Hard News: We also predicted the election date ...
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
But Sully would do well to tone down the outrage for a couple of weeks perhaps.
Perhaps, but I also think certain sections of the 'right-o-sphere' might want to wipe their own arses before poo-wording Sullivan as a "hysteric". Sage as be as glib as he likes, but there was a time when Commentary and National Review et. al. adopted some kind of principled conservatism that wasn't shy about pointing out when the Republican Emperor was naked.
-
Please learn how to spel.
Arse. I fail. Note to self: drink coffee before posting.
-
Perhaps, but I also think certain sections of the 'right-o-sphere' might want to wipe their own arses before poo-wording Sullivan as a "hysteric". Sage as be as glib as he likes, but there was a time when Commentary and National Review et. al. adopted some kind of principled conservatism that wasn't shy about pointing out when the Republican Emperor was naked.
Sorry for quoting myself here, but that why I really believe Palin-McCain must not win in November -- it might be bad for the Republican Party, but it might just deliver a desperately needed reality check to the conservative movement that the theo-con culture warriors are an intellectual and political dead end. It won't be a quick or pretty process -- (just look at the Conservatives in England, or the Australian Liberals) -- because the theo-cons aren't going to surrender power without one hell of a fight.
But it is a fight that has to be had, and won, if the GOP really wants to be the party of Lincoln and Reagan again, rather than just name-checking without substance.
-
And may I say this, to close, Giovanni. I've defended the Log Cabin Republicans -- who controversially declined to endorse Bush in '04 -- but I've got to say WTF when they endorse McCain-Palin.
Governor Palin belongs to a church that is promoting a damaging and fradulent "pray away the gay" conference.
While McCain (eventually) opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, Palin is on the record supporting it.
She is on the record opposing same-sex partners of Alaska state employees receiving equal benefits. While she complied with the state supreme court ruling on the matter, she was supportive of a non-binding referendum regarding a constitutional amendment to ban them again.
Hum... For someone who told Charlie Gibson that "I'm not one to judge and, you know, I'm from a family and from a community with many, many members of many diverse backgrounds and I'm not going to judge someone on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic. I'm not going to judge them."
Well, Sarah, your church sure is. You've judged people like me with your words and your actions.
-
rich - I assumed you were paying more attention on this thread and the preceding ones on the same theme. I was picking up also on simons last post stating the economy was fucked and making a related point. The socialise the losses meme has been running for a while in the generally anti american, specially anti republican tone of many comments here.
so I will accept a slap for crap puntuation & poor structure for the here and now. :^) My thoughts do run ahead of themselves. will try to be more verbose next time.
craig -
(Palin is a lying absurdity)
if that is not having an emo then provide a better example. Please :^)
-
if that is not having an emo then provide a better example. Please :^)
Strikes me as a remarkable under-statement of fact.
-
yes of course. and 80 % approval ratings in the state in which she is the governor merely confirm that.
-
yes of course. and 80 % approval ratings in the state in which she is the governor merely confirm that.
Oh, OK. You can be a habitual and reflexive liar (or just not terribly bright, which isn't much better) -- about matters great, small and absurdly trivial -- who doesn't take kindly to any scrutiny, and that doesn't matter as long as you're popular? What is this - high school?
-
Arse. I fail. Note to self: drink coffee before posting.
Rich, that's a brilliant combination of Paul Henry and one of Mr Slacks' haiku. I salute you in this time of billboards.
-
Damn misplaced apostrophe catastrophe. Gets us all. :)
-
God, this is like going around in circles, playing Simon says: Simon says..gets rather badly shot down; Simon says again..gets rather badly shot down and so on. I'm not sure why you bother, but bother you do.
Gosh that was good Sage..did you have to think long for that..it was very witty. On yer....
If you can get the conclusion you somehow got from that interview then either you are a) fooling yourself, or b) likely didn't read it again. If you can't see that ABC did the woman a huge favour by trimming that out then I can't help you. As it was, post edit (and non live interviews are almost always edited..surely you knew that) it just made her look incompetent. Pre-edit, it made her look resoundingly stupid..a buffoon. The same can be said for several other edits done by ABC, which made her look better.
Sage says:
Paulsen has handled things pretty well. With the shareholders in Bear Stearns and Lehman completely screwed and those of Merrill Lynch mostly screwed whilst freddiefannie assets/liabilities have been protected so the average homeowner is protected this kind of makes a mockery of the capitalise the profits and socialise the losses meme.
Others (from a right of centre publication) say:
What we are seeing on Wall Street today is the result of an ideology gone amok. There was call to loosen and change the antiquated regulations governing investment back in 1980. But the Republican era has seen that loosening go to the point of near-cataclysm. Banks are failing, markets dropping. We are in the midst of a slow-motion economic crash. What happens next is an economic contraction: loans aren't available, so businesses can't expand. A crash comes at the beginning of a period of economic trouble.
John McCain, after his political near-death experience, could have made the responsible regulation of markets one of his great causes. He didn't. And today he said, once again, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." I hope he's right, but it's entirely possible that he knows as much about our economy as Sarah Palin knows about The Bush Doctrine.
-
anti american
Just to give you a chance, Sage since you've tossed in one of those writer-is-a-dick terms..can you expand what you mean by that?
-
Oh, OK. You can be a habitual and reflexive liar (or just not terribly bright, which isn't much better) -- about matters great, small and absurdly trivial -- who doesn't take kindly to any scrutiny, and that doesn't matter as long as you're popular? What is this - high school?
I think it's the US Presidential race running par for the course.
-
God, this is like going around in circles, playing Angus says: Angus says..gets rather badly shot down; Angus says again..gets rather badly shot down and so on. I'm not sure why you bother, but bother you do.
The attacks on Palin corrospond to an alarming slide in Democrat polling. Attacking Palin is a losing strategy, please stop doing it.
PS - the approval of Congress was surveyed at 9% on 27/9/08 by Rasmussen.
PPS - 9% + 100% is 109%.
-
Attacking Palin is a losing strategy, please stop doing it.
Uhhh, seriously Angus, you still miss the obvious point. It ain't about attacking Palin, it's about the moral corruption that her choice indicates. And no amount of stomping your feet and saying 'it ain't so, it ain't so' is gonna change that.
Nor is cherry picking data to suit. Picking one poll which is a clear aberration on Congressional Approval is just that, and it's dishonest. Best you wander over to Real Clear Politics (a site with a Republic lean BTW) and look at the ongoing data from a multitude of polling organisations.
But I'm with you on FiveThirtyEight, there has been a slide in the past week, but if you are closely following the data and commentary on that and a variety of other sites, which I am, you'll notice that you are rather misreading the trends. McCain has lost a bit of ground this week and quite a bit in the past seven days, especially if you factor in polling lag. But I guess you missed that, eh?
And if you couldn't quite get the 100% thing, maybe that's why you are misreading polling data.
My points still stand.
-
Uhhh, seriously Angus, you still miss the obvious point. It ain't about attacking Palin, it's about the moral corruption that her choice indicates. And no amount of stomping your feet and saying 'it ain't so, it ain't so' is gonna change that.
Simon I am telling you that some of the weaknesses you express concern about in Palin - inexperience, ineptitude of foreign affairs, unwillingness to engage outside her political sphere, religious affliation - are seen as weaknesses of Obama compared to McCain. The Palin themed stories produced by the netroots hit the GOP favored talking points for the GOPs preferred electoral debate. I am telling you that no matter how factual you are in you're attacks that you inflict more friendly fire than anything else.
Nor is cherry picking data to suit. Picking one poll which is a clear aberration on Congressional Approval is just that, and it's dishonest.
I do not find 20% approval to evoke any different sentiment to 9%. I am curious that you do find 9% to 20% means "a clear aberration", if so it must follow that gaining an approval of say 33% would be much more positive than 20% in your eyes.
...if you are closely following the data and commentary on that and a variety of other sites, which I am, you'll notice that you are rather misreading the trends. McCain has lost a bit of ground this week and quite a bit in the past seven days, especially if you factor in polling lag. But I guess you missed that, eh?
How does 538 projecting a McCain win imply to you that McCain is losing? Because to me when they project a McCain win, it appears they are projecting a McCain win. Some kind of misreading is going on for sure.
BTW - since you called the combined bounce as having ended last week with a dead heat and McCain is now 2% ahead, how do you explain this?
I offer the explanation that the Obama negatives attacking Palin highlights have caused the damage to the Obama campaign.
And if you couldn't quite get the 100% thing, maybe that's why you are misreading polling data.
I do understand what you meant to say.
-
I offer the explanation that the Obama negatives attacking Palin highlights have caused the damage to the Obama campaign.
I'm sorry, I'm new to this fine website. When did Obama attack Palin exactly?
-
I'm sorry, I'm new to this fine website. When did Obama attack Palin exactly?
You're really got to work on Angus-speak. Apparently, the way to win an election is to avoid making any criticism whatsoever of your opponent's qualifications, public statements or record as a public official. I do hope he's not billing anyone for that strategic advice.
Somehow, I think Angus et. al. are grossly over-reacting to a soft (and diminishing) convention bounce and knocking over straw-men of their own construction.
-
I offer the explanation that the Obama negatives attacking Palin highlights have caused the damage to the Obama campaign.
My bad english, will rephrase: Attacks on Palin are critical of weaknesses (negatives) that are shared by Obama. Causing a swing voter to question Palin, will cause the swing voter to also question Obama on having the same weaknesses.
I'm sorry, I'm new to this fine website. When did Obama attack Palin exactly?
He never does, because he understands that raising questions about Palin's lack of experience, religious affiliation, foriegn affairs qualifications and insularness play to negatives in his own profile.
What I am trying to point out to Craig, Simon, et al is that the strategy employed by Obama is smart and intelligent. Disagreement and hilarity ensues.
You're really got to work on Angus-speak. Apparently, the way to win an election is to avoid making any criticism whatsoever of your opponent's qualifications, public statements or record as a public official. I do hope he's not billing anyone for that strategic advice.
Really funny is how the Obama canpaign consistently prefers to focus on issues like the economy, healthcare or the WoT; rather than the opposing Veep's "qualifications, public statements or record". I'd really like to be billing someone, but since Obama is already spending $100s of millions carrying out the exact same strategy I don't think he'd be interested.
Hopefully the economy going into tailspin will drown out enough of the left-wing PDS sufferers who continually bloviate GOP talking points and allow the Obama campaign to gain some traction on the issues. One can only hope, because there is stuff all chance the windbags will stop sabotaging Obama's campaign willingly.
-
One can only hope, because there is stuff all chance the windbags will stop sabotaging Obama's campaign willingly.
Kos explains it thusly:
To all the concerned people emailing me about "being played", don't waste your time. I'm not about to revert to writing puff pieces about Obama thinking that his magic "new politics" bullshit will carry us to victory. He may or may not believe that crap, but I don't. We're going to win this thing the way campaigns are won -- by playing hardball. Politics is a blood sport. Republicans understand this and never flinch from flinging the shit. We won't win until we learn to fight back in kind. And I'm more than happy to get down in the mud with our friends on the Right so Obama doesn't have to.
Which is all well and good, except I think the flinging of shit in the Trig-Bristol-Sarah Palin saga was very costly indeed. And I did make a comparison with Berlusconi's rise to power the other day, proposing that making the campaign about McCain and Palin would hurt Obama's chances just like it destroyed the chances of the Italian left back then. Kos disagrees:
I asked one of the Republican Party's smartest, most candid heavy hitters last week whether John McCain really has a chance to defeat Barack Obama in this season of Republican discontent. "No, if the campaign is about McCain," he replied. "Yes, if it's about Obama."
-
Really funny is how the Obama canpaign consistently prefers to focus on issues like the economy...
And how McCain just doesn't get it.
healthcare
Or that.
or the WoT
Which, with all due respect, McCain and Palin are off the planet on.
So, could you explain to me again Angus how it's in anyone's interests to stop talking about how McCain and Palin (that's Sarah, Giovanni, not her children) aren't competent to lead.
-
So, could you explain to me again Angus how it's in anyone's interests to stop talking about how McCain and Palin (that's Sarah, Giovanni, not her children) aren't competent to lead.
It is in Obama's interest, because if it comes down to a contest of records, on what they have achieved, McCain will smash Obama. Reconciliation with Vietnam, McCain-Feingold, the surge, earmark reform does trump worked for Bill Ayers, won a Senate seat in a no contest, voted Democrat lots, ran a campaign against H Clinton. Take the records in isolation, dig into the candidates past and McCain wins.
So Obama supporters should be talking about the economy, healthcare and the WoT. The future, not the past are where McCain's negatives lie.
-
giovanni,
Kos has screwed up by going after Palin (she's the Veep for f'sake) and indulging in a scrap on the ground of the Republicans choosing. I respect the ability of negative politics to work if done properly. All Kos needs to do is attack McCain (never Palin) and attack him on his weaknesses.
-
I respect the ability of negative politics to work if done properly. All Kos needs to do is attack McCain (never Palin) and attack him on his weaknesses.
I suspect that when he says 'flinging the shit' he doesn't just mean going negative (which, of course, has a place). He means swiftboating the Republicans. And all I can say is that if the Trig thing was his first foray into that, it was an unqualified disaster.
-
I do not find 20% approval to evoke any different sentiment to 9%. I am curious that you do find 9% to 20% means "a clear aberration", if so it must follow that gaining an approval of say 33% would be much more positive than 20% in your eyes.
oh for heavens sake Angus...a 9% rating when some 100 polls are listed at the link, none of which come within a kilometre of you '9%', means your poll is an aberration. You quoted the figure me mean, and to try and defend it just adds another level to your self delusion. We were not talking sentiment, we were talking a polling figure. You were wrong..lets move on and accept it.
How does 538 projecting a McCain win imply to you that McCain is losing? Because to me when they project a McCain win, it appears they are projecting a McCain win. Some kind of misreading is going on for sure.
No, Angus, this is simple but let me explain..that is a projection based on the current polling...it says 'According to our current projections'....please pay attention....There are multitudes of projections out there, changing daily, some have Obama ahead, some McCain. None, unlike you, are incautious enough to say 'this is exactly what is going to happen'. You are still cherry picking and then twisting.
What I am trying to point out to Craig, Simon, et al is that the strategy employed by Obama is smart and intelligent. Disagreement and hilarity ensues.
No what tends to happen is Angus loops whatever themes he's picked on on whatever site he refers to, with quite undertanding the stuff around the edges..like:
Reconciliation with Vietnam, McCain-Feingold, the surge, earmark reform does trump
The Surge..yep article of faith but doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny as the prime reason for a downturn in violence.
Vietnam..yep, he championed it with Clinton, but is was hardly a radical move: it was 20 years after the US defeat, Vietnam already had a defacto diplomatic relationship with the US, and full recognition with just about everyone else on the planet..oh, and there was massive public support for the move. That aside, it was a brave move.
What a shame McCain is unable to live up the 'stand by your ad' provision of McCain-Feingold without telling a lie or two. Isn't it funny how the great reformer became the moral vacuum so quickly?
Which brings us back to Palin again...which has been explained to you so many times, you ignore such without comment and then loop your original argument a day later, thus:
and attack him on his weaknesses.
[/groan]
Post your response…
This topic is closed.