US Presidental Elections 2008

[[Syl]]

Meanwhile in NC, this liberal stood in line for three hours today to cast his vote for Obama (and several other democrats and two libertarians). I was surprised to see so many other fake Americans there. Pain in the ass compared to the last time I voted (ten minutes), but my hate for workers and achievers is that strong.

[Lord Mhoram]

Syl,

You are a true (un)American!

I submitted my absentee ballot for Barack Obama, John Kerry, and John Tierney last week. There were practically no local officials who weren't Democrats, and I skipped most of those offices anyway because I didn't know enough about the issues. I voted yes on Barney Frank's marijuana-decriminalization legislation, no on the income-tax repeal, and yes on a banning of dog-racing. Not gonna lie, I was pretty proud of myself. I voted in the Democrat primary but this is my first real election I can vote in.

[Prebe]

this liberal stood in line for three hours today to cast his vote for Obama (and several other democrats and two libertarians).

Hey man! How many votes do you have?

Edit: Are you voting for the the HOR at the same time?

Congrats LM. If I am certain that you are one of the most informed first time voters in the US. Feels good doesn't it?

[Vain]

So who here thinks that Obama is really dashing off to Hawaii to visit his sick granny?

www.contrariancommentary.com/community/ ... fault.aspx

[Plissken]

Vain, this is the clinically insane, anti-Semite, court-hogging guy I asked about a few days ago. This is the guy who claims that Obama is keeping his white grandmother locked in a closet, because he's hiding the fact that he's half-white.

Get some better sources.

[Vain]

Hey, just tossing it out for comment

Let's have a 'what if' moment here:

What would you say/do if there was actual evidence that Obama is a con/fraud? What would that do to the presidential race? Would it still go ahead or would it all grind to a halt and they run it again?

[Brother Charn]

Wow. That was an interesting read. He sounds authentic. Authentically bat-$#!+ crazy, that is, with a mean-streak and a penchant for tilting at windmills in his head. So, if his grandmother's health declines and (god forbid) she passes away, this guy will claim, what? That her death was politically convenient as a coverup for his real/sinister purpose for going to Hawaii. Paranoid, delusional, and more than slightly egocentric. Litigious, too, right? It's a wonder the GOP hasn't snatched him up yet.

Good find, Vain - for entertainment purposes.

dw

[Plissken]

Well, Hannity interviewed him like he wasn't bat-shit crazy (and without any followup questions) - so maybe he is already accepted as a GOP operative.

Seriously Vain. Get some better sources.

[Plissken]

And McCain continues to soul to the devils he knows:

McCain Campaign Brings On Board Yet Another Operative McCain Once Blamed For Sliming Him During 2000 South Carolina Primary

October 18, 2008 1:29 PM

ABC News has learned that Warren Tompkins, one of the strategists of then-Gov. George W. Bush's South Carolina campaign in 2000 -- which Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blamed for his family being slimed -- is now a part of the McCain-Palin campaign team, albeit in an "unofficial" role.

Tompkins, a protégé of Lee Atwater, has been dispatched to North Carolina to assess the state for the McCain-Palin campaign, Southern GOP strategists tell ABC News.

The McCain campaign says only that Tompkins has "no official role" with the campaign. The Raleigh News and Observer spotted Tompkins in the state "surveying North Carolina for the McCain campaign to determine what can be done to shore up the state."

The news of Tompkins being brought on board the McCain campaign brings to a total of three the number of GOP operatives McCain now is using despite the fact that he once held them responsible for the ugly campaign that contributed to his South Carolina primary defeat, a campaign in which McCain's wife Cindy was attacked for her past addiction to painkillers, and the McCains' adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was targeted as his illegitimate black baby.

Last month, to the dismay of many McCain 2000 alumni, McCain hired another former Palmetto State opponent, Tucker Eskew.

This week, as a wave of robocalls attacking Obama has been reported across the country, and some of those calls have been tied to Jeff Larson and his firm FLS-Connect, a client of Bush's in 2000, whom McCain's team back then held responsible for anti-McCain robocalls.

The recipient of one of the new McCain robocalls, Minnesota Democratic County Commissioner Chris Shoff, was reported in the Huffington Post and the New York Times as having tied the call to FLS-Connect, which has been paid more than $8 million by the Republican National Committee during this election cycle.

The McCain campaign has refused to comment.

Eight years ago, of course, McCain was much chattier on the subject of these types of calls.

"A lot of phone calls were made by people who said we should be very ashamed about her, about the color of her skin," McCain told one interviewer. "Thousands and thousands of calls from people to voters saying 'You know the McCains have a black baby.' I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."

[wayfriend]

This is not a McCain bashing post. I really am worried about what this says about McCain and Putin's relationship, which is closer than it should be.

I'll link the whole article. But the essence of it is, McCain and Rick Davis helped Putin and Deripaska (Russian crime lord, mining czar, and Putin pal) gain virtual control of Montenegro, now nicknamed "Moscow by the Mediterranean". McCain apparently celebrated his 70th birthday in the now-Russian Montenegro, where he met (and was apparently thanked) by Deripaska.

McCain was also significant in trying to get Deripaska's US visa re-instated, at Putin's request. ("Because of numerous accusations of involvement in death threats, extortion, racketeering and money laundering, he had been barred from entering America since 1998.").

... At the time, Putin wanted to establish a Russian outpost in the Mediterranean, and Montenegro--a coastal republic across the Adriatic from Italy--was seen as his best hope. McCain also lobbied for Montenegro's independence from Serbia, calling it "the greatest European democracy project since the end of the cold war." For McCain, the simplistic notion of "independence" from a country America had gone to war with in the late 1990s was all that mattered. What Montenegro looked like after independence seemed not to interest him. This suited Putin just fine. Russia had generally sided with Serbia against the West during the Balkan wars of the 1990s, but for the Kremlin, cutting Montenegro free from Serbia meant dealing with a Montenegro that could be more easily controlled. Indeed, today, after its "independence," Montenegro is nicknamed "Moscow by the Mediterranean." Russian oligarchs control huge chunks of the country's industry and prized coastline--and Russians exert a powerful influence over the country's political culture. "Montenegro is almost a new Russian colony, as rubles flow in to buy property and business in the tiny state," Denis MacShane, Tony Blair's former Europe minister, wrote in Newsweek in June. The takeover of Montenegro has been a Russian geostrategic victory--quietly accomplished, paradoxically enough, with the help of McCain and his top aides. ... [link]

[Plissken]

I think "Americans need to know the truth" about McCain's involvement with this terrorist.

[Brother Charn]

My apologies if this MSNBC article has already been linked. I found it to be a good one.

The risk of McCain's health plan
Obama not exaggerating when calling his opponent's plan 'radical'
By Ron Brownstein

WASHINGTON - This week's most important debate wasn't the meandering town hall duel between Barack Obama and John McCain. That encounter was understandably scored by polls and most pundits as a win for Obama, who seemed steadier than an over-caffeinated McCain. But lackluster questions and a constrictive format meant it did little to clarify the decision facing voters.

Far more instructive was the argument Obama instigated with McCain last week over health care. In several speeches, Obama accurately framed the central contrast between the nominees' approaches. The bedrock goal of Obama's plan is to reinforce the sharing of risk and cost between healthy and sick, young and old. By contrast, McCain, hoping to expand choice, would erode risk-sharing and accept sharper distinctions between the healthy and sick in both the availability and cost of coverage. One plan prizes solidarity; the other, autonomy.

Most Americans now receive their health insurance at work. That system promotes risk-sharing because employers don't vary the premiums based on a worker's age or health: The old and sick are subsidized by the young and healthy, who are then subsidized as they age.

McCain would upend that system. Today employers can deduct as a business expense the contributions they make to a worker's health insurance premiums. Workers, though, are not taxed on the value of their employer's contribution. That "exclusion" provides a powerful tax incentive for work-based coverage. McCain would end the exclusion so that workers pay taxes on their employer's premium contribution. Instead, he would provide a tax credit ($2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families) that workers could apply to the cost of obtaining health insurance. In an ad this week, the Obama campaign described that trade as "the largest middle-class tax increase in history."

That's flat wrong. For all but the highest earners with the most-expensive insurance plans, the credit would more than offset the additional taxes workers would face from ending the exclusion, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center calculates. The real problem with McCain's idea is that, without the economic incentive provided by the exclusion, more employers might stop offering coverage. And even employers who want to continue could find it difficult because younger workers would be likely to use their credit to buy stripped-down, cheaper coverage on their own. That would leave employers covering only older and sicker workers, which could quickly swell premiums to unaffordable levels. That concern prompted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable to criticize McCain's plan in an eye-opening New York Times article on Tuesday.

McCain's camp insists that his proposal would not undermine employer-based coverage. But few experts agree. Several studies have projected that his plan would move about 20 million people from employer-based coverage to the individual insurance market. And in that market, older or sicker consumers face much higher costs than the healthy -- if they can buy coverage at all.

McCain would further deregulate the individual market by allowing any insurance policy approved in any state to be sold in every state. He says that would provide consumers more choices, but it would also undercut state laws requiring insurers to cover specific treatments, like cervical or breast cancer screening for women. An insurer could locate in the one state that does not require it to fund mammograms (Utah) and sell in all 50 states. Even more worrisome, notes health economist Jonathan Gruber, is that insurance companies offering more-comprehensive policies for individuals would face the same risk as employers -- losing healthy young workers to cut-rate plans from the least-regulated states. That would further unravel risk-sharing and increase prices for the sick.

Obama's goals couldn't differ more. Through incentives for (and mandates on) employers, the expansion of government programs, and new nationwide rules for insurers (such as requiring them to cover all applicants, regardless of their health), he wants to insure more Americans through large pools that promote risk-sharing.

McCain's approach would save people money when they are young but expose them to greater financial and health risks as they age. It repudiates the essence of insurance, which aims to spread risk not only across the population but across an individual's lifetime. Obama is wrong to portray McCain's plan as a tax hike. And the Democrat's alternative raises its own tough questions, especially about cost. But Obama does not exaggerate when he says that his rival is offering a "radical" new vision of how Americans can safeguard their health.

dw

[wayfriend]

Is it really worth creating this kind of divisiveness in order to win an election?

Shooting and threats as Obama widens gap

The stakes were raised dramatically in the US Presidential election Thursday as it was confirmed the Secret Service was investigating a cry of ‘Kill Obama’ at a rally addressed by his Republican rival John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin.

At the same time, a man wearing an Obama T-shirt was shot three times in a London street.

The violence comes amid major gains by the Democratic candidate, Mr Obama, in the polls.

And it follows the arrests of three men, who allegedly had said they wanted to kill the candidate when he made his acceptance speech at Denver, Colorado in August.

The three who were also held on drug abuse charges, and were members of a right wing white supremacist group, were found to have hunting rifles and camouflage clothing in a truck they were using.

In London, Daily Mail reported that Nigerian Dube Egwuatu was shot on a street in South Norwood by a white man, who had threatened to kill him.

Mr Egwuatu, 36, a civil servant, was buying a mobile telephone top-up card when the gunman confronted him and glared at the shirt, which had Obama‘s image underneath the legend, ‘Believe.’ The attacker then launched into a tirade of racist slurs, shouting insults and urging the civil servant to leave the shop with him.

... After pleading with the man to leave him alone, Mr Egwuatu put the keys in the ignition and turned the engine on. The attacker fired the pistol three times, hitting the civil servant in the face, hand and shoulder.

... In the latest instance of inflammatory outbursts at McCain-Palin rallies, a crowd member screamed “treason!” on Tuesday after Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of criticising US troops. “(Obama) said, too, that our troops in Afghanistan are ‘air raiding villages and killing civilians,’’ Ms Palin said, mischaracterising a 2007 remark by Mr Obama. “I hope Americans know that is not what our brave men and women in uniform are doing in Afghanistan. The US military is fighting terrorism and protecting us and protecting our freedom,” she said.

Shortly afterward, a male member of the crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, yelled “Treason!” loudly enough to be picked up by television microphones. ... [link]

[Cail]

Is it really worth making stuff up in order to defame a candidate?

The Secret Service found that no one shouted, "kill him!" at the rally.

There is no credible evidence that there's been an attempt on Obama's life.

Forgetting for the moment that the Daily Mail is a tabloid, there's nothing in the article other than the victim's opinion stating that he was shot due to his shirt. Rather a black man was shot by a white man in London (so I guess that gun ban's working well there, eh?).

[Kinslaughterer]

Here are a few clearly divisive statments courtesy of Thinkprogress.

On Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis claimed that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin drives “liberal feminists” crazy because “she’s a conservative Republican” who is “raising five kids” while serving as governor. Davis then agreed when Bennett suggested that what drives feminists “more crazy” is that Palin is “very attractive,” “very competent,” and “very happy”:

BENNETT: I don’t know which drives them more crazy. Let me give you three things that I think drives them crazy, and you don’t have to comment. That’s she’s very attractive. That she’s very competent or that she’s very happy. You know, as a human being.

DAVIS: Yeah, all of the above.

Rep. Hayes Lies: I Never Said ‘Liberals Hate Real Americans’»
On Saturday, Republican North Carolina Reps. Patrick McHenry and Robin Hayes warmed up the crowd at a rally for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) by throwing red meat to the right-wing audience. As ThinkProgress noted, the New York Observer’s Jason Horowitz reported that Hayes “accused Obama of ‘inciting class warfare’ and said that ‘liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.’”

Yesterday, the Politico’s Ryan Grim contacted Hayes’s spokeswoman, Amanda Little, who said that the congressman denied making the comments:

Hayes spokeswoman, Amanda Little, says that Hayes absolutely denies making the comments that appear in the Observer article. She noted that other national reporters were at the event and didn’t pick up on what the Observer reported. […]

Hayes spokeswoman Little is still denying it and accuses The Crypt of “irresponsible journalism.”

Horowitz stood behind his story, saying that the reason most national reporters didn’t cover the remarks is because they weren’t there; the national media’s plane hadn’t yet arrived. “I wasn’t on the plane,” explained Horowitz. “I don’t know if they were aware the national press wasn’t there, but they were staying stuff.”

Audio of the event recorded by Lisa Miller of WFAE in Charlotte, NC now definitively shows that Hayes has been lying about not saying that “liberals hate real Americans.” Here are his exact comments:

Sarah Palin — she’s a lady that can get ‘er done. She’s been in Alaska. She got ‘er did! Folks, there’s a real America, and liberals hate real Americans that work, and accomplish, and achieve, and believe in God. That’s a great comparison.

In 2006, Hayes said, “Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men.” As recently as 2005, he was still insisting that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani echoed the McCain campaign’s attack on the media for supposedly failing to research Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) youthful drug use, which he discussed in his memoir. “God forbid somebody would do some reporting on Barack Obama’s use of drugs,” Giuliani said. Minutes later, however, he claimed, “I don’t think the Time[s] should” report on Obama’s drug use.

Last night, Fox’s Sean Hannity attempted a similar sleight of hand. After condemning a Times article about Cindy McCain, Hannity suggested discussing Obama’s cocaine use would be similarly inappropriate — all the while, repeatedly discussing Obama’s cocaine use. Even Fox News contributor Bob Beckel called Hannity out on his blatant double-speak:

HANNITY: Do you think it’s fair if I brought up that I started asking you questions tonight, Barack Obama has admitted to using cocaine? Do you think we should bring up issues of where did you buy your cocaine…Did you ever sell it? Would that be fair? […] And the only reason I was asking a question that way, Bob, is because you know what? You would say to me, Hannity, 15 days out of an election, go take a hike. You’re desperate. So I’m not bringing it up. […]

BOB BECKEL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Let’s be a little careful about you saying you’re not going to bring up the cocaine issue, because you just did.

HANNITY: I’m asking if I did bring it up, is it OK? And do you think if they’re going to raise these questions about Cindy — but go ahead.

BECKEL: But you did bring it up.

Later in the segment, Fox News contributor Dick Morris declared he needed to know if Obama had “trafficked” in cocaine. Watch it:



Of course, the New York Times has run an extensive article on Obama’s use of drugs, relying on “three dozen interviews” to conclude that Obama “seemed to dabble only with marijuana.”

This is hardly the first time Hannity has sought to use this “desperate” tactic. On Oct. 5, he mentioned Obama’s admission to having “dabbled in drugs” as part of a segment on the senator’s “controversial past.” On Sept. 3, Hannity complained “nobody ever talks about” Obama’s drug use, and on Aug. 12, he asked, “Do know if he ever sold drugs?” But of course, Hannity’s “not bringing it up”; he’s merely wondering that if he did bring it up, “is it OK?”

[Kinslaughterer]

Well Palin may have shored up the far right for McCain but its costing him the moderate righties and Independents according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Fifty-five percent of respondents say she’s not qualified to serve as president if the need arises, up five points from the previous poll.

In addition, for the first time, more voters have a negative opinion of her than a positive one. In the survey, 47 percent view her negatively, versus 38 percent who see her in a positive light.

That’s a striking shift since McCain chose Palin as his running mate in early September, when she held a 47 to 27 percent positive rating.

Now, Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy - ahead of continuing President Bush’s policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27297013/

[Vain]

I think anybody who seriously believes the BO Media (aka ABC, NBC, CNN, NYT etc etc) is capable of being even remotely fair and balanced - and able to speak truthfully about anything that may put BO in a bad light, needs to start exercising some critical thinking abilities. They're in the tank for BO and will happily say and do anything to put McCain and Palin in a bad light.

[Brother Charn]

I think anybody who seriously believes the BO Media (aka ABC, NBC, CNN, NYT etc etc) is capable of being even remotely fair and balanced - and able to speak truthfully about anything that may put BO in a bad light, needs to start exercising some critical thinking abilities. They're in the tank for BO and will happily say and do anything to put McCain and Palin in a bad light.

I don't think the MSM has to do that - all they have to do is report verbatim what the GOP candidates themselves say, or worse, what their proponents say on their behalf. They put themselves in a bad light with the negative attacks, the obnoxiousy divisive 'real America' plug... if the GOP were to win the presidency at this point, how could they cause us to forget the angry bile they needed to get them there?
Not saying that the Dems aren't also getting their hands dirty, but it's hard to get a word in edgewise if you are constantly ducking the kitchen sinks being tossed at you.

dw

[Kinslaughterer]

I think anybody who seriously believes the BO Media (aka ABC, NBC, CNN, NYT etc etc) is capable of being even remotely fair and balanced - and able to speak truthfully about anything that may put BO in a bad light, needs to start exercising some critical thinking abilities. They're in the tank for BO and will happily say and do anything to put McCain and Palin in a bad light.

I am disturbed that you feel this way...Colbert? Is that you? But you can do an audio search if you doubt some of the attributed remarks.

[Avatar]

I think anybody who seriously believes the BO Media (aka ABC, NBC, CNN, NYT etc etc) is capable of being even remotely fair and balanced - and able to speak truthfully about anything that may put BO in a bad light, needs to start exercising some critical thinking abilities. They're in the tank for BO and will happily say and do anything to put McCain and Palin in a bad light.

I think we need to stop assuming and implying that adherence to opposing points of view is the product of ignorance or stupidity, and recognise that everything is a matter of interpretation, including our own points of view. The fact that we're all, regardless of political orientation, relatively smart people (as demonstrated by the reason we are here in the first place), should suggest that maybe, just maybe, their are other reasons for a particular view than are sometimes apparently assumed. Play nice guys. Ok? Thanks.

--A