This one's a gem (Chris Matthews and a Rush Linbaugh type go at it): Hardball

quote:

Originally posted by mc:
This one's a gem (Chris Matthews and a Rush Linbaugh type go at it): Hardball

Awesome....

The fuckin' thing sucks!

the republican part is really grasping at straws now. it just goes to show you how much support they have lost in the last few years that they have to stoop to such small non-issues to try to win some voters back. the reason they are trying to turn this into such a huge issue is because they think it is one of the only issues that they can compete with. while i agree they really can't compete on the other issues i highly doubt that this one is one that will win them much support either. i just really hope either mccain or bush steps up and accepts obama's challenge to a debate on national security. as obama says they have a lot to answer for.

Obama has no record and that is why it may be easy for dems to push him into office. The past two candidates have had a record that shows off their insecurity and constant sway to reporters and public opinion. Obama has nothing but promises and Charisma and no one really knows how or what he will do. But hey its a lot better than Clinton who has a record so easily picked apart that she wouldn't know her own words if she heard herself say them. Mcain has his work cut out for him because it seems the American people have a preference for a big question mark rather than someone with experience and a longer history in politics. Granted I'm not the biggest fan of Mcains history. What everyone should be critical on is, how has Obama followed through on his promises in his short political career?

Why would Bush debate Obama? He isn't running. A Mcain-Obama debate would be like the super bowl for me and my family. I hope it happens too. I could see Obama making the new direction and change statements well and of corse appealing to young folks and minorities. But I could also see Mcain making him look very childish and reminding everyone that this game is for grown ups.

You are the tool and chief

Hillary needs to stop. McCain is corrupt as all get out.. and older than fuck.

quote:

Originally posted by Skreech:
Obama has no record and that is why it may be easy for dems to push him into office. The past two candidates have had a record that shows off their insecurity and constant sway to reporters and public opinion. Obama has nothing but promises and Charisma and no one really knows how or what he will do. But hey its a lot better than Clinton who has a record so easily picked apart that she wouldn't know her own words if she heard herself say them. Mcain has his work cut out for him because it seems the American people have a preference for a big question mark rather than someone with experience and a longer history in politics. Granted I'm not the biggest fan of Mcains history. What everyone should be critical on is, how has Obama followed through on his promises in his short political career?

i agree that obama has not had much experience in politics (which in my eyes can be a bit of a plus given how many shady characters frequent modern politics) so i can see why people would be weary of buying into his great promises made during his excellent speeches. however, being an obama supporter i can tell you that my vote for him will not so much be in total support of every part of his campaign or stance on the issues, but rather to do with his opponents. these days many of us can not actually vote for the person that we believe would do the best job, so we must use our vote to vote for the least harmful candidate. a vote by process of elimination you could say. i hear the argument constantly about obama having very little experience but in my view, i would rather our president be someone with a similar moral compass to mine, than vote for someone who can show me with their "experience" exactly the type small minded politics we need to move past.

quote:

Originally posted by Skreech:
Why would Bush debate Obama? He isn't running. A Mcain-Obama debate would be like the super bowl for me and my family. I hope it happens too. I could see Obama making the new direction and change statements well and of corse appealing to young folks and minorities. But I could also see Mcain making him look very childish and reminding everyone that this game is for grown ups.

well i believe one reason for bush to debate obama, is because bush is the one that is trying to use his podium time overseas where he is celebrating israel's birthday to bad mouth the democratic front runner. sure there is no upcoming election between bush and obama but bush , being a president who has built his last two terms on national security, has a lot of stake in the issue. the fact that john mccain's views on national security are very similar to george bush's is another reason for bush to debate obama. bush is obviously trying to help the republican party and if he really thinks that he has been good to our nation him accepting the challenge would be a great way to put the issues out on the table. if either mccain or bush decide to take part in a national security debate with obama to quote obama "they would have a lot to answer for".

maybe i should wrap things up by posting some facts about mccain's voting record regarding the war.

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.

July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.

March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.

February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.

June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Hahaha. Good laugh with my Sunday morning cup o' Joe.


Thanks Maury

quote:

Originally posted by Sabertooth Cavity: he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

This is my issue with McCain right here: doesn't he seem like a totally different guy than he was in 2000? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2000 I watched him pretty close in that election. I thought he'd be a good, straight-forward, honest break after Clinton. Reform-minded, willing to talk. I probably would have voted for him (I know some people won't ever vote for a pro-lifer, and I am pro-choice, but I hate those knee-jerk, one-issue votes and think abortion is pretty safe- if republicans in all three branches can't get rid of it after the PR of 911, then they never will- which kinda sums up my feeling on Republicans (or what tries to pass themselves off as Republicans these days) in general: they had so much power, what exactly did they get fixed?). I was dismayed when Bush bashed him and got the nomination.

Now, McCain seems to tow the party line pretty close- not the small goverment parts, but the "stay the course" parts, the lame parts. Despite rumors that he didn't even vote for Bush in 2000, he seems pretty friendly now. Is he pulling a B. Clinton and abandoning unpopular parts of his positions in order to win? Has he changed or is he just playing the game? It's a bummer. Still: he'd have to be better than Bush, right? Who wouldn't? Since there are no fiscal conservatives in the election, votes will all be non-pragmatic, one-issue morals votes; like SC said, votes against the opponent rather than for anyone like most votes are these days.

you are right on about mccain in the 2000 races. while i was of course not much for the republican party even back then, i still saw in john mccain a republican that i respected and seemed to have his head on straight, as compared to his peers in that race. however since things have kicked up in this election year he has shown himself to be way more bush like than he was when i first began paying attention to him. of course if you ask me the answer is pretty as to why the sudden change. just look back at all the tactics that were used against him in 2000. it seems to that mccain has realized that actually stating your beliefs and trying to run on merit is much harder than just conforming to the "morals" of the republican party machine. they tore him up with dirty political tactics and basically showed him that unless he played ball with them he was unwelcome.

i absolutely hate when people vote on one issue. take the 2004 election that was turned into the gay marriage election. it is a common tactic of the right to try get entire elections revolving around one issue that really has very little to do with the good of the country.

when you take a close look at the recent politics of our country it is very easy to get a sour taste in your mouth and deem everything useless. as many friends of mine tell me when i start discussing politics "what is the use of voting there is only one real party left in the usa and that is the money party." i also understand how it can be hard to get motivated to vote and try to raise support for a candidate who you do not totally agree with. the reason i find it still very important however is while many never get the chance to vote for someone they totally agree with it is far more hazardous to not vote and let the worst of many candidates take the whitehouse. while many are corrupt there are subtle differences and shades of corruption. america needs the most straight forward president we can get and in my opinion mccain is to much of the same thing we have expierenced the last eight years and clinton seems to say what she thinks will get her votes without giving any bearing to actual beliefs.

I saw Obama give some commentary in 2000 and was impressed. I also saw him give a speech in 2004 on Fox and I said then that he could be president one day. The party then started to rally around him and here he is today. However I think he may be missing something and here's why. I went to a highschool graduation on saturday and one of the students included in her speech that this will be her first chance to vote and she triumphantly shouted out "Go Obama" I thought I would hear some clapping or cheering or at least something but it never came. The crowd got very silent and it was an akward five seconds and she continued with her speech.

Clinton has been gunning for 08 since 00 and she over campaigned. Also former presidents don't help camgaigns. That is why I think you will see Bush just go away and retire when he leaves office. You don't hear from his father much with exception to some charity work. When Bush decides to do something he does it and sticks to his guns and I think that when its time for him to retire he will do just that. The Clinton vs Bush era is over, both dynasties are done and I think they both need to just go home and enjoy their golden years.

I want to go back to the video posted at the beginning and note that Chris Matthews did a fantastic job at destracting the viewer from the issue at hand. First of all he tried to speak over the republican commentator. So he had to speak up and over Chris in order to not be interrupted good thing he's already a loud talker. When the Democratic commentator spoke Chris gave him space. I noticed that right away.

Kevins mistake was his lack of knowlege of what Bush was referencing in his speech. Then Chris just talked about that for the rest of the time. Chris had his fun with it and when Chamberlan giving away Czek land finally came out. Imediately my thoughts go to Israel giving land to Palistine. Obviously that worked really well. Chris is talking about negotiating with Islamic states but it doesn't work. We go to the table and we want to talk about terrorism. They come to the table and want to talk about realestate. Israel gave away that land and forced families out of homes because those homes belonged to a different country all of the sudden.

All that said I want to know what Obama plans to do with Iraq. What would or could he do differently. I want our troops out too but not until Iraq can stand on its own two feet. They easily resort to violence over there rather than negotiation because of lack of education and civility. I strongly suggest you guys watch Charly Wilsons war if you haven't already. Perhaps if we had helped reconstruction in Afghanistan after the soviets pounded them we wouldn't be in this situation now. But no one gave a shit about education or infastructure in that country at the time so here we are. Iraq is a similar beast if we quit in the middle of reconstruction then guess what more problems. I don't think Obama wants to be president when the shit hits the fan over there so I don't think he will pull the troops out when he is in office. He probably won't get them out as fast as everyone seems to want anyway. But if he can distract everyone with healthcare during the campaign then he won't have very much explaining to do before office and thus won't have to make very specific promises regarding the east.

Pink muskrat elevator.

quote:

Originally posted by Skreech:
Obama has no record and that is why it may be easy for dems to push him into office.

I think that's pretty much spot-on. Nobody knows if he'll be a good president or not, but of the the "big three" still standing, he's the only one with clean hands. So will voters back someone they know will hurt the country, or back someone who might hurt the country? It all comes down to one's assessment of the likelihood of Obama being bad. If you think it's very likely, then you might as well consider everyone and pick who will do the least harm. If you're think it's unlikely or iffy, then that gives Obama an edge. This is why his charisma is really important; so little is known, that you pretty much have to make that assessment emotionally rather than rationally.

quote:

What everyone should be critical on is, how has Obama followed through on his promises in his short political career?

Indeed. Fortunately(???) even some of his supporters are tight-lipped on that (and I'm putting that as nicely as possible ;-).