Election Central Sunday Roundup
McCain Meets With Billy And Franklin Graham
John McCain met today with Billy Graham and his son Franklin, himself an influential Christian, in an opportunity to reach out to Christian conservatives who have tended to mistrust him over the years. Fun fact: In 2003, Franklin Graham looked forward to the Iraq War as an opportunity to spread Christianity in the Middle East.
Obama And McCain Camps Fight Over Immigration
The weekend has turned into a mini-slugfest between the two presidential campaigns over immigration. Obama used his speech yesterday at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in Washington to attack McCain for backing away from his immigration reform proposals. This was then followed by the McCain camp blasting out e-mails blaming Obama for undermining the 2007 reform -- and the Obama camp then blasting out a 2006 letter from McCain, thanking Obama for his help on the issue.
Poll: McCain Ahead But Under 50% In Home State
A new Rasmussen poll of Arizona gives John McCain the lead in his home state -- but he is unable to get over 50%, a sign that he may end up having to take time to campaign here when he could be in other states. The numbers: McCain 49%, Obama 40%, with a ±4.5% margin of error.
Holbrooke To Raise Money For Obama in London
Former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke -- a top foreign-policy man in Bill Clinton's administration who supported HIllary during the primaries -- will be holding a fundraiser in London on July 8, for Americans abroad supporting Barack Obama. The ticket price: $2,500.
WaPo: Nation's Socio-Economic Political Geography Shifting
An article in today's Washington Post examines the shifts in political demographics. "In 1976, Republican Gerald R. Ford won 10 of the 12 states with the highest per-capita income but lost the election; in 2004, John F. Kerry did the same for the Democrats," the paper observes. The two high-income states won by the GOP in 2004 were Colorado and Virginia -- which are today at the top of Barack Obama's target list.
NYT: Internet Freelancers Changing Political Dialogue
The New York Times this morning profiles the effect that the Internet has had on political discourse: "This year, the development of cheap new editing programs and fast video distribution through sites like YouTube has broken down the barriers, empowering a new generation of largely unregulated political warriors who can affect the campaign dialogue faster and with more impact than the traditional opposition research shops."
Ol' Straight Talkin' Mavericky McSame can't get over 50% in his home state? Laugh out loud hilarious!
But I thought he was going to be competitive in New Jersey?
Don't some of the Republicans in Arizona hate McCain?
You never hear about that, do you? Just the stories about disgruntled Hillary supporters...
June 29, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The next president may well have to deal with $200 per barrel oil.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oil28-2008jun28,0,5485259.story
June 29, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm delighted to see this being openly discussed in the MSM. The public needs to be prepared for this reality, rather than being plied with the fantasy that some magical oil source is going to open up and make life easy again. Thanks for sharing it, Marioth.
June 29, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
mccain has flipped plenty of times on immigration not only that but when obama worked with mccain on the immigration bill, mccain praised his good work
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/hillary-supporters-vandalized-cars-in-fl/
June 29, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, McCain under 50% in Arizona? Man, this is bad . . . for McCain that is. And that makes me very, very happy!
June 29, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's still too much work for Obama to contest, and receive any meaningful benefit in the Grand Canyon State -- compared to, say, North Carolina or Alaska. No governorship nor Senate seat is at stake this fall in Arizona. Obviously, the biggest thing in Arizona are those House seats at stake.
June 29, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Unregulated political warriors" running rampant on the net, spreading their wild, unvetted views? Heavens! What are we to do?
MSM has reason to worry. They're no longer controlling the message as the once did.
June 29, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank goodness for that. There's a piece over at DKos talking about the stupid freaking media discussion of polls, and how the theme is "Obama's leading, but McCain's gaining in key groups" that is pretty much completed contradicted by, you know, reality.
And people are just turning that shit off, and going to the Net.
June 29, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also sometimes known as "citizens".
This is what democracy looks like, though I suppose it's understandable that the NYT doesn't recognize it.
June 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree...all day today on the talk shows I heard McCain supporters yakking on about how *Obama has never bucked his party the way McCain has*. Not once did any of the moderators ask the obvious question of perhaps Obama's party isn't quite as whacked out as McCains and not quite as wrong on so many issues as McCain's...
What a lame campaign McCain and the Reps are running and what lame coverage of the FACTS by the media...
Obama's no saint...he's a pol who wants to win...even with that, he's so head and shoulders above the alternatives it's amazing.
We can only hope this new band of *media warriors* will drive the facts rather than the hyperbole the MSM is ever so fond of.
June 30, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see a recent poll of where people are getting their news. I know that they're out there, but I'd love to get a sense of how many are getting their news from the net and a breakdown of that by demographics.
June 30, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question, Eric:
If as Josh reports that Sen. McCain is outspending Sen. Obama 2-1 in advertising in many key states, does this mean that perhaps McCain is having a good fund-raising month and/or Obama is not raising as much money as he anticipated?
It seems to me that when Obama chose to refuse general election public funds, he must have been raising ample funds for the general election. Otherwise, why did Obama refuse public funds?
June 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. I can't believe that Ob would let someone outspend him is a swing state like MO. He even had a small lead there at one time. I don't get it.
June 29, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness, Obama never polled above 43% in the Show Me State. That said, you still wonder what the campaign is thinking. Then again, the campaign knew what it was doing in the primaries, you would have to think the campaign knows something we don't. On the other hand, we all thought the Clintons were master political strategists, unbeatable, etc. Who knows?
Here's another thing to consider: John McCain unveiled his first general election ad on June 6 (and his second ad on June 17). Barack Obama unveiled his first television ad on June 19. The SUSA MO poll was conducted June 20-22. How much time is there for voters to really see the Obama bio ad before making a decision?
Also, how much is each candidate spending on voter registration, turnout, etc.?
June 29, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need Missouri Voter to comment...
June 29, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for hard-core political junkies, no one--repeat after me, no one--is paying much attention right now. Keep this in mind.
Missouri--and, yep, I'm smack in the middle of it all here in St. Louis--will be hard fought. Right now it is important that every Obama potential supporter be legitimately registered to vote. It will take almost complete turnout in the urban and suburban areas to win in Missouri.
And do keep in mind that no one pays much attention to politics in the summer; folks are too busy playing outside--or perhaps cleaning up after flooding. :)
June 29, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except as Josh points out, opinions are most malleable in June and July rather than in August and after Labor day.
June 29, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that. There has been alot of attention paid to the primaries and I don't think that the people that haven't been following what was going on would really care to see any political ads right now. I liked obama's bio ad, that was fine, but I wouldn't saturate right now in the middle of the summer. It actually might turn people off and also would probably be a waste of money. He'd be better off doing some huge rallies and getting the free press from that.
Also, I have seen a ton of mcbush ads in pa. They run constantly and are really annoying. I haven't seen one obama ad and look at where the polls are in pa right now. I think he is playing it smart and being selective.
June 29, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I'm certain that Obama's team has a plan for how they are spending these funds and they don't plan ad blitzes at this point in any States - too early in the game.
June 29, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I could sure use a break from all of McSame's stupid commercials.
June 29, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am concerned that people were more motivated to contribute to Obama when they were hoping to bring the protracted primary cycle to an end. Also, that would-be donors will become complacent when the media keeps mentioning the hypothetical and highly unlikely possibility that Obama could raise 300 million in a couple months.
June 29, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think another factor is that, for myself personally, it is a struggle to keep giving, and that struggle has not mattered as much to me right now due to his FISA stance. I also don't agree with his PAC stance. As I have mentioned, he could give approval to the ads and work something out like that, but to cut them off, especially Move On, who has great ads, is just stupid.
I believe the contributions have plummeted.
June 29, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since June 23, over 134,000 more contributions (if you believe the campaign tracker). I don't know how this compares to earlier, though, so it's possible that the number of people contributing has dropped.
June 29, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, his recent shift to the center is likely to curb some donors' enthusiasm. It would have been entirely predictable that he would play to the left in the primaries and play to the center in the general, IF he was just a TYPICAL politician.
Of course, when the alternative is McCain, Obama will get my vote in November regardless of what he does between now and then. Still, it would be nice to believe he has some genuine affection for progressives (dance with the one that brung ya) and that we aren't just a reference point for more Clintonian triangulation.
June 29, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really, you need reassurance he's not a triangulator à la Clinton? Just look at his record. When my man Barry appeases the right, he does it through force of personality and, mostly, treating them with respect, instead of condescending to them the way liberals habitually do. You Daily Kos and MoveOn types could take some pointers from him.
June 29, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama is practical. He simply did not want to wage a quixiotic fight on FISA when there was nowhere near 41 Senators to vote against cloture on the bill.
Personally, I'm more upset with Obama over his position on the Supreme Court's child rape case and the second amendment case. I thought he would have stood by the Coker framework -- that death must result for a crime to be a capital one -- where the married woman who was raped in that landmark 1978 case was only 16 years old at the time. I'm also upset that Obama didn't see the Court striking down the DC mandatory child-safety lock handgun law as constitutional.
But again, Barack Obama is a practical politician who sees the big picture: you can't run as the party 10, 20, 30 years from now as the party that stood against telecom immunity and domestic spying; that's not an uplifting view of the party. Barack Obama wants his legacy to be the party that ended the Iraq War, provided health care to everyone, and made America more energy independent. That's something the Democratic party can run on 10, 20, 30 years from now.
June 29, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am just as upset over these same issues. I just didn't want to list them all !? Anyway, I am happy I have this decent of a candidate to vote for, just gun shy (no pun intended) about how he will run his administration. The Supreme Court is everything to me, so any democrat, short of Joe Liberman, would get my support. These 5-4 decisions are just twilight zone.
June 29, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ot, but sorta on point, since it's an online new source, and I just have to share. From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/:
note: I think Novak would recognize a zombie if he saw one - since he's undead himself.
June 29, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Undead yes, however Novak is clearly no zombie himself, given his overwhelming aversion to brains.
June 29, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the WAPO piece about the the upscale suburbanities defecting to the Dems was on target. That was the trend in MN in 2004 and one reason I never bought the sad refrain that we all had to take up NASCAR to win elections.
This is very bad for Republicans. Once those apolitical MBA types find out that the Republicans are now the brand of down at the heels under achieving backwaters, they'll change their "R" to a "D" as fast as they changed their cottage to mid-century modern.
I have mixed feelings about this. It doesn't tell me that our party is more liberal. But I hope it at tells me that selling health care and education might be a better idea than selling war.
June 29, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Once those apolitical MBA types find out that the Republicans are now the brand of down at the heels under achieving backwaters, they'll change their "R" to a "D" as fast as they changed their cottage to mid-century modern."
Nicely said, Bluebell. (Tangent: Are you an architect or designer?)
June 29, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two primary reasons why the big media corporations and the telecom industry want to control the internet.
This is one, "This year, the development of cheap new editing programs and fast video distribution through sites like YouTube has broken down the barriers, empowering a new generation of largely unregulated political warriors who can affect the campaign dialogue faster and with more impact than the traditional opposition research shops."
Our corporate controlled government can't control the thoughts of the American people with their traditional propaganda if these free blogs continue to beat them to the punch with the truth.
The second reason is money, and not justfrom teh downloading of movies and music either.
Rather the money to be made by charging people for the individual emails they send and receive.
Think about it.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
June 29, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why I was SO upset about FISA, because Democrats caved, and I see freedom vs. control of the internet as the next big hit.
June 29, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, I can almost hear the conversation to the telecoms.
Bush: You give us access to spying on Americans without a warrant, and we will promise you we'll pass legislation for control/fees for the internet.
ATT, Verizon, etc.: What warrant, who asked for any warrant ? We're your guys!
June 29, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crikey, fees for emails?
(And another tangent: if DAR is your first name, rather than initials, and you lived in southern California in 1969/70, and your wife was a teacher...then we used to sail together on weekends, and I hope you are well.)
June 29, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Billy Graham is dead.
How exactly did McCain manage to meet with him?
June 29, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's feeble, not dead. You wouldn't be thinking of Falwell?
June 29, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he's not. Bad Karma big time. He's very old, but he's still kicking.
June 29, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think his wife is deceased.
June 29, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html
See John McCain lost in dementia........
June 29, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As if we needed more reasons not to vote for McCain. I have thought for months that he displays symptoms of early onset dementia. In four years he could be a drooling, diaper-wearing, imbecile (granted it isn't a huge difference). Fortunately, he'll have Lieberman around to powder and pamper his hiney.
June 29, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know the scientific data is that only 14% of his age group do NOT display some signs of dementia. That is a pretty damning stat.
June 29, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! I'm the same age as McCain and I am perfectly sound mentally. I'm a great..uh..you know.. a great ... dammit, what is this country again???
June 29, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, hoppy. I heard a fellow at his 80th birthday celebration stand teetering and give a little speech. He admitted he might have a touch of senility, then blankly looked at his wife to ask, "Ah...ah.....ah... did I say that right, dear?"
June 29, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really hate to say anything about this, because for some reason it just doesn't seem right, but my father is around mcbush's age. He was very athletic and worked out all the time throughout his life, until recently. He has a master's degree and was an educator before he retired. There is no freaking way that my father could handle being president of the united states. No way. He just couldn't handle the pressure and it wouldn't be right. Add in 5 years in one of the worst pow camps in history in his youth and how on earth could mcbush handle it. I just don't see it. It is really kind of scary when you think about it.
June 29, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael: Same with my Mom. She is brilliant, but she said no way could she handle it.
June 29, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy: LOL
June 29, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice, did you read this comment courtesy of Media Matters -
From the June 25 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's The Hugh Hewitt Show:
HEWITT: By the way, I -- I'm still trying to find two tickets to the Ohio State-USC game. And none of the USC people will give up their tickets to me. I'd pay fair price. They -- they know Ohio State's gonna slaughter the Trojans. They know that they're gonna slaughter the Trojans, and therefore they do not want me there at the bloodbath, since it's probably the last football game we'll ever get to see before the United States gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama. I -- I would like to see Ohio State slaughter USC. This is what I'm living for right now.
June 29, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I heard that this morning on this week. Huffington threw it in his face and he was spinning all over the place. What a horrible statement. And the republicans constantly say that dems don't support the troops, are unpatriotic, etc., etc. WTF do you call something as assinine as that statement? Unbelievable.
June 29, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, this is a good read on obama's foreign policy knowledge, judgement and savy. Over a year ago obama had the zimbabwe situation nailed and got a bipartisan resolution passed in the Senate. Of course, the king ignored it, but it shows obama's knowledge and action. God we need this guy as president.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080629/cm_thenation/1333223
June 29, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let McCain spend his money now. He isn't going to keep up in the last 2 months of the campaign. Do you think that massive spending 4 months before the election is really that productive?
June 29, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
REAGAN WAS THE SAME AGE AS MCCAIN WHEN REAGAN WAS ELECTED. **True or False?**
A: You'll find the above on various sites. Truth is, Reagan was 69 when elected and when he took office; he 70th birthday was on February 6, 1981.
McCain will be 72 on August 29 2008. So he'd been two and half years old than Reagan was.
June 29, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we all know that the b-movie actor was brain dead throughout his presidency.
June 30, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael: Really! I hear this Reagan thing quite a bit, and the man had Alzheimers. If people think it just popped up once he left office they are dumber than a rock. He had to have symptoms during his whole Presidency, they were just not real obvious and also well covered. No wonder Nancy hovered. So the comparison is actually detrimental to McCain. Reagan just had a much nicer demeanor so he managed to pull it off with a lot of help and B movie acting skills.
June 30, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not arguing with you, Amelie, but just to amplify a bit: this stuff really seemed to take off by the time he was campaigning for his second term. I am not saying anything bad about the guy, just the facts. Psychologists have analyzed his spontaneous speech in debates to first get elected and then to get re-elected, and by the time of the re-election campaign there were all sorts of questionable things showing up in his dialogue that were not happening early, and it was very noticeable indeed to the experts.
June 30, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a friend who lives in Phoenix, and we are both from Minnesota. He just got back from a visit there, about 45 miles west of Minneapolis, with family, and said that whole area thinks Obama is the anti-Christ. That really depressed me. They have bought the whole McCain thing hook, line and sinker. (Lots of fishing in MN.) I don't know if it is really Obama, or just an excuse used because they cannot handle voting for a bi-racial man for President. The town we grew up in did not have any blacks. They are also not the most educated bunch either. But whatever the reason, I am sad to hear it.
June 30, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well if that didn't depress you enough, take this guy from Ohio with four flags on his lawn, supposedly a real open-minded swing voter:
"[Flag guy] has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor's house, at his son's auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate's background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901871.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008063000002&pos=
This actually reminds me of the whispering campaign they inflicted upon McCain in S. Carolina primary in 2000: Sure he'd been captured in Vietnam, but he may have been brainwashed or lost his mind or betrayed his country there, and he might still be unhinged and anyway he might have not even been captured but just volunteered to become a spy for N. Vietnam. Plus he had a black baby (not making this up).
June 30, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Washington Post today (Monday) explains the Republican message on Obama: He has no principles, and will support anything to get elected and abandon any position or discard any friend or employee to benefit himself. They believe they might win by making the election a referendum on Obama's character.
This is flip-flopper reloaded. OHB changes positions to suit the moment, except he's not just flighty or confused, he's calculating, manipulative, disloyal, and supremely selfish.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901878.html?hpid=topnews
June 30, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we all just chill? There are over a 140 days until the GE. Chill out. Let the campaigns work themselves out. If we continue to react at evety provocation, we'll be out of gas by November.
Just Hang Loose.
June 30, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I would agree with you, except that in a lot of states like Minnesota, once these thoughts take root, these peole will not budge. I don't believe Obama is hitting McCain back nearly hard enough. Look at the Wes Clark thing today. McCain is offended because Wes Clark says McCain has never commanded, and McCain says how dare he, I was a POW! This is just B.S., and Obama has to stop it NOW. This was Kerry's downfall, waiting.
June 30, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be a pussy. Fight for it.
The way we elect our leaders in this country won't change until after this election and Obama's vision of proper political behavior is in power. How many times did mother tell you that you have to work from within to change a system? Barak is showing he understand this and will never just politely LET McCain back onto his feet. Barak has a talent of politely grinding his heel into his opponents face. Let him fight his fight for all of us.
Right now, the fighter with horseshoes in his gloves is the fighter who will win. Politely done or not.
This is like any other street fight. Fight with everything you got. If you get your enemy down, don't stop kicking them until their either dead or unconscious. It's the only way to be sure they don't pull out a gun, and never...never turn your back on them. EVER!!!
I think it's funny as hell hearing a Republican whine about having to take punches. THEY sound like a bunch "girly men" who can't carry their own water.
There is nothing wrong with having been a fighter pilot and wanting to be president. That's honorable. I would rather vote for one of the vast majority of fighter pilots who where in furballs, had kills and, didn't FUCK UP and get SHOT DOWN! FUBAR isn't really all that, all right.
On the other hand, that kind of formulation elected former fighter pilot and Viet Nam ace Cunningham who turned out to be nothing more than a self-center thief.
On third thought, fighter pilots, by necessity, are choosen because of their overly aggressive yahooish personality traits. That's what got them picked for that job to begin with.
Not another yahoo for president. Not this time.
June 30, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink