The McCain Thread

[jaguarr]

McCain surrogate makes controversial Muslim comment
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/18/mccain-surrogate-makes-controversial-muslim-comment/

Shut up, Old White Guy #5!



jag

 

[Superman]

McCain surrogate makes controversial Muslim comment
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/18/mccain-surrogate-makes-controversial-muslim-comment/

The Swift Boat attack was totally truthful," Day also said...

I don't know whether to laugh or roll my eyes at this.

 

[Marx]

McCain: 'I don't know' if Obama is a socialist
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/18/mccain-“i-don’t-know”-if-obama-is-socialist/

 

[Superman]

McCain: 'I don't know' if Obama is a socialist
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/18/mccain-“i-don’t-know”-if-obama-is-socialist/

Oh please, This guy is such a jackass, He knows damn good and well Obama isn't a "socialist". He's just trying to use the tired old fear card again to get people afraid over nothing. He keeps saying he's nothing like Bush but then he and his people turns around and use the same tactics Bush used.

So much for elevating the process. McBush strikes again.

 

[Excel]

I cant wait for the debates. All this "Obama was dead wrong about the surge and Iraq" is a joke. Has the surge stopped us from spending billions? Has the surge given average Americans ANYTHING? Has the surge made all the pointless deaths of U.S. Soliders justified?

 

[Excel]

how the hell am i supposed to trust McCain's huge data bank of military/political knowledge when he just showed that he's a year behind a military/political noob?

Some straight talk. The debates will be fun.

 

[Marx]

Some straight talk. The debates will be fun.

Considering that Obama is stronger in fleshed out stump speeches than he is in debates, I would say this will be interesting.

 

[rdh007]

Is this even worthy of a response?

You're comparing apples to oranges. McCain was never a part of a scandal, and it seems to piss you off that I've proven that to you. Just accept that he has a SPARKLY CLEAN record and move on. You aren't doing yourself any favors at all by trying to make a senator with the MOST honorable record there is look scandalous when no such scandals exist.

So, the Keating Five Scandal and the Savings and Loan Scandal which it was a part of shall heretofore be renamed the Keating Five (and the S&L) Walk Through a Field of Daisies and Rainbows. Since Clinton got off (pardon the pun) in much the same way McCain did(again with his young blondes choices (which actually makes me like him more) you'll have to pardon the pun), we shall name it the Lewinsky Walk Through a Field of Daisies and Rainbows. I think (though in the black and white way many seem to see the world it's probably opposite) we have an argument that's more semantics than not, but if you need to see John McCain as an untarnished hero, then I doubt posts on a message board will do much to change your mind. For those interested someone directly involved in the Keating Five part (as opposed to Neil Bush's involvement which cost us $1 billion according to Salon) of the S&L Walk Through a Field of Daisies and Rainbows talks a little about McCain's status as just another politician:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/28/amid_mccains_new_status_old_scandals_stir/

As for whether or not I'm pissed off, I'm simply not. Though if it makes you feel better, this will be the last I respond to you for the foreseeable future (I'm on vacation for nearly a week) and you, good sir, shall receive the last word should you choose to respond to this post.

John Kerry's record of service was brought into question by those he served with personally. No such thing has occured with McCain. Also, while Kerry's experience in Vietnam was limited to a few combat situations, it was NO WHERE NEAR being a PoW for over FIVE YEARS. The two served honorably, but in terms of 'sacrifice and honor' it is McCain who went FAR above and beyond the call of duty. McCain also did not destroy his medals.

Also, I never supported Kerry.

How could you not support Kerry? He was a war hero running against a draft dodger.
Look, I brought up Kerry only because I can't see why McCain's record of service should have any bearing on why people would support this man. If Kerry's record of service which by all credible and objective sources (those voters who listened to the "Swift Boat" guys had a pre-disposition to disliking Kerry and his policies and that you'll never convince me otherwise of, my own family included) was distinguished, then by all rights he should be president.

You must not be doing too much research then. McCain has remained unpopular with his own party for quite a long time.

But while we're on the subject, how can you find Obama 'fit for command' when the man doesn't even know from hour to hour in a day what position he's taking?

Seriously, do some research on McCain and what his views have been AFTER 2002. You will find that you're wrong.

From the "hometown" Arizona Republic:
"The presumptive Republican nominee arguably cast the decisive vote 14 times since 1999 to ensure Republicans got their way, and he had five other close cases where his vote may have made a difference, Senate records show. By comparison, McCain effectively handed Democrats a win on roll-call votes four times in the same period. On one of those occasions, Republicans could still have won if Vice President Dick Cheney had cast a tie-breaking vote."
and my favorite:
"During the 10 years The Republic examined, McCain crossed over to vote with Democrats 19 times in 82 close votes. He did so just once in the four years he was running for president: 1999, 2000, 2007 and 2008. All 12 of the close votes he missed happened in those years, too...Even so, in 59 of the 82 close votes, Republicans got what they wanted regardless of McCain's position. In those 59 cases, McCain broke with his party 16 times."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/07/20080507mccainvotes0507.html

So again, that "maverick" status (great way to tie in Top Gun, btw GOP think tanks ) is at best questionable and at worst a lie. As I wrote before, I believe that McCain was probably the best of a bad bunch ideologically. Though I trusted Romney more (to screw up less).

Heh, but I don't disagree on torture. If waterboarding some mass murderer means saving hundreds of lives, then waterboard the mother******. Since McCain HIMSELF understands the nature of torture, I find him to be MUCH MORE capable of coming to a decision about torture than you, me or even the current President.

Interesting. I'd have thought you'd have supported Kerry for this very reason. We are apparently at war with an idea and I thought since he'd actually been in combat you'd have supported him. Hmmmmm. Anyway, if torture is what America stands for, then so be it. Though I always thought we were the good guys. Oh well, turns out our ideals are on paper only. And again, I'd agree with what you're saying about his ability to make a decision if the Arizona Republic didn't prove that John McCain's decisions (in election cycles) are always about John McCain and not America.

Sort of the way Obama was whining about his wife being 'off limits' to the media even though she was out on the campaign trail for him?

But Fox News tells me he was talking about the Tennessee Republican Party, not the media?
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/19/obama-to-tennessee-gop-my-wife-is-off-limits/
It appears that comparing apples to oranges is not a sin exclusive to me.

And I'm disappointed that the democrats would nominate a candidate with virtually zero experience, but who's 'charismatic.' I could care less what his skin color is, but Obama is simply NOT QUALIFIED to be the President of the United States. Period.

I never mentioned his skin color. Though, since you brought up charisma, let me address that. I think this is simply over compensation for 2004, where the Democrats nominated a better president and a worse candidate than the Republicans. This time, Bill Richardson was pretty clearly the most qualified candidate and he never had a shot because of the "charisma" factor. I'm confident that Obama will work to improve this nation rather than himself as he has all his life.

Again, I don't anticipate a response to whatever you post after this, so if winning is important to you as it seems to be when you "prove" things to me and I get "piss"-ed off, then you, good sir, are the winner of an internet cookie:

 

[Kelly]

Actually while Lazur has a very strong opinion - which everyone here does - he is not the Republican lackey you (and I apologize if I am wrong) seem to be painting him as.

He has been very critical of Bush and has frequently admitted disgust with many major Republicans.

Sorry SN, but from reading his posts over the last few years. I rank him right over there with ole' Memphis Slim.

 

[Kelly]

Damn that looks good....

 

[lazur]

Sorry SN, but from reading his posts over the last few years. I rank him right over there with ole' Memphis Slim.

I could really care less where you 'rank' me. This isn't a popularity contest.

From my perspective, of the two candidates running for office, McCain is the most qualified. But I do realize that rabid 'democrats' will support ANY democrat no matter how unqualified he or she may be.

Therein also lies the difference between me and others who are so entrenched with their own 'party' that they will forego all common sense in favor of ignorant bliss. For example, I voted for Bill Clinton ... twice ... and I don't regret doing so. I guess you can 'say' all you want that I'm a hardcore republican, but I know of no hardcore republicans who voted for or even like(d) Clinton.

Point being, Obama will never be elected President. That people are even entertaining the prospect is both entertaining and troubling. When it comes down to the wire and people have to cast a vote in private, you can bet that McCain will take the election. Mark my words.

 

[Zen]

I could really care less where you 'rank' me. This isn't a popularity contest.

From my perspective, of the two candidates running for office, McCain is the most qualified. But I do realize that rabid 'democrats' will support ANY democrat, no matter how unqualified he or she may be.

But there's no way Obama is getting elected. Mark my words.

if you go invisible after obama gets elected then,

your internet respect drops son!!

 

[lazur]

if you go invisible after obama gets elected then,

your internet respect drops son!!

Nah, I can admit when I'm wrong. But I also have no doubt that I'm right.

 

[Marx]

I could really care less where you 'rank' me. This isn't a popularity contest.

From my perspective, of the two candidates running for office, McCain is the most qualified. But I do realize that rabid 'democrats' will support ANY democrat no matter how unqualified he or she may be.

Therein also lies the difference between me and others who are so entrenched with their own 'party' that they will forego all common sense in favor of ignorant bliss. For example, I voted for Bill Clinton ... twice ... and I don't regret doing so. I guess you can 'say' all you want that I'm a hardcore republican, but I know of no hardcore republicans who voted for or even like(d) Clinton.

Point being, Obama will never be elected President. That people are even entertaining the prospect is both entertaining and troubling. When it comes down to the wire and people have to cast a vote in private, you can bet that McCain will take the election. Mark my words.

There are just as many "rabid Republicans" as "rabid Democrats." I would also suggest that you stay away from the business of casting projections as certainty in this election. If there is anything that this campaign cycle has taught us, it is that nothing is certain.

 

[Marx]

Dobson considers McCain endorsement
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/21/dobson-considers-mccain-endorsement/

 

[Marx]

NY Times rejects McCain editorial
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/21/new-york-times-rejects-mccain-editorial/

 

[jaguarr]

Dobson considers McCain endorsement
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/21/dobson-considers-mccain-endorsement/

Hahaha! Ohhh, Dobson..."I emphatically will NEVER endorse John McCain for President. Probably."

jag

 

[Marx]

Hahaha! Ohhh, Dobson..."I emphatically will NEVER endorse John McCain for President. Probably."

jag

 

[Marx]

McCain camp: Talk of a VP announcement this week
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/21/mccain-camp-talk-of-a-vp-announcement-this-week/

 

[Matt]

NY Times rejects McCain editorial
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/21/new-york-times-rejects-mccain-editorial/

How very fair of the Times. Nice to see the journalistic integrity of our country's biggest newspaper. I'm tempted to cancel my subscription over this.

 

[Marx]

How very fair of the Times. Nice to see the journalistic integrity of our country's biggest newspaper. I'm tempted to cancel my subscription over this.

I think it was a bad move to publish Obama's, and not McCain's...

 

[Matt]

As do I. If you will publish one, you should give his opponent the chance to give a rebuttal in the interest of giving your reader the most fair, unbiased, complete view of the topic.

 

[Marx]

As do I. If you will publish one, you should give his opponent the chance to give a rebuttal in the interest of giving your reader the most fair, unbiased, complete view of the topic.

Exactly.

 

[Matt]

Which is why I am now seriously considering canceling my subscription. To have an overly biased editorial board is one thing. To have a slight leaning in your articles is another...but to allow one presidential candidate to write an editorial piece on one of his policy standings where he relentlessly attacks the other candidate, and then just say "No," when the other candidate tries to write his own op-ed piece just lacks any sort of professionalism and neglects any responsibility to their readers and paying customers.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission."
"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," the statement said.

reading is hard, hard work.