Explain to me why Obama and Biden both ...

[timvp]

Someone please explain to me why Obama and Biden both keep mentioning this.

From the vice president debate:


Barack Obama offered a clear plan. Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops. Ironically the same plan that Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq and George Bush are now negotiating. The only odd man out here, only one left out is John McCain

The Democrats are running on the platform that Bush could make the Antichrist look decent but then both Obama and Biden try to prove McCain is wrong because he disagrees with Bush. When Obama first did it, I thought it was an accident. But this must actually be a talking point because now Biden almost said word for word what Obama said in the first debate.

How can you destroy Bush with every ounce of your soul out of one side of your mouth and then out of the other side of your mouth use McCain thinking differently than Bush as evidence that McCain is wrong? I know politics is all about doublespeak but this talking point is just mind-boggling.

[Shastafarian]

Someone please explain to me why Obama and Biden both keep mentioning this.

From the vice president debate:



The Democrats are running on the platform that Bush could make the Antichrist look decent but then both Obama and Biden try to prove McCain is wrong because he disagrees with Bush. When Obama first did it, I thought it was an accident. But this must actually be a talking point because now Biden almost said word for word what Obama said in the first debate.

How can you destroy Bush with every ounce of your soul out of one side of your mouth and then out of the other side of your mouth use McCain thinking differently than Bush as evidence that McCain is wrong? I know politics is all about doublespeak but this talking point is just mind-boggling.

It's pretty simple. Obama proposed it first. It came out that Bush and the Iraqis wanted to follow a very similar proposal. Obama is taking credit for it and claims it as his own. He can say it's smart because he proposed it first. Understand?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

They are trying to say that they amazingly changed Bush's mind about something, and that position to which he changed his mind just happens to be right. Their basis is that Maliki and the Iraqi people want it. But then they turn around and say every other thing Bush does is wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

They're trying to make McCain look even WORSE than Bush. They're saying hey look, McCain is going to continue all of Bush's policies, even the ones Bush doesn't want to continue anymore. I think Iraq is the one place they can do that effectively.

That being said, its a tough sell and even if they can do it it doesn't mean they will pull it off.

[timvp]

It's pretty simple. Obama proposed it first. It came out that Bush and the Iraqis wanted to follow a very similar proposal. Obama is taking credit for it and claims it as his own. He can say it's smart because he proposed it first. Understand?So when Obama and Bush agree, it's a good thing. When McCain and Bush agree, it's McSame being McSame.

Got it.

[Buddy Holly]

So when Obama and Bush agree, it's a good thing. When McCain and Bush agree, it's McSame being McSame.

Got it.

Actually no. It's pretty simple.

Manny explained it best.

[timvp]

They're saying hey look, McCain is going to continue all of Bush's policies, even the ones Bush doesn't want to continue anymore.I realize that is what they are trying to do but Obama and Biden have discounted all of Bush's old policies and then have discounted him even further when his policies change. When at least half of your platform is based on how horrible Bush have been, they shouldn't pick and choose when to put Bush in good light and try to use that against McCain.

Being 100% anti-Bush is a very good strategy for Obama/McCain. These remarks where they try to use Bush to their advantage is a maneuver that would make Gore/Lieberman blush.

[Shastafarian]

So when Obama and Bush agree, it's a good thing. When McCain and Bush agree, it's McSame being McSame.

Got it.

Is that really how you took my post? So you would like Obama to say it's a horrible plan because Bush followed it? That's the most idiotic thing I've seen tonight....well I did just watch Sarah Palin for an hour and a half so yours is just "very" idiotic.

[TheMadHatter]

It's ok TimVP. You're not very bright. We won't waste anymore time explaining it to you, probably to nuanced for you to understand.

[timvp]

Is that really how you took my post? So you would like Obama to say it's a horrible plan because Bush followed it?I'm saying why would Obama and Biden use Bush as a hammer when the other 99.999% of the time they are making Bush out to be the worst thing to ever happen in the history of man. Why even go there?

[ChumpDumper]

Maliki more or less agreed with Obama first, now the Bush administration is negotiating from that point with Maliki. There was a bit of consternation from the administration when the reports came out. The Democrats are basically declaring themselves ahead of the curve on this issue, and claiming it's a more concrete plan than anything McCain has come up with.

I don't know enough about McCain's plan to say what's better.

[timvp]

It's ok TimVP. You're not very bright. We won't waste anymore time explaining it to you, probably to nuanced for you to understand.

TheMadHater chimes in with more brilliance.

Props :tu

[Anti.Hero]

Basically Obama is such an encompassing entity he can even sway the judgment of the Antichrist Bush.

Meanwhile McCain is an immortal and wants to occupy Iran for 100 years or some shit.

[Shastafarian]

I'm saying why would Obama and Biden use Bush as a hammer when the other 99.999% of the time they are making Bush out to be the worst thing to ever happen in the history of man. Why even go there?

As Manny said, they're contrasting Bush, who they always say is horrible, with John McCain. They're saying EVEN Bush supports it so opposing it must be worse than Bush. Get it?

[MannyIsGod]

I realize that is what they are trying to do but Obama and Biden have discounted all of Bush's old policies and then have discounted him even further when his policies change. When at least half of your platform is based on how horrible Bush have been, they shouldn't pick and choose when to put Bush in good light and try to use that against McCain.

Being 100% anti-Bush is a very good strategy for Obama/McCain. These remarks where they try to use Bush to their advantage is a maneuver that would make Gore/Lieberman blush.

I think the reason this works though is because as much as people hate Bush, they hate Iraq more. So while you're framing it as McCain against Bush, that doesn't tend to stick as much in peoples minds as McCain tied to Iraq.

[timvp]

As Manny said, they're contrasting Bush, who they always say is horrible, with John McCain. They're saying EVEN Bush supports it so opposing it must be worse than Bush. Get it?Got damn you Obamanseed gulpers are dense. Manny is the only one in this thread who halfway even understood what I was asking.

The rest of you just go into full-on Obama protection mode. Even when the person asking the question is leaning more toward Obama than McCain. The only thing holding him back is that a large section of hardcore Obama supporters are so clueless it makes it difficult getting all the way onto that bandwagon.

[Shastafarian]

Got damn you Obamanseed gulpers are dense. Manny is the only one in this thread who halfway even understood what I was asking.

The rest of you just go into full-on Obama protection mode. Even when the person asking the question is leaning more toward Obama than McCain. The only thing holding him back is that a large section of hardcore Obama supporters are so clueless it makes it difficult getting all the way onto that bandwagon.

Huh? How did I not answer your question? You asked why even go to Bush in terms of the current exit strategy. I answered you.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

:corn:

[timvp]

I think the reason this works though is because as much as people hate Bush, they hate Iraq more. So while you're framing it as McCain against Bush, that doesn't tend to stick as much in peoples minds as McCain tied to Iraq.I find it hard to believe that the average American hates the way the timetable will be managed more than they hate Bush.


Barack Obama offered a clear plan. Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops. Ironically the same plan that Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, is seeking with the United States. The only odd man out here, only one left out is John McCain

I don't see how that is any less of a powerful statement. I'd wager it'd be even more powerful to the average voter. Throwing Bush into the mix as an ally to Obama on the issue muddles the point trying to be made.

[MannyIsGod]

In the end LJ, you could probably make the same point as effectively by tying Iraq to McCain without mentioning Bush so that you run zero risk of contradiction. This is probably the safer play and I'd anticipate this is what you'll see out of the campaign going forward. They're getting to the point where the only play is the safe play.

Pretty soon Obama's camp is going to go into full out prevent defense.

[TheMadHatter]

Got damn you Obamanseed gulpers are dense. Manny is the only one in this thread who halfway even understood what I was asking.

The rest of you just go into full-on Obama protection mode. Even when the person asking the question is leaning more toward Obama than McCain. The only thing holding him back is that a large section of hardcore Obama supporters are so clueless it makes it difficult getting all the way onto that bandwagon.

We've already answered your question at least 4 different times.

It's not our problem you are a little slow.

[timvp]

I answered you.


It's pretty simple. Obama proposed it first. It came out that Bush and the Iraqis wanted to follow a very similar proposal. Obama is taking credit for it and claims it as his own. He can say it's smart because he proposed it first. Understand?

That answered a question I didn't ask.

[Shastafarian]

That answered a question I didn't ask.


How can you destroy Bush with every ounce of your soul out of one side of your mouth and then out of the other side of your mouth use McCain thinking differently than Bush as evidence that McCain is wrong? I know politics is all about doublespeak but this talking point is just mind-boggling.

Did I not?

[timvp]

We've already answered your question at least 4 different times.

It's not our problem you are a little slow.:lmao @ "we"

You third rate Obamanseed gulpers have officially become an organization? If so, you may want to recalibrate your weapons because I'm not attacking your hero. I'm asking why use a tactic that aligns you with the Antichrist.

Or should I say strategy . . .

[timvp]

Did I not?Affirmative.

[Shastafarian]

Affirmative.

My apologies. What question did I answer?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It is a big glaring contradiction. Kinda how they've been saying McCain is a typical bush-esque republican on foreign issues, then they turn around and say he's not like the republicans on social issues to try to alienate right-leaning voters. Theyre trying to do both but should really just choose one path and run with it.

[MannyIsGod]

It is a big glaring contradiction. Kinda how they've been saying McCain is a typical bush-esque republican, then they turn around and say he's not like the republicans on social issues to try to alienate right-leaning voters. Theyre trying to do both but should really just choose one path and run with it.

Thats not how politics works. One thing you also need to remember is that certain statements are made under certain context. If Biden is speaking in front of teachers, he may say one thing but if he's speaking to a group of vets he may take a different angle that seemingly contradicts the first statment because of the seperate context.

In politics context can be everything and it can be meaningless but its usually important.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Thats not how politics works. One thing you also need to remember is that certain statements are made under certain context. If Biden is speaking in front of teachers, he may say one thing but if he's speaking to a group of vets he may take a different angle that seemingly contradicts the first statment because of the seperate context.

In politics context can be everything and it can be meaningless but its usually important.

I meant in the same situation though. I think it was a social issue, but tonight Biden was like "And he's NOT like other republicans, he isn't!"
something to that effect.

Its kind of the same deal as LJ brought up, to someone hearing how McCain is like other republicans over and over and over again.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see what the alternative is -- act like the negotiations are not taking place? Completely change the policy because Bush has to go along with it.

[timvp]

It is a big glaring contradiction. Kinda how they've been saying McCain is a typical bush-esque republican on foreign issues, then they turn around and say he's not like the republicans on social issues to try to alienate right-leaning voters. Theyre trying to do both but should really just choose one path and run with it.Exactly.

Obama/Biden got this ish in the bag. Doublespeak is useful if the race is close and the issue is up for grabs. Neither is true in this situation. With this talking point, Obama/Biden is biting off more than they have to chew.

Putting conditions on painting Bush as the Antichrist makes no sense.

[timvp]

I don't see what the alternative is



Barack Obama offered a clear plan. Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops. Ironically the same plan that Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, is seeking with the United States. The only odd man out here, only one left out is John McCain

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'm starting to believe the real point of this thread was for timvp to prove he has a more masculine middle name than biden.

[CuckingFunt]

I'm starting to believe the real point of this thread was for timvp to prove he has a more masculine middle name than biden.

I think you may have a point.

[timvp]

I'm starting to believe the real point of this thread was for timvp to prove he has a more masculine middle name than biden.Robinette is a bad ass middle name. It's like if Palin was a superhero and she needed a sidekick.

[Mr. Peabody]

It is a big glaring contradiction. Kinda how they've been saying McCain is a typical bush-esque republican on foreign issues, then they turn around and say he's not like the republicans on social issues to try to alienate right-leaning voters. Theyre trying to do both but should really just choose one path and run with it.

I don't know that it's a contradiction. A pervasive theme for the Democrats in this campaign is that McCain would be a war hawk president. That's why we keep hearing about McCain's alleged refusal to utilize diplomacy during foreign affairs. The Iraq illustration is being used to show that McCain is such a war hawk that he is in favor of continuing a war that even the most committed proponents (i.e., the Bush Administration) would now like to see end.

I think it's somewhat misleading though because McCain has already acknowledged that he would like to draw down the number of troops when the conditions call for it and has recently said that the 16-month time-line is not necessarily a bad idea.

[ChumpDumper]

Barack Obama offered a clear plan. Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops. Ironically the same plan that Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, is seeking with the United States. The only odd man out here, only one left out is John McCainSo pretend negotiations are not taking place and pass up the chance to declare scoreboard.

Eh, if anyone follows events in Iraq, they already know this. Just seems like another Iraq issue they can claim to have gotten right all along. I don't see how saying Bush has been forced to see the light as well is going to cost them any votes.

[timvp]

So pretend negotiations are not taking placeWhat part of that revised quote pretends negotiations aren't taking place.


and pass up the chance to declare scoreboard.
There's a difference between declaring scoreboard and using the other team's most hated player as an ally.

[ChumpDumper]

What part of that revised quote pretends negotiations aren't taking place.Where does it say they are taking place?


There's a difference between declaring scoreboard and using the other team's most hated player as an ally.Not an ally, a reluctant follower.

Just how many votes do you think this is costing Obama?

[Buddy Holly]

http://www.cynicalnation.com/img/fuck_yeah.jpg

[Mr. Peabody]

Where I thought that Obama and Biden might be making a mistake was when they were first to side with Bush on the bailout deal. You have a very unpopular President pushing an extremely unpopular piece of legislation a month before the election. The bad part was that Obama/Biden appeared to be in lockstep with Bush before McCain was. It had the potential for disaster on their part.

[timvp]

Where does it say they are taking place? Where does it say it in the original quote?


Not an ally, a reluctant follower. A follower is an ally. Reluctance doesn't doesn't factor in.


Just how many votes do you think this is costing Obama?How many votes is the current strategy gaining for Obama?

[ChumpDumper]

Where does it say it in the original quote?I thought Obama actually said that the other night. Forgive me if I remembered incorrectly. It's not that important to me.

A follower is an ally. Reluctance doesn't doesn't factor in. A follower is a follower.


How many votes is the current strategy gaining for Obama?
I have no idea. I didn't start the thread. The implication of your starting this thread is that this is hurting Obama. How much?

If I inferred that incorrectly and you don't think it's hurting Obama, tell me why you started the thread.

[timvp]

Where I thought that Obama and Biden might be making a mistake was when they were first to side with Bush on the bailout deal. You have a very unpopular President pushing an extremely unpopular piece of legislation a month before the election. The bad part was that Obama/Biden appeared to be in lockstep with Bush before McCain was. It had the potential for disaster on their part.

But, but, but Obama/Biden is showing that even the Antichrist is for something that the deregulation monger is against.


/"we"

[TheMadHatter]

What's the point of this thread?

Just another closet Republican who's too afraid to say he's Republican making hay of a complete non-issue.

[timvp]

I didn't answer your question about where it was in the original quote.Didn't think you would because you can't.


A follower is a follower.So an ally isn't a follower and a follower isn't an ally? Might want to alert Webster.


I have no idea. If you can't tell me how many votes this is gaining him then I can't compare it to how many votes it may cost. Give me a baseline number and I'll work off that.

Thanks.

[timvp]

What's the point of this thread?

Just another closet Republican who's too afraid to say he's Republican making hay of a complete non-issue.Answering your own question with a wrong answer is quite a talent.

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't think you would because you can't.Right. I don't remember how Obama said it. I thought he did. I certainly could be wrong because I don't care about this as much as you.


So an ally isn't a follower and a follower isn't an ally? Might want to alert Webster.It's a matter of emphasis for as much as I care, which is not that much.


If you can't tell me how many votes this is gaining him then I can't compare it to how many votes it may cost. Give me a baseline number and I'll work off that.

Thanks.No need. You started the thread. Let's hear it. You obviously have this figured out. You don't need any help from me.

Thanks.

[TheMadHatter]

Typical post from a conservative too ashamed to admit he's conservative. Take a completely trivial point and try and make hay of it.

[Nbadan]

How can you destroy Bush with every ounce of your soul out of one side of your mouth and then out of the other side of your mouth use McCain thinking differently than Bush as evidence that McCain is wrong? I know politics is all about doublespeak but this talking point is just mind-boggling.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.....but it doesn't excuse the fact that Bush got us into this quagmire in the first place....

[timvp]

Right. I don't remember how Obama said it. I thought he did. I certainly could be wrong because I don't care about this as much as you.

It's a matter of emphasis for as much as I care, which is not that much.Nice usage of the "I don't care" card.

Props.


No need. You started the thread. Let's hear it. You obviously have this figured out. You don't need any help from me.

Thanks.Link to the thread where I wanted exact numbers of votes gained or lost?

Thanks.

[timvp]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.....but it doesn't excuse the fact that Bush got us into this quagmire in the first place....Damn, even Nbadan agrees with me.

[ChumpDumper]

Nice usage of the "I don't care" card.

Props.Thanks. I answered and it wasn't good enough for you. That's fine.


Link to the thread where I wanted exact numbers of votes gained or lost?

Thanks.I asked about the votes. An estimate might have made me care more, but if you can't make a guess it's cool. I'm still voting for McCain.

[timvp]

Thanks. I answered and it wasn't good enough for you. That's fine.I guess I didn't care enough to make you care.


I asked about the votes.Exactly. I asked for a baseline to help answer your question.


An estimate might have made me care more, but if you can't make a guess it's cool.I'm not the one asking about votes.


I'm still voting for McCain.Yeah and whottt is voting for Obama.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess I didn't care enough to make you care.Spot on.


Exactly. I asked for a baseline to help answer your question.Completely unnecessary. You can do it all yourself.


I'm not the one asking about votes.Do you think your issue is costing Obama any votes?


Yeah and whottt is voting for Obama.No, he just has a negative net worth.

[timvp]

Spot on.I guess we agreed not to care.


Completely unnecessary. You can do it all yourself.You're asking the question. You need to give me numbers to work off of.


Do you think your issue is costing Obama any votes? First you need to tell me whether the current talking point is gaining votes so I can compare.


No, he just has a negative net worth.So you are not voting for Obama because you don't want your taxes to be increased?

[Nbadan]

Damn, even Nbadan agrees with me.

Well, I kinda agree with you, but it comes down to a matter of trust...who would likely follow through with their disengagement strategy and who would likely craft nuanced ways of keep a large contingent of combat troops in Iraq?

[ChumpDumper]

I guess we agreed not to care.Yep.


You're asking the question. You need to give me numbers to work off of.Nah. You can do it all yourself. I'm not going to hold you to it. It's all speculation.


First you need to tell me whether the current talking point is gaining votes so I can compare.Do you think it is? Like I said, you can do this all yourself. I'm curious to see how much you think it matters. I won't comment on it at all. Thanks in advance if you do it. No problem if you don't.


So you are not voting for Obama because you don't want your taxes to be increased?I don't make enough for any politician to care about me.

[timvp]

Nah. You can do it all yourself. I'm not going to hold you to it. It's all speculation.

Do you think it is? Like I said, you can do this all yourself. I'm curious to see how much you think it matters. I won't comment on it at all. Thanks in advance if you do it. No problem if you don't.If Obama/Biden went hardcore Anti-Bush without any conditions on where he may be used as an ally, that tactic may help push up their poll numbers up a percentage point or two. And the race would likely be over. Being Anti-Bush only when it's handy is riding a slippery slope.


I don't make enough for any politician to care about me.So you agree with Biden that McCain only cares about Exxon-Mobil and the other super rich and doesn't want to help anyone below that section of the population?

[ChumpDumper]

If Obama/Biden went hardcore Anti-Bush without any conditions on where he may be used as an ally, that tactic may help push up their poll numbers up a percentage point or two. And the race would likely be over. Being Anti-Bush only when it's handy is riding a slippery slope.

So you agree with Biden that McCain only cares about Exxon-Mobil and the other super rich and doesn't want to help anyone below that section of the population?Thanks.

[spurster]

One of the (minor?) themes from Obama/Biden is that they have been advocating policies that Bush was against, but now Bush is starting to follow some of them because of how badly his old policies were working. It's a "I said it first" or "I told you so" argument. Of course, a "theme" does not mean it is "true". In any case, the Iraq timetable and talking to your enemies (Iran and NK) are in this list.

Regarding Iraq, I think the public will favor any pol saying "I'll get us out of Iraq and stop spending blood and treasure there" without much regard to any contradictions or other hard issues. Most are tired of being there and the thought seems to be (where any thought exists) that if Iraqis want to kill each other in a bloody civil war, that their problem.

[boutons_]

What dubya does or says now, like giving lip service to an Iraq withdrawal time-table, is totally irrelevant because he wil NEVER actually implement or even initiate. Empty, meaningless words. Totally out of the discussion.

To say HUSSEIN's position is in agreement with dubya but opposed McWarMonger is dishonest, esp for someone as intelligent as timvp.

McLameSame has been and still is a 100% supporter of the bogus Iraq invasion and occupation, putting him at odds with 70%+ of the American people.

otoh, HUSSEIN always has been and still opposes the Iraq fiasco and worse-than-Viet-Nam quagmire.

That distinction couldn't be more clear, to honest people.

[spurster]

In conjunction with that theme (described in my previous post) is the claim that McCain/Palin are still for the old bad Bush policies.

[timvp]

To say HUSSEIN's position is in agreement with dubya but opposed McWarMonger is dishonest, esp for someone as intelligent as timvp.I'm not saying they are in agreement. Hussein and Robinette are saying they are in agreement. And they are trying to use that fact against McCain.

[timvp]

Regarding Iraq, I think the public will favor any pol saying "I'll get us out of Iraq and stop spending blood and treasure there" without much regard to any contradictions or other hard issues. Agreed. However, by using this tactic, it's like they are trying to paint McCain as even worse than current Bush. That's going overboard in relation to what their overall strategy should be.

Obama/Biden shouldn't spend time trying to convince America McCain is more evil than Bush. All they need to do is convince America has McCain has Bush-like tendencies and this race is over.

[RandomGuy]

I'm saying why would Obama and Biden use Bush as a hammer when the other 99.999% of the time they are making Bush out to be the worst thing to ever happen in the history of man. Why even go there?

"George Bush is an idiot, but even he has come around to my Idea, while Mr. McCain is ok with us staying there for a hundred years."

That is the narrative that they are going with, and it seems to be effective so far. "McCain is all of the worst, and none of the good about Bush". The case doesn't have to be made that Bush is 100% bad.

In the last year or so of Bush's term, some evidence of a learning curve on foreign policy has started to emerge. Bush seems to have finally learned something, and has altered his stance to be (gasp) more like what a lot of Dems have been pushing for all along.

This allows the Democrats some leverage in that area.

[timvp]

"George Bush is an idiot, but even he has come around to my Idea, while Mr. McCain is ok with us staying there for a hundred years."That sounds a lot like "McCain is even worse than Bush".


That is the narrative that they are going with, and it seems to be effective so far. "McCain is all of the worst, and none of the good about Bush". The case doesn't have to be made that Bush is 100% bad.If Democrats were smart, Bush = 100% bad should be their strategy. Based off of Bush's approval ratings alone, that should be enough to clue them in.

Like I said, picking and choosing when Bush is bad is a slippery slope.


In the last year or so of Bush's term, some evidence of a learning curve on foreign policy has started to emerge. Bush seems to have finally learned something, and has altered his stance to be (gasp) more like what a lot of Dems have been pushing for all along.If anything, Democrats should be ignoring this ... not bringing it out more for public consumption. If Bush is the Antichrist and the Antichrist is agreeing with you, even if it is after the fact, I'm not sure that is the picture they want in the voters' minds.

This is largely a technicality but it is oddest tactic I've seen in this whole presidential process. The Dems usually have it figured out that comparing McCain to Bush is enough to win the election. But then they try to go overboard and while it may be harmless right now, it's definitely dangerous.

Again, McCain doesn't have to be worse than Bush for the Dems to win.

[Findog]

If Democrats were smart, Bush = 100% bad should be their strategy. Based off of Bush's approval ratings alone, that should be enough to clue them in.



George Bush isn't running this time, and McCain has an undeserved reputation as a (not gonna say that word) who bucks his party. Chaining him to Bush is a good strategy and it's working.

[timvp]

George Bush isn't running this timeDid Palin hack Findog's account?


and McCain has an undeserved reputation as a (not gonna say that word) who bucks his party. Chaining him to Bush is a good strategy and it's working.True, that's my point. That strategy shouldn't be suspended here and there to try to make McCain seem even worse than Bush. That's unnecessary to win.

[Findog]

Did Palin hack Findog's account?

True, that's my point. That strategy shouldn't be suspended here and there to try to make McCain seem even worse than Bush. That's unnecessary to win.

I don't necessarily think they're trying to make McCain seem worse than Bush. I think the point about a withdrawal from Iraq is that a consensus has formed that we need to leave Iraq and draw down the war, and that John McCain is outside of the consensus on this issue.

[RandomGuy]

That sounds a lot like "McCain is even worse than Bush".

If Democrats were smart, Bush = 100% bad should be their strategy. Based off of Bush's approval ratings alone, that should be enough to clue them in.

Like I said, picking and choosing when Bush is bad is a slippery slope.

If anything, Democrats should be ignoring this ... not bringing it out more for public consumption. If Bush is the Antichrist and the Antichrist is agreeing with you, even if it is after the fact, I'm not sure that is the picture they want in the voters' minds.

This is largely a technicality but it is oddest tactic I've seen in this whole presidential process. The Dems usually have it figured out that comparing McCain to Bush is enough to win the election. But then they try to go overboard and while it may be harmless right now, it's definitely dangerous.

Again, McCain doesn't have to be worse than Bush for the Dems to win.

I disagree that the message is inconsistant, or "slippery slope".

That Bush is so widely reviled and discounted means that you can make the argument:

"His (Bush) policies are all bad, and we have been saying X all along. Now, even this idiot realizes we were right about X, and McCain doesn't."

That is a good way to capitalize on it. Because if you don't say something like that, and your opponent says:

"If Bush is all that bad, and he is now seeming to do your proposed policy X, doesn't that mean your policy X is bad?"

How do you respond?

The smart bit is to claim the idea first, and then claim your opponents realized the error of their ways, and came around to it afterwards.

[TomBrady]

I disagree that the message is inconsistant, or "slippery slope".

That Bush is so widely reviled and discounted means that you can make the argument:

"His (Bush) policies are all bad, and we have been saying X all along. Now, even this idiot realizes we were right about X, and McCain doesn't."

That is a good way to capitalize on it. Because if you don't say something like that, and your opponent says:

"If Bush is all that bad, and he is now seeming to do your proposed policy X, doesn't that mean your policy X is bad?"

How do you respond?

The smart bit is to claim the idea first, and then claim your opponents realized the error of their ways, and came around to it afterwards.

Umm that is exactly what Obama has done when he talks about issues he agrees with Bush on. Claims ownership of the idea 1st, then goes on to say that even Bush supports it after many years of being stubborn and thick-headed. He goes one step further in saying McCain is the odd man out here that is even more stubborn and out of touch than Bush.

What's not to get? I'm confused that you're confused.

[JoeChalupa]

It is called strategery.

[timvp]

I disagree that the message is inconsistant, or "slippery slope".

That Bush is so widely reviled and discounted means that you can make the argument:

"His (Bush) policies are all bad, and we have been saying X all along. Now, even this idiot realizes we were right about X, and McCain doesn't."

That is a good way to capitalize on it. Because if you don't say something like that, and your opponent says:

"If Bush is all that bad, and he is now seeming to do your proposed policy X, doesn't that mean your policy X is bad?"

How do you respond?

The smart bit is to claim the idea first, and then claim your opponents realized the error of their ways, and came around to it afterwards.

Sorry but I'm not following this. If in the next debate we hear this:


"If Bush is all that bad, and he is now seeming to do your proposed policy X, doesn't that mean your policy X is bad?"

Are you suggesting Obama can say "we claimed that position first, you may not speak of such thing" and be done with it? :lol

There is no such thing as "claiming" positions, especially in politics. It's fluid and once the can of worms is open, it's a lot harder to close. And no one will remember who claimed what when.

In actuality, McCain questioning now would have even more of a positive affect considering that Obama has already aligned himself with Bush on that specific subject. Without that quote on record, it'd be much easier to just scoff at the question. You can't scoff at a question when you brought it to the table.

'Tis the slippery slope I'm talking about. Using Bush as a hammer against McCain is just asking for trouble. Especially when it's so unnecessary.

[boutons_]

http://www.alternet.org/images/site/logo.gif
The Really Hard-to-Swallow Truth About the Bailout

By Joe Bageant, CounterPunch

Posted on October 3, 2008, Printed on October 3, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/101403/

Myriad cultural historians have noted the American belief that success is a sign of God's favor. Over the past couple of decades, He has had a downright lovefest with the already-rich -- so much so that the richest 400 Americans now have more money stashed away than the combined bottom 150 million Americans. Some $1.6 trillion.

This was accomplished by selling off or shipping out every available asset, from jobs to seaports, smashing usury and anti-monopoly laws, raiding the public coffers and manipulating the medium of exchange and blackmailing the peasantry regarding common needs such as health care and energy to keep their asses warm, to name a few. The ultimate coup was to convince the entire nation that the well-being of the rich, meaning the well-being of Wall Street, was indeed the common man's well-being.

All went well for a while. People went into credit card hock up to their noses in order to provide 26 percent credit card interest to Wall Street, etc. And when that became untenable, flimsy mortgages were cranked out by the millions, ensuring that every American who could hold a crayon could sign to purchase a home. To facilitate this, all sorts of shaky "mortgage instruments" were created -- balloon (sign here Jeeter, you're gonna flip it in a year and make a hundred K on this house trailer), interest only, and finally, negative-balance mortgages where you only paid part of the interest and the rest was rolled back into the principal balance. And joy of joys, you could refinance a couple of times while the inflated value of these houses was on the way up. Life was good for everybody.

The bill was never gonna come due because God, in His wisdom, had deemed that capitalism would defy the second law of thermodynamics and expand forever. So every time a bank made a mortgage loan of say, $400,000, even though the debtor hadn't even made a payment yet, the loan was declared a bank asset and another $400,000 was loaned against it. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Bank yelled whoopee and printed another $800,000 in currency. Of course, at some point the country had to run out of customers, so the loans got easier and easier. No matter that debt is not wealth. Wink and call it that, and most folks won't even look up from their new big-screen high-resolution digital TVs.

The problem was that all the jobs to pay for this stuff were stampeding off toward places in China with names containing a lot Xs and Zs and praying for a vowel. It was becoming clear that the entire economy was running on fumes -- in fact, less than fumes. It was running on the odor of paper. Mountains of the stuff. Bundles of mortgages and very strange securities and derivatives of unknown origin and value. Paper that stated its own worth and signed by some mystic hand no one could quite identify though the blurry signatures looked to read Greenspan, Paulson and Bernanke.

But there was a rub. Things reached the point where there simply was not anything left to defraud the public out of, nothing left to steal from the nation's productive capability, no matter how much paper Jeeter and Maggie signed for that trailer house, no matter how secure Brian and Jennifer out there in Arlington, Va., and Davis, Calif., thought they were. So the only thing left to do was steal from future generations of Americans and accept an I.O.U., which the government would happily sign on behalf of the people and enforce. By the wildest coincidence, under the Bush administration this I.O.U. happened to tally up to about $700 billion.

Seeing the oncoming train of financial disaster, the financiers just about wet their pants and screamed, "We want it all now! And if we don't get it, the 'economy' will lock its brakes and crash. Remember, we control the medium of exchange. Nobody gets a paycheck if we don't. Remember that it's lines of credit from us that back every working man's and woman's paycheck in the country. So pay the hell up."

Folks, they've got us all by the nuts and nipples.

McCain knows that.

Obama knows that.

In the end, regardless of the so-called dissenters in the House and the Senate, we will pay up. It's election season, and the dissent is for show. So it looks like we will get some "concession." For example, we will get shares in these "toxic assets" that are stinking up the joint. The rich need to dump them and dump them fast. In another magnanimous concession, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will raise the insurance on "our savings" to $250,000. (How many readers have $250K in the bank?) But it will be redeemable in even more inflated currency amid an inflationary environment. And, in case you didn't know, the FDIC has up to 10 years to pay up on that insurance. So don't get any ideas about running off to Mexico, to which, by the way, we are a net debtor nation.

We will pay. We will pay because the European banks holding all that bad paper we wrote demand that we make good on it so even more of their banks will not fail. We will pay because the Chinese, the Japanese and everyone else will cut off the loan tap with which we pay the interest (not the principal) on our exploding supernova of national debt. We will pay because God loves the rich. We will pay because we will not be offered any other choice. We will pay because George Bush worked hard for all those Ds in school and became the first MBA president. We will pay because our media has internalized the capitalist system so thoroughly they can only talk in Wall Speak. We will pay because the only language we have to describe our world is that of our oppressors because we have been taught to think in Wall Speak. We will pay because we hitched our wagon to last-stage capitalism and even though the wagon has now two wheels over the cliff and roars forward, we don't know where the brake handle is located. And because we don't know any better or understand any possible resistance to the system because we have been kept like worms in a jar and fed horseshit.

And as we all know, worms do not rise up in revolt.

That takes a backbone.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/101403/

[ElNono]

In actuality, McCain questioning now would have even more of a positive affect considering that Obama has already aligned himself with Bush on that specific subject. Without that quote on record, it'd be much easier to just scoff at the question. You can't scoff at a question when you brought it to the table.

'Tis the slippery slope I'm talking about. Using Bush as a hammer against McCain is just asking for trouble. Especially when it's so unnecessary.

This is what you have wrong. It's Bush that aligned himself with Obama's position, not the other way around.

[JoeChalupa]

Bush aligned himself with the Obama plan.

[timvp]

This is what you have wrong. It's Bush that aligned himself with Obama's position, not the other way around.


Bush aligned himself with the Obama plan.

Yeah, thanks, that has been covered in the previous pages. I'm talking about aligning via this quote.



Barack Obama offered a clear plan. Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops. Ironically the same plan that Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq and George Bush are now negotiating. The only odd man out here, only one left out is John McCain

If you can't see the aligning happening in that quote ... I'm not sure what to say. Everyone knows Obama had the plan first and Bush is now aligning with that plan. The point is that Obama/Biden is using their alignment with Bush currently to try to make the case that McCain is even worse than Bush.

[ElNono]

If you can't see the aligning happening in that quote ... I'm not sure what to say. Everyone knows Obama had the plan first and Bush is now aligning with that plan. The point is that Obama/Biden is using their alignment with Bush currently to try to make the case that McCain is even worse than Bush.

I know what you mean. But I think all Biden was trying to do was highlight that their plan for a pullout 'is the right thing to do' since it was currently being negotiated by the parties in the conflict. In a way, I believe it's their way to retort McCain critique that a pullout plan at this time 'is downright dangerous'.
That's the way I understood that. On the other hand, my understanding is that Maliki is the one trying to push that plan, opposed to Bush that, IIRC, keeps saying that he'll only hear to commanders on the ground before bringing anybody home.
To be honest with you, I thought pressing this point was important at the beginning of the campaign, because McCain seemed to be the more experienced in foreign relations. But after the first debate, I doubt they need to keep looking to legitimize their proposal by linking Bush into it. At this point, and with the current unpopularity of the war, all you have to say is that you want to end it and that should give you a good push.