U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[BubberMiley]

If you remember, Jimmy Carter repeatedly pledged, publicly, not to campaign against Edward Kennedy on the basis of Chappaquidick or against Gerald Ford on the basis of Watergate.

Obama hasn't mentioned the Keating Five scandal yet. He hasn't even mentioned Cindy McCain's character. Yet Republicans have been going all out against Michelle Obama. Now they're trying to paint Wesley Clark saying he doesn't think being a POW as a qualification to be president as "swiftboating." They can dish it out, but obviously if they ever are on the receiving end, they would cry like small girls.

[jbg]

I'm not surprised considering you would not vote for someone because you are incapable of understanding the context of his wife's comments that she was not proud of the American political process to this date, and you would overlook the fact that Cindy McCain not only won't release her tax records but she stole drugs from a charity to feed her addiction and used McCain's position to avoid a federal sentence.

I am not basing my vote for or against any candidate by their spouse. What I am saying is that in understanding the way Americans vote, patriotism is a big part of the calculus and Michelle's remarks will hurt Barack badly.

But, again, bet the rent on McCain. Right now you can get odds three to one for Obama. Triple your fortune by the end of the year.

In this election people will lie to the pollsters, for reasons to obvious to repeat.

Or spend the next eight years broke and making adolescent strikethroughs.

Again, I was doing that to accentuate the positive, that Barack is not a radical, destructive Muslim.

Obama hasn't mentioned the Keating Five scandal yet. He hasn't even mentioned Cindy McCain's character. Yet Republicans have been going all out against Michelle Obama. Now they're trying to paint Wesley Clark saying he doesn't think being a POW as a qualification to be president as "swiftboating." They can dish it out, but obviously if they ever are on the receiving end, they would cry like small girls.

Don't worry, swiftboaters on each side will take the low road. Eisenhower started that kind of campaigning by using Nixon as his attack dog, Nixon did likewise, with a vengence, with Agnew, etc., etc. There's nothing new under the sun here.

[BubberMiley]

In this election people will lie to the pollsters, for reasons to obvious to repeat.

Then, for that reason, you are in a great position to make a lot of money. Unless you don't actually believe what you say.

Again, I was doing that to accentuate the positive, that Barack is not a radical, destructive Muslim.

I believe that as much as I believe you're a left-wing Democrat.

[jbg]

Then, for that reason, you are in a great position to make a lot of money. Unless you don't actually believe what you say.

I know it's hard to believe from outside the country. Just as I found Nixon's overwhelming re-election astounding and revolting.

[bush_cheney2004]

I know it's hard to believe from outside the country. Just as I found Nixon's overwhelming re-election astounding and revolting.

It's true...how could they know? It's a contest with unknown outcome. Hell, many in Canada never saw the Grits getting turfed either. Why is it so important to guess correctly now?

[jbg]

It's true...how could they know? It's a contest with unknown outcome. Hell, many in Canada never saw the Grits getting turfed either. Why is it so important to guess correctly now?

It's the equivalent of talking about the weather.

[BubberMiley]

Just as I found Nixon's overwhelming re-election astounding and revolting.

Perhaps that's because Nixon was a liberal compared to your neocon brethren.

[WIP]

I am not basing my vote for or against any candidate by their spouse. What I am saying is that in understanding the way Americans vote, patriotism is a big part of the calculus and Michelle's remarks will hurt Barack badly.

Enough of the code words! It's not about Michelle's remarks, McCain's faint hope of winning rides on how many whites and latinos won't vote for a black man under any circumstances! They're counting on the Bradley Effect. Now if mushy McCain can't scare enough racists and fundamentalists to pick him because a black guy might win, Bob Barr will siphon off 3 to 5% of the vote, according to latest tracking polls -- and that number could rise substantially if Ron Paul throws his support, especially MONEY, behind Barr after the Republican Convention http://www.nolanchart.com/article4172.html

In this election people will lie to the pollsters, for reasons to obvious to repeat.

Again, I was doing that to accentuate the positive, that Barack is not a radical, destructive Muslim.

Don't worry, swiftboaters on each side will take the low road. Eisenhower started that kind of campaigning by using Nixon as his attack dog, Nixon did likewise, with a vengence, with Agnew, etc., etc. There's nothing new under the sun here.

Some of the military bloggers are talking about how McCain's use of his war-record as a campaign tool is drawing attention to the long-standing grudge that army guys have with the airmen -- Wesley Clark has made the point previously that the men on the ground have a better idea of what's going in a war than the guys who are dropping bombs from 10,000 feet! It sucks that McCain was shot down and spent 5 years in a Vietnamese prison, but that experience didn't give him any insight into how the Vietnam War was going either! This could explain why McCain, for all of his medals and awards, is as clueless about how to gauge the success or failure of the Iraq venture as are the chicken-hawk neo-conservative friends like Bush, Cheney, Mitt Romney, Karl Rove etc. etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

We now have a confirmed target zig for Senator Obama....a very hard turn to the right:

- 16 month exit from Iraq.....well...maybe....need to visit

- Guns for everybody!

- Faith based initiatives...a great idea!

- Israel trumps "Palestine"

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/11/9558/

Edited July 6, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

We now have a confirmed target zig for Senator Obama....a very hard turn to the right:

- 16 month exit from Iraq.....well...maybe....need to visit

- Guns for everybody!

- Faith based initiatives...a great idea!

- Israel trumps "Palestine"

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/11/9558/

One problem Obama may have IF he does get to the White House is what Bush has done as far as Iraq is concerned and he may not be able to pull out as he wants and I'm sure knowing Bush and his views on the Middle-East, he will make it very hard for Obama or McCain to withdraw.

[bush_cheney2004]

One problem Obama may have IF he does get to the White House is what Bush has done as far as Iraq is concerned and he may not be able to pull out as he wants and I'm sure knowing Bush and his views on the Middle-East, he will make it very hard for Obama or McCain to withdraw.

It's a bit more straightforward than even that.....the Americans are not going to leave Iraq any more than they have withdrawn from Germany, Japan, or Korea. Obama is just connecting the dots.....McCain already knows the deal.

[WIP]

We now have a confirmed target zig for Senator Obama....a very hard turn to the right:

- 16 month exit from Iraq.....well...maybe....need to visit

- Guns for everybody!

- Faith based initiatives...a great idea!

- Israel trumps "Palestine"

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/11/9558/

And these are some of the reasons why a third to half of the population don't bother to vote in elections! The time-honoured tradition in U.S. presidential elections, has been for the candidates to run to the left or the right during the primaries, and then start moving to the center once they've secured their party's nomination; but Obama's internet campaign was the beginning of a new grassroots movement in politics, and the legion of small contributors that gave him enough money to opt out of public campaign financing, provided enough money so that he wouldn't need to pander to the special interests that he doesn't agree with!

Many of the leftwing Obama supporters gave him their money to stop the old-guard Democrats that had already tapped Hillary as their candidate, primarily because she tried to position herself as a war-hawk and supported the Iraq Invasion in 2003. Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time, but was already on record for opposing the war, and that was his ticket to the party nomination! Backtracking, or equivocating on the promise to begin a pullout will cause campaign funds to dry up more than any other issue that he's perceived as waffling on!

The commondreams piece doesn't mention NAFTA; that was another one that he made an issue in some states; but most pragmatic supporters will recognize by now that NAFTA and free trade in general, have created overall prosperity and trying to increase tariffs to protect wobbling industries will grease the slide to the bottom, just like it did back in 1930, during the Great Depression.

Likewise, that piece was written before his shift on other major issues like the FISA legislation that calls into question his credentials as a civil libertarian!

His interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - previously, he followed the liberal interpretation that language involving a "well regulated militia" meant that it wasn't intended to extend personal rights to carry firearms; and that shift may anger liberal gun-control activists, but that's not going to be the make-or-break issue since any gun control advocates who've travelled the country have to realize that outside of the major cities, it's a losing issue.

Faith-based initiatives is an issue he was coy about during the primariies, although he was obviously trying to build his own religious coalition. He condemned the Bush Administration's use of the faith-based initiatives program to reward Republican-supporting church leaders, but last week, he announced a program that would be an expansion of the Bush plan: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith]

His staff claims that he won't back tax-funded religious discrimination -- the campaign factsheet says the churches will not be allowed to use federal money to proselytize. Good luck on that one, especially since the factsheet doesn't propose setting up any federal oversight of church-run programs! Go in to an evangelical church of any denomination or non-denomination, and see how long they can refrain from preaching the gospel. The Bush faith-based plan promised the same things as well, and it ended up as tax dollars wasted to fund things like the ineffective church-run "abstinence" programs!

It's a bad omen for the future of American democracy that candidates in both parties have to get up in front of the clerical establishment and proclaim how much they plan to dole out to religious institutions if elected. For the last 30 years, this has just been a Republican thing, but now the Democrats have decided to abandon separation of church and state in favour of setting up their own religious coalition. For the 16% and growing, unaffiliated segment of the U.S. population, this means that they are going to be forced back into church to partake of some of the formerly government services that will now be handed over to church institutions to operate.

This might not be a make or break issue for most secularists, but if I still had my U.S. citizenship, this would have been an issue to cause me to cancel my contributions to the Obama campaign. And if the lines of distinction between Obama and McCain got any more blurry, I would have to seriously consider supporting Bob Barr for president.

And then there's Israel! I can't say I disagree much with his speech at the AIPAC meeting, but this is one he should not have made. Much of the appeal for making Barach Obama president, is secondarily related to his bi-racial origins. Since he is an African, who had grown up in the Third World nation of Indonesia, it has been assumed, even by myself, that he would have the intuitive feel for how the rest of the world views America. This has been recognized as the key weakness of George Bush on the international stage -- in contrast, he is a man who has never ventured beyond his own borders and is completely oblivious to the aspirations of people outside the United States. During the Democratic Convention, the notion that Barach Obama would be greeted more openly because of his origins, has been denied by conservatives; but if you read the comments from media in Europe and Asia, they have been viewing Obama's candidacy as a sign that the American people want to change their relationship with the rest of the world from the confrontational brinksmanship of the Bush Administration. Like it or not, Israel is not a popular player on the international scence, and going overboard proclaiming support for the nation of Israel will be seen as a sign that Obama is George Bush in blackface!

[bush_cheney2004]

His staff claims that he won't back tax-funded religious discrimination -- the campaign factsheet says the churches will not be allowed to use federal money to proselytize. Good luck on that one, especially since the factsheet doesn't propose setting up any federal oversight of church-run programs! Go in to an evangelical church of any denomination or non-denomination, and see how long they can refrain from preaching the gospel.....

This is not any surprise for anyone familiar with Obama's beginnings in Chicago's "Alinskyian" organizing principles and objectives (e.g. ACORN). We've already seen this Windy City movie before.

It's a bad omen for the future of American democracy that candidates in both parties have to get up in front of the clerical establishment and proclaim how much they plan to dole out to religious institutions if elected. For the last 30 years, this has just been a Republican thing, but now the Democrats have decided to abandon separation of church and state in favour of setting up their own religious coalition.

That's because the Democrats are tired of losing. Total "separation of church and state" is a concept, not a legal requirement. Hell, as we have mentioned before, Ontario still has preferences for Catholic schools.

For the 16% and growing, unaffiliated segment of the U.S. population, this means that they are going to be forced back into church to partake of some of the formerly government services that will now be handed over to church institutions to operate.

Not very likely....government services are largley delivered through channels not affiliated with churches; this will not change for another set of unrelated reasons.

This might not be a make or break issue for most secularists, but if I still had my U.S. citizenship, this would have been an issue to cause me to cancel my contributions to the Obama campaign. And if the lines of distinction between Obama and McCain got any more blurry, I would have to seriously consider supporting Bob Barr for president.

The political process serves up candidates who wish to win, and many losers who think they know better. There is absolutely no consideration for non US citizens....they can't vote.

And then there's Israel! I can't say I disagree much with his speech at the AIPAC meeting, but this is one he should not have made. Much of the appeal for making Barach Obama president, is secondarily related to his bi-racial origins. Since he is an African, who had grown up in the Third World nation of Indonesia, it has been assumed, even by myself, that he would have the intuitive feel for how the rest of the world views America.

This is wholesale folly...Senator Obama is not an "African". Any assumptions along the lines of an external view ignores the political realities of not only the US Senate, but certainly any aspirations to be POTUS. He is an American.

This has been recognized as the key weakness of George Bush on the international stage -- in contrast, he is a man who has never ventured beyond his own borders and is completely oblivious to the aspirations of people outside the United States. During the Democratic Convention, the notion that Barach Obama would be greeted more openly because of his origins, has been denied by conservatives; but if you read the comments from media in Europe and Asia, they have been viewing Obama's candidacy as a sign that the American people want to change their relationship with the rest of the world from the confrontational brinksmanship of the Bush Administration.

This is very presumptive, and such attitudes were dashed to the ground with 2004 election reality. Yes, many Americans do want a less confrontational administration, but just as many want a "strong" foreign policy. First and foremost, America will act in self interest, which may or may not meet with peanut gallery approval.

Like it or not, Israel is not a popular player on the international scence, and going overboard proclaiming support for the nation of Israel will be seen as a sign that Obama is George Bush in blackface!

This is "racially" insensitive (e.g. John Kerry with a "tan"). More importantly, it ignores the realties of past and present American policy, which cannot be wished away by dreamers who see Senator Obama as their Savior.

Edited July 7, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[WIP]

This is not any surprise for anyone familiar with Obama's beginnings in Chicago's "Alinskyian" organizing principles and objectives (e.g. ACORN). We've already seen this Windy City movie before.

That's because the Democrats are tired of losing. Total "separation of church and state" is a concept, not a legal requirement.

It has several legal requirements that are frequently violated by state legislatures such as the Establishment Clause and the Free Excercise Clause in the 1st Amendment and Article Six of the Constitution - forbidding any religious test to hold office!

Hell, as we have mentioned before, Ontario still has preferences for Catholic schools.

And that's not going to last much longer! Other religions want their own religious schools supported with provincial tax dollars, an issue badly misjudged by the Ontarion conservatives, who lost by promising to extend funding to religious schools. A system that supports just one denominational school system won't last!

Not very likely....government services are largley delivered through channels not affiliated with churches; this will not change for another set of unrelated reasons.

And what might that be? Government services shouldn't be distributed by religious institutions in the first place! It would be different if they were spending their own tax-free donations, but why should tax dollars earmarked for government services, be handed over to churches to do the job?

The political process serves up candidates who wish to win, and many losers who think they know better.

The system has been strangled by two political parties who have collaborated to prevent third parties from being established. If 20% of the voters were willing to vote for Ross Perot in 92, an unhappy electorate may be ready to rock the boat and end the two party- duopoly this time round!

There is absolutely no consideration for non US citizens....they can't vote.

The whole world is watching the U.S. election this year. The effects of a U.S. economic collapse are being felt around the world; and concerns about whether Dubya is going to try to start another war before he leaves office, is the business of the whole world, whether we're voting in the election or not!

This is wholesale folly...Senator Obama is not an "African". Any assumptions along the lines of an external view ignores the political realities of not only the US Senate, but certainly any aspirations to be POTUS. He is an American.

He's an American who's supposed to be aware of what's going on outside of his country! He was supposed to be a game-changer, not more of the same old thing!

This is very presumptive, and such attitudes were dashed to the ground with 2004 election reality. Yes, many Americans do want a less confrontational administration, but just as many want a "strong" foreign policy. First and foremost, America will act in self interest, which may or may not meet with peanut gallery approval.

No doubt! But the present administration is not just putting their interests first, they are totally oblivious to the fact that countries they don't like have their own national security interests, and they may not automatically coincide with U.S. interests. The "either you're with us or you're against us" vantage point isn't going to fly much further.

This is "racially" insensitive (e.g. John Kerry with a "tan"). More importantly, it ignores the realties of past and present American policy, which cannot be wished away by dreamers who see Senator Obama as their Savior.

Most of the dreamers weren't expecting miracles; but the rapid shifts of position of late, were not expected by most Obama supporters who expected some moves to the center.

[bush_cheney2004]

It has several legal requirements that are frequently violated by state legislatures such as the Establishment Clause and the Free Excercise Clause in the 1st Amendment and Article Six of the Constitution - forbidding any religious test to hold office!

That's all well and good, but "God" is alive and well in secular America, from printed currency to military chaplains. Churches are often used as polling places as well.

And that's not going to last much longer! Other religions want their own religious schools supported with provincial tax dollars, an issue badly misjudged by the Ontarion conservatives, who lost by promising to extend funding to religious schools. A system that supports just one denominational school system won't last!

That's what Ontario said back in 1998 too....let us know when you get that worked out before crying the blues about 'govmint soup lines sponsored for Jesus in Baltimore.

And what might that be? Government services shouldn't be distributed by religious institutions in the first place! It would be different if they were spending their own tax-free donations, but why should tax dollars earmarked for government services, be handed over to churches to do the job?

Because local distribution channels and volunteers often involve church folk. If the objective is services, then use all possible distribution channels.

The system has been strangled by two political parties who have collaborated to prevent third parties from being established. If 20% of the voters were willing to vote for Ross Perot in 92, an unhappy electorate may be ready to rock the boat and end the two party- duopoly this time round!

This statement contradicts itself.

The whole world is watching the U.S. election this year. The effects of a U.S. economic collapse are being felt around the world; and concerns about whether Dubya is going to try to start another war before he leaves office, is the business of the whole world, whether we're voting in the election or not!

Let 'em watch.....they are still irrelevant. Should I worry about the economic collapse in Ontario (manufacturing)? Start a war...stop a war....a superpower's work is never done.

He's an American who's supposed to be aware of what's going on outside of his country! He was supposed to be a game-changer, not more of the same old thing!

There is a sucker born every minute - P.T. Barnum

No doubt! But the present administration is not just putting their interests first, they are totally oblivious to the fact that countries they don't like have their own national security interests, and they may not automatically coincide with U.S. interests. The "either you're with us or you're against us" vantage point isn't going to fly much further.

Not only is it "flying", but that "vantage point" is growing in favor. Instead of "Bush Lied....Millions Died" we have "Bush Led....Terrorists are DEAD".

Most of the dreamers weren't expecting miracles; but the rapid shifts of position of late, were not expected by most Obama supporters who expected some moves to the center.

See above reference to P.T. Barnum

Edited July 7, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

Perhaps that's because Nixon was a liberal compared to your neocon brethren.

Wrong. My father and I campaigned for McGovern together; one of the last things I did with him before he died almost exactly two months later. Want to take another cheap shot?

Edited July 7, 2008 by jbg

[jbg]

We now have a confirmed target zig for Senator Obama....a very hard turn to the right:

Ah yes. He's understanding that it takes a very conservative country like the US to give a man of color a shot at winning election to the highest office as a minority group member.

[jbg]

Much of the appeal for making Barach Obama president, is secondarily related to his bi-racial origins. Since he is an African, who had grown up in the Third World nation of Indonesia, it has been assumed, even by myself, that he would have the intuitive feel for how the rest of the world views America.

And how a bunch of tinhorn dictators and Islamists feel about the US matters why?

[WIP]

That's all well and good, but "God" is alive and well in secular America, from printed currency to military chaplains. Churches are often used as polling places as well.

You're supposed to be the constitutional expert! You didn't know that "In God We Trust" was only put on your money during the religious fervour of the Civil War, and in the strictest sense (which conservative judges don't want to use) it is a violation of the Establishment Clause; and military chaplains have been a violation of the Constitution from the beginning? They've just been overlooked until lately, since Christian Evangelical chaplains have been trying to forcibly convert U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Like Hitchens says, let's see popular the chaplaincy is when enough Muslim clerics start elbowing their way in by taking advantage of this oversight: http://www.slate.com/id/2150801/?nav=ais

That's what Ontario said back in 1998 too....let us know when you get that worked out before crying the blues about 'govmint soup lines sponsored for Jesus in Baltimore.

Because local distribution channels and volunteers often involve church folk. If the objective is services, then use all possible distribution channels.

The local distribution channel being payed for by the government should not be the church basement! It's been apparent for years that the soup-kitchen is the church's side door! As long as it's being payed for by the church members' tax free donations, no one is going to stop them from trying to evangelize drug addicts and other down-and-outers. These programs are clearly evangelistic tools.

But, if it was about soup kitchens, there might at least be a tangible service to offer; but what about government money being given to a church, so they can create a bogus program that produces no positive results -- abstinence-only education.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're supposed to be the constitutional expert!

No...I just know more than you. That's OK...we invented the Internet and Google for everybody else.

You didn't know that "In God We Trust" was only put on your money during the religious fervour of the Civil War, and in the strictest sense (which conservative judges don't want to use) it is a violation of the Establishment Clause; and military chaplains have been a violation of the Constitution from the beginning?

Oh my....so many violations....what should a constitutionalist do?

The local distribution channel being payed for by the government should not be the church basement! It's been apparent for years that the soup-kitchen is the church's side door! As long as it's being payed for by the church members' tax free donations, no one is going to stop them from trying to evangelize drug addicts and other down-and-outers. These programs are clearly evangelistic tools.

Nobody gets something for nothing.

But, if it was about soup kitchens, there might at least be a tangible service to offer; but what about government money being given to a church, so they can create a bogus program that produces no positive results -- abstinence-only education.

If that's their only fault, then they have done far better than "secular" government programs in comparison.

[WIP]

No...I just know more than you. That's OK...we invented the Internet and Google for everybody else.

Oh my....so many violations....what should a constitutionalist do?

Nobody gets something for nothing.

If that's their only fault, then they have done far better than "secular" government programs in comparison.

This must be a new record for you! Four non-answers in a row! Especially those last two stupid responses. If you're such a conservative, what are you doing making excuses for your favourite hack throwing money at the churches who support him? http://www.alternet.org/story/90284/?page=entire

[bush_cheney2004]

.... If you're such a conservative, what are you doing making excuses for your favourite hack throwing money at the churches who support him?

Gee, I never really thought about it that way. Let me see.....nope...still don't care because opiates for the masses come in many forms. Most Americans like their "God"...and guns too!

[BubberMiley]

Want to take another cheap shot?

I wouldn't say it's a cheap shot to call someone who votes Republican a Republican, but your strikethroughs in reference to Obama's name was one of the cheapest shots ever witnessed on this forum, so don't be too self-righteous.

[jbg]

I wouldn't say it's a cheap shot to call someone who votes Republican a Republican, but your strikethroughs in reference to Obama's name was one of the cheapest shots ever witnessed on this forum, so don't be too self-righteous.

The statement I was responding to had nothing to do with strikethroughs.

Nixon was anathema to me not because he was too liberal or too conservative but because he was too unprincipled. I read his autobiography to get "his side of the story" and came away angrier with him than before I started to read.

Never has America had a sicker, more power hungry person at the controls. We are very lucky we didn't go the way of the banana republics with him. He didn't believe in democracy and was as much a foe of it as Ahemenajad, Putin, Trudeau or Franco.

[BubberMiley]

He didn't believe in democracy and was as much a foe of it as Ahemenajad, Putin, Trudeau or Franco.

And yet you would defend the neocons in power who would override the constitution so the Executive Branch could exercise warrantless wiretapping. Odd.