2008.10.30
Think it will be over on Tuesday?
What's the line on the election actually coming to a close Tuesday night? Will we have a winner unlike the last couple of presidential elections? My gut tells me no. There's going to be a lot of wrangling going on over ballots, crowded polling places and so on. I hope I'm wrong.
Meanwhile, there's a chance a filibuster-proof Senate for Democrats could be undecided, too. One of the long-shot seats to get to 60 is Saxby Chambliss' seat in Georgia. He's still ahead in the polls, but it's close and Jim Martin could ride a Democratic wave to victory.
Or, as this New York Times story points out, no one could win. Georgia requires a candidate to receive more than 50 percent of the vote to win. There's a third-party candidate in the race, so quite possibly neither Chambliss nor Martin will reach that threshold.
That's where things get interesting. If neither wins, there would be a runoff between them on Dec. 2. Imagine if the Ds have won 59 Senate Seats at that point. The fillibuster-proof majority could hang in the balance. How much money would the rest of America pump into that election?
Honestly, I think the more likely route to 60 if they hit 59 is they get someone to flip or a Pres. Obama chooses a moderate R from a state with a D governor and offers him a cabinet position. Someone like Arlen Specter could make a solid attorney general or even Supreme Court justice. Then the governor appoints a D.
RSS feed 
Someone wins big. That is all.
The Dems can easily take 60 in the Senate. Franken is the only misfit.
Comment by Henry — October 30, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
If Obama wins: celebrations turn into riots
If McCain wins: protests turn into riots
Comment by Ron Fluty — October 30, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
With poll numbers leaning so heavily to Obama, coupled with long lines, followed by a McCain win - there will be an uproar.
Comment by Valerie — October 30, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Valerie,
The polls showing Obama leading big are a lie. It's a close election and getting closer. If the current movement continues, McCain will win. If there are riots, it will be partly the MSM's fault. They are the ones pushing Obama, are sponsoring polls that are way skewed towards Obama, then reporting these bogus polls as news. They are setting up the scenario you mention.
Comment by Josh — October 30, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
For months now, I've felt people are losing their minds supporting someone as socialist and ill-qualified and shadowy as Obama. I've always known the MSM was biased, but it's been surprising even to me, that in 2008, they have been so overtly supporting perhaps the worst candidate ever. Everything has seemed turned on it's head. I have felt like the world is going crazy.
There may a simple explanation. Obama's minions may have orchestrated the entire thing.
Check out this blog entry from an alleged disgruntled Obama worker. If authentic, her story of deceit is pretty hair-raising. But it explains virtually everything, from near-unanimous YouTube support for Obama to the crazy polling, to extreme MSM bias.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_103008/content/01125110.guest.html
Comment by Josh — October 30, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
Puzzles can be fun. The one we discovered lacked two things. First, it wasn’t fun looking at each piece. Secondly, the picture is more frightening than the one shown on the cover of the box. When we put it together it contained some scary pictures. It shows Obama talking to our enemies unconditionally while taking America’s military apart and raising my taxes. This video puts it succinctly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4PF_QMBvMs
Comment by Mike Sutherland — October 30, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Josh, that is just classic, classic Limbaugh. If you know anything about polling, you realize what complete and utter baloney that entire thing is. They skewed the online polls to make Real Clear Politics look scary. Hold on, I have wipe the tears of laughter out of my eyes. Does Limbaugh really expect ANYONE to believe that Real Clear Politics depends on online polls? The kind that anyone can go skew? That's hilarious, Josh. I am rolling on the floor here.
If this HillBuzz post is real, it's clearly a Free Republic blog poster channelling. Freepers love to go skew online polls. They even call it "freeping." That's right, this is a right-wing pastime they're attempting to attribute to a liberal. Classic Rovian ploy right there.
But it's even more hilarous, of course, because Real Clear Politics doesn't depend on those kinds of polls. It looks at genuine, scientifically conducted nationwide and state polls of randomly selected voters - the kind of thing you simply can't fake - despite Rush's continuing lament about "tainted" polls that Josh echoes, like he does everything Rush.
This is really, really funny, Josh. My stomach hurts.
Seriously.
By the way, those polls Josh and Rush want to dismiss show Obama up by 6, which doesn't sound like much. It's probably within the margin of error. But it gets really interesting when you look at the state-by-state, electoral breakdown. There, Obama has 311 solid electoral votes to McCain's 142.
I understand now why Rush/Josh (Rosh? Jush?) would like to discredit Real Clear Politics and all the polls. But surely Rush/Josh could come up with something better than this ludicrous scenario.
Like, I don't know, aliens?
Thanks for the laugh, Josh.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 30, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
For months I have watched the McCain campaign turn an honorable man into a desperate, grumpy old man willing to say anything no matter how untrue or divisive to get elected and I have mourned that trend. Just as President Bush squandered golden opportunities in response to bad news, John McCain has squandered his genuine hero, true maverick status for the chance to win the White House. I feel he sold his soul to the devil with the vicious, deceitful, dismissive, erratic path he chose. If indeed he manages to scare enough people to win, I too feel that America may be torn asunder. The choice to continue ugly divisive campaign attacks even after promising not to (oh, that's right, only Obama can be called out for breaking a promise) and the choice to win ugly was John McCain's. The right wing water carriers have shouted every insult and rumor they could get their hands on, they have twisted and distorted even the most innocuous comments. Attack, Attack, day after day. I still have no clue beyond the broadest terms what John McCain has offered to do as President (and neither do they) but I sure know what they think Obama will do. How can you be drive the low road like a man possessed, choose an obscure sarcastic partner and then expect we can trust you to govern us all fairly (I do not feel you plan to)? The fact that the right wing has so viciously and savagely attacked the MSM helps them to then discount anything that is covered/reported, voiced or printed. If you cannot trust the media you cannot trust the polls and if they manage a Diebold election or intimidate or purge enough voters, they can pull it off and then blame the media for simply "getting it wrong". I stood in that cold rain for three hours in apathetic Roanoke, I felt the palpable hope and the good will, I stood in line and literally watched as diversity and our future lined up behind me. Young, old, wealthy and shabby, many races and cultures and we were all there for one reason. If the campaign of fear wins, May God Have Mercy on us all.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 30, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
Online polling - vote, delete cookie, vote, delete cookie, vote, vote, vote ....
Comment by Valerie — October 30, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
There are some bitter, bitter republican operatives here. Sorry your presumptions failed (will fail) and you brought it on yourself.
How long can you cling to the notion of your suburban life style where everyone looks the same and thinks the same? Have you not realized that immigrants settled this nation and immigrants are now the only strength we have? You fear anyone that looks differently and thinks differently.
If you thought your rants would motivate people to fear change and vote for a tired McCain and an incompetent Joe Six Pack Palin, all you have to do is look again at the thousands that turned out for Obama. Your hate filed tirades likely propelled people to get involved.
If Obama turns out to be one half as competent as George W and the failed policies of how the republican party "used to be", we will be light years ahead of where we are today.
It will be interesting to see how you attempt to resurrect your party.
Comment by Joe — October 30, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
Dan
FreeRepublic is not a blog. It's a forum.
10th Anniversary of the March for Justice tomorrow.
Comment by Henry — October 30, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
Oh, I see, Dan. It's ludicrous that Obama hirelings could possibly skew polls. Never mind that most of the polls are sponsored by media outlets who are making absolutely no pretense of supporting the Chosen One. Never mind there is a revolving door between the MSM and the Democrat Party But, Freepers, well, that's a different story. They can infiltrate MSM polls just like that.
I did say Rush paraphrased a blog and said it may or may not be real. But it sure does make sense when you think of all the chicanery we have already seen by Obama (the 6 fainting episodes at his rallies, all in the front row) and by the media on behalf of Obama (CNN's fake undecideds asking questions, attacks on Palin, no scrutiny of Obama).
BTW, I thought you reduced, Dan. You can't roll that far anymore, can you?
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 12:02 am
By the way, those down-and-out victims on last night's Obama infomercial? I wonder if someone will be combing courthouse records and state data bases looking for dirt on these people. Will details of their divorce records be made known? Or financial information, child support, past addresses,licensing courses taken or tax information? Will the New York Times send folks out to try to find out if these people are who they say they are like they did Joe the Plumber?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 12:24 am
Its amazing who the far left polls show Obama so far ahead or is it.
I rec. a call from a pollster on Wed. The way that the questions were asked I could tell were slanted the Democrates way. From Periello to Rasul to Obama. when I didnt answer the way they wanted they Politely thanked me and said have a nice day.
Thes polls are crazy.
I suggest anyone talking to the media for exit polling give them the wrong info and throw all news media to the wolves.
Sorry for Grammer.
Comment by HERB KREBS — October 31, 2008 @ 6:13 am
Hot off the press.
What do you think of your Obama candidate now. New he was lying.
"Confident in an Election Day win, the campaign looks to lower supporters' expectations on concerns their hopes of 'change' are unrealistic, a senior aide says".
This is straight from the words of Mr. Change.
This really needs to get out.
Comment by HERB KREBS — October 31, 2008 @ 7:20 am
Herb,
A link or some source might be helpful. Or did he say this (what, I cannot exactly tell) directly to you?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 7:29 am
This election was over months ago!
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks
Comment by Jack — October 31, 2008 @ 8:12 am
Herb, I think my candidate is the finest we have had in many decades and I will proudly accept whatever "reality is on the ground" after his election because he has not run a lying, insulting, divisive campaign and I trust him. Do you mean to say that you believe John McCain will be able to keep every promise he has made if he is elected?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 8:21 am
Wow. There are some bitter and delusional Republicans on here. John McCain ran one of the worst managed and slimy campaigns of all time. He will go down in history as how to not run a campaign. What do you mean 'the far left polls?' It's not the far left, it is EVERY poll. Because it's fairly obvious Obama is going to win. Get used to it, you're going to have to deal with it for four years if not eight.
If you get ANY of your news or views from Rush Limbaugh, you should really seek out professional help, most of us prefer to live in a reality based and progressive society.
Comment by Eli B. — October 31, 2008 @ 8:40 am
This election is mainly about stopping a destructive force from doing great damage to this country, damage akin to FDR's Depression-era entitlement boondoggles. For 70 years, America has paid a dear price, all because of a socialistic response to a financial crisis. We are in line to have a repeat if Obama is elected.
Yet the media ignores this reality because of bald partisanship. In the past, they have been more critical of less dangerous Democrats. In 2008, they have pretty much admitted total support for the most dangerous unqualified candidate of all time.
Obama truly is the Milli Vanilli of politics. The guy is a total creation, a mirage.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 8:46 am
Eli,
Sorry, but 60% of America describes themselves as conservative. I will agree that McCain has run a poor campaign until recently by 1) criticizing more Republicans than Democrats 2) blaming Wall Street for the financial mess instead of Bill Clinton, congressional Democrats and Fannie Mae, 3) promising money for the global warming hoax, 4)saying he won't drill in Alaska, and 5) letting Obama off the hook for his many flaws on character and policy issues. McCain's weakness is he has wanted to be liked by the MSM. He naively assumed they would continue liking him like they did whenever he ripped George W. Bush. The one GREAT thing he did was bring Sarah Palin on board. If he wins, she'll be the reason.
As for the polls, most of them are far-left because most are tied to far-left MSM outlets. It's as simple as that.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 8:55 am
Here is a link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece
Now, the "straight from the words of Mr. Change" is a pretty big distortion. It is a faulty conclusion drawn from statements. Notice the only word quoted is 'change'. Now what was said? Here is what Obama said as quoted in an interview:
"The first hundred days is going to be important, but it's probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference," he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how "hard" it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time."
"I won't stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy -- especially now," Obama told a rally in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday, citing "the cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq." Obama's transition team is headed by John Podesta, a Washington veteran and a former chief-of-staff to Bill Clinton. He has spent months overseeing a virtual Democratic government-in-exile to plan a smooth transition should Obama emerge victorious next week."
If setting a rational, realistic timetable is "lowering expectations", then McCain is a socialist. I don't ever recall that Obama said that all of the problems would be solved the day after inauguration or even in the first hundred days. I don't see where he is saying that he is not going to work toward the fulfillment of his promises, just that it is going to take time. So, where exactly did he lie?
Comment by Joe(not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 9:20 am
Jack,
Thanks for the link. There is a danger, though, that McCain supporters will think it is real (after all, it's a polished piece on the internet) and not vote on election day.
Comment by Joe(not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 9:24 am
That anyone still complains about the FDR programs that quite literally saved this country is beyond the pale for me. It is so completely American to help those who need it that I do not understand the hatred behind blaming people for being poor (Medicaid) or elderly (Medicare and Social Security) or disabled (Social Security). It is so wrong on so many levels that it alone condemns further arguments on any issue. If you think for one moment that McCain and the oh so eminently qualified Palin will do away with these programs or lower your taxes or not spread the wealth or fix the tax code or even solve the crisis at hand any better (or to your liking) or with more support than Obama-Biden, I have a pipeline in Alaska to cut you in on.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 9:24 am
wow Josh...I would be embarrassed to show such support for someone as clearly clueless as Palin. That's McCains's one "GREAT" thing? eeek....
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 9:26 am
So Sandi,
You will gladely except a President that will except defeat wave the white flag and not stand by Isreal. Our country will collapse with voters like yourself, Eli and the EB. There is NO WAY that Barack will support anything that will defend this country.
Dan as far as the link you want here it is.
The times of London by Tim Reid.
Obama has said nothing to dispute his Senior Aide.
I new there was no way he could do what he said.
He is a liar.Period.
Of course most politicians are.
Its which one is going to do the worst harm to the country.
That would be Barack Obama.
Dan check foxnews.com
the info is front page.
Comment by HERB KREBS — October 31, 2008 @ 9:26 am
Josh, I agree with one thing you said, "This election is about stopping destructive forces from "continuing to" do great damage to this country".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004749.html?nav=rss_email/components
Comment by Joe — October 31, 2008 @ 9:40 am
Yes Herb, I will gladly and enthusiastically accept Barack Obama as my President, God willing.
John "bomb, bomb, bomb" McCain is a much more frightening prospect for America in my opinion. He will flip-flop according to who has his ear and he will not serve most of this country only people like you, and forget changing our face and footprint in the world, he is more of the same.
Dear Lord, you sealed the deal when you cited FixedNews!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 9:43 am
No one will be able to fix this country in one presidential term or even two. We have too many BIG problems and too many unwilling to do the right things. However, while Obama will not be able to wave a wand and turn things right side up after elected (apparently some think McCain will be able to do this?), he has good, fresh ideas that this country needs. He will at least be pointing us in the right direction so that we can get there eventually. If McCain is elected I fear he will guide us into a deeper and darker cave.
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 9:49 am
Sandi,
The only thing that Saved this country from itself during the FDR admin.
was WWII.
Read the history books thats what brought us out of the depression.
Unless you are incouraging that the govrt runs everything and no free
capitalism. The govt tried to run everything During the 20's and 30s thats what got us into the depression.
Big govt means less jobs because high taxes. No investment because of capital gains tax. If Obama cant tax where is he going to get the money for his programs.
Comment by HERB KREBS — October 31, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Oh geez Sandi, take the blinders off and look at things objectively. Any objective political scientist will tell you, heck, my ninth grade World history teacher even recognized it, FDR's programs did not save this country. By any objective analysis they were woefully ineffective in achieving the stated goal of recovery from the Depression. FDR's programs threw bag after bag of money at the problem, but World War II ended the Great Depression, not FDR.
America has a long history of confusing popularity with efficacy. And apparently in 2008, it's like Ronald Reagan said, "there you go again" . . .
Comment by C Ramsey — October 31, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Herb,
Please show me some evidence that would back up your statements about Israel. Even Fox's Shepherd Smith had to point out that Obama is definitely pro-Israel and couldn't believe that Joe the Plumber was spouting such untruths. http://www.poligazette.com/2008/10/30/foxs-shepard-smith-questions-joe-the-plumber-on-death-of-israel-statement/
Also show in the article about expectations where Obama said he "could not do what he said?' Problems are worsening on a daily basis and all Obama said is that it will be harder and take longer. Please show me how that makes him a liar.
As for McCain, in February of 08 he said he would balance the budget by the end of his first term. Then in April, he said the economic situation was worse and it would take until the end of his second term.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html
So, was McCain lying in February? Now, he has gone back to saying he will balance a budget by the end of his first term. Is he lying now? Or is he being incredibly naive to think that he will be able to lower taxes on everyone, lower corporate tax rate and then balance the budget? The same source cited in these pages against Obama's budget states that their analysis also shows that, regardles of promises, McCain's plans will require $200 billion in additional spending. Lowering taxes and increasing spending doesn't seem to be the way to move to a balanced budget.
Comment by joe(not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 10:07 am
I received one of those online polls asking "leading" questions. After pressing the number associated with Party affiliation - I was asked "Are you pro-life?" This leads you to think you might want to kill everyone.
Comment by Valerie — October 31, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Josh,
I envy you. I wish I could feel the absolute certainty about truth that you do since that would make my life a lot easier. But, I don't. I see issues in many shades of gray and while I listen to my common sense, I also dig as deep as I can to make sure I have all of the facts that inform my common sense. One of your statements is telling:
"I did say Rush paraphrased a blog and said it may or may not be real. But it sure does make sense ..." You are basically saying, and forgive me if I am wrong, that you are willing to believe something that may not be real because it "makes sense" to you. In this age of complexity and intertwined issues, I honestly don't think that's good enough.
As for the polls, show me any evidence that says because people identify themselves as conservatives that they will automatically be for McCain. Those same polls and other polls that dig deeper about specific issues find that "conservative" doesn't mean that the person is lock-step with a specific and detailed agenda. When asked about military spending, abortion, taxes, social security, etc, the resulta aren;'t 60-40 one way or the other. People may be conservative on some issues and more liberal on others. So, the label conservative doesn't really mean anything when applied to specific issues. I think that there is enough feeling of betrayal from the Bush administration and the fact that McCain (regardless of his latest protestations) is going to continue along the same path as Bush that some conservatives honestly see that there is a need for a change.
Comment by joe(not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Joe,
You make no sense. You say conservatives feel betrayed by Bush and want a change. But the only way we feel betrayed by Bush has been his going along with massive social spending programs like prescription drugs and the education bill. So then why in the HELL would conservatives "chage" to a candidate that wants to create new program after new program including government-run healthcare?
It's the same kind of pretzel logic that says conservatives think Palin is a drag on the ticket when she draws the biggest audiences and the polls are tightening due to the base becoming engaged.
To believe these polling narratives, you have to be an idiot.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Josh: "The one GREAT thing he did was bring Sarah Palin on board. If he wins, she'll be the reason."
Josh, listen to what former Secretary of State (and McCain supporter) Lawrence Eagleberger has to say about Palin's readiness to serve.
Click on listen now and fast-forward to 14:45. Good stuff.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Josh,
In many respects, I have enjoyed these discussions, but your continual resorting to name calling is pretty juvenile. You have rarely, if ever, offered any facts to back up assertions. When I point out that the conservative label is not homogeneous and may not back McCain, you resort to asking why would they do that?" I don't know - each individual has their own reasons and your refusal to even remotely consider that someone could view the world differently than you is disturbing.
I have challenged you time again to provide facts for your assertions only to be told time and again it's just "common sense." Try that argument in front of a judge or in writing a research paper, or getting your company to invest in a new product and I can guarantee that you won't get very far. So I issue my challenge again: Support your assertions with verifiable facts. Also, as I have asked in other forums, give me a constructive view on a fair tax system. It is easy to criticize, but being constructive takes work If you are up to the challenge, I look forward to further exchange. If you aren't, please step aside and let people who have a real concern for finding solutions to our problems do their jobs.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Josh,Ebenezer Scrooge, The fact that Palin "draws large crowds" proves what? Hitler drew large crowds, too.
That fact that you still back her up illustrates just how much thought you have put into this. Not much other than cheerleading. Maybe less than McCain did when he clearly showed by his lame decision skills by choosing her.
If the republican party embraces her in the future, I think that is just super duper. That will show that how little it takes to motivate your party.
Comment by Joe — October 31, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Sandi RE #24 Get off your high horse.
"That anyone still complains about the FDR programs that quite literally saved this country is beyond the pale for me."
FDR turned a garden variety recession that should have lasted no more than a year or two into a decade-long depression because he ladled big government expenditures on top of a weak economy. -- Milton Friedman
"It is so completely American to help those who need it that I do not understand the hatred behind blaming people for being poor (Medicaid) or elderly (Medicare and Social Security) or disabled (Social Security). It is so wrong on so many levels that it alone condemns further arguments on any issue"
One more time, Sandi. There is NOTHING generous or noble about giving OTHER PEOPLE'S money, taking credit for it, then blasting the people it came from. True generosity is volunteering your OWN damn money. Republicans donate more money per capita to charity than liberals. Regardless of income, Republicans give more across the board.
So GET OFF your high horse, Sandi, and stop preaching to the people who make the money AND are the most generous. Go lecture your boy, Joe Biden, the hypocrite who made a couple of million last year and donated a paltry $3000 to charity. Talk to your boy, Obama, who lectured us about being our brothers' keeper, while he has a half-brother living in squalor in Kenya and a half-aunt living in a Boston slum.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
I'm curious to know Josh, what is it about her that you continue to support her so strongly?
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
"I'm curious to know Josh, what is it about her that you continue to support her so strongly?"
She's for "change".
Comment by Henry — October 31, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
seriously Henry? exactly what is it that she plans to change?
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Josh, say what you will, insult me if you need to, but I will take FDR over Bush-Cheney or McCain-Palin any day. I beg to differ on the "high horse" remark; I think your posts prove you are on something or other yourself. Four terms means somebody else liked him too! Basically you present that any fiscal policy that you disagree with is evil and that helping the filthy rich and multi national corporations is more important than America's rank & file citizens? You are all over the map with your vitriol but I think I read you correctly. I do not challenge your charity or your giving nature, I applaud it. My understanding of that particular "challenge" was that the rich gave less per capita than the poor not the liberal/conservative dividing line, but that seems to be the only line you use or care about. My source may be older than yours or perhaps just less skewed. You use the conservative label pretty narrowly so I remain skeptical.
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/02/19/Poor-Give-More-to-Charity
"Americans at the bottom of the income-distribution pyramid are the country's biggest givers per capita. (View average household donations and the percentage of income donated to charity.) The 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey shows that households with incomes below $20,000 gave a higher percentage of their earnings to charity than did any other income group: 4.6 percent, on average. As income increased, the percentage given away declined: Households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 donated 2.5 percent or less. Only at high income levels did the percentage begin to rise again: For households with incomes over $100,000, the number was 3.1 percent."
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Dan, Why do you think it matters what moderate Republicans think of Sarah? Don't you understand? Cultural conservatives are the Republicans who win elections, and we win them big. The only reason your manchild isn't getting mopped up is because McCain has not been a strong conservative all these years. If McCain wins Tuesday, it's because of Palin. If you don't know that, either you aren't astute or you're intentionally spreading DNC disinformation talking points. In your case, I'm not sure which it is. Probably both.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
Funny how any Republican who disagrees with The One (Sarah) suddenly becomes a moderate Republican.
Funny, too, how "moderate" suddenly became a dirty word.
The rate things are going, it may become as dirty a word to some as "liberal."
Which will only prove how extreme one side has become.
The funniest thing, of course, is that most of America seems to be realizing that.
Which, I believe, Tuesday will prove.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
If McCain wins tuesday, I am calling Bill Ayers. It will be time to hit the streets again.
Comment by Blue John — October 31, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
I get it now, Josh. You are on a mission. I can't wish you luck, but I get it.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810310012?f=h_top
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 1, 2008 @ 12:05 am
No, Eagleburger has been a moderate for quite some time now-- worked in Carter administration, dove on Iraq, and wouldn't you know it, another opponent of social conservatives. Still haven't seen the pattern, Dan? These people who are slamming Sarah, NONE of them share values of religious conservatives.
And if you think Obama is mainstream, having the farthest left voting record in the senate, you're the one who is so extreme you're off the map. America doesn't share that philosophy; that's why Obama is doing everything in his power to hide his liberalism "I will rebuild the military, I will cut taxes, I am pro-gun". And that's why you're helping him pretend he's not a liberal.
Comment by Josh — November 1, 2008 @ 12:41 am
Yeah, Josh, then why was McCain so proud of Eagleburger's endorsement that he was one of the four out of five former Secretaries of State that McCain could actually remember?
Josh, you say that 60 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative. Do you really think that 60 percent meet your test as a "social conservative"?
Hon, you are in for a let-down.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 1, 2008 @ 12:48 am
Joe,
My tax solution? I share Ron Paul's view to get rid of the IRS and income tax altogether. Let's privatize or eliminate SS, and eliminate medicare, and medicaid, the three largest entitlement black holes we have. Do these things and the $300 billion debt service we have will automatically disappear as well.. There. That was easy.
Comment by Josh — November 1, 2008 @ 12:57 am
Psst. Dan. Nobody said McCain was the strongest social conservative that ever was; hence, of course he welcomed Eagleburger's endorsement.
Comment by Josh — November 1, 2008 @ 1:00 am
Let's think, Dan. George W. Bush ran as a social conservative and became the first president to get more than 50% of the vote in quite awhile. Reagan ran as a social conservative and won in a landslide. The moderate Republican candidates lose. This is why moderate republicans slamming Palin means zero to the majority of Americans who share the same values she does.
Why don't you understand this? Think about it. The leftist freakshow known as Obama has spent three times the money as our weak candidate, gets steroid-enhanced MSM bias pushing him along, hides his true leftist goals as best he can, and is STILL in a tight race.
Comment by Josh — November 1, 2008 @ 1:08 am
Sure, Josh, hon. But you seem to think those 60 percent of self-described American "conservatives" are all exactly your kind of conservatives.
Are you saying there are different kinds of conservatives?
How sweet.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 1, 2008 @ 1:09 am
HCS,
I'll tell you why I and mainstream America love Sarah.
She's unabashedly pro-life. She not only refused to abort her impaired child, she embraces him and all children like him.
She puts her money where her mouth is. (She drives herself to work, eschewed living in Juneau, sold the private plane, and her own son went to Iraq,
She has cut the size of Alaska government.
She's a quick study.
What you see is what you get.
She has the temperament to be president.
She brings every day common sense to the table.
She's conservative in every sense of the word.
And, yeah, she's a looker.
Comment by Josh — November 1, 2008 @ 1:24 am
I identify as a strong fiscal conservative, but do not share the religious-right leanings that the party's more hardcore members do, which is why I'm not a Republican. I have tended to vote Republican because of the fiscal issues, and hoped that none of the social agenda's would be implemented as long as there were enough Democrats in power who could prevent it. However, after having the Republican Party turn tail on the fiscal issues, I have no reason to support them whatsoever, and there are quite a few voters like me out there. To be honest, I'd love for the Libertarian Party to get off their Marijuana legalization high-horse so they could actually be taken seriously in national politics, they offer the best of both worlds for me. Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism...with limited government for all of it. Let people live their lives as they see fit with limited or no government interference in personal matters concerning the individual. I don't like the thought of the RNC telling gay couples they can't have some form of a legally-recognized union or marriage or going on the tireless quest to end all abortion (even one's that actually are medically needed), and likewise I'm not exactly fond of having parts of industry and banking getting nationalized. But the problem is that the Republicans are now behind efforts for both the government control of personal decisions and the nationalization of banking and likely more industries that are begging for handouts. The RNC simply leaves nothing to be desired at this point, and they will lose hardily on November 4th because of it, McCain included. Quite simply, the campaign the RNC has run trying to tie a ton of negatives to Obama is not working so well, and there is little known about what policy directions McCain might take. Obama may be a leftist, but he's fairly open about it and it seems a lot of people like what he's proposing.
Comment by Other John — November 1, 2008 @ 9:38 am