Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
The McCain Residences: A Google Earth Tour
June 30th, 2008
16 Comments
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Wow. I’ll tell you what. The McCain camp must be shitting in their pants over what the ‘grassroots’ has been able to come up with so far.
1. McCain is old
2. McCain is rich
3. McCain has a temper
4. McCain dumped his first wife for a trophy wife
5. McCain’s military service doesn’t mean a thing.
Deep stuff.
Considering the stuff you guys used against Kerry, Gore, and Clinton, it’s gold.
Oh so we’re back to the, “I learned it from watching you” routine. That’s funny. I thought Democrats were all about the ISSUES and since 99% of America agrees with Democrats on the ISSUES, they didn’t have to waste their time with trivial stuff like this.
I guess that’s not the case.
We’ll deal with the issues and the trivial. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
And I suppose it’s the Democrats’ fault that despite nominating the smarter guy with the better set of issues twice in a row, the American people chose the guy they wanted a beer with.
Come on, Democrats, (I guess) we have to work harder to make sure Republicans don’t cluck and shake their heads at us.
The simple fact is that there are a lot of flavors of voters. There are the “news junkie” and “policy wonk” voters who will happily entertain hours of Socratic thought about the policy implications of each camp and vote accordingly. To reach the other 90% of people who think in sound bites, many of whom make their decision on election day based on the last campaign ad they happened to hear, our side is not going to voluntarily unilaterally disarm while the well funded legions of Karl Rove surrogates work furiously to get the
1. Obama is a secret Muslim
2. Obama is a racist
3. Obama isn’t really a citizen
4. Obama is an out-of-touch elitist
into the media discourse and low-information voters brains.
Jay,
. McCain’s military service doesn’t mean a thing.
I served honorably and graduated considerably higher in my class. Does that qualify me to be president?
Or is being tortured the difference between McCain’s service and mine that qualifies him and not me? If so, how, and also if so, doesn’t that make most of the prisoners at Gitmo qualified to be president?
Al Gore served honorably, and Bush deserted his unit. Did that make any difference to you?
And I suppose it’s the Democrats’ fault
Well, yeah. In part.
Clinton should never have said anything other than “It’s none of your damn business.” Kerry should have recognized the Swift Boaters for what they were and realized that, yes, they WILL attack him on his war record. Democrats in general should stop being wimps and giving in to Bush on exactly the things they were elected to oppose him on.
So, yeah. The Democrats have willingly given the country to the Republicans (and, even with majorities in both chambers, continue to do so).
Repack, nobody is saying (most of all, John McCain) that McCain’s military service is what qualifies him to be President. However, I would say that his Vietnam experience is something that tells us about his character, his loyalty to our country and his determination and how he would apply those principles as President. To simply dismiss that is absurd.
As for the trivial, I know it’s going to happen on both sides regardless. It’s just Democrats do a much better job of whining like 9 year old schoolgirls when it happens to them and then saying the equivalent of, “He started it!” when they do the same thing.
If there’s going to be jabs at McCain’s wife and his divorce from his first wife, fine. But Oliver et al, should stop blubbering when Barack Obama’s association with Bill Ayers is talked about (which Oliver tried to laughingly dismiss as ‘bogus’ but is true).
Once again, you can’t have it both ways.
jay forgot number six:
6. Without McCain they were the Keating Four.
Repack, nobody is saying (most of all, John McCain) that McCain’s military service is what qualifies him to be President. However, I would say that his Vietnam experience is something that tells us about his character, his loyalty to our country and his determination and how he would apply those principles as President. To simply dismiss that is absurd.
I’m glad you agree that military service is not a qualification for the presidency, but all this character and principles stuff is, characteristically, a bit vague. Can somebody explain why they believe military service is relevant at all to the qualifications of a chief executive? Specifically. As in, ‘my experience as a point guard at Kansas State qualifies me to be a point guard for the Golden State Warriors.’ Please shoot for that standard, and even if it’s a little closer than ‘loyalty, determination and principles,’ I’ll be satisfied.
Also, I’m more than a little suspicious of any attempt to quantify loyalty. It almost strikes me as a backdoor attempt to suggest that one candidate is more loyal than the other, which I’m certain is beyond the pale for anyone on this forum.
As for the trivial, I know it’s going to happen on both sides regardless. It’s just Democrats do a much better job of whining like 9 year old schoolgirls when it happens to them and then saying the equivalent of, “He started it!” when they do the same thing.
It’s a bottomless pit trying to determine who invented smear politics via matters trivial to the job – was it James Monroe, for outing Alexander Hamilton’s extramarital affair? – but I don’t know if I’d call objecting when your political opposition uses Usama Bin Laden and ticking time bombs in their political ads and smearing the service of not one, but multiple veterans in your party as ‘whining like a nine-year-old schoolgirl.’ Apparently we can either let this black hole of ethical campaigning pass in solemn silence, or whine like schoolgirls.
However, I would say that his Vietnam experience is something that tells us about his character, his loyalty to our country and his determination and how he would apply those principles as President.
And I assume you said the same of George W. Bush?
However, I would say that his Vietnam experience is something that tells us about his character,
That’s what worries me.
Holy cats!
Sentence 1: nobody is saying…that McCain’s military service is what qualifies him to be President.
Sentence 2: However, I would say that his Vietnam experience is something that tells us about his character, his loyalty to our country and his determination and how he would apply those principles as President.
That’s a mighty slim distinction, Jay. His service isn’t a qualification, but his service reveals his character and that’s a qualification for president.
That’s some high-grade stuff, Jay. It’s allright to introduce character through his military service, but not to discuss character as revealed by his marriage history? It’s OK to bring up his military service as evidence of character, but not to actually talk about whether his military service is evidence of foreign policy expertise?
Can somebody explain why they believe military service is relevant at all to the qualifications of a chief executive? Specifically. As in, ‘my experience as a point guard at Kansas State qualifies me to be a point guard for the Golden State Warriors.’
It’s definitly a point in your favor when the other guy’s only experience is playing pick-up games at the Y. Plus, he’s not overtly flaunting it to paper over a thin resume like Kerry did.
But if he shows up in Minneapolis in a flight suit and gives a “Reporting for Duty” speech, I just may come around to your side.
“Plus, he’s not overtly flaunting it to paper over a thin resume like Kerry did.”
Interesting. If a liberal characterized a Republican presidential candidate (I don’t just mean McCain, I mean a generic Republican presidential candidate) highlighting his military service as “flaunting” it, and implied that said service does not actually count as part of that GOP’ers resume, would many conservatives view such remarks as anti-military? Does a bear do his business in the woods?