The McCain Thread

[jaguarr]

That's true. I'm almost more curious to see how Obama's pulling out of public financing (and his vote for the FISA legislation) is going to affect his campaign. Some of the media are ripping him apart for his decision to abandon PF and there are some hard-left Obama supporters who are in an uproar for his FISA vote.

Personally, I have no problem with this pulling out of the public financing. I actually take issue with the fact that tax dollars are available to Presidential candidates for campaigning, really. I like them using fundraising dollars rather than my tax dollars. And the FISA thing is ******ed; I don't think most of the people that are upset about it even understand what the hell it's about.

jag

 

[Matt]

I like public financing simply because, in theory, using it will ensure that special interest is not funding our candidates.

 

[jaguarr]

I like public financing simply because, in theory, using it will ensure that special interest is not funding our candidates.

In theory, yes, in practice, no (unfortunately). The system done be broke.

jag

 

[Matt]

In theory, yes, in practice, no (unfortunately). The system done be broke.

jag

It could use some tweaking, but Obama saying how great it is and how much he supports it while withdrawling from it because he happened to raise triple of what it would give him just stinks of hypocrisy.

 

[jaguarr]

It could use some tweaking, but Obama saying how great it is and how much he supports it while withdrawling from it because he happened to raise triple of what it would give him just stinks of hypocrisy.

I'd think he was an idiot if he willingly gave up an advantage like that, personally.

jag

 

[Matt]

Doesn't change the fact that the way he handled it stinks of hypocrisy.

 

[jaguarr]

Doesn't change the fact that the way he handled it stinks of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy goes hand in hand with politicians; ALL of them. Why this constantly surprises you, Matt, is a constant surprise to me.

jag

 

[StorminNorman]

I'm not talking about Obama or choosing sides like you are. Go campaign for McCain all you want here and throw childish name calling around. It suits your stance on McCain.

McCain winning nomination was no way an achievement to be impressed about.

If you are active in politics, siding against McCain is the equivilant of siding for Obama - that is unless you are one of the type of people that believes incorrectly that voting for a third party candidate does anything of value.

I would ask how you can criticize me of childish name calling when you are guilty of that very fault. I implied that if you believed a certain way that is, in reality, foolish - then you are a fool. I did not call you a fool. There is a difference, if ever so slight.

And yes - McCain's nomination was, I believe, a positive step for the GOP. For the first time you have a candidate that was not only not supported by the vast right and the religious right - but was actively campaigned AGAINST by those same parties. Its a step towards the center by the GOP - a very good sign. Meanwhile the DNC has been hijacked by the far left and has elected one of the most liberal and extremist candidates in a long time.

 

[StorminNorman]

So how 'bout that John McCain? He closed the cash gap on Obama in May and his ties to the offshore drilling idea could sink him in the fall...

Not at all. In fact his ties to offshore drilling should be the FOCUS of his campaign and exactly the sort of issue that could allow him and Republicans to ride into Washington.

 

[The Senator]

I'd think he was an idiot if he willingly gave up an advantage like that, personally.

jag

I agree. Obama has a huge financial advantage which has allowed him a chance to open up offices in all fifty states and become competitive in states most Democrats wouldn't have a shot at, like Alaska and Georgia. Forgoing public financing allows him to remain competitive in these states, and would force McCain to spend money he doesn't have in states he shouldn't have to defend. It is a fantastic advantage, and it would be a political disaster if he gave it up.

 

[StorminNorman]

Hypocrisy goes hand in hand with politicians; ALL of them. Why this constantly surprises you, Matt, is a constant surprise to me.

jag

Hypocrisy by Obama SHOULD be a bigger issue than hypocrisy by most other politicians simply because his campaign was based around the idea that he was a different sort of politician. In fact thats the only leg his campaign had to stand on - he was change. If he is, as he is proving, to be nothing more than any other politician - his campaign as been a complete fraud and he should be called out for that.

 

[Marx]

It could use some tweaking, but Obama saying how great it is and how much he supports it while withdrawling from it because he happened to raise triple of what it would give him just stinks of hypocrisy.

It's like the article that I posted a little while ago - he chose winning over his word.

He should never have come out so strongly in his support of public financing if he even considered withdrawing from it in a potential general election.

It's all politics. That's what it amounts to. He a politician who wants to win, and he will do what he must to win.

 

[Marx]

Hypocrisy by Obama SHOULD be a bigger issue than hypocrisy by most other politicians simply because his campaign was based around the idea that he was a different sort of politician. In fact thats the only leg his campaign had to stand on - he was change. If he is, as he is proving, to be nothing more than any other politician - his campaign as been a complete fraud and he should be called out for that.

You've just described alot of the problem I have with him.

 

[Matt]

Hypocrisy goes hand in hand with politicians; ALL of them. Why this constantly surprises you, Matt, is a constant surprise to me.

jag

It doesn't suprise me, but Obama is more open to attacks about hypocrisy because he is the one who spent his entire primary campaign by claiming he was the beacon of change and the opposite of "politics-as-usual." He put himself on too high a pedestal and that leaves him open to attack.

 

[Excel]

Barr is ****ing over McCain.

 

[Excel]

Barr is ****ing over McCain.

 

[Marx]

Barr is ****ing over McCain.

That's random...

 

[Matt]

I agree. Obama has a huge financial advantage which has allowed him a chance to open up offices in all fifty states and become competitive in states most Democrats wouldn't have a shot at, like Alaska and Georgia. Forgoing public financing allows him to remain competitive in these states, and would force McCain to spend money he doesn't have in states he shouldn't have to defend. It is a fantastic advantage, and it would be a political disaster if he gave it up.

Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that he, as TheMarx's article said, chose to win over his word. He has proven that he is everything I have believed him to be for these past six months. There is no way I will vote for him now. And yes, though I'm sure certain posters will have snide comments, there was a chance, running mate and debate-pending, that I would have voted for him. Now he could nominate one of my boys such as Sherrod Brown or Mark Warner as his VP and I still won't vote for him. I've tried to buy into Obama, as frankly he is a very likable candidate and he makes you want to forego your beter judgement and vote for him. But now I just can't. He has proven that he is exactly what he claims to not be. The slippery, slimey, politican that every other politican (save a few) in this country is.

 

[Matt]

Barr is ****ing over McCain.

Read the announcement about maturity Excel.

I'm not sure Barr will be a factor. At least not to the extent the media would like to make him seem to be. He is no Ross Perot. Perot was able to take the ammount of votes he did because of basically limitless funds. Barr is not going to be able to run a nationwide campaign. I see him pulling in 2 or 3 % of the vote and any votes he takes away from McCain will be off-set by votes Nader takes from Obama.

 

[The Senator]

Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that he, as TheMarx's article said, chose to win over his word. He has proven that he is everything I have believed him to be for these past six months. There is no way I will vote for him now. And yes, though I'm sure certain posters will have snide comments, there was a chance, running mate and debate-pending, that I would have voted for him. Now he could nominate one of my boys such as Sherrod Brown or Mark Warner as his VP and I still won't vote for him. I've tried to buy into Obama, as frankly he is a very likable candidate and he makes you want to forego your beter judgement and vote for him. But now I just can't. He has proven that he is exactly what he claims to not be. The slippery, slimey, politican that every other politican (save a few) in this country is.

Stop the presses! Matt isn't voting for Obama!



But seriously... I think it would be foolish beyond belief for a man of his financial stature to forgo the amount of money he would rake in, simply to accept public financing. If McCain was making as much money as Obama, he wouldn't forgo public financing (he said he wouldn't earlier this year before conveniently changing his mind)-- and he's the one responsible for recent public financing laws.

All this extra money makes him competitive in states Democrats typically don't win, and I'd rather take adding a Dakota or Georgia to the Democrats' electoral map over maintaining a campaign promise neither side firmly made.

 

[jaguarr]

Hypocrisy by Obama SHOULD be a bigger issue than hypocrisy by most other politicians simply because his campaign was based around the idea that he was a different sort of politician. In fact thats the only leg his campaign had to stand on - he was change. If he is, as he is proving, to be nothing more than any other politician - his campaign as been a complete fraud and he should be called out for that.

It doesn't suprise me, but Obama is more open to attacks about hypocrisy because he is the one who spent his entire primary campaign by claiming he was the beacon of change and the opposite of "politics-as-usual." He put himself on too high a pedestal and that leaves him open to attack.

Mmmm....really, the problem is that there are way too many people (you two included) that have taken his words of wanting to change Washington and not do "politics as usual" as meaning that he can't do ANYTHING remotely resembling something a politician should do when that really wasn't the point of his remarks. His intent was to point out that politics in Washington are corrupt, prone to very dirty games, incestuous and inbred due to a very closed system and network of individuals who all scratch each other's backs and cater to corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy, and that the people (particularly the middle class) aren't well represented in our current government. THAT is what he is trying to change. Whether he ultimately succeeds in not getting sucked into all the negativity or not remains to be seen but it does NOT mean that he can't address the issues or his competition, particularly when there are attacks on him. It seems to me that any time he makes a comment or strategic move, there are people coming out of the woodwork to hold him up to some idyllic magic standard they created in their minds about what he should or should not be doing based on his rhetoric even though they completely misunderstood what he was talking about in the first place.

jag

 

[The Senator]

Read the announcement about maturity Excel.

I'm not sure Barr will be a factor. At least not to the extent the media would like to make him seem to be. He is no Ross Perot. Perot was able to take the ammount of votes he did because of basically limitless funds. Barr is not going to be able to run a nationwide campaign. I see him pulling in 2 or 3 % of the vote and any votes he takes away from McCain will be off-set by votes Nader takes from Obama.

Polls show the only state Barr currently has a significant impact on is his home state of Georgia. As it stands, Obama and McCain are statistically tied. Given Barr's appeal in Georgia, McCain's lack of appeal to Georgia's conservative base, and Obama's popularity among the state's African American population, I would say that Barr will serve as a spoiler and Obama will come out on top in Georgia... thus handing the election to the Democrats...

 

[Marx]

Stop the presses! Matt isn't voting for Obama!



But seriously... I think it would be foolish beyond belief for a man of his financial stature to forgo the amount of money he would rake in, simply to accept public financing. If McCain was making as much money as Obama, he wouldn't forgo public financing (he said he wouldn't earlier this year before conveniently changing his mind)-- and he's the one responsible for recent public financing laws.

All this extra money makes him competitive in states Democrats typically don't win, and I'd rather take adding a Dakota or Georgia to the Democrats' electoral map over maintaining a campaign promise neither side firmly made.

I completely understand what you're saying Jman, but its the principle of the matter. He chose winning over his word.

He's a politician. Enough said.

 

[Matt]

Polls show the only state Barr currently has a significant impact on is his home state of Georgia. As it stands, Obama and McCain are statistically tied. Given Barr's appeal in Georgia, McCain's lack of appeal to Georgia's conservative base, and Obama's popularity among the state's African American population, I would say that Barr will serve as a spoiler and Obama will come out on top in Georgia... thus handing the election to the Democrats...

I don't think it'll go down that way. When Georgian conservatives are being hit by 527 ads on a daily basis saying "Voting for Barr = a vote for Obama," they will fall in line behind McCain. Gore and Democrats never had the balls to attack Nader. Republicans will have the balls to straight out say "Barr gives Obama the election."

 

[jaguarr]

I completely understand what you're saying Jman, but its the principle of the matter. He chose winning over his word.

He's a politician. Enough said.

Did anyone ever say Obama WASN'T a politician? I don't think even he has said that. I'm just amazed that there are so many people going "OMG! He' really a politician!!! OMG!" when he never claimed he wasn't. Again, people have this weird perception of this guy and have built him up (both people who are madly in love with him as well as people who hate him with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns) to be something he's really not and then act surprised when he turns out to be not what they had built him up to be in their own minds.

jag