Anybody have, or hear of, any good "October Surprise" theories?

A few weeks ago, one columnist (Kristol?) speculated that the US might find/kill Bin Laden and somehow partial credit would be given to McCain.

Anybody have anything else?

Another conspiracy theory that I have heard is that somehow McCain will find a way to get Palin off the ticket, perhaps using "family issues" as an escape clause.

This theory is sometimes accompanied by the suggestion that he'd replace Palin with Joe Lieberman, who many experts think was the one that McCain really wanted in the first place.

I think the fallout from the "base" would be too much for all of that, though.

Whatever the case, I'm sure McCain will come out with some awful information about Obama within the next two weeks.

The info will have little truth to it, but it's gonna happen.

It's already happening, though we're not noticing it quite as much in Michigan since we're no longer the battleground state we once were. It's hard for the 527s to fork big money blitzing an expensive media-market state that McCain himself has given up on. We'll see some nastiness, of course, but nothing like what bigger battleground states (virutally all Bush country) will.

The Keating 5 offensive is an October surprise, though not a huge one. A lot of folks speculated that Obama would pull that out if McCain went Wright.

Some sort of Iran skirmish might do it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7657066.stm

Another conspiracy theory that I have heard is that somehow McCain will find a way to get Palin off the ticket, perhaps using "family issues" as an escape clause.

This theory is sometimes accompanied by the suggestion that he'd replace Palin with Joe Lieberman, who many experts think was the one that McCain really wanted in the first place.

I think the fallout from the "base" would be too much for all of that, though.
I've also heard speculation of her resigning in office (after being sworn in). Then McCain would be able to choose his new VP, like Nixon did with Gerald Ford (and later Ford did with Rockefeller). Then if something happened to McCain we'd have Lieberman become the second person to become VP and President without ever winning an election.

October Surprise...

Racism will cost Obama the election.

That's not a surprise though.

This country won't vote a minority into the Oval Office.

Does anybody have a good breakdown on where people think racism might hurt him the most? I heard national numbers speculated, but that really doesn't matter. It really only matters in battleground states.

Well think about it...

Racism may not hurt Obama in North Carolina or Virginia

But Pennsylvania, Colorado (Kobe), Florida, Wisconsin, Missouri and Ohio could be states where the color of his skin hurts his chances.

Maybe even in Michigan. I live in Sterling Heights and in this surrounding area alone I've seen more McCain signs/paraphanalia as opposed to Obama by like a 10:1 ratio...

Whether people are just embarassed to put up Obama signs, I couldn't say, but I know one thing, Sterling Heights is well over 90% white, and that didn't stop anybody from putting John Kerry signs/stickers on display in '04...

Just sayin'. I think it's going to play a bigger than anybody wants to believe.

How many white democrats are going to go into the poll booth on election day and even though they say they're democrats and they say they're gonna vote for Obama, they end up leaving the ballott blank or vote for McCain?

I think you'd be surprised.

Well, I don't think he'll win Missouri anyway. I don't think McCain will win Michigan.

So you are left with Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio (which I agree on). McCain has to win almost all of those to win this thing. it's a toss up here in Colorado, but is racism going to be big enough to pull McCain ahead in almost all of those?

I think McCain need to do enough convincing on his economy skills to pull all those states close enough. Otherwise I can't see it mattering on a national scale (perhaps on a few states though).

Just sayin'. I think it's going to play a bigger than anybody wants to believe.

How many white democrats are going to go into the poll booth on election day and even though they say they're democrats and they say they're gonna vote for Obama, they end up leaving the ballott blank or vote for McCain?

When nobody else can see your ballot? In that case, you have nothing to point to but the racist in yourself.

I used to think that mccain would stop at nothing to attack Iran. However, I think the recent 'success' of the Malicki regime will have the strange consequence of pre-empting any iranian attack. The Malicki govt. is very close to Iran and I suspect that they would take iran's side if a war broke out.

Anyways, I think we'll stories about voter disenfranchisement as the repubs real best hope of an october surprise. they've already been out in force in Montana and Ohio. I suspect we'll hear all kinds of stories similar to the African American purge list from 2000. I just hope that Obama can maintain his lead so that it doesn't make a difference.

October Surprise...

Racism will cost Obama the election.

That's not a surprise though.
Election day isn't in October, though.

Election day isn't in October, though.

Maybe that's the surprise?

The Tampa Bay Rays. Wow. What a difference a name change makes.


....*


What are we talking about here? Baseball, right?



No joking. There's a problem with the Bin Laden rumor: the fact that he's still out there is McCain's proverbial "ace". With Bin Laden gone, the economy becomes THE issue (like it isn't already).

On race: It's bound to happen. But the Ayers story seems to be DOA. And this time, young voters actually have a candidate they LOVE. I've always believed that rural America has absolutely zero chance to be heard if the metropolitan vote is strong. Kerry had the major cities, but the strength of those victories were overshadowed by the mass hick vote.

As proven in the past, the hick vote is slightly better than flavored cat shit (i.e., Ohio in 2004... WTF???). Whereas Kerry was simply "not Bush", Obama has a rabid following, and it's growing expotentially.

Dare I say, almost dictator-like.

Dare I say, almost dictator-like.

It's almost a stretch to consider Obama a Democrat. He's liberal beyond words can explain. He's not a moderate liberal, he's not a "fiscal conservative", and he's not even a typical Democrat like either Clinton was.

He takes his liberal propaganda to the extreme, even surpassing guys like Ted Kennedy.

Barack has become the single most radical individual to ever get this close to the Oval Office.

Give me a fuckin' break... Wil you are beginning to make a fool of yourself.

Give me a fuckin' break... Wil you are beginning to make a fool of yourself.


Hey DRay, instead of giving a one-line, incomplete sentence opinion to all my political posts, why don't you site reasons why I'm wrong?

I'm open to hearing what you have to say, but all you do is disregard my posts without giving me reasons why you think I'm off track.

I don't care if you disagree, but at the very least tell me why you disagree, like everybody else has done.

Nah, how about you tell me what what makes him "extreme" and "radical."

I agree he is liberal, but I don't think he is radical... that is a stretch.

October Surprise...

Racism will cost Obama the election..
Yes, it may. Only because a majority of this country is too dense to know that he's technically half like them as a mulatto. But yess the black wife is killing him. :VOLCANO:

It's almost a stretch to consider Obama a Democrat. He's liberal beyond words can explain. He's not a moderate liberal, he's not a "fiscal conservative", and he's not even a typical Democrat like either Clinton was.

He takes his liberal propaganda to the extreme, even surpassing guys like Ted Kennedy.

Barack has become the single most radical individual to ever get this close to the Oval Office.

It's almost a stretch to consider Obama a Democrat. He's liberal beyond words can explain. He's not a moderate liberal, he's not a "fiscal conservative", and he's not even a typical Democrat like either Clinton was.

In other words unlike McCain he doesn't kiss ass to his base and change his maverick views for them? cool.


He takes his liberal propaganda to the extreme, even surpassing guys like Ted Kennedy.
Now you gotta stfu calling Ray or anyone else out on one liners if you dont elaborate on horseshit one liners like this like this.


Barack has become the single most radical individual to ever get this close to the Oval Office.
Same was said about Lincoln and Kennedy in their eras with people needing some type evolution in leadership and others calling them out for it. I agree that there is a radical element to him. Radical as in "One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions". Its unfortunate that you put it out there as a negative. But the way things are run is pathetic at the moment. stretch out the "change" campaign to radical, extreme, or whatever else floats your boat. But its the only campaign looking to bring changes to the way things have been for too long w/o evolving.

It's almost a stretch to consider Obama a Democrat. He's liberal beyond words can explain. He's not a moderate liberal, he's not a "fiscal conservative", and he's not even a typical Democrat like either Clinton was.

He takes his liberal propaganda to the extreme, even surpassing guys like Ted Kennedy.

Barack has become the single most radical individual to ever get this close to the Oval Office.

Well, instead of calling you out like the others, let me try a different tact: George W. Bush is considered extremely conservative, in bed with the radical right Moral majority. I cannot think of any group more right wing than the Moral Majority. Now, look where we are 8 years later.

Even if you are correct, perhaps it's time for such a radical change. We've already tried one end of the spectrum, and it didn't work. Maybe the left is the way to go this time, no?

It's almost a stretch to consider Obama a Democrat. He's liberal beyond words can explain. He's not a moderate liberal, he's not a "fiscal conservative", and he's not even a typical Democrat like either Clinton was.

He takes his liberal propaganda to the extreme, even surpassing guys like Ted Kennedy.

Barack has become the single most radical individual to ever get this close to the Oval Office.
"liberal beyond words can explain"?

Is this a contest for WTF Political Drama Queen?

Sheesh...

Liberal is a not a smear.

George W. Bush is considered extremely conservative, in bed with the radical right Moral majority.



LOL! There's a big difference from being a radical capitalist (which W. isn't) and a radical socialist (which Barack is).

Same was said about Lincoln and Kennedy in their eras with people needing some type evolution in leadership and others calling them out for it. I agree that there is a radical element to him. Radical as in "One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions". Its unfortunate that you put it out there as a negative. But the way things are run is pathetic at the moment. stretch out the "change" campaign to radical, extreme, or whatever else floats your boat. But its the only campaign looking to bring changes to the way things have been for too long w/o evolving.


What has Barack ever done in his political career that would give me even the slightest bit of reason to believe he's capable of doing so...?

He says he's going to lower taxes, but he's never done so when he's had 94 opportunities to in the Senate. Your judged on your past decisions/actions, and on that specific issue, there's legitimate reason to think he's lying.

Plus, he's not radical in the way JFK was (and I'm not sure JFK was radical at all). JFK wasn't friends with un-repentant terrorist like Barack is. JFK never accepted campaign donations from foreign people like Barack did. JFK never benefited from the corrupt administration of a major mortgage company. JFK never involved himself with organizations like ACORN who commit voter fraud (which is a felony). JFK was a Catholic, genuine politican who was respected by both parties and had a lengthy, sharp political resume' before he was President, while Barack's nothing more than a celebrity with no track record of success, no track record of political accomplishment, and no story to tell.

I'm not saying John McCain is the answer to America's problems. I've made it clear several times on here, going way back, early in the year that I would rather have seen Mitt Romney be the GOP candidate. All I'm saying is, Barack Obama isn't the answer.

What has Barack ever done in his political career that would give me even the slightest bit of reason to believe he's capable of doing so...?


What has John McCain done to deserve the Maverick label?

Rather than point out obvious errors in what you say about Obama, let's focus on JFK for a sec:


Plus, he's not radical in the way JFK was (although I'm not sure JFK was radical at all). JFK wasn't friends with un-repentant terrorists like Barack is.
Sam Giancana.


JFK never accepted campaign donations from foreign people like Barack did.
Foreign donations were legal in JFK's day.


JFK never benefited from the corrupt administration of a major mortgage company.
The Kennedy family business gained from JFK's administration of the mortgage industry and its focus on privatization.


JFK was a Catholic, genuine politican, while Barack's nothing more than a celebrity with no track record of success, no track record of political accomplishment, and no story to tell.
Doesn't anyone else have Catholic genuine visions of women running nekkid through the White House when they think JFK?

Rather than point out obvious errors in what you say about Obama, let's focus on JFK for a sec:

Sam Giancana.

Foreign donations were legal in JFK's day.

The Kennedy family business gained from JFK's administration of the mortgage industry and its focus on privatization.

Doesn't anyone else have Catholic genuine visions of women running nekkid through the White House when they think JFK?


Point is, JFK paid his dues as a politican spending 14 years in the House & Senate. Regardless of what he stood for, he had a background and track record that suggested he was more than capable of being President. Barack has no such history.

Plus, I would argue, that by today's standards, JFK would be a Republican. Absolutely.

What has John McCain done to deserve the Maverick label?

The term maverick is just an adjective that means that you've disagreed with your own party. How often he's done so is irrelavant to the usage of the term. Yeah, I'll agree, the title has gotten a bit oversaturated, but who cares?

But seriously, I just mentioned how Obama is friends with a terrorist and supports a group that committs voter fraud, and all you have as a response is why is McCain is a maverick?

C'mon...

G. Gordon Liddy is by far a worse association for McCain than Ayers is for Obama.

But nobody cares about either, they're only distractions at this point.

Frustrating, isn't it?

I'm sure if the Liddy connection was that big, the Obama-mania Media would've taken off with it months ago...especially when it comes at the expense of a Republican.

Ayers is far worse, and is just starting to break through all outlets...


We'll see.

Point is, JFK paid his dues as a politican spending 14 years in the House & Senate. Regardless of what he stood for, he had a background and track record that suggested he was more than capable of being President. Barack has no such history.
Obama's been elected to public office since 1996. Apparently, that's an October surprise to you.


Plus, I would argue, that by today's standards, JFK would be a Republican. Absolutely.
I'd argue that Nixon would be a Democrat by today's standards.

http://www.realchange.org/mccain.jpg

In 1995, McCain sent birthday regards, and regrets for not attending, to Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, who had retired to Arizona. Another politician to send regrets was Governor Fife Symington, who has since been kicked out of office and convicted of 7 felonies relating to fraud and extortion.



Back in the old days, defendants in famous trials got numbers -- the Chicago Eight, the Gang of Four, the Dave Clark Five, the Daytona 500. McCain was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips.

Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)

Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."

What has Barack ever done in his political career that would give me even the slightest bit of reason to believe he's capable of doing so...?
What has he not done? Or more better what exactly are you asking for when there's nothing he could have ever done to please you besides not winning?



He says he's going to lower taxes, but he's never done so when he's had 94 opportunities to in the Senate. Your judged on your past decisions/actions, and on that specific issue, there's legitimate reason to think he's lying.
Weird, he has no experience running shit on one complaint, then he's responsible for whether our taxes were lowered at your convenience? Wil don't waste all this bullshit on me, I really am not primed to look past it as something you really believe.



Plus, he's not radical in the way JFK was (and I'm not sure JFK was radical at all). JFK wasn't friends with un-repentant terrorist like Barack is. JFK never accepted campaign donations from foreign people like Barack did. JFK never benefited from the corrupt administration of a major mortgage company. JFK never involved himself with organizations like ACORN who commit voter fraud (which is a felony). JFK was a Catholic, genuine politican who was respected by both parties and had a lengthy, sharp political resume' before he was President, while Barack's nothing more than a celebrity with no track record of success, no track record of political accomplishment, and no story to tell.
Uhhh yea...Oh wait..

(CBS) Legendary crooner Frank Sinatra served as a liaison between John F. Kennedy's 1960 campaign for president and mobster Sam Giancana in a scheme to use Mafia muscle to deliver union votes, Sinatra's daughter tells 60 Minutes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/05/60minutes/main238980.shtml


Bay of Pigs, Cuba, April 15, 1961 - JFK interfered with the military operation both in planning and execution to make it worse; did not keep commitments he had made, especially for airstrikes; made public statements that the US would not support insurrection in Cuba which discouraged resistance to Castro, blamed others for its failure and lied to the public about it. JFK weakened the original plan to make it virtually certain to fail (both of the original CIA planners Esterline and Hawkins threatened to resign over the changes). JFK was directly told by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Lemnitzer that the invasion "would have very little chance of success." The Joint Chiefs in a memorandum of January 27, 1961 wrote "The current Political-Para-Military Plan does not assure the accomplishment of the above objective nor has there been detailed follow-up planning to exploit that plan if it succeeds or for any direct action that might be required if the plan is found to be inadequate." JFK went ahead with the plan, according to Arthur Schlesinger, to impress Eisenhower and Kruschev. RFK led the cover-up to protect the president with a shield of lies that he had received bad advice and really didn't know much about it. Esterline says now "What I find so unacceptable is how cavalier they (the Kennedys) were in taking nearly 2,000 people and putting them out as animal bait." Four Americans and 114 CIA-trained Cubans were killed and 1,189 were captured.


Kennedy, like Clinton after him, slipped away from his security detail for trysts leaving the army officer with the nuclear football behind. If there had been a surprise nuclear attack against the US, we would have been defenseless.


And as a catholic he was one of the most adulterous presidents ever. But beyond that you tried to imply indirectly he's good in his beliefs against Obama's religious beliefs(which as a racist retard you believe to be muslim off his name alone).




I'm not saying John McCain is the answer to America's problems. I've made it clear several times on here, going way back, early in the year that I would rather have seen Mitt Romney be the GOP candidate. All I'm saying is, Barack Obama isn't the answer.
So whats your big picture? That McCain is the stop gap America needs as a conservative slave? You're campaigning for McCain and his not so ready for prime time sidekick. You're endorsing his smear ads. For what? So Obama is a fraud? Fraud to what? Being a legit Presidential candidate? Palin is and he isn't? That's some severely hypocritical shit even for a dense gung ho right winger as yourself.

The term maverick is just an adjective that means that you've disagreed with your own party. How often he's done so is irrelavant to the usage of the term. Yeah, I'll agree, the title has gotten a bit oversaturated, but who cares?

But seriously, I just mentioned how Obama is friends with a terrorist and supports a group that committs voter fraud, and all you have as a response is why is McCain is a maverick?

C'mon...
Since I think there is no real connection, I didn't bother answering it. I'm serious about mine though. Name what McCain has gone against his party on.

Since I think there is no real connection, I didn't bother answering it. I'm serious about mine though. Name what McCain has gone against his party on.
Supposedly VP choice, and they overruled him.

What has he not done?


See, even you can't answer that. Because he's accomplished nothing.

And 28 years later, Jimmy Carter will finally get his 2nd term.

I'd argue that Nixon would be a Democrat by today's standards.


Fair. Although I'd never compare Obama to Nixon, or Kennedy for that matter.

Since I think there is no real connection, I didn't bother answering it. I'm serious about mine though. Name what McCain has gone against his party on.

He's for gay marriage.

And if you think Obama has no true connection to Ayers, then you either haven't taken the time to look or your just in denial.

What has he not done? Or more better what exactly are you asking for when there's nothing he could have ever done to please you besides not winning?

Weird, he has no experience running shit on one complaint, then he's responsible for whether our taxes were lowered at your convenience? Wil don't waste all this bullshit on me, I really am not primed to look past it as something you really believe.

Uhhh yea...Oh wait..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/05/60minutes/main238980.shtml

And as a catholic he was one of the most adulterous presidents ever. But beyond that you tried to imply indirectly he's good in his beliefs against Obama's religious beliefs(which as a racist retard you believe to be muslim off his name alone).

So whats your big picture? That McCain is the stop gap America needs as a conservative slave? You're campaigning for McCain and his not so ready for prime time sidekick. You're endorsing his smear ads. For what? So Obama is a fraud? Fraud to what? Being a legit Presidential candidate? Palin is and he isn't? That's some severely hypocritical shit even for a dense gung ho right winger as yourself.

Wow, somebody has thin skin...

And let me guess, you calling me a 'racist' all goes back to Heath Ledger right??

Give me a break, I thought I was supposed to be the college student.

I hope you don't beat your kids when they color outside the lines.

See, even you can't answer that. Because he's accomplished nothing.
No, you're missing the point. you're also only taking the one thing you can defend and solely harping on it with a spin. Not much further than the one liners you were bitching about.

But back to the fact that no answer will satisfy you. I tell you he has experience in government, you'll bitch about not enough. I'll point out his plans and policies(which is what i'd look at first and foremost myself), you'd say that you haven't read about them.

It gets real circular when a guy who has no desire to accept something asks you to "convince him"...Its at that moment that your question becomes a retarded game i cannot take serious enough to answer and spin around with you when you didn't really want an answer. You're hardcore right wing. So far right that you'd even rationalize the the negatives. In what reality does anyone take your "tell me and convince me" questions of entrapment seriously. Even in not answering you swear there isnt one. lol..Its your most used trait, try to think for people and tell them what heir thinking off the top of your head.

Wow, somebody has thin skin...

And let me guess, you calling me a 'racist' all goes back to Heath Ledger right??

Give me a break, I thought I was supposed to be the college student.

I hope you don't beat your kids when they color outside the lines.

Wow, somebody has thin skin...
I'd have to be mad or hurt, which I am neither. Its racist. but believe what you want. This isnt a cap off, its an election. Talk like that has no place in it. But thats my standards, yours are proven lower.


And let me guess, you calling me a 'racist' all goes back to Heath Ledger right??
No he's dead, Maybe when McCain dies in a couple months it'll have some posthumous connection and they'll both win an Academy Award.


Give me a break, I thought I was supposed to be the college student.
Yet you come across as a high school neo con teen. Your answers don't help. Don't back up half the shit you say and seem to get a lil' lost in your right wing element to tell up from down.


I hope you don't beat your kids when they color outside the lines
~crickets~

That joke failed. try again.

Your playing mind games with yourself. I've never gotten an answer to the question in the first place, so how can you assume I'll bitch about it?

I think it's a fair question, if this man's going to be our next President, I'd like to know a bit about what types of things he's accomplished in his political career.

Who cares whether I agree or not, I just want to know. Hillary has a track record. Kerry, Gore, John Edwards, all three of those men had track records.

Barack doesn't seem to have one. He only has a plan for the future, which is all fine & dandy but when your history suggests you can't follow up on your plans, then forgive me for being hesitant to think he's not ready to be President.

How am I a racist? Enlighten me.

Because I'm not going to vote for the black candidate?? If that's 'racist', than I'm guilty.

Your playing mind games with yourself. I've never gotten an answer to the question in the first place, so how can you assume I'll bitch about it?

I think it's a fair question, if this man's going to be our next President, I'd like to know a bit about what types of things he's accomplished in his political career.

Who cares whether I agree or not, I just want to know. Hillary has a track record. Kerry, Gore, John Edwards, all three of those men had track records.

Barack doesn't seem to have one. He only has a plan for the future, which is all fine & dandy but when your history suggests you can't follow up on your plans, then forgive me for being hesitant to think he's not ready to be President.

Your playing mind games with yourself. I've never gotten an answer to the question in the first place, so how can you assume I'll bitch about it?
Because you always have you dense genius..lol...Dont like your rep, then dont build it. theres no games involved on my end, I'm not defending smear ads.



I think it's a fair question, if this man's going to be our next President, I'd like to know a bit about what types of things he's accomplished in his political career.
I think its fair to say you are an idiot if you need to ask this and have an internet connection to look it up yourself. So either you are playing stupid with these games, or really are. Which is it Fredo.


Who cares whether I agree or not, I just want to know. Hillary has a track record. Kerry, Gore, John Edwards, all three of those men had track records.
Did you read there's or someone told you?


Barack doesn't seem to have one.
LOL...a conclusion with no actual checking up on this yourself? Brilliant!!!!!!!! Fredo you really do remind me of Fredo from the godfather with this sharp thinking.

How am I a racist? Enlighten me.
I can't since i didnt call you racist, I called Sarah Palin's statement Racist and its meant to incite as much all part of the smear campaign....lol ....LMAO ...RTFLMAO ~then realizing that you really read it like that~ ummm Wow...WTF Fredo..

Either way good luck showing the world how much a fraud you found Obama to be after not reading up on him. Very Ohio like of you.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Either way good luck showing the world how much a fraud you found Obama to be after not reading up on him. Very Ohio like of you.

What are you talking about?? I've already looked for answers and FOUND NOTHING!

That's why I asked, to see if anybody knew!?!?

AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN ME AN ANSWER!! YOU'VE REPLIED THREE TIMES AND YOU HAVE YET TO ANSWER A PRETTY EASY QUESTION.

Because you know he's an empty shell.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

What are you talking about?? I've already looked for answers and FOUND NOTHING!.


You got some funny eyes... Mxy see how its not worth it.

Give me a break, for your own well-being I hope Obama wins.

Romney '12!

Happy?

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/I_found_the_BEEF_Obama_s_Senate_Record

^ First result by Google 'obama record'.

Here's another place to look for an anti-Obama October surprise:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100803890.html

Here's what McCain thinks will be an October surprise:
ONfJ7YSXE5w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONfJ7YSXE5w

Someone needs to tell McCain that the Obama/Ayres "radical education group" was funded by the same prominent Republican family that currently donates to the McCain campaign. Shhh... it's a theeqwet!

I will say, McCain does have the best anonymous ad narrator of any of 'em.

the prominent republican family isn't running for president...

there's a big difference

He's for gay marriage.



WTF Fact Check says:

Neither candidate supports gay marriage.

You know what's funny? Ledezma seems like an educated guy. He's articulate (at least in writing) has a large vocabulary and seems to know a lot about a wide variety of things.

But for being as smart as he seems to be, he says a lot of stupid shit. It's like when he disagrees with something, his brain shuts down. You can see it here and you can especially see it in the NCAA forum.

EDIT: Typo

the prominent republican family isn't running for president...

there's a big difference
McCain needs to denounce and reject anyone with financial ties to terrorists, anyone who gives them aid and comfort. Furthermore, McCain MUST DEMAND investigations into the terrorist funding that has infiltrated his campaign. That WOULD be an October surprise. :)

You know what's funny? Ledezma seems like an educated guy. He's acticulate (at least in writing) has a large vocabulary and seems to know a lot about a wide variety of things.

But for being as smart as he seems to be, he says a lot of stupid shit. It's like when he disagrees with something, his brain shuts down. You can see it here and you can especially see it in the NCAA forum.



Its "articulate". You are wrong and have learned nothing. Just like that terrorist Obama.

LOL. Thanks for the heads up.

Here we go again.


Report: Voter purges in 6 states may violate law

Thu Oct 9, 1:07 AM ET

NEW YORK - Tens of thousands of eligible voters have been removed from rolls or blocked from registering in at least six swing states, and the voters' exclusion appears to violate federal law, according to a published report.

The New York Times based its findings on reviews of state records and Social Security data.

The Times said voters appear to have been purged by mistake and not because of any intentional violations by election officials or coordinated efforts by any party.

States have been trying to follow the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by removing the names of voters who should no longer be listed. But for every voter added to the rolls in the past two months in some states, election officials have removed two, a review of the records shows.

The newspaper said it identified apparent problems in Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina. It says some states are improperly using Social Security data to verify new voters' registration applications, and others may have broken rules that govern removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election.

Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, so any closer screening of new applications may affect their party's supporters disproportionately, the Times said.

The result is that on Election Day, voters who have been removed from the rolls could show up and be challenged by political party officials or election workers.

The six states seem to have violated federal law in two ways. Some are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state, or have been declared unfit to vote.

And some of the states are improperly using Social Security data to verify registration applications for new voters, the newspaper reported.

"Just as voting machines were the major issue that came out of the 2000 presidential election and provisional ballots were the big issue from 2004, voter registration and these statewide lists will be the top concern this year," said Daniel P. Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University.

I doubt it is coincidence that the 6 states are all considered battle ground states.