Laexile wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Something that concerns me about Obama is... his voting record ranked as the most liberal of all the Democratic candidates that are/were running. Even further left than Kucinich. Factoring in his state legislative record, it's even more to the left. What concerns me is, we all know the GOP election machine will focus on that if Obama is the D candidate. Between this and the "Hillary Hate" ("Chillery", et al), I expect "Maverick McCain" will likely be our next POTUS.

That sounds wonderful, but the "GOP election machine" is unlikely to be attacking Obama or Clinton. The architects of such attacks were Karl Rove and his cronies. These people don't support John McCain and aren't going to pull out all their tricks for him.

Even if they did McCain would put an end to it. It isn't the way he operates. Much to the disappointment of Conservatives McCain praised Obama and Clinton in his speech Tuesday night. Over a year ago he made a deal with Obama that neither would use negativity if they ran against each other.

While smear campaigns might work for Bush they'd be a disaster for McCain. His chief appeal is his character and integrity. Anything that would taint that would drive people away from him. Swift Boat ads would hurt McCain more than help.

You do make a good point. Obama keeps talking about bringing in disaffected Republicans and how he'll accomplish his new vision working with everybody. He can say this because most people don't know where he stands. Republicans in Congress aren't going to vote for his ideas just because he's a good guy or popular. You can't reach across the aisle being very liberal. The only way he'd be able to pass such an agenda would be to have an overwhelming majority in both houses.

McCain, on the other hand, has a history of reaching across the aisle to pass legislation. His ability to bring Republicans and Democrats together is something that is hurting him with the Conservatives.

Although I do find it entertaining that the republicans have been eating their own lately, once the primary process is settled and they have their candidate, I fully expect the GOP to line up behind him... they've repetedly demonstrated that they are party first. We may actually start seeing some reconciliation in the GOP ranks now that Romney isn't in the race anymore (can also get worse as Huckabee'ers lust for Romney's delegates, which is why Romney's "suspension" may prove to be a wise move for the GOP since he still retains the delegates for now). I expect that the McCain camp won't be able to restrain the 527s (if they want to) once the game gets down to the nitty gritty of R vs D. I actually forsee something like the 527s doing their thing while McCain mildly condemns them... distancing himself from them while still potentially reaping some rewards.

There's a difference between saying Romney is on both sides of the issue and swift boating. Not running negative doesn't mean a candidate won't point out differences between him and the other guy or criticize his policies. It means not saying things like calling West Virginia a back room deal and personally criticizing or misrepresenting the opponent with nasty ads and rumors.

If someone runs a "Obama's a Muslim ad" it will hurt McCain more than help him. The taint will rub off on him and cost him votes. There won't rewards to reap. There were phone calls supporting Huckabee attacking Romney as a Mormon and supporting Huckabee. Huckabee called for them to stop as the taint rubbed off on him. The calls stopped.

Phan In Phlorida, you don't know John McCain. "Mildly condemn?" John McCain isn't mild about anything. More likely he'll have an angry tirade. He is the chief opponent of 527s on Capitol Hill. He can't and won't accept their help. It would make him a hypocrite.

McCain brought home no pork to Arizona last year. Or the year before. Or the year before. On Sunday he said, “Senator Clinton has gotten $500 million worth of pork-barrel projects. That kind of thing is going to stop when I’m president of the United States of America.”

If people believe McCain is principled and honest he can get elected. If they think he may be a hypocrite on anything his campaign is sunk. If the 527s do what you think they'll do it will be because they are trying to doom McCain.

Laexile wrote:If someone runs a "Obama's a Muslim ad" it will hurt McCain more than help him. The taint will rub off on him and cost him votes. There won't rewards to reap.

And I'm sure they are aware of this, which is why I don't see any 527s even touching on that Muslim foolishness. More likely, they'd focus on the "most liberal evah" theme, emphasizing Obama's voting record... like his state legislature record on abortion (I especially forsee them using the "live born fetus" one in particular... I don't even want to think of the ads they'd produce for that), light on law and order (regarding his stances on mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, drug sentencing laws, etc.), etc. They'll attempt to paint Obama as the "most to the left person ever born". Regardless of what level McCain condemns it, be it mildly or emphatically, the 527's will still do their thing. McCain can't stop them. McCain's comdemnations will seperate him from the slime, but he'll still benefit.

I realize we'll go back and forth on this, but If the 527s smear Obama with falsehoods McCain will lose more votes than he'll gain. The #1 reason people vote for McCain is because they see him as honest and principled. If people stop seeing that he'll lose a lot of votes. I'm not talking about the hard core Bush right wing. I'm talking about the moderates, independents, and Democrats that go for him.

If you're an Obama supporter you should hope the 527s try to smear him. It will make Obama a shoe in.

Laexile wrote:I realize we'll go back and forth on this, but If the 527s smear Obama with falsehoods McCain will lose more votes than he'll gain. The #1 reason people vote for McCain is because they see him as honest and principled. If people stop seeing that he'll lose a lot of votes. I'm not talking about the hard core Bush right wing. I'm talking about the moderates, independents, and Democrats that go for him.

If you're an Obama supporter you should hope the 527s try to smear him. It will make Obama a shoe in.

I'm sure I speak for all Obama supporters when I say that I'm only worried about getting past Hillary Clinton right now.

traderdave wrote:I'm sure I speak for all Obama supporters when I say that I'm only worried about getting past Hillary Clinton right now.

There are probably a lot of Obama supporters who are Democrats before they're Obama supporters, and they're probably quite interested in how the general election will play out for the Democratic nominee.

<embed src="http://godtube.com/flvplayer.swf" FlashVars="viewkey=80c5d5a2d2693dd6f188" wmode="transparent" quality="high" width="330" height="270" name="godtube" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>
If this call-and-response is intentional, its the weakest I've ever seen. Jump 2:30 into it.

Also, Godtube everyone.

(Bonus: peep hot chick to immediate left of Mitt.)

Romney's "suspension" speech was a real winner. Basically said he's suspending his campaign so the terrorists won't win, because Clinton or Obama will have a better chance of winning the WH if the GOP race drags on. IOW, a vote for Clinton/Obama is a vote for the terrorists. Also, Europe is heading down the tubes because they don't have enough God, and the ME is a big trouble-rousing PITA because they have too much God.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Romney's "suspension" speech was a real winner. Basically said he's suspending his campaign so the terrorists won't win, because Clinton or Obama will have a better chance of winning the WH if the GOP race drags on. IOW, a vote for Clinton/Obama is a vote for the terrorists. Also, Europe is heading down the tubes because they don't have enough God, and the ME is a big trouble-rousing PITA because they have too much God.

Yes?

In all seriousness though, or at least as much seriousness as one can muster drunk at 12:40 in the morning...

The Republican Party's nominee believes that a fast withdrawal in Iraq represents surrender, which means the terrorists win.

I'm not much for the God thing, but it's not exactly unique or anything to point out that Europe is pretty darn unreligious. And, uh, I think the third part is pretty self explanatory.

To dajafi, TV, and anyone else who wants to answer:

What do you think the odds are that the Democratic nominee is not known on June 1st?

jerseyhoya wrote:
The Republican Party's nominee believes that a fast withdrawal in Iraq represents surrender, which means the terrorists win.

Do you agree with this?

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The Republican Party's nominee believes that a fast withdrawal in Iraq represents surrender, which means the terrorists win.

Do you agree with this?

Pretty much, yes.

If you give up something, when someone else is fighting you for it, they win.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The Republican Party's nominee believes that a fast withdrawal in Iraq represents surrender, which means the terrorists win.

Do you agree with this?

Pretty much, yes.

If you give up something, when someone else is fighting you for it, they win.

I think the whole misunderstood fact is who we are fighting and to what extent. It reminds me of that old story of how a bully is roughing it up with a few kids and a bigger bully comes by and really embarasses him. He then goes around the corner and punches a smaller kid in the face to prove is own worth to himself.

Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a concept. You cannot beat it since it will always be there. The terrorist have already won. We will never feel safe and we'll always be looking over our shoulder. Not because they bombed us, but because we continually must live in a state of fear. Since nothing we do in Iraq will stop terrorism (even you can't disagree with that), the only thing it will do is make it stronger.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not much for the God thing, but it's not exactly unique or anything to point out that Europe is pretty darn unreligious.

A stark contrast to the fun times of The Crusades and Inquisition...

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The Republican Party's nominee believes that a fast withdrawal in Iraq represents surrender, which means the terrorists win.

Do you agree with this?

Pretty much, yes.

If you give up something, when someone else is fighting you for it, they win.

I think the whole misunderstood fact is who we are fighting and to what extent. It reminds me of that old story of how a bully is roughing it up with a few kids and a bigger bully comes by and really embarasses him. He then goes around the corner and punches a smaller kid in the face to prove is own worth to himself.

Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a concept. You cannot beat it since it will always be there. The terrorist have already won. We will never feel safe and we'll always be looking over our shoulder. Not because they bombed us, but because we continually must live in a state of fear. Since nothing we do in Iraq will stop terrorism (even you can't disagree with that), the only thing it will do is make it stronger.

I've wondered about how we could win this "war on terror". The only two that come to mind at the moment are...

Fight terrorism with terrorism. Heck, with our technology and "unofficial" government funding, we'd be so much better at it. They set of an IED or suicide bomb in a market, we vaporize the Kaaba during The Hajj.

Kill 'em all. Good Metallica album, but genocide is generally frowned upon (not to mention immoral).

Problem is, the above (along with any form of nuclear threat) wouldn't be that effective since the typical Jihadist terrorist welcomes death. They look forward to Paradise since most have a rather crappy worldly life.


There is another option, but corporate America/Haliburton would never go for it... make them (the ME countries) deal with it. Threaten to turn the rich Saudis et al into poor folks if they don't. Completely cut off aid and funding, total embargo, blockades, etc. So what if it means $50/gal gas... We'll finally get that strict class system where only the most wealthy can afford such luxuries as TV.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not much for the God thing, but it's not exactly unique or anything to point out that Europe is pretty darn unreligious.

Right. That's the same europe where in Ireland, we have had divorce referendums turned over as recently as 1986 by the priests opposing it in their sunday sermon, and a second referendum was narrowly passed in 1996 by a margin of 7000 votes. Where in Scotland, the strict values of scots presybterianism still influence policy discussions. Or what about Barcelona, which has continued to build a cathedral for over 100 years now, out of respect to the original architect's wishes. Lets not forget the german traditionalist who is currently pope, who is busy advocating mass be spoken in latin again, and winding up jewish rabbis by insisting on including a conversion prayer for jews. Hell, we're still fighting a battle in both scotland and england to stop Faith Schools being part of the public provision of education.

When I was last in spain (Seville), it was a real eye opener to see brass bands marching to play at their local church on a sunday. When I lived in London, it was a regular sight to see folk in Brixton dressed up in their sunday best for church.

You'll excuse the exasperation, and I'm not aiming it at you personally, more the general perception that is espoused in the US that just because church and state are often kept seperate by legislation, there's a lack of belief in Europe and the various countries are somehow unreligious. We're really every bit as bigoted as any other part of the world. Half the crap that kicked off in the former yugoslavia has focussed as much on christians (of various shades) either fighting each other, or muslims. Sectarianism is still endemic in both Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The War on Terror = The War on Drugs. Gotta keep the machine moving.

jerseyhoya wrote:You'll excuse the exasperation, and I'm not aiming it at you personally, more the general perception that is espoused in the US that just because church and state are often kept seperate by legislation, there's a lack of belief in Europe and the various countries are somehow unreligious.

If these statistics are accurate, Europe is still pretty religious.

Religion and politics is different in Europe. First of all, you've got a number of countries which maintain a religious establishment. The specifics vary widely, of course, but it has had an historical impact on how Europeans practice their religion. In the US, by contrast, there is no establishment. Thus, churches have in some sense had to adapt to satisfying needs in order to build congregations--the pattern is not much different than the capitalist "creative destruction." As a consequence, you get "great awakenings" in the US (some say were in a third great awakening ow) which really have no equivalent in Europe. This has made much religious practice in the US far more democratic and less hierarchical than in Europe. It also leads to all kinds of nutty religious ideas proliferating--prosperity gospel being one example, mega churches being another.

On a related note, it will be very interesting to see how the firestorm over Archbishop Rowan's comments on Sharia Law in Britain works out going forward. I read the comments, and as an Liberal American Episcopalian, I found them jaw dropping. I think it demonstrates a fundamental problem with an established church.

Wizlah wrote:You'll excuse the exasperation, and I'm not aiming it at you personally, more the general perception that is espoused in the US that just because church and state are often kept seperate by legislation, there's a lack of belief in Europe and the various countries are somehow unreligious.

Don't worry, they're supposed to be separate here, too, per the Constitution no less. Look how seriously people take that...

I don't even know that that particular viewpoint vis-a-vis "non-religious Europe" is that widely held, it's just kind of a talking point that justifies a lot of peoples' dismissal of statements or policies arising from "Old Yurp," e.g., "They don't have GAWWWD on their side, WE do!"