OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[Jared]

I'm opening a new elections/politics thread. Here are the big ground rule that will be enforced, with either a) temp bans for offenders and/or b) locking the thread.

1) No personal insults, period. Even if you think that a poster is the biggest moron on the face of the planet, I don't want to hear it. Do NOT insult other posters personally. Note that this doesn't mean that you can't disagree with a poster, or that you can't say that you disagree with their argument, point out flaws in their argument, etc. "Your argument makes no sense because x, y, and z" is fine. "You give imbeciles a bad name, you deranged lap dog of the hippie Dems/imperialist pig Repubs" is not.

If you think someone has broken one of these rules, and I haven't acted, feel free to PM me...it may be that I missed it, it may be that I don't see it the same way. Either way, though, my decisions are final.

I also have the right to lock the post and/or temp ban the poster at my discretion, if I feel like he has crossed the line. I'll likely give a warning and a reason why if I do that.

Anyways, short story is be civil, don't post to piss other posters off, and think before you post. I have no problems in banning all political posts period (a la OS) if people can't be civil to each other, and will do that if I feel that I have to waste time over-moderating this one thread.

[RobVarak]

A whole slew of state polling released yesterday:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/ ... l#comments

Something for everyone pretty much.

[FatPitcher]

The defection of a couple of high-profile Hillary supporters to McCain is interesting. Not because it means anything in terms of McCain's appeal or qualifications, but because I suspect that Hillary is telling her most trusted supporters to help Obama lose while she puts on a good show of supporting the party.

[Jared]

What Hilary supporters changed their support to McCain?

[FatPitcher]

Donald Trump and Lynn Forester de Rothschild

[Jared]

So Trump and de Rothschild are some of Hilary's "most trusted supporters"? And Hilary is driving this? You think, if she were driving this, that she would have people that defected that weren't uber-rich (especially given the economy) and weren't making absurd statements about why they are switching. For example, the uber-rich Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild said she was switching because she thinks Obama is "elitist". It's a bit tone deaf, coming from a Rothschild.

[Teal]

Obama's strategy now:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

This from a speech in Elko yesterday. Seems he didn't get your memo, Jared...

[Teal]

I hope they nail these little bastard hackers to the wall:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

That's not just stupid; it's criminal.

[Teal]

Sorry for all the rapid fire stuff, but boy...I feel like a man outta prison!

So Biden calls taxing the rich and giving it to the middle class is 'patriotic':
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_ ... en_taxes_3

Patriotism is not the same as socialism, Joe. And that is all you're selling here-don't try to call it something it isn't, like 'patriotism'. I've heard something about lipstick on a pig recently...seems to fit here nicely.

[RobVarak]

It's a bit tone deaf, coming from a Rothschild.

To be fair, she did marry into the family LMAO

Seriously, I don't think there's any way that Hillary is directing people to do this. Here political career would be dead and buried the minute that people found out. I think it's just an outgrowth of some of her supporters' bitterness. And the polling data indicates that it's a very small but vocal minority of them who are doing so. Obama's captured almost all of her backers.

[JackB1]

I hope they nail these little bastard hackers to the wall:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

That's not just stupid; it's criminal.

I just read about this. They are now looking into possible charges against Palin that she conducted official state business on her personal email account
and also for deleting these email accounts, which may be viewed as destroying evidence since she is currently being investigated for the trooper-gate thing.

I don't agree with this hacking behavior at all and those hackers should go to jail, but it will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

[Jared]

Teal,

The full quote is below. It's clear that he's not telling people to get belligerent, but rather to defend Obama based on his actual positions, not based on what people are saying about him.

Link

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

[Teal]

I hope they nail these little bastard hackers to the wall:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

That's not just stupid; it's criminal.

I just read about this. They are now looking into possible charges against Palin that she conducted official state business on her personal email account
and also for deleting these email accounts, which may be viewed as destroying evidence since she is currently being investigated for the trooper-gate thing.

I don't agree with this hacking behavior at all and those hackers should go to jail, but it will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Boy, if they're really attempting to do that, they must be desperate for something to stick-good grief. Not to mention that not a single lick of all that will stand up in any court, given how such information would have been obtained in the first place. You simply cannot base allegations upon illegally obtained documents. Besides, I think they're looking at a huge straw man with all this.

[Teal]

Teal,

The full quote is below. It's clear that he's not telling people to get belligerent, but rather to defend Obama based on his actual positions, not based on what people are saying about him.

Link

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

Yeah, I read the whole quote, Jared. But being belligerent and all that isn't going to help the guy who promised to run a 'different kind of campaign'. And getting in someone's face IS belligerence, no matter what you're getting in their face about. And it seems to me that he's telling them to do it simply because he hasn't been able to make the case himself.

[Jared]

And quickly:

As for the hacking, there's no evidence that Palin deleted the mail in the account...they locked the account b/c too many people tried to change the password. The hack itself wasn't really a true hack...someone got her security questions right (her zip code, and where she met her husband), both which were really easy. It's pretty short-sighted for a high-profile figure to have an easily accessible, low security Yahoo account.

[Teal]

On a different front:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... PBaUbYV_qQ

In my opinion, the best thing Congress can do is get the hell out of the way. They greatly helped cause this mess in the first place.

[Teal]

And quickly:

As for the hacking, there's no evidence that Palin deleted the mail in the account...they locked the account b/c too many people tried to change the password. The hack itself wasn't really a true hack...someone got her security questions right (her zip code, and where she met her husband), both which were really easy. It's pretty short-sighted for a high-profile figure to have an easily accessible, low security Yahoo account.

That's no defense for some bottom feeding momma's boy to attempt to access Palin's files. And it was done, solely, for spite and dirt.

[matthewk]

I hope they nail these little bastard hackers to the wall:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

That's not just stupid; it's criminal.

I just read about this. They are now looking into possible charges against Palin that she conducted official state business on her personal email account
and also for deleting these email accounts, which may be viewed as destroying evidence since she is currently being investigated for the trooper-gate thing.

I don't agree with this hacking behavior at all and those hackers should go to jail, but it will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Who are "they"? The hackers?

Prior to this I had not heard a single word about any "possibility" that she sued personal accounts for state business. If someone had done this to Obama there would be screams of outrage all over the media about this, along with rmapant rumors of it being done by Bush himself. But because it was Palin, most of the media talking heads dismiss the crime and focus on "well, maybe she (Palin) was doing something wrong here". What a bunch of crap.

I don't think Obama's campaign had anything to do with this, but things like this make it look like his supporters are desperate for anything to give them an excuse to burn Palin at the stake.

[matthewk]

And quickly:

As for the hacking, there's no evidence that Palin deleted the mail in the account...they locked the account b/c too many people tried to change the password. The hack itself wasn't really a true hack...someone got her security questions right (her zip code, and where she met her husband), both which were really easy. It's pretty short-sighted for a high-profile figure to have an easily accessible, low security Yahoo account.

That's no defense for some bottom feeding momma's boy to attempt to access Palin's files. And it was done, solely, for spite and dirt.

And don't forget about the bottom feedin g web sites that posted this information. I also see from the article Teal posted that the AP refused the secret services request for information on where this came from.

[RobVarak]

Yeah, I read the whole quote, Jared. But being belligerent and all that isn't going to help the guy who promised to run a 'different kind of campaign'.

That philosophy went by the boards the minute McCain got his post-convention bounce. My God people, he's a Chicago politician!!!

More evidence:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arc ... ve_ads.php

Obama's Run More Negative Ads
17 Sep 2008 12:30 pm

Here's the latest data dump from the -- and I'll paste it in because it hurts my fingers to type it all -- TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group (TNSMI/CMAG) and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project:

The campaigns are spending about $15m in ads per week; each is spending about $7.8 million. most of McCain's ads are paid for with both McCain campaign money and money from the RNC; 97% of Obama's ads are paid for by the candidate.

77% of the Obama campaigns' ads were deemed "negative," compared to 56% for McCain.

There's not a damn thing wrong with running negative ads IMO. But it does dispel any notion that Obama's going to run anything but an old-fashioned campaign in that respect, and makes him look hypocritcal when he plays the victimization card in his stump speeches.

[Teal]

And quickly:

As for the hacking, there's no evidence that Palin deleted the mail in the account...they locked the account b/c too many people tried to change the password. The hack itself wasn't really a true hack...someone got her security questions right (her zip code, and where she met her husband), both which were really easy. It's pretty short-sighted for a high-profile figure to have an easily accessible, low security Yahoo account.

That's no defense for some bottom feeding momma's boy to attempt to access Palin's files. And it was done, solely, for spite and dirt.

And don't forget about the bottom feedin g web sites that posted this information. I also see from the article Teal posted that the AP refused the secret services request for information on where this came from.

Yep...dirty laundry. They have no scruples. They don't care where they got their little 'scoop' from.

[Jared]

To clarify, I am NOT defending the actions of the hackers. Still, it is not smart to be a high profile person with a low security Yahoo account. If you live in a bad neighborhood and don't lock your door, that doesn't mean the people that rob your house are justified. But you're not being bright if you don't lock your door.

Teal,

It's a matter of interpretation, but Obama telling people to get into other's faces isn't a call to belligerence (he didn't say anything like that), but a call to defend him against smears.

MattK,

It has been widely reported that Palin uses Yahoo accounts, and she has been criticized for using these accounts for state business, possibly in order to circumvent rules via archiving stuff for evidence. See the following:

Washington Post
New York Times

As for negative ads, I don't have any problems with them as long as they are honest. Saying your opponent has supported an unpopular position is fine. Saying that your opponent support sex ed for kindergarten children - not fine.

[Teal]

she has been criticized for using these accounts for state business, possibly in order to circumvent rules via archiving stuff for evidence.

That's conjecture, pure and simple, Jared. And assigning motive when there's no clear way to do that is a little irresponsible, given the nature of the allegation.

[wco81]

On a different front:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... PBaUbYV_qQ

In my opinion, the best thing Congress can do is get the hell out of the way. They greatly helped cause this mess in the first place.

How exactly did Congress help cause this mess?

Do they control the SEC or any of the other regulatory bodies?

Did they deregulate the use of the CDS and other derivatives?

Did they sit on their hands while lenders pushed mortgages without income documentation through the system?

Did they drop the interest rates to cause the real estate bubble?

[RobVarak]

As for negative ads, I don't have any problems with them as long as they are honest. Saying your opponent has supported an unpopular position is fine. Saying that your opponent support sex ed for kindergarten children - not fine.

The commercial made a number of mistakes, but technically he does. He supported a bill to update the curriculum for sex ed. to lower the age of instruction to K in an "age appropriate" fashion using "medically accurate" instruction. The commercial should not have said "comprehensive" sex ed., and really was gilding the lily by doing so. I think there's enough hay to be made from the actual content of the legislation, as I think much of the public may reasonably believe that the only age appropriate sex ed. instruction for kindergartners is none.

Factcheck has a good breakdown

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... ex_ed.html


They really would be better off spending their money focusing on the Illinos' Born Alive legislative battles anyway