The 2008 Election

But if the economic crisis has virtually knocked McCain out of the running, wouldn't it have done the same thing to Obama if Romney was the Republican nominee? Plus, Romney would've have locked up Michigan and Massachusetts, which is a big deal. What does McCain have up his sleeve? From where I'm sitting, the guy is screwed. The only possible thing he can do now, which he has already started doing in a big way, is go negative and smear the hell out of Obama.

Obama's gonna win, though. It might not be a total landslide, but there isn't enough time for a McCain comeback. If Obama wins Pennsylvania and Michigan (as he's now clearly projected to do), McCain will have no shot. And polls coming out of states like North Carolina and Colorado, which are supposed to be gimmes for the Repubs, are heavily favoring Obama. So, yeah, doesn't look too good for Johnny Mac and co.

As I said that I feel that I should reply (sorry to hijack the thread)

What I meant was, and this is all hypothetical obviously, that were Obama to be assassinated by "The Man"/"The NWO"/"Shadowy Powerbrokers" whoever gets the blame for these things, that it would be a professional job but, by the time the 'assassin' was found/caught it'd be an easier lie to sell people if it was a 'racist redneck' (as I shall now call him) rather than a Jew or Muslim, as 7thson had mentioned (in reply to your related conversation with your ex)

And, IMO, one of the reasons that it would be easier to sell that lie is because the media would be less questioning of the 'Official Story' if the 'perpetrator' was a 'racist redneck' rather than a Jew or a Muslim, as they (the media, by which I mean tv news and newspapers in the main) already have a bias against that 'type' of person IMO.

I hope that clears it up. I wasn't saying that the media would blame a redneck, just that, were a redneck blamed, they'd go with it more willingly than someone else.

Again, sorry to hijack the thread.

I have a feeling your ex might be right. I've thought this a few times about both McCain and Obama.

If McCain gets elected he could well die in office due to his age and health. The horror of Palin being president when my kids know more about politics than she seems to, and considering her agenda, is truly spine chilling for me.

If Obama gets elected and a racist (which is not the same as a redneck btw) or a conservative, or whomever, does assassinate him that could tear our country apart. I would expect riots at the very least. I hope that he does get elected and no one attempts such a heinous thing but it wouldn't surprise me if someone did.

In fact, a political conspiracy to remove him from office is not out of the question in my opinion but then I have dark thoughts.

__________________
Bleacheddecay

At this point I would like to add: Does political acumen = what is good for the country?

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Government opened the door for businesses and people who had no ethics to make loans, not to the poor, but to businesses and wealthy people. These loans were not properly secured in part because of the relaxation of standards but housing loans to the poor should not be the headline issue IMO.

Rather greed, lack of ethics and grabs for money and power caused this this crisis. That's my opinion.

I just don't believe that poor people being given a chance at housing is the reason for this. That makes no sense. Of course we have a long history of blaming the victim in this society so it might be an easy sell to many people.

Can you substantiate this? The problem is subprime mortgages, not business loans. I don't believe this fact is even in dispute.
But this isn't chocolate vs. vanilla, where we all register our "opinion" and there's no right or wrong answer. Some of these explanations are true, and some are not. Some have evidence to support them, and make sense, and others don't. I can tell you the sky is red and say it's just my "opinion," but that's not the kind of thing people can have opinions about. It's a matter of fact, not of taste.

You've given seemingly random explanations about "hiding assets" and now something about business loans, neither of which I can make sense of, frankly. All I see is the claim that rich people of some sort are responsible from this. If there's something to actually support this idea, let's hear it. If not, then why exactly do you believe it? Particularly enough to openly and publicly assert it?
It makes perfect sense: when you give people loans they can't afford to repay, many of them will default on those loans. How does that not make sense?
We have just as much history -- particularly recently -- with villifying business and the wealthy without any regard for the truth of the accusations. They are very convenient villains, to the point at which politicians can openly blame them for every problem without ever really being called on it.

After he was a domestic terrorist, yes, he began working on education (and had some radical views about it, by the way, which I'm sure we'll get to). But I ask again: why does this matter? If an unrepentant domestic terrorist has worked with both Republicans AND the Democratic nominee for President, it seems to me that the correct response is to condemn the Republicans, too, not to abritrarily excuse everyone. I honestly don't see the reasoning here.

And if he was so well known by so many "heavy hitters on both sides of the aisle," why is the Obama campaign now pretending he didn't know about Ayers' past when he hosted his campaign event? Does that sound even remotely plausible to you?

Let me make myself as clear as possible: this man set off bombs, some of which killed people. He does not regret it. Charges were brought against him. He hid until charges were dropped. These are horrendous, intolerable actions. Can you give me an actual reason why none of this matters? Would it matter if Ayers were an abortion clinic bomber working with Republicans? I think we both know it would.

Also, as I've mentioned several times, Obama has deliberately misled people many times as to the extent of his associations here. Leaving aside the fact that you're willing to brush Ayers' terrorism aside, what of Obama's shifting and misleading statements on the matter? At what point do we actually look at all these decisions and associations, and all the blatant obfuscations around them, and think to ourselves "gee, maybe his character and judgment aren't everything they're cracked up to be"?
I guess that makes everything okay then, right? Please, read this line back to yourself a few times. These are the types of corners people talk themselves into when they try to defend Obama's judgment.

On to the more laid back art of electoral analysis.

I wouldn't say Romney would "lock up" Michigan, but Romney would probably be faring better in response to the economic crisis. Which is ironic, if only because he'd be worse in most other ways, I think.

I think it's hard to overstate just how engrained the notion of "Democrats are good on the economy" is in the minds of many voters. Republicans have won elections by default because voters can't shake the idea that they're better on national security and the like, and this is basically the flip side of that coin. Neither is entirely fair, but neither meme will go quietly.

So, even if Romney were the nominee, and shredding Obama with his economic and business experience, it's entirely possible that "winning" this issue is just enough to get him even, so to speak. I could be wrong, but any Republican has an uphill climb on most economic issues, particularly at the moment.

Agreed, with the caveat that the "heavily favoring" part is more about the consistency with which they favor Obama, and not so much with the gap. McCain needs to move up a few points in each of these states, many of which have been somewhat in tune with the national numbers. He needs a few clean wins in the last few weeks to make these genuine tossups again.

I've been analyzing the map a lot (I'm doing some election coverage for a local station again this year), and concluded a few weeks ago that McCain was probably going to have to flip a sizable blue state; I had Pennsylvania in mind. A Michigan or Minnesota might do it, too. But if he doesn't, he needs to win too many toss-ups...it'd be like winning 5 or 6 coin flips in a row.

I think McCain's last hope is completely out of his control: I think his last hope are these independent investigations going on in regards to voter fraud in various liberal activist groups, and both illegal AND foreign contributions to the Obama campaign. Both are taking place, for sure, but at what scale we don't know. I think McCain's only real hope at this point, barring some crazy, unforeseen event, is both of these investigations revealing fairly broad levels of corruption. Which is by no means out of the question.

Still, I'd give McCain something like a 1 in 4 shot of winning at the moment.

Yoda,

Nope, I have no facts atm, to back up my feelings about this. Nor did I pretend to have such evidence.

BTW, I'm not trying to vilify all of the wealthy, just those who will do anything for wealth and power completely disregarding ethics.

I believe someday more about this will come out and people will realize blaming this crisis on giving loans for housing to the poor was pretty ridiculous.

It could, or it could be rather dangerous, what the answer to your question depends on, is the agenda of the person or group with political acumen.

Well, fair enough then.
Aye, we certainly agree there. Though I'm sure we disagree as to the specifics and frequency with which this happens. So it goes.
Obviously I won't pretend that nothing could ever come out to contradict the things we know, but it's pretty hard to even imagine what they could be.

And I hate to belabor the point, but I'm not sure what's "ridiculous" about it. Banks were compelled to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Lots of these people then defaulted on those loans. Not only does this make perfect sense, but it really couldn't have turned out any other way. Far from being ridiculous, the idea that people who get loans they can't afford will default on them at high rates is inevitable. How could it turn out differently? People who can't afford these loans suddenly find a way to pay them?

Yoda, I'm not pushing anything aside nor am I defending Ayers.

The bottom line is that someone of Obama's stature and involvement in politics has come across, or crossed paths with people that may have done something controversial in the past. For some reason, this man, many years later, became a Professor of Education and became involved in education work in the Chicago area. Obama worked to help education. They crossed paths. My god, can you imagine making every politician accountable for the people they've served on boards with or come across?

Personally, I just find it surprising that this man rose so high in the civic environment he is in. That is an interesting moral question -- not whether Obama crossed paths with him or served on a board with him. That the man had influence and success has nothing to do with Obama!

I'll accept the description of Ayers that he was a radical. But I have not studied his educational perspective (the work he does now) to make a moral judgement of him. At the same time, I think that is what should be the discussion, not whether Obama was on a board with him. There would be many reasons for Obama serving or working with Ayers (as it is for the others that did so, too.)

Furthermore, I can list the many organizations that Republicans have spoken to, even endorsed over the years, such as hate organizations (anti-gay). Let's take a look of all of McCain's endorsements and the boards he's served on. Let's do that.

To be honest, I'm outraged this is even an issue and the fact that you buy into this when there are more important things to worry about is just... ridiculous. It's smoke and mirrors; it's nothing short of a swiftboating tactic to make Obama seem un-American and shift the perspective away from McCain himself.

I believe people that like to talk about this issue are rationalizing to themselves that Obama is un-American and making it okay for them to not like Obama and support McCain. That certainly is their right, but they should be honest with themselves for that is what they are doing.

I certainly know that holding McCain accountable for every friendship he has had, or every group he has spoken to, or every endorsement he has accepted is just stupid.

Negative character assassination is what this is. Nothing more.

So I gather Yoda is arguing that we are in this economic crisis simply because we tried to help poor people get houses. Yep, blame it on the poor, that always works.

If they worked with them for years, held campaign meet-and-greets from their home, pretend they didn't know things AND tried to hide both facts when questioned about it publicly? Yes, then they should be held accountable.

Crossed paths? They both worked on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for six years. And Tom Maguire (http://justoneminute.typepad.com) has made an awfully good case that they probably met even earlier.

I agree completely. My theory is that it has to do with just how corrupt politics are in Chicago, but the question of why Ayers was even in a position to work with some of these people is a very curious one, indeed. I just don't think systemic corruption is an excuse.

I think they should both be part of the discussion, obviously, and I think Obama forfeits any right to suggest otherwise by repeatedly misleading people about his involvement with the man. But yes, we should definitely discuss their views on education.

Yeah, let's. Find me such an organization that McCain has endorsed, worked with for years, misled people about, etc. And if you found such an organization that McCain has endorsed (and I think you'll have some trouble there), you'd also have to demonstrate that being "anti-gay" is in the same league as, well, murder.

I don't have to pick and choose which things to worry about: I can be worried about all of them. I've been arguing with you guys for months about Obama's economic and social policies, and we're only now talking about this. So trying to pretend that I'm focusing on Obama's associations and ignoring important issues just doesn't wash. In most of these discussions, Obama's defenders want to talk about anything BUT policy, and I have to continually insist that it should be tantamount.

I think it says a lot that, when questioned about this, both Obama and his supporters would rather talk about what they think it means that people are bringing it up. They'd rather speculate about what they think Palin might be trying to make people think, rather than the charge itself. Yeah, it's an attack. I'm interested in talking about whether or not it's true, and whether or not it matters.
Yes, of course. I don't think any of this makes Obama un-American, and I don't doubt his patriotism. I think he loves America. What I doubt is his character, and his judgment. I think it says something about a person's judgment when they tolerate these sorts of people (and plenty of Republicans do it, too), and I think it says something about a person's character when they mislead people about it.

I think Obama went along to get along, and I think people are trying to give him a free pass under circumstances which they would never, ever tolerate in reverse.

Agreed. Again, this is not some guy he just shook hands with. Trying to play this down as some random chance encounter, or trying to pretend terrorism is on par with bigotry, is just untenable.

You gather incorrectly, and it is clear to me from this reply that you haven't actually read my posts on this matter. I am distinctly not blaming the poor; I even went out of my way to say that.

I'm blaming government for compelling banks to issue loans to people they had deemed unlikely to repay them. I'm blaming government for offering to buy those loans from the banks. And I'm blaming any government official who had a hand in either, or tried to stop people who sounded the alarm about the problem.

It was a plan to help the poor initiated by the government, 1993-ish. This is on record, and is clearly and obviously what happened. As for the plan backfiring, that took a long period of time. This is public record. Look it up. Actually, I already posted information about this in this very thread, which apparently got ignored. I don't see anyone attempting to blame the poor, just the plan that was constructed to help lower income families get homes. This plan has been both supported and railed against by both parties since its inception.

__________________

Yoda, you want Obama to be a terrorist. Fine. Go for it. I know they worked on the Allendale project for six years! BIG FRIGGIN' DEAL. So did a lot of different people in Chicago! I thought I gave you a link that proved that. There are other reports from other mainstream news organizations that refute they were "friends," which is what is being insinuated here.

But you know, it's more important to keep repeating it. Right?

Don't ever accuse me of not wanting to talk policy. But your constant discussion of Ayers proves to me I would be wasting my time. You really think you "win" on policy, don't you? Is that why you keep that mantra up? I've said many times that I agree with Obama's view of the world and his philosophy. I posted a very long post where you could read his very words in a diary he wrote, yet you ignore that. But I'm now supposed to come here and keep defending my view that the Ayers connection is nothing but dirty politics? What do you want, a detailed list of every policy Obama has stated and we can get into some academic argument about how they will all work or not work?

No thanks. I don't get into the nitty gritty of policy because that changes when they become President. And if I already agree that Obama's view is in line with mine, what in the heck is there to talk about? I have looked long and hard at the health care plans and McCain's is a vehicle for disaster. I think the tax structure will make many employers not supply health care. I like Obama's better. I believe we need to look at new energy technology. I don't think the Republicans will do that. They never have before. They ignored Carter in the 1970s when he warned us. And I do know we might stop dumping all that money into a war in Iraq. I want leaders who believe in new innovations that can build our economy and change the way we use energy, not by tax cuts and drilling holes in the ground. I'm sick of these people and their do nothing b.s.

You know what else? I'M SICK OF THE WAR ON TERROR. I DON'T CARE!!! I'm sick of the whole friggin' thing. I'm sick of the politics of fear. I'm sick of the Constitution being abused in the name of "security." I'm sick of the whole friggin' mess. I'm sick of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Quantanamo Bay, hell, I'm even sick of 9/11. I'm sick that we squandered the world's good will. I'm sick of Americans acting like they're the only people in the friggin' world who ever suffered! I'm sick of the politics of attack, attack, attack, and black and white arguments. And that I BLAME 100% on the Republicans.

Whatever... You're the one who supports this candidate and this party -- and your party wants to keep harping and creating some big friggin' deal about Ayers because it feeds into people's most base emotions -- the fear of the "terrorist." Get the low information voters on their side. You know the ones -- "I know Obama is a terrorist because, well, look at his name!" (Yes, someone said that. I saw it!) That's what they're going after... and Yoda, I'm angry, because you are in this thread supporting that argument. It makes me angry and frustrated. I answered you. I laid out why the connection is very questionable. And yet you keep supporting it so that the Republicans can get people afraid of the black guy with the funny name who hung out with a 60s radical on an education board!!! WOW! I'm so scared!

If you don't think he hates America, they why do you even waste your breath discussing it?

BTW, I'll question the morality of the Republican party over Obama ANY DAY.

You once asked me to tell you when I'm angry. I'm now angry. I'll go away now so I can calm down.

My view on the Ayers thing is this; dig deep enough into any politicians background and you're bound to find some form of undesirables. Secondly, if you're running for a major political office would you really want to call attention to all of them, not hardly. It's standard politics. They're are plenty of fringe loonies that can be rattled off on both sides, that some how can be connected to the candidate. I really don't pay much attention either way, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

I was listening to Hannity earlier. The guy is going nuts. He is flat out calling Obama a terrorist. I'm all for the republican conservative movement, but Obama is no terrorist.

Just throwing that out there.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

It's just too bad that so many people want to believe this and also misdirect others into believing it.

Terrorist is the negative buzz word for this election. Socialist is a close second.