[Zipperfish]

Pseudonym wrote:

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.

Oh, I know what the negative ads are intended to do. And like you said their's nothing legally wrong about it. Ethically, perhaps.

And you are correct it's up to McCain and the Republicans how they run to run their election. But it all boils down to the fact that it is not working. The dirt is not sticking, and is, in fact, rebounding back and sticking to McCain.

As someone hoping for Obama, I'm happy about that, but if I were a Republican, I'd be pretty upset about the way this campaign was run.

[Psudo]

Scape wrote:

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

Of course your rebuttal won't excite the GOP base. And large portions of the GOP base aren't going to be excited for McCain no matter what. My only point was that, from a purely practical standpoint, McCain has more to gain by bashing the competition than trying to tout his own accomplishments, many of which are not obviously accomplishments at all in voters' eyes.

The obvious example is campaign finance reform; government deciding when and how we can support political candidates is an absolute insult to the 1st Amendment in a field where it matters the most. Many other Republicans share my view on that, as did the Supreme Court when it declared McCain-Feingold unconstitutional (in part). It infuriates me that he's offered as a prime example of Republican thinking when he's clearly not.

I do think Obama is marginally worse, even if you ignore his bad taste in friends (Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc). At a time when our foreign oil dependency is almost crippling, his big answer is conservation and environmental regulation. Any gains we get from conservation will be reversed by the obstacle of increased environmental regulation! Rather than give us a temporary reprieve, his policy is to run head-long into the impending problem without a solution prepared. That and his stanch support for abortion are his only positions that seem to significantly differ from McCain's. From my view, it's an F or an F-.

I wonder who the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party candidates are...

Zipperfish wrote:

But it all boils down to the fact that it is not working. The dirt is not sticking, and is, in fact, rebounding back and sticking to McCain.

I don't know if that's true. Polls are a vague and suspect measure of political support, and even so their variances do not correlate with the timing of attack ads well enough to measure either successful attacks or backlash from failures. My own impression was that they worked, just not as much as, say, some meaningful or praiseworthy stances on issues would have. And probably not enough to win an election.

[Scape]

Psudo, I don't know what to say to you but point out that the pendulum has swung so far and so fast to the the people who hijacked the right since 1995 that the repercussion on election day will be that of equilibrium. Note: this is not true Goldwater esque conservatives who were the right during the Regan and even Bush I era but the those that have stolen the GOP such as the Newt/Cheney spendcons who were labeled neoconservative. Even if the Dem candidate was a sock puppet the effect would be profound but Obama has been working his ground game for almost two years strait and has been building momentum like a freight train.

I surmise that McCain sees the writing on the wall and this is just his way of pulling all the stops, a calculated risk considering he has nothing to lose at this point. To his credit he has kept the polls tight, that was until these last few weeks which coincide with the vitriol and violence that reeks of desperation. America hates a loser above all else and you can break a rule or even rewrite them as long as you have the ambiance of confidence you will be given favor in the US above substance. McCain though is not confident, he is angry, tired and confused and the greatest example of that was his relenting against his better judgment for his VP pick and it's been all downhill from there save for a quick sharp spurt to what could have been. Much like a sinking ship will jut its stern skyward before it sinks to the depths.

[Scape]

Disgusting.

http://www.theuptake.org/

[CommanderSock]

BartSimpson wrote:

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.

Blacks vote 95% democrat anyways. The only difference this election has made, is that the black turnout will be historically high. Blacks stay home most elections. Not this one. They will go out and vote. And they will vote democrat like they always have.

I don't understand the bitterness directed at blacks for supporting a party they have been supporting strongly since the LBJ days.

[Psudo]

Scape wrote:

those that have stolen the GOP such as the Newt/Cheney spendcons who were labeled neoconservative.

Are you equating McCain with the SpendCons (as you call them)? I guess he does fit that definition, since he is both Republican and a big spender, but he's not typical among them. He's not a neo-con with clear, philosophical reasons why this spending is necessary and that is not. He's just a wildcard with trouble reigning in his spending. At least a consistent ideology behind the spending would be rational and sensible. I'd rather have a Romney-style fiscal conservative, who would actually fight spending. But that's just crazy-talk in today's political culture.

I guess, since the President is guaranteed to be a big-spending failure either way, I'd rather the other side got the blame. Discredit the left: Vote Obama!

CommanderSock wrote:

I don't understand the bitterness directed at blacks for supporting a party they have been supporting strongly since the LBJ days.

The obvious answer is this: if they've been supporting the same people for 50 years and still need the same solutions, then those people they've supported haven't actually solved anything. So why keep expecting them to?

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

I don't know if that's true. Polls are a vague and suspect measure of political support, and even so their variances do not correlate with the timing of attack ads well enough to measure either successful attacks or backlash from failures. My own impression was that they worked, just not as much as, say, some meaningful or praiseworthy stances on issues would have. And probably not enough to win an election.

Well I guess the proof will be in the proverbial pudding. I just see, thus far, a different dynamic playing out when compared to Kerry/Vietnam negative campaign, which both sides admit did a lot of damage to Kerry. I'm not seeing the Ayers "meme" catching on and propagating. Maybe people are more immune to such ploys after 2004, or maybe people just have a hard time imagining Obama running around planting bombs in governemnt buildings, which seems to be the image the McCain was trying to project.

Myself, I think it's a good thing when people vote for hope instead of for fear, so I'm hoping for Obama.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

people just have a hard time imagining Obama running around planting bombs in governemnt buildings, which seems to be the image the McCain was trying to project.

The impression I got was that Obama has no personal or ideological qualms with associating with radicals and extremists, not that he was planting bombs personally. The (very valid) criticism is that he can't distinguish between mainstream and fringe ideologies, and thus his judgment of others' personal character can't be trusted.

Zipperfish wrote:

Myself, I think it's a good thing when people vote for hope instead of for fear, so I'm hoping for Obama.

It sure would be grand if hope was running this election, but both candidates are running on fear. Obama's campaign is equating McCain with Bush, an irrational and baseless appeal to fear of Bush. McCain returns fire by spreading fear of Obama, which is in large part valid especially on economic matters. But neither campaign addresses the massive similarities between the two: Obama can't criticize McCain's views without calling attention to the flaws in his own very similar plans; the same works in reverse, but McCain seems not to notice and draws attention to their big-spending similarities and equation of tax credits to tax cuts anyway.

It might be easier for both sides if they had less in common.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

The impression I got was that Obama has no personal or ideological qualms with associating with radicals and extremists, not that he was planting bombs personally. The (very valid) criticism is that he can't distinguish between mainstream and fringe ideologies, and thus his judgment of others' personal character can't be trusted.

Having heard the facts, I didn't think it was particularly valid. It didn't sound to me as if Ayers and Obama were ever "palling around." It sounded to me like someone who is a mover and a shaker in the political realm will interact wiht hunreds or thousdands of different people on an incidental level, and, statistically, one shouldn't be too surprsied if the odd unsavory character turns up.

Quote:

It sure would be grand if hope was running this election, but both candidates are running on fear. Obama's campaign is equating McCain with Bush, an irrational and baseless appeal to fear of Bush. McCain returns fire by spreading fear of Obama, which is in large part valid especially on economic matters. But neither campaign addresses the massive similarities between the two: Obama can't criticize McCain's views without calling attention to the flaws in his own very similar plans; the same works in reverse, but McCain seems not to notice and draws attention to their big-spending similarities and equation of tax credits to tax cuts anyway.

It might be easier for both sides if they had less in common.

Now this one (the bolded part) bothers me. First of all, because it tends to be always the right that decries "moral relatavism." Comparing "ending the failed policies of George W Bush" to "palling around with terroists" is simply not on. One is a much more serious and personal attack than the other.

The other thing is that McCain could have chosen to run as an independent. He didn't. He chose to run as a Republican--the same party of the current administration. So, to me mind, it is neither baseless nor irrational to suggest that there may be some kind of connection between the two.

But you are correct, in many areas their policies are actually quite similar. I note that both tend to always point out the "fundamental differences" in their positions. The fact that they have to point them out so often, to me, speaks to the fact that they aren't that fundamentally different at all.

[CommanderSock]

Psudo wrote:

The obvious answer is this: if they've been supporting the same people for 50 years and still need the same solutions, then those people they've supported haven't actually solved anything. So why keep expecting them to?

Well precisely my point. Blacks in America generally tend to vote in far smaller numbers than their white counterparts. Most never bothered to register because they knew whatever happened its the same shaft story. The only difference now is, one of them is running for office. Now, I don't even consider Obama black, but I'm assuming the one drop theory in America is taken into consideration, and they all see him as "one of them".

Now, I'm certainly not advocating that it is right for one racial group to always vote for a one party. It creates societal stratification. Nevertheless, it is the way it is. I recommend this article.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedst ... d=12260881

Nixon's campaign turned the republican party from one of the most progressive political parties in the Anglo-Saxon world, to one of the most regressive.


To me Obama just seems like another politician. A typical one to be honest. He reminds me of Tony Blair, with colour. A left of centre leaning, ambitious, motivated, extrovert. He can lead his party for 8 years. It won't be America's best 8 years, it won't be their worst either. It will be, just, 8 simple years.

If I were American I'd most likely stay home during this election, however, I would have easily voted for Obama, without question, were it not for his supporters who scare the shit out of me. White women who'd throw their first born in front of a train for him. Chanting his name like he's a prophet. Fuck that shit.

Anyhow the bottom line of this income statement is that both men are so similar in terms of principles its almost scary. The only difference is, McCain has bent over for the most fucked up elements of his party, again. While Obama leads his party. At least on the onset.

[Scape]

That was a great article on Nixon. Lexington and Charlemagne are always good reads.

'The Powell Effect': More Republicans defecting to endorse Barack Obama

Quote:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld Friday joined the growing list of Republican moderates, neo-cons and former aides to President Bush who have announced that they will vote for Democrat Barack Obama.

Big names join defections from Republican camp

Quote:

First, Secretary of Defense under Bush W defected to Obama; next, Bush's Press Secretary defected to Obama; now we have a Congressional Candidate Joel Haugen who won the Republican primary switching to an independent so he can support Obama, and, in addition, the Republican ex-governor of Massachusetts is supporting Obama as is the Republican ex-governor Arne Carlson of Minnesota who wrote in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on Thursday: "The choice of Governor Sarah Palin as a running mate, and the resultant shallow campaign based on fear and suspicion, looks frighteningly similar to the politics of Karl Rove [Bush's campaign strategist]." He described Obama as having "the potential to become a truly great president".

The rise of the Obamacons

Quote:

Mr Powell is now a four-star general in America’s most surprising new army: the Obamacons. The army includes other big names such as Susan Eisenhower, Dwight’s granddaughter, who introduced Mr Obama at the Democratic National Convention and Christopher Buckley, the son of the conservative icon William Buckley, who complains that he has not left the Republican Party: the Republican Party has left him. Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska and one-time bosom buddy of Mr McCain has also flirted heavily with the movement, though he has refrained from issuing an official endorsement.

[StuntmanMike]

Scape wrote:

Psudo, I don't know what to say to you but point out that the pendulum has swung so far and so fast to the the people who hijacked the right since 1995 that the repercussion on election day will be that of equilibrium. Note: this is not true Goldwater esque conservatives who were the right during the Regan and even Bush I era but the those that have stolen the GOP such as the Newt/Cheney spendcons who were labeled neoconservative. Even if the Dem candidate was a sock puppet the effect would be profound but Obama has been working his ground game for almost two years strait and has been building momentum like a freight train.

I surmise that McCain sees the writing on the wall and this is just his way of pulling all the stops, a calculated risk considering he has nothing to lose at this point. To his credit he has kept the polls tight, that was until these last few weeks which coincide with the vitriol and violence that reeks of desperation. America hates a loser above all else and you can break a rule or even rewrite them as long as you have the ambiance of confidence you will be given favor in the US above substance. McCain though is not confident, he is angry, tired and confused and the greatest example of that was his relenting against his better judgment for his VP pick and it's been all downhill from there save for a quick sharp spurt to what could have been. Much like a sinking ship will jut its stern skyward before it sinks to the depths.

Good post.

The best thing in the world that could happen to the Republican Party is they get sent out to pasture for a few years. That will give them time to figure out what they really stand for, other than viscious, attack oriented politics.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Obama's campaign is equating McCain with Bush, an irrational and baseless appeal to fear of Bush.

Comparing "ending the failed policies of George W Bush" to "palling around with terroists" is simply not on. One is a much more serious and personal attack than the other.

My view agrees with yours in that if both claims are false the "pals around with terrorists" claim is a far worse personal attack than "will continue Bush's policies". The subset of the population that sees Bush as "the worst terrorist" may see things differently, but I don't give them much credence.

And I don't believe the criticism of Obama is unfounded.

Zipperfish wrote:

The other thing is that McCain could have chosen to run as an independent. He didn't. He chose to run as a Republican--the same party of the current administration.

[/quote]Look at it this way: the Republican Party is going to put forward someone. They picked a candidate that was as unlike Bush as they could stand (only Ron Paul, I think, would have been more unlike Bush, but he is unacceptable to most Republicans). Instead of an green, young Governor they went with an seasoned, old Senator. Instead of a guy barely outside of the Republican mainstream (or so we thought from his rhetoric), they picked a Maverick (or so we think from his rhetoric). Instead of an aloof oil man who doesn't much care what the press thinks of him, they went with a media darling (or so he was two years ago) who lives in the press limelight. They admitted the mistakes of the Bush administration by picking a guy who called for more troops before Bush admitted there was a problem, who denounced waterboarding from the start, and who spent years criticizing Bush's implementation of military policy. And despite these Republican attempts to distance themselves from Bush, they are still hearing that this will be Bush's third term. It is irrational to take that distancing and interpret it as a continuation of the same.

Ugh... I might have been happier if it was a 3rd term of Bush.

[Scape]

David Frum argues that the Republican party should give up on McCain and focus on the Congress. Fast.

Quote:

There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him.

I could pile up the poll numbers here, but frankly . . . it's too depressing. You have to go back to the Watergate era to see numbers quite so horrible for the GOP.

McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them."

In the Senate, things look, if possible, even worse.

[Scape]

Oct 24

Outside the John McCain rally in Denver, Colorado a number of people entering the rally were caught on camera calling Barak Obama Muslim, Terrorist, Communist, Monkey and more.