US Elections 2008

[james0246]

This...was a little scary. Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann was recently on Mathew's Hardball and she proceeded to attack Obama and the "left-wing" as being "anti-American." To me, this is scarier than the random Joes and Janes screaming "terrorist" and "kill him". This is an elected official that is arguing that the Democratic candidate is set to destroy the country and that (implicitly) any that vote for Obama are "anti-American."

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by james0246

This...was a little scary. Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann was recently on Mathew's Hardball and she proceeded to attack Obama and the "left-wing" as being "anti-American." To me, this is scarier than the random Joes and Janes screaming "terrorist" and "kill him". This is an elected official that is arguing that the Democratic candidate is set to destroy the country and that (implicitly) any that vote for Obama are "anti-American."

I swear, GOP is keeping putting their foot in their mouth, First Palin and now her, each time they say something negative, Obama will get more votes for him, I honestly think that people should talk about the issues not midslinging.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I think that you must be thinking of a different country. In the U.S., the ultra-left has no political voice.

Left and Right is very very realitive really. The most far left person I can think of in the congress is Bernie Sanders of Vermont who touts himself as a Socialist. As far as I know we have nothing on the realm of France's Parti Socalist or the German SDP so this whole "far-left" thing was always a bit of overwrought belly aching as far as I am concened.

mg1942 does bring up a good point. As a liberal independent I dislike Democrats less than Republicans overall but I have heard anecdotally that a congress/white house tandem of big party advantage could breed trouble. Then again that actually depends on various issues.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by cors8

It's the Chicago Tribune. Obviously in the tank for Obama.

Yes, newspaper endorsements aren't worth that much at all. However, when you have major papers (read: national circulation) that have long histories in their endorsements (or lack of) suddenly breaking pattern, it's worth a mention. Also, it's made pretty clear this has nothing to do with him being from Chicago as they had also endorsed John McCain in the primaries.

The LA times joins in the history* making.
(*The LA times has never endorsed a democrat before and has not endorsed a candidate since 1972.)

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

With the exception of two independents (one of which was Teddy Roosevelt), they endorsed every republican for the last 161 years. Considering that you'd think it would take something huge to make them break their streak.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Yes, newspaper endorsements aren't worth that much at all. However, when you have major papers (read: national circulation) that have long histories in their endorsements (or lack of) suddenly breaking pattern, it's worth a mention. Also, it's made pretty clear this has nothing to do with him being from Chicago as they had also endorsed John McCain in the primaries.

The LA times joins in the history* making.
(*The LA times has never endorsed a democrat before and has not endorsed a candidate since 1972.)

Obama has, to date, received 39 endorsements from the regional newpapers, representing 3.5 to 4.0 million readers (McCain has received 15 endorsements representing 1.5 million readers). The key here is how many traditionally conservative newspapers are endorsing Obama: Chicago Tribune, (the recently conservative) Washington Post, Post-Dispatch, LA Times, etc. (Hell even Britain's Times has endorsed Obama, and they generally hate American politicians.) So, even if these newspapers endorsing Obama could potentially only be effective in swaying some small percentage of the total readership, that could still add a few tens of thousands (if not more) votes, from citizens that were more conservative leaning.

[Green²]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...xin8AD93SE12G0

Originally Posted by AP

Palin omitted from White House Iraq troop briefing

WASHINGTON (AP) — John McCain got a call from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was on the phone to Barack Obama, and to his Democratic running mate, Joe Biden. Nobody called Sarah Palin.

The calls this week were part of the Bush administration's campaign to line up political support for a compromise deal with Iraq that cedes some authority over U.S. forces, and a courtesy to the presidential hopefuls on whose watch the deal would take effect.

"We are keeping them informed about activities and remember, certainly, they have committee assignments and things like that as senators as well," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday. "One of them is going to win the election, and they will be taking over and having to deal with these issues ... So it's only prudent for us to make sure that we get them the information that we think they need."

-Snip-

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by Green²

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...xin8AD93SE12G0

Sarah Palin, excluded to urgent knowledge.

[Sassarai]

I'm going to have to buy a lapel pin of an American flag to show that I'm Pro -America. Seriously how stupid can Palin get? I can't believe she's a vp candidate.

Biden just pwned her

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDkAdM8W9mU

[kissthestick]

theres been a couple of occasions where mccain hasnt worn the flag pin, why hasnt the media jumped on this?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by james0246

Obama has, to date, received 39 endorsements from the regional newpapers, representing 3.5 to 4.0 million readers (McCain has received 15 endorsements representing 1.5 million readers). The key here is how many traditionally conservative newspapers are endorsing Obama: Chicago Tribune, (the recently conservative) Washington Post, Post-Dispatch, LA Times, etc. (Hell even Britain's Times has endorsed Obama, and they generally hate American politicians.) So, even if these newspapers endorsing Obama could potentially only be effective in swaying some small percentage of the total readership, that could still add a few tens of thousands (if not more) votes, from citizens that were more conservative leaning.

Reading those articles, I was a little surprised at how candid and yet eloquently phrased those endorsements were. While not scathing, it was interesting to see how they reasoned out the choices and how they concluded where to place their support.

Newspapers don't have the sway they used to, but I agree with you that these endorsements will give many of their millions of readers a moment to reflect on their choices. It may very well end up swaying some votes.

Originally Posted by kissthestick

theres been a couple of occasions where mccain hasnt worn the flag pin, why hasnt the media jumped on this?

At the moment, they're pretty busy destroying the life of Joe the Plumber. He's the new Palin.

[xxmimixx]

Originally Posted by bayoab

For the first time in its 161 year history, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for president.

Saw this on ABC7 news today. I was half asleep of course when i heard about this. Well, congrats to my local newspaper.

16 more days till you adults vote (if you want to)!

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Sassarai

I'm going to have to buy a lapel pin of an American flag to show that I'm Pro -America.

A lapel pin wouldn't do it for me; I'd need to move out of Massachusetts.

[cors8]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/1...0-in-missouri/

That's a lot of people in a red state. If he can convert all that to votes, it'd be huge.


Here's an AP article about the "voter fraud" conspiracy Republicans like to bring up every election:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/...or_foolishness

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by cors8

Here's an AP article about the "voter fraud" conspiracy Republicans like to bring up every election:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/...or_foolishness

Now what happens if that voter registration form was filled out by some poor guy who's parents thought it'd be cute to name their little baby Mickey Mouse 18 years ago? Think it can't happen? Just think about the names Sarah Palin gave her kids.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Now what happens if that voter registration form was filled out by some poor guy who's parents thought it'd be cute to name their little baby Mickey Mouse 18 years ago? Think it can't happen? Just think about the names Sarah Palin gave her kids.

not a problem, he would already be in prison for killing his parents.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

not a problem, he would already be in prison for killing his parents.

Democrats will find a way for him to vote!

[james0246]

Originally Posted by cors8

Democrats will find a way for him to vote!

Are you kidding, the Democrats will find a way to make sure that Mickey Mouse will not only not go to prison for killing his parents, but, instead, he will be compensated, via a lawsuit against Disney, for his parents deaths, even if he was the one who killed them .

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by cors8

Here's an AP article about the "voter fraud" conspiracy Republicans like to bring up every election:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/...or_foolishness

As if they have anything better to do before the presidential election.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by solomon

Left and Right is very very realitive really. The most far left person I can think of in the congress is Bernie Sanders of Vermont who touts himself as a Socialist. As far as I know we have nothing on the realm of France's Parti Socalist or the German SDP so this whole "far-left" thing was always a bit of overwrought belly aching as far as I am concened.

Even on a relative basis, the ultra-left in American politics would be the communists and anarchists. These groups have no representation whatsoever, so there's no way any conceivable government will start enacting their policies.

Originally Posted by solomon

mg1942 does bring up a good point. As a liberal independent I dislike Democrats less than Republicans overall but I have heard anecdotally that a congress/white house tandem of big party advantage could breed trouble. Then again that actually depends on various issues.

In many cases, governmental paralysis isn't that harmful an idea. However, the U.S. is in the middle of a real crisis - one where the solution isn't obvious, and where it's essential that the executive and legislative branches can work in concert.

Moreover, the financial difficulties make it impossible to put in place most of the more fanciful plans. Besides, what's really the worst that can happen in terms of bad legislation? The loss of civil rights? Ha! That's already been accelerating with nary a peep of protest from the media. A rise in the Federal deficit? That's even more ridiculous when the government is injecting trillions of dollars as bandaid solutions right now. What's left? Starting a few more wars? The U.S. losing international prestige? It's obvious that those have already occurred, and it was irrelevant whether Congress helped the president or not.

This makes McCain's association of Obama to socialists all the more amusing. Right now, the U.S. requires a healthy dose of government intervention to avoid further catastrophe, so socialism is just what the doctor ordered.

Originally Posted by kissthestick

theres been a couple of occasions where mccain hasnt worn the flag pin, why hasnt the media jumped on this?

It's because it's a really stupid complaint to begin with.

Originally Posted by Dynames/ Virtue

As if they have anything better to do before the presidential election.

Actually, voter suppression has happened before every election of the last little while. The theory running around is that the U.S. attorneys were fired because of their reluctance to prosecute similar cases. This ACORN thing only gets more attention because of sheer desperation.