JOHN McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT!

[FOTD]

Good. You vote for the old guy who surrounds himself with bad advisors while he can't think consistently. Doesn't matter anyway. I guess family values and good moral character are not required....

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Good. You vote for the old guy who surrounds himself with bad advisors while he can't think consistently. Doesn't matter anyway. I guess family values and good moral character are not required....

Hearsay.  

How many foreign, ethnic orphans have the Obamas adopted again?

Didn't say who I was voting for yet.  There's still more than three months left to find out more facts on these two.

[Crash Daily]

They are both terrible options, but at least I don't get the feeling that McCain is hiding behind the media.

Obama has O, zero, zilch, none, NO practical experience and attended a church for 20 years that is a black nationalist, Africa first church.
Now, either he knows, follows and believes in his church or he's a blind, stupid, shallow idiot. There's no third option. Which of those options makes for a good choice for President of the United States? We've already tried the second option, although I doubt to Obama's extent. He sure can talk pretty when he reads from the box. It isn't working.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Crash Daily

They are both terrible options, but at least I don't get the feeling that McCain is hiding behind the media.

Obama has O, zero, zilch, none, NO practical experience and attended a church for 20 years that is a black nationalist, Africa first church.
Now, either he knows, follows and believes in his church or he's a blind, stupid, shallow idiot. There's no third option. Which of those options makes for a good choice for President of the United States? We've already tried the second option, although I doubt to Obama's extent. He sure can talk pretty when he reads from the box. It isn't working.

You left out he's a Muslim.

Crash and burn already.....

[Hoss]

What will happen, I believe, is that the country is so ready for change, that change will come as a party change in the White House.

Just because McCain says he's not Bush doesn't make it so in the eyes of voters.  He has the nasty reputation of being Republican right now, and with some of the rhetoric he's been spewing about the Iraq War, and with the news still playing up some of his more idiotic displays (anyone remember 'bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran?) he will not be able to shake the Bush anti-legacy loose.

I wish Jesse Ventura would run. []

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

What will happen, I believe, is that the country is so ready for change, that change will come as a party change in the White House.

Just because McCain says he's not Bush doesn't make it so in the eyes of voters.  He has the nasty reputation of being Republican right now, and with some of the rhetoric he's been spewing about the Iraq War, and with the news still playing up some of his more idiotic displays (anyone remember 'bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran?) he will not be able to shake the Bush anti-legacy loose.

I wish Jesse Ventura would run. []

I hope not because that would hurt Al Franken's chances and we need a real genuine commedian in the Senate. Authenticity for a change![}:)]

[Conan71]

Ventura?  Sheesh, his 'roid rage would make McCain look like a lamb. [}:)]

[FOTD]

I'm for John McCain because he likes to tell jokes....er, he is the joke.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11823.html
McCain's humor often backfires
"McCain's humor, by contrast, makes him the political counterpart of the radio host Don Imus (whom he has defended): It's sharp, unrehearsed and, at times, way, way over the line. This cycle, he's drawn winces, and worse, for everything from a joking reference to domestic violence to a now-notorious little ditty about bombing Iran. Earlier in his political career, the Arizona press reported that he'd cracked a rape joke that would now probably end any politician's career, a joke his aides then and now say he doesn't recall making. "

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

The race is not about race unless you want it to be. Many Americans could care less. To them, it's the issue of correcting the fiascos brought on our great country since 2000 that have put our country into a poor economy and our National honor at question.

So are you saying that "Many Americans" do care about race since it would be possible to care a smaller amount... or... are you using the common corruption of "could not care less"?

I never quite know with you.

I almost voted for Algore in 2000 so the democrats could get proper credit for the already worsening economy but couldn't force myself to do it.  I also remember pictures in the news from Europe (Germany I think) in a parade or protest depicting Bill Clinton as a fool.  The disrespect for America had already been underway. I must admit W hasn't improved it much (any).

Obama would certainly change things. I am just not believing they would necessarily be better.

Never challenge worse! (From another thread.)

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Wow.  Obama has set a timeline for withdrawl and he's never so much as had a meeting with Gen. Petraeus?

He might just be as young and naive as he looks.  

Vote for Obama, re-elect Carter! [}:)]

Uh, not exactly Carter...

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=0e0846cd-694f-40d1-a6d9-55e20de176cf

...and if you listen to their respective strategic plans on foreign policy, Obama is making much more sense than McCain.  There is a good comparison piece by Slate.com today.

Here is the Slate.com article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2195471/

Great, more op-ed quoted as fact.  We've already got one poster who supplies us plenty of that.  []

McCain is un-realistic, Obama is naive and appears halting and un-informed when he's being questioned extemporaneously.  He doesn't think well on his feet.

I'm not happy with either choice.  I've been studying the history and facts on these guys.  McCain has a very slight edge when it comes to which "I like least".

Op-ed is not fact, but it provides a viewpoint that helps explain things for me.

I'm not worried about Obama's extemporaneous speaking ability, although I'd say that hesitating and thinking through things to try to get it right is better than hesitating and coming up with zingers like McCain's Iran cigarette joke or confusing Shiite with Sunni when trying to explain the complexities of the Middle East conflict.  

Although I agree that Obama is a bit green on foreign policy, I have to point out that he appears to be right on (a) talking with Iran - Bush is doing it now; (b) troop surge in Afghanistan - McCain is now suggesting it (although without a plan for sufficient troops); (c) a target for pulling out American troops - Iran's leaders have called for one.  Whether he turns out to be right on whether the Iraq surge was correct will depend on whether the Iraqi troops can hold the peace after American troops leave.  That is still to be determined.  In any event, I've grown confident that Obama's judgment (regardless of whether the surge is shown to have been a good strategy) is far superior to McCain's.

[FOTD]

The rejected New Yorker satire cover.

http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2008/07/rejected-new-yorker-cover-art.html

[FOTD]

I'm for John McSame because he too breaches protocal and places our future leadership in danger for his own political gain!

Obama's aides furious at McCain for blabbing about Dem's Mideast trip

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/18/2008-07-18_obamas_aides_furious_at_mccain_for_blabb.html

[FOTD]

Op-Ed Columnist
It's the Economic Stupidity, Stupid
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
By FRANK RICH
Published: July 20, 2008
THE best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain's response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl.

"In a time of war," Mr. McCain said last week, "the commander in chief doesn't get a learning curve." Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain's attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer's learning curve was faster than his.

Mr. McCain still doesn't understand that we can't send troops to Afghanistan unless they're shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined.

In 2000, he told an interviewer that he would make up for his lack of attention to "those issues." As he entered the 2008 campaign, Mr. McCain was still saying the same, vowing to read "Greenspan's book" as a tutorial. Last weekend, the resolutely analog candidate told The New York Times he is at last starting to learn how "to get online myself." Perhaps he'll retire his abacus by Election Day.

Mr. McCain's fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated on video by whining about "a nation of whiners." The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama's connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings, no doubt to correct the candidate's numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.

Just two weeks before publicly sharing his thoughts about America's "mental recession," Mr. Gramm laid out equally incendiary views in a Wall Street Journal profile that portrayed him as "almost certainly" the McCain choice for Treasury secretary. Mr. Gramm said that the former chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, was "probably the most exploited worker in American history" since he received only a $158 million pay package rather than the "billions" he deserved for his success in growing Southwestern Bell.

But no one in the news media seemed to notice Mr. Gramm's naked expression of the mind-set he'd bring to a McCain White House. And few journalists have vetted the presumptive Treasury secretary's post-Senate history as an executive at UBS. The stock of that banking giant has lost 70 percent of its value in a year after its reckless adventures in the subprime lending market. It's now fending off federal investigation for helping the megarich avoid taxes.

Mr. McCain made a big show of banishing Mr. Gramm after his whining "gaffe," but it's surely at most a temporary suspension. When the candidate said back in January that there's nobody he knows who is stronger on economic issues than his old Senate pal, he was telling the truth. Left to his own devices — or those of his new No. 1 economic surrogate, Carly Fiorina — Mr. McCain is clueless. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter, said that Mr. McCain's latest panacea for high gas prices, offshore drilling, is snake oil — and then announced his availability to serve as energy czar in an Obama administration.

The term flip-flopping doesn't do justice to Mr. McCain's self-contradictory economic pronouncements because that implies there's some rational, if hypocritical, logic at work. What he serves up instead is plain old incoherence, as if he were compulsively consulting one of those old Magic 8 Balls. In a single 24-hour period in April, Mr. McCain went from saying there's been "great economic progress" during the Bush presidency to saying "Americans are not better off than they were eight years ago." He reversed his initial condemnation of mortgage bailouts in just two weeks.

In February Mr. McCain said he would balance the federal budget by the end of his first term even while extending the gargantuan Bush tax cuts. In April he said he'd accomplish this by the end of his second term. In July he's again saying he'll do it in his first term. Why not just say he'll do it on Inauguration Day? It really doesn't matter since he's never supplied real numbers that would give this promise even a patina of credibility.

Mr. McCain's plan for Social Security reform is "along the lines that President Bush proposed." Or so he said in March. He came out against such "privatization" in June (though his policy descriptions still support it). Last week he indicated he isn't completely clear on what Social Security does. He called the program's premise — young taxpayers foot the bill for their elders (including him) — an "absolute disgrace."

Given that Mr. McCain's sole private-sector job was a fleeting stint in public relations at his father-in-law's beer distributorship, he comes by his economic ignorance honestly. But there's no A team aboard the Straight Talk Express to fill him in. His campaign economist, the former Bush adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, could be found in the June 5 issue of American Banker suggesting even at that late date that we still don't know "the depth of the housing crisis" and proposing that "monitoring is the right thing to do in these circumstances."

Ms. Fiorina, the ubiquitous new public face of McCain economic policy, adds nothing to the mix beyond her incessant display of corporate jargon, from "trend lines" to "start-ups." Before she was fired at Hewlett-Packard, its stock had declined 50 percent during her five-plus years in charge. She missed earning projections — by 23 percent in one quarter — much as she now misrepresents both the Obama and McCain records. This month she said Mr. McCain wanted to require insurance plans to cover birth control medications along with Viagra, when in fact he had voted against it.

Ms. Fiorina received a $42 million payout (half in cash) from H.P., according to a shareholders' subsequent lawsuit. With this inspiring résumé, she now aspires to be Mr. McCain's running mate. So does the irrepressible Mitt Romney, who actually was a business whiz before serving as Massachusetts's governor. Beltway wisdom has it that the addition of such a corporate star will remedy Mr. McCain's fiscal flatulence.

But Mr. Romney, while more plausible than Ms. Fiorina, is hardly what America wants at this desperate time. His leveraged buyout dealings as co-founder of Bain Capital induced plant closings, mass layoffs and outsourcing. If Mr. McCain truly intends to "put our country's interests" above politics and reach across the aisle to move the nation forward, as he constantly tells us, why not go for a vice president who's the very best fit for the huge challenges at hand?

The obvious choice would be Michael Bloomberg — who, as a former Republican turned independent, would necessitate that Mr. McCain reach only halfway across the aisle, and to someone who is his friend rather than a vanquished rival he is learning to tolerate.

Romney vs. Bloomberg is not a close contest. Bloomberg L.P. has roughly three times the revenues and employees of Bain & Company, where Mr. Romney ultimately served as chief executive. Mr. Romney rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics while running it in 2002, but Mayor Bloomberg revitalized New York, the nation's largest metropolis, after the most devastating attack in our history. The city he manages has more than twice the budget of Mr. Romney's state.

Yes, Mr. Bloomberg is a closet Democrat and an alpha dog who doesn't want to be a second banana. And his views on gay civil rights and abortion would roil the G.O.P. base. But Mr. Romney shared some of those same views before he flip-flopped, and besides, these are not ordinary times. Millions of Americans are losing their homes and jobs. Whole industries are going belly up. The national crisis at hand, not yesterday's culture wars, should drive the vice-presidential pick.

Mr. McCain reminds us every day how principled he is. That presumably means he'd risk a revolt by his party's dwindling agents of intolerance and do everything in his power to persuade Mr. Bloomberg to join his ticket in the spirit of patriotic sacrifice. The politics could be advantageous too. A Bloomberg surprise could impress independents and keep the television audience tuned in to a G.O.P. convention that will unfold in the shadow of Mr. Obama's address to 75,000 screaming fans in Denver.

But this is fantasy political baseball, not reality. Mr. McCain, sad to say, hung up his old maverick's spurs the day he embraced the Bush tax cuts he had once opposed as "too tilted to the wealthy." And Mr. Bloomberg? It's hard to picture a titan who built his empire on computer terminals investing any capital, political or otherwise, in a chief executive who is still learning how to do, as Mr. McCain puts it, "a Google."


Bloomberg? That's rich.....

[FOTD]

Dumf*ckistanians are for McCain because they believe his dishonest and shameful ads constructed through lies and purposeful ommissions of the truth. Same as Bu****es.

Once again, the Presidential campaign is being reduced to the lowest common denominator because the media are following McCain's mendacious, fear-mongering talking points rather than his policies. Instead of repeating McCain's truly stupid, pathetic ads, the media should refuse to air them repeatedly--and concentrate on tell ing us--the electorate--what each candidate plans to do if elected. We cannot afford another eight years of Repiglican mismanagement.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Former_Ramstein_medical_chief_denounces_McCain.html

FOTD believes in mean spirited discussion. Just not in old angry manchurian candidates.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/little-left-of

SHOCKING! Oh the stupididty!McCain ad compares Obama to Britney Spears, Paris Hilton

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/mccain.ad/

[FOTD]

Well, joy! Dumbf*ckistan seems to be losing population.


Republicans are Disturbed, Skeptical and Saddened after Viewing New John McCain Ad

http://www.mediacurves.com/Politics/J6947-McCainsAd-Celeb/Index.cfm

Poll: "Results of a national study conducted today among 320 Americans revealed that a majority of Republicans (61%), reported that they were disturbed, skeptical and saddened after viewing a new ad by John McCain, which likens Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton."