Thread: A Word of Advice for Democrats

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

This is such an old technique for trying to diminish an opponent, I'm surprised people are still trying it. It's a joke and a cliche. It's a no lose technique. All you need is an accusation. If the politician shows up, you hammer them with unproven innuendos. If they don't show up, it's the old "obstruction of justice" ploy. I seem to remember this being tried against Justice Thomas.

She is under investigation. If this investigation pans out before November and she is accused by an independent council of abuse of office, how is that just empty words? That's not a smear, it's completely fair game.

So since you brought it up, what injustice is Palin supposed to have committed? (I'll be happy with your own words or any mainstream press account).

Sure, as if you don't know already. You partisans are a hoot.

But in an exclusive interview with CNN, Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law, also denies some of the biggest allegations against him, including drinking while driving.

"I made mistakes. I fessed up to them. I was punished appropriately, and I'm moving on," said Wooten, 36, who went through a long, messy divorce and custody battle with Palin's sister.

In the past week, Wooten's troubles have suddenly taken on national prominence as Palin stepped into the limelight as Sen. John McCain's running mate.

An investigation is under way into whether Palin used her office to push for Wooten's firing and whether she ultimately fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan for refusing to sack Wooten.

Trooper in Palin probe tells his side - CNN.com

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

This is such an old technique for trying to diminish an opponent, I'm surprised people are still trying it. It's a joke and a cliche. It's a no lose technique. All you need is an accusation. If the politician shows up, you hammer them with unproven innuendos. If they don't show up, it's the old "obstruction of justice" ploy. I seem to remember this being tried against Justice Thomas.

So since you brought it up, what injustice is Palin supposed to have committed? (I'll be happy with your own words or any mainstream press account).

Alaska trooper’s union files an ethics complaint against Palin - BostonHerald.com

The Associated Press: Subpoenas to be issued for Palin-trooper probe

Sarah Palin on the e-mail warpath: The Swamp

Originally Posted by Bourne

I disagree. Obama has been silent on Palin because the media is doing his work for him. Time magazine put her on the cover and wrote a rather scathing article about her lack of credentials and McCain's last minute selection of her because he couldn't sell Lieberman or Ridge to the RNC and he didn't want Romney.

Frankly, I doubt that Obama will say much about Palin. Once she is forced to turn from cheerleading rhetoric to discussing substantial issues she'll be identified for the incompetant that she is. Instead Obama will concentrate on McCain's credibility, his inconsistencies and his voting alignment with Bush.

I agree Bourne, but the right seems to focus on "personality" rather than substance like Obama and Biden are doing. Its sad but true.

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

KM if you have some time, check her out in the 2006 Alaska Governors race debate. It's over 2 hours but it's worth watching her put them away. I predict Biden's going to loose it and start screaming.

Alaska Gubernatorial Debate 195195-1 : C-SPAN Video Library | Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.

Highly doubtful. Biden's outbursts are actually few and far between. When you have been a Senator as long as the great Joe Biden there will be a few.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

They said the same thing about Kerry and Bush. I don't think it will be true.

I actually reviewed all 4 major speeches of the past few weeks and you are right, the Dems mention more, specific issues.

But that's mainly because the Dems want more government.

These are actual snippets:

Obama:

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education

If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected

now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work

many of these plans will cost money

Wrong on all counts. They want better government. There is no way after the way the Bush administration spent money like a drunken sailor is that even a possibility. Get your shit in order and start looking at the last eight years.

Originally Posted by bla bla

Obama is an intellectual Leftist, he believes government should shape
society instead of serve it.
The NeoCons currently representing the Republican party also think this
way.

I believe he wants people to have a chance. The neo cons want to shape the world not just this country.

Originally Posted by steezer

I believe he wants people to have a chance. The neo cons want to shape the world not just this country.

I agree. Obama wants people to have a chance and a choice. His philosophy has consistently demonstrated that he believes that government should serve the people.

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

Sure, as if you don't know already. You partisans are a hoot. Trooper in Palin probe tells his side - CNN.com

No honestly. Ever since Burt Lance's overdraft scandal, I ignore this stuff as much as possible. It's just the press playing with their ding dong. And the politicians joining in. And that goes for both sides.

I haven't seen a legitimate scandal in years. It's all junk.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

Stay on the offensive. The choice of Sarah Palin has been a huge blow to the Obama campaign, because they've begun chewing their own legs off trying to attack her inexperience, which has only served to draw the spotlight onto Obama's own inexperience. McCain has galvanized the conservative base behind Palin, so you can expect all the people that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 to vote for McCain in 08'. What does this mean? It means Obama is going to have to rely on young voters and independents more than he had previously anticipated when he began running as the far left idealist messianic agent of change.

McCain will shape the debate in terms of "Change vs. Reform". The Democrats want change, but its bad change. McCain and Palin want Reform and its good reform. That will be their message from here on out.

However, the Democrats still have an enormous opportunity. They've got to keep focusing on John McCain as a Partisan Hack. In fact, Democrats need to study hard how the Republicans went after John Kerry just four years ago. Did McCain support Bush's tax cuts? Sure, after voting against them twice. Did McCain split with the Republican base on Amnesty for illegals? Yes. He agreed with Bush and pushed hard for a bipartisan Amnesty plan. Was McCain an independent voice on the Surge in Iraq? Sure thing buddy. He was one of the few Republicans who ambitiously pursued President George Bush's war at all costs in Iraq.

Democrats need to stay in control of the debate if they are going to win. They need to focus on McCain, NOT on the issues. If they focus on the issues they are going to lose. The Republicans have always been more practical when it comes to policy, except under George Bush. So hammer McCain. Hammer Bush. Keep on the offensive.

If Obama tries to defend himself as a realistic choice for President, he'll be stuck defending the indefensible; but if he argues that McCain is going to be just as bad as President Bush, nay! Worse! Then they have a shot. (Oh, and don't mention Sarah Palin. Ever. Just forget about her. Pretend like she isn't even there. Or Else).

Good post. You should be a pundant some where.

I suppose I agree with BG in that Obama needs to focus on McCain and how he will be a second Bush, and not focus on the issues or Palin.

McCain also will have problems with "the issues" but he has a good strategy for offshore drilling that will get him real votes because of policy.
However, when both candidates don't talk about what their issues will do, then the issues most likely won't come up and screw them both.

But I don't really know what Obama should do, but that would be the one reason for me to vote for Obama in any ellection. Even if I don't support the lesser of two evils philosophy, I am sure that many other people will.

A "with me or against me" attitude for Obama would really be prudent for him in this ellection. But he just needs to try and seem like the outsider in politics, and if he starts to seem like Bush, then he is dead.