John McCain's VP Choice - Who do you think he will choose?

[cam]

What I would like to see is criddic concentrating on helpinghis man to win, and to stop talking about the best man,l the Democrat, who is sure to win.

[Sabin]

I'll break this down even though I probably don't have to. I simply wanted to curve a spit-wad contrasting your unwarranted complaints about Barack Obama aping JFK.

Did it ever occur to you that Republicans liked President Bush for legit reasons?

Absolutely. They had no intention of choosing a Republican with integrity like pre-sell out-John McCain so they chose one without any to speak of. Even if their intentions were "legit", that doesn't make them any more or less problematic. They had a fiscal conservative with a fine record, noble intentions, and a history of crossing party lines for the greater good, and they chose George W. Bush, whom the kindest thing you can say about him is that statistically it was impossible for him to fail forever given his family background, that his eventual faith in Jesus Christ erased all of his old sins giving him a nice clean slate for new ones (AND HOW!), and that he makes an honest effort not to shit on the floor in public.

Both brothers benefitted from former President Bush's popularity within the party, but I don't think their father "bought" them their status.

I want a simple yes or no: do you think that after the consecutive decades of alcoholism and financial failure that George W. Bush made into an art form that he could have reached half the success he has today were he not of Bush lineage? Just a simple yes or no.

In fact, their father was reportedly surprised by George W's victory to the governorship before Jeb.

Source, please! One I can believe.

Actually don't worry about it. I don't believe anything that family has to say about anything. This is a non-point.

Besides that, George had prior experience running for office in a close 1978 senate election. When he ran for President, he had more executive experience than Obama does and was very popular as governor.

You have a point, but really the degree to which Bush and Obama have served in office is pretty close in comparison. In terms of popularity, you might not have a case. Barack Obama is one of the most popular senators in recent history, but while Bush may have more executive experience, in terms of record I can honestly say had Obama a fraction of the record for outright immorality I would never vote for him. Dirty campaigning, the violation of church and state, conveyor belt-style executions...usually I'm more in favor of the devil you know...

His father hardly needed to buy him the 2000 election.

It really takes until the end of a post to realize that you don't want to get into a conversation about this stuff with you. I'll be honest: I'm not very learned about politics. I read. I research. I mostly just make jokes. I'm probably the dumbest person on this board. But I can't begin to fathom your image of America where George W. Bush was elected on terms of merit alone. It boggles my mind.

I would think that being a Gay Republican - which on the basis of your convictions, I can at least respect in a morbid kind of way - would be a stretch enough for a lifetime; but if I can return to your position as a Gay Republican for a second, you talk about George W. Bush like a man talking about curing his homosexuality through the power of faith in Jesus Christ. Now, we both know that homosexuality can't be cured so these men are just fooling themselves and in the back of their mind is a little deviant cocksucker unconsciously beating off to whatever masculine image comes his way. What I want to know is what George W. Bush is doing in the back of your mind.

[FilmFan720]

That's a true accusation.

[criddic3]

What really made me sure I would not vote for Obama is the associations he chose to make in order to climb the ladder so quickly. Barely in the senate over half a term, and he runs for President as if he's the next JFK.

Why stop now? For the past eight years, you've voted for an upstart whose father bought him the election. At least Obama's daddy left the picture years ago.

That's a nasty accusation.

Did it ever occur to you that Republicans liked President Bush for legit reasons? Both brothers benefitted from former President Bush's popularity within the party, but I don't think their father "bought" them their status. In fact, their father was reportedly surprised by George W's victory to the governorship before Jeb. Besides that, George had prior experience running for office in a close 1978 senate election. When he ran for President, he had more executive experience than Obama does and was very popular as governor. His father hardly needed to buy him the 2000 election.



Edited By criddic3 on 1214347136

[Sabin]

What really made me sure I would not vote for Obama is the associations he chose to make in order to climb the ladder so quickly. Barely in the senate over half a term, and he runs for President as if he's the next JFK.

Why stop now? For the past eight years, you've voted for an upstart whose father bought him the election. At least Obama's daddy left the picture years ago.



Edited By Sabin on 1214264463

[Greg]

Oh. My. Goodness.

McCain adviser apologizes for September 11 comment

Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:07pm

(Reuters) - A top adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain apologized on Monday after he was quoted as saying a September 11-type attack before the November election would benefit McCain.

"I deeply regret the comments, they were inappropriate," Charlie Black said in a statement after McCain said that if Black had made such a comment, "I strenuously disagree" with it.

"I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration," said Black, one of McCain's most trusted political advisers.

Fortune magazine said Black, in discussing how national security was McCain's strong suit, had said when asked about another terrorist attack on U.S. soil that "certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

A McCain campaign official said Black did not remember making the particular comment but did not dispute the characterization.

The official said Black was speaking in the context that any day on the campaign trail that the theme was national security, was a good day for McCain.

McCain, asked about the magazine article at the news conference, did not sound familiar with it.

"I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true," McCain said, adding he had worked hard since the September 11 attack to prevent another such attack. (Reporting by Steve Holland and Deborah Charles; Editing by Peter Cooney)

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2327749220080623

[criddic3]

What exactly do we learn from Wright's speeches? What great lesson did Obama learn from those speeches?

I don't buy the splitting-hairs excuse that Obama gives. He goes there, perhaps not every Sunday, for 20 years. Maybe the Reverend says some controversial things, but just NOT AS controversial as the things we have seen on TV recently. Yeah. Great excuse. We can all sigh in relief. He didn't hear the worst stuff. Sorry but that is too convenient for me.

Look, I liked Obama when he spoke of "hope" and "peace" and all that jazz. I really did. I thought, gee it would be interesting to vote a Democrat for President. But then he started talking about sitting down to tea with terror-sponsoring dictators. Then he made things worse by saying he wouldn't impose any pre-conditions. Then he talked about similar programs for Univeral Healthcare to what Hillary wanted. So I was reminded of why I don't vote for Democrats for President. Particularly this one. At least Mrs. Clinton is smart enough to know that you cannot allow our enemies to have a leg up in discussions like that. On foreign affairs I actually think she would do a much better job than he.

What really made me sure I would not vote for Obama is the associations he chose to make in order to climb the ladder so quickly. Barely in the senate over half a term, and he runs for President as if he's the next JFK. At least JFK has 14 years of prior service in public life on the national stage. I give Hillary her due in that regard. She has had to work to get to the position she is in, at least in the senate. At least she has been on the national scene for nearly 30 years, if you count her being first lady of Arkansas. What has Obama done to deserve the presidency? His foreign policy is a joke. His domestic policy is based on a lot of promises he won't be able to deliver (ok, in that regard he's a normal politician). He's been in the senate less time than John Edwards when he ran for vice president. Mr. Edwards didn't make it. Why should Obama?

I realize that Mr. Obama may become the next President. I will pray that if he wins, he'll surprise me and be a good president. But from what I have seen and heard from this candidate, I honestly think he spells disaster. Think Bush is the worst president of all-time? Well, careful what you wish for.



Edited By criddic3 on 1211306126

[rain Bard]

I'm not talking privately. I'm saying that in 20 years, he says he was oblivious to Wright's statements. He never publicly acknowledged the Wright was saying the wrong things until he was cornered. He halfheartedly made vague pronouncements that he didn't agree with what the media was showing, but that he never once heard such things from the Reverend in 20 years of going to that church and listening to him speak. That's why the people aren't letting it go. Who can possibly accept that explanation?

He said he'd never before heard "the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm", not that he'd never heard him say anything controversial or out-of-step with his own views. His language is this precise for a reason. Wright's comments caused the uproar they did precisely because they were removed from their context. Removed, as Johnny Guitar points out, precisely so they would maximize the uproar.

If we take Obama's word for it that he never heard these precise remarks, but that he did hear remarks that were similar if perhaps not quite as inflammatory, what do you think he should have done? Should he have denounced Wright publicly even though few knew who the pastor was at the time? Should he have refused to attend the church again, thus closing himself off from an eloquent and passionate voice of discontent? I don't think we want leaders who refuse to even listen to opposing or uncomfortable views held by their constituents or potential constituents, do we? Do we really? By remaining in Wright's church and in dialogue with the man, he was able to gain insights that he might not have been privy to otherwise. I dare to say every one of us, if can get past his most incindiery cherry-picked remarks, would learn something from listening to Wright's speeches. Perhaps Obama saw the potential for Wright himself to learn something from their relationship. Is it worth dumping him because of their disagreements? Or is it better to continue the conversation and focus on common ground?

[Johnny Guitar]

I lost respect for Obama precisely because he did distance himself from Wright after the comments came out. (Of course it was predictable; if he wanted to survive politically, he had to.)

But Rev. Wright, from my perspective, is a great man, and perfectly correct on the issues the vast majority of the time. And because he was making so much sense, there is a good reason why the "liberal" (i.e., capitalist) media honed in on only a tiny handful of moments and then took them out of context and packaged them in their own deliberately wrong context. This is why a lot of people are "angry" about Wright--they've been relentlessly misinformed by the media. (And most of them would have the capacity to distinguish things if given a fair shot. Not people like criddic, unfortunately--the Kevin James of the UAADB.) And even the "liberals" in the media, like the (usually decent) NYTimes columnist Bob Herbert, toed the party line. Honesty in too big a dose simply isn't safe.

[criddic3]

I'm saying that in 20 years, he says he was oblivious to Wright's statements. He never publicly acknowledged the Wright was saying the wrong things until he was cornered. He halfheartedly made vague pronouncements that he didn't agree with what the media was showing, but that he never once heard such things from the Reverend in 20 years of going to that church and listening to him speak. That's why the people aren't letting it go. Who can possibly accept that explanation?

I think you are assuming that he faithfully attended services at Wright's church every Sunday, which would be a physical impossibility as he was often out of town on weekends.

It was still 20 years. Is it possible? Maybe. Is it likely? No.

[Big Magilla]

I'm saying that in 20 years, he says he was oblivious to Wright's statements. He never publicly acknowledged the Wright was saying the wrong things until he was cornered. He halfheartedly made vague pronouncements that he didn't agree with what the media was showing, but that he never once heard such things from the Reverend in 20 years of going to that church and listening to him speak. That's why the people aren't letting it go. Who can possibly accept that explanation?

I think you are assuming that he faithfully attended services at Wright's church every Sunday, which would be a physical impossibility as he was often out of town on weekends.

[criddic3]

If he doesn't agree with him, people will wonder why he was so tolerant of Wright's views without so much as an argument about what was said.

What timeframe are we talking about here?

If you mean, before the Rev. Wright "story broke" two months ago, how do we know he and Obama never argued privately about perspectives they differed on?

If you're trying to say that Obama didn't denounce Wright's words AFTER they were made known to the general public, you're misremembering things. He did.

I'm sure there are Obama detractors who will maintain he didn't go far enough in denouncing Wright himself, at least not initially. After all, he actually expressed an understanding of the feelings of anger Wright's statements came from (I have trouble understanding how we've gotten to the point where such statements shock us; even when I may disagree with them myself, they seem perfectly in line with the conditions many Americans find themselves in and I'm a little surprised they're not expressed more often publicly.) I suppose these detractors going to try to hijack the narrative as often as possible to ensure that the rest of the American public remembers the incident their way too. But I don't think the majority is going to buy it.

I'm not talking privately. I'm saying that in 20 years, he says he was oblivious to Wright's statements. He never publicly acknowledged the Wright was saying the wrong things until he was cornered. He halfheartedly made vague pronouncements that he didn't agree with what the media was showing, but that he never once heard such things from the Reverend in 20 years of going to that church and listening to him speak. That's why the people aren't letting it go. Who can possibly accept that explanation?

[rain Bard]

If he doesn't agree with him, people will wonder why he was so tolerant of Wright's views without so much as an argument about what was said.

What timeframe are we talking about here?

If you mean, before the Rev. Wright "story broke" two months ago, how do we know he and Obama never argued privately about perspectives they differed on?

If you're trying to say that Obama didn't denounce Wright's words AFTER they were made known to the general public, you're misremembering things. He did.

I'm sure there are Obama detractors who will maintain he didn't go far enough in denouncing Wright himself, at least not initially. After all, he actually expressed an understanding of the feelings of anger Wright's statements came from (I have trouble understanding how we've gotten to the point where such statements shock us; even when I may disagree with them myself, they seem perfectly in line with the conditions many Americans find themselves in and I'm a little surprised they're not expressed more often publicly.) I suppose these detractors going to try to hijack the narrative as often as possible to ensure that the rest of the American public remembers the incident their way too. But I don't think the majority is going to buy it.

[taki15]

That's the difference between Obama and McCain. McCain doesn't have the same problem because, as you said, he isn't connected intimately with the controversial people who have supported him from time to time.

Charles Keating

[criddic3]

Well, at least someone actually read the post seriously. Not just looking for a laugh.

I differ with you, Magilla, on an important point. I think that issues of personal associations should be considered when voting for a candidate. One such association might be forgiven. However, if the perception becomes that the candidate routinely chooses unsavory characters to spend large amounts of time with, it should definitely be taken into account. The Obama/Wright connection is unique in its ability to derail the candidate's chances in the fall, precisely because he cannot shake off that association simply by kicking the reverend to the curb. I don't wish Mr. Obama ill at all, but it will be very difficult for him to overcome the public's suspicion about how much he agrees personally with Rev. Wright's opinions about this country. If he doesn't agree with him, people will wonder why he was so tolerant of Wright's views without so much as an argument about what was said. I argue with my grandmother on issues like gay rights (she doesn't know about me, but it comes up sometimes). If I can disagree with the people I love openly, why couldn't he? And more importantly, why did he allow the controversy to become part of his narrative? It will never leave him now.

That's the difference between Obama and McCain. McCain doesn't have the same problem because, as you said, he isn't connected intimately with the controversial people who have supported him from time to time. So I don't think it is "peripheral," but integral now. Senator Obama won't escape it no matter how much he tries. It has hurt his credibility with some voters.