I don't know of anyone who is right-leaning, or even moderate, Republican who is voting for Obama. Just a few on the left. But there's plenty of moderate and left-leaning Democrats supporting McCain. The latest McCain video is going to have an impact, letting Democrats know it's OK to vote for McCain. We've even got Democrats helping us man the GOP booth at the Evergreen State Fair (and many of them are supporting both Dino Rossi and John McCain).
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 26, 2008 07:56 AM | Email ThisIt's a 2 point lead right now with all but the top two's votes up for grabs.
For a Democratic Governor in a Democratic controlled state, who has not had to debate her so called spending spree 2.7 billion dollar and growing defecit, she has a run on her hands.
Join the other 27,000 and growing members of Team129 at www.team129.com who on a daily basisi will contine to help Rossi achieve a lead that even King County Elections won't be able to hide.
Posted by: gs on August 26, 2008 08:49 AMYour senile saint, Ronald Reagan, fooled a whole lot of people. This guy won't fool near as many.
John McCain is weak and stupid, just like his supporters are. He is unfit to be president. And we're going to steamroll him.
Posted by: ivan on August 26, 2008 09:10 AMSo the 20+ percent of Clinton voters in the primary, and the other 20+ percent that are undecided aren't "enough. . .to make a difference"? This is precisely why many Hillary supporters will refuse to support Obama - because of the brazen arrogance of both the candidate and his supporters. Take 18,000,000 and start taking between 20% and 40% of that and putting it in the McCain column and tell us that your theory holds true. . .
Tell us why Obama isn't "steamrolling" McCain like most Dems thought he would after he dispatched Clinton? Where are the numbers that support it?
I would ask for a refund. Remember how smart they said she was.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 26, 2008 09:56 AM
http://townhall.com/Columnists/WilliamWilson/2008/08/26/obamas_shell_game
Ivan is a great ambassador for the Democratic Party ... for Republicans.
Posted by: pudge on August 26, 2008 10:21 AMP.S. There are plenty of other things you can go after, but I won't let you get away with this one. Now you know better.
Posted by: swatter on August 26, 2008 11:10 AMHe habitually says such ridiculous things that most of us don't even really bat an eye when he goes there.
Crazy Ivan (as per Red October) ...
Posted by: pudge on August 26, 2008 11:15 AMAnyone who switches from Clinton to McCain is clearly lacking sense.
There's about a whisper of space between Obama and Clinton's stands on major issues, and a huge gulf between Clinton and McCain.
And most of these Clinton Democrats for McCain claim to be so upset about Obama "stealing" the election and the awful treatment Clinton received during the primaries, and yet they seem to ignore the reality that the most awful language and portrayals of Clinton came from Republicans and conservatives, and not from Obama supporters.
So if pro-choice, anti-war, "it takes a village" types are stupid enough to vote for a man who stands against their interests, you're welcome to have them in your Party!
Posted by: Mickymse on August 26, 2008 11:18 AMIvan calling somebody else weak and stupid.
Posted by: jimg on August 26, 2008 11:21 AMSo in other words, vote for my guy or else you're schtoopid.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: jimg on August 26, 2008 11:25 AMIt's not my fault that you hate the truth about your sorry self.
I'm not interested in a one-party system, and I don't expect everyone to agree with my political views. I certainly wouldn't read posts here if I did.
I am simply pointing out that it's stupid to vote for the guy on the opposite side of most issues from Hilary, rather than the one who does agree with her on everything significant to Democrats.
Posted by: Mickymse on August 26, 2008 11:55 AMMickysme: but the problem is that your argument is based on a clearly false claim: that Clinton and Obama are basically the same on all the big issues. Certainly not on Iraq and other foreign policy issues (except, of course, where Obama has the same basic view as McCain and Bush), where Biden and Clinton and McCain are a lot closer to each other -- and to Bush -- than to Obama.
Zero, zip, nada.
PS. Spell Kennedy's name any way you wish. But I'd still ask for a refund. (the polls prove it)
LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 26, 2008 12:01 PMAnd this proves what? People can claim to be many things, their action can prove otherwise.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 26, 2008 12:06 PM"Republicans" for Obama!
"Democrats" for McCain!
This is going to be a fun election cycle for trolls and insiders. Gonna be annoying for everyone else, though.
Posted by: "Republican" for Obama on August 26, 2008 12:16 PMAfter viewing the John McCain's Video, I felt as though my life was caught on tape. I too was a delegate for Hillary Clinton and recall that Hillary Clinton supports were literally put in a back room at the 8th CD Convention. It is clear to me that the democratic party is not interested in representing all of the voters. Having been involved in a grass roots campaign and talking to thousands of voters, I realize that many Democrats feel as I do and will vote for Dino Rossi. I know that many will also vote for John McCain. However, I am not sure how I will vote and below are my thoughts.
In regards to Christine Gregoire, we have a huge budget deficit, a recession in full bloom and now an enormous trade deficit. When the depths of this recession become a reality and we receive fewer dollars from the federal government, the standard answer in our state to fix a problem has been to raise or create new taxes. But this not the answer. We need to run our government like a business. We must hold government agencies accountable for expenditures and accurate reporting.
I am also concerned that when the Senate Ways & Means Committee came out with its $2.4 billion deficit projection, Christine Gregoire's budget chief, Victor Moore, said "I'm not giving any credence to that number," Moore said his office will come out with its own projection later. These are serious times and we need leaders to acknowledge the situation and provide real solutions.
Now let's talk about "tax expenditures" -- loopholes and subsidies -- extended to individual companies and entire sectors which have cut a huge hole in the state revenue base, which is replenished with largely regressive taxes on those least able to pay. For example the B&O Tax where Boeing pays under $3K for $1m in sales and a small business owner like me pays $15K.
I am also disgusted when I read in the Seattle PI that the Indian tribes' payoff $650,000 to the state Democratic party, and $49,000 directly to Gov. Chris Gregoire, in return for Gregoire's 2005 killing of a gambling compact which could have brought more than $140 million in annual revenues to the state. The compact Gregoire renegotiated with the Spokane tribe brings no revenue to the state. Obviously the our governor is not concerned about being fiscally conservative because $140 M is a great start on paying down the $2.7 B Deficit.
In regards to John McCain, as previously stated I have not made a decision. My thoughts are as follows:
Obama: rock star image plays to his favor which could do a lot to calm the international waters. My biggest concern is the economy. What scares me is that we could potentially have a scenario on the national level that we have in Washington State. By that I mean a liberal president and a liberal congress where nothing gets fixed, no fiscal accountability and the solution is to tax us to death. On a positive note, the nomination of Senator Joe Biden is a big plus and for the first time I feel as though the Democratic Party is making an effort to listen to the moderate and conservative voters.
McCain: On the positive side, I would like to see a Republican President if for no other reason than to keep the liberal Progressive Democrats in check. I am concerned about the mass on John McCain's face and wonder if he is wrestling cancer again. I question if the Republican Party is trying to use his name and credibility to retain the office of President of the United States. As a result, my decision will very much depend on who is selected to be John McCain's running mate.
Like many voters, I realize and feel the impact of government and want the best person to represent me.
But this is not the USA. And a majority of Americans are not so extreme as to vote for someone like Obama who has clear ties to Marxism.
Even if you lean left, McCain is a lot closer to traditional Democrat values than Obama. This year, vote Democrat, not Marxist. Vote McCain.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 26, 2008 12:25 PMI also agree with what you said about Obama and Biden, except that Biden, even though he does appeal to moderates, is also heavily in favor of large government programs and control. A deep look at Biden shows he is only moderate compared to other powerful Democrats, but not compared to the Americans as a whole.
As to McCain, I see no evidence whatsoever that he has any cancer coming back, and no, we are not "using" McCain, we collectively decided he is the best candidate available. He was not my first choice out of the options, but he was my second, and many others are in the same boat. We are proud of McCain as our candidate -- most of us -- but yes, given his age and greater potential for health problems, his running mate matters more than most.
I still think there's a good chance it'll be Lindsey Graham. This may anger some conservatives, because he's been McCain's righthand man on a lot of these controversial issues in the last few years, but he's a fantastic man, who, like McCain, is just someone you can't help but admire. He would, better than anyone else on the planet, I think, be a VP that could step in to lead in McCain's place should something happen to him.
You have to laugh at the fact that a left leaner like ivan would bother to post such a ridiculous and childish lash-out of a statement on a right of center blog. What a waste of time. If anything, right leaners are going to be persuaded by some rational arguments. But making fun of McCain's age. Really.
Then again, this is the same kind of thing we are witnessing from the man-on-the-street cameras around Denver. A bunch of young, angry and unorganized protesters, lashing out.
Bravo ivan, a nice display for the average voter as to why they should vote for the candidate with more wisdom and maturity.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 26, 2008 12:34 PMYou are not alone in regards to having issues with me as a candidate. Having said that, this was my first and probably last election. Not an easy process by any means, particularly when you are attacked from the onset by your own party.
However, I know that I am a better person for running. The toughest part is to assess the issues, arrive at solutions and try to represent everyone. Obviously, I could not please everyone, nor would anyone agree me on all the issues. As a result, I took a stand on what I believed were the right courses of action. No partisan politics.
Funny part is that many people often see the military and police force as narrow minded individuals. I know that many individuals in the military and on the police force have seen things that no should have to observe. The challenging part for our military in Iraq and for our police force is to defuse volatile situations. This takes an open mind and a great deal of self control. These are characteristics that I see in Dave and am proud to support his campaign.
I will check out Lindsey Graham.
Jim
Posted by: jim vaughn for dave reichert on August 26, 2008 12:43 PMYour Hilary convert thinks McCain supports Roe v. Wade. After all, he is Mr. Straight Talk and he'd never say something he didn't mean. Right?
Posted by: Steven Donegal on August 26, 2008 01:06 PMAny time. Any place, runt. I've dealt with union goons like you before.
Posted by: jimg on August 26, 2008 01:15 PMI see. So stating if somebody does something you believe is 'clearly lacking sense' and 'are stupid enough to vote for a man' that's not actually calling them stupid.
Whatever you say.
Posted by: jimg on August 26, 2008 01:21 PMReally... I guess he failed that class, because his actions on the economy has not faired well.
Heck just look at the slums he helped to make in his home state.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 26, 2008 01:23 PMDuly noted.
Posted by: jimg on August 26, 2008 01:23 PMSupporting McCain amounts to treason. Even McFlipFlop's top spokesman could not think of one policy difference he has with the lying chimp.
By the way, please name one thing the Bush Crime Family has done that has made America better.
You can't.
5 trillion in new debt and only the energy companies are better off now than they were in 2000. The rest of us have been screwed. Every single (not in the top 1%) one of us.
If the Republicons spent as much time attacking Al Qaeda as as they do government, I think we may be a whole lot safer.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on August 26, 2008 01:24 PMPlease please PLEASE post this message far and wide. Get all Democrats to post this message everywhere they can. PLEASE.
"By the way, please name one thing the Bush Crime Family has done that has made America better."
Prevented another 911 from happening. Givenmore American opportunities for bettering themselves than any so -called "rogressive" ever did. Instead of confiscating people's monies, Bush gave it back to them in tax rebates several times.
Posted by: pbj on August 26, 2008 01:44 PMStill hoping I will catch a glimpse of Biden doing his infamous 'the villages' at the Dem fiasco...ha
Posted by: Duffman on August 26, 2008 02:07 PMIt is not stupid for those who really want Hillary to be president (I'm NOT one of them!). If McCain wins, Hillary can run again (and possibly win) in 2012, but if Obama wins Hillary will be in the wilderness until 2016, when she will be what? 68? That age may be pushing it for her. If one's primary desire is to see Hillary as president, it is rational to try to elect McCain this year...
Posted by: Bill H on August 26, 2008 02:12 PMGet your facts straight, please. We are not a bunch of idiots you can fool.
Obama is not a U. Chicago economics guy. He is a Columbia U. grad, majoring in political science, and then earned a Harvard law degree. He did teach constitutional law as a lecturer at the U. Chicago Law School for 12 years. His wife is a VP at the U. Chicago Hospitals (promoted 6 months after Barack won IL senate seat - possibly coincidental). The Obamas live in a $1.6 million mansion in Hyde Park, a neighborhood dominated by the U. Chicago.
So, Obama has lots of U. Chicago connections, but not to its esteemed school of economics. His economic schooling is more on the lines of Das Kapital. We all know it, and you probably do too. You are either being willfully ignorant or deliberately misleading, but we are on to your tricks!
Please. We've discussed your posts before. Don't get me going again.
And I'm still waiting on the 'facts'...
Posted by: Chris on August 26, 2008 05:04 PMRomney would be OK too, but believe he needs to pick someone who can step in and be the President. The imposter poster at #41 is not even worth commenting on.
Posted by: KS on August 26, 2008 07:11 PMbeing ardent Hillary supporters, let me put it this way. Hillary has not lost here. What she and her ardent supporters see, is if Obama loses, she is an absolute shoe in in 2012. If Obama wins, Hill and Bill lose.
It is so damn apparent, 30% OF hillary voters see it. Hill and Bill see it, but most democrats don't.
Mark my words, when Hill and Bill are through with the next few months,
She will be the shoe in in 2012, and Obama will be a fart in the wind.
Watch all the hoopla, but mark my words here.
Obama is toast.
Posted by: gs on August 26, 2008 08:11 PMMcCain names Hillary VP.....
I think I'd laugh at the reactions to that for years. It would be awesome.
Sorry, twisted I know.
Posted by: Chris on August 26, 2008 08:56 PMIf people like you consider it treason, I've got to make sure to do it.
Posted by: Cliff on August 26, 2008 09:31 PM
Here's the libertarian maverick's collection of properties:
2 condos in Phoenix valued at $4.6m
Ranch in Sedona at $1.1m
Arlington VA condo at $850k
2 Condos in Coronado CA over $4.7m
1 Condo in La Jolla at $1m
I used to really like McCain, I would sure like be invited to visit him at homes, they look sweet.
(disclaimer - no insinuations other than those implicitly asserted intended and fwiw there's nothing inherently wrong with making bundles of money. I think everyone should. Put the antique red scare propaganda back on the library shelf )
The hard truth (you know, a FACT) is that it is Cindys money, not his.
The hard truth (you know, a FACT) is that he signed a pre-nuptual agreement.
The hard truth (you know, a FACT) is that many of us are wondering why you didn't whine that tune about Kerry, the billionaire hunting gigolo and his well doumented multiple mansions.... or do they belong to the Ketchup queen?
McCain is not the richest U.S. Senator. And not the second richest either. Does John Kerry know how many houses his wife owns? What about Ted Kennedy? Or West Virginia's senator John D. Rockefeller IV? People who lives in glass houses and forget how many glass houses they live in...
Oh I wonder, how many houses does Pelosi own? How many were purchased by her influence peddling?
This game is sure fun!
Do you want to start talking the talk about income redistribution?
Huh?
Do you really believe that the term only applies in unidirectional moves from the top down?
We believe that it is wrong to take from one person to give to another.
I tend to believe it is a more fluid and less ideological activity than most want to believe it is.
That's a self-refuting claim, because it is your ideology that it is not very ideological.
I used to really like McCain ...
... until he was made the nominee against your party, then you became obligated to dislike him.
Put the antique red scare propaganda back on the library shelf
As soon as your party puts the Red ideology back.
Obama's whole plan as President is to take from rich people to give it to poor people.
Obama's never backed off his strong ties to ACORN, which is essentially a Marxist organization (which habitually violates its tax-exempt status by specifically gearing its voter registration activities toward its partisan political goals).
it's about calling them on their s*** when they identify themselves as something other than being at the top of the wealth scale
McCain never claimed he wasn't rich, so what are you complaining about?
Especially when implying directly or indirectly that anyone else is an elitist.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP between being an elistist, and having money. None. Some of my best friends in college were elitists without jobs, and some of the most humble people I've ever met are filthy rich. Don't be stupid.
Facts are stubborn things.
Howso? Nothing you said has any relevance to anything.
Obama's plan, as I understand it, is nothing short of halting the treasury looting and dismantling of the rule of law that's been going on with the revisionist neocons watching the house burn down while their pals collect the fire insurance. It does not involve further nationalizing industries, gulags, executions, or red flags. If it does, I'm sure you'll let me know.
BTW - I'm not sure what kind of elitists can't get jobs, it sort of confounds the definition of the word. Though it's just the sort of jumbled malapropism and inference expected from low brow right wing propagandists. Perhaps you mean narcissists or egocentrics? Or were your elite friends just between jobs?
I do have to thank you for indulging my lying, stupid, nonsense comments. You're building up my confidence again. Ciao my friend.
Posted by: Acid Brain on August 28, 2008 10:56 AMMcCain lost me in the early 2000s. He drifted to pandering to the extreme right
Example?
(I won't hold my breath, since you can't come up with anything that doesn't exist.)
You don't give any examples of any of the rest of what you say, either. Typical Obama fan: no substance.
Posted by: pudge on August 28, 2008 11:49 AMhow about McCain yelling "Next up, Baghdad!" in January 2002 for starters
What about it? How does this represent any sort of a shift?
How about his opposition to extension of Habeas Corpus to detainees
That never happened. What he signed onto was a rejection of STATUTORY habeas for alien unlawful enemy combatants (that is, not all detainees, only non-American UECs), which included a provision for a separate CONSTITUTIONAL habeas to those detainees.
The Supreme Court ruled this separate replacement system did not fulfill constitutional requirements, but recognized that its purpose was to do so, and that this was a valid purpose. In fact, McCain and the DTA/MCA did aim to provide constitutional habeas rights to ALL detainees.
Or telling the religious right to "get out of the 16th century and into the 21st century" and then appealing to them to gain their technical support.
Yeah, so being a jackass to people in 2000, but not in 2008, is a BAD thing in 2008 ... ? Note that Obama attempts to appeal to those same people, too, having appeared at Rick Warren's church twice.
Saying stupid things ...
Obama has said far stupider things.
Endorsing swiftboating
You're lying. He never, ever, did.