2008 Election - Offseason

[Mustard]

I just read that with the pick up of North Carolina, Barack Obama has amassed 364 electoral votes. So by doing the math, Obama could have conceded both New York and California to McCain, and STILL would have enough electoral votes to win the election.

364 total
-55 Cali
-31 NY
278 total

Basically, Barack Obama didn't even need the liberal bastions of California and New York to win the election. So, anyone still want to buy into the horseshit line that the US is still center-right?

[Insomniac]

Everything in the world went wrong for the Republicans and right for the Democrats, and Obama still only got 52 percent.

H.W. Bush got more against Dukasis, and it's nothing like Reagan-Mondale or Nixon-McGovern.

Don't get me wrong, this was a big win, but electoral numbers hide certain things. 80 percent of people believe the country is in the wrong direction, but Obama didn't get anything close to 80 percent of the vote.

It's a much larger mandate than Bush thought he had in 2004, but it won't take much for America to revert to old voting patterns if the Democrats screw this up.

[Claydon]

Everything in the world went wrong for the Republicans and right for the Democrats, and Obama still only got 52 percent.

H.W. Bush got more against Dukasis, and it's nothing like Reagan-Mondale or Nixon-McGovern.

Don't get me wrong, this was a big win, but electoral numbers hide certain things. 80 percent of people believe the country is in the wrong direction, but Obama didn't get anything close to 80 percent of the vote.

It's a much larger mandate than Bush thought he had in 2004, but it won't take much for America to revert to old voting patterns if the Democrats screw this up.

With Pelosi and Reid as part of the trifecta I am awaiting the buckets of fail.

[Mustard]

Everything in the world went wrong for the Republicans and right for the Democrats, and Obama still only got 52 percent.

H.W. Bush got more against Dukasis, and it's nothing like Reagan-Mondale or Nixon-McGovern.

Don't get me wrong, this was a big win, but electoral numbers hide certain things. 80 percent of people believe the country is in the wrong direction, but Obama didn't get anything close to 80 percent of the vote.

It's a much larger mandate than Bush thought he had in 2004, but it won't take much for America to revert to old voting patterns if the Democrats screw this up.
I know why Barack Obama didn't get more of the vote. 3 reasons; two opponents and one behavior:

McCain, Palin, and racism.

McCain already had a large, dedicated following from 2000 and even before on his own, and thus garnered votes for the ticket from those "center-right" moderates and "toe the line" conservatives, while Palin garnered votes for the ticket from the rest of cons who are evangelical but didn't really like McCain because he is too moderate. The rest of the votes came from the remaining few undecided dems and reps and indys that didn't want to vote for a black man, simply because he is black.

You say Doocockiss... yeah, like he had the following John McCain did... right? :rolleyes:

And of course Obama didn't get 80 percent of the vote, even though 4 in 5 think we're headed in the wrong direction. To me, it looks as if McCain picked up nearly all of the 1 in 5 that did think the US is on the right track, and another 26 out of 80 that didn't think the US was on the right track. Its probably not exact, but that would leave 52 out of 80 people that voted for Obama simply because the country was on the wrong track.

One thing is for sure though. This IS a liberal mandate that the clear majority has now spoken in favor of. The US is not center-right anymore, and I anticipate that even if mistakes are made, the Democrats are going to be running the show for many years to come, simply because so many people will remember the last time we had a con in the White House... it was W, and he royally fucked the nation. People will not forget that.

[Rover]

So, anyone still want to buy into the horseshit line that the US is still center-right?It's not horseshit.

Exit polls 2008

self-identified:
34% conservative
44% moderate
22% liberal

Who conservatives voted for:
78% McCain
20% Obama
----------------------------
Exit polls 2004

self-identified
34% conservative
45% moderate
21% liberal

Who conservatives voted for:
85% Bush
15% Kerry

*Exit polls are all from CNN.

I know it makes you feel good to believe that most people think like you do, but they don't. McCain was 7% points different than Bush among conservatives. Even worse 5% more voted Democrat, which is like losing 2 votes. So, that 5% is more like 10% plus the 4%, who didn't vote or voted someone else, equals 14%.

Obama also won 9% of Republicans and McCain 10% of Democrats, which is 3% better than Kerry and 1% worse than Bush. Party ID is another thing that hurt McCain and can be partially attributed to Bush, but could also be linked to politicians like Ted Stevens and Larry Craig.

2004
37% Republicans
37% Democrats
26% Indpendent
---------------
2008
32% Republicans
39% Democrats
29% Independents

McCain failed to inspire the conservatives in this country. That's it. Sure Bush's unpopularity had something to do with it. Just like Nixon's unpopularity barely got Carter elected. But McCain did a lot worse in conservative areas than he should have. Just look at Indiana. Any normal conservative should win Indiana by 15pts. easy. If you think Indiana is now a center-left state.....I don't know, I wish for things, too.

McCain did really bad among moderates, which I guess should stun him. Moderate Maverick McCain failed among moderates. Moderates went for Obama 60-39 and Kerry 54-44.

Summary:
There were 1% more liberals in 2008 than 2004 and 1% fewer moderates. There are still 12% more voters who self-identify as conservative than liberal. The country is center-right. Maybe in a few more decades it'll shift for you.

[Desperado]

Summary:
There were 1% more liberals in 2008 than 2004 and 1% fewer moderates. There are still 12% more voters who self-identify as conservative than liberal. The country is center-right. Maybe in a few more decades it'll shift for you.

Its funny you say that I was just reading this on CNN


Record turnout? (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/07/record-turnout/)
Posted: 05:00 PM ET

From CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-senior-political-analyst-bill-schneider/)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/07/art.poll.gi.jpg Turnout was nearly the same as in 2004.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

(CNN) — Was there a record turnout in the election?
Of Democrats, yes. Of all voters, not so much.
We expected to see amazingly high voter turnout in this election.
Was there?
Just over 208 million voting-age American citizens were eligible to vote this year. Just over 187 million were registered to vote. Edison Media Research estimates that a total of just over 130 million actually voted for President, either in person or by mail. That's over 62 percent of all Americans eligible to vote. That's two points higher than four years ago. 2008 continues a steady trend of higher voter turnout since 1996. But it's not exactly a quantum leap.
The Center for the Study of the American Elecotrate Explains it this way."A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower-than-predicted turnout. . . . The long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats."

According to the exit polls, the African-American share of the vote did go up slightly, from 11 percent in 2004 to 13 percent in 2008. The white share declined a few points and Latinos stayed the same.
The share of young voters went up by one percentage point. The share of new voters stayed the same.
But there was a noticeable shift by party. Democrats went from 37 percent of voters in 2004 to 40 percent this year. Independents also went up. Republicans declined from 37 to 32. All consistent with pre-election polls that showed Democrats excited and Republicans demoralized.
Something else failed to happen — the so-called "Bradley effect," where voters tell pollsters they intend to vote for an African-American candidate and then don't.
There is no evidence that people were lying to pollsters.
The CNN poll taken by the Opinion Research Corporation just before the election showed Barack Obama getting 53 percent of the vote and John McCain 46 percent. That is exactly what they got.
CNN and Time's pre-election poll, also conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation, showed Obama winning Florida, the biggest battleground state, by four points. Obama won Florida by three.
The pre-election poll predicted Obama would carry Ohio by four. He did.
The story of this election was not so much a huge surge of new voters as it was a huge surge of Democratic enthusiasm. And Republican defeatism.

[taters]

exit polls = the ultimate example of bullshit. A ton of newcoming voters voted via out of state of mail in.

Anyone who buys that super conservative USA vote crap is in for a major upset in 2012. It didnt work in 06, it didnt work even less now. Republican USA's choices are either tie dome with the shrinking 'base' or change. And I mean REAL change, not put more brown people at the forefront (jindal). The people saw through that in 06. The Repub Core needs to re evaluate.

[vasili denisov]

Everything in the world went wrong for the Republicans and right for the Democrats, and Obama still only got 52 percent.

H.W. Bush got more against Dukasis, and it's nothing like Reagan-Mondale or Nixon-McGovern.

Don't get me wrong, this was a big win, but electoral numbers hide certain things. 80 percent of people believe the country is in the wrong direction, but Obama didn't get anything close to 80 percent of the vote.
That Obama "only" got 52 percent of the vote is somewhat of a strange point; to put it in perspective, Reagan's devastating rout of Mondale pulled in "only" 58% of the vote; Bush's defeat of Dukakis, which was after years of prosperity, job growth, and the end of the Cold War, the struggle at the nexus of american foreign policy, was "only" one percentage point more than this.

That 80% of the population thinks the country's in the wrong direction doesn't translate into 80% potential of Obama votes. A section of those who hold those beliefs don't consider Bush's problem to be ideology, but incompetence or poor adherence to conservative ideas. That large numbers of conservatives would vote for Obama would be at best unusual, at worst, a very bad thing. Unusual, because it would suggest they've badly misunderstood the ideas he's presented, and believe they're in cogruence with their own beliefs; a very bad thing, because it requires him to compromise and bend policy to some of the hard conservative ideas of those supporters.

Assuming those conservative voters would take advantage of all available information, the only motivation for voting for Obama would be because, despite their greater agreement with McCain in policy, they felt that Palin made the ticket ineligible for office. However, they could look at polling data going in, and assume their vote was probably unnecessary, given that there was a wide gap in almost every state.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Actually, Obama won 53% of the vote.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

[Whiffleball]

Summary:
There were 1% more liberals in 2008 than 2004 and 1% fewer moderates. There are still 12% more voters who self-identify as conservative than liberal. The country is center-right. Maybe in a few more decades it'll shift for you.

This doesn't make any sense. If McCain was the "moderate maverick" who failed to galvanize the far right of the Republican base, doesn't that mean he was the center-right candidate? If he was the center-right candidate in a center-right country, why didn't he win? Why America vote for the "socialist" and "anti-American" Barack Obama?

The self-labeling you have employed is not reliable. The American people are not highly ideological, much less political. Someone who considers themselves "conservative" in one part of the country may be moderately conservative when it comes to economic issues but fairly liberal on social issues. The inverse is also true -- someone in the Bible Belt who considers themselves "liberal" may be all for retaining Social Security and increasing the minimum wage while also being pro-life and against gay marriage.

It is highly foolish to think that just because someone labels themselves "conservative" or "liberal" that their views mirror the platforms of the Republican or Democratic parties, respectively. And I cannot tell you how many times I have met an "independent" or a "moderate" whose views were essentially right-wing or left-wing but who, for whatever reason, rejected association with any political party.

Consider a study over at Public Opinion Pros, a site for pollsters (http://www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2005/nov/ellis.asp). It found:

"The largest group of self-identified conservatives in the sample was made up of those who held conservative issue preferences only on the narrow dimension of traditional morality—we can classify them as “conflicted” conservatives. The second largest group (“moral” conservatives) were conservative on neither issue dimension. It was only the third largest group (“consistent” conservatives) that held consistently conservative preferences on both issue dimensions. Put another way, nearly three-quarters of self-identified conservatives are not conservative on at least one issue dimension, and considerably more than half hold liberal preferences on the dominant dimension of conflict over the size and scope of government. Simply put, many conservatives are not very conservative."

So why do conservatives appear to have a majority? Why do people say they are conservative when they really aren't? Well, it's not like being a liberal has been in vogue lately...

From the rise of Reagan and the New Right to the present day, the word "liberal" was considered profane in many circles. It brought up images of Jane Fonda and hippies and yogurt-eating, sandals-wearing milquetoast intellectuals wringing their hands and raising taxes (and who honestly likes paying taxes, even when the cause is good?). Even if, in practice, your views fall toward the left, are you really going to openly identify with a group that has, for almost as long as you have been alive, been outcast?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Obama ran a far left campaign, although he certainly is one of the most liberal presidents we've had in a while. There certainly won't be any socialist revolutions, peaceful or otherwise, mind you. But the media declaration that this is a "center-right country" is false. This country has been electing progressive politicians and elected a whole slew of them this year.

Don't take my own word for it. Look around and see how many politicians favor liberal positions on issues such as affordable health care, clean "green" energy solutions, a progressive tax system, the retention of Social Security and fair trade over free trade.

[Yelram]

I guess you arent taking into account that the republicans have had the whitehouse for 8 years, 6 of them, both houses of congress. This is how the pendulum swings. Mccain couldnt get out the true conservative vote in this country, even with Palin. I have never seen conservatives less motivated about voting for the republican candidate. If Obama is moderate during these next 4 years, he'll stand a good chance in 2012, if he swings left in the first term, he wont have a chance at the second. And if he does it too early, we'll see backlash by 2010. Obama won because, at the end, he started appealing to conservatives, and faced with the decision between Obamas possibly lying, and Mccain, its really 6 in one, half dozen in the other. Obama really had MY vote within reach, which is something a few years ago, I never would have believed. His juxtapositioning, and pandering, is really what lost me. I like alot of what he says, and if I could have believed even half of it, if he had a couple more terms in the senate, or had served as a governor, I probably would have voted for him.

[Stax]

I guess you arent taking into account that the republicans have had the whitehouse for 8 years, 6 of them, both houses of congress. This is how the pendulum swings. Mccain couldnt get out the true conservative vote in this country, even with Palin. I have never seen conservatives less motivated about voting for the republican candidate. If Obama is moderate during these next 4 years, he'll stand a good chance in 2012, if he swings left in the first term, he wont have a chance at the second. And if he does it too early, we'll see backlash by 2010. Obama won because, at the end, he started appealing to conservatives, and faced with the decision between Obamas possibly lying, and Mccain, its really 6 in one, half dozen in the other. Obama really had MY vote within reach, which is something a few years ago, I never would have believed. His juxtapositioning, and pandering, is really what lost me. I like alot of what he says, and if I could have believed even half of it, if he had a couple more terms in the senate, or had served as a governor, I probably would have voted for him.

No, he didn't win by appealing to conservatives. He and McCain each won essentially the same splits on those who self-identified as liberals and conservatives as Kerry/Bush did in 04. Obama won, like everyone does, on independents.

[Claydon]

No, he didn't win by appealing to conservatives. He and McCain each won essentially the same splits on those who self-identified as liberals and conservatives as Kerry/Bush did in 04. Obama won, like everyone does, on independents.


Actually that is untrue, Obama ran to the middle after the primaries as most noms eventually have to do. Ie he warmed up to a continued use of force of iraq as opposed to a complete pull out. He warmed up to oil drilling and the list goes on. This is typical politican bullshit...

[Yelram]

No, he didn't win by appealing to conservatives. He and McCain each won essentially the same splits on those who self-identified as liberals and conservatives as Kerry/Bush did in 04. Obama won, like everyone does, on independents.

All appealing to conservatives means is that they didnt come out to vote against him. My original thoughts on the whole thing was "I'd rather vote for a liberal with a D after his name, than a liberal with an R after his name". And I know alot of other people that felt this way as well.

[Rover]

This doesn't make any sense. If McCain was the "moderate maverick" who failed to galvanize the far right of the Republican base, doesn't that mean he was the center-right candidate? If he was the center-right candidate in a center-right country, why didn't he win? Why America vote for the "socialist" and "anti-American" Barack Obama?Not really. Obama was able to hide his liberal positions on lots of issues. Partially thanks to the media, but more because McCain didn't hit him on anything. He'd use phrases like, "Most liberal senator." But wouldn't articulate why Obama's positions were liberal. Just like McCain couldn't articulate his own positions and why they were conservative.

Evertime Obama opened his mouth he said, "Tax cut for 95% of Americans." Which sounds like a really conservative position. Until you came to realize that it wasn't a tax cut, but a tax credit and would redistribute wealth from the rich to people who didn't pay taxes. McCain wasn't able to articulate that in a way that made any sense to people. Really, McCain had no message to run on.

Don't take my own word for it. Look around and see how many politicians favor liberal positions on issues such as affordable health care, clean "green" energy solutions, a progressive tax system, the retention of Social Security and fair trade over free trade.I think the only slogan you missed was "Women's Reproductive Rights." As a conservative, I'm supposed to be in favor of unaffordable healthcare and dirty energy and opposed to a woman's right to reproduce.

Rahm Emanuel's strategy for winning back the House in 2006 was to run moderate Democrats against the Republicans. Fiscally conservative, pro-gun, anti-abortion Democrats. How'd that work out? I'd say great. We'll find out how far moderate Democrats are willing to shift to the Left in order to stay in power.

[vasili denisov]

Not really. Obama was able to hide his liberal positions on lots of issues. Partially thanks to the media, but more because McCain didn't hit him on anything. He'd use phrases like, "Most liberal senator." But wouldn't articulate why Obama's positions were liberal. Just like McCain couldn't articulate his own positions and why they were conservative.
If you have some belief in the market, you believe that players are able to acquire sufficient information to evaluate that they prefer product A over product B. You could acquire information about Obama's plan without relying on McCain or the mainstream media; since most people got their coverage from the internet, they were able to sample from a wide variety of sources. So, we can assume that players (voters) had access to all available information on the products before making their choice.

Given that the information about Obama's plans were out there, the numbers he picked up (a win close to that of the first Bush after eight years of good economic performance and a victory over its chief political adversary), why should Obama concede on his plans in order to acquire a few points from conservatives and moderates who didn't vote for him? This is a point distinct from ideology; were the ideologies flipped, the same question could be asked, and I believe, an answer would still be found wanting.

[Stax]

FWIW Don't laugh too hard at the idea of a President Schwarzenegger one day.

Bad movie actor Republican Governors of California have a good track record in presidential elections.

[hatepoppy]

kashoggi for prez-0-dint!

[Hobnail_Boot]

I find it funny that many of the things Barack has in common with Bush are not even focused on by the media. When Bush wanted "faith based initiatives" the media called him a theological dictator. When Barack endorsed them, he was a "brilliant, well spoken black man". We all know he's a "brilliant, well spoken black man", that doesnt make the position change all of the sudden. Its scary the people who are going to support everything that flows out of his mouth, regardless of how nonsensical it may be. That "faith based initiatives" are just meant to appease a certain portion of the electorate. Folks were "smearing" Obama by calling him a Muslim, after all. He needed a way to "connect" with the Christians in the center and on the left (and even some on the right). He found something that some people liked about Bush and used it.

(I say all of that not to suggest that Obama doesn't genuinely want to pursue those initiatives. I'm sure he does. However, they do server a political purpose as well.)

[Whiffleball]

Not really. Obama was able to hide his liberal positions on lots of issues. Partially thanks to the media, but more because McCain didn't hit him on anything. He'd use phrases like, "Most liberal senator." But wouldn't articulate why Obama's positions were liberal. Just like McCain couldn't articulate his own positions and why they were conservative.

I disagree. Not only was the distinction in their agendas obvious, it was blown out of proportion, especially by McCain and his surrogates. Throughout the campaign, Obama was attacked for wanting surrender in Iraq by pursuing withdrawal, for having socialist economic policies via "spreading the wealth around", for being too far left on social issues (remember sex ed for kindergartners?)... Not only is Vasili right on about people not getting their information from McCain alone, consider the debates where the debates stumped on their issues. Obama portrayed (and rather effectively, might I add) as McCain as the continuation of the Republican policies of George W. Bush -- cowboy diplomacy abroad, fiscal irresponsibility and a massive deficit at home. Obama's solutions were firmly liberal -- a more diplomatic and peaceful approach in regards to foreign policy and an economic agenda aimed at eliminating inequality rather than the "survival of the fittest" of the free market.

Evertime Obama opened his mouth he said, "Tax cut for 95% of Americans." Which sounds like a really conservative position. Until you came to realize that it wasn't a tax cut, but a tax credit and would redistribute wealth from the rich to people who didn't pay taxes. McCain wasn't able to articulate that in a way that made any sense to people. Really, McCain had no message to run on.

While I agree that it didn't make much sense, McCain (with the help of Joe the Plumber) did articulate it as socialism, to the point where Joe Biden was being asked in serious interviews if Obama was a Marxist. If you asked someone whether Obama's tax cuts for the middle class or his so-called "socialism" received more media coverage, I would think the answer would have been obvious. It was pretty much a given that Obama was portrayed as a tax-and-spend liberal because not only did you have the GOP harping on that, but that's the stereotype of all liberals regardless.

I think the only slogan you missed was "Women's Reproductive Rights." As a conservative, I'm supposed to be in favor of unaffordable healthcare and dirty energy and opposed to a woman's right to reproduce.

Like I said in my previous post, it is foolish to assume that all "conservatives" mirror the views of the Republican Party. I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the candidates of recent memory, who have indeed run on the views of the Republican Party because collective responsibility demanded it. On how many issues did John McCain flip-flop alone when he lost the ability to play outside the box and had to wrap himself in the flag of the Grand Ol' Party when he attempted to become their presidential candidate -- both in 2000 and now in 2008?

Rahm Emanuel's strategy for winning back the House in 2006 was to run moderate Democrats against the Republicans. Fiscally conservative, pro-gun, anti-abortion Democrats. How'd that work out? I'd say great. We'll find out how far moderate Democrats are willing to shift to the Left in order to stay in power.

The idea that the Democratic Party won in 2006 by running to the right is a myth. All 30 newly elected House Democrats who took Republican seats advocated raising the minimum wage, supported changing course in Iraq, and opposed any effort to privatize Social Security. All but two supported embryonic stem cell research and only five described themselves as "pro-life" on the issue of abortion. Thirty-seven House and Senate candidates who promoted "fair trade" rather than "free trade" won; none of them lost. Candidates in the freshman class who were conservative on a particular issue got the lion's share of attention, but they were a distinct minority. Congressmen like Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth are indeed "Blue Dog" Democrats but they were not the rule in 2006. If anything, they represented that (just like in 2008) even in supposedly "safe" Republican seats, there was a strong repudiation of Republican governance and politics.

The media is going to keep toting the "center-right country" line because that has been the status quo. At what point are they going to accept that perhaps the more diverse, more progressive America is edging out Sarah Palin's "real" America of Jesusland and Nixonland?

Moreover, who do conservatives think they're fooling when, just weeks ago, they were calling Obama a dangerous socialist and ultimately too liberal for America... and now they're saying he won over conservatives with a "Reaganite" set of policies? The truth is that conservatives are going to talk out of both sides of their mouth to try and attack Obama -- first for having a left-wing agenda and then trying to hold him to their invented right-wing agenda!

S8QSehuskII

[freegood]

Obama's New World Order
http://www.236.com/video/

[TheImpossibleMan]

Whiffleball is frightening.

[kid_vidrio]

Whiffleball is frightening.
Frightenly right on.

Did anyone notice that the voting is not closed and at least one person has voted since Wednesday?

Looking for bandwagon. Will give head?

[Feng]

The Republicans are a frightening bunch... From the Republiposters in this forum, it's pretty clear they have no clue how far down the rabbit hole their party has taken this country, and the rest of the world with it... And then they hope and pray for the day their so-called "party" can take back control, even though technically, their party is still at the helm right now, and for another 2 more months...

I fear the shit storm they are planning to leave on the doorstep of the White House for Obama to step in.

[Mustard]

I fear the shit storm they are planning to leave on the doorstep of the White House for Obama to step in.
I hope they don't leave any **** traps...

I KEED I KEED!!! Settle down you savages.

[Deadhead Derek]

FWIW Don't laugh too hard at the idea of a President Schwarzenegger one day.

Bad movie actor Republican Governors of California have a good track record in presidential elections.working on a constitutional amendment, are we?

[vasili denisov]

EcvQGeDqKHg

[heelsguy]

The Republicans are a frightening bunch... From the Republiposters in this forum, it's pretty clear they have no clue how far down the rabbit hole their party has taken this country, and the rest of the world with it... And then they hope and pray for the day their so-called "party" can take back control, even though technically, their party is still at the helm right now, and for another 2 more months...

I fear the shit storm they are planning to leave on the doorstep of the White House for Obama to step in.

I hope they don't leave any **** traps...

I KEED I KEED!!! Settle down you savages.

you can say a lot of things about Bush--and you all have, and much is deserved--but there is not a more gracious and generous family. Obama will be treated with respect and friendliness. maybe noob Obama will return the favor and not put his foot in his mouth again with some ill-advised quip--as he did at his very first press conference Friday. He then had to issue an apology to Nancy Reagan..

(BTW: nice job, "master orator"! oh, and the "i have spoken with every former president...well the ones still alive.." if Bush had said something as stupid and awkward as that at HIS first press conference, just imagine)

[kid_vidrio]

(BTW: nice job, "master orator"! oh, and the "i have spoken with every former president...well the ones still alive.." if Bush had said something as stupid and awkward as that at HIS first press conference, just imagine)
Yeah, I about choked when I heard that live. But the rest of the conference was excellent - as opposed to Bush whose really bad quips were surrounded by pretty bad ones or complete idiocy.
In addition, what he said was actually pretty funny and he apologized (admitted he was wrong) immediately.
He showed a type of candor that suggests his presidency won't be shrouded in secrecy like the current admin, and on points of sensitivity he was savvy and right on (refused to comment or pointed out that we only have one president at a time.)
Pick on the Reagan comment, because you must. You have very little else at this point to complain about.

[Stax]

working on a constitutional amendment, are we?

It's been proposed a lot. And unlike flag burning amendments or whatever it's a far less controversial issue.

[kid_vidrio]

It's been proposed a lot. And unlike flag burning amendments or whatever it's a far less controversial issue.
The Constitution was born to be a living document.
The purpose of allowing only 'natural born citizens' was more relevant at the time of its writing, and like the many other changes, it would not be hard to imagine this happening.
It's not like Hugo Chavez is going to get naturalized and elected.

[Stax]

The Constitution was born to be a living document.
The purpose of allowing only 'natural born citizens' was more relevant at the time of its writing, and like the many other changes, it would not be hard to imagine this happening.
It's not like Hugo Chavez is going to get naturalized and elected.

Exactly. Especially the very safe versions I've seen proposed, where you have to have lived here for 13 or 20 years, seem perfectly reasonable.

[Smuckers]

Anyone hear the Joe Scarborough "fuck you" gaffe this morning?

[Candycane]

*just an amusing side note

This thread was a poll and After the election Obama's number went up to 122. Perhaps, GMF has provisional ballots.

[hatepoppy]

recountz?

[Feng]

you can say a lot of things about Bush--and you all have, and much is deserved--but there is not a more gracious and generous family. Obama will be treated with respect and friendliness. maybe noob Obama will return the favor and not put his foot in his mouth again with some ill-advised quip--as he did at his very first press conference Friday. He then had to issue an apology to Nancy Reagan..

(BTW: nice job, "master orator"! oh, and the "i have spoken with every former president...well the ones still alive.." if Bush had said something as stupid and awkward as that at HIS first press conference, just imagine)

This didn't bother my ass none... Is referring to Reagan as dead, taboo? Too soon? Please... Obama did not put his foot in his mouth... He was just quickly advised by his staffers that he'd better quash that comment before Fox News turns it against him first! It's called being light-hearted... He also called himself a "mutt" so must he now apologize to every mixed race person??? He quipped that choosing a dog is a top priority, should he apologize for that too.

Sheesh, some of you people are going to grasp at anything you can to try and knock him down... I hope he doesn't forget his flag-lapel pin one day or we'll never hear the end of it (again)!!

[Claydon]

in your eyes obama can do no wrong. he could rape a child on camera for all to see and be declared "a simple misunderstanding".

[rc113943]

in your eyes obama can do no wrong. he could rape a child on camera for all to see and be declared "a simple misunderstanding".


i have to agree, the gaffes by Obama and Biden have gotten NO coverage in the media or talk shows, meanwhile, everything Bush/Palin every did wrong is criticized and mocked to no end

[hatepoppy]

youve got to be shittin me...

we're being manipulated by the media? gtfo.

[Feng]

i have to agree, the gaffes by Obama and Biden have gotten NO coverage in the media or talk shows, meanwhile, everything Bush/Palin every did wrong is criticized and mocked to no end

Biden gaffes got equal air time, they just weren't as bountiful as the McCain/Palin one's... Obama made none, except for the things Fox news twisted into a gaffe, like "spread the wealth"

[rc113943]

youve got to be shittin me...

we're being manipulated by the media? gtfo.

the highlight of my day was probably the omsbudman for the LA Times saying the coverage of the election was heavily tilted toward Obama. Of course, nobody covered that but FoxNews, but at least it was said by someone that isn't perceived as a "screaming conservative in exile"

[hatepoppy]

i will say i go against the grain w most folks by claiming liberal media control. i think the controllers of the media choose to tell their underlings to spin to the left. it's being deliberately manipulated to make you THINK there's a liberal bias in the media. its the desired common perception.

[rc113943]

Biden gaffes got equal air time, they just weren't as bountiful as the McCain/Palin one's... Obama made none, except for the things Fox news twisted into a gaffe, like "spread the wealth"

Obama's gaffe at his press conference was well worth some scrutiny

and if you don't think Biden asking a wheelchair bound man to stand up during his speech wasn't worth a SNL skit, then you have no sense of humor. Or maybe when he butchered the definition of what a VP does. Or when he didn't even know Obama's tax plan. Or the time he said to a citizen from India "you can't even go into a 7-11 in my hometown unless you have an accent" ... really?

[rc113943]

i will say i go against the grain w most folks by claiming liberal media control. i think the controllers of the media choose to tell their underlings to spin to the left. it's being deliberately manipulated to make you THINK there's a liberal bias in the media. its the desired common perception.

maybe you have a point. i'll wait until obama passes the fairness doctrine to prove there is a concerted effort to brainwash the american people

[kid_vidrio]

in your eyes obama can do no wrong. he could rape a child on camera for all to see and be declared "a simple misunderstanding".
Classic.
Raping a child on camera and quipping about a seance are soooooooo equal.
Excellent point, shit for brains.

[rc113943]

Classic.
Raping a child on camera and quipping about a seance are soooooooo equal.
Excellent point, shit for brains.

making a joke at the expense of a republican icon who lost her husband not too long ago and is surely near her own death bed is in pretty bad taste ...

[Candycane]

It's so absurd to keep arguing about all of this. You do know there were several million people pissed off for the last 8 years, right?

[rc113943]

It's so absurd to keep arguing about all of this. You do know there were several million people pissed off for the last 8 years, right?


yeah but i think the media had a huge effect on that, and we won't see that the next four minimum. mr. hardball even came out and said its HIS JOB AS A JOURNALIST to help obama succeed ... imagine if MSNBC had that same objective during the bush administration ...

all i am saying is its depressing that the most liberal senator in history is taking office with his party controlling congress and we're going to hear nothing negative about him, no matter how much we lose the fundamental ideology that makes america a free country

[Morfin]

no matter how much we lose the fundamental ideology that makes america a free country

What exactly is it about Obama that leads you to make this statement?

It can't be a concern about how he'll handle the economic crisis since George Bush led the push for the nationalization of banks and gov't bailouts of private companies.

It can't be a concern about civil liberties since George Bush and his gang pushed through the PATRIOT act which limits civil rights.

It can't be a concern about Obama saying that he wants Gitmo detainees to be tried in U.S. criminal courts with Constitutional civil rights, because that is what "makes America a free country."

So what is it? And don't give me/us that crap about being the most liberal senator or he's a Democrat. Give me facts, or STFU.

[rc113943]

What exactly is it about Obama that leads you to make this statement?

It can't be a concern about how he'll handle the economic crisis since George Bush led the push for the nationalization of banks and gov't bailouts of private companies. that was necessary because of the liberal congress forcing banks to give loans to worthless minorities and keep-up-with-the-joneses middle class to buy homes they couldn't afford

It can't be a concern about civil liberties since George Bush and his gang pushed through the PATRIOT act which limits civil rights. which will pale in comparison to the censorship that obama wants to bring to america, starting with the fairness doctrine. he already kicked mccain-supporting newspapers off his campaign plane, that was a sign of what is to come

It can't be a concern about Obama saying that he wants Gitmo detainees to be tried in U.S. criminal courts with Constitutional civil rights, because that is what "makes America a free country." terrorists do not deserve civil rights, they're goal is to take away those rights from us. that is why gitmo was created, that is why gitmo should never be shut down.

So what is it? And don't give me/us that crap about being the most liberal senator or he's a Democrat. Give me facts, or STFU.

[Claydon]

It's so absurd to keep arguing about all of this. You do know there were several million people pissed off for the last 8 years, right?

yah but they are poor and black, so it does not matter what they think.
:eek:
/sarcasm

[Morfin]

rc: You are truly an idiot.

"Worthless minorities." Nice. No comment needed.

The fairness doctrine -- and I am not a proponent of it -- provides for equal time, but it does not censor.

Terrorists don't deserve civil rights? Not even the ones arrested within the U.S.? Funny, you seem to want to advocate for a "free country," yet you don't have a problem with the PATRIOT Act, which takes away some civil rights, and you want to keep some people from having civil rights.

Yep. Obama's the bogeyman. Ooooh, verrrry scary

[Axel]

EcvQGeDqKHg

[Claydon]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

[Pollo]

anyone watching the O'Reilly Factor tonight? supposedly Phil Donahue will be on later, and gosh if it's anything like their last encounter, this should be alot of fun to watch.

[Ace Rockola]

which will pale in comparison to the censorship that obama wants to bring to america, starting with the fairness doctrine. he already kicked mccain-supporting newspapers off his campaign plane, that was a sign of what is to come

Do you ever research anything? Obama has said he's against the Fairness Doctrine, and has actually said he's open to the airwaves and modern communications having as many viewpoints as possible. ZOMG! That's totally censorship!

And I'm no terrorist supporter nor am I a sympathizer, but to say they deserve no civil rights is ignorant and has no merit. Have you ever heard of lead by example? Isn't the whole reason why we're over there to spread democracy and freedom? How are we supposed to show them the American way of life is so far superior when we lower ourselves to the standards of the dictator we rallied against?

[rc113943]

Do you ever research anything? Obama has said he's against the Fairness Doctrine, and has actually said he's open to the airwaves and modern communications having as many viewpoints as possible. ZOMG! That's totally censorship!

And I'm no terrorist supporter nor am I a sympathizer, but to say they deserve no civil rights is ignorant and has no merit. Have you ever heard of lead by example? Isn't the whole reason why we're over there to spread democracy and freedom? How are we supposed to show them the American way of life is so far superior when we lower ourselves to the standards of the dictator we rallied against?

Obama might be against the Fairness Doctrine but you know damn well he owes the far left a big favor for winning him the election. Congress will pass it and he will sign it as a "thank you" to his supporters. New politics? Bullshit. Rahmbo and Obama are going to continue to same old washington politics, just further left than we've ever seen it before.

[Morfin]

"OOOOHHHH NOOOO, the sky is falling. The sky is falling." Same crap we all heard from the Republicans in 1992.

I swear, I vote almost straight Republican, except for Obama, my first vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. But reading posts from rc and Yelram are leading me to vote against all Republicans if they, in even the tiniest way, represent Republican viewpoints.

[rc113943]

"OOOOHHHH NOOOO, the sky is falling. The sky is falling." Same crap we all heard from the Republicans in 1992.

I swear, I vote almost straight Republican, except for Obama, my first vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. But reading posts from rc and Yelram are leading me to vote against all Republicans if they, in even the tiniest way, represent Republican viewpoints.

if you honestly think the viewpoints I have aren't the reality of our situation, do us all a favor and jump over the border

[Morfin]

if you honestly think the viewpoints I have aren't the reality of our situation, do us all a favor and jump over the border

That's what I fear: That your and Yelram's viewpoints are shared by many others. Talk about depressing.

[rc113943]

That's what I fear: That your and Yelram's viewpoints are shared by many others. Talk about depressing.


You're right. It is depressing. I've had friends of mine tell me the more they learn about politics and the change in this country and more they just want to stick their head back in the sand.

There is no question it is sad, scary, and very depressing. But it is the reality and the more we as a country just look the other way because it makes our day or life easier we are falling deeper into the trap.

It is going to be a fight to change America, and a fight is difficult. Hard work is what built America and without a fight we'll lose everything we ever stood for in the first place. In 40 years, you'll sit down with your kids and tell them stories about America when it was a free country where you made your own decisions and everyone had the right to dream for personal success by their own means

[kareyn01]

You're right. It is depressing. I've had friends of mine tell me the more they learn about politics and the change in this country and more they just want to stick their head back in the sand.

There is no question it is sad, scary, and very depressing. But it is the reality and the more we as a country just look the other way because it makes our day or life easier we are falling deeper into the trap.

It is going to be a fight to change America, and a fight is difficult. Hard work is what built America and without a fight we'll lose everything we ever stood for in the first place. In 40 years, you'll sit down with your kids and tell them stories about America when it was a free country where you made your own decisions and everyone had the right to dream for personal success by their own means

How did you manage to quote Sarah Palin quoting Ronald Reagan without premature ejaculation?

[Yelram]

"OOOOHHHH NOOOO, the sky is falling. The sky is falling." Same crap we all heard from the Republicans in 1992.

I swear, I vote almost straight Republican, except for Obama, my first vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. But reading posts from rc and Yelram are leading me to vote against all Republicans if they, in even the tiniest way, represent Republican viewpoints.

What exactly do you not agree with me on? Instead of demonizing my views, and grouping them together so you have a focal point for your disgust, why dont you please tell me what you disagree with. I was going to vote for Obama, until he lost my trust. Once he lost my trust, I cant believe a word he says. Heres the difference. YOU TRUST HIM, and we dont. If thats your disagreement with me, I would really like to see WHY YOU TRUST HIM, and that means beyond taking him for his word.

[Morfin]

Yelram, I am not going to go through the hundreds of posts where you set out your crazy opinions regarding Obama's birth country, whether his birth certificate was faked, his "associations" with bad people, that the public is just a bunch of sheep led around by the mainstream media. You have demonized him.

As to your question of why I trust him "beyond taking him for his word," that is exactly what trust is -- taking him at his word, believing in him, moreso than in his opponent. I look at Obama and I see someone who has a set belief system; I looked at McCain and I saw "Old Washington ways;" I saw someone who changed his views based in order to get nominated and elected; I saw someone who hired as political advisors, the same people who shamelessly racially-slurred him in 2000 in South Carolina; I saw someone who chose an unqualified person to be his VP; I saw someone who inexplicably announced that he was suddenly suspending his campaign due to the economic crisis. The list is endless. My point being that, while I do not blindly trust Obama, I certainly am more than willing to put my trust in him as opposed to McCain.

I like the fact that he is younger; I like the fact that he is supremely intelligent; I like the fact that he is charismatic and will help to soothe not only Americans' fears, but those of other countries; I like the fact that he chose someone experienced to be his VP.

Obama's election is not unlike that of Kennedy in 1960 where America chose a new, fresh face over an old, tired one. Do not forget the great feeling throughout America during the early-60's in the Camelot years.

Yes, I do fear Obama's tax ideas (especially since I am in the income bracket where there will be tax increases, and because I am self-employed, meaning I paid the full FICA amount, not the half-amount like employed workers, if he raises the FICA limit, I will pay even more in tax. But, overall, I am more willing to put my trust in Obama than McCain, which is why, for the first time in 8 presidential election in which I have voted, I cast my vote for a Democrat.

[hatepoppy]

Yelram, I am not going to go through the hundreds of posts where you set out your crazy opinions regarding Obama's birth country, whether his birth certificate was faked, his "associations" with bad people, that the public is just a bunch of sheep led around by the mainstream media. You have demonized him.

As to your question of why I trust him "beyond taking him for his word," that is exactly what trust is -- taking him at his word, believing in him, moreso than in his opponent. I look at Obama and I see someone who has a set belief system; I looked at McCain and I saw "Old Washington ways;" I saw someone who changed his views based in order to get nominated and elected; I saw someone who hired as political advisors, the same people who shamelessly racially-slurred him in 2000 in South Carolina; I saw someone who chose an unqualified person to be his VP; I saw someone who inexplicably announced that he was suddenly suspending his campaign due to the economic crisis. The list is endless. My point being that, while I do not blindly trust Obama, I certainly am more than willing to put my trust in him as opposed to McCain.

I like the fact that he is younger; I like the fact that he is supremely intelligent; I like the fact that he is charismatic and will help to soothe not only Americans' fears, but those of other countries; I like the fact that he chose someone experienced to be his VP.

Obama's election is not unlike that of Kennedy in 1960 where America chose a new, fresh face over an old, tired one. Do not forget the great feeling throughout America during the early-60's in the Camelot years.

Yes, I do fear Obama's tax ideas (especially since I am in the income bracket where there will be tax increases, and because I am self-employed, meaning I paid the full FICA amount, not the half-amount like employed workers, if he raises the FICA limit, I will pay even more in tax. But, overall, I am more willing to put my trust in Obama than McCain, which is why, for the first time in 8 presidential election in which I have voted, I cast my vote for a Democrat.

YOURE OLD AS SHIT!

8 * 4 + 18 = 50 at least!

[rc113943]

Yelram, I am not going to go through the hundreds of posts where you set out your crazy opinions regarding Obama's birth country, whether his birth certificate was faked, his "associations" with bad people, that the public is just a bunch of sheep led around by the mainstream media. You have demonized him.

As to your question of why I trust him "beyond taking him for his word," that is exactly what trust is -- taking him at his word, believing in him, moreso than in his opponent. I look at Obama and I see someone who has a set belief system; I looked at McCain and I saw "Old Washington ways;" I saw someone who changed his views based in order to get nominated and elected; I saw someone who hired as political advisors, the same people who shamelessly racially-slurred him in 2000 in South Carolina; I saw someone who chose an unqualified person to be his VP; I saw someone who inexplicably announced that he was suddenly suspending his campaign due to the economic crisis. The list is endless. My point being that, while I do not blindly trust Obama, I certainly am more than willing to put my trust in him as opposed to McCain.

I like the fact that he is younger; I like the fact that he is supremely intelligent; I like the fact that he is charismatic and will help to soothe not only Americans' fears, but those of other countries; I like the fact that he chose someone experienced to be his VP.

Obama's election is not unlike that of Kennedy in 1960 where America chose a new, fresh face over an old, tired one. Do not forget the great feeling throughout America during the early-60's in the Camelot years.

Yes, I do fear Obama's tax ideas (especially since I am in the income bracket where there will be tax increases, and because I am self-employed, meaning I paid the full FICA amount, not the half-amount like employed workers, if he raises the FICA limit, I will pay even more in tax. But, overall, I am more willing to put my trust in Obama than McCain, which is why, for the first time in 8 presidential election in which I have voted, I cast my vote for a Democrat.

thanks for proving the point that this election was won for all the wrong reasons. nobody considers the reprecussions of electing the most liberal senator in the history of congress as president. they just see a young face who can read a teleprompter. give me a break! Kennedy? Are you kidding me? You are reaching back too far in your history books, Obama is this generation's Jimmy Carter

[TheImpossibleMan]

thanks for proving the point that this election was won for all the wrong reasons. nobody considers the reprecussions of electing the most liberal senator in the history of congress as president. they just see a young face who can read a teleprompter. give me a break! Kennedy? Are you kidding me? You are reaching back too far in your history books, Obama is this generation's Jimmy Carter
Try and keep your hyperbole in check, no one has ever argued that he's the most liberal Congressman in the history of the United States. Or that he's even the most liberal Congressman today (have you SEEN some of the members of the House?). The argument is that he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

[Morfin]

thanks for proving the point that this election was won for all the wrong reasons. nobody considers the reprecussions of electing the most liberal senator in the history of congress as president. they just see a young face who can read a teleprompter. give me a break! Kennedy? Are you kidding me? You are reaching back too far in your history books, Obama is this generation's Jimmy Carter


Wah, Wah, Wah. Scoreboard.

[redsox39]

thanks for proving the point that this election was won for all the wrong reasons. nobody considers the reprecussions of electing the most liberal senator in the history of congress as president. they just see a young face who can read a teleprompter. give me a break! Kennedy? Are you kidding me? You are reaching back too far in your history books, Obama is this generation's Jimmy Carter

Besides the fact that we annoint JFK as some great president when his track record is more fucked up that Bush's!

Once again, the pont is that people like a well spoken, well groomed, good looking martyr more than any issue.

[hatepoppy]

thanks for proving the point that this election was won for all the wrong reasons. nobody considers the reprecussions of electing the most liberal senator in the history of congress as president. they just see a young face who can read a teleprompter. give me a break! Kennedy? Are you kidding me? You are reaching back too far in your history books, Obama is this generation's Jimmy Carter

Try and keep your hyperbole in check, no one has ever argued that he's the most liberal Congressman in the history of the United States. Or that he's even the most liberal Congressman today (have you SEEN some of the members of the House?). The argument is that he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

most liberal senator voting record in history, or right now? are there any numbers on this?

[Tar Heel]

You're right. It is depressing. I've had friends of mine tell me the more they learn about politics and the change in this country and more they just want to stick their head back in the sand.

There is no question it is sad, scary, and very depressing. But it is the reality and the more we as a country just look the other way because it makes our day or life easier we are falling deeper into the trap.

It is going to be a fight to change America, and a fight is difficult. Hard work is what built America and without a fight we'll lose everything we ever stood for in the first place. In 40 years, you'll sit down with your kids and tell them stories about America when it was a free country where you made your own decisions and everyone had the right to dream for personal success by their own means

Wow. It is very clear that you get all of your news from talk radio. I hated Bush, but when he was re-elected I took him as my president and hoped I was wrong. I have a degree in Political science and a degree in business. The more you study the political system in america the less simple everything becomes. I know that I could be wrong about every issue that I have an opinion on. I don't think I am, but no one can say with any certainty that their point of view is the right one. Almost every issue of any merit requires teams of experts to create and argue over. Then they dumb down the arguments into shitty talking points for both parties to use.

That's why I hate all this gloom and doom talk about the new president elect. He hasn't done anything yet and everyone that didn't vote for him thinks that we will be saluting stalin in 4 years. Get real. Dubbya reduced the civil liberties of Americans more than any president in modern history and it still has barely effected me or most others. Just wait to see what he does before throwing yourt hands up in defeat like a damn Franch cheese eating surrendur monkey.

The one thing I do like about Obama's past is that (outside of the US Senate) he has a clear history of being a very fair and open minded person. I say "outside the US senate" because he was clearly positioning himself within the party for the presidency while in the US senate. He on many occasions ends up having people in his own party pissed at him than the other way around. When he was president of the Harvard law review, it was the conservative federalisats that got him elected at a time when the HLR was more divided than ever. He then went on to promote people based on who he thought would do the best job. Many people on his own side of the asile felt betrayed when he promoted conservatives who he thought were better qualified. I think and hope that Obama will put more emphasis on running a tight ship than promoting people based on party affiliation or ideals.

In the end. Worrying about politics is like trying to rape a grizzly bear. You accomplish nothing and just fuck yourself up over it. There is no point in worrying over something that you or almost anyone else don't completely understand, have no power to fix, or are going to do anything about.

[TheImpossibleMan]

most liberal senator voting record in history, or right now? are there any numbers on this?There are, though I admit I don't know what they are. I just know that the argument has always been that he had the most liberal record in the senate.

[Tar Heel]

most liberal senator voting record in history, or right now? are there any numbers on this?

Being in the senate for 4 years, Obama was clearly positioning himself within the party. If he hadn't voted with the right dems he would have never gotten by Hillary.

[Morfin]

Once again, the pont is that people like a well spoken, well groomed, good looking martyr more than any issue.

This point cannot be overstated. One only needs to look at Reagan (other than being a martyr) to see that this is true. People liked the feeling of security when looking to Reagan (in the role of wise old grampa) when there was trouble. Also, like his politics or not, he made no bones about where he stood and he stuck with it. I see Obama as a potential heir in terms of someone we can look to and feel good about ourselves and our country. Maybe it'll play out the other way. No one knows.

[rc113943]

This point cannot be overstated. One only needs to look at Reagan (other than being a martyr) to see that this is true. People liked the feeling of security when looking to Reagan (in the role of wise old grampa) when there was trouble. Also, like his politics or not, he made no bones about where he stood and he stuck with it. I see Obama as a potential heir in terms of someone we can look to and feel good about ourselves and our country. Maybe it'll play out the other way. No one knows.


Jesus Christ did you really just compare Obama to Reagan? I just threw up in my mouth twice.

[hatepoppy]

Being in the senate for 4 years, Obama was clearly positioning himself within the party. If he hadn't voted with the right dems he would have never gotten by Hillary.
so youre saying he stole the election?

[Morfin]

Jesus Christ did you really just compare Obama to Reagan? I just threw up in my mouth twice.

Good. That was the plan. Now aspirate, choke, and die.

[rc113943]

so youre saying he stole the election?

No he is saying that Obama owes the far left a big favor ... which brings back the discussion regarding the Fairness Doctrine .. that will be his "thank you" to them

[hatepoppy]

No he is saying that Obama owes the far left a big favor ... which brings back the discussion regarding the Fairness Doctrine .. that will be his "thank you" to them
i know its crazy to consider, given the setting here on GMF, but read a post, and deduce whther it was serious or ridiculous.

if it sounds serious, someone's fuckin w you.
if it sounds ridiculous, someone's fuckin w you.
if it sounds retarded\racist\fagatronic someone is claydon or ptaterz.

[Tar Heel]

Once again, the pont is that people like a well spoken, well groomed, good looking martyr more than any issue.

Once again?

You mean like dubbya?

[redsox39]

Once again?

You mean like dubbya?


You MIGHT be in the minority by thinking Bush was well spoken and good looking...

[hatepoppy]

You MIGHT be in the minority by thinking Bush was well spoken and good looking...
someone forgot their sarcasm detector at their mom's house.

[Morfin]

While part of me wants to say, "Hey, look at how the economy is growing since Obama got elected," I can't help but be afraid, very afraid. (Be sure to check out the part where they say a lot of the sales are of automatic assault rifles.)

Guns sales surge after Obama's election

The owner of a gun shop in the Washington suburb of Manassas, Virginia, Conatser said sales have doubled or tripled the numbers he racked up in late October. Saturday, he said, he did as much business as he would normally do in a week.

"I have been in business for 12 years, and I was here for Y2K, September 11, Katrina," Conatser said, as a steady stream of customers browsed what remained of his stock. "And all of those were big events, and we did notice a spike in business, but nothing on the order of what we are seeing right now."

Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago. Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.

According to FBI figures for the week of November 3 to 9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers -- a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models -- such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 -- and is running low on others.

Such assault weapons are among the firearms that gun dealers and customers say they fear Obama will hit with new restrictions, or even take off the market.

Virginia gun owner Kyle Lewandowski said he was buying a .45-caliber pistol to "hedge my bets."

"Every election year, you have to worry about your rights being eroded a little bit at a time," he said. "I also knew, because of the Democrat majority and because of the election, everybody would have the same reaction I did," he added.

Dealers in Colorado, Ohio, Connecticut and New Hampshire also reported seeing major increases.

"It's a fact that the liberal Democrats that now control all three branches of our government do not like guns. They want us out of business," Connecticut resident Scott Hoffman said. "They don't want the average American to have a right to defend themselves."

And New Hampshire gun owner Lloyd Clement said, "I think there's going to be an attack to some degree on the gun owners."

The Clinton administration imposed a ban on several types of military-style semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines in 1994, but that ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. Obama has proposed restoring the ban, requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows, and other "common-sense measures."

He has said he supports the rights of local governments to set their own gun laws, but believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects individual gun rights.

"I believe the Second Amendment means something. I do think it speaks to an individual right," Obama said in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in February.

With the U.S. economy in a tailspin, however, the president-elect's advisers say gun legislation is not a high priority.

"What people do is their own business, and if they decide to go out and buy guns they'll go out and buy guns, assuming that they are eligible to buy guns," John Podesta, the co-chairman of Obama's transition team, told reporters Sunday. "But I think that President-elect Obama has been clear in his campaign that what he wants to focus on is the economy, trying to get jobs growing again, dealing with the health care crisis, and dealing with our dependence on foreign oil."

Some customers are stocking up specifically on ammunition and point to concerns raised by the National Rifle Association, which ran anti-Obama ads during the campaign.

The NRA said Obama would support a "huge new tax on my guns and ammo," referencing a 1999 article in a Chicago newspaper saying the then-Illinois state senator promoted a plan to increase federal taxes by 500 percent on the sales of firearms and ammunition.
advertisement

But as a state legislator, Obama would not have had any control over federal taxes. And as a U.S. senator and presidential candidate, he has not introduced or promoted such a proposal.

"I don't really believe it is fear. It is more there is just uncertainty," said Virginia customer David Reynolds, who was buying ammunition in the store as well as ordering more online. "You know, we don't really know what is going on. There really hasn't been a lot of clear direction on where he supports it, although he says he supports the Second Amendment. But it just remains to be seen. I think some people are just uncomfortable with what his policy may be."Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/index.html#cnnSTCText)

[hatepoppy]

im buyin a gun in case 'bammer gets whacked off. you think MLK's assassination caused riots?

LTFO, son.

ok, im not gonna get a gun. but still.

[Axel]

You MIGHT be in the minority by thinking Bush was well spoken and good looking...PM syndicate for a sarcasm detector

[Alcestis]

PM syndicate for a sarcasm detector

Hell, I have them wholesale.

[Rover]

While part of me wants to say, "Hey, look at how the economy is growing since Obama got elected," I can't help but be afraid, very afraid. (Be sure to check out the part where they say a lot of the sales are of automatic assault rifles.)

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/index.html#cnnSTCText)I've thought about picking up a couple more ARs, since Obama's election. It only makes sense. They've banned these guns once before. Why wouldn't they do it again?

The AR-15 is not automatic. It is semi-automatic. Modifying your AR-15 to be fully automatic is illegal.

Paranoia strikes deep / into your life it will creep

[Whiffleball]

I've thought about picking up a couple more ARs, since Obama's election. It only makes sense. They've banned these guns once before. Why wouldn't they do it again?

The AR-15 is not automatic. It is semi-automatic. Modifying your AR-15 to be fully automatic is illegal.

Paranoia strikes deep / into your life it will creep

They wouldn't do it again for a number of reasons. First of all, they don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for Democrats to do whatever they like. Secondly, even the 1994 ban was largely worked around by gun companies who made models virtually identical to the guns that were supposed to be outlawed. Thirdly, any ban would have anti-gun control politicians putting on ANOTHER sunset provision, eventually rendering the ban meaningless in a couple of years. Fourthly, while many Americans want more gun control, they prefer better enforcement of existing laws than new ones. Finally, there is more of an emphasis on resolving the Iraq War and recovering the economy than banning automatic weapons.

There's the little issue of the fact that the Obama people said they weren't planning on pursuing another ban. But I doubt these are the people who would trust Obama anyway.

Ironically, the most recent bill put forward to bring back the ban (http://forum.gorillamask.net/Assault%20Weapons%20Ban%20Reauthorization%20Act) was done so by a Republican congressman. Those evil Republicans and their hatred of our freedoms!

EDIT: I almost forgot the Supreme Court bringing down the ban on handguns in D.C., meaning any gun control law would probably be tested in the courts, making it a largely difficult if not fruitless endeavor.

[Archangel]

Other than their guns, their money, and their right to kill everybody but embryos, do "conservatives" care about anything anymore?

[Mustard]

Other than their guns, their money, and their right to kill everybody but embryos, do "conservatives" care about anything anymore?
Yeah, they don't want the fags to get married, and they want hyper-conservative judges on the SCOTUS.

[Archangel]

That's it, then?



What a profound ideology...

[Mustard]

Takes "Keep it simple, stupid" to a new level, don't it? You betcha!

[Pox]

You guys are acting like tools.

[Mustard]

So I take it you have nothing further to add to the discussion then Mr. Pox?

[Pox]

Yea, conservatives are poop heads also.

[Mustard]

That's the spirit! That attitude will take you far in life.

[Archangel]

I was being serious, though. All I hear is "raise taxes" and "take away our guns".

So if a candidate promises not to do those two things, are Republicans gonna say that he stands for freedom and the American way, no matter how much he sucks otherwise?

It's how the concept of "liberty" in the minds of spoilt people has devolved to this that irks me.

[Whiffleball]

You guys are acting like tools.

After the last eight years? You betcha.

I don't so much have disdain for conservatives as I do for the present Republican agenda, which has become heavily radicalized after over 25 years of success. For all their accusations of a far left agenda taking shape amongst the Democrats, I think the GOP should be concerned that they have been pandering too much to the far right, to the groups that bother moderates and independents: evangelicals, anti-government fanatics, neo-conservatives, etc.

Instead of decrying welfare and big government, how about promising to run that stuff better as opposed to just getting rid of it? How about embracing the tolerance of minority groups like homosexuals and granting them greater rights, as Lincoln did when he opposed slavery? The Republican Party can still be the party of promoting fiscal conservatism and business-friendly policies, but you actually have to follow through -- no huge deficits like under Reagan and the Bushes! And you can still rattle that defense stick, but do it in such a way as you protect ourselves and our interests and opposed to invading anyone who MIGHT some day somewhere at some point become our enemy! I mean, people recognize that we need businesses and that national security is important... We just don't agree with the extreme levels you've taken it recently. Now you just don't look credible.

Oh, and instead of going with a charming, folksy person who thought with their gut rather their brain, who is largely uninformed and not intellectually curious, who has a record of supporting things that alienate huge chunks of people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin) like you did in 2000... Go with a Barack Obama.

And no, I don't mean a brown person or even a minority. And they don't even need to be well-spoken, although that would be a welcome change. I mean someone who embraces working with others rather than dividing us. I mean someone who will really try and heal the wounds rather than deepen them. I mean someone who will stand up there and be a little professorial, as if they actually know what they are talking about, and a little statesman-like, as if they won't embarrass us in front of the rest of the world. We really don't want someone who we want to have beer with to be president. We want someone who we think will do a good job as president to be president.

Look, you guys have been COMPLETELY wiped out in New England. You can't keep relying on Jesusland to get you through. You need to start winning over a larger base. And really, while I don't agree with you guys and still wouldn't even if you were more moderate, a more sensible Republican Party would mean I wouldn't be completely freaked out at the idea of you guys winning a national election.

[Mustard]

I was only being quasi-serious. While the discussion is deeper than what I have presented, in reality, if you take the five or so major areas of conservative policy and place a candidate relatively anywhere who subscribes to all of them, then they will always get almost all of the conservative vote.

Five tennents = almost all of the vote. So while they might not exactly be the deepest of philosophical thinkers, when it comes to those core ideas, they will bleed all over the flag before they give them up.

Funny enough, when I swing that sharp-edged pendulum back at liberals, there too, are about five core tennents they also subscribe to, and all of the things about cons are true for the libs.

These are the two collective hive minds that make up the large majority of voters in the US. Sad, aint it?

[Archangel]

Yeah, the next time I hear some petrol station attendant talking about how he wants "someone like himself" to run the country, I'm gonna fucking flip.

The question is, if the GOP can bring forth a candidate who actually stands for that venerable party's actual values rather than dumbed down empty slogans for the double-wide crowd, will he be able to heal the rifts between his party and the urban intellectuals of America, whom the Republicans have basically made out to be a public enemy these past years?

[Archangel]

I was only being quasi-serious. While the discussion is deeper than what I have presented, in reality, if you take the five or so major areas of conservative policy and place a candidate relatively anywhere who subscribes to all of them, then they will always get almost all of the conservative vote.

Five tennents = almost all of the vote. So while they might not exactly be the deepest of philosophical thinkers, when it comes to those core ideas, they will bleed all over the flag before they give them up.

Funny enough, when I swing that sharp-edged pendulum back at liberals, there too, are about five core tennents they also subscribe to, and all of the things about cons are true for the libs.

These are the two collective hive minds that make up the large majority of voters in the US. Sad, aint it?

The thing is, on a very basic ethical level, healthcare for the poor is plain better than assault rifles for everyone.

[Mustard]

Yeah, the next time I hear some petrol station attendant talking about how he wants "someone like himself" to run the country, I'm gonna fucking flip.

The question is, if the GOP can bring forth a candidate who actually stands for that venerable party's actual values rather than dumbed down empty slogans for the double-wide crowd, will he be able to heal the rifts between his party and the urban intellectuals of America, whom the Republicans have basically made out to be a public enemy these past years?
If in 2012 they bring forward and nominate a candidate like Mitt Romney, then we will have witnessed that it has become (at least more) clear to the GOP that moving further right to please the "double-wide, bible thumping" crowd is a mistake.

If in 2012 they bring forward and nominate a candidate like Sarah Palin, then we will have witnessed that it has become very clear that the GOP just doesn't understand that moving further to the right to please the "double-wide, bible thumping" crowd is a mistake.

At least, thats the way I see it.

[Archangel]

As a right winger, your right wing makes me sad.

[Mustard]

As a left winger, your left wing makes me want to vomit.

[Archangel]

Good point.

[Mustard]

Maybe we're both just moderates, living a world apart?

[Archangel]

The funniest thing is that they try to base their hateful shit on the Bible.


I remember reading a lot about Jesus caring for the sick, the poor, and the unwelcome: I've yet to hear about the Lord handing out machine guns and invading foreign countries...

[Archangel]

Maybe we're both just moderates, living a world apart?

Yeah, what we call right wing conservative pretty much coincides with the outlook of the American moderate left.

What you call right wing conservative, we call "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!"

[Mustard]

The funniest thing is that they try to base their hateful shit on the Bible.


I remember reading a lot about Jesus caring for the sick, the poor, and the unwelcome: I've yet to hear about the Lord handing out machine guns and invading foreign countries...

I dunno about you, but I don't find that point very funny. Stupid yes, funny no.

Besides, you're trying to deduce a logical conclusion when you're regarding a wholly illogical institution, Evangelical America.

[Archangel]

As a Christian, evangelicals make me want to go Muslim on a mother fucker.

[Mustard]

Yeah, what we call right wing conservative pretty much coincides with the outlook of the American moderate left.

What you call right wing conservative, we call "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!"
Yeah, its fucking crazy. And the left of your neck of the woods we here regard as moonbat shit-for-brains.

Tree hugging, baby-killing liberals here would look at them and say, "woah, don't you think you can tone it down a bit?"

[Archangel]

Yeah, living in a country where the former East German communist party might actually get some seats in parliament next year, all the American talk about how Obama is a socialist makes me laugh.

[Mustard]

Yeah, living in a country where the former East German communist party might actually get some seats in parliament next year, all the American talk about how Obama is a socialist makes me laugh.
Dude, you don't have to tell me. Its all horseshit fearmongering propaganda by the GOP. They haven't a fucking clue on Earth what real dyed-in-the-wool socialism is. Hell, I don't even know beyond my readings of what real socialism is actually like, because I've never experienced it first hand. I can only extrapolate from what I've read, which to be honest, isn't too much. With that said, I'm far better acquainted with it than the zero or slightly above zero the average Joe here in the US is, but that don't mean shit to them. They hear socialism, think communism, and shit their collective pants, while in reality if they knew the fucking difference... wait, they'll never know the difference. To evangelicals, ignorance is bliss.

[kid_vidrio]

"I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is.
"Even if it's cracked up a little bit, maybe I'll plough right on through that and maybe prematurely plough through it, but don't let me miss an open door,"
Good luck with all this RNC. You lost me though.

[Archangel]

http://4.media.bustedtees.com/bustedtees/mf/f/2/bustedtees.4307e88f91b95c9b0cd0c562712653c0.gif

[heelsguy]

Yeah, the next time I hear some petrol station attendant talking about how he wants "someone like himself" to run the country, I'm gonna fucking flip.

The question is, if the GOP can bring forth a candidate who actually stands for that venerable party's actual values rather than dumbed down empty slogans for the double-wide crowd, will he be able to heal the rifts between his party and the urban intellectuals of America, whom the Republicans have basically made out to be a public enemy these past years?


for saying "petro station attendant", you must voluntarily ban yourself for 3 hours, Arch. honestly, what the fuck?

but republicans these last 8 years did completely stray from the ideals and principles that drew my father and myself to that party. smaller goverment...lower taxes. my dad held 3 patents as an engineer while working for Carrier air conditioning, and made good damn money for it...he did not like that high income tax rate he was paying prior to Reagan.

[Yelram]

Watching you guys talk about conservatives is like watching sink try to find a clitoris. "Yeah we need a conservative candidate that is farther left, so you cant even tell the difference between the two". Mccain was about as liberal as a republican can be without being ran out of the fucking party. And you guys think all we need to do is go further left. After a couple years of Obama, you'll see the republicans become resurgent. Its funny how Liberals FINALLY win an election, and suddenly they are writing books about "how can the conservatives become more like us, so they can win elections too". Even though this is the first time they won with a popular majority since Jimmy Carter. All we rely on is liberals doing what they do best, njecting government into every facet of public life. The democratic party works best when its the opposition party. The minute they get power, they show everyone why we didnt vote for them for the past 14 years or so. Obama is slightly different, because he pandered to conservatives. If he carries through with his pandering, he'll probably be fine in 2012, if he does what most people see coming, the dems will have problems as early as 2010. You are going to see businesses leaving this country so fast it will make your head spin. Atleast the ones that the government doesnt "bail out".

[kid_vidrio]

Watching you guys talk about conservatives is like watching sink try to find a clitoris. "Yeah we need a conservative candidate that is farther left, so you cant even tell the difference between the two". Mccain was about as liberal as a republican can be without being ran out of the fucking party. And you guys think all we need to do is go further left.
I'm sure you'll agree that 'liberal' doesn't mean 'intelligent' or 'logical.'
No one is saying the RNC needs to move left politically. If you would read closer, something you're not wanton to do, you would see that they are 'babbling on' about having a conservative candidate that isn't an education hating, anti-intellectual, bible thumping, hypocritical, ignorant fucking asshole. Is that really so much to ask for?

[Yelram]

I'm sure you'll agree that 'liberal' doesn't mean 'intelligent' or 'logical.'
No one is saying the RNC needs to move left politically. If you would read closer, something you're not wanton to do, you would see that they are 'babbling on' about having a conservative candidate that isn't an education hating, anti-intellectual, bible thumping, hypocritical, ignorant fucking asshole. Is that really so much to ask for?

Education hating? Anti-intellectual? What the fuck does that even mean? Bible thumping? I'll give you hypocritical, but i've yet to find a politician who isnt. What you mean is "liberals are immediately smarter than conservatives, and any candidate who doesnt spout liberal Jargon is a big dummy".

Education in this country has become political indoctrination. So you can call someone "anti-intellectual", because they dont agree with many liberal assumptions. If they have a religion, that they actually believe, they are immediately a "bible thumper" by the liberal definition. The schools have taught that religion is for dumb suckers, and lower taxes for everyone is somehow a "taxcut for the rich".

[heelsguy]

what's up with the kinkos-quality seal that obama has on his podium which reads "THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT" ? seriously. this guy is really into the trappings of being prez. can he not wait until he gets the real seal? i remember during the campaign he had another seal that he had to ditch after being ridiculed:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/20/newseals.ap.wh.jpg

[kid_vidrio]

Marketing 101. Emulate images of power.

[kid_vidrio]

Education hating? Anti-intellectual? What the fuck does that even mean? Bible thumping? I'll give you hypocritical, but i've yet to find a politician who isnt. What you mean is "liberals are immediately smarter than conservatives, and any candidate who doesnt spout liberal Jargon is a big dummy".

Education in this country has become political indoctrination. So you can call someone "anti-intellectual", because they dont agree with many liberal assumptions. If they have a religion, that they actually believe, they are immediately a "bible thumper" by the liberal definition. The schools have taught that religion is for dumb suckers, and lower taxes for everyone is somehow a "taxcut for the rich".
I didn't say dumb or uneducated. I said anti-intellectual, which means Republican think-tanks don't just fail to discuss philosophical points that could inspire and be implemented, but instead apply their intelligence to things like how to connect 9/11 to Iraq.
The cornerstone of their policy is secrecy and deception, and that is far from what built this country.

[heelsguy]

Marketing 101. Emulate images of power.

but he's a proud, tall confident black man with a "mandate" and every major city newspaper editor in his back pocket. ha ha

[Morfin]

What you mean is "liberals are immediately smarter than conservatives, and any candidate who doesnt spout liberal Jargon is a big dummy".

This has got to be the best example of the "Pot calling the kettle black," that I have ever seen.

[Yelram]

I didn't say dumb or uneducated. I said anti-intellectual, which means Republican think-tanks don't just fail to discuss philosophical points that could inspire and be implemented, but instead apply their intelligence to things like how to connect 9/11 to Iraq.
The cornerstone of their policy is secrecy and deception, and that is far from what built this country.

WTF are you talking about?

[Tar Heel]

Fear being the driving force of GOP campaigning for the last decade?

[Pax Britannia]

Both sides use fear. Obama suceeded in scaring half of America into needing government hand outs and free medical care. Republicans just scare you into needing them to protect you from evil foreigners.

It's the same old dance.

[kid_vidrio]

Both sides use fear. Obama suceeded in scaring half of America into needing government hand outs and free medical care. Republicans just scare you into needing them to protect you from evil foreigners.

It's the same old dance.
Tell me how Obama used fear for anything? Even one example. Bonus points if you can connect it to your bogus statement about hand outs.

[kid_vidrio]

WTF are you talking about?
The republican party is ailing and their brain trust is not doing the things necessary to build a broad and lasting base related to the tenets that made the party viable for so long.

Not too quick on the uptake today are we?

[fuldstændigamok]

Tell me how Obama used fear for anything? Even one example. Bonus points if you can connect it to your bogus statement about hand outs.

He's tanned. Fear comes naturally.

[Pax Britannia]

Tell me how Obama used fear for anything? Even one example. Bonus points if you can connect it to your bogus statement about hand outs.

The constant retelling of the story of how his mother had to argue with insurance companies whilst she was dying of cancer. I dont dispute the story at all but you cant deny he was scaring people with the possibility of spending their remaining days arguing about money.

As for the handouts I think constantly saying how the global economy is going to decline (which again I dont dispute) scares people into thinking their going to rely on the government more. So they need a big government socialist in charge.

[kid_vidrio]

"I will invest 15 billion dollars into the renewable resource energy sector to promote job growth. I will cut taxes to middle America to fend of full recession and spur economic growth."

If, as you don't dispute, there is a challenged economy, is it a scare tactic to discuss it?

As for the cancer thing, I didn't hear that ad nauseum, but as someone who has always bought their own insurance, it is a little scary. I don't want uncle sugar running it for me, but I have no capacity to fuck with insurance companies. Someone needs to.

[Pax Britannia]

"I will invest 15 billion dollars into the renewable resource energy sector to promote job growth. I will cut taxes to middle America to fend of full recession and spur economic growth."

If, as you don't dispute, there is a challenged economy, is it a scare tactic to discuss it?

As for the cancer thing, I didn't hear that ad nauseum, but as someone who has always bought their own insurance, it is a little scary. I don't want uncle sugar running it for me, but I have no capacity to fuck with insurance companies. Someone needs to.

What some people hear as a scare tactic others hear as sincere concern. I dont judge either side too harshly for using fear to play on voters. We're all human and I think it's a valid tactic to play on our fears as well as our hopes.

In this election hope won. Even though Obama used the occasional fear tactic he always followed it up with his hopes for a brighter tomorrow. McCains campaign descended into calling Obama a socialist terrorists. Fear alone doesnt drive people to the polls.

[freegood]

Hate for the current admin and his party does.

As for the charge of Obama using fear, if you consider degrees and what Bush (when he ran) or even McCain pulled off, Obama should get respect for the campaign he ran.

[kid_vidrio]

Hate for the current admin and his party does.

As for the charge of Obama using fear, if you consider degrees and what Bush (when he ran) or even McCain pulled off, Obama should get respect for the campaign he ran.
Respect? Wasn't winning enough?

[Archangel]

Don't look, but there's a terrorist behind you...

[Pax Britannia]

Don't look, but there's a terrorist behind you...

Makes a change from all the commies under the bed.

[Desperado]

How appropriate...


Congressman sorry for likening Obama to Hitler (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/12/congressman-sorry-for-likening-obama-to-hitler/)
Posted: 10:38 AM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-ticker-producer-alexander-mooney/)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/12/art.broun.ap.jpg Rep. Paul Broun is sorry for seemingly comparing Obama to Adolph Hitler.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

(CNN) — Republican Paul Broun is sorry for calling President-elect Barack Obama a 'Marxist' and comparing him to Adolph Hitler, the Georgia Congressman said Tuesday.
“I regret putting it that way,” he told WGAC radio in Augusta, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “I apologize to anyone who has taken offense at that.”
In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week, Broun admitted to calling the future commander-in-chief a 'Marxist' at a recent Rotary club meeting, and said Obama has expressed support for policies similar to those of Hitler.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Broun told the AP. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may– may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
Broun was specifically referring to a July speech by Obama, where the then-Democratic presidential nominee said he supports a civilian force helping the military when it comes to national security: "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the military]," Obama said in the speech that was largely a call to national service.
Responding to those comments, Broun told the AP Monday: "That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun added. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."
The Obama transition office did not respond to Broun's comments, and in his interview Tuesday to WGAC, the first term congressman said, “The point I tried to make is that he is extremely liberal, he has promoted a lot of socialistic ideas, and it just makes me concerned."

[kid_vidrio]

Don't look, but there's a terrorist behind you...
That was a huge mistake.
The rise of Russia as a power to paint as an enemy is no accident.
Islam as a threat will start to fade back into obscurity.

[Archangel]

Republican Paul Broun is sorry for calling President-elect Barack Obama a 'Marxist' and comparing him to Adolph Hitler, the Georgia Congressman said Tuesday.

Sharp, he ain't.

Next, he's gonna call him a 'Muslim' and compare him to Pope Urba... No, he won't because this dumbarse in all likelihood has no fucking idea what the Middle Ages are.

[Pax Britannia]

Adolf is spelled two different ways in that article. Well done CNN.

[Archangel]

Also, *Adolf.

EDIT: What Pax said.

[Pax Britannia]

That was a huge mistake.
The rise of Russia as a power to paint as an enemy is no accident.
Islam as a threat will start to fade back into obscurity.

I totally agree. I hate to quote myself. But....

I'm going to indulge my long dormant liberal side for a moment.

Given the decline of just about every form of manufacturing in Britain & America and it's relocation to China increasingly all we're left with is the military industrial complex.

Britain and America stand as the worlds first and second largest arms manufacturers. It's in our best interest to piss everyone off and generate more conventional military threats. It's hard to sell a £2 billion programme to build new aircraft carriers when your enemy lives in the caves of a land locked country.

[Desperado]

And the GOP says... FUCK YOU MCCAIN!!!!



GOP to file suit to undo McCain rules

The Republican Party will file federal lawsuits Thursday seeking to overthrow the McCain-Feingold federal campaign finance regulations, Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan revealed Wednesday night at a private dinner with the nation's Republican governors.
The move is considered a slap in the face of the Republican Party's failed 2008 presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who was dramatically outspent by Democrat Barack Obama, and of President Bush, who signed McCain-Feingold into law in 2002.
"We will bring two federal suits tomorrow to strengthen the Republican Party," Mr. Duncan told The Washington Times.
Mr. Duncan said one suit will be filed in the District of Columbia to strike down the soft-money ban that is the central tenet of the McCain-Feingold Act — formally known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. "Soft money" is largely unrestricted contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions.
The second suit will be in a Louisiana federal court to strike down the limits under the law Mr. McCain co-sponsored with Sen. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, that control coordination between parties and their candidates.
"It prohibits us from spending over $84,000 in coordination with a candidate in a congressional race," Mr. Duncan said. "That means we have to find some group to raise and spend money but without any coordination" with the candidate, his campaign or the RNC.
"That does not allow for a unified message," he said. "We don't think there is anything corrupting about coordinating with a candidate."
McCain-Feingold helped Republicans in 2004, when Mr. Bush, under the increased hard-dollar contribution limits in the bill, set what was then a campaign fundraising record in his successful re-election bid. Hard-money contributions are lower-amount donations — $2,300 per election to individual candidates, with a higher limit for political parties — that can be spent on any election activity.

But the coordination limits hamstrung Republican efforts to aid their candidate this year. They were unable to make up for the financial difficulties of Mr. McCain, who lost the Nov. 4 election in part because the senator from Arizona chose to take taxpayer financing for his general election campaign, limiting himself to spending $84 million while his Democratic opponent was free to raise and spend as much as he wanted.
Mr. Obama raised upwards of $600 million in the primary and general election, at least half of which was available in his battle with Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama's haul allowed the Democratic National Committee to use nearly all $221 it raised through Oct. 15 in races that helped increase the party's control of Congress.
During the campaign, Mr. McCain had said he would try to strengthen the law and criticized Mr. Obama for undermining the system.
The Supreme Court in 2003 upheld the limits on coordination and the ban on soft money, rejecting a challenge brought by Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. Soft-money donations are unlimited in amount, but McCain-Feingold bans their use for most party activities and limits their use by outside interest groups.
It was unclear Wednesday why Republicans thought their new challenge would be successful.
The McCain-Feingold restrictions led to the expansion of the use of independent expenditure groups such as "527s" — so named for the provision in federal tax laws — that have been used with devastating effect by such groups as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is credited with helping derail the presidential bid of Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, and MoveOn.org.
"We have had plenty of time to see how the law works and the court will conclude it is being administered in an unconstitutional manner," Mr. Duncan said.
Mr. Duncan is in the middle of a fight to retain his RNC post, with several state party chairmen and national committeemen campaigning for support from the Republican governors assembled here for their annual meeting. Seventeen of the nation's 21 Republican governors are here, and will be discussing the criteria for choosing the next chairman.
Mr. Duncan said the timing of the suits had nothing to do with his potential re-election bid at the RNC's annual winter meeting in January.
He said James Bopp Jr., a constitutional lawyer and RNC member from Indiana, will be the attorney of record in the suits.
Mr. Duncan said the suits are being filed now because "we have more experience now in how the finance laws work; we will be working with governors races in Virginia and New Jersey next year; and we have redistricting in the states coming up."
"If we can't take non-federal [soft] money to help get these things done, we will be at a severe disadvantage," he said.
Mr. Duncan said he has not had time to think about running for re-election amid a runoff election for a Senate seat in Georgia and a recount for a Senate seat from Minnesota. "I don't feel any urgency to announce a run for re-election," he said. "I have to do my job first."
Mr. Duncan led the RNC in raising more than $315 million for this year's campaigns, winning the admiration of Republican candidates and state Republican Party officials and outperforming Howard Dean's DNC fundraising performance. About $53 million was used to bolster Mr. McCain's bid.
So far, the RNC has spent more than $12 million in direct and coordinated funds for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, both of which lagged far behind their equivalent Democratic committees.
The RNC also spent hundreds of millions of dollars in a combination of direct, "hybrid," independent expenditure and get-out-the-vote efforts for the McCain campaign.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/13/gop-files-suit-to-undo-mccain-rules/

[Morfin]

I've got an idea, RNC. It's a wacky one, but hear me out. Why not, oh, maybe, try having the law repealed in Congress? You know, like laws usually are. Like in a representative government. To see if a majority of the elected representatives representing a majority of the citizens want this overturned. Just a thought. Carry on with your lawsuits, you bunch of crybaby losers.

[Desperado]

Just when you think the fun is over... She pulls you right back in!!!!


November 13, 2008
Awkward press conference for Palin (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/13/awkward-press-conference-for-palin/)
Posted: 11:15 AM ET

From CNN's Dana Bash (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnns-dana-bash/)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/13/art.palinpic.ap.jpg Palin's pres conference was changed at the last minute.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

MIAMI (CNN) – Two hours before Thursday morning’s press conference at the Republican Governors Association — her first since the Republican presidential ticket lost last week — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was still scheduled to appear alone. Instead, she spoke with a row of fellow governors standing silently behind her.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told CNN producer Evan Glass that they all met at 9 a.m. — an hour-and-a-half before the press conference’s scheduled start time — and by then it had been "decided" that they'd all go out together.
An RGA official told CNN the reason for the change is a "long story."
He said that when the governors were all at their private morning meeting, someone brought up the desire to get beyond what happened in the McCain campaign and look towards 2009 and 2010.
Then, this source said, Palin piped up and said she agreed that she didn't want to talk about the past.

This source insists that it was then decided that the other governors in the meeting would go with her to her press conference as a "show of unity."
The source admitted that it may not have been easy for some "big egos" to go in and stand behind her, but they knew they'd be doing so.
Not present: the conference host, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. A Florida GOP source tells CNN "he didn't know about it,” because he wasn't at the morning meeting.
In another shift, Palin — who had been slated to take questions for 20 minutes or so — took just four press queries.
Why did Texas Gov. Rick Perry cut it off so fast?
"We were running behind schedule," insisted the GOP official.
Palin may not have wanted to talk about the past, but her speech was almost entirely about the McCain campaign; she included little in the way of detailed ideas about the way forward for Republicans, the theme of the panel.

[freegood]

Fox blames MSNBC for Carl Cameron's Africa scoop turned hoax...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/msnbc-retracts-false-palin-story-duped/
MSNBC Retracts False Palin Story; Others Duped
Network runs correction on air after reporting an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about Sarah Palin, information stemming from a hoax.


NEW YORK -- MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

David Shuster, an anchor for the cable news network, said on air Monday that Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a FOX News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent.

Eisenstadt identifies himself on a blog as a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. Yet neither he nor the institute exist; each is part of a hoax dreamed up by a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

The Eisenstadt claim had mistakenly been delivered to Shuster by a producer and was used in a political discussion Monday afternoon, MSNBC said.

"The story was not properly vetted and should not have made air," said Jeremy Gaines, network spokesman. "We recognized the error almost immediately and ran a correction on air within minutes."

Gaines told the Times that someone in the network's newsroom had presumed the information solid because it was passed along in an e-mail from a colleague.

The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin -- not the FOX News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.

Eisenstadt's "work" had been quoted and debunked before. The Huffington Post said it had cited Eisenstadt in July on a story regarding the Hilton family and McCain.

Among the other victims were political blogs for the Los Angeles Times and The New Republic, each of which referenced false material from Eisenstadt's blog.

And in July, Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones magazine blogged an item about Eisenstadt speaking on Iraqi television about a casino in Baghdad's "Green Zone."

Stein later realized he'd been had.

"Kudos to the inventor of this whole thing," Stein wrote. "My only consolation is that if I had as much time on my hands as he clearly does, I probably would have figured this out and saved myself a fair amount of embarrassment."

[Rover]

I've got an idea, RNC. It's a wacky one, but hear me out. Why not, oh, maybe, try having the law repealed in Congress? You know, like laws usually are. Like in a representative government. To see if a majority of the elected representatives representing a majority of the citizens want this overturned. Just a thought. Carry on with your lawsuits, you bunch of crybaby losers.That's an interesting constitutional perspective you have. If Congress passes laws that I believe affect me and are unconstitutional, where do you suggest I ask for recourse?

[hatepoppy]

That's an interesting constitutional perspective you have. If Congress passes laws that I believe affect me and are unconstitutional, where do you suggest I ask for recourse?
canada.

[Feng]

what's up with the kinkos-quality seal that obama has on his podium which reads "THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT" ? seriously. this guy is really into the trappings of being prez. can he not wait until he gets the real seal? i remember during the campaign he had another seal that he had to ditch after being ridiculed:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/20/newseals.ap.wh.jpg

Wait till you hear Barack Obama's remix of Hail To The Chief... I hear that Timbaland will be producing it.

[Morfin]

That's an interesting constitutional perspective you have. If Congress passes laws that I believe affect me and are unconstitutional, where do you suggest I ask for recourse?


Of course they have a right to judicially challenge the law, you idiot. The issue is that they are sore losers. My point is that they are only challenging it now that they lost, the very same law that has already passed judicial muster once and the Republicans were fine with in 2004 when they won the presidential election.

[Whiffleball]

Of course they have a right to judicially challenge the law, you idiot. The issue is that they are sore losers. My point is that they are only challenging it now that they lost, the very same law that has already passed judicial muster once and the Republicans were fine with in 2004 when they won the presidential election.

I agree, the timing is notable. It's humorous that, when the Republicans were in charge and the Democratic brand was in the garbage can, they had no problem with the law and even touted it in this last election as a sign of Maverick McCain crossing the aisle to do good. But suddenly, when you have a hugely charismatic and popular Democratic candidate who is able to raise massive amounts of money through donations, suddenly it isn't fair for corporations and non-profits to not be able to line GOP pockets. They're basically saying, "We don't have the grassroots influence of the Dems right now, so we should be able to get money via large financial contributions! Never mind the appearance of corruption or any actual corruption! Corruption is why we win! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apM0d3M-sps)"

Just when you think the fun is over... She pulls you right back in!!!!

It was a very awkward and uncomfortable press conference. Palin continues to show that she is unable to answer on-your-feet questions other than with rambling, vague diatribes that sound like some stream-of-consciousness inanity. But that is nothing new. What makes it truly hard to watch is that you can see all these governors, all of whom want to rebuild the GOP and have aspirations of themselves for the White House, being overshadowed by this Caribou Barbie who, for all her popularity with the right-wing base, was one of the prime reasons they lost this last election so soundly.

-pNwPrwuSs8

Behind the media circus surrounding Palin, however, it looks like some Republicans have learned the lesson, even if those on the far right don't want to hear it... (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/13/1672822.aspx)

MIAMI -- At this afternoon's panel about the future of the Republican Party, Tim Pawlenty picked up where he left off yesterday, delivering some tough medicine for the party, calling for moderating the party's message and demeanor, including McCain's.

"People don't want to just hear I'm against earmarks, and 'we need to get back to things,'" Pawlenty said. That's nice, he added, but people are want to know, 'How can I pay for college, fill up my gas tank,' he added. "People are wondering, 'What are you going to do for me.' … Enough's enough."

He criticized the Republican Party's perceived negativity.

"When did you see Reagan get angry," Pawlenty said, adding that the 1980s president was positive and strong. "People want to follow mostly positive leaders; they don't want to follow cranks," he said, an apparent reference to McCain, which was met with scattered laughs from the crowd. (Whiffleball's note: Uh, I don't think that was a remark aimed at McCain, but thank you for GUESSING in a news story, MSNBC. I just think Pawlenty was talking about people wanting statesmen, not radical firebrands.)

...

When it comes to the substance, Pawlenty has twice publicly said -- and several other times to reporters -- at the conference that the party needs more than a "comb over." He again during the panel also spoke of the need of expanding the party, of appealing to Sam's Club Republicans, proving fiscal responsibility by balancing budgets and helping lower the cost of colleges.

One thing that seems to be emerging here is a split between the Pawlenty, Jindal, Crist wing versus the Palin, Perry, Portman and Sanford types. (Though perhaps less so with Sanford). Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour remains a strong and reasonable voice, and appears willing to do what will win and keep unity.

[Rover]

Of course they have a right to judicially challenge the law, you idiot. The issue is that they are sore losers. My point is that they are only challenging it now that they lost, the very same law that has already passed judicial muster once and the Republicans were fine with in 2004 when they won the presidential election.Listen up, dumbass. Republicans have been challenging this law since 2003. They were unsuccessful in 2003 with getting it overturned, but have been successful in 2007 and 2008 in getting provisions of it ruled unconstitutional. They believe they now have a favorable court to get it all ruled unconstitutional, or so much of it that it's useless.

The reason they didn't challenge it in 2004 was because Justice O'Connor was still there. Now they've done some trial balloons that have been successful, and they think they've got another shot.

I agree, the timing is notable. It's humorous that, when the Republicans were in charge and the Democratic brand was in the garbage can, they had no problem with the law and even touted it in this last election as a sign of Maverick McCain crossing the aisle to do good. But suddenly, when you have a hugely charismatic and popular Democratic candidate who is able to raise massive amounts of money through donations, suddenly it isn't fair for corporations and non-profits to not be able to line GOP pockets. They're basically saying, "We don't have the grassroots influence of the Dems right now, so we should be able to get money via large financial contributions! Never mind the appearance of corruption or any actual corruption!"You really expect the RNC to undermine it's presidential candidate? That's an interesting point of view. And Republicans have always had a problem with McCain-Feingold. Always. There's only one mavericky Republican, who thinks it's awesome.

[Whiffleball]

Listen up, dumbass. Republicans have been challenging this law since 2003. They were unsuccessful in 2003 with getting it overturned, but have been successful in 2007 and 2008 in getting provisions of it ruled unconstitutional. They believe they now have a favorable court to get it all ruled unconstitutional, or so much of it that it's useless.

But Mitch McConnell does not equal the RNC. Where was the actual opposition from the Republican Party? Why did you have many Republicans fighting in the House and Senate for the bill? Why did you have such prominent Republicans as Fred Thompson, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter and Thad Cochran backing the law? Why did John McCain ultimately receive the backing of his party for this "betrayal" of Republican convictions? Because this was never a Republican conviction until they lost the last election. They're at a huge financial disadvantage now given how galvanized people are for the Democrats and they want to change the rules as a result. Thanks to Bush, they have an even more conservative Supreme Court than before and are hoping for a green light.

McCain-Feingold was not an issue between the parties but within the parties because you had both Republicans and Democrats on either side of the argument. It was started by a Republican, Barry Goldwater, carried on by a Democrat, David Boren and then on to McCain. There were of course those who wanted to maintain the status quo of special interest groups like the NRA and trade unions to keep funding their campaigns, so politicians could answer to them rather than their constituents. But thankfully there were those who actually wanted to challenge corruption or at least the image of it.

You really expect the RNC to undermine it's presidential candidate? That's an interesting point of view. And Republicans have always had a problem with McCain-Feingold. Always. There's only one mavericky Republican, who thinks it's awesome.No, they haven't "always" and it wasn't just John McCain, as I said before. Your position is totally divorced from reality. Sens. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Thad Cochran of Mississippi were all part of the McCain-Feingold crew.

And I don't know what rock you were living under, but all throughout the campaign, McCain supporters and surrogates were talking up the fact that he was a maverick and McCain-Feingold was the most touted example of that. I think if the plan all along had been to file this lawsuit, McCain himself would have been told by his party to shut up about something they were planning to repeal.

I can just imagine President McCain saying, "You know that McCain-Feingold bill I bragged about during the election? My party is repealing it now. I was against it myself, even when I authored it! I was sitting there thinking, 'Man, is this bill I'm writing is bullshit!'"

[Whiffleball]

A sweet election sundae... with two cherries on top?

Stevens falls further back in Alaska Senate count (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIFF00DjwVw_yFN4MkHDk3-mC9bQD94F3SM00)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a stalwart of Alaska politics who was convicted of felony charges last month, fell further behind his Democratic rival Friday, and most remaining ballots come from parts of the state that have favored the challenger.


Mark Begich, the two-term mayor of Anchorage, increased his lead from 814 votes to 1,022 as state election workers counted 17,100 ballots. Begich had 47.4 percent of the vote to Stevens' 47.0 percent.


...


The 25,000 remaining votes will be counted Tuesday. They come mostly from Anchorage and the surrounding area, where Begich is leading, and from the state's southeastern panhandle, where he was doing even better.
Ten days after the poll, and Saturday Night Live star's Senate fight still too close to call (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/15/us-elections2008-minnesota)

Though 2008 undoubtedly belongs to Barack Obama, it may also be remembered as the year of Saturday Night Live. It's not just that Tina Fey's impersonations of Sarah Palin will go down in history as the definitive entanglement of satire into the political process. It's also that a comedian best known for his work on Saturday Night Live has become embroiled in an epic battle that is still playing itself out, 10 days after the election, in the midwest state of Minnesota.

...

He knew the contest against the sitting Republican senator, Norm Coleman, would be tough, but he could not have known it would be as brutal as this. The November 4 vote was so close that Franken trails Coleman by just 206 votes, out of 2.9m ballots cast.

...

There is hope yet for the comedian. An automatic recount next week could nudge the figures in his direction, and even if he remains behind he will have the option of challenging aspects of the election through the courts.


:cool:

[taters]

I love how a Senator whos been convicted of corruption, in a state notorious in recent times for corruption, who was 22 point behind in the polls going into the election somehow managed to comeback and (formerly) claim a narrow victory without the justice department so much as raising an eyebrow! (Then again, it is the bush Just-us Department, I shouldnt be surprised).

Seriously folks, the guy fucking lost. Alaska is fucking run like a middle eastern oil monarchy with hill billies (using the term given by McCain aides).

[Feng]

I love how a Senator whos been convicted of corruption, in a state notorious in recent times for corruption, who was 22 point behind in the polls going into the election somehow managed to comeback and (formerly) claim a narrow victory without the justice department so much as raising an eyebrow! (Then again, it is the bush Just-us Department, I shouldnt be surprised).

Seriously folks, the guy fucking lost. Alaska is fucking run like a middle eastern oil monarchy with hill billies (using the term given by McCain aides).

Yes, and you can pretty much use Alaska as the template for the future direction of Amercia when in Republican hands...

[Whiffleball]

I love how a Senator whos been convicted of corruption, in a state notorious in recent times for corruption, who was 22 point behind in the polls going into the election somehow managed to comeback and (formerly) claim a narrow victory without the justice department so much as raising an eyebrow! (Then again, it is the bush Just-us Department, I shouldnt be surprised).

Seriously folks, the guy fucking lost. Alaska is fucking run like a middle eastern oil monarchy with hill billies (using the term given by McCain aides).

I doubt there was a rigged election and people were expecting Stevens to win all along. While he was convicted, it was pretty much 100% he would be kicked out of the Republican Party and pressured heavily to resign. But it was too late to take his name off the ballot, so it was pretty much a given that voting for Ted Stevens was like voting for a placeholder... a Republican to be named later (probably, as everyone was guessing, Sarah Palin). Alaskans weren't so much voting for Ted Stevens as they were for the Republican Party. Really, the only reason that Begich may come out on top was because of the whole corruption scandal surrounding Stevens. Alaska is, as you say, still a very right-wing redneck state.

The only hiccup has been that Senator "Series of Tubes" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE) has shown no intention of going gently into that good night.

Stevens is reportedly calling his Republican colleagues in the hope of shoring up support before an expected vote Tuesday on whether to expel him from the Conference because of his seven felony convictions:

Y6XgPbA6KlM

And the Politico is reporting (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/17/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4610480.shtml) that Stevens may just survive such a vote tomorrow, considering Republicans are hesitant to so publicly turn their backs on one of their own if Stevens is going to lose anyway...

(The Politico) As Ted Stevens' vote deficit widens in Alaska, the chances diminish that Senate Republicans will bother to expel him from the GOP conference in a secret ballot on Tuesday.

Some GOP aides say Republican senators might not be in a mood to oust Stevens from their conference if it looks more and more likely that Stevens won't close the gap with Democrat Mark Begich, who now leads by more than 1,000 votes in the ongoing Alaska election recount. Vote counting will continue Tuesday in Alaska.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has been very public about his proposal to ask Senate Republicans, at a 9:30 meeting Tuesday morning, to formally vote on expelling Stevens from the Republican Conference, which would strip Stevens of all his committee seats, take away his seniority and essentially leave him without a party. Stevens would still be a senator, of course, but this conference expulsion would send a strong signal that expulsion from the Senate itself is a likely next step.

But the Alaska recount has thrown DeMint's plans into jeopardy, because Republicans might not want to be on record expelling someone who just might lose the election anyway.

"Sen. DeMint can raise it, but members might not be in any mood, especially since the election won’t be settled by then [Tuesday]," said one Senate Republican leadership aide. "I just don’t know what will happen."

A DeMint aide insists that nothing has changed.

"The vote is schedule to go forward tomorrow," the aide said.

[Debo]

Better late than never...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/opinion/18tue1.html?_r=2

[Kilgore]

It's official. Al Gore beat George W. Bush.
No, not in 2000. In 2008.

The Duval County Supervisor of Elections Office released the breakdown of 932 write-in votes this week. Gore got four, Bush got two. Both, however, finished behind God (6) and Colin Powell (8).

It's not that this year's ballot lacked choices for president. It had 13 of them. But it turns out that eight of those candidates ended up with fewer votes than two write-ins: Hillary Clinton (234) and Ron Paul (174). And one of the candidates actually on the ballot - Gene Amondson of the "Prohibition Party" - got only 11 votes. (Duval County spoke and said, "You'll have to pry this cold beer bottle from my ...")

Two popular write-ins were Jesus and "None of the Above." Each got 23 votes.

Also in the "None of the Above" genre: Left Blank (6), Abstain (1), Against
All (1) and They Both Suck '08 (1).

CNN's Lou Dobbs got two votes, and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly one. Not that either can claim the "cable news" vote in Duval County. Comedy Central's Steven Colbert racked up four votes.

Tim Tebow got two votes. Of course, that was before the Gators beat South Carolina and a certain ol' ball coach who, by the way, didn't get a single vote. Talk about change. Once upon a time, Steve Spurrier could have cleaned up here. In this election, he finished behind Tebow and Bobby Bowden.

The Disney vote was split. Mickey Mouse 3, Donald Duck 3. (None for Minnie? Come on. As one co-worker noted, it just goes to show that America isn't ready for a female animated duck as president.)

Other cartoon characters receiving votes: Homer Simpson, Bugs Bunny and Mike Gravel.

The lone Trekkie vote went to James T. Kirk. (Spock, of course, is ineligible because he was born on Vulcan.)

Bill Cosby and Chuck Norris each got two votes, edging out a long list of celebs with one vote apiece: Oprah, Willie Nelson, Tommy Chong, Robert Redford, Ric Flair, Morgan Freeman and "Weird Al" Jankovic.

Several people involved in the Republican campaign also got votes: Mike Huckabee (21), Mitt Romney (14), Rudy Giuliani (4), Fred Thompson (2), Sam Brownback (1), Tom Tancredo (1) and "Joe the Plumber" (1).

Two voters apparently decided VP wasn't good enough for Sarah Palin. They wrote her in for president.

"Joe Biden & Sarah Palin" got a vote. Yes, together. So I'm not sure if that was for president, a debate encore or a Saturday Night Live skit.

Five undecided voters waited until the last moment and wrote in - you guessed it - "undecided."

Jay Plotkin got one vote. We don't know who cast it. We can guess who didn't.

Four former presidents, including two who are dead, got votes. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Harry S Truman and Theodore Roosevelt.

Other receiving votes: Jack Bauer, T. Boone Pickens, Bill Nye, America and "My Dog."

There was one vote for Woods. Tiger.

A syndicated columnist, Thomas Sowell, got one vote. So did one member of the local media. A former T-U sports columnist. No, not me - although "Me" did get one write-in vote.

Sports radio host David Lamm got a vote. Before Uncle Dave starts gloating, I'd like to point out that someone wrote in "Twice Cooked Pork $4.95." I'd also like to predict I will get more votes than him in 2012.

Did I mention that I'm legally changing my name to "None of the Above"?
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/111908/woo_357519703.shtml

[rc113943]

thats great - id love to see a national breakdown of something like that ... i always wondered what type of write-in statistics there are for each election

[nuclearjew]

Other cartoon characters receiving votes: Homer Simpson, Bugs Bunny and Mike Gravel
hah

[Smuckers]

Happy Birthday Joe Biden!

[Desperado]

She is awesome....

X0r7TJUTn1c

[mongo]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=311212244872396&secure=1&show=1&rss=1

A Checklist Of Obama's Many Promises



Few presidential candidates have made more specific promises to American voters than Barack Obama. They came so fast and furious in the latter part of the campaign, you'd be excused for not keeping up. So as a public service, we've put together a handy checklist of some of the biggest Obama promises — culled from his "Blueprint for Change," his campaign speeches and advertisements. Clip it. Save it. And see how he did in four years.

Taxes
• Give a tax break to 95% of Americans.
• Restore Clinton-era tax rates on top income earners.
• "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime. Not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing."
• Dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes.
• Give American businesses a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create in the U.S.
• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small business and startup companies.
• Eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000.
• Expand the child and dependent care tax credit.
• Expand the earned income tax credit.
• Create a universal mortgage credit.
• Create a small business health tax credit.
• Provide a $500 "make work pay" tax credit to small businesses.
• Provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to families.
Energy
• Spend $15 billion a year on renewable sources of energy.
• Eliminate oil imports from the Middle East in 10 years.
• Increase fuel economy standards by 4% a year.
• Weatherize 1 million homes annually.
• Ensure that 10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012.
Environment
• Create 5 million green jobs.
• Implement a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Get 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015.
Labor
• Sign a fair pay restoration act, which would overturn the Supreme Court's pay discrimination ruling.
• Sign into law an employee free choice act — aka card check — to make it easier for unions to organize.
• Make employers offer seven paid sick days per year.
• Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2009.
National security
• Remove troops from Iraq by the summer of 2010.
• Cut spending on unproven missile defense systems.
• No more homeless veterans.
• Stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.
• Finish the fight against Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida terrorists.
Social Security
• Work in a "bipartisan way to preserve Social Security for future generations."
• Impose a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000.
• Match 50% of retirement savings up to $1,000 for families earning less than $75,000.
Education
• Demand higher standards and more accountability from our teachers.
Spending
• Go through the budget, line by line, ending programs we don't need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.
• Slash earmarks.
Health care
• Lower health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year.
• Let the uninsured get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress get.
• Stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.
• Spend $10 billion over five years on health care information technology.

[Claydon]

you don't actually expect him to keep those...

do you?

[mongo]

not at all. if he keeps 5% i'll be shocked. i just thought it was lulzy and ridiculous when they were all laid out like that.

[nuclearjew]

Shoulda voted for AJs anus!

[Claydon]

he did sign up a total fucking bleeding heart from south los angeles as his labor secretary.

god have mercy on us

[Stax]

Obama to appear in Spider-Man (http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-obama-spider-man-090108-story,0,2231909.story)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-01-08-spideyobama1.jpg

Discussion over, clearly one of the greatest presidents of all time. My fave quote of the story:

Obama joins a long line of presidents in comics, including Ronald Reagan in the pages of "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns," Bill Clinton in "Superman: The Man of Steel," Richard Nixon in "Watchmen" and John F. Kennedy in "Action Comics." In one of the stranger presidential appearances, Jimmy Carter appears on the cover of "Superman vs. Muhammad Ali."

I remembered Reagan in TDK and I vaguely remember hearing about the Nixon bit, but the rest made me lulz.

[Yelram]

Obama joins a long line of presidents in comics, including Ronald Reagan in the pages of "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns," Bill Clinton in "Superman: The Man of Steel," Richard Nixon in "Watchmen" and John F. Kennedy in "Action Comics." In one of the stranger presidential appearances, Jimmy Carter appears on the cover of "Superman vs. Muhammad Ali." We all know which side Jimmy was rooting for.

[Stax]

http://i39.tinypic.com/4rcf82.jpg
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/blogs/globaleye/2008/08/25/United%20States/423px-Joe_Biden,_official_photo_portrait_2-cropped-thumb-423x600.jpg

I totally see it.

[jemeske]

Based on the political environment as it stands right now, this is how I'd rank the 36 Senate seats up in 2010. From most to least competitive.

1. New Hampshire (Open-R): Assuming Gregg retires (as he has suggested he will), this is a great pickup opportunity for the Dems. The state has clearly moved to the Democrats since 2006 and Paul Hodes should be a solid candidate. If Carol Shea-Porter gets in the race too, that complicates things, but the Dems have to be favored to pick up this seat right now. I don't think John Sununu will jump right back on the horse, but apparently former Governor Steve Merrill might give it a go for the Republicans. He's been out of office for a decade though.

2. Missouri (Open-R): Robin Carnahan got the most in statewide history in winning reelection in 2008 as SoS and should be tough to beat for the Democrats. I think the Republican nominee will ultimately be former Treasurer Sarah Steelman. Jim Talent already backed out and Roy Blunt may find it tough to run against Washington having been there for a decade. Another likely D pickup.

3. Ohio (Open-R): Rob Portman will be the Republican nominee, though he'll have to run against his time in the Bush administration. Lt. Gov Lee Fischer and SoS Jennifer Brunner are both interested for the Democrats. They'll want to avoid a primary battle and I think the establishment will back Fischer over Brunner. This one is a toss-up, perhaps a very slight lean to Democrats.

4. Florida (Open-R): All the top talent has already passed (Jeb Bush for the Republicans and Alex Sink for the Democrats). Charlie Crist is apparently considering it, but I don't see him running. So, for Republicans the nomination comes down to Connie Mack and Marco Rubio against either Kendrick Meeks or Dan Gelber for the Democrats. Mack's father once held this seat, but that shouldn't really give him any significant edge. This looks like the most competitive race at the moment.

5. Kentucky (Bunning-R): Jim Bunning is an idiot, so this will be a tough race regardless of the Republican lean to Kentucky. Lt Gov Dan Mongiardo is looking for a rematch, but AG Jack Conaway would be a better challenger for the Dems. This one looks like a tossup right now.

6. Nevada (Reid-D): Reid is a big vagina and his approval is pretty weak. The Republicans are definitely going after him, but they don't have a great bench to choose from. Jon Porter looked like a strong candidate, but he lost his House race in 08. The Lt. Governor is likely to run, but he was recently indicted. Still, Reid is going to have a tough race and may go down even as Democrats pick up seats elsewhere. 55-45 for Reid.

7. Pennsylvania (Specter-R): He got a nice break when Pat Toomey opted to focus on the governor's race rather than another primary challenge. Joe Torsella has thrown his hat in the ring for Democrats. Allyson Schwartz may as well. Both should be strong challengers, but Specter has won in tough environments before. 60-40 for reelection.

8. North Carolina (Burr-R):Burr's approval numbers are weak and the Democrats captured the other Senate seat, held the governor's office, and carried the state for Obama in 08, suggesting he could be in trouble. AG Roy Cooper would be the best Dem candidate, but several other strong challengers are also in the mix. I'd say this one probably leans 60-40 for Burr right now.

9. Colorado (Bennet-D): Bennet hasn't run for elected office before and I've heard that he has all the charisma of a shoe, so that could make things interesting. Still, the state has been good to Democrats of late and several recruits have already passed for Republicans. Tom Tancredo will not win if he's nominated. Bob Beauprez got smoked in the gubernatorial race in 06, but he'd be better than Tancredo at least.

10. Illinois (Burris-D): Revelations this week almost guarantee that Burris won't be the Democratic nominee in 2010. Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky are both looking to run for the Dems and would be favored. Republican Mark Kirk would be the best candidate for Republicans, but the state leans left, so he'd be the underdog to start.

11. Kansas (Open-R): If Sebelius runs, its a race. If not, it's an easy Republican hold.

12. Louisiana (Vitter-R): A lot of Democrats seem to think Vitter is vulnerable, but if he goes down it will be in the Republican primary not the general. Jay Dardenne may challenge from the right. If porn star Stormy Daniels runs it will draw a lot of attention--who knows what party she'll run with? Charlie Melancon would probably be the best hope for Democrats.

13. Connecticut (Dodd-D): Dodd's popularity has taken a huge hit given the Countrywide scandal and his lack of oversight on the Banking Committee. He's lucky this is Connecticut. Rob Simmons is apparently looking to run, but Dodd should still be favored, but this one won't be as easy as it's been in the past.

14. California (Boxer-D): The Governator isn'g going to run, so Boxer shouldn't have too much trouble.

15. Delaware (Open-D): Everybody seems to think Beau Biden is going to run for his father's seat and he probably will. If not, former Lt. Gov. John Carney is the Democratic nominee. Mike Castle would make this race competitive for Republicans, but I don't think he'll run. After him, the Republican bench is weak sauce.

16. New York (Gillibrand-D): A primary challenge for Gillibrand is apparently coming, but I think she'll ultimately hold off any competition. Republican Peter King is itching to run, but New York is a blue state and he'll find it tough if the political environment stays as it is today.

17. Arkansas (Lincoln-D): Republicans didn't even field a challenger for the 08 race. Lincoln may take some heat if she supports EFCA, but I think she'll be safe.

18. Wisconsin (Feingold-D): Republicans don't like Feingold much, but I don't think they'll make a serious run at him. He won by more than 10 points in a much tougher 04 environment. Congressman Paul Ryan may pose a threat, but I don't think he runs.

19. Washington (Murray-D): Patty Murray has won fairly easily in the past and I don't expect that to change. Republican Congressman Dave Reichart could be a strong challenger. He'd be giving up a swing House district that makes him a perennial target as it is.

20. North Dakota (Dorgan-D): Republican Governor John Hoeven could make it interesting. If he doesn't run, Dorgan should be safe.

21. Arizona (McCain-R): Napolitano would have made a strong challenger, but she won't run after being appointed to Homeland Security. I'm actually surprised McCain is seeking another term and he may get a primary challenge from JD Hayworth. I'm not sure if the Dems will make a serious run or not, though McCain isn't as strong as one might suspect.

22. Iowa (Grassley-R): This race will only be competitive if Grassley retires, which he apparently isn't going to.

23. Oklahoma (Coburn-R): Term limited Governor Brad Henry would be the dream candidate for Democrats, but he won't run, so this seat stays with the Republicans.

24. Alaska (Murkowski-R): There has been some talk that Sarah Palin may primary Lisa Murkowski to get more attention that comes with a gig in Washington in preparation for a presidential run, but I don't think she does it (Palin gets enough attention as it is). Democrats were able to win the other Senate seat in 08, but given that they were just barely able to knock off a convicted felon shows just how red this state is. Ethan Berkowitz may be the strongest Dem challenger, but he lost the House race in 08 and would be a big underdog.

25. Maryland (Mikulski-D): Mikulski may also retire, but Maryland is clearly Democratic territory, so they'd be favored in any case.

26. Hawaii (Inouye-D): Inouye might retire, in which case term limited Republican Governor Linda Lingle would actually be a strong candidate (the Dems would look to the House delegation for their nominee). If he doesn't retire, he should coast in this heavily Democratic state.

27. Georgia (Isakson-R): Saxby Chambliss was forced to a runoff in 08, but the Dem nominee won't have Obama's coattails and the huge black turnout to rely on this time. Isakson was expected to run for governor, but opted for reelection instead. I've seen reports that he might be primaried, but he should come out with the nomination and win another term.

28. South Carolina (DeMint-R): DeMint is far more conservative than his fellow Republican Lindsey Graham (also less closeted, but that's another story) and should have a pretty easy go of things. Democrats have a weak bench (there 08 nominee was basically a Republican) and they'll focus more on the open governor's race.

29. Oregon (Wyden-D): Democrats picked off Gordon Smith (about as moderate as Republicans come these days) in 08, suggesting this state isn't really a battleground anymore.

30. Vermont (Leahy-D): Leahy is a Democrat in Vermont. Easy.

31. Indiana (Bayh-D): Given that the state has become much more competitive in recent years, Bayh should coast to another term on his popular last name.

32. South Dakota (Thune-R): After just barely missing out in 2002, Thune toppled Dem leader Tom Daschle in 2004. His race shouldn't be nearly as close this time around.

33. Alabama (Shelby-R): Shelby has firmly signaled an intention to run, which pretty much settles this race. Democrats are more likely to look at the open gubernatorial race.

34. New York (Schumer-D): Schumer will raise a shit ton of money and face a no name opponent. If Republicans are going to take a shot, it will be at the other New York seat up for election.

35. Idaho (Crapo-R): He's no Larry Craig!

36. Utah (Bennett-R): It's Utah and he's a Republican incumbent.



A lot of good races. I'll update this from time to time. Thoughts?

[redsox39]

Obama to appear in Spider-Man (http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-obama-spider-man-090108-story,0,2231909.story)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-01-08-spideyobama1.jpg

Discussion over, clearly one of the greatest presidents of all time. My fave quote of the story:



I remembered Reagan in TDK and I vaguely remember hearing about the Nixon bit, but the rest made me lulz.


Not mention
Stephen Colbert, Issue 573!!!

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

14. California (Boxer-D): The Governator isn'g going to run, so Boxer shouldn't have too much trouble.



Which is too bad seeing as though this cunt deserves to be in a body bag. She and that whore Pelosi are a big reason why this state is majorly fucked. The sooner they croak, the better.

[Rover]

CA's bigger problem is all the left wing lunatics they elect to the Assembly and Senate. Pelosi and Boxer can't control the CA budget. Although if either of them were in charge it wouldn't be any different.

-----------------------

The Conservative Political Action Conference is holding their annual meeting over the weekend. I think Jindal is the big speaker for the weekend. They are also holding a 2012 straw poll for president. I thought we just had an election...maybe that was just me. Romney won lost year and the year before.

[Rover]

CPAC straw poll 2012

Romney 20%
Jindal 14%
Palin 13%
Paul 13%
Gingrich 10%
Undecided 9%
Huckabee 7%

Romney wins his 3rd in a row. If anyone was uniquely qualified to be president during an economic crisis you would think that it was a businessman who specialized in turning around failing companies/enterprises. I think I'll be forever mystified as to why people voted for John McCain.

[Hanover Fist]

Mike Pence was far and away the best speaker at CPAC. There were several good speeches though. Almost all of them made me think "fuck John McCain"

[Willam]

Based on the political environment as it stands right now, this is how I'd rank the 36 Senate seats up in 2010. From most to least competitive.


8. North Carolina (Burr-R):Burr's approval numbers are weak and the Democrats captured the other Senate seat, held the governor's office, and carried the state for Obama in 08, suggesting he could be in trouble. AG Roy Cooper would be the best Dem candidate, but several other strong challengers are also in the mix. I'd say this one probably leans 60-40 for Burr right now.



Burr has not done a bad job for NC and I think name recognition will give him a big boost. However, I've been very impressed with what I have read about Cooper. I wouldn't mind Cooper except for the fact that the Republicans don't need to lose another seat.

[Das Kahlua]

CPAC straw poll 2012

Romney 20%
Jindal 14%
Palin 13%
Paul 13%
Gingrich 10%
Undecided 9%
Huckabee 7%

Romney wins his 3rd in a row. If anyone was uniquely qualified to be president during an economic crisis you would think that it was a businessman who specialized in turning around failing companies/enterprises. I think I'll be forever mystified as to why people voted for John McCain.

Haha 'Undecided' beat out Huckabee. Doesn't Chuck Norris' endorsement carry any weight?

[Whiffleball]

Seems to me that Romney does so well because he consistently shows up, speaks and campaigns for the vote, which a lot of the potential contenders do not do and did not do this time (Palin, Jindal were absent). I mean, it's highly unlikely that Gingrich will run in 2012, but he probably got as many votes as he got because he showed up and got a rock star reception.

Romney is a good choice, since he does have economic cred and is part of a dying breed -- New England Republicans. But he may just be the only logical choice, given the problems surrounding Palin and now Jindal, and I'm skeptical that Paul will ever be more than a fringe candidate. The fact that 44% of conferencegoers said they wish they had "better choices" may indicate that they're holding out for a new star to burst forward, kind of like how Obama's star ascended way before anyone expected it to.

[freegood]

Mike Pence was far and away the best speaker at CPAC. There were several good speeches though. Almost all of them made me think "fuck John McCain"

Seemed like Rush stole the show...

[Hanover Fist]

Seemed like Rush stole the show...

Rush was pretty good as usual, but as far as politicians Pence was the best. I personally would like to see Romney run again and hope Huckabee doesn't fuck it up like he did last time. I have a feeling after 4 years of Obama we are going to need someone amazing to fix everything Obama is trying to do.

[jemeske]

That sounds like what a lot of Democrats were saying about Bush not so long ago.

Edit: I would also put money on Romney as the 2012 nom at this point.

[freegood]

His name is Mitt. And he's reporting for duty.

[Rover]

Mitt's got the same problem he had last time. There's a Baptist preacher that's gonna thump the Bible harder in Iowa than Mitt'll be able to thump the Book of Mormon.

[jemeske]

Skip Iowa?

[Revolution]

Anybody here anymore about the ex-governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson running in 2012? I'm pretty sure he's running on the Republican ticket and has a good following from all the supporters Ron Paul gathered in his 2008 campaign.

[jemeske]

Haven't heard that, but I see somebody launched a draft site. I think Heather Wilson is going to run for governor for the Republicans. On the D side, obviously Denish is in and apparently Val Kilmer (ICE MAN!!!) is considering. Should be a good race, at any rate.

[redsox39]

I love how a Senator whos been convicted of corruption, in a state notorious in recent times for corruption, who was 22 point behind in the polls going into the election somehow managed to comeback and (formerly) claim a narrow victory without the justice department so much as raising an eyebrow! (Then again, it is the bush Just-us Department, I shouldnt be surprised).

Seriously folks, the guy fucking lost. Alaska is fucking run like a middle eastern oil monarchy with hill billies (using the term given by McCain aides).

For a second I thought you were talking about Illinois...

[Rover]

Skip Iowa?Skipping doesn't look good, although McCain managed....managed to suck. Maybe try, but not try as hard as he did this time. As long as Romney doesn't have to compete with Maverick McCain in places like NH and CA he should be fine. Especially if the GOP can manage to get all of their primaries closed.

Chris Dodd's in trouble. I guess that's what happens when you're buddy-buddy with the mortgage industry and get special deals and then the economy falls apart. I saw where he's about 6 months or so late to release his financial documents regarding his CountryWide mortgage deal.

Could you imagine if he'd managed to win the Democratic primary? Or been picked as VP?

In past elections Dodd has been running against underfinanced opponents in an increasingly Democratic state as an officeholder about whom voters have a vaguely favorable impression but don't know very much about. In 2010 he seems likely to face an entirely different situation. Mentioned as possible opponents are former Congressman Rob Simmons (who lost his eastern Connecticut House seat in 2006 by 83 votes) and CNBC anchor and former Reagan budget official Lawrence Kudlow, among others. I think this seat is ripe for the picking.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/3/2/chris-dodd-is-ripe-for-the-picking-for-gop-in-2010--sen-kudlow-of-connecticut.html

[Hanover Fist]

CNBC's Kudlow going after Senator Dodd's Senate seat? Focusing on Dodd's corruption and ties to Countrywide.


http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2009/03/cnbcs-kudlow-after-dodds-seat.html

As conservative economist on the weeknight CNBC show "Kudlow and Co.," Larry Kudlow just last month was poking at U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.


Dodd "has yet to divulge fully his sweetheart mortgage deals with the former Countrywide," Kudlow said in a Feb. 13 screed. "He's re-fi'ed his mortgages, but we don't know those documents, either. Instead of being impeached, he's still around."


Now, it appears as if the TV show host and economic consultant and syndicated columnist may be going directly after Dodd.


Politico reporter Josh Kraushaar reported Monday that Kudlow "confirmed his interest" in running against Dodd in 2010.

"It's the kind of thing where I'm talking to friends, talking to strategists, talking to my wife, and praying on it," Kraushaar reported Kudlow as saying. And Kudlow also told him he had met with National Republican Senate Committee chairman John Cornyn of Texas over dinner last week to discuss the idea. "He seems to think it would be a good race and a national race," Kudlow said.

He wouldn't be the first TV commentator to leave the media world for politics. But it's generally felt that one shouldn't remain in a bully pulpit of TV advocating impeachment for a politician while planning to run against him.


"While Kudlow said he has been talking to 'friends,' 'strategists,' his 'wife,' and NRSC chairman John Cornyn about a potential run against Sen. Dodd in 2010, the one group of people noticeably not on this list are Kudlow's superiors at CNBC," says Erikka Knuti, communications director for the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters. "Until Kudlow makes a final decision, CNBC has an obligation to their viewers to make certain he never uses their airwaves to attack a potential political rival."

Previously at the NBC owned cable news networks, first Chris Matthews and then Joe Scarborough toyed with entering (or re-entering in Scarborough's case) the political arena, but in the end neither did.

[jemeske]

I think Dodd would be in a great deal of trouble if he weren't from Connecticut. His approval has dipped below 50, but his support among Dems at least should come back somewhat. He routinely wins in the 60s and while his numbers should be down, I still think Dodd wins again if he runs.

Also, I think Rob Simmons would be a far stronger challenger than a Larry Kudlow. I'd be surprised if he did end up running.

[jemeske]

CA GOV
A new poll suggests Jerry Brown starts as the favorite in the Dem primary, thanks in no small part to higher name id. Most of the other candidates are unknown to about half the electorate. Still, that he only garners 27% over guys like Villaraigosa and Newsom shows its very much a toss up.

Both Brown and Newsom (the only two polled that I saw) have 10 point leads or more over the two Republican hopefuls--Meg Whitman Steve Poizner.

PDF: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_memo_political_f.html

[jemeske]

Oh noes! The Goop opts out of surgeon general.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/05/gupta.surgeon.general/index.html

[jemeske]

Bullet points!


New Q poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1272) shows Chris Dodd trailing former Congressman Rob Simmons 43-42. He beats Kudlow though, 46-34. Indies swing the matchup with Simmons, giving him 49-32 over the incumbent. Given that most of the electorate isn't all that familiar with Simmons, this should be read as an anti-Dodd result more than a pro-Simmons one. If Dodd is still trailing at the end of the year, then I'll change my tune, but I'd still say this one leans retention for the Democrats.



In California, Barbara Boxer isn't all that popular, but she'll be reelected. http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2300.pdf



In Oklahoma, Tom Coburn still doesn't know what his plans are. He may retire, seek, reelection, or possibly run for governor (open seat in 2010). http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/dr.-no-leaves-constituents-guessing-about-reelection-2009-03-09.html



Republicans have a challenger for Michael Bennet in Colorado--Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck (le who?). Bob Beauprez is probably their best bet, but he lost badly running for governor in 2006. Letting Bennet go without a real challenger would be ridiculous. http://www.politicswest.com/37025/buck_could_stop_u_s_senate



As expected, Congressman Neil Abercrombie is running for governor in Hawaii (open seat in 2010). He'll almost certainly face Republican Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona. Abercrombie probably has the edge given the pro-D nature of the state, but term limited Linda Lingle showed Republicans can have success there. http://www.starbulletin.com/news/hawaiinews/20081114_abercrombie_thinking_hard_about_isles_top _job.html?page=all&c=y



Beau Biden is trailing in a potential run to replace his father in two years. Republican Congressman Mike Castle, who represents the whole state and used to be governor, beats him 44-36. This would certainly be an interesting matchup and Castle is about the only Republican left in the state who would have a shot at winning a statewide race. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/03/castle-leads-biden-in-possible-match.html

[Stax]

Skipping doesn't look good, although McCain managed....managed to suck. Maybe try, but not try as hard as he did this time. As long as Romney doesn't have to compete with Maverick McCain in places like NH and CA he should be fine. Especially if the GOP can manage to get all of their primaries closed.

Chris Dodd's in trouble. I guess that's what happens when you're buddy-buddy with the mortgage industry and get special deals and then the economy falls apart. I saw where he's about 6 months or so late to release his financial documents regarding his CountryWide mortgage deal.

Could you imagine if he'd managed to win the Democratic primary? Or been picked as VP?

Anyone who tells you Dodd's seat is ripe for the picking is laughably stupid.

[jemeske]

It's not out of the question for Republicans. See poll above.

[Revolution]

Peter Schiff is officially running for senate in 2010 in Connecticut, while Rand Paul (Ron Paul's son) is talking about running

[Rover]

The Senate Ethics Committee has been looking into possible conflicts of interest in Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's 2003 mortgages. Now questions about another Dodd real-estate adventure, this one in Ireland, should keep the Ethicists even busier. All the more because Mr. Dodd's "cottage" purchase involves a crooked stock trader for whom the Senator once did a very big political favor.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681364667801647.html

Since this seems to be turning into Sen. Dodd's reelection watch. The sum of the story is that he got a huge break (~$1 million) on a house in Ireland that he co-owned with a convicted securities frauder and in exchange he lobbied Clinton for a pardon.

If this keeps up, Dodd will have a primary challenge.

[BiōHazard]

ASILLA, Alaska – Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin, the teenage daughter of Gov. Sarah Palin, have broken off their engagement, he said Wednesday, about 2 1/2 months after the couple had a baby. Johnston, 19, told The Associated Press that he and 18-year-old Bristol Palin mutually decided "a while ago" to end their relationship. He declined to elaborate as he stood outside his family's home in Wasilla, about 40 miles north of Anchorage.
He also said some details of the breakup, rumors of which had been swirling on the Internet, were inaccurate.
Bristol Palin said in a statement that she was devastated about a report on Star magazine's Web site that quoted Levi's sister, Mercede, as saying Bristol "makes it nearly impossible" to visit the teenagers' infant son, Tripp. The baby was born Dec. 27.
"Unfortunately, my family has seen many people say and do many things to `cash in' on the Palin name," said the statement, which was issued through the governor's political action committee. "Sometimes that greed clouds good judgment and the truth."
SarahPAC spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton did not immediately respond to calls seeking further information. The governor's spokesman, Bill McAllister, declined comment.
Sarah Palin revealed her daughter's pregnancy just days after being named John McCain's running mate on the Republican presidential ticket. She had said in December that her daughter and Johnston "are committed to accomplish what millions of other young parents have accomplished, to provide a loving and secure environment for their child."
In an interview that aired on Fox News last month, Bristol Palin said her fiance saw the baby every day and described him as a "hands-on" dad.
Johnston and Palin had said they were considering a summer wedding.
"We both love each other," he told the AP in October. "We both want to marry each other. And that's what we are going to do."
___
Associated Press writer Anne Sutton in Juneau contributed to this report.



BROKEN HOME!!!!

And they quietly call it quits. Didn't see that one coming, and of course if the election were still going this would be front page in the Palin drama bullshit

[Hanover Fist]

A very nice ad to start the 2010 election season. All the Republicans seemingly need to do is use Obama himself as an advertisement. You know you fucked up if you're a Democrat and they have a soundbite of Keith Olberman taking a shot at you.

EUQI5PzKPPs

[jemeske]

I'm guessing that's more of a video press release than an ad based on the length, so few people beyond those that already agreed with its premise will ever see it.

[Titus_Pullo]

So another Obama Prime Time appearance. Why don't all the networks just give him an hour slot on a weekly basis. This guy loves to be in front of a camera for the masses.

[Das Kahlua]

So another Obama Prime Time appearance. Why don't all the networks just give him an hour slot on a weekly basis. This guy loves to be in front of a camera for the masses.

I would love to see a statistic for the loss in business revenue based on moving the #1 show on TV, American Idol, back a day, to make room for Obama. I'm sure the advertisers took a major hit. But, he's for job growth...

[Titus_Pullo]

The State of the Union was just a couple weeks ago. He hasn't even been in office for three months and he has had three prime time appearances.

[Archangel]

I would love to see a statistic for the loss in business revenue based on moving the #1 show on TV, American Idol, back a day, to make room for Obama. I'm sure the advertisers took a major hit. But, he's for job growth...

I'm pretty sure that American Idol being the #1 show on TV is actually part of the problem.

[Das Kahlua]

The State of the Union was just a couple weeks ago. He hasn't even been in office for three months and he has had three prime time appearances.

He had a State of the Union about 3 1/2 seconds after his Inauguration speech, which was before a whole bunch of random speeches he just decided to give.

The point is, he was elected to actually run the country, not just be the political face of it. He was great at giving speeches, but once the substance started hitting the fan, all hell started breaking loose.

We're 1/2 way through his first 100 days, and the entire sum and substance upon which Obama was elected is already fading. Imagine another 6 months of this, let alone 4 years. It will be ugly.

I'm pretty sure that American Idol being the #1 show on TV is actually part of the problem.

It's not part of the problem, it's a symptom of the problem.

[vasili denisov]

I would love to see a statistic for the loss in business revenue based on moving the #1 show on TV, American Idol, back a day, to make room for Obama. I'm sure the advertisers took a major hit.
I don't understand this hypothesis. Advertisers buy their ads in blocks, not a per episode basis. It's not as if a company bet all their money on their advertising being on one episode of the show at a specific time. More importantly, American Idol leads all shows, every week, so moving the show from one weekday to another arguably will have a negligible effect on possible viewers; the show doesn't owe its audience to felicitous scheduling *. If we're going to equate advertising revenue with programming viewers, than advertisers should get on their knees and thank the man, since he gave record viewing numbers to "60 Minutes" and "The Tonight Show" with his appearances.

* But rather, because people are stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Rover]

I, for one, enjoy that I have a say in electing the next American pop culture icon. How boring for Germany that their #1 television show is "Public Policy and it's Socioeconomic Impact mit Otto und Helga"

[Hanover Fist]

Ok so I'm working for the 2010 census and I've been reading up on different stuff about it and I found this interesting. As you know the number of Reps. in Congress (as well as each states electoral vote count) is determined by the decennial census. The projections for changes in Reps by State are projected as follows. The First election this will be in effect for is the 2012 general election for President/Congress.


Probable gainers

State----Seats gained
Texas ----------4
Arizona---------2
Florida----------2
Georgia---------1
Nevada---------1
North Carolina-1
South Carolina-1
Utah-------------1

Probable losers
State-------------Seats lost
Ohio-------------------2
Illinois-----------------1
Iowa-------------------1
Louisiana--------------1
Massachusetts--------1
Michigan--------------1
Minnesota-------------1
Missouri---------------1
New Jersey-----------1
New York-------------1
Pennsylvania---------1
California-------------1

[Yelram]

Ok so I'm working for the 2010 census and I've been reading up on different stuff about it and I found this interesting. As you know the number of Reps. in Congress (as well as each states electoral vote count) is determined by the decennial census. The projections for changes in Reps by State are projected as follows. The First election this will be in effect for is the 2012 general election for President/Congress.


Probable gainers

State----Seats gained
Texas ----------4
Arizona---------2
Florida----------2
Georgia---------1
Nevada---------1
North Carolina-1
South Carolina-1
Utah-------------1

Probable losers
State-------------Seats lost
Ohio-------------------2
Illinois-----------------1
Iowa-------------------1
Louisiana--------------1
Massachusetts--------1
Michigan--------------1
Minnesota-------------1
Missouri---------------1
New Jersey-----------1
New York-------------1
Pennsylvania---------1
California-------------1

Even though I live in PA, i'm liking the looks of that.

[Pharon]

I'm thrilled at the prospect of Massachusetts losing a representative.

[Hanover Fist]

Well with 80% of the precincts reporting Tedisco has a 50%-49% lead over Murphy in the special NY election to fill Rep. Gillebrands seat.
http://www.wten.com/global/Story.asp?s=10106633


Update: with 90% reporting Murphy has a 51%-49% lead

Update 2: 100% reporting 50-50 tie with Murphy ahead by 59 votes before absentees counted. The race is being called as "Too close to call" for the moment.

[Alcestis]

Just an interesting little story:

Originally Posted by Star Tribune
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.
Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as "Aunti Zeituni" in Obama's memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango's case.

Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcment official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.

Onyango's refusal to leave the country would represent an administrative, non-criminal violation of U.S. immigration law, meaning such cases are handled outside the criminal court system. Estimates vary, but many experts believe there are more than 10 million such immigrants in the United States.


Personally, I don't care and I have already voted for the guy, but I still thought it was an interesting story. Could be more interesting if there was any confirmation or denial that Obama knew she was living here illegally OR if the info was released by the Bush administration or the McCain campaign.

Interesting update...

BOSTON - President Barack Obama's aunt will remain in the United States until at least next year as she awaits a chance to make her case before an immigration judge in her bid for asylum from her native Kenya.

Zeituni Onyango had an initial appearance in U.S. Immigration Court in Boston on Wednesday. At the brief hearing, a judge set her case to be heard Feb. 4, 2010.

Onyango wore a curly red wig to the hearing and declined to comment to reporters as she was led away from court by her attorneys and police from the Federal Protective Service, a component of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement responsible for security at federal buildings.

Onyango, 56, first applied for asylum in 2002, but her request was rejected and she was ordered deported in 2004. She did not leave the country and continued to live in public housing in Boston.

Her lawyer, Cleveland immigration attorney Margaret Wong, said in a statement Wednesday that Onyango first applied for asylum "due to violence in Kenya," but she did not reveal what grounds she has cited in her renewed bid for asylum. The court hearing was closed at her lawyer's request.

People who seek asylum must show that they face persecution in their homeland on the basis of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group. Kenya has been fractured by violence in recent years, but J. Patrick Kelly, an international law professor at Widener University, said the United States views Kenya as fairly stable.

Onyango's request is being reconsidered under a little-used provision in U.S. immigration rules that allows denied asylum claims to be reheard if applicants can show that something has changed to make them eligible.

That might include the ascension of her nephew to the presidency of the world's most powerful country.

Wong's spokesman, Mike Rogers, said the next hearing date was set for nearly a year later because Judge Leonard Shapiro's calendar is so booked.

Ilana Greenstein, a Boston immigration attorney who handles a large volume of asylum cases, said 10 months is not an unusual lag time between hearings in immigration court.

"That's just the way it goes," she said. "Most of the judges are so overloaded, their case logs are so astronomical that they are forced to set cases out up to 18 months."

The hearing next February is known as an "individual hearing," or merits hearing, when Onyango will be given the opportunity to present her reasons for seeking asylum. The Department of Homeland Security acts as a prosecutor at such hearings. The judge will then decide if Onyango will be allowed to stay in the United States or whether she will be deported.

Obama has said he did not know his aunt was living here illegally and believes laws covering the situation should be followed.

Onyango's status as an illegal alien was revealed just days before Obama was elected in November. After intense media coverage, Onyango left Boston and went to Cleveland to live with a relative.

In December, a judge agreed to suspend her deportation order and reopen her asylum case.

Wong said in a statement that she is "working hard to keep matters in the court system and towards a favorable outcome for Ms. Onyango."

Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late father, first moved to the United States in 2000.

msnbc.msn.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29990612/)

[Limp]

No wonder he leiks tha messicans!

[jemeske]

Well with 80% of the precincts reporting Tedisco has a 50%-49% lead over Murphy in the special NY election to fill Rep. Gillebrands seat.
http://www.wten.com/global/Story.asp?s=10106633


Update: with 90% reporting Murphy has a 51%-49% lead

Update 2: 100% reporting 50-50 tie with Murphy ahead by 59 votes before absentees counted. The race is being called as "Too close to call" for the moment.
Murphy's lead is apparently down to 25 votes now after some reporting errors were clarified. From First Read (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/01/1873536.aspx) on what happens now:
In the essentially tied special congressional election in New York, two things will now happen:
1) Counties will begin recanvassing the vote on Friday, although some counties will begin that as early as today.
2) Counties will need to begin counting absentee and military overseas ballots. Absentee ballots -- as many as 10,000 were requested -- have to be postmarked by Election Day and received by April 7. Military overseas ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and received by April 13. Some counties will wait to count these ballots until the April 7 and April 13 dates, while others will begin counting them as they come in.
Long story short, we probably won't know the winner until at least April 13.

Looks like both sides will have to wait to make their overreaching proclamations about what this elections means--either a rejection of Obama or confirmation of his message/reach. I love it when they do this.



Also, the DoJ has dropped charges against Ted Stevens. Stevens is claiming that he is cleared, but basically it seems like (I haven't read much about it yet) the government lawyers fucked up and now they don't see much point to a new trial. Of course, this almost certainly cost Stevens his job since he was convicted a week before the election and still almost won.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/report-doj-to-drop-charges-against-ted-stevens-2009-04-01.html



And the number of ballots in Minnesota being considered was limited to about 400 yesterday, which makes a Coleman comeback almost an impossibility. Coleman has said he'll appeal. I'm curious if the Senate Dems will push for Franken to finally be seated once he wins the election contest or if they'll wait for the next appeal.

[Rover]

Murphy's lead in the NY-20 is now a deficit. Tedisco is up 12 after a re-canvassing was completed.

First Read. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/02/1878659.aspx)

And Chris Dodd trails his Republican challengers by 16 and 12 and 4 pts. He also loses the generic ballot Chris Dodd vs. The Field by 59-33.


In a direct match up with possible Republican 2010 candidate former Congressman Rob Simmons, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd has the support of only 34 percent of his constituents, a new Quinnipiac University poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1283) shows. Simmons receives 50 percent of the vote, according to the poll.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4914301.shtml

[Hanover Fist]

I don't really care if a Republican wins in Connecticut or not, but I swear to god if Dodd retains his seat, then there are a lot of people that need their fucking heads examined.
In my opinion corruption outweighs party and Dodd is a dirty fucker and there have been more than enough examples of his attachment to shady shit that he needs to go. Even if not "legally" guilty of any crimes the appearance of impropiety is enough that people should lose faith in his fitness to represent them.

[Desperado]

Didnt want to make a new thread for this, but thought it was kind of funny...

Actor Kal Penn joining the Obama administration
Posted: 01:22 PM ET

From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

Actor Kal Penn, shown in this file photo greeting Obama just days before his inauguration, will be joining the White House Office of Public Liaison.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Actor and longtime Obama supporter Kal Penn is joining the Obama administration, the White House confirmed to CNN Tuesday.

The actor will be part of the White House Office of Public Liaison, which is run by Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. Penn will be primarily involved in dealing with Asian American and Pacific Islander communities and the arts community.



Penn's new gig was first reported by EW.com, which shares parent company Time Warner with CNN.

Penn told EW.com that the new position comes after some soul-searching.


There was "'something aching in me to do something completely different and take a break from the acting thing for a while'" Penn said he told the executive producers of the TV series "House" when he explained his decision to get involved with politics full-time.

The actor also said his interest in politics has deep roots. "I've been thinking about [moving into politics] for a while. I love what I do as an actor. I couldn't love it more. . . . .probably from the time I was a kid, I really enjoyed that balance between the arts and public service."

"It's probably because of the value system my grandparents instilled in me. They marched with Gandhi in the Indian independence movement, and that was always in the back of my head. So the past couple of years I thought about it a little more."

But Penn also is leaving the door open to returning to acting at some later point. "Who's to say where any path leads? I still have a passion for it. But for the time being, I won't be acting," Penn told EW.com

Penn endorsed Obama's White House bid in late 2007, and was a frequent campaign surrogate on the trail last year.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/07/actor-kal-penn-joining-the-obama-administration/#more-46860

[Hanover Fist]

Well this certainly brightened my day. An end to Specters political career would make just about any conservative beam. I don't even give a fuck if the seat is eventually won by a Democrat as long as it means the end of Specter.
I would rather have Ernst Stavro Blofeld of SPECTRE than Arlen Specter come to think of it.

According to Rasmussen Toomey currently holds a 21% lead on Specter

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/pennsylvania/election_2010_pennsylvania_republican_senate_prima ry

[Rover]

I saw a Rasmussen poll that said that almost 60% of MA won't vote for Deval Patrick in 2010. Something about being pissed that it's becoming Taxachusetts again.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/massachusetts/only_33_in_massachusetts_favor_incumbent_governor_ in_2010

[Hanover Fist]

Tedisco conceded the Rep. race in NY-20 against Murphy today. I was hoping him losing this race would mean the end of Michael Steele as RNC chairman but it doesn't look like that will happen now since the race was so close. Tedisco was a shitty RINO anyway, so no big loss that he didn't win the seat as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=793690

[Hanover Fist]

Well this certainly brightened my day. An end to Specters political career would make just about any conservative beam. I don't even give a fuck if the seat is eventually won by a Democrat as long as it means the end of Specter.
I would rather have Ernst Stavro Blofeld of SPECTRE than Arlen Specter come to think of it.

According to Rasmussen Toomey currently holds a 21% lead on Specter

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/pennsylvania/election_2010_pennsylvania_republican_senate_prima ry

Well, Specter is announcing his decision to switch to the Democrat party today. Apparently he realized he was so far behind to Toomey that his career as a Republican was over. This of course will give the Dems a filibuster proof majority until the next election. Fuck Arlen Specter, good riddance. One of Bush's big fuckups was supporting this waffling piece of shit from the get go.
Maybe he can take Olympia Snowe and John McCain with him.

[Desperado]

Pretty funny stuff...


Group says Bristol Palin to promote teen pregnancy prevention (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/05/group-says-bristol-palin-to-promote-teen-pregnancy-prevention/)
Posted: 01:23 PM ET

From CNN's Lauren Kornreich (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnns-lauren-kornreich/)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/05/05/art.bristol0505.gi.jpg Last year, Gov. Palin revealed that her teen daughter, Bristol, was unmarried and pregnant just as the Republican National Convention was beginning.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Bristol Palin, the daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, will participate in a town hall meeting on Wednesday to help raise awareness for teen pregnancy prevention, the Candie's Foundation announced Tuesday.
"I am so happy to have this opportunity to work with The Candie's Foundation on spreading the message of teen pregnancy prevention," Palin said in a statement released by the group. "I feel that I could be a living example of the consequences of teen pregnancy. If I can prevent even one girl from getting pregnant, I will feel a sense of accomplishment."
Palin, 18, gave birth to a son, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, in December.
The Candie's Foundation, whose mission it is to "educate teens about the devastating consequences of teenage pregnancy," tapped her to be the teen ambassador for its National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. The group said she will participate in a town hall meeting at the Times Center in New York City Wednesday with actress Hayden Panettiere, baseball player Matt Garza, and other panelists.

[Hanover Fist]

Pretty funny stuff...

Not nearly as funny as this however....Especially in light of him under investigation by the Feds for using campaign funds to pay his babymamma off.

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/05/05/2009-05-05_elizabeth_edwards_interview_with_oprah_no_idea_ if_john_edwards_fathered_rielle_h.html

Elizabeth Edwards interview with Oprah: 'No idea' if John Edwards fathered Rielle Hunter's baby


Despite John Edwards' denials that he fathered a baby with his onetime mistress, his betrayed wife Elizabeth said she has "no idea" whether the former presidential candidate is a new dad.

In an exclusive interview set to air Thursday, Oprah Winfrey asks Elizabeth Edwards about rampant speculation that he is the father of campaign videographer Rielle Hunter's one-year-old daughter.

"I've seen a picture of the baby. I have no idea. It doesn't look like my children but I don't have any idea," Edwards told Winfrey.

Edwards talked about the state of her marriage, her husband's infidelity and her ongoing battle with terminal cancer. Last week, the Daily News published an exclusive report about Elizabeth Edwards' new memoir "Resilience" in which recounts how she publicly stood by her cheating husband's side in his failed presidential campaign.

Winfrey asked Edwards directly whether she's still in love with her husband.

"You know, that's a complicated question," she said.

The couple is still living together in their 28,000-square-foot home in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Asked if their relationship is day to day, Edwards replied, "Neither one of us is out the door so I guess it's day by day, but maybe it's month by month."

In a portion of the interview that will be chronicled in the June issue of O magazine, Edwards offered an explanation for why her husband might have been attracted to Hunter.

"This person is very different from me, and really very different from him," she said. "We're basically old-fashioned people. So, this was a pretty big leap for him. Maybe it's being so different is what was attractive."

As she revealed in her memoir, Elizabeth Edwards told Winfrey she specifically requested fidelity from her husband when they married.

"I wanted him to be faithful to me - it was enormously important to me," she said.

Edwards told Winfrey how Hunter used a tawdry pick-up line to lure her husband.

"What John said is that this woman spotted him in the hotel in which he was staying. He was meeting someone in the restaurant bar area and she verified with someone who he worked with that it was John," she said.

"John went to dinner at a nearby restaurant and when he walked back to the hotel she was standing in front of the hotel. She said to him, 'You are so hot.'"

Edwards, who has dealt with tragedy before when the couple's 16-year-old son, Wade, died in an auto accident, said she is not scared of dying.

"It's not as frightening," she said. "If there's an ever after - please, please, please - I would be leaving part of my family, but I can do and join another party, and wait for that day when we're all together again. In some ways it's something you yearn for."

John Edwards did not publicly admit the affair with Hunter until last August - seven months after he quit the presidential race, and the National Enquirer had reported he was the father of Hunter's daughter.

At the time, Edwards adamantly denied paternity. Elizabeth Edwards did not mention the baby in her new book.

[Rover]

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.
This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

The 6 where the GOP is ahead are:
Economy
Taxes
Iraq
National Security
Government Ethics
Immigration

Tied:
Abortion

Democrats ahead:
Health Care
Education
Social Security

You can read the entire writeup if you want, but the Ethics issue has swung 17 points in a month. And this is the first time in 2 years that the GOP has led on the economy (+6).

And Terry McAuliffe got his ass handed to him in the VA Dem Governor primary. If it looks like a weasel and acts like a weasel...

[Morfin]

The Terry McAuliffe news made me giggle and dance. I hate that smarmy bastard. He made his fortune on insider deals and WorldCom. He got creamed with his efforts for Hillary and he got creamed yesterday. Maybe there is a God.

[Das Kahlua]

The 6 where the GOP is ahead are:
Economy
Taxes
Iraq
National Security
Government Ethics
Immigration

Tied:
Abortion

Democrats ahead:
Health Care
Education
Social Security

You can read the entire writeup if you want, but the Ethics issue has swung 17 points in a month. And this is the first time in 2 years that the GOP has led on the economy (+6).

And Terry McAuliffe got his ass handed to him in the VA Dem Governor primary. If it looks like a weasel and acts like a weasel...

I can't wait to read about this in the New York Times.

haha just kidding.