posted
"Why isn't anybody talking about Wisconsin?
5) As long as Wisconsin has a decent supply of bratwurst and beer, the US doesn't hafta worry about their berzerker hordes. 4) What happens in WisconSin stays in Wisconsin. 3) Wisconsin is the attic of the nation. In most of the world, people eat cheese. In Wisconsin, they wear it on their heads. 2) Don't wanna attract the attention of Wisconsin mosquitoes. Look what happened to Cloverfield*. 1) Everyone else hasta kowtow to NFL team owners while showering them with tributes of billion-dollar stadiums. In Wisconsin, "Elections? What elections? Who cares? We have the Packers.....forever!!!"
* Yep, that was a Wisconsin mosquito, though less vicious than most.
I think it is unlikely that Obama would name Hillary as his running mate, but in the event that he did, she would never accept. If Obama wins, and then reelected or even not reelected, Clinton can't be president for 8 years. By that time she'll be McCain's age. This is her one shot. She would much rather stay in the Senate, where she has a realistic shot at becoming Senate Majority leader by the time she retires. The VP spot would be virtually powerless, but in the Senate she can amass a lot of influence. She won't accept. And besides, there are better VP candidates out there.
Obama I think will destroy McCain in a debate. He's prone to making grandiose statements that make good soundbytes...but only to his base. They look like pandering to everyone else. Obama on the other hand says things everyone gets behind, and that brings them all together. McCain repeats the same lines about Democrats wanting to surrender and give up. He spews the party line, he sounds grumpy, rooted in the past, and beyond the ability to consider other people's points of view.
He sounds like Bush's third term. He's running for Bush's third term. He would have a lot of fodder to use against Clinton. Obama won't crush him, he won't have to. Obama will stand above him and make him look outdated and foolish. It's the kind of guy he is, and he'll win because of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, let's be fair about what McCain said about the U.S. possibly having a presence in Iraq for 100 years. You know perfectly well he meant it like in Europe (where we have had U.S. army bases since the end of World War II) and in South Korea (where the South Koreans are desperate for the U.S. not to pull out completely, because then the North Koreans could attack them). He certainly was not saying U.S. forces would continue to fight Al Qaeda terrorists or sectarian subversives for a hundred years.
Lyrhawn, McCain knows what he is saying about foreign policy and the war on terror, and Obama doesn't. He has taken his cue from the most extreme of the liberals, and like them, he is full of it about the war. Totally, dead wrong.
Charisma can only take Obama so far, when he is so desperately, outrageously, dangerously wrong on the most important issue facing America.
Surely very few people would agree that the improving situation in Iraq had little or nothing to do with the resurrection of McCain's campaign. Being proven right on the field of battle is hard to gainsay.
Terrorist leaders themselves are admitting they put all their effort into confronting America in Iraq (instead of trying to hit us again in America), and that the tide has been turning against them disastrously as the Iraqi people themselves side with the Americans.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well first off, I don't think that's what he meant about 100 years in Iraq, and I think when most people hear that phrase, they don't think he meant that either. Everyone thinks he meant the status quo for a 100 years. They don't want the status quo for 365 days, let alone some form of it for 36,500 days. And if that isn't what he means then I think it's typical of McCains inability to say what he means. People think that's what he wants.
quote:Lyrhawn, McCain knows what he is saying about foreign policy and the war on terror, and Obama doesn't. He has taken his cue from the most extreme of the liberals, and like them, he is full of it about the war. Totally, dead wrong.
Yeah. Thing is, like 70% of the country thinks you, OSC, and McCain are wrong. If the people he is taking his cues from are the most extreme liberals, then a majority of the country is the extreme left of the Republican party. Personally I think he's right. I think Bush bungled a war that never should've been fought for six years, and then things totally outside his control swung his way and he took credit for it, and now McCain wants to jump in with the same lack of ability to control the situation that Bush has. Neither is willing to prod the Iraqis into action, and Obama is, and if it doesn't work, he's willing to cut our losses and rebuild our military. McCain wants us mired there for a century.
And another thing is, most Americans don't think the war is our most important issue. They thing it's the economy, and they think Republicans are the worst on the issue right now. So, barring a total reconcilliation in Iraq, this isn't an issue McCain is going to be able to trumpet, this is an issue that Obama is going to be wildly successful at. You're in the minority on this one.
Bush poisoned the well. It all comes down to that. You guys had your chance on this one, and bungled it. It's not going to be something McCain can use.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you want a look at what attacks from McCain will look like in the Fall, and how thin they are:
quote:"The Democrats wanted to leave and set a date for withdrawal and said we could never succeed militarily. Look at the record ... not the rhetoric, not the platitudes, but the principles and the philosophy," he said.
McCain later took aim directly at Obama for lacking specifics.
"I respect him and the campaign he has run," McCain said. "But there is going to be time when we have to get into specifics, and I have heard not every speech he has given obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics, and that's when as the campaign moves forward, we will be portraying very stark differences."
The problem with that is that he's misrepresenting the Demoratic position, and/or the situation in Iraq. Democrats have never just said that we'll never win militarily, they've said that you can't win with JUST the military, you need a political solution as well. Obama has said all along that he'd use the military as a means to prod a political solution into being, unlike Bush who is taking a sit back and let them figure it out approach. Besides, what are McCain's specifics? Stay there forever, and wait and see?
It'll be child's play for Obama to poke through the holes in McCain's argument, turn it around on him, ask HIM for specifics, and then hammer him on the real problems in Iraq, especially with their dysfunctional government. Members of parliament the other day were calling for the entire government to be dissolved! He's talking to his base. That's it. Few outside of the OSC Democrats and Right wing Republicans think anything McCain has to say on Iraq is really good stuff, and Obama is going to snap him in two in a debate on this issue if he uses crap like that, it's practically giving Obama a prompt to go into his wildly popular spiel.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Terrorist leaders themselves are admitting they put all their effort into confronting America in Iraq (instead of trying to hit us again in America), and that the tide has been turning against them disastrously as the Iraqi people themselves side with the Americans.
Well, I am not so sure about that. I think two things in Iraq are very important, the fact that Al Sadr has not been caught and seems to be hiding in Iran seems to either mean that he will return once the surge is over and start again, simply biding his time until the surge is over, and the fact that the "Anbar Awakening" as it has been called seems to me to be more a product of Sunni's wanting America out of Iraq, and I don't think thats something to ignore. It could be that Al Sadr has gone away for good, but I think it's all the more likely that he is waiting until the surge is over so that he can continue his thrust for power, and unless he is caught and captured, the movement he leads seems not to be finished but simply to be in hiding.
What's interesting is that the political situation in Iraq seems to be a more important problem than Al Sadr or any of that, the fight between Sunni's and Shi'ite's in both blood and politics seems to be much more important, the divide in that country over political power is something beyond what a surge seems to be able to solve. Unless you stop that division and begin to heal the political wounds of the country, then no surge will stop the country from eventually degenerating once again into civil war.
Of course, my opinion on Iraq has always been that we put the Iraqi's on the front line of a war that we were fighting with Al Qaeda, we put them into a position where hundreds of thousands of them died so that hundreds of thousands of our people wouldn't have too, and thats inexcusable even if it works. I'm not really interested in the justifications for the war, the ineptness of the Bush administration to successfully plan the war, the lies it undertook to justify the war, or how it dealt with critical opinions of the war (though those are important) what I care about is the notion that they were willing sacrifice Iraqi's to win a war, and though it may be seen as unbelievably naive or the like, no end is ever going to justify that means. Ever. Even if we win this war, we can never prevail over Al Qaeda if we turn into to people who elect politicians who are just as bad and who begin to accept the horrible and unjustified as means to our own selfish ends. I always thought we were better than that, and I still do. Which makes me think that Obama is the right person and is on the right side of this debate.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humean316, I agree with some of what you posted, except Al-Sadr is not being sought by Coalition or Iraqi forces AFAIK. And given the competing factions in the Al-Mahdi Army, capturing him would just create a power vacuum and more chaos, IMO. Also I think he came out of hiding last year, whether he was in Iran or not is unclear.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a dream last night that I helped to organize a debate between Obama and Clinton. Before the debate, I heard Clinton talking to her aide about how getting Richardson's endorsement would seal up the Mexican Americans. (I thought that she sounded kinda racist there in my dream.) Anyway, I was helping to set up the Obama side of the table and I had to move a bunch of her crap to her side. Stay on your side, lady! I put out some candy (big square tootsie rolls) in the Obama side of the candy bowl. The Obama side of the table was kinda sparse. I'm not a very good planner, I guess.
I never saw Obama in the dream, but before I left, there were a bunch of people on the Clinton side of the room, including Bill Richardson. The rest of my dream was spent trying to get to a computer that worked to be able to post first about the endorsement that was coming, since the debate in my little town wasn't being broadcast. I never did find a good working computer. (And I wasn't around for the actual debate/endorsement announcement.)
So yeah, I lurk in here every day, and now ya'll are affecting my dreams. Get outta my head!
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, my opinion on Iraq has always been that we put the Iraqi's on the front line of a war that we were fighting with Al Qaeda, we put them into a position where hundreds of thousands of them died so that hundreds of thousands of our people wouldn't have too, and thats inexcusable even if it works. I'm not really interested in the justifications for the war, the ineptness of the Bush administration to successfully plan the war, the lies it undertook to justify the war, or how it dealt with critical opinions of the war (though those are important) what I care about is the notion that they were willing sacrifice Iraqi's to win a war, and though it may be seen as unbelievably naive or the like, no end is ever going to justify that means. Ever. Even if we win this war, we can never prevail over Al Qaeda if we turn into to people who elect politicians who are just as bad and who begin to accept the horrible and unjustified as means to our own selfish ends. I always thought we were better than that, and I still do. Which makes me think that Obama is the right person and is on the right side of this debate.
quote:“When it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a 100-year war—a hundred years, as long as it takes,” channeling outrage from the crowd.
What McCain actually said:
quote:Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)
McCAIN: Make it a hundred.
Q: Is that … (cut off)
McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …
Q: [tries to say something]
McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
So can we please stop this myth that Obama is somehow above the distortion so common in today's politics?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So did I, but that's because I read the Wikipedia article on his wife. He was married with children and his wife was sick when he cheated on and dumped her for a 24-year-old slightly more than half his age.
That's not impressive to me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I beat the rush. I lost most of my respect for him when he started whoring himself out in 2004. Of course he's pro-torture (or rather not anti-torture) now. It's what the base wants. As they push him further into crazy-town, I think his support among moderates and independents is going to get drastically reduced.
I think John McCain of 2000 would have been a great President, but he's not that person anymore.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like what Ron Paul had to say about the success of the surge. Paraphrasing of course:
"Of course we don't want our soldiers to get hurt or die, but even if you do the wrong thing really well, it doesn't justify doing it. If I go in and rob a bank and no one gets hurt and I get away with it, it doesn't mean robbing the bank is the right thing to do."
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So can we please stop this myth that Obama is somehow above the distortion so common in today's politics?
If we keep permanent bases in Iraq (Muslim holy land), and our bases in the Middle East are in part what prompted terrorism over here, do you really think that over time our bases will sit around unmolested during those 100 years like they do in Japan and Germany?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, McCain knows what he is saying about foreign policy and the war on terror, and Obama doesn't. He has taken his cue from the most extreme of the liberals, and like them, he is full of it about the war. Totally, dead wrong.
I know for a fact that this isn't true, in a general sense. One of my best friends' (for some 20+ years) brother is this guy. You may have seen him on various news programs, or maybe seen his books around. He's considered a top expert in domestic security, particularly of ports, but not limited to that. He's advised all the candidates, and was impressed with Obama, though he only was frustrated with one of the candidates in particular... A certain guy respected for his supposed wise stance on security, who was a mayor of a rather large port town in the USA. That guy is no longer in the race now.
Obama is maybe center-left of the general US public, at this point in time. Sure, the "Center" moves back and forth as various factors become more or less important, but on a host of issues, Obama is in line with people's expectations.
quote: So can we please stop this myth that Obama is somehow above the distortion so common in today's politics?
If we keep permanent bases in Iraq (Muslim holy land), and our bases in the Middle East are in part what prompted terrorism over here, do you really think that over time our bases will sit around unmolested during those 100 years like they do in Japan and Germany?
Assuming that did happen, then the rest of McCain's statement would kick in: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Terrorist leaders themselves are admitting they put all their effort into confronting America in Iraq (instead of trying to hit us again in America), and that the tide has been turning against them disastrously as the Iraqi people themselves side with the Americans.
quote: So can we please stop this myth that Obama is somehow above the distortion so common in today's politics?
If we keep permanent bases in Iraq (Muslim holy land), and our bases in the Middle East are in part what prompted terrorism over here, do you really think that over time our bases will sit around unmolested during those 100 years like they do in Japan and Germany?
Assuming that did happen, then the rest of McCain's statement would kick in: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
So taking McCain at his word, he would withdraw soldiers from Iraq if they were being wounded or killed?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So taking McCain at his word, he would withdraw soldiers from Iraq if they were being wounded or killed?
That's not what he said at all. He said a very long-term presence such as those in Japan or South Korea would be fine "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
In other words, he was explicitly talking about our presence in Iraq after the country is stabilized and the fighting ends - which is why Obama's statement was a mischaracterization.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...I think that it is a mischaracterization of our conflict in Iraq to imply that the scenario Senator McCain was suggesting is likely.
I don't think it is an intentional mischaracterization. It is quite possible that Senator McCain believes the situations are similar.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In other words, he was explicitly talking about our presence in Iraq after the country is stabilized and the fighting ends...
Sorry, I should have been clear that I took this as a premise in my question.
So Iraq is stabilized, fighting ends, the U.S. has a long-term presence as McCain described, but then in the future that presence comes under attack. I interpret McCain's statement "as long as..." to mean that in that event he would withdraw.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At that point I assume he would address it in the same way he would address an attack on forces in Japan or Korea.
In other words, I think McCain would agree that there is some time limit on the type of presence we have now (although he, wisely in my opinion, won't make that time limit explicit). If Iraq achieves stability similar to Japan and Korea's stability, we would stay long term - premised, of course, on Iraq's consent.
At the time an attack happens in any of those countries, we would have to decide as a nation what to do.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Democracy for Texas have endorsed Obama. DFT is the organization Dean set up last election. Apparantly, 73.2% of their members who voted, voted for Obama. I am less and less convinced Hilary is going to win Texas by the landslide she is claiming.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, Obama and McCain both need to be careful, if they indeed want to build something different than we've had in the last 20 years, about using Iraq as a political hot potato.
And while I don't condone the use of torture, it depends on how one defines it. Is bright lights and loud music torture? Because I've read articles complaining about prisoners being subjected to that. McCain pissed off a lot of people by agreeing that waterboarding is torture, and I respect that he did so. I don't know enough about this latest bill to know whether it makes him a hypcrite to oppose it.
posted
Honestly, I worry that Obama might not have the chance. I get the feeling that, if he wins, the hatemongering wing of the Republican party will react to his reasonableness and desire to wokr across party lines with an even more charged hate campaign than if Hillary wins. They'll need to get people to hate him for him.
I hope that this isn't the case or that, if it is, most people will see it for what it is, but I'm not optimistic.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be delighted for someone (anyone, really) to try a negative campaign and be completely stomped for it. It would be a lovely turnaround for politics in this country. Of course I'm terrified that instead of being stomped it would be successful. That would be bad. Very, very bad.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm willing to believe that McCain actually believes the things that he is saying, but...I really don't think Obama is off base in picking it apart. He says he wants us there for 100 years so long as the bases are secured, though he has no idea how that'll ever happen, and it flies in the face of a couple decades of arab terrorists telling us the reason they hate us is because of military troops on holy ground. Besides, he never gives any kind of an idea as to when the situation will settle down to the point where that reality might take over, and I think it's hypocritical to attack Obama for being vague when he has no plans, no details, nothing except eventually it'll settle down and we'll stay for a century. And what happens if that situation doesn't come up? Send in more troops? Retreat? Surrender?
Sorry, if it's open ground to attack Obama on for McCain, then it's open ground to attack McCain on for Obama. He can't have it both ways.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are plenty of people who won't vote for Obama based on race, probably more in the Republican side but also in the Democrat side. But I don't know how many people will feel that way strongly enough to show up to the polls. It's been interesting that the more educated democrats have supported Obama but not the blue collar set. No one will admit this in a poll, and he does better in caucuses.
However, I do feel he has won enough primaries now, particularly closed primaries, to quell the concern that people won't vote for him when it comes right down to it, and his victories cannot be attributed to shenanigans by anti-Clinton Republicans. I think the possibility of such shenanigans has been tempered substantially by the belief that Clinton could be beat in the general, whereas Republicans are less certain that they had a candidate that can beat Obama.
I think the main objection to Obama that people will talk about will be that he is a first term senator. I think another reason he may not do as well as his supporters hope is that Congress is already under democratic control, and that 80% in the middle probably does not prefer to have the same party controlling both.
And there's racism. But my reasoning is more to the idea that there are situations at play which would not mean that Obama is ruined if he should choose to run again in 4 more years. Though... I'm not sure how often nominees are able to run again and make it to the White House. Am I remembering that Nixon did it? Did Reagan do it?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
February 13 - Barack Obama 47%, Hillary Clinton 43%, Undecided 10%
Pennsylvania -
February 12th - Hillary Clinton 52%, Barack Obama 36%, Other 1%, Undecided 11%
Ohio -
February 13th - Hillary Clinton 51%, Barack Obama 37%, Undecided 12%
Wisconsin is close, and he's narrowing the gap in PA and OH. He has two weeks to Ohio and Texas, and it's looking like he might get it down to a split vote, which is really all he needs to claim success I think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: New polling data:
Wisconsin -
February 13 - Barack Obama 47%, Hillary Clinton 43%, Undecided 10%
Pennsylvania -
February 12th - Hillary Clinton 52%, Barack Obama 36%, Other 1%, Undecided 11%
Ohio -
February 13th - Hillary Clinton 51%, Barack Obama 37%, Undecided 12%
Wisconsin is close, and he's narrowing the gap in PA and OH. He has two weeks to Ohio and Texas, and it's looking like he might get it down to a split vote, which is really all he needs to claim success I think.
I want to know who they're polling and where. Because I live in Philadelphia, and I've yet to come across a democrat who is behind Hillary.
Which is purely anecdotal and probably completely biased, but it still seems like that PA poll is off to me.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I want to know who they're polling and where. Because I live in Philadelphia, and I've yet to come across a democrat who is behind Hillary.
How old is your sample set, Javert. I don't very few young Democrats that are voting for Hillary Clinton. Older democrats are a different story.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: and his victories cannot be attributed to shenanigans by anti-Clinton Republicans. I think the possibility of such shenanigans has been tempered substantially by the belief that Clinton could be beat in the general, whereas Republicans are less certain that they had a candidate that can beat Obama.
Most of the Republicans I have talked to who plan to vote in the Democratic primary (I'm in an open primary state) plan to do so, not because they want to make a more strategic campaign, but because they have a strong 2nd choice. If they can't have McCain (and a lot really don't want McCain), they would prefer Obama. I think this is a perfectly legitimate use of their vote. Of course, I also like the idea of rank ordering your ballot- my first choice is A, but if A doesn't get 10% of the vote, it goes to B.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Re: PA, it's a big union state, particularly to the west end.
The Yinzers probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Their idea of a decent ticket is probably something along the lines of Sidney Crosby/Bob Errey 08. Sure, they're both Canadians and Crosby's a few decades too young, but those thighs... oh, those thighs....
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh. Looks close enough that I really should go up and canvass in Wisconsin on Saturday. I hate canvassing. I really like staying home in my jammies. Sigh
Does anyone know how Obama and Clinton voted on the FISA bill? I think that they were both in town, but I'm not sure.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Seems like most everyone I talk to says "I'd never vote for Hillary" and yet she's had millions of people vote for her.
Anywho, rural voters, which PA has a lot of, union voters, which again, PA has a lot of, elderly people, women...there are plenty of people who like her. Besides, Obama hasn't campaigned there at all. His status there is entirely because of exposure to national news. I expect his star will rise there when he actually commits resources, but that won't happen for a month.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really don't think Obama is off base in picking it apart.
Picking it apart would be one thing. But he didn't, at least in the quote I heard on NPR and pasted above.
He misstated McCain's position. He didn't say McCain's desired result was unlikely - he said McCain wants to fight a 100 year war.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Dagonee that the quoted statement is a mischaracterization of McCain's position. I hate that sound bites and people quoting each other out of context means that it's almost impossible for a politician to present a position that isn't summed up in one sentence.
I've also heard other comments from Obama's speeches that were more accurately saying "McCain wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years." I don't know if Obama's mischaracterization there is intentional or a misunderstanding of McCain's statement.
posted
Given McCain's inability to state a withdrawel strategy of any kind, and his disdain for anything that even SOUNDS like pulling the troops out, I'm not so sure he doesn't want to fight a 100 year war.
When you (non-specific you) constantly attack the opposition for wanting to pull troops out, and you have no plan to win the war yourself, it sort of makes it sound like you want to stay there as long as it takes (which is, you know, something that side has stated repeatedly)...maybe even a 100 years.
I'd like Obama to make his language sound less sensationalist, less intentionally distorting his words. But I can't help but think it's not totally unfair given McCain's position.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, just to be clear, I didn't address your main point about the misstatement because I agree with it. I do support Obama now, but I've never thought he was perfect.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So's your mama. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted one way or the other on this measure.
Why is what Obama or Clinton voted relevant to John McCain's change in position?
I'm just saying it makes them also not anti-torture, because unlike 5 republican senators, they did not vote for the ban.
quote:Romney's announced he'll be endorsing McCain in the next day or two.
Weird. I don't know that it will do much to stem the damage to McCain's support in the conservative right. But it's hard to figure. It's a very fine line between bringing his friends around to McCain and alienating his enemies from McCain.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. When I was looking for the exact quote from Senator McCain on 100 years in Iraq (or 1000 or 10,000 as he said in a later interview), I came across a (funny to me) Youtube video riffing on the "Yes, We Can" video.
I also came across clips from a documentary called, "Missing, Presumed Dead." It talks about Senator McCain legislating to block access to records of MIA/POW vets.
This is the first I've heard of this. Is it true? I think McCain is wrong about a lot of things and has done too much cozying up to the conservatives, but this surprises me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, Romney's doing it right now. (right now meaning later this afternoon).
This sort of rallying round the presumptive nominee for the good of the party despite a rather bitter primary is standard practice - it's what McCain did in 2000. It also means that Romney's setting himself up to be the next in line should McCain fall in November, also as McCain did.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
