The 2008 Presidential Campaign: Part Three

[Ellienor]

McCain defended the ad’s claims, as well as those of a Web ad that said Obama’s “Lipstick on a Pig” comments were directed at Palin. He added that if Obama had agreed to a series of townhalls he’d proposed, the tone of the campaign might have been more amicable.

"If we had done what I asked Senator Obama to do, I don't think you'd see the same tenor of this campaign," he said. “Why don't you ask Obama the next time he's on this show why won't he be in town meetings with me?"

From The View this morning, this exchange between Barbara and McCain.

Um, so McCain's blaming the tone of this campaign on Obama's refusal to engage in town hall meetings that McCain proposed? What's he going to do when Putin doesn't want to do the sit down that McCain proposes?

[Primula Baggins]

It's all he's got, apparently, so he's running with it.

I have to say I wish it weren't working. (For the moment.)

[anthriel]

I agree with Prim and Voronwë. I read the comments on internet blogs and don't want the conversation here to devolve into that. I wish we had more perspective in here from more people, and I think that we (and I am guilty of it too) are driving people away. I want to have my thinking challenged on issues, and simply insulting and defending various personages in this campaign just isn't interesting.

Ellie, what a wonderful post.

When things get very lopsided in a conversation-- anywhere, although certainly here-- it's going to be a very uninteresting conversation to "listen to", let alone participate in, for those who are not 100% imbued with whatever viewpoint is dominant.

Especially when it gets into "she's a poodle in a skirt" types of comments. I know there's a lot of emotion around about Democrats vs. Republicans, and the stakes are high. This really is the Democrats' year to win. If they do not, I can understand the incredible frustration-- and anger-- that would engender. I get the passion. I do.

The conversation becomes uninteresting to anyone other than a strong "believer" whenever the descriptions of candidates get snarky and personal, though. I know I have the option of not reading those kinds of posts, and I do tend to skip them, overall. However, when the "tone" is more and more jabbing on a personal level, I tend to skip the whole discussion. And that's a loss for me. I learn stuff from you guys, and enjoy reading what you write. And when I do have the cajones to step in for a moment, I appreciate your collective input on what I have to say.

(As a centrist, I please no one. Believe me, I wish sometimes that I WERE as strong as some of you are in your beliefs that YOUR side is wholly right! Unfortunately, I see good points in all four candidates. I see bad points in all four candidates. I do not see any poodles.)

Look, I understand a lot of the fears about Palin's experience, and I share them. I think she's very energetic, ambitious, and she's a talented politician (not necessarily a compliment in my book, btw). She may help get McCain elected, and she may do fine as a VP, which in my observation, means she doesn't have much to do. But I would be pretty scared of her running the country. Long live McCain, if he's elected.

But as Prim says, it's much more interesting to me (and important to my life) if the discussion is at the level of "is she the most appopriate choice for VP".

I really don't care if she wears lipstick or not, or who talks about it, actually. I don't care if her daughter has made mistakes. Whether she should have said she listed something on eBay when it never actually sold on eBay doesn't matter to me.

I just want to know that my country has strong, experienced, capabale leaders in a challenging time. She's still got to prove to me that she is that kind of leader.


Just my two cents' worth.

[Holbytla]

I think Obama's forte is giving prepared rousing speeches to audiences. I think he does less well in debates and town hall meetings, so I understand the reluctance to participate in them. Personally I think he can come across as arrogant at times, and maybe his campaign recognized that.

What that has to do with the tenor, I am not sure. Maybe if they would both stop being so reactionary to what the other said and spoke to the issues more, there would be less volatility. But then again this is a presidential race and that is what usually happens. Tear the other person down while trying to build yourself up.

I saw part of a show the other day where they were looking at each of the candidates "campaign promises" or agenda. They estimated that less than 50% of the proposals would stand a chance at actually passing, and both candidates realize that.

The race is all so much talk and saying the right things at the right times to try to get elected, that I don't have a lot of hope anyone will accomplish much of anything.

edit:
And I have tried to speak to the issue that Ellie raised a few times in the past, but to not much avail. It just doesn't seem that people are as interested in an objective discussion of things as they are rah-rah-ing for whomever.

[Ellienor]

don't have a lot of hope anyone will accomplish much of anything.

Quit being such a cynic!!! *checks around for Teh Salmon*

Anthy,

[Padme]

BTW I did delete the poodle comment.

Now back to the actual discussion


This from the View this morning.

Co-host Elizabeth Hasselback – prefacing her question about abortion rights by saying, "You're not going to get softballs from me even though you have my vote –" drilled the presidential nominee on the whether he and Palin would work to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

"I think what we'd be doing is appointing or nominating justices to the United States Supreme Court and other courts who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States," said McCain, adding that he believes "Roe v. Wade was a very bad decision." The answer prompted the audience to boo him.

McCain view Roe v Wade a bad decision. Palin views abortion, even for rape and incest wrong.

[Holbytla]

Yes ma'am. Sorry.

But the report I saw was kind of depressing. They also gave dollar figures on what programs were going to cost (don't remember the numbers) and how much money would be saved by the proposed cuts, ie earmarks.

Earmarks should be dealt with, but in reality they don't look so big when they are stacked up aginst the budget. If you are ever bored, take a look at the budget. The numbers are staggering.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/ ... tables.pdf

[Ellienor]

Padme, I checked and found that McCain is on record as supporting a constitutional amendment banning abortion. This is further than I thought. I had thought that he was for rolling back Roe v. Wade, which would end up with the issue being left for the states. Of course some states would ban abortion, but many would not. But McCain wants to go further, and have a U.S. constitutional amendment that bans abortion. I view this as an extreme position, and one that flip flops from his position in 2000.

I see that many of McCain's positions have "evolved" (or flip flopped) from 2000 to 2008, such as abortion, drilling, the Bush tax cuts. Not only that, but he firmly denounced (at the time) the Swift Boat campaign ads of 2004.

I don't see him as a "maverick" in 2008. I think he might have genuinely been one in 2000, but he's moved to Republican-standard positions on many of these issues.

Cross post

But the report I saw was kind of depressing. They also gave dollar figures on what programs were going to cost (don't remember the numbers) and how much money would be saved by the proposed cuts, ie earmarks.

It's really a distraction, this thing about earmarks. Dropping earmarks, while laudable (I'll give that one to McCain) won't solve the budget problems. I'd like to see how he'd solve it, other than "tax cuts will stimulate the economy which will then increase tax revenues." That's a pretty nebulous argument, and hasn't held true for the last eight years. The budget is a disgrace and the War in Iraq needs to be the first thing to be axed.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The problem with discussing abortion is that it is almost entirely "preaching to the choir." Saying someone is pro-life or pro-choice will cause everyone who was already holding a position in favor or against a candidate to contintue to hold a position in favor or against that candidate.

For example, finding out that McCain supported an amendment banning abortion will cause people who are already against McCain to continue to be against McCain and people who are for McCain to continue to be for McCain.

Abortion is a polarized issue where neither side speaks the same language. The most talking about it will do is energize the troops - on both sides.

[Holbytla]

I don't see him as a "maverick" in 2008. I think he might have genuinely been one in 2000, but he's moved to Republican-standard positions on many of these issues.

I really don't think he had much choice. I think he had to compromise some of his positions to get some party backing. I am wondering what will happen if he wins. Will he drift more towards the center again and try to barter with what may be a democratic legislature?

[Ellienor]

Well, if he beats Obama and it's perceived to be because of "Swiftboating" tactics, he'll have a ticked off Congress which won't be inclined to make nice. Instead, they'll bide their time until Hillary '12.

Oh well. It's only 4 more years.

[sauronsfinger]

Some news: Every Tuesday, the Senate Democrats all have lunch together to plan strategy. Joseph Lieberman had been eating with them ever since his first election. Even though he is listed as an Independent, he still caucused with the Dems --- until the party conventions when he made the speech at the Republican convention.

As of this Tuesday, he did not show up. Instead he spent the day with John Warner R-Va. And he is not expected to show up through Election day. Word is that if the Dems hold the Senate and do not need his support, they will strip him of his committee chair and throw him out of the caucus. If McCain wins, he is rumored to be the next Secretary of State.

As I have been saying all along, if McCain wins, and I think he will barring some unforeseen development which radically changes the vote, and the Dems hold Congress, I would look for four years of gridlock. No movement on anything important.

Even if the Dems lose the Senate, they will be so bitter and so angry that they can effectively deadlock legislation because of the Senate rules and procedures requiring 60 votes to get most things done over the objections of the minority.

[Primula Baggins]

C_G, many women who support McCain believed (at least until recently) that he is pro-choice, and in at least one survey, when his actual position was explained to them, some of them said they were no longer sure they would vote for him. So there is some point to the Democrats getting that information out there.

[Ellienor]

Prim, well, he used to be pro-choice before he wasn't. Like you said, worth getting the word out there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Actually, so far as I know, McCain has never been pro-choice.

[Ellienor]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_ ... ortion.htm

McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” A spokesman said that McCain “has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.”
Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999

It's not exactly pro-choice, you're right, but at least he wasn't in favor of repealing Roe.

[superwizard]

Personally after watching Palin's interview I was really worried about this phrase:

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

It's the very principle that I vehemently disagree with. Why should the US not second guess another entity? Hell why shouldn't everything be subjected to a fair objective analysis? Blindly following other people is not what the US or anyone really should be doing! Such statements in the future will definitely not help to portray the US as a fair mediator in the region!

Edited to fix small typo

[Mrs.Underhill]

I was also dismayed by her cheerful willingness to risk war with Russia.

Dismayed? How about scared ****less?!
I'm astonished that this remark of Palin hasn't received an outcry it deserves. Here is a person proposing a nuclear war, a WW3, and this person is heartbeat away from the Red Button! And this person also happens to belive in the End of the World and was even quoted saying that after other 48 states will fall to Rapture (correct me if I'm quoting wrong) they'll seek refuge in Alaska? Would that be such a difficult thing for her to push that button, after all?

I don't know - that statement of hers chilled me to the bones. I need to do something, all people with survival instincts need to do something to stop this ticket going to WH. I'm really, deeply afraid for my children. Because another thing which scares me even more - Palin was most likely reciting from McCain script on that issue, and her words most likely represent McCain view as well. Who is an old man with an old grudge -with not much to lose...

And I already noted on another thread - we have a Caribbean Missile Crisis already in the making, with all participants much more unhinged and unstable than Kennedy, Kruschev and Castro. Because I don't also trust Putin/Medvedev gang not to push the Red Button - they are ruthless and dangerous, much more so than old-gang Soviet leaders were. And Castro at least wasn't caught eating his own tie...

I mean - maybe I'm overreacting? Or maybe I'm just old enough to remember living under the terror of the mushroom cloud? And what an unbelievable feeling of relief that was when that threat was gone?
I don't want to live in that kind of terror again. I don't want my kids growing up amongst such terror. The human race sometimes amazes me in its will to self-destruction, and its williness to create another suicidal situation just right after getting out of the previous one.

So yes, I agree with SF that Palin is one of the most dangerous persons on the planet, and for a good reason. I'd be happy to be proven otherwise!

Also note todays' news about USA overhauling its nuclear air strikes capability, and about Russian maneuvres with Venezuela:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=w ... earch+News

Add to this the growing row over new missile defences in Europe and Russians scrumbling to overhaul their aging nuclear weapons in responce to that.
Add to this the downgrade of both USA and Russia nuclear arsenals, to the point that each one of them can misleading think that assured mutual destruction no longer apply, and that maybe the other guy won't have enough of a response and so maybe it'll be OK to attack.

Scary times, and I'm not saying it lightly. And McCain/Palin ticket comes as close to the end of the world as we know it, as it comes.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Let's keep the over the top rhetoric under control, and focus on the issues, please. The "most dangerous person in the world" and "end of the world" statements make any kind of reasonable discourse virtually impossible. Specific criticisms of specific comments, like superwizard makes above, and others have done, is fine, but this kind of rhetoric is not welcome here.

[halplm]

I, in contrast to some here, was quite happy to hear Palin state precisely what she thought the US should do about Russia. Were Georgia in NATO, Russia would NOT have invated Georgia, because it woudl have meant war.

You cannot talk strong and use diplomacy to prevent countries like Russia from invading its bordering countries whenever it wants, if there is even the hint that you are not going to stick with your allies.

This is something Obama and those like him do not understand. They think people like Putin and what'shisname in Iran will be reasonable. That is not true. If they can get away with something, they will. Russia has gotten away with invading Georgia. What's next?

Palin's answers on Russia were right on the money. (By the way, Obama supports admitting the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO as well)

And her answers on Isreal were the only ones that we should be giving right now. If we do not support Isreal's right to defend itself, by whatever means necessary, then we are not being their ally.

Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal, it makes abortion a State decision. You can be fully pro-choice and still think Roe v. Wade is a bad legal decision and precident... a view I know some lawyers on this board have.

I hope Obama has to do an interview on foriegn policy where he has to answer questions like the ones put to Palin... I've never seen the press push him on such issues... and he scares me more than Palin scares any of you... and Palin is the VP candidate!