Barack Obama Takes Big Lead in Polls.--
Barack Obama got a big boost this week in the Gallup Poll, jumping to a 9% lead in a poll of registered voters (49-40). In the Rasmussen Poll of likely voters, the difference is a smaller, but still substantial 5% (49-44).
MONDAY NOON UPDATE: Rasmussen's Tracking Poll released Monday morning now shows only a 3% difference (48-45).
The REAL CLEAR POLITICS combined average of recent polls is now 4.7%.
MONDAY 6PM UPDATE: Gallup has released yet another poll today, this one showing McCain insignificantly ahead among LIKELY voters.
I think you may overestimate how much voters are troubled by lack of relevant experience if they find a candidate otherwise appealing. See, for example, the election of George W. Bush in 2000.
As a twice-elected governor of one of the largest states of the union, Bush was conventionally experienced. Obama's resume is a lot thinner.
I disagree: I think their experience level is comparable. Bush did have the benefit of having been elected twice rather than once, to the extent that changes his experience. At the same time, my understanding is that in Texas, the Governor actually has relatively few powers. Also, experience in state government means no exposure to foreign policy or other issues of concern to the federal government. So on the whole, I think their level of experience was comparable.
what?
recent presidents that went to white house on executive (gubernatorial) experience but without any prior federal experience in the legislature:
George W. bush
Regan
Clinton
Jimmy Carter
in other words-every president since Kennedy that was not vice president.
obama has no executive experience, has not been vice president, and only one term of federal legislative experience.
on the other hand-Clinton already made the "experience" argument and it didnt work so well.
Not that I voted for Dole, but I half-regretted his not getting elected because I loved what a smart-ass he was. I can't remember another major party candidate with his sarcastic sense of humor. Maybe LBJ, but he didn't show it in public. And to give credit where due, George W. has a pretty good sense of humor, but not in Dole's league. In fact Dole had a reputation for being a nasty SOB, something I also never saw in public, so I wondered if it wasn't just his sarcasm falling on irony-proof ears.
How do you think that proves your point? The question is how many voters see a candidate's experience or lack thereof as a reason to vote against the candidate. The fact that several recent Presidents had been governor does not seem to respond to that.
Of course, historically we've had far, far less experienced Presidents. Abraham Lincoln's previous experience was a single two-year term in House of Representatives and eight years in the Illinois legislature (same as Obama).
I agree that voters go with their gut more than a checklist, and that Obama's relevant experience is comparable to what Bush's was. But I doubt many voters actually understood they should discount the weight of a Texas governorship. And especially considering the subliminal influence of Bush's pedigree, I suspect he was granted more gravitas than deserved.
So we have a choice between one candidate who helped to partially clean up a mess he helped create, and another who would not have created the mess in the first place.
I also think many people see that Obama's foreign policy is in many ways more traditionally conservative than McCain's. Obama seems much more conservative in his willingness to use the US Military to solve the world's problems.
Obama offers conservatives a lot. McCain pretty much offers liberals only campaign finance reform.
Obama lacks the character to qualify for that office. He is painfully self-absorbed and incapable of admitting even the most obvious and public errors that he has made. No meglomaniac who is incapable of admitting his own fallibility has the character necessary to wield the power that the president of the United States wields.
In fairness, despite McCain's understandable flip-flop to buy a little relief from his base, I assume his sentiments on immigration are still pretty liberal. And his environmental tendencies likewise, if less so.
Not that I don't prefer Obama on just about every issue, but the far right doesn't hate McCain as much as they do without any justification (from their point of view).
However, the reason I will never vote for him is that he'll have to pay off his base by appointing far right officials to important offices. I think the far right poses much more of a threat to my individual freedoms than does the far left, and my vote and my money will act accordingly.
What I think the Obama experience problem issue is-is that he has less experience relative to other presidents or the rival candidate I.E. the problem is Obama does not have the experience typical for this position, but Mccain does. The problem is not, IMO, that Obama does not have the most experience possible of any candidate imaginable, ever.
my point about the previous presidents coming off the governorship is that, in your example of a President with little experience, (George Bush), the same argument of untypical experience relative to the competition and (what voters were choosing from) cannot be made. George Bush also may not have had supurb qualifications-but he was at least on the map).
cf: (i bet a lot of voters would like a president who would cut federal spending-but we are put into an election where both candidates will be raising spending. So the spending voter asks-ok-who's spending less?)
what you seem to arguing is that experience doesn't make a difference becuase many candidates still get elected without, objectively speaking, having a lot of experience You point for this to George Bush-since George Bush's only experience was Governor. Of course-if it can be shown that, objectively speaking, experience doesn't matter much at all-then it wouldn't really matter, indeed, who has more experience than whom.
But, as long as it can be established that some experience is wanted by voters (which I think can be established by the fact that the presidency is a culmination of a political career-and that very very few presidents since have not been vice president, Governor, or a congress members.) It seems to me the real question is not what experience the people would want an ideal president to have-but instead, how experience way in relative toward whats expected of typical presidents, and what disqualification's the other candidate has in that area.
OTOH The presidents whose presidencies were clearly not culminations of political careers were the Generals-e.g. Washington, Eisenhower, and Grant-and they pretty much won becuase they were god like hero figures-hmmmmmmmm.
That either of these pullers are the nominees illustrates how completely over the American experiment is. It doesn't matter who is President. K Street and the bankers set policy and make all material decisions and will continue to do so until the US of A defaults on its national debt and the entire Empire comes crashing down.
Elections are dog and pony shows to make the masses feel appreciated. That the intelligensia still seems to care makes me wonder how they became the intelligensia? Obama may win. McCain may win. Life in the USA is going to look indistinguishable under either administration. Idiot bureaucrats making decisions they don't understand. Increasing taxes, regulation, destructive wars, and a devaluing dollar. The process has continued unabated since the 30s.
Do yourselves a favor and a) don't vote and b) don't waste precious time on what is nothing more than a soap opera.
The case of Bush is just one example of a less experienced candidate winning the election. To take the last 30 years or so, the less experienced candidate won in 2000, 1992, 1980, and 1976, and lost in 1984, 1988, and 2004. It seems to me that the less experienced candidate wins about half the time and loses half the time: all in all, it's not clear to me that there is a systematic preference for the more experienced candidate.
One argument would be that Obama is particularly inexperienced, so that history isn't applicable. But I think Obama's experience is roughly on the order of Bush's in 2000 or Clinton's in 1992: that is, he has very little relevant experience, just like they did.
No one is qualified to be president. You have to take the measure of the man.
It's awfully early in the race to be hitting your ceiling.
A) Obama is a skilled practitioner of the 'dreamy' narrative, a particularly attractive trait to the Left, and
B) Obama has ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN as his no-cost-to-him PR operation.
They did, PfP, they did. ;)
SHHHHH!
You are SUPPOSED to say "Zionist" bloggers.
NaG: I have the same question about all of this. Obama was on "MtP" with Brokaw yesterday. He answered the question about his position in the polls in a way that made me ask: "Why aren't you FAR ahead? This is clearly a Democratic year."
Brokaw, of course, did not follow up with a probing question along these lines. Which, of course, was Russert's strength—a real bulldog.
I miss Russert.
These are co-equal items, the relevance of experience and the accuracy of polls.
I don't think it stretches credibility much to claim that most of the people running the networks desperately want to see a far-left utopian program put in place and will do whatever it takes to see that happen.
What worries me most is that
a) Obama and the democrats will succeed in raising taxes in a misguided attempt at class warfare (Obama calls it "fairness"),
b) it will have the predicted negative effect on GDP and tax revenue and
c) voters will not understand what has happened, nor will they blame them for it. And we'll be right back in the 1960s with the whole fight before us again.
Sadly, the republicans have forgotten why they got elected in the first place and would rather argue with the dems over how best to misallocate the taxpayer's money. Meanwhile, the Chinese are slowly eating Africa and our factories, corporations and wealthy citizens are continuing to flee the country at an ever increasing pace.
And saying goodbye to these asshats who value their money over their country is a bad thing because?
How can hou have a Republic when people keep voting wrong?
The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
Conservatives have been snarling about the grotesque disparity revealed by another study, the online Tyndall Report, which showed Obama receiving more than twice as much network air time as McCain in the last month and a half. Obama got 166 minutes of coverage in the seven weeks after the end of the primary season, compared with 67 minutes for McCain, according to longtime network-news observer Andrew Tyndall.
I wrote last week that the networks should do more to better balance the air time. But I also suggested that much of the attention to Obama was far from glowing.
That earned a spasm of e-mails that described me as irrational, unpatriotic and . . . somehow . . . French.
But the center's director, Robert Lichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.
"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he said.
You realize that the people predicting that higher taxes for people making over $237,000 a year will reduce GDP and tax revenue are the same ones who said that massive tax cuts for those same people would increase it, right?
Just asking.
This is a remarkably ignorant comment.
One of the roles of a Governor is to bring investment into the state. They do a tremendous amount of international diplomacy and negotiation. The primary difference between a large state's governorship and the presidency is that the governorship does not have an international military presence, but that's about it.
Until then, it's circle the wagons and CYA because we've got an election to influence!
That's true but only in the conventional sense. He's running a large campaign, and doing it very well.
Meanwhile, McCain has this much executive experience: 13 months, 30 years ago. And there is a lot we don't know about that period, such as the role his family played in getting him into and through the job. I find it striking that his official campaign bio completely omits any mention of this period.
Now today Obama is the new thing and McCain is the spinster that never gets asked to the dance anymore... He is right about the media's coverage of Obama, but he just sounds whiny and petulant when he doesn't get the free coverage he needs.
Make sure to pay no attention whatsoever to the facts that were presented here.
Yes. And it's ironic that he brought this on himself. When he repeatedly taunted Obama for not visiting Iraq enough, McCain was telling everyone that visiting Iraq is Really Important. So it's extremely natural that the media is treating Obama's visit to Iraq as Really Important.
9-point lead = landslide. Reagan only beat Carter by a "mere" 10 points.
Obama has over 90% of the Black vote, and close to 70% of the Latino vote. He has apparently succeeded in creating the "Rainbow Coalition" that Jesse Jackson was not able to form in the 1980s, partially explaining Jackson's hatred of Obama. Unfortunately, his rainbow coalition seems to be of the "hating whitey" form. Here's a troubling remark from a journalist from Michelle Malkin's website
In the best case, we could be headed for a late-60s style eruption of racial/ethnic nationalism and further segregation. In the worst case, I think we should take Carole Swain's warning about a new "white nationalism" and Mickey Kaus' concern about a "California Kosovo" very seriously. Good job Obama!
I don't know about any related experience claimed by governors of Arkansas or Georgia, but your blanket statement about governors is prima facie false.
Keep Our Politics Clean!!!
Say No To BO in 08!!!!
You must mean the fact that he went to Harvard Law. Damn anti-Crimsonites.
But the whining about the media is unseemly. As to this comment:
I don't think it stretches credibility much to claim that most of the people running the networks desperately want to see a far-left utopian program put in place and will do whatever it takes to see that happen.
Yeah, actually, it does stretch credibility quite a bit to think that a bunch of big businesses (the networks) want a "far-left utopian program" put in place. It also stretches credibility to think that they will "do whatever it takes" to see that happen.
As to the substance, Anderson's post above is a good place to start with the debunking of this right-wing talking point.
More broadly, complaints about media coverage are usually made by folks who think they are losing. Usually comes a bit before bitter complaints about how voters are just so stupid . . . .
I'll conceded that probably qualifies him for being chair of the DNC. Ironically, before McCain even declared his intent to run, back when he was just a gadfly screwing up important GOP legislative initiatives, I used to say he should be asked to retire from his Senate seat and take over chair of the GOP. Unfortunately for the party, the world generally does not heed the advice of anonymous Internet cranks.
There's some responsibility here for mccain. A speech in Berlin vs. a visit to the Sausage Haus? One of these is going to get more media attention.
There are those who will insist that the Protocols are a notorious forgery . . . Plug up your ears, they are all part of the insidious Volokh plot.
The only thing that Obama appears to have any experience at is self promotion. Beating Alan Keyes in an Illinois election doesn't count for much.
I think what matters more is judgment, temperament, ideas, grace under pressure, etc. On that score, I think we actually have a very decent choice before us, much more so than in many years past. Readers know which side I am on this time, but I have respected McCain for these things in the past, and I respect him for them the most when he sticks to his guns despite unpopularity. I'd like to see the McCain I remember from 2000 a little more, and so would a lot of other independents. He does better when he ignores his handlers and just tries to be himself.
Not merely a plot, sir -- a Conspiracy.
As to experience? I just do not relish the thought that a Senator is going to be elected--Fortunately, the republic is strong and will survive either one.
It appears to me that McCain is running a really lousy campaign--making Bob Dole's effort look polished even. And with a few exceptions, these two arent that far apart on issues I care about--I havent been a friend of McCain since the gang of 14 and campaign finance "reform." Mavericks are OK as long as they are dependable mavericks. That said, Obama is even less appealing to me: much too liberal for my taste.
All that's left is going around pissing off important conservative interest groups, and I'd say he's got a good start on that with immigration.
Really, it shocks me that the race is as close as it is. When you compensate for people who say they'll vote for Obama just because they don't want the pollster to assume they're racist, (A known factor.) it's near a dead heat.
I was polled by Rasmussen a few weeks ago. I got a nice recorded voice and a 'choose 1 for this and 5 for this' type poll. It occurred to me that if hubby had picked up the phone, the polling results could have been different. And I could have messed with it by lying about gender, age and all the poll answers just for fun. After all, it was just a recording. I wonder if the margin of error is accurate. A pollster calls a home. There could be two or three voting age people there. Or the caller ID function could have screened out the call. Or a person in a bad mood or too busy could have just hung up. People who aren't home much don't get polled. You can think of a host of reasons why polls may not be very accurate.
By leftist utopianism, I was referring to Obamas proposal to raise taxes because of class-warfare notions of "fairness" with the effects on the economy as merely secondary considerations.
We should be concerned about wealthy individuals and successful corporations leaving the country because it means they won't spend their money here, neither to buy goods/services nor to open businesses or otherwise invest in our economy. When people can get better returns (or smaller losses) by living and investing overseas, our economy necessarily shrinks. We need policies that encourage success and productivity rather than chase it away to China with burdensome taxes and regulations.
Laugh out loud funny.
Note how that "study" did not define what a "negative" story was.
Want to take a guess as to why that is?
Schwarzenegger's treaty is, IMHO, unconstitutional and should lead to his immediate removal from office. Not the best example to hold up.
As for the Florida governor trips. I lived in Florida for 26 years and had friends who went on such trips as staffers. They are sightseeing tours, not diplomacy.
Giving tax breaks to a foreign business = not even the same as negotiating international treaties, a function reserved for the President and Senate.
And here I remember that Michael Moore, in his silly movie, claimed the Taliban came to Texas for an oil pipeline and this was somehow a point to make Bush the world's worst person.
Negative is pointing out that not only is he not president yet, but many in the public don't want him to become president.
You will appreciate the story told about 100 years ago by Speaker of the House Thomas Reed, which I found in Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower.
Reed told of an amendment to the Constitution providing that the President would be elected by the Senate, from amongst its members.
The first such election was held; the senators dropped their sealed ballots into the box; and the Chief Justice of the United States, presiding, counted the ballots.
And recounted them.
And then, clearing his throat, announced to the anxious chamber that each senator had received one vote.
I guess I didn't understand that rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich -- which themselves could be described as "class warfare" of a kind -- was "leftist utopianism." But even if moving back to the tax policies of a decade or so ago was really "leftist utopianism," I'm still wondering why, exactly, big businesses such as television networks would be willing to "do whatever it takes" (your words) to make that happen.
Look, we can debate whether the media is biased untill the cows come home and we likely won't convince each other. I'll just suggest again that Repubs making that complaint are probably usually people who feel that McCain is losing and are looking for something to blame.
Ya'll only put faith in the market when it tells you what you want to hear?
Note the date on that.
I agree. Given the war, economy, and popularity of the current president, Obama should be WAY ahead in the polls.
But he's not! And I suppose that he never will be for any substantial amount of time. While I expect him to get a post convention bounce, it will likely be short lived as the Republican's host their convention after the Democrats.
Likely reasons for Obama's inability to crush McCain:
1) His record (tax and spend, gun control, pro-abortion)
2) His lack of a record (his inexperience)
3) His associates (Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and Pflegger)
4) His mortgage (sweet heart deal)
5) His flip-flops (fisa, Iraq, gun control, etc)
6) His brutal battle with Hillary
7) His personality (cocky and arrogant)
8) His poor debate skills (Hillary beat him in every one and Obama will not meet McCain in Town Hall meetings)
9) His own comments ("bitter Americans")
The Democrats will be wondering what hit them when McCain wins in the Fall. It's simple -- Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean.
Except they were not "tax cuts for the rich" nor can you demonstrate it so.
Why can't you?
You're lying.
You would be very surprised how little time 95% of the American public spends thinking, much less worrying, about any of those.
Read all about it, folks. N.b. the parts on capital gains and estate tax.
How'd you get that moniker, "Ace"?
The fact is that running a large campaign takes skills in leadership, management and organization. Anyone watching both campaigns is getting a vivid demonstration that Obama has those skills and McCain does not.
And I notice you have no comment on McCain's "primary resume bullet point for him being an effective executive President:" 13 months, 30 years ago, in a job he probably got via his daddy. And he's so proud of it he omitted it from the official campaign bio posted on his web site.
Bush knows who his base is, and we know he knows, because he told us so (video).
Um, you don't have a clue as to who actually pays taxes.
Let's help you out
On the 2004 IRS data:
FYI: Wikipedia is not a valid source.
Which of course is why you're citing it.
It's very important that Obama refuses to acknowledge the obvious negative consequences of raising taxes. It's very important that he continues to justify these changes based on "fairness" rather than by using measurable criteria.
Tax cuts only "favor the rich" (whether high income earners are "rich" or "wealthy" is a valid discussion for another time) because:
-people that make more money pay more taxes. Any reduction, no matter how fair, will give them back more money since they earned more and paid more in taxes in the first place.
-people that make more money in this country pay taxes at a much higher rate. Anything that brings taxes back closer to an even rate will give back more to the people that are currently paying the most.
It's basically a bunch of semantic games to justify soaking the upper-middle class. This provides the most tax revenue with the least chance of a voter revolt. Meanwhile, the wealthy hang out in places like the Bahamas and support themselves with overseas investment.
His record is soo bad! And there's so little of it!
Also, I hear from Jim at FSU some people don't like him! That could also explain why he doesn't have 100% in the polls.
Too funny.
People like you are voting for Odumbo because he's black and that makes you feel good inside.
No other reason.
I wonder if you would like to seriously suggest that Dubya won on "ability rather than personality."
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Don't tell these "smart" liberals anything about common sense. They want to continue to flail their arms and screech that "tax cuts" didn't go to people who don't pay taxes.
No one disputes that the rich pay more. That's where the money is, as Willie Sutton noted in another context.
The issue was whether or not the 2001 tax cuts reduced taxes for the rich. They did.
Sorry you don't like the Wiki article, but maybe instead of just waggling your wings, how about shooting it down, Ace?
I am not suggesting that McCain's final Naval command, of a Naval flight wing, is a great executive experience. However, unless you have some evidence regarding "daddy" helping Captain McCain, then you are impugning the professionalism of the entire United States military in your quest to score cheap political points.
Oh, and Admiral McCain retired in 1972, while his son was, to use his own phrase, "otherwise occupied."
If the people running the networks desperatly want anything, it is a tight race right up to election day. Their "utopia" is high ratings, and there is a much better chance of that happening if the election is in doubt.
And they also created a new 10% bracket and reduced taxes for all tax payers. ( person who used to pay 15 percent of his income to the government, would pay 10 percent)
Sorry you don't like the Wiki article, but maybe instead of just waggling your wings, how about shooting it down, Ace?
It is shot down by the nature of the fact that it isn't realistic and you're now slip sliding around based on the original claim.
Hilarious.
coming from someone who is going to rush to the polls to vote for a chickenhawk no less!
Remember when the left wanted Bush to enlist his daughters in the military??!!
Funny, Odumbo wants to keep troops in Iraq until 2010, at least, and send them into Pakistan apparently yet there is no such test for a Democrat.
Gee, I wonder why?
But I don't think this reflects favoritism of people making a kingly forty thousand dollars a year so much as it highlights how screwed up our tax system has become over the years. The numbers very clearly reflect that we are now dumping the lion's share of the tax burden on an increasingly small minority because they are least able to defend themselves at the ballot box.
Instead, they defend themselves by voting with their feet whenever possible. You can already see (in increasingly harsh penalties for expatriates and people who renounce their citizenship) the beginnings of the trend towards the Soviet idea of guards to keep the citizens in rather than to keep invaders out.
Says you and what articulate person?
and you're now slip sliding around based on the original claim.
Slip-sliding around what original claim? The bill cut taxes for the rich. It also cut some taxes for the non-rich. Does that somehow change the fact that it cut taxes for the rich? Or that the estate and capital-gains tax cuts were predominantly benefits for the affluent, not for people qualifying for EIC?
I mean, can you people not even argue? Is that why we have to listen to all this crap about Obama's being a secret Muslim, and wanting to lose the Iraq war -- because you can't actually argue against his real positions?
What hath Crossfire wrought?
That's true but few voters know that.
I don't think this a very good argument. More experience than the other candidate doesn't really say much if both are reasonably well-experienced, and well-qualified. However, when a candidate is completely off the map in terms of where he needs to be in his political career to consider running a serious campaign for president we need to start asking our selves some tough questions.
Also the fact that so many elected presidents and candidates for president have extensive executive experience in the military, as a governor, or vice-president speaks volumes about voter preferences. Elections are markets, in a way, and markets tend to give consumers what they want. This also begs another question, if voters don't care about experience or heavily discount its importance why haven't we seen more candidates like OBH? I think the question shouldn't be too difficult to ponder.
Also, it seems you are cherry-picking your data-set. I bet if we looked at all the presidential contests for the 20th century it would significantly weaken your conclusions.
You mean like his opposition to the surge? Or wanting to pull us out on a timetable, even if it means we pull out at an inappropriate time? The one time he took a stand on something and we got to judge the results, he was proven completely wrong. The surge worked and it turned around the war.
All this shows that Obama is clueless. He doesn't know what he is doing, and the American people will pay the price in dead bodies and economic collapse. This is going to be Carter 2.0. Carter, that well-intentioned idiot, gave away the Panama Canal and let the Shah fall to the religious zealots that have been running Iran ever since. He then limp wristed the resultant hostage crisis while the US slid into a steep economic collapse. We still haven't fixed a lot of the Carter era foreign policy problems. And Obama is going to be more of the same. I guarantee it.
I admit Bush has been something of a mini-LBJ, but the answer is not to replace hawkish cluelessness with dovish cluelessness.
JFK? Eisenhower? Harding? Truman?
Myself, I've seen very experienced people who became mediocre presidents (Bush the elder, for ex). LBJ was very experienced and made some disastrous policy choices.
I am more interested in judgment and brains. Can the guy think on his feet? Does he sound like he knows what he's talking about? Do I get the feeling that he's going to think things through and listen to a range of advice, or just go off half-cocked?
See this Jerusalem Post bit (via Rozen):
Two months ago in the Oval Office, President George W. Bush, coming to the end of a two-term presidency and presumably as expert on Israeli-Palestinian policy as he is ever going to be, was accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advisers and spokespeople during a 40-minute interview with this writer and three other Israeli journalists.
In March, on his whirlwind visit to Israel, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, one of whose primary strengths is said to be his intimate grasp of foreign affairs, chose to bring along Sen. Joe Lieberman to the interview our diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon and I conducted with him, looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction.
On Wednesday evening, toward the end of his packed one-day visit here, Barack Obama, the Democratic senator who is leading the race for the White House and who lacks long years of foreign policy involvement, spoke to The Jerusalem Post with only a single aide in his King David Hotel room, and that aide's sole contribution to the conversation was to suggest that the candidate and I switch seats so that our photographer would get better lighting for his pictures.
That kind of thing, along with the fact that, in the interview, Obama is actually talking sense, counts for more with me than does somebody's CV.
If you will recall, the surge's military booster, Petraeus, gave it a 25% chance of success. Does that make him clueless, too?
Obama was skeptical that temporarily pacifying Baghdad would produce the political progress needed. That was a sensible position, and it still looks pretty good -- I don't think we can tell whether the country's settling down, or just sharpening the knives for when the Americans leave.
What's obvious, to the Iraqis and to everyone else with any sense, is that Iraq is not going to stand on its own two feet with an American occupation in place. That's why Maliki wants a timetable, and that's one reason why Obama wants one too.
Obama has always said that his goal is to get out on a timetable, subject to conditions on the ground. Why is that so hard for honest debaters to grasp? Oh wait ...
Um, "tax cuts for the rich" was the original claim.
That original claim is false.
How do we know this?
Because non rich taxpayers had their taxes cut.
That original claim is false.
How do we know this?
Because non rich taxpayers had their taxes cut.
Oh, I see -- it's an English comprehension problem. Sorry to step on your weak spot, "Ace."
Smaller programs always have interests willing to fight tooth and nail for them, while there are fewer programs that interest groups have a vested interest in cutting, so they're hard to cut. The interests in favor of them can usually spin them in a way that makes a noticeable portion of the public favor them, even if it's a lie. (See claims that proposed cuts for PBS were going to eliminate Big Bird, even though Sesame Street more than pays for itself.) Congress couldn't even cut the bridge to nowhere!
So candidates are afraid to propose cuts in any particular program. Instead, they claim they'll cut spending by eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse," but that never amounts to much.
Your ignorance is astouding.
Note he said nothing about conditions on the ground.
Do you delude yourself much?
But please, back to the "tax cuts for the rich" debate!
Hilarious.
Um, when you bandy about the phrase "tax cuts for the rich" as the left has, it is taken to mean they were only for the rich. And Bush's buddies and such.
I could bog down this server with examples, but why bother?
Obama is going to win but a change in the polls after a well covered foreign trip tells us very little. If these leads are the same in 2 weeks, maybe we have a trend. Or not, after all, these are July polls. People are just not that interested in politics in the middle of summer.
"I think what matters more is judgment, temperament, ideas, grace under pressure, etc."
Buit how is a voter supposed to know if a candidate has these characteristics if he does not have a record of experience to judge by? Juke wants us to judge Obama by how he campaigns. This tells us more about his ambition than anything else. So I will stipulate: Obama is very ambitious.
But how can I judge his judgment? He doesn't have a record to use as evidence. Obama supporters seem to have taken toward politics the approach that G E Moore took toward ethics, namely, it "seems right" to me.
I'm going to stick with Hume on this stuff, if you don't mind.
Why is it so difficult for you to grasp you are making things up?
He called for the immediate withdrawl.
This is an indisputable fact.
Ok. I actually do have enough work to do. But it bores me.
Or you could read Ace's link from a year and a half ago.
Um, so Odumbo lied in the primaries then, right?
Or, you don't understand the phrase:
Obama has always said that his goal is to get out on a timetable, subject to conditions on the ground.
Which is it?
Seconded.
Instead of smoking a few cigarettes after filing a motion for summary judgment, I find it marginally healthier to read blogs.
Ace: one more reading tip. If I *begin* to remove A from B, I do not *immediately* withdraw A from B.
That's valuable advice, whether you're discussing politics or practicing birth control.
Polls, schmolls, however. Someone show me a plausible theory how he can turn red states blue without losing any blue states, and either enough red states or the right ones in order to beat McCain. I just don't see it.
The question then becomes: How wrong were you? Very, very wrong, by your own description of events, no?
I was not in favor of the surge. McCain was. He was right. Obama and I were wrong. I don't have to make those sorts of decisions starting in January.
Since Obama wants to make those decisions, I'd like Obama to explain what happened. Where did he go wrong with his exit strategy for Iraq? Why won't it happen again next year?
You mean after running around the country for 2 years proudly proclaiming that he was against the Iraq war?
Or do you mean after giving a speech where he called for the immediate withdrawl of troops?
Or do you mean after this?
Note he didn't talk about any "conditions on the ground."
Um, did he use the word "now"?
Why yes he did.
Otherwise, since you've never been in the military, let me also point out that you don't just move 150,000 + troops and all the associated equipment, supplies, and support personnel in 2 months.
Stop typing, you’re embarrassingly uninformed.
Hilarious.
is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now."
I guess to you since he wasn't proposing to wave a magic wand and teleport them all home in one fell swoop, he wasn't calling for an immediate withdrawl. Even though the article was headlined as such.
Please, continue smoking. It is obviously quite helpful to your brain.
Hoosier:
BT:
Brett Bellmore:
Jim at FSU:
Hairy Mark:
Matthew Yglesias:
Obama's going to win. I'm really sorry, because I know that's going to be hard on you guys, even as it is good for the country. If you start the grieving process now, you may be in decent shape by Inauguration Day.
Let's see about McCain's record: pro-"amnesty," pro-abortion rights, anti-education, gun control.
2) His lack of a record (his inexperience)
I'll grant you the experience issue, but a voting record is a disadvantage, not an advantage. Too much stuff in there for the opposition to dig up and misrepresent.
3) His associates (Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and Pflegger)
Lindner (the guy who had his company fund terrorists), Hagee (Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon" and responsible for the Holocaust), Parsley (wage war against all Muslims, terrorist or no). And let's not forget the ever-so-popular George W. Bush.
4) His mortgage (sweet heart deal)
As opposed to McCain having too many houses to remember to pay taxes on them all?
5) His flip-flops (fisa, Iraq, gun control, etc)
Timetables, gun control (for, then against), abortion rights (for, then against), tax cuts (against, then for), etc.
6) His brutal battle with Hillary
Which gave him loads of favorable media coverage and a base of committed supporters willing to fight for him. There are virtually no PUMA's.
7) His personality (cocky and arrogant)
And McCain's personality (unable to remember his positions on the issues, out of touch because so rich he's never pumped his own gas)
8) His poor debate skills (Hillary beat him in every one and Obama will not meet McCain in Town Hall meetings)
And McCain has terrible public speaking skills and no charisma. Obama would lose a town hall meeting, probably, but since it will never happen the voters will never see it. Let's not forget that GWB lost all three debates with Kerry.
9) His own comments ("bitter Americans")
100 years in Iraq.
Anderson said:
The real point of the tax cuts was to stimulate the economy. Remember? And, coupled with monetary policy, it worked very well. In fact they brought us out of a recession. Remember? It is hard to imagine that cutting taxes for the non-rich would have had anywhere near as salutary effect on the economy. It really is at the point where taxes can't be productively cut for the non-rich as they pay so few taxes relative to the "rich". I have a feeling that your real gripe is that there are too people making "too much money", and not that they got their taxes cut.
It's clear from that one statement Obama made in a debate back in the day what he was thinking:
"I, Barak Obama, want to send all the troops home and leave all their gear on the ground, because I hate America and am kinda dumb."
Also, we should all call Obama Odumbo It's classy.
???
What, exactly do you think this means?
Because I'm guess it doesn't mean what you are implying it does..
It is rather interesting you don't have a point.
National Debt History by President
Yes, we need another Republican in office to end our long national nightmare of...another Republican in office.
/facepalm.jpg
So you can go home now.
But for my part, McCain is clearly the least of the evils this time around. The prospect of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid with nearly-unchecked control of the government horrifies me.
Obama is hugely popular in Europe because he's a socialist, just like most Europeans. Yet, how well have socialist programs worked for the Europeans? Why is it that the UK has to import half of its doctors to work for its national health system? Why is it that the French have 35-hour work weeks and massive unemployment? Why are so many European countries racked by violence and rioting within immigrant communities? These are not examples that we should wish to emulate.
Course, if in November Anon21's candidate doesn't win, I'm sure his prediction was right, and the election was stolen.
Unfortunately, at the bottom of that news story, it contained this little gem.
Temporary suspension if the facts on the ground change....hmmm. Seems to blow your point out of the water. Reading to the bottom of the article is a good skill.
*Just a thought, maybe if a news story doesn't quote one aspect of a politician's remarks, maybe it's because they actually have space constraints.
I think this is going to be a volatile campaign in terms of the polls -- I actually think the campaigning itself will be pretty clean compared to others in the past. I do expect McCain to take the lead at least once. How Obama manages his ship when that happens will really spell the difference.
And FYI, I don't care which one wins. I'm not voting for either one. I just like the sport.
Also, how can one rationally argue with a person who says "Odumbo"?
Since you have shown such great concern for me and my well being as regarding the impending BO presidency, let me return the favor. Please accept this gift of a pillow to soften the blow to your head as you hit the ground after fainting upon voting for the beloved Obama.
Agree 100%. McCain should start prematurely filming his own Visa CheckCard and "performance enhancing" drug commercials.
And what a disaster that turned out to be.
Well, Odumbo trumpted his bill as "offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008" and "It is time to give Iraqis their country back."
He did say "It would leave a limited number of troops in place to conduct counterterrorism activities and train Iraqi forces"
However, he titled the bill the "Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007"
So he was trying to have it both ways.
we are looking at a difference of 100,000 votes right now.
1. Obama is at his traditional highwater mark: history suggests that after September 1, when the ads run about his actual proposals (raising taxes, troops, snubbing troops at Ramstein as it will be put--properly too I think), his numbers will erode. These are not the things people normally vote for. Given the miserable failure of Bush domestically, Obama should be ten points ahead. He's not.
2. But, Obama seeems to be a decent guy, and people are DISGUSTED with 8 years of republican greed, mismanagement and Goeoge Bush's tone-deaf admininstration. McCain was a darling when he was a "spoiler" but what on earth does he stand for now? Other than reminiscing about the surge, what? Obama's numbers won't fall below McCains.
3. McCain is weak: there is no reason to vote FOR him: George Bush's lamentable term failed to nuture a single successor; failed to take on the big crooks and was so out of touch he nominated Harriet Meiers for the USSC. Unlike Nixon, who tried to impound funds, Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't embrace with relish. Not one federal program has been cut or reduced. The republicans even managed to forfeit their one basis for being elected--standing for budgetary restraint. So McCain goes into this election with only the surge as his selling point. Its not enough. The evry success of the surge works against McCain.
4. If McCain flubs a speech or a debate--referring to his befuddlement with email that millions use--a sexist joke--or falls asleep--he's toast. Voters willl clsoe their minds by the hundreds of thousands.
5. Obama can recover from most flubs: the "study" that "proves" the media were tougher on Obama is asking me to ignore my "lying eyes" that read what was published and watched what was aired. Plus people want to believe him: he suggests hope and decemcy. And he's young. McCain is not Reagan.
6. But...Obama has a record of tin cans that McCain can use if he's smart. agile and enlarges his campaign beyond the surge. (1) Tax the off shore companies or forbid them from doing business with the US Government. Don't suggest raising taxes here; (2) next time the US extends releif to homeowners, take some equity back for the Governemnt; (3), promise to veto some spending bills you idiot; (4), visit the troops in Ramstein;(5) don't falls asleep!
A strong point, undercut only by the fact that neither Obama nor most Europeans are socialists.
That being said, Obama represents high likelihood of:
-bad supreme court picks
-loads more spending, especially recurring expenses like entitlements
-loads more tax
-bad news for gun owners and carte blanche for the ATF
-support for whatever comes through congress in the next 4 years
McCain represents:
-50/50 chance of decent supreme court picks
-flat spending, no more taxes
-vetoes for whatever the democrats come up with
What McCain represents isn't really that great, but it is good enough, and it is way better than what Obama appears to be peddling.
The only exceptions I can think of are national defense and the death penalty.
Argue what? Your emotionalist straw manning about sensible tax policy that actually works for the economy?
Your kneejerk hatred for those who've managed to scrape out an income north of yours? Your insistence that those people be punished, no matter the negative effect on the overall economy, the poor, the unhouses, and any other of your alleged constituencies?
Why argue with an intellectually dishonest person with an obviously personal chip on his shoulder? I give Ace credit for putting up with you, but the journey is for you to make by yourself.
__
Faith-based initiatives are pretty sweet too.
But seeing as this thread is already pretty far off topic, can anyone help me understand why a man might adopt The Ace as his moniker?
Bravo!
Because anyone who wants higher taxes must hate the rich. There is no other explanation. Only hate.
The Bush tax cuts reduced tax rates for the rich. Did they reduce taxes also? The two are not the same.
Please stop referring to Barack Obama as Odumbo.
Jim Lindgren
The problem is that it's his only executive experience. Which means that he and his supporters are in a weak position to complain about Obama's alleged lack of executive experience. Especially since we have few details on what happened during those 13 months. If McCain signed an SF-180, we would know a lot more. When Kerry ran (at least in part) on his war record, lots of people demanded that he sign the form. McCain is definitely running on his war record, and no one seems to care that most of those records are still secret. But we sure know a lot about Obama's birth certificate.
From John McCain, An American Odyssey. p. 123:
Searchable and browsable at Amazon. The author is a Naval Academy graduate, a Marine, and a Vietnam vet. I think that qualifies as "some evidence."
By the way, I'm curious if you think the people who wore Purple Heart band-aids were "impugning the professionalism of the entire United States military in [their] quest to score cheap political points."
It's incredibly naive to think daddy's influence disappeared just because he retired.
But it doesn't stretch credibility to think that the journalists working for those businesses favor such a program, much like your typical college professor.
That reminds me of something:
And here's what Liddy said to Matthews:
Feeling tingly yet?
You could be making unwarranted assumptions about both age and gender.
Imagine that you knew nothing about the race, except for the fact that a bona fide war hero with a long track record of appealing to independents is running against a young black man named Barack Hussein Obama.
The fact that Obama is even in the race, and with a very good shot at winning, is mind-boggling. In a good way.
When Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote (a 3% margin over Kerry), Cheney immediately described that as a "mandate." And many 'liberal' reporters did exactly the same thing.
Trouble is, you seem to be in favor of replacing hawkish cluelessness with hawkish cluelessness.
1. Believe it or not, there are many who think that Alito and Roberts (apart from Heller) have turned out to be bad picks.
2. Loads more spending? As opposed to the GOP...which favors loads more spending?
3. Yes, taxes were so crippling before 2001 that our economy was in a decades-long depression.
4. In the post-Heller era, this isn't nearly the concern it once legitimately was
5. Congress and the the President almost always disagree, even when of the same party. Bush's first 5 years were an exception, as he seems at first no to have read the "veto" section of the Constitution.
I recommend the projections at fivethirtyeight.com. The state-by-state analysis is very detailed and convincing. Also helpful are the maps at realclearpolitics.
It's remarkable to notice the states that Bush dominated in 2004, and are now a tossup. Like VA, which Bush won by 8%. Or MO, which Bush won by 7%. Or IN, which Bush won by 21%. Meanwhile, McCain is ahead in this many states that Kerry won: zero.
Yeah, they tend to track pretty closely. I wonder if that's a coincidence? If I had money to lay out on political futures, I think I would be following 538 pretty closely in terms of my buy/sell choices. Nate Silver is light years ahead of other sites in terms of the sophistication of his modeling, and had a very good track record in the primaries.
The GOP has indeed been "dumping the lion's share of the tax burden" on a certain group "because they are least able to defend themselves at the ballot box." That group is our descendants. The GOP has not cut taxes. They have merely deferred them. The GOP policy of borrow-and-spend is immoral.
Anyone who runs for president is ambitious. Both candidates are ambitious. But there is a difference between running a campaign, and running a campaign well. Only one candidate is doing the latter. That's not an indicator of ambition. It's an indicator of skills in leadership, management and organization.
I have a feeling you mean Brit.
Plus his campaign has been at odds with the party general, failing to notify state organizations, Democratic candidates, and the Congressional delegations of their movements--a bad sign that will have future ramifications later on. Add in the campaign's complete inability to handle its left-wing "nutroots" like Kos and MoveOn, and you have more a picture of disorder beneath facade than of true efficiency in message presentation.
On the McCain side, it is the man's personality and temperament holding them back. For example, rhetorically bopping state GOP staff on the head for going negative is a direct reflection of the kind of politics McCain himself wants to emody. His campaign actually does hold a very tight control over its message, even within a party that generally isn't enthusiastic about him. It's just that the product they're pitching isn't very popular... and that's more a problem of the product than the salespeople.
But if any candidate were holding up "running a campaign" as their prime example of executive experience, sufficient to qualify them to hold the highest office in the land, I'd laugh at them regardless of whether they had an (R), (D), or (I) after their name.
That's because:
(1) I have no interest in defending McCain. I've been refusing to vote for him for 8 years now, and see no reason to break that streak this year. I made a case against McCain EVER holding public office (executive or legislative) back in 2003, and he hasn't done anything in the interim to dissuade me.
(2) I don't think he has sufficient executive experience to satisfy my demand for such, though he certainly has more than Obama (he's also been in public service longer than Obama has been an adult).
(3) Your characterization of the point was so benightedly wrong that I doubt refuting you, point by point, with carefully reasoned logic and characterizations, would do any good.
Maybe it's an outlier. Maybe Obama's speaking in Berlin, Germany instead of Berlin, Wisconsin has hurt him. Or reneging on a promise to visit injured troops when he couldn't bring the press cameras. Who knows. Polls are fun, but meaningless on a July day for an election in November.
Big O might want to start explaining why he should be president. Any information on his tax plan, for instance would be a start.
After all, he's "just joking."
Handy, that -- saves me the trouble of commenting. I can get more work done that way too.
1) Obama supported pulling out immediately and unconditionally instead of The Surge. He was wrong. Despite his attempts to doublespeak around this and heap scorn on the people that supported the correct policy, his one foreign policy stand, the one time he took a side and defended it... he was wrong.
2) Because of the horrible tax structure in this country, it is no longer possible to cut taxes for anyone but the "rich," at least not in any meaningful way.
Obama is proposing increases to income and capital gains tax. He justifies this, not on the grounds that it is necessary to benefit the country in some concrete way, but that it is "unfair" that the CEO should pay tax at the same rate as the secretary.
In my opinion, the true unfairness is that the blame for the disastrous outcome of these tax policies will be laid upon the victims- those leaders in the corporate world who will have less money with which to retain employees, invest in the future or provide goods at affordable prices.
3) and regarding the wisdom of Carter:
Until the US built the Panama Canal, Panama was a trackless jungle infested with horrible diseases. We used the US Navy to split Panama off from Colombia and then built the Canal at a cost of thousands of American lives. Whatever worth Panama has, it has that worth because the United States put it there. It belongs to us. Or would, if someone hadn't given it away. Why they regularly consider Washington DC for statehood but never considered Panama, I have never understood.
I agree that dumping the tax burden on one's descendants is problematic, which is why I think that the federal government's
ponzi schemesSocial Security and Medicare programs need some serious reforming.Since the day Obama's bill was introduced, we have lost this many Americans: 1,121. This is how many have been injured: 6,760. 2007 was the worst year of the war.
Those who defend the surge should show proof that all those dead and injured were truly necessary, and were the best and only way to get to where we are. There's quite a bit of evidence that some or all of the improvement we've seen would have happened with or without the surge. McFarland said this (pdf, p. 51):
In other words, there was a great deal of improvement before the surge started.
I think public defender said it very well. When McCain talks about the surge, he's "trying to take credit for partially mitigating his own screw-up." And there's good reason to believe that a large portion of the credit should go to the Anbar Awakening, and not to the surge. Especially because most of the surge troops went to Baghdad, not Anbar.
We should have given the canal zone back to Columbia since that is the country we stole the land from. Also, the Panamanians should give us our money back with compound interest. The deal was that we would use our fleet and diplomatic clout to help the future Panamanians secede from Columbia and in exchange they would sell us the land for the canal. If the contract is void then shouldn't all its provisions be void?
Agreed. I look forward in your joining the call to immediately cease all "ear-marking" and to eliminate and/or restructure the most wasteful and inefficient entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and yes, the entire Pentagon black hole.
Lol. I don't agree with a thing you've said, but I have to give you point for that one.
The best jokes are the ones that "take a second..."
Here's your downside: It's only me.
Looks like you'll have to continue publishing for the rest of the benighted.
Look at as "smoker's intervention."
Now the argument that we don't know if the surge has worked because the fullness of time has not yet played out--That argument applies especially to President Bush's preemptive was/make Iraq a democratic model in the mid east--Obama supporters cant and Bush critics can't have it both ways from a logic standpoint. So does Obama get a mulligan on his strategic judgment or a pass because the surge hasnt played out yet. And if Obama gets one, certainly Bush gets one
How DOES that logic thing work anyway?
Would have been easier if everyone had taken a somewhat longer view in the first place.
I think you are really, really reaching. And spinning. Something interesting is happening when I turn to Fox and they pan McCain's speech, telling us he "sounded old." And the speech was so bad Karl Rove says "content better than delivery" (video).
And then they have the brilliant idea of planning a trip to an oil-rig when the weather forecast calls for a hurricane. And of course there's the business about how he had to disown Gramm. It's a long list.
You're forgetting that McCain had the same thing happen several times, aside from Gramm.
Says you and people like you. Who else?
That's like saying the only problem with the McCain campaign is McCain.
Except for when it doesn't. Like when Gramm speaks up.
English translation: 'you're wrong, but I'm not going to say why.' Impressive!
It's already been pointed out that it was not "unconditionally." There was a provision to suspend the pullout in response to conditions "on the ground" (I hate that phrase).
Where the money comes from and where it goes are basically separate issues. Cutting spending is a large and complex problem. At the moment, I'm talking about where the money comes from. I'm just saying that given a certain amount of spending, I greatly prefer tax-and-spend to borrow-and-spend. The GOP is all about the latter. After all, Cheney said "deficits don't matter."
Indeed. It was probably not a good idea for Rumsfeld to tell us that most of the troops would be home in six months. And McCain should probably not have told us "we will win it easily." But if these folks had been wiser and more truthful, there probably would have been no war at all.
@Angus
Apparently you are just another godless commie hell-bent on corrupting our precious bodily fluids. Please excuse me now. I need to spend time clinging to my guns.
If you look back to the summer of 2005, you'll see that few people at the time regarded conditions in Iraq as "good" or even acceptable. And yet things got so much worse over the course of 2006 and early 2007, that improvement in 2008 to bring us back to the kind of level of violence we had three years ago -- except with more walled-off and ethnically cleansed neighborhoods in place -- is now represented as a great triumph.
Bottom line is that The Surge is supposed to be a temporary step on our way to ... what? Obama is being pilloried for wanting the United States to leave Iraq six years after we invaded.
At some point, the train has to leave the station, and the Iraqis have to either get along or kill one another. Looking at the example of South Vietnam, I don't see much percentage in propping up indefinitely a government that can't stand on its own two feet. That has been Obama's point as well -- if we're hanging around indefinitely, the Iraqis have little incentive to get their shit together.
Americans did not send their boys (and girls) to Iraq to die for a democracy that the Iraqis weren't particularly interested in dying for themselves. We went into this war on false premises. Staying around afterwards made a certain amount of sense on the theory that we owed Iraq something for blowing up their country, but we squandered a good bit of that time, blood, and treasure.
Those who defend the surge should show proof that all those dead and injured were truly necessary
Astounding.
Those opposed to the war in Iraq and the surgue, should show proof that we wouldn't have lost any soldiers during that time.
Um, why are we supposed to accept what a leftist is saying as fact?
Again, I love how you silly leftists are pretending to be in favor of fiscal restraint.
Of course you can't name a single domestic social spending program you'd cut.
Name one example of a "liberal" reporter doing this?
Republican won a mandate in 2004. This is indisputable given the number of seats gained in Congress along with winning the White House.
Rumsfeld said no such thing.
And,
All over the map it appears.
Pedantically maybe but as far as the war itself - 7 Feb 2003:
Mr Rumsfeld is in Europe to try to gain backing for possible military action against Iraq.
"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.
You mean the obvious left wing bias of that Marxist survey outfit, right? (.pdf) Well go easy on them -- remember, they've got BDS. (.pdf) (.pdf)
If you have a point, please spit it out.
Because your links don't mean anything.
Again, Note how that "study" did not define what a "negative" story was.
Want to take a guess as to why that is?
You mean the obvious left wing bias of that Marxist survey outfit, right? (.pdf) Well go easy on them -- remember, they've got BDS.
As a point of fact, you are not referring to the same story as the poster I responded to.
Shocking, I know.
(Of course, current numbers would be more like spending "only" $2 trillion with a deficit of $500 billion rather than spending $3 trillion with a balanced budget.)
Hysterical. Yes, because means testing social security would be so "complex"!
So would say, eliminating all earmarks.
It is funny to watch you leftists try and justify your hypocrisy.
Also, as a point of fact, the Democrats have taxed &borrowed for decades and you still vote for them.
What does that say about your silly claims?
Jim at FSU:
I wasn't misrepresenting your words at all. You said that big media corporations were willing to do "whatever it takes" to get a "far-left utopian program" in place. When I asked what "far-left utopian program" you had in mind, you referred to Obama's plan to roll back some of Bush's tax cuts. Forgive me, but I don't think that really qualifies as "far-left utopian," even if you think it would be bad policy, unless you think the U.S. in the fairly recent past had a "far-left utopian" tax policy. When I asked why you thought these big companies would "do whatever it takes" (again, your words) to see this done, you didn't reply.
My point was your rhetoric was more than a bit overwrought. I'll leave it at that.
You were responding to Anderson's post about the survey reported in the L.A. Times by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, no? That's the organization that did every poll I linked to in my comment.
I already gave you my guess. Why don't you give us yours?
I've been unable to find the study itself. I suspect that neither have you. Maybe you mean that the LA Times article didn't define what a negative story was? God knows what other aspects of the methodology they neglected to cover.
Good point. FWIW when I saw the L.A. Times story I e-mailed the CMPA and asked when and where I could see the study. So far no reply. Curiously, they haven't issued a press release yet. I'm just speculating, but the Times story might have caught them before they were ready to go public.
It's already been pointed out that it was not "unconditionally." There was a provision to suspend the pullout in response to conditions "on the ground"
Um, not so much:
What is interesting is that the left is now denying Obama became a favorite of the nutroots because of his immediate withdrawal position on Iraq.
Um, and then what?
I already gave you my guess. Why don't you give us yours?
Except you didn't.
Again, if you have a point, type it out.
Absurd.
I'm sure a bunch of liberal journalists, who are donating to Obama by a 10:1 ratio, have decided to cover him "negatively."
I just love it when you start posting. watching you get shot down* repeatedly amuses me to no end.
*pun fully intended, although i would be shocked if you understood it.
Do you agree that you responded to Anderson's post about the study reported in the L.A. Times by the Center for Media and Public Affairs with
?
If not, than please tell us what you were responding to.
Since every indication is that's exactly what you were responding to, I answered your question by speculating that you assume the study was biased. Which is why I linked to several examples (.pdf, .pdf, .pdf) of what's made the organization that performed the study a favorite of conservatives, cited enthusiastically by the likes of Free Republic and Michelle Malkin, and supported financially by the likes of Skaife and Olin.
You claimed not to have understood some or all of that, so here, as you requested, I've typed it out. Will you respond to it now, or just keep saying "absurd"?
Nice job with the straw man. I didn't say that without the surge we would not have lost any since 1/07 (when Obama filed his bill). I said that the US dead and injured since that time (7,881) would have undoubtedly been less. Probably a lot less. If you're too thick to grasp that, that's your problem. And next time, try responding to what I actually said, instead of something you invented.
As PC demonstrated here, the GOP's ability to pretend "to be in favor of fiscal restraint" died a long time ago.
Two GOP energy bills that amounted to billions in pork for the oil business are definitely domestic spending. And they're "social," too, given that these are the folks that Bush socializes with.
By the way, I think there should be means-testing for SS. So that's another "domestic social spending program" I'd cut.
You're obviously all about making unwarranted assumptions. I am indeed in favor of means-testing SS. I was going to say so in this thread, and didn't only because the thread got locked prematurely.
Dubya has added more to our debt than all prior presidents, combined. The Democrats have a ways to go if they are going to try to meet the new standard he has set.
Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote. Cheney immediately called that a "mandate," and the press chimed in to say he was right.
This is what Time magazine said: “his claim of a popular mandate is incontrovertible.”
This is what NBC News said: “Bush … has a solid mandate.”
This is what the LA Times said: “Bush can claim a solid mandate.”
This is what the Boston Globe said: “[Bush has] a clear mandate.”
USAToday ran this headline: “Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush’s Authority”
Wolf Blitzer said this: “[Bush is] going to say he’s got a mandate from the American people, and by all accounts he does.”
NPR said this: “The president’s people are calling this a mandate. By any definition I think you could call this a mandate.”
That darn liberal media!
Nice job trying to slide the goalposts around. Cheney and the above 'liberal' reporters are not talking about how "Republican" [sic] won a mandate. They said Bush did.
And you're exaggerating "the number of seats gained." In the House, the GOP won 49% of the popular vote, and gained 3 seats. In the Senate, the GOP actually lost the popular vote by more than 5 points, but still gained 4 seats.
So Bush's 50.7% was actually higher than what the GOP did in congress. Some "mandate."
Wrong. He did.
bob:
Yes, you have the right speech, but no, he was not just saying "the war itself" would be over in six months. He said most of the troops would be home in six months. He said that after six months, only a "residual number" of troops would be needed.
Let's review, because this is a terrific example of what an outstanding waste of time you are. I said Obama's bill contained a provision to suspend the pullout in response to conditions on the ground.
You deny this. And your idea of showing proof is to paste in a paragraph from National Review that is both incoherent and irrelevant. Of course, you provide no link, and you don't even mention where you found the text (I guess you don't realize it's customary to give credit when doing such a thing). But your text did indeed come from National Review. And it's interesting to notice that the article isn't even about Obama's bill, and it doesn't mention Obama's bill or make any claims about Obama's bill.
Oddly enough, a good way to learn about Obama's bill is to look at Obama's bill. It's here. It has a provision called "Suspension of Redeployment," which gives POTUS power to suspend the redeployment if "doing so is in the national security interests of the United States."
So your claim ("not so much") is pure baloney, like almost everything else you say.
More priceless entertainment. You are citing William Tate. He's a GOP ignoramus, just like you. His blurb is unintentionally revealing: "Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist."
Earlier you said this, reflexively dismissing a citation from Yglesias:
Um, why are we supposed to accept what a GOP ignoramus, just like you, is saying as fact? I'll take the claim seriously when you show a reliable source. Or when you show source that provides more detailed and verifiable analysis.
By the way, who do you think has more influence on news articles, the people who type up the articles or the people who own the paper?
RCP lists 36 polls taken between 6/1/04 and 7/30/04.
Kerry was ahead by more than 5% on only 6 occasions. For 5 of those 6, he was ahead by 6-8%. On one occasion he was ahead by 11%.
In other words, Kerry had a lead of at least 6% on 6/36 polls.
Bush was ahead this many times: 9.
In contrast, RCP lists 32 polls taken between 6/1/08 and 7/27/08.
Obama was ahead by more than 5% on 14 occasions. For 11 of those 14, he was ahead by 6-8%. He has also been ahead by 9, 12 and 15%.
In other words, Obama had a lead of at least 6% on 14/32 polls.
McCain has been ahead this many times: once.
Summary: Obama is better off than Kerry was, at this point.