Quote :

"But unlike Obama, he didn't travel with dozens of reporters."

so he's not smart enough to recognize the reality of needing media coverage during a campaign season in the 21st Century?

what the fuck is wrong with him?

7/24/2008 2:24:42 PM

I’m confused by McCain’s choices of scene juxtapositions. He intentionally schedules a speech against Obama’s primary acceptance speech. Knowing that Obama will have a large crowd he selects just a few hundred seniors. Knowing Obama will be speaking to 100k + people in Germany he eats at & holds a conference at a German restaurant. Its like he plans he press conferences to intentionally be small bad versions of whatever Obama is scheduled to do at that time.

He’s making his campaign seem inadequate and reactive instead of proactive. Why not do something different that can’t be so easily juxtaposed that makes it look like he’s leading and doing his own thing instead of following Obama schedule?

7/24/2008 2:38:23 PM

McCain also had small ad buys in three US towns named Berlin today.

7/24/2008 2:42:48 PM

Old man eats lunch, film at 11

7/24/2008 2:43:53 PM

Breaking news: Schnitzel deemed "too spicy", sent back.

7/24/2008 3:00:11 PM

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 9:28 AM. Reason : ``]

7/25/2008 9:08:56 AM

When I think peace the first thing that comes to mind is fighter jets

7/25/2008 9:13:41 AM

That shit is hideous. Nothing says power and wisdom like turquoise and brown.

7/25/2008 9:20:21 AM

I'm not a mccain fan, but its not as bad as some of the obama propaganda.

7/25/2008 9:22:50 AM

On a more serious topic...

McCain deflated the Anbar thing pretty quickly. Not that any one at ThinkProgress noticed. The difference is whether you define "the surge" as simply the increase in troops levels ordered by President Bush, or if you define "the surge" as a change in strategy that began before the official increase in troop levels was ordered.

McCain has always defined The Surge as a shift in strategy as several liberal t-dubbers have pointed out (looking at you Boone). So I'm sure no one will continue to object to McCain's remark. After all, it's not like anyone here would continue to use out of context quotes to win political points as if tehy were on cross-fire.....right?

Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic (hardly the den of conservative opinion) explains in greater detail.

Quote :

""Yesterday," a reporter asked McCain, "you suggested that the surge in Iraq predated the Anbar rebellion, and actually the Anbar rebellion came a couple of months previously. Did you misspeak, or did you have something else in mind?" McCain said that he was referring to the successful counterinsurgency strategy in the Anbar -- the co-option of the Sunni sheiks -- which provided a model for troops who later surged into the country. “First of all, a surge is really a counter-insurgency strategy," McCain said. I'll separate that, because McCain says it often. Most of us equate the surge with troop levels, but for McCain, it has always been about a strategy; to execute the strategy, more troops were needed. Colonel McFarland, in Anbar province, McCain said, "had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is a counter-insurgency. And he told me at that time that he believed that that strategy, which is quote the surge...would be, successful. So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to carry out this insurgency...Prior to that they had been going into places, killing people or not killing people, and then withdrawing. And the new counter-insurgency, the surge, entailed going in and clearing and holding, which Colonel McFarland had already started doing. And then of course, later on, there were additional troops, and General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops." "So I’m not sure frankly that people really understand that a surge is part of counter-insurgency strategy which means going in, clearing, holding, building a better life, providing services to the people. And then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help insure the safety of the sheiks, to gain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge would continue to succeed as a counter-insurgency.’’"

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_defends_anbarbeforesurg.php

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 9:37 AM. Reason : ``]

7/25/2008 9:31:42 AM

Q: blah blah blah the surge blah blah blah

A: blah blah blah a surge blah blah blah

to simplify that silliness.

7/25/2008 9:54:16 AM

Quote :

"Breaking news: Schnitzel deemed "too spicy", sent back."

this bears repeating. really funny. gg.

7/25/2008 10:06:53 AM

^^aha...10/10

7/25/2008 10:09:37 AM

Considering the way the media slobs all over Obama the latest gallop poll shows that the race is very close at the moment. That bodes well for McCain.

7/25/2008 10:44:04 AM

If one reads past the third sentence, one would realize that the reporter and McCain are not talking about different things (the surge v. a surge). They are bothing talking about the same thing--McCain's comments from earlier this week. McCain is explaining that his earlier comments were meant to apply to the broader surge strategy (which is ussually what McCain means when he talks about The Surge) as opposed to the increase in troop levels ordered by Bush.

Just putting it out there in case anyone is actually interested in understanding the "issue" (or whatever you want to call it).

Personally, I think Obamanauts would be better served to attack McCain's policy goals as opposed to trying to slime his reputation. It would also make for better conversation. But that's just my opinion.

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 10:54 AM. Reason : ``]

7/25/2008 10:51:25 AM

Quote :

"the broader surge strategy (which is ussually what McCain means when he talks about The Surge) as opposed to the increase in troop levels ordered by Bush."

Well hell, it looks like Obama never opposed "the surge," using this newly convenient definition.

7/25/2008 11:02:32 AM

^ incorrect. Obama opposed additional troops required to carry out strategy successfully. see mccain comments for further details.

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ``]

7/25/2008 11:10:06 AM

You mean to say the troop increase was an integral part of the surge, and that separating the two is impossible?

7/25/2008 11:13:58 AM

^ clearly.



PS* If separating the two actually were impossible, it would still leave McCain's comment from earlier this week factually correct and still leave Obama opposing the increase in troops that were instrumental in reducing violence in Iraq.

Either way things look for the McCain camp on this "issue". Of course, not that you will see it in any of the MSM sources.

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ``]

7/25/2008 11:45:24 AM

Then that's that: McCain doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to recent events in Iraq.

7/25/2008 11:47:08 AM

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/07/25/mccain-and-obama-walk-the-flip-flopping-tightrope.html

Quote :

"McCain and Obama Walk the Flip-Flopping Tightrope"

7/25/2008 5:26:02 PM

Quote :

"Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling. Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May. McCain said the policy reversal came as a response to rising voter anger over soaring energy prices."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891.html

MAVERICK!!

7/28/2008 2:41:03 PM

^ hahhaha. oh no!

7/28/2008 2:45:33 PM

Quote :

"McCain said the policy reversal came as a response to rising voter anger over soaring energy prices."

everyone says mccain is a mean and dirty fighter who sticks to his guns come hell or high water.

but apparently he's really just a pussycat who rolls over for a bellyrub based on the lastest poll numbers.

7/28/2008 2:55:32 PM

Quote :

"A while back the McCain put a new rule in place that no one involved in their campaign could be a federal lobbyist or foreign agent. But CBS has an interview out with McCain campaign manager Rick Davis that appears to say that rule is no longer in effect. Asked how many lobbyists work on the campaign, Davis tells Katie Couric: "We don't make it a litmus test for employment at the McCain campaign.""

it's not a flip-flop because it was done by mccain of course.

7/29/2008 10:47:06 PM

^ I wonder why people on here forget to link their quotes to the biased blogs from which they came.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/206149.php

This quote is not enough to draw the type of conclusions the TPM folks wants to draw. Former lobbyists work on both the Obama and McCain campaigns as do people that work for lobbying firms. So obviously being a "lobbyist" per se isn't a litmus test for either campaign, only being a currently active lobbyist is.

Now, maybe McCain has went back on his pledge, but you can't tell one way or the other from this quote. But, obviously, the TPM won't let that stop them from saying whatever they want.

Blogs like TPM and the Daily Kos are the new talk radio folks. You're quoting the liberal Rush Limbaugh and that's why you're ashamed to provide the links. Embrace that fact. In 4 years (or less) you will turn into the Republicans you so despised in 2004. It's already starting.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 6:59 AM. Reason : ``]

7/30/2008 6:48:00 AM

i was told yesterday that 50-70 year olds are abusing social security and its gonna fall back on us, cause the way repubs set up the system for the rich to be rich and when it gets to us there wont be enough kids to support social security...basically i was told that since we are not as slutty(which i find hard to believe) and are not having as many kids, the 50-70 year olds got it made...idk i never really thought about it like that but i guess it somewhat makes sense...i was just like uh what? friend said it started during ronald reagans term when they stopped funding it or something

7/30/2008 7:19:39 AM

^^fair point on me not linking where i got it from. if you haven't noticed, i haven't been around here much recently and literally am out of practice. if you look back through older posts of mine i have no issue with showing my sources. as far as kos and tpm being the "new talk radio folk": you may be right about SOME of the posters on daily kos (there are countless people on there), but whatever TPM may be to some people, i mainly read it for its daily roundup of election news. are these sources liberal? sure. but that suddenly equates to being the "new talk radio"?

i mean i guess if you can't refute an argument, you argue the source, right?

7/30/2008 10:46:13 AM

^ I was afraid you would use that cliche. but i didn't just say your sources are biased. i explained why TPM is wrong in the conclusions they draw AND said they were biased. Here it is a second time, since you missed it.

Quote :

"This quote is not enough to draw the type of conclusions the TPM folks wants to draw. Former lobbyists work on both the Obama and McCain campaigns as do people that work for lobbying firms. So obviously being a "lobbyist" per se isn't a litmus test for either campaign, only being a currently active lobbyist is. Now, maybe McCain has went back on his pledge, but you can't tell one way or the other from this quote. But, obviously, the TPM won't let that stop them from saying whatever they want. "

consider the argument (more of an assertion than actual argument really) refuted. McCain's pledge, like Obama's, is only supposed to extend to currently active lobbyists. KC's question could be understood to be much broader.

*sigh* my post wasn't exactly long you know. how did you miss these two paragraphs of text?

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 10:56 AM. Reason : intellectual honest for the win.]

7/30/2008 10:50:50 AM

oh you are just SO exasperated with me.

i don't know how cbs news edited their footage, but to me, it looked like rick davis when asked if their campaign had started hiring lobbyists again, dodged the question by saying "not all lobbyists are alike". why, if they no longer hired lobbyists, would he have said this?

7/30/2008 10:54:43 AM

^ Because it is a critical distinction to understanding whether McCain broke his pledge? Both McCain’s and Obama’s pledges supposedly only extended to currently active lobbyists, NOT former lobbyists or people working for lobbying firms. Therefore, you will likely find “lobbyists” employed in both campaigns, but both pledges would still be intact so long as they are not currently active.

McCain may or may not have flipped on his pledge. I really don’t know. But this few seconds of news footage doesn’t decide this matter by a long shot.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ``]

7/30/2008 11:00:16 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902286.html

7/30/2008 12:15:44 PM

Quote :

"But this few seconds of news footage doesn’t decide this matter by a long shot."

-socks

I will take note of that for the future.

7/30/2008 1:23:14 PM

Bush's crew was pretty good about turning opponent's strengths against them.

McCain, not so much:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2008/07/30/sot.mccain.ad.celebs.cnn

"He's the biggest celebrity in the world," spliced in with pictures of Paris and Brittany. What exactly are they going for here? I think they've already locked in the old coot vote.

Quote :

"Responding to the ad, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "On a day when major news organizations across the country are taking Senator McCain to task for a steady stream of false, negative attacks, his campaign has launched yet another. Or, as some might say, ‘Oops! He did it again.’""

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 3:14 PM. Reason : Didn't McCain promise a clean campaign? Or is this him being a maverick again?]

7/30/2008 3:12:38 PM

gawd damn

that video is awful.



i mean, if your're a McCain supporter, how can you not be embarrassed by his perpetual FAILURE to appear even remotely relevant?


NOV 2nd: GOP PWNT. Stay Home. Call TWW for details.

7/30/2008 3:17:50 PM

^ yah, sometimes i really do wish my candidate would embrace his inner hipster and go dancing on Ellen.

Anyways, I think the McCain campaign is betting that people don't actually want to elect their President based on star power. "It's not American Idol for crying out loud!" Of course they will lose that bet.

PS* Plz, no one act like Obama is above lying or going negative on his opponent--he frequently accused John McCain of waiting to be at war with Iraq for 100 years even though that actually isn't what he said (i bet most of you didn't know that). He didn't stop until the media called him out on it. I don't support McCain's current negative tactics and I'm hoping he will correct his behavior quickly.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ``]

7/30/2008 3:30:45 PM

joe, mccain is an idiot. I respect his service but dislike alot of his politics.

This is a one man race. You are either voting for Obama or against him. Really, whatever McCain does doesnt really matter much. Again, the lesser of two evils.

7/30/2008 3:35:08 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM

While the "100-year war" thing might be off, he certainly had zero intention of withdrawing back then.

But then he when all maverick on us.

7/30/2008 3:37:59 PM

Quote :

"Anyways, I think the McCain campaign is betting that people don't actually want to elect their President based on star power. "It's not American Idol for crying out loud!" Of course they will lose that bet."

you're just incapable of admitting that people like obama for his character and his published, stated positions. and that he talks like hes got some damn sense. that he's not going to go and bomb more countries. that he'll talk to leaders of other nations without trying to push them into a corner.

the fact is, obama didnt have any star power until he ran for president, and started winning people over to him and his positions.

its only the conservative Hollywood actors like Ahnold or Reagan or that guy from L&O who trade off their "star power" to gain "political power"

everythign Obama has done, hes done on his own without any Hollywood vehicles to support him.

of course you'll still whine and mope and complain that McCain is being dissed because of some conspiracy or another.

7/30/2008 3:42:03 PM

Have you listened to AM radio recently? They've been referring to him as "The Messiah."

It's sad when the only thing you have that seems to stick is that he's too popular. Unfortunately for McCain, that doesn't persuade anyone who didn't already dislike him.

7/30/2008 3:48:55 PM

Quote :

"Have you listened to AM radio recently"

not if i can ever help it. :sick-face:

anyhow, i already know what the rightwing nutjobs say. it just amuses me when Socks`` parrots them.

7/30/2008 3:52:16 PM

I listened to rush for a few minutes the other day, and god damn. That dude is fucking good at what he does.

7/30/2008 3:54:51 PM

He's the best at what he does.

The problem is the "what he does" part.

7/30/2008 3:56:30 PM

Its like i've said, if we could harness the power of the republican party for good this country would own. Waiting on the dems to figure shit out is fucking painful.

7/30/2008 3:57:43 PM

^ Indeed. The Democrat-led Congress sucks donkey balls--and anyone who says different is fucking batshit.

Congressional Performance
Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever
July 08, 2008

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance

7/30/2008 4:10:17 PM

Congress sucks donkey (I see what you did there) balls at 15% approval.

What does Bush suck at 32%? Goats?

7/30/2008 4:12:13 PM

the last thing i'd want is a president to back that very, very low-approved democratic congress.

you know that's an odd point... according to the polls the population disapproves of the Dem. Congress twice as much as Bush, who may be one of the most hated individuals in our lifetime

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 6:49 PM. Reason : ]

7/30/2008 6:47:44 PM

Quote :

"Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever"

I think what this shows is that the democrats aren't as dogmatic in their support for their leaders as the republicans are for theirs.

It is counterproductive to use this to say "ha! look the democrats suck ass, let's go republican" when the problems are deeper than that.

In any case, the Republicans are changing their unified-bloc strategy because they're losing many seats, and according to Pelosi at least, the democrats are still ahead on individual issues.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11923.html

Quote :

"Republican Senate leaders — terrified by the prospect of losing five or more seats in November — have freed their members to vote however they need to vote to get reelected, even if that means bucking the president or the party’s leadership. On at least four votes over the past month — Medicare, housing, the GI Bill and the Farm Bill — Republican leaders haven’t even bothered whipping members to toe the party line or back President Bush’s veto threats. Instead, a GOP leadership aide says leaders have told vulnerable senators that it’s all right to “get well” with voters by siding with Democrats on anything but energy and national security."

Our gov. was never designed to have these Survivor-esque alliances when it comes to voting. Why should these representatives have to be "freed" to vote for their constituents?

7/30/2008 7:06:51 PM

I got to see the new mccain ad, it wasnt that bad.

Moron, hows that democratic sensible plan to make gas cheaper in 06 doing?

The repubs need to pin thier ass to not drilling and really not doing ANYTHING on energy. Simply throwing money at the boogey man isnt get things done. THAT is the message that the repubs need to get out to americans, and I think they can win on it actually.

7/30/2008 7:11:09 PM

anyone work for the state of nc? i heard its like living in a socialist country

7/30/2008 7:13:23 PM