But didn't Atwater convert to Catholicism on his deathbed? I definitely remember reading that he had sought the forgiveness of people he'd maligned, like Michael Dukakis.

G.Man wants a hyphen wrote:

QUOTE:
Chuck Berry presented Atwater with a guitar once, around the time of GHWB's election. I've never forgiven Berry for thay.

Putting hidden cameras in the bathrooms of his restaurants so he could videotape women was also rather questionable.

Some awkward exchanges between McCain and his supporters at a town hall today (video), as he told them to respect Obama and said "he is a decent person, and a person you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States." That was in response to a guy who said he was scared of Obama, and McCain's response drew a chorus of groans and boos from the crowd. One woman said Obama was an Arab, and he paused for a second, then grabbed the mic from her and shook his head, saying "no."

Too bad he helped fan all this crap to begin with. I imagine he made some people happy today, but also made a lot angry and confused.

Yeah, it's all a bit surreal. His campaign unleashed this shit, but it's clearly not helping him win independents and its possible that McCain has had a look-in-the-mirror moment where he realizes that it's just plain wrong. I don't put it past him to have a moment of conscience. (On the other hand, Palin seems like the sort of dimwit that might actually believe that Obama is a muslim terrorist).

The people at these McCain rallies are scary, but I think they're not really representative of anything more than the most insane third of his voter base.

I don't think all conservatives are nuts, but I imagine that most nutty people prone to believe conspiracy theories and worry about communists and terrorists vote conservative.

Besides, what sort of people have time to go to a political rally in the middle of Monday? I imagine its the same sort of people who were at Wrigley Park in April 1983 booing the cubs.

Palin found to have abused her powers in troopergate. By a neutral special prosecutor. Appointed by a republican house committee. Which voted to approve the report by 12-0.

McCain says the decision was muddied with innuendo, rumour and partisan politics.

Ah, ya bastard. I was just going to link to that.

That's fucking brilliant. On top of that, Christopher Buckley has just gone on the record to say he's voting Democrat for the first time in his life. Passersby have apparently heard spinning sounds coming from the direction of the family plot.

It may have been political, but it wasn't partisan so much as it was internecine among Alaska Republicans. On one side, the really corrupt hacks. On the other Palin and her somewhat less brazenly corrupt, but probably a lot less shrewd, Republicans.

WornOldMotorbike wrote:

QUOTE:
Ah, ya bastard. I was just going to link to that.

That's fucking brilliant. On top of that, Christopher Buckley has just gone on the record to say he's voting Democrat for the first time in his life. Passersby have apparently heard spinning sounds coming from the direction of the family plot.

Christopher Buckley isn't the type of support I want.

QUOTE:
It's worth pointing out that neither campaign agrees with same-sex marriage. Sadly, I think we're going to have to hear Obama and Biden stressing that quite a bit for the next month. Necessary evils...

I don't believe in necessary evils. If (as I strongly suspect) Obama and Biden are against same-sex marriage then obviously I disgaree with them entirely, and think this is another example of where Obama isn't going to be nearly as progressive as people seem to think he is. If they are actually in favour of it, then they should use this opportunity to change the debate and come out and say so The hard core fundies are going to react badly to that, but the hard core fundies aren't voting for him anyway. I honestly think that significant numbers of the US electorate is not going to vote against Obama for being in favour of gay marriage, (in fact for the vast majority of people it's a complete non issue) and here he has a chance to make it (or at least the non-opposition to it) pat of his manifesto.

Atwater did apparently make an attempt to repent for his many odious deeds when he was dying.

I Just wonder if there aren't a lot of long-view Republicans out there who may have come to the decision that this is an election they might be as well off losing - on the grounds that it's going to be an invidious task presiding over a recession, and/or that Obama can maybe go some way to cleaning up the mess, only for the Reps to recharge and then come back to reassume their "natural" role in power in 2012. I really wonder to what extent establishment Republicans are going to put their backs into supporting Droopy McCain and the wretched Palin at this stage.

ad hoc wrote:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
It's worth pointing out that neither campaign agrees with same-sex marriage. Sadly, I think we're going to have to hear Obama and Biden stressing that quite a bit for the next month. Necessary evils...

I don't believe in necessary evils. If (as I strongly suspect) Obama and Biden are against same-sex marriage then obviously I disgaree with them entirely, and think this is another example of where Obama isn't going to be nearly as progressive as people seem to think he is. If they are actually in favour of it, then they should use this opportunity to change the debate and come out and say so The hard core fundies are going to react badly to that, but the hard core fundies aren't voting for him anyway. I honestly think that significant numbers of the US electorate is not going to vote against Obama for being in favour of gay marriage, (in fact for the vast majority of people it's a complete non issue) and here he has a chance to make it (or at least the non-opposition to it) pat of his manifesto.

Yup. I don't get this whole thing about trying not to offend McCain voters. McCain voeters are McCain voters. If they are fore same-sex marriage then they should just say so. If they aren't, they aren't. This is where I don't appreciate the bullshit politics, where candidates don't think the electorate are smart enough to make their own decisions based on issues.

I don't think, when push comes to shove, that Obama will be that progressive either. In essence, nobody really knows what he stands for yet. He's running a campaign for change after eight years of Bush, but exactly what that change will be is, as yet, unclear. He's a bit of an enigma.

Edit: One thing that raised my eyebrows during the debates was Obama being for the missile shield. I'm not particularly fussed about that issue one way or another, but I have doubts about the logical thought patterns of somebody who is for it.

Atwater might have confessed his sins and gone to heaven, but he can still fuck off.

Obama is the black Tony Blair circa 1997.

Bryantop wrote:

QUOTE:
ad hoc wrote:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
It's worth pointing out that neither campaign agrees with same-sex marriage. Sadly, I think we're going to have to hear Obama and Biden stressing that quite a bit for the next month. Necessary evils...

I don't believe in necessary evils. If (as I strongly suspect) Obama and Biden are against same-sex marriage then obviously I disgaree with them entirely, and think this is another example of where Obama isn't going to be nearly as progressive as people seem to think he is. If they are actually in favour of it, then they should use this opportunity to change the debate and come out and say so The hard core fundies are going to react badly to that, but the hard core fundies aren't voting for him anyway. I honestly think that significant numbers of the US electorate is not going to vote against Obama for being in favour of gay marriage, (in fact for the vast majority of people it's a complete non issue) and here he has a chance to make it (or at least the non-opposition to it) pat of his manifesto.

Yup. I don't get this whole thing about trying not to offend McCain voters. McCain voeters are McCain voters. If they are fore same-sex marriage then they should just say so. If they aren't, they aren't. This is where I don't appreciate the bullshit politics, where candidates don't think the electorate are smart enough to make their own decisions based on issues.

To play devil's advocate, I would say it's not about worrying about offending McCain voters, but worrying about offending the white blue collar voters that are slowly coming around to supporting Obama. Supporting gay marriage would likely turn a lot of them off, and convince people that Obama is the raging liberal that a lot of people fear he is.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with that. I don't like Obama's stance on gay marriage, but I'm not willing to not support him over one issue that I don't think at this moment is as crucial as plenty of others. Besides, I don't think the president will have a lot of power over gay marriage, one way or the other--I don't think they'll be able to make it legal in all 50 states, or ban it in all 50 states. It's an issue that states are dealing with. It would be great if the president supported gay marriage, but states would still be able to outlaw it in their constitutions no matter what the president said. And vice versa--Bush doesn't support gay marriage, but we see it slowly becoming a reality at the state level.

And I don't get where you two are coming from in pointing out that Obama isn't as progressive as you seem to think a lot of people think he is. Seems like a straw man argument to me, because I don't think any of us on here have any misconceptions about what Obama wants to accomplish as president. Of the Democrats in the primary, they all had different liberal and progressive positions on certain issues, but I think at least Kucinich (obviously), Gravel (obviously), Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd were more liberal overall than Obama is.

But I'm still far more enthusiastic about Obama than I was about Kerry, and while where I live, it won't matter who I vote for, if I lived in Ohio or Florida I sure as hell wouldn't choose to vote for someone other than Obama.