1
   

McCain: Unfit to Lead

 
 
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 11:17 am
Quote:
McCain's Integrity


10 Sep 2008 12:40 pm

For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?

So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John McCain in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.

And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.

He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.

And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.

And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.

Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.

McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html

I am forced to agree with Andrew Sullivan: the McCain campaign has devolved into a group of disgusting liars. They have released the trashiest and worst ads in a generation against their opponent. They have revealed that they will literally say or do anything to win. Their latest ad, 'experience,' is so reprehensible that it was met with universal disgust by those who judge these things.

I have lost my respect for McCain. There was once a time when I agreed with the 'Maverick' BS that he likes to spout, but that's long gone. He abandoned every former position that he held in order to win the Republican nomination. He no longer talks to or takes questions from the press, for he cannot answer questions about how sleazy his campaign has become.

He's a liar. During his nomination speech at the RNC, he spoke of moving past the politics of destruction and division. At the same time, he has done everything he can to further those politics. Karl Rove and his protoges run the McCain campaign, and it's obvious - they release dirty ads, constantly accuse the media of bias, and make decisions for McCain which are clearly based on politics and not policy.

I'm simply disgusted with the man at this point. But not afraid. I don't for a second think he's going to win. Obama has a much clearer path to victory at this point then McCain, who must win nearly EVERY state in contention. It just pisses me off to watch the same bullshit that I've had to deal with politically my whole life, repeated again by the Republican party. They really are worse then the Dems at this stuff, shamelessly releasing outrageous ads and sliming their opponent.

Cycloptichorn
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,327 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 11:26 am
Where are the reason I should vote for Obama?

"They really are worse then the Dems at this stuff, "

So you admit the Dems pull the same "BS", yet you never fault them.

That is really lame. Rolling Eyes


0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 11:26 am
@Cycloptichorn,
McCain is a liar. He has spoken harshly about lobbyists and lobbying, but he has surrounded himself by them.

Here's a site where you can see exactly how many close relationships and ties to lobbyists he still has, and how they still run his campaign:

http://www.mccainslobbyists.com/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3187/2845295591_8449517feb.jpg

You can click on any one of them for a ton of info.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 11:29 am
WASHINGTON " Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.

TESTING THE LIMITS: Obama's claim of independence questioned
OBAMA FUNDRAISERS: Which lawyers bundle money?

Thirty-one of the 38 are law firm partners, who typically receive a share of their firm's lobbying fees. At least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists.

"It makes no difference whether the person is a registered lobbyist or the partner of a registered lobbyist, if the person is raising money to get access or curry favor," said Michael Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan think tank.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_n.htm

So again, why should I vote for Obama???
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 11:32 am
Here's Josh Marshall on the subject:

Quote:
Unfit for High Office

One of the interesting aspects of this campaign is watching the scales fall from the eyes of many of John McCain's closest admirers among the veteran DC press corps. I'm not talking about the freaks on Fox News or any of the sycophants at the AP. I'm talking about, let's say, the better sort of reporters and commentators in the 45 to 65 age bracket. To the extent that the press was McCain's base (and in many though now sillier respects it still is) this was the base of the base. And talking to a number of them I can understand why that was, at least in the sense of the person he was then presenting himself as.

But over the last ... maybe six weeks, in various conversations with these folks, the change is palpable. Whether it will make any difference in the tone of coverage in the dominant media I do not know. But it is sinking in.

All politicians stretch the truth, massage it into the best fit with their message. But, let's face it, John McCain is running a campaign almost entirely based on straight up lies. Not just exaggerations or half truths but the sort of straight up, up-is-down mind-blowers we've become so accustomed to from the current occupants of the White House. And today McCain comes out with this rancid, race-baiting ad based on another lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison. (And remember, President George H.W. Bush never ran the Willie Horton ad himself. It was an outside group. He wasn't willing to degrade himself that far.) As TPM Reader JM said below, at least Horton actually was released on a furlough. This is ugly stuff. And this is an ugly person. There's clearly no level of sleaze this guy won't stoop to to win this election.

And let's be frank. He might win it. This is clearly a testing time for Obama supporters. But I want to return to a point I made a few years ago during the Social Security battle with President Bush. Winning and losing is never fully in one's control -- not in politics or in life. What is always within our control is how we fight and bear up under pressure. It's easy to get twisted up in your head about strategy and message and optics. But what is already apparent is that John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest and race-baiting campaign of our lifetimes. So let's stopped being shocked and awed by every new example of it. It is undignified. What can we do? We've got a dangerously reckless contender for the presidency and a vice presidential candidate who distinguished her self by abuse of office even on the comparatively small political stage of Alaska. They've both embraced a level of dishonesty that disqualifies them for high office. Democrats owe it to the country to make clear who these people are. No apologies or excuses. If Democrats can say at the end of this campaign that they made clear exactly how and why these two are unfit for high office they can be satisfied they served their country.

--Josh Marshall


McCain has run a dirtier campaign then Bush ever did, and why this is surprising to me, I don't know, as it's the same people running both of the campaigns, with a weaker candidate.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 11:36 am
@Cycloptichorn,
So again...why should I vote for Obama?

Because these 2 democratic supports say McCain is a "bad guy"?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 12:00 pm
He's a maverick all right! Look at how he's twisted everything since his acceptance speech at the convention. He said, as I recall, he will work with both sides of the isle, and stop the personal destruction stuff. After the lies and innuendos of his ads, and "I approve this message," there isn't any question he's a maverick - of the wrong stripe!

A "real" maverick would have said "stop trashing Obama with lies and innuendos."
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 12:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,


Thanks Cyclo, you just gave me another reason too vote for McCain & Palin.

0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 12:31 pm
Why is it I spend so much time here fending off the grotesque menagerie of lies about Palin and McCain if Obama and his squad of disciples are not running an equivalent campaign of smear and deception?

It's politics in a close race with 2 months left to claim the few undecideds. Both camps will sling their best mud and we are all a bit dirtier for it. But, don't think for an instant that Obama is an innocent cherub in all this mud slinging. His hands are just as dirty as McCain's. You're just lying to yourself if you think otherwise.
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 06:00 pm
@McGentrix,
McCain's Integrity

10 Sep 2008 01:40 pm

For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?

So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.
And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.

He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.

And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.

And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.

Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.

McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 12:34 pm
McCain's Warped Worldview

The Nation: Republican's Candidacy Is Irrational Mélange Of Patriotic Swagger And Blindness To Reality


(The Nation) This column was written by Robert Scheer

Excerpt:

Quote:
The world according to John McCain is one in which America is triumphant at home and abroad thanks to the Bush legacy, rolling to victory internationally and mastering its domestic economic problems. If daily news, like reports of the ten French soldiers killed by a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and the US government's imminent nationalization of much of the American mortgage-lending industry, would seem to deny such a rosy scenario, then that only shows skeptics lack the courage that sustained McCain as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

There you have it encapsulated, the McCain campaign for President, an irrational mélange of patriotic swagger and blindness to reality that is proving disturbingly successful with uninformed voters. How else to explain the many millions of Americans who tell pollsters they prefer a continuation of Republican rule when so many of them are losing their homes to foreclosure and the nation is devastated by out-of-control military spending?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/21/opinion/main4370387.shtml



H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 12:36 pm
@Debra Law,
What's your point and did you use fact check before you posted?
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 12:39 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2
I have enough facts.
Would you mind a post with facts for which kindness of you all the negative members of able to know will be much indebted to you sir.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 11:33 pm
Quote:
September 12, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Blizzard of Lies

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign " and they’re all out-and-out lies.


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 " my first year at The Times " trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful " you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” " she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues " on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Goddamn right, Krugman. Liars. I've never seen such shameful behavior from a political candidate as the lies and deceptions that McCain and his puppy Palin have engaged in the last few weeks. It's like they think people don't have the google. Like they can't fact-check things. McCain's campaign is going to crash and burn if they don't get on top of this quick and reign in the Karl Rove tactics of lying out your ass as much as possible.

I really hope that Obama's camp keeps up the practice of calling out these lies as fast as possible.

Scumbags. And the news media is catching on.

Three AP headlines from tonight -

Analysis: McCain's Claims Skirt Facts, Test Voters

Palin Tries To Defend Qualifications In Interview

Palin's Town Billed Rape Victims To Get Evidence

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 06:22 am
@Cycloptichorn,
The hysterical left is running scared and the NY Times is CLEARLY showing it's bias toward the left.

No surprises here.

Again, there is nothing in this "article" that suggests that OBAMA is qualified to lead.

So put whatever lipstick you want on this rag, and it is still a rag.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 06:35 am


Obama & Biden: Unfit to Lead!!

Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 04:05 pm
@H2O MAN,
Views differ.
But non-Americans are dead against Bush's rep.
Unless those Old man and his bewitching, tantalising cover girl openly regret for the last 8 year's barbarism they have no chance to get respect from the rational people around the world.
I repeat those who vote these twoo non-entities are challenging the world .
i am not for Obama but i am dead against these two republicans.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 05:10 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Quote:

The New York Times
September 13, 2008
Editorial
Gov. Palin’s Worldview

As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.

If he seriously thought this first-term governor " with less than two years in office " was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.

It was bad enough that Ms. Palin’s performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness.

What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.

The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things " who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls “the mission” that they won’t even pause for reflection " shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country.

One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News’s Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don’t want “somebody’s big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.”

We know we were all supposed to think of Joe Biden. But it sure sounded like a good description of Mr. McCain. Those decades of experience earned the Arizona senator the admiration of people in both parties. They are why he was our preferred candidate in the Republican primaries.

The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about Ms. Palin’s thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush’s “doctrine” and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it from her state.

But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks " and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain’s views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home.

Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission,” she said, that “you can’t blink.”

Fighting terrorism? “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”

Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq was “God’s plan” did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd.

This nation has suffered through eight years of an ill-prepared and unblinkingly obstinate president. One who didn’t pause to think before he started a disastrous war of choice in Iraq. One who blithely looked the other way as the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan. One who obstinately cut taxes and undercut all efforts at regulation, unleashing today’s profound economic crisis.

In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation.

Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Sep, 2008 05:17 pm
@firefly,
Sorry.
I had quoted the same source in another thread.
Accept my thanks
be as you are and relent not because of the outword pressure.
Regards.
Rama
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain: Unfit to Lead
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/22/2019 at 05:56:23