Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDemocratic presidential candidate Barack Obama arrives in Indiana at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday night and he will remain in the state until 3:30 p.m. Wednesday.
The question of the day is whether he will leave with a running mate.
Currently, he has one event on his schedule -- a town hall meeting in Elkhart, a city that has been hit hard by the auto-industry downturn, where he will be introduced by Indiana Senator Evan Bayh.
So what will Obama do with the rest of his day in Indiana?
He could, of course, sneak over to Chicago -- only a couple hours drive or a few minutes flight from Elkhart -- for more meetings with vice presidential prospects.
Or he could, as feverish media speculation suggests, simply announce that Bayh is his pick. The chatter went over the top last night, with various outlets -- including CBS -- breathlessly highlighting the fact that the Indiana senator's staff softball team, the Bayh Partisans, had rescheduled a game.
Indianapolis Star writer Mary Beth Schneider is more measured in her assessment. Still, she noted Tuesday morning after reviewing the Obama campaign's nearly wide-open schedule for Indiana that the presidential candidate will have "plenty of time, say, for a stop in Bayh's hometown of Shirkieville in Vigo County or elsewhere to launch a ticket."
The problem with the scenario is that, by most accounts, Obama is still weighing a number of prospects -- and has yet to have sit-down meetings with most of them. Indeed, there is a good deal of talk at this point that -- as he has taken more hits from McCain and suffered some poll fluctuation after his world tour -- the presumptive Democratic nominee for president is now looking at a longer list of potential running mates.
That list is universally believed to include Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (last week's favorite) and Bayh (this week's favorite). But there is much talk, as well of Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. And, of course, the name of New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who Bayh actually backed for the nomination, is somewhere in the mix.
Meanwhile, back in Indiana, neither the Obama campaign nor the Bayh camp has done much to tamp down speculation that Wednesday -- which is just about the last day to make a veep pick before the Olympics begin a two-week run as the dominant story of the summer's slowest month -- will be the big day.
Bayh has done more than anyone to foster the speculation.
Indeed, the senator's answers to question about whether he will be Barack Obama's vice presidential running-mate sound like confirmations.
"Well, that's the kind of thing you do say ‘yes' to," the Indiana senator chirped in an interview with Fox News, a network that's unusually friendly to Bayh, a centrist whose willingness to side with Republican in the Senate on key tests regarding Iraq, civil liberties and trade policy has tended to endear him to conservatives.
Asked whether Obama's aides are vetting him as a veep prospect, Bayh teased: "I'd love to answer your question, but I think I really can't."
That was in line with what Bayh has been saying in recent days.
Famously, he declared while campaigning with Obama in July that, "Any questions about the vice presidential thing are understandable and it's good for my ego. But I should probably let Sen. Obama and his campaign address those kinds of questions."
No candidate -- and, make no mistake, Bayh has been actively campaigning for the vice-presidential nod -- has done more to feed the speculation about himself than Bayh. And it's working. Much of the national media seems to be embracing the notion that a joint Obama-Bayh appearance in Elkhart, Indiana, on Wednesday will unveil a ticket.
That would be the culmination of a long run by Bayh, who has been running for president or vice president for years. He's been on Democratic VP short lists since 2000. And he made moves toward presidential 2004 and 2008 presidential bids before finally abandoning the notion.
Bayh got no traction as a presidential candidate because he hails from the Democratic Leadership Council wing of a party that has little taste -- at least at the grassroots level where primaries and caucuses are decided -- for the DLC's "Republican-lite" politics.
While his not-so-Democratic ideology prevented him from making a serious bid for the presidency, the pro-Bayh line of argument now goes, this makes him an attractive running-mate for Obama in blue-collar states where the Illinois senator ran poorly in the primaries.
The problems with this line of "reasoning" are many.
For one thing, while Bayh is personally popular in Indiana, he has never been able to help Democrats win presidential races in a state where he has been the top Democrat for the better part of a quarter century. (The last Democrat to win a presidential election in Indiana was Lyndon Johnson, who was running in the days when Bayh's father was serving in the Senate.)
Evan Bayh's not even that good at uniting Indiana Democrats; while he campaigned ardently for Clinton in this year's Hoosier primary, she barely won -- a result that did serious damage to the New Yorker's candidacy in the last weeks of the race.
Few serious observers suggest that adding Bayh to the ticket would guarantee Indiana for the Democrats this fall. But to avoid embarrassment, Bayh and Obama would be forced to concentrate on the state -- drawing attention and energy away from more serious battlegrounds.
And what of the theory that, even if Bayh couldn't deliver Indiana, he could help Obama win neighboring Ohio?
Well, let's just say that argument is more popular with east-coast pundits who do not spend much time in the middle of the country than with actual Ohioans.
The notion that an Ohioan who was not going to vote for Obama would suddenly say, "Oh, he's got a guy from Indiana on the ticket -- that changes everything," is comic.
The part of Ohio that borders Indiana is rigidly Republican. (The same goes for the parts of Michigan that border northern Indiana.) The parts of Ohio that decide presidential elections have no record of looking to Indiana in general, or Bayh in particular, for leadership. If Obama really wanted to carry Ohio -- and Michigan -- he would pick a populist with a better record than his own on trade issues. Instead of Bayh, he'd be looking at Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown.
Brown, who knows how to deliver an economic message that beats Republicans, could actually help Obama.
That's more than can be said for Bayh who, like Joe Lieberman in 2000, threatens to balance the Democratic ticket in the wrong direction. This is why it is hard to believe that the Obama team, which usually does not make big mistakes, really sees the senator from Indiana as vice-presidential timber.
Of course, that's not what Evan Bayh would have us believe.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
nice blog entry, i'm sure, but i've officially given up on caring about the "veepstakes". we will see soon enough and thats that.
personally i'm so sick of that term. soon both candidates will have their veeps and the media can coin another cutesy term to overuse until it becomes obsolete.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/05/2008 @ 08:35am
Just on the bumper sticker effect, I'd say no.
"Obama-Bayh"?....sounds like "lullaby".
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 08:38am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 08:38am | ignore this person | warn this person
obama/richardson - one white guy between 'em!
yuk yuk yukkity yuk!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/05/2008 @ 08:43am
How about Obama-bye-bye? He's now behind, according to Zogby. People are waking up, I suppose. Maybe it wasn't such a great idea to have him orating in front of hundreds of thousands of shouting Germans chanting his name, eh?
Posted by pontificus at 08/05/2008 @ 10:41am
Posted by pontificus at 08/05/2008 @ 10:41am | ignore this person | warn this person
who knows? there are indeed millions of stupid red state uber patriotic know nuthins who hate anyone our allies like.
what a double bind for any dem pol who wants to get elected prez!
must not appear too smart or competant lest the teeming hordes of stupid "gawd bless thuh yeooo es aayyy!"-ers in redstateland fail to identify with him or her as being just as stupid and bassackwards as they!
poor ol' harrison bergeron! guess ya gotta be a red white and blue homer j simpson to get them reeel amuruhkuns a votin' fer ya!
sure explains the success of mr. W....
but polls schmolls - long way to go yet and by god perhaps mr bergeron can indeed make himself appear stupid enough to enough of the idiocracy to get elected yet!
one thing is for sure - nothing should be taken for granted either way.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/05/2008 @ 11:26am
But will he make this alrighty then:
http://tinyurl.com/5ekzgh
I say
Al Gore
already.
Al can do the angry indignation a lot better than most and actually be sincere about it.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/05/2008 @ 11:42am
Posted by Zero at 08/05/2008 @ 11:35am
"Since the nomination objectively became his he has wasted no time at all letting the world know he has no connection whatsoever to anything "liberal" or "progressive", and that business-as-usual is what "change" is all about."
I think most Americans know what 'change' is all about. It's what we'll have left of our income after he gets finished raising our taxes!
Seriously, folks. I just read on the news this morning that Pelosi has allowed Democrats to vote their own way on drilling for more oil. You folks need to get on the horn and tell her that drilling for more oil is not the solution, higher prices for everyone is!
Posted by pontificus at 08/05/2008 @ 11:59am
'I've been governor for 18 months. My experience before that was as a district attorney. I loved being a district attorney…but I don't think that's what Barack Obama's looking for in a vice president. I've been governor for 18 months. It's been a great experience. But it's just 18 months…Obama has to think about experience…' -- Governor of Colorado Bill Ritter -- 4 August, 2008.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/05/2008 @ 12:00pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/05/2008 @ 10:41am
When Obama goes back UP in the polls...
will PONTI say "the people have fallen asleep again"???
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/05/2008 @ 11:42am
Among the Great Cults of Personality of "The Nation" blog-
2. FRANK....and Hillary
3. METTEYYA....and Obama
4. CRABWALK...and Nader
but #1...top of charts for 2 years running...
HSUBFOOLS....and Al Gore!
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 12:10pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 12:10pm
Nah. Ponti will continue to deceive himself.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/05/2008 @ 1:13pm
You folks need to get on the horn and tell her that drilling for more oil is not the solution, higher prices for everyone is!
Posted by pontificus at 08/05/2008 @ 11:59am
aim straight there, planti.
the fed is your real target.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 1:15pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/05/2008 @ 1:13pm
Live by the poll, die by the poll.
I don't think anybody can quote one and imagine that "this will hold true until November 4th".....anybody not desperate for some good news for their side, that is.
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 1:29pm
If Bayh is pro "Free Trade" and DLC, he is part of the problem, and adds nothing to the ticket.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 08/05/2008 @ 1:50pm
Heritage, AEI , CATO, YAF and every other Right wing/every neocon event in on C-span constantly, while the Democrats, under Hoyer and Emanuel and Pelosi named post offices.
MSNBC has been running the videos of the one black protestor/plant ever found at an Obam event as if it were a frequent occurance, while CNN pushes the pro-Israeli line that McCain is better for war/Israel/Iran .
And now Obama acts like the leader of the DLC, and is about to name someone as useless as Harol Ford Jr. as his VP.
My Israeli friends - you've won. You've tuned the US into a war mongering version of your KNesset.
Now, who's left that hasn't been brainwashed and will speak out??
Anybody??
Anybody?? I didn't think so.
Posted by hazmaq at 08/05/2008 @ 2:58pm
McCain's greatest ally....
purist progressives!
Sheesh!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 3:19pm
Balancing the Ticket vs Inspiring the Masses
Not a strong candidate, with little name recognition and a less than imposing presence.
To face and overcome the derisive character attacks and ridicule the competition depends on: Hillary or Gore, and only one is sure to accept.
But both have the stature and carry the weight needed to cut through and disperse the thick cloud of suffocating Slime that lies ahead.
Both are dynamic and could help carry the day.
Like Bayh, both come from political families, but are more likely to withstand the heat than the Senator from Indiana.
Posted by cedecor at 08/05/2008 @ 3:33pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/05/2008 @ 10:41am
I like Obama bye-bye. Nice ring to it. Sad that McCain benefits - I'd like to see him bye-bye too - but most people don't care to vote against someone, they prefer having more positive motives and Obama isn't givng them the opportunities. Every time this guy opens his mouth its some alteration of an earlier promise, guarantee or position taken. Today its the phoney criticism of McCain on off-shore drilling when he's caved on this point himself. And to imagine him teamed-up with Bayh, probably the most uninspiring waste of time since Warren Harding, feels just about right. What a disaster Obama has made of such a splendid opportunity. Progressive looking for a positive way of expressing themelves should vote for Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 3:58pm
Progressive looking for a positive way of expressing themelves should vote for Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 3:58pm
sure thing, newt.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 4:05pm
"I'd like to see him bye-bye too" - Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 3:58pm
Yet, no comment from lowell on "liking to see MCCAIN bye-bye", hmmmm??!!?!??
Could it be j.l. is slipping and has finally shown his true colors and the REAL motivation behind his "Progressives should vote for Nader"?!??!??!???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 4:17pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 4:17pm
Its fascinating how I control you, isn't it, Maskca-ca. I ring the bell, you salivate. You didn't read my comment about wishing McCain the same fate as Obama, just jumped off the stand into the water like a trained seal? I mean really, son, where's the self respect? Oh, and before you go, wipe the vomit off your sleeve.
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 4:31pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 4:05pm
I was addressing progressives not Democrats, zoomerguy. You might not feel comfortable among them.
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 4:35pm
generalizations reduce their bearing to reality in proportion to the size of magnification of view.
but since there's only one john lowell here,
continually repeating "progvotnadr" in some sort of goebbelian croaking,
i've come to the conclusion that your words are mere illusions trying to spawn some more confusions amongst the already disillusioned. [for ttr]
mr. nader is just as sincere as the rest of the hopefuls. [for mask]
but you,
sirly,
are dishonest*.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 4:59pm
*i think so.
if you are sincere,
you should perhaps find another way of helping mr. nader's quest because i can't see that you've been very effective here.
and i thank mr. nader every time my seat belt goes <clik>.
perhaps you could help register voters.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 5:02pm
Not to break your Nader bubbles, he's about as useless as Tom Tancredo. This was a stunt Nader got talked into by tyhe anti-Obama hard liners of the parties,
In his entire career, Nader has never made the Israeli/Palestian issue a key part of his campaign. Yet his very first speeches went to attack Obama for not being friendly to Israel. What happened to this fighter for the injustices of the world??
It seems his world view has grown as narrow minded as our Congress, and to attack Obama for not being friendly enough, yet ignore McCain and Lieberman's desire to get rid of every muslim??
DUHHHH.
Posted by hazmaq at 08/05/2008 @ 5:42pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 4:59pm
"i've come to the conclusion that your words are mere illusions trying to spawn some more confusions amongst the already disillusioned. [for ttr]"
Would you want me to go to some length explaining why it is that your "conclusions" are a matter of some considerable insignificance to me, zoomerman? You'd thought I'd given careful consideration to your possible response before posting? I see.
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 6:01pm
Posted by hazmaq at 08/05/2008 @ 5:42pm
At 6% in the polls and Obama now trailing, Nader's some "useless", eh? Flipper's getting ready to tank, isn't he? Don't vote for a Democrat, hazmaq, vote for a progressive.
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 6:12pm
see, a "progressive" would choose a name like "blogbomb" or "freewales"
but not "james smithson".
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 6:16pm
Don't vote for a Democrat, hazmaq, vote for a progressive.
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008
And who are YOU voting for again John?
Oh, that's right.
Nobody.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/05/2008 @ 7:08pm
but #1...top of charts for 2 years running...
HSUBFOOLS....and Al Gore!
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 12:10pm
Thank you, thank you very much.
Yeah one could say I'm pretty consistent on the things that count.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/05/2008 @ 7:32pm
Pull the string and I'll wink at you, I'm your puppet
I'll do funny things if you want me to, I'm your puppet
Your every wish is my command
All you gotta do is wiggle your little hand
I'm your puppet, I'm your puppet
I'm just a toy, just a funny boy
That makes you laugh when you're blue
I'll be wonderful, do just what I'm told
I'll do anything for you
I'm your puppet, I'm your puppet
Pull them little strings and I'll sing you a song, I'm your puppet
Make me do right or make me do wrong, I'm your puppet
Treat me good and I'll do anything
I'm just a puppet an you hold my string, I'm your puppet
Yeah, I'm your puppet
Posted by chinpoko at 08/05/2008 @ 7:58pm
I heard Bayh speak at the Take Back America conference. He's milquetoast warmed over.
If Obama picks him, it's over. Oh, I'll still vote for him but the energy will have been drained from his candidacy. The intensity will diminish. Bayh is the WORST choice on the table.
Obama can't simply try to "coast" to victory because Republicans are unpopular this year. He must aggressively stand up for all the ideas and values and policies he campaigned on during the primary, and he should select a VP that is to his left......certainly not a darling of Fox news.
First Obama allows McCain to slap him around with race baiting ads and now he seems to be courting this bland "moderate.
I pray he comes to his senses and realizes that he's not going to be allowed to somehow "squeak through" in November. We've been through this scenario twice before; remember?
Obama needs to kick ass and win in a landslide, or he will lose. There is no middle ground.
Let me spell it out for y'all; a real win by anything less than 7 to 9 points will be stolen....and they'll blame bad exit polls again. This time because of the racial "Tom Bradley" effect.
Obama must aggressively dismantle John McCain and fearlessly sell himself to the American people. They/we are ready for serious CHANGE! Not just a slogan but the REAL thing.
If Obama sells out to the corporatist wing of the Democratic party. it's over.
If Barack renews/deepens his pact with the people, he'll raise another 500 Million dollars in small contributions.....he won't NEED A PENNY from the corporate types who want to see him lose anyway and are just covering their bets when they throw him a few bucks.
Posted by Nick Lento at 08/05/2008 @ 8:56pm
Progressive looking for a positive way of expressing themelves should vote for Nader.
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
oh really? hmmm...let me play this game...
hey! i'm a conservative republican. really! trust me!
i think all us real conservatives should vote BARR. it would be such a positive way to express ourselves!
-----------
gee...that was fun...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/05/2008 @ 9:38pm
Posted by Nick Lento at 08/05/2008 @ 8:56pm
"Obama can't simply try to "coast" to victory because Republicans are unpopular this year. He must aggressively stand up for all the ideas and values and policies he campaigned on during the primary, and he should select a VP that is to his left......certainly not a darling of Fox news."
Now here's a vain hope if ever I've seen one, Obama aggressively standing up for all the ideas and values and policies he campaigned on during the primary. He's abandoned all of positions he took on the most important of these ideas and values and policies. And you are still going to vote for him, mostly so as avoid a McCain victory, I'd guess. Now there's positive principle at work for you, voting for a self-eviscerated Democrat so as to avoid the coming to power of his bobsie twin on the other side. I mean really, Nick, make your vote an expression of your convictions, not a device in the hands of the system's fear mongers. Vote Nader, you'll feel better.
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 9:52pm
"Now here's a vain hope if ever I've seen one, Obama aggressively standing up for all the ideas and values and policies he campaigned on during the primary."
more mendacious hyperbole please!
"He's abandoned all of positions he took on the most important of these ideas and values and policies"
yup, there it is! thanks guy!
"And you are still going to vote for him, mostly so as avoid a McCain victory, I'd guess. "
sounds ok to me. actually its not so much to avoid a flippy mac victory as to avoid a victory by the same party which has shown criminal sociopathic behavior and done everything it could to turn back the clock to pre 1929 policies. the party of tresonous criminals whose baldfaced lies have resulted in the needless death and suffering of millions, who have robbed our country blind, whose only loyalty is to that part of the top one percenters who support them, and whose pretensions of moral superiority and representing of "christian" values amount to the biggest orwellian hypocrisy this country has seen ever...
hows that for hyperbole? funny when the hyperbole is the truth though...
"Now there's positive principle at work for you, voting for a self-eviscerated Democrat so as to avoid the coming to power of his bobsie twin on the other side"
oh thats a great one for the morally challenged right...they're all the same! there is no differsnce! everybody is evil like us! abandon hope all who enter!
"I mean really, Nick, make your vote an expression of your convictions, not a device in the hands of the system's fear mongers. Vote Nader, you'll feel better."
i mean really nick - be a principled blind moron and vote suicidally. trust me...i'm a real progressive! really!!!
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 9:52pm | ignore t
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/05/2008 @ 10:09pm
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 4:31pm
lowell, as I've said, you're either a dumb GOP poser...or a bad nutjob.
You've made it clear numerous ways that you're a right-winger ("pro-life", attacking Obama, etc.) and yet you want us to believe that you are "going around to ALL the blogs convincing their ideologues to vote their conscious...liberal AND conservative! Nader for the Left, Baldwin for the Right!"
Give it up...atleast CRAB walk is an HONEST Nader supporter.
You're just wacko.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 10:54pm
Lowell addressing an incredibly bright 21 year old African American.....
"Well now aren't you just the most clearly bedsheeted pig, Cccmfol. No one's conned by your weasley attempts at obfuscation, bigot. Nothing, absolutely nothing can justify the disruption of that Mass by goons of the type that carried out that operation at St. Pat's, and the fact that you've tried makes you just the filthiest possible snake. You are literally the personification of every hateful, totalitarian impulse I made reference to above. Don't you ever make the mistake of replying to any other post I make here or I'll work you over regularly in a fashion you won't come to appreciate, count on it. In the meantime, wipe the slime off your antenna and find a crevice into which to crawl."
Posted by john lowell at 07/16/2008 @ 2:13pm
And, soon after CCC calls his sorry ass on his bluff.......
"Oh, what a sniveling little toad you are now that you've been called out. You turn stomach in ways that could only set a universal standard. Just so you know, pig, I'm not going to be dignifying your hate-filled vomit by engaging it, I'll just be calling it what it is wherever and whenever I see it, trust me."
Posted by john lowell at 07/16/2008 @ 3:43pm
Backtracking to save face because his mouth got ahead of his brain.....
I vote bona fide nutjob.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/05/2008 @ 11:45pm
Bayh is not a
military military military military military military military military military military military military military military
man
=
Obama loses
Posted by winyahn at 08/06/2008 @ 12:29am
Posted by john lowell at 08/05/2008 @ 9:52pm
Now here's a vain hope if ever I've seen one, Obama "aggressively standing up for all the ideas and values and policies he campaigned on during the primary."
Actually, John, if Obama stood up for all those values, he would lose. How many Americans do you think support: abolition of the secret ballot in union elections through the Orwellian 'Free Choice' legislation, thus promoting coercion and thuggery in card-check certifications; another assault on the First Amendment, favored by Pelosi and Hoyer in the Orwellian 'Fairness Doctrine', which would have the government regulate political speech on the internet and on the airwaves; further assaults on the Second Amendment through restrictions on the citizens' right to keep and bear arms.
Then we can throw in Obama's cut and run policy in Iraq, his 20 year tutelage under a hate-spewing Jeremiah Wright, and his friendship with domestic leftist terrorists like Bill Ayres.
You can hardly blame Obama for covering his tracks, John. He'd lose in a landslide if people knew where he (and the left) were coming from. You should embrace Obama's obfuscations, not deride them. After all, you can expect the MSM to cover for him zealously, you should do the same.
After all these years, you should have learned that the left does best when it flat-out lies about it's intentions. It's really their best chance at political success.
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 07:43am
After all these years, you should have learned that the left does best when it flat-out lies about it's intentions. It's really their best chance at political success.----Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 07:43am
You mean like tell their Bible-thumping base EVERY ELECTION CYCLE that they're going to "go to Washington and stop the terrible scourge of abortion"....
and then let the Human Life Amendment keep languishing in Committee (to keep it alive for the NEXT election cycle..as well as protect their chances for re-election given the public supports abortion rights)?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/06/2008 @ 09:14am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/06/2008 @ 09:14am
The GOP ambiguity on abortion rights echoes the ambiguity of the public at large. The GOP offers those who consider abortion to be murder a voice in the public debate. Remember, the public is ambiguous about what you term a 'right', it is only in the last 25 years of our nation's 232 year history that it has been considered a 'right' at all, and that's not settled by any means. Abortion is a legitimate debate, curtailment of fundamental, explicit rights outlined in the first and second amendments is not. So no, the parallel you offer between abortion and the first and second amendments is not valid.
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 10:25am
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 10:25am
No, the "parallel" I was offering was to show how the REPUBLICANS have used a major issue to "flat-out lie about it's intentions" for purposes of increasing their "best chance at political success."
Every election cycle some GOPer goes to the churchs and prayer meetings and tells them that he's going to "fight to overturn Roe"....and then let's things like the Human Life Amendment STAY in Committee (even when Repubs ran BOTH Houses of Congress and had the Presidency--2003-2006).
Why? Because if Roe WAS overturned, they lose the issue and it would become a state matter and of NO good on a national level.
And every 2 years they go back to the churches and prayer meetings and promise the same promise all over again...and those folks poney up their campaign dollars and votes.
Meanwhile, the Repub spends most of his ACTUAL effort on things like corporate tax breaks or cutting benefits that do nothing or are a negative net effect on those same "pro-lifers".
And if some Dem comes along...talking about changing things on domestic policy?
The Repub starts running ads talking about how "they want to impose their radical anti-life feminist agenda on you...see to it that your teenage daughter gets a free abortion and HIDES it from you!"
While the Repub's teenage daughter likely took a trip to a "spa" in Europe last year a few weeks after her prom and returned home to stand with Daddy at the Muckaluck County Pro-life Conference in Podunk, Oklahoma as he bemoaned the "10 million babies lost over the past 35 years!"
And the crowd eats it up...and believes it.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/06/2008 @ 10:42am
After all these years, you should have learned that the left does best when it flat-out lies about it's intentions. It's really their best chance at political success.
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 07:43am
<<<Yet, the American and British intelligence, more likely tainted by war hungry political considerations, seems to blow a balloon full of holes. A consignment of aluminum pipes may, perhaps, could and might possibly end in kilometers long (according to Western scientists) highly technical centrifugal spinners. One would hope not to put it beyond U.S. and British intelligences' intelligence to, for once, point out to their leaders that there are no remaining qualified Iraqi staff to set up and run these supposed enrichment spinners. Last month, on a recent guided tour by journalists to a suspected, maybe, could be uranium extraction plant in Akashat in western Iraq, the Iraqi counterpart pointed to the demolished buildings and asked a rhetorical question with tongue in cheek: "Who would make any use of these ruins? Maybe your experts would tell us how."
It is true that the Iraqi nuclear scientists and engineers did not commit suicide. But the difference, by now, is academic.
Bush and Blair are pulling their public by the nose, covering their hollow patriotic egging on with once again shoddy intelligence. But the two parading emperors have no clothes.>>>
''Iraq's nuclear non-capability'' Thursday, November 21, 2002
[Imad Khadduri has a MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan (United States) and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Khadduri worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 till 1998. He was able to leave Iraq in late 1998 with his family. He now teaches and works as a netwo
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 11:23am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/06/2008 @ 10:42am
No, MASK, the Republicans are not 'lying' about bringing abortion issues to the table. They promise to bring the matter up for debate. The fact that they can't outlaw it, or even get to the point where they CAN outlaw it, does not make them liars. Anymore than Johnson was a 'liar' because his 'war on poverty' failed.
You seem to assume their bad faith in the matter when the debate doesn't get very far, which is simply a reflection of the political consensus and ambivalence of the American public as a whole. People are simply not ready to outlaw abortion again. It doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a discussion about it. After all, most of us agree that abortion should be rare and to the extent possible limited to the first trimester.
Republicans campaign on the highly public promise that they will strive to restrict abortions. Yes, when they win elections, they frequently fail to do so. This is a reflection of the fact that most legislatures simply do not have the political will to outlaw abortion, which reflects the public will. So, you see, in this first case we have publically declared intentions, and public failures.
In contrast, leftists choose to hide their true agenda, which is anti-American as I outlined above. They, like Obama, campaig on generalities, but they have a hidden agenda, which they dare NOT discuss, which involves fundamental restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom to keep and bear arms, and assault on the right to keep a citizen's union vote private. These are issues that the left chooses to HIDE in its campaigning. In no way does this parallel the Republican Party's inability to put an end to abortion or, as many would call it, infanticide.
Now do you see the difference?
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 11:43am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 11:23am
FROSTY, your side's inability to carry the debate regarding the basis for the Iraq War does not mean that the other side consists of liars. Grow up and put away your canards for good, my friend. You're only kidding yourself, no one else.
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 11:49am
I vote bona fide nutjob. Posted by Benchrest at 08/05/2008 @ 11:45pm
I second that motion.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/06/2008 @ 12:13pm
Posted by Benchrest at 08/05/2008 @ 11:45pm
Should we move to vote?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/06/2008 @ 12:15pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/06/2008 @ 12:15pm
Aye!
Posted by Benchrest at 08/06/2008 @ 12:19pm
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 12:24pm
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 12:25pm
so which is the lie?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 12:25pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 11:43am
No...they PROMISE to "fight to see Roe overturned". Want me to pull up some speeches by Congressional Republican candidates made on CBN or to the National Right-To-Life organization?
And if those candidates admit to themselves, as you did, that "People are simply not ready to outlaw abortion again"....then they ARE lying to those "pro-lifers" at those rallies and meetings, if they don't tell THEM that...aren't they?
And it's not just "debate"...the Human Life Amendment never even left the Committee. Committees RUN by Republicans from 1995-2006.
See, here's the point...you're a hyper-partisan who believe almost all good things about Republicans and the Republican Party (and ALL bad things about Democrats and the Democratic Party)...
and the idea that YOUR party would pander and "hide its true agenda" is of course impossible to you in this...belief system ...you have.
Same deal with spending. EVERY Repub, upto and including McCain, running for President has promised you that they will "cut spending and balance the budget"...
and every ONE of them has given us a deficit. From Reagan to Dubya...every one.
And yet, you'll once again say "Oh, but ____ means it this time!" (again filling the name Reagan to Bush-41 to Dubya to McCain)
And if they don't...won't matter. You'll still say "Oh, okay, but the Dems are still worse!" and keep voting for them.
Totally unconcerned with how they have lied to you...because despite your protest above (Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 07:43am)...
it's okay with you if the Right lies to you.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/06/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/06/2008 @ 12:29pm
MASK, the Christian right fights to overturn what they see as the murder of unborn children in much the same way that abolitionists fought to overturn slavery. In fact, the movements are very, very similar. For many decades, abolitionists and their politicians fought to outlaw slavery. The fact that they did not, over those decades, outlaw slavery, did not mean they were liars, or cynically exploiting an issue. ( Quite the opposite, in fact, because many Democrats apparently like yourself base their partisan leanings strongly on this one issue alone, which, if anything, bespeaks a certain amount of integrity amongst Republicans speaking out against abortion). It meant that the time was not yet right, politically, and they fought against the same situational arguments that you come up with today. Abortion can't be wrong because it's just so darn convenient. Just like slavery was 175 years ago.
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 12:43pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 12:25pm
Both are!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/06/2008 @ 12:51pm
In those secret meetings, Habbush explained why United Nations inspectors had been unable to find evidence of active Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs: There weren't any, Suskind writes. Habbush's accounts were shared with the CIA and the White House, where they were dismissed as deception.
After the invasion, Habbush was paid $5 million by the CIA for serving as an informant, and resettled in Jordan. It was then, Suskind writes, that the White House enlisted his help with a forgery -- one suggesting a link between Hussein's government and Mohamed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
Suskind states that in September 2003, the White House directed then-CIA Director George J. Tenet to concoct a fake letter, backdated to July 2001, claiming that Atta had trained in Iraq for his mission. Habbush agreed to sign the letter, which was leaked to a British journalist in December 2003, Suskind writes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 1:22pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 12:43pm
Do those Repub candidates know what you know, PONTI?
That "It meant that the time was not yet right, politically"?
Are they going to those "pro-life" rallies in September, October, right upto Election Day and saying to them...
"Well, folks, I'll go to Washington and make some speeches on the 'unborn', but you've got to realize that the time is not yet right, politically, for us...even if we have the majority in Congress AND the White House...to try to overturn Roe v. Wade. Just bide your time...keep voting for us Republicans...and we'll get there in another 20, 30, 50 years!"
Is THAT what they say, PONTI...the truth (as you are saying it is)...
or do they say something..."not truth"?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/06/2008 @ 1:23pm
Wednesday, 21 August, 2002, 17:54 GMT 18:54 UK
Abu Nidal death 'not suicide'
Mr Habbush produced pictures of the dying guerrilla, as well as forged passports and ID cards, and weapons found at the apartment.
Abu Nidal's faction caused mayhem and terror "He went into a room to change and a shot was fired," Mr Habbush said.
"The group of agents discovered that he had shot himself in his mouth and the bullet had exited the back of his skull."
Mr Habbush also said coded messages were found in the apartment revealing he was on the payroll of a foreign country.
Reports on Tuesday suggested he had established contacts with what the Iraqis described as Kuwaitis plotting against Iraq.
•••••• oh, what a tangled web. OF LIES!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/06/2008 @ 1:23pm
That's pretty much exactly what they say in the mainstream, yes, MASK. Perhaps not quite in the way you put it, but it's understood among those most strongly against abortion that they will have to build support first.
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 1:43pm
Can we get a liberal VP up in this mother^^#*&ing place or what??!!
What's all this sh*(& about going toward the right??
We've been on the right EIGHT mother#$%@#@ing years!!
ENOUGH already!!
Posted by bleedingheart at 08/06/2008 @ 2:46pm
but it's understood among those most strongly against abortion that they will have to build support first.---Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 1:43pm
So those folk, those plain ol' evangelical/fundamentalist Christian "pro-lifers" out there........who hear those speeches from Republican candidates promising to "go to Washington to fight for the rights of the unborn"...
KNOW that it's bullflop, but let the candidate say it anyway and don't let him in on the secret that they know there's no political way that abortion will end anytime soon...or for decades?
Wow, PONTI....to spare a Republican from looking cynical and duplicitious...
you REALLY do have to spin a yarn, don't you? To the point of accusing the AUDIENCE of a Republican of being cynical and politically motivated!
I wonder if LVLIB would agree with that assessment of the "pro-life" crowd???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/06/2008 @ 2:56pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/06/2008 @ 07:43am
Lets just say that we share a vision of Obama as being inauthentic, pontificus. Can't say that I see that vision as justifying support for McCain though, who is equally inauthentic. Because they can't think outside the box, Democrats here will support Obama, of course, progressives, Nader. On the other side, and for the same reason, Republicans here - what there are of them - will support McCain, conservatives, Baldwin. The best one can hope for this time is that the extremes swell. Sane folks simply won't vote, but they'll be few, of course. They won't want to ennoble the bacteria that make up the American political class or those that give voice to them. Not everyone sees virtue in having a turn at the trough.
Posted by john lowell at 08/06/2008 @ 6:06pm
Sane folks simply won't vote,
Posted by john lowell at 08/06/2008 @ 6:06pm
i guess you'll be casting a ballot.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:14pm
Sane folks simply won't vote,
Posted by john lowell at 08/06/2008 @ 6:06pm
i guess you'll be casting a ballot.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
sane is insane and insane is sane - don't you get it?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/07/2008 @ 12:37am
Bayh? Bye-bye.
Bayh brings nothing to the table that Obama doesn't get already in his selling out to the right, AIPAC & corporate $$$.
Richardson would bring much more ... but will allow Obama's Owners allow a bolder choice than Bayh?
Yawn, stayed tuned, zzzzz.
Should've listened more closely to Kucinich, instead of poking frightened mindless fun.
The great change after 1/20/09 will be mainly in style & certainly in cosmetics.
But forget substance, it's already been sold.
Posted by sloper at 08/07/2008 @ 12:48am
CHAUNCEY GARDNER, '08!
"Yes! There will be growth in the spring!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 01:01am
I think THIS is an appropriate way to finish out Mr Nichols over-reactive article with over-the-top speculation---
"Bayh secured his moment of national exposure, thanks to the over-reaction of the Washington press corps to the over-the-top speculation about Obama's Indiana swing."----posted by John Nichols on 08/07/2008 @ 12:42am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/07/2008 @ 09:15am