The generic '08 election thread

I think some of them are using his name to gloss over the fact that they've been married a zillion times & could make for an interesting guest on Jerry Springer. That's just my opinion though & in the spirit of using Reagan's name I present....

Quote:

Ron Paul: Republicans need Reagan's courage
Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday May 15, 2007

Long-shot Republican candidate Ron Paul said the current slate of candidates need the "courage" of former President Ronald Reagan to be able to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

The Texas Congressman, who has become an internet favorite but does not register much support in polls, said the Middle East is too unstable a region in which to maintain an indefinite US military presence. Paul compared the current "quagmire" in Iraq to military involvement in Lebanon in the early 1980s.

"We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan," Paul said, explaining the former president initially vowed not to withdraw US Marines who were attacked in October 1983 in Beirut while serving as part of a multinational peacekeeping force. Reagan withdrew the troops in February of the following year.

Paul outlined his initial oppositions to the war in Iraq and his warnings that the war would become a quagmire like Vietnam. He said the war has shrunk the Republican base and touted his plan to end the war.

RAW

Quote:

CBS Poll: Clinton, Giuliani Still In Front
Clinton Tops Democratic Field By 22 Points; Giuliani's Lead On GOP Side Slips To 14 Points

(CBS) Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani continue to set the pace in the 2008 presidential race, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, but both are facing some new challenges.

Giuliani's lead over his top Republican rivals is down, while his negative ratings are up; Clinton's lead over her Democratic opponents is up, but she's lost support to Sen. Barack Obama among critical African-American voters.

The poll finds Democratic primary voters continue to be more satisfied with their party's presidential contenders than Republicans are with theirs. That's a change from past elections, when Democrats tended to be less satisfied than Republicans with their candidate options.
...

CBS

Democrats to Face Off in Second Debate

The Democratic presidential candidates meet here Sunday night for their second debate of the young campaign season, with Iraq and health care likely to dominate much of the discussion.

Democratic Candidates Debate Terror, Iraq

I thought Clinton had a good response to Edward's jab...

Quote:

Clinton responded that it is President Bush who is prolonging the war and that while Democrats have different approaches, "what we are trying to do, whether it's by speaking out from the outside or working and casting votes that actually make a difference from the inside, we are trying to end the war."

Washington Post

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I thought Clinton had a good response to Edward's jab...

Quote:

the G-man said:
At tonight's Democrat candidate debate, Hillary had this to say about the War on Terror:

As a senator from New York, "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists," Clinton said.

Still, she said, "I believe we are safer than we were."

Obviously, if we are safer now then we were on 9/11, then the credit would have to go the government in power between 2001 and the present.

And, whose adminstration would that be? President Bush.

Therefore, Hillary is admitting that the President's War on Terror has made us safer.

I think your interpetting what she said in a way that is a real stretch. After all you don't give him all the credit for when things go wrong (9/11, Katrina, Iraq War ect ect)

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I thought Clinton had a good response to Edward's jab...
Quote:

Clinton responded that it is President Bush who is prolonging the war and that while Democrats have different approaches, "what we are trying to do, whether it's by speaking out from the outside or working and casting votes that actually make a difference from the inside, we are trying to end the war."

Washington Post

The latest USA Today/Gallup Poll has Barack Obama at 30 percent and Hillary Clinton at 29 percent among Democrats and independents who lean Democrat. Without Al Gore in the race, Clinton is ahead of Obama 37-36, within the margin of error. This would be shocking if accurate, because many people still consider Hillary the prohibitive frontrunner.

On the Republican side, it shows Giuliani gaining a few points and McCain dropping, meaning that Rudy reestablished a double digit lead 32-19. Romney also gained, and is now at 12 percent, his first double-digit showing of the year in the Gallup poll, perhaps ever. Fred Thompson was at 11 percent.

Obviously, this is only one poll, but at least on the Republican side you can point to events (Giuliani's performance in the second debate, McCain's support for the immigration bill) that would have accounted for the results.

The USA Today poll could be skewed since about a fourth of the relatively small sample identified themselves as Independents (who have been favoring Obama)

how come when a poll goes in a direction that you don't like it's skewed.....but when you like the results it's 100% accurate?

Are you asking me or G-man?

A large sampling of Independents is a valid point IMHO.

I'm asking you.....you are quite the fanatic.

I just brought up what I thought was a valid point PJP, without calling anyone a fanatic btw.

I'm basing that remark on your whole body of work here at the RKMBs......which is the furthest thing in the wrold away from Fair Play.

I'm not sure why you'd think PJP was asking me that question, Chris, given that I took pains to point out that "this is only one poll."

Quote:

PJP said:
I'm basing that remark on your whole body of work here at the RKMBs......which is the furthest thing in the wrold away from Fair Play.

Sorry you feel that way.

Sorry=regrets being exposed.

Quote:

the G-man said:
I'm gay.

That's cool. Us liberals will protect you from the religious right if you need it.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Sorry=regrets being exposed.

I recognize that your joking but after getting called a fanatic for what I posted was just over the top by PJP.

I think you're being overly literal in what he meant by fanatic. Or at least overly sensitive.

yeah....I didn't mean to hurt your feelings MEM.....I meant that you are so loyal to Hillary and the Dems sometimes that you fail to at the very least recognize their shortcomings.

Quote:

the G-man said:
I think you're being overly literal in what he meant by fanatic. Or at least overly sensitive.

Probably more a case of taking PJP too seriously considering his last post.

Quote:

PJP said:
I'm basing that remark on your whole body of work here at the RKMBs......which is the furthest thing in the wrold away from Fair Play.

THANK

GOD

FOR

P
J
P
!!!

Florida Democrats Sticking to Early Presidential Primary

The Florida Democratic Party will stick with a Jan. 29 presidential primary even if it means losing all its nominating convention delegates, a party source said Saturday.

The Democratic National Committee gave the state party until Sept. 29 to come up with an alternative delegate selection plan to stay within party rules, such as caucuses or a vote-by-mail primary, but party leadership has rejected that idea.

State party Chairman Karen Thurman, members of the congressional delegation and state legislative leaders were scheduling a news conference Sunday to announce their position. State party staff has been polling executive committee members and determined at least 75 percent support for the early primary, the source said. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because executive committee members were still be notified.

Broward County state committeewoman Diane Glasser, who also serves as state party first chair, said that she is fine with the decision as long as the state selects delegates in the event that they can go to the convention in Denver next summer.

Well I was hoping the death of Jerry Falwell would amount to something more substantial than no longer having to hear idiotic reasoning's as to why children's cartoon characters were indoctrinating kids into gaydom.

This apparently is good for G-Man's Man, Rudy Giuliani but bad for the gOP in general. This really is starting to look like the end of an era in American politics. Not a very pleasant one either. Thank goodness.

Quote:

Evangelical flocks on their own at the polls

AT THE CORE: Concern over security could lead Christian conservatives to overlook disagreements with Rudolph Giuliani, above, at a campaign stop in a Kirkland, Wash., cafe last month.

Conservative Christian leaders are increasingly reluctant to get political, leaving a key Republican voting bloc divided. The trend may help Giuliani but hurt the GOP in the long term.

By Stephanie Simon and Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
November 15, 2007

COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. -- A fundamental shift is transforming the religious right, long a force in presidential politics, as aging evangelical leaders split on the 2008 race and a new generation of pastors turns away from politics altogether.

The result, in the short term, could be a boost for the centrist candidacy of former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, whose messy personal life and support for gay rights and legal abortion have not produced the unified opposition from Christian conservatives that many anticipated.

Over the longer term, the distancing of religious leaders from politics could prove even more consequential, denying the GOP one of the essential building blocks it has used to capture the White House in five of the last seven presidential races.

The shift is evident in this Rocky Mountain community at the heart of the evangelical movement.

"As far as me standing in the pulpit holding a voter guide, that's not going to happen," said the Rev. Brady Boyd, 40, who leads a congregation of 10,000 at New Life Church. He will use his position to teach the Bible to believers. "I won't use it to influence their vote," he said.

That suits many in his congregation just fine. "If he starts talking politics, that makes me very uneasy," said Wolfgang Griesinger, 56, a political independent.

"It's not his place to tell us who to vote for," said Marsha Thorson, 54, a Republican who is leaning toward Giuliani.

Black churches have a long tradition of political activism, mostly on the Democratic side. White evangelical churches did not assert themselves politically until Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, when first the Moral Majority and later the Christian Coalition began organizing on behalf of Republicans.

The term "evangelical" refers to Christians who claim a personal relationship with Christ and consider the Bible the word of God, to be faithfully obeyed. They are a huge group -- about one in four voters -- and far from monolithic; their ranks include Pentecostals, charismatics, Southern Baptists and many others. Some worship to rock music, others to hymns; some speak in tongues. Some believe God preordained those headed to heaven; others hold that anyone can achieve salvation by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. Former Presidents Carter and Clinton are evangelicals, as is President Bush.

Despite that diversity, evangelicals have become a reliable -- and increasingly crucial -- Republican voting bloc. Many were drawn to Bush in 2000 because of his conservative stance on social issues and his story of turning to Christ to overcome a drinking problem. He won the support of more than eight in 10 Christian conservatives in 2000 and nearly nine of 10 in 2004, according to Los Angeles Times exit polls.

But in the three years since, many Christian conservatives have expressed a growing unease about the entanglement of politics and pulpit. Among young evangelical adults, nearly half say involvement in politics is problematic, according to a new book, "unChristian," from the evangelical research firm the Barna Group.

Some of that disillusionment comes from disappointment with Bush's policies, including the war in Iraq. But there's also shame at the often-bombastic, sharply partisan rhetoric of the traditional standard-bearers for conservative Christian values, including televangelist Pat Robertson, 77; the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died this spring at age 73; and radio host James C. Dobson, 71.

One-third of evangelicals under 30 told Barna that they were embarrassed to call themselves believers.

"They're tired of the hard-edged politics that the Christian right has practiced in the last couple of generations," said John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. "They see all this division, all this anger, without a lot to show for it."

Mega-church pastors have capitalized on that frustration by offering a different brand of Christianity. With sunny, affirming services, they cast a broad welcome net -- and fill arena-size sanctuaries each Sunday.

They may promote a cause, such as AIDS relief in Africa. But endorse a candidate? Push a partisan agenda? That could empty half their pews. Few up-and-coming pastors want to risk such a backlash.

"There's nothing in it for them," said Timothy Morgan, deputy managing editor of the evangelical monthly Christianity Today. "It just gets people stirred up."

Florida pastor Troy Gramling, 40, recently preached a series he called "My Naked Pastor," which involved airing his every thought to webcams that followed him around the clock. Make that almost every thought: Gramling said he would never announce to his congregation of 14,000 how he planned to vote.

"That would be putting pressure on them to agree with me, and I don't feel I have a right to do that," Gramling said. "God doesn't call me and tell me who's his favorite."

Mega-church pastors often argue that Christians don't need big names to tell them whom to vote for; they need solid biblical teaching, which they can use to screen each candidate for proper values. But that leaves it up to the voters to determine which values should be the litmus test.

In previous years, the test was obvious: A godly leader must oppose abortion and gay rights and possess a strong Christian faith. This year, the evangelical establishment has sent voters a strong signal that they can feel free to branch away from that trinity.

Robertson, for instance, overlooked Giuliani's three marriages, his brief cohabitation with a gay couple, and his support for abortion rights to endorse him as the best candidate to fight terrorism.

Fundamentalist Bob Jones III, 68, made it clear that he believed that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, follows a false religion. Yet Jones, chancellor of the university that bears his name, backed Romney on the grounds that he could win the White House.

Dobson has declined to endorse anyone -- despite repeated pleas from supporters of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist preacher who holds textbook religious right positions on social issues. Instead, Dobson has hinted that he may support a third-party candidate.

The disarray on the Christian right -- coupled with the striking silence of mega-church pastors -- means that Republicans can't count on the mass voter turnout drives that helped so much in years past.

"The days when Ralph Reed [and his Christian Coalition] could mobilize tens of thousands of followers are gone," said Rich Galen, an advisor to GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a former senator from Tennessee. "In terms of suddenly turning on a spigot of funds and volunteers and direct mail, that just doesn't happen anymore."

Marvin Olasky, editor in chief of the Christian newsmagazine World, offers this perspective: "Anyone who talks about delivering the evangelical vote might as well apply for a job as a herder of cats."

The upheaval has also left an opening for Democrats, who are aggressively wooing evangelical voters by framing issues such as global warming, healthcare reform and the war in Iraq as moral priorities. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, the party's two presidential front-runners, discuss their faith openly and often, a notable contrast with past Democratic hopefuls.

The Democrats don't expect to swing the entire bloc of conservative religious voters their way next November. "But it's going to be such a close election that even 2 percentage points would make a huge difference," said D. Michael Lindsay, author of a new book on evangelical influence, "Faith in the Halls of Power."

Here at New Life Church, the congregation includes Democrats as well as independents and Republicans, and Boyd says he figures they all come to hear his take on the Gospel, not the latest Gallup poll.

"I don't think that as believers, as Christians, we should back away from the political scene. . . . But there's a correction happening now in the local church," he said.

New Life's founder, Ted Haggard, never hesitated to remind his congregation of his close ties to the Bush administration. Haggard resigned last year after encounters with a male prostitute, but the church's reputation as a political force remains; Boyd said he had been courted by several elected officials since arriving in Colorado Springs.

He meets with the politicians -- but only to see if he can offer them spiritual guidance.

"I'm a pastor," he said. "That's what I'm called to do."

stephanie.simon@latimes.com

mark.barabak@latimes.com

Simon reported from Colorado Springs and Barabak from San Francisco.

I would very much like to see religion and politics being seperated.

Good article, too, Whomod...

Mark Halperin, editor at large and senior political analyst for Time magazine, seems to admit that the national political reporters spend too much time on campaign tactics and not enough on issues:

MORE than any other book, Richard Ben Cramer’s “What It Takes,” about the 1988 battle for the White House, influenced the way I cover campaigns.

I’m not alone. The book’s thesis — that prospective presidents are best evaluated by their ability to survive the grueling quadrennial coast-to-coast test of endurance required to win the office — has shaped the universe of political coverage.

Voters are bombarded with information about which contender has “what it takes” to be the best candidate. Who can deliver the most stirring rhetoric? Who can build the most attractive facade? Who can mount the wiliest counterattack? Whose life makes for the neatest story? Our political and media culture reflects and drives an obsession with who is going to win, rather than who should win.

For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. The chaotic and demanding requirements of running for president, I felt, were a perfect test for the toughest job in the world.

But now I think I was wrong. The “campaigner equals leader” formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.

Case in point: Our two most recent presidents, both of whom I covered while they were governors seeking the White House. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are wildly talented politicians. Both claimed two presidential victories, in all four cases arguably as underdogs. Both could skillfully serve as the chief strategist for a presidential campaign.

But their success came not because they convinced the news media (and much of the public) that they would be the best president, but because they dominated the campaign narrative that portrayed them as the best candidate in a world-class political competition. In the end, both men were better presidential candidates than they were presidents.

So if we for too long allowed ourselves to be beguiled by “What It Takes” — certainly not the author’s fault — what do those of us who cover politics do now? After all, Mr. Cramer’s style of campaign coverage is alluring in an election season that features so many candidates with heroic biographies and successful careers in and out of politics. (Not to mention two wide-open races.)

Well, we pause, take a deep breath and resist. At least sometimes. In the face of polls and horse-race maneuvering, we can try to keep from getting sucked in by it all. We should examine a candidate’s public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance. But what might appear simple to a voter can, I know, seem hard for a journalist.

If past is prologue, the winners of the major-party nominations will be those who demonstrate they have what it takes to win. But in the short time remaining voters and journalists alike should be focused on a deeper question: Do the candidates have what it takes to fill the most difficult job in the world?

Quote:

GOP rivals square off in YouTube showdown
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday November 28, 2007

Republican presidential contenders are facing a field of unknown debate questioners in St. Petersburg, Fla., Wednesday night -- ordinary Americans, who submitted their queries for the candidates via YouTube.

The evening's first question touched on illegal immigration, a particularly contentious issue among many in the Republican field. In a YouTube submission addressed to Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor was asked if he would "aid and abet the flight of illegal aliens" into the US. The questioner also accused Giuliani of running a "sanctuary city" for illegals during his time as mayor.

"The reality is, New York City was not a sanctuary city," Giuliani responded, adding that the city had deported illegal immigrants that had "committed a crime or was suspected of a crime." He went on to add that as president, he would stop people crossing the American border by "deploying a fence, by deploying a virtual fence...and just stopping people from coming in."

Asked by moderator Anderson Cooper if New York City was in fact a "sanctuary city," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney responded, "Absolutely."

"It called itself a sanctuary city," he continued, "and as a matter of fact, when the Welfare Reform Act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor actually brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status."

Given an opportunity to respond, Giuliani quickly ratcheted up the intensity of the evening's rhetoric. "It's unfortunate, but Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had far the worse record," he said. "In his case there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them. There was even a sanctuary mansion -- at his own home illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned in to anybody or by anyone...so I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city."

Romney, standing at a podium adjacent to Giuliani's, shot back that the former mayor knew "better than that," as the two candidates talked over one another. "You did, you did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?" Giuliani interjected.

"No, I did not," said Romney. "If you're a homeowner, and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home...if you hear someone that's working out there -- not that you've employed, but that the company has -- if you hear somebody with a funny accent, you as homeowner are supposed to go out there and say 'I want to see your papers.' Is that what you're suggesting?"

The exchange between the two candidates dominated the first portion of the debate, with Giuliani going on to accuse Romney of having a "holier than thou attitude" about his approach to immigration. "Immigration is not holier than thou, mayor, it's against the law," responded Romney.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) was the first to respond to another immigration-themed question, which asked whether the candidates would pledge as president "to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those that have come here illegally."

"Yes, I'd pledge that," said Thompson. "A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) responded, "Yes, of course," to the question, but added "and we never proposed amnesty...we need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well and they need some protections under the law. And they need some of our love and compassion."

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who has centered much of his campaign on the immigration issue, later joked that the candidates were attempting to "out-Tancredo" him.

Immigration-related disagreements raged on in an exchange between former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) and Romney. Discussing tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants, Huckabee had said that that children should not be "punished because their parent committed a crime."

"Mike, that's not your money. That's the taxpayers' money," Romney responded after saying Huckabee reminded him of "liberals in Massachusetts."

As the evening's focus later shirted to government spending, libertarian-leaning candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was asked if he could name three federal programs he would cut from the budget.

"I would like to change Washington and we could by cutting three programs such as the Department of Education...the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security..." He then went on to critique US foreign policy. "And besides, what we can do is we can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is costing us a trillion dollars and we can spend most of that, or a lot of that money home if we would bring our troops home."

Sen. McCain responded to Paul's comments moments later. "I've heard him now in many debates talking about bringing out troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed. "And I want to tell you," he said, facing Paul, "that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II...we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement." McCain, who spent Thanksgiving in Iraq, told Paul that the troops' message was "let us win."

"The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active-duty officers -- military personnel," Paul responded. "I'm not not an isolationist."

Later in the evening, a series of YouTube video submitters asked a series of questions about abortion. Asked whether he would signed a federal abortion ban passed by Congress -- in the event that the landmark abortion case Roe vs. Wade was overturned -- Giliani said he would "probably not sign it. I would leave to the states to make that decision." He added that he didn't believe that abortion should be criminalized.

Gov. Romney said he would "welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said we don't want to have abortion in this country" and would be "delighted to sign that bill." Commenting about his former advocacy of a woman's right to choose, a position he held as governor, Romney said he had been wrong. "If people in this country are looking for someone who's never made a mistake on a policy issue and is not willing to admit they're ever wrong, they're going to have to find somebody else. On abortion, I was wrong."

Asked what those involved in abortions -- both women and doctors -- should be charged with should abortion become illegal, Rep. Paul warned against having a "federal abortion police," adding that issue was best left in the hands of individual states.

In a subsequent YouTube question, a submitter held a a bible to in front of the camera and asked the candidates if they believed "every word of this book."

Giuliani said he believed it, "but I don't believe it necessarily literally true in every single respect...I think it's the greatest book ever written, I read it frequently, I read it very frequently when I've gone through the bigger crises in my life."

"Yeah, the Bible is the word of God," said Romney, pressed by Cooper as to whether he believed every word. "I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God," he added.

Huckabee, an ordained minister, said he believed the Bible was "exactly what it is. It's the word of revelation to us from God himself." He continued, however, that there were allegorical elements in the scriptures.

As the evening moved into ts final segment, which focused on foreign policy, the GOP contenders fielded a question about the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding.

Asked how Republican candidates could disagree with Sen. McCain's position on the subject given his "first-hand knowledge" as a POW during the Vietnam War, Romney said McCain was an "expert," but added that he didn't believe the presidential candidates should describe acceptable interrogation measures. He continued that he opposed torture, but did not directly answer a follow-up question from Cooper pressing him about whether he considered waterboarding to meet that definition.

"Well, Governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is," McCain replied solemnly, addressing Romney. "I'm astonished you would think such a torture would be inflicted on anyone who we are [holding] captive, and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's a violation of the Geneva conventions; it's a violation of existing law."

McCain later said that waterboarding was "clearly the definition of torture," and added that "life is not 24and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane yet effective."

On the subject of gays in the military, a retired brigadier general, who is gay, asked the candidates if military service men and women were "professional" enough to serve with gays and lesbians. Romney and McCain said they believed the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy seemed to be working. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), stated that he felt homosexuals in uniform was a danger to "unit cohesion."

The debate, co-sponsored by CNN and YouTube, was the Republicans' eighth major confrontation of the 2008 campaign. People from across the country submitted as many as 5,000 videos.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads in national polls but trails former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in early-voting Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney faces challenges from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Iowa, and from Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire.

RAW
Anyone watch this?

All to play for in the biggest ever Super Tuesday

Key day for both parties as voters in more than 20 US states make their choice of candidates... as more than 20 states vote in the United States' Super Tuesday primary elections – the country's largest-ever such vote.

Polls indicate a close finish between Barack Obama and the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in the 22 Democratic state primaries, with the gap still closing.

Meanwhile, Republicans are contemplating a different situation, with John McCain hoping his commanding lead over his conservative rival, Mitt Romney, will give him a knockout blow that effectively ends the race.

Mr Obama polls 43 points to Mrs Clinton's 45 in CNN's Poll of Polls, as his numbers close with hers in a battle in which 1,618 delegates will be chosen for a summer convention, where 2,025 are needed for victory.

Mr Obama's managers say a good showing today will provide momentum for further primary battles later this month.

Mrs Clinton's campaign is, meanwhile, hoping her lock on the party machine will keep her ahead.

The Republican race is dominated by an ebullient Mr McCain, who has begun pushing into the centre ground of American politics with an eye on the presidential race itself.

Meanwhile, the conservative wing of the party is split between Mr Romney and the third-placed challenger, Mike Huckabee.

All eyes are on California, biggest of all the states, with 370 delegates. For the Republicans, it is a must-win state for Mr Romney.

Mr Obama trails Mrs Clinton there by two percentage points, while a third of voters say they have not made up their minds.

The uncertainty over Tuesday's race comes in part because it has never happened before. Never have so many voters – 40 per cent of the total – voted in primary ballots on the same day.

The Republicans have 1,023 delegates at stake. Mr McCain leads with 93 delegates, followed by Mr Romney with 77, Mr Huckabee at 40 and Texas Congressman Ron Paul with four, according to the latest tally.

For Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, the Democrats award their delegates proportionally and the two campaigns have said they do not expect either candidate to deal the knockout blow to secure the nomination from today's results.

Originally, the state primary elections were spread across the calendar, allowing candidates to conduct "whistle-stop" tours of the nation.

But in a race to be among the first states to poll, the original total of seven Super Tuesday states has swollen to 24.

Privately, many campaign officials are furious that candidates cannot hope to dovetail their messages to individual states.

Thank God independents aren't allowed to vote for Republican candidates in Cali or all would truly be lost.

It will be interesting tomorrow. I've never caucussed before but plan to even though I'm pretty much drowning in Obama worship where I live. G-man I'm counting on you to have your MEM-"Leave Hillary alone!" graphic ready for a likely sour grapes post from yours truly. Then again who knows about them polls except that they've usually been wrong when it comes to Obama & Hillary.

If it makes you feel better, MEM, I doubt that either Obama or Clinton will be down for the count after today. I think it's a real horse race for your side of the aisle and perhaps even a brokered convention.

It's been decades since the Democrats have controlled the New York State Senate. Decades. But, tonight, they moved within one vote of control. With a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Assembly, the State is on the verge of becoming the blue bastion it should be:

Quote:

Democrat Darrel Aubertine has upset Republican Will Barclay in the special election for New York State's 48th Senate District – slicing the Republican majority in the State Senate to just one.

With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, the Associated Press projected the victory. Aubertine has 27,532 votes, or 52 percent, to 25,001 votes for Barclay, 48 percent.

This win is HUGE. it is a bellwether race - in a district that has nearly twice as many republicans as Democrats.

State legislatures matter. A lot. Control of state legislatures matters. A lot. $\:\)$

I live near (but don't vote in) this district and got to see the commercials these guys put out against each other on TV.

Barclary was a fairly unappealing candidate. He looked like Bill Gates (only younger and dorkier) and had no presence. I'm not terribly surprised by this result. The "red" parts of NYS have always been sort of purple.

On the bright side, if the Senate flips, NY will be truly a one-party rule state for the first time in my life. It might be fun to see what the state that already has the highest tax burden in the nation thinks of the Democrats after a few years of complete Democrat domination.

http://www.anationforchange.com/

He's got my vote.

Oh, the House Republicans are so screwed. The Hill has yet another look at GOP prospects -- and the potential for GOP leadership changes. It's delicious:

Quote:

The sky is falling on House Republicans and there is no sign of it letting up.

The GOP loss in Mississippi’s special election Tuesday is the strongest sign yet that the Republican Party is in shambles. And while some Republicans see a light at the end of the tunnel, that light more likely represents the Democratic train that is primed to mow down more Republicans in November.

The third straight House special election loss in three conservative districts this year is a clear indication that the GOP brand is turning off voters and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is in disarray.

In the wake of the devastating loss, the first question facing House Republican leaders is whether they will keep Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) as NRCC chairman. Speculation has been rampant that Cole would be asked to step down should Republicans lose in Mississippi, and on Tuesday that chatter intensified.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) will be under tremendous pressure to do something dramatic after the trio of losses. Boehner has publicly clashed with Cole over staffing and lackluster fundraising numbers but despite their differences, their political futures are tied together.

Significant gains by House Democrats this fall would likely lead to Boehner and Cole losing their leadership posts. Travis Childers (D), who narrowly defeated Greg Davis (R) on Tuesday, will push the Democrats’ total in the House to 236 members. With six months to go until the elections, political analysts and observers are suggesting Democrats could reach 250 in the next Congress.

Some Republican conference members have criticized Boehner for not effectively managing Cole.

GOP strategists and lobbyists have also questioned Boehner’s leadership. One Republican source noted that, after Boehner called for staffing changes at the NRCC, Cole refused and triumphed in the showdown.

Bold print must mean its true!

Last night, Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Glen Davis in Mississippi's First Congressional District. The Republican party was spending a boatload of money to save what should be a solid GOP seat. They failed BIG TIME. The final margin was an impressive 8-point victory: 54% - 46%.

The magnitude of this loss cannot be overstated. The Republican party is in serious trouble in 2008. This is their third loss in a row of open house seats in GOP districts. Tim Russert even acknowledged how big this is for Democrats saying, "That is a seismic election, believe me." Huckabee just admitted that this is bad for the Republicans. The Democratic Party are on our way to a historic election.

As the NY Times reported yesterday, the GOP tried to make Obama the issue in Mississippi.

Quote:

Hoping to hang on to a Congressional seat in a tight special election here on Tuesday, Republicans in this mostly white and very conservative district are trying to make the vote more a referendum on Senator Barack Obama than on the candidates themselves.

In advertisements and speeches, Republicans have repeatedly associated Travis Childers, the white Democrat threatening to take the seat away from the Republican Party, with Mr. Obama. Republicans say Mr. Obama’s liberal values are out of place in the district. But for many Democratic veterans here, the tactic is a throwback to the old and unwelcome politics of race, a standby in Mississippi campaigning.

Former Gov. William Winter, a Democrat, expressed shock at the current campaign.

“I am appalled that this blatant appeal to racial prejudice is still being employed,” said Mr. Winter, who lost the 1967 governor’s race after his segregationist opponent circulated handbills showing blacks listening to one of his speeches. Mr. Winter went on to win the governor’s office 12 years later.

That tactic failed.

The GOP has got nothing...nothing going for it this year.

Here's the statement on this win tonight from Senator Obama. The defeat of the GOP and its ugly campaign was also a victory for the Democratic nominee for President:

Quote:

"I want to congratulate Congressman-elect Travis Childers on winning this special election. By electing Travis in this traditionally overwhelmingly Republican district, the people of Mississippi voted to end the politics of division and distraction, and bring about real change. This is the third special election in recent months that Democrats have won in traditionally Republican areas -- an unmistakable sign that Americans want to make a clean break from the failed Bush policies of the past - and are not looking for four more years of those failed policies from John McCain. I look forward to working with Travis in the months ahead to fix our economy, and make a difference in the lives of America's hardworking families," said Barack Obama.

Hmm.....

A Republican lost in a heavily Republican district running ads about the Democrat as being linked with Barak Obama and Reverend Wright and the Democrat still WON big??

Seems the Republicans should really be worried about now. Their fall strategy just fizzled out and with their OWN People!

The Washington Post tells us that Republicans are turning on themselves. It's getting ugly on Capitol Hill. Republican fratricide is becoming an epidemic. Couldn't happen to a better group of people:

Quote:

House Republicans turned on themselves yesterday after a third straight loss of a GOP-held House seat in special elections this year left both parties contemplating widespread Democratic gains in November.

In huddles, closed-door meetings and hastily arranged conference calls, some Republicans demanded the head of their political chief, while others decried their leadership as out of touch with the political catastrophe they face.

GOP leaders sought yesterday to "re-brand" the party with a new slogan and renewed pledges of fiscal rectitude and limited government. But the slogan -- "The Change You Deserve" -- came under mocking fire, because it parallels Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" motto and it mirrors the advertising slogan for the antidepressant Effexor.

Having Bush out there tellign people of the great sacrifice he made for the troops (giving up golf) isn't helping much either.

Ah, I found the Obama/Wright attack ad.

I see playing to white fears of Obama and Wright simply didn't do it. People are more pissed off at Bush than they are afraid of change. And that seems to include Republicans as well.

Straight from the horses mouth, that bastion of right wingnuttiness, the Wall Street Journal:

Quote:

Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.

The feared setback for Republicans, coming two years after their 2006 drubbing, is unusual for several reasons. It is rare for a party to lose two election cycles in a row. And many expect losses even if their presidential candidate, John McCain, captures the White House....

"It's like 2006 never ended for Republicans," said Jennifer Duffy, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which predicts Democratic gains of 10 to 20 seats in the House and four to seven in the Senate....

The dynamics at work: voters' sharply negative views of President Bush and dismal feelings about the direction of the country, including rising oil and gas prices, a weak economy and fallout from the housing crisis. Even though Congress continues to register low approval ratings, voters overall appear to prefer putting Democrats in charge....

Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who is heading Senate Republicans' re-election effort, recently told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that it would be "a great night" if his party can hold Democratic pickups in the Senate to three or four seats in November.

Originally Posted By: whomod

No Rex, it's

Originally Posted By: whomod

Straight from the horses mouth, that bastion of right wingnuttiness, the Wall Street Journal:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quick question, if you're daughter says she's scared of the boogie man, are you gonna call the cops on him?

And although this is a fight I can lose
the accused is an innocent man

Originally Posted By: whomod

No Rex, it's

Originally Posted By: whomod

Straight from the horses mouth, that bastion of right wingnuttiness, the Wall Street Journal:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: whomod

...[youtube]

[/youtube]...

...fucking neocons...

...please notice me...

[youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]...

...lame duck smirking chimp...

...fuck, I hate myself...

...agree with me! please?...

...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

No Rex, it's

Originally Posted By: whomod

Straight from the horses mouth, that bastion of right wingnuttiness, the Wall Street Journal:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

...[youtube]

[/youtube]...

...fucking neocons...

...please notice me...

[youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]...

...lame duck smirking chimp...

...fuck, I hate myself...

...agree with me! please?...

...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

...[youtube]

[/youtube]...

...fucking neocons...

...please notice me...

[youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]...

...lame duck smirking chimp...

...fuck, I hate myself...

...agree with me! please?...

...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

...[youtube]

[/youtube]...

...fucking neocons...

...please notice me...

[youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]...

...lame duck smirking chimp...

...fuck, I hate myself...

...agree with me! please?...

...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

...[youtube]

[/youtube]...

...fucking neocons...

...please notice me...

[youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]...

...lame duck smirking chimp...

...fuck, I hate myself...

...agree with me! please?...

...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

...[youtube]

[/youtube]...

...fucking neocons...

...please notice me...

[youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]...

...lame duck smirking chimp...

...fuck, I hate myself...

...agree with me! please?...

...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

...[youtube]

[/youtube]...

...fucking neocons...

...please notice me...

[youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]...

...lame duck smirking chimp...

...fuck, I hate myself...

...agree with me! please?...

...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

...[youtube]

[/youtube]...

...fucking neocons...

...please notice me...

[youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]...

...lame duck smirking chimp...

...fuck, I hate myself...

...agree with me! please?...

...

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

...[youtube]

[/youtube]...

...fucking neocons...

...please notice me...

[youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]...

...lame duck smirking chimp...

...fuck, I hate myself...

...agree with me! please?...

...

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: whomod

No Rex, it's

Originally Posted By: whomod

Straight from the horses mouth, that bastion of right wingnuttiness, the Wall Street Journal:

Quote:

Whomod: left wing spam bot

From the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. 19 point approval rating. Trending up from the 15 point margin Dems had when they took back the Congress in 2006. But more importantly:

Question 12 (on page 18 of the poll): What is your preference for the outcome of this year's congressional elections--a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?

Republican-controlled Congress....... 33
Democrat-controlled Congress ......... 52

Americans prefer a Democratic congress by a whopping 19 points!

whomod. fucks. little. boys.

Quote:

In Florida’s Economic Pain, Obama Gains Ground

Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: October 3, 2008

NEW PORT RICHEY, Fla. — Jim Piccillo lost his job as a bank vice president in August, applied for food stamps to support his two young daughters and swore off a life of loyalty to the Republican Party. He now volunteers here in Pasco County for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

Madeline Aquanno’s change of heart came more recently. Two weeks ago, she said, she had planned to vote for Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican, who impressed her with his knowledge of the world. But as the economy began to scare her more than terrorism, she reconsidered.

“Obama is more for the people,” she said, near the pool at her middle-class retirement community in Broward County. “I’m worried about the jobs that are being lost, for my son, my daughter, my granddaughter. You have to look down the line.”

Here in a swing state of severe economic hurt — a leader in foreclosures where empty offices now litter strip malls — there are signs that Mr. Obama is gaining ground. In interviews and surveys, voters across Florida said the debate in Washington over how to fix the credit crisis had fueled frustration with the Bush administration and pushed them away from the Republican ticket.

The four most recent polls from late September put Mr. Obama ahead of Mr. McCain by three to eight percentage points, a sharp swing from the previous six weeks, when Mr. McCain led by as much as 10 points.

Also in Mr. Obama’s favor, Florida as of August had 498,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans, up from an advantage of 373,000 four years ago. ....

Mr. Obama seems to have made some headway. At Christina’s, a family restaurant in downtown New Port Richey, the red leather stools at the counter held both Republicans tried-and-true, and Republicans, like Chris Hart, 48, who had begun to sour on Mr. McCain.

“Every time you turn around, he flips,” Mr. Hart said. A front-desk clerk at a local Y.M.C.A, he said he was also motivated by his need for health insurance, which had recently forced him to buy antibiotics at pet stores because it was cheaper than the pharmacy.

While not sure that Democrats could get him the coverage he needed, Mr. Hart said he wished Mr. McCain focused more consistently on the issue. “I was in the Navy, in aviation like John McCain, so I feel like I’m getting punched by one of my own,” Mr. Hart said.

For Mr. Piccillo, 34, skepticism arrived with the Republican convention. After voting twice for George W. Bush, he said he was especially turned off when Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, mocked Mr. Obama’s early work as a community organizer.

“Those are the people I’m looking to for help,” said Mr. Piccillo, a former mortgage banker who said he had sent out 1,500 résumés without finding a job. ...

...Sherry Kruta, a Democrat and former Clinton supporter from Highland Beach who only a month ago said she might vote for Mr. McCain. “The thought of her maybe being the president scares me to death,” Ms. Kruta said.

Fear, in fact — of Mr. Obama or Ms. Palin — seems to be widespread. At Wynmoor Village, the retirement community in Coconut Creek where Ms. Aquanno said she was leaning away from Mr. McCain because his snap judgments made him seem “more like Bush....

Originally Posted By: whomod

congratulations comrade you win.

question 12 on page 18? geebus. that's some dedication to a survey.

say what you will about whomod, he knows more about pole than anyone here!

whomod content User some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts Sun Oct 12 2008 02:45 PM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Another Crappy Day for the GOP.

Newspaper endorsements are starting. Not sure they have much of an impact with voters, but they do capture the sentiment about the candidates and can be illuminating. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch endorsed Obama and McCain before the February 5th Missouri primary. In the general election, the paper is strongly behind Obama -- and very disappointed in McCain.

Quote:

Over the past nine months, Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, has emerged as the only truly transformative candidate in the race. In the crucible that is a presidential campaign, his intellect, his temperament and equanimity under pressure consistently have been impressive. He has surrounded himself with smart, capable advisers who have helped him refine thorough, nuanced policy positions.

In a word, Mr. Obama has been presidential.

Meanwhile, Mr. McCain, the senior senator from Arizona, became the incredible shrinking man. He shrank from his principled stands in favor of a humane immigration policy. He shrank from his universal condemnation of torture and his condemnation of the politics of smear.

He even shrank from his own campaign slogan, “County First,” by selecting the least qualified running mate since the Swedenborgian shipbuilder Arthur Sewall ran as William Jennings Bryan’s No. 2 in 1896.

"Shrinking man." Nasty, but true.

There are some fun articles out today, which show the growing panic in the GOP about November 4th. We as Democrats have waited a long time to see the Republicans squirm like this. Over the next 23 days, we've got to finish the job and make their worst electoral fears become reality.

Across the country, Republicans are both trashing and abandoning their nominees. I'm seeing GOPers trying to assign blame solely to McCain. But, it's been Republican policies that have gotten us into this mess. And, their party's leaders have no ideas for getting us out. John McCain is like most other Republicans. They all share the blame. It's finally caught up with them.

Today's Los Angeles Times has yet another article with Republicans expressing displeasure, anger and frustration with McCain and Palin -- and fear about their election prospects:

Quote:

The financial crisis has turned the last three weeks into a crucial and possibly decisive period in the presidential contest -- a time when many Americans have taken a new look at each candidate and then moved toward Democrat Barack Obama.

Like a wave, the crisis has washed over other factors in a contest that had seemed to be a dead heat, moving enough voters to give the senator from Illinois a consistent lead in polls nationwide and in key battleground states, including Florida, Virginia and Ohio, where President Bush secured his reelection four years ago.

Republican officials in several states say they fear voters have judged McCain and Palin harshly in how they reacted to the financial downturn. Obama, meanwhile, now looks like an acceptable alternative to many voters who had been hesitant to pull the lever for him because of concerns about his untraditional background and relatively recent appearance in national affairs.

"If you looked at some of the decisions that Obama's made, and the consistency and levelness that he's had in these trying times over the past few weeks, in my opinion he's blown McCain away," said ["Florida salesman and staunch Republican" Mark] Wagner, 47, of suburban Tampa.

In addition, Wagner disapproves of Palin's refusal to cooperate with a state legislative investigation that found she had abused her power as Alaska governor, and he calls McCain's recent attacks on Obama's character and past associations "disgusting."

"McCain was supposed to be the steady hand with experience," he said.

Some Republicans report hearing of similar conversions in Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina, and they fear that the change is irreversible. Voters who have been blaming Bush and Republicans in general for the financial crisis now seem to be tying it around McCain's neck as well.

Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican, said he was looking at an "Obama tide" in his district and wondering about his own reelection: "Can I withstand a firestorm?"

For some perspective, Souder is a seven-term Republican congressman. He won his last race by a 54% - 46% margin. In 2004, his district voted for George Bush by 68% - 31% margin. In that district, the GOP congressman is worried about the "Obama tide." If it's happening in Souder's district, it's more than a tide, it's a tidal wave.

The GOP base is demoralized. They sense defeat. They're afraid. They're on the ropes. What should we do? HIT THEM HARDER. $\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

"Shrinking man." Nasty, but true.

don't fucking judge me that pool was filled with cold water.

PARADE magazine has a huge readership, and they just told the country that if you make under $112,000 you save more with Obama, and that no one making under $227,000 will have their taxes raised. That completely contradicts Palin's and McCain's lies. Read the entire thing in today's PARADE in your Sunday paper.

Parade is the largest, most widely read magazine in the U.S. So this is good -- if people actually read the column headings...

I've been told that Parade mag is a conservative magazine. I've always thought so as well just based on most of the MOR content and celebrities included in their mag that middle America likes. Correct me if I'm wrong. But that is awesome that they are writing positive things about Obama's plan.

what about household incomes?

Originally Posted By: whomod

You know what else is widely read? The National Enquirer.

Parade is an advertising supplement. It has the same credibility as a k-mart ad.

Originally Posted By: whomod

PARADE magazine has a huge readership, and they just told the country that if you make under $112,000 you save more with Obama, and that no one making under $227,000 will have their taxes raised...

Quote:

the January 6, 2008, edition cover and main article asks if Benazir Bhutto is "America's best hope against Al-Qaeda," after her December 27, 2007, assassination

ABC News/Wash. Post: 90% of voters see U.S. on wrong track; Bush at 23% approval; Obama leads 53% - 43%

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll has some stunning numbers. There is almost a unanimous consensus in this country that we're on the wrong track -- because we are. Only 22 days til we can change the track of the nation:

Quote:

A tornado of economic discontent is buffeting the nation, sending satisfaction with the country's direction to a 35-year low, George W. Bush's approval rating below Richard Nixon's worst and Barack Obama, boosted by economic empathy, to his best-yet advantage in the presidential race.

Given the global economic crisis, a record 90 percent of registered voters say the country is seriously off on the wrong track, the most since this question first was asked in 1973. At 23 percent, Bush's job approval rating has fallen below Nixon's lowest; it's a point away from the lowest in 70 years of polling, set by Harry Truman in early 1952. Bush's disapproval, meanwhile, is at an all-time record 73 percent.

Powered chiefly by the public's economic concerns, Obama leads John McCain by 10 points among likely voters, 53-43 percent, in this ABC News/Washington Post poll. Though every race is different, no presidential candidate has come back from an October deficit this large in pre-election polls dating to 1936....

Obama holds the reins on economic woe. Registered voters trust him over McCain to handle the economy by 53-37 percent. Obama holds his largest lead yet, a remarkable 30-point margin, in better understanding the economic problems Americans are having, 58-28 percent. He leads McCain by about as much, 59-31 percent, in trust to help the middle class, and by 11 points on taxes, two prime points of contention in the last presidential debate....

McCain's receiving blowback for what's perceived as negative campaigning; registered voters by 59-35 percent say he's been mainly attacking Obama rather than addressing the issues. Obama, by contrast, is seen by an even wider margin as issue-focused....

[A] drop in McCain's favorability rating, to 52 percent, a loss of 7 points since the Republican convention; 45 percent now see him unfavorably, a new high for McCain in polls since 1999. Obama's rating, meanwhile, is 64 percent favorable, near its high and up 6 points in the same time frame.

Enthusiasm for McCain's candidacy, never strong, has softened alongside his favorability rating. Just 29 percent of his own supporters are "very enthusiastic" about his campaign, the fewest since August and down a sharp 17 points from his post-convention peak. By contrast, 63 percent of Obama's backers are very enthusiastic, steady since September.

McCain's portrayal of Obama as a risky choice, further, is not resonating, and indeed may be backfiring. By 55-45 percent registered voters see Obama as safe rather than risky; by contrast, they divide 50-50 on whether McCain himself is safe or risky down from 57-41 percent "safe" at McCain's best on this measure in June.

Okay, so after all Bush has put us through, who are the 23% of Americans who still approve of George Bush's job performance? Um.. G-Man? PJP? bsams?

Well... in any case, it's refreshing to see that all those crazed racist nutjobs at McCain rallies now only make up about 23%. That's now 1/4 of the country, down from 1/3rd as recently as last year.

racist.

Originally Posted By: whomod

ABC News/Wash. Post: 90% of voters see U.S. on wrong track; Bush at 23% approval; Obama leads 53% - 43%

Quote:

In McCain's panicky new stump speech, The Erratic One says "My friends, we’ve got them just where we want them.” Okay. You may remember that the Obama campaign moved its operation out of North Dakota a couple weeks ago after several polls showed the state tilting to McCain. North Dakota, after all is a reliably Republican state in presidential elections. But, North Dakota is back in play according to the latest poll:

Quote:

Barack Obama is shown with an edge against John McCain in a North Dakota presidential race that has narrowed to a statistical tie, according to a new Forum poll.

The survey shows Obama squeaking past McCain, 45 percent to 43 percent, a lead that falls within the poll’s margin of error and therefore indicates a dead heat, according to political analysts.

Still up for grabs: undecided voters, comprising 12 percent.

“It’s a statistical tossup,” said Jim Danielson, co-director of the Public Affairs Institute at Minnesota State University Moorhead, which conducted the statewide telephone survey for The Forum. Pollsters contacted 606 likely North Dakota voters by telephone Oct. 6-8.

McCain has Obama right where he wants him. Tied in North Dakota. This is yet another reliably Republican state that McCain can't lock down. He's in North Carolina and Virginia today. Palin had to do campaign stop, an insulting brief campaign stop, in West Virginia yesterday. McCain is playing defense on what should be his turf.

Ah...., the gOP having to defend their own states and still having to fire up their own supporters with the racism and division that they eat up, with only 3 weeks left until election time. Gotta love it. $\:\)$

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

racist.

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

racist.

To paraphrase John McCain today.

You have me right where you want me.

$\:lol\:$

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

PARADE magazine has a huge readership, and they just told the country that if you make under $112,000 you save more with Obama, and that no one making under $227,000 will have their taxes raised...

Quote:

the January 6, 2008, edition cover and main article asks if Benazir Bhutto is "America's best hope against Al-Qaeda," after her December 27, 2007, assassination

Originally Posted By: G-Man

Oh no, Parade just revealed to middle America that we've been lying all along about Obama raising their taxes! I must do SOMETHING to discredit them!! I know, I'll talk about how they once printed outdated info about Bhutto. Never mind that it was true but quickly became outdated on account of her murder. Maybe with that, they'll think Parade lies or something.... Gotta say something...

Parade isn't read by most of America.

Most of America throw it out with the other ads.

Originally Posted By: rex

Parade isn't read by most of Amerika.

Most of Amerika throw it out with the other ads.

Whomod hiding behind another alt id. How sad.

Originally Posted By: rex

Whomod hiding behind another alt id. How sad.

that wasn't me, retard.

Sure unrestrained id sure.

Heh. Did you notice that those pictures whomod took of MSNBC and posted to wank over were posted using "unrestrained id"'s photobucket account?

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post:

Quote:

The ongoing economic crisis coupled with the aggressive assertion of Democrats' massive fundraising advantage has significantly broadened Republican vulnerabilities in the House and made a 25-plus seat pickup a very real possibility.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sensing the once in a generation opportunity for huge seat gains, has taken out a $15 million bank loan -- a cash infusion that will allow them to go after a far broader number of newly vulnerable Republican incumbents.

Independent political analysts like Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook have upped their predictions of Democratic gains in recent weeks -- with a 20-seat Democratic gain now seen as the floor for November.

Most strategists -- in both parties -- privately believe Democrats are positioned to pick up well more than 15 seats especially given the developments of the last few weeks. During that time, the bottom, which many GOP operatives believed had long ago been reached, dropped out further with seemingly safe incumbents like Reps. Dan Lungren (Calif.), Dana Rohrabacher(Calif.), Dean Heller (Nev.), Lee Terry (Neb.) and Peter Roskam (Ill.) now in real races.

If the likes of Lungren et al. wind up losing, Democrats could well score seat pickups of 35 or more in 19 days time -- a wave that would drop Republican into weak minority status at the start of 2009.

In other words, although we only list the 25 seats likely to switch party control in our House Line this week, the playing field has the real potential to be much larger (and worse) for Republicans.

Thank goodness. The House seems to be the hotbed of the more extremist right wingers out there.

have you talked to your shrink about this anti-America hatred of yours?

From the Wall Street Journal:

Quote:

Republican former Secretary of State Colin Powell's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama is the latest sign that the Republican Party's coalition is fracturing amid the stresses of the campaign....

The endorsement comes after a series of events that have pointed to the fraying of a Republican umbrella that has relied in the past on both moderates and conservatives to bulk up its governing majority.

Late last week, conservative radio talk-show host Michael Smerconish endorsed Sen. Obama, as did conservative columnist Christopher Buckley, the son of National Review founder William F. Buckley. The Chicago Tribune endorsed Sen. Obama last week, the first time the paper has endorsed a Democrat in its 161-year history.

Two Republican senators in the middle of tough re-election fights -- Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota -- have denounced Sen. McCain's automated phone calls attacking Sen. Obama. "These kind of tactics have no place in Maine politics," said Sen. Collins's spokesman, Kevin Kelley. "Sen. Collins urges the McCain campaign to stop these calls immediately."

.... In the past weeks, strains have developed on all fronts. Fiscal conservatives, already angered by the growth in government spending and deficits under Mr. Bush, have been incensed by what they see as government intrusion in the markets with the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan. Sen. McCain voted for the plan, then angered his party's fiscal-conservative wing further by proposing that the government buy $300 billion in mortgages on homes facing foreclosure.

The Palin pick was intended in part to assuage social conservatives who have long been leery of Sen. McCain. While it seems to have succeeded on that score, it may also have driven off moderate Republicans.

"Whether John wins or loses, the party is going to have to go through a period of introspection, and we're going to have to regenerate ourselves," said John Weaver, a former top aide to Sen. McCain.

"The Republican Party is fractured. It is completely, utterly fractured," said Mark Corallo, a conservative Republican political strategist.

This is a very revealing bit of news from CNN Chief National Correspondent John King (i've heard repeatedly that John King is a big fan of John McCain, which heightens my interest in this news).

According to King, inside the McCain campaign, they're pretty much writing off the chances of winning not only New Mexico and Iowa, but Colorado with its nine electoral votes. Without Colorado, McCain's path to victory is becoming non-existent. Team McCain is basing all hope on the delusional idea McCain can win Pennsylvania:

Quote:

The McCain campaign is looking at an Electoral College strategy heading into the final two weeks that has virtually no room for error and depends heavily on a dramatic comeback in Pennsylvania, which hasn't backed a Republican for president in 20 years.

While Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado are still officially listed as McCain target states, two top strategists and advisers tell CNN that the situation in those states looks increasingly bleak. Iowa and New Mexico always have been viewed as difficult races, but the similar assessment of Colorado reflects a dramatic shift for a campaign that had long counted on the state.

"Gone," was the word one top McCain insider used to describe those three states.

This source said while the polls in Colorado remain close, he and most others in the operation were of the opinion that the Obama campaign and its allies have a far superior ground/turnout operation and "most of us have a hard time counting on Colorado."

Keep celebrating! It will make us laugh that much harder if Hussein doesn't win! $\:lol\:$

I haven't been keeping an eye on the polls but is McCain so far behind in PA that he couldn't win it Whomod?

No not at all. It is very close. Most of the states are. I'm not saying McCain is going to win but it is going to be very close. Bush was behind Gore by 11 points in 2000 in mid-September.....Bush surged ahead to be ahead by 5 with 5 days to go and then Gore surged the last week and it was very close. The lesson is that anything can happen.

Plus like I have told whomod before and he never responded is that out of all the people that have commited to vote for Obama only 82% are rock solid. The other 18% said they may change their mind.

Powell Looks for Forgiveness and a Hug from the Left by Endorsing Obama
By Tommy DeSeno
Attorney/Writer

Four out of five Secretaries of State surveyed recommend John McCain to those who will vote.

That’s right. Henry Kissenger, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig have all endorsed the Republican nominee. But like the one dentist out of five who recommends sugary gum, Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama.

That’s the only secretary of state endorsement the media wants to talk about, like it’s some “Republican on Republican crime.”

Powell has essentially endorsed the guy from the other team. But beware the effect of “that’s your own man saying so” in politics. Because which player is on what team isn’t always so clear.

Powell never fully committed to the Republican team, even while Republicans recognized his talents and made him National Security Adviser, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and secretary of state.

After the first Gulf War, when there was talk of Powell running for President, he was coy about which party he’d use to do it. His finger was in the political wind.

On liberal issues, Powell has been a fan of that weird civil right involving killing baby humans. He supports affirmative action, some gun control and won’t support a constitutional ban on burning the flag in protest of America here on her soil. He now complains Republicans are “too far right.” Where are we supposed to be, Colin?

So was Powell really a teammate of Republicans (despite having given McCain the maximum campaign donation allowed by law)?

I’ll admit though there are Republican positions Powell has supported…

Like the Iraq invasion. Since 2003 those on the left have painted Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and anyone else at the top as more horrid than those who attacked us on 9/11.

If your motto is “Bush lied, people died,” surely you recognize the voice of Powell. He appeared at the UN to sell the invasion based on WMDs to the UN and the world.

So where now is the rage of the left, who even tried to have Rumsfeld indicted as a war criminal in several European countries? Will the left forgive and forget what they once saw as Powell’s crimes against humanity in exchange for a mere endorsement? Oh, that’s right, the left forgave Bill Ayers. Forgiving Powell should be a cinch.

What is really behind this endorsement is Powell looking for forgiveness and a hug from the left. This is what he said nearly a year ago about what he will look for in a candidate:

“A vision that reaches out to the rest of the world and starts to restore confidence in America. And starts to restore favorable ratings to America, frankly. We’ve lost a lot in recent years.”

If you agree (or care) that our standing in the world has been lessened by the Iraq invasion as Powell says, then it’s fair to say it’s Powell’s fault. Repair that and Powell gets to wake up tomorrow as a different person.

So the Obama endorsement is Powell’s personal mea culpa to the left for the Iraq invasion, without regard to whether Obama will be good or bad for America here at home.

FOXNews.com?

it's no Keith Olberman.....

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081024/NEWS01/310240066

Quote:

TURTLECREEK TWP. – A Warren County man is taking the long-simmering dispute over Barack Obama’s birthplace – Hawaii or Kenya? – to court.

David M. Neal of Turtlecreek Township plunked down a $200 fee to file a lawsuit Friday in Warren Common Pleas Court in Lebanon.

The suit seeks to force state and federal officials to take more steps to settle, once and for all, the question of Obama’s legitimacy as a potential president.

The U.S. Constitution requires presidents to be natural-born citizens who are at least 35 years old. “Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a ‘natural-born’ citizen,” Neal declares.

He asserts that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein all ought to be held responsible for verifying that Obama meets the constitutional requirements for president.

Various fact-checking groups and journalists have investigated a Hawaiian birth certificate that they conclude appears to be valid. Images of the document are available on various Internet sites. But Neal and others say doubt lingers.

This is the second politically charged lawsuit to be filed in Warren County in recent weeks. Another suit, filed Oct. 14, was filed by two Warren County residents seeking to dissolve the community organizing group ACORN under the Corrupt Activity Act.

In a phone interview, Neal told The Enquirer he’s a retired businessman, “an ordinary guy,” and not a lawyer. He says he has informally worked with a lawyer through an unnamed “grass-roots group” of people who e-mail each other. The group expects to file similar actions in other states, Neal said.

In fact, much of the wording in Neal’s suit mirrors language in a similar Obama birth challenge filed in August in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, by attorney Philip Berg.

Neal said mainstream national media organizations have refused to listen to his claims. Asked why he filed the suit, he said, “It’s not about me. It’s about our country.”

If Obama is proved to be foreign born, what will happen to the election? Will Biden automatically receive his votes, or will Obama if he miraculously receives the majority votes be elected, but immediately removed from office?

655321 talkative User 200+ posts 10/25/08 12:40 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: The generic '08 election thread

$\:lol\:$

lol it'll be thrown out like the one brought by berg was just tossed out.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20...rom_ballot.html

Quote:

Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot

By MICHAEL HINKELMAN
Philadelphia Daily News
mailto:hinkelm@phillynews.com 215-854-2656

A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.
Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.

Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president.

He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday.

Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg's complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24.

They said that Berg's claims were "ridiculous" and "patently false," that Berg had "no standing" to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.

Surrick agreed.

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.

Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."

The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."

For example, Berg had claimed that Obama's nomination deprived citizens of voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton in November. (Berg backed Clinton in the primaries.)

Berg could not be reached for comment last night.

Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the campaign posted a document issued by Hawaii on its Web site, fight thesmears.com, confirming his birth there.

Berg said in court papers that the image was a forgery.

The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org examined the original document and said it was legitimate.

You totally missed the question, didn't you?

omg lolol!!1!

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

You totally missed the question, didn't you?

no, i just didn't give a fuck.

Maybe I can dumb it down for you next time.

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Maybe I can dumb it down for you next time.

umm, that wasn't the problem. believe me, ur shit is dumbed down. i just didn't give a fuck about the question.

Please, don't be embarrassed. With all your 'net speak it's obvious your a slow reader.

yes, how dare i use netspeak on OMR the internets!!! fucking whippersnapper!! should i get off ur lawn too gramps?

If you want to be taken seriously, spell out your words. If you want to sound like a half-literate tard, expect the consequences.

He/She is Wanky-lite.

Originally Posted By: rex

If you want to be taken seriously, spell out your words. If you want to sound like a half-literate tard, expect the consequences.

yes, i so desperately want to be taken srsly by ppl here.

ps- tard isn't spelled out, way to be a hypocrite in ur own post. $\:lol\:$

I've never seen rex get to someone so easily.

maybe he's on a roll. should we send him flowers?

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

I've never seen rex get to someone so easily.

My powers of annoyance are multiplied by thousands when I deal with women.

Quote:

Phony flier says Virginians vote on different days

Fake flyer

The phony flier

By Julian Walker
The Virginian-Pilot
© October 28, 2008

RICHMOND

A phony State Board of Elections flier advising Republicans to vote on Nov. 4 and Democrats on Nov. 5 is being circulated in several Hampton Roads localities, according to state elections officials.

In fact, Election Day, for voters of all political stripes, remains Nov. 4.

The somewhat official-looking flier - it features the state board logo and the state seal - is dated Oct. 24 and indicates that "an emergency session of the General Assembly has adopted the follwing (sic) emergency regulations to ease the load on local electorial (sic) precincts and ensure a fair electorial process."

The four-paragraph flier concludes with: "We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause but felt this was the only way to ensure fairness to the complete electorial process."

No emergency action has been taken by the General Assembly. It is not in session and lacks the authority to change the date of a federal election.

State Board of Election officials today said they are aware of the flier but disavowed any connection to it.

"It's not even on our letterhead; they just copied the logo from our Web site," said agency staffer Ryan Enright, noting the flier has been forwarded to State Police for investigation as a possible incident of voter intimidation.

Election officials did not specify in which Hampton Roads localities the flier had been spotted.

State Police are aware of the complaint and are looking into it, said spokeswoman Corinne Geller.

In 2007, the General Assembly passed a law making it a Class 1 misdemeanor to knowingly communicate false information to registered voters about the date, time and place of the election or voters' precincts, polling places or voter registration statuses in order to impede their voting. The measure is one of the few such deceptive voting practice laws in the country, according to the watchdog group Common Cause.

Disenfranchisement and dirty tricks. The gOp way.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will know that if fake. People like you will think its real.

americablog!

I actually advocate liberals voting on Nov. 5th.