I don’t know if it’s a wise strategy or not, but Barack Obama has been spending this holiday week campaigning in what have been solidly red states. He has made stops in North Dakota and Montana, which have voted Republican for the White House for almost four decades. He also has been campaigning hard in Colorado, which has been a red state but may be in play this year. Does this mean that Kansas can expect another Obama visit?
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 8/21
- Phantom on Is it elitist not to know how many houses you own?
- Pleefer on Open thread 8/21
- Phantom on Is it elitist not to know how many houses you own?
- RFL on Is it elitist not to know how many houses you own?
- writerdog on Is it elitist not to know how many houses you own?
- outlander on Open thread 8/21
- StevenEDavis on Open thread 8/21
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 8/21
- Raptor on Is it elitist not to know how many houses you own?
40 Comments
Although it would be easy to have predicted that this year would be an easy win for the Democratic candidate for President. Obama is certainly hedging his bets and taking advantage of the temperament of the voters. What has been called “flip-flops” on some heady and arguable more Right leaning stances. Could attract more moderates in the GOP and independents.
His recent back pedaling on Iraq where at first saying in 16 months he would have the troops out. And now sounding more in line with the Republican stance of conditions on the ground. May win some right leaner but lose some far left. Shows the forces of evil have been working on him, if someone breaks into your house but they make the best cup of coffee you have ever tasted. Will that make it alright for them to stay?
Staying in Iraq is as much a moral issue as how well things are going.
Hell yes. Make McCain spend money defending states that the once-in-a-generation Republican collapse has put into play. Kansas has changing demographics, and even if Obama doesn’t take the state this year, visits change the dynamic for subsequent elections.
However, Obama should skip Oklahoma. Last I checked, McCain was running 27% ahead. No point wasting money and time on Okies who won’t vote for an African-American candidate.
A few appearances in Red states where Obama is advertising heavily (at very cheap rates) forces McCnt to divert attention to those states to his detriment.
CF and Kansas Native have it right — why would you not go where no Democrat has gone before? Nothing to lose, much to gain.
Dog, I’m not far left but have questioned what’s going on with Obama. farmgrrl and J R tried to warn me. He has flip flopped since becoming the presumptive nominee. His stance on reauthorizing the F.I.S.A. bill really concerns me. (I must add here that Senator Clinton is in agreement with his stance too so …) There is no excuse in my book for allowing any abuse of civil liberties. Is this the same man who promised all the bush signing statements would be looked at closely and brought back before the legislature if they were abusive to individual rights!? How can be even pretend to use his meme of always being against this bush war of choice and now waver on bringing our troops home!? If it couldn’t be done safely why did he use it as a campaign promise? He is proving to be nothing more than a politician and that is the lowest form of human I’ve encountered in my lifetime.
It all comes down to such a great disappointment for me. We really don’t have anyone in the running who says what they mean, does what they say. I’ve always wanted to vote FOR someone and for awhile I thought I was going to have that opportunity. Guess I’ll go back to consoling myself with how useless my vote is (in Kansas) and concentrate on those potential judicial appointments and hold my nose (once again!). I’ll end up going to the polls this fall to vote against McCain. It isn’t what I HOPED for.
Another effect could be to help Congress/Senate candidates in these ‘becomong-purple?’ states. Think of the impact if Roberts and Tiahrt get beat?
“Think of the impact if Roberts and Tiahrt get beat?”
——-
That’s a worthwhile HOPE!
Obama is merely assuming the role that will be his officially after the Denver Democrat Greenfest in Denver next month.
He is now the presumpitive nominee. He will yield to Al Gore in Denver, and Al Gore is unlikely to take the Tool Obama along as VP. Obama will be preannounced as the Attorney General, which is why he is now staking out less politicized ground from which to stand. He will also continue to raid GOP “safehouses,” both before and after his humble sidestep in Denver.
Go to my blog and watch the category “My Gore Hypothesis” for more on this emerging story.
“We really don’t have anyone in the running who says what they mean, does what they say.”
I rarely disagree with your position, Linda, but on this I feel that you may be overreacting.
I am also concerned about FISA and Iraq, but I don’t think that Obama has actually strayed too far from the reservation.
I still believe that he will get us out of Iraq in the time frame mentioned, but his first concern, as is mine, is the safety of the troops. My concern from the beginning of the conflict was our troops and it still is.
As far as the FISA bill; as you mentioned both Obama and Clinton have moved to support the bill. I don’t know the reason, but I will be watching to see what compromise was negotiated.
I don’t know where it is you are coming from or where you get your info “bjb”.
I DO like what you have to say. An addy for the blog? Let’s see where you come to this most interesting conclusion?
Of course if you are incorrect…
There is a very real danger here folks.
Obama has become accustomed to being loved. That is one of the most addictive drugs that is known.
He is ALREADY disrespecting what should be his base.
Maybe he figures they HAVE to love him.
Where else are they gonna go?
In his effort to be ever more universally loved, will he try to make the right love him?
Being already willing to mistreat the “faithful”, what will he be willing to do to them to win the love of the right?
He can’t have my vote.
I want to believe you, wsc. I’m watching and listening. I’d rather vote FOR Obama, but ya know I WILL vote against McCain.
BlueJay, Mouse over the three letter nic to get the blog site. Be careful going to places like that one! We won’t wait long before calling for the search party.
Linda says ‘Dog, I’m not far left’. This from someone who goes on to say that the Senator from Illinois who was voted the most liberal senator wasn’t far enough left for her.
You might get an inkling of how the right on this blog see you when you look at that statement.
Im still waiting for someone whose ‘civil liberties were abused with the FISA bill’. What was that liberty?
bjb - back away from the crack pipe.
obama should come and campaign for Slattery, or at least help offset Robert’s bush money with a fund raiser.
“Im still waiting for someone whose ‘civil liberties were abused with the FISA bill’. What was that liberty?”
You don’t get it do you?
Even if none of us PERSONALLY lost liberties, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that NO ONE loses liberty.
Dang.
Well WS just tell me in general who lost ‘civil liberties’ with this bill. Both of your candidates see the value of it. What liberty was lost?
Just curious.
The Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I see that you got the right amendment. What those in the position of authority realized was that as with most amendments times have changed since they were written. Extraordinary circumstances need powers not spelled out years ago.
If you are such a literalist then show me the amendment that guarantees the right of a woman to harm her unborn child.
“Obama is a liberal, but he’s not the most liberal,” said Keith Poole, a University of California-San Diego professor.
Though it would be comforting for “all or nothing” “no shades of gray” Republicans to paint Senator Obama as extreme, the facts do not seem to support the assertion.
“On votes where Bush indicated his position, CQ found Obama supported the Republican president 40 percent of the time in 2007. That 40 percent rating put Obama in the middle of the pack for Democrats.”
more at:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/16/Obama-lefty/
“If you are such a literalist then show me the amendment that guarantees the right of a woman to harm her unborn child.”
Scalia has gone on record as stating that abortion is NOT a constitutional issue.
“If you are such a literalist then show me the amendment that guarantees the right of a woman to harm her unborn child.” — unknown poster
Show me an amendment that guarantees the right of the fetus to harm its mother.
“Linda says ‘Dog, I’m not far left’. This from someone who goes on to say that the Senator from Illinois who was voted the most liberal senator wasn’t far enough left for her.”
The “most liberal senator” claim with regards to Barack Obama is extremely questionable. The Americans For Democratic Action, a self described liberal advocacy group that has monitored members of congress for years according to their degree of being “correct” on their (generally considered liberal) issues, gave Obama a rating of 75% for 2007 (Dick Durbin, the other Democratic Senator from Illinois, got a rating of 95%). Even Webb got a rating of 85% (which shocked me).
Interestingly, Clinton also got a rating of 75%.
http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2007.pdf
My point WS and Beber. New rights are made up as we go along.
——————————-
David B according to the National Journal:
By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.
In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. “The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter,” said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.
“New rights are made up as we go along.”
Wrong, new LAWS are enacted, but not new rights. The Constitution does not cover every eventuality.
WS if the amendments don’t change and they don’t then how can new laws be written. Don’t you think they should have some foundation in one of the constitutional amendments? If so how did the right to an abortion get tied to our right to privacy?
Someone on here yesterday was making much ado about the right to an abortion and questioning why the right didn’t overturn it. Well that is a moral issue for most and a matter of life of the child for some.
Sorry I keep losing my train of thought. Mabe in America is on CMT and it is hilarious. Some of the funniest videos ever. I’ll have to solve the problems of the world later.
Like I say, if you are more comfortable forgetting that Senator Obama voted for 40% of the Bush-supported issues in order to paint him with the complimentary label of “most liberal”, feel free.
Methodology is the determining factor in these ratings..
“In Obama’s first splash on the national stage, as keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he disparaged ideological labels as weapons used by partisans who have little else to offer. “Even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spinmasters and negative-ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything-goes,” he said. “Well, I say to them tonight: There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.” - nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
“If so how did the right to an abortion get tied to our right to privacy?”
Who tied it to a right of privacy, and where is that in the US Constitution?
Hint: The word “privacy” is not in the Constitution.
“Who tied it to a right of privacy, and where is that in the US Constitution?”
Phrased that incorrectly - my bad.
What I should have said is; there is not expressed “right of privacy” in the Constitution to tie the issue of abortion to.
Or words to that effect.
The Ninth Amendment…………….. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
This amendment is often cited as support for a “right of privacy.”
“WSClark” allows –
“The word “privacy” is not in the Constitution.”
The word, no.
The concept is all the way through it.
If the Bill of Rights were the 7 Dwarfs, the poor ol’ 3rd Amendment is “Bashful.” And even if the specific issue of quartering troops in yet another anachronism (like militias?) the underlying concept is pretty explicit. “A man’s home his his castle,” is the folksier concept from English common law. Doctor/patient confidentiality is old common and case law, too.
The concept of privacy rights is what the 4th Amendment is all about, too. And the provision of the 5th Amendment preventing forced self-incrimination is a hard-wired issue of privacy.
To present such a picayune sophomoric nit-pick is a mere attempt to distract from the issue at hand.
What is the government’s compelling interest in broaching doctor/patient confidentiality?
What constitutes legal person-hood in the eyes of the law?
Birth? (in most matters, yes)
Viability outside the womb? (perhaps, maybe)
“Quickening?” (worked for the Catholics for 1700 years)
Implantation of a zygote in the uterus? (there’s a case that might be made)
Conception? (begs the ectopic pregnancy question)
When you light up the post-coital cigarettes?
At the twinkle in your daddy’s eye?
That is great. If he has no money then we are safe from Nationl health care and other boondoggles of the left. The guy who set up Canada’s National Health care just said it has to be opened up to private competitive options since it simply was not working.
hmmm wonders never cease…socialist realizes its a crap system.
I guess paying those airline bills for flying all the mothers to Billings Montana for good csre got to costly for them. When there is a 6 week wait for hospital rooms….guess you better plan ahead for that bad wreck…
Mr Bill…so how does Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA do it? Giving Medicare over to private insurers has been a disaster…when will you and your’s get it through your thick heads that corporations are bleeding us dry in every aspect of our lives? You’re getting as screwed as anyone else and yet you’ll go to the wall to defend their right to do it.
We can take universal health care and make it work…we could be the model for the rest of the world on how to do it right. Affordable health care for everyone should be top priority for the next administration. Your life may depend upon it.
“The concept is all the way through it.”
Correct, Mr. Hawk (I don’t know you well enough to call you by your first name) but the Constitution is not about individual rights, it is about limiting the power of government OVER individual rights.
But specifically, there is not a “Right to Privacy” in the Constitution, nor is there any amendment that would specifically address the issue of abortion.
Mostly, the Constitution says that government should keep it’s nose out of a private citizen’s business.
Sounds good to me.
Misinformation about Canadian health care? There is no “guy” who set up the system. LOL. There are notable wait times to see specialists sometimes, but problems can be addressed. No car accident victim “waits” for a room.
I am sure we all can cherry-pick info that supports our views… but it seems to me that when US insurance companies pocket 30% to shuffle paper.. we are not getting a good deal…
You can read more about our two systems at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared if you want some better info …
I find it hilarious that so many are so upset about FISA when we live in a country that allows the government to order adults to wear seatbelts and helmets, refrain from disciplining children and smoke only in permitted areas. We have cameras to catch speeders all over the place, satellite pictures that can zoom down to street level, mandatory drug testing at most workplaces, restrictions on clearly defined rights such as gun ownership and freedom of religion…and yet so many people are concerned because the government looked at phone records to see who was calling countries that support terrorists. how ridiculous!!
The problem with the me-me about name someone who’s right have been violated is that as was found in the class action lawsuit Since the government claims national security is involve they will not say whom in the U.S. has been spied on. There for no one can claim to have been spied upon and the public can not know to what extent the spying has gone on.
The problem is also that no where in the law does it say that there has to be grounds to believe the person is a terrorist or has terrorist connections. Their answer to the question is answered with
“We are with the government trust us!”.
This is the same government that has suspended Habeas corpus in the United States and that does and can effect everyone. Whether you are involved in blowing up a building or a speeding ticket, but than so far either one has no been in the news. It was done in the first patriot act and little has been said of it.
“I find it hilarious”
So much stupidity, so little time. Where to begin………..
“refrain from disciplining children”
Child abuse is not “disciplining” a child.
“that allows the government to order adults to wear seatbelts and helmets”
They also require that you have working brakes on your vehicle. Any issue with that?
“We have cameras to catch speeders all over the place”
Sounds good to me, speed is one of the primary reasons for traffic deaths.
“mandatory drug testing at most workplaces”
Do you want the forklift driver in the warehouse driving stoned?
“and freedom of religion”
How is your freedom to practice your religion restricted?
“satellite pictures that can zoom down to street level”
I handle most of my personal business inside my house.
“restrictions on clearly defined rights such as gun ownership”
You can own a gun, just not a mortar or a bazooka.
“because the government looked at phone records to see who was calling countries that support terrorists”
No, they weren’t looking at “phone records” they were wiretapping without warrants.
FISA is not the issue, it is the warrantless wiretapping that is the issue. Past FISA bills already provide for “emergency” wiretaps with the warrant to be issued within a short period of time.
The Bush Administration decided that wasn’t good enough, they wanted to wiretap ANYONE they wanted.
I find it hilarious that you are so ill-informed on this issue.
Obama has plenty of company on this shocking FISA capitulation. Even without telecom immunity, the bill authorizes “vaccum-cleaner” type surveillance, which security and data-mining experts have repeatedly criticized as making America less safe.
My apologies for not having the facts at my fingertips–I’ve’ working on comprehensive analysis when I have time. . .and time is running out.
I suggest googling “data Mining” “false positives” for staters. The general gist is that the dragnet surveillance that the bill authorizes (so long the “target” of the dragnet surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be outside the US) will intercept mountains of unorganized data packets in transit, scooping up communications of every conceivable type, format, and source.
Never mind the privacy issues–it’s a dumb way to fight terrorism. While it’s easy enough to parse such for evidence of petty crimes (or, perhaps, keep tabs on political opponents), terrorists, like drug dealers, take great pains to blend in with the crowd, using innocuous code language (when they actually communicate online), hiding messages in images, and other techiques.
I think people who support this kind of crap see the NSA’s approach as a high-power search engine, but there’s a big difference. Websites want to be found. The protocols, the formats, indeed even the ‘meta’ tags are all very ho-hum standard.
Contrast that with international criminals who are seeking to be invisible. Yes, clues and tips can help, but more information is not necessarily better information. Getting back to the “organized” web, try typing in “Osama”–and see how much irrelevant crap.
More information is not always better information. The noise obscures the signal, false correlatiosn multiply, endless hours are wasted pursuing blind alleys.
A responsible FISA bill would demand specificity–specific IP addresses, at a mininum, and would be based on hard evidence.
Don’t get me wrong: I understand and agree with the need for pre-emptive electronic intelligence. But it needs to be done smart. This bill is DUMB.
And Obama’s support cannot be even minimally defended, except to the extent that McCain’s position is far worse.
P.S. Herem, Respectd security expert Bruce Schneier:
Data mining works best when there’s a well-defined profile you’re searching for, a reasonable number of attacks per year, and a low cost of false alarms. Credit card fraud is one of data mining’s success stories: all credit card companies data mine their transaction databases, looking for spending patterns that indicate a stolen card. Many credit card thieves share a pattern — purchase expensive luxury goods, purchase things that can be easily fenced, etc. — and data mining systems can minimize the losses in many cases by shutting down the card. In addition, the cost of false alarms is only a phone call to the cardholder asking him to verify a couple of purchases. The cardholders don’t even resent these phone calls — as long as they’re infrequent — so the cost is just a few minutes of operator time.
Terrorist plots are different. There is no well-defined profile, and attacks are very rare. Taken together, these facts mean that data mining systems won’t uncover any terrorist plots until they are very accurate, and that even very accurate systems will be so flooded with false alarms that they will be useless.
All data mining systems fail in two different ways: false positives and false negatives. A false positive is when the system identifies a terrorist plot that really isn’t one. A false negative is when the system misses an actual terrorist plot. Depending on how you “tune” your detection algorithms, you can err on one side or the other: you can increase the number of false positives to ensure that you are less likely to miss an actual terrorist plot, or you can reduce the number of false positives at the expense of missing terrorist plots.
To reduce both those numbers, you need a well-defined profile. And that’s a problem when it comes to terrorism. In hindsight, it was really easy to connect the 9/11 dots and point to the warning signs, but it’s much harder before the fact. Certainly, there are common warning signs that many terrorist plots share, but each is unique, as well. The better you can define what you’re looking for, the better your results will be. Data mining for terrorist plots is going to be sloppy, and it’s going to be hard to find anything useful.
Data mining is like searching for a needle in a haystack. There are 900 million credit cards in circulation in the United States. According to the FTC September 2003 Identity Theft Survey Report, about 1% (10 million) cards are stolen and fraudulently used each year. Terrorism is different. There are trillions of connections between people and events — things that the data mining system will have to “look at” — and very few plots. This rarity makes even accurate identification systems useless.
Let’s look at some numbers. We’ll be optimistic. We’ll assume the system has a 1 in 100 false positive rate (99% accurate), and a 1 in 1,000 false negative rate (99.9% accurate).
More here:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_for.html
Mr. Brownlee should check his facts before making encompassing statements, such as “…and Montana, which have voted Republican for the White House for almost four decades”
Clinton/Gore picked up Montana’s 3 electoral votes in the 1992 election. 16 years ago is a little shy of almost four deacdes.
I don’t really know why he is spending time in Montana. I honestly do not expect us to win there but I will defer to David Axlerod who- so far- seems to know what he is doing. Maybe they see a possibility there. I am sure Obama will be back to Kansas too- not because he thinks he can win it- but to drive home the point to the rest of the country that his “Kansas values” are their values too. I expect to see more ads with “Kansas” in them in the future.
4 Trackbacks
[...] Original post here [...]
Oklahoma Cheap Home Insurance…
Hi - just wanted to say good design and blog -…
1 000 Payday Loans…
Please keep these excellent posts coming….
montana real estate…
Now is the time to invest in US property, Don’t abandon it, invest in it….