|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Sept 5, 2008 16:29:20 GMT -5
That's because the democratic party is right (correct) 95% of the time.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 5, 2008 16:34:13 GMT -5
1.21 jigawatts?
|
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Sept 5, 2008 16:47:06 GMT -5
I get sick and tired of "rhetoric." That 90% comment comes from a voting record with respect to one of two positions. Sometimes it is not that simple. In fact it is almost never that simple. Similarly, Obama's record over his tenure stands at 95% -- meaning that he deviated from his "party line" vote only 5% of the time. On that stat alone, you would have to give McCain the clear edge. Granted 5% isn't a large overall number, but when you compare it as the difference from 5% and 10% then it is obviously twice as much. ... McCain is clearly not a Bush clone in any way shape or form. They differ dramatically on major issues such as health care and immigration. they differ dramatically on less major issues such as stem cell research. They differ dramatically on some areas of energy independence. Yes, they are both for increased drilling, as am I. But McCain is much more of a leader in expansion of alternative fuels. Over the next couple of months, Obama-Biden will try to insist that McCain-Palin will just be more of the same. That is somewhat ironic given that Obama is a charismatic, eloquent version of the cookie cutter liberal democrat that we have hundreds of, and Biden is, of course, off the same mold -- a la Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, the late Tip O'Neil etc... Conversely, McCain has been called a "Maverick" for a reason. He has a long established history and record to run on, of crossing party lines. Palin, on the other hand, has very little experience -- eerily similar to Obama's, if truth be told -- but in a relatively short time, she has proven herself to not be one who goes along with the status quo. She has been very aggressive on attacking corruption in politics, and yes, even coming from her own side of the aisle. In all honesty, if there is a ticket that can more accurately run on "change," then that would be McCain-Palin. Look I am a Republican too, maybe not as conservative as you based on what I have read from you, but make no mistake I am not some liberal trying to argue with your political point of view. I work in Republican politics, and consistently offer volunteer legal work in state election law for Republican candidates. But what you said here means one of two things: 1) you are very confused; or 2) you think that you can somehow convince undecided voters reading this message board that McCain is more likely to create change in Washington than Obama. If you were thinking number 2 then you need a serious dose of reality. If you were thinking number 1 then let me clarify the Dem line of attack. The Dem line of attack on McCain is that he will be four more years of a George Bush presidency, in order to make that argument they are making the claim that he votes in line with President Bush X% of the time. They are trying to argue that if you want change from George Bush then you do not want to vote for the candidate that agrees with him, ever. The fact that Obama votes with Democratic leadership with regularity does not have any bearing on the change moniker. You could use the comparison of the party line vote rates to make a statement about the chances of reaching across the aisle, or independent/maverick status. But that is not the point the Dems were trying to make with the 90% line. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 17:01:29 GMT -5
60% of the time it works every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 5, 2008 17:11:41 GMT -5
Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 5, 2008 17:25:31 GMT -5
I get sick and tired of "rhetoric." That 90% comment comes from a voting record with respect to one of two positions. Sometimes it is not that simple. In fact it is almost never that simple. Similarly, Obama's record over his tenure stands at 95% -- meaning that he deviated from his "party line" vote only 5% of the time. On that stat alone, you would have to give McCain the clear edge. Granted 5% isn't a large overall number, but when you compare it as the difference from 5% and 10% then it is obviously twice as much. ... McCain is clearly not a Bush clone in any way shape or form. They differ dramatically on major issues such as health care and immigration. they differ dramatically on less major issues such as stem cell research. They differ dramatically on some areas of energy independence. Yes, they are both for increased drilling, as am I. But McCain is much more of a leader in expansion of alternative fuels. Over the next couple of months, Obama-Biden will try to insist that McCain-Palin will just be more of the same. That is somewhat ironic given that Obama is a charismatic, eloquent version of the cookie cutter liberal democrat that we have hundreds of, and Biden is, of course, off the same mold -- a la Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, the late Tip O'Neil etc... Conversely, McCain has been called a "Maverick" for a reason. He has a long established history and record to run on, of crossing party lines. Palin, on the other hand, has very little experience -- eerily similar to Obama's, if truth be told -- but in a relatively short time, she has proven herself to not be one who goes along with the status quo. She has been very aggressive on attacking corruption in politics, and yes, even coming from her own side of the aisle. In all honesty, if there is a ticket that can more accurately run on "change," then that would be McCain-Palin. Look I am a Republican too, maybe not as conservative as you based on what I have read from you, but make no mistake I am not some liberal trying to argue with your political point of view. I work in Republican politics, and consistently offer volunteer legal work in state election law for Republican candidates. But what you said here means one of two things: 1) you are very confused; or 2) you think that you can somehow convince undecided voters reading this message board that McCain is more likely to create change in Washington than Obama. If you were thinking number 2 then you need a serious dose of reality. If you were thinking number 1 then let me clarify the Dem line of attack. The Dem line of attack on McCain is that he will be four more years of a George Bush presidency, in order to make that argument they are making the claim that he votes in line with President Bush X% of the time. They are trying to argue that if you want change from George Bush then you do not want to vote for the candidate that agrees with him, ever. The fact that Obama votes with Democratic leadership with regularity does not have any bearing on the change moniker. You could use the comparison of the party line vote rates to make a statement about the chances of reaching across the aisle, or independent/maverick status. But that is not the point the Dems were trying to make with the 90% line. Actually, you're the one that is confused. Obama's mantra of change is effective because he's not coming across as just another liberal democrat. That's why the fact he votes with the Democratic party line 90-95% of the time is important. You think that all these zombies walking around muttering "change, change, change" want someone that's 95% of the Harry Reid-Nancy Pelosi crowd? Though not explicitly stated, Obama's change theme is an attack on more than just the GOP in the Beltway. I submit if he had just run an "I'm a Democrat, I'm not George Bush" campaign, he wouldn't have the type of support he has (I'm not saying he wouldn't be the nominee). That's what the GOP needs to hammer home against Obama - his acceptance speech and laundry list of programs is the same old liberal crap. No matter how nice of a package you wrap it in, that's not change. |
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Sept 5, 2008 17:26:36 GMT -5
No political sniping until Sept. 26? Boy, I don't know..... (to borrow again from Aaron Sorkin) And I am spent, too. |
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Sept 5, 2008 17:27:36 GMT -5
The doctors say he has a 50/50 chance of living, though there's only a ten percent chance of that...
|
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Sept 5, 2008 19:14:12 GMT -5
KC-
I agree we need to hammer home nonstop that he is more of the same liberal politics and policies, that along with the experience argument (I see no reason to completely abandon it just because Palin is not as experienced as McCain).
My point was that the counter to the Dem's argument that McCain=Bush, cannot be that Obama is a generic Democrat. The counter needs to directly against that premise tying McCain to Bush. If the Dems can convince voters that McCain=Bush then its game over, we have to hit that line directly.
While making that counterclaim the GOP also needs to convince voters that Obama is far left, shouldn't be too hard. But goal number one must be that McCain != Bush. When I say these things I do it as more of a detached observer, thinking about the reality of what the politics are doing. This as opposed to trying to speak in a manner that I am trying to convince anybody of whom to vote for or what policy to support (just have no interest of doing something like that on the internet).
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 5, 2008 19:24:15 GMT -5
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Sept 5, 2008 19:43:06 GMT -5
Impressive numbers for both candidates, and good to see people getting engaged, but you are aware that link doesn't actually say that, right? Unless PBS viewers don't count for some reason, there were slightly more people watching Obama. The difference is insignificant, I just like accuracy. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyachick on Sept 5, 2008 22:23:59 GMT -5
While the ratings are interesting stats, I don't think they reveal anything about political leanings. At best, it's the general interest in the election, which based on the country's lackluster voting turnout is promising to see people curious and engaged. Personally, I tuned into Palin because before last week, the only thing I knew about her was the "America's Hottest Governor" moniker and I wanted to see what Caribou Barbie had to say. Granted, her Tracy Flick meets Fargo demeanor makes me want to stick hot pokers in my eye, but I contributed to her high ratings. Meanwhile, I've heard Bam speak dozens of times, so he was not Must See TV for me.
Until the debates, I just plan to read the National Enquirer, America's finest investigative news source.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Sept 6, 2008 9:38:11 GMT -5
I think Georgetown is participating ain a liberal conspiracy since they cut of my free university cable on the day of Palin's speech, so I missed palin and McCain's speeches. I know have my cable back after the convention is over but now I have to pay.
|
|
