Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Buccaneer]

Axxon, libertarian principles and policies would be all over the spectrum - with some positions further right than the Rep. I can understand how one can equate libertarians with conservatism since one of the key points is anti-socialism (i.e., smaller government, oppose government bureacracy and taxes). But I try to balance that in advocating personal responsibilites and promoting private charity. I have always been anti-union and do support freer trade, so I guess that can be a conservative position, but I also have taken a stand against the Patriot Act and against nation-building (i.e., stupid govt. misappropriations and incompetence), apart from me talking in historical perspectives.

I can see why those that are left-leaning would lump libertarians into the conservative broad-brush but I think that is unfortunate since everyone has come to identify conservatism with Bush2, Rush and their ilk. Those that are right-leaning accuse libertarians of being irrelevant and anti-patriots while we fight for security and strong defense build-ups. They are hypocrites in that they employ the same tactics used in other War on [stuff] but pretend that what they do is better government. I do support fighting terrorism but also believe in an nonintervention foreign policy (and removing many troops from foreign soils). That is also at odds with some groups that believe we should be the world's enforcers.

However, you mentioned my thread from a while back on libertarianism and I have to revisit that to better frame my arguments. I can understand now why anti-socialistic positions can be construed as conservative in the age of oppositional/black&white politics but there's more to it than that and I need to emphasize the positive differences more.

As far as the short-term (i.e., the upcoming election), I can certainly understand the need to change away from what we are doing - I have mentioned that numerous times as in history repeating itself. But I have an idea of what Congress is waiting to do and that bothers me. Obama with a better foreign policy and working more with other leaders will be a good thing, or at least interesting to see. However, whatever mandates the Dems will feel they have, or what bi-partisanships will do, can only mean more of the things that libertarians will be against.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Axxon

No, it was to show right wing stereotypes.

I'm glad that we can agree on the fact that few educated people from either party are taking the cover for more than it is. I just think it's a mistake to categorize the cover as showcasing stereotypes or beliefs of the entire right wing all at once. Sure, no liberal is going to even think those things of Obama and of course it's a jab at alleged right wing stereotypes.

I just take issue with the implication, at least in this thread, that all right wingers stereotype Obama (if you're going to disagree with him, do it over the issues, not stereotypes) and think any and all of those stereotypes on the cover are actually true.

I'm not saying you said that, Axxon, but it seems to be the general sentiment here and elsewhere in the media. It's always wrong to paint a party or political philosophy in such broad strokes.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by samifan24

It's always wrong to paint a party or political philosophy in such broad strokes.

It can be useful though to do so. It can tend to keep a group of people honest and marginalize their own fringe. If enough right leaners condemn this sort of thing so they're not "guilty by association" maybe they can begin to educate their fringe into thinking about the candidates and the issues. We can only hope.

This is really an extremely important election and it behooves everyone who's going to bother to vote to really consider who they're voting for and why and not give up that responsibility to others.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Axxon

This is really an extremely important election and it behooves everyone who's going to bother to vote to really consider who they're voting for and why and not give up that responsibility to others.

I would guess that 80% of the voters do not meet this criteria.

[Axxon]

Bucc,

I had never really equated libertarian with republican until the time of that conversation. I don't know where the idea came from and it probably wasn't you but I didn't know very much about the party before then and took some time to get to know it and that concept came from that activity.

It seemed to me that ( very roughly speaking ) the libertarians were spun out of the republican party because the core ideals of that party ( smaller government, personal responsibility ect ) were only given lip service by that party.

I found this on the wiki under left libertarianism and I found it interesting.

Left-libertarianism is usually regarded as doctrine that has an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, believing that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others.

I don't believe this but I believe precisely that since we allow private ownership of resources that we owe it as a society to see that the resources needed for survival, specifically food, shelter and clothing are available to those that need them so no citizen needs for these basic necessities they no longer can freely get due to the principle of ownership.

I don't know what that view makes me but I had a great time defending the position on usenet many many moons ago.

It seems that the europeans agreed with me and the americans hated it. No one called it socialist though but we weren't that label minded then. It'd be interesting if that view fit somehow into the libertarian ideal though because I do agree with quite a few of their positions as shown on the wiki but I strongly believe that it's a governmental responsibility, if they defend private ownership to ensure the most needed resources are available to those who don't own them and I'm not willing to give those specific responsibilities to private charity.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would guess that 80% of the voters do not meet this criteria.

I know, but since who ever wins is going to claim a mandate I'd like it to at least be a well thought out one.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would guess that 80% of the voters do not meet this criteria.

It's kinda a seque but here's one of my favorite examples of people not thinking their positions through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

[Buccaneer]

Axxon, I think the left libertarian and right libertarian thing is interesting. I am still learning more about but overall I think it points to a different way/mindset than what is promoted by the traditional parties. I think both tenets have some great ideas and all we need are: 1) grassroots efforts to get like-minded individuals in the various legislative branches and 2) a charismatic, likeable leader promoting such values. I have always believe that is doesn't have to be a third-party for either party can take up these values if they can shake their niche special interests. Sen. Proxmire did this to some extent within the Dem party and Ron Paul with the Rep party. It's the caucasing and oppositional politics that tends to kill any alternate thinkings and marginlizes such different approaches to policies, since they do not conform to compartmentalization we like to place everything in.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Axxon, I think the left libertarian and right libertarian thing is interesting. I am still learning more about but overall I think it points to a different way/mindset than what is promoted by the traditional parties. I think both tenets have some great ideas and all we need are: 1) grassroots efforts to get like-minded individuals in the various legislative branches and 2) a charismatic, likeable leader promoting such values. I have always believe that is doesn't have to be a third-party for either party can take up these values if they can shake their niche special interests. Sen. Proxmire did this to some extent within the Dem party and Ron Paul with the Rep party. It's the caucasing and oppositional politics that tends to kill any alternate thinkings and marginlizes such different approaches to policies, since they do not conform to compartmentalization we like to place everything in.

Interesting. I certainly think that if there's room for my ideas within a framework that I already more or less agree with that this is a party I should learn more about.

Of course, what your last point was that 80% of the voters wouldn't get it.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Axxon

It's kinda a seque but here's one of my favorite examples of people not thinking their positions through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

That's part of the 80% and there's still a lot of single-issue voters, from all points of the political spectrum. Anti-abortionists are no different than the abolitionists of old, or the "most important issue" environmental, terrorism, race, military, union voters of today. Like I started off in my earlier post, the choice is either A or B or neither, not A or B with qualifiers.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Axxon, I think the left libertarian and right libertarian thing is interesting. I am still learning more about but overall I think it points to a different way/mindset than what is promoted by the traditional parties. I think both tenets have some great ideas and all we need are: 1) grassroots efforts to get like-minded individuals in the various legislative branches and 2) a charismatic, likeable leader promoting such values. I have always believe that is doesn't have to be a third-party for either party can take up these values if they can shake their niche special interests. Sen. Proxmire did this to some extent within the Dem party and Ron Paul with the Rep party. It's the caucasing and oppositional politics that tends to kill any alternate thinkings and marginlizes such different approaches to policies, since they do not conform to compartmentalization we like to place everything in.

It's interesting because Ron Paul is someone who resonated with me and in some ways I'm glad he didn't win the nomination because my desire not to vote republican this time would have been severely tested had he been the nominee and I wouldn't like to have to make the decision ( if his positions held up to scrutiny ) between him and Obama but it would have been a time when I wouldn't have minded losing so much either way. I don't think there's been an election in my lifetime, including those I was too young to understand at the time, that I could say that.

I could say it about Kennedy Nixon though but I wasn't born yet.

[flere-imsaho]

Time: Never Underestimate McCain, But...

Excerpt:

John McCain might seem like a long shot. He's the Republican nominee at a time when the two-term Republican President is wildly unpopular and Republicans are losing elections in perennially Republican districts and the party base isn't exactly drooling over him. He supported the president's unpopular efforts to transform Iraq and revamp Social Security; he was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. He's a 71-year-old Washington hand in a change election. And his 46-year-old opponent is a lot better at raising money, delivering speeches, drawing crowds and registering new voters.

Oh, let's just admit it: John McCain is a long shot. He's got a heroic personal story, and being white has never hurt a presidential candidate, but on paper 2008 just doesn't look like his year. And considering what's happening off paper, it might be time to ask the question the horse-race-loving media are never supposed to ask: Is McCain a no-shot?

Last week, the McCain campaign's case against Barack Obama went something like this: He's irresponsible when it comes to Iraq, naive when it comes to Iran, and a big-government liberal when it comes to the economy. But now Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has more or less endorsed Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq, forcing McCain to argue that Maliki didn't really mean it, and even the Bush administration has accepted a "time horizon" for withdrawal, if not a precise "timetable." The Bush administration has also engaged in some diplomatic outreach with Iran, just as Obama has recommended, a severe blow to McCain's efforts to portray Obama's willingness to talk as appeasement. And on the economy, a TIME/Rockefeller Foundation poll found that 82% of the country supports more federal infrastructure spending designed to create jobs. When big-government liberalism is all the rage, McCain's courage in opposing water projects or the farm bill becomes less of a selling point.

New Polls:

Alaska: Obama=40% McCain=45% Rasmussen
Georgia Obama=39% McCain=48% Rasmussen
Michigan Obama=43% McCain=41% EPIC-MRA
New Hampshire Obama=46% McCain=43% U. of New Hampshire

Mostly good news for McCain. While it's not good for McCain that Obama's within 5 in Alaska, he's certainly keeping it close in Michigan & New Hampshire, which were two Kerry states.

We continue to see Georgia polled a lot, I think because pollsters think it would be fun to see Bob Barr play spoiler.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

We continue to see Georgia polled a lot, I think because pollsters think it would be fun to see Bob Barr play spoiler.

I have to think that's an overstated hope, since a large number of those who might have been Barr supporters at some time in the past have pretty much reached the conclusion that he's flipped his lid in the past couple of years. And that's just the one's who had any idea who he was/is in the first place.
I just can't see him being enough of a factor to be a difference maker even in his home state.

[flere-imsaho]

McCain refers to Czechoslovakia again (a country that ceased to exist in 1993). He's done this repeatedly since 1994, even to the point that George W. Bush pointed it out in debates in 2000.

Then there's this:

Asked by Diane Sawyer whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded: "I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border."

Iraq & Pakistan do not share a border.

As previously noted, he continues to mix up Shiites and Sunnis.


In conclusion, McCain's not doing his "foreign policy credentials" a lot of good.

[Swaggs]

It will be interesting to see if McCain and Obama will actually have a legitimate debate (where they can actually question one another, rather than tee up on softballs from moderators).

McCain has stuck to his guns about the surge working and "winning" in Iraq (equating Obama's pull out plans to "losing"). I would like to hear some substance on these two issues from McCain. For example, on a surge, is it really that surprising that adding unlimited supplies/dollars/manpower would improve things? And, what exactly does "winning" in Iraq entail?

[flere-imsaho]

Forget about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's VP. It looks like she's going to be under investigation for pressuring the police commissioner to fire a trooper who was divorcing Palin's sister at the time.

Apparently the local GOP and right-wing radio are even calling for investigations.

The Alaska GOP now has problems with Governor Sarah Palin, Senator Ted "FBI Investigation, Internet Tubes & Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens and Rep. Don "I take bribes" Young, so maybe the state will be in play anyway. It looks like Stevens' Senate seat and Young's Congressional seat (Alaska's only one) are good Democratic targets, at least.

[flere-imsaho]

McCain must be tired of losing all this week's airtime to Obama, so he's decided to agree with Obama & Iraq's prime minister Al-Maliki about withdrawing troops from Iraq:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain appeared to leave a door open on Monday to a large-scale drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq in the next two years.

McCain, who has wrapped up his party's White House nomination, has long argued against setting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.

But the discussion on troop levels has shifted in recent days after Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki seemed to endorse Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's call for troops to be gone within 16 months of his taking office.

Obama met with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad on Monday, and an Iraqi government spokesman said Maliki told the Illinois senator conditions on the ground should dictate troop withdrawals.

After a meeting with former President George H.W. Bush, McCain was asked whether it was conceivable for U.S. troops to be fully pulled out of Iraq in about two years.

"I think they could be largely withdrawn," the Arizona senator replied, citing the success of the "surge" strategy of increasing U.S. troop levels in increasing security in the country.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Forget about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's VP. It looks like she's going to be under investigation for pressuring the police commissioner to fire a trooper who was divorcing Palin's sister at the time.

Apparently the local GOP and right-wing radio are even calling for investigations.

The Alaska GOP now has problems with Governor Sarah Palin, Senator Ted "FBI Investigation, Internet Tubes & Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens and Rep. Don "I take bribes" Young, so maybe the state will be in play anyway. It looks like Stevens' Senate seat and Young's Congressional seat (Alaska's only one) are good Democratic targets, at least.

A blow to her. I thought she has some real qualities, and in a way, is the anti-Hillary. Now, regardless of the outcome, she will take a hit.

[CamEdwards]

The other side of the Palin story can be found here:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/127543

This part, I'm assuming, is about the trooper divorcing Palin's sister.

Monegan has also raised questions about the propriety of the First Gentleman, Todd Palin, meeting with Monegan right after the Governor was elected to discuss security concerns surrounding a state trooper. That meeting occurred following standard questioning of any newly-elected Governor and First Family members regarding security detail concerns. The First Gentleman was specifically told to meet with Monegan by the Governor’s top security detail, Special Agent Bob Cockrell, to forward serious concerns that were substantiated in an internal trooper investigation. The concerns regarding the trooper included: using a Taser stun gun on his stepson, illegally killing a moose and driving with an open container in his patrol car. The First Gentleman also expressed concern over death threats made against a family member by the trooper.

“When made aware of the security concerns regarding a state trooper, I instructed the First Gentleman to contact the commissioner of Public Safety,” Cockrell said. “It is standard protocol to ask every governor about any threats they perceive or have realized. I will not hesitate to set the record straight in answering these false allegations by former Commissioner Monegan.”

Cockrell, who joined the Alaska State Troopers in 1963, started with the Office of the Governor in 1983, under Governor Bill Sheffield. He is now serving his sixth governor.

It also sounds like the local GOP and talk radio might be calling for investigations to clear Palin's name, not because they believe the fired DPS chief.

[albionmoonlight]

Good news for McCain

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Today's Polls, 7/22

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Good news for McCain

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Today's Polls, 7/22

This isn't that much of a surprise, is it? From what I've gathered, the trend was expected to be a big early lead for Obama with that lead shrinking, then getting a boost from the Dem. convention, followed by another McCain surge during the Repub. convention.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This isn't that much of a surprise, is it? From what I've gathered, the trend was expected to be a big early lead for Obama with that lead shrinking, then getting a boost from the Dem. convention, followed by another McCain surge during the Repub. convention.

I don't know if it was generally expected or not. I figured that it was inevitable. I actually think that during at least one point between now and November McCain will have a better than even chance of winning (even if it is right after the GOP convention).

I keep coming back to the 2004 election. The closeness of Ohio masked the fact that Bush won solidly across the board. A lot of this country either wants to vote Republican or wants to vote anti-Democrat. It will be hard for Obama to overcome that.

[JPhillips]

It's very hard to know where Ohio stands. In two days their were two polls, one Obama +8 and one McCain +10, both from reputable polling firms.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's very hard to know where Ohio stands. In two days their were two polls, one Obama +8 and one McCain +10, both from reputable polling firms.

IMO, you can take those result and basically understand that it's a toss-up state, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It also sounds like the local GOP and talk radio might be calling for investigations to clear Palin's name, not because they believe the fired DPS chief.

If you go over to the KTVA website (a local TV station, apparently), it's a much different story. Do we have anyone from Alaska on FOFC?

Anyway, must have been one heck of a messy divorce....

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's very hard to know where Ohio stands. In two days their were two polls, one Obama +8 and one McCain +10, both from reputable polling firms.

Wow. Probably depends on how the questions are phrased or the mix of demographics they chose to sample?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I keep coming back to the 2004 election. The closeness of Ohio masked the fact that Bush won solidly across the board. A lot of this country either wants to vote Republican or wants to vote anti-Democrat. It will be hard for Obama to overcome that.

I have always said it was going to be close. Yes, there will be a lot of Rep and anit-Dem voters, just liike a lot of Dem and tons of anti-Rep voters. Both candidates have some big negatives going against to the general population and as usual, it will come down to turnout. For those on the left and right, there will be a lot of "hold your nose" and vote, just like in 2004, because they just don't want the other guy to win. However, independents may play a bigger role this time, if they can get excited about either one.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Wow. Probably depends on how the questions are phrased or the mix of demographics they chose to sample?

Over at 538 there's a post about the demographics, but his analysis of the internals didn't find enough difference to explain an 18 point spread. This far out it doesn't really matter, but at least one of these polling firms is completely out to lunch.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Over at 538 there's a post about the demographics, but his analysis of the internals didn't find enough difference to explain an 18 point spread. This far out it doesn't really matter, but at least one of these polling firms is completely out to lunch.

In theory, couldn't this ultimately be a case of where the "truth" is about halfway between the two points and that both ended up with somewhat fluky swings in their results? Basically that they both missed the mark in opposite directions by the maximum amount. I didn't look at it all that closely, what's the combined margin for error of the two differing polls?

Point being, maybe neither are completely out to lunch but rather both just headed out the door toward lunch?

[flere-imsaho]

McCain's chummy relationship with the press might be fading (as it's replaced by the media's collective swoon over Obama). From NEWSWEEK:

"What do you want, you little jerks?"

John McCain uses the word "jerk" freely, often with people he likes, and he had a big smile on his face when he said it.

The encounter surprised us. Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times and I had rushed the forward compartment of John McCain's campaign airplane, sitting on the tarmac in Buffalo, N.Y., Monday night, trying to chase down the hot rumor of the day, that McCain was going to announce his vice-presidential pick at a townhall meeting Tuesday in Rochester, N.H.

We had gone looking for Mark Salter, McCain's longtime aide, and got the candidate himself, who pulled back the curtain on the first-class section, where he and the staff and Secret Service sit. When Elisabeth asked whether it was true, McCain just smiled mischievously, and went back to sit down, out of reach.

Salter then issued a series of elaborate "no comments" to us and the rest of the press corps, which tried 57 different ways to get him to tip his hand about what might happen.

Would McCain be accompanied Tuesday by Mitt Romney, whose New Hampshire country house is only a few miles from Rochester?

"No comment."

Had a decision been made on the vice-presidential nomination?

"I've been told harshly [by McCain] to say nothing about this in any way, and I won't."

Will McCain be appearing alone at the Rochester town meeting, or with a guest?

"I can't tell you."

"Is [columnist] Bob Novak [who first mentioned the possibility of a pending VP pick on Monday] reliable?

"Novak is sometimes wrong and sometimes right."

What Salter could tell us, through his reaction to our questions, was that the McCain campaign is mightily annoyed at the disparity in the media coverage this week. And it's not hard to understand why. Barack Obama has a newly chartered jumbo jet, loaded to the gills with reporters and network anchors accompanying him to the Middle East and Europe, while McCain's traveling press corps numbers only about 25, including camera crews. While CBS News anchor Katie Couric and ABC News anchor Charles Gibson are traveling with Obama, neither CBS News nor ABC News sent even a correspondent to cover McCain. (NBC News is covering both). And this is hardly unique to this week. Only the Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal among big newspapers are consistently covering McCain. NEWSWEEK almost always has a reporter on the plane, but Time and U.S. News do not.

So the best bet is that the vice-presidential tease is just a way to get more reporters up to New Hampshire Tuesday to cover McCain in his most effective venue, a New Hampshire town meeting.

Since his Navy days, McCain has loved practical jokes. And he seems to be enjoying the idea of yanking our chain.

Or maybe the McCain campaign actually will step on Obama's big trip, with a big announcement at the Rochester Opera House at noon. Stay tuned

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This isn't that much of a surprise, is it? From what I've gathered, the trend was expected to be a big early lead for Obama with that lead shrinking, then getting a boost from the Dem. convention, followed by another McCain surge during the Repub. convention.

And after all of that, there will likely be another wildcard on election day (as we saw in the Democratic primaries). That's when the person goes into the privacy of the election booth and casts their ballot, instead of verbally responding to a pollster.

[flere-imsaho]

New Polls:

Florida Obama=46% McCain=45% Rasmussen
Minnesota Obama=49% McCain=37% Rasmussen
New Jersey Obama=50% McCain=36% Monmouth U

No surprise in MN or NJ. Florida's a statistical dead heat.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

And after all of that, there will likely be another wildcard on election day (as we saw in the Democratic primaries). That's when the person goes into the privacy of the election booth and casts their ballot, instead of verbally responding to a pollster.

Poll

Pronunciation:

\ˈpōl\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English pol, polle, from Middle Low German

Date:

14th century

5 a: a questioning or canvassing of persons selected at random or by quota to obtain information or opinions to be analyzed

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Poll

Pronunciation:

\ˈpōl\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English pol, polle, from Middle Low German

Date:

14th century

5 a: a questioning or canvassing of persons selected at random or by quota to obtain information or opinions to be analyzed

Perhaps I should have explained further, as I was referring to the fairly consistent trend of Obama's actual vote numbers underperforming his poll numbers during the primary. It appears that some people are willing to say that they'll vote for him if polled, but not when they actually cast their ballot in the privacy of the election booth.

[Big Fo]

I think he's saying that people are less likely to vote for a black guy than they are to say they'll vote for one over the telephone.

[flere-imsaho]

In what's been an absolutely terrible week for McCain, his foreign policy gaffes continued with his complete blunder on the history of the "Surge".

In a CBS interview on Tuesday:

Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.

Unfortunately, there's plenty of historical evidence to show that the Anbar Awakening started well before the surge. In fact, the Colonel MacFarland that McCain refers to is on record as describing the Anbar Awakening as early as September, 2006, which is months before the Surge was announced or Petraeus was even in-country to lead the Surge.


So that's pretty bad - McCain can't even remember what's happened in Iraq in the past two years.

It gets worse, though. That sheik the surge "protected", mentioned by McCain above? Well, he was killed by Al-Qaeda during the surge.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds:

If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda, and US forces would have already left Iraq in defeat

So... yeah....

Makes Jindal removing his name from VP contention and McCain cancelling an oil rig photo op due to an oil spill on the Mississippi (all this week!) look like small potatoes.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Perhaps I should have explained further, as I was referring to the fairly consistent trend of Obama's actual vote numbers underperforming his poll numbers during the primary. It appears that some people are willing to say that they'll vote for him if polled, but not when they actually cast their ballot in the privacy of the election booth.

You can take a look at the average margin of error for all of the different pollsters and decide for yourself which polls to trust. The reason a poll is off doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Pollster Ratings, v3.1.1

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

McCain can't even remember what's happened in Iraq in the past two years.

Somewhat rhetorically I wonder ... could even 1 of 10 Americans put say half of 10 significant events in Iraq in the proper timeline? Could 1 of 10 Congressmen?

My bet would be no, which means this might be more talking point for the already convinced than influential on anyone who might change their mind.

[JPhillips]

I think what Vic was talking about is the so-called Bradley effect where people are less likely to vote for the opposite race than they claim. However, some recent studies on that have shown the gap between polled and actual has shrunk to be statistically insignificant over the past twenty years.

Of course we've never had such a high profile minority candidate, so who knows what will happen this year.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Somewhat rhetorically I wonder ... could even 1 of 10 Americans put say half of 10 significant events in Iraq in the proper timeline? Could 1 of 10 Congressmen?

My bet would be no, which means this might be more talking point for the already convinced than influential on anyone who might change their mind.

However most people aren't running for president on the credentials that they know how to handle Iraq.

[Flasch186]

god forbid we hold people in office to a higher standard than the average person. (shrug)

[albionmoonlight]

You guys are missing JIMGA's point. You are saying that McCain's gaffe operates as a negative that should cause people to consider voting against him. And you are right. It does. This kind of misunderstanding, by someone who has every incentive to know this stuff backwards and forwards, demonstrates that McCain lacks the basic skill set to deal with Iraq.

But that isn't Jon's point. Jon is pointing out that that to the average American, this will seem like an easy mistake. Something that they need explained to them in depth before they can even see why McCain was wrong. People (who we should not overestimate) won't ever get to the "Wait, just because I don't know about this does not mean that McCain should not know about this." Their brains will shut off as soon as people start talking about timelines of events about which they never knew.

It lacks the punch of "John McCain can't find Iraq on a map" or some other such gaffe that would resonnate (sp?) with folks.

(I note, of course, that the average American can't find Iraq on a map, either. But s/he thinks that s/he can. And it makes an easy soundbite that is hard to spin away. That would make the difference.)

This--just noise and wonk.

[Flasch186]

we ought to do something about the border between Iraq and Afghanistan, LOL

[molson]

The question is when does a "Gaffe" become something that's actually relevant to the campaign. I don't care about McCain referencing Checkoslvakia or getting his events mixed up.

Just like I'm not concerned about Obama's claim that he's "visited 57 states", or that he referred to the Senate Banking Committee as "his Committee" (when he's not actually on that committee), or when he referenced the "President of Canada", or that the Burma typhoon "may have killed 100 million people" (closer to 100,000).

Barack Obama not so sure what Senate committee he's on | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

These guys say lots of shit every day, some of it is bound to be wrong - McCain will be judged far more harshly than Obama though, because of his age.

[SFL Cat]

All I know, is that the last time a "Messiah" ran for president, we ended up with Jimmy Carter. Don't care to repeat that one. Holding my nose and voting for McCain...if I vote, that is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

albionmoonlight - thanks for taking a stab at trying to explain what I was getting at. You did about as good a job as I could have & I'm the guy who said it in the first place.

[NoMyths]

Obama's speech in Berlin. Worth watching.

[RomaGoth]

I have managed to avoid this thread so far, but I feel it is my patriotic duty to throw in a vote for trout. One of those singing fish that you can put on the wall, leave alone for awhile, and it is still singing when you come back.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Obama's speech in Berlin. Worth watching.

Can't open it now. Was President Putin of Germany there?

[NoMyths]

He did talk about Russia's shadow a bit.