2008 US Elections: Shake Hands and Come Out Fighting

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Kimball_Kinnison, Jul 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I'm not sure Hillary Clinton has any power left with regards to Obama though, while the reverse certainly isn't true.

    Unless Hillary Clinton herself has some sort of "24-esque" conspiracy waiting in the wings that would propel her back into dominance, but it would have to be the mother of all plans.
  2. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I hear McCain has posters of him and Hillary together to get mroe support... because we all know how much the Republicans love Hillary!

    McCain is also running an ad that shows Obama supporting McCain and Lieberman on global warming. How is that bad again?


    I wonder what the campaign would have been like with Hillary as the nominee. What tricks would McCain have pulled, and who would his VP pick have been?
  3. ROTSFan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2006
    star 4
    A car is not intended to kill people, it's primary role is transportation. A gun....sure it's a fine collectors item, but don't forget the distinction there.




    Honestly, I have absolutely no faith that Obama will reign in Congress. I've followed his voting record as best I could in the Senate, and I have yet to find any major (or even semi-major) votes in which he didn't follow party lines. He's basically voted in lockstep with the Democratic leadership in Congress for the past 4 years. Why should I trust that he will suddenly grow a backbone and stand up to them once he's President?

    Kimball Kinnison


    I thought you said you were going to keep an open mind and were still considering Obama.
  4. Blue_Jedi33 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2003
    star 5
    Halloween and political vids

    Funny stuff
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg56KbtmARc (Obama Ad)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21577lDTj1k (GOP Ad)
  5. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    And the Constitution specifically protects my right to own a gun. It doesn't say anything about my right to own a car. Don't forget that distinction there, either.

    Go back and read my post at 8:15am this morning. As I said there, I went and voted absentee yesterday, and had a hard time deciding who to vote for up until I was finally in the booth and had to make a decision:
    I was considering Obama right up until I actually had to choose, but what tipped the balance for me is that I don't trust him to reign in a Democrat-controlled Congress. I don't think that he would initiate many objectionable policies, but I also don't think that he would stand in the way of them if the Democrats in Congress introduce and pass them.

    Just because I ultimately chose to vote for McCain doesn't mean that I wasn't actively considering and open to Obama, any more than if I had picked Obama it would have meant that I wasn't considering McCain. In the end, I had to make a choice, and I did.

    Kimball Kinnison
  6. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I think it's basically inexcusable for anyone to vote for John McCain, mainly because of Sarah Palin. She is completely and utterly unqualified to assume a role that she would have a greater than average chance of inheriting. She was not vetted, has proven to be a borderline religious fanatic, incompetent on just about anything of real substance that doesn't concern strictly Alaskan issues, expert in engaging in backstabbing of friends new and old and has a complete inability to own up to her mistakes or even to recognize them.

    The first and sometimes only presidential decision a nominee makes is to choose a running mate, and John McCain chose beyond poorly. He chose pure short-term political gain over the good of the country, making a mockery of his "country first" slogan. I suspect he knows this now, and that's probably why he is said by many to privately be at odds with his running mate. If true, it would be just another sign that McCain is erratic at heart, always temperamental and impulsive and rarely someone who is steady in a crisis. He's not the leader he we need, and his vice presidential nominee is certainly not someone we need at any time. Palin represents some of the worst aspects of both the Republican party and the United States in general. She should be swiftly ushered off the national stage following a loss on Tuesday, if that's what happens, and never heard from again.

    I can understand a person not voting for Obama. But for John McCain and Sarah Palin? Inexcusable.
  7. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Seconded.

    EDIT: Actually, I have to disagree on one thing: Sarah Palin is definitely not just a borderline religious fanatic.
  8. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    Inexcusable? Come on. I don't like her either but it isn't as if Obama doesn't have plenty of his own problems. It is could just as easily be said that it is inexcusable that he supports ethanol and farm subsidies which are basically the worst form of government handout to people making more than 250k while calling for tax increases for people making the same amount of money. If you don't think McCain is going to die, Palin only becomes a factor in his decision making process.
  9. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    McCain would have more chance with me, definitely, if it wasn't Palin as a running mate. It is.... dissettling, at best, for me.

    Aside: I have realised today that I've fully come to terms with California's prop 8.
  10. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I hope you mean the idea of it failing, though again this is probably a better topic for the homosexuality thread.
  11. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I meant more just with my own vote on it. (No)

    I wasn't intending to delve deeply into it, beyond that its an issue i've mentioned here that'll be on the ballot, and that I've finally sorted out my handling of it by opting to vote based on the proposition, rather than my levels of annoyance with various groups and side arguments.

    Still have a couple of undecided propositions, though. I'll have to get cracking on it.
  12. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    That's a good attitude to have in general, IMO. That's how I try to view all the choices available in an election.

    If you're interested, I just posted an entry to my blog regarding my thoughts on the California propositions. May provide food for thought, if only in disagreement. :)

    And incidentally, thanks for voting no.
  13. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Oddly, what's got me to that conclusion was, in large part, my large presidental diatribe, and realising that if i'm voting for what i feel is right, ignoring the connected issues, that I should be doing that with the propositions as well. Which helped to clear out my frustrations with how things have been handled and focus on how I think things SHOULD be. So, oddly, my presidential cynicism has boosted my proposition idealism.
    The debate I had with a guy on campus over 8 probably helped as well as I had a plesant time being a devil's advocate.

    Also, we start off on agreement pretty well with the first props, then it starts getting into stuff that i'm still weighing with or evaluating the sides. I've not fully read through many of them to see where I forsee problems.
  14. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I'm sorry, KW, but this sort of thing shows exactly how much you have gone off the deep end. You used to not only be able to, but actively encouraged people to look at things from others' points of view. Now, you seem unable to look beyond your own position and biases.

    Tell me, if someone absolutely doesn't want Obama to become President (for whatever reason), who should they vote for? Bob Barr (Libertarian)? Cynthia McKinney (Green)? Ralph Nader (Independent)? Remember that traditionally, the VP nomination hasn't been that important. (In fact, many of the complaint people have made about Palin were also made about Quayle back in 1988. Does that mean that voting for Bush was inexcusable then?)

    To call a vote for McCain inexcusable only shows how close minded you have become, not how wise or intelligent you are.

    Other people don't share your priorities on the issues. For some people, the top issue is taxes, and on that basis alone it would be "excusable" for them to vote for McCain if they thought his tax plan was better. For other people the top issue is abortion, or gun control, or foreign policy, or health care, etc. If they consider any or all of those more important an issue than who a candidate nominates for VP, then it's their right, and it's perfectly "excusable" for them to vote for McCain.

    Most of all, who are you to declare what is or isn't excusable for someone else exercising their right to vote? Who are you to dictate what issues should be most important to someone else in casting their vote?

    Kimball Kinnison
  15. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    My dad has the same view about McCain and Palin that I do, KK (and he's a Republican that may well have voted for McCain otherwise). There is no earthly way that a vote for McCain is defensible, and that's because of Palin.

    She has demonstrated herself to be so incompetent and unqualified for the office of the vice presidency and the presidency that any vote for them is indefensible. There is absolutely no way that she could handle the presidency, and it would be a disaster for this country if she somehow assumed the office. Our standing in the world would instantly take a major hit. Obama may or may not succeed, but it's already clear that Palin would fail.

    Conservatives across the country have endorsed Obama in part because Palin has so clearly appeared out of her league and depth that any vote for McCain is unacceptable in their minds.

    Who are you to dictate what issues should be most important to someone else in casting their vote?

    I'm a voter, just like you. Citizens have a moral right and obligation to speak up when our fate is so clearly riding on the right choice being made (or the wrong one not being made).

    To sum all this up in a sentence, Palin is so unqualified and incompetent for the presidency that it overrides all other concerns. I'm fine with someone not voting for Obama, but voting for McCain means endorsing Palin, and that should be impossible for anyone who has followed this campaign.
  16. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Oh, I'm sorry. Your dad agrees with you, so you must be right! I'm so sorry for missing that little bit.[/sarcasm]

    Obviously, there are plenty of people out there who do think that it's defensible to vote for McCain. If, as you claim, it were indefensible then McCain wouldn't be polling as high as he is. What you are basically saying is that at least 41% (the Lowest number for McCain currently among all of the polls in the RCP average) of the nation is doing something indefensible. Obviously, there's a large number who disagree with you.

    What makes you so much smarter or wiser than them? Your calling it inexcusable, or indefensible is really nothing more than your own over-inflated opinion of your own position. This is nothing more than what you have regularly done over the past several years, treating others as though if they disagree with you, they must be stupid and their positions completely invalid. Well, your position isn't necessarily the best, nor the only one just because you hold it, nor because people you know agree with you. Remember the quote attributed (with some dispute) to Pauline Kael: "Nixon can't have won; no one I know voted for him." Your attitude is no better than the hubris shown in that quote.

    Kimball Kinnison

    EDIT: In any case, I'm off to go sling some lead through some rifles and handguns today. Have fun everyone!
  17. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's indefensible. But I've run into case after case of my personal Republican acquaintances (of the college-educated suburban type) who had planned to do their Republican duty and vote for McCain until the dust settled after the convention and everyone started to realize exactly what it was that Sarah Palin represents.

    I understand that she has shored up the rural base and is bringing social conservatives to the polls to vote.

    But she has alienated moderate fiscal Republicans in large numbers I believe. Her choice fundamentally shattered the voting coalition that put George Bush in office. This is the internal monologue that will put Obama in office:

    "I agree with McCain on taxes but I can't risk a Sarah Palin presidency."

    Sarah Palin will guarantee McCain's defeat because a lot of smart moderates who would normally vote Republican realize exactly how dangerous she is.
  18. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Agree with above, and Powell put the nail in her coffin quite eloquently last week.

    If McCain were 50 years old and had no history of melanoma, it would be quite a different story, IMHO.

    Peace,

    V-03
  19. Blithe Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 24, 2003
    star 4
    Jabbadabbado nailed it. That's exactly how I feel as a fiscal moderate/conservative. It's also one of the main reasons, aside from not being crazy over McCain way back in the GOP primaries, that I'm very close to voting for a third party, as futile as it may seem.
  20. Blue_Jedi33 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2003
    star 5
    This is a very interesting conversation, I didn't know so many Republicans are voting AGAINST Palin, not for Obama.

    Well let that be a warning for all future people running for President, the vise-president isn't just there to shore up the base. They need to be accepted by most, not just a few.

    McCain's Hail Mary with Palin was an Epic Fail that will go down in history as such. And the GOP thinks she has a future as leader of the party.

    Can you Imagine 2012 Obama vs Palin[face_laugh]

    It would be Obama Republicans giving Obama 2 terms just like the Reagan Democrats gave Reagan 2 terms.

    And Arizona is now in the toss up catagory:eek:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5
  21. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's indefensible....

    Yes, but it does lock him into a view that completely discounts any other.

    I suspect that on a small scale, the same level of disdain would have been thrown at most choices that McCain would have picked, or at the very least, the list of "acceptables" is very short for this area.

    Lieberman? He's scum
    Guiliani? fascist.
    Romney? Untrustworthy.
    Huckabee? fundametalist.
    Even Hillary? Traitor....

    The same person characterized all those people by using a kind of "0 to hatred in 3.5 seconds" mindset. On a larger scale, there almost seems to be an attitude that is bubbling under the surface where contempt is thrown at whoever is running against the perception of what Obama represents.

    McCain has had a successful career in Congress-22 years in the Senate alone. (with additional years in the House prior to that) Someone who is truly "erratic at heart, always tempermental, and not steady in a crisis" doesn't get elected and re-elected for over 2 decades. Maybe some perspective would apply here? McCain, who spent 6 years in a POW camp and then returned to serve in public office every day after that, didn't suddenly stop putting the country first because of a single campaign, and there's no reason to be so utterly unfair. There's also no reason to give him a complete pass for those same items, so if his current campaign costs him this election, then so be it...

    But there is going to be a world that exists past Nov 4.

  22. MagicMan43 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2008
    The constitution also once said it was ok to own slaves.

    The constitution is man-made. Man's judgement isn't perfect thus neither is the constitution. As man grows and develops and the needs and demands of society change, the constitution should be amended accordingly. Anything else would be to assume the constitution should not be subject to debate because it is perfect which as history proves is not the case.
  23. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    And I suspect you're completely right about that. But the "Palin? She's ignorant" label seems to have struck a chord with some moderate Republicans/Republican-leaning independents, enough, in any case, to make a real difference on Tuesday. If the polls are right, that is.

    McCain's campaign strategist made a high risk bet that Palin would draw the social conservatives to the polls without alienating the educated suburban/urban Republican. In all honesty, they had no choice other than to try some kind of high risk, high return tactic to win the election. It's no surprise that it failed. That doesn't actually make Palin's selection a mistake. If Palin had never done the media interviews and all we had seen was her one debate performance, then perhaps the situation would be very different today. The media would be griping about "lingering questions" about Palin, but the public would have had no clear reason to reject her other than disagreeing with her political ideology.
  24. Rogue_Follower Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 12, 2003
    star 6
    For the past several months, I've had the impression that McCain is not in control of his campaign. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, or anything silly like that, but that's just the gut feeling I get. The campaign feels disorganized and incompetent. Palin's choice exemplifies this to me.

    As a moderate, I was completely turned off by McCain's VP pick. He was pandering, both to the disenchanted Hillary supporters (not necessarily a bad idea) and to the hard right (not a good idea, in this election.) Instead of targeting the center in an election where the country is leaning Democrat, he decided to suck up to the social conservative base. Palin's stances on "key" issues are perfect to placate some elements of the right wing... but terrible if the Republicans wanted to actually win this election. They're both divisive and irrelevant to this election cycle.

    What's more, Palin feels like a high school girl running for class president. To me, the "folksy charm" is obnoxious. I don't want a President or Vice President who's "just like me." I want a strong, competent leader, someone who has good judgment and intellectual curiosity. I do not believe Palin has these qualities.

    I find it ridiculous that McCain still calls himself a "maverick." He may have been a maverick before, during his time in the Senate. But when it came time to make the tough choices in this election, he has obediently bowed to the will of his party.
  25. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Remember the quote attributed (with some dispute) to Pauline Kael: "Nixon can't have won; no one I know voted for him." Your attitude is no better than the hubris shown in that quote.

    I'm aware of what Kael is alleged to have said, and all I can say is that I'm not remotely as insular as that. I know people who are voting for McCain. I'm aware of the reasons people are voting for him (posting for years in this place has a way of keeping someone from being insular in terms of different viewpoints).

    I think you're taking what I've said too personally, and ignoring the rising tide of Republicans and conservatives in general who (as Jabba alluded to) have revolted at Palin's nomination and will either be voting for Obama as a result, or will chose not to vote at all (or perhaps make some other presidential vote). I'm a pretty observant person, KK, and I can say with some confidence that Palin's nomination is unlike any in modern history. No running mate has ever garnered this much attention. You brought up Dan Quayle, but he never eclipsed H.W. Bush. The ticket was always about Bush. With McCain/Palin, I'd say the majority of the religious right would much rather have Palin as the head of the ticket, not McCain. For months, McCain struggled to draw more than a few thousand people on his own. Once Palin showed, up they drew much larger crowds, and still do. That's very unusual.

    I posted back in late August or early September that I expected moderates and independents to march away from Palin in a few weeks. That's just what happened, and is happening now in a way not really seen before, at least when it comes to the vice presidency. The VP can't win you an election, but it can lose you one, and that could be what's about to happen to McCain.

    You can call me arrogant or whatever else, but you cannot hide all the people (many of them Republicans) who have been publicly and privately disgusted by Palin's nomination and then the things she's said and done in the time since the convention. To anyone who is not a deeply ingrained Republican, I cannot fathom a vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. I'm sorry you cannot understand that. I've listed many reasons for it, and they have been echoed by people with far more credibility in the GOP than I.

    The Palin nomination is first and foremost a reflection of John McCain's judgment, just as Joe Biden's nomination was a reflection of Obama's. I've not heard of anyone choosing not to vote for Obama because of Biden. The same can't be said of McCain.

    It's nothing personal, KK. To me, it's just obvious, and like saying the sun rises in the morning and sets at night. Sarah Palin is completely unqualified for either the vice presidency and presidency, and because McCain chose her (very haphazardly at that, after just one interview and at the last minute), I conclude that McCain's judgment is too poor to be entrusted with the presidency.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.