McCain, Obama grapple over mantle of change
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 4 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
1
Gov't turns to AKB48 to sell bonds
-
2
Japan declined U.S. offer to station nuclear experts in Kan's office: Edano
-
3
Edano says he didn't deliberately mislead public about extent of nuclear crisis
-
4
Tabloid blasts growing numbers of foreign welfare chiselers
-
5
Lame applicant pool plagues Don Quijote
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
129 Comments
Login to comment
0
WhiteHawk
No problem for the Big O. He's got a laundry list of the changes he's made!
The Harvard Law Review... no.
The law firm where he was employed... no.
The college where he was a part-time professor... not really.
His church... er, no.
The Chicago political scene... no, he rode that horse to where he is today.
The Illinois state senate... ok, maybe not.
The U.S. senate... outside of inflating both the size of his office and its budget, then running for president out of it, no.
The war... hmmmm, no.
But he's promising change! Really, he knows all about change!
0
adaydream
Barack started running on change long before the republicans started filtering out their candidates.
McCain has been in Washington so long that he is part of the woodwork. He didn't start talking change until just a few monmths ago.
It seems now that when Barack comes out with something, the republicans just echo it. < :-)
0
WhiteHawk
Poor adaydream, he doesn't understand the difference between echoing someone and calling them out.
Ah yes, about that. Biden is only 6 years younger than McCain, and has been in office 14 years longer. So much for Obama's "new and different kind of politics", eh?
Care to prove that?
0
CavemanLawyer
What change exactly do you think a Senator should be able to effect WH? You can introduce the waters of a bill to Congress, but you cannot make the Congressmen drink. Not as a Senator anyway.
I cannot think of any change Obama has brought, true. But every time I find a McCain change, it seems pretty small in the grand scheme of things. And there always seems to be something bad to offset the effort.
Neither guy has a genuine history of real and actual change. It is all riding on what change these guys will push once they get into office, and neither guy is being anywhere near specific enough right now. At least with Obama I think just his election will boost the morale of the American people (and we need it). But what the American people need to accept is that neither guy can do it alone. The people need to get up and demand and make fair government themselves or they will get more of the same from either candidate.
Back to Biden. Only so much a senator can do. Have you heard that guy talk? If he can implement what he says as VP, I will be quite happy to have him.
But Palin? Too much of what she wants to change is just insane. My only solace is that I know she will never be able to get the change she wants even if she become the POTUS by way of McCain dying in office.
--Cirroc
0
smithinjapan
"McCain, taking his rival’s central campaign theme..."
I stopped doing that in Kindergarten -- being a 'copy-cat' that is. McCain does add the hypocritical element of first BASHING his opponents beliefs and campaigns before copying them, though... so you could call that passing to grade one.
0
adaydream
Get back to you on that. When did McCain start talking change.
Now don't go getting testy, I'm busy tonight and trying to post.
But I'll have your answer in a day or two. < :-)
0
buttamimi
Speech after speech, McCain's running mate, Palin, has promoted Grandpa's war record. How his imprisonment in Vietnam has given him some special experience to become President. That does not sound like change to me. Oh, by the way, it has been revealed that Palin did not sell an executive government jet on e-bay, as both she and McCain claim. No one wanted it, so she had to sell it at a loss through a broker. Somethings never change.
0
CavemanLawyer
smithinjapan,
McCain is not one of the good old boys. He has as much right to the change mantra as Obama. There is a piece of "change" legislation enacted in 2002, far before this campaign, that features McCain's name. Its called McCain-Feingold and it has to with campaign reform.
But its a far cry from the change the country really needs. We need to get rid of the politicians who are primarily interested in money and power. We need more who actually care about America. The only way I see that happening is with a morale boost. Obama has a better chance to deliver that I believe.
--Cirroc
0
goodDonkey
Let's see should we go back through the individual NeoCons comments and find quotes of them mocking change or should we talk substance. Substance for now. I do wish we could go back 3 or 4 years on poster's comments. The NeoCons speaking out about the need for change would be equivalent to myself preaching about the support I had for the surge of troops in Iraq. I spoke out many times how Bush did not put forth the proper resources including troops to properly execute the war effort. But I did not support the surge. If history records that the troop surge which began early on in '06 was a success then you will not hear me claiming that I was for it all along. These NeoCons on JT will shamelessly lie to promote their own self interests. They have fought change tooth and nail and are only now claiming it as their mantra because they have seen the success it has brought Obama. Anyone who would sell their soul by lying their ass off to win an argument has no integrity. It takes a real loser to value their "status" on a thread over principles. Your records are clear they are obvious even though there is a much shorter record of your comments than the volume of comments you actually made. I do hope other posters will dig up and quote your on your disdain for the "Change" campaign that Obama put forth. Now, NeoCons scurry to your history of comments so you can defend yourself instead of knowing what you say and knowing what has been posted because it came from your heart. When you say what you believe and believe what you say you don't have to have consultations with your other face to see how you are going to approach this matter. WhiteHawk properly listed various issues where he deviated from the standard Republican party line but he is no progressive. A progressive is defined by change.
0
buddha4brains
Does changing the deck chairs constitute change? For example, while McCain talks about being bipartisan, his minions from VP on down savage the Obama and the Dems. How is that change from Bush who also had "bipartisan" plank 8 years ago?
0
adaydream
WhiteHawk - This is the first time that McCain is connected to change.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/wmckenzie/stories/030408dnedimckenzie.1f5cb9a3.html
Okay it was 6 months ago. Until then Barack was the agent of change and John McCain's camp was seeing that "change" was grabbing the younger voters and John McCain had to find a way to tap into it. So then he started using the mantra of change. < :-)
0
smithinjapan
CavemanLawyer: "McCain is not one of the good old boys. He has as much right to the change mantra as Obama."
I'm not disagreeing with you; McCain has the right to preach what he chooses... the thing is, he is preaching hypocrisy, for what he preached before, he 'changed' himself to take up Obama's mantra, as you call it. That is to say, the only thing McCain has changed so far is his own stance on just about everything, from 'inexperienced' people being a detriment, to change itself (he ridiculed Obama for it before).
As for McCain's stuttering cries for 'Fight with me!' and 'Let's change things', etc., I would buy into them far more if he ACTUALLY included everyone. Why were more than 200 protesters arrested outside the convention center? Why did he call some of those protesters merely 'background noise and static' while claiming to embrace 'all Americans' and that he works for 'them and no party'?
While I'll admit McCain made a pretty good speech the other day, I need to remind you guys that both his and Palin's speeches were made at conventions -- where both WERE directly addressing supporters only. Same with Obama and the Dems' conventions. It's not hard to raise the roof when all the protesters (didn't hear about any for the Dems, though) are rounded up and thrown in charged.
We're going to see a lot more of the candidates' true colours, gaffes, and flaws when they start debating each other and get back to addressing EVERYONE, and not just the people who are there to lap up their words (goes for all).
0
WhiteHawk
adaydream:
Sorry old buddy, but CavemanLawyer already beat you at 09:47. He's an Obama supporter that can admit when the candidate he supports isn't perfect and when the other candidate isn't perfectly evil.
You can't grow as a person unless you push yourself, a.d.d.
0
skipthesong
Ah yes, about that. Biden is only 6 years younger than McCain, and has been in office 14 years longer. So much for Obama's "new and different kind of politics", eh?" you forgot about Ted Kennedy too....
On the Flip, just yesterday, ol' Mac said he was going to shake up Washington..... well, why hasn't he already done that? Why now and not before?
0
LIBERTAS
Yup, same as the moral majority is neither, the Right....just isn't!
0
SushiSake3
“John McCain doesn’t run with the Washington herd,” Palin said.
Except for the past 26 years when he has been an integral, tight-fitting component of the Washington herd.
"Today the jobs report is another reminder these are tough times,” McCain said. He did not say how he would fix the economy."
That because Sen. McCain is far more interested in using American money to fix Iraq's economy.
"He pointed out that the the U.S. unemployment rate zoomed to a five-year high of 6.1% in August."
What has John McCain done about it?
Pushed for more spending on the war in Iraq.
"We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us,” McCain said.
He sure got that right.
"Only once did McCain refer to Bush directly—though not by name—when he said he was “grateful to the president for leading us” after the Sept 11, 2001, attacks."
Why didn't Sen. McCain be honest with hte American people and point out that 9-11 happened on Bush's watch despite the Bush administration being REPEATEDLY warned of an attack - by plane - on the US mainlnad?
And there's no need to bring up Bill Clinton or slashed budgets - 9-11 happened under a fully aware George W. Bush administration that was warned.
0
SushiSake3
"McCain, Obama grapple over mantle of change."
Heh, like a dinosaur trying to turn himself into a Shibuya girl :-)
It just won't happen no matter how often McCain peppers his speeches with 'change' or tries to pull the wool of Americans' eyes with his 'change mantra.'
0
mar4eO
Still can't bring ourselves to denounce those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center buildings and killed thousands of innocents (Mohammedans among them) from all over the world...
0
SushiSake3
mar4eo - so you're admitting the Bush administration failed Americans.
Great. Now, if only the other Republicans would do the same.
0
CavemanLawyer
McCain was preaching change before you ever heard Obama's name. Sorry, but its true.
Thing is that Obama and especially Biden have been far noisier about it. I am willing to take the chance that they will live up to their rhetoric, and for several reasons I will get to next.
I like McCain, I just don't think anything he has said indicates he will go as far as we need to fix Washington. Campaign reform is fine, but we need a lot more than that. None of them are exactly clear on details, but at least Biden seems about as fed up as I am. And while both sides have about the same vision for Iraq and Afghanistan as far as I can see, I have a big problem with McCain for not labeling it the F-up that it was. We cannot learn from the past that way. McCain himself was one of the senators who got fooled and failed us as a senator over the Iraq invasion. If he straight talked that, I would like him a lot more. Anyway, his view on the past could spell trouble for the future in another way. And that way is with relations with Russian and Iran. McCain seems too dependent on force. Personally, I like him. But as WH says, just because I support Obama does not mean I am going to be unfair to McCain.
Another thing cutting in Obama's favor is his ability to charm people. He has charmed so many of us, I feel assured he can charm world leaders as well. We need that now. We do not need a warrior president, even if its to finally get a real warrior this time. We need a peacemaker and a charmer. That is Obama.
--Cirroc
0
CavemanLawyer
If memory serves me correct there are very few of those people left alive to denounce. I would like to see bin Laden's head a spike. The Republican party had their shot to deliver. Instead, their leader diverted attention and resources into Iraq, abusing the carte-blanche he was given to find bin Laden.
Republicans had 8 years. Its time to step aside.
--Cirroc
0
CavemanLawyer
Whether McCain or Obama, there is only so much a single senator can do. The question is: Which do you think can and will actually deliver? I have some doubts that a Republican will throw enough Republicans out that need to be tossed, or reverse enough of the garbage instituted by Bush, for fear of irking Republicans.
--Cirroc
0
smithinjapan
Caveman: "Another thing cutting in Obama's favor is his ability to charm people. He has charmed so many of us, I feel assured he can charm world leaders as well. We need that now. We do not need a warrior president, even if its to finally get a real warrior this time. We need a peacemaker and a charmer. That is Obama."
I'm in agreement with you on that, too. The US has a real chance here... a chance to pull out a leader that can woo over their friends and enemies instead of promising to bomb them if they don't become more 'democratic' (not very democratic in itself, but hey!). McCain would DEFINITELY spell trouble for Russia and Iran -- meaning, would make the world MUCH less safe and unstable, possibly even bringing about another Cold War or worse, and would in both create more enemies for Americans than even Bush did (or at least, follow the same path). With Obama, again, there's a chance for very real change in that regard. He's already proven himself abroad in a way that hasn't been seen since John F. Kennedy (in terms of crowds, cheering, etc.), whereas McCain has already said he will take a tougher line than Bush did with others. I can just see how Muslims will react to the radical Christian stance McCain/Palin offer, if that's one indication of world-wide 'reception'. Some on here, I know, don't give a damn about Muslims, but they make up a fifth or so of the world's population, and it's in everyone's difference to seek peace and if possible harmony, despite the difference in religions and beliefs.
The US definitely needs someone more in tune with dialogue and open to talks, than McCain would be.
0
smithinjapan
mar4eO: "Still can't bring ourselves to denounce those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center buildings and killed thousands of innocents (Mohammedans among them) from all over the world..."
Show me a single poster on here who DOESN'T denounce them! I can show you plenty who ultimately blame HOW it ended up happening on the US government at the time, but can you show me someone who actually hero-worships these people? I mean, do you have any quotations? or are you just taking the typical Republican approach and jumping from "You don't like Bush, Bush doesn't like 'terror', therefore you must like terrorists"?
Get with it, bud, and debate the thread. At least Sushi's comments, while straying to Bush and Co. later, tied into McCain's bombast and support of the government that was in charge when the terrorist attacks occured.
0
Statistician
All that old man McCain changes these days is his mind.
0
SezWho2
Is there an actual mantle of change? Did Betsy Ross make it? Is it possible to lose the presidency and still get to wear the mantle?
And what happened to the other treasures of democracy? the miter of wisdom, the scepter of experience, the orb of security, the sword of decision and the patent leather pumps of purity?
Good grief. Aren't we ready to vote yet? Here is my proposal for stopping the nonsense: (1) The government will be forbidden to run a deficit, except by special session of the Congress. (2) The people will be required to register either as a Republican or Democrat. (3) Points will be assigned to the various federal elected offices. (4) In years in which Republicans have a higher point value, Democrats will pay lower taxes and Republicans higher taxes and vice versa when Democrats have a higher point value. (5) When by special session a deficit is run, people registered to the party with the higher point value will pay all of the deficit. (6) There will be compulsory national service for all citizens from ages 18 to 20.
SezWho for prez, and for the waistcoat of hope.
0
Madverts
"only a week ago was being called McSame."
It's the Mcsame this week too. You can't vote 90 odd percent of the time with the US's Worst President Ever and then expect to replace his post on eviction on a mantle of change from the train-wreck...
Well, you can I suppose, but you would clearly be a citizen of La La Land. Heh, wait, I'm onto something here....
0
mar4eO
Obama went on Fox the other day.
Sat down with Bill O'Reilly.
Admitted that the surge worked.
"Beyond our wildest dreams."
Looks like it's McCain - Palin who are effecting change out there.
0
SpecialReportUS
A vote for McCain is a vote for change for the better. A stronger military, prepared and capable to defend and leberate at any time. More equality , racial and finaancially, and better more moral America.
A vote for Obama, would mean our enemies enboldened, attacks on the mainland, and a depression worse than in the 30`s.
I guess rational folk will vote for McCain, huh?
0
Madverts
"Show me a single poster on here who DOESN'T denounce them!"
Heh, smith, please don't forget the republicans are running on a 9/11 (did I mention McCain was a POW) platform, again.
0
SpecialReportUS
Madverts- Your mockery of McCain will come back to haunt you.
McCain is change, and all the mealy mouthed anti USA liberals who want our enemies to win, will be interred hopefully for life, without any contact with the outside world.
Our nation will no longer tolerate the anti US stance of certain groups.
0
adaydream
Well WhiteHawk, I was refering to this election. McCain's so old you could find things to refer back to him 25 years ago I'm sure. This election. < :-)
0
goodDonkey
I can tell you one change we can credit McCain with. No candidate has ever not even uttered the name of the current president or v.p. when they were of the same party. That's a change we can believe in. He votes with him 90% of the time but refuses to say his name - how much more sincerity can we expect out of someone.
0
CavemanLawyer
You don't do math much do you? Sorry to bust your bubble, but getting into Iraq and an unnecessary and bloody occupation in the first place puts McCain about ten points down. Supporting the successful surge? One point up. That puts McCain at minus nine. Obama is just the opposite, at plus nine.
Keep digging your hole.
--Cirroc
0
CavemanLawyer
Does this mean McCain will institute a draft? Or does he have a magic ring of soldier summoning straight out of Dungeons & Dragons? An army hidden in his rectum?
Where do you get your delusions? Come on. Spill it? What whacky righty web sites have you been reading?
--Cirroc
0
adaydream
george buah and john McCain both touted change in Washington. We got change all right and John McCain follows the same doctrines as george bush.
Got to start back with each new election. < :-)
0
buddha4brains
Check out the Daily Show where they compared McCain's '08 speech with Bush's speech in 2000. Almost the exact same speech when referring to change, education, bipartisanship, and on and on.
If McCain wants to show how different he is from Bush, why does he sound so much like Bush?
0
Madverts
"You don't do math much do you? Sorry to bust your bubble, but getting into Iraq and an unnecessary and bloody occupation in the first place puts McCain about ten points down"
Credit where it's due, McCain supported Bush's surge at a moment when it seemed political suicide to do so.
The fact that the necons are using the surge as an example of good leadership, heh, when it was the very same bad and corrupted leadership that neccesitted the damned surge in the first place remains a constant source of amusement.
0
Madverts
"If McCain wants to show how different he is from Bush, why does he sound so much like Bush?"
And why did he vote with him 90% of the time?
Bush's tenure is accepted as disasterous by everyone with IQ superior to that of a bowl of soup. Yet the very same munchkins that gave Bush Co un-equivical support here for eight years, are now suggesting McCain will be a change?
Heh, not one of them has yet accepted the Bush has Arbusto'd the US. There must be a medical term for Denial of this magnitude.
0
CavemanLawyer
I hear you. Let us put McCain at minus seven on Iraq. I don't know if Obama supported the surge or not, but if not he is at plus seven.
--Cirroc
0
wookwook1
mar4eO: "Still can't bring ourselves to denounce those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center buildings and killed thousands of innocents (Mohammedans among them) from all over the world..."
smithinjapan: Show me a single poster on here who DOESN'T denounce them!
Two questions: 1. Did you denounce "them"?
2. Who did you "denounce"?
Moderator: Back on topic please.
0
wookwook1
That last post is directed at Smith
0
smithinjapan
wookwook1: "Two questions: 1. Did you denounce "them"? 2. Who did you "denounce"?"
Sorry, mods, just answering this question and then the topic is closed.
I most certainly did denounce 'them' (ummm... if you're not sure whom I meant by 'them', it was in reference to mar4eO's comment on the terrorists who flew the planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon, etc. on 9/11. It also refers to Bin Laden and those who coordinated the attacks), numerous times, and will publicly decry them villain once again for you.
The point of my targeting that question to mar4eO was to point out, once again, how he and his ilk cannot stay on the topic of debate and have to try and constantly deflect valid criticism by pretending if you don't like the person you support you are therefore a terrorist. Now it seems McCain is eagerly taking up that cry. You watch, he's going to make a bunch of crap rhetoric about how if you don't support him it will 'embolden terrorists and make America a target'!
In other words, McCain is using the EXACT same arguments that bush used, whom McCain is trying to... ahem... prove he is trying to 'change' things from... hahaha!
The REAL funny part is that some of you are falling for it AGAIN!
0
Sarge
CavemanLawyer/Cirroc: "I don't know if Obama supported the surge or not"
You don't know much, do you? Obama did not support the surge, which has been successful in steming violence in Iraq.
0
wookwook1
Thanks smith.
A simple: answer 1 = yes, answer 2 = terrorist, would have sufficed.
0
wookwook1
Both McCain and Obama would bring change but in different ways. Obama would bring sweeping change because he would bring hordes of Democrats with him. I believe that the American people would feel as if we have a new beginning. Although not as dramatic, McCain would bring change as well because he would move the Republican party closer to the center, in the short term at least. This is a big deal because no one has been able to do this for the last two decades.
Obama and Biden have been well vetted over the years that they have been in Congress. McCain's pick of Palin has knocked the Obama campaign and the media off balance. Palin was never meant, as many here so fervently believe, to go after a large portion of Hillary voters that left the Democratic convention with a sense of disenchantment. She was, first and foremost, selected to shore up the Republican base. As Bay Buchanan put it " John McCain said "you give me the present, I'll give you the future"". The Republican Right ecstatically accepted the deal. Palin would bring change because her history has shown her to stand on the side of ethically behavior. She is a very religious person but many here on JT don't seem to voice any problems with very religious people in the Mideast so I'm sure that won't be a problem for her. :) Obama is very religious as well he just doesn't talk about it much.
The people of Alaska say that one of the reasons Palin is very popular there is because she has fought hard for the people WITH RESULTS. She happens to be the most popular government in the United States of America. McCain took a risk by selecting her that could blow up in his face, but there is a huge upside. The McCain campaign knows that the country is largely divided in half with about 12% of the people who are independent and not "single issue" driven. These people aren't as entrenched in there views as some here on JT and are willing to engage in a little "give and take". Palin has not proven that she can withstand the weight of the national spotlight yet so of course the jury is still out on her. She has Troopergate to contend with but from what is reported about the ex-brother-in-law, she may get a pass from the American people no matter what the outcome of the investigation. Another shoe could drop within the next 60 days...you never know. Keep in mind that she is running for the no. 2 spot. When was the last time a president died in office? Palin's duties will most likely consist of going to funerals of international leaders, making college graduation commencement speakers and standing behind McCain.
Some independents may think "its time to clean house for better or worse", the Obama-Biden ticket covers the domestic and foreign policy issues best, and/or Obama can be the first POTUS in history. If these issues are most important to these independents then they may vote for Obama. But some may think McCain is bless with good genes, his mother looks great for a 96 year old, McCain definitely wants to win existing wars and lead from a position of military strength to "keep us safe", Palin is the Republican Barrack Obama, Palin can be the first female VPOTUS in history. If these issues are most important to these independents then they may vote for McCain.
This is a fascinating race because i believe that it can go either way. Obama should be credited for running the greatest presidential campaign in US history. His campaign was exceptionally organized, they were very responsive, they defeated the Clinton machine, and he used modern technology to his advantage like no one before him. All in all a fantastic campaign. But it is possible for McCain to pull a "David and Goliath". A year ago McCain was out of money, his campaign was in disarray, he was standing alone on potentially campaign-ending issues (Iraq war and immigrants reform), and he had health issues. Somehow he was able to defeat the other better-funded candidates to become the nominee. He "bet the farm" on a little know governor who is turning out, so far, to be a rising star in the Republican party. If the McCain campaign can get her up-to-speed on some foreign policy issues and get her to the point where they feel comfortable letting her take questions from the media, she could win just enough of the sliver of independent voters to put McCain over the top. Hollywood couldn't script it better that this.
0
smithinjapan
"McCain would bring change as well because he would move the Republican party closer to the center, in the short term at least. This is a big deal because no one has been able to do this for the last two decades."
Not in the least. He would declare to be doing that, and I bet he would even form his own party if need be to try and prove it, but he would ultimately call it something like 'The United Republican Party', and ask the GOP for economic assistance.
Your post is excellent and well thought out, but I honestly don't believe McCain can truly distance himself from Bush and the party -- he would be shooting himself in the foot for one, but Republican is rooted in his nature would be the more important reason.
0
Madverts
sarge..
"Obama did not support the surge, which has been successful in steming violence in Iraq."
That's stemimng the violence that Republican policies created in Iraq.
Failed policies that Mr McCain voted for in support of President Bush.
As I've daid before, it's intellectualy dishonest to establish your position in this manner. It's like murdering someone, then tuning yourself into the authorities for said murder, and then proceeding to assert that thanks to you, the crime has been solved.
Heh, then again, I guess that's neo-con logic.
0
Madverts
Jeez my spelling get's worse. Sorry.
0
Sarge
wook: "This is a fascinating race because I believe that it can go either way."
I have some news - Americans are not going to have a brain fart so big as to elect Barack Obama President and Joe Biden Vice President over John McCain and Sarah Palin.
0
smithinjapan
sarge: "I have some news - Americans are not going to have a brain fart so big as to elect Barack Obama President and Joe Biden Vice President over John McCain and Sarah Palin."
I think some people thought it actually might be close, sarge, but thanks for your comment -- you are always dead wrong in your 'predictions'. Welcome, Obama!
0
Sarge
Adverts - "the violence that Republican policies created in Iraq"
And the wacko extremists setting off all those bombs, shooting all those people and chopping off all those heads over there had nothing to with the violence, right?
0
Madverts
I think from past experience sarge's pedictions ae a bit like a voodoo doll and a pari of rusty scissos to the McCain campaign...
0
smithinjapan
madverts: "As I've daid before, it's intellectualy dishonest to establish your position in this manner. It's like murdering someone, then tuning yourself into the authorities for said murder, and then proceeding to assert that thanks to you, the crime has been solved."
hehehe... nice one. Not to worry, though. Once you prove sarge wrong or answer one of his questions with something he can't refute, he 'disappears'.
0
smithinjapan
sarge: 'Adverts - "the violence that Republican policies created in Iraq" And the wacko extremists setting off all those bombs, shooting all those people and chopping off all those heads over there had nothing to with the violence, right?'
Hell, sarge, you even answered your own question with madverts quotation! Good one!!
0
Madverts
"And the wacko extremists setting off all those bombs, shooting all those people and chopping off all those heads over there had nothing to with the violence, right?"
Uhm, the whacko's the invasion put there. Heh, head, meet wall, and doh!
0
ColAmerica
Sarge is a good guy, a true patriot. The guy is kinda like me, knows what he is talking about.
The change for the US, will be one of , more freedoms and greater riches, for all us hard working guys. That is if you vote for McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for a poverty stricken socialst America.
0
Sarge
Adverts - It's because of Republican policies that Iraq is a free nation - so free, in fact, that they can demand U.S. troops, who gave them their freedom, get the hell out, without fear of being arrested/killed!
"sarge's pedictions ae a bit like a voodoo doll and a pari of rusty scissos"
Hee hee!
0
Madverts
I apologize also for my clapped out laptop keyboard. I must buy a new one...
0
Madverts
"A vote for Obama is a vote for a poverty stricken socialst America."
That's what I heard too. He's talking about change, but what change?? A Trabant in every American garage, a ban on assault rifles and all the other things that make Americans patriotic, but worse, they're trying to ban hot-dogs.
The next thing you know, there will be bus lanes and more forms of public transport. And we all know where the next short step is....
....COMMUNISM!!!
Vote McCain
0
Madverts
"apologize for the content of your ridiculous posts."
Feel free to point out the ridiculous parts and I'll back 'em up, young man.
0
ColAmerica
Madverts- Either you have truely seen the light, or you are being sarcastic in a typical childish liberal manner. Ha ha.
The only positive change is a vote for McCain and Palin.
McCain is ahead in the latest polls, yeah!!!!!
0
Sarge
smithinjapan: "McCain wants to keep it ( the violence in Iraq ) going."
He does not. He wants to defeat the wackos who would ( you already know this, but I'm going to say it again, because apparently it needs saying again ) torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse.
Smith, I'm beginning to have doubts you're ever going to get with the program...
0
Madverts
Col,
Nah, I'm with you. I don't want the change to mean I drive a Trabant or worse, have to tak the bus to work. Socialsist Hussein Obama and his terror-hugging-commie friends must be stopped....
Vote McCain.
0
Madverts
"He wants to defeat the wackos who would ( you already know this, but I'm going to say it again, because apparently it needs saying again ) torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse."
Yes he wants to "defeat the wackos" and bring peace to the region by bringing change, and bombing Iran.
0
smithinjapan
sarge: "Smith, I'm beginning to have doubts you're ever going to get with the program..."
Been with it all along, it's just a different program with logic and morals more complex than 'with or against us', and wanting actual peace around the world; not peace by murdering 1.4 billion of the world's population (you have admitted to wanting ALL muslims dead!). You don't understand the concept, and so naturally you are afraid and lash out against it.
Anyway, McCain, like you, would make matters much worse if given the appropriate power. He has proven it already in his bombastic speeches and remarks. Fortunately, as Obama will be elected, we won't have to see it in practice.
0
Betzee
Each side is going to play the "resentment card." For the Republicans, that is elitist Liberals look down on the decent values of heartland folk. This was evident when former Mayor Guiliani, from the Big Apple no less, claimed Obama looked down on Wasilla as "not cosmopolitan enough." It was a bit of a further stretch when Mittens railed against the "eastern elite." Huh? His adopted home state of Massachusetts is pretty eastern not to mention home to a number of institutions which could be identified as "elitist."
Obama, in a tanking economy, is going after resentment of the decline in standard of living experienced by many (not all) Americans. The post-industrial model of economic growth was based on access to cheap credit and cheap imports, which enabled those who made less to own more, has run its course.
0
wookwook1
smithinjapan:
"Your post is excellent and well thought out"
Thanks
"I honestly don't believe McCain can truly distance himself from Bush and the party -- he would be shooting himself in the foot for one, but Republican is rooted in his nature would be the more important reason."
McCain may not be able to distance himself from Bush. That may have more to do with the state of the economy than with McCain's voting record. A lot of people don't know nor do that care about what McCain voted for. People know what they feel; what is effecting them. When things are going well in people's lives the party of the president gets the credit and when things are going poorly the party of the president gets the blame. The only exception to this that I can think of was the 2000 election... an impeachment can be a huge game changer.
I don't believe that he is trying not be a Republican. Republican politicians vary in how closely they adopt the Republican platform. Some of Arnold Schwarzeneggers' views are very different in comparison to Newt Gingrich's but they are both Republicans.
I believe Obama has a good chance to win this race if he can successfully tie McCain to Bush. McCain is going to continue to not even mention Bush's name and talk about "reform". Biden will do well in the lone debate with Palin. The wild-card is Palin and she could steal everyone else's thunder. She had 37 million people watch her speech. That is pretty good for someone who was relatively unknown nationally a week ago. Most of buzz is about her...but it HAS only been a week since she was introduced to the country.
0
wookwook1
nor do "they" care
0
CavemanLawyer
I don't know everything. Certainly I don't know all the senators that voted for the surge and all that did not. But I know what really counts. The fact that there never should have been a surge trumps the need for the surge. By miles. Easy. And Obama voted against letting there be a need.
--Cirroc
--Cirroc
0
DanManjt
CavemanLayer
IOW, the surge is a tactic.
Where's the strategy?
Bush is good, very good, at confusing tactics with other things.
GWOT ring any bells?
I
0
smithinjapan
wookwook: "I believe Obama has a good chance to win this race if he can successfully tie McCain to Bush. McCain is going to continue to not even mention Bush's name and talk about "reform"."
I agree. What's more, Obama has a lot of people he has to win over, despite his world-wide popularity as a charismatic leader with a lot of potential and fresh outlook. It'll be a tough sell to those who easily buy into what McCain is pressing hard to sell. I think some will be willing to grudgingly accept a Republican they don't believe before a Democrat they don't believe in.
"The wild-card is Palin and she could steal everyone else's thunder. She had 37 million people watch her speech."
Very true... but almost ALL of them outside of the convention had NO voice whatsoever to contest her on the radical stance she takes on religion, for one. You'll notice she hardly touched on her radical Christianity in her convention speech, for example, and the video posts of her saying 'Iraq was god's choice' were largely removed immediately after they were put up. She's a wild-card, all-right, but it's more likely to go against her in the mainstream than for her (with radical Christians).
"That is pretty good for someone who was relatively unknown nationally a week ago. Most of buzz is about her...but it HAS only been a week since she was introduced to the country."
Exactly... less than a week, and plenty of time for a MAJOR nose dive when more about her is revealed. She'll win some, I have no doubt... but I also think she'll lose nearly all of what she has now, which is why McCain is doing his utmost to get back into the spotlight.
0
ColAmerica
Change ill come , for a better more maral America, with the upcoming victory of the McCain, Palin dream team. With their bhonest policies and firm grasp of world affairs the future of the world is looking kinda rosey.
The only change Obama could bring, is where he lawys changes his mind on policies. Hee Hee!
0
Betzee
The question is what is he selling? "Change"? If he's been in Washington for three decades and hardly made a dent how can he make a difference now? Moreover, he's picked up a running mate who, like many in state government, has lobbied hard for just the sort of federal largesse he objects to.
Few would dispute John McCain's war-time service to his country, in contrast to many of his compatriots who did not heed the call owing to "other priorities," was honorable. But his sound-bite orchestrated chest-beating is a loud reminder that that the noblest form of heroism is unspoken (something I think most Americans can agree on).
0
smithinjapan
Betzee: "The question is what is he selling? "Change"? If he's been in Washington for three decades and hardly made a dent how can he make a difference now? Moreover, he's picked up a running mate who, like many in state government, has lobbied hard for just the sort of federal largesse he objects to."
You're preaching to the choir, my friend. I doubt McCain could change his own diapers.
"Few would dispute John McCain's war-time service to his country, in contrast to many of his compatriots who did not heed the call owing to "other priorities," was honorable. But his sound-bite orchestrated chest-beating is a loud reminder that that the noblest form of heroism is unspoken (something I think most Americans can agree on)."
Agree on both parts... though personally I think going to war -- ANY ONE on ANY side -- has zero honour in going to war; it is foolish and wasteful. Anyway, he did OFFER to give his life for his country, and stupid as it is it's fact. His compatriots, who were too busy... well, so long as they weren't begging for troops to attack a sovereign nation with no connection to terrorists and then bailing out themselves? I'm okay with it. If they were such people, again, I agree with you.
0
Betzee
Now you're getting into what people actually do at war. John McCain bombed the North Vietnamese countryside. Was this necessary to defend US national security? I think most Americans would now concede "No." But it doesn't change the fact he put his life on the line in defense of his country.
This issue has been clearly illuminated in the ongoing regional controversy over Japanese reverence of their WW II dead. "How can you pay respect to people who did such terrible things?" ask those in the countries which were invaded. Again, I think it's a case of recognizing their sacrifice not their acts.
0
moderateguy2008
I agree with ColAmerica and Sarge; Great posts guys!!!
The change for the good is on the horizon. McCain loves his country, he and his fellow patriot Palin will make us even greater. Palin has more integrity than Obama, and she
s the no2. Shows how far bahind the Dems are, dont you think folks?Sory Mr Obama, you will lose this election, bettr luck next time buddy!!!
0
wookwook1
Betzee We live in a sound bite society. To not confirm risks not being hear or rememebered. e.g. John McCain - "Country First", Barack Obama - "Change We Can Believe In", George W Bush "I'm the decider", George H Bush "Read my lips no new taxes", Bill Clinton - "it's the economy stupid"
With Youtube, Mypsace, Facebook, hundreds of cable and satellite stations, satellite radio stations, ipods, and video games...if the message isn't short and impactful it can get lost in all of the other distractions that we call life.
0
smithinjapan
Betzee: "I think most Americans would now concede "No." But it doesn't change the fact he put his life on the line in defense of his country."
You really have to be careful when stating such things, because they are open to all sorts of interpretation, and none of them are wrong according to the person posting, so long as it's not in jest. You yourself ask 'who is right' when you follow up with your comments on Japanese vs. others' comments on worshipping war dead; are the Japanese wrong for praying for those who died, be they soldiers or innocents killed by atomic bombs? Are those who were invaded, had Japanese Imperial soldiers bayonette their relatives for sport, wrong in condemning prayers for the Japanese war dead? Apply this to the mighty America vs. 'the terr'sts'; many could argue that the people labelled terrorists went to fight for their countries, and have a right to respect for those who believe in their cause, and likewise American troops who go and fight and die by roadside bombs or in combat have a right to be respected because 'they put their lives on the line'.
The bottom line is, both are wrong; until people start to realize that there is ZERO right in ANY war, and no respect for those who 'put their lives on the line' for their leaders, regardless of flag, will the 'my side is right/wrong' stop.
It's time we stop seeing serving in war as a sign of being a good president, and starting seeing 'I have not or chose not to' as the true sign of a leader. Hell, I would even have respected bush for not going to war if he didn't want to be 'the war president', etc.
0
wookwook1
to not "conform"
0
ColAmerica
Obama is losing votes rapidly new polls show. His message of change was not popular with the average American guy. Patriots are all turning their back on him and will be voting for McCain.
McCain is going to reduce the wealth gap between rich and poor, increase the military strength and be tougher on foreign policy than the current administration.
Obama is a vote for Jon Stewart fans; guys out of their minds on pot, ha ha!
0
adaydream
ColAmerica what polls are these. My search has shown that it's 45% Obama and 42% McCain. McCain's choice hasn't had time yet to show his drop in the polls. < :-)
0
ColAmerica
adaydream; Latest polls reported on BBC, show McCain in the lead, and gaining votes , with more independents supporting him, after the patriotic speech by Palin.
America will vote for the true patriot, not the false prophet, who embraces socialism and all the evil that entails.
0
adaydream
Ahhhhh. It's awfully funny how Barack Obama goes on his Europeon tour and the republicans say that it's meaningless because the Europeons can't vote. But you believe the BBC, a Europeon poll. < :-)
0
ColAmerica
adaydream- The poll was a US poll, i happen to watch BBC news regulary, as it is my wifes favorite news channel.
McCain will make you richer and give you more freedoms adaydream, you should consider these facts. If you look carefully at the candidates in an unbiased way, how i did, you will see the only choice is to vote McCain.
adaydream; Become a winner , like me, vote McCain.
0
smithinjapan
adaydream: Well, three or four are him... but there's one or two others who are not (but are others on here). haha. FreedomofSpeech is definitely our old tried and banned friend, but then... haven't seen FoS much lately either.
0
Betzee
It kinda trite, but as the old saying goes, "One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist."
War has a function for leaders, both elected and not. It enables them to rally the citizenry around the flag against an external threat. Those who ask questions about the type of response envisioned can quickly find their patriotism questioned.
In this regard I found McCain's claim he's willing to "work with any patriot" a bit disturbing. What will be the determinant of someone's patriotism? It has nothing to do with whether they served in the military, let alone saw combat, and everything to do with whether they agree with him or not.
0
smithinjapan
betzee: "War has a function for leaders, both elected and not. It enables them to rally the citizenry around the flag against an external threat. Those who ask questions about the type of response envisioned can quickly find their patriotism questioned."
Yes, and has been for some time... but as I asked in my post, don't you think it better this kind of measure of a 'leader' were stopped? There have been some excellent leaders in battle, but they weren't excellent leaders FOR the battle; they were excellent because they had qualities that propelled people, led them to believe they could further a cause. War is not a cause to better anything; it's a cause that wastes lives, and nearly wasted dear old McCain's. It's a shame he has chosen to forget that, and taken it as a means to make more war himself. Maybe he forget his time as a POW.... forgot that he probably wished that people could be more humane to each other in general.
Anyway, you catch my drift. A true leader leads with the heart and the mind, not with weapons or promise of them in order to wage war.
0
smithinjapan
I feel the need to continue... as was said by Kerry long ago, the politics of fear, which bush espoused, won over so many... and look at THAT disaster! Hell, even McCain, who is 90% bush, is trying to squirm away from those memories and fashion the exact same thing using new words.
But I have a bit of news for those who are ill-informed; putting a new brand of lip-stick on a pig and calling it a shift from 8 years of the same old lip-stick... well... it's still the same old pig either way.
0
Betzee
SmithinJapan,
My beef with the lessons McCain has drawn from his wartime service is that more intensive bombing of North Vietnam would have enabled the US to win (which I assume he means establish a viable government for the South where the regime was wholly dependent on the US for survival). But there's no consensus that would have made the difference among those who saw combat. Whose "lessons" are the one's we should draw from? It's still a grab bag.
0
moderateguy2008
Betzee, After years of military and political experience Sen McCain has the knowledge of how to win in the waron terror.
I cannot see Obama being strong enough to ensure victory. We cannot allow all our good work to be undone in Iraq by a premature withdrawal.
0
Helter_Skelter
Speaking of Jon Stewart, although I don't agree with his politics, I do think he's funny and watch him on occasion. But as far as his covering Palin and the republican convention, he's been outright hysterical. It's almost painful to watch. You can definitely sense the democrats are nervous.
0
smithinjapan
Helter: "You can definitely sense the democrats are nervous."
I once in a while get a bit nervous between guaranteed victory myself, thanks. 'hee hee'.
0
moderateguy2008
smithinjapan- Do you really beleiev that even in these enlightened times, that America is ready to elect a non white man as president.
Alas i fear the country is not ready. Though i will vote for McCain, i am certain that if Mr Obama was a white guy, he would quiet easily win.
I beieve there is still a lot of racism in the US, though it is very discreet and subtle.
0
smithinjapan
moderateguy: I think if you covered a chair with chocolate icing, and some old man said it was cake, a majority of Americans would try to eat a chair.
But that's me. I do believe there are a bunch of Americans who are for REAL change, and I think they care more about the reality of it and what it could bring rather than the colour of the person who brings it, but I fear you are right... they hear the buzz word 'change', but want the same cantakerous old fogey to try and spell out what it means to them.
Obama should not be viewed by his so-called colour, which even the bigoted sarge likes to pretend he knows better, but so long as McCain pretends to promote change they can kind of sit back and say "phew! I thought I was going to have to vote for one of them $%&'$%&", and feel better about their inherent fears.
0
Betzee
There's no doubt about that (though change will mean different things to different people just as freedom means different things to different folks). But politics is a vocation which requires artful disassembling on the part of those who choose to enter it. Hence all candidates, while out on the campaign trail, will offer large promises while skirting any inconvenient factors that might inhibit their ability to deliver.
The problem is not with proposals to offer everyone health care or the promise of a world made safe through forceful demonstrations of American leadership and military resolve. Rather the problem is the necessity to avoid the obvious, such as the reality that nations, like households, must ultimately live within their means. One would never know that as different tax cut proposals are bandied about after our national debt has doubled over the past eight years.
For the US the pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of mass consumption, has induced a state of dependence--on cheap imported goods (China), imported oil (Middle East), and on easy access to credit (foreign investors of various nationalities). The primary desire of the American people, whether they acknowledge it or not and self-awareness have never been part of our national character, is that nothing disrupt their access to these goods. As a result, it is politically treacherous to delve into problems such as global warming seriously, since to acknowledge it would require a lifestyle adjustment and politicians know, in order to win, they have to promise us that life is only gonna get better and better.
0
smithinjapan
Betzee: Agreed. For the first time in ages I got through to a Japanese audience the other day on how American politics can affect the word (for good or bad). They seemed pretty willing and knowledgable on how it has come to be that soy has increased in direct result to Bush subsidies for corn as a form of useless biofuel.
0
DXXJP
Man this is worse than the star wars trilogy.
Do we really need to keep poking money in that hole in the dam they call Iraq you know the one dubya punched into it. Because Mcsame thinks we do to protect ourselves from the fact that with all the intel and a idiot at the wheel we still end up in the ditch.
Does Mcsame have any answer for how many generations its going to take to pay for it. Does he intend to invade Iran too. Really this sound like the death star is almost online to rule the universe.
BOMB BOMB BOMB
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
yeah sarge et al were really looking forward to your backward plan
NOT
0
Betzee
SmithinJapan,
The Chinese have simply replaced the Japanese as America's source for consumer goods. The Japanese were able to rebuild their economy after WWII by playing that role. The Chinese have certainly gotten richer as well; it's just that wealth is unevenly distributed in China.
The problem is that nobody in America can stand up and say, "We're at the end of the line here" and expect to be swept into office. I don't know where the jobs are going to come from for the next generation, unless you've had a first-rate education (which is usually only available to those with parents who can pay for it).
As Tom Friedman wrote in a recent column: The next president can have all the foreign affairs experience in the world, but it will be useless, utterly useless, if we, as a country, are weak.
Obama is more right than he knows when he proclaims that this is “our” moment, this is “our” time. But it is our time to get back to work on the only home we have, our time for nation-building in America. I never want to tell my girls — and I’m sure Obama feels the same about his — that they have to go to China to see the future.
0
yabits
If Louisiana, the home of Republican David Duke, can elect a person of color as governor, I believe the country is ready to elect a person who is not 100% European-descent as president.
0
DanManjt
Grapple?
There is no contest.
John McCain voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007 and 100 percent of the time in 2008 -- that's no maverick.
0
Nessie
Real change. Does that mean banning books in the Library of Congress?
0
goodDonkey
-
Unbelievable that people want to hire a man whom we actually have recording of him singing/chanting such words to inspire them. I do find humor when he has that glare in his eyes and he is shaking his little fists. But it is a sad humor - how pathetic. Asking many of these American voters to see McCain for who he really is and pointing out that Palin is a corrupt liar and a hypocrite is like like trying to convince kids from the ghetto to finish high school or go to college. You must have a certain level of understanding to absorb the options being offered. Part of what made our economy so successful during the Clinton administration was that the world liked the U.S. much more. How do you teach that in Economics? If it were a corporation instead of a country it is called "good will" and there are really no metrics to measure such a valued asset. Bush has destroyed so many things that cannot be measured and McCain cannot or will not be able to restore the good will we once had with so many other countries. Obama can!
0
mar4eO
Personally, and I think I speak for some of the other Americans here, you couldn't possibly believe that and this
at the same time.
0
WhiteHawk
adaydream:
DanManjt:
Looks like some people can't see outside their lifetimes. :-P
aday, moving the goal posts again.
0
adaydream
WhiteHawk - Nah, not moving the goal posts. Just defining them. (Kinda similar to george bush redefining his reasons for attacking Iraq for the first couple of years.)
Like I said, McCain's so old you could find things to refer back to him 25 years ago I'm sure.
Hell, if you try hard enough I'm sure you could find quotes attributed to McCain even before Barack was born. You going to tell me he was talking about change before Barack was born then?
Have a good day. < :-)
0
WhiteHawk
No, you're trying to limit your debate opponent's ability to prove you wrong. It's a nasty habit of yours, and doesn't mean you're right, it just that you're controlling. You've been proven wrong by both me and a fellow Obama supporter, and he exposed your pathological partisanship in the process. No wonder you're being so snarky: You've been backed into a corner and wounded.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
0
adaydream
No, not a bad thing. Just fact. If you drift back a few more years I'm sure you can find references even older that you had before.
But I'd rather have a younger president. Remember that alzhiemer president we had a few years ago. I don't want that.
And I don't like McCain's politics. < :-)
0
WhiteHawk
Which would only further prove you wrong. Look, you tried to claim that Obama talked about change first, you were proven wrong, and then you tried to limit examples to just this election. Buh-bye.
We had a president who had Alzhiemer's while in office? When?
Besides, Obama has to know something before he can forget it. Every time he speaks without a script on a teleprompter, he shows how little he has to forget.
0
Nessie
Interesting one here. Change from Republicans has recently meant lower revenues with higher spending.
Carter - spending slightly up, revenue greatly up Reagan - spending slightly down, revenue slightly down Bush I - spending up, revenue down Clinton - spending sharply down, revenue sharply up Bush II - spending up, revenue down.
http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-thought-it-was-democrats-that-were.html
Borrow and spend, the new Republican mantra of fiscal responsibility.
Back to top