Republican National Convention '08
 

Well, I thought it only fair...

Apparently, Bush and the president, Dick Cheney, will not be attending the RNC:
Source

I thought the convention was going to be delayed.


As I asked in the DNC thread, who are the Republican movie stars who will be speaking? The Dems had a red carpet's worth, but I can't put my finger on who has similar wattage among the GOP.


But is it going forward as scheduled?

I think the RNC is going to be a dammed if you do and a dammed if you don't situation.

I don't really care what they do as long as the current administration actually takes quick action this time around if needed.

All I can find are mentions from Friday that a delay was being considered. No news either way since then that I've seen.

They may shift key convention activities to later in the week but I don't really think that the convention can really be delayed in any real sense. You can't just say "ok, we're running from Wednesday to Saturday now." Hotels will be booked, facilities already spoken for, etc.

Hmmm....maybe this is a tactic to attempt to distance this campaign from Bush?

I anticipate that the Republicans will exploit Katrina and Gustav as proof of
the need for tighter border controls.

Now it is being reported that at least for tomorrow, the convention is now scheduled to run only from 3pm to 5:30pm (local) and will only deal with party business. No speeches. And they are leaving the other days very much open.

Gustav is weakening a bit rather than strengthening as it was feared. Max sustained winds are down from 150 to 115. Good news certainly.

Chuck Norris? Bo Derek?

Hollywood....uh, doesn't lean to the right side of the aisle. Maybe Bruce Willis? He's about the only one I can think of.

Stallone, Kelsey Grammer, and, of course, Adolphe Menjou.

Adolphe Menjou - he's been dead for a while and I think that would be really creepy if he were there.

Don't forget Erik Estrada!

I decided I had to look, so I searched a bit. There were TONS of high powered athletes, and a few other famous Hoolywood names, including Tom Selleck, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, and Ricky Schroeder.

How could you forget Chuck Norris, the greatest human being alive?

Ted Nugent

Sounds like an episode of Where Are They Now?....

Hahaha, all well and good, but I was referring to the actual political stars. People who've been around for decades and have become famous for being, of all things, Senators and Presidents and such. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter (tho they didn't let him speak), even Dennis Kucinich has become sorta famous.

Who does the GOP have in that mold besides McCain himself? I guess there's Papa Bush of living Presidents. Anyone else? Or am I prematurely happy in assuming all the famous Republicans have already died?

Yeah - too bad Ted Kennedy didn't die of cancer before the convention. I'd have been jumping for joy.:rolleyes:

I'll concede the wrestlers to the Republicans. Big Show is a big Republican, and Ric Flair was a Huckabee supporter.

That's alright - you guys get Barbara Streisand and Oprah.

Both of whom I would love to see in a WWWF match.

Oh yeah, I forgot Ted. BIG, BIG Democratic star ... even more dramatic at his first post-diagnosis major appearance.


And while I don't exactly rejoice, scaeagles, at the demise of certain Republicans, when I think on the likes of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, I can't help but be glad their time has passed.

That's because, allowing for certain shades of gray, I think they were actually evil. Is that how you see Ted Kennedy?

No - I see a big oaf who murdered a woman. Evil? No. Guilty of negligent homicide? Yes.

I only brought him up, though, as a big name Dem who will probably be passing soon, and was simply trying to give a tasteless example because I thought your statement was tasteless.

Perhaps Robert Byrd might fit in more with your evil considering his past with the KKK and all, but I'm not really trying to think of dems that I would categorize that way.

If I'm not mistaken, negligent homicide isn't the same thing as murder. Laura Bush ran a stop sign when she was younger and killed a pedestrian. I don't think anyone would say that she murdered someone though. And in both cases, it was clearly an accident. Of course, Kennedy exercised extremely poor judgment in not immediately reporting it, but that doesn't make him a murderer.

Thank you, MbC. Republicans always conveniently forget Mrs Bush's little indiscretion.

Wow, I didn't know that about Laura Bush. I hold Teddy in some minor measure of disregard for Chapacan'tspellit .... I guess I'll do the same for the First Lady, who has heretofore escaped my displeasure ... or even notice.


I like that somehow. My estimate of the ratio of good to bad was waaaay out of wack with her husband, the President. This puts it on a more humanly likely scale. I'm glad I found out while they were still in office for a few months. Thanks, MbC.

You are correct as far as the distinction. However, the man was presumably drunk and was primarily concerned with covering it up....I would say that goes a bit beyond "poor judgment".

If he was sober and had reported it immediately, case closed. Accidents happen indeed. It wasn't the accident, it was what followed it that makes him reprehensible to me. I don't know the entire Laura Bush story, but did she flee the scene?

Isn't presumption 9/10th of the law?

This is why I said presumably. If he wasn't drunk, then he was thinking all the more clearly when he left her in the car.

Well, there was a reason why I preceded the the words "poor judgement" with "extremely." I don't think anyone is trying to argue that Kennedy did the right thing in any shape or form. I will tell you that when I was involved in a car accident many years ago, one where my head hit the windshield, that I was most certainly in shock. I was apparently walking around the scene talking to people, but I remember none of it. And in my case, I didn't have the added stress of thinking that I might just have killed my passenger. I'm willing to at least give him the benefit of doubt that, alcohol or not, he wasn't thinking clearly. Just my opinion.

Well, to lighten the mood, I'll post one of my favorite tasteless jokes....

Why did the foursome Monica Lewinsky, OJ Simpson, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton lose the golf tournament?

Monica's a hooker, OJ's a slicer, Ted can't dive over water, and Bill can never remember which hole he played last.

I'm very happy that the worst seemed to miss New Orleans (the wind maps I was seemed to show max sustained winds over NO at "only" 60 mph). I hope the levies hold.

Yes, thankfully the disaster in New Orleans is over; but the disaster that is the McCain campaign is still blundering along.....

Hmmmm.....not according to polls out there. If McCain's camp is in such disarray, it would seem that Obama would have a huge and commanding lead.

Polls are becoming increasingly meaningless. Even the mainstream media (which, contrary to the "liberal" label, is very conservative leaning) is starting to turn on him.

I think it was Alex who brought up that polling is no longer that accurate. The demographic that would be showing Obama to have a larger lead no longer have landlines and it's illegal to poll cell phone numbers.

I guess the label is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm certain we could each spout example after example to support our particular view of the media, but I certainly do not concur with your assessment of a conservative leaning media.

Can we perhaps agree that, considering Conservatives see a liberal media and Liberals see a conservative media, that the actual "media" is neither or both, but certainly not exclusively or even primarily either?

The problem with your theory is that I consider myself to be a moderate, not a liberal. And if moderates see the press as leaning to the right, then... Well....

I often think that where one ranks onesself on the political spectrum is different than where others might. If I considered myself to be moderate, it doesn't make it so, it is just an issue of how I define conservative, moderate, and liberal.

Very true. To some, I would be a liberal; but only because they have shifted to the right, while I have stood still.

I'm fiscally conservative, in that I believe in lower taxes for the middle class and the poor and a prudent tax plan for the wealthy and businesses; along with prudent government spending and the reduction of our national debt. The Republican plan is to tax the middle class to death, huge tax cuts to big corporations and the wealthiest 1%, bloated military spending, and borrowing vast amounts from the Chinese. To me (and the last eight years support this), this is a fiscal disaster in the making. The Republican Party, and John McCain are advocating more of the same. Why would a fiscal conservative vote for this?

Maybe Fox News;)

Most of the Nation voted for George Bush 4 years ago. To be a moderate you either voted for him or almost voted for him......if the very idea of voting for him was repugnant to you then I've got some bad news for you.....you're not a moderate;)

Seeings how over 48% of the nation did not vote for Bush in the '04 election, I think your assertion of 'most' is a tad bit of an exaggeration. I'm a moderate as well- I've voted for two Republicans in past local elections, both of them being reasonable and moderate persons who I happened to think were the best persons for the jobs they were running for. I did not vote for Bush.

I've voted for dems in local elections, but somehow I don't think anyone here would accept that from me as proof that I'm moderate.

I won't even accept that as proof that you're straight.

How about a note from my life partner wife?

I wouldn't classify most mainstream media as anything but "dumbed down".

On this much we agree:)

I would think that the number would have to be reduced to account for all the people who didn't vote at all.

Ummmmm.... No. "Most" of the nation did not vote for him - only about half. (So, we are rewriting history now?) By that measure, only about half the moderates voted for him.

I would also use the term "corporate lackeys"....

Quite the opposite- I do think you are a moderate conservative. I am a moderate liberal. I think a vocal minority on both sides are extreme right or left, but most moderates live in the real world where we realize that few things are black and white, and we are able to reason out the best possible outcomes and even compromise to achieve that goal. Extremists do not compromise, and they are never wrong. They deny their humanity and are willfully ignorant. Your voting 'across the aisle' shows that you are not a rabid extremist, and are capable of free thought. You're just a little misguided sometimes.;):p

The original point though was that the media leans to the right which was countered with -no, it leans to the left-.......I don't think anyone was saying that the media is "extreme".

Therefore, for the purposes of this debate, I think "moderate" is much more narrow than ~anyone who isn't a rabid extremeist~

If I am wrong, then yeah, everyone here except ISM and myself are probably "moderate" :D /;)

That may have been the original point, but I believe Scaeagles was responding to my point, and I to his. (Seeings how the thread has gone all over the place, I don't think anyone could accuse me of straying off-topic). If you'd like to get back on the topic of media bias, by all means do so, but you started it by asserting that "most" Americans voted for Bush and that anyone who didn't wasn't a moderate.

I think we're getting tied up on labels to which we all have varying definitions. I, for example, do not consider myself moderate. I consider myself reasonable.

When do we ever stay not stray off topic;)

Actually, I did not assert that anyone who didn't vote for Bush was not a moderate but that anyone who found the mere thought of voting for him repugnant wasn't a moderate. A true moderate would have been torn between voting for Bush or Kerry or in the very least would have considered for a moment a vote for Bush....that's all I am saying.

If you guys keep discussing where you land on the spectrum I'm going to pull out the annoying Libertarian quiz (which is, of course, designed to make everyone sound Libertarian)

Is that the one with the North-South-East-West configuration?

To be fair, by definition, the 50.7% of voters that voted for him mean that, yes, "most" voters voted for Bush.

But of course, since only about 60% of eligible voters actually bothered to vote, that means only about 30% of the country voted for Bush.

So...more than Clinton got either time. :)

Not at all. There are candidates in both parties that I would never vote for. I guess you could call me an independent moderate, as I find the idea of blindly voting on straight party lines to be repugnant.

There's another subtle difference that's responsible for that. The RNC is all delegates and only delegates. The public spectator seats are EMPTY.

The public spectator seats at the DNC were always filled, with crowds waiting to get in.


Party Faithful Only = attention to even minor speakers.
Public filling half the hall = a lot of talking during minor speakers.
No public interest in the RNC = doomed election for Republican candidates.

She hasn't been able to find confirmation, but CP told me that she heard a discussion that Fox News, providers of the pool coverage for the DNC, was being selective with what shots of the audience were being shown, especially during Michelle Obama's speech.

Oh hey, guess who's also providing the pool video for the RNC.

We'll see what the bounce is.

i heard there was a riot or something there today. I guess the RNC didn't require "free speech zones"?:)

(that was intended to be a poke....I'm not going to try to say otherwise)

I'm favorably impressed so far with the convention, and appreciate the emphasis on service, both public and military. It would be hard to disagree with any of these fine folks about that. My hats off.

But here's what really strikes me about the audience. They're white. They're really really really really white. I'm beginning to feel like I'm playing Where's Waldo? looking for the thinly scattered minority presence.

This surprises you?

As Howard Dean once famously said, the Republicans can't fill the conference room with minorities unless they bring in the hotel staff.

His words, not mine.

I think the only person of color in the room is the adopted child of McCain.

Lieberman has more bottom teeth than there are Osmonds...

I listened to a speech which outlined the blow by blow events of McCain's imprisonment in Vietnam. Interesting account but then the reasons came s to why this would make him a good President and I almost threw up.

Why I was listening, I don't know.

Is that like the ABC reporter for taking pictures of large dem donors in Denver on a public sidewalk and being arrested?

I think it's a matter of scale. Um, cops suck everywhere, so don't get me wrong. But the item you refer to was just about the only police malfeasance I heard about at the Dem Convention. (Though, is it true the protesters there were confined to the Freedom Cage, while those in the Twin Cities are not?)

Example A - Police raid "Unconventional Denver"

Example B - Poilce carry out five raids

Example C - Massive Raids

Leiberman took a stand on principal and will be blackballed and stripped on any power by the dem party.

Yeah... well that's what happens to traitors. ;)

It's been a long time since I heard anyone talk about Israel, peace in the middle East, etc. Not a word from Lieberman, either.

*Pops in*
Nope, no Alex here...
*Pops out*

visible MOJO to you Lashie! Alex will never see it!

Oh, pshaw. YAGErs always LURK.

So what time does Palin go on tonight? I think I want to hear what she sounds like. I hope I don't throw up at what she has to say.

UNless she proclaims her undying love for liberalism, something tells me no matter what she says you'll puke.

Network coverage is 7-8. I prefer the PBS coverage, which has far less punditry and more actual speeches, but you have to record it and fast forward forever to get to the good stuff.

I recommend the uncommented live feed available right now at CNN Live - She's coming up in a couple of minutes,

Gotta grant her this - she looks a lot better on video than the photos I've seen of her.

I feel like I'm watching Tina Fey during an opening SNL skit.

And who wants to bet that her son will no longer be going to Iraq for security reasons? It's got to be hard to get a Secret Service detail over there.

Okay, seriously... I disagree with her political positions, but I have got to grant her that she comes across EXTREMELY WELL in public speaking. As a politician, I have to hand it to her (except my vote, of course! ;))

So, she's mocking Obama for working in communities to improve the lives and environs of the disadvantaged- then she calls him elite. This is going to bite them in the ass more than any sordid family scandal she's got going. I think he probably worked a hell of a lot harder than she ever did- since when did being the mayor of a podunk little town of less than 10,000 become so difficult?

To quote what I said in the McCain thread -

It was clearly a barb related to them slamming on her experience or lack there of, particularly with Obama now proclaiming that he has more experience than Palin - as if it matters if he does or not. She's the VP candidate, he's the candidate for President.

And WB - I think they started slamming on her as a mayor of a small town before she started slamming on him as a "community organizer". And to any extent she has aliented those people he was organizing, Obama (or his campaign) has alienated small town America by belittling her as mayor of a small town.....as if they don't matter.

I broke my rule. I watched it (hey, I broke it to watch Kucinich as the request of ISM). I must agree about how she came across. She gave an exceptional speech in terms of presentation.

I need to read the full text now.

I'll say it again - Go ahead and describe your public service but to spit on another's? Have Obama or Biden said word one about her lack of experience? No. Two words - low class. Snipers will always do sniping, but the candidates?

We tried to watch some of Giuliani's and Palin's speeches but had to bail before my skin started peeling off. Giuliani said that if we fail in Iraq it means a victory for Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Horrifying, how they just repeat bald faced lies and everyone cheers. Do none of those people understand the Iraq war at all?

I read the transcript...

Palin said a victory in Iraq is now in sight. Um, who is saying that? Oh wait, the Republicans have been saying that every single fvcking day since we sent our citizens over there to die.

She said she'd be an advocate for special needs children and their families. You mean, like providing health care, classes, or other monetary assistance? Oh wait, no, gov't isn't supposed to do that, right, conservatives? Well then, what kind of advocating is she going to do?

"Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?" I find it disgusting how she doesn't value our moral high ground, our justice process, our history of human rights.

She says Obama's plan would raise taxes but of course doesn't address for whom, or that if you make less than $250,000 your taxes would be cut. More bald faced lying.


I need a shower, and maybe a vacation away from here. Goody, I've got one planned.

VPM for CP.

The campaign is the candidate. Like I said, the campaign doesn't slam on her begin a small town mayor without approval from the candidate. What she said, though you find it tasteless, was a response to what the Obama campaign has been saying about her.

I won't comment on all you've mentioned, but you mock the mother of a special needs child because she says she'll be an advocate? That is pretty low.

Actually if I remember, initially someone from the Obama camp mentioned something about her not being qualified... but that was Friday on the day it was announced. Since then, they've stopped saying anything bad about Palin. In fact, Obama came out in strong support of the need to keep Palin's kids and family life out of it.

I'll say it again - Snipers will always do sniping, but the candidates? Yes, the campaign do say low class things about each other, but the candidates do not. Except in the case of Palin, that is. (Tenigma is correct, Obama said that family attacks are off limits.)

I'll ask it again - What kind of advocating can a "small gov't" candidate do? I don't understand how you can call such an obvious question "low". If I ran for office on a "keep gov't out of our wallets" platform and then said "I support spending tax money on something I specifically care about, so give me your money", no matter the subject, it doesn't make any sense.

I'm still amazed that she can she she was opposed to the "Bridge to Nowhere" with a straight face. That's rich.

She was smug, her speech was petty and juvenile and she blew kisses to people in the crowd... uh, yeah... real presidential.
If we're talking gender, I could see Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Dole, Barbara Boxer, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Nancy Pelosi as vice-president or president. Palin? Nope, not so much.
Her speech pales in comparison to Obama's, even Biden's (and I am not a fan of his speech, either).
And carrying her son in her arms was too much.

Does she not realize that the GOP doesn't give a damn about her? She's being used. Can she not see that?

I counted like 4 people of color in the audience. They may have been ushers or security guards...
:rolleyes:

GC: we noticed that too! Or rather we didn't even notice the 4! Pretty monochromatic event.

^^So much for MLK's dream of living in a color blind society.

Do you guys immediately count the number of minorities upon entering a room or do you wait until you're bored? ;)

His is a dream that hasn't come true yet. And taking note of the audience members during the speeches at the RNC makes that abundantly clear.

Can someone explain to me why there weren't more people of color in that auditorium? I think someone who doesn't notice that or think about it is truly blind.

Usually, one doesn't have to. Every place other than the RNC seems to have a pretty diverse mix of people. That's why it stands out like a sore thumb when you see the opposite.

This is the wrong thread for it, but since the not-here-yet color-blind society was mentioned, I've been wondering why his supporters do not take offense at Obama routinely being referred to as a black man.

I find that horribly racist. He's half black, half white. He won't be the first black president, he'll be the first mixed-race president.

I believe the antimysogenation laws had you black if you were 1/16th negro.

Why isn't Obama white? Why is he black by default? Sure, could be 'cause he looks black. But I find it more insideous than this.


Anyway, the RNC's white-out has me thinking more of political race issues than is usual for me.



* * * *

Anyway, Palin's speech was no disaster, and she had a few funny lines delivered well. But it was petty and rather juevenile. I didn't loathe her as much as I expected to ... but I don't see what's to like. And I certainly don't see anyone I want being President of the United States when McCain kicks the bucket.

(I don't know if anyone's noticed, but he's an old geezer.)

^(114)No, no, no, no.....this isn't gonna fly. It's the DNC that packs auditoriums with the "correct" number of this color or that. It's Obama who doesn't want too many people of color(or any muslims) up on stage with him.

MLK's dream was that we would not be concerned about what color our skin was.....the RNC seems to understand that. No one was kept out of the audience or off the stage based on their skin color....the same cannot be said for the modern day DNC!

Are you really trying to say that the RNC understands the issues of minorities in our country?
You still haven't explained to me why there were not more people of color at the RNC tonight.
I would rather have a political party include people of many races in their convention than to ignore them. Where was the inclusion that the RNC showed?
I saw a white majority in the audience tonight and only a few black people. At the DNC, I saw a diversity of races.

And might I add, if it was Obama's teen daughter that was pregnant, I wouldn't see any GOP politicians jumping to her defense in the name of pro-life and the plight of teen aged mothers. I would most likely see the Republicans characterize the Obamas as some sort of dysfunctional family that they wouldn't want anywhere near the White House.

No. I am saying the RNC doesn't care what color your skin is. The DNC, apparently, does.

African Americans make up about 10-12% of the US population. About 90% of them vote Democrat.

You do the math.

Acknowledging someone's race is preferable to someone ignoring you. Where is the proof that they don't care? I think what you meant to say was that the RNC doesn't care about people of color. For instance, if black America actually thought they were included in the RNC's plan for a brighter future for them, we would have seen more black people in the crowd.
That tells me a lot about how inclusive the RNC is.

What we saw tonight, was more of the same swill (ie. we're in danger, we should all be afraid, look at me I'm funny that means I'm one of you) that Bush has been serving us for the last 8 years. Obama's speech was about moving forward, uniting the country and making it a better place for all of us. What we heard tonight was the same garbage dividing this country again.

The only minority groups Palin brought up were Yup'ik Eskimos and special needs children.

Palin seemed to forget for her entire speech that a lot of the problems she was pointing out were due to her party and the Bush Administration. The do-nothing Senate that she teasingly brought up is half Republican, if I remember correctly.

I think you just pointed out the obvious, Jeff- but the real question is why is one demographic so overwhelmingly Dem? It just seems that if alienation wasn't a problem there would have been more diversity in the audience.

This question was posed last year on nose-picker radio and I believe the response at the time was that this is because Obama himself presents himself as a Black man, and that he identifies with the Black community.

By the way, Obama in the last couple days has been commenting on Palin as a mayor of a small town, saying his job managing his campaign is tougher with more people to manage. So it has been fairly recent.

I find no real surprises here. Those predisposed to dislike Palin and who are solidly in the Obama camp didn't like her speech. Those who were predisposed to like her and her speech did. I admit I wanted to like her and her speech. I did. I would figure that unless she came out touting the full democrat agenda there's nothing that's going to change that. For every cry of petty on the dem side toward her, I can shout cries of vacuous and same-old same-old for the Obama speech.

Goodness, why didn't you just read her speech transcript like you did the other guy so you wouldn't be unduly influenced by her teleprompter-reading ability? ;)

I didn't watch the whole thing but I'll agree that she definitely has a fire. Nice contrast (?) to a 72-year-old has-been tottering man, although the thought of seeing a born-again tongue-speaking Pentecostal extremist in the White House who probably can't differentitate Eye-raq from Eye-ran on a map is a really scary.

That's why I gave the excuse of breaking my rules first at the behest of ISM to watch Kucinich. Made me feel better about it. :) I did read it afterwards. I watched it because I had absolutely no idea what her voice even sounded like. At least I've seena ll the others invovled speak before. And FYI, I muted Rudy. In the 2 minutes the volume was on, I really was completely unimpressed.

I still have to laugh, because now the governor of AZ (who has a definitely chance of being AG under Obama) is slamming on Palin's experience levels and comparing them to Obama. I just think it is amazing that the dems have to compare his experience to hers when he's on the top of the ticket.

Perhaps she at least considers Iran to be a threat instead of a small country that poses none whatsoever to the US, as Obama said.....don't exactly remember when, but I'm thinking a couple months ago.

She makes McCain look even older and more fragile.

“No matter how cynical I get, it’s just never enough to keep up.”
-Lily Tomlin

Dividing the country? Who's counting the number of people by race again? I looked at the convention and saw an audience......you looked at the convention and had to "divide" them by race.

Why do we have to divide people up by demographics? MLK never talked like this.

I find this laughable...if someone included "preparing this resume" on their resume as "experience" I would round-file it....after passing it around for a good chuckle.

Did you have responses to my point-by-point post, or are you calling it petty to actually talk about issues? Are you happy that she and her party are happy to throw out Miranda rights and due process? That they keep saying a victory is "in sight", same as they did 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years ago, while more Americans die? That she lied to us about Obama's tax plan?

I went looking for Obama attacking Palin and found this. As the very next post in that thread says - he was asked to compare, and he did, so how is that attacking? If you've got links about the man himself putting down another candidate's experience, (never mind the snarky fashion that Palin did it in) I'd like to see it.

I do indeed have point by point responses to your post, CP. I didn't think it would be productive to talk about them, really. I didn't call you petty at all - I was remarking how Palin is being called petty. I don't think you're being petty, you are disagreeing with what she said, which is fine and I have no problem with.

Because you specifically mention Iraq....the Anbar province, which before the surge was the worst area, is now under control and in fact the Iraqis now head up any and all operations there. Deaths and attacks are dropping monthly, regularly acheiving new lows. Iraqis are coming together as they have found that the US isn't going to leave a power vacuum and they have someone to help them stand up to the ruthlessness of those who don't want change there. All signs point to improvement. McCain was for the surge and stood by it. Obama was against the surge and still denies it being the reason for the improving conditions.

Obamas tax plan is far, far beyond income taxes. I have even commented that if your "calculate your tax cut" is accurate I would be getting quite a large income tax cut. Increasing the other taxes that he has indeed proposed, including but not limited to capital gains and corporate taxes, do indeed have an immensely negative effect and increase costs to the middle class. Obama's tax policies are not only income taxes.

If you dislike Palin, that's cool. I've got no problem with that. Obama was indeed asked about the experience issue and offered that being a mayor is not as much experience as running a campaign. That is insulting, whether offered in a "snarky" fashion or not. One man's snarky is another man's humor. I thought it was funny, not snarky. All opinion, and ours certainly vary.

Now, I have no doubt you will come back and dispute what i've said above, which is why I didn't respond to them point by point earlier. I'm not interested in rehashing everything that has been gone over before because it never leads anywhere. I only respond because you specifically asked.

Sorry about the "petty" mixup, my mistake.

If it really is so great out there, how come they won't talk about pulling out? You can't say "the war is almost won" and "we need to stay there for more than 16 months from now" in the same breath.

This does not answer the fact that she misleadingly said he would raise income taxes but didn't make it clear that it was for anyone over $250,000 a year. The word here is "misleading".

I dislike what she said. Why would you say this after I made it clear that I was countering her stance on issues, not on the person herself? Is that all you see in my posts - "she doesn't like her"? Dude, way to trivialize my points. :rolleyes:

So what do you think he should have said, in response to the question of how their jobs compare? Should he have lied and said managing 50 employees is the same as managing 2500?

You mean, like a debate? Give me a break, when you want to talk about something, it's fine, when I want to talk about issues, you call it rehashing?

There is talk about pulling out. There have been numerous stories recently about discussions we've been having with the Iraqi government.

I should have been more clear, and I apologize for the saying you don't like Palin. I honestly meant her policies. I don't beleive I have said anything demeaning about you or your posts, nor am I trying to trivialize.

What should he have said? I don't know. Her management of a state, which is her current job, she has been doing longer than he has been running his campaign and it is indeed larger in scope than a campaign. He chose, I believe deliberately - which is fine - to focus on being a mayor of a small town rather than her being a governor of a state, designed specifically to belittle her. I have no problem with that. Of course one needs to present a case in as positive a light as you can for yourself.

I feel like I have a no win situation in political threads recently. If I post what I think and ask questions, I have recently been accused of baiting and other things. So now I temper my responses, being as inoffensive as I could possibly be and avoiding discussions of things that have been gone over before to avoid the appearance of baiting, and that is wrong as well. CP, I have never been one to avoid debate, which I think is obvious.

If you want to spin it that way, let's go there...
The country is divided by race. The dividing I was talking about has to do with Republicans and Democrats. There was no talk of unity in her speech. It's once again all about how we're safer as a country with a Republican at the helm. Uh, yeah. She's touting how McCain's experience is going to be an asset to the country. Four years ago, the experience of a war veteran was used against him by Republicans. It's the same double-standard that the Republicans use over and over again. And the same stupid people that voted for Bush Jr are going to vote for McCain, they'll fall for that overused rhetoric again. It's sad, really. Obama's not perfect and I'm not sure if I like Biden, but Obama is the lesser of two "evils" here. Palin demonstrated last night that with their ticket, we'll continue the Bush way of thinking. I'm not up for four more years of that.

This is off topic, but it involves discussion of race:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/03/fb...intee-said-no/

And here's some reality checks for what Palin has said and what McCain has said about Palin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_123771.html

(posted on Huffington, but it's an AP story).

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet: an AP article that fact checks some of Palin's (and others') lines in speeches at the Republican National Convention.

I would expect no less out of the Republicans...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/...cvn_fact_check

Edit: Grrr.... GD beat me on posting this article by 4 minutes! :D

Jinx.

Okay, so the Iraq is, like, Bristol Palin, and we're like Levi. And the Iraq is like, you should pull out, and we're, like, I know, but just a little longer. And the Iraq is, like, I want you to pull out. And we're, like, no you don't. And the Iraq is, like, no I don't, but you should. And we're, like, the surge is working, say it. And the Iraq is, like, the surge is working, pull out. And we're like, tell me you're ready to govern yourself. And the Iraq, like, doesn't say anything. And we're, like, I can't pull out 'til you say you can govern yourself. And then the Iraq, like, fakes it and says, yes, baby, I can govern myself, oh yes. Now pull out. And we're like, you think I can't tell you're faking. And then . . .

And I have to then point out that 8 members of a purported anarchist group calling themselves the RNC Welcoming Committee were charged today in Minneapolis with Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism.

They were not any of the people who actually tried to block traffic or commit other acts of civil disobediance and/or riot, but rather were the ones who allegedly did the planning.

They are the first persons charged with this Minnesota law, which - like the Patriot Act it is modeled after - equates civil disobedience of poliltical protest with terrorism.

I don't see anything racist here. Just that people conspiring to disrupt the travel routes for delegates to the Republican Convention are being charged with terrorist crimes that carry a penalty of 7+ years, while people conspiring to ASSASSINATE the presidential candidate at the Democrat Convention are let off.

Um, nothing. What?

There have been a boatload of unprovoked raids and arrests, lots of police in gas masks and riot gear, with pepper spray and tear gas. Twitter huffpost, or just look at the Huffington Post website.

There are accusations of undercover infiltrators breaking windows and such, then giving the cops just cause to start cracking heads. Cheneyesque tactics of "intimidate now, don't bother asking questions later."

Apparently I must spread some mojo around before I can give it to Strangler Lewis again.



And from the jinx article, especially for BDBopper, whose candidate delivered the biggest bald-faced lie in a night of lying and misleading:

I'm sitting here getting angrier and angrier at Giuliani for his "Iraq=Al Qaeda" line. It's so fvcking deceitful and despicable.

I don't kid myself into thinking that the Democratic Party isn't run by liars also, but at the very least they don't lie to keep this country in fear and to justify killing.

Uhm, yeah he did. He pointed out the disparities in education, employment opportunities, housing, etc, that black Americans face. He did so quite frequently.

From Wikipedia:Demographics or demographic data refers to selected population characteristics as used in government, marketing or opinion research, or the demographic profiles used in such research. Note the distinction from the term "demography" (see below.) Commonly-used demographics include race, age, income, disabilities, mobility (in terms of travel time to work or number of vehicles available), educational attainment, home ownership, employment status, and even location. Distributions of values within a demographic variable, and across households, are both of interest, as well as trends over time. Demographics are frequently used in economic and marketing research.

:(

I must have missed that part as I was more inspired by his judging everyone on character rather than skin color rhetoric......silly simple minded me:(

The negativity spewed with a smile was too much for me. I turned her off.

At one point, she ripped on the set Obama gave his speech in front of. Foam columns and what not... Is that the best her writer could come up with?

It was a funny line.


V.P. candidates are supposed to rip into the red meat at their convention speech. Her jokes were ok until they started to personally insult and purposefully distort the truth.


Biden's deep respect for McCain personally but clear and non-snarky disdain for his policies was a breath of fresh air even for Democrat V.P. acceptance speeches.


McCain himself is the prime example of becoming indistinguishable from your enemies in order to vanquish them. I don't want the Democrats to do the same.

(They're a smarmy, corrupt-enough political party ... barely four steps from being Republians. Let's leave those four steps between them and retain some semblance of good vs. evil.)

Jon Stewart was absolutely HILARIOUS on his show last night. Instead of talking about Palin, he basically just ran video clips of GOP talking heads contradicting themselves.

If you haven't seen it, go check it out!

Tenigma's post in another thread reminded me of another part of Palin's speech.

"What's the difference between a hockey mom and a bull dog? Lipstick!"

Did she just call herself a bitch?

:eek: :eek: :eek: She said it!

...but with Passion Pink lipcolor!

I want to have Jon Stewart's babies.

Seriously.

Maybe she's trying to come out as a lesbian...

That was great!
:)
Yeah, herself and all the hockey moms across the country. Alaska and Hawai'i included.
:D

Pit Bull.

And, yes, something like that.

Ack, no time to post.

Scaeagles - great post, really, and I appreciate what you said. :)

Can't mojo Strangler, too funny.

He actually winked.:mad:



Ya know, I like John McCain. And I'm thinking he's giving a pretty good speech. Kinda bland, but I'm impressed that none of it's very objectionable, and I admire his effort to come across well to undecided Americans.

I admired his admission that the Republican party had lost the trust of America, and I appreciated him blaming both parties equally for Washington corruption and ineptitude.


Then he had to go and use the code words for anti-gay rights, and he frelling actually WINKED while he was saying them. I can't fukking believe it.


Go Straight to Hell, Straight Talking McCain.


I'm an American, too. And if my denying my civil rights is such a cavalier matter to you ... if denying any American's civil rights is a joking matter, they you, sir, deserve to LOSE.

Hear, hear!

Well, i'll grant that the end of his speech was rousing.



And there have been many worse Republicans than John McCain.





But, um, no.

I didn't watch tonight. I haven't yet found a transcript of it.

One thing is Not Going to be apparent from Reading the transcript ... the way he overcame being a slave to audience reaction by the end of the speech, gained the confidence that, d'uh, he is microcphoned and will be heard around the nation even if people in the hall are yelling.

Before that, he kept stumbling when the audience would insist on applause breaks. The worst tendencies of repeating the start of a sentence 3 times and the like ... really some of the worst public speaking pitfalls and sloppiness.

Then he had to actually quell the crowd when hecklers twice threatened to interrupt the speech. And even though they were never heard, interrupt it they did. The crowds' anti-chant visibly threw McCain off balance. He recovered the second time better with a cute one-liner, but two times in five minutes he completely lost control of the rythym of his words and themes, and was noticeably shaken.

(None of that will be in the written transcript.)



All the more amazing to me, then, when he ignored the cries and clamors of the crowds during his inspirational finale. Just talked right through it, kept the proper cadence to give the ooomph to the speech (said oomph also not likely be apparent from reading it, scaeagles).

And far from drowning him out, the roar of the audience served only to accentuate the "Oh-Yessitude" of John McCain's big finish.





Ok, well, much as I do not want to abide Mr. McCain as president, he doesn't make my skin crawl.


Sarah Palin, on the other hand, gives me the complete creeps.


:confused:

I watched and I missed that. I'd love to see someone point it out on a transcript. I'd like to read it. Interesting...


I thought the parts where he spoke of his personal experiences sacrificing a lot for this country were great. Well done. But all in all, I'd have to say that this is one of the worst campaign speeches I have ever seen/heard. His pacing was incredibly slow, he stumbled several times and in the areas where he was trying to rally the crowd and get them excited he fell flat.

He's not the anti-Christ, he's not the worst politician in the world, but this speech was horrendous. Him apologizing for the last 8 years was nice, but instead of it making me see him in a positive light, it made me resent his party as a whole. I liked that he didn't speak with the venom that Palin did, so I guess his whole speech wasn't a total loss. But inspiring it wasn't and comparing it to Obama's speech it was poor.

People in the crowd looked as bored as I was. There was even a shot where someone was yawning. But that had more to do with bad direction, methinks. They did show more people of color this time. (I watched it on KCET, I don't know if the crowd shots vary from network to network.) The KCET and CNN hosts even brought up the small numbers of minorities in the GOP to the Republican and Democrat commentators and both sides said it indeed was an issue.

Did the broadcast you were watching show the dude with the banners?

We ended up watching the video on the RNC site. There was a guy in the way back holding banners reading things like "McCain votes against Vets". At one point I heard him yelling. The prolonged "USA" chants that had McCain halting were the crowd drowning him out. And that's why he threw the "Don't be distracted by the ground noise and static" line in.

We watched large chunks of it, then scanned the transcript. The only thing we could figure that Steve might be referring to is:

I saw the banner guy. I also saw 2 people being marched out waving the two finger peace sign.

I'm torn on the protest during the speeches issue. I believe in freedom of speech and I'm all for people protesting. But doing it the way they did, it made themselves look bad.

Also, another word on McCain's POW story: I think it's a wonderful, amazing story. But the introduction video, Palin and Cindy McCain gave their versions of it already. It kinda watered down McCain saying it himself. I think they should have let him have the thunder.

No, didn't see the banners on CNN. Just the folks being escorted out.

Either way, i thought McCain handled it poorly.




oh, and the code words? it's when "judges legislate from the bench."

That's actually code for two things ... anti-gay rights and anti reproductive-rights.


I call it anti-American.


And even without the code, the concept itself is unAmerican. We should CELEBRATE that an equal brand of government arbits final justice and PROTECTS us from the worst ravages of craven legislatures, tyrannical executive power, and the democracy of the American mob.

Amen to that, iSm!

I read the speech and was left with mostly the same impression I was after reading Obama's (same old same old) with a couple of exceptions.

First, I believe he recognizes the utter failings of the republican party. He called out the republican led congress and (indirectly) Bush for spending and expanding government. As a disgruntled republican, that was my favorite part of the speech. Gave me reason to think I could support republicans in general again.

Lastly, I was genuinely moved by the latter part of his speech when he was talking about his experience as a POW and how it changed him. I thought that was brilliantly written and I may need to watch his delivery of that portion at least.

I'm starting to think I could vote for McCain without having to hold my nose while doing it. However, my level of trust with him is very, very low still.

He certainly spoke as if he understood his party's failings and was clearly playing more to the undecideds in TV land than the loyalists in the house. The question, of course, is whether he means it. I think last night was the first time he really sounded like that.

I think he does mean it....he's pretty much made it the hallmark of his career at tipping over the Republican apple cart.

Oh, I think he meant that, too.

But as I said, what I found completely insincere, from his history and his delivery, was when he claimed his intimate abhorance of war would give him a moment's pause in committing young men and women to combat against McCain's enemy nations once he gets to play the World like a giant game of Risk.

I think he relishes ultimate command of our military and I think he's itching to use its power.



I also think he hasn't got an inkling of what All Men Are Created Equal means ... and he is, therefore, DisQuaLiFiEd.

What was it McCain was saying about Obama acting like a celebrity?

oh please, that whole ad campaign, Palin's crack about styrofoam greek columns ... they're pathetically jealous they can't fill a stadium with their faithful minions (of convenience ... the minions don't even like McCain).

The speech itself...meh. I'm sure if I read the transcript I'd find something to get hot and bothered about, but whatever. We skipped around watching it online and perhaps I missed the interesting bits, but it was definitely not written with me in mind.

To me, legislating from the bench includes a lot more issues than just abortion and gay rights. There are a lot of other judgments they'd like overturned.

On a personal note, McCain freaks me out these days. I'm sure it's due to his cancer, as he has to will his face to smile. Poor guy. I'd never vote based on such things, but sadly, it affects how he comes across. Ack, what a shame, what a shame he didn't beat out W in 2000! :( He used to be so cool...though you never know what his administration would have looked like. Who knows who really pulls the strings...

I read this that way too, although I will grant iSm, that I do think he meant to appeal to the fundies on this one.

I did notice that not all that he was saying was received all that enthusiastically by the crowd - which made me happy. Not from an electoral standpoint, but from a what-if-he-wins standpoint. I'm glad he's departing from party line, and I'm glad what he wants to do makes the party faithful (eg: delegates) uncomfortable. IF we get stuck with him, it won't be as bad as it could have been.

When you read the transcript, scaeagles, the wink won't be there.


Don't pretend the wink doesn't affect the meaning of the words "legislate from the bench." John McCain's loathesomeness last night proved the transcript doesn't tell the real story.

You see, that's exactly why I read instead of listen or watch.

I have no doubt in your sincerity in how you've interpretted it. If I was watching, I really doubt that I'd have interpretted it that way (even if I caught the wink). I haven't heard or read any analysis of it being interpretted that way.

The mannerisms and visual queues mean different things to different people. The words are the words. You could be right that I miss what the body language is saying in reading rather than watching, and you're probably right to an extent. But I think this is a case where you read something into it that many or most don't or didn't.

I think I said this before about John Edwards, but last night John McCain's smile flashing also reminded me of Dan Aykroyd's impression of Jimmy Carter.

McCain says that Obama is sexist because he questioned Palin's experience... Therefore that must mean that McCain is racist for questioning Obama's experience - right?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...edName=topNews

I don't think either of them are sexist or racist by the way. I'm just so annoyed at the game playing and finger pointing over things that things that are just so over the top.

I want to hear specifics about things not vague ideas. I want to know, for a fact, exactly what a candidate will do, won't do, and how they plan on doing that.

Total double-standard. According to some Republicans it's not sexist for Republicans to bash Hillary Clinton when she was running and yet it is when the same is done to Palin.

????

Okay, I'm going to post this link because it freakin' ticked me off:

9/11 Tribute at the RNC

I don't always agree with Olbermann, I think he is an O'Reilly horse of a different color (blue), but he does have a point this time.

I think it's totally and completely distasteful. More fear, more manipulation, more of the same. How can a rebel and a maverick be okay with exploiting the attack on the World Trade Center 7 years later just to become president? Oh, and if he had nothing to do with it, then he should have come out and disagreed with it being shown at the RNC.

I hope Obama becomes our next president because stunts like this are just horrible...

I suppose you wouldn't have interpreted Palin's "Part the Waters" remark about Obama to refer to the false-messiah baloney the Republicans are tying to paint him with.

If you're not up on the code book, good for you, scaeagles. But it's got nothing to do with "interpretation."

It's rather a matter of TRANSLATION. Look it up in the Official Republican Code Book: "Judges Legislating From the Bench" = Approving the Constitutionality of Gay Marriage Rights.


Don't give me any crap about interpretation. The wink wasn't even necessary, it was just the bit that sold it .... and sold him down the river as far as I'm concerned. He can rot in Hanoi Hilton Hell in his foreverafterlife.

It is certainly the case that in Evangelical circles, "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" means we're talking about gay marriage issues. That one will warm the cockles of James Dobson's heart.

Gak! What am I doing commenting in a political thread!?! Sorry, folks, I lost my mind. *runs away*

I hope that was just pandering.

Please don't use the words "cockles" and "James Dobson" in a sentence again.

Ever.

Anyone wonder about that building they showed on the screen behind McCain?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/213806.php

Oops!

I forwarded that to a bunch of my friends who attended Walter Reed.

That's hilarious!

HahahahahahahHAHAHAHHAHAHA and HawHa! :D

Quite a gaffe! Bwahahahaha

Maybe they've just got baby lust . . .

but I'm not ready to give up on the rumors.

Republicans have been complaining about legislating from the bench for decades.......long before Gay Marriage became a major issue.


Imo the "wink" was for the pro-lifers who have been very wary of this candidate.

According to a google search in which I typed in "judges legislating from the bench" + "blank"

When "blank" was "gay marriage" 6,150 results turned up
When "blank" was "guns" 6,680 results turned up
When "blank" was "immigration" 6,990 results turned up
When "blank" was "abortion" 9,830 results turned up.

So isn't it, if not highly likely, at least conceivable that he was not winking about gay marriage at all?

Abortion hasn't been "legislated" from the bench since before John McCain was 150 years old.

I suspect that he used used generic code words so that their voting base could slot in whatever pet issue (gay marriage, gun control, immigration, abortion) they wanted to be abolished, and feel great about it.

Of course, the reverse is also true: non-base voters see the code words and imagine he's maligning whatever their pet issue is. (And, he probably is.)

And I suspect he sucked caulk below decks on navy ships, but has self-loathed his own gayness ever since he was daily buttraped in the Hanoi Hilton and started to like it.



Yeah, that's low and disgusting. McCain's not high on my list right now.

Nor has anything involving homosexuality.

The last time I remember anyone leveling the "legislating from the bench" charge during an actual S.C. case was for Schaivo, which had to do with neither abortion nor homos.

And in going over the speech, I thought "that's about abortion" on that part.

Gay rights is certainly a component of what people mean when they refer to "legislating from the bench", but, as corroborated by sleepy's Google results, I've always perceived it to refer primarily to the abortion issue, and when not, then as a general term that means "The Supreme Court came to a conclusion that we don't agree with" not reserved for any issue.

The right wing is accusing the California Supreme Court of legislating from the bench on their same sex marriage ruling. That's recent.

And they accused Massachusetts' Supreme Court of the exact same thing.

It most certainly does NOT refer exclusively, or even primarily, to the United States Supreme Court.

In fact, it rarely refers to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since they are the "Supreme" of Supreme Courts, their rulings are not usually demeaned with the legislative monikor, since they can not be appealed to any higher authority.

But because State Supreme Courts have that one higher authority, their rulings on Constitutionality are demeaned with the legislative perjorative.





By the way, it was the infamous Vietnamese Teabagging Torture that finally broke POW McCain and had him wanting to kill himself. He mentioned that incident in his speech last night, conspicously leaving out the important element of faggotry. :p

I didn't claim that it was only federal Supreme Court, that was just the last time I recall hearing it.

Regardless, I've heard it used for abortion, gun control, gay marriage, affirmative action, you name it. If a Supreme Court ruling falls in line with what's considered a liberal view point, it's decried as "legislating from the bench", no matter the subject matter. I've heard it aimed at so many things I can't possibly agree that he was aiming that specifically at the gay haters.

I was actually surpised to hear that McCain's speech drew a significantly larger TV audience than did Obama. Found that to be very interesting....though I don't have any idea what it means.

Edited to add - oops! I misread. McCain had 38.9 million watching, Obama had 38.4. I had originally read that as 34.8. So more, but not significantly more.

I'd be curious to see the historical numbers on that. I would think whichever speech is 2nd gets some level of help simply for being 2nd. After a week of convention talk and the talking-head-gasm that follows the first acceptance speech is certain to drum up more interest in what's to follow.

I don't know, you jerk-wad! I take back my oops. McCain CRUSHED Obama drawing over 10% more viewers! Admit it and that OBAMA is DOOMED!

(Posting this right after I posted #1842 in the "yes we can" thread....just a little joke....and yes, I know my math was off)

That's okay, Scaeagles- you're the reason they created NCLB.:evil:;)

I think it's because McCain's speech came right after a football game so a lot of people already had their TV sets on.

The Ninth Circuit Court is notorious among talk radio listeners for being horribly liberal.

By the way The Daily Show was again great tonight (covering the last day of the RNC). The reporters all went into the arena and asked everyone what "small town" meant since that seems to be the theme for the Republicans.

[Now if you ask me, I think "small town" is code for "White Church-Going Protestants" but...]

Across the board people seemed to say, "Well, a small town is where marriage is between a man and a woman." So apparently gay people aren't allowed to live in small towns. Or they don't make them that way there. Uh-huh.

What does "small town" mean when Biden says it then(and he says it a lot)???

Something completely different, obviously.

Heh heh....just ran across this at the Huffington Post blog: ( NSFW- a wee bit o' foul language)


Levi Johnston's Convention Diary

Hahaha, that was teh awesome.

One of the repeating themes I heard in RNC speeches was that we are winning in Iraq, that the surge fixed it, that things are going very well....

...but it looks like Petraeus doesn't agree. I knew "the surge" wouldn't be temporary...

I concede the Republicans win on the Surge. Very few Americans are paying enough attention to the situation in Iraq to discern the difference between cause and effect, timing and happenstance.

So violence is down and it happened at the same time as the Surge. The Republicans lucked out on this, and there's nothing we can do about it.


Fortunately, most progressives and Dems also have ceased paying attention to Iraq ... so Barack can change the subject easily enough to the suckfest that is America in the 21st Century.

???

The violence is down because of the surge. The reason Petraeus wants to leave the troops there longer is because lowering troop levels - as in the opposite of the surge - could result in an increase in violence. It was certainly not luck....it was the administration finally listening to what commanders were asking for and McCain was for a couple years before it happened.

I pay very close attention, and I think I might just know about cause and effect and timing vs. happenstance. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean it is due to ignorance on the opposite side of yours.

And for the first time, McCain has a measurable lead. Zogby has him up 4, Gallup has him up 3, and USAToday has him up 10 (that's likely voters....I believe the other two were registered). More importantly, the base of McCain is now excited....I have actually become a solid McCain supporter. He still wouldn't have been my first choice, but I am no longer reluctant to vote for him.

ok, real or imagined, they win.


you say potato, i say tomato.

I'd be interested to know why.

Yes, more troops means less violence. So the surge is forever, eh?

No. The Anbar province was recently turned over to Iraqis to head up operations, but they'll need time with us there as backup.

No doubt it isn't happening as fast as anyone would like (it being going under complete Iraqi bontrol). But it is happening.

I'll answer the McCain question when I have a bit more time.

And so, did we need more troops to turn over Anbar to the Sunni? Once the place was already ethnically cleansed, who's left to kill anyway?

How many more brigades were required to arm the folks who used to shoot at us? How long will the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend last anyhow?

What does any of the violence reduction have to do with the surge except for coincidental timing?



(Actually, I think some of the violence in Baghdad was quelled by the presence of more troops at the start of the surge ... but as you can tell from my somewhat rhetorical questions, I don't think it's been responsible for the overall reduction in Iraq violence.)

How can something within the margin of error be a measurable lead?

In urban warfare where the enemy hides among and behind the general populace, it is necessary to do a building by building search for weapons, enemy combatants, terrorists, etc, to get them out. This require vast numbers of troops. It is much simpler to keep them out than to get them out. Therefore, after time and dangerous work, the Iraqis have taken charge there to keep out the elements.

The violence reduction has to do with what I just described. Once the hidden combatants have been eliminated, they don't have the man power (or woman power of child power or whatever) to have the suicide bombings as they don't have the capacity to get the necessary explosives to the desired targets.

This is why so many of these suicide bombings occur at checkpoints. It's the only way they can attack because they no longer have anything (or at least it is vastly reduced) inside the controlled areas.

I didn't say it was outside the margin of error. It is the first time he has been above a virtual tie in either of those polls.

The 10 point USA Today poll is certainly outside the margin of error.

Still within Gallup's margin of error.

When all other polls are within the margin of error wouldn't that make the USA Today poll an outlier?

Don't forget that a large part of the base that would boost Obama can't participate in the polls because many don't have landlines.

What changed for you? His running mate who proclaims to be a bitch? She's just a mini-Me with boobs of McCain.

Someone made an interesting comment to me regarding polls. They are not allowed to call cell phones, thus a large portion of the people who are Obama supporters (young voters) are likely being missed on these polls.

You guys may very well be correct on the polls. However, when I consider that the livelihood of these polling organizations is being accurate they are probably trying to be damn sure they account for that.

I would presume it's within their margin of error. So while McCain may have received a post convention bump, his "lead" is still within the margin of error.

You are indeed correct. Please note I have been very careful not to say the McCain now has a clear cut lead. I have only said this is the first time it has been beyond tied in the polls in McCain's favor. I have certainly acknowleged that the Gallup and Zogby polls are within the margin of error, and also noted that the USA Today poll is slightly different because it is likely voters rather than registered voters.

There is no doubt, however, that momentum has shifted in McCain's favor based on the swing in the polls.

Wow. Going all out on the pit bull quote?

Palin is indeed similar to McCain...or at least what McCain has been saying recently. McCain had changed his tune over the last months to align more with the conservative base. If he had chosen a running mate who was not a conservative, I would have far greater doubts of his sincerity in those changes. For example, while I like Leiberman, if he had selected Leiberman there is no way I would have voted for McCain.

I am disenchanted with the republican party. Palin has been aggressive pursuing corruption within her own party in Alaska, and I like that. I was also exceptionally happy that McCain acknowledged the failings of the republican party.

That pretty much sums up why. Has NOTHING to do with boobs.

Several of the polls are inside the margin of error, but this seems to be a phenomenon similar to Obama's leads of the past few months. The polls almost always showed Obama ahead but near or within the margin of error. While technically, every one of those polls could have erred in his favor and the race was actually tied, the likelihood is that if the race were tied, there would have been as many polls showing McCain ahead (within the MOE) as Obama.

Now that all the polls I've seen in the last day or two show McCain ahead (albeit mostly within the MOE), it only seems logical to assume that he is ahead at this moment in time. Whether this is a real shift in the race or a short-lived bounce from the convention and the VP selection, the next week or two will show.

MOE=margin of error, in case that wasn't clear

It should be noted that there's been barely a quiver in electoral vote numbers, even with McCain's overall bump.

And the "likely voter" poll is hard to take seriously as "likely voter" polls have historically been pretty inaccurate.

Historicall, Zogby has been the most accurate, I think.

And really, the only poll that matters is in November.

It will be interesting if McCain wins the popular by the current Zogby 4 pt margin and loses the electoral count (with is currently at 273-265 for Obama). I would guess rolls between the parties will be reversed and those who had been complaining about he electoral system will love it and those who supported it may be complaining.

For the record, I never had issue with the electoral system nor the fact that Gore won the popular vote. My only issue with the 2000 election was the seemingly high probability of fraud/mistakes in Florida.

It insulted me as a woman, as a hockey fan and as a [hopefully] future mom of a kid who plays hockey. A pit bull comparison is not flattering. Pit bulls are vicious, mean attack dogs. I don't expect, nor do I want our President of VP to be a push-over; but this comparison just really irks me. While I was open to hearing what she had to say and maybe respecting some of her views that comment overshadowed, still overshadows any positive feelings I may have had.

That wasn't directed at anyone here (just to be clear on my point)....it was just huge in the media nationwide.

I saw this and thought it was pretty funny.

SFW

One interesting thing I'm noting on the polling I've looked at is many, mnay close states have not had state specific polling for two weeks.

If McCain's bounce nationwide is represented in battleground states that have not had polls in a while the electoral map could be favoring McCain.

FYI, as someone inquired with me earlier, I go to realclearpolitics.com, which averages the major polls to come to a consolidated number.

I recognize not everyone here believes these polls are accurate, just citing some numbers that are out there and where I get that info from.

Of course not......most states have not taken a poll since before Palin was picked as VP. Some States not since before August 15th.

And right on cue, Rasmussen released a bunch of state polls today (along with a couple of others from other pollers). On the whole, they show a much smaller move toward McCain than the national numbers. They show McCain gaining 2 points in Michigan and Ohio, one point in Pennsylvania and Virginia. But it also shows Obama picking up 2 points in Florida and 4 in Colorado. None of the states switched from one candidate to the other (though Florida moved into a tie).

Link

It should be noted that there's been barely a quiver in electoral vote numbers, even with McCain's overall bump.

:p

It should be noted that polls are meaningless.

I am laughing on the inside:D

Polls aren't meaningless. It's just not always easy to determine what their meaning is.

Click me.

I'm sure some may not want to watch the whole thing....but you have to at least skip to 4:15 and watch the rest. The end will surprise you.

One of my favorite songs from the 90's has been perverted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQGYchgLYdU

I hate it's message(but it is pretty darn funny) :)

I think it's genus! Bravo!

As much as I despise her views it bothers me that she has been turned into a sex object and attacked for being pretty. Maybe McCain did pick her because she's going to be Vice Candy, but why should a woman in power be attacked because she's pretty and not frumpy?

Personally I do find it just a bit ironic that the McCain campaign now appears to be focused around a cult of personality rather than experience and issues.

Stolen from Wait Wait Don't Tell me:

The new Beverly Hills 90210 series premiered last week. The original show was about a Minnesota family relocated and were dropped amongst a bunch of rich white people. I wonder what would happen if you instead took a bunch of rich white people and dropped them into Minnesota?

...

YES

http://www.electoral-vote.com

Don't get cocky... On this date 4 years ago, Kerry was way ahead of Bush....

Man, I gotta stay out of the political threads! Stop me now.

JW, your avatar is so hot, please post somewhere else so I can drool in a more pleasant environment. ;)

Exactly....McCain is doing better than Bush at this point in time.

Kerry was up on Bush 273 to 233 on Sept 12 of 2004

but...

Yesterday, Sept 11, Obama was up on McCain by nearly the exact same amount{273 to 238}

So you see, Obama is doing exactly as well as Kerry.....McCain is doing slightly better than Bush ....thus, my cockiness:D

You can also look at it this way: In 2004, between this date and the election, the two candidates positions reversed.....

He is, sin't he... :D

I see what your saying.....my line of reasoning is a little different(naturlich):)

There are many different sites with maps out there and they're all different

That's true, but this one has been touted the most here on LoT; maybe that's because up until today it had Obama with pretty big leads. It's author is a Democrat and he uses data from several reputable polling services so I am confident that this isn't right wing propaganda.

There are other sites though:

This one still has Obama with a slight lead:
http://www.electionprojection.com/president08.shtml

This one has McCain with an even bigger lead:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/...rediction.html



And this one is based on people who bet on these kind of things...it has McCain with the narrowest of leads:
http://electoralmap.net/index.php

How do those polls account for the large amount of younger voters who seem to make up Obama's demographic? Pollsters can't call cell phones.

I don't know if that will have any affect on the polls. With Kerry, it did not. I remember people thinking that he had it in the bag because of the un-polled cellphone users.

It may this time. More people, more young voters don't have landlines then didn't back when Kerry was running.

Yes, they can....they just can't auto dial them. Most of the larger polling companines do call a small number of cell customers to get a feel for where they may be voting(kind of a poll within a poll) then assign that number to represent the percentage(7.9%+/-) of registered voters who only use cell phones.

The Pew research center has a study on the whole thing but I don't have a link.

Yes, all of the polling companies attempt to adjust for the cell phone issue (only small polls can even try to completely include cell phones since not using auto dialers makes sample size for large polls extremely difficult).

But in the end all they can do is look at past behavior and make educated guesses to extrapolate. The same issue exists in the "likely voter" models they use since generally they discount youth voting to a degree since the under 25 crowd never votes at the rate they say they will.

Pollsters though have to try to take into account, though, that through the primary season young voters deviated strongly from past models. Will that continue or will the actual election regress to the mean.

So there are a lot of issues that could invalidate the polling. The polling companies are aware of them and try to correct for them. Sometimes they do well and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they just get unlucky (good model produces an outlier) or get lucky (bad models can still give what turns out to have been right).