LOL. If he didnt have about 30 or so other years of Senate history for us to go on he'd be... oh yeah... Obama... who was in the Senate 142 days before he announced he was qualified for the highest office in the land and some people actually *believed* him. Oh well, PT Barnum warned us.
Yeah, you are right they are both shit candidates. Obama hasn't been in the tent long enough to dance around with the elephants and McCain has been in it so long he has turned into a clown willing to fall on his ass on command for the ringmasters job. Oh yeah btw, whats with the PT Barnum reference? Totally over my head.
I'm sorry, Rob, I thought this was you getting in a lather over "missed votes." We get it. You're a fan of the ticket, come hell or highwater. Many consider McCain's hire of her as a cynical move, the last gasp of Rovian style politics, a cipher hired at the last minute to appease the extreme right wing of your party, and, if fortune smiles, to peel gender votes away from Hillary Clinton's erstwhile camp. Nothing more.
Honest misunderstanding of my point then. I condemned his rather significant record of voting "present" instead of using that big brain he is supposed to have. Mayors and Governors have to make a call, they dont have the easy out of making a winpy "present" vote for the sake of political expedience. In that respect she has infinitely more experience and frankly more fortitude than Obama. I'm a fan of the ticket because like the guy running for VP on the DNC ticket and the vaunted Hillary Clinton said before political necessity led to them saying otherwise... I think McCains opponent is too inexperienced for the role. You have the person you think brings a breath of fresh air to the role. I prefer the less experienced breath of fresh air on the bottom of the ticket... not slated to start as Commander in Chief next January. I also dont trust his judgment... for example not just anybody throws your very first fundraiser. The fact that his was thrown by an admitted domestic terrorist that got off on a technicality and dads money doesnt recommend him highly. If he doesnt consider that an issue he at least should have had the political savvy that others would, but apparently neither consideration troubled him. If the guy was just a casual acquaintance... no wait, everyone throws the first political fund=raiser for casual acquaintances... what could I have been thinking? I've been honest about my motivations, and having people suggest I'm just ill informed, swayed by deceitful politics, etc... ( or better yet the nice guy that keeps suggesting it is racially motivated, which is not supported by a single thing I've said) only convinces me that Obama isn't likely to bring the country together... his supporters reflect a very different attitude. People that accuse Palin of being unfit for office because she should be putting more time in with her kids should not pretend to be the party that favors womens rights. My wife is pro-choice and yet she is a Palin fan and thinks Obama is a pompous windbag. I've heard many say that one-issue voters are idiots and then suggest that all women should be for Obama because he is pro-choice. Give women credit for some complexity and you wouldnt be losing their votes on a daily basis by assuming they're in the bag. People that constantly accuse others of hate or stupidity do not convince anyone they voting for Obama to help unite the country... they just want their guy to win. The farther the dialog continues the more ugly the accusations. Some think my choice reflects poorly on me, I suggest their words and actions often reflect poorly on their candidate. Obama's supporters need to get a grip, he's on a downward slant for a simple reason... the GOP fielded a better ticket.
"Better" is very subjective, not that objectivity is your goal. I don't think Obama is on a downward slant. I think McCain is on an upward slant because his pick of Palin has brought people on board that McCain has historically had problems with, in fact, people you could say that he stood on principle against.(The Falwell crowd) McCain's pick was indeed cynical and purely political. McCain was never the favorite of the hardcore base, and what Palin did was get those behind him which is what has caused the race to even up - I bold that because you keep suggesting McCain has already won - what has happened since the convention is the race has tightened. We haven't had any real debates yet and I think Palin has only given one interview(didn't follow the news much today so maybe she's given another one). And Obama, I think, is still ahead on most analyst's electoral maps. , Obama hasn't lost yet, no matter how many times you repeat it. If anything the race has become less predictable.
To the contrary, if you can find a post where I've said he's already won please offer a link. I've pointed out that McCain has pulled ahead in polls and I've also pointed out several time that the race isnt over. Saying Obama is on a downward slant is more about the fact that theyve been on their heels since Palin entered the GOP ticket... which is the subject of numerous discussions on news channels, not like I discovered it myself. Pointing out that the momentum is currently with the McCain Palin ticket is simply a fact, and in my opinion as well as that of many others (flip on the network of your choice) has to do with their inability to deal with Palin. The race is not over (there it is again), but short of finding their voice the obama camp is in trouble. They and supporters and surrogates have done it to themselves, the number of ways they've mishandled the campaign since Obama became the presumptive nominee will probably be discussed in Poli-Sci classes for years to come. This thread is about Palin though, and one point I'm amazed at is that the people that keep belittling her and denigrating her abilities, skills, experience, family, religion, hairstyle, etc fail to realize theyre helping her and by proxy hurting themselves. Yet the mistake is repeated. Reminds me of the guy that says he's sawed that board 5 times and it's STILL too short.
I just went back the last few pages of this thread and got some quotes, I didn't have to go far. You're all but declaring Obama the loser and attributing McCain's recent surge in the polls to Obama's ineptitude. The Dems are not melting down, Obama isn't proving to be a bad campaigner. McCain got the republican base on board with him, period. Not having the support of the Republican base was always the danger with a McCain candidacy and now that they've thrown their support behind him, the numbers you see reflect what we've seen in the past few elections, there's almost a 50/50 split. McCain made a political calculation in large part to win support of the base and it worked. We have 50+ days left and we're just now starting to enter the intense part of the campaign. It's waaaay to early to start sounding the death knell for either campaign.
Most of the votes Obama missed were for amendments to spending bills, when his vote would not have decided the outcome. Wow they both has missed a ton of votes and yet I think you are trying to brag about Obama. Very funny indeed. Obama will duck the tough ones. If you throw in his present votes which is a loser way of casting a vote on tough issues he has missed just as many votes as McCain. HE SPIN: Obama portrays himself as someone voters can trust to tell the truth and skip the usual political games. Clinton and John Edwards are using his "present" votes to offer a different picture -- one of Obama ducking tough issues or refusing to support common-sense legislation. THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career.
Biz, you can think as you would like, but based on your usual performance, I'm not surprised you've missed the boat here as well. I'm not bragging about Obama over his missed votes. I was responding to Rob's decrying Obama for them, in comparing this pattern to Palin's role as "an executive." Since the issue was of executive courage, showing that John McCain's pattern far outweighed Obama's is relevant. On this issue, they both suck. Not sure how invoking Palin's record as governor helps here, since she never had to cast a vote, one way or the other. Her record of hypocrisy, of divergence between her public pronouncements and her concrete actions is telling, however. Really? Did you have a source? I could be wrong, but if you'll look to the Washington Post source I provided, I believe it only counts a straight up "yes" or "no" vote as a "vote." "Present" is considered a "not voting," or "missed." Project Vote Smart uses the same counting method (see http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=61&go.x=14&go.y=14), for instance. But you maintain that "present" would add to the total, so you must have had a source, and I would appreciate seeing it. Agreed, and based on the divergence of his actions from his stated sentiments, one of the reasons I've cooled on him as a candidate - though he's the most gifted candidate among the two tickets. I covered this months ago. Though the practice has been defended by many Obama supporters: I agree here as well, not a finer point.
Missing votes is nothing new for any Congressman or Senator. There is something to vote on just about everyday. The difference is, are they missing votes because they are lazy and milking the system, or are they abstaining because they do not believe in the issue, or traveling or meet with their constituents , or get something else done. Obama, just like McCain, (Especially) Biden, and many other Senators are on many committees. Those require travel, and work outside of the Senate floor. I don't believe McCain missed votes because he is lazy anymore than I believe Obama did. A lot of what is proposed legislation is BS, and there has to be a certain percentage of overall votes to take it to the next step. If by abstaining it kills the measure, then many do that so it shows no support either way. Everyone keeps comparing time in the U.S. Senate to Palins less than 2 years as Gov., completely missing the 6 years he spent as a lawmaker in the Illinois State Senate, and the laws that he helped pass there for workers rights, tenants rights, police reform, and racial profiling, voting against tax breaks for companies that move main production out of state and many others. His record as a State Senator is strong for protection of workers rights and economic reform...but I guess you guys only see what is on T.V. If you people vote like this, not completely understanding the little quips and snippets that you post, then we are in serious trouble, and the candidate with the best commercials will win the race.
I find it odd that Obama, Biden and McCain are are trying to secure a job promotion while not preforming their duties on their current job.
That's a very interesting article, Guerilla, thanks for the resource. I had thought it was only Palin's husband who was a member of the AIP, but it appears the question remains unresolved, if the article is correct: And I just watched the video - a flat out affirmation of the Alaskan Independence Party, since she was the opening host to the AIP convention: Especially given the fact of her husband's membership for 7 years, seems clear.
I think it's a fair point, Hmansfield, that if Obama is promising executive courage, it can't be denied that at least some of those missed votes were done for political ends, and that doesn't speak to the notion he espouses. This is not to somehow bolster Palin's record, which falls to the sword plainly enough by her own actions. That said, I agree with the other thrust of your argument. Both as an Illinois Senator, and United States Senator, he had worked very hard, has been an able legislator, and an effective voice across many issues I find important as well. Some here would like to portray him as having done nothing over his legislative career, but that doesn't hold water, by any stretch of the fevered imagination.
Here is a link to that Palin A.I.P video, there are many others on the sidebar. If she was not a member, not supported the party, why is she affiliated with them? What party she belongs to , means nothing to me, but why the backtracking ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmt0rLtgmK0
No problem. I consider her possible involvement or opinion a plus really. Madison and Jefferson believed that secession was a right of the states and people, which is why they wrote the Virgina and Kentucky Resolutions.
I am surprised that no one is talking about Sarah Palin's ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson. He asked her some very specific questions about her ability, experience and what she brings to the table. I have my own opinions, but I was particularly curious about her boasting her appointment to the Alaskan Oil and Gas Commission, a post that she she not only complained about being a waste of tax dollars because the job does nothing, but she quit it after one year....now she is using that as part of her resume'? Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD3Yk9RZRF0 Please watch the clips. I am interested in what you all see when you view them. Pay particular attention to when he asked her, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" She didn't know what he was talking about, and she responded vaguely at first, and then addressed the question after he explained it to her. There are many questions that she answered with generalization, as if she was prepped to say certain things, just general enough to get her out of a jam, but never answered anything specific.
Welcome to politics. You should see Obama and McCain try to answer questions about monetary policy. They come off like they have an IQ of 7. Also, I edited my last post.
I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate the source material, an area I'm not up on as much as others.