The gloves come off. White hoods, too.

[Elfdart]

It's bad enough that John "I hate the gooks" McCain and his pet crone smiled and nodded while their fucktarded fans called Obama a "terrorist" and shouted "kill him!". They have also ginned up hatred against the press, including this lovely piece of race-baiting:

Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

That's the GOP for you: bringing out the best in people.

[Big Phil]

This will work (in McCain's favor) about as well as turning the hoses on Martin Luther King's freedom marchers did; only the rabid, racist right will approve, and everyone else will see it and turn away. I for one hope this continues to expose the racism and idiocy that has come to dominate the Republican party.

[Ender]

That McCain is getting whupped in this election has been clear for a while. My big hope now is that the out and out crap they are pulling will tank Palin's career as well. I can seriously see her being advanced in 2012 right now and doing better then McCain did.

[Shroom Man 777]

It would be deliciously ironic if Palin ran for Pres in 2012 against Hillary Clinton. A total reversal of the current situation, with an additional twist!

[KlavoHunter]

It would be deliciously ironic if Palin ran for Pres in 2012 against Hillary Clinton. A total reversal of the current situation, with an additional twist!

Why not 2016? Is Obama not going to run for another term?

[Elfdart]

This kind of chickenshit simply will not stop until Obama and Biden bust John "I hate the gooks" McCain's chops with this crap and rub his nose in it:

LINK

In the latest instance of inflammatory outbursts at McCain-Palin rallies, a crowd member screamed "treason!" during an event on Tuesday after Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of criticizing U.S. troops.

"[Obama] said, too, that our troops in Afghanistan are 'air raiding villages and killing civilians,'" Palin said, mischaracterizing a 2007 remark by Obama. "I hope Americans know that is not what our brave men and women in uniform are doing in Afghanistan. The U.S. military is fighting terrorism and protecting us and protecting our freedom."

Shortly afterward, a male member of the crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, yelled "treason!" loudly enough to be picked up by television microphones.

Here's the video:

At a McCain rally on Monday, television stations caught audio of a crowd member calling Obama a "terrorist," while Dana Milbank reported that "[o]ne Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'" Also on Monday, at a Palin rally, one member of the audience yelled, "Kill him!"

During Tuesday's event, Palin continued her frontal assault on Obama's character by noting Bill Ayers after repeating a debunked lie about the Illinois Democrat's tax record that even McCain himself has stopped using.

Referencing an explanation put forward by David Axelrod on Monday -- that Obama was not aware of Ayers's past when they first met in Chicago -- Palin mocked Obama's foreign policy knowledge, saying: "And since he got called up on his plans to meet unconditionally with terror state leaders like [Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will now claim that he was unaware of his radical background?"

Palin's political shot was effective with the Republican faithful, drawing a deep, collective "ooooh." As substance, it was less than edifying. Obama has repeatedly made clear that, of course, he finds Ahmadinejad's views to be "hateful and anti-Semitic," most recently on the occasion of the Iranian President's visit to the UN.

Later, in the tax policy section of her speech, Palin managed to repeat a thoroughly debunked claim about Obama's voting record that even McCain himself has stopped using.

"He voted 94 times for higher taxes. Even on middle class -- hard working everyday families across this great nation -- making $42,000 a year," she said.

As FactCheck.org noted in August, McCain's campaign originally claimed Obama voted to raise taxes on families making $32,000 a year, but have since changed their tax ads to say that Obama's vote would impact individuals making $42,000 per year -- not families as Palin repeated today. Still, FactCheck called the new McCain ad script "better, but still deceptive" -- a standard that Palin failed to meet this morning.

Funny this dumb twat would attack Obama for something her running mate said about the bombing of civilians in Kosovo:

LINK

In their recent deep dive into negative, John McCain and Sarah Palin have hammered Barack Obama for supposedly saying our troops in Afghanistan are just "air raiding villages and killing civilians." One of McCain's recent ads calls the remark "dishonorable." Obama was actually calling for more troops in Afghanistan when he made the comment in August 2007 -- this smear was raised and debunked over a year ago.

Now, the Washington Times reports that John McCain himself once said something remarkably similar:

John McCain in 2000 said because of tactical decisions U.S. troops were put in the position of killing civilians in Kosovo -- something awfully similar to the comments he's now attacking Barack Obama for.


During a Republican primary debate in 2000 McCain called the Clinton strategy in Kosovo "obscene" because it forced troops into using tactics that meant civilians were going to get killed.

"In the most obscene chapter in recent American history is the conduct of the Kosovo conflict when the president of the United States refused to prepare for ground operations, refused to have air power used effectively because he wanted them flying -- he had them flying at 15,000 feet where they killed innocent civilians because they were dropping bombs from such -- in high altitude."

Sarah Palin said Obama should be "disqualified" for his remark about Afghanistan. Naturally, she will hold her running mate to the same standard.

Let's see: Obama is a pedophile, terrorist, and traitor -all things deserving of death according to the Weimar wing of the Republitards. Since they already have one creep calling for Obama to be murdered at Palin's rally yesterday, this is clearly deliberate: they are fomenting the assassination of Barack Obama. I wonder if the Liberal Media will ask McCain about it tonight. Given Tom Brokaw's mancrush on John "I hate the gooks" McCain, I won't hold my breath.

[General Zod]

Funny this dumb twat would attack Obama for something her running mate said about the bombing of civilians in Kosovo:

Hell, this is hardly surprising. Remember McSame slamming Obama for daring to describe Palin's tactics as a "pig with lipstick"? McDouche used the exact same words against Hillary in a far more blatantly sexist context back during the primaries.

[Adrian Laguna]

The McCain Campaign's desperate attempts to smear Obama's character are probably going to make the post-election environment rather poisonous. Try to get into the minds of these people, what they have been lead to believe about Barack Obama, that he is traitorous scum hell bent on destroying America, and now imagine how they'll feel on November 5th after an Obama victory, and then at the end of January after he's inaugurated. McCain and his cronies are essentially ensuring, and I doubt this is accidental, that a not insignificant section of the population will become entrenchedly, bitterly, and fanatically partisan in the event of a Democratic victory.

[Big Phil]

The McCain Campaign's desperate attempts to smear Obama's character are probably going to make the post-election environment rather poisonous. Try to get into the minds of these people, what they have been lead to believe about Barack Obama, that he is traitorous scum hell bent on destroying America, and now imagine how they'll feel on November 5th after an Obama victory, and then at the end of January after he's inaugurated. McCain and his cronies are essentially ensuring, and I doubt this is accidental, that a not insignificant section of the population will become entrenchedly, bitterly, and fanatically partisan in the event of a Democratic victory.

Maybe, but have you noticed that Republican politicians not directly involved in the McCain campaign have been surprisingly silent? Back in 2000 and 2004 they were all over Gore and Kerry, ripping them to shreds and agreeing with the Swift Boat assholes. This year... silence.

[Guardsman Bass]

The McCain Campaign's desperate attempts to smear Obama's character are probably going to make the post-election environment rather poisonous. Try to get into the minds of these people, what they have been lead to believe about Barack Obama, that he is traitorous scum hell bent on destroying America, and now imagine how they'll feel on November 5th after an Obama victory, and then at the end of January after he's inaugurated. McCain and his cronies are essentially ensuring, and I doubt this is accidental, that a not insignificant section of the population will become entrenchedly, bitterly, and fanatically partisan in the event of a Democratic victory.

Maybe, but have you noticed that Republican politicians not directly involved in the McCain campaign have been surprisingly silent? Back in 2000 and 2004 they were all over Gore and Kerry, ripping them to shreds and agreeing with the Swift Boat assholes. This year... silence.

Part of that, no doubt, is the fact that there hasn't been any good cheer for them for pretty much the entire election season; they've been expecting the Democrats to gain an even larger margin in both the House and Senate over them.

The other reason is that, when you think about it, an extremely nasty McCain campaign playing into either an Obama defeat (increasingly less likely) or an Obama victory both constitute an unpleasant future for them. If McCain's campaign really does succeed in riling up both the Republican base and the Democrats aligned against them, then they can look forward to the Democrats playing the same type of game they played 10 years ago, with lots of votes on party lines and little hope of victory for the GOP. If McCain wins using these highly unpleasant tactics, then it is almost guaranteed that he'll be facing an extremely hostile Democratic-controlled Congress that will probably do everything in its power to set the agenda and derail McCain's. Neither is a good outcome for Congressional Republicans and Republicans in general.

[Solauren]

The ones that are not involved are silent, IMHO, because they hope this blows up in the McCain + his kind's face, so they can get them out of the party and clean it up.

[Duckie]

It's been well known that recently Republican senators and to a lesser degree house members are attempting to distance themselves from McCain's campaign because of how wildly unpopular he's become in the last month. A Democratic supermajority in the Senate was actually considered to be a possibility in the event of a major McCain screwup, and the Republican senators want to hemmhorage only "5, perhaps 6" seats instead of 10 this year.

[Graeme Dice]

What I find truly bizarre about the government in the U.S. is that, unlike a parliamentary system, the political parties never seem to be punished for the actions of their leaders. After 8 years of Bush rule, I'd expect that the republicans would be reduced to four or five seats in _total_ after an election, not to only lose four or five seats.

[Uraniun235]

Incumbent politicians have a very significant advantage - it can take a lot to dislodge someone who is already in office, ever moreso when that person has been in office for a long time. A lot of people in Congress are truly career politicians who make their living from being in office; over a quarter of the Senate, and over a tenth of the House, has been in office for over twenty years. A challenger faces the obstacle of having to overcome the familiarity which a long-time incumbent has built up among his or her constituency, among other things.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Also, not everyone is up for election at the same time.

[Graeme Dice]

Incumbent politicians have a very significant advantage - it can take a lot to dislodge someone who is already in office, ever moreso when that person has been in office for a long time. A lot of people in Congress are truly career politicians who make their living from being in office; over a quarter of the Senate, and over a tenth of the House, has been in office for over twenty years. A challenger faces the obstacle of having to overcome the familiarity which a long-time incumbent has built up among his or her constituency, among other things.

There are plenty of career politicians and incumbents everywhere in the world. There are plenty in Canada. And yet, for some reason, Americans have continually refused to punish the republicans for the actions of Bush. You'd think that they'd have failed as miserably as Kim Campbell by this point (In one election the conservatives dropped from 169 seats to two). You've simply described more of what's strange about the American political system: that incumbents are ridiculously difficult to dislodge.

[Durandal]

And yet, for some reason, Americans have continually refused to punish the republicans for the actions of Bush.

2006 called. They've got some election results for you.

[Dominus Atheos]

And yet, for some reason, Americans have continually refused to punish the republicans for the actions of Bush.

2006 called. They've got some election results for you.

The vast majority of the seats stayed the same in 2006. 27 out of 33 senate seats up for reelection and 404 out of 435 house seats all stayed within the same party.

[Darth Yoshi]

I think it has more to do with how the US political system developed, combined with the American penchant for tribalism. For the most part, the US has had a two-party system since before the Adams presidency, with first the Federalist party and then everyone else coalescing into the anti-Federalists, regardless of everything else. After that, third parties were pretty much shut out without any real way to garner support. And in the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction, the more rural and backwards portions of the country oppose liberals and progressives pretty much on principle, so even when Congress fucks up the country, there really isn't anyone else to vote for.

[CmdrWilkens]

And yet, for some reason, Americans have continually refused to punish the republicans for the actions of Bush.

2006 called. They've got some election results for you.

The vast majority of the seats stayed the same in 2006. 27 out of 33 senate seats up for reelection and 404 out of 435 house seats all stayed within the same party.

Which doesn't address whether Republican's were punished.

Lets look at the before/after:

Prior to the election 55 senate seats were in the hands of Republicans of which 15 were up for re-election. Of those 15 there were 6 incumbent who were unseated. This means that 6/15 lost re-election or more than 1 in 3. This election there are 23 Republican seats up for re-election of which 5 are considered virtual locks for (D)s and 3-6 more which are starting to tilt to the Dems. If we take the short side of that equation this would be 8 total seats. In 2 elections then of 38 republicans up for re-elections 14 would have lost or just shy of 2/5.

Prior to the 2006 election there were 229 Republican seats and afterwards there were 202. That woudl be a net loss of 27 seats or more thn 1 in 10. Add in the special election victories since then and its 30 seats which they lost. Moreover not a single Republican unseated a sitting Democratic Representative. Those are not nearly as wave as some elections tend to be but that's better than what you were portraying. With 468 total congressional elections (plus gubenatorial elections) and having to play defense on some of them its amazing enough that one party can swing essentially a 60 vote switch (+30 them -30 other guy) in one election cycle in the House.

[Graeme Dice]

Which doesn't address whether Republican's were punished.

Actually it addresses it completely. They lost a few seats, but still had more than enough to have an effect on politics. Like I said, you would have expected them to lose every single one of their seats that was up for reelection after Bush's poor performance. They _maybe_ would have held onto one or two of them. The republicans might have been "punished", but in such a weak manner that it made no real difference. I mean, they lost a measly 1/10th of their seats in the house, and less than half their seats in the senate. A sixty seat swing is not amazing except in the context of American politics. It's quite normal in other countries.

[CarsonPalmer]

Not a chance anyone familiar with American politics would have expected the Republicans to lose every single one of their seats. Certain segments of the country will stay red for a long time to come. If you honestly expected the Republicans to lose, say, Texas and South Carolina, that's crazy.

Furthermore, the idea that it made no real difference is silly considering they lost their majorities. The Democrats got full control of Congress, which is a major difference.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Which doesn't address whether Republican's were punished.

Actually it addresses it completely. They lost a few seats, but still had more than enough to have an effect on politics. Like I said, you would have expected them to lose every single one of their seats that was up for reelection after Bush's poor performance. They _maybe_ would have held onto one or two of them. The republicans might have been "punished", but in such a weak manner that it made no real difference. I mean, they lost a measly 1/10th of their seats in the house, and less than half their seats in the senate. A sixty seat swing is not amazing except in the context of American politics. It's quite normal in other countries.

Because of your electoral system. Don't you understand that 60% of seats aren't up for grabs in a single election?

[Big Phil]

While the American political system might have its problems, I don't really understanding the wanking of parliamentary systems and their frequent changes of government. Since 1945 (past 63 years), for example, Italy has had 61 different governments. It's kind of hard to get anything done if you keep changing your government ever 12 months.

By contrast, in the US we've had 11 different Presidents, and control of Congress has changed less frequently than that. Criticize it for its faults, but don't act like the parliamentary system is worlds better. It has its flaws too.

[Keevan_Colton]

sixty seat

Because of your electoral system. Don't you understand that 60% of seats aren't up for grabs in a single election?