What will you like most about the McCain Presidency?

OK; I held off; but why ain't anybody mentioning the Cindy/Rachel Ray recipe thing? Not that I think it should be used against McCain; but it is a story which republicans would eat up by the shovel full.

McCain "Family Recipes" Lifted from the Food Network

Revel.
Just curious.
Are there any potatoe chips to munch ?
Some mango pickles please

I have always wanted some mangos; what do they taste like?

mangos from south India is better .

Ask any Indians around your corner.
Andhra predesh, Chennai, mangos.
The best tasty one.

Oh how I miss this lovely simple things.
Why I waste my life ?

rama...you deserve special mention.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3200313#3200313

Fundamentals Favor Dems


ead Part I from March 26 here, wherein the economic news and Democratic registration are cited as fundamentals that the Republicans and Iraq war booster John McCain will need to battle against, while McCain hugs Bush to death. These fundamentals are so much more important than meaningless head-to-head polls this early out.

And the latest from ABC/WaPo is, if anything, worse for the GOP.

The public's ratings of the national economy continue to sour, with assessments deteriorating faster than at any point in Washington Post-ABC News polling. Views on the Iraq war have also turned more negative, with six in 10 now rejecting the notion that the United States needs to win there to effectively battle terrorism.

The economy and the Iraq war are the top two issues on voters' minds, according to the new Post-ABC poll, and worsening opinions of both may dampen GOP hopes for the November elections.

Nine in 10 Americans now give the economy a negative rating, with a majority saying it is in "poor" shape, the most to say so in more than 15 years. And the sense that things are bad has spread swiftly. The percentage who hold a negative view of the economy is up 33 points over the past year, and the percentage who rate the economy "poor" has increased 13 points in the past two months. That is the quickest 60-day decline since The Post and ABC started asking the question, in 1985.

Views of the Iraq war have dipped as well. Now, more than six in 10 say that the conflict is not integral to the success of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. That is the most people to reject what is one of the Bush administration's central contentions and a core part of presumed GOP presidential nominee John McCain's stand on the issue.[my bold]

A bit more on Iraq:

On several measures, the poll finds Republicans inching away from support for the war. Among them, a sense that progress in Iraq has stalled has increased 13 points from early March, and the percentages who prefer withdrawing troops over risking more casualties (30 percent) and who think that the battle against terrorism can be a success without victory in Iraq (39 percent) are each at new highs.

The percentages of Democrats and independents advocating withdrawal and seeing Iraq as distinct from the U.S. terrorism fight are also at or near high marks. And three-quarters of Democrats and nearly six in 10 independents do not see significant progress in Iraq.

Remember, for all the bloviating about "the surge is working", Americans have viewed Iraq as a mistaken venture for months verging on years (this poll had "not worth it" at 58% in Jan '07), and half the country strongly disapproves of Republican leader Bush. The issue is what to do about it, and anything that highlights the fools and knaves who got us there is a strong reminder of what's at stake in this election (hello, ABC News? Pay attention to your own poll!)

The Bush economy is going to strangle McCain while Iraq stabs him in the heart, and that's true for downticket Republicans as well. People who read too much into today's polling have to understand that politics isn't stagnant, and we are not locked into anything in April of an election year before the Democrats have a formal nominee.

Oh, I'm sorry. I do apologize. The difference between political coverage on the blogs compared to the broadcast media is downright embarrassing. Now let's get back to the important questions, like what's Barack's favorite tree and Hillary's pick for campaign song.

Maybe John slept with Rachael to get the recipes?

Hey; don't insult Rachael Ray. Sides it was Cindy, gross either way.

If anybody thinks the Food Network doesn't 'lift their recipes' from any legal source they can find, I still have a good assortment of bridges to sell. Because of a previous vocation that kept me moving in ecumenical and social services circles around the country, I have a rather large assortment of self-published cookbooks, put together as fund raisers, produced by various churches and organizations. You can find dozens and dozens, if not identical, recipes for the same thing in these cookbooks. And I do mean identical or at most a word or two will have been changed. And almost certainly some of these also have been featured on the Food Network and/or originated there.

After several tradings, even among friends, we often have no clue what the original source was. But somebody else's recipe will invariably wind up in our own collection of 'family recipes'.

But regardless of where Cindy McCain acquired the recipes she views as her family recipes, I fail to see how that reflects on John McCain's qualification for President or how that affects what I will like about a McCain presidency. (Now if Cindy sold Ouiji boards for a living or was a spokesperson for the ACLU or admitted she had never been proud of her country until now, I might have to think about that.)

Maybe that is why they are trying to rebrand it as the T&A network.

Foxfyre, wow. Thanks for setting the record straight. Food Network stole Cindy's family recipes? Everybody should have caught that right off the bat. Doh.

Unpalatable truth.
Blueflame is a decent, courageous US citizens who had exposed the American Dream in ABUZZ.

I love to read all the sentenses he type .
Most of the decent critical American are not there.

Perky comes to mind for some reason.

Gee, you read stuff that nobody said on this thread just like you read stuff that nobody said on other threads. Gotta give you an A+ for consistency.

Foxfyre wrote:



Foxfyre wrote:

I guess blueflame she was just throwin that first quote out there for the heck of it with no particular point in mind.

Those recipes were word for word (magically they can't be found now; but hey; it was just a fault of some low level staffer out there) but Foxfrye is right it has no bearing on McCain qualifications or lack of qualifications rather. I just thought it was something usually people would talk about and was kind of surprised no one was. I guess no one wanted to be accused of being a tabloid blogger.

et tu Revel? I never thought of you as Blueflame's toady before, but hey, everybody needs fans.

If you would look at what I wrote objectively instead of through whatever myopic vision ultra partisans use to interpret this stuff, you will see that I was explaining how recipes get around and how the source of them can be quickly obscured and how even the Food Network is not immune to that. Or do you naively presume that Food Network actually thinks up every recipe it features?

If you will read carefully you will find no place in which I suggest that Cindy McCain's reciipes are not from the Food Network. All you will find is the possibility that her family recipes could be from any number of sources and she, like most people in the real world--maybe you are the exception--has no idea where most of them originated. In other words to cast judgment on her without knowing that is a bit, well....excessively judgmental unless she claims that she invented the recipes. If she made such a claim then yes, criticism is in order.

Foxfyre; when the recipe's are word for word as some as those on the food network and almost word for word on Rachael Ray's; I think it can pretty well be assumed they were copied from the FNW. I think the McCain's are admitting they were copied which is why they blamed it on a low paid staffer who has already been removed from the position. The recipes are free; but for her to put her name on them; well; it was just a silly thing to do. I don't see as a big deal; but you are making it one because (as usual) you can't just admit without any qualifications that someone you are for (so to speak) done or said something wrong.

At least I try very hard to not accuse people of something that I have no way of knowing just because I am against them. And yes, when somebody is accused on flimsy evidence, I will qualify that every single time. You can count on it.

Did I say nothing was done wrong? No I didn't. But I'm at least objective enough to see how something like that could happen.

Did Cindy McCain claim to have invented the recipes? Or did she give the staffer recipes that the family enjoys to put on the website and the staff inadvertently attributed them to Cindy? This is what I don't know and what you don't know. Is Cindy McCain known for such plagiarism? Does she have a track record for this kind of thing? Has she done or said anything to reinforce your opinion about that? Or do you just want to believe she is guilty because you are against McCain?

I guess what McCain's wife allegedly did is in the eyes of the Obamaniacs worse than Ms.Obama's expressed negative feelings for the US. Or even Clinton's remark about baking cookies.

listen; if the recipe's were not copied; why take them off the McCain's website? Why say the fault lay with someone else? Nevermind; I said it wasn't a big deal not meant to say anything about McCain's qualifications for being a president; in fact more than once I said it. I never compared the stories nor do I intend as that would just get into all those all over again. I just thought it was kind of funny and wondered why no one was talking about it when I first read about it and now it is simply tiresome to keep talking about it and wish I never brought it up.