All Things ProCain

[lostfan]

Well, think about it for a moment. For both sides, the most 'energetic' bunches are the fringe elements (neocons and ultralibs), and they vote the most in the primaries, so of course most of the time the candidate will be on the fringe. The main elections is where they usually try to get a little closer to the middle without pissing off their crazies.

Agreed - which is why I don't take Obama at face value when he talks about the war - he knows full well he can't end it right away but he could never say that in front of an antiwar crowd.

[Balta1701]

Well, think about it for a moment. For both sides, the most 'energetic' bunches are the fringe elements (neocons and ultralibs), and they vote the most in the primaries, so of course most of the time the candidate will be on the fringe. The main elections is where they usually try to get a little closer to the middle without pissing off their crazies.

There's more to it than that. When a person is off campaigning for a year, they're only showing up to vote in either Congress or the Senate like 1/2 the time if that. They're not showing up for random votes that will go 75-22 without their presence. They're showing up for the highly contested ones, because if their vote isn't the decisive one, then their time is better spent elsewhere. And which ones are the highly contested ones? The ones where each side lines up and holds its ground. In other words, the simple act of campaigning for higher office has the net effect of making one's voting record go more towards the extreme than it would be otherwise...and so consequently, Obama has 1 or 2 votes different than Hillary, and she's the 16th most liberal senator while he's the most liberal senator, and McCain goes from voting with Bush 88% of the time to voting with him 95% of the time.

[NorthSideSox72]

Agreed - which is why I don't take Obama at face value when he talks about the war - he knows full well he can't end it right away but he could never say that in front of an antiwar crowd.

And on the flip side, McCain will probably end it sooner than people think. I've said it before - I think ultimately, the actual result of the War in Iraq will not be as different between these two candidates as their messages portrayed.

 

[lostfan]

And on the flip side, McCain will probably end it sooner than people think. I've said it before - I think ultimately, the actual result of the War in Iraq will not be as different between these two candidates as their messages portrayed.

McCain doesn't want to be in Iraq for 100 years, that's a deliberate distortion. My only problem with that statement was the fact that it was a fallacy to begin with (i.e., it doesn't answer the question of "how long" and ignores the nature of the war itself) and comparing Iraq to other post-conflict occupations we've had is kind of silly.

[DrunkBomber]

I think I wasn't clear on the whole Wright/Trinity thing. I wasn't saying it isn't still an issue for some - I was saying that because its been so aired out, they don't have to make a big deal of it. All they have to do is hint at it every so often, to keep it fresh in people's minds. That's easier to do, effective, and makes McCain look less divisive, so I think that's the plan.

 

As for not knowing him, it seems you do - as you are aware of his voting record. And I don't think McCain's rally speeches are any more an indicator of his policies than Obama's are to his. The GOP will, as I said, definitely try to get Obama to focus on his record, mostly because there is so little of it.

I agree completely on the Trinity issue. Everyone that had a problem with that story isnt going to forget what was said so to repetitively use it would be in poor taste. Im sure the media will keep it fresh enough in everyones mind that McCain can focus on further exposing Obamas lack of experience instead.

 

I personally hate it when politicians spend more time focusing on other candidates weaknesses instead of focusing on their own strengths. I realize its always going to happen either way though which is what turned me off an Hillary even more. Let the media air out the dirty laundry.

[Balta1701]

And on the flip side, McCain will probably end it sooner than people think. I've said it before - I think ultimately, the actual result of the War in Iraq will not be as different between these two candidates as their messages portrayed.

You know what bothers me the most about this statement? I've heard a paraphrase of it before. The first election I voted in, in fact. 2 candidates, some pretty major differences, but an awful lot of people in the media and elsewhere investing time saying "Oh, Mr. Bush can't possibly do the things he's proposing". Ralph Nader going off and saying that the 2 candidates were basically the same, the media pounding that message in, editorials saying that Mr. Bush's tax plan is never going to get through and was only out there to pander to the right wing but he'd certainly moderate once he got in to office. I'm sure John McCain doesn't mean any of the things he says about the military necessity of going after Iran, or how keeping an occupation force in the heart of the middle east (with or without violence) for years would be a good idea.

 

There's an old saying in Texas, I don't know if it's in Tennessee but I know it's in Texas that goes fool me once, shame on, shame on you, 8 second pause, fool you can't get fooled again.

[NorthSideSox72]

You know what bothers me the most about this statement? I've heard a paraphrase of it before. The first election I voted in, in fact. 2 candidates, some pretty major differences, but an awful lot of people in the media and elsewhere investing time saying "Oh, Mr. Bush can't possibly do the things he's proposing". Ralph Nader going off and saying that the 2 candidates were basically the same, the media pounding that message in, editorials saying that Mr. Bush's tax plan is never going to get through and was only out there to pander to the right wing but he'd certainly moderate once he got in to office. I'm sure John McCain doesn't mean any of the things he says about the military necessity of going after Iran, or how keeping an occupation force in the heart of the middle east (with or without violence) for years would be a good idea.

 

There's an old saying in Texas, I don't know if it's in Tennessee but I know it's in Texas that goes fool me once, shame on, shame on you, 8 second pause, fool you can't get fooled again.

And Mr. Bish DIDN'T do most of the things he promised. His was truly a failed Presidency, even if you agreed with the conservative agenda. He never mentioned going to war in the Middle East, or any of that - he reacted. Badly yes, but, I don't think he saw 9/11 coming, and unlike some others, I don't think he was planning an invasion of Iraq either.

 

[lostfan]

Well Bush also had a GOP-dominated Congress that let him do whatever he wanted. You can even tell, there's a pretty stark contrast between the first 6 years of his presidency and his last 2. He used to walk and talk like a badass, like "cmon I dare you to do something - that's right, you can't." He's a lot more subdued now. McCain won't have that luxury.

[lostfan]

I don't think he saw 9/11 coming, and unlike some others, I don't think he was planning an invasion of Iraq either.

Assuming he wasn't planning it beforehand, let's say the thought got in his mind in early 2002 for argument's sake... once he got the idea, he ran with it and got extreme tunnel vision.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.meetbarackobama.com/

[Balta1701]

Well Bush also had a GOP-dominated Congress that let him do whatever he wanted. You can even tell, there's a pretty stark contrast between the first 6 years of his presidency and his last 2. He used to walk and talk like a badass, like "cmon I dare you to do something - that's right, you can't." He's a lot more subdued now. McCain won't have that luxury.

One thing I meant to mention on this topic yesterday, forgive me for continuing to post in this thread...back in 2000, a lot of the so-called "Neoconservative" people, the kind of folks who led the war in to Iraq, Bill Kristol et al., the real hawks who answer the question "Iraq war, great war or Greatest war" with "Get back to me when we've invaded the other 9 countries on my list", those guys were pretty solidly behind McCain instead of Bush...because McCain was viewed as the more reliable hawk.

[whitesoxfan101]

 

The sooner people realize the ACTUAL CONTENT of Obama speeches are nothing more than classic liberal handbook cliches, the better. He's a hell of a public speaker, but you could make a video like this in regards to content for most of his speeches. He just drags out the cliches many past and future democrats have and will use, and throws in forms of the word "change" a few dozen times.

Edited June 6, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[EvilMonkey]

 

Alelrod & Barry, needing to get their stories straight.

[knightni]

Are people who are fans of McCain known as McCainiacs? They should be.

[lostfan]

Are people who are fans of McCain known as McCainiacs? They should be.

McCain actually coined that expression a couple months ago on a WWE show somewhere. Whereas Obama's was "can you smell what Barack is cookin'?"

Edited June 7, 2008 by lostfan

[mr_genius]

One thing I meant to mention on this topic yesterday, forgive me for continuing to post in this thread...back in 2000, a lot of the so-called "Neoconservative" people, the kind of folks who led the war in to Iraq, Bill Kristol et al., the real hawks who answer the question "Iraq war, great war or Greatest war" with "Get back to me when we've invaded the other 9 countries on my list", those guys were pretty solidly behind McCain instead of Bush...because McCain was viewed as the more reliable hawk.

 

neocons basically think the US should be world cop and liberal government spending is good. GW ran a dishonest campaign, said he was against big spending and would not have the United States be involved in nation building or overbearing world cop. What he did was spend recklessly (and allow congress to spend recklessly) and decided to engage in nation building.

 

if you want to put McCain in this class because Kristol supported him, that is short sighted. Farrakhan supports Obama, so does that make them the same? I don't think you would come to that conclusion. I disagree with McCain on Iraq, but I think he would curb spending. I get the feeling that the Dems will start beating the war drums to invade African in an attempt to stop bad things that are happening there and start their own nation building/world cop plans. They will also increase spending by a large margin.

Edited June 7, 2008 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

Barak, at some of his more eloquent moments. Good for a chuckle.

 

Edited June 7, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[EvilMonkey]

As I alluded to in a different thread, Obama's supporters would resort to subtle racism against McCain. Here, in a Koz thread, they gleefully point out, in a not-so subtle way, that McCain's ancestors used to (gasp!) own slaves!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/6/190...8666/547/531338

I wonder if they forgot that Obama's ancestors owned slaves too?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1466665.ece

[mr_genius]

As I alluded to in a different thread, Obama's supporters would resort to subtle racism against McCain. Here, in a Koz thread, they gleefully point out, in a not-so subtle way, that McCain's ancestors used to (gasp!) own slaves!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/6/190...8666/547/531338

I wonder if they forgot that Obama's ancestors owned slaves too?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1466665.ece

 

I've read that Al Gore and John Edwards ancestors also owned slaves too. A fact that the koz blogger fails to mention. go figure.

[Nokona]

As I alluded to in a different thread, Obama's supporters would resort to subtle racism against McCain. Here, in a Koz thread, they gleefully point out, in a not-so subtle way, that McCain's ancestors used to (gasp!) own slaves!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/6/190...8666/547/531338

I wonder if they forgot that Obama's ancestors owned slaves too?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1466665.ece

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ozQz0qe3c

 

McCain: I voted in my first year in congress against it. Then I began to learn. And I studied. And people talked to me. And I not only supported it, but I fought very hard in my own state of Arizona for recognition against a governor who was of my own party. ...

 

Reporter: On Martin Luthor King, what do you mean you say you learned?

 

McCain: Well, I learned that this individual was a transcendent figure in American history. He deserved to be honored. And I thought it was appropriate to do so. In my home state of Arizona, I was not proud that we were one of the last states to recognize Dr. King's birthday as a holiday. And I was pleased to be part of the fight for that recognition.

 

Reporter: What didn't you know when you voted initially against it that you later knew when you changed your mind?

 

McCain: I had not really been involved in the issue. I just had not had a lot of experience with the issue. That's all.

 

Reporter: [couldn't hear question]

 

McCain: In Arizona, I came from the military where we are the greatest equal opportunity employer in the nation and still are. And I had just not been involved in the issue. There were issues that I had not been involved in when I was in the military, and then I went relatively quickly to being a member of Congress.

 

Reporter: You just didn't realize the large role in American history?

 

McCain: I think I just explained it about best I could.

 

Reporter: It's not really an issue to be involved in, to be aware of his impact on this country, it's more of a knowledge of history.

 

McCain: I think you're entitled to your opinion on it and I respect your opinion on that, but I had not been involved in the issue. I had come from being in the military to running for Congress in a state that did not have a large African American population.

 

If McCain "began to learn" and "studied" after his opposition to the King holiday in ‘83, he was a very slow learner. Four years later, he didn’t fight against a governor or his own party; he endorsed the governor’s move to eliminate a King holiday.

 

Six years after his House vote he began supporting a state holiday, but still opposed a federal King holiday. Eleven years after his vote, he tried to strip federal funding from the MLK Federal Holiday Commission. Seventeen years after his vote, McCain publicly endorsed South Carolina’s right to fly the confederate flag over its statehouse.

 

Now, in the interest of fairness, it’s worth noting that McCain ended up, years after the fact, in the right place, and reversed himself on practically all of his previous positions. Better late than never, I suppose.

 

quote:

In Arizona, a bill to recognize a holiday honoring MLK failed in the legislature, so then-Gov. Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat, declared one through executive order.

 

In January 1987, the first act of Arizona's new governor, Republican Evan Mecham, was to rescind the executive order by his predecessor to create an MLK holiday. Arizona's stance became a national controversy.

 

McCain backed the decision at the time.

 

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15107.html

[Texsox]

Why is it pandering to some groups and not pandering to others? It seems if we do not agree with a population segment, we use the label "pandering", and if we agree, it's just good strategy. Perhaps he has to "pander" to the middle?

[Rex Kickass]

McCain actually coined that expression a couple months ago on a WWE show somewhere. Whereas Obama's was "can you smell what Barack is cookin'?"

Actually, it was quite commonly used by Bush supporters during the 2000 primary, including most notably, Mancow Mueller.

[EvilMonkey]

Is Obama really a US citizen?

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=

[NorthSideSox72]

Is Obama really a US citizen?

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=

This again? Seriously? I thought we went through this with McCain AND Obama. They are both citizens, its been proven out. Move on.

 

[lostfan]

I thought it was pretty laughable to suggest Obama changed his name from Mohammad (before anybody cared about the name) to Hussein (at the time when Saddam was public enemy #1).