The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

[Enigma869]

Has anyone read Carol Fowler's , (the chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party) comments about Sarah Palin??? She claims that Palin's only qualifications are the fact that she has never had an abortion...OUCH!


John from Boston

[Monker]

Had McCain said "I'm just calling a spade a spade" while referring to one of Obama's policies I wouldn't be a fucking coward and try to hide behind the "Oh, it's an old saying used all the time" spineless defense.

This world would stop spinning if McCain or ANY Republican said something like that. My God! They are even trying to intimate that the talk about community organizers at the convention was racist.

The Republican party and McCain should be embaressed by those comments by Palin, and especialy Guilliani.

Here they are, a convention full of people carrying "Service" sings, laughing at somebody choice to do community service. That was extremely hypocritical. Obama should have jumped all over that one...that was MUCH bigger mistake then making a lipstick comment.

[Barb]

Had McCain said "I'm just calling a spade a spade" while referring to one of Obama's policies I wouldn't be a fucking coward and try to hide behind the "Oh, it's an old saying used all the time" spineless defense.

This world would stop spinning if McCain or ANY Republican said something like that. My God! They are even trying to intimate that the talk about community organizers at the convention was racist.

The Republican party and McCain should be embaressed by those comments by Palin, and especialy Guilliani.

Here they are, a convention full of people carrying "Service" sings, laughing at somebody choice to do community service. That was extremely hypocritical. Obama should have jumped all over that one...that was MUCH bigger mistake then making a lipstick comment.

Except the context was striking back at BO for diminishing Palin's experience as mayor and governor - AS IF he is so much more qualified. I love how you people leave out the relevant information to support your pathetic talking points.

[MarcelJordan]

...Lincoln said it...FDR said it...Kennedy said it...yeah...Scary...

But... but... they were all DEMOCRATS!!! It can't be possible!!

Lincoln was a Republican

He was? Shit... I could've sworn I'd remembered him being a democrat. Maybe it's because of his whole "free the slaves" crusade masked over a regain the revenue from the South's cotton & tobacco bumper crops that made me think he was a dem. Yes, I said it, the Civil War was fought over $$ not people. You just need to read the right books and learn all sides of the stories, ya'll. Fuckin' Yankees had slaves, too.

Random. Jeeze I'm ranty tonight.

It doesn't really matter to me whether Lincoln was a Dem or Rep. Eventually Americans (and Im not one) have to work together to solve their ills. Bickering is really very old and pointless.

True, but it ain't gonna happen. Trait of humanity. Some of us don't have the fire like others, but I saw a reference to the Crusades earlier and how long ago they were. How long ago there were is right now. Since the dawn of time man has been fighting for what he thinks is right and just. And that man he's fighting is fighting him for what he thinks is right and just. That's all.

Agreed. But in the context of America's problems at present, there needs to be a middle ground. The US can't afford to fight within themselves. Not simple but really we could be a bit more tolerant. Oh well.

[Monker]

I love this. Obama repeats McCain's thrice-utilized "lipstick on a pig" line and he is drawn and quartered. The next day, the McCain campaign comes out with a new ad that trashes a vote by Barack Obama to protect young kids from sex offenders and uses the most base fears about our children to smear him. But none of you is even slightly outraged by that? Unbelievable. Hypocrisy at its worst.

Yep...I wonder if Willie Horton ever lift in Chicago?

[Enigma869]

Except the context was striking back at BO for diminishing Palin's experience as mayor and governor - AS IF he is so much more qualified. I love how you people leave out the relevant information to support your pathetic talking points.

The comment Obama made wasn't remotely inflammatory. While I definitely agree with you that Obama is no more qualified than Palin, making the comment into something it isn't is really silly and simply gets all of these knuckleheads talking about anything other than the issues they should ALL be talking about. At the end of the day, most people wouldn't give a rat's ass if Obama came out and directly called Palin a pig. It really has nothing to do with anything!


John from Boston

[Lula]

i really look forward to the end of the bs and the beginning of debating the issues americans care about. people will grow tired of the lame attempts to keep the focus off issues by stirring up ridiculous controversy. as barack said- enough!

[Monker]

Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between
the two candidates to determine the winner.

After much of back and forth discussion, it was decided that the contest take
place on a remote frozen lake in northern Minnesota .

There were to be no observers present, and both men were to be sent out
separately on this isolated lake and return at 5 P.M. with their catch for counting
and verification by a team of neutral parties.

And, then Jesse Ventura came out and shot both of them, saying he thought he saw a Predator.

Then, Dick Cheney won the presidency out of a sympathy vote because he's not quite as good of a shot.

[Barb]

Except the context was striking back at BO for diminishing Palin's experience as mayor and governor - AS IF he is so much more qualified. I love how you people leave out the relevant information to support your pathetic talking points.

The comment Obama made wasn't remotely inflammatory. While I definitely agree with you that Obama is no more qualified than Palin, making the comment into something it isn't is really silly and simply gets all of these knuckleheads talking about anything other than the issues they should ALL be talking about. At the end of the day, most people wouldn't give a rat's ass if Obama came out and directly called Palin a pig. It really has nothing to do with anything!


John from Boston

Is this not a demeaning statement?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign on Friday blasted his Republican rival's choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as a running-mate, highlighting her "zero" foreign policy experience.

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

Their immediate reaction was to mock that she was a small town mayor and completely disregard her experience as governor. They got what they deserved as far as I'm concerned.

[Saint John]

There was no threat of terrorism in Iraq until we started a war there. We CREATED more problems by starting that war.

The same can be said about Libya and Afghanistan, moron. We learned from our mistakes and hit them before they hit us. We simply couldn't afford to let a rogue nation with an insane leader play shell games with weapons capable of making 9-11 look like a bar fight. You might take psychotic dictators that rape women and torture those that oppose him at his word, but the rest of the sane logical world doesn't. Go beer bong some battery acid, asshole.

[Enigma869]

i
s this not a demeaning statement?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign on Friday blasted his Republican rival's choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as a running-mate, highlighting her "zero" foreign policy experience.

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

Not in my opinion, it isn't. The best defense to anything is the truth, and as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing in that statement that isn't true. Again, I don't believe that this is the right approach for Obama, because he has no more experience than Palin has. Also, the bigger mistake for Obama is that he is supposed to be campaigning against McCain, and not Palin. The only reason that I think Palin is more relevant than most VP candidates, and fair game, is that the guy she would be serving with is old enough to be concerned that he might not be alive when his four year term ends!


John from Boston

[Monker]

Says who? ...Says every version of American History I've ever studied. Why do you think this country was founded? So we could burn down a bowl and hump trees?

YES. If that is what you want to do and it isn't harming anybody else. I'm sure if some dude is dressed up as a tree, they won't like it much though.

This country was founded because we were being fucked by England. Yes, there were many religious faths...But, the bottom line is we were tired of taken England's crap.

So, you should have the freedom to be stupid. The government's job is NOT to ensure that you act 'moraly'. The government's job should NOT be to tell you what to do with your sex life. The governments job should NOT be to tell you want kind of drugs you put into your body. The governments job should NOT be to tell you that you can't burn a flag.

Convervatives tell you they want government out of your life, but most - not all - want to interfere with your liberties just as much as liberals do.

[Monker]

Gov. Sarah Palin: U.S. soldiers are in Iraq on a "task that is from God."

Wow. She REALLY sounds like W here. She is VERY SCARY.

OOOoooooohhhh. Scccccaaaaarrrrrryyyy....

Religion & politics mixing is what's truly scary. Those two things should NEVER be mixed.

Yeah, when religion and politics share the same cart a whirlwind follows.

Guess that explains the weather over the last couple weeks.

[Monker]

Gov. Sarah Palin: U.S. soldiers are in Iraq on a "task that is from God."

Wow. She REALLY sounds like W here. She is VERY SCARY.

OOOoooooohhhh. Scccccaaaaarrrrrryyyy....

Religion & politics mixing is what's truly scary. Those two things should NEVER be mixed.

You must get nightmares when you read the Constitution and the Declaration then. That must be Stephen King type stuff for you.

Actually, i should rephrase what I said initially. Religion & politics mixing to the extent they are now is what's truly scary. Religion should have NO influence on politics whatsoever.

Well like it or not. Religion/morality/right & wrong whatever you want to call it will never be removed from electing a leader. How could it?

Very simple. People could use reason, rather than belief. What is actually best for the country, rather than what their beliefs tell them is best for the country. The two can coexist, believe it or not. However, I do see your point, as entirely too many out there have absolutely no ability to separate the two.

There is a difference between believing and having confidence in yourself to make the right decision because of your faith, and believing you are the hand of God, or that God has touched you with his voice. The people who believe the latter are the religious zealots to be afraid of.

[Rhiannon]

YES. If that is what you want to do and it isn't harming anybody else. I'm sure if some dude is dressed up as a tree, they won't like it much though.

Ya missed my point. And I agree, if that is what one chooses to do with their liberties, rock on.

This country was founded because we were being fucked by England. Yes, there were many religious faths...But, the bottom line is we were tired of taken England's crap.

Pretty much exactly what I said. Only you worded it differently.

So, you should have the freedom to be stupid.

Some seem to be really good at exercising that freedom.

The government's job is NOT to ensure that you act 'moraly'. The government's job should NOT be to tell you what to do with your sex life. The governments job should NOT be to tell you want kind of drugs you put into your body. The governments job should NOT be to tell you that you can't burn a flag.

The word "government" comes from "govern" which means to rule over. So if the government isn't supposed to tell me what laws to not break, and they're not supposed to tell me to not go fuck a corpse, and they're not supposed to tell me to not shoot up with Pine-Sol, and they can't tell me to not be a smart-ass disrespecting punk who burns the very symbol on which I'm awarded these rights to do as I damn well please, then what the fuck are they supposed to do? Oh... I get it. You're an anarchist. Well, have fun thieving, banging goats, snorting blow, and disrespecting everything sacred. While you're at it, take your freedom to do all that (freedom given to you in the sum of thousands of men's blood) and go to... I don't know... not America.

[Monker]

Can one person stand up in here from the bickering and tell me you at least realize this the most pointless asinine discussion ever. It's not even a debate. You guys are running a "my horse is faster than your horse" contest. Both sides of you! No one is going to achieve anything or change anyone's mind and from an outsider's POV you're arguing the same shit over and over. Doesn't anyone see how redundant this is?

Uh... yah. That's how politics has always been. It's along the same lines as the Journey singer of the day v. Steve Perry threads.

I want a Steve Perry vs. Rambo thread.

Ok, well... Steve Perry's got "the voice" and Rambo's got exploding arrows so... I'd say the guy with the exploding arrows always wins in that contest... unless its a singing contest, but again, I have never heard John Rambo sing. Actually, I would pay big money to see that. So now they need to make a Rambo VS. Perry movie.

You still have to ask yourself, "Which one is more likely to wear lipstick?" You will then now the winner of that battle.

[RossValoryRocks]

There was no threat of terrorism in Iraq until we started a war there. We CREATED more problems by starting that war.

The same can be said about Libya and Afghanistan, moron. We learned from our mistakes and hit them before they hit us. We simply couldn't afford to let a rogue nation with an insane leader play shell games with weapons capable of making 9-11 look like a bar fight. You might take psychotic dictators that rape women and torture those that oppose him at his word, but the rest of the sane logical world doesn't. Go beer bong some battery acid, asshole.

That was monker who said that...please change the quote Dan! For fucks sake I would never sat that!

[Monker]

Spoken by a person who has no prior military experience.

And, this in defense of two chicken-hawks who are very into starting wars, but not 'serving' their nation by fighting in one when the opportunity was there.

You are a low life piece of shit, who's only pleasure is stirring shit. I wouldn't cross the road to piss on you if you were on fire, unless I could kick in the nuts while doing so. You and TNC are stains on the society of normal people. Really I mean that.

I really don't care. It doesn't change the FACT that I have been arguing from that position on these forums since BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR EVEN STARTED.

So, piece of shit, maybe. But, at least I'm consistent...

Unlike those of you on this forum who I know praised Bush a few years ago who are now seeing him in a not-so-positive way.

Please just go back under whatever rock you crawled out from under. This place was better when you stopped posting for a bit.

Well, that's because there wasn't much to say here except arguing about Journey.

[7 Wishes]

Except the context was striking back at BO for diminishing Palin's experience as mayor and governor - AS IF he is so much more qualified. I love how you people leave out the relevant information to support your pathetic talking points.

Barbara, I have already cut and pasted 19 different posts FROM THE LAST TWO WEEKS in which you spew venom at Obama.

WE don't leave out relevant information...YOU do. Your retorts have the intellectual airspeed velocity of a small, flightless bird.

And RWF - take the CONTEXT of Kennedy's speech. I know CONTEXT is a concept whose existence your party simply refuses to acknowledge, but he was NOT talking about justifications for an illegal war that had already started.

Barb, if you'd like me to prove my point, I will comply and highlight each one of your assaults on Obama in boldface, if you choose. Otherwise, give it a rest. The reason you're branded a hypocrite is because you and a few other of your ilk on this forum are nothing but.

[Monker]

Except the context was striking back at BO for diminishing Palin's experience as mayor and governor - AS IF he is so much more qualified. I love how you people leave out the relevant information to support your pathetic talking points.

There is a HUGE difference between laughing at somebody's service to their country in a convention full of 'Service' signs, and talking about somebody's experience as governer.

Please, tell, who was all into "Governer's Rock!" at ANY Obama raly where he critiques Palin's qaulifications?

[7 Wishes]

Their immediate reaction was to mock that she was a small town mayor and completely disregard her experience as governor. They got what they deserved as far as I'm concerned.

As opposed to YOUR side, which got a two week head start on mocking Obama's 20 years of public service and experience as a legislator.

So, do you see your reflection in the mirror yet, you dittohead? Palin has begun the process of burying herself and the McCain ticket this evening - and this was a hand-picked ass-kisser of an "interviewer" and NOT the stream-of-consciousness, all-guns-blazing, you'd-better-know-your-shit forum as the upcoming debates. And Palin hasn't even MENTIONED ONE damned SOLUTION to the problems HER party was at LEAST half responsible for creating! Let's see how she does without Smith writing her speeches - she is DOOMED.

[Monker]

There was no threat of terrorism in Iraq until we started a war there. We CREATED more problems by starting that war.

The same can be said about Libya and Afghanistan, moron. We learned from our mistakes and hit them before they hit us.

Oh, please. We armed Bin Laden when he was fighting the soviets. Afghanistan, the Taliban, and al queda were a problem LONG before either of these wars. We have NEVER been a part of the solution. We were even alies with Iraq and turned a blind eye to the gassing of his own people.

The bottom line is that the terrorists were trained in Afghanistan. That war was one everybody, in both parties, could have united in support of. It was the right thing to do. We should have put all of our efforts there before anywhere else, including Iraq.

We simply couldn't afford to let a rogue nation with an insane leader play shell games with weapons capable of making 9-11 look like a bar fight.

Again, even if Sadam had a nuclear weapon, he was STILL no threat to the US. He had no way to deliver it to us.

Now, he could send a SCUD to Iran...THAT is who would have been threatened.

You might take psychotic dictators that rape women and torture those that oppose him at his word, but the rest of the sane logical world doesn't.

And, the rest of the world was wrong. It is NONSENSE to believe Iraq was ANY threat to the US.

[Monker]

The word "government" comes from "govern" which means to rule over. So if the government isn't supposed to tell me what laws to not break, and they're not supposed to tell me to not go fuck a corpse, and they're not supposed to tell me to not shoot up with Pine-Sol, and they can't tell me to not be a smart-ass disrespecting punk who burns the very symbol on which I'm awarded these rights to do as I damn well please, then what the fuck are they supposed to do?

They are supposed to be the institution that protects your liberties gauranteed to you by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

There is a difference between burning a flag, and burning a flag in a crowded theater.

Yes, there are laws which the government enforces. But, those laws should NOT extend into restricting our freedoms. As long as I am not harming you or your rights, you shouldn't give a damn what I am doing with my life.

[7 Wishes]

They're certainly NOT supposed to start or fund illegal wars.

[7 Wishes]

Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He accuses Democrat Barack Obama of calling Palin a pig, which did not happen. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.

Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week. It has infuriated and flustered Obama's campaign, and campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims.

McCain's persistence in pushing dubious claims is all the more notable because many political insiders consider him one of the greatest living victims of underhanded campaigning. Locked in a tight race with George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, McCain was rocked in South Carolina by a whisper campaign claiming he had fathered an illegitimate black child and was mentally unstable.

Shaken by the experience, McCain denounced less-than-truthful campaigning. Vowing to live up to his "straight talk" motto, he apologized for his reluctance to criticize the flying of the Confederate flag at South Carolina's state Capitol in a bid for votes. When the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked the military record of Democrat and fellow Navy officer John Kerry in 2004, McCain called the ads "dishonest and dishonorable."

Now, top aides to McCain include Steve Schmidt, who has close ties to Karl Rove, Bush's premier political adviser in 2000.

Politicians usually modify or drop claims when a string of newspaper and TV news accounts concludes they are untrue or greatly exaggerated. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, conceded she had not come under sniper fire in Bosnia after a batch of debunking articles subjected her to scorn during her primary contest against Obama.

But McCain and his running mate Palin, the Alaska governor, were defiant this week in the face of similar reports. Day after day she said she had told Congress "no thanks" to the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, a rural Alaska project that was abandoned when critics challenged its costs and usefulness. For nearly a week, major news outlets had documented that Palin supported the bridge when running for governor in 2006, noting that she turned against it only after it became an object of ridicule in Alaska and a symbol of Congress's out-of-control earmarking.

The McCain-Palin campaign made at least three other aggressive claims this week that omitted key details or made dubious assumptions to criticize Obama. It equated lawmakers' requests for money for special projects with corruption, even though Palin has sought nearly $200 million in such "earmarks" this year.

It produced an Internet ad implying that Obama had called Palin a pig when he used a familiar phrase, which McCain also has used, about putting "lipstick on a pig" to try to make a bad situation look better. McCain supporters said Obama was slyly alluding to Palin's description of herself as a pit bull in lipstick, but there was nothing in his remarks to support the claim. Obama accused the GOP campaign of "lies and phony outrage."

The lipstick wars were fully engaged when the McCain campaign produced another ad saying Obama favored "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners. The charge triggered the sort of headlines becoming increasingly common in major newspapers and wire services monitoring the factual content of political ads and speeches.

"Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy," was the headline on a New York Times article Thursday. "McCain's 'Education' Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive," The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" article said.

Major news outlets have written such fact-checking articles for years. "But in the last two election cycles, the very notion that the facts matter seems to be under assault," said Michael X. Delli Carpini, an authority on political ads at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication. "Candidates and their consultants seem to have learned that as long as you don't back down from your charges or claims, they will stick in the minds of voters regardless of their accuracy or at a minimum, what the truth is will remain murky, a matter of opinion rather than fact."

With Palin giving McCain's campaign a boost in the polls, Obama supporters are nervously watching to see what impact the latest claims will have. Surveys already show that most people believe Obama would raise their taxes — a regular McCain claim — even though independent groups such as the Tax Policy Center concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under his proposals.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds defended the campaign's statements. "We include factual backup in every one of our TV spots," he said Thursday.

[mikemarrs]

we are definitely at a crossroads in our history at this point.we have two paths to choose from and both of those paths are vastly different.which road do we choose to go down and which one would be the better one at this point in time.we have obama/biden and at the other end of the spectrum we have mccain/palin.four years from now our votes wll show we put someone in there that made good things happen or we could be stuck in another bad point.i'm wondering what we could expect in regards to the war/economy/energy and other issues from each side and how it will affect us.

[Spring Is BACK]

considering today is september 11 it got me to thinking about military and protecting america.it makes more sense to have someone like mccain in office who will stand up to terrorists and not compromise like obama would.obama was claming he would be willing to meet and talk with these enemies of ours but sometimes thats not exactly a wise thing to do.

There was no threat of terrorism in Iraq until we started a war there. We CREATED more problems by starting that war.

I doubt ANY potential President from EITHER party would have let 9/11 stand without a military action. But, there is approriate action, and stupidity. McCain, and anybody else who voted for the Iraq war, was acting out of stupidity.

Nonsense. The U.S. going into Iraq "flipped" two even more dangerous countries (who most certainly had WMD) over to our side, at least more or less so. Pakistan and Libya, especially Pakistan, also would have been far more difficult to deal with than Iraq, in a military confrontation. We even had Iran backpedalling for a while (and, yes, it was a mistake not to keep the tip of our sword at their throat.)

Iraq was sheltering at least some terrorists, and was also PAYING terrorists and their families. (The fact that those terrorists were acting mostly against a U.S. ally, and not us, is irrelevant.) After 911, stated U.S. policy was that this was unacceptable. Unacceptable means ... unacceptable (unless you are a lib, I guess.) Now I will grant you that Iraq CERTAINLY was not alone in the above misbehavior, but, quite frankly, Iraq made a very good "example". It certainly impressed the Libyans, among others.

There are hard, hard truths. One is that our enemies believe we do not have the stomach for a protracted, bloody fight, and they intended (and probably still hope to, with this election coming up) to take advantage of that. And, they are almost correct. The truth is, the initial overrunning of Iraq in a few days sent one message. But the more important message was that THIS TIME we would not leave Iraq until the job was done, regardless of the cost. This was much more difficult. And even more necessary.

Oh, I know, a troop surge in Iraq, earlier, might have been effective, as might have more troops from the get-go. Some Russians who were in Afghanistan not so long ago could perhaps offer their take on such. We have at least 100 million Monday morning armchair quarterbacks in this country to give it the 'ol "20/20" hindsight routine. But my opinion is that we have been very very lucky, and our military exceedingly competent, to have had such LOW losses in Iraq. And as for cost to the ordinary citizen, my friends, 95% of us have not felt 1/10th the effect in and to our lives, from the "war on terror", that the citizens of this country experienced in World War II. In fact, I would go so far as to say that our enemies probably still think "Americans are soft." But, they also know that there are enough who are not, that if our leader is not soft, they have a problem.

Don't get me wrong. At most we are on top, nearing the end of the 1st round of this renewed fight.

If you are guessing that my position is that the U.S. going into Iraq is only marginally about Iraq, and only slightly more marginally about oil, you are correct. I'd even say terrorism, and the sponsors of terrorism, are not even the most important aspect of going into Iraq. Even though either by accident, or deliberately, we drew the fight there, which has been advantageous to us in almost every way I can think of.

The most important part of all, of going into Iraq, is... look at a map... do I actually have to spell it out? (Hint, we are, with troops in Afghanistan, also on "the other side" of the mystery entity.)

[conversationpc]

You're all right. Palin is the voice of reason...of an insane asylum, that is. This should disqualify her from consideration on its own merit...if Obama were to have said this, you'd all be crucifying him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080911/ap_on_el_pr/palin_interview

Part of the agreement that countries who are in NATO have is that they will come to each other's aid militarily.

[conversationpc]

So the big thing that the libs are working on this morning is that Palin didn't know what Gibson was talking about when he asked her about the Bush Doctrine. What do you all think about that?

Personally, when I heard the words "Bush Doctrine", pre-emptive war did not immediately come to mind and I probably would have asked the same question Palin did. Regardless, I don't find it a big deal if Palin didn't actually know what the words "Bush Doctrine" meant. She DID know what pre-emptive war was and answered the question effectively as far as that goes.

[separate_wayz]

Ruh-roh, Spaghetti-O's!!

Suddenly, the polling for Congressional Democrats is looking very bad. According to Gallup, right now in the "generic ballot" (Republicans vs. Democrats), the GOP candidate is preferred 50% to 45%. This is a massive turnaround from the double-digit lead that Democratic candidates have had all this year.

Says Gallup, "[i]f these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110263/Battl ... itive.aspx

Yikes!

My earlier prediction two weeks ago: Democratic candidates lower on the ticket (below presidential level) would start distancing themselves from the Obama campaign .....