Did Obama or McCain Win? (Updated x2)
[Guest post by DRJ]
Who won the discussion at the Saddleback Civil Forum yesterday – Obama or McCain? To answer that question, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell apparently believes we should consider whether McCain may have cheated (from MSNBC via Newsbusters):
“(Videotape)
SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): Defeat it. Couple of points. One, if I’m president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do it. I will get that done.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: Andrea Mitchell, that’s a pretty clear contrast.
MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, there was the crisp, immediate, forceful response by John McCain, clearly in a comfort zone because he was with his base. And Barack Obama, taking a risk in going there but seeing an opportunity. And a much more nuanced approach. The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that — what they’re putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MS. MITCHELL: He seemed so well prepared.“
UPDATE 1: More from Rick Warren on whether McCain heard any of the questions.
UPDATE 2: The McCain campaign complains to NBC about Andrea Mitchell’s willingness to repeat Obama’s talking points.
END OF UPDATES
If Obama had done better than McCain in answering questions, I would seriously consider whether Obama is the better candidate. I would consider Obama even though I’m convinced he is so liberal that he’s effectively a socialist, and I think socialism is bad for America. I would consider Obama because I want America to have smart leaders.
McCain knows what he thinks about the important issues of the day. One of the reasons conservatives don’t like McCain is that he doesn’t answer some of the important questions the way we like. I won’t speak for all conservatives but I accept my differences with McCain because at least I know where he stands. In fact, I felt the same way when I was younger when I had to choose between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Reagan was pro-life at a time when I and 78% of Americans were pro-choice on abortion. Pro-choice was important to me then but I accepted Reagan’s pro-life position because I knew his commitment came from principle. I think most Americans will accept differences in opinion when they arise from a clear principle.
Last night and throughout the past year, Obama has shown he is accomplished at identifying the questions. Any good lawyer will tell you that’s an important skill. However, while Obama can articulate varying views, he doesn’t have answers he’s willing to commit to. Obama is the classic liberal arts graduate and younger lawyer who can look at all sides of every issue but can’t or won’t commit to answers.
We’re electing a President who needs to have clear answers, not a mediator with advanced dispute resolution skills. Obama would make a good mediator but as his mild legislative history and open-ended answers demonstrate he’s not ready to lead or be President.
— DRJ
Obots. This is the post where you prove your mettle. Make us respect you (even if you don’t plan to change your vote).
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/17/2008 @ 7:27 pmMcain came to Saddleback event late and heard the questions,before he was asked them. He was 45 mins late.
james (6f79e5) — 8/17/2008 @ 7:41 pmMcCain’s crisp, clear answers to Pastor Rick Warren’s excellent questions, remind me of George Bush – not only in style but also in substance – especially, McCain’s belief that evil can be defeated. While such sure-headedness in a leader may give comfort, it should also give pause, because it was such simplistic, single-minded thinking that allowed Bush to declare his “war on terror” against an “axis of evil.” Based on such rhetoric, we launched the war in Iraq, the greatest foreign policy blunder in US history. I vastly prefer Senator Obama’s analytical and nuanced approach, which should allow us to revisit not only the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, but also the disastrous domestic and economic policies of the past 8 years.
Eric Forst (aac82d) — 8/17/2008 @ 7:42 pmjames wrote:
Source?
L.N. Smithee (452a68) — 8/17/2008 @ 7:52 pmObama chose to “stay the course” and did not oppose the war at the 2004 Democrat convention when his voice mattered.
I’m sure you believe Obama has an analytical and nuanced approach, but even you have to admit that he was just obfuscating at Saddleback.
“One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this.”
Seriously, Senator?
Roy Mustang (a7923d) — 8/17/2008 @ 7:54 pmI would remind you that it worked fine for 8 years of Reagan, but I suspect you consider those years an especially dark time when the Mother Country fell from power…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/17/2008 @ 7:56 pmI’ve updated the post to include Rick Warren’s response to whether McCain heard the questions beforehand.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/17/2008 @ 7:59 pmYes, GW’s simplistic, single-minded thinking put all of those great intellects in the House & Senate into a coma forcing then to vote “Aye” on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
Another Drew (688ffe) — 8/17/2008 @ 7:59 pmWhereas, if his request had been nuanced, they could have passed it around to a dozen or more committees to parse the words, and we would still be complaining about Food For Oil, overflight violations, and the disgusting human-rights record of the Hussein Regime, since the Congress would still be procrastinating (something they happen to be very good at it seems).
The fact that John McCain stated in the negative re hearing the questions ahead of time, and that he would be telling the truth, is inconceivable to most on the Left, since their value system is relative to the goals they wish to attain.
Another Drew (688ffe) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:09 pmThat a person can uphold a code of personal integrity just flies right over their heads.
If a graduate of Annapolis or West Point (I’m still concerned about the integrity demonstrated by AFA personnel – and no slight is intended of the CGA or the MMA either) says that he did not do something he had vowed not to do, you better believe him, I certainly do.
Of course, the simplest explanation is projection:
The Left always accuses its’ opponent of the nefarious actions that it itself does so well.
kudos to rick warren for bringing a civility to the election process–for replacing heat with light.
obama won it, for sure, if you prefer reasoning and candor. im astounded that apparently many preferred mccain’s short, direct answers. i don’t understand how people can consider him in the same league as obama. if mccain wins, i may be more comfortable living in another country.
PETE (cdcb2b) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:20 pmWe have a winner…
Unless the part about Obama winning wasn’t Sarcasim, in which case I fear for this country.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:22 pmRick Warren won.
David Ehrenstein (699cff) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:22 pmobama is truly a builder/facilitator, isn’t he?–willing to work with the powers at hand to achieve the best solution. if i was pro-life, i could live with him as president.
PETE (cdcb2b) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:24 pmIt is possible to be “analytical and nuanced” and still be clear and committed. Check John F. Kennedy. But this balance seems beyond the ken of Barack Obama.
A leaf through the pages of history suggests that “sure-headedness” (though not belligerance, and I have not detected belligerance in John McCain) in the face of evil has saved lives otherwise lost by equivocation under the same circumstance.
I thankfully recognized nothing of George Bush in John McCain’s answers last night. But to say there was an analogy of simplistic moral clarity does not implicate McCain for Bush’s missteps anymore than it means that McCain is the return of Reagan, who similarly, “simplistically”, and quite rightly called out the Soviet Union as “evil.”
rrpjr (fb0748) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:25 pm“I would remind you that it worked fine for 8 years of Reagan, but I suspect you consider those years an especially dark time when the Mother Country fell from power…”
Mother Russia is back. Thanks to Bush bogging down our military in Iraq, Bush now has a fraction of the power Reagan had at his disposal. What “worked” for Reagan was his ability to stoke American’s fear of the “Evil Empire” on the one hand, while exploiting Russia’s waning grasp on Eastern Europe as capitalism swept the region.
Contrary to your belief that I must be a socialist because I support Obama, I actually prefer capitalism and a strong free market. I just can’t stand leaders who make decisions based on dogmatic adherance to an outdated worldview that treats complex foreign policy problems in dualistic terms of good versus evil.
Eric Forst (aac82d) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:28 pmPETE: im astounded that apparently many preferred mccain’s short, direct answers.
I always prefer a direct answer to obfuscation.
aunursa (5daa82) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:29 pmPETE: obama is truly a builder/facilitator, isn’t he?–willing to work with the powers at hand to achieve the best solution.
I can name several issues in which McCain worked with Democrats much to the dismay of the Republican base. Can you name any issue in which Obama worked with Republicans against the interests of the Democratic base?
aunursa (5daa82) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:34 pmand, the truth is always preferrable to a lie.
Another Drew (688ffe) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:36 pmPETE, you are kidding right? Obama showed that he did not have answers for questions that he should have expected to be asked. His incoherent wandering around the abortion questions were a great example – and amusingly were contradictory to his own previous votes on the topic.
As for your “builder/facilitator” comment, you must be kidding. Leave satire to the professionals. Obama has absolutely no legislative accomplishments to support your silly claim. McCain has a lot of such accomplishments ( not all of which I’m actually happy with … ).
Sheesh, these Obama cultists really are bizarre.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:41 pmThe lamest of lame excuses is “he cheated.” I thought that Obama had held up well, but this wild whine reminds me of Obama’s character. He lives by gaming the rules — it’s his M.O. in every campaign he’s ever run — and so he assumes everyone else does.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:41 pmMother Russia is back. Thanks to Bush bogging down our military in Iraq, Bush now has a fraction of the power Reagan had at his disposal.
And you would have handled Russia differently than Bush – how?
Anon (db8e0c) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:43 pmObama worked with McCain on ethics reform. You know, the legislation where Obama told McCain he was with him, then chose to stab McCain in the back (per the Democratic leadership’s orders). McCain sent a letter Obama basically calling Obama a slimeball, typical politican.
McCain is on the ball. He was one of the first to see through Obama and Putin.
Roy Mustang (a7923d) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:44 pm1. It’s not like McCain’s performance in the first part of the interview was any different than the latter, so if he actually heard it and there was a benefit to it, it didn’t show very well.
2. There was nothing in Obama’s history in the past (15, 20, whatever) debates that should have led anybody to expect a different performance. On the whole, I actually thought he did a lot better last night in comparison to the past – no uhs, little stuttering – but apparently the left’s expectations were much higher.
3. One thing Warren said today was that he gave both candidates the first two questions in advance. Now we, on the right, have been making fun of Obama for flubbing the “three advisers” question, but if he got this in advance, it really is inexcusable that he didn’t have a better prepared answer for that. That’s not just bad debating, it’s purposefully deciding to wing it.
Anon (db8e0c) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:54 pmThe I am simply at a loss as to how you can support Obama, since more than hal his platform, maybe even all of it, is based on socialist ideals?
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:56 pmScott, I guess the fact that Obama is running as someone who is the exact opposite of what Obama has always been fools a lot of people.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:05 pmI can’t find one socialist program in Obama’s platform. What are his socialist ideas? Just because you want to expand healthcare benefits and raise taxes on rich people, does not mean you are a socialist. Just because you have a few social programs, does not mean you are socialist. The US has survived 70 years with Social Security and a variety of social programs including medicare and vast subsidies for American farmers. Your comment is another example of the dualistic worldview shared by Bush and McCain. Unfortunately, the world’s problems cannot be solved by painting everything in simple black and white, Socialst vs. Capitalist, good vs. evil…complex problems require nuanced, complex solutions.
Eric Forst (aac82d) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:10 pmEric, universal healthcare is a socialist platform and has been for quite a long time. You are just pretending to ignore that.
Taxation has been increasingly progressive throughout most of the Bush administration, Obama wants to increase the rate of increase of taxation upon the “rich” ( now defined as the upper middle class evidently ).
All of Obama’s “economic” proposals are in fact counterproductive. More bread and circuses for the proletariat.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:12 pmActually, Eric, yes the world can be as simple as black and white, Socialist v. Capitalist, and good v. evil….
Black and white: follow the rules.
Socialist v. Capitalist: Capitalism beats socialism in EVERY possible area of economic growth, development, and societial benefit.
Good v. evil: Good is always better than evil.
Want to try that one again???
As for Pete….please don’t feed the troll….
reff (b68a4f) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:24 pmcomplex problems require nuanced, complex solutions.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:27 pmThus I assume you can provide from Obama, a well-articulated, “nuanced and complex” point-by-point detailed agenda that reflects, Obama’s superior capability to address international crises. Please I want to be convinced. Provide to your audience, Obama’s careful, intellectually well-crafted, in tune with the reality of global politics, agenda for being prepared to handle the issues facing the U.S. I’d like to know how Obama has the superior agenda with regard to belligerent adversaries. How has Obama demonstrated that he has a firmer grasp on the history of nations and the status of their diplomatic and economic relationships with the U.S? What are the key issues that need to be addressed with regard to a potential “hot spot” in the world, e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran? How has Obama’s well-researched, well-informed knowledge of these key issues which could at any moment require immediate earth-shaking decision-making proven him to be a more qualified candidate to assume the reins of power as the head of state of the U.S. In my honest assessment, I have seen little if any indication that Senator Barack Obama is even remotely close to fulfilling what I believe are the criteria to earn a vote for the Presidency. Not being Bush has long ceased to be a viable answer. Why should he be given the job?
Eric, are you kidding me?? haven’t you heard the obamas said “share your pies” “distribute your wealth”. Obama even said that in Berlin. If this is not socialism, you tell me what is it?? It’s so apparent that you support obama even though you don’t know about what obama stands.
hannah (d08e4e) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:30 pmJack, you mean the “nuanced” response when he said he would invade a nuclear armed ally of ours to “get” Osama bin Laden? Or the “nuanced” response to the Russian invasion of Georgia which was to ignore the fact that his “solution” ( a UN Security Council resolution ) was silly since Russia has a veto in the Security Council?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:31 pmThe fact that the Obama campaign is going to the trouble of spreading garbage rumors about McCain’s advance preparation or listening to Obama’s answers speaks volumes to who they believe won last night’s event. I wonder if they will try to alter some of the terms of the now agreed upon Presidential debates based upon last night’s performances. I think they will.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:31 pmObviously, evil should be confronted, whenever possible, but to believe it can be defeated is naive. That’s why Obama said that is in God’s hands. I do belive in Universal Healthcare and strong public schoos, but I think free-market principles should rule most other industries. Why can’t we have a hybrid system? Free-market principles don’t work for healthcare, because the demands of profit-making usually run contrary to the demands of a patient.
Eric Forst (aac82d) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:33 pm“Nuanced and complex” has becoming meaningless window dressing for empty platitudes that pay lip service to the allegedly equal validity of both sides in a dispute regardless of either side’s merit based on values, standards, and facts. It’s amazing that a decision maker can with confidence express how they would act in a crucial situation based on their knowledge and beliefs and they are dismissed as “simple” whereas a wavering relativist is hailed as “nuanced.”
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:35 pmEric writes: “Free-market principles don’t work for healthcare, because the demands of profit-making usually run contrary to the demands of a patient.”
This is hilarious. You would think that Eric has never paid any attention to the universal healthcare experiences of Canada or Britain where it is found that socialist principles are no more patient friendly.
Eric, universal health care systems control costs by denying care, rationing care or just requiring people to endure long waiting lists.
A friend of mine in Canada tore her knee ligament a few years ago. It was a 9 month wait just to get an MRI ( It was not that long ago that Detroit had more MRI machines than all of Canada ). After the MRI it was another 8 months to wait for surgery to correct it. It took my friend more than a year and a half before she could walk without crutches.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:37 pmby the way, what’s it look like to you when we put obama with Putin?? I bet Putin can grind obama into pieces with his hand. Even with his wife and Clinton, Obama seems less of a man than these women. How on earth is he going to fight Putin. However, if Mccain is President, Putin is going to have second thought before he takes on the US. National security should always be the most important thing during the time of war. And Obama is not a strong candidate. Plus, he claims Mccain doesn’t have economic expereience, does obama? I don’t think so.
hannah (d08e4e) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:37 pmPlus Putin is a kick-ass sambo/judo expert. He’d have Obama tapping out on the mat in seconds!
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:39 pm#6 Scott
Sweet.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:40 pmI would gladly wait a little longer for knee surgery, if I knew that all Americans had coverage for their basic needs. I believe that democracy functiouns best when all citizens have basic healthcare and a quality education. The free-market can take care of the rest.
Eric Forst (aac82d) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:48 pmEric, since Obama has put the fight against evil in God’s hands….
Why is Russia on the move???
Why are there murders on the streets of the world???
God does not fight evil for us….He expects us to do that.
reff (b68a4f) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:49 pm‘He seemed so well prepared.’
Well, yes he was. Perhaps it comes as a surprise to Andrea Mitchell an Obama’s people that on the Right we have a candidate who not only knows what he thinks about the issues but has made a commitment to those views, no matter the outcry or ridicule it might bring.
Perhaps he’s old enough and wise enough to understand that if he has the audacity to see himself as POTUS one day, then he better have a playbook of issues, points of view, opinions and a gameplan he knows inside and out and not deviate from it but be prepared to answer every question shot at him from the very people whose vote they hope to secure.
This is not rocket science. McCain is seasoned and mature, sure of his views and comfortable in those views. Obama is a smart young man but still not willing to commit to a point of view. How could he – he’s continually rephrasing and explaining what he really meant because not even he knows. Just commit already!
Dana (254946) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:50 pmUpdate 2 adds a letter to NBC from the McCain campaign.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:53 pmEric, so much for the interests of the patient I see.
By the way, a study a couple of years ago in the British Medical Journal concluded that Kaiser Permanente in California ( one of those evil for-profit capitalist health care companies ) provided better care at about the same cost as the British National Health Service.
Shame about your myths.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:53 pmOh and Eric, it is not just a “little longer” as the equivalent work on my friend’s knee would have taken about a week or two in the US. I know because we started to arrange for her to come here to get it done when she tired of the constant pain, and walking on crutches for over a year.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 9:55 pmIn his linked blog from which he copied and pasted comment #3, Eric cited Chris Matthews as a reputable journalist.
He also reached back into the past in a desperate attempt to link Hillary Clinton with a anti-Semitic remark uttered by Billy Graham in 1972, even though Graham has long since apologized and has a strong record of support for Israel and opposition to targeting Jews for conversion.
I wouldn’t take Eric seriously.
aunursa (5daa82) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:04 pmIf Obama had been provided with the questions eight weeks ago his answers wouldn’t have been any different, nor his performance any smoother.
Icy Truth (9e6f2a) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:05 pmWe didn’t take him seriously, aunursa, given the level of understanding ( ie., nonexistant ) he has of his favorite issue.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:08 pmThat’s ignorant.
I would REFUSE to wait so long to not need CRUTCHES.
See, I don’t have health insurance… But if I need my knee taken care of, I go to a Hosp, get the MRI that day, and get surgery within a week.
You are aware that hospitols will wave huge portions of fees if you kindly explain “I’m so freaking poor you’ll never collect”.
My sister had several operations and lengthy stays in hospitals (and one 2+ hour transfer via ambulance), racking up a small mountain o medical bills…
it was knocked down to about 90% of the original total in a few weeks by placing a few calls.
No one is DENIED care in the US… Yes it can be very, very expensive if you don’t have insurance, but no one really waits for anything. The market has seen to it.
But when you replace “need” with “want”, you now have infinite demand vs finite supply. That’s what happened in Canada and the UK, and that’s why people die waiting on surgery to remove tumors, and why people wait almost a year and half before they can get thier knee fixed.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:11 pmIt never ceases to amaze me the level of hypocrisy that the so called “Christian” right are so comfortable with in their politics. Please explain the Christian morals that equates to a worldview where asking the rich to assist the poor for healthcare or putting a roof over their heads is “evil and godless Communism/Socialism” but un-ubstructed military spending, invasion of Sovreign nations, killing of innocent men, women and children (too bad all Iraqi kids are already out of the womb otherwise the Pro-Lifers would stop looking the other way when their heads are blown off like so much “collateral damange”), unbridled, unchecked greed in the form of Profit is lord and master add up to following the path of Christ!
Christ was eghast….a Pacifist AND a Socialist. The phrase Republican Christian is an oxymoron…there is no such thing!
Ron (b23004) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:12 pm“I believe that democracy functiouns best when all citizens have basic healthcare and a quality education.”
Eric – All citizens have basic healthcare now if they want to pay for it. All that you are talking about is cost shifting, essentially the question of making someone else pay, because make no mistake, in universal healthcare, someone pays. It’s just another form of dishonest argument.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:12 pmRon – I don’t think anybody would recognize it when you describe it like that. Try a little less hyperbole and more realism.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:15 pmWell Daley, what part are you confused by? Happy to help break it down for you
Ron (b23004) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:18 pmYes… A shame his Father was an ass-kicking war-monger and capitalist…
And I guess you never listened to the tale of Talents…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:21 pmRon – Do you have a problem with church charities providing shelter for the poor or helping people to build houses or do you see that as only a function of the government? If done by the government through mechanisms like income redistribution, a lot of folks might see specters of socialism or communism.
Do you also have a problem with capitalism? Your linkage of that to war, if that was intended as a link was curious. How do you define unbridled, unchecked greed for my reference?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:26 pmDaley wrote:Eric – All citizens have basic healthcare now if they want to pay for it. All that you are talking about is cost shifting, essentially the question of making someone else pay, because make no mistake, in universal healthcare, someone pays. It’s just another form of dishonest argument”
Saying that we all have healthcare if we pay for it is as false a statement as saying All Americans can eat…if they have money. Yet another example of the Right equating Profit with morals! I am sure Christ MEANT to say when exhorting his followers to help the poor and needy amoungst us…Well…help those poor and needy who can pay for it themselves
Ron (b23004) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:26 pmRon, so you are saying that you understand the reality of our healthcare system even less than Eric does?
Great. I’m looking forward to you explaining how denying care to the elderly, such as is done in the British NHS, is “christian”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:30 pmNo Daley, I am appalled that the LEADERS of our government want to wrap themselves up in the Cloak of Christianity when it serves their purposes aka who an American citizen chooses to have sex/relationship with while totally ignoring the signature teaching of Jesus which is non violence (yes even when threatened with your own death) and giving the less fortunate. If you want to claim Christianty then stick to his teachings. If you want to pursue Profit as your Lord and Master and don’t care about the social consequences that is fine to just stop the BS pandering and admit your policies have nothing to do with Christianity
Ron (b23004) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:32 pmMcCain’s campaign must be worried that he didn’t do so well if they had to drag out the “liberal bias” whine. Now, instead of Obama’s campaign being whiny conspiracy theorist’s it’s McCain’s campaign being whiny conspiracy theorists (“Its the liberal gremlins out to get us!”). Since JM’s people brought us the liberal thingy when they really didn’t have to people are wondering if JM really did cheat instead of ignoring Ms Mitchell.
EdWood (38f62a) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:32 pmRon, guess you never read much scripture.
“And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”
So they said, “Nothing.”
Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.” ” (Luke 22:35-38, NKJV)
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:35 pmOh yes please SPQR, do enlighten us. I am sure you are an expert
Ron (b23004) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:35 pmRon – Now you are being dishonest. There was no mention of religion in my comment to Eric do wht do you introduce it now. Contrary to what is your biased view, not all members of the right are religious.
Unpacking your statement, you are also incorrect in your response. People cannot be turned down for medical treatment at emergency rooms for ability to pay (according to my latest understanding), something which is creating a significant hardship for the healthcare industry due to our large illegal immigrant population.
Would you like to distort some additional statements in your next diatribe?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:36 pmRon, well if you are the bar, I guess I am.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:36 pmYes SPQR, actually I am very aware of this passage, guess you have no concept of CONTEXT. The “much that is written must be fullfilled in me” is in reference to Christ’s purposeful acts to fullfill the prophacies of Isiah who said the the savior would come with a sword. The fact that Jesus told his 12 disciples that 2 swords would be enough clearly shows that he had no intention of using swords to defend themselves but merely to add credibility to his claim of the role as Christ for his Jewish neighbors who were equally aware of the prophacy. Now, go ahead and point out that Jesus turned over a table in the temple to prove he used “violence” as a political tool and we can finish off the totality of your excuses to do whatever suits your purposes in the name of Christ
Ron (b23004) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:42 pmMcCain’s complaint strikes me as an honor thing. Goes back to his Academy days, I’m sure, as someone pointed out earlier.
The guy probably never cheated on anything in his life (5th from the bottom in his class). Being accused of cheating by people who probably received advance copies of their exams from time to time doesn’t sit well with the duty, honor, country mindset.
Andrea Mitchell-Charlie McCarthy to Axelrod’s David Bergen. Good times!
Chris (da1e70) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:42 pmDaley, if I misjudged your religion I apologise. My original post was specific to the religious right and carried that over. That said your argument shows a complete lack of forethought. Yes it’s great if you need an emergency room that you cannot be turned down but what about the rest of the things that happen to people that DO NOT require an emergancy room? What about a chronic disease? What about the meds that keep you alive but cost thousands of dollars a year? Are you really suggesting that healthcare or the lack there of is all in the imagination of the people? Really? Do you also believe the problem with the economy and loss of jobs are real but rather a issue of too much whining of the American people? Republicans obviously believe this crap but few have the guts to espouse it publically. Congrats to you!
Ron (b23004) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:49 pmSome things are difficult to put into words. Especially issues of life, death, the nature of love and faith. Issues that are in reality no one’s business but our own.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. –Yeats
The debates will give a better understanding of what strengths and weaknesses, these two men have in regard to the issues. Although, it would be great to see debates in other specific areas of knowledge like science, economics, history, literature, the law and even philosophy.
The next POTUS is going to have to be able to grasp nuance and think. Easy “clear” ideological answers don’t work.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:50 pmDavid E #12: “Rick Warren won.”
I just found your comment in the filter (sorry – I’m not sure why it didn’t show up sooner) and we definitely agree on that.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:50 pm#56 Yep. We live in a society where what is “moral” is being replaced by “what is most valuable”. Is Christianity or [add the religion/moral system of your choice] being replaced by the new religion of the “free market?”
EdWood (38f62a) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:57 pma theoretically neutral arbiter of what is the “correct” or most profit creating way of doing things that will lead to the greatest social good? Problem being that least expensive or best practice or most profitable is still just not the same as “moral” or “right”. Which religion do you think BO or JM beleive in the most? I am guessing that many of the commenters here favor the new religion(certainly not all tho, see DRJ, love2000, Patricia, and many others).
i don’t understand how people can consider him in the same league as obama.
I understand completely. I don’t think Obama is in McCain’s league, either.
Kaiser is non-profit. There is a way to get universal coverage without the single payer system that has worked so poorly in Canada and Britain. The French system is the best in the world and about 85% of the population is covered by private contribution like we have. The other 15 to 20% is covered by government subsidy. I have the details on my blog, if anyone is interested, under “Health Reform.”
Obama’s health plan will not work at any cost because he does not mandate coverage. He will not solve the “free rider” problem and Hillary pointed this out repeatedly in the primaries. I’m not in favor of her plan either but at least it makes sense. Obama’s is like all his programs; they are based on what gets votes, not what works.
Mike K (155601) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:58 pmTwo points. I think Rick let McCain off on several points without challenging him, which disgusts me. Stinks of partiality. Example:” Give me a number for what qualifies as wealthy” A number….none given. He should’ve pressed. There was the exchange when Rick was asking a question and before he even got started, McCain said ” yes, yes, and something else..” How did he know the question well enough to give three answers?
Jimmy (fcdc28) — 8/17/2008 @ 10:59 pmWell SPQR, still waiting for your enlightnement on the topic of healthcare. I am especially interested in your research into how evil “social” medicine has managed to have the highest lifespan and lowest infant mortality rates in the world. Or perhaps you can shed some light on your original conjecture that somehow the British medical community have made it policy to refuse treatment of the elderly. Or better still how medical mistakes and horror stories NEVER happen here in the good Ol USA.
Ron (b23004) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:01 pmIf you want to claim Christianty then stick to his teachings.
Ron – I’m not buying your interpretation of his teachings and how to apply them to everyday living, but thanks.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:01 pm#65 Ron
Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) provides medical services and Rx medication for people too poor to purchase health insurance.
Stu707 (6e4ad5) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:01 pm#57
Now Ron, why you gotta go and mess up what’s an entirely clear and neat issue for these guys and for John McCain and GWB? Nuance and consistent argument, and justice, and selflessness is for communists with empty rhetoric. Oh and it’s also evil, because America has God on it’s side in everything it does (except when it pertains to Democrats, Liberals, Homosexuals, illegal immigrants, the poor, the homeless and people who drive Ford F150 Pick ups.)
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:04 pmRon is so prejudiced against people of faith that he is unable to see true evil. I am quite positive that next he will nail us against the wall with the numbers of people throughout history that were the victims of religion; of course, he will conveniently fail to mention how Godless Totalitarian regimes of the 20th-Century killed more people in the name of socialism (whether of the National Worker type, or the Proletarian/Peoples Republic sort) than all of the religious wars throught known history.
Another Drew (688ffe) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:05 pmRon: Go Away!
Ron, NHS’s policy guidelines about the elderly have been reported in the British Medical Journal as recently as last year when an article describing the guidelines for “cost effectiveness” for drug prescriptions as violations of human rights was published. Gulland, A. (2007). NICE guidelines create ethical dilemmas in care of elderly people, says report. British Medical Journal, 335(7624), 791
Polling by Gallup shows that large numbers of elderly in Britain are convinced that they’ve been denied treatment by NHS on the basis of cost effectiveness because of their age.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:09 pm“Daley, if I misjudged your religion I apologise.”
Since I didn’t state one and I wasn’t addressing you anyway, I guess you just got caught up in your rant. Apology accepted.
I didn’t have a lack of forethought, I was just stating facts instead of the false talking points you and Eric were spewing.
“What about the meds that keep you alive but cost thousands of dollars a year?”
Remember the point I made about cost shifting and somebody ultimately paying. Somebody has to take pipe somewhere, it sounds like you wanr it to be TEH RICH, whoever they are defined to be.
“Do you also believe the problem with the economy and loss of jobs are real but rather a issue of too much whining of the American people?”
Ron, what problem and what lost jobs? Can you please be specific? The NY Times has been foredacting a recession for the past six years and we still haven’t seen it. Is that the problem you mean? Is the economy expanding too slowly? Is that the problem you mean? Unemployment finally ticked up last quarter. Is that the problem you mean? All the generalized hysteria from the left about the economy is tough to decipher.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:11 pmMedicaid (Medi-Cal in California) provides medical services and Rx medication for people too poor to purchase health insurance.
stu707 – Don’t let that and other similar state plans get in the way of Ron’s meme. He thinks he’s on a roll.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:14 pmThe thread topic is “Did Obama or McCain Win?”. I would say that a rough count of thread lice plus the attempts at thread thievery indicate that Obama really had his sorry butt kicked – you don’t see full panic and hair on fire thread thievery unless their fellow is parked upside down in a ditch.
BTW – I don’t believe this outing was actually meant to be scored. No followups means that Obama’s inability to articulate an answer to many of the questions with any clarity could not be rectified by a sympathetic interlocutor. In the actual debates I’m sure he’ll have help in covering up his lack of ability.
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:17 pmRon – Those infant mortality stats are cooked too. Michael Moore tried using that meme when his last movie came out and it was shredded. You should be able to dig something up on that pretty easily.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:18 pmRick – Those are usually good indicators.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:20 pmRon –
Please explain the Christian morals that equates to a worldview where asking the rich to assist the poor for healthcare or putting a roof over their heads is “evil and godless Communism/Socialism”
— That IS NOT the Christian worldview. In fact the Christian worldview is to ask those who can to assist the poor. You seem to be confused; but if you’re actually referring to government, and not Christian churches, Socialist governments do not ask . . . they demand, by rule of law, that you give. It’s a critical distinction.
too bad all Iraqi kids are already out of the womb otherwise the Pro-Lifers would stop looking the other way when their heads are blown off
— So, uh, there are no pregnant Iraqi women these days?
The phrase Republican Christian is an oxymoron…there is no such thing!
— A perfect example of Dennis Prager’s maxim: We think the left is wrong; they think the right is evil. You would do well to avoid the use of absolutes; they tend to come off as stereotypes.
I am sure Christ MEANT to say when exhorting his followers to help the poor and needy amoungst us…Well…help those poor and needy who can pay for it themselves
— Nope. Only those that cannot; which makes one wonder why the Dems want to expand the welfare state to cover those that can. What was that story about teaching a man to fish . . .
I am appalled that the LEADERS of our government want to wrap themselves up in the Cloak of Christianity when it serves their purposes aka who an American citizen chooses to have sex/relationship with
— And how are these leaders currently doing this?
BTW, I was gonna skip mentioning any spelling gaffes, but I can’t pass up something as good as “Christ was eghast”. It’s like ‘Christ was aghast’ and ‘Christ said “Egad”‘ mixed together. Classic!
Icy Truth (9e6f2a) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:21 pm#75
That is so flawed a statement I don’t even knw where to begin.
You’re mistaking an economic system for a political ideology. The Nazi’s believed in socialism, yes, but they were extreme nationalists and autocrats who believed in the superiority of their race and nation and way of life above all others.
China and Russia are two of the most powerful up Capitalist/free market nations with piss poor human rights records. Both suppress freedom of speech, assembly, religion and opposition parties, although in Russia there is a phony opposition party for appearance sake.
They have Capitalist economic systems, yet still retain their autocratic ruling classes. How can that be? Care to explain?
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:22 pmAD #73,
Ron was accusing (some?)people in the Christian right of being hypocrites and fakes becuase the actions of many of them don’t back up their lip service to Christian ideals. He is NOT one of those “Christians are bad coz of the Inquisition, the entire new world genocide, etc. etc.” people – which you seem to think he is.
He doesn’t despise Christians, just people who pretend they are Christians.
EdWood (38f62a) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:23 pm#79
The debates friend. Watch the debates. It’s going to be lovely watching everyone who’s ever made a statement like this eat their heart out. What piffle. Enough said.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:25 pm#69 – Jimmy
There was the exchange when Rick was asking a question and before he even got started, McCain said ” yes, yes, and something else..” How did he know the question well enough to give three answers?
— Here’s that moment. See if you can figure it out without help:
WARREN: About 80 percent of America says they support merit pay for the best teachers. Now, I don’t want to hear your stump speech on education.
MCCAIN: Yes, yes, and find bad teachers another line of work. (APPLAUSE).
— McCain responded to the first statement. He didn’t listen to Warren after the first sentence. The question as asked to Obama was “Do you think better teachers should be paid better? They should be paid more than poor teachers?” Well, based on the preamble, the same one spoken to Obama, McCain was able to anticipate the question. It’s pretty basic to assume that ‘A certain percentage of Americans believe X’ is going to be followed by ‘Do you believe X?’
Icy Truth (9e6f2a) — 8/17/2008 @ 11:55 pmSPQR, I have no doubt that some bean counter somewhere has made a calculation that makes it more cost effective to let the eldery “fade away” and if it is in fact the policy of the British Goverment than that is absolultely appalling and completely “un-Christian” and condemn it just as vehemently. Let me clarify for all. I have no issue with Faith or God. I do not share the Christian faith myself but was raised in it and respect the everyday person who really tries to live their life like Christ would. As long as you don’t feel compelled to change me into what you believe in then great..God be with you…MY issue is also NOT with the capitalists or secular Republicans either! If you want to be a full on Capitalist Shark and make all the money in the world regardless of what happens as a result of your pursuit of profit…fine be a shark…if you want to be a “strike first, ask questions later” military hawk type, I don’t agree with you but hey thats your right as an American.
MY ISSUE= Those who pretend to follow the teachings of the bible when it comes to issues like sex or abortion while completely, ignorantly or even willfully ignoring the most profound, basic bottom line teachings of the one they profess to follow so much that they want the rest of us to as well.
No one in their right mind would EVER try to use the teachings of Gandhi or Martin Luther King to justify killing another human being but as SPQR proved in an earlier post many “Christians” who tell us that killing an unborn cluster of cells (at conception right?!) is abhorrent and requires a Presidential litmus test for adherance on this singular issue of any Supreme Court justice but has absolutely NOTHING to say about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost(TAKEN) in the name of American moral (read Christian) authority!
Same goes for the issue of poverty and profit in the world. I am a capitalist, I have nothing againts money or the making of money. But lets stop pretending that capitalism has any basis on the teachings of Christ! Jesus was a Socialist if he were anything. He feed the poorest, treated the most dejected and gave of himself to all who applied without interst in personal gain. Jesus never withheld his attentions and blessings because someone might abuse the privilage! And yet today we have the Christian right who fear the abuse of his almight tax dollar by the poor or “illegals” as Daley is so concerned about. Don’t want some damn Mexican with 10 kids to get a 300 a month check from the Government… but just shrug their shoulders when the richest, most powerful people on the planet screw the public out untold billions legally (tax breaks) or otherwise (pick a scandel..most recent “drunken” stock market!?! When did Christ ever take the side of the rich and powerful against the poor my Christian neighbors? Oh and while while we are at… it lets take away the Tax exempt status of these Mega Churches as clearly Evangelicals are a Political org as much if not more than a Religious one!
Hopefully that clarifies what I was railing about. Now feel free to discuss
Ron (b23004) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:10 am#82–
Warren made two statements then a question:
1. Everyone says they want more accountability in schools
2. About 80 percent of America says they support merit pay for the best teachers.
Then he said: “I don;t want to hear your stump speech, but…” and McCain cut him off, saying
“Yes, yes, and find bad teachers another line of work.”
What is so hard to understand? McCain was simply affirming his agreement with statements 1 & 2, and saying what he would do.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:10 amIt really amazes me that “reality-based” folks paint their opponents as evil senile morons and then, when confronted with obvious evidence to the contrary head straight to fantasyland to explain away what they saw.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:14 amThe McCain campaign complains to NBC about Andrea Mitchell’s willingness to repeat Obama’s talking points.
One of the reasons why McCain is getting ripped off by his campaign people: There was no mention in the letter to Steve Capus of how Andrea Mitchell earlier dutifully passed along baseless Obama camp allegations that the canceled visit to wounded soldiers at Landstuhl was the result of McCain contacts at the Pentagon setting Obama up in a no-win situation.
The letter will be portrayed by the usual suspects as whining, but it would seem less so if there was more than one instance detailed.
My life is not politics, yet I know the facts. Why don’t the so-called pros?
L.N. Smithee (452a68) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:40 am#87 – Ron
has absolutely NOTHING to say about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost(TAKEN) in the name of American moral (read Christian) authority
— The number is still under 100,000 . . . 94,553; 10% killed as a result of coalition force operations, 90% killed by insurgents, suicide bombers, and militias.
Icy Truth (9e6f2a) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:46 amMcCain’s answers seemed too quick, rehearsed and pre-meditated, almost as if he knew and was aware of what specific questions were going to be asked of him before Rick Warren asked them. In my opinion, Obama won, his answers seemed more natural and from the heart.
Joanna (010552) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:28 amJoanna –
WARREN: Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
— That answer is “natural and from the heart”? The “I don’t know and you shouldn’t expect me to know” answer? The “my opinion is that I have no opinion” answer? He wasn’t asked to provide a theological or scientific perspective; Warren asked him for “your view”, his personal opinion. Obama dodged the question like John Edwards hiding from the Enquirer.
Icy Truth (3b019b) — 8/18/2008 @ 3:32 amWow – Peter, PETE, Ron, Joanna and the rest sure are entertaining. Idiots, but fun.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:43 amYes, yes and yes. WYSIWYG.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:10 amRon,
That’s not socialism, that’s philanthropy. There is no charity in socialism, but there is in capitalism.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:13 amThe recent political forum hosted by the Christian Right was such a joke. It was obvious from the frist question that McCain had access to all the questions and was well prepared to cator to the church audience.
What a bunch of crooks; all in the name of God. If anything is evil in this world is the do gooders who want to control what others think and do.
Sick of it all
Charlotte Natale (a12822) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:56 amThank you, Charlotte. You have interesting views. Where can I subscribe to your newsletter?
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:00 amIn respect to the question regarding “Abortion” during the recent forum sponsored by the church pastor, McCain answered the questions before he even heard the questions. For a senile old fart, he sure is quick to respond. Would it be possible that he had the questions in advance of the event and even saw Obama’s responses before he came on stage? I firmly think that this was a set up to gain support for McCain from the religious right. Obama fell into their trap. All in the name of God; Sad, reminds me of brainwashing techniques.
Wow; did not take much to figure that one out.
Charlotte Natale (a12822) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:16 amThese people are funny.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:39 amRon, so you find yourself confused about who to hate first … how droll.
Charlotte, you don’t pay much attention do you? First of all, Rick Warren is not of the “Christian Right”. Secondly, the candidates were told of the subject matter of questions in advance – both of them.
So spare us the conspiracy thinking.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:39 amHere come the Obaminions with their marching orders to claim that McCain “cheated.”
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:40 amCharlotte – it seems that…oh hell. You’re an idiot.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:40 amSeminar commenter.
Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:51 amSome people are only fooling themselves.
If you say you are capatalist and yest support a canidate who would steal profits from privatley held companies…Ala Hugo Chavez, then your fooling yourself and nobody else.
If you feel that the uncoerced charity in this country that even surpasses some countries yearly income, is selfish and that they must be taxed more so the government can dole out the cash(in ridiculas programs aimed at keeping them in power), then your a socialist.
If you feel that raising taxes and taking in less money per year as opposed to lowering taxes and bringing in more money per year is the way to go because of “fairness” then your a socialist.
The fact is that we live in the most free country on the face of the planet, we are a capatalist society and those combined make us one of the greates countries to ever grace this planet, it also means that people choose to make of thier lives what they wish…many simply drain the resources of this great country begging for handouts(entitlements) becaue they are bitter, selfish little socialists and tey will vote accordingly, free market/capitalists will also and unless they are confused or have been taken in by the torrent of BS on the socialists canidate, they will vote for Mcain.
Drider (3b5d0f) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:53 amJack- it would interesting to know which trolls had supported nor luap earlier as paultards. They too were replete with vast conspiracy theories.
Isn’t it special how the magic negro gets a pass on most everything, including his own troubled youth and associations with the scum of the earth and a real brilliant up by the bootstraps Clarence Thomas is vilified by the left for not embracing the left’s propaganda and culture of victimhood?
But then these same Obamabots are likely to find Che and Castro great heroes in their warped worldview. I was constantly put off by conversations with liberal Europeans who only spoke highly of murderous scumwad Arafat and the aggrieved and long abused Pali victimhood.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:53 am“They have Capitalist economic systems, yet still retain their autocratic ruling classes. How can that be? Care to explain?”
Because they’ve retained their autocratic ruling classes. It’s called wised-up, 21st century autocracy. Is it that difficult to understand? Where’s that famous “nuance”?
rrpjr (fb0748) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:57 amApparently asking substantive questions about a candidate’s philosophy and his associations in his public life that may have helped to shape that philosophy is simple-minded, racially tinged, attack politics. Declaring a candidate a “senile old fart”, parroting conspiratorial suspicions of “cheating” when he simply performs better, and ranting about right-wingers is “complex and nuanced.”
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:08 am“The debates friend. Watch the debates. “
You bet. Can’t wait. Was looking forward to 10 townhalls, until the Great One, the Almighty Articulate One, the Man-of-the-People messiah decided he couldn’t risk it.
rrpjr (fb0748) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:15 am#99
We tend to see what we want to see. An incisive man giving quick answers because he’s settled on them or a man who got all the questions ahead of time.
You can, of course, back up your charges that he got the questions ahead of time? Or are you just making that part up to keep up your belief that Bambi is the bestest speaker ever?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:24 amAs I stated previously, the Obamatards really creepeth me out at times. Their flailing defense of their Messiah is the shopworn “who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:30 amWhy is this such a shock? I thought that Baracky actually did pretty well, in comparison to some of his other non-teleprompter moments.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:48 amOn second thought, the Obamatrons are mental midgets. Good Allah. They are as predictable as Phil calling us racists.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:02 amI agree, but they must keep “their precious” from too much exposure in a non – controllable atmosphere.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:03 amCan you imagine their cries and conspiracies if it starts raining during Baracky’s speech, or if thunder and lightning appear?
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:12 amWhy do I feel like talking to the Obamatards is below my pay grade? All they do is distort the positions of others before attacking the nonexistent positions. Ron was craptacular at that last night.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:15 amdaleyrocks,
He made a fair run at thread thievery. He ran when you took out the nail gun but that’s par for the course. I believe that we’ll see the heat turned up from here on out. The progs can see Ned Lamont Redux playing out before their beady little eyes and even pinheaded lefties can figure out that Captain Zero has been rejected by the blue collars.
I appreciate your approach to rebuttal but I’m unsure as to its efficacy when applied to morons working from ACORN/SEIU scripts. I keep hoping that the pitch of the shrieking will rise above the audible range. No luck so far.
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:33 amThanks Rick.
Courage.
Heh!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:38 amBecause it is below your pay grade, daleyrocks.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:41 amWe oughta hire some wetbacks to do this stuff.
I denounce myself!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:46 amThough we will probably never have proof, McCain was too quick in his answers, never stumbling, always campaigning. His style, when not giving a prepared speech, is to stumble over his own shoe laces. The convenient stories and anecdotes, immediately at hand, are most telling.
Sure, let’s elect the dummy who cheats. He’s the guy who doens’t know much about the economy, can’t distinguish sunni srom shia, doesn’t know which countries border Pakistan, crashed 5 planes, graduated at the bottom of his class, left his first wife because she was no longer pretty. He’s gone from being a maverick to being bought, guaranteeing us 4 more years. He owns 10 houses and flies around in his wife’s jet, while wearing $500 shoes. You think he’s gonna care about your problems???
People, what are you thinking? Those polls should be at least 80 to 20. Shame on you.
sandra cioppa (39ea25) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:47 amThank you for your mendoucheity, sandra. Several others came before you. You did distinguish youself with the sheer volume of lies in your post. Brava!
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:52 amThanks Sandra. I see you obviously have a lot of “problems” and that it’s important for you to have a politician “solve” them. You also do a phenomenal job cutting and pasting worn out idiotic party-line slogans.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:57 amThe Obama crowd is quite a spectacle. Hope and Change ’08, baby!
“I have no proof, but it must be true.”
I’m not sure, but let me guess – public school education?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:57 amSee? The new shift is no better than the last shift. Even if we published rules for playing Patriots and Copperheads we’d have to run Sesame Street level remedial courses to bring the progs up to below average.
They keep playing like the nation was South Side of Chicago and McCain was going to fold like Alice Palmer with Obama’s knife in her back.
It just ain’t gonna work. Lots of cheating liars get by on the South Side (Hi, Jesse!) but that’s a bit different than working the blue collars.
Ask Ned Lamont. If you can find him.
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:59 am“Though we will probably never have proof,…let’s elect the dummy who cheats.”
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:00 amRemember: the Obama faction is the complex, nuanced, better educated, more sophisticated side of the political divide.
I say a lot of things here that most of you disagree with, which is healthy American discussion.
Having said that, I think we can all agree that if, and I repeat the word “If” John McCain was indeed out of the building during discussions at the Saddle back Civil Forum on Saturday, and not in fact in the “Cone Of Silence” then we should all have a major problem with McCain, all of us.
“Missed it by that much” Maxwell Smart
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:05 amRon wrote: Hopefully that clarifies what I was railing about.
It sure does. It clarifies the fact you don’t know what you’re talking about.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:09 amWhy would we “all” have a problem with it?
The issue is, did McCain hear the questions ahead of time? (And if so, so what? Did McCain give different answers?)
McCain answered like he always does. So did Bambi. The difference is that this time Bambi didn’t have a speechwriter.
How interesting it would be if McCain and Bambi had more of these civil debates. But of course, Bambi flees from them, and now we can “all” see why.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:09 amOiram – Are you getting worried about your candidate now too?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:15 amIt is incomprehensable to me that the Obamaturds think that their attacks will cause JMcC to wilt in the political arena, when the NVA gave it their best for 5+ years and got Nada!
Another Drew (06d307) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:16 amRetards all!
Ooh can I play too?
If, and I repeat the word “If” Obama had been mentored by characters with rather unsavory views and philosophies during his early public life we should ALL have a problem with him? Ah no not at all, bringing that up is racially coded attack politics that is taking away from discussion of “the real issues.”
If, and I repeat the word “If” Obama has expressed policy preferences relating to military affairs that have shown him to be significantly off-base about tactics and strategy we should ALL have a problem with him? Ah no not at all, bringing that up is meaningless because we never should have gone into Iraq and Obama knew this and took a brave, politically risky stand on this issue.
If, and I repeat the word “If” anyone throws around random accusations of perfidy on the part of a political opponent the burden of proof is on the candidate to prove that they are not true regardless of how baseless these accusations are? Of course!
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:17 amBTW, please refer to my previous effusive praise for McCain before you think I’m in the tank for him.
Bambi is cute and perky. But “deer in the headlights” isn’t just a metaphorical phrase with him.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:19 amNow Steve #129, you don’t see the problem with Mcain knowing the questions and Obama not?
I mean he might have even heard Obama’s answers.
All of us should have a problem with this. If the situation was reversed, I would have a major problem with Obama.
When Pastor Rick Warren mentioned the cone of silence, McCain should of fessed up and said “What cone of silence?” He did not.
Now if it turns out that McCain was in the cone of silence…….. then we could return to the issues.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:21 amCharlotte Natale wrote:
Rick Warren, “the Christian Right”? It is to laugh. This guy is the McCain of megapreachers, zigging to the left or to the right to avoid being pegged as being on one side or the other. Don’t assume he’s a right-winger because he’s a white guy with a big belly.
I didn’t know Warren asked any questions about Bill Frist.
For a senile old fart, he sure is quick to respond.
Obama’s just 46 years old, and throughout this campaign, he‘s the one who has sounded more like he’s senile (57 states, etc.). So, I guess he’s a new fart. Maybe that’s why we call him B.O.!
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:23 am#130, Daley,
To answer your question, no I’m not worried about Obama, but if this cone of silence stuff turns out to be true, you should worry about Senator McCain.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:24 amWhat “cone of silence”? Are you imagining Agent 86 and the Chief?
McCain was in the car with the Secret Service and then in the green room with no TV. Does the use of the metaphor “Cone of Silence” require a physical plastic cone?
How would McCain knowing the answers ahead of time help him? Were any of his answers direct retorts to something Bambi said?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:26 am“For a senile old fart…”
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:27 amAh, progressives. So sublime in their cultured display of their superior worldview and temperment. Oh why are the unwashed rubes of our troubled nation not gleefully passing the torch to such beacons of enlightenment thus allowing for the dawning of the new age that only they are capable of ushering in?
Bambi was winging it, as was McCain. McCain just happened to give his honest answers, and Bambi happened to give his mendacious “I hope they believe this” answers, such as “Oh, that’s above my pay grade.”
The guy wants to be President but is afraid to answer a question? What a weasel.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:28 am#132, Jack…… I’ve seen a lot of “IF’s” thrown around Patterico and it’s members. Your way off topic on your Obama rant their.
I said If, because I’m recognizing that the facts aren’t all in.
If the “Cone of Silence” rumor or whatever you want to call it turns out to be true, we should all have a problem with it, that’s all I’m saying.
Ask yourselves if you wouldn’t feel the same if the situation was in reverse.
Seriously
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:28 amI’m sure Putin will love it when he invades Ukraine and Bambi stutters through his first press conference: “I’m sure that the question of Russia invading another country is above my pay grade. Now, let’s talk about me some more.”
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:29 am#137 Steve said:
“How would McCain knowing the answers ahead of time help him? Were any of his answers direct retorts to something Bambi said?”
Come on people, help a brother out here.
Does everyone agree with Steve?
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:30 am#141, “Above my pay grade” was a beautiful way for Obama to tell us that he is not the one to judge others for Abortion.
Way to change the subject Steve.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:32 amLet me help you with your reading comprehension. The “Cone of Silence” is a metaphor. It means, McCain was isolated from the questions.
He was, in fact, isolated.
Now, as to what would have happened had McCain known the questions – would he have answered differently than he did? I don’t think so, given that McCain and Bambi essentially said the same things they’ve always said.
It appears the Bambitrons are attempting to ‘splain away the Anointed One’s poor performance with a “He Cheated!” response.
When you say “he cheated,” you need to point out exactly how that happened. Since McCain was not able to listen to the broadcast in the car or in the green room, how did this “cheating” occur? Did it involve the government, black helicopters, and steel burning like it’s never burned before?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:33 amYes!
Another Drew (06d307) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:34 am“Above my pay grade” means “I’m afraid to answer the question.”
Nice one, Bambi. From “The Buck Stops Here” to “Not My Pay Grade,” all in just 60 years. What a wonderful thing is the modern Democrat Party.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:34 am“If” Obama listened to racist hatred and religious bigotry for 20 years, he’s a racist bigot.
And, “if” he claims he didn’t hear racism and bigotry while he sat there for 20 years, he’s a liar.
Ropelight (42c46d) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:34 amReally? The facts are in. Why, exactly, should anyone have a problem with McCain because of them?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:34 amI don’t think McCain knew the answers ahead of time.
But if he had, how would that have changed the outcome?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:35 am#145 is a response to #142; but, also works as a snarky response to the final question in #144.
Another Drew (06d307) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:36 amThe silence is deafening.
Is Bambi’s website down?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:37 amOiram is playing the “look over there, something shiny!” game to distract from the real issue that Baracky did not come across as well as McCain. Actually, their position seems to be that if McCain won, he cheated, which is just a variation of one of their long-running canards.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:37 amCould it be even remotely possible then that McCain just simply, flat out, performed BETTER than Obama? Just a very unnuanced, non-complex explanation? Couldn’t be could it?
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:38 amHow are your “there” vs. “their” and “your” vs. “you’re” workbook exercises coming along, btw?
Rick Warren might have lied about the Cone of silence.
I can’t believe your all o.k. with this.
Now if McCain would of called him out on it, my respect would of gone up exponentially, but we know he didn’t.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:38 amWarren didn’t ask him how he judged people who have/perform abortions. The question was “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” So, Obama said that he is not capable of expressing his view of a human rights issue, it being above his pay grade.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:39 am“143. #141, “Above my pay grade” was a beautiful way for Obama to tell us that he is not the one to judge others for Abortion”
Oiram, when it comes to when a baby has rights – Obama, like everybody, does judge and he has a specific answer, as do you and as do I.
He just didn’t want to give it on Saturday.
Anon (f4f9e7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:39 amMcCain did have the “answers ahead of time”.
Another Drew (06d307) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:39 amBecause he has actually thought about the issues facing the country, he has taken the time to work out his position on those issues reflecting his personal philosophy and beliefs.
Someone who hasn’t done this will not be able to give prompt, coherent responses.
Well, no. McCain is old and crazy whereas Obama is young and dreamy and godlike! Impossible!
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:40 amWow, yeah absolutely, you can all say that McCain did a better job. I’m not going to even attempt to change your mind on that.
But are you sure McCain did it on a level playing field?
That’s all that’s being asked here.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:42 am#158…
Another Drew (06d307) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:42 amPablo, there you go again, bursting the bubbles in the bathtub.
McCain’s group also said that he was in the metaphorical Cone of Silence. So they’re lieing, too, which is something you assert without proof.
Perhaps Bambi is just a weaker think-on-your-feet kinda guy.
Perhaps – gasp! – Bambi is a flawed candidate who’s running on empty words. Exactly what, by the way, had Bambi accomplished in the Senate during his 143 days there? And what bills did he get through committee? And when, exactly, did he vote against the Iraq War like he claims he did? The war started in 2003, and Bambi was elected in, what, 2004? How do you vote against a war before you’re elected?
Maybe McCain knew that answer was coming, too?
Or perhaps you are alleging that McCain has ESP?
Shades of Johnny Carson.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:43 amWHAT??!!!eleventy!!??? Saddleback Church doesn’t even have a cone of silence!!
We’ve all been had! That preacher lied!!!
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:44 amWell, I guess that the current meme is that the Secret Service is in on the fix for McCain; since, they must have allowed McCain access to the broadcast while he was in their security umbrella on the way to the debate.
Another Drew (06d307) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:46 amThe idea that McCain is a man-of-honor who would not cheat, even if the opportunity presented itself, if inconceivable to those who think that “truth is relative”.
Morons!
“is”, not “if”.
Another Drew (06d307) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:46 amOn the facts, John McCain was indeed isolated from the questions. So there was no pre-knowledge of the questions.
However, one commenter keeps alleging that this happened and it was cheating, without showing (a) that it happened or (b) how it affected anything.
If McCain knew the questions and even the answers ahead of time, then why didn’t he have much cleverer answers? And how did McCain arrange for Brownian motion to affect the results of the coin toss so that he went second? Does Bambi control the tides, but McCain controls the atoms? If so, I’d put my money on McCain.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:47 amHmmm, this guy might be better prepared, more experienced, and all around better qualified for a job. Obviously this cannot be the case for McCain. There’s no possible way that his advantages could come through in a clear manner and as a result of any genuine life experience and professional accomplishment. There must be a cloud hanging over this situation: cheating, racism, etc. This you see, is because he is the opponent of Barack Obama. The One the Only. The Chicago politician in which people have invested their souls to the point of twisting their minds, and their perception of reality in order to be “on the team.” How dare anyone suggest that McCain could actually on merit be more qualified than Obama. Sacrilege.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:47 amWhat Another Drew #157 said. I knew the questions ahead of time too, and my answers to them. Because those are the issues that concern me. Even though it’s above my pay grade.
nk (3c7a86) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:48 am“Though we will probably never have proof, McCain was too quick in his answers, never stumbling, always campaigning. His style, when not giving a prepared speech, is to stumble over his own shoe laces.”
On what planet?
Sandra, what you just wrote is a much better description of Obama and virtually the exact opposite of McCain. The guy sucks giving a speech and is a lot better at the debate/townhall format – hence why he wanted 10 of them and Obama wanted to limit it to as few and as small an audience as possible.
Anon (f4f9e7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:48 amWhat did Baracky’s friend, Rev. Warren, lie about, Oiram?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:49 amWhy is Bambi running away from McCain?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:50 amIn the terms you’re thinking of, yes. He had no unfair advantage that I can see, and Obama went first because of a coin toss. It could just have well as been the other way around and I think McCain would have performed just the same.
In the terms I’m thinking of, the field was not level, sort of like if the Boston Red Sox were to take the field against against the Toledo Mud Hens. McCain is more experienced and he’s more straightforward, therefore he will crush Obama on a level playing field, every time. So yes, he had an advantage. He’s a better candidate.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:50 amIf McCain had been in Altoona, Obama would have looked the same. Anyone who has watched McCain being interviewed knows that his time to response is always very short. That really does come from knowing what you think and having the capability to express yourself without a script.
Obama is a performer – take away the script and his lack of intellectual coherence becomes glaringly obvious.
Again, drop McCain from the equation – Obama is still a dud on his feet, always seeking to obscure rather than to clarify. That’s also the best explanation as to why he has not made the type of connection that Bubba was able to achieve with the blue collar segment. As Senator Kerrey noted about Bubba, “He’s an amazingly good liar.” Obama is not able to lie with the requisite degree of sincerity and the average person isn’t buying.
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:53 amSo Another Drew #163, your o.k. with a lie coming from McCain regarding Pastor Rick Warren referring to the Cone Of Silence?
Missed it by that much my friend.
Now if this whole thing turns out to be untrue, I expect all of you to expect me to eat my words right off of my monitor here (I know I always expect the same from you guys) 🙂
Never happens though 🙁
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:54 amNever happens that you’re right?
Maybe. But if you say so…
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:55 am#171 when The Toledo Mud Hens steal the pitching signal sheet from The Boston Red Sox’s Catcher, there is no level playing field.
You should know that.
Did McCain “Steal the pitching signals”. Maybe maybe not, but he sure is suspect when he agrees with Pastor Warren that he was in the “Cone of Silence”.
Pretty Shiny coin, eh JD?
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:59 am#174, Ah Steve, you make me so happy, with silly hyperbole like that, I know you know I’m right but are afraid to admit it. 🙂
My Poker Skills finally paid off 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:01 amA lie coming from regarding referring to? If that sentence were any more convoluted, it might rip a hole in the fabric of space.
Hey, remember how unfair it was and how Baracky got set up by a bunch of racists when Hillary cleaned his clock in that Philly debate? Me too.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:02 amOiram, personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the Good Reverend Warren. I have no interest in his church, or his preaching philosophy – though others find him very inspirational.
Another Drew (06d307) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:03 amAs has been pointed out to you before, the “Cone of Silence” is a metaphore, and was meant to suggest that neither candidate would have access to the responses of the other.
Not having watched the event, I do not have direct knowledge of what, exactly Rev. Warren said, or the context in which it was said.
However, relying on the many accounts of the event, both here and elsewhere, I am comfortable with the thought that Sen. McCain was not able to access the broadcast, and the only knowledge of the questions that he had was the information passed to him by Rev. Warren in arrainging the event – information that was given to both parties, according to the Rev.
I do believe that John McCain is a man of honor.
I do not agree with everything he does, or proposes to do.
But, as always, we are never in the position of electing the best man for the job, but have to choose the best of the two who are running.
In this case, that is appears to be John McCain!
No, Oiram. It just comes off as desperate. So Baracky’s friend and the Secret Service were in on this together? I bet the neocon Jooooooos had their hands in this too. Prolly Halliburton too.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:03 amThe only thing you have that even suggests that he did is that he turned in a solid performance. Which means you have nothing.
That is just foolish. Anyone who believes that there is an actual, literal cone of silence at Saddleback Church is an idiot. Do you know anyone like that, Oiram?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:05 amOiram, you have completely beclowned yourself on the cone of silence idiocy. You have proven to be beyond the point of any worthwhile discussion – to even indulge in this kind of Oliver Stone conspiracy nutbaggery tells us more about yourself than you’d likely admit. You cannot be taken seriously anymore – period. Either put on your tinfoil hat right now and start chanting about alien radio waves, or go play with the other crazies at Sadly, No! They just love this kind of moonbattery 24/7, you’ll feel very welcome over there.
‘The convenient stories and anecdotes, immediately at hand, are most telling.” ‘
Translation: “The mental lapses in my retardation and incessant mouthbreathing are immedately at hand, and are most telling.”
This is the type of thinking we’ll all associate with your comments from now on, Oiram. Most telling, indeed.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:05 amJD – don’t forget the Illuminatim, PNAC and Blackwater, too! Don’t want to leave anyone out of the party.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:06 amBECAUSE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE !!!!!!!!
Literally, Oiram, the only evidence to support your assertion is, drumroll …….. your assertion. Convenient, that.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:08 amIf these people did not exist, you could not make them up without a couple MoDo cocktails, some Mezcal, a handful of happy pills, and a pile of shrooms.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:12 am…don’t forget about the Arugula – it always comes down to the Arugula.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:17 amCan I get an RSS feed of these idiotic assertions? Because surely there must be some master source for these fabulosities.
A “Cone of Silence” is a word-picture describing the isolation of the candidates from the questions. As someone else said much more cogently (and sadly, before I did), anyone who thinks that Saddleback has a literal “Cone of Silence” like in “Get Smart” is an idiot, and I don’t use that word lightly.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:19 am#177, Another Drew, I know “The cone of silence” is a metaphor. I knew it didn’t actually exist like in Get Smart. But, albeit metaphorically the idea of a candidate having prior knowledge of questions being asked of him and his opponent not, still exists.
At this point, if McCain did listen to the questions and answers that Obama got and gave, he should fess up. Because your right, about the metaphor Another Drew, I will give McCain the Honor card if he does.
If (there’s the word again) McCain did have prior knowledge and doesn’t fess up, and you guys are o.k. with this, and in fact McCain does win, then we deserve all the problems inherent with a dishonest president.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:29 amJust because you keep on asking it does not make it legitimate, especially when you ignore everything that suggests you are just pulling shit our of your ass.
If Baracky wins, we will have to deal with the problems associated with a dishonest President, Oiram.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:33 amI had supporter Hillary Clinton and when she lost I thought I might support McCann. I was undecided. What made my mind to vote for Obama was the last faith forum. For the first time a clearer picture of the candidates character has a merge. McCann questioned Obama about his judgment for being Commander in chief, but I question McCann judgment for being Commander in chief, in his answering the questions from Rev. Warren his was too quick and with no much thought put into answers. People may say he make up his decisively. For me a character flaw has a merged. Quick and rush to judgment is good for commander in the battlefield not for the president of the USA in the white house, when cool mind and weigh in all sides and take time to make a decision rather than jumping for quick decisions or having a hot temper. In my opinion this is very dangerous it make McCann happy tiger president that will rush the USA to war without too much thought put into it.
JDK (e5e0fd) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:36 amOn the other side Obama has emerge in the faith forum has a man the weigh every questions from all sides, and his answers were very thoughtful and comprehensive deliver in cool and peaceful manner.
Also McCann with his answers about woman right, Supreme Court judges, off-shore drilling, the war, stood for everything I disagree in the Republican Party and McCann.
It is a crucial time in being a president. Too many important issues the new president will face.
We cannot afford to have McCann for President not now not ever. Experience in being in Washington alone doesn’t make him qualify for the position of President of the USA. His character flaws are too danger to be in position of so much power to endanger America.
“Can I get an RSS feed of these idiotic assertions?”
I doubt it. Obama’s campaign has thought through the implications of the idiocy and is dropping the hot potato. The campaign aide who whispered in Anrea Mitchell’s ear can be found in the right rear wheel well if you would like to speak to him. Just remember – he’s not the campaign aide whom Obama once knew.
What would people be saying had Mitchell uttered the truth? If she had said, “Obama seemed so ill prepared.“? The actual story here is the depth to which Mitchell (and Gregory) are prepared to go in order obscure the lack of talent which Obama displayed. The press dunce cone of silence needs some reinforcement. The real Obama keeps leaking through.
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:36 amJDK – If you are going to try to do a Moby thing, please take enough time to spell the candidates names correctly. And, a grammar lesson or 10 would not hurt.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:39 am“But, albeit metaphorically the idea of a candidate having prior knowledge of questions being asked of him and his opponent not, still exists.”
What? “…albeit metaphorically…still exists.”
“Metaphorically?” That translates into “fantasy” for you. “Exists?” It exists only in your mind, and those of others too feeble – minded to think for themselves. Conspiracy theories are only interesting to those who are too gutless to deny the evidence that’s readily available to anyone with functioning eyes and ears.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:40 am“it make McCann happy tiger president that will rush the USA to war without too much thought put into it. On the other side Obama has emerge in the faith forum has a man the weigh every questions from all sides, and his answers were very thoughtful and comprehensive deliver in cool and peaceful manner.”
McCann? I’d like to hear the conspiracy behind the source of this brilliant insight.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:43 amYeah, “I didn’t like McCain being so darned DECISIVE. I like a candidate who dissembles when an answer is uncomfortable, and when a candidate is unable to think clearly on his feet. Because by gosh I want a president who can’t make up his mind and will go for the popular thing rather than the right thing. That, to me, is leadership.”
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:43 am“For me a character flaw has a merged. In my opinion this is very dangerous it make McCann happy tiger president that will rush the USA to war without too much thought put into it.”
“HERE ME ALL, I AM LOTHAR OF THE HILL PEOPLE! MCCAIN NO GOOD HE STINK BERRY BAD MANNN HE NO GOOOD AND I HAF TO GO PEE NOW BYEEEE…”
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:44 amThey both had prior knowledge of the first two questions and of the themes the rest of the questions would cover, though not the exact questions themselves.
Are you suggesting that McCain had all the questions and that Obama got sandbagged? If so, why?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:45 amWas that you, Oiram?
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:45 am“But, albeit metaphorically the idea of a candidate having prior knowledge of questions being asked of him and his opponent not, still exists.”
What in the ever living hell is this supposed to mean? Take this person’s shovel away for their own good.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:46 amOh, another question, Oiram. Are you going to retract your statement that McCain and Warren lied about there being a cone of silence?
You said they lied. Do you stand by that? Remember that honor that you were mentioning?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:47 amBrilliant.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:47 amCan I play the tool this time?
“Clearly, Bambi is always the better speaker, so if Bambi looks like he’s unable to form a cogent thought and stumbles over his words, the real reason must be that McCain cheated. He made Bambi say those stupid things with his power mind rays.”
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:47 am#180 Dmac, if you see how many times I have used the word “IF” you might change your mind.
I think I even called this a possible rumor.
I don’t like conspiratorial talk either.
I even said I would eat all of my words here if all this turns out to be bogus.
To be quite honest with you, I’m hoping all of this turns out to be bogus. I know McCain stands a good chance of being our president and although I probably wont vote for him, I do want to see this country in the right direction.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:48 amThere is absolute proof that one of the candidates had more advance warning than the other last night as to what questions would be asked.
Another Drew (06d307) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:49 amObama was given the first three (3) questions, while McCain was only given the first two(2) – because he was late in arriving.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjNkN2IyMzI2Njg4YmQxMjI5NDk5ZDllZTY4YTNhNzQ=
This was just posted at The Corner by Byron York.
Oiram, you might want to look at this, as I think it will answer all of your seemingly moronic questions.
Bambi wasn’t ill-prepared. He was just going to wing it & let the mass adulation cover up his lack of thought and decisiveness.
Remember, we’re talking about a candidate who was afraid to go on Fox, but who talked about bombing Pakistan (an ally). Not exactly the sharpest drill bit in the toolbag.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:49 am“McCann happy tiger president”
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:50 amI can’t get enough of this one. OT it reminds me of an anecdote in Richard Ben Cramer’s excellent bio of Joe DiMaggio. Joe and Marilyn Monroe honeymooned in Japan where the citizens referred to MM as “Honorable Buttocks Shaking Madame.”
Mr. Tool, this has all turned out to be bogus.
Would you like some salt on those words?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:52 amFolks, there is no amount of links or evidence that will make a conspiracy minded person less of a twatwaffle.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:54 am205. He can’t hear you. With his magic shovel he has just recently emerged head first into lane 2 of the 100m Olympic finals.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:54 amThat Bolt was the single most impressive athlete, including Phelps, that I can recall. He could have been in the 9.5’s if he had not started showboating at the end.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:56 am208. Yes! I’ll give Bolt a slight pass because of his youth. He definitely has a cocky swagger about him. His dash was something to behold. I was disappointed with Asafa Powell. His brother Donovan is an acquaintance and a really great, fun guy to hang out with so I was rootin’ for his bro.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:59 am“…but who talked about bombing Pakistan (an ally). Not exactly the sharpest drill bit in the toolbag.”
Oh, but Obama’s brilliant – I keep waiting for the day when old tapes of his U of C lectures start popping up on YouTube. You know, the ones regarding world geography – where he talks about the 48 states, how Iran’s “really a small country,” stuff like that. It could be part of the “Rand McNally Presents The World According to Obama” series.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:03 am#198 if I find out that they didn’t lie, I will retract everything but my “If’s”. Got it? I prefaced most of what I said with the word “If”.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:05 am“Twatwaffle” that’s Cute JD.
Conspiracy theorists are idiots because they don’t preface anything with “If”.
For example:
If Bush created 9/11 that would be bad.
Note: I’m using this as an example of what conspiracy theorists don’t say. I do not condone nor believe that Bush created 9/11.
Please don’t lump me in with that crowd.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:07 amIf all the Obama people are basis his “cheating” accusation on is the content of his answer, the charge is objectively false. Apparently Obama’s oppo research stinks, because McCain has been using that “follow Osama to the gates of hell” comment on the campaign trail at least since Republican nomination was being actively contested.
Sean P (e57269) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:09 amObviously, McCain must have CHEATED because Bambi was so bad in comparison.
And floating a smear prefaced with “IF” doesn’t give a weasel a free pass.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:11 amI started my comment #127 on this post by pointing out that if McCain lied about not having prior knowledge that would be a bad thing.
All I want to know now is if everyone agrees based on that big “If”.
I’ve seen a ton of big If’s here on Patterico slanted in favor of Conservatives. Some were correct, some were wrong.
Why am I getting dumped on here?
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:17 amI don’t know. Care to speculate? You can use a lot of IFs if you want.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:19 amOiram – Using “if” is a cop out, it is Baracky type wiggle room language. There is no evidence to support the “if” part. And the available evidence suggests the opposite of your “if” scenario.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:22 amIt was an easy thing to check the rumor and discount it, but it’s an even easier thing to ignore the research & just spread the smear.
The first action you do is very telling about you.
While I am no McCain supporter (see previous postings), my first thought on hearing this rumor was “I don’t believe it – that’s not the John McCain I know.” And come to find out it’s indeed not true.
If your first response is that it MUST be true and it’s ANOTHER sign that John McCain cheats, then it’s obvious you’re not interested in truth but in blackening the name of John McCain.
Again, I’m not a McCain supporter. But I try to be honest & not hedge my statements with weaselly “IFs.”
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:24 amOiram, if you’re not part of the conspiracy crowd, why bring up the question in the first place? You can get cute about your usage of the word “if” (how Clintonian) if you believe that somehow inoculates you from the nutbag crowd, but it’s still trollbotting all the same.
That’s why you’re getting dumped on here, IMHO. By trafficking in the very same conspiracy theories you claim to decry, you only perpetuate the notion that you’re part and parcel of the same crowd.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:26 am#217 JD, next time I see a Patterico post relying on the word If, or any of your comments, know that I will call you on it.
I don’t forget, as I know you don’t as well.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:29 amSo much cognitive dissonance spewing from the wanna-have-sex-with-obama- obamatards. Can they really be this stupid? Oiram/botamabo obviously is a candidate for an exploding head since he’s so enamored of the magic negro’s deceit and obfuscations and cannot bear to watch obambi get trounced by the Az. geezer. Looking forward to the McCain ads during O’s coronation at the zoo that will be Denver. Assholes of the world unite! You know who you are posting utter nonsense.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:30 amHere, let’s try this on another foot:
IF it’s true that Barack HUSSEIN Osama/Obama was recorded as saying the Islamic tenets of faith in a madrassa, and IF it’s true that his family is largely Muslim, and IF it’s true that he was actually born in Canada, then Barack HUSSEIN Osama/Obama is a secret Muslim who is ineligible to be President.
Now, nowhere did I flat-out assert that he’s a Muslim (and in fact, I don’t think he is) or born in Canada (I don’t think he was), but how delicious that I can spread the rumor & take no responsibility because I used the magic “IF.”
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:31 amDMAC #219, Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that what the topic is of this updated post?
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:31 am“Clintonian” LOL You sure are a piece of work their DMAC.
BTW, this is yet another instance of Obama’s campaign handlers attempting to distract from their candidate’s poor showings. Same exact MO as from earlier gaffes, like their attempts to smear McCain in an alleged lobbyist affair when Obama was getting slammed for his Rev. Wright problem. And that tactic was only attempted since their first try at praising Obama’s “brilliant race speech” in order to deflect the original furor failed miserably. How Alan Greenspan lives with such a hack journo as Mitchell beggars the imagination – maybe he spent too much time in his earlier years with Ayn Rand.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:31 amI will believe you will “call” us on it as much as I believe you will fact-check your assertions.
That is, never.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:32 amYou would do better to admit that your original speculation was shot to ruins by the facts of the case; instead, you keep harping on it, perhaps in the belief that thinking it true will make it true?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:34 am‘“Clintonian” LOL You sure are a piece of work their DMAC.’
Where in this post is any discussion of Clinton, Oiram? Or is this another attempt at avoiding the question?
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:35 amIF the tool wasn’t so busy robbing children selling lemonade on street corners, THEN he might answer your request, Dmac.
See? Magic “If.”
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:36 am#222, Steve Miller, I would love to see the word “If” thrown around by Republicans in regard to Obama’s religious affirmations.
Will I see it? Doubt it.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:39 am#175 – Oiram
Did McCain “Steal the pitching signals”. Maybe maybe not, but he sure is suspect when he agrees with Pastor Warren that he was in the “Cone of Silence”.
— It’s a pretty safe bet that John McCain has never seen Get Smart. As McCain himself has noted, when he slammed Hillary for her Woodstock Museum earmark, he was tied up at the time.
Oh, and consider this your official notice that you do not have permission to co-opt my former screen name: Missed It By THAT Much (which I abandoned as soon as I read the proscription against using multiple names).
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:42 am#90
Yes, I agree. And how about more than one convenient instance L.N., that doesn’t continue the false meme that NBC and Andrea Mitchell have a left wing slant and wouldn’t dare to criticize Obama, as Mitchell did when she called him out for not doing real press conferences in Afghanistan or Iraq.”
Frankly, expect more of this as the McCain campaign continues to raise questions and attempt to discredit news outlets in advance of a grueling run up to the election, and possible (very) bad showings by McCain in the debates, with journalists who’re going to be much much tougher, one would hope, on superficial preprocessed focus group tested answers. From either of them. Then NBC or the NY Times, and whoever else has made the McCain campaign “slanted” liberal media list, can be more easily dismissed with indignant, some might call “whiny,” letters.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:43 amYou could always use another line : “would you believe?” Doesn’t have the same snap, though.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:45 amI can’t speak for the Republican Party or for what people toss around. But tossing around a smear prefaced by “IF” doesn’t make it less of a smear. Is that clear enough?
You go ahead and pretend that Bambi lost the Saddleback Skirmish because evil, old, and Christianist John McCain CHEATED by tuning his hearing aid to 92.7 KGOP. Just be sure you preface it with “IF” and all’s well with the world.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:47 amIf all of the available evidence suggests that my hypothetical “if” scenario is a steaming pile of cowshit, by all means, call me on it. I would expect my friends on here to do the same.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 11:48 amOiram –
— Several posters have brought this up, and from what I’ve seen you have not addressed it directly. So I will try to put it succinctly for you:
1) Why would you care at all about this alleged violation of the “cone of silence” unless your personal assessment is that McCain outperformed Obama?
2) How did any of the answers that either man gave vary from the positions they have taken throughout the campaign?
3) Were not most, or all, of the questions exactly what you as a hypothetical candidate what expect to hear in such a forum?
— I’ll add that, as I believe JD noted, I think this was one of Obama’s better performances. McCain beat him because his positions are clearly defined and delivered with determination. Even at his best Obama comes off as a politically correct lecturer, giving ultra-careful consideration to exactly how he phrases every part of every sentence.
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:09 pm#230 Icy, understood. You might very well be correct in that McCain may not have understood “Cone of Silence”. And I would accept that.
But he should re-asure America of that. Because something silly like this could cost a lot of votes.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:12 pm#235 ICY, to be honest with you I didn’t see all of the interviews. I saw a little of both. I of course have a left leaning slant perspective, but I thought Obama handled himself well. I am not in a position to say who won based on what I saw.
I will tell you this, my political guru is Thom Hartman from Air America. You and all here probably don’t like him as much as I dislike Rush.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:16 pmThom Hartman said on his broadcast this morning that McCain did win the discussion.
So that’s at least one liberal agreeing with your assertion that McCain won.
right now, a certain backwards spelling mario is a reprobate and scoundrel with his phony assertions and rationalizations. So many intellectually dishonest liberals are in a quandary because baracky is revealing himself to world as a not-ready-for-prime-times horse’s ass candidate who cannot even tolerate the rigors of campaigning for the office and must rely on bullshit assertions, putting many areas of enquiry off limits and branding opponents as racists, liars and cheaters. obama is a big pussy compared to mccain and I am not a fan of mccain’s rino tendencies. Don’t the obamaturds have better questions then surrogates like the ny times questioning his relationship with a lobbyist, whether he was born an American citizen, fact he was cheating on first wife many years ago?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:23 pmAnd water tends to be wet …
I, John McCain, was not in, nor ever have been in, Maxwell Smart’s Cone of Silence. If you thought that I was in a real Cone of Silence, you should not be allowed to vote, reproduce, or operate heavy machinery. Would that suffice?
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:25 pmI don’t care for Rush, but I think his listeners are better informed than the majority of the populace – better educated as well. As for Air America, I thought they were off the air at this point, since they’ve devolved into bankrupty proceedings. They’ve haven’t been on the air here in Chicago in years, and barely lasted all of one year when they began operations – even the many Bluestaters here know unfunny crap when they hear it, apparently.
As for McCain somehow needing to “reassure America,” that’s a complete chimera. To say anything about the subject at this point only will feed the slimeballing further – you don’t further disprove a lie when it’s already been dismantled.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:26 pmmadmax333 #239 – when you have Americans (mostly Republicans) screaming fowl over an ex presidential candidate (Edwards)having cheated on his Ill wife, and then you have a current Candidate for president (McCain) who we know is now married to his mistress and his 1st wife was disfigured when he left her……….. what do you expect?
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:27 pm#240, JD, I didn’t see all of the interviews, but weren’t the rules laid out in advance by the Pastor?
McCain should address this, cone of silence ignorance or not……. again If (there’s that big If again)
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:29 pmIf everyone could prove Oiram’s negatives, I think that would be a good thing. Or is it disprove? It gets so confusing with all those dumbass assertions.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:29 pmBTW Oiram, that’s exactly the same reason why Obama’s people have failed to repeatedly deny the charges that he’s a Muslim in disguise. Many news outlets (including many right – leaning ones) have already exposed that canard, and for Obama’s campaign to comment on it further only perpetuates the lie.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:29 pm“…who we know is now married to his mistress and his 1st wife was disfigured when he left her……….. what do you expect?”
This is akin to attempting to argue with a Bobo Doll – it doesn’t comprehend anything you say to it, yet keeps bouncing up again and again after repeated blows to it’s non – existent cranium.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:31 pm“McCain should address this, cone of silence ignorance or not……. again If (there’s that big If again)”
Oiram – He has addressed it as has been noted on this thread. Try to keep up. If you choose not to believe him that is your prerogative, not ours.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:32 pmYeah, I know, McCain also lied about it and diverted campaign funds to support his future wife and had a surrogate claim paternity. How come your golden boy the big pussy obama tells people from his past NOT to grant interviews about what took place in his youth. How many and what kinds of drugs did he snort or inject? “IF he was a drug dealer, pimp and whoremonger, should that disqualify him from being POTUS? IF liberals didn’t hate America so much, would they then not give aid and comfort to her enemies or not release national security info (your vaunted and treasonous NY Slimes at work)?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:33 pmOiram, McCain had his hands tied tightly behind his back almost 24/7 during many years of incarceration, and those same hands were pulled up behind his back, while he was suspended from a pole for many hours each day. Now pray tell us, who was more disfigured when the divorce was final?
You have no idea what you’re talking about here – stay on the topic, rather than going off into rants on non – related subjects.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:34 pmYou’ve said that you understand the “cone of silence” was a metaphor and that there is no such thing. But you also said this:
Are you willing to retract that and state unequivocally that there is no issue regarding the non-existant cone of silence?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:36 pmOh, I suppose it makes the tool happy to keep repeating the assertion while proclaiming innocence: “I’m not one to believe it, of course, but there are some who do, and you need to reassure them.”
Who are these “them” that need to be reassured before they’ll vote for McCain? Name two.
I was listening to a few old folks the other day. Both of them Democrats. One said to the other, “I listen to the latest McCain ad, and send another donation to [Bambi].” Do you think that kind of thinker is going to be swayed somehow to vote twice or something? A Bambi voter is going to vote for Bambi. A McCain voter is going to vote for McCain. I can’t imagine – literally can’t imagine – someone saying “I was going to vote for McCain, but then I heard about the ‘Cone of Silence’ debacle, and now I just can’t pull that lever.”
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:37 pmAnd you are the ones suggesting that the rules were broken, despite all available evidence being contrary to your assertions, nicely couched in your “if” language. If you have proof, show it. As is, the evidence suggests that you are wrong, dead wrong.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:41 pmThe tool is feeling frisky today. He can keep posing the big “IF” and excuse his personal responsibility for the smear. All the delight of personal destruction and no fingerprints – the best of both worlds!
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:42 pmThe people that believe that there was a Cone of Silence were not going to be voting for McCain. I think they would likely be writing in votes for Nor Laup, Lyndon LaRouche, or some Star Trek character.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:43 pm#237 – Oiram
But he should re-asure America of that. Because something silly like this could cost a lot of votes.
— A lot of whose votes. Yours? and those of others who will not vote for him anyway?
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:43 pmIf my aunt had testicles, she’d be my uncle. But she doesn’t and she isn’t.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:43 pmLittle steps, daleyrock. We do have an acknowledgement that some leftist clown on Airhead America acknowledged the bleeding obvious.
I found this post at Hewitt’s, outlining Obama’s deception in one of his responses to be interesting. We don’t need the horrifying “if” in this instance.
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:44 pmIf all it takes to avoid responsibility for advancing an obvious falsehood is to put if in front of the slur, this is a tactic that must have been taught to the Dems by hodean. It is nothing other than a cheap rhetorical device. Oiram, you and I do not agree on almost anything, but you have previously attempted to at least be honest in your positions. This one, not so much.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:46 pm“I think they would likely be writing in votes for Nor Laup, Lyndon LaRouche, or some Star Trek character.”
I vote for Oiram, ‘Tard of Thunder.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:46 pmBut saying “IF” lets this tool play with the adults, even though he doesn’t understand the conversation.
There, there, little boy. Here’s some candy.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:47 pmWell put DMAC. I see your point.
The only problem is that we need a level playing field when it comes to debates and discussions involving both candidates.
The accusations that McCain supporters are spewing out, come under freedom of speech and it is up to the voters to decide their validity.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:47 pm#242 – Oiram
you have a current Candidate for president (McCain) who we know is now married to his mistress
— McCain does not have a mistress; he is married to his wife.
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:49 pmWell, now you go say something decent, right after I called you out. Goodness, this is tiring.
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:49 pmThe level playing field isn’t a problem. Baracky running away from the debate is the problem. That’s pretty simple to achieve. Remember all those town hall meetings McCain suggested and Baracky agreed to before he came to his senses and realized he’d get his ass handed to them?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:51 pmAh yes, the “level playing field”.
Oiram’s motto: Gleichheit über alles
Or is it Gleichheit über Freiheit?
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 12:55 pmCognitive dissonance should hurt. Who, exactly, is spewing out accusations, Oiram? Hint, it is not McCain.
If you want a level playing field, Baracky should run again in about 40 years, once he has a little experience under his belt. Until then, you gots to go with the candidate you have.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:00 pm“If my aunt had testicles, she’d be my uncle.”
– Pablo
Not necessarily. Remember Lorena Bobbitt? It’s not quite the same but you, get my drift…
Leviticus (624583) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:08 pmBambi supporters keep repeating the smear, and saying “Who, me?”
It’s so cute when they do it as children. As adults, not so much.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:09 pm#107 rrpjr:
But wait, I thought Capitalism and the sacred “free market” were supposed to magically and almost instantaneously, like Michael the archangel casting Satan out of heaven, eradicate despots and oppression, and lead to nations flooded with a cleansing tide of liberty, human rights, freedom of religion and the press and real and viable opposition parties?
How can this be?! If Capitalism is capable of evil, could it be this country could ever lose its grasp on its hard won precious freedoms? I mean, the term Capitalism announces its intentions upfront. Those in power are those with the capital. Would those Capitalist forces ever, ever, turn their backs on precious freedoms and human rights for the sake of..capital? Seems to me they would and they have and China and Russia are glaring examples of the inconsistency in the minds of those who worship the free market. The most efficient free markets are rewarded by the lowest possible expenditures for labor and control of established capitalist entities, thereby undoing the very idea of a free market itself. I don’t need to point out that China has, in fact, been accused of labor practices that border on slavery. 7 day work weeks, 12 hour days. People worked until they fall apart and can’t keep up the pace any longer. Even this country used slavery to fire its capitalist economic engine reaping massive profits until Lincoln dismantled it.
I’m willing to consider that China and Russia, might someday also become enlightened and make a real effort towards freedom and human rights, but the way things look I’m not holding my breath. They don’t have the bedrock philosophy that the principle founders of this nation put into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It’s going to take the example of this nation and gentle ongoing persistence to see to it that they hold themselves up to a higher standard and begin to make the connection between personal freedom and profit. But so far, they have no need to worry about it. And if things continue the way they’re going China might end up running that show.
If slavery can coexist with capitalism, then you can bet that freedom can exist in a nation that has what some call “socialist” programs as if it was out and out repressive Soviet or Chinese-style communism, like healthcare, like access to free higher education. And you only have to look to the Scandinavians to see that example working beautifully.
Personally, I think there are certain things that are better handled by the government, like establishing new infrastructures and initiatives that hold a greater societal value (and ultimately economic value) that cannot be quantified into capital upfront and certain things are better handled by the private sector/capitalists who can take these initiatives and make them efficient and, perhaps with time even profitable for the short term. Why can’t we do both? Why is there no value seen in long term investment?
Why this all or nothing ideologically frozen approach that borders on magical thinking and superstition? A pragmatic approach that does what is best for the thing at hand works better, and that means making use of any number of private and public solutions.
I mean, would even present day Capitalists have been capable or equipped to to see the infinitesimally priceless nature of the rights and ideals enumerated by the founders, and codified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that have served this country so well?
I think not, and if you want to talk about the oppression of “Socialism” you need to look no further than what we have in the present day “free market” with K street lobbyists pushing capital interests that amount to Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for everyone else who can’t afford it forced to play by the rules of a free market designed by and for the rich.
So, with that in mind. Which Presidency will be a better guide to the up and coming Capitalists of the world who play fast and loose with human rights, a presidency, of which we have only to look at the last eight years to see an economic and geopolitical example of that has repeatedly weakened by the interests of the most powerful Capitalists, or a forward looking presidency that seeks to establish greater justice and human rights and government transparency and an ability to THINK and work and talk/debate through problems with pragmatism and across party lines, as opposed to inflexible ideological agendas that impose solutions that don’t fit the problems.
Every day McCain, even as he tries to distance himself from the present administration begins to sound and act more and more like them, and more and more like another Republican administration willing to play whatever game it needs to buy into the Neocon version of Republicanism that has so weakened all it once stood for. And once appealing not to the best about what America stands for, but it’s basest fears and anxieties and prejudices.
Obama still has a lot to prove no doubt, and he should be held to the acid test if he wants to be president, but so should McCain, and so far he’s just become more and more polarizing and predictable.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:17 pmLeviticus, not to get too graphic, but testicles were not at issue in the Bobbitt case.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:22 pmSteve #260, your silly comments are not making your party look good here or anywhere. Works here, but in the outside world of Patterico you will be trounced. I recommend looking at comment #249 and #231 if you would like to know how to get through to a liberal.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:30 pmIt reminds me of Hodean and his 9/11 remarks.
Mario – Your silly assertions are not making your party and your candidate look good.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:34 pm#266
Hey JD, did that stop you from voting for GWB. What twice? Now come on. Tell the truth. Did you even think of this issue in 2000 and 2004?
On top of it, Obama raised himself up from nothing. He had to earn his entrance into Harvard and his appointment to the Harvard Law Review and his appointment to the Univ. of Chicago. He didn’t have the money and influence of one of the most powerful political family’s in the country to get him elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 or Congress in 2004. He had to do those things through courage and self-drive and ability.
Now, what is it George Bush ever did politically, that he had to go it alone?
Yale? No
Governor of Texas? Nope. His good friend Rove destroyed Ann Richard’s re-election for that.
President of the US 2000? See above except, insert John McCain for Ann Richards. Not to mention, just how much more experience did Gore have?
Re-election 2004? Also, see above, but instead of Ann Richards or John McCain insert: John Kerry
(Oh right, it’s accepted wisdom here that Kerry was infit to command, because he…threw medals over a fence and protested against the Vietnam War and was declared an Enemy by Richard Nixon. But I’m not getting into that again.)
Bottom line: Obama “unexperienced.” George Bush without experience in all things except being a fortunate son, born with a golden foot in his mouth. And a massive political machine to do his bidding.
As for John McCain: I don’t remember him excelling academically or being a professor of anything and I know this is blasphemy, but being a Navy man and a POW, as honorable as that is (even though both his Father and Grandfather were admirals), does not qualify one to be POTUS.
And please, spare me the indignation over how unfair it is to criticize JM’s dubious qualifications. If you really want to go down this avenue, you better be ready for serious argument.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:40 pm#266 Thanks JD, I never said McCain spewed accusations about Obama. Check comment #261.
You think McCain has 40 years experience?
O.k., think your way JD.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:43 pmHa ha ha ha ha
I love the “get through to a liberal” part. Why don’t you admit:
a) You got pwnd
b) see a), above
I really don’t care to “get through to a liberal,” because that’s a strawman argument. What’s important here is that you endlessly repeat the smear and then act all huffy when we point it out to you again and again.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:43 pmAnd where did I say I represent the Republican Party? Bueller? Bueller?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:44 pmI love the absurdity here, you all were listening to the National Enquirer a couple of weeks ago when it came to Edwards’s affair, which I gave credit where credit was due in that it was partially correct.
Now the New York Times and NBC have a story about McCain obviously not using a level playing field when it comes to discussions with Obama at his home turf Saddle back.
You don’t see the hypocrisy here?
I worry for you people, I really do.
That kool aid must really taste lovely.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:48 pmAlright, that does it!
Everyone who’s been casually accusing McCain of cheating, whether prefaced by “if” or not, take a look at this here Youtube video from a debate back on March, 2007:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1PZD2sw6-Y
Does his response sound familiar? If your only argument is that he must have cheated to have a ready answer, you are clearly wrong; he’s been giving the same answer over a year now. Apologies are now in order.
Sean P (e57269) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:51 pmNBC has nothing but Andrea Mitchell repeating an Obama campaign conspiracy theory and the NYT reporting that….surprise!!!…there was not an actual cone of silence, which we already knew. Neither of those is a story about McCain obviously not using a level playing field, and no, I don’t see the hypocrisy.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:52 pmHa. You don’t “worry” a bit. You love repeating the smear. Over and over. And hiding behind “IF.” And getting the vapors when anyone intelligent points out your smear.
Research the facts, then come back here and apologize.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:52 pmAt some point an honest man, even a dumb one, would admit he was wrong on the facts.
Are you honest yet?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 1:54 pmSteve,
He’s gotta work his way up to dumb first. It’s gonna be a bit.
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:03 pm“Leviticus, not to get too graphic, but testicles were not at issue in the Bobbitt case.”
– Pablo
Hence “it’s not quite the same”, but she did have a penis for a brief period of time…
Leviticus (e4edc0) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:03 pm#274 For once your right Ferris. I may have labeled you mistaken as a Republican. I apologize.
But you are a McCain supporter, I think right?
So based on that, my comment pretty much still stands up.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:07 pmI don’t expect the tool to back down. He’ll just trot off to another thread with his mock “quelle horreur!” at the dastardly McCain.
Very precious boy with a hint of the vapors.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:08 pmOiram – You are proving to be quite dishonest today.
SaddleBack is McCain’s home turf? Really? Seems Warren and Baracky are friends, but don’t let that get in the way of a good meme.
The other day aphrael said to assume a mistake until there is more evidence. I no longer assume mistake on your part on this. At best, you are being disingenuous. Mendouceous, if you will.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:11 pmOiram –
Saddleback (one word, numb-nuggets!) is McCain’s “home turf”?
How so? HOW SO? Saddleback is an evangelical church; Obama belonged to Trinity United, an evangelical church, for 20 years; Obama first appeared at Saddleback in December 2006; he has known Rick Warren for at least that long.
You think McCain has 40 years experience?
— 23 years in the Navy; 4 years in the House of Representatives; 22 years in the Senate. Get out your calculator!
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:21 pmTool, you don’t know whether I am a McCain supporter or not. You are free to search or browse the archives so you can back up YOUR assertion.
I don’t have to do anything. YOU are the one flinging around your smears, so YOU get to back them up with observable facts.
Notice that “Tool” is spelled with a “T” and not an “F.” I grant you that much.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:21 pmMario – How was the playing field obviously not level? Specifics, please. Or in the altenative, admit that you are making shit up.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:24 pmStill have the vapors, tool?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:29 pmHa, ha. Nice one Oiram.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:33 pmO.k., well it looks like we have to take this whole thing on faith. McCain was not in the building while Obama was being interviewed. That is factual.
I choose to believe McCain that he didn’t know the questions and Obama’s answers in advance unless there is proof otherwise.
I also could see that McCain might not know that the cone of silence reference was about an actual quiet room and not lying when he agreed with Pastor Rick Warren about that.
Having said all that, nit picking like mine has popped up by me and others from all parties regarding debates and discussions. In the future we shouldn’t have to take anything on faith regarding what a candidate did or didn’t do in a particular format.
Guidelines need to be set and candidates need to stick by the rules.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:47 pmThe tool is busy searching DailyKos & Firedoglake for his latest speaking points. I don’t think he can handle HuffPo – reading with his lips leaves him rather breathless.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:47 pmOiram – Peter’s presence keeps you from being the most mendoucheous troll in this thread.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:49 pmOiram & Peter – you all were listening to the National Enquirer a couple of weeks ago when it came to Edwards’s affair …Now the New York Times and NBC have a story about McCain obviously not using a level playing field when it comes to discussions with Obama at his home turf Saddle back.
Ha ha yourself. That’s exactly the point. The NYT and NBC are in the bag for the Democratic party, a fact that has been proven by the Edwards affair. Why do you make ‘arguments’ that are self-defeating?
Apogee (366e8b) — 8/18/2008 @ 2:58 pmI tried to read all of Peter’s rantings previously, but he seems not to have ever heard of the word “edit.” Jeebus, get me rewrite!
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 3:20 pmPeter wrote: And how about more than one convenient instance L.N., that doesn’t continue the false meme that NBC and Andrea Mitchell have a left wing slant and wouldn’t dare to criticize Obama, as Mitchell did when she called him out for not doing real press conferences in Afghanistan or Iraq.”
The transcripts of her statements prove Mitchell’s complaint at that time was strictly about what she thought was restricted and controlled media access to Obama. She pushed back against Roger Simon and Chris Matthews’ fawning coverage of his trip to Afghanistan.
To wit:
McCain’s name didn’t come into the picture in any way as this issue arose — Mitchell didn’t say, “The McCain people are saying these are fake interviews,” SHE did. In her mind, it wasn’t Obama vs. McCain, it was Obama vs. The Press Corps.
Simon and Mr. “Thrill Up My Leg” were 100% on board with the way the B.O. road show looked; Mitchell, whom I will begrudgingly give a thimbleful of credit, was concerned about the journalists being treated as spectators or props.
Nice try.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/18/2008 @ 3:23 pmSorry Dmac I’l try and restrain my comments to 30 words or less so as not to hurt your brain.
And Apogee: Ha ha right back to you. The Right gives more credibility to the Enquirer then it does to the NY Times or NBC. Who should be embarrassed more here, buddy? Are you saying there’s some sort of conspiracy to make McCain look unfit for command?
But I realize it’s in the interest of the McCain campaign to discredit media sources that have ethics an report it as they see it, because he going to get hammered for his subpar performances in the debates.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/18/2008 @ 3:27 pmNot by much, JD.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 3:31 pm#269…
Another Drew (09d3ed) — 8/18/2008 @ 3:45 pmDid someone fart?
#297 LN
No. No nice try needed here LN, you’re caught out trying to pass along the idea that Mitchell is biased in favor of Obama.
You wrote:
There was no mention in the letter to Steve Capus of how Andrea Mitchell earlier dutifully passed along baseless Obama camp allegations that the canceled visit to wounded soldiers at Landstuhl was the result of McCain contacts at the Pentagon setting Obama up in a no-win situation.
The letter will be portrayed by the usual suspects as whining, but it would seem less so if there was more than one instance detailed.
Without any reference to the fact that there was yet another instance, and probably many more than that I’m sure, in which she forcefully criticized the Obama campaign for the lack of reporter access in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is irrelevant whether she was pushing back against Matthews or anyone else. She called it the way she saw it. Period.
Yet, curiously you didn’t feel any need to refer to that, or any past reports from Mitchell in your eagerness to add greater credence to the McCain campaigns claims against NBC alleging a partisan bias.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/18/2008 @ 3:54 pmWhat are you a sophomore in high school? LOL.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/18/2008 @ 3:56 pm#292 – Oiram
In the future we shouldn’t have to take anything on faith regarding what a candidate did or didn’t do in a particular format.
— Damn straight! From now on: 24-hour web-cams following the candidates wherever they go.
Just think of all of the cigarettes we’ll be able to watch Barack smoke.
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:00 pm#300 The pics of Obama surfing with his family in Hawaii while on vacation weren’t enough for you ICY?
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:16 pmBambi doesn’t “smoke.” He is merely acquiring stimulation from alternate delivery systems.
McCain, of course, has not stopped beating his wife yet.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:20 pm#289
I assume your talking to me JD, everyone else is calling me Mario, why not you too?
Just shows facts get convoluted here left and right.
If NBC and The New York Times is correct, the playing field was not level because McCain had a chance to listen to Obama’s questions which were identical to his own. We pretty much know for sure McCain was not in the building while Obama was speaking. I believe McCain’s people saying that he did not hear any of the questions and answers. But you do see the advantage McCain would of had if he did listen don’t you?
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:27 pm#302, Steve, when you doll out your off beat comedy, I could even here crickets in this room chirping.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:29 pmI thought the Messiah was personally absorbing as much greenhouse gas as possible; doing his part to save the planet.
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:30 pmeveryone else is calling me Mario, why not you too?
— So your screen name is not “Mario” written backwards? That’s just a big coincidence?
IF that is true, you should explain the true derivation of your name; otherwise, how could we ever trust you again?
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:35 pmMore of the magic “IF” from the tool.
When are you going to become an honest man and admit you are simply smearing McCain?
You already can’t back up your claims about my supposed membership in political party or my support for any presidential candidate – and yet you freely toss around lies and slander, prefaced with the magic “IF.”
Tool. With a “T.”
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:36 pmLOL #306,
ICY TRUTH writes:
“IF that is true, you should explain the true derivation of your name; otherwise, how could we ever trust you again?”
Should I give you my address and social security number too ICY?
Thanks for making me laugh.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:37 pmOiram, you watched McCain answer the questions he could have had an opportunity to listen to and answer the ones during the latter half when he didn’t.
Did you notice a difference in his performance? (because I didn’t)
Anon (c70964) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:37 pm#299 – Another Drew
#269…Did someone fart?
— Looks more like someone took a dump.
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:39 pmThe tool will simply trot out the smear again, and hide behind the “IF.”
What a man.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:39 pmWho won? McCain or Obama? Who cares? Since when did discussion about one’s faith become a popularity contest? Faith and convictions are very personal matters. By what measure do you measure who won in a conversation about one’s faith in God? Was that meant to be a debate to be won or a way of getting to know more about the candidates? When you say McCain won, are you saying McCain is more spiritual than Obama? Or if you say Obama, are you saying he is more spiritual than McCain? This is childish, to say the least. Preposterous.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:42 pmA lot of commenters here have nicknames for each other and most are good-natured. I always put ‘Mario’ in that category but please don’t call Oiram by that or any other name if your intention is to be cruel or insulting.
And Oiram, if you don’t like that nickname for any reason, speak up and I’ll support you.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:43 pmMcCain is no friend of mine, but I can recognize when someone is simply staying in character and answering questions the same way he always does versus someone that answers in such as way as to respond to the answers of the previous person.
McCain doesn’t do so. He doesn’t answer like it’s scripted. He just blows out what he’s thinking.
Unfortunately for Bambi, McCain thinks faster on his feet. Bambi waits for the worshipping crowd to announce “we are not worthy!”
I can imagine Bambi’s first day in the Oval Office. “Putin on the phone. He’s invading Ukraine. What are you going to do?”
“Uh. Uh. Just a sec. Uh. Send him a very strongly worded letter that this will not make him my friend.”
Now imagine McCain’s response: “To the forces. You have your weapons. I quote the Spartans – ‘with them or on them’.”
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:44 pmLove, dear, read the transcripts and then come back. You’ll need to understand that the civil discussion was largely about political issues that are of interest to religious believers. Not just about personal faith.
With all due respect.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:46 pm#308 – Oiram (or whatever)
Should I give you my address and social security number too ICY? Thanks for making me laugh.
— Ya know, I want to give you credit for realizing that I was hitting you with the exact same argument you’ve been making on this “cone of silence” silliness; but I’m not sure that I should. Sometimes I’m too subtle.
Of course, with that “address and S.S. number” crack, you did admit what you tried to play off before — as well as reveal a little paranoia? Nobody wants to track you down.
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:46 pmThanks for looking out DRJ, it’s fine…….. I’ve been called worse here 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:47 pmWow, ICY I’m really glad to hear your not trying to track me down. I thought maybe you were looking to get some Obama stickers for you car. I’m fresh out this week 🙁
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:48 pmTrack you down? We don’t even want to claim we know you.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 4:49 pm#315 Steve, finally an intelligent view point coming from your keyboard. Your finally learning.
Sorry Love2008, I have to agree with Steve on this one. Obama after all did agree to this interview and Kudos to him for having the guts to do the interview.
Oiram (983921) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:01 pmYou need to pay attention more. Everything I write is scintillating in its brilliance.
You eventually will come round to see things my way.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:03 pm#315
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:10 pmLost again, aren’t we all? What are we really talking about now? The Topic of this thread reads “Did Obama or McCain Win?” How did it become another opportunity for name – calling and false accusations?
Oiram @ 303 – where is there even a scintilla of evidence that McCain heard the questions or answers? Hint. Asserting same, or using “if”, does not make it so. The NY Times and Mitchell simply repeated the Baracky campaign smears. You are a good foot soldier. A mendoucheous lying troll.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:11 pmYes, obambi has so much in way of intestinal fortitude to enter the den of his buddy minister, but hasn’t the balls to debate McCain mano y man in a town hall setting of ten events as McCain suggested. Of course it is a given that moderators will for the most part be Obama sycophants. And yet Obambi is going to go face off with the likes of Putin and ImADamnNutjob? jajajaja, surely you jest.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:12 pm#312 – love2008
Who won? McCain or Obama? Who cares?
— Brilliant! 311 comments before yours, most of them on-topic, and now you saunter in and declare the topic itself to be irrelevant? How brave of you. The answer to “Who cares?” is: a lot of us . . . those of us that actually do care.
Since when did discussion about one’s faith become a popularity contest?
— It isn’t. It’s about which candidate’s positions on the issues, those that are important to people of faith, gives you more confidence in their decision-making ability and in the direction in which they will take the country.
Faith and convictions are very personal matters.
— You haven’t been shy about sharing some of your convictions; and you aren’t even a public figure.
By what measure do you measure who won in a conversation about one’s faith in God? Was that meant to be a debate to be won or a way of getting to know more about the candidates?
— It was the latter; getting to know more about them. As for what the conversation was about, read the transcript.
When you say McCain won, are you saying McCain is more spiritual than Obama? Or if you say Obama, are you saying he is more spiritual than McCain?
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:12 pm— That is not what we are saying. As proof of that, since in addition to the transcript of the forum you apparently haven’t read the previous comments here either, the only place on this page where the word “spiritual” appears is in your post. We are judging them based on their performance in a public forum, period.
I have an old wrecked car and a shotgun. . . .
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:14 pmBambi shows that he is unable to speak the truth to a friendly crowd (they gave him a standing O at the end), and now his supporters need to whisper that McCain “cheated” because Bambi showed his deer-in-the-headlights look.
That’s the topic, love. Do try to keep up.
With all sincerity.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:16 pmHow can anyone in good faith support the naive neophyte affirmative action magic negro? Perhaps his bootlickers and asskissers would care to explain? Obama puts down a great scotus justice because Thomas is an Uncle Tom in superfreak barry hussein’s eyes. I just saw that Obama’s work with Ayers on some project they did together years ago is now offlimits for security reasons. Gotta hide the filthy truth about his past associations with terrorist scumwads. Powerline has the story.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:22 pmI think sometimes Bambi is smarter than I give him credit for – he is smart enough to avoid venues that expose his weaknesses, such as any form of debate where he needs to be quick on his feet. He prefers reading from a Teleprompter what others have written for him.
It’s not a crime to be inarticulate. It is hilarious, however, when his supporters think he’s eloquent. He’s as eloquent as a hired actor reading the lines of a scriptwriter.
What Bambi supporters can’t do is point to any accomplishments of the Anointed One. They can make great pronouncement unconnected to reality, and more power to them.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:27 pm“Sorry Dmac I’l try and restrain my comments to 30 words or less so as not to hurt your brain.”
Your wit is about as subtle as a dead skunk in the middle of the road. You also seem about as sharp as a pound of wet leather. Truly, these types of witty bon mots must be shared for the greater good – so go now! Go fly away, and spread your awesome powers of asshattery wherever they may be needed! It’s for the good of the country, damnit!
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:27 pmPeter wrote: No. No nice try needed here LN, you’re caught out trying to pass along the idea that Mitchell is biased in favor of Obama.
She is biased in favor of Obama. She’s always been biased in favor of Democrats, and so are most of the crew on MSNBC.
You’re acting as if a fair person observing the totality of Mitchell’s reportage over the past eight years (at the least) would come to the conclusion that she is fair and balanced, and that the two instances of pro-Obama slant are leveled out by her criticism of his restriction of access to him in Afghanistan. A fair person would not suggest such a thing. Thus, you do not.
Like I said, the usual suspects will accuse the McCain camp of whining. That makes you Lie-zer Soze.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:32 pmYeah and I heard McCain has hemorrhoids older than most of the people on this blog.
Care to state a source for that please?
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:53 pm#330
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/18/2008 @ 5:57 pmWith all sincerity
With all sincerity, this thread should be changed to “Did John McCain cheat?” To which I would say, he could have done more to avoid this controversy. One, he should have arrived at the same time with Obama and proceed to this so called “cone of silence” room. But he didn’t. He arrived later than he was scheduled to, thus creating room for this type of accusation. Secondly, Pastor Warren is a bit misleading when he says to the crowd;
Now, Senator Obama is going to go first. We flipped a coin, and we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence.”
“We have safely placed John McCain in a cone of silence”? That is not accurate. John McCain had not arrived as of that time. I am not saying Warren intentionally wanted to mislead people, but by saying McCain was already in the cone of silence opens the door for problems like this.
Did John McCain cheat? Did he see some of the questions before hand? Who knows? Anything is possible. I am not saying that he did, neither am I saying it is impossible that he did. More effort could have been put in to avoid this kind of embarrassment. If they were not going to arrive at the same time, then they should have been asked different questions. Just my opinion.
Love,
with all due respect,
You are MAKING THINGS UP.
Not a good sign, you know.
Cheers,
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:01 pmThe point is, IF this cheating happened – why is there no evidence of ‘better’ or more tuned answers? Both Bambi and McCain responded with predictable answers they’ve given before.
Bambi avoided stating what he believed about abortion with his weaselly “above my pay grade” remark – this from a guy who wants to be president of 300 million people – can’t say what he wants about one of the most polarizing issues of the day? This is a LEADER? No, this is a weasel.
McCain gave his standard answers. What was remarkable about any of them, other than that McCain was comfortable giving his answers, and Bambi stuttered and was lost at times.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:04 pm#334 LN Smithee:
Fine. Prove it. Prove that Andrea Mitchell is slanted towards Obama and has “always been” so. I have shown that she will call him out, and that is all I needed to prove that your original comment was incorrect and flawed and remains so and now this latest statement is also false, as she obviously has not “always been” biased in favor of Democrats.
You have absolutely no grounds by which to call me a liar.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:12 pm#336
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:15 pmI am not talking about the content of the interviews. My point is that more effort should have been put in, to avoid stuff like this. What stuff am I making up? Please point it out. I have not taken any position. Neither have I accused McCain of cheating. Merely pointed out an observation.
And Steve, what did I “make up”?
Speculating that McCain “cheated” when there is no evidence is “making things up.”
Asserting something based on facts is not “making things up.”
That should be clear.
What was the actual timeline of events for McCain’s appearance? That is, did he have hours before he appeared? Seconds?
Who picked the position in the debate; that is, who picked who’d go first? How did McCain manage to set up a scenario where the person who picked the order picked McCain to go second?
An awful lot of black-helicopter thinking is required here to believe this.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:21 pmby the way, love, I say “with all due respect” because I think you are educatable, if sometimes confused.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:21 pmLove2008
And can you imagine Lovey the indignation here if Obama had dared to insult, the good pastor and his white Evangelical congregation if, heaven forbid, Obama had showed up late, not to mention had failed to be in the “cone of silence” on time??
The mind reels at the accusations of “elitism” and “arrogance” and “disrespectful behavior” that would be thrown at him.
Yet, McTarry walks in late, failing to abide by Pastor Warren’s rules for the meeting and nary a word is said about it. Whether he cheated or not, he should have been there on time and where he was supposed to be during the session with Obama.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:24 pmWarren says McCain came to the event with saddleback staffers. He did not hear the questions asked of Obama. There is no there there, but I like the attacks on him. They smell like fear and they look pathetic. More, please.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:25 pmReally? So then, you didn’t say anything like this?
I must be imagining #335.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:30 pm#339
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:40 pmI am not the one “speculating” here, Steve. If you are going to accuse someone of making things up, at least direct to the person actually making it up,
the one stirring up this controversy.
I understand your need to stand up to the defense of John McCain. But direct it to the right person.
The fact remains that this whole issue could have been avoided. Never give people room to accuse you. That is a good policy, don’t you think?
Love, yes, it’s a good policy. And if it works, great. Sometimes people fail at that, in spite of the best of efforts. Perhaps Warren’s people didn’t think that a literal “cone of silence” was needed, or that people would get the sly humor at a reference like “cone of silence.”
I’m simply pointing out that the rumor has been thoroughly discredited for hours now, and bringing it up again and again isn’t honest; it’s mendacity and a smear. I’m sorry you think it fit to bring it up, and I’m sorry you think it’s important to speculate on wild conspiracy theories.
When you bring up these blown-to-bits theories, however, I think you’re speculating, and on no grounds whatsoever.
While it’s too bad Warren’s people have too high a view of the nature of people & didn’t plan on the wild speculations, here we are 24 hours later, and we know there was no literal “cone of silence,” and we also know there are absolutely no grounds to speculate that McCain knew the questions beforehand.
Bringing it up, again and again, is not the mark of intellectual honesty; rather, it is the mark of a partisan hack.
I think better of you.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:45 pmPablo – lovie does not actually pay attention to what it types. Even if it does, its positions shift about as quickly as Baracky’s.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:47 pmGee, it’s too bad that Andrea Mitchell didn’t tell us who the Obama flack that floated this is.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:49 pmI will say one more thing: I don’t think Andrea Mitchell is a shill for the Democrats on this one. She’s doing the job of a reporter in the sense that she’s reporting what some people are saying. I disagree with her choice of stories to cover, which I think betrays her agenda, but I don’t think she’s “in the tank for Bambi” in such a way that she is an automatic supporter of the Anointed One and a crank on McCain.
If the crazed loons in Bambi’s campaign are telling this lie, and Mitchell reports on it, she’s doing America a favor by exposing this type of thinking, where the only way Bambi could look so stupid is that McCain had the answers in the bag. The idea that Bambi is a intellectual fakir doesn’t occur to them, but perhaps it is starting to occur to more Americans.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:50 pmIt is McCain’s fault for not anticipating how infantile and mendoucheous the Dems would act.
I blame Bush.
Racists
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:51 pmI don’t even think Saddleback was the best place for this kind of forum. Knowing how lopsided they were towards the Republican party.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:52 pmJMHO. It’s difficult to win in a hostile environment. John McCain was set up to take the day and he did. Bravo Johnny!
And anyone that believes there was ever a Cone of Silence should immediately be disenfranchised. These are the people that will cancel out your vote.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:54 pmLove, it’s a beautiful article, but there are no data that points to your thesis.
Warren is Bambi’s friend, not McCain’s.
How is asking two people the same questions setting them up? Which question(s) in particular set Bambi up? Was there an unfair or unanticipated question?
When you make allegations, you need to back them up. Otherwise, you’re speculating, and I know how much you hate that.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:55 pmlovie – Baracky and Warren are friends, and he has been there before. Nice try.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/18/2008 @ 6:58 pm#351
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:08 pmNow I am “speculating”, Steve. Sue me! 🙂
“One, he should have arrived at the same time with Obama and proceed to this so called “cone of silence” room.”
That bastard! How dare he not race like hell and expose other drivers to possible injury, doesn’t he realize that there’s a farkin’ debate to get to, and that’s what’s more important!
“But he didn’t. He arrived later than he was scheduled to, thus creating room for this type of accusation.”
McCain, you scumbag! How dare you expose yourself to unwarranted speculation on things that never happened! Don’t you realize that people with tin foil hats are watching your every move, and believe every crazy ass thing they hear? How dare you demolish our Messiah in a debate? Have you no decency at long last, sir? HAVE YOU NO DECENCY?
Dmac (874677) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:14 pmWhy let love2008 continue to lie? Ignore her until she can comment honestly.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:28 pmHave you no decency at long last, sir? HAVE YOU NO DECENCY?
Comment by Dmac — 8/18/2008 @ 7:14 pm
+1 LOL
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:29 pm#353 – love2008
Sue me!
— What are you worth? (A question many of us have wanted to ask, regardless of the context.)
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:35 pm#357
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/18/2008 @ 7:54 pm153 million dollars, Icy. Why do you ask?
#355
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:02 pmDid somebody just fart?
These false accusations of cheating by the Obama camp just shows what a lack of character these sore losers have. Obama has been getting a free pass from the beginning of the primaries. Obama looked like the rank inexperienced amateur that he is in the Saddleback debate … while McCain looked decisive and competent. The election is only about 70 days from now, and if Obama hasn’t already come up with positions on these crucial questions by now, he is certainly not qualified to be President of the United States. Crying and accusations of cheating because Obama lost the debate, only makes Obama look smaller and less deserving of the office.
Gina (f14f31) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:28 pmHe who smelt it, dealt it.
Icy Truth (1d424e) — 8/18/2008 @ 8:31 pm#355
Did somebody just fart?
Comment by love2008 — 8/18/2008 @ 8:02 pm
No.
How embarrassing, though, for someone to fart in public – like calling someone a liar who, it turns out, was actually telling the truth. How hard it is for him or her to apologize – so much easier to try to ignore the sound, and hope the smell just goes away. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:14 pm#349
This just reinforces why your candidate is weak in real-time political settings. You don’t mean to support the GOP, but this is a concrete example:
In reality, Rick Warren is friends with BHO, and Saddleback drove the other side in. Calm down and admit that Obama avoids these debate invitations FOR A REASON. He knows why and so should you.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:26 pmVote McCann. He can think on his feet.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:27 pm#366 – Matching it up love’s #352.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:29 pmVote McCann. He can think on his feet.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 8/18/2008 @ 9:27 pm
Exactly. A man who runs from taking any kind of stand which might lose hin a vote, who assiduously avoids debating someone clearly his superior in terms of preparedness, experience and readiness to be President, runs from townhall meetings…what kind of President does that?
Compare their answers on abortion alone. Obama leaned forward while obfuscating as if trying to convince everyone of his earnestness. John McCain leaned back and said very simply, “At the moment of conception.” Who was more “real” in that situation?
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:31 pmnoyk,
love2008 knows very well who was lying. She can go through two years of my comments here and will not find a lie, including everything in the Guantanamo series. She will find several mistakes (in other posts, not the Guantanamo ones… those have consistently been confirmed since that time) that I readily acknowledged, along with sincere apologies for same.
Her comments always follow the same pattern though… misrepresent/outright lie, attack, or ignore proof she was wrong. She should be ignored until she can comment honestly or leaves. I will continue to link to proof of her lying every time I see her doing it.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:36 pmVery textbook believe-me-when-I-lie stuff.
Now the media’s darling is in deep manure. They’re gonna get damn feisty by the time the real debates roll around. Expect someone to trip McCann™ on his way to the chair. They’ll get even, Olbermann’s dreaming it up now! dontcha know, spike the old man’s water with Ex-Lax. The One must meet his political destiny in January.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/18/2008 @ 9:41 pmIt’s difficult to win in a hostile environment.
I imagine it might have been true if there had been any hostility but considering this was held in a house of God, where love of Christ supercedes all else and the moderator himself evidenced nothing but equal measures of kindness and respect toward his two friends, this obviously doesn’t apply.
Nice, if not desperate try, though.
Dana (a6cd33) — 8/18/2008 @ 10:05 pmRacists.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/19/2008 @ 4:35 amLove, I’m disappointed in you. I know you like to play the devil’s advocate at times, but no one here really likes it when you just plain lie.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/19/2008 @ 7:04 am#370 the prevarications are pretty much anytime some of the far left loons deign to open their pie holes. “Peter” has been doing a bang up job with bald faced whoppers about Clarence Thomas. If they repeat their camel dung often enough, it must be true? In any case, moonbats such as love see a fellow traveler in Baracky, whose lies are often easily proven, such as his claim to have worked across the aisle with McCain when Baracky was in Ill. STATE Senate.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/19/2008 @ 7:23 amSo which are they, congenital or pathological liars?? Maybe the moniker Pinocchio2008 is more apropos?
Nobama 2008!
Racists!
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/19/2008 @ 9:00 am#366
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/19/2008 @ 9:54 amWhen I say “hostile environment” I mean also ideological environment. Obama is a liberal. He has taken positions that certain hard core conservatives find very offensive and plain wrong. Issues like abortion, gay rights and gun rights. Some of these issues they find very personal as regarding their faith. Faith is an emotional thing. For example: Gay Marriage. A lot of conservative evangelicals will never vote for a party that supports same sex marriage. No matter what it offers. Another issue is the controversy about Obama’s true religion. There are a lot of conservatives who believe, no matter the evidence that proves it wrong, that Obama is a Muslim. They are passionate about it. These are the kind of people Obama went to Saddleback to talk to. Did he go there to win a debate with McCain on who was more conservative-leaning than the other? No. I think he simply went there to say ” Hey, i may have some liberal leanings but I can work with you on some of these issues. And as you can see from my confessions of faith, I am a Christian.” If that was his aim, then I would say he achieved it, judging from some of the responses he got.
It was never about winning a “who is more conservative” war. It was really about showing up and making some of his positions clear. He is also saying by not giving definite answers to some of those hard questions that he is not a liberal “bigot”. He can be converted. I think that was what people wanted to see in him and that he achieved.
But I won’t stop you guys from your therapeutic need for invectives and name calling and the stuffs you like to say about Love2008. My response to you all is, may God bless you all in all your endeavors. May you find peace of mind and joy in everything you accomplish. And, May God Bless America.
madmax333 wrote:
Always the classy one, Peter responded:
Yo. There is somebody who doesn’t want the public to know the totality of the relationship Obama had with Ayers and/or Dohrn, similar to the way that Michelle Obama initially blockaded access to her race-based Princeton thesis despite her authorization at the time to allow republication.
Now, see a shrink if you can’t control thinking out loud about McCain’s anus. It’s just creepy.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/19/2008 @ 9:59 amLove, you are “moving the goalposts.”
Really, I wonder about you sometimes.
Care to respond to the fact that you brought up these casual smears about McCain & are untroubled by your actions?
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/19/2008 @ 10:03 amLovey hasn’t had anything worthwhile to say for a while now. Amusing as a chew toy, but lately as vapid as the other brainwashed Obamatards.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/19/2008 @ 10:15 amDear Peter,
Don’t understate the importance of hemorrhoids. Most of them will be voting for Obama in November.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/19/2008 @ 10:16 am#379
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/19/2008 @ 10:42 amWhat smears? I merely pointed out something I felt could have been a better way of preventing this argument? Don’t I, at least, have the right to point it out? Are you deliberately trying to be annoying or what? I really don’t want to insult you Steve. You seem like a smart person. And how did I “move the goal post”? I added the word “also” in my last post to state that in addition to the immediate environment, there is also the ideological environment. Maybe you should open your mind a little bit next time.
Vote McCann™. He thinks on his feet.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/19/2008 @ 10:44 amMany semi-conservatives have mixed feelings about abortion. But not partial birth abortion. Late-term abortion is totally unacceptable.
Luckily, the Obama for President campaign corrected his total fallacy that he never voted against this horrific procedure.
How do you feel about:
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/19/2008 @ 10:49 ama) partial birth abortion
b) legislation for or against
c) Obama’s attempt to spin the truth
VN – That is nothing but a distraction in an attempt to keep Baracky from focusing on the important issues that matter to Americans, like how freakin’ hard it is to keep fresh fruit in the home.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/19/2008 @ 10:51 amIt’s frustrating because it requires an answer..
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/19/2008 @ 11:02 amIs there any way to put someone on ‘ignore’ while reading this blog? Seriously, ‘Ron’ is close to qualifying.
Andy (b63f79) — 8/19/2008 @ 11:15 am#335 peckerhead peter,
read it and weep; source for ayers/obambi/annenberg coverup:
belmont club..the library of babel on 8/18/08 @ 553 pm. The story itself originates at NRO by Stanley Kurtz’s attempts to get the info, which was first approved and then withdrawn.
Anyway, http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/
(whom I consider very talented treasure)
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/19/2008 @ 11:19 amL.N. Smithee: your “yo” link is the original source, thanks. It is more likely that any intact unredacted information might be provided in the fullness of time, much as the Clintons’ and Lurch sKerry’s promises have been so far. I’m still curious about what changes the Carter administration made to the Nuanced One’s service records and discharge. How long has it been since he promised complete foreclosure on Meet The Press?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/19/2008 @ 11:25 am#384
How do you feel about:
a) partial birth abortion
I am totally against it. As I have said in some other thread. If you actually read my comments. It’s tough when you read them to find some point to use against love2008.
b) legislation for or against
Just like my answer to question 1
c) Obama’s attempt to spin the truth
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/19/2008 @ 11:30 amWhich politician do you know that has not tried to “spin the truth” to score a point? Maybe we can start from there. Not defending him if he did. He is old enough to give account of himself.
It’s clear that Bambi whiffed it on his answers, and assumed the media would carry his water.
Now that it turns out that the perception is (accurately) that he failed to give intelligent answers & instead weaseled out of honesty, his supporters are claiming that McCain was not in Maxwell Smart’s Cone of Silence, which means that MCCAIN LIED.
A nice way to turn the focus from Bambi’s incoherence.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/19/2008 @ 10:27 pm#390
Hell yeah. He’s old enough. He’s taking so much money from the Chicago bosses, he should be responsible for his statements. And his supporters need the real deal on this abortion/late term issue. His CAMPAIGN corrected his LIE. Unusual that he didn’t step forward to tell viewers they were wrong; we weren’t catching his nuance correctly; we needed another clarification of what he ‘really’ meant. It’s hard not to get angry when talking about this charlatan.
“As I’ve said all along” was the perfect response he should have courageously used to counter this pay-grade partial-birth nonsense.
Now that you know he aggressively supports the slow and painful death of late-term and live babies, something you don’t support, will you incorporate that into your voting plans? If not, why not?
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/19/2008 @ 10:48 pmI don’t know that he “supports” it as much as he hopes we will stop talking about it so he can talk about HopeChange and make more promises (and promptly break them).
It’s all of a piece. Voters are buying into nothing more than the Flim-Flam Man.
But they truly believe.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/19/2008 @ 10:54 pm#378 LN and MadMax.
Interesting, if perhaps a bit over-heated. He could’ve said what was in the Chancellor’s CAC folder from 1995 he was given access to, but it wasn’t damning enough and so had to instead go for the sensationalistic angle of a big bad Obama / Ayers cover up. As if Obama was in the Weather Underground himself and a bomb building terrorist.
As for his tedious self-righteous implication that all libraries must give access to all their holdings, at all times, or they’re somehow acting unethically, he’s entirely mistaken, many libraries have special collections that are limited in access to the public. And usually for completely worthwhile reasons. Perhaps if he refrained from being so pushy they would be a bit more responsive in the manner he seems to require. I have no doubt that the material will be made available to him. Most libraries will do all they can to accommodate such requests if possible, also, there’s nowhere it’s written that a donor’s wish to remain anonymous cannot be honored, so he’s wrong there as well. It’s evident that these materials were given to the UIC library to make them available to a wider audience, otherwise they wouldn’t have been donated in the first place. But of course all he sees is cover up and conspiracy and being hindered from the magic silver bullet that will fall Obama. Sigh.
On the other hand, we have something called the Freedom of Information Act in regard to government records and the Navy has yet to release all of McCain’s service file having made available only a paltry 19 pages of very basic information on May 5th of this year. One would hope there would be more. But alas, the rights and respect that apply to McCain, do not applicable to Barack Obama because the desperation and hunger on the Right to uncover him as the warped myth they’ve created in their own minds is so great.
Anyhow we’ll just have to see what comes of this Kurtz thing. For now he has no proof of there being a cover up no matter how much he rails against the UIC library system. So it’s wrong to assert that that is the case.
(Did you notice I didn’t attempt to discredit Kurtz either for writing for the NRO, or being a senior fellow at the far right Judeo-Christian DC think tank, the Ethics and Public Policy Center?)
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/20/2008 @ 12:42 am^ I hope he keeps only his current fanbase and that undecideds will watch the debates… and DECIDE.
Even with the mods doing everything they can to help BHO, McCain should again answer to heights that Barack simply can’t reach without a teleprompter. I haven’t even checked to see how Maureen Dowd is twisting Saddleback (or maybe I have to wait for the weekend). Off to New York now …
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/20/2008 @ 8:49 amThis is hilarious. “I’m not smearing X if I repeat what others say about him, because I’m merely quoting them.”
Kurtz’ business has zero to do with the facts in the case, which is the university hiding what Bambi has said. Information is neutral.
steve miller (b589d7) — 8/20/2008 @ 9:04 amPeter #394,
Just as I cannot use the FOIA to get copies of your Income Tax returns, the personal information in McCain’s military record is only released at his discretion or as required by law.
Public records are for the public. I don’t think the UIC should have to jump through hoops to accommodate every request as soon as it is made, but putting them off-limits when there is a compelling public interest in public information is something I would think you would be against.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/20/2008 @ 9:07 am397- double standards at work? How did libs feel about Kerry never coming clean on his service record? Someone knows the truth. If he’s clean, why would he delay endlessly?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/20/2008 @ 9:18 amThe media goes to the wall for shitheads like Kerry, Obama and Edwards. If there’s no dirt on a Rethuglican, the treasonous paper of record will create scandal out of nothing. Assholes Mapes and Rather are still convinced that TANG story was factual, but did they ever make any attempt to look at Kerry’s actions in Vietnam and afterwards?
Now we see much of the Anointed One’s past is off-limits and his associates and former classmates told not to cooperate with any interviews without Obama campaign oversight?
In Kurtz’s case, he was given permission to access the annenberg/ayers/obama papers and about to fly to Chicago when the access was then pulled off the table. Funny how the liberal snakes don’t wan’t anyone turning over the rocks.
The only MSM member who pressed Kerry on his records was Tim Russert…
Another Drew (813962) — 8/20/2008 @ 9:23 amand look how that turned out (end snark).
“(Did you notice I didn’t attempt to discredit Kurtz either for writing for the NRO, or being a senior fellow at the far right Judeo-Christian DC think tank, the Ethics and Public Policy Center?”
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 8/20/2008 @ 9:27 amDoes anyone even consider this shallow, tacky tactic the least bit clever?
Of course they did turn over the dirt….on Jack Ryan.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/20/2008 @ 9:31 am401- situational ethics/moral equivalency? Did Ryan cheat on seven of nine? knock up another woman? engage in a coverup? pay off a mistress? The Ryan’s divorce records were sealed to protect their child. Naturally BO found a friendly judge to unseal them. What was so terrible about the divorce that the GOP didn’t want Ryan running?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/20/2008 @ 9:41 amOf course the dems don’t want us to have knowledge now of what Obama actually did alongside his neighbor and great upstanding citizen Ayers. I look at that punk and want to kick his ass, especially in the picture where he walks on the flag and brags about getting away with his anarchy. Pity some whack job serial killer type doesn’t concentrate on big a-holes like Ayers. I like that a fictional sociopath like Dexter is down with icing other serial killers. But I’ll settle for the truth being revealed to the American voter.
Yes. It is all about moral relativism.
Why O! hasn’t thrown Ayers under the bus yet is confusing. The MSM did back flips trying to protect Edwards. I was one of the fools who knew about the story last October (because I read that trash, they know what they’re talking about). I said, enough (Elizabeth’s cancer), stupidly not taking into consideration the political connections between the baby, its immaculate conception and One America $ .
William Ayers needs to written about. His relationship, or lack of one, with Obama. If someone out there likes this Ayers bomber, please explain why. Unlike Arianna’s place, there’s no segregation or discrimination at these threads.
As for Jack Ryan’s wild sex habits… whatever. I don’t care if O and Michelle, John and Cindy, whoever, have it and enjoy it. Just keep a lid on and shut the bedroom door.
For the sake of that child, those divorce records should’ve remained sealed. Chicago is one of my least favorite places ever.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/20/2008 @ 10:19 am#397
You’re right and if the UIC libraries don’t eventually make the resources available or provide a good reason for why they can’t, I’ll definitely come out against that sort of behavior.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/20/2008 @ 2:31 pm#396 Steve Miller
Right, which is why I didn’t take the low road and make my comment all about discrediting the man as is the de rigueur and predominant tactic here. So give some credit where credit is due. I look forward to a similar standard of clean commentary that deals with the issues from you as well.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/20/2008 @ 2:47 pm#398 MM333
It’s a free country. They can speak to anyone they want. Perhaps your anger stems from the fact that you guys have yet to find the Ace-in-the-Hole your guy needs against a superior opponent. Otherwise, why not just stick to the issues and have faith that eventually McCain, if he’s so much better a man for the job, will win through in the end over such an “empty suit”?
Yes, and he was given access to some of it. Why did he not write about it? Could it be, he never intended to give the resource an objective overview in the first place and needs to suggest a BIG scary cover up?
He’ll get access. And I look forward to how he’ll spin that into another woooOoOH Booga Booga… sensationalistic raising of the eyebrows manna from heaven for the Right that proves the myth that they’ve created about the man, because at this point the Right has basically nothing and written a check its ass cannot cash and it is looking increasingly desperate and foolhardy as it attempts to close the deal.
#400 Jack Klompus. Mohammed X Allah.. And MM333
What? That I didn’t try and discredit the Kurtz, and focused on his article? in the 90% of that comment that came before that paranthetical?
Should I have taken the low road and ranted and railed against his periodical and DC think tank?
Or, are you simply vexed by the fact that I reduced the man’s argument to the baying and howling of an over-anxious conspiracy hound needing something, anything, to get his, and his readers, rocks off, in regard to the Obama and Ayers non-issue/strawman?
I’ll say it again: The man got access to a folder and felt no need to tell us anything about it, except for some vague intimation about some interesting things (cue: the spooky dramatic conspiracy music) and instead chose to rail against a bunch of librarians at a college library. Evil “liberal” bogey monsters that they are, of course. Which is both uncalled for, and unprofessional.
Peter (e70d1c) — 8/20/2008 @ 3:25 pmPeter #406
I am holding off on this until more information comes out because, like you, I am skeptical as to whether there is anything real here. I’m seeing a lot of unsourced stuff at other sites that looks pretty damning, but little of substance so far.
That said, leaving that paranthetical off completely would have definitely been more credible. I don’t know that you would have gotten a pat on the back for taking the high road (I honestly don’t think I’d have noticed), but pointing it out in the same comment does taint the rest with partisanship.
I hope that access to the records does come soon and the truth becomes known, whether it helps Obama or hurts him. My only point earlier was that comparing those records to an individual’s service personnel record was not accurate. If John Kerry never releases the entirety of his record, that’s fine with me. Same with McCain, Bush, Clark, or anyone. Just like spousal tax records (C. McCain, T.H. Kerry), they’re nobody’s business unless that individual chooses to release the information. I don’t think even the candidates should have to publicly release that information, but I can understand that the House and Senate can’t really be trusted to vet their own members sufficiently, so public disclosure is probably the only way to make sure they’re on the up-and-up.
That’s one of the many reasons I would never run for public office. Most nosy questions would get a “None of your **** business” answer, even if the answer would be harmless (sometimes even if it was helpful.) I’d never get elected and I would piss off the press enough that they’d dig until they found something or could manufacture something. I would love to get called to testify at the House or Senate about anything, if only to see how long they would actually hold someone for contempt. Not.kidding.a.bit.
🙂
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/20/2008 @ 7:50 pm