US Elections 2008

[Vexx]

Wellllllll, we could put on our tin-foil hats and surmise that McCain will have an "accident" in his first month in office (as Cheney furtively sneaks away in ninja garb), thus making Palin Prez.......
(note: for the NSA/FBI, the previous constitutes a Saturday Night Live sketch idea ).

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Wellllllll, we could put on our tin-foil hats and surmise that McCain will have an "accident" in his first month in office (as Cheney furtively sneaks away in ninja garb),

Isn't that the fantasy of all the Republicans who don't like McCain?


Anyway, I'm rooting for the Republicans, if it prevents Obama from getting the place.

[mg1942]

Now let's see if McCain will get the needed boost on the polls after the Republican Convention. Last week Obama got +- 8 after the the Democratic Convention.

[bayoab]

Reading through the transcripts of the speeches they gave, I would agree with the theory that a few have tossed out that they drew straws to see who would speak on what.

Romney gave the most 180-in-every-direction speech. From what he did while governor of Mass to the speech itself, he was reversing course every few minutes. And a speech railing on east coast elites and liberalism from the former Governor of Massachusetts... whiskey tango foxtrot. (For those who aren't aware, Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the US.)

Palin's speech really screamed "I really hope factcheck.org isn't paying attention right now" whenever it went off of her family.

I actually can't find anything outright flawed with Huckabee's speech beside some of his claims which clearly won't stand up to a fact check (the voting for one).

Mr. 9/11Giuliani actually started with a decent speech making an experience argument that was well framed (I don't know if it will stand up to fact checking). And then he must have fired this new unexperienced speech writer who actually made a decent argument, not that I agree with it, and hired his experienced one since it jumped into his typical "9/11, terrorists are under your bed" before it began claiming two way streets are one way.

The best part of all this is reading their speeches conflict with each other. Between talking about things that require big gov vs things that require small gov and cutting costs vs things that require big spending, I don't think there was anything they didn't contradict each other on... except that McCain was a POW.

Oh look, it's some fact checking from the "liberal media" who is out to get them.

[solomon]

Geh, unless the role or function of the Party Conventions change I won't be watching them in future elections.

It's just a pandering waste of time to people who are already rabid groupies

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by solomon

Geh, unless the role or function of the Party Conventions change I won't be watching them in future elections.

It's just a pandering waste of time to people who are already rabid groupies

Oh, its actually fairly instructive --- just not in the way either party thinks they are. It is the 'between the lines' and 'behind the curtain' shenanigans that are interesting. As bayoab notes, factcheck.org is your friend in these antics (as well as a number of other like-wise sources). What you're watching are the mythologies each party creates -- which usually have little to do with the underlying goals of their financial backers -- to sway those that don't pay attention more of the time.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Vexx

In researching McCain's record, I find more of a mixed bag than I thought -- however most of his "yes" votes were for small amounts of money. He seems to vote "no" when larger sums are being considered.

Here's what I found from the least biased source I found:

• In 2006, McCain voted against a funding amendment (S. Amdt. 3704) to provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities [source: U.S. Senate].
• He voted against another 2006 amendment (S. Amdt. 3642) that provided the VA an additional $430 million in funding for outpatient care and treatment for veterans [source: U.S. Senate].
• McCain voted against S. Amdt. 3007 in 2006, which would have provided an additional $1.5 billion in funding for veterans' health care in FY 2007 by closing tax loopholes [source: U.S. Senate].
• In 2005, he voted in favor of an amendment to provide an additional $500 million for veterans' mental health care for each year between 2006 and 2010 (S. Amdt. 2634) [source: U.S. Senate].
• McCain voted for the successful passage of H.R. 2528 in 2005, which provided funding for veterans' benefits and service for FY 2006 [source: U.S. Senate]. [Vexx: basic department funding bill]
  
• In 2005, he voted in favor of providing emergency funding for veterans' services for FY 2005 (S. Amdt. 1129) [source: U.S. Senate].
• He voted in favor of an amendment in 2004 (S. Amdt. 3409) proposing a guarantee of funding increases for veterans' health care adjusted for inflation and population increases [source: U.S. Senate].
• McCain voted no on an amendment S. Amdt. 2745 in 2004, which would have increased funding for veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by "eliminating abusive tax loopholes" [source: U.S. Senate].
• McCain voted against an increase of $650 million for veterans' medical care in 2001 (S. Amdt. 1218) [source: U.S. Senate].
• Also in 2001, he voted in favor of a yearly increase of $1.718 billion in discretionary funding for veterans' health care (S. Amdt. 269) [source: U.S. Senate].

This information is out of context of course and I didn't look up to see which bills actually passed or what was actually needed to fund the items properly.

It was also noted in 2007 that he missed 10 out of 14 votes on Iraq-related bills (like troop deployment rotation).

Here's an alternative view from a prominent veteran's group in the US:
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9559
If naught else, it shows how it can be difficult to get basic information on a candidate's record.

What I get out of the exercise (I also looked at his voting on other issues) is that he prefers limiting budgets to addressing needs on almost any issue. That is pretty classic Republicanism dating from the 1980s Reagan period.

In Oregon, its why nearly all the bridges and road tunnels are close to collapse and the roads are terrible --- because the legislature (Republican dominated for decades) kept deferring maintenance rather than raising the funds.

Before the mid-1980s, Republicans were pretty big on spending what was needed for infrastructure and military and not so great on fuzzy social spending. Its one of the many "wrong" turns they've taken in the last 20 years as they evolved into the "robber barons looting the treasury" model of the last eight years.

Thank Vexx for that good information about McCain. Also he voted against the new MGIB that was pass any way and I know that alot of veterans and military personnel that served after 9/11 was very upset about that. I know that military was always vote for Republicans alot in the past but talking to alot of my military folks alot of them is going to be voting Obama this time around. But I think that Palin did a awesome job with her speech but I want to see her debut against Biden if she can back up what she is saying. If McCain/Palin doesnt win, it gives her a better chance to go for Pres in 2012.

Now it is time for the Battleground States Report:
Right now, Obama is holding leads in polls in Minn, Iowa by double digits, and Virginia with a deadhead in Missouri.
McCain is got a little edge in Ohio and Florida.
Even if McCain does win Ohio and Florida, if he cant take Virginia and/or Minn or even some of the western states he is going to have a hard time getting the 270 for the POTUS.

By the way, I know somebody earlier in the thread said that Georgia isnt in play but I got a feeling that Georgia will turn blue and cause alot of trouble for McCain (who lost to Huckbee while Obama blasted Clinton by 30% there)

[Aquillion]

My fundamental problem with Palin is less about she herself and more what it says about McCain: Ever since he knew he was running against Obama, McCain has been feeding his supporters a party line about the importance of foreign policy experience. He's been hammering on it again and again -- you have to make your decision based on foreign policy experience! That's the important thing! Letting someone without my experience near the presidency would be too dangerous!

Then, the one time McCain gets to make a decision himself that puts someone near the presidency -- literally, the only choice he ever makes that could elevate someone else to that job -- and what does he do? He chooses the candidate with the least foreign-policy experience imaginable. Even Republican speechwriters like Peggy Noonan know it's political BS; they chose a candidate they thought could help them with conservatives, women, and with a connection to arctic drilling, and experience be damned.

Now, mind you, I don't think experience is actually that much of a big deal (there's not really anything that can prepare you for being President anyway). We've had good leaders with relatively little experience (Teddy Roosevelt, JFK), and leaders who had experience to the gills and still made terrible mistakes (Nixon, LBJ). I always thought McCain and Clinton's talk of experience was as much hot air.

But by picking Palin, McCain has basically admitted that he thought it was as much hot air, too... when push comes to shove, he simply didn't consider experience to be worth considering. Every single time McCain attacked Obama on experience, he's been feeding us a line he didn't honestly believe himself, hasn't he? If he thinks Palin is a good pick to replace him in a pinch, then there's not really any other way to look at it.

If I was a Republican volunteer right now, I'd be furious at McCain. He spent months having them mouth an empty line of attack he didn't believe himself, then he spins around and stabs them in the back with a VP pick that goes so obviously against everything he's said.

Palin's not such a big deal. It's what the pick of Palin says about McCain that is so damaging.

[solomon]

Wow good point Aquillion.

To Neki Ecko: Aside from Atlanta Metro pockets and A couple of counties in the black belt, don't count on Georgia.

I only expect Obama to do well in NC and VA

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by solomon

Wow good point Aquillion.

To Neki Ecko: Aside from Atlanta Metro pockets and A couple of counties in the black belt, don't count on Georgia.

I only expect Obama to do well in NC and VA

But dont count out Savannah, Columbus and Macon also Athens, if they can vote 75% for Obama and with some of the counties in the Black Belt, Obama will win Georgia, I hope.

But if NC and VA turns Blue, then even if McCain wins OH, FL, Missouri, he will still have a rough time getting to 270.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

I'm more concerned about how both political parties are reacting to and dealing with the hurricane than people making speeches to their own political party, in which their own political party cheer in return. So far, I've hear McCain prioritize helping out with the hurricane over the convention. I've been shifting through news reports and other forms of media to see what Obama's doing about the hurricane, but I'm not finding anything. (Anyone have anything?)

Obama's website sent out a ton of spam about donating to the Red Cross in order to help those impacted by the hurricane. Whether that's valiant enough or not is up to you, but it's something.

[Sazelyt]

I understand that Palin is not very fitting for the job, but the attacks on her are a bit too much. And, it says a lot, what might have happened if Hillary would have gotten the nomination. It is sad that those liberal-democrats are using the exact cards that you would expect the republicans would use.

I would like to ask, would the critics have preferred someone like Cheney, powerful yet evil figure (with obvious agenda) standing behind McCain, or someone like her who would obviously be there accidentally. I hope those critics would understand that their actions might really turn the election into a catfight, taking the attention away from the real problems, something republicans would definitely prefer. Right now, it feels that way.

It is also interesting to see that her speech was watched by 37 million people (just 1.x million less than the number who watched Obama's speech), and if you take into account the two African-American oriented channels that gave only Obama's speech (since the physical attributes of the candidate seems to be their only connection to politics), it shows how much attention she got from the general public (even more than Obama, based on the adjusted numbers).

Oh, and I have to admit that I haven't seen such a money eager campaign (I am talking about Obama's). They even used Palin's speech to collect more dimes from the public (maybe it is time to change the name of his campaign to the name of an aid agency such as Obama's Red Cross).

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I understand that Palin is not very fitting for the job, but the attacks on her are a bit too much. And, it says a lot, what might have happened if Hillary would have gotten the nomination. It is sad that those liberal-democrats are using the exact cards that you would expect the republicans would use.

I would like to ask, would the critics have preferred someone like Cheney, powerful yet evil figure (with obvious agenda) standing behind McCain, or someone like her who would obviously be there accidentally. I hope those critics would understand that their actions might really turn the election into a catfight, taking the attention away from the real problems, something republicans would definitely prefer. Right now, it feels that way.

It is also interesting to see that her speech was watched by 37 million people (just 1.x million less than the number who watched Obama's speech), and if you take into account the two African-American oriented channels that gave only Obama's speech (since the physical attributes of the candidate seems to be their only connection to politics), it shows how much attention she got from the general public (even more than Obama, based on the adjusted numbers).

Oh, and I have to admit that I haven't seen such a money eager campaign (I am talking about Obama's). They even used Palin's speech to collect more dimes from the public (maybe it is time to change the name of his campaign to the name of an aid agency such as Obama's Red Cross).

Obama himself said that personal matters were strictly off-limits, even saying that his mother, who was eighteen when she had him, was just like Bristol. Unfortunately, most of the GOP weren't so courteous when they tried to rip him a new one yesterday, mostly with half-lies and outright false accusations. People were being infuriated by the fact that some newcomer with barely any reputation was trying to tear down her opponent without even having much to back up her own standing (it doesn't help that the skeletons in her closet are falling everywhere, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with her personal life and everything to do with her political campaign). It's no wonder that people would donate money to Obama, these people are downright insane.

That was definitely the most hate-filled, vile speeches that I've heard in a while. Making fun of community organizers is now a good thing? So people that participate in organizations such as Habitat for Humanity and the PTA are doing something laughable? Why is having a Harvard Law degree so wrong in the first place? Do we not want our leaders to be educated or what? There was just so much pandering made to those people, with all of terrorist attack scares and whatnot, that I haven't seen a single line in any of the speeches made by the RNC that actually discussed plans, period. It was just a nasty preaching to the choir, which is made all the more ironic considering just how Obama predicted that they would try to divide the country.

[cors8]

The whole community organizer attack was stupid. It's like Jesus didn't do any community work at all. He obviously made 0 difference in the world.

[Sassarai]

I hate how Saracuda used this in both of her speeches.

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_123771.html

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Archer

That was definitely the most hate-filled, vile speeches that I've heard in a while. Making fun of community organizers is now a good thing? So people that participate in organizations such as Habitat for Humanity and the PTA are doing something laughable? Why is having a Harvard Law degree so wrong in the first place? Do we not want our leaders to be educated or what? There was just so much pandering made to those people, with all of terrorist attack scares and whatnot, that I haven't seen a single line in any of the speeches made by the RNC that actually discussed plans, period. It was just a nasty preaching to the choir, which is made all the more ironic considering just how Obama predicted that they would try to divide the country.

I think you are missing the point. The last few days, Palin has been under brutal attacks by the "democrats", using her family, her life, her whats and what nots. The same people who were as quiet as newborn kittens when Iraq was under heavy bombardment. And, at the end, it does not matter what Obama says or thinks. The people who support him and who are around him are the people who are doing that.

And a good portion of those attacks concentrated on saying that basically she is nothing. She has not done anything. And, I think, when it reaches that point, it becomes fair to use the same exact style to fight when you have been exposed to too much of that. Don't get me wrong, after reading her background I don't think she is a worthy candidate. But, the methods being used by the democrats to point out that are way too aggressive.

[Ledgem]

Really? Due to a hectic schedule I've been in a bit of a news blackout lately, but I do get to see the headlines from the newspapers that fellow commuters are reading. Politically speaking, I read that Obama said that family should be off-limits [from political attacks - this is with regard to the teen pregnancy issue and Palin's daughter], and then there were a lot of headlines about "McCain comes out swinging" and "Palin's fiery speech" with a bit more about "one two knockout" statements. It could be that the media are selectively reporting, but I was under the impression that the Republicans were being extremely aggressive. Ever since I started following politics around 2001/2002 I was under the impression that Republican super-aggression has been the usual.

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I think you are missing the point. The last few days, Palin has been under brutal attacks by the "democrats", using her family, her life, her whats and what nots. The same people who were as quiet as newborn kittens when Iraq was under heavy bombardment. And, at the end, it does not matter what Obama says or thinks. The people who support him and who are around him are the people who are doing that.

And a good portion of those attacks concentrated on saying that basically she is nothing. She has not done anything. And, I think, when it reaches that point, it becomes fair to use the same exact style to fight when you have been exposed to too much of that. Don't get me wrong, after reading her background I don't think she is a worthy candidate. But, the methods being used by the democrats to point out that are way too aggressive.

For the record, Obama has been said to have been against the war in Iraq from the very beginning. Moreover, it has also been put on record that it was the Republican party that disclosed the fact that Bristol was pregnant, not any mainstream media. It is only natural that they investigate this story, but it is only a smokescreen for real alarming cases like Troopergate (a case where Palin is being investigated for trying to abuse her power to get somebody fired without good reason, I suggest you go research that.) (You can consider the National Inquirer as mainstream media as you like, but I highly doubt tabloids will be considered as legitimate sources of news.) and the highly dubious vetting process that she was put under by the McCain campaign.

Obama has been put through severe media scrutiny for the last few months, several of which included allegations of being a muslim and the fiasco with Reverend Wright. Palin has no right to claim that the mainstream media is being biased against her when she has been investigated for less than a week, and especially since NOBODY knew who she was until she was chosen to become the Vice President nominee. The media isn't being sexism or biased, they're just being the media, whose purpose is to investigate and report the facts in the first place.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

It could be that the media are selectively reporting, but I was under the impression that the Republicans were being extremely aggressive. Ever since I started following politics around 2001/2002 I was under the impression that Republican super-aggression has been the usual.

Still, they are not doing any more than what they are supposed to do. And, I haven't really seen that kind of aggressiveness from the Republicans towards Obama's family. I guess the main reason that I didn't like is the people in the media who were criticizing Hillary heavily for using underhanded tactics against Obama (saying this being a reason why they stopped supporting Hillary or turned to Obama), are doing not much different when the title changes to Palin.

Originally Posted by Archer

The media isn't being sexism or biased, they're just being the media, whose purpose is to investigate and report the facts in the first place.

They become extremely biased when they are doing something they criticized in the first place, when it was used against Obama.

[cors8]

What are you going to talk about Obama's 2 daughters? They're not even old enough to be an issue the Republicans can use.

There have been attacks on Obama not supporting his half-brother or something like that. He only met his half-brother once and he said he didn't want Obama's money.

There have also been consistent attacks on Michelle Obama's patriotism. Does she love America? Is she patriotic enough? Terrorist fist-bump anyone?

Let's not forget the "Obama is a Muslim" attack. The right wing loves to say Barack Hussein Obama and that he went to school in a madrassa.

That has been going on for months and is still not totally dispelled. Palin has been under scrutiny for less than a week.