2008 USP(G)ET pt. II: counting the days to 2012 primary thread 1

"Takes offense at obama running for president"?

i was talking to a friend tonight baout things and, basically how i see is that there's nothing left to do but win. none of these crazy racist fuckheads are susceptible to reason, there's no argument left to be made, there's no more minds to change, they just have to lose and that's it.

that's kind of a content-free statement now that i look at it

still, it would be better to get as many people as possible to cross over beforehand and of their own volition so that they won't feel like embittered axe-to-grind losers afterwards, and obama is still converting people. the crazy racists might not be susceptible to reason, but the more benignly traditional/atavistic could be swayed simply by not wanting to be on a team that's performing embarrassingly badly while the other side is happily victorious. for people at the margin of the conservative movement, that, i think, might be overwhelm policy distinctions, or even occasional departures in "values" which might be long-held but latently and in an unexamined way. like the sheer positivity and amiable self-assurance of the obama campaign will continue to draw people off as the two sides continue to go their starkly different ways.

What is it about troglodyte racists and parking lots?

I still don't really accept that being 'conservative' is the same as being an insane rural right-winger. Many of us are conservative about a great many things, and always will be. It's not the 'conservatism' that's bad about people who are called political conservatives. It's the rancour and rampaging radicalism.

In my country that includes eg wanting to break up / sell off / marketize the health service and the BBC. In the US it includes eg overturning laws allowing abortion, possibly even shooting health workers who enact those laws; or wanting to send hundreds of thousands of young men abroad to occupy distant countries and remake the world map. These are not 'conservative' things to do.

As I said above I realize that this may be making too much of a banal distinction between small and big C conservatism. I guess I only keep saying it because people keep saying 'this is the conservative mindset'.

october 2000
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/05/tracking.poll/poll.gif

well done.

Oct. 11, 2000 - heading into the 2nd debate

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/11/tracking.poll/poll.gif

erm, doesn't the long-drawn out saga if the 200 election, the ballot fraud, and the supreme court denouement pretty much invalidate anything such graphs have to tell us?

*of the 2000 election

i think the point pinefox is trying to make is that he thinks the same 'stolen election' stuff could happen again. I think it's doubtful because mccain has no trajectory and I doubt it's going to be close like that again. Plus, if it happened, expect a civil war this time.

This oughta be fun:

John McCain to Visit CBS' 'LATE SHOW with DAVID LETTERMAN,' Thursday, Oct. 16

PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ --

2008 Republican Presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) will visit the LATE SHOW with DAVID LETTERMAN, Thursday, Oct. 16 (11:35 PM-12:37 AM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
This will mark Sen. McCain's first return to LATE SHOW since canceling his appearance on Sept. 24. His 13th visit to the program, it will also mark Sen. McCain's first LATE SHOW appearance since formally accepting his party's nomination at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. on Thursday, Sept. 4. He announced his candidacy for President on the LATE SHOW on Feb. 28, 2007.
In the 2008 race for the White House, the LATE SHOW also hosted Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, who visited the broadcast on Wednesday, Sept. 10.
Also on the LATE SHOW Thursday, Oct. 16 will be musical guest Ne-Yo.

I hope they duet.

He announced his candidacy for President on the LATE SHOW on Feb. 28, 2007.

Maybe he'll take this opportunity to step down.

Fearful symmetry

he can afford to let somebody else crash this one into the ground, his reputation seems secure in that regard.

When a cofounder of RedState can't even vote for John McCain...

the fact that mccain's campaign sent her to philly to drop the puck is maybe the most telling little detail in just how clueless they are

http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/3/10/6/f_dztob9m_ebd5461.gif

biden really does look like he's about to spit in his empty Dew bottle there

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/9061/racistbf5.png

Years from now, future readers of this thread are going to think, Boy, they sure did like to post that pussy .gif.

i can't even load this whole thread anymore

Reading a (Dutch) article that focussed not on the differences but the things McCain and Obama have in common, raised a question. The article states both Obama and McCain oppose gay marriage (this alone came as a shock to me, I thought Obama was at least 'mildly' in favor of gay marriage). I was surprised, but found this to be true and could verify it with the help of lots of newspaper articles on the internet.

Seeing the above posted sign by Cozen stresses this even more, why is Obama not in favor of a full same sex marriage? Doesn't it go well with other Dems? (and if not, WTF?) Is he affraid it will cost him votes? (and again, if so, WTF?)

Learning about his stance on gay marriage (Obama won't go further then some sort of contract, right?) is my first major dissapointment with him.

Open this thread completely and you'll see every kind of argument for/against Obama's stance.

This thread was started on the 11th September. Surely it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a new thread that focuses on the final few weeks before polling day?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7665925.stm 106 yr old nun who hasn't voted since 1952 is voting for Obama.

Open this thread completely and you'll see every kind of argument for/against Obama's stance.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, October 12, 2008 5:58 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

I believe I already have read everything, following it from the beginning. But I'll start over...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081012/pl_politico/14495

Thus, McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, spent Saturday morning in Johnstown — an industrial area in southwestern Pennsylvania dominated by the type of older, white, working-class, socially conservative voters who favored Clinton over Obama in the primary — where Palin blasted Obama’s support for abortion rights as “absolutely radical.”

http://www.basementarcade.com/arcade/auction/Pw2005/Radical.jpg

and

The problem is that Obama dropped $2.2 million in the first week of the month, his third highest total behind Ohio and Florida, and his campaign has 79 offices in the Keystone State — nearly twice McCain’s total, which could give Obama an edge in the get-out-the-vote battle.

Le Bateau Ivre, are you American? The issue is much more complicated in people's minds here than logic would seem to dictate. Bottom line, openly supporting same-sex marriage is not a safe position for a (national) Democrat to take.

Alfred, I see now, missed this all entirely. Sounds to me Sara Sara Sara was OTM with "Nader supported gay marriage (in 2000, 2004, 2008) and didn't hide behind that "state's rights" cop-out like Obama is (the irony of which is kind of fucking tragic)"

followed by Shakey and

"but I mean, in fairness, I gotta say that according to me anybody who doesn't support gay marriage vocally & publicly is a total fucking asshole & I wish there were a Hell for them to roast in, so I'm not really the most realistic dude on the subject

― J0hn D., Friday, September 19, 2008 10:29 PM (3 weeks ago)"

i think obama had given his position regarding gay marriage back in the primaries, when all the candidates had the latitude to address any number of social issues that ultimately haven't driven the general campaigns -- and i can't recall where it was published, but i seem to get the impression that obama stated that gay marriage was not something that he, as the head of the executive branch, could advocate in a way that is appropriate -- the idea being that there is a constitutional framework for these issues to be addressed through the courts, legislature, and local governments, from the bottom up so to speak, and that to impose a top-down revision to the constitution based on electoral politics would ultimately hurt the cause

someone correct me if i'm wrong but this is what i hazily recall, interlaced with my own interpretation....

@Doctor Casino, no I'm not American. I'm European ;) As I said, I could understand losing votes over this being a reason for Obama to not openly support same-sex marriage (hell, over here most people say America has to choose between a right-wing president (Obama) and a far-right-wing president (McCain)). But yeah, I was dissapointed to learn this, even so.

@Elmo, that's a very clear take on it, I believe I read something very similar to that in NYT.
That last sentence though, "and that to impose a top-down revision to the constitution based on electoral politics would ultimately hurt the cause", makes me simply wonder: why? How would that hurt the cause?

most people say America has to choose between a right-wing president (Obama) and a far-right-wing president (McCain)

"most people?" i call bullshit.

(hell, over here most people say America has to choose between a right-wing president (Obama) and a far-right-wing president (McCain)).

Most people over there are wrong.

xpost: hi-fives

How would that hurt the cause?

Because a constitutional amendment would never in a million years get through Congress. If you shoot too high and miss, the opposition only becomes more entrenched.

I've met very few people in the UK who would describe Obama as right wing, but then I don't roll with the Stop The War crowd.

Actually, make that zero people.

@Mr. Que and GBX: "Most people" being (talking heads and journalists) in The Netherlands, where there's just a different spectre of politics, with what, nine parties in parliament from (extreme) right-wing to (extreme) left-wing. Obama - in the Dutch book - is definitely not left-wing, more right to the middle. But ofcourse I understand him not being so in the American politics spectre. No need to get all upset about it.

@Kenan: thanks, understood.

no one's getting upset--i just think comparing Dutch & American politics in completely and totally pointless and stupid

this fantasy that europe is soooo progressive and left wing that nader would be like a moderate democrat over there is pretty annoying

@Mr. Que, ofcourse it's pointless to compare! I just used it to illustrate that I can understand why Obama won't out himself as pro same-sex marriage because it could cost him votes, in America. That was all, really.

xpost Yeah, and what about that bloodthirsty fascist Kucinich?

google his interview in the advocate where he goes into more detail

this fantasy that europe is soooo progressive and left wing that nader would be like a moderate democrat over there is pretty annoying

― joe 40oz (deej), Sunday, October 12, 2008 6:30 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

Did I say that? Oh well, carry on *sigh*

i mean, marriage will have to be continually be addressed on a state-by-state basis, and it will take a challenge through the courts on a federal matter before the SCOTUS will weigh on the issue and not before, and even then it will probably be addressed on a matter of federal vs. states powers -- which, as much as I would like to see it universally recognized, is really the way to get it done

you actually *did* suggest that nader would be like a moderate lefty "over there"---obliquely, at least