perspective when discussing the United States as well, having studied taken my undergraduate studies and half my high school there(1999-2005). T6 is entitled to what he says, but I do not seek to silence his opinions. And what I say is moot anyways as I cannot vote in that country, while he can.
> 
> And as for China, I base what I write here on my experiences as an expatriate living not only in Hong Kong for 3 years (1994-97) before the handover back to the mainland and Taipei, Taiwan for 2 years (1997-1999), but also on that semester abroad I spent in Beijing (2003)during my undergrad. I have strong opinions on both China and the United States, having studied in both nations, although I have called Canada my home since I became a landed immigrant (originally from another country in Southeast Asia, not China or Taiwan, which I prefer not to say) here back in 2006.



So following your above logic, I should be an Expert on Western Europe having lived in France for four years (1959-1963) and Germany for three years (1980-1983) with numerous visits in between and since.  I am far from that, and have watched your rhetoric here and have come to a similar conclusion about it.
Hope that helps.


----------



## CougarKing (20 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So following your above logic, I should be an Expert on Western Europe having lived in France for four years (1959-1963) and Germany for three years (1980-1983) with numerous visits in between and since.  I am far from that, and have watched your rhetoric here and have come to a similar conclusion about it.
> Hope that helps.



Alright, I am by no means an expert on either country right now (although I hope to emulate such China experts like David Shambaugh one day). I am just adding my input from experiences, though to contribute. Not trying to impose on anyone although I apologize if some of my rhetoric has come across as that way.


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Oct 2008)

Colin Powell's comment on allegations that Obama is a Muslim was right on the money, and needed to be said by someone as respected as he is. The incident at the Q & A period was equally alarming. In denying that Obama was an Arab, McCain said, " No he's a decent family man,"  suggesting of course that the two are mutually exclusive. This incident and others are indicative of the extremism of some of McCain's supporters, and the fact that the MSM did not pick up on McCain's less than honourable answer is disturbing.

link to Powell backing Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_NMZv6Vfh8


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2008)

Fly shyte from pepper.  There seems to be an awful lot of Nelsonian eye-patches being turned by the media towards Obama and his acolytes while McCain is picked up before he can fall down.

It is NOT irrelevant to look at a candidate's circle of acquaintances and supporters and draw inferences from there.  My problem is that the only people that seem to be doing the investigating are those that seem to be labelled extreme by those that aren't doing the investigating........and that includes a whole pile of people that are paid to do the investigating and claim it as their right to be the sole investigators.

Well, if they stopped playing favourites and applied resources equally then I think the respect quotient would rise exponentially.  Too many people are telling only the tales they want to tell leaving it up to the opposition to refute them.
That works fine if it is the candidates' people that are doing the telling and the journalists are just doing the reporting, but IMHO way too many columnists, editors and journalists have decided how they want this election to turn out.  And they did that a long, long time ago.


----------



## muskrat89 (20 Oct 2008)

Thanks Kirkhill. One moron yells something at a McCain rally, and people are screaming "foul". Yet, look at all the crap dished out to Palin, and that's different. Heck, they even went after Joe the Plumber.

Yet, stuff like this is "irrelevant":



http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/



> A blogger unearthed the Dec. 21, 1997, endorsement in the Chicago Tribune and posted photographs of the praise for Ayers' book on Zombietime.com Saturday.
> 
> Featured next to a smiling photograph of himself, then-State Senator Obama called Ayers' book, "A Kind and Just Parent: Children of the Juvenile Court," a "searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair."
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Oct 2008)

Early on I referred to Obama as a marxist.His friends are communist radicals.His father was a communist.He studied Saul Alinsky and his book Rules for Radicals.His view of taxes as a redistribution of wealth is right out of Karl Marx. So I think I am safe ground when I characterize Obama as marxist. He definitely wont be to Canada's liking as he seems to wqant to redefine NAFTA which I think is insane.Harper seems to be hedging his bets with Sarkoozy and a trade deal with the EU.

http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2008)

> Senator Joe Biden :........
> 
> The Political Radar reported:
> 
> ...



Gateway Pundit


Most curious - must be one heck of crystal ball Jobama's got.  Not so much to predict that he will be tested - every President is tested early on.  But that despite 4 or 5 possible scenarios he has a single magic bullet that will cure them all - and it is one that America won't like.   Heckuvadeal.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Oct 2008)

The two candidates transition teams were given classified briefings last week.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2008)

Despite this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _CNN_ web site, that shows that the race may be getting closer, and while I think McCain would be the better choice for president, I’m guessing that Obama will be the “people’s choice:”

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/cnn.poll/index.html


> Poll shows presidential race may be tightening
> 
> *STORY HIGHLIGHTS*
> •	Barack Obama has five-point lead in new poll, down from eight points
> ...



According to CNN’s electoral vote predictor McCain has a HUGE climb: he must take *all* the _tossup_ states and take one or two of the states that are _leaning_ towards Obama – and he has only two weeks to do that and Obama will get a _sympathy bounce_ as he leaves the campaign trail to visit his ailing grandmother.

I suspect we will all have to deal with President Barack Obama – Americans, Canadians, Chinese, all of us. But, I’m sure that every single person standing for election and every US senator who does not need to face the people this year is getting an earful from Wall Street, _Main Street_ and K Street (the home, in Washington, of the big lobby groups and firms) on the topic of “slow and steady” being required to “win” the economic race.

My *guess* is *President Obama* will:

•	Push through a fairly quick withdrawal from Iraq – combat brigades out before end 2010;

•	Add combat brigades (I wouldn’t want to guess how many) to Afghanistan – to no great effect;

•	Continue, broadly, the current _interventionist_ economic policies; and

•	*Not* be able to add new or increase existing social programmes because the deficit will be too high and will continue growing during an Obama administration.


----------



## -dikweed- (21 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Early on I referred to Obama as a marxist.His friends are communist radicals.His father was a communist.He studied Saul Alinsky and his book Rules for Radicals.His view of taxes as a redistribution of wealth is right out of Karl Marx. So I think I am safe ground when I characterize Obama as marxist. He definitely wont be to Canada's liking as he seems to wqant to redefine NAFTA which I think is insane.Harper seems to be hedging his bets with Sarkoozy and a trade deal with the EU.
> 
> http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm



Redistribution of wealth is the hallmark of the civilized world.  Nearly every single Western country with the exception of the United States  has a socialist capitalist system. Even the US has many socialist aspects.   It does not make us all a bunch of Marxists.  Please, enough with the rhetoric.....


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2008)

Philltaj said:
			
		

> Redistribution of wealth is the hallmark of the civilized world.  Nearly every single Western country with the exception of the United States  has a socialist capitalist system. Even the US has many socialist aspects.   It does not make us all a bunch of Marxists.  Please, enough with the rhetoric.....


That is somewhat true, however, it sure sounds like "take from the rich, GIVE to the poor". Who is the arbitror who sets that rich/poor line? I know in some people's eyes I'm wealthy, while in others eyes I'm not wealthy? Who decides?
I don't mind giving a helping hand up, but not a hand out.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2008)

Philltaj said:
			
		

> Redistribution of wealth is the hallmark of the civilized world.  Nearly every single Western country with the exception of the United States  has a socialist capitalist system. Even the US has many socialist aspects.   It does not make us all a bunch of Marxists.  Please, enough with the rhetoric.....



No, *redistribution of wealth is a hallmark of Socialism*, and the long term history of socialist nations isn't very pretty. Actually, what is being proposed/implimented is even worse; it is *redistribution of income*, which means the industrious and productive are being punished and held back, while the champaign socialists and limosine liberals have their positions in life secured from competition (which explains why we see rich socialists like Bob Rae or George Soros).

The short to medium term result is economic stagnation (the EU despite having a larger population and similar resources to the continental United States has a per capita GDP @ 25% below that of the United States) to social disintigration (the UK under New Labour is a pretty chilling example). Although the correlation is difficult to prove, nations with greater levels of Socialism have far lower birthrates than nations with lesser levels of Socialism, to the extent that the former USSR, the EU and Canada are facing mi9d to long term demographic crashes, and "Blue" states have far lower birthrates than "Red" states (since the overal birthrate in the United States is at the replacement level, the inference is that in a generation the "Red" staters will outnumber the "Blue" staters).

The collapse of Socialist nations isn't a fun event either, as watching the fall of the wall and the decade of turmoil engulfing the former USSR (or the rise of authoritarianism as the aftermath) should warn us.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2008)

Good one Thucydides. Good explanation.


----------



## Drag (21 Oct 2008)

When the median incomes of bottom 95% of the population are dropping in real terms compared to the top 5% some form of socialism becomes more and more attractive.  The more this trend continues, the bluer the US will become.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2008)

The problem with "income redistribution" is that it provides no incentive to work hard, improve or become educated. You can sit on your duff and the hard workers will provide for you. Why would you work hard only to have the money YOU earned taken from you and handed out willy nilly?


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Oct 2008)

The median household income for 2007 rose 1.3% to $50,233.Here is a break down by state.The US enjoys far lower unemployment than the EU. Unions are far more powerful in Europe than in the US which I think explains Europe's economic doledrums.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html

The average US worker will not tolerate a lower standard of living which would be the result of an Obama administration.Why do I say this ? Higher taxes mean less discretionary income.Higher prices for goods and services mean that earning power is reduced. If NAFTA ends up being scrapped by a protectionist Obama administration we definitely will see the prices of goods go up.Couple this with current economic conditions and the future doesnt look very rosy.


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2008)

Thus the overtures with the EU.....kinda hedging our bets...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2008)

Some contrarian opinion:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU2MDg2MzVhY2EyY2U0NmFmODdmNmE4MTBmMTQ4ZTE



> *Obi Wan: 'Believe me, there is someone in the Obama campaign who is deathly afraid of the 'McCain pulls even or goes ahead' poll.'*
> 
> My mentor - who goes by the nickname Obi Wan Kenobi - has reappeared again, and remains generally optimistic about McCain's chances. He felt the final debate had worked for McCain because he had finally found themes that he kept coming back to in answer after answer.
> 
> ...



Even if the poll numbers are true (and polling is more of a black art than a science), doesn't it seem strange that despite the wall to wall positive media coverage, the vast amounts of money to spend on advertising, the uncertain economic and national security environment unfolding and the unpopularity of the outgoing Administration Senator Obama's lead is _*so small*_? He had the same advantages against senator Clinton, and only squeaked by in the Democratic primaries as well. I suspect this will be very tight election right to the last moment, and a Democrat "Supermajority" is not a sure bet...


----------



## stryte (22 Oct 2008)

Joe Biden warns that America's enemies will test Barack Obama with an international crisis within six months if he's elected president 



> "Mark my words," Biden told donors at a Seattle fund-raiser Sunday night.
> 
> "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.
> 
> ...



Full article: Article Link


----------



## Redeye (22 Oct 2008)

Where exactly is the basis for suggesting that the average US worker will face higher taxes if Obama is elected? The GOP keeps claiming this but his platform doesn't talk about any tax increases for the average American worker.  They repeatedly make this claim, on what is it based though?

As for NAFTA, I don't think Obama would scrap it - it's too advantageous to the US - because if they tried to renogiate it later they would likely not get the same terms, I doubt Canada would ever agree to proportionality again.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The median household income for 2007 rose 1.3% to $50,233.Here is a break down by state.The US enjoys far lower unemployment than the EU. Unions are far more powerful in Europe than in the US which I think explains Europe's economic doledrums.
> 
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html
> 
> The average US worker will not tolerate a lower standard of living which would be the result of an Obama administration.Why do I say this ? Higher taxes mean less discretionary income.Higher prices for goods and services mean that earning power is reduced. If NAFTA ends up being scrapped by a protectionist Obama administration we definitely will see the prices of goods go up.Couple this with current economic conditions and the future doesnt look very rosy.


----------



## Drag (22 Oct 2008)

From what I gather, renegotiating NAFTA if more geared to get Mexico to accept environmetal and labour standards that are enforced in Canada and the US.  GOP is distorting that one IMO.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Oct 2008)

Redeye the Bush tax cuts are due to end shortly unless Congress acts to extend them. Obama doesnt support a renewal so that will mean across the board tax increases for everyone. Then of course there will be more tax increases to pay for Obama's $1 trillion in new spending. Experts predict taxes to return to Clinton era levels.One thing about democrats is that they always raise taxes and they spend like drunken sailors.At least $300b will go to the UN to be doled out to the worlds poor.This is expected to cost every American $2500 each.The bill is the Global Poverty Act.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405


----------



## Redeye (22 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Redeye the Bush tax cuts are due to end shortly unless Congress acts to extend them. Obama doesnt support a renewal so that will mean across the board tax increases for everyone. Then of course there will be more tax increases to pay for Obama's $1 trillion in new spending. Experts predict taxes to return to Clinton era levels.One thing about democrats is that they always raise taxes and they spend like drunken sailors.At least $300b will go to the UN to be doled out to the worlds poor.This is expected to cost every American $2500 each.The bill is the Global Poverty Act.
> 
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405



I'll check out the Bush tax cuts issue - because I don't know the details thereof.  However, given the massive amount of spending that the Republicans embarked on (remember in the Clinton years, the US ran budget surpluses), saying that Democrats spend like drunken sailors is a little bit rich.  The massive deficits and expansion of government that has occurred under Bush is hardly what I would consider fiscally conservative.  Bush spent like a drunken sailor - look at the Iraq War!  This is what I don't get about the Republican party, they talk about being the party of the little guy, they aren't (the middle class being those who make less than $5-mil a year, was it?  Come on!).  They talk about being fiscally conservative, and they aren't.  They talk about opposing small government, but government seems empirically to grow most under GOP presidents.  On top of that, I recently read a research paper briefing (I wish I had the link) that showed that stock market returns (as measured by the DJIA and S&P500 as I recall) are higher under Democratic presidents.  The folks who did the study even adjusted it to "blame" the tech wreck's impact on Bill Clinton (by subtracting the aggregate loss from growth in his terms, and the Democrats still came out on top.

The American government is clearly broken.  The debt that future generations are being saddled with has grown out of control over the last few years, with no end in sight no matter who wins the election.  Social security is broken.  Health care is broken (and yes, I know Canada's system is far from perfect, but my grandmother-in-law, who lives in GA on Social Security and is in failing health and totally dependent on Medicare would give her right arm to move to Canada to be covered by our system).  Bush squandered America's international good will, the prestige that Bill Clinton left for the USA on the global stage (and not all that prestige came from him, Bush 41 was probably part of it, even perhaps Ronald Reagan), and that's going to take a lot of work to recover.  Our neighbours, our good friends, have a lot of trouble to deal with.  I'm not sold on McCain being the man to do it (and neither are a lot of conservatives, it seems), and the thought of Sarah Palin somehow winding up leader of the free world, well, that is truly terrifying.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2008)

As T6 said, taxes will rise to pre 2000 levels as the tax cuts sunset in 2010. Proposed environmental legislation (AKA carbon tax or cap and trade) will add taxes to business (which is paid for by you, the consumer), and the idea that Senator Obama can generate a tax cut to 95% of the electorate or taxpayers (I'm not entirely clear on that one) is mathematically impossible. Caps on FICA and Medicare/medicade contributions are targetted as well by a putative Obama administration, so another tax burden is being imposed.

WRT President Bush, his *domestic* record is appaling, but I would argue that part of the issue was he did not use his Presidential powers and political capital in that arena. Social Security reform (the "ownership society") and reigning in Freddie and Fannie in 2003 or 2006 would have done a lot to prevent or at least limit the damage we are seeing today, while the prescription drug plan and No Child Left Behind is just economic and political crack to buy voters. As a BTW, if your grandmother thinks she will get better medical treatment in Canada, she should be willing to wait 6 months plus to see a specialist (and then wait 6 months plus for the tests the specialist ordered, and then 6-18 months for the medical procedure based on those test results) and perhaps be serviced in a hospital comprable to the ones highlighted in the VA hospital scandal.

WRT America's "international good will"; I can recall vulger displays of "good will" dating back to the 1980's, and I am sure older readers can also chime in with examples of "international good will. This idea is more of a myth than reality


----------



## Redeye (22 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As T6 said, taxes will rise to pre 2000 levels as the tax cuts sunset in 2010. Proposed environmental legislation (AKA carbon tax or cap and trade) will add taxes to business (which is paid for by you, the consumer), and the idea that Senator Obama can generate a tax cut to 95% of the electorate or taxpayers (I'm not entirely clear on that one) is mathematically impossible. Caps on FICA and Medicare/medicade contributions are targetted as well by a putative Obama administration, so another tax burden is being imposed.
> 
> WRT President Bush, his *domestic* record is appaling, but I would argue that part of the issue was he did not use his Presidential powers and political capital in that arena. Social Security reform (the "ownership society") and reigning in Freddie and Fannie in 2003 or 2006 would have done a lot to prevent or at least limit the damage we are seeing today, while the prescription drug plan and No Child Left Behind is just economic and political crack to buy voters. As a BTW, if your grandmother thinks she will get better medical treatment in Canada, she should be willing to wait 6 months plus to see a specialist (and then wait 6 months plus for the tests the specialist ordered, and then 6-18 months for the medical procedure based on those test results) and perhaps be serviced in a hospital comprable to the ones highlighted in the VA hospital scandal.
> 
> WRT America's "international good will"; I can recall vulger displays of "good will" dating back to the 1980's, and I am sure older readers can also chime in with examples of "international good will. This idea is more of a myth than reality



We agree on a lot.  NCLB was an epic failure, and the signs that there was trouble ahead with Freddic Mac and Fannie Mae were reasonably obvious.  Bush's tenure as president looks pretty disasterous.  Are you suggesting, with respect to Social Security, that you would support the "self managed" concept?  I think that's ludicrous personally.  Most "self-directed" investments are more aptly described as "self-neglected"- I'm a financial planner by day job, by the way.

As far as carbon tax/cap-and-trade concepts go, clearly something has to be done but I haven't formed an opinion on what.  Shifting tax burdens to "polluter-pays" systems make a lot of sense to me but implementing them will take time to do painlessly.  We have to, globally, wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources and actually start looking at sustainability.  Problem is that it isn't easy to persuade a developing nation that they can't enjoy the luxuries we have enjoyed as a result - but if enough focus is put on sustainability they may be able to jump past stages of development (as an example of what I mean, consider that developing nations have by and large skipped landline telephony - moving straight to more modern technology).  The USA should be a leader in this sort of thing - but really haven't shown any leadership at all.

As it stands currently, my grandmother-in-law has faced a lot of waiting time to get tests and procedures done.  Incidentally, based on the most recent reports I've read, your quotes of wait times are right out to lunch, at least in Ontario.  According to the Fraser Institute, "The median wait time for Canadians seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment dropped to 17.3 weeks in 2008 from 18.3 weeks in 2007."  Not great, but at least there is improvement.  On Medicare she has to wait and gets only very basic care.  I'd also like to know which hospitals you're comparing to VA hospitals in the US as you cited.

As for goodwill, the Americans have never been perfect, and no country has, but it seems there's a lot more palpable hostility to the US now than there was in previous years - at least on a broader scale.  Now, part of that may well have to do with increased proliferation of media and access to news of global events, and other factors - so I guess I'll leave that be until I get bored enough to find more empirical data.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Oct 2008)

> Are you suggesting, with respect to Social Security, that you would support the "self managed" concept?  I think that's ludicrous personally.  Most "self-directed" investments are more aptly described as "self-neglected"- I'm a financial planner by day job, by the way.



Please show me in the US Constitution where it defines one of the roles of the Federal Government as ensuring people plan properly for their retirement. As a financial planner, you must know that even a small amount of money regularly set aside from earnings (especially pre-tax) can result in a pretty substantial retirement "nest egg". If people choose not to do that, that is not my problem. I also trust myself (along with my financial planner) to invest my money more effectively than the government can.


----------



## Redeye (22 Oct 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Please show me in the US Constitution where it defines one of the roles of the Federal Government as ensuring people plan properly for their retirement. As a financial planner, you must know that even a small amount of money regularly set aside from earnings (especially pre-tax) can result in a pretty substantial retirement "nest egg". If people choose not to do that, that is not my problem. I also trust myself (along with my financial planner) to invest my money more effectively than the government can.



Nowhere does it say it is an obligation - but every industrialized country has some sort of public pension system.  Small amounts set aside from earnings can result in a substantial retirement nest egg, yes, if invested well and managed well.  I'm not entirely sure on how the SSA in the USA is managed but all I have to do is look at the management of plans like CPP, OTPP (the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan), the Caisse in Quebec, etc, to see that they can manage a lot better.  Building the nest egg is the easy part anyhow, it's converting it to income that is difficult.  Further, how many Americans really have the time or inclination to manage their investments on that scale - some do, sure, but the masses I would wager (by seeing how so many invest) don't really.  That's why a public pension works well.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Oct 2008)

> Where exactly is the basis for suggesting that the average US worker will face higher taxes if Obama is elected?



I guess it depends on where the "average US worker" falls into the equation...

Assuming of course that you consider the Wall Street Journal to be credible....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556587.html



> What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
> 
> *Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government.* This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
> 
> ...



You can read the full article at the link above...


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2008)

He's been chatting with Jack Layton again, huh?


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2008)

I don't know where the Fraiser Institute is getting their data or methodology, but my figures are real, since they come from my family and personal associates. I am in fact the lucky one in the bunch, I only had to wait *three* months to see the specialist and *three* more months for surgery; a rather painful 1/2 year to be sure. The spread of SARS in Ontario was a result of the poor conditions and management of our hospitals, especially in Toronto; read Mark Steyn to see how the entire affair played out.

Self directed plans are neither good or bad, that depends on the time and energy the owner chooses to put into it. US Social Security is currently structured as a Ponzi Scheme, which will come under great stress as the ratio of workers to retirees becomes smaller, but US Federal civil service personnel *do* have a self directed plan where a portion of their earnings are invested in a series of index funds (from what I understand, the owner can choose to split the investment between one or more different types of funds, i.e. NASAQ, Fortune 500, bonds, Treasuries). Since these are Index funds, the investment is largely passive, the owner mostly decides on the level of risk they are comfortable with and selects accordingly. The argument that "all civilized nations" have pensions is not a good argument for having them, "all civilized nations" also allowed their banking industry to overleverage debt (many far more then the United States) with the results we see today around the world.

Finally, the "goodwill" the United States managed to accumulate after intervening in Bosnia, Kosovo, sending the fleet to save the Tsunami victims, President George W Bush providing billions of dollars to combat AIDS in Africa etc. is..............nil. Why worry about what other people think of you (I thought that was a particularly Canadian affliction), when the most important job of any government is to see to the National Interest and protect their citizens, something the United States has done under this administration.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Oct 2008)

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/Stubborn%20Ignorance.htm



> Stubborn Ignorance
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2008)

An interesting look at the campaign; if Senator Obama were Govenor Palin:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2008_10_23_A_day_in_the_life_of_Palin:_One_wonders_if_Obama_could_be_so_resilient/



> *A day in the life of Palin*
> One wonders if Obama could be so resilient
> 
> By Michael Graham  |   Thursday, October 23, 2008  |  http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Op-Ed
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2008)

When I titled the thread "Presidential election may be up for grabs" i meant in the sense that the race was actually wide open. Now it seems it is up for grabs in the more mercenary sense of for grabs by the highest bidder:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021856.php



> *Who is John Galt?*
> Share Post   PrintOctober 23, 2008 Posted by Scott at 6:52 AM
> 
> *We've previously noted the gusher of illegal campaign contributions flowing into the Obama campaign from contributors such as "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will." More recently, incidents have been reported in which people have seen credit card charges surface suggesting they donated to Barack Obama when they did not. * Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen noted one such incident earlier this week:
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Oct 2008)

> Like the extremist voters of the GOP base who called Obama as a "terrorist" in a Ohio rally presided over by Palin.



I wonder if this is considered "extremist"?

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html



> PITTSBURGH -- A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, police said.
> 
> Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard tells Channel 4 Action News that the victim was robbed at knifepoint on Wednesday night outside of a Citizens Bank near Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m.
> 
> Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said


----------



## Sheerin (23 Oct 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I wonder if this is considered "extremist"?
> 
> http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html
> PITTSBURGH -- A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, police said.
> ...



Sounds like a good chunk of the story is missing, in particular if they actually caught the guy and he admitted that he did all that because of a McCain bumper sticker.

As for taxation, I found this on the Washington post website









> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.html?referrer=facebook
> 
> Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
> According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Oct 2008)

McCain's plan is a non-starter with Congress.
As I have pointed out before a democrat Congress will not extend the Bush tax cuts.This is what this will mean for ALL Americans who pay taxes.Looks like a tax increase to me.Look for Obama to raise taxes across the board.His Global Poverty Act will cost $850b.He will sign Kyoto with Bali Accord which will see cap and trade costs to the taxpayer.Obama is lying through his teeth.



> 27% rate goes to 25%
> 30% rate goes to 28%
> 35% rate goes to 33%
> 38.6% rate goes to 35%
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Oct 2008)

> Sounds like a good chunk of the story is missing



You're right....

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html



> Todd handed the man $60 she had in her pocket and stepped away from him, investigators said. The man then noticed the bumper sticker on the woman's car, which was parked in front of the ATM. The man became very angry, made comments to Todd about John McCain and punched her in the back of the head, knocking her to the ground, police said.
> 
> "He continued to kick and punch her repeatedly *and said he would teach her a lesson for supporting John McCain*," said police Chief Nate Harper.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sheerin (23 Oct 2008)

If that woman's story is true then that's terrible, but I have to admit  i am still somewhat skeptical about whether or not this incident actually took place.  For now it's being thrown in the bin along with other internet stories.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> McCain's plan is a non-starter with Congress.
> As I have pointed out before a democrat Congress will not extend the Bush tax cuts.This is what this will mean for ALL Americans who pay taxes.Looks like a tax increase to me.Look for Obama to raise taxes across the board.His Global Poverty Act will cost $850b.He will sign Kyoto with Bali Accord which will see cap and trade costs to the taxpayer.Obama is lying through his teeth.



Didn't realise you were able to read minds.....


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Oct 2008)

Try THIS  report re Miss Todd, Sheerin.  Photos and all, including TV reports.

And guess what Sheerin.  This type of stuff is not uncommon.  That is why I expressed concern for outcomes regardless of whether or not the Great Post Partisan wins or loses.  Way too many emotions.

And no mind reading required.

Cheers.


----------



## Pelorus (24 Oct 2008)

http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html



> *Police: Campaign Volunteer Made Up Attack Story
> 
> A Pittsburgh police commander told KDKA Investigator Marty Griffin that Ashley Todd confessed to making up the story & is facing charges*
> 
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Oct 2008)

Was just coming here to tell Sheerin that his instincts were correct!


----------



## Pelorus (24 Oct 2008)

This is a strange election, that's for sure...


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Oct 2008)

If Obama does win we will see intolerance for dissent on levels only found in dictatorships. Just look at what the Obama campaignand its surrogates did to Joe the plumber,a private citizen. No excuse for that.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Oct 2008)

Well, I stand taken.

Apologies Sheerin.


----------



## chanman (24 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The problem with "income redistribution" is that it provides no incentive to work hard, improve or become educated. You can sit on your duff and the hard workers will provide for you. Why would you work hard only to have the money YOU earned taken from you and handed out willy nilly?



Sounds like a good arguement for heavier estate taxes as well, actually.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Oct 2008)

Barney Frank is talking about nationalizing the $3 trillion 401k market and a 25% cut in defense spending. Talk like this may in the long run either Obama's chances or improve the Republican numbers in the House and Senate. Unbridled democrat power would be a complete disaster.


----------



## armyca08 (25 Oct 2008)

It seems fairly likely Obama will win the election should the polling being anywhere near accurate. Only two states use district votes, the rest are all handovers of the most popular candidate. 

News Agencies are only reporting about a 3% chance for McCain to win at this point. 

While it is not impossible it is much like the Taliban defeating coalition forces in Afghanistan then attacking Europe. Not all that likely.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Oct 2008)

We have a two track systemopular vote and the electoral college.It is possible to lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote.Here's a map for you.


http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/


----------



## GAP (25 Oct 2008)

army08 said:
			
		

> News Agencies are only reporting about a 3% chance for McCain to win at this point.



What are you smoking?


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2008)

VDH takes a look at the election and how the GOP imploded over the last eight years. If the Republicans want to renew themselves and become serious contenders for governing the nation, they had better take a good long look at what "conservatism" (AKA Classical Liberalism) really means, and what it takes to put it in practice. The Mid terms and 2012 should help them if there is an Obama administration or Democratic supermajority; think of Bob Rae's tenure as Preimier of Ontario and the bad taste it left here. 

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-campaign-takes-a-strange-turn/



> *The Campaign Takes a Strange Turn*
> 
> Questions Still Not Answered
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2008)

And there is indeed an undercurrent we never hear about (although if the PUMA's and other blue collar Democrats come out for McCain/Palin in the numbers the writer expects I will be very surprised). The election is still up for grabs by the electorate after all!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/signs_pointing_to_a_mccain_vic.html



> *Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory*
> 
> By Steven M. Warshawsky
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Oct 2008)

Biden was interviewed today. ;D
Unfortunately the campaign canceled all appearances with the channel as punishment for this interview.This is one aspect of Obama that I detest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X346U109Chs&eurl


----------



## armyca08 (26 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> What are you smoking?




Pollutants streaming into our air supply.

Sourced from a Globe and Mail Article from Today

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081025.CAMPAIGN25/TPStory/Comment

3.7%

was referenced from fivethirtyeight.com


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Oct 2008)

According to this link, many middle class Americans plan on leaving the US for Canada if McCain wins.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid988092926?bctid=1842856410


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Oct 2008)

Same was said in 04 if Kerry lost to Bush. Not many went north.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Oct 2008)

Did you watch the video?


----------



## GAP (27 Oct 2008)

Awh.....they're always saying that. Whatever side is losing keeps claiming to want to run to Canada, they never do because we keep telling them we don't want them....


----------



## Bane (27 Oct 2008)

Funny stuff.  I agree with T6 & GAP here, there will be no mass migration north.  I'd like to get my hands on some of the 'transition' kit though, I ran out of syrup this morning.  American is a very complex place, it is also unique in that it is simultaneously the most hated place on earth yet receiving of more people who want to move there from legitimately crappy places than to any other country on earth.  From an epochal perspective,  given the three big ideological alternatives presented during the 20th century there is no contest as to the best choice.  America will find sound, yet perhaps diffferent, footing again.  I have no doubt. 

On the election itself: the polls seem to point to a striking Obama victory. Best of luck to both.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Oct 2008)

--*- 'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.'
                              -- Barrack Obama*


----------



## Drag (27 Oct 2008)

How about some educated guesses on the outcome....


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2008)

Bane said:
			
		

> ....... it is simultaneously the most hated place on earth yet receiving of more people who want to move there from legitimately crappy places than to any other country on earth.....




Do you suppose there is a correlation their?  Too many leaders in too many countries finding their prospective tax payers voting with their feet spending too much time trying to convince the remainder how lousy a place America is?  And at the same time trying to drag America down to their level so that they can continue with their existing policies.

At processing plants in Alaska they don't worry about covering the crabs to prevent them escaping.  The crabs do a good enough job of policing themselves.  Every time one looks to be making its way out the rest grab on and drag it back.  Everybody ends up equally cooked.  Socialism in action.


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Oct 2008)

My prediction:


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2008)

A bit earlier there I made a post of the potential for high income earner in the United States to go on strike, following the path of John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged".

Here is a reverse POV from Instapundit:



> A REVERSE-JOHN-GALT? Tom Spaulding writes: "So, if Obama actually wins this election and delivers on even half of his promises, I'm vacillating on whether to pull a reverse John Galt and plug IN to the system. . . . *So I mean to look into every government assistance program Obama/Pelosi/Reid provides or funds. Even if I don't sign up, at least I'll have an idea where my money is going to. But if I do take an occasional sip from the public teat, consider it my own way of 'spreading the wealth' back around to me."*



Well, this actually _is_ joining the strikers (if you are not sure what I mean, read the book), it is an interesting means of doing so. Considering how lax Senator Obama has been in accepting dubious contributions (from fake names, address and potentially foreign donors), maybe "we" can join the Obama gravy train and get some wealth spread to Canada! Now that's change I can believe in.  >


----------



## CougarKing (27 Oct 2008)

An update on a slightly off-topic subject- two skinheads who planned to assasinate Obama were tried in court today, IIRC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7694254.stm



> *Skinheads 'planned to kill Obama'  *
> 
> *Two men have appeared in a US court accused of making threats to kill Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, federal agents say.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Oct 2008)

Two idiots.Glad they were caught before they could hurt someone.


----------



## Bass ackwards (27 Oct 2008)

There is an individual in West Hollywood who has a mannequin, made up to look like Sarah Palin, hanging by the neck in his front yard. A Halloween decoration he claims. 
Here's a link to the story in question, from the Associated Press:
http://cbs2.com/local/Sarah.Palin.mannequin.2.849299.html

Imagine someone hanging Barack Obama in effigy -"for Halloween". 
How well do you think that would go over ?
Do you suppose the media might react a little differently to that ?


----------



## Pelorus (27 Oct 2008)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Imagine someone hanging Barack Obama in effigy -"for Halloween".
> How well do you think that would go over ?
> Do you suppose the media might react a little differently to that ?



Already been done at a small Christian university in Oregon, but not for Halloween:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26872774/


I don't see how the reactions are all that different to be honest.  Both events seem to be rather controversial and derided by those of us who haven't left our brains behind in this election season.  ???


----------



## Bass ackwards (27 Oct 2008)

The difference, Boot, is that one is an "overt racial act" (read: hate crime) and the other "draws giggles" and "should be seen as art".


----------



## CougarKing (28 Oct 2008)

Thoughts?



> COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - *A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses.
> U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.*
> Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
> The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional ballots across all Ohio counties.
> ...


----------



## Bane (28 Oct 2008)

Homeless citizens have every right to vote.  As to the logistics it's a bit tricky and I'm not sure listing a bench is very fruitful.  In federal elections here (if I'm wrong please correct) a person merely needs a registered voter to vouch for them, both then make sworn statements.  I'm not sure if there is any additional mechanism in place in Canada that would facilitate homeless voting but this seems to be a reasonable solution.


----------



## Sheerin (28 Oct 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Well, I stand taken.
> 
> Apologies Sheerin.



No worries.
It was a weird story, and I sincerely hope this young lady gets the help she needs.


----------



## Drag (29 Oct 2008)

+1 Bane

On a related note, I think this election will cause even more of a legal circus then the 2000 Florida fiasco, with allegations of vote fraud on one side vs. allegations of voter suppression on the other side.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Oct 2008)

How do you suppress votes when the voters are ficticious in the first place ? As in every Presidential election the only voter fraud is from the democrats and ACORN. In the US at least it should be 1 man one vote  not 1 man 75 votes.


----------



## Sheerin (29 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How do you suppress votes when the voters are ficticious (sic) in the first place ? *As in every Presidential election the only voter fraud is from the democrats and ACORN. In the US at least it should be 1 man one vote  not 1 man 75 votes*.



T6, that is a very generalized statement you made there.  
Your hatred for the left is quite overwhelming, I honestly did not think you were this much of a zealot.


----------



## GAP (29 Oct 2008)

I did not realize it until a few days ago, but the voter registration system is NOT government controlled....it is up to the various parties to register voters......huh? 

This opens the system up to all kinds of voter fraud.... :


----------



## Drag (29 Oct 2008)

See Florida 2000 for voter suppression.  Purging 50 000 voter form the voting rolls for being convicted felons even though 25000 of them were not and then turning them away from the polling stations.  
This ACORN thing is being used as a talking point by the Rush Limbaugh types.   The truth is far different.  ACORN's way of paying by registration to its staff is wrong, but they also have to submit every single filled registration card.  So if someone decides not to actually do the leg work and register actual voters, the best ACORN can do is fire them, and flag the cards as questionable.   It then is up to election officials to disqualify the registration and prosecute.  Inefficient but necessary because of historic shenanigans in US elections.


----------



## Drag (29 Oct 2008)

As to the only fraud being from Democats and ACORN, I bring your attention to a Mr Xavier Suarez who was ousted as the Mayor of Miami by the courts in 1998 for absentee voter fraud.  In 2000 he was the head of the Republican Party Executive Committee of the Miami-Dade county and responsible for their absentee balloting effort.  In a state that went to Bush by less than 500 votes this is highly suspect.  Those that live in glass houses....


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2008)

To all concerned:

I bring this recent post of mine to your attention - 



> This is my greatest concern.  I alluded to it in the comments on the US election.
> 
> The problem, as I see it, is that too many people are becoming too heavily invested in the political process.  They are no longer willing to "play up, play up and play the game".
> 
> ...



While I particularly criticize the left for promoting a course of action that I believe contributes to the breakdown of civility,  and to that I would add their desire to dismantle institutions (of which the voting system is one) it doesn't serve anybody's cause if we of the more conservative bent resort to their standards.

If, at the end of this election, a significant portion of the population believes that there was fraud and that that contributed to an invalid result then I reiterate that I am concerned that the US could become ungovernable.  There is not a long step from riots in opposition to judicial decisions to nationwide riots in response to electoral decisions.

Perhaps we all need to temper our language and engage in some civil hypocrisy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is John Ibbitson’s analysis of the state of play in the last few days of the election campaign:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081029.wcampaignmccain30/BNStory/Front


> Does McCain have the mo'? In a word, no
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




I think Obama’s support peaked (at about McCain + 5 to 10%) at around the time of the credit crisis. It cannot, I believe, go anywhere but down. But while McCain’s support is rising, it is not rising far or fast enough nor is Obama’s falling enough.

I suspect Obama’s half hour _infomercial_ was a mistake and will give McCain 1% in the polls. Americans like an _underdog_ and Obama is acting, à la a Paris Hilton type celebrity, like the rich _top-dog_ – a bully kicking sand in the face of the 97 pound weakling (for those who remember the old Charles Atlas adverts in the Saturday papers. It reminds lots of Americans of why they dislike Obama and why McCain is a “good guy” – just lke them. But I’m not persuaded that Obama’s big, last minute error will do enough.

Too bad, McCain is the better choice for these times – especially for Canada.

As Ibbitson says: “Five days.”


----------



## GAP (30 Oct 2008)

More's the pity, but I do agree with your assessment.....too bad for Canada.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Oct 2008)

It sure will be interesting 18 to 24 months from now if Obama wins. Not only does he not have any foreign policy experience, he lacks legislative experience as well. With Democrate majorities in both the Senate and Congress it will be a tug of war bettween the legislative and executive. Can Obama control Nancy Pelosi? I think not. She has her own agenda.
Off the wall, and I mean really off the wall, I find it peculiar that Obama has focused his entire life to be President. Joined the correct groups, church, associated with individuals, voted "present", all to get votes. There is finally some controversy as to where all his contributions have come from (and McCains somewhat). I have never believed all these millions and millions of Americans were sending in $10/$20. 
I do not know who is behind curtain with influence/money grooming Obama. It is like the movie.
On US radio news. local talk shows, financial analysts are saying the markets will be unstable for up to 18 months, watching what Obama will do.
If Obama can control his Party/Pelosi, he may turn out to be very radical (here they are saying Socialist/Marxist). Depending on what he does, he may be impeached, not by his Party, but by the People DEMANDING their Representatives impeach. Then things will get interesting with the race card.
Off the wall, I know, but my feeling. No I am not a conspiracy theory believer.


----------



## observor 69 (30 Oct 2008)

Ya you're right it sure will be interesting. 
Obama makes decisions by seeking advice from those highly qualified and regarded in their area of expertise.
McCain makes decisions on the spur of the moment, Sarah Palin for example.
Ref your disbelief/innuendo in Obama's ability to raise campaign money, watch all politicans adapt his many people small contribution model. That's how Harper did it here in Canada.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2008)

I found it very interesting to see a poll where something like 72% of Canadians supported Senator Obama and would vote for him if they had the opportunity.

In 12-18 months things will be very different under an Obama Administration.

How many Canadians will be supportive if the big tax and spend program triggers a deep recession in the US (killing our export market)?
How many Canadians will be supportive when the Administration tries to renege on NAFTA or uses other isolationist ploys in an attempt to salvage unionized American jobs?
How many Canadians will be supportive when the CF is being called upon to help out with the many bushfire (or larger) conflicts triggered by tinpot dictators reacting to perceived lack of American resolve and weakness? (Especially if our own national interest compels us to go?)

Let's see what thee polls say then?

A congress which does not see itself beholden to the Obama administration will induce more instability in the legislative process, while continuing questions about the nature of Senator Obama's funding (fictitious names and address') ACORN (the numbers of fraudulent registrations traced to ACORN in many states is astounding; yet ACORN is the recipient of over $800,000 of Senator Obama's money). I suspect there will be a great deal more instability as investigations are launched to determine the sources of the campaign contributions and the voter registration process, while the Obama administration spins wildly trying to suppress or explain away the discrepancies. The GOP can keep the pot on the boil by having Governor Palin constantly appearing in high profile events; people will already be looking ahead to the next administration.

We will live in interesting times.


----------



## Redeye (30 Oct 2008)

If the Republicans want to make a good run at the White House in 2012 (since it looks like 2008 is a foregone conclusion - but you never know...), then I think they need to make Sarah Palin disappear, quickly.  She's an embarrassment, and she's the reason a lot of GOP types are either voting for Obama or will stay home it seems.

Will Obama actually abrogate NAFTA?  I doubt it.  He'll realize that things like proportionality clauses are important to US interests and will need to be preserved.

I'm a fairly conservative person myself, but the American right (especially its religious zealots) really disturb me.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> I found it very interesting to see a poll where something like 72% of Canadians supported Senator Obama and would vote for him if they had the opportunity.
> 
> In 12-18 months things will be very different under an Obama Administration.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (30 Oct 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I found it very interesting to see a poll where something like 72% of Canadians supported Senator Obama and would vote for him if they had the opportunity.
> 
> In 12-18 months things will be very different under an Obama Administration.
> 
> ...



"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. "  ;D


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Oct 2008)

> She's an embarrassment, and she's the reason a lot of GOP types are either voting for Obama or will stay home it seems.



An embarrassment to you perhaps, and/or your circle of American friends. On the contrary, almost every right-of-center person that I know, and have talked to - actually feels better about voting for McCain, _because_ of Palin. I'm not sure what you are basing your statements on, but I am just not seeing it.



> I'm a fairly conservative person myself, but the American right (especially its religious zealots) really disturb me



Probably in the same way that the Canadian left disturbs me....  of course it is moot, since I don't live there.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Oct 2008)

Palin was in Missouri today and had 7000 pack the house.Biden was also in the state but only drew 500.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U67Eg-3jP5k&eurl


----------



## Drag (30 Oct 2008)

+1 for Baden Guy and Redeye.  Maybe there is something about Palin that appeal to the right in the US.  While I consider my self a centrist right on some issues, left on others there is nothing about her, or the McCain campaign that would appeal to me if I was voting in the US election.   They have not said anything that would appeal to me intellectually,  While I agree with McCain on more issues than I agree with Obama on 
Just repeating "Ayers", "abortion" and "Joe the Plumber" ad nausea does not actually make for an intelligent conversation with the electorate.  The old McCain that stood up to the fringe elements of his party would have been interesting, but the current incarnation seems stale and out of ideas.  McCain of old vs. Obama would have actually been fun to see.  They stooped to a new low today with Joe the Plumber endorsing McCain by callling him a "Real American."  This is a desperation tactic on the level of the Elisabeth Dole adds.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Oct 2008)

McCain IS a real American Hero. Obama is an autocrat in waiting.


----------



## Drag (31 Oct 2008)

I would not have had a problem with "real American Hero" because that is what McCain is.  He said " Real American."  That implies Obama is not a "real American."  Why?  Is it because he has a funny name?  Is it because he is black?  That what that implies to me.  McCain did not even bat an eyelash.  From what I have seen in the campaign, McCain's style is more autocratic than Obama.  At least with the way his campaign was run.


----------



## Bane (31 Oct 2008)

Another Marxist rag endorses Obama...
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box1


I wonder when the USS Barak Obama will roll out?
 ;D


----------



## 2 Cdo (31 Oct 2008)

Bane said:
			
		

> Another Marxist rag endorses Obama...
> http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box1
> 
> 
> ...



Probably the same time as the USS Jimmy Carter! :blotto:


----------



## Redeye (31 Oct 2008)

Well, she's an embarassment to me in the sense of sharing the conservative label, but beyond that other than fact that the thought of her winding up in the White House is actually very scary to me.  Nothing about how she has carried herself in the campaign process has given me any confidence that she has the "right stuff" to do the job.  John McCain I have less concern about, but one has to look at the whole package and I think the GOP made a fatal error in selecting Sarah Palin.  By virtue of being married to an American, I have had the chance to discuss the election extensively with them.  I'm interested to know what it is about Palin that makes people feel better about her.  She seems in every interview to be way out of her league, and the fact that particularly for her part her stumping seems more about smearing Obama (in ways that look to me both desperate and laughable).  I would have felt more comfortable with McCain (and I didn't mind the guy at first, pre-Palin) if he had a VP that was a solid, well-educated, well-spoken political veteran.  A populist who seems in over her head just doesn't give me much faith, I guess.



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> An embarrassment to you perhaps, and/or your circle of American friends. On the contrary, almost every right-of-center person that I know, and have talked to - actually feels better about voting for McCain, _because_ of Palin. I'm not sure what you are basing your statements on, but I am just not seeing it.
> 
> Probably in the same way that the Canadian left disturbs me....  of course it is moot, since I don't live there.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Oct 2008)

Redeye, please explain the Bush Doctrine. Palin was asked this question. Can you answer?


----------



## Redeye (31 Oct 2008)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye, please explain the Bush Doctrine. Palin was asked this question. Can you answer?



In its simplest and most commonly known form - it's essentially a policy of preemption - the justification of launching a war on a foreign state in response to the threat of attack (including attack by non-state actors) staged from that country.  It was the idea that justified the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 - that there was a threat of future attacks from the region and therefore the US made a decision to dispose of the regime which harboured the threat.  The same idea (with the now mostly discredited "proof") was used to justify the invasion of Iraq - though then we saw the idea of promotion of "regime changes" added, with a view to promoting democratic governments (something which I believe is doomed to fail in most of the world - democracy is not a commodity, it cannot be exported).  That was a pretty rough question to ask anyone without preparation, I agree, but the entire interview seemed equally awkward.  I'm not going to form my opinion on someone based on one single question.  No one asked Obama or Biden the same question that I know of and I don't know how they would have responded, so I have no direct basis to compare.  Nevertheless, I find that both Obama and Biden are infinitely more polished and well-spoken.  I have a lot of respect for John McCain as a man, for what he has done for his country, but I don't think he is the man to carry the country forward.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Oct 2008)

Well, that answer was one of explanations of the "Bush Doctrine". What about the others?

P.S. Just for me explain"Canadian Values". You will probably do better at this explanation, but then maybe not.


----------



## Sheerin (31 Oct 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Probably the same time as the USS Jimmy Carter! :blotto:



So Barack Obama already has a ship named after him?  Is a a Seawolf like the USS Jimmy Carter too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Oct 2008)

Regarding Palin's supposed screw-up of the Bush Doctrine question.. Here is Krauthammer's opinion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html



> Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
> 
> 
> By Charles Krauthammer
> ...



You can read the rest of the story at the link, although I think you'll need a free log in.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Oct 2008)

You made it too easy for him. But I will too. I still want to hear about "Canadian Values". The phase is certainly popular with a certain segment of Canadians.

Bill O’Reilly
FOX News

'Bush Doctrine.' When I heard that question from Charlie Gibson, I thought the 'Bush Doctrine' was the president's belief that encouraging democracy is the ultimate solution to marginalizing terrorism. But Gibson put forth that the 'Bush Doctrine' is the use of military action to prevent anticipated attacks. The record shows there is no precise definition of the 'Bush Doctrine,' so if I were asked about the doctrine I would have been confused

Dan Froomkin
Washington Post

But Gibson was making a common error, and what Palin said in her response did not actually address what was so radical about Bush's contribution to American foreign policy. Preemption has in fact been a staple of our foreign policy for ages -- and other countries' as well. The twist Bush put on it was embracing "preventive" war: Taking action well before an attack was imminent -- invading a country that was simply perceived as threatening. 

And to be completely accurate, there have been several Bush Doctrines over the years. Another dramatic announcement, you may recall, was his declaration on Sept. 20, 2001: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." (Or, as he put it on Feb. 11, 2002: "You're either with us or against us; you're either evil or you're good." 

And then there was Bush's second inaugural address, when he pledged himself to spreading freedom and ending tyranny in the world. 


Wikipedia

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to aggressively secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[1]
Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of encouraging democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]


----------



## Drag (31 Oct 2008)

Even if the "Bush Doctrine" response is debatable, Palin's inability to name a single Supreme Court decision she did not agree with other than Roe v Wade is pretty telling of how informed she is.  I am not even an American, and I could name a few: Dred Scott, Boumediene v. Bush. This is somebody that is a heart beat away from nominating justices to the court.


----------



## Redeye (31 Oct 2008)

As I said, I didn't agree with the question - because it is so ambiguous.  It's not as those there's some book that clearly defines it.  I understand why it was asked - to try to get a handle on what understanding of foreign policy Sarah Palin has - but it is at best a junk question, at worst a loaded one designed to make her look bad.  Asking someone for definitions to me isn't much for an interview - I'd have wanted her to explain what her view of Bush's foreign policy actions was and what she saw as being her priorities, something to that effect.

Any sort of definition is useless.  My view of Canadian values most likely doesn't agree with a lot of people's, simply because one projects their own value set onto their ideal view of them.  It's just like when people talk about "family values" in the political arena - what I view to be "family values" would be very, very different than someone who holds strong religious views (which I do not) - and further, the views of many very religious people are to me abhorrent.  That, however, is a whole different kettle of fish.

My overarching point is that in my view the GOP has failed to establish Sarah Palin as someone with any real redeeming qualities that make her well qualified for the office for which she is running.  The Democrats have seemed to establish their candidates much better.  The fact that he's being branded a "Marxist" (amusing and ridiculous), that people still identify him as a Muslim, etc shows that to me.  In the debates I watched Obama focused on what his vision was, he talked about his idals and so on.  McCain did not.  He talked about what he saw as being wrong with Obama more than anything, and that's what really put me off.  Interestingly enough, Harper did the same thing during the campaign here and I was similarly unimpressed with his efforts.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Well, that answer was one of explanations of the "Bush Doctrine". What about the others?
> 
> P.S. Just for me explain"Canadian Values". You will probably do better at this explanation, but then maybe not.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Oct 2008)

In the last two Cdn elections, at least, I heard a huge amount of flapping about preserving "Canadian Values", but no description other than Peacekeeping. I think what "Canadian Values" are, is a Liberal government in power permanently.

And you think an establishment Democrate guy like Joe Biden is qualified? I think you have listened to Obama, but have not heard. That's easy cause there are not any specifics: just change, change, change.

If you think Obama is qualified to be the protector of the free world, you are in the company of millions of others. I hope nothing happens to prove you all wrong.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Oct 2008)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> In the last two Cdn elections, at least, I heard a huge amount of flapping about preserving "Canadian Values", but no description other than Peacekeeping. I think what "Canadian Values" are, is a Liberal government in power permanently.
> 
> And you think an establishment Democrate guy like Joe Biden is qualified? I think you have listened to Obama, but have not heard. That's easy cause there are not any specifics: just change, change, change.
> 
> If you think Obama is qualified to be the protector of the free world, you are in the company of millions of others. I hope nothing happens to prove you all wrong.



To quote from the 300: "We're in for a wild ride" or words to that effect.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2008)

Since defence spending is now considered "up for grabs" under an Obama administration (up to a 25% reduction), I suspect we will never see a USS Barack Obama.

As for the 300, Leonidas the King told them on the last morning:



> Eat well, for tonight we dine with Hades!


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Oct 2008)

"Eat well, for tonight we dine with Hades!"

Let's hope it doesn't come to that... :-\


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2008)

Doing there part for clean government, Slate does an experiment to see if the Obama campaign really cannot access the names of the supposed small donors (like "John Galt", "Good Will" and "Doodad Poo"). It is possible, so they cannot or will not release the names for other reasons. You can stop and think of a few....

http://www.slate.com/id/2203421/



> *Yes, He Can
> Barack Obama should be able to disclose his small-dollar donors pretty easily.*
> By John Dickerson and Chris Wilson
> Posted Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008, at 6:50 PM ET
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Oct 2008)

Obama thinks we are selfish if we dont want to pay higher taxes. :-\

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V3FNh3mAuY&eurl


----------



## Bane (31 Oct 2008)

http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/mccain-defends-the-progressive-income-tax/


----------



## Drag (31 Oct 2008)

McCain is doing it wrong:  you run to the right in the primary and then you plan yourself in the center for the general election.  McCain inexplicably ceded the center to Obama while running to the lunatic fringe on the right.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Oct 2008)

Obama is so far to the left he couldnt find the center with a flashlight.


----------



## Drag (31 Oct 2008)

The polls say that a majority of the electorate thinks otherwise...  He's even getting 15%+ of the Republican vote according to most polls


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Oct 2008)

76% of US citizens in Israel voted for McCain.


----------



## Drag (31 Oct 2008)

Very misleading.  The Jerusalem Post says here http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199612287&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull that it was an exit poll with a very limited and flawed sample that oversampled the Orthodox Jewish community, a natural McCain constituency.  I wonder what results an exit poll conducted at 3 polling stations, 2 of which were in Harlem, would produce.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (31 Oct 2008)

Drag said:
			
		

> The polls say that a majority of the electorate thinks otherwise...  He's even getting 15%+ of the Republican vote according to most polls



And which poll would that be? Please specify, because I have not seen any polls that would indicate such a trend. And face it, it would have been front page in every newspaper in the U.S. The reality is that there are dozens of polls out there making predictions that are quite literally all over the map. For example:

_"...the Associated Press/Gfk poll which says Obama will win by one, or the Pew Research poll which says Obama will win by fourteen?"_

_"...the Battleground poll which says Obama will win by three, or the CBS/NYT poll which says Obama will win by thirteen?"_

As you can see, even among reputable firms there is quite a discrepancy. To get an understanding on why the polls are are all over the map I would recommend the following website  Stolen Thunder (the source of the above quotes). Anyone interested in what is happening in U.S. polls should take a look at it. I can't recommend it enough. What the blogger (_DJ Drummond_)is saying is that the polls in this election are screwed because of corrupt data. To get a good handle on what he is saying, go back to about mid-Oct and read forward.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Oct 2008)

The polls have been slanted for awhile trying to reduce republican turnout.On election night the networks will try to call some states too early as they did in 2004 when their exit polls were so off.As to the Orthodox vote being over sampled here is an explanation.



> The largest wave of American immigration to Israel was in the heady years following the Six-Day War in 1967. It is estimated that some two-thirds of the 30,000 immigrants from America who arrived between 1967 and 1973 remained in Israel. Although this group was both diverse with regard to its background and professed a wide variety of explanations for their decision to immigrate to Israel, about half described themselves as "religious."5 Indeed, this group was far more likely to acknowledge religious motivations in their decision to move to Israel than those ABIs who had preceded them.
> 
> Over the last quarter century since the Yom Kippur War, some 60,000 American Jews have settled in Israel. Sixty percent of this group is estimated to be Orthodox. The Orthodox not only comprise a clear majority of the American immigrants who arrived during this period, but are estimated to have a "return rate" of roughly 20 percent - only half that of their non-Orthodox counterparts.6
> So a 60% Orthodox survey is likely the correct distribution of American immigrants to Israel. And Orthodox Jews are much more likely to vote for McCain than their non-Orthodox brethren



Cuban Americans.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/29/barack-obama-cubans-communism



> John McCain threw up his Florida fire wall today: a million Cuban Americans who see Barack Obama as a combination of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and any other Latin leader who ever nationalised a business.
> 
> In the streets of Miami's Little Havana, which McCain visited today, there was one word for the kind of change promised by Obama.
> 
> ...



Russian Americans:
http://www.interfax.com/3/439657/news.aspx


> U.S. Russian community will vote for John McCain - poll
> MOSCOW.  Oct  24  (Interfax)  -  The  majority  among  the  Russian
> community  in  the  United  States are going to vote for Republican John
> McCain at  the  U.S.  presidential  election, the Moscow Bureau of Human
> ...


----------



## Redeye (31 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> 76% of US citizens in Israel voted for McCain.



Meaning what, exactly?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (31 Oct 2008)

Drag said:
			
		

> See Florida 2000 for voter suppression.  Purging 50 000 voter form the voting rolls for being convicted felons even though 25000 of them were not and then turning them away from the polling stations.



Actually, the story is much different. The Wikipedia writeup on the Florida elections states the following: "_While the number of citizens on the potential felons on the list was 57,746, the Palm Beach Post found that a full 30% (20 of 67 counties) of the counties did not use the list. In their investigation, they found that the number actually removed was 19,398. Of that number, they could only prove that 108 were wrongfully removed because the citizen was incorrectly identified as a felon._" For a more in-depth analysis go to this webpage:   http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm. Note that this webpage is hardly pro-Bush and that Bush voters, not just Gore supporters, also got caught up in the SNAFU.



> This ACORN thing is being used as a talking point by the Rush Limbaugh types. The truth is far different.



True, Rush and the boys have been harping on the ACORN thing, but the reason is that where there's smoke, there is likely fire. If you don't believe me, just Google, " _ACORN +voter + fraud"_ and see what you get.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is another analysis of why/how Barack Obama is *most likely* to win on Tuesday:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081031.wobama01/BNStory/usElection2008


> Obama victory would validate new era
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...



I agree with both Ferguson and Meade:

•	The credit crisis served Obama’s campaign well and did serious damage to McCain. For whatever reasons many, many Americans decided that Obama “got it” and McCain did not – maybe it was akin to the same “empathy” thing that hurt Harper’s campaign up here in Canada at the same time; and

•	Electing Obama, assuming it happens, will be a “leap of faith” that illustrates the essentially optimistic nature of our American neighbours. They, about half of them, anyway, have decided that he is not scary enough, that he is the “way of the future” and they appear ready to put aside vague misgivings and put him in the White House.


----------



## GAP (1 Nov 2008)

> I agree with both Ferguson and Meade:
> 
> •   The credit crisis served Obama’s campaign well and did serious damage to McCain. For whatever reasons many, many Americans decided that Obama “got it” and McCain did not – maybe it was akin to the same “empathy” thing that hurt Harper’s campaign up here in Canada at the same time; and
> 
> •   Electing Obama, assuming it happens, will be a “leap of faith” that illustrates the essentially optimistic nature of our American neighbours. They, about half of them, anyway, have decided that he is not scary enough, that he is the “way of the future” and they appear ready to put aside vague misgivings and put him in the White House.



On the first point, I think you absolutely correct. The economic crash had a tremendous effect on the both the Canadian and US voter. They have/are opting for a comfort level, even if it is only perceived....

The second point is going to change our US neighbours....they will end up being served, in large parts, like the Canadian government treats it's citizens....mild socialism, the government will provide....

This is going to create a real backlash against Obama. He, his color, his collective friends and powers are going to be held up as examples of what not to do and somebody(S) is going to try to change it....it could get messy...


----------



## Chortle (1 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The polls have been slanted for awhile trying to reduce republican turnout.On election night the networks will try to call some states too early as they did in 2004 when their exit polls were so off.As to the Orthodox vote being over sampled here is an explanation.



I'm sorry if there are any grammatical errors in this post but I just got off of a night shift and wanted to catch up before I turn in... I've deleted and rewritten it a few times already. I don't post a lot period and because I'm not American  I wasn't going to post in here but I do enjoy reading this thread and wanted to put in my two cents.

I've voted both left and right in Canadian elections, I don't have strong ties to either side and look at both platforms before making a choice each time. I guess if I was American I would have been in the undecided category for quite a while but I have been following this election  a lot and I find the reaction of many republicans both here and other places to be a bit dismaying.

I'm not saying that there is no bias in the main stream media and maybe some or even most of the polls are slanted but when even karl Rove is predicting an Obama win maybe McCain supporters should prepare for a disappointing Tuesday. Even if the polls are slanted just looking at the crowds who show up at the two candidates rallies there appears to be a big discrepancy between the average looking, to me, McCain audience compared to the sea of people who show up to listen to Obama.  





http://www.rove.com/election

For better or worse I think Republicans will be disappointed on Tuesday but the GOP has to be blind if they don't see why, it's one thing when the right is getting slamed on CNN but now even FOX News people are taking shots at McCain. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWiJSJkS48c

For weeks now the GOP has been trying to scare people out of voting for Obama rather than making them want to vote for McCain, as E.R. Campbell posted so well while I was typing this:


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> •	Electing Obama, assuming it happens, will be a “leap of faith” that illustrates the essentially optimistic nature of our American neighbours. They, about half of them, anyway, have decided that he is not scary enough, that he is the “way of the future” and they appear ready to put aside vague misgivings and put him in the White House.





			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> My prediction:


This sort of thing may have swayed enough undecided voters in past elections but I think it is the wrong way to go this time. Anything could happen before Tuesday but I believe that McCain has failed to adapt to a much slicker Obama campaign and when it's all said and done he'll only have himself to blame.

Sorry about the wall of text.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Nov 2008)

Have you ever noticed that when any of the candidates, from both parties, are speaking, the candidate is facing the TV camera. The crowd in the background is all you see. And do not think that those people are not selected to be the backdrop for the TV audience. 

Seldom do you get crowd estimates unless it is one of orchestrated Obama rallies preceded with entertainers etc.  FOX News stated 7000 people were out to hear Palin in Ohio yesterday. Biden had 500 in the same state. 

About the Center for Media and Public Affairs 
The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of news and entertainment media. CMPA's goal is to provide an empirical basis for ongoing debates over media coverage and impact through well-documented, timely, and readable studies. 

October 14, 2008

Obama Leads the Media Race As Well 
Study Finds McCain, Palin Get More Negative Press on TV News

Barack Obama has widened his lead over John McCain in the race for good press, and Sarah Palin's press has turned sharply negative on network news shows, according to a new study by Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also finds that network news coverage is more substantive than in other recent presidential campaigns. 
These results are the latest update from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) 2008 Election News Watch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 585 election news stories that aired from August 23 through September 30 (12 hours 57 minutes of airtime) that aired on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and Fox Special Report (first half hour) from August 23 to September 30. We report on all on-air evaluations of the candidates by sources and reporters, after excluding comments by the campaigns and their surrogates.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Obamamania: Since the party conventions kicked off the final phase of the presidential campaign, comments about Senator Barack Obama on the network evening news shows have been 65% positive, compared to only 36% positive comments about Senator John McCain. 

Souring on Sarah: Despite a brief flurry of good press during the GOP convention, comments about Governor Sarah Palin have been only 42% positive. (There have been too few evaluations of Senator Joe Biden for meaningful analysis.)

Back to the Future: This represents a return to Obama's favorable media image during the primary season, when his coverage was 62% positive on the broadcast networks. By contrast, McCain's coverage during the primaries was only 34% positive, almost the same as his general election coverage. 

The Fox Difference: On Fox News Channel, by contrast, Obama's press has been only 28% positive during the general election, even worse than the 38% positive evaluations of McCain. Palin's coverage has been 49% positive on Fox, slightly higher on than on the three networks.

Examples: 
Obama Positive: [As a community organizer] Obama worked to open a jobs center. He also helped residents fight to rid their housing projects of asbestos. [People] in this community say Barack Obama's work here inspires them to this day. -- Kevin Tibbles, NBC, 10/2 

His message of change is something that I, for one, am looking for...-- voter, CBS, 9/28 

Obama Negative: While Obama denounces cozy Washington relationships triggering financial chaos, he was one of the top Senate recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... -- Major Garret, FOX, 9/17

McCain Negative: In this week's advertising, McCain went relentlessly negative, in some cases resorting to falsehood. -- Wyatt Andrews, CBS, 9/12

When deregulation was the wave in Washington, he surfed that wave. Now it's not and the populist inside John McCain is out. -- George Will, ABC, 9/17 

Palin Negative: But you were for it [the bridge from nowhere], before you were against it. You were solidly for it... until Congress pulled the plug. -- Charles Gibson, ABC, 9/12

Substance Beats Horse Race Substantive coverage of policy issues and the candidates' records has outpaced horse race coverage of their poll standings and campaign strategies by 36% to 31% of all stories on the broadcast networks, for only the second time since 1988. On Fox, however, only 31% of the coverage was substantive, and 44% dealt with the horse race.

CMPA is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization which is affiliated with George Mason University. It has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in which trained coders tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates. For previous CMPA findings on the 2008 elections: http://cmpa.com/studies_election_08.htm 

JUST LIKE CANADA, EH!


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Nov 2008)

Now, it comes out that _supposedly_, Obama's aunt is in the country illegally, living in the projects in south Boston.

A couple of things pop into my mind - first, this will fizzle and go away with little media coverage. The fact that Joe the Plumber didn't have a plumber's license will have garnered more attention.

Obama wants to redistribute _my_ wealth to folks in need; he didn't see fit to spread _his_ around apparently.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Nov 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Meaning what, exactly?


Meaning that 25% voted for others.  I guess...


----------



## Drag (1 Nov 2008)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, the story is much different. The Wikipedia writeup on the Florida elections states the following: "_While the number of citizens on the potential felons on the list was 57,746, the Palm Beach Post found that a full 30% (20 of 67 counties) of the counties did not use the list. In their investigation, they found that the number actually removed was 19,398. Of that number, they could only prove that 108 were wrongfully removed because the citizen was incorrectly identified as a felon._" For a more in-depth analysis go to this webpage:   http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm. Note that this webpage is hardly pro-Bush and that Bush voters, not just Gore supporters, also got caught up in the SNAFU.
> 
> True, Rush and the boys have been harping on the ACORN thing, but the reason is that where there's smoke, there is likely fire. If you don't believe me, just Google, " _ACORN +voter + fraud"_ and see what you get.



While on Wikipeida I typed in Voter Suppression.... It is a very interesting read.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
And this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list


----------



## Drag (1 Nov 2008)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> And which poll would that be? Please specify, because I have not seen any polls that would indicate such a trend. And face it, it would have been front page in every newspaper in the U.S. The reality is that there are dozens of polls out there making predictions that are quite literally all over the map. For example:
> 
> _"...the Associated Press/Gfk poll which says Obama will win by one, or the Pew Research poll which says Obama will win by fourteen?"_
> 
> ...



Actually, the internals of most polls show cross over support of anywhere from 10-20 percent for both candidates...  Hence it is not news...  Here is one http://www.gallup.com/poll/108049/Candidate-Support-Political-Party-Ideology.aspx  My point in bringing that is is that Obama cannot be as radical T6 claims and still attract Republican  voters.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2008)

Drag said:
			
		

> ..... My point in bringing that is is that Obama cannot be as radical T6 claims and still attract Republican  voters.



False syllogism.  

That presupposes that all Republican voters have the same information that T6 and non-Obama Republicans have.

I don't believe that to be necessarily the case.

Given that much of the data that T6 and those of us on this site are discussing are available primarily, if not exclusively, through the NON-Traditional means of the Internet, and given that Republicans are conservative and thus more likely to be satisfied with Traditional sources then it seems that it is likely that a large number of Republicans may not be aware of the information that T6 uses to bolster his arguments.  They may indeed by operating from a state of "ignorance" (and I use that clinically, not pejoratively).

Conversely that tendency may be offset partially those Republicans that, just as in the case of the Democrats who also have their conservative members,  vote out of Tradition and are not bothered by information (positive, negative or the lack of it).

So while both parties have  Those That Will Not Hear,  the Republicans may have more of  Those That Cannot Hear.


----------



## Drag (1 Nov 2008)

I do not really by that argument.  Much of the stuff on the internet falls squarely into the tin foil hat category.  Obama's birth certificate, supposed financial support of his distaint cousin Raila Odinga in Kenya, the purported Michelle Obama tapes.  People that buy this stuff are the real cool aid drinkers out there.  Stuff like this comes out of the alternate sources of information you refer too.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Nov 2008)

Obama if elected would be the most liberal politician to ever be elected. How he governs will determine if he would be in the Clinton mold or in the Hugo Chavez  mold.


----------



## Drag (1 Nov 2008)

I do agree with you on that.  Obama would be the most ideologically liberal POTUS ever.  Jimmy Carter maybe, Hugo Chavez no way


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2008)

Drag said:
			
		

> I do not really by that argument.  Much of the stuff on the internet falls squarely into the tin foil hat category.  Obama's birth certificate, supposed financial support of his distaint cousin Raila Odinga in Kenya, the purported Michelle Obama tapes.  People that buy this stuff are the real cool aid drinkers out there.  Stuff like this comes out of the alternate sources of information you refer too.



Drag, it doesn't really matter if you believe this "stuff" or not.  It doesn't even really matter if the stuff is true.  Just as it doesn't really matter if Obama is the Second Coming.  What matters is how many people believe each story.  Or in the excessively common idiom, how many have drunk your KoolAidTM.

Personally, it is supporters like THIS, that give me more cause to be concerned about Obama than the Pfleger/Wright/Ayers/Khalidi mates that he pals around with, and the he actively sought out so as not to appear overly bourgeois.    




> "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."



Source.

A couple of observations: 

Although Obama is a politician, in the absence of evidence to the contrary perhaps we can take his words at face value.  My only problem?  Which words.

Also KoolAidTM comes in many colours including Blue, as well as Red.

Cheers.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Nov 2008)

This post crashed the redtstae servers last night.Its from a former Hillary/Obama staffer.

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/anonymous_14/2008/oct/30/what-you-were-never-intended-to-know-in-this/

What you were never intended to know in this election 
A Hillary staffer comes clean

Posted by: Anonymous_14 

Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 04:52PM CDT

30 Comments 

After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction. First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter. The snippets you’ve heard from various media outlets only grazed the surface. There was no love between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and these feelings extended all the way to the top. Hillary was no dope though, and knew that any endorsement of Obama must appear to be a full-fledged one. She did this out of political survival. As a part of his overall effort to extend an olive branch to the Clinton camp and her supporters, Obama took on a few Hillary staff members into his campaign. I was one such worker. Though I was still bitterly loyal to Hillary, I still held out hope that he would choose her as VP. In fact, there was a consensus among us transplants that in the end, he HAD to choose her. It was the only logical choice. I also was committed to the Democratic cause and without much of a second thought, transferred my allegiance to Senator Obama.

I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down.

1 – Hillary voters. Internal polling suggests that at best, we are taking 70-75% of these voters. Other estimates are as low as 60% in some areas – particularly Ohio and western PA. My biggest problem with this campaign’s strategy was the decision NOT to offer Hillary the VP slot. She was ready and able to take this on, and would have campaigned enthusiastically for it. This selection would have also brought virtually all of her supporters into the fold, and the Obama campaign knew it. Though I have no way of knowing this for certain, and I do admit that I am relying on internal gossip, Senator Obama actually went against the advice of his top advisors. They wanted him to choose her, but the only significant opposition to this within the campaign came from Barack and Michelle Obama. In short, he let personal feelings take precedence over what was the most logical thing to do. Biden, by the way, has been a disaster inside the campaign. Everyone cringes whenever he gives an interview, and he creates so many headaches as the campaign has to stay on their toes in order to disseminate information and spin whatever it was he was trying to say.

2 – Sarah Palin. Don’t believe what the media is telling you about how horrible a choice she was. Again, our internal polling suggest that though she has had a minimal impact on pulling disaffected Hillary Democrats to McCain, she has done wonders in mobilizing the base for McCain. Another thing – we were completely taken by surprise with her pick. In my capacity in the research department, I looked into the backgrounds of Leiberman, Romney, Pawlenty and Ridge, and prepared briefs. I don’t mind bragging that we had pretty good stuff on all of them. With Leiberman, the plan was to paint him as an erratic old-timer who didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing (pretty much a clone of McCain). In Romney, we had him pegged as an evil capitalist who cut jobs. Pawlenty was going to get the “Quayle treatment”, or more precisely: a pretty face, with no valid experience. Tom Ridge was going to be used to provide a direct link from McCain to Bush. As you can see, we were quite enamored of all of them. Then the unexpected happened – Sarah Palin. We had no clue as to how to handle her, and bungled it from the start. Though through our misinformation networks, we have successfully taken some of the shine off. But let there be no doubt. She remains a major obstacle. She has singlehanded solidified “soft” Republican support, mobilized the McCain ground game, and has even had some appeal to independents and Hillary voters. This is what our internal polling confirms.


3 – Obama’s radical connections. Standards operating procedure has been to cry “racism” whenever one of these has been brought up. We even have a detailed strategy ready to go should McCain ever bring Rev. Wright up. Though by themselves they are of minimal worth, taken together, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfelger, and now, Rashid Khalili, are exactly what the campaign does not need. The more focus on them, the more this election becomes a referendum on Obama. The campaign strategy from the very beginning was to make this election a referendum on Bush. Strategists have been banging their head on how successfully McCain has distanced himself from Bush. This has worked, and right now the tide is in his favor. People are taking a new look at Barack Obama, and our experience when this happens tells us this is not good news at all. When they take a look at him, one or more of these names are bound to be brought up. McCain has wisely not harped on this in recent weeks and let voters decide for themselves. This was a trap we set for him, and he never fully took the bait. Senator Obama openly dared him to bring up Ayers. This was not due to machismo on the part of Obama, but actually due to campaign strategy. Though McCain’s reference to Ayers fell flat in the last debate, people in the Obama campaign were actually disappointed that he didn’t follow through on it more and getting into it. Our focus groups found this out: When McCain brings these connections up, voters are turned off to him. They’d rather take this into consideration themselves, and when this happens, our numbers begin to tank.


4 – The Bradley Effect. Don’t believe these polls for a second. I just went over our numbers and found that we have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain, but is too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa are the true “toss up states”. The only two of these the campaign feels “confident” in are Iowa and New Mexico. The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we tend to take a -10 point percentage in allowing for this, and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark. This is why we are still campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania! This is why Ohio is such a desperate hope for us! What truly bothers this campaign is the fact that some pollsters get up to an 80% “refuse to respond” result. You can’t possibly include these into the polls. The truth is, people are afraid to let people know who they are voting for. The vast majority of these respondents are McCain supporters. Obama is the “hip” choice, and we all know it.

As part of my research duties, I scour right wing blogs and websites to get somewhat of a “feel” as to what is being talked about on the other side. Much of it is nonsense, but there are some exceptions which give the campaign jitters. A spirited campaign has been made to infiltrate many pro-Hillary sites and discredit them. A more disorganized, but genuine effort has also been made to sow doubts among the unapologetically right wing sites such as redstate.com. Don’t you guys get it? This has been the Obama campaign’s sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns. What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it. You may point to the polls as proof of the inevitability of all of this. If so, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. How did we skew these polls, you might ask? It all starts with the media “buzz” which has been generated over the campaign. Many stories are generated on the powerful Obama ground game, and how many new voters were registered. None of this happens by coincidence. It is all part of the poll-skewing process. This makes pollsters change their mixes to reflect these new voters and tilt the mix more towards Democratic voters. What is not mentioned or reported on is not the “under-reported cell phone users or young voters” we hear so much about. What is underreported is you.


I changed my somewhat positive opinion of this campaign during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin. I will never agree with her on the issues and will probably never vote for her, but I am embarrassed of what has happened. I can’t ignore our own hand in all of this. What I do know is that I will not be voting for Obama this time around. Treat that as you will.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6, this could be misinformation planted by the Republicans. At this stage of the game, I think so. I do agree with this though because I want to. I also think Michelle Obama is a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## GAP (2 Nov 2008)

Whether it is misinformation or not, there sure is some grains of truth in each of the arguments, enough that it can't be dismissed outright. Granted, most of what she said compares with what I felt throughout the campaign but couldn't put a finger on .....


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Nov 2008)

If it is black propaganda, it is well done as it takes a snippet of verifiable information in each case  and expands on it. It also sounds believable, even if it pushes the edge of credibility.

As well, it appears with two days of campaigning left. That is enough time for wavering voters to digest it, but perhaps not enough time for the Obama campaign to react. (Remember the Bush drunk driving conviction that emerged just before the 04 election. It broke a bit early and the GOP was able to nullify it.)

What leads me to suspect the authenticity of it is the description of the writer. How many Obama campaign staffers fill this self-identified profile including the bit about being detailed to frequent right wing blog sites? Not very many I venture. It would be like an anonymous Army.ca member posting slurs about our mods on another web site , and indentifying himself as a 68-year-old retired artilley lieutenant colonel in Eastern Ontario. It wouldn't take very long to track me down and propel me off the ramp strapped to an anvil.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Nov 2008)

Drag said:
			
		

> Actually, the internals of most polls show cross over support of anywhere from 10-20 percent for both candidates...  Hence it is not news...  Here is one http://www.gallup.com/poll/108049/Candidate-Support-Political-Party-Ideology.aspx  My point in bringing that is is that Obama cannot be as radical T6 claims and still attract Republican  voters.



I disagree, 10 - 20 % crossover between either candidate would be big time news. Also, I think you missed my point in that the polls are screwed! The data they are using is corrupt that they can't be trusted. Again, here is the link to the website that I had provided in my original post. Read it and you might start looking at the polls in a different light.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Nov 2008)

Drag said:
			
		

> While on Wikipeida I typed in Voter Suppression.... It is a very interesting read.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
> And this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list



Sorry, I was talking about _"voter fraud"_ not "voter suppression/caging."


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Nov 2008)

Mason Dixon Poll



> [The final round of Mason-Dixon polls has Obama enjoying small leads in the red states that would deliver him the presidency, but he's below 50 percent in each and there are enough white undecided voters to leave some too close to call.
> 
> Colorado: Obama 49, McCain 44, Undecided 4
> Florida: Obama 47, McCain 45, Undecided 7
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2008)

The post election investigations should be interesting regardless of who wins (and the cries of coverup, etc. regardless of who loses)

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6387.html



> *Swarm-Corruption*
> 
> Posted by Shannon Love on November 2nd, 2008 (All posts by Shannon Love)
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Nov 2008)

Whats clear is that McCain-Feingold isnt worth the paper its printed on. We would be better off in the US where candidates are prohibited from accepting any donation and the government cuts the campaign a check for say $300m.


----------



## Drag (3 Nov 2008)

Is Mason Dixon not a Republic leaning outfit?  I wonder what a PPP (Democratic) poll would look like, probably showing Obama having double digit leads across the board.  My understanding is that Mason Dixon uses tunrout projections very similar to 2004, which is a false assumption in my opinion.  The truth is somewhere between PPP and Mason Dixon.


----------



## CougarKing (3 Nov 2008)

This next bit of news is slightly off topic:

Breaking News from ABCNEWS

Barack Obama's Grandmother Passes Away [4:35 p.m. ET]

Maybe this will silence those who said his flight to Hawai'i to visit her was some sort of political stunt.

Best wishes to Sen. Obama and his family.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obamas-grandmot.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2008)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5077496.ece

There is a sense of excitement among a unit of soldiers sent to Iraq from Alaska as Election Day dawns, with the added intrigue that one among their ranks could become the son of the next vice president of the United States. 

Despite such an historic day at home, it will still be business as usual for the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, which includes Private First Class Track Palin, the 19-year-old son of Republican Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running-mate. 

She is also Governor of Alaska and an honorary member of the 4,100-strong force, which has been rotating into bases and outposts across the vast province of Diyala, northeast of Baghdad, for the past month. 

Colonel Burt Thompson, commander of the brigade, is focused on the mission ahead, to provide stability to Diyala, once a hotbed of al-Qaeda activity. He noted, however, that the US elections are an exciting time. 

“I think our soldiers are excited about it, our nation is excited about it,” Colonel Thompson told The Times at his office on War Horse, a sprawling US base just outside Baquba, the provincial capital of Diyala. 

Everyone in his unit, also known as the Arctic Wolves, had the chance to cast an absentee ballot, but they were advised against revealing their choice to the media. “I think our nation is ready for some change, a little bit of something different, whether that be [John] McCain or [Barack] Obama or whatever,” he said. 

The commander, an enthusiastic soldier with big ambitions for Diyala, acknowledged the unique aspect of having Private First Class Palin in his force, but stressed that the young man just wants to be left to do his job. 

“He is an air-guard, which means he pulls security for a Stryker vehicle,” Colonel Thompson said, describing the dark green combat vehicle that most his troops roll around in. It looks a bit like a tank with wheels instead of tracks. 

“He’s a good soldier,” he added. 

With so much to achieve over the coming year, the recently-arrived brigade is more focused on assisting the local security forces and the Diyala government than on who is going to be their next commander in chief, though the presidential elections are still a talking point for some during downtime. 

Sergeant Richard Boone, 30, was born and raised in southern Alaska on a diet of moose and grizzly bear, both of which he still hunts. 

“Black bear is greasy, grizzly bear is much nicer but you cannot beat moose,” said the father-of-three, on his second tour to Iraq. 

He noted a change in this mission from his last deployment in 2005 to Mosul, further north, and Baghdad, when attacks were more frequent and US forces had the lead. This time the Iraqi army and police are in front. 

As for the elections, Sergeant Boone applauded Governor Palin for boosting Alaska’s profile. “It is amazing. Finally Alaska is on the map for something. Before, we were just known as a state that is very cold,” he said, speaking outside a mansion on the west-side of the city, which has been converted into a base. 

First Lieutenant Aaron Treesh, like a majority of the brigade, is not a native Alaskan. The 24-year-old, from Kentucky, is on his first tour to Iraq, and is looking forward to the elections. 

“It is going to have a big impact,” he said, noting the differing views of the two candidates with regards to Iraq. 

Not everyone in the brigade is bothered about the elections back home. Private Isaac Hunter, a 21-year-old originally from Texas, is more interested in working out inside a makeshift gym at a school on the east of Baquba that has also been turned into a base. 

“I do not follow politics at all. I am just here to do my job” he said. 

“On election day I will probably be thinking about what muscle group I will be working on.”


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Nov 2008)

From the  Pittsburgh Tribune Review

Barack Obama, exposed: View of constitution


By Cal Thomas
Sunday, November 2, 2008


The October surprise of this presidential election might just turn out to be a seven-year-old interview with Barack Obama in which he strongly suggests that the U.S. Constitution is an impediment to his desire to redistribute the nation's wealth.

So, how does Sen. Obama credibly take the oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he thinks it impedes his socialist agenda?

Is socialism too strong a word? Consider one of its definitions from dictionary.com and tell me it is something other than Obama's economic philosophy:

A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

A complete restructuring of society is what Obama advocated in a 2001 interview on a Chicago public radio station.

According to Politico.com, in that interview, Obama, "reflecting on the Warren Court's successes and failures in helping to usher-in civil rights," said, "I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples."

He has it backward. The Creator already endowed black people with these rights, which is precisely the argument powerfully made by Martin Luther King Jr. Any rights that are "vested" in people by other people may be removed by the same or future people.

Endowed rights are "unalienable" and what America did was to finally recognize those rights.

Obama continues with a comment that the "Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of the redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

Does he mean that for real "justice" to have been achieved, the Warren Court should have taken from the rich and given to the black poor?

Obama never said what would happen once the redistributed money ran out. Perhaps this was not to be a one-time event but a lifetime of "reparations" for slavery, as some other left-wing black leaders have proposed.

On Bill O'Reilly's Fox show last Monday night, former Democrat vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro defended high taxes in New York and Obama's pledge to raise them nationally, saying, "At least they're not taking it all."

It may have been an attempt at humor but this betrays the Democratic Party's attitude: They feel they have the right to say how much of your hard-earned money you can keep.

Actually, we should be telling government how much of our money we will allow it to spend. Anyone hoping to make more money and improve his life will have to work even harder to overcome Obama's redistribution plans.

Obama thought the Warren Court should have "broken free" from the constraints placed on the Constitution and the courts by the Founding Fathers and Framers.

This is remarkable hubris.

Obama said the Constitution mostly "says what the states can't do to you ... what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

That's because the Constitution is about liberty and protecting citizens from oppressive and invasive government.

This is scary stuff. That it is only now surfacing is another reminder of the poor job the mainstream media have done in vetting Obama.

Barack Obama thinks the Constitution and the country it helped create should be remade in his image. He wants to be a Founding Father of a different America, one that would bear little resemblance to the country we have known.

This is radical in the extreme and Obama, along with his many acolytes who are itching to get their hands on unchecked political power, are a danger to this nation's survival.

John McCain stands in the way of a complete liberal coup that would transform America in ways the Founders and Framers and most Americans would oppose.

McCain might be dull at times.

McCain might have run an imperfect campaign.

McCain should have spent more time exposing Obama as a radical socialist instead of worrying what the media would say if he did.

But John McCain is a patriot who has proved his love, service and dedication to this country in ways that Obama cannot begin to achieve or appreciate.

Electing Barack Obama president of the United States would be a roll of loaded dice. We will live (and possibly die) to regret it.

Republicans have made many mistakes and deserve the punishment they are now getting. But the one charge that cannot be laid at their doorstep is that they wanted to rewrite the Constitution and weaken the country.

Barack Obama will do that and more. Wake up, America, and stop flirting with this guy because you are flirting with disaster.

Cal Thomas, a USA Today and nationally syndicated columnist


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2008)

Definitely will be interesting tomorrow. The exit polls were wrong in 2000 and 2004 so expect them to be wrong again. The only one that matterws is the one cast in the privacy of the polling booth. The first state to close will be Indiana at 1800,then its Ky and Va. If McCain wins by a large margin then Obama is in trouble and the constant stream of media polls were wrong. If he squeeks out a win then the tracking polls were mostly right and it will be close.If Obama wins Indiana then McCain is in big trouble.

The data coming out of Pennsylvania indicates problems for Obama in Philly among Reagan democrats. If he cant win Philly then he loses Pennsylvania. The same demographic is in Boston although Mass. is pretty blue with the democrats not fully unified behind Obama there could be blue state upsets.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6,  Standby to swear true allegiance to President Barak Obama.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> tomahawk6,  Standby to swear true allegiance to President Barak Obama.



One of the brilliant bits of he US system is that T-6 is required to and, I have no doubt, is always willing to swear his allegiance to the flag and to the republic, and, I am certain, he will also willingly swear to defend the Constitution, but he need never swear allegiance to any man or woman.

We swear allegiance to our sovereign which is OK because, ever since 1648 and especially since 1699, *we* have turned the monarch into a sort of civil servant – someone paid to represent what *we* hold to be good and true about *ourselves*.  See:  Bagehot’s _English Consitution_


----------



## observor 69 (4 Nov 2008)

Quite correct sir...but it was the Bush administration that took the country's military to war and it will be the Obama administration that the military will now serve.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2008)

Obama hasnt been elected yet.Edward is quite correct that we swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;".
During my 34 years of service I served both Republican and Democrat Presidents so that isnt an issue.Unfortunately the military doesnt fare well under Democrat presidents and the follow on Republican President has to rebuild the military and so shall it be this time.

My problem with Obama is that if he were applying for a job in the military or DoD his associations would prevent him from being given a security clearance. He has made comments about why he doesnt like the Constitution - too restrictive.My biggest fear then is a constitutional crisis that could for awhile tear the country apart.But no need to get too far ahead of the game.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Nov 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Quite correct sir...but it was the Bush administration that took the country's military to war and it will be the Obama administration that the military will now serve.


To be accurate, the US government took the country to war.  I'm sure that the US military still serves the citizenry of the United States.


----------



## CougarKing (4 Nov 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Quite correct sir...but it was the Bush administration that took the country's military to war and *it will be the Obama administration that the military will now serve.*



I thought that you haven't thrown in the towel yet?  ;D 

I take it you voted early for Senator McCain?  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2008)

A little tool for tracking the election via GoogleMaps, from the "Sources and Methods" blog:
http://sourcesandmethods.blogspot.com/2008/11/track-election-results-on-google-maps.html

Still early for results now, but you might want to bookmark it for later tonight.

Enjoy!


----------



## CougarKing (4 Nov 2008)

Just another little election guide for today:



> *What to Watch For
> An hour-by-hour guide to election night.*
> 
> Nate Silver
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2008)

Unless California goes for McCain Obama will be the next President.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Definitely will be interesting tomorrow. The exit polls were wrong in 2000 and 2004 so expect them to be wrong again. The only one that matterws is the one cast in the privacy of the polling booth. The first state to close will be Indiana at 1800,then its Ky and Va. If McCain wins by a large margin then Obama is in trouble and the constant stream of media polls were wrong. If he squeeks out a win then the tracking polls were mostly right and it will be close.If Obama wins Indiana then McCain is in big trouble.
> 
> The data coming out of Pennsylvania indicates problems for Obama in Philly among Reagan democrats. If he cant win Philly then he loses Pennsylvania. The same demographic is in Boston although Mass. is pretty blue with the democrats not fully unified behind Obama there could be blue state upsets.



Since much of your predictions above about Pennsylvania were wrong and seemed more like wishful thinking, see who's out of touch now?

Obama won. Time to move on.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Nov 2008)

My sincerest congratulations to the new Commander-in-Chief :

The Constitution of the United States gives the title to the President of the United States, who "shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief#United_States


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2008)

Just for you Cougar Daddy:



> It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.



Teddy Roosevelt


----------



## CougarKing (5 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Just for you Cougar Daddy:
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt



I find it interesting that you would use a quote from Theodore Roosevelt, who btw, left the Republican party to form his own Bull-Moose party nearly a century ago, not just to run against President Taft. and gee I wonder what he found wrong with the Republican Party back then?

And here is one of his quotes after forming the Bull-Moose party, which was also known as the "Progressive Party" back then:



> "We stand at Armageddon and we battle for the Lord." Roosevelt's platform echoed his 1907–08 proposals, *calling for vigorous government intervention to protect the people from the selfish interests*



And lastly, if your quote above is to imply my voice and those outside the US do not count, that may be true, but your people have spoken. And it is time to move on. 

And this will be the last thing I say about this on this thread. 

You're entitled to bash Obama as much as you want for all the good it will do.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2008)

Nope the quote was aimed at you for your belittling comment to me. I dont usually respond to negative attacks,but I made an exception in your case.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Nov 2008)

CougarDaddy - I generally hold you and your opinions in the highest regard but in this case I'm afraid I have to make an exception.

It may indeed be time to move on - just in the same sense that MoveOn started Moving On as soon as "Bushitler" was elected.  Or just as Clinton was attacked as soon as he was elected. Or Reagan, or Carter.

In the States the next election starts today.

Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Franks MAY have 8 years to Change Amerika.  On the other hand Americans get an opportunity in 2 years time 2010 to decide whether or not the like the decision they made and determine if they want to put the brakes on Change.



I just got a view "from the other side of the hill" today.

A business acquaintance of mine, from the Former Yugoslavia, and old enough to remember Tito - has been telling me for a while that he wanted Obama to win.  He didn't like McCain - I think there was a gut level reaction to McCain being a bomber pilot and him being subjected to American bombs.  That just compounded his antipathy to all things American - including that racist society they have.

In any event, with Obama winning today he seemed a bit lost. Kind of like the dog that caught the car.  Not sure what to do with it.  His verities have been challenged and he can't believe that a black man with an Islamic name is now President of the Great Satan.

And strangely enough he is not happy. With McCain he could plan. With Obama - the empty cipher - there is no sense of where he will take the country.  And even for enemy's that is a problem.

He half roads expects it to be a trick.  

Even worse it may be how the system actually works in which case he is really concerned.  Because how can you plan if the government keeps wobbling from left to right every two to four years.

In Tito's World - you could sleep on the beaches, drink beer in public, smoke where you liked, everybody had a guaranteed job, guaranteed shelter, free medical care.  Now you couldn't leave paradise, you couldn't speak against Tito or anybody else above you and you had to accept the job, shelter and medical care you were given by the appropriate bureaucrat - but you were well taken care of.

And in my mind there you have the dichotomy: Coddled with Tito taking the risks and doling out the benefits (following the well established principle of paying himself first) or; Risking failure and reaping any benefits personally.

As T6 pointed out elsewhere - this chap Obama doesn't understand (better "Grok" - look that one up) the US constitution.  He finds it bizarre that the Constitution doesn't demand that the Government DO things.  He fails to understand that the Constitution was written by people that had had a bellyful of Governments DOING things and wanted to be protected from Government.

Now, if the Folks of the NorthEast, including Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes want a guaranteed income that I submit that we start building pyramids - lots of manual labour directed to nothing in particular with lots of "free" beer and bread for all.

Meanwhile, for the rest, that choose not to live in the hive, ...... leave us alone. or prepare to be deposed.

The good news with Obama's election may be that more people come to my Yugoslavian buddy's understanding of Democracy - to quote Churchill - "The worst of all systems, saving all others".


----------



## Drag (5 Nov 2008)

On a lighter note, a factor that contributed to McCain losing.  We discussed some of these here before but I think a visual record shows it best.  Sarah Palin's greatest hits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=related


And now Joe Biden's greatest hits, I have no idea how he got aways as easy as he did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VAzOIT4Ef8  

FDR and TV during the Great Depression is GOLD


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2008)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but it raises some disturbing questions about Gov. Palin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081106.wpalin1106/BNStory/International/home


> Knives come out for Sarah Palin
> 
> LEE-ANNE GOODMAN
> Canadian Press
> ...




Gov. Palin did one of her jobs: she energized the _conservative_ base for McCain, but it’s not clear that Huckabee or Romney would not have done as good a job. She did not bring any significant number (beyond the 15-20% who were ‘there’ at the end of the Democratic primaries) of Hillary Clinton’s supporters to McCain. She was of no help at all on the economic issues – Romney, almost certainly, would have been.

The McCain team needs to blame someone – preferably other than themselves - and Palin is a nice, easy target.

Somehow I cannot see her on the top (or bottom) of any ticket in 2012.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Nov 2008)

Romney probably would have turned off the Baptists and McCain didnt like the guy.I think Palin was an exciting choice.The whisper campaign is intended toput her out of the game in 2012. The people making these comments are known and an effort will be made to expose and make them unemployable in the future.
Neither Romney or Huckabee want to have to face off against her but neither man are strong national candidates IMO.

Palin has some options remain as Governor or throw her hat into the ring for Stevens seat if he ends up retaining his seat.The previous Governor named his daughter to fill his Senate seat so the Legislature changed the law which now requires a special election.


----------



## Bane (6 Nov 2008)

The GOP needs and indeed deserves a better candidate than Palin.  She belongs in the dust bin of history and did not deserve to share a stage with McCain much less a ticket.


----------



## Redeye (6 Nov 2008)

Indeed.  If they pin any future hopes on Sarah Palin then they are doomed.



			
				Bane said:
			
		

> The GOP needs and indeed deserves a better candidate than Palin.  She belongs in the dust bin of history and did not deserve to share a stage with McCain much less a ticket.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Nov 2008)

Let's see - what would look better on _my_ resume... Governor, or political know-it-all on an internet message board??

Hmmmmm

To sit on your ivory towers and imply that all of those people who have voted in Palin as a Mayor - and then a Governor - were somehow stupid, naive, or so easily misled - is the height of arrogance in my eyes. You didn't agree with McCain's choice - we get it. Now tell us why your opinions are so much more valuable than others'.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Nov 2008)

Governor Palin has a great deal of credibility simply based on her resume. Most of the activities that were attributed to her (like attempting to ban books) were proven false when actually reserched, and given the rest of the antics of the MSM, I would not believe half of what they report about her anyway. People who followed Prime Minister Harper's career know about that as well (remember "scarey Steven" and the "hidden agenda"?). Given Governor Palin's personal popularity and ability to draw huge crowds, I suspect the hatchet job was on from the start by the MSM since she represented a credible threat to "The One"

Governor Palin represents a different slice of the Republican Party than most people with only a passing interest in politics are likely to see, and if you are hostile, condescending or indifferent to the "people with religion and guns" or "Joe the plumber" demographics, then I expect you would be feeling the same about the candidate as well.

Republicans as a whole need to define what they really stand for and articulate it in a sensible and convincing way. Young new talent like Governor Palin, Governor Jindel or others are the "public" face of the party, but they can do nothing unless the underlying message is clear. Canada's conservative movement suffered from this fault during the Decade of Darkness; one can only hope that the Republicans can get sorted much faster given the American government's structural need for checks and balances at all levels.


----------



## Drag (6 Nov 2008)

Gov Bobby Jindal is awesome.  He could even outplay Obama in the intellectual debate game.  McCain would have done much better with him than with Palin.  But i doubt he would appease the far right of the GOP like she did.


----------



## Redeye (6 Nov 2008)

D3 said:
			
		

> Gov Bobby Jindal is awesome.  He could even outplay Obama in the intellectual debate game.  McCain would have done much better with him than with Palin.  But i doubt he would appease the far right of the GOP like she did.



I haven't seen a lot of him - but what I have seen is pretty impressive, he may well be a really key player in the future.  Imagine a presidential battle between an African-American and an Indian-American.  You're most correct that the Republican Party has a lot of work to do - they are going to have to embark on a very significant process of reformation essentially - sorting out what their party really stands for, because I never really got a clear view of it from what I've seen - and what I did see of what they claimed to stand for seemed to be hypocritical.  It comes back to what I was saying about voting for something vs. against something.  Obama whether one agrees with him or not was fairly clear about what his vision is - as clear as one can expect a politician to be, anyhow.

To Muskrat89's point - I don't know what sort of competition Sarah Palin faced in her previous campaigns.  I was, however, infuriated by the way the GOP made constant reference to Obama's "lack of experience" while stating that Palin had some tremendous experience when she didn't seem to at all.  My contention is that the way she carried herself in debates and in public appearances gave me no confidence in her or the prospect that she could wind up President.  So she drew huge crowds, there's a novelty factor to a female candidate, but I don't really think that's a great way to base a decision.  I would hope likewise that people voted for Barack Obama for better reasons than the melatonin content of his skin - that they voted for him because of what he stood for.  In my view for the entire campaign the Democrats presented something to vote for - and the GOP by contrast merely presented Obama's platform is something to vote against.  I think that a lot of voters might have been weary of the status quo and despite a lot of trite about being a "maverick" McCain showed himself to be as much an "empty suit" as some claim Obama is.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Governor Palin has a great deal of credibility simply based on her resume. Most of the activities that were attributed to her (like attempting to ban books) were proven false when actually reserched, and given the rest of the antics of the MSM, I would not believe half of what they report about her anyway. People who followed Prime Minister Harper's career know about that as well (remember "scarey Steven" and the "hidden agenda"?). Given Governor Palin's personal popularity and ability to draw huge crowds, I suspect the hatchet job was on from the start by the MSM since she represented a credible threat to "The One"
> 
> Governor Palin represents a different slice of the Republican Party than most people with only a passing interest in politics are likely to see, and if you are hostile, condescending or indifferent to the "people with religion and guns" or "Joe the plumber" demographics, then I expect you would be feeling the same about the candidate as well.
> 
> Republicans as a whole need to define what they really stand for and articulate it in a sensible and convincing way. Young new talent like Governor Palin, Governor Jindel or others are the "public" face of the party, but they can do nothing unless the underlying message is clear. Canada's conservative movement suffered from this fault during the Decade of Darkness; one can only hope that the Republicans can get sorted much faster given the American government's structural need for checks and balances at all levels.




I was listening to an old time (Reagan era) Republican insider a day or two ago. He suggested that the Republican Party no longer knows what it is, for what it stands, itself. He suggested that there is an unyielding struggle underway between many factions including (but not limited to) the religious right, _'closet' libertarians_, the Project for a New American Century gang and so on. He expressed no views on who might win. Old fashioned 'Eisenhower Republicans' - Hagel, Lugar, Powell, etc - are all reported to be leaning towards supporting Obama, perhaps in an effort to head off the loony left wing of the Democrats.

Here is an article I found interesting.

I'm interested in who our American members think might rise up to lead the GOP back, out of the wilderness.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2008)

I just heard an interesting bit of speculation on my TV.

The Alaska senate race is not yet decided. The incumbent, Ted Stevens is leading and if he wins he will, almost certainly face a threat of _expulsion_ (something that has not happened since the 19th century) because he was convicted of corruption just a few days prior to the election.

If Stevens is expelled Alaska will have to hold another election within 90 days. One potential candidate is Gov. Sarah Palin. Many Republicans may wan to join with Democrats to expel Stevens for two reasons: he is corrupt and is a _blemish_ on his Party, and it would make room, in Washington, in "the world's greatest deliberative body" for Palin.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Nov 2008)

Sarah's hot. That's all I have to say.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Nov 2008)

Imagine that:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=89B65C8A-18FE-70B2-A8C3F5493FBD366D



> *Obama likely to escape campaign audit*
> By: Kenneth P. Vogel
> November 11, 2008 08:10 PM EST
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Nov 2008)

He's "hoping" for a little more "change" from his supporters:

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/11/13/obamath-3



> *Obamath*
> 
> Raise $600 million, spend $700 million. Weren’t Democrats the ones complaining that Republicans failed to balance the budget?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2008)

Probably the saddest commentary of all: did these people have any idea at all what they just voted for?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022095.php



> *How Obama Got Elected*
> 
> Share Post   PrintNovember 18, 2008 Posted by John at 7:05 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Nov 2008)

Hey you dont need to be informed when all you have to do is vote party ticket.


----------



## Chortle (19 Nov 2008)

Zogby polls also showed McCain had a one point lead on October 31 while, McCain was crowing about Zogby numbers all over the news, Zogby was right every other polling including CNN, FOX, and Karl Rove was wrong. Before November 5th I could understand you having some faith in Zogby polls but after...



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Hey you dont need to be informed when all you have to do is vote party ticket.



That about sums it up. 

As long as Republicans are sniping at Sarah Palin or "dumb voters" they don't have to ask the hard questions about their own party, they don't have to fix anything. All they have to do is stay on course and hope that Obama screws up before 2012, that is way easier than fixing anything.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2008)

While the election is now over, it is interesting to look at party platforms and see how well they are followed:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-program-mirrors-the-cpusas



> Election 2008
> 
> *Help Make History
> 
> ...




Oh, BTW:



> Issued as a public service by the Communist Party USA


----------



## CougarKing (9 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Oh, BTW:
> 
> Issued as a public service by the Communist Party USA



Is there any article you've posted on this thread that doesn't come from a conservative blog?

Your hate for the American left is almost as overwhelming as T6's.


BTW, here's a development that hopefully will end the question of his citizenship once and for all:





> Dec 8, 11:54 AM EST
> 
> 
> *Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve *
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Dec 2008)

Whats wrong with being conservative ? ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Whats wrong with being conservative ? ;D



Well, the meaning of the word has changes, but this aphorism is still in broad circulation:

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

_John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)_


----------



## dapaterson (9 Dec 2008)

In breaking news, the Governor of Ilinois has just been arrested for corruption, for planning to sell off the Senate seat Sen Obama will vacate, and for telling the Chicago Tribune that they would get state aid for restructuring only if they fired certain editorial staff who opposed the Governor.

Sounds like a a banana republic - or Louisiana...


----------



## CougarKing (9 Dec 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Whats wrong with being conservative ? ;D



I never said there was anything wrong with being conservative; both of you are welcome to say whatever you want. I was just reacting to his constant use of conservative blogs for his sources, although a number of posters here have a low opinion of MSM articles posted here as well, that are also supposed to be non-biased but which clearly show a tilt either way.


----------



## Teflon (9 Dec 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I never said there was anything wrong with being conservative; both of you are welcome to say whatever you want. I was just reacting to his constant use of conservative blogs for his sources, although a number of posters here have a low opinion of MSM articles posted here as well, that are also supposed to be non-biased but which clearly show a tilt either way.



It's not like Thucydides isn't including the link, One simply has to follow it and they can decide it's worth and or bias


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2008)

I would second Teflon's comment CD.

The Conservative Blogs have the advantage of being a known commodity.  Their bias is clear.

By contrast, I don't need to go to Rabble or Huffpo to hear what the Left thinks as the unbiased Mass Media generally hews to a centre-left path.  Rabble and HuffPo are not so much the counterpart to Conservative Blogs as homes for raving maniacs. ;D

Conservatives, by and large, don't have many media homes to choose from.

Though I suppose the good news is (as far as I am concerned) that the number of mainstream outlets for the Left are declining as the Chicago Tribune system goes into Chapter 11 and the New York Times hawks its buildiing as it watched its sales decline despite/because of beating up on Bush.....and now promoting Bush policies that Obama has seen fit to pursue.

As to Edward's comment:  Funny how orthodoxy develops

John Stuart Mill:  Modern scion of conservatism and historical pal of Radical Jack  - Do you suppose that's the reason that Quebecers are disinclined to modern Conservatism?


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Dec 2008)

During the election it was found that 80% of the MSM had a bias towards the democrats and Obama.Nothing has changed.Look at the media reports of the arrest of Blago and you would be hard pressed to find any mention that he was a democrat.If he had been a republican that would have been stressed.If you want to get your lefty slanted news then watch CNN.I watch Fox because most of the time you get a fair version of the news.Just dont be a lefty and complain about how biast FOX is. The bottom line is our media will spin stories so that republicans are bad and democrats are good.Another example is the financial meltdown caused by Democrat policies.You wont see that mentioned in the media for that you need to go to Ace of Spades,Gatewaypundit or Redstate - those are on my daily reading list.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2008)

Mill, of course, _lived in interesting times_ – political philosophy was not just forming (as it always is) it was in a state of boiling, roiling fermentation.

Mill was, above all, a staunch _utilitarian_ and a _Radical_ (when the Radicals were a political party often allied with the Whigs). He was, also history’s preeminent feminist ... period. All the others are _Janie come latelies_.

Mill defined *liberty* as the only state in which the individual could coexist with such collectives as the state and the Church because the *natural rights* which define liberty exist independently of all social constructs – even the family. Society, from the simplest to the most complex, is how we agree to constrain ourselves, in the most limited ways in order to achieve efficiency – which is how economics serves man – and ‘happiness.’

Happiness is one of the most misunderstood of the ‘rights’ – especially when Jefferson _et al_ wrote that “_among these_ [inalienable rights] _are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness_.” Happiness, to the newly enlighten men of the late 18th and early 19th century, meant being able to fulfill one’s potential, in the words of a former US Army recruiting ad to: “_be all you can be_.” For most people in the 18th and 19th centuries equality of opportunity was rare. Class and money determined one’s future – in America, too. Lock, Hume, Jefferson and Mill (and many others) were determined that should not be the case because both the individual and society were short changed by the system.

Conservatives, in Mill’s day, were unrepentant Tories – not necessarily bad or stupid men, in the main. But their philosophy, rich and complex though it certainly was, could be easily oversimplified and it appealed to the intellectually lazy – especially the middle and upper class intellectually lazy.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Dec 2008)

> not necessarily bad or stupid men, in the main. But their philosophy, rich and complex though it certainly was, could be easily oversimplified and it appealed to the intellectually lazy – especially the middle and upper class intellectually lazy.



Ah that would apply to liberalism today. No new ideas just the old recycled ideas. Obama is calling for a New New Deal. It didnt work then and wont work now.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Dec 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> During the election it was found that 80% of the MSM had a bias towards the democrats and Obama.Nothing has changed.Look at the media reports of the arrest of Blago and you would be hard pressed to find any mention that he was a democrat.If he had been a republican that would have been stressed.If you want to get your lefty slanted news then watch CNN.I watch Fox because most of the time you get a fair version of the news.Just dont be a lefty and complain about how biast FOX is. The bottom line is our media will spin stories so that republicans are bad and democrats are good.Another example is the financial meltdown caused by Democrat policies.You wont see that mentioned in the media for that you need to go to Ace of Spades,Gatewaypundit or Redstate - those are on my daily reading list.



Oh, you mean like the CBC? Our publicly funded, national, officially billingual Loonie Left promulgator...


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Dec 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In breaking news, the Governor of Ilinois has just been arrested for corruption, for planning to sell off the Senate seat Sen Obama will vacate, and for telling the Chicago Tribune that they would get state aid for restructuring only if they fired certain editorial staff who opposed the Governor.
> 
> Sounds like a a banana republic - or Louisiana...


Heard this on the news last night.  One line in the news story made me go "Hmmm..."

The line was words to the effect that "...President Elect Barack Obama said that he had no knowledge of the affair."  Why would he say such a thing?  One would think that his comments would have been along the line of "If proven true, this would represent a complete disregard for democracy", in other words, show his disgust at the alleged act, instead of distancing himself from it.  *Why would he need to do that*?

Just askin', is all...


----------



## observor 69 (10 Dec 2008)

The New York Times

December 10, 2008
Obama’s Intervention for Ethics Bill Indirectly Led to Case Against Governor 
By MIKE McINTIRE and JEFF ZELENY
In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama’s rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it. But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law’s restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.

Tipped off to Mr. Blagojevich’s efforts, federal agents obtained wiretaps for his phones and eventually overheard what they say was scheming by the governor to profit from his appointment of a successor to the United States Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Obama. One official whose name has long been mentioned in Chicago political circles as a potential successor is Mr. Jones, a machine politician who was viewed as a roadblock to ethics reform but is friendly with Mr. Obama.

More at link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/politics/10chicago.html?hp=&pagewanted=print


----------



## CougarKing (10 Dec 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Ah that would apply to liberalism today. No new ideas just the old recycled ideas. Obama is calling for a New New Deal. It didnt work then and wont work now.



I would strongly disagree on your characterization of liberalism and whether FDR's 1st New Deal failed. If the New Deal failed why would you see FDR reelected to at least 3 more consecutive terms? And then even lead the United States for most of WW2 to eventual victory? The POTUS back then had just as much as role in that victory as the military members he commanded. 

And as for your characterization of modern Liberalism, that is a gross oversimplification. But I am not going to take this thread on a further tangent by discussing ideology with you and it would be a futile exercise given the stands of many posters in this thread. You can go ahead and bash it as much as you want. 




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Mill, of course, _lived in interesting times_ – political philosophy was not just forming (as it always is) it was in a state of boiling, roiling fermentation.
> 
> Mill was, above all, a staunch _utilitarian_ and a _Radical_ (when the Radicals were a political party often allied with the Whigs). He was, also history’s preeminent feminist ... period. All the others are _Janie come latelies_.
> 
> ...



Locke's Social Contracts aside, somehow I am hoping that you included De Tocqueville among your "many others".

And as for your emphasis on society/government being more of a contraint while economics serves our "pursuit of happiness", one can only say "yes" and "no". Why? In the search for any good government, one thing is needed to try to address all concerns and problems: balance. Too much of anything is bad. Just as too much government may result in communism or marxism, having no government may result in anarchy. And we all know where each of us already stand on the issue and which party each of us believes can restore or maintain that balance. To each their own.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Dec 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> ....To each their own



Yes and no.  

The real question in our society is less about what one does when they are in power, although that is very important, but how does one handle disagreeing with the party in power and the transition from being in power to being in opposition.  

Can politicians, elected and "extra-parliamentary", hold their elections, accept the result and head to the clubhouse to drink with the opposing side until the next campaign?

Nothing is more of a threat to the sovereign nation-state than internal dissent.

As long as governance is uninterrupted the state will survive.

Policies that have a negative impact can be observed, oriented to the plan, decisions made and actions taken to reverse the impact.  

But, if the OODA-Master doesn't hand off smoothly to the next watch then the controls fail and the state is imperilled.

Having said that, if you can be as gracious in defeat as you are in "victory" then the state will do well.  

It's easy to say "To each his own" when your government is making decisions you agree with.  It's harder when the other guy/gal wins.

Graciousness can be perceived as dismissiveness by those with whom you disagree.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2008)

While I hope you are not taking my choice of sources as a personal attack, CougarDaddy, it is quite true that the MSM provides a very one dimensional view of the issues. In Canada, for example, the CBC and CTV have been going through heroic contortions to deny the BQ is what is holding this putative coalition together (the idea of a Liberal-NDP coalition taking power is laughable, since they have only 114 seats together, yet how is the coalition characterized in the news?).

In the United States, corrupt politicians who belong to the Democratic Party are rarely investigated, and if the story is too big (i.e. the current scandal involving the Governor of Illinois) the party affiliation is almost never mentioned...why is that?

My choices of posts provide counterpoints to the MSM and "conventional wisdom", and are there to spark some thought, argument (as in an exchange of views) and maybe even convince a few people things are not what they seem.

WRT FDR; the econometrics of the Great Depression demonstrate without a doubt that the New Deal failed and prolonged the Depression (just the simple fact that economic activity virtually collapsed in 1937, almost ten years after the 1929 crash, should be telling evidence). As to why FDR remained popular, he was a very effective demagogue who could deflect the blame from these crisis situations and ask the people to support his efforts to "fix" them. My namesake wrote about this in the "History of the Peloponessian Wars" of events in the period of the mid 400's BC, so this isn't anything new or unusual, and the rhetoric surrounding the current financial crisis convinces me that politicians world wide are trying to use this as a means of gaining and securing more power over the population.


----------



## CougarKing (10 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> *Having said that, if you can be as gracious in defeat as you are in "victory" then the state will do well.
> 
> It's easy to say "To each his own" when your government is making decisions you agree with.  It's harder when the other guy/gal wins.
> 
> Graciousness can be perceived as dismissiveness by those with whom you disagree*.



Point well taken.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Dec 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> ...
> And as for your emphasis on society/government being more of a contraint while economics serves our "pursuit of happiness", one can only say "yes" and "no". Why? In the search for any good government, one thing is needed to try to address all concerns and problems: balance. Too much of anything is bad. Just as too much government may result in communism or marxism, having no government may result in anarchy.
> ...




I’m not sure I can agree. In fact, I’ll have to disagree.

It seems to me that all successful systems of government – those that serve the governed – rest, firmly on one *attitudinal* base: respect for the rule of law.

Government, in any form, must be useful to the governed or it cannot, indeed will not, exist for long. It must be useful to *most* people *most* of the time – providing them with, in Bentham’s terms, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” (But Bentham (1748-1832) did not share my, newer, more correct, definition of “happiness.”) 

Governments must be creatures of laws, not of men and the laws and customs that regulate the conduct of the citizen must, equally and without fail regulate that of the sovereign or governor, too. The system can only work when, the sovereign and her councillors (the government) and the people both respect the idea of the *rule of law* and when both agree to be bound by it. That, not the popular will, is the core principle of modern, parliamentary/representative government.

Anne-Marie Slaughter tells us, in her latest book that the framers of the US Constitution drew a clear distinction between _democracy_, which they saw as something akin to unbridled mob rule and rejected, and _republicanism_ – ordered, lawful, *representative* government, which they (and we – through our _Fathers of Confederation_) embraced.

Too much government leads to more than ‘just’ repression and silly economics – it intrudes into one of the less well understood *natural rights* (one detested by many modern ‘conservatives’ and, especially, by the _religious right_, by the way): the right to privacy. We, free people, need to keep governments and collectives at arm’s length because they all want (need) to impose their will on us. Some religious groups, for example, feel compelled to force others to accept their moral imperatives by e.g. forbidding abortion. No one should be able to force another to have an abortion but, equally, no one has a *right* to tell anyone that she cannot have an abortion - not even if they believe (*know* in their heart ands soul) that their god *demands* it. Each of us is a *sovereign* individual and we must carefully and sometimes forcefully defend ourselves against all collectives – even the ones we impose upon ourselves.

Too little government is a problem that can be easily corrected – traffic lights are my favourite example of ‘just enough’ government to address a societal problem. Too much government is hard to undo but, in my opinion most modern democracies – lineral and conservative alike – have too much government.

I expect that Barack Obama, like George W. Bush before him, will give America what it needs least: more and more and more government.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2008)

Not only are right wing blogs more interesting and offer greater depth of coverage than the MSM; they are much funnier as well:


----------



## CougarKing (11 Dec 2008)

D3 said:
			
		

> Gov Bobby Jindal is awesome.  He could even outplay Obama in the intellectual debate game.  McCain would have done much better with him than with Palin.  But i doubt he would appease the far right of the GOP like she did.



I think you will be disappointed, since he just announced recently that he wasn't considering a 2012 run at this point. Looks like all eyes will be on Palin again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081210/ap_on_el_pr/jindal2012



> RICHMOND, Va. – *Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Wednesday he's not interested in a 2012 Republican presidential bid and will seek a second term as governor in 2011.
> 
> Jindal, who appeared at a news conference to back Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell, was asked if he was interested in being president."No," he replied.
> 
> ...


----------



## Drag (11 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Not only are right wing blogs more interesting and offer greater depth of coverage than the MSM; they are much funnier as well:



They amuse me as well, especially the drivel they are peddling about Obama's birth certificate, conspiracy to nationalize 401Ks, Malcom X being Obama's father and such.   I think this election cycle, the loony right in the US even out-crazied the loony left, which is very, very, very hard to do...  Code Pink or the Freerepublic... who is crazier??? Though call now.

I think Jindal will be on the ticket somewhere.  Palin is a fad, is she runs gain the Republicans are doomed.


----------



## TCBF (12 Dec 2008)

D3 said:
			
		

> ...  Palin is a fad, is she runs gain the Republicans are doomed.



- Too bad.  She likes Canada.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Dec 2008)

Palin is a major contender for 2012.Four years is a long time in politics and anything can happen.She does energize the base.Her recent visit to Georgia to help Saxby Chambliss in his run off race for the Senate was a smashing success.


----------



## CougarKing (14 Dec 2008)

Reposted from another forum (the ff. are not my own comments):



> Ann Coulter just can't resist making up wild and crazy crapola
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems those stories about Ann Coulter having her jaw wired shut were groundless indeed. She was on Neil Cavuto's Fox News show today, pitching her new book and weighing in on how the Blagojevich scandal taints Obama, yadda yadda yadda. But of course, in addition to the yadda, she brought the usual dose of wingnut bats--t crazy along (captured in the above edited version of the interview): theorizing that "Daily Kos has more to fear from [Obama] than I do" and that Patrick Fitzgerald filed the complaint so that Obama couldn't fire him. Right.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Dec 2008)

Gotta stay away from those nutroot sites CougarDaddy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2008)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_ web site, ought to confirm the suspicions of Thucydides and tomahawk6 that the world (America, anyway) is going to hell in a liberal/Democratic Party hand-basket:
--------------------
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/15/senate-kennedy.html

 Caroline Kennedy to seek N.Y. senate seat: report

Last Updated: Monday, December 15, 2008 | 4:47 PM ET 

The Associated Press

Caroline Kennedy has told New York Gov. David Paterson she wants to be the state's next senator, becoming the highest-profile person to actively lobby for the seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Associated Press reported Monday.







Kennedy has told the Democratic governor she wants the job should Clinton be confirmed as secretary of state for U.S. president-elect Barack Obama, according to two people familiar with the conversations between Kennedy and Paterson.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to the Associated Press Monday because neither Kennedy nor Paterson have acknowledged she is seeking the position.

If appointed by Paterson, the daughter of former president John F. Kennedy would hold the seat once occupied by her late uncle, Robert F. Kennedy.

There was no immediate comment from the Kennedy family or from Paterson.

Paterson has sole authority to name a replacement for Clinton, who was first elected in 2000 and re-elected by a wide margin in 2006.

Over the past week, Kennedy has reached out to several prominent New York Democrats to tell them of her interest in the senate seat.

They included Joel Klein, chancellor of New York City's education department; Kennedy worked closely with Klein as executive of the office of strategic partnerships for the education department, where she raised some $65 million US for the city's schools.

Other Democrats who appear to be on Paterson's short list include New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who won't say publicly if he's interested.

One of the early front-runners, Nydia Velazquez of Brooklyn, a Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, took herself out of the running Friday.

Paterson is expected to tap someone who can raise a lot of money and help him politically when they run together on the 2010 ticket.

Other names in the mix include:

•	Nassau County District executive Tom Suozzi, who is also a possible choice for lieutenant governor with Paterson in 2010.
•	Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown.
•	Bronx Borough president Adolfo Carrion Jr.
•	Five other legislators in the House of Representatives — Carolyn Maloney, Steve Israel, Jerrold Nadler, Kirsten Gillibrand and Brian Higgins.

*Republicans slam Kennedy*

Republicans wasted no time in criticizing Kennedy as unqualified for the job.

"If anything, it makes me more determined to run," said Representative Peter King, a Long Island Republican who has already expressed his interest in the seat.

"As far as record of achievement I strongly believe that I'm much more qualified, much more experienced, and have an independent record," said King. "Nothing against Caroline Kennedy but I don't think anyone has a right to a seat."

© The Canadian Press, 2008
--------------------


I suppose each person has to start her trek to the White House somewhere and if Bush 43 can follow Bush 41 then I guess Kennedy (4_n_) can aspire to follow Kennedy 35, and I presume an appointment to _”the world’s greatest deliberative body”_ is as good a place to start as any.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2008)

Guess she doesn't believe the family is cursed.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_ web site, ought to confirm the suspicions of Thucydides and tomahawk6 that the world (America, anyway) is going to hell in a liberal/Democratic Party hand-basket:



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"


----------



## CougarKing (16 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"



I really don't see any further point in my contributing to this thread where the other side (Liberals/Democrats) is summarily dismissed and demonized or not given the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Dec 2008)

From my perspective that ship has already sailed. The corruption evident in Chicago will be going to Washington with Obama. How many of his apointments make it to Washington with him will be interesting to watch. So far his chief of staff is on the hot seat,as is Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr and now his Commerce Sec Governor Richardson has an ethics problem. Had the media properly veted Obama then the public would have been better able to make a decision. It probably wouldnt have made any difference but at least the system would have worked. Sadly the MSM made Obama and will have to defend him at least until it becomes near impossible to do. 

Obama went from a categorical denial about talking to Governor Blago to silence. He should have admitted to discussions about potential replacements,after all it would be natural and not illegal. Now it appears that once again Obama has lied when it wasnt even necessary. Any world leaders that deal with him better get any agreements in writing. Should be an entertaining 4 years anyway.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I really don't see any further point in my contributing to this thread where the other side (Liberals/Democrats) is summarily dismissed and demonized or not given the benefit of the doubt.



How much more benefit of the doubt is there to give? Look at their record: the Wilson Administration's proto Fascist regime during WWI? The "New Deal" that extended the Depression and almost saw a "President for Life" in the White House? The "Great Society" that destroyed generations of poor families, sparked a great inflation and began the process that entangled American society in debt and regulatory red tape? America's holiday from history during the Clinton Administration, which allowed toxic and destabilizing regimes and ideology to expand and take root all over the world? The fact that the incoming administration is set to repeat the all the same mistakes?

The conservative side has many flaws as well, but the defining mark of "Classical Liberals" (Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Objectivists etc.) is they base their programs on observation and fact, not wishful thinking. I would suggest the error of the Classical Liberal side is to compromise and accept any of the nostrums peddled by the Progressive side, the angle of the slope is reduced, but you are still going downhill.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... the defining mark of "Classical Liberals" (Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Objectivists etc.) is they base their programs on observation and fact, not wishful thinking. I would suggest the error of the Classical Liberal side is to compromise and accept any of the nostrums peddled by the Progressive side, the angle of the slope is reduced, but you are still going downhill.



But the real, "classical liberals" (I don't like capitalizing either word) constitute the tiniest of minorities - outnumbered by even the rump of the _fascists_. The classical liberals have no choice but to compromise and try to limit the damage proposed from all angles - including from the arch libertarians.


----------



## TCBF (16 Dec 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Guess she doesn't believe the family is cursed.



- Beats me why she didn't just buy that seat they were sellin' off in Illinois.  Oh well...


----------



## time expired (18 Dec 2008)

GEORGE,
             funny you should say that,I read a long time ago that an Irish
woman, reputed to be a witch,placed a curse on the family.This was in
response to the elder Kennedy`s exploitation of poor Irish immigrants.
Funny that.
           Regards


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2009)

Post election analysis:

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/how_he_did_it_a_diagrammatic_a.html



> *How He Did It: A Diagrammatic Analysis of the Obama Campaign*
> By Paul Shlichta
> 
> "All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia." ---George Orwell.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Feb 2009)

Now I've seen enough.

Tomahawk6 was right.  Cougar Daddy, sorry, but your man is a socialist.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2009)

More post election information:

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt



> *'New York Times' Spiked Obama Donor Story*
> 
> Congressional Testimony: ‘Game-Changer’ Article Would Have Connected Campaign With ACORN
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2009)

More After Action Reporting. Notice the astounding change when the "15 points" of media spin is removed and the electoral results are recast near the end of the broadcast:

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/The_Cost_of_Media_Bias/1736/6337/


----------



## a_majoor (19 May 2009)

More on the NYT spiking the connection between Obama and ACORN:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023580.php



> *Killing A Story: How It's Done*
> Share Post   Print
> May 17, 2009 Posted by John at 8:33 AM
> 
> ...


*

Makes you wonder how prevalent this sort of thinking is in Canda's MSM. Seen any critical analysis of Micheal Ignatieff lately?*


----------

