I love McCain but I think it just was never meant to be

[Borismere]

I'm still voting McCain. But after seeing the 250k + crowd in Germany and the standing ovation in France and the basically rockstar reception of Obama I think McCain in his golf cart is just not going to cut it.

Theres just too much of the scent of destiny for Obama. A Black Man with a persona of a messiah and after the tired old white guy routine thats been the US presidential act since the beginning of this country. I just don't see it happening for McCain, at least thats my gut feeling.

And let me be frank, I like McCain because he'll essentially be giving me 50k in cash to dick around with when he gets into office. He's a social liberal and financial conservative, which I am. Damn it... why does Obama need to show up now?

With all that being said is there a strategy you can come up with to try and beat Obama in November. Especially, is there a way to get more 'non voting' conservatives to vote in the election. I know theres a crap ton more non voting liberals but the democrats fuck up everything so I'm pretty sure they won't be as effective in rallying the voters as Republicans are. Any thoughts?

[Fallen]

The only problem is the French and Germans in those crowds wont be voting in this upcoming election.

[Keller]

So Clove. We need to start deciding how you're going to pay out that 500k silvers.

[Gan]

McCain should definately not try to 'out hype' the Obama campaign.

In fact, downplaying or appearing to be the underdog will effectively keep his head down and allow him to continuously focus on the issues.

"The nail that sticks up, usually gets hammered."

[Clove]

So Clove. We need to start deciding how you're going to pay out that 500k silvers.You've been in France too long. They aren't allowed to vote here.

[Back]

McCain should definately not try to 'out hype' the Obama campaign.

In fact, downplaying or appearing to be the underdog will effectively keep his head down and allow him to continuously focus on the issues.

"The nail that sticks up, usually gets hammered."

You seriously need to be hired by the McCain campaign because that is one hell of a strategy for getting someone elected president.

[crb]

I was reading the other day about how the crowd size was overblown. Apparently they said the crowd was 20k, then they went off air for 15 minutes, talked to the obama campaign, and suddenly it was 200k. The inference being, the Obama people asked them to increase the numbers. Then if you compare footage of the crowd compared to when Bush was visiting and it was a protest crowd of 250k, there is no comparison.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/blog.aspx?id=2492

[Back]

I dunno... I’d rather 2 people in support than 250k in protest. But thats just me.

[crb]

It wasn't a point of comparing Obama to Bush, obviously the europeans hate bush, Europeans are inherently proud and they hate playing second fiddle to us and so they hate strong US presidents.

It was a point of showing manipulation by the Obama campaign.

[Back]

Its not a point unless its something you don’t want to stick in your eye.

[Latrinsorm]

Who needs evidence when you have wild speculation, right?

[Parkbandit]

Who needs evidence when you have wild speculation, right?


Who needs evidence when you have the liberal media spoon feeding you your 'facts', right?

[Back]

The strawman needs a brain.

I’m here all night.

[BriarFox]

I was reading the other day about how the crowd size was overblown. Apparently they said the crowd was 20k, then they went off air for 15 minutes, talked to the obama campaign, and suddenly it was 200k. The inference being, the Obama people asked them to increase the numbers. Then if you compare footage of the crowd compared to when Bush was visiting and it was a protest crowd of 250k, there is no comparison.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/blog.aspx?id=2492

And the Berlin police agreed with the estimate (as this story even points out). This is just more paranoid, delusional conservative nonsense. I got an email from Townhall magazine (a conservative rag) this morning promising:

"Your first issue of Townhall Magazine will include an in-depth report revealing the secrets of Barack Obama?s Chicago political machine. Hugh?s letter outlines the risks associated with putting Barack Obama in charge of the War on Terror and the American economy. Townhall Magazine exposes Obama?s calculations and associations with corruption that have not been reported in the main-stream media.

One of the greatest threats of an Obama presidency is his opportunity to appoint judges. In this special edition, you will learn just what judicial activism is and how leaders like Justice Scalia are holding the line against liberal judges. Senator Fred Thompson?s exclusive ?Closing Argument? breaks down the consequences of activist judges and the dangers of judges that legislate from the bench. You will learn what left-wing radicals are planning to disrupt the Democratic convention and hear from Newt Gingrich on the need to drill for oil here at home."

What utter nonsense. The National Enquirer seems to have competition.

[Sean of the Thread]

I've seen over 200k people in one spot and that crowd is no comparison.

That looked like the crowd at a Dolphin's game. ALLlllll 15k of them.

[Back]

Half of that crowd were blow up dolls planted by the Obama campaign.

No, seriously. Think about it. How ghetto!

[crb]

... so reminds me of the "million" man march eh?

[longshot]

Whether it was 15K or 200K, I think it's pretty cool that what happens in the US is so important around the world. Outside of Tony Blair, who isn't even prime minister anymore, how many world leaders would even be recognized if walking through a US airport?

I'm not really sure it's the right thing for someone to do who isn't president yet. But, with little foreign policy experience, I understand that being able to say, "they show me a lot of love and respect," is better than having nothing to say at all.

I'm also not exactly comfortable with grandiose promises without actual plans, accompanied by grand spectacles. (Ben Stein recently likened Obama's plan for the nomination speech to something the Fuhrer would do.)

Does this bother anyone else? Or not so much?

It's a serious question. Whatever... I'll make it a thread.

[Stanley Burrell]

<<crb>>

It reminds me that I have great faith in America; and that if there's one thing righteous about our democracy, it's that when an administration fucks up as colossally as the current Oval Office has, that what is good about America will strike back with Barack Hussein Obama. I'd even venture to say that Obama's got more than just a million African Americans supporting him.

[ClydeR]

With all that being said is there a strategy you can come up with to try and beat Obama in November. Especially, is there a way to get more 'non voting' conservatives to vote in the election. I know theres a crap ton more non voting liberals but the democrats fuck up everything so I'm pretty sure they won't be as effective in rallying the voters as Republicans are. Any thoughts?

McCain needs to focus on an emotional social issue. I think he should pick one where he has the same position today as the did five years ago, like homosexuals in the military. Obama and the Democrats are determined to force our soldiers to sleep and shower with homosexuals, even as our forces are enduring repeated extended deployments in two wars. And that will lead to legalizing homosexual "marriage." After all, people will ask, how can you let homosexuals serve in the military but "deny" them the right to "marriage"? McCain is strongly--and, importantly, consistently--opposed to letting perverts in the military.

A few of you may disagree with me on the merits on issue, but my point is that it is a good campaign tactic. Tried and true. It can be used to show that Obama is unpatriotic and to highlight all of the radical changes he would like to force on us all.

That should cause enough alarm to increase conservative turnout. It probably won't be enough to persuade me to vote for McCain, because I know that he is a phony on many issues and would readily change his position on this issue if he thought it would help him. But most voters are not as informed as I am.

That would be my advice to McCain.

[BriarFox]

You'd tell McCain to be a gay-basher? You're brilliant!

...

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

McCain needs to focus on an emotional social issue. I think he should pick one where he has the same position today as the did five years ago, like homosexuals in the military. Obama and the Democrats are determined to force our soldiers to sleep and shower with homosexuals, even as our forces are enduring repeated extended deployments in two wars. And that will lead to legalizing homosexual "marriage." After all, people will ask, how can you let homosexuals serve in the military but "deny" them the right to "marriage"? McCain is strongly--and, importantly, consistently--opposed to letting perverts in the military.

A few of you may disagree with me on the merits on issue, but my point is that it is a good campaign tactic. Tried and true. It can be used to show that Obama is unpatriotic and to highlight all of the radical changes he would like to force on us all.

That should cause enough alarm to increase conservative turnout. It probably won't be enough to persuade me to vote for McCain, because I know that he is a phony on many issues and would readily change his position on this issue if he thought it would help him. But most voters are not as informed as I am.

That would be my advice to McCain.

Yeah it's way better to try to try a smear against Obama even though military people already do work with a ton of gay people (they simply can't say so, doesn't make them less gay) then to have McCain focus on real issues that actually effect everyone's day to day life more than who's fucking who.

But I can totally see why you're so rabidly against gay marriage-- what if those homosexuals actually are able to build their giant frickin lasers and start blowing shit up?!

[ClydeR]

Yeah it's way better to try to try a smear against Obama even though military people already do work with a ton of gay people (they simply can't say so, doesn't make them less gay) then to have McCain focus on real issues that actually effect everyone's day to day life more than who's fucking who.

It's not a smear if it's true and Obama freely admits it.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

It's not a smear if it's true and Obama freely admits it.

It's a smear when you try to use it to make him look unpatriotic.

[crb]

Hmmm... ClydeR is dumb.

McCain has a giftbasketed issue already. Energy policy. Opinion polls show most of the country favors more drilling, most of the country favoris nuclear, most of the country favors going after non-ethanol alternatives at the same time. More or less McCain's energy policy. He is in perfect lockstep with most of the public on energy. Obama is way off. You couldn't ask for a better issue to campaign on. His only fear has got to be a successful compromise before November.

In contrast, I think most people are perfectly happy with don't ask don't tell (a Clinton creation mind you) and don't really have a problem with the private sex lives of our military.

[Ravenstorm]

The life of DADT is drastically limited. The only thing that could hasten its demise is if more of the right wingnuts testified why we should keep it. They do such a good case of making themselves and their position look idiotic (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0725/1216917539269.html).

[Gan]

You seriously need to be hired by the McCain campaign because that is one hell of a strategy for getting someone elected president.

Thats funny coming from someone who was a self-proclaimed PC Pundit not too long ago (before your meltdown). I know, I know, you'll be here all night.

[Sean of the Thread]

I know, I know, you'll be here all night.

rofl

[Keller]

You've been in France too long. They aren't allowed to vote here.

Obama is a Chicago politician. Being allowed to do something and doing it are two different things.

[ClydeR]

The life of DADT is drastically limited. The only thing that could hasten its demise is if more of the right wingnuts testified why we should keep it. They do such a good case of making themselves and their position look idiotic (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0725/1216917539269.html).

There's a lot more support for keeping homosexuals out of the military than you think. McCain talked to military commanders (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/) on the ground, who told him that we need to keep the current law in place to ensure an effective military. He has also joined with other notable members of Congress (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=32891) in resisting change to the law. McCain explained the need for the current law when he said (http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/01/post_619.html),


I believe polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual service members above those of their units.

Homosexuals in the military will be a bigger issue in coming weeks.

[Keller]

Homosexuals in the military will be a bigger issue in coming weeks.

Especially if said homosexuals get their hands on government issue lasers.

[Tsa`ah]

It wasn't a point of comparing Obama to Bush, obviously the europeans hate bush, Europeans are inherently proud and they hate playing second fiddle to us and so they hate strong US presidents.

It was a point of showing manipulation by the Obama campaign.

This deserves to be preserved for the sake of humorous posterity.

HAVE YOU SEEN HIS APPROVAL RATINGS?

He's only viewed as strong to those who are in lock-step with the party.


Hmmm... ClydeR is dumb.

McCain has a giftbasketed issue already. Energy policy. Opinion polls show most of the country favors more drilling, most of the country favoris nuclear, most of the country favors going after non-ethanol alternatives at the same time.

You and the rest of the whacko right need to step into the new millennium and realize that these polls are based on respondents utilizing traditional land lines. Here's a little bit of reality for you ... fewer and fewer people are using traditional phone services (still big with the 45+ crowd) while more and more people are utilizing VOIP and cellular services.


There's a lot more support for keeping homosexuals out of the military than you think.

More than those who don't care and those who believe sexual orientation shouldn't matter when it comes to service to this nation ... combined?

I highly doubt it.



Homosexuals in the military will be a bigger issue in coming weeks.

Only to those who buy what Rush, Savage, and Hannity spew without a second thought.

[Ravenstorm]

More than those who don't care and those who believe sexual orientation shouldn't matter when it comes to service to this nation ... combined?

I highly doubt it.

Actually, he's partially right. He's correct in that the majority of officers are in favor of retaining the policy. However 3 out of 4 enlisted men either couldn't care less or want it gone. Basically, it's a non-issue except for the same type of people who used the same exact arguments - literally - for keeping blacks segregated.

In any case, it won't score McCain any points except with the right wingnuts who'll end up voting for him anyway just to make sure Obama doesn't get elected.

[Sean of the Thread]

while more and more people are utilizing VOIP and cellular services.



I get polled via VOIP all the time over the years.

[ClydeR]

Although McCain has not, thus far, taken my advice on the particular issue to emphasize, he has taken my general advice to depict Obama as lacking values and patriotism.

Some of you may not like McCain's new strategy, but it will work.


The Democrat’s Achilles’ heel in this model is an inchoate sense among some voters that the new arrival on the national stage with the unusual biography -- and who’s the first black nominee from either party -- isn’t American enough.

Prior to Obama’s trip overseas, though, McCain had instead employed, without appreciable effect, a more conventional critique of his opponent as an ordinary politician, a “flip-flopper,” and, of course, a liberal.

On Saturday, though, McCain released a new television advertisement in which the announcer says that on his trip, Obama “made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.”

"John McCain is always there for our troops," adds the announcer, before concluding with the campaign’s new slogan: “McCain, country first.”

The slogan’s inverse implication for his opponent was made clear earlier in the week, when McCain accused Obama of placing the his political ambitions before the national interest.

More... (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/28/politics/politico/main4298212.shtml)

[Gan]

Although McCain has not, thus far, taken my advice on the particular issue to emphasize, he has taken my general advice to depict Obama as lacking values and patriotism.

Some of you may not like McCain's new strategy, but it will work.

lol @ taking YOUR advice.

Speak with McCain often?

:lol:

[CrystalTears]

Although McCain has not, thus far, taken my advice on the particular issue to emphasize, he has taken my general advice to depict Obama as lacking values and patriotism.

Some of you may not like McCain's new strategy, but it will work.

On Saturday, though, McCain released a new television advertisement in which the announcer says that on his trip, Obama “made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.”
Which is evidently a whole lot of bull.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

The latest chain e-mail smear against Barack Obama: He "blew off" troops at an Afghan base to shoot hoops for a publicity photo.

The e-mail claims Obama repeatedly shunned soldiers on his way to the Clamshell — a recreation tent — to "take his publicity pictures playing basketball."

"These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect," said Bagram spokeswoman Army Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, who added that such political commentary is barred for uniformed personnel.

Obama didn't play basketball at Bagram or visit the Clamshell, she said. Home-state troops were invited to meet him, but his arrival was kept secret for security reasons.

"We were a bit delayed ... as he took time to shake hands, speak to troops and pose for photographs," Nielson-Green said.
I may not completely agree with Obama's need to be overseas right now, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's not gaining him some favor.

[ClydeR]

Which is evidently a whole lot of bull.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

I may not completely agree with Obama's need to be overseas right now, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's not gaining him some favor.

Two points. First, from a political perspective, it doesn't really matter if it's true, so long as it's not provably untrue. Second, you are mixing up the incidents. The McCain ad was referring to Obama's canceled plan to visit wounded troops in Germany.

[CrystalTears]

So there were two incidences where he was accused of ignoring troops? What are the odds.

My bad then.

[Tsa`ah]

Two points. First, from a political perspective, it doesn't really matter if it's true, so long as it's not provably untrue.

Translation: Swiftboating


Second, you are mixing up the incidents. The McCain ad was referring to Obama's canceled plan to visit wounded troops in Germany.

She is and she isn't.

The truth is simply this.

Obama had met with troops along his tour without problem. His last scheduled stop was to meet with wounded troops in Germany ... Suddenly the DoD/Pentagon issues a statement to the Obama campaign stating that his tour is now considered political, thus his visit to said wounded troops would be viewed as political.

Obama chose not to visit the troops stating he would not use them as a political tool.

It was a "you're screwed no matter what you do" situation created by the only person able to dictate directly to the Pentagon .... give me another reason why the DoD would change their minds in the 11th hour of Obama's over seas tour .... after already visiting combat troops and taking a chopper tour with Petraeus.

It's a really laughable assertion (lie) coming from the guy who fought against veteran benefits for the last 4 years.


So there were two incidences where he was accused of ignoring troops? What are the odds.

My bad then.

No, just the one ... which is probably going to be the swiftboat attempt for this election.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Clearly Obama didn't visit troops in Germany because he was too busy securing huge lasers to distribute to homosexuals back here in the United States.

[Mabus]

His last scheduled stop was to meet with wounded troops in Germany ... Suddenly the DoD/Pentagon issues a statement to the Obama campaign stating that his tour is now considered political, thus his visit to said wounded troops would be viewed as political.
The Pentagon had no problem allowing him to visit as a sitting Senator, but without campaign aides, advisers and media. Defense Department policy prohibits military personnel or facilities from association with partisan political campaigns. When his advisers, and the media, were not allowed to come along he canceled his photo-op.


Obama chose not to visit the troops stating he would not use them as a political tool.

So the troops he did visit (and photographed with) were used as a "political tool" by him, in your opinion? Seems you are finally seeing him for the regular politician he always has been.

[Tsa`ah]

The Pentagon had no problem allowing him to visit as a sitting Senator, but without campaign aides, advisers and media. Defense Department policy prohibits military personnel or facilities from association with partisan political campaigns. When his advisers, and the media, were not allowed to come along he canceled his photo-op.

Nice that you passed over the fact that he had visited with troops prior to it .... and the picture the McCain campaign used ... also him working out with ... dum da da dum ... troops.



So the troops he did visit (and photographed with) were used as a "political tool" by him, in your opinion? Seems you are finally seeing him for the regular politician he always has been.

McCain has done so as well .... Bush didn't have a problem with that. Hell ... he didn't have to talk to the pentagon about McCain visiting Landstuhl ... McCain cancelled that one himself. Let's not forget that McCain has sat in on 0 ... that's right a big zilch, committee hearings on Afghanistan and voted against our troops several times. In fact he voted against a spending bill presented by the dems because it contained a timeline ... just as Obama voted against the same amended bill because it didn't have a time line.

What direction are McCain and Bush going with in the realm of Iraq War policy ... a time line.

His name is Flipper
Flipper
Flipper
Faster than light-ning

[CrystalTears]

They both want a time line at this point. Just the other day McCain was stating how 16 months to get the troops home is a reasonable timeline.

Honestly, I don't care if they're able to bring the troops home sooner or later, just as long as it's done safely and leaving Iraq stable. Otherwise it would be a waste of time.

[Tsa`ah]

Yet in a recent interview he denied the support of a timeline.

The point is that the GOP hammered Obama and has hammered the democratic party's demand and use of "timeline" rhetoric.

They (including Clinton) also hammered Obama about the statement of sitting down with world leaders without pre-conditions (especially when he said yes to sitting down with Iran). Since then the administration has not only sat down with N Korea, but they're sitting down with Iran.

[ClydeR]

They both want a time line at this point. Just the other day McCain was stating how 16 months to get the troops home is a reasonable timeline.

No. McCain has always opposed timetables and timelines, and he has put others in their place when they used those words.


January 30, 2008 GOP debate

HOOK: Yes. I'd like to start with Governor Romney.

Obviously, Iraq is still a major issue in this campaign, and over the last few days there's been a real back-and-forth going on here. Senator McCain has said over and over again that you supported a timetable for a phased withdrawal from Iraq.

Is that true?

ROMNEY: Absolutely, unequivocal -- if I can get that word out -- unequivocably, absolutely no. I have never, ever supported a specific timetable for exit from Iraq.

ROMNEY: And it's offensive to me that someone would suggest that I have.

And I have noted that everyone from Time magazine to Bill Bennett over there to actually CNN's own analysts, he said it was a lie and it's absolutely wrong.

I do not support that, never have. We've had -- we've -- and Senator McCain pointed to an interview I had back in April with ABC, when I said that our president and their prime minister should have timetables and milestones.

We have timetables and milestones for progress that we're making together. But I never suggested a date specific to withdraw and, were to give you a date specific for withdrawal, would you, Senator, veto it?" I said I'd veto it.

I'm opposed to setting a specific date for withdrawal. By the way, we've had, since that time, 10-12 debates. Senator McCain never raised that question in any of those debates.

If he ever wondered what my position was, he could have raised it. I instead have pointed out time and time again, and let me make it absolutely clear again tonight, I will not pull our troops out until we have brought success in Iraq, and that means, for me, that we do not have safe havens for al Qaeda or Hezbollah or anyone else, that our troops have secured the population from that kind of threat, that they will not have safe havens from which they could launch attacks against us.

And if there's any misunderstanding, those words should make it perfectly clear, as have every single debate that I've attended...

COOPER: Senator...

ROMNEY: ... 15 debates. I do not propose nor have I ever proposed a public or secret date for withdrawal. It's just simply wrong.

And by the way, raising it a few days before the Florida primary, when there was very little time for me to correct the record, when the date of withdrawal," sort of falls in the kind of dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found to be reprehensible.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator McCain, tough words.

MCCAIN: Well, of course, he said he wanted a timetable. Before that, we have to understand that we lost the 2006 election and the Democrats thought that they had a mandate. They thought they had a mandate to get us out of Iraq.

And I was prepared to sacrifice whatever was necessary in order to stand up for what I believed in.

Now, in December of 2006, after the election, Governor Romney was won't weigh in. I'm a governor."

At the time, he didn't want to weigh in because he was a governor, I was out there on the front lines with my friends saying, "We not only can't withdraw, but we've got to have additional troops over there in order for us to have a chance to succeed."

Then in April, April was a very interesting year (sic) in 2007. That's when Harry Reid said the war is lost and we've got to get out. And the buzzword was "timetables, timetables."

Governor, the right answer to that question was "no," not what you said, and that was we don't want to have them lay in the weeds until we leave and Maliki and the president should enter into some kind of agreement for, quote, "timetables."

"Timetables" was the buzzword for the...

ROMNEY: Why don't you use the whole quote, Senator?

MCCAIN: ... withdrawal. That...

ROMNEY: Why don't you use the whole quote? Why do you insist on...

MCCAIN: I'm using the whole quote, where you said "I won't"...

ROMNEY: ... not using the actual quote? That's not what I said.

MCCAIN: The actual quote is, "We don't want them to lay in the weeds until we leave." That is the actual quote and I'm sure...

ROMNEY: What does that mean?

MCCAIN: ... fact-checkers --

ROMNEY: What is the meaning?

MCCAIN: It means a timetable until we leave.

ROMNEY: Listen, Senator, let's...

COOPER: Let me jump in, because the quote that I have...

ROMNEY: Is it not fair -- is it not fair to have the person who's being accused of having a position he doesn't have be the expert on what his position is?

How is it that you're the expert on my position, when my position has been very clear?

(APPLAUSE)

I'll tell you, this is...

MCCAIN: I'm the expert. I'm the expert on this. When you said...

ROMNEY: This is the kind -- this is the kind -- this is...

MCCAIN: ... "I won't weigh in. I'm a governor." You couldn't weigh in because you were a governor...

ROMNEY: That's a separate point.

MCCAIN: ... back when we were having the fight over it.

ROMNEY: That's a separate point.

MCCAIN: The fact is...

ROMNEY: That's a separate point.

MCCAIN: ... that I have fought for this surge. I have said we need to have this succeed. I know the situation in Iraq and I am proud to have supported this president and supported the fact that we are succeeding in Iraq today.

ROMNEY: There's...

MCCAIN: If we had done -- if we had waited and laid in the weeds until we leave, then al Qaeda would have won and we would be facing a disastrous situation in the...

COOPER: There's two separate issues being discussed...

MCCAIN: ... today.

COOPER: ... and I just want to clarify both of them. First of all...

MCCAIN: These are...

COOPER: ... Senator McCain...

MCCAIN: ... quotes that I am giving you that are direct quotes.

COOPER: So, Senator McCain, the quote is from Governor Romney on GMA that you've been quoting. The actual quote is, "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones"...

MCCAIN: Timetables and milestones.

COOPER: ... "that they speak about, but those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone."

MCCAIN: You don't have to...

COOPER: He does not say he is supporting a withdrawal.

MCCAIN: ... wait until the enemy lays in the weeds until we leave. That means that we were leaving.

COOPER: It's open to interpretation.

MCCAIN: If we weren't leaving, how could the enemy lay in the weeds?

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Senator, if you have question on this, if you have a question on this, you can just ask it.

MCCAIN: I'm sorry you did not have -- could not weigh in as governor on the surge when it was the critical issue. And I'm sorry...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: ... so let me just allow you to respond to the issue of the going to be gone, laying in the weeds question.

MCCAIN: Timetables was the buzzword for those that wanted to get out.

COOPER: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: And you're saying, point blank, you did not want to get out then. What did you mean by that statement?

ROMNEY: That we have a series of timetables and milestones for working on the progress that they're making, the progress we're making, the rule of law, what their soldiers are doing, what our soldiers are doing.

COOPER: OK.

ROMNEY: How many troops they're able to recruit, how well the following question, "do you have a specific time, would you support Congress if they gave you a specific time?" I said "absolutely not."

COOPER: Let me -- OK, on the...

ROMNEY: By the way, this has been around. If this was a question, it could have been raised in April or May.

COOPER: On the second issue...

ROMNEY: But it was raised...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: I want to give you an opportunity...

MCCAIN: It was raised many times. I raised it many times, as to whether you have the experience and the judgment to lead this country in the war against radical Islamic extremism. I've raised that many times.

ROMNEY: Senator McCain...

MCCAIN: And I will continue to raise it.

COOPER: I want to give you, Governor Romney...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: ... a chance to respond to the other accusation.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: All right. Let's just focus on this, the second one, which is the issue that Senator McCain raised, which was actually back in the surge, when you were a governor, and you did say you would not take a position.

This was in January -- excuse me -- December of 2006. Two months later, you announced you were running for president.

Why two months before you were running for president were you not willing to take a position on supporting or not supporting a surge?

ROMNEY: Look, as governor of the state, there are a lot of issues of a federal nature that I didn't take a position on. I was running a state. My responsibility was for running a state. When I became a governor, I took a whole series of positions on national issues. That's normal and natural.

With regard to the surge, the briefing that I received -- I received an early briefing from Fred Kagan on the size of our military. After I received that, I said I support increasing our military by at least 100,000. And then just prior to the president's announcement of the surge, I spoke again with Fred Kagan, and he laid out the philosophy of the surge, his vision for it. As you know, many consider him one of the authors of the surge idea. And when he gave me that report, I met with my staff and announced that day that I supported a surge. The president announced later that day the entire program.

So I supported it as a candidate for president, No. 1.

No. 2, with regards to this idea that I favor a specific date for withdrawal -- I do not. We've had, I believe since that interview that the senator quotes, we've had 10 or 12 debates. He's never raised that issue with me. He's never said, "are you for a date specific?" had, I said I will not leave Iraq until we have secured Iraq, make sure it will never become a safe haven.

And what's interesting here is it's an attempt to do the Washington-style old politics, which is lay a charge out there, regardless of whether it's true or not, don't check it, don't talk to the other candidate, just throw it out there, get it in the media and the stream.

There's not a single media source that I've seen that hasn't said it wasn't reprehensible. Even the New York Times said it was wrong. The Washington Post -- they endorsed you -- The Washington Post gave you three Pinocchios for it. It's simply -- it's simply wrong, and the senator knows it.

COOPER: I want to give, Senator, final comment on this subject, and then we have a lot more about Iraq that we are going to talk to the other candidates about as well.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: ... in the debate. It wasn't -- it wasn't -- and when he said what he said in December, it was after the election. President Bush fired Rumsfeld, and we announced that we are going to have a new strategy. That was the critical time.

Timetables was the buzzwords. Timetables were the ones.

And as far as Washington politics is concerned, I think my friend Governor Huckabee, sir, will attest the millions of dollars of attack ads and negative ads you leveled against him in Iowa, the millions of dollars of attack ads you have attacked against me in New Hampshire, and have ever since.

A lot of it is your own money. You're free to do with it what you want to. You can spend it all. But the fact is that...

(LAUGHTER)

... your negative ads, my friend, have set the tone, unfortunately, in this campaign.

I say to you again: The debate after the election of 2006 was whether we were going to have timetables for withdrawal or not. Timetables were the buzzword. That was the Iraq Study Group. That was what the Democrats said we wanted to do.

Your answer should have been no.

More... (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/GOPdebate.transcript/index.html)

[CrystalTears]

That's an excerpt from 6 months ago. I'm talking about statements he's made within the last week. I'm not saying he's stating a timeline, but he's no longer completely opposed to it either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/mccain-on-obamas-iraq-pla_n_115091.html?page=6


In an interview with CNN Friday, John McCain said that he thinks Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq is "a "pretty good timetable." ABC's the Note points out that this is quite a reversal from where the candidate was months ago:

Back in January of this year, John McCain pilloried Mitt Romney for encouraging President Bush in April 2007 to develop a private "series of timetables and milestones" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

"Timetables was the buzzword for those that wanted to get out," McCain scolded Romney at a Jan. 30 debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif.

How the (time)tables have turned.

During a Friday interview with CNN, McCain called a 16-month withdrawal from Iraq "a pretty good timetable."

[Parkbandit]

There is a huge difference between SETTING a timetable for withdrawal and calling a 16-month withdrawal from Iraq "a pretty good timetable". One is set.. specific. One is simply a response.

[CrystalTears]

And I said that he wasn't setting one.

And I think there's a huge difference between saying 'OMG ANY TIMETABLE IS DUM!' and then saying it's a good one.

[crb]

Last winter and fall the argument was different.

Obama wanted to pull out regardless of conditions on the ground... possibly leaving an unstable Iraq. McCain wanted to stabilize Iraq and then pull out. At the time, before the Surge's progress (which Obama still fails to recognize), the two issues were far apart.

Now, with the surge being so successful, it will be possible to do both, pull troops out early AND leave a stable Iraq, leaving the two candidates disagreeing only on reasoning.

Obama, has mostly, still stuck with arbitrary timetables. He waffles a little bit, but when pinned down he sticks to it (see his big speech before he left on his trip).

McCain has stuck to his conditions on the ground approach, merely the conditions have approved so much the times have shrunk.

So, with Obama, apparently, the troops will be home in 16 months regardless of the conditions on the ground.

With McCain, the troops will likely be home in 16 months, but if something happens they may stay longer.

That seems to be the only difference left between them on Iraq policy.

[Parkbandit]

If he had used the term "schedule" or "future date" instead of "timetable".. I guess there wouldn't be this "AHAA!! GOTCHA!"



"I think in about 10 years I want to retire. I think that's a good timetable."

"My retirement timetable will be set at January 1, 2018 and I will advise all of my associates of this immediately so we can gradually work towards the transition"

I don't see these two quotes meaning the same thing, even though the same word is used in both.

[Mabus]

Nice that you passed over the fact that he had visited with troops prior to it ....
I was discussing the issue of your preordained (in his mind at least) president to skip visiting injured troops after he was told he could not bring advisers, aides and camera crews with him into their recovery rooms. Since using injured soldiers as mere props for political campaigns is against DoD policy he had to change his schedule.

[Stanley Burrell]

Last winter and fall the argument was different.

Obama wanted to pull out regardless of conditions on the ground... possibly leaving an unstable Iraq. McCain wanted to stabilize Iraq and then pull out. At the time, before the Surge's progress (which Obama still fails to recognize), the two issues were far apart.

Now, with the surge being so successful, it will be possible to do both, pull troops out early AND leave a stable Iraq, leaving the two candidates disagreeing only on reasoning.

Obama, has mostly, still stuck with arbitrary timetables. He waffles a little bit, but when pinned down he sticks to it (see his big speech before he left on his trip).

McCain has stuck to his conditions on the ground approach, merely the conditions have approved so much the times have shrunk.

So, with Obama, apparently, the troops will be home in 16 months regardless of the conditions on the ground.

With McCain, the troops will likely be home in 16 months, but if something happens they may stay longer.

That seems to be the only difference left between them on Iraq policy.

I think your saying the surge has been successful is as adequate as my saying it hasn't. We, the United States, despite our awesome troop surge, have not, I assure you, had any impact on fighting a guerrilla war. We cannot blanket Iraq in troops. We can't. We. Cannot. Blanket. Iraq. In. Troops. We will not halt suicide bombings, as is evident -- No troop surge will achieve anything in curbing domestic violence. You have to realize that Americans stationed in Iraq are not the Iraqi people. Iraq has to be belong to Iraq, because it's Iraq. I am not going to have troops stationed in Iraq for 30 years, with my money, because of some president's inferiority has-to-impress-daddy complex.

Everything Bush's dream of Mideast peace between Israel and Palestine that was the final dying legacy of this faulty administration has been obliterated a thousand-fold by trying to fight a mindset.

As far as words go, you do realize McCain pulled the colossal flip-flop of doublebacking on the "possible withdrawal timetable" rhetoric very recently as you hinted to in your striking critique? And you're being a fair judge of Obama on war rhetoric? Come on man. He (Obama) has been much more solid on his recorded opinion about the fact that the Iraqi people have to be the Iraqi people. Troop withdrawal will solidify that and the sooner the better.

This fearmongering shit about future what-ifs is not going to work anymore, or at least as effectively -- Bush II has pretty much thrown that one down the all-American made-in-the-U.S.A. aquatic disposal unit.

I remember the same conservative wackos complaining about the fallout when Clinton brought troops back home from The Balkans. Fucking nothing. No Vietcong attacks after Rambo saved us, no chemical attacks on The United States of America after the first Gulf War had to be avoided by a Democrat who actually knew how to get troops out of the area (Clinton absolutely should've potshot Osama though.)

Obama's the only one with stones to have expressed (well before conservative Drudge Report painting) of taking it to the house with Pakistan. No distinction between terrorists and the countries who harbor them my fucking nuts. If we're really that scared of a potential Pakistani nuclear arsenal, the best way to cure its unpredictability is not having terror attacks within its borders up 1000% as tertiary effects from our shitsmear of a campaign.

Jackson could not have gotten this low of a wartime reelection when pandering to the staunch Democrats.

[Mabus]

He (Obama) has been much more solid on his recorded opinion about the fact that the Iraqi people have to be the Iraqi people. Troop withdrawal will solidify that and the sooner the better.

That must be why he voted for $162 billion in a no-strings emergency supplemental to continue the Iraq War into 2009, because he is a man of principles that votes his beliefs...

Gutless.

[Dwarven Empath]

Its easy.

Do you want more taxes from your paycheck.
Vote Obama.

If you like your cash.

Vote the lesser evil.

[Back]

Its easy.

Do you want more taxes from your paycheck.
Vote Obama.

If you like your cash.

Vote the lesser evil.

It’s easy to let other people think for you.

When do we start thinking about voting for who is the better of two goods?

Don’t get me wrong... I love cash in pocket. Who doesn’t? So does McCain and so does Obama. So do people who want to come to America. It’s our ideal... that you can start with nothing and become something.

[Dwarven Empath]

It’s easy to let other people think for you.

When do we start thinking about voting for who is the better of two goods?


Because I think they both suck.

But I don't want my S.S. tax going up in my paycheck, therefore, I will be voting for McCain.

[Clove]

When do we start thinking about voting for who is the better of two goods?When people believe there are "two goods" to vote between, dumbass.

[Stanley Burrell]

That must be why he voted for $162 billion in a no-strings emergency supplemental to continue the Iraq War into 2009, because he is a man of principles that votes his beliefs...

Gutless.

More seriously though, you think I have a problem with directing money towards our troops on a Capital Hill vote? Look at how our soldiers are out there naked since Democrats pwnd congress. I'd much rather fund our troops than troop size and I don't think anyone on Capital Hill has a lot of business blocking anything related to troop spending. Albeit internal funds or external -- I applaud Obama for not going Cindy Sheehan.

When I look two nanometers outside of the box, I realize that voting for what is already a static and hopefully inevitable boost of funds for our troops is in no way tied into (admittedly rhetorical since we don't all have magical crystal balls) speechcraft involving removing a burning overseas pocket hole or stitching it up. It's still going to cost that much money for whoever it is that moves our vehicular fleet/caters to general outward movement from the area as is -- Much of this being cleverly simple tactics that The White House (and basically anyone with a working cerebral cortex) knows is going to fall upon the lap of whoever it is that inhabits the White House and coincidentally decides to bring our troops back home. I'd much rather have military-trained National Guardsmen stationed where the fuck they were supposed to belong in the first place than having dickless Internet I-know-best political pieces of shit like you and I guarding against the next Al Qaeda terror strike that would have been just as non-imminent regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican was in office during 9-11.

Basically, what you need to realize is that the '09 GI Bill benefits aren't going to be recalculated based on your own mental fucking retardation about Obama being the anti-Christ simply based upon what it is you posted in relation to voting expenditures. America hasn't ever not voted for her troops, economically. I think we'd all be speaking German, or Old English had she. $162 billion is starting to sound like a drop in the bucket these days anyway.

[Mabus]

I applaud Obama for not going Cindy Sheehan.

I may disagree with, but respect, those in the HoR and Senate who not only talk "bring the troops home" but also vote to end the funding. It is entirely within the scope of Congress to decide where funding goes. Many in Congress want it both ways; talk peace but vote war.

You cannot stand in front of crowds thrilling them with your rhetoric about ending a war and then vote to fund the same war with no strings attached to the funding, unless you are a pandering, gutless politician.

To quote Cindy Sheehan (About 1:09 in this YouTube Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIodAB3tiJY)),

"You can't say you are for peace if you vote to fund the war. It's impossible."

[BriarFox]

Because I think they both suck.

But I don't want my S.S. tax going up in my paycheck, therefore, I will be voting for McCain.

So the current good outweighs the future evil? Or have you even thought that far ahead? What are you going to do when Social Security collapses and there's no support for you when you retire?

[Borismere]

Most Americans can't plan a few months out in advance much less a few decades.

[Dwarven Empath]

So the current good outweighs the future evil? Or have you even thought that far ahead? What are you going to do when Social Security collapses and there's no support for you when you retire?


When I retire I will be living in Scotland. USA can forward my $1,500 a month check to me.

Oh and one more thing. As a citizen of the USA I will be voting for the president. I have two choices, unless I write my name on the ballot and vote for myself.

So Obama or McCain?

How fucking hard can this be?

Do you wan't some poshy dem? Or a cranky Rep?

It's not that hard. Really! Even Jesse Jackson can't stand him.

[crb]

So the current good outweighs the future evil? Or have you even thought that far ahead? What are you going to do when Social Security collapses and there's no support for you when you retire?
Um you think Obama wants to save SS?

Raising taxes just kicks the can down the road for 10 or 20 years, it doesn't fix the problem.

You need to overhaul it, like Bush tried to do in 04. Private accounts.

Right now, under the current system or what Obama proposes, anyone 40 or younger should NOT expect to get ANY money from SS when they retire.

I can't imagine why McCain isn't leading among young people (well, I know why, because young people tend to be ignorant on issues and instead vote personality). Obama doesn't want young workers to get to keep some of their SS money in their own accounts owned by them and not the government. McCain does.


Oh... Read this article, from that conversative soapbox the NYT so you know its biased right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/business/13view.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

[crb]

I think your saying the surge has been successful is as adequate as my saying it hasn't. We, the United States, despite our awesome troop surge, have not, I assure you, had any impact on fighting a guerrilla war.

Reheheheheally? (shout out to Dr. Cox).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/31/AR2008073100609.html

You want more sources I'll find you a few hundred articles covering how the surge has resorted in lower US casualties and civilian casualties.

[ClydeR]

Raising taxes just kicks the can down the road for 10 or 20 years, it doesn't fix the problem.

You need to overhaul it, like Bush tried to do in 04. Private accounts.

How would private accounts impact the solvency of SS?

[crb]

How would private accounts impact the solvency of SS?
It is one step of many that needs to be done. I believe Bush's proposal was increase the retirement age, add a need based component, and allow private accounts.

Generally the problem with SS is that more money will be taken out than what is put in. This problem will only continue, it is a fundamental flaw in the system. Raising taxes just delays it, but eventually it will happen. You need to change the underlying fundamentals of the system.

So what you do is you change it from a public system to a mandated private system. Then each worker only needs to pay for themself, you can't just flip a switch though. When SS was created people who were at retirement age got full benefits without having to have paid into the system, which put the onus on funding their benefits to current workers, a situation with continues to this day.

What we need to do is change that, so that workers fund their own retirement, instead of relying on their children, and that requires phasing the system back through the use of private accounts.

So for instance, one generation may get to put 30% of their SS taxes into private accounts, 70% going to pay for current retirees. The next generation does 60%, and then the next generation does 90%.

Leave the 10% in to fund things like disability benefits.

It'd take a long time, but SS would remain solvent and everyone would get benefits.

Raising taxes just puts off when you have to deal with this fundamental design flaw, leaving it for future generations.

Of course the medicare shortfall is even worse. Thank you Part D.

[Keller]

crb, I want to make sure you know a couple of things.

Social security is currently making a positive ROI.

Projections are that by 2020 the positive ROI will end. The system will be breaking even and begin to hemorrage the 80 years of ROI in the trust fund.

Around 2050 the trust fund will be empty. That means that the only benefits that can be paid out are the same benefits that are paid in.

Projections are that workers of my generation (I'm 26) will see about 40% of what they would see in SS benefits if the system were to stay solvent.

I am NOT saying that the system does not need to be overhauled. I am saying that you should probably quit parroting bullshit conservative rhetoric like "People under 40 don't get ANYTHING from social security." That's wrong.

[crb]

Well you go ahead and count on your SS checks to pay for your retirement, I'm not going to count on it. Notice to, in your tripping over yourself to reply and attempt to correct me you misquoted me. I never said they wouldn't get anything, I said they shouldn't expect it. There is a big fucking different between "will not" and "should not expect to." "Will not" is a statement of certainty, and as I do not have a DeLorean I cannot go to the future and see for sure. Do you have a DeLorean Keller? Did you think I did?

"Should not expect to" is retirement advice. Social Security (and medicare) are going down the tubes, a prudent individual will not bank on them being available for him in 30, 40, or 50 years. When planning for retirement to be safe you should run under the assumption that you will get no assistance from Uncle Sam.

Get the difference Keller? Would it help if, perhaps, I made the big words links to their dictionary definitions? Or you just want to continue misquoting me to change the meaning of what I've said?

Now, your facts and figures assume what status of the US economy? See... obviously when current workers pay into the system the current economy dictates yearly revenues. In a bad economic year the SSA doesn't cut payments, but the payments they receive sure as shit get cut. So any future projection has to account for changes to the US economy. Some predictions predict longer term solvency to say our kid's generation, these assume robust economic growth over the long term with very little setbacks. Other predictions have a more pessimistic economic view and see us running out of money much sooner.

Of course then there is also the factor of death and life expectancy, as medicine improves people are living longer lives, what do you factor in there?

Of course, whatever the factors the source that you're parroting is using, I'll point out that you're fucking excited about a projected 60% cut in benefits?

[ClydeR]

Projections are that by 2020 the positive ROI will end. The system will be breaking even and begin to hemorrage the 80 years of ROI in the trust fund.

Around 2050 the trust fund will be empty. That means that the only benefits that can be paid out are the same benefits that are paid in.

Projections are that workers of my generation (I'm 26) will see about 40% of what they would see in SS benefits if the system were to stay solvent

Two points.

Point 1. Those projections assume that workers continue to pay SS taxes into the trust fund under the current law. If the law is changed so that workers pay all or a portion of their SS taxes into private accounts, instead of into the trust fund, then there will be less money in the trust fund to pay retirees who will be eligible to retire under the current system. That means the shortfall would be larger than currently projected.

Chris Wallace metaphorically had to pull Cheney's teeth (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146546,00.html) to get Cheney to concede that point.

Point 2. The voluminous Social Security trustees' report (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR08/tr08.pdf), which is the source of estimates of future solvency, is based on a number of assumptions, notably including fertility, life expectancy, productivity, inflation, personal earnings, labor force, unemployment, GDP, interest rates and immigration. Slight alterations of a few of those variables (see the sensitivity analysis section of the appendix of the trustees' report) can make the future of Social Security much worse than currently projected or can result in a projected surplus in the trust fund at the end of the 75-year forecast. The trustees are mostly executive branch appointees. A common contention by Certain People is that the trustees under various presidential administrations, including the current one, have fine tuned the assumptions to reach a conclusion consistent with the executive branch's desire either to maintain or to modify SS.

[Stanley Burrell]

To quote Cindy Sheehan (About 1:09 in this YouTube Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIodAB3tiJY)),

"You can't say you are for peace if you vote to fund the war. It's impossible."

Man. All the liberals had better stop paying taxes. I mean, how could they possibly pay taxes in the first place when they're so busy finding no difference between Cindy Sheehan and Barack Obama while smoking all that weed?

If you're going to use Cindy Sheehan, who I applaud Barack Obama for not being a doppelganger of, then I'm going to ask you if you think each and every time any money has been allocated to our military, if it was solely out of both Republicans' pockets and policy.

Anyway, still, what I said, before your hysterically selective quoting.

[Keller]

Right now, under the current system or what Obama proposes, anyone 40 or younger should NOT expect to get ANY money from SS when they retire.

And here I thought that when people say things like NOT and ANY in conspicuous ways they mean NOT and ANY.

My bad. I didn't know you meant that "anyone 40 or younger should not EXPECT to get MUCH money from SS when they retire.

Give me a break. If that's sincerely what you meant -- you suck at communicating.

[Keller]

Of course, whatever the factors the source that you're parroting is using, I'll point out that you're fucking excited about a projected 60% cut in benefits?

Not at all. I told you it needed to be fixed.

But it does no one any service and does not promote honest discourse to have shitty rhetoric.

But then again, maybe I'm just subscribing to another fallacy and people should just ignore me.

[Mabus]

If you're going to use Cindy Sheehan, who I applaud Barack Obama for not being a doppelganger of, then I'm going to ask you if you think each and every time any money has been allocated to our military, if it was solely out of both Republicans' pockets and policy.
You brought the name up. That what she said about (what she spells as ) o-B-O-M-B-a rings true is a matter of his hypocrisy.

As I said, I do not agree with but I respect a member of Congress that is against the war and that votes what they state they believe when they are talking to the voters.

Dennis Kucinich, for instance, says he is against the war and wants the troops to come home to the voters, and then he votes that way. I disagree with him, but I can respect the fact that he has the guts to vote the way he says he will.

Obama, on the other hand, panders to the leftist "peaceniks" with how he has always been against the war, but then votes to fund the war. He is playing the voters (and his supporters) for fools, and those that support him are playing the part well.