|
Post by rogesgallery on Dec 6, 2007 17:32:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joew on Dec 6, 2007 17:38:49 GMT -5
Yes, but kinky? Well, maybe so.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Dec 6, 2007 17:48:58 GMT -5
I have found it to be of great benefit to be able to read these transcripts after having listened to the candidates.
Kinky or sneaky take your pick. Abnormal subnormal super normal? I think I'll stick with kinky and be right 80percent of the time.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Dec 6, 2007 21:19:16 GMT -5
AAAAk it's the witch of Cornell again
Doc did you get caught in the flooding?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Dec 7, 2007 2:18:30 GMT -5
AAAAk it's the witch of Cornell again Doc did you get caught in the flooding? I get an invite to sign up for Newt Gingrich's weekly newsletter, but no sign of the wicked witch of Cornell. Maybe I should sign up for the newsletter just for laughs. You know, keep your friends close but your enemies closer. Nah... And we aren't having any flood problems here in Bellingham. I have been working too much the last couple days, but I did seen a few news stories about how awful the floods are, mostly south of Seattle. I'll try and catch up the transcripts tomorrow; I'm curious what Romney has to say, as I know very little about the Mormon faith. My observation as a physician with many Mormon patients is that they are generally a healthy group (no smoking, no drinking), and if one person is sick, the family and fellow church members will be helping out in any way possible.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Dec 8, 2007 21:35:21 GMT -5
Conversation with my wife while driving home after Sunday morning breakfast at a restaurant:
Mike: I like Barack Obama.
Emi: My newspaper says that the next President of the United States will be either a woman or a black.
Mike: Well, I hope Obama wins; I don't like Hillary Clinton.
Emi: She'll probably be the winner.
Mike: Why?
Emi: You always pick losers.
Mike: I picked you.
Emi: So you got it right once 20 years ago. Not much of a track record to be proud of.
Mike: ...
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Dec 8, 2007 22:13:10 GMT -5
Politics on an isolated island – Poetry by Mike
|
|
|
Post by joew on Dec 8, 2007 22:49:46 GMT -5
Conversation with my wife while driving home after Sunday morning breakfast at a restaurant: Mike: I like Barack Obama. Emi: My newspaper says that the next President of the United States will be either a woman or a black. Mike: Well, I hope Obama wins; I don't like Hillary Clinton. Emi: She'll probably be the winner. Mike: Why? Emi: You always pick losers. Mike: I picked you. Emi: So you got it right once 20 years ago. Not much of a track record to be proud of. Mike: ... Well, itcould be a win-win for you and Emi if the next President of the United States is John McCain.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Dec 19, 2007 0:04:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Dec 20, 2007 18:14:25 GMT -5
I just found this link, roges. Thanks.
NPR did a piece on candidates' Christmas commercials that made me shudder. I wonder if Biden has done one. Their reviewers seemed to think Hillary and Mitt were the most cringe-worthy so far. I guess I'm going to have to watch more TV so I can see what Iowans are being subjected to.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Dec 20, 2007 18:28:32 GMT -5
I guess I'm going to have to watch more TV so I can see what Iowans are being subjected to. Those unfortunate folks. They could have waited till after Christmas!
|
|
|
Post by joew on Dec 20, 2007 19:09:36 GMT -5
I just found this link, roges. Thanks. NPR did a piece on candidates' Christmas commercials that made me shudder. I wonder if Biden has done one. Their reviewers seemed to think Hillary and Mitt were the most cringe-worthy so far. I guess I'm going to have to watch more TV so I can see what Iowans are being subjected to. I thought it was Hillary and Rudy.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Dec 20, 2007 19:27:00 GMT -5
Was it? I was washing my hair at the time, so you may be right.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Dec 21, 2007 19:12:10 GMT -5
I doubt people are interested in political surveys 3 days before Christmas, but I need to post this or I'll forget. The issues survey comes from a liberal organization and the range of answers is 7, so it's not just a forced-choice response. Help us plan our next steps
We're trying to evaluate our members' enthusiasm and interest in the campaigns we are currently involved in and a few that we might consider working on. How interested would you be in participating in the following campaigns? 1. Guarantee Health Care for Millions of Children Not Interested Very Interested 2. Fight NAFTA-style Trade Policy and Promote Fair Trade Not Interested Very Interested 3. Work to Stop Global Warming and Solve the Climate Crisis Not Interested Very Interested 4. Stop the Bush administration from taking military action against Iran without seeking Congressional authority first Not Interested Very Interested 5. Campaign to Advance Health Care for All Not Interested Very Interested 6. Campaign to Restore Constitutional Rights and Liberties Not Interested Very Interested 7. Get Congress to Impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney Not Interested Very Interested 8. Fight Corporate Attacks on the Free and Open Internet Not Interested Very Interested 9. Start working on taking back the White House in 2008 Not Interested Very Interested 10. Ensure that Every Vote is Counted in our Elections Not Interested Very Interested 11. Advance Energy Independence Through Clean Renewable Resources Not Interested Very Interested 12. Demand an Exit Strategy for Iraq Not Interested Very Interested 13. If you had to pick today, who would you say you support for President in 2008?(List of candidates derived from the September 19th, 2007 New York Times list.) Richardson Edwards Dodd Biden Gravel Clinton Obama Kucinich Other Don't Know Other: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Of course, they don't bother considering Republican candidates, and some of these will make Republicans' blood boil, but it strikes me that most of these are issues of importance to everyone. So when you have a chance, could you copy these and respond? I don't know how to set up a poll, and I'm too lazy to study any more Proboards instructions. I'm still struggling to get my Santa bag down the chimney ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Feel free to add other issues, especially any that would be on a conservative list.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Dec 21, 2007 22:34:22 GMT -5
You are right, gailkate, that some of the questions seem tendentious at best, and even fallacious, if not downright boilermakers.
4. You can't stop what hasn't started. If you mean prevent, there's little chance of it's happening, so please spend a lot of time and energy on it. We of the Right will handle the other stuff for you.
6. I still have mine, other than the 10th Amendment. Are we talking States' Rights here? If so, sign me up. But if this is based on some fantasy that we are now in a police state, or that the Bush Administration has shredded the Constitution, then it's an invalid question.
8. What attacks?
9. The White house was taken back during the War of 1812 and has been in American hands ever since.
10. We rely on human beings. They do the best they can, but there are always questions of interpretation, and there can be legitimate differences of opinion as to whether a certain individual is an eligible voter or whether a certain ballot shows a countable vote, as we all learned in Florida. Of course every vote legally cast and should be counted, but that's what happens now as far as it is possible. If some election official somewhere tries to do otherwise, the party organization on the scene is best positioned to do something about it. So a massive campaign would be a tremendous waste of time. Go for it, liberals! Never mind all this other stuff. We'll take care of foreign policy, defense, and homeland security.
For the rest:
1.) 5.5 2.) 1 3.) 3 5.) 4 7.) 1 (But again, I encourage liberals to spend lots of time on it.) 8.) 3, if they are actually happening 11.) 5 12.) 1.5 13.) Other
|
|
|
Post by joew on Dec 21, 2007 22:39:23 GMT -5
BTW, the Boston Herald today endorsed John McCain. They said they usually endorse a Republican and a Democrat for the primaries, but this time they are so convinced that McCain has what we need that they want to encourage every independent to vot for him.
It is very unusual for the liberal Boston Globe, the conservative Herald, and the Right-wing Manchester (N.H.) Union-Leader all to endorse the same candidate, but they all support McCain for the GOP nomination.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Dec 22, 2007 5:32:33 GMT -5
What do you think of McCain Joe?
He certainly is an interesting candidate and honest man. His record indicates he believes that Christian values are the best avenue to social responsibility yet he would leave the legislative responsibility up to the states. His voting record on the federal Christian issues of stem cell research, gay issues and abortion are conflicted but practical. I think that banning RvW is a bad idea but it is consistent.
Says he would veto pork, balance budget, and concentrate on re funding Social Security.
I understand his support for Corporations but I think that he and others have a rather Cloistered view of the erosion of the middle class. That is, unless we open the borders and double the size of the lower class as a way to maintain the economy and taxes. Long term that is a formula for violent internal strife.
He has no original idea's about crime. He would maintain and increase the penalties for crimes of poverty, more or less ignoring the more damaging effects of White collar crime.
His educational policies lean toward funding private and charters, but seems to ignore the problem of escalating higher education costs.
Interestingly he supports better wages for minimum wage workers but has voted against their right to organize.??
On foreign policy he is for us being the policeman of the world instead of it's most powerful arbitrator. Supports putting sanctions on Russia until they pull out of Chechneya? What? Did this come to him in a dream? The concept is completely faulty. How do We and what do We sanction. I hope he doesn't mention this in public, he's a good man and I would hate for him to appear senile. He would continue to torment Cuba. I can't believe this is still an issue. What an embarrassment.
He is Yes yes yes on free trade
These are his recent opinions on health care:# Give individuals $2500 refundable tax credits for healthcare. (Oct 2007) # Control health costs so manufacturers stay competitive. (Oct 2007) # No mandated universal system; no mandated insurance coverage. (Jun 2006) # Supports tax-free medical savings accounts & tax credits. (Nov 2004) # Higher taxes on cigarettes. (Jan 2000
This is a bad one for me — He is for maintaining the empirical control of corporate energy production by building more maintenance intensive waste producing nuclear instead of funding construction-integral and retro-fit solar and other free energy systems. SOLAR IS SAND YOU IDIOTS! IT DOESN'T WEAR OUT AND IF IT BREAKS,,, IT'S STILL SAND — IT'S BIGGEST DOWNFALL IS THAT IN THE LONG RUN... IT'S FREE
Ecology: He would put the EPA under judicial control — make it a cabinet department. That would make it a partisan department — Bad Ideal, not that the way it is managed now is good. Other than that he seems silent on other issues of any importance.
His record on emigration seems to indicate that Sen McCain believes that the US is underpopulated and that we should import baby machines from the undeveloped and uneducated countries. Though this is consistent with doubling the lower class and shrinking the middle.
He would change nothing in the Middle East and would likely escalate the situation through Johnson/Nixonesque tactics.
I have great regard for Sen McCain the man and Senator — How can one not. He would be a good candidate for the partisan voter but I personally believe we need someone more progressive to overcome the inbred tendencies of our present political policies.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Dec 30, 2007 10:58:01 GMT -5
We're winding down to the Iowa caucuses, which might well decide the nominees for 2008. I hope not! Take a look at this:Sorting Truth From Campaign Fiction By Michael Dobbs Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, December 30, 2007; A01 Mitt Romney says he "saw" his father "march" with Martin Luther King Jr. Rudolph W. Giuliani claims that he is one of the "five best-known Americans in the world." According to John McCain, the Constitution established the United States as a "Christian nation." Ron Paul believes that a "NAFTA superhighway" is being planned to link Mexico with Canada and undermine U.S. sovereignty. On the other side of the political divide, Sen. Barack Obama says there are more young black males in prison than in college. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton claims she has a "definitive timetable" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. John Edwards insists that NAFTA -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- has cost Americans "millions of jobs." Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. boasts about his experience negotiating an arms-control treaty with Leonid Brezhnev. All those claims, made over the past four months as part of the presidential campaign, are demonstrably false. With just four days until the Iowa caucuses, the art of embellishment and downright fibbing is alive and well in American politics.... "The rules of the game are changing," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania professor and veteran observer of political campaigns. "A claim that something is inaccurate is being vetted more quickly and moving into the media more quickly." On Friday, when former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee attempted to link the chaos in Pakistan after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto with the issue of illegal immigration, skeptical reporters immediately questioned the claim. The Huckabee campaign was unable to provide convincing backup for his assertion that "we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border," a statement at odds with U.S. Border Patrol data. Huckabee later cited a March 2006 Denver Post article to support his claim that 660 Pakistanis crossed U.S. borders illegally last year. In fact, the newspaper wrote that 660 Pakistanis were apprehended crossing into the United States between 2002 and 2005. U.S. Border Patrol data show that Canada, the Philippines and Poland accounted for larger numbers of illegal immigrants than Pakistan. Even as own his comments were being questioned, Huckabee criticized Romney yesterday at campaign stops in Iowa, saying he concocted parts of his past. "You are not going to hear me making up stuff about my biography," said Huckabee, who also referred to Romney's exaggeration of his hunting exploits: "I don't go around saying I was a lifelong golfer because I once rode in a golf cart when I was 8 years old." When a candidate is caught making a clearly false statement, embarrassment or ridicule often ensues -- and over time a reputation can form. But the electoral rewards derived from stretching the truth or distorting a rival's record just as frequently outweigh the fleeting political costs."I would not say that the level of honesty or deception is better or worse than in past campaigns," said Brooks Jackson, director of the Annenberg Political Fact Check, who has been truth-squadding political candidates since 1992. "It is a function of running for office that you want to say things that are pleasing to voters." *********** Candidates' responses to challenges on accuracy can be as revealing as their original statements. Rather than acknowledge that he made a mistake about his father marching with King, Romney argued over the meaning of the word "saw," saying he used it in a "figurative" sense without the intention to mislead. His aides put reporters in touch with eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen his father "hand in hand" with the civil rights leader. Contemporaneous newspaper reports showed that the two men were in different parts of the country on the date in question. Giuliani has repeated questionable claims on the campaign trail and in his advertisements. A case in point was his assertion in October that his chances of surviving prostate cancer were twice as high in the United States as in Britain "under socialized medicine." He defended the statement as "absolutely accurate," even though his campaign was unable to produce a single peer-reviewed cancer researcher or epidemiologist who agreed with him. Giuliani took a beating in many media outlets, but that may have been less of a concern for him than for some other candidates, particularly the Democrats. The former New York mayor frequently draws applause from conservative audiences by citing attacks on his record from the New York Times. Democratic candidates, meanwhile, have reacted to similar challenges by ignoring them as best they can. The Obama campaign did not respond when The Washington Post cited data from the U.S. Census and the Bureau of Justice Statistics to challenge the candidate's statistics on the number of young black men in prison and in college at an NAACP forum in July. The campaign made no effort to provide supporting data when Obama repeated the claim on Nov. 29 at a fundraiser in Harlem. Obama campaign officials declined to comment yesterday. Many campaign fibs fall into the category of half-truths. Highly selective representation of the facts has become a staple of politics. By using data selectively and playing with language, candidates can reach diametrically opposite conclusions. ************ Setting the record straight on such matters takes time and effort. Days, sometimes weeks, can pass before a falsehood is rectified, and it may be difficult to change voters' initial impressions. "It is easy to get the spin out, but it takes longer to get the facts out," said Gehrke, at the DNC. Jamieson, the Pennsylvania professor, believes that candidates are being held accountable more quickly than ever. She cites an example from the 2000 campaign, when Al Gore misrepresented the position of his Democratic rival Bill Bradley on flood relief for farmers two weeks before the Iowa caucuses. The first substantive media critiques of Gore for exaggeration did not appear until after Bradley was roundly defeated in Iowa and his candidacy was effectively crippled. The process of spotting and correcting mistakes can still vary greatly. As far back as 1978, the Boston Herald quoted Romney as saying that "my father and I marched" with King. The most recent reiteration of the quote was on Dec. 6, but it was not until Dec. 21 that Romney's description of the episode was first challenged by the Boston Phoenix. Giuliani had been making his prostate cancer and "socialized medicine" claim for weeks on the campaign trail without being challenged. It was not until he turned it into a radio advertisement on Oct. 29 that several media organizations, including The Post, began examining the assertion more closely. The pressure of responding to attacks is unusually intense this election cycle because of the number of plausible contenders in both major political parties. "It's become a multifront war," said David Bossie, president of the conservative advocacy group Citizens United. "Candidate A attacks candidate B, but then C and D pile on. You have to be on your toes at all times." ****************** I've cut a few bits, but I think they were fair. But you can check me at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901847_pf.htmlWhile the article emphasizes how quickly new tools help us expose false assertions, I'm still troubled by how dependent we are on media and bloggers to dig through lies. Maybe "lie" is too strong, but I think it's more than "downright fibbing."
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Dec 30, 2007 17:13:47 GMT -5
Thanks Gail that sheds some clear light on a complex aspect of campaigning; not that there need be questions in anyones mind that candidates stretch and saw and have midnight burials for the truth. At least here is a seeming objective opinion which exposes some of the political spandex.
Thanks for sharing – *Bing* 10
Roges
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 9, 2008 14:52:59 GMT -5
Interesting results from the Granite State. Primary season is like a box of chocolates.
Interesting that one of the pundits last night though Edwards' candidacy was hopeless, but did not come to the same conclusion about Giuliani. I suppose the difference is that Edwards actively contested Iowa and New Hampshire, while Giuliani did not.
My own feeling is that Edwards' chances are pretty slim. He needs to at least exceed expectations in South Carolina to have a reasonable hope of being the nominee. OTOH, if he keeps the campaign going, he could win enough convention delegates to keep either Clinton or Obama from gaining a majority. He could want to do that as a stop-Hillary tactic if he thinks that she is likely to defeat Obama when it's one-on-one. But holding the balance of power at the convention cold also put him in a position to extract pledges from a candidate as the price of his support. There could even be a Vice-Presidency or Supreme Court appointment in it for him.
Among the Republicans, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani all still have a reasonable chance, and I think any of them would be making a mistake if he dropped out before Super Tuesday. C-Span ran a speech by Ron Paul last evening, in which he said that his campaign was reminding people of the principles on which the country was founded. It sounds as if he knows he has no chance of getting the nomination, but he has no reason to drop out. I think Thompson can't get the nomination, but I wouldn't blame him for holding on until Feb. 5. After that, I think candidates should ask themselves two questions: "Do I have any reasonable hope of being nominated," and, if that is answered in the negative, "Can I have enough delegates to be a power broker at the convention?"
There could be some very interesting horse-trading going on, and I think it would strengthen the party by making the final decision more representative of the grass roots.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 9, 2008 20:06:35 GMT -5
Interesting results from the Granite State. Primary season is like a box of chocolates. Interesting that one of the pundits last night though Edwards' candidacy was hopeless, but did not come to the same conclusion about Giuliani. I suppose the difference is that Edwards actively contested Iowa and New Hampshire, while Giuliani did not. My own feeling is that Edwards' chances are pretty slim. He needs to at least exceed expectations in South Carolina to have a reasonable hope of being the nominee. OTOH, if he keeps the campaign going, he could win enough convention delegates to keep either Clinton or Obama from gaining a majority. Very savvy, Joe. I hadn't really looked at it that way. He could want to do that as a stop-Hillary tactic if he thinks that she is likely to defeat Obama when it's one-on-one. But holding the balance of power at the convention cold also put him in a position to extract pledges from a candidate as the price of his support. I couldn't help thinking what a knock-out victory he could have given Obama if he'd thrown his support to him. That can still happen.There could even be a Vice-Presidency or Supreme Court appointment in it for him. I was an early Edwards supporter in '04, I think a lot of him. But I must admit I was very disappointed in his reaction to the NH loss. He came out to thank his supporters and dragged out his same old stump speech, same examples we - and especially his campaign workers -have heard over and over. In contrast, Obama had a fresh energizing speech that sounded more like victory than 2nd place.Among the Republicans, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani all still have a reasonable chance, and I think any of them would be making a mistake if he dropped out before Super Tuesday nah, Giuliani isn't going to start a fire now. C-Span ran a speech by Ron Paul last evening, in which he said that his campaign was reminding people of the principles on which the country was founded. It sounds as if he knows he has no chance of getting the nomination, but he has no reason to drop out. Agreed. He keeps getting his message heard, and that's a huge plus.I think Thompson can't get the nomination, but I wouldn't blame him for holding on until Feb. 5. If he can stay awake. Sorry, I can't understand why everyone was so hyped bout him. Why waste people's time? After that, I think candidates should ask themselves two questions: "Do I have any reasonable hope of being nominated," and, if that is answered in the negative, "Can I have enough delegates to be a power broker at the convention?" I'd agree if we weren't talking about millions of dollars being poured down the drain. There's something really distasteful about that. I'm wary of Edwards and Paul doing that, but at least they have important things to say. Thompson and Giuliani are yawners.There could be some very interesting horse-trading going on, and I think it would strengthen the party by making the final decision more representative of the grass roots.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 9, 2008 21:04:38 GMT -5
According to the pundits, Giuliani is planning to win Florida and go on from there. Doesn't sound like the best strategy, but obviously he holds on at least till then.
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Jan 10, 2008 0:15:36 GMT -5
I'm barely following, not because of disinterest, though. Tell me about McCain.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 10, 2008 0:49:31 GMT -5
What do you want to know?
He is intelligent, he is not afraid to say what he thinks, and he puts what is good for the country above his political advantage. He realizes that there is no way we can find and deport 12 million illegal aliens, and we need them to do the work they are doing so it would be a bad idea to send them all back home even if we could. So he helped put together a bill that would have enabled us to get control of the situation in a way that would be helpful. But the right wing labaled it amnesty, and it was defeated. McCain is smart enough to realize that we have to make securing the borders the first order of business or we'll never be able to get anywhere on dealing with the people who are already here. But he hasn't denied his beliefs about what follows border control.
His positions on immigration and Iraq hurt him politically, but it did not lead him to abandon firm principles in order to get votes.
He's in a pretty good position the get the nomination, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Jan 10, 2008 0:57:59 GMT -5
Thanks joew. I knew or sensed much of what you said. I wasn't very clear. What I wanted to know is what are his chances? and you told me, iyo. Now someone come and take my pulse because I could vote for this Republican. gk, tell me what's wrong with him? ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 10, 2008 10:35:56 GMT -5
The War, the War, the War. His agreeing with the notion that the surge is working seems quite out of character. The surge has done nothing that a lot of troops wouldn't have done from the beginning. It has brought Iraq no closer to putting together a functional government, which was its purpose. But - to counter Giuliani as the Terrorism candidate - McCain has cast himself with Bush on Iraq and seems to agree with Bush that we'll have bases there in perpetuity. His buddying up to Bush on anything makes me question the many reasons I used to admire him. When McCain looked dangerous to Bush in the 2000 primaries, the Bush campaign put out racist lies about McCain's having a black child. In fact (though there would be nothing wrong with having a black child), his wife (2nd, beautiful, rich but dedicated to 3rd world healthcare) brought 2 children (brownish-black) back to this country for help, and they adopted one of them. The Bush tactic was as low as campaigning gets, an insult to McCain and everyone who believes that racism is antithetical to our country's principles. But McCain's ambition led him to cozy up to Bush and even the Falwell crazies so he could position himself for 2008. Pragmatism is a fact of political life, but I wouldn't trust him again. Go to Wikipedia for a reasonably accurate biography. Do not vote Republican. Just don't. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Brit on Jan 10, 2008 13:36:32 GMT -5
slb - I know some very nice Conservatives - as near Republicans can be - and some of them are very good Members of Parliament.
There's just one tiny reason I would not ever vote for any of them, and that is that collectively, they form a group whose general policies and attitude to others, I find abhorrent.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 10, 2008 14:20:14 GMT -5
Point well taken, Brit. I, too, have known - and might some day even vote for - some nice Republicans. But I wouldn't vote for any currently running, given the choices I have among the Dems.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 10, 2008 15:16:40 GMT -5
gk, I don't think McCain has exactly buddied up to Bush on Iraq. As I understand it, partly from him and partly from the TV commentators, Mc Cain opposed the Rumsfeld strategy very early on, and after the 2006 elections, when a long line of Senators and Congressmen were going to the White House and telling Bush, "You've got to pull out of Iraq for the good of the party," Mc Cain went and told him, "You've got to send more troops for the good of the country." Eventually, Bush buddied up to McCain and sent Gen. Petraeus with the surge.
And I would credit McCain with being smart enough to realize that being identified with Bush on just about anything hurts a candidate more than it helps, so he would hardly cozy up to him for political purposes.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 10, 2008 21:03:33 GMT -5
I hope you're right, Joe. I don't have time to research it, but I really don't remember it that way. I've heard too many quotes where he goes way too far in exonerating Bush and says admiring things about him. This just came from Fact Check, recalling the tactics used against McCain in 2000. Sliming Obama January 10, 2008 Dueling chain e-mails claim he's a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false. Summary If these two nasty e-mail messages are any indication, the 2008 presidential campaign is becoming a very dirty one.
One claims that Obama is "certainly a racist" by virtue of belonging to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, which it says "will accept only black parishoners" and espouses a commitment to Africa. Actually, a white theology professor says he's been "welcomed enthusiastically" at the church, as have other non-blacks.
Another e-mail claims that Obama "is a Muslim," attended a "Wahabi" school in Indonesia, took his Senate oath on the Koran, refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and is part of an Islamic plot to take over the U.S. Each of these statements is false.
These false appeals to bigotry and fear remind us of the infamous whispering campaign of eight years ago, when anonymous messages just before the South Carolina primary falsely accused Republican candidate John McCain of fathering an illegitimate child by a black woman.www.factcheck.org
|
|