| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2008/3/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49556 Activity:very high |
3/24 McCain's endless free ride
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013394.php
\_ McCain's free ride will end when Hillary finally gives up. He's
going to get slaughtered. -tom
\_ Maybe. I wish I shared your confidence in that.
\_ No kidding, Bush was going to get "slaughtered" too how the
the heck does a bumbling incompetent get [s]elected twice?
\_ c.f. "Idiocracy"
\_ I didn't think Bush was going to get slaughtered. The
situation is completely different today. McCain will
be viewed as the candidate of yesterday; he will win if
people think the country's current state is good.
What do you think? -tom
\_ Unless the Dems get their act together and nominate
ALGOR, McCain is going to be our next president. It
is fairly clear that Billary can't win. I used to
think Obama could win but Billary has really done a
number on him in the last few weeks. Because of this
I think McCain has a good chance of beating Obama.
I think McCain has a very good chance of beating
Obama.
I think McCain will most likely beat Obama.
\_ The idea of Al Gore as a candidate is laughable.
He had enormous advantages over Dubya and still
lost. He lost his own home state. He's got one
strong topic, the environment, which doesn't seem
like a major issue in this campaign. -tom
\_ ALGOR's biggest advantage is the realization
of the electorate of how different things would
have been if he had become President in 2000.
Also, unlike Obama, he hasn't been broken down
by Billary. At this point, he is probably the
only democrat who can take on McCain and win.
\_ Asserting that again doesn't make it any
less stupid. -tom
\_ Do you really think people who voted for Dubya in 2004
will vote for Obama now? I think it will be the usual
red vs. blue scenario.
\_ Yes, I do. Something happening twice doesn't make
it the "usual" scenario. Votes are a lot more
elastic than that. Ronald Reagan carried New York.
Clinton carried Georgia. -tom
\_ Consider: McCain is less polarizing, seen as more
moderate, than Bush. Obama is more polarizing
than Kerry or Gore, apparently: for the racial
issue if not the political issues.
I rate their chances as 50/50 either way. It will
depend on what media events happen between now
and November. But don't take my word for it:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2yke8u
The trend is actually for McCain. Saying McCain
is going to get slaughtered is delusional. It's
typical for you guys to delude yourself about
the appeal of the Republican candidates. You
don't understand the R voters.
The only way McCain will get slaughtered is if
he goes senile and cracks up on national TV:
his age is his weakness.
\_ I understand R voters just fine, you don't
understand swing voters at all. They care
mostly about the economy, which is going to
hell. Who do you think they are going to blame
for this? How much do you want to bet on the
outcome? -ausman
\_ I don't want to bet. I already said I
rate the chances 50/50. If I want to bet
near 50/50 I'll go play craps somewhere.
I pointed to polls showing 50/50. Are you
a Swami who foretells some vast shift
in public opinions within the next 6
months? It's not very credible to
place blame for all problems at the feet
of the incumbent party. The D's voted
us into Iraq also. The D's have controlled
Congress lately.
\_ Intrade and the Iowa markets have it
\_ Intrade and the other markets have it
more like 60/40. But I am sure all the
people betting there are not as wise
and experienced in these things as you
are. I expect the polls to change
pretty hard against McCain after the
Democratic nomination. And a majority
of Democrats in Congress voted against
the Iraq War. Retelling that tired
old lie of yours doesn't make it any
more convincing.
\_ The Senate is not Congress? A lot of
D's voted for it, and a majority in
the Senate. D's control Congress.
D's continue to fund the war. I think
I was mentioning delusions a couple
posts ago.
McCain hasn't really begun to fight.
You really think it's so obvious?
You should go bet on Intrade, those
40-something ask prices are ripe for
the picking.
\_ You are the one claiming that it
is 50/50, you should be grabbing
all the 40's you can.
\_ The topic here started with
someone questioning tom's
claim that McCain will get
"slaughtered". If you want
to define what that means
(Obama gets >60% of pop vote?)
then maybe I could bet against
that.
I'm not claiming Obama will
lose. I don't like the odds
enough to risk losing. You
are the one who is apparently
certain of the outcome. My
entire point is that it's
uncertain. (Someone else
claimed McCain would win.)
\_ I am not certain, but I
think the race is the
Democrats to lose. They
might just do that though. |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013394.php Iran is supporting al-Qaeda in Iraq: Even if he gets dinged on the experience stuff, "Oh, he says he's Mr Experience. He's got enough of that in the bank, at least with the media, that he can get away with it. I mean, the irony to this is had either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama misspoke like that, it'd have been on a running loop, and it would become a, a big problem for a couple of days for them. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it. And what window do Democrats go to to get the same treatment the press gives McCain? Comments (58) Comments How outrageous, to presume that any Dem could or should possibly be treated the same as this Great Man Get down on your knees in gratitude that a lightning bolt doesn't come down from heaven and strike you dead on the spot. What I want to know, and what few people talk about, is how Bush got the same treatment once McCain was out of the race in 2000. And Thompson was getting it, until it was obvious he could barely get out of bed in the morning. Giuliani was getting it until he turned out to be a crook and a dud campaigner. Huckabee got it for a while, as well, until he became a threat to McCain, and even then his coverage was never bad despite the plain fact that he's a nut. It isn't just McCain, and it helps to disguise the root of the problem to say it is. PERMALINK Greenwald found the following quote from Time's Ana Marie Cox to Howie Kurtz earlier this year: "The journalists who covered McCain in 2000 feel very self-conscious about the criticism that the press came under for apparently being so taken with John McCain. There's a sense that the first time was so fun and exciting, but this time we're really going to be sober and critical and the dispassionate observers we're supposed to be." PERMALINK The Dems just have to nominate white male candidate who has a wife who inherited her wealth from the family's business selling a consumable fluid and he must have served in Vietnam as a military officer and as a Senator in Washington. PERMALINK Kevin asked: "Remind me again: where does all this cred come from?" They want John McCain to become president and continue the Cheney/Bush policies of massive tax cuts for the ultra-rich and deregulation of their industry so that they can gobble up more and more of America's newspapers, networks and TV and radio stations, with the goal of eventually having complete, unshakeable totalitarian control of ALL the information that Americans can get anywhere. The mass media's shameless support for Cheney/Bush and their onslaughts of character assassination against Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 got Cheney/Bush close enough to steal those elections through voter disenfranchisement and fraud. And that's exactly what America's corporate overlords have planned for 2008. Kevin asked: "And what window do Democrats go to to get the same treatment the press gives McCain?" Mainstream Democratic candidates like Clinton and Obama espouse a "kinder and gentler" corporate dictatorship. They believe that corporations should be subject to the rule of law, for one thing -- that so-called "free markets" should not be corrupted with lying, cheating and stealing. And they believe that the working class and middle class (who are increasingly indistinguishable) should get a few crumbs from the table of the ultra-rich. Whereas the Republicans hold lying, cheating and stealing as cornerstones of their theory of governance, and believe that the working class and the middle class should get a kick in the teeth. That's why Democratic candidates are unacceptable to America's corporate ruling class, and are subjected to campaigns of character assassination by the corporate-owned mass media. PERMALINK The Dems just have to nominate white male candidate who has a wife who inherited her wealth from the family's business selling a consumable fluid and he must have served in Vietnam as a military officer and as a Senator in Washington. His knowledge and experience are unparalleled in this great nation. Only Liberal Fools would refuse to see and bow down to such greatness. They are inexperienced liberals, and they do not have any real experience. Thank God the Lord has delivered us John Magnificent McCain. PERMALINK And what window do Democrats go to to get the same treatment the press gives McCain? First stop is surgery, of course: sex change for Hillary, skin bleaching for Obama. Then some aging treatments: they can't just be white men, they have to be old, cranky white men, just like the media, so the media will identify. And finally -- this can take care of some of the aging -- they have to spend a decade or so giving tongue-baths to the media, chuckling at their jokes, pretending to respect their intelligence and integrity and insight, feeding them free booze and free dinners, on the contributors' tab of course. After that, why, it'll be a battle on the issues, of course. PERMALINK Thank God the Lord has delivered us John Magnificent McCain. Posted by: Free Lover of Freedom and Free Liberty on March 24, 2008 at 5:50 PM | PERMALI frikin jebus lovers, funny name for someone that supports higharchy. Unfortunately, it's also -- as with all other matters that require a modicum of intelligence and education -- a problem that our press is clueless. Case in point: I'm listening to All Things Considered on March 20th. Host Robert Siegel, a man who sounds NPR-smart but isn't, is talking to nut Matthew Continetti and EJ Dionne Jr. about John McCain's "miscue on Iran's training of militants." Continetti states that it's not a miscue at all, and McCain is right and everyone knows and there's evidence here and there and everywhere that Iran and Al Qaeda are working together. Siegel ends the conversation thanking him, never challenges him, and never even allows Dionne to challenge him. If I were as clueless as Siegel and depended on NPR for my news I would have accepted the Iran and Al Qaeda intimate connection as a well-known and generally accepted fact. Can't have a beer with Obama -- he's a Moslem and you know they don't drink. Can't have a beer with Hillary -- let down your guard and she gets out the scissors, if you know what I mean. PERMALINK Per Jamison Foser: Remember the media's excuse for obsessing over John Edwards' expensive haircut: The cut was deemed newsworthy because it was (supposedly) incongruous with his image as a fighter for the working class and poor. Well, few things are more incongruous with McCain's carefully cultivated image as a military and foreign policy expert than the fact that he apparently doesn't understand basic facts about Iran and Al Qaeda. So you might assume that, by the standard the media applied to John Edwards, John McCain's blunders would receive heavy media coverage, much of it mocking. And, of course, we know how the media would have reacted if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or John Kerry had displayed such stunning ignorance about such a basic national security question. PERMALINK after growing up with images from The Front Page and Woodward and Bernstein, I can't believe all of these smart, independent reporters can be so easily bought by ready access to the candidate and some occasional barbecue. I sure hope Obama is pretty fucking handy with the small talk and flattery on the press plane, because it's clear these guys aren't paying attention to anything but their own egos. They let a smarmy little frat boy in the white house because he gave them cute nicknames, and now they're only too happy to let a demented, ethical dubious pol rave about policy matters he has never tried to understand, making grotesque mistake after mistake. PERMALINK The media views McCain as a lovable coot - an older uncle type who keeps candy in his pocket and passes it out every time he visits the kids. Think of a cross between the Candy Man and Uncle Fester. PERMALINK Apparently the man makes some world-class BBQ! I think a lot of reporters are afraid they won't be invited to his victory BBQ party-- isn't that enough reason to give him favorable press? Kidding aside, what are they afraid of when it comes to shining a bri... |
| preview.tinyurl.com/2yke8u -> www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html With McCain You Get the Real Thing - Benjamin Manaster, Wall St. DNC's Dean Needs to Strike Grand Bargain - Doug Schoen, Wall St. |