Why It’s Still a Race, by Howard Fineman
This is the most optimistic article I've read in a while. I have basically just been looking at the RCP averages, not having any idea which polls tend to be more accurate. The average has come down to 6 today from 8.5 a few days ago, which puts McCain's chances greater than Bush's four years ago, I think. Hearing that the most reliable of polls put him at trailing by just 2 points was pleasant surprise.
Also of note is the comment by Marcus Tullius after Obama's Living-Will Constitution, by George Neumayr. He's a Mormon, and apparently Mormons all take an oath to uphold the Constitution by any means necessary, the implication as I understood it being that anyone who fucks with the Constitution has an appointment with a Mormon assassin. Neato! How exciting. Never would have guessed that one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is my counter:
6 comments:
Dude, along with the Pat Buchanan article you haven't yet provided a clear outline of specific and detailed criticisms of Obama. You seem to be working with guesses, no matter how educated. Why not find an article that criticises what he has done "already" rather than what he "would" do if he were to win the election? This article appeared to be an analysis of Obama's rhetoric, and God only knows what he will stick to if elected. We all know that politicians are not people of their word. And as for the gay wedding thing I don't understand what you mean...So as I read it Obama supported California's legalisation of gay marriage or civil unions or whatever you call it? Anyhow, isn't there currently in California campaigns for a referendum on that exact issue? Proposition 8? And as for election of judges to the Supreme Court, everyone was up in arm about the judges Bush would select and I have a reasonable amount of lefty friends to say that they were pleasantly surprised by the actual impartial decision-making of Bush elected judges, who is to say the same thing could not happen under Obama? We don't know. I'm not saying I like Obama, I don't. It's just that I want to work with detailed specifics when making a decision.
the reason it's tough to do that is because he's done so little. however, the abortion extremist article did talk alot about his actions in the illinois legislature, which is important for me and i think any warm blooded human being.
the up in arms this time is realistic, because the entire legislature will be democrat controlled. if they get a super majority in the senate they can do almost anything without ever compromising. they could put william ayers on the supreme court if they so chose. bush had to deal with democrats, and i'm not sure he often got his first choice for judge appointees.
You may be under the misconception that Obama has done something. he hasn't. You can't critisize what he has already done, he doesn't have a single bill to his credit in the senate. So all there is to critique is his rhetoric. Also when bush was making his appointments he had a possible democratic filibuster to worry about, so he didn't have the choice of anybody he wanted. Obama's senate would be virtually filibuster proof. Also judges have life time memberships. There have been many times in the past when a president appointed a judge thinking he would be leaning one way, only to find out he was way off, but it was too late. Also civil unions and gay marriages are 2 different things. There are states that allow civil unions granting all the legal rights of marriages, but not gay marriage (at least that is my understanding.)
jinx, we wrote virtually the same reply, at the same time.
p.s. rachel, i don't have time to check at the moment at work but i think the referendum in california took place already, gay marriage was defeated, but judges are still marrying them anyway.
i checked and turns out i was right, rachel: gay marriage was outlawed in a referendum several years ago, and because courts flaunted the results of the referendum (i can't believe those judges can sleep at night), the constitution of california will now be amended to nullify gay marriage.
Post a Comment