"McCain is old and bad with computers!"

Saying he's "bad with computers" is a gross understatement.

7/21/2008 5:18:34 PM

i dont see a downside to that

7/21/2008 5:21:49 PM

google "the keating five"

7/21/2008 5:22:43 PM

he was cleared of everything in a court of law

so

objection, irrelevant

7/21/2008 5:24:02 PM

he was rebuked for exercising "poor judgement" by the Senate ethics committee

and I will remind you that OJ was cleared in a court of law

7/21/2008 5:27:04 PM

OJ was cleared of murder too.

McCain is a one-trick pony. He has a strong military background, but outside of that, he would be grossly incompetent when it comes to other issues. He's lived as a millionaire for decades, he doesn't understand technology, and is mostly isolated from the life most Americans live. Obama on the other hand knows what "conditions on the ground" of America are like, and would more aptly be able to represent us.

7/21/2008 5:28:42 PM

^ Listen to these real issues!!!

"John Kerry John McCain is an aging flipflopper that lives off his wife's money and only got to where he was on his military resume"

The Democrats are the new Republicans. Get used to it.

7/21/2008 5:33:19 PM

He never said he was talking issues socks. Stop with the semantics.

He was talking competencies and qualities of the candidates....and why shouldn't he be?

7/21/2008 5:44:12 PM

^^^ You are right about both Kerry and McCain. I was a Dean supporter back then.

7/21/2008 5:50:40 PM

Kainen, since when was whether a candidate has a middle class background or not considered a "competency"?

If I am looking for someone that lived a life similar to myself, a Hawaiian globe trotter that made good in the Ivy Leauges doesn't really hit a chord with me. But I forgot! He's "young" so I should probably have shared experiences with him and that makes him the better candidate...I guess.

Here is a competency I want in a President:

The ability to lead on issues that pose pose political risks -- IOW: the willingness to do what one thinks is right, even if it may cost a few votes.

McCain has demonstrated this ability countless times. Most recently, he was a leading voice on the surge. If it went poorly, it would have certainly cost him any chance at the Presidency. And many people did think it would go badly--including Barack Obama who thought it would actually increase the level of violence in Iraq. McCain stuck to his guns and now violence indicators are down 40-80% of pre-surge levels.

Obama is far more lacking in this capacity than any other. And no, Obama's position on Iraq doesn't count. As I have argued in countless other threads, Obama's position on Iraq has shifted depending on who he's trying to persuade. His largely liberal base in 2002 (when he said going to war was a bad idea), the more conservative group of IL voters in 2004 (when he said he wasn't sure how he would have voted on going to war and that his current position was not much different from George W Bush), and now increasingly liberal Democrats in 2008 (that we should begin immediate withdrawal).

No, if you want a man that will stand up for what is right. You have to vote John McCain. And I think that's more important than being able to use Google.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 6:09 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 6:08:07 PM

Quote :

"Here is a competency I want in a President: The ability to lead on issues that pose pose political risks -- IOW: the willingness to do what one thinks is right, even if it may cost a few votes. "

Torture

BEFORE
McCain 11/16/07: "One of the things that kept us going when I was in prison in North Vietnam was that we knew that if the situation were reversed, that we would not be doing to our captors what they were doing to us"

"I want to tell you. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney all think it is O.K. They have one thing in common. They don’t understand the military and the culture of this nation. If they did, they could never condone such behavior." [NY Times]

AFTER
McCain votes against a ban on CIA torture. [NY Times]


Special Interests

BEFORE
McCain: "I'm the only one special interests don't give any money to." [YouTube]

AFTER
McCain's campaign manager and many key campaign officials are telecom lobbyists, who have given at least $765,000 to his campaign (and that's just one special interest) [USA Today]

Campaign Finance Laws

BEFORE
McCain author of McCain Feingold amendment, limiting use of soft money in campaigns. [Wikipedia]

AFTER
3/21/08: McCain likely in violation of campaign finance laws. [WashPost]

Jerry Falwell

BEFORE
McCain 2/28/2000: "I am a pro-life, pro-family fiscal conservative, an advocate of a strong defense, and yet Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. They distort my pro- life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters. Why? Because I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message."

McCain 2/29/2000: calls Robertson and Falwell "agents of intolerance." [IHT]

AFTER
McCain gives commencement speech at Falwell's Liberty University, cozies up to Falwell. [ABC]

Iraq

BEFORE
McCain 9/29/02: “We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.”

McCain 1/22/03: “But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [ThinkProgress]

AFTER
McCain: 1/4/07: "When I voted to support this war, I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough, and those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I’m sorry they were mistaken. Maybe they didn’t know what they were voting for." [ThinkProgress]

Abortion

BEFORE
McCain 8/24/99: "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." [WashPost]

AFTER
McCain 2/18/07: "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned" [MSNBC]

Bush's tax cuts

BEFORE
McCain 5/26/01: "I cannot 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." [McCain's Senate website]

AFTER
In 2006 McCain votes to extend Bush tax cuts [MediaMatters]

Ethanol [hat tip Carpetbagger]

BEFORE
McCain 11/03: "Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn't create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it. Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business - tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality." [CNN]

AFTER
McCain 8/06: "I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects." [CNN]


Confederate Flag [hat tip The Real McCain]

BEFORE
McCain 1/12/00: "Personally, I see the flag as symbol of heritage."

AFTER
McCain 4/19/00: "I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary. So I chose to compromise my principles." [CNN]

Gun control

BEFORE
In 2001, McCain and Lieberman introduce legislation to regulate gun shows. [HuffPo]

AFTER
McCain 4/19/07: "I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved, which means no gun control" [WashPost]

Moqtada al Sadr [hat tip Think Progress]

BEFORE
McCain week of 3/16/08: "His influence has been on the wane for a long time." [CNN via Think Progress]

AFTER
4/1/08: "I said he was still major player and his influence is going to have to be reduced and gradually eliminated." [CNN via Think Progress]

Housing Relief

BEFORE
March 2008: "It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." [NY Times]

AFTER
4/11/08: "Let me make it clear, that in these challenging times, I am committed to using all the resources of this government and great nation to create opportunity and make sure that every deserving American has a good job and can achieve their American dream." [NY Times

The Press and Hillary

BEFORE
"The media often overlooked how compassionately [Hillary Clinton] spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans.”

AFTER
“I did not [say that]."

The Estate Tax

BEFORE
"I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death."

AFTER
"Another of my disagreements with Senator Obama concerns the estate tax, which he proposes to increase to a top rate of 55 percent. The estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books, and the first step to reform is to keep it predictable and keep it low."

Wiretaps

BEFORE
"There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is."

AFTER
McCain spokesman: "Neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,”

[NY Times]

Immigration Reform

BEFORE
McCain introduces bill on immigration reform.

AFTER
January 30, 2008, when asked if he would vote for his own bill: ""No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the borders secured first.""

BEFORE
May 22, 2008: "[We must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009."

AFTER
National Review: "Team McCain tells me the senator’s comments were poorly worded. There’s been no discussion within the campaign of altering their stance on illegal immigration, and as far as everyone on the campaign is concerned, the policy is still, ’secure the border first.’"

Offshore drilling

BEFORE
1999 campaign: McCain opposes offshore drilling

AFTER
McCain 6/15/08: ""There are areas off our coasts that should be open to exploration and exploitation, and I hope we can take the first step by lifting the moratoria."

Social Security

BEFORE
McCain 11/28/04: “Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.”

AFTER
McCain 6/12/08: "I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be."

Hurricane Katrina investigations

BEFORE
2006: McCain opposes commission to study government's response to Hurricane Katrina.

AFTER
McCain 6/4/08: "I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy."

7/21/2008 6:18:31 PM

^

1) Most of those "flip flops" are just outrageous lies that have been dealt with in other threads (torture is an obvious one). Like Duke said, if you're going to post stuff like that, you should at least delete the transparently incorrect ones.

2) I am not denying that John McCain is a politician. He will compromise from time to time and make a mistake. But, unlike the Obamaniacs, I am not electing an idol. I am electing a man to represent my values and political beliefs both at home and on the national stage. And I believe that McCain not only shares my values, but is willing to stand up in the face of opposition to represent them. One or two out of context quotes from an E-mail Forward won't change that.

7/21/2008 6:23:14 PM

John Kerry was awarded three (3) Purple Hearts for his self sacrifice displayed during his leadership of US troops in Vietnam (and he managed to not get himself or his men captured)





...

but in 2004, the Republicans told us all that doesn't mean shit

hello GOP. welcome to the bed you've made. now you can lie in it.





[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 6:28 PM. Reason : ]

7/21/2008 6:26:33 PM

^^Which values are those, exactly?

Trashing the First Amendment to suit the whims of incumbent politicians, and then demonizing anyone with the temerity to object as an agent of corruption?

Calling the decision to enable individuals being held without trial by our government to challenge solely the legality of their detention - and this is after the government has already announced that most of the people it has in detention don't belong there - as one of the "worst Supreme Court decisions in history?" That guy, who doesn't even know what Habeas Corpus even is?

Look, I think Obama is an over-rated windbag who won't stick his neck out for a goddamned thing, but McCain's "bold stances" hardly seem worth crowing about.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 6:28 PM. Reason : ^^]

7/21/2008 6:27:37 PM

^^ So "they started it"? Funny, I thought the Democrats wanted to replace Bush, not emulate him.

And everyone asks me why I ain't a Democrat no more.

^ DrSteve, and I heard Obama supports teen violence or something. Taking gaffes and quotes out of context and using them to attribute broad character flaws to a person doesn't persuade me in the least. I prefer to look over McCain's entire record and not just the period when the current wave of NCSU Freshamn started watching CNN.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 6:33 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 6:28:56 PM

Quote :

"Taking gaffes and quotes out of context and using them to attribute broad character flaws to a person doesn't persuade me in the least. I prefer to look over McCain's entire record and not just the period when the current wave of NCSU Freshamn started watching CNN."

You can't really be serious. You're seriously calling these "out of context" gaffes? Do you even know what I'm referring to? (Here's a hint - one of them is well beyond the scope of the "NCSU Freshman that started watching CNN", and the other has its very own thread with the full context in this forum for you to examine).

If you want to flak for your man, by all means do so. But leave the whole "integrity" bullshit at the door, unless these are the kind of "principles" you feel like defending.

Meanwhile, I know this is utterly painful to contemplate, but just because I rag on your big boy McCain does not suddenly make me an agent of Obama. (I'd thought my comments above made that issue clear enough - apparently not.)

7/21/2008 8:32:32 PM

Quote :

"And everyone asks me why I ain't a Democrat no more"

I've told you before, you are bitter about Hillary losing. Case closed. She was one of the worst dogs in the race and you slurped her up 100% WHILE she pulled a surplus of the same bullshit you claim to champion against. Give me a break, you aren't any different than anyone else in the thread despite your elitist talk.

7/21/2008 8:51:13 PM

Kainen,

Except I was never very passionate about Hillary. Like I said before, I pulled for her because 1) Edwards dropped out and 2) I hoped she would be more like Bill. When she started spewing the same bs as Obama, I started looking for someone else.

When McCain (who was always my first choice) turned out to actually have a chance at winning, I jumped on board.

There is no love lost over HIllary.

7/21/2008 8:57:09 PM

Quote :

"^^ So "they started it"? Funny, I thought the Democrats wanted to replace Bush, not emulate him. "

Huh? The democrats are handling themselves far better. Last I checked, no one was "swiftboating" McCain. Even Obama routinely credits him for his military service.

7/21/2008 9:56:24 PM

mccain would do the same if there were any military service to credit osama for

7/21/2008 10:12:31 PM

obama osama HUMMMM ARE THEY BROTHERS?

7/21/2008 10:13:45 PM

^^^ So you're saying the statement you made regarding John McCain (essential talking points for most any Democrat these days) aren't the exact same superficial charges levied at John Kerry in 2004 (though I'm sure having a rich wife actually is an issue in 2008)?

"Far better" isn't saying much. The Democrats are taking pages straight out of the Rove playbook and it's kinda disgusting to someone who campaigned for Democratic candidates, marched in anti-war protests, etc.

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:18 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2008 10:16:02 PM

Quote :

" So you're saying the statement you made regarding John McCain"

what statements about McCain?

Quote :

""Far better" isn't saying much. The Democrats are taking pages straight out of the Rove playbook and it's kinda disgusting to someone who campaigned for Democratic candidates, marched in anti-war protests, etc. "

"Democrats" have always been scummy (albeit less some closet gays), just like Republicans. Rove is somewhat of an anomaly, but he pretty much made the democrats look good, despite them being the same politicians we've known for decades. I'm sorry if you feel betrayed at this realization, but that's just how things are. You're delusional to think though that the Republicans are somehow better. McCain is an interesting candidate, but Obama and his campaign are nowhere near the level of despicable as Rove and his ilk.

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 12:20 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2008 12:18:59 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__rb3qbNkys

Video about O'Bama's trip to Iraq.

7/22/2008 12:19:34 AM

moron, how many statements on this page did you make that I compared to Republican attacks to John Kerry?

Quote :

"McCain is a one-trick pony. He has a strong military background, but outside of that, he would be grossly incompetent when it comes to other issues. He's lived as a millionaire for decades, he doesn't understand technology, and is mostly isolated from the life most Americans live. Obama on the other hand knows what "conditions on the ground" of America are like, and would more aptly be able to represent us."

I'm not talking about anonymous "Democrats", I'm talking about statements you and joe_schmoe made specifically. It's not like it's beyond your power to clean up your own acts.

I seriously seriously seriously doubt that you actually think that McCain having a rich wife is a big deal or that a Harvard educated lawyer is "connected" to "conditions on the ground" for most Americans or that these qualities even matter for someone to be a good President (FDR grew up in a rich family and probably had no clue how most people really lived, ditto on John F Kennedy, heck ditto on Howard Dean who also came from a wealthy family, went to Yale, and had a net worth of nearly $5million before running for President. I don't know how these people live and they don't know how I live.).

If you don't believe the things you're saying, don't say them. If you actually do believe the things you're saying, then I'll just say you're more like Rove than you think. Stop playing politics. This isn't cross-fire. No one gets points for being obtuse or unfair.

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 8:09 AM. Reason : ``]

7/22/2008 8:00:50 AM

FDR and JFK grew up with an ingrained sense of noblesse oblige.

Not really a feature in today's Republican Party.

7/22/2008 10:03:24 AM

Yes. John McCain has no clue about self-sacrifice or serving his country.


[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 10:09 AM. Reason : Boone....*sigh*]

7/22/2008 10:08:18 AM

Quote :

"The democrats are handling themselves far better. Last I checked, no one was "swiftboating" McCain. Even Obama routinely credits him for his military service"

LOL, you didnt check very hard.

7/22/2008 10:15:58 AM

Quote :

"about self-sacrifice or serving his country."

Not exactly what I was talking about.

plz to know what noblesse oblige means

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

7/22/2008 10:28:48 AM

Quote :

"The Oxford English Dictionary says that the term "suggests noble ancestry constrains to honourable behavior; privilege entails to responsibility." Being a noble meant that you had responsibilities to lead, manage, etc. You were not to simply spend your time in idle pursuits."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige

McCain's honorable military service and political record are both examples of McCain taking it upon himself to lead and not spending his time in idle pursuits. To try and say differently is simply false. I don't know why I'm even getting in another discussion with you Boone. I really don't think I will. It just isn't worth it.

You are just trolling.

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 10:36 AM. Reason : ``]

7/22/2008 10:33:58 AM

He flew a fighter jet because his dad was an Admiral? That doesn't compare to the likes of TR, FDR, or JFK. And his current policies certainly don't reflect any sense of obligation.


And regarding the trolling allegation, I remain unconvinced that your entire support of McCain isn't one epic trolling spree.

You never explained how exactly you could go from Edwards to Clinton to McCain.



[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 10:52 AM. Reason : .]

7/22/2008 10:48:42 AM

NY Times rejects McCain's Op-Ed, asks for a better one

Republican talking points make best of opportunity to lambast the Times.

Weekly Standard’s Dean Barnett: “Nobody has ever heard of anything like this ever happening before.” [Hugh Hewitt Show, 7/21/08]

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton: “For them to say that to - - the Republican presidential nominee is offensive.” [Hannity and Colmes, 7/21/08]

Conservative Pundit Dick Morris: “You don’t tell a president to the United States candidate what to write.” [Hannity and Colmes, 7/21/08]

Former White House Adviser Karl Rove: “I thought the decision by The New York Times was arrogant, condescending and stupid.” [On the Record with Greta, 7/21/08]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/index.html

And now its being said that Rupert Murdoch publishes McCain's essay in his NY Post.

Politics at its finest. Beating a dead horse until you hope it can give you more than it already has. The GOP going to their ace in the hole for a majority of Americans, believing the MSM is staked against conservatives. We'll see how long it will dominate headlines starting from last night.

7/22/2008 12:32:14 PM

^ Not sure what you're saying.

The NYT DID reject McCain's op-ed after it accepted Obama's only last week. They didn't imagine it.

The perception of media bias is also not just confined to Republican talking points.

According to Ramussen, 49% of people believe reporters are actively trying to help Obama win the election. And that was before this little NYT stunt.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_obama_win

And when reporters (not talking heads or pundits but reporters) like NBC's Lee Cowen say shit like this...can you blame them for thinking there is bias in the media?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-UHbVyWI4o

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 1:03 PM. Reason : ``]

7/22/2008 1:01:06 PM

Maybe if McCain had written an article with any kind of substance they would have printed it?

They're giving him a do-over if he wants to try again, I'd say that's plenty fair.

7/22/2008 1:04:06 PM

McCain does provide substance, just not substance you like. He rightly points out that Obama only has one plan for Iraq no matter what the conditions--leaving. He explains why this is a bad plan and he outlines what he will do to achieve victory in Iraq, which he defines (despite NYT claims to the contrary) as being to create secure, stable democracy.

When NYT say they want McCain to elaborate on his views and to further define victory in Iraq, they can only mean they want him to lay out a time-table. And McCain addresses this point in his op-ed. Artificial time-tables are dangerous and unreasonable. No one can say in advance when Iraq will be politically stable and capable enough to provide its own security. We have to be flexible to shifting conditions and open to the will of Iraqi people. Just like John McCain says.

There was no good reason to reject this op-ed. This is one time when 49% of Americans were right about something--reporters are actively trying to help Obama win this election.

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ``]

7/22/2008 1:15:44 PM

Obama's plan sucks, the surge worked single-handedly because of me, I'm awesome

My plan? Little sleepy. Later.

7/22/2008 1:19:51 PM

I'M JOHN McCAIN,

AND I'M...

<salute>

REPORTING FOR DUTY.

7/22/2008 1:19:55 PM

ActionPants,

You do realize that McCain's op-ed was entered as a direct response to Obama's op-ed, yes? So It shouldn't surprise you that the opposing candidate is mentioned once or twice. It might surprise you though that Obama said a one or two not-nice things about McCain in his op-ed. But I guess that's different.

And McCain's article is full of details.

1) McCain goes into detail on where success has been made...

Quote :

"Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism."

2) Where more work is required

Quote :

"The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops."

3) And the overall goal of his policy.

Quote :

"I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies. "

That's the type of information voters need and it is actually more detail than Obama gave. His op-ed is so lacking in details that it could have easily appeared in 2007 as today. McCain notes this as well.

Now I seriously doubt you will read any of this or have any serious comments. But posting it makes me feel better.

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 1:40 PM. Reason : ``]

7/22/2008 1:36:51 PM

HOW DO WE WIN THE WAR

7/22/2008 1:43:49 PM

^ You can answer your own question if you read quotes....like I said you wouldn't.

We win the war when Iraq has a stable government (preferably a democracy) in place that can take responsibility for its own security (quote #3). To achieve this goal, we must continue to train and equip Iraqi soldiers so that they can defend themselves, a job which will not be finished in Obama's timeline (quote #2). As US and Iraqi troops works together to provide security, political progress can be made by the Iraqi government. There is already evidence that this approach is working (quote #1).

Of course, you won't really read post this either. You'll probably 1) stop posting for now and come back as if you never read my post 2) ask for more details but not specify what else you want or 3) ask for details that couldn't reasonably be given in an op-ed piece or anywhere (troop movements and the like), never recognizing that McCain gave the same level of detail (if not more) that Barack Obama gave in his NYT piece.

Which door will you open? And will I bother to repeat the same thing for a third time?

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 2:04 PM. Reason : chances are low.]

7/22/2008 1:59:51 PM

ooh, socks is getting all meta on us. To quote Josh Marshall from RCP....

"And now he's (McCain) is framing his whole candidacy around a campaign of strategic whining about the claim that the political press is treating his younger opponent like he's been treated for over a decade. He's got the preening and envy of a sore losing runner-up for prom queen."

7/22/2008 2:12:55 PM

^

7/22/2008 2:19:01 PM

If the New York Times has it out for McCain then why has it published his Op-Eds 7 times in the past ten or so years?

Quote :

"We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously,"..."

If the NYT has it out for McCain, then why did they ask for him to write another one instead of just refusing to publish one at all?

My point, which is obviously lost on you Socks as I should have made myself more clear, is that Republicans are making an non-issue this day into a opportunity to attack the Media they loathe so much. This is a tried and tested measure the Republicans have been using since the 1996 election when Dole was seen as harassed unfairly and thus the talking point, that Americans have since FALSELY believed.

Who brought this up? Republicans. Who made it into a campaign fundraising ploy? Republicans. Did the NYT go running to every media outlet and proclaim, "look look what we did, we shot down the mighty McCain!".

No. The fallible NYT Editorial board made a judgment call and stated

Quote :

"The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece."

Your points sir, of winning the war, a timetable being irresponsible, and McCain detailing his plan are nothing NEW. And thus what the NYT wanted, something new from the McCain camp elaborating his positions. It seems if they wanted his talking points they'd just plagiarize (see thats funny) quotes from his website. Neither McCain or Obama wrote a hit piece, and they are trying to rise above that old politics fray. Yet their cronies cannot.

And as for the substance of your points, they are each ridiculous. By high horsing the "timetable is irresponsible" is sad and naive. Are we then to believe McCain is for a 100 years in Iraq? Stable democracy/government is a perspective, and politically clever, idea to hold, is it not? How do we measure stable? But we've been through that dog and pony show, yet Republicans still think its black and white of an issue.
The same is said for your ability to believe McCain has been wronged here. If that is the case then why has the NYT rejected sitting presidents' Op-Ed pieces before, and why wasn't that an outrage? Just being a somebody doesn't mean you get a free pass in Opinion columns.

*side note - lose the attitude. remember this is the internet blogs/boards, and stop acting like you are better than everyone else. its a very unbecoming and in poor taste, regardless if no one can see you.

7/22/2008 2:21:28 PM

Look, McCain said back in 2004 that when Iraq said they were ready, it was time to get out. Maliki said they'd be ready be the end of 2010 and McCain calls him a liar, because he obviously knows more about the situation. If soldiers are getting killed, we can't leave because we're surrendering. If soldiers aren't getting killed, we can't leave because we're winning. The real conflict in Iraq right now is between Shia and Sunni anyway, and that's nothing we need to be a part of.

You say that details can't reasonably be given because there's no plan to give details from. Just more empty THIS IS ARE COUNTRY WE MUST FIGHT TERROR BECAUSE THE IRAQIS ARE TOO DUMB TO DO IT THEMSELVES bullshit. We'll never be done there until the president says we're done, and McCain will never say we're done.

7/22/2008 2:22:02 PM

nice response. run the ole' if you prefer obama to mccain you must worship him meme. no suprise that furthers the sour grapes I'm quoting.

7/22/2008 2:22:31 PM

Actionpants, wow. so many good points. ignoring the entire substance of my post and accusing mccain of calling someone a lier and saying his entire argument boils down to nationalistic ignorance. good show. I think i'll respond to each point in detail right now...


rougewulf,

Quote :

"Your points sir, of winning the war, a timetable being irresponsible, and McCain detailing his plan are nothing NEW. And thus what the NYT wanted, something new from the McCain camp elaborating his positions. It seems if they wanted his talking points they'd just plagiarize (see thats funny) quotes from his website."

That's what they say, but I don't see anything new in Obama's article that hasn't been said before. McCain also rightly points that out in this op-ed. That's why they say they rejected the letter, but people say a lot of things. If Obama said anything new, I can't find it.

And I wasn't saying that Republicans aren't making the argument that Obama is getting off lite with media. I was only saying that they are not the only ones. Hell, the idea that the media is coddling Obama is such a popular theme that it's popping up poll questions and SNL skits. Are they ALL the victims of Republican Brainwashing? That's a very odd argument if you ask me.

Quote :

"And as for the substance of your points, they are each ridiculous. By high horsing the "timetable is irresponsible" is sad and naive. Are we then to believe McCain is for a 100 years in Iraq? Stable democracy/government is a perspective, and politically clever, idea to hold, is it not? How do we measure stable? But we've been through that dog and pony show, yet Republicans still think its black and white of an issue."

Am I suppose to respond to this? No one ever said that stable can be easily defined, not even the Republicans. Maybe that's one reason for avoiding artificial constructs on when we should leave and to respond to conditions as they develop and to the will of the Iraqi people (btw, more ppl live in Iraq than just PM Mailki)? Nah. I'm just "sad and naive".

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM. Reason : ``]

7/22/2008 2:36:19 PM

How adorable you think your posts have substance

7/22/2008 3:00:09 PM

I think you've been crossed off the list of People Worthy of Talking to Socks Dot Dot.

7/22/2008 3:01:22 PM

Also lemme get a little lol for this backpedal

Quote :

"The McCain campaign has come up with an intriguing new way to sell his opposition to a timetable for withdrawal: McCain just might withdraw from Iraq sooner than Obama's 16 month deadline! "He'd like troops to come home earlier than 16 months if the conditions allow it," said Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico, on a conference call with reporters just now. "Senator Obama has said it's a 16-month timeline no matter what.""

7/22/2008 3:14:21 PM

hahah

Is McCain getting the teleporter ready?

I'm dying to see the rationalization for this.

7/22/2008 3:16:43 PM