Jump to content

All Things Probama


NorthSideSox72

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 08:15 AM)
Apparently the GOP hasn't gotten the hint that nasty smearing isn't working this year for them as we have seen in the Congressional races. But here we see them going at it again by attacking Obama's religion, insinuating that he's a crypto-Muslim.

Brown's an outlying GOP operative best known for working on the Willie Horton ad 20 years ago. His first effort this cycle, attacking Obama on crime, sank without a ripple. His group had just over $14,000 in the bank at last filing.

 

Nice job smearing all the GOP for one whackjob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 516
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 08:56 AM)
Nice job smearing all the GOP for one whackjob.

Well I kept hearing how we should wait until the GOP got a hold of Obama and that Hillary's attacks were nothing. This is just one example of what I'm sure will be many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol. It's totally in character for the stereotype of the GOP, really. The Dems use populist pandering to get votes, talk about taxing the rich, evil corporations etc. so people shouldn't act surprised when they do it. Likewise, the GOP uses fear to influence votes via whatever means (like this, or like saying "the terrorists win if a Democrat gets elected") or some other tactic like deliberately inflaming racial tensions (basically, Jesse Helms' political career).

 

The exception to this is Hillary Clinton, who does all the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 09:07 AM)
lol. It's totally in character for the stereotype of the GOP, really. The Dems use populist pandering to get votes, talk about taxing the rich, evil corporations etc. so people shouldn't act surprised when they do it. Likewise, the GOP uses fear to influence votes via whatever means (like this, or like saying "the terrorists win if a Democrat gets elected") or some other tactic like deliberately inflaming racial tensions (basically, Jesse Helms' political career).

The exception to this is Hillary Clinton, who does all the above.

So true. :lolhitting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 09:07 AM)
lol. It's totally in character for the stereotype of the GOP, really. The Dems use populist pandering to get votes, talk about taxing the rich, evil corporations etc. so people shouldn't act surprised when they do it. Likewise, the GOP uses fear to influence votes via whatever means (like this, or like saying "the terrorists win if a Democrat gets elected") or some other tactic like deliberately inflaming racial tensions (basically, Jesse Helms' political career).

 

The exception to this is Hillary Clinton, who does all the above.

Except that he is not THE GOP. Calling him the GOP would be like calling DailyKos the Dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 10:03 AM)
BTW, that reminds me...where's Kap? Didn't he repeatedly say "Mark my words Hillary will be the nominee"? :)

 

That was until "Inevitability" changed its mind.

 

"You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 10:09 AM)
Except that he is not THE GOP. Calling him the GOP would be like calling DailyKos the Dems.

I think what he's referring to is the fact that "the GOP" has done similar things at least twice already this election cycle and it's following a pattern, and it's generally understood there will be more of it between now and November.

 

Also it's worth noting that this comes from lower-level GOP types and not from McCain or the party leadership.

Edited by lostfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 08:55 AM)
I would bet at least 7 out of 10 Americans disagree with the statement he made.

 

Let the fun begin!!!

On an Obama campaign conference call with reporters just now, prominent Obama supporter John Kerry unleashed blistering criticism of McCain over the comments.

 

Speaking of military families, Kerry said: "To them it's the most important thing in the world when they come home."

 

Kerry also cast the comments as proof that McCain is befuddled about the situation our military finds itself in. "Our generals have made it crystal clear that we cannot sustain our forces in Iraq at this level," he said.

 

"Senator McCain, it is important when they come home," Kerry concluded. "It is important when we can revitalize our military."

 

The key here is that the Obama camp is hitting McCain over the meaning of his comments as the McCain campaign itself defines them. The McCain camp points out -- rightly -- that McCain was asked specifically about the timing of the troops' return when he uttered the words "not too important."

 

To which Kerry and the Obama camp rejoins that the timing is extraordinarily important -- to the troops, their families, and to the military itself.

 

As we watch the coverage of this unfold today, it's worth keeping in mind how big a controversy this would be if a Dem had said this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lieberman: Pay no attention to McCain's Policy on Iraq... He Served in Nam

There was a fun moment on the McCain conference call held a little while ago to defend his claim that it's "not too important" when the troops come home.

 

This is what Joe Lieberman had to say in defending McCain's comment:

I mean the obviou
s
fact i
s
that more than mo
s
t any American,
S
enator McCain
k
now
s
the
s
acrifice
s
that our men and women in uniform ma
k
e, and the burden that their familie
s
bear. And it really i
s
wrong to
s
ugge
s
t otherwi
s
e. And obviou
s
ly he
k
now
s
that from hi
s
own -- well, from hi
s
father'
s
s
ervice, and the impact it had on hi
s
family; from hi
s
own
s
ervice and incarceration...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 04:11 PM)
That's just it. I think that direct rebates like that should be for pretty dire circumstances, and only if the government is in a good financial position to do so. When Bush did his first one just after 9/11, that was perfect - there was a budget surplus, a single staggering event had rocked the economy, and something needed to be done. This most recent one, I think was a bad idea - the government is too far in deficit, and we are fighting two wars, not to mention that I don't think the economy is in as much need for it. The slide has been gradual. A new round of rebate checks is just as bad an idea, IMO.

Woah, woah, woah. Revisionist history. He did not do his first tax rebate check after 9/11. It was a campaign promise and the bill was signed June 2001. Checks went out in August.

Edited by JorgeFabregas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 01:51 PM)
Woah, woah, woah. Revisionist history. He did not do his first tax rebate check after 9/11. It was a campaign promise and the bill was signed June 2001. Checks went out in August.

Really? I have to say, I misunderstood that. I just did some internetting, and you are correct. My bad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 02:25 PM)
Really? I have to say, I misunderstood that. I just did some internetting, and you are correct. My bad.

I'm also starting to doubt your claims about sniper fire when landing at Midway earlier this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...