U.S. Presidential Election 2008

I'm trying to do the math on that, may take a while.

er, Obama sounds to me that he knows exactly what he believes: that it is an issue of a woman's right to choose.

But he is wise to the fact that rightwing religious nuts have a tendency to misrepresent that position as 'wholehearted support for abortion as a good thing in and of itself."

NOBODY with a sense of decency and sanity could ever present abortion as a "good thing" least of all the woman having the abortion.-

Obama makes it clear that supporting a woman's right to choose does not imply strong support for abortion.

McCain by contrast, trotted out a glib soundbite that presumably his publicist told him would go down well with the religious nuts. In reality, McCain's position on abortion is a lot more complex or even confused and does not appear to be derived from an absoluttist certainty in the "life" position that his answer seems to imply.

But the questionwas simply "When does life begin?" Not "What is your position on Abortion?"

And I was addressing the comment about it being arrogant to state say you believe life begins at conception. Obama has no idea when life begins? He's never thought about it? Doesn't have an opinion? Doesn't believe one way or another?

I applaud his support of a womans right to choose an abortion, but wonder why he can't just as well articulate his belief on when life begins. By deferring this decision to someone greater than himself(does he mean God?) Is he not also pandering to religous constituents?

Next thing you know they'll be cracking down on the rythm method.

Well, now that I think about it, the porn industry generates billions of dollars, and they relly pretty heavily on the rythm method.

it was being asked in a church - it is transparently clear what the question was "about". This is a touchpaper issue.

Abortion is an issue McCain has, AFAIK, been consistent on throughout his Congressional career. You may not be familiar with the debate in the US, BTC, but it's quite normal for those opposed to abortion to say it should be permissible in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life being threatened. The common thread is not wanting to see abortion used as a form of birth control.

I fail to see how McCain's position is "confused", especially when one is able to see the nuances of Obama's position (which I understand to be that he is opposed in principle) nor do I think it's "complex". It seems pretty straightforward and principled to me.

Both philosophically and scientifically, that question has no definitive answer. Personally, I go with brain wave activity which means first you have to actually have a brain and secondly it has to function. In other words, life hasn't begun for some of you lot yet.

That's asking entirely too much for proof of life.

Are there weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Also answered in the way you described. Look what happened. Perhaps (despite sounding good) not the best way to handle issues.

Thats a question which can have a verifiable answer, its a concrete question about a physical presence.

The 'beginning of life' is largely a philosophical issue. Even a frothing at the mouth advocate of unlimited baby killing like myself sees that.

good point, lilplatinum

Please don't patronise me matey, we have the exact same debate in the Uk though it does not dominate politics in quite the same way.

In the church, McCain stated the absolutist position that life begins at conception. However, his public position as evinced from the quotes in my link suggests that he does not actually believe the absolutist line at all. I'd call that confused or at least inconsistent.

If McCain had said instead in the church 'I am not a medical man and cannot pronounce on when life begins but I find the idea of abortion repugnant as I know that unborn babies are living human beings" that would have been entirely consistent with his stated position before the church.

Perhaps more interesting than the answers that McCain and Obama gave to Rick Warren's question, is Warren's response after the forum to an interview on Beliefnet:


(I've posted that earlier on this thread.)

Have a look at that interview and see if you think it's essentially Warren signaling that his followers should vote for McCain. Again, elsewhere, he has stated that since people have "died for your vote," you can't stay home on election day.

Given that churches are supposed to either stay out of politics or start paying taxes like any other business, how close is Warren to the line? He held a forum in his church, interviewing the two candidates. The church forum itself was more or less neutral in tone. But then he gives an interview to a Christian website, essentially saying (I think) that a vote for the Democrats is against evangelical belief.

Should his church have its tax-exempt status yanked? Here's another highly dubious quote from the interview:

´...

As long as a church doesn't officially endorse a candidate they can, unfortunately, involve their grubby delusional tax-evading hands dirty in politics without legal repercussions.

Bumper stickers work. Remember the "Dubya" bumper stickers in 2004. Worked pretty well!

I'll try and find a pic of it.

Edit:
http://www.georgewbushstore.com/200-6000.htm

Tell you what, BTC, why don't you quote (never mind most seemed to be taken out of context) what McCain said in that link you posted that you see as being confused or inconsistent with his stated position that life begins at conception. It seems to me that if you are opposed to abortion in most situations and believe that life begins at conception that the two are consistent with one another.

lilplatinum, do you agree with me that even if Warren hasn't (quite) violated the letter of the law, he's certainly violated the spirit of the law?

It's hard these days to even define what a "church" is. Used to be, what was said from the pulpit was pretty much confined to that one room. Now, churches like Saddleback broadcast their worship services out to other parts of the building, disseminate them on DVD or CD and on their websites for outside viewing, etc. Pastors write books and Bible study materials. They run, and give interviews for, public Christian websites like Beliefnet. Superstar pastors have a huge influence. Personally, I think they should be reined in a little more as far as politics go.

I'm with you 110% there. The idea that douchebags like Joel Osteen in his megachurch (converted from the old arena where the Houston Rockets played basketball - how holy) are influencing voters (or that his followers vote) makes me sad.

His stated view that life begins at conception is the view as articulated by he Vatican. It is an absolutist view, the only logical cnclusion from is that abortion is AWAYS murder. Since McCain does not seem to believe that 'essential' abortionsare still murder then I would suggest he is confused. Either he was appeasing religious nutjobs by mis-sstating his position in the church or appeasing liberals by mis-sstating his position in his other statements.

Religious nutjobs were formerly skeptical of McCain for this very reason were they not?

Glenn Greenwald (sorry, Conquistador) has a timely comment today in his column. Here ya go, horseshoe7:


Greenwald also features a long list of quotes from the 2004 race, where Republicans relentlessly pounded Kerry for having remarried an extremely wealthy heiress, thereby rendering him completely out of touch with the American populace and thereby obviously unelectable. Hmmm, sound like anyone else we know?

Rush Limbaugh:


Which now sounds just about as damning as Condi Rice's comments on Russia's aggression toward Georgia:


Do these people even listen to what they are saying?

BTC, the Vatican's position is completely irrelevant with discussing McCain's views on abortion. It seems as though you are demanding complete rigidity from McCain while accomodating Obama's apparent two-step, i.e., opposition in principle combined with support for abortion rights. Please review the post of mine before last, because it explains what seems to you to be an apparent contradiction. As far as I see it, McCain is saying that a woman should not have to bear a child conceived as a result of incest or rape, nor does he want her life to be endangered by a birth. That he is not being rigid and acknowledges these circumstances should not be held against him, especially by people who support abortion-on-demand, or essentially abortion-on-demand.

BTC, as far as I know McCain has been consistently pro-life throughout his political career, so I suspect evangelicals' skepticism has other explanations.

cinzia, to say only Republicans use less than gentlemanly tactics is ignoring a lot of slime from Democrats. For example, just look at the serial slander circulating about McCain's voting record on veterans' benefits.

I was in the US in 2004, and I don't recall Kerry's marriage being an issue, especially since his wife was previously married to a Republican Senator. The Swift Boat thing was a real example of disgraceful tactics, though.

I remember them making a big deal of Heinz. It was good for jokes, if nothing else. But have a look at the long list of quotes at the link, if you want proof the pundits were pounding at it. It's relevant today, because McCain can't seem to remember how many houses he owns, presumably because several of them belong to Cindy and they don't live in them.

Greenwald's argument is that the Republican side starts the mudslinging. They're the ones with Karl Rove, afer all. But he's happy to see Obama's side fighting back:



Greenwald is saying that both McCain and Obama can be above that, if they can break away from the temptation to grab the media spotlight. (Greenwald is basically a media critic.)

Funny you mention that. They did find WMDs in Iraq after the war, around 500 weapons. Most were old, but some were still a threat. Not the "militarily relevant stockpiles" that they expected, but something.

And it looks like Iraq had tons of yellowcake, now in Canaday, aye. But no nuke reactors for power generation, AFAIK? Odd that...

no actually they are not. McCain made an absolutist statement in the church that was pitched to make the religious nutjobs cream their pants. Yet in reality he has never actually supported the absolutist position at all.

Once again, you have a double standard. Anyone would recognize McCain´'s position on abortion as being consistently pro-life. In the case of the exceptions where he feels abortion should be legal, he is simply acknowledging that there are other considerations, which is also what Obama is doing in spite of their divergent viewpoints on what should be legal.

To be frank, BTC, I think you just want to criticize US evangelicals and the Republican presidential candidate. What you are complaining about is much ado about nothing, and you don't bother to take Obama to task for taking his own politcally-inspired position on abortion. Would you rather that McCain advocate a ban on abortion for women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest? No, of course not, and if he did, you would be criticizing him for it rather than lauding him for being consistent with what you see as an absolutist statement.

Sweet, I can't wait to live in McCain's America.

Scenario 1...
Woman: Hello, I'd like an abortion on demand
Doctor: Ma'am, I'm sorry, this is a pro-life country, abortions are illegal
Woman: Oh yeah, I'm sorry, I forgot how this works... "I was raped"
Doctor: Ah, ok, right this way ma'am we'll get you nice and aborted in about 5 minutes, please wait.

Scenario 2...
Judge: You are a homicidal maniac, and a danger to society. We are just lucky you were only able to shoot two people before being wrestled to the ground
Killer: f* you judge, what's my sentence?
Judge: Well, it turns out, the two people you killed happened to be conceived during a rape, so we can't charge you with murder as their lives are worth less than normal. You are hereby convicted of unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits, here's where you mail your fine.

So Biden is it? Hmmm

Biden is a very good choice for the Democratic VP nod.

Agreed. It kills a number of birds with one stone (bluecollar lunchbucket voters, Pennsylvania and the rust belt, the experience issue, the foreign policy issue, the age issue). Biden takes the train to work from his home constituency every day, and although he has no military experience himself, has a a reserve officer son about to be deployed to Iraq.

If McCain picks Romney, then you'd have two obscenely wealthy conservative republicans with the whole first wife and Mormonism issues, respectively, haunting them up against the Second Coming and a middle-of-the-road multi-decade senator who bounced back after his wife and daughter were killed in a tragic car crash (transporting a christmas tree home with all the kids in the car, no less )

McCain should pick Tom Ridge if he wants to build bridges sufficient to win, but the god botherers will likely nix that.

This is a bit of a game-changer, IMHO. The might even bring the Hillary Harrridans back into the tent.

Did anyone catch this? I always thought it was "taps" WSJ agrees with me, CNN does not

It's "taps". "Tabs" is a clear eggcorn.

Add it to the list of mispellings/mispronciations/misusages that enter common usage

I"ve given up correcting people on "chomping at the bit" (it's "champing"), and I don't even think they teach the difference between "there, their and they're" in schools anymore.

"In tact" as two words is my persona bete noir ... or maybe "exetra" for "et cetera".

Only Hillary can do that and up till now she isn't doing such a good job (her support is lackluster at best). On her latest outing in Florida, even the Times reported that her own supporters wished she did more to convince them to back Obama. Her post primary tour (with highly selective venues that are few and far between) seems to be more about her than supporting the nominee. She is paying lip service to the Party while continuing with the storyline of her "historic" candidacy being "robbed" (she is playing victim till the end and laying the seeds for 2012).

What picking Biden will do is help with the independent vote in a number of states and shore up the moderate to conservative Dem vote. It will also help with the older voters in Florida, Ohio and Penn. Biden has a reputation of taking no BS that will counter the not so straight talking McCain.

Look for Biden's role in the Clarence Thomas hearings to be brought up again and again (and watch the youtube views rise dramatically). http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=k98Rsr2cZys&...feature=related

This will actually highlight the question of Supreme Court nominees coming up with the next administration. That will make a lot of women think three times about voting for McCain!!!

My mother adores her ... and uses the same "we wuz robbed" language. I said "but you're veering into 'Bush stole the election in Florida' rhetoric. And she responded "yes, and I don't care!"


Fully agreed.


I completely spaced on the Clarence Thomas thing ... you're correct (my sharpest memory of watching those hearings was John Doggett proving that racial integration had really worked ... because he came across as as big an pompous asshole as any white person I've ever seen) . Up until now, the firewalls on conservative decions have ironiclly been maintained by letter-of-the-law republican presidency appointees going completely off the reservation.

I really can't explain why... but for some reason I wanted to see how FOX was covering the selection of Biden as the running mate. I wanted to see if it was the plain jane bio/profile I've seen on the BBC and other sites, or if it would have a bit of color to it. I thought this would be the political news of the day, but FOX disagrees.

No lie, their "top story":

Simply amazing.

EDIT: I had to poke around, but I found it.

On BBC:

On FOX:

Yup, Biden was a good choice, and I haven't read anyone yet who thinks he's not. Glenn Greenwald complained last week that he's a bit too hawkish and said some stupid things about Georgia, but that was by way of lamenting that



Biden is too old to run for president after a potential 4- or 8-year term as Obama's VP, so that leaves the door wide open for Hillary, also a good thing IMHO.

That's a good point. Maybe Hillary supporters can see a light at the end of the tunnel in that, and now put their full weight behind the ticket.

Biden doesn't mince words, so there'll be plenty of sound bytes that will be open game to the Republicans.

This has been my favorite moment of the election year, though:

Yes

Hillary is no spring chicken either. In 8 years, she will be pushing 70. Also, after 8 years of Obama, her rhetoric may not sell as well as it does now. I think the door is open for Nepolitano or Sebelius to make a run and I think Obama will do all he can to make one or both high profile in his Administration.

What I think?:
1) It is time to bury the partisan rhetoric and focus on the bigger picture.
2) Hillary needs to step up and cement her legacy in the Senate as the female work-horse that Kennedy and Byrd have been. Teddy's cathartic moment was when he realized he would never be President and Hillary needs that moment now (not her supporters, she needs it!). The sooner she gets it, the better for her and the Country. Even in the history books, no mention of the first female President will ever be complete without a thorough examination of Hillary and Geraldine. Hillary stands to be a Queen-maker, she just has to realize as Teddy did that it won't be her.

I believe this because I believe that Obama will change a hell of a lot of the discourse at the very least (perception is the first step in changing policy). People on both sides won't like it, but it will be the best for the Country and believing that is half the problem solved.

Go ahead and twist my words and attack my beliefs all you want you pack of blood thirsty wolves, but your kind will soon become extinct due to working for the Country together instead of against each other.

The biggest plus of all this? I think Obama has the heart and wisdom to actually listen to all sides and in coming to a decision, make all sides feel that they have been listened too. Man, what a departure from the last...ah...well...forever!

Well Teddy had to kill somebody before he got it through his fat skull that he wouldn't be president - what will it take for Hillary?

Dude, Teddy didn't kill anybody and the event you are referring to took place long before he came to his realization in a hard fought battle against Carter.
For Hillary, she just has to realize the actual number of people that just do not like her. She blows it off as partisan politics, but that is far from the truth! That is the sad fact that her campaign failed to fully address. Her actions since have just concreted those feelings amongst the people that could have, might have supporter her should Obama fail to win in November. She has made sure her name comes up as a possible cause should that happen and that is the failure of Hillary to get out post Wisconsin.

Man, you gotta stop smokin' that sh*t... plesae don't lose sight of the fact that he is just a man. if obama gets elected, it's not like the country is going to magically transform. Bickering and ignoring the real issues will always remain, because in many cases, public office isn't about serving your people, it's a power struggle. there will always be people trying to screw the top dog. simply because.




i wouldn't say there's a big pack of wolves here, but there are a few self-appointed big fish in a very small pond, thinking the rest are all guppies.

His 'realization' was that the Iran hostage scandal gave ole Jimbo a late popularity surge and kennedy's whole campaign was based around his unpopularity. But it didn't help that his opponents were playing bridge over troubled waters in campaign ads.. Even if you let him off the hook for Kopechne, alot of people didnt. It very well could have been a large factor in his failing to hoist any more of his cancerous family dynasty in an executive position.

Or President Obama might screw things up mightily through his own foibles, making people realize that Hillary would have been the better candidate/president after all, and supporting her for a run in 2012 or 2016.

I'm not saying it will happen, but it has just as much chance of happening as your prediction that Obama will Heal the World and everyone who didn't See the Light in 2008 will repent.

His campaign is all about people helping with the change. It would take several beers and an evening to explain it to you, but he is connecting with a lot of people who are ready to take things into their own hands and he is giving them an outlet at the same time as he is putting restraints on their behavior. When people feel involved, they will do extraordinary things!


And of course you discount the fact that Hillary would have lost or that if elected by some miracle she would have nothing but gridlock and partisan bickering.

I didn't say that now did I? Telling you that you are blind to Hillary's faults is not the same as saying Obama is our savior now is it? Don't Conky me!

And the comedy just gets better and better.



Is the american electorate up to distinguishing between two old white gits? I doubt that black chap is going to get a look in any more. What was his name again?. Get rid of the annoying woman then sidestep the coloured chappy. Business as usual and god fearing americans can sigh deeply with relief.

I stand by my original prediction that this race will be won on the state of the respective wives hair. Colourful scarves may also have an influencing factor but jewelry will not be flaunted by either side so will have little impact.

Live up to your name and have a nice cup of shut the fuck up.

Once again, I agree with eurovol.

BTW, playbook against Biden is already getting put out here.

Wrong on Iraq, predicted total failure last year.

Plagiarized speeches and term papers, padded resume.

Vowed to fight surge.

Racist comments.

Not to mention his anti-obama pro-McCain statements.

This is a little more substantive than crazy preacher, dirty fundraiser, and america-hating wife.

Wow .. who was it that said you were the only republican that held a reasonably decent argument???

Sweetness and Light? What the hell is that? OH ...

Weblog featuring US and international news and analysis from a conservative perspective.

LOL

Good god, I hope not. I would like to think Americans would display a greater level of intelligence in November.