Yes, we can. [Archive] - Page 8 - Lounge of Tomorrow

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 10:31 AM

With only 20% of voters being considered "swing votes" by Gallup, and Obama carrying a ~8-9% lead, that means that McCain would have to swing about 75% of those undecideds his way. Considering that most of those undecideds are moderates, and Palin's ravings are meant not to appeal to moderates but to try to convince the base to come out and vote, that's a pretty tall order.

And that's just get the popular vote polling lead. Obama's still got a pretty healthy electoral lead. With that 20% of undecideds scattered around the country, that leaves little room for McCain to swipe any states.

Obama's in good shape. Not that he should be complacent, but he should be acting like a candidate in the lead, not like a scared candidate panicing over every attack that's thrown his way. He shouldn't be scambling onto the airwaves just because the 'pubs show up at their convention and say what they're expected to say at their convention. He should smile, wait for them to finish their pep rally, then calmly say, "Okay, that's nice, but here's how things really are."

innerSpaceman

09-04-2008, 10:37 AM

I agree. This is what the Republicans are expected to do, and they win the last word (including the wind-sucking Palin announcement) because their Convention was later on the calendar.

Frankly, I think that bit of timing is only fair, since it's the Democrats' election to lose.

I like Obama's high-road in comparison to the GOP's gutter sniping. But I trust he's wary of being swift-boated, and will respond when necessary and as swiftly as their assessment determines.

That said ... every general always fights the last war, and ever politician always counters the last campaign. Rarely does that kind of strategy work, but it's the only one most humans throughout history have ever been able to come up with.

Gemini Cricket

09-04-2008, 10:48 AM

I disagree. Every fire should be extinguished. Not necessarily in a panic, but in a confident manner.

Biden's response to her was almost praise. It's sickening:
Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, praised his rival Sarah Palin for "a great night" and a "very skillfully delivered political speech" but criticized her for not focusing on such key issues as health care and the economy.

"I was impressed with her," Biden said on "Good Morning America," as part of a series of interviews he did to respond to the Alaska governor's speech. "I was also impressed with what I didn't hear. I didn't hear a word mentioned about the middle class."
Source (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/04/biden_acknowledges_palins_grea.html)

innerSpaceman

09-04-2008, 10:52 AM

She's a child. I like the belittling tone and strategy. I think it will work for the type of voter that goes for Obama. I don't think even the undecideds leaning his way want to see his campaign sink to the mud-fight.

Ok, we can go around and around all day. I don't want them to roll over and spread their legs either. Something in between would be nice. And I'll grant it's a fine line to walk, and their balance point might be different than either you or I would wish.

Gemini Cricket

09-04-2008, 10:57 AM

No, I hear you. If I had the opportunity to leave the country or go somewhere isolated (yet fun) until the day after Election Day, I would.
:)

Tenigma

09-04-2008, 11:07 AM

Last night, Obama was reamed. Reamed by Palin and the media is all over her lauding her speech and what she said.

And where is the strong rebuttal from Obama as of this post? Where is the 'Palin is wrong about the following items and here they are' response to the speech?

Do you really want Obama to dignify Palin's chihuahua-yapping? Let Biden do it. It's what he's there for.

I've been scanning the blogs this morning and while Palin has galvanized the hard right, she doesn't seem to be picking up Hillary fans and her squawking is apparently turning off some of the independents and moderates. I know McCain chose her as a political maneuver to solidify his base but I don't know how many of the independents he's gonna get from this move.

Freaky as it sounds I can kind of envision all of this as a Disney movie: "Hockey Mom"

Hockey Mom turns local mayor turns local governor who boots out an extremely unpopular boob governor. Gets picked to be VP nominee. Like Sandra Bullock in "Miss Congeniality," Hockey Mom has to learn the ropes real fast. Does a reasonably good job.

Lots of fast-forward scenes of Hockey Mom sitting at kitchen table trying to identify country names as her kids point to places on a wall map, while she juggles feeding baby and hemming older daughter's wedding dress. There is even a little mini-drama near the end of the movie when the presidential nominee seems to have a heart attack... but it turns out he was dehydrated and the stress was a bit too much. But it's enough for her to realize that she may indeed have to fill in the President's shoes, and she realizes that it's not just a big game.

In the end, there is a big climax where it looks like her party MIGHT win... but then, she loses. Instead of being upset, she realizes what a wonderful family she has, and what a wonderful country she lives in. She ends up thanking the Presidential nominee, and for a brief moment she gets to meet in person the opposing party's Presidential nominee, whom she'd been demonizing for the whole campaign... and she sees that he loves his children and wife as much as she loves her children and husband. She realizes that he is not a demon but just looks at life from a different perspective. She returns to her home state with her family, where she lives happily ever after. Oh, but there's always 4 years from now! The end.

[Played by Tina Fey, of course.]

Gemini Cricket

09-04-2008, 11:17 AM

I hear you.
I'd watch that movie.
:)

Morrigoon

09-04-2008, 12:10 PM

Tenigma: I'd watch that, sounds cute.

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 01:00 PM

The party seems to be doing a good job of stepping up and being his surrogates. Governor Sebelius responds (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/sebelius-accuses-palin-of_n_123883.html)

Moonliner

09-04-2008, 01:57 PM

In the big picture both McCain and Obama are worlds better that what we have now plus neither of them are Hillary. So in my mind the people have already won this election.

Chernabog

09-04-2008, 01:59 PM

I still can't read this thread title without thinking "Because we can can can can can can can can caaaaannnnn!" from Moulin Rouge. Grr.

Morrigoon

09-04-2008, 02:04 PM

In the big picture both McCain and Obama are worlds better that what we have now plus neither of them are Hillary. So in my mind the people have already won this election.
YES.

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 02:05 PM

NO.

Tom

09-04-2008, 02:05 PM

Drudge has reported, and the Obama campaign confirmed, that Obama has rasied $8 million dollars since Palin's speech last night, and is on course for $10 million before McCain takes the stage tonight.

scaeagles

09-04-2008, 02:10 PM

A few other things reported on Drudge...

Only 1 million fewer people watched her than Obama, and 12 million more watched her than Biden.

CBS News has the two tickets tied in the polls now. Looks like Palin provided a huge bump even before McCain has spoken. He will probably need that money.

And I have to laugh....after denying the surge had done much of anything, he will acknowledge on O'Reilly that it has succeeded beyond anyones wildest dreams. Does that mean he is conceding McCain was correct on pushing for the surge (some would argue he is the reason there was the surge) and is admitting he was wrong?

And McCain, while there are no specific numbers as of yet, has also reported huge donations pouring in. I even donated, which I hadn't done yet.

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 02:12 PM

A few other things reported on Drudge...

Only 1 million fewer people watch herThat's hardly surprising, it being her first appearance on the national stage.

scaeagles

09-04-2008, 02:13 PM

That is true....I even watched, and I never watch.

Morrigoon

09-04-2008, 02:20 PM

NO.
You don't think McCain/Palin is at least a SLIGHT improvement over Bush/Cheney?

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 02:23 PM

You don't think McCain/Palin is at least a SLIGHT improvement over Bush/Cheney?Did he say "slight"? He said "worlds". Hell, there's a good chance he could be worse. Put someone in there with similar goals a Bush, but with a glimmer of intelect and I shudder to imagine.

If McCain wins, I will consider it a failure of the electorate. Failure.

More than 75% of the country says we're headed in the wrong direction, and yet half the country wants to vote for McCain? It boggles.

scaeagles

09-04-2008, 02:31 PM

I could draw a similar parallel between voting for the dem congress and senate, who have lower approval ratings. Most in general, though, believes their particular rep or senator isn't the problem....this is why incumbants usually win reelection.

And I'd add that so many conservatives are disenchanted with Bush (me among them) that we also fit in the headed in the wrong direction category when you throw in dem majorities in the house and senate. All those who think we are headed in the wrong direction do not necessarily agree as to what the right direction is.

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 02:43 PM

This is true, but McCain is pretty much a guarantee of continuing to travel in that wrong direction.

scaeagles

09-04-2008, 02:49 PM

Again, it depends on your definition of the wrong direction, which will vary quite a bit in the 75% of those who say the country is headed the wrong way. I do not concur with your assessment, though of course many, many would. And by the looks in the polls, 42% seem to agree with me, and 42% seem to agree with you (based on the CBS poll that's out today).

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 02:55 PM

And I wonder what percentage of that 42% that agrees with you still swallows the lie that we're fighting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Iraq.

scaeagles

09-04-2008, 02:57 PM

I wonder what 42% of those that agree with you think, like Obama said, that Iran is just a tiny country that poses no real threat to the US or her interests.

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 03:00 PM

I wonder what 42% of those that agree with you think, like Obama said, that Iran is just a tiny country that poses no real threat to the US or her interests.
One is a lie, the other is a matter of opinion. Considering how insanely overblown the threat that Iraq posed was, I'm inclined to not take as gospel, from the same overblowers, the threat posed by Iran. There's also the fact that I much prefer a leader that looks at a country that's huffing and puffing and posturing and responds by staring them down and saying, "Ummm, you don't really scare us."

In other numbers, Obama retains a 71 electoral vote lead. 38 of those are of the "barely Obama" variety, while 51 of McCain's are barely his. Still Obama's to lose.

Morrigoon

09-04-2008, 03:09 PM

Tom

09-04-2008, 03:14 PM

I wonder what 42% of those that agree with you think, like Obama said, that Iran is just a tiny country that poses no real threat to the US or her interests.

Except that Obama didn't say that. He said that Iran and it's threat were tiny compared to the Soviet Union. It was a comparative statement, not an absolute one. He has made perfectly clear numerous times that he regards Iran seriously.

innerSpaceman

09-04-2008, 03:15 PM

scaeagles, have you drunk the kool-aid, or was that a legitimate error on your part? Because otherwise, it stinks of the same misleading crap Republicans love to spread like the manure it is.

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 03:17 PM

In that vein, given the setup, if McCain wins, it's not a failure of the electorate half as much as it is a failure of the Democrats.

As one talking head put it: "Leave it to Hillary to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." (Blaming her for the damage to the overall Democrat campaign to replace the GOP in the white house)There's only so much a campaign can do. If the voters continue to allow themselves to be lied to and fooled into believing that we're at war with the boogieman, then Obama is going to lose and there's nothing he can do about it.

Gemini Cricket

09-04-2008, 03:22 PM

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on Thursday shrugged off the criticisms from the Republican convention, saying he's been called worse on the basketball court.
Republicans are going on the attack because they did not have any ideas or concrete plans to help improve the lives of ordinary Americans, Obama told reporters after touring a factory that makes hydro-energy equipment in York, Pennsylvania.
"They've spent the entire two nights attacking me or extolling John McCain's biography, which is fine," said Obama, who faces Republican John McCain in the November election.
"They can use their convention time any way they want, but you can't expect that I'd be surprised by attacks from Republicans," Obama said.
Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080904/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc_1;_ylt=AtwlXCHkMT6RsfpW_TKGG 7Zh24cA)

Better than nothing, I guess....

Morrigoon

09-04-2008, 03:52 PM

Heh, and threw in a little "relate to the working man" tidbit while he was at it. (eg: the b-ball reference)

Strangler Lewis

09-04-2008, 03:58 PM

Heh, and threw in a little "relate to the working man" tidbit while he was at it. (eg: the b-ball reference)

I think that was for the yutes and maybe for the ladies. I don't think too many working men his age are running full court. Maybe George Clooney.

scaeagles

09-04-2008, 03:59 PM

scaeagles, have you drunk the kool-aid, or was that a legitimate error on your part? Because otherwise, it stinks of the same misleading crap Republicans love to spread like the manure it is.

The exact quote of Obama is this -

Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose any serious threat to us

Comparison is part. The other is clearly a statment that they don't post "any serious threat". I actually regard Iran as a larger threat. The Soviet Union didn't want to get nuked and they weren't state sponsors of terrorists, and were not inclined to give nukes to terrorists. So no koolaid. No misleading. It is what he said.

In fact, what he said was ridiculous enough that he has hed to try to emphasize a completely different point of view since then, stressing they are a "grave threat".

innerSpaceman

09-04-2008, 04:26 PM

My apologies, then. Sincerely. Non-mousepad. ;)

Tom

09-04-2008, 05:17 PM

Scaegles, you left part of the quote out, and it still misrepresents what Obama said. Here is the full paragraph quote:

"Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khruschev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compred to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet."

The reference to Iran was entirely in comparison to the Soviet Union. You can disagree with what he said, but to say he does not view Iran as a serious threat based on that quote is factually incorrect.

scaeagles

09-04-2008, 05:25 PM

I can see why you would read it that way, but he is still saying they are not a serious threat and saying that the Soviets were. I don't think he was equating the type of threat, but the level of threat. He's saying that the Soviets were a serious threat, but Iran is not.

Again, I believe Iran is more of a threat than the USSR was because they are a diffeent type of threat.

Tom

09-04-2008, 05:31 PM

I disagree with your reading of the quote, but can see how you would come to it.

By the way, in looking back on my previous quote, I see that it came off as more accusatory than I meant it to be. I apologize for its tone.

innerSpaceman

09-04-2008, 05:33 PM

No scaeagles, learn to read English. Jeebus.

"They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

It's a comparative statement only and solely to the threat level of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, when the threat level was nuclear annihiliation of every human on earth.

Nowhere in that statement does Obama say Iran is not a threat, only that they are not the same level of threat that the Soviet Union WAS.

I'm really upset I apologized to you when you assured me you were not mischaracterizing Obama's statement. Either you're being obtuse about it, or you deliberately misled ME, which I'm not pleased about.

scaeagles

09-04-2008, 06:28 PM

I don't think i'm obtuse, nor did I try to mislead. I will consider the apology withdrawn.

I read it as Obama saying that Iran is not a serious threat. It is obvious that they are not a threat in the same way the USSR was and that is really not necessary to say. However, in describing them as tiny, he is saying that the threat they pose is being overstated. As I said, I think they are more of a threat than the USSR was because they sponsor terrorists. He is ignoring that completely and equating size with threat level, which I think is not wise. He also says clearly that they are not a serious threat, saying the the Soviets were. Their nuclear program is a serious threat primarily because of sponsorship of terrorism.

I was not intending to mislead or misquote.

I think his change of opinion on it shows how he realizes what he had said before was unwise. Now it is all about how Iran is a grave threat and how he will eliminate the threat that they pose, and how their nuclear program is uinacceptable. This is a complete change from them not being a serious threat.

innerSpaceman

09-04-2008, 06:52 PM

Ok, thanks for that explanation of your inteperpretive process. I still think it's a little skewed, but I can at least follow the road map of your thoughts, and agree that you were being neither obtuse nor purposely misleading.

I hereby unwithdraw my earlier apology and raise you one apology.:)

scaeagles

09-04-2008, 07:04 PM

Nah. Screw you.:)

Figuratively, of course.

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 08:47 PM

You know, I'm still of a mind to call some degree of shenanigans on this one.

Your use of "exact quote" is indicative of some level of deceit. At best, you never looked up the quote and pulled it up from memory and labeled it "exact quote". But the missing period indicates the more likely scenario, you very selectively dissected the quote to only what you wanted.

Yes, you had a perfectly reasonable interpretation, even within context. But it's still a distortion of the full picture that tilts the conversation in your direction. Honestly, using "exact quote" can't BE any more of a textbook logical fallacy example, namely appeal to authority. The rest of the sentence introduced a level of ambiguity to the sentence that you just didn't want to deal with and by saying "exact quote" you are obviously implying you looked it up, copied and pasted in whole. Whether or not that ambiguity invalidates your point is irrelevant at that point. By calling it an exact quote, you've started with a lie.

Sorry Leo, I have too much respect for your communication skills to think that you didn't have SOME intent in quoting it like that. Even if it was just because it meant you could chop a paragraph off your post.

sleepyjeff

09-04-2008, 09:42 PM

Ghoulish Delight

09-04-2008, 10:46 PM

Oh, is this the quote you all are talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s05MKeM&feature=related

Notice later that day Iran went from being a tiny threat to a grave threat?

Also notice, not that it really means anything beyond hometown pride/trivia...that the quote in question was delivered in Portland, Oregon:)Again, I didn't discount that Leo had a valid point. I simply claimed that by presenting a dissected version of what was said he was framing the discussion under a distorted premise in a way that just happened to remove ambiguity that existed, but my detract form his point.

Perhaps he did just see the quote as he pasted it, quoted by some secondary source and didn't bother to find the original full context himself. If so I suppose I would apologize some for my tone. But it's lazy and still represents someone's conscious decision to deceive.

scaeagles

09-05-2008, 03:51 AM

To find the quote I had in mind, I googled something like "Obama Iran threat" (don't remember exactly). I grabbed one that wasn't a video link and and took all of the quote that was listed on that particular site and pasted that. I did not chop off the the portion of the quote that I felt skewed it from from my interpretation. I knew the basics of the entire quote Tom gave, and that hadn't altered my interpretation of it.

One thing that I certainly understand about this place is that it is not possible to be factually incorrect without it (usually) rapidly being brought to the attention of all. I would dare not to insult the intelligence of the posters here in attempting to do that.

One other thing I completely forgot to mention is that in linking Iran to Cuba and Venezuela he is equating the three in terms of threat. At least in how I read it. I may have missed something McCain or Bush has said, but I don't think anyone has called them threats to the US. They're more like annoying mosquitos - best not to let them breed (and no doubt Chvez is looking to expand his influence in South America), but certainly no threat.

Cadaverous Pallor

09-05-2008, 08:32 AM

One other thing I completely forgot to mention is that in linking Iran to Cuba and Venezuela he is equating the three in terms of threat. At least in how I read it. I may have missed something McCain or Bush has said, but I don't think anyone has called them threats to the US. They're more like annoying mosquitos - best not to let them breed (and no doubt Chvez is looking to expand his influence in South America), but certainly no threat.I wonder if the Republican spinners are saying the same. The party line has been "any country that isn't a democracy is always a threat" since WWII.

scaeagles

09-05-2008, 08:35 AM

Kind of an expanded Truman doctrine feel indeed.

Cadaverous Pallor

09-05-2008, 08:43 AM

Kind of an expanded Truman doctrine feel indeed.I meant Republican party doctrine. As in, Red Scare, Axis of Evil, etc.

scaeagles

09-05-2008, 08:56 AM

The Truman doctrine revolved around the red scare, so I think you're right on. It now seems to be expanded to include the islamoterrorist scare.

Morrigoon

09-05-2008, 09:35 AM

(sigh) I guess the Monroe Doctrine is no longer en vogue.

(Probably wouldn't work in today's world anyway. It's a nice thought though)

Moonliner

09-05-2008, 10:51 AM

Did he say "slight"? He said "worlds". Hell, there's a good chance he could be worse. Put someone in there with similar goals a Bush, but with a glimmer of intelect and I shudder to imagine.

If McCain wins, I will consider it a failure of the electorate. Failure.

More than 75% of the country says we're headed in the wrong direction, and yet half the country wants to vote for McCain? It boggles.

I think most of those people, myself included, do not equate McCain with Bush and his policies. With Bush it's as much his cronies as it is him. Certainly there is no love between McCain and Rove. Cheney will be gone. So already we are way ahead. Plus unlike Obama, McCain would, in all probability, be facing an unfriendly congress. That will help to limit his more extreme policies. So overall I'd take McCain over Bush any day of the week. If I'd take him over Obama, well I'll have to get back to you on that....

Cadaverous Pallor

09-05-2008, 04:00 PM

I think most of those people, myself included, do not equate McCain with Bush and his policies. With Bush it's as much his cronies as it is him. Certainly there is no love between McCain and Rove. Cheney will be gone. So already we are way ahead. Plus unlike Obama, McCain would, in all probability, be facing an unfriendly congress. That will help to limit his more extreme policies. So overall I'd take McCain over Bush any day of the week. If I'd take him over Obama, well I'll have to get back to you on that....McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time, and he's been in Washington for 26 years. Yet people like that he's using the word "change". (not you, Moonliner.) Bwahahaha!

innerSpaceman

09-05-2008, 04:10 PM

And his maverick status is bull**** perpetuated by the press and the story arc they love to weave about him.

There are other Republicans who've voted contrary to their party far more often than McCain, but they are not press darlings.

scaeagles

09-05-2008, 04:25 PM

McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time, and he's been in Washington for 26 years. Yet people like that he's using the word "change". (not you, Moonliner.) Bwahahaha!

Well, couldn't the same be said of Obama's choice in Biden? There's certainly nothing to do with change there - he's been in Washington longer than McCain.

Also, I'm curious as to where that 90% of the vote comes from. I've heard that as well, but have also heard that this includes even ceremonial and numerous proclamations and unanimous senate votes, for such things as "we proclaim today to be soccor mom day" or whatever, getting unanimous approval and ceremonial ruibber stamps of the President's signature.

Again, I have not researched it at all. Just what I've heard, so I'm curious.

Moonliner

09-05-2008, 04:29 PM

McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time, and he's been in Washington for 26 years. Yet people like that he's using the word "change". (not you, Moonliner.) Bwahahaha!

OK so McCain voted with Bush 90-95% of the time.

From what I can find, Obama voted with Bush 40-50% of the time.

What I would like to see, but have not been able to find, are the cases where Obama voted against Bush and McCain voted with him. Any idea where I might find that info?

Edited to add: Damn you demon Scaeagles, must you always post what I am going to post before I post it. (And if you edit your message to add "Yes" at the end.... There will be war.

Ghoulish Delight

09-05-2008, 04:33 PM

Well, couldn't the same be said of Obama's choice in Biden? There's certainly nothing to do with change there - he's been in Washington longer than McCain.I've said it before and I'll say it again, I who cares about VP?

Moonliner

09-05-2008, 04:48 PM

So here is what I found so far....

Obama sponsored a bill which would have increased the level of family sponsored immigrants from 226,000 to 567,000. McCain voted no.

Obama voted for an amendment that declared English to be the common language of the United States. John McCain voted no.

Obama voted against the flag desecration amendment while John McCain voted yes

Obama did not vote on the moveon.org resolution that criticized the group for bashing General Petraeus. McCain voted yes.

Obama voted for an amendment that opposes criticism of our military. John McCain voted against this bill.

Obama voted to grant habeas corpus to persons being detained by the US. Mccain voted against it.

Both rejected the same sex marriage amendment

Obama voted for a congressional committee to study how contracts were to be handed out in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain voted no

Obama voted against Alito and Roberts. McCain voted yes.

Obama did not vote on the economic stimulus package. McCain voted yes.

Obama voted for a temporary crude oil profits tax. McCain voted against it.

Obama voted to provide 500 million to help vets deal with PTSD and substance abuse. McCain voted no.

Obama voted against CAFTA. McCain voted yes

innerSpaceman

09-05-2008, 04:56 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I who cares about VP?

Well, I read in the paper today there's a 1 in 5 chance of any sitting U.S. President dying in office. I have no idea what that stat is based on. It was printed in the L.A. Weekly.

But John McCain, if elected, would be the oldest serving president in U.S. History.

That combined with the absolute loathing I hold for his V.P. choice leaves me concerned about the Vice Presidency more than I ever have been for any other election.

Not Afraid

09-05-2008, 05:04 PM

Maybe McCain will adopt David Bowie's Changes as his theme song, then he can be both for change and hip.

JWBear

09-05-2008, 05:18 PM

"Hip replacement" is more like it....

Ghoulish Delight

09-05-2008, 05:36 PM

Well, I read in the paper today there's a 1 in 5 chance of any sitting U.S. President dying in office. I have no idea what that stat is based on. It was printed in the L.A. Weekly.

But John McCain, if elected, would be the oldest serving president in U.S. History.

That combined with the absolute loathing I hold for his V.P. choice leaves me concerned about the Vice Presidency more than I ever have been for any other election.
That stat would be based on the fact that out of 43 Presidents, 8 have died in office (making it actually slightly less than 1 in 5).

And whether the odds are slightly increased or not remains irrelevant to me. I'm voting for the Presidential candidate and I have to assume that the one that makes it in there is going to be the one that is doing the job. Unless the VP is someone so entirely anathema to the reasons I'm voting for the primary candidate that it would be impossible for one to even understand why they'd choose to run together, it just doesn't matter in the least to me.

Moonliner

09-05-2008, 05:38 PM

Well, I read in the paper today there's a 1 in 5 chance of any sitting U.S. President dying in office. I have no idea what that stat is based on. It was printed in the L.A. Weekly.

But John McCain, if elected, would be the oldest serving president in U.S. History.

That combined with the absolute loathing I hold for his V.P. choice leaves me concerned about the Vice Presidency more than I ever have been for any other election.

(William Henry Harrison + Zachary Taylor + Abraham Lincoln + James Garfield + William McKinley + Warren Harding + Franklin Roosevelt +John Kennedy) divided by 43 presidents = ~ 18% or 1 in ~5.5

However, those are just the ones that died. I think you would have to add Nixon to that list since he did not finish his term. That brings us to 20% or exactly 1 in 5.

Of course I think it might be more accurate to count the number of terms rather than the number of presidents. We are currently in the 55th term. So that gives us ~ 16% or 1 in 6.25 chance of a VP becoming president on any given term.

scaeagles

09-05-2008, 06:43 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I who cares about VP?

You haven't....however Palin's experience has become a major issue in the media, meaning that obviously many people do care. A whole bunch of people on this board seem to care. My comment wasn't intended to suggest you did.

Motorboat Cruiser

09-05-2008, 07:14 PM

Maybe McCain will adopt David Bowie's Changes as his theme song, then he can be both for change and hip.

Well, so far he isn't having much luck with using music from various artists. Members of Heart, Jackson Browne, Frankie Valli and the composers of the Rocky theme have all told him to stop using their music in his campaign, especially since he didn't ask for any of their permission first.

scaeagles

09-05-2008, 07:15 PM

Damn you demon Scaeagles, must you always post what I am going to post before I post it.

Great minds and all....mine just works a bit faster, it seems.:)

Moonliner

09-05-2008, 08:08 PM

Well, so far he isn't having much luck with using music from various artists. Members of Heart, Jackson Browne, Frankie Valli and the composers of the Rocky theme have all told him to stop using their music in his campaign, especially since he didn't ask for any of their permission first.

What's the deal with that? Do they really need permission? Can an artist say, yes you can play my song here but not there? As long as you pay the proper fee can't anyone use a song? Or is this considered advertising and covered by different rules?

Betty

09-05-2008, 08:23 PM

Since he didn't pay any fee either, it doesn't really matter.

Ghoulish Delight

09-05-2008, 08:56 PM

What's the deal with that? Do they really need permission? Can an artist say, yes you can play my song here but not there? As long as you pay the proper fee can't anyone use a song? Or is this considered advertising and covered by different rules?It probably varies artist to artist, but in most cases it's probably just a matter of courtesy. Their contract probably doesn't give them veto rights, but it seems a matter of principal that if an artist requests you don't use it you're kind of a dick if you continue to. That said, if it ain't in the contract and you immediately come out acting all indignant, that's pretty lame. But if you ask nicely and they still say no, by all means, complain away.

You haven't....
OMG, I, like, totally did! (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=236088&postcount=237)

The exact quote is:

]I have never really understood the focus on the VP. They have no official authority over anything. As mentioned already, anything they have involvement in is only because the President has decided to put them in that role. Which the President could do for anyone, VP or not. The VP is just another glorified adviser at best, the President's got tons of those no matter what. I'm not swayed by the "heartbeat from the Oval Office" angle. Over 58 Presidential terms, only 8 have not been completed by the person elected. No matter who MIGHT, in the rare, ~15%, instance of the elected President not finishing the term, take over, it's not going to make me want to vote for or against someone who would definitely be in the office if I wasn't going to vote for or against them before.

scaeagles

09-05-2008, 09:19 PM

Of course - posting while tired. Sorry. I meant you haven't expressed that you care. The media does and many people here do. You have expressed exactly the opposite.

Wow....I need to stop posting tonight. Duh. Said exactly the opposite of what I meant.

Ghoulish Delight

09-05-2008, 09:21 PM

I think someone's bodysnatched Leo.

I don't like timid Leo.

scaeagles

09-05-2008, 09:30 PM

Ghoulish Delight

09-05-2008, 09:40 PM

That's cool. I think you can understand why we were suspicious. I mean, I'm still not ruling out body snatchers.

scaeagles

09-05-2008, 09:42 PM

Read post 202 in the RNC thread. He's trying to return, it looks like.:)

BarTopDancer

09-05-2008, 09:52 PM

How's it feel to be a small fish in a big pond?

CoasterMatt

09-05-2008, 10:13 PM

I'd love to see the LoT Political threads "covered" by Bill O'Reilly - I know the theme song already (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE)(NSFW)

mousepod

09-05-2008, 11:31 PM

Too tired to do a long post here.... but I will say that the idea that anyone can use any song for anything as long as they pay the "fee" is incorrect. Trust me on that one.

wendybeth

09-06-2008, 12:42 AM

Leo just got tired of the ugliness that was becoming the LoT in terms of tone and nastiness (understanding he was a contributor to said tone and nastiness) so he left for a while and in his place is cautious Leo who treads lightly.

My name's not Leo, but I am a Leo, and I decided that (aside from replying to any appalling misquotes or spying any glaringly obvious opportunities to zing) I am also going to refrain from anything that clutters our cool. We're friends, I like that, and I don't want to try to solve the world's problems at the cost of any friendships. We're not going to solve anything at this rate- we're just pissing each other off and it's not worth it to me. The cynical part of this usually optimistic soul knows that the main players in this game are largely apolitical and oh, so willing to sell their little souls for their greater good. Why should we tear into each other on principals that we wish they would stand on? Let's all just get a large bucket of popcorn and let the jackals have at each other. I also plan on having a few of these- it seems to dull the pain::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

Tenigma

09-06-2008, 12:48 AM

It probably varies artist to artist, but in most cases it's probably just a matter of courtesy. Their contract probably doesn't give them veto rights, but it seems a matter of principal that if an artist requests you don't use it you're kind of a dick if you continue to. That said, if it ain't in the contract and you immediately come out acting all indignant, that's pretty lame. But if you ask nicely and they still say no, by all means, complain away.

Actually this was explained in a Slate article (http://www.slate.com/id/2199492/?from=rss=) today; the fee is paid for by the venue and it apparently has to be a special license over and above whatever license they already pay for for their sports games.

But I like that the artists come out and say something publically.

You know, Ann and Nancy's dad was a career Marine. They grew up as military brats and they are quite patriotic and love the military. They just have a good head on their shoulders and they know when their music is being used for bunk. lol.

scaeagles

09-06-2008, 08:08 AM

I know the Limbaugh had some sort of battle with the artist who wrote his shows opening theme. I don't know much except that he still uses it. Perhaps he offered some form of extra monetary incentive. No - wait. I think because he was on the radio and he pays the standard radio fees to use music of whomever he was allowed to keep using it. Perhaps there is a distinction in rules between radio and public use.

Not Afraid

09-06-2008, 08:12 AM

My, we're all up early talking politics.

Tom

09-06-2008, 08:31 AM

cautious Leo who treads lightly.

That sounds like a Little Golden Book about a lion.

innerSpaceman

09-06-2008, 09:07 AM

My, we're all up early talking politics.

It's because we stayed up kinda late talking politics, well many of us, outside the theater after Assassins.

Hmmm, something about the subject matter of the play put us in the mind to discuss the U.S. presidency.:rolleyes:

I had a bizarre dream that I was somehow elected President by mistake, and there was a Hospital Wing next to the West Wing ... Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, even older than they are now, were in a room together, while the two Bushes were in a room across the Hall, and they were all making demands on me to find things for them they left somewhere in the Oval Office, and they couldn't stop bickering with each other from across the hall.

Can we have the election tomorrow please? This is obviously getting to me. (But, yeah, it won't be every night I see a musical about presidential assassins.)

scaeagles

09-06-2008, 09:15 AM

That certainly borders on the bizarre. I once had a dream about Hillary Clinton in which her neck and shoulders were made out of shiny black flexible steel and I found her extraordinarily hot because of that.

Was exceptionally creepy and haunts me to this day.

JWBear

09-06-2008, 10:32 AM

I once had a nightmare where this incompetent boob from Texas got elected to the White House... oh, wait... never mind....

sleepyjeff

09-06-2008, 01:29 PM

I had a bizarre dream that I was somehow elected President by mistake, and there was a Hospital Wing next to the West Wing ... Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, even older than they are now, were in a room together, while the two Bushes were in a room across the Hall, and they were all making demands on me to find things for them they left somewhere in the Oval Office, and they couldn't stop bickering with each other from across the hall.

That certainly borders on the bizarre. I once had a dream about Hillary Clinton in which her neck and shoulders were made out of shiny black flexible steel and I found her extraordinarily hot because of that.

No politician has ever entered my dreams I am happy to say........although I have had some daytime fantasies where I am playing hockey and slamming Ron Wyden into and over the boards:evil:

Tenigma

09-06-2008, 01:47 PM

I know the Limbaugh had some sort of battle with the artist who wrote his shows opening theme. I don't know much except that he still uses it.

If it's that "[I went] Back to Ohio" song, it's by Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders. I have *no* idea what their political leanings are... if they were new today they would probably fall under some kind of Goth category but they were New Wave back in the 1980s... I was just surprised when she had a kid that she said some really weird stuff... about how women's bodies are designed to make babies and that if women don't get pregnant by a certain age it makes them go into depression or something.

The "Ohio" song is that strong rhythmic tune that I associate with Rush.

As an aside, I remember Alex and I were on a cross-country road trip a few years ago when I had the radio set to a country music station (because in some of the backwaters it's country or Latin accordion salsa music and I MUCH prefer country, thankyouverymuch). Martina McBride came on with "Let Freedom Ring" and just as she started singing the chorus, Alex started singing along... because it was the one line he was familiar with from the Hannity show. rofl. OK I probably just embarassed him.

scaeagles

09-07-2008, 08:06 PM

Please understand that I DO NOT think Obama is a Muslim. Not for a second. But boy did he make and oops on This Week with George Stephanopoulis.

In discussing faith, Obama referred to "his Muslim faith", finished the sentence, Stephanopoulis corrected him with "Christian faith", and Obama quickly corrected himself.

Oops.

innerSpaceman

09-07-2008, 08:18 PM

oh he did not??? hahahaha, giant frelling oops.

scaeagles

09-07-2008, 08:35 PM

Well, perhaps it isn't as huge as I thought. He still said it, but what he was saying is that McCain and his campaign have not tried to say his is a Muslim. He said "you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.". What he meant was that McCain hasn't been trying to say he is a Muslim. So still an oops, but not like he was just discussing faith and called himself a Muslim. I think he just didn't say what he meant very well.

flippyshark

09-07-2008, 08:39 PM

It'll still get pointed at by those desperate to follow this well-trounced rumor. there are always a few. Me, I'm still having a fine chuckle over Terry Moran's priceless flub. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YooKkyikXw0) I wish there was footage of the look on his face when he either realized what he said, or someone pointed it out to him.

sleepyjeff

09-07-2008, 11:46 PM

JWBear

09-08-2008, 11:15 AM

I just got this in an email, and I thought I'd share it:

Working people frequently ask retired people what they do to make their days interesting.
Well, for exmple,the other day I went downtown and into a shop. I was there for about 5 mins, and when I came out, there was a cop writing out a parking ticket.
I said to him,"Come on , man, how about giving a retired person a break? He ignored me and continued writing the ticket.
I called him a 'Nazi'
He glared at me and wrote another ticket for having worn tires.
So I called him a "doughnut eating gestapo"
He finished the the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first.
The more I abused him the more tickets he wrote.Personally, I didn't care.
I came downtown on the bus, and the car he was putting the tickets on had a bumper sticker that said "McCain in '08.'
I try to have a little fun each day now that i'm retired It's important to my health.

:D

Cadaverous Pallor

09-09-2008, 07:20 PM

Skip to 1:15 - the questioner rambles - but the answer is spot on.

Obama defends himself - and the Constitution - clearly. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqE3j10keLc)

Diggers - Digg it! :)

innerSpaceman

09-09-2008, 07:53 PM

Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I find I can't support Mr. Obama. I don't think I'm even going to vote for him.

His stance on finding common ground on thorny social issues that divide this country has become more and more troubling to me. He desires to pull all sides to the middle, and to accommodate people who want to foist their religious beliefs on all Americans so as to curtail the liberties that this country is supposed to be dedicated to.

I have no desire to accommodate people who consider me a sinner who should burn in hell. There's no middle ground that could be occupied. I demand my full civil rights and I will settle for nothing less. I will not meet in the middle those on the complete wrong side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Furthermore, with Proposition 8 the most important element of this November's election as far as I'm concerned, I won't be supporting any candidate for any office who is opposed to gay marriage rights.

I'm not willing to move to the middle on women's reproductive freedoms either. So any talk of accommodating the Fundies on this one is a no-go for me as well.

Being as this is California, and a done deal for Obama, I have the luxury of voting my conscience. And mine will not allow a vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidates.

€uroMeinke

09-09-2008, 11:32 PM

Does Queer Nation still exist? where are the Gay Terrorists?

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 04:03 AM

ISM, I can totally relate. I've gone back and forth with voting for McCain or simply taking advantage that I live in AZ which he'll win by a significant margin. It's only very recently that I feel like I can vote for him without completely gagging as I punch the chad or mark the mark or whatever it is I'll do.

I, for one, will not be someone saying that since you didn't vote you can't complain. Not voting due to a conscious decision is far different than apathy.

Cadaverous Pallor

09-10-2008, 08:01 AM

iSm, click here. (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm)
Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
...
Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard.
...
Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

Yes, he is not a supporter of the gay marriage movement, which sucks. But he's everything but, and surely 89% is worthy of consideration. I'd say he is the strongest gay-rights presidential candidate, ever.

Just sayin'. :)

Gemini Cricket

09-10-2008, 09:02 AM

CP,
I agree. I would rather see Obama represent me than McCain. I'm thinking that with Obama, I'm going to hear less about how me marrying someone of the same sex is going to destroy the country.

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 09:12 AM

Not to try to speak for ISM, but I think he's in agreement with that, but because he's in an easy Obama win state, he can feel free to vote his conscience rather than worrying about casting a vote for the lesser of two evils.

I say this only because I have been in the exact same boat on the oppostie side.

Gemini Cricket

09-10-2008, 09:20 AM

I like the whole idea of protest voting. But does anyone really look at those ballots with blanks and say, 'Hey, look at that! We better do something!'?

Ghoulish Delight

09-10-2008, 09:22 AM

I like the whole idea of protest voting. But does anyone really look at those ballots with blanks and say, 'Hey, look at that! We better do something!'?
Yes. Those statistics are kept and you can bet the people whose job it is to run campaigns pay attention to the numbers of people who, say, vote mostly party line but leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank.

Gemini Cricket

09-10-2008, 09:30 AM

Yes. Those statistics are kept and you can bet the people whose job it is to run campaigns pay attention to the numbers of people who, say, vote mostly party line but leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank.
And then they use that info to shape the way the next campaign is run? Or use it to gauge what kind of response their newly elected president will receive?
These aren't loaded questions, I'm just askin'.

Ghoulish Delight

09-10-2008, 09:33 AM

One would assume both. And not just Presidential elections, but local elections as well. I imagine it gets factored into every decision the party makes and who it's targeting its message to.

innerSpaceman

09-10-2008, 09:59 AM

I don't care if they take it into account or not. That's not my purpose. My purpose is Living With Myself.

I thank the lucky stars that living in California means I don't have to vote strategically. I didn't vote for Gore, btw. I voted for Nader. I would never have done that in a swing state.

Fvck the electoral college for making my vote meaningless ... but since it is, I'll accept the luxury of actually voting my conscience.

CP, I will check out that link and see if my conscience eases. I appreciate the philosophy behind his consiliatory desires, but if I'm not willing to budge on gay rights and reproductive rights, what do you think the chances are for the neanderthal homophobes and abortion foes?

We spoke a bit last weekend about the one-issue voters. I daresay most of those are abortion-issue voters who ignore everything else. Well, seeing as the presidential election is meaningless in California, and rather we have the most important ballot measure election I can recall in my lifetime where the issue of TAKING AWAY my rights to marry the one I love is at stake ... I am A One Issue Voter this time around.

So I doubt it will make much difference to me that Obama agrees I should be able to visit my loved one in a hospital. If he's going to stop short of supporting my rights to marry, which I CuRRenTly HaVE, then I'm not going to vote for him.

I understand he feels he can't make that committment in this Country in this day and age. The loss of my vote won't phase him.

innerSpaceman

09-10-2008, 10:17 AM

Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama ... said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

I am appalled.

This is precisely what I object to. Basing American liberties on religious beliefs. That is tantamount to treason in my book. Exactly the opposite should be the case. Our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not have a religious test. They are absolute.

Leaving it up to the States is pathetic. Many of the most important marriage rights are granted only at the federal level.

Furthermore, I agree with the California Supreme Court that separate cannot be equal. To say that it's ok for me to have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without calling it that is an affront to my dignity and an insult I will not bear. Again, it is only religious belief that would snatch away my current right to have the same societal acceptance and honor that comes distinctly with marriage.

Sorry, CP, but your link did nothing but cement my opposition to Obama.

I hope he wins rather than McCain, but I cannot support his election.

JWBear

09-10-2008, 10:24 AM

iSm... Hillary Clinton has the exact same position on gay marriage as Obama.

flippyshark

09-10-2008, 10:38 AM

I very much wish that Obama (and Clinton) had the sense and moral rigor to fully support gay marriage. I also wish that Barack, in particular, did not feel the need to wave the God flag so high and so often. On the other hand, I'm in a major swing state (that tends red lately) so I'll have no problem casting my vote for Barry. Still, really society-at-large, get a fvckin' grip.

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 10:49 AM

If it matters, I think the government should be out of the marriage business all together.

Ghoulish Delight

09-10-2008, 10:50 AM

If it matters, I think the government should be out of the marriage business all together.I may or may not agree with that, but as long as it is, it should be available for all.

Moonliner

09-10-2008, 10:55 AM

If it matters, I think the government should be out of the marriage business all together.

Could you please define "out of the marriage business"?

Does that include the IRS?
How would you deal with a contentious divorce?
Child custody?

As a total aside, I just saw the comment Leno made on the subject of gay marriage. "They should have the same right to be miserable as the rest of us".

innerSpaceman

09-10-2008, 11:04 AM

iSm... Hillary Clinton has the exact same position on gay marriage as Obama.

Then I likely would not have voted for her either.

In California, we have the blessing of our election not matter to the presidential candidates. So we are not bombarded with ads (which I wouldn't see anyway, since I don't watch TV) and they generally don't bother to campaign here.

As such, I have limited opportunities to hear them speak. If I'd seen Hillary speak about her stance on gay marriage rights, she would have lost my support then and there. I think I assumed as much about both candidates, but hearing it from their lips puts a chill in me that I cannot shake.

If Obama tries not to have his religious beliefs dominate or determine his stance on this matter, he needs to try harder. Because right now, he fails.

Morrigoon

09-10-2008, 11:24 AM

Instead of leaving it blank, how about a write-in vote?

Gemini Cricket

09-10-2008, 11:24 AM

Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's history. Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R's have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we're going to elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That's not odd as a difference of opinion, that's logically and mathematically queer.Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html)

JWBear posted the above link in the Random Politics thread.

I'm not good at writing out what's in my brain. But what he writes is exactly what I am talking about.

1. Obama has no game plan right now. We're going to lose. He has much to his advantage, but he's reading from the Gore/Kerry Playbook and thinking he'll succeed where they didn't just because.

2. The press is not liberal. They are run by big corporations who benefited financially from the last 8 years and want to see 8 more. Forget that particle accelerator, CEOs like Rupert Murdoch are f*cking this country and this planet up just to make money.

3. There is no convincing the Christian conservative right of anything. They stick to their party like they do to their religion of choice. Ever try talking to someone about religion and try to sway them? It's impossible. That is now becoming true of a majority of people who vote Republican just because GOP candidates outwardly talk about Christianity and Christian beliefs. The Democrats are in the minority because a lot of them think with their brains and not their bibles and sway. Take iSm for example: liberal, Obama supporting but because he wants to be true to his conscience, he is protest voting. Republicans, conservatives do not do that, they don't stray from their way of thinking no matter what. It's much more black and white for them. And why? Because it's easier to look at things in black and white without having to think about what comes between. The ironic thing is that these politicians are looking to retain their jobs and don't give a sh!t about Christianity, family values. The corruption, the affairs, and the cover-ups that follow demonstrate that.

So what does Obama need to do? He needs to paint McCain as someone who is not a Maverick but someone who follows the Bush playbook. Bush is out of the spotlight for a reason. Because someone told him to vanish. The less we think about Bush, the less we think about comparing McCain to Bush.

I agree with Adam McKay that Obama needs to come up with a slogan that sums up what he feels about McCain and Palin. And repeat it, over and over and over. Something catchy and repeated like that can sway voters. It worked for Bush. Heck, it even worked for Johnny Cochran.

Obama needs to come out swinging and make the country forget that he was eaten alive by Palin. If he's got to dig in the dirt to do it, so be it. The opposing party already has mud under their fingernails. I want to be represented by someone with guts. Obama is not that person right now. I'll vote for him, but the idea of protest voting intrigues me too.

Capt Jack

09-10-2008, 11:43 AM

found this. thought some might enjoy it.

http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m345/retortman/ojk.jpg

that is all

:p

Tenigma

09-10-2008, 12:06 PM

Sorry, CP, but your link did nothing but cement my opposition to Obama.

I hope he wins rather than McCain, but I cannot support his election.
You should know that elections often boil down to choosing the person who is either less offensive or a little more likeable than the other.

I'm really very disappointed in your decision, iSm. Voting is the ONE right you have in this country. And you choose to waste it.

innerSpaceman

09-10-2008, 12:10 PM

I'm hardly wasting it, Tenigma. I'm casting the most important vote of my life. The vote to RETAIN my rights to marry the person I love.

There's never been a presidential election in California nearly as important. The presidential election has NEVER been a contest in this state for the 30 years I've lived here.

Don't presume to tell me my vote is wasted. Where did I EVER say I'm not casting a vote for president? I said I'm not voting for either the Republican or Democratic candidate. Sheesh.

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 12:19 PM

Could you please define "out of the marriage business"?

Does that include the IRS?
How would you deal with a contentious divorce?
Child custody?

As a total aside, I just saw the comment Leno made on the subject of gay marriage. "They should have the same right to be miserable as the rest of us".

Yes on the IRS.
Contentious divorce and child bustody....good questions. Admittedly no idea.

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 12:22 PM

For the record...from an AP article (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0)....

Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.

At a GOP presidential debate in May 2007 in Simi Valley, Calif., McCain said he believed in evolution.

"But," he added, "I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

Alex

09-10-2008, 12:25 PM

No on the IRS. I don't see any reason why two married people living in different houses should get different tax consideration than two unmarried people living together.

No on the contentious divorce. If the government isn't defining marriage then there is nothing for government to dissolve. Either the people in the "divorce" will never have legally solidified their relationship in which case they are free to walk away however they want or they have legally solidified it in other ways and they can pursue remedies through the civil courts.

Irrelevant on child custody and support. Those laws already mostly exist independent of marriage anyway and to the extent they don't, they should regardless of what happens with marriage. It isn't like I get out of supporting my child or lose any legal right to participation simply because I was never married to the mother.

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 12:37 PM

Because of the other Obama picture posted, I had to post one I came across. No idea if it is photoshopped or not, but I found it funny.

http://blogplatoon.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/obama_phone.jpg

Alex

09-10-2008, 12:43 PM

Obvious photoshop (look at the chord). And amusing kind of.

Google shows the photos first going around in April so this one is probably from Clinton supporters though it has recently been revived by Sean Hannity.)

ETA: Here's the original unaltered photo (http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x280/icebergslim1047/%3Faction=view%26current=barackonphone.jpg). The clock is completely photoshopped in as well.

Here's a similar idea with slightly better photoshopping (but only slightly) from 2005:

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/3/w/bush_phone.jpg

Moonliner

09-10-2008, 12:44 PM

For the record...from an AP article (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0)....

And she was for the bridge to nowhere. Until she had the power to do something about it.

Gemini Cricket

09-10-2008, 12:45 PM

http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m345/retortman/ojk.jpg

that is all

:p
But, it's not all. :D
I think this is a pertinent picture to post. Obama needs to find his inner Sith and go on the attack. (No, I'm not saying he should be evil...) But right now he's in uncool Jedi-Land, always on the defense, boringly preaching. And we all know what happened to the Jedi.
:D

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 02:25 PM

oops!

Funny, but I don't think it's anything major....Biden was out campaigning and asked a wheelchair bound man to stand up and be recognized. Oops! But a funny oops. At least I think so. Something tells me if Palin did this some people on this site would be talking about how oblivious and callous she was, but that's another issue all together.

mousepod

09-10-2008, 02:28 PM

Not to slam you in particular, scaeagles, but I'm getting tired of one side telling a stupid story about a politician that they don't like, with the added "I'll bet if this happened to the politician I like, the other side wouldn't be as cool as me." As far as I'm concerned, you're spreading the story - in just as slimy a way as you imagine the "other side" would.

Both sides do it. I call shenanigans.

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 02:36 PM

I said I thought it was funny and no big deal.

I also posted this about the time I read a different poster post an unsubstantiated rumor about Palin referring to Obama as "Sambo" and to Hillary as "that b!tch". So actually, I stand completely by what I said. I didn't say he did anything wrong at all or call him callous or stupid because I don't think he is. The pattern here lately with some posters, particularly when it comes to Palin, is to never give the benefit of the doubt. I did. Some others are not. Which is why I said "some posters on this site" and not "every left leaning person on this board would jump on the opportunity to use it against Palin to say she's stupid".

innerSpaceman

09-10-2008, 02:42 PM

I'm sorry if I don't give Palin the benefit of the doubt, but she rubs me the wrong way. Meaning, alas, she will be president of the United States when McCain is elected and then dies in office.

Strangler Lewis

09-10-2008, 02:43 PM

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 02:46 PM

I don't care if you do overall, really, because I would suspect you base your opinion of her on policy without jumping on a rumor of her calling Obama "Sambo". This isn't about bridge to nowhere or about misrepresenting a sale of a plane on ebay where there is legitimate debate on her intentions vs. what she said.

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 02:47 PM

Query: If it turns out she did say it, and this is the first I've heard of it, would your response be

1) Ewww, or

2) Jesus Christ, people, have a sense of humor, or

3) That's nothing compared to what the Democrats say about the oil companies.

Definitely 1. No doubt. Nothing funny about it, so defintely not 2. While I would consider 3 in the back of my mind, 3 has nothing to do with race, so that would go out the window quickly.

Edited to add: I don't mean to ignore the supposed reference to Hillary. There is also no room for that, either, whether in a campaign or in real life, and references like that real do downgrade what I think of the person.

Tenigma

09-10-2008, 03:06 PM

The pattern here lately with some posters, particularly when it comes to Palin, is to never give the benefit of the doubt.
And your point is...?

Look, she's a "heartbeat away from the presidency"--given the things that are coming out about her (and no, I don't mean things uttered at a Denny's), I am not about to give her a micron of benefit. Sorry.

PS: Gorsh speaking of funny, isn't it funny how some Republicans are treating her all special-like, almost like um... a celebrity? :rolleyes:

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 03:20 PM

And your point is...?

...perfectly clear, I thought.

And since Obama would actually be in the Presidency, I would guess that means he should be given even less of a benefit of a doubt than Palin.

Alex

09-10-2008, 03:31 PM

Neither one of you are making any particular sense in those last two posts.

Cadaverous Pallor

09-10-2008, 03:46 PM

I said I thought it was funny and no big deal.

I also posted this about the time I read a different poster post an unsubstantiated rumor about Palin referring to Obama as "Sambo" and to Hillary as "that b!tch". So actually, I stand completely by what I said. And actually, you both sound like you love swirling these dumb rumors around.

Seriously, "I don't care about this awful rumor but here I'm going to make everyone read it anyway"? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

JWBear

09-10-2008, 03:49 PM

If it's any consolation to anyone... I know a couple of women, who are Republicans, who have decided to vote for Obama because McCain selected Palin.

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 04:22 PM

And actually, you both sound like you love swirling these dumb rumors around.

Seriously, "I don't care about this awful rumor but here I'm going to make everyone read it anyway"? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sheesh. I directly quote something Biden said (not a rumor) because I thought it was a funny "oops", and that is equated with posting an unsubstantiated rumor about Palin calling Obama "Sambo". I'll see your three :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: and raise you three more :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .

Do you think I believe anyone here is going to be swayed by me posting that Biden said that? Well, you guessed it. I figured that every Obama supporter would be so shocked that they would immediately abondon their support. I'm caught.

sleepyjeff

09-10-2008, 04:31 PM

If it's any consolation to anyone... I know a couple of women, who are Republicans, who have decided to vote for Obama because McCain selected Palin.

My sister: was lukewarm towards McCain but is now excited about the Palin pick.

My Sister in-law: Was campaiging for McCain but is torn about his pick for VP; she likes that he chose a woman but thinks a better woman could have been found....she still continues to campaign for him.

My Mom: Dad said she shouted with joy when she heard the pick. She was going to vote libertarian(like she has done since 96') but nothing short of Palin getting a sex-change operation would stop her now from voting for McCain.

My foam supply lady: Says she's very excited by McCain's pick for VP....but then again, she probably has me pegged for a Republican and doesn't want to see her sales go down;)

My lunch delivery gal: Wears Obama garb so I doubt if the Palin pick has affected her opinion of McCain one way or another.

My Wife: Really, really doens't like McCain(she's no Obama fan either) but the pick of a woman VP has her at least entertaining the thought of giving him her vote.

I know more women than this, but oddly enough not too many share thier political opinions with me;)

JWBear

09-10-2008, 04:33 PM

Well... Most of the women I know had no intention of voting for McCain, even before he picked Palin. :)

Alex

09-10-2008, 04:37 PM

Out of curiosity, why would a Libertarian who actually votes Libertarian be swayed by the pick as vice president of a person who espouses no Libertarian views?

Or is she just a vagina fan?

Ghoulish Delight

09-10-2008, 04:39 PM

I'm a vagina fan.

Alex

09-10-2008, 04:43 PM

I just want sleepyjeff to spend time contemplating whether his mom is a vagina fan.

sleepyjeff

09-10-2008, 04:47 PM

Out of curiosity, why would a Libertarian who actually votes Libertarian be swayed by the pick as vice president of a person who espouses no Libertarian views?

Or is she just a vagina fan?

Probably the later.......her brother is somewhat of a bigwig in the Libertarian party so she tends to vote that way when she doesn't like the Republican Candidate....which she hasn't since 1992.

Or it could be that my Dad was behind McCain and Palin just gave her an excuse to vote with him(household harmony and all) :)

sleepyjeff

09-10-2008, 04:49 PM

I just want sleepyjeff to spend time contemplating whether his mom is a vagina fan.

No, she likes the Winterhawks(a Portland Junior Hockey team that sometimes plays against a team from the Canadian city of Regina) ;)

Tenigma

09-10-2008, 04:58 PM

Good god... perhaps it is really true, 2012 really WILL be the end of the world.

My head hurts.

Cadaverous Pallor

09-10-2008, 06:21 PM

Sheesh. I directly quote something Biden said (not a rumor) because I thought it was a funny "oops", and that is equated with posting an unsubstantiated rumor about Palin calling Obama "Sambo". I'll see your three :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: and raise you three more :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .I'm pretty sick of hearing these little stories that, whether they are true or not, are at best meaningless and at worst poisonous barbs, and when repeated, even with caveats and disclaimers galore, just mean that the stories are heard over and over and over.

I heard another smear today. Only complete morons would think it's actually an offensive thing. It's getting attention from the opposite side, and I'm beyond disgusted. I'm not f'n repeating it here, and if anyone else does, I'll call it what it is.

Do you think I believe anyone here is going to be swayed by me posting that Biden said that? Well, you guessed it. I figured that every Obama supporter would be so shocked that they would immediately abondon their support. I'm caught.One story? No. But many, over time, all of them with cutesy a little "Oh I don't mind this, it doesn't mean this to me, but listen to this" tacked on, does have an effect. Mood, mood, mood. Just ask GC, eh? So when you, or Tenigma, or anyone else posts smears, I'm going to call it as it is.

Just because someone says "this is news!", doesn't mean it is news.

Oh, and every time GC has a negative post, I'm going to post this to counteract it:

Obama is going to win, because we won't let him lose. :)

Alex

09-10-2008, 06:47 PM

Hey CP, want lipstick on that pig?

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 07:36 PM

One story? No. But many, over time, all of them with cutesy a little "Oh I don't mind this, it doesn't mean this to me, but listen to this" tacked on, does have an effect.

Oh, and every time GC has a negative post, I'm going to post this to counteract it:

Obama is going to win, because we won't let him lose. :)

I don't think I've been one to do that, but OK. I'll be sure to stop posting things I find amusing.

By the way, regardless of what happens in the election, I will not be whining or gloating. I realize that since a vast majority of this board is pro Obama, so I'm not going to ask the same of anyone else because most will be together in their disappointment or excitement, but you will probably see me disappear for a few weeks regardless of the outcome.

Gemini Cricket

09-10-2008, 07:49 PM

Mood, mood, mood. Just ask GC, eh?

I'm not sure what this means.

Cadaverous Pallor

09-10-2008, 07:58 PM

I'm not sure what this means.It means that you are worried about swiftboating and the like, and this kind of tiny crap leads up to big crap, because when the big smear comes, people buy it more if they've heard 6 or 7 hundred small smears in the last few weeks. Sorry I wasn't clear. :)

I don't think I've been one to do that, but OK. I'll be sure to stop posting things I find amusing.Yes, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

Hmm, I'm sure I have an insulting thing I can say about your candidates around here somewhere, and I can tack on that I personally don't feel this way, but hey, everyone read this.....*pulls open drawers*.....hmmm.....*riffles through folders*.....ah, yes, here are a few thousand I can use.....

Oh wait. I don't want to do that anymore.

Now, off to another thread to debate where candidates stand on an issue.

ETA - heh, I meant this thread, jeez, the action is fast here :)

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 08:16 PM

Yes, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:
Hmm, I'm sure I have an insulting thing I can say about your candidates around here somewhere

Well....please show me the way to repentance. CP has spoken. Who am I to disagree with CP or question CP or post something CP might find offensive? :rolleyes:

If I was so thin skinned that I couldn't listen to insults hoisted at the politicians I support I can gaurantee I would not be a participant in this forum. I am a member of a very small right leaning minority and insults and hate and spite have been thrown around with no problem in their direction, often times wishing for death and/or physical harm. However, let me quote something a candidate said that you don't think is important and I have apparently crossed some arbitrary line of acceptable behavior.

Your lectures are of no interest.

Cadaverous Pallor

09-10-2008, 08:37 PM

It seems I am coming across harsher than I intended....and I apologize, Leo.

:(

Apparently I'm not doing too well in the debate dept.

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 08:49 PM

And I am once again letting my failings show. Why I could not have limited my above post to the middle portion I don't know.

For my sarcasm and cutting words, I offer my apologies as well. Your postings - not worthy of the term lectures in the least - are of course of interest. Otherwise I would not be responding.

This election is bringing out less than the best in many, certainly including me. Not to go quoting scripture, but I am indeed the chief of sinners.

(edited to add: perhaps if I add the next line as my signature I will actually remember to act accordingly.)

I'm getting tired of having to apologize, so once again, I will resolve to chill and stop taking things personally.

Strangler Lewis

09-10-2008, 08:57 PM

And for both your punishments, an acting exercise: Scaeagles has to spend the next week advocating for Obama, and CP has to spend it advocating for McCain.

wendybeth

09-10-2008, 09:02 PM

I think everyone should post jokes about their own candidates- that way, we all have a good laugh and no one can be accused of an agenda other than trying to lighten things up.
I'll go first:

"And they say that Barack Obama now is a little down in the polls. Now this is a surprise, because after they announced the vice presidential candidate, they were hoping to get that Joe Biden bounce. Now don't confuse that Joe Biden bounce with a Bill Clinton bounce -- that'll get you impeached." --David Letterman

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 09:07 PM

Obama is an exceptionally well spoken individual that wants the best for the country. His personal background of rising to where he is now coming from the youth he had is an inspiration to all who were not born into wealth or success or power. He is obviously intelligent and loves his family dearly, which I respect immensely.

Hmmm.....I even meant all of that.:)

But don't ask me to do it again.:eek:

Tom

09-10-2008, 09:07 PM

And for both your punishments, an acting exercise: Scaeagles has to spend the next week advocating for Obama, and CP has to spend it advocating for McCain.

Actually, I think it would be fun to have everyone in the political threads, LoTwide, try that. If not for a week, at least spend a little time thinking of the best things you can say about the candidate(s) you oppose.

scaeagles

09-10-2008, 09:15 PM

"Earlier today, John McCain released 1,200 pages of his medical records. Or, as his doctor calls it, Chapter One." --Conan O'Brien

"Sarah Palin and McCain are a good pair. She's pro-life and he's clinging to life." –Jay Leno

innerSpaceman

09-10-2008, 10:31 PM

I love Joe Biden (almost as much as his son Bow) and I found that story about him funny and interesting. scaeagles, please don't let CP's individual displeasure stop you from posting any interesting tidbits or any damn thing you feel like posting.

This is NOT where the election is going to be won or lost, people. It really doesn't much matter if we spread vicious rumours here or not. It will NOT have an effect on who wins the presidency of the United States of America. Sheesh.

The Biden faux pas was a humorous, embarrassing goof. Certainly worthy of mention on this message board where any subject is welcome.

A moment like that on the campaign trail merits mention in one of our half dozen political threads. There's no line that was crossed, no steps by degree to poison the well of Obama voters that are going to turn the tide for him in one of the only states where his victory is so guaranteed you will never see a campaign stop or a tv commercial.

However, I understand CP's mad passion for the candidate, and I admire it. But Obama has poisoned himself for me all by himself, and scaeagles had nothing to do with it.

And he can have him insult all the cripples in America, scaeagles will NEVER poison me againt the father of my beloved Bow Biden. Le sigh. :blush:

wendybeth

09-11-2008, 12:31 AM

In all fairness to CP, iSm, I would encourage you to take a glance at the first post of this thread. I think she has been quite gracious in her allowance of the many derails we've put it through.

Perhaps we should have a "No, We Can't" thread- if that's what you want? I realize that we tend to stray off-topic when posting, but she's pretty clear that this is a booster thread.

I'd also like to compliment everyone for remembering that we are all friends, no matter how heated the debate, and acting accordingly. I refuse to let this election cost me anything in that arena- we already lose enough to the politicians.

scaeagles

09-11-2008, 06:42 AM

WB, I think threads are started to promote a line of thought and discussion. Unless someone pops into an Obama thread and randomly starts talking about microbial infections under the toenails or some other thing completely off the current train of thought, I figure it's OK.

innerSpaceman

09-11-2008, 06:49 AM

I wasn't aware that OPs owned their threads in perpetuity (or at all).

Her "allowance" of derails? Excuse me????

:confused:

It's one thing if we start talking about nuclear physics here, but the thread is about Obama. There's no rule implemented by the OP (i.e., CP) that it be strictly positive. Why? Because of how she titled it?

I started the McCain thread. If I'd called it Be Nice to McCain, could I have enforced a positive attitude there?

scaeagles

09-11-2008, 06:56 AM

If you did, it would be a very boring thread with maybe two or three visitors and posters.

innerSpaceman

09-11-2008, 07:21 AM

I'm sorry if the Biden story was the camel-breaking straw for Cadaverous Pallor. It's a harmless tale of complete fluffy goof.

When I think of all the horrible stuff posted about Sarah Palin (a lot of it by ME), I would think she'd be GLAD the worst thing that could be said about Joe Biden is he didn't notice a seated guy was in a wheelchair.

Actually, there's a lot worse that can be said about Biden. Despite his reasonable-sounding protestations to the contrary, I think he's in the pocket of Big Banking and his suport of the bill to make it harder for consumers to erase their credit card debts in bankruptcy is going to prove particularly pernicious now that the banks are on the verge of going bust and - just as they did in the early 80's - will be bailed out by the Feds and make all the money back with usurous credit card interest and penalties.

I'm sure this is the day the dastardly bankruptcy bill was designed for. Millions of Americans can't pay their mortgages, still more and more will be unable to pay their credit card debt .... and none of this debt will be forgiven, thanks to Joe Biden and others in Congress.

It may be true there were far worse bankruptcy bills proposed, and far more draconian measures desired by the Banks ... but the law passed with Biden's support is bad enough, and will mean a return to medievel peonage (i.e., debt slavery) for millions of Americans in the years to come unless that law is changed (I haven't heard Obama say a peep about it, though).

Oh, and SuPeR K! is furious with Biden for putting a rider on some harmless education bill that basically makes it a crime to attend a Rave. (How can CP support a candidate whose VP choice criminalized Raves??!?!) :eek:

I understand the knee-jerk reaction when the camel's back is broken, and too often it's merely a fluffy down feather that breaks it. But there: Now I've laid out the real dirt on Mr. Biden ... much more worthy of breaking the non-existent rules that we say only nice things about the Obama campaign in this thread. :p

Cadaverous Pallor

09-11-2008, 08:22 AM

And for both your punishments, an acting exercise: Scaeagles has to spend the next week advocating for Obama, and CP has to spend it advocating for McCain.Good thing I'm going on vacation beginning tomorrow ;)

McCain has served his country all of his life. In years past he was the largest critic of his own party and reached across the aisle to support many high profile bills.

I'd write more but I need to do research, no time this morning...

iSm - I know about the Biden RAVE act. The RAVE act never passed, and thank goodness, because it could make a promoter of any party involving the selling of water bottles and glowsticks a criminal, as they were "providing a place for people to do drugs". The rest of congress figured it out and wouldn't support it.

See, but I'm not voting for a VP.....and unlike what you've said regarding gay marriage, I believe that we can't win on every front with a ticket.

Lieberman, Ted Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton were big proponents of the RAVE act, BTW.

scaeagles

09-11-2008, 08:25 AM

See, but I'm not voting for a VP.....

This is why I'm finding it so incomprehensible that there has been so much coverage of Palin, and so much comparison between Palin and Obama in terms of experience. Compare Palin to Biden. Compare Obama to McCain. Compare the tickets.

However, having said that, I think the coverage of Palin has been a HUGE boost to the McCain/Palin ticket.

Cadaverous Pallor

09-11-2008, 08:27 AM

However, having said that, I think the coverage of Palin has been a HUGE boost to the McCain/Palin ticket.Totally. McCain is boring at this point. Obama needs to shift the focus back onto him.

BTW - I am fine with related political derails in this thread. Shall I tell Wendybeth "Thanks, but no thanks"? ;)

wendybeth

09-11-2008, 08:33 AM

Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. ~Barack Obama

Yes, I'm fired up about Obama. :) If you feel the same way, this thread is for you. According to the Super Tuesday poll (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=7423), we have more than a few supporters here. (May I say, I'm calling the State of LoT's Democratic Primary results - Obama wins with 77%. Now how does our state divvy up delegates?)

So, now it's on to other states. Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington are up next. Sitting here twiddling my thumbs, I realized I needed to do something to help, even though the action is far from me.

Obama's site (http://www.barackobama.com/index.php) has the goods, of course. Ways you can help:
Donate. (https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/yeswecan?source=mainnav) I did.
Urge Edwards to endorse Obama. (http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/organizing/4r5yg)
Make phone calls (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/phonebankmap) to the states that are coming up. There are ways to do this online, and there are phonebank parties IRL. In Santa Ana they're calling Washington state tonight. I have to admit that I'm not a fan of this strategy, but it's there if you want to go for that.
Volunteer. (http://action.barackobama.com/page/s/volunteer) I put my name in, and I'll keep an eye on local events - I'd like to help fundraise, if possible.Yeah, I'm not exactly an activist, which is why I encourage Obama supporters to do just a little something. Our little something makes a difference.

:cool:
From the OP. Granted, our threads tend to go off in all directions, but I was a little irritated by iSm's urging Scaeagles on, and his semi-mild condemnation of CP for her enthusiasm regarding Obama. I think the first post does make it clear that she intended this to be a positive thread, and while you can (and do) do whatever you want; I just thought it might be nice to consider her feelings . It's not like there aren't fifty thousand other threads around here where you go and slam Obama to your heart's content.

scaeagles

09-11-2008, 08:38 AM

I was a little irritated by iSm's urging Scaeagles on, and his semi-mild condemnation of CP for her enthusiasm regarding Obama.

I have never been critical of her enthusiasm.

wendybeth

09-11-2008, 08:39 AM

Totally. McCain is boring at this point. Obama needs to shift the focus back onto him.

BTW - I am fine with related political derails in this thread. Shall I tell Wendybeth "Thanks, but no thanks"? ;)

It wasn't so much the derail- it was more the way they were going after you, which I thought not-very-nice considering the original intent of this thread. Never mind- y'all have at it and enjoy yourselves.

wendybeth

09-11-2008, 08:42 AM

I have never been critical of her enthusiasm.

iSm. ("Mad passion" and "please don't let CP's individual displeasure stop you from posting any interesting tidbits or any damn thing you feel like posting.")

Like I said, no problem. Have fun.

Cadaverous Pallor

09-11-2008, 08:43 AM

It wasn't so much the derail- it was more the way they were going after you, which I thought not-very-nice considering the original intent of this thread. Never mind- y'all have at it and enjoy yourselves.Seriously - thanks for looking out for me. :)

scaeagles

09-11-2008, 08:53 AM

Get a room.

Morrigoon

09-11-2008, 09:14 AM

Sigh. Politics has gotten boring at this point. We've talked about all we have to talk about. Either one of the candidates needs to do something shocking soon or I'd just as well we have at the vote now.

innerSpaceman

09-11-2008, 09:52 AM

iSm. ("Mad passion" and "please don't let CP's individual displeasure stop you from posting any interesting tidbits or any damn thing you feel like posting.")

Like I said, no problem. Have fun.

Perhaps "Mad" passion could imply, like, crazy passion, but I seriously didn't mean it that way. I was just using hyperbole to up the already enthusiastic quality of the word "passion."

I stand by the latter quoted statement, and I don't see how by any stretch of the English language it impunes Jen's enthusiasm for her candidate.

For the record, I Heart Cadaverous Pallor. I may not believe in her candidate as much as she, but I admire her passion greatly.

Have fun in Scotland, CP. What are they saying about our election over there???

Gemini Cricket

09-11-2008, 10:00 AM

I heart CP, too. I admire her positivity. I admire her starting a fund raising campaign for Obama. CP is a great friend.
Oh, and every time GC has a negative post, I'm going to post this to counteract it:

Obama is going to win, because we won't let him lose. :)
I feel my posts are me being realistic and not negative. I want to see Obama win as well. I just don't think he's going to if his campaign continues on the track it is on. I, too, hope that after the convention bumps settle that Obama will be in the lead still.

innerSpaceman

09-11-2008, 10:04 AM

Where is Obama's commercial showing McCain using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" in his 2000 campaign? That's the kind of rapid and pointed response needed to the likes of McCain's assertion that Obama's recent use of the phrase is sexism directed at Sarah Palin.

Take no f'ing prisoners, Obama. Don't be the next John Kerry.

scaeagles

09-11-2008, 10:32 AM

I think it is feigned outrage as it is a widely used phrase from both sides. However, I do think there is a logical tie between the comment and Palin because of her widely criticized pit bull lip stick comment. Do I think Obama meant that? No. Is it logical to make the connection? Yes. Also, based on the reaction of the crowd where he was speaking, I think they took it as a direct linkage to Palin....I don't see that phrase getting the crowd riled up without them taking it that way.

Gemini Cricket

09-11-2008, 10:35 AM

McCain using the term in regards to a Hillary Clinton health care plan. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM)

Gemini Cricket

09-11-2008, 10:45 AM

And another. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMHlIfOTS1c&feature=related)

Alex

09-11-2008, 10:53 AM

NPR yesterday ran a clip of a half dozen politicians (alternating parties) using the phrase and said they found dozens more.

Gemini Cricket

09-11-2008, 10:57 AM

It would be just as dumb for Obama to say someone in the GOP was racist for using the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black".

:D

Morrigoon

09-11-2008, 01:11 PM

This article (http://www.slate.com/id/2199666/) makes some interesting points about the youth vote. I particularly liked this one:
Geekocracy: Whereas voters in 2004 could get campaign updates via e-mail, now it's a combination of e-mail, text messages, RSS feeds, tweets, and social networking. Just as online fundraising has boosted donations, the campaign expects online GOTV efforts to bolster turnout. If Obama merely pokes all his Facebook friends on Election Day, for example—well, that's 1.2 million pokes right there.

Gemini Cricket

09-12-2008, 10:03 AM

Senator Barack Obama will intensify his assault against Senator John McCain, with new television advertisements and more forceful attacks by the candidate and surrogates beginning Friday morning, as he confronts an invigorated Republican presidential ticket and increasing nervousness in the Democratic ranks.Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)
NEW YORK, Sept. 12 -- Advisers to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama say they will "respond with speed and ferocity" to attacks from the Republican ticket, with Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the vice presidential nominee, leading the charge.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Friday in an e-mail to reporters that Republican nominee John McCain "has shown that he is willing to go into the gutter to win this election. His campaign has become nothing but a series of smears, lies, and cynical attempts to distract from the issues. . . . We will not allow John McCain and his band of Karl Rove disciples to make this big election about small things."
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091201259.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR)
Well, that's good. It's nice to know that I wasn't the only one feeling that way.

innerSpaceman

09-12-2008, 10:26 AM

On the other hand, though I was feeling that way too, the article points out the same hand-wringing was done by the Democratic Party establishment when Hillary seemed to be in the lead, and Barack assured them he had a winning strategy in place.

He was right.

If he says so again, I guess I can give him the benefit of success.

Gemini Cricket

09-12-2008, 10:52 AM

An op-ed piece that appears to be talking to me.
;)
Misery Loves Democrats

By GAIL COLLINS

Correction Appended

It has come to our attention that a large number of Democrats have gone completely nuts about Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
He’s going to lose! Sarah Palin is getting all the attention! The Republicans are so mean! Why isn’t he tougher?

They’re calling each other up to discuss how doomed they are, vowing to move to Canada as soon as the election is over and the inevitable worst has occurred. Really, we evacuated several hurricane-prone states with more cheer and optimism.

Cheer up, Obama-ites. You’re overreacting. I’ll answer all your questions as long as you promise to take deep breaths into this nice paper bag.
Have you seen the polls? He should be talking more about the economy!

Why isn’t his campaign working harder?

If the Obama brain trust seems relatively serene compared with its seething base, it’s because they live in the Electoral College world, where the presidential race only takes place in a third of the country. They don’t care about national polls — a concept as quaint as measuring one’s wealth by caribou pelts. They worry about the undecided vote in Minnesota and Ohio and run their TV ads (about the economy) in places like Colorado and Michigan and Florida. If you live in California or New York or Texas, you don’t really have much of a feel for their level of effort because as far as they’re concerned, you’ve already voted.

I’m beginning to think we should have gone with Hillary Clinton.

Hillary now lives in a golden alternative universe. As soon as the Democrats had actually nominated Obama, they decided that Clinton was by far the better candidate and that they had destroyed their chances by not choosing her. This is the nature of the party. If she had not been in the race, the Democrats would probably be bemoaning the fact that they hadn’t stuck with John Edwards and nailed down the critical swing-state philanderer vote.

Obama seems to be disappearing from the news compared with Sarah Palin!

One of the great things about this campaign is that both sides are convinced they’re going to lose. Remember how nuts all the Obama people went when Hillary refused to concede? How suicidal the Republicans were when Obama was knocking them dead in Europe while McCain was tooling around in a golf cart with the president’s father? We still have nearly two months to go. The people who haven’t decided who they want to vote for by now aren’t going to make up their minds until the last minute. Just chill for a few weeks until the debates start and let the Sarah Palin thing play itself out.

But the vice president isn’t supposed to get any attention, and all people can talk about is Palin, Palin, Palin!

True. I think that’s because she’s from Alaska. It’s got that frontier aura that we’ve missed since all the cowboy television series were canceled a generation ago. Plus, it gives us the opportunity to talk a lot about moose, which are a funny animal no matter how you slice it. If Palin had been a deer-hunting mom from New Jersey, John McCain would have gotten no post-convention bump whatsoever.

McCain, by the way, is the Republican nominee for president. You may remember him from the Sarah Palin convention in St. Paul, where he gave a speech and was congratulated by Sarah Palin.

Have you seen that Republican lipstick video? They’re trying to say Obama called her a pig!

Obama simply brought up the old saw about how “you can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.” The Republicans seem to be assuming that since Palin has a joke about how hockey moms are pit bulls with lipstick, all references to mammals wearing lip rouge are about her.

If you really want to see a strange line of attack, take a look at the wolf ad. It cuts from Palin’s face to Obama’s to packs of wolves prowling through the forest, presumably in search of vice-presidential prey. Then comes the text claiming that as Barack drops in the polls, “he’ll try to destroy her.” Given Palin’s affection for shooting wolves from airplanes with high-powered rifles, it’d be more appropriate to have them cowering in their dens while she aims her machine gun from a diving Cessna.

You don’t seem to appreciate how critical this election is.

Well, I definitely appreciate how long this election is. Time only seems short because these people have already been running for a year. Calm down. Remember, that 17-mile-long Swiss particle collider that people were afraid would create a black hole that swallows the Earth? It started operation this week. And so far, no planet-eating black holes. So you see, things could be worse.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/opinion/11collins.html?em)

innerSpaceman

09-12-2008, 11:08 AM

Tee and Hee.

scaeagles

09-12-2008, 02:57 PM

BarTopDancer

09-12-2008, 02:59 PM

I don't even know what that means or is supposed to mean.

scaeagles

09-12-2008, 03:02 PM

In the Obama vs. Palin arugments, they are comparing Obama to Jesus (the community organizer) and Palin to Pilate (the governor) who unjustly sent him to his execution.

JWBear

09-12-2008, 03:05 PM

I am certain I will be slammed and flamed and whatever else for it, but I have said there is a some sort of Messiah complex on the left when it comes to Obama (and also that Obama is part of it). I have now heard several different people say this, so that suggests to me it is a democratic party talking point. It is also possible that line was just picked up by others because they liked it (and I'm not entirely certain who said it first). The line -

"Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor."

OK....how am I supposed to go down the road of there NOT being some form of messiah complex when this is being repeated?

It would depend entirely on who is repeating it, and why.

For the record, I have never seen Obama as a "messiah", just as someone who cares more about this country and its citizens than the Republicans.

BarTopDancer

09-12-2008, 03:08 PM

Considering I don't believe Jesus is the "messiah"....

Strangler Lewis

09-12-2008, 03:11 PM

I am certain I will be slammed and flamed and whatever else for it, but I have said there is a some sort of Messiah complex on the left when it comes to Obama (and also that Obama is part of it). I have now heard several different people say this, so that suggests to me it is a democratic party talking point. It is also possible that line was just picked up by others because they liked it (and I'm not entirely certain who said it first). The line -

"Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor."

OK....how am I supposed to go down the road of there NOT being some form of messiah complex when this is being repeated?

Though I will vote for him with some modicum of enthusiasm, I actually find the fervor of Obama's supporters somewhat offputting. I believe that skepticism and healthy mistrust of all who would rule should be standard operating procedure. You would never find me having a politician as my avatar as CP does.

innerSpaceman

09-12-2008, 03:19 PM

The Republicans (Rush Limbaugh specifically) started the bit about referring to Obama as the Messiah, and it's been a Conservative talking point for months. Palin mentioned it again in her acceptance speech.

If his campaign or other Democrats are now riffing off it, it's only because the Republican party has made it quite the infamous insult.

Alex

09-12-2008, 03:19 PM

I personally read it to be more of an attempt to throw it back in their faces uses their beloved religious examples than an attempt to equate Jesus and Obama (personally, for me, one has inspired many fewer wars and murders).

But I really don't understand the messianic thing. Obama thinks he is the one best able to lead this country to where he thinks it needs to be. Name me one person who has willingly run for president who doesn't think that.

But if we're going to compare messianic worldviews, I'll take that over believing yourself to be directly doing god's work which is certainly the messianic view of our current president.

scaeagles

09-12-2008, 03:59 PM

You know, you are right Alex, when you say that the all people who wish to be President do so because they feel are best for the job. I'll go ahead and completely back off my thinking that Obama is a part of it. I do think, however, as Obama is a Christian man, that he does believe himself to be doing the lord's work. Of course there will be the retort that it won't dictate his policies, but of course it will to an extent, as his religious views will influence his thinking of right and wrong.

The messianic complex is more like a cult forming through a large portion of his supporters. I did a bit of research, and apparently almost immediately after Palin's speech at the RNC there were items being sold with this statement on it. It was first made publically, at least to my knowlege, by a representative from Tennessee (D. Steve Choen) who directly compared Obama to Jesus in his statement during a speech on the house floor.

“If you want change, you want the Democratic Party,” Cohen said. “Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor.”

If they are trying to throw it back in the face of the "religious right", that is a completely fine tactic. I just think it solidifies the whole messianic complex being discussed in the election - again, I will absolutely concede that it is not Obama himself, but a large portion of his supporters. It is clever, no doubt, but comparing Palin to Pilate might be seen as a bit extreme. i see no other way to interpret the "Pilate was a governor" portion of that.

scaeagles

09-12-2008, 04:04 PM

Though I will vote for him with some modicum of enthusiasm, I actually find the fervor of Obama's supporters somewhat offputting. I believe that skepticism and healthy mistrust of all who would rule should be standard operating procedure. You would never find me having a politician as my avatar as CP does.

Shuffling my feet i look down contemplating the Reagan avatar I have wondering if I should change it.....

innerSpaceman

09-12-2008, 04:40 PM

Of course there will be the retort that it won't dictate his [Obama's] policies, but of course it will to an extent, as his religious views will influence his thinking of right and wrong.

Well, here's one. He actually says his religious views are dictating his policy toward gay marriage rights, and I think he's lying. His strategic electoral views are dictating his policy, I'm sure of it.

So it seems, whether they say so or not, what dictates a president's policies, whether by religious belief or not, is truly between them and their god.

Strangler Lewis

09-12-2008, 04:41 PM

I just see it as an "oh yeah" joke about the Republicans maligning Obama's experience as a community organizer. If the shoe was on the other foot and the Democrats maligned a Republican's experience in a community or church organization, they'd be accused of being out of touch and expecting government to solve all our problems.

innerSpaceman

09-12-2008, 04:55 PM

If they are trying to throw it back in the face of the "religious right", that is a completely fine tactic. I just think it solidifies the whole messianic complex being discussed in the election - again, I will absolutely concede that it is not Obama himself, but a large portion of his supporters. It is clever, no doubt, but comparing Palin to Pilate might be seen as a bit extreme. i see no other way to interpret the "Pilate was a governor" portion of that.

I think you are missing the chronology here. Of course they're trying to throw it back in Palin's face, and of course the reference to governor means her.

In her red-meat speech, Palin was the one who threw the snarky Obama-is-Messiah reference into the national ring. It's been circling among Fundies for months via the right-wing nutjob talk shows and such. She's the one who brought the vile insult to the national stage, along with the disgusting demeaning of community service work.

It's fantastic quid-pro-quo to point out that Jesus did community service and Pilate was the governor. She's a fvcktard and, in this case, it doesn't much matter what effect this has on radical fundamentalists. It's brilliant turnabout that has us Democrats chuckling in good spirits.

scaeagles

09-12-2008, 05:14 PM

innerSpaceman

09-12-2008, 05:16 PM

Well, she stated that very badly. Just about everyone who works in community service took offense at that remark, from what I've been able to glean.

The RNC audience took it very well. But she was on TV. If it was a specific jab at Obama (and I don't doubt your explanation), it went over the head of the community service workers in America. Ooops.

scaeagles

09-12-2008, 05:24 PM

Quite probably. The spin of how many wanted to hear it though, comes in to play. I want to hear certain things from McCain, so it is easy to attach the meaning I want if it is close. Dems expect to hear things they dislike from a republican, so it is easy to attach the meaning they expect.

Same thing goes with Obama speaking with the roles of democrats and republicans reversed.

innerSpaceman

09-12-2008, 05:25 PM

Agreed. :)

Strangler Lewis

09-12-2008, 05:53 PM

I didn't see it as demeaning community service work.

In the same way that you see (and it is in fact) a clever retort about Jesus and Pilate, the "demeaning" of community service work was a clever retort to how she had been (by dems, not specifically Obama) only the mayor of a small town (or whatever they were saying specifically) and was therefore completely unqualified.

Community service was not demeaned, it was citing community service work as a qualification to be President that was demeaned.

If you saw Giuliani's speech, you know he started it. He said ithe phrase "community organizer" in a puzzled manner and laughed, like it was some weird, hippiedippie, fake pseudo-intellectual thing that he had never heard of before. The "Drill baby drill" crowd ate it up, and Palin continued the theme.

If they wanted to not demean community service--or, more specifically, community service performed in big cities--they would have used the same rhetorical line the Democrats did with McCain's service record: "I respect, blah, blah, blah . . . BUT."

sleepyjeff

09-12-2008, 07:14 PM

SzczerbiakManiac

09-15-2008, 11:33 AM

Les Misbarack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0)

Gn2Dlnd

09-15-2008, 12:57 PM

^ This has actually made me want to see a good production of Les Mis. When I saw it a few years ago at the Ahmanson it was ponderous, unenthusiastic and interminable. I put it on my "never again" list. This shows what an emotionally invested cast can bring to a show. :snap:

Though I will vote for him with some modicum of enthusiasm, I actually find the fervor of Obama's supporters somewhat offputting. I believe that skepticism and healthy mistrust of all who would rule should be standard operating procedure. You would never find me having a politician as my avatar as CP does.

The Commodore L. Swank's perennial attempts to seize the seat of the Rear Admiral on the board of trustees of the Salton Sea Yacht Club only makes me admire him all the more.

flippyshark

09-15-2008, 07:59 PM

Les Misbarack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0)

It is completely ridiculous that that made me tear up. :snap:

sleepyjeff

09-16-2008, 10:58 PM

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
1) Christopher Dodd (D-CT) $133,900
2) John Kerry (D-MA) $111,000
3) Barack Obama (D-IL) $105,849

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/blogs/sen-obama-d-fannie-mae%2C1672/

Obama almost did in 3 years what it took Dodd and Kerry nearly 20 to do....not that this is anything to be proud of(especially given the news of the day).

scaeagles

09-17-2008, 04:52 AM

Money only corrupts and influences politicians when given to republicans, Sleepy. You know that.

flippyshark

09-17-2008, 07:25 AM

Yeah, you guys are right. This totally changes my mind.

Sorry - I don't mean to snark on you guys - I appreciate your perspective. But this constant insinuation of hypocrisy got old a loooong time ago. (and yes folks, there's plenty of it to go around in both directions.)

I just wish I could stop clicking on these politiocal threads, darn it. No good ever comes of it. peace out.

tracilicious

09-17-2008, 08:19 AM

Alex

09-17-2008, 08:31 AM

The argument is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbied strongly for deregulation that allowed them to get into the mess they're in and against regulation that would have reined them in.

Now, in the particular case of these two companies, since they were government franchised entities it was generally Democrats would supported their requests and Republicans who wished to rein them in. So I am not surprised to see this information.

Both parties were pretty complicit in the legislative changes over the last 15 years that contributed to our current mess -- though in this case Obama's relative lack of experience may help him since almost everything substantive that lead to our current financial sector crisis was done before he had a change to contribute one way or another.

Though by no means is our elected federal government solely to blame; the Fed gets its share for a policy that made credit incredibly cheap and then began raising rates just in time for option resets and of course the financial institutions themselves get the lion's share of blame for while deregulation may have made it possible, these companies looked common sense in the eye and said "**** that."

And just a side, note. I work for one of those "**** that" companies (though not in a role that in any way contributed) and there is a not-insignicant chance that the hens are coming to roost for us very soon.

scaeagles

09-17-2008, 08:37 AM

Both parties were pretty complicit in the legislative changes over the last 15 years that contributed to our current mess -- though in this case Obama's relative lack of experience may help him since almost everything substantive that lead to our current financial sector crisis was done before he had a change to contribute one way or another.

Excellent point on Obama.

This is why I am amused at Pelosi saying the democrats have no blame in the current mess. They all do.

flippyshark

09-17-2008, 08:58 AM

And just a side, note. I work for one of those "**** that" companies (though not in a role that in any way contributed) and there is a not-insignicant chance that the hens are coming to roost for us very soon.

Man, that's scary. I just hope my (Disney-run) bank holds out. (Not that I have much to lose.)

innerSpaceman

09-17-2008, 09:30 AM

Brother can you spare a dime?

3894

09-18-2008, 06:08 AM

Brother can you spare a dime?

Everybody buckled up for another day of it?

wendybeth

09-18-2008, 08:35 AM

Looks like the Palin bounce is wearing off: Latest poll results (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

sleepyjeff

09-18-2008, 10:37 AM

Looks like the Palin bounce is wearing off: Latest poll results (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

Perhaps; but the latest electoral polls show the opposite:

http://www.electoral-vote.com

Not only does McCain lead by 31 now, but several traditional Blue States are either tied or slipping towards a tie(such as Oregon, Washington--work harder Wendy--, Michigan, Wisconsin--work harder Helen, and Minnesota).

Nice to see Colorado has gotten over their convention hangover;)

Snowflake

09-18-2008, 11:11 AM

Perhaps; but the latest electoral polls show the opposite:

http://www.electoral-vote.com

Not only does McCain lead by 31 now, but several traditional Blue States are either tied or slipping towards a tie(such as Oregon, Washington--work harder Wendy--, Michigan, Wisconsin--work harder Helen, and Minnesota).

Nice to see Colorado has gotten over their convention hangover;)

NPR has this electoral map (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president-nprOvM/)

Showing McCain ahead only by a few and not 31. ymmv depending on where you go to look, I guess.

Tom

09-18-2008, 11:28 AM

And this one (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/) shows McCain up by 4, and Obama ahead by 8 if the close states are added in.

State polling generally follows national polling, so since Obama has pulled even or sightly ahead of McCain nationally according to the polls of the last day or two, then one would expect to see the state results move his way in a few days as well.

Then again, the electoral map (according to most models that I saw) didn't move as much as would have been expected when McCain was up nationally, so maybe there will be less of a move in the opposite direction as well.

sleepyjeff

09-18-2008, 11:33 AM

NPR has this electoral map (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president-nprOvM/)

Showing McCain ahead only by a few and not 31. ymmv depending on where you go to look, I guess.

Quite true. The difference is the NPR site throws out any state where there is less than a 3% difference whereas the site I link to tally's everything over 1%.

Neither way is wrong I suppose, like you said ymmv:)

wendybeth

09-18-2008, 08:32 PM

Trust me, Jeff- McCain will not win Washington. Seattle will go overwhelmingly for Obama, and Seattle rules this state.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here been polled with regards to the election?

Tenigma

09-18-2008, 09:51 PM

Brother can you spare a dime?

Goodness, it seems these days everybody's asking for change.

Tenigma

09-18-2008, 10:01 PM

Not only does McCain lead by 31 now, but several traditional Blue States are either tied or slipping towards a tie(such as Oregon

OREGON? Maybe in Brookings but dude, stop smoking the stuff they sell out there, man. There's too many people in Portland... according to the local paper Obama currently has a double digit lead (http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=122168669575618300).

Now, let's talk about the really close states, like Virginia.

wendybeth

09-18-2008, 10:21 PM

Actually, my brother in Brookings has said he's for Obama. We usually are on opposite sides of the political spectrum ( he's more Libertarian), so I was floored when he told me he was going with Obama.

sleepyjeff

09-18-2008, 10:49 PM

OREGON? Maybe in Brookings but dude, stop smoking the stuff they sell out there, man. There's too many people in Portland...

Yes, and I am one of them;)

Alex

09-18-2008, 11:10 PM

sleepyjeff

09-18-2008, 11:30 PM

It isn't representative but all the people we indirectly know in Brookings are (I'm almost certain) going for McCain.

But what do they know? We have a Brookings magnet that we bought simply because it is a dolphin with chest hair. Regardless I they'll be counterbalanced by that enclave of liberal living known as La Pine.

What's funny is everyone I know who lives in La Pine(all 2 of them) is most assuredly voting for McCain.

The only people I know from Brookings happen to be my wife and her parents....although it's been 25 years since they lived there(yes, they are all Republicans although her mom usually votes for whoever her union tells her to vote for, so she's Republican in name only pretty much).

Me, I live in the somewhat conservative enclave barely within the city limits of Portland sometimes known as Parkrose.....not too many Obama signs around here---not too many McCain signs either I must admit. Yes, Portland is by far the biggest city in the state and yes they are going for Obama something like 2 - 1....but combine that 1 with the rest of the state(Eugene aside) and the GOP can win here. One of our US Senators is a Republican so it isn't impossible.