this thread has some of the worst content ever, it's like a raging devolving dust storm. To be honest, I can't even drum up the enthusiasm to add anything, not sure I can fuck it up enough for it to find home.

7/30/2008 7:41:20 PM

(1) public opinion inevitably disapproves of the US congress -- as a faceless institution -- more than they approve of it.

(2) people overwhelmingly APPROVE of THEIR OWN individual congressmen far and away more than they do of the faceless institution of Congress in general. (or in other words, people tend to like THEIR OWN congressmen, generally speaking, but they don't particularly care much for other people's congressmen)

(3) and the US Congress -- as a faceless institution -- almost ALWAYS has a lower approval rating than the man who is US President

in short, people identify with and approve of individuals far more than they do of organizations. Soyou people need learn how to compare apples to apples.


NOW HERE'S THE BASIC FACT:

George W. Bush has succeeded Warren G. Harding and Andrew Johnson as "worst US president, ever"

the secondary fact that the collective US Congress sucks donkey balls, does nothing to remove this complete personal failure of GWB, and will at best be a mere footnote in the history books that describe the complete and total failure of the Bush Administration on multiple fronts.







[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 8:03 PM. Reason : ]

7/30/2008 7:54:40 PM

Quote :

"this thread has some of the worst content ever, it's like a raging devolving dust storm. To be honest, I can't even drum up the enthusiasm to add anything, not sure I can fuck it up enough for it to find home."

Kainen

Proceeds to offer nothing other than smug criticism.

^ Oh, the people know the collective face of Congress, schmoe--and it's a two-headed monster:

7/31/2008 11:51:33 AM

^ well, i can't argue with that. i'm exceedingly disappointed in both Pelosi and Reid. I'm quite certain there will be a serious challenge to their leadership positions when the next Congress starts in Jan '09... I hope they both lose their challenges miserably.


but still, we're talking present day....

GWB, however, will go down in history as "worst ever".

Pelosi will go down in history as "first woman Speaker." Depending on the text, there may be a footnote that she was overall an uninspiring and ineffectual leader.

Reid will just be immediately forgotten.

which sucks for Georgie Boy. people are going to remember him for fucking up damn near everything he got involved in. what an embarrassment he's been.





[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 2:36 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2008 2:24:09 PM

Quote :

"anyone work for the state of nc? i heard its like living in a socialist country"

My stepbrother does. He tells some terrible stories and makes you sad to send in your tax money.



Pelosi is horrible. I dont know how they got to go on vacation without an energy plan. Hell they even voted against funding wind and solar. I guess their plan is to do NOTHING about energy.


I think Carter wil still carry the title. W might take it for the under 40 crowds. But we havent seen a possible Obama term yet.

[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2008 2:29:16 PM

Carter doesnt even come close to carrying "worst ever" title. his administration had a lot of successes internationally, mixed with a few key domestic failures related to events that were largely out of his control. he's pretty much in the middle of the pack, historically speaking.

Nixon was far worse than Carter -- as far as damaging the Office of the President and the country in general -- yet still his few successes can prevent him from claiming "worst ever"

maybe you can try to better hide your inability to see past your own blatant partisanship when talking about objective historical analyses.








[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2008 2:34:21 PM

hahah, you whine blatant partisanship but do the same thing.

Carter was a disaster. Everything from his economic plans to his energy plans.

Tell me what was inflation during his presidency?

On a side note joe, I heard that you are going to be taxed for using plastic bags at grocery stores in seattle now. 20 cents per bag. People pissed up there?

7/31/2008 3:08:02 PM

for one thing, neither the energy crisis nor the attendant inflation were of Carter's making. could he have done a better job handling it? probably. his successes in foreign policy were stellar, while his handling of the Iranian Hostage Crisis was absolutely dismal. all in all, from a historical standpoint, his administration was on the low-average side. nothing to write home about, certainly, but neither was it "worst ever"

please put down your Ann Coulter book, and do try and gain some historical perspective. the United States doesn't begin and end with your own personal awareness.

Quote :

"On a side note joe, I heard that you are going to be taxed for using plastic bags at grocery stores in seattle now. 20 cents per bag. People pissed up there?"

not at all. dont you know, us Latte Liberals love taxes.

seriously, most people including myself think its a good idea. it will force people to either recycle/reuse their bags, or (like many people often do) buy a few cloth bags and incorporate them into their shopping routine.

i know, people like you bitch about deposits on soda cans and bottles, and every other sort of socially responsible measure.

but you'll get over it, though ... and maybe (god forbid) even learn to adapt.

anyhow, welcome to the 21st century. be advised that fatass white dudes who feel entitled to consume everything in sight, they no longer run this place.





[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2008 4:55:25 PM

^ Yeah, the single-digit-approval Democrat-led Congress runs things! GG!

Here's a lovely reusable hemp shopping bag for you, you Left Coast nancy boy:



Or why don't you just carry a burlap sack from the organic potatoes they use at your commune?

7/31/2008 5:00:49 PM

there's nothing wrong with that bag, there, at all. i'd buy it.

But actually, these are the kinds we have. a bit more corporate, i admit :-/





and no, my self-image isn't threatened. I'm sorry if these sort of things threaten your masculinity. There's no reason to be scared. Did people call you "nancy boy" in school? that wasn't very nice of them, was it? Those were mean people hooksaw. You shouldnt listen to them.







[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2008 5:15:11 PM

couple things joe, carter killed nuclear energy in this country. Carter came around with a pro-environment attitude and to "conserve" instead of create energy. We had plans to build hundreds of nuclear plants have our country moving towards cheap nuclear power. Which is basically what my father told me as well.


As for the bag tax.

You have all your little jabs at me as you try to convey some kind of moral superiority all you want.
The fact is that if you really gave a shit, you wouldnt have to tax people to conserve, they would already be doing it. That is the part I find funny. How the some of the people thought it was a good idea, like they cant lift a finger without the govt telling them to. If you believe in conservation..why the need for the tax? I know you seem all for FORCING people to do things, but why not simply ask the people to conserve first? Or try to get the stores to stop offering it. Why does the govt NEED to tax you to alter your behavior?

Also you seem to think that raising this tax WILL affect people's behavior, but raising thier income tax wont. You see my frustration with that logic?

7/31/2008 5:20:54 PM

joe,

Likewise, wearing dresses and sleeping with dudes doesn't threaten RuPaul's masculinity. Point being, tou have to have some masculinity to threaten first, bud!!! BWong! Wicked burrnnnn!

Wait...
this isn't the smackdown thread.

Where is McCain today? Iowa?

7/31/2008 5:37:14 PM

Quote :

"That is the part I find funny. How the some of the people thought it was a good idea, like they cant lift a finger without the govt telling them to."

yeah, and I'm sure you hate the 40-hour work week, laws against child labor, mandatory seat belt regulations, and the government telling pharmaceuticals that it's illegal to poison their customers.

Quote :

"Carter killed nuclear energy ... [blah blah blah] ... Which is basically what my father told me as well."

well, then, your father's as blind to facts as you are, and probably explains why you're so purposely obtuse that you cant research basic history.

Jimmy Carter was actually trained in nuclear engineering. He did graduate work in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and as a Lieutenant in the Navy, was senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew for one of the first nuclear submarines.

Carter did not have a problem with nuclear energy, and believed it would be an extremely important resource to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. His problem was with the then-current state of Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing. in the 1970's the real concern was that nuclear fuel reprocessing technology was such that third-world nations could easily use the material to make nuclear weapons.

so Carter pushed for NRC regulations that would prevent the current procedures that could allow nuclear weapon proliferation. maybe you should instead THANK Carter that the WTC and Pentagon were hit with jet airplanes and not nuclear warheads.

now, is nuclear fuel reprocessing technology different than it was in the 1970's? yes. look up recent developments in the UREX+ process

and... has it been the REPUBLICANS, who for the last 22 of the past 30 years who have been in charge? most definitely.

so maybe it's time your dad quit blaming Carter for the past 30 years of failed energy policies. and maybe it's time you learn to think for yourself instead of having all your opinions fed to you as talking points





[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2008 5:44:20 PM

I work longer than 40hrs joe, who can I call about that?

My dad worked on the clinch river breeder reactor.

Back then people were talking of meterless electricity. People would just pay a flat tax bc of it being so cheap. They basically feel that carter, being from nuclear energy, sold them out. Fossil fuels are limited, nuclear is not.

wiki on the project

Concerns about potential nuclear weapons proliferation were another serious issue for the commercial breeder reactor program, because this technology produces plutonium that potentially could be used to make nuclear weapons. Because of international concern about proliferation, in April 1977 President Jimmy Carter called for an indefinite deferral of construction of commercial breeder reactors.[3]

President Carter was a consistent opponent of the Clinch River project. In November 1977, in a statement explaining his veto of a bill to authorize funding for continuation of the project, Carter said it would be "large and unnecessarily expensive" and "when completed, would be technically obsolete and economically unsound." Furthermore, he said the project would have little value for determining the commercial viability of breeder technology in the United States.[5]

Congress persisted in keeping the Clinch River project alive over the President's objections, and Carter repeatedly chastised Congress for its actions. In a speech in 1979, after the House Science and Technology Committee had voted to proceed with the project over his opposition, he said "The Clinch River breeder reactor is a technological dinosaur. It's a waste of more than $1-1/2 billion of taxpayers' money. It's an assault on our attempts to control the spread of dangerous nuclear materials. It marches our nuclear policy in exactly the wrong direction. ... This is no time to change America into a plutonium society." Instead of investing public resources in the breeder demonstration project, he urged attention to improving the safety of existing nuclear technology. [6]

Doesnt quite sounds like a big proponent of nuclear.

The thought that terrorist could take the materials from the breeder reactor was laughable. My dad joked that his boss told them to wrap it up for the terrorist if they really wanted it. It was just a ploy to scare people.

But further my ignorant points, they have breeder reactors in germany, france, UK, russia, and india. With plans to build more.

The Atomic Energy Commision also had plans to build identical reactors around the country, before being disolved into the newly created DOE.. not to mention the Dept of education.

Yes we have not had a good energy policy in this country, YES both sides are to blame. But the same BS that Obama and the current dems are saying of do nothing but conserve, is the same BS Carter said. We would have drilling and ANWR if it wasnt for democrats would you agree?

I see you avoided my tax point too. (I kinda figured you would)

Republicans have been in control for 22 of the past 30 years? Wow, news to me. Its amazing that those crazy repubs with all that control couldnt outlaw abortion then. LOL. I cant believe you even said that.

Yes joe, I talk to people to form my opinions. I dont rely on what a politician tells me to do or think. In this case I cant imagine a more horrible source than someone who has a masters in nuclear engineering and worked on this project. Geez bad source. I should ask the next guy with glasses and a laptop at starbucks about it. got it.

7/31/2008 7:02:53 PM

Quote :

" Fossil fuels are limited, nuclear is not."

Nuclear fuel is a limited resource as well:

Quote :

"Depending on the type of fission fuel considered, estimates for existing supply at known usage rates varies from several decades for the currently popular Uranium-235 to thousands of years for uranium-238. At the present use rate, there are (as of 2007) about 70 years left of known uranium-235 reserves economically recoverable at a uranium price of US$ 130/kg.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_energy_development#Nuclear_power

Note that projection is based on the current price for just uranium, but we'd run out of nuclear energy eventually without figuring out something else newer or more efficient. It's biggest advantage is its relative cleanliness in many situations compared to dino power.

7/31/2008 7:31:31 PM

moron, I believe the breeder reactors recyle the materials while producing energy. The way I understand it is that you can create plutonium from using the spent fuel rods and then reuse those rods. Kinda like recharging a battery.

Quote :

" It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years worth of Uranium-238 for use in these power plants.["

From your link.

[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 7:37 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2008 7:35:43 PM

Quote :

"Kainen Proceeds to offer nothing other than smug criticism. "

damn straight, this thread and you deserves it. sans the smug bit, because I'm really not smug despite your blanket retort

7/31/2008 7:38:13 PM

eyedrb, you know it's unfortunate, because just when i start to take you seriously, you come back to this kind of shit:

Quote :

"Republicans have been in control for 22 of the past 30 years? Wow, news to me. Its amazing that those crazy repubs with all that control couldnt outlaw abortion then."

so now im back to where i always wind up with you: a big fat Facepalm.

i mean we're talking about the DOE and the NRC and presidential energy policy, and then you want to compare it to the SCOTUS and their upholding of ROE V FUCKING WADE???

christ almighty, dude. I'd really like to hear about your dad's work on the Clinch River Project and all (even though you're just cutting and pasting Wikipedia), so come on back once you learn some basic logic.







[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 7:49 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2008 7:44:09 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, the single-digit-approval Democrat-led Congress runs things!"

You say this like people dislike Congress for being too left-wing

7/31/2008 11:31:31 PM

I think probably my least favorite President ever would be LBJ.

I'm with joeschmoe on Carter...below average, but not the worst by any means.

7/31/2008 11:42:49 PM

A president from early 1920s (Harding) cannot be compared to current times. And one from the 1800s (Johnson) cannot be compared at all. Totally different times and eras.

8/1/2008 1:26:57 AM

Why not?

8/1/2008 9:11:33 AM

From Joe Klein today (and he was actually a McCain fan before this started):

"A few months ago, I wrote that John McCain was an honorable man and he would run an honorable campaign. I was wrong."


Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, a Republican, reflected the views of many of his colleagues earlier this year when he said:

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine ... He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."


And get a load of this shit, wow!




[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 1:57 PM. Reason : -]

8/1/2008 1:54:53 PM

wtf kind of point are you trying to make?

is this the "lets post random hate pictures with zero context" thread?

take this weak ass "commentary" to chit chat.

8/1/2008 2:29:22 PM

i'm not making a point with the pics, just shocking to see is all. guess i shouldn't be surprised.

8/1/2008 2:47:42 PM

^ to be fair I doubt either McCAin or his camp supports those sentiments. McCAin is not responsible for his supporters idiocy, the same as obama is not responsible for those supporters of his that may also be idiots.

I do think though that McCain is finally embracing the idea that he is not going to get the black vote, because his recent assertions about the race card pretty much guarantee that he won't. He's alienated the blacks, and probably some of other minority groups, but he's probably scared a handful of whites over to his side.

8/1/2008 3:10:40 PM

^^ well, its just plain offensive and you're making no commentary, or even an attempt at context .

so, I mean, why stop at two pictures?

certainly there are plenty more pictures you can cull from various redneck, trailer trash, KKK, Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, etc. websites.

hell, lets just turn this into the "Hey Y'all, Look at Nigger Obama the Monkey" thread!




seriously. there are racists in this country. were you fucking born yesterday?






[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 3:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2008 3:12:59 PM

you're right, wrong thread. i wasn't trying to suggest mccain thought that, but within the context of my post i can definitely see the relation can be implied. i can take that criticism in stride. sorry.

8/1/2008 3:21:52 PM

^^ the issue is more complex than that. The whole "race card" thing is essentially designed to evoke those kind of emotions (shown in the pictures) in the working class whites. They wouldn't have said before "i'm not voting for Obama because he's black" because no one wants to be racists, even people who are. Now they can say "well he's pulling the race card, so I won't vote for him" which, because of McCain's campaign, is now a valid response, where it wasn't before. He's essentially gave the racists an outlet for their racism, without them feeling like they're being racist. It also forces Obama to talk about race more, which can then further be used against him to make it seem like HE'S the one making it an issue. It would be very difficult for him to fight that kind of campaign.

As evidence of this, any thread about Obama in chit chat always turns this direction, because people will say on the Internet what they won't in real life.

Obama still has a great chance of winning the election, this has just hurt him some, and it will be recorded in history books, unfortunately.

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2008 3:21:52 PM

^ You realize why McCain said Obama was pulling the race card, right? It's because Obama said that Republicans would try to scare voters by pointing out that he's black.

McCain was responding to Obama's assertions that he would run a racist campaign.

Of course, now the Obama camp is trying to say that he really didn't mean that (in a very unconvinving manner).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/31/mccain-camp-obama-playing_n_116081.html

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ``]

8/1/2008 3:36:25 PM

^^^ i didnt think the pictures implicated McCain in any way, nor even his supporters.

i just thought they were random and pointless.

and they made me

...


but ill be okay. adblock images is mah frend.

8/1/2008 3:36:38 PM

Here is where McCain said Obama was using the "race card".

Quote :

""Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'""

Sounds like he's saying that McCain will make a point to remind voters that he is black (as if they couldn't tell) to scare them into not voting for him, right? Wrong? Obama campaign said that he was either referring to his age or his lack of Washington experience (his campaign has a hard time settling).

Quote :

""What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington," Gibbs said. "There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race.""

Of course, neither story make much sense. If Obama was referring to his age, Ulysses S Grant is on the $50 bill and was younger than Obama when he became President. If he meant that he is less experienced in Washington than the Presidents on our currency, he's apparently also forgetting his role model on the $5 bill: Abe Lincoln. But how can you tell experience from someone's looks anyways!?!?!?

Talk about a slick talking politician. He stepped too close to the race-baiting line and he doesn't want to feel the blow back. And of course, his supporters and the media won't call him on it. Fucking crazy.

PS* All quotes came from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/31/mccain-camp-obama-playing_n_116081.html

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ``]

8/1/2008 3:49:14 PM

I think the whole race-gate thing is kinda silly and overblown myself....on both sides. It was inevitable I suppose though.

However, I do think Rick Davis is a pig fucker though - he makes Howard Wolfson seem fun. Just sayin..

8/1/2008 4:19:58 PM

^ it's only overblown if he think Obama was at least somewhat right (or not wrong) in implying that McCain would use race to scare voters.

For the rest of us, it really is infuriating that Obama would say this kinda shit. Not only that, but now his campaign staff is accusing MCCAIN of playing race politics (check out Axelrod on CNN or maybe it was MSNBC)!

Like I said, Obama wanted to further cement notions that Republicans are racist to help win over voters to his side. That is just wrong no matter how you slice it and he really should apologize. But I won't hold my breath.

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM. Reason : ``]

8/1/2008 4:31:37 PM

anyone seen mccain's new add calling obama "the one" with the clip of heston parting the red sea

i had no idea mccain was this juvenile. it's embarrassing to witness, actually

8/1/2008 4:35:14 PM

Yea, I was going to post about that ad as well. It's really sad that McCain can't run the straight talk express anymore. I guess he has to win by tearing Obama's image apart instead of policies.

8/1/2008 4:38:10 PM

^ I don't enjoy negative campaigning either, but politics is a rough game. Obama himself has distorted McCain's views and said that he would potentially run a racist campaign (though it's currently backing away from that accusation). That doesn't even include Obama's surrogates who make daily rounds painting McCain as a senile bomb-throwing flip-flopper. This isn't a game you learn in Sunday school and both candidates know it.

I can see where the McCain campaign is coming from. Obama major appeal is his image. I have not met a single person that supports Obama based on the issues (by which i mean particular policy proposals, plenty of people like his "judgment" whatever that means). So they're wanting to undermine that appeal.

At the same time, I don't think this strategy will work. If Obama's strength is his image, why hit him where he's strongest? McCain just needs to realize that Obama has the US Weekly vote and move on. The adults of the country will make up their mind based on the issues and he needs to talk more about that (granted, he actually talks about that a lot, but the media rarely covers it in his speeches. so he will have to take his case directly to the people with more positive ads).

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ``]

8/1/2008 4:50:16 PM

Quote :

"i didnt think the pictures implicated McCain in any way, nor even his supporters. i just thought they were random and pointless. and they made me "

You're right, by themselves they are random and pointless, I was just trying to keep the thread focused around McCain and his doings...

Quote :

"Sounds like he's saying that McCain will make a point to remind voters that he is black (as if they couldn't tell) to scare them into not voting for him, right? Wrong? Obama campaign said that he was either referring to his age or his lack of Washington experience (his campaign has a hard time settling). "

It sounds like that when you ignore where and when it was said. The fact is Obama does not continuously, and repeatedly, in all venues (or even most or many venues) come even remotely close to accusing McCain of being racist, or the McCain campaign of being racist. That is what "playing the race card" means. Obama has never made it seem like he builds his campaign on race, and didn't even talk about race until the whole Wright issue when he was forced to. Saying he plays the "race card" means he's trying to unfairly get sympathy, which is not what's happening. You can't believe that some voters aren't concerned about him being [half] black, can you? Why can Obama not talk about this? What if Obama put out ads accusing McCain of playing the "age card"?

I do agree though that the Obama camp should stay away from clearly BS explanations. I don't know what they were thinking with that particular one you quoted.

And you have to admit, some of the McCain supporters have been using race as an issue, which especially if he was talking to a mississippi crowd, is going to come up.

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 5:06 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2008 4:52:37 PM

^ well, I don't want to try and figure what "playing the race card" should mean or means to most people that use it. I do know that Obama said that McCain would try and scare voters by saying he doesn't look like the "presidents on dollar bills", by which he could only honestly have meant that he is not white.

I don't know what you want to call that, but asserting that McCain would play on racist sympathies is just bad ball. and then complaining when the McCain campaign points that out is just sour grapes.

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ``]

8/1/2008 5:10:16 PM

You're of course sympathizing with his campaign but it's the most sophomoric, childish, unpresidential bullshit I've ever seen. They come off as a bunch of loser kids in last place in the back of the classroom throwing spitballs.

The thing is, you can sympathize with him all yo uwant - but turn the tables and give Obama the EASY target of lampooning McCain in similar ads. You know, jabbing about how boring, terrible speech delivery, slow, gaffing, deadpan delivery...or giving pressers in front of dairy aisles and puke green backdrops, or sleeping in the senate, etc...whatever you like. If he were to run that he'd get crucified and you know it.

There's a double standard at work and you and everyone else knows it if you try a little intellectual honesty. I have, I can say I don't really like Obama saying the 5, 10 dollar bill line - I knew he was trying to deal with the elephant in the room and he's frustrated by taking one on the chin from all these attacks...but he was asking for shit to head in his direction. It was passive aggressive and he shouldn't have said it, but I don't think it was at all TERRIBLE, etc....

8/1/2008 5:11:02 PM

^ I didn't say that Obama wouldn't be crucified if he tried similar image-based commercials. People in the media love to complain about negative campaigns (it's been a theme of every presidential election i can remember going back to 1996).

Indeed, I said that I hope McCain learns his lesson and starts putting out more ads on why he would be a better President than Obama (he has a lot of good reasons).

Heck, I even said that I didn't think McCain strategy would work--that it was a bad idea.

I don't see how I'm being intellectually dishonest.

8/1/2008 5:14:55 PM

Quote :

"They come off as a bunch of loser kids in last place in the back of the classroom throwing spitballs."

This is true, but this is what works (and it has been working).

It's just like the Swift Boat thing, and the Illegitmate black child thing. Guess what happened to those 2 candidates? Actually, now that I think more about it, considering the smear campaign McCain personally experienced with the whole black child thing, that makes this attack seem even more bastardly (no pun intended).

Relish the straight-talk days indeed.

^ McCain has been closing the gap on a daily basis for the past month: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart

I don't watch TV News so I'm not sure what is causing this. But on Google News most of the press has been fairly positive on Obama showing that he is capable of leading, where most of the McCain press has been talking about his negative campaigning. The Daily Show had a good break down of McCain's strategy, I thought, last night.

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2008 5:17:36 PM

^ I wouldn't say that McCain has been closing the gap through negative campaigning though. I mean his negative stuff has really only come about in the past week and a half. I remember at the start of the month the folks at the National Review's blog were saying McCain needed turn up the nasty. *shrug*

Apparently he's taking their advice. I guess we'll see next month if it helps or hurts. I think it hurts him because he's also trying to bill himself as a "different kind of politican". The less he seems like Bush the better.

But, then again, I'm an independent. Maybe this will play well to the Republican base.

8/1/2008 5:26:52 PM

I support Obama because of his policy proposals

8/1/2008 5:27:10 PM

Thats good to know.

Wrong thread?

8/1/2008 6:26:37 PM

^

Quote :

"I have not met a single person that supports Obama based on the issues (by which i mean particular policy proposals, plenty of people like his "judgment" whatever that means)."

8/1/2008 9:24:32 PM

Joe, so you concede my point about the breeder reactors?

Yeah, my dad does have some interesting stories. He really hates Carter and Bush. Thinks they are both terrible, but for different reasons. He has worked several different places, mostly organizes cleanups around buffalo now. He is a really smart guy. Has a double masters in nuclear and mechanical... but SOOO dumb when it comes to finances.

Oh and roe vs wade, you missed my point...again. BTW, im prochoice with limits. But congress can make new laws, correct? Also, I find some more irony that when the supreme court rules in favor of a liberal issue, like abortion, then we should all bow down to the law of the land. When it goes against their views, like the DC gun ban, they choose to ignore it or make up new laws that gum it up.

Why do you keep avoiding my taxes question to you? I think its because you see my point and have painted yourself into a corner.

Anyways, have a good weekend all. Im reading the new Obama book. So far so good.

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 11:40 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2008 11:35:26 PM

Quote :

"Spread John McCain's official talking points around the Web -- and you could win valuable prizes! That, in essence, is the McCain campaign's pitch to supporters to join its new online effort, one that combines the features of "AstroTurf" campaigning with the sort of customer-loyalty programs offered by airlines, hotel chains, restaurants and the occasional daily newspaper. On McCain's Web site, visitors are invited to "Spread the Word" about the presumptive Republican nominee by sending campaign-supplied comments to blogs and Web sites under the visitor's screen name. The site offers sample comments ("John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan . . .") and a list of dozens of suggested destinations, conveniently broken down into "conservative," "liberal," "moderate" and "other" categories. Just cut and paste. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080603589.html

8/7/2008 1:38:31 PM

^ oh no!

8/7/2008 1:56:15 PM

McCain on Hamdan:

Quote :

"The jury found that the prosecution lawyers had proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hamdan had aided terrorists by supplying weapons to Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. This process demonstrated that military commissions can effectively bring very dangerous terrorists to justice. The fact that the jury did not find Hamdan guilty of all of the charges brought against him demonstrates that the jury weighed the evidence carefully."

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/08/mccain_statement_on_hamdan.html

Quote :

"While being convicted of supporting terrorism, Hamdan was acquitted of providing missiles to al-Qaida and knowing his work would be used for terrorism. He also was cleared of being part of al-Qaida's conspiracy to attack the United States — the most serious charges he faced."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlkUMaokG6I7flYKGhlBfsW9qP9wD92DOOKG0

Facts? Who gives a shit. McCain's a maverick. He makes his own facts.

8/8/2008 8:45:42 PM