The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

Social Security.

 

Anyway...this doesn't prove the government should be running everything. But if I were to campaign on the point that we'd gone well too far in stripping the government and trying to drown it in the streets of new orleans a bathtub as Grover Norquist suggested and as GW Bush has casually tried to do...here's an example of how we've swung way too far and it's costing us a lot. There's many others. This one's just pretty damn obvious and blatant.

 

Obviously you have never had a parent suffer a permanent working disability who got turned down for social security even though he fit the very definition of someone who should get benefits. It took 5 years and a lawyer who took 1/3 of the back benefits for someone who couldn't work at all to get what he deserved, because the government rejected his initial claim.

 

No social security does not work.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

 

 

It’s a study in contrasts. From the Jerusalem Post:

 

Two month

s

ago in the Oval Office, Pre

s

ident George W. Bu

s

h, coming to the end of a two-term pre

s

idency and pre

s

umably a

s

expert on I

s

raeli-Pale

s

tinian policy a

s

he i

s

ever going to be, wa

s

accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advi

s

er

s

and

s

po

k

e

s

people during a 40-minute interview with thi

s

writer and three other I

s

raeli journali

s

t

s

.

 

In March, on hi

s

whirlwind vi

s

it to I

s

rael, Republican pre

s

idential nominee John McCain, one of who

s

e primary

s

trength

s

i

s

s

aid to be hi

s

intimate gra

s

p of foreign affair

s

, cho

s

e to bring along

S

en. Joe Lieberman to the interview our diplomatic corre

s

pondent Herb

K

einon and I conducted with him,

loo

k

ed to Lieberman

s

everal time

s

for rea

s

s

urance on hi

s

an

s

wer

s

and

s

eemed a little flummoxed by a que

s

tion relating to the nuance

s

of

s

ettlement con

s

truction.

(empha

s

i

s

added)

 

On Wedne

s

day evening, toward the end of hi

s

pac

k

ed one-day vi

s

it here, Barac

k

Obama, the Democratic

s

enator who i

s

leading the race for the White Hou

s

e and who lac

k

s

long year

s

of foreign policy involvement,

s

po

k

e to The Jeru

s

alem Po

s

t with only a

s

ingle aide in hi

s

K

ing David Hotel room, and that aide

’

s

s

ole contribution to the conver

s

ation wa

s

to

s

ugge

s

t that the candidate and I

s

witch

s

eat

s

s

o that our photographer would get better lighting for hi

s

picture

s

.

 

Indeed, the Jerusalem Post added that this may have been Obama’s second trip to Israel, but he “knew precisely what he wanted to say about the most intricate issues confronting and concerning Israel, and expressed himself clearly, even stridently on key subjects.”

 

He didn’t even need Lieberman there to help him struggle through the interview.

 

I’m curious. If you’d just arrived from another planet, and didn’t know a thing about either candidate, who would you say is the self-described expert on foreign policy and who would you say is relatively inexperienced on matters of international affairs?

 

LINK

[Texsox]

Obviously you have never had a parent suffer a permanent working disability who got turned down for social security even though he fit the very definition of someone who should get benefits. It took 5 years and a lawyer who took 1/3 of the back benefits for someone who couldn't work at all to get what he deserved, because the government rejected his initial claim.

 

No social security does not work.

 

In general, and not specific to this case because there is not enough information.

 

I thought tightening up requirements and being more careful in allowing benefits, was something that we demanded the SS Admin to do? Insurance companies are fighting fraudulent claims all the time. By this definition, if they deny a good claim, private insurance isn't working either. I'm not certain where a gold standard should be for "working" and claim adjusting, but I am fairly certain the number is lower then 100% being correct the first time. Some will be upheld on appeal, and some will be denied. But I belief, unless I am missing something, that the system would still be working.

[BigSqwert]

My commentary on my last post:

 

For everyone that is sick of the media fawning over Obama I am equally sick of the media anointing McCain as some sort of foreign policy expert. What exactly has he done or said that makes him an expert in foreign policy? I'm starting to think that since he's 72 and been in Washington forever that everyone just assumes he must be an expert. He has been less than impressive, to say the least, with regards to foreign policy during this campaign. From the numerous gaffes regarding Sunnis and Shiites to Czechoslovakia references to the Iraq/Pakistan border reference it's obvious he's getting a free pass on foreign policy.

[lostfan]

My commentary on my last post:

 

For everyone that is sick of the media fawning over Obama I am equally sick of the media anointing McCain as some sort of foreign policy expert. What exactly has he done or said that makes him an expert in foreign policy? I'm starting to think that since he's 72 and been in Washington forever that everyone just assumes he must be an expert. He has been less than impressive, to say the least, with regards to foreign policy during this campaign. From the numerous gaffes regarding Sunnis and Shiites to Czechoslovakia references to the Iraq/Pakistan border reference it's obvious he's getting a free pass on foreign policy.

bmags tried to make this point using different words and got shot down. He's right though.

[kapkomet]

My commentary on my last post:

 

For everyone that is sick of the media fawning over Obama I am equally sick of the media anointing McCain as some sort of foreign policy expert. What exactly has he done or said that makes him an expert in foreign policy? I'm starting to think that since he's 72 and been in Washington forever that everyone just assumes he must be an expert. He has been less than impressive, to say the least, with regards to foreign policy during this campaign. From the numerous gaffes regarding Sunnis and Shiites to Czechoslovakia references to the Iraq/Pakistan border reference it's obvious he's getting a free pass on foreign policy.

I haven't disagreed with this at all (I do agree that McCain doesn't have the "experience" he's been portrayed to have - no one in the senate does). But, tell me, how's he getting a free pass when all I see here is seeing 800 posts a day about how McCain is a doubletalking asshole devil, while Obama walks on water? I see it here all the time about how McCain is a blazing, bumbling idiot, so I'd say he's hardly getting a free pass.

[BigSqwert]

I haven't disagreed with this at all (I do agree that McCain doesn't have the "experience" he's been portrayed to have - no one in the senate does). But, tell me, how's he getting a free pass when all I see here is seeing 800 posts a day about how McCain is a doubletalking asshole devil, while Obama walks on water? I see it here all the time about how McCain is a blazing, bumbling idiot, so I'd say he's hardly getting a free pass.

I'm referring to the complete free pass given to him by the MSM (foreign policy-wise).

[NorthSideSox72]

I haven't disagreed with this at all (I do agree that McCain doesn't have the "experience" he's been portrayed to have - no one in the senate does). But, tell me, how's he getting a free pass when all I see here is seeing 800 posts a day about how McCain is a doubletalking asshole devil, while Obama walks on water? I see it here all the time about how McCain is a blazing, bumbling idiot, so I'd say he's hardly getting a free pass.

If you look through this and other threads, I think you'll find only a couple posters who fit your description - Obama walks on water, McCain sucks, etc. Similarly, I think you see about that number of posters who wrote off Obama as soon as, and for any reason, they could.

 

[southsider2k5]

My commentary on my last post:

 

For everyone that is sick of the media fawning over Obama I am equally sick of the media anointing McCain as some sort of foreign policy expert. What exactly has he done or said that makes him an expert in foreign policy? I'm starting to think that since he's 72 and been in Washington forever that everyone just assumes he must be an expert. He has been less than impressive, to say the least, with regards to foreign policy during this campaign. From the numerous gaffes regarding Sunnis and Shiites to Czechoslovakia references to the Iraq/Pakistan border reference it's obvious he's getting a free pass on foreign policy.

 

Seriously McCain has gotten a free pass? That is rich. Obama dispite his complete lack of anything forgein policy has gotten off scott-free.

 

Did we hear about this?

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70454

 

Obama camp plasters posters at Western Wall

Advertises Democrat candidate's website, official slogan at Judaism's holiest site

Posted: July 24, 2008

 

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's campaign plastered the entrance to the Western Wall – the holiest site in Judaism – with official campaign posters, WND has learned.

 

Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld confirmed to WND posters that adorned police barricades erected at the Western Wall plaza for Obama's visit were distributed by the presidential candidate's campaign.

 

"These posters were his campaign and not the doing of the police," said Rosenfeld, whose police department coordinated security and provided protection for Obama's visit today to the holy site.

 

Asked if it was traditional practice for politicians visiting the Western Wall to bring along posters or campaign materials, Rosenfeld replied, "No."

 

OR THIS

 

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5433416

 

Gibson: If you were president would you move the US embassy to Jerusalem?

 

Obama: Charlie, you know I think we're going to work through this process before we make these kinds of decisions.

 

Gibson: Aren't these things that you've thought through in your head?

 

Obama: Well, they are, but they aren't necessarily things that I should say on Charlie Gibson's evening news.

 

OR THIS

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...WExZTI5OTc3YmY=

 

Psst! Senator! No Walls Have Come Down in Belfast!

 

Obama's speechwriting team needs to hire a fact-checker.

 

Obama, speaking in Berlin today: "Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together."

 

USA Today, earlier this year:

 

"Ten years after peace was declared in Northern Ireland, one might have expected that Belfast's barriers would be torn down by now. But reality, as usual, is far messier. Not one has been dismantled. Instead they've grown in both size and number."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/20...826820552_x.htm

 

Despite peace, Belfast walls are growing in size and number

Posted 5/3/2008 3:36 PM | Comment | Recommend

 

OR THIS

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...GRkM2I1MTU0ODc=

 

Is anyone paying attention to what Obama is saying?

 

In his interview with CBS News, Obama says:

 

Logan: Because you do have a situation seven years on into this war where Osama bin Laden and all his lieutenants and all the leaders of the Taliban, they’re still there. And they’re inside Pakistan.

Obama: Right. It’s a huge problem. And first of all, if we hadn’t taken our eye off the ball, we might have caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves.

 

Several times in recent interviews, Obama has referred to "taken our eye off the ball" in terms of the invasion of Iraq, which began in March of 2003. We don't know precisely when Osama bin Laden entered Pakistan, but it is generally believed that he escaped Tora Bora and crossed the border sometime in late November or the beginning of December 2001.

 

Somehow the U.S. took its collective eyes off the ball to prevent an event that occurred in December 2001 by sending troops to another country starting in March 2002 for an invasion that began in 2003.

 

It's not as if the geopolitical challenges of sending U.S. troops into Pakistan suddenly appeared in March 2003. Once Osama crossed the border, the potential cost of pursuing him —i.e., a civil war in a country with nuclear weapons — became higher and the consequences became riskier.

 

Also note that CBS' Lara Logan forces Obama to concede that his oft-touted call to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistani territory is actually current U.S. policy.

 

Logan: Isn’t that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if the U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said no, that they wouldn’t fire or wouldn’t go after him?

 

Obama: I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, well, you know, you shouldn’t go around saying that. But I don’t think there’s any doubt that that should be our policy, and will continue to be our policy.

 

Logan: But it is the current policy.

 

Obama: I believe it is the current policy.

 

Logan: So there’s no change then.

 

Obama: I don’t think there is going to be a change there.

 

And that Obama and Logan get stuck in a merry-go-round of "I'll get the Pakistanis to destroy the training camps"/"What if they won't?"

 

Obama: I think that in order for us to be successful, it’s not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We’ve got training camps that are growing and multiplying…

 

Logan: Would you take out all those training camps?

 

Obama: Well, I think that what we’d like to see is the Pakistani government take out those training camps.

 

Logan: And if they won’t?

 

Obama: Well, I think that we’ve got to work with them so they will.

 

Logan: But would you consider unilateral U.S. action?

 

Obama: You know, I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it’s absolutely vital to the security interests of both the United States and Pakistan.

 

Again, it's not that it's never dawned on Musharraff or the Pakistani government that cracking down on al-Qaeda and Taliban training camps is a good idea. It's that they fear the entire region would turn against the Pakistani government, with additional questions of loyalty of the ISI.

 

OR THIS

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060503510.html

 

Obama Backs Away From Comment on Divided Jerusalem

 

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city "must remain undivided."

 

Obama's statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

 

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

 

The Bush administration's official position is that the status of Jerusalem must be decided by the parties. Before he left office, President Bill Clinton proposed a formula under which "Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city," including locating the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

ad_icon

 

Obama quickly backtracked yesterday in an interview with CNN.

 

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

 

Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

[lostfan]

I haven't disagreed with this at all (I do agree that McCain doesn't have the "experience" he's been portrayed to have - no one in the senate does). But, tell me, how's he getting a free pass when all I see here is seeing 800 posts a day about how McCain is a doubletalking asshole devil, while Obama walks on water? I see it here all the time about how McCain is a blazing, bumbling idiot, so I'd say he's hardly getting a free pass.

You're not seriously using the people who post in the Filibuster on Soxtalk as a measuring stick for the rest of America are you? I bow my head in shame, kap.

[southsider2k5]

My commentary on my last post:

 

For everyone that is sick of the media fawning over Obama I am equally sick of the media anointing McCain as some sort of foreign policy expert. What exactly has he done or said that makes him an expert in foreign policy? I'm starting to think that since he's 72 and been in Washington forever that everyone just assumes he must be an expert. He has been less than impressive, to say the least, with regards to foreign policy during this campaign. From the numerous gaffes regarding Sunnis and Shiites to Czechoslovakia references to the Iraq/Pakistan border reference it's obvious he's getting a free pass on foreign policy.

 

Seriously McCain has gotten a free pass? That is rich. Obama dispite his complete lack of anything forgein policy has gotten off scott-free.

 

Did we hear about this?

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70454

 

Obama camp plasters posters at Western Wall

Advertises Democrat candidate's website, official slogan at Judaism's holiest site

Posted: July 24, 2008

 

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's campaign plastered the entrance to the Western Wall – the holiest site in Judaism – with official campaign posters, WND has learned.

 

Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld confirmed to WND posters that adorned police barricades erected at the Western Wall plaza for Obama's visit were distributed by the presidential candidate's campaign.

 

"These posters were his campaign and not the doing of the police," said Rosenfeld, whose police department coordinated security and provided protection for Obama's visit today to the holy site.

 

Asked if it was traditional practice for politicians visiting the Western Wall to bring along posters or campaign materials, Rosenfeld replied, "No."

 

OR THIS

 

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5433416

 

Gibson: If you were president would you move the US embassy to Jerusalem?

 

Obama: Charlie, you know I think we're going to work through this process before we make these kinds of decisions.

 

Gibson: Aren't these things that you've thought through in your head?

 

Obama: Well, they are, but they aren't necessarily things that I should say on Charlie Gibson's evening news.

 

OR THIS

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...WExZTI5OTc3YmY=

 

Psst! Senator! No Walls Have Come Down in Belfast!

 

Obama's speechwriting team needs to hire a fact-checker.

 

Obama, speaking in Berlin today: "Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together."

 

USA Today, earlier this year:

 

"Ten years after peace was declared in Northern Ireland, one might have expected that Belfast's barriers would be torn down by now. But reality, as usual, is far messier. Not one has been dismantled. Instead they've grown in both size and number."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/20...826820552_x.htm

 

Despite peace, Belfast walls are growing in size and number

Posted 5/3/2008 3:36 PM | Comment | Recommend

 

OR THIS

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...GRkM2I1MTU0ODc=

 

Is anyone paying attention to what Obama is saying?

 

In his interview with CBS News, Obama says:

 

Logan: Because you do have a situation seven years on into this war where Osama bin Laden and all his lieutenants and all the leaders of the Taliban, they’re still there. And they’re inside Pakistan.

Obama: Right. It’s a huge problem. And first of all, if we hadn’t taken our eye off the ball, we might have caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves.

 

Several times in recent interviews, Obama has referred to "taken our eye off the ball" in terms of the invasion of Iraq, which began in March of 2003. We don't know precisely when Osama bin Laden entered Pakistan, but it is generally believed that he escaped Tora Bora and crossed the border sometime in late November or the beginning of December 2001.

 

Somehow the U.S. took its collective eyes off the ball to prevent an event that occurred in December 2001 by sending troops to another country starting in March 2002 for an invasion that began in 2003.

 

It's not as if the geopolitical challenges of sending U.S. troops into Pakistan suddenly appeared in March 2003. Once Osama crossed the border, the potential cost of pursuing him —i.e., a civil war in a country with nuclear weapons — became higher and the consequences became riskier.

 

Also note that CBS' Lara Logan forces Obama to concede that his oft-touted call to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistani territory is actually current U.S. policy.

 

Logan: Isn’t that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if the U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said no, that they wouldn’t fire or wouldn’t go after him?

 

Obama: I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, well, you know, you shouldn’t go around saying that. But I don’t think there’s any doubt that that should be our policy, and will continue to be our policy.

 

Logan: But it is the current policy.

 

Obama: I believe it is the current policy.

 

Logan: So there’s no change then.

 

Obama: I don’t think there is going to be a change there.

 

And that Obama and Logan get stuck in a merry-go-round of "I'll get the Pakistanis to destroy the training camps"/"What if they won't?"

 

Obama: I think that in order for us to be successful, it’s not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We’ve got training camps that are growing and multiplying…

 

Logan: Would you take out all those training camps?

 

Obama: Well, I think that what we’d like to see is the Pakistani government take out those training camps.

 

Logan: And if they won’t?

 

Obama: Well, I think that we’ve got to work with them so they will.

 

Logan: But would you consider unilateral U.S. action?

 

Obama: You know, I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it’s absolutely vital to the security interests of both the United States and Pakistan.

 

Again, it's not that it's never dawned on Musharraff or the Pakistani government that cracking down on al-Qaeda and Taliban training camps is a good idea. It's that they fear the entire region would turn against the Pakistani government, with additional questions of loyalty of the ISI.

 

OR THIS

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060503510.html

 

Obama Backs Away From Comment on Divided Jerusalem

 

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city "must remain undivided."

 

Obama's statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

 

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

 

The Bush administration's official position is that the status of Jerusalem must be decided by the parties. Before he left office, President Bill Clinton proposed a formula under which "Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city," including locating the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

ad_icon

 

Obama quickly backtracked yesterday in an interview with CNN.

 

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

 

Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

[Texsox]

^^^^

proof that Obama isn't getting off. Seems like both candidates are taking their share of hits, and of applause.

[lostfan]

Seriously McCain has gotten a free pass? That is rich. Obama dispite his complete lack of anything forgein policy has gotten off scott-free.

 

Did we hear about this?

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70454

 

 

 

OR THIS

 

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5433416

 

 

 

OR THIS

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...WExZTI5OTc3YmY=

 

 

 

OR THIS

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...GRkM2I1MTU0ODc=

 

 

 

OR THIS

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060503510.html

Look at the poll numbers and see what the voters think on this specific issue (mind you, Obama has a pretty decent lead in overall polls, so it's not like we're talking about the opinions of an anti-Obama crowd). McCain's maintained an advantage, along with national security, pretty much the whole time over Obama, I would call that a free pass. It's really already been decided for us that McCain is the foreign policy expert and Obama is the neophyte, rarely is this challenged, and the numbers reflect that.

[lostfan]

If you look through this and other threads, I think you'll find only a couple posters who fit your description - Obama walks on water, McCain sucks, etc. Similarly, I think you see about that number of posters who wrote off Obama as soon as, and for any reason, they could.

There was a definite, extended "gotcha b****" moment after the Jeremiah Wright thing broke out. You could tell that there were people waiting for a reason to attack him, because up until then they really didn't have anything besides "no substance" which started to get weaker and weaker the longer he campaigned, and developed "substance." It was like jubilation. I bet Sean Hannity had to change his underwear when he found out about that.

[BigSqwert]

Seriously McCain has gotten a free pass? That is rich. Obama dispite his complete lack of anything forgein policy has gotten off scott-free.

Just because you could dig up some articles supporting your claim doesn't mean the entire MSM narrative hasn't been that McCain is a foreign policy expert. You almost never see the MSM claim otherwise.

[southsider2k5]

Just because you could dig up some articles supporting your claim doesn't mean the entire MSM narrative hasn't been that McCain is a foreign policy expert. You almost never see the MSM claim otherwise.

 

It means none of them have been challenged. They have both gotten a free pass. By all means a person who has no experience in an area should be getting more questions than someone who has it, correct?

[BigSqwert]

It means none of them have been challenged. They have both gotten a free pass. By all means a person who has no experience in an area should be getting more questions than someone who has it, correct?

But what is the foreign policy experience that McCain has? Can you define it for me?

[southsider2k5]

But what is the foreign policy experience that McCain has? Can you define it for me?

 

I am not going to do anymore of your homework for you, especially because it doesn't matter what I would post. It isn't going to change your mind at all.

[HuskyCaucasian]

But what is the foreign policy experience that McCain has? Can you define it for me?

6 years as a POW. It makes him the best presidential choice ever!

[kapkomet]

If you look through this and other threads, I think you'll find only a couple posters who fit your description - Obama walks on water, McCain sucks, etc. Similarly, I think you see about that number of posters who wrote off Obama as soon as, and for any reason, they could.

At least I have real reasons for "writing off" Obama.

[HuskyCaucasian]

MSNBC Gets It Right: McCain Attack Ad Is False

 

NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports that there was never a plan for Obama to take the press to Landstuhl, despite the claim by McCain folks and others. The plan was to go with his military aide, retired General Scott Gration. The Pentagon said Gration was off-limits because he had joined the campaign -- violating rules that it not be a political stop.

 

Obama had gone to see wounded troops in Iraq earlier in the week, without even confirming he'd been there. No press, no pictures. He has done the same when he goes to Walter Reed -- never any press.

[BigSqwert]

MSNBC Gets It Right: McCain Attack Ad Is False

That can't be right. He hates the troops and hates America.

[NorthSideSox72]

At least I have real reasons for "writing off" Obama.

Oh there are plenty of good reasons. His policy stances (if they don't match yours), his lack of experience, his flip flop on a couple key issues, etc. I just also see a whole lot of people who grasp on to the smallest, silliest stuff, and go all high and mighty about it, as if it were an indication that the other candidate is the devil.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

That can't be right. He hates the troops and hates America.

damn Muslim loving terrorist black man! He's out to kill "whitey"!

Edited July 28, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[kapkomet]

Oh there are plenty of good reasons. His policy stances (if they don't match yours), his lack of experience, his flip flop on a couple key issues, etc. I just also see a whole lot of people who grasp on to the smallest, silliest stuff, and go all high and mighty about it, as if it were an indication that the other candidate is the devil.

Lack of experience does bug me a bit - but that's not the main reason. His "flip-flopping" doesn't even bother me because politican=flip-flop, depending on who's handing you your lobby (dirty) money.

 

But his positions on many social issues really bothers me.

 

And so do McCain's policies, so I give them both equal time on the "not liking" them.