What exactly is 'petty' about those statements, Woiyo? Which ones were attacks based upon nothing?
Cycloptichorn
They are ALL "bumper sticker" slogans with no basis in fact. You may have been impressed by his "speech", but it has done nothing to sway my opinion on this novice.
woiyo wrote:They are ALL "bumper sticker" slogans with no basis in fact. You may have been impressed by his "speech", but it has done nothing to sway my opinion on this novice.
Fine, I have no problem with that. But nothing he said was 'petty.' Unlike McCain, who is going the same angry route as Hillary did, and will likely get the same poor result.
Cycloptichorn
soz, Good link; no wonder so many thought McCain was a maverick; he changed his position on Iraq so often, nobody knows exactly where he stands - with Bush or against Bush. Maverick McCain has lost his sense of direction; yes, no, maybe, ....oh well. All part of his worsening senility.
Does one need anything more than the following to oppose McCain.
Saying One Thing, Doing Another
On Wednesday, the Tax Policy Center released a report finding large disparities between Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) public economic proposals and his advisers' private assurances. After comparing McCain's public economic policies with the "measured options outlined by his campaign," the center concluded that McCain's public proposals "would cost an additional $2.8 trillion over ten years" above what the campaign's stated policies would cost. Responding to the report, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior economic adviser, argued that the proposals McCain makes in town halls do not constitute official policy. But the differences between McCain's rhetoric and his policies are stark. While McCain's advisers suggest that the senator would "patch" the alternative minimum tax (AMT), McCain promises to completely repeal it. While McCain publicly advertises a broad expansion "of expensing investments," his economic consultants privately assure budget analysts that the senator would allow expensing for "only to three-and five-year equipment and only on a temporary basis." Overall, McCain's public economic pronouncements suggest that a McCain administration would provide even larger tax cuts for the richest Americans, increase the national debt, and reduce access to health insurance. McCain "is making diametrically opposed policy promises to different audiences at the same time," Robert Gordon and James Kvaal of the Center for American Progress observed recently.
MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH: In a recent interview with Forbes, Holtz-Eakin conceded that the senator's tax plan is a pro-business proposal that is "pretty much a non-event on the personal side," saying it is "a package for American companies to manufacture and Americans to sell globally." Indeed, the Tax Policy Center concludes that McCain's plan gives "virtually no" or "very modest benefits" to the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers. While "some lower-income taxpayers benefit from the large cuts in corporate income," most of the benefit will "go to those at the top." On top of that, McCain's public pronouncements would offer an average tax cut that is "almost double the $1,230 tax cut under the economic advisers' version."Moreover, by "repealing rather than simply reducing the AMT" and allowing Americans to file taxes in an alternative system, McCain's plan allows "those in the top tax brackets" to "benefit most." Thus, the richest 0.1 percent of Americans earn "twice the tax cut that they would get under the more modest plan outlined by Senator McCain's economic advisers," the center states.
INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT: Since McCain's public promises costs an additional $2.8 trillion, his policies "would add enormously to the public debt" and force a McCain administration to undertake "a radical and unprecedented downsizing of government" to balance the budget by 2013. McCain's public promise to repeal the AMT would "reduce revenues by about $390 billion." His pledge to allow expensing of "all machinery and equipment investments would cost about $740 billion more than the temporary and limited proposal" advocated by his advisers, and his proposed alternative tax system would "reduce tax revenues by almost $1.2 trillion over ten years."
--americanprogressaction.org
That's what happens when the conservatives have a senile maverick in their corner that doesn't understand economics - but more importantly government finance. His reduce the cost of government programs will actually end up increasing the federal deficit. I guess he's determined to mortgage not only our children and grandchildren, but also beyond them - for how many more generations is anybody's guess. With all his government experience, it looks like he learned very well; increase spending and don't tax the rich.
McCain keeps saying that Obama doesn't have any experience, and will make all the wrong decisions. This from a senile man who doesn't know the countries of the Middle East or what he supports on Iraq. Has given us any details yet?
The Official John McCain Flip-Flop List
Quote:
Jukebox John keeps changing his tune
It's obvious that the McCain campaign and the RNC have decided to go after Barack Obama as a flip-flopper. What's equally obvious, though, that Republicans couldn't have chosen a worse narrative.
McCain & Co. seemed to stumble on this line of attack almost by accident. They'd experimented with a variety of memes in recent months, none of which had any real salience. The right settled on "flip-flopper," in large part because it's the closest available, already-written Republican narrative, and in part because McCain staffers haven't been able to think of anything else.
The irony, of course, is that the McCain campaign couldn't have picked a more hypocritical line of attack. Below you'll find a comprehensive list of reversals from the Republican nominee, numbered and organized by category for easier reference.
Remember, McCain recently said, "This election is about trust and trusting people's word." Just a few days prior, the McCain campaign admonished Obama for trying to "have it both ways" on issues.
I should note that there's nothing offensive about a political figure changing his or her mind once in a while. Policy makers come to one conclusion, they gain more information, and then they reach a different conclusion. That is, to be sure, a good thing ?- it reflects a politician with an open mind and a healthy intellectual curiosity. Better to have a leader who changes his or her mind based on new information than one who stubbornly sticks to outmoded policy positions, regardless of facts or circumstances.
So why do McCain's flip-flops matter? Because all available evidence suggests his reversals aren't sincere, they're cynically calculated for political gain. This isn't indicative of an open mind; it's actually indicative of a character flaw. And given the premise of McCain's presidential campaign, it's an area in desperate need of scrutiny.
The perception people have of McCain is outdated, reflective of a man who no longer has any use for his previous persona. What's wrong with a politician who changes his or her views? Nothing in particular, but when a politician changes his views so much that he has an entirely different worldview, is it unreasonable to wonder whether it's entirely sincere? Especially when there's no other apparent explanation for five dozen significant reversals?
McCain has been in Congress for more than a quarter-century; he's bound to shift now and then on various controversies. But therein lies the point ?- McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned literally dozens of positions he used to hold. The problem isn't just the incessant flip-flops ?- though that's part of it ?- it's more about the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops. That the media still perceives McCain as some kind of "straight talker" who refuses to sway with the political winds makes this all the more glaring.
Here's the list.
...
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops
JTT, great find! That says it all.
That last paragraph is worth a thousand words; it shows Maverick McCain is not longer a "maverick," but someone looking for votes. Understandable, since he's a politician, but his experience seems to have rendered him impotent.
From now on, every time McCain says he has more experience than Obama, I'll think about McCain's flip-flops on the major issues that he once held as sacrosanct. Now, it's about the votes.
revel, This is all part and parcel of McCain's desperation; he's making false charges against Obama, but they won't stick - "if" people take the trouble to learn the truth. Many conservatives will ignore the truth, and follow up with these false charges because they don't have anything better.
revel wrote:McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence
Quote:The essence of McCain's allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. "I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."
The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.
Then why did he cancel his trip?
Why didnt he go by himself?
And why are you so anxious to believe what Obama says?
Do you really think he would admit it if the reports were true and he cancelled because he couldnt take the press with him?
mysteryman wrote:revel wrote:McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence
Quote:The essence of McCain's allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. "I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."
The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.
Then why did he cancel his trip?
Why didnt he go by himself?
And why are you so anxious to believe what Obama says?
Do you really think he would admit it if the reports were true and he cancelled because he couldnt take the press with him?
Because the article says there is no evidence to back up McCain charges, that is the whole basis of the article.
revel wrote:mysteryman wrote:revel wrote:McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence
Quote:The essence of McCain's allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. "I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."
The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.
Then why did he cancel his trip?
Why didnt he go by himself?
And why are you so anxious to believe what Obama says?
Do you really think he would admit it if the reports were true and he cancelled because he couldnt take the press with him?
Because the article says there is no evidence to back up McCain charges, that is the whole basis of the article.
Then Obama should explain WHY he cancelled the trip, not just deny what others are saying.
mysteryman wrote:revel wrote:mysteryman wrote:revel wrote:McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence
Quote:The essence of McCain's allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. "I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."
The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.
Then why did he cancel his trip?
Why didnt he go by himself?
And why are you so anxious to believe what Obama says?
Do you really think he would admit it if the reports were true and he cancelled because he couldnt take the press with him?
Because the article says there is no evidence to back up McCain charges, that is the whole basis of the article.
Then Obama should explain WHY he cancelled the trip, not just deny what others are saying.
He already DID explain. The Pentagon told him it would be seen as a political event, and he didn't want to make it into a political event.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:mysteryman wrote:revel wrote:mysteryman wrote:revel wrote:McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence
Quote:The essence of McCain's allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. "I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."
The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.
Then why did he cancel his trip?
Why didnt he go by himself?
And why are you so anxious to believe what Obama says?
Do you really think he would admit it if the reports were true and he cancelled because he couldnt take the press with him?
Because the article says there is no evidence to back up McCain charges, that is the whole basis of the article.
Then Obama should explain WHY he cancelled the trip, not just deny what others are saying.
He already DID explain. The Pentagon told him it would be seen as a political event, and he didn't want to make it into a political event.
Cycloptichorn
But the pentagon also told him that if he wanted to come in his role as a US Senator, that would be acceptable.
Obama still cancelled his trip, so his "explanation" doesnt hold up under scrutiny.
