McCain and Obama

[VanDaRo]

What is a "credible source" nowadays? AP, Reuters, NY Times?

Mainstream media Leftist have no credibilty. Their bias led them
into scandals like RatherGate, published dozens of obviously
Photoshopped and staged images as authentic, and
published dastardly lies about American soldiers. As I
mentioned at the end of my previous post, mainstream
media will never mine Obama's past as it should.

Dude, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. Obama is trying to unite this country under some common themes and provide for maximum prosperity. McCain seems bent on fracturing the country under a platform of strict individualism, trickle down economics reminiscent of the feudal system, and isolation of less fortunate.

Has it ever dawned you that maybe the MSM is not actually leaning left with some sort of agenda. Maybe, just maybe, it is because these journalists have chosen to favor the most reasonable solutions to the issues as they see it. If that happens to jive with the liberal perspective, then so be it. Hating or trying to discredit the mainstream media simply because they choose not to define every single topic in terms of the absolute or personal profit is SHALLOW. Shallow beyond good reason.

You cannot possibly look at the McCain plan and determine that it is the best for the welfare of your aging mother, our young children's education in our public schools, the long-term capability of the military, the status of America's reputation globally, our collective quality of life, or the basic human right to health care. It just isn't possible. McRage can't win a debate with Obama because he simply doesn't have the ammunition or a decent gun to throw it with. He stands for further fracturing of the society and hopelessness for millions. Obama has the high ground on virtually every issue. That is why he is ahead in the polls and the majority of the media sides with him.

And that is not the fault of the MSM. Simply because they choose to identify with Kerry or Obama in the last couple of election cycles doesn't imply stupidity or evil intentions -- Just a reasoned and thoughtful desire aimed at a better future for this country.

I really feel sorry for you. I am certain that my rant will not change your mind and you'll cast your vote in support of another 4 years of a clownshoe-organization. GWB has been the laughing stock of the rest of the developed world for quite some time now (and some of that reflects on us American citizenry), and if JM gets elected that derision will fall right on the faces of the American people. Our judgment will be questioned. -- Y'know, like when we shook our heads in dismay when the Iranians, Palestinians and Venezuelans voted in their questionable leaders. I pray that the American electorate has the common sense to not make that mistake.

~VDR

 

[Scumurculum]

What is a "credible source" nowadays? AP, Reuters, NY Times?

I guess you mean Fox News

 

[Rich]

Mainstream media Leftist have no credibilty.

This argument is soooo tired. All the media is a bunch of leftists and liberals and completely biased. Give it a rest, already. There is plenty of real journalism going on out there, and there is plenty of bias on both sides in the media. That is because the media is just a reflection of who we are as a nation. All these reporters, anchors, news producers, and corporate owners, they are all americans! So please give it a rest with the whole media bias thing.

So let's go with today's credible journalists:
bloggers. Which is to say, you and me. Let's see what
Google turns up and decide for ourselves if it's credible...

So while you reject the whole of mainstream media as being too leftist (the same accusation you make against Obama, interestingly), your "credible" sources for Obama's "close associations" are a former black panther lawyer and a republican pundit shilling for his new book which is critical of Obama. Yeah, those are much more credible than the mainstream media. Oh, and **** Morris, who goes on about Obama's sitting on the board with Ayers. Sitting on a board together. Yes, that is a close association indeed. Who were all the other people who sat on that board? They should be castigated as well. And who funded that organization? They should be firebranded.

Tell me, Brian. Why is it no one is criticizing and castigating the Annenbergs (big, rich, republican donors) who allowed Ayers on this board and gave him so much money to give away? Why are they not being called out for their "associations" with this "radical socialist terrorist?" I'll tell you why. Because they are republicans and they have a lot of money and they aren't a black guy running for the presidency on the democratic ticket. The whole Ayers "controversy" is just a big contrived fear-based smoke screen, and honestly I am surprised you are falling for it, as smart as you are.

The rest of your comment is just a bunch of innuendo and supposition. And it really all bases Obama's inherent evil on this:

CliffNotes version: Obama is hiding a lot about his Leftist, activist past.

You use the word leftist as a dirty word for liberals. I personally don't think liberal thought is so bad, so I don't buy into your use of the word as a scare tactic. It may scare a right-wingnut (see, I can use labels too) but it doesn't scare a moderate liberal like me. Likewise, activism doesn't scare me either. We wouldn't be near as far along as we are today if it weren't for a lot of activism in the sixties that jumpstarted this nation down a better path.

You say Obama is hiding his past. I say Obama is intelligent enough to not rise to the bait of these types of smear campaigns and get drawn off message. He is pushing a message of unity, hope, and change that resonates. And that scare the conservatives out of their minds. And the only answer they have is to come up with a campaign based on smears and fears, just as they did in the last two presidential campaigns.

Did you ever stop to think that if the media is all leftist, and the majority of voters in this country (at least in this election) are appearing to lean leftist, that maybe you are just too rightist for this country? Just a thought. Maybe we all should try to move just a little more toward the middle so that we can all get along and enjoy our country.

To sum up, I think you are just falling victim to extreme right-wing scare tactics about how our country is going to turn into a socialist-communist-nazi-muslim nightmare if Obama gets elected. I promise you . . . it just ain't going to happen.

 

[Len44]

Rich, once again -- VERY well said. Thanks for jumping in.

 

[Rich]

Andrew Sullivan, Larry Hunter, Douglas Kmiec, William Donaldson, David Ruder, Susan Eisenhower, David Friedman, Christopher Buckley . . . and now . . . Colin Powell (among many others). The list of conservatives who have come out in support of Barack Obama is enough to make your head spin.

Well, go ahead and add two more to the growing list. Scott McClellan, Bush's former press secretary and just one more member of the Bush administration who was lied to and put up in front of the media to promote the administration's lies, is now coming out in support of Obama. And, like Powell, I am sure he will be castigated as a vengeful, closet liberal. Amazing how many of these closet liberals made it into the Bush administration.

Also, the former republican Massachussetts governor, William Weld, has come out in support of Obama. I guess if all these guys are viewed as closet liberals by the right-wing (i.e. not "real" conservatives), but they have been members of the republican party for so long, then they must be fairly centrist. And the fact that they are all coming out for Obama is a pretty good indication of which one of these candidates is capable of unifying this country and appealing to both sides and the center.

I just think it is funny that people continue to try to push the argument that Obama is the most leftist lefty that there ever was, as Brian does in this thread, but they have no argument to explain why all these conservatives are coming out in support of him, other than saying that none of them are "real" conservatives. That argument smacks of Palin's recent attempts to categorize Obama supporters as not being "real" americans. That is simply pitiful.

McCain has built his career on being a centrist, not a "real" conservative. And yet, all of these conservatives are coming out in support of the supposedly leftist, socialist Obama. That just doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, these folks see through the ruse of fears and smears that the right-wing of their party has been practicing against every democratic candidate for the last fifty years. Perhaps they see the man Obama for what he really is: a leader capable of accomplishing great things. Someone who can bring respect back to the White House and restore our image around the world as a country of freedom and liberty. And they see the man McCain for who he really is: an old, tired curmudgeon who exhibits poor judgment and has no real plan to move this country forward. One who is trying to win the election solely by attacking the character of his opponent. In other words, one who will just continue four more years of the same divisive, ineffective politics we have seen for the last eight years. And they have decided that it is time for a Change.

 

[Rich]

Update:

The Wall Street Journal finds this trend interesting enough to write an article on it:

Obamacans: Prominent Republicans Line Up Behind Obama

Turns out you can add former McCain advisor Charles Fried to the list! His stated reason is the idiotic pick of Palin as Vice Presidential running mate during a time of National Crisis.

From The Plank:

Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States. Since then, he has been prominently associated with several Republican leaders and candidates, most recently John McCain, for whom he expressed his enthusiastic support in January.

This week, Fried announced that he has voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to Trevor Potter, the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he asked that his name be removed from the several campaign-related committees on which he serves. In that letter, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision "is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."

Fried is exceptionally thoughtful and principled; his vote for Obama is especially noteworthy.

 

[Len44]

One who is trying to win the election solely by attacking the character of his opponent. In other words, one who will just continue four more years of the same divisive, ineffective politics we have seen for the last eight years. And they have decided that it is time for a Change.

"The Politics of Personal Destruction."

Thank You Karl Rove...

What an A$$... He has brought great harm to our Country, and I believe he is a traitor to boot (leak of CIA identity, of which he was smack in the middle).

Just a very sad time for our Country...

 

[twich54]

Is it November 5th yet ??????????????????

 

[HsvToolFool]

You folks are proving the point I made in an earlier post.
No one who would vote Obama, would consider voting for
McCain and vice versa. The nation is completely divided,
and I think civil war will be the eventual outcome. No
politician can heal this rift.

Obama is trying to unite this country...

Exactly what stance has Obama adopted which "reaches
out" to conservatives and libertarians? Which of his policies
could they possibly tolerate, much less appeals to their
core beliefs? Did Obama vote conservatively on any issue
in the US Senate or in IL, or is he just blowing smoke during
a national election? Given his political origins and voting
records, the answer is obvious. There's nothing new about
the failed 1960s socialist ideology he espouses.

Maybe, just maybe, it is because these journalists have chosen to favor the most reasonable solutions to the issues as they see it.

Which, by definition, is an agenda! If the press doesn't report
facts without ommision or editorializing, they are useless to
a free society. It's extremely unhealthy! When the press
chooses a "side", they effectively become government
owned and operated. They will put one party in power and
the incestuous relationship cannot be broken.

As I type this, the top ten stories on ABC New’s The Blotter
site are...

• Troopergate Probe OK, AK Supremes Say
• Todd Palin Pushed Firing for Years, Probe Told
• Let’s Get Ready to Rumble!
• Todd Speaks! (Kind of)
• Palin Aides to Testify
• Troopergate Heads to High Court
• Troopergate Suits Tossed
• Another Private Palin Email Account?
• Probe Challenges Head to Court
• Troopergate Suit “Political, Not Legal,” Lawmakers Charge

Are you kidding me?! No bias? Is this is ABC News or
DailyKos?

Meanwhile, millions appear to be unaccounted for from the
Annenberg Challenge coffers, the public records were witheld
by Ayers and Obama for months (very suspicious!), yet
not one story in the mainstream has mentioned the issue.

This argument is soooo tired. All the media is a bunch of leftists and liberals and completely biased. Give it a rest, already.

Since 64% of likely voters have the exact same percerption
(97% of Republicans!), and most scholary studies back it up,
there is most certainly something to it. I'll never "give it a
rest" until genuine reforms occur and our intelligence is no
longer insulted on a daily basis. How can you trust the
corporations responsible for the journalistic scandals listed
in my previous post?

Understand this: I don't have a problem with the press
muckraking around Nowhere Alaska trying to make a
mountain out of an unstable state trooper who was rightly
fired (and the partisan dummy who should have fired him).
But the press must show the same level of scrutiny
for Obama's political origins in Chicago. When a leftist
scandal breaks, the press must explore the issue with the
same zeal as when a conservative is involved. It appears
some serious corruption besides Rezko's house deal is
being glossed over. You've not refuted any of the points
I've made regarding his connections to extreme Leftists
like Ayers and McKnight. How can a real, hard-boiled
journalist not be slavering over the idea of uncovering
corruption in the Chicago political machine? It's like a right
of passage for a real journalist.

As for ABC, every time they use the phrase "TrooperGate"
most people recall Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary back in
Arkansas. "Nah, let's not choose a new name. Nobody
remembers Bill Clinton's bimbo eruptions." Idiots.

Well, go ahead and add two more to the growing list. Scott McClellan...

You mean "Sour Grapes" McClellan? The dummy who
was fired, allowed a Leftist editor to revise his book, and
made himself look like an *****? Oh yeah, he's a real
conservative all right.

Also, the former republican Massachussetts governor, William Weld...

You're really disappointing me Rich. That's just sad. Yes,
Massachussetts is a well-known Conservative stronghold.
I believe the recent SCOTUS decision overturned their
draconian gun-ban laws. Laws supported by the best
example of a RINO possible, William Weld. Do you even
look up who these people are before you post?
Google is your friend.

These are all the scummiest, inside-the-beltway, career
politicians and bureaucrats imaginable. It doesn't matter if
they have a "D" or "R" next to their name. It's just a game
of poker to them. Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, Chris Dodd,
Trent Lott. They're all the same.

Here's an equivalency for you Rich: Joseph Lieberman. I'm
sure his endoresment of McCain and support for Bush's
policies carries a lot of weight with Obama voters (cue
Gilbert Gottfried as Iago the parrot yelling, "NOT!").

 

[Scumurculum]

You folks are proving the point I made in an earlier post.
No one who would vote Obama, would consider voting for
McCain and vice versa. The nation is completely divided,
and I think civil war will be the eventual outcome. No
politician can heal this rift.

Hsv.
I am not American however I have just spent a month in the states and I have been watching your election with great interest.

The likely move from one administration to another is showing nothing but a healthy democracy in action.

America has been governed by the republicans for 8 years, now it seems they want change.

SO WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?

WHERE DOES THIS CIVIL WAR GARBAGE COME FROM?

Where is this great rift in America?

Just like my own county the majority of voters are rusted onto their particular party. Regime change is brought about by the 10-20 percent of voters who swing.

Last two elections, most of them voted republican, this election it appears most will vote democrat.

The same thing happened in November 07 in Australia, the Conservative government (liberal party - yes ironic) was voted out and now the Labor Party is in power ( centre left)

In your election a number of previous high profile republican supporters now indicate support for the Democratic candidate.

As I said before: a good healthy democracy in action !!!!!!!

Both sides of politics have their more hardcore possibly even extreme supporters (you clearly being an example) This has always been the case.

So I don’t know where this civil war crap is coming from sounds like it is coming from a rather twisted and very scary world view.

So before you attack me as some form of deluded liberal I am actually one of those swinging voters that has voted both liberal and conservative depending on the policies of the time.

I therefore find it UTTERLY ABHORRENT!!! that someone is willing to generate the spectre of political violence just because it seems that the so called “other team” is probably going to win. (This goes for people on both sides of politics)

Shame on you sir!!!!

 

[kwr]

You folks are proving the point I made in an earlier post.
No one who would vote Obama, would consider voting for
McCain and vice versa. The nation is completely divided,
and I think civil war will be the eventual outcome. No
politician can heal this rift.

Civil war - civil war? Now that is an extremist view. I note that there is a healthy regard for rights but not for the attending obligations. The governance structure of the USA is the only stable example of that structure in the world. Most times it deteriorates to a dictatorship .

In Australia the transition of power is notable for the taking of afternoon tea as the outgoing primeminister and spouse greet the incoming primeminister and spouse at the official government residence.

Like many Australians I despised the previous Australian administration and was relieved to see them depart from power - but pick up a gun and start a war???

Opinions like this are what give the rest of the world the impression that Americans are a bunch of hicks with some frightening toys.

Kevin

 

[Scumurculum]

OOH Kevin I wish to disagree with you.

The majority of americans are moderate reasonable people.

While myself and much of the world has had big concerns about recent foreign policy decisions of the US, eg IRAQ and Guantanamo etc

I think the "hicks" remark is inflammatory, and not helpful and I am certain HSV's views are not representative of the American people.

By the way, whether we liked it or not, Aussie troops were fighting beside the US in Iraq.

Also political transition in Australia has not always been "tea and bikkies". The aftermath of the dismissal in 1975 was hardly a smooth transition

 

[risabet]

You folks are proving the point I made in an earlier post.
No one who would vote Obama, would consider voting for
McCain and vice versa. The nation is completely divided,
and I think civil war will be the eventual outcome. No
politician can heal this rift.

True, I would NEVER vote for McCain, not due to his Republican affiliation, but due to the fact that his beliefs don't represent mine. I believe that that is the only basis for voting decisions. Where candidates stand on actual, real issues, not BS issues like abortion (you don't like it, don't have one) and gay marriage (I doubt the world will end either way, but what interest do you have in it if you aren't gay). The Radical Right, specifically the evangelical wing of the RP would foist their beliefs on all of us and THAT is creating the schism that affects the country.

If Civil War is coming and I doubt it is, then the Radical Right is responsible for it. By demonizing anyone who thinks differently then they do, questions the patriotism of anyone who questions their decisions and the desire to foist upon all their odious "moral" beliefs, the neo-cons and their sycophants have generated the rift that now separates the country.

 

[kwr]

OOH Kevin I wish to disagree with you.

The majority of americans are moderate reasonable people.

While myself and much of the world has had big concerns about recent foreign policy decisions of the US, eg IRAQ and Guantanamo etc

I think the "hicks" remark is inflammatory, and not helpful and I am certain HSV's views are not representative of the American people.

You are correct and I apologise for an intemperate posting.

Kevin

 

[tonepub]

I still think the thing that scares me the most about John McCain is that he's just too old for the job. 15 years ago he probably would have made a great president.

But he doesn't even know how to use email...

Much like my father in law who is the same age, they still share this 50's view of America that we are superior to everyone in every way and that we can solve any problem by simply declaring we can for the above mentioned reason and if that doesn't work threaten to start a war.

I've watched my father in law go from a really sharp guy (Harvard MBA, top of his class too) in his early sixties, to still a viable man in his 70's, but not very quick to learn anything new. Now that hes had a stroke, it's all over.

Thanks to the audio industry, I've met a lot of people all over the world and none of them have any less pride for their countries than we do for ours.

I think the Socialism arguments are pretty weak too. How is it any less Socialistic or redistributing the wealth by paying off 300 billion dollars worth of home loans?

I don't want to see a Socialist system here, but a lot of our so called free enterprise has shot itself in the foot lately and we need some help to get it back on track.

On one level, I don't know if either of these guys have what it takes. Whoever gets this job in a couple weeks is going to have a large mountain of work on their desk.

 

[Rich]

No one who would vote Obama, would consider voting for
McCain and vice versa.

Right. That's why both of them are fighting tooth and nail for the swing voters. Heck, most of the people voting for McCain would never have considered voting for McCain before this election. They will be holding their nose when they pull the lever.

The nation is completely divided,
and I think civil war will be the eventual outcome. No
politician can heal this rift.

Actually, this rift was healed for a very short time. After 9/11, this nation really came together. But then it just took the decisions of one stupid politician to rip the rift open wider than ever. I am, of course, referring to Bush.

I don't think civil war is an inevitable outcome in this nation, but it is certainly possible. There are several competing factions. One is the growing gap between rich and poor. Many revolutions have occurred because of just such a gap. Another is the continuing oppression of minorities in the country. Both blacks and hispanics are routinely discriminated against by the white majority, and this will continue to be a dangerous rift, especially as these minorities grow and perhaps become a majority. The uncontrolled illegal immigration of hispanics only continues to add fuel to this fire.

But I think the most dangerous rift is the one I alluded to earlier. It is between those of liberal secular thought and those of hard-core religious fanaticism. I believe the evangelical religious right continues to fuel hatred toward anyone who doesn't believe as they do: gays, liberals, minorities, and nonbelievers. And there is nothing so dangerous as hate and greed fueled by the sure knowledge that God is on your side. Just ask the American Indians.

And honestly Brian, I see some of that hate in your words. The way you spit out the word leftist like it is an expletive. Like it or not, a good 1/3 of the nation feels very differently than you do. That's a hundred million people in this country. Maybe even more than that. To hate and/or fear them for their beliefs does no one any good. And the same is true for the extreme liberals. To hate and fear the most conservative among us does no one any good. I must say, I have a difficult time not expressing hate when it comes to GWB. Ultimately, we must all meet somewhere in the middle and try to compromise and get along or it will come to civil war. Sometimes the country's policies will swing more conservative, sometimes more liberal. But ultimately, if we can't get the government under control, get lobbyists and spending under control, and get the government out of our private lives, then we may very well be headed for a conflagration.

If the press doesn't report
facts without ommision or editorializing, they are useless to
a free society. It's extremely unhealthy! When the press
chooses a "side", they effectively become government
owned and operated.

Brian, please cite for me a time in our history (hell, in anyone's history) when this wasn't the case. Do you think Ben Franklin had biases and an agenda when he printed his books and pamplets? Did he not push the concept of Deism over Christian religious dogma, and the concept of Republicanism? Was Jefferson any different? Since when have journalists not been biased?

Your idea of the press is utopian and not based in reality. These are real human beings and as such they will have biases that will find their way into reporting. The producers of the show will have biases as well, which will find their way into programming. The corporate owners, likewise. But there are conservatives as well as liberals as well as centrists in this business. And all views get expressed. If there is a liberal bias, perhaps it is because there is a liberal majority in this country.

Perhaps the problem you have is that anything left of extreme right seems very liberal to you, so 4/5 of the press seems biased left. When your views are such that Rush and Coulter seem like centrists, then I guess most of the press really is pretty liberally-biased. You mention Libertarianism a few times, and perhaps that is where your beliefs are most aligned. The Libertarian Party claims about 200,000 registered voters, out of a population of over 300 million. So yes, those views are certainly in the minority and don't get a lot of press.

Regardless, I don't find the bias of the press nearly as much of a concern as you do. I think we have much bigger problems than that in our country.

Since 64% of likely voters have the exact same percerption
(97% of Republicans!), and most scholary studies back it up,
there is most certainly something to it.

You misquote the survey. It doesn't say 64% of likely voters see a liberal bias. It says that 64% of those who perceive a media bias, believe it to be a liberal one, while 28% believe it to be a conservative one. 83% said it is biased in one direction or the other. So, a more accurate description of this survey is that, of the 1,700 people surveyed, 53% felt that the media has a liberal bias. This is slightly more than half. Not exactly a resounding endorsement of your point.

As you stated earlier, it is all relative anyway. Ask a Swede or a Brit or a Canadian and I imagine you would get the answer that our press is conservatively biased. Ask someone from Massachusetts or San Francisco and you will probably get a different answer than someone from Mississippi or Alabama.

Meanwhile, millions appear to be unaccounted for from the
Annenberg Challenge coffers, the public records were witheld
by Ayers and Obama for months (very suspicious!)

Interesting. I didn't know Obama and Ayers were in charge of these records. And if millions are missing, why don't the Annenbergs seem to mind? And what about those Annenbergs? You never acknowledged my question about why republicans weren't up in arms that these big republican donors would associate with a terrorist like Ayers? Silence. That is pretty much what I expected to hear from you on that issue. Which pretty much right there shows that the whole Ayers argument against Obama is a complete smoke screen.

When a leftist
scandal breaks, the press must explore the issue with the
same zeal as when a conservative is involved. It appears
some serious corruption besides Rezko's house deal is
being glossed over.

Then why isn't FOX News all over it? They are the most conservative mainstream news outfit in our country, and if there really was a story here, don't you think they would be on it like stink on poo? Maybe you are just reading a bunch of innuendo from bloggers and you have convinced yourself that there is a real story here when real investigative, and even conservative, journalists have decided that it just doesn't pass the smell test. Just a thought.

These are all the scummiest, inside-the-beltway, career
politicians and bureaucrats imaginable. It doesn't matter if
they have a "D" or "R" next to their name. It's just a game
of poker to them. Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, Chris Dodd,
Trent Lott. They're all the same.

Sorry, but that is just wrong. I mean, yeah, maybe they are scummy inside-the-beltway politicians. But the ideologies separating a Dodd or Clinton from a Powell and especially from a Lott are real. They are not imaginary. The problem I see for you in this particular election is that all of the people you consider "real" conservatives abhor McCain. None of them are truly supporting him. If anything, they are giving lip service to him because they really don't like Obama more. You, yourself, fall into this category. No true conservatives like McCain and none are truly supporting him. Which is why he chose Palin as his running mate. He probably would have been better off with Huckabee.

McCain's strength has always been the centrists (the Lieberman types). So when these people who are registered republicans, who have served in republican administrations, and one who was even an advisor to McCain, decide to jump ship and vote for Obama, that is HUGE. It is a repudiation of McCain as a centrist. So now the liberals don't like him, the centrists are jumping ship, and the true conservatives abhor him. Who is left? You can try to downplay these defections by belittling the people as RINO's all you want, but it doesn't change the real impact on this election.

And since you would accuse McCain of the same title, then I guess it is a bigger deal than you want to make it out to be. I mean, when the centrists are jumping ship from the centrist in order to support the extreme leftist socialist . . . what gives? Maybe, just maybe, that other candidate is not so extreme left and unqualified as everyone on the extreme right wants to make him out to be. It's funny to me that guys like you taunt liberals with the Obamessiah jokes and the koolaid jokes, and then when some pretty well known moderate conservatives start jumping ship you excoriate them as scummy career politicians (as if that doesn't describe McCain to a T). By the time you are finished ****ing off all the moderate conservatives, your political party is going to consist of about 25% or less of the people in this nation. And you will have no representation in government.

So, just out of curiosity, will you be voting for McCain . . . or for Barr? Or perhaps Baldwin?

 

[risabet]

I still think the thing that scares me the most about John McCain is that he's just too old for the job. 15 years ago he probably would have made a great president.

But he doesn't even know how to use email...

Much like my father in law who is the same age, they still share this 50's view of America that we are superior to everyone in every way and that we can solve any problem by simply declaring we can for the above mentioned reason and if that doesn't work threaten to start a war.

Indeed he is. At 72 he is well within the statistical tables to be dead! Regarding his 50's view of the world and America's place in it, he hews to the neo-conservative belief in a U.S. hegemony, failing to realize that the world has changed and left him and the the old way of thinking behind.

This is a man who believes that not talking to governments we don't approve of strengthens our position in the world, i.e. do as we say and then we'll talk to you, insanity! This position does not make us safer and shows us to be the arrogant bully that we are viewed as by most of the world.

 

[Len44]

Indeed he is. At 72 he is well within the statistical tables to be dead! Regarding his 50's view of the world and America's place in it, he hews to the neo-conservative belief in a U.S. hegemony, failing to realize that the world has changed and left him and the the old way of thinking behind.

This is a man who believes that not talking to governments we don't approve of strengthens our position in the world, i.e. do as we say and then we'll talk to you, insanity! This position does not make us safer and shows us to be the arrogant bully that we are viewed as by most of the world.

Well, all good points FWIW. However...I am not convinced that it is the age of a person that causes unrealistic (OK, Silly) views on a number of issues. Prime example: G. Bush is over ten years younger than McCain -- but far more dangerous and almost completely out of touch with reality.

Again, I wouldn't pinpoint age per se as the issue -- anyone can become enamored of ridiculous positions...

 

[ScottGardner]

Forgive me if this has already been posted. I am just not interested enough in politics to read all 400+ posts. However this image caught my eye.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

 

[Rich]

Scott,

Let me predict the answers you will get to that post from conservatives.

1. Source is completely Biased! NYTimes is the most leftist dishrag to ever be published. Nothing they publish can possibly be true.

2. Even if it is true, all the economic growth during those democratic administration was set up by the institution of republican policies in the prior republican administration. Likewise, the doom and gloom in republican years was because of the democrats.

3. Statistics lie.

4. Liberals, Leftists, Socialists, Commies, economic doom. BOOO! (Are you scared yet?)