Fox gives McCain an 82% win over Obama in the latest debate

[Swift]

Money should not decide elections. Issues should.

Then maybe the GOP should spend less time attacking Obamas character and more time attacking his policies and presenting an appealing alternative?

You know, since its meant to be about the issues and all that.

Kate, your comments don't even square. You can't have a nation of racists donating record amounts to a black candidate.

America is a racist country. There, i said it. Every person might not be racist, but it is still there, and it is still a detriment to any minority that runs for public office.

And just so nobody thinks i am getting on a high horse, yes, Australia still has deep seated racism in sections of our communities.

But whatever. I'm sure you could care less about the facts. Nobody seems to be concerned with that anymore.

Least of all the GOP who spend most of their time churning out lies, smears and slander instead of presenting viable alternatives to the democrats.

[Mulu]

Money should not decide elections. Issues should.

You actually think they are unrelated? Why is Obama getting so much monetary support from Americans? Oh, that's right, he's better on the issues. Small campaign contributions by US citizens are equivalent to votes. Saying it's unfair for Obama to be getting more contributions from average Americans is like saying it's unfair he's getting more votes. This is still a democracy you know....

Seriously, of all the things to whine about, this one requires the most cognitive dissonance. Who's running this story anyway? I haven't seen any mention of the disparity in fundraising being "unfair" in any legitimate outlets. If Obama was getting all his money from big donors, then it would be a legitimate issue. Getting all of his money from *us* means he earned it.

[bartleby]

This is realy just an aimless rant so *shurgs*

Its funny that when its taxes free its free market no one should be allowed to tell me what to do with my money or where it goes im the master of my own fate but when its campaign contributions to the other guy that redoric dies ... eh

Im for campaign finance reform big time would like to see it happen Im moderately disapointed Obama didnt take the govt route but can understand why he didnt

So long story short Im going to draw what i think is a fun parallel and play devils advocate a bit ...

The man is politicaly successfull why should someone limit his political success i mean that goes against the free market doesnt it? Is this America or what shouldnt some one thats worked hard at a political career get to reap the benifits of wealth that comes with it I mean its not like hes twisting peoples arms ...

Try replacing polical and politician with business or buissiness man or the equivalent. The reason it matters is that things do not exist in a vaccumm the universe is holistic. If something seems fishy with a sentence or idea changing the noun probably isnt going to fix it.

eh /end rant i could flush the idea out more but im just too lazy right now

[MorbidKate]

Kate, your comments don't even square. You can't have a nation of racists donating record amounts to a black candidate.

Sure they square but I also never said the US was a nation of racists so nice try on that one you Republican you

What I did say was that if Obama won it would be the biggest advance in the social fabric since MLK which is the polar opposite of your claim.

Contributions from PACs are statistically insignificant to both candidates. They account for 0.7% of all contributions made to McCain.

PAC contributions are limited which explains the low percentage but to use your own link, look at the biggest contributors to McCain, the big banking institutions who screwed the economy and the retired... who aren't well known for the progressive social awareness.

Regardless, if a white guy is complaining about the ability of a black guy to generate big bucks to make a run at the Whitehouse I think that says something about the US moving forward on race relations.

The reality here is that the US only backed off segregation as unconstitutional just 38 years ago so to think there still isn't a fair number of racists voting you're mistaken. In fact, most of them are retired, voting and contributing to McCain

[ç i p h é r]

Then maybe the GOP should spend less time attacking Obamas character and more time attacking his policies and presenting an appealing alternative?

You know, since its meant to be about the issues and all that.

That would be appropriate, but I don't control the GOP nor is the McCain campaign the only participant in negative campaigning. They are the lesser participant, as it turns out, given the amount of dollars being spent on advertising by each campaign.

OBAMA: "One hundred percent, John, of your ads — 100 percent of them — have been negative."

THE FACTS: The statement is mostly true when it comes to McCain's current commercial spots. But by saying McCain's ads "have been" 100 percent negative, Obama ventures into misleading territory. A recent study by the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that in the first week of October "nearly 100 percent" of McCain's ads were negative. The study also reported, however, that to date 73 percent of McCain's ads have been negative and that 61 percent of Obama's ads have been negative.

Quote:
McCAIN: "Sen. Obama is spending unprecedented amounts of money in negative attack ads on me."

THE FACTS: Obama is spending unprecedented amounts of money on ads, period — negative or otherwise. Obama is outspending McCain and the Republican Party by more than 2-to-1 in presidential ads. At one point in August, 90 percent of the ads Obama was airing were against McCain. The study by the Wisconsin Advertising Project found that about 34 percent of Obama's ads are now negative.

America is a racist country. There, i said it. Every person might not be racist, but it is still there, and it is still a detriment to any minority that runs for public office.

On what basis do you make such an assertion?

[Mulu]

As was stated before, there is a big difference between a negative ad, "he's going to raise your taxes," and a demonizing ad, "he pals around with terrorists," etc. One that is actually contributing to McCain losing the election by losing the middle.

[ç i p h é r]

But there is no difference between those scare tactics and the ones Obama recently launched into in an effort to scare seniors, a claim that is categorically false (ie a flat out lie).

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... claim.html

Now couple that with a 2 or 3 or 4 to 1 advertising advantage and it's impossible to make the claim that McCain's campaign is more negative with a straight face. The polls arguably demonstrate the enormous reach advantage the Obama campaign has over McCain.

The reason I don't buy into the free market analogy is because the political process isn't a free market. Not by a long shot. It is monopolized by two parties, both of which can apparently falsely advertise with impunity, to the detriment of the voter. Conversely, a free market system is intended to foster FAIR competition between businesses to the ultimate benefit of the consumer by way of lower prices for goods and services.

Do you really believe that the precedent being set now somehow benefits the voter? Before you answer, consider if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a Republican with a huge advertising advantage. We are headed in the wrong direction in our election politics, and, as I said earlier, continuing with the same kinds of excesses we witnessed the last few years only under a different brand. That is precisely what I worry about with an Obama administration and a Democratic super majority in Congress. The pedal is to the metal, as the saying goes.

[Mulu]

But there is no difference between those scare tactics and the ones Obama recently launched into in an effort to scare seniors, a claim that is categorically false (ie a flat out lie).

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... claim.html

Are you retarded or something? Claiming that Medicare is going to be reduced is equivalent to saying taxes are going to be raised, and is in no way similar to claiming a senator is actually a secret Muslim or a terrorist or anti-American. To be similar would be like Obama running ads claiming that McCain is a member of the KKK, to make the point understandable.

Running a larger volume of traditional negative ads which attack *policies* is nowhere near as bad as the McCarthyist tenor of the McCain campaign, and *every* legitimate news source is saying the same thing, as did Colin Powell. Well, I suppose trying to explain reality to a right wing radical is hopeless. You probably agree that Obama is a secret Muslim who likes terrorists.

[ç i p h é r]

Are you retarded or something? Claiming that Medicare is going to be reduced is equivalent to saying taxes are going to be raised, and is in no way similar to claiming a senator is actually a secret Muslim or a terrorist or anti-American. To be similar would be like Obama running ads claiming that McCain is a member of the KKK, to make the point understandable.

For you to hide behind a bizarre sense of relativism in an effort to minimize the sort of outright lying that's being identified - as though it's defensible in any way - is what's retarded, Mulu. Not to mention, you're confusing McCain's rhetoric with right wing smears (likely intentionally doing so), which he has repudiated many times.

Running a larger volume of traditional negative ads which attack *policies* is nowhere near as bad as the McCarthyist tenor of the McCain campaign, and *every* legitimate news source is saying the same thing, as did Colin Powell. Well, I suppose trying to explain reality to a right wing radical is hopeless. You probably agree that Obama is a secret Muslim who likes terrorists.

Having no defense to the issues put before you, you resort to shouting me down with idiocy.

[Veilan]

ç i p h é r wins by points, through grace and lack of name-calling.

I wonder if I can fit a "kindergarten" somewhere in Mulu's title...

[Kest]

http://kskirby.net/mccain.html

something to laugh at

[Mulu]

ç i p h é r wins by points, through grace and lack of name-calling.

I wonder if I can fit a "kindergarten" somewhere in Mulu's title...

After seeing the same false claim made a half dozen times, I could no longer refrain....

It is *not* equivalent to claim that McCain is going to reduce Medicare (which btw he admitted to in the debates) and to claim that Obama pals around with terrorists and is anti-American, and those attacks on Obama come from ads approved by McCain and his own words, not 3rd parties. To claim that ads attacking a candidate's policies are the same as ads attacking a candidate's patriotism *is* retarded.

And who appointed you judge anyway.

Well, as I said before, McCain is toast. The polls are actually widening now, and there will be no pre-Election day blitz by swift boaters this time around.

It’s October 21st, and if you can’t say it by October 21st, then chances are you’re not going to say anything,” said Chris LaCivita, the strategist behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. LaCivita has been working for a new conservative third-party group this year, the American Issues Project.

That group, known in the political community as “AIP,” was eyed by some in the GOP as a potential major player in taking on Obama. They spent nearly $3 million in key states in August on a tough ad tying the Illinois senator to 60s-era domestic terrorist William Ayers and promised additional spots in the fall campaign.

That never happened.

“Donors just weren’t willing to give the money,” explains LaCivita. “They were hurt badly in the market crash and they were always concerned about how McCain would react.”

The timing of the financial crisis couldn’t have been worse for Republicans. When Lehman Brothers went under on September 15, McCain was tied or in the margin of error in national polls. But when his poll numbers fell along with the stock market, wealthy conservatives saw little reason to invest their shrunken holdings on what was far from a sure thing.

“Republican donors at the end of day aren’t stupid,” said another Republican familiar with third-party activities this cycle. “They’re not going to throw good money after bad.”

And it wasn’t just the economic bad news – McCain did little to help his own cause.

Two Republican sources involved in third-party groups said the Arizona senator’s second debate performance in early October, a pivotal moment in the campaign when he and running mate Sarah Palin had begun to ratchet up their attacks, was deflating to some donors.

These sources said that after McCain didn’t use the Nashville debate to aggressively go after Obama, one prominent conservative financier remarked: “I’m not going to bother investing anymore.”

And donors were always fearful they would be rebuked by their party’s notoriously unpredictable nominee if they underwrote a major effort.

“McCain never gave a real wink and said, ‘Go ahead boys,’ ” explained one operative close to a third-party group this year.

Another GOP strategist lamented that McCain lacked a core group of rich friends who were willing to part with their money. Harold Simmons, a Dallas billionaire, underwrote the entire cost of the initial Ayers ad for AIP – but his investment wasn’t matched by other wealthy Republicans.

“In 2004, Bush had a cadre of donors who wanted to see him succeed,” said this source, citing “oil guys.”

“But McCain doesn’t have that, and this is where it really hurts.”

For most of the donor pool for a robust third-party effort, this cycle appears to have come down to dollars and cents. Many, like Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adleson, saw their portfolios slide, reducing their interest greatly in practicing their political hobby on the side.

Another operative close to third-party groups said part of the problem was what didn’t happen after AIP broadcast their Ayers ad in August.

The media coverage of the spot, which begin airing during the Democratic convention, was far less pointed than had been expected, depriving conservatives of the sort of echo effect they enjoyed against Kerry in 2004.

“It’s about spurring the mainstream media to do the right thing,” said this source, meaning to drive both free replays of the ads and subsequent stories about the underlying charges being made. “The media did cover the fact that, hey, maybe John Kerry wasn’t completely honest about his service in Vietnam.”

But the Ayers ad got little pick-up, overwhelmed by Obama’s stadium acceptance speech, McCain’s shocking selection of Sarah Palin and then the Republican Convention.
“It’s like an initial stock offering. If it doesn’t make somewhat of a run, people aren’t as quick to invest in the next one.”

Gosh, I almost feel sorry for the propoganda artists.

[ç i p h é r]

You keep hammering on policy as though it's acceptable to lie and mislead about policy, but nothing more. It's not. The end result of such tactics is exactly the same; To scare people away from the other guy.

You keep suggesting as well that policy matters are fair game but judgment is not. Since when? Hasn't Obama been making the case to the American people that judgment trumps experience? That certainly makes his judgment open to criticism, if it wasn't before.

[Mulu]

You keep hammering on policy as though it's acceptable to lie and mislead about policy, but nothing more. It's not.

But both sides do it, so you can criticize the political process where policy misinformation is the norm but you can't blame one or the other side for misrepresenting policy stances when they are both guilty. Both sides are claiming that the other will raise taxes and cut benefits, essentially, and of course McCain at least admitted that he would cut benefits, and Obama admitted that he would raise taxes on the rich, so both parties are using at least some truth in their ads.

The fact is, the economy is going to dictate any policy changes for the next year or two at least. No candidate is going to be able to pursue their desired policies, we're in too much of a pickle. The first job will be undoing the damage of a deregulated financial industry, and that isn't going to happen overnight.

The end result of such tactics is exactly the same; To scare people away from the other guy.

You must be smart enough to see the difference between being scared of a candidate's tax policy and being scared that he is secretly a Muslim with anti-american ideals out to join forces with terrorists. The McCain ads would be laughably absurd if right-wingers weren't actually dumb enough to believe them (there are examples on our own boards of people who believe them). It creates an atmosphere of real fear, fear of personal safety, rather than a fear of paying 3% more on your taxes. Those aren't even in the same ballpark, and I think you are being purposefully deceitful or at least caught in a bubble of justification to say otherwise. Obviously not all "fears" are equal.

You keep suggesting as well that policy matters are fair game but judgment is not. Since when? Hasn't Obama been making the case to the American people that judgment trumps experience? That certainly makes his judgment open to criticism, if it wasn't before.

The ads don't say, "He should have known better than to sit on a board with a former domestic terrorist," which is all that really happened. They say... well watch the ad yourself. That's just one example.

Realize that polling shows these over the line ads are actually harming McCain's numbers. Realize that McCain is being castigated by the right, left and middle for these ads. Only the most extreme portion of the right is behind McCain on this, the Rush Limbaugh's of the world. Even Karl Rove has stated the ads go too far. Seriously, what more do you need?

[ç i p h é r]

And you must also be smart enough to realize that it's not McCain who is making allegations that he is a secret Muslim. He has repudiated such statements.

The ads don't say, "He should have known better than to sit on a board with a former domestic terrorist," which is all that really happened. They say... well watch the ad yourself. That's just one example.

I don't have audio here but I saw the text. That's certainly misleading because it doesn't present the entire picture but what it does say isn't untrue, much like what Obama says about McCains taxes on health care benefits but omits the tax credits. Both camps are trying to confuse and scare voters about the other candidate.

I think that everyone has their own opinion on the Ayers business. For my part, I voted some weeks back in an online survey that McCain should stop talking about Ayers. I think it has been sufficiently vetted. They are only belaboring the point at a time when there are more urgent issues to address and where the differences between the two candidates are vastly more compelling to voters. That's where his focus needed to be. Exclusively.

I think to attribute the movement in the polls strictly to what McCain has been saying about Ayers is overplaying people's feelings about that. More than likely, it's what McCain hasn't been talking about that is having an impact on the polls and what Obama has been with his enormous advertising advantage.