10 Ways the Internet Changed the 2008 Election
Published on September 10, 2008 - 165 Comments
Can a regular person alter human history with the click of a button?
Overnight, or even sooner, one statement, video, audio clip, picture or document can dramatically shift the national dialogue. In the past, main stream media led the way. A picture of Dukakis looking puny in a tank marked his campaign’s derailment in 1988. One mistaken pool report of George H.W. Bush at the supermarket reportedly looking surprised while viewing a scanner swiping groceries spelled doom for his second term, falsely becoming fodder for those calling him ‘out of touch’. In every occasion, however, normal voters could not drive any narrative or use any advanced medium to significantly reach prominent national attention.
No one denies this coming Presidential election will change the trajectory of world events, impacting generations to come. Before the internet demolished once impenetrable media barriers, people wanting to influence history so quickly had to do so with the barrel of a gun.
But now, that power is in each person’s hands (literally). Here’s a list of 10 ways one person, a collection of people, or a campaign used the web’s full potential to change the 2008 election.
Adam Brickley registered a blog in February of 2007 with a simple vision; draft Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President. When asked what inspired him, he says, “She’s somebody who can really connect with the conservative base.” The 21 year old college student relentlessly supported her, posting frequently with his thoughts on the choice. When McCain finally picked Palin, she and her husband, Todd, put in a call to Brickley to thank him personally.
George Allen was a rising star in the GOP, slated for a promising presidential run when he campaigned in what was considered an easy reelection bid during the 2006 Virginia senatorial race. His competitor, Jim Webb, sent a ‘tracker’ of Indian descent to capture video of the opposing side’s rally. Allen pointed out the Democratic activist and proceeded to call him a slur, ‘Macaca’. The Youtube video posted by the Webb campaign ignited a media storm, even attracting national attention, and Allen lost the race by a few thousand votes, effectively ending any hope for a 2008 run for the White House.
Without the power of organizing without organizations, Obama might have become an interesting footnote to the Iowa primary season. He built an impressive ground campaign reliant on new social tools that allowed supporters to exponentially increase their outreach. One of the four founders of Facebook, Chris Hughes, left the radically expanding company to join the Obama team, developing an advanced social network for supporters to organize, share and donate, which ultimately led to a shocking first place finish in Iowa. New media not only allowed his candidacy’s realization, but continues to sustain his efforts through a massive fund raising machine online that has, so far, attracted over 2 million individual donors.
Dragging slightly in the polls, McCain’s campaign, under the new direction of Steve Schmidt, learned how to exploit the viral nature of Youtube. They uploaded three videos attacking Obama; one called ‘Celeb’, then ‘The One’, and finally ‘Troops’. The exploit was successful; everyone buzzed and the media picked them up. McCain did not have to put any precious money in to placing these ads on the air, but gained copious amounts of national free time by virtue of the video’s news-worthiness. All the networks played the ads repeatedly, holding discussions on the content and nature of the attacks; but to no avail for the Obama camp, as their lead started to dwindle.
Amendments to the 1978 FISA legislation included wording intended to protect large phone companies from lawsuit for past compliance with warrantless Bush administration surveillance activities. Nearly all members of congress, save a few, agreed to the necessity of continued surveillance of physical or electronic communications possibly connected to terrorism. However, the whole packaged bill containing the retroactive telecom immunity was not met so universally. Wanting to seem tough on defense, Senator Obama, who once pledged to filibuster telephone company protection, released statements supporting the legislation despite its shortcomings. He reiterated his opposition to parts of the bill but said he nonetheless would vote for it when on the floor.
This outraged the netroots, some of Obama’s most rabid supporters. They passionately voiced their distaste with Obama, initiating a movement they called, “You can tap my wallet or my phone, but not both”. Angered fans organized a group on Obama’s own social network against him. Never before in Presidential politics had advanced social tools made way for protestations against the source that supplied them. Obama finally wrote a blog explaining his reasoning behind compromising on the legislation, still to no avail among the netroot activists. He experienced a small lag of donations from the virtual stand off.
Senator Obama claimed primary victory in the Xcel Energy Center on June 3rd. After the speech, his wife joined him on stage and in a congratulatory fashion, gave him a little fist pound. The media attempted to define the gesture in several, awkward ways. On a conservative columnist’s online article, a disgruntled commenter, “Larry” in Alpine, TX, named it a ‘Hezbollah-style fist jab’. Writing humorously of the different ways the media tried to call the dap, Slate author Christopher Beam accidentally failed to delineate the comment from Cal Thomas’ piece. Human Events removed the defamatory comment, making it appear that Cal intentionally scrubbed the incendiary portion only after criticism since the original phrase no longer remained in the comment section.
Despite realizing what confusion ensued over the article and posting a correction, it was too late, as multiple news sources quoted the piece and also mistakenly referenced Thomas’ column. Just a short while later, E.D. Hill of FOXnews listed a few different ways the greeting had been called, saying, “A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab?”
Everyone criticized the show for lending credence to people’s fears of Senator Obama. E.D. Hill apologized but lost her job as host that week anyway. The misconception eventually landed on the front page of the controversial New Yorker cover.
Senator McCain called Rod Parsley a spiritual adviser. John Hagee emphatically endorsed him. Parsley says America was founded to defeat Islam. Hagee says the Catholic Church is the ‘Great Whore’ and an ‘Apostate Church’, and claims God purposely sent Adolf Hitler to get the Jewish people back to Israel. A big stink was made at liberal blogging sites, like the HuffingtonPost and OpenLeft, over statements made by both. The internet lit up with opinions on the subject matter, some upset that there existed a sort of double standard over one’s pastoral associations.
Reporters asked McCain about specific statements delivered by both pastors, forcing McCain to ultimately reject their endorsements. The trouble ignited by bloggers hurt McCain’s already flimsy relationship with the religious conservatives, partly reminding everyone of his statement during the 2000 election concerning Reverend Falwell being an ‘agent of intolerance’.
Even prior to Obama’s candidacy appearing more and more viable, untraceable e-mails sent between concerned friends unequivocally declared he secretly held to the Islamic faith. Different variations of the e-mails concerned his elementary school, swearing in on the Koran, Mohamed as his middle name, quoting his books improperly, what the Bible says of the anti-Christ, refusing to say the pledge, connections to political events in Kenya and more. Despite fighting the Smear-type campaigns on cable networks and fact-check sites, unsure Democratic voters neglected to support Obama in the primaries, leading to some very close races with Senator Clinton. The rumors continue to find support through low information voters refusing to not believe in their close friend or family’s e-mails.
In the middle of March, Youtube clips of Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, looped endlessly on personal computer monitors around the country. They contained offensive remarks about God’s judgment on America and the government’s involvement in allegedly spreading AIDs.
News stations around the country played them repeatedly, leading to discussions regarding Obama’s chances of winning the election dwindling and voters being permanently turned off. It all culminated in a speech on race called “A More Perfect Union”, now watched millions and millions of times on Youtube alone. Pundits continued to discuss the Wright controversy ad nauseum, but their attention was directed elsewhere just a short while later when newly released video caught Hillary Clinton in a lie about sniper fire.
Senator McCain’s unexpected choice for Vice President took everyone, perhaps even his own staff, by complete surprise. Barely anyone knew anything about her, causing bloggers to engage in a frenzy of research and rumors. Most notably, they passed around information suggesting Governor Palin’s youngest son, Trig, actually belongs to her eldest daughter, Bristol. Such a commotion came of the rumors that it gained traction on legitimate news sources such as Drudge and the Atlantic.
Just three days after her nod, the campaign released a statement verifying that Bristol Palin was five months pregnant. This stopped the endless rumors online, but gave way to a national frenzy over the scandalous behavior of the potential VP’s family. Botching the Governor’s important first impression to the nation, the McCain campaign feverishly developed a prime time speech for Wednesday night of the convention. The discussions on cable networks, newspapers and blogs generated over 40 million viewers for the Palin speech which the media widely praised. Conservatives already excited by the pick were even more energized by their conceived enemies in the media and on the ‘angry left’.
However, the speech proved to be a double-edged sword for Palin, adding up to a record $10 million worth of contributions by enraged Obama supporters online during the 24 hours between her and McCain’s acceptance speeches. Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesperson, commented, “I hope she gives a speech every day.”
Final Thoughts
In a majority of these cases, the web encouraged the dissemination of media not particularly flattering for the candidate in question. A lot of them involved the mainstream media picking up a story with sufficient online buzz. 24/7 Cable news will likely remain an American staple for a long time, yet 2008 showed us regular people won’t be powerless forever in what stories capture America’s living rooms. If 2004 was our collective infancy learning the web’s capabilities, 2008 marks the toddler years of using those modern tools. We’re only catching the beginning of this user-defined generation, leading to what some call the ‘Youtube-ification of Politics’.
Contributor: DanielS
Related ListsTop 20 Pithy Political PassagesTop 10 Ways to Fly Under the Radar Top 10 Famous Historic Misquotes Another 20 Historical Oddities You Don’t Know |
SubscriptionsLike this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed to keep 'em coming, or subscribe via email: |
If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.
Email This Post









1. carpe_noctem - September 11th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Great list!
It’s amazing how something so small can often change things hugely…
I think it’s ridiculous some of the comments about Obama being Muslim. It might just be Australian politics, but who cares if he is or isn’t?
2. knight_forked - September 11th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Haha #7 is good. For a moment I felt youtube was invented in stone age ;).
is Palin a pro choice? Looks like republican got it all wrong…hehe.
Nice compilation Daniel! Btw, I would put United States in the title somewhere…even Pakistan had elections in 2008, I am sure however that internet was involved in assassination of Benazir Bhutto somehow. May be someone transferred money over paypal to the assassin…just a thought.
3. sgvaibhav - September 11th, 2008 at 2:55 am
I am second — cool
internet really rocks
4. sharlu - September 11th, 2008 at 2:57 am
hmm quite interesting!
5. atulajith - September 11th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Nice…
6. Trigun472 - September 11th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Interesting what an impact the internet is making on this stuff. Wonder how much more it will be used next election.
7. knight_forked - September 11th, 2008 at 3:02 am
sgvaibhav: Sorry in your case internet failed ;), but no worries you still got the bronze
8. jfrater - September 11th, 2008 at 3:04 am
the NZ election is this year too - but I am finding the us election to be quite fascinating. This year is the first year that I have really paid attention to it. Largely thanks to the Internet
9. Johandus Maximus - September 11th, 2008 at 4:16 am
I’m with you jfrater - I’m from Australia and this is the first year I’ve ever really paid attention to US politics (except perhaps Bush vs Gore, but only because it was so close).
It’s interesting to see such a contrasting difference in the personalities of the candidates for this coming US election (at least they seem contrasting to me).
Also interesting is that it seems Palin is receiving much more media attention than the bloke who actually might be president.
10. Al Smithee - September 11th, 2008 at 5:29 am
You should not that the photo for the #6 item has been Photoshopped.
11. Mr. Mojo - September 11th, 2008 at 5:37 am
carpe_noctem, in response to post #1:
The reason this BS about Obama being an “seekrit mooslim” keeps being brought up is that “low information voters”, those with the IQ of a gnat, actually believe that all muslims are evil. They see the current state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan, they see the instability of that whole region, they watch FoxNews and The 700 Club, and they believe that it’s a religious war between muslims and christians.
12. Cheeshygirl - September 11th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Great list! I think the information age will lead to more informed voters hitting the booths this year. I get infuriated when people vote their party ticket without even knowing who they are voting for. As long as people take the time to trudge through the false accusations and mud-slinging to find out the truth, having all this info at our fingertips will prove invaluable. Well done, DanielS.
13. The Dread Pirate Bob - September 11th, 2008 at 6:34 am
You forgot all the “internet savvy” liberal douche bags and conspiracy nuts who were tricked into believing Ron Paul is a super mega liberal protector of the Constitution.
14. MT - September 11th, 2008 at 6:34 am
OBAMA IN ‘08!
15. fromthefuture - September 11th, 2008 at 6:40 am
knight_forked; Acctually Palin is pro-life. I guess doctors told her to abort her baby with downs syndrome and she refused.
16. Knothead - September 11th, 2008 at 6:43 am
“Barely anyone knew anything about her, causing bloggers to engage in a frenzy of research and rumors.”
That’s one way to put it…a coordinated campaign of lies and smears is another. Actually quite a lot of people knew about her…it’s just that people only get one side of the news from the MSM. Cry about Foxnews all day if you want, but it’s only one channel. MSNBC/CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN all report the same liberal slant that is put out by the dying NYT and Washington Post. Open your eyes.
The Daily KoS and DU represent mainstream Dem thought…face it. The loonies run the party.
And Obama is the only one playing the race or ‘muslim’ card. There isn’t anyone on the Right (except Birchers) that believes he’s a muslim or gives a flip that he “doesn’t look like the other presidents on the dollar bill”. The kooks on Right are kooks….the Dems make theirs chairmen. And speaking of Dem chairmen, I guess “God” wasn’t on their side….Gustav didn’t drown New Orleans. Keep dreaming, Dems.
Stop watching MSNBC and listening to Air America and you might learn something. Only people with an IQ of a gnat believe anything the DNC/MSNBC says. Everyone else will just ‘cling to their guns and their religion’ I suppose.
17. mandysparky - September 11th, 2008 at 6:57 am
You could had added more like how Obama made the “pig in lipstick” comment. I have read that heaps of women are now supporting the republicans after that comment. Just a thought
18. critique - September 11th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Hear, hear, Mr Mojo! Fear of the Muslim ‘other’ seems to be all the rage in the use of fear in politics these days.
On a side note, I was wondering, as an Australian, if the US readers of listverse realise that the world is watching your Presidential election with great interest? After all, the US is the last remaining superpower, so what happens there has repercussions around the world…
19. critique - September 11th, 2008 at 7:03 am
mandysparky: could you please post a link to what you have read re: women supporting the republicans after the pig/lipstick comment?
20. MT - September 11th, 2008 at 7:05 am
17.mandysparky
Please reference where you read that. I would like to read it myself.
OBAMA IN ‘08
21. segue - September 11th, 2008 at 7:10 am
This election, all the news information is pandering to the lowest possible denomination (as in, the least informed).
McCain, once a valiant hero, is now a doddering, mentally deficient fool. God, if only I were making this up! He literally forgets, from one public event to the next, what position he has taken, and what has been recorded on video only a week or two before, and he’ll deny ever having such a position, and claim to have the opposite position!
Now, if this happened once or twice, it would be easy to blame the rigors of the campaign trail. It’s not once or twice, though, it’s often. It’s often enough to make one consider that one may be observing the late/early signs of Alzheimer’s.
When the election was in it’s infancy, when everyone who wanted to run was still in the mix, he was actually my choice…until he started talking.
His choice of Palin was a real death knell. A woman who opposes womens rights? Not just that she wants to make abortion illegal, she doesn’t support equal pay for equal work!
Whoops.
Obama is an intelligent, eloquent man. He has shown remarkable character in the face of all the smears and lies, and his plans for the future of America, getting us out of a war we should never have been in, making us energy independent, creating jobs, etc., make sense.
That he can continue to keep his temper, and even laugh at himself, after all of the mud McCain and crew have slung, mark him as the better man for the job.
All that being said, what carries more weight with the average U.S. voter, is whatever is “reported” on Fox News (the U.S. tabloid television news service), Rush Limbaugh, an extreme right-winger, who simply loves the sound of his own voice (sorry rtr), 700 Club, and the pulpit of their fundamentalist church. Facts don’t matter with this crowd.
Too bad.
We used to have a nice little nation here, but that was long ago.
22. Steve - September 11th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I want to be Sarah Palins Intern!
God, Guns, And Country
McCain Palin 08
23. Nauplius - September 11th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I used to think that Obama was an intelligent man but now i see that he doesn’t even know how to use a telephone (#6). Just kidding, I never thought he was that intelligent.
24. warningdontreadthis - September 11th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Seriously if Mccain and Palin win, I will kill my self. One of the most powerful countries in the world controled by a creationist and an old guy who’ll probably die any time now, how is that even an option??
25. Steve - September 11th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Don’t wait till they are elected just do it now
26. robneiderman - September 11th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Sad thing is “low information voters” will decide the next US president. The only question is whether it’ll be idiots who think Obama is a muslim (despite the controversy over his Christian pastor) or the ones who think Palin hates women (despite the near certainty that she IS one).
The problem with the internet is that plenty of people still don’t realize that anyone can say anything online. There are so many rumors and lies spread about that you have to take everything with a grain of salt. People quote Wikipedia as if it were an authoritative source!
27. Tom - September 11th, 2008 at 7:26 am
@Mandysparky
watch this and then comment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
28. Bob - September 11th, 2008 at 7:30 am
No, the Electoral College will decide the next president, as always. Note to all my fellow Americans: Your vote really *doesn’t* count.
29. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Bob:
Don’t be silly. While it can be argued that the electoral college system needs some kind of tweaking, it does NOT mean that our “votes don’t count.” Historically, the electoral college has almost ALWAYS voted per the will of the voters in the *popular vote.* We vote for those delegates and they then obey the collective will that voted for them. That’s the system. It’s purpose was to be yet another safeguard put in place by our otherwise very wise founding fathers to prevent tyranny or scandal from sweeping a popular election.
Now, what DOESN’T work so well about the electoral college these days is that presidential elections have fallen more and more to the deciding vote of a single state or two… and it would be good to examine that and see if it doesn’t require a fix of some kind.
But our votes not counting? Please. A moment’s logical thought will show how off-kilter that statement is.
30. Nauplius - September 11th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Randall look at how Maine and Nebraska choose their electors. Their methods may fix what you are describing.
31. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Nauplius:
Yes, right… Maine and Nebraska deviate from the “winner take all” process. We may want to examine whether that’s what’s needed to be changed here.
32. Mr. Mojo - September 11th, 2008 at 8:04 am
robneiderman, in response to post #26:
I didn’t mean to make it seem like the R’s are the only party pulling these stunts. The D’s and even the I’s are just as guilty. Playing the press and going for the knee jerk issues has been a successful campaign strategy for all parties in the US for quite some time now. It is my sincere hope that as more and more people learn the ins and outs of the internet, fact checking by the individual will become more commonplace - as opposed to relying on the mass media to provide information without slanting everything.
Many people are still in the “the internet is a fun but useless toy” stage. With time they learn that the internet is more tool than toy. I get all my news and info from the web now instead of relying on FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc. By reading or watching the news, then doing my own research, I can usually filter out the bias and get the whole story. My guess is that most people here on Listverse do the same thing. Unfortunately, people like us are still a minority in America, regardless of what the commercials would have you believe.
For the record, I believe McCain is going senile to some extent, I believe Palin is a standard far right conservative who was selected because she has boobs and may bring in some Hillary supporters, and I believe having Rove on the McCain team officially killed any chance of him gaining my support. I also believe that Obama is 90% talk, I believe that the D’s won’t get much (if anything) accomplished as long as Pelosi is Speaker, and that we will eventually end up either invading Iran or at least sending in special forces because diplomacy doesn’t always work.
With that said, I will be voting for Obama. I won’t expect miracles, but 4 years of listening to reports of scandals sounds more appealing than 4 more years of listening to death counts of American soldiers in foreign lands.
33. dischuker - September 11th, 2008 at 8:25 am
can we please stop with the rediculous, far-fetched, slippery slope arguments. obama is not a secret muslim ready to let terrorists in the back door. mccain is not an alzheimers patient that has one foot in the grave, ready to die before the end of the year.
can we please look at reality?
34. segue - September 11th, 2008 at 8:25 am
#17. mandysparky
You could had added more like how Obama made the “pig in lipstick” comment. I have read that heaps of women are now supporting the republicans after that comment. Just a thought
****
And the fact that McCain uses the “pig in lipstick” comment over and over and over, and has been doing so for years is suddenly forgotten?
I swear, the average voter gets the government it deserves!
35. Eric - September 11th, 2008 at 8:34 am
mmmm… you forgot mitt roomney and the chuck norris facts
36. MT - September 11th, 2008 at 8:40 am
mandyspark and all-
There are actually millions of republican women that will vote democrat this election because they are pro-choice and want to uphold Roe v. Wade. They will also support the democrats because they are against the war in Iraq. Those are much better reasons to switch parties rather than being mad at a candidate because of some misinterpreted comment he made.
37. Blogball - September 11th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Wow this probably one of the most “current” events lists ever on Listverse.
Really interesting DanielS and thank you for your unbiased approach to the whole thing.
38. Lonnielanley - September 11th, 2008 at 9:12 am
MT—I don’t think that millions of republican woman are dumb enough to believe that anything will change about abortion just because mccain and palin are pro-life. Bush is pro-life and has been president for 8 years and even appointed a couple of conservative judges to gain the majority……abortion will be legal for a loooooonnnnggg time and having a couple of pro-lifers won’t change it. Even when S. Dakota, which is full of conservatives, voted on making abortion illegal, nothing changed. Anyone who decides who they will vote for based solely are pro-life or pro-choice stance is an idiot. It’s almost as bad as voting based solely on skin color.
And I don’t think being for or against the war in Iraq makes much difference anymore either. That war is basically won and is on the decline. I hope that people find better reasons to not vote for or vote for someone other than abortion and Iraq war stance.
39. MT - September 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am
38.Lonnielanley-
There will be at least one and probably 2 Supreme Court Justices appointed within the next few years. Mccain would obviously replace the judges with his own ultra conservative, pro-life choices. That could create a real threat to legalized abortions.
And concerning this comment you made:
“And I don’t think being for or against the war in Iraq makes much difference anymore either. That war is basically won and is on the decline. I hope that people find better reasons to not vote for or vote for someone other than abortion and Iraq war stance.”
How could those not be 2 of the top reasons to select a candidate? (The economy being the other top reason). And by the way, the war is NOT won and cannot be won under these conditions. Maybe you should watch a few 9/11 tributes today on the anniversary of the worst tragedy on American soil and you will see how the war is really being fought and by who.
I hope you are a republican. We don’t need anyone with such stupid and uneducated opinions on our side of the aisle.
40. Steve - September 11th, 2008 at 9:45 am
MT you sound like someone that would vote for Jane Fonda to get a political office.
41. Blogball - September 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Lonnielanley, I agree. Biden recently said as a Roman Catholic he is personally pro life but it’s a religious decision. He then went on to say there are many people that are just as religious as he is and they believe that abortion is not a sin so it should be left to the majority of people to decide.
This is also true about Palin she defiantly has a pro-life stance but Alaska has one of the highest abortion rates in the country and she has not attempted to make abortion illegal. She even remarked when her daughter was pregnant that she was pleased that she “chose” to have the baby.
As far as I’m concerned, Biden & Palin have the same thoughts on abortion but stuff like that is not picked up by the press.
42. Steve - September 11th, 2008 at 9:49 am
MT
I think its time you moved to Canada you unpatriotic waste of skin.
43. MT - September 11th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Steve-
Is Jane running for something this year? Hell yea I’d vote for her!
44. Steve - September 11th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Where are your references that she opposes sex education. Everything I’ve read says she opposes contraception to kids in school but not the education of children on it.
45. MT - September 11th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Blogball-
McCain and Palin have said publicly that it is “God’s will” to win the war, etc. etc. The seperation of Church and State is getting much too murky. If religious choices are so private, then leave your God out when making decisions that affect me.
And the fact that Alaska has such a high abortion rate shows the need for sex education which Palin opposes. She has made one bad political decision after another and now people thinks she’s qualified to be VP of America? What a joke!
46. Miss Destiny - September 11th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Just because Palin is a woman doesn’t mean she can’t be anti-woman. She wants to deny us the right to choose, she wants to deny rape victims the right to abort a pregnancy that they had NO SAY IN CREATING. She is an advocate of abstinence only sex education, which is ridiculous. You’re going to tell a bunch of horny teenagers to not have sex and expect them to listen? Look at Bristol Palin! It really worked well for her didn’t it?
If sex education was more extensive, teens would learn how to have safer sex, use protection, birth control, leading to fewer unwanted pregnancies, thus creating less of a need for abortions.
Women, say NO to Sarah Palin!
OBAMA/BIDEN ‘08!
47. Haha - September 11th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Haha, a Jane Fonda jab, wow that hasn’t been relevant for about a DECADE.
Steve=fail
48. Steve - September 11th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Miss destiny you are just reenforcing the theme of this list which states that untrue things can be spread quickly through the internet. Palin is not a promoter of abstinence only sex education and here is a reference for you.
http://www.latimes.com/news/po.....9305.story
Do some research commie.
49. MT - September 11th, 2008 at 10:08 am
In a widely published interview on Sept. 1, 2008 she stated:
“I’d Oppose Even If My Own Daughter Was Raped”
When asked about her specific views on family issues in a questionnaire, Governor Sarah Palin made clear she opposes sex-ed programs that distribute contraceptives in schools.
Her answer to the question “will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?” is potentially controversial to progressives and to some moderate, independent voters, while it will be celebrated by social conservatives.
The answer was short and to the point: “Yes, explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”
50. Miss Destiny - September 11th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Tell me I’m wrong, that’s fine. Show me a source if you want, that’s fine.
But when you resort to namecalling, you make your entire point null and void.
I’m not a “commie” I’m simply a woman with an opinion. It differs from yours. Get over it.
51. Miss Destiny - September 11th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Steve:
Tell me I’m wrong, that’s fine. Show me a source if you want, that’s fine.
But when you resort to namecalling, you make your entire point null and void.
I’m not a “commie” I’m simply a woman with an opinion. It differs from yours. Get over it.
52. Steve - September 11th, 2008 at 10:13 am
And your effective argueing technique of taking jabs at a canidates family is also effective liberal media propoganda.
53. Blogball - September 11th, 2008 at 10:13 am
MT, do you really think praising and getting in bed with far left wing Hollywood stars is good for the democrats cause?
Remember what happened four years ago? http://photos1.flickr.com/3921110_21eeab1538.jpg
I just heard next Tuesday Barbra Streisand will have a major fundraiser for Obama in Los Angeles.
I really think this hurts the Dems more than it helps. (Just my opinion)
54. Miss Destiny - September 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Sarah Palin took the VP position, she put herself and her family out there for public consumption and if they can’t handle it they can go back to home to Alaska.
You can’t tell me that if the situation were reversed, that if one of Obama’s daughters were 10 years older and pregnant, that the same or worse wouldn’t be said about them. Given the stereotypes that are already in place about minority teen pregnancies, and minorities in general, I can’t imagine they’d get off as easy as the Palin family.
55. Cedestra - September 11th, 2008 at 10:20 am
17. mandysparky- That assumption doesn’t hold water. According to the latest polls, since Obama’s “pig wearing lipstick” comment, he actually gained momentum and is tied with McCain (beforehand he was trailing by a point or two).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/p.....racker.htm
56. Realist - September 11th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I’m more concerned with getting local officials elected. That’s more important than the celebrity worship Presidential election while corrupt mayors, councilmen, and congressmen are getting elected under our noses while we are distracted about who among Obama or McCain will destroy America faster.
If we didn’t elect pussy congressmen and Senators in the first place the Presidency wouldn’t be essentially a dictatorship worthy of such attention.
57. knight_forked - September 11th, 2008 at 10:28 am
On a side note today is seventh anniversary of 9/11. I still remember having woken up to the live telecast preparing to go to school. At first it all seemed so surreal, as if continuation of nightmare.
A couple of months back I got hold of Loose Change (Internet blockbuster?…may be) by 9/11 Truth Movement. It raises some real interesting questions that makes you think whether a new independent investigation should have been initiated. No matter what this administration dwelt on a bunch of lies even if not to the ranks of those described in this documentary. I am sure most of you already have read about/seen it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(video)
Of course, the task for voters is not to elect the ones who don’t lie and deceive but to elect the ones who do it the least.
58. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Steve:
A Jane Fonda joke? “Unpatriotic waste of skin”? “Do some research commie”?
I suggest breaking the moron pills in half next time, Steve, you’re overdosing.
I imagine (no doubt I’m right–I always am) that you are either A) some proto-fascist teenage twerp similar to that genius who knocked up Palin’s daughter or B) you are some pathetic older sort (perhaps would explain the laughably out-of-date Jane Fonda reference) anywhere from 20-something to 40-something, who bags groceries at the local A&P for a living and spends his off-time lurking on the internet, waiting to devastate all of us unpatriotic, America-hating “commies” with his razor-sharp wit. When of course, in reality, the wit is barely literate and is as dull and limp as an overcooked strand of linguine.
Now then, since we clearly can’t trust you for a moment as any kind of unbiased voice, you can easily be dispensed with, which is fitting.
To begin with, everything MT said is absolutely correct; we face, in McCain/Palin, the worst Pres/VP team in modern memory—not only incompetent, ill-tempered, inappropriate and simply dead wrong on the issues, but also a ticket guaranteed to continue the policies of the last 8 years, from one of the most disastrous presidencies in history. The “cause,” Steve, is over, finished, and your side is not only intellectually bankrupt but morally bankrupt as well. If McCain wins, you can pat yourself on the back for helping to push your country a little closer to the edge of absolute calamity… which it will surely reach in due course if no alteration is made in the tack the Republicans would continue to take us on.
As for your reference regarding Palin’s stance on sex education—simply from reading the story it’s clear NOT what her stance ACTUALLY is but rather that she has WAFFLED on it. However, given her comments and overall demeanor before being named McCain’s VP pick and after, it’s apparent that she’s more than willing to follow an extremist-Christian path on all issues, meaning that were it up to her, we might NOT have sex education in the schools (we can’t tell) and certainly women would NOT have the right to choose, and certainly we would have Creationism taught alongside evolution–or perhaps even supplanting it. Along with a myriad of other insane, anti-civlized goodies she would bring to the table.
This can also be surmised not only from Palin’s own comments and speeches, but from the general mien of the Republican party, which has long since been co-opted, for all practical purposes, by a lumpen, extremist Christianity.
59. MT - September 11th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Miss Destiny Rocks!
OBAMA IN ‘08!!!
60. Miss Destiny - September 11th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Thank you Randall! You said it much better than I could have!
61. MT - September 11th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Randall Rocks!
OBAMA IN ‘08!
62. Steve - September 11th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Not that you will believe me bust here is my background.
Bachelors degree in marketing
24 yrs old
4th generation in a family business
Live in rural wisconsin avid outdoorsman
Maybe my comments weren’t very well informed but I will be dropping out of this discussion becasue no matter what no one will be swayed on a message board discussion and I apologize for alienating people.
I am voting for the Republicans for a couple of reasons. I support the war, their tax plan, and I am against abortion, pro capital punishment, and against the proposed gun control methods of the more left wing representatives. I am not a religious zealot (I’m an atheist) but I do believe that people put toom uch emphasis on a canidates faith. I applaud any canidate(R or D) that can stand by their faith against popular opinion.
63. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Miss Destiny:
Any time. Somebody’s gotta stick up for intelligence around here, might as well be us. This tendency towards anti-intellectualism in this presidential race is really spooking me. Now Obama’s “bad” because he’s “elitist” (read, smarter than a lot of people) whereas Palin is “connecting” with people because she’s a down-to-earth, scrappy “hockey mom” (read, she’s a bigoted half-wit like so many who continue to vote Republican and against their own best interests).
64. MT - September 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Now I understand Steve. You are:
Pro life for the unborn but not for the already born.
Supports tax plans that help the rich and cooperations but not the working middle class.
College educated but kills animals for sport.
Don’t believe in God but supports candidates that will decide your future based upon their personal beliefs in God.
No wonder you and others like you are so angry and confused.
65. smurff - September 11th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Thanks Jay Arr on your geography info I only got it this morning so its obvious Im asleep at night and ure guys are having breakfast.
Good research - but wont comment on politics
66. segue - September 11th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Randall, for shame! “…When of course, in reality, the wit is barely literate and is as dull and limp as an overcooked strand of linguine.”
Overcooked strand of linguine?
Is that for the consumption of the family audience, or are you being nice to Steve?
I had another thought entirely, of course, but being a lady couldn’t print it…I was just hoping someone would.
67. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Steve:
“Not that you will believe me”
I believe you all too much. It sickens me too.
“Bachelors degree in marketing”
Says a lot right there. Marketing majors are often little right-wing tools. Try thinking outside of the box and different from the herd, Steve, it might help.
“24 yrs old”
But still very adolescent in the head, Steve.
“4th generation in a family business”
Another telling point, perhaps. I’m generalizing, since I myself am about the umpteenth generation in a family concern, but then I didn’t follow that path. But at any rate, we can perhaps then guess that you, Steve, are the product of self-congratulating and narrow-minded privilege. Might help to explain your stance as well.
“Live in rural wisconsin avid outdoorsman”
Well, I’ll leave off on the NRA/well-to-do redneck jokes. Thankfully it looks like your own state might well go for Obama this November. I bet you’re steaming.
“Maybe my comments weren’t very well informed but I will be dropping out of this discussion becasue no matter what no one will be swayed on a message board discussion and I apologize for alienating people.”
Well that was well said, and honorably done. I’ll give you that. There may be hope for you.
68. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
MT:
Oh that was WELL done… nice job.
69. Miss Destiny - September 11th, 2008 at 10:58 am
MT:
Nice one!
70. Cedestra - September 11th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Anyone still curious as to why McCain picked Palin? I get he’s going for the undecided, Hilary crowd, but aren’t there other women in contested states he would have done better to pick from? Diana Fessler or Carol-Ann Schindel, Ohio Representatives, for example. I mean, was the tactic to get a flawed, ultra-conservative woman and she was the only one that fit the bill? The Republicans already had Alaska in the bag. And what’s with New Mexico? Am I incorrect in stating that they’re usually Republican, but are decidedly voting Democratic?
71. Steve - September 11th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Ok one more comment for the personal attacks:
I don’t see how my choice of activities (hunting) needed to be attacked there is nothing wrong with hunting and its not like I shoot the animal cut off its head and leave it lie. And how is my choice to hunt strange when compared against my college education? Many great minds of the past 100 years were sportsmen.
As for Randall comment” she’s a bigoted half-wit like so many who continue to vote Republican and against their own best interests” Voting for a republican is for my own self interest so that why I do it.
Death penalty wise incontrovertible (prolly not spelt right)evidence should be required.
And I’m not angry I apologize for previous demeaning statements and acknowledge the fact that the comments were uneducated bigotted and unfounded.
72. Cedestra - September 11th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Randall: Steve does have some measure of intelligence. He got out while he still had his dignity in tact.
73. Miss Destiny - September 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Thanks Steve.
74. Cedestra - September 11th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Steve (if you’re still here): I haven’t attacked your choice in recreation, but will put in why when someone says “hunting”, I usually cringe. If you hunt for sport, then I think you (and anyone else) are a sick individual. From what you said, however, I don’t think you do. If you are hunting to feed your family (and reduce your normal consumption in place of the game), then I don’t have as huge of a problem with it. As stated on other lists, I’m quasi-vegetarian and believe that we can survive without as much meat in our diets. We do have other issues to deal with, like livestock preservation and overpopulation, and in those cases, should the hunter be careful with wastage, I also don’t have a huge of a problem than with trophy hunting. I just see deer head’s mounted on walls for what they are: rotting carcasses.
75. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Cedestra:
I think it was several different factors that made him pick Palin. Overall it was simply a reckless, off-the-cuff choice–he’d only met her once (what was it, they say? For a 15 minute meeting? Or was that the phone conversation they had?) and she wasn’t at all thoroughly vetted. Possibly McCain made the choice this way in order to seem in keeping with his wild, “maverick” demeanor, but I think it just says about his judgement and temperament that he’s a reckless, careless and possibly a tad addle-minded.
At any rate, surely first and foremost it was a cheap and cynical play for the Hillary voters. That’s so obvious it turns one’s stomach, and I think those Hillary voters should feel insulted–but then many of them weren’t showing the most rational states of mind during the primaries, so who can say how they’ll react?
Secondly, I think he picked her because he genuinely did see her as a “maverick” to match his own warped view of himself (I think McCain has come to believe his own hype and the hype of the media very badly, when in fact he’s only proven himself to be slightly LESS a tool of his own party than others, but by no means the independent “maverick” he’s been made out to be—he’s certainly far less a “maverick” than Goldwater was–Goldwater was far more genuine) and he clearly didn’t care that her qualifications weren’t up to snuff.
Thirdly, I think someone presented her to him as a strategic way of derailing Obama, which right now seems to have been a good move, but I have the suspicion that it won’t work for long. She’s the exact opposite of Obama in every way, but she’s still different (being a woman and an outsider) and it was probably felt she would “connect” with the rural, small-town voters who (it might rightly be said) are one of the biggest groups in this country who continually vote against their own best interests in these national elections (i.e. they swallow the ridiculous patriotic “tax-cutting” bullshit fed to them from the Right). Whether this is so, and whether it’ll continue to work (if it even IS working) we’ll see.
Fourthly, it was deemed she’d fire up the base, which she has done. Somebody judged that because she was about the same age as Obama, that the base the needed also a youthful face to rally around. Again, this so far seems to have been the best reason for putting her on the ticket. But it remains to be seen how much, in the end, it’ll really matter.
But other than this it’s still really a puzzle why McCain would place such a person so close to the presidency when he himself would be the oldest man to ever take the oath of office. He can’t possibly believe she could actually handle the office. More likely he believes more strongly in his own unassailability and has little belief in his own mortality—again, a reckless judgement. His mother may be in her 90s, but his mother didn’t lead the life he’s led and his mother was never president of the United States–an office which has been proven to age, stress, and enervate far better men than McCain.
76. Blogball - September 11th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Randall, I’m dubbing you the Don Rickles of Listverse.
77. Steve - September 11th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I do eat the meat but I also put the heads on the wall if they are a trophy.
78. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Steve:
You’re really redeeming yourself, and while I don’t feel bad for chastising you as I did (you had it coming) I consider you now properly humbled.
I have nothing against hunting, personally. Some of my friends and half of family are avid hunters (I am not, but not from any personal objection to it per se). There are currently too many deer in this world (at least where I live there are) so I don’t mind people taking a few down, and I kinda like venison. But MT’s point was that there are gaping inconsistencies in your moral/intellectual judgements, and he/she was illustrating thusly.
As for this business of voting against your own best interests, no, Steve, you again have it wrong. The middle and lower classes in the US that have voted Republican the last couple decades or so HAVE voted against their own best interests because the Republican party has done little or nothing for them, but rather has given favor after favor to the ultra rich and to bloated corporate America. Moreover, you may be in favor of the war in Iraq, but there are those of us who believe it was a ridiculous and outrageous blunder regardless of whether it was won or lost or how quickly, and it is those middle and lower classes who give their blood to fight that war.
I could go on, but my point is at least partially made.
79. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Blogball:
THANK YOU!!!! FINALLY SOMEBODY HERE FREAKIN’ *GETS* ME! That is JUST the accolade and title I have yearned for ever since I came to this site!
I am, now, Blogball, in your debt.
80. JayArr - September 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Okay, so ‘macaca’ essentially means monkey (in a pejorative way)… should have noted that in item #9, so folks like me don’t have to go look it up…
DONALD DUCK for president!! Most people can’t understand half of what he says, but that’s not so different from all the other politicians…
81. Blogball - September 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Probably because we are one of the few people that post here old enough to appreciate Don Rickles.
82. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Blogball:
Probably, yeah. Sad, really. Nobody today has filled Rickle’s shoes when you think about it.
83. Blogball - September 11th, 2008 at 11:41 am
By the way does anybody know where rushfan is?
2 or 3 days and no comments. She would be all over this one.
84. Mr. Mojo - September 11th, 2008 at 11:51 am
The simple fact is that in the U.S., we no longer have a representative democracy. We have a collection of celebrities and paid shills…whoever can come up with the best “gotcha” moment on their opponent or whoever can buy the most air time. We have gone from selecting the best person for the job to selecting the lesser of 2 evils, which is no way to appoint a government.
Both sides are eroding our freedoms. On the right, we have people who want to restrict our personal choices, install a christian fundamentalist theocracy, and coerce us into mindless obedience through fear of being seen as “anti-American”. On the left, we have people who want to force redistribution of wealth, replace capitalism with communism (government control of business is communism in its purest form) and take away our ability to defend ourselves. Both sides also have a bad habit of taking power from the individual states and enforcing national laws instead.
Here are a few suggested reading materials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S....._and_state
http://www.stutzfamily.com/mrs.....fgovt.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights
85. DanielS - September 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The fact no one has claimed any bias on the list is the best compliment
mandysparky: The pig in lipstick comment was made after writing the piece. I don’t think that it would make it on the list, though, because the internet has been a non-factor in its proliferation in Mainstream Media, etc…
The Dread Pirate Bob: Ron Paul would have to be #11 on this list. We don’t know how he’ll eventually change this election… though his candidacy is probably due solely to the internet and money bombs. It might eventually hurt McCain in the long run, or hurt Obama by siphoning youth voters. We just don’t know yet.
86. Mr. Mojo - September 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Before I catch it from both sides, let me clear something up. I am not an anarchist. However, I feel that government should serve 1 function - to protect the people.
I feel the people should be left alone for the most part…free to make our own decisions. Any act that harms another person in any way (physically, emotionally, financially, etc) should be considered a crime, and should be punished in a way that the majority of the population can agree on. Self destructive behavior like drug abuse and assisted suicide and personal choice issues like abortion should be left up to the individual unless these actions harm another person.
I feel the government should provide necessary services such as defense and infrastructure. I do realize that this is the point where it becomes complicated. Government has to make money somehow in order to provide these services. Taxes should be fair for people of every income level, simple to calculate, and agreed upon by the people. Government should have the ability to produce goods if needed provided that the government goods compete fairly with goods produced by individuals.
I feel lobbying should be outlawed in any form.
I feel that the government should be held to the strictest oversight possible. For every dollar spent, there should be a paper trail showing where the money went, what it purchased, and why it was purchased.
I don’t claim to have all the answers or the perfect form of government. This is simply my opinion.
87. Reyairia - September 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
@Mr. Mojo:
Pure capitalism never did anything good; socialism is needed to close the gap between the lower classes and the higher classes. If that doesn’t happen we get a French Revolution on our asses. As per that, socialism is not communism. Do not equate the two.
Government regulation is NEEDED, and too little of that can result in disastrous consequences; for more information regarding that you can read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
(Unfortunately, the meat industry is even worse now than it was then)
I support the Democrats. Not because I particularly like them, nor do I think that Obama is some angel like my sister seems to do, I just agree with them and I hate the Republicans.
As someone aspiring to study Evolution, and as an atheist who believes life doesn’t need a life to make miracles, I simply cannot stand the idea of a Creationist having such a high position, nor as a woman I cannot stand the idea of someone who is so fiercely anti-abortion in the same position.
I think I am allergic to creationists, if I see one I automatically punch them in the face.
88. Mr. Mojo - September 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Reyairia, while I agree that socialism is not communism, they are very similar and the line is fuzzy. In socialism, major industries are controlled by the government, while in communism, all industries are controlled by the government. Where is the line that separates major iundustry from standard? Oil, steel, other commodities in that category are easy, but what about things like air travel, telecommunications, and farming? What about the financial institutions?
I also agree that some aspects of both socialism and communism are helpful to society such as welfare (provided it isn’t abused), education (provided the curriculum is based on scientific principals instead of faith), and health care to a certain extent.
I know I was vague in the post you replied to, maybe post # 85 will clear it up a bit.
89. Mr. Mojo - September 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Sorry, I meant my post #84. The edit option isn’t showing up for me.
90. TheOddball - September 11th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I
91. Seven - September 11th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Harold Saxoon ‘08!
92. Yun - September 11th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“Now I understand Steve. You are:
Pro life for the unborn but not for the already born.”
Pro life for the innocent but not for the guilty. Makes perfect sense to me.
“Supports tax plans that help the rich and cooperations but not the working middle class.”
And how, exactly, are these corporations supposed to create the jobs we need so much when the government is taking away half their profits? You people frequently seem to forget that the rich are not some renewable resource that you can keep taking from with no change in status, they are human beings with rights and who will react humanly to being screwed by their government: IE. they’ll take their business somewhere more friendly, leaving the US with a deflated economy which is going to hurt quite a few “working middle class” Americans who are now out of a job because the oh-so-compassionate Democrats drove their employers out of the country.
“College educated but kills animals for sport.”
I think Steve defended himself well enough here.
“Don’t believe in God but supports candidates that will decide your future based upon their personal beliefs in God.”
I do believe in God, and I, for one, admire Steve for this stand. That someone has courage in their convictions is an admirable quality. I will gladly support someone who has a clearly defined concept of right and wrong, as opposed to the wishy-washy, poll-driven, “above my pay grade” crap that the Democrats are offering.
93. nyarltep - September 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
how about second life banning 911 truthers?
94. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Yun:
“Pro life for the innocent but not for the guilty. Makes perfect sense to me.”
It does? Not to me. I, in fact, am not wholeheartedly opposed to the death penalty. But it gives me great pause, as abortion does, though I am in favor a woman’s right to choose. Not all who are put to death are guilty, Yun. There are many mistakes. Also, do you not see the contradiction in a stance that demands life for the unborn… yet is rabidly ready to take it away from those who possess it? It isn’t just that “they” are guilty—what does it say about society in general?
It isn’t as easy and blithe as you or others make out. The death penalty is troubling, and by rights *ought* to be so. But many people, such as you, are all too ready to lend to society this right to kill, while demanding, at precisely the same time, that embryos MUST be allowed to proceed to birth. There IS a troubling point there, particularly from what one would THINK should be a “christian” point of view on the matter–and yet many so-called Christians, again, are the first ones to howl their unbending support for the death penalty. There’s also a stink of hypocrisy in that.
“And how, exactly, are these corporations supposed to create the jobs we need so much when the government is taking away half their profits?”
That’s a ridiculous old saw, Yun. The days of that kind of over-the-top rhetoric are over. Nobody wants to take “half” the profits of corporations or anything like that. What we need, however, is to stop handing corporations all kinds of benefits, tax reductions and backhand deals so that they can make only record profits and send more jobs overseas.
“You people frequently seem to forget that the rich are not some renewable resource that you can keep taking from with no change in status,”
Ha! That’s an old cliche talking point I remember from my College Republican days back in the 80s. Sad, and pathetic.
The rich are human beings like all of us. They’re capable of doing good as well as being capable of great greed and of doing unethical, immoral things. There’s nothing wrong with setting a line to say that, if you are making X number of dollars, then you need to pay your FAIR share so that society is kept more or less economically egalitarian. THAT has been the American way almost since this country was born, or practically speaking since the early 19th century. But in recent times, the gulf between rich and poor has grown to a size almost unprecedented in our history–and it’s dangerous, that. It asks for trouble.
“they are human beings with rights and who will react humanly to being screwed by their government:”
As are the middle and lower classes, human, with rights, who also react and react badly to being screwed–not only by the government, but by entitled, privileged, and back-door dealing corporations and plutocrats and oligarchs who game the system consistently to balloon profits out of all proportion.
“IE. they’ll take their business somewhere more friendly, leaving the US with a deflated economy which is going to hurt quite a few “working middle class” Americans who are now out of a job because the oh-so-compassionate Democrats drove their employers out of the country.”
This is the greatest lie of all. During Clinton’s administration, job growth in the US was at a record high and the economy was booming. During George W. Bush’s administration, job growth went to a crawl and has now retreated, and companies have gone overseas in droves–not driven there by high taxation, but PAID to go there by Republican policies.
“I do believe in God, and I, for one, admire Steve for this stand. That someone has courage in their convictions is an admirable quality.”
Not when their convictions are wrong-headed and harmful to others and/or democracy in general. Then it’s just stupidity.
95. Cedestra - September 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
79. Randall: Ohmygod, that explains so much! You just don’t translate well on the internet. ~Dawn break on a shinto shrine~
96. Idreno - September 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
A famous man (I can’t recall who at the moment, although I’m sure someone here can remind me who actually said it) said “If you’re not a Democrat by the time you are 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a Republican by the time you are 35, you have no brain.” I think it’s absolutely true.
97. Randall - September 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Idreno:
Supposedly it was Churchill, and it wasn’t democrats and republicans, it was liberals and conservatives.
And no, it isn’t true, Idreno. It was said over 50 years ago. The world has changed, in case you haven’t noticed. (Obviously you haven’t).
Are you going to tell ME that I have no brain? Please. I dare you.
98. Mikerodz - September 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
23. Nauplius - I used to think that Obama was an intelligent man but now i see that he doesn’t even know how to use a telephone (#6). Just kidding, I never thought he was that intelligent.
Ow come on,He can’t even spell the intelligent.
99. Anon - September 11th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Randall and Idreno,
I’ve just checked, Randall. You are absolutely correct (would one expect less?), it was indeed attributed to Churchill. But the source (Neo-Neocon) very reasonably places it as false attribution and cites a further source for this. As is known, Churchill switched between the two parties, and was a very young Conservative indeed and a Liberal after the age of 35. He would therefore have been shooting himself in the foot, and was the last person to do that. There are also other reasons to negate the attribution.
Probably some nonentity made it up, wanted a way of making it hit the fan and so linked it to The Man.
100. astraya - September 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I struggle to believe that that American electoral system is anything like what the writers of your constitution envisaged. I struggle to believe that it is anything approaching “democracy”. (But then again I struggle to believe that any country has anything approaching “democracy”.)
I also struggle with the title of this list. Many countries have had or will have “a 2008 election”, but “the 2008 election” is assumed to be the USA presidential election.
101. DanielS - September 11th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
astraya: “10 Ways the Internet Changed the 2008 United States Presidential Election” just doesn’t roll off the tongue like the original title:), though I understand the frustration.
What country do you think does democracy the best? What system would you suggest in place of the current electoral college for the U.S.?
102. Johandus Maximus - September 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I for one do not understand why voting is non-compulsory in the USA. Surely it would be better to elect a president that represents the choice of the majority of the total population, rather than the majority of people that can be bothered voting. I believe this outweighs concerns that compulsory voting is contrary to the freedom of choice of the individual.
103. Mr. Mojo - September 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
DanielS, even though I wasn’t asked, I’d like to chime in here.
I believe that with the current state of technology, America should move to a direct democracy where the public votes on every issue. I am well aware of the drawbacks, but I still feel it would be a more accurate depiction of democracy overall, and far less open to exploitation by lobbyists or corrupt individuals.
I would like to see a weekly, or even monthly list of items on the agenda which require our votes. This could be posted on a government website, aired on the news, printed in newspapers, distributed at government buildings, etc. so that every person who wanted to would be able to easily access it.
Votes could be conducted at public polling stations, government buildings, online, or over the phone. We could even use social services to travel to the homes of people unable to go out and vote. The social worker could bring a cell phone or laptop with internet access to allow the disabled person to vote.
It’s true that several of these forms of voting are open to fraud, but we can find ways to deter or prevent it. It isn’t as if our current system is fraud proof either but it gets the job done for the most part. I would suggest something like a combination of name and pin number or password cross referenced with an IP address and voter registration to protect online voting. Something similar could be done for phone-in votes.
104. goof_ball - September 11th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
cool?
105. Ducky423 - September 11th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Obama believes that WE, Americans, caused 9/11, that makes him a terrorist is my book. The Pres. said it best, “If you are not with us, your are against us.” or something along those lines. Obama wants to turn this country into the weakest link, by taking away our freedoms that so many have fought and died for and still are fighting and dying for. Have we forgotten in the last seven years what happened? We were attacked, simply because we don’t belive as they do. Thousands of innocent people died for the pleasure of a religious fanatic.
And by the way…Intelligence and Eloquency does not a president make.
VOTE REPUBLICAN
MCCAIN/PALIN 2008 GOD, GUNS, AND GUTS!!!
106. Ducky423 - September 11th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Yes I know eloquency isn’t a word. I aint dumb.
107. DanielS - September 11th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Mr. Mojo: Thanks for chiming in. I appreciate your response to my question to astraya.
As much as direct voting is attractive, I simply don’t have the faith you do in the electorate. There are several policy decisions made that are necessary for national security/prosperity that 300 million Americans would not support. Low-information voters still reign supreme in politics.
It sounds you dislike lobbyists. That makes two of us. However, the sort of direct voting you propose would make important policy decisions reliant the effectiveness of ad campaigns and main stream media.
Here’s the biggest problem: “…so that every person who wanted to would be able to easily access it.” Do you assume that 300 million Americans would want to access, despite the potential ease, huge amounts of information pertinent to crucial and complex policy formulation? In an ideal world, yes, but not now and probably never.
Still, representative democracy reigns supreme.
108. astraya - September 11th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
DanielS: I’m thinking about your questions, and I hope to reply sometime. I’m certainly not ignoring you.
109. Idreno - September 11th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I did think that the quote was attributed to Churchhill, but I wasn’t sure.
And yes, Randall, I think anyone who would vote for Clinton or Obama has absolutely no brain, soul, or ounce of intelligence. I am an independent voter and belong to no party. The problem with American politics is the fact that everyone is so damn one sided about things…the liberals have a better grasp of social issues and the conservatives actually know how to deal with political issues…but the fact remains that politicians, especially today, aren’t interested in upholding the values and principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but are trying to alter it to serve their own wants and hunger for power and wealth. ESPECIALLY the phoney liberal democratic party which is even WORSE than the Republican party. At least the Republican’s KNOW what they stand for and aren’t afraid to admit it whereas people like Clinton and Obama just say what people want to hear…they are frontrunners and are only interested in the flavor of the moment…the moment something goes awry or is no longer in fashion, they quickly weasel their way out of it so that no one can point a finger at them. If you are unable to see that as well as all the other idiotic things in the current presidential Democratic and Republican campaigns, then clearly, you have no brain.
Dare me again.
110. Phillies - September 11th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Hooray for the Internet!
Being a young (early 20s) moderate conservative, all the Republican bashing is upsetting. Of course, it’s perfectly understandable when all the Republicans in office now are right-wing extremist wackos. (I generalize, of course…there must be one or two exceptions…) I wish Republicans acted more toward their party beliefs (smaller government, lower taxes, etc.) but that clearly is not the case anymore.
I side with them only because, in general, my personal beliefs fall more in line with Republican views. I’ve softened on my extreme pro-life stance, and I’m confused about my views on the death penalty, but I still believe that everyone should be accountable for him/herself and the government should leave people to their own devices…while still providing help to those in need (I’m moderate, remember?)
Oh, and to those preaching that our votes matter? I live in New Jersey, a HIGHLY liberal state (run by Corzine the Crook, but I digress). If I vote McCain, it won’t matter because everyone else will vote Obama. If I vote Obama, it will be like throwing one more sardine into a giant school of sardines. Easily the worst simile I’ve ever made, but the point is made.
111. MT - September 12th, 2008 at 12:52 am
In the neverending fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way……LOOK! UP IN THE SKY! IT’S A BIRD! IT’S A PLANE! IT’S…..
OBAMA IN ‘08!!!!!
112. mandysparky - September 12th, 2008 at 3:51 am
I am totally for Obama and I hope all you Americas vote for him. I made the comment about the women where apparently voting republican after it is because it was made out to be a big deal here in Australia on all the news channels and the news papers. I couldn’t care less who said it first, I personally think that it was taken out of context.
GO OBAMA!
113. Zwiebler - September 12th, 2008 at 4:35 am
http://www.snopes.com/history/.....shscan.asp
shame on you, listverse!
Joad Cressbeckler For President 2008!
114. Mr. Mojo - September 12th, 2008 at 4:46 am
DanielS, I do agree with you on the fact that Americans are generally apathetic. With our current government, direct democracy would not work because there is simply too much going on for the public to keep up with. In my earlier posts I stated that I am also a supporter of small government and large paper trails, which would help with this aspect.
Ducky423, please tell me you are joking. Please tell me you do not actually believe the bullshit you are posting.
In a roundabout way, we DID cause the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We support Israel, we arm rebel factions and give them the means to gain in power and influence, we have a history of offering guns and bombs instead of humanitarian aid in the Middle East. No, we did not specifically support bin Laden and we didn’t ask for a terrorist attack, but we did set the tone in the area which allowed bin Laden to rise to power.
The “why do you hate America?” line has become a mantra of the Bush administration. When did disagreeing with extremist policy become a sign of treason? Who decided we should shred our Constitution? How does suspending Habeus Corpus and allowing torture, illegal surveillance without a warrant, and fighting wars in random countries halfway around the world make us any safer? We were safer on 9/12/01 because bin Laden had already achieved his goal. Most of what Bush has done since then was not only unnecessary, it was illegal.
You say Obama wants to take away our freedom? What do you think Bush has been doing? Look at the “Patriot Act” and compare it with the Constitution. There is a reason Bush says “if you aren’t with us, you are against us”, and there is a reason he resorts to underhanded tactics to pass his policies into law. That reason is because they are unconstitutional.
Most people, regardless of political affiliation, respect and admire our troops. We are not trying to downplay the sacrifices they have made. We are simply pointing out that they should not have been asked to make these sacrifices in the first place. Going to Afghanistan was a move I supported. After all, that was bin Laden’s stronghold. Invading Iraq without hard evidence of an eminent threat to US interests should never have happened. Using the 9/11 attacks as a springboard to launch a holy war is sickening beyond belief.
115. Mom424 - September 12th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Daniel S; Great List! Timely, Even-handed and informative. Good job.
Mr. Mojo, Randall: Congratulations on making sense. How the hell can anyone say that the Republicans are the great defenders of the American way? They have done more to erode your rights and freedoms than anyone has even attempted. Protect the economy? The only people they protect are the rich and entitled. And they aren’t even doing a very good job in that respect. How can you have a booming economy when such a huge portion of your GNP is being wasted on an unnecessary and unwinnable war? Why else would the American Dollar be worth 93 cents Canadian?
The rest of the world requires the USA to have a change in leadership and direction. You must repair your international reputation. Impossible with the current administration or its newest incarnation.
And I haven’t even mentioned the horror of Fundamentalist Christians getting their hands on public policy. Separation of church and state should be sacrosanct. How can you not be afraid?
116. Randall - September 12th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Idreno:
Oh man, did you pick the wrong battle with the wrong person.
“And yes, Randall, I think anyone who would vote for Clinton or Obama has absolutely no brain, soul, or ounce of intelligence.”
Now THAT’S a bit extreme, isn’t it? Making statements like that, in fact, simply paints you (in all too brilliant colors) to be exactly what you are accusing US of being—i.e., brainless, soulless, and without an “ounce of intelligence.” (Which by the way is redundant. Last I checked–and I know a thing or two about biology and neurology–if one is “brainless,” one is pretty much guaranteed to be of such low intelligence as to be, practically speaking, “without an ounce of it.” But I digress).
At any rate I’d LOVE to hear your justification for that asinine statement. Let’s see, shall we:
“I am an independent voter and belong to no party.”
Hey! Guess what moron! So am I! But I DO, in fact, have brains enough to comprehend that there are still differences BETWEEN the parties and particularly between candidates. And I can select, through reasoning, judgement, and research, which candidate I find to be the most suitable and the one that best fits my personal vision for the direction our country should be headed in.
“The problem with American politics is the fact that everyone is so damn one sided about things…”
Oh, I see. So separate parties shouldn’t take sides on issues? This is the logic you’re opting to use here? You might want to re-think this one.
“the liberals have a better grasp of social issues and the conservatives actually know how to deal with political issues…”
Excuse me?
Whatever IS the distinction, idreno? Aren’t ALL issues, in a sense, political? Even social ones? Even economic ones? Politics in a sense pervades life.
Just what the HELL are you talking about?
And whatever analogy you’re clumsily trying to draw, it falls apart like the fog it is. I know a lot of conservatives who would argue that they have a fine grasp of social issues, thank you. I should know. I used to be on that side of the fence.
But whatever you may mean by conservatives “knowing how to deal with political issues,” it’s the height of absurdity anyway. The American public has been shown to be, by majority, largely on the liberal side on a great many issues, and the democratic party has managed quite adeptly to serve these issues, and, at times, exploit them. Politcally they’ve been highly successful at this. Particularly at the local level.
What I’m getting from all this, idreno, is that you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.
“but the fact remains that politicians, especially today, aren’t interested in upholding the values and principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but are trying to alter it to serve their own wants and hunger for power and wealth.”
This is the tired old refrain of half-wit cynics who think they’re being clever. Yes, many politicians are corrupt or power-hungry or intellectually lazy and immoral. But if this was true of ALL politicians and politics in general, our society quite simply wouldn’t function. But it does.
I understand the cynicism. I share some of it. I’ve been personally close to it. But we really must temper the instinct to make sweeping, outrageous statements with logic and factuality. That’s called rationality and reason.
“ESPECIALLY the phoney liberal democratic party which is even WORSE than the Republican party.”
Uh huh. And you’re an “independent” you claim. I see.
You’ve made it quite easy for me to call you a liar, here, idreno, and in fact have invited me to do so. I accept the invitation. You are a liar. I don’t believe for a moment you’re truly an independent. Rather, you’re just another shill for the right wing out to play games in public. But you do it badly, and I suggest you retire before you further embarrass yourself.
“At least the Republican’s KNOW what they stand for and aren’t afraid to admit it whereas people like Clinton and Obama just say what people want to hear…”
That is the single most laughably absurd statement I’ve heard in days. The ENTIRE IDEA behind Barack Obama is that he stands for values and notions that are in direct opposition to the last eight years of misery, illegality, buffoonery and blundering. YES, I imagine a lot of people DO want to hear what Obama stands for because they AGREE with him, as do I. Trying to turn it around to him PLAYING to his audience is, however, a pathetic tactic on your part which fails as clumsily and handily as the rest of your argument.
MOREOVER… the VERY IDEA that the Republican Party doesn’t just say what people want to hear is LAUGHABLE.
See, idreno, again, you’re showing your true colors. No “independent” would say things like this. Both parties play the game from time to time of playing to the crowd and saying what people want