For Dems only.

[Balta1701]

I find it very interesting that the establishment media, rep. here by the Politico, is talking about how the McCain campaign's plan for how to overcome the money advantage that it appears the Democratic Candidate will have is to make use of free media. Aka, using the media to promote him. And they're expecting that the media won't be the ones asking "the hard questions".

McCain will lean heavily on the well-funded Republican National Committee. He will merge key functions of his campaign hierarchy with the RNC while also relying on an unconventional structure of 10 regional campaign mangers.

 

And finally — and perhaps most importantly — McCain will rely on free media to an unprecedented degree to get out his message in a fashion that aims to not only minimize his financial disadvantage but also drive a triangulated contrast among himself, the Democratic nominee and President Bush.

 

McCain advisers acknowledge they have little choice but to seek free entry into the media marketplace, as they have no chance of matching Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton in a dollar-for-dollar ad war, given that the Arizona senator’s fundraising totals pale in comparison to both his prospective opponents and the Bush-Cheney political machine.

 

But aides also hope they can turn necessity into virtue and argue that by facing tough questions from reporters on his bus each day and potentially even tougher ones from audience members at frequent town hall meetings, McCain will demonstrate how he’s different from two politicians who are far less accessible.

[southsidehawkeye]

The DNC has released their first 2008 commercial, its called "Better Off"

 

 

 

What do you guys think?

Edited April 21, 2008 by southsidehawkeye

[HuskyCaucasian]

The DNC has released their first 2008 commercial, its called "Better Off"

 

 

 

What do you guys think?

 

I like it. He frames it as "some would say". Well, you dont say "some would say" then rattle off all the "points" that prove all is well if you dont think it is!

Edited April 21, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[iamshack]

The DNC has released their first 2008 commercial, its called "Better Off"

 

 

 

What do you guys think?

 

Yeah, I like how he states "I think you could argue..."

 

Hah! Makes you recognize immediately that he is full of it...

Edited April 22, 2008 by iamshack

[Balta1701]

Thing to watch for the next 6 months:

The Next Six Months

 

Some Republican or conservative group runs a dumb ad.

 

John McCain nobly distances himself from it.

 

Cable news spends all day talking about it and showing it for free.

 

Rinse. Repeat.

[bmags]

yeah it's a hilarious strategy that works so well.

[Balta1701]

 

Link. Trailer for an HBO Movie called "Recount". Kevin Spacey, Hollywood Mega hunk Bob Balaban, Dennis Leary, etc.

[Balta1701]

Limbaugh gets caught seemingly wanting riots in Denver during the DNC.

Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called "Operation Chaos," the people on the far left would look bad.

 

"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."

 

He believes electing Democrats will hurt America's security and economy and appeared to call on his listeners to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

"We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said.

 

Later, Limbaugh downplayed his "dreaming of riots in Denver" statement, and said that he wasn't calling for riots and was referring to warnings of trouble if superdelegates decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

 

Limbaugh's comments prompted Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper to say: "Anyone who would call for riots in an American city has clearly lost their bearings."

[kapkomet]

Limbaugh gets caught seemingly wanting riots in Denver during the DNC.

 

It's called sarcasm.

[Balta1701]

John McCain, speaking with Bloggers, this morning.

All I can tell you Jennifer is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

No I don't know what was in the ..., but this is from a right wing source, so it's not some Dem trying to make him look bad.

[Rex Kickass]

McCain is the only Presidential candidate still standing that will have a guaranteed spot in the November General Election.

 

In this term, Clinton has missed 30% of floor votes. Obama about 40%. McCain? 58%.

 

Senator Tim Johnson missed the first year of this term with a massive brain hemmorage. He has now missed nine fewer votes this term than John McCain.

[Balta1701]

McCain is the only Presidential candidate still standing that will have a guaranteed spot in the November General Election.

 

In this term, Clinton has missed 30% of floor votes. Obama about 40%. McCain? 58%.

 

Senator Tim Johnson missed the first year of this term with a massive brain hemmorage. He has now missed nine fewer votes this term than John McCain.

You know what? We hear this stuff every presidential election, how the guy is keeping his seat and missing all sorts of votes, I'm sure you could have said the same thing about Kerry in 04, but I honestly don't feel that bothered by it. In all honesty, how many Senate votes are actually important? For a vote on whether or not companies should be allowed to discriminate based on genetics when you're applying for insurance, does it matter if the Senate votes 95-0 or 98-0 (I believe it was 95-0).

 

Occasionally for close votes, every single one is important. Ditto things like filibusters, key cloture votes. There's no excuse, for example, for how McCain/Lieberman/Graham all took the same flight back to D.C. to vote on what I believe was the torture bill and cloture, and McCain chose not to vote and the vote wound up losing by 1.

 

That stuff bothers me because it effects policy. It really doesn't bother me if candidates are drawing their salary but are campaigning for something else as long as they do their job on the very close votes, nor does it really bother me when they don't vote on things that will win anyway or things like naming something else after Reagan, etc.

 

It also does bother me when on occasion a candidate will use federal resources to move himself/herself around for the campaign, where the federal government is paying for the travel or security or arrangements for one campaign but not the other, but I'm honestly not sure how common that is.

[lostfan]

It also does bother me when on occasion a candidate will use federal resources to move himself/herself around for the campaign, where the federal government is paying for the travel or security or arrangements for one campaign but not the other, but I'm honestly not sure how common that is.

I think that's illegal actually.

[Balta1701]

I think that's illegal actually.

Who pays when the President takes Air Force 1 to a campaign stop?

[lostfan]

Who pays when the President takes Air Force 1 to a campaign stop?

That's different - he's actually the president. But doesn't he have campaign funds too?

 

I don't know the answer to that specific question though.

[Balta1701]

That's different - he's actually the president. But doesn't he have campaign funds too?

 

I don't know the answer to that specific question though.

Yes, the President certainly has to raise campaign funds for things like ads and such. But here's the question...John Kerry and George W. Bush both fly from California fundraisers to events in Pennsylvania. Bush takes Air Force 1. Kerry presumably takes a private jet. Who's paying for which jet? I don't know the answer to that question. Campaigns certainly have their own private jets they take out to shuttle around their candidates, but I'd actually be surprised and fairly happy if I learned that the feds were footing the bill for travel for both candidates.

[HuskyCaucasian]

You can't get much more Flip-Floppy than this...

McCain Strongly Rejected Long-Term Iraq Presence: "Bring Them All Home"

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You can't get much more Flip-Floppy than this...

McCain Strongly Rejected Long-Term Iraq Presence: "Bring Them All Home"

I'm actually going to defend McCain here. That isn't a flip-flop. Its right in line with what McCain has said all along, which is that he wants the US to stay until Iraq stabilizes, then he wants all significant military presence taken home over time. So yes, that means no permanent presence, but yes, it also means they may stay a long time because of that tricky "stable" part of the argument. Its funny because, his stance puts him out of line with both the hawks and the liberals.

 

[lostfan]

I'm actually going to defend McCain here. That isn't a flip-flop. Its right in line with what McCain has said all along, which is that he wants the US to stay until Iraq stabilizes, then he wants all significant military presence taken home over time. So yes, that means no permanent presence, but yes, it also means they may stay a long time because of that tricky "stable" part of the argument. Its funny because, his stance puts him out of line with both the hawks and the liberals.

I can understand McCain. It's just that his vision of some imaginary victory, that the war on terror will suddenly just rectify itself or whatever pending what we do with Iraq within a visible and reasonable time frame, is delusional.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I can understand McCain. It's just that his vision of some imaginary victory, that the war on terror will suddenly just rectify itself or whatever pending what we do with Iraq within a visible and reasonable time frame, is delusional.

I think that is what the Democrats need to get across to the American people. It's not about staying there 100 years. I am ok with that if there is almost 100% peace like in Korea. The problem? Korea is divided. That is how peace was made. And no one is proposing "partitioning" Iraq. Therefore, there will be no peace in Iraq for a VERY long time. So, at what point in the future does McCain expect there to be no fighting? They never answer. They dont know! It's not about being there for 100 years. That's just a good sound bite. It's about when the deaths stop that lead to the 100 years of peace... and there is no view of that in the near future.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

I think that is what the Democrats need to get across to the American people. It's not about staying there 100 years. I am ok with that if there is almost 100% peace like in Korea. The problem? Korea is divided. That is how peace was made. And no one is proposing "partitioning" Iraq. Therefore, there will be no peace in Iraq for a VERY long time. So, at what point in the future does McCain expect there to be no fighting? They never answer. They dont know! It's not about being there for 100 years. That's just a good sound bite. It's about when the deaths stop that lead to the 100 years of peace... and there is no view of that in the near future.

Here's the other side of that token though...let's imagine that magically, Jan 21st of next year, the violence in Iraq stops, and the country is actually able to start rebuilding. Refugees return, government stabilizes, etc. Now, even in that case, is it going to be a good idea for the U.S. to maintain a standing military presence in Iraq long term? I think it isn't. For example, before the Iraq war, one of the things UBL constantly cited as a motivating tool for his followers was the fact that the U.S. had its forces occupying the holy lands (and, interestingly enough, we removed all our forces from Saudi Arabia just about as soon as the statue fell in Baghdad, and some of the pundits thought that was why).

 

If U.S. troops stay, they're occupying a portion of the holy land for Shi'ites. They extend our supply lines and cost a lot of money to stay over there. And essentially they're always an imperial presence that you have to deal with, at some level that always plays in to the politics of an area even when things are going well. What happens when the government disagrees with a position the U.S. takes if U.S. troops are still there? What happens if a government demands the troops leave? And what prevents those forces from becoming an obvious target for anyone who wants to destabilize the region for any reason?

[HuskyCaucasian]

McCain on the Minnesota Bridge collapse... It was Porks Fault

"The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse, because there wasn't enough money," he said. "The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects."

 

or... it could be from lack of inspections.

 

I also heard Apollo 13's o-ring failure was porks fault. As was the Titanic and Princess Diana's death.

[lostfan]

McCain on the Minnesota Bridge collapse... It was Porks Fault

 

 

or... it could be from lack of inspections.

 

I also heard Apollo 13's o-ring failure was porks fault. As was the Titanic and Princess Diana's death.

Actually I'm pretty sure that when Congressmen/Senators slip in wording in bills to give them funding for local infrastructure projects like that bridge, it's called pork. And then legislators from other regions call it wasteful. That's part of what pork is from the way I understand it.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Actually I'm pretty sure that when Congressmen/Senators slip in wording in bills to give them funding for local infrastructure projects like that bridge, it's called pork. And then legislators from other regions call it wasteful. That's part of what pork is from the way I understand it.

So, he's against pork of any kind. And he's for a Gas Tax Holiday that wouldn't fund the highway trust fund.... so, he's for more bridge collapses?

[BigSqwert]

From Glenn Greenwald's blog:

 

Things that don't exist in Harry Reid's world

 

Harry Reid was on The Daily Show last night (to promote his book, ironically entitled The Good Fight) and said that Joe Lieberman "supports us on virtually everything except the war." This is exactly what Reid has said repeatedly about Lieberman ("Joe Lieberman is my friend, and he is a good Democrat, votes with us on everything, except the war. So Joe Lieberman is easy to work with"). Two weeks ago, a NYT article on Lieberman quoted Reid praising him and then immediately added:

 

A member of the

S

enate Democratic leader

s

hip, who in

s

i

s

ted on not being identified,

s

aid: "The blogger

s

want u

s

to get rid of him. It ain't happening." He added: "We need every vote.

He'

s

with u

s

on everything but the war.

"

 

Leave aside the insulting absurdity of talking about "the war" as though it's just one garden-variety political issue out of many. And also leave aside that Lieberman happens also not to be "voting with the Democrats" on the small matter of the presidential election. Beyond that, this claim that Lieberman votes with Democrats "on everything but the war" -- made repeatedly by Reid [and two weeks ago in the NYT by "a member of the Senate Democratic leadership" too scared to be quoted (if it's not Reid)] -- is a total falsehood, but nonetheless quite revealing about how the Senate Democratic leadership thinks.

 

Here are some non-war votes from Lieberman since the Democrats took over Congress in 2006:

 

Bill to ban the CIA from using waterboarding:

 

Democrats -- 45-1

 

Republicans - 5-46

 

Lieberman- NAY

 

 

Cloture vote on bill to restore habeas corpus (which Lieberman voted to abolish in 2006):

 

Democrats - 50-0

 

Republicans - 5-42

 

Lieberman - NAY

 

 

Vote to strip retroactive amnesty for telecoms out of the FISA bill (h/t Matt Browner-Hamlin):

 

Democrats -- 31-16

 

Republicans - 0-48

 

Lieberman - NAY

 

 

Vote to specify that FISA is the "exclusive means" by which the President can spy on telephone and email communications:

 

Democrats -- 49-1

 

Republicans - 9-40

 

Lieberman - NAY

 

 

Confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

 

Democrats -- 6-40

 

Republicans - 47-0

 

Lieberman - YEA

 

 

Cloture vote to proceed to consideration of No-Confidence Resolution for Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General:

 

Democrats -- 47-0

 

Republicans - 6-37

 

Lieberman - NAY

 

 

Obviously, Reid's repeated claim that Lieberman "votes with us on everything, except the war" is demonstrably false. But when he repeatedly makes that claim, I don't think Reid is consciously lying. It's just that, in Harry Reid's world (and in the world of the Democratic leadership generally), things like warrantless eavesdropping, the abolition of habeas corpus, telecom amnesty, the corrupt politicization of the Justice Department, chronic lying under oath, and the legalization of torture just don't exist. They don't matter. They're non-issues. And that is precisely why those radical, destructive measures are continuously permitted -- approved and endorsed -- by the Reid-led, Democratic-controlled Senate.

 

UPDATE: Several commenters and emailers, including Paul Dirks, argue that Reid views all of the above-listed issues as being part of "the war," broadly defined. Maybe. But if Reid and his comrades actually embrace the rhetorical deceit that things like the abolition of habeas corpus, warrantless eavesdropping, telecom amnesty, torture and Alberto Gonzales' behavior are all part of "the war" -- whatever that might mean -- then (a) that's even worse than the explanations I offered and (B) it makes the statement that Lieberman "votes with us on everything, except the war" all the more misleading and/or meaningless, since "the war" defined that way encompasses most matters of significance.

 

-- Glenn Greenwald

Edited May 6, 2008 by BigSqwert