posted
Mucus: Uh.. with me it DOES come down to a list of issues, their importance and their correlation with how I think things ought to be done.
Of course, the person needs to be able to win. I can't vote 3rd party and have the greater of the two great evils (that would be Obama) win.
I don't understand people who say things like "I'm voting for Hillary because she's a woman" (a co-worker actually said that to me) or "I'm voting for Obama because it'll be nice to have a black man finally in the white house."
If you vote for someone based on physical characteristics, you should restrain yourself from voting because you're too stupid to use the force of the ballot on your fellow citizens.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: The war on terror has been argued to death. Your dismissal of the other side doesn't win the argument.
I'd be VERY HAPPY if we'd build 400 nuclear plants. But, for the most part, the people who are keeping us from Drill Drill Drilling are the same people who shackled and continue to shackle the nuclear industry.
Incidentally, Obama has come out in favor of nuclear power. Admittedly, his endorsement of the idea is probably weaker than you'd like (he emphasizes "safe" nuclear power), but he supports it. He even mentioned it during his convention speech, and got some heat from liberal activists for it.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
But as you've noted, there are people which will factor in whether a candidate is black or a woman when voting. It is not a stretch that there are people which will factor in attractiveness.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"However, she DID veto a bill that would have denied domestic partner bennies for alaska state employees."
Not because she thought they should have them. Quite the opposite, actually. She vetoed it because it would be unconstitutional.From the Anchorage Daily News at the time:
quote:In the first veto of an administration that isn't yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.
Advice from her new attorney general said the bill passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional, she said.
"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a prepared statement released by her administration Thursday night.
Now, someone who upholds the constitution over her personal beliefs does get points with me, but efforts to paint her as somehow moderate on homosexuals are wasted.
Both Obama and McCain have said they are against gay marriage. However, Obama is for civil unions, gay adoption and gay partner benefits, and against discrimination, the DOMA, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. (source, but Google "obama gay rights" and read the links) I think that's a little different than just saying they cancel out, yes?
Hell, Obama mentioned gay rights in his nomination acceptance speech last week:
quote:I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. (transcript)
posted
Obama is running on the Clinton '92 play book.
"The Man From Hope" ran on change, just like Obama is today.
He promised a middle class tax cut with increased taxes only on the very wealthy.(Just like Obama is promising) We got the tax increase on the upper middle class and higher, and that middle class tax cut... well, that never happened.
Clinton promised gays in the military (that was the big thing back then) and instead, we got Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.
How many times will you people far for that baloney?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This makes, what, twice? Don't think that counts as a pattern yet. And Obama did work against workplace discrimination in Illinois, and spoke to churches about combating homophobia.
Look, if you don't like him, fine, nothing I say would change that. But why come down on him (or McCain) for something he hasn't done yet? Right now all we have to go on is what the candidates say they'll do and what they've already done. Obama has been very forthright about his beliefs: doesn't believe gay marriage works with his Christianity, but does support gay rights in every other particular, which is far better than you'll get from McCain.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: boots: likewise, why should pro-gay people be excited by an anti equal marriage rights candidate like The Obamanation?
When everyone running wants to keep you a second class citizen, it cancels out.
I get wanting to vote against Senator Obama - I don't agree obviously, but I understand how it makes sense. I don't get why Gov. Palin is a net positive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots: Because I agree with her on other issues. Like Drilling, Guns and the War on Terror.
Chris: His Christianity shouldn't be running the country. One expects such crap from republicans, but when a democrat won't stand up for gay marriage who the hell will?
One would think that a black man, of all people would be sensitive to the heavy foot of the majority on the neck of a minority. I have little patience or forgiveness for someone who gets their own (relatively) equal rights (and with a black man as a presidential candidate for the largest party in America, can we say that black people have gotten their rights yet?) and then actively stands in the way of others getting their own equal rights.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots: McLame also has a history of getting in the way of tax cuts. Not to mention his revolting disregard of the first amendment (McCain-Feingold).
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pix, just want to clarify. You're aware that Obama's "civil unions" would be for everybody - gay, straight, or other - and would be a contract with the state providing equal legal benefits - gay, straight, or other. Then, if a straight couple wanted to go get "married" in their church, they are free to do that, and if a gay couple wants to get "married" in their church they are free to do that (and I know there are at least a couple faiths, at least here in Canada, which will "marry" gay couples).
Of course, it's all just a bunch of silly terminology wrangling and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to just allow "gay marriage", as it comes out to exactly the same thing. But if - due to the Republicans use of this as a wedge issue - it's the best way not to hurt people feelings about a word, why not go for it?
Also, if anyone's interested, this website (Palin-Digest) is a list of negatives on Palin. Heads up for people who need talking points/want to know what they're going to need to defend against.
Edit: For those who don't want to go to the link, the things's I find the most troubling:
quote: Palin Obtained $27 Million In Earmarks As Mayor Of Wasilla. As mayor of Wasilla, AK, Palin “hired a private lobbyist to help the tiny town secure earmarks from [Sen. Ted] Stevens.” “The town obtained 14 earmarks, totaling $27 million between 2000-2003.” [Associated Press, 9/3/08]
quote: Palin Supports Teaching Creationism In Public Schools. In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Palin “said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public classrooms.” [Anchorage Daily News, 10/27/06]
quote: Palin Forced Top Wasilla Employees To Resign As Loyalty Test. As Mayor of Wasilla in 1998, “asked all of the city’s top managers to resign in order to test their loyalty to her administration.”[Daily Sitka Sentenial, 10/28/06]
quote: Palin Used Mayoral Office Resources For Campaigning. During her 2002 campaign for lieutenant governor, Palin ordered campaign materials from City Hall, had them delivered there, and used city employees on city-aid time to arrange campaign events. According to the Anchorage Daily News, there was “no indication she repaid the city for the incidental expenses the city incurred.” [Anchorage Daily News, 7/21/06]
quote: Palin Left Wasilla $20 Million In Debt. As mayor of Wasilla, Palin cut taxes while simultaneously expanding the town’s operating budget by almost $2 million. She ended her term in 2002 with Wasilla $20 million in debt. [Anchorage Daily News 10/23/06; the Politico, 8/29]
[ September 03, 2008, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Lord Solar Macharius ]
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One would think that a black man, of all people would be sensitive to the heavy foot of the majority on the neck of a minority. I have little patience or forgiveness for someone who gets their own (relatively) equal rights (and with a black man as a presidential candidate for the largest party in America, can we say that black people have gotten their rights yet?) and then actively stands in the way of others getting their own equal rights.
The wording is a little vindictive, but I agree. It amounts to higher standards for women and minority candidates. But if it's a decision between having higher standards for women and minorities, and having them lose, or lowering the standards to match the current white male general morality, and having them win, then I'll take my high-minded losers.
____
Apparently Romney is going to take some shots at Michelle Obama. I don't think highly of Romney, but that's not the issue. The Obama campaign does not get to say "Families are off limits" but then take shots at McCain's houses flowing from Cindy McCain's wealth.
quote:The Obama campaign does not get to say "Families are off limits" but then take shots at McCain's houses flowing from Cindy McCain's wealth.
Do they get to say "Families are off limits" but still take shots at Cindy McCain's husband?
Your definition of what counts as an attack on McCain's family sounds pretty expansive. Nobody's saying anything bad about Cindy. She's not the one who forgot about the houses.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
What's going on is that Palin (who has recently decided to refuse to testify for the Legislature's ethics violation probe) has launched a complaint against herself to the Personnel Board and asked that the Legislature stop its investigation.
Why would she do this? Well, the Legislature's investigation is being lead by a Democrat, while the Personnel Board is made up of people who were appointed by her.
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I see Palin the more I am feeling queesy. I don't like her God politics.
quote: Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."
quote: Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets. "God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
posted
The problem with drilling is that it will not break the economic dependense on oil. The reason gas prices are so high is because there are only about five major countries producing oil. Also there are very few major pipelines supplying countries with oil. A few well placed terrorist bombs could destroy saudi arabia's ability to ship oil around the world. That could crush the economy of the US. Our economy is completely dependant on oil. Not just foreign oil, but oil. Although their could be greater reserves of oil out there that still will not help when the oil dries up and we enter a depression.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm going to agree with you on that one Dag. In my experience, curriculum decision should be made as close to the classroom as possible. The further the decision makers are from the actual classrooms, the worse the decisions tend to be.
Having had personal contact with "no child left behind," and the teachers who have to deal with it, I wholeheartedly agree with this. The government will never be able to create effective policy on education on a national level, if any part of their policy demands specific outcomes in specific areas of performance.
I'll add that, as it stands, NCLB is openly racist, gives no regard to social growth among children, and is a frustration to teachers who must teach toward the test.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, it's all just a bunch of silly terminology wrangling and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to just allow "gay marriage", as it comes out to exactly the same thing. But if - due to the Republicans use of this as a wedge issue - it's the best way not to hurt people feelings about a word, why not go for it?
I'm not sure it's simply a problem of semantics. One possible reading of the term "civil union" is that it can be seen as a term that must be applied to something that is less than love between gay males or females, and that, the love they share is not good enough for "marriage". In other words, "civil union" is a term that refers to the idea that we will give gay couples the exact rights that marriage does, since that is constitutional, but we will allow and institutionalize bias against homosexuals by calling it something less than "marriage".
quote:How many times will you people far for that baloney?
See, this is what I don't understand about you Pixiest. You make decent points that are reasoned and logical, and though I may disagree with you on those points, I look at what you said before this as the kind of political rhetoric that might actually be useful. And then you sound like Blayne when you say that. When Lisa said that he was a pig, she was right, and the whole "butch" thing is simply offensive and Blayne needs to be told that. It's not that you are sexist, it's that you are dismissive an extreme.
I don't understand why politics have to be this way. Maybe you can try to explain it to me Pixiest...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
"The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullshit about narratives," she said. "Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it."
Murphy chimed in:
"The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical."
"And as you called it, gimmicky."
Noonan is going to get hammered for that. She's going to have to make a statement soon saying that 'no, that's not what I meant, it's not 'over' over, per se..'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I had to change the channel. Couldn't take her cookie-cutter conservative pandering crap anymore. To all you honest conservatives out there, I'm really sorry.
posted
Pixiest, I'm really stumped here. Obama has spoken more openly about gay equality than any other candidate, worked against discrimination in Illinois, and while he is personally against gay marriage he is against amendments that ban them, indicating that if the people want it he will not stand in the way.
How is this in any way equal to McCain, as you suggested earlier ("a wash"), who has said specifically that he is against gay maariage and would seek an amendment if his state voted for it? Who is against gay adoption or benefits for gay couples?
I don't understand the scorn, I really don't. He hasn't earned it yet, not on that issue. You're punishing him for what Clinton promised and failed to deliver, and I hardly see where that is fair.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm... Palin sounds like she would make a great conservative talk show host. Not sure how her skill at insulting Obama makes her more qualified for being in line for the presidency though... It reminded me a bit of Zell Miller's "spitball" speech.
quote:Of course, it's all just a bunch of silly terminology wrangling and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to just allow "gay marriage", as it comes out to exactly the same thing. But if - due to the Republicans use of this as a wedge issue - it's the best way not to hurt people feelings about a word, why not go for it?
I'm not sure it's simply a problem of semantics. One possible reading of the term "civil union" is that it can be seen as a term that must be applied to something that is less than love between gay males or females, and that, the love they share is not good enough for "marriage". In other words, "civil union" is a term that refers to the idea that we will give gay couples the exact rights that marriage does, since that is constitutional, but we will allow and institutionalize bias against homosexuals by calling it something less than "marriage".
quote:How many times will you people far for that baloney?
See, this is what I don't understand about you Pixiest. You make decent points that are reasoned and logical, and though I may disagree with you on those points, I look at what you said before this as the kind of political rhetoric that might actually be useful. And then you sound like Blayne when you say that. When Lisa said that he was a pig, she was right, and the whole "butch" thing is simply offensive and Blayne needs to be told that. It's not that you are sexist, it's that you are dismissive an extreme.
I don't understand why politics have to be this way. Maybe you can try to explain it to me Pixiest...
Except she wasn't right, I was commenting on the attractiveness on a political candidate she insulted my decency as a human being. I can be as offensive as I like towards someone who regularly takes a swipe at me.
Also her swipe was very stereotypical butch feminazi.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, you've probably heard this before but you strike me as the kind of person who says what he thinks and is constantly surprised that people take offense. You come off as insensitive and worse, stubbornly insensitive.
The MILF comment could be funny in the right crowd. Hatrack is a large enough crowd that such a joke will fall flat on most eyes. I believe you just don't see that.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tonight sounded a lot like 2004. Obama wants to lose the war, Obama is an elitist, et cetera. When they talk about the Enemy sometimes I wonder if they mean Al Qaeda or the DNC.
And did I catch that line right? "'Islamic terrorist' is an insult to terrorists?"
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Hmmm... Palin sounds like she would make a great conservative talk show host. Not sure how her skill at insulting Obama makes her more qualified for being in line for the presidency though... It reminded me a bit of Zell Miller's "spitball" speech.
Honestly, I was surprised. I expected Biden to give this type of speech a week ago.
Tonight energized the base; I bet McCain will go after the independents tomorrow.
posted
How they haven't gone running already is beyond me though.
The Republicans really frustrated me tonight. It's like McCain suddenly realized he was going to lose the war for Hillary supporters and moderates and independents, and did a complete 180 in an attempt to bring back the base. Does he think he's going to win by rallying the base and letting the middle fall by the wayside? Or is it a last ditch effort by a sinking ship? The rhetoric and the insults had me fuming.
edit: though i admit some of my frustration could come from the bias of being a big Obama supporter. the question is how much. were any undecideds or even republicans turned off by how the Republicans handled themselves tonight?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I bet McCain will go after the independents tomorrow.
But how? Palin pretty much abandoned 75% of them tonight. I just don't understand what the McCain strategy could possibly be. This isn't the primaries anymore. The American public may have a short-term memory, but it's not so short that you can abandon the people likely to decide this election one night and then pander to them the next.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can be as offensive as I like towards someone who regularly takes a swipe at me.
Yes you certainly can. I could also insult people and be a jerk to everyone I meet. Doesn't mean that I should though. The difference between should and could is an important one Blayne--check it out, you might discover something useful about who you are.
In the meantime, no comment calls for you to call someone "butch", a "feminazi", or a MILF. Those words are insulting and you should never employ them in an argument.
And Pixiest, my challenge stands.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I listened to all of Mitt Romney and almost drove my car off the road. How he of all people can talk about eastern elitists is beyond me. Giuliani and he I think will backfire on McCain. For a guy who talks about being all bipartisan and mavericky and hugs and kittens for American togetherness, that was the most anti-bipartisan, hate filled anti-half the country night of television I've ever seen. It was a hate fest. It was we hate liberals, and we're more American than they are. How do you run as the bi-partisan fight my own party candidate when your party spews that kind of vile invective? I think it'll backfire.
As for Palin, wow, boring. I guess I missed the good stuff. After the first 20 or 30 minutes I turned it off. It sounded like she was giving a book report mixed with a stand up comedy routine. I'm guessing she'll get lambasted for the whole "I said no thanks" thing, since that's pretty much been solidly debunked across the board. But it was just boring. And it dragged on and on. I guess she came out swinging at the end, but as far as I could tell, this whole night was a "Liberals hate America and we're #1, so vote for us if you love your country."
The Democratic convention took their fair share of swings at the right, but it was never, NEVER this rancorous. I think they're probably doing a bang up job of firing up the base, and a bang up job of sending independents scurrying for the hills. So good job, you guys just secured Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc etc a bunch of states you were never going to lose anyway, and pushed a whole lot of swing votes in the midwest into Obama's camp. Any time McCain tries to run an ad saying he's a moderate, Obama can have a gleefilled pick of convention clips to show them as foaming at the mouth hardcore right wingers.
Also, the Daily Show tonight was hilarious. O'Reilly, Rove and some other woman, all conservatives, got nailed for changing their tunes when it comes to conservative candidates.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does he think he's going to win by rallying the base and letting the middle fall by the wayside?
quote:But how? Palin pretty much abandoned 75% of them tonight. I just don't understand what the McCain strategy could possibly be.
By defining Obama as a cosmopolitan East-coast liberal the GOP tried to push him outside the mainstream. Tomorrow McCain will try to place himself close to the middle -- not necessarily by reaching leftward, but by claiming that the GOP is the middle, and that the Democrats have veered off to the left. As I said, this a lot like 2004. The GOP has kept the same tone because it worked four years ago.
On the other hand, it's a risky move because the political center may not be where the GOP needs it to be: look at the President's approval ratings since 2004, and how the Palin choice affected independents' views of the ticket. Four years ago, Kerry was having a lot of trouble holding on to the pale-blue states in the midwest. Now, Obama has a decent lead in most of them, and is competing out west. It's hard to define a candidate as "not one of Us" without simultaneously implying that he is "one of Them," and this year "They" may include enough independents to swing the election.
I guess we'll see how much of a bounce she gives the GOP in a few days.
--j_k
[ September 04, 2008, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's hard to define a candidate as "not one of Us" without simultaneously implying that he is "one of Them," and this year "They" may include enough independents to swing the election.
Exactly. What I don't understand is how McCain isn't aware of this seemingly inevitable backfire.
On a side note, I think I've said this before, but I'm just incredibly excited that Obama actually has a realistic chance of taking Georgia. Polls still seem to have McCain leading, but it's not by much.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Incidentally, Obama has come out in favor of nuclear power. Admittedly, his endorsement of the idea is probably weaker than you'd like (he emphasizes "safe" nuclear power), but he supports it. He even mentioned it during his convention speech, and got some heat from liberal activists for it.
It's so terribly ironic that the same people who are supposed to be fighting the oil industry and out awful dependence on foreign energy sources, which has cause SO MUCH suffering, are ignoring the most obvious and immediate solution to this issue. It isn't perfect, but it's much better than war.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: boots: likewise, why should pro-gay people be excited by an anti equal marriage rights candidate like The Obamanation?
When everyone running wants to keep you a second class citizen, it cancels out.
I get wanting to vote against Senator Obama - I don't agree obviously, but I understand how it makes sense. I don't get why Gov. Palin is a net positive.
The problem Pix, is that you don't really know the line between Obama's politics and his beliefs. He may want to not have you as a second-class citizen. He may be willing to allow you to be one, or he may have a plan that is different from the one he is running on. I understand that it's frustrating to be in a position where everybody is talking like you don't matter, but I hope you do matter to one of them, and I think that if you do, it's to Obama. Just a feeling.
Still, what a crock of you know what in general that we have a liberal candidate unwilling or unable to engage on basic rights like yours.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's hard to define a candidate as "not one of Us" without simultaneously implying that he is "one of Them," and this year "They" may include enough independents to swing the election.
Exactly. What I don't understand is how McCain isn't aware of this seemingly inevitable backfire.
On a side note, I think I've said this before, but I'm just incredibly excited that Obama actually has a realistic chance of taking Georgia. Polls still seem to have McCain leading, but it's not by much.
I'm guessing Palin will give him a two or three point bounce in Georgia, but frankly, I think whatever Obama's number is in Georgia, you have to add three points to it automatically anyway. If Obama is going to win Georgia, it's for two reasons: 1. Bob Barr. 2a. Black voter turnout. 2b. New voter turnout.
Almost any support Barr gets is going to be leeched from McCain. Obama has signed up tens of thousands of new voters just in Georgia, plus the influx of voters from New Orleans and surrounding areas that vote Democratic and haven't left Atlanta for home yet. Obama has the largest operation Democrats have attempted to field, ever. He's built a massive voter registration drive there, and has retained names and numbers so he can make sure those people actually show up on election day. People who usually don't bother to vote are coming out of the woodworks to register and change their party affiliation for Obama. It could have the downticket effect of ousting Saxby Chambliss from his senate seat too, but that's slightly harder than him taking the electoral votes.
I don't think the polling data there (or anywhere really) is taking into account the turnout game, and taking into account the massive amount of new voters that Obama's team has been registering in key battleground states especially. I'm not sure yet how Palin will play in Georgia. It's one of those things there misogyny and racism might just go hand in hand, and the idea of voting for a woman is just as much a turnoff as voting for a black guy. My grandfather for example, after announcing he wasn't going to vote for Obama because we're not ready for a black president, and that he was planning to vote for McCain, has since said that he won't vote for McCain either, because we aren't ready for a woman. He votes in Texas, so it's not like it matters much anyway, but there's an example. If she were a man, I think they'd eat her up, and I think they still will, but not with the same kind of enthusiasm. Georgia is going to come down to the wire I think, and might be an election day surprise for a lot of people. It would be a huge coup for Obama. He's well on his way to winning every state that Gore won, and has several more in his pocket as well. Nationally the polls might be close, but electorally, Obama is way out in front right now, with a lot of options to put him over the top.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is going to make for a fascinating debate. I have a very hard time believing that, taken off script, Palin will have the facts at her command sufficient to beat down Biden logically.
On the other hand, she's young, attractive, and has boatloads of folksy charm. And if you don't think that's an advantage, ask anyone who thought Bush beat Gore in 2000.
I'm not ready to handicap it yet, but it may be a more interesting contest than I'd anticipated.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Almost any support Barr gets is going to be leeched from McCain.
I hate spoiler candidates. I wish we had IRV, so that nobodies like Barr weren't taking electability away from McCain for reasons that have nothing to do with merit.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in some states Nader will be a counterbalance, but he's not going to be on every state's ballot, but it looks like he'll be on most as an independent, and available as a write-in candidate on more. I don't think he'll even get the kind of numbers he did in 2000 however. His effects as a spoiler will be limited this time around. Further, I really only see Barr being a serious factor in Georgia. I don't know of any other state (though I haven't really looked) where Barr is polling above the margin of error of even existing. But then, if Georgia flips, that could very well be a deciding factor, and Barr would be the reason unless Obama totally blows him out of the water there (unlikely).
I agree that I too hate spoilers, but I hate the control of the two-party system just as much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: How do you run as the bi-partisan fight my own party candidate when your party spews that kind of vile invective?
Cause he's the maverick. All the Republicans are saying what the hard-core party base wants to hear and McCain is free to go another route appealing to the center and showing folks he still doesn't toe the party line.
Republicans are usually pretty good at playing politics. If they think it's a viable strategy, it probably is.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love spoiler candidates. What I hate is the feeling of entitlement the parties have, the false dichotomies they offer in every election, and the strategy that the best way to make me like a candidate is to make me hate his/her opponent.
I've voted for major party candidates, and I've voted for third-party candidates. I won't vote for a "spoiler" if McCain or Obama convince me that they deserve my vote. But if they can't manage that, I'm grateful that I have the option to vote against both of them.
Sometimes voting for the "spoiler" is the most powerful message I can send, and the most worthwhile use of my vote, and I don't want it taken off the table.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Except she wasn't right, I was commenting on the attractiveness on a political candidate she insulted my decency as a human being.
Actually, I insulted your lack of decency as a human being. And MILF is not a comment on attractiveness. It's a lewd and crude comment. Once which contains language that's not permitted on this board, I'd add.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I can be as offensive as I like towards someone who regularly takes a swipe at me.
Also her swipe was very stereotypical butch feminazi.
You are such a child.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been looking around for someone from the McCain campaign making the case for Gov Palin as suitable for the VP spot. So far, the best I've found was the CNN interview with Tucker Bounds, who pretty clearly doesn't believe that she is.
Has anyone seen any from the McCain people that does a better job?
I don't really know much about her, but when even the people supposed to be pushing you don't think you are qualified and one of the major points you're using to sell yourself (the bridge to nowhere thing) is actually a lie, I'm very doubtful that she's ready.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Pix, just want to clarify. You're aware that Obama's "civil unions" would be for everybody - gay, straight, or other - and would be a contract with the state providing equal legal benefits - gay, straight, or other. Then, if a straight couple wanted to go get "married" in their church, they are free to do that, and if a gay couple wants to get "married" in their church they are free to do that (and I know there are at least a couple faiths, at least here in Canada, which will "marry" gay couples).
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Except she wasn't right, I was commenting on the attractiveness on a political candidate she insulted my decency as a human being.
Actually, I insulted your lack of decency as a human being. And MILF is not a comment on attractiveness. It's a lewd and crude comment. Once which contains language that's not permitted on this board, I'd add.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I can be as offensive as I like towards someone who regularly takes a swipe at me.
Also her swipe was very stereotypical butch feminazi.
You are such a child.
It seems more to the point that you insulted him after he made a joke and started your guys little argument. If you found his comment offensive you should have said something other than childish name-calling.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Pix, just want to clarify. You're aware that Obama's "civil unions" would be for everybody - gay, straight, or other - and would be a contract with the state providing equal legal benefits - gay, straight, or other. Then, if a straight couple wanted to go get "married" in their church, they are free to do that, and if a gay couple wants to get "married" in their church they are free to do that (and I know there are at least a couple faiths, at least here in Canada, which will "marry" gay couples).
quote: 2) The gov't says "we recognize civil unions. period. if you want to get married, go see your church but we don't care".
I'm unclear if this means a church can perform a 'meaningless to the law' marriage only or if a church can perform a civil union only or if a church can perform a civil union and 'meaningless to the law' ceremony called marriage?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
