Oh come on guys. Obama has raised the most money ever of any candidate.
I never said he didn't. I'm just making the point that when Pro-McCain folks single out Obama for all the money he's raised and spent, they are ignoring the historical fact that, up until now, Republicans have historically been ever more guilty of such "attrocities". All of a sudden, it's a problem? Give me a break.
Obama is not a saviour.
The discussion was about campaign funds....so what's the point of this comment?
I just don't see one ounce of evidence that anyone in the mainstream is knowingly trying to deceive anyone for political gain. (I could be wrong, but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)
Winning an election comes to mind...
Come on, who is being naive? I've no doubt there are kooks who freak out about Obama's middle name
...
Anyway, buttom line is, it is you pro Obama guys that brought up the issues of his name sounding like Osama, his being black, and his middle name being Hussein. None of us who are against him ever brought it up.
Soooooo......you admit people are using his middle name for nefarious purposes......but also claim that pro-Obama people are the problem? That's called putting the cart before the horse. Do you also think the Jews are responsible for the Holocaust because they keep talking about it?
Obama and his supporters respond with offense! Guy needs to grow some skin if he is going to be president. It is only his middle name!
It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama can "shake it off". it simply illustrates the low levels that Republicans will stoop to in order to win a presidential campaign. Obama's not going to change his name, but Republicans should consider changing their practices if they want to win future elections. Even Ed Rollins, an ardent McCain backer, has said the Republicans have a loooooong history of such political practices. Several states have had phone calls and fliers targeted to Democrats telling them that they are supposed to vote on Nov. 5, instead of Nov. 4. Imagine that - wanting to disenfranchise huge numbers of Americans from even voting.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/04/obama-supporters-targeted-in-bogus-messages/
And as to the party, itself, doing this:
As we conclude, I thought it was interesting, in your report, Republican officials, as you said, challenging 6,000 registered voters, among them a former Montana state rep., Kevin Furey, a first lieutenant in the Army Reserve, on the challenge list because he’s currently in New Jersey planning to deploy to Iraq. His quote: “It’s ironic, at the same time I’m about to return to Iraq to help build a democracy, that my own right to vote is being challenged at home for partisan purposes. These challenges are a blatant and offensive attempt to suppress the rights of voters.”
if you want folks to stop talking about the Republican tactics, then maybe someone needs to tell the Republicans to stop using such tactics. Seems the better idea, don'cha think?
At the suggestion that Obama is socialist you guys basically say that it is not true and it is sheepery to believe so.
Obama: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Palin: "And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans."
The problem, again, is that Republicans want to pretend that "Spread the wealth" automatically means socialism.....except, of course, when Palin says the very same thing!
Oh, and McCain voted for the biggest American government experiment in socialism ever when he voted for the bank bail-out bill.
The problem isn't whether you are a low-brow right-wing nutjob....but whether or not you believe and/or regurgitate the bullshit being slung around by obvious right-wing nutjobs. Unfortunately, it appears that you do.
Oh, and furthermore, the "expert" who described Obama's plan as socialism and a possible burden on his plumbing business - Joe the Plumber - has apparently changed his tune:
As ThinkProgress and many others noted yesterday, the premise of Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s complaints about Barack Obama’s tax plan was ill-informed. Contrary to Wurzelbacher’s claims, “neither his personal taxes nor those of the business where he works are likely to rise if Mr. Obama’s tax plan were to go into effect.”
As CBS News reported, even “Joe The Plumber” acknowledges this fact now:
So today, Joe, who said he makes much less than $250,000, reluctantly admitted Obama would lower his taxes.
“I would, if you believe him, I would be receiving his tax cuts,” Wurzelbacher said.
Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/17/joe-the-plumber-obama-cut/
Bloomberg reports that “one other problem in making Wurzelbacher a symbol of the overtaxed” is that — even if he did earn an adjusted gross income of $280,000 — “he would pay just $773 more in taxes under Obama’s plan than McCain’s.” That amount would hardly deal a crippling blow to his potential small business.
Last night, Sarah Palin said she didn’t want to talk about Wurzelbacher. “I begged our speechwriters, ‘Don’t make me say Joe the Plumber, please, in any speeches,” she said. After failing to properly vet Wurzelbacher’s situation, the McCain campaign is apparently now throwing him overboard and moving on.
The campaign is holding a conference call today with Russ Duker, an individual the McCain camp is calling “a Missouri ‘Joe the Plumber.’”
Though why people are looking to a plumber to explain national economics is beyond me....