Biden is a mistake. I'm not sure what Obama was thinking there. Biden has a brutal tendency to shove his foot in his mouth....things like "Delaware was an original slave state" when explaining why he appeals to southerners. Plus, he roasted Obama on inexperience and a poor plan for Iraq during the primaries, all while praising McCain. The VP pick is rarely significant, but I think Obama could have done better.
Now, I'm really hoping McCain goes with Hutchison. If he does this, the election would be effectively over.
16 comments:
Over? For whom?
Obama has led in polls for at least six months now. You think the veep choice is suddenly going to make a difference?
No one is excited about McCain. Obama is bringing out tens and hundreds of thousands of people at speeches.
Obama has more small supporters than anyone. Ever. Over two million donors.
Plus it would seem likely that the polls are undercounting Obama support from those who don't use landline telephones.
It appears that, barring any change in the coming weeks, Obama will be our next president.
Although, it is still possible, it seems to me, that McCain could squeak out an electoral victory. I'm doubting it, though.
__________________________________
Finally, Change We Can Believe In!
Obama: Weak, Unqualified. Great on camera; likeable.
Joe Biden: A tough scrapper! Tough and knowledgable on Foreign Affairs & Judiciary. Experience Matters.
Q. Will Biden Be Allowed...to speak openly, forcefully, on the need to free ourselves from our O.P.E.C. enemies? Will Joe Biden approve coastal drilling (ending congressional deadlock), and approve nuclear power generation?
>>
McCain: A fine nominee for the G.O.P.
Q. Will he wisely choose Mitt Romney as his running mate? reb
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
McCains best bet is Joe Lieberman. Which raises the questions as to who will excite the Evagelicals less, a Mormon or a Jew?
But it is not s if the Evagelicals are not going to vote for McCain anyway but the Evangelicals are not the key to the election.
The key to the election is the vote of moderate indepedents.
TLGK
Loop Garoo, I Agree With You...on your last point! Here's why...
_________________________________
The Secular-Progressives of this generation seem to derive an odd energy-value, with a puffed-up self-esteem and false-pride in their ridicule of anyone having a faith-based ethic and strong family values; and yet, if one observes a heavily populated "mormon' township
it is strikingly obvious that a "work-ethic" is common there, the 'family values' are evident, and the people uncommonly friendly. Curiously, teen girls wear no cosmetics, smoke no cigarettes, and even shun coffee!
Criminal behavior, gang violence, and illiteracy is not a problem among this group...What an odd thing, to behold the contrast!
Only fifteen million LDS world-wide, so they pose no serious threat to other faiths, adore their children, and get along well with neighbors...even skeptics like myself!
As a nation, we might even benefit by having a few more on the scene... in Washington D.C.
>>
I have no doubts; after seven years of wasteful & expensive Image-smashing, the 'George Soros Hate-Bush Campaign' (MoveOnDotOrg) will fail. Stale "Four-more-years-of-George Bush..." will Fall Flat!
(Joe Biden tried it today; boring!)
The broad middle-class, silent majority i.e. the "moderates & Independents" will see through the Obama-mania "Yes We Can" scam, the noisy hoopla, and the manufactured hatred, AND the "Failed Bush Policy In Iraq" nonsense. Biden Voted For The War, in 2003!
The Reid/Pelosi Congress is at 14%, thanks in part to 'No-drill, no nuke power generation; and corn ethanol is a proven fraud.
In Two Short Months, Watch the Gallup Polls. reb
__________________________________
reb,
First of all, the moderate independents of whom I spoke are not "the silent majority." Your characterizing them as such merely indicates that your perception of the political landscape is more than a generation out of date.
Here is a second flaw in your analysis: "The Reid/Pelosi Congress is at 14%." No reb, Congress is at 14%. Congress wasn't at 90% when the Democrtas took control. People's perception of Congress is shaped over time. It's your perception that somehow Reid and Pelosi are responsible for Congress' low approval ratings which is a misconception only slightly less bizarre that your conspiracy theory regarding George Soros.
Let's see: W convinced us to go invade Iraq over WMDs but WMDs were there none; Cheney said that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and that the insurgency was in its last throes, but that was wrong; political hacks made a hash of rebuilding Iraq; devoting resources to the invasion of Iraq has made a hash of rebuilding Afghanistan which is a much more challenging project than rebuilding Iraq; the subprime mortgage crisis, which occurred on W's watch, has thrown the country into recession and has had deleterious effects on the global economy; let's not mention Katrina and Rita.
All of this is a plot by George Soros but nobody beleives that except you and Bill O'Reilly and guess what? Bill O'Reilly is no longer politically or culturally relevant. Do you know why? Because he is only preaching to the choir and as noted above, the choir will not decide the next election.
I have been watching the Olympics quite a bit and so have seen a number of political ads including one which begins "Washington is broken" and then proceeds to portray John McCain as a maverick who took on big oil, corruption and generally expelled the money lenders from the temple.
The counnter punch will come when the Obama campaign runs portions of the same ad and then cites the % of votes in which Mccain has supported the president.
Regards.
TLGK
How do think the moderate swing voters will be affected?
For what it's worth, I'm not a moderate swing voter. I'm a hard core conservative and I won't vote for McCain if he chooses a moderate liberal for his VP. The fact is that McCain is already a moderate. If he wants the conservatives to vote for him, he won't be able to pick Lieberman.
Many of the conservatives are flocking to McCain right now because of Obama's stance on abortion. If McCain chooses someone who is pro-choice, those pro-lifers are going to stay home. Well, at least I will.:) What is the point in voting for someone whom does not believe the things you do?
Granted, I think a lot of conservatives will vote for McCain just to keep Obama out of office. I'm one of those. But, if you put a liberal in office with a moderate (other than the war, Lierberman is pretty liberal in my book), what's the point?
Oh, and I'm not an Evangelical. I'm a Jew.:) But, I'm not voting for someone because of their religion, sex, or color of their skin, or even because they're not GWB. I'm voting for them because of their policies. I just wish everyone else would do the same.
Dan-- Seriously, voting for someone because you are mad at the current administration (who, by the way is not even up for reelection) is a bit shallow. The fact that you keep saying people will vote for Obama because they are angry at the current admistration is sad. If these people are voting for that reason, they need to not vote. That tells me they aren't really following what's going on. If that is the only reason they're voting for Obama.
But you would vote for McCain just to keep Obama out of office, Kristina, and YOU'RE not also "a bit shallow"? If people are angry at the current administration, they want someone else to run the country, therefore they vote and elect someone new. Why is that sad? That's how the system works.
Allison, voting against someone who is actually running for office is a bit different than voting against someone who is done in public office. Voting someone out of the administration is totally respectable. I have no problem with voting against someone. I just have a problem with voting against someone who isn't even running.
I say that I would be voting for McCain to keep Obama out of office because that's about the only reason I would vote for McCain. It's kind of the "lesser of two evils" thing. (No, I'm not saying either of these men are evil, before someone gets their nose tweaked.)
The system isn't "working" when people think they're voting out a current administration, when NOONE in that administration will be on the ballett.
That's why I think it's sad. It's sad that people don't have any other reason for voting for someone. If that is in fact why the majority of people are voting for Obama (something that, while he may not have said it outright, Dan has frequently implied).
I agree with Kristina, choosing Lieberman would be a catastrophic error for McCain. Conservatives respect Lieberman for his positions in the war on terror, but that shouldn't be confused with all out support. McCain's running mate will be the heir-apparent to the presidency once McCain's terms (or term) is done. That's why conservatives will reject Lieberman on the ticket. He's way too Liberal on the domestic front. Choose him for Sec Defense or State, but not VP.
As far as abortion, I wouldn't necessarily drop my support for McCain if he selected someone pro-abortion. My issue is Supreme Court nominees. So if his VP made it clear that he would appoint judges who actually interpreted the Constitution rather than create new laws, then I would be okay with it. Of course, I'm mainly talking about Ridge, who I think would be a smart pick for McCain.
The fact about Roe v Wade is that it's unConstitutional. Just read the 10th amendment. The SCOTUS over reached big time and for no other reason this decision should be reversed. If the POTUS appoints the right judges it WILL be reversed and the issue will be decided by the individual states as it should. I trust McCain and Ridge to appoint judges along these lines, ie Alito and Roberts.
I agree with Kristina, choosing Lieberman would be a catastrophic error for McCain. Conservatives respect Lieberman for his positions in the war on terror, but that shouldn't be confused with all out support. McCain's running mate will be the heir-apparent to the presidency once McCain's terms (or term) is done. That's why conservatives will reject Lieberman on the ticket. He's way too Liberal on the domestic front. Choose him for Sec Defense or State, but not VP.
As far as abortion, I wouldn't necessarily drop my support for McCain if he selected someone pro-abortion. My issue is Supreme Court nominees. So if his VP made it clear that he would appoint judges who actually interpreted the Constitution rather than create new laws, then I would be okay with it. Of course, I'm mainly talking about Ridge, who I think would be a smart pick for McCain.
The fact about Roe v Wade is that it's unConstitutional. Just read the 10th amendment. The SCOTUS over reached big time and for no other reason this decision should be reversed. If the POTUS appoints the right judges it WILL be reversed and the issue will be decided by the individual states as it should. I trust McCain and Ridge to appoint judges along these lines, ie Alito and Roberts.
Kristina said:
Dan-- Seriously, voting for someone because you are mad at the current administration (who, by the way is not even up for reelection) is a bit shallow. The fact that you keep saying people will vote for Obama because they are angry at the current admistration is sad
Understand, then, what I'm saying (which is not what you've written above). People are unhappy with the direction the country is going. The direction that Bush has taken this country. To vote for someone, then, who is a change in direction is hardly shallow. Especially when the other choice is to vote for someone who would continue to go in the same wrong direction.
What is shallow about that?
If one thinks that the Bush approach to foreign policy, big oil, corporate welfare, the environment, energy policy etc is horribly wrong, would it not be insanity to vote for someone who would continue to go the same direction?
Not sad. Merely logical.
Assuming your mother was Jewixh, how did you wind up being named "Kristina?"
TLGK
Assuming your mother was Jewixh, how did you wind up being named "Kristina?
I've always wondered if that would hinder my conversion, especially since my three children are named Gabriel, Xavier, and Dominic--very Catholic names.
No, my parents are Evangelical Christians. But, I was named after a petite, feminine, dainty, etc. little girl my mom went to school with. Poor, deluded woman. I was, and still am, a tomboy. So, it was a misnomer all the way around.
Dan,
Especially when the other choice is to vote for someone who would continue to go in the same wrong direction.
I guess this is the disconnect for me. I think that a lot of conservatives (at least the ones I've spoken to, so it's not a poll of the entire country) don't look at McCain as either a conservative or a continuation of the Bush administration.
McCain has gone against the Bush administration so many times that it is difficult to think of him as being "the same". On the other hand, if we're just talking about the war, maybe you're right.
Unfortunately for Democrats, I don't think near as many people are "fed up" with the war as you think. Some of the good news does get through.
But, other than the war, I'm not seeing much of the same going on there. So, I think that's why I'm not seeing why the idea of change is such a big deal. To me, it's going to be a change either way.
Polls tell us that there is a great deal of disapproval of the war:
"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
8/23-24/08
33 66 1
7/27-29/08
33 66 1
6/26-29/08
30 68 2
6/4-5/08
30 68 1
source
Currently, the opposition is up to 68% of the people according to this survey.
So, I don't know on what you are basing your supposition that people aren't fed up with the war, but it does not appear to be supported.
But, other than the war, I'm not seeing much of the same going on there. So, I think that's why I'm not seeing why the idea of change is such a big deal. To me, it's going to be a change either way
On abortion, McCain has flip-flopped his position to mimic Bush's.
On torture, McCain has flip-flopped his position to support Bush's support of waterboarding.
On drilling offshore for oil, McCain (and Obama) have flip-flopped their positions to mimic Bush's position (McCain moreso than Obama, but still).
On the tax cuts, McCain has flip-flopped his position to support Bush's.
He HAS supported Bush's position on immigration, but on that one, both were outside the mainstream of Republican thought (or has he flip-flopped on that one, too?)
I mean, it is difficult to find positions on which McCain doesn't side with Bush.
I mean, I think McCain is more likely to agree with many scientists that Global Climate Change may have anthropogenic origins, but I think Bush has come around to agreeing with that position, too.
I'm wondering where you think they differ?
Post a Comment