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.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ce...h_brow_monitoring_the_paris.html?hpid=entnews

Highbrow: Monitoring the Paris-Britney Ad Fallout
Highbrow

After Monday's discussion, I didn't think I'd be talking politics again so soon, but Paris forced my hand.

By now we're all familiar with the ad: in an attempt to diminish opponent Barack Obama, John McCain compared him to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. And despite the fact that it may not make the best Friday List inspiration, there has been some meaty opinion-making over the past week -- weighing the ad's effects on the presidential race and the bleeding of celebrity into the campaign.

As expected, the comparison drew outrage from Paris's mom, Kathy Hilton, who called the ad "frivolous" and a "waste of time and money." (And quite possibly her money, since it turns out Hilton had contributed funds to the McCain campaign in the past). Slate's Christopher Beam even asked if Paris could sue the McCain campaign. Probably not, since "political speech is so highly protected by the First Amendment," he concludes.

But, who would sue when faced with a golden opportunity to ride an unexpected wave of publicity? Not Paris, who fired back earlier this week with her own satirical take on the ad, courtesy of the Will Ferrell backed site FunnyorDie.com:

As if we didn't already realize that John McCain is old and out of touch, the contrast of Paris's well-produced, spot on rebuttal only makes him seem more remote and removed from what makes America tick. (From the voice-over: "He's the oldest celebrity in the world, like super old. Old enough to remember when dancing was a sin.") Score one for Paris.

The NYT's Maureen Dowd thinks McCain's ad is a bellwether for a foundering campaign and a major insight into a candidate green with jealousy:

The Arizona senator who built his reputation on being a brave proponent of big solutions is running a schoolyard campaign about tire gauges and Paris Hilton, childishly accusing his opponent of being too serious, too popular and not patriotic enough.

She continues:

For McCain, being cool meant being a rogue, not a policy wonk; but Obama manages to be a cool College Bowl type, which must irk McCain, who liked to play up his bad-boy cool. Now the guy in the back of the class is shooting spitballs at the class pet and is coming off as more juvenile than daring.

After reviewing the ghosts of campaign ads past, Annabelle Gurwitch (writing in The Nation) not only invokes the infamous Willie Horton ad, but thinks that the use of Paris and Brit only points out the fact that John McCain just doesn't get it: Paris and Brit are geniuses of brand marketing, continuing to rake in the bucks despite an otherwise tanking economy -- so, by likening his opponent to Brit and Paris, McCain is only reinforcing Obama's firm position in our national psyche.

Still, the McCain ad team has decided to doggedly stick to its new theme, yesterday releasing an ad again labeling Obama a -- dare I say it? -- "celebrity." Says the Fix's Chris Cillizza:

Let there be no doubt: Republicans have adopted "celebrity" just as they associated "flip-flop" with John Kerry in 2004.

Why stick with a concept that drew mostly guffaws and head-shaking the first time around? Cillizza continues:

This makes perfect sense considering the success of the "Celeb" ad: It has been watched more than 1.6 million times on YouTube and replayed constantly on network and cable news shows. Another mention of it in reference to this new ad will lead to a whole new round of free air time, further driving the term into the minds of voters.

Although the ad didn't do McCain any favors, he should get some kind of consolation prize (perhaps free admission to next month's AARP convention?) for stumbling on the revelation that Paris and Brit can bring bring more eyeballs and chatter to a campaign than even the most pitched battles over energy policy.

Spears, it should be noted, has remained mum on the ad, though as these clips so skillfully point out -- she may actually have more in common with McCain than Obama.

Please discuss calmly, rationally and with as many references to ponies as possible.

I left the author's last comment at the end in because it amused me. :D

jag
 
Once again, you're relying on the media for your information. I have news for you: THERE WAS NO SURPLUS UNDER CLINTON.

Not that this is really news, because you knew it anyway, but you really like to throw distortions out there if you believe it'll work in favor of your chosen candidate.

When Clinton left office, the best that could be said at the time is that he 'balanced the BUDGET.' He did NOT pay down the national debt, let alone create a 'surplus' of any kind, and the only way he was able to balance the budget was by BORROWING from social security - which is also partly why social security is in such a dire state right now.

Fiscal

Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

When Bush took over, the national DEFICIT was 17.91 billion, but the national DEBT has CLIMBED by 1.4 TRILLION.

If you don't understand the difference between the national DEBT and the national DEFICIT, you shouldn't be commenting on this topic. However, if you did understand the difference, then you wouldn't be sitting here and attributing actions to Clinton which NEVER HAPPENED.

Either way, you're uninformed and uneducated on this topic.

If you would like some education on this topic AND you're able to break free from partisan politics long enough to do some research, I invite you to check out the following link:

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

If that's not good enough and you simply refuse to believe what I'm saying, you can also take a look at the US Treasury's website for hard data (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np). Careful, though, because it will contradict the non-sense you've been fed up to this point, and which you have chosen to believe ahead of actually, you know, looking it up for yourself.

Not that I blame Clinton, mind you. After all, I did vote for the man both times and he did accomplish some good things for our country despite his personal shortcomings...
You know what? You could be right, But then again you could be wrong. I know so little about economics that I wouldn't know where to start. I'll show you where I got my info though. Believe it, Don't believe it, I don't care but I'll stick by my post.

I noticed that you had nothing to say about the rest of what I said. Why is that?
 
Once again, you're relying on the media for your information. I have news for you: THERE WAS NO SURPLUS UNDER CLINTON.

Not that this is really news, because you knew it anyway, but you really like to throw distortions out there if you believe it'll work in favor of your chosen candidate.

When Clinton left office, the best that could be said at the time is that he 'balanced the BUDGET.' He did NOT pay down the national debt, let alone create a 'surplus' of any kind, and the only way he was able to balance the budget was by BORROWING from social security - which is also partly why social security is in such a dire state right now.

Fiscal

Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

When Bush took over, the national DEFICIT was 17.91 billion, but the national DEBT has CLIMBED by 1.4 TRILLION.

If you don't understand the difference between the national DEBT and the national DEFICIT, you shouldn't be commenting on this topic. However, if you did understand the difference, then you wouldn't be sitting here and attributing actions to Clinton which NEVER HAPPENED.

Either way, you're uninformed and uneducated on this topic.

If you would like some education on this topic AND you're able to break free from partisan politics long enough to do some research, I invite you to check out the following link:

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

If that's not good enough and you simply refuse to believe what I'm saying, you can also take a look at the US Treasury's website for hard data (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np). Careful, though, because it will contradict the non-sense you've been fed up to this point, and which you have chosen to believe ahead of actually, you know, looking it up for yourself.

Not that I blame Clinton, mind you. After all, I did vote for the man both times and he did accomplish some good things for our country despite his personal shortcomings...
Wait just one minute. I just took a closer look at your "Link". You're kidding me, right? You are accusing me of partisan politics while at the same time you are posting a link to a Right Wing site to make your "point".

I may not know much about economics but at least I get my info from a real Non-Partisan site.

I should have known you was full of it.:whatever:
 
it's okay for someone who regularly posts on a message board full of nerds to admit they don't know much about the economy...





....a presidential candidate however??? not so okay. McCain's the one that should really be in the sig. he can do more damage to this country than Superman (the poster, not the character...hehe).
 
it's okay for someone who regularly posts on a message board full of nerds to admit they don't know much about the economy...





....a presidential candidate however??? not so okay. McCain's the one that should really be in the sig. he can do more damage to this country than Superman (the poster, not the character...hehe).


:hehe:

jag
 
That would be my hot Korean fiancee. Trust me, I don't lay in bed at nights thinking of you. Much as you may like for that to be the case. :woot:
:huh: What are you talking about? Who said anything about thinking in bed?

Plus, What's the big deal about me admitting that I know little about economy in your sig?:huh:

I just don't get it.:dry:
 
:huh: What are you talking about? Who said anything about thinking in bed?

Plus, What's the big deal about me admitting that I know little about economy in your sig?:huh:

I just don't get it.:dry:

You made the comment about me getting through the night. I responded.

And I'm just having fun with you. Why So Serious?
 
oooooooooo..........nice one, hehe...but you should have brought up McCain's stance on women's rights, considering this is a McCain thread.
 
How about now?



jag
There you go. :up: :woot:


You know I don't know what's worse. McCain either tried to lie and got busted by Tim or McCain really did forget that he said something that important about HIMSELF.

Either way he still comes out looking like a moron.
 
:up:

there's a plethora of videos on youtube illustrating that he doesn't know much about economics.
 
I wish Bloomberg would be willing to VP for someone. I can't stand watching Mitt "the ken doll" Romney for more than a few seconds at a time. ALSO, he out spent every Republican candidate, by millions in the states where he campaigned, and still couldn't win those states......I don't think people like him as much as he likes himself.
 
Would you not concede, however, that Mitt's hair could run this country better than it has been for the past 8 years ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"