posted
Bittergate wasn't a gaffe, he was pretty clear in what he meant. McCain at least made the press for his constant wrongness about iran/Al-Qaeda. McCain isn't really even a news story now as all eyes are focused on who will be the next president...Clinton or Obama
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
That was pretty much the first thing I thought when I read about that too.
I think (with the recent losses in the special elections) the Bush White House is seeing the Republicans taking a massive drubbing come November and they desperately want to avert it, so they've basically given up whatever decency they had left.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that is a very unfair characterization of Bush. I disagree with most of the policies and actions of the White House, but I think the President is a good man and retains a personal decency.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, maybe Iran does invade Iraq as soon as we're gone, and move on toward Israel. Then Israel fires their nuclear weapons and all that. I guess I better get a hydrogen car.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say it with complete confidence. All the information I have from those who deal with him and from what I read of him personally peg him as trying to be a good man and succeeding often, although in my opinion not often enough.
It matters how we talk about our leaders, even when we disagree. Demonizing them does not do us any favors.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am prepared to believe that, rather than being a bad person, President Bush is quite sincere in trying to be a good person. I think that he is (possibly willfully) unable to grasp that he does the wrong things as president and that he does a great deal of harm.
I am prepared to believe that he just doesn't get it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Pat Buchanan, of all people, called it "astonishing" that the President of the US was levelling those kind of attacks on a Presidential candidates on foreign soil.
On top of that, the comments show a convenient amnesia regarding his own administration, which engaged in negotiations with both Libya and North Korea. On top of that, his own Bob Gates just said that he supports dialog with Iran.
To me, his decency as a human being is irrelevant. Playing fast and loose with facts, and breaking with some pretty strong tradition are disturbing traits of his I won't miss at all.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Bush is evil, and he's probably trying to do what he thinks is right and good in his own head. I just feel he's incompetent and wrong, and his positions are damaging. Doesn't have to mean he's Satan.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think these comments were tailored for the Israeli parliament. I'd like to hear whether any Israeli leaders were deeply offended by it.
I also don't know why the president should hold more regard for candidates' reputations than they have held for him. Does being a presidential candidate have some special stature?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Does being a presidential candidate have some special stature?
No, but being the President should.
*somewhat related anecdote followed by completely unrelated flow of consciousness*
Standing at the Lincoln memorial, with my Mother crying softly, I wondered aloud whether my lack of emotion was related to a consistent tarnishing of the Presidential image. I imagine that the general populace revered the President when she <edit: my mother> was growing up in the 50s and 60s. In my case, the opinions of the populace (including my own) were mostly framed by satirical or farcical comedy skits on Saturday Night Live. I think the US society has lost a huge amount of respect for the office of the President in the past 30 years. And, perhaps as a result or perhaps as a cause, I think the President is much more likely to act like a little politician than like the great Statesman that he (or she) once would have aspired to be.
Or maybe its always been like this and we've all finally caught on. Maybe Roosevelt was a philandering cad who would've done anything for a headline. Maybe Lincoln was a country bumpkin whose military meddling and ineptitude caused the near death of the Union. Maybe Washington was an elitist and Jefferson was a racist. I don't know.
Or maybe this descent from the pedestal is a good thing; maybe making the President a little more human is a sign of the increasing egalitarianism of our society. But I wish we'd all aspired to rise to the (perhaps fictious) level we used to hold (or try to hold) our President to, rather than bringing him down to (or, in the case of Pres. Bush, below) ours.
It was a really dumb slip. Being friendly and open to the press does not mean condescending nicknames.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a source for you Chris, but I've read that Obama personally called the reporter in question to apologise, and offered that "sweetie" is just a phrase he uses.* For obvious reasons, he's been trying not to do it.
*Like the way I'll sometimes say "mais" instead of "but" by accident. Damn you, grade-school French!
quote: Obama leaves a voicemail for a Detroit TV reporter he called "sweetie":
Hi Peggy. This is Barack Obama. I'm calling to apologize on two fronts. One was you didn't get your question answered and I apologize. I thought that we had set up interviews with all the local stations. I guess we got it with your station but you weren't the reporter that got the interview. And so, I broke my word. I apologize for that and I will make up for it.
Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie.' That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front. Feel free to call me back. I expect that my press team will be happy to try to make it up to you whenever we are in Detroit next.
[ May 15, 2008, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Lord Solar Macharius ]
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "sweetie" thing didn't bother me, and from the people I've talked to around here, where the "gaffe" was made, most people are calling this a non-story that the media is blowing WAY out of proportion. Honestly, it was a slip of the tongue. Is that really what we decide to vote for a president on? Move on.
DarkKnight -
You've got to be kidding. Obama has been HAMMERED by press recently over a myriad of "gaffes" he's made. Meanwhile McCain is endorsed by holy men who have said that Katrina and 9/11 were the fault of sinners and gays. But Wright is plastered all over the news? And Republicans even use Wright's images as political fodder in ads against Obama and Democrats in local Congressional elections? What a joke. McCain isn't playing error free ball here, he's coughing it up, but the cameras are all pointed elsewhere.
kat -
I am hesitantly willing to believe that Bush is a decent guy but just incredibly, unimaginably STUPID. But I think he is intellectually dishonest, and I think these actions are dishonorable. Maybe if his criticisms weren't hypocritical then I could at least believe that he just had a different ideology than Obama. But what, now Ghadaffi is our kind of crazy dictator, someone we can get along with? He labeled North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil and has constantly dealt with them diplomatically with zero threat of force. Iran, another member of the Axis of Evil can NEVER be reasoned with! Ever! TALK to them? That's APPEASEMENT! It's what they did with NAZIS AND HITLER. HITLER!!!!!
To quote Senator Joseph Biden, it's "bullshit."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're confident that Iran doesn't consider the very existence of Israel a hate crime against Islam? I think this is a case where Godwin's law does not apply because we are discussing people who really do want to kill Jews.
I mean, maybe you feel like it's our fault they feel this way. If it is our fault, it's not restricted to what has happened in this administration, but our support of Israel over the decades.
But that's just how I see it. Most secular Jews I know are very resistant to seeing the War on Terror as involving Israel's safety. Obama feels it's made Israel less safe, and I think there is an argument for that. I'm just puzzled that if he knows taking out S. Hussein strengthened Iran, he thinks our withdrawal from Iraq will help. I guess he has a plan where he talks to Iran and tells them not to take advantage of Iraq's weakness, not to exploit the Shiite majority there. Then there's the whole oil thing.
It's a complex situation. Maybe there are possibilities. But calling Bush's remarks Bullshit is just returning blow for blow.
P.S. Re: the stature of the President Whether the man should be honored or the office is an old question. I'm just saying that if the office of President has no stature, there is no stature in being a candidate for president.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope that the President is brought to our levels, but the simple human decency make a comeback. The president isn't heavenly appointed, after all. He's elected by us, and as such is a reflection of us. --
As for Iran not exploiting the Iraqi Shiite majority, I think that horse has left the barn, and us leaving won't change that.
Iraq's government was never going to turn out like the neo-cons wanted/believed. They are a completely different culture, with their own basic tendencies.
To have believed (and acted on that belief) that we could have remade them in our image, wait, I mean "export democracy", is up there with Adam & Eve's insolence, as far as hubris goes. Heck, we didn't even want to export actual democracy, you know, a system of government that allows the citizens of a sovereign state to exercise political self-determination, we just wanted to fill their government with people who would like us, and be our puppets.
posted
Lyrhawn - Quayle was hammered when he used a card given to him with an incorrect spelling on it. McCain in mentioned in many many articles to equate him with Obama plus McCain gets hammered for what independent groups do. You do have a good point that cameras are pointed elsewhere for McCain, they are all focusing on Obama/Clinton. Do you really think all countries should be dealt with exactly the same? North Korea and Iran are two very different cultures with a much different history in negotiations, not that will matter because Bush Bashing is the most popular liberal sport.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm just puzzled that if he knows taking out S. Hussein strengthened Iran, he thinks our withdrawal from Iraq will help.
Taking out Saddam was a good thing. Occupying Iraq was a dumb thing.
When is McCain going to make his medical records public?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But just because occupying Iraq in the way we did was a dumb thing (and I'll grant that- I'm not a fan of Hans Bremer) is withdrawal the solution to that? I think our occupation of Iraq made them dependent on us, and when we pull out, they are more likely to collapse.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is, even if we have the best of intentions, our occupation is unsustainable, without some major changes to how we are funding and staffing the occupation. There's a good chance that following the Bush/McCain strategy we will be in there for decades (note: I don't actually believe that 100 years would be necessary, as is popularized in some circles)... There's a non-trivial chance that the US government will collapse under the debt of such a lengthy occupation.
Something McCain doesn't even touch on. Or does he suppose we can just run up the government's credit card even more?
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But just because occupying Iraq in the way we did was a dumb thing (and I'll grant that- I'm not a fan of Hans Bremer) is withdrawal the solution to that? I think our occupation of Iraq made them dependent on us, and when we pull out, they are more likely to collapse.
That's what they said about Korea. And VietNam. Continuing a mistake won't make it better. If they collapse, they'll do so on their own, and they'll rebuild on their own.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you're not worried about Iran's proximity to Israel, I guess I have no right to be. And shoot, maybe we luck out and Iran's takeover of Iraq would result in a bunch of Sunni/Shiite infighting. Fun fun fun!
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So you're confident that Iran doesn't consider the very existence of Israel a hate crime against Islam? I think this is a case where Godwin's law does not apply because we are discussing people who really do want to kill Jews.
I mean, maybe you feel like it's our fault they feel this way. If it is our fault, it's not restricted to what has happened in this administration, but our support of Israel over the decades.
But that's just how I see it. Most secular Jews I know are very resistant to seeing the War on Terror as involving Israel's safety. Obama feels it's made Israel less safe, and I think there is an argument for that. I'm just puzzled that if he knows taking out S. Hussein strengthened Iran, he thinks our withdrawal from Iraq will help. I guess he has a plan where he talks to Iran and tells them not to take advantage of Iraq's weakness, not to exploit the Shiite majority there. Then there's the whole oil thing.
It's a complex situation. Maybe there are possibilities. But calling Bush's remarks Bullshit is just returning blow for blow.
I don't agree at all. First of all, it's just hypocritical. His secretaries of defense and state, his policy advisors, and even Dick Cheney have said that we should talk to Iran. There have been talks with Iran in regards to how they are dealing with Iraq. And there is an international effort to diplomatically speak with Iran to discuss their nuclear policy. Besides, Bush already has a seven year legacy of talking with N. Korea on the same subject.
It's a scare tactic, plan and simple. There's an assumption tha direct talks will lead to us bobbing our heads and saying "yeah sure, yes yes, whatever you say!" to the Iranians. It's a TALK. Talking doesn't mean you forget how to say the word "no."
If they want to discuss the merits of a comprehensive foreign policy plan, then they should do so. If they just want to fear monger and sling mud, then by all means, they should keep calling Democrats Nazi appeasers and saying that we want to give in to terrorists.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Lyrhawn - Quayle was hammered when he used a card given to him with an incorrect spelling on it. McCain in mentioned in many many articles to equate him with Obama plus McCain gets hammered for what independent groups do. You do have a good point that cameras are pointed elsewhere for McCain, they are all focusing on Obama/Clinton. Do you really think all countries should be dealt with exactly the same? North Korea and Iran are two very different cultures with a much different history in negotiations, not that will matter because Bush Bashing is the most popular liberal sport.
Every candidate gets hammered for what independent groups supporting them do. Are you seriously suggesting liberal candidates have never been hit for MoveOn's antics? Trying to pretend there is some vast skewing to make McCain look bad and the Democrats good is just dishonest. Right now the mainstream media attention, the kind of sources of news that most regular people pay attention to, is squarely on the Democrats, for better or for worse, I'm not ready to make a value judgement on what the attention has done, though I lean towards negative, we'll see.
Do I think all countries should be dealt with the same? Not automatically, no. But what is really to be lost in having a discussion with Iran? Nothing. What is to be gained? Potentially nuclear disarmament. If things don't go the way we want, then we take it to the next step. But we've seen what happens when we skip over the diplomatic stage and head right for the military stage; we get Iraq. Engagement works, disengagement makes the world more dangerous. I think you're talking about what comes AFTER talking to them. Talking does nothing to hurt us.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The speech was McCain basically describing what he thinks America will look like after his first term in office. There were actually a nugget or two in there that I thought were good ideas and possibilities, but there was a LOT of fantasy in there. For example:
quote: So, what I want to do today is take a little time to describe what I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as President. * By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role * The Government of Pakistan has cooperated with the U.S. in successfully adapting the counterinsurgency tactics that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan to its lawless tribal areas where al Qaeda fighters are based. The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants. There is no longer any place in the world al Qaeda can consider a safe haven.
I mean that's just fantasy. We've been getting promises even less lofty than that for five years and we're no closer. How he intends to achieve that by pursuing the same policies currently in place is beyond me. I think it's a great, honorable goal. But I think suggesting this will happen makes him look more like Bush, which isn't a good idea politically. Some decent possibilities:
quote: The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been significantly increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us. Long overdue reforms to the way we acquire weapons programs, including fixed price contracts, have created sufficient savings to pay for a larger military. A substantial increase in veterans educational benefits and improvements in their health care has aided recruitment and retention. The strain on the National Guard and reserve forces has been relieved
Now okay, if he really has substantial savings from a complete overhaul of the weapons procurement system in the Pentagon, which is long overdue, then he might be able to eke out an increase in our ground forces. Republicans are all calling for a huge increase in all four branches of the military, with big increases in ship building, a big chunk of the air fleet replaced, and now tens of thousands more troops? You don't pay for that with a procurement overhaul. The defense budget is at a proposed $600 billion for next year. Out of a $3 trillion dollar budget, that's 20% of our budget, and doesn't include money for Iraq and Afghanistan. How much higher would that percentage climb under fiscally conservative McCain?
quote: After efforts to pressure the Government in Sudan over Darfur failed again in the U.N. Security Council, the United States, acting in concert with a newly formed League of Democracies, applied stiff diplomatic and economic pressure that caused the government of Sudan to agree to a multinational peacekeeping force, with NATO countries providing logistical and air support, to stop the genocide that had made a mockery of the world's repeated declaration that we would "never again" tolerant such inhumanity
An interesting idea. League of Democracies? I suppose this would basically be Europe, Canada, the US, Australia, NZ and whoever else of the major world democracies I left out (maybe India). Taking this to a group of stable democracies and removing it from the UN isn't an idea I necessarily oppose, I'm just curious as to the structure of such a body. I hope he releases more details about it soon.
quote: The United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth, and Americans again have confidence in their economic future. A reduction in the corporate tax rate from the second highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners; the low rate on capital gains; allowing business to deduct in a single year investments in equipment and technology, while eliminating tax loopholes and ending corporate welfare, have spurred innovation and productivity, and encouraged companies to keep their operations and jobs in the United States. The Alternate Minimum Tax is being phased out, with relief provided first to middle income families. Doubling the size of the child exemption has put more disposable income in the hands of taxpayers, further stimulating growth.
Hah! That's trillions of dollars in tax cuts over just a few years. The AMT alone will cost him a couple trillion dollars over the next few years. Big spending increases and big tax cuts? Disconnect.
quote: I will hold weekly press conferences. I will regularly brief the American people on the progress our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered. When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them. I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons
This is a fantastic idea. Really fantastic. I think this is a key component of something that has been missing from our democratic process in the last seven years. We need more answers and more access, not less. A tiny part of me wants to vote for him just to see what that would look like.
There's a lot more in there, but I didn't want to break the WHOLE thing down, just some of the more glaring ridiculousness and some new ideas that I thought were potential winners.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Bush didn't even name Obama in his speech. You folks are all het up about nothing.
Then who was he talking about? Obama? Democrats? If not, then he was talking about what, no one? Come on.
Republicans have spent years saying that Democrats want to appease terrorists, surrender to terrorists, etc etc, and then this? He's obviously talking about Democrats, and with McCain's chatter connecting Obama to Hamas, I don't think it takes a genius to see who he is trying to paint with this.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read Bush's speech about his hopes for the Middle East in 60 years. I need to get grounded a bit before looking at 2013.
He's talking about viewpoints, not personalities. If Obama wants to take offense at that, that's his choice. I hardly think Bush was talking about Ron Paul in his next paragraph, about "some want to break off relations with Israel".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:White House officials denied Obama was a target of Bush's remarks. But privately, White House aides indicated the criticism was aimed at various Democrats, including Obama and former President Jimmy Carter.
posted
So you think he meant to invoke Ron Paul in his speech to Israel? speech text
P.S. I think this only became about Obama because Obama seized on it being about him as a way to put himself in the national spotlight. It is much likely much more about Jimmy Carter, that does ring true.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's talking about viewpoints, not personalities.
Which is the general problem I have with what President Bush says and does in his administration, he takes such broad strokes with those viewpoints he speaks of that he is then able to make comparisons where the intentions are clear. For instance, yesterday he talked about Nazi Germany and the moment when their tanks rolled across Polish boundaries, and I think it's clear that by painting such a broad viewpoint, Bush is then able to paint all Democrats as soft on terrorism and appeasers like those from WWII who allowed Hitler to succeed for a while. It's intellectually dishonest at best and it's something I have come to expect from the Bush Administration.
Forget the hypocrisy of Bush versus the Dixie Chicks when Bush makes comments like these on foreign soil, forget the hypocrisy of McCain who said two years ago that he would meet with Hamas, the real idea here is that the speech itself was intellectually dishonest and meant to accomplish with misdirection what President Bush could not do with direct talk. This speech was about viewpoints but as he does so often, President Bush has distorted and twisted the viewpoint in order to score political points, scare people, and paint those who disagree with the same brush.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I saw somewhere out in newsland today that Edwards categorically denies rumors of a VP deal, like he's not even interested, but he waffled on the AG thing. So maybe you people are right. I just really really hope that doesn't mean Obama/Clinton.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So you think he meant to invoke Ron Paul in his speech to Israel? speech text
Probably. If so, it was a stupid thing to say. Ron Paul wants to have ties with everyone. Cuba, Israel, Iran, China, and little green men from outer space, if they ever show up.
This is like McCain accusing Paul of being like the Democrats. Pot, meet kettle.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)
Do I think he is specifically referring to Obama alone here? No. Do I think he is referring to a wide swath of Democrats in general of whom Obama is included in? Yes I do.
Either he's again, really stupid, to say something like that and intend for it to refer to some nameless amorphous blob of thought, or like dozens of times before, he's referring to Democrats, and taking into account McCain's recent Hamas related attacks on Obama, I don't think it's a huge leap to assume that Obama is a central target of those words. He's just not the only target.
quote:Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.
Is this about Ron Paul? I don't know, maybe. Paul to the best of my knowledge though hasn't proposed cutting all ties, but merely pulling military support from Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the press on this story implies Bush named Barack Obama as appeasing terrorists. He never even said "democrat" because when he's out talking to other nations, he's talking about democracy as a good thing. It also specifies a particular kind of talking to the other side, that they can be persuaded to see the error of their ways, like you're somehow going to do a Dr. Phil on the Ayatollah.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.
“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”
Sometimes, something really ugly leaks out from the generally charming Huckabee. The first time that struck me was when he did some not-so-innocent attacks on Mitt Romney's religion in an interview.
I don't know which I'm repulsed by more - that Huckabee thought this was funny - or that he knew his audience would think it was (and they did, apparently).
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Is this about Ron Paul? I don't know, maybe. Paul to the best of my knowledge though hasn't proposed cutting all ties, but merely pulling military support from Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong. He wants to cut all aid, military and civilian, from Israel and from all countries. He isn't singling Israel out for anything, and he isn't differentiating between civilian and military aid.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took "break ties" to mean breaking off all ties, not just financial and military ties. And I didn't think or say that he was singling out Israel.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I know. But you specified military aid, and it seemed that you were specifying Israel.
Yeah you're right. Well I didn't think that he was singling out Israel, but I sort of leaned towards thinking that he was only only talking about military aid, I didn't realize he wanted to cut ALL civilian aid as well.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, in a way I can sort of sympathize with McCain. He's 72 years old, and I think he's very much thinking, "I played hard and straight last time, and I got creamed by a well-oiled smear campaign. Well, this is my last chance to make it to the White House, and I'm going to do whatever it takes to get there this time, even if it includes cozying up with some people I don't find entirely agreeable to get the backing of their supporters." I can understand that.
...I hope he loses, but I understand.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: I'll be interested to see if there's a tape of Huckabee's "joke." The Associated Press gives a different account of the audience reaction:
quote: There were only a few murmurs in the crowd after the remark.
I really would like to think that this is the accurate account of the NRA audience members.
Link to tape of Huckabee. To me, it looked like the AP's assessment was accurate. The joke went over like a sack of rocks. Huckabee kept smiling, though, trying to do the "charming" thing which I used to admire but now am repulsed by. There is nothing genuine about the guy. I'm glad he's out of the campaign.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: You know, in a way I can sort of sympathize with McCain. He's 72 years old, and I think he's very much thinking, "I played hard and straight last time, and I got creamed by a well-oiled smear campaign. Well, this is my last chance to make it to the White House, and I'm going to do whatever it takes to get there this time, even if it includes cozying up with some people I don't find entirely agreeable to get the backing of their supporters." I can understand that.
...I hope he loses, but I understand.
The problem is, I never actually agreed with this narrative. Sure, McCain got hammered in South Carolina with some innuendo and dirty tricks. But his campaigning has proved time and time again that he himself is not above the same smear tactics he claimed to be a victim of in 2000. He simply didn't have enough conservative support to beat Bush in 2000, and that's still his problem today. While I personally think his willingness to compromise in the name of actually getting things done is admirable, he's pissed off way too many Republicans over the years. It'll be interesting to see how he tries to regain their trust while retaining his appeal to more moderate voters.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: During my speech at the NRA a loud noise backstage, that sounded like a chair falling, distracted the crowd and interrupted my speech. I made an off hand remark that was in no way intended to offend or disparage Sen. Obama.I apologize that my comments were offensive, that was never my intention.
I did something I haven't done this campaign season - posted to a campaign (OK, it's a PAC site now). It hasn't been let through yet, but here's what I wrote about the "apology":
quote:I'm someone who used to view Governor Huckabee as a basically decent guy who had a political perspective I disagreed with. He's managed to change my mind on that.
His "apology" shows him to be utterly clueless about certain ugly realities of our society - or purposely weaselly.
I'm in my early 50s. During my life, I've had one president assasinated (Kennedy), two presidents the targets of failed attempts (Ford and Reagan). Robert Kennedy was killed while running as a candidate for President. George Wallace was permanently disabled by an would-be assassin's bullet while engaging in his own run for a presidential candidacy.
Barack Obama was given secret service protection early in his candidacy due to concerns over his safety.
As someone who has witnessed the role of violence in politics over my lifetime, I don't see a "joke" about pointing a gun at a candidate as something to laugh about.
Huckabee is clueless as to who he needs to apologize to.
Most importantly, he has no clue *why* he should apologize.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
