A real racist - Oprah

Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 10:34 am
FreeDuck wrote:

They wanted him to define "victory". They probably should have just published it anyway.

Especially since they are clearly Obama partisans. If Fox News had run a video by McCain, and then refused to run a rebuttal by Obama, because they wanted content changes, we both know how that would play with the left.
0 Replies
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 10:36 am
FreeDuck wrote:

I cannot understand why you are spinning your wheels about this. 1 - Palin is not giving interviews. 2- If Oprah did interview her, she would be the only candidate that she interviewed, making for very unequal time. 3- Can you imagine how the questions asked would be picked apart for bias given that Oprah has already endorsed a candidate?

Is it really that hard to understand? The Republicans are playing up the 'media persecution complex.' It's their form of being discriminated against. They are whining about the media in an attempt to whip up their base. That's why the stupid Oprah rumor - which likely never had any grounding in truth at all - was put on Drudge: to keep them talking about the media for a few days, and not about what shitty candidates McCain and Palin are.

I'm watching the Sunday shows, and you know who's not on them? Palin. Why not? When are they gonna take the twaining wheels off of their cute little vp candidate? Cowards. I think the fact that Palin cannot take national interviews is a real sign that she's not ready for the job. I mean, come on. You and I talk about politics enough to go on a Sunday show and not embarrass ourselves. The idea that this lady is ready for national office, but can't even take simple questions, is a joke.

Cowardice. That's what it is on the part of Republicans. And don't think people won't notice.

0 Replies
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 11:22 am
McCain clearly was unable to articulate his position. That's why the partial rejection came. He had every opportunity to try to set out constructive views, but that is something that is beyond this little charade of a politician.



Here’s Mr. Shipley’s email response on Friday to Michael Goldfarb, a member of the McCain team and frequent writer for the senator’s blog, McCainreport:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory " with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out
how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.


David Shipley

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page and Op-Ed, issued this statement today about the process undergone by editors in reviewing submissions:

It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission.

We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996.

The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the pesidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.
0 Replies
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 12:03 pm
Let's focus in on the real reason that McCain and his crew tried, like they always do, to turn this into a, "Jeeze the press is against us" scthick.

[See Cy's posting two before this one]

To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory " with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

McCain has never had any plan. He couldn't have because he simply mirrors the Bush/neocon plan which was never a plan at all. "in concrete terms"; "a clear plan for achieving victory"; "the senator's Afghanistan strategy".

McCain probably dove under a table when he read these things. And of course, there was nobody at all within his campaign who could have helped him. A politician, given a chance like this to articulate his position and he takes a palin dive.

What a leader!
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 08:22 am
"Terence Hunt, white house correspondent for the Associated Press, hits the nail right on the head when he writes that Senator John McCain - the Republican nominee for president - is running against the Democrats (Barack Obama) and George W. Bush and other GOP politicians in a position of power in the last couple of years.

Whenever he makes an appearance, he criticizes Obama’s plans, and his record. This is, most would agree, logical. After all, Obama will be his opponent in November.

McCain has another opponent to deal with, however; the unpopularity of George W. Bush. If he would run as a partisan Republican - in the same vein as Bush - he would certainly lose. The only way for McCain to win in November is to present himself as a different kind of Republican; one who is not overly partisan, one who is able and willing to reach across the aisle, and one who is willing to take on Washington and clean it up.

“We began to value power over principle,” McCain said in Colorado Springs, Colo. Some lawmakers turned corrupt and wound up in jail, he told a rally in Albuquerque, N.M.

“Change is coming, change is coming,” McCain promised later.

Obama’s campaign, knowing that depicting McCain as the second coming of G.W. Bush, tries to counter McCain’s ‘maverick’ image by pointing out time and again that the Senator from Arizona agreed with Bush 90% of the time.

“On the core issues, the economy and the war, he has been joined to Bush at the hip,” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. “On the other hand, Bush is a lead weight dragging him down. He has to rely on rhetoric to separate (himself) but he can’t separate himself on policies important to the American people.”

Of course, the criticism is not entirely fair. McCain, for instance, was one of the most vocal critics of Bush’s strategy in Iraq until the latter ordered the surge (which was exactly what McCain asked for). He criticized Bush and then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for bungling the job in Iraq, and for failing to send enough troops to restore stability and peace.


You really do not know anything about McCain, do you.
0 Replies

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/03/2023 at 05:35:00