The McCain Thread

Who will be McCain's runningmate?

  • Mitt Romney (former Governor of Massachussets)

  • Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas)

  • Rudy Giuliani (former mayor New York)

  • Charlie Christ (current governor of Florida)

  • Fred Thompson (former US Senator of Tennessee)

  • Condaleeza Rice (Secretary of State)

  • Colin Powell (former Secretary of State)

  • JC Watts (former Republican chairman of Republican House)

  • Rob Portman (Director of Office of Management and Budget)

  • Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota)

  • Bobby Jindal (Governor of Lousiana)

  • Mark Sanford (Governor of South Carolina)

  • Lindsey Graham (US Senator of South Carolina)

  • Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska)

  • Kay Hutchinson (US Senator of Texas)

  • John Thune (US Senator of South Dakota)

  • Haley Barbour (Governor of Mississippi)

  • Marsha Blackburn (US Tenessee Representative)

  • Joseph Lieberman (US Senator of Connecticut)

  • Sonny Perdue (Governor of Georgia)

  • George Allen (former US Senator of Virginia)

  • Matt Blunt (Governor of Missouri)

  • some other US Senator, congressman

  • some other Governor

  • some dark horse like Dick Cheney


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Obama should point out that for the first time in history, both candidates on the Republican ticket have been charged with ethical misconduct before they were elected to the executive branch.

Send that to the Obama camp now! But I think people are getting tired of the Ayers bs anyway and it will look strange and desperate if he braught it up since McCain defended Obama Friday about the terrorists/Arab connection.
 
And you got on someone else for using party tag lines just a bit ago in another thread?

http://www.donklephant.com/2008/10/10/mccain-campaign-calls-troopergate-partisan-theyre-wrong/



Now I know why every since the Troopergate findings were released why you've repeatedly said that.

Seriously....it's NOT hard to find out the facts on this if you look past party catch phrases and press releases. The FACTS are that there were 8, count em', 8 republicans, and 4 democrats on that committee. We're talking twice as many republicans as democrats on the committee.

Funny thing is if it was an inquiry on Obama, and the committee was made up of 8 democrats and 4 republicans we'd never heard the end of it.

You can tell yourself whatever you like, but the fact is that the investigation was CONDUCTED by one Steve Branchflower, a Democrat and a staunch ally of Barack Obama. The findings that came down are tantamount to nothing because Monegan's termination was ruled LAWFUL, and the state trooper was NEVER FIRED.

Sure, while I agree that she should have reigned in her husband, I also cannot blame her husband for wanting this jack*ss fired, considering he made DEATH THREATS against Todd's family.

Now sure, go ahead and tow the Democrat's line on this. Feel free. But understand - just because some Democrat says she abused her power doesn't make it THAT cut and dry. And let's not pretend for a second that if a member of Obama's staff made a death threat against his wife's father, that Obama wouldn't fire the jack*ss, and he's be RIGHT for doing so even if a Republican investigator were to state later on that it was an 'abuse of power.' To compound the issue, imagine that this guy who threatened Michele Obama's father was also a law enforcement officer WITH A GUN who was cited for being DRUNK WHILE AT WORK and who tasered his own kid.

So, there's RIGHT and then there's LAWFUL and there's ETHICAL. You decide which applies, but try to do so WITHOUT the 'party' non-sense if you can.
 
The fact of the matter is, Sarah Palin released a report where she declared she was innocent, so we should all believe it because she's such a swell person now then yet.
 
The fact of the matter is, Sarah Palin released a report where she declared she was innocent, so we should all believe it because she's such a swell person now then yet.

She was innocent. As far as I'm concerned, the findings of 'abuse of power' were wrong and they were nothing more than a political bullet to be used by Democrats.

When you look at the facts of the case, I find no fault in either Sarah or Todd Palin. Todd was doing what he could to protect his family. If that's wrong, then so be it.
 
She was innocent. As far as I'm concerned, the findings of 'abuse of power' were wrong and they were nothing more than a political bullet to be used by Democrats.

When you look at the facts of the case, I find no fault in either Sarah or Todd Palin. Todd was doing what he could to protect his family. If that's wrong, then so be it.

How many times you have to be told to LOOK AT THE MAKEUP OF THE PANEL???? Stop bellowing out about the big bad angry democrats using this for political gain. You're completely devoid of any reason of objectivity. A Republican-led panel that started this investigation long before she was even being considered for VP found that she abused her power. A Republican-led panel..unless you consider them traitors to their own party for going against another Republican.

If you do consider them traitors, that would go against the Republican ticket of 'mavericks' who are 'known for going against their own party' that you so blindly support.
 
She was innocent. As far as I'm concerned, the findings of 'abuse of power' were wrong and they were nothing more than a political bullet to be used by Democrats.

When you look at the facts of the case, I find no fault in either Sarah or Todd Palin. Todd was doing what he could to protect his family. If that's wrong, then so be it.

HILARIOUS.

Truly hilarious.

That is all.
 
BARONE: The coming liberal thugocracy

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

To their credit, some liberal old-timers - like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey - voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.

Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes - we know where you live - and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

• Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.

(I thought people would like to read this, especially many of the liberal members).
 
How many times you have to be told to LOOK AT THE MAKEUP OF THE PANEL???? Stop bellowing out about the big bad angry democrats using this for political gain. You're completely devoid of any reason of objectivity. A Republican-led panel that started this investigation long before she was even being considered for VP found that she abused her power. A Republican-led panel..unless you consider them traitors to their own party for going against another Republican.

If you do consider them traitors, that would go against the Republican ticket of 'mavericks' who are 'known for going against their own party' that you so blindly support.

It's not about 'blind' support - it's about supporting the lesser of two evils.
 
You can tell yourself whatever you like...the investigation was CONDUCTED by one Steve Branchflower, a Democrat and a staunch ally of Barack Obama...

Now sure, go ahead and tow the Democrat's line on this. Feel free...

but try to do it WITHOUT the 'party' non-sense if you can.

I've been waiting to use this :), :facepalm:.

How did I, 'tow the party line'? I stated fact in that there were 8 republicans, and 4 democrats in the committee. In what you quoted, I stated nothing about Sarah Palin's guilt, innocence, ethics, or anything. You stated that it was a democratic conspiracy in a round about way, and gave a near exact phrase given by the McCain campaign. I just corrected that by saying that if anything, it was a rep heavy comittee.

I have nothing against you lazur, and appreciate differing POV's, but you seem unwilling to listen. Even in what you quoted you didn't answer there being more reps than dems, but you did accused me of towing a party line against Palin.
 
She was innocent. As far as I'm concerned, the findings of 'abuse of power' were wrong and they were nothing more than a political bullet to be used by Democrats.

When you look at the facts of the case, I find no fault in either Sarah or Todd Palin. Todd was doing what he could to protect his family. If that's wrong, then so be it.

take that up with the BI-PARTISAN council, then. she broke alaska statue 39.52.110(a) which reads:

"The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a pulbic trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust".

stop being a such a homer and look at the facts. it wasn't a democratic witch hunt and obama had nothing to do with it. the alaska legislative council, again a bi-partisan committee with more republicans than democrats, voted unanimously to release branchflower's report that included his decision that she violated this specific statute.
 
any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust

Sure, if you're a Democrat, I can see how it would be interpreted that way. But I don't consider 'personal interest' as being 'personal safety.'
 
Sure, if you're a Democrat, I can see how it would be interpreted that way. But I don't consider 'personal interest' as being 'personal safety.'

what does being a democrat have to do with it? stop injecting partisanship into this and look at the facts. if this wooten incident wasn't happening to her family do you think she would have pursued it the way she did? no, and that's why it was for "personal interest". a centrist should be able to see that.
 
Sure, if you're a Democrat, I can see how it would be interpreted that way. But I don't consider 'personal interest' as being 'personal safety.'

Oh goooooooooooooooooood.

How are you not driving yourself insane with this mental backflipping? Seriously, that is one heck of a stretch.

If Palin was really that concerned about her family's safety, why didn't she make a legal matter out of it? Instead of going about it a backwards way and trying to get the guy fired from his job. And if Sarah and Todd are concerned about safety, what exactly is firing Wooten gonna achieve?

Give us a break, lazur.
 
Sure, if you're a Democrat, I can see how it would be interpreted that way. But I don't consider 'personal interest' as being 'personal safety.'

Um... if you looked up how the death threat was a myth... then it wouldn't be 'personal safety'... also if it was 'personal safety' then why get him fired instead of getting him locked up?

Then again, I doubt you'll look it up:

But I suspect that you won't since, you know, it doesn't quite fit into your neatly shaped partisan world.
 
'IT'S NOT NEGATIVITY...IT'S TRUTHFULLNESS' (uhh...what?)

[YT]U5mdIPNB8t8[/YT]
 
Stupid people. Stupid, stupid, stupid people. It's just sad that they're basing their decision on ignorance rather than logic or rational thought.
 
Trouble in paradise, if one's to believe what The Times has to say:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4926283.ece

October 12, 2008
McCain tussles with Palin over whipping up a mob mentality

With his electoral prospects fading by the day, Senator John McCain has fallen out with his vice-presidential running mate about the direction of his White House campaign.

McCain has become alarmed about the fury unleashed by Sarah Palin, the moose-hunting “pitbull in lipstick”, against Senator Barack Obama. Cries of “terrorist” and “kill him” have accompanied the tirades by the governor of Alaska against the Democratic nominee at Republican rallies.

Mark Salter, McCain’s long-serving chief of staff, is understood to have told campaign insiders that he would prefer his boss, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, to suffer an “honourable defeat” rather than conduct a campaign that would be out of character – and likely to lose him the election.
Related Links


Palin, 44, has led the character attacks on Obama in the belief that McCain may be throwing away the election and her chance of becoming vice-president. Her supporters think that if the Republican ticket loses on November 4, she should run for president in 2012.

A leading Republican consultant said: “A lot of conservatives are grumbling about what a poor job McCain is doing. They are rolling their eyes and saying, ‘Yes, a miracle could happen, but at this rate it is all over’.

“Sarah Palin is no fool. She sees the same thing and wants to salvage what she can. She is positioning herself for the future. Her best days could be in front of her. She wants to look as though she was the fighter, the person with the spunk who was out there taking it to the Democrats.”

McCain, 72, has encouraged voters to contrast his character with Obama’s. The campaign launched a tough television commercial last week questioning, “Who is Barack Obama?”

Frank Keating, McCain’s campaign co-chairman, last week called the Democrat a “guy off the street” and said he should admit that he had “used cocaine”.

McCain believes the attacks have spun out of control. At a rally in Lakeville, Minnesota, the Arizona senator became visibly angry when he was booed for calling Obama “a decent person”. He took the microphone from an elderly woman who said she disliked Obama because he was “Arab”, saying, “No ma’am, no ma’am”.

When another questioner demanded that he tell the truth about Obama, he said: “I want everybody to be respectful and let’s be sure we are.”

However, his campaign has stepped up its negative advertising against Obama, accusing him of lying about his relationship with William Ayers, the leader of the Weather Underground group responsible for bombing the Capitol and the Pentagon in the early 1970s, who is now a Chicago professor.

Palin has continued to lead the charge against Obama’s alleged lack of candour. At a rally in Wilmington, Ohio, she mocked him for attending a supporters’ meeting in Ayers’s home when he was seeking to become an Illinois state senator in 1995. “He didn’t know he launched his career in the living room of a domestic terrorist until he did know,” Palin said.

“Some will say, jeez Sarah, it’s getting negative. No it’s not negativity. It’s truthfulness.” The crowd bellowed its appreciation with chants of “Nobama” and “Go Sarah Go!”

John Weaver, a former senior McCain adviser who left the campaign when it almost imploded in the summer of last year, questioned the purpose of the attacks.

“People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, that the differences with Senator Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared with Senator McCain,” he said.

“And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.”

A McCain official confirmed that there was dissension in the campaign. “There is always going to be a debate about the costs and benefits of any strategy,” he said.

“After November 4, the feelings of individuals will come to light. It is only natural and will be expected.”

Palin’s frustration with McCain has led to clashes over strategy. When she learnt he was pulling resources from Michigan, an industrial swing state leaning heavily in Obama’s favour, she fired off an e-mail saying, “Oh come on, do we have to?” and offered to travel there with her husband Todd, four-times winner of the 2,000-mile Iron Dog snow-mobile race.

She also told Bill Kristol, the conservative New York Times columnist, that she wished the campaign would make more of Obama’s 20-year association with the Rev Jeremiah Wright, his controversial former pastor, who said, “God damn America”.

“To me, that does say something about character,” Palin said. “But you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring it up.”

McCain’s allies responded by suggesting that she had her own pastor problems, such as the African minister who prayed to Jesus to protect her from witchcraft when she was running for governor.

McCain has told his campaign that attacks on religion are out of bounds. He declined Palin’s advice to “take the gloves” off in his debate with Obama last week and did not refer to Ayers. It enabled Obama to rile McCain by asking why he did not have the nerve to attack him to his face.

When McCain finally got round to mentioning the Weatherman at a rally last week, he described him mildly as “an old washed-up terrorist”.

Despite the attacks, Obama, 47, increased his average poll lead last week to eight points over McCain. The assaults on his character have enabled him to criticise McCain for “stoking anger and division” when the economy is collapsing.

McCain’s nosedive in the polls has closely tracked the collapse of Wall Street and the US economy, but he has yet to find a winning economic policy. His proposed emergency $300 billion (£180 billion) buy-out of distressed mortgages has been harshly criticised by Republicans.

Karl Rove, the former White House aide, claimed the housing bailout “came across as both impulsive and badly explained” when McCain suddenly announced it during last week’s debate with Obama.

A spokesman for McCain denied he and Palin had fallen out over her aggressive attacks. “Vice-presidential candidates are typically the tip of the spear and further out in front than the candidate for president. This is pretty standard fare,” he said.

However, Palin is no longer helping to attract women and independent voters to the Republican ticket. A poll for Fox News last week showed that while 47% of voters regard the Alaska governor favourably, 42% now have an unfavourable opinion of her.

Palin remains far more popular than McCain with the Republican party base. He regularly has to endure the spectacle of members of the audience leaving for their cars when it is his turn to speak at joint rallies.

In Wilmington, Palin’s many admirers were in no doubt that she should run for president next time. Nancy Ross, a hairdresser, 45, said if the Republicans lost the election, she would be cheered up by the thought of Palin as the 2012 nominee.

“I would absolutely love her to run in four years’ time. By then most of her kids will be grown,” she said. “I’d like her to run against Hillary [Clinton]. She would squash her. She is a real person and we need people like her in Washington.”

Mary Ann Black, 58, a human resources director, said: “I love her. She’s so authentic.” Although she thought highly of McCain as well, Black added: “Her career is just beginning and his is in the twilight.”

Political soulmates on the outs?

jag
 
She also told Bill Kristol, the conservative New York Times columnist, that she wished the campaign would make more of Obama’s 20-year association with the Rev Jeremiah Wright, his controversial former pastor, who said, “God damn America”.

“To me, that does say something about character,” Palin said. “But you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring it up.”

McCain’s allies responded by suggesting that she had her own pastor problems, such as the African minister who prayed to Jesus to protect her from witchcraft when she was running for governor.

After reading the Rev. Wright quote the first thing that popped into my head was Palin's pastor. Never would have guessed McCain's own supporters would bring it up for me. With friends like those...
 
The difference inbetween Wright and the witch doctor tho, is that while both have said hate speech, the witch doctor actually ran a poor woman out of an African village after blaming the villages problems on her and calling her a witch. In all honesty I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't done worse. IMO the witch doctors actual actions coupled with hate speech and witch craft talk trumps Wright's hate speech alone.

The real problem is that the witch doctor wouldn't be an important factor if Wright wasn't pressed. Palin's sececionist husband wouldn't be brought up as much if the McCain campaign wasn't pressing Ayers.

It's like an eye for an eye, everytime Obama gets jabbed for an acquaintance, an equal or worse acquaintace of McCain or Palin is brought to light. I'd much rather they stick to the issues rather than mud sling personally, but I think if Palin or McCain want to bring up Obama's connections, they should be ready to defend their own.
 
Trouble in paradise, if one's to believe what The Times has to say:



Political soulmates on the outs?

jag

I'm not going to say I believe it until a few more sources say it, but this is def bad if true. Palin and McCain at odds with eachother when their down in the polls is not good. It also, IMO, makes McCain look like a hypocrit when he says not to attack Obama for something, and then Palin does that night. Or when McCain tries to calm a crowd down, meanwhile Palin is turning the dial to 11. Not to count there's reports of McCain's campaign itself being split, and McCain being at odds with the direction to take.

It's really looking like a big mess. If I were McCain, I'd put my foot down in all honesty. He's talked about being against the campaign tactics his camp is currently using. It's his rep on the line, and his rep that's getting dragged thru the mud. Palin is probably just making a name for herself. McCain has the most to lose.
 
Trouble in paradise, if one's to believe what The Times has to say:



Political soulmates on the outs?

jag

ok, two things:

1) is anyone else amazed that mccain would hire someone with the last name "keating" to work for his campaign.

2) if palin wins the republican nomination in 2012 i will have lost whatever tiny sliver of respect i have for that party.
 
Trouble in paradise, if one's to believe what The Times has to say:



Political soulmates on the outs?

jag
Someone should explain to that woman exactly why Sarah Palin would NOT be running against Hillary Clinton in four years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"