John McCain is a Coward

Can you explain why it's "idiotic?"

You've "proven" to me that your reading of media has not taught you much of anything.

You are the Tex Cobb of A2K.
A private joke?

Unfortunately I don't think you can convert your scar tissue into a Hollywood career.
Another private joke?

You know, if you can't elevate your retorts beyond the Middle School level, it's OK to post nothing.
Please explain why? Your saying so only shows your ignorance. At the very least, you should offer your opinion why it's "nothing."

We might believe your Grandma died and you couldn't find the time to respond.
Another private joke?

You do understand what a strawman, adhominem, and blather is, don't you?

You belong in a mental institution - as someone already suggested.

Finn actually wrote:
Tex is actually a bright guy, but his greatest physical talent is that he will not be rendered unconscious even if he is hit with a wrecking ball.

He never actually hurt any of his quality opponents and though they all beat his face into a bloody pulp, he kept coming back for more.

How did you ever come up with your nome de plume?

The bad poll news heightened the debate stakes for McCain, who unveiled a package of measures on Tuesday to help investors, particularly older Americans, who have seen their retirement savings decimated by stock market losses.

But McCain also said he was not finished talking about Obama's service on a community board in Chicago with former 1960s radical William Ayers. The Arizona senator said he was likely to talk about Ayers during the debate.

Groundless, False, Dubious


We find McCain's accusation that Obama "lied" to be groundless. It is true that recently released records show half a dozen or so more meetings between the two men than were previously known, but Obama never denied working with Ayers.

Other claims are seriously misleading. The education project described in the Web ad, far from being "radical," had the support of the Republican governor and was run by a board that included prominent local leaders, including one Republican who has donated $1,500 to McCain's campaign this year. The project is described by Education Week as reflecting "mainstream thinking" about school reform.

Despite the newly released records, there's still no evidence of a deep or strong "friendship" with Ayers, a former radical anti-war protester whose actions in the 1960s and '70s Obama has called "detestable" and "despicable."

Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques. Here’s the truth: the smear associating Barack to Ayers is “phony,” “tenuous,” " even “exaggerated at best if not outright false.”

William Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, with whom Barack served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990’s. According to the Associated Press, they are not close: “No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago …”

Smear groups and the McCain campaign are trying to connect Obama to acts Ayers committed 40 years ago " when Barack was just eight years old. Here’s what the New York Times reported on the connection:

But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”


Barack has publicly denounced Ayers’ radical actions from the 1960’s:

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.


Fight back with the truth: make sure anyone who has seen this smear also sees this page.

Frankly, based on what I've heard, this is a non-issue, but I also believe that if McCain had some parallel association, say he was pals with a former high ranking KKK member, liberals would be trumpeting it from one end of the country to the other.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frankly, based on what I've heard, this is a non-issue, but I also believe that if McCain had some parallel association, say he was pals with a former high ranking KKK member, liberals would be trumpeting it from one end of the country to the other.

Really? Sort of like his association with Frank Keating?

How about G. Gordon Liddy?

Obama never brings either one of those up, so don't give us that crap.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frankly, based on what I've heard, this is a non-issue, but I also believe that if McCain had some parallel association, say he was pals with a former high ranking KKK member, liberals would be trumpeting it from one end of the country to the other.

Really? Sort of like his association with Frank Keating?

How about G. Gordon Liddy?

Obama never brings either one of those up, so don't give us that crap.

Cycloptichorn

It's not a valid comparison because neither Governor Keating, nor even Liddy are former career criminals like Ayers or former officers of the KKK. Keating and Liddy are at a lower "badness level." If McCain were associating with someone whose past was as bad, there would be unending noise about it from the left. But, as I said, I'm not sure it ought to have been a campaign issue.

Brandon wrote:

It's not a valid comparison because neither Governor Keating,

It's not a valid comparison because neither Governor Keating, nor even Liddy are former career criminals like Ayers or former officers of the KKK. Keating and Liddy are at a lower "badness level." If McCain were associating with someone whose past was as bad, there would be unending noise about it from the left. But, as I said, I'm not sure it ought to have been a campaign issue.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."


Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."

All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."

He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication.[20] The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."[15] Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[21]

In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[22] Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.[22][23]

Yesterday, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights released its scorecard for the 110th Congress, assessing how lawmakers voted on civil rights issues. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) received a civil rights score of 22 percent; Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) received a 100 percent.

http://thinkprogress.org/

In 2000, McCain ‘assured’ Gary Bauer that he would ‘appoint pro-life judges.’»

In the debate last night, moderator Bob Schieffer asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if he could “ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees” with him on Roe v. Wade. McCain replied that he had never “imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court.” “That’s not appropriate to do,” said McCain.

Watch it:

But, as Ezra Klein points out, it has been previously reported that McCain assured conservative activist Gary Bauer in 2000 that he “would appoint pro-life judges“:

Somewhat surprisingly, McCain had the support of Gary Bauer, the social conservative, who had dropped out of the race by that time. “I wanted a commitment from either George Bush or John McCain that if elected he would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court,” Bauer told me. “Bush said he had no litmus test, and his judges would be strict constructionists. But McCain, in private, assured me he would appoint pro-life judges.”

Klein writes that if Bauer’s claim is true, “it seems to me like a fairly big deal that McCain is publicly forswearing litmus tests but privately assuring leaders of the Christian Right that he’ll have them.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/16/mccain-bauer-litmus/