Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Obama the thug

Another day and Obama can't close the deal. Poll numbers show Obambi with perhaps a six point lead, just outside the margin of error, and these are often polls skewed by the over-sampling of Democrats.

Meanwhile, the thugocracy of the Obama world is more and more leaking out through the only means the people have of learning the truth, the alternative media, with the leftist television outlets and newspapers still playing Sergeant Schultz ("I know noth-ink...") for The Anointed One.

But the leftist media cannot forever keep hidden Obama's deep ties to the thugs at ACORN as the "co" in "ACORN" is the "community organizers" that Obama so prominently includes on his otherwise empty resume.

The protege of Jeremiah Wright, the right hand man to the terrorist William Ayers, the bitch to mobster Tony Rezko is now caught in the middle of yet another campaign of criminality and intimidation. What a surprise.

And that's before we discuss Chicago black leader Jesse Jackson letting slip that Obama plans to screw the Jews. What a surprise.

80 comments:

Anonymous said...

CBS/NYT Poll: Obama at 53%
14 Oct 2008 06:30 pm

The jawdropping numbers from the CBS News / New York Times poll are, yes, the top-line...Obama leads among likely voters 53% to 39%. But more than that: which candidate will raise your taxes? Respondents, by 51% to 46%, say it's McCain. (Why? One reason might be Obama's advertising, which claims that McCain's health care plan would raise taxes for "millions" of Americans.) And preparation and readiness to be president don't seem to be terribly important: 64% percent of the country thinks McCain is ready, but, generalizing here, a heck of a lot of those folks are voting against him. He's tied among whites, shooting up fifteen percentage points since the last survey; he's winning men and women; he's marginally improving his standing among white evangelicals; he's substantially improved his standing among self-described moderates and among independents (a full third of this group swung toward Obama); Obama's now getting 82% of Clinton supporters.

You can bet that McCain's polling team will respond to this one...a lot of the deltas in this poll are probably unprecedented for their time period.



Some interesting nuggets:

** 14% of Republicans and 13% of independents think Obama is a Muslim.

** Of the 21% of the sample whose views of McCain have darkened, a quarter say it's because of his pick of Sarah Palin; a quarter say it's because of his attacks on McCain.

** 79% of Americans think Barack Obama would treat blacks and whites equally.

Anonymous said...

McCain needs 'knockout blow' in final debate as poll ratings collapsePledge to raise Ayers issue tonight after goading from ObamaEwen MacAskill in Washington The Guardian, Wednesday October 15 2008 Article historyJohn McCain yesterday threatened to up the ante in tonight's final televised presidential debate, which offers possibly his last chance to prevent a rout in November's election.

The Republican candidate said he would raise Barack Obama's links with Bill Ayers, one of the founders of an urban guerrilla group, as new polls showed McCain slipping further and Obama extending his reach into states normally considered solid Republican. US analysts and pollsters said that no one in recent modern history had been so far behind in mid-October and gone on to win an election.

The poll gap adds to pressure on McCain to deliver a knockout blow in tonight's 90-minute debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, the last of three.

McCain was lacklustre in the first two, drawing the first and losing the second.

The Republican, who avoided "going negative" in the earlier debates, told a Chicago radio station yesterday that he was likely to raise the issue of Ayers, now a professor in Chicago who was with the Weathermen, a group responsible for a series of bombings in the US in the 1970s.

McCain said that he had been goaded into doing so by Obama. After the debate last week in Nashville, Tennessee, Obama noted that he had not had the courage to raise Ayers with him face to face, even though the McCain campaign had been relentlessly pursuing the issue each day.

McCain said yesterday that Obama's remarks "probably ensured" that he would bring up Ayers. "I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised I didn't have the guts," McCain said.

His campaign team is mounting a relentlessly negative campaign to try to discredit Obama, seen as the only realistic opportunity left for turning the election.

Some of his team argue that the attacks on the links with Ayers have been ineffective and that McCain should bring up the Democratic candidate's association with his former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, which McCain has resisted so far.

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, yesterday distributed a video through the internet criticising McCain's team and associated groups for putting out what he described as "vile" adverts full of lies about Obama's policies on abortion, sex offenders and guns. Plouffe predicted that Republican groups would spend millions more on such ads as the election draws closer.

Negative campaigning, effective in previous elections, has so far failed to provide traction for McCain, partly because the electorate is almost exclusively focused on the impact of the financial crisis on their lives.

McCain yesterday set out a $52.5bn (£30bn) economic plan, his most detailed since the financial crisis began, to try to alleviate the plight of working families struggling with job losses, mortgage problems and squeezed pensions. This included buying up mortgages for families in danger of defaulting, offering lower taxes for people over 59 who need to dip into retirement funds to see them through the crisis and scrapping for the next two years tax on unemployment benefit.

"What we need to see now is swift and bold action to lead this country in a new direction," McCain told supporters in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania.

His plan came a day later than intended, indicating disarray inside his campaign team in the face of Obama's increasing poll leads. By delaying, McCain was beaten to the draw by Obama, who released his own economic proposals on Monday.

One of McCain's advisers, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, yesterday disputed talk of infighting and said despite reports that McCain was to announce his new economic policies on Monday, the plan had always been to unveil them yesterday.

Polls out yesterday showed Obama was winning the economic argument among independent voters who will decide the election and has extended his lead in states previously considered swing states or even safe Republican states.

The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute yesterday released its latest polls that put Obama on 52% to McCain's 43% in Colorado, on 55% to McCain's 37% in Michigan, and on 51% to McCain's 43% in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

"Those margins may be insurmountable barring a reversal that has never been seen before in the modern era, in which polling monitors public opinion throughout the campaign," said Peter Brown, at the Connecticut-based institute.

"The only possible bright spot for Senator McCain, and you would need Mary Poppins to find it in these numbers, is that he is holding roughly the same portion of the Republican vote. But his support among independent voters, a group he says are key to winning ... has collapsed."

McCain's best chance of winning, he said, is a "knockout" in the final debate.

Obama has spent the last three days in Toledo, Ohio, focused entirely on practising for the debate. McCain, by contrast, was having to fit in practice between campaigning in Virginia on Monday and in Pennsylvania yesterday, and was scheduled last night to attend a fundraising event with Wall St financiers

Anonymous said...

Buckley Leaves Magazine His Father Founded After Backing Obama

By Christopher Stern

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Author and humorist Christopher Buckley resigned from the National Review, a conservative magazine his father founded, after readers complained about his endorsement in another publication of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley, wrote today in theDailyBeast.com, an online publication in which he endorsed Obama, that he resigned from the National Review after it was deluged with critical responses to his column at the rate of 700- 1.

``The only thing the right can't quite decide is whether I should be boiled in oil or just put up against the wall and shot,'' Buckley wrote.

Buckley, who has worked as a speechwriter for Republican presidential nominee John McCain and former President George H.W. Bush, endorsed Obama in a column titled, ``Sorry Dad, I'm Voting for Obama.'' Buckley is a trustee of the National Review, a position he was given in 2004 when his father gave up control of the magazine.

Calls to Buckley's book publisher and to the Daily Beast seeking his comment weren't immediately returned.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry responded to Buckley today, writing that messages were actually running 100-1 against him, not 700-1.

Lowry also wrote that Buckley was writing the column in the National Review on a ``trial basis'' while another columnist was on leave. ``We continue to have the highest regard for Chris's talent and wit, and extend to him warmest regards and understanding,'' Lowry wrote in his online response.

Calls to the National Review were referred to Lowry's online comments on the matter.

mc abel said...

Haha...can't close the deal!!

This moron has given up on reality altogether:

Whoa! Obama Opens 14-Point Lead (53 Percent to 39 Percent Among Likely Voters)On McCain, According to CBS News/NYT Poll! Palin and Negative Campaigning are Bringing the GOP Ticket Down With Independents, Way Down.

He's even sealed the deal with McCain's own brother:

McCain's Brother Blasts McCain's Campaign. Ouch, Don't Want to be at That Thanksgiving Dinner at One of McCain's Seven Houses. Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Anonymous said...

Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:00 PM
Don't Call It a 'Comeback'
Andrew Romano

Breaking news! John McCain is about to make a comeback. Unless, of course, he isn't.


Nearly 20 days have passed since a national poll showed McCain leading Barack Obama. That's good news for the Illinois senator--but it's bad news for the nation's political press corps. Despite the constant complaints of critics on the right--and left--the media isn't systematically inclined to favor liberals or conservatives. It is, however, addicted to drama. That's understandable: the news is what's new. So after three weeks of writing the same basic story--Barack Obama is Doing Really, Really Well!--the journalistic junkies of New York and Washington have begun to scramble for a new narrative fix. And it's no surprise that they've settled on the "comeback" storyline--a natural fit, really, with McCain's long history of Lazarus-like behavior--as object of their obsession.


Consider the evidence. When McCain unveiled a kinder, gentler stump speech yesterday in Virginia Beach--Bill Ayers was out, "scrappy underdog" messaging was in--both Politico's Mike Allen and Time's Mark Halperin decided to frame it as a potential "comeback" moment. Never mind that McCain had said the same stuff at last month's Republican National Convention. Over at the Drudge Report, Matt Drudge has spent the past week treating statistically insignificant one- or two-point gains for McCain in the Rasmussen and Zogby tracking polls as "BREAKING" news; on Sunday, he led his influential site with the headline "READY FOR A COMEBACK." Finally, the New York Times' Adam Nagourney suggested yesterday that "news media's desire for a competitive race and tendency to find the 'underdog is surging' story line irresistible" could still shift momentum back to McCain." That sound you hear is the political press corps chomping at its collective bit.


Advertisement

Now, being a reporter, I'm all for a new narrative. But this is kind of ridiculous. The fact is, there's no data at this point to substantiate a McCain surge--and without tangible, quantifiable proof, the "news media's desire for a competitive race" shouldn't mean squat. Sure, the occasional survey has shown McCain as close as two or three points. But the average national polling gap between Obama and McCain has grown steadily from 2.3 percent on Sept. 23 to 7.3 percent today, and the Illinois senator's estimated lead in the Electoral College has expanded from eight votes to 190 votes over the same period of time. If the election were held today, Obama would win 313 electoral votes from states where he's ahead by an average of five points or more; he'd take an additional 61 from states where he's ahead by less. Any chatter about a McCain comeback should follow--not precede--a sustained reversal of these trends. That's why they call it reporting.

Am I saying that McCain can't battle back? Not at all. But before I report that he has, I'll be watching the numbers--not the news--for signs of momentum.

Here's how I imagine any McCain surge would unfold. First and foremost are the undecideds. Right now, they represent about five percent of the electorate (on average). As the election approaches, they'll begin to break for either Obama or McCain. Historically, undecideds tend to split pretty evenly between the two candidates. But thanks to Obama's unprecedented political profile--and McCain's effort to raise doubts about his character and readiness--an unusually high number of undecideds may revert at the last minute to the more familiar candidate. That would give McCain a boost of about three or four points.


At this point, Obama--who's topped 50 percent in 10 of the last 14 polls--would still lead McCain by at least three percent nationally. The next bloc to watch is older white voters--the demographic group that has "moved most recently into Obama's corner and given the Democrat his big lead." Drawn to Obama for economic reasons, they've always been wary of his inexperience--and could still be lured from his corner. If McCain pries a sizable number of white seniors away from Obama--today's "Pension and Family Security Plan" is designed to help--the frontrunner would presumably dip below 50 percent in the national polls, putting McCain back in play.


From here, I'd turn my attention to the battleground states that voted for Bush in 2004. Given that graybeards represent a key voting bloc in several of these states--which, after all, will decide the election-- I'll be looking to see whether McCain is able to erase his three-to-12-point deficits in Florida (5.0), Ohio (3.4), Colorado (5.2), New Mexico (7.3), Iowa (12.8) and Virginia (6.5). If he can do that--and perhaps pick up some steam in the Kerry states of Wisconsin, New Hampshire and/or Pennsylvania, where he now trails by more than 10 points--we may be heading for a long night on Nov. 4.

Until then, however, I'll leave the comeback chatter to the chattering classes.

karin said...

Meanwhile, the thugocracy of the Obama world is more and more leaking out...


lol...and, which drunk tank were you in when you had this hallucination?

If it's "leaking out," people must like it...he just keeps getting more support.

Anonymous said...

One day before the last debate, and more discouraging news for the McCain campaign. A new national poll showing a 9 point lead by Sen. Obama.

FROM LAT:

With fear about the economy driving voters his way, Barack Obama has broadened his lead over John McCain and strengthened his hold on key groups both candidates are courting, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

Three weeks before election day, Obama leads McCain 50% to 41% among voters likely to cast ballots on Nov. 4. In September, the Illinois Democrat had a narrower 49%-45% lead.

Anonymous said...

Trouble in paradise: Why Arizonans dislike McCain
THE ECONOMIST

In a Paradise Valley shopping mall, Martin Dunleavy takes a break from the scorching Arizona sun. He is wearing a cap emblazoned with an eagle and an American flag, and describes himself as somewhat conservative. He adores Sarah Palin, whom he describes as "every man's woman."

How about John McCain, Arizona's senior senator and the state's first plausible presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964? Dunleavy shakes his head: "You just can't trust McCain."

Nobody besides a few excitable Democrats believes John McCain will lose Arizona. Presidential candidates nearly always carry their home states. But McCain is less popular at home than one might expect.

On Feb. 5 he won less than half of the vote in Arizona's Republican primary. A state poll conducted two weeks ago put him seven points ahead of Barack Obama. It is hardly an overwhelming lead in a state that has voted for a Democratic president only once since 1948.

A big reason is that McCain is a moderate among hotheads. "Arizona has always had a vocal hard-right element," says John Shadegg, a congressman who supports the senator. In 1986 it elected a governor aligned with the ultra-conservative John Birch Society.

The state Republican Party is dominated by hard cases who object to McCain's temperate record on immigration and taxes. In a January straw poll of activists in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and Paradise Valley, McCain was voted the "most unacceptable" of five candidates for president.

Still, Arizona's ultra-conservatives know they have nowhere else to go. Party leaders in Maricopa County have even provided a gritted-teeth endorsement of McCain on their Web site: "Many of us have strong differences with some of John McCain's past positions and policies. Some of us even dislike him personally. But we love America more."

McCain's second problem is that, thanks in large part to the hard-right element that so dislikes him, Hispanic voters are slipping away. In the past few years Arizona's legislature has passed a slew of laws designed to make life miserable for illegal immigrants.

Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County's publicity-hungry sheriff, has conducted sweeps of Hispanic districts in search of them. This has offended Latino voters and turned them against the Republican Party.

Elias Bermudez of Immigrants Without Borders campaigned for George Bush in 2000 and 2004, and is currently trying to win Hispanic votes for McCain. He describes his latest challenge as "100 times harder."

Yet McCain's biggest problem seems to be that many Arizonans do not feel he speaks for them. He rarely talks about Arizona on the stump, and did not mention the state once in his acceptance speech. By contrast, Obama repeatedly evokes the streets of Chicago, while Palin often sings Alaska's praises.

Several people buttonholed in and around Phoenix were unable to provide a single example of something McCain had done for Arizona. Admirers saw him as an American hero rather than a local hero.

Although the presidency is a national office, this is a bad sign. Even at his best, McCain can occasionally seem to be guided by a kind of internal moral compass rather than by the views of people who put him in office.

It may be that Arizona's voters have simply noticed this more quickly than the rest of America.

midnite said...

...right hand man to Ayers...

What a lying piece of garbage.

No wonder America is tuning you thugs out.

MisterE1970 said...

Keep up the great work, Evan. Gotta love how defensive and riled the lefties get when the chinks in Obama's armor get exposed. their hysteria's kinda fun to watch, too, although gets a tiresome quickly.

John said...

Listen to repulsive Major League Asshole ("midnite") calling the conservatives/Republicans "thugs" just days after he posted this:

"This election is about the importance of not just winning, but breaking their backs and crushing their spirits."

Good luck with that. You can't crush what you're clueless to.

"This isn't about winning. It's about destroying the conservative movement, and their dangerous incompetence has given us an historic opportunity to deliver a killing blow."

Rigt, "midnite." In other words: "KILL THEM!"

Do you see the mental illness manifesting itself?

After spewing nothing but hateful thuggery on this very blog for months, he then plays the victim of "lies" about liberal thuggery, whining about some McCain supporter (who was probably a plant) shouting "Kill them!" at a rally, and so lying in the process about who the real thugs are.

They're sick.

John said...

"CLEVELAND — Volunteers supporting Barack Obama picked up hundreds of people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling place yesterday on the last day that Ohioans could register and vote on the same day, almost no questions asked.

The huge effort by a pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, takes advantage of a quirk in the state's elections laws that allows people to register and cast ballots at the same time without having to prove residency.

Republicans have argued that the window could lead to widespread voter fraud because officials wouldn't have an opportunity to verify registration information before ballots were cast.

Among the volunteers were Yori Stadlin and Vivian Lehrer of the Upper West Side, who got married last week and decided to spend their honeymoon shepherding voters to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.

Early today, Stadlin's van picked up William Woods, 59, at the soup kitchen of the Bishop Cosgrove Center.

'I never voted before," Woods said, because of a felony conviction that previously barred him from the polls. "Without this service, I would have had no way to get here.'"

Anonymous said...

The scoop from Washington

McCain misleading public in role Ayers played in Obama political career

By Lynn Sweet on October 15, 2008 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

WASHINGTON--Barack Obama continues to be attacked by John McCain and other Republicans for his relationship with Bill Ayers, the former terrorist turned respected Chicago educator. Obama served on civic boards with Ayers and Ayers held a coffee for Obama when Obama first ran for a state senate seat in 1995. McCain said he may bring up Ayers at the third and final presidential debate Wednesday night.

Obama said McCain--running ads featuring Ayers with Sarah Palin making him an issue on the stump--never said anything to his face. Ayers did not came up in the first two presidential debates. If McCain continues to insist that Obama launched his political career from Ayers' Hyde Park living room, he is misleading the public by overplaying the size and significance of Ayers' early support.


*Obama's campaign really was launched when he got the backing of then state Sen. Alice Palmer (D-Chicago), who wanted him to replace her as she was planning a run for Congress. Palmer's backing gave him entrée into local influential political circles.

Obama and Palmer would later have a falling out that continues to this day. Palmer changed her mind and decided to run for re-election after all. Obama got Palmer and his other rivals knocked off the ballot. Palmer ended up backing Hillary Rodham Clinton's Democratic primary bid.

*Obama's formal kick-off to announce his run for state senate was at the Hyde Park Ramada Inn on Sept. 19, 1995. Obama was introduced by Palmer in a room filled with supporters at the Ramada, fronting Lake Michigan on South Lake Shore Drive, a stroll from the Museum of Science and Industry.

*Around this time, Obama started to attend a series of coffees in the Hyde Park community where he lived, standard operating procedure for political rookies running in the neighborhoods surrounding the University of Chicago.

"I was certainly (hosting) one of the first," said Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, rabbi emeritus at Chicago's KAM Isaiah Israel--located across the street from the Obama home.

"There were several every week," he recalled on Tuesday night when we spoke. "I remember what I said to him: 'Someday you are going to be vice president of the United States.' He laughed and said, 'Why not president?'''

*The Ackermans, Sam and Martha, longtime Hyde Park activists in independent Democratic politics, also held an early event for Obama in their condo on E. Hyde Park Boulevard. (They have since divorced.)

Sam Ackerman told me Tuesday when we exchanged e-mails that "as I recall, the event at Bill Ayers' house (prior to ours) was a fund-raiser for Alice's congressional campaign at which she also introduced Barack as the successor she would like to see elected."

If Ackerman's recollection is correct--that the event at Ayers home was really for Palmer and Obama just piggy backed on it--then any argument that the Obama's political career was launched in the Ayers home is moot.

Martha and I talked on Tuesday night and she said she was not sure if the coffee at their condo for about 20 people was before or after Obama's Ramada Inn announcement.

"As a starter, I know that Barack went to Alice Palmer," Martha Ackerman told me. "...Then the question was, 'how do you go about doing this in the Hyde Park way," she said, a reference to the personal touch needed in the Hyde Park- Kenwood neighborhoods, at the time immune to the dictates of the remnants of the Chicago machine and Mayor Daley's City Hall.

"...the way to launch the campaign was to have coffee, and not one coffee, as in 'this is the start of everything.' Barack went around to a number of people and requested that they hold coffees for him."

But the Ackerman's did not want to host an event for Obama without meeting him first. So he came over to their house and spent more than an hour with the couple.

When Obama left, "I said to Sam, 'this guy could be the first African American president of the United States."

Martha Ackerman, said "I know there were a number of coffees. It wasn't just one or two."

Arkady said...

I am glad I found this blog, coincidentally the layout is identical to my blog. Hmm, I wonder what this means.

Anyway, I think it is best we do not bother with these polls - credible sources have suggested that it is now weighted more with Dems.

Anonymous said...

Name on credible source, Arkady. Obama will crush Mccain on November 4 and the Democrats will pick up 10+ seats in the Senate and 20-40 seats in the House. America will have one-party government.

midnite said...

John be axin, "Do you see the mental illness manifesting itself?"

haha...yes, buddy, I'm seeing it all over wacko land...you're a leading manifestator yersef rivaling Sayet himself in grotesque weirdness.

Do you know the difference between a call for crushing an anti-American party politically and inciting scum bags to shout pleas for physically killing Obama at Palin/McCain rallies?

The country now realizes that a party of hateful cretins must be utterly crushed.

What are your plans for the next generation?

midnite at the pig trough said...

The GOPigs hate to see the poor voting.

They know most poor people got that way due to the GOP, and will vote straight good guys right down the line.

What a fabulous couple in Ohio helping in that effort.

midnite for the "free" market said...

I'm glad ewe found this blog, too, Arkady; nothing like one more gummint's the problem idiot clone on board to sing with the dingbat chorus.

How about that GOP administration giving us the biggest revolution in socialism in decades. Partially nationalizing the banks and intruding into every aspect of the financial system is much more than us commies ever hoped for from our own spinelss party.

So thoughtful of you to accomplish that for us.

Regs is all da rage, parrot; all da rage.

karin said...

Speaking of THUGS; these people are all sociopaths:

More on Palin's Crazy Crocodile Tears

Remember Sarah Palin's bizarre plea to the Alaska State Troopers that her former brother-in-law, Trooper Mike Wooten, ought to be fired because he had "unfairly" chased down and shot a wolf on a snowmachine? And remember how ridiculous that complaint seemed in light of the fact that as governor, she advocates chasing down and shooting wolves from airplanes?

Well, to hear Mike Wooten tell it -- as he did in this 2005 AST investigation into Palin's complains -- the Palin's are even more full of shit than previously believed.

Keep in mind as you read this that Palin's complaint about the wolf shooting was this:

Another example that Wooten likes to share with others regarding his unethical and illegal hunting techniques involves a wolf hunt where he illegally chased down the animal with his snowmachine to kill it unfairly.

Here's Wooten (MW) telling AST investigator Sergeant Ron Wall (RW) about the wolf shooting incident:

RW: Okay. Next is the wolf.
MW: Okay.

RW: And ah I understand that you were on a wolf hunt with ah CHUCK [Heath, Sarah's father] again?
MW: Yup.

RW: Several years ago.
MW: Yup.

RW: Ah can you tell me about that incident?
MW: Yup. Ah we were in Beut Lake, which is...

RW: Okay, I know where that one's at.
MW: 40+ miles up the ah Denali Highway.

RW: Mmhm.
MW: And then 8 or 10 miles in land.

RW: Yup.
MW: And ah staying in a cabin that a buddy of his owns. And it was the early morning CHUCK comes ripping across the lake and ah comes in the cabin and says, "Get your stuff on and grab your rifle we gotta go."

RW: Was he in a sled? Is that?
MW: Snow machine yeah.

RW: Yeah.
MW: And I said, "Ah what's going on?" And he said, "ADRIAN's got a wolverine and 3 wolves and he's down over the hill just off the lake." And I said, "Okay." So I jumped on the snow machine and followed him out there. And when we ah got down to where we could see where a caribou had been taken down. Caribou like kill.

RW: Mmhm.
MW: Umm I saw ADRIAN going after one wolf and CHUCK started after another one and I followed CHUCK umm and umm we got down to where the wolf was at and CHUCK shot at it with his ah he shoots a 225 (inaudible) rifle. And umm he shot it once and I and I saw it hit right in the middle of the back and it continued to run. And then he... we followed it with our snow machines and he ah shot at it again and I don't know if he hit it or not. And then it was running towards some thick brush and he umm ran into it with his snow machine. And then he ah tried to shoot it again and he hit it again umm and then...(inaudible).

RW: So he shot it two other times after the first one?
MW: Yeah. He--he hit it twice for sure that I know of and a third time I don't know if he hit it or not. And then the ah wolf ah ran through some really thick brush and there was a river or a creek or something and it was frozen over in the area and I ran my snow machine right over the thick brush and just kind of followed the tracks and came back out on the river and I was driving down the river following the tracks in the snow. And the river made a bend. A sharp bend. And when I came around the bend I could see where the wolf lost its tracks and slid ah fell and slid and I stopped my snow machine and when I stood up on my snow machine the wolf was still alive so I had like a tank commander's holster.

RW: Mmhm.
MW: With my pistol. So I drew my pistol out and shot it. And ah it went down and I got off the snow machine and I was walking over to it and it stuck its head up again so I shot it again. An and then it died and that was it. And then after... after the wolf was dead I was there for probably I don't know 10 minutes or so and CHUCK comes running down the river and he said ADRIAN had went after another wolf and he was following ADRIAN and then he saw a wolverine and he started chasing the wolverine and it got away from him so he doubled back around and came over to where I was at and I had killed the wolf that he had shot twice and hit with the snow machine once.

RW: So he hit it with his sled too?
MW: Oh yeah he ran right into the tail end of it. It was running... he was... he was riding and you know it was running... it was quite a ways from us and we were riding snow machines to catch up to it and while it was running umm I don't know whether the wolf turned and ran in front of him or if he turned and ran into the wolf but he hit it with his snow machine. I watched him hit it. Took the tail end right out from underneath it.

RW: Was that ah after he shot it?
MW: Yeah.

How friggin' insane is Sarah Palin, that she's crying to the Alaska State Troopers about Wooten "unfairly" chasing down a wolf on a snow machine when her own father is not only doing the same thing, but running the wolf over while he does it?

Oh, and by the way:

RW: Okay. Ah who kept that wolf?
MW: Ah well CHUCK had it originally and then ah he had it tanned and gave it to me for my birthday or Christmas I don't remember which.

Does this sound like a solid complaint to you?

And yet here's Palin, years down the road, still crying to the Alaska State Troopers that Wooten needed to be fired for stuff like this. Here's Palin's father Chuck, happily hunting along with Wooten, both on their snowmobiles, with Chuck putting bullet after bullet into this wolf, and even running it over with his snowmobile, then keeping the carcass and tanning the skin to give to Wooten as a gift... and then later, when Wooten divorces his daughter, he and Sarah are griping to the AST about what a bad guy Wooten is. And not only is Palin crying to the AST about it, but she's hounding Walt Monegan to reopen the investigation and increase Wooten's punishment and fire him.

Who's the nutbar here?

John said...

Uh, that would be you and midnite.

Anonymous said...

Early voters strong for Obama, and possible good news for Jim Martin

By Jay Bookman | Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 01:16 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

According to a new poll by Survey USA, McCain leads Obama here in Georgia by eight points, 51-43. But the poll also breaks down the margin among those who have voted early, and those results echo the anecdotal evidence about a strong Obama tilt at early-voting sites.

According to the poll, 18 percent of Georgians have already voted, and Obama leads among those voters by 52-46 percent. In what may be good news for Jim Martin — who is down by three points overall in the poll — a similar pattern holds in the Senate race.

The internals also suggest that fears of a conservative backlash against Saxby Chambliss may be real. McCain — not a favorite of Georgia conservatives — gets 82 percent of the vote from self-described conservatives while Chambliss gets only 71 percent. Libertarian Allen Buckley draws off six percent on his own.

In other states, the tilt toward Obama by early voters is even more dramatic. Obama is up four in Ohio among those who haven’t voted yet, according to Survey USA, but up 18 among those who have voted already. In North Carolina, McCain is up five among those who haven’t voted yet, but Obama is up 34 percent among early voters.

For Obama, those early votes are money in the bank (a phrase admittedly not quite as reassuring as it used to be.) They also indicate a significant advantage in enthusiasm and operational skill among the Democrats. As Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com points out, this isn’t a typical voting pattern.

“According to a study by Kate Kenski at the University of Arizona, early voters leaned Republican in both 2000 and 2004; with Bush earning 62.2 percent of their votes against Al Gore, and 60.4 percent against John Kerry. In the past, early voters have also tended to be older than the voting population as a whole and more male than the population as a whole, factors which would seem to cut against Obama or most other Democrats.”

Maybe that’s why state Sen. Eric Johnson, a Republican, is now talking about ending or severely curtailing early voting in Georgia, just months after voting in favor of the bill that greatly expanded the practice.

i am dead said...

says Milton Friedman.

Krugman wins the Nobel; the banks are being nationalized all over the western world...

Anonymous said...

Obama the Thug???!!

Amazing isn't it? No, sooner does the thuggery of Palin/McCains' supporters make the front pages than they start projecting their evils on to the liberals.

Tried and very untrue formula which is finally backfiring on them.

J. Silverstein said...

Evan, you're advertising one side; and it's a radical side. John McCain has some ties to ACORN, too. And, Sarah Palin's church scares me a lot more than Barack Obama's church. What you're saying is just partisan BS.

Dan Coyle said...

"Another day and Obama can't close the deal. Poll numbers show Obambi with perhaps a six point lead, just outside the margin of error, and these are often polls skewed by the over-sampling of Democrats."

Proof that there's over-sampling, Mr. Sayet? And "Obambi"? WHat are you, twelve?

Anyway, Obama failed in the past few debates to really break out, so I'm not surprised his lead is so marginal.

"But the leftist media cannot forever keep hidden Obama's deep ties to the thugs at ACORN as the "co" in "ACORN" is the "community organizers" that Obama so prominently includes on his otherwise empty resume."

Proof of those deep ties, Mr. Sayet? Yes, there is seemingly widespread corruption in ACORN, but they're a lobbying group just like any other. You know, like AIPAC.

"The protege of Jeremiah Wright, the right hand man to the terrorist William Ayers, the bitch to mobster Tony Rezko is now caught in the middle of yet another campaign of criminality and intimidation. What a surprise."

Well, that paragrah, except for the Wright part, is a flat out lie.

"And that's before we discuss Chicago black leader Jesse Jackson letting slip that Obama plans to screw the Jews. What a surprise. "

Quote?

berty said...

Obama's a light weight. The closer we get to Nov 4, the more people will realize that they'd be putting an airhead broker in charge of their retirement accounts.

midnite said...

Yeah, they're "marginal." Are you trying to give Sayet credence while appearing non-partisan, Coyle?

And, let's see some evidence of ACORN's widespread corruption...from sources other than the one's the psycho uses.

From what I've read, they weed out the bad registrations as best they can...and that it is understood that there will be another level of scrutiny from local election boards of any remainder.

Today's Polls, 10/14
Perhaps the CBS poll that shows Barack Obama with a 14-point lead among likely voters (12 points when third-party candidates are included) is a modest outlier. But if so, John McCain has more and more outliers that he has to explain away these days. There are now no fewer than seven current national polls that show Obama with a double-digit advantage: Newsweek (+11), ABC/Post (+10), Democracy Corps (+10), Research 2000 (+10), Battleground (+13), Gallup (+10 using their Likely Voter II model) and now this CBS News poll

midnite said...

Oh, uh, he's a lightweight.

That's a powerful point.

In that case, I'm going for the guy with senile dementia and the killer bimbo who makes lightweights look like super dreadnaughts.

I'm also going to completely forget political orientation and go for a couple more extremist wingdings who'll give us the same kinds of policies that put us in the toilet.

What was McCain's position in his graduating class again? Obama's was first...whadda lightweight.

John said...

"What was McCain's position in his graduating class again? Obama's was first...whadda lightweight."

Did Obama release all of his academic records, there, "midnite"?

Or even his birth certificate?

Try tell the truth, now. Don't be bullshitting out your noisome ass again.

John said...

Anonymous sniped two posts ago:

"I disagree with you about Karin, John."

Good God, NO!

"She sounds cultured..."

lol

"...humane..."

LOL

"...and rational..."

Please, stop it. You're killing me.

"- everything you are not."

So I'm uncultured, inhumane, and irrational because...

...I make fun of liberals for thinking that they're "cultured"?

Well, most are monolingual, all are trendy and superficial, historically and literarily illiterate, have no real talent in anything but whining, propagandizing, demagoguery, and sucking cock, and can only boast of contact with foreign cultures by their semester abroad experiences which amount to nothing but travel junkets financed by daddy--or other people's taxes-- and the opportunity to get sexually molested by a Third Worlder so they can boast to their friends back home--in a faked, pretentious accent--of "My wonderful and passionate romance with a beautiful village boy" (who at that very minute is high-fiving his friends back in the disco for sexually humiliating the stupid American whore).

And while they send money to impoverished, uneducated villages abroad and adopt their children to "prove" their "cultured" humanitarianism, they do nothing but denigrate and call for the disenfranchizement and cut-off of tax-paid subsidies for uneducated American citizens living in poverty (the caucasian Christian ones in the Red States, anyway), and complain that they should have aborted their children, demonstrating a disgraceful, provincial, and elitist contempt for homegrown American culture.

So yeah, the pretension of liberals being "cultured" is laughable.

I'm "uncultured, inhumane, and irrational" because I make fun of liberals for thinking that they're "humane"?

Well, they think think nothing of violently terminating entire generations of gestating humans and will deprive mature ones their energy needs for the sake of exotic insects and hoofed animals, feel pleasure at the misfortune--even deaths--of the hated political opposition, i.e. fellow humans (I'm sure you crossed your fingers today when the vice president was rushed to the hospital), and cheer on terrorist insurgents and jihadists out of sheer spite when they cut off heads and try to sabotage a democracy by violent means because you hate Bush and All-Things-Bush (like the democratization of Iraq) and so welcome mayhem and death if the alternative means a successful legacy for Bush.

So, yeah, the liberal pretension of being "humane" is very selective, at best, but more a cruel joke and demonstrably inhumane in fact, and so risible in its delusion.

I'm "uncultured, inhumane, and irrational" because I make fun of liberals for thinking that they're "rational"?

How is it "rational" to call conservative/Republican and even some Democrat caucasians "racist" if they don't support Obama but it's not racist when 95% of African-Americans do?

How is it "rational" to call the American liberation force of Iraq "terrorists," and the terrorist insurgents "Freedom Fighters?"

How is it rational to hail Senator Obama an "outsider" and Hillary Clinton a "pioneer" but then attack a true outsider and pioneer like Sarah Palin as an alien freak and backward thinker?

How is it rational to attack-attack-attack and divide and marginalize and bully en masse
with the pre-meditated intent to intimidate and conquer and then accuse the targets of the attack as being "divisive bullies" when they fight back?

Actually, that one doesn't fall under the category of "Rationality," but Alinsky 101.

What rationality justifies vindictive behavior?

Two wrongs making a right?

Isn't that what justifies, in your minds, ACORN's self-evident and aggressive attempts to steal the election, because "They did it to us first in 2000 and 2004"?

And how is it rational, in the end, to hate hatefulness, not tolerate (alleged) intolerance, and judge judgmentalism?

So, yeah, the liberal pretension of being "rational" is not only insulting to the intelligence but worthy of ridicule.

"I don't care if she 'has no real money,' whatever that means..."

It means, by the elitist liberals' own standards of what comprises an elite(ist)--e.g. wealth, power, advanced educational degrees, etc. in contrast to the more modest circumstances of Redstate rustics/yokels/rednecks/"trogs"--she disqualifies herself from an entitlement to the imagined superior status of liberal elitists.

But I suppose she's an honorary plebe to the elitist club because she's a loyal footsoldier and atheist (or at least anti-Christian).

"...or that she lacks the degree in electronics from Dvry which you possess."

Well, I ain't no rocket scientist, anon, but it doesn't take one to quickly figure out that you sure as hell ain't either.

"Like me, however, she will rejoice at the triumph of the secular progressives, drowning out for good the illiterate braying of your party."

You're a projecting, historically illiterate braying fool who's clueless to the philosophical underpinnings of the duelling ideologies and so grossly overestimates the strength of a murderous, nihilistic, and ultimately dead-end materialism and underestimates the power of the conservative human mind, heart, and soul, which exalts Life, and Love.

It's Mike Tyson vs. Evander Holyfield.

And you know who ultimately wins (despite desperate, vicious cheating).

4:15 PM


John said...
(by the LOSER)

John said...

Silverstein shuddered:

"And, Sarah Palin's church scares me a lot more than Barack Obama's church."

Oo, yeah, J., watch out for those authentic Christians!

They might videotape the cutting off of your head while crowing "Victory for Jesus!"

Or goddamn your country.

John said...

fathead whined:

"Do you know the difference between a call for crushing an anti-American party politically and inciting scum bags to shout pleas for physically killing Obama at Palin/McCain rallies?"

Do you know the difference between an anti-American party and a pro-American one, first of all?

And do you really think that a few isolated calls of "kill-em-smash-em-kick-his-ass" rowdiness that you here with greater frequency at Little League hockey games (from parents in the stands)--and which could very well have come from plants-- comes anywhere near the hateful, murderous invective that comes out of your mouth on a regular basis here from behind your masks?

I got your number, asshole. If you had the power--and thought you could get away with it--you'd commit genocide against the Red State Christians, you hateful son-of-a-bitch.

You're a fucking Nazi.

Anonymous said...

I can barely restrain my joy - it really seems as if the Promised Land of secular progressivism is in sight. A Democratic president, elected in a landslide, abetted by a fillibuster-proof Congress and compliant judiciary, will deploy cutting-edge social engineering that will leave no institution - not even the family- untouched. Yes, the Utopia of which the intelligentsia has dreamed for decades is at hand! And the effects on our culture will be bracing. The city, with its cosmolitan outlook, its bright intellectualism and its restless questioning of all traditional values will replace the small town, with its obscurantism and provincial backwardness, as the national ideal. Life-denying fundamentalism will be replaced by the positive, relevant Social Gospel. Just think - in a few weeks we will have made the first step to achieving the Abundant Life!

John said...

Iran hails world financial crisis as 'end of capitalism'

Oct 15 11:21 AM US/Eastern

"These people see the outcome of their bad deeds. This problem has spread to Europe now which makes us happy. The unhappier they are the happier we become," Ayatollah Ali Janati, who heads the Guardians Council, said in last Friday's prayer sermon."

Why is it that America-hating Islamists and the lefty trolls here sound exactly the same?

John said...

"Yes, the Utopia of which the intelligentsia has dreamed for decades is at hand! And the effects on our culture will be bracing. The city, with its cosmolitan outlook, its bright intellectualism and its restless questioning of all traditional values will replace the small town, with its obscurantism and provincial backwardness, as the national ideal."

This little revolutionary sounds like Robespierre or Marat. Hide the guillotines.

Anonymous said...

Pinhead says:

So I'm uncultured, inhumane, and irrational because...
...I make fun of liberals for thinking that they're "cultured"?

Noooooooo...because you sound like a mindless, vicious, ideological, uneducated, narrow, mean spirited party hack with a parrot for a brain.

d. simes said...

Oblivious idiotologist says...Iran agrees with leftists on capitalism.

Of course, they also agree with almost all the major economists on both sides of the spectrum regarding what has happened to the unregulated capitalist religion.

They especially agree with GW Bush and Bernanke who are socializing and nationalizing the financial system like there's no tomorrow...which there would not be without measures of this kind.

karin said...

The biggest win yet for Obama. It's literally all over but the waiting, now.

Can't we put Obama in the Whitehouse right now and let him get started cleaning the mess up?

The mind recoils at the damage Bush can still do in his remaining time.

Anonymous said...

@MisterE1970

got that right. Trolling the liberal masses with the truth is funny and FUN. Unfortunately, it just shows they're too brainwashed with liberal propaganda to see past it. Instead, they're apologizing for it. Typical.

Anonymous said...

Karin, I absolutely agree with you. I saw the third debate, the Big O mopped the floor with Mccain.

suze said...

even the FOX news sheeple, when asked for whom they were going to vote, of course, answered by raising their hands for mccain. but, when asked who won the debate, they could not ignore what was, surely for them, even painfully obvious and almost all of them raised their hands for obama.

suze said...

even the fox news sheeple, when asked for whom they were going to vote, of course, answered by raising their hands for mccain. but, when asked who won the debate, they could not ignore what wasthe painfully obvious,surely for them,and almost all of them raised their hands for obama.

suze said...

palin uses her child as a human shield:

from fox
Palin Drops Puck at Flyer’s Game Receives Mixed Reaction [ha, ha--mixed! yeahrightsure!]
by Shushannah Walshe

PHILADELPHIA –-

Sarah Palin has become known as “The Most Famous Hockey Mom in America” for her constant referral to herself on the stump as “just a hockey mom.” This evening, she met that title head on by dropping the first puck of the Philadelphia Flyers hockey season in their opener with the New York Rangers.

A carpet was laid down and Palin, dressed in a beige trench, walked on to the ice joined by her daughters Willow and Piper. The GOP Vice-Presidential nominee said at an earlier fundraiser that she would stop some of the booing from the rowdy Philadelphia fans by putting her seven year old daughter, Piper in a Flyers jersey. She said, “How dare they boo Piper!”


what a loser to do that to your child!

John said...

Bonehead quoted:

"So I'm uncultured, inhumane, and irrational because...
...I make fun of liberals for thinking that they're 'cultured'?"

Bonehead "explained":

"Noooooooo...because you sound like a mindless, vicious, ideological, uneducated, narrow, mean spirited party hack with a parrot for a brain."

I see. So you're either a plagiariasing copycat without an original thought in your brain engaging in petty and puerile "I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I" vindictiveness, or are in full psychological defense mechanism mode and unconsciously projecting the very characteristics I identified FIRST.

You xeroxed:

"Noooooooo...because you sound like a mindless..."

I said (first):

"...it is those elite elitists at the top of the food chain that the bottom-dwelling elitists here look up to and try to emulate by quoting them as authorities with papal infallibility, and mindlessly..."

and:

"...that their minion hordes--the orcs and trolls--mindlessly..."

You xeroxed:

"...because you sound like a mindless...with a parrot for a brain."

I said (first):

"...that their minion hordes--the orcs and trolls--mindlessly parrot and carry out."

And:

"...the bottom-dwelling elitists here...by mindlessly parroting..."

And by your mindless parroting of me, you prove my prognosis of your copycatting and/or projecting character, idjoot.

You xeroxed:

"Noooooooo...because you sound like a mindless, vicious..."

I said (first):

"And you know who ultimately wins (despite desperate, vicious cheating...by the LOSER)."

You xeroxed:

"Noooooooo...because you sound like a...ideological..."

I said (first):

"...the bottom-dwelling elitists here...nothing but pests oblivious to--if not accepting of, which is even worse-- the sinister, Marxist ideology."

You xeroxed:

"Noooooooo...because you sound... uneducated..."

I said (first):

"Well, most are monolingual, all are trendy and superficial, historically and literarily illiterate..." (*passim*)

In other words, UNEDUCATED (by the more rigorous and comprehensive Classical standards, anyway).

You xeroxed:

"Noooooooo...because you sound like a...mean spirited..."

I quoted (first):

"Are Christians the sickest pack of slime on the planet or what?Just think. They used to be able to burn you for saying that...now, we just shove it down their throats."

And:

"yas, the holy bible...foulest piece of pornographic shit on the planet."


And:

"This election is about the importance of not just winning, but breaking their backs and crushing their spirits."

And:

"This isn't about winning. It's about destroying the conservative movement, and their dangerous incompetence has given us an historic opportunity to deliver a killing blow. Leave everything on the roa" (sic)

You xeroxed:

"Noooooooo...because you sound like a...party hack..."

I said (first):

"But I suppose she's an honorary plebe to the elitist club because she's a loyal footsoldier..." (*passim*)

And so this:

"Noooooooo...because you sound like a mindless, vicious, ideological, uneducated, narrow, mean spirited party hack with a parrot for a brain."

...was nothing but mindless parroting.

What have you got to say for yourself?

(and please, try to come up with something original for once)

simian twisted:

"Oblivious idiotologist (i.e. yours truly) says...Iran agrees with leftists on capitalism."

What I said was:

"Why is it that America-hating Islamists and the lefty trolls here sound exactly the same?"

In reference to:

"These people see the outcome of their bad deeds. This problem has spread to Europe now which makes us happy. The unhappier they are the happier we become."

Only an oblivious idiot (an idiotologist, like me, is an expert on idiots, as the idiot obliviously acknowledged) would not understand that the subject was schaudenfreud by America's enemies, not the pros or cons of Capitalism.

"Of course, they also agree with almost all the major economists on both sides of the spectrum regarding what has happened to the unregulated capitalist religion."

What happened is that the free system works best--if works at all-- when the operators have an elementary understanding of basic business ethics (if not actually ladies and gentlemen of strong moral fiber), but sleazebags have managed to infiltrate, rape it, and cause it to break down.

"They especially agree with GW Bush and Bernanke who are socializing and nationalizing the financial system like there's no tomorrow..."

There's a difference between an intervening but temporary, emergency bailout (as assured it is) and government restructuring of the system that gives overseering command and control of the private sector (to make sure that the "wealth is spread around," for exanmple), comrade.

"...which there would not be without measures of this kind."

Agreed. But we'll have to see if the government acts like the cowboy who rode into town to save the day and then leaves at sunset, or the law that parks it's fat ass
on the livingroom couch and sticks around even after the refrigerator has been cleaned out.

karin wished:

"The biggest win yet for Obama."

Actually, it was McCain's best performance (which may be too little to late), and Obama's strategy was obviously not to have a "big win" so much as not to lose. Both performed well, McCain better, and the best you can say for Obama was that it was a tie, which is a win because McCain needed to knock him off his game.

But leave it to hyper-partisan cheerleaders to squeal "IT WAS A BIG WIN FOR OBAMA!" no matter what happened (and what happened was certainly not a "big win" for Obama, implying dominance).

"It's literally all over but the waiting, now."

It ain't over 'til it's over.

"Can't we put Obama in the Whitehouse right now and let him get started cleaning the mess up?"

We said that about Bush and the Clinton White House FIRST, eight years ago, but I guess better late than never when it comes to petty vindictiveness.

"The mind recoils at the damage Bush can still do in his remaining time."

You're pathetic.

Anonymous objectively assessed (whatever):

"Karin, I absolutely agree with you. I saw the third debate, the Big O mopped the floor with Mccain."

The American people will be the judge that (although, given the support they're giving to a big government, northeastern liberal with a shady past that includes his support for a Kenyan Islamist who wanted to impose Sharia and incited riots therein, it seems the decades-old liberal strategy of teaching The Children not to exercize discriminating judgment and make moral calls is paying off.

John said...

"palin uses her child as a human shield...what a loser to do that to your child!"

Unlike Hillary who's had Chelsea in tow at many of her appearances and went a lot further than that when, after each time she suffered a political defeat, she would hide for a spell and then re-emerge championing "The Children."

She used them as P.R. shields to wade back into the game (after all, if you had a problem with what she was saying, then you must be against The Children).

suze said...

piper is a seven-year-old child. chelsea is a twenty-eight-year-old woman.

suze said...

xeroxed? you must be really, really ancient.

John said...

I would've used "photocopied" but the copycatting/projecting/plagiarizingm.o. is even older than the xerox machine, and just as decrepit.

Anonymous said...

It's such a relief that the debates are over, Obama the winner and the election just a formality. The Republican Party will be out, will be reduced to complete impotence and we can look forward to the restoration of decent government under the auspices of Obama, a fillibuster proof Senate, a Democratic-controlled House and a liberal judiciary.

Anonymous said...

McCain Sees His Chances Slip Away
Thursday, October 16, 2008

By Susan Estrich

E-Mail Respond Print Share:

Susan B. Landau


Susan Estrich
You can count them on one hand. Alabama, Kansas, Georgia and South Carolina. Every morning, realclearpolitics.com lists all the public polls, both state and national, released that day. Since Saturday, John McCain has been behind in every single national poll. He has also been behind in every major swing state. He’s down by double digits in Pennsylvania and Virginia, down by 13 in New Mexico, down by 10 in Virginia.

The “safe” states for McCain are few and far between, and not even close to a majority in the electoral college.

McCain’s defenders call it a “mid-single digit” deficit. Presidential elections don’t work like horsehoes. A “mid-single digit” defeat means you get clobbered. A “high-single digit” defeat means a landslide.

Right now, the race is somewhere between clobbered and landslide, somewhere between 1988 (seven points/clobbered) and 1980 (nine points/landslide). Not close. Not pretty.

Wednesday night was John McCain’s last big chance to change things. It was the last moment that a significant percentage of Americans will tune in to see the two candidates. It was the last chance for McCain to take on Barack Obama on an even playing field.

Starting Thursday, and for the 18 days that follow, Obama will be outspending McCain everywhere that matters by 2-1 or 3-1 – or more. Starting Thursday, Republicans everywhere will be covering their rear ends, trying to make sure that they are not swept up in what looks like a wave; trying to cut their losses, avoid taking people with them.

RelatedColumn Archive
McCain Sees His Chances Slip AwaySmear Campaigning Should Be Beneath John McCainPresidential Debate Was Terminal Boredom McCain Leaving Michigan Is a Sign of Weakness A Year That Should Be Big For Democrats Might Actually Turn Out That WayFull-page Blue Streak Archive

Stories
First Rule of Debates: Do No Harm Sarah Palin and the Double Standard Starting Thursday, you put the money where it will help the down-ticket races. We all know what the last days of a losing campaign look like. Been there, done that. Not pretty.

Wednesday night was McCain’s last best chance to avoid triage. He needed to make something happen. He didn’t. Wednesday night was not a “game-changer.” Don’t take my word for it. Ask Republican Mike Huckabee. He said it, and he’s right.

Joe the Plumber may be the new icon of the campaign, but Obama’s comment that we need to “spread the wealth around” is not going to cost him this election. It’s not that kind of year. It’s the kind of year where people who never worry are worried, where economic insecurity is rampant, where the problem is not too much government but not enough. By all means spread the wealth around, if there is any to spread around.

Maybe there was nothing McCain could have said to change things. Maybe the die was cast when the housing bubble exploded, when the Dow dropped, when the credit market froze. It may well be that we’ll look back and say, as we did in 1980, that thinking this would be a close election was a denial of economic reality; that all people needed was the barest reassurance that it was safe to say no to the incumbent party, and the party was over.

Maybe we’ll say that no matter who McCain picked, or how much he raised, or what he did, the end would have been the same, that Mitt Romney could not have done any better, in the first or second spot; that that when the percentage of Americans who think the country is heading on the right track is in the single digits, a single-digit defeat is the best the incumbent party can expect.

The Republican talking heads are all saying that McCain “won” on Wednesday night. What they mean is that they liked what they heard. As well they should. McCain played to his base on Wednesday night, and played hard. He played to avoid having the floor fall out from under him. He played for a single-digit defeat, not a victory.

October is not the time to play to your base. October is not the time for liberals to be proud of being liberals, or conservatives to be proud of being conservatives. That’s August. September, latest.

October is the time for Democrats to point out that abortion is a difficult issue, that reasonable people can disagree; that’s what Obama did Wednesday night. He was playing to the middle, because his base is secure.

As Jimmy Carter once said, life isn’t fair. It isn’t. Hillary Clinton supporters now understand that all that stood between her and the White House was a failed caucus strategy; that she, too, could have beaten John McCain, and would have.

True enough. John McCain supporters, particularly those who were with him eight years ago, must be pained by the realization that the man who beat them, slammed them, threw mud at them then is costing their man the election now. Wednesday night, at long last, John McCain insisted that he wasn’t George Bush, that if Barack Obama wanted to run against George Bush, he should have run four years ago.

It was a good line. It was a long overdue effort to draw a line in the sand. But it doesn’t work. Politics is not about fairness.

It may not be George Bush’s fault that the economy is in the toilet, but it happened on his watch. He would have taken credit for peace and prosperity. So he gets blamed for their absence. And so does his party, and its new leader. Live by the sword and die by the sword, even if it’s someone else’s sword.

Barack Obama is a very lucky guy. But it is also the case that he made his luck. The fat lady has yet to sing, but she is definitely getting ready.

Anonymous said...

Poll: Debate watchers say Obama wins

58 percent of those polled who watched the debate say Obama is the winner

Poll: Obama's favorable rating up to 66 percent, McCain's down to 49 percent

80 percent of debate watchers in poll say McCain was more on the attack

Next Article in Politics »


Read VIDEO
By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director

HEMPSTEAD, New York (CNN) -- A majority of debate watchers think Sen. Barack Obama won the third and final presidential debate, according to a national poll conducted right afterward.


Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain debate face to face Wednesday night.

Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said Democratic candidate Obama did the best job in the debate, with 31 percent saying Republican Sen. John McCain performed best.

The poll also suggests that debate watchers' favorable opinion of Obama rose slightly during the debate, from 63 percent at the start to 66 percent at the end. The poll indicates that McCain's favorables dropped slightly, from 51 percent to 49 percent.

The economy was the dominant issue of the debate, and 59 percent of debate watchers polled said Obama would do a better job handling the economy, 24 points ahead of McCain.

During the debate, McCain attacked Obama's stance on taxes, accusing Obama of seeking tax increases that would "spread the wealth around." But by 15 points, 56 percent to 41 percent, debate watchers polled said Obama would do a better job on taxes. By a 2-1 margin, 62 percent to 31 percent, debate watchers said Obama would do a better job on health care.

Sixty-six percent of debate watchers said Obama more clearly expressed his views, with 25 percent saying McCain was more clear about his views.

By 23 points, those polled said Obama was the stronger leader during the debate. By 48 points, they said Obama was more likeable. Watch entire debate: Part 1 » | Part 2 » | Part 3 »

McCain won in two categories. Eighty percent of debate watchers polled said McCain spent more time attacking his opponent, with seven percent saying Obama was more on the attack. Fifty-four percent said McCain seemed more like a typical politician during the debate, with 35 percent saying Obama acted more like a typical politician.

"Independents tend to prefer debates that are dominated by substance and light on discussion of personal characteristics," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director. "The perception that McCain attacked Obama gave red meat to GOP partisans, but it probably didn't help McCain with independents."

Don't Miss
McCain, Obama face off in final debate
iReport.com: Who won the debate?
Election Center 2008
Transcript of debate
"There was a notable gender gap as well," Holland said. "Women thought Obama won the debate by a 62 percent to 28 percent margin. Among men, Obama's lead was narrower, 54 percent to 35 percent in Obama's favor."

During the debate, McCain demanded to know the full extent of Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a 1960s radical. But the poll suggests that line of attack may not resonate with Americans. Fifty-one percent of debate watchers said Obama's connection to Ayers didn't matter at all to them, with 23 percent saying it mattered a great deal.

The audience for the debate poll appeared to be a bit more Democratic -- and a bit more Republican -- than the U.S. population as a whole. Forty percent of debate watchers in the survey were Democrats and 30 percent Republicans.

CNN's estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates the sample is about 3 to 4 points more Democratic than the population as a whole, but also about 2 to 3 points more Republican than the population as a whole.

Eighty-eight percent of Democrats questioned in the poll said Obama did the best job, with 68 percent of Republicans saying McCain performed best. Among independents, 57 percent said Obama did the best job, with 31 percent backing McCain as the winner of the debate.

The candidates first debated in Oxford, Mississippi, on September 26. Fifty-one percent of debate watchers polled by CNN and the Opinion Research Corp. said Obama won that debate, with 38 percent saying McCain performed best. The second presidential debate was held in Nashville, Tennessee, on October 7 and 54 percent of debate watchers polled said Obama won, compared with 30 percent who said McCain did the best job.

The running mates, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska faced off in Saint Louis, Missouri, in the single vice presidential debate October 2. Fifty-one percent of debate watchers polled said Biden won, and 36 percent said Palin won.


The post-debate polls do not reflect the views of all Americans. They only represent the views of people who watched the debates.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted by telephone Wednesday night, with 620 adult Americans who watched the debate questioned. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points

sonny boy maxwell said...

Was it on this thread that someone said Palin was a "real Christian?"

Has that poor person ever actually looked at the insane, dominionist beliefs of her church? They're appalling and the statements coming out of it make Wright look positively mellow.

sonny boy said...

Some poor guy named John is having a nervous breakdown right there on the page, up a few posts.

I don't know; maybe you guys are used to that from him, but it's quite a desperate and unintentionally instructive spiel if you haven't read it.

Apparently, he's about 12 years of age -- at least intellectually -- and goes on and on about having said something first.

One "point" he tries to make is that the free market WOULD work OK if only the bad guys would just stay out of it!!!!

And, I guess there would never be any need for laws on individuals if everyone would just behave!!...lol!

Oh, yeah, all that crime and corruption this time around...that had to be just a one time thing!!

Then he waxes hopeful that the gov't intervention will only be temporary ...so,one supposes, it can happen again...like it just did and did in the twenties!!!!

Let's hope we can keep these seriously faulty "minds" out of government for as long as we did after the last big crash.

Anonymous said...

Say It Isn’t So, Joe! Wurzelbacher Not A Real $250K Plumber?
October 16, 2008

Joe The Plumber, aka Joe Wurzelbacher, the Toledo plumber who became the hot topic of the last Presidential debate due to his rope-line confrontation with Barack Obama’s over the Democratic candidate’s tax plan, may not be a plumber, and may not be planning to buy a plumbing business where he will be netting $250,000 a year.

He isn’t in the Toledo Yellow Pages, he isn’t registered to vote and it’s more likely that his existence as a plumber buying a $250K business is as sincere as Sarah Palin asking Joe Biden if she can call him “Joe.”

Isn’t it interesting that Joe is buying a business that is making a profit of exactly $250K, the Obama tax break minimum. If we’re talking a business that is bottom lining at $250K, a standard business acquisition falls into the 4 to 1 investment area, which would call for Joe

is buying a business that is making a profit of exactly $250K, the Obama tax break minimum. A normal business acquisition falls into the 4 to 1 investment area, which would call for Joe to come up with $1,000,000 to purchase his $250K business. If that plumbing business had assets like trucks, equipment and offices, the cost could be far more.

Add to that Wurzelbacher doesn’t appear in the Toledo Yellow Pages listings, yet has been able to put together at least a million to invest, especially in these dire economic times, you begin to wonder whether Joe is a plumber or did someone in the McCain campaign find him in central casting?

Most important, if he is really a plumber, where’ the ass crack?

poooor john said...

Undecideds Laughing At, Not With, McCain
From TIME's Amy Sullivan:

In politics it is generally not considered a good sign when voters are laughing at you, not with you. And by the end of the third and last presidential debate, the undecided voters who had gathered in Denver for Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg’s focus group were “audibly snickering” at John McCain’s grimaces, eye-bulging, and repeated references to “Joe the Plumber.”

only in the gop said...

Then it turns out Joe duh plumber is a tax dodger.

If Insane McCain runs the country like is campaign...he'll make Bush look smart.

And, those crazy faces he makes...migod, how did this man...scratch that...this semi-humanoid entity EVER get nominated to anything out side an asylum?

John said...

"Some poor guy named John is having a nervous breakdown...Apparently, he's about 12 years of age -- at least intellectually"-

So, which is it, do I have a childish intellect or am I having a nervous breakdown?

You're incompatibly mixing your metaphors, unable to decide whether I'm a childish simpleton throwing a temper tantrum, or some kind of overanalyzing neurotic on the edge, so, what the hell, both.

Kind of like Bush being both a "moron" and an evil genius who outsmarted the Democrats ("He tricked us into going to war! Wahhh!").

"- and goes on and on about having said something first."

That just goes to show you the extent of the plagiarism and/or projection, dolt.

Libs on the rise said...

Nobel Prize to Arch-Critic Krugman Is Blow to Bush


Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush, whose approval ratings are at historic lows as the U.S. veers toward a recession or worse, got yet another thumb in the eye when one of his most vociferous critics was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.

While Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman was honored today for ``analysis of trade patterns of and locations of economic activity,'' he's more widely known for twice-weekly columns in the New York Times and appearances on television, in which he regularly attacks the president on the war in Iraq, his tax cuts and other issues.

Krugman, 55, doesn't mince words. He has accused Bush of leading the country into ``strategic disaster and moral squalor,'' and his columns and Times blog entries carry headlines with such blunt entreaties as ``Please Go Away.''

Even though Krugman's award was for his economic theories and not his criticism of Bush, the prize elevates the profile of an already-prominent Bush critic, said Jim Davis, a political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

``People will just see that a well-informed economist who has been critical of the Bush administration got the Nobel Prize, that's the take-away here,'' Davis said.

Of the more than 800 Krugman pieces listed on the Times Web site since he became a columnist in 1999, almost 600 of them mention ``Bush,'' a search of the site shows.

`Takes the Food'

On Feb. 11, 2005, he referred to Bush as ``someone who takes food from the mouth of babes and gives the proceeds to his millionaire friends.'' On Jan. 22, 2007, Bush, with his plan to use tax credits to buy health insurance, is ``not even trying to hide his fundamental indifference to the plight of the less- fortunate,'' Krugman wrote.

Krugman is a fierce critic of Bush's foreign policy and was an early opponent of the war in Iraq. Of the president's case for removing Saddam Hussein, Krugman wrote on Feb. 11, 2003, ``Mr. Bush's America does not look like a regime whose promises you can trust.''

``People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration's general incompetence,'' Krugman wrote on Oct. 8 last year. ``But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism.''

Krugman is not the first Bush critic to win a Nobel Prize. Former President Jimmy Carter's Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 ``was more of a slap in the face,'' said Stephen Hess, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Krugman's award could bring Bush face-to-face with his antagonist. The president typically invites Nobel Prize winners to the White House in November or December.

John said...

Congratulations to Krugman! After belonging to the same club that Barney Frank just joined (i.e. The exclusive I-Received-A-Public-Flogging-By-Bill-O'-Reilly Club), he can now can boast of belonging to the same elitist club as Yasser Arafat and Al Gore!

karin said...

Troubled child says, "So, which is it, do I have a childish intellect or am I having a nervous breakdown?"


It's pretty clear to everyone else that he meant both. What kind of silly child would think you can't be childish AND be losing control at the same time?

They're obviously entirely consistent,and you're constantly proving it...lol.


And, believe me, no one EVER said Bush was a genius...evil or otherwise. They gave credit to Rove and the endless array of reicho stink tanks for brainwashing morons like you into putting another moron in office, but certainly never any credit to Bush, himself.

Hitler he is not...though he tries real, real hard.

Oh, and what kind of silly non sequitur is that asinine plagiarism thing?

karin said...

omg...O' Reilly...he's a joke and couldn't flog anything.

Except himself with a luffa.

suze said...

it's not a mixed metaphor, john...not even a metaphor...couldn't a man with a twelve-year-old intellect have a nervous breakdown? apparently.

flusher said...

McToast

FL – St. Petersburg Times (Editorial) "McCain's last offensive:" On the same day a new poll showed that voters' confidence in the federal government has reached an all-time low, Obama spoke with a reassuring confidence…But when the questioning turned to campaign attacks by both sides, McCain could not contain his anger and lost much of his momentum. He again floated some dark connection between Obama and 1960s-era antigovernment radical Bill Ayers. When that punch failed to ruffle Obama, McCain ramped up his intensity. The split television screen displayed a candidate who gradually appeared more frustrated, condescending and dismissive of one who would not take the bait. Those facial expressions will not play well in the coming days.

WI – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Editorial) "The attack debate:" John McCain went into the final presidential debate on Wednesday looking for a game-changer, the need to reverse plummeting fortunes as measured by polls and likely fueled by national economic difficulties that do not favor members of the party now possessing the White House. Time - and an election - will tell, but our guess is that McCain missed the mark if that was his goal.

MO – Kansas City Star (Editorial) "Attacks can't shake Obama in debate:" Over the three presidential debates, Democrat Barack Obama has largely answered doubts about his readiness to be president of the United States. His unflappable temperament, thoughtful demeanor and rhetorical abilities were impressive. Republican John McCain's performances were more uneven, becoming increasingly aggressive.

MI - Detroit Free Press (Stephen Henderson) "Striving to get back in the game, McCain looks more desperate": It was probably unrealistic for anyone to believe that Republican presidential candidate John McCain could right the sinking ship of his campaign with a debate performance, but Wednesday night's encounter with Democrat Barack Obama only seemed to reinforce the idea that McCain is badly behind, and desperate. Here was McCain, answering a question about the negative tone of his campaign — and the very frightening tenor of recent rallies for McCain — by talking about the negativity of Obama's campaign, saying Obama's failure to agree to more than 10 town hall meetings was the reason things turned so negative. But overall, it was hard not to think of this campaign as largely over while watching the debate. Of course, anything can happen in the next few weeks, and history says the race will almost certainly tighten. John McCain, though, looked like a guy about to lose and fully aware of the desperation of his circumstances.

Des Moines Register (David Yepsen) "Obama Bests McCain In Final Debate" John McCain lost the final debate of the 2008 presidential campaign Wednesday night…McCain simply needed a breakout performance and he failed to provide one. He went into the forum trailing Obama in polls of the contest and he came out of in the same position. By doing so, McCain missed his biggest remaining opportunity to change the direction of the presidential contest.

MN – Duluth News Tribune (Staff Written) "Local and national online polls give nod to Obama:" News Tribune readers who answered an unscientific online poll Wednesday said Sen. Barack Obama won the third and final presidential debate over Sen. John McCain. Of 112 readers who voted between 9:30 and 11 p.m., 59 percent said Obama won while 41 percent said McCain won. [According to one reader] "I felt that the cool, calm, collected nature of Barack Obama was welcomed and needed in these already stressful and uncertain times of crisis. To me the long-standing reputation of John McCain as a maverick and a reformer was overpowered by his cynicism, sarcasm and smugness." [said] Adam White of Duluth.

OH – Columbus Dispatch (Darrel Rowland) "Undecided's dial it up for Obama:" Fifty women gathered in a Columbus hotel's conference room and got to do what millions of Americans probably wanted to do last night: Tell the presidential candidates exactly what they thought of them….This group of undecided voters' opinions were recorded every second of the 90-minute debate. The result? A major win for Democrat Barack Obama. Seventy-one percent of these undecided voters thought Obama did better in addressing the issues important to them, while only 9 percent felt that way about Republican John McCain. The group slightly favored Obama coming into the debate, but afterward he won support by about a 2-to-1 ratio.

PA – The Philadelphia Inquirer (Larry Eichel) "Some jabs, but there was no knockout:" Republican John McCain, desperately trying to launch a comeback with less than three weeks to go, was on the offensive all night, intense and focused. But Democrat Barack Obama had the same calm and steady presence he'd shown in their two previous encounters, answering some of McCain's attacks and shrugging off others, saying that the voters want to hear about their own problems instead. When it was all over, even though the debate was somewhat more contentious than the previous two, the likelihood was that nothing much had changed in the shape of the campaign. The first round of post-debate polls had Obama the overwhelming winner, as was the case in the previous two.

PA – Philadelphia Daily News (John Baer) It was an often angry, sometimes manic McCain trying to knock Obama off his cool at a time when voters are telling pollsters that they want a calm and steady hand steering the nation out of its economic crisis. Obama was his usual reserved self, often smiling and shaking his head instead of counterpunching. He patiently, even indulgently, explained and defended his programs and his campaign.

New York Post (Kirsten Powers) "Bam Gets Job Done" Even when McCain was substantively on point, his body language and tone were a distraction. McCain's facial expressions were akin to Al Gore's sighs in the 2000 debates with George W. Bush. At times McCain was downright nasty, speaking in sarcastic and condescending tones. Toward the end of the debate when they discussed education, McCain spoke to Obama with something bordering on disgust. Considering polls show that voters already view the McCain campaign as overly negative, this behavior couldn't have won over many people.

Boston Globe (Editorial) "Scattershot McCain" John McCain's fiery performance in the final presidential debate last night may have given a lift to some despondent supporters who have watched the election getting away from them. But it is less clear that McCain's buckshot approach hit its target…The stock market is in freefall. Basic needs are more expensive than ever. The very planet is in peril. These are serious concerns that face America's future. Yet, in a debate that McCain needed to win, he seemed fixated on some deluded throwback from the Vietnam era.

Los Angeles Times (Editorial) "McCain's debatable strategy" Throughout, Obama adopted a look of incredulity, but even his reserve was cracked by McCain's pivot out of the politics of personal attack. Immediately after demanding that Obama provide a full accounting of his relationships with ACORN and Ayers, McCain asserted: "My campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America." That disjointed segue was too much for Obama, who laughed.

Boston Globe (Scot Lehigh) "It's not even close": John McCain came into the final presidential debate needing a game-changer, a Ronald Reagan moment, a Jerry Ford-like blunder by Barack Obama, something - anything - that would reverse the strengthening tide now running hard against him. He didn't get it. Not even close.

Boston Globe (Joan Vennochi) "That's it for McCain": Its Over. John McCain still hasn't told the country why he should be president. He has talking points. He is against taxes, earmarks, and pork. But he can't knit what he opposes into a coherent economic philosophy that would inspire voters to get behind him in the final days of this presidential campaign. He has an inspirational life story. But in this campaign, he never connected his biography to his presidential ambition, and he never told voters how it would shape a McCain administration and make him a better president than his opponent.

New York Daily News (Thomas M. DeFrank) "Feisty John McCain works hard, can't score" It was John McCain's last big chance to tame the massive headwinds buffeting his fading campaign…Barack Obama came into the Hofstra debate handily ahead. Nothing Wednesday night altered that stark reality for McCain and his dispirited partisans.

New York Post (Carl Campanile) "Barack Rocks With Post Panel" The results are in and the winner is . . . Barack Obama… McCain's decision to attack Obama for his associations with 1960s Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and the group ACORN backfired with The Post's panel of voters. Upper West resident Anne Maxfield said, "Ayers was a terrorist 40 years ago. We have serious economic problems in this country."

Los Angeles Times (Cathleen Decker) John McCain came into the third and final presidential debate needing to somehow wrestle the campaign out of Barack Obama's arms. He did not do it. There was no single moment that was likely to reverberate in the minds of American voters and change the course of an election that has moved dramatically toward Obama in the last several weeks. But the 90-minute debate was a perfect distillation of McCain's general election campaign, with all of its inconsistent messages.

TIME (David Von Drehle) "McCain Threw the Sink — and Plumber — But Obama Doesn't Falter" The problem for McCain is that no matter how hard or how crisply he punched, it could not last. In the end, the gravity of the debate returned to Barack Obama. The turning point was when McCain finally brought up the issue of Obama's ties to former the anti-Vietnam War terrorist William Ayers. All he accomplished was to swing the spotlight from himself back to the engaging newcomer. Predictably, Obama had a mild answer ready-as straightforward and uncontroversial as it was soothing… Mostly he tried to say that Obama-change is dangerous. Across the table, there sat Obama, looking not very dangerous.

Washington Post (Dana Milbank) Schieffer moved on to another question -- and Ayers and ACORN, after a five-minute cameo, were gone. In those five minutes, the Republican nominee became the man America had seen in his ads, whose slashing personal attacks on his opponent's character have, by most measures, done him more harm than good. Perhaps mindful of that, or perhaps set back by Obama's mild responses to his attacks, McCain, though delivering sharper jabs than he had in the earlier debates, was unwilling, or unable, to mount a sustained effort to undermine Obama's personal standing.

New York Times (Patrick Healy) "Pressing All the Buttons, McCain Attacks, but Obama Stays Steady": But then Mr. McCain began to undercut his own effort to paint Mr. Obama as just another negative politician. Mr. McCain grew angry as he attacked Mr. Obama over his ties to William Ayers, the Chicago professor who helped found the Weather Underground terrorism group. Suddenly, Mr. McCain was no longer gaining ground by showing command on the top issue for voters, the economy; he was turning tetchy over a 1960s radical…It seemed as if Mr. McCain was veering from one hot button to another, pressing them all, hoping to goad Mr. Obama into an outburst or a mistake that would alter the shape of the race in its last three weeks.

Newsweek (Richard Wolffe) "Mad Man" McCain didn't just need a game-changing moment at the debate; the Arizona senator, known in Washington for his sharp temper, needed a character-changing moment… Whatever happens in the next two weeks, the McCain campaign should be happy there are no more presidential debates.

Boston Globe (Todd Domke) "Good, but not good enough": John McCain needed to turn this third debate into a second chance. He needed to persuade undecided voters to look at him in a new, positive way and to look at Barack Obama in a new, negative way. He needed to change the dynamic of the contest because, ever since the economic crisis struck, Obama has had the advantages in message, momentum, money, and media…But it wasn't the dramatic breakthrough he needed, so, in effect, he lost.

The Hill (Sam Youngman) "Debate sees an aggressive McCain and a cool Obama:" With less than three weeks before Election Day, Sen. McCain (Ariz.) had promised to go after Obama more forcefully in their last meeting, and he did just that, accusing the Illinois senator of lying, wanting to raise taxes and associating with unscrupulous people and organizations. The Democrat, however, knowing that McCain needed a knockout blow, seemed to take McCain's best punches, explaining himself when warranted and focusing on the ongoing financial crisis and domestic policy at other times.

Politico (John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei) "Debate III: Edgy McCain sheds no new light": John McCain's challenge at the final debate was to present his case for the presidency in a new light. But over 90 minutes of intense exchanges with Barack Obama—sometimes compelling, often awkward—-there was very little new light, and no obvious reason for McCain to be optimistic that he has turned his troubled campaign in a new direction. To the contrary, what McCain offered at Hofstra University was simply a more intense, more glaring version of his campaign in familiar light —- an edgy, even angry performance that in many ways seemed like a metaphor for his unfocused, wildly improvisational campaign.

Politico (Roger Simon) "McCain fails, Obama is not rattled" John McCain needed a miracle in his final debate with Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a miracle that would wipe away McCain's deficit in the polls and re-energize his flagging campaign. He did not get one.

Alice Gorable said...

So when is Obama supposed to start that new kind of post-partisan campaigning? Never I guess. rofl!

John said...

Karin quoted:

"Troubled child (i.e. mwa or moise, whatever) says, 'So, which is it, do I have a childish intellect or am I having a nervous breakdown?'

It's pretty clear to everyone else that he meant both."

And you've been appointed to speak on behalf of "everyone else"?

Or are you just saying that because you're own convictions are too weak to stand on their own?

That's what happens when you become part of the Collective. It's "everyone knows" this and "everybody knows" that to marginalize the opposition and artificially create a consensus and a security blanket for yourself comprised of an imaginary mob conjured up out of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations.

Meanwhile, the actual size of the loony, far left fringe gang you belong too comprises a smaller percentage of the population than manmade CO2 emissions do of atmospherc CO2, which itself is a percentile of a percentile of cumulative atmospheric gases.

No wonder you think that such a noxious but infinitesimal element of the atmospheric body has such great influence: You think that the obnoxious but infinitesimal radical element of the body republic thatr you belong to is likewise influential.

You're both just incidental to greater forces beyond your ken.

Anyway, it's very clear to me that there was an uncertainty in how to characterize me and the bumbling klutz got the imagery mixed up.

"What kind of silly child would think you can't be childish AND be losing control at the same time?"

Sure, children "lose control," but that wasn't what was said (and whoever the debating coach was who taught you to create a premise out of thin air by putting words in my mouth to justify a non sequiter should not only be reprmanded, but fired and horsewhipped in the public square for corrupting the minds of America's youth).

What was said was that I was having a "nervous breakdown," which is simply not associated with resilient, childish intellects--however temperamental--and so what was scribbled was an uncertainty of characterization which resulted in a sloppy, two-headed hybrid brought about by the thought processes of a bad writer who can't quite grasp the subject at hand (i.e. me).

"They're obviously entirely consistent..."

"Obviously?" Obvious to whom? And if it's so "obvious," why did you feel the need to point out the obviousness?

Maybe because you know it needed help?

Not only that, but what is supposedly "obvious" is not the consistency, but the "entirety" of it, which, by that "very-very" hyperbolic point, should tell anyone familiar with weasley liberal-speak that not only is the insisted consistency not "entirely" consistent, and not only is it not "obviously" entirely consistent, but, on the contrary--the 180 degree inversion of what you hyperbolically insisted upon, in fact-- it is, quite simply, obviously inconsistent, as recognized off the bat.

"...and you're constantly proving it...lol."

LOL

(my lol is bigger, Karin)

"Oh, and what kind of silly non sequitur is that asinine plagiarism thing?"

Can't you read? I diagrammed the stealing of my material quite thoroughly.

"omg..."

Call me John.

suze jumped in:

"it's not a mixed metaphor, john..."

Yes it is. It was unintentional due to clumsiness/uncertainty/blockheadedness (as most mixed metaphors are), but it was nevertheless a mixed metaphor.

"...not even a metaphor..."

Okay, suze, so I guess I'm really, truly, literally--no, better yet, obviously and entirely!-- a man in the throes of a nervous breakdown AND have the mind of a pre-teen, and there is nothing metaphorical about the clashing imagery.

So, in other words, I'm immature and crazy.

Ouch. What an incisive (and mature) thing to say.

John said...

"Or are you just saying that because you're own convictions..."

sp. your

Carry on.

sonny boy maxwell said...

Wow, the more you poke this poor guy, the goofier he gets.

Is there any more likely McCainiac?

Yes, Karin was right about what I meant.

Are there any other fools on here who don't know that children not only can, but often do, have nervous breakdowns...not that I was using the term in any rigorous way, obviously.

I meant it as it's NORMALLY used in common speech by NORMAL people. Not, by desperate children trying to justify themselves with ridiculous nitpicking.

sonny boy maxwell said...

McCainiac says with characteristic petulance: "Ouch. What an incisive (and mature) thing to say."

It certainly is when it's as accurate as it is in this case.

I'd advise you to move on; these weirdo writhings are not doing you any more good than your idol's goofball emotional control problems are for him.

I hear they've got a vid of his inspired emotings out, already.
Take a look...it'll be kind of like a mirror for you.

sonny boy maxwell said...

Haaretz: U.S. rabbis: McCain attacks on Obama creeping toward 'hate speech' 10/17

Amazing how this blogger doesn't seem worried about what decent Jews think of McCain's vicious divisiveness.

It's because all he cares about is having a neocon who will allow the most rabid Zionists wag the US dog, not matter how badly that hurts this nation.

John said...

"Wow, the more you poke this poor guy, the goofier he gets."

Yes, like, "Wow."

"Is there any more likely McCainiac?"

WOW.

"Yes, Karin was right about what I meant."

Wowee-wowee.

"Are there any other fools on here who don't know that children not only can, but often do, have nervous breakdowns..."

Really?

Maybe the way liberals raise them.

That explains A LOT (lifelong therapy, for one).

"...not that I was using the term in any rigorous way, obviously."

A-ha. So you not only admit to being thoughtlessly sloppy-- and so conceding to a possible scrambling of the metaphoric omelot--but, furthermore, flip-flop and about-face 180 degrees on what's "entirely obvious."

"I meant it as it's NORMALLY used in common speech by NORMAL people."

*Au contraire,* it is ABNORMAL--disturbingly so-- to associate children with nervous breakdowns in common speech by NORMAL people.

Maybe your "job-creating" crowd found a way to employ your surplus--and superfluous-- "mental health professionals" by creating new positions like "Child Therapist" (who is simply part of the indoctrination process after mommy and daddy have been marginalized by divorce, absence, "careers," and/or lovelessness or were the cause of the breakdown because they're the same sex).

"Not, by desperate children trying to justify themselves with ridiculous nitpicking."

That's a projection.

McCainiac (i.e. me) says with characteristic petulance: "Ouch. What an incisive (and mature) thing to say."

That's not "petulance." That's OBVIOUSLY sarcasm, bonehead.

"It certainly is when it's as accurate as it is in this case."

Ooo. I'm BURNED.

"I'd advise you to move on;"

Who asked for your "advice," counselor? Here's mine: I'd advise YOU to "move on" to avoid further humiliation by the exposing of you as a mental midget on the World Wide Web.

"...these weirdo writhings are not doing you any more good than your idol's goofball emotional control problems are for him."

Here we go. Here comes the next wave of negative, personal, ad hominem attacks against McCain trying to insidiously "suggest"--if not outright accuse--the passionate McCain-- who must've gotten angry in the past at slithering, fork-tongued colleagues-- as being "too temperamental" and "unstable" and (what the hell) "bonkers" (as hissed by the slithering, snake-tongued colleagues).


"I hear they've got a vid of his inspired emotings out, already.
Take a look...it'll be kind of like a mirror for you."

Right. So much for "The Issues That Americans Care About!"

It took you black-robed and hooded character assassins 24 hours to pull out the long knives and shamelessly go after private citizen Joe the Plumber and out him as a "tax evader."

Well, duh. Is that (if even true) supposed to compromise his credibility when he says he doesn't like taxes?

And does McCain's anger over the years at slithering, snake-tongued colleagues supposed to compromise his credibility when he says: "I know Americans are angry at the politicians in Washington, trust me, I know exactly how you feel"?

Huh? What? Yes? No?

John said...

"Amazing how this blogger doesn't seem worried about what decent Jews think of McCain's vicious divisiveness."

You mean liberal Jews, don't you?

Oh, I get it, of course. Liberalism is equated with "decency," and conservatism with "vicious divisiveness," and so liberal Jews are "decent," and conservative Jews are "rabid, Neocon Zionists" (which is a vicious and rabid way of arguing, though quite typical for the "decent" liberal).

midnite said...

hahahaha.

He's priceless...it's like whacking a pinata filled with an endless store of insane syndromes and watching them spill out in disgusting, never ending abundance.

And the tortured laboriousness of it!! He's a guy who never learned the meaning of "trying too hard."

midnite at the asylum said...

I just noticed his post is at 2:37 in the morning...he's been sitting up all night writhing in McCainiacal agony and seething rage, composing this overwrought, self justifying drivel.

He really caught you in that "sloppy metaphor" though, Sonny Boy...hahahaha...that must be a real killer for you. Don't be havin no nervous breakdown over it, now!!

JohnGLambrou@Hotmail.com said...

"He's priceless...it's like whacking a pinata filled with an endless store of insane syndromes and watching them spill out in disgusting, never ending abundance."

Fascinating. That one is like a snarling, cornered animal foaming at the mouth and is in full projection mode. He just vented and described himself.

He confesses that he's a basket case of a disgusting type of insanity, but thinks that his morbidity has the quality of a "pinata," is some kind of "priceless" boon, and so, sadly, the prognosis for his recovery is not good because of the self-preserving spin.

Note here, too, the mixed metaphors: (the positive) "priceless," "pinata," "abundance"/(the negative) "insane," "disgusting," "neverending," with both sets bridged by glee.

That strongly implies some sort of cognitive schism that--due to its immediate recurrence-- appears to be yet another shared characteristic of the mental illness caused by the intellectual absorption of the viral, liberal ideology under observation here, as evinced and identified in the preceding subject (an adolescent female liberal, I would guess).

"And the tortured laboriousness of it!! He's a guy who never learned the meaning of 'trying too hard.'"

Full projection mode confirmed.

This:

"He's priceless...it's like whacking a pinata filled with an endless store of insane syndromes and watching them spill out in disgusting, never ending abundance."

...is a "tortured, laborious" way of saying "He's the gift that keeps giving."

So it is he, in fact, who is "trying too hard" to match wits with what he perceives to be a superior intellect, and so he comes out from behind the wagon with eyes closed and both barrels blasting haphazardly.

"Tortured laboriousness" itself is laboriously torturing his more habitual--but no less pretentious--"grotesque," turning it up a notch, just to be on the safe side, but he's projecting all way and shooting at his own shadow.

Like the first subject who mixed her metaphors, this one is also having trouble characterizing me (and hence the default position to projection mode), but in the meanwhile--between blurted, blustering bleats and bluffs--is trying to figure me out, and so searches for clues that he could work a theory around:

"I just noticed his post is at 2:37 in the morning..."

Yes. Hmmm...

What could that mean?

Eureka:

"...he's been sitting up all night writhing in McCainiacal agony and seething rage, composing this overwrought, self justifying drivel."

In other words, he's clueless, and defaulted back into projection mode, himself--self-evidently--"seething with rage" and "composing overwrought, self-justifying drivel":

"He's priceless...it's like whacking a pinata filled with an endless store of insane syndromes and watching them spill out in disgusting, never ending abundance."

Again, that's simply an overwrought--and plagiarised, btw--version of "He's the gift that keeps giving," made grotesque by the tortured labor of hammering and hammering the pre-existing cliche' in projecting, seething rage until it tentacled outward in resemblance of his own writhing agony within, and then, wearing a gaping grin, proudly presenting the plagiarism made monstrous like a talentless little boy show and telling something asymetric and clashing that he constructed in kindergarten art class with paper, scissors, and Elmer's glue based on an origami bird he saw in a store window once, but now--he thinks-- better (though it's acually worthless to anyone but his mother).

"He really caught you in that 'sloppy metaphor' though, Sonny Boy...hahahaha..."

Pay attention. I said it was a mixed-metaphor that was unintentional and due to "clumsiness (or 'thoughtless sloppiness'), uncertainty, or blockheadedness (as most mixed metaphors are)."

I must thank you, however, for your own unwitting (if not witless) mixed metaphor because, by fortuitously mixing your metaphors immediately after I identified the mixing of metaphors by the preceding subject, you introduced a recurring pattern and so another possibility, and by so doing contributed to my ongoing research here of the modern liberal mind (and there are excellent specimens here, I must say): some sort of cognitive schism that appears to be yet another shared characteristic of the mental illness caused by the intellectual absorption of viral, liberal ideology (and so you mix your metaphors).

"that must be a real killer for you. Don't be havin no nervous breakdown over it, now!!"

It's you I'm worried about. But please, continue. Like I said, you're an excellent specimen and I'm learning even more about how the liberal animal thinks.

John said...

Doh.

d. simes said...

Wow...talk about trying too hard. He just did it again! A few words from midnite sends him into another endless binge of strained but very entertaing, idiocy...if you've got a taste for a mix of the stupid with the weird.

I don't think he can help himself. The need for self justification is just too great...with good reason.
But, then he just digs a bigger hole...like his idol.

I hope this will have the same effect.

He's the, uh, lemme see...is there a really stale cliche this fool can understand? Oh, I know...the gift that keeps on sweating.

And he left you his email address, nite...I think he wants some personal humiliation.

John said...

No, I really don't want personal humiliation. It was an accident (like I said: D'oh).

Just ignore it, k? Thanks.

"...the gift that keeps on sweating."

Is that the best you can do, simian?

How about this:

"...it's like whacking a rubber pinata filled to bursting with an endless store of salty perspiration and watching it spill out in disgusting, never ending streams of sweat."

Better? Nah. Too pretentious and in poor taste.

mr. nite to you said...

haha...dasrite, DS, I own the poor boy. A couple sentences from me and he's in for three hours of sweating over his keyboard...and the upshot?

More weirdo hilarity.

Brevity is the soul of wit, and this poor thing has neither.

midnite said...

Oh, the little perv wants the personal attention, alright. He'd have deleted that comment, otherwise, like he's retracted so many of his blurts before. He's got his ass hanging out there sure enough, all giddy for the whip.

Sorry, butt that's not my thing, Johnny...FJ'll have to help you out again.

John said...

And so ends the thread about Leftist thuggery.

The case rests.