The TV debates are nothing more than soundbites, and both candidates are playing to the middle of the road dissaffected swing voter.
Sunray,
Glad you noticed. And the polls say Obama won in that group (swing voters) by 2-1.
I won't go into all the numbers but I get the feeling that the right-wing Republican agenda of "limited" government and unregulated markets is finally dead. (One can only hope.)
Now, on to an ugly but (I think) realistic question to which I think an international perspective would be useful.
Does al-Qaeda strike before the elections, after the elctions but before the inauguration or after the inauguration ? I am, of course, thinking of the Madrid Train Bombings. Which (or none of the above) would best serve their agenda ?
harrogate.... How do you suppose BHO possesses the skills of war, ie: when to engage, when it might be necessary to pull back, how such skills might add value in diplomacy... when he's experienced NONE, has not distinguished himself in such affairs and has such a short tenure in the Senate and has typically voted along party lines?
Palin might be enhancing McCain's attributes, but they far exceed BHO's in the art of int'l engagement. Like most career soldiers that achieve political status, including Colin Powell, sending troops into harms way is the last option. McCain lived through it, saw the repercussions and still serves this country. Not for one minute do I believe he would engage our men and women needlessly. But now is not the time to change horses in the middle of the stream.
I doubt that BHO even knows how to saddle the horse, much less ride it.
Obama's never been shot down in combat So he's a clear winner one to nil on that count.
And not only was McCain shot down, but he also ejected.
A loser and a bailer. Not someone I'd vote for.
Is he really the best candidate the Republicans could rustle up? I mean, really?
He looks and sounds like Cotton Hill. And as for Palin... oh, Jesus. There's a pattern developing here. I'll use a picture...
I think Osama Bin Laden gets one of his wives or less favoured sons to answer the telephone for him, just in case there is a Predator in the neighbourhood but why don't you try to get in touch and ask him yourself what he plans? Otherwise, who really knows?
Why 9/11? Okay, "Great Satan, Crusader Infidels, that girl in London who laughed at my little bitty dick..." but none of the reasons given really compute using standard logic. I mean the way people with their heads on straight think, when folks who commit mass murder or even just blow themselves up are anathema. You always have the lunatic fringe ready to justify just about anything using some strained process that results in a reason for this or that transgression which we in the First World somehow deserve anyway.
What, you think that a terrorist attack in the States would boost one party's candidate over another's, McCain over Obama, I guess?That seems a bit far-fetched to me, given that both of them are making very butch noises about what they might do to protect Israel, win in Iraq (or as Ms Palin has it, "Eye-rack") and stomp Iran so flat that its eyes bug out like a toadfrog's.
It makes me think, the way Obama is trying to talk so tough, of George Wallace standing in that schoolroom door trying not to be "out-segged". Here we have the exact polar opposite, the skinny lawyer promising to kick serious rag-head bootie. "Yeah, yeah, Barack, you were ready to join the Marines except there was no war on so you went to law school instead, as one does. Now siddown and shaddup or we'll give you a wedgie!"
" In South Carolina in 2000, Bush crushed John McCain with a sub-rosa primary campaign of such viciousness that McCain lashed out memorably against Bush’s Christian-right allies. So profound was McCain’s anger that in 2004 he flirted with the possibility of joining the Democratic ticket under John Kerry. Bush, who took office as a “compassionate conservative,” governed immediately as a rightist ideologue. During that first term, McCain bolstered his reputation, sometimes deserved, as a “maverick” willing to work with Democrats on such issues as normalizing relations with Vietnam, campaign-finance reform, and immigration reform. He co-sponsored, with John Edwards and Edward Kennedy, a patients’ bill of rights. In 2001 and 2003, he voted against the Bush tax cuts. With John Kerry, he co-sponsored a bill raising auto-fuel efficiency standards and, with Joseph Lieberman, a cap-and-trade regime on carbon emissions. He was one of a minority of Republicans opposed to unlimited drilling for oil and gas off America’s shores.
Since the 2004 election, however, McCain has moved remorselessly rightward in his quest for the Republican nomination. He paid obeisance to Jerry Falwell and preachers of his ilk. He abandoned immigration reform, eventually coming out against his own bill. Most shocking, McCain, who had repeatedly denounced torture under all circumstances, voted in February against a ban on the very techniques of “enhanced interrogation” that he himself once endured in Vietnam—as long as the torturers were civilians employed by the C.I.A.
On almost every issue, McCain and the Democratic Party’s nominee, Barack Obama, speak the generalized language of “reform,” but only Obama has provided a convincing, rational, and fully developed vision. McCain has abandoned his opposition to the Bush-era tax cuts and has taken up the demagogic call—in the midst of recession and Wall Street calamity, with looming crises in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—for more tax cuts. Bush’s expire in 2011. If McCain, as he has proposed, cuts taxes for corporations and estates, the benefits once more would go disproportionately to the wealthy. "
./.
"What most distinguishes the candidates, however, is character—and here, contrary to conventional wisdom, Obama is clearly the stronger of the two. Not long ago, Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, said, “This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” The view that this election is about personalities leaves out policy, complexity, and accountability. Even so, there’s some truth in what Davis said––but it hardly points to the conclusion that he intended.
Echoing Obama, McCain has made “change” one of his campaign mantras. But the change he has actually provided has been in himself, and it is not just a matter of altering his positions. A willingness to pander and even lie has come to define his Presidential campaign and its televised advertisements. A contemptuous duplicity, a meanness, has entered his talk on the stump—so much so that it seems obvious that, in the drive for victory, he is willing to replicate some of the same underhanded methods that defeated him eight years ago in South Carolina.
Perhaps nothing revealed McCain’s cynicism more than his choice of Sarah Palin, the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, who had been governor of that state for twenty-one months, as the Republican nominee for Vice-President. In the interviews she has given since her nomination, she has had difficulty uttering coherent unscripted responses about the most basic issues of the day. We are watching a candidate for Vice-President cram for her ongoing exam in elementary domestic and foreign policy. This is funny as a Tina Fey routine on “Saturday Night Live,” but as a vision of the political future it’s deeply unsettling. Palin has no business being the backup to a President of any age, much less to one who is seventy-two and in imperfect health. In choosing her, McCain committed an act of breathtaking heedlessness and irresponsibility. Obama’s choice, Joe Biden, is not without imperfections. His tongue sometimes runs in advance of his mind, providing his own fodder for late-night comedians, but there is no comparison with Palin. His deep experience in foreign affairs, the judiciary, and social policy makes him an assuring and complementary partner for Obama. "
That's an interesting question. From over here.....
If you look at OBL and AQ's stated goals, and weigh it all up, they would probably be better served by the Republicans being in charge rather than the Democrats.
If you look at the 'whole picture' and weigh it all up, bombing the US would probably move more people to the Democrats.
my definition of 'probably' being the likelyhood being >50.01%
What, you think that a terrorist attack in the States would boost one party's candidate over another's, McCain over Obama, I guess?
Chuks,
What I think isn't the operative criteria (I don't think.) It's what al-Qaeda thinks (I think.) And despite your assertion, I think they think -- rather logically (once you look past the twisted ideology.)
Simplistically, al-Qaeda's agenda is to hurt the U.S. in order to lessen our influence in the Middle East. What would harm the U.S. the most ? Chaos before, in between or after the election ?
Just to stay in middle-of-the-road territory, I'll pick after the election but before the inauguration. Bush is a lame duck, Obama the President-elect and al-Qaeda takes out the two refineries we lost in the hurricanes (just to be unimaginative.) Gas shortage. Prices go up to $6-8 a gallon (if you can get it.) All on top of the current economic mess.
Obviously it would provoke a reaction and it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that "W"'s reaction might not be what Obama's reaction would be -- resulting in internal conflict.
Would that be more chaotic (al-Qaeda's short-term goal) or would a different timing suit their purposes ?
Thinking about the actions of such unthinking types as Osama Bin Laden is somewhat unproductive. He wants to kill as many of us as he can manage, given his obvious limitations at time of writing this such as having a basically cave-based lifestyle. There's not a lot of thought in that and not much action either, is there?
I fully expect us finally to kill this murderous toe-rag, much as we finally caught and killed Saddam Hussein but I do not see that achievement changing much; OBL will just mutate from mujahid to martyr. Now if we caught him, debriefed him, trained him in sandwich-making, persuaded him to go into the Witness Protection Program and take a job in a Jewish delicatessen in New York City, say... that might do some good! I just do not see that happening, though.
So I think we can leave Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qua'ida out of this election.Or isn't it messy enough as it is? It looks a bit scrappy to me, certainly.
So I think we can leave Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qua'ida out of this election.Or isn't it messy enough as it is? It looks a bit scrappy to me, certainly.
Sorry. I thought you recognized that the election was over (barring some unforseen ciircumstance.)
The president's Republican core (or what is left of it) did what it wanted and gave the finger to the rest of the world.
The difference is negligible.The US (and might I add, other nations) will still continue to act in it's own best interest. George Bush simply didn't smile and console you while he did it, but the same is still going to happen under the next President. Again, the only difference will be the way in which the bad news is delivered.
If style counts that much, then a BO administration might be to your liking. You say yes now, but wait a few years and then check your level of frustration.
Quote:
But comparing him to Bush, how could he be any more different?
What's Bush have to do with this? He's off to Texas soon. You're looking through too many prisms to keep track of what's going on. I know it may be popular in left of center circles to invoke Bush at every possible moment, but this is about looking forward and despite BO effort to tie McCain to Bush, the two are different. By your own admission, the difference between the two contenders is minimal. I'm in agreement despite what others here may say. As far as the war, remember many, many Dem's also supported the war. If one of them (Hillary) received the nod instead of BO would your opinions of McCain be different?
Yah, like any undecided voters are going to be reading The New Yorker! Hahaha.
Perhaps after they put down their Mother Jones and Vanity Fair!
Actually, to be "undecided" at this stage of the game must truly be a mark of idiocy. The softball questions lobbed by those "undecideds" at the last debate made me want to retch.
Location: FR | IC luftballons | Page 20 - photo thread: there be PPRuNe's most beautiful woman...
Posts: 297
An interesting aside (or not) on the Presidential debate concerning popular music rights:
Quote:
US rock band the Foo Fighters have told John McCain to stop using song My Hero in his presidential campaign, saying it "tarnishes" the track.
Frankly, I'd never heard of the Foo Fighters before today. But always thought one of the Beach Boys might have by now taken issue that John McCain had in some way misappropriated their rights to "Barbara Ann" (or "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran..."). Considering that the song was originally released over 45 years ago, some might argue that John McCain ought to be allowed some grandfather rights to reuse it today?! Old songs and clichés notwithstanding, "Oh help me Sarah, help, help me Sarah Palin, help, help me Sarah...?!"
Is anyone running a book on what the GOP's October Surprise will be?
Maybe it's already been dropped on us? Could they be hoping that after hearing about Obama's huge lead in the polls, many first time voters (and others) will decide that they don't want Obama to win by too wide a margin and so won't bother to vote on the day?
Me myself personally, , I think it's going to be a lot closer than many of the pundits are predicting - a LOT closer - if only because so many of those same mainstream US media pundits seem to be so one-eyed in wishing for an Obama victory, they're 'talking him up' to a degree where they simply won't acknowledge any fault in him.
I agree he speaks his lines beautifully. However, I have a feeling that quite a few US voters aren't going to like the lines he'll be delivering come February if he gets the job so many of them hope he will in November. What really saddens me, judging from some reports of the Democrats' inner city voter registration drives, is that it would seem that many who'll be voting for him as first time voters quite probably haven't got a clue what he represents, just that he's (almost) their skin colour.
"The New Yorker", well... anyone who reads that must be some sort of liberal rather than someone in any doubt about just Who is the Messiah.
No, wait a minute! I read "The New Yorker" too! Hell, I even read "The New York Review of Books", at least the parts I understand. (Some of it, I feel like a dog watching television.)
Is it just me or does anyone else here find it so odd that people stick up these excerpts as if to prove something or other rather than just sticking to presenting their own opinions? Half a page of blather seems to count for something when, really, much of this stuff is just written for money. I am not saying the authors dash this stuff off just to make the money to buy airplane glue and sniff it, although some of it does read that way but molecules of doubt sift into my mind about being bombarded by professional prose in this way, to say nothing of wondering whatever happened to those boring old laws of copyright.
I must admit that I am rather disappointed in the John McCain of today compared to the John McCain of eight years ago. He seems sadly diminished by the compromises he has made to become acceptable to his party. Once can only hope that he rediscovers his inner self once he's landed safe in the White House.
Is he a nasty piece of work at times? Ooh, probably; it is just that the other guy is worse, I think.
Barack Obama stands for so many things I really, really dislike about America. (I spent about five years living in and around Washington, D.C.) He simply comes across as someone who really knows how to work the system, to the point that his boob followers, many of them, think he's some sort of rebel operating outside the system. Yes, Chicago machine politics... the cradle of nonconformity, indeed. I wouldn't go so far as to freak out and think him some sort of Manchurian Candidate, someone in thrall to the dark forces of Islam. No he's American through and through, just not the sort of American I happen to like very much.
Ms Palin, ah! What a breath of fresh air! When was the last time you saw a candidate for national office floundering over the answer to a simple question about which newspapers she reads? The obvious answer was "none" even though she gave obfuscation a really charmingly good go.
Come on guys, just because she wears what look like "reading glasses", does that mean she reads? (I borrowed my wife's bathrobe once; does that make me a transvestite?) She's just comes across as the genuine article, a good-looking, outdoorsy woman from Alaska, a real novelty, which is probably why she was chosen. Victory for the Republicans will be worth it just to imagine her and her husband mingling with that effete Washington crowd, probably drinking from their finger bowls at a State dinner or giving the Queen a hearty slap on the back by way of saying, "Hi, Liz!"
Is anyone running a book on what the GOP's October Surprise will be?
Actually I have always been under the impression that the October Surprise would be something out of the Democratic Party. They do have a great track record of shooting themselves in the foot.
As a citizen and taxpayer, can I file a suit requiring the Chief Justice to utilize a lie detector at the Jan. 20 inauguration, so we can tell if our new president has a clear conscience when vowing he "...will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution "?
Is it just me or does anyone else here find it so odd that people stick up these excerpts as if to prove something or other rather than just sticking to presenting their own opinions?
I guess it's just you, Chuks. I learned about "The New Yorker" article last night from one of my egg-head friends. He reads all day long I think. Actually has a subscription to "The New Yorker". Me, I'm just a dumb redneck. I get "Time" and that's about it (with a few I try out and let lapse here and there.)
Anyway, I like hanging out with people that are smarter than me. I just like learning, I guess. Not many stupid people writing for national magazines (no matter what they're being paid.) You do have to be careful of what they're selling.
Opinions ? I've got opinions. Obama is the better candidate. No "herofication" (learned that from a book too) -- just better. Smarter, I agree with him on more policy issues, speaks well,...I can present my opinions all day. Not as well as the writers at "The New Yorker" though. Otherwise, I'd be taking home all that money they make.
, I think it's going to be a lot closer than many of the pundits are predicting - a LOT closer - if only because so many of those same mainstream US media pundits seem to be so one-eyed in wishing for an Obama victory, they're 'talking him up' to a degree where they simply won't acknowledge any fault in him. 
I learned about "The New Yorker" article last night from one of my egg-head friends. He reads all day long I think. Actually has a subscription to "The New Yorker". Me, I'm just a dumb redneck. I get "Time" and that's about it (with a few I try out and let lapse here and there.)
Linear Mode
