A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

from Tico's paste...

Quote:

The other thing that's bothering me is this Barry Hussein Jr., guy.

Your integrity ain't improving.

McCain was not/is not the first choice of many of us. But as it seems a near certainty that he will be the nominee, the one question Republicans and conservatives will have to ask themselves is whether Hillary gets us closer to what this country needs in a leader, or the most liberal senator in Congress gets us closer to what this country needs in a leader, or whether McCain gets us closer to what this country needs in a leader.

From where I sit, it's a no brainer.

According to statistics, Obama IS the most liberal Senator

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.

woiyo wrote:

According to statistics, Obama IS the most liberal Senator

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.

Did you not read above? The National Journal is not an independent observor, and their word on who is the 'most liberal' should not be taken as gospel by you guys.

Sure does make for a nice talking point, though.

Cycloptichorn

Looking For A Reason

by digby

I know the MSM isn't particularly quick on the uptake, but this one is so obvious even they should be able to get it. I have been hearing for the past 24 hours how this NYT story has really been good for McCain because it finally brought the base back over to his side.

Can we get real here? The "base" meaning Rush, Fox and the lesser wingnut blowhards, were desperate for an excuse to get on board the Straight Talk Express. The man is the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, the electoral arm of the conservative movement. Did anyone really think their animosity for McCain was going to last through November? Please. They are all on wingnut welfare to one degree or another and there's no way in hell that they could continue to do their jobs in opposition to the Republican presidential nominee. It's ridiculous. I'm sure they all felt a huge sense of relief that they had finally found a hook to get back down to business, which is demeaning and destroying liberals on behalf of Republicans.

This is not to say that they won't blame McCain for being a heretic and turncoat to conservatism when he loses in November. Their lizard brain logic will be "The liberal Democrat won because McCain wasn't conservative enough." But in the meantime, they had to find a way to earn their paycheck, and now they have their hook.

Which candidate, Clinton, Obama, McCain, will lead the government to violate the Constitution the most, and which one to violate it the least?

Don't ask me. It's too close for me to call.

ican711nm wrote:

Which candidate, Clinton, Obama, McCain, will lead the government to violate the Constitution the most, and which one to violate it the least?

Don't ask me. It's too close for me to call.

Of those 3???

Clinton.

mysteryman wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Which candidate, Clinton, Obama, McCain, will lead the government to violate the Constitution the most, and which one to violate it the least?

Don't ask me. It's too close for me to call.

Of those 3???

Clinton.

There WERE two sides to the question - will violate and won't violate - so yeah Clinton is a good answer.

Foxfyre wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Which candidate, Clinton, Obama, McCain, will lead the government to violate the Constitution the most, and which one to violate it the least?

Don't ask me. It's too close for me to call.

Of those 3???

Clinton.

There WERE two sides to the question - will violate and won't violate - so yeah Clinton is a good answer.

yesterday I ordered 3 pair of levis, which will actually fit?

February 27, 2008
Poll: McCain's hard to beat
Posted: 11:54 AM ET

I suppose I could post other polls which show Obama with as much as a 16 point advantage over McCain, but you already knew that.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I suppose I could post other polls which show Obama with as much as a 16 point advantage over McCain, but you already knew that.

Cycloptichorn

Of course you can! The older your poll the better.

"Things are a changing!"

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I suppose I could post other polls which show Obama with as much as a 16 point advantage over McCain, but you already knew that.

Cycloptichorn

Of course you can! The older your poll the better.

"Things are a changing!"

Oh, you think so?

This is a little hard to read, but I think you'll figure it out.

Code:Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread RCP Average
02/18 - 02/25 - 43.4 47.1 6.7 Obama +3.7
LA Times/Bloomberg 02/21 - 02/25 RV 44 42 9 McCain +2.0
AP-Ipsos 02/22 - 02/24 755 RV 41 51 2 Obama +10.0
USA Today/Gallup 02/21 - 02/24 1653 LV 48 47 2 McCain +1.0
CBS News/NY Times 02/20 - 02/24 1115 RV 38 50 7 Obama +12.0
Research 2000 02/18 - 02/21 802 LV 44 50 6 Obama +6.0
FOX News 02/19 - 02/20 900 RV 43 47 10 Obama +4.0
Rasmussen (Wed) 4 Day Tracking 1700 LV 46 43 11 McCain +3.0

What's that? 2 polls in the last week showing him up by more then ten points over McCain?

Nice try, thanks for playing!

Cycloptichorn

...

Code:Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread RCP Average
...

Rasmussen (Wed) 4 Day Tracking 1700 LV 46 43 11 McCain +3.0

...

Cycloptichorn