fayfreethinkers.com

Betsy began an Obama forum/thread so I suggest a forum/thread for Senator McCain. If I'm duplicating anything then feel free to move this stuff.



1. "The Change You Deserve", turns out to be a trademarked slogan belonging to a pharmaceutical. Spin on it is here


2. McCain: Worse than you think. Why did John McCain boycott/block the 1992 Senate investigation into POWs? Go here




.

Low-Road Express

"Well, that certainly didn’t take long. On July 3, news reports said Senator John McCain, worried that he might lose the election before it truly started, opened his doors to disciples of Karl Rove from the 2004 campaign and the Bush White House. Less than a month later, the results are on full display. The candidate who started out talking about high-minded, civil debate has wholeheartedly adopted Mr. Rove’s low-minded and uncivil playbook.

In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack Obama wants to “lose” in Iraq), and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers).

Mr. McCain used to pride himself on being above this ugly brand of politics, which killed his own 2000 presidential bid. But he clearly tossed his inhibitions aside earlier this month when he put day-to-day management of his campaign in the hands of one acolyte of Mr. Rove and gave top positions to two others. The résumés of the new team’s members included stints in Mr. Bush’s White House and in his 2004 re-election campaign, one of the most negative and divisive in memory.

Almost immediately, the McCain campaign was using Mr. Rove’s well-honed tactics, starting with an attem.pt to widen this nation’s damaging ideological divide by painting Mr. Obama as a far-left kook.
New York Times, July 30

DAR
Five minute montage of McCain's greatest hits (actually misses):

LINK

.

I Spent Years as a POW with John McCain, and His Finger Should Not Be Near the Red Button


"John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.

When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!

Alternet, Aug. 21, 08

.

.


One House, One Wife
_________Obama '08



.

FYI: Obama paid $1.65 million for his Chicago home and an adjacent land in 2005. McCain has too many houses to count, but Obama isn't exactly hurting either.

Doug wrote:FYI: Obama paid $1.65 million for his Chicago home and an adjacent land in 2005. McCain has too many houses to count, but Obama isn't exactly hurting either.

DAR
McCain calls Obama elitist but doesn't know how many houses he owns. The correct number seems to be eight. Obama would be fool to not make wide use of this profound gaffe, as he has. The comment "Obama: One House, One wife" is right on the dot since he owns one house and unlike McCain, isn't an admitted adulterer who dumped his first wife when she had a car accident. That you would try criticize him for doing this, by pointing to his house, is bizarre. Perhaps you don't know about higher prices in big cities.

Context: In NWA a $1.6 million house is a very nice house but not as fancy as you might think. I was looking at some the other day. Barack is a big city lawyer and a sitting senator. In much of Chicago half a million dollars would be a starting price for a small home, especially in 2005 when the market was still hot. That he would own a home at this price point (financed like everyone else) is not remotely out of line and it is not a mansion as the republican talking points say. This contrasts sharply with the wealth and at least monetary elitism of McCain who spends $273,000 per year on servants alone.

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, reported assets of between $456,000 and $1.1 million, making it unclear if he is a millionaire." CNN

A picture:



D.

Also, by McCain's own definition, Obama is not rich.

tmiller51 wrote:Also, by McCain's own definition, Obama is not rich.

DOUG
That's right. McCain said anyone worth 5 million and up is rich. Obama and Michelle probably come in at about 4 million. Of course, his high profile now makes him worth far more than that in potential earnings as a speaker even IF he doesn't get elected.

Back to the subject - McCain is not the change I deserve and if we have have to do good stuff for the people who do deserve him just to keep ourselves from having him, so be it.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Back to the subject - McCain is not the change I deserve and if we have have to do good stuff for the people who do deserve him just to keep ourselves from having him, so be it.

DOUG
I don't see how McCain is any kind of change, except he's older than Bush, and smarter. But his policies are the same and those policies have failed our country in no uncertain way.

The problem is that McCain has successfully positioned himself as a "maverick". And, the majority of people voting for him believe that. They think we're crazy for "falling for" Obama, and that McCain is tried and true. So, if we're going to get anyone to change their vote, we have to educate them about McCain in a way that they will listen. If the Obama campaign doesn't organize some kind of education about McCain, they're going to be railroaded and lose the election. We can sit here and talk about it all day, but we're in the minority of people who actually bother to educate ourselves about the candidates and the issues. Also, no matter how much Republicans may not like McCain, they're going to vote for him because they are thinking solely about the Supreme Court nominations that are inevitable in the next four years.

Which, of course, is (a very important one of) the reasons for the Hillary hold-outs to stop their nonsense and get with the program. I just heard on CNN that Obama has taken a dip in the polls because the Hillary hold-outs are pissed that he didn't properly vet Hillary (even though he already knows everything he needs to know about her, and if he didn't, all he'd have to do is Google her). That is just obnoxious. They're running around Denver saying they'll vote for McCain, which only makes them look stupid.

Betsy wrote:Which, of course, is (a very important one of) the reasons for the Hillary hold-outs to stop their nonsense and get with the program. I just heard on CNN that Obama has taken a dip in the polls because the Hillary hold-outs are pissed that he didn't properly vet Hillary (even though he already knows everything he needs to know about her, and if he didn't, all he'd have to do is Google her). That is just obnoxious. They're running around Denver saying they'll vote for McCain, which only makes them look stupid.

DOUG
The Obamaniacs are like Republicans. They want to blame all their problems on "the Clintons." Or their supporters.

And only a small percentage say they'll vote for McCain.

It's not their fault how Obama runs his campaign.

Their being showcased on CNN, so even if it's not the case the media is making it the case. Look, I'm getting a little disappointed in some of Obama's moves lately and I'm not excited about Biden, but given the choice between Obama and McCain? That's a no-brainer. Only someone with no brain would vote for McCain.

I had dinner with my ex-inlaws tonight. First time I've seen them in about 15 years (they came to town to see my daughter). I like them and always did like them, so imagine my complete SHOCK to find out that Uncle Jim is not only a McCain supporter, but actually thinks "history will show that Bush has been horribly misunderstood and is actually a very good president." Oh. My. God. He might as well have said "I like to have sex with children and it's okay because really they like it." I just can't understand how any sane intelligent person could believe something like that. I really , really don't understand how anyone with even a modicum of intelligence and/or sense could think that a vote for McCain is the way to go, no matter how bitter you are about Hillary losing the primary.

DOUG
And only a small percentage say they'll vote for McCain.

DAR
It only takes a small percentage. Two stats were quoted on Snuffy this morning. One out of 5, and another one. Neither one were a "small percentage" in a tight race.

Hillary supporters who can't get over their loss to Obama ought to get a check from the republicans. They are certainly earning it. No use doing all this sliming for the republicans for free.

D.

Darrel wrote:Hillary supporters who can't get over their loss to Obama ought to get a check from the republicans. They are certainly earning it. No use doing all this sliming for the republicans for free.

D.

DOUG
Obama could have gotten 90+ percent of Hillary supporters if he'd taken her for a running mate. That was the obvious thing to do. The smart thing. But it seems that his pride got the better of his judgment.

Even Nader is saying of the Biden choice "WTF??"

Well...I wouldn't use Nader as one of my sources of authority (any more). Have you seen him talking these days? He's cracking up.

BUT, I have to admit, I was hoping for a Hillary nomination (against all hopes) for the good of the party. (even if she is a liar) (SORRY! couldn't stop myself!) and I also think it would have been the right strategical move. HOWEVER, all this nonsense about him not vetting her is ridiculous. She's been vetted inside and out already. And I even felt angry when he didn't nominate her. Biden seems so....anticlimactic.

HOWEVER AGAIN, still, get with the program (people who are so bitter they're voting for McCain). Do you want a Democrat or four more years of Bushtastic leadership? Come on, really.

And if that doesn't bother you, consider this (as Darrel would say): McCain can't even use the Internet. He has to get his wife to help him check his email. He said so himself, about a week ago. Does anyone REALLY want a president who can't check his own email in the 21st Century?

In my opinion, the Biden pick was much better than a possible Clinton pick, not only for political reasons but also due to his qualifications.
Obama needed help on foreign policy, that much was clear. Now, for the sake of comparison, lets assume all other factors cancel out and foreign policy experience is the tie breaker - and this becomes a moot point. Hillarys foreign policy experience is, at best, touristic and anecdotal, whereas Joe Biden is an internationally respected foreign policy expert and head of the senate foreign relations committee...come on, that one was easy!

DAR
If he had not picked Biden, all of the TV talking bobble heads would be saying "he's weak on the foreign policy issue, why on earth didn't he pick Biden?"

D.

On Biden as the VP: This makes tons of sense. Nominating Hillary would have been great for us on the Left and the Democratic Party in general but NOT for the country. Seriously, we all know that racism and sexism are still a big part of this country. The fact that it was going to be either a woman or a black man is astounding and shows we have made progress. But it would be very detrimental to not have a white male on the ticket for either Hillary or Obama. That's ugly, and I hate saying it, but its true and every political expert in the country knows it. I always knew that for Obama to have a chance, he had to nominate a white male as his VP. They are going after the independents, they have to to win. That's why Bill Richardson was never a serious option, and neither was Hillary. Same if Hillary had won...Richardson nor Obama would have been her pick either if she wanted to win.
Biden also makes sense precisely because he gives foriegn policy experience to the ticket (which Hillary would not. It is Obama's biggest weakness other than his skin color), he appeals to working class voters, another Obama weak point, and most importantly, he appeals to them in Pennsylvania and Ohio. This is simple folks. Obama talks about challenging everywhere, this is for show and to make the GOP sweat and work in the Red States on limited funds. He knows the key is to pick up the Blue States dems always win PLUS Ohio and Pennsylvania. You do that, you win. And to hell with the South and Midwest. Picking up perhaps Nevada, Colorado, and possibly (small chance I think) Virginia just puts icing on the cake. Ohio and Pennslyvania are the key. Without them Obama loses. Biden makes perfect sense on that.