Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

That is the problem that Biden has. He is all for choice, but with no opposite side to balance him out. So Biden is essentially all for committing a cardinal sin. That is why the Church is speaking out. Especially because he is pointing out that he is an Irish Catholic, etc., etc.

See that makes no sense how you can vote one side but then preach the other. That's as bad as idiots that have big houses and large electricity bills, but then buy carbon offset credits... (from their own company - I'm looking at you Mr. Gore!).

[Jas_lov]

Enough of this bickering back and forth. Why don't you guys get excited for tonight as the Republican Convention kicks off with a bang? I know I'm excited to hear what featured speaker Fred Thompson has to say. He ran a very spirited campaign during the primaries and he certainly knows how to light up a room. Also speaking tonight is Joe Lieberman, a popular figure among conservatives. And the fun doesn't end there. George W. Bush will be speaking to the convention via sattellite! I can't wait!

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

The problem with the church though is what they believe today may not be what they believe tomorrow... The church changes to appease the people.

How much has it really changed? What are some examples? Outside of Galileo and changing the helio-centric concept I'm not too sure what they have changed. The Church has made some contributions to modern science (regardless of what others might have you think) and tends to be scientific in outlook. Remember science and religion are two different things and are not at odds with one another. Science is the way things works, religion is a philisophical reason why science is the way it is.

The Church has not changed any major dogma to my knowledge in centuries. Most other stances are minor issues in which it is weighing in about how the laity of the Church should look at things.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How much has it really changed? What are some examples? Outside of Galileo and changing the helio-centric concept I'm not too sure what they have changed. The Church has made some contributions to modern science (regardless of what others might have you think) and tends to be scientific in outlook. Remember science and religion are two different things and are not at odds with one another. Science is the way things works, religion is a philisophical reason why science is the way it is.

The Church has not changed any major dogma to my knowledge in centuries. Most other stances are minor issues in which it is weighing in about how the laity of the Church should look at things.

The church has always changed it's interpretation of the church. It depends on what century you'd like to start with. Let's remember you used to be able to pay for your sins in cash money...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by someone i don't want to attack individually because this is a general point than a specific attack

But in that case, you're at odds with the church, which is something you need to answer to eventually.

As a Roman Catholic, I agree the dogma of the Church.

As stated above, I don't want to attack anybody personally with this point, I just want to point this out:

Dogmatic obedience to what somebody else tells you, simply because it's what they tell you, or even out of fear of repercussions, is both lazy, and intellectually stifling.

It's also hugely symptomatic of a lot of problems in this country - people really need to stop accepting what they are told at face-value and start thinking for themselves, the world would be a much better place.

I don't consider myself strongly religious, however my parents are very religious. They are both lectors at church, my father teaches Sunday school, and has for years, etc. And yet both parents believes in evolution over creationism, is pro-choice, and are for gay-rights (up to and including marriage). I asked them one time when I was younger how they reconciled that with their faith, and my father said something to the effect of "you have to think for yourself - you can agree with the central message of the church, and disagree with the particulars."

Don't know if it was posted in this thread earlier or not, but it's truly amazing how the Christian message has been co-opted by the Religious Right, when in many respects, Jesus was the world's first liberal, and would find many of the stances of the Religious Right to be abhorrent. There have been numerous magazine articles (I bookmarked a great one at home but can't find it with a quick google here at work) that discuss this.

*note: not saying ALL of his ideas were liberal, but certainly that he might easily be construed as more liberal than conservative

[DaddyTorgo]

The church is also not the pure uncensored "word of god" - let's keep that in mind. The writings of the Church are the writings of a bunch of human beings compiled over centuries -- very few of the actual writings in any versions of the Bible (accepting perhaps some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc) are direct first-hand accounts at this point, what there was that was first-hand has been corrupted over the years by the hands of so many that it's little more than hearsay at this point. Also, many of the positions of the present-day Church are deliberate constructs of the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages and the attempt by men in positions of power at those times to maintain their power.

The church is not infallible

[Alan T]

I am always hesitant to get into debates when it involves things like religion or abortion or such. I tend to see many of them not end that well, but here it goes...

I don't know if I like the term "I call myself religious".. to me that brings a feeling of holier than thou, which I don't feel that I am. I do call myself a Christian, I do attend church regularly (2-4 times a month), I do try to live my life as a good life, and not do things that I feel are morally wrong.

I also am pro-choice, and feel that the greatest gift that God ever gave Man-kind was free will. I feel God is all powerful and if he wanted to, could have a world that would have no sin at all. Instead he gave us free will, where we could choose to have a relationship with him. We could choose to follow the moral teachings of the Church...

I don't feel that I am better than God, I don't feel that it is my place to pass judgement over others. I feel that each person will have some point to answer for their actions (right or wrong actions) in the future, so it is not my place to impose my will upon others at the current time.

So I would personally have a very difficult time ever choosing to have an abortion (me being a guy, I mean obviously my wife having one), but I absolutely don't feel it is my place to take away other people's right to choose. Maybe I oversimplify things in my head too much, but that is why roe vs wade isn't necessarily the most pressing issue for me in choosing a presidential candidate.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How much has it really changed? What are some examples?

The only meat you can eat on Fridays is fish. That went away when I was younger (and still a member of the Catholic Church). One example.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The bolded part makes no sense. I'm not sure you have the timeline right. She did in fact run for Governor as a Republican, and was endorsed by Ted Stevens. Her AIP membership was when she was on the Wasilla city council. She became a Republican in 1996 when she ran for Mayor, ran for Lt. Governor in 2002 as a Republican (losing in the primary), and then beating Murkowski in the 2006 Republican primary.

I'm not talking about when she ran for mayor or gov, but when she ran for city council. At the time, she wasn't very political and maybe even believed in some of the ideals in the independent party. Then, 3-4 years later, she left and joined the republicans. Also, let's not forget, the Alaskan republican party was extremely corrupt in the early-mid 90s. So, you have to put that in context when looking at her "loyalty" comments and the fact she started out with the independent party.

Let's also not forget we are talking when she was in her late 20s and early 30s for a lot of this stuff. I think it's fair to say someone has learned a bit politically between the ages of 28 and 44. This isn't like Obama (ie, with Wright) where she was still attending Independent party ralies 6 months ago. All this stuff happened in a 3-4 year window 12-16 years ago.

[Vegas Vic]

Back to the election at hand, it looks like Obama got a nice six point bump from the Democratic convention, so we'll see if McCain can whittle that back down at the conclusion of his convention.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't consider myself strongly religious, however my parents are very religious. They are both lectors at church, my father teaches Sunday school, and has for years, etc. And yet both parents believes in evolution over creationism, is pro-choice, and are for gay-rights (up to and including marriage). I asked them one time when I was younger how they reconciled that with their faith, and my father said something to the effect of "you have to think for yourself - you can agree with the central message of the church, and disagree with the particulars."

*note: not saying ALL of his ideas were liberal, but certainly that he might easily be construed as more liberal than conservative

For the record the Catholic Chuch is not creationist. It supports evolution.

However, per my point that is not dogma. Dogma is stuff like Christ is our Lord and Savior, Communion is the body of Christ, etc., etc. A good list would be found in the Nicene Creed. Bringing this around to what your father said, dogma is the central tenets of the faith. Everything else is the side issues.

Additionally, there is nothing in the Bible that is against gay rights. Heck, I don't have a problem with gay-rights. Go for it. If you want someone to have the same rights as my wife, fine by me. Where I draw the line is calling it marriage and giving it a religious overtone. Maybe it is splitting hairs but why not just call it a civil union and be done with it? I can see why some one might be pro-choice and not consider themselves at odds with their faith (being for the law, essentially leaving the choice to others, but being personally against it).

That said, I find it abhorrent is all the people that think they have all the answers and that no one can think differently from them. One of the things that I love about the Catholic faith is that most things have a basis for it that make sense (not that they teach you any of this stuff in PRE, but that is a different story). I did much of this study on my own during and after college.

Again, science is the study of the framework of the universe and is the study of how things work. Philosophy and religion delve into the why the science is the way it is (who created the universe and the framework or the laws of science, etc. How should we act and what is our part in the framework, etc.).

To this last point, the Catholic Church has always followed Natural Law Theory. Sure, it has its faults, but it at least has a central philosophy that it follows which other faiths do not do.

[DaddyTorgo]

DISCUSSION OF MARRIAGE VS. CIVIL UNION THAT DOESN'T BELONG IN THIS THREAD WITHIN SPOILER-TAG

Spoiler

Not to take this off-track, but the problem (as it stands today) with calling them civil unions and being done with it is that the term "marriage" has become secularized in many cases (in the courts, in healthcare, in employee benefits, etc). So you either have to

1) rewrite all the laws/regulations/healthcare codes/etc so that they reflect "marriage/civil union"

2) make civil union explicitly=marriage in a legal sense (so that all benefits to "married" couples are equal for civil unions)

3) follow-through and finish making "marriage" a completely secular term by removing the religious component (and calling that something else)

Anyways - back to the political debate.

I'm glad you didn't take my post as an attack on you - like I stated, it was certainly not intended in that light, glad you're a cooler-head.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The only meat you can eat on Fridays is fish. That went away when I was younger (and still a member of the Catholic Church). One example.

Not dogma, and even there, that is the reason why you are supposed to give up something in lent. Give up something for 40 days, and you can eat meat on Friday's outside of lent.

[Warhammer]

Just for the record, I would back option #2 in that spoiler. Back to your regularly scheduled political debate!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm not talking about when she ran for mayor or gov, but when she ran for city council. At the time, she wasn't very political and maybe even believed in some of the ideals in the independent party. Then, 3-4 years later, she left and joined the republicans. Also, let's not forget, the Alaskan republican party was extremely corrupt in the early-mid 90s. So, you have to put that in context when looking at her "loyalty" comments and the fact she started out with the independent party.

Let's also not forget we are talking when she was in her late 20s and early 30s for a lot of this stuff. I think it's fair to say someone has learned a bit politically between the ages of 28 and 44. I certainly would say Obama has, why isn't Palin afforded the same understanding?

Because she and the campaign refuse to answer any questions.

But this really isn't about her, it's about McCain. What does it say about a guy that he surrendered to the right wing of his party and didn't choose the guy he wanted, then made a hasty selection of a person that wasn't politically vetted? McCain made a reckless choice and now he's living with the consequences.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Back to the election at hand, it looks like Obama got a nice six point bump from the Democratic convention, so we'll see if McCain can whittle that back down at the conclusion of his convention.

With everything happening so quickly it's hard to get a fix on what's happening with these Rasmussen numbers. Yesterday was the official marker for the bounce at +3 and would have included sampling from Fri-Sun. Today's would be Sat-Mon and shows a +6. What does that tell us? It could be noise. It could be delayed convention bounce. It could be the first signs of Palin weighing down McCain.

The RNC should provide some momentum in McCain's favor possibly with today's sampling, but more likely tomorrow's (so Thursday's poll). With another historical bounce coming, it will be very difficult to isolate Palin's effect, but I would expect the McCain staff are on alert.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

It's also hugely symptomatic of a lot of problems in this country - people really need to stop accepting what they are told at face-value and start thinking for themselves, the world would be a much better place.

Not if you are a wolf. Then the world would suck.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Not if you are a wolf. Then the world would suck.

that's true. i do enjoy when that happens in WW.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Saw this little shot on a newspaper blog earlier, have to admit I got a chuckle out of it. (hey, sue me, funny is funny even when the situation behind it is anything but funny)

Coming to a theater near you: “Juno From Juneau — The Sequel”!

[molson]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

See that makes no sense how you can vote one side but then preach the other. That's as bad as idiots that have big houses and large electricity bills, but then buy carbon offset credits... (from their own company - I'm looking at you Mr. Gore!).

There's a big difference between politics and religion, and also personal opinions on policy v. constitutional questions, and I don't think these kinds views are necessarily inconsistent.

Someone can personally against abortion as part of their Catholic beliefs, but also believe that its a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

Someone can personally have no problem with abortion, think that abortion should be accessible to all women, but still believe that the Constitution does not protect it as a fundamental right.

Someone can think that abortions are a wonderful thing, but also think that if elected representatives from Alabama want to work towards limiting or banning abortion in their state, they should be able to.

Someone can be very verbal about the importance of family values even if they have an issue in their own family involving family values. Nobody's perfect! Who better knows the damage of alcoholism than an alcoholic! People can know they made mistakes but still feel strongly that those acts are wrong, and they can still have that opinion.

People can speak out against drugs and still be a user. I don't think that's inconsistent or hypocritical at all. Someone can hate what drugs have done to them.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Saw this little shot on a newspaper blog earlier, have to admit I got a chuckle out of it. (hey, sue me, funny is funny even when the situation behind it is anything but funny)

Coming to a theater near you: “Juno From Juneau — The Sequel”!

Clever! I actually had been getting flashbacks of a "Mystery - Alaska" sequel, but I think that one is just as good.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I am always hesitant to get into debates when it involves things like religion or abortion or such. I tend to see many of them not end that well, but here it goes...

I don't know if I like the term "I call myself religious".. to me that brings a feeling of holier than thou, which I don't feel that I am. I do call myself a Christian, I do attend church regularly (2-4 times a month), I do try to live my life as a good life, and not do things that I feel are morally wrong.

I also am pro-choice, and feel that the greatest gift that God ever gave Man-kind was free will. I feel God is all powerful and if he wanted to, could have a world that would have no sin at all. Instead he gave us free will, where we could choose to have a relationship with him. We could choose to follow the moral teachings of the Church...

I don't feel that I am better than God, I don't feel that it is my place to pass judgement over others. I feel that each person will have some point to answer for their actions (right or wrong actions) in the future, so it is not my place to impose my will upon others at the current time.

So I would personally have a very difficult time ever choosing to have an abortion (me being a guy, I mean obviously my wife having one), but I absolutely don't feel it is my place to take away other people's right to choose. Maybe I oversimplify things in my head too much, but that is why roe vs wade isn't necessarily the most pressing issue for me in choosing a presidential candidate.

+1 , right there with you Alan, except on the going to church 2-4 times a month. I don't go to church.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

For the record the Catholic Chuch is not creationist. It supports evolution.

When did they change their stance?

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Additionally, there is nothing in the Bible that is against gay rights. Heck, I don't have a problem with gay-rights. Go for it. If you want someone to have the same rights as my wife, fine by me. Where I draw the line is calling it marriage and giving it a religious overtone. Maybe it is splitting hairs but why not just call it a civil union and be done with it?

But who gave the church ownership of marriage? Maybe those that are getting married because of their religious beliefs should think of a more appropriate word, such as a Religious Union...?

Sorry to sidetrack the debate. I'll stop this discussion now.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by molson

There's a big difference between politics and religion, and also personal opinions on policy v. constitutional questions, and I don't think these kinds views are necessarily inconsistent.

Someone can personally against abortion as part of their Catholic beliefs, but also believe that its a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

Someone can personally have no problem with abortion, think that abortion should be accessible to all women, but still believe that the Constitution does not protect it as a fundamental right.

Someone can think that abortions are a wonderful thing, but also think that if elected representatives from Alabama want to work towards limiting or banning abortion in their state, they should be able to.

Someone can be very verbal about the importance of family values even if they have an issue in their own family involving family values. Nobody's perfect! Who better knows the damage of alcoholism than an alcoholic! People can know they made mistakes but still feel strongly that those acts are wrong, and they can still have that opinion.

People can speak out against drugs and still be a user. I don't think that's inconsistent or hypocritical at all. Someone can hate what drugs have done to them.

It does make one look hypocritical though... But good point.

[Toddzilla]

Remember the guy who was behind the personal attack on John McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries? Tucker Eskew?

Dadmag: During your campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination Bridget became something of an issue in South Carolina didn't she?

McCain: Yeah. There were some pretty vile and hurtful things said during the South Carolina primary. It's a really nasty side of politics. We tried to ignore it and I think we shielded her from it. It's just unfortunate that that sort of thing still exists As you know she's Bengali, and very dark skinned. A lot of phone calls were made by people who said we should be very ashamed about her, about the color of her skin. Thousands and thousands of calls from people to voters saying "You know the McCains have a black baby" I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those.

Well, that place in hell appears to be the McCain Campaign...

Originally Posted by abcnews.com

Former officials of Sen. John McCain's 2000 campaign expressed shock and disbelief Monday to learn than the GOP presidential nominee had hired South Carolina political consultant Tucker Eskew.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

When did they change their stance?

Pope John Paul II. I'll see if I can find the exact quote.

This seems to be the speech he gave when he said that evolution is compatible with Christian faith: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Pope John Paul II. I'll see if I can find the exact quote.

Don't need it, it just proves my point that they change philosophies.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Pope John Paul II. I'll see if I can find the exact quote.

This seems to be the speech he gave when he said that evolution is compatible with Christian faith: CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (1996)

Here's more.

Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution | Herald Sun

POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution.
The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence.
In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said.

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God.

“Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'“

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

She was a member of the Alaskan Independent Party between ages 28 and 31. At age 32, she joined the republican party. She also never made any statements in support of that aspect of their platform. Given she didn't have support of the republican machine early on, I don't know that she had a choice (outside of running as an independent) to win. Combine that with the fact she did this in her late 20s, I'm not sure how much it sticks. Compared with what W, Biden and even Obama did in their late 20s, I'm not sure this is a major issue for most.


If Obama would have left his church at age 32, this wouldn't have been much of an issue. The fact that you compare affiliations by Palin at age 29 with Obama at age 47 shows a significant amount of "spin" on your side.

Well a lot of people attended churches that had preachers and priests molesting children and that doesnt mean that they support pedophilia. Therefore I dont attribute every crazy thing a preacher says as being the mantra of everyone within earshot of it. I guess you could say Im a little smarter than to think that a member of the Republican party or Democratic party or church or affiliation has to agree with every pillar of it. You, however, seem to be thinking that way so, unfortunately, if that's true McCain can't be your candidate of choice, right? You dont support him, right? I think you get my drift, youre pretty bright so you see it's not so black and white (no pun intended). I'm forgiving of her affiliation as much as believing that Obama didnt agree with Wright's every word.

[astrosfan64]

Who really cares about what party she was in over 10 years ago? I hate the choice of Palin, but that is not the reason.

Obama and the minister are a non factor as well.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I'm forgiving of her affiliation as much as believing that Obama didnt agree with Wright's every word.

I agree with this as well. Bringing in Palin's party affiliation back in the early 90s means you need to also bring back in the Plagiarism charges against Biden and knock Obama for not vetting him well enough. Like with the Biden issue, none of this independent info is new (she dealt with it when she ran for Gov). Do those of you knocking McCain's choice for Palin because of this independent party issue knock Obama in the same manner for Biden's Plagiarism scandal when he was younger?

The only difference I could see between the Obama situation and the ones for Biden/Palin is that Obama was still a member of the church when he started his campaign. In the Palin/Biden situations, both had moved past these issues years ago. Still, I agree that the Wright issue isn't anything that would worry me personally about Obama - I think he's handled it the best he could and showed that Wright's views do not reflect his current views.

But, if I were a republican strategist, I would welcome debates on prior affiliations between the two tickets. IMO, Palin's association with a moonbat independent party in the early 90s pales in comparison to the Rezko/Wright/Ayers affiliations just a few years back (or even more recent) with Obama.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Arles

I agree with this as well. Bringing in Palin's party affiliation back in the early 90s means you need to also bring back in the Plagiarism charges against Biden and knock Obama for not vetting him well enough. Like with the Biden issue, none of this independent info is new (she dealt with it when she ran for Gov). Do those of you knocking McCain's choice for Palin because of this independent party issue knock Obama in the same manner for Biden's Plagiarism scandal when he was younger?

The only difference I could see between the Obama situation and the ones for Biden/Palin is that Obama was still a member of the church when he started his campaign. In the Palin/Biden situations, both had moved past these issues years ago. Still, I agree that the Wright issue isn't anything that would worry me personally about Obama - I think he's handled it the best he could and showed that Wright's views do not reflect his current views.

But, if I were a republican strategist, I would welcome debates on prior affiliations between the two tickets. IMO, Palin's association with a moonbat independent party in the early 90s pales in comparison to the Rezko/Wright/Ayers affiliations just a few years back (or even more recent) with Obama.

I think any strategist worth his salt would love a debate comparing a VP pick to a Presidental pick. The GOP gets a lot more milage out of both Obama and Palin being smeared than the DEMs do. Vice versa if Biden and McCain were to tear each other down.

The DEM playbook hasn't changed. They should set an internal rule for themselves. For every one time they mention the word "Palin," they need to say "McCain" five times and "Bush" ten times.

[Arles]

That's an excellent point, the dems really haven't gone after McCain on much and there's a ton they could have. At this point, you've almost lost the "dirt season" as well as once the debates start no one wants to see a lot of mudslinging.

[DanGarion]

It's all about Paris for President!

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

That's an excellent point, the dems really haven't gone after McCain on much and there's a ton they could have. At this point, you've almost lost the "dirt season" as well as once the debates start no one wants to see a lot of mudslinging.

I think that theyre setting the tee up with her lack of "XYZ" and then folding that into a "how McCain makes decisions" discussion which is very very valid to the debate. Whether you agree or not with the decision or choice he made the way it has played out certainly has not been as planned and if so that would make me more scared.

[JPhillips]

Obama's in real danger here. So many opportunities are presenting themselves so fast that he'll be unlikely to capitalize on all of them. Apparently Phil Gramm, who's back as a top economic advisor to McCain, decided now was a good time to go back to the whiners argument.

“If you’re sitting here today, you’re not economically illiterate and you’re not a whiner, so I’m not worried about who you’re going to vote for,” Gramm told supporters of McCain at a Financial Services Roundtable event in Minneapolis on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention.

McCain can still win this, but it surely feels good to be on the offensive for the first time in nearly a decade. The past few day have been an absolute trainwreck for McCain.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The past few day have been an absolute trainwreck for McCain.

I'd argue that point. Before the VP selection you wouldn't even know McCain was Obama's opponent, because nobody even talked about him. Now, while his VP pick is being scrutinized, and it's obviously not all favorable coverage - he's atleast finally getting some press. In fact, they've pretty much stolen all the Democratic convention's thunder.

He still very well could lose, and some of the stuff coming up could play into it, but all of this has been the boost his forgettable campaign needed.

[Big Fo]

British oddsmaker William Hill has 8/1 odds on McCain dumping Palin before Election Day, slashed from 20/1 before her daughter's pregnancy became public.

williamhillmedia.com

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Remember the guy who was behind the personal attack on John McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries? Tucker Eskew?

(snip)

Well, that place in hell appears to be the McCain Campaign...

Hardly surprising. The memories of "Maverick" McCain grow fainter by the day.

[Flasch186]

no way...if he dumped her the race would be over. Now if she dropped out or something and it didnt come out that she got pressured to do so, then perhaps it could be seen in a positive spin but otherwise there is absolutely no way she gets dumped.

EDIT - to add that of course, Im talking hypotheticals that really apply to either side....although she's in the crosshairs moreso than anyone right now, whether rightfully so or not.

[Arles]

Yeah, no kidding. What would be the point? If presidential candidates have survived last second affair claims (Clinton), DUIs (W) and a litany of terrible statements, I can't see what possible story on Palin that would negatively impact McCain's chances in two months. The only possible story with legs is the trooper one, but now it seems that trooper (brother-in-law) made death threats against her family and was disciplined for it. So, even that seems to have lost some bite.

I'll be shocked if any of these stories on Palin are still relevant in a month. After the republican convention, it becomes Obama vs McCain with a small sliver for the VPs (debate). I still don't think McCain will win, but if he loses it's not because of Palin (or, in better terms, the outcome would not have been different if he named Huckabee, Libermann or Romney).

Not to sound like a broken record, but I feel this election is a referendum on if people feel comfortable with Obama as president. The democrats lead on nearly every issue as party (outside of maybe the war on terror) and if enough people trust/approve Obama, he will win. All McCain/Palin can do now is continue to put doubts in people's minds on Obama's ability to be Commander in Chief. Anything outside of that is just fodder for the political junkies.

[SirFozzie]

Two interesting things.

One) The post-convention bump has finally hit Obama, he leads by 5-9 points in some of the latest polls. Let's see if McCain can cut into that, but remember, he lost at LEAST a whole day of the convention to Hurricane Gustav. He's gotta be playing catch up quickly.

Two) The Republicans have asked that the major networks give more time on the remaining days to the convention due to losing that whole day. I think it would be good, but any extra time will be given VERY begrudgingly, as folks don't like giving up prime time ad revenue..

[Young Drachma]

Palin as the president-in-waiting of our nation? Really?: Opinion | adn.com

I thought this was funny. Op-ed from a Democratic state representative in Alaska:

Palin as the president-in-waiting of our nation? Really?


By MIKE DOOGAN

(08/30/08 00:28:50)
John McCain looked all over the United States to find the single Republican who is qualified to be, as the saying goes, a heartbeat away from the presidency, and he came up with Sarah Palin.

Really?

Sure, I suppose that many Alaskans are feeling a surge of pride that someone from our state has gotten a spot on the big stage. And most Alaskans like Palin. I know I do.

But let's be honest here. Her resume is as thin as the meat in a vending machine sandwich. I'm thinking being mayor of Wasilla doesn't qualify her. And she's less than two years into her first term as governor. Except for her high-profile gas pipeline legislation -- which I like a lot -- she doesn't have much to show. Oil taxes? Most of that work was done by the legislature. Ethics? Ditto. And her role in killing the much-touted Bridge to Nowhere? Talk about coming in after the battle is over and bayoneting the wounded.

And there's a growing sense that the government isn't running all that well, that all that's keeping the wheels from coming off is that 25,000 state employees show up for work every day.

The long and short of it is this: We're not sure she's a competent governor of Alaska. And yet McCain, who is no spring chicken, has decided she's the best choice to replace him as president if he should win and then fall afoul of the Grim Reaper.

Sarah Palin?

Really?

I can see that it makes some sense in terms of the election campaign. McCain's hard up against it. He's dragging eight years of George W. Bush -- hands down the worst president in American history -- behind him like the ball and chain it is. He's not the most engaging person himself. And he's facing an opponent in Barack Obama who shows all the earmarks of being a transformational candidate, someone who is rewriting the rules of American politics just by being who he is. I've seen two others like him in my lifetime, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, and Obama looks like the real deal.

So McCain needs help, and Palin brings some. She's a woman. She's young. She's good looking. She's got a good story to tell, and a knack for dealing with the media. McCain's choice of her came out of left field, but at least it was in the ballpark.

But debating foreign policy with Joe Biden? What's she going to do? Hit him with her briefing book? If Palin has two thoughts about foreign policy, she's managed to keep them to herself. Ditto health care. National energy policy. Fiscal policy. You could make a long, long list, but I'll stop there. She's going to need a lot of handlers feeding her a lot of talking points, and she's going to have to hope that the discussion only goes about yay-deep.

She's also going to have to hope that the national media is as pliable as Alaska's has been. Palin doesn't like people criticizing her, and she's as competitive as any linebacker you ever met. If the campaign gets a little rough and tumble, that could be a bad combination.

So she could be great as a candidate. Or so so. Or blow up on the pad. But if the McCain-Palin ticket should win? Yikers. There's no way on God's green earth that she's prepared to be president of the United States. The only consolation for me is remembering that J. Danforth Quayle once held the job she's trying to get, and the world didn't end.

But Sarah Palin?

Really?

Mike Doogan is a Democratic state representative from Anchorage. He is a former columnist for the Anchorage Daily News.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, no kidding. What would be the point? If presidential candidates have survived last second affair claims (Clinton), DUIs (W) and a litany of terrible statements, I can't see what possible story on Palin that would negatively impact McCain's chances in two months. The only possible story with legs is the trooper one, but now it seems that trooper (brother-in-law) made death threats against her family and was disciplined for it. So, even that seems to have lost some bite.

I'll be shocked if any of these stories on Palin are still relevant in a month. After the republican convention, it becomes Obama vs McCain with a small sliver for the VPs (debate). I still don't think McCain will win, but if he loses it's not because of Palin (or, in better terms, the outcome would not have been different if he named Huckabee, Libermann or Romney).

Not to sound like a broken record, but I feel this election is a referendum on if people feel comfortable with Obama as president. The democrats lead on nearly every issue as party (outside of maybe the war on terror) and if enough people trust/approve Obama, he will win. All McCain/Palin can do now is continue to put doubts in people's minds on Obama's ability to be Commander in Chief. Anything outside of that is just fodder for the political junkies.

Link to your troopergate story?

here's one:

Is Wooten a good trooper? (7/27/08): Politics | adn.com

and I have no idea which way this site leans so it could be total garbage or spun.

If he was already disciplined and not fired and when the letter (if this is true) was sent he had no other issues then she shouldnt have needed to get him fired. The legs on this continue Arles, let it run it's course and we'll get to the truthyism of it without spin, one way or the other....you ok with that?

[Big Fo]

Speaking of Tucker Bounds on last page, it was funny watching him try and spin while being interviewed by Campbell Brown last night.

McCain got upset that the network asked real questions and canceled his scheduled appearance on Larry King Live.

CNN: McCain Cancels Larry King Live Appearance

[Flasch186]

That was what I was talking about. Nothing pisses me off more than when a talking head propagates a lie after it's been pointed out.

[Arles]

From an Alaska article:

Palin had raised with Monegan the family's charges of misconduct against Wooten, such as a death threat against Palin's father. In response, Monegan told Palin that Wooten had been officially reprimanded and disciplined in 2006 for these matters and that the subject could not be reopened.

Again, I don't know the whole story either. But I just don't see many legs here. But, I could be wrong. In the end, I doubt it impacts the election, but I lack the crystal ball flasch186 seems to have.

[Flasch186]

or you had a day ago in this very thread where you said it'd have legs.

[SFL Cat]

The Democrats need more great thinkers like Sean Combs...

Diddy Puzzled After McCain Picks Palin

Maybe Paris is available to bring her impressive credentials to the party after being dissed by the McCain campaign.

[Flasch186]

Well the baby's father, Levi, is joining the Palin family shortly on the campaign trail...Im not sure that that is how you maintain privacy but it certainly will play to the base and make a story. Ok.

[Arles]

This story has been referenced on a few sites. Like with Palin, I think this is kind of crappy, but it looks like this is now politics as usual when running for president or VP:

Bidens Son Caught Up in Hedge Fund Troubles - Mergers, Acquisitions, Venture Capital, Hedge Funds -- DealBook - New York Times

A son and a brother of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, The Washington Post reported, citing court records.

It would be nice if families were off limits, but I guess that is not the case in presidential elections.