Speechwriter Dan Conley on what the Democrats need to do this week:

Sell the Middle Class Tax Cut. John McCain doesn't offer one, Barack Obama does. McCain is running ad after ad saying Obama will raise taxes -- it's a lie. For the bottom 97 percent of American taxpayers, Barack Obama will cut your taxes and John McCain won't.

Pound the economic elitism storyline. McCain gift wrapped an issue for Democrats this week by not knowing how many homes he owns. He's out of touch. He thinks people who make $4 million a year are middle class. He thinks the Bush economic approach is working.

Turnaround the celebrity/cult issue. There's a real political cult stalking America, but not the one you think. The real cult is one of warrior pencil-necked geeks ... a political Fight Club for all the boys who got beat up in high school. They hold the corner offices in think tanks and dominate the op-ed pages of big city newspapers. They walk in John McCain's shadow and throw around pro wrestling words like "smackdown," thinking that the U.S. military can restore their manhood. And yes, some of them are U.S. Senators, most notably McCain's fey sidekicks Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman ...

Talk about twisting the knife--calling Lindsay Graham "fey." I wonder if he and Ken Mehlman have ever hooked up after too much Chardonnay at an AEI event.

I think he's right on point with 1 & 2. No Republican--not one--can effectively differentiate between McCain's economic agenda and what Bush has done. That's because there really isn't any difference.

He goes on to suggest that they "destroy Lieberman"; I disagree with his premise, which is that the Dems made a big mistake by not taking down Zell Miller in 2004. I don't think Miller made a bit of difference in that election. Much as I loathe Lieberman, I think minds are made up about him and while it would be fun to see Webb give him a verbal swirlie, it's not that important.

Philly the Kid wrote:Why are you surprised? Did you think these guys operate in a vaccum or control all this stuff? If you are the guy and you REALLY want to win, are you going to NOT do something your advisors say you need to do to win? I'm ripped all the time for my so-called naive and or idealistic stances and wanting people like candidates to operate by a higher moral standard. Is that what you want from these two? And why would you expect that in this country and this time?

ptk, we differ. I've been faced with choices in my life where I could act unethically, not get caught, and use it to my advantage. I chose not to do so. I would hope that if I were in their shoes I wouldn't do what they're doing. Of course that would probably end because McCain and Obama's supporters don't want the other guy. The high horse is easy when others aren't depending on you.

You are cynical and see conspiracies. I'm not and I don't. Barack Obama's rhetoric is about reaching across the aisle and bringing people together. Yet his campaign has been divisive and dismissive of any Republican ideas as being those of Bush. I can't think of one thing Obama has done to reach out to Republicans other than telling them they can join him.

When Democrats like Joe Biden talk so positively about John McCain they aren't kidding. He's one of the most popular guys in the Senate. But the respectful campaign ended when he was running behind.

I think he's right on point with 1 & 2. No Republican--not one--can effectively differentiate between McCain's economic agenda and what Bush has done. That's because there really isn't any difference.

Can you produce an analysis by a Republican saying he can't differentiate between their economic agendas. They differ in almost every area. Please tell me how McCain's healthcare plan is the same as Bush's. McCain calls for massive spending cuts. Bush increases spending.

That's not to say their economic plans aren't similar. That's because they are both Republicans! Republicans propose Republican solutions to economic problems. I know in a perfect Democratic world everyone would think the same and no one would disagree with Democrats, but until that happens Republicans will push Republican solutions.

dajafi wrote:Today's electoral-vote.com results: Obama 269, McCain 256, Tie 13.

Which means that if it came out like that, and McCain won VA, we'd go to the House of Representatives. And wouldn't that be fun. (insert vomiting icon)

I'm starting to think the most important thing about the Democratic convention is whether it wins some new supporters in Colorado, which right now is a jump-ball with McCain leading within the MOE.

in the MOE overall or in Colorado? Or both?

Rococo4 wrote:

dajafi wrote:Today's electoral-vote.com results: Obama 269, McCain 256, Tie 13.

Which means that if it came out like that, and McCain won VA, we'd go to the House of Representatives. And wouldn't that be fun. (insert vomiting icon)

I'm starting to think the most important thing about the Democratic convention is whether it wins some new supporters in Colorado, which right now is a jump-ball with McCain leading within the MOE.

in the MOE overall or in Colorado? Or both?

I was referring to the MOE in one CO poll. But then I saw another one that had Obama ahead there... Mason-Dixon? They had a bunch of weird results: Obama up in CO, McCain up in NV and NM, and McCain leading in Arizona by just 6 points.

The lesson is probably that polls in late summer aren't worth much time or energy.

NSFW

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CoDsQ2VNArI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CoDsQ2VNArI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

that is quite possibly the best thing i have ever seen

that is quite possibly the worst reporting i have ever seen

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Why are you surprised? Did you think these guys operate in a vaccum or control all this stuff? If you are the guy and you REALLY want to win, are you going to NOT do something your advisors say you need to do to win? I'm ripped all the time for my so-called naive and or idealistic stances and wanting people like candidates to operate by a higher moral standard. Is that what you want from these two? And why would you expect that in this country and this time?

ptk, we differ. I've been faced with choices in my life where I could act unethically, not get caught, and use it to my advantage. I chose not to do so. I would hope that if I were in their shoes I wouldn't do what they're doing. Of course that would probably end because McCain and Obama's supporters don't want the other guy. The high horse is easy when others aren't depending on you.

You are cynical and see conspiracies. I'm not and I don't. Barack Obama's rhetoric is about reaching across the aisle and bringing people together. Yet his campaign has been divisive and dismissive of any Republican ideas as being those of Bush. I can't think of one thing Obama has done to reach out to Republicans other than telling them they can join him.

When Democrats like Joe Biden talk so positively about John McCain they aren't kidding. He's one of the most popular guys in the Senate. But the respectful campaign ended when he was running behind.

I think he's right on point with 1 & 2. No Republican--not one--can effectively differentiate between McCain's economic agenda and what Bush has done. That's because there really isn't any difference.

Can you produce an analysis by a Republican saying he can't differentiate between their economic agendas. They differ in almost every area. Please tell me how McCain's healthcare plan is the same as Bush's. McCain calls for massive spending cuts. Bush increases spending.

That's not to say their economic plans aren't similar. That's because they are both Republicans! Republicans propose Republican solutions to economic problems. I know in a perfect Democratic world everyone would think the same and no one would disagree with Democrats, but until that happens Republicans will push Republican solutions.

Hold on here Lax. You were chiding both sides for resorting to negative stuff. For using what the advisors and marketers and pollsters and strategists might be telling them to say or do. You implied you wanted these guys to live by a higher moral standard so that their words would stand for soemthing. I got that you feel McCain has built a nice career and track record and wanted him to run on that and true to what and who he has been. Same with Obama, that he should practice his rhetoric and were bemoaning the changes in tactics of both.

I then said, 'why?', why would you expect that and contrasted that to someone like me, cynical at times in the extreme perhaps, and conspiracy theorist (not my jargon) -- however, I've also talked often about idealistic notions -- and then got chided for not being a realist. Not a student of how the election politics are played.

So which is it? I asked you why would expect these two to do things any different, and whether or not they are enough in control of their own campaigns to ignore input from strategists. This has nothing to do with whether I;m cynical. It has to do with you having unrealistic expectations that these guys would play nice and be true to their word, which seems a bit naive coming from you. And if McCain played it straight and lost, would you be happier than if he maneuvers and wins?

See, for instance, if it was me -- I'd have debates and discussions where they got to ask each other questions. Where they didn't get the questions ahead of time. Where Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer were NOT the hosts. Where they had to really know the issues and respond in real-time and not in platitudes. I'm so sick of rhetoric that starts with "We need to...." And have a host who will not let them make speeche in lieu of answering questions. And to ask really specific questions, not broad stroke nonsense that means nothing.

I can think of 100's of questions for both these guy. I'd also like to see Nader therer answering too.

How bout these two: "Senator McCain, do you really care about poor people of color, and if so, what will you do to lower the prison roles, improve quality (not WalMart) jobs and improve the education in those communities?"

"Senator Obama, a few years ago you were chatting it u pwith Palestinians and now you are talking with AIPAC with a strong Israel is crucial to our security interests -- which is it, are you a man of diplomacy who wants to de-militarize or are you a modest hawk who will continue to pour billions in to the military support for Israel and bases abroad?"

You know as well as anyone, when we discuss how a message or candidate plays with one group or another, its mostly about perception -- not about issues. Was it Dajafi who said they should come to a debate with their advisors next to them indicating what kind of team they would put in place? How they plan to advise their commander and chief.

I'm for getting to what is real, not spinning things for sub-demographics. I just find it peculiar that you were so seemingly disappointed in either or both candidates lack of honesty or being consistent with how you have perceived them to be prior to the final furlongs of this political race. Nor unwillingness to take the high road if it meant losing.

This link is probably as well suited to the books thread as the politics, but I'm throwing it in here, because it's a voice you're not always going to hear in the US.

A bit back I mentioned a book by a guy called Arkady Babchenko (a former soldier who is now a reporter), and we had invited him to the festival to speak with a Norwegian war correspondent, Asne Seierstad. Anyhow, he got called away to cover the war in georgia, didn't get back in time to get his visa sorted for travel to the UK, despite a lot of phoning around. We were able to get this video message sorted for the event though, with the help of some contacts in Berlin (where he was at the time), and it's up on our website now.

He talks a bit about what he saw in South Ossetia and Gori. 7 minutes of your time. Worth a look.

Sitting in first class on his flight to Denver, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) perked up when he heard the safety announcement that "there is no smoking in the cabin" -- tapping the passenger next to him and proudly proclaiming: "I wrote that law!" (Wake-Up Call! sources).

This man is going to get reelected in November. What a joke.

I love that guy's (the FOX News guy) question. No, they don't believe in freedom of speech, that's what they're protesting about.

dajafi wrote:No Republican--not one--can effectively differentiate between McCain's economic agenda and what Bush has done. That's because there really isn't any difference.

Bush has been stout on tax cuts. McCain is lukewarm about them.

Bush has spent like a drunken Democrat. McCain has a long record of genuine fiscal conservatism; he is anti-pork and anti-earmarks.

Night and day difference.

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:No Republican--not one--can effectively differentiate between McCain's economic agenda and what Bush has done. That's because there really isn't any difference.

Bush has been stout on tax cuts. McCain is lukewarm about them.

Bush has spent like a drunken Democrat. McCain has a long record of genuine fiscal conservatism; he is anti-pork and anti-earmarks.

Night and day difference.

I don't think attitudes towards pork and earmarks are strictly speaking economic policy, unless you're suggesting that Bush (and by extension Reagan) never abandoned Keynesianism and McCain will. But I don't think McCain thinks about the economy in that way.

In any event, cutting earmarks and pork, in addition to being impossible, won't amount to much anyway. If you're going to shrink government, you'll have to attack Medicare, Social Security, and Defense. No one is talking about doing any of those things.

TomatoPie wrote:Bush has spent like a drunken Democrat. McCain has a long record of genuine fiscal conservatism; he is anti-pork and anti-earmarks.

i prefer the phrase "drunken rich prick who shouldn't even be at this college"

ptk, you're a cynic who imagines some sort of utopia but thinks it won't happen due to the control of the [fill in the blank]. There's nothing inconsistent there.

Why expect something different? Because John McCain is different. He's a politician that doesn't follow orthodoxy. He follows his conscience. Barack Obama says he wants a different kind of politics. Either he's a very convincing hypocrite or he just threw that out the window the minute someone said, "You'll have a better chance to win if you bash the President and convince people your opponent is just like him."

Perhaps it is naive to expect men who have acted one way for years to continue to do so. I don't know the answer to your question. Certainly I think the country will be far better off with McCain than Obama, but I know I'm already disappointed with the way McCain is trying to win. If you're an ethical person you may accept this is the way the game is played, but you should at least lament it.

I like that McCain does answer any question when he does the town halls. He gets tough questions like you mention. I was at a VFW appearance he made. It wasn't a town hall where he was expecting tough questions. But it was Republicans. So someone asked him about immigration. He was comfortable answering without pandering. Stand in a room with McCain and you'll be impressed. That's the "respectful" campaign I wanted.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Sitting in first class on his flight to Denver, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) perked up when he heard the safety announcement that "there is no smoking in the cabin" -- tapping the passenger next to him and proudly proclaiming: "I wrote that law!" (Wake-Up Call! sources).

This man is going to get reelected in November. What a joke.

yea he is completely senile.

Andrews would have been a much better choice. I still contend that South Jersey and North Jersey should be to different states.

mpmcgraw wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Sitting in first class on his flight to Denver, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) perked up when he heard the safety announcement that "there is no smoking in the cabin" -- tapping the passenger next to him and proudly proclaiming: "I wrote that law!" (Wake-Up Call! sources).

This man is going to get reelected in November. What a joke.

yea he is completely senile.

Andrews would have been a much better choice. I still contend that South Jersey and North Jersey should be to different states.

I actually think he's beyond senile, and more is likely the following

Revealing item about lobbyist donations here, in reference to a party being thrown in Denver tonight. It's from Daily Kos, but there's no editorial content to the numbers--they just show the trend.

Here are the sponsors. See if you can figure out the pattern:

Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (lead sponsor)
2008: 59% Dems, 41% Reps
2006: 48% Dems, 48% Reps
2004: 39% Dems, 61% Reps
2002: 32% Dems, 68% Reps

National Association of Chain Drug Stores
2008: 66% Dems, 34% Reps
2006: 24% Dems, 75% Reps
2004: 22% Dems, 78% Reps
2002: 40% Dems, 60% Reps

ClearChannel
2008: 54% Dems, 46% Reps
2006: 40% Dems, 60% Reps
2004: 38% Dems, 62% Reps
2002: 38% Dems, 62% Reps

Federation of American Hospitals
2008: 54% Dems, 46% Reps
2006: 35% Dems, 64% Reps
2004: 40% Dems, 60% Reps
2002: 31% Dems, 69% Reps

Duke Energy
2008: 39% Dems, 61% Reps
2006: 26% Dems, 74% Reps
2004: 24% Dems, 76% Reps
2002: 30% Dems, 70% Reps

National Association of Home Builders
2008: 45% Dems, 55% Reps
2006: 45% Dems, 55% Reps
2004: 33% Dems, 67% Reps
2002: 38% Dems, 62% Reps

US Chamber of Commerce
2008: 39% Dems, 61% Reps
2006: 18% Dems, 82% Reps
2004: 24% Dems, 76% Reps
2002: 10% Dems, 90% Reps

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (Coal industry front group)

Lockheed Martin
2008: 57% Dems, 43% Reps
2006: 42% Dems, 58% Reps
2004: 41% Dems, 59% Reps
2002: 39% Dems, 61% Reps

Daimler
2008: 48% Dems, 52% Reps
2006: 35% Dems, 65% Reps
2004: 32% Dems, 68% Reps
2002: 41% Dems, 59% Reps

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
2008: 45% Dems, 55% Reps
2006: 28% Dems, 72% Reps
2004: 30% Dems, 70% Reps
2002: 30% Dems, 70% Reps

Amgen
2008: 45% Dems, 55% Reps
2006: 34% Dems, 65% Reps
2004: 27% Dems, 73% Reps
2002: 25% Dems, 74% Reps

Verisign
2008: 47% Dems, 53% Reps
2006: 21% Dems, 79% Reps
2004: 37% Dems, 63% Reps
2002: 55% Dems, 45% Reps

"If that is the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I do not also blow."
--Mayor "Diamond" Joe Quimby

CNN/USA Today have a new poll out showing Obama and McCain tied at 47%, with McCain having picked up support from Hillary Clinton supporters since July.

That any so-called Democrat could consider voting Republican after 8 years of Bush/Cheney just boggles my mind.

Neither Bush nor Cheney is likely to be on the GOP ticket this time