Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

How to ensure Obama coasts to the Democratic nomination

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dirk

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 9:02:53 AM3/17/08
to
"you could pull a Democrat [sic] ballot and vote for the Democrat
[sic] presidential candidate."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/?page=2

We've touched on this whole bored-GOP-voters-making-mischief-in-open-
primaries business in here before, but I thought it deserved a new
thread.

I think it's pretty obvious to actual Democratic voters, and delegates
(super- and otherwise) what's going on. It taints any HRC open-primary
"victory" since McCain sealed up the nomination. What really gets
accomplished for McCain at this point, save for some more attention
paid to the right-wing blowhards who are trying to re-assert their
relevance?

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 9:15:24 AM3/17/08
to
Dirk pisze:

The longer they fight, the more blood they will lose. The negative
propaganda is very efective, but it works both ways: it makes the
propagandist dirty. But let HRC go dirty against Obama and Obama get
dirty against HRC - the perfect solution. All GOP has to do - is to
remind in the autumn what the other Dem has said in the spring. "Hey, we
are not going negative, this is what Dems think about their own guy/babe".

pzdr

TRad

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 9:20:30 AM3/17/08
to
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Dirk <da_b...@hotmail.com>
wrote:


There are plenty of pro-Hillary dems out there. I run into them every
day. Oddly, there don't seem to be many on here, but don't delude
yourself.

Dirk

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 9:28:19 AM3/17/08
to
On Mar 17, 9:15 am, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
> Dirk pisze:
>
> > "you could pull a Democrat [sic] ballot and vote for the Democrat
> > [sic] presidential candidate."
>
> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for...

>
> > We've touched on this whole bored-GOP-voters-making-mischief-in-open-
> > primaries business in here before, but I thought it deserved a new
> > thread.
>
> > I think it's pretty obvious to actual Democratic voters, and delegates
> > (super- and otherwise) what's going on. It taints any HRC open-primary
> > "victory" since McCain sealed up the nomination. What really gets
> > accomplished for McCain at this point, save for some more attention
> > paid to the right-wing blowhards who are trying to re-assert their
> > relevance?
>
> The longer they fight, the more blood they will lose. The negative
> propaganda is very efective, but it works both ways: it makes the
> propagandist dirty. But let HRC go dirty against Obama and Obama get
> dirty against HRC - the perfect solution. All GOP has to do - is to
> remind in the autumn what the other Dem has said in the spring. "Hey, we
> are not going negative, this is what Dems think about their own guy/babe".

I'll try to make this clearer since you seem to be re-stating the
bleedin' obvious and missing my point.

HRC can choose to challenge Obama if she wishes--that option was
always available to her. If RW blowhards decide to continue to get
involved and assert their presence, it taints HRC and makes her seem
even more a tool of the right.

Or do you think that nobody will notice that HRC is being propped up
by Rush Limbaugh's listeners?

Dirk

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 9:41:47 AM3/17/08
to
On Mar 17, 9:20 am, RicM <dontst...@uranus.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Dirk <da_ben...@hotmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >"you could pull a Democrat [sic] ballot and vote for the Democrat
> >[sic] presidential candidate."
>
> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for...

>
> >We've touched on this whole bored-GOP-voters-making-mischief-in-open-
> >primaries business in here before, but I thought it deserved a new
> >thread.
>
> >I think it's pretty obvious to actual Democratic voters, and delegates
> >(super- and otherwise) what's going on. It taints any HRC open-primary
> >"victory" since McCain sealed up the nomination. What really gets
> >accomplished for McCain at this point, save for some more attention
> >paid to the right-wing blowhards who are trying to re-assert their
> >relevance?
>
> There are plenty of pro-Hillary dems out there. I run into them every
> day. Oddly, there don't seem to be many on here, but don't delude
> yourself.

Did I say there weren't plenty of pro-Hillary dems? Did I say I
consider this teensy slice of middle-aged-and-up white geek-leaning
male baseball fans to be representative of the population at large?
Did you swallow Tommy's missing-the-point pills?

bgs

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 9:56:55 AM3/17/08
to
"Dirk" <da_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0d57331-638c-4b6d...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
: "you could pull a Democrat [sic] ballot and vote for the Democrat

The problem is, how do you (more importantly, how do the SuperDs) identify
Limbaughans for Hillary from disgruntled Republicans for Hillary?

--
Scott


Robert Glenn Plotner

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 10:37:34 AM3/17/08
to
"Dirk" <da_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0d57331-638c-4b6d...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

It seems like silly wankering from the talk-show blowhards who have lost
their mojo, but the cross-over to Hillary is part of a long range GOP
resurgence strategy. Ultimately, I don't believe they'll be able to stop the
national pendulum mid-swing, but imagine this scenario. It's the hand they
are playing...

Hillary is given enough boost to leverage the super-delegates to her corner,
especially after some choice revelations regarding Obama are planted and
played out to the media, and she is given a back-door nomination. There has
been so much race baiting and implied race baiting aided by the right wing
pundits that on principle Obama refuses or isn't offered the VP slot --
perhaps the "revelations" have just tainted him too much to be picked.
McCain nominates Condi or Michael Steele as his running mate. Where do you
think that disenfranchised, pissed-off African-American electorate is going
to go? And do you think a Democratic majority could survive were such a
split permanent?

Robert


Dirk

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 10:38:22 AM3/17/08
to
On Mar 17, 9:56 am, "bgs" <b...@mindless.com> wrote:
> "Dirk" <da_ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:b0d57331-638c-4b6d...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> : "you could pull a Democrat [sic] ballot and vote for the Democrat
> : [sic] presidential candidate."
> :
> :http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for...

> :
> : We've touched on this whole bored-GOP-voters-making-mischief-in-open-
> : primaries business in here before, but I thought it deserved a new
> : thread.
> :
> : I think it's pretty obvious to actual Democratic voters, and delegates
> : (super- and otherwise) what's going on. It taints any HRC open-primary
> : "victory" since McCain sealed up the nomination. What really gets
> : accomplished for McCain at this point, save for some more attention
> : paid to the right-wing blowhards who are trying to re-assert their
> : relevance?
>
> The problem is, how do you (more importantly, how do the SuperDs) identify
> Limbaughans for Hillary from disgruntled Republicans for Hillary?

Fair question, as is the question of why HRC is tainted while Obama is
sainted for his Obamacans. But it misses the point; by forthrightly
and publicly calling for dittoheads to vote for Hillary, the
dittoheads are actively destroying any hope she might have had for
legitimacy in the first place.


(And yes, I am using the term "taint" in close proximity to "Hillary"
in these sentences in a shameless attempt to draw a juvenile response
from our Effingham correspondent. I'm terribly disappointed none have
appeared so far.)

bgs

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 10:47:46 AM3/17/08
to

I understand your point (at least I think I do). I'm only suggesting that
taint is only meaningful in how it might effect the election, since it is
clear the SuperDs will be making the decision. And, if one were to presume
that a good many of them are going to vote with the popular result, it seems
they must, if they are to remain in good conscience, be able to decipher
that popular vote. I certainly don't expect all of them to do that, but as
the scales tip on the popular side, if they tip on the popular side, I hope
there are enough of them to.. make it so.

--
Scott


bgs

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 10:54:03 AM3/17/08
to

IPSIAWTP (I'm pretty sure). As long as Hillary and Barack don't go down in
the mud too long, too deep, the press ignoring McCain probably works in
their favor. I don't think either one has to bow out before the covention
in order to consolidate their base. I think rather the big variable becomes
Edwards.. As for the race thingy. I'm inclined to believe that play was
inevitable. I am more suprised by 'Hillary's a monster', but both sides have
now shown they will sacrifice someone in the fight. This one made Hillary
look bad long term (at least to those of us (me)) who believe that Geraldine
was called upon to take one for the team.
--
Scott


Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:06:03 AM3/17/08
to
On Mar 17, 2:38 pm, Dirk <da_ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > The problem is, how do you (more importantly, how do the SuperDs) identify
> > Limbaughans for Hillary from disgruntled Republicans for Hillary?
>
> Fair question, as is the question of why HRC is tainted while Obama is
> sainted for his Obamacans.

Intent. Obamacans really plan to vote for Obama in the general. His
appeal to moderate Republicans is honest and meaningful. Obamacans
are really center-right voters who have been breaking Republican for
20 years or more, who would break Dem if Obama were the Democratic
standard bearer. As such, Obama is expanding the party. The right-
wing ideologues who are voting for Clinton are not voting for a
Democrat in good conscience. They will not vote for Clinton in the
general. They are simply trying to game the system, either because
they want a Clinton to rally the base in the general, or because
they're cynically trying to sabotage Obama before the general (where
they know they can't beat him.) Clinton's "cross overs" are voting in
bad faith in order to game the results, not voting for someone they
plan on supporting through the general.

s/

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:09:53 AM3/17/08
to
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:41:47 -0700 (PDT), Dirk <da_b...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 17, 9:20 am, RicM <dontst...@uranus.com> wrote:

Did you overdo the caffiene this morning?

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:19:55 AM3/17/08
to
Dirk pisze:

> I'll try to make this clearer since you seem to be re-stating the
> bleedin' obvious and missing my point.
>
> HRC can choose to challenge Obama if she wishes--that option was
> always available to her. If RW blowhards decide to continue to get
> involved and assert their presence, it taints HRC and makes her seem
> even more a tool of the right.

Of course it does. So?

> Or do you think that nobody will notice that HRC is being propped up
> by Rush Limbaugh's listeners?

So what? HRC has two choices: give up (which denies her any presidential
chances) or fight (which gives her some chances, even if small). Does
Rush support taints her candidacy in eyes of Dems voters? Of course it
does, but so what? Why should she think Democratic Party is bigger than
she?

BTW the argument goes both ways: resigning of Obama would increase the
chances of Democratic win too.

The Dems have decided how they choose their candidate. Because both
candidates won't get needed number of votes - why should any of them
give up? They both have a chance. It's not their fault the procedure of
choosing the candidate wasn't very bright.

pzdr

TRad

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:21:07 AM3/17/08
to
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Sam Hutcheson
<sa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Intent. Obamacans really plan to vote for Obama in the general. His
>appeal to moderate Republicans is honest and meaningful. Obamacans
>are really center-right voters who have been breaking Republican for
>20 years or more, who would break Dem if Obama were the Democratic
>standard bearer.

Explain why moderate Republicans would vote for Obama and not a
moderate Republican. I don't get it.

Colin William

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:21:14 AM3/17/08
to
Sam Hutcheson wrote:
> The right-
> wing ideologues who are voting for Clinton are not voting for a
> Democrat in good conscience. They will not vote for Clinton in the
> general. They are simply trying to game the system, either because
> they want a Clinton to rally the base in the general, or because
> they're cynically trying to sabotage Obama before the general (where
> they know they can't beat him.)

Have we had any actual stats on how many of these people there are, what
kind of percentage of the overall vote they represent? Apologies if it's
in the article Dirk originally posted.

Colin

Robert Glenn Plotner

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:32:17 AM3/17/08
to
"RicM" <dont...@uranus.com> wrote in message
news:mu2tt3hsq1pl41ipu...@4ax.com...

The war in Iraq and everything that surrounds it. If it comes down to Obama
v. McCain, that is the hinge issue.


Robert


Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:32:15 AM3/17/08
to
RicM pisze:

Because Obama is the candidate of Hope&Change. A new quality in the
politics. A cross between Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK, Buddha and
Jesus. If you don't get it you're an infidel.

pzdr

TRad

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:33:01 AM3/17/08
to
Colin William pisze:

> Sam Hutcheson wrote:
>> The right-
>> wing ideologues who are voting for Clinton are not voting for a
>> Democrat in good conscience. They will not vote for Clinton in the
>> general. They are simply trying to game the system, either because
>> they want a Clinton to rally the base in the general, or because
>> they're cynically trying to sabotage Obama before the general (where
>> they know they can't beat him.)
>
> Have we had any actual stats on how many of these people there are, what
> kind of percentage of the overall vote they represent?

Exit polls only.

pzdr

TRad

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:38:09 AM3/17/08
to

Maybe you could outline some of Obama's "center-right" positions. He's
gonna need more than Iraq to get a meaningful number of moderate
Republicans to vote for him.

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:43:37 AM3/17/08
to
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:32:15 +0100, Tomasz Radko <tr...@interia.pl>
wrote:

I didn't vote for any of those guys, so I guess I am.

Robert Glenn Plotner

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:55:43 AM3/17/08
to
"bgs" <b...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:aCvDj.17$XB6...@newsfe06.lga...

>
> IPSIAWTP (I'm pretty sure). As long as Hillary and Barack don't go down
> in
> the mud too long, too deep, the press ignoring McCain probably works in
> their favor. I don't think either one has to bow out before the covention
> in order to consolidate their base. I think rather the big variable
> becomes
> Edwards..

Edwards would make a good attorney general in the Obama administration...

Edwards supporters (I count myself among them) broke largely for Obama after
Edwards dropped out. I cannot see Edwards throwing support to Clinton.


As for the race thingy. I'm inclined to believe that play was
> inevitable. I am more suprised by 'Hillary's a monster', but both sides
> have
> now shown they will sacrifice someone in the fight. This one made Hillary
> look bad long term (at least to those of us (me)) who believe that
> Geraldine
> was called upon to take one for the team.
> --
> Scott

I don't have any way of sorting out whether or not Geraldine was put up to
her comments. She has said similar things in past elections and frankly just
has a big mouth. The implication is, however, that she was an organ of the
Clinton campaign simply because of the frenetic nature of the race and the
campaign's previous race teasers.

I also thought the brouhaha surrounding the "monster" comment was contrived
beyond belief. Who the hell cares? It's a level of silliness on par with a
child crying to her mommy because her little brother called her a "meanie."


Robert


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 12:14:27 PM3/17/08
to
On 17 Mar, 14:37, "Robert Glenn Plotner"
<rgplotnerNOSPAMA...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It seems like silly wankering from the talk-show blowhards who have lost
> their mojo, but the cross-over to Hillary is part of a long range GOP
> resurgence strategy. Ultimately, I don't believe they'll be able to stop the
> national pendulum mid-swing, but imagine this scenario. It's the hand they
> are playing...

They're not trying to stop the pendulum, per se. They just want to
make sure the pendulum keeps swinging. A Clinton nomination, or even
a Clinton presidency, keeps the old rules in place, keeps their radio
listenership enthralled and sets up the pendulum to swing back again.
An Obama presidency would cut the legs out from under the entire
structure. _That_ is what scares the Limbaugh right.

> Hillary is given enough boost to leverage the super-delegates to her corner,

Margie Gavin Woods, superdelegate from Illinois, previously undecided,
pledged for Obama today. She is the 45th super delegate to pledge for
Obama since Feb 5 2008. In that time Clinton has picked up none (0)
supers.

s/

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 12:28:07 PM3/17/08
to
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:10:43 -0400, El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet®
<siempred...@googlelaw.net> wrote:

>Because there's no moderate Republican in this race. John McCain
>may be unpopular with certain radio conservatives, but he's anything
>but a moderate.
>
>-- EAQDEU®
>
>26*!! 26*!! 26*!!
>

Name some moderate Republicans (in your opinion).

Robert Glenn Plotner

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 12:31:09 PM3/17/08
to
"RicM" <dont...@uranus.com> wrote in message
news:1v3tt3tcir4g1r3vo...@4ax.com...

Obama isn't center-right. He is a centrist Democrat. If he is gathering
votes from moderate Republicans, however, and specifically against McCain
then there is a reason, and it comes down to the war in Iraq. McCain wagered
his presidential run on continuing its course. Obama was made a viable
candidate and continues to run on his opposition to it.

I'm sure part of that equation is also the sense of how America is perceived
on the world stage and how far Obama would go in repairing the damage. There
is a genuine sense that the country has lost its way, steered by rhetoric,
lies, and fear-mongering into actions that are fundamentally unAmerican --
not only the war, not only torture, but also what Bush co. has done to the
Constitution, and that we need to aright our course and reclaim our truer
selves. Obama's "inspiration" isn't just an expository way of impressing
people. It is tapping a deeper sense in the country, a need to be called, a
need for the country to be restored. That feeling crosses party lines with
all but the most blind Bush believers.


Robert


Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 12:31:20 PM3/17/08
to
El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet® pisze:

>>> Or do you think that nobody will notice that HRC is being propped up
>>> by Rush Limbaugh's listeners?
>> So what? HRC has two choices: give up (which denies her any presidential
>> chances) or fight (which gives her some chances, even if small). Does
>> Rush support taints her candidacy in eyes of Dems voters? Of course it
>> does, but so what? Why should she think Democratic Party is bigger than
>> she?
>

> It matters because she's counting on the support of superdelegates
> to put her over the top, since it's virtually impossible for her to
> overtake Obama in the pledged delegate count.

And it's impossible to Obama to reach 2000+ number without SuperDs.

> If those
> superdelegates feel that her support in the primaries is more a
> reflection of Republican mischief than the will of Democratic
> voters, then it's increasingly unlikely that they'll throw their
> support behind her come convention time, and without their support,

There are two possibilities:
1. Reps votes give HRC a primary win/wins.
2. Reps votes for HRC don't matter.

If 1), then without Reps votes she's a toast anyway, because winning big
states looks like her "legitimation" to woo SuperDs.

If 2), then why SuperDs should keep against her something that means
nothing?

Clointon is between a rock and a hard place (I'd like much better the
Polish version, which in translation means "between an anvil and a
hammer"). If Reps votes mean something - she's doomed anyway. So why not
take a chance? What she has to lose?

> she's doomed. While Limbaugh and his minions think they're being
> very clever, they may actually be doing more to undermine Hilary's
> chances with the Democratic faithful than they realize.

Reps don't need HRC to win. They need to keep her fighting. They need
Clinton's core supporters to stay home in November. Obama may have "50
states strategy", but without women, without white HS dropouts, without
"beer nation" - some blue states would become purple and some purple
would become red. This is Reps strategy: make Clinton voters to hate
Obama more than McCain, make Obama voters to hate Clinton more than
McCain. They don't even have to vote for McCain. They have to stay home.
Triangulation, eh?

pzdr

TRad

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 12:37:46 PM3/17/08
to
On 17 Mar, 15:21, RicM <dontst...@uranus.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Sam Hutcheson
>
> <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Intent.  Obamacans really plan to vote for Obama in the general.  His
> >appeal to moderate Republicans is honest and meaningful.  Obamacans
> >are really center-right voters who have been breaking Republican for
> >20 years or more, who would break Dem if Obama were the Democratic
> >standard bearer.  
>
> Explain why moderate Republicans would vote for Obama and not a
> moderate Republican. I don't get it.

They might not if they had the option, but they have the option of the
Dem or John McCain, and John McCain, despite what the drivel-dripping
mental amputees of the right-wing noise sphere say, isn't one of
those. Sure, he isn't batshit crazy about immigration, but when it
comes down to brass tacks, he's a hard right conservative on the
issues that matter in 2008 -- war, war and war. Also, he's an
admitted cretin when it comes to economics, which I hear might be an
issue in 2008 as well. If McCain were a fiscal conservative with
misgivings about the neocon imperialism of the past decade he wouldn't
bleed Obamacans. But he's not one of those. He is, in fact, a card
carrying member of the permanent war fan club and as such, moderate
Republicans will swing to the guy who actually uses reason in his
policies.

s/

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 12:39:44 PM3/17/08
to
On 17 Mar, 16:31, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:

> Clointon is between a rock and a hard place (I'd like much better the
> Polish version, which in translation means "between an anvil and a
> hammer"). If Reps votes mean something - she's doomed anyway. So why not
> take a chance? What she has to lose?

The pretense of dignity.

s/

Message has been deleted

Robert Glenn Plotner

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 12:52:30 PM3/17/08
to
"Sam Hutcheson" <sa...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1dc425ec-c1d1-43cf...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

I agree with you, Sam. I don't think they have enough. But the attempt is
being made, specifically on those grounds, and it is wise to be aware of it.
Michael Steele is chairman of GOPAC, btw.

They just pulled Obama's crazy-talking pastor off the shelf and threw it at
the masses with as much furor as the mouth-pieces could muster. "God damn
America" will anchor many a whisper campaign and fund-raising appeal. There
are certain to be more "revelations" in an attempt to put Hillary at the
podium as this heads toward the convention. Larry Johnson spelled out the
concerns awhile back:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/16/no-he-cant-because-yes-they-will/. I
think the concerns are genuine, and Obama will need to address them
*forcefully* unlike Gore and Kerry. I think he can, but there needs to be an
awareness that we haven't seen the beginning of the "taint" game.


Robert


Dirk

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 12:58:21 PM3/17/08
to
On Mar 17, 11:09 am, RicM <dontst...@uranus.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:41:47 -0700 (PDT), Dirk <da_ben...@hotmail.com>

Nah, just tried to do too much in too little time. Point taken.

Dirk

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:13:56 PM3/17/08
to
On Mar 17, 12:48 pm, El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet®
<siempredelira...@googlelaw.net> wrote:

> [...] among
> those I'd classify as moderates would be Mike Bloomberg, William
> Cohen, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, Amo Houghton and Jim Leach.
> (The last three are no longer in office, unfortunately.) One could
> also make a case for people like Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Rudy Giuliani,
> Tom Kean, Dick Lugar, Christie Whitman and Arlen Spector.

Chuck Hagel, maybe?

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:14:33 PM3/17/08
to
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:48:54 -0400, El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet®
<siempred...@googlelaw.net> wrote:

>>Name some moderate Republicans (in your opinion).
>

>Living or dead? There aren't many left among the living, but among


>those I'd classify as moderates would be Mike Bloomberg, William
>Cohen, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, Amo Houghton and Jim Leach.
>(The last three are no longer in office, unfortunately.) One could
>also make a case for people like Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Rudy Giuliani,

>Tom Kean, Dick Lugar, Christie Whitman and Arlen Spector. But not
>for John McCain -- being disliked by wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh and
>Ann Coulter doesn't make him a moderate by any means.

>
>-- EAQDEU®
>
>26*!! 26*!! 26*!!
>

That's funny. I guess it all depends on your perspective. I'd
classify Zell Miller and Harry Truman as moderate Democrats.

If the above are moderate, who would you say is left of center in the
Republican party? Or does it just start with "moderates"?

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:22:00 PM3/17/08
to

But the tide seems to be swinging away, at least in today's Gallup
snapshot.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104971/Gallup-Daily-McCain-47-Obamas-44.aspx

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:37:51 PM3/17/08
to
On 17 Mar, 16:48, El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet®
<siempredelira...@googlelaw.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:28:07 -0400, RicM <dontst...@uranus.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:10:43 -0400, El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet®
> ><siempredelira...@googlelaw.net> wrote:

>
> >>On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:21:07 -0400, RicM <dontst...@uranus.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Sam Hutcheson
> >>><s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>Intent.  Obamacans really plan to vote for Obama in the general.  His
> >>>>appeal to moderate Republicans is honest and meaningful.  Obamacans
> >>>>are really center-right voters who have been breaking Republican for
> >>>>20 years or more, who would break Dem if Obama were the Democratic
> >>>>standard bearer.  
> >>>Explain why moderate Republicans would vote for Obama and not a
> >>>moderate Republican. I don't get it.
> >>Because there's no moderate Republican in this race.    John McCain
> >>may be unpopular with certain radio conservatives, but he's anything
> >>but a moderate.
> >Name some moderate Republicans (in your opinion).
>
> Living or dead?    There aren't many left among the living, but among
> those I'd classify as moderates would be Mike Bloomberg, William
> Cohen, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, Amo Houghton and Jim Leach.  
> (The last three are no longer in office, unfortunately.)     One could
> also make a case for people like Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Rudy Giuliani,
> Tom Kean, Dick Lugar, Christie Whitman and Arlen Spector.    But not

The Guvernator, yes. Kean and Lugar maybe. Don't know Whitman.
Spector's little more than a concern troll providing cover fire for
Bush Co, IMHO. Rudy is a fucking nutjob, regardless of where he comes
down on abortion.

s/

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:39:48 PM3/17/08
to
On 17 Mar, 17:22, RicM <dontst...@uranus.com> wrote:

>  But the tide seems to be swinging away, at least in today's Gallup
> snapshot.
>
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/104971/Gallup-Daily-McCain-47-Obamas-44.aspx

Coming off of a smear cycle on Obama you'd expect little more. But
I'll go ahead and say, if America elects John McCain president in
November, you fuckers deserve what the fuck you get and I'll whistle
while you burn.

s/

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:45:37 PM3/17/08
to

One would have thought, after whistling for eight years, your lips
would be numb. heh.

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:51:10 PM3/17/08
to
RicM pisze:

> But the tide seems to be swinging away, at least in today's Gallup
> snapshot.
>
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/104971/Gallup-Daily-McCain-47-Obamas-44.aspx
>

Rasmussen has McCain +6 (while week ago it was a draw)
http://tiny.pl/4rfn

There goes the theory that fight increases Dems chance.

pzdr

TRad

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:53:43 PM3/17/08
to
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:51:10 +0100, Tomasz Radko <tr...@interia.pl>
wrote:

>RicM pisze:

It's time for the "Dream Ticket": Hillary/Obama

bgs

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:56:52 PM3/17/08
to

One of those I'd classify as insane.


RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:58:30 PM3/17/08
to

Chafee?

zig zigalo

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 2:15:59 PM3/17/08
to
you've clearly been overseas too long. or are you no longer a resident?

zig

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 2:24:19 PM3/17/08
to
On 17 Mar, 18:15, "zig zigalo" <ziggy1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Coming off of a smear cycle on Obama you'd expect little more.  But
> > I'll go ahead and say, if America elects John McCain president in
> > November, you fuckers deserve what the fuck you get and I'll whistle
> > while you burn.
>
> you've clearly been overseas too long.  or are you no longer a resident?

I've been telling you wankers to get your shit together for years
now. If America can't figure out the right guy out of Obama, Clinton
and McCain America doesn't deserve my pity and concern.

s/

Colin William

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 3:41:20 PM3/17/08
to
Robert Glenn Plotner wrote:
> They just pulled Obama's crazy-talking pastor off the shelf and threw it at
> the masses with as much furor as the mouth-pieces could muster.

By way of evidence for which, this has been among the top front-page
stories at foxnews.com every day for I think the last week. It's been
their leading story for much of that time.

Colin

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 3:43:22 PM3/17/08
to
RicM pisze:

I don't see it. Too much of bad blood. This is the card Clinton plays to
show her good will and lack of it in Obama. "Hey, I wanted to stop this
and offered my colleague a job in my administration, but he's to proud
to accept, so it's his fault we have to keep fighting, not mine". She
isn't half-wit, this Hilary babe.

Oh, and to stop Obamaniacs howl - yes, it was an unhonest offer, but we
are talking about _Clinton_.

pzdr

TRad

Colin William

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 3:47:22 PM3/17/08
to
Robert Glenn Plotner wrote:
> They just pulled Obama's crazy-talking pastor off the shelf and threw it at
> the masses with as much furor as the mouth-pieces could muster. "God damn
> America" will anchor many a whisper campaign and fund-raising appeal. There
> are certain to be more "revelations" in an attempt to put Hillary at the
> podium as this heads toward the convention. Larry Johnson spelled out the
> concerns awhile back:
> http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/16/no-he-cant-because-yes-they-will/. I
> think the concerns are genuine, and Obama will need to address them
> *forcefully* unlike Gore and Kerry. I think he can, but there needs to be an
> awareness that we haven't seen the beginning of the "taint" game.

To which end, does it become better to nominate Clinton? The big stuff
against her has already been exhausted ad nauseam, so the attack dogs
will likely end up recycling Travelgate or something else. But if you
bust out attack stuff on Obama, it's all new and so it's all news. It
doesn't necessarily need to be true, it just needs to add enough doubt
to lead people to think he's just like all the rest.

Colin

zig zigalo

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 4:08:12 PM3/17/08
to
Dirk wrote:

>
> (And yes, I am using the term "taint" in close proximity to "Hillary"
> in these sentences in a shameless attempt to draw a juvenile response
> from our Effingham correspondent. I'm terribly disappointed none have
> appeared so far.)

'taint easy...

zig

bgs

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 5:14:03 PM3/17/08
to

No thanks, I'll have a Coke Zero.

--
Scott


Message has been deleted

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 6:59:15 PM3/17/08
to
El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet® pisze:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:31:20 +0100, Tomasz Radko <tr...@interia.pl>
> wrote:
>
>> El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet® pisze:
>>
>>>>> Or do you think that nobody will notice that HRC is being propped up
>>>>> by Rush Limbaugh's listeners?
>>>> So what? HRC has two choices: give up (which denies her any presidential
>>>> chances) or fight (which gives her some chances, even if small). Does
>>>> Rush support taints her candidacy in eyes of Dems voters? Of course it
>>>> does, but so what? Why should she think Democratic Party is bigger than
>>>> she?
>>> It matters because she's counting on the support of superdelegates
>>> to put her over the top, since it's virtually impossible for her to
>>> overtake Obama in the pledged delegate count.
>> And it's impossible to Obama to reach 2000+ number without SuperDs.
>
> That's true, but the superdelegates are more likely than not to throw
> their support behind the candidate favored by a majority of Democratic
> voters.

Let's assume they are (however one could suggest, that should majority
of the voters be a deciding factor, the SuperDs wouldn't be needed at
all). But define "majority of Dems voters". Do we count states,
delegates or popular voting? If the latter - with or without Florida and
Michigan? It isn't black&white, it's grey. Obama will have more
delegates and states, but Clinton has a good chance to have more popular
votes (especially with Puerto Rico changing the format from caucusses to
normal primary) - should Florida and Michigan counts. They are without
delegates, OK, but do you want to tell the voters from those states:
your votes don't matter, we won't count them? Baaad idea.

Keeping majority of _voters_, even when including Flo and Mich, is
essential for Obama. If he wins in every cattegory - then SuperDs would
be very, VERY reluctant to support Clinton. But what if she has popular
votes? It gives her at least a semblance of legitimacy, something to
spin. Alienating Blacks is bad for Dems, bad alienating old Whites is
bad for Dems too. To win Ohio and Pennsylvania, and these states could
be crucial, you need support from both groups (of course if economy
and/or Iraq goes disaster - a landslide scenario - all bets are off).

> If that's their strategy, I don't think it's going to work. Obama
> has been pretty consistent about resisting the impulse to go negative
> on Clinton, so there's really nothing much there for Hillary
> supporters to hate.

It doesn't matter what Obama is doing. Clinton voters do believe in
Clinton's propaganda. Of course not all of them, but a big part (that's
why Clinton and everybody is spending so much money for propaganda). So
if Clinton says Obama is unready, if Obama is perceived as an usurpator
(it was a Clinton year after all)... And there is a racial subtext - how
many Dem voters agree with Ferraro? And it even doesn't matter if she's
right (and, of course, she is. No white with so little experience in
national government would have any chance), but only if people think
she's right. IIRC about 20% of Clinton voters in Ohio said that race was
important for their decision. OK, you may call them a bigots, but bigots
votes count too.

> The so-called "kitchen sink" strategy employed
> by the Clinton campaign, on the other hand, might well alienate many
> black and minority voters, should she somehow wind up being the
> nominee.

True.

> Probably not enough for them to stay home and cede the
> election to McCain, though.

Not all of them. But should Clinton end up as Dems candidate - _some_
Obama supporters will stay home for sure. Or even go vote, but not work
at phone banks etc.

pzdr

TRad

Message has been deleted

Dick Sidbury

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 7:47:03 PM3/17/08
to
In article <0c4tt3dhkesedo574...@4ax.com>,
RicM <dont...@uranus.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:32:15 +0100, Tomasz Radko <tr...@interia.pl>
> wrote:
>
> >RicM pisze:


> >> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Sam Hutcheson
> >> <sa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Intent. Obamacans really plan to vote for Obama in the general. His
> >>> appeal to moderate Republicans is honest and meaningful. Obamacans
> >>> are really center-right voters who have been breaking Republican for
> >>> 20 years or more, who would break Dem if Obama were the Democratic
> >>> standard bearer.
> >>
> >> Explain why moderate Republicans would vote for Obama and not a
> >> moderate Republican. I don't get it.
> >

> >Because Obama is the candidate of Hope&Change. A new quality in the
> >politics. A cross between Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK, Buddha and
> >Jesus. If you don't get it you're an infidel.
> >
> >pzdr
> >
> >TRad
>
> I didn't vote for any of those guys, so I guess I am.

I voted for Hope. I should have voted for Change. It's nice to see
that they have united.

dick

Jolly Rogers

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 8:04:20 PM3/17/08
to
"Dick Sidbury" <DrJames...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I didn't vote for any of those guys, so I guess I am.
>
> I voted for Hope. I should have voted for Change. It's nice to see
> that they have united.

A smooth operator excels at bridging the medium between the abstract and the
inane to give the appearance of substance where none exists.

--
Jolly Rogers

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 8:08:50 PM3/17/08
to
El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet® pisze:

>> If the above are moderate, who would you say is left of center in the
>> Republican party? Or does it just start with "moderates"?
>

> The so-called "liberal Republican" has gone the way of the dodo bird.

Just like "conservative Democrat". There were such a beings years ago.
Not anymore.

pzdr

TRad

Message has been deleted

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 8:46:32 PM3/17/08
to
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:04:20 -0500, "Jolly Rogers"
<jolly...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>A smooth operator excels at bridging the medium between the abstract and the
>inane to give the appearance of substance where none exists.


Thank you, Master Po.

RicM

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 8:57:36 PM3/17/08
to
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:29:27 -0400, El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet®
<siempred...@googlelaw.net> wrote:


>If Johnson is on the mark, though, then the Republicans ought to
>be doing everything they can to promote an Obama candidacy. But
>they're not doing that; they're running this stealth campaign for
>Hillary instead. And I don't think they're doing this just to
>promote more in-fighting among Democrats, because as long as
>Democrats continue to dominate the news, McCain increasingly
>fades into the woodwork. Rather, I think they genuinely want
>Clinton to be the nominee because they think she'll be easier to beat
>in November. On that last point, at least, I agree with them.


>
>-- EAQDEU®
>
>26*!! 26*!! 26*!!


Ahh..they're buying the Bre'r Rabbit strategy.

Rove, you Magnificent Bastard!

Jolly Rogers

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 9:05:46 PM3/17/08
to
"El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet®" <siempred...@googlelaw.net> wrote:

> If Johnson is on the mark, though, then the Republicans ought to
> be doing everything they can to promote an Obama candidacy. But
> they're not doing that; they're running this stealth campaign for
> Hillary instead. And I don't think they're doing this just to
> promote more in-fighting among Democrats, because as long as
> Democrats continue to dominate the news, McCain increasingly
> fades into the woodwork. Rather, I think they genuinely want
> Clinton to be the nominee because they think she'll be easier to beat
> in November. On that last point, at least, I agree with them.

I'm not so sure. Obama has become severely damaged goods. His demise appears
mostly academic now.

It is a fact that his minister proclaimed "God damn America" and made many
other radical, militant statements. Plus, Minister Wright awarded Minister
Farrakhan, a known radical extremist, whose statements required censure by
the U.S. Senate. Obama knows these facts, yet he continues to wholeheartedly
endorse and support Wright's ministry.

Who in his right mind, let alone a U.S. Senator, would remain a member of
and supporter of a church that supports Louis Farrakhan?

Obama even dissembled his church's award to Minister Farrakhan!

http://newsmax.com/kessler/obama_farrakhan/2008/03/05/77971.html

excerpt:

It's one thing for Barack Obama to have a minister, friend, and sounding
board who supports and admires Louis Farrakhan and whose church gave him an
award.

It's another thing for Obama to dissemble about it.

That's what Obama did recently when he told Jewish leaders in Cleveland, "An
award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders,
completely unrelated to his controversial statements."

-----

Voters are finally becoming wise to this smooth operator, as reflected in
newer polls.

Dick Sidbury

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 9:33:54 PM3/17/08
to
In article <dn4ut35kalvc6p3br...@4ax.com>,
RicM <dont...@uranus.com> wrote:

Did you read his book?

dick

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 5:36:49 AM3/18/08
to

They became Dixiecrats, then they became Reagan Democrats, then they
became "the Republican base."

s/

zig zigalo

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 7:08:22 AM3/18/08
to
Sam Hutcheson wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:08 am, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
>> El Abogado Que Delira En UsenetŽ pisze:

>>
>>>> If the above are moderate, who would you say is left of center in
>>>> the Republican party? Or does it just start with "moderates"?
>>
>>> The so-called "liberal Republican" has gone the way of the dodo
>>> bird.
>>
>> Just like "conservative Democrat". There were such a beings years
>> ago. Not anymore.
>
> They became Dixiecrats, then they became Reagan Democrats, then they
> became "the Republican base."
>
previous to that, hillbillies?

zig

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 7:30:10 AM3/18/08
to
zig zigalo pisze:

So the Reps voters do vote for the _real_ Democratic party?

pzdr

TRad

Dirk

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 7:46:50 AM3/18/08
to
On Mar 17, 8:29 pm, El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet�
<siempredelira...@googlelaw.net> wrote:

> I think the concerns about Ayers, in particular, are absolutely
> ridiculous. Not only was he never convicted of anything, but whatever
> part he may have played in the Weather Underground would have been
> nearly 40 years ago, when Barack Obama was still a child.

WHEN BARK HUSSEIN OSAMA WENT TO THE MUZLEM SCHOOL!!!1!!!

</wingnut>

So when do the media get to talk about McCain's open solicitation and
embrace of Rod Parsley (who believes America was founded to destroy
Islam) and John Hagee (who believes God damned New Orleans for liking
Teh Ghey too much), and McCain's tappin' along to a choir who sang
"Why should God bless America" at the Values Voters debate?

Does that start next week?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/09/why_should_god_bless_america.html

Why should God bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back
On everything that made her what she is

Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sin and heal our land

RicM

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 8:01:37 AM3/18/08
to
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:46:50 -0700 (PDT), Dirk <da_b...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>So when do the media get to talk about McCain's open solicitation and
>embrace of Rod Parsley (who believes America was founded to destroy
>Islam) and John Hagee (who believes God damned New Orleans for liking
>Teh Ghey too much), and McCain's tappin' along to a choir who sang
>"Why should God bless America" at the Values Voters debate?
>
>Does that start next week?

Don't you see? Hillary's running against OBAMA now. When she's running
against McCain, that stuff will be used, if necessary.

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 8:20:36 AM3/18/08
to
On Mar 18, 11:30 am, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
> zig zigalo pisze:
>
> > Sam Hutcheson wrote:
> >> On Mar 18, 12:08 am, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
> >>> El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet® pisze:

>
> >>>>> If the above are moderate, who would you say is left of center in
> >>>>> the Republican party? Or does it just start with "moderates"?
> >>>> The so-called "liberal Republican" has gone the way of the dodo
> >>>> bird.
> >>> Just like "conservative Democrat". There were such a beings years
> >>> ago. Not anymore.
> >> They became Dixiecrats, then they became Reagan Democrats, then they
> >> became "the Republican base."
>
> > previous to that, hillbillies?
>
> So the Reps voters do vote for the _real_ Democratic party?

I'm not sure if this is pathetically off the mark snark or just
ignorance of the history of the two dominant US political parties.
Assuming you're really asking, the Republican Party of 2008 hinges on
a voter base of white, southern religious conservatives. In the mid
1800s a new party was formed based in large part on the abolitionist
standards of the north. That party was called the Republican Party.
Their standards created a massive split in the US political landscape,
leading up to the election of their president, Abraham Lincoln, and
the ensuing US Civil War. For 100 years after the war the Republicans
were a combination of business interests out of the north east and the
moral "Party of Lincoln", the anti-slavery, anti-Confederate majority
of the north. The Democratic party of Andrew Jackson was the party of
revaunchist confederates and the unreconstructed, Jim Crow south.

In the middle of the last century the Democrats swung out of this
alignment, notably during the Civil Rights legislation of the '60s.
This gained them the moral high ground on issues of race (and a more
sympathetic ear from African American voting blocs.) Seeing the Dems
do this the conservative white south -- the former Democrats who had
manufactured most of Jim Crow aparthied and who _still_ held
revaunchist confederate sympathies, bolted the party. Initially these
disaffected white racists formed a third party calling themselves
"Dixiecrats," a direct reference to the old Confederacy, or Dixie.
They ran George Wallace for president on their proto-Confederate
ticket. As most third parties do, they failed to pull enough leverage
to win office, but they did show themselves to be a powerful bloc for
one of the majors to persue. Having just divorced from them, the Dems
weren't really interested. The Republicans were.

Richard Nixon executed what is called his "southern strategy",
effectively siphoning off the majority of the anti-Civil Rights crowd
into "big tent" Republicanism. In the 80s Reagan succeeded in peeling
off even more of those voters -- the religious voters who had
originally come out in support of Jimmy Carter, the newly formed, so-
called "silent majority" or "moral majority." By the early 90s the
shift has become more or less permanent with Falwell-cum-Dobsonite
religoius voters identifying virtually exclusively as Republicans. In
the last decade that faction of the party has effectively taken over,
leading to the coronation of W. Bush and the viability of Mike
Huckabee's campaign.

Now, you can snark about what is "real" or not with regard to parties,
etc., but those are the basic historical facts at play. The Democrats
used to be the party of the South. Then, from Nixon to Reagan, the
Republicans took over that voting bloc by playing against the
Democratic committment to civil rights legislation.

The term "hillbillie" is a derivative of the Scottish "Billy Boys" who
settled Appalachia for the white man. The same Scot-Irish demographic
makes up the majority of the southern white vote.

s/

Robert Glenn Plotner

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 8:29:39 AM3/18/08
to
"Colin William" <colint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:647vr0F...@mid.individual.net...

What the preacher doesn't get is that it is a wholly different thing to rant
and rail against the sins of the Bush administration doing horrible things
in the *name of America* than it is to say that America is the evil actor in
the world. No one wants to believe that. And fundamentally, Barack's ability
to inspire stems from a real belief that we are better, that we are and
should be a moral good in the world, and that we have been taken astray by
our leaders. That is why the association of "God damn America" from this
lunatic zealot is hurting Obama so much.

It is absolutely at odds with the heart of Obama's story, a story of
thankfulness for and pride in America's diversity of peoples and
opportunity. That message is the patriotic foundation on which everything
about him rests. The way to destroy him is to topple him from that base. Use
anti-patriotic slander by association. It is having a real and erosive
effect.

Obama is slated to make a speech on the subject today, and he simply must
recognize and respond appropriately to stem the bleeding. In this case, if
he chooses reason over emotion, quite frankly, I think he will fail.

He has to reclaim the heart of his own vision, and it cannot be achieved by
explanation and a statement of rejection or even with the religious
catch-phrases that he pushed in his Fox News interview. It ain't going to
play in Peoria. In order to resonate emotionally with the American public,
he has to demonstrate real *anger* at the reverend's remarks, enough anger
to deafen the pulpit pounding "God damn America" that Pastor Wright has been
heard wailing from the televisions and radios of Americans twenty times a
day over the last few days. Obama has to muster it, and if he doesn't, I
have serious doubts about his electability.


Robert


Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 8:42:01 AM3/18/08
to
On 18 Mar, 11:46, Dirk <da_ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> So when do the media get to talk about McCain's open solicitation and
> embrace of Rod Parsley (who believes America was founded to destroy
> Islam) and John Hagee (who believes God damned New Orleans for liking
> Teh Ghey too much), and McCain's tappin' along to a choir who sang
> "Why should God bless America" at the Values Voters debate?

What you have to understand, Dirk, is that we can _trust_ John
McCain. You see, John McCain is white. We can trust white people.
Black people we have to be wary about. Black people, regardless of
what they say over and over and over again, regardless of how
rediculously obvious their stated positions differ from the off-wing
sermonizing their former pastor may seem, are really Manchurian
candidates whose only goals are to take over America for Islam. We
know this. Because they're black. It doesn't matter that McCain's
political alliances say the same shit, call the same damnation down
for the US's sinfulness. It doesn't matter that some variant of
themes, cleansed of their blackness, reverberate around pulpits across
the nation every Sunday. We don't have to worry abou that, you see.
Because those people are white.

I'd think this would be clear by now.

s/

Dirk

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 8:42:36 AM3/18/08
to
On Mar 18, 8:01 am, RicM <dontst...@uranus.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:46:50 -0700 (PDT), Dirk <da_ben...@hotmail.com>

That makes a great deal of sense if you believe that HRC rocks the
corporate media world. I don't; I think this smear of the week comes
from elsewhere, although I'd be naive not to imagine that her
strategerists are seeing how far they can drive it now that it's out
there.

Ben B

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 8:50:31 AM3/18/08
to
On Mar 18, 8:20 am, Sam Hutcheson <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> For 100 years after the war the Republicans
> were a combination of business interests out of the north east and the
> moral "Party of Lincoln", the anti-slavery, anti-Confederate majority
> of the north. The Democratic party of Andrew Jackson was the party of
> revaunchist confederates and the unreconstructed, Jim Crow south.
>
> In the middle of the last century the Democrats swung out of this
> alignment, notably during the Civil Rights legislation of the '60s.
> This gained them the moral high ground on issues of race (and a more
> sympathetic ear from African American voting blocs.)

i can't believe you made that leap without addressing the Depression,
FDR and the New Deal. i see that as the real turning point for the
democratic party. just in a hurry, i suppose.

--
Ben

Dirk

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 8:55:46 AM3/18/08
to

I didn't try hard enough. Needed something about point spreads and
eager-beaver campaign volunteers willing to work for tuna sandwiches.

RicM

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 8:57:48 AM3/18/08
to
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT), Dirk <da_b...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 18, 8:01 am, RicM <dontst...@uranus.com> wrote:

This stuff's been out there for over a year, yet it shows up first in
the NY TIMES and the rest of the MSM just when things look darkest for
Hillary. She's as lucky with the press as she is with cattle futures.

Ben B

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:02:40 AM3/18/08
to

you make some good points, but you leave a lot unsaid.

obama has made himself a quasi-religious candidate. he and huckabee
are the only major candidates to talk in religious metaphors and
undertones. he actively reaches out to people of faith -- that's why i
like him. his message -- hope -- is essentially a religious message.
his career began in faith-based community organizations. attacking him
on religion is like attacking mccain on his military record. it's like
if someone from the Hanoi Hilton had video of mccain playing poker
with the guards while the "real americans" were being tortured.

--
Ben

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:02:47 AM3/18/08
to

FDR and the New Deal were not directly related to the breaking off of
the southern Democrats. Dixiecrats were fine with the Democratic
Party until the Democratic Party broke stance on civil rights. There
was no siginficant re-alignment during the New Deal era, just a
popular president with popular policies making the Dems more popular
nationally, while continuing to turn a blind eye on the Jim Crow
south.

s/

Tarkus

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:06:21 AM3/18/08
to
Robert Glenn Plotner wrote:
> "RicM" <dont...@uranus.com> wrote in message
> news:mu2tt3hsq1pl41ipu...@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Sam Hutcheson
>> <sa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Intent. Obamacans really plan to vote for Obama in the general. His
>>> appeal to moderate Republicans is honest and meaningful. Obamacans
>>> are really center-right voters who have been breaking Republican for
>>> 20 years or more, who would break Dem if Obama were the Democratic
>>> standard bearer.
>> Explain why moderate Republicans would vote for Obama and not a
>> moderate Republican. I don't get it.
>
> The war in Iraq and everything that surrounds it. If it comes down to Obama
> v. McCain, that is the hinge issue.

Game over, man!

--
Now Playing: Rush - Red Sector A

My MySpace profile: http://www.myspace.com/karnevil69

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:06:59 AM3/18/08
to
RicM pisze:

>>>> So when do the media get to talk about McCain's open solicitation and
>>>> embrace of Rod Parsley (who believes America was founded to destroy
>>>> Islam) and John Hagee (who believes God damned New Orleans for liking
>>>> Teh Ghey too much), and McCain's tappin' along to a choir who sang
>>>> "Why should God bless America" at the Values Voters debate?
>>>> Does that start next week?
>>> Don't you see? Hillary's running against OBAMA now. When she's running
>>> against McCain, that stuff will be used, if necessary.
>> That makes a great deal of sense if you believe that HRC rocks the
>> corporate media world. I don't; I think this smear of the week comes
>>from elsewhere, although I'd be naive not to imagine that her
>> strategerists are seeing how far they can drive it now that it's out
>> there.
>
> This stuff's been out there for over a year, yet it shows up first in
> the NY TIMES and the rest of the MSM just when things look darkest for
> Hillary. She's as lucky with the press as she is with cattle futures.

Vast left wing conspiracy.

pzdr

TRad

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:08:26 AM3/18/08
to
Ben B pisze:

> it's like
> if someone from the Hanoi Hilton had video of mccain playing poker
> with the guards while the "real americans" were being tortured.

If he wins it would be just the American way.

pzdr

TRad

Tarkus

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:08:37 AM3/18/08
to
Tomasz Radko wrote:
> RicM pisze:

>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Sam Hutcheson
>> <sa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Intent. Obamacans really plan to vote for Obama in the general. His
>>> appeal to moderate Republicans is honest and meaningful. Obamacans
>>> are really center-right voters who have been breaking Republican for
>>> 20 years or more, who would break Dem if Obama were the Democratic
>>> standard bearer.
>>
>> Explain why moderate Republicans would vote for Obama and not a
>> moderate Republican. I don't get it.
>
> Because Obama is the candidate of Hope&Change. A new quality in the
> politics. A cross between Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK, Buddha and
> Jesus. If you don't get it you're an infidel.

Glad you finally get it. Welcome aboard! ;)

--
Now Playing: Rush - Red Sector A

My Last.fm profile: http://www.last.fm/user/_Tarkus_/

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:12:50 AM3/18/08
to

You mean the Republican and proto-Republican Clinton machines are
still playing by Rove's "attack their strength" playbook? Really?
Who'd have thought *those* guys would still revel in the politics of
cynicism?

> if someone from the Hanoi Hilton had video of mccain playing poker
> with the guards while the "real americans" were being tortured.

Well, I'll reask you a question Lance has avoided for months on end.
Have you *listened* to Obama? If the direct effect of sitting through
Jeremiah Wright's tirades are to create a man like Barack Obama then
we should send every single citizen through the fire of Wright's
rancor. Because regardless of what his pastor might like to rant
about on any given Sunday, Barack Obama is clear on what *HE*
believes, and it has nothing to do with the smear-by-association crap
by siphoned around by Joey and his crypto-compadres.

s/

Tarkus

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:14:16 AM3/18/08
to
Sam Hutcheson wrote:
> On 17 Mar, 18:15, "zig zigalo" <ziggy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Coming off of a smear cycle on Obama you'd expect little more. But
>>> I'll go ahead and say, if America elects John McCain president in
>>> November, you fuckers deserve what the fuck you get and I'll whistle
>>> while you burn.
>> you've clearly been overseas too long. or are you no longer a resident?
>
> I've been telling you wankers to get your shit together for years
> now. If America can't figure out the right guy out of Obama, Clinton
> and McCain America doesn't deserve my pity and concern.


Who asked for it?

--
Now Playing: Rush - O Baterista

"Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but
deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican
to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king."

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:15:26 AM3/18/08
to
Tarkus pisze:

> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>> RicM pisze:
>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Sam Hutcheson
>>> <sa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Intent. Obamacans really plan to vote for Obama in the general. His
>>>> appeal to moderate Republicans is honest and meaningful. Obamacans
>>>> are really center-right voters who have been breaking Republican for
>>>> 20 years or more, who would break Dem if Obama were the Democratic
>>>> standard bearer.
>>>
>>> Explain why moderate Republicans would vote for Obama and not a
>>> moderate Republican. I don't get it.
>>
>> Because Obama is the candidate of Hope&Change. A new quality in the
>> politics. A cross between Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK, Buddha
>> and Jesus. If you don't get it you're an infidel.
>
> Glad you finally get it. Welcome aboard! ;)
>

I'm glad you didn't burn me before I saw the light.

pzdr

TRad

PS OK, could somebody correct my grammar, please? Maybe:
You hadn't burnt me before I saw the light?
Plus quam perfectum and praeterite?

Tarkus

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:16:32 AM3/18/08
to
Tomasz Radko wrote:
> RicM pisze:
>
>> But the tide seems to be swinging away, at least in today's Gallup
>> snapshot.
>>
>> http://www.gallup.com/poll/104971/Gallup-Daily-McCain-47-Obamas-44.aspx
>
> Rasmussen has McCain +6 (while week ago it was a draw)
> http://tiny.pl/4rfn
>
> There goes the theory that fight increases Dems chance.

There goes the theory that you're smart enough to recognize the
difference between a snapshot poll vs. a real general election.

To be fair, I just made up that theory.

--
Now Playing: Rush - O Baterista

My MySpace profile: http://www.myspace.com/karnevil69

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:17:55 AM3/18/08
to
Tarkus pisze:

> Sam Hutcheson wrote:
>> On 17 Mar, 18:15, "zig zigalo" <ziggy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Coming off of a smear cycle on Obama you'd expect little more. But
>>>> I'll go ahead and say, if America elects John McCain president in
>>>> November, you fuckers deserve what the fuck you get and I'll whistle
>>>> while you burn.
>>> you've clearly been overseas too long. or are you no longer a resident?
>>
>> I've been telling you wankers to get your shit together for years
>> now. If America can't figure out the right guy out of Obama, Clinton
>> and McCain America doesn't deserve my pity and concern.
>
>
> Who asked for it?
>

Obama, Clinton, McCain and America.

pzdr

TRad

Tomasz Radko

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:23:06 AM3/18/08
to
Tarkus pisze:

> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>> RicM pisze:
>>
>>> But the tide seems to be swinging away, at least in today's Gallup
>>> snapshot.
>>>
>>> http://www.gallup.com/poll/104971/Gallup-Daily-McCain-47-Obamas-44.aspx
>>
>> Rasmussen has McCain +6 (while week ago it was a draw)
>> http://tiny.pl/4rfn
>>
>> There goes the theory that fight increases Dems chance.
>
> There goes the theory that you're smart enough to recognize the
> difference between a snapshot poll vs. a real general election.
>
> To be fair, I just made up that theory.

What snapshot poll does is showing "this moment" state of mind of
potential voters. So if before the fight the voters were more likely to
say to the pollster "I love Democrats" than during the fight - then the
thesis that the fight makes Democrats no good is correct.

On contrary: the real election results won't tell us nothing. Why?
Because we can't have an election in potential situation without Dems fight.

You would have right had my thesis be:
the Dems fight has made McCain the overdog. But I'm not saying this.

pzdr

TRad

Dirk

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:34:19 AM3/18/08
to
On Mar 18, 8:57 am, RicM <dontst...@uranus.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 05:42:36 -0700 (PDT), Dirk <da_ben...@hotmail.com>

It's been looking "darkest for Hillary" for some weeks, if not maybe
months, now. Whereas the RW has been attributing every anti-[fill-in-
the-Democratic-primary-challenger] attack to Hillary's all-
encompassing, rock-our-world army of political geniuses and their
amazing gift for subterfuge for as long as she's been running for
President.

I don't buy it now, didn't buy it then, absent supporting
documentation.

Dirk

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:35:07 AM3/18/08
to
On Mar 18, 8:42 am, Sam Hutcheson <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

It's clear. It was clear Friday night when I plopped myself down after
a 16-hour workday to see Anderson Cooper on my TeeVee, his invited
bobbleheads reading from their scripts, and the grainy B-roll of Rev.
Wright and his scary African-looking folk preachifyin'.

It's made me angry enough to want to run through with a rusty chainsaw
more than a few deserving figureheads; fortunately, *my* spiritual
advisers tend to frown on such expressions.

RicM

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:38:26 AM3/18/08
to
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:34:19 -0700 (PDT), Dirk <da_b...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

You should hope Obama's handlers are not so naive.

Ben B

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 9:49:12 AM3/18/08
to

of course i have. and read several of his speeches. all i'm saying is,
a religious issue for obama is not equal to a religious issue for
mccain, just as an extramarital affair for david paterson is not equal
to prostitution connections for eliot spitzer.

> If the direct effect of sitting through Jeremiah
> Wright's tirades are to create a man like Barack Obama then
> we should send every single citizen through the fire of Wright's
> rancor.

i'm looking forward to hearing obama's speech in response to this
flap, but i'm not at all worried about it. he's been making this
speech for years. anyone who understands race in america understands
that anger is a big part of the problem. obama has been dealing with
anger on the black side of the fence as long as he's been dealing with
apathy on the white side. <shrug>

anyway,

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/candidate.poll/index.html
If Obama were to win the nomination, he would get 47 percent of the
vote compared to 46 percent for McCain -- a statistical tie given the
poll's 3 percentage point margin of error. Should Clinton win the
nomination, the poll suggests she would get 49 percent compared to
McCain's 47 percent -- another statistical tie.

doesn't say when the survey was conducted.

---
Ben

Tarkus

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 10:09:56 AM3/18/08
to
Ben B wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/candidate.poll/index.html
> If Obama were to win the nomination, he would get 47 percent of the
> vote compared to 46 percent for McCain -- a statistical tie given the
> poll's 3 percentage point margin of error. Should Clinton win the
> nomination, the poll suggests she would get 49 percent compared to
> McCain's 47 percent -- another statistical tie.
>
> doesn't say when the survey was conducted.

I'm willing to bet it wasn't November, 2008.

--
Now Playing: Rush - Crossroads

Jolly Rogers

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 10:24:44 AM3/18/08
to
"Sam Hutcheson" <sa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> What you have to understand, Dirk, is that we can _trust_ John
> McCain. You see, John McCain is white. We can trust white people.
> Black people we have to be wary about. Black people, regardless of
> what they say over and over and over again, regardless of how
> rediculously obvious their stated positions differ from the off-wing
> sermonizing their former pastor may seem, are really Manchurian
> candidates whose only goals are to take over America for Islam. We
> know this. Because they're black. It doesn't matter that McCain's
> political alliances say the same shit, call the same damnation down
> for the US's sinfulness. It doesn't matter that some variant of
> themes, cleansed of their blackness, reverberate around pulpits across
> the nation every Sunday. We don't have to worry abou that, you see.
> Because those people are white.
>
> I'd think this would be clear by now.

Sometimes, I think you're trolling. I don't know how anyone's mind could be
so... misinformed.

The only thing that is clear is that Obama has affirmed his support and
defense of Minister Wright, his radical ministry, and Minister Wright's
support of Louis Farrakhan.

Obama's church publishes a message of racial division and Minister Wright
spews a message of hate. Obama continues to support both by affirming his
membership and support in them every chance he gets. Even worse, Obama
defended the award they gave to Farrakhan.

Either you're too embarrassed to admit you were bamboozled by this smooth
operator, or you're just being your normal, intransigent self, refusing to
admit you were wrong.

--
Jolly Rogers


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jolly Rogers

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 10:34:31 AM3/18/08
to
"Sam Hutcheson" <sa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> Well, I'll reask you a question Lance has avoided for months on end.
Have you *listened* to Obama? If the direct effect of sitting through
Jeremiah Wright's tirades are to create a man like Barack Obama then
we should send every single citizen through the fire of Wright's
rancor. Because regardless of what his pastor might like to rant
about on any given Sunday, Barack Obama is clear on what *HE*

believes, [...] <<

One knows the end game has arrived when the opposition begins offering wild,
imaginary echoes of his dementia in a desperate attempt to defend his
untenable positions.

Tirading extremist Wright ---> Smooth operator Obama

Yep. I can see that! Heh.

Jolly Rogers

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 10:36:39 AM3/18/08
to
"Dirk" <da_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It's clear. It was clear Friday night when I plopped myself down after
> a 16-hour workday to see Anderson Cooper on my TeeVee, his invited
> bobbleheads reading from their scripts, and the grainy B-roll of Rev.
> Wright and his scary African-looking folk preachifyin'.
>
> It's made me angry enough to want to run through with a rusty chainsaw
> more than a few deserving figureheads; fortunately, *my* spiritual
> advisers tend to frown on such expressions.

Revelation of the truth often angers your side.

Robert Glenn Plotner

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 11:08:45 AM3/18/08
to
"Dirk" <da_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5bc0307-0171-4b41...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Yes, but it ain't going to stop, no matter how frustratingly stupefying it
is to watch a public so easily manipulated. It is best for Obama to deal
with it now rather than a month before the general election, but he has to
use every bit of his intellect, skill, and judgment to tackle it and to
elevate this country. If he is who he says he is, he has to be able to face
the ugly underbelly and make it an opportunity. This is his Jackie Robinson
moment.

There are layers of complexity to race relationship in America.
Machiavellian wedge politics has traditionally used the tension as an
opportunity to exploit. Obama has reversed the exploitation by division and
made opportunity from unity and shared purpose and pride. He himself is a
nexus for so many sides of the American prism. But, here he has been
countered in his own camp by a mouthpiece for one of those unhealed layers,
and he has been put in the position of having to explain black anger toward
white America to white America. That's a bad position to be in and will in
itself likely cause some to split from him.

I will be amazed if he can accomplish this because those who can be wedged
react rather than listen and is why I think he has to reach the tenor of
anger, outrage. I think this is a historical moment because it holds two
starkly different paths before us. I want him to be the one who can succeed.
I want him to get the game winning hit. I want the wounds to heal. I want
those who would divide to fail.


Robert


Jolly Rogers

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 11:15:58 AM3/18/08
to
"Robert Glenn Plotner" <rgplotner...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snippage>

> I will be amazed if he can accomplish this because those who can be wedged
> react rather than listen and is why I think he has to reach the tenor of
> anger, outrage. I think this is a historical moment because it holds two
> starkly different paths before us. I want him to be the one who can
> succeed. I want him to get the game winning hit. I want the wounds to
> heal. I want those who would divide to fail.

Isn't his defiant support of Minister Wright, his church, and their award to
Minister Farrakhan an example of divisive actions?

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Sam Hutcheson

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 11:32:59 AM3/18/08
to
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, "Jolly Rogers" <jollyrog...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Tirading extremist Wright ---> Smooth operator Obama

That's the smear you racist assholes want, yeah.

s/

Message has been deleted

Jolly Rogers

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 11:44:57 AM3/18/08
to
"Sam Hutcheson" <sa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Tirading extremist Wright ---> Smooth operator Obama

>> That's the smear you racist assholes want, yeah.<<

You wrote: "If the direct effect of sitting through Jeremiah Wright's

tirades are to create a man like Barack Obama then we should send every
single citizen through the fire of Wright's rancor. Because regardless of
what his pastor might like to rant about on any given Sunday, Barack Obama

is clear on what *HE* believes..."

Wright's radical, militant teachings yielding a calm, cool, and collected
Obama is *your* idea, Sam, not mine. I merely translated.

RicM

unread,
Mar 18, 2008, 11:53:13 AM3/18/08
to
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:36:07 -0400, El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet®
<siempred...@googlelaw.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:05:46 -0500, "Jolly Rogers"
><jolly...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>"El Abogado Que Delira En Usenet®" <siempred...@googlelaw.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If Johnson is on the mark, though, then the Republicans ought to
>>> be doing everything they can to promote an Obama candidacy. But
>>> they're not doing that; they're running this stealth campaign for
>>> Hillary instead. And I don't think they're doing this just to
>>> promote more in-fighting among Democrats, because as long as
>>> Democrats continue to dominate the news, McCain increasingly
>>> fades into the woodwork. Rather, I think they genuinely want
>>> Clinton to be the nominee because they think she'll be easier to beat
>>> in November. On that last point, at least, I agree with them.
>>
>>I'm not so sure. Obama has become severely damaged goods. His demise appears
>>mostly academic now.
>
>Wishful thinking, Joey. The latest USA Gallup poll shows both
>Clinton and Obama leading John McCain.
>
>http://poligazette.com/2008/03/17/obama-and-clinton-lead-mccain/
>
>Get ready for your worst nightmare.
>
>(The usual garbage snipped)
>
>-- EAQDEU®
>
>26*!! 26*!! 26*!!
>


I think your "latest poll" is a little dated.

Here's the most recent one.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104971/Gallup-Daily-McCain-47-Obamas-44.aspx

Sleep well.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages