What's McCain's Next Play?

[DavidJames]

I've heard it said early on this is Obama's race to lose. Considering the circumstances (economy, war) American's will vote for a change.

The early poll numbers supported that premise. McCain tried to rock the boat by picking Palin and it worked for a couple weeks. As things started to swing back to Obama, he pulled out another gambit and suspended his campaign to assist with the bail out issue. That didn't work.

What's next? What new gambit will McCain try to shake up the voters?

I've always thought he would hammer hard on terrorism. Portray Obama as weak and try to make voters afraid of Obama as president. I'm very surprised with only a month left, he's not taken that path.

My guess is we will begin to see very strong ad's by McCain (or those supporting him) pushing the terrorism issue and trying to portray Obama as weak.

Will McCain "sit back" and try to overcome the momentum through ad's alone or will he make some other move?

You've just been named McCain's top adviser, what would you do?

[a_unique_person]

Spend more money on attack ads.

[XBoxWarrior]

I'd pull out of Michigan...oh wait.

[Gnu World Order]

McCain's only hope is to suspend his campaign, travel to Pakistan, bring back bin Laden in handcuffs, AND convert him to Christianity.

[Upchurch]

You've just been named McCain's top adviser, what would you do?
Warm up by drinking heavily. Once I had a good buzz going, then I'd really start drinking. Hard.

[Cleon]

McCain's only hope is to suspend his campaign, travel to Pakistan, bring back bin Laden in handcuffs, AND convert him to Christianity.

With bonus points if OBL becomes a Pentecostal. :D

[GreyICE]

Bend over, stick head between legs...

[fishbob]

Go for a treatment at the hair salon that Carrie Fisher operated in the original Blues Brothers movie.

Curl Up and Dye.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not sure, but the next stunt will probably involve a preacher or minister. . .

[ZenFountain]

Change this

http://i37.tinypic.com/33bj229.png

To this

http://i37.tinypic.com/2uyqaad.png

Of course there's various combinations with the smaller swing states, but if McCain doesn't carry Florida and Ohio his chances of winning are not good. Pennsylvania is another possibility but his numbers are continuing to deteriorate there.

[fuelair]

Cry.

[corplinx]

His next act has to be something revolutionary to make the race not about Obama or Palin but about him. If she wants to call him a maverick 47 times, he needs to do something to live up to that image.

[chipmunk stew]

His next act has to be something revolutionary to make the race not about Obama or Palin but about him. If she wants to call him a maverick 47 times, he needs to do something to live up to that image.
Drop Palin and pick up Lieberman?

[Pookster]

The economy is killing him. Maybe he could die. He might get the sympathy vote that way.

[JihadJane]

Fake his own death (shouldn't be too hard) and let Palin take the flak while he sits, incognito, on a pile of looted gold, abroad, sunbathing in his swimming trunks.

[corplinx]

Drop Palin and pick up Lieberman?

We could do much worse than Joe Lieberman in the white house. Unfortunately I don't think it will happen. Despite his stance on entertainment censorship, his Iraq policy is basically the same as other democrats except he supported the surge. And for some reason this makes him a heretic.

What I am talking is policy. Right now he and Obama are having a contest to out-milquetoast each other. In their debates, mere nuance differentiates their positions.

We have our pick of two military interventionist, low tax, health care assistance candidates (neither of whom I trust to get deficit spending under control). If you vote for Obama, you get John McCain plus an end to your white guilt and a way of sticking it to Bush.

McCain has to make this a real choice. I don't think he will. I'm pretty sure its an Obama win like I was at the beginning of the summer. It would however be nice if the old vet went down with a fight ideas and not a fight of attack ads.

[davefoc]

Spend more money on attack ads.

That seems like the best strategy at this point. You probably wouldn't want to go full blast with that for another few weeks and you would want your surrogates to lead the charge.

There is some really deep seated hatred of Obama in this country. It is either racist or religiously based. But the Muslim thing plays very well in older religiously oriented blocks. If McCain could find some way to tap into that and expand it he could pick up some votes.

He could also try making the legitimate point that the Democrats are tied deeply to this financial crisis because of their support for disastrous Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae policies. He could expand on that by going after the Democrats as scary, over regulating, over taxing elitist liberals who will drive the country to disaster. No matter how fiscally irresponsible the Republicans are the hypocritical Republican mantra about this always seems to have some traction. The problem with the Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac stuff for McCain is that McCain has his own problems with disastrous financial policies going back to his Keating 5 days. But he's behind now and it might be time to experiment with some new strategies.

[chipmunk stew]

We could do much worse than Joe Lieberman in the white house. Unfortunately I don't think it will happen. Despite his stance on entertainment censorship, his Iraq policy is basically the same as other democrats except he supported the surge. And for some reason this makes him a heretic.

What I am talking is policy. Right now he and Obama are having a contest to out-milquetoast each other. In their debates, mere nuance differentiates their positions.

We have our pick of two military interventionist, low tax, health care assistance candidates (neither of whom I trust to get deficit spending under control). If you vote for Obama, you get John McCain plus an end to your white guilt and a way of sticking it to Bush.

McCain has to make this a real choice. I don't think he will. I'm pretty sure its an Obama win like I was at the beginning of the summer. It would however be nice if the old vet went down with a fight ideas and not a fight of attack ads.
Geez, you sound like Ralph Nader... Maybe he's your man.

[Nogbad]

30 days is a long time in politics (sorry Harold)

If the economic news continues to dominate and Iraq and Afghanistan stay quiet he could be sunk but some unexpected turn of events might give him an opportunity to shine (have Fox still got their terrorland alarm thingy?)

[ProbeX]

The McCain Camp announced they're about to go in for a repeat Reverend Wright attack.

They could plaster Jewish Community Centers and college campuses with "Obama-Osama is a Muslim" flyers, and slip them under the front door of American homes.

Could lie even harder - create fresh rumors based on rumors, ya know? Get Hannity to announce that Obama is plotting a fresh terrorist attack and the youtube evidence will be available to anyone who wants to see it, on November 5.

[corplinx]

Geez, you sound like Ralph Nader... Maybe he's your man.

Maybe Ralph Nader is right about the homogeneous views of the tickets. I just disagree with Nader on which of those views are correct or incorrect.

[ZenFountain]

If the economic news continues to dominate and Iraq and Afghanistan stay quiet he could be sunk but...

It would take something drastic on the war or national security fronts to take the eye off the economy at this point in time, and I mean drastic in the truest sense of the word. Looking at the electoral situation he needs to win Florida and Ohio, two states that are being pounded by the ill effects of this current situation. The suburban areas of Colorado in the corridor between Colorado Springs and Fort Collins are also being hit pretty hard, those are the voters John McCain needs to keep Colorado red.

I think he'll probably hang on to Missouri and Indiana, no telling on Virginia, but he's simply got to change the economic trajectory of his campaign in Florida and Ohio or he's toast. How does he do that? Well for starters he can stop with the gimmicks such as suspending his campaign, playing on sentiments of the day (literally, that day) and come out with a detailed economic plan. On his website he is still calling for a summer gas tax holiday as part of his relief plan, really it's a joke.

Given the confidence Palin displayed last night, he might try to reignite the culture war (http://www.newsweek.com/id/162151) in a big way as well in an attempt to stir up values voters. I thought that was his plan all along with the Palin pick, but every time she has been on the TV trying to light the kindling on same sex marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc. she's had a meltdown that overshadowed everything else.

[SezMe]

We're gonna see the ressurection of Rev. Wright. Big time.

[Cleon]

Going uber-negative is really McCain's only shot.

I'm thinking it'll work as well for him as it did for Bush Sr. in 92.

[BenBurch]

What does McCain do now?

http://wedie.ytmnd.com/

(Only makes sense if you saw that film, sorry.)

[MattusMaximus]

Drop Palin and pick up Lieberman?


McCain would be sunk for sure if he did that. He'd immediately lose the support of most of the religious right conservatives who are giddy about Palin. And without the GOP base, McCain has no chance at all.

[MattusMaximus]

We're gonna see the ressurection of Rev. Wright. Big time.


Yup, that and the whole William Ayers thing. Now that McCain and the GOP are obviously backed into a corner, they're going to turn the negative-ads dial all the way up to 11.

If you thought the mud-slinging in 2004 was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[SezMe]

If you thought the mud-slinging in 2004 was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Hey, we can use our own local BACometer to measure the ugliness coefficient of the campaign. The more he creates and posts in his Stuck-on-Stupid threads, the worse it is. :)

[Crowlogic]

McCain's last move could be to phone Bush and tell him that right about then is a good time to start that war with Iran George has been itching to start. So Bush starts war declares national emergency elections get waived and lo and behold the status que gets preserved. Elections? what elections? We don't need no stinking elections!

[HereticHulk]

McCain should drop out of the race and endorse Ron Paul and get outta the way for real change.

[GreyICE]

McCain should drop out of the race and endorse Ron Paul and get outta the way for real change.

Right about the time Palin grows wings and flaps to Russia.

[ZenFountain]

McCain's last move could be to phone Bush and tell him that right about then is a good time to start that war with Iran George has been itching to start.

I wouldn't doubt someone in the McCain campaign has contemplated eleventh hour fear mongering as a strategy of last resort, but it would likely backfire in a big way. It didn't work in 2004 when the Bush team tried scare people into thinking we'd be more likely to be attacked again if a Democrat was elected and it certainly wouldn't work now.

When it came down to Obama v Clinton in the primary he pretty well had her pinned into a corner where any drastic moves or new lines of attack against him made her look desperate or evil. McCain is headed strait into that same position with all the idiotic press conferences and campaign maneuvers over the past few weeks, to the point where his only hope will be to come out guns blazing with attack ads as others have mentioned.

[corplinx]

McCain's last move could be to phone Bush and tell him that right about then is a good time to start that war with Iran George has been itching to start. So Bush starts war declares national emergency elections get waived and lo and behold the status que gets preserved. Elections? what elections? We don't need no stinking elections!

The amazing thing to me is that all of those commies and hippies who claimed we were beating the war drums on Iran somehow missed the very provocative way Biden described Pakistan.

I'm shocked Biden didn't march into Greta Van Sustern's studio earlier in the week and detain the president of Pakistan himself, who was talking with her during his US visit.

[ZenFountain]

McCain should drop out of the race and endorse Ron Paul and get outta the way for real change.

The only way Ron Paul could have won is if the Democrats had nominated Osama bin Laden and moveon.org.

Ron Paul, catastrophe you can believe in!

[Smackety]

The amazing thing to me is that all of those commies and hippies who claimed we were beating the war drums on Iran somehow missed the very provocative way Biden described Pakistan.

I'm shocked Biden didn't march into Greta Van Sustern's studio earlier in the week and detain the president of Pakistan himself, who was talking with her during his US visit.

Iran != Pakistan

[SezMe]

McCain's last move could be to phone Bush and tell him that right about then is a good time to start that war with Iran George has been itching to start. So Bush starts war declares national emergency elections get waived and lo and behold the status que gets preserved. Elections? what elections? We don't need no stinking elections!

McCain should drop out of the race and endorse Ron Paul and get outta the way for real change.
Jesus, what is this? Fantasyland? It's Friday night so maybe everyone is posting while ****faced. There must be SOME explanation for the nuttery level in here.

[SezMe]

I wouldn't doubt someone in the McCain campaign has contemplated eleventh hour fear mongering as a strategy of last resort, but it would likely backfire in a big way. It didn't work in 2004 when the Bush team tried scare people into thinking we'd be more likely to be attacked again if a Democrat was elected and it certainly wouldn't work now.
Gawd, it must be the air. Remind me again who won in 2004.

[GreyICE]

Jesus, what is this? Fantasyland? It's Friday night so maybe everyone is posting while ****faced. There must be SOME explanation for the nuttery level in here.

It's a day of the week ending in ...day?

[ZenFountain]

Gawd, it must be the air. Remind me again who won in 2004.

I know who won in 2004, what I said was Rove's tactic of trying to scare people into thinking that we'd be less safe with Kerry didn't work, it actually backfired and got Kerry back in the race after the first debate when Kerry hammered Bush on how it was the war in Iraq that was making us less safe. Winning in the end doesn't validate every tactic used in a campaign.

[HereticHulk]

The only way Ron Paul could have won is if the Democrats had nominated Osama bin Laden and moveon.org.

Ron Paul, catastrophe you can believe in!

Well the Dems and Reps have more or less put OBL on a pedestal and are playing directly into his stated goal for America.

And if by catastrophe you mean real change for peace, prosperity and sound economy? I agree.

[GreyICE]

Well the Dems and Reps have more or less put OBL on a pedestal and are playing directly into his stated goal for America.

And if by catastrophe you mean real change for peace, prosperity and sound economy? I agree.

No, I think he meant like Hurricane Katrina.

[not_so_new]

First... there is a LOT of time left in this deal. I don't count Obama as a winner until he is sworn in.

Second.... I think McCain has only one option, ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. It is going to piss me off, lies really bother me.

The thing that scares me is the economy getting marginally better for a few weeks before tanking again.

Before anyone says it.... I DO NOT want want to see the economy tank for my guy to win.

I just don't feel any half educated person thinks this bailout is going to fix things overnight if at all. Any slightly good economic news in the next 30 or so days is just going to be a slight bump in the rocky road ahead of us for the next 2 years give or take... but we know the attention span of the average citizen.

Two weeks of positive economic news is what McCain really needs now and it could happen. The economy, even when circling the drain, has swings and if a slight upswing happens while we are in the home stretch McCain could be right back in the running again.

[Smackety]

Economy circling the drain? Too much TV man...

[not_so_new]

Economy circling the drain? Too much TV man...

Really?

You think things are going well do you? I hear Johny "The Fundamentals of Our Economy Are Strong" McCain is looking for a few economic advisers if you are looking for a gig.

[gdnp]

McCain's last move could be to phone Bush and tell him that right about then is a good time to start that war with Iran George has been itching to start. So Bush starts war declares national emergency elections get waived and lo and behold the status que gets preserved. Elections? what elections? We don't need no stinking elections!

1) Alternatively, he could call Israel. It's about the only western country where McCain is favored over Obama. Israeli air strikes on Iranian nukular facilities would certainly push foreign policy back to the front burner.

2) Leak a video to the press of Osama Bin Laden congratulating Obama on his victory. Simultaneously, point out to everyone how similar Obama 'n' Biden and Osama bin Laden sound.

3) McCain can truly display his maverick credentials and willingness to reach across the aisle by announcing that he is suspending his campaign, endorsing Obama, and has agreed to a newly created position in the Obama cabinet, secretary of earmark elimination.

[Wangler]

Second.... I think McCain has only one option, ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. It is going to piss me off, lies really bother me.

Not all attack ads promulgate lies, but the bad attack ads do.

The thing that scares me is the economy getting marginally better for a few weeks before tanking again.

Before anyone says it.... I DO NOT want want to see the economy tank for my guy to win.

I just don't feel any half educated person thinks this bailout is going to fix things overnight if at all. Any slightly good economic news in the next 30 or so days is just going to be a slight bump in the rocky road ahead of us for the next 2 years give or take... but we know the attention span of the average citizen.

Two weeks of positive economic news is what McCain really needs now and it could happen. The economy, even when circling the drain, has swings and if a slight upswing happens while we are in the home stretch McCain could be right back in the running again.

Despite you saying you don't want the economy to tank, I find that hard to reconcile with your statements.

My concern is the long-term recovery and stability of the economy, and I see McCain's policies as the better choice in that regard.

[not_so_new]

Not all attack ads promulgate lies, but the bad attack ads do.

I agree, and I stand corrected. That is a better description for my view as well.

Despite you saying you don't want the economy to tank, I find that hard to reconcile with your statements.

My concern is the long-term recovery and stability of the economy, and I see McCain's policies as the better choice in that regard.

So you are saying I am lying because I don't believe in your viewpoint? Okay.

[Wangler]

So you are saying I am lying because I don't believe in your viewpoint? Okay.

No, I am saying that your statement about not wanting the economy to worsen were hard for me to reconcile with your post.

The stuff about what I think was just put in there so you would know where I was coming from.

[not_so_new]

No, I am saying that your statement about not wanting the economy to worsen were hard for me to reconcile with your post.

The stuff about what I think was just put in there so you would know where I was coming from.

Just wanted to make sure I was clear on what you were saying.

So......

Do you think the economy is going to get better for the long run in the next 30 days and we are out of the woods with job loss, credit shortages, bad debt and consumer confidence?

[MattusMaximus]

On Friday, I posted this about McCain's next campaign move...

Yup, that and the whole William Ayers thing. Now that McCain and the GOP are obviously backed into a corner, they're going to turn the negative-ads dial all the way up to 11.

If you thought the mud-slinging in 2004 was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.


And I sign onto my computer today to see this headline...

McCain camp: Obama is 'radical,' pals around with terrorists (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/McCain_camp_Obama_is_radical_pals_around_with_terr orists.html)

Pegged to a Times story that adds nothing to the theory that Obama and Bill Ayers were particularly close, the McCain camp is focusing on that association again today, in an attempt to move the conversation beyond the economic issues on which Obama looks to spend the last month of the race.

Palin hit Obama a bit harder on this than McCain has in the past. ...

... "This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country," Palin concluded, in the hardest shot of the statement. ...


So now, according to McCain's campaign, Obama "pals around with terrorists" - good grief. Well, I'm not surprised; in fact, I predicted this very thing in my earlier post. I need to start advertising as a psychic, it seems :rolleyes:

The best part about this story is that when Palin was called out on her outright lies by the press, who have thoroughly check this story numerous times and found it to be false (this is a very old claim, btw), she boldly claims that it's the press who have the story wrong. Nice.

[chipmunk stew]

On Friday, I posted this about McCain's next campaign move...




And I sign onto my computer today to see this headline...

McCain camp: Obama is 'radical,' pals around with terrorists (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/McCain_camp_Obama_is_radical_pals_around_with_terr orists.html)




So now, according to McCain's campaign, Obama "pals around with terrorists" - good grief. Well, I'm not surprised; in fact, I predicted this very thing in my earlier post. I need to start advertising as a psychic, it seems :rolleyes:

The best part about this story is that when Palin was called out on her outright lies by the press, who have thoroughly check this story numerous times and found it to be false (this is a very old claim, btw), she boldly claims that it's the press who have the story wrong. Nice.
Well I suggested early on that if McCain really wanted to make a splash, he should pick Sarah Palin as a running mate.

The fact that the McCain camp is being run by people with political instincts on par with yours and mine should be very depressing to McCain supporters. :)

[MattusMaximus]

Well I suggested early on that if McCain really wanted to make a splash, he should pick Sarah Palin as a running mate.

The fact that the McCain camp is being run by people with political instincts on par with yours and mine should be very depressing to McCain supporters. :)


In addition to advertising as a psychic, apparently I could also be a highly paid consultant for the Republican Party, or at least McCain's campaign. Truth be told, I'm pretty certain there are some very politically savvy corners of the GOP who are shaking their heads in disbelief that McCain would go this particular route. At least, they're wondering why his own running mate would say something so stupid - leave such things up to the 527s, so that at least there is a chance of plausible deniability.

Recall that it was Karl Rove himself who stated a couple of weeks ago that McCain's campaign had gotten too negative with "lipstick on a pig" - Rove must be wondering what McCain's people are smoking now.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

2) Leak a video to the press of Osama Bin Laden congratulating Obama on his victory.

Is this supposed to conjure up images of the Bin Laden tape released less than a week before the 2004 election? Didn't Bush go from tied to a several point lead after that tape? Then again as far as I remember there was also a decent percentage drop in gas prices around the same time.

[GreyICE]

McCain camp: Obama is 'radical,' pals around with terrorists (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/McCain_camp_Obama_is_radical_pals_around_with_terr orists.html)

So now, according to McCain's campaign, Obama "pals around with terrorists" - good grief. Well, I'm not surprised; in fact, I predicted this very thing in my earlier post. I need to start advertising as a psychic, it seems :rolleyes:
I think Sylvia Brown could have seen this one coming. It's not like we haven't seen it before... 2004, 2000... when the going gets tough, the Dirty Tricks committee gets out their favorite tools. CREEP lives on.

The best part about this story is that when Palin was called out on her outright lies by the press, who have thoroughly check this story numerous times and found it to be false (this is a very old claim, btw), she boldly claims that it's the press who have the story wrong. Nice. Of course she did. After all, the Republicans finally screwed up. They nominated a truly stupid individual. Bush, whatever else I may say about him, is not stupid. Egotistical, deluded, and more committed to his philosophy than facts, even when the two are head to head, yes. But Palin is just too STUPID (not retarded stupid. Just average American stupid). You need to hem and haw and imply that the press got the facts wrong without ever being pinned down. That takes a certain amount of speaking skill, that takes talent, and that takes thinking on your feet.

She has talking points, a can-do attitude, and lots of moose. She can't play this game. They're going to crucify her (I smell the 'liberal media' cries already).

[davefoc]

...

Recall that it was Karl Rove himself who stated a couple of weeks ago that McCain's campaign had gotten too negative with "lipstick on a pig" - Rove must be wondering what McCain's people are smoking now.

I wish your instincts were right on this and that going for illegitimate negative attacks was going to backfire on the McCain/Palin campaign, but I think you're wrong. I was listening to Fox News this morning and it was a steady stream of ACORN and Bill Ayers. They aren't even attempting to put it in the guise of editorial. They are just flat out working it into regular news stories for completely partisan purposes and the fact is that it works. A lot of people listen to Fox News and a lot of those people believe that Obama was palling around with terrorists and supporting their causes that wouldn't have without the Fox News propaganda machine.

The fact is that at this point in time, probably the only possible way that McCain can win is with unfair negative attacks. There is the possibility that he could ramp up the racial and Muslim concerns some way or other but that would be tricky (and it is possible that he might have ethical qualms about doing it) but I think we are going to see a steady stream of more routine unfair negative attacks from now until the election from the McCain camp.

Dealing with this will be the most interesting challenge yet for the Obama campaign staff. Truth is almost no defense against this kind of stuff. I think some combination of counter attacks that play off McCain's attacks, some unfair attacks of their own with surrogates leading the charge and quick responses with overwhelming evidence of the untruths is what he needs to do.

There is one other strategy that I think Obama should pursue. Right now there is a big chunk of voters that have bought into the standard Republcan rhetoric about how fiscally and economically responsible they are. Obama needs to pound away on the total hypocrisy of the Republican rhetoric on this. Borrowing massive amounts of cash from the Chinese to keep spending high and taxes low is not responsible or sustainable. He needs to reassure voters that he is a fiscal conservative and that he will get the country's finances back in order. On this issue, he can even carve out a little ground to the right of the Republicans and still be on safe ground with his base and still be in a position to attract some independents that fear the Democrats alleged fiscally irresponsible ways.

[ZenFountain]

Recall that it was Karl Rove himself who stated a couple of weeks ago that McCain's campaign had gotten too negative

Nothing is too low for Karl Rove, he only says that now because he's smart enough to know this is a tactically bad decision for McCain.

According to "Democratic surrogates", whoever they are, the Obama campaign has given them the green light to inject McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal into the news. Obama's affiliation with Ayers looks bad but it's not going to sink him. If McCain has go on the defensive against his affiliation with Charles Keating it's a disaster. In light of the current banking crisis and a public outrage at the perceived instigators there is no way he comes out clean from this if the news channels eat it up and run with it, and they probably will because that's what you get with a dozen 24 hour news channels.

Judging by his previous campaign moves, McCain will probably come out in a few days complaining that Obama is playing dirty and call to suspend all negative attack ads, while there's a McCain attack ad playing on a giant TV screen behind him.

[MattusMaximus]

I have no doubt that the "terrorists" angle will work to whip up the Fox News crowd - it's a strategy no doubt designed to do just that, especially since McCain's numbers have started to lag again with the GOP base of late.

The real question is whether or not it will alienate the very voters that McCain needs to win, namely undecideds & independents. I question whether or not it is a useful strategy for reaching those folks, and I think it is very likely that it will actually backfire and repel more undecideds from McCain than it attracts.

So far it seems that Obama's campaign is responding swiftly and strongly to this latest broadside - their "Erratic McCain" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/05/obama-ad-responds-to-comi_n_131982.html) ad seems to be a very good pre-emptive counter-move. The fact that Obama is way ahead in the polls and has a strong, well-funded, and disciplined campaign is a big plus over Kerry when he got "swift-boated" in 2004. We'll see what happens.

ETA: I still maintain that, should the Dems go that route, the "Keating Five" charge against McCain will be far more damaging than this "terrorists" stuff against Obama. I say this because the average undecided voter will, I think, see the claim that Obama palls around with terrorists to be just too much of a reach. As I said, we'll see... but in the meantime, there's going to be a LOT of mud being slung around. Ugh.

[chipmunk stew]

If McCain brings up Ayers and Rezko during the debate, all Obama has to do is say, "John, I know you want to turn the page on the economy, and I could talk about your friendship with G. Gordon Liddy and Charles Keating, but the American people can't turn the page on the economy, so that's what I'm going to talk about." The media then reports on Liddy and Keating.

[MattusMaximus]

If McCain brings up Ayers and Rezko during the debate, all Obama has to do is say, "John, I know you want to turn the page on the economy, and I could talk about your friendship with G. Gordon Liddy and Charles Keating, but the American people can't turn the page on the economy, so that's what I'm going to talk about." The media then reports on Liddy and Keating.


I honestly don't think Obama will even have to say anything about that. Chances are you'll be seeing news stories tomorrow about McCain's association with both Liddy and Keating. It's already all over the blogosphere.

McCain messed up. The Dems were waiting in the wings with some big guns, and now they've clicked the safeties to "off" and are taking aim...

[dirtywick]

I have no doubt that the "terrorists" angle will work to whip up the Fox News crowd - it's a strategy no doubt designed to do just that, especially since McCain's numbers have started to lag again with the GOP base of late.

The real question is whether or not it will alienate the very voters that McCain needs to win, namely undecideds & independents. I question whether or not it is a useful strategy for reaching those folks, and I think it is very likely that it will actually backfire and repel more undecideds from McCain than it attracts.

So far it seems that Obama's campaign is responding swiftly and strongly to this latest broadside - their "Erratic McCain" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/05/obama-ad-responds-to-comi_n_131982.html) ad seems to be a very good pre-emptive counter-move. The fact that Obama is way ahead in the polls and has a strong, well-funded, and disciplined campaign is a big plus over Kerry when he got "swift-boated" in 2004. We'll see what happens.

ETA: I still maintain that, should the Dems go that route, the "Keating Five" charge against McCain will be far more damaging than this "terrorists" stuff against Obama. I say this because the average undecided voter will, I think, see the claim that Obama palls around with terrorists to be just too much of a reach. As I said, we'll see... but in the meantime, there's going to be a LOT of mud being slung around. Ugh.

McCain needs both the base and independants. Obama doesn't really have that problem. Defeating the Republicans after eight years of Bush is enough to get his base out, the Democrat base is going to turn out pretty big this year I think after the last two elections especially. Even if you eliminate the independants I'd wager he'd be pretty well behind, and the far right doesn't even like McCain to begin with!

I don't know, McCain's been fighting an uphill battle, not doing too bad either because I didn't really think the Republicans had a shot this year at all, but he's pretty well ********** now. He's falling further behind, Palin helped reenergize his campaign but soon, if not already, she'll be starting to hurt it.

He should try and shift focus of Palin and onto Biden. Something about how Obama will be leaning on Biden because of his lack of experience, and Biden sucks at life and will be terrible. Shift focus off Palin though is priority number one.

[davefoc]

...
The real question is whether or not it will alienate the very voters that McCain needs to win, namely undecideds & independents. I question whether or not it is a useful strategy for reaching those folks, and I think it is very likely that it will actually backfire and repel more undecideds from McCain than it attracts.

...

That is certainly one of the main questions involved in this thread and I remain less optimistic than the apparent consensus of this thread that negative campaign tactics especially when tag teamed with Fox News, Limbaugh and Glenn Beck will backfire.

Let's take a couple of unfair negative attacks on Palin:
1. Palin favored charging rape victims for rape kits.
2. Palin tried to ban books in the local library.

What has been the net effect of these charges? I suspect that the net effect is a loss of votes for McCain and Palin. Was it fair to drag these charges up and parade them around in misleading way? I'm not sure. Politics is a competition and this kind of thing seems to be accepted as a legitimate strategy today. Both sides do it. It would be difficult to restrict. There is a big gray area between legitimate attack and illegitimate attacks and I don't know who you'd get to sort out the illegitimate from the legitimate.

It is easy to attack Fox News for their shennanigans with regard to this but about 25% (Wild ass guess) of the HuffingtonPost headlines are significantly misleading about the underlying story, often for the purposes of skewing the story in the direction of the candidates and causes they favor.

[DavidJames]

If McCain brings up Ayers and Rezko during the debate, all Obama has to do is say, "John, I know you want to turn the page on the economy, and I could talk about your friendship with G. Gordon Liddy and Charles Keating, but the American people can't turn the page on the economy, so that's what I'm going to talk about." The media then reports on Liddy and Keating.

Exactly and I think Obama's ads should do the same. Pound away about how McCain doesn't want to talk about himself, he doesn't want to talk about the real issues, he just wants to shovel dirt.

[not_so_new]

That is certainly one of the main questions involved in this thread and I remain less optimistic than the apparent consensus of this thread that negative campaign tactics especially when tag teamed with Fox News, Limbaugh and Glenn Beck will backfire.

Let's take a couple of unfair negative attacks on Palin:
1. Palin favored charging rape victims for rape kits.
2. Palin tried to ban books in the local library.

What has been the net effect of these charges? I suspect that the net effect is a loss of votes for McCain and Palin. Was it fair to drag these charges up and parade them around in misleading way? I'm not sure. Politics is a competition and this kind of thing seems to be accepted as a legitimate strategy today. Both sides do it. It would be difficult to restrict. There is a big gray area between legitimate attack and illegitimate attacks and I don't know who you'd get to sort out the illegitimate from the legitimate.

It is easy to attack Fox News for their shennanigans with regard to this but about 25% (Wild ass guess) of the HuffingtonPost headlines are significantly misleading about the underlying story, often for the purposes of skewing the story in the direction of the candidates and causes they favor.

I am with you on this one. I think negative ads do more than people give them credit for, that's why campaigns do them after all.

The Republican base is going to eat it up but they were not going to vote for Obama anyway and stuff like this will bounce off Democrats so this is completely about independents.

How does it play with people who are not sure what to believe in the first place? I have to assume that these negative things will get more people to vote for McCain than against him.

I think the people who are going to vote on issues are just going to put up their hands and "that's politics" while staying on the fence. Call me cynical but I don't know if a lot of people are going to get so turned off to vote against McCain so the net effect is that some people will buy it and it could make a bigger difference than people here are giving here on this board.

[Pookster]

The Dow is down 374 points at this moment. It is below 10,000 for the first time in 4 years.

The economy must hate John McCain. It must, I say!

[fuelair]

Beg Palin for a Snow Job or something like it.

[Upchurch]

I honestly don't think Obama will even have to say anything about that. Chances are you'll be seeing news stories tomorrow about McCain's association with both Liddy and Keating. It's already all over the blogosphere.

McCain messed up. The Dems were waiting in the wings with some big guns, and now they've clicked the safeties to "off" and are taking aim...
FIRE! (http://keatingeconomics.com/)


So, on the one hand, we have Obama who was on the board of a charitable organization with a former 60's dangerous radical hippy and had nothing to do with said dangerous radical hippiness. On the other hand, we have McCain (allegedly) helping out a corrupt banker during an economic crisis that cost tax payers about $124.6 billion.

They are either very desperate or very stupid. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, mind you. In fact, the one probably leads to the other.

[Pookster]

The Dow is down 374 points at this moment. It is below 10,000 for the first time in 4 years.

The economy must hate John McCain. It must, I say!


Now it's down 500. Guess what will dominate the headlines.

[BenBurch]

Beg Palin for a Snow Job or something like it.

A stripper I know got arrested for saying "Something like that." when a client asked if he would get a *ahem* in the champaign room... The judge asked her what she meant and she said (truthfully) that she was going to tease the client by doing a banana...

For future reference please see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Sex_(In_the_Champagne_Room)

[not_so_new]

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she (Palin) continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/06/in_fla_palin_goes_for_the_roug.html

[Pookster]

Now it's down 500. Guess what will dominate the headlines.


Make that 612 points.

[BenBurch]

Make that 612 points.

709 points now. :eek:

[BenBurch]

Oil below $89/bbl! The wheels of the world really are grinding to a halt!

[Pookster]

709 points now. :eek:

Oil below $89/bbl! The wheels of the world really are grinding to a halt!


These are the headlines. People are seriously worried about the economy. A poll out today showed 60% think we could fall into another Depression. The McCain campaigns attempts to refocus the message just got a face full of fail.


ETA: Link to poll - http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/06/news/economy/depression_poll/index.htm

[DrBaltar]

I was glad to see that McCain was finally going on the attack over the Obama-Ayers association. I figured the average American wouldn't stand for that kind of past in a presidential candidate. And obviously (at least to me, apparently not to Obama or the media or to Obama supporters) the McCain campaign wasn't suggesting that Obama was with Ayers during '69-'72 when the Weather Underground was bombing government buildings.

I had hoped that McCain & Palin would have spelled it out better that Obama and Ayers worked together on the bylaws of the CAC (Chicago Annenberg Challenge) to raise money, not for schools, but for organizations that the schools were supposed to then be associated with. So basically CAC just used the education angle to fund radical left wing socialist groups. Groups like ACORN which pressured mortgage companies into making bad loans, which of course relates directly back to the current economic crisis, and places Obama with not only a domestic terrorist, but knee deep in the action where groups like ACORN were demanding that poor minorities get these loans. This also explains the large amount of campaign money that Obama received from Fannie & Freddie, etc.

I would think all of this is relevant. Both to Obama's character and to the economic crisis which is probably the #1 priority with voters. I mean, we can't just bail out these companies and assign blame to the ones who have been trying to warn congress about the coming financial crisis. Do you really think that Obama would tell lenders not to give loans to minorities who can't afford them?

So in light of all this I was glad to see these things brought up. Looking at the reactions though, I failed to remember that people just want 'hope' and 'change'. They don't want silly details. Who cares about that Bill Ayers guy that Obama worked with for years. He was just some misguided youth who bombed government buildings and broke people out of jail with his buddies. Come on, haven't we all done silly stuff like this when we were young? Ignore things he says like on 9/11/01 when he said "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." He's just a bit eccentric.

[not_so_new]

I was glad to see that McCain was finally going on the attack over the Obama-Ayers association. I figured the average American wouldn't stand for that kind of past in a presidential candidate. And obviously (at least to me, apparently not to Obama or the media or to Obama supporters) the McCain campaign wasn't suggesting that Obama was with Ayers during '69-'72 when the Weather Underground was bombing government buildings.

I had hoped that McCain & Palin would have spelled it out better that Obama and Ayers worked together on the bylaws of the CAC (Chicago Annenberg Challenge) to raise money, not for schools, but for organizations that the schools were supposed to then be associated with. So basically CAC just used the education angle to fund radical left wing socialist groups. Groups like ACORN which pressured mortgage companies into making bad loans, which of course relates directly back to the current economic crisis, and places Obama with not only a domestic terrorist, but knee deep in the action where groups like ACORN were demanding that poor minorities get these loans. This also explains the large amount of campaign money that Obama received from Fannie & Freddie, etc.

I would think all of this is relevant. Both to Obama's character and to the economic crisis which is probably the #1 priority with voters. I mean, we can't just bail out these companies and assign blame to the ones who have been trying to warn congress about the coming financial crisis. Do you really think that Obama would tell lenders not to give loans to minorities who can't afford them?

So in light of all this I was glad to see these things brought up. Looking at the reactions though, I failed to remember that people just want 'hope' and 'change'. They don't want silly details. Who cares about that Bill Ayers guy that Obama worked with for years. He was just some misguided youth who bombed government buildings and broke people out of jail with his buddies. Come on, haven't we all done silly stuff like this when we were young? Ignore things he says like on 9/11/01 when he said "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." He's just a bit eccentric.

*sigh*

So you claim that it's just Obama supporters overlooking the facts... did you ever stop to think that YOU might have a built in bias here on your side and YOU are not looking at the facts clearly enough?

And IF Obama has a deeper connection to a former radical, which at this time looks to be tenuous at best, what are we supposed to think about Palin and her association to her husband... you know.. .the guy who is part of the party that "hates America."

It's all a bunch of BS. There is SO much more to talk about, SO many things going wrong with our nation (you might have looked at a few headlines in the last few years... or even today (http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/06/news/international/world_markets/?postversion=2008100613)).

This whole Ayers is just a diversion to REAL issues, care to talk about them?

[David Wong]

I actually laughed out loud at the claim that ACORN caused the credit meltdown.

These guys are just adorable!

[DavidJames]

This whole Ayers is just a diversion to REAL issues, care to talk about them?Exactly, to paraphrase what I said in another thread.

It looks like McCain's next play will include anything but talking about the real issues.

[chipmunk stew]

I actually laughed out loud at the claim that ACORN caused the credit meltdown.

These guys are just adorable!
Calling ACORN a "radical left wing socialist group" is ever so cute, too.

[davefoc]

...

I had hoped that McCain & Palin would have spelled it out better that Obama and Ayers worked together on the bylaws of the CAC (Chicago Annenberg Challenge) to raise money, not for schools, but for organizations that the schools were supposed to then be associated with.

Can you provide a source?




So basically CAC just used the education angle to fund radical left wing socialist groups. Source?



Groups like ACORN which pressured mortgage companies into making bad loans, which of course relates directly back to the current economic crisis, and places Obama with not only a domestic terrorist, but knee deep in the action where groups like ACORN were demanding that poor minorities get these loans. I believe that Obama served as a lawyer for ACORN. At least some pressuring of banks to stop redlining practices seems like it might be justified but beyond a certain point I agree it is advocacy for faulty policy. Do you have source material on what Obama did for ACORN when he represented them?




This also explains the large amount of campaign money that Obama received from Fannie & Freddie, etc.
A legitimate criticism assuming it's true. But a criticism that is true of many members of congress, Republican and Democrat. The tie in to Obama's legal representation of ACORN is tenuous. Lots of congressman got lots of money from Fannie and Freddie and I doubt that many provided legal representation to ACORN.



I would think all of this is relevant. Both to Obama's characterAccepting funds from Fannie and Freddy is a legitimate hit, I agree. The rest borders on pure crap unless you can provide more substantiation than Sean Hannity sound bites. The tie in to Ayers is very tenuous and characterizing it as palling around is a lie.



and to the economic crisis which is probably the #1 priority with voters. I mean, we can't just bail out these companies and assign blame to the ones who have been trying to warn congress about the coming financial crisis. Do you really think that Obama would tell lenders not to give loans to minorities who can't afford them?
The Republicans had six years to fix this problem. They did nothing except drag the country down with crony driven hyper spending. The failure happened on their watch. If you can't see how out of control earmarks and crony driven hyper spending and borrowing contributed enormously to this problem you are too mired in your partisan biases to be worth listening to.



So in light of all this I was glad to see these things brought up.

If you think Obama was palling around with terrorists I can see how you might be glad that it was brought up. It wasn't true in any substantive way any more than Palin wanted to charge rape victims for rape kits. But as MattusMaximus said this kind of crap serves to work up the base as you have so skillfully demonstrated.

[boloboffin]

At a rally today, John McCain asked, "Who is the real Barack Obama?"

Someone yells out clearly, "A terrorist!"

RvXf9AUHTqM

John McCain gives a little frown and moves on.

He does not correct the man. After all, his own vice president is currently making connections between Ayers the terrorists and Obama. He simply gives a little frown and moves on.

This is dangerous. Already people have been arrested who intended to try and assassinate Senator Obama. It is unconscionable for Senator McCain to be building this level of anger in his supporters, to try and ride this crest of hatred to the White House. I dare say that should the same thing have happened at an Obama rally, Obama would have been the first to call that person out and dress him down.

But McCain appears to be soliciting votes from wherever and in any way he can.

Shame on him.

[not_so_new]

At a rally today, John McCain asked, "Who is the real Barack Obama?"

Someone yells out clearly, "A terrorist!"

RvXf9AUHTqM

John McCain gives a little frown and moves on.

He does not correct the man. After all, his own vice president is currently making connections between Ayers the terrorists and Obama. He simply gives a little frown and moves on.

This is dangerous. Already people have been arrested who intended to try and assassinate Senator Obama. It is unconscionable for Senator McCain to be building this level of anger in his supporters, to try and ride this crest of hatred to the White House. I dare say that should the same thing have happened at an Obama rally, Obama would have been the first to call that person out and dress him down.

But McCain appears to be soliciting votes from wherever and in any way he can.

Shame on him.

I agree. It just goes along with my post above, it is a very scary situation being set up here. It only takes one wacko to believe everything that the GOP is feeding them to go off and "make history."

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she (Palin) continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

[DrBaltar]

Can you provide a source?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

I believe that Obama served as a lawyer for ACORN. At least some pressuring of banks to stop redlining practices seems like it might be justified but beyond a certain point I agree it is advocacy for faulty policy. Do you have source material on what Obama did for ACORN when he represented them?
Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.

His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal: "After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote..."

From here (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html) and here (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article).

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining"-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.Source (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2114)


ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.Source (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html)

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.Source (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0)



A legitimate criticism assuming it's true. But a criticism that is true of many members of congress, Republican and Democrat. The tie in to Obama's legal representation of ACORN is tenuous. Lots of congressman got lots of money from Fannie and Freddie and I doubt that many provided legal representation to ACORN.Well yeah, there's Chris Dodd who tops the Fannie & Freddie contribution list, but he's been in Washington since the 70s. Same with most of them. Obama's only been a senator for 3 years.

ETA: There's more interesting info about Obama, ACORN, and the financial mess here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20080930/bs_ibd_ibd/20080930issues).

[varwoche]

I busted McCain. As of a minute ago, his next play was to serve me my first jref banner ad. :D

[Whiplash]

On Friday, I posted this about McCain's next campaign move...

*snip*

Goodness Mattus, political pundits from all over have been predicting that McCain was going to bring back both Ayres and Rev. Wright in October, and for months now. I even remember Hannity claiming it would happen several times, with glee (and I disagreed with his glee over it, I'm sick of all the negative stuff from both sides).

Are you really trying to act like you hit some major prediction here? Most campaigns (both sides) kick into full negative mode based on the biggest negatives attached to a candidate in October. I'd rather that both sides didn't do it, as I've said before. But I admit, hoping for change on this is like hoping that sharks will suddenly stop being vicious predators.

[BenBurch]

I was glad to see that McCain was finally going on the attack over the Obama-Ayers association. ...

Please tell me you are kidding me? You don't REALLY support McCarthy-esque allegations like that?

[Radrook]

I don't know what's next but if I were him I'd tell Palin to wipe that mindless beauty-queen smile off her face. It tends to convey a distracting Narcisism. IMHO

[MattusMaximus]

Wow, it's like I'm psychic - maybe I should go for the $1 million challenge? :D

I honestly don't think Obama will even have to say anything about that. Chances are you'll be seeing news stories tomorrow about McCain's association with both Liddy and Keating. It's already all over the blogosphere.

McCain messed up. The Dems were waiting in the wings with some big guns, and now they've clicked the safeties to "off" and are taking aim...


Sure thing, the first thing I hear on the radio news this morning is a story about John McCain and the Keating Five. And it's getting plenty of play in the press - check it out:

Keating Economics (http://keatingeconomics.com)

qsI_0bV2CZo

Ouch. So much for McCain "turning the page on the economy" :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Here's an interesting analysis by FiveThirtyEight.com which explains why McCain/Palin's "terrorist" charge against Obama is (probably) doomed to failure...

Why It (Probably) Won't Work (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/why-it-probably-wont-work.html)

... I am not here to dispute that this is McCain's best strategy -- in the same way that an onside kick is a team's best strategy when it trails late in the game with no timeouts left. But like the onside kick, it is fairly unlikely to work.

For one thing, increasing numbers of middle class Americans may already have decided that Barack Obama is their home team. One of the more powerful dynamics during the first Presidential debate is that Obama, in the first 15 minutes of the proceedings, pointed to himself and said, "Hey! Middle Class! I'm your guy!". McCain did not mention the middle class, instead reverting to traditional Republican talking points about supply-side economics. From there forward in that debate, dial testers reacted poorly when McCain attacked Obama, or appeared to be contemptuous of him. ...

... It may be quite difficult for McCain to attack Obama in this fashion without significantly damaging his own brand. The chart below presents a smoothed curve of each candidate's net favorability ratings since the first of the year:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_774748ead5db82da1.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14028)

What's interesting is that, with the exception of the past couple of weeks, McCain's and Obama's ratings have been fairly strongly correlated, tending to rise and fall together. This is not to say that negative campaigning doesn't work -- it sometimes does -- but it works at diminished efficiency, because you may be giving back 50 cents on the dollar by harming your own approval scores.

If the McCain campaign brings up William Ayers -- or Jeremiah Wright -- it will almost certianly be seen as attack politics. This might seem to be stating the obvious. But remember that this wasn't the case during the primaries. The Wright and Ayers stories were instead driven by actual news -- ABC's reporting of Wright's inflammatory sermons, for instance -- and were largely not pushed by the Clinton campaign. So unless McCain's oppo research team is sitting on some fresh news about Obama's ties to Ayers or Wright, the stories are liable to be reported as a typical partisan attack, which will impeach their credibility in the public's eyes and reduce their staying power. ...


Having said that this doesn't really put Obama into any political danger, I will agree with other posters here about one thing: the real danger of these veiled references to Obama "palling around with terrorists" is that some whackjob will decide to kill him "for the good of the country". That might actually be one reason why Palin has backed off her previous comments since Saturday, because if something were to happen to Obama the Secret Service might be looking in her direction. I've got the feeling that McCain has told her to tone it down as well - let's hope he's that smart.

[DrBaltar]

Please tell me you are kidding me? You don't REALLY support McCarthy-esque allegations like that?

Oh please. After your party blames the Bush administration for the financial mess when it was Carter & Clinton with the CRA. At least the Obama-Ayers allegations were true.

[DrBaltar]

I don't know what's next but if I were him I'd tell Palin to wipe that mindless beauty-queen smile off her face. It tends to convey a distracting Narcisism. IMHO

Perhaps if she would wear a burka. Would that be better?

[David Wong]

Perhaps if she would wear a burka. Would that be better?

Don't ever get rid of the ignore function, JREF. It's the only way to filter the kiddie trolls.

[BenBurch]

Oh please. After your party blames the Bush administration for the financial mess when it was Carter & Clinton with the CRA. At least the Obama-Ayers allegations were true.

Yeah, its also true I was once at a rest stop where, only an hour later, a serial killer killed his last victim before being chased down. Does that make me guilty by association?

In summary; The stupid is getting thick around here.

[MattusMaximus]

Yeah, its also true I was once at a rest stop where, only an hour later, a serial killer killed his last victim before being chased down. Does that make me guilty by association?

In summary; The stupid is getting thick around here.


Not only that, but the desperation & fail are getting thick as well. Man, you can cut the fail with a knife!

[davefoc]

DrBaltar,
What you quoted was a pure political hit piece. There was not a single attempt at objectivity throughout the entire article and as such the article hardly seems of value as part of any kind of search for truth.

The piece was riddled with unsubstantiated opinion and the treatment of standard political issues like motor voter laws as some sort of horrible left wing conspiracies that are allowing terrorists into the country. The author never had a moment where his goal was truth. His goal from the outset was to produce a political hit piece.

You might be all fired up by this kind of crap but if you look through the response to the article not many others were as impressed.

The legitimate attack line here is that Obama like many of his fellow Democrats and probably at least some Republicans contributed to the problem by encouraging the issuance of less secure loans than past procedures had required.

In the end was reducing loan requirements the most significant problem or was radically increasing the leverage allowed by freddie and fannie practices the main problem? Assuming it was the latter, who supported the change and who in congress worked to undo it. Ron Paul is on record as talking about the problem and the possible consequences about five years ago. Did any of his fellow Republicans work with him to do something about the problem? Is the Obama campaign claim that Obama tried to get the Secretary of Treasury to study the possibility of a collapse more than two years ago correct? How did McCain vote on the rules to loosen freddy and fannie requlation? How did Obama vote?

How much money has McCain accepted from Fredday and Fannie over the years?

[SezMe]

Oh please. After your party blames the Bush administration for the financial mess when it was Carter & Clinton with the CRA. At least the Obama-Ayers allegations were true.
Reaching all the way back to Carter.... Who had complete control of the executive and legislative branches for six years after 2000? Who could have completely rewritten the CRA? The Republicans, that's who.

Your blame game is useless. Both Dems and Reps have been feeding off the FreddieMac/Fannie/Mae teat for years. Both looked the other way.

[DrBaltar]

You guys want him? You obviously have him. Have a ball.

[davefoc]

...

Your blame game is useless. Both Dems and Reps have been feeding off the FreddieMac/Fannie/Mae teat for years. Both looked the other way.

That seems to be exactly right and figuring out who gets the most blame is difficult because most of what is written about the situation is by people with strong political agendas.

It does appear to be true that Obama received substantially more Freddie/Fannie donations than McCain. But even there the case is not as clear cut as it seems. This calculation excludes contributions from lobbyists and directors. The New York times looked at contributions from directors and lobbyists from those companies:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/09/10/us/politics/2008_FANNIE_GRAPHIC.html
McCain in 2008 received $169,000 from Freddie/Fannie directors and lobbyists and Obama received $16,000.

It is true that early in his campaign Obama used Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae Chairmen, as an adviser to his campaign. But McCain's campain manager Rick Davis served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that defended the two companies against increased regulation. In addition, according to this article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11781.html) "At least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, netting at least $12.3 million in fees over the past nine years."

The record on who sounded the alarm bell first about this impending disaster is a little muddled also. Both McCain and Obama claim efforts to head off the disaster. Exactly who has the more credible story on that I'm not sure. But maybe this would be the most important way to evaluate the candidates on this issue.

The bottom line here and it's not a happy one, is that congress was bought off on this and neither candidate has clean hands. It is easy to miss that reality if one tends to read or listen to articles coming from a single poltical direction.

[dudalb]

Not only that, but the desperation & fail are getting thick as well. Man, you can cut the fail with a knife!

Agreed. I have been pretty critical of some of the blindly partisan Dems around here, but in the past couple of days It is like the blindly partisan GOP supporters want to outdo them in the stupidity category.
The "OBama is an illegal alien" rumor has got to be the dumbest rumor yet. You really think the Democratic Party leadership did not carefully check out his qualifications, and if he was not qualfied they would not leaked it to the press to avoid a huge embarassment and handing the Presidency to the GOP on a Silver platter?
ANd, for that matter, that the GOP would not be screaming this from the rooftops if there was any evidence for it?
It's called desperation.

[chipmunk stew]

Agreed. I have been pretty critical of some of the blindly partisan Dems around here, but in the past couple of days It is like the blindly partisan GOP supporters want to outdo them in the stupidity category.
To be fair to the GOP supporters, you've also been blindly critical of both camps in your pious crusade against the windmills of hypocrisy.