Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
Topic: US Presidential Election (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5744
Posted: 21 May 2008 at 10:29pm | IP Logged | 1  

Kerry lost because Bush was able to define him negatively, and McCain is
doing the same to Obama so far. Obama needs to hit back.


Agreed EXCEPT -- thus far Clinton, not McCain has been defining Obama.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4636
Posted: 21 May 2008 at 10:55pm | IP Logged | 2  

As far as McCain defining Obama, I was thinking this past week with the whole "He's another Neville Chamberlain" thing Bush and McCain have been pushing.  But you're right, Clinton is responsible for the "Obama is an elitist snob" perception, as well as the "Obama is inexperienced."  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18272
Posted: 22 May 2008 at 12:37am | IP Logged | 3  

Obama referenced this in his "More Perfect Union" speech when he threw grandma under the bus.

-------------------------------------------

No he didn't throw his grandma under the bus.  How can people think that?  If you speak of someone/something in anything less than abject worship, people are just dying to call you a hater.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
Official JB Historian

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
Posted: 22 May 2008 at 1:17am | IP Logged | 4  

Considering who said that, I have to assume he meant it ironically.

But, yes, to think she was thrown under the bus is a complete misunderstanding of what he said.  It's not that he even said something less than stellar - it's just a misunderstanding - I won't rehash an explanation as I covered it about 20 pages back, but it's similar to those who misunderstood his guns & religion quote - whereby he was defending the Penn voters, yet because he used certain words, which are constantly repeated, with inncorrect emphasis and out of context, it sounds like a whole other worse thing.

Now - let me say - I think people who are hearing this sort of stuff - repeated ad nauseum in the media - they don't know better.

I do, however, think those in the media who are repeating said things?  I think they do know better and are twisting things around.  That's nothing new - that's regular ol' dirty politics.  But it's a shame that people are fooled by it.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 22 May 2008 at 7:09am | IP Logged | 5  

Obama won't win in a landslide, but he'll win handily. 

***

This will depend entirely on how many of the (give or take) 16 million voters who supported Clinton; Obama's supporters seem to just assume that they will follow like lemming anyone who has a D next to their name when it comes time to vote, but I'm skeptical.

Another factor is going to be Florida.  Florida is a huge swing state and the election almost always goes the direction of Florida.  Obama was just here in the Tampa area and got a smaller crowd that expected and the local news coverage showed that a lot of people were disenchanted with him because of his original hard stance on the primary and Florida.  If McCain picks Charlie Crist as his running mate (a very moderate Republican) it will all but guarantee Florida goes to McCain.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 22 May 2008 at 7:14am | IP Logged | 6  

She CAN'T stop!  It's almost an addiction for her, now.  She's... she's GOTTA win!

Not at all.  It's not an addiction, it's a shrewd political move.  If enough damage is done and it goes on long enough (if it hasn't already) it will kill any chance Obama has of winning.  An Obama win would mean Clinton might not be able to run until 2016 and maybe not even then depending on who Obama selects as his running mate.  An Obama loss in the general election is the best thing that could happen for Clinton and conservative Democrats.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12843
Posted: 22 May 2008 at 7:17am | IP Logged | 7  

" An Obama loss in the general election is the best thing that could happen for Clinton and conservative Democrats."

Assuming there's anything left to govern after another eight years of a Republican presidency.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 22 May 2008 at 7:21am | IP Logged | 8  

Well, yeah other than being the congressional tie-breaker and gavel banger, they also get to:

1) Pick up the President's dry-cleaning

2) Wash the President's camero - by hand, as to not mess up the bitchin' flame decals on the sides.

3) Rub the President's barkin' dogs every night.

4) Pick the cabbage out of the President's cole slaw.  The President likes sauce, but not cabbage.  It's his way.

5) Service the President's wife.

6) Eat his own weight in hard-boiled eggs.

Etc and so on...

You did forget one very important one.

7) Has a huge leg-up in getting the nod for the Presidential nomination after 8 years as VP.  That is one HUGE plus.  Number 5 made me wonder what would happen if Obama were to pick Condaleeza as his running mate.  :P

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 22 May 2008 at 7:31am | IP Logged | 9  

Next, he's worried about Obama taxing the rich - I get that - he's against taxes - who isn't? - so any tax is a bad tax and Obama should be ashamed, etc.  But he's not creating some new tax for the rich - he's undoing Bush's tax cuts for the rich, which were a terrible burden for America and for the working class of America.  He's not creating some new burden for America - he's fixing something that Bush broke.

This is where an amazing number of people don't get it.  You can't tax the rich or big business.  I mean you can, but who really pays those taxes?  It's the lower and middle classes.  We pay those taxes through higher prices on everything we buy.  The rich own big business.  Big business makes all their money through what they sell.  Raise their taxes?  No problem, they just raise prices to cover the taxes.  Big government and big government spending on more and more new programs means a need for more tax dollars.  Those dollars are coming from our pockets no matter how you spin it.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 22 May 2008 at 7:36am | IP Logged | 10  

I suspect for many much of the backlash against illegal immigrants is
often veiled racism (note -- I am not accusing Brian of that, in fact I am
sure that is not the basis for his position). I do think that there are some
that feel that illegals take advantage of the system (by receiving charity
care and the like) and believe thats unfair -- but I am think the answer to
that is to have them come out of the shadows. Reasonable minds may
disagree. But I do think if the immigrants were white this would not be
the issue it is.

While that may be the case for some people, it isn't for me.  For me, the key word is "illegal" as in "break the law".  I have no problems with immigration of any one through the proper channels.  I have zero tolerance for illegals though, regardless of race.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18272
Posted: 22 May 2008 at 7:36am | IP Logged | 11  

Assuming there's anything left to govern after another eight years of a Republican presidency.

------------------------------------------------------

We survived Bush (crossing fingers).  While I don't think McCain would do as much to repair the damage, I do have faith he would stop the bleeding.  Plus he has infinite political capital to stop us from torturing.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 22 May 2008 at 7:40am | IP Logged | 12  

Assuming there's anything left to govern after another eight years of a Republican presidency.

You actually think if McCain wins he'd have 8 years?  It would be 4 years of treading water with a Democratic Congress cancelling out McCain.  It would just be 4 years of limbo.  That's preferable (to me) than a liberal President and a Democratic Congress.  My paycheck couldn't take it.

Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login