OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

[XXXIV]

The first was Biden's stupid statement about Palin's election being a step backward for women.

...Classic.

[pk500]

Seriously. I have read dozens of things in this forum about the pussification of America by political correctness, and people are going to get their panties in a wad about that? He's clearly talking about McCain, and used an expression that just happened to use a word Palin used. That is as much as a stretch as thinking "community activist" is code for "The sheriff is near."

Camille Paglia would tell you guys to untuck your genitals from between your legs and quit acting like a bunch of female victims.

I'm not saying that I think it's a huge deal; what I AM saying is that it's become a pretty big deal out there. He stepped in it. Did he mean to? I don't know. I wouldn't think so, if he had a shred of sense. But he did, nonetheless. If he was 'clearly talking about McCain', then it oughta be clear to all those people behind him who pretty clearly seem to think he's talking about Palin.

And it will all be forgotten by Monday due to the 24-hour news cycle and due to the fact some other benign term used by one of the candidates in the next three days will be considered offensive, becoming the outrage du jour.

Much ado about nothing.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

To me there were two much more troubling statements yesterday by people associated with Obama. The first was Biden's stupid statement about Palin's election being a step backward for women. The other was Bill Ayers (yep he's back!) with this "explanation" of his previous explanation for not renouncing his terrorist past:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... emote.html

You can put all the lipstick you want on a terrorist, but it's still a terrorist.

Biden's statement on Palin being a step backward isn't a stupid statement if you're pro-choice.

As for the second, really, who cares about what acquaintances of Obama think? Ayers is a moron. Obama is not Ayers, nor is there any evidence that Obama holds his positions.

I totally understand discussing Obama's qualifications, his policy positions, track record, plans, integrity, etc. But this six degrees of opinion game is a joke, along with the let's over-analyze every statement made and whine about a position the speaker clearly didn't intend game.

[Brando70]

I've been looking into the Bridge to Nowhere business because I admittedly didn't pay much attention to it when it came up. Here's what I understand happened:

--Congress approved the funds for the bridge early in 2005. To use the funds, Alaska had to build the bridge

--After Katrina hit, before Palin even ran for governor, Congress dropped the bridge request. Alaska did not have to build the bridge, but did get to keep the money.

--Palin ran in 2006 and initially supported the bridge, but changed her mind in 2007.

--Palin took the money earmarked for the bridge and spent it on other Alaska projects at her discretion.

Is that correct? And if so, how exactly did she say "thanks but no thanks" when Congress had already backed off the bridge AND Alaska didn't have to give the money back?

[RobVarak]

Biden's statement on Palin being a step backward isn't a stupid statement if you're pro-choice.

Yes, it is. There are millions of pro-life women. There are millions of pro-choice women who have sense enough to know that there is more than one issue at stake in this election. Those women are unlikely to look up on the potential ascendancy of a woman as being a step backward.

As for the second, really, who cares about what acquaintances of Obama think? Ayers is a moron. Obama is not Ayers, nor is there any evidence that Obama holds his positions.

Whether he holds his opinions or not, BO's association with Ayers has become a political issue. This is not a candidate who has run anything, so looking at the people upon whom he has relied on for political support in the past is illustrative of the judgment he will use when he finally gets the chance to act as an executive

I've said it about a dozen times, but if you're going to run a candidate who is a cipher be prepared for people to look for anything they can to figure out what this guy has done and what he believes. Serial autobiographies haven't seemed to have given adquate answers for many people, and Obama has associated with this guy for years and conducted an early campaign meeting in his house.

I'm sorry that it irritates you and others that it keeps coming up, but it's not like his uglier Chicago ties weren't known before he won the nomination. Neither this nor Wright is going to go away because relationships like these reflect on the judgment of a man who associates with them. Not necessarily his politics (although they may be illustrative of the extent to which he will surround himself with potentially fringe opinions and personalities), but definitely his judgment.

[wco81]

I totally understand discussing Obama's qualifications, his policy positions, track record, plans, integrity, etc. But this six degrees of opinion game is a joke, along with the let's over-analyze every statement made and whine about a position the speaker clearly didn't intend game.

What country do you think this is?

[wco81]

Whether he holds his opinions or not, BO's association with Ayers has become a political issue.

Joseph McCarthy would be proud.

[RobVarak]

Is that correct? And if so, how exactly did she say "thanks but no thanks" when Congress had already backed off the bridge AND Alaska didn't have to give the money back?

Factcheck has a couple of good articles on it.

The earmark was pulled (despite Biden and Obama both voting in favor of it) but she did receive additional Federal funds that advocates wanted used for the bridge. She opted not to do so, obviously in part because of the wider public outrage. She was definitely in favor of the bridge at one point.

To me it seems that while she is definitely overstating the case with the "Thanks, but not thanks" language, but she technically put at least one of the bullets into project which may have been struggling to hang on but was still drawing breath...however faint.

[RobVarak]

Whether he holds his opinions or not, BO's association with Ayers has become a political issue.

Joseph McCarthy would be proud.

I'm not suggesting that he's guilty of anything, did anything criminal or doesn't belong in a legislative job. But we are supposed to evaluate the judgment of a person with no record of executive experience whatsoever running for President of the United States based on his assurances that he's up to the job?

[Jared]

It irritates me because it's not judging a man by his actions, positions, etc. It's judging a man based on someone else's actions, positions, etc. Furthermore, it's done in a way, not to inform you about Obama's actual positions, but to insinuate hidden stances and motivation for him. I'm always a fan of letting someone's record speak for themselves. (And Obama does have a record in the State Senate and Senate...it's not like he just emerged from the center of the earth to run for President....although that would be pretty cool.)

Someone could play the exact same game with McCain (or any other politician), and come up with equally fringe characters, and then insinuate that his judgment is poor. Using your standard, there is a long list of characters that McCain "has relied on for political support in the past" that hold radical views (Hagee is an easy example). Is that "illustrative of the judgment he will use when he finally gets the chance to act as an executive"?

Of course it's not. It's simply attempts to paint someone as more radical than they really are, or having poorer judgment than they actually have; and totally obscures people from looking at the important stuff, the actual issues, positions, etc. held by each candidate.

[JackB1]

To me it seems that while she is definitely overstating the case with the "Thanks, but not thanks" language

Ya think?

[RobVarak]

It irritates me because it's not judging a man by his actions, positions, etc. It's judging a man based on someone else's actions, positions, etc. Furthermore, it's done in a way, not to inform you about Obama's actual positions, but to insinuate hidden stances and motivation for him. I'm always a fan of letting someone's record speak for themselves.

Someone could play the exact same game with McCain (or any other politician), and come up with equally fringe characters, and then insinuate that his judgment is poor. Using your standard, there is a long list of characters that McCain "has relied on for political support in the past" that hold radical views (Hagee is an easy example). Is that "illustrative of the judgment he will use when he finally gets the chance to act as an executive"?

Of course it's not. It's simply attempts to paint someone as more radical than they really are, or having poorer judgment than they actually have; and totally obscures people from looking at the important stuff, the actual issues, positions, etc. held by each candidate.

I agree to an extent. But if you do the same thing with an experienced pol like McCain or Biden you'd have a stadium full of totally reasonable people with whom they have associated. You would also have a long record of accomplishment which would help assure the electorate that they have sound judgment The signal to noise ratio would be such that the fringe looneys would be drowned out.

In BO's case you have a relatively small circle of people who have supported him and with whom he has associated, and a thin legislative record to boot. The reasonable to looney/crooked ratio in his case inspires very, very little confidence among someone trying to draw a complete picture of the man.

This is one area where the fawning primary media coverage did him no favors. If you had tactical teams of reporters descending on the South Side like they have Anchorage, this stuff would've been much more thoroughly reviewed and dealt with. I know that highly informed people like you feel like you have a handle on it, but John Q. Public watching CNN has scarcely seen any of the deeper background issues of BO's career scrutinized at all.

[RobVarak]

Incidentally, the best part of the race tightening up is that it draws out the "I'm moving to Canada" if so-and-so wins morons. It's like bird-watching except you scour the world for idiots instead of wrens.

[EZSnappin]

Judgment and appearances are not things McCain supporters should bring up. Does the name Charles Keating ring a bell? McCain was reprimanded for just such "appearances" when meeting with regulators - the impression was that he was doing so for Keating was a bad one. The "impression" that his "apparent" involvement in the Boeing/Airbus kerfuffle is a bad one. The game can go on and on - what was that crap about a female lobbyist in the Times?

There are legitimate differences between the candidates positions. I'd love to hear people informed on those topics (Rob, Jared, etc) chat about it instead of huffing and puffing over faux-feminist outrage over quasi-statements about porcine Max Factor third-hand acquaintance gotchas.

Aren't we better than this?

Of course, my primary addition to the topic was a picture of Anna Nicole Smith and her old, old man.

[Brando70]

To me it seems that while she is definitely overstating the case with the "Thanks, but not thanks" language, but she technically put at least one of the bullets into project which may have been struggling to hang on but was still drawing breath...however faint.

No, saying "thanks but no thanks" is a lie. It makes it sound like she told Congress directly to take the bridge back. I thought it was just a change of mind issue when I first heard it, but she's trying to make it sound like she rejected the bridge, and implying in the process that the money was never spent. If I buy something from Wal-Mart (while saying hello to my fellow slumming elitist Camille Paglia), and I return it, and Wal-Mart keeps my money, can they claim they gave me a refund?

And how exactly do you paint yourself as an earmark-rejecting maverick when you keep the money from an earmark? I guess it's not okay to build useless bridges, but blank checks are okay. "Here you go, kid, buy somethin' nice for you and the constituents."

As for the Ayers thing, it's understandable that people are curious about it, but the right is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The questions about Rev. Wright made more sense than this. Ayers and Obama had some professional contact, but it's not like they are buddies or that Ayers has worked for him. And while Obama may be liberal, he's hardly some SDS-style revolutionary.

[XXXIV]

Biden's statement on Palin being a step backward isn't a stupid statement if you're pro-choice.

.

Did he put it that way?

Not all women are pro choice...FAR from all.

IMO its a VERY stupid statement.

He doesnt speak for ALL women in the same way NO one man speaks for all men.

[RobVarak]

Aren't we better than this?

Clearly not


The Keating thing is dead and buried in part because of what I wrote above. It was one incident in a long career which has raised few issues about McCain's judgment overall. Moreover, McCain and Glenn were completely innocent of any wrongdoing. The idea that they "exercised bad judgment" was laughable given the behavior of the committee which was judging them, and they should have been dropped from the investigation altogether upon the recommendation of the Bob Bennett...not a noted supporter of Republicans, btw.

Edit: But it is totally fair to bring it up...if only to keep alive the spirit of Fightin' Joe

[XXXIV]

Top 5 things I look for in picking MY candidate.


1) The candidate themselves ..as in the person

2) Their qualifications for office.

Then their positions on...

3) Foriegn policy...relations/ defense/terrorism
4) Economy...
5) Energy...Oil/Nuclear/Domestic

There are more down the line like abortion...Death penalty...someones religion...Horses rights...but while I do have positions on most and they are important to some... They dont decide a president for me.

[webdanzer]

If I buy something from Wal-Mart (while saying hello to my fellow slumming elitist Camille Paglia)

Do you have a bird?

[RobVarak]

If I buy something from Wal-Mart (while saying hello to my fellow slumming elitist Camille Paglia)

Do you have a bird?

That little aside was sensational...particularly with her working in "non-pareil."

[XXXIV]

It's simply attempts to paint someone as more radical than they really are, or having poorer judgment than they actually have; and totally obscures people from looking at the important stuff, the actual issues, positions, etc. held by each candidate.

This seems to have been the theme the last two weeks.

Anything but whats important.

Too much media.

[GameSeven]

If I buy something from Wal-Mart (while saying hello to my fellow slumming elitist Camille Paglia)

Do you have a bird?

No but he returned one:

[FatPitcher]

What's really weird to me is how Obama's campaign has gotten totally distracted with Palin. I wonder if they will wake up at some point and realize that she's not their main opponent. I mean, Biden is fertile ground for Republican attacks, but they've barely said a word about him yet. They must have some internal polls saying she's a big threat.

[webdanzer]

What's really weird to me is how Obama's campaign has gotten totally distracted with Palin. I wonder if they will wake up at some point and realize that she's not their main opponent. I mean, Biden is fertile ground for Republican attacks, but they've barely said a word about him yet. They must have some internal polls saying she's a big threat.

It's both campaigns, though, FP. McCain is keeping her with him on tour longer than planned to keep the boost enthusiasm he's getting from her. I think it's fair to say that the Republican crowds coming to see them are at least just as attracted to Palin, even over McCain.

Will Palin draw bigger crowds than McCain when they do finally split? My guess is that she very well might.

[RobVarak]

Will Palin draw bigger crowds than McCain when they do finally split? My guess is that she very well might.

I agree, although that's hardly a problem for McCain as long as voters turnout to the polls.

Meanwhile, Obama's biggest liability continues to be his supporters

S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate " whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.

Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.

“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said.

Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanm ... ml?showall