0
   

Obama's electability

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2008 09:42 pm
Finn, well said.

To repeat what I said, which I think you are also suggesting, I think liberal politics earned the reputation, as opposed to the term "liberal" being applied to a reputation. There is a difference.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2008 09:44 pm
Not a Soccer Mom wrote:
okie wrote:
[I would certainly agree with you in regard to "gay," snood. The lifestyle is anything but gay. I think it is mostly miserable, based on my observational opinion. However, your comparison is flawed in that "gay" has nothing to do with homosexuality in terms of its original meaning, while "liberal" has traditionally been applied to politics for a very very long time, just as conservatism has also, although the meanings tend to drift or change in terms of perception through time and geographical location.

I would also point out that conservatives did not invent the term, "liberal" for liberals, in the same fashion as liberals invented "right wingnut" or similar terms for variations of conservatism. I think liberal politics earned the reputation, as opposed to the term "liberal" being applied to a reputation. There is a difference.



I have never known many gay people in my life, thanks for sharing. I imagine though, that unlike yourself, there are a lot of happy gay people out there. Are you openly gay in real life too?


Huh?

I suggest you read my post again, as you don't seem to comprehend too well.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2008 08:40 am
Since the right has smeared liberals untold times, it is no wonder that the word "liberal" has a bad connotation to some people. Don't you remember the swift-boat liars. Read the McClellan book, which brings out how the Bush administration was all about lies and propaganda in smearing opponents and otherwise succeeding in their nefarious goals.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2008 10:01 am
In a race between McCain and Obama, Gallop has the latter up a point. If between McCain and Hillary, the latter is up by two points.

My view is that McCain will do poorly in the debates, and get killed in the general election.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2008 05:49 pm
Advocate wrote:
Since the right has smeared liberals untold times, it is no wonder that the word "liberal" has a bad connotation to some people. Don't you remember the swift-boat liars. Read the McClellan book, which brings out how the Bush administration was all about lies and propaganda in smearing opponents and otherwise succeeding in their nefarious goals.


One of the principal urban myths of Democrats is that the media is against them and that the vast right wing conspiracy works night and day to smear Democrats and Liberals while they of course only piously talk about the "issues".

The unremitting venom in the public press about the Bush administration for the past seven years, of course, gives the lie to this proposition - at least for those for whom observable facts are considered relevant. McClellan's "book" was published by George Soros' captive publishing house and the book deal behind it (and the editorial assist provided to the author undoubtedly shaped the product. (Bob Dole's assessment of MCClellan seems appropriate). This is hardly a reliable or unbiased source.

The "Swift Boat Liars" to which Advocate refers were composed of nearly all of the officers who served with Lt Kerry in his boat squadron - these are the folks who worked with him every day, who depended on him in combat, and who saw first hand his self aggrandizement, faking of material for his purple hearts and other contemptible actions. They were not otherwise politically inspired. Moreover the principals of this group first came together not during Kerry's presidential campaign but in the early 1970s soon after his self-promoting and duplicitous statements before a Congressional Committee as a spokesman for the "Vietnam Veterans for Truth" organization. The supposed ex Air Force sergeant who testified with him was later exposed as a fraud - he was an activist who never served in the Air Force. Kerry repeatedly lied in his testimony and used the prominence he gained from it to launch his political career.

Advocate, however, is not one to allow facts to get in the way of his political prejudices.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2008 06:05 pm
georgeob wrote:
Advocate, however, is not one to allow facts to get in the way of his political prejudices.

true enough, on the other hand, the swift boaters were certainly less than honest. I personally served on a Nasty Boat and can verify must of what was said anti 'swift boaters who were mostly political operatives, facts are not easily discernened when agendas are on the forefront.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2008 10:33 pm
dyslexia wrote:
... I personally served on a Nasty Boat...

And what "nasty" boat did you serve on dys?

By the way, folks, I think Kerry was easily assessed based on his testimony to Congress back in the 70's being a total crock, based on the phony Winter Soldier gathering in Detroit. All you need to know is a little about that to know Kerry was a total fraud from the get go. And anyone that watched the grand entry into Boston on the boat all the way to his speech, opening with the lame salute, knew it in their heart, and thus Bush was elected. People may not agree with Bush on everything, but at least what you see is what you get, the guy is fairly genuine. He gives you what he said he would, and he has worked every day to the best of his ability, according to what he believes. That is all we can ask from any president.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 09:36 am
"nasty" boats was a term used to describe a variety of the boats used by the "riverine" forces in the Mecong delta. It was hard, dangerous work, and not deserving of the contempt you appear to be showing here.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 11:18 am
Quote:
GOP strategist Steve Lombardo has a new poll and finds some troubling signs for McCain therein.

LCG conducted a national survey of 1,000 registered voters May 26-28th. The following are the highlights:

The poor economy is THE driving force in this election. The economy is by far the most important issue for Americans, eclipsing Iraq by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Healthcare and social/moral issues are tied for third.

President Bush is dead weight for nearly every Republican running in November. Bush's favorability is at 32%. More importantly, nearly half of voters (49%) have a "very unfavorable" opinion of the President.

McCain and Obama start the election with similar favorability ratings. Both have similar unfavorable ratings (approximately 40%); there are, however, some differences among specific sub-groups:

McCain does better among those who are married, non-Catholic Christians and evangelicals.
Obama does better among those who are younger, not married, have college degrees and are non-Christians.

In a head-to-head, Obama is beating McCain by a very narrow margin (44% to 40%). As we have said before, we believe that Obama will get a 10-point bounce once he is officially the nominee and Clinton voters "return home." Having said that, this data is instructional as to where the strengths and weaknesses lie for each candidate:

McCain is not doing well enough among men to bridge the historical gender gap with women. The presidential voting pattern for the last 20 years suggests that the Republican candidate needs to win among men by at least 8-12 points to make up for the party's usual gender gap with women. The so-called gender gap is not one-sided. McCain wins men by four points but loses women by 10 points. This is a problem.

In fact, the problem is so severe that McCain is losing women by 12-14 points among every age cohort except for women 65+, where he is running even with Obama.

McCain will not win Independents on his reputation alone. Obama is winning among Independents by about 8 points. Yes, McCain is favorably viewed by Independents but that is not translating into actual votes at this point in time.

Obama is cutting into historical GOP success with white voters. At this point, McCain is only winning the white vote by two points. Compare that to 2004 when Bush beat Kerry among white voters by 17 points (58% to 41%).

McCain has not yet secured the GOP base. McCain is winning among evangelicals by 25 points, getting 56% of that vote. However, this is 22 points below what Bush got against Kerry in 2004 (78%). In fact, Bush captured 80% of the evangelical vote in 2000 against Gore. Certainly, a lot will change between now and November, but If this level of evangelical support continues in the summer and fall it will make a McCain victory virtually unattainable.


What was that about white voters not voting for Obama?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 11:44 am
How about Obama's foreign policy positions?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx

Quote:

Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea.


http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/gallup_enemies.gif

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 11:58 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How about Obama's foreign policy positions?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx

Quote:

Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea.


http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/gallup_enemies.gif

Cycloptichorn


It is a poll of 1,013 "AMERICANS". Useless based upon the results, not surprised. Also, not surprised your would support this dumb idea.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 12:04 pm
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How about Obama's foreign policy positions?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx

Quote:

Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea.


http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/gallup_enemies.gif

Cycloptichorn


It is a poll of 1,013 "AMERICANS". Useless based upon the results, not surprised. Also, not surprised your would support this dumb idea.


Yeah, why bother polling Americans on how Americans think American foreign policy should be ran? Their opinion must not count for much with you.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 12:26 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Since the right has smeared liberals untold times, it is no wonder that the word "liberal" has a bad connotation to some people. Don't you remember the swift-boat liars. Read the McClellan book, which brings out how the Bush administration was all about lies and propaganda in smearing opponents and otherwise succeeding in their nefarious goals.


One of the principal urban myths of Democrats is that the media is against them and that the vast right wing conspiracy works night and day to smear Democrats and Liberals while they of course only piously talk about the "issues".

The unremitting venom in the public press about the Bush administration for the past seven years, of course, gives the lie to this proposition - at least for those for whom observable facts are considered relevant. McClellan's "book" was published by George Soros' captive publishing house and the book deal behind it (and the editorial assist provided to the author undoubtedly shaped the product. (Bob Dole's assessment of MCClellan seems appropriate). This is hardly a reliable or unbiased source.

The "Swift Boat Liars" to which Advocate refers were composed of nearly all of the officers who served with Lt Kerry in his boat squadron - these are the folks who worked with him every day, who depended on him in combat, and who saw first hand his self aggrandizement, faking of material for his purple hearts and other contemptible actions. They were not otherwise politically inspired. Moreover the principals of this group first came together not during Kerry's presidential campaign but in the early 1970s soon after his self-promoting and duplicitous statements before a Congressional Committee as a spokesman for the "Vietnam Veterans for Truth" organization. The supposed ex Air Force sergeant who testified with him was later exposed as a fraud - he was an activist who never served in the Air Force. Kerry repeatedly lied in his testimony and used the prominence he gained from it to launch his political career.

Advocate, however, is not one to allow facts to get in the way of his political prejudices.


I don't recall libs, including myself, saying that the media are unfair. The sailors who actually served on Kerry's boat support him fully. Many who did not serve with him were paid off to lie. The head swift-boater, O'Neill, was proven to be a liar by things recorded in the Nixon tapes. I have received about 100 hoax e-mails during the last five years, and every one involved attacks on libs, or lib issues. Guess who wrote those e-mails.

The swift-boaters have now pointed their guns at Obama.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 12:31 pm
George, you also are ignoring the fact that MANY of the 'swift-boaters' had all sorts of nice things to say about Kerry, praising his service - till he ran for president, and they got organized against him.

This will probably stretch the page a little

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820swift_graph.gif

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 01:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How about Obama's foreign policy positions?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx

Quote:

Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea.


http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/gallup_enemies.gif

Cycloptichorn


It is a poll of 1,013 "AMERICANS". Useless based upon the results, not surprised. Also, not surprised your would support this dumb idea.


Yeah, why bother polling Americans on how Americans think American foreign policy should be ran? Their opinion must not count for much with you.

Cycloptichorn


No, opinions of "AMERICANS" is of no concern to me. You should know better than that. Give me the opinion of AMERICAN VOTERS, that will have more influence than a random sample of Americans.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 02:01 pm
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How about Obama's foreign policy positions?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx

Quote:

Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea.


http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/gallup_enemies.gif

Cycloptichorn


It is a poll of 1,013 "AMERICANS". Useless based upon the results, not surprised. Also, not surprised your would support this dumb idea.


Yeah, why bother polling Americans on how Americans think American foreign policy should be ran? Their opinion must not count for much with you.

Cycloptichorn


No, opinions of "AMERICANS" is of no concern to me. You should know better than that. Give me the opinion of AMERICAN VOTERS, that will have more influence than a random sample of Americans.


What's the big difference, again?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 09:31 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
"nasty" boats was a term used to describe a variety of the boats used by the "riverine" forces in the Mecong delta. It was hard, dangerous work, and not deserving of the contempt you appear to be showing here.


I was simply calling on dyslexia to back up his claim with more detail. I had not heard of nasty boats, or whatever they are, and I don't think "contempt" is an accurate word for how I feel about any boat. I may have those feelings about dyslexia's opinions, I will admit to that. I think "serious skepticism" is a better description of how I feel about most of his opinions. Contempt is not a term I would use. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but serious disagreement or dis-belief is not the same as contempt.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 10:23 pm
okie wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
"nasty" boats was a term used to describe a variety of the boats used by the "riverine" forces in the Mecong delta. It was hard, dangerous work, and not deserving of the contempt you appear to be showing here.


I was simply calling on dyslexia to back up his claim with more detail. I had not heard of nasty boats, or whatever they are, and I don't think "contempt" is an accurate word for how I feel about any boat. I may have those feelings about dyslexia's opinions, I will admit to that. I think "serious skepticism" is a better description of how I feel about most of his opinions. Contempt is not a term I would use. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but serious disagreement or dis-belief is not the same as contempt.


Let's not get too concerned about the postings of someone whom we might have believeved was one of us who, yet, reveals himself as a an intellectual fairy.

Oh teenyboone, thou art a black wonder that I might ordain --- georgeb
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 02:25 pm
Personally, I think the MSM has so far protected Obama and so many things about him have seemed to be off limits for serious inquiry--his family, the veracity of his writings, his track record of accomplishments in Illinois and in the Senate, his words versus his track record anywhere, his religion, his race, his inexperience, his flipflops, his gaffes etc. etc. etc. that we are pretty well buying a pig in a poke at this particular time.

Hopefully the general campaign will start probing under the rock star image so we know what we will be getting. We may not be exactly thrilled about it, but most Republicans and conservatives know what we're getting with McCain.

A McCain Presidency, however, is unlikely to reveal any unpleasant surprises, and of course we can always hope we will be pleasantly surprised.

We don't know what we're getting with Obama. As he likely could be the next President of the USA--I would give that slightly better than even odds right now--I would like to know a lot more than we do.

The Obama We Don't Know
June 4, 2008; Page A20
With Barack Obama clinching the Democratic Party nomination, it is worth noting what an extraordinary moment this is. Democrats are nominating a freshman Senator barely three years out of the Illinois legislature whom most of America still hardly knows. The polls say he is the odds-on favorite to become our next President.

Think about this in historical context. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were relatively unknown, but both had at least been prominent Governors. John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Al Gore and even George McGovern were all long-time Washington figures. Republican nominees tend to be even more familiar, for better or worse. In Mr. Obama, Democrats are taking a leap of faith that is daring even by their risky standards.

No doubt this is part of his enormous appeal. Amid public anger over politics as usual, the Illinois Senator is unhaunted by Beltway experience. His personal story - of mixed race, and up from nowhere through Harvard - resonates in an America where the two most popular cultural icons are Tiger Woods and Oprah. His political gifts are formidable, especially his ability to connect with audiences from the platform.

Above all, Mr. Obama has fashioned a message that fits the political moment and the public's desire for "change." At his best, he offers Americans tired of war and political rancor the promise of fresh national unity and purpose. Young people in particular are taken by it. But more than a few Republicans are also drawn to this "postpartisan" vision.

Mr. Obama has also shown great skill in running his campaign. No one - including us - gave him much chance of defeating the Clinton machine. No doubt he benefited from the desire of even many Democrats to impeach the polarizing Clinton era. But he also beat Hillary and Bill at their own game. He raised more money, and he outworked them in the small-state caucuses that provided him with his narrow delegate margin. Even now, he is far better organized in swing states than is John McCain's campaign. All of this speaks well of his preparation for November, and perhaps for his potential to govern.

Yet govern how and to what end? This is the Obama Americans don't know. For all of his inspiring rhetoric about bipartisanship, his voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate. His policy agenda is conventionally liberal across the board - more so than Hillary Clinton's, and more so than that of any Democratic nominee since 1968.

We can't find a single issue on which Mr. Obama has broken with his party's left-wing interest groups. Early on he gave a bow to merit pay for teachers, but that quickly sank beneath the waves of new money he wants to spend on the same broken public schools. He takes the Teamsters line against free trade, to the point of unilaterally rewriting Nafta. He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax. Perhaps now Mr. Obama will tack to the center, but somehow he will have to explain why the "change" he's proposing isn't merely more of the same, circa 1965.

There is also the matter of judgment, and the roots of his political character. We were among those inclined at first to downplay his association with the Trinity United Church. But Mr. Obama's handling of the episode has raised doubts about his candor and convictions. He has by stages moved from denying that his 20-year attendance was an issue at all; to denying he'd heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright's incendiary remarks; to criticizing certain of those remarks while praising Rev. Wright himself; to repudiating the words and the reverend; and finally this weekend to leaving the church.

Most disingenuously, he said on Saturday that the entire issue caught him by surprise. Yet he was aware enough of the political risk that he kept Rev. Wright off the stage during his announcement speech more than a year ago.

A 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview with Mr. Obama mentioned three men as his religious guides. One was Rev. Wright. Another was Father Michael Pfleger, the Louis Farrakhan ally whose recent remarks caused Mr. Obama to resign from Trinity, but for whose Chicago church Mr. Obama channeled at least $225,000 in grants as a state senator. Until recently, the priest was connected to the campaign, which flew him to Iowa to host an interfaith forum. Father Pfleger's testimony for the candidate has since been scrubbed from Mr. Obama's campaign Web site. A third mentor was Illinois state Senator James Meeks, another Chicago pastor who has generated controversy for mixing pulpit and politics.

The point is not that Mr. Obama now shares the radical views of these men. The concern is that by the Senator's own admission they have been major moral influences, and their views are starkly at odds with the candidate's vision as a transracial peacemaker. Their patronage was also useful as Mr. Obama was making his way in Chicago politics. But only now, in the glare of a national campaign, is he distancing himself from them. The question is what in fact Mr. Obama does believe.

The young Senator has been a supernova exploding into our politics, more phenomenon than conventional candidate. His achievement in winning the Democratic nomination has been impressive. Now comes a harder audience. The presidency has to be earned, and Americans have a right to know much more about the gifted man who is the least tested and experienced major party nominee in modern times.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 02:50 pm
I think the media have been very of McCain. For example, they have not sufficiently discussed (anew) his very serious wrongdoing with the Keating Five gang, which cost the taxpayers half a trillion.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 05:52:51