WWTBAM Bored

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Catholics are the ultimate swing voters. No other large group has switched sides so often -- or been so consistently aligned with election winners. Catholics have backed the winner of the national popular vote for the last nine presidential elections: they've helped elect five Republican presidents, three Democratic presidents, and the popular-vote-winning but presidency-losing Democrat Al Gore.

Not only because of their winning track record, but also because they make up nearly a quarter of all registered voters in the United States, Catholics could determine who wins the White House in 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-tuc ... 24893.html

I did not know about the "Catholics (nearly) always pick the President right" streak.

Not a good sign for the Obama camp, as at least one of the recent polls denoted that McCain has a large lead on Obama with Catholic voters.

If any, the pandering pick by Obama of Biden will only make the divide even greater now that Biden has fully stated his position on the killing of unborn children.

If the polls keep trending over the next couple weeks as they are now, it is not entirely out of the question that Biden might find a need to "step aside".

Appa23 wrote:If any, the pandering pick by Obama of Biden....

Yeah, that's the kind of crap that makes political discussions so frustrating. It's 'pandering' when the guy you don't like picks a running mate to appeal to one segment of the populace. It's 'balancing the ticket' when the candidate I support does it. (Or do you believe Palin was chosen for some reason other than her appeal to a certain part of the elecorate?)

Don't bother explaining why it's different. Both sides are wonderful at rationalizing their double standards.

The header confused me.

First I thought it meant, "More than 20 Catholics have been won over by Palin."

franktangredi wrote:

Appa23 wrote:If any, the pandering pick by Obama of Biden....

Yeah, that's the kind of crap that makes political discussions so frustrating. It's 'pandering' when the guy you don't like picks a running mate to appeal to one segment of the populace. It's 'balancing the ticket' when the candidate I support does it. (Or do you believe Palin was chosen for some reason other than her appeal to a certain part of the elecorate?)

Don't bother explaining why it's different. Both sides are wonderful at rationalizing their double standards.

For the record, I do not think that it really was a "pander" to Catholics. It was a pick to shore up areas where Obama was deficient: foreign policy, white working class people (especially in PA), and presumably Catholics. That is the usual reason why you pick a VP candidate: help in areas (policy or geography) where you are weak.

However, from what I have been hearing and reading, it has been perceived as merely being a ploy by many in the Catholic Church -- that people would vote for the faith and not examine whether that faith actually was being followed. (It is the same argument with Palin: Gender versus positions.)

franktangredi wrote:

Appa23 wrote:If any, the pandering pick by Obama of Biden....

Yeah, that's the kind of crap that makes political discussions so frustrating. It's 'pandering' when the guy you don't like picks a running mate to appeal to one segment of the populace. It's 'balancing the ticket' when the candidate I support does it. (Or do you believe Palin was chosen for some reason other than her appeal to a certain part of the elecorate?)

Actually, I believe Palin was picked for a number of reasons. McCain needed a strong conservative to "balance" his ticket and appeal to that lost section of his base. With Palin on the ticket and providing that appeal, he can now be free to go back to where is more comforatable since more of the attention is now focused on her. Next she has that "every woman/man" appeal (and her husband also helps a bit). She appeals not only to the conservative base but she appeals to religious conservatives, hockey (or soccer) moms, hunters and those looking for someone willing to go after Washington (whether or not that actually happens is anyone's guess - but it's there for all to see how she did that in Alaska.) She just has that "real" un-Washington-like appearance - something Hillary sorely lacked and she connects with a lot of people that were feeling "disconnected."

And, I have to admit, that while I probably would have held my nose while pulling the level for McCain, I can now do so while breathing deeply.

I can only hope that the media continues to try to cut her down as I feel that the harder they try to do that, the more people will rally around her.

I'm just tired of the "celebrity endorsement" voter. How much difference is there, really, between "Gee, {celebrity name} uses {product name}, so I'm gonna run out and buy a case" and "Gee, {candidate name} is a {affiliation name}, so I'm gonna vote for him/her"? Doesn't anyone look at a candidate's positions on important issues anymore, or the veracity of their statements?

I may just take up residence in the Moratorium Lounge. It's gonna be a loooong eight weeks ...

Sir_Galahad wrote:

franktangredi wrote:

Appa23 wrote:If any, the pandering pick by Obama of Biden....

Yeah, that's the kind of crap that makes political discussions so frustrating. It's 'pandering' when the guy you don't like picks a running mate to appeal to one segment of the populace. It's 'balancing the ticket' when the candidate I support does it. (Or do you believe Palin was chosen for some reason other than her appeal to a certain part of the elecorate?)

Actually, I believe Palin was picked for a number of reasons. McCain needed a strong conservative to "balance" his ticket and appeal to that lost section of his base. With Palin on the ticket and providing that appeal, he can now be free to go back to where is more comforatable since more of the attention is now focused on her. Next she has that "every woman/man" appeal (and her husband also helps a bit). She appeals not only to the conservative base but she appeals to religious conservatives, hockey (or soccer) moms, hunters and those looking for someone willing to go after Washington (whether or not that actually happens is anyone's guess - but it's there for all to see how she did that in Alaska.) She just has that "real" un-Washington-like appearance - something Hillary sorely lacked and she connects with a lot of people that were feeling "disconnected."

And, I have to admit, that while I probably would have held my nose while pulling the level for McCain, I can now do so while breathing deeply.

I can only hope that the media continues to try to cut her down as I feel that the harder they try to do that, the more people will rally around her.

Another factor was the rank sexism that Obama and the mainstream media displayed towards Hillary during the entire campaign. Hillary had tried her best to downplay and overcome it but many of her supporters remain aware of it. A lot of Hillary supporters were not diehard left wing feminists but moderate to conservative Democrats, independents and even some Republicans who were not won over by the traditional Democratic "women's" policies, but by Hillary's work ethic, competence and sense of being there (Hillary Stands for Me was not an idle slogan).

McCain or someone in his camp guessed that the pick of Palin would reopen those scars, bring out the worst in the Obama campaign and media and turn the discussion away from the issues and onto Palin and the contrast between her and Obama.

The press and Obama continue to take the bait with daily attacks that mix marginally relevant accusations with complete nonsense and only build up sympathy and support for Palin and McCain. Independent white women voters have now swung to McCain in a big way. It's not just his pick of Palin that did it but Obama's reaction to that pick.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:

franktangredi wrote: Yeah, that's the kind of crap that makes political discussions so frustrating. It's 'pandering' when the guy you don't like picks a running mate to appeal to one segment of the populace. It's 'balancing the ticket' when the candidate I support does it. (Or do you believe Palin was chosen for some reason other than her appeal to a certain part of the elecorate?)

Actually, I believe Palin was picked for a number of reasons. McCain needed a strong conservative to "balance" his ticket and appeal to that lost section of his base. With Palin on the ticket and providing that appeal, he can now be free to go back to where is more comforatable since more of the attention is now focused on her. Next she has that "every woman/man" appeal (and her husband also helps a bit). She appeals not only to the conservative base but she appeals to religious conservatives, hockey (or soccer) moms, hunters and those looking for someone willing to go after Washington (whether or not that actually happens is anyone's guess - but it's there for all to see how she did that in Alaska.) She just has that "real" un-Washington-like appearance - something Hillary sorely lacked and she connects with a lot of people that were feeling "disconnected."

And, I have to admit, that while I probably would have held my nose while pulling the level for McCain, I can now do so while breathing deeply.

I can only hope that the media continues to try to cut her down as I feel that the harder they try to do that, the more people will rally around her.

Another factor was the rank sexism that Obama and the mainstream media displayed towards Hillary during the entire campaign. Hillary had tried her best to downplay and overcome it but many of her supporters remain aware of it. A lot of Hillary supporters were not diehard left wing feminists but moderate to conservative Democrats, independents and even some Republicans who were not won over by the traditional Democratic "women's" policies, but by Hillary's work ethic, competence and sense of being there (Hillary Stands for Me was not an idle slogan).

McCain or someone in his camp guessed that the pick of Palin would reopen those scars, bring out the worst in the Obama campaign and media and turn the discussion away from the issues and onto Palin and the contrast between her and Obama.

The press and Obama continue to take the bait with daily attacks that mix marginally relevant accusations with complete nonsense and only build up sympathy and support for Palin and McCain. Independent white women voters have now swung to McCain in a big way. It's not just his pick of Palin that did it but Obama's reaction to that pick.

You have citations to back that up?

You lost. I wish you'd take your ball and go back home instead of playing for the other side.

200 years ago you'd have been tarred and feathered.

gsabc wrote:I'm just tired of the "celebrity endorsement" voter. How much difference is there, really, between "Gee, {celebrity name} uses {product name}, so I'm gonna run out and buy a case" and "Gee, {candidate name} is a {affiliation name}, so I'm gonna vote for him/her"? Doesn't anyone look at a candidate's positions on important issues anymore, or the veracity of their statements?

I won't say a firm "no" on that question as I think there is a segment of the voting populace that actually does pay attention to the issues. But, I also believe that some people select a candidate for the same reason people wager on a certain horse in racing. When I used to go to the track, I was amazed at how many people bet on a particular horse just because the horse "looked nice" or had pretty colored silks. Despite the fact that there was a horse in the race that, on paper, could not be beaten. I think some people vote for reasons along the same lines. They simple "connect" with the candidate as in "Hey, he/she likes to fish! I like to fish. I'm gonna vote for him/her." Not always the best way to select a qualified candidate but that's how I see it.

appa wrote:However, from what I have been hearing and reading, it has been perceived as merely being a ploy by many in the Catholic Church -- that people would vote for the faith and not examine whether that faith actually was being followed. (It is the same argument with Palin: Gender versus positions.)

I have to wonder, tho, whether you're hearing and reading what actual Catholics think, or what your conservative sources want you to think they think. I'm not saying that Biden will automatically win the Catholic vote, of course. But there may be more Catholics who want to vote for another Catholic than you are being led to believe.

I know from my own experience that many conservative sources will tell us that the military is uniformly Republican. And while a majority are, especially among the white males, it's not nearly as overwhelmingly so as some people would have us believe.

silverscreenselect wrote:Another factor was the rank sexism that Obama and the mainstream media displayed towards Hillary during the entire campaign. Hillary had tried her best to downplay and overcome it but many of her supporters remain aware of it. A lot of Hillary supporters were not diehard left wing feminists but moderate to conservative Democrats, independents and even some Republicans who were not won over by the traditional Democratic "women's" policies, but by Hillary's work ethic, competence and sense of being there (Hillary Stands for Me was not an idle slogan).

McCain or someone in his camp guessed that the pick of Palin would reopen those scars, bring out the worst in the Obama campaign and media and turn the discussion away from the issues and onto Palin and the contrast between her and Obama.

The press and Obama continue to take the bait with daily attacks that mix marginally relevant accusations with complete nonsense and only build up sympathy and support for Palin and McCain. Independent white women voters have now swung to McCain in a big way. It's not just his pick of Palin that did it but Obama's reaction to that pick.

As a moderate to left-leaning white woman, I would say you make some excellent points, sss, but I don't agree completely with your conclusion. Independents may be swinging to McCain right now, but I haven't seen any data that the white women voters are doing so in significantly greater numbers, and I don't think most of us think Palin replaces Hillary Clinton in any way shape or form.

That said, I saw a Pew poll back BEFORE the Dem convention that said only 72% of Clinton primary voters had decided to vote for Obama, and something like 13% (I'm working from memory, so may be a point or two off, but not more) had decided to vote for McCain. That means that 15%, give or take, would either vote third party or hadn't decided yet.

The way I figure, probably a third of those (or 5% of the total) were leaning to vote to McCain anyway. Could be more -- most of us are that pissed off at what Obama, the DNC, and the media did to Clinton and her voters, no matter how we plan to vote -- but at least that many. McCain choosing a woman gave them permission to do what they were thinking about anyway.

Five percent may not sound like much, but if you figure almost 18M people voted for Hillary in the primaries, that's a swing of almost a million people since the convention, and potentially a LOT more if you extrapolate from primary/caucus participants to the electorate at large.

For the record, the community organizing that Rudy Guilani and Sarah Palin so blithely attacked was part of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

Edited to correct tense. It still IS part of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

Bob Juch wrote: You have citations to back that up?

You lost. I wish you'd take your ball and go back home instead of playing for the other side.

200 years ago you'd have been tarred and feathered.

As a matter of fact I do.

http://tinyurl.com/6g3cp3

McCain goes from -8 to +12 among white women.

And since when did opposing one candidate become "playing for the other side." Adolph Hitler, for all practical purposes, was the Nazi party. Stalin and Castro, for all practical purposes, were the Communist party in their countries. I didn't realize we had gotten to the stage here where loyalty to one candidate, even if he is the Anointed One, is a litmus test for believing in a party.

Today, Obama said at a speech, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Real class, there. Can you imagine the outcry if McCain had said, "you can feed argula to a monkey but it's still a monkey."

The Democratic party is now in the hands of race baiting, sexist, undemocratic, thugs who pay lip service to the party's ideals while trashing many lifelong Democrats such as myself. Is this really the sort of party and candidate you want to support?

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: You have citations to back that up?

You lost. I wish you'd take your ball and go back home instead of playing for the other side.

200 years ago you'd have been tarred and feathered.

As a matter of fact I do.

http://tinyurl.com/6g3cp3

McCain goes from -8 to +12 among white women.

And since when did opposing one candidate become "playing for the other side." Adolph Hitler, for all practical purposes, was the Nazi party. Stalin and Castro, for all practical purposes, were the Communist party in their countries. I didn't realize we had gotten to the stage here where loyalty to one candidate, even if he is the Anointed One, is a litmus test for believing in a party.

Today, Obama said at a speech, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Real class, there. Can you imagine the outcry if McCain had said, "you can feed argula to a monkey but it's still a monkey."

The Democratic party is now in the hands of race baiting, sexist, undemocratic, thugs who pay lip service to the party's ideals while trashing many lifelong Democrats such as myself. Is this really the sort of party and candidate you want to support?

The article says Obama's campaign doesn't believe it but gives no details of the poll. I don't believe it either.

I'm not demanding loyalty to Obama, just not support for McCain. You're as bad as Benedict Arnold who switched sides solely because he believed the patriots were doomed to lose.

silverscreenselect wrote: The Democratic party is now in the hands of race baiting, sexist, undemocratic, thugs who pay lip service to the party's ideals while trashing many lifelong Democrats such as myself. Is this really the sort of party and candidate you want to support?

Have you ever seen what happens when you back a monkey into a corner? He bares his teeth, snarls and threatens like nobody's business. I liken this to what the Democrat party and media, in general, has descended to. They have now been backed into a corner and threatened by everything Palin stands for. And they know they are on the ropes. So, out come the fangs and venom and they will throw everything but the kitchen sink at Palin in order to try to discredit her because they have nothing solid to stand on in Obama. He's all smoke and mirrors! JMO, but I'm standing by it. And I can't wait for his concession speech.

Bob Juch wrote:The article says Obama's campaign doesn't believe it but gives no details of the poll. I don't believe it either.

I'm not demanding loyalty to Obama, just not support for McCain. You're as bad as Benedict Arnold who switched sides solely because he believed the patriots were doomed to lose.

So, that thing about the Democrats not letting the delegate who was elected by her state to vote for Hillary and them uninviting her to the convention because she insists on voting her conscience is the new DNC policy. "Don't think for yourself. You are a Democrat. We'll tell you how to think."

Sounds about right.

mellytu74 wrote:For the record, the community organizing that Rudy Guilani and Sarah Palin so blithely attacked was part of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

Edited to correct tense. It still IS part of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

Funny you should mention that, Melly. I read a column the other day from Michelle Malkin (whom I despise) where she wrote:

Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors’ lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama’s brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.

I had to laugh out loud because, aside from the fact that Obama was working "in church basements and community centers," what on earth can you call these right-wing churches that the GOP has organized but "tax-subsidized, partisan, nonprofits"?

That said, I don't think it qualifies as much in the way of executive experience. But neither does commanding a reserve-component training battalion. Neither Obama nor McCain have executive experience worth a flip. Well, whichever one wins, almost certainly McCain, will get their executive experience OTJ (on the job). I just hope he doesn't make too many mistakes in the process, because those kind of mistakes too often get people killed.

That is a very cute picture BIT!

cindy.wellman wrote:That is a very cute picture BIT!

Thanks. That is my sister and I (she is the one in the dress). circa 1961

BackInTex wrote:

cindy.wellman wrote:That is a very cute picture BIT!

Thanks. That is my sister and I (she is the one in the dress). circa 1961

Certainly glad you clarified the dress thing, BiT.



But, yeah, a really cute picture.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:The article says Obama's campaign doesn't believe it but gives no details of the poll. I don't believe it either.

I'm not demanding loyalty to Obama, just not support for McCain. You're as bad as Benedict Arnold who switched sides solely because he believed the patriots were doomed to lose.

So, that thing about the Democrats not letting the delegate who was elected by her state to vote for Hillary and them uninviting her to the convention because she insists on voting her conscience is the new DNC policy. "Don't think for yourself. You are a Democrat. We'll tell you how to think."

Sounds about right.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: The Democratic party is now in the hands of race baiting, sexist, undemocratic, thugs who pay lip service to the party's ideals while trashing many lifelong Democrats such as myself. Is this really the sort of party and candidate you want to support?

Have you ever seen what happens when you back a monkey into a corner? He bares his teeth, snarls and threatens like nobody's business. I liken this to what the Democrat party and media, in general, has descended to. They have now been backed into a corner and threatened by everything Palin stands for. And they know they are on the ropes. So, out come the fangs and venom and they will throw everything but the kitchen sink at Palin in order to try to discredit her because they have nothing solid to stand on in Obama. He's all smoke and mirrors! JMO, but I'm standing by it. And I can't wait for his concession speech.

The behavior SSS is talking about has NOTHING to do with Palin or the GOP.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:The article says Obama's campaign doesn't believe it but gives no details of the poll. I don't believe it either.

I'm not demanding loyalty to Obama, just not support for McCain. You're as bad as Benedict Arnold who switched sides solely because he believed the patriots were doomed to lose.

So, that thing about the Democrats not letting the delegate who was elected by her state to vote for Hillary and them uninviting her to the convention because she insists on voting her conscience is the new DNC policy. "Don't think for yourself. You are a Democrat. We'll tell you how to think."

Sounds about right.

I think you're talking about the Wisconsin delegate who was stripped of her credentials, not because she insisted on supporting Clinton, but because she publicly announced that she will vote for McCain. It seems to me reasonable to require that delegates to the Democratic National Convention be required not to announce that they will support another party's candidate. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: I think you're talking about the Wisconsin delegate who was stripped of her credentials, not because she insisted on supporting Clinton, but because she publicly announced that she will vote for McCain. It seems to me reasonable to require that delegates to the Democratic National Convention be required not to announce that they will support another party's candidate.

I can see where the delegate's statement was bad PR for the nominee, but even delegates to the Democratic National Convention should have the right to free speech. I like the Constitution. I'm funny that way.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: You have citations to back that up?

You lost. I wish you'd take your ball and go back home instead of playing for the other side.

200 years ago you'd have been tarred and feathered.

As a matter of fact I do.

http://tinyurl.com/6g3cp3

McCain goes from -8 to +12 among white women.

And since when did opposing one candidate become "playing for the other side." Adolph Hitler, for all practical purposes, was the Nazi party. Stalin and Castro, for all practical purposes, were the Communist party in their countries. I didn't realize we had gotten to the stage here where loyalty to one candidate, even if he is the Anointed One, is a litmus test for believing in a party.

Today, Obama said at a speech, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Real class, there. Can you imagine the outcry if McCain had said, "you can feed argula to a monkey but it's still a monkey."

The Democratic party is now in the hands of race baiting, sexist, undemocratic, thugs who pay lip service to the party's ideals while trashing many lifelong Democrats such as myself. Is this really the sort of party and candidate you want to support?

The article says Obama's campaign doesn't believe it but gives no details of the poll. I don't believe it either.

I'm not demanding loyalty to Obama, just not support for McCain. You're as bad as Benedict Arnold who switched sides solely because he believed the patriots were doomed to lose.

Country before party.