Election prediction

[casey73]

I gave up calling elections after Clinton won his second term. The American people are fickle and I was surprised by his victory. It was a lesson learned. But unlike many Clinton supporters, I wasn't surprised with the scandals that defined his presidency. However, I think the reaction to the upcoming presidental election will be an easy call based on recent history. Here's my prediction.

All indicators point to another close race. If it is as close as 2000 and 2004, and Obama wins, democracts and most of the mainstream media will collectively proclaim that "the people have spoken". If McCain wins in a tight race, democrats and the media will lament "the republicans have stolen the election...again". And, I know this is going to probably draw some flames, but if McCain wins, I wouldn't want to be near Detroit, LA, or any American city with a history of large scale rioting.

As much as I think McCain is the better candidate, I'm seriously worried about the reaction if he wins. But not worried enough to vote for Obama.
I've been watching the convention in Denver. When you get passed the drama and appeals to emotion, I'm not finding much to inspire me or make me reconsider my views. The message I'm hearing is, the grass really is greener on the other side, but don't ask for any specifics cuz we don't have any.

[Enzo]

They elected Bill the first time, so when they elect him again, I'd have to say that is the opposite of fickle, that is loyal. Fickle is when you change your mond all the time. I like you today, I don't like you tomorrow, and I like you again the day after that. When I say loyal, I am not sending any message other than they stuck with the one they started with. Maybe you would prefer "consistent."

I wonder why the second CLinton voctory was a surprise to you. In the 1992 electrion, he beat the elder Bush - an incumbent president - 44M to 39M votes (370/168 electoral) That is not a squeaker. Then the second election in 1996, the GOP put up Bob Dole. In retrospect, I have come to like Dole, he really does have a sense of humor and is a pretty sharp guy, but in 1996 as a campaigner, he totally sucked. All we EVER saw was this grumpy old man Dole. It really was a weak campaign for Dole. CLinton beat him 47M to 39M. (379/159) A wider margin than the first one.

Frankly I would have been surprised if he lost that one. The smear campaign had not yet started, the economy was humming along in great shape, and while the national debt was still huge, the annual deficit had turned into a surplus. Why would the people bail? And facing a Republican COngress, he was not going to be able to make any large changes to anything either.

All indicators point to another close race. If it is as close as 2000 and 2004, and Obama wins, democracts and most of the mainstream media will collectively proclaim that "the people have spoken". If McCain wins in a tight race, democrats and the media will lament "the republicans have stolen the election...again". And, I know this is going to probably draw some flames, but if McCain wins, I wouldn't want to be near Detroit, LA, or any American city with a history of large scale rioting.

Sean Hannity would be proud. Oh please, if Obama wins the Fox news and other wings of the GOP will tell us the American public was duped and bought into charisma instead of substance. They'll tell us how the left wing biased media managed to paint McCain in such a way as to mislead the people about him. And they will immediately start to do anyting they can to undermine his success.

As to stealing an election, the only reason the idea of stealing came up was the incredible cluster-fuck debacle in FLorida. COme on now, your boy won, but can you really say with a straight face that the FLorida election was handled in anything remotely resembling a professional manner? Unless we have another episode of similar malfeasance, no one is going to cry "steal."

Oh, and nice touch playing the fear card at the end there. Hannity at his best.

I'm seriously worried about the reaction if (McCain) wins.

Yeah, me too. We'll have a couple more wars going on. The deficit and the national debt will get so large the numbers won't fit on the page.

...the convention in Denver. When you get passed the drama and appeals to emotion, I'm not finding much to inspire me or make me reconsider my views. The message I'm hearing is, the grass really is greener on the other side, but don't ask for any specifics cuz we don't have any.

I am sure you meant getting past the drama...

And by contrast, are you expecting large substantive informational presentations at the GOP convention?

You were a big Bush booster. REmember how much fun the right wing made of old Al Gore? They'd satirize him describing in endless dull detail how he would do this or that with funding and so on. And what did opponent George W. Bush offer? Nothing but slogans. it was always something like " I believe in the American people." "Gonna bring America back to the people." and so on. Zero substance. Not just my impression, satirists made fun of W over exaxctly that tendency. SO now when a Democrat engages in a little sloganeering, well, it is no longer OK.

Credit where due: Just prior to the 2000 election both Bush and Gore appeared briefly on Saturday Night Live, and both read scripts making fun of their own charicature foibles. I really enjoyed that both candidates had a sense of humor about themselves.

And I find that in this election. Obama has a great sense of humor and is sharp and conversant. McCain is a bit more stodgy, but he has appeared on the Jon Stewart Daily SHow numerous times and is not at all afraid to laugh at himself. We don't need leadership that takes itself too seriously. There is a difference between thinking a job is important and being full of yourself.

And the race? I think it is Obama's to lose. He has an edge in the polls, it has been pretty consistent, and he should win unless he stumbles hard. McCain can also stumble, but I don't see anything that would propel him well ahead, so I see it as a catch-up fight for him. I think it will be a relatively close election, but nothing like the squeaker in 2000.

[Sir Cuitous]

Damn Enzo is there anything you don't know?

I thought Obama's speech was a good mix of substance and retoric. I'm not sure if a convention speech is the right time to go heavy on policy details anyway.

Both Gore and Kerry had a slight lead in the polls. I'd call the outcome of 2000 and 2004 fickle. Particularly 2004. Within 9 months Bush's approval rating had dropped below 30%. There's a large percentage of persons who voted for Bush but then 9 months later did not approve. That practicaly defines fickle. I wonder... who are those people and what was it that they couldn't see in 1999?

Both Obama and McCain have spelled out their platforms. Casey, what is it about McCain's platform that you find attractive?

[Enzo]

I guess to me fickle would have implied a different outcome. Bush won a squeaker in 2000 and won again by a larger margin - for sure - in 2004.

I think the drop in Bush approval was the result of his decisions and also circumstances outside his control, but not just people changing their minds whimsically.

But I don't want to dwell on one word anyway.

I like an eloquent speech as much as anyone, but I have to say over the decades I usually don't watch the conventions, since they really are for rallying the party troops and not generally a source of real information.

And, Sir, there is so much I don't know. I learn new stuff here every day. I have opinions about politics. what I know is troubleshooting.

Secret: anyone can open the World ALmanac and look up election results from past elections.

[casey73]

Whew! I made an observation based a macro view of past events, and you responded with a lengthy disseration. And I apoligize in advance for any typo's, but I'm a busy guy.

I don't listen to Sean Hannity. I may agree with him on many issues, I just don't like his style. I actually don't watch much of FOX at all as it is largely fluff. The weekend talk shows are okay. And yes, they do lean to the right, but I've been watching CNN and the big 3 networks all my life. Can you tell me with a straight face that you think their reporting has been objective in the last couple decades? I was watching Tom Brokow fawn over Obama last night, and I was embarrsed for the guy. I was waiting for him to burst into tears.

My use of the word fickle may have not been the perfect description, but I think my intent was clear. I admit to the occassional bout of naivette, beliving in the common sense and decency of most people and when I saw the personal moral bankrupcy of Clinton (which started long before he became President) I assumed most Americans would want him gone. I've been wrong before. Clinton's legacy speaks for itself.

The "smear campaign" as you call it, was bringing facts to public attention. Parsing the word "is" should have been a pretty clear indicator as to the depth of Clinton's moral convictions.

I still am a Bush booster. In spite of his unpopularity, I've never been one to do what everyone else is doing it. Bashing Bush is popular, even among some republicans. Metaphorically speaking, I still think the Les Paul is highly overrated guitar, heavy and clunky, and I've never owned one. I play Carvin guitars (and I've owned Fenders, Gibsons and a host of others). When I compare Bush's presidency to the last flawless presidency (still trying to remember the name of the last flawless president) he falls way short. But I have no doubt history will vindicate him.

I agree with you that Obama may take this one. The American people seem to need a Jimmy Carter every couple election cycles as a reminder. Speaking of Carter, I used to give him the benefit of doubt, thinking he was a nice guy, if not an effective president. But he has become a shirl, mean spirited curmudgeon of late, giving a real bad name to his professed Christian faith. The only thing I can say for him now is he is the only democratic president in recent history that has managed to stay faithful to his wife.

BTW, McCain just announced Palin as his running mate. I think it was a good move. I don't expect anthing miraculous from McCain. But when the next national security crisis comes along, I'd rather have a stodgy 72 year old who's been through the shit at the helm than an articulate, good looking disciple of Jeremiah Wright.

[rathmann]

BTW, McCain just announced Palin as his running mate. I think it was a good move. I don't expect anthing miraculous from McCain. But when the next national security crisis comes along, I'd rather have a stodgy 72 year old who's been through the shit at the helm than an articulate, good looking disciple of Jeremiah Wright.

Yes, because articulation is surely something to be shunned and/or feared. The last eight years of disarticulationalism have served us oh so well.

Call me pessimistic and cynical, but regardless of who wins the presidential race - my bet is that the VP will take office before the first term is over.

NOW - who do you want in charge for the next national security crisis?

Joe "Attack Dog" Biden - with years of congressional and foreign relations experience or Sarah "Baraccuda" Palin who's not even halfway through her first gubernatorial term elected after being mayor of a small Alaskan town.

[Enzo]

Jermiah Wright. Do you really want to level that attack? Aside from it not being the case, would you then prefer to defend McCain over HIS associations with over the top religionists? And McCain recerntly cozied back up to Ralph Reed of all people.

[hasserl]

I didn't watch the Dem's convention, probably won't watch the Rep's, not much to favor in either party. Plenty to hate in both though, but got to give the edge in that regard to the Dem's by a wide, wide margin. I don't know if there is a Dem in the world worth supporting, plenty worth hating with a passion, including the two Senators from my state, CA (particularly that huge embarassment Boxer). I think there are at least a couple of decent Rep's out there. I kind of like my Representative, Ed Royce.

But back to the OP, and Enzo's post, the American people really are fickle, using Enzo's definition. I can't belive how the polls change based on 30 second sound bites. It's unbelievable to me how people are swayed so easily. How can you be so apathetic about things political that you can be swayed to vote one way or the other by someone's speach at a convention, or by attack ads on TV?

I don't know if I'll vote for McCain or not, but I sure as hell won't vote for Obama. I think I need to get some Nobama signs and stickers to influence as many of those fickle American voters as I can. I just assume my state and all it's electoral votes will go to Obama. So I'll probably throw a vote to someone else like Barr or maybe I'll write in someone's name. If it looks like McCain can get close here, I'll give him my vote. I really HATE to vote for McCain, but I'd rather he win than Obama.

Obama ... is sharp and conversant

I find the guys speaking style very halting, he never completes a sentence without stopping and thinking about what he's going to say. It's all very calculating, like he doesn't mean a word of it. The only time he's smooth is when he's reading from a teleprompter, which he does as well or better than anybody. Get the guy awy from his teleprompter and in a debate McCain should do very well against him. On the other hand, McCain is horrible with a teleprompter and has even gone back to using notes on the podium. Nothing wrong with that, it just makes it obvious you're reading something, or using notes. It's how we all used to do it. The teleprompter makes it look like you're just making it all up as you go. It gives an impression of intelligent speach. Perception is everything to fickle American voters.

Yeah, me too. We'll have a couple more wars going on. The deficit and the national debt will get so large the numbers won't fit on the page.

So we'll get more pages Seriously, deficit spending and debt have been horrible under the Bush presidency, just horrible. But we've undergone some incredibly bad things beyond the control of the president that have been a major contributor to that. Still, I don't want to make excuses for the guy, because he simply coulnd't find his veto pen on numerous occasions when it was called for. Though he did veto that horribly huge highway funding bill and was over ridden in Congress. Give him credit for that. And remember that it isn't the president that makes the budget, it's the congress, and since the Dem's have been in controll I haven't seen any huge change in spending habits. It's not like Dem's are known as tight fisted spenders or something. Dem's have never met a spending bill they didn't like, especially if it bloats the size of government (along with unionized govm't workers) or dependant citizens. As for wars, wasn't it a Dem that got us involved in Viet Nam? And didn't the last Dem president get us involved in a few military incursions as well? In fact, had the last president taken care of a certain international terrorist when he had the chance we probably would not be involved in Afghanistan or Iraq today. Well, maybe Iraq, who knows.

I think the drop in Bush approval was the result of his decisions and also circumstances outside his control,

I think it is mostly a result of the people (fickle Americans) being slammed day after day, every day, with negative news from most every source, about every possible thing he could be blamed for and everything else as well. Day after day, negative story after negative story. The pen is mightier than the sword. After they hear something enough times people start to believe it's true. It doesn't have to have any substance to it, just keep repeating it and people will believe it.

I agree with you that Obama may take this one.

God, I hope not!!!! Can you imagine a Dem controlled congress with a Dem in the Whitehouse? Makes me shudder. It will be bad enough with a McCain in the Whitehouse. There's not a lot of Republican in McCain. Dude should have just changed parties years ago.

[Enzo]

I guess I still don't know what you mean by fickle then. Just exactly what have we been changing out minds on? A few points either way in the polls does not a wandering opinion make. Using the word several times in a post doesn't make your meaning any clearer. The polls have been remarkable consistent. To make an amplifier analogy, our national B+ is govering around 480 volts. It might bounce up to 485 and down to 475, but it still at the end of the day averaged 480 volts. I don't call that fickle.

Fickle is voting in a democrat, then replacing him with a republican, then replacing that guy with another democrat. Fickle is voting for a gasoline tax, then voting against it and so on. Just what exactly do you claim we are chaning our mind on?

It's all very calculating

Of COURSE it is calculating, it is a political speech, its whole purpose is to convince you of something. I find Obama's delivery very eloquent - regardless of content and how you feel about that. If he pauses in sentences to stay composed, so be it. I contrast that to George W. Bush who can't seem to make complete or coherent sentences even WITH a teleprompter.

If McCain went back to written notes because he couldn't handle the prompter, well fine. As Dirty HArry says, a man's got to know his limitations. But to somehow infer that one way is better than the other is to ignore that BOTH are reading from a script, and BOTH are totally aware of the reactions to it. None of this happens in a vacuum, and neither man is winging it ad lib. Only a total ignoramus would think differently. REgardless of his stance on issues, I don't think Obama has anything to fear rhetorically from John McCain in a live debate. Stopping to think about what he is going to say? Oh heaben forbid someone would think before he speaks. I have a desk calendar full of examples of W. Bush NOT thinking when he speaks.

"Rarely is the question asked: "Is our children learning?'" (Jan 2000)

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." (May 2005)

Rhetorically the republicans talk of reducing government - it is the conservatively correct statement to make. But conservative correctness doesn't stand up to reality. Defecits and the national debt have skyrocketed during the republican administrations in the last few decades. The federal budget has ballooned, and they don't even include the war in the budget! The size of the fedearl government has also ballooned.

After they hear something enough times people start to believe it's true.

Ah yes, the Swift Boat effect - make something up and hammer away until you get people to believe things that are not true.

Kinda like the radio ads every 10 seconds: "not ready to lead" "not ready to lead" "not ready to lead."

I assume that now that McCain has chosen a running mate with even less experience than Obama we will no longer hear any more "not ready to lead" ads? Don't hold your breath.

Palin was an interesting choice. I have exactly zero against Ms Palin, she has risen to where she is, and more power to her. But as the choice for VP, to me it reads as a total pander. An effort to woo disappointed Hillary voters. Clearly they were not thinking, gee this woman has all the qualifications to take over the country. The ROmneys and Pawlentys of the world had much better qualifications. But they wanted a woman to appeal to the Hillaryites. Pure and simple. I think when they see that Palin is thoroughly committed to overturning Roe v Wade, they won't attract very many Hillary supporters.

Having said that, I don't expect much from a VP, I certainly don't vote based upon the VP. I cannot imagine that someone not favoring Obama will change his mind with the addition of Biden to the ticket.

[hasserl]

When people change who they are going to vote for based on things like attack ads, television news reports, slogans and even conventions I call it fickle. If you can be swayed to change your vote based on those things that is being fickle IMO. The polls haven't been so consistent, Obama had a double digit lead in the polls, only to loose that lead in the weeks leading up to the Dem's convention. Why? Because of political ads from McCain? Give me a break, you're going to change your vote because of a political ad? Now we see Obama get a bump in the polls following the convention, but we expect McCain to get a bump following the Rep's convention. People are swayed to vote one way or the other by political blathering at a convention. That is being fickle. i.e. "likely to change, esp. due to caprice, irresolution, or instability; casually changeable:"

Re Bush's public speaking ability, I never implied it was any good. Why would you bring it up? Watching Bush speak publicly is incredibly frustrasting, it makes you wonder how anyone in his position can be so unprepared to speak as he so often is. But just because Bush is poor at speaking publicly doesn't excuse Obama for his calculating, halting speach. The dude doesn't mean anything he say's. Nothing is from the heart, it's all calcualted. Vs McCain, like him or not, he says what he means and he means what he says. I just don't like many of the things he says. But then, I don't like ANYTHING Obama says, not one. He may say it smoothly, but in substance it sucks.

Ah yes, the Swift Boat effect - make something up and hammer away until you get people to believe things that are not true.

Interesting analogy, the swift boat ads were political ads, not supposed journalism, big difference there. And besides, what part of them wasn't true? As far as I know the claims were true. But there again, being influenced by attack ads shows the ficklenes of the American public. There were plenty of reasong to not support Kerry, his actions (or lack thereof) in Vietnam weren't one of them.

McCain has chosen a running mate with even less experience than Obama

I don't think that's true either, at least Palin has run something, all Obama has run is a campaign.

[Enzo]

Oh please, Palin was the mayor of a little town of about 9000 souls, she then was later elected to Governor of a state with such budgetary "problems" they actually issue profit sharing checks to the citizens annually. Tough balancing THAT budget. I guarantee the federal government won't have that "problem." SHe has less than two years on that job. I like the woman, but none of the little she has done prepares her for the presidency. The president doesn"t "run" the country in the same sense someone runs a restaurant. There are managers and cabinet heads and such for running things, the president provides - or should - the leadership to direct goals. If there is a natural disaster of the Katrina sort, the president's job is not to call the local sheriff and order a road block, his job is to task FEMA, the NAtional Guard, and whomever to help on any way. His is to issue executive orders allowing things to happen that couldn;t otherwise. If we are in a war, the president doesn;t decide which end of a hill to attack, he has generals for that. But a president does make decisions like responding to an attack by a Saudi hiding in Afghanistan by attacking Iraq instead.

Re Bush's public speaking ability, I never implied it was any good. Why would you bring it up?

To contrast an excellent speaker such as Obama. I never implied yuo had anything to do with Bush's eloquence of lack thereof. No one seems to claim W in his halting manner is making it up as he goes. You want someone who really does make it up as she goes, that is COndoleeza Rice. I simply cannot believe a thing she says. But she is old news.

I guess changes in the polls are up for interpretation. DOuble digit difference? Sure, what 55-45%? And that changes to 53-47%? or even 50-50? A 10 point gap in the polls is closed by a 5 point move after all. Most of that disappears into statistical noise anyway. I have not seen what I would call a lot of turbidity in the numbers.

I don't know if I'll vote for McCain or not,

Well there you are. You haven't decided. You wil or you won't vote for him. Up to you. But one day between now and then you will decide. That means the statistical number representing your vote will change. Do you think of yourself as fickle? I don't call you fickle. I think your position in large is stable, you just haven;t decided what to do about it yet. You'll weigh this and that and either go ahead and vote for the guy who just isn;t conservative enough for you, or you'll pout and not vote, or whatever. Is that fickle?

You are on the McCain fence so to speak. Can you tell me there is nothing he could say or do in the coming weeks to influence your decision one way or the other? Is there something wrong with listening to a guy and thinking, you know, I think he IS the guy for me... or you know, I DON'T think I can vote for him. And when that happens, will you think of yourself as a fickle American swayed by sound bites? Just because something get sound-bited, doesn;'t mean there is no substance behind it.


Separate issue - Swift Boat. Corsi - the Swft boat guy is largely discredited. he has already written a smear book about Obama - the Obama Nation - which is already been debunked as nonsense

* Jerome Corsi is a smear artist (e.g., he has claimed that "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lesbian and Muslims worship Satan").
* Jerome Corsi has advocated the hysterical, deceptive North American Union conspiracy theory.
* Jerome Corsi associates with white supremacists.
* Jerome Corsi is guilty of plagiarism.
* Jerome Corsi is a 9/11 Truther. (9/11 was an inside job theorist)


As to the Swift boat itself, Corsi was a decorated veteran, as was John Kerry. Corsi claimed in his book that Kerry was never fired upon and was a fraud who didn;t deserve his medals. Problem is that the fight Corsi was in to win his medals was THE SAME FIGHT Kerry was in. SO if Kerry was not under attack and didn;t merit a medal, then neither was COrsi.

[casey73]

Jermiah Wright. Do you really want to level that attack? Aside from it not being the case, would you then prefer to defend McCain over HIS associations with over the top religionists? And McCain recerntly cozied back up to Ralph Reed of all people.

Without hesitation.

[Enzo]

Pastor John Hagee, the anti-semitic, anti-catholic racist and ardent McCain supporter. Hagee says that hurricane Katrina was God's retribution against New Orleans for them holding a gay pride parade.

All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.

About the Catholic church, “there’s a clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.” He’s called the Catholic church “the Great Whore." He’s called the church a “cult.”

Abut the Jews: It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.

Hagee is anti-Catholic, has suggested that the pope is the anti-Christ, and that Adolf Hitler’s anti-Semitism was the result of being educated at a Catholic school.

Obama neither asked for nor claimed Wright's support, but McCain actively sought the endorsement of Hagee and they appeared together numerous times, and McCain has had Hagee introduce him to the crowds.

All Muslims want to kill us.

God wants us to attack Iran.

SO you are I guess happy to associate McCain with this man without hesitation? If Obama is a desciple of Reverend Wright, then McCain is a desciple of Hagee.

[Mark Ingram]

responding to an attack by a Saudi hiding in Afghanistan by attacking Iraq instead.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but, didn't the war in Afghanistan start 1 and a half years before the war in Iraq (at least the US involvement). And every source I have heard except you claims that bin Laden is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.


Concerning the impending presidential election: one side has an old white guy and a mid-40s person with not-quite-enough experience, the other side has an old white guy and a mid-40s person with not-quite-enough experience. The real question is whether you want 'not-quite-enough experience' in the lead position or as a back-up.

[Mark Hammer]

Hmmm, some weird stuff here.

1) I'm Canadian so I don't vote for president, but like so many Canadians, we have enough information about your elections and leadup to form reasonably informed opinions.

2) Though I suppose my general leanings would put me on the Democrat side, for me a good idea/policy is a good idea, period. Sometimes soem good ones come from surprising places, and sometimes bad ones come from surprising places.

3) I've been impressed with the top candidates for both parties this time. As of 6 weeks ago, I wouldn't have minded seeing either Clinton, Obama, or McCain in the Oval Office. I prefer Obama, but they all strike me as thoughtful people who listen and cogitate, and none of them would be a terrible choice. A good friend of mine who is a university president was offered this advice by the headhunter who pitched the job to him "Always follow an a**hole". In this instance, I think that regardless of whether any of them is "best" for the position, they all provide a suitable step up from what is in place now. Maybe not the A+ candidates the job demands, but certainly A- at the very least, compared to the B to B- that's there now.

4) What you really need to concern yourself with is not the candidate, but who they surround themselves with. A huge part of GWB's weaknesses stemmed from having Rumsfeld and Cheney in the room AFAIC. (Hard to tell if Rice has been a good or bad influence. I'll wait for the memoir.) Obama has made it clear that he selected Biden partly because of Biden's ability to provide the challenge function. In Palin's case, that seems to have a smaller role. Not insignificant, but rather, there is something in her selection that smacks of "I'll bet you didn't think the Republican party was like this, did you? Are you interested now?". In Biden's case, it was more of "Here's more of our best". Of course the vice-presidential candidates are only some of the folks who would provide influence in the Oval office. It would be nice to find out who the other potential shapers of federal policy would be.

5) Ultimately, the capacity of any president to be a good president will depend on the composition of the upper and lower legislative houses. Not just who has the majority but who the trendsetters are. You can have a potentially fabulous president who is stymied by the perpetual need to strike compromises in Congress or the Senate. Yes, I am aware there is much they can do unilaterally, but there can be a huge gulf between the things that CAN be done by a president and the things that NEED to be done for the country.

6) You know, in all of the hoopla this past week over "independence from foreign oil", not once did I ever hear a bad word about the Saudis or Nigeria. It was all Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. Nigeria is politically neutral as far as the US is concerned but represents an unreliable source given their own internal difficulties. The Saudis....well, I gather there are folks who don't want to piss them off. They make a more uncomfortable target than Hugo Chavez or those pesky Russkies. Am I the only one who finds that disquieting?

7) As much as I think McCain makes a reasonable candidate for a single-term president, it's a case of a gorgeous fiancee that comes with the in-laws from hell. At the same time, wouldn't it be nice to see a Republican in the White House who is capable of playing nice with Democrats in bipartisan fashion? I don't think it would be as trendsetting as having Barak Obama in the White House and someone with a true international perspective when the G8 gets together, but it's not anything to sneeze at either.

8) Following the last presidential election, someone posted a link to a Univ. Mich. cartography website that mapped out district electoral patterns in much finer detail than the bonehead red/blue maps you see from major news sources. Using state of the art software, districts were redrawn to reflect number of eligible voters, and things were not nearly as red or blue as many would think. Most of it was purple.

[oc disorder]

This might get heated... as a nurse told me once recovering in hospital
don't talk about religion or politics...
Well you guys may have put man on the moon but us Aussies put a shrimp on the barbie..!
You may have noticed we had a change of Prime Ministers recently...
I think anti war and youth v's age played a big part.
From where we are looking it was so obvious that Sadam had nothing to do with the Twin Towers from the start.
But our leader wanted to go in and not appear "chicken"..
Hey but we were negotiating a free trade agreement etc etc.......
We have a slightly different position to gun's also.
After a massacre down in Tasmania we had a huge clamp down on guns
millions... well truck loads recalled and destroyed.
You have to have a bloody good reason to own a gun here (farmer,security etc) and then you have to have an approved lockable container etc.
Now not as many murders with guns just switched to knives !
So pro life and pro gun don't fit comfortably together from my perspective.
I gather McCain was a prisoner of war and was tortured for a considerable
length of time.... With due respect would a large company select a CEO
with a background like that ?
Here voting is compulsory and I think advertising has a big effect on those who have no interest in politics but don't want to place a donkey vote.
We get interesting doco's on US politics here I would like to think they are not biased as the showing of them here would have no effect on the US voters.
For instance it was suggested that there was an orchestrated campaign
by "Christian" groups urging them to go out and vote for George..and the other night an inteveiw with some senior religious US figure saying how dissapointed he was with the last President..... and that there had been a shift.
Trouble is its how you are brought up your belief system and the selected
projected image of candidates that decides elections.
I mean you buy a computer you look at the specs thay have to be accurate
buy an amp check the specs and try the amp in a store...
You dont really know untill you use them in your particular situation how they will perform long term...
Hey maybe should have a President simulation game for 3 months which
candidates should participate in and voters can log in and compare the progress hmmm
From where i'm looking and I don't know much about Obama but he comes across well here compared to Grandad and the Barbie....
Then we have a huge guilt trip/problem with some of our Aboriginals
but hey most of us are decended from convicts compared to you up and at'em
free settlers...
Well my 2 cents go's on Obama I mean come on its the staff that really run the country public servants .. and those huge rallys you have... geeze we would rather be at the beach or down the pub than hang out at those crazy
places..and another thing it's tomato sauce not ketchup that goes on pies
and why do you say nu instead of new ? Sounds like a cow that can't pronounce m in moo.....

Anyway good luck guys and gals
O.C. Disorder
Australia
Suburb Of China

[Old Tele man]

...my prediction: the most popular DUNCE will win.


...like the humorist, Will Rogers, said: "...the best government that money can buy."

[hasserl]

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but, didn't the war in Afghanistan start 1 and a half years before the war in Iraq (at least the US involvement). And every source I have heard except you claims that bin Laden is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.


Concerning the impending presidential election: one side has an old white guy and a mid-40s person with not-quite-enough experience, the other side has an old white guy and a mid-40s person with not-quite-enough experience. The real question is whether you want 'not-quite-enough experience' in the lead position or as a back-up.

Good point Mark. And what is missed by Enzo and a couple of others following your post, is the war in Iraq had nothing to do with OBL, it had to do with Hussein not complying with the agreements he made as part of the cease fire from the previous engagement there. That nullified the cease fire and the action was back on. All Hussein had to do to avoid the conflict was to submit to the inspection process as he had previously agreed to do.

This was hashed out years ago, but people don't like to accept things that don't fit their preconceived ideas or partisan ideologies.

[Enzo]

You can try the old doesn't-fit-my-preconceived-notions, but that is just cheap rhetoric.

This is old territory, but nonetheless:
When we were running up to the Iraq war, it most certainly WAS claimed that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11. Dick CHeney in particular over and over and over linked the two in no uncertain terms. Bush claims that Saddam's non-cooperation was the basis of the war is fabrication, a handy rationalization. Making the 9/11 connection was the Bush strategy to sell the war.

At this point I should say "but people don't like to accept things that don't fit their preconceived ideas or partisan ideologies," so you can't accept that. But I won't.

Mark

And every source I have heard except you claims that bin Laden is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

I never claimed OBL IS in Afghanistan now, I claimed he WAS there when the war started.

Yes, the Iraq invasion took place well after the immediate raids into Afghanistan, no one says otherwise. However, instead of continuing the focus on finding the guy and bringing him to justice, the focus of our middle eastern efforts then changed to the unrelated Iraq situation. But the Bush administration told us repeatedly that it WAS related. So OBL remains on the loose, because we decided to shift our priorities away from him. At one point Bush even responded to a reporter's question with, "I'm not even worried about him. (Bin Laden)"

Conservative correctness often takes the position that in Viet Nam "if we had only let the Army do its job..." Implying that we could have "won." And then later after the first gulf war, "if we had only let the Army do its job..." Implying we could have marched into Baghdad then and we would have "won." And yet now when we initially went after OBL, then decided to pursue other game (Saddam), I don't hear the chorus singing the same tune.

[Diablo]

The best reason I can think of for supporting Obama is that he has totally changed the way of raising funds for his campaign. His funding comes mainly from many small donors on the internet. As a result, if he gets elected, his administration is not beholden to any of them. McCain raises money the traditional way....big lobbyists from big corporations with big sacks of money. So if you like your government to be bought and sold by lobbyists, stick with McCain.

[hasserl]

At this point I should say "but people don't like to accept things that don't fit their preconceived ideas or partisan ideologies," so you can't accept that. But I won't.

It's not my preconceived idea or partisan idealogy when I didn't support the idea of going to war in the first place, and I'm not a member of a party. I'm giving you the perspective of someone not married to a partisan ideology.

The fact is we went to war in Iraq because Hussien would not comply with the weapons inspections, that's it, period. And whether I would have gone to war or not, or whether you would have or not, is immaterial. We have a President whose job it is to make that decision, not mine or yours. And he made that decision with the full support of the Congress. Now it's our patriotic duty to fully support that decision and the effort, and if we can't then we need to STFU and stay out of the way of those that will support it and those that work to get the job done, and to be successful!

Partisan hatred of Bush would prefer to see the US fail in Iraq rather than have or say anything that could be construed as positive for Bush. It's hatred is all it is, and it's ugly.

[hasserl]

The best reason I can think of for supporting Obama is that he has totally changed the way of raising funds for his campaign. His funding comes mainly from many small donors on the internet. As a result, if he gets elected, his administration is not beholden to any of them. McCain raises money the traditional way....big lobbyists from big corporations with big sacks of money. So if you like your government to be bought and sold by lobbyists, stick with McCain.

This is silly, have you not heard of McCain Fiengold? Are you not aware of McCain's history of denying favors to lobbyists, or that he is using public financing for his campaign, something Obama previously said he would do but then reneged on (just another of his flip flops, the man has no integrity).

Besides, you don't think Obama will be under obligations to huge Democratic supporters such as public employees unions and defense lawyers? Sheeesh, the guy is already bought and paid for. If either of them is not in the pockets of anyone else, it's McCain.

[Enzo]

It's not my preconceived idea or partisan idealogy when I didn't support the idea of going to war in the first place, and I'm not a member of a party. I'm giving you the perspective of someone not married to a partisan ideology.

It is your preconceived notion that the rationale for the war is to be taken at face value when obviously it was a lie all along. TO THIS DAY, Dick Cheney STILL links Saddam and 9/11.

Now it's our patriotic duty to fully support that decision and the effort, and if we can't then we need to STFU and stay out of the way of those that will support it and those that work to get the job done, and to be successful!

Baloney. It is our patriotic duty to support the best interests of this country. Blindly suporting the leadership results in Hitlers. It is my patriotic duty to spot malfeasance and misconduct in our elected officials, point it out, and do whatever is in my power to correct it. That is why impeachment is written into our constitution.

Hussien would not comply with the weapons inspections, that's it, period.

No, it's not it period. He had offered minimal cooperation at best for the previous 11 years, and NOTHING had changed to warrant the invasion. The lack of cooperation was simply an excuse.

Partisan hatred of Bush would prefer to see the US fail in Iraq

And that is just parroting the lie the RNC trots out at us. COnsidering that "success" has never been defined in Iraq, it is tough to see what mode of failure we are supposed to desire. Many of us feel we "failed" the moment we invaded Iraq. The ongoing moral failure of this current administration: failed then as they fail now. No one wants us to "fail" in any way you can define it. We want our troops who have been thrown into this debacle to have the best gear, the best training, the best support, but the current administration continues to make conservatively correct statements about troops' support at the same time as they cut funding to the VA, attempt to reduce benefits, leave the soldiers' families on food stamps, refuse to equip them with armored vehicles, and so on and so on.

How many times do we have to see a soldier who is wounded so severely he can no longer serve turn around and be denied his benefits because he "failed to complete his duty obligation." "Support the troops" is just hollow rhetoric for these bastards. There are a lot more of those awful liberals out there who care more about our troops than the White House does. And you tell me I am supposed to blindly support these people?

Obama... the guy is already bought and paid for

I'm giving you the perspective of someone not married to a partisan ideology.

Yeah, right.

[casey73]

Pastor John Hagee, the anti-semitic, anti-catholic racist and ardent McCain supporter. Hagee says that hurricane Katrina was God's retribution against New Orleans for them holding a gay pride parade.



About the Catholic church, ?there?s a clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.? He?s called the Catholic church ?the Great Whore." He?s called the church a ?cult.?

Abut the Jews: It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God?s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.

Hagee is anti-Catholic, has suggested that the pope is the anti-Christ, and that Adolf Hitler?s anti-Semitism was the result of being educated at a Catholic school.

Obama neither asked for nor claimed Wright's support, but McCain actively sought the endorsement of Hagee and they appeared together numerous times, and McCain has had Hagee introduce him to the crowds.

All Muslims want to kill us.

God wants us to attack Iran.

SO you are I guess happy to associate McCain with this man without hesitation? If Obama is a desciple of Reverend Wright, then McCain is a desciple of Hagee.

Enzo - I could match your list of embarrassing quotes from right wing fundamentalists with an equally embarrassing list of quotes from well known liberal icons, but this isn't a contest.

McCain is a politician. Everyone involved in politics make compromises and strange bedfellows along the way that always come back to haunt them in the next election cycle. The higher the office, the higher the pile of dirt. Even Jimmy Carter had a connection to Jim "Kool Aid" Jones. Of course, Jimmy Carter was also a Sunday school teacher in a Baptist church, so I'm not sure which of those you deem as more incriminating, based on your apparent disdain for Christianity.

This really isn't a discussion about religion, but I'm going a bit off topic with my personal experience to illustrate a point. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). My mother's brother was a priest and my father's brother was a priest and his cousin was a nun. I went to catholic grade school and was an alter boy. I learned the Catholic religion very well because I was good at memorization. But I learned nothing about Christianity or the gospels in all my years as a card carrying catholic. And with rare exception, our nun teachers were cruel, unhappy women, and that didn't translate well into the concept of love.

As a young adult I began reading about the protestant reformation and what that was all about. And that is why I'm a protestant Christian. The point is the RCC does not follow orthodox Christianity. As a young boy I had doubts, but surrounded by mostly devout Catholics, I learned to keep them to myself. Those doubts were driven by the empty pomp and ritual that is such a big part of the RCC, and the creepy adulation of the priestly hierarchy, including that of family members who fawned over my uncles and classmates who stood in line to kiss the local cardinal's ring. Pretty weird stuff.

The point here is I don't think the Catholic church is a cult in the classic sense, but it does not teach orthodox Christianity. As a young man, I too said, in safe circles, that the RCC was a cult, but I'm less strident about it now.

That said, your comparing McCain's cozying up with the likes of Farwell, etc., pales in comparison to Obama's 20 year residency in a church where Pastor Wright clearly preached liberation theology, another unorthodox step child of Christianity. Ironically, liberation theology has its roots in third world RCC missions which might explain why that crazy Catholic priest, Rev. Pfleger was doing an embarrassing imitation of a black preacher at Wright's church.

Since my last post, Sarah Palin's name has become headlines. Right on cue, all the "real" strong women are finding fault with her because she isn't the right kind of strong woman. But, this was to be expected. Last night I got an email from a liberal democrat friend of ours with links to "the real" story behind Sarah Palin, another "vast right wing conspiracy" kind of thing. If our friend didn't have terminal cancer, I'd reply and tell her she needs to grow up a little. But, even though I'm a republican, I really do have a heart.

It's going to be an interesting eight weeks.

Peace, Love, Dove

[hasserl]

It is our patriotic duty to support the best interests of this country.

Supporting the war effort IS in the best interest of the country. Anti-war protestors and media have given comfort and encouragement to the enemy. It is very clear that the insurgents play to the media and to the protestors, and it is equally clear that the medai and the protestors are guilty of causing additional blood to be spilt, blood of our own soldiers as well as Iraqi people. You ARE NOT acting in the best interest of the country when you help spread hatred and ridicule of the President and his administration, and actively work to ensure the failure of his policies. That is treasonous IMO.

It is my patriotic duty to spot malfeasance and misconduct in our elected officials, point it out, and do whatever is in my power to correct it

Boy, plenty of malfeasance amongst elected officals to go around. How much time do you have to do this? The truth is you're not protesting malfeasance, you're protesting differences in policy and ideology.

He had offered minimal cooperation at best for the previous 11 years, and NOTHING had changed to warrant the invasion.

Yes, something DID change. 9/11 happened, and it was no longer acceptable in a post 9/11 world to put up with Hussien's refusal to allow weapons inspections. Or allow him the opportunity to amass weapons.

COnsidering that "success" has never been defined in Iraq, it is tough to see what mode of failure we are supposed to desire.

Part of that is due to very poor communications from the administration, and from a press media determined to undermine the President and the war. But it's pretty easy to see what the failure you desire is, the immediate and unconditional removal of all troops from Iraq, the US pulling out and running home in humiliation like a dog with it's tail between it's legs.

[Mark Ingram]

Obama neither asked for nor claimed Wright's support, but McCain actively sought the endorsement of Hagee

Can you supply a reference for either of these claims?

If Obama is a desciple of Reverend Wright, then McCain is a desciple of Hagee.

But McCain didn't sit under Hagee's ministry/preaching for 20 years.

[Mark Ingram]

6) You know, in all of the hoopla this past week over "independence from foreign oil", not once did I ever hear a bad word about the Saudis or Nigeria. It was all Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. Nigeria is politically neutral as far as the US is concerned but represents an unreliable source given their own internal difficulties. The Saudis....well, I gather there are folks who don't want to piss them off. They make a more uncomfortable target than Hugo Chavez or those pesky Russkies. Am I the only one who finds that disquieting?

A perspective from south o' the 49th:
Saudi: can't afford to piss them off: we need their oil too badly

Nigeria: Internal struggles not withstanding, they are a democracy struggling to get to its feet. AmerRicans like that.

Iran, Russia, and Venezuela: all oppressive, totalitarian regimes hostile to the US. Hard to like somebody who consistently wants to wipe you off the face of the planet.

wouldn't it be nice to see a Republican in the White House who is capable of playing nice with Democrats in bipartisan fashion?

Or *anyone* there who is capable of working in a bipartisan fashion. I think McCain has a better record of reaching across the aisle than any of the other candidates this election cycle.

The thing that scares most conservative/traditional AmerRicans about Obama is his past associations with Socialist/Marxist organizations and individuals.

things were not nearly as red or blue as many would think. Most of it was purple.

I once heard a prediction that, in 75 to 100 years, all people on earth would be Tea-colored.

[casey73]

Yes, because articulation is surely something to be shunned and/or feared. The last eight years of disarticulationalism have served us oh so well.

Call me pessimistic and cynical, but regardless of who wins the presidential race - my bet is that the VP will take office before the first term is over.

NOW - who do you want in charge for the next national security crisis?

Joe "Attack Dog" Biden - with years of congressional and foreign relations experience or Sarah "Baraccuda" Palin who's not even halfway through her first gubernatorial term elected after being mayor of a small Alaskan town.

No contest. Palin has a boat load of common sense. Biden does not, in my view. He is an east coast liberal.

[rathmann]

He is an east coast liberal.

I never knew of this phrase as a loaded right-wing pejorative. I had to google it in order to understand the implications of its usage in this fashion.

It just makes me wonder when it became a bad thing to be smart, knowledgeable and to think about things.

Is common sense another way of saying that decisions are made "with the gut"? Cause that's worked for us real well up to now.

[Enzo]

Labelling someone an "east coast liberal" as if that defined anything is just a substitute for a substantive argument.

I doubt the right wing would be convinced if I told them not to vote for Palin because 'She's just a conservative."

[Diablo]

No contest. Palin has a boat load of common sense. Biden does not, in my view. He is an east coast liberal.

East coast liberal?....You mean like Thomas Jefferson? Franklin Roosevelt? Looks to me that the US would benefit from a liberal president like Roosevelt.

Palin's got common sense? More like fairly common intellect, little education and proud of it. She's the candidate that the "average joe" can relate to. I don't want an average person to be president or vp. Does she really believe that she has foreign policy expertise with Russia because Putin flies over Alaska? I swear she said that.

[BackwardsBoB]

Two things to consider -

1. A president doesn't sponsor legislation, pass laws, pass the budget... Congress does. So when a presidential candidate says what they're going to do, remember that in most cases, they are only an influence. It makes the presidential debates kind of a joke if you watch them that way. And, or course, Presidents do preside over the corporation that is the government, they get to nominate the judges, and somewhere along the line, they gained the ability to make decisions on waging war single-handedly, so making your judgement on how well they'll do in these areas makes sense.

2. It looks like the presidential election will be close enough to be worth holding, but strong Democratic control of Congress looks like a certainty. Obama can be expected to rubber-stamp just about anything Pelosi/Reid get passed. McCain could make things slightly more difficult, so your vote for president should be strongly influenced by your faith in Congress and the Democratic agenda. McCain would have difficulty getting approval for a far-right supreme court nomination, while Obama could move the court to the left, but liberal justices have been waiting years for Bush to leave office so that they can retire and be replaced by somewhere with a similar viewpoint, and the court currently seems pretty well balanced.

[Mark Ingram]

Two things to consider -

1. A president doesn't sponsor legislation, pass laws, pass the budget... Congress does. So when a presidential candidate says what they're going to do, remember that in most cases, they are only an influence. It makes the presidential debates kind of a joke if you watch them that way. And, or course, Presidents do preside over the corporation that is the government, they get to nominate the judges, and somewhere along the line, they gained the ability to make decisions on waging war single-handedly, so making your judgement on how well they'll do in these areas makes sense.

2. It looks like the presidential election will be close enough to be worth holding, but strong Democratic control of Congress looks like a certainty. Obama can be expected to rubber-stamp just about anything Pelosi/Reid get passed. McCain could make things slightly more difficult, so your vote for president should be strongly influenced by your faith in Congress and the Democratic agenda. McCain would have difficulty getting approval for a far-right supreme court nomination, while Obama could move the court to the left, but liberal justices have been waiting years for Bush to leave office so that they can retire and be replaced by somewhere with a similar viewpoint, and the court currently seems pretty well balanced.

Didn't the majority of Congress vote to grant W the power to wage war? Even John Kerry was for it before he was against it...

Except for the 'single-handed-war-waging-decisions' part you are remarkably cogent and correct. My compliments.

[Enzo]

Yes they did, but in the heat of the 9/11 reaction. And at that time the republicans were controlling the congress. SO it is not surprising the republican congress granted the republican president what he wanted. When the congress and the president are of different parties, such "rubber stamp" cooperation is less likely.