2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Plantae]

In summary of the previous discussion, I'll just say that Clint Eastwood could have done better, and that Romney probably won't receive a long-term boost in the polls from his performance. A convention bump is typical for both candidates.

But as I said unmarried women are typically reliably liberal so is that really such a shocker?

I'm not disagreeing with the assertion that more unmarried women are liberal. My point is that if more unmarried women are driven to Obama, and more married women to Romney, is there going to be any measureable effect in the polls, for either candidate? I don't think so.

Dude he wrote in exceptions in a bill that was produced LONG before the thought of him as a Vice President ever came up.

Writing exceptions into the bill isn't the same as personally supporting those exceptions. I was already aware of the bill in question. Ryan believes that banning abortion with these exceptions would be a step in the right direction, but he doesn't believe in the exceptions themselves. Ryan has stated several times prior to his vice presidential candidacy that he opposes abortion under almost any circumstances (except when the mother's life is at immediate risk).

He also co-sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life act, which would declare that personhood begins at fertilization. Not only would trump any legal justification for abortion in cases of rape or incest, it would also outlaw some forms of contraception.

In addition, he has been mum on the subject of whether mothers who unlawfully commit abortion should face jail time or significant penalty. His remarks on the matter? "If it's illegal, it's illegal."

I'm not sure how he could be more extreme.

Yeah.. so a married woman, who's family is suffering, who's living pay check to pay check, who has kids moving back in with them because it is impossible to find a job. Is going to vote for a man who could very well continue the malaise for another 4 years because she likes his views on abortion.

You're missing the point. The economy is the most important issue. But abortion is also an important issue. Voters consider every position a politician may have, not just one position. Also, I wouldn't forget that there are economic issues that underscore abortion rights too.

I think you will agree that it is easier to demonstrate differences in abortion views to the average voter than it is differences in economic policy.

Paul Ryan's views on abortion are evident. Regardless of whether or not it is true, I think it's a lot harder to prove that Barack Obama's second term will result in more economic "malaise."

Views I might add, are actually quite radical, and far more out of the mainstream than Romney

This about the man who said: "nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances." Obama does support early-term abortions, but he also supports a ban on late-term abortions. And he believes that we should provide education and contraception to young people to make abortions more uncommon. This view seems to fit within existing abortion law, as established by Roe v. Wade.

According to this Gallup Poll, as of Jan. 2012, 39% are satisfied with current abortion law, and 18% of those dissatisfied believe that current abortion law should either remain the same or become less strict. In total, 57% of Americans believe that existing abortion law is adequate, or should be less strict. Obama's positions are hardly radical in this respect, and with his support on some bans of late-term abortion, are actually considerably more moderate than the 25% of Americans who say that abortion should be legal under any circumstances.

[Roy Karrde]

Really? I expected the Convention to help Romney better than THAT. Conventions typically tend to do that.

Umm Conventions produce a 5 to 6 point bounce usually, anything beyond that is even better.

This about the man who said: "nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances." Obama does support early-term abortions, but he also supports a ban on late-term abortions. And he believes that we should provide education and contraception to young people to make abortions more uncommon. This view seems to fit within existing abortion law, as established by Roe v. Wade.

Actually I am speaking of Obama's previous support for late term abortions, up to and including the point that if a baby survives, that it is killed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407882,00.html

If Ryan's "Hidden" support for No Abortions is fair game, then Obama's previous support of Late Term and Post Birth Abortions is also fair game.

[Plantae]

Actually I am speaking of Obama's previous support for late term abortions, up to and including the point that if a baby survives, that it is killed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407882,00.html

If Ryan's "Hidden" support for No Abortions is fair game, then Obama's previous support of Late Term and Post Birth Abortions is also fair game.

Illinois law already had statutes that ordered doctors to use life-saving measures to support any fetuses that survived late-term abortions. To me, that suggests that the original Born Alive Infant Protection Act was nothing more than a political charade. I won't deny Barack Obama's record on the issue; in 2001 and 2002, it is clear that his opposition to that law was due to the failure to include language similar to that in the federal bill (which passed in 2002).

The real issue is the bill killed in committee in 2003, which did contain this neutrality clause. But even if we could construe this as Obama supporting infanticide, which seems a rather biased interpretation, it doesn't matter.

Your use of the word "previous" seems to be key here. Please point me to anywhere where Barack Obama has demonstrated legislative support of late-term abortions since 2003.

Ryan's views, on the other hand, are not "hidden" and they are not "previous." Even his recent statements support that he has not changed his position; he is merely allowing Romney to set the agenda. As in this recent interview.

" 'I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life,' Ryan explained. 'But let’s remember, I’m joining the Romney-Ryan ticket. And the president makes policy.' "

Ryan's exclusion of all abortion exceptions (excluding when the mother's life is in immediate danger) is codified in his support of this bill from 2011. Not, as with Obama, a measure he voted against nine years ago, and has since disowned based on his support of current legislation.

But also based on Ryan's comments, you're right to say that this isn't an issue voters should necessarily be concerned with. As Ryan said, the president sets the policy. Even if Romney were to win the election, then, it doesn't seem likely that we would see legislation passed that bans abortions without the noted exceptions.

[Roy Karrde]

Illinois law already had statutes that ordered doctors to use life-saving measures to support any fetuses that survived late-term abortions. To me, that suggests that the original Born Alive Infant Protection Act was nothing more than a political charade. I won't deny Barack Obama's record on the issue; in 2001 and 2002, it is clear that his opposition to that law was due to the failure to include language similar to that in the federal bill (which passed in 2002).

The real issue is the bill killed in committee in 2003, which did contain this neutrality clause. But even if we could construe this as Obama supporting infanticide, which seems a rather biased interpretation, it doesn't matter.

I think it does matter and is not a biased interpretation as Obama voted FOR the inclusion of the neutrality language and then voted AGAINST the bill. So for the argument to say that the neutrality language was the reason he voted against it in 2001 and 2002, is just a plain lie.

Your use of the word "previous" seems to be key here. Please point me to anywhere where Barack Obama has demonstrated legislative support of late-term abortions since 2003.

Realistically I can't, just like I cannot point you to a point in which he supported gay marriage since 2003. That does not mean he did not and does not still support those things. It means that in 2004, he was gearing up for his Senate run, and as has been reported, his Presidential run, and he had to moderate himself to the public.

Ryan's views, on the other hand, are not "hidden" and they are not "previous." Even his recent statements support that he has not changed his position; he is merely allowing Romney to set the agenda. As in this recent interview.

" 'I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life,' Ryan explained. 'But let’s remember, I’m joining the Romney-Ryan ticket. And the president makes policy.' "

Ryan's exclusion of all abortion exceptions (excluding when the mother's life is in immediate danger) is codified in his support of this bill from 2011. Not, as with Obama, a measure he voted against nine years ago, and has since disowned based on his support of current legislation.

Supporting a bill, does not automatically mean you agree with everything in that bill, I can show you video in which Obama admits he is for late term abortions. Do you have any words from Ryan to show that he is against all exceptions?

[Plantae]

I think it does matter and is not a biased interpretation as Obama voted FOR the inclusion of the neutrality language and then voted AGAINST the bill. So for the argument to say that the neutrality language was the reason he voted against it in 2001 and 2002, is just a plain lie.

The neutrality clause wasn't amended to the bill until 2003. It wasn't in the bill in 2001 and 2002. There's no lie here. The question is why Obama voted against the bill in 2003, when the neutrality clause was included. But it is one thing to say that the bill was "killed" by Obama in committee and another to say that Obama supports infanticide. It would be more reasonable to say that at least in 2003, Obama did indeed support late-term abortions.

I cannot point you to a point in which he supported gay marriage since 2003...

Obama stopped enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act. That seems like clear proof of his position on this matter. He has taken no similar executive actions to suggest an underlying support of late-term abortions and has enacted no legislation regarding late-term abortions, despite the fact that his party at one point had control of congress.

Supporting a bill, does not automatically mean you agree with everything in that bill, I can show you video in which Obama admits he is for late term abortions. Do you have any words from Ryan to show that he is against all exceptions?

This video is from 2003. Have anything more recent/relevant? If the only standard here is that "Obama said it," I can point you to several recent examples where he embraces a ban on late-term abortions as long as it includes exceptions.

does not automatically mean you agree with everything in that bill

The only purpose of the Sanctity of Human Life Act is to define that the life of a human being begins at fertilization. This is the bill's singular element. It is not possible for Paul Ryan to have agreed with some of the bill's provisions, but not others, as only one primary provision exists. Moreover, unlike Obama, who voted against a bill, Paul Ryan co-sponsored this one. Where would you pretend that Ryan disagrees with the bill's contents? What other reason would he have to support this measure unless he agrees that "personhood" begins at fertilization?

To expand on Ryan's quote that I gave in my last post: "Look, I'm proud of my record.... Mitt Romney is going to be the president; the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. I'm comfortable with it because it's a good step in the right direction. I'll leave it at that."

The clear implication in this statement is that Ryan does not share Romney's position on abortion. Romney's view includes the exceptions. Ryan's does not. The only reason he does not state this explicitly is because doing so would result in political backlash and would undermine Romney's position. This is demonstrated by his unwillingness to further discuss the issue.

To highlight the specific language: "good step in the right direction." Implies that Ryan believes that there needs to be a further step. The only step further than a ban with exceptions is a ban with fewer, more restricted, or no exceptions.
"I'm comfortable with it." Implies Ryan has settled for this position, but does not necessarily support it.
"the president sets the policy." Implies that Ryan does not want to discuss the issue further because he believes his personal position (which differs) is irrelevant.
"I'm proud of my record." Which is 100% pro-life.

[Asilynne]

Plantae and Roy: Pardon me but it seems like now you are both talking in circles about abortion. May I suggest going on to another topic, just for the sole reason of getting to the meat of the issues that will be important in this election. Roy, you are reaching for things to call Obama out for regarding abortion and going almost 10 years into the past doing so. Plantae, you are assuming that everyone automatically sees pro-life as a bad thing. There are lots of people who don't. Abortion is one of those things where people have strong opinions about and are unlikely to change their minds, so its pointless to beat this subject like this.
Honestly, and say what you will about me for this, but I agree with Ryan. I would rather abortion not exist, it hurts me in the core of my being for personal reasons that are nobodys business but mine. However, just like Ryan, I'll accept Romney's policy on it with the exceptions because it IS better than the rampant free for all we currently have, where the only reason you need is "I don't want it". More education is needed, as well as more consequence. People need to start being responsible for their actions and not use abortion as a form of birth control.

Plantae, you make it sound like you want Ryan and Romney to have the same stance on abortion as what you think is the "right" one. Whats the point in both candidates having the same views? There are as many views on things as there are people in this country and I for one like being able to choose which one I want to vote for, instead of having them both be the same. Ryan's proud of his record? Well I'm proud of him because unlike many people when their opinion comes under heavy pressure, he didn't back down. He politely told what he thought and then said that even if he doesn't believe all the same things as Romney, he would follow his lead as he would be the President. Regardless if one agrees with Ryan on his policies, that attitude is worthy of respect.

Also its a bit of a pet peeve of mine for politicians and you guys to lump all women up in the same category as if we all have the same views on everything. We women aren't ALL notoriously liberal, the conservatives among our "voting bloc" just tend to be quieter about it There are more of us than you think so trying to guess which way the "women vote" is going, why not stick to the general polls, you might have more luck

Now if you excuse me I'm going to crawl back into my wedding planning cave (10 days away!)

[Roy Karrde]

I do agree with Asilyne that we are going in circles, even though Plantae's argument has holes in it large enough to drive trucks through. However it is worth noting that the Democratic Party is now adopting the radical abortion views Obama parroted in 2003.

The 2012 Democratic party will officially adopt an extreme position on the issue of abortion on Tuesday. According to a copy of the party platform, which was released online just before midnight on Monday, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”

That last part–”regardless of ability to pay”–is an endorsement of taxpayer-funded abortions, a policy that President Obama has personally endorsed. …

The 2012 Democratic party also endorses an unrestricted right to abortion-on-demand. According to the platform, on the issue of abortion “there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/0...through-birth/

That last part should be familiar, it seems to almost be a copy and paste of Obama's 2003 interview.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I wish you'd stop showing the views from HotAir. It's clearly evident that it's a Conservative website that would never say anything positive about a Democrat.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I wish you'd stop showing the views from HotAir. It's clearly evident that it's a Conservative website that would never say anything positive about a Democrat.

And that has anything to deal with the Democrats platform? It isn't as if Hot Air suddenly wrote the platform for Democrats.

[Dark Sage]

And that has anything to deal with the Democrats platform? It isn't as if Hot Air suddenly wrote the platform for Democrats.

Take a look at the GOP platform sometime, Roy.

It pushes for a zero tolerance policy against abortion, a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, and a push for our military to be more assertive.

Among other things.

Does the GOP even know how hard it is to change the Constitution? The last time anyone tried was the ERA, and it didn't make it. And their goal now is to add two Amendments to it, banning abortion and gay marriage. Talk about unrealistic.

[Roy Karrde]

Take a look at the GOP platform sometime, Roy.

It pushes for a zero tolerance policy against abortion, a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, and a push for our military to be more assertive.

Among other things.

Does the GOP even know how hard it is to change the Constitution? The last time anyone tried was the ERA, and it didn't make it. And their goal now is to add two Amendments to it, banning abortion and gay marriage. Talk about unrealistic.

So let me get this straight, instead of addressing the Democrats Policy, you decide to point fingers to the other party. C'mon Dark, address what I posted, stop wimping out and looking for scape goats.

[Plantae]

Plantae, you are assuming that everyone automatically sees pro-life as a bad thing.

You've misread my argument. My personal views on abortion aren't set-in-stone and in fact may be more aligned with Romney than Obama. I don't believe that the terms pro-life and pro-choice adequately represent such a complex topic as abortion, which contains many more nuanced positions. I'm aware that most Americans are for a ban on some abortions. There's nothing wrong with a purely pro-life stance. But it's far from a logically unassailable position.

Abortion is one of those things where people have strong opinions about and are unlikely to change their minds, so its pointless to beat this subject like this.

The original argument at least was about how important the candidate's views on abortion are to this election, not which position is "right." One can have a rational philosophical discussion about this subject and come to the conclusion that some arguments are better than others.

I would rather abortion not exist, it hurts me in the core of my being for personal reasons that are nobodys business but mine.

This is precisely the problem. Abortion is both a personal and a policy issue, and what is "right" for one person should not be construed as being "right" for all people.

More education is needed, as well as more consequence. People need to start being responsible for their actions and not use abortion as a form of birth control.

This is an acceptable position as long as you also support contraception. If you don't, it's the equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot logically. I can't think of a single rational philosophical argument in existing literature that supports a pro-life position that doesn't allow for contraception; these arguments can all be reduced to absurdity.

Plantae, you make it sound like you want Ryan and Romney to have the same stance on abortion as what you think is the "right" one.

That's not it at all. The issue of the discussion was whether Romney and Ryan differed on their views in the first place, and how this might affect policy and public opinion.

Also its a bit of a pet peeve of mine for politicians and you guys to lump all women up in the same category as if we all have the same views on everything.

No one is lumping women into one category here. But the statistical truth is that the majority of unmarried women do support abortion rights and the majority of married women don't. There are obviously many exceptions.

There are more of us than you think so trying to guess which way the "women vote" is going...

There is more than enough data to make this a predictable quantity. It's not a guess. It's a hypothesis.

Plantae's argument has holes in it large enough to drive trucks through.

Funny. Ryan used this same phrase to address a potential "health of the mother" exception. But I'll agree that we have nothing more to gain by continuing to discuss the topic of Ryan's and Obama's personal views on abortion.

However it is worth noting that the Democratic Party is now adopting the radical abortion views Obama parroted in 2003.

I can't imagine any way in which support of existing legal precedent (Roe v. Wade) could be considered "radical." The Roe v. Wade decision, notably, still allows for state-based restrictions on late-term abortions. I don't see any statement in the Democratic Party Platform that disagrees with this.

As for the "regardless of the ability to pay" line, I would note that many states already provide funds for abortion. This should not be read as an endorsement of federal funding for abortion, which is again banned by existing legal precedent.

The health care law does not provide federal funds for abortion either. Obama reaffirmed this when he released Executive Order 13535 to uphold the principles of the Hyde Amendment.

[Heald]

Freeing the slaves was once seen as radical. Votes for women was once seen as radical. Letting blacks eat in restaurants was once seen as radical. Decriminalising homosexuality was once seen as radical. Teaching evolution in school was once seen as radical.

In my own humble opinion, I would rather a mother was able to get an abortion one week away from the birth than if she could not get one legally one week after conception. The alternative is more horrifying than anyone can realise, mainly because pretty much no one considers that making abortions illegal doesn't reduce them, it just forces mothers to get them illegally and there is a high rate of death for the (usually poor, more likely to be an ethic minority than white) woman involved in such cases. That's hardly pro-life, that's just anti-poor.

[Dark Sage]

New Gallup Poll out, and I know how much you respect them, Roy:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157262/ro...onvention.aspx

Btw, just where is this onslaught of super-intense ads from the Romney camp you promised? I listen to the radio every night at work, and if this "Death Star" you said would be arriving has come, I haven't heard a trace of it.

Oh, and Heald? You raise a good point. Governor Christie want to put the gay marriage issue on the ballot to decide it; his political opponents have said that if we had voted on emancipation, we would still have slavery. Same thing for women's sufferage. It would not have passed if we had voted on it. It just doesn't work that way sometimes.

Edit: You can add Chuck Noris to the list of idiot celebrities endorsing Romney. He gave a "dire warning" on his website, claiming that Obama's re-election would lead to "1,000 years of darkness" and "the end of America as we know it". And this guy wonders why so many jokes are made about him

[Roy Karrde]

I can't imagine any way in which support of existing legal precedent (Roe v. Wade) could be considered "radical." The Roe v. Wade decision, notably, still allows for state-based restrictions on late-term abortions. I don't see any statement in the Democratic Party Platform that disagrees with this.

The 2012 Democratic party also endorses an unrestricted right to abortion-on-demand. According to the platform, on the issue of abortion “there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.”

Last time I checked State based restrictions would be considered as "Politicians or Government getting in the way" that is unless you do not consider State Government and Politicians as part of well... Government and Politicians.

Btw, just where is this onslaught of super-intense ads from the Romney camp you promised? I listen to the radio every night at work, and if this "Death Star" you said would be arriving has come, I haven't heard a trace of it.

Last time I checked New York wasn't a swing state.

[mattbcl]

Not that anybody would care enough to let a CNN OpEd change his/her mind, but I got linked to this article and found myself wholeheartedly agreeing with it:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/02/opinio...rticle_sidebar

tl;dr I find it embarrassing and shameful that both parties resort to this sort of behavior in election seasons. We should be having intelligent, calm, serious debate about the issues that face us in the coming years. But that isn't sexy. Throwing both candidates into a demolition derby, though? People are trampling each other for popcorn.

[Dark Sage]

Not that anybody would care enough to let a CNN OpEd change his/her mind, but I got linked to this article and found myself wholeheartedly agreeing with it:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/02/opinio...rticle_sidebar

I agree too.

Does anyone know what political party George Washington belonged too? Federalist? Nope. Textbooks may say that, but truthfully, he oppposed the whole concept of political parties. He claimed that they would divinde the country and cause nothing but conflicts.

Sadly, while people admired and adapted most of his ideas, this was not one of them.

If only people ad listened to him...

[Plantae]

Last time I checked State based restrictions would be considered as "Politicians or Government getting in the way" that is unless you do not consider State Government and Politicians as part of well... Government and Politicians.

The first half of your quote from the "Democratic Party" is actually from the news source you cited. And "politicians or governments" could just as easily be construed as those who wish to overturn Roe v. Wade (of which there are many), not those who wish to restrict abortion rights by following existing legal precedent.

I agree too.

Does anyone know what political party George Washington belonged too? Federalist? Nope. Textbooks may say that, but truthfully, he oppposed the whole concept of political parties. He claimed that they would divinde the country and cause nothing but conflicts.

Sadly, while people admired and adapted most of his ideas, this was not one of them.

If only people ad listened to him...

Perhaps it would have been better if we did not have political parties. But then again, I find it difficult to imagine a political environment in which they would not eventually emerge, n.b. all of human history.

And though I do agree that George Washington was a brilliant leader, I do not believe it is necessary to place him or his ideas on a pedestal. George Washington kept slaves up until his death, and though he may have been personally against slavery, he never used his considerable political power to speak out against it. Also, a note: the reason the textbooks say George Washington was a Federalist is because he accepted every one of their programs over the opposition's. He just didn't want the label.

All of the Founding Fathers had character flaws, some of them many. I am tired of people using them as examples or as excuse for certain behaviors. All men appear less detestable through the lens of time.

On negative ads: the evidence suggests that they do work, and that seems to be the primary reason behind their usage. But anyone who says that political campaigns weren't dirty before TV media clearly needs a lesson in history. There were plenty of smears and scandals even back in the days of the Founding Fathers. In my opinion, it is merely the accessibility of technology and information that has resulted in political negativity becoming more widely disseminated. In the current political environment, a candidate who refrains from negative campaigning isn't brave, but stupid. You can't blame the candidates, in this case; you have to blame the system that created them. The inability of our country to have intelligent, serious debate on the issues is not limited to the political sphere.

[mattbcl]

Of course negative ads work. It's easy to run your opponent into the ground when you're both running for PotUS, since you tend to have a long and not-bleach-clean record to work with. The problem is what happens after the election is over and both candidates have to rise up out of the mud pit they were so willing to throw themselves into. The loser gets to go home and lick his wounds without having to worry so much about spectators booing him on the way out. The winner, on the other hand, has the monumental task of not only assuming the role of PotUS, but taking a place on that pedestal while he's still covered in the mud. You can't "unsee" all the negative ads about that new figurehead, and you can bet whichever party lost will be extraordinarily sore about it for the next four years.

This is totally a pipe dream, but I would like to see an election cycle in which the candidates run ads regarding ONLY why they should be President. Not why the other guy shouldn't. There are already way too many armchair quarterbacks making a career out of talking about why a particular candidate would make for a bad leader, we don't need political ads to add to the melee. Maybe people might actually make a thoughtful and informed decision on the choice they make, instead of the knee-jerk "hey, I'm just gonna vote for the guy I hate less".

[Lady Vulpix]

Warning: I have removed the latest flame war from this thread. I would like to believe most TPMers are mature enough to discuss politics without resorting to insults and personal attacks, but if you prove me wrong, this thread will be closed.

Additionally, anyone who insults anyone else on this thread will get an infraction.

Edit: yes, I can infract mods too.

[Heald]

In addition to the above, I'm just going to delete posts that contain flaming/ad hominem attacks or flamebaiting, and infract as necessary.

[Dark Sage]

I sincerely apologize for everything that I said.

I'll try hard to keep my opinions civil from now on.

[Roy Karrde]

Well to get back on topic, there was a bit of drama at the Dem Convention today, and by a bit I mean ALOT.

Democrats have changed their convention platform to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

The move came after criticism from Republicans.

Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected.

He called for a vote three times before ruling.

The party reinstated language from the 2008 platform that said "we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."

The platform also now includes what advisers said was Obama's personal views on Jerusalem.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...onvention.html

The video can be found there too, it gets pretty ugly, and is sure to be a clip to be played over and over again. It is kind of sad that they had to do it THREE Times, when the motion clearly failed.

[Dark Sage]

They tried to pass a motion that failed only three times?

If you think that's stubborn, compare that the the GOP-controlled House, who has tried to repeal Obamacare... How many times now? Thirty-three times?

[Roy Karrde]

They tried to pass a motion that failed only three times?

Yeah... but this involves well, God and Israel, two things that poll pretty damn well with the American public.

If you think that's stubborn, compare that the the GOP-controlled House, who has tried to repeal Obamacare... How many times now? Thirty-three times?

But that was all due to Democrats not wanting to repeal it, this on the other hand was ugly inter-party scrabbling.

[Dark Sage]

I'd like to say something if I may.

I have never run a marathon. I am not in good enough shape to do so.

It's not something I'm proud of... But...

Unlike Paul Ryan... I'm telling the truth.

[Roy Karrde]

I'd like to say something if I may.

I have never run a marathon. I am not in good enough shape to do so.

It's not something I'm proud of... But...

Unlike Paul Ryan... I'm telling the truth.

Can some one, and I mean anyone, tell me why this matters? Are the length of time a person runs a marathon now something of a major issue to Americans? Do we need to suddenly test the fitness of our elected officials incase of a Zombie Outbreak or something?

[Dark Sage]

Can some one, and I mean anyone, tell me why this matters? Are the length of time a person runs a marathon now something of a major issue to Americans? Do we need to suddenly test the fitness of our elected officials incase of a Zombie Outbreak or something?

Because, people don't want to elect a liar.

[Roy Karrde]

Because, people don't want to elect a liar.

I'm sorry but I just can't accept that people give a damn about how long it takes a politician to run a marathon. We do have BIGGER issues to deal with.

[Dark Sage]

Can I have a show of hands? Who here thinks that Paul Ryan lying about his marathon is no big deal?

I think it is a big deal. I don't want someone like that as a VP.

[Roy Karrde]

Well while we are waiting for the informal sample, the Democrats are in disaster control mode right now. CNN, what has been a Democratic friendly affiliate during this event said Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was living in a "Alternate Universe" for her spin of the event, and interviews have been canceled.

Democratic National Committee chiefs Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Patrick Gaspard cancelled interviews with local media outlets tonight, amid controversy surrounding the party’s decision to reintroduce “God” and “Jerusalem” to the platform…

Blair Miller of WSOC TV, ABC’s Charlotte, N.C., affiliate, also tweeted that Wasserman Schultz cancelled her interview with him, without explanation. “After my Romney intv today, we were planning to interview @DWSTweets live,” he wrote. “However, she did not show up. Her staff not answering calls.”

I have a feeling this is the LAST thing the Democrats wanna be dealing with, especially on a night that they are already fighting with attention with the NFL.

[Dark Sage]

This God-thing was a bad move, I thought at first, as it again shows the Democrat's ability to mess good things up in the very last minute. Yet, there could be something good coming out of this in the end... maybe. Republicans will relentlessly exploit this now, and will enter into something they've stayed clear on so far: religion!

With a candidate who follows a religion many Americans perceive as a cult, Republicans were well-advised not to wade into the religious mine-field. They could have slid by all they way up into November, because the Obama Campaign is too civilized to call Romney out on religion, despite the fact that Obama himself was slandered in 2008 as a Muslim and even a vile anti-christ.

Now, the Obama campaign may just get a sweet pass. Republicans likely can't resist the temptation to make political hay out of this. They will finally give a welcome opportunity to point out to the American people, that their own presidential candidate follows a religion, which claims their founder, Joe Smith, was greater than Jesus. He follows a religion that believes in a multiplicity of gods, so why talk about inserting God in? From Romney's perspective it is: which God?

Let the religion-debate begin! Let the evangelicals know what they are really voting for in Fall!

[Roy Karrde]

With a candidate who follows a religion many Americans perceive as a cult, Republicans were well-advised not to wade into the religious mine-field. They could have slid by all they way up into November, because the Obama Campaign is too civilized to call Romney out on religion, despite the fact that Obama himself was slandered in 2008 as a Muslim and even a vile anti-christ.

Don't be so sure, if the Obama Campaign has shown itself to be anything, it is desperate, it would not be beneath him or his surrogates to attack Romney's mormonism. And by the way you may have missed it, but Romney's mormonism was front and center at the convention.

Now, the Obama campaign may just get a sweet pass. Republicans likely can't resist the temptation to make political hay out of this. They will finally give a welcome opportunity to point out to the American people, that their own presidential candidate follows a religion, which claims their founder, Joe Smith, was greater than Jesus. He follows a religion that believes in a multiplicity of gods, so why talk about inserting God in? From Romney's perspective it is: which God?

Let the religion-debate begin! Let the evangelicals know what they are really voting for in Fall!

Do you really think the Democrats want that fight? Especially when half of their convention just booed God? Their people just looked confused, angry, and split on religion in the middle of a convention! This isn't a attack on some one's personal religion, but a party that is at war with itself!

And really any political scientist would tell Obama and the Democrats not to attack Romney's religion. Such a attempt would easily make Romney look even more likeable, and Obama even more despicable.

[Dark Sage]

This isn't a attack on some one's personal religion, but a party that is at war with itself!

I think a lot of GOP bigwigs don't like Romney much either. They're only voting for him because they want to vote against Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

I think a lot of GOP bigwigs don't like Romney much either. They're only voting for him because they want to vote against Obama.

Yeah but you know what? You did not see a party split down the middle, where it took 3 votes, to pass a simple addition of God and Jerusalem.

Edit: Bob Woodward's book has leaked tonight, and if the news didn't get any worse for the Democrats...

"But at a critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal – a miscalculation, in retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he'd already gone."

""It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama," Woodward writes."

"With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration's early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: "We have the votes. F--- 'em," he's quoted in the book as saying."

"Obama phoned in to deliver a "high-minded message," he writes. Obama went on so long that Pelosi "reached over and pressed the mute button on her phone," so they could continue to work without the president hearing that they weren't paying attention."

""The administration didn't seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn't seem to be any core principles," Woodward writes in describing Van Hollen's thinking."

"Summers said that Obama's "excessive pragmatism" was a problem. "I don't think anybody has a sense of his deep feelings about things." Summers said. "I don't think anybody has a sense of his deep feelings about people. I don't think people have a sense of his deep feelings around the public philosophy.""

" The president delivered a blistering address, taking apart the Ryan budget plan as "changing the basic social compact in America." Ryan left the speech "genuinely ripped," Woodward writes, feeling that Obama was engaged in "game-on demagoguery" rather than trying to work with the new Republican majority.

"I can't believe you poisoned the well like that," Ryan told Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling on his way out of the speech.

The president told Woodward that he wasn't aware that Ryan was in the audience, and he called inviting him there "a mistake."

If he had known, Obama told Woodard, "I might have modified some of it so that we would leave more negotiations open, because I do think that they felt like we were trying to embarrass him… We made a mistake." "

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-w...5#.UEgE-Zbgw_c

I have to say the entire damn thing is a scathing critique of Obama.

[Blademaster]

Can I have a show of hands? Who here thinks that Paul Ryan lying about his marathon is no big deal?

Am I raising my hand if I DON'T think it's a big deal?

If so,

[mattbcl]

^ I'm in that picture somewhere.

To be honest, I couldn't care less that he flubbed on his marathon time, obviously it wasn't an important enough issue to him to remember it accurately. And I haven't even run any marathons at all, so he's got one up on me already, no matter what his time was. I worry about the real issues and how he would impact them as Vice President, same as with any other candidate.

[Asilynne]

^ Ditto

As for the "we don't want someone in there that lies" comment, Hi welcome to politics, every politician is going to lie about something. If that's the worst lie they can catch him in, I think that's pretty damn good considering lol

[Dark Sage]

In other news...

I have yet to find a pundit who has given a negative review of Bill Clinton's speech. The only complaint anyone had with it is that it was long.

Now, I confess that I didn't watch it live myself. I was on my way to work at the time to work third shift. But from what I'm seeing in bits and pieces, he didn't need to resort to mudslinging and distorting the truth in order to get people's attention, something he did very well. He barely even mentioned Romney.

And btw, the DNC was standing-room-only last night. So many people were trying to get in, many were turned away, it was so crowded. I think we can now say that the assumption that they were lacking in attendance was wishful thinking by the GOP.

[Roy Karrde]

And btw, the DNC was standing-room-only last night. So many people were trying to get in, many were turned away, it was so crowded. I think we can now say that the assumption that they were lacking in attendance was wishful thinking by the GOP.

The GOP was talking about the lack of attendance for Obama's speech at the stadium. Turning people away from a convention that can only fill 22,000 seats, is a far cry from being able to fill 75,000 seats.

BTW last night's ratings are in, NBC pulled in the best with 20+ Million, drawfing ABC and CBS's 3 million viewers... then again NBC was not showing the DNC and showing Football.