[jason700]

"Apparently Senator McCain has decided that if he can't beat our ideas, he's just going to make up some ideas and run against those," Obama said.

Seems to be the general conservative strategy in the world. The Conservatives in Canada didn't run against the "Green Shift", they distorted the idea and ran against that.

[Pseudonym]

jason700 wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

Can you distinguish between someone being called a terrorist and someone being criticized for poor judgment for hanging around with an admitted terrorist?

It's an attempt to link "Obama" with "terrorism". And Sarah Palin shouldn't talk about political reform and continue to run a negative campaign. Should we really expect "change" with McCain/Palin?

And the answer to my question is?

Look. People. I dislike negative political campaigning as much as the next man, but all I'm trying to defend against here is the false viewpoint that somehow McCain and Palin are to be held responsible for the comments of a select radical few. All I have received in response to my defense are attacks on McCain and Palin for negative campaigning. BIG EFFIN' DEAL. It is politics. Suck it up.

[Scape]

karasoth wrote:

As the Presiding officer of the Senate (when the VP chooses to do so) they DO run the Senate

They do not CHOOSE TO VOTE. They only vote as the result of a tie.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... iclei.html

Quote:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

[Zipperfish]

Pseudonym wrote:

Perhaps you are unaware that "negative ads" have a point? It is distasteful, but when running for office, one must not only promote oneself, but also present why you are a better alternative to your opponents. I certainly realize and dislike that McCain's ads have gone purely negative in the past weeks, but what's your point? Can you show me one of these ads where Obama is called a terrorist? One where they advocate his murder? No you can't. You are libeling a man who has repeatedly stated that he does not approve of that nonsense. You can object to his policies, you can object to his VP choice, you can object to his age, or what have you, but do not expect me to stand for slanders against his character, particularly ones so patently false as these.

Quite apart from increasing the already divisive United States popualtion, the negative ads aren't working. So they don't really have a point, do they? Negative campainging has wroked in the past, but I don't think any campaign in recent history has been as devoted to it as McCain. And teh good people of teh US are asking, "What do you have to offer other than salgging the othe5r guy?"

I think theya re sick of Fear and Smear, an Obama has bucked the trend and is instead talking about hope.

[Scape]

Pseudonym wrote:

I dislike negative political campaigning as much as the next man, but all I'm trying to defend against here is the false viewpoint that somehow McCain and Palin are to be held responsible for the comments of a select radical few.

He is stoking the fire and by inciting this sort of anger this goes beyond the pail of so called normal politics. Pretending this is politics as normal is disingenuous at best and alarming at worst. When you can see and hear the crowd going for the vitriol there is a responsibility to call for calm. This is a mob fueled on hate and fear and by not recognizing that and saying they have no control over it undermines the very reasons why they are running for office. If they can not control a so called friendly rally how are they to confront Americas enemies?



TPM

Quote:

And yet this conveys too much suggestion of planning and intent. I have more the sense of someone desperately casting about and losing control of the situation itself. Even hypocrites can get in over their heads. Indeed, in a more nuts-and-bolts strategic sense McCain has really gotten himself into a hole because the campaign he's been running has almost entirely been premised on the claim that you should be scared of an Obama presidency. Not that McCain, if he'd run a very different campaign, couldn't have run on issue disagreements with Obama. But right now if you take away fear of Obama becoming president, there's almost no reason not to vote for him since McCain has basically conceded the issue agenda to Obama. If you look at every poll for months, voters are dying for change. Fear of Obama is the only thing keeping him from leaving McCain in the dust. Take that away and McCain's done.

The Ayers attacks are throwing the kitchen sink at Obama in an attempt to squelch the fact that the economy is going in the shitter but as a result McCain has stirred up the pitchfork crowd. It is clear you can't be running a respectful campaign while at the same time calling your opponent everything but a white man. Asking he be absolved of the results of these actions when the results are so stark and so intimidate is incredulous.

Quote:

In 1993, McCain attended a fundraiser for the virulently anti-gay Oregon Citizen's Alliance--against the advice of even members of his own party and staff, who called it "the invitation from hell." At the event, McCain sat silently as anti-choice extremist Marilyn Shannon praised a local woman named Rachelle Shannon (no relation), who two weeks earlier had shot abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in both arms in an attempt to kill him. Marilyn Shannon said of the shooter, "She's a fine lady," as McCain looked on.

At her trial, that "fine lady" was unapologetic for her attempted murder of Tiller, testifying, "If somebody kills George Tiller, I would not assume they did the wrong thing." Meanwhile, Marilyn Shannon went on to be a delegate for George W. Bush to the 2004 Republican National Convention--and a delegate for John McCain at the Republican National Convention.

[BartSimpson]

Powell's endorsement of Obama isn't going to cost McCain any votes simply for that Obama pretty much has the black vote cinched anyway. Had he endorsed McCain it also would have been irrelevant as the black establishment would've denounced him as an Uncle Tom or a race traitor.

[Scape]

Really? In the last week alone Obama's lead has now tripled.

[ManifestDestiny]

lily wrote:

ridenrain wrote:

I think you got it right with the cartoon. The left disliked Powell as some kind of turncoat to Bush.. but now because he agrees with them, his opinion means something. It's pretty transparent opportunism.

I always thought the left liked and respected Powell.

I know I do.

Sorry up until this week they called him a "uncle tom".

[Psudo]

Oct 21: 45% Obama vs. 44% McCain, 3% margin of error CNN
Oct 23: 52% Obama vs. 43% McCain according to Scape's source. (I didn't catch a margin of error in the video nor in the written blurb.)

Does public sentiment really fluctuate that widely and suddenly? No. It just shows the instability and inconsistency of polling data as a measure of national public sentiment. Polls can't tell you who will win any better than flipping a coin.

But if your going to trust polls, at least look for polls that explicitly state they are of 'likely voters'. Plenty of 'registered voters' don't vote, and polls of Americans generally or the world at large are horribly unrepresentative of the US electorate. If they also state a confidence interval and a margin of error, that's a good indication that they're being reported by people who understand statistics rather than people pretending to.

[Psudo]

jason700 wrote:

"Apparently Senator McCain has decided that if he can't beat our ideas, he's just going to make up some ideas and run against those," Obama said.

Seems to be the general conservative strategy in the world. The Conservatives in Canada didn't run against the "Green Shift", they distorted the idea and ran against that.

It's a general strategy everywhere. It's called politics. Straw man arguments are inherent to it's nature. And it sucks.

[Pseudonym]

Zipperfish wrote:

Quite apart from increasing the already divisive United States popualtion, the negative ads aren't working. So they don't really have a point, do they? Negative campainging has wroked in the past, but I don't think any campaign in recent history has been as devoted to it as McCain. And teh good people of teh US are asking, "What do you have to offer other than salgging the othe5r guy?"

I think theya re sick of Fear and Smear, an Obama has bucked the trend and is instead talking about hope.

The negative ads continue to serve as a means to point out Obama's questionable judgment and disagreeable stances on issues. I would prefer that McCain put forth a more positive image of what he plans to do, but it is his and the RNC's own choice. There is nothing "wrong" here. If you aren't allowed to criticize the other party, then we have a problem much larger than one election here.

[Scape]

So the US has no history of assassinations or of political violence? If it was simple issue of negative ads there would be no issue but the tempo and the correlation of palin around with terrorists is not some negative ad. Chants of Kill him and Terrorist to a presidential candidate is not politics as usual. They are not calling to question poltical platforms this is mob mentality. A lynch mob is not sanguine political discourse its hate.

[Psudo]

McCain touting his ideas would fail to excite the Republican base; his ideas are a stunted version of Obama's with drilling and pro-life-on-abortion thrown in and a little campaign finance reform (eg, strangulation of freedom of speech) for dessert. From a conservative Republican perspective it's shockingly insufficient.

He attacks Obama because attacks on Obama resonate with the Republicans; they don't like McCain's views, but they don't like Obama's views even more. If McCain focused on his own merits, he'd lose in a landslide.

Ugh, I hate this election.

[Scape]

Rather than tout ideas he has shown an astounding lack of professionalism. The 1st debate he couldn't even make eye contact and the last one his body language all but shouted out just how much disdain he shows for Obama as a person. It was disgusting, yet you hear more about Al Gore's sighing and eye rolling then McCain outright disgust. Be that as it my the Ayers comment was a Pandora's box for McCain as it opened up far more problems for him then it solved. Not the least of which was pointedly written about by Rep. Lewis:

Quote:

In a statement issued Saturday, Lewis said McCain and running mate Sarah Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse." He noted that Wallace also ran for president.

"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights," said Lewis, who is black. "Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."

Is this really what it takes to 'excite' the GOP base? If so it isn't worth the bother.

[Scape]

Palin: "I don't know" if abortion clinic bombers are "terrorists," but Bill Ayers sure is

Quote:

Q: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor?

PALIN: (Sigh). There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there.

Palin Supporter Pulls Gun at Rally

Campaign Volunteer Faces Charges In Attack Hoax