Quote: Rob Kamphausen said: because he's the type of guy thats willing to say what he believes and stick to his convictions, even if it pisses off people he's supposed to have to agree with. he's willing to hear out both sides of the fence, better than any politician i've ever seen.
hell, he almost seems like he's not a politician, he's so good.
mcain, or mccain as i call him, would be the best president in, and for, a generation.
He’s every liberal’s favorite conservative, but since McCain has his sights set on running for president again in 2008, let’s not forget that the senator from Arizona has his wingnut bonafides. McCain is a crypto-conservative whose principled stands put him on the side of reason every so often. But the rest of his principled stands are the opposite of progressive. Here’s a balance sheet of McCain’s policy sins and redemptions.
Campaign Finance Reform
Laudably, McCain’s 2000 campaign focused almost exclusively on rooting the monetary evil out of politics. It was one of the reasons the Straight Talk Express was on a roll until Bush and the Republican Party machinery sabotaged him. McCain’s persistence in the Senate eventually yielded the strongest campaign-finance reform legislation in history, and even that bill, McCain-Feingold, was a compromise: If McCain had his way, American elections would be publicly funded.
Global Warming
McCain is the best Republican in the country on global warming. And that’s not just because he’s one of the few members of his party who believes that there is such a thing called science. Always willing to back up words with action, McCain has repeatedly tried to broker legislative deals on the issue. He hasn’t yet succeeded, but given a slightly different congressional makeup, McCain could conceivably force a bill to the president’s desk.
Torture
I think it’s safe to say he’s against it. Five years in the Hanoi Hilton gives a guy a certain amount of credibility on the subject, and McCain sees his fight against torture as protecting future POWs from the same treatment he got. And maintaining America’s moral authority and image. That’s why it didn’t matter to him that Bush was embroiled in scandal when McCain led a successful crusade directly against the White House on the issue of torture. McCain knew exactly what he was doing: Had the same number of senators, but not including McCain, opposed torture, Bush would not have caved. McCain was rightly celebrated, but how low has the political bar fallen when a Republican who refuses to euphemize torture has become an anomaly?
Which brings us to McCain’s dark side:
John McCain Hates Choice
You gotta work hard to get a 0 percent rating from NARAL. Meaning: On the hundreds of votes McCain makes on abortion-related issues, he never once even accidentally found himself on the pro-choice edge. That’s commitment. Worse, The New Yorker reported that McCain got Gary Bauer’s endorsement in 2000 by promising not to appoint any Supreme Court justices who didn’t support overturning Roe. Even Bush, according to Bauer, refused to take that pledge. That’s a shocker that puts things into perspective: On choice, Bush is McCain-lite.
The Shill
McCain actually called campaigning for Bush “one of the proudest moments of my life.” This after Bush and Rove ran the dirtiest campaign in modern political history against the Senator during the 2000 South Carolina primary, questioning his sanity, his war record (!), and running a whisper campaign about his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, whom they called his “black love child.” Instead of kicking Bush’s ass personally, McCain holds Bush’s hand all across the country in 2004, probably winning the election for him — even after Bush fucked up the country and opposed McCain’s legislative priorities his whole first term. The Straight Talk Express seems to be jumping its rails at the chance for party-line work that will help McCain in 2008.
Pragmatic Creationism
Yes, even sane McCain believes we should teach intelligent design alongside evolution. So that’s how we’re going to compete with China and India with faith-based science? It’s a strange inconsistency, in light of McCain’s work on global warming, but this summer McCain told the Arizona Daily Star that he endorsed teaching intelligent design in the nation’s schools because “he believes ‘all points of view’ should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.” Again McCain’s famed principles are being overcome by the whiff of politics; the only people publicly backing intelligent design when not faced with legislative decisions on the issue are Republican presidential hopefuls.
He Holds Barry Goldwater’s Seat
And is damn proud of it. Goldwater, of course, was the ultraconservative Arizona senator who ran for president, terrified the nation and lost to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide. But Goldwater’s failed bid was the fiery political phoenix from whose ashes rose the entire modern conservative political movement. If Goldwater is the progenitor of conservatism, John McCain, his immediate successor, is its faithful son. McCain despises taxes, fights minimum-wage increases and tried to impeach Clinton. Don’t believe the media who all fell in love with McCain on his bus in 2000: The dude’s a Republican.
We Don’t Want To Fight, but By Jingo, if We Do...
Which is why McCain is just as much a warmonger as Bush. Or even more so. Double Bush’s aggression, halve his political caution, and expand his target list and you’ve got something approaching McCain’s foreign-policy program. McCain was the original neoconservative adventurist, the presidential prospect of choice for the cadre of neocons most closely identified with the Iraq war. Rational people should not be lauding the guy that Bill Kristol’s The Weekly Standard endorsed for president. Even now, his big idea for Iraq is “more troops.”
The funny thing is: that list is from a liberal but it sort of demonstrates why I've never been that enthusiastic about McCain.
On about half the issues I'm to his right and on the other half I'm to his left.
I'm to his right on economics and the torture issue (thought that's mostly over matters of semantics) and to his left on most of the social/religious issues.
I'm not sure if my opposition to campaign finance reform puts me to his right or his left (I think my view would actually be libertarian on this) but I do know its the single biggest objection I have to him.
About the only issue where I agree with him fully is the war. I still think his "may God have mercy on them because we will not" quote was one of the best ever post 9/11
McCain is the only politician I respect. Really; the only one.
Part of me hopes he doesn't run, though, as I'm sure he would soften his "renegade" attitude in favor of placating his conservative supporters and peers.
Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), back in the state where a bruising primary loss crippled his 2000 White House bid, said on Monday his party had "lost our way" on spending and needed to clean up widespread influence-peddling and lobbying abuses.
The Arizona senator, a potential White House candidate again in 2008, praised President George W. Bush for his judicial nominations and for making what McCain said was steady progress in Iraq.
But he said the federal budget had spiraled out of control under Republican leadership. He called for tighter restrictions on earmarking -- the congressional practice of inserting local projects in spending bills -- and tighter controls on lobbyists in Washington.
"We have lost our way on fiscal responsibility," McCain told the dinner of Spartanburg County Republicans in South Carolina, a state that promises to play a crucial early role in the 2008 White House race. "Republicans have got to clean up our act, make these much needed reforms and get back on track."
McCain has sponsored a proposal to require more disclosure of lobbying activities and tighter control on the process in light of the widening corruption scandal centered on lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
But he said the congressional practice of quietly inserting pet spending projects into mammoth federal spending bills must be stopped before significant lobbying reforms can take place.
I agree with McCain in principle on this. However, I wish he would "walk the walk," not just "talk the talk."
For example, McCain blasts lobbying and influence peddling. That's good.
But when he wrote campaign finance, he exempted the group that gives him more money than any other member of congress. That's bad.
Eventually, if he really wants to be President, McCain has to stop saying one thing and doing another.
Eventually, if he really wants to be President, McCain has to stop saying one thing and doing another.
You haven't been paying attention to a single president in the last hundred years, have you? This actually makes him more presidential.
Seriously, I agree. I like Mccain (when he's not towing the line by suddenly supporting Bush months after a brutal campaign against each other in which Mccain was seriously slandered).
That presidents often say one thing and do something seemingly inconsistent is hard to dispute.
However, typically those inconsistencies, to be unmemorable, tend to be on something other than the candidate's "core platform."
When a candidate runs on, basically, one "core platform" (be it the economy, family values, the environment or whatever), and it is shown that they are hypocritical in that one area, it can spell death for the campaign.
For example, Bush Sr ran on "read my lips, no new taxes." Later raising taxes, more than anything else, killed his campaign in 92. His flip flop meant there was nothing left for him to define himself with.
McCain's whole "schtick" is "ethics in government." That's fine, but once its shown he's exempting his contributors from that, it will make him look very bad. He'll have nothing left to define or differentiate himself from, for example, Hillary Clinton.
Wouldn't McCain run on more than just the one primary issue? Considering this post 9/11 world I don't think anybody could focus to much on just one economic issue & do very well.
Every Republican is going to run on strong defense.
Every Republican is going to run on tax cuts.
Where McCain seeks to differentiate himself from the rest of the GOP field is by his efforts at censoring political speech, uh, I mean "campaign finance reform". That is the issue on which he defines himself.
So, as more and more people become aware that McCain is talking the talk, but not walking the walk, and hypocritically exempting his own constituency from the rules, it will be harder, if not impossible for him to run on that issue.
Officially, he is not yet running and won't make up his mind until after the fall elections, but in an interview in his Senate office (March 2), McCain sounds as if an announcement of his candidacy is merely a formality.
He calls his 2000 campaign "the most exhilarating period of my life." He repeats the phrase for emphasis.
McCain has sometimes publicly disagreed with President Bush on certain issues, but about the president's handling of the war on terror since 9/11, McCain offers generous praise: "The war on terror is what re-elected President Bush. We were able to frame the debate in that (2004) campaign ... that President Bush was by far the most qualified guy. By the way, I believe that to this day with my heart and soul."
What may attract Republicans who believe President Bush is not a true conservative is McCain's willingness to oppose the president on more spending and bigger government, along with McCain's language on the consequences of illegal immigration. During our interview, McCain tells me: "The director of the FBI has stated 'there are more people from countries of interest coming across our border.' So there is no doubt the threat (from infiltration of radical Muslims) has increased. That's why immigration reform - of which border enforcement is a part - must be a prime issue."
McCain believes the issue of a United Arab Emirates company managing U.S. ports, while important, should not be our highest priority: "If something were to happen at a U.S. port, it isn't the port that will be the problem, but the port where (the cargo) originated, or where it passes through. I believe the war in Iraq is of transcendent importance. Same with Iranian nuclear weapons. So is continued infiltration of al-Qaida back into Afghanistan."
McCain says that while he has a good handle on foreign policy, he intends to learn more on domestic issues, including economics, tax policy and health care: "I'm going to have to be smarter on some issues than I am now."
He's confident his "25-year record on pro-life" will satisfy social conservatives. About culture: "I've done some terrible things in my life, so I try not to be a judge, but it seems to me there is a poison in our culture that we have to address. Maybe it's through the bully pulpit, but we can't pass a bunch of laws to control it all."
McCain is doing his homework and laying the groundwork for an election run. Whether he actually runs depends on shifting political winds over which he has minimal control.
Senator John McCain began his week by embracing the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the conservative religious leader he once denounced as polarizing. He ended it by joining Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the liberal Massachusetts icon, in a fight for an immigration bill opposed by many conservatives.
Mr. McCain has long sought to present himself as a singular sort of American politician — straight-talking, iconoclastic and hard to quantify. But as he began a campaign-style trip here that will take him through Florida, Ohio and Iowa, he faced an extraordinarily complex political challenge as he sought to reconcile his appeals to an unusually diverse audience and cement his early standing in the emerging Republican presidential field.
Mr. McCain's alliance with Mr. Kennedy comes as he has embarked on a campaign to repair strains with conservatives and a once-wary Bush White House. He is portraying himself as a lifelong conservative and a steadfast supporter of President Bush, once a political rival, courting his senior staff members and fund-raisers.
He has endorsed Bush tax cuts he once criticized as fiscally ruinous, and he agreed to appear at a commencement at Liberty University, headed by Mr. Falwell, whom Mr. McCain once called an agent of "intolerance."
But a strategy designed to muscle him through the 2008 Republican primaries — should he ultimately run, which aides says is likely but not definite — risks diluting the independent image that has been central to his political appeal. Already, Mr. McCain is facing stiff questions from supporters and critics about how far he will go to win support from conservative leaders who have long been wary of him.
Mr. McCain said that he had not changed any position for political reasons, and that he was more conservative than his occasional high-profile breaks with the right might lead casual observers to believe.
"I've always been a conservative," he said. "I think my voting record clearly indicates that on economic issues, national security issues, social issues — I'm pro-life — so I think I could make an argument I've had a pretty clear 20-some-year record basically being conservative."
Mr. McCain's associates said it would be nearly impossible to win the nomination without quelling concern among conservatives who, even before his immigration bill — over which he was attacked by Republicans at two town hall meetings he held during his 24 hours here — were concerned by his advocacy for campaign finance laws, a global warming treaty and gun control.
A critical part of Mr. McCain's strategy to win the nomination is to persuade conservatives to swallow concerns about those views by presenting himself as the most electable Republican because of his appeal to moderates and independents. That distinction could fade should Mr. McCain emerge with a lasting reputation as conservative or hypocritical, his advisers said.
If he has not changed his positions, as Mr. McCain repeatedly insisted in an interview, he has at the very least changed the coloring of how he has presented himself to the public.
After denouncing Mr. Bush's tax cuts when they were first proposed, he voted in favor of making them permanent. He spoke approvingly of a South Dakota law that would prohibit virtually all abortions, part of an effort by abortion opponents to prod the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, though he said it should include an exemption for rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother.
He said schools should be allowed to offer "intelligent design" courses as an alternative to evolution, a huge issue for many conservatives. And he accepted the invitation to speak at the Liberty University commencement by Mr. Falwell, saying he saw no difference between that and accepting an invitation from Bob Kerrey, the former senator from Nebraska, to speak at the New School, where Mr. Kerrey is president.
Mr. McCain's reconciliation campaign has had some success with conservative leaders. Mr. Falwell spoke warmly of Mr. McCain, saying he was as conservative on social issues as any Republican who might run for president.
"I've felt since I first knew about him that he stood on the right side of the ball on social issues," Mr. Falwell said. "I don't think he has changed his views. He is certainly pro-life. He clearly is an advocate of the husband-female family, he does not support same-sex marriage. I know of no reason I could not support him."
Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council and a former adviser to Mr. McCain, disputed any suggestion that Mr. McCain was trying to repackage his political product.
"Neither the right nor the left understands him," Mr. Wittmann said. "He's always had unconventional alliances. It's just now the left doesn't like the alliances he's making when in the past they would have approved of them.
"If John McCain had been elected in 2000," he continued, "he would likely have been as conservative or more conservative than President Bush."
On a second front, after a famously rancorous primary battle with Mr. Bush in 2000, Mr. McCain has made a methodical effort to rebuild his standing with the Bush family. It started in 2004, when he latched himself to Mr. Bush's side, and has continued this year with his defense of an increasingly isolated Mr. Bush on the war in Iraq and the proposed Dubai ports deal.
Last week, Mr. McCain went to Texas to speak at a program sponsored by the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation, where he offered effusive praise of the president's mother and father, who were beaming at his side.
As he campaigned through New Hampshire this weekend, Mr. McCain seemed almost to enjoy the complicated road he was following: defending his immigration bills against an angry challenge from a former Republican state representative from North Hampton one moment, and saying that Mr. Bush had not been given the credit he deserved for the roaring economy the next.
"I think a lot of people don't exactly get where I'm at," he said.
A shocking new poll in the super-Democratic state of Massachusetts shows Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton could be in trouble there if she faces Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential race.
McCain draws 44 percent to Clinton's 43 - a statistical tie - in liberal lion Ted Kennedy's home state, the Rasmussen Reports poll found. Clinton's surprisingly weak showing comes despite the fact that Massachusetts voters say they'd prefer to vote for a Democrat in 2008 by an overwhelming ratio of 53 to 22 percent.
"It's hard to think of a scarier scenario for Democrats than Massachusetts being a tossup state in 2008. Even George McGovern [who lost 49 states in 1972] carried the Bay State," said independent pollster Scott Rasmussen.
Al Gore does no better than Clinton.
"It's not clear whether these results tell us more about the weakness of Clinton and Gore or about the strength of John McCain as a potential candidate. It's probably a bit of both," Rasmussen said. He noted candidates look more partisan as elections heat up, so it's unlikely that McCain could actually win the Democratic state - but it's a big worry for Clinton that he even looks competitive.
McCain is only praised and uplifted by Democrats and the liberal press because of his periodic dissent from Bush, that allows them to say: "even Republicans don't agree with Bush."
But McCain is vulnerable on a number of issues, and if he ever becomes the candidate, Democrats will turn on him in a second and rip his credibility to shreds.
McCain, like Bush, sucks up to the Christian yahoos by voicing support for teaching intelligent design in schools. He has said that kids should be exposed to this half-assed non-science because "all points of view" should be available to students.
Down factor: America needs more science taught in schools and fewer spurious 'points of view.'
McCain was a recipient of campaign contributions/bribes from Charles H. Keating Jr's Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. He was amongst those censured for "questionable conduct" by the Department of Justice and the House Ethics Committee for obstructing investigations into its $3.4 billion collapse in 1989.
Down factor: Please... we've had enough Republican crooks already.
McCain admitted to offering "military information" in exchange for special medical treatment while in captivity also does not endear him to some ex-POWs.
Down factor: He served his country and had a rough time as a prisoner of war. But what the hell bearing would this have on his ability to be president?
McCain's five year stay in the Hanoi Hilton did not predispose him fondly to the Vietnamese people. He once said "I hate the gooks... I will hate them as long as I live."
Down factor: Would the 13.5 million Americans of Asian descent be entirely confident in a 'gook-hating' president's ability to represent them?
McCain will be 73 years old in 2008. The Gipper is often cited as the apogee of presidential senility - and he was only 69 when he got elected. This is America - not the Soviet Union. Are we angling for a gerontocracy?
Down factor: Old as dirt.
McCain once sent birthday greetings and regrets for not attending the party of Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, after he retired to Arizona.
Down factor: We don't want a president who sucks up to the Mafia. These days, the President is the Mafia, dumbass.
McCain tactfully divorced his wife Carol after she was crippled in a car wreck to hook up with the attractive and wealthy Cindy Hensley. In addition to being able-bodied, the fact that she was the daughter of millionaire Arizona beer baron Jim Hensley didn't hurt either.
Down factor: Tacky machinations and terminal inability to keep dick in pants.
McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy 894th out of a class of 899. Haven't we had enough special ed presidents already?
Down factor: May be dumb as rock.
I wonder what the Dems, who are so critical of the 2004 Swiftvet ads against Kerry, have to say about attacks by their own on McCain's military service.
Sen. John McCain, considered the front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, intends to launch an exploratory committee next week, GOP officials said Friday.
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a public statement from the four-term Arizona senator.
McCain, the GOP maverick who unsuccessfully sought his party's nomination in 2000, already has opened a bank account for the committee, one official said.
Aides to McCain say the senator will discuss whether to seek the presidency with his family over the Christmas holiday, and make a final decision thereafter.
Establishing an exploratory committee allows a potential candidate to raise money for a White House run and travel the country.
McCain is a former Navy pilot who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He was elected to the Senate in 1986, and served in the House for four years before that.
If McCain were to run, he would turn 72 on Aug. 29, 2008, at the height of the campaign. Only President Reagan was older — 73 at the start of his second term. McCain's health could be another issue. The senator has had several cancerous lesions removed from his skin.
Since losing to Bush in 2000, McCain has alternately challenged and embraced the president, building an independent reputation who isn't afraid to speak his mind. At the same time, he's sought to mend fences with conservatives he alienated in his first presidential run.
After Republicans lost control of both the House and Senate on Tuesday, McCain called for a return to the conservative principles he said make up the foundations of the Republican Party.
"We came to Washington to change government and government changed us," lamented McCain. "We departed rather tragically from our conservative principles."
He urged the party to return to a time when it was known for careful stewardship of tax dollars, less government, less regulation, lower taxes, a strong defense, as well as community and family values.
I would think, being a self-professed libertarian, his pro-life views and attempts at censorship through campaign finance reform, would bug you a lot. Those are issues that normally go right to the heart of the libertarian philosophy.
And, of course, his championed environmental regulations aren't normally the stuff of libertarian dreams either.
It will be interesting to see what McCain does in the next 2 years. This last year he really worked the parts of the GOP I'm sure he thought he needed to so that he could win a primary. Considering this election that may hurt him in a presidential bid. Personally I still like the guy & see all the recent Bush-love just political manuever that pretty much any candidate has to do.
I would think, being a self-professed libertarian, his pro-life views and attempts at censorship through campaign finance reform, would bug you a lot. Those are issues that normally go right to the heart of the libertarian philosophy.
And, of course, his championed environmental regulations aren't normally the stuff of libertarian dreams either.
You do realize that every time I've claimed to be a Libertarian, I've been joking, right?
I would think, being a self-professed libertarian, his pro-life views and attempts at censorship through campaign finance reform, would bug you a lot. Those are issues that normally go right to the heart of the libertarian philosophy.
And, of course, his championed environmental regulations aren't normally the stuff of libertarian dreams either.
You do realize that every time I've claimed to be a Libertarian, I've been joking, right?
Quote: Prometheus said: You do realize that every time I've claimed to be a Libertarian, I've been joking, right?
Quote: the G-man said: Heh. By your own standards that means you were lying about it.
Quote: Prometheus said: And by my standards, you're a hypocrite. Shall we begin with the insults, then?
Think about what you just wrote.
I made a comment about your own standards making you a liar. You didn't dispute that. Instead, you said that your own standards also make me a hypocrite.
In other words, you're saying I'm a person who lives by a double standard which can, of course, be an unconcious behavior. Lying, however, is a concious behavior.
Therefore, you've actually cast yourself in a worse light than you cast me.
Not exactly a brilliant comeback.
Furthermore, as noted on the other thread, my premise was not that you, or WB, were lying. Instead I was pointing out that not every disputed or untrue statement is a lie and suggesting that you might want to consider that as part of a more reasoned, or polite, tone to all our on-board discussions.
So I was not actually insulting you here, simply pointing out another illustration of how someone can look like they are lying when, in fact, they are not.
Not everything is black and white. Not every thing is a lie. Not everything is an insult.
And not everything is serious. If, in fact, you can absolutely, honestly say that you ever thought I was a Libertarian (when there are numerous posts where I stated I don't hold to any one party), and didn't realize it was a joke, then, I don't know what to say to you...
I'm sorry, but I really don't care enough about your political opinions to waste that much of my rapidly aging grey matter trying to keep track of when you're telling the truth about them and when you're not.
In any event, you're trying to turn the debate into whether or not you're a liberal or libertarian. As noted above, I don't care and I never really cared.
I was just pointing out, as an aside, how easy it can be to treat offhand comments as "lies" if one is so inclined.
I think it should be obvious from the past few posts that I wasn't actually calling you a liar, but simply illustrating a point.
Then, why did you try and turn this thread into a debate about my party affiliations? Perhaps, I've actually commented on the subject, and you made it about me...
But all I really did was express mild suprise that a Libertarian (which you had once claimed to be) was supportive of McCain. I did this because I wanted your opinion, as a professed libertarian, on some of McCain's positions.
It was an attempt to draw you into a conversation about specifics related to McCain's platform. Had you just said "well, I was kidding about the libertarian thing, I'm really a democrat (or whatever)," I would have probably made the same joke and then asked you how you, as a democrat (or socialist, or whatever), felt about other aspects of McCain's platform.
That's called "dialogue."
In fact, if you want, you could STILL talk about McCain's beliefs.
So, tell us, Pro. What about McCain appeals to you?
His stance on the war? His views on abortion? His views on taxes?
What exactly does a person such as yourself see in John McCain's views?
Quote: Prometheus said: Then, why did you try and turn this thread into a debate about my party affiliations? Perhaps, I've actually commented on the subject, and you made it about me...
You know, all this time you spend making out with G-Man in every thread could be spent finally doing a random interview like you promised us years ago.
Quote: Animalman said: You know, all this time you spend making out with G-Man in every thread could be spent finally doing a random interview like you promised us years ago.
You're almost as bad as Dave.
And, btw, I've got some interviews "out" right now. I'm just waiting for the answers to be sent to me so I can post them...
Did you ever notice how Clinton's hair went stark white during his time in office? I mean, talk about stress. At least Bush already had that Texan rawhide, leathery-ranch face. It's held up alot better than Clinton's pudding cheeks ever did...
Sen. John McCain stirred the 2008 political pot yesterday by creating a presidential exploratory committee and calling on fellow Republicans to return to the principles of "commonsense conservatism" that powered them to past victories.
"We lost our principles and our majority. And there is no way to recover our majority without recovering our principles first," McCain said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
He said voters swept out the Republicans from the leadership of both houses of Congress because the party went away from its principal vision of less government.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said:I can also say I've been consistent with McCain & plan to do so if he winds up winning the Republican primary. I like him now & I'll like him in '08.
Bullshit. You'll be crawling all over yourself to attack him. And build up support for the Democratic nominee. Your record precedes you my friend.
As for your other allegation that I'll support McCain if he's the GOP nominee in 2008 despite my misgivings, you're right. He's not my first choice for the GOP nod, for reasons I've explained, but he's obviously closer to me politically than either Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama.
My record is one of consistent support of McCain G-man. If I hadn't meant it I wouldn't have said it. I'm just not as one-sided as you. For you any Dem presidential candidate will be painted as something terrible no matter the merit behind your accusations. I understand thats how the political game is played but it renders your claims of bullshit...well, as bullshit. Your record precedes you buddy.
Not really much to see G-man. Our records pretty much say it all. I knew when I said that I would continue to like McCain in '08 you would dog it now & use it to your advantage later on when McCain wins the primary. It always come down to stratagy with you.
I just realized, MEM, that what's confounding you is that the fact that, given your own slavish devotion to the Democratic party, that you can't understand that a person such a myself can criticize aspects of a GOP candidate and still think he's better than another candidate.
I've expressed reservations about McCain. I've explained why I have reservations. I've explained why I prefer Guiliani to McCain and McCain to Clinton and Obama.
You, not being able to criticize a member of your own party under any circumstance, are having trouble accepting that some people can do that.
Quote: the G-man said: So you're admitting that you'll flip flop on McCain once he wins?
No just stateing that I knew that was something you would dog now & then hold me to later. If I was more like you I would have been more strategic in my support for McCain but I really like & respect him. To me it becomes pointless discussing politics if it all comes down to just really supporting blue over red no matter what.
Quote: the G-man said: I just realized, MEM, that what's confounding you is that the fact that, given your own slavish devotion to the Democratic party, that you can't understand that a person such a myself can criticize aspects of a GOP candidate and still think he's better than another candidate.
I've expressed reservations about McCain. I've explained why I have reservations. I've explained why I prefer Guiliani to McCain and McCain to Clinton and Obama.
You, not being able to criticize a member of your own party under any circumstance, are having trouble accepting that some people can do that.
Quote: the G-man said: ... You, not being able to criticize a member of your own party under any circumstance, are having trouble accepting that some people can do that.
Bullshit. I've said I don't think Obama has the experience to run as President. I also said the same thing about Hillary about an 04 run for President.
Show me a single instance that doesn't involve windsuring, where you've said a democrat is wrong...without saying "but the republicans are worse when they do it."
More BS. If Obama wins the primary I'm left with a candidate that I've said I don't feel has the experience to be President. You would never criticise a major GOP candidate in that way. Or would you like to write some off here & now for '08 instead of merely "handicapping" them as you've done with McCain?
That would be likely. It could be that I end up voting for a Republican if it's McCain VS Obama. The experience thing does really matter to me & McCain is moderate enough where I think he'll be a leader for all Americans.
No that's just stupid. To put what your asking for in perspective, I wouldn't commit to voting for Clinton over whoever ends up on the GOP ticket either. I think she's great now but there is always a chance something happens in the next two years where I wouldn't want to see her win. I think the difference between us is you'll vote & fight dirty for a bad candidate if it's from your party. There can be no good Dem candidates for you.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: My record is one of consistent support of McCain G-man. If I hadn't meant it I wouldn't have said it. I'm just not as one-sided as you. For you any Dem presidential candidate will be painted as something terrible no matter the merit behind your accusations. I understand thats how the political game is played but it renders your claims of bullshit...well, as bullshit. Your record precedes you buddy.
I've seen that you consistently voice a liking for McCain, M E M.
And while I think you like him, I don't think even you can say for certain whether you'll still prefer him to any of the Democrats offered. (And I don't mean that in an ulterior motives way, I simply mean it in an attitudes and issues change way.)
I was disappointed with Bush in early '04, and was determined not to vote for him, but when Kerry was the alternative, I voted Bush.
In past elections, I would have voted Lloyd Bentsen for president over Bush Sr.
Or Sam Nunn.
If I was old enough, I would have voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976.
And I wish Joseph Lieberman was a candidate. I would have voted for him in 2000, or '04, if he'd been offered.
Joseph Biden (despite his penchant for candid and politically incorrect remarks) is another good choice, with extensive defense and foreign policy experience.
Democrat senator James Webb is another credible choice, perhaps in 2012.
But the Democrats seem to always select someone from the extreme left wing of the party as their nominee. If they'd pick from the center, they might finally have a shot at winning.
They got Bill Clinton in the White House by picking a (comparatively) moderate figure with a decent amount of charisma who didn't consistently come across as either spineless or Satan.
Quote: Captain Sammitch said: They got Bill Clinton in the White House by picking a (comparatively) moderate figure with a decent amount of charisma who didn't consistently come across as either spineless or Satan.
Ross Perot got Bill Clinton in the White House the same way Nader got Dubya in in 2000.
SPARTANBURG, S.C. (Feb. 19) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain , looking to improve his standing with the party's conservative voters, said Sunday the court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.
"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.
McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."
The landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade gave women the right to choose an abortion to terminate a pregnancy. The Supreme Court has narrowly upheld the decision, with the presence of an increasing number of more conservative justices on the court raising the possibility that abortion rights would be limited.
Social conservatives are a critical voting bloc in the GOP presidential primaries.
McCain's campaign also announced early Sunday that he had been endorsed by former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, who had been considering his own bid for the White House, and former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, who failed in his bid for the Republican nomination in 1996.
Keating told the crowd that McCain is the "only candidate who is a true-blue, Ronald Reagan conservative."
McCain was scheduled to attend a rally promoting an abstinence program Sunday evening.
McCain has strong name recognition and the largest network of supporters in South Carolina. That backing comes in part from his staunch support for the Iraq war, something on which he focused a day earlier in Iowa. But it's the same state that dealt a crushing blow to his presidential aspirations in 2000.
McCain is trying to build support among conservatives after a recent rebuke from Christian leader James Dobson, who said he wouldn't back McCain's presidential bid. Conservatives question McCain's opposition to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He opposes same-sex marriage, but says it should be regulated by the states.
he won't. i think this is just campaigning. mccain was on the daly show and they had a whole bunch of anti-falwell craziness, then he admitted as much as this was a bit of a sell-out. I still respect mccain though, he seems like a good guy.
Sen. John McCain's troubled presidential campaign is eliminating some non-senior staff positions and cutting some consultants' contracts.
The Arizona senator's campaign characterized the moves as "minor adjustments" that are part of an overall effort to revamp its fundraising office and budgeting operation.
McCain ordered a financial overhaul after he reported raising only $12.5 million from January through March, third behind his top GOP rivals, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
"A campaign is a dynamic organization like a business, and we have to take the necessary steps to ensure it's as efficient and effective as possible," said Brian Jones, a campaign spokesman.
The campaign dismissed the notion of mass layoffs, but it wouldn't quantify exactly how many jobs are affected. Some positions won't be filled as planned in May, and some consultants will be paid on a per-project basis.
No jobs in the political or communications divisions or early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere are affected, the campaign said. It has about 120 employees in its Arlington, Va., headquarters and in early primary states.
I'm really surprised he's not doing better. At this point I don't see him surviving the primary. Then again the primary is still a ways away & things could change.
I think his biggest problem is this: he spent the last seven years portraying himself as a "maverick" republican, who fought the GOP "establishment."
Unfortunately for him, that selfsame establishment, in either party, is where the early support comes both in terms of fundraising and and endorsements.
Thursday, April 19, 2007 McCain sings 'Bomb, bomb Iran'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At a town hall meeting in South Carolina Wednesday, Arizona Sen. John McCain was asked if there is a plan to attack Iran. McCain began his answer by changing the words to a classic Beach Boys' song.
"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" the Republican presidential candidate said. Then, he sang. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
He finished his answer by discussing the Iran's nuclear ambitions and the country's desire to wipe Israel off the map to emphasize the real dangers that it poses to the world.
"The senator was adding levity to the discussion and the crowd reacted with laughter," campaign spokesman Kevin McLaughlin said. "He went on to discuss the seriousness of issue."
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that a modertator was here. Oh. Wait. It's just you, G-man. Geez, you're turning into the old man in the neighborhood that the kids call "admiral." You're long past your prime, hell you're long past any point of value to anyone. And the only reason we haven't sold you to the glueman is because the law says we can't. fair thee well, old timer. fair thee well.
Quote: WASHINGTON - Republican presidential contender John McCain (news, bio, voting record) dismissed a demand by a prominent House Democrat that he apologize to U.S. troops in Iraq for making a joke about an explosive device, saying critics should "lighten up."
In an appearance Tuesday night on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," McCain joked that he had brought a gift for Stewart back from a recent trip to Iraq.
"What do you want to start with, the bomb Iran song or the walk through the market in Baghdad?" Stewart asked McCain, referring to two recent controversies involving statements by the Arizona senator.
"I think maybe shopping in Baghdad," McCain responded. "... I had something picked out for you, too — a little IED (improvised explosive device) to put on your desk."
On Wednesday, Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., demanded in a speech on the House floor that McCain apologize to troops for joking about the explosive devices that are responsible for many of the casualties in Iraq.
"Imagine a presidential candidate making a joke about IEDs when our kids are getting blown up," Murtha said.
"I don't know how to respond to that kind of hysteria," McCain said when asked about Murtha's demand during an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Thursday. "When I was in combat and tough situations we used humor all the time, and all I can say to Murtha and others is lighten up and get a life."
The bottom line here is that, if people do care, the thread rises to the top and there is no need to pin it. If they don't care, pinning it is a waste of time.
Personally, I think its pretty silly to be pinning up topics for an election thats about 18 months away.
But if you really, really, feel the need to pin something up there, why not start a topic called, I dunno "Meet the candidates," put in links to all the threads about ALL the candidates, pin it and lock it. That way, anyone who comes here can do there, find the thread on, say, Barack Hussein Obama or Rudy Guiliani without searching.
The New York Times magazine has a brief interview with John McCain in which McCain is asked whether he would tap his wife's fortune for his struggling campaign:
Might you consider borrowing, say, $5 million from your wife, Cindy, an heiress to an Arizona beer-distribution fortune?
I would never do such a thing. I don’t think it’s the appropriate thing to do.
Why not? You’d consider it an insult to your masculine pride?
No, it really isn’t masculine pride. It’s more that I think getting small donations is part of campaigning. It’s part of whether you can succeed or fail. I think that’s going to be the key to our success in the future, whether we can get the small-donor base.
I’m sure you’re aware that your rival Mitt Romney just tapped into his personal savings to self-finance his campaign.
Yeah, $9 or $10 million or whatever. I am not criticizing anyone else’s decisions, but I should be able to raise my own money from contributors or take matching funds according to the law, not dip into my wife’s assets.
Did she ask you to sign a prenuptial agreement when you married her?
Yes, yes. That was 27 years ago. We were married in 1980.
Students to McCain: Too Old to Be Prez? By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer 2 hours ago
CONCORD, N.H. - An unflinching John McCain was told Tuesday by New Hampshire high school students he might be too old to be president and too conservative to be respected. McCain, the Arizona senator whose presidential bid has stumbled through the summer, countered the Concord High School students with humor.
"Thanks for the question, you little jerk," McCain joked back to one student who asked the 71-year-old about his age. "You're drafted."
McCain's two-day trip to New Hampshire launches his fall campaign for the GOP nomination. During a morning visit with students, he explained why he was not shrinking from his support for a temporary increase of troops in Iraq and why students should pay attention.
"If this war continues much longer, there will be people in this audience who will serve in the military, who also may be going over there (in Iraq) or to Afghanistan," McCain told the high school students.
He said the students should watch the upcoming report on Iraq from Gen. David Petraeus.
"It may be a seminal debate. It may be one of the most important debates in history and it may directly affect your lives," he warned. "He's going to say: Whether it was or was not in the beginning, if we lose Iraq, it will be part of this struggle against radical, Islamic extremism because al-Qaida will take over and the area will deteriorate into chaos and destruction."
But during a town hall-style meeting, students were more interested in pushing McCain on the environment, his support for gay rights and even his age.
"If elected, you'd be older than Ronald Reagan, making you the oldest president. Do you ever worry you might die in office or get Alzheimer's or some other disease that might affect your judgment?" one student asked.
The audience groaned; McCain slid into a joke.
"I think it was one of my sons that alleged I'm getting to the point I hide my own Easter eggs," McCain said to laughter. "When you saw my 95-year-old mother (on a video introduction), you saw the kind of genes I have."
He said he's a hard campaigner and his age won't be an issue.
Another student pushed him on gay rights; McCain repeated his pledge to oppose discrimination but support for traditional marriage.
"I came here looking to see a good leader," 16-year-old William Sleaster told McCain, earning himself boos from his classmates. "I don't."
McCain, a veteran of such candid exchanges in New Hampshire, smoothly pushed forward and told the crowd not to disrespect its peer.
"I understand. I thank you," McCain said. "That's what America is all about."
Clinton and McCain win big newspaper endorsements Reuters Sunday, December 16, 2007; 7:42 AM
DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Clinton got a boost to their campaigns for presidential nominations from an influential newspaper on Sunday despite setbacks in opinion polls.
The Des Moines Register, Iowa's largest newspaper, endorsed the two candidates for the fast-approaching Iowa caucuses, calling them the best prepared and most tested of the White House contenders.
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
The paper is an agenda setter in a state where on January 3 voters kick off the state-by-state battle to choose Republican and Democratic candidates in the November 2008 election.
Clinton is embroiled in a tight three-way battle in Iowa with Barack Obama, an Illinois senator, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, and has seen her once formidable national poll lead slip over the last few weeks.
Also on Saturday, the Boston Globe said it would endorse McCain and Obama in the January 8 New Hampshire primary. "Obama has the leadership skills to reset the country's reputation in the world," the newspaper said.
On McCain, the newspaper said in an editorial, "the iconoclastic senator from Arizona has earned his reputation for straight talk by actually leveling with voters, even at significant political expense."
The Register's endorsement was especially bad news for Edwards, who won the newspaper's endorsement in the 2004 race, helping him make a late rush to finish second behind winner John Kerry, but the paper's editors said this was a different race and "we too seldom saw the 'positive, optimistic' campaign we found appealing in 2004."
The Register said Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, was best prepared of the Democratic candidates to confront the country's challenges.
"From working for children's rights as a young lawyer to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency," the paper said.
McCain has barely competed in Iowa, focusing instead on New Hampshire and other later voting states, and trails badly in the state behind leaders Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, and Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.
The newspaper said none of the Republican candidates could offer the "tested leadership in matters foreign and domestic" of McCain, an Arizona senator and former prisoner of war in Vietnam.
It cited his willingness to adopt contrarian views, including bucking his party to oppose President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, support Bush's decision to increase troop strength in Iraq and support comprehensive immigration reform.
"The force of John McCain's moral authority could go a long way toward restoring Americans' trust in government and inspiring new generations to believe in the goodness and greatness of America," the paper said.
McCain hasn't been doing so well so far but this could turn the tide for him. I'm obviously not a Republican but it seems that there really isn't much enthusiam in general for any of the top GOP candidates so a McCain comeback could be viable in an arena where Huckabee has rocketed to the top.
I have a lot of problems with McCain, but if it comes down to it, I'd support him over any democrat running. I won't vote for Huckabee under and circumstance.
I used to like Mccain, but I think he shows a lack of resolve. For example he's very critical of Bush in non-election years, and Bush basically campaign-raped him with Rove, but then during the 2004 race he became Bush's biggest supporter. Until 2005 when he was criticizing Bush again. That plus his stance against Jerry Falwell lasting until he needed Fallwell's support. The man comes off as whorish. But he's way better than Rudy, Thompson, or Huckabee.
Well, in McCain's defense, there's nothing wrong with being critical of a politician and then supporting that politician as the better candidate over someone else.
I have a lot of problems with McCain, but if it comes down to it, I'd support him over any democrat running. I won't vote for Huckabee under and circumstance.
I would be surprised if Huckabee has staying power, the guys got alot of baggage. He's got charisma though & he has a way of talking that even gets me the democrat thinking he doesn't seem so bad at first glance.
I remember way back somebody had a prediction thread of who they thought would be the final two for '08 & I figured it would be McCain vs Hillary. Lately though I just figured he was done for but now since he recieved the Des Moine Register's endorsement he's been making a serious comeback.
John McCain moved into the top spot in the New Hampshire Republican primary and is now leading previous front-runner Mitt Romney by a 7-point margin, 34 percent to 27 percent. A new FOX News poll shows that McCain picked up 14 percentage points since the last FOX News poll in mid-December, while Romney suffered a 6-point decline.
Essentially, McCain turned a 13-point deficit into a 7-point advantage in about three weeks’ time.
Okay. That's a "surge."
I have to say: I have problems with McCain, I've never hidden that fact. But I'd definitely vote for him over Huckabee, Rommney or any of the Democrats. (But I'd still prefer Rudy or Thompson)
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks by George Bush and Karl Rove during the 2000 presidential campaign, and once again he finds himself the victim of a brutal and baseless smear campaign, similar to the swift boat ads John Kerry encountered in 2004.
Keith Olbermann talked with Jonathan Alter on today’s Countdown about negative campaign ads being distributed in South Carolina attacking GOP candidates and about a particularly nasty flier attacking Senator John McCain by a group calling itself Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain that accuses the senator, who was held captive in Vietnam for some five years, of betraying his fellow POW’s during his captivity. This group’s website is really cheesy, and regardless of your political views, this kind of attack is the epitome of dirty politics. The flier is so bad the original Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group that attacked John Kerry is condemning it.
It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs. Or as I put it, they eat their own.
Now McCain did take a fundraising check from one of the leaders of the Swift Boat vets even after he publicly condemned their tactics....
Of course this begs the question, will the GOP supporters who rallied around the Swift Boat vets when they did this to John Kerry, now denounce this?
Of course this begs the question, will the GOP supporters who rallied around the Swift Boat vets when they did this to John Kerry, now denounce this?
I haven't seen the literature put out against McCain, but I would note there are some differences between McCain and Kerry, most notably that McCain didn't come home from that war, cozy up to Hanoi Jane, pretend to throw his medals away and smear his fellow vets by accusing them of war crimes.
So one could argue that an attack on Kerry was way more justified than any similar attack on McCain.
The Politico has a helpful look at how he did it--making progress with social conservatives, dominating with moderates and veterans and doing better with conservative voters.
If McCain can ride his South Carolina win to victory in Florida, the Republican race will have its first generally recognized frontrunner -- and maybe the nominee.
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender, but I’d like to know where the heck Tim Russert was? Oh, that’s right—it was a Republican debate. Never mind, He can’t be bothered with follow ups. He’s only confrontational in Democratic debates.
FLORIDA GOV SHINES ON MCCAIN: As underdog Rudy Giuliani tried to rally Florida supporters yesterday, the state's governor Charlie Crist dealt him a blow by endorsing rival Republican John McCain.
What's your beef with McCain G-man? I thought you'd like someone who will keep fighting in Iraq (until the job is done).
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
I don't think he has a beef with him....he prefers Rudy that's all. I bet he'll vote McCain if he is the nominee.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
...why I've never been that enthusiastic about McCain...I'm not sure if my opposition to campaign finance reform puts me to his right or his left (I think my view would actually be libertarian on this) but I do know its the single biggest objection I have to him.
About the only issue where I agree with him fully is the war. I still think his "may God have mercy on them because we will not" quote was one of the best ever post 9/11
The bottom line is that, yeah, if he's the Republican nominee I will vote for him. I disagree with him in some areas, but not nearly as much as I disagree with Hillary or Obama. And I respect McCain as a leader and hard worker.
I like McCain overall better than Romney if, for no other reason, even if you disagree with McCain he comes off as a straight shooter. I would vote for Romney over Clinton or Obama but if Richardson had been the nominee I might have voted for him over Romney.
On the other hand, if Huckabee's the GOP nominee I won't vote for him no matter WHO the Democrats nominate. I'd probably not vote at all or, in the alternative, write in "Peter J. Pappas" just for the hell of it.
The bottom line is that, yeah, if he's the Republican nominee I will vote for him.
I won't. I refuse to give the idea to people that I'm willing to settle for less than a conservative just to get rid of a liberal. At least Obama is consistent.
If it comes to McCain v. Obama, I'll re-classify and vote Obama.
If it comes to McCain v. Clinton, then I'll hold my nose and vote McCain.
These four states ( NH, SC, MI, FL ) have combined their native liberal populism with an imported liberal electorate and have forced the GOP to accept a nominee so distasteful that in more than one poll -- the numbers of voters choosing not to vote and those choosing to vote third party actually exceed those who will hold their nose and vote for Maverick, War Hero, Amnesty Supporter, John McCain.
Some of the hyperbolic metaphors are a bit too bombastic and annoying for me ("new axis of evil", "nuclear option", etc.) but this part I agree with:
it's time for the GOP to front-load the whole freaking process into one date. Make every state vote on exactly the same day. Make every candidate compete in EVERY state at the exact same time and hold every single GOP primary and caucus on Super Tuesday. When NH and IOWA complain, take a page from the Democrats and refuse to seat their delegates, or better yet, declare renegade states as straw polls.
It really annoys me that, in both parties, early primaries in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which are not representative of the nation as a whole, create front runners with a tiny fraction of 1% of the population, and actually turn the tide in later states that would otherwise vote for the candidate they truly support, instead of abandoning their true candidate who did poorly, or pragmatically abandoning their true choice for a perceived front runner.
Iowa especially made me sick. The Democrat and Republican voters combined didn't equal 200,000. The total Iowa primary voters were less than the population of my home city, let alone representative of the entire nation. And yet they early on determined Huckabee and Obama as front runners, and changed the outcome of many other states.
I think it's a great idea to have all 50 states do their primary elections the same day. It would eliminate the speculator mentality, and compel people to vote for the candidate they truly support.
Earmarks are only pork when someone else is feasting on them. On your plate, they're veggies. They are the train that takes you to visit Aunt Betty, or the health clinic down the street, or the waste treatment plant that makes your water safer to drink. They're not all bridges to nowhere. They're also bicycle trails to somewhere.
If John McCain is true to his rhetoric in the Republican presidential campaign, he would take a broad ax to spending that voters, upon closer examination, might wish were cut in a more discerning way. The two dozen states voting in presidential primaries Tuesday are home to thousands of projects financed by earmarks, the pet pork that members of Congress carve out of the federal budget.
Pork haters like McCain say an agency with its eye on the national interest and an objective way of looking at a region's needs should decide on such spending, not members of Congress currying local - sometimes very local - favor.
But McCain's spending plan does not make such distinctions between waste and worthy. In his accounting, if it's an earmark, it's bad and it's gone. He counts on saving all the money now spent on earmarks to help pay for his tax cuts.
These four states ( NH, SC, MI, FL ) have combined their native liberal populism with an imported liberal electorate and have forced the GOP to accept a nominee so distasteful that in more than one poll -- the numbers of voters choosing not to vote and those choosing to vote third party actually exceed those who will hold their nose and vote for Maverick, War Hero, Amnesty Supporter, John McCain.
Some of the hyperbolic metaphors are a bit too bombastic and annoying for me ("new axis of evil", "nuclear option", etc.) but this part I agree with:
it's time for the GOP to front-load the whole freaking process into one date. Make every state vote on exactly the same day. Make every candidate compete in EVERY state at the exact same time and hold every single GOP primary and caucus on Super Tuesday. When NH and IOWA complain, take a page from the Democrats and refuse to seat their delegates, or better yet, declare renegade states as straw polls.
It really annoys me that, in both parties, early primaries in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which are not representative of the nation as a whole, create front runners with a tiny fraction of 1% of the population, and actually turn the tide in later states that would otherwise vote for the candidate they truly support, instead of abandoning their true candidate who did poorly, or pragmatically abandoning their true choice for a perceived front runner.
Iowa especially made me sick. The Democrat and Republican voters combined didn't equal 200,000. The total Iowa primary voters were less than the population of my home city, let alone representative of the entire nation. And yet they early on determined Huckabee and Obama as front runners, and changed the outcome of many other states.
I think it's a great idea to have all 50 states do their primary elections the same day. It would eliminate the speculator mentality, and compel people to vote for the candidate they truly support.
I think you are gonna have to face facts that just as the way-liberal left is dieing so is the way-right conservative part of the Republican party. The Conservatism that you know from years ago (Neo Cons included) is dead. Long Live the Moderates!
What's your beef with McCain G-man? I thought you'd like someone who will keep fighting in Iraq (until the job is done).
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
I don't think he has a beef with him....he prefers Rudy that's all. I bet he'll vote McCain if he is the nominee.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
...why I've never been that enthusiastic about McCain...I'm not sure if my opposition to campaign finance reform puts me to his right or his left (I think my view would actually be libertarian on this) but I do know its the single biggest objection I have to him.
About the only issue where I agree with him fully is the war. I still think his "may God have mercy on them because we will not" quote was one of the best ever post 9/11
The bottom line is that, yeah, if he's the Republican nominee I will vote for him. I disagree with him in some areas, but not nearly as much as I disagree with Hillary or Obama. And I respect McCain as a leader and hard worker.
I like McCain overall better than Romney if, for no other reason, even if you disagree with McCain he comes off as a straight shooter. I would vote for Romney over Clinton or Obama but if Richardson had been the nominee I might have voted for him over Romney.
I see. Fair enough.
Quote:
On the other hand, if Huckabee's the GOP nominee I won't vote for him no matter WHO the Democrats nominate. I'd probably not vote at all or, in the alternative, write in "Peter J. Pappas" just for the hell of it.
There's a Donald Duck Party in Sweden, which was created for similar reasons. The Pirate Party, though, is a "serious" party for those who want to download for free.
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
I think you are gonna have to face facts that just as the way-liberal left is dieing so is the way-right conservative part of the Republican party. The Conservatism that you know from years ago (Neo Cons included) is dead. Long Live the Moderates!
The "way-left liberal" isn't dying. It is, in fact, what's killing off conservatism through every medium.
I think you are gonna have to face facts that just as the way-liberal left is dieing so is the way-right conservative part of the Republican party. The Conservatism that you know from years ago (Neo Cons included) is dead. Long Live the Moderates!
The moderates are bureaucrats who strangle us in laws and legislation, and empty posturing, but never get anything done. Nothing changes in a moderate government. And Washington is a log-jam that requires radical reform, not more moderate status-quo. The McCain/Feingold bill is the moderates in action. No-child-left-behind is moderates in action. The current 150-billion-dollar joke of a stimulus package is an example of moderates in action. All examples of politically-correct moderate/bipartisan compromise, that arguably complicate and worsen policy, rather than correct it.
I disagree with the fact that Reagan/Goldwater type conservatism is dead. It clearly is what every Republican candidate is exalting and selling himself as. The only problem is whether Republican candidates credibly measure up to that standard.
I welcome the departure of the NeoCons (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney). They had a brief period where they could have proved their effectiveness, and they failed miserably. To me, the NeoCons have been a dead movement since Nov 2006.
I also disagree that the "way-liberal Left" is dying. Far from it, through the internet and pundits of the liberal media, they are spreading mythical lies with such prevalence that they are undermining national pride and patriotism, and tearing this nation apart, against every attempt to unite us in action against forces that threaten our sovereignty and national economic solvency, at a time of crisis when we desperately need to rally together.
Islamic terror, the falling dollar, national identity and defense of our history and culture, border defense, illegal immigration, exporting jobs... in every area, we need to take strong action, even as liberals slander anyone who would do so as "racist" and "xenophobic".
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
I think you are gonna have to face facts that just as the way-liberal left is dieing so is the way-right conservative part of the Republican party. The Conservatism that you know from years ago (Neo Cons included) is dead. Long Live the Moderates!
The "way-left liberal" isn't dying. It is, in fact, what's killing off conservatism through every medium.
Though I'll agree that it isn't dying, I'll disagree that the leftist liberal end is winning through the media. Nothing about the media has changed since before Bush was reelected, and if the media didn't win anything then, it ain't winning it now.
the Media is about money. I think there the majority of celebrities are liberal only because creative people tend to be more liberal than conservative. but the news, and the media as a whole is driven by a bias for money. I remember a few years ago that CNN and MSNBC were trying to hire some conservative commentators to host shows after the huge ratings success of Fox. It had nothing to do with an idealogical battle, it had to do with money.
Though I'll agree that it isn't dying, I'll disagree that the leftist liberal end is winning through the media. Nothing about the media has changed since before Bush was reelected, and if the media didn't win anything then, it ain't winning it now.
Well, would you agree that all of the Republican candidates right now are of considerably weaker conservative principles than the candidates were say 10 to 15 years ago?
Serious question - I seem to be hearing a lot of anti-McCain rhetoric from Republicans and conservatives, from the everyday folk I interact with to people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Yet McCain's already racked up a decent number of states in the primary race, and it looks like he might be Abel to win the Republican nomination. Since only Republicans can be voting for McCain in a primary, how do our local conservatives/Republicans who don't like McCain explain why so many Republicans are choosing him? What do you think they see in him?
Since only Republicans can be voting for McCain in a primary,
Depends upon the state. McCain won New Hampshire because it was open to everyone; and he got a lot of independents who voted for him. Personally, I'd prefer to of had the 2000 John McCain as the Rep. nom. But damn Geoff Johns and his screwing around with characters!
I don't mind transsexuals. (I might - hypothetically speaking - even date one, if the operation was successful and I couldn't tell if she had been a man before.* Not as transsexuals looks like trannies, y'know.) But I'm not found of half-finished jobs of any kind, I have no interest in watching porn with she-males, and I simply don't get why someone who claim to be heterosexual would like to watch such porn.
I'm not sure if 'homophobic' is the correct word, BTW. Transsexuality has nothing to do with being homo- or bisexual, you can be either of those or heterosexual while being transsexual.
How I know all this? Blame the Liberal Media and the Socialist Education System of Sweden.
*I guess this will be quoted and haunt me for the rest of my life, as long as I'm a member of this forum. But I want to be honest on this.
Though I'll agree that it isn't dying, I'll disagree that the leftist liberal end is winning through the media. Nothing about the media has changed since before Bush was reelected, and if the media didn't win anything then, it ain't winning it now.
Well, would you agree that all of the Republican candidates right now are of considerably weaker conservative principles than the candidates were say 10 to 15 years ago?
Depends on what you mean with "conservative principles". I find McCain closer to Edmund Burke than Bush Jr ever was.
I don't mind transsexuals. (I might - hypothetically speaking - even date one, if the operation was successful and I couldn't tell if she had been a man before.* Not as transsexuals looks like trannies, y'know.) But I'm not found of half-finished jobs of any kind, I have no interest in watching porn with she-males, and I simply don't get why someone who claim to be heterosexual would like to watch such porn.
I'm not sure if 'homophobic' is the correct word, BTW. Transsexuality has nothing to do with being homo- or bisexual, you can be either of those or heterosexual while being transsexual.
How I know all this? Blame the Liberal Media and the Socialist Education System of Sweden.
*I guess this will be quoted and haunt me for the rest of my life, as long as I'm a member of this forum. But I want to be honest on this.
Exit polls of Republican voters yesterday showed Sen. John McCain ran strongest with voters who cared about a candidate's leadership qualities.
And he slightly led Mitt Romney among those who said issues - the economy, terrorism and the war in Iraq - were more important.
In coast-to-coast primary elections last night, McCain grabbed independents and, significantly, mainstream Republicans looking for an experienced candidate.
Mitt Romney continued his attraction with conservatives - and two groups in particular: those who favor deporting illegal immigrants and hawks on the war in Iraq.
Exit polls showed McCain picking up support among party regulars, making for a virtual tie between him and Romney for voters calling themselves Republican.
The Associated Press' exit polling in early states found they each received 40 percent of that group.
when John McCain was in that cage in Vietnam, do you think he jerked off? Or did he wait until he was rescued to have like a power jerk off session when he got home? Personally, I wouldn't wait. Because you could die any day, and why die with a backlog.
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
I think you are gonna have to face facts that just as the way-liberal left is dieing so is the way-right conservative part of the Republican party. The Conservatism that you know from years ago (Neo Cons included) is dead. Long Live the Moderates!
The "way-left liberal" isn't dying. It is, in fact, what's killing off conservatism through every medium.
Though I'll agree that it isn't dying, I'll disagree that the leftist liberal end is winning through the media. Nothing about the media has changed since before Bush was reelected, and if the media didn't win anything then, it ain't winning it now.
I never thought the media changed when Bush was re-elected. I felt the media became vitriolically partisan at precisely the time Bush won the Nov 2000 election, and went on that way for 8 unrelenting years.
And I believe the sheer repetition of that vitriol is having its effect. From the repetitive inflammatory partisan remarks of Democrat Senators and Congressmen in Washington, to similar less-than-objective coverage by partisan liberal reporters and pundits, to the partisan venom of Mahr, Letterman, Moore, Olbermann and others.
Again, there are some valid points made about the clear failings of W.Bush and the NeoCons.
But it is so intermingled with slander, personal insults and wild conspiracy theories, that even though I was never an enthusiastic supporter of Bush, I often found myself rallying to the Republicans' defense, from the sheer bias and unfairness of the collective media's lack of objectivity, and outright viciousness. And most of all, the media's knee-jerk reflexive anti-Americanism.
i went to school with Doors Ajar he was a nice muslim kid....
It's nice that you're opinion of him didn't hinge on what his religion was. I'd have expected you to slam him for it. Maybe you're not as closed-minded as I once suspected.
It's nice that you're opinion of him didn't hinge on what his religion was. I'd have expected you to slam him for it. Maybe you're not as closed-minded as I once suspected.
Perhaps such a supposition just lets us all know how closed-minded you yourself are.
And why the hell did you italisize "hinge," "slam," and "closed?" And why did you use a hyphen at the end of "closed?"
McCain needs 1191 delegates, and with Virginia, CNN puts him at 783. He should get most of Maryland's 37 delegates, meaning that McCain should be past 800 by the end of the night.
No word on whether Romney plans to release his delegates. If he can, and does, pledge them to McCain, I would think that that would put McCain over or nearly over the top.
I'm curious to see how this plays out. But it is certainly a good show of party unity.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Republican campaign dropout Mitt Romney agreed Thursday to endorse Sen. John McCain for the party's presidential nomination and ask his national convention delegates to swing behind the front-runner, according to officials familiar with the decision. ADVERTISEMENT
Romney collected 280 delegates during his run through the early primaries and caucuses, enough to move McCain close to the total of 1,191 needed to clinch the nomination a full nine months before the November general election.
The officials who disclosed Romney's plans did so on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a formal announcement later in the day. McCain was campaigning in Vermont and Rhode Island during the day, and added a flight to Boston to appear with Romney to accept the endorsement at his waterfront campaign headquarters.
McCain effectively sealed the nomination last week when Romney withdrew from the race; only former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and libertarian-leaning Texas Rep. Ron Paul remain but both lag McCain in delegates to the GOP's nominating convention this fall.
Romney's decision marked a harmonious end to an occasionally contentious struggle between the two men over the party's presidential nomination. They criticized one another in television ads in state after state, a clash that effectively ended on Feb. 5, when McCain won a string of big-state primaries from coast to coast.
Officials said the former Massachusetts governor made his decision to back McCain earlier in the day, citing a desire to help the Arizona senator wrap up the nomination before too much more time passed and while Democrats still did not have a nominee.
McCain seems to be gathering quite a bushel of support.
The two areas where I like McCain are in (1) deficit reduction/reigning in congressional pork spending, and (2) knowledge and commitment to national security.
I strongly oppose him on (3) amnesty for illegals, and (4) making an even bigger mess of campaign finance with the McCain Feingold bill.
I'm still weighing whether I can vote for the guy. It's obvious that Clinton and Obama are even worse on (3) and (4), and utterly spineless on (1) and (2).
You can always throw away your vote like you did last time.
I didn't "throw away my vote", I voted for the lesser of two evils, choosing Bush over Kerry.
Kerry would have withdrawn from Iraq and left it to become a hub of terrorism, as opposed to implementing the successful "Surge" that Bush initiated. Kerry would have raised taxes, expanded spending, etc., and possibly further depressed the economy with those moves.
Bush has done a lot of things I haven't agreed with, as I've made clear in other topics, but in Iraq and the economy has had some success that he'll likely never get credit for.
And anyway, who are you to criticize my voting? Who did you vote for? Or were you just huddled in some dark corner inseminating a sock?
I kind of have to agree with the sockfucker, at least to the extent that voting for third party candidates is, at best, a wasted vote.
But, rex, WB voted for Nader in 2000, which wasn't "last time". 2004 was "last time." So this is not about him lying as much as it's about your shitty reading skills.
I kind of have to agree with the sockfucker, at least to the extent that voting for third party candidates is, at best, a wasted vote.
Only a person so trained by the two party system would think that. The people who vote for third party candidates do so because they believe in those candidates and their ideas. Let's not forget that the third party voters in 2000 almost changed the course of US politics. Had Nader received just 1% more of the popular vote, we'd have a bonafide third party in this country right now.
No, that example only proves my point that it is "at best" a wasted vote.
In the two recent times voted for a third party effected the outcome, 2000 and 1992, the third-party votes had the perverse effect of actually electing a candidate to the White House who stood for more or less the OPPOSITE of what the third party voters wanted.
In 1992, Perot voters were generally much closer politically to the GOP, but they split the "conservative" vote and elected Clinton.
In 2000, Nader voters were generally much closer politically to the Democrats, but they split the "liberal" vote and elected Bush.
But neither actually wanted the candidate from that party to win, or else they would have voted for them to begin with. It's the people who 'waste' their votes on third party candidates who will eventually break the two party system.
As near as I can tell, the gist of the NY Times story was that a couple of staffers thought that McCain was having an affair <i>back 8-10 years ago</i> but there is no proof and McCain and the woman both denied it.
Not exactly a major scandal. And the fact that the Times sat on the story for months (if not years), until McCain became the frontrunner, does tend to look like another example of "Republican hunting."
Heh. If anything, it could help dispel the Democrat argument that McCain is "too old" to be president if it turns out that he's getting it on with a young blonde thirty years his junior.
So the story is not that McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate, it's that some right wingers are up in arms over it?
I somehow doubt that, for example, there are a lot of Nader voters happy they helped elect Bush. But I could be wrong, maybe WB isn't the only one.
But I do know people who voted for Nader who wouldn't have voted for Gore or Bush. The same with Perot. Sometimes a third party candidate might actually mobilize people to get out and vote when they would have normally stayed home.
Actually, the "story" would appear to be as follows:
The allegations are eight years old and unproven.
The Times sat on the story for several months or years.
The New Republic (a liberal magazine) details that many editors at the Times were concerned that the story was not adequately documented to be published.
The Assocated Press reports that McCain's attorneys presented evidence to the Times to rebut the insinuations in the story but the Times chose not to include it in the article.
During the time period in which it sat on the story, the Times endorsed McCain for the GOP nomination, stating that "he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle," among other things. That would further seem to demonstrate that the Times editorial board had little faith in this story.
Now, after McCain becomes the presumptive nominee, the Times sees fit to run a story that consists of nothing but denied allegations and the fact that some staffers had concerns about the relationship nearly a decade ago.
Eight year old unproven (if not disproven) allegations are news?
No wonder the story is less about the unproven suspicions and more about the timing and ethics of the New York Times.
Actually, the "story" would appear to be as follows:
The allegations are eight years old and unproven.
The Times sat on the story for several months or years.
The New Republic (a liberal magazine) details that many editors at the Times were concerned that the story was not adequately documented to be published.
The Assocated Press reports that McCain's attorneys presented evidence to the Times to rebut the insinuations in the story but the Times chose not to include it in the article.
During the time period in which it sat on the story, the Times endorsed McCain for the GOP nomination, stating that "he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle," among other things. That would further seem to demonstrate that the Times editorial board had little faith in this story.
Now, after McCain becomes the presumptive nominee, the Times sees fit to run a story that consists of nothing but denied allegations and the fact that some staffers had concerns about the relationship nearly a decade ago.
Eight year old unproven (if not disproven) allegations are news?
No wonder the story is less about the unproven suspicions and more about the timing and ethics of the New York Times.
If what you say is true, then shame on those that published it. I just glanced at it at work & saw that it was backed up by the famous "unnamed sources" & figured it was a bunch of crap. Years ago this may not have had enough merit for a tabloid to run with.
Republican Rep. Richard Renzi of Arizona was indicted on 35 criminal counts, including conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and official extortion stemming from land deals in his state, Justice Department officials said on Friday.
The indictment stemmed from plans by Renzi and an associate, a real estate investor, to benefit from a land-exchange deal in Arizona in return for Renzi’s support for necessary federal legislation, court documents said.
Renzi is a close ally of McCain’s, of course– birds of a feather– and is part of the McCain campaign leadership team. As soon as the long-anticipated indictment was handed down, McCain immediately took down the website page that mentions Renzi being on the team.
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him. First we learned he was positioning himself to game the FEC by using taxpayer money to bail out his campaign, then we learned about his ethically dubious relationship with a young, attractive female lobbyist, then we learned that Muqtada al-Sadr essentially controls the fate of Iraq when he (thankfully) agreed to continue abiding by the cease-fire. Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Renzi is a close ally of McCain’s, of course– birds of a feather–
Hold on, if that's your standard I think you had better talk to MEM about that guy that Obama has been hanging out with (Rezko or something). MEM has been playing the "birds of a feather" card against Obama over that guy.
Quote:
then we learned about his ethically dubious relationship with a young, attractive female lobbyist
Geez, not even the New York Times called the relationship "ethically dubious", did they? And all sorts of people have come out to discredit the story in any event.
Quote:
then we learned that Muqtada al-Sadr essentially controls the fate of Iraq when he (thankfully) agreed to continue abiding by the cease-fire.
Um, yeah....and....? How is this tied to McCain other than in your dreams?
Quote:
Should make for a fun eight months
Yeah, eight months of you getting pwned, quitting the board, coming back with an alt, getting outed, getting pwed, quitting, etc....
Team McCain has parlayed The New York Times anonymous-source hit on the GOP front-runner into a cash bonanza.
A campaign fund-raising letter ripping the "particularly disgusting" Times story and pleading with contributors to fight back "was the most successful to date," a top McCain aide said Friday.
Boy, a few more "damaging" weeks like this and McCain will win in a landslide.
The first hole has appeared in John McCain's blanket denial of The New York Times' report that he was too close to a Washington lobbyist who represented, among other interest groups, a television mogul who wanted to buy a station in Pittsburgh.
By James V. Grimaldi and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, February 23, 2008; Page A01
Broadcaster Lowell "Bud" Paxson yesterday contradicted statements from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communications Commission on Paxson's behalf.
Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters in 1999 to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson's quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.
Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, likely attended the meeting in McCain's office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting. "Was Vicki there? Probably," Paxson said in an interview with The Washington Post yesterday. "The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us meetings."
The recollection of the now-retired Paxson conflicted with the account provided by the McCain campaign about the two letters at the center of a controversy about the senator's ties to Iseman, a partner at the lobbying firm of Alcalde & Fay.
The McCain campaign said Thursday that the senator had not met with Paxson or Iseman on the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding," the campaign said in a statement.
But Paxson said yesterday, "I remember going there to meet with him." He recalled that he told McCain: "You're head of the Commerce Committee. The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter."
McCain attorney Robert S. Bennett played down the contradiction between the campaign's written answer and Paxson's recollection.
"We understood that he [McCain] did not speak directly with him [Paxson]. Now it appears he did speak to him. What is the difference?" Bennett said. "McCain has never denied that Paxson asked for assistance from his office. It doesn't seem relevant whether the request got to him through Paxson or the staff. His letters to the FCC concerning the matter urged the commission to make up its mind. He did not ask the FCC to approve or deny the application. It's not that big a deal."
The Paxson deal, coming as McCain made his first run for the presidency, has posed a persistent problem for the senator. The deal raised embarrassing questions about his dealings with lobbyists at a time when he had assumed the role of an ethics champion and opponent of the influence of lobbyists.
The two letters he wrote to the FCC in 1999 while he was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee produced a rash of criticism and a written rebuke from the then-FCC chairman, who called McCain's intervention "highly unusual." McCain had repeatedly used Paxson's corporate jet for his campaign and accepted campaign contributions from the broadcaster and his law firm.
McCain himself in a deposition in 2002 acknowledged talking to Paxson about the Pittsburgh sale. Asked what Paxson said in the conversation, McCain said that Paxson "had applied to purchase this station and that he wanted to purchase it. And that there had been a numerous year delay with the FCC reaching a decision. And he wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business."
The deposition was taken in litigation over the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law filed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The contradiction in the deposition was first reported by Newsweek yesterday afternoon.
So McCain himself in a deposition contradicted McCain at his news conference the other day.
I know based on your story that conservatives are rallying around McCain because the big bad "liberal media" wrote a story on McCain's ethics. But c'mon, that's to be expected. If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
...McCain has never denied that Paxson asked for assistance from his office. It doesn't seem relevant whether the request got to him through Paxson or the staff. His letters to the FCC concerning the matter urged the commission to make up its mind. He did not ask the FCC to approve or deny the application....
But, darn it, he couldn't remember all the details of a ten year old conversation....better get a special prosecutor....
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
If so then you may want to attack the rest of the country when reaction to this story and the fallout settles.
A lot of people see McCain as a straight shooter. But this flat out lie and revelations of innapropriate relationships with lobbyists and Paxton donating $20,000 to his election campaign while he's trying to get his applications passed.
It doesn't look good G-Ma, and trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer because in the past he was seen as an upstanding memeber of the community and avid church goer.
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
As for this stupid right wing obsession with the phrase "flip-flop". Do you mean to say that if we found out Barak Obama killed someone tomorrow that it would be a "flip-flop" for his supporters to abandon him?
You act as if being stubborn and hard headed in your support is some virtue in the face of new evidence. Which explains why you're still proud to call yourself a conservative Republican.
BTW, shooting the messenger isn't going to help McCain much.
There. I removed the offending phrase "flip flop". Better?
You're not fooling anyone, whomod. For years, you wrote about how admirable McCain was and how dispicable personal attacks against him were.
But as soon as he became the undisputed frontrunner for the GOP nomination, your irrational hatred for all things Republican kicked in and you had to start attacking him, including on his personal life.
Seriously. It's so obvious.
Hell, if the GOP decided to cross-endorse Obama, you'd probably start attacking him too.
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Originally Posted By: whomod
...it doesn't erase MCain's lie or the fact that he's not exactly what he's advertised
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Originally Posted By: whomod
...it doesn't erase MCain's lie or the fact that he's not exactly what he's advertised
Originally Posted By: whomod
the last great desperate hope for a gOP win goes down in flames.
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
The New York Times failed to establish a sexual relationship had existed between John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman and therefore should not have published the salacious claims it made last week suggesting otherwise, the newspaper’s public editor wrote in Sunday’s online edition.
“I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide,” Hoyt wrote.
On Thursday, McCain held a press conference to deny charges that he and Iseman, 40, had had an affair nine years ago while she was lobbying for his assistance to get the Federal Communications Commission to rule on her client’s application for a broadcast license. McCain, 71, who was the Senate Commerce Committee’s chairman at the time, wrote the FCC asking the commissioners to make a decision but did not ask them to rule one way or the other.
In Sunday’s post-mortem, Hoyt wrote, “The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether (McCain aide John) Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance.”
Hoyt said as a result, the newspaper is in the “uncomfortable position of being the story” because “although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance.”
G-man you got to admit that you probably would be posting very differently if Rudy was still in the race as it concerns this story.
This story was really unfair though & there is some justice in having it become a rallying point for many in the GOP who were having trouble with McCain being the pick. It would have happened anyway but this made it happen alot quicker.
maybe Karl Rove put out this story the same way he smeared McCain in 2000 and the same way the New York Times published false info which helped Bush invade Iraq.
New York Times Ombudsman Faults Paper on McCain Story [list]The New York Times failed to establish a sexual relationship had existed between John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman and therefore should not have published the salacious claims it made last week suggesting otherwise, the newspaper’s public editor wrote in Sunday’s online edition.
That person has integrity to admit that there was a lack of consistency and that a mistake was made.
John McCain’s attempted politically motivated gaming of the public financing system is already drawing the attention of the Federal Elections Commission, with the chairman of the FEC firing off a letter to McCain’s presidential campaign asking them to explain why, after they had been certified to become a part of the program, they believe they’re able to pull out without approval. Now the Democratic National Committee is joining in the act, and will file an FEC complaint against the McCain campaign.
John McCain's cash-strapped campaign borrowed $1 million from a Bethesda bank two weeks before the New Hampshire primary by pledging to enter the public financing system if his bid for the presidency faltered, newly disclosed records show.
The crucial issue here is John McCain’s integrity. John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him… His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question. McCain financially benefited by accepting this agreement; he got free ballot access, saving him millions of dollars, and he secured a $4 million loan to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral. He should be held to the law.
More than this, his campaign also got free ballot access, worth millions of dollars, because of his public financing. But now — after he’s received all this financial help — he wants to unilaterally withdraw from the program.
This is about more than spending limits and the FEC; this is a question of integrity.
It's a shame some Republicans are still on yesterdays news and trying to bury the ever expanding story by simply trying to contain it as a story about a sexual affair. It's always been about inappropriate relationships with lobbyists and questionable judgement and ethics.
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Originally Posted By: whomod
John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him… His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
John McCain’s attempted politically motivated gaming of the public financing system is already drawing the attention of the Federal Elections Commission, with the chairman of the FEC firing off a letter to McCain’s presidential campaign asking them to explain why, after they had been certified to become a part of the program, they believe they’re able to pull out without approval. Now the Democratic National Committee is joining in the act, and will file an FEC complaint against the McCain campaign.
John McCain's cash-strapped campaign borrowed $1 million from a Bethesda bank two weeks before the New Hampshire primary by pledging to enter the public financing system if his bid for the presidency faltered, newly disclosed records show.
The crucial issue here is John McCain’s integrity. John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him… His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question. McCain financially benefited by accepting this agreement; he got free ballot access, saving him millions of dollars, and he secured a $4 million loan to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral. He should be held to the law.
More than this, his campaign also got free ballot access, worth millions of dollars, because of his public financing. But now — after he’s received all this financial help — he wants to unilaterally withdraw from the program.
This is about more than spending limits and the FEC; this is a question of integrity.
It's a shame some Republicans are still on yesterdays news and trying to bury the ever expanding story by simply trying to contain it as a story about a sexual affair. It's always been about inappropriate relationships with lobbyists and questionable judgement and ethics.
You should see if Drudge has any coverage about this. It's a source G-man respects
He may be a 25-year veteran of Washington politics, and he may be a two-time leading GOP presidential candidate, but John McCain apparently still needs to work a bit on his “message discipline” problem.
Quote:
John McCain said Monday that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can’t, “then I lose. I lose,” the Republican said.
He quickly backed off that remark.
“Let me not put it that stark,” the likely GOP nominee told reporters on his campaign bus. “Let me just put it this way: Americans will judge my candidacy first and foremost on how they believe I can lead the county both from our economy and for national security. Obviously, Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security.”
“If I may, I’d like to retract ‘I’ll lose.’ But I don’t think there’s any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge,” McCain added. “Clearly, I am tied to it to a large degree.”
Clearly, he is tied to Iraq, which is possibly why he was right the first time.
I find it fascinating that McCain, even now, just blurts out the first thing that comes into his head. McCain has been on the campaign trail now for over a year — and that’s just this cycle — answering questions about, among other things, Iraq. But he can’t quite answer a question about what will happen if Americans reject his policy come November? As someone hoping McCain loses, it gives me hope that he has a habit of answering questions one way, and then wanting to give a different answer a few moments later.
I surprised he didn't go back and edit those posts like he did with his "we will never catch Saddam" not-so epic take........................
He might have if I hadn't found them first. Maybe I oughtta get some screen caps just to be sure.
G-Man, i fail to see how McCain's dwindling stock has anything to do with past admiration. Ever since the election, he's tried to embrace the far right and their idiotic stances in stark contrast to the McCain of years past. All in trying to pander to them and win their support. So oooooh, 'whomod used to admire him'. So frickin what? A lot of people used to. Then they saw McCain who'll do anything, say anything to win. McCain who wants to stay in Iraq 100 years in order to appease the dwindling minority of people who live in some alternate reality, that actually think this is a winning position.
My folks use to like McCain but really see him as Bush part two for much the reasons Whomod states. I give him a bit more wiggle room because he's just doing what politicians do to get elected by their party. Yet some of McCain's about faces will really make it tough for me to vote for him. I may have to vote for the less experienced guy if Obama wins the nomination. Looking at G-man's posts on the Obama thread helps alot getting past that. (and he thought he couldn't influence people on this board)
After all, it isn't like I predicted you'd do this back last year or anything.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:I can also say I've been consistent with McCain & plan to do so if he winds up winning the Republican primary. I like him now & I'll like him in '08.
Bullshit. You'll be crawling all over yourself to attack him. And build up support for the Democratic nominee. Your record precedes you my friend.
That exchange was February 17, 2007. Just slightly over a year to the day.
He's never been for raising taxes to my knowledge, and repealing the cuts would do just that. That would be especially dangerous if, as is often claimed, we're in a recession.
Furthermore, didn't he oppose the tax cuts primarily because he wanted a corresponding cut in spending also?
I don't really see that as a major change. If he had been in favor of tax INCREASES and now wanted new cuts, I could see your point. But to act like he hasn't always been a small government candidate on taxes and spending is a little specious.
Yes I reallize McCain has his rationalizations but that wasn't what he said then...
Quote:
In a May 2001 speech on the Senate floor, he said he could not "in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."
Yesterday one of the big stories was when walkie-talkie Bill Cunningham voraciously attacked Barack Obama warming up a crowd for John McCain. He was so over the top that supposedly the McMaverick campaign told John about his performance and after the crowd left—McCain apologized to Obama. Cunningham was so incensed over being repudiated by McCain that he pulled the Limbaugh trick of saying he’s now supporting Hillary Clinton.
Quote:
Cunningham: His people told me to give the faithful red meat. Give them red—raw—meat.
All that slime leaves one feeling soiled after watching them.
He’s a big favorite of Shaun Hannity and so it was not a surprise to see him on H&C last night to comment on the day’s events. If he’s to be believed then McCain has more more splainin’ to do because he said that McMaverick’s people told him to throw out the red meat for his opening.
Even if McCain wasn’t familiar with his act—his camp knows it and to tell Cunningham to go all out only means one thing—the apology was a fraud. The straight talk express is being as disingenuous here as it has been with regards to his own finance law that he’s failed to comply with. And that’s really the story here. Who cares if a wingnut walkie-talkie is upset about being dissed.
Watching that clip, Bill Cunningham contradicted himself within a matter of minutes about whether he refers to Obama as a “Manchurian candidate”:
Quote:
CUNNINGHAM: And the Daley — the Daley political machine gave us this — this stealth candidate, this Manchurian candidate. We don’t know who in the heck he is. I’d like to know more about Obama.
VERSUS
Quote:
CUNNINGHAM: No, I did not concur with any caller. I do not believe Barack Hussein Obama is a terrorist or a Manchurian candidate. I do believe we know nothing about this guy from the Daley political machine.
But what do you expect from this nest of lying slime merchants.
I don't know what's more troubling, the fact that this Cunnigham comes off as one of those lunatics that hang out in donut shops and bus stations or that you find his comments insightful.
i enjoy the brutal honesty. look it's obvious you are blind to anything a liberal does, as g-man is to a neo-con. it's funny to watch someone tell the truth and people get their panties in a bunch.
if it had been a neo-con tied to a crook like obama is, youd want his head, but since he's a liberal you ignore it. obama is using you, he acts like he's for the poor man but in reality he's pulling the wool over your eyes. it's just so funny becaus eyou think your so smart and your being duped.
Dude, a few posts above, I clearly show that this guy can't even get his stories straight. It's true I'm for Obama but man, that doesn't negate the fact that the guy contradicted himself in a matter just a few minutes time.
thank you for proving my point, if it had been a neo-con being buds with the con artist youd have been all over it. so naive. dont worry Obama will save us all
Dude, a few posts above, I clearly show that this guy can't even get his stories straight. It's true I'm for Obama but man, that doesn't negate the fact that the guy contradicted himself in a matter just a few minutes time.
That lady who made the charges against Rove on 60 Minutes contradicted herself too. And other witnesses also contradicted her. But in her case, you're taking her comments as gospel.
I gotta say that BSAMS really nailed you on this one.
Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
i enjoy the brutal honesty. look it's obvious you are blind to anything a liberal does, as g-man is to a neo-con.
I also gotta say, before this latest dust-up, I'd never even heard of Cunningham. The conservative radio show hosts I'm aware of (at least the national ones) are:
Rush Limbaugh Hannity O'Reilly Glenn Beck Mike Gallagher Laura Ingraham Neal Boortz Lars Larson and, of course, G. Gordon Liddy
Is this Cunningham guy somebody famous?
Also, I defended Hillary, not McCain, on the charges from Obama. I said that she had every right to bring up his Muslim background, his middle name or the fact he dresses like a terrorist when he travels abroad.
Now, the New York Times is trying to rewrite the Constitution to claim that McCain isn't a natural born U.S. Citizen and, therefore, ineligible to be president?
Are they trying to commit ritualistic suicide or something?
And now you've gone from calling dressing in traditional Somali garb "dressing like a Muslim" to "dressing like a terrorist"?
You're right, Matt. This outfit
looks nothing like this one:
What was I thinking?
What, 'cause they're both wearing turbans? Different style turbans, if you really wanna get nit-picky about it?
Sikhs wear turbans, and they're not Muslim. Heck, medieval Jews wore turbans in some places. Are you calling Jews terrorists, G-Man? Because that sounds like something a REAL Muslim terrorist would say!
Bottom line, wearing a turban has nothing to do with being Muslim, let alone a terrorist. So yeah, what WERE you thinking? Did someone spike your coffee with turbantine this morning?
You have a habit of believing the wrong people - especially if you believe MisterJLA's assumption I'm Matt Kennedy (I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with your age-old tactic of bringing up my supposed real ID)
A court in mainly Muslim Malaysia has upheld a ban on schoolboys wearing a serban, a turban that has become a symbol of Muslim piety
Look, in all seriousness, I don't think he's a terrorist or a practicing Muslim. But the fact that matter is that he is dressing, in that getup, the same way that Osama Bin Laden dresses and, therefore, he was dressed like a terrorist.
A court in mainly Muslim Malaysia has upheld a ban on schoolboys wearing a serban, a turban that has become a symbol of Muslim piety
Look, in all seriousness, I don't think he's a terrorist or a practicing Muslim. But the fact that matter is that he is dressing, in that getup, the same way that Osama Bin Laden dresses and, therefore, he was dressed like a terrorist.
And I'm just questioning your logic that because bin Laden is a terrorist who wears a turban, anyone else who wears a turban is dressing like a terrorist. That's Jack Thompson logic.
Yes, Muslims wear turbans, but they're not the only ones who do - again, the Sikhs. So I don't know why you keep sikhing to connect turbans to Islam alone.
And in all seriousness, the only thing the two outfits have in common is a turban - and not even the same style turban! You don't have to be fashion-conscious to see that.
A court in mainly Muslim Malaysia has upheld a ban on schoolboys wearing a serban, a turban that has become a symbol of Muslim piety
Look, in all seriousness, I don't think he's a terrorist or a practicing Muslim. But the fact that matter is that he is dressing, in that getup, the same way that Osama Bin Laden dresses and, therefore, he was dressed like a terrorist.
And I'm just questioning your logic that because bin Laden is a terrorist who wears a turban, anyone else who wears a turban is dressing like a terrorist. That's Jack Thompson logic.
Yes, Muslims wear turbans, but they're not the only ones who do - again, the Sikhs. So I don't know why you keep sikhing to connect turbans to Islam alone.
And in all seriousness, the only thing the two outfits have in common is a turban - and not even the same style turban! You don't have to be fashion-conscious to see that.
Punisher. G-Man understands exactly what you're saying. It doesn't matter. The far right is going to try to exploit this picture and try to connect turbans or robes to being Islamic. It's their tactic. It's their hope that they mislead as many people as possible.
Dude, a few posts above, I clearly show that this guy can't even get his stories straight. It's true I'm for Obama but man, that doesn't negate the fact that the guy contradicted himself in a matter just a few minutes time.
and speaking of contradictions...
More on Bill Cunningham, the guy who was introducing McCain and called Obama "Hussein" and then said Madeleine Albright was ugly. The guy who McCain says he never even met before. Well, a reliable source tells me that Bill Cunningham has had several invitations to McCain events at which he has met with McCain for relatively brief periods, and that McCain has been on Cunningham's radio show twice - once from the Capitol itself in 1995. Doesn't sound like John McCain has never even heard of this guy before.
McCain did finally release a sort of wishy washy statement saying that he may have met him before.
From the LA Times yesterday:
Quote:
Some members of the audience laughed, cheered and applauded during Cunningham's remarks; others said they were embarrassed by them.
Speaking to reporters after the rally, McCain apologized for the remarks and said he took "full responsibility."....
Beverly Weeks, a 59-year-old nurse who identified herself as an independent, said she was "mortified" by Cunningham's remarks. "There were people around me . . . who were embarrassed, and some were even saying they wanted to get up and leave."
It was just last week that McCain lied to the media about never having met a lobbyist involved in last week's scandal (he had met with the lobbyist, and admitted it under oath in 2002). Now he's lying about this controversy as well. Or he's telling the truth, he actually thinks he didn't meet all these different people because the 71 year old McCain no longer has all his faculties? I doubt that.
As with his stance now on Iraq, it's sort of preposterous that he has to wade in the far right wing slime considering he's running against a guy with across the board appeal and people who reject that sort of politicking. But having to appease people who think Limbaugh, Cunningham, Hannity etc. etc are the voice of conservative politics and not the voice of slimy crap is IMO a weakness. Crap and pro-Iraq War talk may energize the fringe right but it sure turns off everyone else.
Good.
McCain's "Bad Memory"
But this story was small potatoes to the swift and immediate ass kicking Obama gave McCain when McCain tried to lecture him on Al queda in Iraq. THAT is how you deal with misinformation!
What if you ran a candidate who was disqualified from being President by virtue of the location of his birth? It has to make some in Republican circles a little nervous to think about.
Here’s something you may not know about John McCain: He was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His father was stationed there in the Navy.
The New York Times reports the circumstances surrounding McCain’s birth raise questions about his ability to become president since our founding fathers specifically said only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the highest office in the land. The idea was to prevent foreigners from becoming president.
There’s no precedent for McCain. No U.S. president has ever been born outside the 50 states. But, McCain’s campaign says they’re confident he meets the requirement, that they researched the question during his last run in 2000 and this time around as well. And they have asked former solicitor general Theodore Olson to prepare a legal opinion.
So is John McCain eligible to be President if he was not born in the US? To be honest, I thought it was a ridiculous question, since my lay understanding of international law is that military bases and embassies in foreign countries were considered to be American soil, but there does appear to be a little technical problem:
Quote:
“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”
It’s a question for legal minds now, but how funny would it be if after all this, John McCain would be forced to bow out of the race on grounds of ineligibility?
Punisher. G-Man understands exactly what you're saying. It doesn't matter. The far right is going to try to exploit this picture and try to connect turbans or robes to being Islamic. It's their tactic. It's their hope that they mislead as many people as possible.
Again, it's the Hillary Clinton campaign's attack machine, not the EEEEVVVVIIIIIILLLLLLL Republicans, who are continually raising this stream of allegations against Barack (Hussein) Obama.
Much as you like to demonize Republicans and falsely blame it on them.
And now you've gone from calling dressing in traditional Somali garb "dressing like a Muslim" to "dressing like a terrorist"?
You're right, Matt. This outfit
looks nothing like this one:
What was I thinking?
What, 'cause they're both wearing turbans? Different style turbans, if you really wanna get nit-picky about it?
Sikhs wear turbans, and they're not Muslim. Heck, medieval Jews wore turbans in some places. Are you calling Jews terrorists, G-Man? Because that sounds like something a REAL Muslim terrorist would say!
Bottom line, wearing a turban has nothing to do with being Muslim, let alone a terrorist. So yeah, what WERE you thinking? )
Well, I don't think it's too outrageous to question whether Obama is an islamic Manchurian Candidate, when you combine the (1)history of his father's side of the family, combined (2)with that he spent a fair part of his formative years in Islamic countries, (3)combined with the fact that his parents named him the islamic-sounding Barack Hussein Obama, combined (4)with his dressing in what in this modern age is clearly Islamic clothing. If Obama were a lifelong Christian such as W. Bush or Bill Clinton, or George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan, or Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc., then yeah, I'd say his wearing muslim clothing didn't raise a serious question about his possibly being a closet muslim.
But when you combine that clothing with his name, and time spent in the muslim world, I think it's legitimate to raise the question. And it's on Obama to prove that he isn't a closet muslim. I'm not saying that Obama definitely is a muslim, but there's enough oddness about it surrounding Obama that it's legitimate for his opponents to raise the question and force Obama to explain himself.
And now you've gone from calling dressing in traditional Somali garb "dressing like a Muslim" to "dressing like a terrorist"?
You're right, Matt. This outfit
looks nothing like this one:
What was I thinking?
What, 'cause they're both wearing turbans? Different style turbans, if you really wanna get nit-picky about it?
Sikhs wear turbans, and they're not Muslim. Heck, medieval Jews wore turbans in some places. Are you calling Jews terrorists, G-Man? Because that sounds like something a REAL Muslim terrorist would say!
Bottom line, wearing a turban has nothing to do with being Muslim, let alone a terrorist. So yeah, what WERE you thinking? )
Well, I don't think it's too outrageous to question whether Obama is an islamic Manchurian Candidate, when you combine the history of his father's side of the family, combined with that he spent a fair part of his formative years in Islamic countries, combined with the fact that his parents named him the islamic-sounding Barack Hussein Obama, combined with his dressing in what in this modern age is clearly Islamic clothing. If he were a lifelong Christian such as W. Bush or Bill Clinton, or George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan, or Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc., then yeah I'd say his wearing muslim clothing didn't raise a serious question about his possibly being a closet muslim.
But when you combine that clothing with his name, and time spent in the muslim world, I think it's legitimate to raise the question. And it's on Obama to prove that he isn't a closet muslim. I'm not saying that Obama definitely is a muslim, but there's enough oddness about it surrounding Obama that it's legitimate for his opponents to raise the question and force Obama to explain himself.
Even if he did explain himself (and he has), you really think that would kill the rumors and the smears? People would still say he's mosque-ing his true intentions and beliefs. And his opponents know that.
Once a rumor's out there, it doesn't go away, even if it's proven to not be true.
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Originally Posted By: whomod
John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him… His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question.
Originally Posted By: whomod
the swift and immediate ass kicking Obama gave McCain when McCain tried to lecture him on Al queda in Iraq. THAT is how you deal with misinformation!
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
G-man somebody could whip up their own "what G-man said" when your boy Rudy was running against McCain. At one point you even suspected McCain of swiping Rudy's campaign plans! (in hindsight who would have wanted them?)
Actually, MEM, the difference is that I always said that I had differences with McCain but still agreed with him enough issues that I would support him over Hillary or Obama.
Actually, MEM, the difference is that I always said that I had differences with McCain but still agreed with him enough issues that I would support him over Hillary or Obama.
You've had post though attacking his character haven't you? It was always a given that you would support McCain over a democrat but when it was McCain against Rudy you had no problem suggesting McCain was capable of stealing Rudy's campaign plans. You just don't have the high ground on this one fella.
I believe mem just called you biased g-man. you should probably give up while you have the chance.
Not at all. G-man being biased just goes without saying. That's not a slam btw, after all who here wants to claim they're not biased? I was just pointing out that G-man himself tackled McCain's character back when he was competing against Rudy. It just appears that somebody's character is rather a fluid thing & seems to depend more on who their running against. Besides McCain, I've seen people that I thought liked the Clinton's get very nasty about them now that their an obstacle for Obama.
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Sat Mar 1, 1:52 AM ET
WASHINGTON - For Republicans, watching Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama fight for supremacy in fundraising is not just a spectator sport. It is a look into the future, and the GOP isn't cheering.
US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama speaks to an audience about economic issues in Austin, Texas on February 28. A bitter row erupted Friday as Obama accused Clinton of scare tactics over a provocative presidential campaign ad hinting he was too inexperienced to protect US kids. (AFP/GETTY
Obama and Clinton together raked in as much as seven times as much cash in February as John McCain, the all-but-certain Republican nominee.
The Democrats, particularly Obama, are also developing a broad base of fervent donors whose help goes beyond sending money.
Some Republicans are sounding alarms.
"Since the midterm election of 2006, Democrats have had an enthusiasm gap with Republicans," said GOP strategist Scott Reed. "They have big crowds, raise more money and appear to have more excitement on the campaign trail. Couple this with turnout numbers, which are off the charts, and Republicans are going to have a big challenge in the fall."
Obama raised $36 million in January. Clinton aides said she raised $35 million in February, and estimates for Obama place his haul for the month at more than $50 million. McCain, who raised about $12 million in January, is on a similar pace for February, according to his campaign.
Such a money advantage could mean that for the first time since post-Watergate campaign finance laws, a presidential candidate may forgo public financing for the general election. That would mean turning aside $85 million for September and October on the assumption that he or she could raise more.
McCain has been trying to hold Obama to an agreement to accept the general election public funds, but Democrats are counseling Obama against it. They believe Republicans will use outside groups that can raise unlimited amounts of money to close any financial advantage Democrats may have.
"If we take the federal money we are disarming ourselves unilaterally against the Republicans," said Steve Murphy, a Democratic strategist who advised Bill Richardson's presidential campaign.
Democratic-leaning outside groups are already entering the contest, promising to target McCain for his stance on the war in Iraq.
The Democratic financial advantage has been evident for more than a year. The eight Democrats who were in the presidential race last year raised a combined $253 million in 2007 from individual donors; the nine Republicans raised a combined $207.5 million. Obama's $36 million in January exceeded the amount raised by all six Republican candidates who were still competing in that month.
The discrepancy was enough to lead Republican National Committee Treasurer Tim Morgan to sound off last weekend in San Francisco during a California Republican convention. Morgan said the RNC has budgeted $150 million for the year, $100 million less than it raised in 2004 when President Bush ran against Democrat John Kerry.
"I look at the Barack Obama campaign in some horror," he said, noting the Democrat's totals so far this year. "That should give all of us a pause."
Republican officials said their party usually budgets conservatively. It planned to raise $172 million in 2004 and ended up raising nearly $249 million. They said party fundraising is ahead of schedule so far this year.
"Republican candidates will have the necessary resources to achieve victory, and communicate the message and mobilize the vote this fall," RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said.
The RNC is the only GOP committee that is faring better than its Democratic counterpart.
Obama and Clinton are still competing, while McCain, anticipating Obama's nomination, is already targeting his campaign against him.
"The next 60 days is all about defining Obama in a way Clinton was never able to do," Reed said. "The big crowds, the curiosity factor and the high platitude speeches have worked — it's a true movement. But can the wave keep a crest all the way to November? I don't think so. It's impossible."
Still, either Obama, who is leading in the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination, or Clinton would clearly have the upper hand going into the general election.
A fundraising advantage, Democrats say, would give the party's nominee the opportunity to compete in states that traditionally have not been considered general election battlegrounds.
"Obama can extend the contest to the Deep South," Murphy said. "That would offset the Southwestern advantage that McCain might have."
Murphy says he believes the Democratic nominee will raise twice as much as the GOP candidate and the Republican Party combined.
"I think $85 million for the general election season is a lot of money to give up," said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan organization that studies campaign finance trends. "That's $1 million a day in spending."
But Obama and Clinton spent about $1 million a day in January alone, when they were competing in far fewer states than they would face in a general election.
"I don't know where this tops out," Malbin said. "Even now, only about 2 percent of the public is giving to politicians. It tops out when people who are interested in politics are tapped out."
___
Associated Press writer Laura Kurtzman contributed to his report from California.
Come on, BSAMS. That article has to be fake. After all, people like Obama have been telling us for years that the Republicans are the party of "the rich". How could Obama be raising that sort of money?
Come on, BSAMS. That article has to be fake. After all, people like Obama have been telling us for years that the Republicans are the party of "the rich". How could Obama be raising that sort of money?
Again, G-man, for someone that is on the pulse of politics, you really haven't been paying attention, have you? Obama has been incredibly successful in getting small grass roots donors rather than a few large donors.
Here, for future reference:
Quote:
Small Online Contributions Add Up to Huge Fund-Raising Edge for Obama
CHICAGO — A cluster of cramped cubicles, tucked away in a rear corner of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters here, serves as the heart of a fund-raising machine that has reshaped the calculus of the 2008 election.
Mr. Obama’s finance director, Julianna Smoot, who has helped him raise more than $150 million so far, does not even have her own office. A Ping-Pong table is the gathering spot for Friday lunches for her team.
The setting, which has the feel of an Internet start-up, is emblematic of how Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has been able to raise so much money. On Wednesday, the Obama campaign will report to the Federal Election Commission that it collected $36 million in January — $4 million more than campaign officials had previously estimated — an unprecedented feat for a single month in American politics that was powered overwhelmingly by small online donations. That dwarfed the $13.5 million in January that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is expected to report Wednesday and the $12 million Senator John McCain’s campaign said he brought in for the month.
In other words, Obama is being funded by THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, rather than by small wealthy donors at fancy dinners.
I know, I know, the American people overwhelmingly participating in their election process, and FOR a Democratic candidate no less, must be pretty scary for G-man.
Why is it "tainted"? I'm sure Hollywood is also providing money. The point was that an "overwhelming amount" of his money is coming from small donors rather than from the rich or interested parties.
Here's some commentary by columnists Mark Shields and David Brooks, from last Friday's PBS News Hour.
It's a bit long, but they offer a lot of insights into the strategies, backgrounds and futures of Obama and Clinton, hinged on the Texas, Ohio and other state primaries tomorrow:
With Texas and Ohio on Horizon, Shields and Brooks Assess the Race
Amid worsening economic reports and tightening poll numbers, the primary race between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton entered a critical weekend ahead of primary votes in Texas and Ohio. Analysts Mark Shields and David Brooks provide their take on the week.
__________________
JIM LEHRER: And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, who joins us tonight from Columbus, Ohio, and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Mark, what do the polls -- you're in Ohio. You've been there recently, now. What do the polls and your own reporting show you or tell you about what's going to happen on Tuesday?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Well, Jim, in many respects, it's following a similar pattern we've seeing elsewhere where Senator Clinton opened up the contest with a double-digit lead -- in some cases, 20 points -- which we're now seeing narrow.
But she is clinging to a single-digit lead in virtually every poll. I think there's been one that showed Senator Obama ahead, but basically a close contest with Senator Clinton still ahead.
JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with what the congresswoman and the mayor just said, that it really isn't issues that separate them, it's something else?
MARK SHIELDS: It is something else. And, no, there aren't any great issues, although each of them tries to emphasize from time to time differences.
And Barack Obama constantly returns to the vote for the war in Iraq, and Senator Clinton supported that. And Senator Clinton likes to emphasize the difference in their health plans because she thinks that's to her advantage. And I think most people would agree it probably is.
But there are not great divides here; this is not a great ideological strife.
DIFFERENCE IN STYLE, NOT POLICY
JIM LEHRER: You agree with that, do you not, David? We talked about this last week, as well, that this is more than just about checking off issues one way or another?
DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: Right, it's not about that. It is about philosophy, though. What strikes me is they really do have two different theories of how change happens.
Obama has a loose, decentralized, bottom-up theory, as you'd expect from a community organizer, that it's not really top-down organizations, that you build a base in the country and you activate people, and then they create change at the top.
I think Clinton has a much more traditional theory of change: You gather the smartest people in the room, union leaders, business leaders, government leaders. You create a policy that you then can spread around the country. So one's a much more bottom-up theory of how change happens; one's much more top-down.
JIM LEHRER: But do you think that's being understood and acted upon at the voter level?
DAVID BROOKS: I do. I mean, Obama talks about it quite a lot, about two different theories of change. And I think for young people, I think that's one of the attractions.
If you grew up in the age of the Internet, which is a decentralized, self-organizing system, you do eBay, you do "The Sims," you basically have that sense. You have a sense that Bono communicates, that you do social change through social action.
And in the world, we're faced with a whole series of transnational problems that are not going to be addressed by traditional politics but are going to be addressed through mobilization.
And I think Obama adopts that language. I think it's a lot of language that especially people under 40 is their natural way of talking about politics.
JIM LEHRER: You read it the same way, Mark?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, I do. There's a little difference, Jim, and I think it seen in the structure of the two campaigns.
Barack Obama just set a record. He has a million individual contributors to his campaign by the month of February. In the month of January alone -- we don't have his figures for February yet -- he raised $28 million online in individual contributions.
Ninety percent of those contributions were under $100 each, which is just remarkable. It's exactly the group David was talking about, people not of great income. It's what we've always wanted to have in politics, where there aren't just a few big money guys, that people are contributing.
But they take those contributors, and it's not simply the passive act of making a contribution. You are then enfolded into a community. You're encouraged to go to meetings, to events.
You're regularly communicated with. You're urged to canvas, to make phone calls, to become part of an activist political company, if you would, of like-minded citizens. And that's what's been remarkable.
And, ironically, this is a state, Ohio, that's had nothing but presidential attention the last eight years. It's been the battleground. So these are people, voters, who are -- they've seen presidents. They've seen presidential candidates.
They've had them on their doorstep for eight years, and yet the Obama campaign somehow has been able to get crowds that nobody in this state has ever seen before. And I think it's through that same organizing mechanism.
JIM LEHRER: And that's happening also in Texas, as well, is it not, David?
DAVID BROOKS: Right. Well, especially there in Texas where Obama seems to be ahead.
And the irony, of course, is that we thought Clinton had this fierce political machine and Obama was a newcomer, where he has a much better organized campaign.
And one thing, though, people talk too much about the cultish following. And I've done my share of it. And there is the element of the cult.
But we had a poll in the New York Times-CBS poll this week which asked people, "Do you have some doubts about the person you support?" And, actually, Obama supporters have more doubts about their candidate than Clinton supporters do.
And so there are a lot of people who take a look at the guy and say, "I like him, but I do have some doubts about his inexperience or this and that, but I still basically like him."
So what strikes me about that is it's not all a fever that could fade away in a couple of weeks. There are people who have much more ambivalent and I think a much more realistic sense of what he can actually deliver.
CLINTON CAMPAIGN NEARLY BEATEN
JIM LEHRER: Well, let's talk just some horse-race issues here now. Let's say that Barack Obama does well in both Ohio and Texas -- and use any definition of what "well" is -- what could that mean?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think if he wins one of the two -- and it's likely now he'll win Texas. And he could be...
JIM LEHRER: He's now six points ahead.
DAVID BROOKS: Right, I think it will be over. Bill Clinton has said his wife has to win them both.
And, again, the thing that struck me -- I said this last week, but I met with some more people this week and had the sense confirmed -- that within the Clinton camp, the fight just isn't there among the donors and the staff. They like her, but they've almost got one psychological foot out the door.
So I have trouble seeing her, in a case of a disputed results post-Tuesday, I have trouble seeing her fight against the will of the party, essentially, and that is staying in and making this a long, bloody fight. I don't think the will is there for that.
JIM LEHRER: What do you think about that, Mark? How do you see this post-Tuesday possibility?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, it depends solely on the results.
JIM LEHRER: Sure.
MARK SHIELDS: The Clinton campaign, yes, David's right that Bill Clinton said she had to win both Ohio and Texas. James Carville said the same thing. So, too, did Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, one of her strongest supporters in that state.
But today the campaign, Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson, changed the standards, Jim. They said that Barack Obama would not be the logical candidate nominee for president if he didn't win all four contests next Tuesday, if he didn't win Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island.
So I guess, you know, you could call that moving the goalposts, if you want. But I think, quite honestly, that if Obama wins Texas -- and I think it looks good for him there -- if he comes here and wins Ohio, then I think it's over.
And I think at that point you're in a very sensitive political time frame. There's going to be a stampede of super-delegates to Obama. Obama has to hold that off so it doesn't look like Senator Clinton is being stampeded or forced out of the race.
It's got to be her decision. She deserves 36 hours or whatever is necessary after that, if this does happen, to make up her own mind, to do it on her own terms. It's very much in Barack Obama's interest to do that.
DEMOCRATS EAGER TO FORGET PRIMARIES
JIM LEHRER: It's going to be a difficult thing, if that happens, is it not?
DAVID BROOKS: But, you know, I sense a lot of people who are fervent Obama supporters, at this stage, they have some sense -- they feel a little sorry for Hillary Clinton, because they like her, and they don't want to see her hurt, and they feel she's hurting now.
So I don't sense -- and Mark has been around more of these fights than I have -- but I don't sense any degree of animosity with a few exceptions, but in general. And I think there will...
JIM LEHRER: You mean, from the Obama people toward Clinton?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, or even vice versa, with a few exceptions. But I do think they will go out of their way to be kind.
And Hillary Clinton, if she does go on to lose, has a big future in politics. I mean, everyone who's seen her as a senator will say she's a great senator. She could become majority leader some day. And I don't think she would want to spoil that possibility.
JIM LEHRER: Where do you come down on the animosity thing?
MARK SHIELDS: Jim, I think David's right. I think you saw it in Ray's interview with Congresswoman Tubbs and Mayor Coleman here in Ohio. But I think that's true throughout.
I mean, there are people -- there are zealots in both cases sometimes at leadership positions in the campaign who really have tried to turn this into a holy war.
But for the voters themselves, because there aren't these great ideological differences, and most Democrats like both candidates, so you don't find that animus. And I think there will be very little schadenfreude on the part of the Obama people, if and when Senator Clinton does lose and is forced to resign, or vice versa. I just don't think that happens.
I do think, Jim, there is a test that Barack Obama does face, and it's a moral test, and it's a test of his differentness and uniqueness, and that is if he's going to honor the pledge he made to abide by public financing.
He's under enormous pressure from within his own campaign that he's got this incredible fundraising capacity. He could probably out-raise John McCain 4 or 5 to 1 based upon their ability at this point, their capacity at this point.
Obama did pledge that he would abide by the public financing rules, which is that each candidate gets $85 million once he's a nominee to run that campaign in the fall, in September and October. And I think this is a real test for Barack Obama.
And if he starts to wiggle and waffle and flip-flop on it, I think it calls into real doubt the question of whether he is a change agent, whether he is sincere.
JIM LEHRER: Yes. Do you think that's going to be a big deal, could be?
DAVID BROOKS: It could be. He's already begun wiggling. He wasn't ruled out the possibility...
JIM LEHRER: He was asked about it.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, but I agree with Mark. I mean, the temptation to have that money has got to be there. But if he does this, it really -- he looks like a normal politician.
But what did they think about McCain (since, you know, this is a thread about him, after all)?
That's the funny part. Since McCain (whose campaign was written off as over a few months ago, out of money and forced to fire his campaign manager, with no funds left to pay him) is now the uncontested Republican nominee, nobody cares about McCain at this point.
Everyone's following the horse-race between H.Clinton and B.H.Obama.
And like MEM said in the Obama topic, for all the hype about this being it if Hillary doesn't win in both Texas and Ohio, it will still be close enough that Hillary can keep on going, despite what has been hyped about this being the ultimate end-all primary.
Or something like that. I'm paraphrasing.
In any case, whether or not any of these people are my candidate of choice, I don't think I've ever seen a presidential primary season like this. The guaranteed winners have been leveraged out, and Hillary Clinton may be the last. The wild-cards on both sides have risen to become the front runners.
More people believe Sen. John McCain's denial of an improper relationship with a lobbyist than the original story that alleged it, according to a poll released Tuesday.
Meg Whitman, eBay Inc.'s outgoing chief executive officer, will co-chair the national presidential campaign of U.S. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.
The organization said on Friday Whitman, 51, would play a lead role in the campaign's financing and policy development.
Since Whitman joined eBay in 1998, the 30-employee start-up has been transformed into a Fortune 500 company with nearly $8 billion in revenue.
This success made Whitman one of the most powerful women in business and earned her a ranking among Time Magazine's list of the world's most influential people.
Whitman announced in January that she would step down from the helm of eBay on March 31 and spend more time on philanthropy and politics.
She previously worked as a fund-raiser for McCain's rival, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who bowed out of the presidential race on February 7.
this is bone headed, her approval rating amongst eBay sellers is in the negative..
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Originally Posted By: whomod
John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him… His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question.
Originally Posted By: whomod
It's time to wrap up this nomination battle so we can start running against McCain.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
In comparing McCain to W.Bush, while McCain agrees with Bush on permanent tax cuts, and completing the mission in Iraq (especially now that we are winning) I don't see McCain making the kind of ideological blunders that ignore reality, as Bush did. I see McCain as reaching out to the political center more, and not catering exclusively to the conservative base (which McCain doesn't have to rely on anyway!)
Throughout the Iraq war, McCain is labelled retrospectively by Democrats as being "just like Bush". But that's simply not true. Along with Republican senators Luger and Hagel, and Democrats like Biden and Levin, McCain has constantly pressed Bush publicly over the last 5 years to change to a winning strategy in Iraq and fire Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, replacing the Defense Secretary with someone else who would regain the confidence of the House and Senate, of our troops in the field, and of the American public. Which finally happened after Nov 2006, with new secretary Robert Gates. And since then, the war in Iraq has improved dramatically, to the point that even Pulitzer-winning reporters for the New York Times (John Burns) and Iraqis polled, cannot deny the vast improvement in the security situation there.
McCain, like W. Bush, advocated staying in Iraq to finish the job. But unlike Bush, McCain didn't have loyalty to incompetents that he refused to fire, and pressed Bush every step of the way to fire Rumsfeld.
Whereas the Democrat response among the candidates has been retreat retreat retreat, withdraw withdraw, and abandon the Iraqis, across the board. McCain, on that issue, by the success evident now, is to only one who got that issue right.
The new liberal mantra regarding McCain is "Just like Bush". But that's a deliberate misrepresentation.
McCain has his problems, on campaign finance, NAFTA and particularly immigration/amnesty. But he's not "just like Bush".
As we all know, McCain is using taxpayer dollars to undertake a campaign trip around the world. And, it is a campaign photo op. Yesterday, McCain got confused over the most basic facts about who is doing what in Iraq and Iran. Very basic stuff:
Quote:
Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.
He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."
Wait. Isn't Iraq supposed to be McCain's strong suit? So much for that lifetime of experience constantly attributed to McCain by Hillary Clinton.
McCain's major mistake wasn't a one-time thing. According to the Huffington Post, McCain made the same incorrect statements about al Qaeda on the Hugh Hewitt show -- and they've got the audio:
Quote:
As you know, there are Al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq.
Al Qaeda is Sunni. Iran is Shiite. That's a pretty big mistake for someone who is supposed to be so steeped in foreign policy and Iraq.
What if Clinton or Obama had made this mistake?
Now the traditional media types have it in their heads that McCain knows foreign policy inside out. That's wrong.
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."
The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.
Not so ready for that phone call after all.
So we learn that the volatile Senator doesn't know the basics -- the very basics -- about Sunnis and Shiites. He made the mistake by linking Al Qaeda and Iran. No doubt, McCain thinks that's a good, scary talking point, but he's wrong. His new adviser, Karl Rove, probably told him to do it anyway.
There would have been a news story, just as was the case here.
You might recall, for example, the gaffe in which Obama threatened to attack Pakistan. It was reported, there was criticism, but it was quickly forgotten
This seems, if anything, less extreme a gaffe, as it involves a slip of the tongue, not a statement of intentional bellicosity against a sometimes ally.
G-Man, the fact that McCain made identical remarks on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show as well makes it clear McCain was not guilty of simply a "slip of the tounge" What’s more, McCain corrected himself only after Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) “stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear.”
A video by CNN shows that McCain repeated the inaccurate claim twice during the same press conference, bringing his total number of "slips of the tounge" to three.
I don't want to open the door to allegations of age discrimination (or to allegations of defending McCain in some way, for that matter), but it did cross my mind that these mistakes could also be products of age. The travel and time schedules of a presidential campaign are brutally taxing even for the sprightliest of contenders. McCain's 71. They don't call them senior moments for nothing. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it's possible he misspoke rather than really didn't know. I do, however, think the juxtaposition of age is going to be BIG come the general election - especially if Obama wins the democratic nomination. In case you missed SNL this weekend, even they hit on the issue in a skit that declared McCain officially "crazy old." (If I can find a clip online, I will be happy to post it. Haven't had luck unearthing it yet.)
But McCain may not be wrong to suggest that Iran is backing Sunni as well as Shiite terrorists in Iraq.
As the Wall Street Journal noted in January 2007, American intelligence had unearthed documents in Iraq suggesting cooperation between Iran's Quds ("Jerusalem") force and people affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq, among other Sunni groups, confirming the suspicion of Iraqi liberal Mithal al-Alusi that Iran was playing both sides in Iraq.
And according to a July 2007 New York Sun article:
One of two known Al Qaeda leadership councils meets regularly in eastern Iran, where the American intelligence community believes dozens of senior Al Qaeda leaders have reconstituted a good part of the terror conglomerate's senior leadership structure.
That is a consensus judgment from a final working draft of a new National Intelligence Estimate, titled "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," on the organization that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Like any intelligence, this may be a mistake, disinformation or otherwise false or not the whole truth. But the notion that because Iran is a "Shiite country" it would never cooperate with Sunni extremists is simpleminded nonsense. Iraq is majority-Shiite too, and the two countries fought a brutal war for eight years in the 1980s. Political alliances do not always follow the lines of sectarian or other natural affinities.
Either way, it's hardly proof of old age or disingenuousness on McCain's part.
I've mentioned my admiration and support of McCain several times in the past. And it really has little to do with his views or political positions (many of which I disagree with) but with his character.
With McCain, I sense a genuine integrity about the man. And his brand of Republicanism I see as political and not the quasi-religious fanaticism of the neocons who are positive they know everything there is to know about an issue and the only work is to try to force all data to support their conclusions.
I can see McCain working with the Democrats, i can see him working with our allies rather than belittling and bullying his way to his goals. And I can see him admiting errors, I can see him changing his opinions rather than trying to change the facts to suit him and I can see him give as well as take. In other words, i see a leader.
South Carolina is known for its dirty politics and no one knows more about that than Senator John McCain. He suffered despicable personal attacks ...It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, with McCain all but the official Republican candidate for president, what does our friend whomod think of the good Senator now?
Originally Posted By: whomod
The outright lies that were told by the Republican candidates during the Florida debate was astounding to me. McCain might have been the worst offender
Originally Posted By: whomod
McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist that may have been adulterous AND may have influenced decisions on chairs that he led in the Senate...some right wingers are up in arms over it?
Originally Posted By: whomod
What a damaging week for the McCain campaign, huh? His three most “attractive” selling points — campaign finance reform, fierce anti-lobbyist stance, and support for the Glorious surge — are crumbling around him...Saint McCain’s not even the nominee yet and his three strongest legs have been taken out in a matter of 72 hours. Should make for a fun 8 months.
Originally Posted By: whomod
If the past 7 years taught us anything is that lies and malfeasance is something the conservative base has no problem with and even rewards.
Originally Posted By: whomod
...trying to defend MccAIN because of past admiration is like trying to defend the BTK killer
Originally Posted By: whomod
John McCain poses as a reformer but he seems to think reforms apply to everyone else but him… His latest attempt to ignore the law is just more of his do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy and it calls his credibility into question.
Originally Posted By: whomod
It's time to wrap up this nomination battle so we can start running against McCain.
Originally Posted By: whomod
I don't want to open the door to allegations of age discrimination (or to allegations of defending McCain in some way, for that matter), but it did cross my mind that these mistakes could also be products of age...McCain's 71. They don't call them senior moments for nothing.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Man, what a difference being a Republican nominee makes.
Like any intelligence, this may be a mistake, disinformation or otherwise false or not the whole truth. But the notion that because Iran is a "Shiite country" it would never cooperate with Sunni extremists is simpleminded nonsense. Iraq is majority-Shiite too, and the two countries fought a brutal war for eight years in the 1980s. Political alliances do not always follow the lines of sectarian or other natural affinities.
Saddam Hussein and his clan were Sunni, so your point is irrelevant. Yes, the Sunni was and still is a minority in Iraq, but during Hussein's and his Baath Party's regime, they were in charge. Which I thought you already knew.
Earlier this month, Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS), the parent company of France-based Airbus, won a $40 billion Air Force tanker contract, beating out Boeing, DOD’s usual go-to company for Air Force contracts. Some of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign advisers lobbied for EADS while actions by McCain himself helped the deal go through. The contract would create thousands of jobs for Airbus and thus the French have a message for McCain: “Merci.” Watch this new video from the Campaign for America’s Future:
Last week, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the EADS-Northrop Gruman plane was “clearly a better performer” than the one proposed by Boeing.
In other words, McCain favored giving the contract to the company that built a better plane. whomod apparently favors giving it to the company that built an inferior plane.
I think McCain deserves credit for sticking up for quality and the safety of our armed forces.
I think whomod deserves scorn for wanting our armed forces to have substandard equipment. Once again, we see that liberals hate the troops.
I realize that you think you're being terribly clever here. But you're not. You're just displaying your partisanship.
According to CBS, the contract was given to the most qualified vendor. I wish it had been a US company but it wasn't. I don't believe in protectionism, and I certainly don't think it should trump the safety of our armed forces. Likewise, it appears that McCain's involvement was to see that quality, not political connections, were considered in awarding the contract.
As such, you're attacking a McCain for advocating that a government contract be awarded to the most qualified vendor.
Not only is what you're attacking a good practice, but it's generally the law. Typically, when evaluating a contract, the government has to award to the lowest "responsible" bidder. This means the bidder with, for example, the best track record for quality.
There have been a lot of stories over the past few years of our troops sometimes having substandard equipment. I'd like to think you agree that is wrong, no matter what party occupies the White House.
In fact, take the troops out of the equation. Do you really want any human beings flying in aircraft of lesser quality?
In short, you're advocating that a candidate put his own interests (in this case political) over the safety of human beings and the finanical interests of the taxpayers.
McCain, on the other hand, is putting the taxpayers and lives ahead of his short term interests. That's the type of thing we should admire. It's also the type of thing you used to claim you admired him for...before he became the nominee, of course.
I realize that you think you're being terribly clever here. But you're not. You're just displaying your partisanship.
I would say the same for you. Look, like it or not, outsourcing such a big contract and during an election cycle no less is an issue. Your points are certainly well thought out, written and articulated but lets say Hillary Clinton had done this? Would you be so thoughtful and articulate then? I seriously doubt it.
Sometimes, especially during an election, the legal and routine thing to do doesn't trump was it the right thing to do. And seriously, I don't think Americans are incapable of making a plane that is just as safe. It may cost a bit more but then again, aren't we giving away money next month to try to stimulate the economy? With the plane contract staying at home and actually being spent employing American workers, I'd call it money better used.
U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Purim is the Jewish version of Halloween during his Israel visit.
McCain was corrected by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), one of the Republican presidential nominee's chief supporters who accompanied him on the trip, according to MSNBC.
In a news conference Wednesday with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak following a tour of the besieged southern Israeli city of Sderot, McCain had noted the impact of continued rocket fire on the city's children.
"As they celebrate their version of Halloween here, they are somewhere close to a 15-second warning, which is the amount of time they have from the time the rocket is launched to get to safety," McCain said. "That's not a way for people to live obviously."
Lieberman at the news conference said the fault was his, as he had compared the two holidays in explaining its significance to McCain.
McCain’s mistake wasn’t a big deal. But what is interesting is Lieberman's role during this trip. In two days, Lieberman has intervened twice in front of the press -- once helping McCain with a correction on Sunnis/Shiites and once putting the blame on himself regarding the description of Purim.
Lieberman seems to now be McCain's Nancy to McCain's increasingly addle headed Ron.
I understand that one of the liberal/DNC talking points against McCain is going to be his age. I'm not sure how hard you/they want to push that, however, given that senior citizens tend to vote in pretty large numbers and given how well it worked (or didn't) against Reagan.
In regards to your more substantive point
Originally Posted By: whomod
Look, like it or not, outsourcing such a big contract and during an election cycle no less is an issue. Your points are certainly well thought out, written and articulated but lets say Hillary Clinton had done this? Would you be so thoughtful and articulate then? I seriously doubt it.
I think the record will reflect that I've defended Hillary against Obama sometimes and vice versa, depending on whether I think one or the other is right on a particular issue.
But more importantly, when you have to resort to "you'd do the same thing" it's usually a good sign that you've lost an argument. And that's the case here.
The simple fact of the matter is, as noted above, the law requires the government to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. You postulate that the US could make as good a plane (for more money) but that's just guess work on your part. And it's the kind of guess work that, if allowed, can lead to all sorts of abuses and favoritism. None of which is good for our country.
But most telling is your admission that:
Quote:
like it or not, outsourcing such a big contract and during an election cycle no less is an issue....
With this comment, you are essentially admitting that this is about partisan politics, not good government. You want the "legal and routine" to be trumped by a particular end, even if it isn't the ethical one. You're admitting that you think this should be an election issue even if McCain did nothing wrong.
In other words, you're displaying your partisanship.
Sunday's New York Times Magazine is going to have the bombshell that it was in fact McCain that actively courted Hagee's endorsement and not the other way around. Which is funny since I thought this news was old. Considering I think I mentioned it weeks ago.
McCain... actively courted Hagee's endorsement...I think I mentioned it weeks ago.
I think you did. And I think that, like your cartoon above, it was an attempt to draw a parallel between McCain and Obama where one doesn't really exist.
And, in that respect, I think the general response here was that it was still a far cry from: (a) attending the man's church for twenty years; (b) appointing him the campaign's "spiritual advisor,"; (c) having him baptize his children; (d) naming a book after one of his sermons.
So, other than the fact that you got your ass handed to you yesterday for trying to attack McCain for upholding the competitive bidding laws and need to change the subject, is there a reason to bring it up again?
I hope SAAB will build some parts for that Airbus-Grumman tanker plane, like they do for Airbus civilian aircrafts.
Anyway, I like McCain more and more for each day. He seems to have the best ideas for improving US foreign policies, and the most realistic ideas for immigration and trade.
what did Hagee say that was anti-american? i'm not saying he did or didnt, i just havent read anything about it. whomod seems to compare him to wright.
Significantly, after previous bitter rivalry, Romney began campaigning for MCain this week.
I admire Romney's ability to overcome differences and rally the Republican party. His expertise on economic matters can only enhance McCain's ability and appeal.
As one half of the general election campaign moves into full swing, John McCain is launching his most focused effort yet to define his persona for voters, projecting the steadfast image of a patriot and selfless commander in trying times.
McCain launched his first general election ad Friday, in which a baritone narrator describes the Arizona senator as “the American president Americans have been waiting for.” The ad shows images of McCain when he was a POW imprisoned in Vietnam, and it begins with campaign clips of McCain telling voters “stay strong” and “do not yield.”
Next week McCain kicks off his “Service to America Tour,” a week-long biographical swing through Mississippi, Virginia, Maryland, Florida and Arizona, highlighting locales that have played defining moments in his life and that showcase his service to his country.
With that lifetime of experience we keep hearing that John McCain has, you'd think he'd know better than to let Osama Bin Laden set the terms of the battle and choose the battle site. But, like Bush, that's what McCain has done:
If there's one thing that we know Osama Bin laden is good (and experienced) at, it's bankrupting superpowers by entangling them in endless war.
a link from a liberal site that twists the facts. it must be true!
How were the facts twisted? (Seriously, go ahead. Give me sources that proves this article wrong.) Or is it just because it's a liberal site, it must automatically be false?
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Matt probably doesn't realize who David Brock is. He's the guy that runs Hillary Clinton's "Media Matters" site.
Again, because an uber-liberal says it, it's automatically false?
Or is it just because any article from any biased source is suspect, regardless of allegiance?
If that's the case, what do you suggest we do, not post anything from any site with biases and agendas? That would make a hell of a lot of websites and newspapers off-limits.
Go ahead, gimme an answer. I want to learn the ways of the Source and be an RKMBer like my original ID before me.
Oh, I'm also invoking the G-Man Doctrine, wherein it states that a question mark at the end of a comment means I'm just raising a question instead of actually making a claim.
What happened to the good ol' breakings when posters were driven into a fit of foaming frenzy until they posted three-page monologues cursing everything under the sky and wishing the worst sorts of agonies on everyone?
If a post like mine is all it takes to consider someone broken, bsams, your low standards take all the fun out of the game.
Anyway, back to my point. So who can we use as a legitimate source, since everyone from Tom Broke-aw to Daryl269 from some blog is now suspect?
Matt probably doesn't realize who David Brock is. He's the guy that runs Hillary Clinton's "Media Matters" site.
...as well as being a conservative journalist during the 1990s. During that time he was best known for his book The Real Anita Hill and authoring the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. He tells his personal story in his memoir Blinded by the Right and criticizes the "conservative media machine" in his book The Republican Noise Machine. His work on the latter book led him to found Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
In Blinded by the Right (2002), Brock said that he had reached a turning point — he had thoroughly examined charges against the Clintons, could not find any evidence of wrongdoing, and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. He also argued that his "friends" had not really been friends at all, due to the open secret that Brock was gay.
In July 1997, Brock published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man", in which he recanted much of what he said in his two best-known American Spectator articles and criticized his own reporting methods. Discouraged at the reaction his Hillary Clinton biography received, he said, "I... want out. David Brock the Road Warrior of the Right is dead." Four months later, The American Spectator declined to renew his employment contract, under which he was being paid over $300,000 per year.
Writing again for Esquire in April 1998, Brock apologized to Clinton for his contributions to Troopergate, calling it simply part of an anti-Clinton crusade. He told a more detailed story of his time inside the right wing in his 2001 memoir, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, in which he settled old scores and provided inside details about the Arkansas Project's efforts to bring down Clinton. Later, he also apologized to Anita Hill.
Brock directly addressed the right-wing "machine" in his 2004 book, The Republican Noise Machine, in which he detailed an alleged interconnected, concerted effort to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through false accusations of liberal media bias, dishonest and highly-partisan columnists, partisan news organizations and academic studies, and other methods. Also in 2004, he featured briefly in the BBC series The Power of Nightmares, giving his updated account on what was behind conservative allegations against Bill Clinton.
About the same time he founded Media Matters for America, an Internet-based liberal political organization "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media".
Inspiring story proving there may yet be hope for G-man.
Arizona Sen. John McCain is running strongly in three states that have been solidly Democratic in recent presidential elections; a particular surprise is New Jersey where, a month ago, Illinois Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had a double-digit lead, according to a new round of state-by-state general election match-ups.
The series of polls by Rasmussen Reports, which included Michigan and Washington State, also underscored what most other national and state polling has found - high negatives for Clinton as far as favorability ratings. McCain often scores the highest favorability ratings, while Obama comes out on the positive side, but by lesser margins.
Rasmussen says McCain and the Democrats are in a statistical tie in New Jersey, with McCain leading Clinton 45 percent to 42 percent and Obama by 46 percent to 45 percent, with a 4 point margin of error. A month ago, Obama ran closely with McCain but Clinton, showing strength in her neighboring state, had led McCain 50 percent to 39 percent.
McCain is also running a close race with the Democrats in Michigan, according to the Rasmussen survey conducted March 25. He leads Obama 43 percent to 42 percent, and Clinton by 45 percent to 42 percent, with a 4.5 percent margin of error.
McCain is viewed favorably by 55 percent of voters, Obama by 50 percent and Clinton by 47 percent. This is a state the Democrats have carried in the last four elections. It is also one of the two states (the other being Florida) where the controversy continues over the Democratic Party's decision to strip both of their delegates for breaking party rules by moving up the dates of their primaries. Forty-five percent of Michigan Democrats say there should be some kind of a re-vote, while 39 percent disagree. Mirroring a Gallup poll earlier today, a plurality of Democrats believe Obama would be a stronger opponent for McCain than Clinton (by a 48 percent to 41 percent margin) and 58 percent expect Obama to win the nomination.
Rasmussen noted that the Republicans have not carried New Jersey for 20 years, but added "in recent years, several GOP candidates have done well in spring polls only to see their hopes fade in the fall." Clinton's favorability rating - at 50 percent - is a little better here than in other state-by-state surveys, but it still represents a 6 point decline since the last poll. McCain's favorable rating is 61 percent and Obama's is 58 percent. The economy is cited as the top issue by 47 percent with only 12 percent rating it excellent or good. Twenty-two percent cite Iraq as the top issue, but among those, 39 percent believe the situation will worsen in the next six months compared to 32 percent who believe it will improve.
And in Washington State, Rasmussen finds McCain is competitive with both Democrats, according to a poll conducted March 27. Obama leads him 48 percent to 43 percent while McCain leads Clinton 46 percent to 43 percent. The margin of error is 4.5 percent. In its Feb. 28 polling, McCain and Obama were statistically tied while Clinton was ahead 48 percent to 40 percent. On the scale of favorability ratings, Obama registers at 57 percent, McCain at 56 percent and Clinton, whose negatives repeat state after state, is at 43 percent. The last time a Republican won this state was in the Ronald Reagan landslide of 1984.
The economy is cited as the top issue by most voters (37 percent) with Iraq next (24 percent). Only 14 percent of Democrats say the economy is good or excellent. Thirty-nine percent believe the U.S. is winning the war on terror.
Americans' views on the economy and the general state of the country have hit an all-time low in the history of the CBS News/New York Times poll. Eighty-one percent of those polled say the country is on the wrong track, while only 14 percent believe it is heading in the right direction.
Asked to compare the state of the country to how it was five years ago, 78 percent say things are worse today - the highest percentage since CBS News began asking the question in 1986. Only four percent say things are better now.
You think Americans want four more years of the George Bush policies that brought us to this? Because on the issues, Bush and McCain are the McSame.
If you are male and a Led Zeppelin fan, chances are you may be leaning toward voting Republican in the U.S. presidential election, according to a survey of rock radio fans released on Wednesday.
The Jacobs Media's Media/Technology Web Poll IV of more than 27,000 respondents cited stronger than expected interest in the November 2008 election among fans of rock, classic rock, and alternative radio stations.
It also found that John McCain, the Republican candidate for U.S. president, was the top pick for the Oval Office for men and classic rock partisans -- those people who tune in to stations playing music from the "original classic rock era" of 1964 to 1975, comprised of bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd.
Jacobs Media said the survey, conducted among 69 U.S. rock-formatted stations in markets as diverse as Los Angeles and Knoxville to Buffalo, found 84 percent of the respondents planned to vote in the November election.
Any classic rock listener idolizes Led Zeppelin, but knows that the DNC is where truly The Song Remains the Same !
i.e., the same tired ideas of tax and spend liberalism, and rallying minority support by whipping up exaggerated fears of racism, under a transparent mask of "change".
If you are male and a Led Zeppelin fan, chances are you may be leaning toward voting Republican in the U.S. presidential election, according to a survey of rock radio fans released on Wednesday.
The Jacobs Media's Media/Technology Web Poll IV of more than 27,000 respondents cited stronger than expected interest in the November 2008 election among fans of rock, classic rock, and alternative radio stations.
It also found that John McCain, the Republican candidate for U.S. president, was the top pick for the Oval Office for men and classic rock partisans -- those people who tune in to stations playing music from the "original classic rock era" of 1964 to 1975, comprised of bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd.
Jacobs Media said the survey, conducted among 69 U.S. rock-formatted stations in markets as diverse as Los Angeles and Knoxville to Buffalo, found 84 percent of the respondents planned to vote in the November election.
Well considering white males are more likely to be classic rock fans, it stands to reason they'd also vote Republican. White Males are one of their main pillars of supoport.
Yesterday on Hardball, the question of the white male vote and national security came up and Obama's response the day earlier when he did the college interview at West Chester University of Pennsylvania.
Quote:
MATTHEWS: So Michael, what was the overall reaction in the area on your show this morning?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, he made no mistakes, and he looked good and he sounded good. I mean, the feeling in that fieldhouse at West Chester last night was more along the lines of a Final Four game than it was, you know, political discourse, and that‘s because of the magnetism that this guy has. I mean, I felt like I was at a college pep rally.
What I like about that answer, Chris, is that he combines it with saying that our resources have been diverted in Iraq from a battle that should be taking place in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. And what I think he‘s doing is showing his bona fides among white males who are looking for a tough guy on national defense. And the way he overcomes this issue of wanting to get over Iraq, to the extent that makes him look weak on defense, is he reminds the country we still haven‘t found bin Laden. And I got to tell you, that scores points with someone like me.
Obama, like John Kerry in 2004, is vacillating all over the place. One day he's talking about invading Pakistan, the next day he's talking about withdrawing all our troops from Iraq. Mostly, he talks about withdrawing from Iraq, in between fielding responses to his own anti-American remarks, and associations with ultra-liberal socialists, black racists, and his closet Muslim life.
No one I talk to believes a word of Obama's waffling and exaggerations.
Chris Matthews is absolutely orgasmically partisan for Obama. It doesn't surprise me that he'd invite the rare conservative that has something enthusiastic to say about Obama.
I couldn't help thinking of Whomod when I watched this clip:
The opinionated insults, the recurring Darth-Vader/Cheney-esque snarling still photo of McCain, the juxtaposing nuclear explosions from the 1950's with McCain's completely unrelated voice-quotes... it's totally Whomod-style all the way.
The music is kind of snappy, though, and it's fun to watch.
It's actually not liberals who put this video together, as far as I can tell. It looks to have been posted by Ron Paul supporters, and it looks favorably toward Paul while bashing McCain.
The New York Times: "Senator John McCain has staked his candidacy on the promise that U.S. troops can stabilize Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son."
It must kill the far left Michael Moore types that, not only can't they call McCain a "chickenhawk," but his son is serving in the military right now.
The New York Times: "Senator John McCain has staked his candidacy on the promise that U.S. troops can stabilize Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son."
It must kill the far left Michael Moore types that, not only can't they call McCain a "chickenhawk," but his son is serving in the military right now.
I don't know about the far left but I respect McCain's military record. He also gets extra credit for how he has & hasn't used it in this campaign.
The New York Times: "Senator John McCain has staked his candidacy on the promise that U.S. troops can stabilize Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son."
It must kill the far left Michael Moore types that, not only can't they call McCain a "chickenhawk," but his son is serving in the military right now.
With McCain, his service or his sons service is admirable but it really is not the issue. what seems to be the main issue, apart from his continuing on with Bush's war is that every statement he makes, seems to reinforce the fact that far from being the foreign policy "expert" that his campaign touts him as, he really doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on there.
McCain really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Well, he either really doesn't or he's really confused. Not sure which is worse.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) repeated the false claim that Muqtada al-Sadr declared the ceasefire in Basra last week, which he pointed to as proof that Sadr didn’t “think he was winning” the battle in Basra. He also said that the Iraqi army performed “pretty well”:
The GOP nominee doesn't understand what happened over the past couple weeks. McCain thinks 1) al Sadr asked for the recent ceasefire; and 2) the Iraqi military is functioning "functioning very effectively." Wrong and wrong:
After repeated mendacity about the (virtually nonexistent) relationship between Iran and al Qaeda, Senator McCain once again demonstrated his lack of foreign policy abilities today. During the course of the hearings with Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, he implied that al Qaeda is a Shia group, before lamely trying to recover with "or Sunnis or anybody else" as an appropriate label for the group.
His lack of knowledge of the political dynamics of a war we're now five years (and 4,000 lives) into is embarrassing, especially considering he's running on that as his main strength. I mean, even if he didn't know it before, shouldn't he, y'know, take the time to learn it now?? And if not, shouldn't the press occasionally mention the fact that he appears to have no idea what he's talking about?
John McCain can't raise money for his campaign and wants to use the public financing system for the general election. He really wants Obama hamstrung by those spending limits, too. What McCain thinks doesn't matter because McCain's already gotten himself into legal trouble with the public financing system - an issue largely ignored by the traditional media. But, today, there was some progress -- not nearly as far as we need them to go, but at least an acknowledgment that McCain has serious problems with campaign finance laws:
Quote:
As for Mr. McCain, he has crusaded against the influence of money in politics in the Senate and has criticized Mr. Obama for hedging on his earlier decision to apply for public financing. But Mr. McCain drew criticism of his own earlier this year when he backed away from public financing for the primary elections. He initially sought those public matching funds, which come with limits of their own, after his campaign nearly ran out of money, but decided to bypass them after donations started coming in.
Okay, like I said, this is just a start. And, there are some very important points that are missing. For example, McCain can't decide to bypass the system. The FEC decides and the FEC Chair (a Republican) said explicitly McCain can opt out on his own:
Quote:
But McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers before a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David M. Mason, a Republican. Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system.
McCain, therefore, is still in the public financing system and subject to its limitations. McCain already exceeded the spending cap and that is a campaign finance crime:
Quote:
Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.
That makes McCain a campaign finance criminal.
Keep in mind that the FEC is not functioning because McCain's GOP Senate colleagues won't allow a vote on new Commissioners.
Given McCain's shady dealings with the FEC and his attempt to scam the public financing system, Barack Obama should never, ever enter into any deal with McCain about campaign spending. And, any pundit or editorial writer who challenges Obama's position is ignoring McCain's criminality.
McCain really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Well, he either really doesn't or he's really confused. Not sure which is worse.
Except for the fact that, alone among the candidates, McCain advocated the Surge, and that it decisively turned the war in our favor.
Obama and Hillary would both undermine that victory and reverse it with immediate reductions in troops, and by pulling out prematurely.
The rest of the points you raise are piddly technicalities, that don't really warrant a response. They don't exceed errors made by the opposing candidates, which are equal if not worse.
McCain really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Well, he either really doesn't or he's really confused. Not sure which is worse.
Except for the fact that, alone among the candidates, McCain advocated the Surge, and that it decisively turned the war in our favor.
Obama and Hillary would both undermine that victory and reverse it with immediate reductions in troops, and by pulling out prematurely.
Oh I'm sorry. I must not have been paying attention. I thought the point of the surge was by the President’s own measure, to give the Iraqi government breathing room to make progress on political reconciliation, halt sectarian violence and train its own security forces.
Also, A report last September by the Government Accountability Office showed Iraq had perhaps met three to five of 18 benchmarks.
I must've missed all this "success" happening while posting about Hillary Clinton.
IS AMERICA A CENTER-RIGHT NATION? John McCain is counting on the idea that the country is center-right at heart. The Democrats are going to have to convince Americans that bad government is the result of conservative contempt for basic institutions of governance.
by Paul Waldman April 8, 2008
John McCain faces a serious challenge in this election year -- a struggling economy, a war the public is eager to see ended, a deeply unpopular president, and perhaps most importantly, the natural swing of the pendulum after eight years of Republican rule (only once since the 1940s has a party won three consecutive presidential elections). Nonetheless, conservatives continue to assure themselves that in the end, they reside where the country sits ideologically.
McCain, avers George Will, is "a center-right candidate seeking to lead a center-right country."
Tom Cole, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, agrees: "I believe that it is still a center-right country, and I think this election will show that," he told the New York Times Magazine.
"America is a center-right country and in modern times has not elected a thoroughgoing liberal as president," pleaded former Bush adviser Peter Wehner last week in the Wall Street Journal.
You can hear the hint of desperation in their voices. What they probably suspect, and what progressives are hoping, is that the conservative era that arrived with Ronald Reagan in 1980 is finally reaching its end, dragged into its grave by George W. Bush. The moment for a resurgence of activist government may have finally arrived.
But in order to make it happen, Democrats will have to overcome a deep skepticism among the public, not about the relative abilities of the opposition party but about government itself. As the most recent Gallup poll on the subject shows, the public's faith in government is as low as it has been at any point since they started asking the question thirty-five years ago.
Given the combination of dishonesty, corruption and incompetence that has marked the current administration, it's hard to blame the American people for their distrust. Republicans argue that government can't do anything right, then set about to prove it once they grab government's reins. Each successive Republican administration only provides more evidence for their contention that government is a bumbling beast incapable of solving problems. Few notice that they never deliver on their promises to reduce its size and scope; as a portion of GDP, the postwar federal government was at its biggest during the years of that famed enemy of big government, Ronald Reagan.
And what we hear from the soon-to-be Republican nominee sounds little different from the standard GOP litany: cut spending, cut taxes on the wealthy, have faith in the magic of the market. In other words, you're on your own. As Jacob Hacker put it in a 2005 New Republic article (not currently available on the web), "Call it the vicious cycle of insecurity -- if Americans feel no one can help them, they will back leaders who won't. In the '30s, Democrats saw economic security as the keystone of a broad coalition in support of their party. Today, Republicans appear to see insecurity in the same way." This has certainly been the strategy behind their doomsday predictions on Social Security: convince the public that the system is going bankrupt, and people will be much more open to dismantling it, because what does it matter?
But the faith that McCain and other conservatives have that the country is with them rests on a fundamental misperception about public opinion. Since Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril's 1964 book The Political Beliefs of Americans, political scientists have known that as a group Americans are "symbolic conservatives" but "operational liberals." In other words, if you ask them whether they'd define themselves as conservative or liberal, most choose conservative; but if you ask them about what they want government to do about specific issues and problems, most choose the liberal solution, i.e. that government should do more and spend more.
As a consequence, a substantial portion of the population -- nearly a quarter, according to the General Social Survey -- are what political scientist James Stimson calls "conflicted conservatives," those who pick "conservative" when asked their ideological identification, but nonetheless support liberal policies. As Stimson wrote:
The conflicted conservatives are the interesting group. Large enough to swing all elections one way or the other, their votes are potentially available to both parties. They want liberal policies and respond to specific Democratic appeals to do more and spend more on various domestic priorities. They think of themselves as conservatives and respond to Republican identification with conservatism. Which is the stronger appeal, liberal policies or conservative symbols, is a close call and so varies with the times. Where demand for liberal policies is at a low ebb as in 1980, symbols prevail and Republicans win. When that demand is strong, think 1960 or 1992, then the policies carry the day and Democrats win. Whether such voters are "conservative" in any meaningful sense, there is little doubt which kind of moment we're in now. As the Pew Research Center reported last fall, the gap between the number of people calling themselves Democrats and those calling themselves Republicans is larger than it has been in twenty years. The severity of problems like the current economic troubles and the disaster that is the American health care system make the conservative reluctance to do much of anything look both clueless and heartless, like Bush twiddling while New Orleans drowned. And let's recall that when Bush finally tried to deliver on the long-held conservative desire to begin the dismantling of Social Security, the public reaction was dismay and disgust; the more the president tried to make his case, the less persuasive he became.
Of course, it's always harder to institute a change than it is to stop a change from happening. If the next president is a Democrat, his or her health care reform proposal, for instance, will no doubt be greeted as a frontal assault on all that conservatives hold dear, demanding the most furious and well-funded opposition they can muster. And they'll be right -- as William Kristol warned Republicans in 1993, a successful effort to fix the health care system would "revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will, at the same time, strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government."
The deck is stacked in the Democrats' favor this November, but the more important question is whether the next four or eight years will mark a new era of progressive governance. If a Democratic president could prove that government can solve some of our country's most pressing problems, then success will build on success, and the conservative case will be that much harder to make in coming years -- particularly when the last Republican president was such an all-encompassing disaster. The conservatives certainly know this well, which is why they'll be fighting with all their might, if only to prove that a Democratic president can be just as much a failure. ______________________
Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, and auther of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.
If that were true, liberals (who deceitfully euphemize themselves as "progressives") would campaign as liberals, instead of trying to veil themselves more palatably as moderates.
But when liberals reveal themselves as the anti-American schmucks they truly are, who plan foreign policy, welfare, race relations, legal immigration, illegal immigration, (lack of) border security, class warfare, race-baiting, de-Christianizing state policy, and virtually everything else in a way that divides and destroys our nation... the truth is, it is the liberals who pretend to be something they're not, and rely on deceit to have the slightest prayer of getting elected.
McCain really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Well, he either really doesn't or he's really confused. Not sure which is worse.
Except for the fact that, alone among the candidates, McCain advocated the Surge, and that it decisively turned the war in our favor.
Obama and Hillary would both undermine that victory and reverse it with immediate reductions in troops, and by pulling out prematurely.
Oh I'm sorry. I must not have been paying attention. I thought the point of the surge was by the President’s own measure, to give the Iraqi government breathing room to make progress on political reconciliation, halt sectarian violence and train its own security forces.
Also, A report last September by the Government Accountability Office showed Iraq had perhaps met three to five of 18 benchmarks.
I must've missed all this "success" happening while posting about Hillary Clinton.
Cheering against America as usual, aren't you Whomod?
As I pointed out elsewhere, while there are still problems, violence in Iraq is down by 50%, people are returning to previously "ethnically cleansed" neighborhoods, incomes and the general economy in Iraq are rising by 9% annually (three time U.S. growth), and much as you hate to admit it, Iraq is gradually stabilizing and reaching political reconciliation.
Despite the "sky is falling" partisan naysayers like you.
What kills me is, in 5 years of fighting, NOT ONCE have you advocated an alternative strategy to win in Iraq. It's ALWAYS America is bad, retreat retreat retreat, leave our allies in Iraq to be slaughtered.
NEVER ONCE in that time have you ever advocated any strategy that's in our nation's best interest.
EVERY TIME you've eagerly repeated and believed at face value the enemy's talking points.
The Surge has unquestionably turned the war in our favor. Even Pulitzer-winning correspondents for the New York Times acknowledge it. Even people on the streets of Iraq acknowledge it. As do any number of other political experts I've seen interviewed on a wide spectrum of news programs, from the PBS News Hour to Charlie Rose.
We are winning, but it can still be lost if Obama or Hillary makes a hasty withdrawal from Iraq.
Even as you and other traitors who belong in Mexico or Iran spread the enemy's propaganda, to undermine that costly success.
You're still a lying cocksucker, just like always. And no image captures that better.
I'm watching MSNBC right now and they have a McCain pundit trying to distance his candidate from the neocons and crediting McCain for the "success" of the surge.
Another deluded revisionist.
Go back and re-read Bush's own measure of success of the surge. NONE of that has taken place. So how the fuck is it a success???
it really will be fun if this is the Republican talking point in support of John McCain. he's responsible for the successful surge.
“’No one’ in the U.S. and Iraqi governments 'feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation,’ or in the provision of basic public services. (Gen. David Petraeus, Washington Post, Mar. 13, 2008)
Quote:
“No, I think it's absolutely a failure, the surge. I think that less violence is actually a sign of the failure of the surge. The violence during a civil war was very logical. It was an attempt to remove Sunnis from Shia areas and Shia from Sunnis areas, and it's been incredibly successful. There are virtually no mixed areas left in Iraq.” (Nir Rosen, journalist, Mar. 11, 2008)
Quote:
"The surge hasn't accomplished its goals," Reid said. "... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war." (Harry Reid, Dec. 3, 2007)
Quote:
“Unfortunately, according to the President’s own measure the surge has failed. The troops have performed bravely and violence in Iraq appears to be diminishing. But there is still no political plan to turn the recent tactical gains into lasting strategic success or a plan for bringing our troops home.” (National Security Network, Jan. 9, 2008)
Quote:
“Judged on the terms in which the president presented it, the surge has not worked.” “The purpose was to improve security, but to improve it to lead to a political breakthrough, and that political breakthrough has not happened.” (Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Pentagon reporter, Jan. 10, 2008)
Quote:
“The troop escalation has not succeeded in prompting the Iraqi government to make the hard choices or meet the benchmarks laid out by this Administration. As General Petreaus told me in Baghdad, this surge can only be won politically, not militarily. But on national reconciliation, oil-sharing, and the other key issues that will allow U.S. forces to eventually withdraw without a return of widespread violence, the evidence is bleak.” (Sen. Bob Casey, Jan. 18, 2008)
Quote:
“By shifting the conversation to tactics, they seek to divert attention from flagrant failures of basic strategy. Yet what exactly has the surge wrought? In substantive terms, the answer is: not much…As the violence in Baghdad and Anbar province abates, the political and economic dysfunction enveloping Iraq has become all the more apparent.” (Andrew J. Bacevich, Professor of History, Boston University, Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2008)
Quote:
"The surge has sucked all of the flexibility out of the system," Army Chief of Staff George Casey said in an interview this week. "And we need to find a way of getting back into balance." (Gen. George Casey, Jan. 17, 2008)
Quote:
“2008 and beyond will be a success, the surge will be a success, if the gains in security can be translated into gains in stability…if I had to put a number to it, maybe it’s three in 10, maybe it’s 50-50, if we play our cards right.” Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs, Jan. 8, 2008.
Quote:
“Administration strategy (at least since last January) has been that security gains would provide breathing room for democracy and good governance to take hold. If you reread Bush's speech announcing the surge almost exactly a year ago, you'll see a number of fairly explicit political events that he said would happen in Iraq. Haven't happened, for the most part.” (Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2008)
Quote:
"The violence came down for four reasons: what we’re doing, the decision the Sunni combatants made to turn against al-Qaeda, Moqtada Sadr’s ceasefire and the prior ethnic cleansing of 2006 and early 2007. All those things could unwind. We’re unsurging. The talk is that for the next couple of months, if the Maliki government doesn’t do enough to appease the Sunni groups [that have turned against al-Qaeda] and incorporate them into the Iraqi security forces, they could go game-on again. This kind of—pick your metaphor—ticking clock, or closing window, gives a reason to believe that if there isn’t a series of political compromises by when the surge brigades leave we’ll be in real trouble." (Colin Kahl, Center for a New American Security, Washington Independent, Jan. 31, 2008)
The consensus is clear. Despite the best efforts of our military men and women in creating a temporary lull in violence, substantial progress toward a sustainable and independent Iraq has not been made. And THAT by Bush's own defenition was the measure of success of the surge. Even Gen. Petraeus is admitting that the surge may have failed in that regard.
WASHINGTON (AP) — [b]Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that President Bush's successor [stand]will have to come to grips with the reality that the United States cannot continue to keep such large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Without taking sides in the race for the White House, Powell said, "Whichever one of them becomes president on Jan. 1, 2009, they will face a military force that cannot continue to sustain 140,000 people deployed in Iraq and the 20 (thousand) odd or 25,000 people we have deployed in Afghanistan and our other deployments."
Powell's comments in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" seemed to undercut Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain's position that the U.S. should stay the course in Iraq. But Powell also said that the next president will face limitations on bringing troops home, as Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton — rivals for the Democratic nomination — have promised to do.
"They will have to continue to draw down at some pace," he said. "None of them are going to have the flexibility of just saying we're out of here, turn off the switch, turn off the lights, we're leaving. They will have a situation before them."
Powell, who is a former chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued publicly for the invasion of Iraq early in Bush's presidency. He said Thursday that he considers each of the presidential candidates a friend.
"I'm looking at all three candidates ... I have not decided who I will vote for yet," said Powell, who donated $2,300 to McCain's campaign last year.
Questioned about Powell's comments on ABC's "The View," McCain said, "One of the great mistakes, of the many mistakes that was made for nearly four years, is that we continued to reduce the size of the military." He noted that some troops have been back time after time which has put stress on them and their families, "but there's only one thing worse than an overstressed military and that's a defeated military. And I saw a defeated military ... "
Powell praised Obama's response to controversial remarks by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said the United States brought the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on itself by supporting terrorism and that the government created the AIDS virus to "destroy people of color."
"I thought that Senator Obama handled the issue well," said Powell, the nation's first black secretary of state. "He didn't abandon the minister that brought him closer to his faith, but at the same time he deplored the kinds of statements that the Reverend Wright had made."
But Wonder Boy and his ilk will continue to find solace in the neocon fantasy of war without end. Amen
"None of them are going to have the flexibility of just saying we're out of here, turn off the switch, turn off the lights, we're leaving. They will have a situation before them."
looks like Powell was speaking out against Obama's pull em out immediately fantasy as well....
If you think pulling out combat brigades after 18 months and still keeping a troop presence is "immediate".
Former foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told the BBC that Obama’s 16-month plan is a “best-scenario” and that the reality is he will try to withdraw troops “as quickly and responsibly as possible.”
Both Clinton and Obama have talked about keeping some U.S. presence in Iraq after withdrawing the bulk of American troops, but it’s unclear how broad that presence would be. Obama’s Web site states that “some troops” would stay in Iraq to protect U.S. embassies and diplomats and carry out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda if the organization tries to keep a base in Iraq after U.S. withdrawal.
That sure is a far cry from "immediate". And it acknowledges that current troop levels will HAVE to be reduced. I don't know what fucking part of that some of you Republicans can't understand. It's no longer just a case of 'we don't want to keep current troop levels and the war going', it's that WE CAN'T. Like i said, you guys really are living in a dream world.
Listen to 4:15 in. And get it through your head.
And he makes a good point. What the fuck is Condoleeza Rice doing running around trying to drum up a VP nod when her diplomacy as far as the middle East is concerned is zilch!?? She should be out there day in and day out trying to end this fucking war and bring about Iraqi reconciliation.
Hagel - Since the surge started, we've lost over 1000 troops.
Former foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told the BBC that Obama’s 16-month plan is a “best-scenario” and that the reality is he will try to withdraw troops “as quickly and responsibly as possible.”
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field, proposed for the first time setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, as part of a broader plan aimed at bolstering the freshman senator's foreign policy credentials.
Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. The date falls within the parameters offered by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended the removal of combat troops by the first quarter of next year.
Does that surprise you? After all, this is the guy who thinks "God DAMN America" is a proper religious sentiment to say in front of small children in church.
Then there's Ray. He's trying to tell me that it's patriotic to leave America, join the Taliban, pledge allegiance to Al Queda and try to kill US troops.
But he might be kidding. Ray does have a wacky sense of humor.
Does that surprise you? After all, this is the guy who thinks "God DAMN America" is a proper religious sentiment to say in front of small children in church.
Because that's what the pastor screams in his church too.
Does that surprise you? After all, this is the guy who thinks "God DAMN America" is a proper religious sentiment to say in front of small children in church.
Because that's what the pastor screams in his church too.
Hey you jackass, you're not done telling me what a great success the surge is.
Hey you jackass, you're not done telling me what a great success the surge is.
I already told you... jackass.
So did John Burns, Pulitzer winning Iraq correspondent for the New York Times.
So did General Petraeas, Robert Kagan, and hundreds of other government officials and policy experts in any number of columns and tv roundtable discussions.
The war may not be over, but it has undeniably turned in our favor. Anti-American dumbasses like you will always focus on the negative, and ignore the remarkable progress in Iraq.
So tell me, did the surge acheive it's stated goal?
Or are you simply pointing to the expected drop in violence and thinking that in of itself is some proof of success like so many lying right wing pundits do?
Progress in Iraq is being reprted as the progress that it is, much as you (in characteristic un-American fashion) try to spin every aspect negatively against our military and our country.
You really ought to be living in Mexico or Iran, where your true loyalties are.
Don't expect any public testimonies of faith from presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who is not demonstrative about his religion but who embraces a Baptist faith that is based on salvation.
the senator from Arizona likely will talk little about the details of his own spiritual path other than to acknowledge that he is on one.
The Army Times just politely ripped McCain for not understand what General Petraeus does for a living. After 30 years working on this stuff, you'd think McCain would know better. Or maybe he's forgetting.
Quote:
Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
“I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq.
Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said.
for a campaign that touts it's foreign policy and military experience, they sure seem to have a lot of these gaffes that just make you scratch your head.
I'm not sure how saying that he'd want the General's opinion (given that it any decision would affect his work in Iraq) is so horrible. Would you prefer McCain not take Iraq into consideration when making decisions about Afghanistan (or vice versa)?
His point is well taken, that we need an Eisenhower (who is moderate and smart, and knows how to use military pressure without all-out devastating wars) rather than a President out to make a name for himself as a war-president.
I think some strategic bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities would be in order, but we need time to rebuild our military, not to fight another ground war with Iran. And even bombing might not be necessary.
It might be more productive to use diplomatic pressure and rally popular opposition to Ahmadinijad inside Iran, rather than bombing Iran, which would rally Iranian popular support to Ahmadinijad's side, and lose another generation of Iranians, who are right now very pro-Western, despite their authoritarian islamic government.
Whether McCain, with all his experience would be an Eisenhower or a W.Bush II, is still an open question.
On amnesty for illegals, McCain's position is identical to Bush's (as are Hillary and Obama's). But in other areas, while often alleged to be "just like Bush" by his Democratic opposition, that remains to be seen.
I'm watching MSNBC right now and they have a McCain pundit trying to distance his candidate from the neocons and crediting McCain for the "success" of the surge.
Another deluded revisionist.
Go back and re-read Bush's own measure of success of the surge. NONE of that has taken place. So how the fuck is it a success???
it really will be fun if this is the Republican talking point in support of John McCain. he's responsible for the successful surge.
I will defend McCain on not being a neo-con.
While not pressing for Iraq withdrawal, McCain was constantly (along with Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and a few other Republican hawks) constructively critical of Bush's conduct of the Iraq war, pressing for Rumsfeld's removal almost from the beginning, pressing for greater troop-strength in Iraq, and opposing waterboarding or more overt torture of Al Qaida prisoners.
So while McCain is for staying in Iraq until the job is done, and not pulling out prematurely, it is unfair to say McCain is "just like Bush" on this issue.
On immigration reform and amnesty for illegals, yes, he's just like Bush.
But on the Iraq war, no, McCain is not "just like Bush".
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are no longer underdogs in the race for the White House. To pull that off, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall.
Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo news poll released Thursday. Just five months ago — before either party had winnowed its field — the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points.
Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's.
The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight.
David Mason of Richmond, Va., is typical of the voters McCain has gained since last November, when the 46-year-old personal trainer was undecided. Mason calls himself an independent and voted in 2004 for President Bush, whom he considers a strong leader but a disappointment due to the "no-win situation" in Iraq.
"It's not that I'm that much in favor of McCain, it's the other two are turning me off," Mason said of Clinton and Obama, the senators from New York and Illinois, in explaining his move toward McCain. As for the Republican's experiences as a Vietnam War prisoner and in the Senate, Mason said, "All he's been through is an asset."
By tracking the same group of roughly 2,000 people throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo poll can gauge how individual views are evolving. What's clear is that some Republican-leaning voters who backed Bush in 2004 but lost enthusiasm for him are returning to the GOP fold _ along with a smaller but significant number of Democrats who have come to dislike their party's two contenders.
The findings of the survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, provide a preview of one of this fall's battlegrounds. Though some unhappy Republicans will doubtless stay with McCain, both groups are teeming with centrist swing voters who will be targeted by both parties.
The poll shows that McCain's appeal has grown since November by more than the Democrats' has dwindled. McCain gets about 10 percentage points more now than a generic Republican candidate got last fall; Obama and Clinton get about 5 points less than a nameless Democrat got then.
Underlining McCain's burgeoning popularity, in November about four in 10 considered McCain likeable, decisive, strong and honest while about half do now. Obama is seen as more likeable and stronger now but his numbers for honesty and decisiveness have remained flat, while Clinton's scores for likeability and honesty have dropped slightly.
"You can't trust Hillary and Obama's too young," said Pauline Holsinger, 60, a janitorial worker in Pensacola, Fla., now backing McCain who preferred an unnamed Democrat last fall. "I like him better, he's more knowledgeable about the war" in Iraq.
Voters at this stage in a campaign commonly focus more on candidates' personal qualities. That usually changes as the general election approaches and they pay more attention to issues and partisan loyalty — meaning that McCain's prospects could fade at a time when the public is deeply unhappy with the war, the staggering economy and Bush.
For now, more than one in 10 who weren't backing the unnamed Republican candidate in last November's survey are supporting McCain, a shift partly offset by a smaller number of former undecideds now embracing Obama or Clinton. Of those now backing McCain, about one-third did not support the generic GOP candidate last November.
Among people who have moved toward McCain, about two-thirds are discontented Bush voters, with many calling themselves independents but leaning Republican.
About half of this group say they are conservative, yet their views on issues are more moderate than many in the party, with some opposing the war in Iraq. They have favorable but not intensely enthusiastic views of McCain _ for example, two-thirds find him likeable while far fewer find him compassionate or refreshing.
"He's known, he's a veteran," said David Tucker, a retired Air Force technician from Alexandria, La., and Bush voter who was undecided last November but has ruled out Obama and Clinton. "I understand him better."
Around a third of the voters newly supporting McCain lean Democratic and mostly backed Democrat John Kerry in 2004. They are moderates who disapprove of Bush and the war in Iraq, but find McCain likeable, much more so than they did last November.
Many McCain-backing Democrats express one consistent concern about McCain — his age.
"Let's face it, we're not getting any younger," said retired accountant Sheldon Rothman of Queens, N.Y., who like McCain is 71. "There are too many imponderables when you get to that age, especially with the stress of the presidency."
Whether those now switching to McCain will stay that way once the Democrats choose a candidate is what the fall campaign will be about.
"McCain has a history of doing well with independent voters," said GOP pollster David Winston. He said voters' preference for an unnamed Democratic candidate but McCain's strong performance against Obama and Clinton means "Democrats have an advantage their candidates are not taking advantage of."
Democratic pollster Alan Secrest said the contrasting numbers mean that while the voters' overall mood favors Democrats, they are still taking the measure of Clinton and Obama.
"The Democrats will have to earn their way this fall," he said.
The AP-Yahoo survey of 1,844 adults was conducted from April 2-14 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 863 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.3 points, and 668 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.
The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.
— AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
Counting down the minutes until whomod dredges up some obscure figure who once said something nice about McCain, even though they (unlike Obama and Ayers and/or Wright) aren't close friends and then tries to claim it's the same thing starting...now....
I think this is devastating enough.
Notice Anything?
John McCain doesn’t wear an American flag pin on THIS WEEK. Nor does Stephu...um, the other guy!
John McCain doesn’t wear an American flag pin on THIS WEEK...Why [does he] hate America?
I don't know why he didn't wear one today. Maybe McCain's arms were bothering him when he got dressed this morning and he forgot/couldn't raise them comfortably.
That sort of thing happens when you're tortured by America's then-enemy for months or years as a POW.
Meanwhile, Obama's longtime friend "Ayers" was trying to blow up buildings, kill civilians and generally cheering the same people who were torturing McCain.
But, I should stop now, otherwise I might have to question Obama's judgement and we should never, ever, question the judgement of a half black presidential candidate.
I hope whomod doesn't see this. Having Obama praise McCain might be too much for him to bear.
I don't agree with Hillary on this one. While his recent rhetoric is very Bush supportive, I just can't see McCain being as bad as W in general. On some things a candidate has to position himself to win. McCain has earned his reputation of being a maverick though & I see him moving more towards the center as we get closer to the general.
"For decades in the Middle East we had a strategy of relying upon autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family. ... We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these outdated autocrats is the safest bet."
Speaking of self-delusion, does McCain believe the "democrats" lately elected in Pakistan will be tougher on al-Qaida and the Taliban than Pervez Musharraf, who has twice escaped assassination for having sided with us?
Does McCain think this new crowd in Islamabad will be more pro-American than the general, when the people who voted them in are among the most anti-American in the Islamic world?
From Richard Nixon to George Bush I, we expelled Moscow from Egypt, won the Cold War, brought peace between Egypt and Israel, and created a worldwide alliance, including Hafez al-Assad of Syria, that drove Saddam's army out of Kuwait.
What has the Bush-McCain democracy crusade produced, save electoral victories for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas? And if we dump the sultan of Oman, President Mubarak, and the king of Saudi Arabia, who does McCain think will replace them?
McCain proposes a "League of Democracies" to unite a hundred nations for peace and freedom. "Revanchist Russia," however, is to be black-balled from McCain's league and thrown out of the G-8.
What would this accomplish other than undoing the work of Reagan in bringing Moscow in from the cold, driving Russia into the arms of China, restarting the Cold War and recreating the Beijing-Moscow axis it was Nixon's great achievement to break up?
Does our "realistic idealist" think a NATO of 25 nations that has mustered a piddling 16,000 soldiers, most of them noncombatants, to stand beside us in Afghanistan is going to confront a nuclear-armed Russia?
What is critical, especially in wartime, is not whether a regime is autocratic or democratic, but whether it is hostile or friendly.
Although it's difficult to see Buchanan having any favorable opinion of the pacifict liberal tendencies of either Obama or Hillary either (to say nothing of their immigration policy).
Is Buchanan really a "staunch conservative" any more? He seems more like a populist/isolationalist to me.
Buchanan is a conservative, but he is dissatisfied with the direction of the Republican party, which he sees as having diverted away from the pragmatic conservatism that existed from the time he served under Nixon, on up through the Reagan years.
He is definitely populist, and arguably relatively isolationist, but only isolationist to the extent of not getting involved in foreign wars and alliances that are not essential to the United States' sovereignty and security. He sees us as over-committed in an over-abundance of defense alliances that, since the Cold War ended, are unneccessary to U.S. national security, and have been bleeding us financially in the Bush Sr., Clinton and W.Bush years. NATO, SEATO, Korea, Taiwan, Bosnia Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti... plus military aid and foreign aid to a wide variety of countries that would hate us with without our aid, and arguably do anyway (Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia...)
True conservatism is about smaller government, reduced fiscal spending, balanced budgets, protecting our borders and national defense, limiting military use to foreign situations that directly threaten us (i.e., avoiding foreign entanglements), and protecting the unity and best interests of U.S. citizens.
Since the Bush Sr years, Republicans have been compromising American interests, and Conservative Republican core beliefs, in exchange for artificially sustained Republican power from 1994-2006. And along with the Democrats, selling out the U.S. and its people to corporate interests, NAFTA and offshoring. (Bush Sr. was elected to be Reagan II, but oversaw huge domestic spending by Congress and also raised taxes, and did not use his veto power, and largely due to the Gulf war, oversaw a huge rise in the federal deficit, as well as encouraging NAFTA and offshoring, that were passed under Clinton).
And we've been on a snowballing treadmill of offshoring factories and jobs ever since , excessive corporate-serving rampant immigration (both legal and illegal) for which U.S. taxpayers are picking up the tab while corporations reap the benefits of their cheap labor. Plus huge trade deficits ($800 billion annually, the last time I looked), and skyrocketing national debt as a percentage of GNP, together resulting in a falling dollar-value globally, that collectively are seriously threatening our lifestyle and sovereignty.
I think Buchanan is (like myself) at his heart and soul a Republican Conservative, but he is leveraging for productive change within his party.
I think he outlines this best in his 2004 book, Where the Right Went Wrong.
It's interesting to see a staunch conservative like Pat Buchanan so consistently critical of John McCain:
Does this mean you're not voting for him?
I admire Buchanan, but I don't agree with him on everything.
I haven't decided who I'll vote for. My candidate of choice was Romney, who I considered the most intelligent, capable, and proven candidate. But that ship has sailed.
I think McCain is on the surface the lesser of the remaining three evils. But on immigration, he's equally bad as Hillary or Obama (or W. Bush). On foreign policy McCain seems short-sighted and overly ideological. If FDR felt the same way about Russia and our allies in the Middle East as McCain, we might not have won World War II. (Although Carter, Bill Clinton, and both Hillary and Obama have manifested similar posturing stupidity, as in the example of suggesting we boycott the Beijing Olympics). And McCain's opinion that free trade in its current form is perfectly OK. It's not.
I've debated whether it would be better to elect Hillary or Obama and let the Democrats fail and take the blame for 4 years, than to elect a Republican that I disagree with on so many issues, who would further (like W. Bush) misrepresent what a Republican is really supposed to be.
I've even weighed Ron Paul (arguably the most Constitutional), and Ralph Nader. In Nader's case, I think his moment has passed, and I increasingly disagree with his solutions, despite my respect for him.
I know you were probably just trolling, but I gave a serious answer anyway.
The video of McCain's response is edited to exclude the remainder of his answer, where he acknowledged that "things are tough right now." This type of selective quoting has become commonplace. Obama, in criticizing McCain on the economy last week, used only a portion of a McCain answer to Bloomberg Television.
They can't score points on what McCain actually argues, so they have to take part of his answer, cut off the rest, and hope nobody notices?
You know, the funny thing is, conservatives have their gripes with McCain. We know he has flaws. It's not like we run around telling others in religious tones how we "came to" him. We could put together some pretty tough attack ads hitting him from a different angle. But from Howard Dean and Co., between this one and the "John McCain is so old" — it's giving off a whiff of desperation, isn't it? A feeling that they're throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks?
Because if using half a quote is the way they want to play it, fine. But let's never hear Obama again complain that Jeremiah Wright is being judged on "snippets" or that his words in San Francisco were "mangled."
They can't score points on what McCain actually argues, so they have to take part of his answer, cut off the rest, and hope nobody notices?
i'm now interested in going back 4 years and seeing how you overused "i voted for the bill before i voted against it" ignoring that in between the two votes the bill was changed. instead you just took part of his answer, cut off the rest and hoped nobody noticed.
yes it did. you made it sound like a joke by quoting that one line without the context in which it was said. not that i blame you obviously, you just follow your fox news gurus.
The Wall Street Journal has a story about McCain I'd never heard before:
[Ret. Col. Bud] Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple."
The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.
But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.
Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complemented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times tried to manufacture a McCain land deal scandal and today it’s the Washington Post’s turn.
The front-page headline of Post staff writer Matthew Mosk’s story is titled “McCain Pushed Land Swap that Benefits Backer.” It says McCain negotiated a land swap to allow Arizona rancher Fred Ruskin to exchange his checkerboard of property located in the Prescott National Forest for an equal piece of continuous federal land that was later sold for development. Mainly because the developer, Steven A. Betts, who purchased the land from Ruskin is a donor to McCain’s presidential campaign, reporter Mosk smells trouble.
But Mosk never proves a connection between the donations and the deal, and there are many details he left out, some provided in ample detail by the McCain campaign, the rancher and the businessman.
Firstly, McCain didn’t single handedly negotiate the deal even though Mosk’s headline makes it sounds as if he did. The highly-scrutinized land swap is the biggest in Arizona’s history and passed the House and Senate in July 2005 after receiving a laundry list of endorsements from Arizona-based groups and media.
It was even supported by Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano, and for good reason. A 2004 editorial by the Arizona Republic applauded the swap because it “will consolidate 70,000 acres of environmentally sensitive Forest Service lands and those owned by rancher Fred Ruskin, doubling the acreage for public access and recreation.”
“The exchange is a blessing for several youth camps that will able to gain title so they can better manage their assets in the national forest,” it praised.
McCain’s role in passing the bill is heightened for the sake of Mosk’s story. McCain initially withheld his support of the swap based on environmental concerns.
[Later, McCain and others came up with a compromise which included numerous protections and thereafter] McCain introduced the bill “at the request of the U.S. Forest Service, as well as many Northern Arizona communities…to improve the management of forest lands and conservation of natural resources. The legislation also provided communities with an opportunity to acquire land needed for economic development, community services and open space.”
Although the title of Mosk’s story is titled “McCain Pushed Land Swap that Benefits Backer” nothing shows McCain was aware Betts’s company, SunCor, would later buy the land from Ruskin. And, according to campaign finance records Ruskin has never donated money to McCain.
“SunCor had not remotely entered the picture at the time Sen McCain decided to support the exchange, and it was to be another eighteen months before they actually invested in the ranch,” Ruskin’s letter to Mosk stated.
In fact, when Mosk interviewed Betts, Betts told Mosk there was “absolutely no” connections between his contributions to McCain’s campaign and purchase. On behalf of McCain, spokesman Rogers said “at no time during the consideration of this legislation was there any involvement with SunCor.”
In short, McCain is asked to sign on to a federal land swap that is supported by the majority of his constituents. He works to make sure the deal is good for the environment and the agrees to support it, along with every other major political figure in the state.
Some time later, after McCain's involvement is finished (and years after he was originally asked to support the legislation), some of the land involved gets sold by a private developer to someone who happened to donate money to McCain at one point.
This, the Washington Post hints, is some sort of scandal.
Sh'yeah...right....
This was all predictable, of course. Just as whomod went from loving McCain to hating him as soon as it looked like McCain was the GOP nominee, now that his opponent is Obama, the media savior, McCain is going to be the target of all sorts of crap from the liberal press.
Pretty strong and decisive speech on global warming as being a serious and man made problem.
I wonder if he'll give that same speech, say at the GOP convention or in front of a business group rather than in Oregon to where it plays well.
right now I think the FOX news pundits' heads are exploding. In order to help McCain they're pretty much going to have to contradict 7 years of furious spin and ridicule.
Bloomberg News's Al Hunt explains why our noble colleagues across the aisle are walking around pining for the days when Tom DeLay would deliver them magic ponies by swinging his awesome hammer:
Quote:
Republicans in the U.S. Congress are petrified about a November debacle, a fear stoked on May 3, when they lost their second straight special election in a district held by Republicans.
The party's fundamental situation is terrible: Republicans are saddled with an enormously unpopular president, a war, a troubled economy and a Democratic opposition that's being energized by important constituent groups.
"The generics are as bad as anytime since I have been here," said Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican and one of the most politically astute members of Congress in either party.
In short, Democrats are flush with cash (well, Barak Obama is) , more energized (um, Obama), fielding better candidates, and we have the Worst President in History with which to saddle the opposition. The one apparent lifeline Republicans have, says Hunt, is a guy they've spent years mocking and vilifying: John McCain. But his coattails already seem a little tattered:
Quote:
"McCain comes across to some as a different kind of Republican," [DCCC chair Chris] Van Hollen said. "Yet he has fallen in line with the Bush agenda on the fundamental issues: the war and the economy."
A huge percentage of Americans agree with Barack Obama that we need a prudent plan to get the hell outta Mess-O-Potamia and let the Iraqis exercise their own sovereignty. And Bloomberg's latest poll shows that We The People are in no mood for Bush and McCain's whitewashing of the bad economic news that trickles down day after day:
Quote:
More than three-quarters of voters said they believed the economy was in a recession, and about a quarter said they thought the downturn was be [sic] mild. The same percentage said the recession was serious.' ... Seventy-seven percent of voters, and 76% of adults overall, said the nation was "seriously off on the wrong track. ..."
[A]mong the 78% of voters who said they believe the economy has slid into a recession, 52% would vote for Obama, compared with 32% for McCain.
right now I think the FOX news pundits' heads are exploding. In order to help McCain they're pretty much going to have to contradict 7 years of furious spin and ridicule.
As G-man has pointed out in multiple posts, the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, and other liberal partisans masking as journalists, have attempted to distort the record or outright slander McCain to advance the Democrat rival they favor.
There's plenty of contradiction to ridicule in both Hillary and Obama.
And again, if you're going to slantedly imply that the polls favor the Democrats, you might want to disclose that the only ones with lower favorable polls than W.Bush, are the Democrat leadership in Congress.
So clearly, the polls show people see flaws in Democrat political leadership, even if you, in your partisan gloating and hate, do not.
right now I think the FOX news pundits' heads are exploding. In order to help McCain they're pretty much going to have to contradict 7 years of furious spin and ridicule.
As G-man has pointed out in multiple posts, the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, and other liberal partisans masking as journalists, have attempted to distort the record or outright slander McCain to advance the Democrat rival they favor.
There's plenty of contradiction to ridicule in both Hillary and Obama.
What the fuck did your entire post have to do with McCain saying global warming is real and a man made problem that needs to be tacked immediately. Not to mention chastising the past 7 years of inaction and failed leadership on the issue.
Unless you're just trying to dodge the entire fact that McCain just contradicted the GOP position on global warming. It's certainly welcome. But as I said, I seriously doubt he'd give the same speech, say at the GOP convention or with a business audience.
What I want to see though are the right wing talking heads who mock and ridicule global warming to now defend McCain on this. Therin lies comedy gold.
Speaking as one of the board's right wing talking heads, I think McCain is wrong on global warming.
I still think that, as a candidate, he's preferable to Obama or Clinton.
As for national "right wing talking heads," I've read criticism of McCain over this issue at both Rush Limbaugh's site and National Review. Accordingly, I'm not sure you're going to see a lot of "comedy gold" wherein they bend over backwards to defend him on the issue.
If anything, the "comedy gold" here is that this tends to show that McCain hasn't, as you claim, sold out his beliefs and become a "Bush clone" and, therefore, your own massive about-face on him is pretty clearly based on nothing so much as the fact he is now the GOP nominee.
Speaking as one of the board's right wing talking heads, I think McCain is wrong on global warming.
I still think that, as a candidate, he's preferable to Obama or Clinton.
As for national "right wing talking heads," I've read criticism of McCain over this issue at both Rush Limbaugh's site and National Review. Accordingly, I'm not sure you're going to see a lot of "comedy gold" wherein they bend over backwards to defend him on the issue.
If anything, the "comedy gold" here is that this tends to show that McCain hasn't, as you claim, sold out his beliefs and become a "Bush clone" and, therefore, your own massive about-face on him is pretty clearly based on nothing so much as the fact he is now the GOP nominee.
This is why I like McCain, plus the fact he's for free trade. He do seem to be sincere on the latter, compared to Bush (the steel tarrifs) and the Democrats (all the NAFTA BS).
I still think that, as a candidate, he's preferable to Obama or Clinton...
I don't think there's anything wrong with mccain having an opinion on global warming as long as he doesn't cave to the democraticalseses' (don't shorten it, whomod hates that) pressure to hamstring the economy in hopes of making a negligible difference.
Quote:
If anything, the "comedy gold" here is that this tends to show that McCain hasn't, as you claim, sold out his beliefs and become a "Bush clone" and, therefore, your own massive about-face on him is pretty clearly based on nothing so much as the fact he is now the GOP nominee.
it was never about whether or not mccain was a bush clone. it's always been about how the only way we can be saved is by asking barack obama to be our personal savior and inviting him into our hearts. the algore told me so.
Unless you're just trying to dodge the entire fact that McCain just contradicted the GOP position on global warming. It's certainly welcome. But as I said, I seriously doubt he'd give the same speech, say at the GOP convention or with a business audience.
yeah if he was with a private audience of elitists, he'd prolly say something like small town people are xenophobes, who cling to their guns and religion, or that the government created AIDS...no waitaminute that's another candidate....
Speaking as one of the board's right wing talking heads, I think McCain is wrong on global warming.
I still think that, as a candidate, he's preferable to Obama or Clinton.
As for national "right wing talking heads," I've read criticism of McCain over this issue at both Rush Limbaugh's site and National Review. Accordingly, I'm not sure you're going to see a lot of "comedy gold" wherein they bend over backwards to defend him on the issue.
If anything, the "comedy gold" here is that this tends to show that McCain hasn't, as you claim, sold out his beliefs and become a "Bush clone" and, therefore, your own massive about-face on him is pretty clearly based on nothing so much as the fact he is now the GOP nominee.
Well, when he goes back to his original beliefs on Iraq and on the Bush tax cuts, then you may be on to something...
Unless you're just trying to dodge the entire fact that McCain just contradicted the GOP position on global warming. It's certainly welcome. But as I said, I seriously doubt he'd give the same speech, say at the GOP convention or with a business audience.
yeah if he was with a private audience of elitists, he'd prolly say something like small town people are xenophobes, who cling to their guns and religion, or that the government created AIDS...no waitaminute that's another candidate....
(with whomod) it's always been about how the only way we can be saved is by asking barack obama to be our personal savior and inviting him into our hearts. the algore told me so.
If the algore is the lord highfather does that make Obama the Christ figure of the global warming religion?
And if Gore's the father, and Obama's the son, who's the holy ghost?
right now I think the FOX news pundits' heads are exploding. In order to help McCain they're pretty much going to have to contradict 7 years of furious spin and ridicule.
As G-man has pointed out in multiple posts, the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, and other liberal partisans masking as journalists, have attempted to distort the record or outright slander McCain to advance the Democrat rival they favor.
There's plenty of contradiction to ridicule in both Hillary and Obama.
Originally Posted By: whomod
What the fuck did your entire post have to do with McCain saying global warming is real and a man made problem that needs to be tacked immediately. Not to mention chastising the past 7 years of inaction and failed leadership on the issue.
Unless you're just trying to dodge the entire fact that McCain just contradicted the GOP position on global warming. It's certainly welcome. But as I said, I seriously doubt he'd give the same speech, say at the GOP convention or with a business audience.
What I want to see though are the right wing talking heads who mock and ridicule global warming to now defend McCain on this. Therin lies comedy gold.
First off, you hacked out half of what I posted, in an effort to paint it as incoherent.
Second, my point is: McCain didn't "contradict" the GOP's position on global warming. He simply stated his own view. Many Republicans have variant opinions on many issues.
What I support McCain in saying is: Maybe global warming is real, and maybe it's not. People disagree on whether evidence indicates global warming, or just natural cycles of the earth. But if it's possible to reduce greenhouse gasses, then why not do that? And that's the position McCain advocates.
Most of the "Right wing talking heads" who mock and ridicule global warming (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, etc.) Have done anything BUT defend McCain.
Pull your head out of your partisan ass, and see the Republicans for what they truly are, a group of patriotic people with a wide range of opinions, rather than as the lock-step evil machine you like to pretend they are.
Even as YOU weave endless deceits to advance your liberal hatred of Republicans. Everything you allege Republicans to be, is every deceitful and malicious thing you have proven yourself to be, in your attempts to slander Republicans. You manufacture these stereotypes of Republicans as perpetuators of stereotypes, even as you create false stereotypes of Republicans, and allege that they, not you, are the ones doing the stereotyping.
You want comedy gold? Just watch some of the parodies of Obama and Hillary going at each other, on Saturday Night Live.
Obama's gaffs with Rev. Wright alone could fill a season of SNL episodes.
I'm not sure how they do it on the boards where everyone always agrees, but in the real world people are allowed to disagree with some of their nominee's talking points without rejecting that nominee wholesale. it's called diversity of thought, which is really the only diversity that matters anyway.
And, is noted before, if McCain wasn't the GOP nominee, whomod would still be using this, and similar incidences, as an example of why he's always respected the man for being a maverick.
No, don't get me wrong. I respect him for finally stating what is obvious to (most) everyone by now. It's the gOP base that has long denied and belittled the idea of global warming that was the target of the ridicule.
The DNC complaint, which asks for investigation of a bank loan agreement the McCain campaign entered into with Fidelity and Trust Bank of Bethesda, was filed in April. Before the FEC's quorum troubles, the panel asked the McCain campaign to explain the agreement.
Republican National Committee chief counsel Sean Cairncross applauded the decision in a statement. "The Court’s order confirmed what the McCain campaign said at the time the suit was filed; the DNC lawsuit was nothing but a frivolous publicity stunt."
No, don't get me wrong. I respect him for finally stating what is obvious to (most) everyone by now. It's the gOP base that has long denied and belittled the idea of global warming that was the target of the ridicule.
of course. one would think that your knowledge of democraticalses* might have helped you realize by now that politicians will say what's necessary to scoop up votes from outside the usual voting base. and again, just because he says it doesn't make it gospel, even if I'm voting for him. not everyone feels compelled to march in lockstep with their anointed candidate/personal savior even after repeated promises of [pocket] change we can believe in.
But why, when America's mini-mills and steel mills are among the most efficient on earth -- in terms of man hours needed to produce a ton of steel -- aren't those jobs coming back?
Answer: It is due to the free-trade policies of Bush and McCain, which permit trade rivals to impose value-added taxes of 15 percent to 20 percent on steel imports from the United States while rebating those taxes on steel exports to the United States. We are getting it in the neck coming and going.
An America First trade and tax policy could have U.S. steel mills rising again, while those in Japan, China, Russia and Brazil would be shutting down as uncompetitive in the U.S. market.
But we no longer put America first.
The U.S. government burns its incense at the altar of the Global Economy. The losers are those guys in Youngstown McCain was lecturing on the beauty of NAFTA. And the winners are the CEOs who pull down seven-, eight- and even nine-figure annual packages selling out their country for the corporation.
Does McCain think $6 trillion in trade deficits since NAFTA, a dollar rotting away and 3.5 million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush was all inevitable? Does he think we can do nothing to stop the deindustrialization of a country that used to produce 96 percent of all it consumed?
Why should those guys in Youngstown vote for McCain?
Even Hillary, whose husband did NAFTA with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole's help, now gets it.
Most of the article focuses on McCain's political stops where he alienates his potential conservative base, while panning Bush and missing the real point each time.
But for me, the offshoring of U.S. jobs and factories, and creating foreign dependence through foreign trade that is unfair to the U.S. is the larger point.
In any case, I don't see that Buchanan is a supporter in any way of McCain.
Oh , wait a minute. I thought thats what he was accusing of Barack Obama of saying.
The Washington Post's, Jamie Rubin destroys the George Bush/John McCain attack on Obama over Hamas. McCain told Rubin that we were going to have to work with Hamas -- and McCain didn't mention any conditions. Now, this interview happened two years ago, so, in fairness, McCain might not remember, but he said it quite clearly:
Quote:
But given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:
I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"
McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today.
Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.
So while McCain was cavorting in Davos with all the other elites, he thought it was okay to work with Hamas. But now, McCain is on the attack over a manufactured issue. What a fraud. What a hypocrite. What a liar.
Thanks to Clinton-appointee Rubin for finally getting this out. The debate's only been going on for weeks now - you couldn't have brought this up earlier?
Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the party's presumed presidential nominee has a lot in common with Jesus Christ.
"John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross," Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. "He never denounced God, either."
Yes folks, John McCain was shot down and held captive for your sins. Deification. All the rage in Republican circles.
Wow. You just called 75,000 of your fellow Oregonians who want to be inspired and believe in something better than George Bush wiping his ass with their country and all it stands for, "racists".
Yup, their all racist against white people and think Obama Christ will deliver them from evil.
Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the party's presumed presidential nominee has a lot in common with Jesus Christ.
"John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross," Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. "He never denounced God, either."
Yes folks, John McCain was shot down and held captive for your sins. Deification. All the rage in Republican circles.
Unfit for Duty? Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin catching grief for suggesting McCain's family history of military service makes him unfit to be commander-in-chief.
God. Sometimes liberals so fucking transparent and stupid.
They spend the last eight years calling Bush and Cheney "chickenhawks," pushing John Kerry and claiming they "support the troops."
And, just as soon as the GOP nominates an honest to god, no swiftboat here, war hero, they're back to their "republicans are warmongerers we loathe the military" ways.
Yeah I heard that on the radio yesterday. Of all the things to hold against a presidential candidate, like inexperience, inability to accept critcism or fault, weak or non existant policies, prior military service should not be one of them. But this just brings you back to the flip-fop liberal media and their flip-flop liberal politicians. Unless it's a democrat doing it, it's always wrong and there is no middle, theres only left.
Harkin's comments are very lame but I would say in defense of liberals in general that not all of us think that way. BTW, there are folks on both sides willing to make the pettiest, unfairest & nasty arguements that they can. That doesn't justify Harkin's unfairness but it's something worth keeping in mind IMHO.
John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a "hunter," sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God's will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.
Calling the Catholic Church a whore wasn't enough for McCain. Gay bashing wasn't enough. Hitler as instrument of the lord apparently is just enough for McCain to finally denounce him. at least the attack groups can't attack Obama again without opening up this can of worms.
The good news is that there are a few more extreme pastors in the circle McCain corralled in order to try to win the Evangelicals. It should be fun to see them and their sermons surface every time the right thinks they can bring Rev. Wright out for another news cycle in order to inflict some damage to Obama.
Boomerang! Like McCain surrounding himself with lobbyists, you just never know what negatives those you choose to surround your campaign for political advantage may inadvertently bring. If anything, it shows a real lack of understanding of what exactly these guys are preaching the McCain camp has.
John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a "hunter," sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God's will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.
Calling the Catholic Church a whore wasn't enough for McCain. Gay bashing wasn't enough. Hitler as instrument of the lord apparently is just enough for McCain to finally denounce him. at least the attack groups can't attack Obama again without opening up this can of worms.
The good news is that there are a few more extreme pastors in the circle McCain corralled in order to try to win the Evangelicals. It should be fun to see them and their sermons surface every time the right thinks they can bring Rev. Wright out for another news cycle in order to inflict some damage to Obama.
Boomerang! Like McCain surrounding himself with lobbyists, you just never know what negatives those you choose to surround your campaign for political advantage may inadvertently bring. If anything, it shows a real lack of understanding of what exactly these guys are preaching the McCain camp has.
I'm Christian, I don't understand. I'm Christian, I don't understand. (If I say it enough, I'm sure it will be true.)
John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a "hunter," sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God's will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.
As soon as he learned about these remarks McCain rejected the endorsement:
“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them,” McCain said in a statement Thursday. “I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.”
McCain also used as a reference point the controversy surrounding fiery statements made by Barack Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
“I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright’s extreme views. But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual adviser, and I did not attend his church for 20 years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today. “
Nor did McCain spent several months hemming and hawing over his relationship with Hagee or tell us that he could no more disavow Hagree than he could a racist white relative.
Well, it's obvious that McCain's grandmothers were both white. And, according to whomod, all white people who aren't democrats (and even some of them) are racists. Therefore, I think whomod would tell us that McCain had, not one, but two racist white grandmothers.
John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a "hunter," sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God's will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.
As soon as he learned about these remarks McCain rejected the endorsement:
“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them,” McCain said in a statement Thursday. “I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.”
McCain also used as a reference point the controversy surrounding fiery statements made by Barack Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
“I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright’s extreme views. But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual adviser, and I did not attend his church for 20 years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today. “
Nor did McCain spent several months hemming and hawing over his relationship with Hagee or tell us that he could no more disavow Hagree than he could a racist white relative.
Score: McCain +1, Obama: 0
I was surprised that Whomod would say anything to bring up Wright. The arguement only works with the Obamamites who thought Obama talking about not being able to disown Wright was the greatest speach ever & then doing just that once Wright said he thought Obama thought the same as he did. Really Whomod this is something I don't think pays to bring up for your guy.
I was surprised that Whomod would say anything to bring up Wright. The arguement only works with the Obamamites who thought Obama talking about not being able to disown Wright was the greatest speach ever & then doing just that once Wright said he thought Obama thought the same as he did. Really Whomod this is something I don't think pays to bring up for your guy.
Well MEM ,what i was saying is not that Obama would bring any of this pastor stuff up. I'm saying that if the attack groups try to bring up Wright again, there is a wealth of associations that McCain also has. Starting with Hagee, whose endorsement he didn't repudiate even after his anti-gay and anti catholic comments were revealed. Just like Obama repudiated the comments but not immediately dissociating himself from Wright BTW.
It was only after Hagee invoked Hitler as God's hunter that he became too toxic. And besides Hagee, we have all the lobbyists he hasn't fired yet, we have a wealth of right wing pastors, such as Rod Parsley who are still largely unknown because they haven't been brought up by the media much yet.
So if anything, I'm just saying that McCain playing the association game will boomerang on him if he and his supporters decide to go that route.
yes everyone will forget that Obama said Wright was his spiritual mentor, he baptized his children, performed his marriage ceremony, and Obama sat still and listened to his racist anti-american venom for twenty years...sure they will...
McCain is much more credible than Barrack Osama And hellary Clinton
I don't like his lax border policy, but I do like his tax cut proposals and his devotion to staying the course for something so many americans have died from. I also like how he wants to cut welfare to Indy's son Shia labeof and Marion Ravenwood, the baby mama.
yes everyone will forget that Obama said Wright was his spiritual mentor, he baptized his children, performed his marriage ceremony, and Obama sat still and listened to his racist anti-american venom for twenty years...sure they will...
Obama's campaign strategy relies of the stupidity of his followers.
yes everyone will forget that Obama said Wright was his spiritual mentor, he baptized his children, performed his marriage ceremony, and Obama sat still and listened to his racist anti-american venom for twenty years...sure they will...
racist anti-american venom? wow. way to play the white victim card that wondy loves so much. have you reviewed the many thousands of sermons he's given over those 20 years along with every statement he's made or are you judging those 20 years based on the few lines that have been played over and over on the news?
Wright has a lengthy history of virulent statements, both in his sermons and his writings. You can keep trying to fool us by saying "out of context," but that's a little like saying because Hitler only wrote one racist book we shouldn't have seen the final solution coming.
Wright has a lengthy history of virulent statements, both in his sermons and his writings. You can keep trying to fool us by saying "out of context," but that's a little like saying because Hitler only wrote one racist book we shouldn't have seen the final solution coming.
i'm not defending him, i'm asking for a broader picture. you say he has a history, then it should be easy for you to post some of those quotes along with when he said them to establish that history. either way i don't think i'll be voting for wright this november. of course obama has said he goes to church to worship god and not his pastor, also we have to ask what kind of man is wright when he's not on stage, maybe he is a decent person who has been a good friend to obama. can you say you don't have any liberal friends who sometimes say things that you disagree with strongly but you ultimately still call them a friend? obama has never sought wright's endorsment and has never linked what wright says to his campaign's message. i find it more troubling that mccain (who's thread this actually is) sought out fallwell's endorsment after fallwell said the many many stupid things that have caused controversy over the years.
Pariah nerdy Moderator Don't mind him. He used to be an Irishman. 15000+ posts Fri May 23 2008 10:40 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: McCain in 08?
the G-man happy User Lawyers, Guns & Money 15000+ posts Fri May 23 2008 11:02 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: McCain in 08?
You, um, DO realize that you just posted a picture of someone not actually running in 08?
you DO realize that this whole campaign, for Mccain at least, will be a referendum on Bush who is still very much President in 2008 and who Mccain has supported during some controversial decisions.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: the G-man
You, um, DO realize that you just posted a picture of someone not actually running in 08?
you DO realize that this whole campaign, for Mccain at least, will be a referendum on Bush who is still very much President in 2008 and who Mccain has supported during some controversial decisions.
Psst...the Republican mantra for '08 is "Forget the last 8 years, forget the last 8 years."
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: the G-man
You, um, DO realize that you just posted a picture of someone not actually running in 08?
you DO realize that this whole campaign, for Mccain at least, will be a referendum on Bush who is still very much President in 2008 and who Mccain has supported during some controversial decisions.
if you werent wearing x-ray glasses i'd punch you right in the nose.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: the G-man
You, um, DO realize that you just posted a picture of someone not actually running in 08?
you DO realize that this whole campaign, for Mccain at least, will be a referendum on Bush who is still very much President in 2008 and who Mccain has supported during some controversial decisions.
if you werent wearing x-ray glasses i'd punch you right in the nose.
if i wasn't terrified of oprah, i'd punch you in the face.
A little off topic, I sadly owned the YO NOID game for the NES was back when.
THIS IS NOT THE OFF TOPIC FORUM! ALL POSTS HERE MUST RELATE TO POLITICS OR COPYING AND PASTING BLOGS! PLEASE OBEY THE RULES!
Black Mass is the name given to a ceremony supposedly celebrated during the Witches or Black Sabbath, which was a parody of the Christian Mass[citation needed]. Its main objective was the profanation of the Host, although there is no agreement among authors[who?] on how hosts were obtained or profaned; the most common idea is that they were profaned by means of some ritual related to sexual practices[citation needed]. Authors also disagree on which rites were performed during the ceremony[who?].
Some medieval writers[who?] believed that the Host was replaced by a toad, a turnip or a bit of dry flesh, but most judges and authors[who?] believed that true hosts were given by Christian priests that had made a diabolical pact to the attendants to the Sabbath to be profaned by them.
Given the modern practices of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, which permits parishioners to receive the host in the hand, it is possible to steal a host in that manner. Though priests and Eucharistic ministers are cautioned to be on the look out for persons who do not immediately consume the host, there are usually too many parishioners at any given Mass or Communion Service to ensure that no hosts are stolen in this manner.
As it was believed that the culmination of this mass was an orgy, the term was later applied to a sexual orgy[citation needed].
In the Satanic Bible, Anton Szandor LaVey writes that "A usual assumption is that the Satanic ceremony or service is called a black mass. A black mass is not the magical ceremony practiced by Satanists. The Satanist would only employ the use of a black mass as a form of psychodrama. Furthermore, a black mass does not necessarily imply that the performers of such are Satanists. A black mass is essentially a parody on the religious service of the Roman Catholic Church, but can be loosely applied to a satire on any religious ceremony."
Contents [hide] 1 Origins and history of the Black Mass 1.1 Early Christianity 1.2 Middle Age Roman Catholic parodies and additions to the Mass 1.3 Early modern France 1.4 Late 19th Century and Early 20th Century Scholarly Interest in the Black Mass 2 The Black Mass itself 3 The Language of the Black Mass 4 References 4.1 Studies of the Black Mass 4.2 Sources 5 External links
[edit] Origins and history of the Black Mass One recent outline of the history of the Black Mass can be found in Richard Cavendish, The Black Arts (1967), in the section on the Black Mass. Before that, an entire book was written about it, The Satanic Mass, by H.T.F. Rhodes (1954). Additionally, a detailed study was published in German (and since translated into English), by Gerhard Zacharias, The Dark God: Satan Worship and Black Masses (1964).
[edit] Early Christianity The Rite of the Sacrifice of the Mass was developed by early Christians. As Christianity, and specifically the Roman Catholic Church, was consolidating, there were different varieties of masses practised, many of which were quite different from the Roman Catholic Rite which was eventually adopted.
[edit] Middle Age Roman Catholic parodies and additions to the Mass In the Middle Ages, beginning with the Latin writings of the Goliards, the Roman Catholic Mass was drawn from or elaborated upon to create parodies of it for certain Church festivities. Thus, there was a mass parody called "The Feast of Asses," in which Balaam's Ass (from the Old Testament) would begin talking and saying parts of the mass. A similar parody was the Feast of Fools. Other Middle Age parodies of the Mass, also written in ecclesiastical Latin, were "drinker's masses" and "gamblers masses," which lamented the situation of drunk, gambling monks, and instead of calling to "Deus" (God), called to "Bacchus" (the God of Wine). Some of these Latin parody works are found in the medieval Latin collection of poetry, Carmina Burana, written around 1230.
Additionally, the Rite of the Mass was not completely fixed, and there were places where the priests could insert private prayers for various personal needs. As these types of personal masses spread, the institution of the Low Mass became quite common, where priests would hire their services out to perform various masses for the needs of their clients - such as blessing crops or cattle, achieving success in some enterprise, obtaining love, or cursing enemies (one way this latter was done was by inserting the enemy's name in a Mass for the dead, accompanied by burying an image of the enemy).
A further source of Middle Age involvement with parodies and alterations of the Mass, were the writings of the European witch-hunt, which saw witches as being agents of the Devil, who were described as inverting the Christian Mass and employing the stolen Host for diabolical ends[citation needed]. The witch-hunter's manual Malleus Maleficarum gives details relating to these supposed practices[citation needed].
[edit] Early modern France The more recent players in the history of the Black Mass as we know it today, all come from France.
The Guibourg Mass by Henry de Malvost, in the book Le Satanisme et la Magie by Jules Bois, Paris, 1903.16th century Catherine de' Medici, the Queen of France, was said to have performed a Black Mass, all based on a story by Jean Bodin, in his book on witchcraft. In spite of its lurid details, there is little outside evidence to back up his story. 17th century: Catherine Monvoisin and the priest Etienne Guibourg performed "Black Masses" for Madame de Montespan, the mistress of King Louis XIV of France. Since a criminal investigation (resulting in the execution of Monvoisin and the imprisonment of Guibourg) was launched, many details of their Black Mass have come down to us. It was a typical Roman Catholic Mass, but modified according to certain formulas (some reminiscent of the Latin Sworn Book of Honorius) and featuring the King's mistress as the central altar of worship, lying naked upon the altar with the chalice on her bare stomach, and holding two black candles in each of her outsretched arms. From these images of the Guibourg mass, further developments of the Black Mass derived. 18th century: The Marquis de Sade, in many of his writings places the Host and the Mass, monks, priests, and the Pope himself, in sexual settings. 19th century: Joris-Karl Huysmans wrote the classic of French Satanism, Là-Bas (1891). This novel summarizes all of French Satanism up to that point, and describes a new version of the Black Mass, which Huysmans claimed was practised in Paris in those years. Although a work of fiction, Huysmans' description of the Black Mass remained influential simply because no other book went into as much detail. The actual text which Huysmans' satanic "priest" recites, however, is nothing more than a long diatribe in French, praising Satan as the god of reason and the opponent of Christianity. In this way, it resembles the French poetry of Charles Baudelaire (specifically, that found in Les Fleurs du mal), more than it resembles an inversion of the Roman Catholic Mass.
[edit] Late 19th Century and Early 20th Century Scholarly Interest in the Black Mass Scholarly studies in the Black Mass relied almost thoroughly on French and Latin sources (which also came from France):
The French historian Jules Michelet was one of the first to analyze and attempt to understand the Black Mass, and wrote two chapters about it in his classic book, Satanism and Witchcraft (1862). J G Frazer included a description of The Mass of Saint-Secaire, an unusual French legend with similarities to the Black Mass, in The Golden Bough (1890). (Frazer was recounting material already found in an 1883 French book entitled "Quatorze superstitions populaires de la Gascogne", by J. F. Bladé). Montague Summers discussed many classic portrayals of the Black Mass in his works, with extensive quotations from the original French and Latin sources. H. T. F. Rhodes' popular mass market book, The Satanic Mass, published in 1954, was undoubtedly a major inspiration for modern versions of the Black Mass, when they finally appeared.
[edit] The Black Mass itself Surprising as it may seem - in spite of the huge amount of French literature discussing the Black Mass (Messe Noire) at the end of the 1800s and early 1900s - no set of written instructions for performing one, from any purported group of Satanists, turned up in writing until the 1960s, and appeared not in France, but in the United States.
A growing interest in witchcraft and satanism in the 1960s inspired the creation of two recordings, both made in 1968, and both called "Satanic Mass":
The first was a record album of readings in Satanic philosophy by the Church of Satan, called "The Satanic Mass", which contained material later to appear in their Satanic Bible (published in 1969). In spite of the title and a few phrases in Latin, this album did not deal with the Black Mass. The second was a 13 minute recording of a full-length "Satanic Mass" made by a U.S. band called Coven. Coven's Black Mass, which was part of their stage show in 1968, was included on their 1969 record album "Witchcraft Destroys Minds and Reaps Souls", together with the full published text. The band stated that they spent a long time researching the material, and to their knowledge it was the first Black Mass published in any language.. The result was ecclectic, drawing chants and material from numerous sources, including medieval French miracle plays, such as Le Miracle de Théophile, in which one of the players sells their soul to the Devil. These chants were gleaned from books on witchcraft, popular in the 60s, notably Grillot de Givry's Witchcraft, Magic and Alchemy (originally published in France in 1929). Additionally, the recording, while using a couple of the Latin phrases the Church of Satan was already making popular, also added a substantial amount of church Latin, in the form of Gregorian chants sung by the band, to create the genuine effect of the Catholic Latin Mass being inverted and sung to Satan. Soon after Coven created their Black Mass, the Church of Satan began creating their own Black Masses, two of which are available to the public. The first, created for the Church of Satan by Wayne West in 1970 and entitled "Missa Solemnis", was published in Michael Aquino's book The Church of Satan , and the second, entitled "Messe Noir", in Anton LaVey's 1972 book The Satanic Rituals.
All three of these early Black Masses (the one by Coven and the two by the Church of Satan) contain the Latin phrase "In nomine Domini Dei nostri Satanae Luciferi Excelsi", as well as the phrases "Rege Satanas" and "Ave Satanas" (which, incidently, are also the only three Latin phrases which appeared in the Church of Satan's 1968 recording, "The Satanic Mass"). Additionally, all three modify other Latin parts of the Roman Catholic Missal to make them into Satanic versions. The Church of Satan's two Black Masses also use the French text of the Black Mass in Huysmans' "Là-Bas" to a great extent. (West only uses the English translation, LaVey publishes also the original French). Thus, the Black Mass found in "The Satanic Rituals" is a combination of English, French, and Latin.
Finally, a writer using the pseudonym "Aubrey Melech" published, in 1986, a Black Mass entirely in Latin, entitled "Missa Niger". (This Black Mass is available on the Internet). Aubrey Melech's Black Mass contains almost exactly the same original Latin phrases as the Black Mass published by LaVey in "The Satanic Rituals". The difference is that the amount of Latin has now more than doubled, so that the entire Black Mass is in Latin.
Latin Wikisource has original text related to this article: Missa Niger [edit] The Language of the Black Mass As mentioned above, the French sections that LaVey published were quotations from Huysmans' La Bas. As for the Latin of Melech and LaVey, it is based on the Roman Catholic Latin Missal, reworded so as to give it a Satanic meaning (eg. the Roman Mass starts "In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti", while LaVey's version, printed in the Satanic Rituals, starts "In nomine magni dei nostri Satanas"). There are a small amount of copyist and grammatical errors (for example, "dignum" from the Mass, is once incorrectly spelled "clignum", in the printed Satanic Rituals, a result of someone not copying correctly, and confusing the "d" with "cl". Another example, also appearing once, is "laefificat" instead of "laetificat". One of the more obvious grammatical errors is "ego vos benedictio", "I bless you", which should have been "ego vos benedico"). Another grammatical peculiarity, is that throughout his version of the Mass, LaVey does not decline the name Satanas, as is typically done in Latin if the endings are used, but uses only the one form of the word regardless of the case.[1] Melech uses Satanus. "Satanas" as a name for Satan appears in some examples of Latin texts popularly associated with satanism and witchcraft, such as the middle age pact with the Devil supposedly written by Urbain Grandier. Both Black Masses end with the Latin expression "Ave, Satanas!", a reversal of a similar statement made by Jesus to Satan in the Latin Vulgate Bible, "Vade, Satanas!" (Latin Vulgate, Matthew 4:10)[
A little off topic, I sadly owned the YO NOID game for the NES was back when.
THIS IS NOT THE OFF TOPIC FORUM! ALL POSTS HERE MUST RELATE TO POLITICS OR COPYING AND PASTING BLOGS! PLEASE OBEY THE RULES!
"Well, Prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes. But I warn you, if you don't tell me that this means war, if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend, no longer my 'faithful slave,' as you call yourself! But how do you do? I see I have frightened you- sit down and tell me all the news."
It was in July, 1805, and the speaker was the well-known Anna Pavlovna Scherer, maid of honor and favorite of the Empress Marya Fedorovna. With these words she greeted Prince Vasili Kuragin, a man of high rank and importance, who was the first to arrive at her reception. Anna Pavlovna had had a cough for some days. She was, as she said, suffering from la grippe; grippe being then a new word in St. Petersburg, used only by the elite.
All her invitations without exception, written in French, and delivered by a scarlet-liveried footman that morning, ran as follows:
"If you have nothing better to do, Count [or Prince], and if the prospect of spending an evening with a poor invalid is not too terrible, I shall be very charmed to see you tonight between 7 and 10- Annette Scherer."
"Heavens! what a virulent attack!" replied the prince, not in the least disconcerted by this reception. He had just entered, wearing an embroidered court uniform, knee breeches, and shoes, and had stars on his breast and a serene expression on his flat face. He spoke in that refined French in which our grandfathers not only spoke but thought, and with the gentle, patronizing intonation natural to a man of importance who had grown old in society and at court. He went up to Anna Pavlovna, kissed her hand, presenting to her his bald, scented, and shining head, and complacently seated himself on the sofa.
"First of all, dear friend, tell me how you are. Set your friend's mind at rest," said he without altering his tone, beneath the politeness and affected sympathy of which indifference and even irony could be discerned.
"Can one be well while suffering morally? Can one be calm in times like these if one has any feeling?" said Anna Pavlovna. "You are staying the whole evening, I hope?"
"And the fete at the English ambassador's? Today is Wednesday. I must put in an appearance there," said the prince. "My daughter is coming for me to take me there."
"I thought today's fete had been canceled. I confess all these festivities and fireworks are becoming wearisome."
"If they had known that you wished it, the entertainment would have been put off," said the prince, who, like a wound-up clock, by force of habit said things he did not even wish to be believed.
"Don't tease! Well, and what has been decided about Novosiltsev's dispatch? You know everything."
"What can one say about it?" replied the prince in a cold, listless tone. "What has been decided? They have decided that Buonaparte has burnt his boats, and I believe that we are ready to burn ours."
Prince Vasili always spoke languidly, like an actor repeating a stale part. Anna Pavlovna Scherer on the contrary, despite her forty years, overflowed with animation and impulsiveness. To be an enthusiast had become her social vocation and, sometimes even when she did not feel like it, she became enthusiastic in order not to disappoint the expectations of those who knew her. The subdued smile which, though it did not suit her faded features, always played round her lips expressed, as in a spoiled child, a continual consciousness of her charming defect, which she neither wished, nor could, nor considered it necessary, to correct.
In the midst of a conversation on political matters Anna Pavlovna burst out:
"Oh, don't speak to me of Austria. Perhaps I don't understand things, but Austria never has wished, and does not wish, for war. She is betraying us! Russia alone must save Europe. Our gracious sovereign recognizes his high vocation and will be true to it. That is the one thing I have faith in! Our good and wonderful sovereign has to perform the noblest role on earth, and he is so virtuous and noble that God will not forsake him. He will fulfill his vocation and crush the hydra of revolution, which has become more terrible than ever in the person of this murderer and villain! We alone must avenge the blood of the just one.... Whom, I ask you, can we rely on?... England with her commercial spirit will not and cannot understand the Emperor Alexander's loftiness of soul. She has refused to evacuate Malta. She wanted to find, and still seeks, some secret motive in our actions. What answer did Novosiltsev get? None. The English have not understood and cannot understand the self-abnegation of our Emperor who wants nothing for himself, but only desires the good of mankind. And what have they promised? Nothing! And what little they have promised they will not perform! Prussia has always declared that Buonaparte is invincible, and that all Europe is powerless before him.... And I don't believe a word that Hardenburg says, or Haugwitz either. This famous Prussian neutrality is just a trap. I have faith only in God and the lofty destiny of our adored monarch. He will save Europe!"
She suddenly paused, smiling at her own impetuosity.
"I think," said the prince with a smile, "that if you had been sent instead of our dear Wintzingerode you would have captured the King of Prussia's consent by assault. You are so eloquent. Will you give me a cup of tea?"
"In a moment. A propos," she added, becoming calm again, "I am expecting two very interesting men tonight, le Vicomte de Mortemart, who is connected with the Montmorencys through the Rohans, one of the best French families. He is one of the genuine emigres, the good ones. And also the Abbe Morio. Do you know that profound thinker? He has been received by the Emperor. Had you heard?"
"I shall be delighted to meet them," said the prince. "But tell me," he added with studied carelessness as if it had only just occurred to him, though the question he was about to ask was the chief motive of his visit, "is it true that the Dowager Empress wants Baron Funke to be appointed first secretary at Vienna? The baron by all accounts is a poor creature."
Prince Vasili wished to obtain this post for his son, but others were trying through the Dowager Empress Marya Fedorovna to secure it for the baron.
Anna Pavlovna almost closed her eyes to indicate that neither she nor anyone else had a right to criticize what the Empress desired or was pleased with.
"Baron Funke has been recommended to the Dowager Empress by her sister," was all she said, in a dry and mournful tone.
As she named the Empress, Anna Pavlovna's face suddenly assumed an expression of profound and sincere devotion and respect mingled with sadness, and this occurred every time she mentioned her illustrious patroness. She added that Her Majesty had deigned to show Baron Funke beaucoup d'estime, and again her face clouded over with sadness.
The prince was silent and looked indifferent. But, with the womanly and courtierlike quickness and tact habitual to her, Anna Pavlovna wished both to rebuke him (for daring to speak he had done of a man recommended to the Empress) and at the same time to console him, so she said:
"Now about your family. Do you know that since your daughter came out everyone has been enraptured by her? They say she is amazingly beautiful."
The prince bowed to signify his respect and gratitude.
"I often think," she continued after a short pause, drawing nearer to the prince and smiling amiably at him as if to show that political and social topics were ended and the time had come for intimate conversation- "I often think how unfairly sometimes the joys of life are distributed. Why has fate given you two such splendid children? I don't speak of Anatole, your youngest. I don't like him," she added in a tone admitting of no rejoinder and raising her eyebrows. "Two such charming children. And really you appreciate them less than anyone, and so you don't deserve to have them."
And she smiled her ecstatic smile.
"I can't help it," said the prince. "Lavater would have said I lack the bump of paternity."
"Don't joke; I mean to have a serious talk with you. Do you know I am dissatisfied with your younger son? Between ourselves" (and her face assumed its melancholy expression), "he was mentioned at Her Majesty's and you were pitied...."
The prince answered nothing, but she looked at him significantly, awaiting a reply. He frowned.
"What would you have me do?" he said at last. "You know I did all a father could for their education, and they have both turned out fools. Hippolyte is at least a quiet fool, but Anatole is an active one. That is the only difference between them." He said this smiling in a way more natural and animated than usual, so that the wrinkles round his mouth very clearly revealed something unexpectedly coarse and unpleasant.
"And why are children born to such men as you? If you were not a father there would be nothing I could reproach you with," said Anna Pavlovna, looking up pensively.
"I am your faithful slave and to you alone I can confess that my children are the bane of my life. It is the cross I have to bear. That is how I explain it to myself. It can't be helped!"
He said no more, but expressed his resignation to cruel fate by a gesture. Anna Pavlovna meditated.
"Have you never thought of marrying your prodigal son Anatole?" she asked. "They say old maids have a mania for matchmaking, and though I don't feel that weakness in myself as yet,I know a little person who is very unhappy with her father. She is a relation of yours, Princess Mary Bolkonskaya."
Prince Vasili did not reply, though, with the quickness of memory and perception befitting a man of the world, he indicated by a movement of the head that he was considering this information.
"Do you know," he said at last, evidently unable to check the sad current of his thoughts, "that Anatole is costing me forty thousand rubles a year? And," he went on after a pause, "what will it be in five years, if he goes on like this?" Presently he added: "That's what we fathers have to put up with.... Is this princess of yours rich?"
"Her father is very rich and stingy. He lives in the country. He is the well-known Prince Bolkonski who had to retire from the army under the late Emperor, and was nicknamed 'the King of Prussia.' He is very clever but eccentric, and a bore. The poor girl is very unhappy. She has a brother; I think you know him, he married Lise Meinen lately. He is an aide-de-camp of Kutuzov's and will be here tonight."
"Listen, dear Annette," said the prince, suddenly taking Anna Pavlovna's hand and for some reason drawing it downwards. "Arrange that affair for me and I shall always be your most devoted slave- slafe wigh an f, as a village elder of mine writes in his reports. She is rich and of good family and that's all I want."
And with the familiarity and easy grace peculiar to him, he raised the maid of honor's hand to his lips, kissed it, and swung it to and fro as he lay back in his armchair, looking in another direction.
"Attendez," said Anna Pavlovna, reflecting, "I'll speak to Lise, young Bolkonski's wife, this very evening, and perhaps the thing can be arranged. It shall be on your family's behalf that I'll start my apprenticeship as old maid."
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Wright has a lengthy history of virulent statements, both in his sermons and his writings. You can keep trying to fool us by saying "out of context," but that's a little like saying because Hitler only wrote one racist book we shouldn't have seen the final solution coming.
i'm not defending him, i'm asking for a broader picture. you say he has a history, then it should be easy for you to post some of those quotes along with when he said them to establish that history. either way i don't think i'll be voting for wright this november. of course obama has said he goes to church to worship god and not his pastor, also we have to ask what kind of man is wright when he's not on stage, maybe he is a decent person who has been a good friend to obama. can you say you don't have any liberal friends who sometimes say things that you disagree with strongly but you ultimately still call them a friend? obama has never sought wright's endorsment and has never linked what wright says to his campaign's message. i find it more troubling that mccain (who's thread this actually is) sought out fallwell's endorsment after fallwell said the many many stupid things that have caused controversy over the years.
Wow.
And all this time I missed the part where McCain attended Falwell's church for 20 years, where McCain adopted Falwell as his spiritual advisor, and even named his first book after one of Falwell's sermons.
Oh wait, that's right. McCain didn't.
Obama, on the other hand... Obama has connected himself to some very strange characters indeed. Including himself, including his Muslim/I-am-not-a-muslim history.
A little off topic, I sadly owned the YO NOID game for the NES was back when.
THIS IS NOT THE OFF TOPIC FORUM! ALL POSTS HERE MUST RELATE TO POLITICS OR COPYING AND PASTING BLOGS! PLEASE OBEY THE RULES!
Anna Pavlovna's drawing room was gradually filling. The highest Petersburg society was assembled there: people differing widely in age and character but alike in the social circle to which they belonged. Prince Vasili's daughter, the beautiful Helene, came to take her father to the ambassador's entertainment; she wore a ball dress and her badge as maid of honor. The youthful little Princess Bolkonskaya, known as la femme la plus seduisante de Petersbourg,* was also there. She had been married during the previous winter, and being pregnant did not go to any large gatherings, but only to small receptions. Prince Vasili's son, Hippolyte, had come with Mortemart, whom he introduced. The Abbe Morio and many others had also come.
*The most fascinating woman in Petersburg.
To each new arrival Anna Pavlovna said, "You have not yet seen my aunt," or "You do not know my aunt?" and very gravely conducted him or her to a little old lady, wearing large bows of ribbon in her cap, who had come sailing in from another room as soon as the guests began to arrive; and slowly turning her eyes from the visitor to her aunt, Anna Pavlovna mentioned each one's name and then left them.
Each visitor performed the ceremony of greeting this old aunt whom not one of them knew, not one of them wanted to know, and not one of them cared about; Anna Pavlovna observed these greetings with mournful and solemn interest and silent approval. The aunt spoke to each of them in the same words, about their health and her own, and the health of Her Majesty, "who, thank God, was better today." And each visitor, though politeness prevented his showing impatience, left the old woman with a sense of relief at having performed a vexatious duty and did not return to her the whole evening.
The young Princess Bolkonskaya had brought some work in a gold-embroidered velvet bag. Her pretty little upper lip, on which a delicate dark down was just perceptible, was too short for her teeth, but it lifted all the more sweetly, and was especially charming when she occasionally drew it down to meet the lower lip. As is always the case with a thoroughly attractive woman, her defect- the shortness of her upper lip and her half-open mouth- seemed to be her own special and peculiar form of beauty. Everyone brightened at the sight of this pretty young woman, so soon to become a mother, so full of life and health, and carrying her burden so lightly. Old men and dull dispirited young ones who looked at her, after being in her company and talking to her a little while, felt as if they too were becoming, like her, full of life and health. All who talked to her, and at each word saw her bright smile and the constant gleam of her white teeth, thought that they were in a specially amiable mood that day.
The little princess went round the table with quick, short, swaying steps, her workbag on her arm, and gaily spreading out her dress sat down on a sofa near the silver samovar, as if all she was doing was a pleasure to herself and to all around her. "I have brought my work," said she in French, displaying her bag and addressing all present. "Mind, Annette, I hope you have not played a wicked trick on me," she added, turning to her hostess. "You wrote that it was to be quite a small reception, and just see how badly I am dressed." And she spread out her arms to show her short-waisted, lace-trimmed, dainty gray dress, girdled with a broad ribbon just below the breast.
"Soyez tranquille, Lise, you will always be prettier than anyone else," replied Anna Pavlovna.
"You know," said the princess in the same tone of voice and still in French, turning to a general, "my husband is deserting me? He is going to get himself killed. Tell me what this wretched war is for?" she added, addressing Prince Vasili, and without waiting for an answer she turned to speak to his daughter, the beautiful Helene.
"What a delightful woman this little princess is!" said Prince Vasili to Anna Pavlovna.
One of the next arrivals was a stout, heavily built young man with close-cropped hair, spectacles, the light-colored breeches fashionable at that time, a very high ruffle, and a brown dress coat. This stout young man was an illegitimate son of Count Bezukhov, a well-known grandee of Catherine's time who now lay dying in Moscow. The young man had not yet entered either the military or civil service, as he had only just returned from abroad where he had been educated, and this was his first appearance in society. Anna Pavlovna greeted him with the nod she accorded to the lowest hierarchy in her drawing room. But in spite of this lowest-grade greeting, a look of anxiety and fear, as at the sight of something too large and unsuited to the place, came over her face when she saw Pierre enter. Though he was certainly rather bigger than the other men in the room, her anxiety could only have reference to the clever though shy, but observant and natural, expression which distinguished him from everyone else in that drawing room.
"It is very good of you, Monsieur Pierre, to come and visit a poor invalid," said Anna Pavlovna, exchanging an alarmed glance with her aunt as she conducted him to her.
Pierre murmured something unintelligible, and continued to look round as if in search of something. On his way to the aunt he bowed to the little princess with a pleased smile, as to an intimate acquaintance.
Anna Pavlovna's alarm was justified, for Pierre turned away from the aunt without waiting to hear her speech about Her Majesty's health. Anna Pavlovna in dismay detained him with the words: "Do you know the Abbe Morio? He is a most interesting man."
"Yes, I have heard of his scheme for perpetual peace, and it is very interesting but hardly feasible."
"You think so?" rejoined Anna Pavlovna in order to say something and get away to attend to her duties as hostess. But Pierre now committed a reverse act of impoliteness. First he had left a lady before she had finished speaking to him, and now he continued to speak to another who wished to get away. With his head bent, and his big feet spread apart, he began explaining his reasons for thinking the abbe's plan chimerical.
"We will talk of it later," said Anna Pavlovna with a smile.
And having got rid of this young man who did not know how to behave, she resumed her duties as hostess and continued to listen and watch, ready to help at any point where the conversation might happen to flag. As the foreman of a spinning mill, when he has set the hands to work, goes round and notices here a spindle that has stopped or there one that creaks or makes more noise than it should, and hastens to check the machine or set it in proper motion, so Anna Pavlovna moved about her drawing room, approaching now a silent, now a too-noisy group, and by a word or slight rearrangement kept the conversational machine in steady, proper, and regular motion. But amid these cares her anxiety about Pierre was evident. She kept an anxious watch on him when he approached the group round Mortemart to listen to what was being said there, and again when he passed to another group whose center was the abbe.
Pierre had been educated abroad, and this reception at Anna Pavlovna's was the first he had attended in Russia. He knew that all the intellectual lights of Petersburg were gathered there and, like a child in a toyshop, did not know which way to look, afraid of missing any clever conversation that was to be heard. Seeing the self-confident and refined expression on the faces of those present he was always expecting to hear something very profound. At last he came up to Morio. Here the conversation seemed interesting and he stood waiting for an opportunity to express his own views, as young people are fond of doing.
A little off topic, I sadly owned the YO NOID game for the NES was back when.
THIS IS NOT THE OFF TOPIC FORUM! ALL POSTS HERE MUST RELATE TO POLITICS OR COPYING AND PASTING BLOGS! PLEASE OBEY THE RULES!
Anna Pavlovna's reception was in full swing. The spindles hummed steadily and ceaselessly on all sides. With the exception of the aunt, beside whom sat only one elderly lady, who with her thin careworn face was rather out of place in this brilliant society, the whole company had settled into three groups. One, chiefly masculine, had formed round the abbe. Another, of young people, was grouped round the beautiful Princess Helene, Prince Vasili's daughter, and the little Princess Bolkonskaya, very pretty and rosy, though rather too plump for her age. The third group was gathered round Mortemart and Anna Pavlovna.
The vicomte was a nice-looking young man with soft features and polished manners, who evidently considered himself a celebrity but out of politeness modestly placed himself at the disposal of the circle in which he found himself. Anna Pavlovna was obviously serving him up as a treat to her guests. As a clever maitre d'hotel serves up as a specially choice delicacy a piece of meat that no one who had seen it in the kitchen would have cared to eat, so Anna Pavlovna served up to her guests, first the vicomte and then the abbe, as peculiarly choice morsels. The group about Mortemart immediately began discussing the murder of the Duc d'Enghien. The vicomte said that the Duc d'Enghien had perished by his own magnanimity, and that there were particular reasons for Buonaparte's hatred of him.
"Ah, yes! Do tell us all about it, Vicomte," said Anna Pavlovna, with a pleasant feeling that there was something a la Louis XV in the sound of that sentence: "Contez nous cela, Vicomte."
The vicomte bowed and smiled courteously in token of his willingness to comply. Anna Pavlovna arranged a group round him, inviting everyone to listen to his tale.
"The vicomte knew the duc personally," whispered Anna Pavlovna to of the guests. "The vicomte is a wonderful raconteur," said she to another. "How evidently he belongs to the best society," said she to a third; and the vicomte was served up to the company in the choicest and most advantageous style, like a well-garnished joint of roast beef on a hot dish.
The vicomte wished to begin his story and gave a subtle smile.
"Come over here, Helene, dear," said Anna Pavlovna to the beautiful young princess who was sitting some way off, the center of another group.
The princess smiled. She rose with the same unchanging smile with which she had first entered the room- the smile of a perfectly beautiful woman. With a slight rustle of her white dress trimmed with moss and ivy, with a gleam of white shoulders, glossy hair, and sparkling diamonds, she passed between the men who made way for her, not looking at any of them but smiling on all, as if graciously allowing each the privilege of admiring her beautiful figure and shapely shoulders, back, and bosom- which in the fashion of those days were very much exposed- and she seemed to bring the glamour of a ballroom with her as she moved toward Anna Pavlovna. Helene was so lovely that not only did she not show any trace of coquetry, but on the contrary she even appeared shy of her unquestionable and all too victorious beauty. She seemed to wish, but to be unable, to diminish its effect.
"How lovely!" said everyone who saw her; and the vicomte lifted his shoulders and dropped his eyes as if startled by something extraordinary when she took her seat opposite and beamed upon him also with her unchanging smile.
"Madame, I doubt my ability before such an audience," said he, smilingly inclining his head.
The princess rested her bare round arm on a little table and considered a reply unnecessary. She smilingly waited. All the time the story was being told she sat upright, glancing now at her beautiful round arm, altered in shape by its pressure on the table, now at her still more beautiful bosom, on which she readjusted a diamond necklace. From time to time she smoothed the folds of her dress, and whenever the story produced an effect she glanced at Anna Pavlovna, at once adopted just the expression she saw on the maid of honor's face, and again relapsed into her radiant smile.
The little princess had also left the tea table and followed Helene.
"Wait a moment, I'll get my work.... Now then, what are you thinking of?" she went on, turning to Prince Hippolyte. "Fetch me my workbag."
There was a general movement as the princess, smiling and talking merrily to everyone at once, sat down and gaily arranged herself in her seat.
"Now I am all right," she said, and asking the vicomte to begin, she took up her work.
Prince Hippolyte, having brought the workbag, joined the circle and moving a chair close to hers seated himself beside her.
Le charmant Hippolyte was surprising by his extraordinary resemblance to his beautiful sister, but yet more by the fact that in spite of this resemblance he was exceedingly ugly. His features were like his sister's, but while in her case everything was lit up by a joyous, self-satisfied, youthful, and constant smile of animation, and by the wonderful classic beauty of her figure, his face on the contrary was dulled by imbecility and a constant expression of sullen self-confidence, while his body was thin and weak. His eyes, nose, and mouth all seemed puckered into a vacant, wearied grimace, and his arms and legs always fell into unnatural positions.
"It's not going to be a ghost story?" said he, sitting down beside the princess and hastily adjusting his lorgnette, as if without this instrument he could not begin to speak.
"Why no, my dear fellow," said the astonished narrator, shrugging his shoulders.
"Because I hate ghost stories," said Prince Hippolyte in a tone which showed that he only understood the meaning of his words after he had uttered them.
He spoke with such self-confidence that his hearers could not be sure whether what he said was very witty or very stupid. He was dressed in a dark-green dress coat, knee breeches of the color of cuisse de nymphe effrayee, as he called it, shoes, and silk stockings.
The vicomte told his tale very neatly. It was an anecdote, then current, to the effect that the Duc d'Enghien had gone secretly to Paris to visit Mademoiselle George; that at her house he came upon Bonaparte, who also enjoyed the famous actress' favors, and that in his presence Napoleon happened to fall into one of the fainting fits to which he was subject, and was thus at the duc's mercy. The latter spared him, and this magnanimity Bonaparte subsequently repaid by death.
The story was very pretty and interesting, especially at the point where the rivals suddenly recognized one another; and the ladies looked agitated.
"Charming!" said Anna Pavlovna with an inquiring glance at the little princess.
"Charming!" whispered the little princess, sticking the needle into her work as if to testify that the interest and fascination of the story prevented her from going on with it.
The vicomte appreciated this silent praise and smiling gratefully prepared to continue, but just then Anna Pavlovna, who had kept a watchful eye on the young man who so alarmed her, noticed that he was talking too loudly and vehemently with the abbe, so she hurried to the rescue. Pierre had managed to start a conversation with the abbe about the balance of power, and the latter, evidently interested by the young man's simple-minded eagerness, was explaining his pet theory. Both were talking and listening too eagerly and too naturally, which was why Anna Pavlovna disapproved.
"The means are... the balance of power in Europe and the rights of the people," the abbe was saying. "It is only necessary for one powerful nation like Russia- barbaric as she is said to be- to place herself disinterestedly at the head of an alliance having for its object the maintenance of the balance of power of Europe, and it would save the world!"
"But how are you to get that balance?" Pierre was beginning.
At that moment Anna Pavlovna came up and, looking severely at Pierre, asked the Italian how he stood Russian climate. The Italian's face instantly changed and assumed an offensively affected, sugary expression, evidently habitual to him when conversing with women.
"I am so enchanted by the brilliancy of the wit and culture of the society, more especially of the feminine society, in which I have had the honor of being received, that I have not yet had time to think of the climate," said he.
Not letting the abbe and Pierre escape, Anna Pavlovna, the more conveniently to keep them under observation, brought them into the larger circle.
Just them another visitor entered the drawing room: Prince Andrew Bolkonski, the little princess' husband. He was a very handsome young man, of medium height, with firm, clearcut features. Everything about him, from his weary, bored expression to his quiet, measured step, offered a most striking contrast to his quiet, little wife. It was evident that he not only knew everyone in the drawing room, but had found them to be so tiresome that it wearied him to look at or listen to them. And among all these faces that he found so tedious, none seemed to bore him so much as that of his pretty wife. He turned away from her with a grimace that distorted his handsome face, kissed Anna Pavlovna's hand, and screwing up his eyes scanned the whole company.
"You are off to the war, Prince?" said Anna Pavlovna.
"General Kutuzov," said Bolkonski, speaking French and stressing the last syllable of the general's name like a Frenchman, "has been pleased to take me as an aide-de-camp...."
"And Lise, your wife?"
"She will go to the country."
"Are you not ashamed to deprive us of your charming wife?"
"Andre," said his wife, addressing her husband in the same coquettish manner in which she spoke to other men, "the vicomte has been telling us such a tale about Mademoiselle George and Buonaparte!"
Prince Andrew screwed up his eyes and turned away. Pierre, who from the moment Prince Andrew entered the room had watched him with glad, affectionate eyes, now came up and took his arm. Before he looked round Prince Andrew frowned again, expressing his annoyance with whoever was touching his arm, but when he saw Pierre's beaming face he gave him an unexpectedly kind and pleasant smile.
"There now!... So you, too, are in the great world?" said he to Pierre.
"I knew you would be here," replied Pierre. "I will come to supper with you. May I?" he added in a low voice so as not to disturb the vicomte who was continuing his story.
"No, impossible!" said Prince Andrew, laughing and pressing Pierre's hand to show that there was no need to ask the question. He wished to say something more, but at that moment Prince Vasili and his daughter got up to go and the two young men rose to let them pass.
"You must excuse me, dear Vicomte," said Prince Vasili to the Frenchman, holding him down by the sleeve in a friendly way to prevent his rising. "This unfortunate fete at the ambassador's deprives me of a pleasure, and obliges me to interrupt you. I am very sorry to leave your enchanting party," said he, turning to Anna Pavlovna.
His daughter, Princess Helene, passed between the chairs, lightly holding up the folds of her dress, and the smile shone still more radiantly on her beautiful face. Pierre gazed at her with rapturous, almost frightened, eyes as she passed him.
"Very lovely," said Prince Andrew.
"Very," said Pierre.
In passing Prince Vasili seized Pierre's hand and said to Anna Pavlovna: "Educate this bear for me! He has been staying with me a whole month and this is the first time I have seen him in society. Nothing is so necessary for a young man as the society of clever women."
Anna Pavlovna smiled and promised to take Pierre in hand. She knew his father to be a connection of Prince Vasili's. The elderly lady who had been sitting with the old aunt rose hurriedly and overtook Prince Vasili in the anteroom. All the affectation of interest she had assumed had left her kindly and tearworn face and it now expressed only anxiety and fear.
"How about my son Boris, Prince?" said she, hurrying after him into the anteroom. "I can't remain any longer in Petersburg. Tell me what news I may take back to my poor boy."
Although Prince Vasili listened reluctantly and not very politely to the elderly lady, even betraying some impatience, she gave him an ingratiating and appealing smile, and took his hand that he might not go away.
"What would it cost you to say a word to the Emperor, and then he would be transferred to the Guards at once?" said she.
"Believe me, Princess, I am ready to do all I can," answered Prince Vasili, "but it is difficult for me to ask the Emperor. I should advise you to appeal to Rumyantsev through Prince Golitsyn. That would be the best way."
The elderly lady was a Princess Drubetskaya, belonging to one of the best families in Russia, but she was poor, and having long been out of society had lost her former influential connections. She had now come to Petersburg to procure an appointment in the Guards for her only son. It was, in fact, solely to meet Prince Vasili that she had obtained an invitation to Anna Pavlovna's reception and had sat listening to the vicomte's story. Prince Vasili's words frightened her, an embittered look clouded her once handsome face, but only for a moment; then she smiled again and dutched Prince Vasili's arm more tightly.
"Listen to me, Prince," said she. "I have never yet asked you for anything and I never will again, nor have I ever reminded you of my father's friendship for you; but now I entreat you for God's sake to do this for my son- and I shall always regard you as a benefactor," she added hurriedly. "No, don't be angry, but promise! I have asked Golitsyn and he has refused. Be the kindhearted man you always were," she said, trying to smile though tears were in her eyes.
"Papa, we shall be late," said Princess Helene, turning her beautiful head and looking over her classically molded shoulder as she stood waiting by the door.
Influence in society, however, is a capital which has to be economized if it is to last. Prince Vasili knew this, and having once realized that if he asked on behalf of all who begged of him, he would soon be unable to ask for himself, he became chary of using his influence. But in Princess Drubetskaya's case he felt, after her second appeal, something like qualms of conscience. She had reminded him of what was quite true; he had been indebted to her father for the first steps in his career. Moreover, he could see by her manners that she was one of those women- mostly mothers- who, having once made up their minds, will not rest until they have gained their end, and are prepared if necessary to go on insisting day after day and hour after hour, and even to make scenes. This last consideration moved him.
"My dear Anna Mikhaylovna," said he with his usual familiarity and weariness of tone, "it is almost impossible for me to do what you ask; but to prove my devotion to you and how I respect your father's memory, I will do the impossible- your son shall be transferred to the Guards. Here is my hand on it. Are you satisfied?"
"My dear benefactor! This is what I expected from you- I knew your kindness!" He turned to go.
"Wait- just a word! When he has been transferred to the Guards..." she faltered. "You are on good terms with Michael Ilarionovich Kutuzov... recommend Boris to him as adjutant! Then I shall be at rest, and then..."
Prince Vasili smiled.
"No, I won't promise that. You don't know how Kutuzov is pestered since his appointment as Commander in Chief. He told me himself that all the Moscow ladies have conspired to give him all their sons as adjutants."
"No, but do promise! I won't let you go! My dear benefactor..."
"Papa," said his beautiful daughter in the same tone as before, "we shall be late."
"Well, au revoir! Good-by! You hear her?"
"Then tomorrow you will speak to the Emperor?"
"Certainly; but about Kutuzov, I don't promise."
"Do promise, do promise, Vasili!" cried Anna Mikhaylovna as he went, with the smile of a coquettish girl, which at one time probably came naturally to her, but was now very ill-suited to her careworn face.
Apparently she had forgotten her age and by force of habit employed all the old feminine arts. But as soon as the prince had gone her face resumed its former cold, artificial expression. She returned to the group where the vicomte was still talking, and again pretended to listen, while waiting till it would be time to leave. Her task was accomplished.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Wright has a lengthy history of virulent statements, both in his sermons and his writings. You can keep trying to fool us by saying "out of context," but that's a little like saying because Hitler only wrote one racist book we shouldn't have seen the final solution coming.
i'm not defending him, i'm asking for a broader picture. you say he has a history, then it should be easy for you to post some of those quotes along with when he said them to establish that history. either way i don't think i'll be voting for wright this november. of course obama has said he goes to church to worship god and not his pastor, also we have to ask what kind of man is wright when he's not on stage, maybe he is a decent person who has been a good friend to obama. can you say you don't have any liberal friends who sometimes say things that you disagree with strongly but you ultimately still call them a friend? obama has never sought wright's endorsment and has never linked what wright says to his campaign's message. i find it more troubling that mccain (who's thread this actually is) sought out fallwell's endorsment after fallwell said the many many stupid things that have caused controversy over the years.
Wow.
And all this time I missed the part where McCain attended Falwell's church for 20 years, where McCain adopted Falwell as his spiritual advisor, and even named his first book after one of Falwell's sermons.
Oh wait, that's right. McCain didn't.
Obama, on the other hand... Obama has connected himself to some very strange characters indeed. Including himself, including his Muslim/I-am-not-a-muslim history.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Wright has a lengthy history of virulent statements, both in his sermons and his writings. You can keep trying to fool us by saying "out of context," but that's a little like saying because Hitler only wrote one racist book we shouldn't have seen the final solution coming.
i'm not defending him, i'm asking for a broader picture. you say he has a history, then it should be easy for you to post some of those quotes along with when he said them to establish that history. either way i don't think i'll be voting for wright this november. of course obama has said he goes to church to worship god and not his pastor, also we have to ask what kind of man is wright when he's not on stage, maybe he is a decent person who has been a good friend to obama. can you say you don't have any liberal friends who sometimes say things that you disagree with strongly but you ultimately still call them a friend? obama has never sought wright's endorsment and has never linked what wright says to his campaign's message. i find it more troubling that mccain (who's thread this actually is) sought out fallwell's endorsment after fallwell said the many many stupid things that have caused controversy over the years.
Wow.
And all this time I missed the part where McCain attended Falwell's church for 20 years, where McCain adopted Falwell as his spiritual advisor, and even named his first book after one of Falwell's sermons.
Oh wait, that's right. McCain didn't.
Obama, on the other hand... Obama has connected himself to some very strange characters indeed. Including himself, including his Muslim/I-am-not-a-muslim history.
"And what do you think of this latest comedy, the coronation at Milan?" asked Anna Pavlovna, "and of the comedy of the people of Genoa and Lucca laying their petitions before Monsieur Buonaparte, and Monsieur Buonaparte sitting on a throne and granting the petitions of the nations? Adorable! It is enough to make one's head whirl! It is as if the whole world had gone crazy."
Prince Andrew looked Anna Pavlovna straight in the face with a sarcastic smile.
"'Dieu me la donne, gare a qui la touche!'* They say he was very fine when he said that," he remarked, repeating the words in Italian: "'Dio mi l'ha dato. Guai a chi la tocchi!'"
*God has given it to me, let him who touches it beware!
"I hope this will prove the last drop that will make the glass run over," Anna Pavlovna continued. "The sovereigns will not be able to endure this man who is a menace to everything."
"The sovereigns? I do not speak of Russia," said the vicomte, polite but hopeless: "The sovereigns, madame... What have they done for Louis XVII, for the Queen, or for Madame Elizabeth? Nothing!" and he became more animated. "And believe me, they are reaping the reward of their betrayal of the Bourbon cause. The sovereigns! Why, they are sending ambassadors to compliment the usurper."
And sighing disdainfully, he again changed his position.
Prince Hippolyte, who had been gazing at the vicomte for some time through his lorgnette, suddenly turned completely round toward the little princess, and having asked for a needle began tracing the Conde coat of arms on the table. He explained this to her with as much gravity as if she had asked him to do it.
"Baton de gueules, engrele de gueules d' azur- maison Conde," said he.
The princess listened, smiling.
"If Buonaparte remains on the throne of France a year longer," the vicomte continued, with the air of a man who, in a matter with which he is better acquainted than anyone else, does not listen to others but follows the current of his own thoughts, "things will have gone too far. By intrigues, violence, exile, and executions, French society- I mean good French society- will have been forever destroyed, and then..."
He shrugged his shoulders and spread out his hands. Pierre wished to make a remark, for the conversation interested him, but Anna Pavlovna, who had him under observation, interrupted:
"The Emperor Alexander," said she, with the melancholy which always accompanied any reference of hers to the Imperial family, "has declared that he will leave it to the French people themselves to choose their own form of government; and I believe that once free from the usurper, the whole nation will certainly throw itself into the arms of its rightful king," she concluded, trying to be amiable to the royalist emigrant.
"That is doubtful," said Prince Andrew. "Monsieur le Vicomte quite rightly supposes that matters have already gone too far. I think it will be difficult to return to the old regime."
"From what I have heard," said Pierre, blushing and breaking into the conversation, "almost all the aristocracy has already gone over to Bonaparte's side."
"It is the Buonapartists who say that," replied the vicomte without looking at Pierre. "At the present time it is difficult to know the real state of French public opinion.
"Bonaparte has said so," remarked Prince Andrew with a sarcastic smile.
It was evident that he did not like the vicomte and was aiming his remarks at him, though without looking at him.
"'I showed them the path to glory, but they did not follow it,'" Prince Andrew continued after a short silence, again quoting Napoleon's words. "'I opened my antechambers and they crowded in.' I do not know how far he was justified in saying so."
"Not in the least," replied the vicomte. "After the murder of the duc even the most partial ceased to regard him as a hero. If to some people," he went on, turning to Anna Pavlovna, "he ever was a hero, after the murder of the duc there was one martyr more in heaven and one hero less on earth."
Before Anna Pavlovna and the others had time to smile their appreciation of the vicomte's epigram, Pierre again broke into the conversation, and though Anna Pavlovna felt sure he would say something inappropriate, she was unable to stop him.
"The execution of the Duc d'Enghien," declared Monsieur Pierre, "was a political necessity, and it seems to me that Napoleon showed greatness of soul by not fearing to take on himself the whole responsibility of that deed."
"Dieu! Mon Dieu!" muttered Anna Pavlovna in a terrified whisper.
"What, Monsieur Pierre... Do you consider that assassination shows greatness of soul?" said the little princess, smiling and drawing her work nearer to her.
"Oh! Oh!" exclaimed several voices.
"Capital!" said Prince Hippolyte in English, and began slapping his knee with the palm of his hand.
The vicomte merely shrugged his shoulders. Pierre looked solemnly at his audience over his spectacles and continued.
"I say so," he continued desperately, "because the Bourbons fled from the Revolution leaving the people to anarchy, and Napoleon alone understood the Revolution and quelled it, and so for the general good, he could not stop short for the sake of one man's life."
"Won't you come over to the other table?" suggested Anna Pavlovna.
But Pierre continued his speech without heeding her.
"No," cried he, becoming more and more eager, "Napoleon is great because he rose superior to the Revolution, suppressed its abuses, preserved all that was good in it- equality of citizenship and freedom of speech and of the press- and only for that reason did he obtain power."
"Yes, if having obtained power, without availing himself of it to commit murder he had restored it to the rightful king, I should have called him a great man," remarked the vicomte.
"He could not do that. The people only gave him power that he might rid them of the Bourbons and because they saw that he was a great man. The Revolution was a grand thing!" continued Monsieur Pierre, betraying by this desperate and provocative proposition his extreme youth and his wish to express all that was in his mind.
"What? Revolution and regicide a grand thing?... Well, after that... But won't you come to this other table?" repeated Anna Pavlovna.
"Rousseau's Contrat social," said the vicomte with a tolerant smile.
"I am not speaking of regicide, I am speaking about ideas."
"Yes: ideas of robbery, murder, and regicide," again interjected an ironical voice.
"Those were extremes, no doubt, but they are not what is most important. What is important are the rights of man, emancipation from prejudices, and equality of citizenship, and all these ideas Napoleon has retained in full force."
"Liberty and equality," said the vicomte contemptuously, as if at last deciding seriously to prove to this youth how foolish his words were, "high-sounding words which have long been discredited. Who does not love liberty and equality? Even our Saviour preached liberty and equality. Have people since the Revolution become happier? On the contrary. We wanted liberty, but Buonaparte has destroyed it."
Prince Andrew kept looking with an amused smile from Pierre to the vicomte and from the vicomte to their hostess. In the first moment of Pierre's outburst Anna Pavlovna, despite her social experience, was horror-struck. But when she saw that Pierre's sacrilegious words had not exasperated the vicomte, and had convinced herself that it was impossible to stop him, she rallied her forces and joined the vicomte in a vigorous attack on the orator.
"But, my dear Monsieur Pierre," said she, "how do you explain the fact of a great man executing a duc- or even an ordinary man who- is innocent and untried?"
"I should like," said the vicomte, "to ask how monsieur explains the 18th Brumaire; was not that an imposture? It was a swindle, and not at all like the conduct of a great man!"
"And the prisoners he killed in Africa? That was horrible!" said the little princess, shrugging her shoulders.
"He's a low fellow, say what you will," remarked Prince Hippolyte.
Pierre, not knowing whom to answer, looked at them all and smiled. His smile was unlike the half-smile of other people. When he smiled, his grave, even rather gloomy, look was instantaneously replaced by another- a childlike, kindly, even rather silly look, which seemed to ask forgiveness.
The vicomte who was meeting him for the first time saw clearly that this young Jacobin was not so terrible as his words suggested. All were silent.
"How do you expect him to answer you all at once?" said Prince Andrew. "Besides, in the actions of a statesman one has to distinguish between his acts as a private person, as a general, and as an emperor. So it seems to me."
"Yes, yes, of course!" Pierre chimed in, pleased at the arrival of this reinforcement.
"One must admit," continued Prince Andrew, "that Napoleon as a man was great on the bridge of Arcola, and in the hospital at Jaffa where he gave his hand to the plague-stricken; but... but there are other acts which it is difficult to justify."
Prince Andrew, who had evidently wished to tone down the awkwardness of Pierre's remarks, rose and made a sign to his wife that it was time to go.
Suddenly Prince Hippolyte started up making signs to everyone to attend, and asking them all to be seated began:
"I was told a charming Moscow story today and must treat you to it. Excuse me, Vicomte- I must tell it in Russian or the point will be lost...." And Prince Hippolyte began to tell his story in such Russian as a Frenchman would speak after spending about a year in Russia. Everyone waited, so emphatically and eagerly did he demand their attention to his story.
"There is in Moscow a lady, une dame, and she is very stingy. She must have two footmen behind her carriage, and very big ones. That was her taste. And she had a lady's maid, also big. She said..."
Here Prince Hippolyte paused, evidently collecting his ideas with difficulty.
"She said... Oh yes! She said, 'Girl,' to the maid, 'put on a livery, get up behind the carriage, and come with me while I make some calls.'"
Here Prince Hippolyte spluttered and burst out laughing long before his audience, which produced an effect unfavorable to the narrator. Several persons, among them the elderly lady and Anna Pavlovna, did however smile.
"She went. Suddenly there was a great wind. The girl lost her hat and her long hair came down...." Here he could contain himself no longer and went on, between gasps of laughter: "And the whole world knew...."
And so the anecdote ended. Though it was unintelligible why he had told it, or why it had to be told in Russian, still Anna Pavlovna and the others appreciated Prince Hippolyte's social tact in so agreeably ending Pierre's unpleasant and unamiable outburst. After the anecdote the conversation broke up into insignificant small talk about the last and next balls, about theatricals, and who would meet whom, and when and where.
Having thanked Anna Pavlovna for her charming soiree, the guests began to take their leave.
Pierre was ungainly. Stout, about the average height, broad, with huge red hands; he did not know, as the saying is, to enter a drawing room and still less how to leave one; that is, how to say something particularly agreeable before going away. Besides this he was absent-minded. When he rose to go, he took up instead of his own, the general's three-cornered hat, and held it, pulling at the plume, till the general asked him to restore it. All his absent-mindedness and inability to enter a room and converse in it was, however, redeemed by his kindly, simple, and modest expression. Anna Pavlovna turned toward him and, with a Christian mildness that expressed forgiveness of his indiscretion, nodded and said: "I hope to see you again, but I also hope you will change your opinions, my dear Monsieur Pierre."
When she said this, he did not reply and only bowed, but again everybody saw his smile, which said nothing, unless perhaps, "Opinions are opinions, but you see what a capital, good-natured fellow I am." And everyone, including Anna Pavlovna, felt this.
Prince Andrew had gone out into the hall, and, turning his shoulders to the footman who was helping him on with his cloak, listened indifferently to his wife's chatter with Prince Hippolyte who had also come into the hall. Prince Hippolyte stood close to the pretty, pregnant princess, and stared fixedly at her through his eyeglass.
"Go in, Annette, or you will catch cold," said the little princess, taking leave of Anna Pavlovna. "It is settled," she added in a low voice.
Anna Pavlovna had already managed to speak to Lise about the match she contemplated between Anatole and the little princess' sister-in-law.
"I rely on you, my dear," said Anna Pavlovna, also in a low tone. "Write to her and let me know how her father looks at the matter. Au revoir!"- and she left the hall.
Prince Hippolyte approached the little princess and, bending his face close to her, began to whisper something.
Two footmen, the princess' and his own, stood holding a shawl and a cloak, waiting for the conversation to finish. They listened to the French sentences which to them were meaningless, with an air of understanding but not wishing to appear to do so. The princess as usual spoke smilingly and listened with a laugh.
"I am very glad I did not go to the ambassador's," said Prince Hippolyte "-so dull-. It has been a delightful evening, has it not? Delightful!"
"They say the ball will be very good," replied the princess, drawing up her downy little lip. "All the pretty women in society will be there."
"Not all, for you will not be there; not all," said Prince Hippolyte smiling joyfully; and snatching the shawl from the footman, whom he even pushed aside, he began wrapping it round the princess. Either from awkwardness or intentionally (no one could have said which) after the shawl had been adjusted he kept his arm around her for a long time, as though embracing her.
Still smiling, she gracefully moved away, turning and glancing at her husband. Prince Andrew's eyes were closed, so weary and sleepy did he seem.
"Are you ready?" he asked his wife, looking past her.
Prince Hippolyte hurriedly put on his cloak, which in the latest fashion reached to his very heels, and, stumbling in it, ran out into the porch following the princess, whom a footman was helping into the carriage.
"Princesse, au revoir," cried he, stumbling with his tongue as well as with his feet.
The princess, picking up her dress, was taking her seat in the dark carriage, her husband was adjusting his saber; Prince Hippolyte, under pretense of helping, was in everyone's way.
"Allow me, sir," said Prince Andrew in Russian in a cold, disagreeable tone to Prince Hippolyte who was blocking his path.
"I am expecting you, Pierre," said the same voice, but gently and affectionately.
The postilion started, the carriage wheels rattled. Prince Hippolyte laughed spasmodically as he stood in the porch waiting for the vicomte whom he had promised to take home.
"Well, mon cher," said the vicomte, having seated himself beside Hippolyte in the carriage, "your little princess is very nice, very nice indeed, quite French," and he kissed the tips of his fingers. Hippolyte burst out laughing.
"Do you know, you are a terrible chap for all your innocent airs," continued the vicomte. "I pity the poor husband, that little officer who gives himself the airs of a monarch."
Hippolyte spluttered again, and amid his laughter said, "And you were saying that the Russian ladies are not equal to the French? One has to know how to deal with them."
Pierre reaching the house first went into Prince Andrew's study like one quite at home, and from habit immediately lay down on the sofa, took from the shelf the first book that came to his hand (it was Caesar's Commentaries), and resting on his elbow, began reading it in the middle.
"What have you done to Mlle Scherer? She will be quite ill now," said Prince Andrew, as he entered the study, rubbing his small white hands.
Pierre turned his whole body, making the sofa creak. He lifted his eager face to Prince Andrew, smiled, and waved his hand.
"That abbe is very interesting but he does not see the thing in the right light.... In my opinion perpetual peace is possible but- I do not know how to express it... not by a balance of political power...."
It was evident that Prince Andrew was not interested in such abstract conversation.
"One can't everywhere say all one thinks, mon cher. Well, have you at last decided on anything? Are you going to be a guardsman or a diplomatist?" asked Prince Andrew after a momentary silence.
Pierre sat up on the sofa, with his legs tucked under him.
"Really, I don't yet know. I don't like either the one or the other."
"But you must decide on something! Your father expects it."
Pierre at the age of ten had been sent abroad with an abbe as tutor, and had remained away till he was twenty. When he returned to Moscow his father dismissed the abbe and said to the young man, "Now go to Petersburg, look round, and choose your profession. I will agree to anything. Here is a letter to Prince Vasili, and here is money. Write to me all about it, and I will help you in everything." Pierre had already been choosing a career for three months, and had not decided on anything. It was about this choice that Prince Andrew was speaking. Pierre rubbed his forehead.
"But he must be a Freemason," said he, referring to the abbe whom he had met that evening.
"That is all nonsense." Prince Andrew again interrupted him, "let us talk business. Have you been to the Horse Guards?"
"No, I have not; but this is what I have been thinking and wanted to tell you. There is a war now against Napoleon. If it were a war for freedom I could understand it and should be the first to enter the army; but to help England and Austria against the greatest man in the world is not right."
Prince Andrew only shrugged his shoulders at Pierre's childish words. He put on the air of one who finds it impossible to reply to such nonsense, but it would in fact have been difficult to give any other answer than the one Prince Andrew gave to this naive question.
"If no one fought except on his own conviction, there would be no wars," he said.
"And that would be splendid," said Pierre.
Prince Andrew smiled ironically.
"Very likely it would be splendid, but it will never come about..."
"Well, why are you going to the war?" asked Pierre.
"What for? I don't know. I must. Besides that I am going..." He paused. "I am going because the life I am leading here does not suit me!"
McCain's lobbyist problems continue - will Phil Gramm now resign too? Besides lobbying for UBS - one of the worst hit banks in the subprime crisis, based in Europe - McCain national campaign co-chair, economic adviser and possible choice for Treasury Secretary, Phil Gramm played a critical role in setting up countless problems that the US is facing today. It was his signature legislation that cast aside Depression era laws and regulations, creating the Wild West gambler environment that has forced a bailout of the industry and thrown the entire US economy (and soon world) into a tailspin. Haven't we seen enough of this? The GOP experiment has shown everyone how serious the consequences can be. Of course, if anyone read a bit of history they would have known we've been here before. They also would remember McCain's role in the last banking failures we experienced back in the 1980s when he was part of the Keating Five scandal.
Phil Gramm also needs to explain why his client, UBS is telling employees to avoid travel to the US. Shouldn't we expect more from a possible Treasury Secretary? Has the bar really been lowered this far?
John, make sure to thank your economic advisor for the housing crisis.
Here we go again: Susan Sarandon says she may leave the U.S. if McCain wins.
Yeah, she can move in with Babs Streisand, Alec Baldwin or any one of all those other nitwits who moved out the country when Bush won (just like they promised).
Here we go again: Susan Sarandon says she may leave the U.S. if McCain wins.
Yeah, she can move in Babs Streisand, Alec Baldwin and all those other nitwits who moved out the country when Bush won.
Oh, wait, that's right: none of them did.
sometimes I really wish all these people who say 'if the republicans win again I'm outta here!' would put their money where their mouths are. it's not like many of us want them here anyway. if anything, getting some of these characters out of here would be one more reason to vote for a republican.
Please. If Susan Sarandon left, who will fill the gaping need Americans have for a formerly hot Sextagenarian with huge, sagging, boobs and a prominent waddle?
Ah, so you just don't care that the guy who's advising McCain on economic matters helped cause the current housing crisis.
After Gramm passed a law easing regulation of energy-commodity trading, California experienced a sharp run-up in energy costs. The energy-trading company Enron was blamed and soon collapsed.
The final UBS form listing Gramm’s work as a lobbyist says he was lobbying the Senate in the second half of 2007 regarding the Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act. The bill would have let bankruptcy judges rewrite mortgage terms for Americans facing foreclosure so they could repay their loans and keep their homes.
The banking industry opposed this measure. The bill failed.
And this is the guy McCain is thinking of making his Treasury Secretary.
Here we go again: Susan Sarandon says she may leave the U.S. if McCain wins.
Yeah, she can move in with Babs Streisand, Alec Baldwin or any one of all those other nitwits who moved out the country when Bush won (just like they promised).
Oh, wait, that's right: none of them did.
notice that all three of them are washed up, they prolly like whomod blame the decline of their careers on Bush, instead of the fact that they are talentless hacks....
Please. If Susan Sarandon left, who will fill the gaping need Americans have for a formerly hot Sextagenarian with huge, sagging, boobs and a prominent waddle?
Ah, so you just don't care that the guy who's advising McCain on economic matters helped cause the current housing crisis.
After Gramm passed a law easing regulation of energy-commodity trading, California experienced a sharp run-up in energy costs. The energy-trading company Enron was blamed and soon collapsed.
The final UBS form listing Gramm’s work as a lobbyist says he was lobbying the Senate in the second half of 2007 regarding the Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act. The bill would have let bankruptcy judges rewrite mortgage terms for Americans facing foreclosure so they could repay their loans and keep their homes.
The banking industry opposed this measure. The bill failed.
And this is the guy McCain is thinking of making his Treasury Secretary.
Gotcha.
If I were you, I'd try to ignore this as well.
Conversely, Phil Gramm was the co-creator of the Gramm-Rudman bill during the Reagan years, the first serious attempt to balance the budget.
The Democrat congress undermined that attempt to balance the budget by inflaming senior citizens with fears that their social security benefits would be slashed. And being the largest and most vocal group of voters, Grammm-Rudman was quickly set aside.
Regarding the kind of ties to lobbyists you partisanly cite, you conveniently fail to mention that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and many others are equally culpable in similar associates, subordinates and direct connection to scandals, if not far worse Democrat scandals.
So you're an evasive lying cocksucker, just like always.
For those not familiar with the former Senator turned wealthy lobbyist and McCain for President co-chair, this is a must read article.
Phil Gramm has played an important role in a number of failed initiatives including the S&L failure, the energy deregulation fallout and Enron, and more recently the subprime mortgage meltdown. Remember, this is the guy who is shaping McCain economic policy. He's a highly paid lobbyist for one of the worst hit banks in the subprime crisis and yet he is still a co-chair of the McCain campaign.
Keep in mind that Phil Gramm and McCain are still unable to admit these policies were failures. Gramm says he "didn't intend this." Not the most comforting response from the architect. This is the same bullheadedness that we've experienced from Bush, who still can't admit any failures. More of the same is not what we need. Read through both links and get to know the man rumored to be McCain's choice as Treasury Secretary.
McCain has his facts wrong about Iraq (again). We're talking very basic facts. McCain said in Wisconsin that the surge is over, all the troops are home. ("I can look you in the eye and tell you... We have drawn down to pre-surge levels.") In fact, 2/3 of the surge troops are still in Iraq (we added 30,000 troops and have removed 10,000, leaving 20,000 still in Iraq). According to Ben Smith at Politico.com, the McCain's campaign response to the criticism of McCain's mistake is to not only invoke "verb tense," but to charge that we're "nitpicking." Wow. 20,000 troops are "nit-picking.
He's lost his mind. McCain's now trying to claim that he didn't tell voters yesterday that we have drawn down to pre-surge troop levels in Iraq. He's now trying to claim that he said we're DRAWING down, i.e., still in the process, not there yet. But of course, that's not what he said. It's on film. Everyone has seen it. ThinkProgress walks you through it again. It's just downright bizarre that McCain keeps denying that he said what he said. We have video. Bush and Cheney and company tried this for years, and got away with it. They constantly lied about the facts and figured no one would be the wiser. But people finally wisened up. And they don't accept blatant lies any longer. We have not gotten down to pre-surge troops levels - we're not even close. And now McCain is arguing "verb tenses" as an excuse - my, Grandpa, what Clintonian teeth you have. Whether McCain is lying or simply doesn't understand the facts in Iraq, for him to now deny that he said what he said, well, when we have the video, it's just kind of creepy and sad.
I sure hope McCain doesn't blow a gasket over this, otherwise he might try to choke another 90 year old man. Here is what Obama just said about McCain's latest weird statements about Iraq:
Quote:
He's been proposing a joint trip to Iraq that's nothing more than a political stunt. He's even been using it to raise a few dollars for his campaign. But it seems like Senator McCain's a lot more interested in my travel plans than the facts, because yesterday – in his continued effort to put the best light on a failed policy – he stood up in Wisconsin and said, "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels" in Iraq.
"That's not true, and anyone running for Commander-in-Chief should know better. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own view, but not your own facts. We've got around 150,000 troops in Iraq – 20,000 more than we had before the surge. We have plans to get down to around 140,000 later this summer – that's still more troops than we had in Iraq before the surge. And today, Senator McCain refused to correct his mistake. Just like George Bush, when he was presented with the truth, he just dug in and refused to admit his mistake. His campaign said it amounts to "nitpicking."
"Well I don't think tens of thousands of American troops amounts to nitpicking. Tell that to the young men and women who are serving bravely and brilliantly under our flag. Tell that to the families who have seen their loved ones fight tour after tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
"It's time for a debate that's based on the truth, and I can't think of anything more important than how many Americans are in harm's way. It's time for a debate that's based on how we're going to end this war – not a debate that's based on raising a few dollars for John McCain's campaign.
Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man love User Ultimate Final Justice 10000+ posts 05/31/08 10:36 AM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: McCain in 08?
McCain has his facts wrong about Iraq (again). We're talking very basic facts. McCain said in Wisconsin that the surge is over, all the troops are home. ("I can look you in the eye and tell you... We have drawn down to pre-surge levels.") In fact, 2/3 of the surge troops are still in Iraq (we added 30,000 troops and have removed 10,000, leaving 20,000 still in Iraq). According to Ben Smith at Politico.com, the McCain's campaign response to the criticism of McCain's mistake is to not only invoke "verb tense," but to charge that we're "nitpicking." Wow. 20,000 troops are "nit-picking.
He's lost his mind. McCain's now trying to claim that he didn't tell voters yesterday that we have drawn down to pre-surge troop levels in Iraq. He's now trying to claim that he said we're DRAWING down, i.e., still in the process, not there yet. But of course, that's not what he said. It's on film. Everyone has seen it. ThinkProgress walks you through it again. It's just downright bizarre that McCain keeps denying that he said what he said. We have video. Bush and Cheney and company tried this for years, and got away with it. They constantly lied about the facts and figured no one would be the wiser. But people finally wisened up. And they don't accept blatant lies any longer. We have not gotten down to pre-surge troops levels - we're not even close. And now McCain is arguing "verb tenses" as an excuse - my, Grandpa, what Clintonian teeth you have. Whether McCain is lying or simply doesn't understand the facts in Iraq, for him to now deny that he said what he said, well, when we have the video, it's just kind of creepy and sad.
I sure hope McCain doesn't blow a gasket over this, otherwise he might try to choke another 90 year old man. Here is what Obama just said about McCain's latest weird statements about Iraq:
Quote:
He's been proposing a joint trip to Iraq that's nothing more than a political stunt. He's even been using it to raise a few dollars for his campaign. But it seems like Senator McCain's a lot more interested in my travel plans than the facts, because yesterday – in his continued effort to put the best light on a failed policy – he stood up in Wisconsin and said, "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels" in Iraq.
"That's not true, and anyone running for Commander-in-Chief should know better. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own view, but not your own facts. We've got around 150,000 troops in Iraq – 20,000 more than we had before the surge. We have plans to get down to around 140,000 later this summer – that's still more troops than we had in Iraq before the surge. And today, Senator McCain refused to correct his mistake. Just like George Bush, when he was presented with the truth, he just dug in and refused to admit his mistake. His campaign said it amounts to "nitpicking."
"Well I don't think tens of thousands of American troops amounts to nitpicking. Tell that to the young men and women who are serving bravely and brilliantly under our flag. Tell that to the families who have seen their loved ones fight tour after tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
"It's time for a debate that's based on the truth, and I can't think of anything more important than how many Americans are in harm's way. It's time for a debate that's based on how we're going to end this war – not a debate that's based on raising a few dollars for John McCain's campaign.
Well, Wonder Boy, even your hero Pat Buchanan said on TV the other day that all of McCain's almost weekly Iraq gaffes suggest not so much ignorance of foreign policy as they suggest his mental state on account of his advanced age.
This was no liberal Democrat. This was Pat Buchanan saying this. HE found it disturbing
Unlike you, Whomod, Pat Buchanan has unleashed strong criticism of all 3 candidates (and I've posted Buchanan's columns critical of McCain, Hillary and Obama).
So don't try to tell me what I clearly already know and have posted.
I have reservations about McCain. And unlike yourself, I seriously consider what the other party has to offer, despite being a self-identified Republican.
The bottom line is, while McCain is not my Republican of choice on many issues, he's still a more sane choice than what Obama has to offer, on fulfilling our commitment in Iraq, on reducing our deficit, on not raising taxes.
Conversely, you --in lying partisan fashion-- list McCain's gaffs, but constantly gloss over Obama's verbal gaffs, and Obama's larger lapses of good judgement.
So McCain summarized a few minor details of recent events with less than full accuracy. So what? He's not a news reporter. On Iraq as a whole, McCain is the ONLY candidate who correctly advocated the surge in Iraq, and the ONLY candidate who doesn't advocate immediate withdrawal, and reversing all the gains we've made in the last year.
You'd clearly rather have an ultraliberal who hangs out with anti-American fanatics, black racists, and advocates unilaterally invading Pakistan, in the same breath he criticizes invading Iraq.
Or are we talking about the months where Obama thought it was a good idea Bush invaded Iraq? Since Obama has been on both sides of the issue, you can choose whichever you think more conveniently represents "good judgement". I guess raising taxes and expanding social programs is "good judgement" too.
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
BTW G-Man, since you're obviously going to discount this. Are you saying that Phil Gramm as well as many Republicans didn't oppose legislation, including the 1996 omnibus terror bill.
Are you saying now that Phil Gramm, then the chairman of the Banking Committee, didn't gut the portions of Clinton's bill prohibiting American companies from dealing with banks that supported Al queda, calling the legislation "totalitarian.
Which is why I still marvel at the talking point that Clinton did NOTHING about Al queda and that only Bush and the Republicans ever focused on Al queda and tried to do anything about them.
Phil Gramm's presence on this campaign may finally put this lie to a close.
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The "quote" you gave us is an anonymous blogger posting at Newsweek, not an actual Newsweek article.
You want corroboration? You know I enjoy it, G-Man....
U.S. investigators believe some of these clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to illegally hide as much as $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge $300 million or more in U.S. taxes, according to a government official connected with the investigation....
Using offshore accounts is not illegal for U.S. taxpayers, but hiding income in so-called "undeclared" accounts is. At issue is whether the UBS clients disclosed securities and assets held offshore to the IRS, as required by law. Switzerland does not consider tax evasion a crime, and using undeclared accounts is perfectly legal there.
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive at UBS and the former head of its private bank,as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment-banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in soured investments, many of them linked to risky U.S. subprime mortgages.....
The U.S. was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens earlier this year. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates--and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush Administration took office.....
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government tried to declare war on tax havens and dirty money. After the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks blamed on bin Laden's network--the Clinton Administration began drafting legislation designed to "strategically change the environment that allowed the money of criminals and terrorists to flow freely," says William Wechsler, a special adviser to Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. And the Administration began sounding out the banking industry......
Just days prior to Summers' announcement that he was cracking down on the OECD's tax havens, Dennis Nixon, chairman of the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo, gave $20,000 to the Republican National Committee. Already a Bush Pioneer, who had raised at least $100,000 for the primaries, Nixon gave the R.N.C. another $100,000 as the post-election contest for Florida ballots began. Summers' bill passed the House Banking Committee 31 to 1 in July 2000, but it got no further. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refused to let it come up for a vote in his committee.......
It took the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history to turn the Bush Administration around.
That would be the part where Richard Clark says "i told you so"
3)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: September 20, 2001 The New York Times
Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
''I was right then and I am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian''
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million * Passenger Profiling: $10 million * Screener Training: $5.3 million * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
[quote=whomod]"You're either with us or against us"
Quote:
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The "quote" you gave us is an anonymous blogger posting at Newsweek, not an actual Newsweek article.
You want corroboration? You know I enjoy it, G-Man....
U.S. investigators believe some of these clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to illegally hide as much as $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge $300 million or more in U.S. taxes, according to a government official connected with the investigation....
Using offshore accounts is not illegal for U.S. taxpayers, but hiding income in so-called "undeclared" accounts is. At issue is whether the UBS clients disclosed securities and assets held offshore to the IRS, as required by law. Switzerland does not consider tax evasion a crime, and using undeclared accounts is perfectly legal there.
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive at UBS and the former head of its private bank,as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment-banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in soured investments, many of them linked to risky U.S. subprime mortgages.....
The U.S. was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens earlier this year. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates--and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush Administration took office.....
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government tried to declare war on tax havens and dirty money. After the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks blamed on bin Laden's network--the Clinton Administration began drafting legislation designed to "strategically change the environment that allowed the money of criminals and terrorists to flow freely," says William Wechsler, a special adviser to Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. And the Administration began sounding out the banking industry......
Just days prior to Summers' announcement that he was cracking down on the OECD's tax havens, Dennis Nixon, chairman of the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo, gave $20,000 to the Republican National Committee. Already a Bush Pioneer, who had raised at least $100,000 for the primaries, Nixon gave the R.N.C. another $100,000 as the post-election contest for Florida ballots began. Summers' bill passed the House Banking Committee 31 to 1 in July 2000, but it got no further. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refused to let it come up for a vote in his committee.......
It took the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history to turn the Bush Administration around.
That would be the part where Richard Clark says "i told you so"
3)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: September 20, 2001 The New York Times
Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
''I was right then and I am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian''
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million * Passenger Profiling: $10 million * Screener Training: $5.3 million * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.
[quote=whomod]"You're either with us or against us"
Quote:
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The "quote" you gave us is an anonymous blogger posting at Newsweek, not an actual Newsweek article.
You want corroboration? You know I enjoy it, G-Man....
U.S. investigators believe some of these clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to illegally hide as much as $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge $300 million or more in U.S. taxes, according to a government official connected with the investigation....
Using offshore accounts is not illegal for U.S. taxpayers, but hiding income in so-called "undeclared" accounts is. At issue is whether the UBS clients disclosed securities and assets held offshore to the IRS, as required by law. Switzerland does not consider tax evasion a crime, and using undeclared accounts is perfectly legal there.
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive at UBS and the former head of its private bank,as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment-banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in soured investments, many of them linked to risky U.S. subprime mortgages.....
The U.S. was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens earlier this year. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates--and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush Administration took office.....
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government tried to declare war on tax havens and dirty money. After the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks blamed on bin Laden's network--the Clinton Administration began drafting legislation designed to "strategically change the environment that allowed the money of criminals and terrorists to flow freely," says William Wechsler, a special adviser to Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. And the Administration began sounding out the banking industry......
Just days prior to Summers' announcement that he was cracking down on the OECD's tax havens, Dennis Nixon, chairman of the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo, gave $20,000 to the Republican National Committee. Already a Bush Pioneer, who had raised at least $100,000 for the primaries, Nixon gave the R.N.C. another $100,000 as the post-election contest for Florida ballots began. Summers' bill passed the House Banking Committee 31 to 1 in July 2000, but it got no further. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refused to let it come up for a vote in his committee.......
It took the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history to turn the Bush Administration around.
That would be the part where Richard Clark says "i told you so"
3)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: September 20, 2001 The New York Times
Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
''I was right then and I am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian''
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million * Passenger Profiling: $10 million * Screener Training: $5.3 million * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
You ask for concrete evidence while you pull "facts" out of your ass? Maybe if clinton was less worried about chubbies giving him BJ's he would have gone after bin laden when he attacked the U.S.S. cole. Or did you forget about that? Maybe you should add that to your death toll in your signature you fucking retard.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
You ask for concrete evidence while you pull "facts" out of your ass? Maybe if clinton was less worried about chubbies giving him BJ's he would have gone after bin laden when he attacked the U.S.S. cole. Or did you forget about that? Maybe you should add that to your death toll in your signature you fucking retard.
I've already addressed all that time and again, maybe if you'd pay attention and stop listening to the people who most of the country already know as liars, you'd know that as well.
And as you can see from the linked articles if you'd actually stop to read instead of being a smarmy dumbass, you'd see that Clinton was doing plenty to try to thwart terrorism. All to fierce opposition from the Republican Congress who was more interested in the aforementioned blow jobs and land deal investigations.
Plus if you weren't such a dismissive dumbass, you could go to TIME magazine and read "9/11: The Secret History" where it details why exactly Clinton didn't attack after the Cole and why it ultimately was Bush who didn't respond to it.
Since you won't bother, I'll tell you. It was verified that Bin Laden attacked the Cole, in Dec 2000, with only weeks left in Clinton's Presidency. So he deferred it to Bush as to not embroil him in possible war coming into his Presidency without his agreement. And Richard Clark and everyone Clinton assembled to deal with Bin laden were demoted from Cabinet level positions and were derided as being "obsessed with Osama". The real threat you see was from ICBMS and thus the focus needed to be missile defense!
That pretty much gels with everything else I just posted. The Republicans belittled antiterrorism up until 9/11 and ten covered their asses by trying to blame Clinton. And it succeeded with the same dumbasses who thought Sadaam had WMD's and Al Queda ties.
I understand you guys are all right wing and Bush cock suckers, but you're entitled to your own beliefs, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
You ask for concrete evidence while you pull "facts" out of your ass? Maybe if clinton was less worried about chubbies giving him BJ's he would have gone after bin laden when he attacked the U.S.S. cole. Or did you forget about that? Maybe you should add that to your death toll in your signature you fucking retard.
I've already addressed all that time and again, maybe if you'd pay attention and stop listening to the people who most of the country already know as liars, you'd know that as well.
And as you can see from the linked articles if you'd actually stop to read instead of being a smarmy dumbass, you'd see that Clinton was doing plenty to try to thwart terrorism. All to fierce opposition from the Republican Congress who was more interested in the aforementioned blow jobs and land deal investigations.
Plus if you weren't such a dismissive dumbass, you could go to TIME magazine and read "9/11: The Secret History" where it details why exactly Clinton didn't attack after the Cole and why it ultimately was Bush who didn't respond to it.
Since you won't bother, I'll tell you. It was verified that Bin Laden attacked the Cole, in Dec 2000, with only weeks left in Clinton's Presidency. So he deferred it to Bush as to not embroil him in possible war coming into his Presidency without his agreement. And Richard Clark and everyone Clinton assembled to deal with Bin laden were demoted from Cabinet level positions and were derided as being "obsessed with Osama". The real threat you see was from ICBMS and thus the focus needed to be missile defense!
That pretty much gels with everything else I just posted. The Republicans belittled antiterrorism up until 9/11 and ten covered their asses by trying to blame Clinton. And it succeeded with the same dumbasses who thought Sadaam had WMD's and Al Queda ties.
I understand you guys are all right wing and Bush cock suckers, but you're entitled to your own beliefs, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
And you guys are the ones who supposedly care sooooo much about 9/11.
And Rex is the one who cares soooo much about the honor of the troops.
I say
BULLSHIT!!
You're all more concerned with maintaining Bush Administration propaganda than actually seeing that everything I said is well documented and verifiable. And since it is, then it must be ridiculed and dismissed. Those responsible for not doing enough to thwart 9/11 must be protected and their candidates elected, Bin Laden must be allowed to continue live on unimpeded, And the troops must remain in harms way in the wrong theatre of operation.
And you wonder why no one likes Republicans anymore?
Awww How cute. Sammitch is having a tantrum and trying to bury the evidence with greamlins.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
"You're either with us or against us"
Quote:
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The "quote" you gave us is an anonymous blogger posting at Newsweek, not an actual Newsweek article.
You want corroboration? You know I enjoy it, G-Man....
U.S. investigators believe some of these clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to illegally hide as much as $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge $300 million or more in U.S. taxes, according to a government official connected with the investigation....
Using offshore accounts is not illegal for U.S. taxpayers, but hiding income in so-called "undeclared" accounts is. At issue is whether the UBS clients disclosed securities and assets held offshore to the IRS, as required by law. Switzerland does not consider tax evasion a crime, and using undeclared accounts is perfectly legal there.
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive at UBS and the former head of its private bank,as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment-banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in soured investments, many of them linked to risky U.S. subprime mortgages.....
The U.S. was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens earlier this year. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates--and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush Administration took office.....
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government tried to declare war on tax havens and dirty money. After the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks blamed on bin Laden's network--the Clinton Administration began drafting legislation designed to "strategically change the environment that allowed the money of criminals and terrorists to flow freely," says William Wechsler, a special adviser to Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. And the Administration began sounding out the banking industry......
Just days prior to Summers' announcement that he was cracking down on the OECD's tax havens, Dennis Nixon, chairman of the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo, gave $20,000 to the Republican National Committee. Already a Bush Pioneer, who had raised at least $100,000 for the primaries, Nixon gave the R.N.C. another $100,000 as the post-election contest for Florida ballots began. Summers' bill passed the House Banking Committee 31 to 1 in July 2000, but it got no further. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refused to let it come up for a vote in his committee.......
It took the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history to turn the Bush Administration around.
That would be the part where Richard Clark says "i told you so"
3)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: September 20, 2001 The New York Times
Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
''I was right then and I am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian''
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million * Passenger Profiling: $10 million * Screener Training: $5.3 million * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
You ask for concrete evidence while you pull "facts" out of your ass? Maybe if clinton was less worried about chubbies giving him BJ's he would have gone after bin laden when he attacked the U.S.S. cole. Or did you forget about that? Maybe you should add that to your death toll in your signature you fucking retard.
I've already addressed all that time and again, maybe if you'd pay attention and stop listening to the people who most of the country already know as liars, you'd know that as well.
And as you can see from the linked articles if you'd actually stop to read instead of being a smarmy dumbass, you'd see that Clinton was doing plenty to try to thwart terrorism. All to fierce opposition from the Republican Congress who was more interested in the aforementioned blow jobs and land deal investigations.
Plus if you weren't such a dismissive dumbass, you could go to TIME magazine and read "9/11: The Secret History" where it details why exactly Clinton didn't attack after the Cole and why it ultimately was Bush who didn't respond to it.
Since you won't bother, I'll tell you. It was verified that Bin Laden attacked the Cole, in Dec 2000, with only weeks left in Clinton's Presidency. So he deferred it to Bush as to not embroil him in possible war coming into his Presidency without his agreement. And Richard Clark and everyone Clinton assembled to deal with Bin laden were demoted from Cabinet level positions and were derided as being "obsessed with Osama". The real threat you see was from ICBMS and thus the focus needed to be missile defense!
That pretty much gels with everything else I just posted. The Republicans belittled antiterrorism up until 9/11 and ten covered their asses by trying to blame Clinton. And it succeeded with the same dumbasses who thought Sadaam had WMD's and Al Queda ties.
I understand you guys are all right wing and Bush cock suckers, but you're entitled to your own beliefs, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
um... the problem is that you guys did read the propaganda. And even long after it's been exposed as such, you still live in denial.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Awww How cute. Sammitch is having a tantrum and trying to bury the evidence with greamlins.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
"You're either with us or against us"
Quote:
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The "quote" you gave us is an anonymous blogger posting at Newsweek, not an actual Newsweek article.
You want corroboration? You know I enjoy it, G-Man....
U.S. investigators believe some of these clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to illegally hide as much as $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge $300 million or more in U.S. taxes, according to a government official connected with the investigation....
Using offshore accounts is not illegal for U.S. taxpayers, but hiding income in so-called "undeclared" accounts is. At issue is whether the UBS clients disclosed securities and assets held offshore to the IRS, as required by law. Switzerland does not consider tax evasion a crime, and using undeclared accounts is perfectly legal there.
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive at UBS and the former head of its private bank,as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment-banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in soured investments, many of them linked to risky U.S. subprime mortgages.....
The U.S. was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens earlier this year. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates--and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush Administration took office.....
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government tried to declare war on tax havens and dirty money. After the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks blamed on bin Laden's network--the Clinton Administration began drafting legislation designed to "strategically change the environment that allowed the money of criminals and terrorists to flow freely," says William Wechsler, a special adviser to Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. And the Administration began sounding out the banking industry......
Just days prior to Summers' announcement that he was cracking down on the OECD's tax havens, Dennis Nixon, chairman of the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo, gave $20,000 to the Republican National Committee. Already a Bush Pioneer, who had raised at least $100,000 for the primaries, Nixon gave the R.N.C. another $100,000 as the post-election contest for Florida ballots began. Summers' bill passed the House Banking Committee 31 to 1 in July 2000, but it got no further. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refused to let it come up for a vote in his committee.......
It took the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history to turn the Bush Administration around.
That would be the part where Richard Clark says "i told you so"
3)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: September 20, 2001 The New York Times
Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
''I was right then and I am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian''
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million * Passenger Profiling: $10 million * Screener Training: $5.3 million * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
You ask for concrete evidence while you pull "facts" out of your ass? Maybe if clinton was less worried about chubbies giving him BJ's he would have gone after bin laden when he attacked the U.S.S. cole. Or did you forget about that? Maybe you should add that to your death toll in your signature you fucking retard.
I've already addressed all that time and again, maybe if you'd pay attention and stop listening to the people who most of the country already know as liars, you'd know that as well.
And as you can see from the linked articles if you'd actually stop to read instead of being a smarmy dumbass, you'd see that Clinton was doing plenty to try to thwart terrorism. All to fierce opposition from the Republican Congress who was more interested in the aforementioned blow jobs and land deal investigations.
Plus if you weren't such a dismissive dumbass, you could go to TIME magazine and read "9/11: The Secret History" where it details why exactly Clinton didn't attack after the Cole and why it ultimately was Bush who didn't respond to it.
Since you won't bother, I'll tell you. It was verified that Bin Laden attacked the Cole, in Dec 2000, with only weeks left in Clinton's Presidency. So he deferred it to Bush as to not embroil him in possible war coming into his Presidency without his agreement. And Richard Clark and everyone Clinton assembled to deal with Bin laden were demoted from Cabinet level positions and were derided as being "obsessed with Osama". The real threat you see was from ICBMS and thus the focus needed to be missile defense!
That pretty much gels with everything else I just posted. The Republicans belittled antiterrorism up until 9/11 and ten covered their asses by trying to blame Clinton. And it succeeded with the same dumbasses who thought Sadaam had WMD's and Al Queda ties.
I understand you guys are all right wing and Bush cock suckers, but you're entitled to your own beliefs, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
um... the problem is that you guys did read the propaganda. And even long after it's been exposed as such, you still live in denial.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Awww How cute. Sammitch is having a tantrum and trying to bury the evidence with greamlins.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
"You're either with us or against us"
Quote:
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The "quote" you gave us is an anonymous blogger posting at Newsweek, not an actual Newsweek article.
You want corroboration? You know I enjoy it, G-Man....
U.S. investigators believe some of these clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to illegally hide as much as $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge $300 million or more in U.S. taxes, according to a government official connected with the investigation....
Using offshore accounts is not illegal for U.S. taxpayers, but hiding income in so-called "undeclared" accounts is. At issue is whether the UBS clients disclosed securities and assets held offshore to the IRS, as required by law. Switzerland does not consider tax evasion a crime, and using undeclared accounts is perfectly legal there.
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive at UBS and the former head of its private bank,as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment-banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in soured investments, many of them linked to risky U.S. subprime mortgages.....
The U.S. was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens earlier this year. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates--and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush Administration took office.....
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government tried to declare war on tax havens and dirty money. After the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks blamed on bin Laden's network--the Clinton Administration began drafting legislation designed to "strategically change the environment that allowed the money of criminals and terrorists to flow freely," says William Wechsler, a special adviser to Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. And the Administration began sounding out the banking industry......
Just days prior to Summers' announcement that he was cracking down on the OECD's tax havens, Dennis Nixon, chairman of the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo, gave $20,000 to the Republican National Committee. Already a Bush Pioneer, who had raised at least $100,000 for the primaries, Nixon gave the R.N.C. another $100,000 as the post-election contest for Florida ballots began. Summers' bill passed the House Banking Committee 31 to 1 in July 2000, but it got no further. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refused to let it come up for a vote in his committee.......
It took the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history to turn the Bush Administration around.
That would be the part where Richard Clark says "i told you so"
3)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: September 20, 2001 The New York Times
Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
''I was right then and I am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian''
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million * Passenger Profiling: $10 million * Screener Training: $5.3 million * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
You ask for concrete evidence while you pull "facts" out of your ass? Maybe if clinton was less worried about chubbies giving him BJ's he would have gone after bin laden when he attacked the U.S.S. cole. Or did you forget about that? Maybe you should add that to your death toll in your signature you fucking retard.
I've already addressed all that time and again, maybe if you'd pay attention and stop listening to the people who most of the country already know as liars, you'd know that as well.
And as you can see from the linked articles if you'd actually stop to read instead of being a smarmy dumbass, you'd see that Clinton was doing plenty to try to thwart terrorism. All to fierce opposition from the Republican Congress who was more interested in the aforementioned blow jobs and land deal investigations.
Plus if you weren't such a dismissive dumbass, you could go to TIME magazine and read "9/11: The Secret History" where it details why exactly Clinton didn't attack after the Cole and why it ultimately was Bush who didn't respond to it.
Since you won't bother, I'll tell you. It was verified that Bin Laden attacked the Cole, in Dec 2000, with only weeks left in Clinton's Presidency. So he deferred it to Bush as to not embroil him in possible war coming into his Presidency without his agreement. And Richard Clark and everyone Clinton assembled to deal with Bin laden were demoted from Cabinet level positions and were derided as being "obsessed with Osama". The real threat you see was from ICBMS and thus the focus needed to be missile defense!
That pretty much gels with everything else I just posted. The Republicans belittled antiterrorism up until 9/11 and ten covered their asses by trying to blame Clinton. And it succeeded with the same dumbasses who thought Sadaam had WMD's and Al Queda ties.
I understand you guys are all right wing and Bush cock suckers, but you're entitled to your own beliefs, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
You know why you will always be wrong? Because you think everyone here is a full on bush supporter. You're so busy beating off to youtube clips to even read what someone else has said. You get the liberal anti-american talking points and repeat them, even though no ones listens. Just because you bought into the hate doesn't mean everyone else did to. Instead of getting to know someone elses point of view, you're too busy calling the cops because someone made an alt id of someone they never met. If you have something you want to debate, say it. Stop bringing in someone elses argument when you're too weak minded to bring your own.
You know why you will always be wrong? Because you think everyone here is a full on bush supporter. You're so busy beating off to youtube clips to even read what someone else has said. You get the liberal anti-american talking points and repeat them, even though no ones listens. Just because you bought into the hate doesn't mean everyone else did to. Instead of getting to know someone elses point of view, you're too busy calling the cops because someone made an alt id of someone they never met. If you have something you want to debate, say it. Stop bringing in someone elses argument when you're too weak minded to bring your own.
That is my argument dude. I just read a lot so I know where to find my sources to back up my views and frankly the facts. That is why I've always been against this war. I was never against Afghanistan mind you. What happened at Tora Bora though was disgraceful and criminal IMO.
And my "talking points" for the most part were mainstream newspaper articles. I took pains to do that rather than rely solely on left wing sources. So guys like you who throw out those dismissive accusations won't have a leg to stand on.
Plus does it matter if some of you are Republicans, independents, libertarians. The vast majority of you here were FOR this fiasco and remain unapologetic apologists for this fiasco. And for all the bullshit traitor, unAmerican etc. etc. crap, i'll never let you guys forget that 4000 soldiers are dead on account of ENTHUSIASTIC unquestioning support of that. Hows that for disrespecting the troops, Rex?
nd did I give in to the hate? If you call it "hate", pretty much everyone but the hard core Iraq war supporters and Bush loyalists gave into the "hate". and if anyone is hate filled, you think lying our country into a war doesnt deserve scorn? Why the fuck not?
As for calling the cops. if you had a kid, maybe you'd know that it's not the kind of thing to kid about. And as a father, I have every right to go out of my way to protect my family against any possible threats to their safety. You canfuck with me all you want. You don't mess with a baby girl you moron.
um... the problem is that you guys did read the propaganda. And even long after it's been exposed as such, you still live in denial.
Um, whomod? I didn't read the propaganda. And I don't live in denial. I just don't care what you have to say. So why don't you fuck on off back to the Insurgency Forums, where you can feel loved because you're protected by the rules of that board? There you go...
As for calling the cops. if you had a kid, maybe you'd know that it's not the kind of thing to kid about. And as a father, I have every right to go out of my way to protect my family against any possible threats to their safety. You canfuck with me all you want. You don't mess with a baby girl you moron.
What an oversensitive twat! Like Rex is really going to come down to whatever whiny cunt liberal town you live and do anything to you or your family. That costs money - do you REALLY think basement dwelling pays all that well as a career? Maybe his babysitting reaps mad benjamins? Get over yourself, you whiny liberal cunt!
This is the first time I've really read any of your posts and the only thing I get out of them is that you're a douchey liberal bitch who's just the type of "person" who'd run crying to his interweb friends because he got his pwecious feewings hurt. In the words of a great Welshman, "Fuck off cunt!"
nd did I give in to the hate? If you call it "hate", pretty much everyone but the hard core Iraq war supporters and Bush loyalists gave into the "hate". and if anyone is hate filled, you think lying our country into a war doesnt deserve scorn? Why the fuck not?
A war on terror means killing terrorists. That is what we are doing in Iraq. The only thing bush did wrong was to not send enough troops in in the first place. Killing terrorists is always justifiable.
Quote:
As for calling the cops. if you had a kid, maybe you'd know that it's not the kind of thing to kid about. And as a father, I have every right to go out of my way to protect my family against any possible threats to their safety. You canfuck with me all you want. You don't mess with a baby girl you moron.
Whats your real name? Whats your daughters name? How old is she? What is your address? Where does your daughter go to school?
All of those are things I don't know. Other than you living in LA I know nothing about you or your daughter. You are the one living in fear. You are the one scared out of your pants because I made an alt id of someone I will never meet in my life. You know how things go here. If you don't like it, don't post here. You really think the cops are gonna follow up on what you said? Do you really think they care? They have real crimes to take care of. You pissing yourself because I threatened someone that might not even exist is proof that you are a weak sack of shit. Keep believing the lies. Keep living in fear. Keep calling on someone else to take care of your own problems. That is why you will always be a loser.
i've never got a bigger laugh than finding out whomod shit his pants and called the cops on rex.
just goes to show you whomod can cut and paste all he wants but deep down inside he'll always be the little bitch begging the cop not to hit him again....
A war on terror means killing terrorists. That is what we are doing in Iraq. The only thing bush did wrong was to not send enough troops in in the first place. Killing terrorists is always justifiable.
Boiled down to simple nonsense. Look, if you don't pay attention that's your problem. I guarantee that McCain saying that uninformed stupidity would have him laughed out of Washington. Don't confuse ignorance with reality.
Can't say I've ever really respected the tough talk of the morbidly obese.....
Fair enough. I've never respected a wife beater whose view of freedom of speech is hypocritical at best. Though I do enjoy it when that "man" whines that no one listen to him and his self-loathing.
i've never got a bigger laugh than finding out whomod shit his pants and called the cops on rex.
just goes to show you whomod can cut and paste all he wants but deep down inside he'll always be the little bitch begging the cop not to hit him again....
A war on terror means killing terrorists. That is what we are doing in Iraq. The only thing bush did wrong was to not send enough troops in in the first place. Killing terrorists is always justifiable.
Boiled down to simple nonsense. Look, if you don't pay attention that's your problem. I guarantee that McCain saying that uninformed stupidity would have him laughed out of Washington. Don't confuse ignorance with reality.
Just shut the hell up. Now you think terrorists should be allowed to live? Should we all get together and sing campfire songs? Let me guess, you're one of the ones that think obama is muslim and thats why we should all vote for him.
Thanks for completely skipping the second part of my post. I'll take that as you agrees completely with it.
No. threatening my daughter is serious and I don't care who you are or are or are not capable of.
I don't take any chances with my family's safety and I was told that one shouldn't. Better safe than sorry.
If that makes you all feel like big scary men, so be it.
if that helps you cope, the fact is you got out debated and you decided to make that threat as a cop out. that makes you a loser. but you already knew that!
No. threatening my daughter is serious and I don't care who you are or are or are not capable of.
I don't take any chances with my family's safety and I was told that one shouldn't. Better safe than sorry.
If that makes you all feel like big scary men, so be it.
You do realize the cops never called me, don't you? They probably laughed at you and told everyone not to take any calls from your house seriously. Now that is putting your family in real danger.
Funny how not one of you actually responded specifically to the charges against Phil Gramm and the GOP Congress thwarting Clinton's anti-terror bills. g-man had a query and I responded to it.
The usual next step would be to respond to that. not to freak out and try to change the subject with the usual stupidity.
Originally Posted By: whomod
um... the problem is that you guys did read the propaganda. And even long after it's been exposed as such, you still live in denial.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Awww How cute. Sammitch is having a tantrum and trying to bury the evidence with greamlins.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
"You're either with us or against us"
Quote:
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The "quote" you gave us is an anonymous blogger posting at Newsweek, not an actual Newsweek article.
You want corroboration? You know I enjoy it, G-Man....
U.S. investigators believe some of these clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to illegally hide as much as $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge $300 million or more in U.S. taxes, according to a government official connected with the investigation....
Using offshore accounts is not illegal for U.S. taxpayers, but hiding income in so-called "undeclared" accounts is. At issue is whether the UBS clients disclosed securities and assets held offshore to the IRS, as required by law. Switzerland does not consider tax evasion a crime, and using undeclared accounts is perfectly legal there.
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive at UBS and the former head of its private bank,as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment-banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in soured investments, many of them linked to risky U.S. subprime mortgages.....
The U.S. was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens earlier this year. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates--and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush Administration took office.....
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government tried to declare war on tax havens and dirty money. After the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks blamed on bin Laden's network--the Clinton Administration began drafting legislation designed to "strategically change the environment that allowed the money of criminals and terrorists to flow freely," says William Wechsler, a special adviser to Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. And the Administration began sounding out the banking industry......
Just days prior to Summers' announcement that he was cracking down on the OECD's tax havens, Dennis Nixon, chairman of the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo, gave $20,000 to the Republican National Committee. Already a Bush Pioneer, who had raised at least $100,000 for the primaries, Nixon gave the R.N.C. another $100,000 as the post-election contest for Florida ballots began. Summers' bill passed the House Banking Committee 31 to 1 in July 2000, but it got no further. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refused to let it come up for a vote in his committee.......
It took the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history to turn the Bush Administration around.
That would be the part where Richard Clark says "i told you so"
3)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: September 20, 2001 The New York Times
Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
''I was right then and I am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian''
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million * Passenger Profiling: $10 million * Screener Training: $5.3 million * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
You ask for concrete evidence while you pull "facts" out of your ass? Maybe if clinton was less worried about chubbies giving him BJ's he would have gone after bin laden when he attacked the U.S.S. cole. Or did you forget about that? Maybe you should add that to your death toll in your signature you fucking retard.
I've already addressed all that time and again, maybe if you'd pay attention and stop listening to the people who most of the country already know as liars, you'd know that as well.
And as you can see from the linked articles if you'd actually stop to read instead of being a smarmy dumbass, you'd see that Clinton was doing plenty to try to thwart terrorism. All to fierce opposition from the Republican Congress who was more interested in the aforementioned blow jobs and land deal investigations.
Plus if you weren't such a dismissive dumbass, you could go to TIME magazine and read "9/11: The Secret History" where it details why exactly Clinton didn't attack after the Cole and why it ultimately was Bush who didn't respond to it.
Since you won't bother, I'll tell you. It was verified that Bin Laden attacked the Cole, in Dec 2000, with only weeks left in Clinton's Presidency. So he deferred it to Bush as to not embroil him in possible war coming into his Presidency without his agreement. And Richard Clark and everyone Clinton assembled to deal with Bin laden were demoted from Cabinet level positions and were derided as being "obsessed with Osama". The real threat you see was from ICBMS and thus the focus needed to be missile defense!
That pretty much gels with everything else I just posted. The Republicans belittled antiterrorism up until 9/11 and ten covered their asses by trying to blame Clinton. And it succeeded with the same dumbasses who thought Sadaam had WMD's and Al Queda ties.
I understand you guys are all right wing and Bush cock suckers, but you're entitled to your own beliefs, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
No. threatening my daughter is serious and I don't care who you are or are or are not capable of.
I don't take any chances with my family's safety and I was told that one shouldn't. Better safe than sorry.
If that makes you all feel like big scary men, so be it.
if that helps you cope, the fact is you got out debated and you decided to make that threat as a cop out. that makes you a loser. but you already knew that!
One more try. All my original points are still there. Whenever you're ready to debate something....
Originally Posted By: whomod
Funny how not one of you actually responded specifically to the charges against Phil Gramm and the GOP Congress thwarting Clinton's anti-terror bills. g-man had a query and I responded to it.
The usual next step would be to respond to that. not to freak out and try to change the subject with the usual stupidity.
Originally Posted By: whomod
um... the problem is that you guys did read the propaganda. And even long after it's been exposed as such, you still live in denial.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Awww How cute. Sammitch is having a tantrum and trying to bury the evidence with greamlins.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
"You're either with us or against us"
Quote:
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The "quote" you gave us is an anonymous blogger posting at Newsweek, not an actual Newsweek article.
You want corroboration? You know I enjoy it, G-Man....
U.S. investigators believe some of these clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to illegally hide as much as $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge $300 million or more in U.S. taxes, according to a government official connected with the investigation....
Using offshore accounts is not illegal for U.S. taxpayers, but hiding income in so-called "undeclared" accounts is. At issue is whether the UBS clients disclosed securities and assets held offshore to the IRS, as required by law. Switzerland does not consider tax evasion a crime, and using undeclared accounts is perfectly legal there.
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive at UBS and the former head of its private bank,as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment-banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in soured investments, many of them linked to risky U.S. subprime mortgages.....
The U.S. was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens earlier this year. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates--and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush Administration took office.....
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government tried to declare war on tax havens and dirty money. After the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks blamed on bin Laden's network--the Clinton Administration began drafting legislation designed to "strategically change the environment that allowed the money of criminals and terrorists to flow freely," says William Wechsler, a special adviser to Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. And the Administration began sounding out the banking industry......
Just days prior to Summers' announcement that he was cracking down on the OECD's tax havens, Dennis Nixon, chairman of the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo, gave $20,000 to the Republican National Committee. Already a Bush Pioneer, who had raised at least $100,000 for the primaries, Nixon gave the R.N.C. another $100,000 as the post-election contest for Florida ballots began. Summers' bill passed the House Banking Committee 31 to 1 in July 2000, but it got no further. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refused to let it come up for a vote in his committee.......
It took the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history to turn the Bush Administration around.
That would be the part where Richard Clark says "i told you so"
3)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: September 20, 2001 The New York Times
Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
''I was right then and I am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian''
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million * Passenger Profiling: $10 million * Screener Training: $5.3 million * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
You ask for concrete evidence while you pull "facts" out of your ass? Maybe if clinton was less worried about chubbies giving him BJ's he would have gone after bin laden when he attacked the U.S.S. cole. Or did you forget about that? Maybe you should add that to your death toll in your signature you fucking retard.
I've already addressed all that time and again, maybe if you'd pay attention and stop listening to the people who most of the country already know as liars, you'd know that as well.
And as you can see from the linked articles if you'd actually stop to read instead of being a smarmy dumbass, you'd see that Clinton was doing plenty to try to thwart terrorism. All to fierce opposition from the Republican Congress who was more interested in the aforementioned blow jobs and land deal investigations.
Plus if you weren't such a dismissive dumbass, you could go to TIME magazine and read "9/11: The Secret History" where it details why exactly Clinton didn't attack after the Cole and why it ultimately was Bush who didn't respond to it.
Since you won't bother, I'll tell you. It was verified that Bin Laden attacked the Cole, in Dec 2000, with only weeks left in Clinton's Presidency. So he deferred it to Bush as to not embroil him in possible war coming into his Presidency without his agreement. And Richard Clark and everyone Clinton assembled to deal with Bin laden were demoted from Cabinet level positions and were derided as being "obsessed with Osama". The real threat you see was from ICBMS and thus the focus needed to be missile defense!
That pretty much gels with everything else I just posted. The Republicans belittled antiterrorism up until 9/11 and ten covered their asses by trying to blame Clinton. And it succeeded with the same dumbasses who thought Sadaam had WMD's and Al Queda ties.
I understand you guys are all right wing and Bush cock suckers, but you're entitled to your own beliefs, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
Oh my fucking god. Whomod called the police without even knowing my real name.
This is me completely owning his ass. This is my fucking winning it all. This is whomod being a total and complete joke. Goodbye whomod, don't even bother showing your face around here anymore. Not even a self hater like you will be able to show your face around here. Farewell fucker.
You know why you will always be wrong? Because you think everyone here is a full on bush supporter. You're so busy beating off to youtube clips to even read what someone else has said. You get the liberal anti-american talking points and repeat them, even though no ones listens. Just because you bought into the hate doesn't mean everyone else did to. Instead of getting to know someone elses point of view, you're too busy calling the cops because someone made an alt id of someone they never met. If you have something you want to debate, say it. Stop bringing in someone elses argument when you're too weak minded to bring your own.
I'll admit that at times in some of my more explanatory posts where I editorialize, I can be somewhat like Whomod.
But I'm not nearly the fanatical gloating partisan true believer that Whomod is.
You said it well that anyone who disagrees with him, he portrays as 100% gung-ho supporting W.Bush all the way. And that's clearly not the case, but he says it anyway.
But I'm not nearly the fanatical gloating partisan true believer that Whomod is.
.... You said it well that anyone who disagrees with him, he portrays as 100% gung-ho supporting W.Bush all the way. And that's clearly not the case, but he says it anyway.
you blame damn near everything on liberals and liberalism. whomod and myself don't blame nearly as much on bush as you do on liberals. and our allegations have basis in fact and logic, not gigantic leaps of the imagination (liberals trying to destroy western civilization).
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
But I'm not nearly the fanatical gloating partisan true believer that Whomod is.
.... You said it well that anyone who disagrees with him, he portrays as 100% gung-ho supporting W.Bush all the way. And that's clearly not the case, but he says it anyway.
you blame damn near everything on liberals and liberalism. whomod and myself don't blame nearly as much on bush as you do on liberals. and our allegations have basis in fact and logic, not gigantic leaps of the imagination (liberals trying to destroy western civilization).
Man, the irony!
I criticize a dominant marxist strain within the liberal/Democrat mindset, and its detrimental and anti-american effect.
But I also cite many individuals within the Democrat party that I think are patriots, who have a real understanding, concern and patriotism for the United States. Including Joseph Lieberman, Sam Nunn, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, Bob Graham, Byron Dorgan, and many others I've mentioned favorably across many topics.
So it's once again you trying to sweepingly paint something falsely, that just isn't true.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
But I'm not nearly the fanatical gloating partisan true believer that Whomod is.
.... You said it well that anyone who disagrees with him, he portrays as 100% gung-ho supporting W.Bush all the way. And that's clearly not the case, but he says it anyway.
you blame damn near everything on liberals and liberalism. whomod and myself don't blame nearly as much on bush as you do on liberals. and our allegations have basis in fact and logic, not gigantic leaps of the imagination (liberals trying to destroy western civilization).
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
But I'm not nearly the fanatical gloating partisan true believer that Whomod is.
.... You said it well that anyone who disagrees with him, he portrays as 100% gung-ho supporting W.Bush all the way. And that's clearly not the case, but he says it anyway.
you blame damn near everything on liberals and liberalism. whomod and myself
For four months John McCain had a clear field while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were at each other's throats. Given the opportunity, the Arizona Senator failed to define the debate in favorable terms, spending much of the valuable primary months defending himself on charges that his campaign staff was top heavy with lobbyists.
Conversely, McCain has so far eluded the anti-Republican tidal wave that threatens to sweep away the party's candidates at every level, from county councils to the U.S. Senate. Amid the early wreckage -- GOP partisan identification in the tank, three defeats in rock-solid GOP House districts, and the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees scratching for cash -- McCain stands competitive with Obama in national polls, running just 2.5 points behind.
The McCain campaign to date lends itself to contradictory assessments. The odds makers are leaning decisively in Obama's favor but McCain is not out of the running.
Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, has posted a PowerPoint study asserting that McCain currently hold slight leads in Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri and Nevada, and that Ohio is "a dead heat" and that Pennsylvania could go Republican. "This is a very good position for our campaign to be in," Davis contends
In fact, the survey data is not as favorable as Davis claims - Obama leads in all five of the most recent Pennsylvania polls by an average of 5.8 points, and he leads in Wisconsin by 2 points. Polling in the 19 states identified by RealClearPolitics as battlegrounds shows Obama in a better position than McCain, ahead in such Bush '04 states as Colorado and Iowa, and running very close in Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada.
In addition, the data on RealClearPolitics dispute another of Davis' claims --- that McCain has stronger favorable/unfavorable ratings than Obama. Instead, the recent average for McCain is 47.3 favorable to 40.8 unfavorable, or a +6.5; for Obama, it's 50.3 to 38.5, or +11.8 .
In not-for-attribution interviews, a number of Republicans were neither optimistic about his chances nor positive in their assessment of his campaign so far.
"I think we've got a world of problems," said one Republican strategist with extensive experience in presidential campaigns. He said this came home to him with a thud when he watched Obama and McCain give speeches last Tuesday, with the Democrat speaking before "20,000 screaming fans, while John McCain looked every bit of his 72 years" in a speech televised from New Orleans. This Republican cited the liberal blogger Atrios' description of McCain's speech with a green backdrop that made McCain "look like the cottage cheese in a lime Jell-O salad."
For McCain to stand a chance of winning, the operative contended, the campaign, the Republican National Committee, or an independent group will have to finance sustained negative ads developing a broad assault on Obama's credibility as a national leader at a time of terrorist threat. McCain, however, has gone out of his way to aggressively discourage such activity, the operative pointed out, which, he argued, may kill McCain's chances.
Another strategist with similar presidential experience said "McCain has not claimed the maverick ground that should be his. He has not seized the mantle of 'change' and reform that he could own by going to Washington and saying, 'you know me. You know I've been a reformer all my life. Now, here's how I am going to change Washington if you elect me president.' And he has not taken economic turf. He has not explained how he is going to grow, not Washington, as the Democrats plan, but this economy to meet the challenges of global competition."
Earlier this year, Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, wrote:
Quote:
McCain is an America nationalist and progressive reformer in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, but the real consistent line throughout his career is a belief in his own righteousness. This can lead him to great prescience, as on the surge; foolhardy lack of proportion, as on his crusade for campaign-finance reform; and party-splitting, self-destructive stubbornness, as on immigration reform. If Republicans pick him, he won't be the safe, known quantity they usually look for in a next-in-line nominee, but a go-it-alone politician, unpredictable except for the courage and irascibility he'll bring to whatever he does.
Asked what he thinks of the McCain campaign so far, Lowry replied:
Quote:
I'd say middling. But he's always going to have an enthusiasm, money, and charisma gap. The question is whether he can make up what might well be a solid Obama lead throughout the summer in the fall when people really focus on Obama... Probably the most important development in this period was McCain's embrace of the theme of reform, which I hope won't be jettisoned amid the critical reviews of the delivery and presentation of his New Orleans speech.
Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution argues that "McCain continues to embrace Bush policies on the most important issues, relying on a reputation for independence and moderation that could be lost in the heat of battle with Obama and the Democrats.... At the end of this long interlude, the only rationale for his election that has emerged is that Obama cannot be trusted to lead the country at a time of great danger because he is too inexperienced, naïve, liberal, elitist, and out of touch with American values. 'Elect me because the other guy is worse.' Not much of an argument in the face of gale-force winds blowing against the Republican Party."
Along similar lines, Norman Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, questioned whether McCain and his aides have "spent enough time and effort developing themes for why he should be president, not just why Obama should not-- especially themes that address the deep-seated anxiety voters feel that goes beyond current economic conditions."
Arch-conservative Bay Buchanan suggested that it may not matter what McCain does. Writing in Human Events on June 4, she declared:
Quote:
In reality there is only one candidate. Barack Obama. In November he will win or he will lose. John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps.
Obama's wheeze to the finish line for the nomination kind of points out that McCain isn't the only one with concerns.
Besides, while many Obama supporters are still busy getting their last couple of final diggs at Hillary he's been smart enough to welcome some new potential supporters. How much that will hurt Obama in the general probably hasn't registered yet.
Besides, while many Obama supporters are still busy getting their last couple of final diggs at Hillary he's been smart enough to welcome some new potential supporters. How much that will hurt Obama in the general probably hasn't registered yet.
"smart"?
Not very.....
MEM, In an interview with Newsweek, John McCain tries to back away from his recent criticism of the media on behalf of Hilary Clinton:
Quote:
Q: Want to back up a little bit and talk about press coverage. One of the things that you mentioned in your speech in New Orleans was that you felt that the media hadn't recognized or had overlooked some of the attributes that Hillary Clinton had brought to the race. And I wondered—
MCCAIN: I did not [say that]—that was in prepared remarks, and I did not [say it]—I'm not in the business of commenting on the press and their coverage or not coverage...I can't change any of the coverage that I know of except to just campaign as hard as I can and try to seek the approval of the majority of my fellow citizens.
It is something that the American people will judge, and I won't complain about it and I won't praise it. I will just run my campaign and hope that the American people will make a judgment.
The problem is, he did say it:
Quote:
Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes receives.
Oh, he'll complain about it. Then he'll just lie about it. The question is, will MEM notice? The initial comment was of course designed to try to siphon Hillary supporters like MEM who are bitter and believe the old Hillary talking points about the biased media and the misogyny. Then McCain sort of did an about face and lied he ever said such a thing.
Ah the dread YouTube. Scourge of bald faced lies.
Here's the video:
Y'know, MEM, if you're so hurt and angry about Hilary not getting her way that you now want to rally around McCain, oh well. I'm sure the gOP will be a great place for you and gay rights, health care, the economy, Iraq etc. etc.
It is so what Hillary's platform was all about and
Children do this kind of stuff. Adults go on with their lives and get over it. Had it been the other way around, I would have enthusiastically supported Clinton, despite her many flaws and character issues. Because it beats 4 more years. And i've consistently said as much.
I've been a fan of McCain for quite some time Whomod. He's not from my party but he's got the experience & record that I like. Obama just doesn't have enough to get my vote. The Obama supporters who have been acting like children the last couple of months just make it a little easier to break a habit of automatically voting democrat.
Y'know, MEM, if you're so hurt and angry about Hilary not getting her way that you now want to rally around McCain, oh well. I'm sure the gOP will be a great place for you and gay rights, health care, the economy, Iraq etc. etc.
It is so what Hillary's platform was all about and
Children do this kind of stuff. Adults go on with their lives and get over it. Had it been the other way around, I would have enthusiastically supported Clinton, despite her many flaws and character issues. Because it beats 4 more years. And i've consistently said as much.
So... "adult" Democrats behave like automatons and mindlessly vote for whoever the Democrat candidate is?
More socialist rationalization from one of liberalism's most irrational spokespersons. Way to go, Whomod.
If you had your way, we'd be re-made in the Soviet image, and anyone who disagreed with you would be slandered, humiliated, jailed or executed.
Soviets.. traitors, militants... commies.... appeasers...Islamists....reds....anti-Amercans...etc. etc.
Ah so many idiotic insults, so little time...
No. Adult Democrats vote for the candidate that best reflects their views, not run to the candidate that isn't the guy that beat the one they wanted to win. They don't run to the guy having a platform that is 360 degrees the opposite of the candidate they were enthusiastically supporting supposedly because of her views.
Nubnuts.
But never let it be said that Wonder Boy passed up an opportunity to use the dumb language that old extremist John Birchers use against everyone not like them to explain way why everyone is against them.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Originally Posted By: whomod
Y'know, MEM, if you're so hurt and angry about Hilary not getting her way that you now want to rally around McCain, oh well. I'm sure the gOP will be a great place for you and gay rights, health care, the economy, Iraq etc. etc.
It is so what Hllary's platform was all about and
Children do this kind of stuff. Adults go on with their lives and get over it. Had it been the other way around, I would have enthusiastically supported Clinton, despite her many flaws and character issues. Because it beats 4 more years. And i've consistently said as much.
So... "adult" Democrats behave like automatons and mindlessly vote for whoever the Democrat candidate is?
More socialist rationalization from one of liberalism's most irrational spokespersons. Way to go, Whomod.
If you had your way, we'd be re-made in the Soviet image, and anyone who disagreed with you would be slandered, humiliated, jailed or executed.
Y'know, MEM, if you're so hurt and angry about Hilary not getting her way that you now want to rally around McCain, oh well. I'm sure the gOP will be a great place for you and gay rights, health care, the economy, Iraq etc. etc.
It is so what Hillary's platform was all about and
Children do this kind of stuff. Adults go on with their lives and get over it. Had it been the other way around, I would have enthusiastically supported Clinton, despite her many flaws and character issues. Because it beats 4 more years. And i've consistently said as much.
So... "adult" Democrats behave like automatons and mindlessly vote for whoever the Democrat candidate is?
More socialist rationalization from one of liberalism's most irrational spokespersons. Way to go, Whomod.
If you had your way, we'd be re-made in the Soviet image, and anyone who disagreed with you would be slandered, humiliated, jailed or executed.
Bill Kristol, still fantasizing about Iraq, while seeing which way the wind blows:
Quote:
In any case, with the battle against Hillary Clinton behind him, everything seems to be going swimmingly for Obama. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign dog-paddles along. And almost every Republican I’ve talked to is alarmed that the McCain campaign doesn’t seem up to the task of electing John McCain.
Shortcomings by John McCain's campaign in the art of politics are alienating two organizations of Christian conservatives. James Dobson's Focus on the Family is estranged following the failure of Dobson and McCain to talk out their differences. Evangelicals who follow the Rev. John Hagee resent his disavowal by McCain.
The evangelicals are not an isolated problem for the Republican candidate. Enthusiasm for McCain inside the Republican coalition is in short supply. During the four months since McCain clinched the nomination, he has not satisfied conservatives who oppose his positions on global warming, campaign finance reform, immigration, domestic oil drilling and how to ban same-sex marriages.
John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps. And while his strong suite is experience, especially on military matters, it was gained almost entirely in Washington, a city that 80% of Americans now believe has miserably misled and mismanaged the nation.
Since McCain has become the presumptive nominee, I have spoken at more than two dozen Republican gatherings. The sentiment everywhere can best be summarized in the words of one of the activists, "No matter who wins in November, we lose."
Two years after he resigned from the House, former Republican leader Tom DeLay says conservatives haven't bottomed out from their 2006 election losses, Democrats are "cleaning their clock," and it will take years before the Republican Party can compete with the operation Democrats have built.
"The conservatives refuse to accept that the left is cleaning their clock, and until you hit some bottom, wherever that is, to where it says, 'Well, maybe we ought to do something different,' little or nothing's going to change," Mr. DeLay told editors and reporters at The Washington Times last week.
After a decade of political dominance, the Texas GOP is opening its party convention in Houston this week with a troubling prospect: Grumpy Republicans may not turn out to vote this fall.
As the architect of Ohio's ballot measure against gay marriage, Phil Burress helped draw thousands of conservative voters to the polls in 2004, most of whom also cast ballots to reelect President Bush. So Burress was not surprised when two high-level staffers from John McCain's campaign dropped by his office, asking for his help this fall.
What surprised Burress was how badly the meeting went. He says he tried but failed to make the McCain team understand how much work remained to overcome the skepticism of social conservatives. Burress ended up cutting off the campaign officials as they spoke. "He doesn't want to associate with us," Burress now says of McCain, "and we don't want to associate with him."
There's an Allan J Lichtman commentary (Professor of History, American University):
Quote:
During the Bush years, conservatives have built the biggest, most expensive, and most intrusive national government in the history of the Republic. Despite their disdain for social engineering by government, the Bush administration has undertaken in Iraq the most daunting and expensive social engineering project since the Reconstruction of the South. According to the Keys to the White House, conservative disarray is reflected in Republican midterm election losses, a lack of positive domestic accomplishments, setbacks abroad, and the failure to find an inspirational nominee.
"I think we've got a world of problems," said one Republican strategist with extensive experience in presidential campaigns. He said this came home to him with a thud when he watched Obama and McCain give speeches last Tuesday, with the Democrat speaking before "20,000 screaming fans, while John McCain looked every bit of his 72 years" in a speech televised from New Orleans. This Republican cited the liberal blogger Atrios' description of McCain's speech with a green backdrop that made McCain "look like the cottage cheese in a lime Jell-O salad."
The overall impression is that things aren't going perfectly well in Republicanland.
Bill Kristol, still fantasizing about Iraq, while seeing which way the wind blows:
Quote:
In any case, with the battle against Hillary Clinton behind him, everything seems to be going swimmingly for Obama. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign dog-paddles along. And almost every Republican I’ve talked to is alarmed that the McCain campaign doesn’t seem up to the task of electing John McCain.
Shortcomings by John McCain's campaign in the art of politics are alienating two organizations of Christian conservatives. James Dobson's Focus on the Family is estranged following the failure of Dobson and McCain to talk out their differences. Evangelicals who follow the Rev. John Hagee resent his disavowal by McCain.
The evangelicals are not an isolated problem for the Republican candidate. Enthusiasm for McCain inside the Republican coalition is in short supply. During the four months since McCain clinched the nomination, he has not satisfied conservatives who oppose his positions on global warming, campaign finance reform, immigration, domestic oil drilling and how to ban same-sex marriages.
John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps. And while his strong suite is experience, especially on military matters, it was gained almost entirely in Washington, a city that 80% of Americans now believe has miserably misled and mismanaged the nation.
Since McCain has become the presumptive nominee, I have spoken at more than two dozen Republican gatherings. The sentiment everywhere can best be summarized in the words of one of the activists, "No matter who wins in November, we lose."
Two years after he resigned from the House, former Republican leader Tom DeLay says conservatives haven't bottomed out from their 2006 election losses, Democrats are "cleaning their clock," and it will take years before the Republican Party can compete with the operation Democrats have built.
"The conservatives refuse to accept that the left is cleaning their clock, and until you hit some bottom, wherever that is, to where it says, 'Well, maybe we ought to do something different,' little or nothing's going to change," Mr. DeLay told editors and reporters at The Washington Times last week.
After a decade of political dominance, the Texas GOP is opening its party convention in Houston this week with a troubling prospect: Grumpy Republicans may not turn out to vote this fall.
As the architect of Ohio's ballot measure against gay marriage, Phil Burress helped draw thousands of conservative voters to the polls in 2004, most of whom also cast ballots to reelect President Bush. So Burress was not surprised when two high-level staffers from John McCain's campaign dropped by his office, asking for his help this fall.
What surprised Burress was how badly the meeting went. He says he tried but failed to make the McCain team understand how much work remained to overcome the skepticism of social conservatives. Burress ended up cutting off the campaign officials as they spoke. "He doesn't want to associate with us," Burress now says of McCain, "and we don't want to associate with him."
There's an Allan J Lichtman commentary (Professor of History, American University):
Quote:
During the Bush years, conservatives have built the biggest, most expensive, and most intrusive national government in the history of the Republic. Despite their disdain for social engineering by government, the Bush administration has undertaken in Iraq the most daunting and expensive social engineering project since the Reconstruction of the South. According to the Keys to the White House, conservative disarray is reflected in Republican midterm election losses, a lack of positive domestic accomplishments, setbacks abroad, and the failure to find an inspirational nominee.
"I think we've got a world of problems," said one Republican strategist with extensive experience in presidential campaigns. He said this came home to him with a thud when he watched Obama and McCain give speeches last Tuesday, with the Democrat speaking before "20,000 screaming fans, while John McCain looked every bit of his 72 years" in a speech televised from New Orleans. This Republican cited the liberal blogger Atrios' description of McCain's speech with a green backdrop that made McCain "look like the cottage cheese in a lime Jell-O salad."
The overall impression is that things aren't going perfectly well in Republicanland.
Bill Kristol, still fantasizing about Iraq, while seeing which way the wind blows:
Quote:
In any case, with the battle against Hillary Clinton behind him, everything seems to be going swimmingly for Obama. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign dog-paddles along. And almost every Republican I’ve talked to is alarmed that the McCain campaign doesn’t seem up to the task of electing John McCain.
Shortcomings by John McCain's campaign in the art of politics are alienating two organizations of Christian conservatives. James Dobson's Focus on the Family is estranged following the failure of Dobson and McCain to talk out their differences. Evangelicals who follow the Rev. John Hagee resent his disavowal by McCain.
The evangelicals are not an isolated problem for the Republican candidate. Enthusiasm for McCain inside the Republican coalition is in short supply. During the four months since McCain clinched the nomination, he has not satisfied conservatives who oppose his positions on global warming, campaign finance reform, immigration, domestic oil drilling and how to ban same-sex marriages.
John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps. And while his strong suite is experience, especially on military matters, it was gained almost entirely in Washington, a city that 80% of Americans now believe has miserably misled and mismanaged the nation.
Since McCain has become the presumptive nominee, I have spoken at more than two dozen Republican gatherings. The sentiment everywhere can best be summarized in the words of one of the activists, "No matter who wins in November, we lose."
Two years after he resigned from the House, former Republican leader Tom DeLay says conservatives haven't bottomed out from their 2006 election losses, Democrats are "cleaning their clock," and it will take years before the Republican Party can compete with the operation Democrats have built.
"The conservatives refuse to accept that the left is cleaning their clock, and until you hit some bottom, wherever that is, to where it says, 'Well, maybe we ought to do something different,' little or nothing's going to change," Mr. DeLay told editors and reporters at The Washington Times last week.
After a decade of political dominance, the Texas GOP is opening its party convention in Houston this week with a troubling prospect: Grumpy Republicans may not turn out to vote this fall.
As the architect of Ohio's ballot measure against gay marriage, Phil Burress helped draw thousands of conservative voters to the polls in 2004, most of whom also cast ballots to reelect President Bush. So Burress was not surprised when two high-level staffers from John McCain's campaign dropped by his office, asking for his help this fall.
What surprised Burress was how badly the meeting went. He says he tried but failed to make the McCain team understand how much work remained to overcome the skepticism of social conservatives. Burress ended up cutting off the campaign officials as they spoke. "He doesn't want to associate with us," Burress now says of McCain, "and we don't want to associate with him."
There's an Allan J Lichtman commentary (Professor of History, American University):
Quote:
During the Bush years, conservatives have built the biggest, most expensive, and most intrusive national government in the history of the Republic. Despite their disdain for social engineering by government, the Bush administration has undertaken in Iraq the most daunting and expensive social engineering project since the Reconstruction of the South. According to the Keys to the White House, conservative disarray is reflected in Republican midterm election losses, a lack of positive domestic accomplishments, setbacks abroad, and the failure to find an inspirational nominee.
"I think we've got a world of problems," said one Republican strategist with extensive experience in presidential campaigns. He said this came home to him with a thud when he watched Obama and McCain give speeches last Tuesday, with the Democrat speaking before "20,000 screaming fans, while John McCain looked every bit of his 72 years" in a speech televised from New Orleans. This Republican cited the liberal blogger Atrios' description of McCain's speech with a green backdrop that made McCain "look like the cottage cheese in a lime Jell-O salad."
The overall impression is that things aren't going perfectly well in Republicanland.
Is it your position that you doubt the GOP is worried about McCain's chances?
Or are you disdainful or indifferent to the article you posted?
the shrug is a resignation that if all Sammitch is going to do is to quote and quote in an attempt to deflect and to bump the topic to the next page, i can do it as well.
Soviets.. traitors, militants... commies.... appeasers...Islamists....reds....anti-Amercans...etc. etc.
Ah so many idiotic insults, so little time...
No. Adult Democrats vote for the candidate that best reflects their views, not run to the candidate that isn't the guy that beat the one they wanted to win. They don't run to the guy having a platform that is 360 degrees the opposite of the candidate they were enthusiastically supporting supposedly because of her views.
Nubnuts.
...
At least for me there is something more than just robotically voting my party Whomod. To say McCain is 360 degrees the opposite of Hillary is exageration on your part. He's a moderate republican that has faced alot of scorn from a chunk of his party for not being conservative enough. He has a long record that reassures me that he'll be a good leader. While Obama is smart enough I just need to see more. If he was truly running against Bush, being smart would be enough. That's not the case though.
It may be different for a passionate Obama supporter but when I see his foriegn policy evolve during the course of a campaign...it worries me.
The difference is that Obama talks about MLK and JFK in a historical context.
McCain talks about the 1970's as if it's recent events, fresh on everyone's mind.
Geez, doc, split hairs much?
Both candidates are comparing and contrasting current events and/or candidates to past eras and candidates, in an effort to illustrate their positions and/or qualifications.
...McCain reminding everyone just how old he is by trying to attack obama by referencing the 1970's...
That's a pretty silly charge, given Obama and his acolytes running around referencing JFK and the 1960s.
The difference is that Obama talks about MLK and JFK in a historical context.
McCain talks about the 1970's as if it's recent events, fresh on everyone's mind.
McCain says bringing the troops home from Iraq is "not too important"
Keep it up Johnny!!! We need more glib dismissal of an unpopular war like that.
and a Schoolhouse Rock style cartoon parody that answers why McCain 2008 is different from McCain 2000.
UPDATE: Harry Reid just weighed in...
Quote:
Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today in response to Senator John McCain’s comment this morning that it is “not too important” when our troops can redeploy from Iraq:
“McCain’s statement today that withdrawing troops doesn’t matter is a crystal clear indicator that he just doesn’t get the grave national-security consequences of staying the course – Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished. We need a smart change in strategy to make America more secure, not a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war.”
"100 Year's McCain" just reaffirmed that position. You run with that John!
...McCain reminding everyone just how old he is by trying to attack obama by referencing the 1970's...
That's a pretty silly charge, given Obama and his acolytes running around referencing JFK and the 1960s.
The difference is that Obama talks about MLK and JFK in a historical context.
McCain talks about the 1970's as if it's recent events, fresh on everyone's mind.
McCain says bringing the troops home from Iraq is "not too important"
Keep it up Johnny!!! We need more glib dismissal of an unpopular war like that.
and a Schoolhouse Rock style cartoon parody that answers why McCain 2008 is different from McCain 2000.
UPDATE: Harry Reid just weighed in...
Quote:
Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today in response to Senator John McCain’s comment this morning that it is “not too important” when our troops can redeploy from Iraq:
“McCain’s statement today that withdrawing troops doesn’t matter is a crystal clear indicator that he just doesn’t get the grave national-security consequences of staying the course – Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished. We need a smart change in strategy to make America more secure, not a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war.”
"100 Year's McCain" just reaffirmed that position. You run with that John!
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...[youtube][/youtube]... ...fucking neocons... ...please notice me... [youtube]olbermann is a golden god[/youtube]... ...lame duck smirking chimp... ...fuck, I hate myself... ...agree with me! please?... ...
...McCain reminding everyone just how old he is by trying to attack obama by referencing the 1970's...
That's a pretty silly charge, given Obama and his acolytes running around referencing JFK and the 1960s.
The difference is that Obama talks about MLK and JFK in a historical context.
McCain talks about the 1970's as if it's recent events, fresh on everyone's mind.
McCain says bringing the troops home from Iraq is "not too important"
Keep it up Johnny!!! We need more glib dismissal of an unpopular war like that.
and a Schoolhouse Rock style cartoon parody that answers why McCain 2008 is different from McCain 2000.
UPDATE: Harry Reid just weighed in...
Quote:
Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today in response to Senator John McCain’s comment this morning that it is “not too important” when our troops can redeploy from Iraq:
“McCain’s statement today that withdrawing troops doesn’t matter is a crystal clear indicator that he just doesn’t get the grave national-security consequences of staying the course – Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished. We need a smart change in strategy to make America more secure, not a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war.”
"100 Year's McCain" just reaffirmed that position. You run with that John!
The DNC released an ad from this mornings comment by John McCain.
This really is a different campaign than past ones. everything from responses by the candidates themselves to rebuttals and ads are being released within hours.
You know things are bad when even FOX feels the need to correct a lie from McCain:
Fox News' Shepard Smith:
Quote:
"I reported at the top of this hour that the campaign had told us at Fox News that the audience would be made up of Republicans, Democrats, and independents. We have now received a clarification from the campaign and I feel I should pass it along to you. The McCain campaign distributed tickets to supporters, Mayor Bloomberg, who of course is a registered Republican, and other independent groups." - Fox News, 6/12/08
4 MORE YEARS!!!!! (of manufactured news and lies)
Governor Howard Dean responds to the news:
Quote:
"Once again John McCain's campaign is trying to mislead the American people. Senator McCain should understand that after seven years of a President who has divided Americans and pursued a scorched earth policy full of misleading propaganda campaigns, we need a leader who understands he is the President for all Americans not just his supporters. If Senator McCain likes to brag so much about running a transparent campaign, why is he copying the Bush campaign model by stacking this event with his prescreened supporters? If that is John McCain's idea of straight talk, the American people are in for a long and disappointing campaign season."
Yeah, so basically FOX was duped into giving McCain an hour of free air time to campaign. Or, maybe FOX knew it all along, and since they couldn't legally donate an hour of free air time to help the Republican presidential candidate, they nudge-nudge-wink-wink were "tricked" by McCain into doing it. Oh no, not the briar patch!
"Senator McCain should understand that after seven years of a President who has divided Americans and pursued a scorched earth policy full of misleading propaganda campaigns, we need a leader who understands he is the President for all Americans not just his supporters."
This is incredibly ironic, coming from Howard Dean of all people. Whose own rhetoric is among the most scorched-earth that I've heard.
And who said plainly that he hates Republicans.
And who alleged Bush knew in advance about 9-11, and let it happen.
Seven years of Bush-style rhetoric is largely in response to seven years of lying partisan Democrat slander and cheap stunts, of which Dean is among the worst offenders.
One of the more restrained and ironically more incendiary and moving Special Comments by Kieth Olbermann. He provides context to McCain's comments which McCain claims were taken out of context.
This is the type of stuff that'll make Rex start attacking peoples families because acknowledging the troops is apparently disrespecting them in his twisted mind.
"Senator McCain should understand that after seven years of a President who has divided Americans and pursued a scorched earth policy full of misleading propaganda campaigns, we need a leader who understands he is the President for all Americans not just his supporters."
This is incredibly ironic, coming from Howard Dean of all people. Whose own rhetoric is among the most scorched-earth that I've heard.
wondy, bypasses the charges against a republican by blaming the democratic accuser. must be one of the days of the week tha ends with a Y. Also ironically I do believe that it's the very definition of ad hominem. Anyone want to bet that he'll turn around and attack me ("that's ironic coming from you" or "you're the worst offender of all") and avoid the actual point which is John Mccain and not Howard Dean or Ray Adler.
Quote:
And who said plainly that he hates Republicans.
fine. and Howard Dean isn't running for President. this is about John Mccain.
Quote:
And who alleged Bush knew in advance about 9-11, and let it happen.
so? that theory is held by more people than just a slight minority. I'm not saying it's true or false, but it is an opinion that is held by some very respectable people. and again, Howard Dean isn't running for President. The issue has nothing to do with Dean at all. Do you really think so little of John Mccain that you think he needs to be shielded like this, that he needs to be carefully protected by blindly blaming everying on the nearest liberal? What next are you going to just bypass the current President to blame any problems here on someone who left power over 6 years ago? Are you going to belittle the intellect of your own party by turning them into a bunch of reactionary juveniles who can not be held to task for their own actions because they can't control themselves and are simply acting out in response to some hurt feelings from the 90's?
Quote:
Seven years of Bush-style rhetoric is largely in response to seven years of lying partisan Democrat slander and cheap stunts, of which Dean is among the worst offenders.
Again, he's either a liar, or losing his faculties. Watch a video of McCain making both statements, below:
Quote:
"But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be." - New Hampshire Town Hall, 06/12/08
Quote:
"Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits." - C-Span Road to the White House, 11/18/2004
It's fun to watch the schizophrenia at work here. On the one hand he has to appeal to the far right as dwindling as they happen to be and on the other, he has to appeal to moderates in order to get elected. I'm waiting for when he overloads with all this opposing and contradictory data and his head starts smoking and then just explodes.
I've often thought that Ron Paul, who just ended his campaign, is McCain's Hillary Clinton. Although Ron Paul doesn't have the same visibility as Hillary.
Particularly the Youtube propaganda clips posted by Ron Paul's supporters.
Whether these are directly from the Ron Paul campaign, or (more likely) unaffiliated supporters, they attack McCain with the viciousness of Democrats. And might well be Democrats posing as Ron Paul supporters, on a ratfucking mission.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
wow, here's a shocker.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Originally Posted By: Howard Dean
"Senator McCain should understand that after seven years of a President who has divided Americans and pursued a scorched earth policy full of misleading propaganda campaigns, we need a leader who understands he is the President for all Americans not just his supporters."
This is incredibly ironic, coming from Howard Dean of all people. Whose own rhetoric is among the most scorched-earth that I've heard.
wondy, bypasses the charges against a republican by blaming the democratic accuser. must be one of the days of the week tha ends with a Y. Also ironically I do believe that it's the very definition of ad hominem. Anyone want to bet that he'll turn around and attack me ("that's ironic coming from you" or "you're the worst offender of all") and avoid the actual point which is John Mccain and not Howard Dean or Ray Adler.
Quote:
And who said plainly that he hates Republicans.
fine. and Howard Dean isn't running for President. this is about John Mccain.
Quote:
And who alleged Bush knew in advance about 9-11, and let it happen.
so? that theory is held by more people than just a slight minority. I'm not saying it's true or false, but it is an opinion that is held by some very respectable people. and again, Howard Dean isn't running for President. The issue has nothing to do with Dean at all. Do you really think so little of John Mccain that you think he needs to be shielded like this, that he needs to be carefully protected by blindly blaming everying on the nearest liberal? What next are you going to just bypass the current President to blame any problems here on someone who left power over 6 years ago? Are you going to belittle the intellect of your own party by turning them into a bunch of reactionary juveniles who can not be held to task for their own actions because they can't control themselves and are simply acting out in response to some hurt feelings from the 90's?
Quote:
Seven years of Bush-style rhetoric is largely in response to seven years of lying partisan Democrat slander and cheap stunts, of which Dean is among the worst offenders.
Do I really need to say anything further?
Your partisan hatred is so clear, you undo your own arguments.
I said it clearly enough the first time. Your remarks are unworthy of further response.
wondy, bypasses the charges against a republican by blaming the democratic accuser. must be one of the days of the week tha ends with a Y. Also ironically I do believe that it's the very definition of ad hominem. Anyone want to bet that he'll turn around and attack me ("that's ironic coming from you" or "you're the worst offender of all") and avoid the actual point which is John Mccain and not Howard Dean or Ray Adler.
Originally Posted By: wondy
Do I really need to say anything further?
Your partisan hatred is so clear, you undo your own arguments.
I said it clearly enough the first time. Your remarks are unworthy of further response.
Again, he's either a liar, or losing his faculties. Watch a video of McCain making both statements, below:
Quote:
"But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be." - New Hampshire Town Hall, 06/12/08
Quote:
"Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits." - C-Span Road to the White House, 11/18/2004
It's fun to watch the schizophrenia at work here. On the one hand he has to appeal to the far right as dwindling as they happen to be and on the other, he has to appeal to moderates in order to get elected. I'm waiting for when he overloads with all this opposing and contradictory data and his head starts smoking and then just explodes.
I'm waiting for when ... his head starts smoking and then just explodes.
That sounds like an even more credible threat than the one whomod thought rex made against his daughter. I hope rex doesn't believe for tit for tat and turn whomod into the secret service for this potential threat against a presidential candidate.
A key organizer of John McCain's meeting Saturday with former supporters of Hillary Clinton is best known for her role in another bitter American fight: The effort by some white descendants of Thomas Jefferson to keep his possible African-American descendants out of family gatherings....
Abeles first made the news in 2003, when she and her husband, then-Monticello Association President Nat Abeles, led the fight to keep members of the Hemings family -- descendants of Jefferson slave and, some historians believe, mistress Sally Hemmings -- out of a gathering of the Monticello Association, which is made up of lineal descendants of the third president.
The wife of a Thomas Jefferson family association official said Friday that she masqueraded as a 67-year-old black woman on an Internet chat room in a bid to keep descendants of a reputed Jefferson mistress out of this weekend's family reunion.
"It might have been somewhat unethical," said Paulie Abeles of Washington, D.C., who participated for eight months in the Yahoo! message board created for relatives of Jefferson slave Sally Hemings.
"It might have been childish, but I really think I was working in the best interest of the majority of the family members to make the reunion a calm and civilized gathering," she said.
The McCain platform. Segregation. Segregation. Keep the black out lest they turn it 'uncivilized'! sort of reminds me when Bill O'Reilley went to eat in Harlem and was SHOCKED, SHOCKED!!!! to see them eating with silverware.
When the Republicans choose their candidate on September 4th, there is a very real chance that they could throw the election into an unexpected chaos as they pull a genuine September Surprise.
I think there is every reason to believe John McCain won't be the nominee. Ok, let me say that again. McCain will not be the Republican candidate in November.
Here's how it could happen:
At some point in mid August, John McCain will announce that he has decided that he can not accept his party's nomination for president. The reason will be health-related, and that may turn out to be the truth. Anyone who's seen him on stage these days knows he looks like he's about to keel over. And anyone who's been on a presidential campaign knows the physical demands are grueling and can be a challenge for a young man.
But excuses or facts hardly matters. He won't be accepting his party's nomination.
The reasons are simple. He can't win. Now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee -- the polls all show that McCain's pro-war stance and Bush endorsement make him a lost cause in November. That combined with soft stand on litmus test conservative issues make him an unpopular candidate among the base. I know some Democrats that think the Republicans are planning to let McCain lose and 'sit this one out' so that they can hang the democrats with a bad economy and a war that is a morass. But that just isn't how they play. They play to win every hand -- think about 2000 with a popular Democratic president and good economy and a solid VP running for president. Why did they put up Bush? And why did they fight so hard? Because, you don't ever throw a game. And they're not going to throw this one.
McCain won't be the nominee.
By August, they'll have done something to try and pick away at Obama's popularity. They'll emphasize race, or whatever they can to get him to appear less than perfect. Then, they'll bring out of the woodwork a surprise candidate who can shift the story fast. With just two months before the election -- the new candidate will have little time to be 'vetted' but will be shiny and new, and will get a lot of media attention as Obama's newness will have become -- by then -- tarnished or at least no longer the surprise that it has been as he unseated Hillary.
So, who will be the Republican candidate that faces Obama in the fall?
I've spoken to a number of friends who -- when presented with this set of facts respond: "but they don't have anybody else." That's simply not the case.
Joe Trippi, campaign consultant and most notably Howard Dean's campaign manager, said of McCain dropping out: "While crazy, this may be the best shot they have."
There are a whole list of Republicans who in many ways are more likely to energize the Republican base. One thing is certain -- there are candidates that will play to the core issues in ways that McCain simply can't.
Here's a list of names. Some you know, some you don't. But each of them knows their name is in play. Among them --
Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State) Colin Powell (fmr Sec. of State) Marilyn Musgrave (Colorado Congresswoman) Mitt Romney (fmr Massachusetts Governor) Mike Huckabee (fmr Governor of Arkansas) Charlie Crist (Florida Governor) Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota Governor) Bobby Jindal (Louisiana Governor) Mark Sanford: (Governor of South Carolina) John Thune (Senator from South Dakota) Dick Lugar (Senator from Indiana) Chuck Hagel (Senator from Nebraska) MIchael Bloomberg (NYC Mayor)
Ok, go ahead knock them down. One by one. See if you can really remove ALL these names from a list of candidates that are more likely to give Obama a run for his money. They'll come on the scene late, with a press corps that is looking for a horse race and a new story. Obama's frontrunner status will be upset, and there will be a set of variables that need to be calculated -- and tested against a weary electorate.
Is this supposition? Sure, but one grounded with enough history and observation to take it beyond conjecture and into the realm of the possible.
So -- before the Democrats go and game out how to beat McCain, it may be worth thinking about what happens when he says he won't accept the nomination. For the Republicans, a wide open convention would be both good theater and good politics.
Interesting theory about McCain dropping out but it's about as likely as Obama dropping out at this point. While Obama appears to be in the lead, most of the current polling contains the bounce he got from becoming the democratic frontrunner. It appears to have only given him a fear meager percentage points at that. And McCain may be old but he's going to put up a fight to win.
were there racist remarks made on Fox news? I rarely watch it?
you don't find that piece a bit paranoid?
That piece is ridiculous. Quite honestly Obama is no slam dunk. There are still large parts of this country that can't stand the mofo. I am no fan of either candidate but I will go for McCain since he isn't a muslim and doesn't have advisers that hate America.
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
were there racist remarks made on Fox news? I rarely watch it?
you don't find that piece a bit paranoid?
That piece is ridiculous. Quite honestly Obama is no slam dunk. There are still large parts of this country that can't stand the mofo. I am no fan of either candidate but I will go for McCain since he isn't a muslim and doesn't have advisers that hate America.
an old man who wants arguably the most powerful elected position in the world that would give him access to massive military and economic power is showing signs of senility. that is a somewhat concerning matter and might be of interest if he weren't running against a black man who may hold some religious beliefs different than my own.
when John Mccain launches nukes at the midwest because he got confused on the directions at least he'll be white and christian.
Instead of debating Barak Obama, McCain it seems can hold a debate with himself instead. Maverick McCain of 2000 VS pandering right wing Conservative McCain of 2006-2008.
Or in this case, McCain of May VS McCain of June of this year!
What, the right wing isn't going to do the 2004 "flip flop" jokes??? I'M SHOCKED!!!
Oh, and If McCain is going to attack Mrs. Obama, he probably shouldn't use his drug addict/thief wife as the messenger. It's sleazy as hell for one candidate to attack the other's wife. But it's even weirder for him to use his own scandal-ridden wife to do it. I mean, with all due respect, what moral authority does Cindy McCain have to start throwing stones at Mrs. Obama? Only one candidate's wife is a drug addict who actually stole drugs from poor children in order to feed her addiction. And that candidate is not Barack Obama. It's John McCain. People who live in glass pill boxes shouldn't cast stones.
Oh, and not kidding about Cindy McCain being a drug addict and stealing drugs from children. The non-partisan Web site, Snopes.com, had this to say about Mrs. McCain's illicit drug addiction:
Quote:
In 1989, following two back surgeries, Cindy McCain became addicted to the painkillers Vicodin and Percocet. To keep up with her daily need of 10 to 15 pills, she used other people's names for prescriptions and stole drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, a mobile surgical unit she'd begun in 1988 to provide emergency medical services around the world. A 1993 DEA audit of the amount of painkillers her charity had obtained quickly uncovered her thefts. She avoided prosecution for those crimes through an agreement with the Justice Department in which she submitted to drug testing, paid a fine, performed community service in a soup kitchen, and joined Narcotics Anonymous. She also closed her medical charity
Oh, and If McCain is going to attack Mrs. Obama, he probably shouldn't use his drug addict/thief wife as the messenger. It's sleazy as hell for one candidate to attack the other's wife. But it's even weirder for him to use his own scandal-ridden wife to do it. I mean, with all due respect, what moral authority does Cindy McCain have to start throwing stones at Mrs. Obama? Only one candidate's wife is a drug addict who actually stole drugs from poor children in order to feed her addiction. And that candidate is not Barack Obama. It's John McCain. People who live in glass pill boxes shouldn't cast stones.
Isn't it hypocritical to condemn Cindy McCain for being a drug addict and yet have Sid Vicious for your avatar?
I don't know about hypocrisy, but I do think there's a pretty obvious difference between what Mrs. McCain said and your attack on her.
Mrs. McCain criticized Michelle Obama for her current viewpoint on American policy. That seems fairly relevant to the race for the White House and Mrs. Obama's potential for influencing policy as a first lady.
In contrast, you chose to launch a personal attack on Mrs. McCain for a nearly two decades-old incident, resulting from a physical addiction to painkillers which, by all accounts, resulting in her serving a fairly typical sentence for first-time offenders.
For a supposed "social worker" you sure have a surprising lack of compassion towards people with disabilities.
oh i'm sorry. i had no idea we hold our rock stars to the same standards as people running 4 office (and their spouses).
So:
Rock stars who use drugs and end up dying from them = OK Wives of Republican politicians who used drugs but clean themselves up and pay their debt to society = Worthy of condemnation.
Originally Posted By: whomod
weak.
I'm content with G-Man handling the intellectual criticisms.
is that really the best you can come up with? one partial statement taken completely out of context? I'm surprised we ever expected any better of you.
weak weak. weak.
Originally Posted By: whomod
So much for the attack on Michelle Obama's patriotism.
C'Mon right wingers!!! Attack McCain's patriotism now!!!!
I guess Cindy McCain is going to have to go back on Good Morning America and rebuke her husband now.
As you can see from the clip, the statemnt was provided COMPLETELY in context. How is this any different from what Michelle Obama said? Mrs. Obama said that for the first time in her adult life she was really proud of our country. McCain said that he never loved our country before the age of 31. At least Mrs. Obama was proud of our country before, and she always loved our country. McCain not so much - let's face it, if John McCain didn't love America as an adult, he most certainly wasn't proud of her. And another thing. Michelle Obama is the candidate's WIFE. John McCain wants to be commander in chief of a country he didn't love.
perhaps in the wonderful world between your ears you're absolutely correct. out here it looks a lot like you're reaching pretty desperately on this one. not that I find that unusual or anything.
perhaps in the wonderful world between your ears you're absolutely correct. out here it looks a lot like you're reaching pretty desperately on this one. not that I find that unusual or anything.
Sammitch not making a substantive argument? Just obnoxious insults?
perhaps in the wonderful world between your ears you're absolutely correct. out here it looks a lot like you're reaching pretty desperately on this one. not that I find that unusual or anything.
is that really the best you can come up with? one partial statement taken completely out of context? I'm surprised we ever expected any better of you.
weak weak. weak.
Originally Posted By: whomod
So much for the attack on Michelle Obama's patriotism.
C'Mon right wingers!!! Attack McCain's patriotism now!!!!
I guess Cindy McCain is going to have to go back on Good Morning America and rebuke her husband now.
As you can see from the clip, the statemnt was provided COMPLETELY in context. How is this any different from what Michelle Obama said? Mrs. Obama said that for the first time in her adult life she was really proud of our country. McCain said that he never loved our country before the age of 31. At least Mrs. Obama was proud of our country before, and she always loved our country. McCain not so much - let's face it, if John McCain didn't love America as an adult, he most certainly wasn't proud of her. And another thing. Michelle Obama is the candidate's WIFE. John McCain wants to be commander in chief of a country he didn't love.
Originally Posted By: Wank and Cry
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
perhaps in the wonderful world between your ears you're absolutely correct. out here it looks a lot like you're reaching pretty desperately on this one. not that I find that unusual or anything.
Sammitch not making a substantive argument? Just obnoxious insults?
This is a new one on me
He's just sad that they just lost one of their key attack weapons. Now whenever a right wing fuck tries to use Michelle Obama's quotes against Barack, all one needs to do is run the McCain tape.
Obama ...said...that "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."
We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.
...that Obama's new spending ( 1.4 trillion) is roughly equal to McCain's lost revenue through tax cuts (1.5 trillion).
Is it possible that McCain's tax cuts will result in more taxable revenue? That's been my observation in the past, that tax cuts result in increased business and jobs, which translate to more taxable income, that more than compensates the tax cuts.
Europe today has clearly lost its traditional leadership in world affairs. This was pointed out in a recent speech to CEOs by Herbert Meyer,who served in the Reagan administration as special assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and vice chair of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. The war in Iraq is the first of four transforming events currently taking place in the world and a critical war for us to win. He describes that war as the third major attack by Islam on Western Civilization:
"Islam first attacked Western civilization in the 7th century, and later in the 16th and 17th centuries. By 1683, the Moslems (Turks from the Ottoman Empire) were literally at the gates of Vienna. It was in Vienna that the climatic battle between Islam and Western civilization took place. Interestingly, the date of that battle was September 11. Since then, Islam has not found a way to reconcile with the modern world.
"Today, terrorism is the third attack on Western civilization by radical Islam. To deal with terrorism, the U.S. is doing two things. First, units of our armed forces are in 30 countries around the world hunting down terrorist groups and dealing with them. This gets very little publicity. Second we are taking military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are covered relentlessly by the media. People can argue about whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong. However, the underlying strategy behind the war is to use our military to remove the radicals from power and give the moderates a chance. Our hope is that, over time, the moderates will find a way to bring Islam forward into the 21st century. That's what our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about. "
This understanding of the nature of the events of the 21st century, and the stakes we Americans have in those events is almost totally ignored by the media and both Democratic presidential candidates. Neither of them seem to have any understanding or interest in the historical aspects of what is occurring today. We really can no longer afford the time to make the kind of mistakes we made in the 1930s when Americans chose isolationism and allowed Hitler to seize most of Europe, which was unable to defend itself.
The situation is worse today. Europe is aging, not even producing enough children to maintain their cultures. With aging populations and few young people, dying nations have almost abandoned maintaining armies, which is why it is the American army and navy that are in the forefront of current events.
The 2008 election in which we will choose the next president, senate and House of Representatives may very well be America's last opportunity to get it right.
John McCain's stance on the war is unambiguous: He voted for it, supports the current enhanced U.S. troop presence in Iraq and vigorously opposes any timetable to withdraw.
The public's stance on the war is as equivocal as McCain's is not: A strong majority of Americans oppose it and believe it was wrong in the first place, but more find McCain better suited to handle Iraq than his Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama.
"He's more experienced militarily," said Ann Burkes, a registered Democrat and retired third-grade teacher from Broken Arrow, Okla. "And I don't know if I agree with stay-the-course (policy), but I think the good probably outweighs the bad with him, experience-wise."
Burkes illustrates the conflicted voter, one who is as likely to be influenced by McCain's policy positions as by his personal biography as a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison. Independents believe McCain would handle Iraq better
For McCain, there is a major complication. Not all those voters who perceive him as stronger on Iraq say they will vote for him for president.
Unlike the 2004 presidential contest, this is not shaping up as a national security election. Neither the war nor terrorism is foremost in the public's mind. The economy and energy prices are the pre-eminent issues of the day. And on those, Obama has the edge.
Still, this hate-the-war, love-the-warrior strain runs through the American electorate. In a new Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll, more than one out of five of the respondents who said they opposed the war also said they support McCain for president. The sentiment does not discriminate by gender or by age. Most significantly, it splits independent voters in favor of McCain.
Respondents said McCain would do a better job in Iraq than Obama by a margin of 39 percent to 33 percent. Undergirding that response is a strong sentiment that McCain would be a better leader of the military than Obama. One out of three respondents said that description matched McCain "very well," whereas only one out of 10 said the same of Obama, who did not serve in the armed forces.
The Iraq findings track McCain's advantage on the issue of terrorism. Of those surveyed, more than twice as many believe McCain can better handle terrorism than Obama. As such, McCain is emerging clearly as a candidate of national security, a conventional role for a Republican.
The public's views about Iraq are especially notable because many voters appear to separate McCain's past record of support for the war from their perception of his performance as a military leader. What's more, it points to a potential Obama vulnerability.
Only 6 percent of those who say they will vote for Obama say McCain would do a better job on Iraq. But among "weak" Obama supporters, that figure rises to 15 percent. Moreover, among undecided voters, McCain is preferred 25 percent to 15 percent over Obama on Iraq.
Leeann Ormsbee, a registered Democrat from Waterford, Pa., believes the United States rushed to war, but now does not believe troops should simply withdraw. The 29-year-old self-employed house cleaner says she has never voted for a Republican. She might this time.
"I do believe that he will do better in Iraq," she said of McCain. "Because he's served in the military and he has said we can't just pull out. ... I think we're just kind of stuck with it now and we have to finish."
Republican pollster Neil Newhouse calls these voters "nose-holders."
"They don't like the fact that we're over there, they don't think the decision was the right one, but they understand that if we simply withdraw our troops it would leave things worse off," he said.
Aware that national security is one of McCain's strongest features, Democrats and their allies have tried to portray his Iraq stance as a mere continuation of President Bush's policy. They have seized on his comments earlier this year when he speculated that U.S. troops could remain in Iraq for 100 years. Though he was talking about a presence of non-combat troops akin to those in South Korea, the remark has been used against him in television commercials.
Earlier this month, McCain kicked off his general election advertising campaign with an ad that featured his and his family's military service and his years in captivity but cast him as a man with a distaste for war.
"Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war," he says in the ad.
McCain supported the resolution in 2002 that allowed Bush to use force in Iraq. He later criticized then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld for his management of the war and went on to become one of the Senate's leading advocates of last year's buildup of troops. He has said he could envision troops withdrawing around 2013 but has refused to fix a date.
"We were losing in Iraq; now we're winning," he has said.
The troop expansion, which is about to end, has left Iraq safer and given Iraqi forces greater responsibility for security. But Pentagon and congressional reports issued this week also warned that the gains are delicate and could be reversed. Democrats split on who would handle terrorism better
McCain's Iraq advantage could evaporate if violence and chaos resurface and U.S. casualties mount. Conversely, even greater successes in the country could make withdrawing troops more palatable.
Obama has argued that the troop buildup has not helped resolve Iraq's political problems. He wants to remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president. But he has said that if al-Qaida builds bases in Iraq, he would keep troops in the country or in the region to carry out "targeted strikes."
"As the American people get to know Obama and McCain better, they will see that the difference is Obama's desire to fundamentally change American policy in Iraq and John McCain wants to continue George Bush's policy," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.
Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg said the evidence of improvements this year presents a double-edged sword for McCain and Obama.
"Obviously, people don't like the war in Iraq; they want it to be over and they don't like all the money we're spending there," she said. "On the other hand, people also don't want to retreat or lose. ... In 2006, (the public's view of the war) was much more clearly a net positive for Democrats. I think the landscape has changed."
At the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which has also polled on Iraq and the presidential candidates, associate director Michael Dimock said the public has a perception that McCain "is not completely on board with Bush."
What's more, he said, Obama faces lingering concerns about his experience, about not being tested and about not having foreign policy experience -- themes Hillary Rodham Clinton pushed during their prolonged primary contest.
"What you see is that Americans themselves are conflicted about Iraq," he added. "They are very hesitant to say that we need to get out now. They understand the complexity of this situation."
Poor McCain. Doesn't he realize that he should be flip-flopping and pandering to people (like Obama) instead of taking a principled stand that might prove to be unpopular in the short term? Who does he think he is?
Two of our greatest statesmen, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, took their last breaths on July 4, 1826, exactly 50 years after they presented America with our Declaration of Independence. They had been fellow revolutionaries, the closest of comrades, who went on to become bitter political rivals. Then, as the new era of the 1800s dawned, they reconciled, reminded of their old friendship and the momentous history they had made together. "Who shall write the history of the American revolution?" Adams asked Jefferson in one of the 158 letters they exchanged after they'd rediscovered their bonds. "Nobody," responded Jefferson, suggesting that while writers could understand the facts, they might never grasp the sacrifices.
We cannot know for certain, of course, if any later historian ever did succeed in writing a history of our revolution that would have impressed two of the greatest authors of the event. But more important to Adams and Jefferson was the question of whether future generations would prove worthy of the sacrifices our Founders had made to create this Republic. America's many accomplishments in the 182 years that have passed since their deaths, our rise as the most powerful and prosperous nation in history, would have, perhaps, exceeded their expectations. But would they still see in the spirit of our own age the same devotion to the ideals of our revolution? Would they find that love of country was just as strong in the hearts of today's Americans?
I believe they would. Patriotism is deeper than its symbolic expressions, than sentiments about place and kinship that move us to hold our hands over our hearts during the national anthem. It is putting the country first, before party or personal ambition, before anything. It is the willing acceptance of Americans, both those whose roots here extend back over generations and those who arrived only yesterday, to try to make a nation in which all people share in the promise and responsibilities of freedom.
I've spent a lot of time listening to veterans, talking to them, and also serving with them when we were young and at war. After their tours end, these soldiers, sailors, aviators, and Marines almost always return to the hard times, times of pain, suffering, loss, violence, and fear. They remember where they risked everything, absolutely everything, for the country that sent them there. It gives their lives special meaning. And it is the sacrifices of so many Americans, at home and abroad, in times of peace and times of war, that give meaning to all of us. We are blessed to be Americans, and blessed that so many of us have so often believed in a cause far greater than self-interest, far greater than ourselves. It is this belief that has sustained me as well, from a combat aircraft to a Vietnamese prison cell to the Senate floor or the campaign trail.
Today, politics is derided for its self-interest, combativeness, duplicity, and triviality. But such failings are not unique to our age. Both Adams and Jefferson lamented them in their own time. But that's the great beauty of our form of government, which they helped to create; it accounts for the vices of human nature as much as it hopes for our virtues. This blessed country remains a place of limitless horizons, a country where ideals, where a love of liberty and self-reliance still check the excesses of both government and man.
In return, the gift we can give back to our country is a patriotism that requires us to be good citizens in public office or in the community spaces where government is absent. We should, by all means, argue with each other, as did Adams and Jefferson, about the policies of government and the history we hope to make tomorrow. But it should be an argument among friends, who agree more than they disagree, each of us united in a cause larger than our individual interests, honestly debating the best means to serve that cause, and intent on finding some common ground upon which to overcome together the many challenges before us. To love one's country is to love one's countrymen. And if we are to replicate the spirit of our founding age, if we are to be genuine patriots, we must remember also that we are patriots because we love the countrymen we will never know, who will be born after we are gone.
As with Sens. Clinton and Obama, McCain's personal wealth is dwarfed by that of his spouse. Cindy McCain has assets worth an estimated $40 million, based on information McCain has provided annually in Senate financial-disclosure reports.
Compared with his wife, McCain is decidedly middle-class. Based on his tax return, he collects his Senate salary ($161,708), a Navy pension ($58,358), and some Social Security income ($23,157). The money he's earned over the years writing books ($176,508 in 2007 and about $1.8 million since 1998), he gives to charity.
Despite the smarminess in the article about how McCain and his wife invest their personal fortune, there is no overt poor money management (they are criticized in the piece for not taking more high-yield risks, but if you already have 100 million, why take risks to possibly lose it?)
Much ado is made about wife Cindy's personal wealth "being a liability", and about the source of that wealth. But despite the punchy headline, there's very little in the piece to back it up.
Which, again, is about as relevant as Arnold Schwarzenneger's dad being an S.S. officer in W W II. Or the Kennedy's fortune being made from bootlegging and insider trading. The sins of the father in these cases are not the sins of the sons, or daughters, who had no control over these actions.
John Kerry said Sunday Republican John McCain doesn’t have the judgment to be president.
If that’s the case, then it’s probably a good thing McCain rejected overtures from Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, to form a bipartisan ticket and run with Kerry as his candidate for vice president.
Not too long ago, Kerry might have described McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, as a bipartisan ally who could provide guidance on national security issues.
McCain came to Kerry’s aid in March 2004 after Bush and his campaign tried to paint the Democrat as weak on defense. He rejected the suggestion in broadcast interviews and chided both parties for waging such a “bitter and partisan” campaign.
The two senators also discussed the vice presidency several times before McCain finally rejected Kerry’s overtures to form a bipartisan ticket. Kerry ultimately selected then-Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., to join the ticket.
For the record, Kerry is not among those being mentioned as possible running mates for McCain.
Wow. It seems as if the only thing Kerry doesn't flip-flop on is his willingness to stab his fellow Vietnam vets in the back.
Well John Mccain has sold out on a lot of his former views. He's compromised a lot to get the nomination. I think anyone who sticks by Mccain just because he signed up for the armed services and got captured obviously puts their pride above the future of their country. And that makes me sadder than those pictures of Pariah that he posted once.
Here's the thing that makes Kerry a first-class asshole in this situation: He could have endorsed Obama without stabbing his "friend" in the back. All he had to do is say something along the lines of "John McCain is my good friend and he's a good man. However, our nation requires a new vision and different outlook than what the Republican Party currently provides. Barack Obama has that vision and outlook. Therefore, while John McCain remains my friend, I heartily endorse Barack Obama as the better man to hold the office of President."
But Lurch couldn't do that. Just as he did with his fellow Vietnam vets during his treasonous, false, testimony on Capitol Hill over thirty years ago, and just as he did two years ago when he called the troops in Iraq stupid, he chose to gratuitously stick a knife into a fellow veteran.
He is truly a scumbag. No wonder his fellow vets put out those "swift boat" ads.
Here's the thing that makes Kerry a first-class asshole in this situation: He could have endorsed Obama without stabbing his "friend" in the back. All he had to do is say something along the lines of "John McCain is my good friend and he's a good man. However, our nation requires a new vision and different outlook than what the Republican Party currently provides. Barack Obama has that vision and outlook. Therefore, while John McCain remains my friend, I heartily endorse Barack Obama as the better man to hold the office of President."
But Lurch couldn't do that. Just as he did with his fellow Vietnam vets during his treasonous, false, testimony on Capitol Hill over thirty years ago, and just as he did two years ago when he called the troops in Iraq stupid, he chose to gratuitously stick a knife into a fellow veteran.
He is truly a scumbag. No wonder his fellow vets put out those "swift boat" ads.
What's doubly beyond the pale about Kerry's attack on McCain is that McCain crossed party lines and defended Kerry against the swiftboat ads in 2004. Kerry paid McCain back by swiftboating him.
I've thought that this might be an organized volley of attacks by the Obama campaign on McCain's superior military/foreign policy experience. About a week ago, it was Wesley Clark saying pretty much the same things as Kerry about McCain. And in the case of either John Kerry or Wesley Clark, neither one has such an honorable service record that they're in any position to judge McCain's ability to command our military.
Can't say I feel to much like defending Kerry but his time on the swift boats was dangerous & there were alot of servicemen that never met him but claimed to have served with him to give their negative opinions more clout. I do agree though that he is an asshole when it comes to McCain who stuck up for Kerry when it wasn't political for McCain to do so. I think Obama would be better off with Kerry playing less of a role.
I think their attacks have a backfire effect, everytime they bring up his lack of military credentials, his sacrifices to the country are brought to the forefront. This is a guy that not only says he is here to serve our country he has actually backed it up.
Admittedly Zogby shows a much larger percentage of undecided voters than some of the other polls. However, the New Republic sees evidence of a momentum shift toward McCain in recent state-by-state surveys.
Obviously, this race is either's to lose at this point, but it does drive home exactly how fickle the polls are and how foolish certain Obama supporters looked when they were chortling over Obama's early lead a month or two ago.
I remember either reading or hearing the statistic that in all closely contested elections in the past forty or fifty years except one that whoever held the lead in the last Gallup poll of July lost the Presidential nomination.
I'm going to vote for McCain but I gotta tell you I would be a lot more excited for his candidacy if he was younger. At times he seems old and out of touch. I hope he picks a good running mate.
President Obama is rescuing this country from its right-wing insanity, whether you like it or not.
Oh jeez......don't tell me the ex-Insurgents are still trying to post under these alts? Are we supposed to believe it's "Hey look at these neat new members?"
Leave adler alone. I'm sure he'll be happier once he can shut down city streets so he can do his yoga exercises again.
rex you might actually benefit from exercise. clear up some of that impotent rage, maybe de-round your body. maybe you can even hook up with a woman ("flesh sock" in your terms).
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: rex
Leave adler alone. I'm sure he'll be happier once he can shut down city streets so he can do his yoga exercises again.
rex you might actually benefit from exercise. clear up some of that impotent rage, maybe de-round your body. maybe you can even hook up with a woman ("flesh sock" in your terms).
Who said I was angry? Are you projecting your feelings onto me? You should talk to someone about that.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: rex
Leave adler alone. I'm sure he'll be happier once he can shut down city streets so he can do his yoga exercises again.
rex you might actually benefit from exercise. clear up some of that impotent rage, maybe de-round your body. maybe you can even hook up with a woman ("flesh sock" in your terms).
Who said I was angry? Are you projecting your feelings onto me? You should talk to someone about that.
Saying that you're angry is like saying that water is wet.
On Thursday, McCain's campaign released a one-minute Web ad seeking to burnish his maverick image -- with testimonials from prominent Democrats.
The montage includes Hillary Rodham Clinton's scathing assessment of Obama's readiness to be president: "I know Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
There is footage of Obama defender Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who reportedly considered McCain as a running mate in 2004, calling McCain "a courageous, patriotic American who stands up for what he believes." Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., a potential vice presidential pick, is shown stating he would be "honored to run with or against John McCain."
Perhaps most embarrassing is a 2003 clip of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean saying he modeled his own presidential bid on McCain's 2000 run because of McCain's direct manner.
Gas prices have fallen about 25 cents in the last two weeks at the pumps around here with the current drop in crude per barrel dropping down to about $115. Wall Street is also rebounding as well as the dollar. Considering the rebounding of the economy and the settling down of Iraq, how is this gonna affect the presidential race since those have, so far, been the key issues?
McCain thought he could break Obama and instead he got served AND owned by the Hiltons.
Don't bite off the hand that feeds you.
Are you drunk? Seriously. Because everyone knows that, not only did McCain totally Obama with that ad, but Hilton trying to attention-whore herself into the discussion only served to remind everyone of it again.
on a side not I dont know anyone who didn't find it hilarious when Paris Hilton's mom scolded McCain for his ad being distasteful, as if anyone who raised Paris Hilton knows anything about proper etiquette....
I really want to know how the foreign press is covering this as, just the other day, Dave felt that there was no way for Obama to lose despite the fact that he and McCain are practically neck and neck.
I dont know anyone who didn't find it hilarious when Paris Hilton's mom scolded McCain for his ad being distasteful, as if anyone who raised Paris Hilton knows anything about proper etiquette....
Yeah, I'm not sure what genius at the Obama campaign thought having the Hiltons on their side would help Barack. I guess the Democrats are so used to assuming (wrongly) that Hollywood endorsements count for something that they just jumped at the chance to have another celebutard on the team.
McCain thought he could break Obama and instead he got served AND owned by the Hiltons.
Don't bite off the hand that feeds you.
Are you drunk? Seriously. Because everyone knows that, not only did McCain totally Obama with that ad, but Hilton trying to attention-whore herself into the discussion only served to remind everyone of it again.
Announcing a record fund-raising month, John McCain's campaign said yesterday it received a wave of Web donations after airing its controversial TV ad linking rival Barack Obama to airhead celebrities Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
"We've got a pretty good uptick in Internet fund-raising. We definitely saw an uptick [following release of the ad]," said McCain campaign manager Rick Davis.
Davis also said a backlash against Obama's highly hyped overseas trip last month helped fill campaign coffers.
McCain reported raising a personal best $27 million last month, and the Republican National Committee raised another $26 million.
The McCain campaign had $21.4 million on hand. But with joint funds, Davis said nearly $100 million is available to spend.
I like how even though Obama broke his campaign promise McCain has stuck to his on public campaign financing. It's good to know there is some honesty still around.
Democrat Barack Obama berated his White House rival John McCain Monday as an out-of-touch economic illiterate who would make the rich richer at a time of financial pain for most US voters.
At a rally in a sweltering high school gymnasium here, Obama mocked McCain for remarking at a weekend forum with religious leader Rick Warren that only those earning more than five million dollars a year were really rich.
"This explains why his tax plan gives hundreds of thousands in tax breaks for people earning 2.5 million, because they're only middle class," the Illinois senator told a jeering crowd of 1,800 people.
"Everyone making 2.5 million or more, raise your hands," Obama added to laughter. Nobody in the audience did.
I haven't checked out Ray's link yet. However, given his claimed hatred of people who take things out of context I'm sure it's a tough denunciation of Obama, just as BSAMS predicted.
Russia invades Georgia and President Bush goes on vacation. Our president has spent one-third of his entire two terms in office either at Camp David, Maryland, or at Crawford, Texas, on vacation.
His time away from the Oval Office included the month leading up to 9/11, when there were signs Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America, and the time Hurricane Katrina destroyed the city of New Orleans.
Sen. John McCain takes weekends off and limits his campaign events to one a day. He made an exception for the religious forum on Saturday at Saddleback Church in Southern California.
I think he made a big mistake. When he was invited last spring to attend a discussion of the role of faith in his life with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, McCain didn't bother to show up. Now I know why.
It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.
Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?
Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.
He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.
He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.
One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none.
Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America's moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.?
John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet.
He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the "Straight Talk Express" for a reason. He simply makes too many mistakes. Unless he's reciting talking points or reading from notes or a TelePrompTer, John McCain is lost. He can drop bon mots at a bowling alley or diner -- short glib responses that get a chuckle, but beyond that McCain gets in over his head very quickly.
I am sick and tired of the president of the United States embarrassing me. The world we live in is too complex to entrust it to someone else whose idea of intellectual curiosity and grasp of foreign policy issues is to tell us he can look into Vladimir Putin's eyes and see into his soul.
George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself.
He will leave office with the country $10 trillion in debt, fighting two wars, our international reputation in shambles, our government cloaked in secrecy and suspicion that his entire presidency has been a litany of broken laws and promises, our citizens' faith in our own country ripped to shreds. Yet Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been.
I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him.
'I'm sure that comment will be distorted.' - John McCain
Originally Posted By: Jim Jackson
He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.
Heh!
I do think a lot of that opinion was very shallow in and of itself. It forgets McCain's answer to what his hardest decision to make was and how shallow and politically motivated Obama's answer was. I agree that this isn't the McCain of 2000 or one even close to being on his game, but a lot of that editorial or whatever is BS.
The more I look at Cafferty's editorial, the sillier it looks.
For example:
1. McCain was asked what he considered his greatest moral failing and he said the failure of his first marriage. Cafferty is upset because McCain didn't explain why he considered that a moral failure when the answer is obvious to pretty much every person on earth.
2. Cafferty asks "Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time... his position papers... etc., etc., etc.?" McCain has a twenty-plus year record in the Senate addressing the various issues facing the country. Obama has a speech and a couple self-congratulatory books about himself and his dad. And Cafferty's calling McCain the lightweight?
I think the real problem here for people like Cafferty is that McCain is clearly the most experienced candidate in this race for either party...and has been since day one (the only ones who came close were Thompson on the GOP side and Biden on the Democrat side). Furthermore, even with his move to right on a few issues, it's pretty clear that McCain is still the more moderate candidate in this race (actually, he's still more liberal than I'd prefer). In fact, there are non-partisan polls that show, overall, most people prefer McCain over Obama on the issues.
As a result, the Obama supporters can't attack McCain on his record so they have to rely on made-up attacks on McCain as the second coming of Bush.
so while g-man and bsams jerk off over every tiny detail of Obama, I notice no one mentions any actual Mccain stories. Like how when asked how many houses he owns he didn't know. At a time when regular people are losing their homes and Obama is being called "elitist" this republican has so many homes he can't remember how many. The answer is something like 7, not counting the guest houses on those properties.
Or how about mentioning that he constantly uses his POW years as an answer to every question. Back in 2000 Mccain was asked to meet with a family who lost someone in the same squad Mccain was in, Mccain took the meeting in private not wanting to capitalize on his POW time. Now it's his main point. Here's a good Olbermann editorial:
g-man, i will never find the label "liberal" to be insulting. and so far the only "bad" thing about the insurgency seems to be that they're liberal. and though i found their raid tactics to be incredibly juvenile and impotent (a sign i'm not connected to them, raiding is my greatest superpower) i have found the posters to be sincere people with sincere beliefs. you and rex seem incapable of actually responding to what i have to say so you resort to childish name calling (i expect nothing less from a cunt who voted twice for a retard).
but please don't ever think i'll find being called a liberal insulting. i'm proud to be liberal.
now that we've talked about the important campaign issue of ray adler, do you have any thoughts on Mccain and the stories about him in the news (the houses, veteran issues, his using his POW time as campaign leverage). you seem content to just attack obama and repeat the same tired phrases over and over again, while i'm both discussing obama and mccain. seriously, look at this thread. a quick scroll of the past few weeks is basically either an obama attack or a poll about mccain winning some poll. if he's so great, defend him. or is your conservative pride limited to attacking liberal posters and obama but offering nothing positive about your guy?
Here's the thing, Ray: since I'm not a liberal, I don't find myself consumed with class envy and hatred against someone who has more money than I do.
McCain is a successful man who married a very wealthy woman. Good for him.
As for not knowing how many properties his family owns, I think the fact he spends more time thinking about how to better his country than cataloging his wife's possessions is an admirable thing.
In regard to the the idea he's "hiding" behind his POW status, this is just another canard that the left likes to use because they realize they can't attack the man as a "chickenhawk" or for being as inexperienced as their candidate.
McCain's military record is part of his experience and part of who he is. Of course he is going to talk about it, just as he talks about dozens of other aspects of his long career of public service. Furthermore, unlike Kerry, he didn't spend the first twenty or thirty years of his career trying to disavow his service or his fellow veterans before running for president.
Do think McCain is perfect? Obviously not. I've criticized him on many issues over the years where I disagree with his positions.
But I'm not going to attack him for his success either.
Here's the thing, Ray: since I'm not a liberal, I don't find myself consumed with class envy and hatred against someone who has more money than I do.
your side is the one that uses class warfare. all politicians who get to the point to run for president are essentially wealthy. however republicans pretend like their average joes and they paint the democrats as elitist for not covering up their education and lifestyle. the housing issue came up because people, regular people, are losing their homes and mccain is saying the economy is stable. it's stable for him and he's out of touch. like when george bush sr. didn't know about supermarket scanners.
Quote:
McCain is a successful man who married a very wealthy woman. Good for him.
and he doesn't know how many homes he has? either that's old age and poor memory or a sign of someone who is, what's the word, "elite."
Quote:
As for not knowing how many properties his family owns, I think the fact he spends more time thinking about how to better his country than cataloging his wife's possessions is an admirable thing.
it shouldn't be that hard to keep track of how many HOUSES you own. HOUSES are big fucking things. we're not talking about him not knowing how much his family spent on groceries last year.
Quote:
In regard to the the idea he's "hiding" behind his POW status, this is just another canard that the left likes to use because they realize they can't attack the man as a "chickenhawk" or for being as inexperienced as their candidate.
he brings it up at every chance to deflect issues. Jay Leno jokingly brought up the house issue. as an obvious joke and comical way and Mccain responded that he spent 5 years in a POW "house" with no kitchen or bathroom. Nothing to do with the question, just him using his past as leverage. Like rudy using 9/11 so he didn't actually have to know facts about terrorism and the middle east.
the shame is that mccain used to have more class than this. in 2000 he didn't use his POW status for politics. i guess after being raped by Karl Rove for having a black baby mccain just wants to be president and will sell out any principle to get there.
Quote:
McCain's military record is part of his experience and part of who he is. Of course he is going to talk about it, just as he talks about dozens of other aspects of his long career of public service.
while it's certainly an experience beyond anything i have ever endured and is a sign of strength that he survived, how does being a POW count as experience? technically being captured means he fucked up as a soldier. and being tortured doesn't give you knowledge of international affairs. i'm not trying to belittle his experience, i do think his surviving that and then devoting himself to politics is a mark of honor, but it has to be put in the proper context. survivng a gunshot wound does not qualify you to be an ER doctor. he should stick to his political career if he wants to sell his experience, otherwise he sounds like he's going for pity.
Quote:
Furthermore, unlike Kerry, he didn't spend the first twenty or thirty years of his career trying to disavow his service or his fellow veterans before running for president.
John Kerry came back from the war, heavily decorated and highly honored, and worked to end the war. he worked to end the war because vietnam was a mistake, it was not a place we should've been. many veterans felt screwed over, it was a bad place that scarred their lives and kerry worked to end it, for the sake of his fellow soldiers. i'm not sure what, if any, effect he had. but he fought the good fight. then 30 years later a bunch of republicans fabricated lies about his service and denegrated his service in order to elect a man who at best got a cushy job in the national guard using his daddy's connections and at worst didn't even bother to show up.
Quote:
Do think McCain is perfect? Obviously not. I've criticized him on many issues over the years where I disagree with his positions.
like wondy who says he criticizes both sides, you say "i disagree" to the republicans and "this man is a traitor" to the democrats.
Quote:
But I'm not going to attack him for his success either.
i think his success became an issue when he tries to act like a regular joe sixpack while painting Obama as an elitist. fact is, as i said above, anyone running for president is elite. you don't get there making $30,000 a year. I'm just sick of your side pretending that your candidates are down to earth regular folks. i don't like the mentality that a president should be elected based on whether or not you'd want to have a beer with them. the president should be smart, the president should be cultured. because the president's job requires quick thinking, knowledge of the facts, and being our ambassador to the world. when you put up a millionaire who acts like one of the guys you get people like bush. people who can barely get their sentences out, people who get bored with long reports and want the "jist" of it instead, people who grope foreign leaders and generally make America look really foolish. But the point is not Bush. the point is that Mccain opened the door to his houses being an issue by pretending to be regular, talking to people who are losing their one and only home and pretending to understand when he doesn't even know how many homes he has.
I was just thinking yesterday that its been a while since someone posted a youtube of the liberal version of o'reilly.
what's your point? you're more than welcome to post an o'reilly clip or any clip you want to. i think posting a youtube clip is great. written editorials most likely aren't read, while a video conveys the whole point with the context of tone of voice.
if you don't understand how to post the tags, ask rob for help.
If someone posts a written editorial, it can be quickly skimmed to determine whether it's worthwhile read the whole thing. It can also be read without the sound on and doesn't take time to load (not everyone has cable or DSL, for example).
And, to be honest, just as you probably wouldn't bother to click on a video from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, I'm not going to bother to sit there and listen to Olbermann bloviate.
When I do post a clip, I try to explain why I posted it and what it's about, so the reader can determine if he or she wants to click on it.
You insurgents and insurgent wannabes typically just throw up a lengthy clip of Olbermann and expect us to sit there and try and figure out why we should pay attention to his latest bit of lib-porn.
As for your other points, I've never seriously called Obama a "traitor." I've criticized him for his close associations people who could legitimately be called traitors, such as Ayers, and his extremely dangerous and naive foreign policy views. And, if people consider Obama "elitist," it's because of his own comments about people being "bitter" and "clinging to guns and religion." McCain and Obama may both be very successful men, but only the latter gets caught insulting people not as lucky as they are. That's why he gets tagged as an elitist.
Finally, you need to let go of the Bush obsession. McCain isn't Bush and the left's attempts to claim otherwise look desperate and foolish.
But some people are too retarded to do that so they have to spam links in a sad attempt to prove a point they're not even sure about in the first place.
to you because you're an old man who doesn't understand technology. I bet right now you have the CD tray out and your drink resting there and you don't understand how to use the "tiny shiny records" that you keep seeing.
Quote:
If someone posts a written editorial, it can be quickly skimmed to determine whether it's worthwhile read the whole thing. It can also be read without the sound on and doesn't take time to load (not everyone has cable or DSL, for example).
who doesn't have DSL at this point? the price of DSL is pretty cheap and some cities (like SF) offer free wifi in some areas (or you can just piggyback on someone's connection. who uses dial-up these days? that argument is like bitching Blockbuster only carries DVDs and exludes the VCR people. with a video clip you can tell the tone right off the bat and determine whether or not you want to watch it. And with anyone posting a video editorial, they're posting it because they believe it has merit and that is often as much of a basis for judgment as skimming. And if you're in a situation where you can't play the sound, then that's your problem. Either don't post at work or skip that post and don't chime in on it. But I really do believe that hearing and seeing the person is more important than just reading the words. You need the full experience of the communication.
Quote:
And, to be honest, just as you probably wouldn't bother to click on a video from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, I'm not going to bother to sit there and listen to Olbermann bloviate.
fair enough, but you can still post your videos if you think they convey a point. Those two are bad examples though. Those two are so far beyond any respectability that I would never watch them. However if you posted a fox news story i would watch it, an o'reilly clip. I may not like them but those I will sit through to hear the opposing ideas. I actually watch them on my own alongside the olbermann clips because i like hearing both sides even when i am firmly siding with one.
Quote:
When I do post a clip, I try to explain why I posted it and what it's about, so the reader can determine if he or she wants to click on it.
I typed out a bunch on Mccain and then said "here's a good editorial by olbermann." what confused you about that? where was the mystery? if you really did make it through law school then i'm sure your keen legal mind sussed out that Olbermann in the video would be talking about Mccain.
Quote:
You insurgents and insurgent wannabes typically just throw up a lengthy clip of Olbermann and expect us to sit there and try and figure out why we should pay attention to his latest bit of lib-porn.
i spent about 2 years here avoiding this forum, i clearly established myself on the other forums as my own person. but the second i started to post here and it was clear i held liberal beliefs you and bsams and others accused me of being whomod's alt. now because a group of liberal posters called the insurgency posted here, you accuse all liberal posters of being insurgents. it's tired, it's lame, it's what rex does. you want to pull "ray-facts" or "get me a soda" or something specific to me to insult me then go for it, but this is just past the point of being funny, or annoying, to just being worthy. I don't say you and wondy are the same person. i have specific insults for him and specific insults for you. why? because i care about my insulting jokes. you and bsams seem to be butt buddies lately, take a page from him and only put out the good jokes.
Quote:
As for your other points, I've never seriously called Obama a "traitor." I've criticized him for his close associations people who could legitimately be called traitors, such as Ayers, and his extremely dangerous and naive foreign policy views.
"traitor" is a specific term with a specific meaning. did Ayers work with a foreign agent or power? did he compromise classified intelligence or sell secrets? was his aim to overthrow the government in the name of some outside force taking over? that is what a traitor does. he was an anarchist i guess, he was a dissident, but not a "traitor." you have pretty much accused Obama of being a terrorist, a "secret muslim," you use his middle name (which comes from the word for Handsome in Arabic and is pretty common) to insinuate he was somehow evil. While at the same time blasting his association with a christian preacher. Which is it? If he's a secret muslim then going to wright's church wouldn't really mean much.
Quote:
Finally, you need to let go of the Bush obsession. McCain isn't Bush and the left's attempts to claim otherwise look desperate and foolish.
Bush is the current President. These men are running for his job. Bush is the one who started this war, he is the one who managed all the tasks and policies that one of these men will oversee. So in the campaign Bush is probably the most important issue. Whether you like Bush and agree with him or not matters to how you will rank the candidates and make your choice. And Bush ran in 2000 based on how bad he thought Clinton was, and how he would be different. Gore ran in 2000 based on how good Clinton was and how he would continue the good work. Clinton ran in 1992 based on how bad Bush sr was, and how he would be different. Bush ran in 1988 based on how good Reagan was and how he would carry on, while I imagine (but was only 6 so don't recall) that Dukakis ran on how bad the Reagan years were. The current President's job performance matters. Ultimtately it boils down to do you want someone who opposes Bush and would take a different route, or do you want someone who will follow Bush's lead (in his own way, but still on the general route).
But some people are too retarded to do that so they have to spam links in a sad attempt to prove a point they're not even sure about in the first place.
and some people just bitch and contribute nothing else except for bitching. but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. what's your opinion? not bitching about liberals or the insurgents or whatnot. what is your opinion the on the issues. between me and g-man there's a lot of stuff here to agree or disagree with, but all you seem to do is complain. please post your opinions.
I really do believe that hearing and seeing the person is more important than just reading the words. You need the full experience of the communication.
"traitor" is a specific term with a specific meaning. did Ayers work with a foreign agent or power? did he compromise classified intelligence or sell secrets? was his aim to overthrow the government in the name of some outside force taking over? that is what a traitor does.
My point was not that Ayers was legally a traitor, only that my comments towards him are the closest I've come to calling anyone related to Obama a traitor, contrary to your claim.
To clarify: Barack Hussein Obama's friend William Ayers is a former domestic terrorist, not a traitor.
you're such a wimp. you never actually go toe to toe and stand your ground, you instead avoid every point i make and make some lame joke. i guess i broke you.
"traitor" is a specific term with a specific meaning. did Ayers work with a foreign agent or power? did he compromise classified intelligence or sell secrets? was his aim to overthrow the government in the name of some outside force taking over? that is what a traitor does.
My point was not that Ayers was legally a traitor, only that my comments towards him are the closest I've come to calling anyone related to Obama a traitor, contrary to your claim.
To clarify: Barack Hussein Obama's friend William Ayers is a former domestic terrorist, not a traitor.
so he's friends with the guy who did something 40 years ago. i've never seen obama support those actions or agree with them. for all you know they talk about movies and that's the basis of their friendship. haven't you ever had a liberal friend who you avoided certain issues when you talked? i had a hardcore catholic conservative friend. we got along great except we avoided politics and religion because we knew it'd be an argument. the few times we did get into it he expressed that he felt i was immoral for being pro-choice. but he was my friend because in all other issues in life we were friends. I can show you a picture of Mccain hugging a man who lied to the American people and started a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of lives, thousands of which were his own troops. I can give you quotes of Mccain calling a man who outed a covert CIA agent, an act which the man's own father said years earlier was treason and warranted execution.
This is the Mccain thread, why aren't we talking about Mccain? Why can you post at length about Obama's friendships with people but then cry foul when I mention Mccain's friendships? This is the Mccain thread. Please don't turn it into a cheap sequel to the Obama thread. All that says is that Mccain is nothing but the guy running against Obama with an R next to his name. You make arguments for why Obama is bad, but you don't say why Mccain is good.
Also, Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein. By G-Man's logic, that means Rumsfeld is bosom chums with Saddam and is partly responsible for the WMDs that Hussein was stockpiling.
You wrote a lot about about why you think posting YouTube videos is an effective persuasion tool. I wrote why I disagree. You responded with more reasons why you disagree with my disagreement.
It's matter of personal preference, obviously, and not particularly on topic.
I also conceded your point that Ayers is not, per se, a traitor and clarified the meaning of my earlier comment, while "standing my ground" that his association with Ayers reflects badly on Obama.
Beyond that, all I see is more of you Bush obsession, which I've already noted is not a particularly effective, or accurate, strategy against a candidate who's never been afraid to criticize the current president (sometimes even, in my opinion, unfairly).
Finally, I would note that I wrote several paragraphs earlier, directly on point about McCain and you started in on YouTube, Obama, Bush, etc., again.
Also, Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein. By G-Man's logic, that means Rumsfeld is bosom chums with Saddam and is partly responsible for the WMDs that Hussein was stockpiling.
Snarf's argument, such as it is, is based upon a faulty premise.
As I and others have noted before:
1. Shaking hands with someone while on a diplomatic mission is clearly not the same thing as a longstanding personal friendship (in fact, under Snarf's logic, Roosevelt and Churchill were best pals with Joe Stalin and Bill Clinton was bosom buddies with Yassir Arafat and Kim Jong Il); 2. Rumsfeld mission to Saddam was an attempt to advance US interests at a time when it appeared that he could be an ally against Iran, whereas Ayers' acts were most decidedly carried out against American targets.
Mccain. you post anti-obama, anti-me, but not too much about why mccain should be president.
Quote:
I also conceded your point that Ayers is not, per se, a traitor and clarified the meaning of my earlier comment, while "standing my ground" that his association with Ayers reflects badly on Obama.
which is talked about at length on the Obama thread.
Quote:
Beyond that, all I see is more of you Bush obsession, which I've already noted is not a particularly effective, or accurate, strategy against a candidate who's never been afraid to criticize the current president (sometimes even, in my opinion, unfairly).
Bush is the President of the United States. Currently. As I said the race for president is all about who is the president currently. Presidential policies on the war Bush started, the economy which has turned during his term, the price of gas are all relevant to the campaign for who will take his place in January. He, like any incumbent (lame duck or not), is the main issue of the race. just because you can't defend him, doesn't mean he's off limits. And again, George W Bush ran in 2000 on the basis that Clinton was a bad President. Did you at the time say he had blind hatred for Clinton, or did you agree and vote for him?
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Ray, which point should I stand my ground on?
Mccain. you post anti-obama, anti-me, but not too much about why mccain should be president.
To be fair, neither one of you seems to be too interested in telling someone like myself - someone who isn't enamored with either candidate - why I should vote for your candidate. So why don't you both do that. I'm a social liberal, economic conservative, mostly moderate person. I admit to being politically apathetic but I do make it a point to vote. Why should I vote for your guy?
Also, Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein. By G-Man's logic, that means Rumsfeld is bosom chums with Saddam and is partly responsible for the WMDs that Hussein was stockpiling.
Snarf's argument, such as it is, is based upon a faulty premise.
As I and others have noted before:
1. Shaking hands with someone while on a diplomatic mission is clearly not the same thing as a longstanding personal friendship (in fact, under Snarf's logic, Roosevelt and Churchill were best pals with Joe Stalin and Bill Clinton was bosom buddies with Yassir Arafat and Kim Jong Il); 2. Rumsfeld mission to Saddam was an attempt to advance US interests at a time when it appeared that he could be an ally against Iran, whereas Ayers' acts were most decidedly carried out against American targets.
Ayers was against the American government, which he believed to be corrupt and in need of revolution. That idea is an old one, going back to the very origins of this country. He believed it was the right thing to do at the time.
Ronald Reagan and George Bush sr sold weapons to Iran, gave mustard gas to Saddam, helped train bin Laden. Because at the time they believed these were the right actions to take. Iran is now a big bad scary evil enemy, Saddam used some of that gas to kill his own people, and bin Laden used that training for al queda.
If you condemn Obama for being friends with Ayers for his actions, which killed no one (as far as I've read), or for his friendship with Wright who gave a few "offensive" speeches, then you must condemn Bush for appointing people and even just being the son of men who are indirectly responsible for the deaths of many thousands. And you must condemn Mccain for supporting a man who started a war with no plan, based on a lie, that has led to the tarnishing of America's reputation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. That's your logic. And if you don't. If you are really sitting there and saying that "god damn America" is a worse guilt by association offense than 9/11, then wow. Just wow.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Ray, which point should I stand my ground on?
Mccain. you post anti-obama, anti-me, but not too much about why mccain should be president.
To be fair, neither one of you seems to be too interested in telling someone like myself - someone who isn't enamored with either candidate - why I should vote for your candidate. So why don't you both do that. I'm a social liberal, economic conservative, mostly moderate person. I admit to being politically apathetic but I do make it a point to vote. Why should I vote for your guy?
As I said Bush is a main issue. Mccain will continue Bush's wars and as has been pointed out his plan for the war will require a draft, the manpower isn't there without one. Mccain is also the oldest man to ever run, if you look at him the age is clearly showing. And as I said about his use of his POW time in this election as political leverage shows that he is now willing to do anything to get elected. I'm also troubled by the canned nature of his speeches. There also seems to be a lot of pent up anger in the man. He called Vietnam an enemy in a recent speech, sure he was talking about the war but he sounded like he still had unresolved anger towards the country which isn't good for a president. Also he used "gook" in 2000, which is also troubling. He's joked about starting a war with Iran, which is also troubling. But that's why I don't think he's right for the job. Mccain is just more of the same with some slight adjustments. Mccain has war on the brain in my opinion. He's just a cynical old man.
I like Obama personally. He seems like a decent person, like he actually believes in what he is saying. And he's talking about hope and a better tomorrow, he's talking about bringing the troops out of Iraq. He uses common sense and doesn't talk down to people. He was ridiculed for saying we could save millions of barrels of oil if people checked their tire pressure and got regular tune-ups. The ridicule stopped when it turned out many experts and even the department of transportation had also given the same advice. I like the fact that he didn't just say "i'm gonna drill here or bomb there for oil" but he gave practical advice that can easily be done. That to me is a president. A leader who leads, not some gung ho soldier looking for combat. I feel that even if Obama fails miserably he deserves the chance because he's trying to make things better because he believes they can be better. I feel he would repair our image in the world. Diplomacy is not a sign of weakness, it's the ultimate support for the troops because it shows willingness to not be macho and just send men to their deaths. And America has a great bargaining position in the world, we don't need to use the military like Bush did with Iraq and Mccain would most likely do with Iran. And when you consider Biden's experience in the senate, and his detailed knowledge of the middle east and it's people and his comprehensive plans and ideas for Iraq, it'd be such a breath of fresh air after so much "they hate us for our freedom" mentality. Obama would present an intellectual America to the world, something which we need after 8 years of Bush. And yes, he's black. Which would help to mend a lot of the racial divide in the country and would show the world that we're not just a nation run by rich white guys. It just seems to me that in all ways we can choose to try and improve the world and make America a respected power again or we can choose to fight the world and create more enemies.
...why I should vote for your candidate. So why don't you both do that. I'm a social liberal, economic conservative, mostly moderate person. I admit to being politically apathetic but I do make it a point to vote. Why should I vote for your guy?
Because, if you're a moderate, his record shows that, overall, McCain is the more moderate candidate.
Furthermore, McCain has decades of experience in both the military and civilian government, and is highly regarded on both sides of the political aisle as a statesman and leader who governs based upon competence and personal honor.
True or false: Did he or did he not shake hands with a man later identified as an enemy of America? Answer the question, councillor!
Asked and answered counselor.
He shook hands with a man later identified as such but, unlike Obama, did not ally himself with such a man after the identification was made.
Objection overuled, counselor, for being argumentative. Move on with your questioning.
has Obama "allied" himself with Ayers (implying endorsment of views and actions) or is he merely friends with a college proffessor who did all these acts when Obama was a little kid?
...why I should vote for your candidate. So why don't you both do that. I'm a social liberal, economic conservative, mostly moderate person. I admit to being politically apathetic but I do make it a point to vote. Why should I vote for your guy?
Because, if you're a moderate, his record shows that, overall, McCain is the more moderate candidate.
Mccain may not be a neocon but he is in line with the policies of Bush. So Joe Mama needs to ask himself if he wants 4-8 more years of this chaos.
Quote:
Furthermore, McCain has decades of experience in both the military and civilian government, and is highly regarded on both sides of the political aisle as a statesman and leader who governs based upon competence and personal honor.
Mccain is old, too old at this point. There comes a point when wisdom gives way to the natural wear and tear on the body. Biden has more experience than Mccain, is a tad bit younger, and will provide a good balance to Obama's lack of longterm politics. Which I think is what we need. Obama has idealism that will be tempered and guided by Biden's experience. So he gets the benefit of that experience without the flaw of cynicism and willingness to compromise and play "politics" that comes with years in Washington.
never mind all that. black dukakis will save us all!
what do you ever add? i notice you basically serve as another rex. whatever you may think of me at least I'm taking the time to convey my views and beliefs. You're just sitting there griping about liberals and making this all about me. Please take a moment to type up your thoughts. As I said about youtube videos, I like to see all the sides even when I disagree. In other words put up or shut up.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
and some people just bitch and contribute nothing else except for bitching. but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. what's your opinion? not bitching about liberals or the insurgents or whatnot. what is your opinion the on the issues. between me and g-man there's a lot of stuff here to agree or disagree with, but all you seem to do is complain. please post your opinions.
I post my opinion on things when I want to. Its just more fun to make you halo82.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
and some people just bitch and contribute nothing else except for bitching. but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. what's your opinion? not bitching about liberals or the insurgents or whatnot. what is your opinion the on the issues. between me and g-man there's a lot of stuff here to agree or disagree with, but all you seem to do is complain. please post your opinions.
I post my opinion on things when I want to. Its just more fun to make you halo82.
so you're going to be a whiney chickenshit. understood. too bad it's entirely possible if you actually started posting stuff with real content you might get the slightest bit of respect instead of just being the sockfucker.
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
never mind all that. black dukakis will save us all!
what does that prove? seriously. do you think you actually proved me wrong or won some argument? you posted a graemlin. another whiney chickenshit contributing nothing.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
so you're going to be a whiney chickenshit.
um, you're the one who's whining about my posts. And being a tard. And wants to be recruited by the insurgency.
you're the one who is contributing nothing. you're the one who is disliked and mocked across all spectrums because you contribute nothing but being a whiney chickentshit who bitches about everything and everyone but never says anything of substance.
As for the insurgency. they were terrible at raiding. you didn't "break" anyone, they broke themselves and you have so little in life to be proud of that you have to claim that. I don't really know anything about them to be honest. But it seems like the main "flaw" of the insurgency that people mock them for is being liberals. I'm not offended by being called a liberal. I'm proud to be liberal and I am proud of my beliefs which is why, unlike you, I post what I think instead of just only posting substance-less bitching.
you could try for the next 10 years and not even phase me, let alone "break" me. there're posters here who could break me, drive me off the boards, and you're not one of them. now, do you have something of substance to add to this thread? or are you going to call me an insurgent for the 1000th time hoping that this time it'll hurt my feelings?
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
never mind all that. black dukakis will save us all!
what does that prove? seriously. do you think you actually proved me wrong or won some argument? you posted a graemlin. another whiney chickenshit contributing nothing.
says the guy whose posts are at least one third eye-rolling graemlins. what is it that you 'contribute' here? audiovisual feces nobody wants to watch? your opinions? moonbat columnists' opinions? these boards are a blank slate on which everyone is free to express themselves. your olbermann youtubes are just one can of the spraypaint you use to graffiti them up. are you hoping to vent your bitterness toward conservatives - especially evangelical ones? or are you just that much of an attention whore? because either way, you're just the whiny, angry teenage kid with the can of spraypaint in his hand.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
you could try for the next 10 years and not even phase me, let alone "break" me. there're posters here who could break me, drive me off the boards, and you're not one of them. now, do you have something of substance to add to this thread? or are you going to call me an insurgent for the 1000th time hoping that this time it'll hurt my feelings?
I broke you once you admitted that I annoy you. Ever since then you have been attacking me every chance you get. You, along with the rest of the insurgency are now and will always be my bitches.
that's not breaking someone. that's being an asshole and making someone hate you. breaking someone is driving them to the point where they can't bring themselves to post anymore because they can't take you anymore. it your criteria for breaking someone is just pissing them off and having them make fun of you then you broke everyone here, because everyone makes fun of you, everyone insults you. i'm sorry to burst your bubble, reax.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
never mind all that. black dukakis will save us all!
what does that prove? seriously. do you think you actually proved me wrong or won some argument? you posted a graemlin. another whiney chickenshit contributing nothing.
says the guy whose posts are at least one third eye-rolling graemlins. what is it that you 'contribute' here? audiovisual feces nobody wants to watch? your opinions? moonbat columnists' opinions? these boards are a blank slate on which everyone is free to express themselves. your olbermann youtubes are just one can of the spraypaint you use to graffiti them up. are you hoping to vent your bitterness toward conservatives - especially evangelical ones? or are you just that much of an attention whore? because either way, you're just the whiny, angry teenage kid with the can of spraypaint in his hand.
oh, phil. i can't stay mad at you.
and is a valid response. it was established when Al Gore invented the interweb.
but seriously, you may not like my opinions and views but they are what they are. if i remember right, you're christian. i find religious belief to be kind of silly. i imagine your response to that statement is the same as mine to you calling me a moonbat. the reason i post with so many conservatives is because i believe it's good to have your views challenge, it's good to have these kinds of debates. no one may change their mind but when we really get into it and defend our views and express them to people who are on the far opposite end of the spectrum, it helps clarify our own beliefs by forcing us to define them and write them out.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
that's not breaking someone. that's being an asshole and making someone hate you. breaking someone is driving them to the point where they can't bring themselves to post anymore because they can't take you anymore.
The only person you can control is yourself. No one can force you to hate them. Because of your weak mindedness I made you my bitch by getting you all pissy. Once again, you are my bitch.
no, you can make people hate you by being a sockfucking cunt. it's not a sign of making them your bitch, it's a sign of you being an unlikable person. you didn't have to force me to hate you, rex. it came naturally by you just being you.
but by that logic hippies broke you. and you've called me a hippie. so by your logic i broke you.
Ray, spending this much time and effort on rex isn't healthy. And, yes, the hippies broke rex years ago. It's why he always feels nauseous whenever he smells granola.
Ray, spending this much time and effort on rex isn't healthy. And, yes, the hippies broke rex years ago. It's why he always feels nauseous whenever he smells granola.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
no, you can make people hate you by being a sockfucking cunt. it's not a sign of making them your bitch, it's a sign of you being an unlikable person. you didn't have to force me to hate you, rex. it came naturally by you just being you.
but by that logic hippies broke you. and you've called me a hippie. so by your logic i broke you.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
never mind all that. black dukakis will save us all!
what does that prove? seriously. do you think you actually proved me wrong or won some argument? you posted a graemlin. another whiney chickenshit contributing nothing.
says the guy whose posts are at least one third eye-rolling graemlins. what is it that you 'contribute' here? audiovisual feces nobody wants to watch? your opinions? moonbat columnists' opinions? these boards are a blank slate on which everyone is free to express themselves. your olbermann youtubes are just one can of the spraypaint you use to graffiti them up. are you hoping to vent your bitterness toward conservatives - especially evangelical ones? or are you just that much of an attention whore? because either way, you're just the whiny, angry teenage kid with the can of spraypaint in his hand.
oh, phil. i can't stay mad at you.
and is a valid response. it was established when Al Gore invented the interweb.
but seriously, you may not like my opinions and views but they are what they are. if i remember right, you're christian. i find religious belief to be kind of silly. i imagine your response to that statement is the same as mine to you calling me a moonbat. the reason i post with so many conservatives is because i believe it's good to have your views challenge[d], it's good to have these kinds of debates. no one may change their mind but when we really get into it and defend our views and express them to people who are on the far opposite end of the spectrum, it helps clarify our own beliefs by forcing us to define them and write them out.
call me cynical, ray, but it's hard for me to believe you're here solely (or even primarily) to challenge posters' views when you spend as much time and effort as you do challenging posters themselves. seriously - the moment someone doesn't adequately appreciate your perspective, it's almost always either a direct personal attack, an absurd straw-man rebuttal, or your favorite cop-out, this guy. if the goal is reasoned discourse of balanced opinions (although next to nothing in this forum seems to suggest that lately), your approach is painfully counterproductive at best.
Many political campaigns run against the wrong candidate. The opportunity to pick on a vulnerable target is so tempting that they are lured into attacking someone who isn't running.
In 1992, the Republicans unleashed their convention barrage at Hillary Clinton and left Bill unscathed. In 1996, Dole still ran against Clinton the liberal and ignored the changes in his political positioning. Campaigns go after the flaming red cape, so glittering a target, and leave the matador alone.
That's what the Democratic convention has been doing in Denver. They are so anxious to run against Bush, their animosity is so pent up, that they persist in running against a man who is not seeking a third term. In speech after speech, the Democrats knock the Bush record and then add, lamely, that GOP candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is the same as Bush. Or they call the McCain candidacy Bush's third term. It was no accident �" or Freudian slip �" when vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) spoke of John Bush instead of George in his litany of attacks.
This pattern of shooting at the decoy, not the duck, gives McCain a bold strategic opportunity. He can nullify the impact of the entire Democratic convention simply by distancing himself from Bush.
The truth is, of course, that McCain is the most unlike Bush of any of the Republican senators. (When Obama's people claim that Bush and McCain voted the same 94 percent of the time, they forget that most of the votes in the Senate are unanimous.) The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president.
The issues on which McCain and Bush differ are legion:
• McCain fought for campaign finance reform �" McCain-Feingold �" that Bush fought and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
• McCain went with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican Senators oppose.
• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).
Remember that McCain ran against Bush in 2000. McCain's Republican advisers need to realize that they won the primary and that they do not need to cotton to the delegates at their convention or to appease the Bush White House. The more they respond to Obama's and Biden's attacks on Bush by saying "It ain't me, babe," the more he will moot the entire purpose of the Democratic convention. It is a rare opportunity to nullify the entire Democratic line of attack and McCain should seize on it.
I like the fact that Morris points out how different from Bush , McCain is but Morris strategy is idiotic. McCain cannot alienate the neocon side of the party by pointing out how moderate he really is. Hopefully people will see on their own beyond the Obama campaigns lying attack ads.
most of those differences from Bush are positions Mccain later reversed himself on. In fact you could say that John Mccain the senator bears little resemblance to John Mccain the candidate. He's a true flip flopper.
Actually, it's hard to say he "flip-flopped" on any of those issues.
The only items in that article you could arguably accuse him of changing his positions on would be the tax cuts and drilling for oil in certain areas.
However, in both those cases, McCain has pointed out that circumstances have changed, necessitating different strategies.
Personally, I wish McCain would "flip flop" on some of those issues, most notably campaign finance reform and global warming.
No, the bottom line-as noted the other day-is that Democrats can't accuse McCain of being stupid or inexperienced so they're fabricating this idea that he's the second coming of Bush when pretty much anyone who has lived in the U.S. for the past eight years can see that's b.s.
I read this second hand so I cant be sure of the accuracy but Jay Leno I guess asked McCain about the Dems, houses and tables bs last night and John replied, "Could I just mention to you, Jay, that in a moment of seriousness I spent five and a half years in a prison cell. I didn't have a house, I didn't have a kitchen table, I didn't have a table, I didn't have a chair."
This got me thinking about what I dislike most about the Dem party the fact that they bash prosperity. I am definitely for the little guy but not at the expense of the rich guy.
Here is a guy John McCain that was once tortured in a POW camp with nothing to his name, he pulled himself up from that and succeeded and they bash him for it.
It's probably the one thing keeping me from becoming a Dem. They have no fucking clue what it's like to be a middle class american yet they say they are for them. They are for socialism.....no thank you.
But it does illustrate exactly why I said your arguments seem to be a variation of McCain=Bush over and over and why I didn't bother to respond when it looked like you were making it for the umpteenth time.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential pick eight years ago, on Tuesday criticized Barack Obama's national security record and hailed Republican candidate John McCain's, a clear boost to the GOP.
Playing his former party's spoiler, Lieberman called McCain — not the Democratic nominee Obama — the best choice to lead the country forward. The Democrat-turned-Independent said that while Sen. Obama was voting to cut off funds for troops in Iraq, McCain took the unpopular position to support a surge in troops.
"Because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor," Lieberman says in excerpts that were released in advance of his speech Tuesday to the Republican National Convention.
Lieberman was scheduled to address the second night of the Republican meeting just eight years after he stood before a cheering throng at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles and accepted the nomination as Al Gore's running mate.
These days, he often calls himself an independent. But in excerpts released ahead of his address to the GOP crowd, he referred to himself as a Democrat who's opted to put politics aside during wartime.
"I'm here tonight because John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead our country forward. I'm here because John McCain's whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important. But it is not more important than being an American," he said.
Lieberman also sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, but lost badly to John Kerry. Two years later, he lost a Democratic nomination for another term in Connecticut in 2006, then recovered quickly to win re-election as an independent.
Although his vote in the Senate gives the Democrats a narrow majority, he has riled former party members again this year by criticizing Obama and endorsing his longtime friend McCain.
Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean said Lieberman's speech would be the most interesting of the night, and shows tremendous courage.
"He's going to be punished by the Democratic Party and he knows it. But he wants to do it because he thinks he's the best candidate for president," Kean said.
Lieberman was also believed to be among those on McCain's vice presidential shortlist before the candidate selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin last week. Bedrock Republicans reacted strongly against the political moderate.
His address was originally scheduled for opening night, but was cut along with most of the program when McCain opted to dramatically scale back the convention because of Hurricane Gustav.
Lieberman is a good guy, if he were running for President I'd vote for him.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.
That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.
Again, John McCain...ust because she put it on eBay, doesn't mean she sold it on eBay. In fact, she didn't sell it on eBay. That gimmick failed.
For someone who claims to eschew the ways of Washington, Sarah Palin has already mastered the double-speak and obfuscation of the Bush/Cheney administration. She's a natural for the third Bush term.
whomod failed to read the whole story he linked to, Palin got them out from under payments for a plane that was rarely used. of course being a supporter of the jet setting hollywood elite he cant understand this. he would have rather her burned up the taxpayers money(and tax them to pay for it btw), at least they could fly in class!
it's sad that whomod cant deal with a woman in power, first Hilary and now Palin, no wonder women are switching their votes in droves....
Yeah, somewhere sometime, the far right is going to realize the irony of being the defenders against the sexist media that can't deal with a strong feminist woman.
Maybe Limbaugh will reach an epiphany next time he's strung out on OxyContin.
whomod failed to read the whole story he linked to, Palin got them out from under payments for a plane that was rarely used. of course being a supporter of the jet setting hollywood elite he cant understand this. he would have rather her burned up the taxpayers money(and tax them to pay for it btw), at least they could fly in class!
Well, this IS the same whomod who thinks Algore is fighting global warming by flying around in a private jet.
By Tony Castro, Staff Writer Article Last Updated: 09/05/2008 03:59:43 PM PDT
What's in a name? Students at Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood were finding out first hand Friday what Shakespeare might have meant.
Their school became the center of nation attention after a blow-up photo of the front of the mansion-like school building was mistakenly used as a backdrop for GOP nominee John McCain's nationally televised acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention Thursday night.
Republican convention planners apparently Googling for a photo of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, may have found a picture of the exterior of the school instead.
By late Friday morning, the middle school's phone system had become so overloaded with calls that Principal Donna Tobin posted an official response on the school's web site rather than field all the calls personally.
"It has been brought to the school's attention that a picture of the front of our school, Walter Reed Middle School, was used as a backdrop at the Republican National Convention," Tobin said in her statement. "Permission to use the front of our school for the Republican National Convention was not given by our school nor is the use of our school's picture an endorsement of any political party or view."
Early afternoon Friday, a San Fernando Valley Democratic Party official and parent of a student at the school held a news conference in front of the suddenly nationally famous backdrop to make political hay of the Republicans' embarrassing incident.
"It was a big mistake wasn't it," said John Heaner, the Region 13 director of the California Democratic Party and member of the Walter Reed Middle School PTA. "When you show a picture like that for five minutes in prime-time and you're not sure what you're showing, that's revealing.
"I can't lay this at feet of John McCain directly, but certainly his campaign is to blame."
Regional 13 of the Democratic Party extends from North Hollywood to West Hills and from Brentwood to Santa Clarita.
McCain and Republican officials did not immediately comment.
But the story became fodder for McCain bashing in the blogosphere.
LAist.com wrote that the mistaken middle school's photo on Google "sounds like the most plausible reason for how North Hollywood made its way into John McCain's big speech... unless he loves the San Fernando Valley that much.
"In any event, school officials are pissed and news of the flub has already made its way to their Wikipedia page, so now you know it's real.
"Incidentally, the school's facade does look like a huge mansion, perhaps not too dissimilar from one of McCain's houses."
In any event, McCain's speech was seen by a slightly larger percentage of viewers than the Obama speech. Obama representatives were surprisingly gleeful about that fact for some mysterious reason.
whomod, your own statements destroy you far better than I could.
Less than a year ago, when you assumed he wouldn't be the GOP nominee, you decried "despicable" personal attacks on McCain:
Quote:
It's despicable that this sort of thing happens to anyone. Especially someone like John MCain who served honorably and suffered for his country. It's just endemic of this attitude that opponents must be destroyed at all costs.
Now, here you are, not eight months later, quoting from the tabloids and attacking McCain over his personal life...all in an attempt to destroy Obama's opponent "at all costs."
Your own words define you as "despicable." How could I top that and why should I try?
John McCain has overtaken Barack Obama in the Gallup daily tracking poll and has his highest level of support in that poll since early May.
McCain leads Obama 48 percent to 45 percent among registered voters, by Gallup’s measure. McCain has so far earned the same convention bounce as Obama, though at a more rapid pace.
Obama peaked at a 5-point convention bounce in polling published last Tuesday. He was ahead 49 percent to 43 percent in the Gallup poll conducted before the Republican convention. He then soared to 50 percent for the first time of the election, by Gallup’s measure, while McCain fell to 42 percent.
McCain’s 5-point to 6-point bounce so far, like Obama’s, remains at par with historical expectations. In the 22 major-party conventions since 1964, the nominee walked away with, on average in most years, a 5-point to 6-point uptick in Gallup’s polls. The presidential polling will likely remain in flux until the middle of next week.
Today's Gallup report continues to include some polling conducted prior to McCain's acceptance speech. Tomorrow's report will be the first to include interviews solely conducted following the close of the GOP convention.
Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll also reported today that when "leaners” are included, Obama and McCain are now tied at 48 percent. That means that, by Rasmussen’s measure, Obama’s 6-point bounce has been erased. CBS News polling had shown the same outcome midway through the GOP convention.
McCain’s resurgence in the polls comes as Nielsen Media Research reported that the Republican convention earned more television viewers than the Democratic convention. Republicans earned an average audience of 34.5 million, while Democrats earned an average viewership of 30.2 million.
Obama, McCain and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin all earned a similar and record audience for their convention speeches, each nearing about 40 million viewers.
John McCain is a “hero” to U.S. taxpayers for his lifetime record of resisting earmarks, while Barack Obama and Joe Biden are “hostile” and “unfriendly,” a government spending watchdog group has concluded.
In its new report, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste gave the Republican presidential nominee a 100 percent rating for his votes in the Senate last year, and a lifetime score of 88 percent.
By comparison, the nonpartisan, nonprofit group, which is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, assigned Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, 10 percent last year and a lifetime score of 18 percent. Biden, Obama’s running mate, scored 0 percent last year and an overall score of 22 percent.
Higher scores mean stronger resistance to federal earmarks. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, was not included because the ratings evaluate only members of Congress.
While McCain's accounts have captured the pain of her addiction, her journey through this personal crisis is a more complicated story than she has described, and it had more consequences for her and those around her than she has acknowledged.
the nerve of someone not disclosing fully the scope and depth of their addiction and the havoc it wrecked on their life!
It should be scary to people that the liberals believe that personal privacy should be protected for muslim terrorists but not people suffering from addiction.
ohn McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” zoomed past Barack Obama yesterday in a series of presidential polls.
But the news is not all bad for Obama, with some voters aproving of his values, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll.
Poll points include:
McCain leading Obama 48 to 44 percent overall, with the GOP ticket still holding the post-convention bump.
Obama up by 5 points with women, but McCain ahead by 12 points among white women.
Sarah Palin ranked higher, at 42 percent, than either McCain or Obama when white women were asked which candidate shares their values and principles “a lot.”
Obama has an 18-percentage-point lead among voters who said they look more to a contender’s values and views than experience.
Yesterday’s Gallup daily poll puts McCain up 48 percent to 45 percent over Obama among registered voters.
Yesterday’s Rasmussen daily poll also shows McCain up by 3 points.
This is what John McCain has become. The St. Petersburg Times doesn't hold back. The title of today's editorial is "Campaign of lies disgraces McCain." That's right: McCain is lying. He's disgraceful:
Quote:
This nation is facing real challenges on the economy, health care, jobs and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are significant differences between how Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain would address them. But McCain's recent campaign ads suggest the most vital issues are whether Obama wanted to teach sex education to kindergarten children and whether he derided the Republican's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, by talking about lipstick on a pig.
McCain's straight talk has become a toxic mix of lies and double-speak. It is leaving a permanent stain on his reputation for integrity, and it is a short-term strategy that eventually will backfire with the very types of independent-thinking voters that were so attracted to him.
McCain's campaign of lies is the completion of his transformation into George Bush. There was a time (I never believed it, but there was a time) when McCain was considered a "straight talker. He's abandoned all pretense of the old John McCain to become the next George Bush.
We've already had eight years of a president who thought so little of the American people that he lied to us repeatedly. McCain is has proven he can match Bush on lying and distorting the truth.
A GOP strategiest (no, not G-Man says that McCain will pay for all his lying. Harsh words from a Republican strategist in a NYT article about - you guessed it - McCain's now-serial lying.
Quote:
“The last month, for sure, I think the predominance of liberty taken with truth and the facts has been more McCain than Obama,” said Don Sipple, a Republican advertising strategist....
Mr. Sipple, the Republican strategist, voiced concern that Mr. McCain’s approach could backfire. “Any campaign that is taking liberty with the truth and does it in a serial manner will end up paying for it in the end,” he said. “But it’s very unbecoming to a political figure like John McCain whose flag was planted long ago in ground that was about ‘straight talk’ and integrity.”
More On McCain's "doublespeak" and "McCain's skirting of facts" and "McCain's persistence in pushing dubious claims"
Wow. Even the Associated Press is turning on McCain. That's how bad it is. The latest analysis by Charles Babington is brutal. Without actually calling McCain a "liar," Babington repeatedly makes it clear that McCain a liar. And, worse, McCain is an unrepentant liar. There is no honor in being a liar. McCain is not honorable anymore:
Quote:
The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He accuses Democrat Barack Obama of calling Palin a pig, which did not happen. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.
Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week. It has infuriated and flustered Obama's campaign, and campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims.
McCain's persistence in pushing dubious claims is all the more notable because many political insiders consider him one of the greatest living victims of underhanded campaigning. Locked in a tight race with George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, McCain was rocked in South Carolina by a whisper campaign claiming he had fathered an illegitimate black child and was mentally unstable.
Shaken by the experience, McCain denounced less-than-truthful campaigning. Vowing to live up to his "straight talk" motto, he apologized for his reluctance to criticize the flying of the Confederate flag at South Carolina's state Capitol in a bid for votes. When the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked the military record of Democrat and fellow Navy officer John Kerry in 2004, McCain called the ads "dishonest and dishonorable."
Now, top aides to McCain include Steve Schmidt, who has close ties to Karl Rove, Bush's premier political adviser in 2000.
That last sentence explains so much.
McCain abandoned his honor and his principles at the altar of Karl Rove. It's hard for all those reporters who shared donuts and coffee on the bus with McCain to grasp that their guy has shred his dignity, but they better deal with it -- and start writing and broadcasting about the new, dishonorable John McCain. Otherwise, we get four more years of the Bush/Rove presidency.
G-Man likes that kind of campaigning. Just lie to the American public over and over and pray they believe you. All that matters is winning. Not the truth or facts. This is the Republican way of governing.
McCain just can't help himself. He keeps pushing the lies
This is John McCain's campaign. When his v.p. pick lies, she is lying on behalf of John McCain. For the past few days on the campaign trail, McCain stood on the stage with her every time she repeated the lie about the "Bridge to Nowhere." McCain needs lies to win.
CBS has now dissected the Palin stump speech lines about the "Bridge to Nowhere." Like just about every other traditional media outlet, CBS says Palin's claims are not true. That means Palin is standing next to McCain and just lying:
Quote:
Its one of those claims that gets so much applause.
"I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks,' to that bridge to nowhere," Palin has said over and over on the campaign trail, CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports.
Gov. Sarah Palin just won't let it go. But the truth is the governor never rebuffed Congress. Here are the facts.
After a year of supporting the proposed bridge, near Ketchikan, Gov. Palin pulled state funds from the project, which killed the bridge for good, but she never said "no thanks" to the Federal funds promised by Congress -- $233 million.
In fact, here's the list of how Palin is spending those federal tax dollars - on other highway projects around Alaska. As a candidate for governor, she defended every dollar for roads and bridges the state could wrangle from Washington, according to the Congressional Record and the Alaska Department of Transportation.
So, why does John McCain just stand by while his v.p. lies to the American people?
McCain isn't in charge of his campaign. Karl Rove and his cronies are running the show. They're the people who lied about a war, which led to the deaths of over 4,000 Americans. Lying about the "Bridge to Nowhere" is kid's stuff for them. And, the Rove gang think (with good reason based on the Bush experience) that they can roll the traditional media and the pundits.
It's safe to post on the weekends if you're a former Insurgent. There's less of us here to laugh at you. That said, why does whomod even still post here? He showed his true cowardly colors during their botched "raid" on his behalf, and even the most moderate of us is willing to ignore any "valid" points he makes in his posts.
He doesn't post, he spams. That's what he's always done. He's too cowardly to actually communicate with anyone here (send him a PM. He hates reading those). He spams all the liberal talking points for the week then runs away hoping no one challenges him on anything.
Karl Rove must have really gave the liberals a nut kick, whomod thinks he is McCain's campaign manager, he doesn't even realize he was Bush's campaign manager, and is now an analyst for Fox News.....
More lies from McCain. This time about crowd estimates. So much for "straight talk". It's all bullshit. They are on the verge of some serious trouble. I have a real sense that the media is fed up with the serial lies coming from the McCain campaign. The thing is, they're lying because they think the media are patsies and will simply regurgitate whatever lie McCain gives them. And once upon a time, that might have been true. But McCain has now pushed the lies far beyond the exaggerations and half-truths of normal politics. This is new territory McCain has entered, and the media may finally be fed up with it. It's going to be very interesting to see if Americans care or not about a man who would rather lose his honor than lose an election.
Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Senator John McCain has drawn some of the biggest crowds of his presidential campaign since adding Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to his ticket on Aug. 29. Now officials say they can't substantiate the figures McCain's aides are claiming.
McCain aide Kimmie Lipscomb told reporters on Sept. 10 that an outdoor rally in Fairfax City, Virginia, drew 23,000 people, attributing the crowd estimate to a fire marshal.
Fairfax City Fire Marshal Andrew Wilson said his office did not supply that number to the campaign and could not confirm it. Wilson, in an interview, said the fire department does not monitor attendance at outdoor events.
In recent days, journalists attending the rallies have been raising questions about the crowd estimates with the campaign. In a story on Sept. 11 about Palin's attraction for some Virginia women voters, Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher estimated the crowd to be 8,000, not the 23,000 cited by the campaign.
G-Man, you run an old quote where I praise McCain's honesty. I spent the past day showing that this simply isn't the case anymore. Whether it's Rove doing the talking or his campaign I don't know. I do know that at the end of every commercial I hear John McCain say that he approves of the lies. So I have to reevaluate him based on new data. So yeah I used to think of him as basically honest once upon a time. But given his response to the Keating 5 scandal, I wouldn't say he was a "straight talker". More like a reformed politician. It's too bad he devolved into what he derided and bemoaned though back when it was aimed at him by the Bush campaign. Even going as far as hiring the very people who were making all sorts of baseless slanders and smears against him. Anything to win, eh G-Man?? THIS is why the guy has no honor or even any self respect. He's going to embrace the very people who pulled the black illegitimate baby crap at his family?? Where's his dignity?
The independent website FactCheck.org said the McCain ad explored "new paths of deception", after other contentious claims that Obama had called Palin a "pig" and advocated teaching sex education to kindergarten children.
"Actually, they are not lies," McCain said on TV talk show The View.
The Democratic campaign had argued McCain's camp deliberately twisted Obama's recent comment that Republican claims to represent change were like putting "lipstick on a pig," as a sexist slur on Palin.
And then that G-Man. Are the Republicans really against teaching kids to know how to protect themselves against child predators? Anything to win, eh? Trying to turn something positive and prudent into 'Obama wants to teach small kids about sex"???
You Republicans are simply slimey assholes. You guys wouldn't mind 1000 Adam Walshes and Polly Klaases, just so long as you "win".
He doesn't post, he spams. That's what he's always done. He's too cowardly to actually communicate with anyone here (send him a PM. He hates reading those). He spams all the liberal talking points for the week then runs away hoping no one challenges him on anything.
Karl Rove must have really gave the liberals a nut kick, whomod thinks he is McCain's campaign manager, he doesn't even realize he was Bush's campaign manager, and is now an analyst for Fox News.....
He's now an advisor to the McCain campaign, idiot. And it shows...Here, try not to let his on air FOX news denials confuse you...
John McCain is getting much more than President Bush's endorsement and fundraising help for his campaign. He’s getting Bush's staff.
It’s no secret that Steve Schmidt, Bush’s attack dog in the 2004 election, and Mark McKinnon, the president’s media strategist, are performing similar functions for McCain now.
But other big-name Bushies are lining up to boost McCain, too.
Ken Mehlman, who ran Bush’s 2004 campaign, is now serving as an unpaid, outside adviser to the Arizona Republican. Karl Rove, the president’s top political hand since his Texas days, recently gave money to McCain and soon after had a private conversation with the senator. A top McCain adviser said both Mehlman and Rove are now informally advising the campaign. Rove refused to detail his conversation with McCain.
The list could grow longer. Dan Bartlett, formerly a top aide in the Bush White House, and Sara Taylor, the erstwhile Bush political adviser, said they are eager to provide any assistance and advice possible to McCain.
Rove explained that he and McCain “got to know each other during the 2004 campaign.” In a separate interview, Mehlman noted that “McCain was completely loyal to the president in 2004 and worked incredibly hard to help him get elected.” According to Taylor, “The Bush Republicans here in town are excited for John McCain.”
Despite the president’s low approval ratings, there are clear benefits to McCain for this cozy relationship with the Bush team. They are seasoned operatives with a track record of winning back-to-back national elections in tough political environments. But there are obvious drawbacks. First and foremost, any association with the Bush administration helps Democrats make their case that McCain represents a clear extension of an unpopular presidency.
One of those making that argument is Matt Dowd, Bush’s chief strategist in 2004.
“[McCain] has sided himself so closely to the administration, especially on Iraq, now having various Bush advisers — that doesn’t sit well with the public,” said Dowd, who has recently broken with the Bush inner circle. “The public wants the non-Bush candidate.”
Dowd also argued that he believes that the proximity of Bush’s advisers could lead McCain to a strategic mistake: refighting the 2004 campaign. “There is a real danger of that,” Dowd added. “And I think some of the things John McCain has done, and how he’s done it, has been a fight or a battle that’s gone. I don’t think this is going to be a terrorism election or a national security election.”
The McCain adviser said Dowd's concern is unwarranted, pointing to the campaign’s belief that the economy will play a far greater role in the 2008 race than it did in 2004.
He doesn't post, he spams. That's what he's always done. He's too cowardly to actually communicate with anyone here (send him a PM. He hates reading those). He spams all the liberal talking points for the week then runs away hoping no one challenges him on anything.
Um.. just because i don't give a flying fuck what you say doesn't mean I "run away" from you. I do have a life y'know.
I just stop by here to wind you assholes up. It's great fun for me. And the usual responses and insults delight me as I know and see that once again, I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.
It's not about swaying you, y'know. It's about raising your ire.
[quote=rex]He doesn't post, he spams. That's what he's always done. He's too cowardly to actually communicate with anyone here (send him a PM. He hates reading those). He spams all the liberal talking points for the week then runs away hoping no one challenges him on anything.
Um.. just because i don't give a flying fuck what you say doesn't mean I "run away" from you. I do have a life y'know.
Quote:
No, that's exactly what it means.
[quote]I just stop by here to wind you assholes up. It's great fun for me. And the usual responses and insults delight me as I know and see that once again, I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.
So coming here and making an ass out of yourself is "winding us up"? We all laugh at you. We all mock you. We all know you're a loser who hides behind other people's words.
Quote:
It's not about swaying you, y'know. It's about raising your ire.
You really are that homeless person on the corner, aren't you? The one yelling all his crazy ass theories, right? The one who thinks the louder and angrier he gets the more right he is? Is that you?
[quote=whomod][quote=rex]He doesn't post, he spams. That's what he's always done. He's too cowardly to actually communicate with anyone here (send him a PM. He hates reading those). He spams all the liberal talking points for the week then runs away hoping no one challenges him on anything.
Um.. just because i don't give a flying fuck what you say doesn't mean I "run away" from you. I do have a life y'know.
Quote:
No, that's exactly what it means.
Quote:
I just stop by here to wind you assholes up. It's great fun for me. And the usual responses and insults delight me as I know and see that once again, I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.
So coming here and making an ass out of yourself is "winding us up"? We all laugh at you. We all mock you. We all know you're a loser who hides behind other people's words.
Quote:
It's not about swaying you, y'know. It's about raising your ire.
You really are that homeless person on the corner, aren't you? The one yelling all his crazy ass theories, right? The one who thinks the louder and angrier he gets the more right he is? Is that you?
Having trouble working the quote brackets? Slow down. Take a deep breath. It's ok.
The independent website FactCheck.org said the McCain ad explored "new paths of deception", after other contentious claims that Obama had called Palin a "pig" and advocated teaching sex education to kindergarten children.
"Actually, they are not lies," McCain said on TV talk show The View.
The Democratic campaign had argued McCain's camp deliberately twisted Obama's recent comment that Republican claims to represent change were like putting "lipstick on a pig," as a sexist slur on Palin.
And then that G-Man. Are the Republicans really against teaching kids to know how to protect themselves against child predators? Anything to win, eh? Trying to turn something positive and prudent into 'Obama wants to teach small kids about sex"???
You Republicans are simply slimey assholes. You guys wouldn't mind 1000 Adam Walshes and Polly Klaases, just so long as you "win".
At least it protects Rex and his unhealthy appetites.
yeah I was surprised to hear that as well. whomod, if black dukakis loses, please be sure to grace us with your reactions on here before you blow your brains out.
MEM, whomod didn't say that his opinion of McCain had changed in response to recent events. whomod said that he "never believed" McCain to be honest, when his earlier posts show that whomd did, in fact, say just that.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Originally Posted By: whomod
There was a time (I never believed it, but there was a time) when McCain was considered a "straight talker.
After all the times you've bitched about me reposting this quote (and similar) of yours:
Originally Posted By: whomod on 03/25/04 06:19 AM
Now if you ran ...John McCain, i'd be running over to GOP campaign headquarters shouting HURRAH! an honest Republican ticket!!
One would think you wouldn't be so stupid and deceptive as to now try and claim you "never believed" that McCain was honest.
Now, run along and edit the above post so you can try and claim you never said it.
He doesn't post, he spams. That's what he's always done. He's too cowardly to actually communicate with anyone here (send him a PM. He hates reading those). He spams all the liberal talking points for the week then runs away hoping no one challenges him on anything.
Um.. just because i don't give a flying fuck what you say doesn't mean I "run away" from you. I do have a life y'know.
I just stop by here to wind you assholes up. It's great fun for me. And the usual responses and insults delight me as I know and see that once again, I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.
It's not about swaying you, y'know. It's about raising your ire.
If someone here gets wound up because of something you said who I'd be very surprised. No one really respects you. You are a far left whacko incapable of reasonable discussion. You don't see us treating Ray and MEM the same way you get treated. It's because they are nice people. No offense. I hope someday you learn to relax a little. I also hope you don't take it too hard when Obama loses in November. If Obama wins life goes on for all of us and we wish him well.....after all he is our President and I would hope he does a great job. Unlike you who would wish that McCain gets hit by a bus or gets cancer or some other sick shit.
Rove: McCain Has Gone 'One Step Too Far' By Robert Barnes LOUDON, N.H. -- The Obama campaign was pleased today to introduce a new ally: Karl Rove.
Well, maybe that goes a bit far, and its manner of introduction was not exactly one President Bush's top political strategist might have chosen for himself.
Nonetheless, the campaign seized on Rove's comments on Fox News Sunday today to bolster its case that Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been lying about Obama's record in recent days. The Obama campaign has specifically decried two McCain ads: one that attempts to portray as an insult to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin Obama's contention that McCain's calls for change are putting "lipstick on a pig," and another Obama says misleads viewers about the purpose of a sex eduction bill he supported.
In response to a question, Rove said McCain "has similarly gone one step too far, attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100 percent truth test.'' ...
Did hell just freeze over? While I agree with Rove it's a surprise to see it coming from him. The lipstick on a pig ad didn't bother me so much but the sex ed one was sleazy deceptive IMHO.
Read the whole article Dude. He said both campaigns are over the top. I agree. And this whole thing could have been avoided if they took mCCain's suggestion and di town hall meetings twice a week. The whole tone of the election would be nicer and they would stick to the issues.
Read the whole article Dude. He said both campaigns are over the top. I agree. And this whole thing could have been avoided if they took mCCain's suggestion and di town hall meetings twice a week. The whole tone of the election would be nicer and they would stick to the issues.
I read the whole article & agree that both campaigns are over the top but you still have McCain running some ads that even Rove is criticising. And I don't see how the town halls would have prevented McCain from running such an ad.
John McCain’s surge in the polls comes even as Barack Obama has inherited the most favorable Democratic environment since the Watergate era — an unpopular Republican president, an unpopular war and a flagging economy.
Suddenly, though, Democrats have found themselves in a world turned upside down, where Republicans have the momentum from running on change — and the latest wunderkind of presidential politics.
Below are five trends showing up in polling that help explain the change.
1. McCain as a 'change agent'
Eight in 10 Americans say they believe the country is on the wrong track. Obama has built his campaign on the perception that he is both the personification of change and the man to enact it.
Even though McCain has spent decades in Washington and a member of his party is in the White House, recent polling shows that he has managed to successfully portray himself as a change agent and erode Obama’s brand in the process.
The Democratic firm Democracy Corps found that the public prefers Obama to bring “the right kind of change” as president by a 50 to 44 percent — down from his 16-point edge in mid-August.
This week’s ABC News/Washington Post poll asked “who can bring about needed change to Washington.” The public favored Obama by 12 points — down from 32 points in June.
CBS News polling this week found that 46 percent of voters believe McCain can change Washington — up from 28 percent in July.
The Obama campaign has taken notice. His stump speech now rips McCain as a phony reformer, and yesterday he launched a TV ad campaign and website highlighting McCain’s ties to lobbyists.
2. The center shifts: Independents move to McCain
Independent voters, and particularly white independent men, have leaned Republican in presidential races since 1980. But before the Republican convention, Gallup polling showed just 40 percent of independents favoring McCain.
Post-convention, that rose to 52 percent — and the increase in support was slightly greater among men than among women, which appears to undercut the idea that Sarah Palin has benefited the ticket by drawing women to it.
Before the Democratic convention, white women favored McCain by 7 points. After it, they favored him by 6. Following the Republican convention, McCain was winning white women by 11 points — a 4-point gain.
Before the Democratic convention, white men favored McCain by 20 points. After it, that margin shrunk to 13 points. Following Denver, white men favored McCain by 25 points — a 5-point gain.
A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 62 percent of men have a favorable view of Palin, while just 53 percent of women view her favorably.
Though no Democrat has won a majority of white voters since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Obama cannot win unless he pulls back some of these white independent voters.
3. The economic gap narrows
James Carville, who coined the catchphrase “the economy, stupid” in 1992 while working as a strategist for Bill Clinton, frets that Obama is losing his ownership of the issue that has become voters’ foremost concern in recent months.
“I noticed the tightening on the economy,” Carville said. “And if it stays that way, I would be damn worried.”
When Democracy Corps asked voters last week which candidate would “do a better job” with the economy,” Obama had a 50 to 44 percent advantage—down from a 16-point edge in mid August.
Gallup this week shows a 3-point edge for Obama on the question of which candidate “can better handle the economy”—down from 16 points in August.
A recent internal Republican poll found that 30 percent of likely voters shop at Wal-Mart at least once a week. Obama retained a slim 45-42 edge with Wal-Mart women—but 64 percent of men in the group favored McCain against just 29 percent who preferred Obama.
4. Palin narrows the enthusiasm gap
The Republican base, once disenchanted, has returned with a vengeance since McCain’s surprise pick of the first-term Alaska governor as his running mate.
This week’s CBS News poll found that 53 percent of Obama voters said they were “enthusiastic” about Obama, up 5 points since before his party’s convention, and still better than the 42 percent of McCain supports who feel the same way. McCain’s support, though, is up 18 points since selecting Palin.
The NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 12 percent of McCain’s supporters were “excited to be voting” for him in early August. This week 34 percent said they were excited — nearly a threefold increase.
Palin has played no small part in this GOP awakening. CBS found that fully 85 percent of McCain backers were “pleased” with the selection of Palin, compared to 65 percent of Obama supporters who said the same about his running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.
And among independents, 46 percent have a favorable view of Palin while only 31 percent say the same of Biden.
While Democrats have continued to hit at Palin’s inexperience, only 36 percent of likely voters believe Palin lacks the proper experience while 47 percent said the same of Obama.
5. Democrats voter ID edge dulls
Democrats have been relying on their newfound advantage in party identification all year. Party ID remains the best single indicator of voter support.
Republicans began losing voters prior to the 2006 midterm elections that gave Democrats a functional majority in the Senate. But those voters straying from the fold were mostly becoming independents, not Democrats.
Democratic voter enrollment began to grow in 2007, even as the drop in Republican enrollment leveled off. Now, though, the dynamic appears to have shifted.
The week before the Republican convention, just 39 percent of voters said they leaned toward or identified themselves as Republicans. Following the convention, that number rose dramatically to 47 percent. Meanwhile the percentage of voters leaning toward or identifying themselves as Democrats dropped from 53 to 47 percent. Gallup notes that party ID shifts are not unusual after a convention.
Gallup also reports that the double-digit Democratic lead among voters who are asked which party they’d generically prefer to control Congress has disappeared and that the two parties are now effectively tied.
the story doesnt mention the biggest factor in my mind, and that is the fact that John McCain is a real American, and we dont know much about Obama.
McCain has backed away from some of those things that the left was lauding him for.
No. He hasn't. He's still the same fucking asshole he was before South Carolina. He hasn't changed any stances. The only difference now is that he's representing my party.
Quote:
Some of his biggest detractors back then are now his defenders.
Wrong. We still hate him, but we refuse to suffer Obama.
St. Petersburg Times (Editorial) “Campaign of lies disgraces McCain” McCain's straight talk has become a toxic mix of lies and double-speak. It is leaving a permanent stain on his reputation for integrity, and it is a short-term strategy that eventually will backfire with the very types of independent-thinking voters that were so attracted to him.
Atlanta Journal Constitution (Jay Bookman) The volume and audacity of lies pouring from the McCain campaign is startling and even historic…That’s really something, lying straight out about a FactCheck group, knowing that you’re going to get caught but not giving a damn about it. With stuff like this, the McCain camp has cut any remaining tethers to reality and integrity and is now floating wherever the winds of illusion and whimsy may take them. It’s quite remarkable, and quite insulting to the intelligence of the American people.
Pittsburg Post Gazette (Tony Norman) Where have you gone, John McCain? You once said you'd rather lose an election than lose a war. Is it worth winning an election if it means forfeiting your soul on the altar of political expediency?...Where is the honor in reciting lies for something as transient as political advantage? What are we as voters supposed to make of political ads that accuse Barack Obama of advocating sex education for kindergartners?... Despite the intellectually dishonest maneuvering of your campaign, many Americans admire you, John McCain. Before you embraced the darkness, I was among those who disagreed with your politics, but considered you honorable. Now it's hard to look at you without seeing the scoundrels who made you what you are today.
Kansas City Star (Barb Shelly) McCain stoops to deception, distortion: Maybe you’ve seen it. The campaign ad cites the authoritative journal Education Week to claim that Democrat Barack Obama has been missing in action on education reform…Shamelessly misleading the public?...These are old tricks we’ve been seeing in local elections for years. Distort. Twist. Deceive. Damage. And the winning candidate drags a load of public contempt into office. I had hoped for better from McCain…John McCain may win the presidency this way, but he will lose the respect he has acquired over the years.
Boston Globe (Scot Lehigh) Pretzel logic from the McCain campaign: Here’s the question voters should be asking themselves this week: Just how stupid does the McCain-Palin campaign think I am? The answer: Dumb enough to hoodwink with charges so contrived and cynical they make your teeth ache…As the nonpartisan campaign watchdog FactCheck.org has made clear, this is a thoroughly dishonest ad [Kindergarten]. No matter. The McCain campaign has shown it's ready and willing to say preposterous things to win.
Washington Post (David Ignatius) Stopping at nothing to win: Thinking about the Palin choice, you begin to ponder other moves McCain has made on the road to winning the Republican nomination. McCain was right a few years ago to warn that Bush's tax cuts would have potentially ruinous fiscal consequences; now he favors extending the cuts that have produced a crisis of debt and deficit. Why did he switch his position, other than political opportunism?...In May 2006, after McCain had courted the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an effort to win conservative support, I asked him if he was bending his principles for the sake of winning. "I don't want it that badly," McCain answered. "I will continue to do what is right…If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil." He was right.
Washington Post (Eugene Robinson) The Scream Machine: There was a time when Republicans campaigned on their ideas, programs and values. This year -- lacking ideas, programs or values -- John McCain and Sarah Palin are running for the White House on an elaborate fictional narrative of victimhood…Creating the false impression that Democrats and journalists are unfairly attacking Palin serves another purpose as well: It helps create the impression that legitimate and necessary questions about her record -- such as her one-time support for the Bridge to Nowhere or her history of seeking the congressional earmarks she now claims to reject -- are somehow out of bounds.
Chicago Tribune (Steve Chapman) To McCain the truth is expandable: McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe. He has charged repeatedly that his opponent is willing to lose a war to win an election. What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul.
Chicago Tribune (Frank James) “McCain plays dirty on Obama & sex-ed” So the McCain ad, in the way it contorts the truth, is pretty shocking from a candidate who has promised to bring change and reform to Washington, a man who's urging Americans to live for a cause larger than themselves. This is an old-fashioned, unreconstructed politics whose goal, first and foremost, is to get the candidate elected, the truth be damned. McCain has said he'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war. But it appears from this ad he'd rather lose any purchase he has on straight-talk than lose this presidential election.
Chicago Tribune (Eric Zorn) `Sex ed' ad educates us on the character of John McCain: The surprise came at the end: I'm John McCain and I approved this message. With that infamous admission, McCain surrendered his integrity and signaled a willingness to say or do anything to get elected… We used to expect better from John McCain. No longer.
TIME (Joe Klein): A new rule here: Rather than do the McCain campaign's bidding by wasting space on Senator Honor's daily lies and bilge--his constant attempts to divert attention from substantive issues--I'm going to assume that others will spend more than enough time on the sewage that Steve Schmidt is shoveling and, from now on, try to stick to the issues.
TIME (Joe Klein) Apology Not Accepted: he is responsible for one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics, so sleazy that I won't abet its spread by linking to it, but here's the McClatchy fact check.. I just can't wait for the moment when John McCain--contrite and suddenly honorable again in victory or defeat--talks about how things got a little out of control in the passion of the moment. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.
TIME (Joe Klein)her McCain Flip Flop: Army Times, which is not--last time I checked--a radical left wing publication, takes John McCain to task for changing his position on the Future Combat Systems program. This is yet another example of how running for President has driven McCain off the deep end. In the past, he was one of the more consistent voices against foolish Pentagon weapon systems. Here's a program that McCain previously wanted to end. Then Obama says he wants to slow-walk it...and McCain--reflexively, it appears, and unable to recall that he previously opposed it--decides to support it.
New York Times (Paul Krugman)Blizzard of Lies: I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come…And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country? What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.
New York Times (Editorial): The most disheartening aspect of a scurrilous Republican ad falsely accusing Barack Obama of promoting sex education for kindergarten children is its closing line: “I’m John McCain, and I approved this message.” This from that straight-talker of yore, who fervidly denounced the 2004 Bush campaign’s Swift Boat character attacks on John Kerry’s military record. What a difference four years makes, especially after Mr. McCain secured the nomination by hiring some of the same low-blow artists from the Bush campaign.
New York Times (Larry Rohter): The advertisement [“Disrespectful”] is the latest in a number that resort to a dubious disregard for the facts. The nonpartisan political analysis group Factcheck.org has already criticized “Disrespectful” as “particularly egregious,” saying that it “goes down new paths of deception,” and is “peddling false quotes.”
New York Times (Michael Cooper and Jim Rutenberg) McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions: Mr. McCain came into the race promoting himself as a truth teller and has long publicly deplored the kinds of negative tactics that helped sink his candidacy in the Republican primaries in 2000. But his strategy now reflects a calculation advisers made this summer — over the strenuous objections of some longtime hands who helped him build his “Straight Talk” image — to shift the campaign more toward disqualifying Mr. Obama in the eyes of voters.
ABC News-Political Punch (Jake Tapper): One can only imagine what the John McCain of 2004 – who called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads “dishonest and dishonorable” – would say about this ad… I suppose one could twist this stuff any way you want if your only point is to make an inflammatory charge. And win an election… The New York Times’ “Checkpoint” (“Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy “), Factcheck.org (“Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners”) and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker ("McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive") say the ad is a gross distortion. I agree -- in both senses of the word "gross."
AP (Charles Babington): The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak. Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He said Friday that Palin never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor, even though she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.
But, seriously, this is big news: The latest polling finds McCain only five points behind Barack Hussein Obama among likely New York voters. New York is, quite possibly, the blue-est of blue states. To have a Republican within striking distance of any democrat is BIG trouble for the DNC.
Where are all the articles about Obama making claims that what his opponents said were racist remarks when they weren't or the lies about Palin banning books and calling for creationism to be taught in the classroom?
St. Petersburg Times (Editorial) “Campaign of lies disgraces McCain” McCain's straight talk has become a toxic mix of lies and double-speak. It is leaving a permanent stain on his reputation for integrity, and it is a short-term strategy that eventually will backfire with the very types of independent-thinking voters that were so attracted to him.
Atlanta Journal Constitution (Jay Bookman) The volume and audacity of lies pouring from the McCain campaign is startling and even historic…That’s really something, lying straight out about a FactCheck group, knowing that you’re going to get caught but not giving a damn about it. With stuff like this, the McCain camp has cut any remaining tethers to reality and integrity and is now floating wherever the winds of illusion and whimsy may take them. It’s quite remarkable, and quite insulting to the intelligence of the American people.
Pittsburg Post Gazette (Tony Norman) Where have you gone, John McCain? You once said you'd rather lose an election than lose a war. Is it worth winning an election if it means forfeiting your soul on the altar of political expediency?...Where is the honor in reciting lies for something as transient as political advantage? What are we as voters supposed to make of political ads that accuse Barack Obama of advocating sex education for kindergartners?... Despite the intellectually dishonest maneuvering of your campaign, many Americans admire you, John McCain. Before you embraced the darkness, I was among those who disagreed with your politics, but considered you honorable. Now it's hard to look at you without seeing the scoundrels who made you what you are today.
Kansas City Star (Barb Shelly) McCain stoops to deception, distortion: Maybe you’ve seen it. The campaign ad cites the authoritative journal Education Week to claim that Democrat Barack Obama has been missing in action on education reform…Shamelessly misleading the public?...These are old tricks we’ve been seeing in local elections for years. Distort. Twist. Deceive. Damage. And the winning candidate drags a load of public contempt into office. I had hoped for better from McCain…John McCain may win the presidency this way, but he will lose the respect he has acquired over the years.
Boston Globe (Scot Lehigh) Pretzel logic from the McCain campaign: Here’s the question voters should be asking themselves this week: Just how stupid does the McCain-Palin campaign think I am? The answer: Dumb enough to hoodwink with charges so contrived and cynical they make your teeth ache…As the nonpartisan campaign watchdog FactCheck.org has made clear, this is a thoroughly dishonest ad [Kindergarten]. No matter. The McCain campaign has shown it's ready and willing to say preposterous things to win.
Washington Post (David Ignatius) Stopping at nothing to win: Thinking about the Palin choice, you begin to ponder other moves McCain has made on the road to winning the Republican nomination. McCain was right a few years ago to warn that Bush's tax cuts would have potentially ruinous fiscal consequences; now he favors extending the cuts that have produced a crisis of debt and deficit. Why did he switch his position, other than political opportunism?...In May 2006, after McCain had courted the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an effort to win conservative support, I asked him if he was bending his principles for the sake of winning. "I don't want it that badly," McCain answered. "I will continue to do what is right…If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil." He was right.
Washington Post (Eugene Robinson) The Scream Machine: There was a time when Republicans campaigned on their ideas, programs and values. This year -- lacking ideas, programs or values -- John McCain and Sarah Palin are running for the White House on an elaborate fictional narrative of victimhood…Creating the false impression that Democrats and journalists are unfairly attacking Palin serves another purpose as well: It helps create the impression that legitimate and necessary questions about her record -- such as her one-time support for the Bridge to Nowhere or her history of seeking the congressional earmarks she now claims to reject -- are somehow out of bounds.
Chicago Tribune (Steve Chapman) To McCain the truth is expandable: McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe. He has charged repeatedly that his opponent is willing to lose a war to win an election. What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul.
Chicago Tribune (Frank James) “McCain plays dirty on Obama & sex-ed” So the McCain ad, in the way it contorts the truth, is pretty shocking from a candidate who has promised to bring change and reform to Washington, a man who's urging Americans to live for a cause larger than themselves. This is an old-fashioned, unreconstructed politics whose goal, first and foremost, is to get the candidate elected, the truth be damned. McCain has said he'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war. But it appears from this ad he'd rather lose any purchase he has on straight-talk than lose this presidential election.
Chicago Tribune (Eric Zorn) `Sex ed' ad educates us on the character of John McCain: The surprise came at the end: I'm John McCain and I approved this message. With that infamous admission, McCain surrendered his integrity and signaled a willingness to say or do anything to get elected… We used to expect better from John McCain. No longer.
TIME (Joe Klein): A new rule here: Rather than do the McCain campaign's bidding by wasting space on Senator Honor's daily lies and bilge--his constant attempts to divert attention from substantive issues--I'm going to assume that others will spend more than enough time on the sewage that Steve Schmidt is shoveling and, from now on, try to stick to the issues.
TIME (Joe Klein) Apology Not Accepted: he is responsible for one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics, so sleazy that I won't abet its spread by linking to it, but here's the McClatchy fact check.. I just can't wait for the moment when John McCain--contrite and suddenly honorable again in victory or defeat--talks about how things got a little out of control in the passion of the moment. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.
TIME (Joe Klein)her McCain Flip Flop: Army Times, which is not--last time I checked--a radical left wing publication, takes John McCain to task for changing his position on the Future Combat Systems program. This is yet another example of how running for President has driven McCain off the deep end. In the past, he was one of the more consistent voices against foolish Pentagon weapon systems. Here's a program that McCain previously wanted to end. Then Obama says he wants to slow-walk it...and McCain--reflexively, it appears, and unable to recall that he previously opposed it--decides to support it.
New York Times (Paul Krugman)Blizzard of Lies: I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come…And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country? What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.
New York Times (Editorial): The most disheartening aspect of a scurrilous Republican ad falsely accusing Barack Obama of promoting sex education for kindergarten children is its closing line: “I’m John McCain, and I approved this message.” This from that straight-talker of yore, who fervidly denounced the 2004 Bush campaign’s Swift Boat character attacks on John Kerry’s military record. What a difference four years makes, especially after Mr. McCain secured the nomination by hiring some of the same low-blow artists from the Bush campaign.
New York Times (Larry Rohter): The advertisement [“Disrespectful”] is the latest in a number that resort to a dubious disregard for the facts. The nonpartisan political analysis group Factcheck.org has already criticized “Disrespectful” as “particularly egregious,” saying that it “goes down new paths of deception,” and is “peddling false quotes.”
New York Times (Michael Cooper and Jim Rutenberg) McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions: Mr. McCain came into the race promoting himself as a truth teller and has long publicly deplored the kinds of negative tactics that helped sink his candidacy in the Republican primaries in 2000. But his strategy now reflects a calculation advisers made this summer — over the strenuous objections of some longtime hands who helped him build his “Straight Talk” image — to shift the campaign more toward disqualifying Mr. Obama in the eyes of voters.
ABC News-Political Punch (Jake Tapper): One can only imagine what the John McCain of 2004 – who called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads “dishonest and dishonorable” – would say about this ad… I suppose one could twist this stuff any way you want if your only point is to make an inflammatory charge. And win an election… The New York Times’ “Checkpoint” (“Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy “), Factcheck.org (“Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners”) and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker ("McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive") say the ad is a gross distortion. I agree -- in both senses of the word "gross."
AP (Charles Babington): The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak. Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He said Friday that Palin never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor, even though she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.
Editorials aren't facts. I know you have trouble with that kind of thing so I'm pointing it out to you again. Please don't call the cops on me.
Read the whole article Dude. He said both campaigns are over the top. I agree. And this whole thing could have been avoided if they took mCCain's suggestion and di town hall meetings twice a week. The whole tone of the election would be nicer and they would stick to the issues.
I read the whole article & agree that both campaigns are over the top but you still have McCain running some ads that even Rove is criticising. And I don't see how the town halls would have prevented McCain from running such an ad.
town hall meetings force the guys to stick to the issues and the other guy is less likely to use political spin or lie about his opponent when the guy is sitting 3 feet away from him.
"If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily," Obama said.
Sen. John McCain's record of working with Democrats easily outstrips Sen. Barack Obama's efforts with Republicans, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of their legislative records.
Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.
In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.
With calls for change in Washington dominating the campaign, both Mr. Obama, the Democrats' presidential nominee, and Mr. McCain, his Republican opponent, have claimed the mantle of bipartisanship.
But since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.
An Obama campaign spokesman declined to comment on The Times analysis.
McCain campaign surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham, though, said the numbers expose a difference between the two candidates.
"The number - 55 and 13 - probably shows that one has been more desirous to find common ground than the other. The legislative record of Senator Obama is very thin," said Mr. Graham, South Carolina Republican, who has teamed up with Mr. McCain probably more than any other senator.
The Times study looked at the bills each man introduced as the chief sponsor, and at the bills sponsored by other senators that each man signed onto. The study excluded resolutions and amendments, focusing instead on measures that each man authored and put into the normal legislative process.
Former Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, all independents, were grouped with Democrats because each caucused with Democrats during the time under study.
Bipartisanship is a frequent issue on the campaign trail, with the McCain camp and surrogates such as Mr. Graham arguing the standard is how often someone takes leadership on an issue in defiance of his own party - a measure by which Mr. Obama falls short and Mr. McCain clearly excels.
He even revels in his stances, telling the audience at a values forum at Saddleback Church in California last month his list is extensive: "Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture." He could have added campaign-finance overhaul, immigration, a patients' bill of rights, gun control and tax cuts as other areas on which he's broken with the majority of his party.
At the same forum, Mr. Obama said his major break with Democrats came on congressional ethics, when he sponsored a bill to curb meals and gifts from lobbyists.
In a memo to reporters, his campaign points to bills he worked on that gained near-unanimous support from both parties, including a bill more than a third of the Senate signed onto, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, pushing peace initiatives in Sudan, and a bill sponsored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, on charitable contributions that passed by a voice vote in each chamber.
But foremost, his campaign cites his work teaming up in 2006 with Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican, on the Cooperative Proliferation Detection Act, a noncontroversial measure to secure weapons of mass destruction, and with Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to force the administration to create a searchable database to track federal spending grants.
Speaking to reporters during the Republican National Convention earlier this month Obama aide Robert Gibbs said Mr. Lugar and Mr. Coburn would back up Mr. Obama's bipartisanship claims.
Mr. Lugar's spokesman said the senator is not doing interviews on the subject. Mr. Coburn, in an interview, said Mr. Obama is a good senator to work with, but said there's no comparison to Mr. McCain's long record.
"Barack is a great guy, a nice guy, he's a good friend of mine. He has passed two pieces of legislation since he's been in the Senate - had his name on two," Mr. Coburn said. He praised Mr. Obama's staff for the work they did on the spending grants bill, but he said Mr. Obama hasn't gone head-to-head against his leadership when it mattered: "Where have you seen him challenge the status quo?"
Mr. McCain on the campaign trail cites his own frequent Democratic legislative allies such as Mr. Lieberman, with whom he's worked on gun control and global warming; Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was his partner for immigration and patients' rights; Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, who worked with him on campaign finance; and Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who was the top Democrat on the Indian Affairs Committee when Mr. McCain was chairman.
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Kennedy didn't respond or declined through spokesmen to talk about the issue. Mr. Lieberman, however, has gone in the opposite direction, endorsing Mr. McCain for office and hitting Mr. Obama for failing to live up to his bipartisan claims.
Mr. Graham said it was unfortunate people weren't recognizing their work with Mr. McCain.
"What you've got now is, you've got some people who are afraid to recognize John's bipartisanship because of the nature of the election," Mr. Graham said.
Mr. Graham has teamed up with Mr. McCain on some of his most contentious bills, including the immigration and campaign-finance fights, and said they both have "the scars to prove" they were in the fights.
"I have experienced the price that's been paid to help John do some difficult things since 2004," he said.
Those fights are part of the reason Mr. McCain had trouble securing the Republican presidential nomination, including winning less than 50 percent of Republican primary voters' support, despite clearing the field less than halfway through the primaries.
The Times analysis found Mr. McCain's most frequent Democratic teammates are Mr. Dorgan, with whom he shared leadership of the Indian Affairs Committee and who co-sponsored 23 of Mr. McCain's bills, and Mr. Lieberman, who signed onto 15 McCain bills.
Mr. Obama's most frequent Republican partners were Mr. Lugar, who co-sponsored nine Obama bills, and Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican, who signed on to eight of Mr. Obama's measures.
The bill on which Mr. McCain attracted the most support in the past few years was his plan to combat greenhouse-gas emissions. That bill garnered 16 co-sponsors, 14 of whom were Democrats, including Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrats' vice-presidential nominee. Mr. Obama himself signed onto another of Mr. McCain's global-warming bills.
Mr. Obama's best successes in attracting co-sponsors came on a bill to boost the union's bargaining power with the Federal Aviation Administration, on which all 38 co-sponsors were Democrats, and a bill to issue a postage stamp honoring Mrs. Parks, which garnered 24 Democrats and 14 Republicans.
The Times study didn't look at voting, but Congressional Quarterly conducts annual studies of senators' voting records.
Over his Senate career, Mr. McCain has voted with the majority of Senate Republicans about 85 percent of the time, while in his three years in the Senate Mr. Obama has voted with his party 97 percent of the time.
this will deeply sadden whomod and Pro. the Obamassiah lied to them again....
But, seriously, this is big news: The latest polling finds McCain only five points behind Barack Hussein Obama among likely New York voters. New York is, quite possibly, the blue-est of blue states. To have a Republican within striking distance of any democrat is BIG trouble for the DNC.
I don't remember hearing of the Sienna poll before. We'll see if that's reflective of any others before I give it to much merit. I will say I'm surprised that there is any poll in NY with those results.
Where are all the articles about Obama making claims that what his opponents said were racist remarks when they weren't or the lies about Palin banning books and calling for creationism to be taught in the classroom?
Obama didn't take ads out saying those things about his opponents (as far as I know). Nor does he have as long of a record getting out there & asking for a higher bar in political campaigning. McCain has spent years saying one thing & now we're seeing an ad where he attacks Obama for trying to protect kindergardners from sexual predators. If it wasn't an election I think you would agree that isn't cool.
And while Palin didn't have a list of books to ban she did ask the librarian repeatedly, if she would be willing to remove books if palin asked it of her. Palin eventually fired the popular librarian & was forced to hire her back. That should bother you too & I hope Obama does do an ad on it eventually.
I never realized you saw Rove as the final arbitrator of all things moral and ethical. Go figure.
The simple fact of the matter is that more people are starting to actually read the text of the Obama bill, and not the Obama/media 'spin' and are seeing that the effect of it was exactly what the McCain campaign alleged.
Now, to be fair to Obama, he's relatively inexperienced as a politician and may not have realized what was in the bill and/or what the effect of the bill would be. However, that doesn't change the fact that legal language has meaning and the language of that bill had the meaning McCain's said.
McCain now says he created cell phones and wi-fi too!! Yes he did:
Quote:
I am the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee plays a major role in the development of technology policy, specifically any legislation affecting communications services, the Internet, cable television and other technologies. Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park.
You have to be one heck of a visionary to create wi-fi for computers when you don't even really know what a computer is. Now that's American ingenuity, my friends. (And Al Gore's supposed claim of helping to create the Internet is based on the same premise, passing legislation that created an environment in which it flourished. You can't criticize Gore and praise McCain. The lies finally caught up with McCain. (Scientific American confirms he said it.)
With that and his freely quoting Herbert Hoover yesterday about the "fundamentals of our economy being strong", he's starting to get back to his senior moments of a while back. Hopfully tolday he'll tell us that "prosperity is just around the corner"
Hey G-Man.... The Blackberry was invented by a Canadian company -- not by John McCain. There's a rather serious side to McCain's claim that he invented the Blackberry. The Blackberry has been the subject of some rather high-stakes law suits. If in fact McCain created the device, and not Research in Motion - or even if McCain were a co-inventor - this would raise some interesting legal issues with regards to who owns the rights to the device. I would suspect Research in Motion isn't interested in watering down its patent, which to my eye is exactly what John McCain just did today.)
Today, McCain's campaign claimed that McCain created the Blackberry. Regardless of whether G-man thinks it was as a "joke". Blackberry was developed by Research in Motion, a Canadian company. If McCain's campaign knew how to use the Google, they'd have known this important fact.
I guess not only did McCain invent the BlackBerry -- he outsourced it! McCain is now a serial liar!!!!!! Looks like besides dementia, he's now developing Munchausen syndrome!
Hey G-Man.... The Blackberry was invented by a Canadian company -- not by John McCain. There's a rather serious side to McCain's claim that he invented the Blackberry. The Blackberry has been the subject of some rather high-stakes law suits. If in fact McCain created the device, and not Research in Motion - or even if McCain were a co-inventor - this would raise some interesting legal issues with regards to who owns the rights to the device. I would suspect Research in Motion isn't interested in watering down its patent, which to my eye is exactly what John McCain just did today.)
Today, McCain's campaign claimed that McCain created the Blackberry. Regardless of whether G-man thinks it was as a "joke". Blackberry was developed by Research in Motion, a Canadian company. If McCain's campaign knew how to use the Google, they'd have known this important fact.
I guess not only did McCain invent the BlackBerry -- he outsourced it! McCain is now a serial liar!!!!!! Looks like besides dementia, he's now developing Munchausen syndrome!
Jesus Christ, you really are dense, aren't you?
The original story, at CNN and elsewhere, made it clear that it was a joke and that McCain didn't say it, a staffer did:
McCain senior aide Matt McDonald said that the senator "laughed" when he heard the comment.
"He would not claim to be the inventor of anything, much less the BlackBerry. This was obviously a boneheaded joke by a staffer," McDonald said.
It's amazing how bitter they are about Gore's claim to have invented the internet. In fact, if they get any bitterer they might start clinging to guns and religion.
i love this, if the best that the Obamassiahites can come up with is this, theyve ran out of straws....
No, the best we can come up with is McCain economic advisor Phil Gramm (and possible Treasury secretary pick)deregulating Wall Street, the fact that McCain has lied chronically since the GOP convention, Sarah Palin's ethics investigation, McCain saying the economy is fundamentally strong, McCain agreeing with bush over 95% of the time yet he thinks he's "change", the fact that he touts himself as a foreign policy "expert" yet routinely gets basic facts wrong, the fact hat he's 71 years old and he has a lightweight ready to step in, the fact that his VP also has lied chronically since the GOP convention on everything from the bridge to nowhere to the jet on e-Bay to all the countries she's toured.
That's just off the top of my head.
Plus the fact that alone, McCain still can't seem to inspire anyone much enough to actually attend his events.
...McCain economic advisor Phil Gramm (and possible Treasury secretary pick)deregulating Wall Street...
Oopsie. Turns out the bill to which whomod refers was co-sponsored by an Obama advisor and signed into law (after passing the Senate 90-8) by President Bill Clinton.
Hey G-Man.... The Blackberry was invented by a Canadian company -- not by John McCain. There's a rather serious side to McCain's claim that he invented the Blackberry. The Blackberry has been the subject of some rather high-stakes law suits. If in fact McCain created the device, and not Research in Motion - or even if McCain were a co-inventor - this would raise some interesting legal issues with regards to who owns the rights to the device. I would suspect Research in Motion isn't interested in watering down its patent, which to my eye is exactly what John McCain just did today.)
Today, McCain's campaign claimed that McCain created the Blackberry. Regardless of whether G-man thinks it was as a "joke". Blackberry was developed by Research in Motion, a Canadian company. If McCain's campaign knew how to use the Google, they'd have known this important fact.
I guess not only did McCain invent the BlackBerry -- he outsourced it! McCain is now a serial liar!!!!!! Looks like besides dementia, he's now developing Munchausen syndrome!
Jesus Christ, you really are dense, aren't you?
The original story, at CNN and elsewhere, made it clear that it was a joke and that McCain didn't say it, a staffer did:
McCain senior aide Matt McDonald said that the senator "laughed" when he heard the comment.
"He would not claim to be the inventor of anything, much less the BlackBerry. This was obviously a boneheaded joke by a staffer," McDonald said.
Yeah, and I'd almost have believed you, except that the "joke" was the same "joke" that McCain is himself quoted as saying by Scientific American. Of which I did provide a link for you. Jesus Christ!, you are dense! Note the "joke" the McCain campaign is now saying an aide told earlier today about McCain helping to create the BlackBerry.
Quote:
Asked what work John McCain did as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate's top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry.
"He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."
Now note the non-joke in which McCain himself, using the exact same language as the "joke," says that he helped create the cell phone and wi-fi:
Quote:
I am the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee plays a major role in the development of technology policy, specifically any legislation affecting communications services, the Internet, cable television and other technologies. Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park.
So was McCain "joking" too - pretty stupid way to run a presidential campaign, putting out repeated "jokes" lying about your boss's record, or did the McCain aide in fact tell the truth as the campaign sees it, that John McCain thinks he created the Blackberry? It's pretty clear that the campaign thinks all of this is true, but now is running scared because this lie was one lie too many.
Hey G-Man.... The Blackberry was invented by a Canadian company -- not by John McCain. There's a rather serious side to McCain's claim that he invented the Blackberry. The Blackberry has been the subject of some rather high-stakes law suits. If in fact McCain created the device, and not Research in Motion - or even if McCain were a co-inventor - this would raise some interesting legal issues with regards to who owns the rights to the device. I would suspect Research in Motion isn't interested in watering down its patent, which to my eye is exactly what John McCain just did today.)
Today, McCain's campaign claimed that McCain created the Blackberry. Regardless of whether G-man thinks it was as a "joke". Blackberry was developed by Research in Motion, a Canadian company. If McCain's campaign knew how to use the Google, they'd have known this important fact.
I guess not only did McCain invent the BlackBerry -- he outsourced it! McCain is now a serial liar!!!!!! Looks like besides dementia, he's now developing Munchausen syndrome!
Jesus Christ, you really are dense, aren't you?
The original story, at CNN and elsewhere, made it clear that it was a joke and that McCain didn't say it, a staffer did:
McCain senior aide Matt McDonald said that the senator "laughed" when he heard the comment.
"He would not claim to be the inventor of anything, much less the BlackBerry. This was obviously a boneheaded joke by a staffer," McDonald said.
Yeah, and I'd almost have believed you, except that the "joke" was the same "joke" that McCain is himself quoted as saying by Scientific American. Of which I did provide a link for you. Jesus Christ!, you are dense! Note the "joke" the McCain campaign is now saying an aide told earlier today about McCain helping to create the BlackBerry.
Quote:
Asked what work John McCain did as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate's top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry.
"He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."
Now note the non-joke in which McCain himself, using the exact same language as the "joke," says that he helped create the cell phone and wi-fi:
Quote:
I am the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee plays a major role in the development of technology policy, specifically any legislation affecting communications services, the Internet, cable television and other technologies. Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park.
So was McCain "joking" too - pretty stupid way to run a presidential campaign, putting out repeated "jokes" lying about your boss's record, or did the McCain aide in fact tell the truth as the campaign sees it, that John McCain thinks he created the Blackberry? It's pretty clear that the campaign thinks all of this is true, but now is running scared because this lie was one lie too many.
Senator John McCain’s top domestic policy adviser, former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin, recently said in a conference call with reporters that Mr. McCain’s health care proposal would “put 25 to 30 million individuals out of the ranks of the uninsured, into the ranks of the insured.” In an article released Tuesday, a panel of prominent health economists concludes that Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s projection is off by, well, 25 to 30 million.
I think it's real "honorable" that McCain intends to squeak into the White House on naked deception.
btw i read Obama was in LA schmoozing with the Hollywood elite today, is that near Bellflower?
the last time i used google i found out your national guard blocking new orleans residents story was fake. i promised never to betray your insanity that way again.
the "joke" was the same "joke" that McCain is himself quoted as saying by Scientific American.
The Scientific American article you posted does not, at any point, quote McCain as having claimed to invent either the Blackberry or WiFi.
So the only inventing I see here is you inventing another fake source.
It looks like it's got about as much merit as the "Al Gore invented the internet" line that partisan republicans were able to say with a straight face way back in 2000.
And the internet, McCain didn't invent that. Algore did.
McCain invented WiFi and the Blackberry. So he's one up on Al Gore. Plus he also invented the "Fundamentals". They're the new American work force who he believes in, even as he denies them wage increases repeatedly despite year after year of increased productivity.
Captain Sammitch talkative Moderator tantillo taunter 10000+ posts Tue Sep 16 2008 08:31 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: McCain in 08?
A top Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraiser threw her support behind Republican John McCain on Wednesday, saying he will lead the country in a centrist fashion and accusing the Democrats of becoming too extreme.
"I believe that Barack Obama, with MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, has taken the Democratic Party — and they will continue to — too far to the left," Lynn Forester de Rothschild said. "I'm not comfortable there."
Rothschild is also a member of the Democratic National Committee's Platform Committee. She said she would be stepping down from her position on the committee but will not switch political parties.
She praised McCain for working with Democrats to pass legislation and for standing up to President Bush on the Iraq war.
"I just ask, who has Barack Obama ever stood up to? And that troubles me a lot," she said.
Rothschild also disputed Obama's argument that a McCain administration would be an extension of Bush's presidency. Democrats cite McCain's own account of having voted in support of Bush's policies 90 percent of the time.
She said the Arizona senator has broken with Bush to support funding for stem-cell research and to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
"It is the classic cheap shot. Just not true," she said.
Rothschild said she was also excited by the prospect of a woman being in the White House, even though she and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin disagree on issues. The Alaska governor opposes abortion except in the case of a threat to the mother's life. Rothschild said she supports abortion rights.
"I believe that the McCain-Palin government will be a centrist government," Rothschild said. "It's not going to be an ideological government."
Rothschild is a member of the DNC's Democrats Abroad chapter and splits her time living in London and New York. She was one of Clinton's top fundraisers, bringing in more than $100,000 for her presidential campaign. She built a multimillion-dollar telecommunications company before marrying international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild.
Rothschild said she has not discussed her support for McCain with Clinton.
"I'm sure she is not pleased with what I'm doing today," she said. "But you know what? I have to do what I believe in."
how long till the liberal smear machine tries to dig up dirt on her and eat another of their own?
John McCain has a John McCain moment talking to a crowd tonight:. It seems his mind went to hell after inventing the blackberry.
and if you think this is some isolated incident, your boy McCain went on some semi-coherent rant with a Spanish reporter. He thinks Spain is in Latin America, the stupid doddering fucker.
I'd start worrying about your boy's mental stability about now.
The Democrat party and its acolytes try go after every Republican running or in office on the same two or three personal attacks: [Republican] is lying/stupid/senile. It's been the same since at least Ronald Reagan.
But all it accomplishes is turning off the independents who, even if they disagree with the Republican on some issues, think the attacks are both too broad and too mean-spirited.
The last time the Democrat party took back the White House it was because they ran a guy who didn't do that, Bill Clinton. Say what you will about Slick Willie, but he at least appeared to run on issues and treated his opponent with respect, while still running a tough campaign.
You guys are calling a war hero senile, attacking a woman's kids and generally looking like a group of beer hall thugs.
Even if you get in, you'll have so divided the country that Obama can never lead. Is that what you really want?
The Democrat party and its acolytes try go after every Republican running or in office on the same two or three personal attacks: [Republican] is lying/stupid/senile. It's been the same since at least Ronald Reagan.
But all it accomplishes is turning off the independents who, even if they disagree with the Republican on some issues, think the attacks are both too broad and too mean-spirited.
The last time the Democrat party took back the White House it was because they ran a guy who didn't do that, Bill Clinton. Say what you will about Slick Willie, but he at least appeared to run on issues and treated his opponent with respect, while still running a tough campaign.
You guys are calling a war hero senile, attacking a woman's kids and generally looking like a group of beer hall thugs.
Even if you get in, you'll have so divided the country that Obama can never lead. Is that what you really want?
Yeah Whomod, take the high road in attacking an opponent like G-man does
Seriously though both of you could tone it down a titch. Granted the RKMB is powerful & could decide who gets into the White House, we should all remember with great power comes great responsability.
I'm not specifically referring to whomod's attacks. I recognize we all joke around here and say things that aren't necessarily how we would conduct an actual political campaign.
I'm referring to the fact that the Democrat party and/or its surrogates seems to be starting to utilize the smears or least tolerate them in its name.
I'm not specifically referring to whomod's attacks. I recognize we all joke around here and say things that aren't necessarily how we would conduct an actual political campaign.
I'm referring to the fact that the Democrat party and/or its surrogates seems to be starting to utilize the smears or least tolerate them in its name.
Yeah, I think we're about even with your party now.
I'm not specifically referring to whomod's attacks. I recognize we all joke around here and say things that aren't necessarily how we would conduct an actual political campaign.
please. whomod isn't joking. that's genuine hatred boiling off the guy. anyone smarter than wanky (everyone?) can tell that.
there are a lot of good, decent people in the democrat party. unfortunately, there are also a lot of elitist, extremist, far-left, moonbat bitchtards™ dragging the party in leftward spirals down the toilet bowl toward the vast sea of marxist sewage waiting at the bottom. here's hoping the good, decent people will stop tolerating their nonsense before it's too late.
Apparently to G-Man, talking about how McCain sees to have these frequent bouts of confusion is being mean. Never mind the fact that John McCain is 71 years old and seeks the highest most powerful office in the entire world. Do we really want a guy that seems to be suffering from senility and dementia to have that kind of power?
Here's CNN being "mean" to John McCain as well.
Yeah, G-Man, I know... I know.. why oh why can't they just talk about how he was a POW and how he's a "maverick"?
Here's the AP being mean as well. It's all a Democratic Party "conspiracy" to attack John McCain apparently (oh yeah, G-Man, it' still the "Democratic" Party not the "democrat" party, numbnuts). The fact that John McCain appears to believe that Spain is in Latin America, and run by a dictator should be news and not dismissed as being mean:
Quote:
Jose Luis Rodriguez Who? John McCain either doesn't want to meet Spain's prime minister any time soon or isn't quite sure who he is.
In a radio interview broadcast in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate repeatedly dodged questions as to whether he would invite Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House if McCain wins in November.
"All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not," he said. "And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."
He had been asked, however, about a leader outside the hemisphere.
McCain added, when that was pointed out: "I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom and I will stand up to those that do not."
Responding to the first of four questions on whether he would confer with Zapatero, McCain said he'd talk with leaders who are cooperative with the United States. Then he discussed Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his work in fighting drug cartels.
AP fails to note that McCain had offered to meet with Zapatero in April, so there's a pretty major, and inexplicable, flip-flop from McCain here.
In response to this embarassment from John Mcain, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder had a back and forth with the McCain campaign today, trying to get them to explain why, if the campaign now says it would be unwise to rule in or out any future meetings with foreign leaders such as Spain's prime minister, did McCain offer an invitation to just such a meeting to Spanish leader Zapatero just five months ago? Contradiction much? The McCain campaign's response, explaining why the sudden change? Gobbley-gook. Here's their response:
Quote:
In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping youtr options open, unlike Senator Obama who has publically committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.
That wasn't the question. The question was why McCain today thinks he shouldn't rule in or out any such meeting, but last April he offered such a meeting to the Spanish leader. If it's called "keeping your options open," then why didn't McCain "keep his options open" last April? And for that matter, why did McCain respond to a question about Spain - four questions about Spain, in fact - by answering with a non sequitur about Mexico and Latin America?
Answer the question, McCain campaign. You were for meeting Zapatero and McCain downright gushed about mending relations with Spain in April, yet today you claim it would be imprudent to be publicly in favor of any such meeting. (And to top it off, McCain seemed to suggest that he wouldn't meet with Zapatero, the leader of Spain, unless and until Spain embraced "democracy and human rights" - what does McCain think, this is the 1970s under Franco? That's crazy talk). So was McCain imprudent back in April when he publicly extended the invitation to such a meeting with Zapatero? Or are you just lying in order to hide what Ambinder calls "a senior moment"?
...talking about ... frequent bouts of confusion... Do we really want a guy that seems to be suffering from senility and dementia to have that kind of power?
Apparently to G-Man, talking about how McCain sees to have these frequent bouts of confusion is being mean. Never mind the fact that John McCain is 71 years old and seeks the highest most powerful office in the entire world. Do we really want a guy that seems to be suffering from senility and dementia to have that kind of power?
Here's CNN being "mean" to John McCain as well.
Yeah, G-Man, I know... I know.. why oh why can't they just talk about how he was a POW and how he's a "maverick"?
Here's the AP being mean as well. It's all a Democratic Party "conspiracy" to attack John McCain apparently (oh yeah, G-Man, it' still the "Democratic" Party not the "democrat" party, numbnuts). The fact that John McCain appears to believe that Spain is in Latin America, and run by a dictator should be news and not dismissed as being mean:
Quote: Jose Luis Rodriguez Who? John McCain either doesn't want to meet Spain's prime minister any time soon or isn't quite sure who he is.
In a radio interview broadcast in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate repeatedly dodged questions as to whether he would invite Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House if McCain wins in November.
"All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not," he said. "And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."
He had been asked, however, about a leader outside the hemisphere.
McCain added, when that was pointed out: "I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom and I will stand up to those that do not."
Responding to the first of four questions on whether he would confer with Zapatero, McCain said he'd talk with leaders who are cooperative with the United States. Then he discussed Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his work in fighting drug cartels.
AP fails to note that McCain had offered to meet with Zapatero in April, so there's a pretty major, and inexplicable, flip-flop from McCain here.
In response to this embarassment from John Mcain, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder had a back and forth with the McCain campaign today, trying to get them to explain why, if the campaign now says it would be unwise to rule in or out any future meetings with foreign leaders such as Spain's prime minister, did McCain offer an invitation to just such a meeting to Spanish leader Zapatero just five months ago? Contradiction much? The McCain campaign's response, explaining why the sudden change? Gobbley-gook. Here's their response:
Quote: In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping youtr options open, unlike Senator Obama who has publically committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.
That wasn't the question. The question was why McCain today thinks he shouldn't rule in or out any such meeting, but last April he offered such a meeting to the Spanish leader. If it's called "keeping your options open," then why didn't McCain "keep his options open" last April? And for that matter, why did McCain respond to a question about Spain - four questions about Spain, in fact - by answering with a non sequitur about Mexico and Latin America?
Answer the question, McCain campaign. You were for meeting Zapatero and McCain downright gushed about mending relations with Spain in April, yet today you claim it would be imprudent to be publicly in favor of any such meeting. (And to top it off, McCain seemed to suggest that he wouldn't meet with Zapatero, the leader of Spain, unless and until Spain embraced "democracy and human rights" - what does McCain think, this is the 1970s under Franco? That's crazy talk). So was McCain imprudent back in April when he publicly extended the invitation to such a meeting with Zapatero? Or are you just lying in order to hide what Ambinder calls "a senior moment"?
That's probably why you support McCain. It's called being a "Low information voter". They're the ones who get all their "facts" from Rush Limbaugh and what their equally uninformed relative tells them with info that he also heard on talk radio. Y'know he ones who really believe Obama is a Muslim and that he wants to raise EVERYONES taxes. It's the people that Mccain makes commercials and sound bytes for. It's the stuff that gets exposed as LIES by every newspaper in America but that his duped supporters still believe.
No, I support him because he's not an American hating commie.
Quote:
It's called being a "Low information voter". They're the ones who get all their "facts" from Rush Limbaugh and what their equally uninformed relative tells them with info that he also heard on talk radio.
limbaugh was born and raised in rio linda california. Nothing good has ever come out of that white trash shit hole. I've never listened to his show and I don't know anyone that listens to it.
Quote:
Y'know he ones who really believe Obama is a Muslim and that he wants to raise EVERYONES taxes.
I'm one of the people that correct it when someone says obama is muslim. He's got enough bad things going for him. I don't see why we should make up lies to make him look bad.
Obama will raise taxes. That's what commies do. That's what democrats do.
limbaugh was born and raised in rio linda california.
Actually, no. Rush was born and raised in Missouri. He rags on Rio Lindo as a bit on his show because, I think, he used to have a radio show there (or something).
Apparently to G-Man, talking about how McCain sees to have these frequent bouts of confusion is being mean. Never mind the fact that John McCain is 71 years old and seeks the highest most powerful office in the entire world. Do we really want a guy that seems to be suffering from senility and dementia to have that kind of power?
Here's CNN being "mean" to John McCain as well.
Yeah, G-Man, I know... I know.. why oh why can't they just talk about how he was a POW and how he's a "maverick"?
Here's the AP being mean as well. It's all a Democratic Party "conspiracy" to attack John McCain apparently (oh yeah, G-Man, it' still the "Democratic" Party not the "democrat" party, numbnuts). The fact that John McCain appears to believe that Spain is in Latin America, and run by a dictator should be news and not dismissed as being mean:
Quote:
Jose Luis Rodriguez Who? John McCain either doesn't want to meet Spain's prime minister any time soon or isn't quite sure who he is.
In a radio interview broadcast in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate repeatedly dodged questions as to whether he would invite Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House if McCain wins in November.
"All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not," he said. "And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."
He had been asked, however, about a leader outside the hemisphere.
McCain added, when that was pointed out: "I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom and I will stand up to those that do not."
Responding to the first of four questions on whether he would confer with Zapatero, McCain said he'd talk with leaders who are cooperative with the United States. Then he discussed Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his work in fighting drug cartels.
AP fails to note that McCain had offered to meet with Zapatero in April, so there's a pretty major, and inexplicable, flip-flop from McCain here.
In response to this embarassment from John Mcain, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder had a back and forth with the McCain campaign today, trying to get them to explain why, if the campaign now says it would be unwise to rule in or out any future meetings with foreign leaders such as Spain's prime minister, did McCain offer an invitation to just such a meeting to Spanish leader Zapatero just five months ago? Contradiction much? The McCain campaign's response, explaining why the sudden change? Gobbley-gook. Here's their response:
Quote:
In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping youtr options open, unlike Senator Obama who has publically committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.
That wasn't the question. The question was why McCain today thinks he shouldn't rule in or out any such meeting, but last April he offered such a meeting to the Spanish leader. If it's called "keeping your options open," then why didn't McCain "keep his options open" last April? And for that matter, why did McCain respond to a question about Spain - four questions about Spain, in fact - by answering with a non sequitur about Mexico and Latin America?
Answer the question, McCain campaign. You were for meeting Zapatero and McCain downright gushed about mending relations with Spain in April, yet today you claim it would be imprudent to be publicly in favor of any such meeting. (And to top it off, McCain seemed to suggest that he wouldn't meet with Zapatero, the leader of Spain, unless and until Spain embraced "democracy and human rights" - what does McCain think, this is the 1970s under Franco? That's crazy talk). So was McCain imprudent back in April when he publicly extended the invitation to such a meeting with Zapatero? Or are you just lying in order to hide what Ambinder calls "a senior moment"?
Back on the topic of the day.. *ahem* G-Man...
Wonder what time of the day this interview was held. He seems to do fairly well when giving his stump speeches earlier in the day. If this was later in the afternoon or evening, it could be "sundowning" a symptom of dementia. Could make for some very entertaining debates.
Or also I can see the fun: Palin can see Russia from her back window ("I'd swear you could see it if'n you look hard enough over that hill next to that dead moose..." as she pulls away the kitchen curtains) and McCain wants to meet with the Spanish President to finish the border fence along his home state AZ.
Now just get your reading glasses out and see if Zapatero sent you one of those 'texas' messages on the raspberry you invented.
Another publication caught on to the latest McCain bout of confusion and sees a pattern. Steve Benen over at Political Animal/Washington Monthly notes that McCain's recent confusion, thinking Spain was located in Latin America and run by a dictator, is on the most recent of McCain's increasingly odd foreign policy gaffes:
Quote:
Let's also not lose sight of the broader pattern. McCain thinks the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia was "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." He thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border. He believes Czechoslovakia is still a country. He's been confused about the difference between Sudan and Somalia. He's been confused about whether he wants more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more NATO troops in Afghanistan, or both. He's been confused about how many U.S. troops are in Iraq. He's been confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term presence in Iraq. He's been confused about Iran's relationship with al Qaeda. He's been confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi'ia. McCain, following a recent trip to Germany, even referred to "President Putin of Germany." All of this incoherence on his signature issue.
I'm curious. What do you suppose the reaction would be from the political establishment if Barack Obama had made these mistakes over the course of the campaign? What would reporters, pundits, and Republicans have to say about Obama's ability to lead a complex world in a time of war and uncertainty?
I think an intellectually honest person would agree that if Obama had made these same mistakes he'd be labeled "clueless" on foreign policy. So, why the double-standard?
It's sad that you two have nothing with which to defend McCain's dementia.
you could try the old "but he was a POW" tack once more. Just don't say he was tortured. Apparently that's a big 'no no' in the gOP since Bush doesn't consider what was done to McCain as torture.
Apparently to G-Man, talking about how McCain sees to have these frequent bouts of confusion is being mean. Never mind the fact that John McCain is 71 years old and seeks the highest most powerful office in the entire world. Do we really want a guy that seems to be suffering from senility and dementia to have that kind of power?
Here's CNN being "mean" to John McCain as well.
Yeah, G-Man, I know... I know.. why oh why can't they just talk about how he was a POW and how he's a "maverick"?
Here's the AP being mean as well. It's all a Democratic Party "conspiracy" to attack John McCain apparently (oh yeah, G-Man, it' still the "Democratic" Party not the "democrat" party, numbnuts). The fact that John McCain appears to believe that Spain is in Latin America, and run by a dictator should be news and not dismissed as being mean:
Quote:
Jose Luis Rodriguez Who? John McCain either doesn't want to meet Spain's prime minister any time soon or isn't quite sure who he is.
In a radio interview broadcast in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate repeatedly dodged questions as to whether he would invite Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House if McCain wins in November.
"All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not," he said. "And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."
He had been asked, however, about a leader outside the hemisphere.
McCain added, when that was pointed out: "I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom and I will stand up to those that do not."
Responding to the first of four questions on whether he would confer with Zapatero, McCain said he'd talk with leaders who are cooperative with the United States. Then he discussed Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his work in fighting drug cartels.
AP fails to note that McCain had offered to meet with Zapatero in April, so there's a pretty major, and inexplicable, flip-flop from McCain here.
In response to this embarassment from John Mcain, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder had a back and forth with the McCain campaign today, trying to get them to explain why, if the campaign now says it would be unwise to rule in or out any future meetings with foreign leaders such as Spain's prime minister, did McCain offer an invitation to just such a meeting to Spanish leader Zapatero just five months ago? Contradiction much? The McCain campaign's response, explaining why the sudden change? Gobbley-gook. Here's their response:
Quote:
In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping youtr options open, unlike Senator Obama who has publically committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.
That wasn't the question. The question was why McCain today thinks he shouldn't rule in or out any such meeting, but last April he offered such a meeting to the Spanish leader. If it's called "keeping your options open," then why didn't McCain "keep his options open" last April? And for that matter, why did McCain respond to a question about Spain - four questions about Spain, in fact - by answering with a non sequitur about Mexico and Latin America?
Answer the question, McCain campaign. You were for meeting Zapatero and McCain downright gushed about mending relations with Spain in April, yet today you claim it would be imprudent to be publicly in favor of any such meeting. (And to top it off, McCain seemed to suggest that he wouldn't meet with Zapatero, the leader of Spain, unless and until Spain embraced "democracy and human rights" - what does McCain think, this is the 1970s under Franco? That's crazy talk). So was McCain imprudent back in April when he publicly extended the invitation to such a meeting with Zapatero? Or are you just lying in order to hide what Ambinder calls "a senior moment"?
Back on the topic of the day.. *ahem* G-Man...
Wonder what time of the day this interview was held. He seems to do fairly well when giving his stump speeches earlier in the day. If this was later in the afternoon or evening, it could be "sundowning" a symptom of dementia. Could make for some very entertaining debates.
Or also I can see the fun: Palin can see Russia from her back window ("I'd swear you could see it if'n you look hard enough over that hill next to that dead moose..." as she pulls away the kitchen curtains) and McCain wants to meet with the Spanish President to finish the border fence along his home state AZ.
Now just get your reading glasses out and see if Zapatero sent you one of those 'texas' messages on the raspberry you invented.
Dodge. evade.
None of you have responded to McCain's dementia here.
Another publication caught on to the latest McCain bout of confusion and sees a pattern. Steve Benen over at Political Animal/Washington Monthly notes that McCain's recent confusion, thinking Spain was located in Latin America and run by a dictator, is on the most recent of McCain's increasingly odd foreign policy gaffes:
Quote:
Let's also not lose sight of the broader pattern. McCain thinks the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia was "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." He thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border. He believes Czechoslovakia is still a country. He's been confused about the difference between Sudan and Somalia. He's been confused about whether he wants more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more NATO troops in Afghanistan, or both. He's been confused about how many U.S. troops are in Iraq. He's been confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term presence in Iraq. He's been confused about Iran's relationship with al Qaeda. He's been confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi'ia. McCain, following a recent trip to Germany, even referred to "President Putin of Germany." All of this incoherence on his signature issue.
I'm curious. What do you suppose the reaction would be from the political establishment if Barack Obama had made these mistakes over the course of the campaign? What would reporters, pundits, and Republicans have to say about Obama's ability to lead a complex world in a time of war and uncertainty?
I think an intellectually honest person would agree that if Obama had made these same mistakes he'd be labeled "clueless" on foreign policy. So, why the double-standard?
Consider it McCain's own personal bail-out plan for Wall Street. From David Corn at Mother Jones:
Quote:
[T]he Democratic National Committee, using publicly available records, has identified 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign as either aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers.
Of those 177 lobbyists, according to a Mother Jones review of Senate and House records, at least 83 have in recent years lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks. These are high-paid influence-peddlers who have been working the corridors of the nation's capital to win favors and special treatment for investment banks, securities firms, hedge funds, accounting outfits, and insurance companies. Their clients have included AIG, the newest symbol of corporate excess; Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy on Monday sending the stock market into a tailspin; Merrill Lynch, which was bought out by Bank of America this week; and Washington Mutual, the banking giant that could be the next to fall. Among these 83 lobbyists are McCain's chief political adviser, Charlie Black (JP Morgan, Washington Mutual Bank, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America); McCain's national finance co-chairman, Wayne Berman (AIG, Blackstone, Credit Suisse, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac); the campaign's congressional liaison, John Green (Carlyle Group, Citigroup, Icahn Associates, Fannie Mae); McCain's veep vetter, Arthur Culvahouse (Fannie Mae); and McCain's transition planning chief, William Timmons Sr. (Citigroup, Freddie Mac, Vanguard Group).
John McCain is going to take them all on. All these "old boys".
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to fix Social Security. We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to fix Medicare. We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to provide health care to ALL Americans. We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to help out Americans losing their homes. We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to help all our veterans returning from war. We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to rescue "no child left behind".
BUT...
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out Bears Stearns. We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out AIG. We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to pay for an unnecessary TRILLION DOLLAR war.
When the LITTLE GUY needs help, they scornfully say, "GET A JOB!" But when one of their BIG GUY CRONIES need a bailout, what do they say? SURE, NO PROBLEM. Where's the checkbook?
"But what about the debt we're leaving on the backs of our childen and their future?" "Children? WHOSE Children? OUR children won't have to pay for this. YOUR children will."
The Republicans have had their hands in our pockets for well over 8 years. Now they are robbing us blind IN BROAD DAYLIGHT and smiling about it!!!! The Republicans have shown their true colors and now they expect us to vote them back into office?
What's next? Should we bend over and spread 'em? Oh, I'm sorry, but we've ALREADY DONE THAT!! SEVERAL TIMES!!!
You know, this is the one time it would have been smart for you to hide behind one of your alts... Your political ads might actually have had a chance to convince someone if they didn't come from the stupid fuck who called the cops over an alt ID.
None of you have responded to McCain's dementia here.
In May of this year, McCain released medical records and statements from his doctors. None of which indicated that he suffered from dementia or senility.
Do you have medical documentation to prove he is senile?
I'm guessing not, unless you (a) hacked his medical records while your buddies were hacking Palin's family email accounts; (b) fabricated them at the same time you fabricated the AP story about New Orleans.
Captain Sammitch talkative Moderator tantillo taunter 10000+ posts Fri Sep 19 2008 11:12 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: McCain in 08?
Yesterday, Adam Nagourney from the New York Times established the emerging story line that new John McCain is actually Bob Dole:
Quote:
These days, Mr. McCain sounds less like his old self than Bob Dole, another Republican senator who ran for president in 1996, sounded in the closing days of his campaign — speaking louder or repeating statements that he thinks might be overlooked.
And he also hates america. And everyone that wants to vote for him comes off as a complete tool. And the hippies want him to be president. I say want because they are too lazy to vote.
And he also hates america. And everyone that wants to vote for him comes off as a complete tool. And the hippies want him to be president. I say want because they are too lazy to vote.
I really don't care if you never said that you don't approve. You did say that Obama wants the Government to control everything. Like the banking industry. You accused one side of something that the other side is already doing. 'National Socialism' is the proper term for it I believe.
Funny. Four days before the NY Times printed your "McCain is Dole" theory, I read that said the recent overt hatred towards McCain is precisely because he isn't "the new Bob Dole", in that he might actually win:
The enduring scandal of the McCain campaign is that it wants to win. The press had hoped for a harmless, nostalgic loser like Bob Dole in 1996. In a column excoriating Republicans for historically launching successful attacks against Democratic presidential candidates in August, Time columnist Joe Klein excepted Bob Dole — not mentioning that Dole had been eviscerated by Clinton negative ads before August ever arrived.
The press turned on McCain with a vengeance as soon as he mocked Barack Obama as a celebrity....Whatever affection they still have for McCain is now expressed in self-interested yearning: Where is the McCain of old, the one who could be reliably counted on to lose?
It sounds to me like this is just another attempt by the Obamainstream Media to push the "McCain is old, vote Obama" message.
G-ma... the Republicans are starting to sound like the "victim" party. the victim of the "liberal media", the victim is "sexism", the victim of those evil bipartisa..um I mean "Democrat" invesigators in Alaska. It's whine whine and
If conservatives hate victimhood so much, why then does the Republican Party encourage its base to feel so aggrieved, especially at the hands of those snotty "elites"? Whether it's complaining about lipstick on a pig or bashing Washington insiders, the media and those oh-so-condescending Hollywood celebrities, Republicans have turned their own kind of victimhood into a political art form.
Romesh Ponnuru was a voice in the conservative wilderness Wednesday when he argued in a National Review blog that the GOP's response to Barack Obama's lipstick-on-a-pig comment is making Republicans look like "whiny grievance-mongers."
Just this June, Dennis Prager wrote that the "entire liberal-left [worldview] is predicated on portraying every group in America except white, male, heterosexual Christians as oppressed. Women are oppressed by men. Blacks and Hispanics are oppressed by whites. Gays are oppressed by straights. Non-Christians are oppressed by Christians."
He must have been surprised when, at the GOP convention, his own champions, Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani, flagrantly predicated their positions on the same kind of oppression, this time of Sam's Club, Main Street Republicans by those nasty "elites."
BTW, McCain is old. and i'll find some video and audio later on of that whole 'Spain is in in Latin America' interview a doddering McCain did. I'm sure you already heard it though. Although you wish you hadn't.
BTW this headline from the Washington Post says it all about McCain:
McCain has now lied about only buying American cars all his life. Is there nothing he won't lie about? This one was so easily refutable that it is laughable. He lies because he still assumes he can get away with doing it and the only consequence is a good talking point.
2004 Cadillac 2005 Volkswagen convertible 2001 Honda sedan 2007 half-ton Ford pickup truck vintage 1960 Willys Jeep 2008 Jeep Wrangler 2000 Lincoln 2001 GMC SUV three 2000 NEV Gem electric vehicles Lexis
John McCain has 13 cars. Barack Obama has 1. John McCain may have anywhere from 7 to 14 homes. Obama has 1. Yet we're to believe that McCain is the regular guy and Obama is the snooty elitist. It's quite sad and desperate really.
At this point, we ought to have an open and honest debate as to whether McCain has simply become a serial liar, willing to do anything and say anything in order to be president, or whether McCain is having serious problems with his memory and overall cognitive abilities due to old age, a recurrence of his cancer, initial Alzheimer's or some other illness.
Is it dementia, confusion, or what that is causing McCain to atypically say repeated falsehoods - from placing Spain in Latin America, to claiming that Palin was against the Bridge to Nowhere, to now saying that he's always bought American. We now know that at least 3 of the McCain's 13 cars - yes, McCain has 13 cars - are foreign cars (a Honda, a VW, and a Lexus). Now, I don't personally have a problem with someone buying a foreign car - though you know the Republicans would be all over Obama if his car were foreign (it's not, Obama owns one car and it's a Ford hybrid). But the issue here is that McCain has once again lied about yet another fact in his life, in order to get elected.
The old McCain didn't appear to be this much of a liar, or this confused about the facts. The new McCain has either decided to jettison his honor overboard, or is quite literally beginning to lose his mind. At 72 years of age with 4 bouts of rather serious cancer, the latter can't be ignored for much longer. Especially since there's a very real possibility that electing John McCain would make Sarah Palin president.
Huffington Post has put together a slide show of the McCain fleet.
This issue isn't so much about McCain's cars as it about yet another McCain lie designed to bolster some image of himself that simply isn't so.
John McCain has a John McCain moment talking to a crowd tonight:. It seems his mind went to hell after inventing the blackberry.
and if you think this is some isolated incident, your boy McCain went on some semi-coherent rant with a Spanish reporter. He thinks Spain is in Latin America, the stupid doddering fucker.
I'd start worrying about your boy's mental stability about now.
McCain has now lied about only buying American cars all his life. Is there nothing he won't lie about? Here's the McCain fleet as per Newsweek:
2004 Cadillac 2005 Volkswagen convertible 2001 Honda sedan 2007 half-ton Ford pickup truck vintage 1960 Willys Jeep 2008 Jeep Wrangler 2000 Lincoln 2001 GMC SUV three 2000 NEV Gem electric vehicles Lexis
Your quote said he's only bought American cars, not that he's never driven foreign cars or that no one in his family has ever bought one. Did McCain buy each and every one of those cars or did someone in his family (for example, his wife) buy the Honda, VW and the Lexis?
Furthermore, the Honda Accord HAS been made in America since 1982 while 2005 Volkswagen convertibles were made at the company's New Mexico plant.
I couldn't find any information on whether Lexus is made in the US. However, given that many, if not most, of the Toyotas sold in the US are, it would hardly be surprising or terrible for McCain to think the Lexus was made here too.
Now, should I go over to the Obama thread and again start pointing out all his gaffes and ask you to explain why this doesn't make HIM senile and/or a liar?
At one time,.. McCain looked like a good choice. ( many years ago ) now, however..its painfully obvious that age, and time have taken their toll. Like it ,or not, McCain is well past his prime,both intellectually,and responsibility wise. He is now a very dangerous choice to lead,and to make decisions on the future of our country. (after all.. his future is limited) To top it off..right now the economy is so messed up,that only complete co-operationbetween all 3 branches of government will even come close to making things better. McCain (or Palin) won't get that co-peration from either congress,nor the senate. It is possible, that McCain is suffering from the beginnings of "old-timers" , he doesn't seem to have a grip on reality.
To top it off..right now the economy is so messed up,that only complete co-operationbetween all 3 branches of government will even come close to making things better. McCain (or Palin) won't get that co-peration from either congress,nor the senate.
Please explain this as McCain is the one who has a track record of cooperation spanning most of his career and not Obama.
only complete co-operationbetween all 3 branches of government will even come close to making things better
You have no idea how the federal government works, do you?
The government is divided into three separate branches: the executive, legislative and judiciary. They are divided so that each branch provides "checks and balances" on the others, in order that the federal government cannot grow too powerful or any one branch threaten to take away our individual rights.
Furthermore, the idea that the judiciary branch is supposed to kowtow to the executive and legislative branches borders on a breach of judicial ethics. The function of the judiciary is to interpret laws, including the constitution, fairly to insure equal and fair justice. It is not, under any circumstance, to "cooperate" with the president or congress and rubber-stamp what they do.
The day people want the branches, especially judiciary, to "cooperate" is the day our freedom is completely gone.
Yep. "McCain is old" is this week's DNC talking point.
Yep. Here's 3 well known "democrat" operatives, Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson, and George Will yesterday repeating their DNC talking points.
Will and Roberts, neither of whom is awfully very friendly to Democrats (yes, G-Man, that was sarcasm above), both really ripped into McCain on ABC's This Week. And Sam Donaldson repeatedly said that McCain's actions this week brought back into question "the age issue." The Huffington Post has a 4 minute clip, it's devastating.
Quote:
"I suppose the McCain campaign's hope is that when there's a big crisis, people will go for age and experience," said Will. "The question is, who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and un-flustered? It wasn't John McCain who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence, said 'let's fire somebody.' And picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration, Chris Cox, and for no apparent reason... It was un-presidential behavior by a presidential candidate."
Donaldson then jumped in: "It was two days after the he said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. His talking points have gotten all mixed up. And I think the question of age is back on the table."...
The whole, painful, episode crested with Will leveling an even harsher blow.
"John McCain showed his personality this week," said the writer and pundit, "and made some of us fearful."
Oh yeah, G-Man I forgot, they work for the "liberal" media.
I'll see later if someone has YouTubed this segment. Ever get the feeling that the wheels are starting to come off the Straight Talk Express?
I'll see later if someone has YouTubed this segment.
My god. Post those things is a compulsion with you isn't it?
George Will, like a lot of conservatives, is being critical of McCain precisely for being a "moderate" or "maverick" on this issue. He's not saying that Obama is a better choice, simply expressing dismay that McCain isn't toeing the conservative line.
I'll see later if someone has YouTubed this segment.
My god. Post those things is a compulsion with you isn't it?
George Will, like a lot of conservatives, is being critical of McCain precisely for being a "moderate" or "maverick" on this issue. He's not saying that Obama is a better choice, simply expressing dismay that McCain isn't toeing the conservative line.
funny. It sure sounds like if he's being critical for McCain being a dumb knee jerk fall guy solution guy on this issue.
Yeah, YouTubes may be a compulsion for me but it seems endless spin is your compulsion. Will explains CLEARLY what he says and yet you twist it around to prop up his "maverick" bona fides once more.
I'm not really surprised by this, but someone seems to be focusing almost exclusively on reasons we shouldn't vote for mccain. possibly because it's so difficult to find one convincing reason to vote for black dukakis.
depending on how the exact percentages of the popular vote shake out we might have to revise it and start calling him black mcgovern.
only complete co-operationbetween all 3 branches of government will even come close to making things better
You have no idea how the federal government works, do you?
The government is divided into three separate branches: the executive, legislative and judiciary. They are divided so that each branch provides "checks and balances" on the others, in order that the federal government cannot grow too powerful or any one branch threaten to take away our individual rights.
Furthermore, the idea that the judiciary branch is supposed to kowtow to the executive and legislative branches borders on a breach of judicial ethics. The function of the judiciary is to interpret laws, including the constitution, fairly to insure equal and fair justice. It is not, under any circumstance, to "cooperate" with the president or congress and rubber-stamp what they do.
The day people want the branches, especially judiciary, to "cooperate" is the day our freedom is completely gone.
I'll remember this next time Bush's Unitary Executive Government comes up in conversation.
I'll remember this next time Bush's Unitary Executive Government comes up in conversation.
I think it bears repeating that at least for some of us, having a registered affiliation doesn't guarantee we'll all fall in lockstep with every single policy of our party's politicians. you should look into that sometime.
only complete co-operationbetween all 3 branches of government will even come close to making things better
You have no idea how the federal government works, do you?
The government is divided into three separate branches: the executive, legislative and judiciary. They are divided so that each branch provides "checks and balances" on the others, in order that the federal government cannot grow too powerful or any one branch threaten to take away our individual rights.
Furthermore, the idea that the judiciary branch is supposed to kowtow to the executive and legislative branches borders on a breach of judicial ethics. The function of the judiciary is to interpret laws, including the constitution, fairly to insure equal and fair justice. It is not, under any circumstance, to "cooperate" with the president or congress and rubber-stamp what they do.
The day people want the branches, especially judiciary, to "cooperate" is the day our freedom is completely gone.
I'll remember this next time Bush's Unitary Executive Government comes up in conversation.
Great. Another person who doesn't understand how government works.
As noted above, each branch is supposed to serve as a check and balance on the other. However, that doesn't mean the other branches are supposed to automatically oppose each other for the sake of partisanship and more than it means that they are supposed to always march in lockstep.
Since picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has obliterated what had been a 34-percentage-point deficit in a poll of likely women voters on the question of which candidate has a “better understanding of women and what is important” to them.
The two are now effectively tied, with McCain's 44 to 42 percentage lead within the margin of error of the most recent poll conducted by pollsters Kellyanne Conway and Celinda Lake for Lifetime Television. In Lifetime's July poll, women preferred Barack Obama on the same question by nearly three-to-one— 52 to 18 percent.
In this latest poll, conducted Sept. 11-15, age remained a key determinant in response to the question about women’s concerns. Young women, ages 18-34, chose the Obama/Biden ticket as more empathetic to their needs, while women aged 35-64 went for McCain/Palin. Unlike black and Hispanic women, White women saw McCain and Palin as most understanding of their concerns.
About one in four women who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries now said McCain and Palin have a better grasp of women’s needs than Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden.
The Lifetime poll reveals a diversity of women’s views on several issues, with many of those differences related to a respondent’s race, party identity, marital status and generation.
However, those demographic differences faded when it came to the Democrats’ strongest showing in the poll, on a question regarding the economy. The women polled favored the Obama/Biden ticket 57 to 32 percent on which candidate “will help middle class families the most.” Polling has shown all year that the economy tops voters' concerns.
The survey comes as women overall favor the Democratic ticket, 48 to 44 percent, according to the weekly summaries of Gallup polling. That marks a wider margin than Democrats enjoyed in 2004 on Election Day, but less than in 2000.
That Democratic drop-off with women since 2000, Gallup polling shows, is tied to Obama’s recent downtick in white support among women and men alike. All summer Obama had roughly similar support among white women as Al Gore did in 2000.
Gallup finds McCain now leads with white women 51 to 40 percent, a wider gap than the GOP enjoyed among white women eight years ago.
However, it appears that Obama’s message of “change” has struck a chord with women, who in the Lifetime poll gave the Obama/Biden ticket a 14-point advantage on the question, 51 to 37 percent over the McCain/Palin ticket.
Overall, women said Obama and Biden would best “reform the way Washington, D.C. does business” by 47 to 40 percent. But white women narrowly favored the McCain/Palin ticket on that count.
And, independent women gave the GOP ticket an 8-point advantage on the change issue.
When women were asked which ticket could better “win” the war in Iraq, white, Hispanic and independent women, as well as women of every age group, voiced more confidence in McCain/Palin.
But when these women were asked which candidates can most likely “end” the war in Iraq, Obama/Biden earned significantly more support. Women under age 55, Hispanic women, and independent women had more trust in the Democrats. Yet white women voiced more confidence in McCain/Palin to end the war.
Women overall did say the Republican ticket was more ready to lead, though Latinas and black women sided with Democrats. Democrats have a narrow advantage overall, 47 to 40 percent, as more capable reformers of government, though female independents and whites sided with the GOP.
The Lifetime Television/Every Woman Counts campaign poll of 534 American women likely to vote was conducted September 11 to 15, and has a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
The Politico: Biden criticizes Obama ad hitting McCain as technologically inept.
Joe Biden offered perhaps his most off-message statement yet since being tapped as Barack Obama's running mate, saying in an interview that he thought one of his campaign's own ads was "terrible" and hadn't know about it in advance.
Asked by CBS's Katie Couric about an ad Obama released earlier this month mocking John McCain for not being able to use a computer, Biden criticized the commercial and suggested it had been aired without his knowledge.
"I thought that was terrible by the way," Biden said of the computer ad in an interview broadcast tonight on the CBS Evening News
Asked why it was aired, Biden said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it."
First you start off with the assumption that Obama is "elitist" and McCain is "experienced". That's pure talking point drivel from the right.
Are you fucking high?
Look, reasonable people can disagree on whether or not the wealthy, Harvard-educated, attorney is "elitist."
But how can anyone with half a brain in their head try to claim that McCain, with a 25 years in politics and another 20+ years of experience in the military before, is anything BUT experienced?
No word on whether warm milk is involved. All kidding aside, anyone else disturbed that before facing a test of his presidential abilities our possible future president needs a nap? Will Putin give McCain a time out? How about Ahmenidjad in Iran? More from Taegan:
Quote:
Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain will spend much of this week preparing for their first debate on Friday night.
The Wall Street Journal notes McCain "will spar this week in mock debates" with former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele who will play Obama "and use many of his speaking patterns, tactics and body language." Obama "will practice with Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer and former official in the Clinton administration who is one of his few gray-haired advisers."
On the day of the debate, McCain "will host a town-hall event and take a short nap" while Obama "will work out or shoot hoops."
Interesting that McCain chose a black man to play Obama.
Oh, and G-Man, That "experience" that McCain touts hasn't helped him make gaffe after gaffe after gaffe that someone of his "experience" and expertise should know better (remember Lieberman whispering in his ear about Iran?). Experience IMO is being outweighed by the fact that he's 72 years old and starting to lose his sharpness. Not to mention the fact that he needs naps to be able to hold his own in a debate.
As a leading conservative writer and thinker, this is big. Note particularly the paragraph in which Will talks about McCain's "impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people." Will is talking about McCain's temper, but he's also talking between the lines about Sarah Palin. I suspect George Will is disgusted by McCain's choice of Palin, and and it's evidence, in both Will's mind and ours, of a certain hotheaded recklessness in McCain. He's a gambler, he goes with his gut, he's willing to risk it all - his reputation or your economy - all on whimsy. And America can't afford another playboy frat boy in the Oval Office.
Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.
Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19, Page A22). ...
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
McCain Camp: Let's Push Back Biden-Palin Match-Up, Too Share September 24, 2008 7:04 PM ABC News' Teddy Davis and Rigel Anderson Report:
The McCain campaign told ABC News on Wednesday that John McCain wants to postpone Friday's presidential debate until Thursday, Oct. 2.
The Arizona senator would like the vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, which is currently scheduled to take place on Thursday, Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri, to be scheduled for a later unspecified date. ...
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 5000+ posts Wed Sep 24 2008 09:45 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: McCain in 08?
PJP annoyed Moderator My Dog Supports John McCain 15000+ posts Wed Sep 24 2008 09:54 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: McCain evading debates in 08
McCain Camp: Let's Push Back Biden-Palin Match-Up, Too Share September 24, 2008 7:04 PM ABC News' Teddy Davis and Rigel Anderson Report:
The McCain campaign told ABC News on Wednesday that John McCain wants to postpone Friday's presidential debate until Thursday, Oct. 2.
The Arizona senator would like the vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, which is currently scheduled to take place on Thursday, Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri, to be scheduled for a later unspecified date. ...
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 5000+ posts Wed Sep 24 2008 09:56 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: McCain evading debates in 08
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 5000+ posts Wed Sep 24 2008 09:56 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: McCain evading debates in 08
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 5000+ posts Wed Sep 24 2008 10:03 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: McCain in 08?
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 5000+ posts Wed Sep 24 2008 10:04 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: McCain evading debates in 08
rex ass-kicky User breaker of the insurgency 15000+ posts Wed Sep 24 2008 10:14 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: McCain evading debates in 08
McCain suspends his campaign to work on the crises and thats putting himself first? when is the last time you had your Med doses checked?
Until you and the traditional media types can show some shred of evidence that John McCain suspended his campaign -- besides McCain saying it -- you and the traditional media types should stop saying McCain suspended his campaign. He didn't.
Evidence abounds that McCain's campaign is operating at full speed. McCain spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative this morning, Palin did a photo op at ground Zero today, then at 11am, McCain's senior economics advisor was busy doing a campaign event with the uber-conservative Washington Times (she's not there as a private citizen). It isn't a suspension of your campaign when you continue to do everything you were going to do anyway.
Think Progress found five instances of McCain campaign flacks on t.v. spinning their message. There's active campaign underway in Virginia. And, by doing some actual investigating, Huffington Post confirmed that the McCain campaign is very active today in key battleground states:
Quote:
Across the country, McCain campaign offices are up and running, accepting volunteers, conducting phone banking, literature dropping and over GOTV activities. This held true on a local, state, and even regional level. The Huffington Post called up 15 McCain-Palin and McCain Victory Committee headquarters in various battleground states. Not one said that it was temporarily halting operations because of the supposed "suspension" in the campaign. Several, in fact, enthusiastically declared the continuation of their work. Others hadn't even heard that the candidate for whom they were devoting their time had officially stopped campaigning.
Here's a little hint for the political press corps: If you can keep reporting on Palin/McCain campaign events and if you keep having McCain staffers on your networks, the campaign ain't suspended.
John McCain tried to dupe the American people. He got a lot of help from the traditional media. If they actually reported what was going on and not what McCain said, this sham would be exposed.
As for bsams, it's starting to get embarrassing how many Republican and McCain lies you so unquestioningly swallow. So insults make you not only look gullible, but they make you look like a gullible asshole.
“All of a sudden, now that we’re on the verge of making a deal, John McCain drops himself in to make a deal," Frank said. "I really worry about this politicization of it."
"Frankly, we’re going to have to interrupt a negotiating session tomorrow between the Democrats and Republicans on a bill, where I think we’re getting pretty close, and troop down to the White House for their photo-op, and then come back and get on to it," Frank said.
“We’re trying to rescue the economy, not the McCain campaign,” he added.
and wouldn't you know it, the Dems and Republicans reach preliminary deal on bailout plan. All without McCain. McCain was AWOL today while the real deal was being negotiated. What a surprise. But I'm sure McCain will show up for his photo op at the White House later today.
But there were fresh signs of trouble in the House Republican Caucus. A group of GOP lawmakers circulated an alternative designed to attract private money back into the credit markets with less government intrusion.
Under that proposal, the government would provide insurance to companies that agree to hold frozen assets, rather than purchase them directly as envisioned under the administration's plan. The firms would have to pay insurance premiums to the Treasury Department for the coverage.
"The taxpayers haven't done anything wrong," said Rep Eric Cantor, R-Va., adding that rather than require them to bear the cost of the bailout, the alternative "pretty much puts the burden on Wall Street over time."
Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader, was huddling with McCain on the rescue. When asked whether the GOP presidential nominee could corral restive Republicans to support the plan, Boehner said, "Who knows?"
There is yet more reason as to why McCain is trying to duck out of the debate. The first debate, far from being all about foreign policy, will have an economic focus -- and the campaigns knew that last week. Further evidence that this is all just a political stunt by McCain:
Quote:
How could Jim Lehrer, a newsman, not ask about the economy?
Well, he will.
A senior Obama adviser says that the CPD has told both campaigns that there will be questions about the economic crisis during Friday's debate.
They were told this last week...
Last week. McCain knew last week that the first debate would give the candidates a chance to discuss the economic situation on national t.v. with a huge audience. He doesn't want that. He prefers the drama.
McCain's erratic behavior gets more disturbing by the hour. But regardless, there will be an event tomorrow night in Oxford, Mississippi with or without John McCain
Barack Obama is committed to hosting a public, televised event Friday night in Mississippi even if John McCain does not show up, an official close to the Obama campaign tells the Huffington Post.
In McCain's absence, the Senator is willing to make the scheduled debate a townhall meeting, a one-on-one interview with NewsHour's Jim Lehrer, or the combination of the two, the official said.
Such a course of action could make life incredibly difficult for McCain, who has called for the suspension of the debate in light of the current economic crisis. Should he stay in Washington D.C. -- if a bailout is not completed by then -- and let Obama alone reach tens of millions of television viewers?
A lot, of course, depends upon what the debate commission decides to do. At this point in time, there is no indication that they are going to postpone the affair, as the McCain campaign has asked.
This gambit from McCain didn't work either.
It's amazing how desperate McCain is and has been for "town hall" style events. The only type of event that he's excelled at in the past. Which is why he's been so adamant about wanting to commit Obama to that type of event and not just a standard moderated one with an actual reporter asking tough questions.
So McCain is finally getting Obama at a town Hall debate. Only without him there.
McCain suspends his campaign to work on the crises and thats putting himself first? when is the last time you had your Med doses checked?
Until you and the traditional media types can show some shred of evidence that John McCain suspended his campaign -- besides McCain saying it -- you and the traditional media types should stop saying McCain suspended his campaign. He didn't.
Evidence abounds that McCain's campaign is operating at full speed. McCain spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative this morning, Palin did a photo op at ground Zero today, then at 11am, McCain's senior economics advisor was busy doing a campaign event with the uber-conservative Washington Times (she's not there as a private citizen). It isn't a suspension of your campaign when you continue to do everything you were going to do anyway.
Think Progress found five instances of McCain campaign flacks on t.v. spinning their message. There's active campaign underway in Virginia. And, by doing some actual investigating, Huffington Post confirmed that the McCain campaign is very active today in key battleground states:
Quote:
Across the country, McCain campaign offices are up and running, accepting volunteers, conducting phone banking, literature dropping and over GOTV activities. This held true on a local, state, and even regional level. The Huffington Post called up 15 McCain-Palin and McCain Victory Committee headquarters in various battleground states. Not one said that it was temporarily halting operations because of the supposed "suspension" in the campaign. Several, in fact, enthusiastically declared the continuation of their work. Others hadn't even heard that the candidate for whom they were devoting their time had officially stopped campaigning.
Here's a little hint for the political press corps: If you can keep reporting on Palin/McCain campaign events and if you keep having McCain staffers on your networks, the campaign ain't suspended.
John McCain tried to dupe the American people. He got a lot of help from the traditional media. If they actually reported what was going on and not what McCain said, this sham would be exposed.
As for bsams, it's starting to get embarrassing how many Republican and McCain lies you so unquestioningly swallow. So insults make you not only look gullible, but they make you look like a gullible asshole.
“All of a sudden, now that we’re on the verge of making a deal, John McCain drops himself in to make a deal," Frank said. "I really worry about this politicization of it."
"Frankly, we’re going to have to interrupt a negotiating session tomorrow between the Democrats and Republicans on a bill, where I think we’re getting pretty close, and troop down to the White House for their photo-op, and then come back and get on to it," Frank said.
“We’re trying to rescue the economy, not the McCain campaign,” he added.
and wouldn't you know it, the Dems and Republicans reach preliminary deal on bailout plan. All without McCain. McCain was AWOL today while the real deal was being negotiated. What a surprise. But I'm sure McCain will show up for his photo op at the White House later today.
There is yet more reason as to why McCain is trying to duck out of the debate. The first debate, far from being all about foreign policy, will have an economic focus -- and the campaigns knew that last week. Further evidence that this is all just a political stunt by McCain:
Quote:
How could Jim Lehrer, a newsman, not ask about the economy?
Well, he will.
A senior Obama adviser says that the CPD has told both campaigns that there will be questions about the economic crisis during Friday's debate.
They were told this last week...
Last week. McCain knew last week that the first debate would give the candidates a chance to discuss the economic situation on national t.v. with a huge audience. He doesn't want that. He prefers the drama.
McCain's erratic behavior gets more disturbing by the hour. But regardless, there will be an event tomorrow night in Oxford, Mississippi with or without John McCain
Barack Obama is committed to hosting a public, televised event Friday night in Mississippi even if John McCain does not show up, an official close to the Obama campaign tells the Huffington Post.
In McCain's absence, the Senator is willing to make the scheduled debate a townhall meeting, a one-on-one interview with NewsHour's Jim Lehrer, or the combination of the two, the official said.
Such a course of action could make life incredibly difficult for McCain, who has called for the suspension of the debate in light of the current economic crisis. Should he stay in Washington D.C. -- if a bailout is not completed by then -- and let Obama alone reach tens of millions of television viewers?
A lot, of course, depends upon what the debate commission decides to do. At this point in time, there is no indication that they are going to postpone the affair, as the McCain campaign has asked.
This gambit from McCain didn't work either.
It's amazing how desperate McCain is and has been for "town hall" style events. The only type of event that he's excelled at in the past. Which is why he's been so adamant about wanting to commit Obama to that type of event and not just a standard moderated one with an actual reporter asking tough questions.
So McCain is finally getting Obama at a town Hall debate. Only without him there.
Busted. McCain's campaign specifically said they'd stop appearances, rallies, and TV advertising. But they didn't. Liars.
Quote:
Republican presidential nominee John McCain vowed Wednesday to suspend his campaign to focus on the nation's financial crisis, but there were plenty of signs of activity on Thursday — including an apparently live fundraising link on the campaign's Web site.
On Wednesday, McCain said: "Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me."
He offered no details, but senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt later told reporters, "We're just not going to engage right now in the back and forth of the campaign," adding that meant appearances, rallies and TV advertising would be canceled. In an e-mail to reporters, spokesman Brian Rogers added that fundraising would be halted.
McCain appeared that evening in an interview on CBS' newscast, but canceled a planned appearance on David Letterman's "Late Show." His vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, made a highly visible visit to ground zero in New York on Thursday morning. McCain spokeswoman Nicole Wallace appeared on NBC's "Today" show....
E-mail messages continued to trickle out from the campaign, but at a far slower rate than normal. And the Huffington Post, a left-leaning Web site, said it had called 15 McCain campaign offices in battleground states, and none said it was suspending operations.
it's sad how many times bsams falls for Republican lies.
Busted. McCain's campaign specifically said they'd stop appearances, rallies, and TV advertising. But they didn't. Liars.
Quote:
Republican presidential nominee John McCain vowed Wednesday to suspend his campaign to focus on the nation's financial crisis, but there were plenty of signs of activity on Thursday — including an apparently live fundraising link on the campaign's Web site.
On Wednesday, McCain said: "Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me."
He offered no details, but senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt later told reporters, "We're just not going to engage right now in the back and forth of the campaign," adding that meant appearances, rallies and TV advertising would be canceled. In an e-mail to reporters, spokesman Brian Rogers added that fundraising would be halted.
McCain appeared that evening in an interview on CBS' newscast, but canceled a planned appearance on David Letterman's "Late Show." His vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, made a highly visible visit to ground zero in New York on Thursday morning. McCain spokeswoman Nicole Wallace appeared on NBC's "Today" show....
E-mail messages continued to trickle out from the campaign, but at a far slower rate than normal. And the Huffington Post, a left-leaning Web site, said it had called 15 McCain campaign offices in battleground states, and none said it was suspending operations.
it's sad how many times bsams falls for Republican lies.
Bill Clinton defended McCain and said he was right today.
Bill Clinton also wanted his wife to be the Democratic nominee. In fact some of you right wingers here were actively cheering on Hillary if I recall. He's been a wild card ll throughout this campaign and he continues to be one today. I don't think it's a reach to question his motives.
From what I'm hearing right now, McCain since showing up on Capitol Hill has been leading the Republican House members who are against this, in opposition to the bill. Even though they've nearly reached a compromise with both the Dems and Republicans as well as the White House. Look, I'm all for closer scrutiny of this bill and a slower pace, I'm not however for someone arriving to scuttle any compromise and solution and to do it for political gain.
I'm sure they will get it done whomod and I'm sure the prescence of both Obama and McCain will help. They should be there. It really doesn't matter who's idea it was just let them get the best deal done asap. They should have been down there all week.
Kinda like ducking a debate where they'll ask you about your beliefs and votes regarding deregulation and his lobbyist heavy campaign.
Cowardly like that.
Bill Clinton defended McCain and said he was right today.
Yep. Clinton pointed out that Obama, not McCain, spent all summer ducking debates:
Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward.
"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
"I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."
I really think that, while Bill will never admit it, he's voting for McCain.
Busted. McCain's campaign specifically said they'd stop appearances, rallies, and TV advertising. But they didn't. Liars.
Quote:
Republican presidential nominee John McCain vowed Wednesday to suspend his campaign to focus on the nation's financial crisis, but there were plenty of signs of activity on Thursday — including an apparently live fundraising link on the campaign's Web site.
On Wednesday, McCain said: "Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me."
He offered no details, but senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt later told reporters, "We're just not going to engage right now in the back and forth of the campaign," adding that meant appearances, rallies and TV advertising would be canceled. In an e-mail to reporters, spokesman Brian Rogers added that fundraising would be halted.
McCain appeared that evening in an interview on CBS' newscast, but canceled a planned appearance on David Letterman's "Late Show." His vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, made a highly visible visit to ground zero in New York on Thursday morning. McCain spokeswoman Nicole Wallace appeared on NBC's "Today" show....
E-mail messages continued to trickle out from the campaign, but at a far slower rate than normal. And the Huffington Post, a left-leaning Web site, said it had called 15 McCain campaign offices in battleground states, and none said it was suspending operations.
it's sad how many times bsams falls for Republican lies.
Bill Clinton defended McCain and said he was right today.
Bill Clinton also wanted his wife to be the Democratic nominee. In fact some of you right wingers here were actively cheering on Hillary if I recall. He's been a wild card ll throughout this campaign and he continues to be one today. I don't think it's a reach to question his motives.
From what I'm hearing right now, McCain since showing up on Capitol Hill has been leading the Republican House members who are against this, in opposition to the bill. Even though they've nearly reached a compromise with both the Dems and Republicans as well as the White House. Look, I'm all for closer scrutiny of this bill and a slower pace, I'm not however for someone arriving to scuttle any compromise and solution and to do it for political gain.
Good lord, he looks like someone just told him there isn't a Santa Claus (don't worry, kids, there is). John McCain is clearly not someone accustomed to getting bad news. Not to mention, he doesn't look so good when he's not wearing $5,000 worth of make-up to cover the fact that he's about to explode.
The news that John McCain will debate Barack Obama tonight in Mississippi is a concession by the Arizona senator that his attempt to score a quick political victory on legislation to bail out the financial sector did not pan out as he had hoped.
McCain suspended his presidential campaign with much fanfare on Wednesday, insisting that the crisis in financial markets and the seeming stalemate on Capitol Hill required that politics be set aside for the good of the country.
But, over the intervening 24 hours, McCain saw what at first looked like a brilliant political gambit turn into a nightmare, as an apparent done deal to save the financial industry devolved into a partisan shouting match at the White House that left congressional negotiators back at square one....
Spin aside, McCain blinked in what had become a high stakes staring contest between he and Obama.
It's nice to know that McCain thought it ok to use the United States Economy and it's well being as a tool to help him revive his disaster of a campaign. "Country First" and all that...
The drama queen is going to the debate after all. Seriously, the best word to describe McCain these days is "erratic." Richard Holbrooke's comments in the video posted below are devastating. Words like "incoherent" and "confused" are being increasingly being used to describe McCain. Even GOPers seem concerned.
Take for example, Mike Huckabee, who spent a lot of time on the trail with John McCain over the past couple years, who blasted John McCain's antics. From FOX News:
Quote:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Thursday that Sen. John McCain made a “huge mistake” by even discussing canceling the presidential debate with Sen. Barack Obama.
McCain’s campaign has said the Republican wouldn’t participate in the Mississippi debate Friday unless there was a consensus on the financial crisis, but Obama still wants the debate to go on.
Huckabee defeated McCain in the Alabama GOP primary in February.
Huckabee said Thursday in Mobile that the people need to hear both candidates. He said that’s “far better than heading to Washington” to huddle with senators.
He said the candidates should level with the people about the financial crisis and say the “heart of this is greed.”
Huckabee said he still backs McCain’s candidacy, but said the Arizona senator should not have put his campaign on hold to deal with the financial crisis on Wall Street. He said a president must be prepared to “deal with the unexpected.”
“You can’t just say, ‘World stop for a moment. I’m going to cancel everything,”‘ Huckabee said.
Sure sounds like Huckabee doesn't think McCain is prepared to be president.
poor poor G-Man.. Between McCain's disasters and Palin's disasters, it's been some kind of meltdown for the Straight Talk Express, eh?
Although the fate of tonight's presidential debate in Mississippi remains very much up in the air, John McCain has apparently already won it -- if you believe an Internet ad an astute reader spotted next to this piece in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal this morning.
"McCain Wins Debate!" declares the ad which features a headshot of a smiling McCain with an American flag background. Another ad spotted by our eagle-eyed observer featured a quote from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis declaring: "McCain won the debate-- hands down."
All tactics, no honesty. They're already jumping the gun and trying to win via propagandizing the loudest and hardest.
This coupled with bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner raises the question of whether McCain will lead by spin and P.R. like Bush did. It's just a shame they seem to have a problem with premature ejaculation though. Kinda gave the whole strategy away there.
All tactics, no honesty. They're already jumping the gun and trying to win via propagandizing the loudest and hardest.
yeah. I know you appreciate deceit just so long as the "good" people do it.
Do we really need to dredge up that that quote of yours where you pretty much said that deceit and dirty tricks are perfectly acceptable in politics and message board posting if it advances your cause?
The McCain camp is saying that he was saying "of course". What utter... um what's the word i'm looking for..?
Oh yeah, HORSESHIT!
Now of course it was nothing of the sort. I've already brought up McCain's doddering confusion about which continent Spain is on and whether they're an enemy, but if you missed it, here it is again.
Here, if you're not familiar with what Obama was referring to:
McCain seemed to not know that Spain was in Europe. The interviewer kept asking specifically about "Spain," and McCain kept responding about Mexico and Latin America and "the hemisphere." McCain then refused to say whether he would be willing to meet with the President of Spain should McCain win the presidency, oddly setting down the precondition that the President of Spain would first have to embrace democracy and human rights before McCain would meet him (the president of Spain already does embrace both of those, and in fact, this past April McCain did another interview with El Pais in which he said he'd be happy to meet with the President of Spain).
It's clear that McCain had no idea she was talking about Spain, or the president of Spain, even though the interviewer repeatedly told him she was asking about "Spain" and "the president of Spain." This isn't a case of McCain forgetting something. He quite literally didn't comprehend what this woman was saying. His mind was gone, he was on auto-pilot, giving pat answers because he seemingly didn't understand what Spain was.
With his "hoseshit" response, it seems McCain can't even remember his own statement from a couple of weeks ago and worse, he's clearly unable to hold his temper when challenged. No wonder some of his Senate colleagues and some military leaders worry about him becoming commander in chief. This man does not have the temperament to be President.
As an aside:
September 28, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama Moves to 50% to 42% Lead
Obama registers strong performance over Thursday-Saturday time period
Or if no one here fixes the non YouTube embed code for me
You have to be mod to post those kind of videos. Which means people here have to like you. Which means you can't be a tard anymore. Don't get your hopes up.
The McCain camp is saying that he was saying "of course". What utter... um what's the word i'm looking for..?
Oh yeah, HORSESHIT!
Now of course it was nothing of the sort. I've already brought up McCain's doddering confusion about which continent Spain is on and whether they're an enemy, but if you missed it, here it is again.
Here, if you're not familiar with what Obama was referring to:
McCain seemed to not know that Spain was in Europe. The interviewer kept asking specifically about "Spain," and McCain kept responding about Mexico and Latin America and "the hemisphere." McCain then refused to say whether he would be willing to meet with the President of Spain should McCain win the presidency, oddly setting down the precondition that the President of Spain would first have to embrace democracy and human rights before McCain would meet him (the president of Spain already does embrace both of those, and in fact, this past April McCain did another interview with El Pais in which he said he'd be happy to meet with the President of Spain).
It's clear that McCain had no idea she was talking about Spain, or the president of Spain, even though the interviewer repeatedly told him she was asking about "Spain" and "the president of Spain." This isn't a case of McCain forgetting something. He quite literally didn't comprehend what this woman was saying. His mind was gone, he was on auto-pilot, giving pat answers because he seemingly didn't understand what Spain was.
With his "hoseshit" response, it seems McCain can't even remember his own statement from a couple of weeks ago and worse, he's clearly unable to hold his temper when challenged. No wonder some of his Senate colleagues and some military leaders worry about him becoming commander in chief. This man does not have the temperament to be President.
As an aside:
September 28, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama Moves to 50% to 42% Lead
Obama registers strong performance over Thursday-Saturday time period
Actually I'm sorry that I allow you to do your whole don't look there, look here act repeatedly. So from now on, every time you do this diversion shit i'll just post the original subject till you actually respond to it.
Whomod, G-Man changes the title of individual posts to reflect his bias. He does this all the time. Now, you are doing it. Thus now, you're as bad as he is. How does it feel to be the G-Man of the Left?
The McCain camp is saying that he was saying "of course". What utter... um what's the word i'm looking for..?
Oh yeah, HORSESHIT!
Now of course it was nothing of the sort. I've already brought up McCain's doddering confusion about which continent Spain is on and whether they're an enemy, but if you missed it, here it is again.
Here, if you're not familiar with what Obama was referring to:
McCain seemed to not know that Spain was in Europe. The interviewer kept asking specifically about "Spain," and McCain kept responding about Mexico and Latin America and "the hemisphere." McCain then refused to say whether he would be willing to meet with the President of Spain should McCain win the presidency, oddly setting down the precondition that the President of Spain would first have to embrace democracy and human rights before McCain would meet him (the president of Spain already does embrace both of those, and in fact, this past April McCain did another interview with El Pais in which he said he'd be happy to meet with the President of Spain).
It's clear that McCain had no idea she was talking about Spain, or the president of Spain, even though the interviewer repeatedly told him she was asking about "Spain" and "the president of Spain." This isn't a case of McCain forgetting something. He quite literally didn't comprehend what this woman was saying. His mind was gone, he was on auto-pilot, giving pat answers because he seemingly didn't understand what Spain was.
With his "hoseshit" response, it seems McCain can't even remember his own statement from a couple of weeks ago and worse, he's clearly unable to hold his temper when challenged. No wonder some of his Senate colleagues and some military leaders worry about him becoming commander in chief. This man does not have the temperament to be President.
As an aside:
September 28, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama Moves to 50% to 42% Lead
Obama registers strong performance over Thursday-Saturday time period
Whomod, G-Man changes the title of individual posts to reflect his bias. He does this all the time. Now, you are doing it. Thus now, you're as bad as he is. How does it feel to be the G-Man of the Left?
Actually I thought the title I picked was very on-topic and unbiased. As you can see above, it's about McCain muttering "horseshit" under his breath. Thus "McCain's horseshit". So I fail to see where the bias is.
Analysis: House vote against bailout wounds McCain By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The house always wins, gamblers are warned, and the U.S. House made John McCain pay Monday for his politically risky, high-profile involvement in a financial rescue plan that came crashing down, mainly at the hands of his fellow Republicans.
The bill's defeat can hardly be blamed on the GOP presidential nominee, and it's possible that a revised measure might succeed. But by his own actions last week, McCain tied himself far more tightly to the failed bill than did his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.
McCain argues that action is better than inaction in times of crises. His efforts, however, were aimed squarely at House Republicans, the group mainly responsible for the bill's demise, which triggered a record drop of nearly 800 points in the stock market, the most ever for a single day.
If Congress' impasse leads to a credit crisis, "it's not going to be good for McCain," said veteran Republican consultant John Feehery.
Another prominent Republican strategist, who would talk only on background to avoid antagonizing associates, said the vote was trouble for McCain.
As recently as Monday morning, only minutes before the House's stunning vote, McCain suggested that his call for a White House summit meeting Thursday, and his visit with unhappy House Republicans that preceded it, had helped clear the way for the bill's passage.
"I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers of Ohio and across this great country were not left footing the bill for mistakes made on Wall Street and in Washington," he told a crowd in Columbus, Ohio. "Some people have criticized my decision, but I will never, ever be a president who sits on the sidelines when this country faces a crisis."
On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, top adviser Steve Schmidt said McCain managed "to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this."
The comment suggested that McCain took responsibility for rounding up the needed GOP votes, "and that was probably a stupid thing for him to promise to do," said Democratic adviser Jennifer Palmieri.
On Monday, only 65 of the House's 199 Republicans went along. The defeat dealt a major blow to President Bush and threw another twist into a presidential campaign already drawing record numbers of Americans for rallies and televised events.
In a sign of the difficulty he faces, McCain made no direct comment on the House vote for about four hours. His campaign initially issued a sharply worded statement by economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, who blamed Obama and other Democrats. ...
it's really strange to read the mindless ramblings of the left, and then go and hear real people talk about this. Real people don't blame John McCain anymore than Barack or Biden. Does it bother you at all to have to be a cheerleader for a man you despised two months ago?
it's really strange to read the mindless ramblings of the left, and then go and hear real people talk about this. Real people don't blame John McCain anymore than Barack or Biden. Does it bother you at all to have to be a cheerleader for a man you despised two months ago?
Well I can't say wether or not who people (they'll all real bsams) end up blaming but so far McCain hasn't fared to well. His suspending his campaign stunt tied him to the bill that failed to pass. I'm not sure how that will help him reverse Obama's momentum but let me know when the GOP has some sort of coherant talking point.
McCain just said that Venezuela was in the Middle East. This, two weeks after he said that Spain was in Latin America. Here's the video (below) from McCain's economic forum that just took place today - Ben Smith @ Politico.com has the transcript:
Quote:
McCain, talking about energy policy, stresses the importance of "ensuring that America is secure, and not dependent on oil from people like Hugo Chavez or other parts of the Middle East which is, we know, could be destabilized under certain sets of circumstances."
Hugo Chavez is the leader of Venezuela, a country located in South America. Read more about McCain thinking Spain was in Latin America here and here.
when are we going to discuss obama's ability as a public speaker away from the teleprompter?
Or Biden's?
But, seriously, this is getting pathetic. Anybody who isn't a complete partisan can tell that this wasn't a statement that Venezuala was in the middle east but a poorly constructed sentence, the type that every one of us make sometimes.
But, seriously, this is getting pathetic. Anybody who isn't a complete partisan can tell that this wasn't a statement that Venezuala was in the middle east but a poorly constructed sentence, the type that every one of us make sometimes.
Ok. You can excuse that if you think about it that way. What about the Spain comment? what about his Joe Lieberman whispering in his ear moment in Iraq?
Need a refresher?
He reminds me so much of Ronald Reagan in his second term. Senile dementia and/or Alzheimer's both have early warning signs. Anybody that didn't know something was wrong with Reagan at the debates wasn't paying attention. Shortly after leaving office he had a diagnosis....you have to know it started LOOONNNGGG before. John McCain is making numerous and regular gaffes, and even though I don't like him much since he decided to reverse himself and run for the GOP nomination, I do not think he is a stupid man. He sure is having difficulty in expressing simple ideas and thoughts as of late though.
If you've spent time with the elderly, you'd know they have not too much trouble with things that happened 40 years ago, but can't remember yesterday's breakfast. He probably still thinks those countries exist. Too many people will brush it aside as "political dirty tricks" when someone dare mentions it, though. There is definitely something wrong with his thought processes.
What I fail to understand as especially given his poor choice of VP candidate (and I've as well as the press have documented many conservatives that agree) why his current propensity for gaffes and confusion is taboo and off limits or below the belt.
whomod, the simple fact of the matter is that, for every gaffe you give us of McCain's, we can find one just as bad from Obama and/or Biden (who isn't that much younger than McCain).
I'm not going to sit here and claim either of them is senile, however, because I realize that slips of the tongue do occur.
slips happen. they're just especially noticeable today because everything any politician says is online in some form.
the "geographical nightmare" with wenezuela in the middle east was just a grammatical slip. didn't obama say he was in the wrong city several times on his trail, even during his convention? there's no senility claim there. these guys are talking like 22 hours a day, i can't believe they make so few slipups.
Now this is something i've been commenting on her for years. About how the incoming bush Administration downplayed counterterrorism in favor of SDI and dismissed Clinton and Sandy Berger as "being obsessed with Osama" when both Berger and Richard Clarke tried to warn them on the growing danger of Al queda. And how the Bush Administration downgraded counter terror from a Cabinet level position. As per "9/11: The Secret History" and other reports.
Plus i've documented her how the Congressional Republicans opposed many of Clinton's counter terror bills and even when Clinton tried to hit one of Osama's camps. "Wag the dog" they said. That was Clinton's Pre-9/11 mindset.
That phrase "pre-9/11 mindset" gets thrown around a lot, in conservative neocon circles especially. Well, here's a clear view of John McCain's pre-9/11 mindset, from a 1998 Mother Jones interview:
Quote:
You not only have had combat experience in Vietnam, but you were also a prisoner of war. When you look at terrorism right now, with people like Osama bin Laden, do you have any reservations about watching strikes like that?
You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before. And where there is a parallel with Vietnam is: What's plan B? What do we do next? We sent our troops into Vietnam to protect the bases. Lyndon Johnson said, Only to protect the bases. Next thing you know.... Well, we've [under Clinton - whomod] declared to the terrorists that we're going to strike them wherever they live. That's fine. But what's next? That's where there might be some comparison.
Interesting, isn't it? Well, what do we do next, Sen. McCain? Ready to spill your "secret plan" yet? This goes to the heart of not only McCain's judgement, but given the fact that Clinton was on the ball and saw Osama as a much bigger threat than John McCain, the Republicans, and George Bush did back in 2000, this goes to the heart of Republican judgement in general. The quote is undeniable. McCain says that the threat of Al qaeda was overstated by the Clinton Administration. And that was the reaction of the Republicans up until September 11, 2001. Then suddenly they tried to scramble to be the party that is on top of anti-terror and the Dems of being the ones with the pre-9/11 mindset.. Read the TIME article, we fought Al queda after 9/11 with the Clinton/Clarke plan!
Quote:
In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the [Clarke] proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."
Yes yes, the Cole. Read the TIME article. Yes yes Monica Lewinsky. I'm not saying Clinton didn't have his own personal weaknesses and errors in personal judgment. But in matters of national security, he sure was a lot more prescient than John McCain or George Bush were at the time.
And being the party of terrorism AFTER the fact rather than before, is just flailing and reacting and not of actually having any vision or imagination. Just like being the "regulator" AFTER the economic crisis doesn't hide the long history of being the deregulator beforehand. To be fair, no one could have predicted the scope of 9/11. but it sure would have helped if everyone could have had their eye on the ball and not just came up with catchy slogans and false accusations of being the guys asleep at the switch, after the fact.
To me it just sounds like the way they describe a Rove tactic. Turn your opponents strength into a weakness and turn your weakness into a strength. And from that McCain interview and the TIME article, i see they turned Clinton being "obsessed with Osama" into the Republicans being the party of terrorism and keeping you safe.
According to that article whomod posted it seems as if McCain was saying tenyears ago it would be necessary to take out a guy like Bin Laden but that it wouldn't be enough. How is that wrong?
McCain: Life isn't fair Email|Link|Comments (122)Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor October 2, 2008 09:59 AM
Republican John McCain -- making the rounds of the morning news shows as polls show him falling behind Democratic rival Barack Obama and his running mate losing the confidence of voters -- sounded either bitter or fatalistic.
Asked why Obama has been rising as the Wall Street crisis has dominated attention, McCain said on Fox News Channel: "Because life isn’t fair.”
“He certainly did nothing for the first few days," McCain added. "I suspended my campaign, took our ads down, came back to Washington, met with the House folks and got on the phone, and also had face-to-face meetings.”
McCain also batted away speculation that he's upset that his campaign apparatus has managed running mate Sarah Palin too much leading up to tonight's one and only vice presidential debate -- and expressed confidence that she'll show up in the "Show Me" state.
"She's smart, she's tough, she's been in debates before," McCain said on "Fox & Friends." "The American people ... the more they see of her, the more they love her, and I'm confident of that at the end."
Asked about criticism and attacks on Palin, McCain said on CNN: "I think the American people decide what is fair. I know that there have been attacks on Sarah Palin, that have been remarkable to me in many ways. But I have total confidence in her. She's very comfortable in her own skin. She's had more experience in leadership than Senator Obama and Senator Biden put together. She's been a mayor, she's been a governor, she knows energy issues. She negotiated a $400 billion pipeline of natural gas to the lower 48. I'm very confident about her credentials and her vision and her strength for America. So, I'm very proud of her."
He also seemed more criticial of debate moderator Gwen Ifill, who has come under criticism because she is writing a book featuring Obama. Asked on Fox News Channel whether it would work to Palin's advantage because Ifill will be under scrutiny for any bias, McCain answered, “Frankly, I wish they had picked a moderator that isn’t writing a book favorable to Barack Obama. Let’s face it. But I have to have to have confidence that Gwen Ifill will handle this as the professional journalist that she is.”
“Life isn’t fair, as I mentioned earlier in the program,” said McCain, who is scheduled to hold a rally later today in Denver. ...
McCain is just erratic and his capaign is falling apart. Yesterday he was all over the TV talking about the need for bailout package which he then voted for.
Today he was on morning Joe on MSNBC talking about how that same bill he just voted for is a disaster. He's been trying to play both sides of the fence since this thing began and now it just looks like he himself doesn't know what position he's on.
McCain is just erratic and his capaign is falling apart.
Actually, I agree with this. The campaign has been reactive, not proactive, since the bailout started and it's really hurting his campaign.
Furthermore, as mentioned before, McCain seems to be unable to accept that Democrats (and you can't really blame them on this point) aren't going to do anything to make him look good during a partisan political campaign. He seems to think this is just like any other day in the Senate when he could collegially work with the other side to craft legislation. That's something for after an election, not during it.
As soon as this whole bailout mess started, McCain should have said (truthfully): "I've tried to get this mess reformed for years but the bureaucrats in Washington and special interests on both sides fought me, including some people in the White House. You elect me President and this is what I'll do....."). Then point out Obama's ties to the mess and inexperience. Then repeat.
As for the press, I'm not going to retract my earlier comments about the press being in the tank for Obama because it's true. The media in this country is, for all intents and purposes, trying to coronate a president.
However, even there, McCain's campaign has bungled a few things. First, as noted before, he failed to realize that his pals in the press were no longer that as soon as he became the GOP nominee. Second, instead of sending Palin out to people who might have given her a fair interview he sent her to a report (Couric) desperate to keep her own job and needing to court controversy and ratings. Why wouldn't Couric go out of her way to generate both with an unfair intereview?
Finally, there's increasing evidence of campaign finance reform violations, voter fraud and even intimidation from the Obama camp and there's no indication of McCain, or anyone on the GOP, trying to stop it.
If we lose this election, we got no one to blame but ourselves.
I was watching Fox News this morning when he said the "life isn't fair" comment. it was 100% a joke and he said it laughin and everyone got a big laugh out of it. Are you guys really that out of touch with main stream USA that the LA Times and Boston Herald is what you use to form opinions now?
I was watching Fox News this morning when he said the "life isn't fair" comment. it was 100% a joke and he said it laughin and everyone got a big laugh out of it. Are you guys really that out of touch with main stream USA that the LA Times and Boston Herald is what you use to form opinions now?
God help them if they answered "yes" about the Herald.
In other news today, McCain's Latin American experience includes 'dating' a Latin American in the 1950s. Yeah, I'll bet he went to her repeatedly for foreign policy advice too. Seriously. That's what McCain's campaign said today. His experience in the region includes, um, "dating" a Brazilian. Yes, well, I've "dated" a Brazilian too. Does that make me a Latin America expert?
In fact, I suspect this is ongoing damage control from McCain recently thinking Spain was in Latin America, and that Venezuela (which is in Latin America) was in the Middle East. But seriously, there's nothing physically or mentally wrong with McCain. Lots of Latin American experts confuse Spain and Venezuela with Mexico and Saudi Arabia.
It's also damage control for rising concerns over McCain's physical and mental health. Apparently, pointing to some Brazilian woman McCain "met" 51 years ago somehow shows how virile he is today. Yeah, we get it, he liked girls half a century ago. And this saves my 401k how?
BTW, last night and in stump speeches Sarah Palin has said "John McCain knows how to win a war." It must be asked: What war was John McCain involved in that we won?
In further news, bitter Democrats who once touted their like of McCain search for the best soundbytes to take out of context and try to build an argument against the distinguished war hero.
You dare question comrade whomod. I will be sure to report you when the time comes. I am assuming you are carrying the proper papers with you at all times.
McCain wants to raise taxes on every working American and make you pay taxes on your health benefits. Wow. From AP:
Quote:
Barack Obama launched a multifaceted attack on presidential rival John McCain's health care proposal Saturday, elevating an issue that has been on the back burner in the White House race but remains a top concern for voters.
Obama planned to criticize McCain's plan to tax health care benefits as "radical" during an event in Newport News, Va., while his campaign echoed the message in four new television ads, four separate mailers targeted to swing state voters, radio commercials and events in every battleground state.
The McCain plan would be a dramatic change to the way Americans get health insurance. The Republican presidential nominee, who makes opposition to tax hikes a centerpiece of his campaign, has proposed to tax the health benefits that 156 million people get through the workplace as income.
That's gonna go over well.
At least McCain doesn't have to worry about his own health care. His government provided "socialist' health care has been taking care of him since he was in the military and continued on with his Congressional "socialist" health care plan..
I wonder if comrade McCain is willing to give that up? Seeing as how he's opposed to 'socialist health care' and all.
Then there's this little jem.
if you're gonna distort, then it only stands to reason that it'd be fair to use your own methodology against you, no?
whomod, grouping large chunks of text in bold or larger sizes actually makes them more difficult to read. in that block of quoted text, you go from bold to super bold! you can't make everything stand out, because then nothing stands out. to get the neoconazis to understand, you must go easy on their eyes.
whomod, grouping large chunks of text in bold or larger sizes actually makes them more difficult to read. in that block of quoted text, you go from bold to super bold! you can't make everything stand out, because then nothing stands out. to get the neoconazis to understand, you must go easy on their eyes.
As I mentioned earlier and the McCain camp confirmed, their last desperate tactic is to try to smear obama with his "associations". Barack Obama is taking Sarah Palin and John McCain at their words. All weekend McCain sent the head of his ticket, Sarah Palin, out to talk about Barack Obama's "associations." What she meant was, she was going to talk about stories that CNN and AP and the NYT have already debunked. But Obama takes Palin at her word, and if Sarah Palin and John McCain want to talk about associations, then let's.
Monday at noon, Obama officially launches a 13-minute documentary about John McCain's huge financial ethics scandal, the Keating Five Scandal. The clip above is a teaser for the documentary that will be posted at noon Eastern on Monday.
Obama is sending out literally millions of emails, asking people to go to the Web site, read what's there, watch the video when it comes up tomorrow, and then send the link for the site to every one of your friends, telling them it's must-see information about John McCain's corrupt ethics. Remember, the Keating Five isn't just another scandal, it's a financial scandal in which John McCain and 4 other Senators did favors for big banker friends who then brought down 1,000 US banks. Sound familiar? And McCain did this at the age of 54. He was no spring chicken. By the age of 54, your ethics are pretty well established.
I gotta say guys, it's real fun dealing with a candidate who hits back, eh?
I like this doozy of a flashback better though...
Can you guys link me to the video where an elementary school aged Obama is busy engaging in terrorism with Ayers? Or the one where he's denouncing America with Reverend Wright?
Because we've got a crapload of news footage of McCain in the Keating hot seat. Now why would people care today about an old economic crisis precipitated by deregulation, followed by massive bank failures and a housing and lending bubble that popped? Who knows...
Um...weren't the other four members of the Keating Five Democrats? And, wasn't it Cranston, DeCocini (Sp?), and Reagle (Sp?) that took the biggest fall? Three Democrats! Seriously, do you really want to bring up a twenty-year old controversy that looks far worse for your OWN party?
Out of all the senators, the Dems all lost their seats and were replaced. McCain is the only one of the 5 who decided to run again or wasn't ousted. Dems cleaned house. McCain just claimed he learned something but in reality, didn't learn a damn thing judging fro his record of deregulation after the S&L crisis and up to the current one.
Actually, the four democrats served the remainder of their terms then the big three didn't run for re-election. Glenn, of course, was re-elected in 1994. Also, didn't Willie name one of the big three (Cranston, maybe?) as an appointee to the Federal Mortgage something or another during his first term? I mean, there was a lot the McCain shouldn't have been doing during that time; but the Dems weren't exactly squeeky clean themselves. I just don't see the point in saying "Twenty years ago, John McCain 'Maverickly' reached across the aisle and helped four of my fellow Democrats destroy the savings and retirement of many an elderly person and caused over 21,000 banks to fail by helping this Keating fellow."
To me, it just makes both parties look less desirable. And, by way of him being the Democratic nominee, Obama loses desirability.
Edit: Just fact checked, it was DeConcini who was placed on the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Better known as Freddie Mac. See, bringing this up makes Obama's fellow Democrats look like Douches, too.
The McCain campaign is now saying that the Keating Five investigation was 'a political smear job' on John McCain!
Holy crap.
I'm listening to the McCain campaign conference call about John McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal. McCain's lawyer just said that the Keating Five investigation was "political" as it concerned John McCain. He shouldn't even have been admonished by the Senate, his lawyer says.
Then McCain's lawyer dropped the real bomb.
The Keating Five Investigation was "a political smear job on John [McCain]." WTF? He called Howell Heflin, who led the hearings, a "stooge" of the Democratic machine out to get poor, innocent John McCain.
This opens up the entire question of McCain's supposed contrition. If McCain thinks he did nothing wrong, and that it was wrong for the Senate to scold him for his actions during the Keating Five Scandal, then he isn't contrite at all, he isn't sorry at all. He's learned nothing. You can't turn a new leaf when you don't think you did anything wrong. This is one hell of an admission. Get more on the Keating Five Scandal at the new Obama campaign Web site, KeatingEconomics.com And here is the Obama campaign's new documentary about McCain's involvement in this ethics scanda (if the video isn't loading well, it may be because of the absurd amount of traffic trying to watch it - use this link instead if you're having a problem):
Ben Smith at Politico.com weighs in on this shocking news that McCain is now saying the Keating Five investigation was a set-up, a witch hunt, a partisan smear job, and that he did nothing wrong.
Iggy correctly pointed out last night that the other guys involved were Democrats. Someone should have sent the McCain team the memo though. It was actually 'a witch hunt conducted by a "stooge of the Democrats'! Just goes to show what miserable desperate, unrepentant, lying fucks the McCain campaign is.
But if McCain did nothing wrong, then why did he admit all these years to making a giant mistake during the Keating Five fiasco, a mistake that supposedly made McCain the maverick he is today? Or was McCain's giant mistake admitting guilt and taking ownership of his character flaws?
From Ben at Politico:
Quote:
I'd always thought McCain's great strength in defending the Keating affair was that he'd acknolwedged making a huge mistake, and spent his career repenting by recasting himself as a reformer.
So when his campaign puts his lawyer on the line with reporters to contest the details of a congressional inquiry that, largely, let McCain off the hook, doesn't that cloud the sin-confession-atonement dynamic a bit?
In Halperin's account, McCain lawyer John Dowd described McCain's "former relationship with Charles Keating as 'social friends,'" and called the situation a "classic political smear job on John."
Dowd also "thinks that the committee went too far in suggesting that McCain’s intervention with regulators was poor judgment," Halperin writes.
But if so, what's this giant mistake that transformed McCain into a reformer?
And as Ben noted earlier, McCain's Keating Five admission is the ENTIRE basis of his maverick brand:
Quote:
[I]n his 2002 autobiography, "the worst mistake of my life." He remade himself as a reformer in reaction to the scandal. McCain's case isn't that you should ignore his sin, or that it isn't a sin; it's that he's expiated it.
Not any more. It's George Bush all over again. Don't own up to anything. Deny everything. There are no facts that can' be disputed - even 20 year old facts that you've already copped to. Amazing.
Well so much for today being about Ovbama and Ayers. It's still the economy and John McCain's failure to understand or learn from his own mistakes.
I'm a little with Whomod on this one. The McCain Campaign probably shouldn't have come straight out and attacked this and McCain's involvement with the scandal as a political smear job. They would've been better off letting outside supporters attack that way while McCain just stayed cool and said, "Yeah, I fucked up. I'm sorry. But, I've changed in the past twenty years."
McCain's strategist said today to the NY Daily News: "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose.". The McCain campaign just does not want to talk about the economy. In their world view, it's a bad political issue that with some political maneuvering can be side-stepped. But that ignores the fact that in the real world, the economy is THE issue. Seriously, there is no comprehension on the GOP side over how the failing economy is directly affecting the American people. The Republicans think by going negative they change the subject:
Quote:
McCain's course correction reflects a growing case of nerves within his high command as the electoral map has shifted significantly in Obama's favor in the past two weeks.
"It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice," a top McCain strategist told the Daily News. "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."
Stop talking about the economic crisis and you're going to lose, too.
And, as I write this, the Dow is down over 600 points, so I think, and this is just a guess, that people are still going to be talking about the economy for the next couple weeks and not so much about Reverend Wright and some vague acquaintance with Ayers.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that McCain is the sacrificial lamb by Republicans to make up for the past eight years. I guess that is what you get for being a "maverick."
yeah we discussed this earlier, let the moderate sink, so that when Barack tries to destroy the country they can get a neocon in, the problem is what if Barack's damage is irreversible?
whomod content User some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts Tue Oct 07 2008 01:33 AM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: McCain FUCKS his Entire "Maverick" bona fides Today
Wait'll the senior citizens get a load out of this....
The Wall Street Journal writes that McCain plans to pay for his bogus health care plan by cutting Medicare/Medicaid. Again, from the Wall Street Journal, no less:
Quote:
John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs....
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser, said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled.
I mean, it's not like seniors need health care. Look at McCain, he's 72 and fit as a fiddle. Well, an erratic angry fiddle that's had cancer 4 times and can't remember what he just said, where he's going, or what continent Spain is located in. Of course though, McCain gets a different kind of socialized health care anyways. So as far as he's concerned, seniors can go eat cake.
They need to run this in Florida along with ads abut Palin's anti semetic pastors.
Wait'll the senior citizens get a load out of this....
The Wall Street Journal writes that McCain plans to pay for his bogus health care plan by cutting Medicare/Medicaid. Again, from the Wall Street Journal, no less:
Quote:
John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs....
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser, said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled.
I mean, it's not like seniors need health care. Look at McCain, he's 72 and fit as a fiddle. Well, an erratic angry fiddle that's had cancer 4 times and can't remember what he just said, where he's going, or what continent Spain is located in. Of course though, McCain gets a different kind of socialized health care anyways. So as far as he's concerned, seniors can go eat cake.
They need to run this in Florida along with ads abut Palin's anti semetic pastors.
That's okay. Obama gets the same health care that many dead people in attendance at his rallies get.
Oh boy, better look out for yet another erratic stunt by McCain. Even his business supporters aren't impressed with the McCain health care plan that will cost even more and do nothing to help the uninsured. Does anyone even care about "tax credits" anymore? That has to be the oldest trick in the book in Washington because it does so little to even impact taxes, unless maybe you're worth hundreds of millions and have the serious tax credits. What good is a stingy $5,000 tax credit when family coverage is over $12,000 per year? Only an aloof millionaire sitting on a dozen houses and teams of attorneys and tax accountants would think this plan is good for regular families.
Quote:
Over the weekend, Mr. Obama more accurately characterized the McCain plan as a swap but one that would work to the detriment of millions. Middle-class families, he said, would “watch the system they rely on begin to unravel before their eyes.”
The business leaders said that was also their fear. Despite steady declines this decade, employers still provide coverage to 62 percent of Americans younger than 65. Surveys show that they want to continue doing so to attract and maintain a productive workforce.
The business leaders forecast that Mr. McCain’s free-market approach would impose particular burdens on small businesses and old-line manufacturers that are already struggling.
“To some in the business community, this is very discomforting,” said R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the Chamber of Commerce. “The private marketplace, in my opinion, is ill prepared today with an infrastructure for an individual-based health insurance system.”
Action star, and Republican, Chuck Norris said this, this past January, which Mike Huckabee looking on and not objecting:
Quote:
"Chuck Norris brought his tough-guy approach to the campaign trail Sunday, taking aim at John McCain's age and suggesting the Arizona senator might not last even a single term. Norris, an ardent supporter of Mike Huckabee, told reporters he believes serving as president accelerates the aging process 3-to-1. 'If John takes over the presidency at 72 and he ages 3-to-1, how old will he be in four years? Eighty-four years old — and can he handle that kind of pressure in that job?' Norris said, as Huckabee looked on. 'That's why I didn't pick John to support, because I'm just afraid the vice president will wind up taking over his job within that four-year presidency.' added the action star."
President Palin taking over the reins of the finance crisis, anyone? It's okay, you don't need to retire anyway.
Action star, and Republican, Chuck Norris said this, this past January, which Mike Huckabee looking on and not objecting:
Quote:
"Chuck Norris brought his tough-guy approach to the campaign trail Sunday, taking aim at John McCain's age and suggesting the Arizona senator might not last even a single term. Norris, an ardent supporter of Mike Huckabee, told reporters he believes serving as president accelerates the aging process 3-to-1. 'If John takes over the presidency at 72 and he ages 3-to-1, how old will he be in four years? Eighty-four years old — and can he handle that kind of pressure in that job?' Norris said, as Huckabee looked on. 'That's why I didn't pick John to support, because I'm just afraid the vice president will wind up taking over his job within that four-year presidency.' added the action star."
President Palin taking over the reins of the finance crisis, anyone? It's okay, you don't need to retire anyway.
I must have missed the episode of Walker: Texas Ranger where Chuck got his MD.
and whomod got his Associates Degree in Fuckbitchery.
I've heard about that one. It's an online program full of Youtube videos and super-bold text given by one teacher who uses multiple ids to pretend to be several different instructors who deny they even know each other.
During the first presidential debate, John McCain repeatedly emphasized his love of veterans — and their fondness for him in return. “I’ll take care of them. And they know I’ll take care of them,” he said. McCain frequently exaggerates his level of support for and from veterans groups, claiming to have “received the highest award from literally every veteran’s organization in America” and to have “a perfect voting record” on veterans’ issues. Watch a compilation:
Today, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America released its congressional scorecard for the 110th Congress, and awarded McCain a grade of “D” for his votes against veterans’ priorities. The grade makes McCain one of only four Senators to fall on IAVA’s “D List” — and marks a repeat performance for him, after receiving a “D” for his 109th congressional voting record as well.
IAVA hammered McCain for refusing to co-sponsor Sen. Jim Webb’s 21st Century G.I. Bill. In fact, the IAVA highlighted the weaker alternative proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham — and endorsed by McCain — as “an effort to derail the popular and bipartisan” GI Bill proposed by Webb. “Thankfully,” the IAVA writes, “the Senate voted forcefully, 55-42, to kill” the Graham-McCain proposal.
IAVA’s score adds to other groups who have criticized McCain’s abysmal record on veterans’ issues. McCain has received a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America, while the Vietnam Veterans of America noted McCain had “voted against us” in 15 “key votes.”
McCain frequently cites his own experience as a POW in Vietnam as the ultimate evidence of his dedication to his fellow veterans. Unfortunately, his record belies his rhetoric.
McCain Speech Disrupted by Iraq War Vet - Adam Kokesh
Y'know simply LYING about your record with vets and chanting "USA" like a bunch of mindless automatons doesn't make you a friend of veterans. It's funny how Obama who has a much better record according to veterans groups doesn't try to wrap himself and leech off their patriotism. McCain wraps himself with the generic "support the troops" slogan that most right wingers do and then just votes against them and then lies.
I listed various well respected and well known veterans groups. But of course if they say McCain voted against vets, they must be partisan because Republicans having a slogan like "support the troops" and a car magnet automatically makes it so.
Now if I wanted to put the opinion of a "partisan" group, then I would have listed VoteVets.com But I didn't.
But go ahead and try to obfuscate for McCain. It's what right wingers do best.
It only took about 60 seconds of research to find out that the founder of the 'Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America' group is a frequent contributor to Air America....you know, the openly liberal radio network.
You still want to claim it isn't a liberal "hit" group?
It only took about 60 seconds of research to find out that the founder of the 'Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America' group is a frequent contributor to Air America....you know, the openly liberal radio network.
You still want to claim it isn't a liberal "hit" group?
Uh huh.
And Juan Williams is a frequent contributor to FOX news but today I heard him being called a "liberal" by PJP.
Pat Buchanan is a frequent contributor to MSNBC, the "left wing" news channel according to conservatives, but I still hear him being called a conservative Republican.
"If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."
McCain desperately wants to change the subject from the economic crisis. Not going to happen.
The Dow dropped another 500 points today. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think people are still talking about the economic crisis. In fact, I think people are talking about it more this week than last week. After Bush signed the bailout bill, there was an expectation that things would at least start to get better -- but no one is seeing that yet.
Wow. An exculpatory news packet on William Ayers links to Obama having nothing to do with terrorism but with Chicago education reform.
And a news scrawl on the bottom reminding us of the DOW plunging as a reminder of the very real crisis we face even as McCain tries desperately to change the subject to superfluous accusations.
amazing how you miss the part about bombing the capitol and the pentagon, the part about how Obama lied at the debate, the part were he launched his career at his friend Ayers home....
amazing how you miss the part about bombing the capitol and the pentagon, the part about how Obama lied at the debate, the part were he launched his career at his friend Ayers home....
what a idiot I am
We all know Ayers past. What that past has to do with Barack Obama is still a mystery. By the time Obama met Ayers, Ayers was already part of the Chicago educational community, working with local government on educational issues.
it's funny how you and the McCain campaign try to INFER somehow that Ayers and Obama were in the basement cooking up terror plots or something..
here's the CNN transcript BTW about Obama launching his camapign at Ayers' house. It seems you're trying to simply listen to the accusatory pats and covering your ears to the fact that it's all pretty much having to do with education reform and local politics and having NOTHING to do with terrorism.
Quote:
Ayers has strong defenders in Chicago, among them Richard Daley, the mayor, who called Ayers a valued member of the Chicago community. The city gave Ayers its citizen of the year award in 1977 for his work on the Annenberg Project.
For Obama, the chairmanship of the $100 million Annenberg board helped vault him from South Side Chicago lawyer to political player. And that, too, has another connection to Bill Ayers. [stand]In 1995, months after the little known Barack Obama became Annenberg Project chair, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced the young Obama as her political heir apparent.
Where was that introduction made? At the home of the '60s radicals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. The Obama campaign again says it is just a coincidence.
DUNN: A Democratic state senator organizes a meeting of her supporters at the house of another one of her supporters. What is the problem here, Drew? It is the worst kind of inference and the worst kind of politics to say that, somehow, that says something about Barack Obama.
As the news packet said also, it's just trying to infer some sot of culpability on terrorism to Obama based on the fact that Obama and Ayers knew the same people in local government and education reform. Again, you guys need to explain what the hell this has to do with terrorism.
Quote:
GRIFFIN: Anderson, this meeting at Bill Ayers' home has been classified in many different ways. What I can tell you from two people who were actually there is, number one, former State Senator Alice Palmer says she was in no way organized this meeting. She was invited and attended it briefly.
And, Dr. Quinton Young (ph), a retired doctor, told us this indeed was Barack Obama's political coming-out party and it was hosted by Bill Ayers.
COOPER: So, Drew, if Obama and Ayers worked together with others to, I guess, improve schools, what exactly is the McCain/Palin camp saying is wrong with -- with this relationship, or this working relationship, or however you want to characterize it?
GRIFFIN: Well, Anderson, I haven't contacted the McCain campaign on this issue.
Honestly, it's just desperate innuendo on your and McCain's part. How this is going to resolve the economic crisis is beyond me.
Again, it seems the right just can't seem to stop fighting the culture wars and the divisions of the 1960's and the Vietnam era. Even if the opponent happened to be a child a the time of all this social upheaval. It may have resonated 20 years ago, but it's a tired and dated script already. William Ayers as well as this country have all moved on. The only ones still talking about "hippies", Jane Fonda, and 60's radicals seems to be the geezers and the geezr minded of the far right conservative movement. To them it'll forever be 1980.
The Dow plummeted another 500 points to five-year lows on Tuesday as Wall Street shrugged off another emergency effort by the Federal Reserve to cure ailing credit markets.
The selloff capped the Dow's worst five-day point drop in history and came despite the Fed unveiling another plan aimed at unfreezing credit and giving a strong signal that the door may be open to more interest rate cuts.
There, your FOX news confirms it. The Dow Jones lost over 500 points today. You see sammitch. IT'S TRUE!!
whomod content User some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts 10/07/08 06:17 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: McCain's Economic Albatross.
It only took about 60 seconds of research to find out that the founder of the 'Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America' group is a frequent contributor to Air America....you know, the openly liberal radio network.
You still want to claim it isn't a liberal "hit" group?
Uh huh.
And Juan Williams is a frequent contributor to FOX news but today I heard him being called a "liberal" by PJP.
Pat Buchanan is a frequent contributor to MSNBC, the "left wing" news channel according to conservatives, but I still hear him being called a conservative Republican.
obfuscate, G-Man, obfuscate.
are you insane? Liberals appear on Fox News all the time. You even used Juan Williams to defend one of your points this past weekend.
Action star, and Republican, Chuck Norris said this, this past January, which Mike Huckabee looking on and not objecting:
Quote:
"Chuck Norris brought his tough-guy approach to the campaign trail Sunday, taking aim at John McCain's age and suggesting the Arizona senator might not last even a single term. Norris, an ardent supporter of Mike Huckabee, told reporters he believes serving as president accelerates the aging process 3-to-1. 'If John takes over the presidency at 72 and he ages 3-to-1, how old will he be in four years? Eighty-four years old — and can he handle that kind of pressure in that job?' Norris said, as Huckabee looked on. 'That's why I didn't pick John to support, because I'm just afraid the vice president will wind up taking over his job within that four-year presidency.' added the action star."
President Palin taking over the reins of the finance crisis, anyone? It's okay, you don't need to retire anyway.
Quoting chuck norris? What next? The national enquirer?
Action star, and Republican, Chuck Norris said this, this past January, which Mike Huckabee looking on and not objecting:
Quote:
"Chuck Norris brought his tough-guy approach to the campaign trail Sunday, taking aim at John McCain's age and suggesting the Arizona senator might not last even a single term. Norris, an ardent supporter of Mike Huckabee, told reporters he believes serving as president accelerates the aging process 3-to-1. 'If John takes over the presidency at 72 and he ages 3-to-1, how old will he be in four years? Eighty-four years old — and can he handle that kind of pressure in that job?' Norris said, as Huckabee looked on. 'That's why I didn't pick John to support, because I'm just afraid the vice president will wind up taking over his job within that four-year presidency.' added the action star."
President Palin taking over the reins of the finance crisis, anyone? It's okay, you don't need to retire anyway.
Quoting chuck norris? What next? The national enquirer?
About two weeks ago the Midnight Globe did a cover story about how Obama was a Muslim terrorist sleeper agent. I almost bought it and scanned it so I could post it here for the next time whomod tried to claim that tabloids are a valid source of political news.
"You and I together will confront the $10 trillion debt that the federal government has run up and balance the federal budget by the end of my term in office. (Applause) Across--across this country, this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners. And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent! You know, we've all heard what he's said, but it's less clear what he has done, or what he will do."
We're now left to determine how this affects John McCain as a leader. To be certain, PTSD in and of itself should never disqualify a person from holding any job. If that were the case, no one who's served in combat would ever get hired. What matters is the extent to which it affects each individual. Many people with whom I associate have some level of combat-induced PTSD, whether it manifests itself minimally as insomnia, occasional nightmares, impatience, and emotional distance, or, more severely, in the form of panic attacks and a crippling inability to focus or function. The bottom line is that everyone processes it and handles it differently. That said, when a person refers to Americans in a speech--nearly 40 years later--as "my fellow prisoners," this denotes a level of trauma that simply cannot be ignored.
On the other hand, if we're witnessing some form of dementia unrelated to PTSD, then there's even less flexibility. I'm not aware--and I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert here--of dementia being very treatable, much less reversible. Perhaps if Americans were granted access to McCain's health records, we'd know where to start.
So this goes to the heart of the question: Where is John McCain's mind? Is it here, with us, focused on the future? Or is it trapped, caught in an endless loop of horror, always focused on Vietnam, to the point that any appropriate sense of time becomes warped--to the point that Vietnam is not necessarily something from the past, but something that is still occurring. It's as if John McCain looked out across his supporters--the people who give him strength--and he saw his fellow prisoners.
Of course, this is incredibly sad. This is probably the sign of a war wound--of mental scarring--sustained on behalf of each and every American. We're talking about a guy who literally sacrificed his own body and mind in the service of his country. And we shouldn't forget that.
But it warrants our full attention. Because that combat injury now has the potential to color John McCain's judgment in ways that we can't predict. It can be the thing that drives his motivations and his decision-making process. For John McCain to make such a statement--regardless of the cause--shows us that his experience in Vietnam takes up so much of his mental space that it affects each aspect of his thought process. And frankly, that's not something we can accept from someone in the position to which he aspires.
sort of reminds me of that Beavis and Butthead bit where the barbeque grill fell on their neighbor and he started having flashbacks of being in a Viet cong prison.
McCain just called Americans "My fellow prisoners". This isn't some small little gaffe considering his background, his age, and the mentioned post-traumatic stress from which he probably still suffers. Just because George Herbert Bush focused Reagan's addled mind, and helped him become one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century, does not mean the same would/could happen with McCain. A display of mental misstep is not something I take lightly in the guy that wants me to vote him in charge of the country. Don't you have any better reaction than "whomod sucks/hates America" (which he does)? I'm curious to hear whether you think this is just no big deal or what...
Obama referred to touring the "57 states". This isn't some small little gaffe considering his background was this a gaffe or considering his Muslim background could this be a reference to the 57 states of Islam? I'm curious to hear whether you think this is just no big deal or what...
a man gets tortured defending this great nation and you mock him. it shows your character, and the character of the candidate you support.
He got "tortured"?
But I thought the types of things done to McCain, the Bush Administration and even you guys on occasion referred to as nothing worse than fraternity pranks.
Shows how relative you think "torture" and the rule of law is.
I also seem to recall that GOP hero and now informal McCain advisor Karl Rove once accused McCain of treason for what he did in that prison. With allegations of spilling secrets then using Ted Sampley of swiftboat fame as a surrogate to infer that McCain was (like Obama now) a "Manchurian Candidate". He accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.”
It certainly sounded a bit more substantive than G-Man's blog post about Obama. Especially since I seem to recall almost the entirety of the right wing and the Republicans swearing by Sampley's accusations against John Kerry. Including some of the dimwits here on these boards. So based on that trust and legitimacy given to Ted Sampley by Republicans, it sure sounds like someone that the right wing Republicans heed and trust to not be wrong on stuff.
You go to bed with snakes and ultimately you're the one that's gonna get bit.
It certainly sounded a bit more substantive than G-Man's blog post about Obama
You mean, the one where I said (paraphrase) "this is rumor on a blog so take it for what it is worth"?
That's a bit different than you and YouTube videos and wild accusations that you expect us to treat as fact.
McCain accidentally said "prisoners". Obama accidentally said "my Muslim faith."
By your reckoning, then, Glorious Leader outed himself as a closet Jihadist.
It wasn't an accusation, it was what it was. McCain calling people "prisoners" and a vet wondering if it was PTSD or dementia, or both.
No one asserted conclusively what it was. but it was there for people to draw their own conclusions. Just like the Obama "my Muslim faith" video. which judging from the non response after it occurred, people clearly understood that he was referring to McCain not accusing him of being one.
I wouldn't get all hot about this G-Man. This slip-up will probably disappear as well. Unless it doesn't, of course.
a man gets tortured defending this great nation and you mock him. it shows your character, and the character of the candidate you support.
He got "tortured"?
But I thought the types of things done to McCain, the Bush Administration and even you guys on occasion referred to as nothing worse than fraternity pranks.
Shows how relative you think "torture" and the rule of law is.
I also seem to recall that GOP hero and now informal McCain advisor Karl Rove once accused McCain of treason for what he did in that prison. With allegations of spilling secrets then using Ted Sampley of swiftboat fame as a surrogate to infer that McCain was (like Obama now) a "Manchurian Candidate". He accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.”
It certainly sounded a bit more substantive than G-Man's blog post about Obama. Especially since I seem to recall almost the entirety of the right wing and the Republicans swearing by Sampley's accusations against John Kerry. Including some of the dimwits here on these boards. So based on that trust and legitimacy given to Ted Sampley by Republicans, it sure sounds like someone that the right wing Republicans heed and trust to not be wrong on stuff.
You go to bed with snakes and ultimately you're the one that's gonna get bit.
no actual terrorists were hurt during the filming of this water boarding.
Obama referred to touring the "57 states". This isn't some small little gaffe considering his background was this a gaffe or considering his Muslim background could this be a reference to the 57 states of Islam? I'm curious to hear whether you think this is just no big deal or what...
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Obama and Biden have made similar gaffes. Most people make them.
I haven't heard anything about Obama saying "57 States", and/or when anything about him saying "my Muslim faith". When did these occur, and what were the context in which they were spoken?
It's really sad that a man as young as Obama is going senile, forgetting things he's done and said, how many states are in the nation, unable to complete sentences. whomod told me that things like that are old age and losing one's mind when McCain does it, so it must be true with Obama as well. It has to be. whomod would never hold a Republican up to a completely different standard than a Democrat.
Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.
But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.
McCain has only himself to blame for the bad timing. He should months ago have begun challenging Obama's associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate.
McCain had his chance back in April when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that included the linking of Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by The New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist.
This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.
Nonetheless, John McCain in his infinite wisdom, and with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama's associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once.
Obama's political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber -- even a repentant one -- he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he "didn't do enough."
Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers' unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?
No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.
First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?
Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.
Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" -- of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.
Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers' views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.
Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.
Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.
I agree with this %100, Obama is a man of poor character, and it should have been pressed sooner. A lot of people are just now finding out about his terrorist ties, it will take mainstream media several months to catch up, by then it will be too late.
The McCain/Palin ticket is the first in American history in which both candidates were found to have violated ethics standards before a national election.
McCain, of course, was admonished by Senate Ethics Committee "for exercising 'poor judgment' for intervening" with federal regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, as part of the infamous Keating Five scandal.
Republicans across America are running for cover. The rats are fleeing the sinking ship and one of the big rats, Bill Kristol, jumped overboard today in his NY Times column. Of course, under the leadership of the GOP brain trust, including Bill Kristol, the whole country has been sinking. But, Kristol isn't doing this to help McCain as it could appear. No, he's really trashing McCain and can then trash him more after McCain doesn't listen to the very wise Bill Kristol:
Quote:
It’s time for John McCain to fire his campaign.
He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama’s. The Obama team is well organized, flush with resources, and the candidate and the campaign are in sync. The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic. If the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed.
He may be anyway. Bush is unpopular. The media is hostile. The financial meltdown has made things tougher. Maybe the situation is hopeless — and if it is, then nothing McCain or his campaign does matters.
But I’m not convinced by such claims of inevitability. McCain isn’t Bush. The media isn’t all-powerful. And the economic crisis still presents an opportunity to show leadership.
Kristol has his own agenda. After November 4th, he'll be on FOX telling all the diehards how he could have saved the McCain campaign if they'd only listen. Then, Kristol can continue to be one of the wise men in a party that has been destroyed in the elections, because of the ideas of people like Bill Kristol.
Also the co-founder of the Conservative blog Redstate refuses to vote for McCain. The cofounder of one of the top conservative blogs, Red State, voted early in California for the bigoted anti-gay proposition rescinding the marriages of gay couples - wonder how he'd feel if someone rescinded his marriage - but in any case, he did vote against McCain. Perhaps McCain isn't anti-gay enough (though he really is). In any case, this is one more sign that McCain is in serious trouble. (Also note that he actually liked Palin at first, and now can't seem to stand her.)
Yesterday, Politico had a hot scoop. John McCain was going to announce new economic plans today. Yep, McCain was going to seize the day by talking about the economic crisis. Wrong.
Despite signals that Senator John McCain would have new prescriptions for the economic crisis after a weekend of meetings, his campaign said Sunday that Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, would not have any more proposals this week unless developments call for some.
The signs of internal confusion came as the campaign was under pressure from state party leaders to sharpen his message on the economy and at least blunt the advantage that Democrats traditionally have on the issue in hard times. Republicans have grown fretful as Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, has edged ahead in polls three weeks before the election, while Mr. McCain has veered between ill-received economic plans and attacks on Mr. Obama’s character.
The McCain campaign is out of control. McCain is increasingly erratic. It's disturbing. These are dangerous times. We need a steady leader.
And, don't forget that McCain doesn't want to talk about the economic crisis or he'll lose. Remember this statement from a "McCain strategist": "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."
John McCain is hitting the panic button. John McCain isn't going to talk about the economy today. Too much "internal confusion" in the campaign. Instead, he's got a new speech. Sounds very familiar. Remember how many times Bush was going to win us over with a new speech?
Yesterday, Politico had the scoop that McCain was going to deliver new economic plans. That was wrong. But, Politico got the new scoop about the "more forceful new stump speech:
Quote:
Three weeks before Election Day, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Monday is unveiling what his aides call a more forceful new stump speech in which he portrays himself as a scrappy fighter on the comeback trail against an opponent who’s already “measuring the drapes” in the Oval Office.
“The national media has written us off.,” McCain says in excerpts released by the campaign. “Senator Obama is measuring the drapes, and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to raise taxes, increase spending, take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections, and concede defeat in Iraq. But they forgot to let you decide. My friends, we’ve got them just where we want them.”
Allies are calling this “hitting the ‘reset’ button” on the campaign, with McCain reemerging after a long Sunday strategy session with a feisty tack that uses candor and humor, at a time when his rallies have become known for raucous rage and clumsy attacks.
But it’s more like hitting the panic button. McCain is appearing Monday in Virginia and North Carolina – two states that are usually safe for Republicans in presidential races, and that he should have put away long ago. But Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is pouring visits and staff into the former Confederacy, and he has caught McCain in many Southern polls.
Seems we have McCain just where we want him...campaigning in states that he should have wrapped up a long time ago. McCain is hitting the panic button. But, he's always hitting a panic button. He's erratic. And, a new speech isn't going to cut it.
Obama's campaign emailed out an appropriate response to McCain's new ploy:
Quote:
“Less than twelve hours after his campaign announced that Senator McCain would finally have some new ideas on the economy, he decided that it was more important to give a new political speech about where he is in the polls. But the American people know that this election isn’t about who’s up or who’s down, it’s about who will change the disastrous Bush-McCain economic policies of the last eight years. Barack Obama will continue to bring his message of change to every corner of this country, which is why he’s talking today about his new plan to provide immediate relief to struggling families and homeowners, jumpstart job creation in America, and ease the credit crisis that’s hurting too many businesses,” said Obama-Biden Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.
I wonder when whomod is going to realize that the press doesn't elect the president.
ABC News/Wash. Post: 90% of voters see U.S. on wrong track; Bush at 23% approval; Obama leads 53% - 43%
The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll has some stunning numbers. There is almost a unanimous consensus in this country that we're on the wrong track -- because we are. Only 22 days til we can change the track of the nation:
Quote:
A tornado of economic discontent is buffeting the nation, sending satisfaction with the country's direction to a 35-year low, George W. Bush's approval rating below Richard Nixon's worst and Barack Obama, boosted by economic empathy, to his best-yet advantage in the presidential race.
Given the global economic crisis, a record 90 percent of registered voters say the country is seriously off on the wrong track, the most since this question first was asked in 1973. At 23 percent, Bush's job approval rating has fallen below Nixon's lowest; it's a point away from the lowest in 70 years of polling, set by Harry Truman in early 1952. Bush's disapproval, meanwhile, is at an all-time record 73 percent.
Powered chiefly by the public's economic concerns, Obama leads John McCain by 10 points among likely voters, 53-43 percent, in this ABC News/Washington Post poll. Though every race is different, no presidential candidate has come back from an October deficit this large in pre-election polls dating to 1936....
Obama holds the reins on economic woe. Registered voters trust him over McCain to handle the economy by 53-37 percent. Obama holds his largest lead yet, a remarkable 30-point margin, in better understanding the economic problems Americans are having, 58-28 percent. He leads McCain by about as much, 59-31 percent, in trust to help the middle class, and by 11 points on taxes, two prime points of contention in the last presidential debate....
McCain's receiving blowback for what's perceived as negative campaigning; registered voters by 59-35 percent say he's been mainly attacking Obama rather than addressing the issues. Obama, by contrast, is seen by an even wider margin as issue-focused....
[A] drop in McCain's favorability rating, to 52 percent, a loss of 7 points since the Republican convention; 45 percent now see him unfavorably, a new high for McCain in polls since 1999. Obama's rating, meanwhile, is 64 percent favorable, near its high and up 6 points in the same time frame.
Enthusiasm for McCain's candidacy, never strong, has softened alongside his favorability rating. Just 29 percent of his own supporters are "very enthusiastic" about his campaign, the fewest since August and down a sharp 17 points from his post-convention peak. By contrast, 63 percent of Obama's backers are very enthusiastic, steady since September.
McCain's portrayal of Obama as a risky choice, further, is not resonating, and indeed may be backfiring. By 55-45 percent registered voters see Obama as safe rather than risky; by contrast, they divide 50-50 on whether McCain himself is safe or risky down from 57-41 percent "safe" at McCain's best on this measure in June.
Okay, so after all Bush has put us through, who are the 23% of Americans who still approve of George Bush's job performance? Um.. G-Man? PJP? bsams?
Well... in any case, it's refreshing to see that all those crazed racist nutjobs at McCain rallies now only make up about 23%. That's now 1/4 of the country, down from 1/3rd as recently as last year.
Congratulations, whomod. I hope you get a good job in the Obama regime. Perhaps you can be the Commandant of the camp that BSAMS, PJP and I are sent to and we be like "Hogan's Heroes" with you as our Klink.
Congratulations, whomod. I hope you get a good job in the Obama regime. Perhaps you can be the Commandant of the camp that BSAMS, PJP and I are sent to and we be like "Hogan's Heroes" with you as our Klink.
We be like Hogans Heroes?
I hear you have a nice system already set up for us in Cuba and across the former eastern bloc.
Republicans across America are running for cover. The rats are fleeing the sinking ship and one of the big rats, Bill Kristol, jumped overboard today in his NY Times column. Of course, under the leadership of the GOP brain trust, including Bill Kristol, the whole country has been sinking. But, Kristol isn't doing this to help McCain as it could appear. No, he's really trashing McCain and can then trash him more after McCain doesn't listen to the very wise Bill Kristol:
Quote:
It’s time for John McCain to fire his campaign.
He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama’s. The Obama team is well organized, flush with resources, and the candidate and the campaign are in sync. The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic. If the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed.
He may be anyway. Bush is unpopular. The media is hostile. The financial meltdown has made things tougher. Maybe the situation is hopeless — and if it is, then nothing McCain or his campaign does matters.
But I’m not convinced by such claims of inevitability. McCain isn’t Bush. The media isn’t all-powerful. And the economic crisis still presents an opportunity to show leadership.
Kristol has his own agenda. After November 4th, he'll be on FOX telling all the diehards how he could have saved the McCain campaign if they'd only listen. Then, Kristol can continue to be one of the wise men in a party that has been destroyed in the elections, because of the ideas of people like Bill Kristol.
Also the co-founder of the Conservative blog Redstate refuses to vote for McCain. The cofounder of one of the top conservative blogs, Red State, voted early in California for the bigoted anti-gay proposition rescinding the marriages of gay couples - wonder how he'd feel if someone rescinded his marriage - but in any case, he did vote against McCain. Perhaps McCain isn't anti-gay enough (though he really is). In any case, this is one more sign that McCain is in serious trouble. (Also note that he actually liked Palin at first, and now can't seem to stand her.)
Oh no!
The McCain campaign is now attacking Bill Kristol: ‘He’s bought into the Obama campaign’s party line.’
Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol said John McCain’s campaign has really become “a pathetic campaign.” In his New York Times op-ed this morning, Kristol went further, suggesting that McCain should “fire his campaign” and “start over.” Asked to respond to Kristol’s criticisms, McCain campaign spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer said on Fox News:
Well, you know Bill is entitled to his perspective. And I used to work for Bill. And I can tell you personally sometimes he’s brilliant and sometimes he’s not. And this is one where it’s the latter category. You know, I think unfortunately he has bought into the Obama campaign’s party line.
Republicans across America are running for cover. The rats are fleeing the sinking ship and one of the big rats, Bill Kristol, jumped overboard today in his NY Times column. Of course, under the leadership of the GOP brain trust, including Bill Kristol, the whole country has been sinking. But, Kristol isn't doing this to help McCain as it could appear. No, he's really trashing McCain and can then trash him more after McCain doesn't listen to the very wise Bill Kristol:
Quote:
It’s time for John McCain to fire his campaign.
He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama’s. The Obama team is well organized, flush with resources, and the candidate and the campaign are in sync. The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic. If the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed.
He may be anyway. Bush is unpopular. The media is hostile. The financial meltdown has made things tougher. Maybe the situation is hopeless — and if it is, then nothing McCain or his campaign does matters.
But I’m not convinced by such claims of inevitability. McCain isn’t Bush. The media isn’t all-powerful. And the economic crisis still presents an opportunity to show leadership.
Kristol has his own agenda. After November 4th, he'll be on FOX telling all the diehards how he could have saved the McCain campaign if they'd only listen. Then, Kristol can continue to be one of the wise men in a party that has been destroyed in the elections, because of the ideas of people like Bill Kristol.
Also the co-founder of the Conservative blog Redstate refuses to vote for McCain. The cofounder of one of the top conservative blogs, Red State, voted early in California for the bigoted anti-gay proposition rescinding the marriages of gay couples - wonder how he'd feel if someone rescinded his marriage - but in any case, he did vote against McCain. Perhaps McCain isn't anti-gay enough (though he really is). In any case, this is one more sign that McCain is in serious trouble. (Also note that he actually liked Palin at first, and now can't seem to stand her.)
Oh no!
The McCain campaign is now attacking Bill Kristol: ‘He’s bought into the Obama campaign’s party line.’
Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol said John McCain’s campaign has really become “a pathetic campaign.” In his New York Times op-ed this morning, Kristol went further, suggesting that McCain should “fire his campaign” and “start over.” Asked to respond to Kristol’s criticisms, McCain campaign spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer said on Fox News:
Well, you know Bill is entitled to his perspective. And I used to work for Bill. And I can tell you personally sometimes he’s brilliant and sometimes he’s not. And this is one where it’s the latter category. You know, I think unfortunately he has bought into the Obama campaign’s party line.
I think that'll end up being the quintessential McCain moment in this campaign, That Monday when he declared that "the Fundamentals of the Economy were strong". Even as Wall Street took it's first of many nose dives.
McCain: Fundamentals of Economy Are Strong
Followed by many many flip-flops and stunts after that. Starting with being against the AIG bailout before he was for it the next day, to the impetuous call to fire SEC chair Chris Cox, to suspending his campaign (or at least claiming to do so). McCain's move to suspend his campaign probably looked to many independent observers like a desperation move even before David Letterman pulled back the curtain to show how fraudulent the whole effort was.
Here's a compilation of McCain's erratic and at times contradictory statements throughout the crisis.
hey, maybe a couple dancing nanners and a laughing graemlin or five will make it even more true.
yeah. None of that happened.
It was all a liberal media lie. The guy playing John McCain for the past 3 weeks is really a liberal actor from "Hollyweird".
It's actually funny to see just how divorced from reality the far right and their media outlets have made the Republican base these past few years to where they just sound like out of touch conspiratorial fringe crazies.
I think that'll end up being the quintessential McCain moment in this campaign, That Monday when he declared that "the Fundamentals of the Economy were strong". Even as Wall Street took it's first of many nose dives.
McCain: Fundamentals of Economy Are Strong
Followed by many many flip-flops and stunts after that. Starting with being against the AIG bailout before he was for it the next day, to the impetuous call to fire SEC chair Chris Cox, to suspending his campaign (or at least claiming to do so). McCain's move to suspend his campaign probably looked to many independent observers like a desperation move even before David Letterman pulled back the curtain to show how fraudulent the whole effort was.
Here's a compilation of McCain's erratic and at times contradictory statements throughout the crisis.
If both McCain and Obama were saying that along with all our political leaders there may not have been as much panic selling in the stock market these past few days. Obama played on people's fears....typical. The fundamentals of the economy are strong. you're an ignorant person when it comes to economics.....did you go to college?
It's fucking hysterical! A recap of the past couple of weeks written entirely in Latin.
Quote:
Cum Primus Dudus, spousus Palinanus, culpari attemptaret “Centurionem-Gate,” judices Terrae Santae Elvorumque castigat gubernatricem Palinam de abusu auctoritatis per familiam revengendum.
While the First Dude, the husband of Palin, attempted to be blamed for "Centurion-gate", the judges of the land of Santa's Elves chastened the lady-Governor Palin concerning the abuse of authority for the purpose of familial revenge.
I think that'll end up being the quintessential McCain moment in this campaign, That Monday when he declared that "the Fundamentals of the Economy were strong". Even as Wall Street took it's first of many nose dives.
McCain: Fundamentals of Economy Are Strong
Followed by many many flip-flops and stunts after that. Starting with being against the AIG bailout before he was for it the next day, to the impetuous call to fire SEC chair Chris Cox, to suspending his campaign (or at least claiming to do so). McCain's move to suspend his campaign probably looked to many independent observers like a desperation move even before David Letterman pulled back the curtain to show how fraudulent the whole effort was.
Here's a compilation of McCain's erratic and at times contradictory statements throughout the crisis.
If both MkKainslov and Obama were saying that along with all our politikal leaders there may not have been as much panik selling in the stokk market these past few days. Obama played on people's fears....typikal. The fundamentals of the ekonomy are strong. you're an ignorant person when it komes to ekonomiks.....did you go to kollege?
No one is safe from the wrath of the right. Case in point: Christopher Buckley, the son of The National Review founder, William F. Buckley, was recently forced into resigning off his dad's own mag after he made an Obama endorsement in The Daily Beast.
So where does Buckley turn to after his own nepotism fails him? Why, back to Tina Brown's open arms/blog, of course:
The son of William F. Buckley has decided—shock!—to vote for a Democrat.
Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon......
...Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don’t have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he’s no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground. So, you’re reading it here first....[/b]
The gOP...
In disaray.
Eating their own.....
Led by the crazies.....
again, to quote Barry Goldwater.
Quote:
"Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican Party much more than the Democrats have." - Barry Goldwater
....Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience (that's you guys here on the RKMB's BTW - whomod ). McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him......
I suppose it could be said, as Michael Gerson has alleged, that the Obama campaign's choice of the word erratic to describe McCain is also an insinuation. But really, it's only a euphemism. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear had to feel sorry for the old lion on his last outing and wish that he could be taken somewhere soothing and restful before the night was out. The train-wreck sentences, the whistlings in the pipes, the alarming and bewildered handhold phrases—"My friends"—to get him through the next 10 seconds. I haven't felt such pity for anyone since the late Adm. James Stockdale humiliated himself as Ross Perot's running mate. And I am sorry to have to say it, but Stockdale had also distinguished himself in America's most disastrous and shameful war, and it didn't qualify him then and it doesn't qualify McCain now.
The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.
It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them. .....
The gOP.
In disarray.
A national disgrace.
Appealing to baser instincts.
Using deceit.
Taking the electorate for fools.
And some of you here just eat that shit up!
so ... Um, you guys would be that wack job fringe that both Hitchens and Buckley describe.
BTW, What does it mean when the Republican governor of Florida decides he is too busy to help the GOP nominee get in the White House?
Charlie Crist now saying, when it comes to getting McCain elected, quote, "When I have time to help, I'll try to do that.
I think McCain has the stink of loserdom already and smart politicians are keeping their distance.
What is he so busy with BTW? On Saturday, the governor cancelled plans to go to a McCain football base rally to instead go to Disneyworld.
The McCain campaign’s recent angry tone and sharply personal attacks on Senator Barack Obama appear to have backfired and tarnished Senator John McCain more than their intended target, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found.
After several weeks in which the McCain campaign unleashed a series of strong political attacks on Mr. Obama, trying to tie him to a former 1960s radical, among other things, the poll found that more voters see Mr. McCain as waging a negative campaign than Mr. Obama. Six in 10 voters surveyed said that Mr. McCain had spent more time attacking Mr. Obama than explaining what he would do as president; by about the same number, voters said Mr. Obama was spending more of his time explaining than attacking.
Over all, the poll found that if the election were held today, 53 percent of those determined to be probable voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama and 39 percent said they would vote for Mr. McCain......
Voters who said their opinions of Mr. Obama had changed recently were twice as likely to say they had grown more favorable as to say they had worsened. And voters who said that their views of Mr. McCain had changed were three times more likely to say that they had worsened than to say they had improved.
The top reasons cited by those who said they thought less of Mr. McCain were his recent attacks and his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate........
And after nearly eight years of increasingly unpopular Republican rule in the White House, 52 percent of those polled said that they held a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared with 37 percent who said they held a favorable view of the Republican Party. Voters said they preferred Democrats to Republicans when it came to questions about who would better handle the issues that are of the greatest concern to voters — including the economy, health care and the war in Iraq.......
After several weeks in which the McCain campaign sought to tie Mr. Obama to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground terrorism group, 64 percent of voters said that they had either read or heard something about the subject. But a majority said they were not bothered by Mr. Obama’s background or past associations. Several people said in follow-up interviews that they felt that Mr. McCain’s attacks on Mr. Obama were too rooted in the past, or too unconnected to the nation’s major problems......
The poll found that Mr. Obama is now supported by majorities of men and independents, two groups that he has been fighting to win over. And the poll found, for the first time, that white voters are just about evenly divided between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama, who, if elected, would be the first black president. The poll found that Mr. Obama is supported by 45 percent of white voters — a greater percentage than has voted for Democrats in recent presidential elections, according to exit polls........
Mr. McCain was viewed unfavorably by 41 percent of voters, and favorably by 36 percent. Ms. Palin’s favorability rating is now 32 percent, down 8 points from last month, and her unfavorable rating climbed nine percentage points to 41 percent. Mr. Obama’s favorability rating, by contrast, is now at 50 percent, the highest recorded for him thus far by The Times and CBS News.......
But roughly 7 in 10 voters said Mr. Obama had the right kind of temperament and personality to be president; just over half said the same of Mr. McCain.
Mr. Obama’s supporters continued to be more enthusiastic about him than Mr. McCain’s supporters, the poll found, and more of those surveyed said they had confidence in Mr. Obama than in Mr. McCain to make the right decisions about the economy and health care. And while more than 6 in 10 said Mr. Obama understood the needs and problems of people like them, more than half said Mr. McCain did not....
How does it feel to be so fucked?
And it's all you extreme crazies on the right with your Bill Ayers, and "Muslim this" and Jeremiah Wright. After election after election of this game, you never stopped to consider that people might start catching on to your game? As their lives worsen (BTW the infant mortality rate here is now abysmal thanks to all the uninsured), you guys continue to further enrich the wealthy at their expense while trying to convince them that someone else's character or who supports gays, is what is really important??
The headlines leading up to tonight's presidential debate hint at the worst for John McCain:
McCain enters 'last chance saloon' in final debate
In Final Debate, Can McCain Rattle an Imperturbable Foe?
McCain May Have Last Chance to Overcome Economy in Final Debate
In short, a lot of pundits are asserting that this is McCain's last chance to close the sizeable gap seen in the polls and stop Obama's electoral tsunami.
But is the gap really as big as everyone thinks it is?
At first glance, the national political mood certainly seems bad for Team McCain. A recent New York Times/CBS poll shows Obama with a 14-point lead. And many Electoral College projection maps show Obama pulling in more than 300 electoral votes. (All you need is 270 to win; anything more than 300 in today's divided political climate is a rout.)
FiveThirtyEight.com
Pollster.com
But there are some grains of salt to be taken here.
First, about the NYT/CBS poll — Nate Silver, the sports-analyst-turned-election-prognosticator, points out something important:
Presently, our best estimate is that Obama has about an 8-point national lead. However, CBS polls have leaned about 3 points more Democratic than the average this year. In other words, our baseline expectation is that a CBS poll should be showing about an 11-point for Obama right now.
In other words, the NYT/CBS poll is an outlier. It has been an outlier throughout the election season, and Silver thinks it continues to be one now.
Individual polls with seemingly inflated numbers are one thing, but what about the overall lead in the national polls? Yahoo!'s own Political Dashboard averages reported poll results, and it shows the 8-point averaged lead Silver is talking about. But when you dig into our map, you see that some states that appear blue may not be too far from red.
A perfect example of this: North Carolina.
Our map shows North Carolina crosshatched in blue, indicating it's leaning Obama. Well, that lean (and North Carolina's 15 electoral votes that go with it) are based off of a 1% averaged poll lead. That's within most margins of error, which run anywhere from 2 to 4 points.
Two things could happen that would wipe away those blue electoral votes: The polls could be wrong (New Hampshire primary, anyone?), or people could just simply change their minds. That's not out of the realm of possibility — North Carolina was safe McCain territory until late September.
And, there are at least eight other swing states — including biggies like Florida, Ohio, and Virginia — that are within McCain striking distance. Their current polls may not be as close as North Carolina, but they definitely aren't behind by the 14 points the NYT/CBS poll shows nationally, either.
Swing states are aptly named. They swing. D.C. pundit king and NBC Political Director Chuck Todd had a fantastic, realistic breakdown of the Electoral College map this morning on "The Today Show."
FL – St. Petersburg Times (Editorial) "McCain's last offensive:" On the same day a new poll showed that voters' confidence in the federal government has reached an all-time low, Obama spoke with a reassuring confidence…But when the questioning turned to campaign attacks by both sides, McCain could not contain his anger and lost much of his momentum. He again floated some dark connection between Obama and 1960s-era antigovernment radical Bill Ayers. When that punch failed to ruffle Obama, McCain ramped up his intensity. The split television screen displayed a candidate who gradually appeared more frustrated, condescending and dismissive of one who would not take the bait. Those facial expressions will not play well in the coming days.
WI – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Editorial) "The attack debate:" John McCain went into the final presidential debate on Wednesday looking for a game-changer, the need to reverse plummeting fortunes as measured by polls and likely fueled by national economic difficulties that do not favor members of the party now possessing the White House. Time - and an election - will tell, but our guess is that McCain missed the mark if that was his goal.
MO – Kansas City Star (Editorial) "Attacks can't shake Obama in debate:" Over the three presidential debates, Democrat Barack Obama has largely answered doubts about his readiness to be president of the United States. His unflappable temperament, thoughtful demeanor and rhetorical abilities were impressive. Republican John McCain's performances were more uneven, becoming increasingly aggressive.
MI - Detroit Free Press (Stephen Henderson) "Striving to get back in the game, McCain looks more desperate": It was probably unrealistic for anyone to believe that Republican presidential candidate John McCain could right the sinking ship of his campaign with a debate performance, but Wednesday night's encounter with Democrat Barack Obama only seemed to reinforce the idea that McCain is badly behind, and desperate. Here was McCain, answering a question about the negative tone of his campaign — and the very frightening tenor of recent rallies for McCain — by talking about the negativity of Obama's campaign, saying Obama's failure to agree to more than 10 town hall meetings was the reason things turned so negative. But overall, it was hard not to think of this campaign as largely over while watching the debate. Of course, anything can happen in the next few weeks, and history says the race will almost certainly tighten. John McCain, though, looked like a guy about to lose and fully aware of the desperation of his circumstances.
Des Moines Register (David Yepsen) "Obama Bests McCain In Final Debate" John McCain lost the final debate of the 2008 presidential campaign Wednesday night…McCain simply needed a breakout performance and he failed to provide one. He went into the forum trailing Obama in polls of the contest and he came out of in the same position. By doing so, McCain missed his biggest remaining opportunity to change the direction of the presidential contest.
MN – Duluth News Tribune (Staff Written) "Local and national online polls give nod to Obama:" News Tribune readers who answered an unscientific online poll Wednesday said Sen. Barack Obama won the third and final presidential debate over Sen. John McCain. Of 112 readers who voted between 9:30 and 11 p.m., 59 percent said Obama won while 41 percent said McCain won. [According to one reader] "I felt that the cool, calm, collected nature of Barack Obama was welcomed and needed in these already stressful and uncertain times of crisis. To me the long-standing reputation of John McCain as a maverick and a reformer was overpowered by his cynicism, sarcasm and smugness." [said] Adam White of Duluth.
OH – Columbus Dispatch (Darrel Rowland) "Undecided's dial it up for Obama:" Fifty women gathered in a Columbus hotel's conference room and got to do what millions of Americans probably wanted to do last night: Tell the presidential candidates exactly what they thought of them….This group of undecided voters' opinions were recorded every second of the 90-minute debate. The result? A major win for Democrat Barack Obama. Seventy-one percent of these undecided voters thought Obama did better in addressing the issues important to them, while only 9 percent felt that way about Republican John McCain. The group slightly favored Obama coming into the debate, but afterward he won support by about a 2-to-1 ratio.
PA – The Philadelphia Inquirer (Larry Eichel) "Some jabs, but there was no knockout:" Republican John McCain, desperately trying to launch a comeback with less than three weeks to go, was on the offensive all night, intense and focused. But Democrat Barack Obama had the same calm and steady presence he'd shown in their two previous encounters, answering some of McCain's attacks and shrugging off others, saying that the voters want to hear about their own problems instead. When it was all over, even though the debate was somewhat more contentious than the previous two, the likelihood was that nothing much had changed in the shape of the campaign. The first round of post-debate polls had Obama the overwhelming winner, as was the case in the previous two.
PA – Philadelphia Daily News (John Baer) It was an often angry, sometimes manic McCain trying to knock Obama off his cool at a time when voters are telling pollsters that they want a calm and steady hand steering the nation out of its economic crisis. Obama was his usual reserved self, often smiling and shaking his head instead of counterpunching. He patiently, even indulgently, explained and defended his programs and his campaign.
New York Post (Kirsten Powers) "Bam Gets Job Done" Even when McCain was substantively on point, his body language and tone were a distraction. McCain's facial expressions were akin to Al Gore's sighs in the 2000 debates with George W. Bush. At times McCain was downright nasty, speaking in sarcastic and condescending tones. Toward the end of the debate when they discussed education, McCain spoke to Obama with something bordering on disgust. Considering polls show that voters already view the McCain campaign as overly negative, this behavior couldn't have won over many people.
Boston Globe (Editorial) "Scattershot McCain" John McCain's fiery performance in the final presidential debate last night may have given a lift to some despondent supporters who have watched the election getting away from them. But it is less clear that McCain's buckshot approach hit its target…The stock market is in freefall. Basic needs are more expensive than ever. The very planet is in peril. These are serious concerns that face America's future. Yet, in a debate that McCain needed to win, he seemed fixated on some deluded throwback from the Vietnam era.
Los Angeles Times (Editorial) "McCain's debatable strategy" Throughout, Obama adopted a look of incredulity, but even his reserve was cracked by McCain's pivot out of the politics of personal attack. Immediately after demanding that Obama provide a full accounting of his relationships with ACORN and Ayers, McCain asserted: "My campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America." That disjointed segue was too much for Obama, who laughed.
Boston Globe (Scot Lehigh) "It's not even close": John McCain came into the final presidential debate needing a game-changer, a Ronald Reagan moment, a Jerry Ford-like blunder by Barack Obama, something - anything - that would reverse the strengthening tide now running hard against him. He didn't get it. Not even close.
Boston Globe (Joan Vennochi) "That's it for McCain": Its Over. John McCain still hasn't told the country why he should be president. He has talking points. He is against taxes, earmarks, and pork. But he can't knit what he opposes into a coherent economic philosophy that would inspire voters to get behind him in the final days of this presidential campaign. He has an inspirational life story. But in this campaign, he never connected his biography to his presidential ambition, and he never told voters how it would shape a McCain administration and make him a better president than his opponent.
New York Daily News (Thomas M. DeFrank) "Feisty John McCain works hard, can't score" It was John McCain's last big chance to tame the massive headwinds buffeting his fading campaign…Barack Obama came into the Hofstra debate handily ahead. Nothing Wednesday night altered that stark reality for McCain and his dispirited partisans.
New York Post (Carl Campanile) "Barack Rocks With Post Panel" The results are in and the winner is . . . Barack Obama… McCain's decision to attack Obama for his associations with 1960s Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and the group ACORN backfired with The Post's panel of voters. Upper West resident Anne Maxfield said, "Ayers was a terrorist 40 years ago. We have serious economic problems in this country."
Los Angeles Times (Cathleen Decker) John McCain came into the third and final presidential debate needing to somehow wrestle the campaign out of Barack Obama's arms. He did not do it. There was no single moment that was likely to reverberate in the minds of American voters and change the course of an election that has moved dramatically toward Obama in the last several weeks. But the 90-minute debate was a perfect distillation of McCain's general election campaign, with all of its inconsistent messages.
TIME (David Von Drehle) "McCain Threw the Sink — and Plumber — But Obama Doesn't Falter" The problem for McCain is that no matter how hard or how crisply he punched, it could not last. In the end, the gravity of the debate returned to Barack Obama. The turning point was when McCain finally brought up the issue of Obama's ties to former the anti-Vietnam War terrorist William Ayers. All he accomplished was to swing the spotlight from himself back to the engaging newcomer. Predictably, Obama had a mild answer ready-as straightforward and uncontroversial as it was soothing… Mostly he tried to say that Obama-change is dangerous. Across the table, there sat Obama, looking not very dangerous.
Washington Post (Dana Milbank) Schieffer moved on to another question -- and Ayers and ACORN, after a five-minute cameo, were gone. In those five minutes, the Republican nominee became the man America had seen in his ads, whose slashing personal attacks on his opponent's character have, by most measures, done him more harm than good. Perhaps mindful of that, or perhaps set back by Obama's mild responses to his attacks, McCain, though delivering sharper jabs than he had in the earlier debates, was unwilling, or unable, to mount a sustained effort to undermine Obama's personal standing.
New York Times (Patrick Healy) "Pressing All the Buttons, McCain Attacks, but Obama Stays Steady": But then Mr. McCain began to undercut his own effort to paint Mr. Obama as just another negative politician. Mr. McCain grew angry as he attacked Mr. Obama over his ties to William Ayers, the Chicago professor who helped found the Weather Underground terrorism group. Suddenly, Mr. McCain was no longer gaining ground by showing command on the top issue for voters, the economy; he was turning tetchy over a 1960s radical…It seemed as if Mr. McCain was veering from one hot button to another, pressing them all, hoping to goad Mr. Obama into an outburst or a mistake that would alter the shape of the race in its last three weeks.
Newsweek (Richard Wolffe) "Mad Man" McCain didn't just need a game-changing moment at the debate; the Arizona senator, known in Washington for his sharp temper, needed a character-changing moment… Whatever happens in the next two weeks, the McCain campaign should be happy there are no more presidential debates.
Boston Globe (Todd Domke) "Good, but not good enough": John McCain needed to turn this third debate into a second chance. He needed to persuade undecided voters to look at him in a new, positive way and to look at Barack Obama in a new, negative way. He needed to change the dynamic of the contest because, ever since the economic crisis struck, Obama has had the advantages in message, momentum, money, and media…But it wasn't the dramatic breakthrough he needed, so, in effect, he lost.
The Hill (Sam Youngman) "Debate sees an aggressive McCain and a cool Obama:" With less than three weeks before Election Day, Sen. McCain (Ariz.) had promised to go after Obama more forcefully in their last meeting, and he did just that, accusing the Illinois senator of lying, wanting to raise taxes and associating with unscrupulous people and organizations. The Democrat, however, knowing that McCain needed a knockout blow, seemed to take McCain's best punches, explaining himself when warranted and focusing on the ongoing financial crisis and domestic policy at other times.
Politico (John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei) "Debate III: Edgy McCain sheds no new light": John McCain's challenge at the final debate was to present his case for the presidency in a new light. But over 90 minutes of intense exchanges with Barack Obama—sometimes compelling, often awkward—-there was very little new light, and no obvious reason for McCain to be optimistic that he has turned his troubled campaign in a new direction. To the contrary, what McCain offered at Hofstra University was simply a more intense, more glaring version of his campaign in familiar light —- an edgy, even angry performance that in many ways seemed like a metaphor for his unfocused, wildly improvisational campaign.
Politico (Roger Simon) "McCain fails, Obama is not rattled" John McCain needed a miracle in his final debate with Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a miracle that would wipe away McCain's deficit in the polls and re-energize his flagging campaign. He did not get one.
are you suggesting that we started as apes and returned to apes?
your racism sickens me.
Originally Posted By: rex
Does that mean we're all gonna turn into niggers?
Nice.
I expected this now that the whole Ayers thing was defused by Obama last night. What do you guys have left but the obvious reason. No one but the stupid are still buying the Muslim crap or care about his middle name or his pastor. al you have left is the desperate hope that there are enough racists out there to help McCian defeat Rex's "the nigger".
First there was the $440,000 American Insurance Group Inc. spent entertaining executives days after receiving an $85 billion lifeline from the Federal Reserve, now it's $86,000 for a hunting trip in England as the faltering company reaped another $37.8 billion in taxpayer funded loans.
News of the hunting trip emerged Wednesday as New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo ordered AIG to do away with golden parachutes for executives, golf outings and parties while taking government money to stay afloat.
"Even after the taxpayer-funded bailout of AIG, the company paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for luxurious retreats for its executives, including an overseas hunting party and a golf outing," Cuomo wrote in a letter to the New York-based insurer.
He said the spending could be "fraudulent conveyances" under a state law regarding debtors and creditors and noted that beyond those excesses millions were paid to executives who were running AIG as it faced dissolution with government help.
Cuomo said he has the power under state business law to review and possibly rescind any inappropriate AIG spending as long as the Federal Reserve is propping up the huge insurer with almost $123 billion in loans announced since Sept. 16.
Company officials said the hunting trip in the English countryside was an annual event for customers that had been planned months before the bailout. The company pledged — as it did following the September trip — to do everything possible to end such extravagances. They declined to say which AIG executives attended.
"This was an annual event for customers of the AIG property casualty insurance companies in the U.K. and Europe, and planned months before the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's loan to AIG," company spokesman Peter Tulupman said Wednesday morning.
In a prepared statement later in the day, the company said, "We will continue to take all measures necessary to ensure that these activities cease immediately. AIG's priority is to continue focusing on actions necessary to repay the Federal Reserve loan and emerge as a vital, ongoing business."
The company said last week it would stop "all nonessential conferences, meetings and activities that do not clearly maximize value and service given the current conditions."
Last month, and just days after the U.S. government stepped in to save AIG with the $85 billion taxpayer-funded loan, the company picked up a $440,000 tab for a weeklong retreat at the posh St. Regis Resort in California for top-performing insurance agents.
Lawmakers investigating AIG's meltdown said they were enraged that executives of AIG's main U.S. life insurance subsidiary spent a lavish amount on the retreat, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings. Last week, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino called the event "despicable."
At that time, AIG issued a statement saying that the "business event" was planned months before the Sept. 16 bailout and that it was held for top-producing independent life insurance agents, not AIG employees. Of the 100 attendees, only 10 worked for the AIG unit hosting the event, it said.
The insurer said Chief Executive Edward Liddy sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson "clarifying the circumstances" of the event. In the letter, Liddy assured Paulson that AIG is "reevaluating the costs of all aspects of our operations in light of the new circumstances in which we are all operating."
The insurer then said it canceled a future California retreat that was to be held later this month.
Regarding the recent hunting trip, "We regret that this event was not canceled," Tulupman said Wednesday
This is exactly why McCain's plan for buying troubled loans from homeowners should have been the route taken. You give these lenders the money and they'll blow it on themselves. Obama and Bush bowed to the lobbyists and forked over the dough to AIG's instead of the Mom and Pops.
FL – St. Petersburg Times (Editorial) "McCain's last offensive:" On the same day a new poll showed that voters' confidence in the federal government has reached an all-time low, Obama spoke with a reassuring confidence…But when the questioning turned to campaign attacks by both sides, McCain could not contain his anger and lost much of his momentum. He again floated some dark connection between Obama and 1960s-era antigovernment radical Bill Ayers. When that punch failed to ruffle Obama, McCain ramped up his intensity. The split television screen displayed a candidate who gradually appeared more frustrated, condescending and dismissive of one who would not take the bait. Those facial expressions will not play well in the coming days.
WI – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Editorial) "The attack debate:" John McCain went into the final presidential debate on Wednesday looking for a game-changer, the need to reverse plummeting fortunes as measured by polls and likely fueled by national economic difficulties that do not favor members of the party now possessing the White House. Time - and an election - will tell, but our guess is that McCain missed the mark if that was his goal.
MO – Kansas City Star (Editorial) "Attacks can't shake Obama in debate:" Over the three presidential debates, Democrat Barack Obama has largely answered doubts about his readiness to be president of the United States. His unflappable temperament, thoughtful demeanor and rhetorical abilities were impressive. Republican John McCain's performances were more uneven, becoming increasingly aggressive.
MI - Detroit Free Press (Stephen Henderson) "Striving to get back in the game, McCain looks more desperate": It was probably unrealistic for anyone to believe that Republican presidential candidate John McCain could right the sinking ship of his campaign with a debate performance, but Wednesday night's encounter with Democrat Barack Obama only seemed to reinforce the idea that McCain is badly behind, and desperate. Here was McCain, answering a question about the negative tone of his campaign — and the very frightening tenor of recent rallies for McCain — by talking about the negativity of Obama's campaign, saying Obama's failure to agree to more than 10 town hall meetings was the reason things turned so negative. But overall, it was hard not to think of this campaign as largely over while watching the debate. Of course, anything can happen in the next few weeks, and history says the race will almost certainly tighten. John McCain, though, looked like a guy about to lose and fully aware of the desperation of his circumstances.
Des Moines Register (David Yepsen) "Obama Bests McCain In Final Debate" John McCain lost the final debate of the 2008 presidential campaign Wednesday night…McCain simply needed a breakout performance and he failed to provide one. He went into the forum trailing Obama in polls of the contest and he came out of in the same position. By doing so, McCain missed his biggest remaining opportunity to change the direction of the presidential contest.
MN – Duluth News Tribune (Staff Written) "Local and national online polls give nod to Obama:" News Tribune readers who answered an unscientific online poll Wednesday said Sen. Barack Obama won the third and final presidential debate over Sen. John McCain. Of 112 readers who voted between 9:30 and 11 p.m., 59 percent said Obama won while 41 percent said McCain won. [According to one reader] "I felt that the cool, calm, collected nature of Barack Obama was welcomed and needed in these already stressful and uncertain times of crisis. To me the long-standing reputation of John McCain as a maverick and a reformer was overpowered by his cynicism, sarcasm and smugness." [said] Adam White of Duluth.
OH – Columbus Dispatch (Darrel Rowland) "Undecided's dial it up for Obama:" Fifty women gathered in a Columbus hotel's conference room and got to do what millions of Americans probably wanted to do last night: Tell the presidential candidates exactly what they thought of them….This group of undecided voters' opinions were recorded every second of the 90-minute debate. The result? A major win for Democrat Barack Obama. Seventy-one percent of these undecided voters thought Obama did better in addressing the issues important to them, while only 9 percent felt that way about Republican John McCain. The group slightly favored Obama coming into the debate, but afterward he won support by about a 2-to-1 ratio.
PA – The Philadelphia Inquirer (Larry Eichel) "Some jabs, but there was no knockout:" Republican John McCain, desperately trying to launch a comeback with less than three weeks to go, was on the offensive all night, intense and focused. But Democrat Barack Obama had the same calm and steady presence he'd shown in their two previous encounters, answering some of McCain's attacks and shrugging off others, saying that the voters want to hear about their own problems instead. When it was all over, even though the debate was somewhat more contentious than the previous two, the likelihood was that nothing much had changed in the shape of the campaign. The first round of post-debate polls had Obama the overwhelming winner, as was the case in the previous two.
PA – Philadelphia Daily News (John Baer) It was an often angry, sometimes manic McCain trying to knock Obama off his cool at a time when voters are telling pollsters that they want a calm and steady hand steering the nation out of its economic crisis. Obama was his usual reserved self, often smiling and shaking his head instead of counterpunching. He patiently, even indulgently, explained and defended his programs and his campaign.
New York Post (Kirsten Powers) "Bam Gets Job Done" Even when McCain was substantively on point, his body language and tone were a distraction. McCain's facial expressions were akin to Al Gore's sighs in the 2000 debates with George W. Bush. At times McCain was downright nasty, speaking in sarcastic and condescending tones. Toward the end of the debate when they discussed education, McCain spoke to Obama with something bordering on disgust. Considering polls show that voters already view the McCain campaign as overly negative, this behavior couldn't have won over many people.
Boston Globe (Editorial) "Scattershot McCain" John McCain's fiery performance in the final presidential debate last night may have given a lift to some despondent supporters who have watched the election getting away from them. But it is less clear that McCain's buckshot approach hit its target…The stock market is in freefall. Basic needs are more expensive than ever. The very planet is in peril. These are serious concerns that face America's future. Yet, in a debate that McCain needed to win, he seemed fixated on some deluded throwback from the Vietnam era.
Los Angeles Times (Editorial) "McCain's debatable strategy" Throughout, Obama adopted a look of incredulity, but even his reserve was cracked by McCain's pivot out of the politics of personal attack. Immediately after demanding that Obama provide a full accounting of his relationships with ACORN and Ayers, McCain asserted: "My campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America." That disjointed segue was too much for Obama, who laughed.
Boston Globe (Scot Lehigh) "It's not even close": John McCain came into the final presidential debate needing a game-changer, a Ronald Reagan moment, a Jerry Ford-like blunder by Barack Obama, something - anything - that would reverse the strengthening tide now running hard against him. He didn't get it. Not even close.
Boston Globe (Joan Vennochi) "That's it for McCain": Its Over. John McCain still hasn't told the country why he should be president. He has talking points. He is against taxes, earmarks, and pork. But he can't knit what he opposes into a coherent economic philosophy that would inspire voters to get behind him in the final days of this presidential campaign. He has an inspirational life story. But in this campaign, he never connected his biography to his presidential ambition, and he never told voters how it would shape a McCain administration and make him a better president than his opponent.
New York Daily News (Thomas M. DeFrank) "Feisty John McCain works hard, can't score" It was John McCain's last big chance to tame the massive headwinds buffeting his fading campaign…Barack Obama came into the Hofstra debate handily ahead. Nothing Wednesday night altered that stark reality for McCain and his dispirited partisans.
New York Post (Carl Campanile) "Barack Rocks With Post Panel" The results are in and the winner is . . . Barack Obama… McCain's decision to attack Obama for his associations with 1960s Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and the group ACORN backfired with The Post's panel of voters. Upper West resident Anne Maxfield said, "Ayers was a terrorist 40 years ago. We have serious economic problems in this country."
Los Angeles Times (Cathleen Decker) John McCain came into the third and final presidential debate needing to somehow wrestle the campaign out of Barack Obama's arms. He did not do it. There was no single moment that was likely to reverberate in the minds of American voters and change the course of an election that has moved dramatically toward Obama in the last several weeks. But the 90-minute debate was a perfect distillation of McCain's general election campaign, with all of its inconsistent messages.
TIME (David Von Drehle) "McCain Threw the Sink — and Plumber — But Obama Doesn't Falter" The problem for McCain is that no matter how hard or how crisply he punched, it could not last. In the end, the gravity of the debate returned to Barack Obama. The turning point was when McCain finally brought up the issue of Obama's ties to former the anti-Vietnam War terrorist William Ayers. All he accomplished was to swing the spotlight from himself back to the engaging newcomer. Predictably, Obama had a mild answer ready-as straightforward and uncontroversial as it was soothing… Mostly he tried to say that Obama-change is dangerous. Across the table, there sat Obama, looking not very dangerous.
Washington Post (Dana Milbank) Schieffer moved on to another question -- and Ayers and ACORN, after a five-minute cameo, were gone. In those five minutes, the Republican nominee became the man America had seen in his ads, whose slashing personal attacks on his opponent's character have, by most measures, done him more harm than good. Perhaps mindful of that, or perhaps set back by Obama's mild responses to his attacks, McCain, though delivering sharper jabs than he had in the earlier debates, was unwilling, or unable, to mount a sustained effort to undermine Obama's personal standing.
New York Times (Patrick Healy) "Pressing All the Buttons, McCain Attacks, but Obama Stays Steady": But then Mr. McCain began to undercut his own effort to paint Mr. Obama as just another negative politician. Mr. McCain grew angry as he attacked Mr. Obama over his ties to William Ayers, the Chicago professor who helped found the Weather Underground terrorism group. Suddenly, Mr. McCain was no longer gaining ground by showing command on the top issue for voters, the economy; he was turning tetchy over a 1960s radical…It seemed as if Mr. McCain was veering from one hot button to another, pressing them all, hoping to goad Mr. Obama into an outburst or a mistake that would alter the shape of the race in its last three weeks.
Newsweek (Richard Wolffe) "Mad Man" McCain didn't just need a game-changing moment at the debate; the Arizona senator, known in Washington for his sharp temper, needed a character-changing moment… Whatever happens in the next two weeks, the McCain campaign should be happy there are no more presidential debates.
Boston Globe (Todd Domke) "Good, but not good enough": John McCain needed to turn this third debate into a second chance. He needed to persuade undecided voters to look at him in a new, positive way and to look at Barack Obama in a new, negative way. He needed to change the dynamic of the contest because, ever since the economic crisis struck, Obama has had the advantages in message, momentum, money, and media…But it wasn't the dramatic breakthrough he needed, so, in effect, he lost.
The Hill (Sam Youngman) "Debate sees an aggressive McCain and a cool Obama:" With less than three weeks before Election Day, Sen. McCain (Ariz.) had promised to go after Obama more forcefully in their last meeting, and he did just that, accusing the Illinois senator of lying, wanting to raise taxes and associating with unscrupulous people and organizations. The Democrat, however, knowing that McCain needed a knockout blow, seemed to take McCain's best punches, explaining himself when warranted and focusing on the ongoing financial crisis and domestic policy at other times.
Politico (John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei) "Debate III: Edgy McCain sheds no new light": John McCain's challenge at the final debate was to present his case for the presidency in a new light. But over 90 minutes of intense exchanges with Barack Obama—sometimes compelling, often awkward—-there was very little new light, and no obvious reason for McCain to be optimistic that he has turned his troubled campaign in a new direction. To the contrary, what McCain offered at Hofstra University was simply a more intense, more glaring version of his campaign in familiar light —- an edgy, even angry performance that in many ways seemed like a metaphor for his unfocused, wildly improvisational campaign.
Politico (Roger Simon) "McCain fails, Obama is not rattled" John McCain needed a miracle in his final debate with Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a miracle that would wipe away McCain's deficit in the polls and re-energize his flagging campaign. He did not get one.
are you saying black people are fucking monkeys!!!!!!!!
britneyspearsatemyshorts annoyed Moderator Co-owner of the RKMBs, & Patriot 15000+ posts Fri Oct 17 2008 02:20 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: McCain in 08?
He now has hired a racist who told voters McCain's daughter was a "black baby" in 2000. Interesting that McCain is interested in the skills of a slime merchant who peddles racism. Now that's hate you can believe in. From ABC's Jake Tapper:
Quote:
ABC News has learned that Warren Tompkins, one of the strategists of then-Gov. George W. Bush's South Carolina campaign in 2000 -- which Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blamed for his family being slimed -- is now a part of the McCain-Palin campaign team, albeit in an "unofficial" role.
Tompkins, a protégé of Lee Atwater, has been dispatched to North Carolina to assess the state for the McCain-Palin campaign, Southern GOP strategists tell ABC News.....
The news of Tompkins being brought on board the McCain campaign brings to a total of three the number of GOP operatives McCain now is using despite the fact that he once held them responsible for the ugly campaign that contributed to his South Carolina primary defeat, a campaign in which McCain's wife Cindy was attacked for her past addiction to painkillers, and the McCains' adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was targeted as his illegitimate black baby....
Eight years ago, of course, McCain was much chattier on the subject of these types of calls.
"A lot of phone calls were made by people who said we should be very ashamed about her, about the color of her skin," McCain told one interviewer. "Thousands and thousands of calls from people to voters saying 'You know the McCains have a black baby.' I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."
Now the people who slimed McCain's own daughter have a special place in John McCain's campaign. Way to defend your kid.
It's beyond clear that desperate McCain is now willing to go anywhere, do anything to achieve his own selfish personal ambitions. Hopefully Obama will hit him hard on his latest debasement of himself at the expense of his own family.
Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
It's funny watching someone get hit with their own boomerang.
But seriously, this is something I've been saying for a while now. Osama Bin laden doesn't specialize in terrorism, he specializes in bankrupting superpowers. And Bush/McCain are the type of imbeciles who think strutting macho-like all over the middle east and refusing to leave until there is some vague "victory" (that even Patraus said is the wrong way to look and define it), makes sense even when one of our own past operatives (bin Laden) used the same stubbornness against the Soviets to great success.
Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
It's funny watching someone get hit with their own boomerang.
But seriously, this is something I've been saying for a while now. Osama Bin laden doesn't specialize in terrorism, he specializes in bankrupting superpowers. And Bush/McCain are the type of imbeciles who think strutting macho-like all over the middle east and refusing to leave until there is some vague "victory" (that even Patraus said is the wrong way to look and define it), makes sense even when one of our own past operatives (bin Laden) used the same stubbornness against the Soviets to great success.
whomod content User some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts 10/22/08 01:31 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Al-Qaeda endorses McCain !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
It's funny watching someone get hit with their own boomerang.
But seriously, this is something I've been saying for a while now. Osama Bin laden doesn't specialize in terrorism, he specializes in bankrupting superpowers. And Bush/McCain are the type of imbeciles who think strutting macho-like all over the middle east and refusing to leave until there is some vague "victory" (that even Patraus said is the wrong way to look and define it), makes sense even when one of our own past operatives (bin Laden) used the same stubbornness against the Soviets to great success.
but ain't it funny....
Well, now it makes sense...
figures Osama would back McCain since McCain has said that he'd let Osama go free... if he's in Pakistan.
Wow. Probably the biggest gaffe McCain has ever made, saying that he'd refuse to catch Osama bin Laden if he had him in his sights. Specifically, McCain and Palin have said that if they knew where bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government refused to go in and get him for us, McCain and Palin would let bin Laden go free rather than going in and getting him ourselves.
Let me repeat: McCain and Palin would refuse to grab Osama bin Laden if he were in their sights because it would offend Pakistan, a sovereign nation. (Talk about being beholden to the UN crowd!)
Barack Obama has said that he would grab bin Laden. This infuriated McCain and Palin (though Palin, to be fair, agreed with Obama, twice, a month ago - she's just catching up on her bin Laden lessons at McCain University). McCain is all worried about hurting Pakistan's feelings, or something. It's really quite astounding, McCain would let a mass murdering terrorist go free. Good luck justifying that one to the American people.
I can't understand why the Obama people haven't jumped on this more strongly (sic Biden on it). I can see Obama or Biden now, saying something like this:
Quote:
My opponent and I have a fundamental disagreement. If I had Osama bin Laden in my sights, I would grab him. John McCain and Sarah Palin have said, vehemently, that they would let Osama bin Laden go free. We just fundamentally disagree on this point. John McCain and Sarah Palin are more worried about hurting a foreign government's feelings than catching the man who mass-murdered nearly 3,000 Americans. When McCain and Palin told us they were putting country first, we should have asked them which country. Talk about erratic.
The media needs to ask McCain and Palin, point blank, would you or would you not let Osama bin Laden go if you had him in your sights? Don't let them worm out of it - they've said quite clearly that they would let him go if the Pakistanis said "no." Ask them again and make them defend this horrendous admission.
Seems to me McCain is a bit soft on terror there, eh Rex?
Many Americans consider the Nov. 4 presidential election to be by far the most important one of our lifetime, a historic turning point for our nation.
We are divided over our involvement in wars overseas, shaken by the collapse of financial institutions and the weakened economy, uncertain about our families' future well-being, and seemingly more polarized on partisan, cultural and regional lines than ever.
This is a time for a president with deep experience and proven character, a president who thrives in the great, good, honest middle ground in which most Americans live, a president forthright enough to tell us what we'd rather not hear, a president with the courage to follow his convictions and the grit to persevere.
This is Sen. John McCain's time.
We endorse the Arizona Republican for president.
McCain offers up his compelling biography as a war hero, his admirable candor and his centrist independence in an increasingly polarized political environment. A McCain administration would chart a wiser course on the economy than one led by his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. McCain's campaign has recently found a sharp focus on economic and tax issues, allowing voters to draw clear distinctions with policies Obama would pursue.
And as president, McCain would fill the need for some semblance of partisan balance in Washington, keeping what promises to be a more heavily Democratic Congress from running roughshod on business policy, unions, free trade, health care and more.
This endorsement comes with an acknowledgement - a celebration, really - of the historic nature of this campaign. Obama, the first African-American presidential nominee for a major party, stands poised as the front-runner to help America take a step thought unimaginable in previous decades.
Since bursting upon the national scene four years ago, the Illinois Democrat has become a formidable figure, employing his personal brilliance, political savvy and persuasive powers. We believe his candidacy has had a positive effect on how we are perceived abroad - and how we perceive ourselves. Because of Obama, American society is changed forever, and for the better.
But on a range of policies, McCain stands far closer to positions The Enquirer has taken over the years. With his experience and reputation as a skilled legislator, he'd be more effective than Obama - most of whose brief Senate career has been spent running for president - in working with Congress to craft sound bipartisan legislation.
Moreover, he has more consistently taken strong positions, and had the courage to stick with them, than Obama, who has tended to waffle, equivocate or simply wait to see which way the wind was blowing. When Russia invaded the republic of Georgia recently, for example, McCain issued a strong, well-reasoned policy statement with a tone of reassuring authority. Obama said nothing substantive, then later issued a belated "me too."
And let's not forget McCain's early, consistent support for the troop surge in Iraq when that plan was highly unpopular. His campaign for the GOP nomination seemed dead in the water, but McCain persevered and won his party's nod anyway. He was proven to be correct on the surge - a fact Obama has very grudgingly acknowledged.
Unlike Obama, McCain isn't a smooth, effective campaigner. But his record of leadership suggests he will be a far better president than candidate.
The recent dialogue between Obama and "Joe the Plumber," Ohio resident Joe Wurzelbacher, illustrated to voters Obama's focus on "spreading the wealth" through taxes rather than growing the nation's wealth by encouraging middle-class Americans to aspire upward, creating more businesses, jobs, income - and more tax revenue. "A strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably," Obama says. That's a zero-sum, central-control mentality.
That is a stark difference that McCain has seized upon. He would cut the nation's corporate tax rate, now the second highest in the world, to help keep jobs here. Obama would increase taxes on Americans making over $250,000, which includes small businesses that create most of the nation's new jobs, since 90 percent of small businesses file as individuals. Obama says only 2 percent of small businesses would be affected, but that 2 percent represents the largest such businesses, accounting for 56 percent of all small-business income and employing 16 million people.
Particularly disturbing is Obama's support for a pending bill, strongly advocated by labor, to institute a union check-card system that would allow the intimidation of employees and could, in effect, create a system of forced unionization. If Obama is elected, this will become law, to the detriment of our business climate and personal freedoms.
Obama's barely veiled attacks on free trade also are unsettling. And his plans to punish businesses that "take jobs overseas" may have a satisfying populist ring to many Americans, but the truth is that it would hurt the efforts of companies that produce substantial income overseas to sustain jobs here at home, such as Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble, where many local jobs are tied to sales abroad. Obama's policy actually could send more jobs overseas.
On energy, McCain has been out in front, supporting measures to combat global warming and promote alternative sources as part of an "all of the above" strategy that includes more drilling and nuclear energy. Obama offered token support for drilling only when it became clear most Americans favored it.
McCain took heat for suspending his campaign last month during the financial meltdown, but his high-stakes gambit helped focus the public's attention on the crisis - and Congress' handling of it. He called for a solution to address the housing market and help homeowners with their mortgages, which the Fed this past week finally started to do.
Obama's record lies to the left of most Americans, yet he is running as a centrist who can reconcile a range of viewpoints. But can we have confidence he will govern from the middle? Will he even need to, or be able to, with a Congress heavily controlled by Democrats, perhaps with a filibuster-proof Senate? He would be under great pressure to approve a long list of measures - the union card-check proposal, elimination of limits on lawsuits and more - that have so far been blocked by the Senate.
It is much easier to see John McCain standing up to a Nancy Pelosi or vetoing a bad bill than Obama. McCain would preserve divided government, which has consistently produced better results for the American people - and which we have long advocated on the state as well as federal level. The prospect of unchecked one-party rule is disquieting.
Obama has run on a theme of change, but ironically McCain could be a more effective change agent on issues such as health care. His plan is clearly more progressive than Obama's, with tax credits stimulating competition, encouraging consumer responsibility, and countering the traditional employer-provided coverage subsidies that are unfair to those who don't have such coverage. McCain's strategy is one that Obama's now-chief economic adviser, Jason Furman, advocated two years ago. Obama would continue the current path of incremental steps toward a completely government-controlled and -rationed care system.
While the campaign has focused mainly on the issues, it has brought Americans some ugly rhetoric from the extremes on both sides. Both candidates have ably risen above it. McCain has consistently rebuked those who would insinuate racial prejudice into the equation. Yet the nation remains sharply divided country on partisan, ideological, cultural and racial lines. We urge the winning candidate to invite the loser to help him advance the nation's agenda.
America needs an experienced, skilled hand in the White House, someone who can exercise a moderating influence, someone who can summon the courage to change and the consistency to stick with his convictions. That someone, we believe, is John McCain.
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
my father linked me to the article. and because he's smarter than me, i posted it here.
While I respect McCain's experience, economics isn't really his thing. Economic crises have toppled countries. This one will weaken us. Krauthammer would be voting republican reguardless of who the GOP put up. It could have been a pet rock & he would have had a smartly written column supporting that rock.
Economics isn't his thing? What economic legislation has Obama sponsored? What legislation that he sponsored worked? Don;t believe the $600 million in ads MEM.
Economics isn't his thing? What economic legislation has Obama sponsored? What legislation that he sponsored worked? Don;t believe the $600 million in ads MEM.
Obama's plan makes sense to me. It's more of a return the way the taxes were when Clinton was in office. If Bush's economic policies paid off like Clinton's I would have no problem voting for McCain. They didn't.
I hate to burst your bubble but we are in a different world than when Clinton was in office. Obama's tax plan(not economic plan as you refer to it), will not work because of the trillions in new spending he has proposed. Clinton actually restrained spending somewhat, so Obama is not proposing the same budget that Clinton did.
But back to the original discussion about economics, what economic legislation has Obama sponsored, and of those which have worked?
Yes we are certainly in a different world after 8 yrs of Bush Jr. & I heard the same cries of doom when Clinton ran. The second time around it rings a bit hollow.
The economy wasn't in bad shape when Clinton took over. Clinton didn't propose trillions in new spending. You may return to your Obama ads though if you like.
It had been in bad shape until Bush Sr. raised taxes. Really why should normal Americans listen to the same old angry rants that we've heard before whenever it looks like a democrat is going to win?
Yes we are certainly in a different world after 8 yrs of Bush Jr. & I heard the same cries of doom when Clinton ran. The second time around it rings a bit hollow.
If Obama was going to just roll back the taxes on the individuals we would survive....it would hurt the economy but we would survive. But Obama is going to go after small businesses and corporations like never beofre and cripple the economy and the world. He is nothing like Clinton.
Yes we are certainly in a different world after 8 yrs of Bush Jr. & I heard the same cries of doom when Clinton ran. The second time around it rings a bit hollow.
If Obama was going to just roll back the taxes on the individuals we would survive....it would hurt the economy but we would survive. But Obama is going to go after small businesses and corporations like never beofre and cripple the economy and the world. He is nothing like Clinton.
I think your wrong but reguardless we do know the republican style of economic policies don't work & all the things your scared of happening are already happening.
Yes we are certainly in a different world after 8 yrs of Bush Jr. & I heard the same cries of doom when Clinton ran. The second time around it rings a bit hollow.
If Obama was going to just roll back the taxes on the individuals we would survive....it would hurt the economy but we would survive. But Obama is going to go after small businesses and corporations like never beofre and cripple the economy and the world. He is nothing like Clinton.
I think your wrong but reguardless we do know the republican style of economic policies don't work & all the things your scared of happening are already happening.
BINGO!
It's kind of hard to predict doom and gloom if you change which party is in the White House when we already have doom and gloom with the party currently in the White House.
Same thing with "socialism". Kind of hard to make your case when your own President nationalized the banks and is redistributing public wealth in unprecedented amounts..
I don't find anything that is happening funny right now whomod. MEM and I sometimes do try to talk civily about issues and what we think. Please try it sometime. If Obama wins I will wish him all the luck in the world. I love my country and want the best for it.
I don't find anything that is happening funny right now whomod. MEM and I sometimes do try to talk civily about issues and what we think. Please try it sometime. If Obama wins I will wish him all the luck in the world. I love my country and want the best for it.
It's kind of hard to take the high road when most of the time you guys don't.
And you're right. there is nothing funny about the current situation, but that's Ok, hope is just around the corner. And that brings a growing amount of people, comfort and reassurance that things will start to change for the better soon.
Yes we are certainly in a different world after 8 yrs of Bush Jr. & I heard the same cries of doom when Clinton ran. The second time around it rings a bit hollow.
If Obama was going to just roll back the taxes on the individuals we would survive....it would hurt the economy but we would survive. But Obama is going to go after small businesses and corporations like never beofre and cripple the economy and the world. He is nothing like Clinton.
I think your wrong but reguardless we do know the republican style of economic policies don't work & all the things your scared of happening are already happening.
So please remember this.....You may save anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars with Obama's tax plan every year when his his checks are mailed in January. Just watch what your living expenses are too though if he does what he says he will to the corporation and small business owners like myself. I am a small business owner but he doesn't thinks so. We employ over 40 people full and part time. We will have to cut jobs and raise prices just to survive and I know I am not alone......so think of good old PJP when you are paying more for your groceries, gas, clothes and when you go out to eat.
I have no love for Corporate CEOs making hundreds of millions and I want something to be done about that too. The shareholders should be doing more to stop the ceos from getting big payouts if the company is doing shitty. I just think we need to meet in the middle.
I don't find anything that is happening funny right now whomod. MEM and I sometimes do try to talk civily about issues and what we think. Please try it sometime. If Obama wins I will wish him all the luck in the world. I love my country and want the best for it.
It's kind of hard to take the high road when most of the time you guys don't.
And you're right. there is nothing funny about the current situation, but that's Ok, hope is just around the corner. And that brings a growing amount of people, comfort and reassurance that things will start to change for the better soon.
It's why your pack of gum is still $1.29 as opposed to the $1.19 it used to cost last year even though the high oil prices that caused it to rise in price to begin with, have already gone down.
And that to me is just plain opportunism and greed. An that is happening NOW, not under Obama, NOW. So i think it's unfair to blame any Obama policies for high prices. Sometimes prices go up because they have to but they never seem to go back down because they can.
...So please remember this.....You may save anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars with Obama's tax plan every year when his his checks are mailed in January. Just watch what your living expenses are too though if he does what he says he will to the corporation and small business owners like myself. I am a small business owner but he doesn't thinks so. We employ over 40 people full and part time. We will have to cut jobs and raise prices just to survive and I know I am not alone......so think of good old PJP when you are paying more for your groceries, gas, clothes and when you go out to eat.
....
Believe it or not I'm also thinking of you. The next year or two is going to be crappy probably no who wins but I see Obama as the best chance of digging us all out. The boyfriend & I don't go out to eat like we used to in part because we're budgeting. That's a two income household with no kids. I can't imagine families with our incomes eating out more, that's bad for you.
Now one of John McCain's actual advisers has switched sides:
Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States. Since then, he has been prominently associated with several Republican leaders and candidates, most recently John McCain, for whom he expressed his enthusiastic support in January.
This week, Fried announced that he has voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to Trevor Potter, the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he asked that his name be removed from the several campaign-related committees on which he serves. In that letter, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision "is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."
Um... correct me if i'm wrong but when one of your own advisers votes for the other guy, that's not exactly a ringing vote of confidence. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks McCain is too old and finds the idea of a Palin presidency terrifying.
It's why your pack of gum is still $1.29 as opposed to the $1.19 it used to cost last year even though the high oil prices that caused it to rise in price to begin with, have already gone down.
And that to me is just plain opportunism and greed. An that is happening NOW, not under Obama, NOW. So i think it's unfair to blame any Obama policies for high prices. Sometimes prices go up because they have to but they never seem to go back down because they can.
I know that. Obama can not be blamed fo any of this. Fine. So wait a year and a half if he wins and we will have this conversation again. I hopw we can all say I'm wrong and the country will be doing great!
The gOP. Still in disarray. This is rom todays Washington post by Davi Frum who was a speech writer for George Bush and now works at the right wing American Enterprise Institute.
Quote:
After months and months of wan enthusiasm among Republicans, these last weeks have at last energized the core of the party. But there's a downside: The very same campaign strategy that has belatedly mobilized the Republican core has alienated and offended the great national middle, which was the only place where the 2008 election could have been won.
I could pile up the poll numbers here, but frankly . . . it's too depressing. You have to go back to the Watergate era to see numbers quite so horrible for the GOP.
McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them."
In the Senate, things look, if possible, even worse.
The themes and messages that are galvanizing the crowds for Palin are bleeding Sens. John Sununu in New Hampshire, Gordon Smith in Oregon, Norm Coleman in Minnesota and Susan Collins in Maine. The Palin approach might have been expected to work better in more traditionally conservative states such as Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia, but they have not worked well enough to compensate for the weak Republican economic message at a moment of global financial crisis. Result: the certain loss of John Warner's Senate seat in Virginia, the probable loss of Elizabeth Dole's in North Carolina, an unexpectedly tough fight for Saxby Chambliss's in Georgia -- and an apparent GOP surrender in Colorado, where it looks as if the National Republican Senatorial Committee has already pulled its ads from the air.
Yes, that's another forum here. You should branch out and try some of them. You might learn a thing or two.
Naw, I know you would like us to spend more time together but I think you bring enough of that forum here to the politics board that I don't even need to visit. Thanks for being interested in helping others learn
Here's McCain's top economic adviser giving some "straight talk" to CNNMoney.com:
Quote:
Younger, healthier workers likely wouldn't abandon their company-sponsored plans, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior economic policy adviser.
"Why would they leave?" said Holtz-Eakin. "What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit."
It's over guys...
The Obama campaign was quick to jump on this moment of candor from the McCain team:
The Obama campaign:
Quote:
“This morning, the McCain campaign’s top economic policy advisor unleashed an October Surprise of straight talk when he finally admitted that the health insurance people currently get from their employer is ‘way better’ than the health care they would get if John McCain becomes President. Independent studies have shown that under John McCain’s health care plan, at least 20 million Americans will lose the insurance they rely on and be forced to buy health care coverage on the individual market that costs more than $12,000 with a tax credit of just $5,000. Senator McCain has been trying to cover this up for months, but his advisor’s brutal honesty today is certainly better late than never, and it should give every American pause about electing a candidate who has proposed such radical and dangerous changes to our health care system,” said Obama-Biden Spokesman Bill Burton.
Obama is right, the question is not are you better off than you were 4 years ago. Everyone knows the answer to that. The question is will you be better off 4 years from now. Under McCain, you're fucked.
[...It's like when McCain swung from being centric to Rightwing-extreme...
What, exactly, has he done that's "Rightwing-extreme, Promod? Other than running against Obama, of course?
McCain gave the commencement address at Liberty University, making nice with "agent of intolerance" Jerry Falwell -- but also gave the exact same speech at the far-left New School for Social Research. That seems pretty moderate: reaching out to both the far left and far right and asking for tolerance from both.
But there was no major shift in either his policies or his rhetoric that accompanied his trip to Liberty. This is like saying that Obama turned into a right-wing Christianist by virtue of appearing at Rick Warren's Church, an argument no one would take seriously.
With less than a week till Election Day, any movement in the polls is big news. In the Real Clear Politics national poll average, Barack Obama's 8-point lead from Saturday has decreased to 5.9, due mostly to a gain in John McCain's average.
Three major polls have seen a significant squeeze in the past five days, causing this trend. Today, a Rasmussen poll put Obama at a 3-point lead. McCain has gained 3 points in their survey since Saturday and Obama has lost two, putting the race at the narrowest margin this poll has seen since late September.
This followed the drastic squeeze seen in the Reuters/Zogby/C-SPAN this weekend. After enjoying a 12-point lead in their poll last week, Obama's lead shrunk to around 5 points and held steady there for a few days.
The latest poll to close was Gallup. Their traditional likely voter turnout model has Obama up by three, after having a 7-point lead at one point last week. (Take note: Gallup has multiple voter models. Which one is right depends on who shows up to vote. The other models have Obama up by 7-points today.)
This report from NRO could be the first serious indicator of a backlash from Jewish Democrats against Barack Obama.
Within the last hour, the first exit poll of 817 Americans in Israel, who attended U.S. election voting events in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv on Tuesday evening to vote by absentee ballot, has been released.
A startling 76 percent of those polled said that they had voted for John McCain. This contrasts sharply with pre-election polls of American Jews in the U.S., which indicate a strong preference for Obama.
The exit poll findings of American voters in Israel are all the more surprising because less than one in four were registered Republicans, and 46% of registered Democrats living in Israel said they had crossed party lines to vote McCain. By contrast, the Republican crossover to Obama was minimal – just 2%.
The votes are significant as almost half of the 42,000 registered U.S. voters living in Israel come from key swing states including Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
In the 2000 and 2004 elections, Israel had the third-largest group of American voters abroad, after Canada and Britain.
The exit poll was commissioned by Votefromisrael.org, an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting voter registration and participation amongst American citizens living in Israel.
Interesting…these Jewish Americans voted just as the story about Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi was hitting the mainstream media outlets on Tuesday. I would expect that story to continue to fuel a backlash among Jews residing in the US, as Election Day next Tuesday approaches.
RICHMOND, Va. -- A Washington lobbyist sued The New York Times for $27 million Tuesday over an article that she says gave the false impression she had an affair with Sen. John McCain in 1999.
Vicki L. Iseman filed the defamation suit in U.S. District Court in Richmond. It also names as defendants the Times' executive editor, its Washington bureau chief and four reporters.
In February, as McCain was seeking the Republican presidential nomination, the Times reported that McCain aides once worried the relationship between Iseman and McCain had turned romantic.
The article said that both McCain and Iseman denied any romantic relationship, but the lawsuit says most readers would find that obligatory.
"That The New York Times would make such aggressive and sensational allegations and insinuations in the face of on-the-record denials by Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain only reinforced the message to readers that The New York Times in fact believed that Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain had indeed engaged in an `inappropriate relationship,' a relationship that was romantic, unethical, and a conflict of interest," the lawsuit says. "Otherwise, reasonable readers would conclude, The New York Times would never have printed the story at all."
Richmond lawyer W. Coleman Allen Jr., who represents Iseman, said she waited until after the presidential election to file the suit because she didn't want it to become a distraction.
The lawsuit claims that other media outlets were investigating McCain's ties with Iseman and that the Times was so concerned about being scooped that it printed a story "to pack the maximum sensational impact with the minimum factual support." The lawsuit contends she suffered an "avalanche of scorn, derision, and ridicule" that damaged her health.
The lawsuit cites accounts from other media, political pundits and the Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, that interpreted the article as meaning that McCain and Iseman had an affair.
"Ms. Iseman's relationship with Senator McCain was entirely professional, ethical, and appropriate," the lawsuit states, adding that it "was not different in kind from the cordial yet professional relationship that hundreds of lobbyists have with hundreds of members of Congress."
Vicki Iseman has settled her $27 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and several of its reporters.
Iseman, a Washington lobbyist, sued the Times over a story published last February during the presidential campaign season that she claimed inaccurately depicted her as having an affair with Republican candidate Sen. John McCain.
Iseman says, "I am pleased that The New York Times on behalf of its reporters, editors and company has issued a retraction and clarification."
Iseman’s statement continues, "The New York Times, its reporters and editors, should and must be held accountable when their investigations, reporting, and written words migrate from legitimate to illegitimate with the affect of destroying human beings based on innuendos, rumors and the reckless attributions of 'anonymous sources.'"
Iseman filed the lawsuit in December in federal court in Richmond, Va.
Right, I mean the protesters like the ones outside the Post that are mad they compared congress to the dead monkey. Shouldn't they be upset that the paper thinks all women sleep(fuck) their way through the business sector?
Right, I mean the protesters like the ones outside the Post that are mad they compared congress to the dead monkey. Shouldn't they be upset that the paper thinks all women sleep(fuck) their way through the business sector?
I don't believe the story ever said all woman sleep(fuck) their way through the business sector. Do you honestly feel it does that?
I wonder how Carlos Slim feels about his money going to pay her from the settlement. Probably won't be much longer until there is a full on Aussie-Mexican New York Newspaper War.
Right, I mean the protesters like the ones outside the Post that are mad they compared congress to the dead monkey. Shouldn't they be upset that the paper thinks all women sleep(fuck) their way through the business sector?
I don't believe the story ever said all woman sleep(fuck) their way through the business sector. Do you honestly feel it does that?
no i don't, but those idiots in front of the post think a cartoon about congress is a slur against all black people.
McCain's Democrat opponent sings a campaign song against McCain, "Sweet Home Arizona". Patterned after the melody of... gee, I don't know, what song could it possibly be?
This guy posted it separately because the free-speech-minded liberals who posted it were deleting any comments critical of it.
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
my father linked me to the article. and because he's smarter than me, i posted it here.
In the rare case of McCain’s hero image lasting longer than four hours, readers should seek immediate medical attention.
From McCain’s lackluster record at the Naval Academy to his self-important tenure as a United States Senator, John McCain has an eerie history of enlarging himself. Unfortunately, leadership is not about the size of one’s election. It’s about character, competence, and respect.
Like any poster child for the Democrats, former POW John McCain possesses the victim status necessary to insulate himself from factually transmitted criticisms – at least while he’s serving liberal purposes. However, most men are judged on how they conduct themselves throughout their entire lives, not on five ill-fated years in their pasts.
None of us know for sure what McCain experienced during his time as a POW. All we know is that he survived and came home while many other POWs did not. What was it about McCain that was different? Was it family heritage or was it his proclivity for compromising to get what he wants?
At the Academy, McCain rebelled and barely graduated. In The Nightingale’s Song (authored by fellow Naval Academy graduate Roger Timberg) McCain proves to be more of a playboy than a midshipman. Disobedience, demerits, and distraction mark McCain’s Academy days. Today, McCain continues to demonstrate that he lacks the self-discipline, tact, and integrity on which the Academy prides itself. The Academy’s honor code states clearly, “[Midshipmen] tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known.”
Just this week, McCain demonstrated the value he places on honor. He intentionally misrepresented Governor Romney’s position on the war. But such behavior is consistent with McCain’s conduct throughout his life. However, it contrasts sharply with the heroic portrayal of McCain’s time as a POW. How did a man with McCain’s inferior track record suddenly become a super-human leader of fellow POWs?
In fact, an article by investigative journalist Greg Szymanski depicts John McCain as no friend to POW families. While the article clearly has a Ron-Paul-like feel, Szymanski raises many questions about McCain’s classified POW files. McCain is now the Democrats’ darling Republican, but one must expect these questions will come to light should McCain become the GOP Presidential Candidate. Regardless, McCain should open his POW files in the interest of honesty, as well as to eliminate speculative controversy.
Nevertheless, Szymanski’s article seems more consistent with McCain’s track record than McCain’s own version of the story. According to the widow of POW and Navy pilot, Larry Van Renselaar, “I remember my husband saying, [McCain] was not well-liked [by other pilots] and thought of as a hot dog and a punk.” Does this sound consistent with what McCain’s “fellow” Republicans might think today?
Upon his heroic return to America, McCain’s repugnant propensity to look out for himself suddenly resurfaced. While he was a POW, McCain’s first wife, Carol Shepp, was involved in a horrible car accident. She was a former model, but the accident left her four inches shorter and on crutches. Though she suffered serious injuries, she refused to allow news of the accident to reach McCain in Vietnam, as she feared the news would only add to his suffering as a POW. Not long after his homecoming, however, McCain revealed his appreciation for her loyalty and faithfulness by engaging in extramarital affairs.
Six years later, McCain met Cindy Hensley. She was 25 and attractive. She was also the daughter of Jim Hensley, founder of the nation’s third largest Anheuser-Bush distributor. McCain divorced his wife and then married Hensley a month later. He followed her to Arizona where her millionaire father helped McCain begin his political career.
As a senator, McCain continues to conduct himself unfaithfully. He has betrayed his party time and again: McCain-Kennedy for amnesty of illegal immigrants (enough said); McCain-Feingold for campaign finance reform (suppressing free speech); McCain-Lieberman for energy tax (global warming); and McCain-Edwards for a Patient’s Bill of Rights (socialist medicine).
Is it any wonder McCain is a poster child for Democrats and EDS? Apparently, he has always needed a little artificial help to get the job done. He talks tough to compensate for his raspy little voice. But his tough “hawk” image mainly covers up his waning male virility.
Don’t be surprised if McCain joins real hero Bob Dole in Viagra commercials. Then again, McCain would probably jump to Cialis if Kennedy or Clinton would extend an invitation.
With his kind of loyalty, is it really all that ironic how hard McCain is on pharmaceutical companies?
...John McCain. Warts and all, I still think even McCain would have been a far better president than Barack Obama.
Though I think Romney was a better choice in 2012. And not even 12 months later, so do a majority of the American people polled.
that it was in fact McCain that actively courted Hagee's endorsement and not the other way around. Which is funny since I thought this news was old. Considering I think I mentioned it weeks ago.
I hope my lord and savior barack obama kills whitey soon, or I might have an aneurysm! 
