Note: Monegan Said It Was Appropriate For Todd Palin To Contact Him About Any Security Threats. "The governor raised the issue again in February 2007 during the legislative session in Juneau. 'As we were walking down the stairs in the capitol building,' Monegan said, 'she wanted to talk to me about her former brother-in-law. I said, "Ma'am, I need to keep you at arm's length with this. I can't deal about him with you. If need be, I can talk to Todd."'" (James V. Grimaldi and Kimberly Kindy, "Palin Focus Of Probe In Police Chief's Firing," The Washington Post, 8/30/08)
They're referencing THAT?
Because what he just said is that it's inappropriate for her to talk to him about her ex brother in law... but her husband could talk about it. Which is JUST as inappropriate. Perhaps even moreso. *sigh*
I grasp that troopergate is likely absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, that line just stuck out at me along the same lines as her "people CC my husband on official email" thing.
Actually I think that it's more inappropriate for her to talk about him since she's, you know, his boss, but Todd Palin is a civilian who's directly related to the issue. What with being a family member and all.
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
I know you were trying to be ironic in your sig, but I just found this a funny statement to make in light of your signature content. :P
“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,†Obama responded.
It's a valid response to point out the "more experienced" charge being leveled against you is experience running something less than a 5% the size of the thing you've been running for just as long.
It's about as bizarre a comment as "military command experience" meaning your state has a national guard unit. But welcome back LondonBridge. We missed you.
Ahh London.. the master of the drive-by maek poast. I guess your mind isn't as boggled by Gov. Palin hiring an outside lawyer to bog down the ethics investigation until after the election?
Obviously you're not familiar with that investigation.
Due to the incumbent's ratings, the challenge isn't to sell your candidate, that's a lost cause. There's no viable angle to do this. You have to make people Hate the other guy and get votes by default.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to smear the other dude than it is to raise your own opinion ratings. So, you know, politics as usual.
Wrong. Well, half-right. It's less about "smearing" the other guy as it is pointing out the things he does that undermine the basic principles he supposedly stands for. Look, no one said Obama had to run as a charismatic candidate of "not politics as usual" change. He chose that path, so pointing out that he's been very much politics as usual (and questioning what's left when you factor that out of the equation) isn't really a "smear".
You're right, it really isn't.
I mean, "This man is simply a politician who is much more capable of doing his job than these other people, not Jesus!" is less a smear than an endorsement.
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
I know you were trying to be ironic in your sig, but I just found this a funny statement to make in light of your signature content. :P
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Grammaton Cleric on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
Okay fine. Have it your way. Without mentioning Barack Obama, why are you voting for McCain?
Due to the incumbent's ratings, the challenge isn't to sell your candidate, that's a lost cause. There's no viable angle to do this. You have to make people Hate the other guy and get votes by default.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to smear the other dude than it is to raise your own opinion ratings. So, you know, politics as usual.
Wrong. Well, half-right. It's less about "smearing" the other guy as it is pointing out the things he does that undermine the basic principles he supposedly stands for. Look, no one said Obama had to run as a charismatic candidate of "not politics as usual" change. He chose that path, so pointing out that he's been very much politics as usual (and questioning what's left when you factor that out of the equation) isn't really a "smear".
That hasn't been the strategy. Calling him a socialist, most liberal senator evar, unamerican, non patriotic, etc etc. Those have been the attack smears.
If McCain's campaign was entirely responding to Obama's ads with "that's kinda negative for the hopey guy", I'd agree with you, but he's mostly been waving the "he totally doesn't love america" flag hard and adding in some snide "fuck this popular dude, he talked to people in EUROPE"
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
I know you were trying to be ironic in your sig, but I just found this a funny statement to make in light of your signature content. :P
That's a PRO-Obama sig! Look at all the various foreigners and subgroups who like him. Soft power!
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
Okay fine. Have it your way. Without mentioning Barack Obama, why are you voting for McCain?
McCain is his lizard.
'On that world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.’
‘Odd,’ said Arthur, ‘I thought you said it was a democracy?’
‘I did,’ said Ford, ‘It is.’
‘So,’ said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, ‘why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?’
‘It honestly doesn’t occur to them,’ said Ford. ‘They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.’
‘You mean they actually vote for the lizards?’
‘Oh yes,’ said Ford with a shrug, ‘of course.’
‘But,’ said Arthur, going for the big one again, ‘why?’
‘Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,’ said Ford, ‘the wrong lizard might get in.’
End on
I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us
Due to the incumbent's ratings, the challenge isn't to sell your candidate, that's a lost cause. There's no viable angle to do this. You have to make people Hate the other guy and get votes by default.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to smear the other dude than it is to raise your own opinion ratings. So, you know, politics as usual.
Wrong. Well, half-right. It's less about "smearing" the other guy as it is pointing out the things he does that undermine the basic principles he supposedly stands for. Look, no one said Obama had to run as a charismatic candidate of "not politics as usual" change. He chose that path, so pointing out that he's been very much politics as usual (and questioning what's left when you factor that out of the equation) isn't really a "smear".
Lying is.
Also have you not listened/read Obama's policies? They're pretty new and interesting. Especially his ones on anti-outsourcing and long-term jobs based in the clean energy sector and the subsidary clean vehicles stuff.
edit:
That's a PRO-Obama sig! Look at all the various foreigners and subgroups who like him. Soft power!
I mean, "This man is simply a politician who is much more capable of doing his job than these other people, not Jesus!" is less a smear than an endorsement.
But once you take out the "there is no blue America or red America" rhetoric and rousing speeches, he still has to cite that he's more capable, and calling that into question is certainly not a smear.
Due to the incumbent's ratings, the challenge isn't to sell your candidate, that's a lost cause. There's no viable angle to do this. You have to make people Hate the other guy and get votes by default.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to smear the other dude than it is to raise your own opinion ratings. So, you know, politics as usual.
Wrong. Well, half-right. It's less about "smearing" the other guy as it is pointing out the things he does that undermine the basic principles he supposedly stands for. Look, no one said Obama had to run as a charismatic candidate of "not politics as usual" change. He chose that path, so pointing out that he's been very much politics as usual (and questioning what's left when you factor that out of the equation) isn't really a "smear".
Lying is.
Also have you not listened/read Obama's policies? They're pretty new and interesting. Especially his ones on anti-outsourcing and long-term jobs based in the clean energy sector and the subsidary clean vehicles stuff.
edit:
That's a PRO-Obama sig! Look at all the various foreigners and subgroups who like him. Soft power!
Wow what the fuck is this.
Deacon's a gigantic shitposter and even the people in SE++ hate his squirelly little guts.
A lot of people seem to like keeping him on just to have someone to argue with.
Due to the incumbent's ratings, the challenge isn't to sell your candidate, that's a lost cause. There's no viable angle to do this. You have to make people Hate the other guy and get votes by default.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to smear the other dude than it is to raise your own opinion ratings. So, you know, politics as usual.
Wrong. Well, half-right. It's less about "smearing" the other guy as it is pointing out the things he does that undermine the basic principles he supposedly stands for. Look, no one said Obama had to run as a charismatic candidate of "not politics as usual" change. He chose that path, so pointing out that he's been very much politics as usual (and questioning what's left when you factor that out of the equation) isn't really a "smear".
the democratic strategy is to minimize damage done to their candidate while linking any republican that ran with george bush. its attack by association. it didnt even matter who won the republican primary, they would still link the winner to bush.
if i see one more "more of the same" idiotic ad...
I mean, "This man is simply a politician who is much more capable of doing his job than these other people, not Jesus!" is less a smear than an endorsement.
But once you take out the "there is no blue America or red America" rhetoric and rousing speeches, he still has to cite that he's more capable, and calling that into question is certainly not a smear.
You can either "say" that you are more capable.
Or you can do what Obama has done and, you know, elaborate on that a little and actually outline your plans in the format of paragraphs and not soundbites like "Win"
Obama's proved he's more capable by being so successful against so many odds.
And no, I don't mean that in the hackneyed American Dream sense. I mean it in cold hard logic. He had to be twice as good at everything than his opponents just to get this far. Meanwhile you have McCain - nice guy, I'm sure - stumbling around making cockups about the state of the world (Czechoslovakia and I went to Germany and met President Putin of Germany) and other things, and picking an incredibly suspect VP running mate.
Again, have you read his policies and proposals? They are well thought out. They are smart. They are impressive and insightful.
“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,†Obama responded.
It's a valid response to point out the "more experienced" charge being leveled against you is experience running something less than a 5% the size of the thing you've been running for just as long.
It's about as bizarre a comment as "military command experience" meaning your state has a national guard unit. But welcome back LondonBridge. We missed you.
Ahh London.. the master of the drive-by maek poast. I guess your mind isn't as boggled by Gov. Palin hiring an outside lawyer to bog down the ethics investigation until after the election?
Obviously you're not familiar with that investigation.
Jesus Christ LB, at least try to fucking educate someone then if they (and a lot of us) don't know what they're fucking talking about.
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
Okay fine. Have it your way. Without mentioning Barack Obama, why are you voting for McCain?
Deacon is but just one man, so let me jump in here:
1) Foreign policy experience (and I'm not talking about the POW thing).
2) Record of anti pork barrel spending.
3) Pro nuclear
are some points that I think even the probama crowd here can give McCain credit for.
Obama's proved he's more capable by being so successful against so many odds.
And no, I don't mean that in the hackneyed American Dream sense. I mean it in cold hard logic. He had to be twice as good at everything than his opponents just to get this far. Meanwhile you have McCain - nice guy, I'm sure - stumbling around making cockups about the state of the world (Czechoslovakia and I went to Germany and met President Putin of Germany) and other things, and picking an incredibly suspect VP running mate.
Again, have you read his policies and proposals? They are well thought out. They are smart. They are impressive and insightful.
sounds a little racist to me
Dunadan019 on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited September 2008
I suspect the rationale for a Palin pick was two-fold:
First, as has been mentioned, try to go with more-changey-than-thou. "You're running to be the first black dude in the White House? Well, I'm bringing a chick! That's, like, a whole different set of chromosomes, or some shit!"
Second, I think there was the intent of cynically heading off criticism via the "Don't criticize her, she's a woman" strategy. Lots of people bitched about Hillary, and there was a huge outcry. Granted, the outcry was on specious grounds and largely championed by complete idiots, but the outcry was there. There was substantial faux-backlash against the media, and I think there's some expectation that certain groups will be hesitant to blast a woman. This already happened against Carville: "This person is wholly inexperienced." "What, because she's a woman?!" People don't like having the misogyny card played against them.
And there are the standard GOP cred reasons - she's pro-life, pro-Creationism, pro-abstinence only in schools... fuck, the chick is a walking GOP talking point. I doubt they care that Palin is so clearly unsuited for the actual job. The McCain campaign doesn't give two shits about whether Palin can do the job. They care about whether she can deliver the election.
I'd wager that she was fully vetted, and that McCain - or his campaign - figured that in spite of the legion of negatives, the selling points above were worth it. They likely hoped that everyone would be too busy fawning over Palin's chromosomal make-up to worry about such niggling details as a string of scandals, some ridiculous quotes, a few wacky positions, and a strumpet daughter.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
You've just described the entire Republican strategy this year. We don't have to sell McCain in order to win. We're comfortable with the election being all about Obama, since he's been undermining his own message by running a mind-numbingly traditional campaign since sowing up the primary, and picking a mind-numbingly traditional VP. If this were a Republican talking point vs Democratic talking point election, we'd be getting killed, not necessarily on the strengths of our arguments, but because people are tired of Republicans.
What I love about Republican trolls is they rarely ever debate the issues at hand, but scream that they're winning when clearly every bit of polling and analysis shows otherwise. I mean nearly any time something big happens and Barack doesn't break 50% in the gallup, republican trolls proclaim it is the end of the campaign, barack has already lost. Never mind that McCain can't even break 46%.
It's just hilarious that in the face of macro-economic conditions, fund-raising, field organizing, message discipline, increasing party unity, a terrible GOP VP pick, a successful Dem Convention and a popular VP pick, and the Dems espousing issues in line with the American mainstream, GOPers still refuse to believe that they're losing.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised at the way they run their campaign -- thirty years of post-Reagan politics, and eight years of Bush in particular, has convinced them that they are infallible and incapable of losing. We're seeing them collapse under the weight of their own insane confidence in the face of reality.
Obama's proved he's more capable by being so successful against so many odds.
And no, I don't mean that in the hackneyed American Dream sense. I mean it in cold hard logic. He had to be twice as good at everything than his opponents just to get this far. Meanwhile you have McCain - nice guy, I'm sure - stumbling around making cockups about the state of the world (Czechoslovakia and I went to Germany and met President Putin of Germany) and other things, and picking an incredibly suspect VP running mate.
Again, have you read his policies and proposals? They are well thought out. They are smart. They are impressive and insightful.
Every single fucker who comes in here that is pro McCain makes no posts about how great McCain is, but about how terrible Obama is.
Quid.
Quid.
You've just described the entire Republican strategy this year. We don't have to sell McCain in order to win. We're comfortable with the election being all about Obama, since he's been undermining his own message by running a mind-numbingly traditional campaign since sowing up the primary, and picking a mind-numbingly traditional VP. If this were a Republican talking point vs Democratic talking point election, we'd be getting killed, not necessarily on the strengths of our arguments, but because people are tired of Republicans.
So if Obama undermines his message, McCain somehow gets votes? I don't buy it - there has to be something attractive about McCain that draws votes instead of these supposedly disillusioned Obama fans just staying home. What is it that causes people to vote for McCain, and why will you personally be voting for McCain? Anti-Obama? Please. Even in light of the imminent SCOTUS appointments, I don't think there's a significant chunk of specifically anti-Obama McCain voters.
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
Okay fine. Have it your way. Without mentioning Barack Obama, why are you voting for McCain?
Deacon is but just one man, so let me jump in here:
1) Foreign policy experience (and I'm not talking about the POW thing).
2) Record of anti pork barrel spending.
3) Pro nuclear
are some points that I think even the probama crowd here can give McCain credit for.
I definitely give credit to McCain on those, though I think #2 leads to "Maverick!!!" which I think is an incorrect characterization at this point.
However, while McCain has "lots of foreign policy experience," many of us Obama supporters believe that despite his experience McCain is still WRONG about the policies he wants to enact vis a vis foreign policy. Endless Iraq war, possible war with Iran, etc.
tsmvengy on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
Okay fine. Have it your way. Without mentioning Barack Obama, why are you voting for McCain?
Deacon is but just one man, so let me jump in here:
1) Foreign policy experience (and I'm not talking about the POW thing).
2) Record of anti pork barrel spending.
3) Pro nuclear
are some points that I think even the probama crowd here can give McCain credit for.
The thing is, 1)recently he's shown himself to be somewhat... unaware of the current state of, say, Eastern European politics
2)yeah I guess
3) Obama is too, and he doesn't suggest things like an idiotic some gas tax holiday, and only advocates more drilling as a compromise.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I mean, "This man is simply a politician who is much more capable of doing his job than these other people, not Jesus!" is less a smear than an endorsement.
But once you take out the "there is no blue America or red America" rhetoric and rousing speeches, he still has to cite that he's more capable, and calling that into question is certainly not a smear.
How about the number of times he's been right?
In 2002, he predicted what the outcome would be of an Iraq invasion. He pretty much nailed it.
In 2007, he predicted that the Surge would fail to deliver any of its political goals. He pretty much nailed it.
In 2007, he called for a timeline for withdrawal. Everyone but McCain now agrees that's a good thing to do.
Isn't the whole point of experience to help one make the proper judgments when faced with challenges? Obama has been demonstrating he has that judgment in far greater capacity than one John McCain. So what can McCain offer us that Obama cannot? Besides, presumably, some rockin' keggers?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Due to the incumbent's ratings, the challenge isn't to sell your candidate, that's a lost cause. There's no viable angle to do this. You have to make people Hate the other guy and get votes by default.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to smear the other dude than it is to raise your own opinion ratings. So, you know, politics as usual.
Wrong. Well, half-right. It's less about "smearing" the other guy as it is pointing out the things he does that undermine the basic principles he supposedly stands for. Look, no one said Obama had to run as a charismatic candidate of "not politics as usual" change. He chose that path, so pointing out that he's been very much politics as usual (and questioning what's left when you factor that out of the equation) isn't really a "smear".
the democratic strategy is to minimize damage done to their candidate while linking any republican that ran with george bush. its attack by association. it didnt even matter who won the republican primary, they would still link the winner to bush.
if i see one more "more of the same" idiotic ad...
Its not guilt by association, its guilt by they are running on the same policy platform and espousing the same plans on governance, and will fail just as badly.
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
Okay fine. Have it your way. Without mentioning Barack Obama, why are you voting for McCain?
Deacon is but just one man, so let me jump in here:
1) Foreign policy experience (and I'm not talking about the POW thing).
2) Record of anti pork barrel spending.
3) Pro nuclear
are some points that I think even the probama crowd here can give McCain credit for.
I hear all the time that he has "foreign policy experience."
In what way? He's demonstrated poor judgment in that area over the Bush and Clinton Administrations. He's demonstrated shocking lack of foreign policy knowledge or mistakes in the campaign (AQ-Iran don't get along, Czechslovakia, border or Iraq). He's never been in the executive branch. I know he's been on Armed Services but given his terrible record on veterans issues I don't see that as a plus.
Okay fine. Have it your way. Without mentioning Barack Obama, why are you voting for McCain?
Deacon is but just one man, so let me jump in here:
1) Foreign policy experience (and I'm not talking about the POW thing).
2) Record of anti pork barrel spending.
3) Pro nuclear
are some points that I think even the probama crowd here can give McCain credit for.
The thing is, 1)recently he's shown himself to be somewhat... unaware of the current state of, say, Eastern European politics
2)yeah I guess
3) Obama is too, and he doesn't suggest things like an idiotic some gas tax holiday, and only advocates more drilling as a compromise.
1) The gaffe was stupid and certainly makes him look senile. At the same time, I don't think anybody actually believes that McCain doesn't know about the Czech Republic.
3) Based on what I've read Obama is rather nuclear-neutral (and isn't he against Yucca Mountain?), while McCain is decidedly pro nuclear. The gas tax holiday is idiotic and embarrassing.
My point is McCain has merits of his own that will lead people to vote him. Frankly, both parties nominated excellent candidates this time around (though I would have preferred Biden/Obama) and I will be pretty happy with either one.
Due to the incumbent's ratings, the challenge isn't to sell your candidate, that's a lost cause. There's no viable angle to do this. You have to make people Hate the other guy and get votes by default.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to smear the other dude than it is to raise your own opinion ratings. So, you know, politics as usual.
Wrong. Well, half-right. It's less about "smearing" the other guy as it is pointing out the things he does that undermine the basic principles he supposedly stands for. Look, no one said Obama had to run as a charismatic candidate of "not politics as usual" change. He chose that path, so pointing out that he's been very much politics as usual (and questioning what's left when you factor that out of the equation) isn't really a "smear".
the democratic strategy is to minimize damage done to their candidate while linking any republican that ran with george bush. its attack by association. it didnt even matter who won the republican primary, they would still link the winner to bush.
if i see one more "more of the same" idiotic ad...
Its not guilt by association, its guilt by they are running on the same policy platform and espousing the same plans on governance, and will fail just as badly.
bush is an idiot who stayed on a bad course and lied. you are trying to say "both bush and McCain are republicans therefore McCain is an idiot and will be just as bad as bush".
It doesn't seem to be helping him much, or he's learned the wrong lessons. Take the "League of Democracies" idea- it's ridiculous, impractical, implausible, and pointless. It makes no sense. But he was pushing it as a good idea.
You can see a lot of this stuff with McCain's foreign policy statements. Tired thinking, outdated structural assumptions, stuff-that-can't-work-or-has-been-tried, etc.
Due to the incumbent's ratings, the challenge isn't to sell your candidate, that's a lost cause. There's no viable angle to do this. You have to make people Hate the other guy and get votes by default.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to smear the other dude than it is to raise your own opinion ratings. So, you know, politics as usual.
Wrong. Well, half-right. It's less about "smearing" the other guy as it is pointing out the things he does that undermine the basic principles he supposedly stands for. Look, no one said Obama had to run as a charismatic candidate of "not politics as usual" change. He chose that path, so pointing out that he's been very much politics as usual (and questioning what's left when you factor that out of the equation) isn't really a "smear".
the democratic strategy is to minimize damage done to their candidate while linking any republican that ran with george bush. its attack by association. it didnt even matter who won the republican primary, they would still link the winner to bush.
if i see one more "more of the same" idiotic ad...
Its not guilt by association, its guilt by they are running on the same policy platform and espousing the same plans on governance, and will fail just as badly.
bush is an idiot who stayed on a bad course and lied. you are trying to say "both bush and McCain are republicans therefore McCain is an idiot and will be just as bad as bush".
Yes, and McCain has consistently supported that "idiot's" legislation and has an even more hardline stance on Iraq
Guys, I remember Deacon already explained why he's voting for McCain. He makes a shitload of money and Obama would tax him higher than McCain, and he wants to remain as rich as possible so he can spend more money on his kids. He's also a Christian, and so therefore thinks that killing unconscious fetuses is wrong, though he's not willing to defend anything about this belief.
Posts
It's 11:30am in St. Paul (I think). There are a grand total of three spectators behind the CNN talking head.
Two of them are holding up Ron Paul 2008 signs.
EDIT:
Good timing!
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Actually I think that it's more inappropriate for her to talk about him since she's, you know, his boss, but Todd Palin is a civilian who's directly related to the issue. What with being a family member and all.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
I know you were trying to be ironic in your sig, but I just found this a funny statement to make in light of your signature content. :P
Obviously you're not familiar with that investigation.
You're right, it really isn't.
I mean, "This man is simply a politician who is much more capable of doing his job than these other people, not Jesus!" is less a smear than an endorsement.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
That hasn't been the strategy. Calling him a socialist, most liberal senator evar, unamerican, non patriotic, etc etc. Those have been the attack smears.
If McCain's campaign was entirely responding to Obama's ads with "that's kinda negative for the hopey guy", I'd agree with you, but he's mostly been waving the "he totally doesn't love america" flag hard and adding in some snide "fuck this popular dude, he talked to people in EUROPE"
You mean THESE voting machines?
The ones THEY ADMIT lose votes?
That's a PRO-Obama sig! Look at all the various foreigners and subgroups who like him. Soft power!
McCain is his lizard.
‘Odd,’ said Arthur, ‘I thought you said it was a democracy?’
‘I did,’ said Ford, ‘It is.’
‘So,’ said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, ‘why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?’
‘It honestly doesn’t occur to them,’ said Ford. ‘They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.’
‘You mean they actually vote for the lizards?’
‘Oh yes,’ said Ford with a shrug, ‘of course.’
‘But,’ said Arthur, going for the big one again, ‘why?’
‘Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,’ said Ford, ‘the wrong lizard might get in.’
Lying is.
Also have you not listened/read Obama's policies? They're pretty new and interesting. Especially his ones on anti-outsourcing and long-term jobs based in the clean energy sector and the subsidary clean vehicles stuff.
edit: Wow what the fuck is this.
But once you take out the "there is no blue America or red America" rhetoric and rousing speeches, he still has to cite that he's more capable, and calling that into question is certainly not a smear.
Deacon's a gigantic shitposter and even the people in SE++ hate his squirelly little guts.
A lot of people seem to like keeping him on just to have someone to argue with.
the democratic strategy is to minimize damage done to their candidate while linking any republican that ran with george bush. its attack by association. it didnt even matter who won the republican primary, they would still link the winner to bush.
if i see one more "more of the same" idiotic ad...
You can either "say" that you are more capable.
Or you can do what Obama has done and, you know, elaborate on that a little and actually outline your plans in the format of paragraphs and not soundbites like "Win"
Really?
Really?
Yeah. The choice pissed off Clinton supporters.
And no, I don't mean that in the hackneyed American Dream sense. I mean it in cold hard logic. He had to be twice as good at everything than his opponents just to get this far. Meanwhile you have McCain - nice guy, I'm sure - stumbling around making cockups about the state of the world (Czechoslovakia and I went to Germany and met President Putin of Germany) and other things, and picking an incredibly suspect VP running mate.
Again, have you read his policies and proposals? They are well thought out. They are smart. They are impressive and insightful.
Jesus Christ LB, at least try to fucking educate someone then if they (and a lot of us) don't know what they're fucking talking about.
Deacon is but just one man, so let me jump in here:
1) Foreign policy experience (and I'm not talking about the POW thing).
2) Record of anti pork barrel spending.
3) Pro nuclear
are some points that I think even the probama crowd here can give McCain credit for.
sounds a little racist to me
First, as has been mentioned, try to go with more-changey-than-thou. "You're running to be the first black dude in the White House? Well, I'm bringing a chick! That's, like, a whole different set of chromosomes, or some shit!"
Second, I think there was the intent of cynically heading off criticism via the "Don't criticize her, she's a woman" strategy. Lots of people bitched about Hillary, and there was a huge outcry. Granted, the outcry was on specious grounds and largely championed by complete idiots, but the outcry was there. There was substantial faux-backlash against the media, and I think there's some expectation that certain groups will be hesitant to blast a woman. This already happened against Carville: "This person is wholly inexperienced." "What, because she's a woman?!" People don't like having the misogyny card played against them.
And there are the standard GOP cred reasons - she's pro-life, pro-Creationism, pro-abstinence only in schools... fuck, the chick is a walking GOP talking point. I doubt they care that Palin is so clearly unsuited for the actual job. The McCain campaign doesn't give two shits about whether Palin can do the job. They care about whether she can deliver the election.
I'd wager that she was fully vetted, and that McCain - or his campaign - figured that in spite of the legion of negatives, the selling points above were worth it. They likely hoped that everyone would be too busy fawning over Palin's chromosomal make-up to worry about such niggling details as a string of scandals, some ridiculous quotes, a few wacky positions, and a strumpet daughter.
What I love about Republican trolls is they rarely ever debate the issues at hand, but scream that they're winning when clearly every bit of polling and analysis shows otherwise. I mean nearly any time something big happens and Barack doesn't break 50% in the gallup, republican trolls proclaim it is the end of the campaign, barack has already lost. Never mind that McCain can't even break 46%.
It's just hilarious that in the face of macro-economic conditions, fund-raising, field organizing, message discipline, increasing party unity, a terrible GOP VP pick, a successful Dem Convention and a popular VP pick, and the Dems espousing issues in line with the American mainstream, GOPers still refuse to believe that they're losing.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised at the way they run their campaign -- thirty years of post-Reagan politics, and eight years of Bush in particular, has convinced them that they are infallible and incapable of losing. We're seeing them collapse under the weight of their own insane confidence in the face of reality.
It's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.
/facepalm
I definitely give credit to McCain on those, though I think #2 leads to "Maverick!!!" which I think is an incorrect characterization at this point.
However, while McCain has "lots of foreign policy experience," many of us Obama supporters believe that despite his experience McCain is still WRONG about the policies he wants to enact vis a vis foreign policy. Endless Iraq war, possible war with Iran, etc.
2)yeah I guess
3) Obama is too, and he doesn't suggest things like an idiotic some gas tax holiday, and only advocates more drilling as a compromise.
How about the number of times he's been right?
In 2002, he predicted what the outcome would be of an Iraq invasion. He pretty much nailed it.
In 2007, he predicted that the Surge would fail to deliver any of its political goals. He pretty much nailed it.
In 2007, he called for a timeline for withdrawal. Everyone but McCain now agrees that's a good thing to do.
Isn't the whole point of experience to help one make the proper judgments when faced with challenges? Obama has been demonstrating he has that judgment in far greater capacity than one John McCain. So what can McCain offer us that Obama cannot? Besides, presumably, some rockin' keggers?
Its not guilt by association, its guilt by they are running on the same policy platform and espousing the same plans on governance, and will fail just as badly.
MWO: Adamski
Its hard to argue otherwise because of this.
It is entirely evident that there is one correct choice to be made here.
Republicans are wrong, Democrats are right.
...
See what the black and white approach feels like?
I hear all the time that he has "foreign policy experience."
In what way? He's demonstrated poor judgment in that area over the Bush and Clinton Administrations. He's demonstrated shocking lack of foreign policy knowledge or mistakes in the campaign (AQ-Iran don't get along, Czechslovakia, border or Iraq). He's never been in the executive branch. I know he's been on Armed Services but given his terrible record on veterans issues I don't see that as a plus.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
1) The gaffe was stupid and certainly makes him look senile. At the same time, I don't think anybody actually believes that McCain doesn't know about the Czech Republic.
3) Based on what I've read Obama is rather nuclear-neutral (and isn't he against Yucca Mountain?), while McCain is decidedly pro nuclear. The gas tax holiday is idiotic and embarrassing.
My point is McCain has merits of his own that will lead people to vote him. Frankly, both parties nominated excellent candidates this time around (though I would have preferred Biden/Obama) and I will be pretty happy with either one.
bush is an idiot who stayed on a bad course and lied. you are trying to say "both bush and McCain are republicans therefore McCain is an idiot and will be just as bad as bush".
It doesn't seem to be helping him much, or he's learned the wrong lessons. Take the "League of Democracies" idea- it's ridiculous, impractical, implausible, and pointless. It makes no sense. But he was pushing it as a good idea.
You can see a lot of this stuff with McCain's foreign policy statements. Tired thinking, outdated structural assumptions, stuff-that-can't-work-or-has-been-tried, etc.
Yes, and McCain has consistently supported that "idiot's" legislation and has an even more hardline stance on Iraq
Is that about right, Deacon?