Now the "mainstream" press is trying to say he's a Bush clone.
The mainsteam press doesn't have to tell us anything John McCain won't say himself. The people he's courting, the things he's advocating, the actions he's taken, the whole reason the Republican voter base was wary of him was because he was a VERY moderate Republican, up until he was the REpublican pick for president.
The mainsteam press doesn't have to tell us anything John McCain won't say himself. The people he's courting, the things he's advocating, the actions he's taken, the whole reason the Republican voter base was wary of him was because he was a VERY moderate Republican, up until he was the REpublican pick for president.
He still is a moderate Republican, just the media is now trying to vilify him because he's the nominee for President, seriously most of the media has been in the tank for Democrats for decades.
But it is far worse this year to the point that Sean Hannity has said, "This is the year journalism has officially died in America."
He still is a moderate Republican, just the media is now trying to vilify him because he's the nominee for President,
The same way that you, and 'news' outlets such as Fox have been out to villify to Obama because he's candidate for President?
The same way that you, and 'news' outlets such as Fox have been out to villify to Obama because he's candidate for President?
Well problem with that argument is that Fox News sourced where they got their information and the sources check out, unlike the hit pieces against McCain using people like Tom DeLay saying he'd never vote for McCain. (without pointing out that McCain headed up the investigation that got Senator DeLay kicked out of office)
There is a difference between vetting someone and villifying them, everything Fox News has brought up (and don't start about the Muslim stuff because that was the Hillary Campaign not Fox News), has turned out to be true thus far.
Obama isn't this new style of politician unless you're saying that someone being of the lunatic fringe or having judgement that makes President Bush an excellent judge of charecter in comparison.
Hey, villifying Obama makes sense to me. Some of those connections he's got creeps me out. Domestic Terrorism is kind of a bad thing, you know.
Debate - McCain vrs. Obama II
Wow! McCain has fallen flat. I couldn't count how many times he talked in circles, but this debate was very annoying. I didn't know if I wanted to hit the tv, or if I wanted to throw my tv out the window. Republicans should see this as a wake up call, and begin the next presidential election right now. McCain is not going to be president. I hate to admit this, but he is just not the right Republican.
My thoughts on Obama will be in another post. I just wanted to vent.
I'd like to mention that Tom Brokaw is the worst moderator I've ever seen. The whole debate format is bad, but Obama at least got his points across.
I thought the format was the terrible part. Why anyone would choice that format is beyond me.
Overall, I say it was a tie. I am getting tired of John McCain not listening to Obama answers. John McCain, Obama said the surge worked!
This election feels flat for some reason. Both men are not thinking straight, and they are avoiding the serious questions about the economy and war. Both debates were anticlimatic, and no one is taking the gloves off. Where are the heavy hitting answers, and where did the pop go that people have seen in both men? They got to the debates and they both flatlined.
McCain is a weak Republican. Why isn't Obama able to make a bloody nose? Obama is an uneperienced Senator. Why is McCain not able to put him down? Both men are weak. This is the second draw.
Yeah. The moderator was the worst that I have seen in these debates. By far.
They really were just going in circles. This 'debate', I personally wouldn't even call it that, really didn't answer anything new. Unfortunately. The only new issuse that was discussed really was the question about what which canidate would do if Israel was attacked by Iran.
I liked how both McCain and Obama used the phrase, "in the history of the world". That honestly made me laugh.
My opinion has not changed.
I'm feeling that this election will fall on 49/51, and the flatness of McCain will make the difference of a small portion. Obama will come out by a very small margin.
Or it could be the other way around....
Brokaw sucked.
I think that anyone paying attention at all isn't going to fall for McCain's "cool hand at the wheel" rhetoric.
I hope Obama's insistence on a follow-up doesn't become one of those "Presidential debate moments".
The real brass tacks of the matter was that McCain needed a resounding win here and didn't get it. Obama/Biden 08.
Debate - McCain vrs. Obama II
Wait... What now? When did this happen? Meh, reading this thread, it sounds like it wasn't wasn't worth watching...
Now this is worth seeing:
Bigfoot/Nessie 08 - Change we can beleive in! (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_4Jc_M3OI)
"Debate: McCain vs Obama 2" thread merged with this thread.
Brokaw sucked.
I think that anyone paying attention at all isn't going to fall for McCain's "cool hand at the wheel" rhetoric.
I hope Obama's insistence on a follow-up doesn't become one of those "Presidential debate moments".
The real brass tacks of the matter was that McCain needed a resounding win here and didn't get it. Obama/Biden 08.
Agree-I got tired of Brokaw saying 'we need to follow your agreed upon rules of 1 minute here'.
If there's any kind of debate moment, I think it's more likely to be McCain's 'that one' which seemed to refer to Obama.
This was supposed to be McCain's preferred method of debating and he didn't quite get the job done that he needed. I thought he actually did better than Obama on some of the domestic issues and Obama did better on a number of foreign issues--that surprised me a bit. It's looking much more likely that Obama will win at this point, but I don't dare count McCain out even this close to the election. Someone who's stared death in the face and survived has nothing to lose, and he has the ability to pull support and fortitude out of absolutely nowhere and somehow make it.
I think with these debates, we should be vying for three minute answers about the general facts, and then give each candidate at least 7 minutes to argue on the details, but I'm not in charge, so what do I know:xp:
Honestly, I think I'd mandate that neither debater could say the other's name. I mean, I'd like to see them talk about the issues, not each other. I can read People for that.
Or it could be the other way around.... Since the emotional impact of both are somewhat mute, you are dead on with your assessment. I don't think the media polls are correct. I keep getting this strange sense of an uninspiring election. Anyone can come out ahead at the last minute. I don't feel motivated to vote for either guy.
I heard R2-D2 may run. I think he has more experience with war and economics. :D
This was supposed to be McCain's preferred method of debating and he didn't quite get the job done that he needed.
For the record this wasn't McCain's favorite style because aside from being able to walk around there was nothing in it that was really town hall style. I've seen town hall debates, and that was at best a mockery because a town hall debate is supposed to be completely unscripted, and debate II was obviously scripted. You actually got more information from the Saddleback Showdown. If you'll note the moderator said he went through the questions beforehand and approved them, if this was a true town hall format the moderator wouldn't even have a clue what was being asked beforehand, except for the e-mailed questions.
Second, if one actually looks at the record, one would find that Barack Obama was lieing about his record repeatedly and McCain even called him on it, and Obama went right back and started lieing again.
The Freddie/Fannie situation is where Obama was lieing for starters about his supposedly contacting the treasury secretary with concerns a few years ago. While there was a letter to the Treasury Secretary, it was Senator McCain and a few other Republicans, not sure if there were any Democrats in the signiture, but I do know Obama wasn't one of the names.
And McCain was wrong on a lot of points too. Stop cherry-picking errors made by Obama just because you don't like him. It makes you sound dishonest and undermines any credibility in your statements.
The Freddie/Fannie situation is where Obama was lieing for starters about his supposedly contacting the treasury secretary with concerns a few years ago. While there was a letter to the Treasury Secretary, it was Senator McCain and a few other Republicans, not sure if there were any Democrats in the signiture, but I do know Obama wasn't one of the names.
Are you referring to a few years ago when McCain supposedly warned everyone about what was going to happen?
Are you referring to a few years ago when McCain supposedly warned everyone about what was going to happen?
It's a matter of public record that Senator McCain warned people about it. Senator McCain actually said this was probably going to happen back in 2006 on the Senate Floor.
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
-- Senator John McCain May 25, 2006
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190)
Let's see what the video says (
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/17/mccain-anticipate-crisis/)
I'm surprised. Are you surprised? At lest now we know McCain was surprised. :xp:
So is McCain lying now or was he lying back in December 2007?
Let's see what the video says (
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/17/mccain-anticipate-crisis/)
Also, here's a link to the letter (
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_urges_ber/) that Obama is allegedly lying about.
And I should believe Obama's campaign that the letter is actually real why? Seriously he's lied about quite a few other things.
That would be like me using the McCain's campaign website as a source...
You now have a copy. You're welcome to consider it "fake" if you'd like, however if you're going to be honest, you have to apply the same standards to anything out of the McCain camp (having one set of standards for one candidate and another for the other isn't being objective).
But now that we have that one out of the way, we can move on to the next "lie". Or perhaps you could save us some time and provide a list of all the things that Obama "lied" about. Because just saying that someone lied isn't going to be sufficient.
Other links to Obama's letter: clicky (
http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+letter+march+2007). (hint: the content of the letter does not change)
That would be like me using the McCain's campaign website as a source...or FoxNews. :¬:
In this example, the "source" doesn't matter. The letter could have been posted on howmuchIhateBarackObama.com and it wouldn't have mattered. The source is the letter itself, not the site it's hosted on.
Well first of all I thought it was supposed to have been in 2006, second of all, as I've said before why should I believe that Obama sent a letter when he's outright lied about other stuff.
Seriously, it took a pretty long time to come up with the letter.
Still waiting for that list of lies. Please realize that if you fail to produce one, we'll be left with no other alternative than to assume that you're just making this up.
...and no it didn't. I saw your post, Googled "Obama letter March 2007" and posted a link. It took no time at all, because I actually knew the letter existed (instead of believing that it was a lie).
His lying about the level of association with Bill Ayers is a good starting point.
Ayers wasn't even mentioned last night. Stop mudslinging and please come up with a list of 'lies' that Obama said in the debate so that we don't have to assume that you're just making this all up.
Full Transcript (
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/) to get you started.
Well, in this situation that America is in, we obviously need a strong leader, both parties have the guts to pull us through this crisis, but by now...
It just matters what they stand for, I for one, agree on some of both McCain's policies and Obama's policies. But both have there faults. Then we come to the vice president's candidates, Biden would be a strong vice president, but he probably has something hiding beneath his political smile, he's also not clear on what he stands for, taxes or no taxes. Palin, she is strong as well, and she has held her own on the last debate, but she doesn't have the experience that Biden might have. But that wouldn't ruin the situation. All the candidates are good, but there standings are all over the place on the economy and how the war should be run, we'll just have to wait and see what the candidates say and stand for.
Reading back on the pages. Obama is off about a lot things he said. Other words, no truth the way I see it. It won't help to have a president who will deny us what is actually happening or happened. But that's politics.
McCain as well, was off on some of the things he said, both candidates have fallen a little short on this last debate. It certainly wasn't like the first one.