jlbomega wrote: If Obama or Biden were ever met with boos at a public event the media would be beside themselves.
The Left would probably have the boo-ers arrested.
jlbomega wrote: If Obama or Biden were ever met with boos at a public event the media would be beside themselves.
Think they would? Think they could (by who)? And charged with what?Maitre D wrote:
The Left would probably have the boo-ers arrested.
The dynamics of the Democrats primary were significantly different. Senator Clinton appeared to be the shoe-in and leading candidate for about two years. Senator Obama waged a campaign that started from behind, because he was not in it originally, and steadily overtook Senator Clinton and surpassed her among Party voters.NDTeve wrote: Advocrat...I agree with you that McCain did indeed take a hard hit from his own party. But...haven't the Repubs seemed a tad bit more united than the Clinton/Obama's? I fail to see how this is not particularly obvious to you.
The stock market is up today, so obviously the socialists have fixed everything! Don't be such an ignorant conservative redneck. You just can't see the big picture, Big Brother is here to save the day!NDTeve wrote: So the worldwide economy is saved? I wasn't aware of that yet.
Obama's Truth Squad would sneak them out the back and throw them in the Gulag.advocrat wrote: Think they would? Think they could (by who)? And charged with what?
Maitre D wrote: "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Maitre D wrote: It's pretty funny how you still cling to the idea that the GenElec CEO has any say in (much less even cares about) online content.
You have the business sense of a 6th grader.
jlbomega wrote:
If Obama or Biden were ever met with boos at a public event the media would be beside themselves.
This is the (well, one) problem with debate here- you just make things up like this and try to push them as fact with absolutely no evidence. You know that neither of these things would happen.Maitre D wrote:
The Left would probably have the boo-ers arrested.
That still doesn't explain why not to vote for Obama.NDTeve wrote: Not stupid enough for socialism.
I'm talking support right now. Has Obama won over the former Clinton voters? Some yes...but why so many undecided? You think McCain hasn't won over Romney or Huckabee supporters? You're dreaming.advocrat wrote: The dynamics of the Democrats primary were significantly different. Senator Clinton appeared to be the shoe-in and leading candidate for about two years. Senator Obama waged a campaign that started from behind, because he was not in it originally, and steadily overtook Senator Clinton and surpassed her among Party voters.
In Senator McCain's case he was in the campaign from the beginning, and clearly not preferred at first, in fact he was villified and made fun of by a lot of folks in his own party. If it were possible to re-run dozens of clips from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage and others, I could prove my assertion right here and now.
McCain had the opportunity to focus the moderate viewpoint (as he is himself) and distance the GOP from the theocrats. He blew it with the Palin pick. He could have picked another moderate, focused on the economy, distanced himself from Bush (as he did earlier) instead of attacking the opponent. Even if he lost in that scenario, it could have been a start to rebuild the GOP with common sense GOPs rather than being a dominantly social conservative activist party. He might have even picked up a few Libertarians.ComandanteCero wrote: My brother's boss, a life long Republican and campaign donor for the past 3 decades was telling him he wouldn't vote for McCain this November. He hadn't given a dollar of contributions past the primaries. He didn't say he would vote for Obama, but he said he couldn't bring himself to vote for the ticket especially with Palin on it. Now, you have to take into account that this guy is more of the old school deficit hawk Republicans who are increasingly irritated by what the feel is like a hijacking by social conservatives.
I thought Chriz explained how Dems felt...we are "stupid" and will vote for McCain.phxcat wrote: That still doesn't explain why not to vote for Obama.
I think you are right, my point was just to challenge the idea that Obama is a socialist, which he isn't.NDTeve wrote: I thought Chriz explained how Dems felt...we are "stupid" and will vote for McCain.
But he was the most liberal member of the Senate. Scary thought. Especially considering some of the whacko's in the senate.phxcat wrote: I think you are right, my point was just to challenge the idea that Obama is a socialist, which he isn't.
I completely agree. However it does not have to be Mit Romney, there are others out there who can move the Republican party forward. The conservative "tent" sort of collapsed under the Bush years. Bush (and McCain for voting for this bailout) have alienated the small government, fiscal conservatives. McCain does not get the "religious right" fired up at all. The party leadership has left its two largest groups with nothing to vote for in this election.ComandanteCero wrote: There is a large swathe of Republicans who are completely disillusioned with their party, and it's going to be up to Mit Romney and congressional Republican candidates in the upcoming years to win them back. I think it will be relatively easy once they get back to basics and Democrats have their couple of years to try their hand at the till.
Did he "get in your face" to tell you how stupid you were?NDTeve wrote: I thought Chriz explained how Dems felt...we are "stupid" and will vote for McCain.
no amount of debunking or fact-checking will stop the whiners, unfortunately. it seems that, for them, the analysis begins and ends with an alarmist conservative blog post with no follow-up whatsoever. i can understand wanting to know whether Obama has some sort of deep ties with the Weathermen, but it seems like any intelligent person could immediately discern that the issue is a complete non-starter.phxcat wrote: Congressional Quarterly on Obama-Ayers. Do us a favor and try not to comment on Obama Ayers unless you have read this first!
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?d ... 0002974214