Tuesday, 04.22.08
McCain's Peak?
NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images
Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters
December 2007
Do National Polls Mean Anything?
14 April 2007
Matthew Yglesias proclaims that the media could care less about accurately measuring public opinion.
Do Polls Still Work?
November 2006
The Democratic primary campaign - divisive, bitter, and seemingly endless - has made many Republicans optimistic about their party's prospects for retaining the White House this November. But the numbers still seem to tell a different story -- and not just secondary indicators like the enormous gap between McCain's fundraising and the dollars his Democratic rivals are raking in, or the underlying economic realities that will make this a tough year for the GOP no matter what. The polls themselves aren't running McCain's way, or at least not to the extent that would justify the current wave of conservative optimism about November.
Now of course no poll taken in April can tell us all that much about a vote that's held in November: Elections that look close can turn into routs and vice versa, and huge polling margins can vanish in the blink of an eye. (Ask Michael Dukakis how well his seventeen-point margin from early-summer 1988 held up in the end.) But by all rights, this ought to be a peak time for McCain's numbers - not the peak, necessarily, but certainly a high point. His right-wing critics are making nice with him, his favorable ratings are sky-high, and his opponents are too busy driving each other's negative ratings upward to spend any time (or money, more importantly) putting a dent in his halo. Moreoever, the Democrats' intra-party tensions are bound to diminish once the party picks a nominee: At least some of the Hillary supporters who tell pollsters that they'd vote for McCain over Obama may actually follow through on that pledge, but a lot of today's McCainocrats will come home to the Democratic fold when all is said and done.
Yet even with all this going for him, McCain's poll numbers are bumping up against the same 45 percent ceiling that they've been hitting since December. If the election were held today - a pretty good day for McCain, all things considered - he'd probably lose to Obama, and might lose to Clinton as well. That doesn't mean he will lose, by any stretch, but it certainly doesn't bode well for November.
Before the fallStuart Rothenberg says that McCain's unexpectedly good standing in the polls is bound to change soon. |
Good man, bad yearWilliam Rusher says that despite the overwhelming odds against him, McCain's campaign has shown "a few hopeful signs." |
Dead candidateBob Beckel thinks that McCain is "oblivious to the intensity of the political maelstrom just over the horizon." |
FirestarterMichael Leahy writes a detailed and sobering history of McCain's rage: "One man's bulldozer is another's bully." |
(96)
Dream on, liberals. Your candidate is a TERRIBLE CAMPAIGNER. Obama was overprotected by the media early in the campaign. Then when they finally hit him with some mean questions in the Pennsylvania debate, he collapsed and did a terrible job. It wasn't just the negative personal questions that he fluffed - when he was asked a substantive question about the effects of setting the capital gains tax at various rates, his answer made it clear that he just barely knows what a capital gains tax is and he apparently has NO idea how rate changes influence tax receipts.
This alone wouldn't have been so bad if he had just shrugged the poor debate performance off - everybody has an off day occasionally - but instead he spent the next two days whining about how negative the campaign had gotten (while making completely fair negative attacks on Hillary and completely unfair negative attacks on McCain) AND he started hiding from the press.
Look at Fox News' article today. No Q&A with the press since the debate (ten days ago) and the North Carolina debate has been cancelled because, gee, Obama just couldn't fit it into his schedule.
He's scared to appear in public without a script and for good reason. He's intelligent but he really doesn't know much about how the government actually works. And the tax question scared the heck out of him and his handlers because it showed him up.
Now watch McCain think on his feet. McCain can field ANY question from ANY reporter about ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous (remember the stupid NY Times story about the alleged affair with a lobbyist)for an hour at a time and come off looking good.
The Dems are dead and still walking. All those undecideds are gonna go for McCain and the final vote will be 55-45 for McCain.
McCain is just coming into his popularity. As the Dems finish their fight, the country will see what kind of candidate they will put forth. The fact that Hillary has such high negatives, and Obama's inexperience and frighteningly radical liberalism will cause moderates and conservatives to begin to pull together for McCain.
"conservative optimism about November?"
This is obviously written from the perspective of a person who is not a conservative.
There is no conservative optimism about November because McCain is not that conservative. He is a populist.
There is some "Republican" optimism about November.
This article is ridiculous, McCain or any Rep should be far, far behind in the polls. He hasn't been that far behind, and for a time, he was ahead. Where has this guy been getting his numbers? If Obama is the nominee, he will lose. The Dems best bet is Clinton. Obama looks like a wimp.
Republicans should be worried. As in 2006, in this election there's only so much mileage they can get out of smearing their opponents on a personal level a la Karl Rove. At some point, McCain will have to convince people that four more years of the same Bush policies is just what the country needs. Good luck with that.
These ominous comments about Obama's inexperience seem more like wishful thinking on the part of McCain supporters than any real liability for Obama with actual voters. McCain's twenty plus years of experience feeding at the Washington trough does not equal the sort of experience that would benefit a candidate. The Dems have not even begun their campaign of linking McCain to Bush's failed foreign and economic policies. I can't see the voters opting for another four years of George W. Bush with just a slightly more compassionate face. Also, with McCain's famous temper, and Obama's ability to remain calm, the debates should provide a great contrast in leadership skills.
The real question is:
"Have the Dems hit rock bottom yet?"
If BO is on the top, do not discount the "Bradley effect" on polls. This also gives credence to why HRC does better in GE style voting booths and BO does better in public caucuses.
Right now, JM is running against a "Generic Democrat" and is barely losing. As soon as that person is named, the Dems will have further to fall - they have not hit rock bottom yet.
Dems know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
For all those thinking that McCain is going to win in some landslide better get their head out of the clouds and start looking at the facts on the ground. I live in a mainly white, republican area and all I see is Obama 08 signs, not Hilary signs, not McCain signs. Republicans better treat Obama's candidacy seriously or they will be in for a major surprise come November.
You failed in so many ways in this article to report the true. To do real research, one has to look at both sides of the issue. If you at the polling data for past year with head to head match up of the McCain v. Obama or Clinton, you will find that neither Clinton or Obama have polled above 47%. The logic that you have used in this article, one would have to come to the conclusion that Obama and Clinton have peaked too. Also, Jshu is right in saying that Hillary has such high negatives. The last candidate to have high negatives, John Kerry, that candidate lost the election. I know it is hard for liberal to be honest. But don't mock the people in thinking you can pull a fast one on them.
As unappealing as McCain is to any of us from the Center/Center Right he is stunningly more attractive than the Democrat alternatives. To imagine Hillary or Barack being a keeper of the flame lit in 1766 is ......impossible. She was married to a President....swell. She was a shifty lawyer in a large law firm in a mediocre city in a mediocre state. She actively associated with and courted Hard/Radical leftists throughout her post-adolescent life. Barack is even to the Left of Bernie Sanders and has found comfort,succor and support from a racist minister, a Chicago mobster and unrepentant killer/terrorists who are not jailed only due to a technicality. McCain should be ahead----but when the Obama story is finally laid out it will likely be a blowout of the most leftwing and inexperienced candidate ever put up by a major political party.
The Rasmussen Electoral College calculator predicts a score of 260 to 240 for the Democrats with 38 votes - Ohio, Colorado and Nevada - a tossup.
But we don't know yet the Deomocratic candidate who will face McCain and this makes a difference in many states.
Remember, the election is played in the states, not at national level.
And few states show signs of swinging from 2000 or 2004.
Therefore, any prediction at the moment would be foolish at best.
This is ridiculous.. the poster above had it right - McCain can't catch a good word from the press. Now, the NYT is talking about McCain's ties with lobbyists when Obama's are just as potentially pernicious.
The very fact that McCain, off the radar, is running even is great.. I mean, nobody is paying attention to the Republican side of things because the Democratic race is so active. Obama and Hillary are raising a lot, but they are spending it slamming each other and building themselves into liberal positions they'll have to defend later. A good clue that things are going well for the Democratic nominee - Obama and McCain are running even in Massachussets.
You gotta love it when right wingers predict future events, like they did with Iraq, and just like they did before the 2006 elections: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/2006-predictions/
The more these people jerk each other off about how McCain will win, the more you can be sure Obama will be our next president.
My neighborhood is similar:
I live in a mainly white, republican area and all I see is Obama 08 signs, not Hilary signs, not McCain signs.
First, no reason to put out McCain signs yet.
Second, radicals put out the signs.
Third, the HRC signs I've seen have been vandalized.
The JM/HRC voters are much more tolerant and centrist than the lefty radical Obamites.
Republicans better treat Obama's candidacy seriously or they will be in for a major surprise come November.
Democrats better treat Obama's weaknesses seriously, or they'll be in for the surprise.
I'm glad that others before me have already pointed this out, but McCain's only serious competition would be Clinton. She's tough, Obama is not.
Obama got a free ride till now and now the media is waking up to the fact he's a walking disaster. Obama barely has a position on anything. When celebrities, rich white educated folk (sorry, I'm rich and educated but not white and most Asians/Latinos who are well educated and wealthy have no love for Obama) stop orgasming about Obama, they'll realize his weaknesses.
White guilt only goes so far. It won't be enough to get Obama into the White House.
Bomb, bomb McCain is gonna get the swiftboating of a lifetime this fall, just wait. Dems are very hungry. There are surprises in store...
What a misleading article to try and keep the
liberals little chins up. At this stage of the 1992 campaign after eight years of republican rule Mike Dukakis had a 17 point lead over Bush senior. We all know what happened .Either Dem with all thats going on [unpopular war ,unpopular president,poor economy and high gas prices]should be ahead by at least 20 points .The fact they're not is a very ominous sign for the foolish leftists , among which the author of this piece must be counted .
Obama is a "dream candidate" for Republicans because he rode a wave of "new and fresh" to the top of the delegate count while Hillary was dragged down by over a decade of public exposure.
Best friend on trial for mass extortion, botching Canadian relations, Crazy Reverends, and links to known 9/11 terrorists, and that's just all that's been revealed in three months!
There's still 5 more to go. Obama is one day after the other being revealed as just another counterfeit "young and naive" candidate.
You guys were better off backing Hillary back when she still had a chance.
Don't forget the deep bitterness between the supporters of Hillary and Obama. They seem to hate each other almost viscerally. 28% of Hillary's supporters vow they will vote for McCain if she does not win the nomination; 20% of Obama's supporters say they will do likewise if she snatches the nod away from him. While it is certain that many of these people will unify behind the ultimate nominee, it is quite likely that many will not. If any significant numbers vote for McCain, or even simply stay home, it could spell not only the loss of the presidential election, but could jeopardize down-ballot candidates as well. This internecine fury between the candidate's supporters is the most ominous sign of all for the Democrats come November.
McCain's Peak? Are you kidding? He hasn't even had to begin campaigning and you're pronouncing him defeated by a stuffed shirt liberal who SHOULD BE WINNING by mega percentage points given that he's runnig against a middle-of-the-road, uncharismatic, aging, inarticulate republican who's been cast by the media as a double for an unpopular president preciding over an immoral war and failing economy. You've gotta get your head out! When the republican machine does kick it in gear, this ain't gonna be pretty for Obama or his supporters. In fact, Obama's probably going to make Dukakis and McGovern both look like winners!
Just curious whether Mr. Douthat went beyond the national preference polls and looked at the individual states. My sense is that Obama's advantage is primarily in the blue states, where he would win overwhelmingly, and thereby run up his popular vote numbers. But in the swing states? Where a 2-3 point win is about all either side can expect? I think the odds favor most of those breaking for McCain, but I'd love to see others' analysis.
HE MUST WIN bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb IRAN
Dump Dump Dump Dump Dump U.N.
He is our last chance if Hillary Loses
McCain been ahead in most national polls and most key state polls.
What has happened to ACCURACY in journalism? To say McCain in a headline, "... John McCain still hasn't pulled ahead of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in national polls." Oh really?
The LATEST Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll has "John McCain with a three-point advantage over Barack Obama 47% to 44%. [John McCain] has a six-point advantage over Hillary Clinton, 49% to 43%"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publiccontent/politics/election20082/2008presidentialelection/dailypresidentialtracking_poll
Moreover, McCain has led BOTH Obama and Clinton in national polls since APRIL 10, 2008!
http://rasmussenreports.com/publiccontent/politics/election20082/2008presidentialelection/generalelectionmatchuphistory
In sum, Mr. Douthat it is time to go back to school and learn something about accuracy in articles that you author as a so called journalist.
HE MUST WIN
HE CAN SAVE IRAQ
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb IRAN
Interesting that conservatives keep focusing on the candidates instead of the issues. I guess when your conservative President has had a failed Iraq War (and an Afghanistan that is crumbling), not one but two recessions, had a major terrorist attack occur on his watch, has no coherent energy, economic or healthcare policies other than give more money to the wealthy, when he clearly is out of touch with most of America and when he has sunk America's prestige and power to new levels; I guess "swift boating" the Democrats leading candidate is all you got. Conservatives really are pathetic and will soon be sent to the dustbin of history where they belong.
Silly guy. Have you been reading those "registered voter" polls again? You'll get more accurate information from fortune cookies.
I agree with those who point to the big lead Dukakis had at this stage, only to lose eventually by about 6 percentage points. Didn't the same thing almost happen in '76? As I recall, Ford was WAY behind in the early going but finally lost narrowly to Carter. And that was with the Watergate baggage hanging around the necks of the Republicans.
A whole lot can happen between now and November, so virtually any prediction should be taken with a healthy dose of salt. But think how things have changed since November, 2006! No well informed betting man would have wagered twenty-five cents on the GOP's chances then.
The Democrats may yet win. But there is also the real chance that they will continue to screw up. I think the fact that they have publicly bet the farm on U.S. failure in Iraq is not going to be forgotten by the American electorate
WL Rupp
If Obama wins, he will be the least vetted candidate to ever win his party's nomination. Finally the Clinton campaign came up with a good message. Obama's debate umbrage showed us something we haven't seen before. How dare we ask tough questions during a presidential campaign? Clinton rightly questioned his toughness. But, why doesn't Clinton talk more about his electability? How did we ever get to the point where Clinton has to win Pennsylvania by more than eight percentage points? Obama is outspending Clinton three to one, and Clinton still has to win by eight? Would she only have to win by four if she were outspent four to one? Why don't we ever hear that Puerto Rico is a winner take all state? And, why hasn't the Clinton campaign pointed out that caucuses can be bought while primaries are more reflective of the views of people with jobs who vote in general elections? Most significantly, Clinton has done better in the key battleground states - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania. McCain is ahead of Obama by fifteen points in Florida. How can Obama win by losing Florida? If Obama limps in, it won't be McCain who will spend money reminding people of Obama's church, ties to lobbyists, arrogance and the distinction of having the most liberal voting record in the Senate. The 527s will take care of that. Clinton is trying to expose Obama as the flawed candidate he is. Too bad the media and the party elders prefer another weak man to face the Republicans. McCain will beat Obama like Reagan beat Mondale. I can picture the red map of the U.S. with a blue Illinois and a blue Wash, DC (where they voted Marion Barry back into office.)
McCain will save IRAG
REBUILD ITS INFASTRUCTURE
FIX ITS TATTERED ECONOMY
WITH OUR CHEAD PAPER DOLLAR$$$$
AND BORROWOR IT ALL FROM CHINA
JUST LIKE BUSH DID
LOL
Too funny.
The latest polls released yesterday show McCain AHEAD of both Obama and Clinton. Great timing with the article!
Rasmussen shows McCain leading Obama 47% to 44%, and Clinton 49% to 43%. What's that about a "45 percent ceiling"? LOL!
And I noticed that the filename for the photo of McCain is "McCain loser.jpg". No, you guys are not biased at all.
Obama is CORRUPT, a LIAR, and his slogan of change an ILLUSION.
1) CORRUPT: A houseowner wants to sell both a house and adjoining land. Obama can afford to buy only the house. No problem, the criminal Rezko to the rescue. Rezko pays full price for the land, whereas Obama gets a discount of $300,000 on the house. Nice to have criminal friends like this!!! (ref ABC News)
2) LIAR: Obama claims he did not know about Wright's America-hating (God damn America) and racist views till it was revealed in the mainstream media in March 2008. Obama attended Wright's church for 20 years, was married by Wright, had his children baptized by Wright, donated over $20,000 to Wright's church and named his book "Audacity of Hope" after one of Wright's sermons. You really believe after 20 years and all this he did not know?
3) ILLUSION: Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants in Illinois. Obama, a senator for Illinois introduces a bill to make disclosures mandatory. Seems like Exelon doesn't like it. Each draft of the new bill by Obama goes more and more towards Exelon till disclosures end up being "voluntary". What gives? How about $250,000+ donations by Exelon!!! Obama is not change, he is WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL. (ref NYT)
People need to realize that Hillary has been fighting for them all along. All the way back to 1993 when she tried to introduce universal health care.
What an absolutely idiotic "article," that is insightful only in further revealing the author's liberal bias.
The election is about the candidate and NOT the issues. Democrats have been known to lie and this is proven countless time through the Dem primary.
When a leader of the most powerful nation of the world can't take a serious question or his past realtionship with terrorists (several throughout his lifetime)come back to haunt him it really does matter. For a leftwinger to claim that a man or wman's past does not affect what they say will happen in the future it totally ludicrous.
If that were the case, why wouldn't crazy people like David Duke become elected? If we should let bygones be bygones, then why not allow Osama Bin Laden and his followers join the military and get pentagon clearances just because they say some shiny-penny words? Their 'new issues' surely must matter to the liberal democrat, since the past surely doesn't make a difference!
John McCain suffered for our country and will continue to sacrifice for America. Obama is a rich boy grandstander with a very evil past of desperate evil connections. Clinton is.. well... just Clinton and way too socialist for America.
Any one who can think for himself/herself can see we need a leader and someone willing to dowhat's right for America and not what's right for a group of Americans' McCain is that man and will cross lines to get things doen for the good of all of us.
John McCain needs to become US president in 2008.
OR WE MAY AS WELL KISS FREEDOM GOODBYE!
My 76 year old mother-in-law has voted Republican only once in any partisan race - for Reagan in 1984. She thinks Bill Clinton walks on water. If Obama is nominated, she has decided to support McCain. Almost all of the women in her circle are the same - they'll vote for Hillary, or for McCain.
Obama is still getting a free ride on the most important issue of all. This nice man who makes pretty speeches is far, far to the left of the American public. HRC can't really go after Obama on this because the extremist wing of the Democrat Party dominates the nominating process. McCain can campaign on the issues and finish him off.
McCain peaked? ROTFLMAO!!
You have got to be kidding. BHO is nothing but an empty suit of liberal promises. I'm thinking McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Obama.
And while I'm thinking of hit the GOP will pick up seats in Congress in 2008 as well. The poor performance of the economy began with Pelosi and her tribes takeover of Congress last year. And Voters will blame the Democratic Congress for single-handedly taking down the economy and the housing crisis.
The McCain from 8 years ago I could have voted for. This new McCain forget about it.
His reckless views on free trade will allow our country to continue to be hollowed out of jobs and infrastructure and purchased by the Middle East and Communist China. This combined with his fiscal irresponsibility, he presented his plan, will cause the US to head to a 3rd world country as the wealth gap would grow more and our debt and interest to maintain that debt and get more debt would grow massively. After putting out his catchy but drop in a bucket earmarks, he comes no where close to handling the growing debt and deficit or a balanced budget !
This so called "straight talker" does not even include the war in his budget policy. Say what ?
A week dollar is a back door tax. In real terms, a barrel of oil would be worth about $40 -50 if not for the week dollar.
Lastly, even though George Stephenopolous did not use the opponent attack line as he used in the Dem debate,but did ask him about Rev. Hagee. Frankly, I think the policies of his spiritual adivsor, Parsley, are more frightening, but McCain could not even handle the kid glove treament he received. He took 2 positions within 2 sentences and then said I am against anything that is "anti-anything" and then seemed irked that George had the nerve to ask him by say "thanks a lot for asking". He sounded incoherent and foolish. I guess he is against anything you do not like, whatever that might be. I know people will vote for him anyway. I am too far removed from my Irish roots and they are no longer despearate for citizens, to go there as a haven.
Let's see what we get as people as people may get just what they want with McCain, a bus that goes all over the road before it crashes.
BTW, how much support would McCain get if there were a draft and you could not get out of the draft ?
Seriously, what's wrong with some humility and common sense. Any Republican that thinks this will be an easy victory has been drinking the Kool-Aide a bit too enthusiastically (but then again, the most enthusiastic of our party do tend to be a bit delusional).
Remember Bush v. McCain in 2000? Well over 35% of McCain primary voters said they'd NEVER vote for Dubya. Guess what happened? They voted for Bush.
It's sad, but we're going to have to resort to swift-boating again to win. The issues are just not in our favor (the war is now opposed by 2/3 of the country, the economy is PERCEIVED as a disaster even if its not, and Bush's last term was marred by scandal and controversy). So we'll have to hope we dig up ties to Al Quaeda or maybe that Obama's a Muslim thing will work better, because we've got a serious task at hand.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aide
Repeat after me:
Obama is Dukakis, Obama is Dukakis, Obama is Dukakis, Obama is Dukakis
Ahhhhh, feel better? Well you shouldn't.
Obama is NOT Dukakis and this is not 1988. Obama may be to the left of your average american, but Bush has set this country up for a liberal president. To compare the VP of THE REAGAN YEARS to McCain in 2008 following Bush (and the 100 years nonsense) is STUPID!
Please think conservatives. We can be optomistic, but trust me, Ross is much smarter than all of you. You should listen to someone who's not blowing smoke up your rear for a change.
Notwithstanding your comment about the national polls, what Corey said above (...McCain has led BOTH Obama and Clinton in national polls since APRIL..) is correct.
I do agree, however, that the underlying fundamentals, especially the weakening economy, still favor the Democrats. On the other hand, Obama strikes me as a potential McGovern-type candidate whose support may well evaporate as more and more voters see that he's largely a somewhat pleasant gasbag who over a lifetime has surrounded himself with some of the most direputable people imaginable.
Unfortunately for all these GOP posters, Mr. Douthat has it exactly right. McCain has had a free ride for the last month while the dems have continued tearing each other down -- yet he's still polling neck and neck. Maybe a few more trips to Selma will get his numbers through the angry old white man glass ceiling. Perhaps better, though, a trip to Bob Jones "University."
When the Clinton vs. Obama furor dies down voters are going to sit back down and think: "Republican or Democrat?" And guess what? "Republican" sounds a lot like Bush, recession, and endless war. The torture issue alone is going to make McCain look like both a fool and a hypocrite in debates between either Hillary or Barack.
Seen you in eight years GOPers.
Obama is the only candidate left standing who wants to do the greatest good for the greatest number of middle-class and working-class Americans. McCain is like my Gramps - he served his country courageously, but dementia caught up with him. This Sunday's Washington Post reported, accurately, that he's thrown punches at many of his fellow Republicans. He deserted his loyal first wife, who waited for him while he languished in Vietnam, for an heiress. The thought of him as Commander-in-Chief is really scary. In addition, the Bush/Cheney/McCain Axis has no exit strategy from Iraq and has, as its main priority, the service of its wealthy clients. Right now, McCain is lap-dancing with Karl Rove. It's an ugly sight.
azjim spoke of:
"McCain's twenty plus years of experience feeding at the Washington trough"
Guess what, jimbo?...Like most Obama supporters, you are sadly lacking in knowledge about each of the 3 Presidential candidates.
Both Obama and Clinton have requested a substantial amount for their own little pork barrel projects. CLINTON RECEIVED OVER $300 MILLION AND OBAMA RECEIVED ABOUT $100 MILLION IN EARMARKS (in spite of rarely showing up at his Senate Post---imagine how much more damage he could have done had he not been too busy campaigning for President to do his job!)
And speaking of Obama and earmarks...are you aware that he requested earmark funds for his wife's place of employment and her salary doubled (to 300,000) shortly thereafter.
But back to your "point" about McCAIN---in all his "20 plus years" as a Senator; he has NEVER REQUESTED AN EARMARK.
There's piggies at the trough all right...but unfortunately you don't seem to be aware of who they are.
Try to catch a clue...
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4572406&page=1
.
Dems have a structural weakness. They are the party of San Francisco Billionaires, and various anti-Middle class interest groups and such.
They offer higher taxes and more governmental control over people's lives, such as gun bans, more "racism" crimes (arresting 4 year olds for thought crimes, etc.) Meanwhile tax revenues are spent on community organizations (such as Rev. God Damn America's new mansion) or pet causes of Billionaires -- global warming, "creative class" urban density, anti-SUV stuff, etc.
It's not particularly revealing that even bad GOP candidates can beat fairly good ones: Bush-Dukakis, Bush-Gore, Bush-Kerry. "What's the matter with Kansas?"
Simple. GOP are marginally more populist and middle-class friendly. Whereas Dems, particularly Obama, are the party of Billionaires looking to capture the Government and mandate how many squares of toilet paper per bathroom visit, or save the Polar Bear by shutting down US economic activity, and various Black Nationalist, Gay, Lesbian, La Raza etc. groups.
Shrug. It's not the candidates. It's the parties.
McClone is a third term for the worst presidency in US history.
Same reverse Robin Hood economics.
Same warmongering.
He will lose.
Obama presently has a national lead of 1-2 points in the polling average- but almost all the polls out now are of registered voters, not likely voters, and a sample including all registered voters is probably skewed at least slightly Democratic (since likely voters are paying closer attention and therefore are more aware of the various Obama controversies). In fact so far Rasmussen is the only poll screening for likely voters, and they consistently have McCain ahead.
Then there are the unknowable factors of how undecideds wil break, and whether there might be a "Bradley Effect" artificially boosting Obama's numbers somewhat.
And of course the national numbers don't really matter anyway: Obama likely needs to win both Ohio and Penn in Nov to get to 270 EV's- he definitely needs to win at least one of those two. Current polling averages have McCain ahead by three points in Ohio, slightly behind in Penn.
So Ross's statement that McCain would "probably lose" today is rather dubious- in fact, right now it's too close to call.
But the media attention has been overwhelmingly on Obama & Clinton. The GOP hasn't even fired a single volley yet, and wisely so. Voters are more preoccupied with the Democratic race and have yet to confront a real choice between McCain and the actual Democratic nominee. And let's not forget the Black Swans! This ceiling that McCain's supposedly been bumping against since Dec is very soft. Of course the GOP should be wary of declaring victory this early, but that's mainly because we're still 6 months out and the Dems still can't decide who to put their chips on. There's just too little information to forecast a November rain on McCain's parade.
You know, the "focus on the issues, not personalities" theme is getting tiresome.
It is absolutely appropriate to examine and consider a candidate's character and fundamental worldview, in addition to the issues of the day. That's because a President is certain to face more "issues" and events during his (or her) term than are on the radar during the campaign. We need to have some idea of the fundamental assumptions and principles a candidate brings to the table, if we are to have any chance of predicting how the candidate is likely to react to an unforeseen future issue.
I want a candidate whose default setting is not "America is just plain mean, except when people who think just like me are running the place." I want a candidate whose attitude towards taxation is that taxes are only legitimate as a means of financing the government's legitimate expenses, not as a means of increasing social "fairness." Etc., etc.
The Democratic Party can forget it, neither of its candidates has any chance of winning. They are working hard to extract defeat from the jaws of victory. Everything is going in favor of the Democrats except their own karma. They are propogating failed ideas and their campaigns are so boring. They just don't have the program content to make any dent beyond their own faithfulls. Expect a landslide victory for McCain. There is more on my Blog at http://kishorejets.typepad.com/uselection2008_controve/
Obama annoys me. Stupid elitist that doesn't know a damn thing about America.
Go McCain.
Hate to burst your bubble, but the majority of Americans really are not paying attention to the presidential race at this point, and most won't begin paying attention until after the conventions.
Who spends the spring and summer months worried about presidential politics? Only the political activists in both parties.
Also, if Obama is the nominee, the Dems will be toast this year. Obama has not been subjected to a full-court political attack. Hillary has had to pull her punches, but McCain and Republican 527s won't be so generous.
Let's face it, Obama's far left voting record in the Illinois General Assembly, his Chicago associations with domestic terrorists and crooks, plus the pastor, plus who knows what else is in the closet, will all be leveraged to maximum advantage with independent and soft Dem voters.
Obama is a target rich environment.
That Obama may or may not have known about the specific things that Wright said on the tapes isn't the point. One point is that Wright's defenders (Obama included) keep asking for "Context". Okay. Give me any hypothetical of your choosing that would put those sermons in a favorable "context" for Wright. The other point is that no matter how many Sundays Obama missed, you're telling me that he didn't know the gist of Wright's beliefs???? Did he also not notice the nuts that he was sitting with in the pews who were jumping in the aisles and shouting "Amen" to Wrights racist rants? Of course not. Obama was comfortable in the midst of that Black Panther babble.
I'm looking at the Rasmussen poll that has
McCain at 47-43, over Obama. (It would suggest Obam has to go 2-1 in undecideds.)
http://rasmussenreports.com/publiccontent/politics/election20082/2008presidentialelection/generalelectionmatchuphistory
These numbers, right now, are better than Bush had at this time against Kerry.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publiccontent/politics/election2004/weekbyweek_numbers
Yes Obama gets momentum after the nomination, but then Joe Lieberman gives the keynote speech for the McCain.
McCain looks solid right now.
Why does Obama lead McCain in the polls, despite a bruising nomination battle and bad press for the last several weeks? It's the ECONOMY, stupid. Polls show that the economy is the number 1 issue on Americans' minds. Under the last 7 years of Republican government: 1. Median household income FELL from $49,000 to $48,000 vs rising by $6000 during the Clinton years. 2. Gas prices have risen from $1.30 when the Republicans took over to $3.50 today 3. During the Clinton years the economy created over 15 million new jobs, vs less than 3 million new jobs under the Republicans. 4. The National debt has almost doubled, from $5 trillion to almost $10 trillion. Interest alone on the National Debt costs an American family of 4 around $4000/year in taxes--money that goes to bond holders in China and Arab oil-producing countries--hardly our best friends. 5. The dollar has declined sharply in value--from 1.07 Euro when the Republicans took over to .68 Euro now. Americans have begun to realize that the conservative Republican policies of massive borrowing to finance an endless occupation in Iraq have seriously damaged the strength of our nation as well as their personal finances. John McCain supports all of the major conservative Republican policies--tax cuts for the wealthy, ongoing war and occupation of Iraq--all paid by borrowing massive amounts of money. Does anyone think this is a winning platform in November?
I wonder if Atlantic Monthly would name a picture of Obamamessiah "loser" as they do for McCain here.
Yet another reason why I have no problems with allowing my Atlantic subscription lapse, the petty and pathetic "McCain%20loser.jpg", plus allowing James Fallows to report on anything China/Iraq/Iran related.
Even putting your content online for free won't help. A once great magazine, now regulated to the waste bin next to the NYTimes.
I would agree completely with this article if I hadn't watched Obama for the past month handle the Rev. Wright affair and speak his contempt for middle class Americans as bitter, gun slinging, bible toting, bigots. I still can't believe,in his speech on race, that he outed his Grandmother as a racist. What a stand up guy. And then there was the last debate. Instead of being prepared to knock the questions, everyone knew would be asked out of the park, he made matters worse, and the whining the next day...wow! Its clear now that Hillary if by far the stronger candidate, but it looks too later for her even as she wins PA. The whacko left & African American Democrats will not let her have the nomination. So Obama will be the nominee against McCain. America will not elect a left wing, blame America first, elitist with contempt for the middle class and core American Values. McCain won't win....Obama will lose!
"McCain loser.jpg" Way to go, guys, guess I don't really need to read your rag anyways.
Effete Marxist snobs don't generally do well in national elections. Obama is the half-black Mayor Lindsey of 2008. A charming know-nothing whose head is clotted with poisonous ideas delivered in fatuous platitudes taken as inspiring by vicious self-hating imbeciles (Keith Olberman, anyone?).
Unfortunately for Obama, the country isn't New York City. Unfortunately for the country, the 100 year march of the Marxists through the educational and media institutions of America has left the populace stupider than ever. I fear there are enough envy ridden simpletons in the country willing to placate their vanity at the cost of the nation that they will elect this detestible creature to the highest office in the land.
If O-baloney gets the nomination, McCain will face a media onslaught even more disgusting and vile than the eight years of Bush-slaughter they've indulged in. And yet he may still win. And he's enough of a bastard to finally put certain NY Times reporters and other traitors on trial, and hopefully hanging from a rope where traitors belong.
Despite his many weaknesses as a candidate, at the end of the day McCain is an American and Obama is not. And there are probably just enough Americans left to put McCain over the top. But I think this is the last election left for the GOP unless they return to their roots and purge the sickness from the American body politic. Which I don't expect will happen. If they win, it's four more years of Republican sellouts feeding at the trough while they barely hold back the Socialist tide. Then after that it's a Democrat, and after that we can turn out the lights on the great experiment in republican government.
Man, you not only betray you're visceral xenophobia with your "McCain Loser.jpg" filename but you show yourselves as absolute rubes when it comes to HTML and webdesign. Your average MySpacer or Facerbookphile knows you never put spaces in filenames for webpages.
Way to go. Oh, and you should probably turn automatic updates on. If you're making rookie mistakes with filenames your computers probably have missed a lot of patches.
sheesh
http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/McCain%20loser.jpg
It is good to know that The Current takes a neutral stance in naming the images files.
"McCain loser.jpg" Real classy guys.
Actually, November doesn't bode well for the losers on the left, since there's an excellent chance McCain will win. As odd as some of his ideas are, he has more honor in his little finger than you could find in a majority of those employed by the soon to be former MSM.
And, if elected, McCain won't go after the broadcast license of any media outlet, unlike many senior members of the Democrat party, who have threatened ABC's license, and threaten to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" as a way to subvert the First Amendment rights of anyone who disagrees with them.
L.T. is right. How stupid is Ross and the rest of you people that L.T. had to point out the obvious for you? A lot stupid I think. Hey. Isn't this Andy Sullivan's little magazine?
When Obama or Hilliary, considering her showing in PA against an uphill battle versus the polital interest funding that Obama expended, has to compete with real experience it will be clear to the swing voters that he or she is not qualified to be President. Look at the poll numbers for swing states. Obama is lsing Florida by an average of over 10% and McCain has put both PA and NJ in play. The Obamites need to face the fact that they are running against John McCain and not Pres. George Bush. Also, by the way if Obama stands for change we can believe in, please let me know what he has changed since he was sworn into the Senate in 2005 (thats right, three years ago!)
This article is a cry for help. He is reacting to the fact that McCain is essentially tied with Obama in the national popular vote percentages, but what really concerns him and all liberals are the electoral college numbers. McCain starts with a solid south and Florida already in the bag (he is up 10 pts today) and the south plus Florida is not going to change by election day. Next, McCain is up by huge margins in the border states of Missouri, ARK, Kentucky, Tenn. W.V. by HUGE numbers. McCain is going to win all of them. His core state totals where he is ahead by prohibitive margins gives him 273 electoral votes. This total does not include MN, WI, MI, PA,N.M. or MA where McCain is within 5 pts of Obama. What bothers the author are these facts. Do the electoral college game and find the truth. McCain will win.
As an Atlantic subscriber I am dismayed that you would name the photo "McCain Loser". On eof the reason I read the Atlantic is that I can rely on its centrist objectivity. I suggest whomever names and posted that photo be fired immediately. You need to manage the brand more carefully than the New Republic and Harper's have.
"I live in a mainly white, republican area and all I see is Obama 08 signs, not Hilary signs, not McCain signs."
Where I live, if you have a McCain bumper sticker or yard sign, your car gets keyed. Or worse.
I bet a leftist is 1000 times more likely to damage a conservative's property than vice versa.
Lots of comments and opinions here. So many are ill informed.
Let's first address the economy and the dollar. The reason why the economy is in a recession is because consumer balance sheets are a mess and because a larger portion of their wallets are going to gas and food.
The gas is due to three issues. The first is that we are out of refining capacity, which fixes the supply. Given a growing population and an economy that has grown for several years leading up to now and you have increasing demand against fixed supply. Prices go up there.
The second reason is because the dollar is so weak. This is because this adminstration believes in letting market forces work, which means that, unlike the Clinton administration, they are not out buying up dollars and propping up the currency. Had the Clinton administration been less aggressive here, perhaps gas would have gone up sooner, leading to a stronger business case for the oil companies to build more refineries. Remember, it takes seven years to build one, so the fact that a couple of new ones started a few years ago means that we have three or four years left before we see that impact.
The third reason for high gas prices is due to speculation. The credit market crisis is causing a flight to quality, which is almost always commodoties. In other words, a bubble has been created in commodoties, oil included. This will eventually pop.
The food is going up because of gas. Farmers need gas to run their machines and truckers need it to get food to market. In addition, we use food to make gas (ethanol) and the high gas prices are creating competition for corn, which is in almost everything we eat in America (cows eat, pigs eat it, chickens eat it, it's in oil, syrup, soda, shampoo, etc.). So, corn is going up, which is pushing everything else up. By the way, corn-based ethanol is more expensive to produce and less efficient to burn than traditional fuel. Democrats love ethanol. Republicans don't.
Consumers also face record debt levels and are diverting more of their income to paying that down. This is because the sub-prime collapse has caused the credit markets to dry up, housing to crash, and made banks pull back the amount of credit they are willing to extend.
Sub-prime mortgages and the housing run up started during the Clinton administration and continued during a pretty good chunk of the Bush administration. The reason for this is the record low interest rates we've seen for the past several years. This has been a secular trend since Volker juiced rates to kill inflation back in the late 70s. Rates got very low during Clinton and the Fed started pushing rates up during the Internet bubble, which resulted in a recession towards the end of Clinton's administration. The Fed pushed rates down to pull us out of recession and it was working until 9/11 hit. The fed cut rates again, which got us super low. (Let's not get into Clinton's faults as they pertain to Bin Laden).
The low rates created a surplus of lendable cash, which banks were only too happy to find new ways to lend. This has nothing to do with either administration's policies.
Anyway, the cheap money is gone, the auditors are making banks mark everything to market (even though the mark to market is ridiculous at this point) and banks are retrenching.
Consumers are getting hammered in this mess and can't spend as much as they used to. Neither Obama or Clinton or McCain will be able to do anything about this. We need consumers to get back in front of this either through their annual raises building up over a few years or through falling gas prices due to more refineries, more efficient biofuel technology (wood chips, etc.), and more efficient automotive technology coming to market. The Bush administration is doing a lot more to drive this type of R&D than any Democratic one ever will.
Getting back to the dollar; it is an interesting dichotomy. A weak dollar helps U.S. exports and creates more profits for U.S. companies, who in turn invest capital and create more jobs. The problem is that consumers make up about 70% of GDP and corporations, government and net exports make up the rest. I think the Bush administration messed up here by betting on the small player to get so much benefit from the weak dollar that it would offest the impact of higher oil prices. The Treasury should be defending the dollar and I hope that whoever is elected has their Treasury Secretary do that.
So, who wins? I think it will be McCain because he's basically tied and hasn't even started to really campaign yet. The campaign coverage might as well be called the Obama-Clinton show at this point. McCain is mentioned, but not nearly as much as the other two. This has nothing to do with the electorate's preference and everything to do with the fact that the Democrats are a train wreck right now and that sells commercials and print ads.
Also, remember that both Dems want to raise taxes, which is a really good thing to do during a recession...you know, if you want to cause a depression. Tax revenues are at record levels. The budget defecit is a spending problem, not a revenue one. Iraq has a lot to do with that, but the amount of pork handed out in the Bush administration would make the world's most ardent bacon lover blush. McCain would be a lot better at cutting out pork than a democrat.
Hillary just won Pennsylvania. The train wreck continues.
Source code for pix:
div class="mainimage" form mt:asset-id="425" class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" img alt="McCain loser.jpg" src="http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/McCain%20loser.jpg" width="540" height="240" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto;"/ /form br clear="all" /div (edited out the >s so the rest of the code would show up)
Sort of doesn't matter what your article says.
It's kinda like a combo of issues and character ... of The Atlantic and its crew.
P.S. The jobs that have left will never come back. There are lots of reasons for this, but free trade is always a good thing for the economy because it encourages capital to flow to the place where it will be used most efficiently. This means that the U.S. has to evolve and produce and manufacture new technologies that it can export to the world. These include green automotive technologies, etc. Let's not protect the jobs that need to go someplace else. Instead, let's focus on ways to develop and manufacture new technologies for the mass market. This includes retraining workers.
I think it's a hoot that liberal commentators, like this loon, never gives you their email address lest reality might invade their cocoon and challenge their delusions. The most accurate poll in recent years, Rasmussen, has shown McCain consistently ahead of both lefty Dem candidates. America is far more conservative than it was in the 1970s and, absent McCain being run over by a truck, I suspect he will be our next President and the press, and this loon, will be beasting their breasts and asking WHY?
One last comment. McCain told the truth in Michigan when he said the manufacturing jobs aren't coming back to Michigan. What he could have gone on to say, was , "look this isn't a federal problem, it's a state problem. Michigan is a high tax, highly regulated state, dominated by Unions." States that have lower state taxes, less regulation, and no Unions are producing a lot of great jobs. Wah, wah, wah. Tom
The only way to stop McCain now, as far as I can tell, is to sign the petition for a civil court case. The FEC can't prosecute McCain, but he is not above the law just because of that. This is it: http://www.petitiononline.com/JDAlvey1/petition.html
Given the scandals in the last two presidential elections: voting machine "malfunctions" in Ohio with equivocal results, and African Americans being prevented from voting by Jeb Bush's state troopers I suspect the national election results have already been decided by big money interests. I pray that all the schemes come to the clear light of day, with perpetrators being held accountable. I, for one, do not wish to live in a country whose economic base is one of perpectual war. This would require a massive underclass to be used as cannon fodder as well as work camps to create munitions.
"And while I'm thinking of hit the GOP will pick up seats in Congress in 2008 as well. The poor performance of the economy began with Pelosi and her tribes takeover of Congress last year. And Voters will blame the Democratic Congress for single-handedly taking down the economy and the housing crisis."
You know, I dont give voters that much credit to be that perceptive to blame the Democrats for their own bad policies but who knows, maybe the voters will smarten up. Democrat opposition to ANWR and offshore drilling is a travesty in $100+/barrel oil, and their insistence on jacking up taxes, bringing in CEOs just to rag on them, is damaging our economy already by making investors feel the chill of lower future returns.
Maybe the voters will wake up and kick Pelosi out of the speakers chair ... Worst. Congress. Ever!
It's amusing (and also infuriating, I admit) to watch McCain try to spin how he'll be different from Bush. This spin is just more of the same Republican lies and deceptions we've been seeing for the past 8+ years.
Even with McCain's lobbyist campaign staff, Rove, Fox News, and the multi-million dollar 527s the Republicans always have, in the end, McCain is just more Bush.
On most every major policy point, this is the fact of the matter.
I just hope the public sees through McCain's distortions to the contrary.
As long as the public is not fooled about the McCain/Bush similarity, the Democrats have a good chance to win in November.
"Obama is Dukakis, Obama is Dukakis, Obama is Dukakis, Obama is Dukakis"
No, he's not. Obama is far to the left of Dukakis. Ranked the most liberal Senator in the Senate. Has a history of far-left positions far-left friends (even 60s radicals and Communists like Ayers), and is a member of a wacked Afro-centrist church with a Farrakhan-loving pastor. Speaking of which, Obama helped organize Farrakhan's million man march, another little factoid the media seems to 'forget' but if it was a factoid that hurt a Republican, would somehow find itself inserted in every news story.
Obama has ZERO executive experience, ZERO accomplishments, a resume as thin as rice paper, and a baby on many levels - too young, too thin-skinned, and too arrogant. His tax policy is incoherent; will raise cap gains taxes even if it costs revenues - WTF?!? His meeting with dictators without preconditions - naive. His statement in SanFran - clueless and out-of-touch, and his moveOn supporters who defend it only show how much they are out-of-touch by defending 'acceptable' bigotry against small-town Americans. We dont 'cling', we live our values, all of us.
The only thing in Obama's favor is he's the best speaker of the bunch. But speechmaking is not a substitute for Presidential leadership. Obama's facade of post-racial unity politics has been shattered by the Wright/Rezco/Ayers/bittergate episodes. He's just a liberal Senator running for office on the usual political BS.
If voters are discerning, he will get fewer votes than Dukakis did, since he deserves to win even less.
You gotta love it when right wingers predict future events, like they did with Iraq, and just like they did before the 2006 elections: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/2006-predictions/
The more these people jerk each other off about how McCain will win, the more you can be sure Obama will be our next president.
Posted by irratical | April 22, 2008 4:00 PM
=================================================
Irratical jerk off dream on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone that votes for obama or hillary has to be in the same ball park such as idiot.............
"McClone is a third term for the worst presidency in US history."
Bush = Truman. Underrated now, respected later. Bush, alas, is not running. And attempts to run against Bush will fall flat.
"Same reverse Robin Hood economics." Same BS Dem talking points. Yet: Bush tax cuts got millions off the income tax rolls and in fact the percentage of income tax paid by top 10% increased.
"Same warmongering." The BEST way to get to peace is to WIN THE WAR. Nobody hates war more than a man who suffered 5 years as a POW in one. McCain know personally the cost of war. He will do everything he can to win in Iraq and Afghanistan - wars btw we are winning due to strategy shifts that McCain CORRECTLY ADVOCATED all along! McCain criticized Bush when Bush admin was doing wrong on GWOT and articulated the right answer
Fact is John McCain is more qualified and capable to lead on those issues than anyone else running - its #1 reason he won the GOP primary even though majority of conservative GOP voters oppose him on other issues where he is a moderate.
Go ahead, run against McCain on Iraq and GWOT. He'll be called Landslide John.
If all you have are Bush-hating attacks, the Dems will lose and deservedly so.
"There is no conservative optimism about November because McCain is not that conservative. He is a populist. There is some "Republican" optimism about November."
INDEED.
McCain is no conservative. McCain is a moderate. Moderates are going to be the ones to be thrilled. First time in a while that a moderate is in the race.
These kinds of inane "news-making" reactionary essays have soured me entirely on the MSM, and these days The Atlantic seems hell-bent on joining the MSM losers, for some reason (Andrew Sullivan: the preeminent MSM delegate in the blogosphere). The same old names, the same shifty non-arguments. Forget it. The comments below the article often seem more intelligent, and just as well written, as the article itself. Forget "the media".
Most of the people making comments here seem to be Republican party loyalist. What this country needs are more independents that hold leaders accountable. Party hacks ruin the country. Conservataives used to believe in the Constitution. Do they still ? Conservatives used to believe in balanced budgets and did not want a weak dollar. A strong economy and manufacturing base as a matter of security used to be important too. These things have been thrown to the wayside.
We used to pay for our wars and have a draft as a matter of national service. If we need to continue the current level of military operations, then why is there no draft ? How many combat troops do we have in Iraq ?
Was this article written last week?
And I noticed that the filename for the photo of McCain is "McCain loser.jpg". No, you guys are not biased at all...
ross douthat and rehan salam are disciples of andrew sullivan. is it that surprising to know where they stand?
George Bush got elected as a convicted drunk driver, service evader, business failure, and slanderer (McCain South Carolina). To conservatives, they don't seem as much a liability as Wright etc., but that's wishful thinking. Why? Because people vote the economy.
McNeedsaCane has some huge obstacles to overcome. The ONLY reason McCain is even remotely close is because he's perceived as a moderate/independent and not a conservative. Independents like him right now. The key for McCain is to maintain this perception. Given his record and recent position reversals, that may be hard to do.
It's too early to tell how McDole will do, but I wouldn't be overly optimistic if I were a Republican (as I wouldn't be if I was a Dem).
Fit and able John McCain receives disability pension. Just the sort of candidate you would expect from the GOP.
McCain can't crack 45%, and this is before it becomes common knowledge among voters that he's taking bribes from Donald Diamond in exchange for federal land, sleeping with Vicki Iseman on her private jet, and staffing his entire campaign with lobbyists, continuing the pattern of dirty politics he's been involved in since the Keating 5.
Are there more liberal voters than conservatives? Goe. Bush the first was looking good until clintons said" it's the economy stupid"! Who won? Who did clinton beat? A war hero--Bob Dole! Are you getting the picture? And the picture is very scary ! Lets see---Obama elected, Hillary Vice President Obama dies in office(killed) who is then President hmmmmmm???! Remember ...Vince Foster?
Matt, congrats on one of the few intelligent comments that displays more than third-grade debate skills. You neglected, though, to mention one of the biggest reasons for the high oil prices today, the economic rise of India and China.
As both of these country's enormous populations have become more middle-class and acquired middle-class consumptive tastes the demand for both energy and gasoline has risen. Hmmmm, rising demand with stable supply leads to ... anybody ... anybody ... anybody ... right, a rise in prices. That said, though, I firmly lay the blame for high fuel costs in the US on the Congress that, given a 30-year warning in the '70s has proceeded to do worse than nothing about petroleum production or refining by actually impeding energy independence. The sad thing is that there's a fair number of the same numb nuts that went through gas lines with Carter still serving and blaming the NKOB Bush with nary a sign of shame.
This whole "why is McCain behind?" comment would be more compelling were the author not cherry picking polls. Rasmussen has the best record around and has shown McCain ahead of both Dems for awhile and at times by up to 10 points. Try "Why is McCain not further ahead?".
Despite the conflict between Hillary and Obama McCain is still behind in the polls. Loser! After all, who wants to vote for an old guy who is supported by the (proven) worst president ever and wants to continue his policy. You have to be really stupid and anti-American to vote for John "Dubya" McCain.
Anyone who calls Obama or Clinton "radicals" and McCain "centrist" is completely delusional. Get a clue, Republicans. Obama and Clinton are both centrists (balanced budgets! Professional, businesslike government!), and McCain is if anything to the right of Bush's extremist-right Constitution-dismantling, cronyist, warmongering, pro-torture, lawbreaking regime.
Ya wanna win the war? Define winning. There aren't any WMD, and Saddam is gone. Success, according to the first two excuses for the war.
We can't force democracy at the point of a gun, especially when the locals remember us for Abu Ghraib, and we aren't even really trying.
Now the US is handing out guns to the "Islamic Revolutionary Council" in order to fight some other Islamic theocratic group. It's time to stop subsidizing Islamic militants. McCain wants to keep subsidizing Islamic militants with our money and troops in Iraq -- and is talking about starting a war with Iran, which is amazingly the only country doing anything effective and diplomatic to bring peace to Iraq.
McCain has been getting a total free pass from the press. He thinks Iran is supporting al-Qaeda, and said so four times before being corrected by Lieberman, and once again afterwards! Fact: Iran is Shia, al-Qaeda is Sunni, al-Qaeda wants to destroy Iran (just like they wanted to destroy Baathist Communist Saddam, and were very grateful for Bush's war). His colleagues in the Senate think he's a hothead with a short temper. He's a confessed adulterer whose second, 100-millionaire wife won't contribute to his campaign (I wonder why?). He's now reversed himself on every position he's ever taken, even his own McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. And the press just loves him cause he's a "maverick", and calls his massive errors of judgment and intelligence "gaffes"!
Seriously, this should be the peak for McCain. If people start learning about him for real, they'll flock to Obama.
Regarding the "McCain loser" controversy: The photo's title merely reflects the point of the piece -- that McCain may well lose the general election. No further inference should be drawn.
Iam not in love with Pres. Bush but----- he was responsible for 2 good supreme court justices that were very needed! And there has been no more attacks on one of our cities in almost 7 years! Over 6000 terrorists have been killed ! I can imagine if a democrat was in office they would send over al gore to blow some hot air about peace and the global warming! And of course if that didn't work..send looney mouth jimmy "c" and he would kiss em on the cheek and tell ' em how terrible america is and he's very sorry for the terrorists that have been killed! Also nobody rejected the tax reductions Bush pushed through! This part of Bush/Mc Cain-ism is okay..but he may still lose the election!
Funny how the left keeps changing the measuring stick. First it was a slam dunk for the dems and McCain should be miles behind, now it is the dems are fighting it out so it is close. Given the state of things today the dems should be mopping up McCain under any measurement and they are not because no matter how bad things may or may not be this country is not ready for a leftist government take over.
Posted by Kabookey | April 22, 2008 3:16 PM