News & Politics - US Election Coverage 2008 - Part 8 - Rock the vote! - Page 2

ceilirose · 08-30-2008, 09:56 PM

I read about that too and I don't think it's true. Of course not showing until you're over 6 months isn't common but it does happen. But if we find out she's a fan of Desperate Housewives then I guess it should be looked at again.

What is really distubing and reckless is Palin flying from Texas to Alaska after her water broke and knowing that she was carrying a special needs baby that was coming 2 months early. It was on a commerical flight too. All I read was that the baby was going to be born in Alaska. That's strange and a little weird.

McCain and Palin are going to Mississippi tomorrow because campaigning in areas preparing for a natural disaster is always a good idea.

McCain, Palin going to region threatened by storm - Yahoo! News

collide · 08-30-2008, 10:18 PM

Obviously, that is a PR move. They know that their presence there would take away from what is actually important.

Obama said he does not plan to go because he would only be a distraction.

JW77 · 08-31-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose (View Post)

Compromise. He identifies with Democrats overall. Plus pro-life vs. pro-choice isn't quite the litmus test among Democrats that it is in the Republican party.

Exactly! Being pro-life doesn't automatically mean that you've lost an election. Now, being pro-life together with other conservative stances may lose votes or an election, but you can also win votes and an election with those same stances.

Quote:

But you need to mention that McKinney is the presidential candidate for the Green party. So her comments are a little disengenuous once you know that. She's blaming the Democrats and I'll be the first to admit that Pelosi and Reid have been a huge disappointment but the Iraq War, the telecom immunity bill and the domestic spying aren't totally in the hands of the Democrats. A lot but not totally. Blame can be spread around. Bush and his gang created the mess that is Iraq along with the compliance of some Democrats.

There have been some fighters among the Democrats - not a whole lot but some. They've tried to pass the stem cell twice and Bush has vetoed it - same for the childhood health insurance bill also. They pushed through the new G.I. bill even though Bush and McCain were against it.

I suppose I could have mentioned it, but we're discussing politics in a thread about Presidential Candidates. If people don't know who's running and what their positions are then they're missing out on all the other views that are out there.

Yes, blame can be spread around, and that's what McKinney was saying. She wasn't putting everything on the Democrats. She was just saying that they were complicit in the crimes.

The truth of the matter is that some Democrats seem to believe that change can only happen if a Democrat is in the White House. Like the Presidency is some sort of all powerful dictatorship. That's definitely not what the founding fathers aspired to create. People seem to forget that Democrats have been in control of Congress for two years now and they've chosen to support Bush on most policies, including the current US foreign policy. I just don't see why people believe we'll see anything different if Obama is President. His message isn't any different, it's just better presented.

Quote:

Nadar is over the top and not quite over himself. He's not a factor this year is he? I don't even know if he's still in the race. Kucinich is a good person - he just didn't have that massive cross over appeal.

Nader and Kucinich may not have the appeal or the popularity, but their messages are about change. Most Americans don't want real change though. They don't want a change in policy, just a change of the person who's making that policy.

Quote:

The Polish dock workers in Gdansk? The Czechs in 1968? The many East Germans who risked their lives to escape over the Berlin Wall? I can't believe that they didn't contribute to the Soviet Union collapse. You can't tell me that Reagan telling Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" was all that was needed.

There were definitely uprisings during the Soviet period, but they were usually quelled pretty quickly by the Soviet leadership. It wasn't until the economic stagnation of the 80's along with the internal reforms in Moscow in the late 80's and early 90's that the Soviet Union began to crumble. I will say that I do respect the people that fought and died for change during the Soviet era though. I don't want to belittle their efforts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cristofle (View Post)

I was speaking specifically of the 2000 election, responding to the original poster's claim that some people still believe Bush didn't win that election. If you feel the popular vote matters at all, he certainly didn't have much of a victory, since he lost that popular vote.

Ahh...the comment from the original poster that you quoted referred to the 2000 and 2004 elections. So I assumed that you were talking about both as well. Sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post)

Yet the president gives jobs away to the very people we're supposed to be so worried about. I'm sure every time I speak with customer service, I'm talking with someone in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere. How did that happen and why are there no jobs out there? Bush would know. He made sure to create a panic after 9/11 by getting hard working Americans fired and giving their jobs to people outside of the U.S. The failure of the last 8 years has largely been the fault of the Republican party - start a war, take care of the wealthy, inflate prices, repeat. And please explain how Bush won 2004 fair and square? He made a huge mess of everything between 2000 and 2004 so why wouldn't the voters expect him to clean up after himself? No wonder his approval rating are down in the teens now.

"The failure of the last 8 years has largely been the fault of the Republican party" - You say largely, but not completely, so I'm assuming that even in your opinion there are others to blame. And that's what McKinney was saying. That the Democrats share the blame.

As far as the 2004 election, I never once said Bush won it fair and square. I said that he won the popular vote in 2004. And if you look at all the counted votes, he did.

Quote:

Same thing for the Republicans. It's so funny that the Republican party can say, "Oh, why are the Democrats attacking Palin about her experience? That's not right." yet they forget how quickly they've been saying the same thing about Obama since the election started. Well, I hope Palin can handle it because she's going to continue hearing it and probably end up just as annoyed as I'm sure Obama is about people pulling the inexperienced card on him every five minutes.

Same thing for the Republicans? I think you completely missed what I was saying. I'm not saying that Democrats can't or shouldn't criticize Palin for her lack of experience. I just think the energy would be better spent if they focus on the fact that Palin just isn't knowledgeable about the issues. But it's nice to know that you think the Republicans should do the same concerning lack of knowledge when it comes to Obama.

**vc318** · 08-31-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Same thing for the Republicans? I think you completely missed what I was saying. I'm not saying that Democrats can't or shouldn't criticize Palin for her lack of experience. I just think the energy would be better spent if they focus on the fact that Palin just isn't knowledgeable about the issues. But it's nice to know that you think the Republicans should do the same concerning lack of knowledge when it comes to Obama.

I hear what you're saying but nobody can determine what makes one person more qualified than the other for the job. What's getting old is the fact that the only thing people can come up with about Obama is that he's inexperienced. Sheesh, attack his political stand before you come up with that lame excuse. That's like saying a rookie basketball player is weaker than the guy who has been playing for years (Dwayne Wade comes to mind). That's simply not true. I'm not saying Palin isn't cut out for the job. Maybe she'll fool us and turn this country around. But the reality is that the political stands of the Republican party haven't changed and they aren't going to change. I'm looking for a candidate who is going to look out for the middle and lower class people instead of bailing out the rich all the time, someone who cares about children and teachers and not some stupid standardized tests, someone who's going to get our soldiers out of this war, and someone who cares about freeing us from foreign oil dependency AND cares to protect our environment. This is NOT what the Republican party is aiming for. When they change, then I'll consider their side. In the meantime, I'll take my chances with Obama. He couldn't make the country anymore worse than it already is. Unless I've missed something, McCain's wishes are to carry on Bush's plans more or less. To that I say "No thanks."

**Cristofle** · 08-31-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Same thing for the Republicans? I think you completely missed what I was saying. I'm not saying that Democrats can't or shouldn't criticize Palin for her lack of experience. I just think the energy would be better spent if they focus on the fact that Palin just isn't knowledgeable about the issues. But it's nice to know that you think the Republicans should do the same concerning lack of knowledge when it comes to Obama.

I don't think it's about 'time better spent'. It's not for me. I'm honestly SCARED at her lack of experience, at her complete lack of qualifications, at the fact that as of a month ago, she didn't even know as much as *I* do about the job description of Vice President (and I hardly consider myself the top political expert). I'm not at all blind to the fact that McCain could win the election, and I don't think any of us who are planning to vote for Obama are. Not after the debacle of the last two elections. And he is is a 72 year old man with a history of skin cancer. If he wins, we are one heart attack or skin cancer episode away from this woman who has VERY little experience and qualifications being President. This is a very real threat, and it scares me to death. I don't buy that Obama has no experience- he's young, but his resume is impressive and his pick for VP shows to me a pragmatic choice that's best for the country. On the other hand, Sarah Palin seems to have no idea what she's doing. She's been governor for less than two years, the town she was mayor of is VERY small (nothing wrong with small towns, I grew up in one, but it doesn't qualify one to be POTUS), and she's apparently so isolated from politics that she doesn't know what the Vice President does.

JW77 · 08-31-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post)

But the reality is that the political stands of the Republican party haven't changed and they aren't going to change.

I feel the same exact way about the Democrats, which is why I won't vote for Obama. The Democrats just haven't shown me that they're ready to make any real changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cristofle (View Post)

I don't think it's about 'time better spent'. It's not for me. I'm honestly SCARED at her lack of experience, at her complete lack of qualifications, at the fact that as of a month ago, she didn't even know as much as *I* do about the job description of Vice President (and I hardly consider myself the top political expert). I'm not at all blind to the fact that McCain could win the election, and I don't think any of us who are planning to vote for Obama are. Not after the debacle of the last two elections. And he is is a 72 year old man with a history of skin cancer. If he wins, we are one heart attack or skin cancer episode away from this woman who has VERY little experience and qualifications being President. This is a very real threat, and it scares me to death. I don't buy that Obama has no experience- he's young, but his resume is impressive and his pick for VP shows to me a pragmatic choice that's best for the country. On the other hand, Sarah Palin seems to have no idea what she's doing. She's been governor for less than two years, the town she was mayor of is VERY small (nothing wrong with small towns, I grew up in one, but it doesn't qualify one to be POTUS), and she's apparently so isolated from politics that she doesn't know what the Vice President does.

So you'd rather focus on weaknesses that some believe Obama has rather than focusing on weaknesses that he doesn't have? Go for it!

To be honest, I'm hoping the Democrats do talk about Palin's lack of experience or qualifications. It plays right into the hands of the Republicans. And it'll perpetuate the concern about Obama's experience. If some believe that Palin isn't qualified to be VP because of her lack of experience then what makes them think Obama is qualified to be President when others, including some Democrats like Clinton, believe he lacks experience as well.

ceilirose · 08-31-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW77 (View Post)

Exactly! Being pro-life doesn't automatically mean that you've lost an election. Now, being pro-life together with other conservative stances may lose votes or an election, but you can also win votes and an election with those same stances.

Of course you can but Reid to my knowledge isn't advocating the overthrow of Roe V. Wade either like a lot of Republicans are. You can be pro-life but still respect the law of the country (which more or less still allows a woman to have an abortion in the first trimester) and a woman's right to choose.

Quote:

I suppose I could have mentioned it, but we're discussing politics in a thread about Presidential Candidates. If people don't know who's running and what their positions are then they're missing out on all the other views that are out there.

Yes, blame can be spread around, and that's what McKinney was saying. She wasn't putting everything on the Democrats. She was just saying that they were complicit in the crimes.

I just read what you posted in the other thread and she really didn't spread the blame around either. Also McKinney is a bit of a loose cannon and has some issues with the Democratic leadership IIRC. Yes she may have some legitimate complaints but her opinions seem to be politically motivated as well.

Quote:

The truth of the matter is that some Democrats seem to believe that change can only happen if a Democrat is in the White House. Like the Presidency is some sort of all powerful dictatorship. That's definitely not what the founding fathers aspired to create. People seem to forget that Democrats have been in control of Congress for two years now and they've chosen to support Bush on most policies, including the current US foreign policy. I just don't see why people believe we'll see anything different if Obama is President. His message isn't any different, it's just better presented.

Just because a candidate is not a Republican or Demcrat and says that they will bring change doesn't mean they will also. I admire some politicians but let's not forget that at the end of the day they say what they say to win elections. Even the thrid party ones.

I don't agree with everything that Obama says either - especially FISA. However don't tell me his views on health care, minimum wage, abortion rights, stem cell research, education, the military etc. etc are the same as McCain's. They're not.

The Congress has been a big disappointment. A lot of the so called blue dog democrats won the last elections by the slimmest of margins and represent traditionally conservative regions. Most times they vote with the Republicans. Also the Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate. It the majorities increase in '08 we may see a more progressive agenda.

I had no illusions that major change would have occured in 2 years. Nor do I have any major illusions that Obama if elected can quickly change things around. He can't - no one can. I'm just hoping for a change in the right direction.

Quote:

Nader and Kucinich may not have the appeal or the popularity, but their messages are about change. Most Americans don't want real change though. They don't want a change in policy, just a change of the person who's making that policy.

Well I have to tell you that I want a change or at least a shift in the current policies of this country. I know that our health care system can't survive the way it is going, I know that if we don't embrace science we'll fall behind the rest of the world and if we let our public school system fall into the toilet more than it is now our country will be in more dire straits then anyone of us could imagine.

Quote:

There were definitely uprisings during the Soviet period, but they were usually quelled pretty quickly by the Soviet leadership. It wasn't until the economic stagnation of the 80's along with the internal reforms in Moscow in the late 80's and early 90's that the Soviet Union began to crumble. I will say that I do respect the people that fought and died for change during the Soviet era though. I don't want to belittle their efforts.

We can't belittle those efforts along with the other reasons you mentioned. I'm just saying that the Berlin Wall didn't fall because Reagan said it should.

**Cristofle** · 08-31-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

To be honest, I'm hoping the Democrats do talk about Palin's lack of experience or qualifications. It plays right into the hands of the Republicans.

On the flip side, it can be argued that McCain's VP choice is incredibly hypocritical. I see more buzz that McCain has lost his main argument against Obama, than that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by wondering what Palin's qualifications are.

**vc318** · 08-31-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW77 (View Post)

I feel the same exact way about the Democrats, which is why I won't vote for Obama. The Democrats just haven't shown me that they're ready to make any real changes.

So, you're expecting a party that's about change? Well, then I guess both parties have let you down then.

Quote:

To be honest, I'm hoping the Democrats do talk about Palin's lack of experience or qualifications. It plays right into the hands of the Republicans. And it'll perpetuate the concern about Obama's experience. If some believe that Palin isn't qualified to be VP because of her lack of experience then what makes them think Obama is qualified to be President when others, including some Democrats like Clinton, believe he lacks experience as well.

And this is the change you're talking about - constantly going on about inexperience? And I think that's very biased of you to assume that voters will take more pity on Palin if people attack her about her inexperience. I'm so tired of the "Oh, McCain can do no wrong because he's a POW (so what?!) and Palin is a woman (who cares?) There hasn't been one good reason I've heard yet why Obama isn't fit to be president. All I hear is he's inexperienced. Come up with something new please.

**sunnykerr** · 08-31-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cristofle (View Post)

On the flip side, it can be argued that McCain's VP choice is incredibly hypocritical. I see more buzz that McCain has lost his main argument against Obama, than that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by wondering what Palin's qualifications are.

I don't know if McCain's choice was hypocritical, but it's clear to me that it's pretty darn cynical. I mean, why else pick this particularly nominee who, by all accounts, has almost none of the qualifications if not to capitalize on Clinton's holdovers who feel she lost the nomination because of sexism?

It's almost funny, in a way. The Democrats went with the "old" white guy with lots of experience and the Republicans went with the woman with little experience... it's like the parties have switched places.

**vc318** · 08-31-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

I don't know if McCain's choice was hypocritical, but it's clear to me that it's pretty darn cynical. I mean, why else pick this particularly nominee who, by all accounts, has almost none of the qualifications if not to capitalize on Clinton's holdovers who feel she lost the nomination because of sexism?

Exactly but Republicans rather attack the fact that Democrats are being too hard on Palin about her being inexperience. Talk about calling the kettle black. Aren't you treating Obama the same way? The Hillary supporters aren't stupid. They know what McCain is trying to do. Fact is, since his v.p. nominee, his ratings have gone down. At least Obama isn't a people pleaser. He had a reason for not picking Hillary as his v.p. but McCain had to choose this woman out of left field in a desperate attempt to grab those Hillary supporters. I wouldn't be surprise if it backfires on him because the issue in this election has been experience - which Palin lacks (that's what people are saying). At least now the Republican party has nothing to say.

ceilirose · 08-31-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW77 (View Post)

To be honest, I'm hoping the Democrats do talk about Palin's lack of experience or qualifications. It plays right into the hands of the Republicans. And it'll perpetuate the concern about Obama's experience. If some believe that Palin isn't qualified to be VP because of her lack of experience then what makes them think Obama is qualified to be President when others, including some Democrats like Clinton, believe he lacks experience as well.

I don't think they have to focus that much on Palin's lack of experience. The more that's coming out about her the better. It reflects on McCain's poor choices and his lack of judgment as well as who is really leading the Republican party. As much as Cindy McCain would like us to believe - Palin growing up in Alaska and it's closeness to Russia isn't foreign policy experience. You'd have to say that Obama growing up in Hawaii with it's closeness to Japan and Asia makes him a foreign policy expert. It's getting sillier by the minute.

By all reports he wanted Lieberman and that idea was shot down by other Republicans. If he's such a leader, such a fighter than he should have stuck to his guns and got him.

Seriously he said today that Palin was his soul mate. He sounds like some love-struck 15 year old rather then a potential leader of the free world.

His choice to go to Mississippi today along with Palin and the possibility that he may give his acceptance speech in the Gulf area is just pandering. It's also stupid because if the storm hits like it's predicted that area doesn't need to waste it's resources on taking care of John McCain.

It took him something like 6 months to visit NO after Katrina and he's voted against every bill that would fund repairing the levees or help with the reconstruction. The Republicans only care about hurricane areas in election years.

collide · 08-31-2008, 06:45 PM

Obama's resume is more impresive than Palin's.

Obama was in the State Senate for 8 years and the US Senate for 4. I am sure he knows how the goverment works. He also went to Harvard/Columbia.

Palin was the mayor of a town in Alaska.

***Jerry D*** · 08-31-2008, 07:38 PM

I think McCain picking Palin was a very cynical and obvious choice to attempt to woo the Hillary Clinton supporters, but I think they'll see through that. Did he actually call her his "soulmate?" Is this an election or Dawson's Creek?

JW77 · 08-31-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose (View Post)

Of course you can but Reid to my knowledge isn't advocating the overthrow of Roe V. Wade either like a lot of Republicans are. You can be pro-life but still respect the law of the country (which more or less still allows a woman to have an abortion in the first trimester) and a woman's right to choose.

You're right, he doesn't seem to be advocating that Roe v. Wade be overturned. And I agree, you can be pro-life and still respect the law. That's why being pro-life doesn't automatically mean that you'll lose.

Quote:

I just read what you posted in the other thread and she really didn't spread the blame around either. Also McKinney is a bit of a loose cannon and has some issues with the Democratic leadership IIRC. Yes she may have some legitimate complaints but her opinions seem to be politically motivated as well.

McKinney has spent most of her career blaming Republicans and it's always been politically motivated, so in my mind finally blaming Democrats as well is spreading it around.

Quote:

Just because a candidate is not a Republican or Demcrat and says that they will bring change doesn't mean they will also. I admire some politicians but let's not forget that at the end of the day they say what they say to win elections. Even the thrid party ones.

Exactly! And again, that's why I can't bring myself to vote for Obama.

Quote:

I don't agree with everything that Obama says either - especially FISA. However don't tell me his views on health care, minimum wage, abortion rights, stem cell research, education, the military etc. etc are the same as McCain's. They're not.

Both candidates share the view that the health care system needs to be reformed. Their ideas on how to effect that change are obviously different.

When it comes to the minimum wage, both say they support an increase, but I don't know that it's a priority for McCain seeing as how he always seems to vote against it. At the same time, the report by Obama's economic advisor about Walmart and it's non-union, lower salaried workers being good for America makes me question Obama's sincerity as well.

We know they hold completely opposite views on abortion. Stem cell research is a bit different though. Both support it, and McCain has taken some criticism for it, but his limit seems to be research that involves embryos that are not going to be discarded. I'm not sure about Obama's stance on any limits and I'm too lazy to check at the moment, so I'll take your word that they're views are different in regards to stem cell research.

As far as education, I'm interested in Obama's plan, but I'd like to know how he's going to pay for it. I know he plans on diverting money that is currently being spent on the Iraq war, but that will only cover some of it (and that's if he's able to end the war soon). The rest of the money has to come from somewhere. McCain's plan just doesn't do it for me. You can't keep the education budget the same and expect America's schools to prepare students for a changing world.

I'm not sure what you mean by "military" exactly. If you're talking about the Iraq war, Obama's views seem to change to fit what's best for him at the moment so I'm sure at some point they were or will be different.

Quote:

The Congress has been a big disappointment. A lot of the so called blue dog democrats won the last elections by the slimmest of margins and represent traditionally conservative regions. Most times they vote with the Republicans. Also the Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate. It the majorities increase in '08 we may see a more progressive agenda.

It's definitely possible if things turn out well for the Democrats.

Quote:

I had no illusions that major change would have occured in 2 years. Nor do I have any major illusions that Obama if elected can quickly change things around. He can't - no one can. I'm just hoping for a change in the right direction.

Most of the Democrats elected to Congress promised change. And since Representatives in the House are elected for two years, we should have expected change to come in those two years. Obviously for Senators it's a little different, but we still shouldn't expect that it takes a career politician to get anything done.

Quote:

Well I have to tell you that I want a change or at least a shift in the current policies of this country. I know that our health care system can't survive the way it is going, I know that if we don't embrace science we'll fall behind the rest of the world and if we let our public school system fall into the toilet more than it is now our country will be in more dire straits then anyone of us could imagine.

I know you want a shift in policy. You want what's best for the country, as do most other Americans on this board. When I talk about these things I don't want anyone to think that I'm specifically talking about them. Not that you took it that way, but just to make it clear.

We all have our differences and the right direction for you may not be the right direction for me, but surely we can find some common ground.

Quote:

We can't belittle those efforts along with the other reasons you mentioned. I'm just saying that the Berlin Wall didn't fall because Reagan said it should.

I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cristofle (View Post)

On the flip side, it can be argued that McCain's VP choice is incredibly hypocritical. I see more buzz that McCain has lost his main argument against Obama, than that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by wondering what Palin's qualifications are.

He's only lost the argument if the Democrats don't push the issue. But you're right about the flip side. McCain's choice might be seen as hypocritical, and rightly so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post)

So, you're expecting a party that's about change? Well, then I guess both parties have let you down then.

Yes they have. Especially the Republican party.

Quote:

And this is the change you're talking about - constantly going on about inexperience? And I think that's very biased of you to assume that voters will take more pity on Palin if people attack her about her inexperience. I'm so tired of the "Oh, McCain can do no wrong because he's a POW (so what?!) and Palin is a woman (who cares?) There hasn't been one good reason I've heard yet why Obama isn't fit to be president. All I hear is he's inexperienced. Come up with something new please.

Umm, no. I was talking about a different kind of change. But whatever.

Experience seems to be all anyone wants to talk about at the moment. If the Democrats or the Republicans push it, I hope it comes right back around to them.

When did I say that voters will take more pity on Palin? I didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose (View Post)

I don't think they have to focus that much on Palin's lack of experience. The more that's coming out about her the better.

The Obama campaign probably won't focus on it that much, but the Democratic party might. We'll see.

Quote:

It reflects on McCain's poor choices and his lack of judgment as well as who is really leading the Republican party.

Some people believe that Palin is a great choice though, and it reinforces their belief in McCain and his decision making. Whether or not Palin was who McCain really wanted, I don't know. But if he didn't want her, you're right, he should have picked the person that he really did want.