POUBELLE - (Projets - Projects)

[internationalx]

All of the sudden the GOP is the champion of the middle class?! It never ceases to amaze me how the Republicans continue to fool the middle class voter. Health care is a total disaster here and college is out of reach for so many. These are two issues that are foreign to Republicans. They have no intention of tackling these issues. The GOP is the party of the ruling economic elite. For the past 8 years not one domestic issue has been addressed.

 

The office of the President is supposed to be filled by someone whose intellect and intellectual curiosity far exceeds the average joe on the street. The founding fathers were brilliant men with exceptionally developed minds and not frat boys like GWB and his cronies. Barack Obama is an intellect with a sophisticated mindset and way of looking at issues. The dumbing down of the American electorate is a lot ways is mirrored in the kinds of politicians that get elected.

 

John McCain is as far from an intellect as you can get. He is very much a man like GWB in the way decisions are made. I would much rather have a brilliant mind than someone who has some experience running the country. Experience does not imply good leadership or judgement.

[MTLskyline]

All of the sudden the GOP is the champion of the middle class?! It never ceases to amaze me how the Republicans continue to fool the middle class voter. Health care is a total disaster here and college is out of reach for so many. These are two issues that are foreign to Republicans. They have no intention of tackling these issues. The GOP is the party of the ruling economic elite. For the past 8 years not one domestic issue has been addressed.

 

The office of the President is supposed to be filled by someone whose intellect and intellectual curiosity far exceeds the average joe on the street. The founding fathers were brilliant men with exceptionally developed minds and not frat boys like GWB and his cronies. Barack Obama is an intellect with a sophisticated mindset and way of looking at issues. The dumbing down of the American electorate is a lot ways is mirrored in the kinds of politicians that get elected.

 

John McCain is as far from an intellect as you can get. He is very much a man like GWB in the way decisions are made. I would much rather have a brilliant mind than someone who has some experience running the country. Experience does not imply good leadership or judgement.

It never ceases to amaze me that people constantly lump McCain in with Bush without giving any reasons. They just blurt out McCain=Bush.

 

Bush is given a hard time mostly because his government faced various hardships (not caused by them). Yes, these hardships could have been dealt with MUCH better, but I'm positive that Al Bore would not have been an improvement. Many Democrats are the biggest hypocrites on the face of the earth. Anyways, I've said it before and I'll say it again, Bush is not a typical Republican. He spends like a left-winger.

 

In my opinion Obama would make a good president (much better than our left-wing equivalent Stephane Dion), while most leftists aren't willing to give McCain any hope in hell. Fortunatley for McCain, there are more people on the right than on the left in America (contrary to what the media would lead you to believe). Anyways, the Democrats in the US are farther right than the Conservatives here!

[MTLskyline]

 

Convention bounce for Obama! Great news! Hope it lasts.

 

The DNC this year was spectacular. I watched almost the whole thing all 4 nights.. Bill Clinton's speech was epic. Obama's speech was amazing too.

 

The Democrats are going to win this election, hands down.

 

Palin will help McCain in the short term, but i predict she will get utterly destroyed in the VP debate, and in the end her selection will come off as gimicky. Especially since she is pro-life.

 

Now, time for the RNC, and i will watch the whole thing just i like i did the DNC... gotta get both sides of the coin, even though the Democrats have already convinced me they're the superior ticket this year.

These poll numbers will narrow after the Republican convention wait and see.

 

(Oh and Obama did have an impressive speech, but Hillary gave way too much of a "feminist power trip" vibe for my liking)

[MTLskyline]

At least she's consistent? Excuse me? How is it even remotely a good thing to be consistent in this case?

I think you misunderstood me. What I mean by consistent is that she ALWAYS opposes abortion, even in her own home when faced with a life-altering decision. She sticks to her principles and didn't go against her principles for a self-serving benefit.

 

 

 

"The world" does not need to increase its replacement rate badly. A few nations do. Many others don't. Call me special, mais je préfère voir un avortement qu'un enfant se faire élever comme de la merde par des jeunes parents sur le BS qui l'aiment même pas parce qu'ils en voulaient pas.

Picky picky. Obviously only citizens of 1st world countries have access to protection and clean abortions. It is these people that need to increase their replacement rate. Currently the only people who have a replacement rate large enough to expand their population are the Muslims. Just read America Alone by Mark Steyn. Excellent book (that the left and the Muslims tried to have banned). Je respect ton opinion sur les parents de marde qui ne savent pas élever des enfants. C'est vrai qu'ils ne sont pas des bonnes parents, (plus souvent que non, ils sont sur la coté gauche du spectrum. ), mais on a quand même besoin de remplacer notre population. L'age moyenne au Québec est presque 50 ans (et ce n'est pas bien meilleur au ROC, et même pire dans les "utopies gauchistes" Scandinaves)

 

Et oui, je suis pro-choice, en autant que l'avortement est fait dans les premières semaines (avant la sixième). Ensuite, lorsque le foetus commence à être bien formé, il est déjà trop tard d'après moi.

Fair enough, je respect ton opinion.

[ErickMontreal]

Good luck, Barack (vous en aurez besoin)

 

Patrick Lagacé

La Presse

 

Cet été, je suis allé dans un pays étranger, un pays fascinant, peu connu des Québécois. Un pays en guerre, peuplé de gens qui se promènent armés dans les rues.

 

Non, non. Pas la Somalie, pas la Géorgie.

 

Je suis allé aux États-Unis.

 

Ah, vous me dites qu'on les connaît, les États-Unis! Pas vrai. Pas tant que ça. On connaît le nord-est des États-Unis. On va pédaler au Vermont. On va en week-end à New York. On va se faire bronzer à Ogunquit.

 

On connaît le nord-est, surtout. On connaît ce coin des États-Unis qui nous ressemble. Le coin progressiste, volvoïsant, patrie des Kennedy, de Seinfeld et du New York Times, et férocement anti-Bush.

 

Pour vous dire combien on ressemble au nord-est des États-Unis, un des deux sénateurs du Vermont se définit comme socialiste. S'il était québécois, Bernie Sanders militerait au PQ.

 

Sauf que les États-Unis, c'est pas le nord-est. Ce pays est un million de choses, et j'étouffe toujours un petit rire quand j'entends de grandes généralisations intrépides comme: «Les Américains sont...»

 

****

 

Cet été, je me suis tapé un petit voyage anthropologique dans le centre des États-Unis. À Indianapolis, en Indiana. C'est vraiment très laid, n'y allez qu'en cas de besoin absolu. J'étais là-bas (je vous épargne les détails) pour aller voir une course de NASCAR.

 

Deux images me hantent, depuis, si j'exclus celle de Patrick Carpentier ouvrant la porte de son motorisé sur la tête de mon fils (je vous épargne les détails, bis).

 

La première, c'est cette jolie fille qui marchait avec des amis dans l'espèce de marché aux puces installé au milieu de la piste, le samedi de la course. Short en jean déchiré et, couvrant sa poitrine, un haut de bikini brun. Vingt ans, pas plus. Elle aurait pu être follement sexy. Même si elle portait des bottes de construction.

 

Sauf qu'elle chiquait du tabac.

 

La deuxième image, c'est à la station-service, près de la piste. Un type faisait le plein de sa Harley. Il avait la mine vaguement menaçante qu'affichent 97% des gars qui possèdent une Harley (Harley donne des rabais aux gars qui ont des mines patibulaires, selon certaines sources). Sauf que celui-ci était menaçant pour vrai.

 

À la ceinture, il portait un revolver. Comme au Far West.

 

Ce qui nous amène à Barack Obama.

 

Ou pas.

 

****

 

Vu de chez nous, Barack Obama est le politicien rêvé. Jeune, inspirant, sans tache, intense, éloquent.

 

On trippe sur lui pour la même raison que l'Amérique progressiste trippe sur le sénateur de l'Illinois. Parce que, collectivement, on ressemble plus à l'Amérique de Ted Kennedy qu'à l'Amérique qui chique du tabac.

 

En ce juillet collant, dans le Midwest, au milieu de la piste de NASCAR, en croisant la fille qui chiquait du tabac, ça m'a frappé comme le missile d'un drone Predator foudroie un commandant taliban.

 

Ici, Barack Obama ne cadre pas. Pas du tout. Trop propre. Trop parfait. Trop sophistiqué. Trop «élitiste», la pire étiquette qu'on puisse coller à la peau d'un politicien américain.

 

Alors que McCain, lui, cadre parfaitement dans le décor enchanteur de l'Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Pas parce qu'il chique du tabac. Parce qu'il est républicain.

 

Les politiciens républicains ont ce génie inné: ils savent faire partie de l'élite politique et financière tout en se réclamant de la NASCAR nation, sans effort.

 

Voyez Bush, qui marche dans son ranch en bottes de cow-boy, les bras en parenthèses comme s'il avait des pamplemousses collés sous les aisselles. Débile, téléguidé, mais efficace. Réélu sans difficulté.

 

Obama va électriser les foules à Berlin. McCain va badiner avec des gars de Harley à un rassemblement dans le Dakota-du-Sud. Où il fait mine d'inciter sa délicieuse épouse Cindy à participer à un concours de t-shirt mouillé! Débile, encore, mais efficace.

 

Je ne dis pas que les États-Unis se résument Indianapolis ou à la faune du NASCAR. Je dis qu'on oublie souvent que les États-Unis, ce n'est pas juste Time Square. C'est un million de choses qui sont souvent mieux comprises par les républicains que par les démocrates.

 

C'est pour ça que je suis toujours surpris de voir des amis se surprendre de voir un John Kerry ou un Al Gore perdre contre un Bush.

 

****

 

Jeudi, j'ai regardé le splendide discours de Barack Obama au bar de l'hôtel où je créchais, à Miami. Un moment d'anthologie, non? Ce discours, c'était du matériel à Goncourt (pardon pour la rime facile).

Mes poils de bras étaient au garde-à-vous, bien sûr. Après huit ans d'«idiocratie» néo-conservatrice, huit ans de politique destructrice à attiser la peur, toutes les peurs, après huit ans de débilité légère à gouverner une main sur la Bible et le pied sur la gorge de la science, un peu d'intelligence, ça fait changement de M. Bush.

 

Et cet Obama est inspirant en diable. Il a tout pour plaire.

 

Sauf que, loin de dominer cette course, il a John McCain aux fesses. McCain, dont la stratégie de communication consiste essentiellement à rappeler ses dures années de prisonnier de guerre aux mains des communistes nord-vietnamiens.

 

Pendant qu'Obama inspire les foules, McCain, lui, grignote tranquillement le piédestal du démocrate. Il martèle: trop jeune, trop inexpérimenté, trop ci, trop ça. Et ça marche.

 

Il y a aussi le fait que les républicains ont le chic pour faire des coups de cochon. Ils ne veulent pas changer le monde. Ils veulent gagner.

 

Pendant qu'Obama inspire, McCain, lui, il fait quoi? Eh oui, de la politique.

 

Ça me fait mal de le dire, et j'espère que je suis dans le champ, mais c'est pour ça qu'Obama ne gagnera pas, en novembre. Mon seul espoir ? Que la mystérieuse et inexpérimentée amie de Jésus enrôlée par McCain comme colistière mine son ticket.

 

Lisant cela, une lectrice qui voyage régulièrement aux États-Unis, qui désire demeurer anonyme pour cause de susceptiblités professionnelles (pas les siennes), m’a envoyé cette réflexion (je n’ai pas la force d’ajouter les accents à son message, écrit sur un clavier anglo, sorry) :

 

" Tout ca pour dire que oui, vos conclusions sur l’autre versant des US sont pertinentes. Sauf que voila : j’ai aussi vecu 2 ans a Long Island NY et ai parcouru pas mal de miles dans le Nord-Est et ailleurs aux Etats-Unis et ce qui est veritablement inquietant, c’est qu’en une majorite d’americains (PARTOUT sur le territoire) sommeille un RED NECK. Voila, c’est lâché. Et le red neck, c’est quoi? Le red neck c’est l’anti-these d’Obama, c’est le refus de tout ce qui ressemble de pres ou de loin a une analyse intelligente et approfondie des evenements qui surviennent et nous entourent. Le red neck, c’est un faux patriotisme qui fait coller des bumper stickers « Support our troops » sur les Hummer, qui voit en Obama un homme raffine et eduque (donc elitiste et par defaut suspect) qui s’exprime avec des mots a 5$, qui porte un gun a la ceinture en guise d’extension phallique, qui va voir des femmes lutter dans le gras de porc sous un soleil de plomb a Wakulla en Floride (vous avez bien lu, j’ai des photos a l’appui) et qui va a l’eglise le dimanche se faire pardonner ses peches (le plus commun etant la gourmandise).

 

On est loin, TRES loin du projet ambitieux des premiers immigrants venus s’installer en Amerique pour y developper une societe libre, affranchie et novatrice (je vous invite d’ailleurs a lire ou relire « The Air-Conditioned Nightmare » de Henry Miller. C’est decalissant a souhait mais ses salves contre sa propre patrie sont amerement savoureuses). Le discours d’Obama echappe totalement a la logique de la culture dominante Red Neck, c’est un autre algorithme. Le discours Obama s’adresse a un public ouvert, branche sur le monde et qui ne puise pas dans la peur de l’autre."

[ErickMontreal]

'This election has already been decided. It's over. The winner is John McCain'

 

From The American Spectator:

 

OK. I'll walk out on a limb.

 

This election has already been decided. It's over. The winner is John McCain.

 

How, you are asking, could anybody be so utterly stupid to say such a thing in August? What about the polls

showing Obama ahead? Haven't I heard about Obama-mania? The conventions haven't even been held!

 

Well, since you asked, I'll tell you.

 

Yes, I know how to read the polls. I've seen the television coverage of the adoring Obama crowds. Followed the "triumph" of the Obama European tour. Know that in some eyes McCain is "old." I've heard all the usual buzz about potential VPs and which possible number two brings what to which ticket. Listened to the usual back-and-forth between the rival campaigns. "Did so!" "Did not!" Yada-yada-yada, as Seinfeld might say.

 

To which I say: So what?

 

If you really want to know the outcome of this election, the answers are out there to be found right now. Look around. Take a good hard look at what is going on around us all. It requires only that we understand what we are seeing, beginning with two much reported events of the summer.

 

First, The Dark Knight broke movie records with first day earnings of over $66 million. The film has broken one record after another, just as films like Star Wars or a Star Wars sequel or Spiderman or a Spiderman sequel did in their time. All by himself, Bloomberg tells us, Batman is poised to boost Hollywood towards a record year of $10 billion in box office sales.

 

Second. Simultaneous to the huge success of The Dark Knight, Rush Limbaugh has celebrated his 20th year as the host of his nationally syndicated number one radio show, signing an 8-year contract for a reported $400 million. His show is heard on approximately 600 stations around the country, with the president of Premiere Radio Networks saying the show enjoys an "unprecedented platform of radio affiliates." In recent weeks Rush has received one big happy fist pump from everyone including but not limited to the President of the United States and the "Dittoheads" who listen to him regularly as part of an audience of 20 million a week.

 

So, as might be phrased by another character out of the world of Batman, riddle me this.

 

Why is Batman so popular? Why is Rush so popular? And what in the world does the popularity of either have to do with asserting as fact that Senator McCain has already won the presidential election over Senator Obama?

 

The answer is: you. "You" defined as a cultural American.

 

 

NO ONE OUT THERE -- with the exception of novelist Andrew Klavan's recent perceptive piece on Batman and President Bush in the Wall Street Journal -- seems to understand just why The Dark Knight is such a hit. With all due respect to the filmmakers, actors Christian Bale and the late Heath Ledger, the real star of this film is indisputably Batman. But just who is Batman? And why does he make those connected with him so rich every time he shows his cowl?

 

Batman is the cinematic (and comic book) personification of the way Americans like to see themselves. He is a rebel against the Establishment (and likewise with the Star Wars crew and Spiderman.) He is unafraid to act. He is willing to take risks. He could not possibly care less about what "feels good" or whether anything he says or does "makes sense" to a single other person. He runs on instinct. He is here to do the right thing. Nothing more, nothing less. He has a vision of Gotham City, a dream, that is not unlike the favorite phrase associated with his friend Superman (another movie sensation): Truth, Justice and the American Way.

 

Rush Limbaugh is the Batman of the airwaves. The reason Rush is celebrating 20 years on the air and is being rewarded with that great contract is precisely because he has the same qualities as Batman. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative rebel, instinctively so. He believes in the power of the American dream. Most importantly, he lives it, right down there in his own Bat Cave, his "Southern Command." He is completely unafraid to say exactly what's on his conservative mind, and couldn't care less what his liberal establishment critics say about him. Like Batman, he runs on his instincts, hopping into his broadcasting Batmobile daily and saying forthrightly that he knows what's wrong and how it should be fixed.

 

But what, you ask, does all of this have to do with predicting a McCain victory over Obama? For this I turn to my own guide to American culture, my friend Dr. Clotaire Rapaille. The man who, as mentioned awhile back, is famous for designing the Chrysler PT Cruiser, getting Americans to drink vast quantities of Folger's coffee and serving as a cultural consultant to companies like GE, AT&T and Boeing, among many others. Before the 2008 campaign got under way, Rapaille had similarly applied his culture theories to presidents and presidential campaigns, his conclusions as startling as they were accurate.

 

What is it that makes Americans choose anything the way they do? And specifically what does this mean when it comes to choosing presidents?

 

First, he explained to me, we should understand that every human has a brain divided into three parts. The cortex is the seat of logic, while the limbic deals with emotions. It is what he calls the "third brain" -- the "reptilian brain" -- that unmistakably dominates the other two. It houses a person's fundamental instinct for two and only two things: survival and reproduction. While every human walking the planet has these two instincts, some people are more "reptilian" than others. Those others could be depending more on their "cortex" -- the part of the brain that is home to logic, that controls intelligence. Or they can seem to run mostly on emotion. Yet without question, the research shows again and again that whether the subject is picking cars, coffee or presidents, people respond with their instincts. When this fact of life is overlaid with culture -- in the case of voters for president of the United States, American culture -- the result is easy to see.

 

While other cultures put a premium on thinking (the French) or order (the Germans), Americans want our presidents to respond just as we do in our culture -- with their gut. An American presidential candidate, Rapaille says, "doesn't need to be extremely reptilian, only more reptilian than his opponent is." In particular, and he says this in terms of a cultural observation as opposed to a subjective condemnation, Americans are not culturally disposed to thinking. We prefer, as the Nike commercial has long said, to "just do it." We are a culture of action, of rebellion, of instinct. When Europeans or American liberals deride a George W. Bush or a Reagan as a "cowboy," they think they are hurling an insult. Yet most Americans see cowboys as heroes, so the insult effectively backfires. When it comes to choosing between two candidates for president, we gravitate instinctively to the one perceived as more "reptilian." Rapaille puts it this way: "We don't want our presidents to think too much."

 

Now.

 

Rush Limbaugh has made the observation that when Obama is away from his teleprompter the candidate's soaring rhetoric stumbles into a non-stop succession of hems and haws. Lots of "ahhhhs" and "uhhhhs" and "uhhhh...ahhhh...uhhhhs." To illustrate in entertaining fashion Limbaugh has even assembled a tape of Obama's hemmings and hawings from a solitary press conference, stringing them together to hilarious effect.

 

Rush is on to something here, a big something. What, after all, is Obama doing while he stutters around in verbal no man's land? The next time you see Obama in an unscripted TV appearance watch his face as he does this and you will see it in a flash. Obama is...yes...thinking. Telegraphing in utterly unconscious fashion to voters precisely what Rapaille says they do not want: a potential president who "thinks too much." Thinking translated here as indecisiveness, weakness, dawdling, timidity.

 

Remember Reagan on his philosophy about ending the Cold War? "We win, they lose," he said. The Soviets, he said, were "an evil empire." Nothing complicated. No Carter-esque agony of thought. Just a simple and direct use of the reptilian brain. If the striking air traffic controllers didn't stop breaking the law and get back to work pronto, Reagan said he would fire them. Pure and simple. They didn't -- so he did. His poll numbers shot up. Remember all those "thinkers" over at the State Department who kept eliminating a specific phrase from Reagan's now famous speech in front of the Berlin Wall? Reagan kept putting it back. On the interesting grounds that it was he who had been elected president, not some State Department bureaucrat. The phrase: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." The moment is now enshrined in American historical memory. Recall FDR on the Depression: "The American people want action and action now." Or Teddy Roosevelt demanding the return of a hostage by sending a telegram stating his expectation of the hostage-taker in the following fashion: "This government wants Pedicaris alive or Raisuli dead."

 

In each case, this was the bottom line of the survival instinct, the reptilian brain at work in a president. It is no coincidence that Reagan, FDR and TR were three of America's most popular presidents.

 

 

ONCE I UNDERSTOOD Rapaille's point, I went back in American presidential history to look for myself at the outcome of every presidential election. Without question, unless there was some extraordinary circumstance (like a secret back room deal in the 1824 Adams-Jackson election) like clockwork the American people had elected the more "reptilian" candidate of those available as they perceived him to be. Issues came and issues went with the centuries, but the American tendency to go instinctively for the guy who seemed the most instinctively action oriented appeared time and time again. A roll call of winners perceived by the voters of their day (in direct comparison to their opponents) as action oriented, candidates who fearlessly went with their gut, include Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, the two Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Ike, JFK, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush. The sharper the image of a candidate as a serious thinker, a man who hesitates or who is perceived more as a talker than a doer, the more certain his defeat -- as with a John Quincy Adams, a Thomas E. Dewey, an Adlai Stevenson, a McGovern, Dole, Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry.

 

And, my bet is, Obama.

 

What, after all, are among McCain's supposed liabilities? His temper -- an action indicator if ever there was one. His support for the Iraq War -- war being the ultimate call to action. In the acknowledged asset column is McCain's own war record, the epitome of the reptilian American brain at work. This candidate flew directly over the heart of the enemy capital to drop his bombs, then gets captured and tortured, with the great good luck of having his enemies film his literal fight for survival for full display in a later presidential campaign. For that matter, what, after all, was McCain in his youth? A fighter pilot. Or, as they say, a "flyboy." A modern equivalent of the American cowboy. And what is the cowboy to Americans? A hero. Batman in a hat.

 

Take note of the difference in the McCain and Obama reactions to the crisis between Russia and Georgia. McCain instantly refers to "the invasion of Georgia." Obama says he wants to "condemn the outbreak of violence." The difference between the two is vivid. McCain, listening to his gut, is sharply blaming the Russians. He wants them the hell out of there ASAP. Obama is once again the "thinker." Careful not to offend, he refers not to an "invasion," which would imply fault, but an "outbreak of violence," as if both the Georgians and the Russians are equally to blame. And what does Obama's foreign policy adviser Susan Rice say of McCain? She criticizes McCain for "shooting from the hip."

 

Who in American culture shoots from the hip? Cowboys, of course. Heroes. John Wayne. Gary Cooper. Wyatt Earp. Matt Dillon. One has to ask of Ms. Rice: Is she a secret plant being paid by the McCain campaign to say these things? One can only laugh at the utterly unconscious inability of Obama and his fellow eggheads to understand their own fellow countrymen, let alone human beings around the rest of the world. All things being equal, who do you think most Americans would prefer to see dealing with the big bad Russians in Georgia? Barack Obama -- or Batman?

 

 

THESE COMPETING IMAGES of McCain as the man of action and Obama as the egghead thinker are slowly sinking in with the American electorate of 2008. The same electorate that has rewarded Batman and Rush with millions of viewers, listeners and dollars. The same electorate that gets up every single day in this country and looks in the mirror to see their own personal hero or heroine, their own version of Batman or Rush, someone who is fighting with everything they have in their reptilian brain to survive and thrive.

 

These Americans aren't looking to be led by someone who has to think the whole thing through -- hemming and hawing as they go.

 

One last irony. It is much commented that the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama. And so they are. What seems not to be understood is that the mainstream media's idea of promotion for Obama is exactly what it was for Kerry or Gore and Dukakis and in the long ago was used as a reason to support a Thomas E. Dewey or Adlai Stevenson. They see the "thinking man as candidate" as a cause for celebration. It escapes them completely that the American people see the same thing as a cause for concern. A gut reason to vote against.

 

A classic example is the massive coverage given to Obama's European trip. The media -- and certainly Obama -- saw this as a reaching out to others. Displaying Obama's willingness to listen to what others (European others at that) are thinking -- that word again -- and therefore try to please them. Big mistake.

 

Does Batman really care what others think of him? Does Rush? Did Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt? Are you kidding? In other words, every time the media thinks they are promoting Obama they are in fact doing him damage. Subtle, yet irreversible damage that will eventually begin to show itself in the polling numbers if it hasn't already.

 

What will Americans be voting for in 2008? The same thing they have been voting for routinely in every election since the beginning of American presidential elections. They want action. A willingness to risk. They want someone who doesn't give a damn what others think.

 

They want Batman. They want Rush.

 

So they will elect McCain.

 

http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2008/08/this-election-has-already-been-decided.html

[Cataclaw]

I just read all that... and wow.

 

It would take all the toilets in the world just to flush down that steaming pile of shit.

 

Hey author, maybe the Dark Knight was just a good movie, period? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

Wow.. what a dumb article.

[yul_love_mtl]

lol... Sarah who? After lmao for 2 minutes that was my reaction. So much for the experience thing. It's kind of scary that a mayor of a town of 7000 could become the president of the usa. I hope Americans are not dumb enough to vote for McCain. If for any reason he's 72 years old. He should be retired. This election is actually quite hilarious. There's no option. It has to be Obama. It's like comparing a Ferrari enzo with a beat up junkmobile and saying which one do you want?

 

Man some americans are idiots. I was listening to some talk shows and my god those inbread hillbillies are racists morons. They can't find actual reasons to not vote for Obama so they denigrate him with shit statements.

 

Plus even McCain wants to be the change candidate now. That's because obviously the US needs change. Anyone who says contrary is not informed.

 

Let's see if french fry boy will get 84 thousand people to watch whatever he has to say.

[MTLskyline]

lol... Sarah who? After lmao for 2 minutes that was my reaction. So much for the experience thing. It's kind of scary that a mayor of a town of 7000 could become the president of the usa. I hope Americans are not dumb enough to vote for McCain. If for any reason he's 72 years old. He should be retired. This election is actually quite hilarious. There's no option. It has to be Obama. It's like comparing a Ferrari enzo with a beat up junkmobile and saying which one do you want?

 

Man some americans are idiots. I was listening to some talk shows and my god those inbread hillbillies are racists morons. They can't find actual reasons to not vote for Obama so they denigrate him with shit statements.

 

Plus even McCain wants to be the change candidate now. That's because obviously the US needs change. Anyone who says contrary is not informed.

 

Let's see if french fry boy will get 84 thousand people to watch whatever he has to say.

WOW, I'm starting to think that its Canadians who are the idiots with the kind of ignorant comments appearing in this thread. Straight out of a Caroline Parrish pep rally. And really, since when do you have the right to judge your American neighbours? Last time I checked they were our allies in the War on Terror.

 

Obama has *zero* experience at running anything. Not to mention Obama was barely in politics ten years ago (and almost entirely unheard of 2-3 years ago). So much for the experience thing indeed.

 

McCain may be old but he is also much, much more experienced than Obama. If you can recall the 2000 Republican Presidential race it came down pretty much to Bush vs. McCain in the end. Since Bush had the much larger financial backing he won out over John McCain's straight talk express, despite the fact that McCain campaigned on issues. Take a look at his lifetime of accomplishments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

 

Obama campaigns based on "change" but he never once mentions what he plans on changing! He's got the latte drinkers of starbucks convinced. McCain makes it clear where he differs with Bush. Obviously there are some GOP norms, but McCain acts like an independent most of the time. For instance Bush supports torture of terror suspects, while McCain opposes it.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. McCain is not a typical Republican. He's a Maverick, much like Joe Lieberman (if you're familiar with him you'll know that Liberman acts like a Republican on foreign issues and a Democrat on domestic issues).

 

On a related note: 12% of Democrats prefer McCain to Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Democrat

[Cataclaw]

Obama has *zero* experience at running anything. Not to mention Obama was barely in politics ten years ago (and almost entirely unheard of 2-3 years ago). So much for the experience thing indeed.

 

The experience argument is worthless now that McCain picked Palin. Game over with regard to that.

 

(I might say, however, that Obama has ran his campaign exceptionally well - the proof lies in the fact he's made it this far. In fact if he runs the country as well as he ran his campaign, we can expect great things in the future.)

 

Obama was a state senator in Illinois for 7 years, and his district had more people in it as the entire state of Alaska. So he was responsible for more people for 7 years than Palin has had for just 18 months.

 

Add to that that Obama has been a US Senator for nearly 4 years now of a state that has 25 times as many people as the entire state of Alaska.

 

Add it up, and Obama has 11 years of experience as an elected official responsible for a higher population than the entire state of Alaska. Which do you think is more qualified? 18 months in charge of 600,000+ people, or 11 years in charge of 600,000+ people? It's not a trick question.

 

 

McCain may be old but he is also much, much more experienced than Obama. If you can recall the 2000 Republican Presidential race it came down pretty much to Bush vs. McCain in the end. Since Bush had the much larger financial backing he won out over John McCain's straight talk express, despite the fact that McCain campaigned on issues. Take a look at his lifetime of accomplishments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

 

Again, the experience argument is dead and buried. It was dead and buried after the DNC, and now following Palin's selection as running mate, the argument was dug up and killed again just for good measure.

 

Obama campaigns based on "change" but he never once mentions what he plans on changing! He's got the latte drinkers of starbucks convinced. McCain makes it clear where he differs with Bush. Obviously there are some GOP norms, but McCain acts like an independent most of the time. For instance Bush supports torture of terror suspects, while McCain opposes it.

 

Now you're just demonstrating a lack of willingness to be well informed. I am a staunch Democrat, but even i know McCain's agenda inside and out. I took the time to read his web site 3 times over. Please do the same before you critique Obama's "lack of specifics". His specifics are there i can assure you, and you need only visit his web site or check out some of his youtube videos to see and hear for yourself.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. McCain is not a typical Republican. He's a Maverick, much like Joe Lieberman (if you're familiar with him you'll know that Liberman acts like a Republican on foreign issues and a Democrat on domestic issues).

 

Advisors say McCain really wanted to pick Lieberman, but couldn't withstand the pressure from social conservatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/us/politics/31reconstruct.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1220191769-P4d6F48c2qWWbZitxy2VSg&oref=slogin

What a maverick.