THE GENERAL ELECTION 2008

Foxfyre,

Why do you persist in what is obviously a futile attempt to converse with cycloptichorn about his baby jesus? Surely you understand that you have no chance of ever making a breakthrough in anyway. I applaud your effort, but you must realize how futile it really is. He will make any excuse and call anyone that opposes his baby jesus awful names and other assorted things.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Foxfyre,

Why do you persist in what is obviously a futile attempt to converse with cycloptichorn about his baby jesus? Surely you understand that you have no chance of ever making a breakthrough in anyway. I applaud your effort, but you must realize how futile it really is. He will make any excuse and call anyone that opposes his baby jesus awful names and other assorted things.

Thanks for sharing your flatulence with the group!

It's not my fault that you personally are a loser, McG, or that you have chosen to back a losing candidate. I expect the next few months will be very painful for the Republican party here in America, and it will be interesting to see if you can take it in good grace. My guess is no.

Pertaining to the topic: I'm not sure where Obama even comes into this, as his involvement with the issue is ancillary at best. We were discussing the Bush admin's pressuring of Germany to not allow him to get a good media op there...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Foxfyre,

Why do you persist in what is obviously a futile attempt to converse with cycloptichorn about his baby jesus? Surely you understand that you have no chance of ever making a breakthrough in anyway. I applaud your effort, but you must realize how futile it really is. He will make any excuse and call anyone that opposes his baby jesus awful names and other assorted things.

I don't know. Glutton for punishment I guess. Okay....everybody....one more time. . . .

"I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. . . I will not feed the. . . . . "

0 Replies

Meanwhile, for the second day there has been movement in the Rasmussen presidential tracking poll. Scott R. isn't ready to say that this is more than statistical noise yet, but if it isn't, I wonder what is causing the movement? The most telling statement in his analysis today is the observation that the race is so close in an election year in which the GOP image is so badly tarnished and the Democrats have everything in the world going for them.

So is the analysis of the Democrat's image faulty? Or is Obama actually as flawed and/or unqualified as some of us perceive him to be?

Quote:

Friday, July 11, 2008
The race for the White House is getting a bit closer. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama's lead over John McCain down to a statistically insignificant single percentage point, 43% to 42%. Prior to today, Obama had enjoyed at least a four-point advantage every day since Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race over a month ago. This is the first time his support has fallen below the 45% level since May 31.

When "leaners" are included, Obama leads 47% to 45%. The presumptive Democratic nominee has been ahead with leaners every day since clinching the nomination on June 3 and his support has not been below 48% since June 5. While Obama's numbers have slipped a bit in today's report, McCain is at the high end of the range he has occupied for the past six weeks. However, it is worth noting that he not moved out of that narrow range (see recent daily results). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day (see recent demographic highlights).

In a race that has been so steady for so long, it is easy to overreact to the slightest movement. It will take another few days to see if this is merely statistical noise or if it marks a slight change from the stability of the race that has been evident since Obama wrapped up the nomination. Either way, the campaign remains surprisingly competitive in a year where the fundamentals so heavily favor the Democrats. Thirty-five percent (35%) of voters are certain they will vote for Obama and not change their mind before November. Thirty-three percent (33%) say the same about McCain. It's going to be an interesting few months. . . . .

LINK

0 Replies

This E-mail kept hitting my mailbox periodically so I decided to check it out today. It provides some insight into the person we would get with Cindy McCain as First Lady and, by association, something of the qualities we would get with John McCain as President.

It checked out.

Cindy McCain

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal on Cindy McCain, John"s wife.

All I ever saw was this attractive woman standing beside John. I was surprised how talented and involved with world problems she is. This is a summary of the article.

http://www.donkeydish.com/images/gallery/cindy-mccain-image_128x180.jpg

http://www.donkeydish.com/images/gallery/cindy-mccain-picture_145x179.jpg

She graduated from Southern Cal and was a special-needs teacher.
After her Dad died she became involved with his beer distributing firm and is now the chairwoman. Sales have doubled since she has taken over from her father.

They have a marriage prenuptial agreement, her assets remain separate.

She is involved around the world clearing land mines - travels to these countries on a detonation team and service on their board.

They have a 19 year old serving in Iraq, another son in the Naval Academy, a daughter recently graduated from Columbia Univ., an adopted daughter in high school, and a son who is the finance guy at the beer firm.

Raised kids in Phoenix, AZ rather than Washington DC.(better atmosphere)

He commuted.

In 1991, Mrs. McCain came across a girl in an orphanage in Bangladesh.
Mother Teresa implored Mrs. McCain to take the baby with severe cleft palate. She did so without first telling her husband. The couple adopted the girl who has had a dozen operations to repair her cleft palate and other medical problems.

They have a Family Foundation for children's causes.

She's active with "Halo Trust" - to clear land mines, provide water and food in war ravaged and developing countries.

She will join an overseas mission of "Operation Smile", a charity for corrective surgery on children's faces.

She has had two back surgeries and became addicted to pain killers.
She talks openly about it which she says is part of the recovery process.

I'm surprised the media is so quiet about her attributes. She sounds
more capable than Hillary or Obama. We would really get two for
the price of one. A person with business and international experience.
John did work for the firm for awhile when he left the Navy.
She, however, has the real business experience. Very interesting.
TRUTHorFICTION.COM LINK

0 Replies

And before retiring today, here's Round 1 (or some such number) of DOWN WITH BUMPER STICKERS, SLOGANS, CATCHY SOUNDBITES, AND GRATUITOUS DISSENT or something to that effect.

THE DISSENT DECEIT
NOT PATRIOTISM'S HIGHEST FORM
Ralph Peters
July 12, 2008

WE all have irritants that make us want to reach for the revolver. One of mine is the bumper-stickerization of the American mind - the reduction of our hard-won freedom of political speech to slogans that substitute for vision.

(And on the subject of bumper stickers: One per car is OK, but anything more is public masturbation. And I don't want to see that when I pull up behind you at the stoplight.)

Parrot-talk on policy infects both ends of the political spectrum. Extremists like things neat and simple. But, these days, tape-loop talk has reached epidemic proportions on the left. Rational debate? Ain't going to find it at that MoveOn fund-raiser.

Worst of all, the most enduringly popular slogans tend to be either dishonest, misattributed - or just plain dumb.

We've all heard humorless America-haters promote themselves by announcing, As Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

The first problem with that self-righteous bull is that Jefferson never said it. On the contrary, he warned of the dangers of political dissension carried to extremes.

The earliest traceable provenance of the slogan goes back to an obscure 1960s lefty who just made it up (long before activist-historian Howard Zinn commandeered it).

My fellow Americans, let me ask you: Were Abby Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Sen. Barack Obama's Weatherman Underground pals (who bombed their own country) really more patriotic than those who served in Vietnam? Was trashing the campus records office truly the "highest form of patriotism?"

Dissent can be patriotic - it's essential to have an ongoing public debate about the major issues confronting us. But that dissent must be based on facts, not sloppy emotions.

Instead, we get dissent worn as a fashion statement. And fanatic dissent (as Jefferson noted) is the enemy of a democratic system.

Then there's that other, even-more-famous line so inexhaustibly satisfying to the left: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Dr. Samuel Johnson did say that.
LINK

0 Replies

I just heard on the radio that President Bush has issued an executive order allowing resumption of offshore drilling. This rescinds a Presidential ban on offshore drilling that President GHW Bush put on. If true, it now goes to Congress.

What will it mean to the election if the Democrats
1) Agree to lift Congress's ban on offshore drilling?
2) Do not rescind their ban on offshore drilling?

I think its a given that at least most Republicans will support the President's wishes on this and the oil companies have signaled they are ready to go full speed ahead as soon as they are allowed.

0 Replies

The Patchwork Nation project

Quote:

Nearly 305 million people live in the United States, according to the US Census Bureau. Yet in recent elections it's all been about fitting into two categories: red states that vote Republican and blue states that vote Democratic. But this red/blue breakdown of political opinion doesn't explain what underpins the voters' decisions.

That's what this effort, funded by the Knight Foundation, a nonprofit philanthropic organization based in Miami, explores in real time during the 2008 presidential campaign.

We've identified 11 places across the US that represent distinct types of voter communities. They are Monied 'Burbs, Minority Central, Evangelical Epicenters, Tractor Country, Campus and Careers, Immigration Nation, Industrial Metropolis, Boom Towns, Service Worker Centers, Emptying Nests, and Military Bastions. For example, Sioux Center, Iowa, typifies Tractor Country.

As the 2008 campaign progresses, the Monitor will write about what issues matter in each of these communities, how the issues affect residents' votes, and how the candidates tailor their messages to a particular audience.

This site is based on evidence that people's voting patterns are at least partly informed by where they live. People of the same race and age and family situation may vote differently depending on whom they connect with and what they see on their streets and in their local news. In some areas, people live for NASCAR; in others, residents like opera. Some towns open for business early and some stay up late. Some cities see Sunday mornings as church time, others see it as $30 brunch time or more work time. And Starbucks and Wal-Marts aren't everywhere yet.

<snip>

Quote:

Although this is a different kind of election coverage, its approach isn't foreign to campaigns.

For decades analysts have talked about how candidates are products that need to be sold to the electorate - sometimes jokingly, sometimes not. In recent years, both parties have fine-tuned their "ad campaigns" by targeting different messages to different groups of voters.

This project covers the election from the voters' point of view. We hope our approach can provide a fuller picture of the campaign and voters' decisionmaking.

an interesting site to poke around in

0 Replies

I favorited it ehbeth.....thanks. It is interesting stuff. Probably helps explain why this cartoon is funny too:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg0715j.jpg

0 Replies

You know, I bet if the Democrats decided to just not spend $15 million dollars on a Convention at which the candidate is already decided, they could arrange a couple of good suits of clothes, new shoes, haircut, shave, shampoo/set, etc. and pay most of those homeless a pretty decent wage to do community service for a good long time. To me that would be far more practical than giving the homeless movie and zoo tickets to get them out of sight during the Convention.

Hey buddy, can you spare a movie ticket?
By Julie Poppen, Rocky Mountain News
Updated 08:46 a.m., July 16, 2008

Hundreds of Denver's homeless could be cooling their heels in a movie theater or museum while the Democratic National Convention is in town next month.

The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless plans to get 500 movie tickets as well as passes to the Denver Zoo, Denver Museum of Nature and Science and other cultural facilities for the people it helps.

Bus tickets will be provided for events beyond walking distance, said John Parvensky, the non-profit's president.

Many day shelters will have expanded hours during the convention, and big screen TVs are being donated to some shelters so patrons can watch convention goings-on without being caught up in the mayhem.

"We're trying to let folks know what activities are planned, and what other places they'll be able to go without being harassed," Parvensky said.

A two-day voter registration drive is also planned at shelters and health clinics to ensure that metro area homeless people have access to the polls in November.

Backers of the plan say it's a more sanitary and humane way to take care of people.

But not everyone buys it.

"It just sounds like another way to get rid of them," said Kayne Coy, 17, who volunteers feeding the homeless twice a week at Civic Center Park through the Food Not Bombs organization.

As for the convention, Coy said: "I've heard rumors that all the homeless people are going to be sent away to Aurora or somewhere else."

Parvensky vigorously denied that there will any attempt to hide the homeless during convention, which runs Aug. 25-28.

Tight security around the Pepsi Center means some homeless people will get booted out of their regular camps along the South Platte River. Then, there's the protests and parades.

"A person who typically sits under a tree in a park that is now occupied by 1,000 protesters won't have the peace and quiet they're desiring," Parvensky said. "Particularly those with mental illness can't cope with crowds."

Parvensky is confident Denver police won't target homeless people unless a law is being broken. Aggressive panhandling and begging for money in front of an ATM machine are both banned.

But he remains concerned for people's welfare.

"Our concern going forward is that the city doesn't control everything - the Secret Service plays a role," he said. "We don't know what will happen if protests get out of control and people get caught up in something they didn't intend to."

But some homeless people also aren't enthusiastic about the plan.

Ronnie Wand, who was panhandling across the street, said he will believe the free tickets when he sees them.

"I don't care," said the 62-year-old, who expects to land in jail for vagrancy during the DNC.
LINK

0 Replies

The continuing and unapologetic advocacy for Obama from the Mainstream Media in this election cycle. Not that McCain has made four....I believe FOUR.....trips overseas to check on Iraq, Afghanistan, other U.S. interests over the past months, and was accompanied by not one single prominent media figure.

Three....count them THREE anchors will accompany Obama on his gratuitous trip to Iraq. (I say gratuitous because does anybody think he would be going if he had not been criticized into at least making an appearance to be interested in what is happening there?)

Media stars will accompany Obama overseasBy Jim Rutenberg
Published: July 17, 2008

WASHINGTON: Senator John McCain's trip to Iraq last spring was a low-key affair: With his ordinary retinue of reporters following him abroad, the NBC News anchor Brian Williams reported on his arrival in Baghdad from New York, with just two sentences tacked onto the "in other political news" portion of his newscast.

But when Obama heads for Iraq and other locations overseas this summer, Williams is planning to catch up with him in person, as are the other two evening news anchors, Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, who, like Williams, are far along in discussions to interview Obama on successive nights.

And while the anchors are jockeying for interviews with Obama at stops along his route, the regulars on the Obama campaign plane will have new seat mates: star political reporters from the major newspapers and magazines who are flocking to catch Obama's first overseas trip since becoming the presumptive nominee of his party.

The extraordinary coverage of Obama's trip reflects how the candidate remains an object of fascination in the news media, a built-in feature of being the first African-American presidential nominee for a major political party and a relative newcomer to the national stage.

But the coverage also feeds into concerns in McCain's campaign, and among Republicans in general, that the media is imbalanced in their coverage of the candidates, just as aides to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton felt during the primary season.

"It is unproductive to spend it worrying about the way Obama is covered," said Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for McCain. "That being said, it certainly hasn't escaped us that the three network newscasts will originate from stops on Obama's trip next week."
MORE HERE

0 Replies

I know I'm quoting Josh Marshall a lot, but I often (not always!) agree with him. I thought his take made sense:

Josh Marshall wrote:

First McCain wanted Obama to go to Iraq; now he's complaining that people care more about Obama's trip than his dog-and-pony show last spring. I think the American people have to admit that they're biased against John McCain.

Let's be honest. Hardly anyone cares about McCain or his campaign. No one's excited about it in any way. I don't think that's an overstatement. Caring or being excited about isn't the same as supporting. Lots of people support McCain -- but as the anti-Obama, the alternative. This isn't to say he can't win; he definitely can. But very little of this campaign is about him. Virtually all of it is about Barack Obama.

0 Replies

I'm sure that is Josh whatsits opinion and probably most people's opinion who are all starry eyed over Obama.

But any media person worth his salt would see the problem with the media flagrantly and obviously giving the lion's share of coverage to one candidate.

I think Josh would not be nearly so unconcerned or blase' about it if his candidate was the one being intentionally ignored and denied the normal avenues of getting his message out. Nor would any of Obama supporters on A2K.

For me it is another illustration that the MSM can no longer be trusted to give fair and balanced coverage in anything related to ideology or politics.

0 Replies

Oh, I think the MSM sucks, generally.

The NYT cover story yesterday about Obama and race had me sputtering.

I just think the larger point about the why of it makes sense. It's borne out by polls showing that Obama has a higher percentage of strong supporters than McCain. That is, McCain and Obama aren't that far apart in polls, but more McCain supporters shrug and consider him better than the opposition so they'll vote for him even though they don't like him that much, while more Obama supporters are energized and excited about voting for their own candidate.

Obama is the story in a way McCain isn't.

0 Replies

I can't really quarrel with your basis here, Soz. McCain has been a known quantity for a very long time now, fully transparent, and he wears no mask of any kind. His flip flops (or course changes depending on how they are characterized) are out there for all to see with little or no effort to characterize them as anything other than a change of heart or course change or flip flop for political expediency. But whether you love him or hate him or are somewhere in between--the inbetween is where most of his supporters land--he is who he is. The honeymoon was over with him long ago.

I think McCain supporters by and large aren't supporting him because he makes their hearts go pitter pat or are excited about him in any way. They support him because they think he is the best choice between the two candidates or at least the less dangerous of the two--McCain is getting less wrong than Obama is getting wrong.

Obama by contrast is an unknown quantity and remains very much a mystery. The inconsistency in the story, the many statements that some of us see as equivocations, the pandering, the convenient denials, etc. etc. etc. make that unknown quantity scary or of genuine concern to some who don't support him. Such things, however, seem to add to the allure and/or are mostly blown off as unimportant by those who adore him. I think a 'messiah' benefits for having an aura of mystery around him. It makes the slogan 'hope' easier to swallow. (Okay that was a cheap shot--just pulling chains a bit here. Smile

)

But there are probably more voters still honestly on the fence out there than there are those who have made up their minds. Some are folks who haven't followed McCain's career and don't know who he is and what he is about. If they are denied an opportunity to find out because the media is not committed to be fair and balanced in the coverage, this gives Obama a huge advantage.

That advantage is not likely to be seen as a problem for those who support Obama. But again, if the bias was tilted the other way, I think the injustice and danger of blatant media advocacy for a candidate would be of far more concern.

0 Replies

Well, Obama gets more coverage, but it's not necessarily more positive coverage. (The last comprehensive review I saw showed that Hillary came out better than Obama in the second half of the primary, while the reverse was true in the first half; not sure of the latest re: McCain/ Obama.)

McCain gets less coverage, but that includes giving him a huge pass on a lot of legitimate (negative) stories.

So the "bias" part isn't really that clear-cut.

0 Replies

Quote:

But there are probably more voters still honestly on the fence out there than there are those who have made up their minds.

Polling doesn't show this to be true.

If McCain wants more coverage, he can try being the slightest bit interesting in any way. Instead, he seems determined to be as boring as possible, and now, instead of taking personal responsibility and making news, he's going to whine about it instead.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Well, Obama gets more coverage, but it's not necessarily more positive coverage. (The last comprehensive review I saw showed that Hillary came out better than Obama in the second half of the primary, while the reverse was true in the first half; not sure of the latest re: McCain/ Obama.)

McCain gets less coverage, but that includes giving him a huge pass on a lot of legitimate (negative) stories.

So the "bias" part isn't really that clear-cut.

I think it is. According to the Pew Center who probably did the most comprehensive analysis, positive/negative was pretty evenly split between Obama and Clinton when they were running against each other. McCain fared far worse

Quote:

Sixty-nine percent of Obama's coverage was positive, while 67 percent of Clinton's coverage was also positive. Much of Obama's positive coverage detailed his representation of "hope and change" and the candidate's charisma. Negative coverage discussed his inexperience. For Clinton, positive coverage included the assertion that she was "ready to lead" the country but negative coverage said she represented the past. Compared with the Democrats, it was Republican John McCain who faired worse, getting 43 percent positive coverage of his personal narrative, according to the study released recently by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard.
LINK

I haven't snooped around to see if there are any credible comparisons between postive/negative or quantity of coverage now that Clinton is out of the picture.

Your point would be well taken that less coverage gives McCain a pass on negative news too if that was the case. I don't think it is. I think they quite willingly are featuring any gaffes or downside to McCain's campaign. It's on the positive stuff--like his last trip to Iraq etc.--that he isn't getting coverage. Obama at least seems to get both with positive outweighing the negative.

0 Replies

And from NewsBusters - July 7, 2008

One Month In, NY Times's Campaign Coverage Blatantly Pro-Obama

The general election campaign began in earnest when Barack Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination the night of June 3. Since then, the New York Times has continued to flatter the Obama campaign with superior coverage, as shown in a story count conducted by Times Watch.

Consistently, Barack Obama and his wife Michelle were portrayed as racial trailblazers whose religious beliefs and patriotism (and his lack of a flag pin) came under vicious and unfair attacks by conservatives. Meanwhile, John McCain was portrayed as a stiff, out-of-touch, gaffe-prone speaker struggling to appease the right wing of his party.

Between June 5 and July 5 (skipping June 4 to eliminate the pro-Obama skew from news reports of him clinching the Democratic nomination), the Times ran 90 stories on Barack Obama, compared to 57 on McCain (there was some overlap, as several stories devoted significant space to both candidates). Times Watch logged those stories one of three ways, as either positive, negative or neutral toward the respective candidate. The findings were striking: If Hillary Clinton thought she got an unfair shake from the press against Barack Obama (she did), then John McCain certainly has a legitimate bias beef against the Times.

Some representative headlines:

"Many Blacks Find Hope and Joy In an Unexpected Breakthrough" -- June 5 front-page headline on Obama.

"A Delegator, Obama Picks When to Take Reins" -- June 16 front-page headline.

"After Attacks, Michelle Obama Looks for a New Introduction" -- June 18 front-page headline.

By contrast, McCain was greeting with vacillating, doubting headlines:

"McCain Extends His Outreach, but Evangelicals Are Still Wary" -- June 9 front-page headline.

"Is McCain Like Bush? It Depends on the Issue" -- June 17 front-page headline.

"Target: Barack Obama. Strategy: What Day Is It?" -- July 4 headline.
LINK

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

McCain fared far worse

One reason might be that he was heavily attacked from the right. There was more negative coverage from Fox than from CNN or MSNBC, as far as I remember that one study...

Rightwing pundits have been making devastating statements for months. Sample A: Ann Coulter about John McCain...

Ann Coulter wrote:

There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.

0 Replies

THE GENERAL ELECTION 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know