Obama for... Alaska?

re: Obama for... Alaska?

pissed-off — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:34:26 GMT

it still is one of the United States so he'll take it along with 36 more

re: Obama for... Alaska?

alaskaMike — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:38:17 GMT

Not all Alaskans are "blood soaked" red voters. I know myself and many others would vote ANYTHING but red. It's the huge percentage of military and Christian voters. I think even THEY recognize now a 3rd term for Bush would be bad. I also think our long entrenched representative and senator will be handed their hat this time. Good riddance!

re: Obama for... Alaska?

jodi23 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:42:09 GMT

It is funny that Obama is claiming he could win Alaska and other Red states while he seems unaware that he will not win Massachusettes, an absolute Blue state. Also it is not likely despite silly polls that Obama will even win CA.

VOTING McCAIN 2008 and HILLARY 2012

re: Obama for... Alaska?

jmy9595 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:56:17 GMT

> It is funny that Obama is claiming he could win Alaska and other Red states while he seems unaware that he will not win Massachusettes, an absolute Blue state.

And exactly why would be not be winning Massachusetts? Share your wisdom and insights with us.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

dtpape — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:03:24 GMT

VOTING McCAIN 2008 and HILLARY 2012

You are completely insane if you think that McCain will win California.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

RiversideWarrior — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:07:18 GMT

I think it is very possible that Obama could come away with a 50 state sweep over Bush/McCain and their "kooks and crooks" supporters.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

KenTpa — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:20:26 GMT

jodi23 where do you get yor data. Every poll has Obama up in Mass and Calif. Do you have some magical information or are pulling this out of you know where?

re: Obama for... Alaska?

swampcat.alaska — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:34:18 GMT

Yep, I agree. Alaska isn't all "Blood soaked" red. Thank God it isn't predominately blue, though that may gradually change as more Northeastern liberals migrate here. It's the more level minded military and Christians that have helped keep this state from sinking into an even more socialistic state. I and many more I know will never vote blue. The Democrat party has morphed over the years to a more socialistic party and the Republican party is more like the Democrat party of the earlier years. The Republican party doesn't need any more Bushes and we need t replace our national representatives with more traditional Republicans. Get the Democrat "Cooks and Crooks" a padded cell.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

AlaskanSpirit — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:44:09 GMT

I want to drop a few names for Mr. Romano and I hope he pays very close attention.

Tony Knowles

Bill Sheffield

Steve Cowper

William Egan

Together these men have served more time than ALL of the elected republican governors giving Alaska a total of SEVEN terms under a democratic governor versus FIVE terms under republican governors. Granted they weren't Presidents and granted Alaska does trend toward red in federal elections however the state is not as polarized as Mr. Romano would like to paint it. I was born and raised in Alaska and just about every single person I know there is going to vote for Obama.

Another journalist that can't be bothered to do basic research. I must say ... bravo, Mr. Romano, for exposing yourself, and demonstrating for all how worthless truth is when it comes to matters of mass media in the modern day.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

speckelbelly — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:47:32 GMT

GO OBAMA! ALASKA IS A GREAT STATE! BUT MELTING VERY FAST! THERE GOING TO NEED A WHOLE LOT OF HELP IN THE COMMING YEARS!

re: Obama for... Alaska?

ASweitzer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:09:50 GMT

I don't think Newsweek is really in touch with Alaska and its deomgraphics Alaskans are for Anwr always have been the regulations in place for Artic drilling are by far the strictest in the world and they also call for Zero impact which means as a site or camp or pad is finished it must be fully restored access to the Tundra off the roads is limited and needs special permits messing with the wildlife is offlimits and can get you banned from working in Prudoe. Anwr is no different than Prudoe Bay or the rest of the North Slope. And as far as Alaskans are concerned most don't think either candidate is worthy. But since we must vote for the lesser evil it certainly ain't the Tax hungry Obama with great ambitions but where does all his funding come from for everything.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

paulte — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:44:47 GMT

Where does anyone come off thinking that a dysfunctional person like Barr will get 8% of the vote in Alaska or any state? Look at the man's tortured history and illicit affairs! Oh, it's Obama's campaign manager making the prediction. How unbiased is he?

McCain should be getting a boost from the Supreme's ruling on guns. You need to factor that one in Stumper. Obama is wasting his time in traditional red states, most especially after this ruling. Gun folks (some would say kooks) are very much in McCain's corner. I think the Supremes ruled the right way on this one but as Scalia noted, this doesn't rule out state regulation of gun ownership and usage. If you want to protect your home get a German Shepherd instead of a gun. They are superior to most humans and fiercely loyal!

re: Obama for... Alaska?

UrbanEskimo — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:21:31 GMT

LOL, the list of the great decliners, the democratic governors of Alaska. There is no doubt the state level republican party in Alaska is inept but on the national level, Obama is a doomed figure to carry Alaska. Even the much vaunted Knowles couldn't win a contested senate seat and all of him, Cowper and Sheffield all squeaked into the governorship because the Republican party was split. I believe that the current Governor Palin is the right person to unite the Republican party membership so I do not think Obama can win Alaska.

the Alaskan people remember that it was Knowles, Cowper and Sheffield presided over huge economic downturns in Alaska and the Republican Governors turned around the states economies. Knowles especially was the deathknell of economic development in Alaska and was rightly rebuffed as senatorial material. Until the Democratic party dumps the environmental terrorist wing of their party, they have little chance of being little more than marginally successful.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

tjm402@yahoo.com — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:40:59 GMT

jodi23: Oh my. As someone else pointed out, you are completely and totally NUTS if you think McCain will win California (or Massachusetts). Absolutely bonkers. And why, may I ask, would you support McCain now and Hillary in 2012? What is your vision for this country that you see best served by those choices? Sounds like you're voting either for the wrong reasons or for no reason at all - and I won't mention my fear of why perhaps you might be voting this way. Your posts are totally irrational. If you like McCain that's fine, but I hope you understand the consequences of your votes (because a Democrat voting for McCain OR a Republican voting for Hillary doesn't make much sense, if you know why you vote). It isn't a popularity contest, or a beauty pagent, or American Idol.

ps: Asweitzer...two things:

1.) Where does Obama get all that money? Have you been paying attention? He's got almost 2 million online donors giving $10, $20, $100 here and there. He gets that money from regular people.

2.) Unless you make more than around $250,000 a year, Obama doesn't want to raise your taxes. In fact, he talks about lowering them. You might see him as a "tax and spend" liberal, but I never understood why people will vote against their own interests to save a few rich people from paying their fair share.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

callmehandy64 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:29:07 GMT

Obama gets 40% of his campaign money from individual, small donors. The rest he is getting from 2,000 a plate dinners. Don't fool yourself into thinking that he isn'r beholden to a lot of people because HE IS. Why do you think it's a big deal to romance Clinton's big donors? He's also pushing big for ethanol corporations. If we convert to growing our crops for food to ethanol it will drive food costs up! What does that mean to the average American? Paying more to feed your family while huge profits go to big ethanol companies. Stop being dense. Obama is bought and sold you small donors down the river already. Remember, theirs only one person sitting behind the desk in the oval office and this "movement" propels only one person into that chair.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

ragallaher — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:37:10 GMT

Obama has a good chance at winning Alaska. Longtime Alaskans tend to vote for the best candidate, whatever their party affiliation. It's that independent spirit that made Alaska. It's that independence that could carry the state for Obama.

I'm a lifelong Republican and intend to vote for Obama. I voted for Bush twice and won't vote for a third term.

By the way, even John McCain, in grasping for policies that would distinguish him from Obama, still would not allow drilling in ANWR. So much for a third Bush term being a benefit for Alaska. The only good that comes to Alaska out of Washington DC is through the work of Ted Stevens and Don Young.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

swampcat.alaska — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:56:56 GMT

tjm402: I won't resort to the usual liberal mentality by berating you for your personal political preferences as you have another Blogger. I would point out, however, That anyone who would so blindly support a Progressive = Socialist = liberal Democrat, should stay home on general election day. We have enough Lemmings as it is. I have problems with both candidates but Obama is not anywhere near what is needed within 50 miles of D.C. At least McCain didn't change his name. At leastMcCain showed up and voted on bills instead of voting "Present" , abstaining, or simply not showing up on the floor. In view of Obama's Socialistic mindset, I'm glad he hasn't upheld his obligations t the folks of Illinois placed on him. And that was to vote. I have a lot of problems with McCain and his co-sponsoring bills with Kennedy, Feingold, and other staunch liberals who wish to open our borders, grand broad amnesty to illegals and wants to coddle terrorists. But that pails when compared wit the plans Obama (the ones we know of) has for America. Obama has no real public stance for anything. It's just a play on words with deception for a basis.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

Joe Z. — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:00:37 GMT

RE: swampcat.alaska

Unfortunately, when you stray from name-calling and try and present facts it seems you are on unfamiliar territory. Your claim that "At leastMcCain (sic) showed up and voted on bills instead of voting "Present" , abstaining, or simply not showing up on the floor." is undermined by the fact that McCain missed more votes than any other senator - 61.4% - way more than Senators Obama (43.3%) and Clinton (33.3%), even though McCain has had his nomination wrapped up for much longer. The rest of your post was unsubstantiated crazy talk, but for the small part based on reality, you were demonstrably wrong.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

barbara474 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:18:51 GMT

tmj402: I am one of those small (Obama) donors. Twice now. Next week it will be thrice. I am thrilled to be part of the process.

swampcat: I do not blindly follow any one or any cause. I research assiduously each issue. I find your opines trite and lacking in substance, however, I applaud you for participating in the process.

callmehandy: the figure for small donors is 90%, Please post correct facts. (You as well, jodi23)

asweitzer: his funding comes mainly (90%+/- according to most independent sources) from every-person people like me who wish to take back the government from the 'insiders'.

re: Obama for... Alaska?

J.Richter — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:35:11 GMT

Talk about not taking an idealogical liberal stand bu tactually researching facts swampcat

- MCCain has missed the most votes in the US Senate

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/939359.aspx

- There is no voting present in the US Senate

- Voting present is a feature of Illinois Senate that allows the senator to encourage a bill to be modified rather than shoot it down and all senators avail themselves of this opportunity to encourage dialogue. Obama did this 130 times and voted yes/no 2300+ times (less than 4%). Now you see its a talking point.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/

Yes there could be valid (non-idealogical and not personal) reasons to not support the guy but none of those 3 are it (4% present votes? do you know where he ranks in this regard, compared to the republican members?). At best they are uninformed dissent.

Now here is a nice read from Fox News. Yes. On his record at the US senate, before hte painting him left started this election year. Please take a few minutes and save us from the past 8 years.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/25/obamas-state-senate-years-show-bipartisan-record/

re: Obama for... Alaska?

swampcat.alaska — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:33:07 GMT

J.Richter: AS I previously stated, I have huge problems with McCain, However, your post reflects the statistics of the 110th. Congress and the Politicians have made it difficult to get an accurate percentile on individual records. It's true that the "Present" vote is an option of the Illinois Senate, but your post contains convenient omissions. I can Google as well as anyone else but the separation of facts and simple assertions can pose yet another problem for one who is searching only for that which he/she desires. Incidentally, Joe Z.:, it was 43.4% for Barack, not 43.3%, and he is rated as the most liberal senator. I concede the great shortcomings of McCain and would that we had another choice, but for people such as I, who vote issues and wish to prevent our Republic from sinking farther, Obama is not an option and as bad as our past has been, I will take it over the Obama future. WE can go tit for tat all day long and your mind will remain unchanged..as will mine. ( an omission of fact to perpetrate deception is no less a lie ) I have researched quite a lot and one thing I have discovered is, some concrete facts turn to mud upon continual observation. MSNBC, (Boston??) and CNN are perhaps the last hyperlinks I would utilize for any search. There are just too many reliable, non partisan resources available.