Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MsFoxyLoxy77

Uhmm No...Look we all expect some level of partisanship at these things, no matter if its coming from Democrats or Republicans. But what Dems did at their convention was state verifiable truths. What I heard last night from Republicans were mostly verifiable lies.

Lie#1: Mike Huckabee "Gov. Sarah Palin got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden got running for president."

Fact: Uhm No. Wasilla has something like 8,000 people max, even if she got votes from every live person in the town twice, she'd have less than the roughly 17,000 Biden got for President.

Lie#2: Rudy Guiliani: A few years later, he [Obama] ran for the U.S. Senate...No leadership or major legislation to speak of.

Fact: No Again. The Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation and Threat Reduction Initiative was signed into law in January of 2007.

Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), this bill expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

(Weapons of Mass Destruction you know those things we supposedly went into Iraq for.)

Lie#3: Sarah Palin: He's [John McCain] a man....who refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

Fact: 3 Strikes, you're out! Not only has he voted against troop benefits countless times but he's been wrong so many times on the Iraq war it's hard to keep track. And by the way there is no victory in sight in Iraq. McCain said they can be there for 100 years.
************

Basically what they said at Dems convention was McCain votes with George Bush 90% of the time, which is verifiably true.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ing_obama.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...tion_spin.html

Misstatements were made on both sides. I'm not blaming Democrats (or anyone in either party, for that matter), because these convention speeches shouldn't be taken terribly seriously. But, no matter how you feel about Obama, Democrats can't take the moral high road on this one.

[MsFoxyLoxy77]

^^
I was really speaking of last night's convention speech in contrast to when Michelle or Bill or Hillary spoke.

But, I gather your overall point is both sides lie. I agree. Both sides are imperfect, though one is moreso.

But a lie is still a lie. I will continue to call/blame etc. on any side who chooses to attempt to mislead me in any way.

Btw I checked the factcheck links you posted and they are wanting. The Republican Convention link doesn't cite any of the three lies I named on the Republican side. And the Dem link you sent me was not from other Dem convention speakers but from the Obama speech itself. Also two of the supposed lies analyzing the Obama speech were not lies at all but were what the website itself characterized as "Obama twisted McCain's words" or "Obama knew McCain was joking when he said that." Which means in other words McCain said it...But I Digress...

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MsFoxyLoxy77

^^
I was really speaking of last night's convention speech in contrast to when Michelle or Bill or Hillary spoke.

But, I gather your overall point is both sides lie. I agree. Both sides are imperfect, though one is moreso.

But a lie is still a lie. I will continue to call/blame etc. on any side who chooses to attempt to mislead me in any way.

Btw I checked the factcheck links you posted and they are wanting. The Republican Convention link doesn't cite any of the three lies I named on the Republican side. And the Dem link you sent me was not from other Dem convention speakers but from the Obama speech itself. Also two of the the supposed lies analyzing the Obama speech were not lies at all but were what the website itself characterized as "Obama twisted McCain's words" or "Obama knew McCain was joking when he said that." Which means in other words McCain said it...But I Digress...

Yeah, the site is by no means perfect; they also don't analyze the Democratic Convention at all, and I'm sure not every speak was perfect. It was more for the general point that both sides are playing the game, which you acknowledge.

I guess all's fair in love and politics, or something like that...

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally Posted by delph998

...Gulliani's keynote address was HORRIBLE! He was so busy bashing Obama and the Democratic party, that he couldn't even make his points. So scattered and disconnected.

I was watching Good Morning America this morning and Robin Roberts asked Biden what he thought of Gulliani's speech. Biden responded that he missed it due to traveling but asked Robin if he talked about 9/11 - because Guilliani's speeches are typically just a noun...a verb...and a reference to 9/11.

I LOL'd!

[AKA_Monet]

Per our discussion Mccoyred...

The Daily Show explains it...

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Oars? LOL. I gotta know where you got this one from becuase it describes her so perfectly. First the possesed comment now this. I will never look at this woman the same way again!

What I am saying is, Sarah Palin has too many bats in the belfry and the elevator does not go to the top of her stairs and not all her oars are in the water...

I got all of that from the good ole Southern tradition of hospitality: i.e. "getting more flies with sugar that you do with salt"...

[SummerChild]

I think that we have to come to terms with the fact that just b/c she's a woman and she bore the child, that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be able to just drop the baby and go off campaigning around the country. Sad as this is, really if we are saying that women are equal to men, they why should the age of the baby have anything to do with whether she can accept a nomination. If it was a man accepting a nomination, we wouldn't even *know* if he had a 4 month old child.

Now, besides the choice to accept the offer as candidate, her politics are just way too different from HRC's to get women - unless they were simply voting for HRC b/c she was a woman...politics aside. I mean come on, HRC is pro-choice. SP (sorry, I don't even know her middle name LOL) is so far to the right that she doesn't even believe in abortion in cases of rape or incest. My aunt, a woman who just retired from nursing after over 40 years, says that she remember women coming into the hospitals bleeding from trying to cause an abortion with foreign objects, with acid burns from sticking acid pills in their uterus, etc. back before roe v. wade. Ok, so SP thinks that this is not going to happen again if abortion is outlawed? Oh wait, the people trying to give themselves an abortion are sinners anyway in her mind probably so to h-ll with them anyway. (shrug)

Anyway, I digress. SP also thinks that the Iraq war and the pipeline in Alaska are both ordained by G-D. While I believe in G-D, it is scary to me to hear someone who is invoking G-D with regard to the Iraq war and the freaking pipeline in Alaska. The scary part is that it is impossible to reason with someone who thinks that the Iraq war is called upon by the Higher Authority. I believe that this is why we haven't been able to convince Bush of this...he also believes that it's ordained by G-D. You can't successfully argue with someone about that. You have no authority. I digress...again.

Again, she is so far to the right that the only HRC voters who will be swayed to her are those who only voted for HRC b/c she was a woman and cared NOTHING about her politics.

Further, women who are THAT feminist are going to be the same women that don't want some crazy super anti-abortion woman in the VP (and possibly the POTUS) seat. He just doesn't understand women or the demographic that he's trying to appeal to. The two just don't go together. Tsk tsk. Clearly, McCain's logic and deduction skills need sharpening.

HRC is not down with the NRA, while SP is a life member of the NRA. Total opposites almost, it seems to me. Has anyone taken HRC's temperature on this?

Again, SP really doesn't buy McCain much. Not a very bright decision. Not surprising however, as his aides apparently did not know that he was considering her. They could have helped him figure out that she wasn't going to grab any huge portion of the HRC demographic. She's way too far to the right.

In fact, SP is so far to the right that her politics don't even align with the way that McCain *wants* us to believe that he is. Forget the fact that he voted with Bush most of the time, if we go for the dupe like he wants us to and believe that he is so different from Bush, well, the fact of the matter is that SP may be more to the right than Bush! Ok, so who is McCain, really?

And SP is so christian-like, huh? That's why she was ripping Obama the way that she was, right? That's why she secured $27 million from a lobbyist that she paid to get funding for her 9,000 person town, right?

And SP is for special needs kids, huh? Is that now that she has one as of 4 months ago? B/c prior to that she cut funding for special needs kids. Hmm. So christianlike, so wonderful. Sounds just like someone who has authority to speak about what G-D has ordained. (sigh)

The whole debacle is hilarious to me. I can't wait for the next few weeks to unfold. I am sure that we will find out the real reason that she was picked. It can't be what we're being told. Come on. None of this makes sense. One thing we do know - John McCain has a thing for young dittys (sp)...even while he's married. lol. we've seen that one before from him with his first wife and cindy.

SC

[QUOTE=nikki1920;1708711]

VP or not, I don't know if I could leave my 4 month old child to campaign. I'd have to discuss that with my family and do what's best for them.
[QUOTE]

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

As for Palin's speech - I thought it was good, but I'm unsure if that was because of my own low expectations going in. I really just wish he had chosen Hutchison if he was set on having a woman on the ticket.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas?? She is as about as exciting as dishwater! Can you imagine Hutchinson and McCain on stage at the same time? SNOOZE CITY

[SummerChild]

No, I don't think that her personal life should be off limits. Obama's personal life (including his church choice and his wife's comments) was not off limits. Michelle Obama was critiqued for her comments and Palin should also be critiqued based on what she has publicly disclosed.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As a woman, I can say that she does not need her hand held nor does she need protection. She is not a delicate flower like people like to think of her, just b/c she is a woman. We are tough. We can take it. She should be critiqued and vetted just like everyone else that has ever run for office. Do you think for a minute that John Edwards would have not been critiqued if his out of wedlock child would have come out during his run for president? Not for a minute do I believe that it would not be.

Everybody's personal life is fair game in any election.

*Besides, answer me this. Why is it ok for us to talk about two of her kids (the one in the service and the baby with down syndrome) but not the other one (the unmarried pregnant one)? SHE - yes, SP herself, is the one who keeps invoking her family but only when it gets her chips. SHE - yes, SP herself is the one who has made public statements about her 17 year old daughter.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Obama and his family can be critique, so can Palin and her family. She.is.not.a.delicate.flower. We need to stop treating women as if we are some sort of delicate toy that will break at the first harsh or critical comment.

SC




At every instance

Originally Posted by KSigkid

(Sorry for the board crash - I like following the politics discussions...)

You realize there may be reasons why they don't vote for Obama, beyond the color of his skin, right? That there may be reasonable minds within the Democratic party who have an issue with Obama's policies, etc?

I don't think she was the right choice for VP candidate, but I'm concerned that people are making assumptions on her personal life. I tend to think that the personal lives of the candidates should beyond the scope of scrutiny, unless they are engaged in something that compromises their ability to be an effective leader (i.e., are a drug user, criminal, etc.).

[SummerChild]

I agree with you. I think that the nomination was HRC's to lose and ... well, she lost it. Point blank. Her underhanded schemes, off color comments about Obama (which was, at one time, borderline racist) and the lies about dodging bullets, not having a good campaign manager, all that stuff backfired on her.

Really, Obama never talked against HRC when they were running. He moreso focused on the current government status quo and what needed to change. HRC lost it for herself. I think that this is truly the reason that it took her so long to give up. When you shoot yourself in the foot, and you're finally honest with yourself (if not your supporters) about it, well, let's face it - it's a tough pill to swallow.

I think that hardcore HRC fans that will not vote for Obama may do so for several reasons that one could view as legitimate. While I do not agree, they may really believe that Obama is not experienced enough or simply disagree with his politics. The hardcore feminist HRC voters may be so upset and disappointed that a woman got so close and did not win the nomination. Further, they may be channeling their disappointment against Obama b/c, let's face it, he IS a man. They may see him as a representative of the old boys network. Now, as ludicrous as that obviously is as he is not privy to the old boys network, the fact of the matter is that he carried a large percentage of the male Democratic vote. Was that b/c of his politics or b/c men cannot see a woman as president? Who knows. However, hardcore feminist HRC supporters may be angry with Obama for being a man and beating HRC - a woman. It may be as simple as that if it's not the aforementioned political thing.

SC

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Frankly, I believe that Hillary brought a lot of it on herself. She chose poor advisors, allowed her husband to exercise his ego and carried an air of inevitability far into the process.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

No, I don't think that her personal life should be off limits. Obama's personal life (including his church choice and his wife's comments) was not off limits. Michelle Obama was critiqued for her comments and Palin should also be critiqued based on what she has publicly disclosed.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As a woman, I can say that she does not need her hand held nor does she need protection. She is not a delicate flower like people like to think of her, just b/c she is a woman. We are tough. We can take it. She should be critiqued and vetted just like everyone else that has ever run for office. Do you think for a minute that John Edwards would have not been critiqued if his out of wedlock child would have come out during his run for president? Not for a minute do I believe that it would not be.

Everybody's personal life is fair game in any election.

*Besides, answer me this. Why is it ok for us to talk about two of her kids (the one in the service and the baby with down syndrome) but not the other one (the unmarried pregnant one)? SHE - yes, SP herself, is the one who keeps invoking her family but only when it gets her chips. SHE - yes, SP herself is the one who has made public statements about her 17 year old daughter.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Obama and his family can be critique, so can Palin and her family. She.is.not.a.delicate.flower. We need to stop treating women as if we are some sort of delicate toy that will break at the first harsh or critical comment.

SC




At every instance

Agreed again. Sorry, SP and McSame, you can't have it both ways!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html

[abaici]

I want the GOP to finish Palin's crash course to "How to be a Good Vice President" and let the woman speak without prepared statements. She needs to answer some questions.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas?? She is as about as exciting as dishwater! Can you imagine Hutchinson and McCain on stage at the same time? SNOOZE CITY

ROTFLMBO!

Did anyone else notice that JMAC doesn't have a neck? Palin was behind him and he was looking for her so he had to turn his whole body around until he was facing her before he could find her. He is just SO old!

I have a few problems with the Reps.
1. They seem to think that the 17 y/o's pregnancy can be overlooked because "From the inside, no family ever seems typical.
That's how it is with us. Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys." To this I say, NO! Your family is not like every other family. Your family is considered abnormal and disfunctional! If we are supposed to accept a vice presidential candidate who has a daughter who is knocked up and boozing at 17 then we might as well all board the Greyhound bus to Hell because that is where we are headed (I dont personally believe this, but "conservatives" do). The president and vice-president are supposed to have model families (eventhough they are not most of the time; they at least pretend to be until after the election)

2. The JMac camp played the sex card way too soon. Theyre already claiming sexism when no one has even said anything about Palin really. Most people still dont know much about who she is.

3. Although SP's speech was supposed to be "Obama-like" in the way it roused the crowd and the fact that she got so many viewers many of her comments may hurt Jmac and help Obama. For example:
And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
This comment is supposed to help her, but it supports Obama as well. She loses credibility with this comment because He has much more experience than she does.

Another example:
The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.
No one expects us to agree on everything.
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.
Her running mate JMac IS the status Quo and has agreed with the creator of the current status (GWBush) 90 percent of the time. Integrity, good will, clear convictions, and a servant's heart are the EXACT ideals that Obama represents. Those are the key points in his campaign message. John McCain has never uttered a word about changing the status quo so as his running mate you saying you are running to change something that he wants to remain the same makes no sense. It also doesnt matter because the Vice President (clearly you still dont know what the VP does) doesnt make decisions. They do nothing unless the president dies.

[mccoyred]

Now that both conventions are over, what do you score them?

I score the Dems an A-. The speeches were good, the delegates were enthused and the program was sound. It was as good as it gets. The policy and platform details were kind of skimpy until the last night.

I score the Repugs a C+. They picked up the pieces after the schedule disruption and did the best they could. However, EVERYTHING seemed just so scripted and pointedly partisan and personal. Did anyone notice the green-screen-of-death again? *snicker*

[mccoyred]

Stewart nailed the hypocrisy of the Repugs and the Right Wing!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...in-Gender-Card

ETA: Here is another good one...

http://mediamattersaction.org/palin_myths/#3