All I can say is, Wow.
I just finished reading a piece that will be published in the October 16 issue of Rolling Stone Magazine on the life of John McCain. It quickly becomes painfully obvious that an awful lot of his former friends, associates and fellow POW's really detest the man.
It is a brutal, brutal take on the man and his legend:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstor...eal_john_mccain
Full Version: McCain - unfit to lead?
I'm surprised you hadn't seen that before, they've been talking about it for a week.
It's really cute how they went out of their way to make sure this particular story was published early.
It's really cute how they went out of their way to make sure this particular story was published early.
I had missed it completely. Guess that's what happens when I don't spend time on the partisan sites.
Any idea why they did the odd date thing?
Any idea why they did the odd date thing?
You've mentioned politico.com before, I'm pretty sure it's been discussed on there.
To me the date thing proves it's a hack piece, Stone is not in the habit of early electronic release of their stories.
I don't have a problem with it, they've openly been in the bag for Obama for some time. It's rolling stone, it's not as though they were accountable to normal journalistic standards. I think most people are smart enough to understand this story is not much different than what someone would expect to read at HufPo.
To me the date thing proves it's a hack piece, Stone is not in the habit of early electronic release of their stories.
I don't have a problem with it, they've openly been in the bag for Obama for some time. It's rolling stone, it's not as though they were accountable to normal journalistic standards. I think most people are smart enough to understand this story is not much different than what someone would expect to read at HufPo.
John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account
By John S. McCain III, Lieut. Commander, U.S. Navy
John McCain spent 5½ years in captivity as a POW in North Vietnam. His first-person account of that harrowing ordeal was published in U.S. News in May 1973. Shot down in his Skyhawk dive bomber on Oct. 26, 1967, Navy flier McCain was taken prisoner with fractures in his right leg and both arms. He received minimal care and was kept in wretched conditions that he describes vividly in the U.S. News special report:
This story originally appeared in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S.News & World Report.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/0...t.html?PageNr=1
Read his actual story from him 35 years ago..
By John S. McCain III, Lieut. Commander, U.S. Navy
John McCain spent 5½ years in captivity as a POW in North Vietnam. His first-person account of that harrowing ordeal was published in U.S. News in May 1973. Shot down in his Skyhawk dive bomber on Oct. 26, 1967, Navy flier McCain was taken prisoner with fractures in his right leg and both arms. He received minimal care and was kept in wretched conditions that he describes vividly in the U.S. News special report:
This story originally appeared in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S.News & World Report.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/0...t.html?PageNr=1
Read his actual story from him 35 years ago..
Okay, Robert shamed me into looking around a bit more. Talking Point Memo has just posted a link to the Rolling Stone article under the headline: "Lying and Recklessness Not New?"
I can think of no single angle on that article that is more damaging to McCain. His approach to the economic crisis was to pull a stunt. I don't know if you've seen the ongoing barrage of blowback he is suffering from David Letterman, but that has been all about lying. He claimed he had to rush back to Washington to save the country and then went on Katie Couric's show and then didn't arrive in Washington until midday the next day. I'm sure there is a good excuse out there (although I haven't heard a single response), but the damage has been monumental as Letterman has a sizable audience, to say nothing of the millions of watchers on YouTube.
This just isn't the same man who rode the Straight Talk Express in 2000.
I can think of no single angle on that article that is more damaging to McCain. His approach to the economic crisis was to pull a stunt. I don't know if you've seen the ongoing barrage of blowback he is suffering from David Letterman, but that has been all about lying. He claimed he had to rush back to Washington to save the country and then went on Katie Couric's show and then didn't arrive in Washington until midday the next day. I'm sure there is a good excuse out there (although I haven't heard a single response), but the damage has been monumental as Letterman has a sizable audience, to say nothing of the millions of watchers on YouTube.
This just isn't the same man who rode the Straight Talk Express in 2000.
As I said earlier, I'm not a big McCain fan but in my opinion he still beats the hell out of Obama.
I would agree with you the rush back to DC was a stunt an a poor one at that. Although to me it wasn't any worse then the hackery an political partisanship by the other side.
1st the dems complained he didn't really do anything, then turned around an blamed him for it failing.
McCain going back to DC wasn't any more of a stunt the when Obama going on his whirl wind trip through Europe in some vain attempt to suddenly pickup foreign policy experience.
If you remove all the spin, fluff an BS put out by both side, it comes down to a few simple things.
1) McCain has always been in the right when it comes to pork barrel spending an earmarks. During the debate, Obama tried to downplay this by stating it was such a small part of the overall budget.
If Obama didn't think it was an important issue why did he do a 180 when he decided to run for office. Prior to runing for Pres Obama added earmarks on almost every piece of legislation he touched touched. Then drastically reduced his earmarking after deciding to run for Pres.
Obama's right that it accounts for only a small part of the federal budget but it's the initial stepping stone for dirty politics where people buy political influence an are rewarded at the tax payers expense. Just like at the situation with Obama's wife, do you honestly think Obama becoming a senator didn't have any effect on her job? Her pay almost doubled overnight. Her job didn't change, all that changed is she was suddenly in a position of increased influence. I doubt it was coincidence one of Obama's very 1st earmarks was $1 million to the hospital his wife works at.
Similar to Obama grandstanding that he wouldn't use PAC money even though he had always in the past an used it to start his run for president.
2) I hate both of their tax plans but I hate Obama's worse. I've got no problem with closing off-shore tax havens or loopholes. Both candidates have agreed corp hiding profits is a problem to be fixed. Obama doesn't just want to close the loopholes but also raise Corp taxes. Every single business regardless if they are in goods manufacturing or services, will be negatively affected.
*Prices would have to increase just to stay at the same level of profitability
*American-made goods become more expensive overseas
*High job loss because it is harder to stay profitable
*Prolonged recession
*Increased taxes because the unemployed will look to the government for help
*Lower returns in your retirement account
Every single country over the last two decades have slowly reduced their corp taxes to become more competitive while ours has remained the same. Now Obama wants to make the situation even worse by by raising ours when we've already got one of the highest corp tax rates in the world.
Stupid.... Stupid... Stupid....
I can understand why he wants to do it. It's the only way he can start to pay for his new laundry list of entitlements while bragging about cutting taxes for 95% of the people which was proven to be a lie form day one.
3) McCain has the better energy plan. He's openly supported nuclear why Obama has been very wishy washy about it. McCain is the only one who's had the balls to admit Ethanol as the failure it is. Which I think is a very gutsy thing to do because there is zero way he could win without Ohio, which has gotten a huge windfall in ethanol subsidies.
4) In many ways I think this difference is biggest an most important between the 2.
McCain has a history going against the part line while Obama's record shows he's strictly partisan in his voting. I believe the dems in control of the congress with Obama as President will be a disaster.
But rest easy Obama fans, without some HUGE change in the next 30 days we'll be the Obamanation on Nov. 4th
I would agree with you the rush back to DC was a stunt an a poor one at that. Although to me it wasn't any worse then the hackery an political partisanship by the other side.
1st the dems complained he didn't really do anything, then turned around an blamed him for it failing.
McCain going back to DC wasn't any more of a stunt the when Obama going on his whirl wind trip through Europe in some vain attempt to suddenly pickup foreign policy experience.
If you remove all the spin, fluff an BS put out by both side, it comes down to a few simple things.
1) McCain has always been in the right when it comes to pork barrel spending an earmarks. During the debate, Obama tried to downplay this by stating it was such a small part of the overall budget.
If Obama didn't think it was an important issue why did he do a 180 when he decided to run for office. Prior to runing for Pres Obama added earmarks on almost every piece of legislation he touched touched. Then drastically reduced his earmarking after deciding to run for Pres.
Obama's right that it accounts for only a small part of the federal budget but it's the initial stepping stone for dirty politics where people buy political influence an are rewarded at the tax payers expense. Just like at the situation with Obama's wife, do you honestly think Obama becoming a senator didn't have any effect on her job? Her pay almost doubled overnight. Her job didn't change, all that changed is she was suddenly in a position of increased influence. I doubt it was coincidence one of Obama's very 1st earmarks was $1 million to the hospital his wife works at.
Similar to Obama grandstanding that he wouldn't use PAC money even though he had always in the past an used it to start his run for president.
2) I hate both of their tax plans but I hate Obama's worse. I've got no problem with closing off-shore tax havens or loopholes. Both candidates have agreed corp hiding profits is a problem to be fixed. Obama doesn't just want to close the loopholes but also raise Corp taxes. Every single business regardless if they are in goods manufacturing or services, will be negatively affected.
*Prices would have to increase just to stay at the same level of profitability
*American-made goods become more expensive overseas
*High job loss because it is harder to stay profitable
*Prolonged recession
*Increased taxes because the unemployed will look to the government for help
*Lower returns in your retirement account
Every single country over the last two decades have slowly reduced their corp taxes to become more competitive while ours has remained the same. Now Obama wants to make the situation even worse by by raising ours when we've already got one of the highest corp tax rates in the world.
Stupid.... Stupid... Stupid....
I can understand why he wants to do it. It's the only way he can start to pay for his new laundry list of entitlements while bragging about cutting taxes for 95% of the people which was proven to be a lie form day one.
3) McCain has the better energy plan. He's openly supported nuclear why Obama has been very wishy washy about it. McCain is the only one who's had the balls to admit Ethanol as the failure it is. Which I think is a very gutsy thing to do because there is zero way he could win without Ohio, which has gotten a huge windfall in ethanol subsidies.
4) In many ways I think this difference is biggest an most important between the 2.
McCain has a history going against the part line while Obama's record shows he's strictly partisan in his voting. I believe the dems in control of the congress with Obama as President will be a disaster.
But rest easy Obama fans, without some HUGE change in the next 30 days we'll be the Obamanation on Nov. 4th
Interesting thoughts.
I would disagree over the issue of corporate taxation. Corporations are taxed based only on their profit. True, the US taxes corporation's profits at a seemingly high rate, but we are very, very close to countries such as Japan, Germany, Spain and others. But, there is more to the story than comparing tax rates. A better method of evaluating the actual tax paid is to look at the percentage of corporate tax as it relates to a country's GDP. If you evaluate the US corporate tax structure in that way, you'll find we have actual taxation that is considerable lower than most all other industrialized nations as this article from SmartMoney illustrates.
The problem really doesn't have an easy political solution, and it really doesn't work to simply cry "less corporate taxes!" Our current system is a mess, and we've got to find a way to prevent our US corporations from playing their shell games and from moving their profits offshore.
Something tells me the current economic crisis is going to demand a hell of a lot of fiscal changes. It strikes me as odd to hear all the arguments for deficit spending, but it seems that will be the only way to get our economic ball rolling once again. The Chinese must be overjoyed as they gobble up more and more of our debt.
As for pork barrel spending, I'm amazed that you'd throw stones in Obama's direction without admitting that Sarah Palin stood neck deep in that pork barrel herself, requesting about $200 million for 2009 alone. That amount far exceeds what Obama sought in earmarks. And John McCain's record shows that he loves the media attention his rants about pork barrel spending have garnered, but those rants have really begun to ring hollow when you see who he brought onto the ticket, and more importantly, you examine the record. That infamous Bear DNA study he loves to rail against - HE VOTED FOR IT!!
If McCain had any interest in keeping his image as a fighter against pork barrel spending, why did he remain silent as the Bailout bill was loaded with lard in a failed effort to win over a few reluctant votes? Of all the times that he could have re-established his creds, that was it. His silence was deafening.
I agree that it looks like the election is solidifying and it appears Obama finds himself in a good position. I was surprised to see today that Obama is ahead in all the toss-up states save one. That is a stunning turn around and seems to be dooming the McCain campaign unless he can pull another stunt.
I would disagree over the issue of corporate taxation. Corporations are taxed based only on their profit. True, the US taxes corporation's profits at a seemingly high rate, but we are very, very close to countries such as Japan, Germany, Spain and others. But, there is more to the story than comparing tax rates. A better method of evaluating the actual tax paid is to look at the percentage of corporate tax as it relates to a country's GDP. If you evaluate the US corporate tax structure in that way, you'll find we have actual taxation that is considerable lower than most all other industrialized nations as this article from SmartMoney illustrates.
The problem really doesn't have an easy political solution, and it really doesn't work to simply cry "less corporate taxes!" Our current system is a mess, and we've got to find a way to prevent our US corporations from playing their shell games and from moving their profits offshore.
Something tells me the current economic crisis is going to demand a hell of a lot of fiscal changes. It strikes me as odd to hear all the arguments for deficit spending, but it seems that will be the only way to get our economic ball rolling once again. The Chinese must be overjoyed as they gobble up more and more of our debt.
As for pork barrel spending, I'm amazed that you'd throw stones in Obama's direction without admitting that Sarah Palin stood neck deep in that pork barrel herself, requesting about $200 million for 2009 alone. That amount far exceeds what Obama sought in earmarks. And John McCain's record shows that he loves the media attention his rants about pork barrel spending have garnered, but those rants have really begun to ring hollow when you see who he brought onto the ticket, and more importantly, you examine the record. That infamous Bear DNA study he loves to rail against - HE VOTED FOR IT!!
If McCain had any interest in keeping his image as a fighter against pork barrel spending, why did he remain silent as the Bailout bill was loaded with lard in a failed effort to win over a few reluctant votes? Of all the times that he could have re-established his creds, that was it. His silence was deafening.
I agree that it looks like the election is solidifying and it appears Obama finds himself in a good position. I was surprised to see today that Obama is ahead in all the toss-up states save one. That is a stunning turn around and seems to be dooming the McCain campaign unless he can pull another stunt.
Palin wasn't in a position to vote for earmarks. Biden and Obam both are ranked among the worse offenders while McCain has never done it an always been a critic of all pork barrel type sending.
Yes it's true she REQUESTED federal funding but let's put that in perspective.
The largest state but the lowest population so infrastructure would be a nightmare. She also drastically cut request for federal money compared to the previous Governor. Much of the federal funding request attributed to her 1st year as governor actually were carry overs projects from the previous Governor. 2007 which would be her 1st full year saw a 50% reduction from the average of the previous Governor and she then reduced that number another 25% in 2008.
Ratings from Citizens Against Government Waste ( 100 is best, 0 worse )
For 2007
McCian 100
Obama 10
Biden 0
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/....pdf?docID=3282
Every country is reducing Corp taxes bu Obama wants to raise ours?
Germany which you mentioned use to by high has already reduced theirs in 2006 an again in 2008.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22501.html
Why do you think every other country is reducing theirs, to help their economy.
So what effect do you think raising ours will be?
"As for pork barrel spending, I'm amazed that you'd throw stones in Obama's direction without admitting that Sarah Palin stood neck deep in that pork barrel herself, requesting about $200 million for 2009 alone. That amount far exceeds what Obama sought in earmarks."
The only reason Palin's request for 2009 exceeds Obama's earmarks is because as I just mentioned, he suddenly had a change of heart an greatly reduced his earmarking when he ran for President.
Over $700 Million his 1st 3 years in congress
I guess you could say he was all for earmarks before he was against them.
"And John McCain's record shows that he loves the media attention his rants about pork barrel spending have garnered, but those rants have really begun to ring hollow when you see who he brought onto the ticket, and more importantly, you examine the record. That infamous Bear DNA study he loves to rail against - HE VOTED FOR IT!!
If McCain had any interest in keeping his image as a fighter against pork barrel spending, why did he remain silent as the Bailout bill was loaded with lard in a failed effort to win over a few reluctant votes? Of all the times that he could have re-established his credit, that was it. His silence was deafening.
I don't know if you were being serious or not. McCain has always been outspoken on this subject.
He has no control over what pork someone else puts into a bill. All that matters is he doesn't do it an I think rightfully criticizes people who do. I can see it now if McCain would have complain about all the pork added to the bailout bill. The headlines the next day would have been
"McCain becomes even more erratic, refuses to vote for bill which he supported only 1 day before"
or
"McCain tries to destroy US economy by playing partisan politics with pork added to Bailout Bill"
That was a lose situation all the way around.
Yes it's true she REQUESTED federal funding but let's put that in perspective.
The largest state but the lowest population so infrastructure would be a nightmare. She also drastically cut request for federal money compared to the previous Governor. Much of the federal funding request attributed to her 1st year as governor actually were carry overs projects from the previous Governor. 2007 which would be her 1st full year saw a 50% reduction from the average of the previous Governor and she then reduced that number another 25% in 2008.
Ratings from Citizens Against Government Waste ( 100 is best, 0 worse )
For 2007
McCian 100
Obama 10
Biden 0
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/....pdf?docID=3282
Every country is reducing Corp taxes bu Obama wants to raise ours?
Germany which you mentioned use to by high has already reduced theirs in 2006 an again in 2008.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22501.html
Why do you think every other country is reducing theirs, to help their economy.
So what effect do you think raising ours will be?
"As for pork barrel spending, I'm amazed that you'd throw stones in Obama's direction without admitting that Sarah Palin stood neck deep in that pork barrel herself, requesting about $200 million for 2009 alone. That amount far exceeds what Obama sought in earmarks."
The only reason Palin's request for 2009 exceeds Obama's earmarks is because as I just mentioned, he suddenly had a change of heart an greatly reduced his earmarking when he ran for President.
Over $700 Million his 1st 3 years in congress
I guess you could say he was all for earmarks before he was against them.
"And John McCain's record shows that he loves the media attention his rants about pork barrel spending have garnered, but those rants have really begun to ring hollow when you see who he brought onto the ticket, and more importantly, you examine the record. That infamous Bear DNA study he loves to rail against - HE VOTED FOR IT!!
If McCain had any interest in keeping his image as a fighter against pork barrel spending, why did he remain silent as the Bailout bill was loaded with lard in a failed effort to win over a few reluctant votes? Of all the times that he could have re-established his credit, that was it. His silence was deafening.
I don't know if you were being serious or not. McCain has always been outspoken on this subject.
He has no control over what pork someone else puts into a bill. All that matters is he doesn't do it an I think rightfully criticizes people who do. I can see it now if McCain would have complain about all the pork added to the bailout bill. The headlines the next day would have been
"McCain becomes even more erratic, refuses to vote for bill which he supported only 1 day before"
or
"McCain tries to destroy US economy by playing partisan politics with pork added to Bailout Bill"
That was a lose situation all the way around.
Robert, I'm surprised that you would stoop to quoting from such a biased and controversial source as Citizens Against Government Waste! These guys are lobbyists supported by Phillip Morris, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, Microsoft, Merrill-Lynch, and Exxon-Mobil to name a few. These guys actually came out and made the dramatically false claim that Sarah Palin had killed the Bridge to Nowhere. Gimme a break! Many media reports have shed light on this issue.
Haven't we discussed this group in a previous thread? They were found by a Senate report to have laundered money for Jack Abramoff. So these guys throw out numbers, you gobble them up and spit them out like they were gospel. Something isn't right here...
As for Obama, I'm certainly not one to claim that his earmarks were good or bad. I've seen some lists and most all of the requests seemed to be very worthwhile. McCain managed to bring home the bacon for his own state, he just did it through other means. I credit Obama for learning the system, and feel your comment about how earmarks instill a corrupt mentality are right on. Clearly, the system needs to be cleaned up. Not sure why this is even a point of contention.
Personally, I detest the argument that compares Palin to her predecessor. That is just about the weakest argument out there as you are saying "Hey look, she is only half as bad as a guy who most likely will be implicated in the ever expanding Alaska political corruption investigation."
But, once again, we are wasting time arguing about a minuscule financial issue. Earmarks need reform, a line-item veto would go a ways towards fixing the problem, but there clearly are much, much bigger fish to fry.
Haven't we discussed this group in a previous thread? They were found by a Senate report to have laundered money for Jack Abramoff. So these guys throw out numbers, you gobble them up and spit them out like they were gospel. Something isn't right here...
As for Obama, I'm certainly not one to claim that his earmarks were good or bad. I've seen some lists and most all of the requests seemed to be very worthwhile. McCain managed to bring home the bacon for his own state, he just did it through other means. I credit Obama for learning the system, and feel your comment about how earmarks instill a corrupt mentality are right on. Clearly, the system needs to be cleaned up. Not sure why this is even a point of contention.
Personally, I detest the argument that compares Palin to her predecessor. That is just about the weakest argument out there as you are saying "Hey look, she is only half as bad as a guy who most likely will be implicated in the ever expanding Alaska political corruption investigation."
But, once again, we are wasting time arguing about a minuscule financial issue. Earmarks need reform, a line-item veto would go a ways towards fixing the problem, but there clearly are much, much bigger fish to fry.
Unfortunately a line item veto will never happen since it would take a constitutional amendment an there is no way congress will vote to kill their money maker.
As for how biased and controversial the source as Citizens Against Government Waste is. I've read several stories concerning their lobbying. Even their most outspoken critics haven't been able to put out a story showing any unfair bias with their yearly pork book. The pork book simply list every single earmark from a roll call vote for both sides. Their ratings are based on the number of earmarks an amount of money.
If you think the CCAGW is to biased a source to use, then how about Mr Obama himself.
After doing 1 billion in earmarks over 3 years, he suddenly develops a conscious an calls for a 1 year memorandum to prevent earmarks. That's what I would call a stunt.
Here is Obama;s own list
Just like his stunt on not accepting campaign donations from PAC's an lobbyist.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/was...actics?tid=true
So federal lobbyists are prohibited, but lobbyists wives' money is still good!. Same as money from PAC's as long as it's just a STATE-registered PAC.
That is not the politics of "Change" thats just more of the same old spin form Washington.
But that's okay because we still have HOPE
As for how biased and controversial the source as Citizens Against Government Waste is. I've read several stories concerning their lobbying. Even their most outspoken critics haven't been able to put out a story showing any unfair bias with their yearly pork book. The pork book simply list every single earmark from a roll call vote for both sides. Their ratings are based on the number of earmarks an amount of money.
If you think the CCAGW is to biased a source to use, then how about Mr Obama himself.
After doing 1 billion in earmarks over 3 years, he suddenly develops a conscious an calls for a 1 year memorandum to prevent earmarks. That's what I would call a stunt.
Here is Obama;s own list
Just like his stunt on not accepting campaign donations from PAC's an lobbyist.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/was...actics?tid=true
So federal lobbyists are prohibited, but lobbyists wives' money is still good!. Same as money from PAC's as long as it's just a STATE-registered PAC.
That is not the politics of "Change" thats just more of the same old spin form Washington.
But that's okay because we still have HOPE
QUOTE(Robert @ 10/06/08 6:54am) 
........
But that's okay because we still have HOPE
But that's okay because we still have HOPE
People are determining 'Hope' is the more realistic and legitimate choice- in that he at least is sticking to issues and is not crying out the fairy tale line of 'no new taxes'.
People are determing the ONLY alternative has NO HOPE - only 'read my lips' slogans and a cute bulldog cheerleader thrown in at the last minute who cowardly cringes at the thought of having to talk to the press about her Washington political savvy because she has NO VP/ intellectual substance.... McCain tactics is to use her as a showgirl, + she's fine with it.
McCain is unfit to lead if this is what he's telling us who he wants to represent the USA on the world stage in place of himself.
The whole Change an Hope slogan is nothing but empty feel good promises.
Then when you remove the spin the real difference between the two is a decision between going over a cliff an slamming into a brick wall at 100 MPH.
In reality, I think Corp taxes will probably be a non-issue because while it's a great party platform for class warfare ( we're going to take money form those mean money grabbing corps an give it to the poor an working class ) I doubt it will actually happen.
So consider this my 1st prediction regarding party platform promises Obama will not keep.
I bet once elected he will move away from raising corp taxes based on adverse economic conditions.
The alternative will be Obama will play the game that he tried his hardest to do it but was blocked at every opportunity by congress.
Of course everyone will just have to overlook the fact his party will be in control of both the house an senate.
Then when you remove the spin the real difference between the two is a decision between going over a cliff an slamming into a brick wall at 100 MPH.
In reality, I think Corp taxes will probably be a non-issue because while it's a great party platform for class warfare ( we're going to take money form those mean money grabbing corps an give it to the poor an working class ) I doubt it will actually happen.
So consider this my 1st prediction regarding party platform promises Obama will not keep.
I bet once elected he will move away from raising corp taxes based on adverse economic conditions.
The alternative will be Obama will play the game that he tried his hardest to do it but was blocked at every opportunity by congress.
Of course everyone will just have to overlook the fact his party will be in control of both the house an senate.
QUOTE(Robert @ 10/06/08 6:54am)
That is not the politics of "Change" thats just more of the same old spin form Washington.
Wow! Don't tell me you've been drinking the Kool-Aid? That sounds like one of the zombie chants from a McCain rally ... or was it a Biden rally. LOL!
My take on all of this is pretty basic. I believe that the choice between McCain and Obama comes down to something very, very basic. McCain can not legitimately call himself an "outsider," he has been directly a part of the problem. Now, depending upon your perspective, you may feel that some of these issues are "problems" and others are solutions. I feel that his career has been glorified and sanitized. I'm distrustful of anyone who has had so many of his Senate peers state that he is unfit to serve. I'm distrustful of anyone who has switched their position on substantive issues so frequently. He just isn't the same man that was running for office in 2000.
Is Obama the solution? No, but we aren't given enough choices to find our perfect solution. What I do like about the Obama campaign is their commitment to the semblance of a grassroots campaign. Say what you will about this, but it is DRAMATICALLY different than the Kerry campaign, which was clearly all about the wealthiest donors. Obama seems to have a genuine interest in listening to the people and not special interests. I'll be watching with a very critical eye to be certain that he lives up to those promises.
I'd like a campaign that has honesty as one of their major platforms. I've really been turned off by the last 16 years of politics and this newfound concept that the media won't hold candidates (either R or D) accountable for out and out lies. Someone needs to hold these politicians accountable for the deceptions, both on the campaign trail and while in office.
Okay, I'll step off my soap box.
Did any of you see the piece on 60 Minutes last night where they interviewed the Delta Force commander who was pursuing Bin Laden in Tora Bora? Fascinating stuff. His original strat for going after Bin Laden was nixed by someone up the command chain. He didn't know who, and it was the first time he knew of a Delta Force plan being scrapped from above. He then proposed a secondary plan that called for lacing mines along the high altitude valley leading to the pass to Pakistan, figuring as they fled, they would trip the mine and then stop, giving Delta Force enough time to engage and destroy. That plan was nixed, and bin Laden was able (allowed?) to escape over the ridgeline and into Pakistan.
I certainly hope SOMEONE is able to investigate this issue. America needs to know who the hell nixed those two plans, and what was their reasoning?
Yet one more reason I support a changing of the guard at the Presidential level. We need to lift the veil on a lot of mysterious events that have occurred over the past eight years. I don't believe that McCain would do a thing to reveal the truth behind these events. Will Obama? I have no idea, but we certainly need to push the new administration to answer some of these questions. In this day and age, it is inexcusable that bin Laden was able to escape.
QUOTE(HammaTime @ 10/06/08 9:08am)
I'm distrustful of anyone who has had so many of his Senate peers state that he is unfit to serve. I'm distrustful of anyone who has switched their position on substantive issues so frequently..
Now you got me curious, I would be interested to see this list of Senate peers who consider McCain unfit to lead. I sure hope this wouldn't be some silly biased partisan list with a lot of (D)'s after the names.
As for people changing their stance on issues. Do you mean like.
* Obama saying Wright was like a uncle to him, there is no way he would ever repudiate the man, then does exactly that a few weeks later.
* Maybe you're talking about Obama averaging a $1 Million in earmarks per day in office for 3 years. Then suddenly finds his conscious an declares all earmarks as bad, requesting a 1 year referendum on all earmarks
* Obama claiming he will not accept camping donations from lobbyist or PACS even though he had no problem taking money from them in the past or even using their money to help launch his presidential bid.
* Attacked Clinton an Edwards for taking ""special interest" money from unions. Changed his opinion those "special interest" where bad when he started receiving donations from unions.
* In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." In in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."
* In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He said he would oppose it. Then in one of the Presidential debates, he said "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
* While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In 2008 during the presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.
* Despite Originality Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would "Refine" His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground.
* In June 2008, Barack Obama Said He Thought The D.C. Handgun Ban Was Unconstitutional. Earlier this year during an interview he said he supported the DC gun ban
* Criticizes The Administration's Energy Policy but voted for the Bush energy bill
* Has changed his opinion on nuclear energy 3 times. 9/2007 said he was for it. 12/2007 said he was against it. During the 1st Presidential debate McCain said nuclear energy was an important part of the US energy policy. Obama said he agreed but their is no mention of nuclear power on Obama's posted energy policy.
* During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Filibuster Any Bill Which Contained Immunity For Telecommunications Companies Involved In Electronic Surveillance, then failed to vote against the bill.
* Originally said he would Debate "Anywhere, Anytime". Then rejected McCain's request for additional town hall style debates.
* Can't even offer an honest answer to a simple question from a 7 year old.
He wants to turn back the clock & move forward
* Said he would support a law protecting infants who survive abortion. Then turned around an voted against a law which would do just that.
* In 2004 said he wouldn't run for President in 2008 because he didn't have enough experience.
Ahhhh how things change.
And his running mate Mr. Biden agreed with him, Obama not ready
* The Surge? People seem to forget his crappy Couric interview
Was against the surge in July
It was a success in Sep when Orielly asked him.
* In 2007 he supported Ahmadinejad's right to speak at the UN. In 2008 he said he was disappointed that Ahmadinejad was allowed to speak. I guess you could say he was for Ahmadinejad before he was against him.
Before you start to compile your own long list of McCain Flip/Flops, don't bother. I'm willing to concede the point, I only brought this up in reply to your statement you didn't like McCain based on his switching positions. I'm just proving the point both side do it. Some issue are small while others are not.
The one which stand out the most for me would be Obama switching sides on the FISA issue.
With all the crap Bushes opponent have accused him of over the last 8 years, this would be the one thing they got right. Congress should of had the balls to force a vote on the illegality of domestic wiretapping. Of course when push comes to shove even Obama who was one of the most outspoken critics on this issue folded up like a cheap shirt.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9982898-7.html
If that's not enough then there is always the 129 "present" votes while in the Illinois senate.
You don't have to worry about changing sides on an issue when you refuse to take a side by voting that way.
We're down to 30 days so the ad's will get really interesting. Have to wait an see what happens at the next two debates but I don't see McCain winning unless someone produces a video of Obama smoking crack while getting it on with a white male prostitute.
Even then some of his supporters would say" it was just sex"
I look forward to reading the 60 minutes story, should be interesting.
A humorous but accurate description of Obama tax plan from Thompson speech at the RNC.
"Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they're not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don't worry, it's not going to affect you. They say they're not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket."
Watch the 60 Minutes story!
I'm beginning to wonder if there aren't those in the McCain camp who don't want him to win. If they are instead actively looking ahead to 2012.
[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html]
Today we learn in the Wall Street Journal[/url] that McCain's senior policy adviser has admitted that McCain's ridiculous healthcare plan will be funded with massive cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
So, McCain wants to take away the pre-tax dollar healthcare we receive from our employers, hand us $5,000 bucks in tax credits and say, go out into the market and find the best deal you can find. Oh, and while you are worrying about how that $5,000 doesn't come close to covering the average $12,000 policy that our employers pay us, we now have to worry even more about covering the healthcare costs of our parents.
Unbelievable.
The election has just ended and Obama wins in a landslide.
I'm beginning to wonder if there aren't those in the McCain camp who don't want him to win. If they are instead actively looking ahead to 2012.
[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html]
Today we learn in the Wall Street Journal[/url] that McCain's senior policy adviser has admitted that McCain's ridiculous healthcare plan will be funded with massive cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
So, McCain wants to take away the pre-tax dollar healthcare we receive from our employers, hand us $5,000 bucks in tax credits and say, go out into the market and find the best deal you can find. Oh, and while you are worrying about how that $5,000 doesn't come close to covering the average $12,000 policy that our employers pay us, we now have to worry even more about covering the healthcare costs of our parents.
Unbelievable.
The election has just ended and Obama wins in a landslide.
QUOTE(HammaTime @ 10/06/08 9:08am)
I certainly hope SOMEONE is able to investigate this issue. America needs to know who the hell nixed those two plans, and what was their reasoning?
We need to lift the veil on a lot of mysterious events that have occurred over the past eight years.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I think the fact that you and I know about this is 99.9% of the problem with our military being able to complete an objective. CNN and every other news agency is there to cover it and the military isn't allowed to actually do their job. You think we'd ever made it through either of the world wars if they had been there? I'm guessing not.
By your response, I'll assume you didn't bother to watch the 60 Minutes piece and actually listen to the commander.
This has absolutely nothing to do with media having access to our military. It has everything to do with accounting for why our Delta Force strike team wasn't allowed to engage the enemy in the best means they saw fit. This commander saw fit to step forward and reveal intimate details of his operation.
Watch the piece and I trust you'll understand my point.
This is now an historical matter. Obviously, if the Delta Force commander is willing to talk to 60 Minutes in such detail and produce a book detailing their failure, he is very interested in uncovering these answers.
I sure as hell would like to know why he was prevented from doing his job!
Also, your comment on World War II reveals an amazing ignorance of the role of journalists in that war. The media was free to embed or travel freely during that war. The massive volume of photos/newsreels and stories about WWII is testament to the outstanding work that the journalists performed during that war.
This has absolutely nothing to do with media having access to our military. It has everything to do with accounting for why our Delta Force strike team wasn't allowed to engage the enemy in the best means they saw fit. This commander saw fit to step forward and reveal intimate details of his operation.
Watch the piece and I trust you'll understand my point.
This is now an historical matter. Obviously, if the Delta Force commander is willing to talk to 60 Minutes in such detail and produce a book detailing their failure, he is very interested in uncovering these answers.
I sure as hell would like to know why he was prevented from doing his job!
Also, your comment on World War II reveals an amazing ignorance of the role of journalists in that war. The media was free to embed or travel freely during that war. The massive volume of photos/newsreels and stories about WWII is testament to the outstanding work that the journalists performed during that war.
I don't know what to think of the 60 minute piece. Maybe it's completely accurate but it bothers me 60 minutes failed to offer zero collaboration for the story. The whole story is built on what 1 person says, who just happens to be trying to sell a book about it. Then there is the questionable theatrics involved to hid his identity. We used a fake beard to hide his identify, hide it from who? I don't know.
Then they go on to say this is the 37 year old former Army Major who lead the delta team. I'm going to take a wild guess an assume the government knows who the 37 year old Major is who was the leader for this delta team.
I use to be a big fan of 60 minutes even though I didn't agree with some of their investigative reporting.
In my opinion, 60 minutes went down hill a few years ago after Ed Bradley and Mike Wallace left.
You have to admit 60 minutes lost a lot of credibility when they ran the Rather story about Bush's military service using completely bogus documents. Documents which were even being questioned prior to them running the story.
So I'm going to hold off on my opinion until there is more to the story than 1 unnamed guy who just happen to be trying to sell a book.
Right now it feels more like sensationalism then actual investigative reporting.
I'm not sayig the the story isn't accurate, maybe it is but I want more information that what's been supplied so far.
I'm also a little surprise any discussion about special Ops an Osama would fail to mention Operation Anaconda.
Who knows, when it comes to the hunt for Osama, we may end up replying on our secret weapon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYmEA4O6a10
Then they go on to say this is the 37 year old former Army Major who lead the delta team. I'm going to take a wild guess an assume the government knows who the 37 year old Major is who was the leader for this delta team.
I use to be a big fan of 60 minutes even though I didn't agree with some of their investigative reporting.
In my opinion, 60 minutes went down hill a few years ago after Ed Bradley and Mike Wallace left.
You have to admit 60 minutes lost a lot of credibility when they ran the Rather story about Bush's military service using completely bogus documents. Documents which were even being questioned prior to them running the story.
So I'm going to hold off on my opinion until there is more to the story than 1 unnamed guy who just happen to be trying to sell a book.
Right now it feels more like sensationalism then actual investigative reporting.
I'm not sayig the the story isn't accurate, maybe it is but I want more information that what's been supplied so far.
I'm also a little surprise any discussion about special Ops an Osama would fail to mention Operation Anaconda.
Who knows, when it comes to the hunt for Osama, we may end up replying on our secret weapon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYmEA4O6a10
A few journalist vs the amount of media now is a joke. This guy wouldn't have seen the light of day. You think the people here actually saw what was going on in WWI or WWII? I wasn't there but I'm guessing no. Especially in real time like on CNN. We have no stomach for war. Which is why we haven't won one since WWII. The media at that time was producing images to encourage people to join the cause. Vs. today where they show EVERYTHING negative they can get their hands on. Even when something is working it's a failure. I just believe we'll never be able to really win a war again. We can't handle what it takes to do it. And have to question every step of the way. Then you have this guy coming out trying to sell a book and now you and everyone else who saw it is questioning the military about it. So instead of actually working on the problem we will have people doing a 100 million dollar investigation on why this guy was given an order.... I just think it's time to let our military do their jobs.
I also don't see how you can think a society now where the average household has MULTIPLE televisions, computers, and cable/satelite compares to the 1940's where almost nobody had a television. Yet alone cable. This comes from wikipedia so obviously it might not be 100% accurate but I'm too lazy to dig too hard to find other sources.
"After the U.S. entry into World War II, the FCC reduced the required minimum air time for commercial television stations from 15 hours per week to 4 hours. Most TV stations suspended broadcasting. On the few that remained, programs included entertainment such as boxing and plays, events at Madison Square Garden, and illustrated war news as well as training for air raid wardens and first aid providers. In 1942, there were 5,000 sets in operation, but production of new TVs, radios, and other broadcasting equipment for civilian purposes was suspended from April 1942 to August 1945 (Dunlap)"
So you want to tell me a society with 5000 t.v. sets is getting the same bombardment and level of coverage we do today? Here are examples of what these people were seeing.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=owne...=0&start=10.
If you can compare that to what we see more power to you. I personally see it a different way.
"After the U.S. entry into World War II, the FCC reduced the required minimum air time for commercial television stations from 15 hours per week to 4 hours. Most TV stations suspended broadcasting. On the few that remained, programs included entertainment such as boxing and plays, events at Madison Square Garden, and illustrated war news as well as training for air raid wardens and first aid providers. In 1942, there were 5,000 sets in operation, but production of new TVs, radios, and other broadcasting equipment for civilian purposes was suspended from April 1942 to August 1945 (Dunlap)"
So you want to tell me a society with 5000 t.v. sets is getting the same bombardment and level of coverage we do today? Here are examples of what these people were seeing.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=owne...=0&start=10.
If you can compare that to what we see more power to you. I personally see it a different way.
I would at least partially agree with Geno.
There is a huge difference between war reporting being done in before the age of instant satellite video feeds. It's bad on two levels.
1) You got the possiblity for a huge fuckup like what happened with Rivera broadcasting live to the world ( including the enemy ) I'm with US Army Unit XYZ, we are currently located here, an plan on movie to this location later today. Actually drawing out a map in the sand to give their present location an future location.
2) I can understand the need to hold soldiers accountable on some level but when people are in a position of possible split second life an death decisions. The last they they need to be worry about is some dumbass reporter putting a camera in their face, trying to second guess what they did because it will make for good ratings.
Something else I though of concerning the Osama story. Back during the 2004 elections there was a lot of controversy regarding Osama
Why didn't bush get him...
Bush failed to get the job done....
Bush purposefully didn't get Osama because he made for a great specter to hold over everyone an keep them in fear.
I always thought that line of reasoning was incredibly short sighted. If Bush would have gotten Osama it would have guaranteed him the election. In all the discussion about why we didn't get Osama, I've suggested there might have been a secret decision not to get him because doing so would only increase Osama's potential as some folklore martyr to the cause. It's all a matter of perspective, to them he's like
Audie Murphy, Jimmy Doolittle, and Paul Tibbets rolled into one.
I can certainly see a discussion where the people in change would decide Osama marginalized an funding cut off being less of a threat then dead an transformed into some god sized martyr. Where he would become a rallying cause for extremist for decades to come.
I only mention this because he fits in really well with what the Major said about his orders where not to have Osama brought in by US personnel. Killed in a bombing would be okay but it would be unacceptable to have him captured alive or assassinated.
I'm really surprised there is zero discussion anywhere about the 60 minutes story,at least not any of the news discussion sites I frequently visit.
There is a huge difference between war reporting being done in before the age of instant satellite video feeds. It's bad on two levels.
1) You got the possiblity for a huge fuckup like what happened with Rivera broadcasting live to the world ( including the enemy ) I'm with US Army Unit XYZ, we are currently located here, an plan on movie to this location later today. Actually drawing out a map in the sand to give their present location an future location.
2) I can understand the need to hold soldiers accountable on some level but when people are in a position of possible split second life an death decisions. The last they they need to be worry about is some dumbass reporter putting a camera in their face, trying to second guess what they did because it will make for good ratings.
Something else I though of concerning the Osama story. Back during the 2004 elections there was a lot of controversy regarding Osama
Why didn't bush get him...
Bush failed to get the job done....
Bush purposefully didn't get Osama because he made for a great specter to hold over everyone an keep them in fear.
I always thought that line of reasoning was incredibly short sighted. If Bush would have gotten Osama it would have guaranteed him the election. In all the discussion about why we didn't get Osama, I've suggested there might have been a secret decision not to get him because doing so would only increase Osama's potential as some folklore martyr to the cause. It's all a matter of perspective, to them he's like
Audie Murphy, Jimmy Doolittle, and Paul Tibbets rolled into one.
I can certainly see a discussion where the people in change would decide Osama marginalized an funding cut off being less of a threat then dead an transformed into some god sized martyr. Where he would become a rallying cause for extremist for decades to come.
I only mention this because he fits in really well with what the Major said about his orders where not to have Osama brought in by US personnel. Killed in a bombing would be okay but it would be unacceptable to have him captured alive or assassinated.
I'm really surprised there is zero discussion anywhere about the 60 minutes story,at least not any of the news discussion sites I frequently visit.
Geno, perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourself with this book:
http://www.amazon.ca/Memories-World-War-Ph...d/dp/0810950138
It offers photos taken by the 200 Associated Press photographers who covered World War II.
Any arguments about "instant" communication are completely bogus. Operational security is tantamount and easily enforced by the military, especially when it comes to providing access to still photographers.
During the Vietnam war we had video of battles on the evening news virtually every evening. I have yet to read a substantive and verifiable report that any of that coverage gave any advantage to the enemy.
Robert is right, idiots like Rivera shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a battle.
The silence on the 60 Minutes report tells me one thing, it must be very accurate.
Geno, I applaud your efforts to investigate the number of televisions in households during the 1940's, but that wasn't how the average person got their news on the war. The average news consumer in the 40's relied on radio, newspapers and something called Newsreels. These were, in essence, filmed news reports from the fronts that ran before a movie in all theaters across the country. Comparing televisions to that time is akin to comparing apples and oranges.
The New York Times reported recently on the Iraq war, "after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers."
Now, the issue here isn't that we want to see more graphic images, the issue is that these events haven't been covered openly and honestly. And that means we no longer have a free press, the state controls the images we see. Back when I was a kid, that was something that repulsed us about the Soviet Union.
But, this discussion shouldn't be about the messenger, it should be about the extreme allegation that someone in the chain of command didn't allow Delta Force to kill Osama bin Laden. Why??
I don't buy the argument that he was better left alive, and I REALLY can't believe that you would forward that argument. As stated in that interview, Delta Force was tasked with killing him, and doing it quietly. That means our very best fighting men were sent into a direct frontal assault on a fierce enemy, for no apparent reason. I can't believe anyone would think that was a sane thing to do with our very best.
Now we see the price our country has paid for letting that group of fighters escape. The price we are paying is being paid with every subsequent American body bag that has come out of Afghanistan since Al Qaeda and the Taliban have reconstituted themselves. Someone should be held accountable for that.
And that is my complaint about the current administration. NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING!!
http://www.amazon.ca/Memories-World-War-Ph...d/dp/0810950138
It offers photos taken by the 200 Associated Press photographers who covered World War II.
Any arguments about "instant" communication are completely bogus. Operational security is tantamount and easily enforced by the military, especially when it comes to providing access to still photographers.
During the Vietnam war we had video of battles on the evening news virtually every evening. I have yet to read a substantive and verifiable report that any of that coverage gave any advantage to the enemy.
Robert is right, idiots like Rivera shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a battle.
The silence on the 60 Minutes report tells me one thing, it must be very accurate.
Geno, I applaud your efforts to investigate the number of televisions in households during the 1940's, but that wasn't how the average person got their news on the war. The average news consumer in the 40's relied on radio, newspapers and something called Newsreels. These were, in essence, filmed news reports from the fronts that ran before a movie in all theaters across the country. Comparing televisions to that time is akin to comparing apples and oranges.
The New York Times reported recently on the Iraq war, "after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers."
Now, the issue here isn't that we want to see more graphic images, the issue is that these events haven't been covered openly and honestly. And that means we no longer have a free press, the state controls the images we see. Back when I was a kid, that was something that repulsed us about the Soviet Union.
But, this discussion shouldn't be about the messenger, it should be about the extreme allegation that someone in the chain of command didn't allow Delta Force to kill Osama bin Laden. Why??
I don't buy the argument that he was better left alive, and I REALLY can't believe that you would forward that argument. As stated in that interview, Delta Force was tasked with killing him, and doing it quietly. That means our very best fighting men were sent into a direct frontal assault on a fierce enemy, for no apparent reason. I can't believe anyone would think that was a sane thing to do with our very best.
Now we see the price our country has paid for letting that group of fighters escape. The price we are paying is being paid with every subsequent American body bag that has come out of Afghanistan since Al Qaeda and the Taliban have reconstituted themselves. Someone should be held accountable for that.
And that is my complaint about the current administration. NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.