All day we have heard Republicans saying that this election was in no way a mandate and the country is still very much on the right. Andrew Sullivan posts this from a reader:
The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.
In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote. We all know that. In 2004 Bush got the popular vote by about 3 million. Compare that to the 8 million Obama won it by, yet that 3 million in 2004 and loss in 2000 of the popular vote was something the spinsters are using as evidence this country is moving to the right. It's amazing how they try to rewrite history so much.
The latest CBS/New York Times poll gives Obama a massive 14 point lead over McCain:
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is entering the third and final presidential debate Wednesday with a wide lead over Republican rival John McCain nationally, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows.
The Obama-Biden ticket now leads the McCain-Palin ticket 53 percent to 39 percent among likely voters, a 14-point margin. One week ago, prior to the Town Hall debate that uncommitted voters saw as a win for Obama, that margin was just three points.
Among independents who are likely voters - a group that has swung back and forth between McCain and Obama over the course of the campaign - the Democratic ticket now leads by 18 points. McCain led among independents last week.
McCain's campaign strategy may be hurting hurt him: Twenty-one percent of voters say their opinion of the Republican has changed for the worse in the last few weeks. The top two reasons cited for the change of heart are McCain's attacks on Obama and his choice of Sarah Palin as running mate.
(emphasis added)
Hopefully McCain will ignore that part I highlighted and continue with his usual trend of getting nastier. We need a decisive victory this year and with McCain's temper that is very possible.
Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror. Webster's defines terror as:
1: a state of intense fear
2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing ; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
I was thinking about this today and then started reading more about how McCain/Palin rallies are turning into a lynch mob wanting to go after Barack Obama - in fact some wanting to kill him. This is no longer confined to McCain/Palin rallies either. It's now filtering down into the congressional races:
Thursday's debate took place in front of a highly partisan crowd in the GOP stronghold of Middle Georgia.
Chambliss supporters waved "Saxby" signs and offered up a sustained "boos" when Martin mentioned Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
"Bomb Obama," one woman hollered.
This is very dangerous ground and instead of trying to calm people down, the Republicans seem to be salivating over such violent outcry's from their supporters.
We also see that some of the more sensible Republicans are now starting to voice concerns over this:
John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.
While junior is off at college learning how to grow up to be a good Republican tool, he makes the mistake of saying what he really thinks:
The leader of a statewide group of college Republicans has been forced to resign after posting racially insensitive comments about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on the Internet.
Adam LaDuca, 21, the former executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page in late July that Obama has "a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami (and probably would.)"
LaDuca, who previously had called Martin Luther King Jr. a "pariah" and a "fraud," also wrote: "And man, if sayin' someone has large lips is a racial slur, then we're ALL in trouble."
Should we question this idiots upbringing, or would that be a "family matter"? I mean this little racist shit had to learn it from some where, and I'm sure that comes from his parents.
It can no longer be avoided: super delegates will determine the
Democratic Presidential nominee this year.
That is also what I been fearing. Considering the proportional breakdown of delegates on the Democratic side, there will be no clear front runner after today. It's also looking like there might not be one after any other race.
The problem is that the Republicans could have a front runner, if not today then by March. That means that person has from March until August to campaign as the nominee, while the Democrats are still deciding. This could actually end up hurting the Democrats chances of winning the White House this fall, unless party leaders decide to take some action to get us a nominee sooner.
Yesterday, Richard Morin of the Washington Post had this little piece entitled "Jon Stewart, Enemy of Democracy?". The article was a pretty negative attack towards the impact of The Daily Show:
This is not funny: Jon Stewart and his hit Comedy Central cable show may be poisoning democracy.
Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart's faux news program, "The Daily Show," develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.
That's particularly dismaying news because the show is hugely popular among college students, many of whom already don't bother to cast ballots.
Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris of East Carolina University said previous research found that nearly half -- 48 percent -- of this age group watched "The Daily Show" and only 23 percent of show viewers followed "hard news" programs closely.
To test for a "Daily Effect," Baumgartner and Morris showed video clips of coverage of the 2004 presidential candidates to one group of college students and campaign coverage from "The CBS Evening News" to another group. Then they measured the students' attitudes toward politics, President Bush and the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.).
The results showed that the participants rated both candidates more negatively after watching Stewart's program. Participants also expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media, according to the researchers' article, in the latest issue of American Politics Research.
"Ultimately, negative perceptions of candidates could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls," they wrote.
Now I have a problem with this. First off, there has been other studies done and they have concluded that viewers of the Daily Show are more informed than their peers who watch other shows:
In a recent survey, viewers of Stewart's "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central tested better than Letterman and Leno viewers on a six-question politics quiz. (How do you stack up? Take the quiz and compare your score.)
Viewers of all three shows know more about the background of presidential candidates and their positions on issues than people who don't watch late-night TV.
Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday called on Americans to be more aware of the
"bait and switch" Iraq war and the "hollowing out" of the Army in the pursuit of
a mistaken policy.
In a swing through SouthCoast, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee attacked
the priorities of the Republican Party and President Bush, elaborating on what
they are sacrificing -- health care for children, infrastructure, Social
Security -- in the pursuit of tax cuts.
"The Holy Grail of the Republican Party is a tax cut, whether or not we need
it," he said in a meeting with The Standard-Times editorial board.
Sen. Kerry puzzled over the apparent lack of interest by Americans in the Iraq
war and the near silence in the U.S. mass media about the so-called Downing
Street Memo.
That leaked secret document, the minutes of a 2002 cabinet meeting of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair, says bluntly that Mr. Bush had decided to attack Iraq
long before going to Congress with the matter, and that "intelligence was being
fixed around the policy."
It caused an uproar in Great Britain and badly hurt Mr. Blair in national
elections but went almost unnoticed in the United States.
