a) to ruin his reputation.
b) to exemplify hypocrisy.
c) to try to win an election with a campaign of fear and lies.
d) all of the above.
McCain Robo-Calls Critical of Obama (
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/mccain-robo-calls-critical-of-obama/)
The crux of the issue:
The calls – being reported in a number of swing states – were just the latest instance of Mr. McCain embracing the very kind of negative or misleading campaign tactics he once denounced.
Why? Because McCain referred to these as "hate calls" in the 2000 election when Bush used this tactic against him. McSame?
Yeah, I heard about this earlier today. You know that a candidate is obviously getting extremely desperate when they resort to false, personal, and aggressive attacks.
We don't know if this will be effective or not.
It's a stupid and risky move.
Yeah, I heard about this earlier today. You know that a candidate is obviously getting extremely desperate when they resort to false, personal, and aggressive attacks.
QFT
It's pretty sad how low McCain is going, and there's still almost 3 weeks left!! Curious to see what the next new low is. I think he is trying to show up Rove a bit. :xp:
It will be incredibly effective with his base ("Kill him!", "Traitor!", "Terrorist!") . Whether it will sway any undecided or independent voters is unknown but probably unlikely.
To think at one time this year McCain was my second choice for President behind Hillary. After it got down to McCain, Clinton and Obama, I thought America couldn’t lose. :nutz3: I am glad I came to my senses.
Politicians at their worst, ladies and gentlemen. I agree with Achilles: this tactic will be effective with his base, but will be (to a degree) viewed as unnecessary/ugly to the undecided voters.
It will be incredibly effective with his base ("Kill him!", "Traitor!", "Terrorist!") . Whether it will sway any undecided or independent voters is unknown but probably unlikely.How would this make any difference with people who would vote for him anyway? :confused:
How would this make any difference with people who would vote for him anyway? :confused:"Difference"? I believe I said "effective".
@topic: Does it help McCain's "Maverick" persona or harm his campaign that members of his own party are attacking him (
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/gop-senator-sla.html) for using these tactics?
2nd edit: Correction. I missed the part where it said that Senator Collins is actually McCain's campaign co-chair in Maine. So make that, "members of his own campaign".
So, and Obama hasn't said worse about McCain? Like calling McCain a racist bigot perhaps?
So, and Obama hasn't said worse about McCain? Like calling McCain a racist bigot perhaps?I suppose you have a source for this?
"Difference"? I believe I said "effective".
Fine. Please explain what you mean by effective, then. :dozey:
I suppose you have a source for this?
http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-campaign-tactics-smears-lies-and.html)
That should has the same credibility as the New York Times, I'm looking for a better source.
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where that blog has cited its sources. Can you point them out to me?
Fine. Please explain what you mean by effective, then. :) 1 a: producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect <an effective policy>
Hope that helps.
http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-campaign-tactics-smears-lies-and.html)
That should has the same credibility as the New York Times, I'm looking for a better source.Individual@Blogspot.com has the same credibility as the New York Times? Anotha dolla fo' Obama!
Please try again with something that isn't some random person's opinion.
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where that blog has cited its sources. Can you point them out to me?
Uh that's the point, I'm looking for another source but I'm pointing out that the New York Times doesn't have much in the way of credibility either.
Your personal opinion of the New York Times (or any other news outlet) should not encourage you to provide sources even you admit are fairly worthless, from a legitimacy point of view.
I could write all sorts of things about Obama or McCain in my personal blog (if I had one). However that doesn't make any of the 'facts' I would mention true, unless I can back them up with legitimate proof.
1 a: producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect <an effective policy>
Hope that helps.
I think that you know that that's not the answer I was looking for.
So I will reword the question and ask it again: How will these calls be "effective" with people who are already going to vote for McCain?
I agree with Inyri, unless I get proof, like CNN or the New York Times, or something similar, I'm not buying it. I wasn't planning on voting for McCain anyway. If I still had my old sig, I could say I'd be voting for Megatron and it actually make sense.
I think that you know that that's not the answer I was looking for.
So I will reword the question and ask it again: How will these calls be "effective" with people who are already going to vote for McCain?Because it will have the desired effect (i.e. promoting hated and fear). Hence "effective". Promoting a negative message doesn't necessarily mean that he's looking to change anyone's mind or create a "difference". I believe the term is "fanning the flames" or "throwing fuel on the fire" or "energizing the base" (I'm sure there are others).
Again, I hope that helps.
I agree with Inyri, unless I get proof, like CNN or the New York Times, or something similar, I'm not buying it. I wasn't planning on voting for McCain anyway. If I still had my old sig, I could say I'd be voting for Megatron and it actually make sense.
Oh you mean sources that I've actually shown that the National Enquirer has higher standards.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2008/10/09/nyt-finds-smart-folks-obama-media-heckling-racists-palin)
And here is one specifically on the New York Times and racism:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2008/08/01/nyt-calls-mccain-ad-racist-mccain-camp-likens-editors-kos-kids)
Oh you mean sources that I've actually shown that the National Enquirer has higher standards.o rly? (
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/dog_testify_murder_trial/crime/63458)
Please stop saying this. You've said it at least a dozen times already, and it doesn't matter how many times you say it -- it's not going to sound more true just because you keep repeating yourself.
Please stop saying this. You've said it at least a dozen times already, and it doesn't matter how many times you say it -- it's not going to sound more true just because you keep repeating yourself.
I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...
Crap... figured there was an off chance that Garfield was on to something :xp:
I believe the term is "fanning the flames" or "throwing fuel on the fire" or "energizing the base" (I'm sure there are others).
OK. I have no clue how in the hell that's going to help him, but given the ridiculous amount of monumental stupidity that I've seen in his campaign so far I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised.
There, I said it.
Both candidates are concerned about voters right now. Obama's afraid that if his supporters assume the best and stay home without voting (assuming that he doesn't need their vote to win), he risks losing the election.
McCain knows that if his voters stay home, his loss becomes a landslide. On the other hand if Obama's supporters are lulled into a false sense of security AND if he can rile up his supporters to the point where he can guarantee their turn out, he could cinch the election.
So while both candidates are actively going after the undecided voter, both also have to make sure that their supporters actually go to a polling station and fill out a ballot. Obama is doing that by warning his supporters not to assume the best and stay home. McCain is doing that by spreading lies about Obama and instilling fear in people that already believe the worst about him.
At least that's how it appears to me, based on what I've seen with my own eyes and heard the analysts say with my own ears.
Oh and the man that wrote the piece concerning the Edwards affair, said he would have been fired from the Enquirer if he had submitted a story with the lack of sourcing that the NY Times article had. I'm going to try to track that down too.Well then it has to be true.
ADFO
When it comes to anything involving Republicans compared to Democrats the National Enquirer does have higher standards especially in 2008.
So once again, it seems you'll do anything to find a source that casts the Republicans in a good light, and paints the Democrats as devil worshippers?
And Inyri's right about blogs not be very good measures of facts. For instance, I could post a link to 'John McCain eats Babies' and present that as a fact if I wished.
Update (
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/did_mccain_hire_same_firm_to_d.php)
Not only are these the same robo-calls that McCain spoke out against in the 2000 election, but it appears that he may have even hired the same organization that Bush used (against McCain). Wow. :(
So, and Obama hasn't said worse about McCain? Like calling McCain a racist bigot perhaps?
Wait a moment. Basically you're saying that it's ok because his opponent did comparable stuff (which, according to the other posters is not true, but nvm)?
To be honest crap like this (
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/17/racist.obama.newsletter.kcal?iref=videosearch) has me contemplating a protest vote for the other side.
I may not like Obama's stances on a lot of issues, but my reason for not wanting him as president has never and will never be because he is black.
My favorite part about this whole thing is how hypocritical it makes McCain look. During the debate he says 'I don't care about some old washed-up terrorist, my campaign is about the economy" but then the next day he starts up with these atrocious robo-calls, continuing his character assassination tactics right where he left off. And this is despite the fact that there have been calls from his own supporters to focus on the important issues like the economy and healthcare rather than attacking Obama.
I respect John McCain as an American patriot and a good, decent person. But I cannot respect him as a candidate when he resorts to these bush league tactics.
I agree with Inyri, unless I get proof, like CNN or the New York Times, or something similar, I'm not buying it.
CNN is claiming that this is happening...
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/more-mccain-robocalls-listen-to-the-allegations/)
Technically they aren't. Read the byline:
Greg Sargent
Talking Points Memo
TPM is the source, not CNN :)
Edit:
Another update (
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/big_news_orgs_picking_up_on_ma.php)
Getting more scrutiny from the mainstream media outlets now. Good news for McCain is that his campaign is dominating the weekend news cycles. The bad news is that it's not in a way that help his chances of winning the election.
Another update (
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/big_news_orgs_picking_up_on_ma.php)
Getting more scrutiny from the mainstream media outlets now. Good news for McCain is that his campaign is dominating the weekend news cycles. The bad news is that it's not in a way that help his chances of winning the election.
Mainstream media outlets finally realized this-
Oct 18th - The Moderate Voice: McCain Now On Ascent In Various Polls (
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/theruckus/archive/2008/10/18/the-moderate-voice-mccain-now-on-ascent-in-various-polls.aspx)
Oct 18th - Why Is the Race So Close? (
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/racetothefinish/archive/2008/10/18/why-is-the-race-so-close.aspx)
I have been telling people for weeks now; however, no one seems to really want to pay attention. This race is far from over. We are at a 50/50 split. Newsweeks' analysis is faulty from my point of view; however, they are finally seeing the reality of things. I don't like their revelations. Mainstream media is ticked off. Why? Obama doesn't own the majority; thus, their polls are completely wrong.
Questions people should be asking - Who actually voted in the mainstream media polls? Why do the polls show a massive favor for Obama when reality says otherwise? I knew these answers several months ago; however, I want to see what others come up with.
It will be incredibly effective with his base ("Kill him!", "Traitor!", "Terrorist!") . Whether it will sway any undecided or independent voters is unknown but probably unlikely.
Point Man is part of McCain's voter base, and absolutely is against the folks who yell out 'Kill him/Traitor/Terrorist'. Please don't paint all McCain voters with the same broad hate brush.
Friendly nudge - peeps keep this nice, just because people don't share your political position doesn't mean they don't have a good reason for thinking as they do, it seems at least to me that politics is very subjective. Also just because someone is of a particular political persuasion doesn't mean they agree with everything a said party does, or what its more extreme elements think, with what is considered that political stereotype. I don't want to have to re-enter this thread - ok? - j7
Looks like Republic voters are at their wit's end as well.
Two supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama found handwritten death threats in their mailboxes today and reported them to Villa Park police.This is my neighborhood. I find it very disturbing that people feel the need to resort to such things. There's a reason we don't post yard signs. :/
Source (
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/10/obama-backers-receive-death-threats.html)
Please don't paint all McCain voters with the same broad hate brush.I wasn't. Unless point man is part of the McCain base that is behaving this way. Otherwise, I don't know why you'd assume that it applies to him.
Hope the meds are treating you well.
EDIT: *reads Inyri's source*
That's horrible. I think this gentleman's (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0QL-2EK9Rk) commentary sums up the trouble McCain should (and hopefully will) be in if any part of this turns violent.
I went back and tried to edit my last post; however, someone beat me to the editing process. Thats oky. My post had some elements of question.
What I was trying to put in front of you Achilles is a Obama supporter. Ludacris created a song called Obama is here. He used very contraversial lines of hate. McCain and Obama both have some supporters who hate. Its not limited to one potential.
I think the difference is that, based on the article you cited, Obama denounced the song whereas the McCain campaign was promoting these kinds of things at their own rallies (from what I've read, courtesy of the others here in Kavar's).
I think the difference is that, based on the article you cited, Obama denounced the song whereas the McCain campaign was promoting these kinds of things at their own rallies (from what I've read, courtesy of the others here in Kavar's).
Not really true. While Palin generally ignores those negative comments, McCain tends to correct people. He's even been booed at his own rallies for sticking up for Obama. He reminded people that Obama is a good man. That we don't have to be scared of an Obama presidency. All in all he's been the most decent person in all of this.
All in all he's been the most decent person in all of this.
Really? Do explain this if you don't mind. As I recall it McCain didn't actually correct people until the media called him out on it, and up until that point him and Palin were not saying anything about the threats and smears said by some individuals at their rally's. In fact, the media was at least an underlying motivator, he had been getting hit pretty hard in the media for not saying anything before this occurred, when he corrected the lady saying Obama was Arab.
Edit...
Also, since this will be brought up later... post #121 (From Achilles) in this thread (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192769&page=4).
In addition, how would you address the robo-calls McCain is putting out, calls that he once condomned...? Transcript below...
Hello. I’m calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee at 202-863-8500.
Also...why did McCain's campaign bring up Michelle Obama during a conference call and tie her directly to Ayers? (Link warning, goes to a page with comments and some comments may contain unsuitable language for kids) Sorry Kinchy--had to pull that one for the swearing. --Jae
Both of these events happened after McCain said that wives and Ayers (not to mention Wright) were off limits.
I wasn't. Unless point man is part of the McCain base that is behaving this way. Otherwise, I don't know why you'd assume that it applies to him. OK, thanks for clarifying that for me. I don't like the nastiness that's heating up in this campaign and it is so wrong, but I don't want decent people who are behaving appropriately getting lumped in with the bad unintentionally.
Hope the meds are treating you well.
Probably a little too well at times. :lol:
OK, thanks for clarifying that for me. I don't like the nastiness that's heating up in this campaign and it is so wrong, but I don't want decent people who are behaving appropriately getting lumped in with the bad unintentionally.No problem. I probably could have worded that first post a little better to remove ambiguity. :(
It worsens. (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sF-a1lDpMg)
This seriously disgusts me.
My family just got a robo-call from the Obama campaign last night...
And are you going to quantify that statement by telling us what exactly that robo-call said?
Scandalous, a campaign campaigning during election season? This is madness, I'll see they never get ahold of a touchtone again.
Couldn't find a script to Obama robo calls in New England, but here is what they say in Wisconsin.
Hi, this is Jeri Watermolen, calling for the Campaign for Change. I live in Green Bay and, like you, I've been getting sleazy phone calls and mail from John McCain and his supporters viciously -- and falsely -- attacking Barack Obama.
I used to support John McCain because he honorably served our country -- but this year he's running a dishonorable campaign. We know McCain will continue many of Bush's policies, and now he's using George Bush's divisive tactics. In fact, he hired the Bush strategists whose attacks even McCain once called hateful.
Barack Obama will turn the page on these negative politics and stand up for the middle class. That's the change we need, and it's why I have changed my mind about John McCain. Join me in voting for Barack Obama.
Paid for the Campaign for Change, a project of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, 608-255-5172, and authorized by Obama for America."
This is not exactly on par with the sleaze being put out by the McCain side (example ET Warrior’s link above). I agree with ET Warrior, that link seriously disgust me too. Really glad McCain is not practicing dirty politics. :rolleyes:
Link to script (
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-22-robocalls_N.htm), both McCain's and Obama's.