Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

DR, the point was that LDK was legitimately responding to a selection of the Democratic party. Was it wrong to cast them, even inadvertantly, as the entire party? Yes, but he's hardly the only one on these boards who's guilty of acting like that, now is he? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all. If you expect people on these boards, or anywhere that there is disagreement for that matter, to start acting like perfect, rational grownups without ever speaking or acting before thinking, you've set your expectations for the human race a little too high.

On the other hand, if it's just your hopes that are that high, I'm right there with you.

 

Just hoping, but yes. Not perfect, but rational grownups who think first and post second, yeah. I don't think that's asking the world of a bunch of adults, do you? But you know what they say...wish in one hand, crap in the other and see which gets filled up first.

 

Close, but not quite. I'm perfectly fine with the levying of harsh attacks at republicans or democrats for things they say and do. What I'm not fine with is taking what one small group of uninformed partisan hacks - on either side of the spectrum - says or does and than extrapolating it across the entire party. Whether by accident or intent, LKD's wording placed the ridiculous* "she deserved it, so he shouldn't be punished" canard into the mouths of all democrats, and this belief is far from mainstream. Even on the far left, this belief is hardly going to be common.

Attack mainstream democrats or fringe democrats all you want and, while I may argue the point if I disagree with the argument, I'll take no offense. I will, however, take offense when mainstream democrats are lumped in with fringe wackos and partisan hacks. I don't do the same to republicans and conservatives (and have taken people I otherwise agree with to task on these very boards for exactly that), so I expect the same courtesy in return. If I don't get that courtesy in return, I may feel compelled to start bringing up guys like Tim McVeigh and David Duke, pointing out that they are (or, in the case of McVeigh, were) registered republicans, and acting as if that actually means something.

* By ridiculous, I mean to say that the belief itself, rather than the assertion that some people believe tripe like that, is ridiculous.

 

I don't think that the probe in Alaska will mean that much, but it was fun hearing (not here btw) that it was a partisan attack - I think even McCain's campaign made a similar claim, such as the probe being tainted by politics etc. Alaska is what, the 2nd most strongly Republican state in the US? I'm sure it's in the top 5, and AFAIK the council that began and oversaw the probe is mostly staffed by Republicans. Yes, the probe is afaik headed by a democtat - but who put her there and who supported her?

Now, it is possible that Palin has opponents in her own party (and state), but at that point it seems unlikely that Republicans, especially the Alaskan ones, would seek to sabotage McCain's campaign and ruin the chances of one of their own to make it big in Washington. If we take its findings as reasonably unbiased, this report casts a shadow on Palin's "executive experience." It is possible that she had good intentions and did not seek any misconduct, but this makes her and her husband look somewhat petty.

Oh, and as for the "kid" - if he did it, let him face the consequences: fine, prison time or whatever. The severity of the his actions and any circumstances that may influence the sentence are for the judge and jury to decide, and I think they would do a reasonably good job.

 

It is rather amusing, yes. A committee consisting of 8 republicans and 4 democrats started this investigation, the 10 republicans and 4 democrats that form the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously vote to release the report, yet this is somehow a partisan attack? From who, the Alaska republican party?

 

I especially liked how even though the report came out unanimously confirming that yes, she did indeed abuse her power, and after weeks of the McCain campaign trying everything in their power to shut down the investigation, Palin herself comes out and announces how pleased she is that the investigation cleared her of any legal or ethical wrongdoing. Awesome.

I have to give her some credit here. It really takes chutzpah for someone so new to the national political stage to be so comfortable looking people in the eye and lying as baldy, confidently and frequently as Sarah Palin does. It's a thing to behold.

 

To be fair though, everything that I have read on the matter indicates that what Palin did was abuse her power. That's unethical, and possibly even immoral, but nothing of what I have seen has called it illegal, which implies that what she did was not, in fact illegal. That said, I also agree with DR - it takes a set to come out and say you were cleared of wrongdoing, even if what you did was unethical.

 

Well, ever since she started off with that "bridge to nowhere" comment, Palin has been playing with the truth like a pitbull with a mouse. Sure, she shows more guts at it than probably half the Democratic party, but nerve is not an admirable quality in itself.

In other news, after a Virginia Republican compared Obama to Bin Laden as both "have friends that have bombed the Pentagon", McCain said that the remarks should be seen in context.

"I have to look at the context of his remarks," he responded. "I have always repudiated any comments that have been made that were inappropriate about Senator Obama. The fact is that William Ayers was a terrorist and bomber and unrepentant. I don't care about that. But, Sen. Obama ought be the candid and truthful about his relationship with Mr. Ayers..."

Ok, first there's the small problem that McCain's own campaign disavowed the remarks, while McCain seems willing to exploit them a bit more. The "unrepentant" Ayers handed himself in, and FBI itself found him innocent of any bombings, and he has since become one of Chicago's noted public figures - and until 2008, most everyone was willing to leave it at that. Who has gone about to prosecute the people who supported the Taleban and other fundamentalists as soon as the 80's? The people who worked together with Saddam to oppose Big Bad Iran? All but a few on the fringe left have come to grips with that fact, or completely ignored it. Yet McCain decides to gun after someone who may have incited some domestic terrorism in the 1960's, when Obama was trying to learn whether "brother" is not spelled with a "d" and that five times six equals thirty. That's distasteful enough, but politics can be ugly - and perhaps McCain himself thinks he's been hit under the belt a few times.

What is imo very alarming is the kind of language that is coming from the US right - both McCain's campaign and elsewhere. It is extremely divisive, and if this is not reined in this could spell serious troubles for the US of A. We've already had HR Clinton labeled a b...h, we've had the recent comments about Obama (how come we never heard of that happening at a Huckabee or Romney rally, btw?), but to have a US politician all but equate him to Bin Laden - and to have McCain tacitly approve this by focusing on the Obama-Ayers relationship - is very, very troubling. First, it doesn't speak very well of McCain's claims to bipartisanship.

Second, this fans the flames of internal discord and partisanship - I would hazard a guess that few historical figures are as reviled in the US as Bin Laden, and condoning comparions of the person who right now is all but the face of the Democratic party to him can enflame passions about as much as accusing rivals of communism in 1950. How will McCain cooperate with Obama - and the Democratic base - if he is elected as president? How will he work with him - and how will his supporters accept Obama as a president - if the Democrats win? It is a very dangerous and short-sighted policy, and I hope McCain and his campaign have the good sense to get as far from even such statements as possible. Whoever of the two wins will have to be the president of the entire USA, and the fewer internal bickering there is between Rs and Ds, the better. Obama's rhetoric, imo, is more concerned with moving ahead - and while it is critical towards certain practices of the Republican administration, it does little to endanger bipartisanship (especially as a lot of Republicans aren't exactly enamored of the legacy Bush is leaving them). Democratic supporters have a LOT more to be unhappy about in the last 8 years - yet I think there is much less resentment and anger at Obama's rallies than at McCain. I realize that these are desperate times for the McCain campaign, but when your own campaign slogan is "country first" it is beyond irresponsible to put your campaign's interests before that of the country. If McCain does not do his best to squelch such insinuations asap and distance himself as much as possible from any such "help" in the future, he may damage not only his own campaign, but the political situation in the country.

 

Shaman, there are a few things I'd like to say/ask"

1.) Who was the Virginian Republican? Being a Virginian myself, I'd like a name so I can not vote for them.

2.) Where did you hear that Ayers was cleared of any wrongdoing? As I understood it, he was identified as the leader of the group (and has since claimed so himself) but avoided a conviction on some technicalities or another. I also know that in 2001 he claimed he believed they (the Weather Underground) hadn't done enough. This guy isn't innocent by any means, and he doesn't even seem to be repentant.

As for Obama's age, the issue is how old was he when he was working with Ayers on early education. For that matter, look into exactly what 'early education' they were working on and where it went. They weren't helping other kids learn to spell 'brother' and master the multiplications tables.

As for the language exchange and Obama's message. Obama's message the entire time has been McCain = Bush, which, these days, is almost as offensive as Obama = terrorist, and is equally untrue. The difference is that Obama's message has been going on for so long, most people seem to be believing it now. Does that mean McCain has the right to drop to the same tactics? No, and you'll notice he's trying hard not to, even when it's being handed to him by his supporters on a silver platter.

 

Equally untrue? What?

In one case, you're comparing one politician to a President of the same political party, who was endorsed by said President, who supports (and historically has supported) the vast majority of the same policies of said President, and will (if elected) continue most of the policies already put in place by said President.

In the other case, you're comparing a politician to a politically motivated, religiously fanatical mass murderer.

One at least makes rhetorical sense, the other is just insulting and extremely irresponsible. Equal? Not so much.

I guess the 'thinking before typing' idea goes into effect tomorrow?

 

Man, it sucks to be Bush these days. And this is from his own side. Even I feel sorry for the guy....

 

I believe it was Delegate Jeffrey Frederick; the issue was detailed here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/12/AR2008101201956.html . In all honesty, he was criticized from the left AND right, including by people on the McCain team (Gail Gitcho said the campaign disagrees with those remarks). So what was John McCain doing, fudging about the issue and all but supporting the guy, in spite of his own campaign team?

Well, suit yourself. I think that what he has done since - he has been involved with a lot of educational initiatives in Chicago, which btw have received bipartisan support (I believe by the Annenberg foundation was involved in their projects - iirc the Annenberg Challenge was something they gave around $50 million to, and Ayers was one of the co-authorsof the proposal) - definitely makes him an important figure in the local community. He has also worked with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley on education matters, and was actually awarded a city award for his work. Obama worked with a fairly respected expert on education matters, not the firebrand of the 60's. BTW, it was on the board of the Annenberg challenge that Obama served - as did Republicans such as Arnold Weber; Annenberg's foundation itself supported quite a few Republican luminaries. I guess they didn't consider the Ayers they worked with a terrorist. Well, I can understand this somewhat - 20+ years can change a man a lot.

As for being penitent, afaik Ayers has since apologized to a Chicago lawyer who was injured in a Weatherman incident. He has said he has no regrets for opposing the war - and yes, said they hadn't done enough - but has not supported, or otherwise condoned (afaik) using violence to that end. Now how innocent he was is another matter - afaik the Weathermen tried to avoid damage to people, so calling them terrorists is somewhat far-fetched (though I do admit, quite innocent he wasn't - neither was he the kind of terrorist he is being put as). As for being acquited due to "technicalities" the COINTELPRO procedures were since condemned in no uncertain terms, and are one of the things the US has little cause to be proud of in that period. Heck, one of the reasons the COINTELPRO are so disliked is their use of agents provocateur. So, a group which had a practice to incite radicals to violence persecuting violent radicals... Yes, that might look bad in court. Though it is not only a technicality - imo it is also a significant moral problem. How are we to know that the Weathermen taking up violent methods was their OWN idea?

Ok, let's be honest on this. First, Obama has equated the two's policies (which, btw, is about as right as the claims that Obama is on the far left), and has usually treated Sen. McCain with a fair bit of respect. What is more important, though, is that there is no way comparing one to George Bush is like comparing them to Bin Laden (especially in the "they both have friends who blow up US buildings" sense) except to a few nutjobs on the REALLY fringe left. Obama's message is that McCain supported failed policies; this is an issue of judgement rather than character. McCain has, to his credit, tried to squelch some of the angriest voices, but he seems to be quite unsure about it. Actually I had expected him to dismiss the issue out of hand, which is why his non-statement on it disturbed me so.

 

DR, McCain has voted against his parties' position far more than the majority of other senators (I believe he's at 80% party line voting -- compared to Obama's 100%). You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who has crossed the aisle as much as McCain and cast his vote accordingly. Equating McCain with Bush is simply a smear campaign -- it always has been. McCain has openly spoke out against Bush on many occasions (torture comes to mind as one example).

With today's political climate and the low approval rating of Bush, the repeated and unjustified tying of Bush and McCain is crippling to a campaign -- it's a smart move by the democrats, it lacks integrity, but it's smart. Winning means everything to some, McCain will probably lose because he doesn't play that way.

 

T2, I think one of McCain's biggest problems in the McCain-Bush scenario is that he has moved a fair bit to the right in the last 2 years. In this way, he has made himself very vulnerable on that front. In his campaign statements, he seemed a lot different than the guy hailed as a maverick in 2001. Had he not changed his opinion on tax cuts, the Obama campaign would have had a much harder time painting him as a Bush Mk 2. Of course, changing his positions might be how he won enough mainstream appeal on the right to get the party nomination in the first place. Remember the times when he was criticized for being too much of a liberal? I loved it when Ann Coulter said that she'd vote for Hillary rather than McCain

By the way, while McCain definitely has a reputation for being independent on many issues, I'm not sure how substantiated it is in practice. One often-quoted source (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/) has him at 88% party voting, while having Obama at 96 (CQ has him fluctuating between 95 and 97 depending on the year). Neither is a particular outlier, btw - and both Sen. Kyl from Arizona and Sen. Bennet from Utah (who once doubted McCain's conservative credentials) have a lower percent than McCain does. Actually, both senators are more loyal than most of their mates; the average percentage for Republican senators is 80.7; Democrats average 87.5. I personally think this is more due to the unpopular (and often unsuccessful policies of the last few years, and the unfavorable public view of President Bush.

Edit: the Obama statement that McCain voted with Bush 95% last year has been fact-checked and stands true. Of course, many of those votes were probably procedural - Obama's own score in that review was 40%

 

Excellent job finding that Shaman. It's key to note those values are for just the 110th congress.

On a side note -- McCain should have picked Elizabeth Dole. I didn't realize she was still in politics -- an amazing woman with an impressive record.

 

The number is variable depending on what time frame you assign to it. As Shaman stated he has got in line behind his party much more frequently in recent years than in years past. If you look at 2004-present, McCain votes the party line 93% of the time.

While I agree that McCain will probably lose, I think "he doesn't play that way" will be pretty far down the list of reasons as to why. Simply put, if you look at the list of attack ads McCain has put out, he does, in fact, play that way. (I'm not saying Obama doesn't - but both parties try to paint their opponents as "wrong" on as many issues as possible. Linking McCain to Bush is appropriate when he's voted party line 93% of the time in the last 4 years.)

 

@ T2, I have to disagree on almost every count here.

That may be true - or at least it was a few years ago. But the point is, McCain has failed to put forth a set of policy proposals that are significantly different from what the Bush Administration's and overall GOP's agendas are. It's more than fair to say that McCain = more of the same (and/or Bush). Especially since McCain has even surrounded himself with some of the very same advisors (even those who helped slime him in 2000). It was fair to say the same of Gore in 2000 as well, if to a lesser degree.

Respectfully, I think you and I may have very different definitions of what constitutes a smear campaign.

Yes, exactly. He also openly spoke out against warrentless wiretapping and indefinite detention without trial at Gitmo. But which way did he vote when it actually mattered, and where do his positions on those issues lie today? With Bush.

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that of the two campaigns, Obama's has been the dirtier, or that McCain hasn't permenantly tarnished his own image for the sake of doing "whatever it takes." Please tell me I've misread you.

 

That is true; several sources state that his overall voting record is somewhat more centrist (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html has him at a lifetime of 82.3; it is noteworthy that the early 2000s generally have him at the 70-80 range, so his 2007 (and, according to what I have seen so far, 2008) position is a bit of an outlier. McCain consciously moved to the right, imo at least partly to attract voters for the primaries. The other side of the coin is that this hurt his image as a maverick and reformer, and it should not be surprising that his opponents would make use of that.

According to the same source, the major differences between McCain and most of his colleagues were "taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration" . Well, he changed his position on taxes (and cuts) recently, which is imo now a very serious issue and may have played no small role in his troubles. Also, he has been quite supportive of Bush on foreign policy and military issues - and iirc even emigration, one of the issues where he disagreed with the Republican group, was one where Bush himself did. As for the environment... well, I don't really see it as such a vital issue for US policy. Politically, it may not be a very important issue as Obama's positions don't seem radically different.

 

You know it's bad when those who are somewhat conservative equate another Republican candidate tied to Bush (still the leader of the party) as a "smear." Half the party has disowned itself, and they believe it's the winning strategy. To say that Obama voted with Demcrats 100 percent of the time, "on the major issues," is not really that big a deal. It would be worse if he voted with Republican 50 percent of the time - that would cost Obama more votes in this voting season. But that's just my opinion. So yeah, I hope the Republicans keep harping on how he voted with the Democrats. It can only help Obama at this point.

 

Sure he does. C'mon, he hired some of the very same people who pulled that 'illegitimate black baby' horse**** on him. The old McCain would have (verbally) castrated that man, not given him a job.

EDIT: And now for more Palin: Nice.

A different view: what Palin could teach Gonzalez