Presidential Debate Thunderdome!

Nota bene.

168 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Go Blue says:

    I’m going to go ahead and just declare Mission Accomplished on this thread as well.

  2. JeffcoBlue says:

    How tall a stool would McCain have to stand on to be taller than Obama? He’s like a WASP Danny DeVito for Christ’s sake.

  3. Jambalaya says:

    We don’t need another hero

    We don’t need to know the way home

    All we want is life beyond the thunderdome  

  4. colojason says:

    Many of you probably saw this already, but this morning web ads were released where McCain claimed that he won the debate.  One quote released this morning said “McCain won the debate– hands down.”  As one of the online comments said, it’s never too early for Republicans to start spinning the facts.

    Would anyone care to remind him the debate hasn’t taken place yet?

    The articles:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.c

    http://politicalticker.blogs.c

    And some screenshots from this morning:

    http://img297.imageshack.us/my

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/

  5. DavidThi808 says:

    from CNN

    The moderators — PBS’ Jim Lehrer for the first and CBS’ Bob Schieffer for the third — will divide the debate into approximately eight 10-minute segments. The moderator will introduce each segment with an issue and give each candidate two minutes to respond.

    Then comes the five-minute discussion period, when direct exchanges between the candidates will occur.



    …In the first and third presidential debates, there will be a five-minute “discussion” period following each candidate’s answer to a question. The idea is to promote more freewheeling back-and-forth between the candidates, the commission official said.

  6. Middle of the Road says:

    Who doesn’t love a blog that wishes you good night in Italian? 🙂

  7. Canines says:

    Frank made the comment on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer tonight. What a great cultural reference!

  8. Sir Robin says:

    Is it just me? Who among us has a clear filter? Who among the two candidates is more intellectualy honest, historically true, philosophically able to hold and express the “ring of truth”?

    Can’t wait to hear your comments.  

  9. Dabee47 says:

    39 minutes in and we finally get to Iraq!

    I wonder what they’re going to have to talk about in regards to the economy by the third debate rolls around…

  10. demverglenn says:

    because he has not once looked at Senator Obama, even when shaking hands at the outset.  Very disturbing.

  11. sxp151 says:

    1) McCain has NOT ONCE looked at Obama’s face. Not once. It’s actually quiet jarring once you notice. Obama has been looking at the audience, at Lehrer, at McCain, and at the camera at various times. If I were Obama, I would say, “John? John, look at me. John? John!”

    2) If I were Obama, I might ask McCain if he can hear the questions. So far he’s been responding to various questions with bits from his speeches, often uncorrelated to what he’s been asked. He was asked “What will you change after this financial bailout?” and started talking about nuclear power, drilling, etc, and complaining about Obama.

    3) Lehrer is a wimp. He’s just letting McCain talk right over him, whenever he tries to ask a question.

    4) McCain is repeating himself. He described his cutting spending five times, the “Miss Congeniality” joke twice, etc. In the spin sessions afterwards, they will air each of these once, and it won’t be nearly so embarrassing to him, but at this point it’s actually kind of sad.

    I started watching this debate pissed off at McCain for lying, but now I just feel sorry for him. He clearly did not prepare for this debate.

    • parsingreality says:

      Remember the conventions?  Remember how the Dems on stage were all huggy kissy and effusive with both their own and other families?

      Then in St. Paul the Stepford family came forth…..

    • sxp151 says:

      The other thing I’d say to McCain if I were debating him is to mention, “Republicans in the Senate set a record this year for filibusters. All-time record. Now, John wasn’t in the Senate for a lot of that time, but he’s obviously learned their techniques pretty well.”

    • Dabee47 says:

      I agree.  To us, it’s ridiculous repetition.  

      But to a lot of folks, it’s “staying on message”…

  12. parsingreality says:

    To say nothing of simplistic and very often, inaccurate.

    I feel Obama is more in control of both the debate generally and is offering better responses.

  13. Dabee47 says:

    McCain already has an ad up w/ video from the debate.

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

    I’m not commenting on the ad, just the fact that it’s up before the debate is even over!

  14. ClubTwitty says:

    like he needs a nap and its bedtime

  15. PERA hopeful says:

    (I’ve been called worse) but I just love Obama’s smile.  He is so much more expressive than McCain, and his expressions are congruent with what he’s saying.  McCain only has two expressions.  One of them is supposed to be a smile, but contrast Obama’s smile with that … whatever that thing is that McCain does instead of smile.

    McCain tells lots of stories, Obama doesn’t.  Both anecdotes and baldfaced lies.  “I know the veterans, I love them, and they know I love them.  I will take care of them.”  Nice voting for that GI Bill, John!

    “Two minutes gentlemen.” “Jim, when I came home from prison…”  DRINK!

  16. parsingreality says:

    Far too much emphasis on the militray and vets in his responses.  Repeatedly.

    Believe me, even as a 90% pacifist, I want the best care, the care we promised, for the vets.  Just no need to bring up vet funding four times, IMHO.  

  17. DavidThi808 says:

    I thought that the debate was relatively even – but by that token it means that Obama came across as every bit as presidential as McCain. If the question in the minds of people on the fence is “can Obama be president” – he made that a clear yes.

    But at the end McCain seemed to almost be pleading. And that doesn’t sell.

  18. DavidThi808 says:

    The Repub line basically went up for McCain and back to the middle. For The Dem and Independent it tended to go up with Obama and down for McCain, but did go up some times for McCain, and down some time for Obama.

    But the only time any of the lines ever went below the middle was McCain sometimes.

  19. DavidThi808 says:

    Here’s what I think is key – neither candidate made any significant mistake. There were little things one did better than the other. There were cases where one had a better point.

    But basically it was even. Both did very well. No game change. But…

    For McCain it means his campaign is back on track. That helps him.

    For Obama it means that he is now viewed as capable of being president and he remains in the lead.

    I think this helps Obama more than McCain.

    • parsingreality says:

      Rather disappointing, sort of dull.

      McCain did do better than I thought he would, but no home runs.

      Obama did as well as I thought he would, but no home runs.

      • sxp151 says:

        McCain’s best moment was (roughly), “You’re going to listen to Ahmedinijad say, ‘We’ll destroy Israel!’ and just respond with, ‘No you’re not’?”

        Obama’s best moment was “He doesn’t even want to meet with the leader of Spain!”

        • Ray Springfield says:

          Actually that is exactly what McCain or Obama would tell Ahmendinijad: no you are not.

          As Sen. Clinton answered, Iran would be destroyed. I think  actually by Israel before the USA would nuke Iran.

          I suppose that after Iran had been crystalized the USA could drop a few more to accentuate the point.

  20. PERA hopeful says:

    Joe Biden did the Democratic spin after the debate.  Sarah Palin was invited to give the Republican response; the Repubs declined on her bahalf and sent Rudy Giuliani instead.  Who thinks Sarah’s back in Alaska spending more time with her family?

    • WesternSlopeThought says:


      If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

    • divad says:

      …for a real bad case of the stoopids.

      • DavidThi808 says:

        from the HuffPo

        As The New Republic’s Michael Crowley noted during the post-debate coverage, Palin’s absence looked particularly awkward given the fact that Joe Biden was appearing all over the place:

        Amusing moment on CNN just now. Wolf Blitzer, coming out of a commercial:

        “We’ve been getting some emails from views out there wondering why we spent some time interviewing Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee and not Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee. We would have loved to interview–we’d still love to interview Sarah Palin. Unfortunately we asked, we didn’t get that interview…We’re hoping that Sarah Palin will join us at some point down the road.”

        I’m told that Biden appeared on every major network tonight except ABC (which only turned him down because Palin wasn’t available, on an equal-time sort of basis).

        It’s pretty strange when a candidate can’t trust his own running mate to be out there spinning on his behalf.

  21. Gilpin Guy says:

    to tie the deficit to the Republican Party.  McCain’s lame attempts to say that he is a great tax cutter would have been totally undermined by the record borrowing done during Republican administrations.  The only way that Republicans can avoid raising taxes for their wars is to borrowing money from hostile governments like China.  Obama should have brought up the reckless borrowing of Republicans and repeated the number 10 TRILLION dollars in debut again and again to emphasis what total phonies Republicans are to champion tax cuts while borrowing record amounts of money.

    • parsingreality says:

      …and then tries to say Obama doesn’t get it.

      A lot of mileage should be made of that.

      Mr. Military my civilian ass.  

      • sxp151 says:

        Along with most other days, which is how he ended up 894th out of 899 students at the Naval Academy.

      • Yokel says:

        Unfortunately, it’s comparing apples to oranges.

        The surge of troops was a tactic.

        The change in strategy to the more direct counterinsurgency strategy that we’ve come to call The Surge was, well, a strategy.  

        And since they didn’t just give General Petraeus a bunch of troops and say “Here.  Have at it” the strategy was indeed strategy, not tactics.

        • sxp151 says:

          thinking that if we could hold down some of the civil-war-type stuff, the Iraqi politicians could come together, get a bunch of compromises, pass some laws, and then there’d be no reason for people to start fighting again.

          It didn’t work, but that was the clearly enunciated strategy when the surge began. Here’s some discussion of the progress on this strategy, and here’s Bush explaining his “strategy.”

          As for the difference between “the surge” and “The Surge,” that’s a game you’re playing whose rules I don’t get.

          • Yokel says:

            The point isn’t “holding down some of the civil-war type stuff.”  The point is building the legitimacy of the government over the legitimacy of the insurgent groups from day one.  That means putting an Iraqi face on security – from the Awakening groups to the Sons of Iraq and so on – and then helping the Iraqi government rebuild afterward.

            It’s a coordinated strategy.  It’s not “let’s get security and let the government take care of everything else.”

            I very strongly recommend David Galula.  It’s only 99 pages, and it’s absolutely brilliant.

            Plus, that he was a Frog who understood this form of warfare is something in itself.

            That’s an old benchmark link.  A lot has happened in 9 months – I think even you can see that.  I heard 16 of 18 right now.  

            • sxp151 says:

              http://www.foxnews.com/story/0

              It’s from Fox News, so I assume that has some legitimacy for you. It says the Iraqi government has made progress on 15 of 18 benchmarks. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of?

              Unfortunately, it does not say the Iraqi government has MET those benchmarks. As for the ones on which no progress was made?

              Only two of the benchmarks – enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues – remained “unsatisfactory.”

              Yeah, just the two most important things in a country run on oil revenue and plagued by sectarian militias.

              One benchmark was deemed to have brought mixed results. The Iraqi army has made satisfactory progress on the goal of fairly enforcing the law, while the nation’s police force remains plagued by sectarianism, according to the administration assessment.

              And this, I’m sure, is doing a great job of building government legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

              You can say “the surge” or “The Surge” worked if you keep moving the goalposts, but the only thing I see that’s changed is that the Iraq war is no longer on the news. Judging by the Afghanistan standard, that doesn’t mean things are improving.

              As for reading about counterinsurgency from the guys who lost the Algerian war, no thanks. My goal is not to defeat an insurgency, it’s to not occupy a country in the first place.

              • Yokel says:

                You’d know why they were lagging – the point is to maintain unity while building up legitimacy.  Attacking head-on such divisive issues would alienate groups, and give the insurgent groups more people to fight for.

                Also, I’m sorry you don’t like war.  I don’t, either.  But we find ourselves in a global counterinsurgency.  You’d be wise to learn about it, if you care about it.

                • sxp151 says:

                  “I have no idea how we got here, but let’s just keep making the same mistakes over and over again.”

                  After all, the French defeated both the Algerians and the Vietnamese, the US defeated the Vietnamese, the British defeated the Americans, the Soviets defeated Afghanistan, the US defeated Afghanistan, the British defeated Afghanistan, Batista defeated Castro, Kai-Shek defeated Tse-Tung, Israel defeated Lebanon, and on the whole I think this counterinsurgency thing is going great.

                  Or it could be that real life isn’t like your book.

                  • Yokel says:

                    That counterinsurgency is impossible, and insurgency is the only way one can always and forever win a war?

                    Hardly.  Ask the Malays and the Greek Communists how it turned out for them.

                    • BlueCat says:

                      because the insurgents are the people who live there and the  foreigners conducting the counter insurgency can and usually do eventually go home when the cost outweighs the benefit.  

                      That’s why the colonial era is mainly over. That’s why the Vietnamese are back in control in their own country after generations of subjugation to foreign powers.  It’s pretty much why the USA exists.  

                      Insurgents or patriots, depending on your perspective, don’t have to win militarily. They just have to keep chipping away.  If they manage to keep it up long enough and cause enough cost in blood and treasure to the foreign power, the foreign power eventually pulls out and goes home because it can.  The insurgents ARE home and aren’t going anywhere. Their countrymen who allied with the foreigners are left holding the bag. That’s the way it works much more often than not.

              • Barron X says:

                .

                This is a source that has not been sympathetic to the “Karen Hughes” approach to foreign policy.

                http://www.americanprogress.or

                But I have to ask:

                is it really fair to judge Bush’s progress by the standards which he himself embraced ?

                If we substitute a “Karen Hughes” approach, we’ve actually already won in Iraq, simply based on the fact that the one who caused that failure is not being blamed for it.

                .

            • Barron X says:

              .

              Yokel,

              if you served in 5th Bn/ 19th SF, and if you’re old like me, maybe we served together.  

              In the training I completed, back in the 1970’s, “Counterinsurgency” was when US special forces went in to a foreign country and taught the legitimate government how to suppress an “insurgency.”

              Actually, back then US Army doctrine called it “IDAD,” Internal Defense and Development.

              The key part of the definition, of course, is the idea of “Legitimacy” of the government.  

              The key tactic of IDAD was for the host nation’s soldiers to get out among the locals and demonstrate concern for their welfare.  This supported a strategy of winning hearts and minds, where the real battle with insurgents takes place.

              Back then, we understood that it was impossible for US military forces to go into a foreign country to fight an insurgency.  Our troops would be “foreign” to the local population.  The natural response of ANY people to foreign occupation is Resistance.

              ………..  

              The problem is definitional.  If Iraqis are fighting Americans in Iraq,

              they cannot be “insurgents.”  

              “Insurgents” in Iraq can only fight an Iraqi government with which they disagree.  

              Almost anytime Iraqis are organizing and fighting foreign troops within their own borders,

              they are a Resistance against foreign colonial occupation.  

              The only other possibilities are in the case of a US Direct Action mission, of limited scope and duration, where Iraqis detect and fight US forces surreptitiously in their midst,

              or

              if US special forces are actually stirring up an insurgency against the ‘legitimate’ government, a mission we called Unconventional Warfare.  

              ……………

              Now, you can disagree, but I read translations of Iraqi newspapers, and the Iraqi people, even the majority Shi’a, from whence came al-Dawa and Nouri al-Maliki, say that Maliki is a puppet, installed and propped up by the foreign colonial occupation.  

              Flashback to July 4, 1776.  The Declaration of Independence “declares” that, to be legitimate, a government must have the “consent of the governed.”  

              Ergo, the fight in Iraq is not a counterinsurgency fight.  

              .

              • Yokel says:

                It is an Iraqi face on ops, whether it’s Awakening or SoI or MoI or MoD guys doing it.  That was the whole change of The Surge, and why it has worked.

                Also, these days, we call it FID.  And it’s what I think the solution to the Pakistan/Waziristan issue will be.  (Clearly it won’t be ignoring it, and clearly it won’t be bombing them anyway)

                • sxp151 says:

                  If you think the major change of 2007 was putting Iraqi face on things, you really are just bluffing your way through this whole argument.

                  Here’s a conservative blogger describing how awesomely that was going in 2005.

                  http://seekerblog.com/archives

                  It was called “Iraqization,” and it was as successful as Nixon’s “Vietnamization.”

                • Barron X says:

                  .

                  I actually bid on the contract to pay the “Sons of Iraq” to participate in the “Iraq Civil Service Corps” project.  

                  I actually read the solicitation issued by Joint Contracting Command – Iraq that spelled out who was to do what.  

                  I respect that you don’t have time to read original source materials and that you have to rely on news media to digest and present the news to you.  

                  If this wasn’t my business, my livelihood, I wouldn’t have the time to dig deeper and find out what’s really going on, either.  

                  .

    • DavidThi808 says:

      One of the top jobs of the VP is to present the spin after the debate. Where is she?

  22. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    I know Barack is not an attack dog – I personally like an attack quality in person – I still think he let McCain go on to many issues that Barack should have owned.

    Yeah, angry Black guy, I get it, but I hate seeing McCain walk on so many stupid actions that he should have been pinned to the wall on.

    It should have been a clear Obama victory, but now we have to debate who won.

    I hate when that happens!

    • sxp151 says:

      I think that’s enough. I posted above all the things I would have said, but I’m not a civil person. To some people, I would have come off as a jerk.

      Suppose Obama had said what I thought of saying: “John, you spent the week canceling and then uncanceling your campaign, jumping into the bailout negotiations only to delay them, and overall just being a drama queen for no good reason. John, you’re 72 years old. When are you going to grow up?” He would have impressed me and maybe you, but many people would have complained, and his polls probably would have dropped.

      Remember the nonsense over Gore sighing? The standards for Democrats are just different. Democrats have to be twice as smart, five times as polite, and if they’re black, ten times as competent. I think he’s doing things pretty much right, just judging by the polling evidence.

      • Danny the Red (hair) says:

        McCain was terrrible.

        People said Obama left points on the table.  Sure, but if he had picked them up Obama would have been charged with elder abuse.

        The focus groups are giving this to Obama.

        McCain=Past Obama=future

        Its over.

      • Half Glass Full says:

        The standards for Democrats are just different. Democrats have to be twice as smart, five times as polite, and if they’re black, ten times as competent. I think he’s doing things pretty much right, just judging by the polling evidence.

        You hit the nail on the head. As usual.

        Great observation.

      • ClubTwitty says:

        which seems to be reflected in polls.  Obama held his fire on McCain’s erratic and foolish behavior over the past few weeks, but his is just the first debate.  This was the one that was suppose to be on McCain’s turf and Obama came out well.

        Can’t wait for the VP debate, just wish it was the same format instead of one geared to allowing Sarah to just recite her talking points…

      • DavidThi808 says:

        Everyone knows McCain was all over the map on the bailout. Better to come across as presidential and hammer him on things people don’t know about.

  23. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews….

    This was the REPUBLICAN commentator

    Senator Obama showed a command of the issues, even though he’s grossly off base with his solutions. Someone’s been studying.

    -His ability to persuade through emotion. Obama’s opening statement and language during the beginning of the debate was much more relatable to the common voter.

    Obama came across as very, very likeable. I don’t care what anyone says. He was politealmost too polite-and exponentially more bipartisan, though his record indicates otherwise.

  24. Yokel says:

    “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”

    -Henry Kissinger

    Also, Obama refused to answer what he would cut given the looming massive outlays due to the financial thing (I won’t use the “c” word).  What was up with that?

    • sxp151 says:

      It was actually quite specific.

      McCain started talking about random nonsense. How he would veto all spending bills, eliminate earmarks, drill for oil, build nuclear reactors, and Obama will raise your taxes.

      Hey that’s great in a speech in Greeley, but it doesn’t answer the question in any coherent way.

      Here’s an example:

      LEHRER: Are you — what priorities would you adjust, as president, Senator McCain, because of the — because of the financial bailout cost?

      MCCAIN: Look, we, no matter what, we’ve got to cut spending. We have — as I said, we’ve let government get completely out of control.

      Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. It’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.

      The point — the point is — the point is, we need to examine every agency of government.

      First of all, by the way, I’d eliminate ethanol subsidies. I oppose ethanol subsidies.

      I think that we have to return — particularly in defense spending, which is the largest part of our appropriations — we have to do away with cost-plus contracts. We now have defense systems that the costs are completely out of control.

      We tried to build a little ship called the Littoral Combat Ship that was supposed to cost $140 million, ended up costing $400 million, and we still haven’t done it.

      So we need to have fixed-cost contracts. We need very badly to understand that defense spending is very important and vital, particularly in the new challenges we face in the world, but we have to get a lot of the cost overruns under control.

      I know how to do that.

      I’ve taken the liberty of emphasizing those parts of McCain’s answer that have nothing to do with the question, which was “What priorities would you adjust because of the financial bailout cost?” All the things McCain referred to were things he already wanted to cut, and therefore wouldn’t be affected by the bailout.

      • Yokel says:

        What world do you live in, where “some part of the energy plan” counts as “quite specific?”

        Compare that to No Earmarks, no Ethanol Subsidies, fixing Defense Acquisitions.  Even if you count “some part of the energy plan will have to wait” as specific, that’s 3 to 1 right there.  

        • sxp151 says:

          and if something goes wrong in a few days, they can take a while to rewrite. Obama named a specific part of his plans, and said a specific thing he would do: push back some of the goals of the energy plan. Which goals? That depends, and I’m sure he’ll think about it, find ya some, and bring em to ya!

          As for the things you capitalized, those are things McCain wants to do anyway. Which is fine, I’m not saying he’s wrong to do them, it’s just that has nothing to do with the question asked, which was “What will you change about your plan because of the bailout?”

          Please, respond with something relevant, or you’re wasting my time.

    • parsingreality says:

      Obama specifically said that you don’t start with discussions at the presidential level. You start much lower down through the diplomatic heirarchy.  Eventually you MIGHT get to the highest level.

      I don’t know if McCain (and his flying monkeys) can’t understand that or just flat refused to.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      that question Yokel.

      McCain carped and carped about cutting out earmarks as if it was the magic bullet.  The grim statistics are that even if you eliminated EVERY SINGLE earmark in the budget it only comes out to 18 BILLION dollars.  The projected deficit this year was about 483 BILLION dollars before all the bailouts.  The number right now is probably close to 600 BILLION dollars.

      600 – 18 = 582 BILLION dollar deficit

      Right now the country owes about 10 TRILLION dollars and pays several hundred billion dollars in interest payments from a two (2) TRILLION dollar budget.  McCain’s carping about some measly earmarks was insulting.

      Obama did nothing to show that he understands the critical need to stop the Republicans from borrowing more money to hide the fact that we need more tax revenues.  Tax breaks for the rich hasn’t worked to balance the budget.

      How are these candidates going to stop the bleeding of our budget without massive cuts in service or massive increases in tax revenue?  

  25. Yokel says:

    How did you Libs feel about the “Me, too!” moment where Obama had to read his bracelet to remember who he was talking about?

    That, to me, was about the only point where he was truly off-guard.  Besides the afore-mentioned “What will you cut?” question.

    • Aristotle says:

      because I was working late, but I will remark on what’s telling – that the only ‘pub posting here is you. Either the debate was a clear-cut victory for Obama or McCain failed to come across as very presidential.

      LB, where are you? I want to read your take.

    • parsingreality says:

      Or on the other hand McCain has a total woody on for the war, and his war, and our deceased.

      It’s all grandstanding for both of them.

      The big difference is that McCain wants to “bring honor” to his soldier by killing more in this worthless war; Obama wants to heed the advice of the mother of his dead soldier, “NO MORE!”

      • Yokel says:

        The central front of the war with Al Qaida (as defined by Osama bin Laden) is worthless?  Preventing another failed-state breeding-ground like Afghanistan is worthless?  Having the most experienced military in history regarding counterinsurgency strategy and tactics, while fighting a global counterinsurgency is worthless?  

        Hardly.

        • sxp151 says:

          depose its leader, disband its security forces and entire civilian government, and destroy the infrastructure, you’re quite likely to end up with a failed state. The war created this situation, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men haven’t done shit with it so far.

          As for what Osama bin Laden thinks, that’s not something I wet the bed thinking about every day. Do you?

        • parsingreality says:

          I thought it was in 2003 and now most Americans also do.  

          Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but you know that.  Iraq has bled military resources from Afghanistan where our problems festered, but you know that.  

          In fact, “worthless” is a bland understatemtn. “Disastorus fiasco of terrible American policy” might come closer.  

          • Yokel says:

            It’s 2008, and I welcome you to it.  Iraq is not a failed state, we have the most experienced military in history ready to continue the global counterinsurgency, there still hasn’t been a terrorist attack on American soil, and American forces are taking over Afghanistan again after the “follow our NATO allies” strategy you like so much failed miserably.  There.  You’re caught up.

            • Barron X says:

              .

              It’s being called the “Wall Street Bailout.”

              President Bush went on TV Thursday night to warn of financial “mushroom clouds” if we didn’t rush to war against “mortgage backed securities” WMD’s.

              He terrorized the US Congress into committing to print a trillion dollars and to stuff it into the pockets of the lobbyists who come calling,

              payback for the millions those same lobbyists stuffed in their pockets in years past.  

              .

            • sxp151 says:

              No wonder we can’t communicate with them. They’ve been in Bush fantasyland for eight years, where Bush is a genius:

              It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

              Fun Fact: Republicans have believed all of the things you listed ever since the Iraq war started. Every single year, we were winning in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And every single year, they’d admit, “Oh well of course that strategy from last year failed.” Usually because all the generals executing it were big liberals or something.

              I’ll bet Yokel believes he’s helping to win the war by blogging about it so fearlessly. Wasn’t that popular in 2004?

            • parsingreality says:

              General Westmoreland

              Right.  Again.  

    • Pam Bennett says:

      If the old guy does a stunt to evoke a strong emotional sensation to support his old thinking, then calling him on it is a good move.

      Maybe he won’t do it again.  But, I wouldn’t count on it.  He continually lies about his veep in training and her lies.  So this truth item is far down his list of talking points.

  26. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    Luntz is evil, but I respect his polling.

  27. Pam Bennett says:

    Old man Mccain reiterated his, and many of the old neo-cons, Iraq strategy.  “We lost in Viet Nam”  He is still fighting Viet Nam, but with Iraq.  Pulling out of Iraq is the same, in his mind, as the withdrawl from Viet Nam which to him and them is a loss of “face”.  That is why he is going to keep troops and bases there for then next century.

    In his world “losing” is everything, yet in all post WWII conflicts there is no more losing and winning. The world has changed, the set pieces of countries under families, such as Europe pre-WWII and particularly WWI no longer exists.  

    Iraq is their total focus, there is nothing else. Afganistan, not in sight.  Spain, somewhere, could be around Brazil but maybe not. Money, who cares as long as we do not “lose” Iraq.

    So the old guy had one focus of foreign policy. Iraq.  All his talking points brought him back to Iraq.

    His myoptic focus on Iraq, gave Obama the night and the future.

    • parsingreality says:

      What I was trying to say, so obvious once it was in front of me.  

      Thanks.  

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      It is obvious that McCain can’t think in any other terms than “WINNING” regardless of “the conditions on the ground”.  He has no idea how to leave Iraq period.  None.  We are in a tar patch setup by Bin Laden who induced George Bush to do something really stupid and now all John McCain can think about is “WINNING” what ever that means.

      • Yokel says:

        I mean, do you know when to leave without turning the place into a failed state, open for expanding influence by Arab and Persian spheres, and a breeding ground, Afghanistan-style, for more global terrorists?  

        It really is a tough question, and one you have to be very cautious about.  Indeed, in counterinsurgency, all you can do is continue to build the bridge for it, until you know you can safely walk across.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          It’s like when you give your kids the keys to their own car – you know they’re not really ready for that level of freedom, but you have to hope that they don’t make any mistakes that are really bad – and let them go.

          We have to kick the Iraq government out of the nest and force them to fly on their own. The longer we keep them in this culture of dependency, the harder it will be for them to solo when they do go on their own.

          And will they make it? We don’t know. India has had the death of it’s democracy predicted many times, yet it’s still doing fine. On the flip side Thailand which was doing well is now under a military dictatorship.

          The Iraqis will be the ones that decide what road they will take.

        • Danny the Red (hair) says:

          We gave Iraq to the Iranians no matter the outcome.

          Maliki, while not as close to Iran as some (he did his exile in Syria).  Iranian leaders are cheered when they drive through Baghdad. Does Bush get that reaction.

          Until we face the fact that we were rooked into advancing Iranian strategic aims we can not address reality.  We lost in Iraq in its strategic conception because we advanced our enemies strategic aims and destabilized a region when we needed to promote stability.

          The US always sees the actions of world actors  as if we are the primary focus of that world actor. The reality is that Osama (and Zawahiri) are focused on other throwing western leaning Apostate regimes.  The US is secondary.

          The way they do that is destabilize the region, drive up US negatives, create exhaustion on the US and drive a wedge between Muslim governments and their people.

          For al Qaeda: mission accomplished.  However, in Iraq al Qaeda didn’t get what they want–the apostate shia won the war.

          Iraq was a strategic mistake: all we can do is minimize it.  Truth is I don’t think we have to leave, but I think it has a 50% chance of setting off a civil war as the Shia kill off the Sunni tribes.

          Why must we leave? because that geenocide will happened no matter when we leave unless we develop a working relationsip with the Iranians.

          We need to get on the same page with Khamenei.  Make it clear that if the go nuke the Sauds will want nukes.  Make it clear that we share an enemy in Wahibism. Remind them that they have a long history of a tolerant multi-ethic society one that the west respects even when he have had conflict.  Remind them of their historical good relationship with the Jewish people.  And most of people let them know that in the long run they have more in common with the US and the west than they do with the Sauds.

          If we got on the same page with the Iranians we could leave Iraq without setting of a genocide, because the Iranians have influence we do not have.

        • parsingreality says:

          We made it a failed state.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          Every single penny we spend in Iraq is borrowed money.  Our latest estimates are 140 billion dollars a year in Iraqi costs and a national deficit of 483 billion dollars.  Bin Laden induced George Bush to invade an Arab country like Iraq and the tar patch has just sucked in the country with all that borrowed money.  Since our government is borrowing so much money there isn’t that much credit to go around.  How long to you continue to bankrupt our country all for the chimera of “WINNING” what ever that means to you?  Bin Laden has won a great triumph financially bleeding to death the western world’s most powerful nation knowing that their greed would doom their culture eventually.  Do you even really want to leave Iraq?  Do you really want our troops to come home or do you find it romantic to bankrupt our country and leave our men and women stranded in a foreign country?

    • Pityspatt says:

      I totally disagree with almost every aspect of your post. “…in all post WWII conflicts there is no more losing and winning…” Do you actually think that our enemies in the Mid East don’t care if they win or lose. That’s pretty naive — which was exactly McCain’s point.

      While I did not support going into Iraq, the truth is that, now, we’re there. If we pack it all up & go home, we’ll leave the entire region less stable than before we went in. Leaving without properly tying up ends would engender more enemies that we have now—supposedly what Obama doesn’t want to do.

      So, Obama’s contention that we never should have gone actually seems more ‘myopic’. It’s a moot point. He makes it because he wants to prove that he was right. Truthfully, however, McCain was right about the surge. A point he doesn’t seem to get credit for.

      And, he’s also right about meeting dictators without precondition. Kissinger was quoted today as supporting McCain’s position.

      • parsingreality says:

        And welcome aboard with the sudden influx of righy trolls, sockpuppets, and generally ill informed.  But your post seemed honest and so I’m responding.

        1.  Obama absolutely did give credit to the surge and gave McCain credit.  What debate did you watch?

        2.  This matter of meeting “with dictators” (Like Putin?) is in the nuance which righties have absolutely no aptitude for.  You guys think Obama will have Ahminijad (OWEII) over for tea on January 21st.  Obama has specifically said that we start at low level diplomacy, I infer secret meeting.  Nixon didn’t just walk into AF 1 and say, “Beijing, please.”  And Kissinger knows that difference if anyone does.  

        So, is it intentional, selective distortion or just an inability to differentiate?  

  28. DavidThi808 says:

    from Daily KOS

    And it was in watching the replay that I picked up my absolute favorite unsung moment of the debate.

    It came when  Senator McCain was stumbling with Ahmadinejad’s name. He was  stumbling hard, almost unable to get the name or any semblance of it pronounced.  Very quietly, but audibly Senator Obama can be heard saying something. In the first viewing, I knew he had said something there, but was unable to decipher exactly what  he had said.  In listening to the replay it’s easy to hear his comment.

    He quietly acknowledged to Senator McCain “That’s a tough one.”    When I heard his remark, his gracious nod to the Senator’s struggle to pronounce a very difficult name, his compassion for the man, I choked up. It humbled me.  It made me briefly look inward, and feel lesser for originally maybe hoping that it was some cutting barb. And it showed him as a man greater than politics,  greater for inspiring empathy and compassion for a fellow man.

    • sxp151 says:

      which could have seemed smug. This is very gracious.

      Reminds me of Bill Richardson’s story about one of the primary debates:

      Lamenting that he was never called upon during the numerous Democratic debates, he recalled being surprised when asked a question by the moderator of an undisclosed debate. “Needless to say, I wasn’t listening and I turned to Senator Obama in horror about to say, ‘Would you repeat the question,’ and Senator Obama whispered, he said, ‘Katrina. Katrina.’ And so I then gave my answer on Katrina,” Richardson said with a grin. “He could have thrown me under the bus, he but he stood behind me.”

      As for why I keep linking to Fox News, God only knows.

  29. Go Blue says:

    While watching the debate, I actually thought McCain won. He was consistently on the attack. He pushed out lie after lie and kept repeating them. I thought this would resonate with undecideds and low information. However, a republican friend (voted for Bush twice) called to tell me that last convinced him he can’t vote for McCain and caught himself thinking about voting for Obama. He kept asking (himself seemingly) “can I really vote for Obama?” He said M

    Last night format favored Obama. As the Rocky said today it was a debate of substance, not zingers. McCain was petty while Obama was Presidential.  

    • Go Blue says:

      Like I said, the format favored Obama. He was able to be direct, talk at McCain (while McCain couldn’t bring himself to look at Obama) and get his points across without being interrupted by the moderator.

      The more I watch, the more I know Obama won this debate which was supposedly on McCain’s strongest issue.

      BTW, Jim Lehrer was great!  

      • Pityspatt says:

        I totally disagree that Jim Lehrer did a good job. I thought he wasted tremendous time on the first question, repeatedly asking the candidates to elaborate further. He spend over 37 minutes (out of 90) on the first area of questioning.

  30. Go Blue says:

    From Time

    Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg ran a dial-group with 45 undecided voters in St. Louis during the debate, polling them before and after to judge how the event changed their reactions to Obama and McCain. The group was mostly middle-aged, split evenly among education and class lines, and was heavily comprised of Bush 2004 voters […]

    Both candidates saw their net favorability ratings rise over the course of the evening. McCain started off with a 22-point net and gained 9 points. But Obama went from a 6-point net favorability to plus-45, a shift of 39 points that placed him higher than McCain at the end of the debate (69% versus 62%).

    McCain was seen as the more negative of the two-by 7 points before the debate and by 26 points after. The audience did not like it when he went after Obama for being “naГЇve” or used his oft-repeated “what Senator Obama doesn’t understand” line. When the two clashed directly in the second half of the debate, with Obama repeatedly protesting McCain’s characterization of his statements or positions, the voter dials went down. Voters appear to have judged McCain too negative in those encounters and Obama more favorably.

    Obama was seen as Presidential, while McCain was seen as snide.  

  31. sarahscurry says:

    I cringed when I heard Obama say, “me too” when McCain told a story about a soldier and a promise and some of his military experience and a world he very much understands and belongs in. Why couldn’t Obama leave a story alone? Why did he have to make sure that he had to somehow “keep up” with a similiar story? It seemed so childish. So abosolutly immature. Come on . . . “me too?” I have a bracelet too? What a corny attempt to make sure he looked like he understood or somehow had a similiar story and had to “make sure” he received just as much attention in a world he doesn’t understand and hasn’t experienced (I haven’t either). I wouldn’t pretend that I do belong there! It would be an insult to those that have earned it. He hasn’t been a solider, he isn’t going to become a soldier or hero or soldier’s family somehow by wearing a bracelet. That’s someone else’s life, and they, not me or Obama have earned it. “Me too?” Yuk.

  32. Pityspatt says:

    Though this thread seems predominately opposed to McCain, I thought his remarks reflected more actual substance than Obama. In listening to what Obama said, I felt he simply doesn’t have the depth of understanding of foreign affairs John McCain has. I, too, thought his ‘me too’ comments seemed designed simply to sway the vote. Nevermind Palin’s qualifications, I feel increasingly uneasy with the idea of Obama occupying the commander in chief role.

    • ClubTwitty says:

      who would be a 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency?

      She’s reason enough to vote against McCain, which more and more and more and more moderates are waking up to.  

      Of course, McCain would be a disaster in his own right, and provides all the reason in the world to vote against a McCain/Palin presidency.  With McCain/Palin it truly is lose-lose.

    • Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

      Username: Pityspatt

      PersonId: 7969

      Created: Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 20:00:58 PM MDT  

    • RadioFreeDenver says:

      Are you kidding? What do you think McCain and Obama were doing out there — playing hopscotch? Of course they were trying to “sway the vote.”

      I know I shouldn’t be surprised by the “low knowledge” trolls that keep popping up here, but you have really lowered the bar. Congratulations.

      • Pityspatt says:

        Think whatever you want. Obama has repeatedly groomed himself to be more palatable to voters. What about the whole Rev. Jeremiah Wright debacle? Did he honestly distance himself from his pastor of nearly 20 years because it suddenly dawned on him that Rev. Wright’s comments were offensive and incendiary. No, he left because remaining affiliated with Rev. Wright would have likely cost him the election.

        McCain, to his credit, has voiced his opinion even when it wasn’t popular. Advising that a troop surge would reduce the sectarian violence in Iraq nearly cost him the nomination. But it was a strategy that worked. The defense experience Obama has had is playing Risk with his college buddies.

        I know that my opinions are not popular here, but as so called open-minded, free thinkers, I thought you libs could handle a dissenting opinion.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          That is why you are getting no respect here, because you are trying to sell that Saint John of McCain is perfect while Obama is the devil.

          We realize that they are both human beings. We realize that they are both very successful politicians and therefore operate and speak to gain political advantage.

          But here’s the thing – John McCain does not have any experience handling defense for this country. His service in the Navy, while admirable in many respects, didn’t teach him squat about what a president needs to know on this subject. If it did, then we have about 20,000 citizens (the number who have had similiar authority in the military) who should all be running for president.

          What we need in a president is one who can see the problems we face in all their complexity. Obama demonstrated that ability. McCain came across as another Bush who sees things in very simple ways – which would lead to additional disasters like Iraq.

          You want to say McCain will be better on foreign affairs? Then tell us why. And don’t claim sitting in a POW camp for 5 years is why because while his actions were admirable, they don’t apply to this job.

          • sxp151 says:

            “Reports of Liberal Open-mindedness Greatly Exaggerated”?

            Seriously? The original quote is “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” That’s a joke. It’s funny. They’re seriously quoting Mark Twain and surgically extracting all the humor just to be partisan?

            Well that’s just sad.

            • Sir Robin says:

              Paul Newman died yesterday. His liberalism got him on Nixon’s enemies list. We all know him as one of the great actors of our time, with a list of great movies like:

              Somebody Up There Likes Me (1956), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), The Hustler (1961), Hud (1963), Harper (1966), Cool Hand Luke (1967), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), The Sting (1973), Slap Shot (1977), The Verdict (1982).

              and the lesser known but wonderful:

              Paris Blues, The Secret War of Harry Frigg, WUSA, Sometimes a Great Notion, The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, Pocket Money, Buffalo Bill and the Indians or Sitting Bull’s History Lesson, Fat Man and Little Boy, Nobody’s Fool, Twilight.

              His “Newman’s Own” food line contributed more than $250 million to charities, and his “Hole in the Wall Camps” for terminally ill kids are a most wonderful tribute to his heart, grace, humanity and generosity.

              I won’t sully his name attempting to contrast him with any particularly great conservative icons contributions….I can’t think of any right now anyway.

              He always played a cool hand, and will always be fondly remembered.

          • Pityspatt says:

            1958 to 1981 – Enlisted in the U.S. Navy leaving with a rank of Captain

            1977 – Served as the Navy’s liaison to the U.S. Senate

            1982 – Elected to the U.S. Congress, participated in negotiating release of POW/MIA’s

            1986 – Elected to U.S. Senate, began participation in legislation related to every major armed conflict, including Central America, Desert Storm/Kuwaiti Crisis, Somalia, Yugoslavia and post-911 Iraqi and Afghanistani conflicts.

            1987 – Became a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation (overseeing global warming issues)

            1991 to 1993 – Member of the Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA affairs

            Has personally met with world leaders from virtually every major country/region, including Russia, China, India, Israel, Iraq, other Middle Eastern countries, European and NATO allies, central American and African nations.

            He also has the sound endorsement of Henry Kissinger, who Obama quoted as opposing McCain’s position on meeting with rogue leaders without precondition.

            “Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says, ‘Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next president of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.'”

            Christian Science Monitor, 09/28/08

            So, please, do tell, what are Barack Obama’s (not Joe Biden’s) qualifications in the area of foreign affairs?

            • sxp151 says:

              is that Henry Kissinger endorsed the other guy.

            • DavidThi808 says:

              The Navy stuff is irrelevant – it’s operating a very small part of the military which is worlds removed from should the military be used, and if so, how.

              He has done a lot on POW/MIA efforts and normalizing relations with Vietnam. For that he deserves a big thank you. But I don’t see how it provides any skills that the president needs today.

              On the various wars we’ve gotten in to while he’s been in the Senate, yes he voted on them. And he has spent time tracking what has occured with each. And we have a track record of his statements on each.

              And this is where it is interesting, because McCain has been wrong much more often than he has been right when it comes to foreign affairs. Especially when it comes to strategic decision regarding sending our troops into harms way.

              So how does being wrong most of the time mean he’s qualified to be president? (Yes, I know Bush has been wrong most of the time – but he’s been a horrible president.)

              • Pityspatt says:

                I’ll admit neither of these candidates is ideal. If it were my choice, I’d rather have seen a race that included other candidates. But reality dictates that it is what it is. And, we have to choose who is better among these two candidates.

                You argue that McCain’s military experience isn’t relevant. My response is: What experience does Obama bring to the table? No, being enlisted in the Navy doesn’t independently qualify one to be commander in chief, but it is experience. It should be noted that he also graduated from the Naval Academy, which would have required he study defense and conflict strategy.

                The problem with Obama is that he is minimally experienced, especially in the area of foreign affairs. He was sworn into office on 01/04/05 and served on the Foreign Relations Committee, among others. In February, 2007, he announced his candidacy for President. Does roughly two years sitting on a committee qualify him to be commander-in-chief?

                Even Bill Clinton (who I’d vote for again any day of the week) says Obama’s experience in the Senate is minimal because, once he announced his candidacy for president, his attention was wholly drawn into his campaign.

                “He (Clinton) told interviewer Charlie Rose that Americans would be taking a “risk” by voting for close rival Barack Obama, saying the junior senator from Illinois wasn’t ready to be president. “If you listen to the people who are most strongly for [Obama], they say basically we have to throw away all these experienced people because they have been through the wars of the 1990s,” Clinton told Rose for the PBS show that aired Friday, “Obama supporters say they want someone who started running for president a year after he became a senator because he’s fresh, he’s new, he’s never made a mistake, and he has massive political skills. And we’re willing to risk it…That’s like saying that because 100 percent of medical malpractice [is] committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery, I’ll get a chef or plumber to do it.”

                NYPost, 12/15/07

                Again, I’ll issue the challenge, what specific experience in the area of foreign policy would Obama bring to the presidency?

                • parsingreality says:

                  His “experience” is that he is smarter than two John McCains, can learn fast, can learn from other’s successes and mistakes, and can bring fresh ideas to the table that McCain can’t.

                  Very few presidents bring much FPE to the table.  Poppy Bush was an exception due to his CIA and diplomacy experiences.  His son? Ha ha ha. Getting drunk in Mexico.  Clinton? Living in the UK while at Oxford.  Reagan?  Mexican grape pickers. Ford?

                  With few exceptions, FPE is OJT.  

                  • Danny the Red (hair) says:

                    When Obama talks about foriegn policy he reminds me of Poppy Bush.  He has that pragmatic realist diplomatic language.

                    He lacks the experience, but so does McCain. McCain hasn’t negotiated anything, he hasn’t managed our allies, he hasn’t used the organ’s of international policy.

                    I find it interesting that all the vietnam vets in the congress want out of Iraq, except McCain.  We all know McCain’s POW experience was formative, but its as if by being trapped in a 6X10 cell his perspective on the conflict is trapped by those 4 walls.  The other Vets see the much broader social impacts of fighting a war without popular support.

                    Also of note McCain mentioned saying that the Vets were treated very badly when he came home and he hated to “see” that.  At the time I remember thinking we took 3 great lessons out of Vietnam as a society: 1. Volunteers make better warriors 2. America will only fight 2 years without a good reason, more than that needs strong justification. 3. Hate the war, not the warrior.

                    But after the debate, I was thinking McCain didn’t “see” anything having to do with troops coming home.  He was one of the last of the troops to come home and he was treated like a hero (rightly so)– it vaulted him into celebrity status.  By the time McCain got home no one was protesting the war.

                    He didn’t see the social disruption, he heard about it.  Its reflected in his war college(?) thesis where he blamed the media for promoting the negative environment for the soldier rather than recognizing that it was simply that the public did not support the war and people who didn’t support the war were treated as traitors by the media until very late in 67.

                    John McCain is trapped in the past because he was a prisoner during 5 of the most important years in american history.  Its why he opposed the MLK holiday and later explained his opposition as “he just hadn’t studied it enough”.  Study the civil right movement? He likes to point out he was tied up during Woodstock, but he also missed the assasination on King and RFK, the Urban riots and rending of the unified america.

                    foriegn policy blunders like Iraq flow back to america in ways beyond our security and he just has no clue about it.

                  • Pityspatt says:

                    Few of the governors-turned-presidents had FPE, though they did have executive experience–another thing Obama lacks. Perhaps it wouldn’t be difficult to overcome the learning curve, if one had ever experienced being independently ‘in charge’ of anything.

                    The vast majority Senator’s who’ve run for President did have some foreign policy experience…Sen. Kennedy and Sen./VP Nixon (for what it was worth) had fairly extensive FPE.

                    The idea that Obama makes up for his lack of experience by his intelligence leads one to recall how intelligent Jimmy Carter was supposed to be. Liberals touted his qualifications as a scientist and scholar. And, remember how dismally he failed in the area of foreign policy? Perhaps, if Obama does get elected the same think will happen–citizens, so disgusted with his incompetence, will swing conservative again for another 12 year run.

        • RadioFreeDenver says:

          How do you know who I support or if I’m liberal or conservative? I never mentioned anything about what either candidate said.

          Here’s what happened. You said something patently stupid, I called you on it, and you changed the subject. See troll:

          someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

          Now, go crawl back under your bridge before you miss the three billy goats gruff.

          • Pityspatt says:

            1. I assumed that if someone posted “…if that’s what they mean by (the term) “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a Liberal…” (comment made by you on 8/20/08, 20:13:07) they’d likely identify themselves as tending toward the left.

            2. With regard to your accusation that I was posting ‘off topic,’ I was responding to your comment, “What do you think McCain and Obama were doing out there — playing hopscotch? Of course they were trying to “sway the vote.””

            My response: Obama has deceptively tried to make himself more attractive to the average joe/jane, middle class, undecided voter, which was the reason he distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright. It’s also the reason that he suddenly decided off-shore drilling wasn’t such a bad idea, that expanding nuclear power might be O.K. [‘Yesterday, after signaling opposition to nuclear power, he told Democratic governors he’s open to expanding it.’ New York Post] and that he repositioned himself on the Patriot Act. Though seemingly minor, it’s also the reason that, though a life-long cigarette smoker until very recently, he quit smoking altogether. If one were such an upstanding citizen with real conviction, why would they need to constantly reshape their perspective and shave the edges off of their personality?

            Although you keep calling me names, RadioFreeDenver, I’ve not heard you actually respond to my posts. In which case, who, between us, is the someone who is posting “with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response.” Calling people names isn’t proving your point.

            • Sir Robin says:

              Here’s a short list:

              * McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

              * McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

              * In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

              * McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

              * McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

              * McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

              * McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

              * McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

              * McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

              * McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

              * And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

              h/t carpetbagger

              It’s ok to change one’s mind. But to make outright falsehoods…..like, “I fight for the little guy”, or, “The fundamentals of the American economy are strong”….well, WLJ has done a superb job tracking McCain’s lies…..

              More importantly, to this reader, McCain is most importantly misguided in his approach to foreign policy because he’s a warmonger. He’s in the pocket of the military-industrial complex.  

  33. Pityspatt says:

    Alright, Sir Robin, here are 20 Obama flip-flops to trump your 10 on McCain. If you need more, just let me know…

    1. Despite Pledging To Accept Public Financing, Barack Obama Has Reversed His Position And Opted Out Of The System.

    2. Barack Obama Is Backtracking On His Support For Unilaterally Renegotiating NAFTA

    Barack Obama Is Considering Reducing Corporate Taxes Despite Having Called Corporate Tax Cuts “The Exact Wrong Prescription For America.”

    3. Barack Obama Has Changed Positions On The D.C. Handgun Ban.

    4. Barack Obama Has Shifted From Opposing Welfare Reform To Celebrating Welfare Reform In A Television Ad.

    5. As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Criticizes The Administration’s Energy Policy Despite Having Voted For The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill.

    6. Barack Obama Has Shifted Positions On Nuclear Power.

    7. Obama Adviser Said Obama Was Not Opposed To An Individual Health Care Mandate Despite His Opposition During The Primary.

    8. During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Filibuster Any Bill Which Contained Immunity For Telecommunications Companies Involved In Electronic Surveillance, But Now Backs A Compromise Bill.

    9. Barack Obama Disagreed With The Supreme Court Decision Striking Down The Use Of The Death Penalty For A Convicted Child Rapist Although In The Past He Opposed The Death Penalty.

    10. Barack Obama Has Backtracked From His Earlier Commitment To Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror “Without Precondition.”

    11. After Saying Jerusalem Should Be “Undivided,” Barack Obama Has Since Backtracked.

    12.As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Has Backed Away From His Earlier Support For Normalized Relations With Cuba And Ending The Embargo.

    13. Barack Obama Is Against The California Ballot Measure Banning Gay Marriage Despite His Assertion That Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman.

    14. Barack Obama Says That “Mental Distress” Should Not Be Reason For A Late Term Abortion Which Contradicts His Past Extreme Pro-Abortion Views.

    15. Barack Obama Said He Would Debate “Anywhere, Anytime” But Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings.

    16. Obama now says he’s “open” to oil drilling.

    17. Obama doesn’t know correct stance on Georgia.

    18. Obama was friends with domestic terrorist William Ayers and then “denounced” him.

    19. Obama considers the Surge a success.

    20. Obama changes position on illegal immigration, saying “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.”

    • Sir Robin says:

      But lying as McCain does….not ok. Is that simple enough for you?

    • sxp151 says:

      Capitalizing every word of a sentence? Kind of looks like you copied and pasted.

      I wonder where from… If only we had the technology to search for phrases on the internets… Oh wait, here it is.

      http://www.johnmccain.com/Info

      • Pityspatt says:

        Obama is the one who has lied. REPEATEDLY. How can someone ‘change their mind’ so often and so quickly, without giving the appearance of pandering to voters? Answer: They can’t.

        Is not telling one group of people you support gay marriage and then turning right around and saying marriage is meant to take place between a man and a woman not a deception. Either you are lying to one or the other. Or, you’re so deluded, you’ll do anything to get elected. To put this in perspective: Hillary Clinton didn’t waffle nearly as much on the issues.

        Furthermore, your information is wrong. McCain-Feingold did pass; it was Obama who lied about his intention to accept public financing then changed his mind. Also, if you listened to the debate, McCain is not ‘pro ethanol’; he’s not in favor of giving an ethanol subsidy to farmers, contradicting your claim.

        Also, what evidence do you have that McCain is a ‘war monger.’ O.K., so McCain has been in office since Obama was barely out of high school and has had the opportunity to vote on legislation pertaining to all major conflicts between 1981 and 2005, prior to Obama’s entering Congress. If that’s your proof, you’ve just conceded my point. McCain has more experience than Obama.

        No one on this website has yet answered my question: What does Obama’s foreign policy experience consist of? (And please do not bore me with a litany of Joe Biden’s qualifications.)

          • Pityspatt says:

            Just like a liberal: When pushed to expound on their Obama’s qualifications, they change the subject to Sarah Palin. Do you not get it? Sarah Palin is not running against Obama, John McCain is. Let’s not confuse the issue.

            Funny, how so many members of his own party criticized Obama for lack of experience during the primaries. Now they’ve all jumped on the band wagon. If his ‘judgment’ is so sound, how do you explain his continued attendance for nearly 20 years of a church whose leader (who he likened to an ‘old Uncle’) claimed the government has funneled crack cocaine to its minorities, that the United States was blame for the 911 attacks, and claimed government leaders are on the take from the K.K.K. calling America the U.S. of K.K.K.  

            Is this not divisive? Though it would be deplorable for whites to criticize blacks based on their color-it was apparently O.K. by Obama’s standards to listen, week after week, to sermons that emphasized white stereotypes. So Go Blue, is this the ‘good judgement’ you’re speaking of?

            Or, maybe associating himself (for 13 years) and taking money from slumlord patron Tony Rezko is the good judgement to which you alluded. Maybe, it was receiving in excess of $800,000 free and clear in the house-purchase deal entered into by the Obamas and Rezko’s wife.  

            When you boil the water away, you realize Obama is just another inexperienced, corrupt politician.

            • Go Blue says:

              Did you even play the video? It had absolutely NOTHING to do with Sarah Palin, so why are you changing the subject? Just like a typical low information conservative spewing talking points, you have no grasp of the issues or reality.

              Admit it. McCain is just a very OLD and very ANGRY DC politician who has corporate lobbyist pulling his strings.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.