Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThose of us who have long favored full public financing of campaigns as an essential step toward reforming a broken political system ought to be unsettled by Barack Obama's decision to opt out of the opting out of the federal public financing system.
We ought to be even more unsettled by the fact that the announcement of this move comes in the same week when the presumptive Democratic nominee for president has been sending conciliatory signals to Wall Street – most explicitly in a Fortune magazine interview where Obama seemed to distance himself from tough primary-season talk about altering free trade policies that favor multinational corporations over the interests of workers, farmers and communities in the U.S. and abroad.
But be careful about taking John McCain's complaints to seriously. The Republican's camp leapt on the Democrat's decision to run his fall race with private money.
"Today, Barack Obama has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama," complained McCain communications director Jill Hazelbaker.
"The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics," Hazelbaker said. "Barack Obama is now the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely on private funds. This decision will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system."
This is all true.
Obama, who presents himself as the candidate of "change we can believe in," has taken good stands on campaign finance reform issues. Indeed, he's better than McCain on many fronts. But Obama is proving to be better at talking the talk than walking the walk when it comes to squeezing private money out of politics.
Yet, while it may be true that Obama disappoints, it is also true that the current public financing system is broken. And while McCain was once a serious player in efforts to reform the system he has during this campaign been more than willing to capitalize on its dysfunction.
Last year, McCain applied for public funding of his campaign for the Republican nomination. At the point when he did so, his campaign was in crisis – so broke that the candidate was flying coach (in the middle seat) and generally dismissed by party powerbrokers and special-interest donors as a bad "investment."
Then McCain won New Hampshire and the money began to flow his way. By the time he secured the GOP nod in February, the McCain campaign was no longer a hand-to-mouth operation. And the candidate moved to withdraw from the public financing system so that he could collect and spend more money before officially being nominated at the Republican National Convention in September.
There was just one problem. McCain had financed his primary and caucus campaigning with a $4 million line of credit from Fidelity & Trust Bank, via a loan agreement that it was generally assumed had been obtained by an acceptance on the parts of all the players that public funds would be used to repay the money if McCain did not prevail in the primaries. (Of course, banks are glad to take either public or private money, but the prospect that public money will ultimately be available to settle debts is an incentive for loaning money to candidates who trail in the polls.)
The Democratic National Committee continues has since February been demanding that the Federal Election Commission investigate the loan issue. But the FEC, which because of disputes over appointments to the body has lacked a quorum for months, has failed to act on the DNC complaint.
The McCain camp and its allies at the Republican National Committee claim the DNC's charges are "meritless." But they are obviously hoping that collapse of the FEC as a functional regulator of the process will continue until after the election.
The Democrats are pressing the matter. It will file a suit in federal court to force FEC action on the matter and the DNC chair Howard Dean says, "John McCain poses as a reformer but when it comes to his own campaign, he thinks the rules apply to everyone but him. Taxpayer dollars helped him secure a private loan to keep his campaign afloat, he got free ballot access which saved his campaign money and yet it's clear he doesn't think he needs to stick by the legally binding contract he signed. John McCain is breaking the law and doesn't seem to care. You can't say one thing on the campaign trail and then act as though the rules don't apply when they are inconvenient. That's not the kind of transparency the American people are looking for in their next president."
So where does this leave us?
Obama gets no reformer points today. (In fact, he should probably lose a few additional ones for trying to turn his decision to opt out of public financing into a fund-raising gimmick with a call for donors write checks to his campaign in order to "Declare Your Independence from a Broken System.")
But nor do McCain's actions merit praise from those who want to address the crisis of our big-money politics.
The former reformer who once leant his name to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform measure is now busy exploiting loopholes, dodging requirements and aggressively fund raising from the shadiest of sources – just this week the Republican had to "postpone" a big-dollar event at the home of creepy Texas oil man Clayton Williams who women should accept rape on the theory that: "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it."
While McCain McCain tries to "make political hay" of Obama's decision to opt out of the presidential public financing system, David Donnelly, the director of nonpartisan watchdog group Campaign Money, reminds us that, "we shouldn't forget that McCain himself has already opted in, and then opted out, of the presidential system this election cycle. The only reason he's gone unchecked is the lack of a quorum at the dormant Federal Election Commission."
hsuB stays the course in a quagmire killing thousands-- he's a loser. Obama changes course to win and he's a hypocrite...
Speaking to reporters April 11, John McCain says he might forgo public financing if his opponent does.
So much for sticking to a principle.
But then again McCave's gotten the use of the Mrs' jet for unlimited campaigning and surely any debt he encounters will be easily forked over. She is after all an extremely dutiful 'beyond that call' partner:
Cliff Schecter, a erstwhile McCain admirer, relates in his book The Real McCain an incident from 1992. McCain's wife Cindy was playfully twiddling with his hair one day. "You're getting a little thin up there," she said. McCain grew red in the face and replied: "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c--t."
Some people must settle for what they get handed. Others not so much.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008 @ 2:20pm
Let's wait and see where Obama gets his money from. It if continues to come from private donors and small donations like it has then there is no big deal. If he starts taking millions from corporations then it is a different story.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 2:23pm
Speaking of reversals:
Flash! Supreme Court reverses Gore endorsement of Obama, gives it to McCain
http://tinyurl.com/66vyr5
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008 @ 2:31pm
Agreed. Obama starts employing lobbyists like McCave, that would be bad. But then wouldn't that also mean he steals some of the new con repub vote away from McCave....
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008 @ 2:37pm
>>>Obama, who presents himself as the candidate of "change we can believe in," has taken good stands on campaign finance reform issues. Indeed, he's better than McCain on many fronts. But Obama is proving to be better at talking the talk than walking the walk when it comes to squeezing private money out of politics.<<<
I get it...John Nichols actually wants to LOSE the presidency to the Republicans!
Anyone with any political insight knows that the current system is in fact broken, and that John McCain was one of the biggest backers of loopholes to campaign finance reform such as soft money and 527s.
Soft money means coporaations, PACs and rich folks can give unlimited amounts to a political party and they can spend this money on behalf of a candidate. 527s means so-called "independent" groups can raise as much money as they want from coroporations, PACS and rich folks, and spend this money on behalf of a candidate.
Both soft money and 527s favor LARGE CORPORATE INTERESTS AND WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, and give Republicans a huge advantage over a Democrat if both were limited to the existing public financing scheme in a presidential contest. John Nichols is either not sophisticated enough politically to discern this fact, or is just looking for another opportunity to bash Obama.
Obama is raising over 90% of his funds from donations of $200 or less. This ain't corporate money folks, and therefore his decision to opt out is far more consistent with the ideal of curbing the influence of big corporations than had he stayed in and had been forced to try to match McCain's soft money and 527s.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2008 @ 2:48pm
metteyya, i could not have said it better myself.
Posted by odicus at 06/19/2008 @ 3:06pm
As noted, he pulls in small donors, so it's effectively "public financing" as it is.
Plus why didn't McCain "step up" and declare affirmatively that he would use public financing, regardless of Obama's position and embarass the Dems on the issue early on.
Answer?...cuz he hoped and prayed that Obama would "give in" first. Well, he did.
And besides, this is mostly "inside baseball".
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2008 @ 3:24pm
Why u2 should vote GOP .... compellingly hilarious:
Check it out. It's all here.
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/
Posted by sloper at 06/19/2008 @ 3:51pm
Gotta agree with METT on this one. I think Mr. Nichols is losing the forest through the trees here.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/19/2008 @ 4:17pm
I agree with the decision. Why should he handicap himself by committing to a "public finance system" (more accurately a government-financed system) when he can do better and has done better raising money privately? Not to mention the vast majority of his donations are single private donations. He is transforming the money machines of politics, to jump into the public coffers just to satisfy a promise is not justified.
Oh and Frank, drop it. Experience has had zip with the performance of a president. Also you refuse to recognize that he built a $250 million organization from SCRATCH and turned it into a well-oiled and highly functional machine. He finished with his bills paid and well in the black, Hillary certainly cannot boast the same.
Posted by yutsano at 06/19/2008 @ 6:26pm
>>>I'll leave it to others to post Barack Obama's experience and compare him to all these past Presidents and McCain.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008 <<<
McCain graduated at the VERY bottom of his class in college, was a mediocre pilot and was shot down in Vietnam. Under pressure as a POW he CRACKED and spilled his guts to avoid more pain. This is hardly "hero" material.
After returning from Vietnam he leverages his POW status to run for Congress. Hooks up with Cindy McCain's rich father for campaign cash and other unsavory characters like Charles Keating - remember him? Keating is doing time for his role in the savings and loan collapse, and it was McCain who came to Keating's defense by trying to interfere with a federal investigation on Keating's behalf.
America needs John McCain like we need another whole in our shoe!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2008 @ 6:32pm
Oh now you done did it METT. You dared to show the flaws in FRANK's "superior" candidate. I will pile on: he's amoral (leaving one wife for a woman he was sleeping with on the side because she got fat), ill-tempered (his explosions on the Senate floor are legendary), flip-flops like a mackerel on the deck of a ship (I have an e-mail where Grandpa has changed course ten times in the past two weeks), and unprincipled (same reason). When has John McCain ever made a stand when it was inconvenient in his life? And don't drag up his POW service, the simple fact is nothing that happened there is provable beyond the testimony of the men who were locked up in the Hanoi Hilton, and those accounts conflict widely. He has had a privileged easy life for the vast majority of it, there is no possible way he will make a suitable President under any circumstance.
Posted by yutsano at 06/19/2008 @ 6:38pm
So, knowing that he hasn't got the experience to be President nor the character to keep his word, wht is everyone going gaga over this guy, because he can make a good speech and has charisma?
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
Actually you are completely misrepresenting the situation Frank. But then again no one here EVER expects you to tell the truth. He was fighting Hillary because she signed a legally binding contract. She then broke that which means she broke the law. As you can see McCain has also broken the law in this article. Obama is the only one of the two in this election who has not broken the law. He broke a promise to McCain, not the people of the United States. Barack Still gets 90% of his money from small donors. Where did Hillary get her money? Defense contractors? Oil Conglomerates? Insurance Companies? Oh the same people she was going to fight she was receiving millions from. Yes very honorable.
McCain has lobbyists in his campaign. Receives large large large donations from lobbyists. McCain would have gotten soft money and 527s effectively cheating the system, while Barack can raise massive amounts of money just petitioning his supporters without the help of corporations. Signing up for the government system would be handicapping himself and giving his opponent an advantage because his opponent would not fight with his much honor. I don't care if he keeps a promise to McCain or not because it doesn't affect me. He made the smart move.
You are losing more and more credibility every day you come here to bash Obama. You make wild accusations and huge leaps in logic worthy of Libzsuck. I say you take another break until after the generals.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 6:59pm
"As you can see from the post above, his experience doesn't compare to ANY of the ex-Presidents and doesn't come close to John Mccain's."
But you posted nothing about McCain's. All I could tell from what you wrote is that McCain is a war hero. How? Please do tell.
Posted by onthehelm at 06/19/2008 @ 7:09pm
<i>I get it...John Nichols actually wants to LOSE the presidency to the Republicans! </i>
So Mett thinks Obama can't win while getting equal money?
1. McCain/Feingold banned soft money contributions, but opened up the 527 loophole. And unless McCain added that loophole to his own bill, he didn't have control over that. Once a bill leaves committee the authors of the bill don't control what happens to it.
2. Even if Obama accepts public funding he is still going to get more money behind him. A lot of people who supported Obama are going to support democratic 527's and other groups (527s are so 2004), and he was outdrawing McCain by huge margins during the primaries.
3. Right now Obama gets a very impressive percentage from small donations. Better than, I think, any other non-publicly funded candidate ever. (this was not the case early on, before Iowa, when he campaign was mostly corporate funded. But he has gotten tons better on that front). So this is not a case of the big corporate candidate vs. the non-corporate candidate. But given that all of McCain's money is coming from the public system, and that all corporate donors, but a few solid Republican (who will be giving to 'independent' groups), have placed their bets on the Democrats this time, Obama's decision does make it the case that while he has a remarkably democratic fundraising profile, McCain's is more so. Of course McCain is not doing this out of principle, he is doing it because he can't raise anything like Obama's money. But this is another reason why real progressives and populists shouldn't carry water for this guy. Of course McCain is a nightmare and of course Obama is preferable. But in the same way that Clinton was preferable to Bob Dole.
Frank,
Biographical information without any argument for its relevance? Who would have thought?
P.S. This website is still vastly inferior to the previous one. A reason I went from being damn near a forum troll to only coming here every couple of weeks.
Posted by Poppolphil at 06/19/2008 @ 7:29pm
So spending a long time in the Senate is enough to make you qualified for president Frank? You must have loved Strom Thurmond. Wait, given your racist comments during the primaries you probably did love Strom Thurmond.
Posted by Poppolphil at 06/19/2008 @ 7:32pm
FrGr,
McCave genetic predisposition to do heroic acts during war time, has been fucked over by the current dysfunctional GOP's predisposition to favor anything corporate controlled ala new con dic'tatorship philosophy. McCave's heroism is flipped on it's head per McCave subservience, nay exotic embrace of hsuB's worst policies. McCave's sacrifice is rendered meaningless since it's being given over to the anti-American new con MIC MAD GOP. That McCave believes that destroying America to save it for controlling corporations is patriotic, proves that he is truly fucked up. Try defending it if you will but just know it is as transparent as hsuB's new clothes.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008 @ 7:45pm
Yeah, I know you'd love it if I went away so ALL the posts here would be pro obama.----Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
FRANK, in addition to you, we have THRAWN, MARYBRET, LVLIBERTY, LIBZSUK, JOMAMMA, etc., etc.
One less Republican wouldn't make a difference.
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2008 @ 7:45pm
mcCain's is too long to type up. I refer you to Google. Search John McCain Bio and then do the same for Barack Obama. Read both and then ask yourself who is most qualified to be President.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
But again, if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion (which i a fallacious argument to begin with), then McNasty should have been your preferred candidate over Hillary.
You aren't being consistent and you aren't able to defend your new stance.
I asked you this a couple of nights ago and you dodged the question then -
What is it about McCain's military and other experience that renders him better qualified for the presidency?
The warrior ethos is bullshit; having served does not make one a better man or woman than someone who has not.
Experience is only relevant when you learn from it and can apply what you have learn to the situation at hand. All I see in McCain is a man that has done anything and everything necessary to position himself for this run. I see nothing that compels me to believe that he is able to bring anything of his military experience to bear in improving the state of our nation.
McCain is Bush's wingman, nothing more or less. He would compound the manifold errors of the last 8 years and do nothing to move our nation forward.
Have you an answer or will you run and hide like the wingnuts you sound so much like?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/19/2008 @ 7:51pm
I would think that The Nation would be more concerned that McCave wants to be the next petty dic'tator!
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008 @ 7:52pm
I would think the Obama apologists here would wonder why the Nation hasn't mentioned the story about Obama campaign workers acting on orders from Axelrod and Co. not to allow any Muslims in shots behind Obama. A woman wearing a head scarf was told she could not sit in view of the camera or she had to remove the scarf. Wouldn't want anyone to think that Obama hangs with Muslims now would we.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008 |
Xenophobic BS.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/19/2008 @ 7:53pm
I don't agree hsuB. If Obama isn't living up to his vision I want to be informed about it. A campaign pledge given long before you're actually playing the game is like promising to throw to a particular receiver before kickoff. I don't think this will kill him all that much, especially since Grandpa has played fast and loose with campaign promises pretty much this whole time.
Posted by yutsano at 06/19/2008 @ 7:56pm
And now another classic OLD Frank post-
"Best line of the night went to Edwards when replying to a question about race and sexism. He said, "Anyone who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman or O'Bama because he's black don't bother voting for me. I don't want your vote." I thought that showed a lot of class and relegated the sexists and racists to the garbage heap where they belong. Those people usually vote for republicans anyway."-----Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2007
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2008 @ 7:59pm
Skel,
You're right, McCave has pitifully learned the wrong lessons from kissing hsuB's ass for too long. I guess one could see that as heroic if one is like FrGr and asymmetrically bent in that direction.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008 @ 7:59pm
I trhink if the McCain campaigh is on the ball, they will take my lead and pound home the experience issue. Itr's McCain's strong point but Obama's Achilles heel. When people understand that Obama is the LEAST qualified candidate to ever run for the Presidency, they will sit up and take notice.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
Hillary tried the 'experience' line and look how it worked out for her; why do you think that McCain dink enough that he is willing to follow in the footsteps of a proven loser (Hillary) in his quest to be the proxy for the worst president in the history of our nation?
2) What makes you think that you are the BEST qualified individual to give McCain advice? Surely not our own track record of advice to Hillary ?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/19/2008 @ 7:59pm
"Abraham Lincoln served during the black Hawk War of 1832, was Postmaster of New Salem, Illinois from 1833-1836, member of the Illinois Legislature from1834-1842, and was a U. S. Congressman from 1847-1849. As a U.S. Senatorial candidate, he gave the famous ‘House Divided' speech and participated in the Lincoln/Douglas debates."
"Woodrow Wilson never served in the military, was Presiden of Princeton University from 1902-1910 and served as Governor of New Jersey from 1911-1913."
Only 2 years of Governor experience before entering politics?
"Warren G. Harding never served in the military, was an Ohio State Senator from 1899-1903, Lt. Governor of Ohio from 1903-1905, and served in the U.S Senate from 1915-1921."
Only ever made it to LT. Governor.
"John Kennedy was a WWII hero, a Congressman from 1947-1953 and a Senator from 1953-1961."
The only added bonus is he served as a troop.
"Richard Nixon was a decorated WWII Lt. Commander in the Navy, a Congressman from 1947-1950, a Senator from 1951-1953, and a Vice President from 1953-1961."
Hmm he had oodles of experience but he is still considered one of the worst Presidents of our time.
There are a few examples here of people who had very little experience but went on to be President. You won't be able to see this because you head is so far up your ass you will keep lying and misrepresenting just to prove your stupid point. But these are all men with little experience except Nixon. He had some of the most valid experience of any President before or since him. Not only was he in the Navy but he was Vice President. Yet he is considered one of the worst Presidents ever.
Happy to see you have also stepped up to defending Bushes record Frank. Going the full way of the neocon.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 8:00pm
Yeah, I know you'd love it if I went away so ALL the posts here would be pro obama. Here's your assignment for today. Research is in fact, Obama ever took money from lobbyists and get back to me. Then do the search I recommended for onthehelm and tell me who's got the experience to be President. Be honest now.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
I don't need to do research. Because I am not stupid enough to think that being in the military qualifies you to be President. On top of that. If you left not all the posts would be pro-Obama. We have plenty of cons here to post pro-McCain we don't need you. I would like you to leave because you are ignorant, deceitful and two faced as well as arrogant, elitist and pompous(I know I used three different words for the same thing, I wanted the emphasis.) You think everyone is lesser than you and anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid. You are a child in the mind Frank. You throw temper tantrums and call people names.
Frankly the reason I wouldn't mind you leaving is because you are insane and a disgusting human being in my opinion. You use your sons experience in the military as some firewall of credibility. You stated that none of us have served our country so none of our opinions are valid yet you have never served yourself. You are a hypocrite of the highest order. You are Libzsuck to the fullest degree. If you posted in all caps I would not be able to tell the difference.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 8:10pm
Yu,
Actually that is the McCave and new con repub game-- to desensitize us to their enormous perverse corruption(s); ergo emphasizing and amplifying any irregularity in the dems per it's rarity. One must always run the long long list of new con repub GOP corruption(s) as a prologue to discussing anything repub, McCave. Otherwise the new con repub new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy-- win.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008 @ 8:11pm
I'm a democrat and you can't even handle me. What are you going to do when thw republicans really start to fight. They have reems of info on Obama ready to go.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
Actually I handle you perfectly well Frank. You are just so arrogant you think you are superior to everyone.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 8:11pm
Hillary's attack didn't work because the entire MSM came out against her and pampered Obama. Their bias is now ledgendary.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
Hillary's candidacy failed because she was devoid of ideas and campaign organization.
Obama's candidacy has succeed thus far because he has those qualities in comparative abundance.
You need to drop the sore loser act; it's unseemly.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/19/2008 @ 8:12pm
I'm a democrat and you can't even handle me. What are you going to do when thw republicans really start to fight. They have reems of info on Obama ready to go.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008 |
Also I would like you to leave because you only come here to post on the Obama threads. You don't contribute anywhere else. You come to recycle your same tired old crap some times direct copy and pastes. You support McCain we get it. We don't care what you have to say beyond that. You have said the same damn thing over and over and over. We are all tired of hearing it Frank. You never concede a point but you expect everyone else to bow to the almighty Frank. You are throwing in your lot with the same people who agree Bush is still doing a good job. Go away and make us all a little happier.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 8:18pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
So by that "logic", if McCain wins, your "policys" go BACKWARDS, right?
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2008 @ 8:18pm
Do you think anyone from the Nation will ever do a piece on the experience issue? I don't. Later.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
They already have addressed it Frank. They just didn't bash him like you want them to.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 8:18pm
The resumes of the two are like a CEO against a high school kid.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
1) hardly; if we are talking about how to chisel money out of the middle class, then maybe Bush's wingman might have the better credentials. Otherwise, you are comparing a gimpy-kneed weekend jogger to a top class 1500 meter guy.
2) the glaring contrast that you will yourself not to see is that of a mean, grasping nincompoop against a man who is poised to become the leading light of his (my) generation. And this nation.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/19/2008 @ 8:18pm
Posted by skeletonman at 06/19/2008
On the contrary, Hillary suspended her campaign but as I see it, I'm sitting pretty. If mcCain wins, my candidate wins. If he loses, my policys go forward. It's a win/win for me. Hillary will live to fight another day. She's still a pretty powerful Senator you know.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
Nope according to you if Obama wins the nation will fall apart and explode.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 8:20pm
On the contrary, Hillary suspended her campaign but as I see it, I'm sitting pretty. If mcCain wins, my candidate wins. If he loses, my policys go forward. It's a win/win for me. Hillary will live to fight another day. She's still a pretty powerful Senator you know.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
Mitt Romney 'suspended' his campaign, too. Now he's sitting at home with his dork in his hand hoping to be Bush's wingman's piss bucket carrier.
Hillary endorsed Obama; now she's sitting at home with the equivalent of her dork in her hand hoping to be Obama's piss bucket carrier.
Seeing a pattern here?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/19/2008 @ 8:22pm
We will never be able to make a point to Frank because he will never concede to a point no matter how good it is. We should probably start treating him like we treat Rio, Libz, Rese and the rest of the guaranteed to be ignored folks.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008 @ 8:23pm
You still haven't said what it is about McCain's 'Nam experience qualifies him over Obama, nor have you given an accounting of why those rules of logic didn't apply to Hillary.
Finally, answer why it is that 'experience' is more important than the ability to learn from experience.
Game's on the line, Frankie. Are you up to it or are you a whiny PUMA?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/19/2008 @ 8:27pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/19/2008
The ABSOLUTE distinction between OLD FRANK and NEW FRANK (over an incredibly short time period) means that he has an agenda completely differentiated from logic or reason.
Since it's emotional and cultish (stopping Obama to give Hillary a shot at 2012...and some revenge on the "upstart")....it can never be debated.
ESPECIALLY when FRANK is essentially debating HIMSELF from less than a year ago.
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2008 @ 8:31pm
Awwww Frankie, you disappoint.
Even Luvvy will stick around a while to defend his illogical gibberish.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/19/2008 @ 8:34pm
Is 'unsettled' TheNationspeak for 'seriously annoyed'? Maybe I am projecting.
Not a far-sighted decision from Obama. If he changes the rules and supports public financing as President, then this is a little mitigation. However, the feeling can't be escaped that this was an un-neccesary call by Obama: he is in a position of strength, and can truly make a change in campaign finance, right now, by walking the walk and accepting public finance - even if Mccain doesn't. If he did so, and still won, that would be an important - even historic - victory, and gives him huge lee-way as POTUS.
He's been surefooted - occasionally brilliant - in his impressive campaign. But this looks like an error, to this poster.
Posted by bbeaton at 06/19/2008 @ 9:25pm
But it's about Obama taking individual, not corporate or lobbyist, money, to fund his campaign...
"Obviously, to the extent we can help immediately, we will help," said Bush, still mindful of criticism that the government reacted slowly to Hurricane Katrina three years ago.
"You'll come back better," the president said while being briefed by state and local officials at a cinderblock emergency operations center set up at a community college here, part of a three-hour tour. "Sometimes it's hard to see it." (Like in New Orleans...)
"David Garratt, FEMA's acting head of disaster assistance, said during a conference call from Washington that the administration didn't believe there would be a large need for temporary housing and that what need there was would likely be handled "through existing rental resources."
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumed Republican nominee for president, also visited Iowa on Thursday in a tour separate from Bush's. His opponent, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, helped fill sandbags over the weekend in Quincy, Ill."
http://tinyurl.com/5b4dte
Yep, this certainly illustrates the differences between dems and repubs and it does sound very familiar:
Friday, September 9, 2005
Al Gore airlifts Katrina victims out of New Orleans
By Duncan Mansfield / Associated Press
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- Al Gore helped airlift some 270 Katrina evacuees on two private charters from New Orleans, acting at the urging of a doctor who saved the life of the former vice president's son.
http://tinyurl.com/2ugzk4
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008 @ 10:01pm
Experience this: Obama is being criticized for taking public funds because he isn't limiting the amount of individual public funding he's receiving to the pitiful amount McCave would ever hope to inspire...
Ergo repubs must only see a corporation as an individual-- or the government!
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008 @ 10:23pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008
Speaking of cult-like followings.
Come on, HSUB....if ANYBODY here posted something on what some celebrity/politician did TWO YEARS AGO, you would call it dopey.
At some point can't even you recognize a bit too much hero worship?
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2008 @ 10:24pm
FrGr,
There's been a coked out drunk driver weaving all over the road causing destruction and mayhem for 7 years, isn't it about time the cops took him off it. No, you want more crazier mad drunks driving the streets!
It seems to me that you are the one that is MAD.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/19/2008 @ 10:43pm
life is not a foxhole.
war, war, war.
constantly at war as if to prove some twisted virility.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/19/2008 @ 10:48pm
Nice try Frank, but--
Zachary Taylor had no experience in elective office or in any aspect of civilian government. Neither did Ulysses Grant. Interestingly, neither were terribly good Presidents. Taylor died too quickly and Grant, while personally honest, presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in history.
Abraham Lincoln had less experience than Obama (and the fact that you refer to his being Postmaster of New Salem shows how desperate you were with this one).
Cleveland doesn't seem to have had more experience than Obama (two years sheriff, two years mayor and four years governor). Wilson had less, only having been a governor for a couple of years. So, it seems that Obama does have a level of experience comparable to a few of our presidents.
Incidentally, two of the most impressive resumes belonged to Buchanan and Harding, both of whom regularly show up in surveys as contenders for the country's worst President. So outside of taking up a lot of space, you've proven nothing.
Posted by brunowe at 06/19/2008 @ 11:11pm
I take my own good time to present the qualifications ALL the other Presidents brought to the arena. You don't like what you see because you realize that, hey, Obama really doesn't have the qualifications and experience to be President so you attack the messenger.
Actually we did address it, you are just arrogant and close-minded to see it.
Posted by brunowe at 06/19/2008 @ 11:18pm
FRANK -
Experience. Coming from biggest Hillary Clinton cultist on this board. That's a good one.
Good thing while running for election none of those ex-presidents had to put their resume up against . . . a former First Lady. THAT would have been tough because having eight years as First Lady under your belt - now THAT's some REAL experience. Right, FRANK???? Your fave didn't have security clearance or anything, didn't attend Cabinet meetings, didn't sign anything into law, or technically even have a fucking job, but she did LIVE in the White House. That's experience.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/19/2008 @ 11:34pm
I'm disappointed. I still think he'll make a better president than McCain, but I'm not as enthusiastic as I've been til now.
Posted by cassenthri at 06/19/2008 @ 11:48pm
Oh, and not that Frank will care, but we're supposed to vote for the candidate that best represents our politics, not the one with the most experience or best military record.
Posted by cassenthri at 06/19/2008 @ 11:50pm
At least you're thinking. That's more than I can say for most of the other Obama loyalists around here.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/19/2008
You have spent years here rightfully condemning the Bush Administration, yet plan to vote for the person most likely to continue those same policies.
You spent years posting the ridiculousness of the Iraq War, yet plan to vote for the person most likely to continue that was and perhaps start a new one in Iran.
You are a self-described Democrat who steadfastly supported Hillary Clinton, yet you plan to vote not for the person whose policy positions are most closely aligned with Ms. Clinton, but the person whose positions are most different.
You spent the better part of two years attacking John McCain and his unfitness for the office, now you claim he has better experience than most former presidents.
You have admitted that your chief reason for voting for McCain is to position Clinton to run against him in 2012.
All this out of spite because she did not get the nomination.
I have to ask you FRANK, who is it that is not thinking?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/19/2008 @ 11:58pm
Lost in his story of exceptional heroism, McCain's military record also demonstrates a talent for leadership. After recovering his health, he commanded the largest aviation squadron in the Navy, an undistiguished unit which completely reformed in one short year under his guidance. He is credited for the squadron's first Meritorious Unit Commendation.
Before this, of course, he was captured half-dead and pushed further that way by nearly a year of medical neglect and interrogation. At that point, the VC found out he was an Admiral's son and offered him early release (to paint him as an elitist). He refused to accept it unless those captured before him were released as well, and thereby began an almost inconceivable odyssey of defiant endurance: 5 more years of constant torture, including 2 years of solitary confinement. Ask yourself seriously if you would have made the same decision under those circumstances, and you may come to understand what being a hero really means: self-sacrifice.
McCain did it big. On a smaller but still impressive scale, he has demonstrated the willingness to risk himself politically to do the right thing.
Until now, Obama's record has not really reflected whether or not he's willing to accept any personal risk in order to uphold his principles, even those which he has sturdily embraced. Well, the test arrived for him, and look what happened. How big was the risk of keeping his pledge? How much does he really need to tilt the playing field, when he already gets more big-donor money than McCain, along with more support from 527s?
In November, he proposed giving back excess donations (!) for the publically-financed general, and he praised McCain for pledging to accept those terms. How shameful is today for him, the day he sold out for money and lopsided politcal advantage. Although he's willing to do whatever it takes to win, he's certainly no hero. If he can't keep his written promise when the risk is so small, he obviously can't be trusted to do the right thing whenever the going gets tough.
Posted by man00ver at 06/20/2008 @ 12:21am
Just an aside: "Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., who leads the Congressional Black Caucus, said members of her caucus asked her to forward the names of Edwards and Nunn when she met Wednesday with Obama's vice presidential search team. The team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, indicated the two were on the list.
When Kilpatrick said Gore was her personal choice, "they had a smile on their face. They have a list of candidates. I think I may have been the first to do that. They didn't say one way or the other."
But she wasn't the only one to mention Gore.
Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, met Wednesday with Kennedy and Holder..."
http://tinyurl.com/5ublbu
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 12:29am
Both were quite distinguished in combat and in their administrative abilities and shaped the nations history. Things might have been quite different in those days if it were not for their efforts. I suggest you research their careers a little further.
Nice try Frank, but you completely overlook the fact that Grant presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in history. The Taylor administration lasted all of 16 months. The big issue, the Compromise of 1850, was hammered through after his death. The point here being that their sterling military career weren't followed by successful ones in office.
You are also overrating Lincoln's effect in the House. He certainly gets props for speaking out against the Mexican War but there is no actual legislative accomplishment you can point out. As to his Illinois career, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Obama seems to have done as well as an Illinois state legislator as Lincoln did.
Finally, being Wilson's being governor for only 2 years is hardly superior to Obama's experience. What did you leave out of your sketch, that he ran Princeton University? You're grasping at straws here.
<i>I agree that some of the most impressive resumes didn't produce the best presidents but in these times, I'd rather not take the chance.
At least you're thinking. That's more than I can say for most of the other Obama loyalists around here.</i>
Except that those with impressive resumes often produced the worst presidents and those with slimmer ones were often effective. To this add that McCain's policies would be a disaster.
Posted by brunowe at 06/20/2008 @ 01:02am
McCain: I 'Didn't Love America' Until Held Prisoner
(VIDEO) http://tinyurl.com/6pcx2v
So FrGr, would you say, because you are MAD after all, that only candidates that have been captured by our enemies, then tortured for years, are the only ones that really really know what it takes to love the USA?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 01:05am
Posted by man00ver at 06/20/2008
The problem, Manoover, with McCain is that since his return from 'Nam, he has demonstrated absolutely none of the self-sacrifice he displayed in that act of refusing early release.
Some might call his refusal of this special treatment noble (whereas some might call his act nothing more than doing his damned duty), but his behavior in the years since has been anything but.
In dumping his crippled wife for a younger, richer, better looking one (the one that he would eventually refer to as a trollop and a C U Next Tuesday), his involvement with the Keating mess, the pandering to the reactionary religious, flip-flopping constantly in trying to position himself for this run - the list goes on - Bush's wingman has demonstrated himself to be a broken shell of the man that made that sacrifice, bereft of any sense of personal integrity.
This is what Frank doesn't get - 'experience' per se means diddly-squat. It's the application that matters.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/20/2008 @ 06:47am
Look, arguing with FRANK over "experience" military or otherwise misses the point.
HMAN said it. FRANK has ADMITTED that the whole point in supporting McCain is to give Hillary her last, final shot at it in 2012....nothing more.
Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 08:50am
<i>I agree that some of the most impressive resumes didn't produce the best presidents but in these times, I'd rather not take the chance.
Except that those with impressive resumes often produced the worst presidents and those with slimmer ones were often effective. To this add that McCain's policies would be a disaster.
Posted by brunowe at 06/20/2008
And the point is..., is that it's in what combination of experience, choices, formulation, communication and motivation, that that resume utilizes. It's not that one need know how to suffer well or kill, but what was done with that sliver of knowledge. There are other vast areas of knowledge to glean skills that would make a good - great president other than just war. War is dramatic and calls for ones attention. If it were an art media-- it would be charcoal. A flare for drama, high contrast, raw, fuzzy, hard to control, unsubtle, drags the most on good paper and tends to fill the tooth of it to the point of no return, remnants of correction always linger, ghosts. For a highly complex and subtle drawing-- charcoal would be the worse media to pick. Only master artists well experienced in many other media can stretch charcoal beyond its predisposition utilizing their extreme foresight and vision.
McCave is not such an artist. His talent and skills are definitely wanting.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 10:29am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/20/2008
Know how big Al's staff is? Know how much energy the WH uses? Know which one has pushed harder and has been more successful dealing with and improving the effects of climate change?
Well it's not the dark side you changed over to, JoMa!
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 10:38am
JoMa,
Why won't you ever take responsibility for yourself? It's always the other guys fault.
But then new con repubs are hypocrites if nothing else, so no surprise there.
That you are unable to even consider a balanced assessment of Al and his role, is again no surprise.
But that you also fall for the idiotic BS that hsuB's ranch has no place to house staff, security, no more than 1-2 guests, etc. and that that one small building is considered the total energy assessment of the hsuB' fake ranch, just makes you out to also be a gullible idiot and a hypocrite unlike maybe 2-3 repubs that aren't new cons.
But go ahead and blame it on the school system, it's obvious you could never really learn anything worthwhile anyway. Never was or will be a school system that can help someone like you. Your unique ability is that you can't or won't learn. Unique to new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 11:56am
The point was that McCave says he only 'loved' America after he was captured...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 12:01pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/20/2008
So will you vote for him if he runs for re-election in 2012?
(Major dodge approaching...take cover, folks!...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 12:06pm
Isn't that kinda like being forced into it?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 12:08pm
Maybe McCave is trying to reveal something more than that he didn't love America but wanted to bomb people and kill for a reason other than love. Perhaps even more than that, that he now loves America and that Commies made him love America. But more than that, that the Commies made him love America for a reason. And more than that, that the reason that the Commies made him love America was so he could get into politics and move into a place of power. Yet even more than that, that he'd use that power to help the Commies. Still, even more than that, that McCave would one day get to the very top and then and only then would McCave reveal the truest reason Commies made him love America.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 12:19pm
World Piece, A One
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 12:26pm
But hey-- who really likes a pizza un-sliced?!?!?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 12:31pm
Kinda puts a whole other meaning into-- it's a small world after all...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 12:32pm
Frasnk-Your previous posts about McCain don't show that you respected him.In fact,quite the opposite.It's interesting,however,that you never sang McCain's praises when you thought he would be running against Hillary and everything you say about Obama vs McCain applies to Hillary vs McCain..You are quite dishonest and quite the hypocrite.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/20/2008 @ 12:52pm
Frank-Hillary can't compare to McCain when it comes to the things you mentioned,either.How long is your tantrum going to take place.I think you might set a tantrum record.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/20/2008 @ 12:54pm
Give it up guys. No matter how good of a point you make to Frank he will never admit to you being right. He is a scorned Hillary cultist only voting for McCain because his love can't be President. He will keep repeating the motto that he is only voting for McCain because he has more experience but this motto is proven to be BS by his support of Hillary in the first, who has less government experience and no military record. He will never admit to anything and will just continue to be a condescending prick. I recommend you ignore him from now on and maybe he will just go away like libzsuck has.
"Where did you get the idea that I didn't serve in the military?"
Did you? If you did, which branch, which war and what did you you do?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 1:04pm
poor Barack Obama really has nothing to compare with McCain's record both in the service and in Congress and the Senate. It's such an uphill climb for him. It's possible that Obama can win but only because Dubya was such a fuck-up.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/20/2008
This is funny. He just keeps repeating this hoping it will come true even though Obama is already winning and right now it only looks like his lead is increasing. This is proof of Frank's cultism. He can't even acknowledge that Obama according to EVERYONE is already winning. He ignores the facts. Oh well. Ignore him and he will disappear.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 1:06pm
The point was that McCave says he only 'loved' America after he was captured...
Isn't that kinda like being forced into it?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008
John McCain proved his love for his country much earier. He proved it when he took the oath to defend his country.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/20/2008
So you call McCave a liar and ignore the fact one can swear an oath for lots of reasons other than love-- and the that will not make McCave a liar to you is that he just want to kill people. Since he still does, it's no stretch. You do recall the whole, " Bomb bomb bomb - Bomb Iran Bomb bomb bomb - bomb Iran..." episode?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 1:09pm
FrankGrits-Timothy McVeigh took the same oath that McCain took and proved his love for America by blowing up a daycare center in America.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/20/2008 @ 1:12pm
Mikie, I think he likes it!
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 1:12pm
Re: "McCain And Obama Tied In Georgia | June 20, 2008 04:33 AMA New InsiderAdvantage / PollPosition survey conducted June 18 of registered likely voters in the November presidential contest shows Sen. John McCain leading Sen. Barack Obama by a single point in Georgia, making the race in Georgia a statistical tie. Libertarian Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia, received 6 percent of the vote. ..."
Is this the same Georgia that Sen Cleland lost 53 - 46? Doesn't look like a war record means much to Georgians...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 1:35pm
Especially one where the candidate says he didn't love America until he was forced to love America by COMMIES.
Why did the Commies make McCave love America? Did they have a plan maybe? It doesn't make sense otherwise...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 1:47pm
Frank- Be interested in seeing an answer to my question....for saving for later...
WILL you vote for "President McCain" if he runs for re-election in 2012?
Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 2:23pm
Polls are meaningless until late October. Regardless, McCain will probably win Florida, Ohio and Michigan and will give a fight in Pa. Obama cannot win without those states, all of them.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/20/2008
He's winning all three right now.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 2:27pm
FrankGrits-Timothy McVeigh took the same oath that McCain took and proved his love for America by blowing up a daycare center in America.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/20/2008
Lee Harvey Oswald took that oath and proved his love of America by shooting a President.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 2:28pm
er, then there was Arnold, Bene dict! Elementarily pops right up. Did he ever take a pledge?
Never mind.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 2:55pm
FrankGrits-No one compared McCain to McVeigh or Oswald nor am I an Obama person,but you already knew that and were just being dishonest,again because your original statement about McCain and his saying of the oath was shown to not prove loyalty as you stated that it did.Try honesty for a change of pace and respond to what people say rather than making something up and respond to what you made up.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/20/2008 @ 5:32pm
Frank-I know that this won't sink into your brain,but I'm going to tell you anyway.One can be against McCain and the Clintons without being for Obama which is the case with me,but I've told that numerous times,but you are such a cult follower that you assume that everyone else is to..
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/20/2008 @ 5:35pm
Is FRGr sitting down?
Barack's Bounce
The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.
By Michael Hirsh | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 20, 2008 | Updated: 3:37 p.m. ET Jun 20, 2008
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 6:18pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008
Another nutcase. This one compares LeeHarvey Oswald to John McCain. With guys like you two on his side, Obama is lucky to win his home state.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/20/2008 |
Actually in no way did we compare them to McCain you Republican spin machine. We are saying that the oath of the military does not make you honorable person.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 6:26pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/20/2008 |
Of course anyone with a brain can see our point. But I guess you are lacking in that region. Or you are intentionally lying to try to misrepresent our point through Rovian tactics. In which case you have made the full transition to Republican attack dog.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 6:28pm
Those who crow about Obama's "polling bounce" had better get ready to reset shortly. His next numbers will not be as good, by a fair margin I expect.
But I can see most posters would rather be discussing McCain right now. That's perfectly understandable.
McCain's quote on his love of country, which he has used repeatedly through his career, does not mean what today's frantic detractors say it does. He always loved his country, but never so deeply as when he was imprisoned in a foreign land. Years of comparing his conditions and treatment to his various areas of US residency could only have enriched his appreciation and devotion, to such a degree that his prior feelings seemed shallow in retrospect. It's called homesickness, and during 5+ years of hell it must have been among the worst of his agonies. His quote is a paraphrase of the old saw, "absence makes the heart grow fonder," and everybody knows this...including those who are chattering falsely about it in order to distract from Obama's vile lies.
To skeletonman: You also are distorting to distract. McCain's divorce is 30 year old mud from before the start of his political career. The alleged obscene response to his wife's teasing is certainly not out of character for him, as he's frequently a very salty wiseass (Navy, you know...or maybe you don't), but this is just as frequently done in an affectionate way. Regardless, it's hearsay, and it's nunya damn bidness. As for Keating, McCain (along with John Glenn) was cleared by the Dems' own Special Counsel...but the GUILTY "Keating Three" were all Dems so they decided to give them all at least a slap. I guess they were feeling bipartisan.
While he didn't have to put his very life on the line again, it's well known on both sides of the aisle that he did on many occaisions stand up for his principles at some personal political risk. When you say he demonstrated absolutely no bravery upon returning from Nam, well, you just couldn't be more wrong:
- As a freshman congressman, he opposed President Reagan's 1983 request to extend the deployment in Lebanon. His speech from the floor demonstrated excellent judgment and foresight (Obama can only wish this had been the way he "opposed" the war in Iraq). The resolution was passed anyway, and a month later the Beirut Barracks Bombing claimed 241 Marines...after which we withdrew. - Still in the house, he voted with the majority to overturn Reagan's 1986 veto of sanctions against South Africa. - As a new senator in 1987, he helped stop the administration's diversion of $28 million in poverty food assistance into a pay raise for federal employees. - In 1988, he tangled with religious conservatives in an unsuccessful defense of the smear campaign against his friend John Tower, then-President Bush's nominee for Defense Secretary. He famously wrote that Paul Weyrich was "a pompous self-serving son of a bitch." - That same year, he joined a few other state leaders in calling for the resignation of (racist, crooked) Az. Gov. Evan Mecham, and earned the lasting enmity of some of the state's ardent arch-conservatives. Mecham retaliated with an unsuccessful Independent spoiler run against McCain's senate seat in '92. - Having already established himself as an anti-pork crusader, he joined forces with liberal Dem Russ Feingold in 1994, and together they spent the next 7 years working on campaign finance reforms, clawing against fierce opposition from all sides. McCain has taken a fierce beating from the GOP, and you've heard the conservative complaints about this work very recently. Both senators won a Profile in Courage award from the JFK Presidential Library in 1999. - He fought Big Tobacco in 1995, vigorously sponsoring a measure to tax cigarettes to pay for anti-smoking campaigns...although he was ultimately defeated by $40M of industry advertising. - He was busy building bridges and making waves throughout 2001. He reintroduced the latest version of McCain-Feingold, worked with Kennedy/Edwards on HMO reform, criticized Bush for blocking Kyoto, and teamed up with Lieberman on regulating gun shows. This caused him no end of trouble with the GOP, who began tarring him with rumors that he would emulate Jim Jeffords and defect to the Independents so that he could run against Bush again in 2004. - Six weeks after 9/11, while supporting the Afghanistan invasion, he publicly criticized the war plan and called for more ground troops...and was ignored. - He immediately began work with Lieberman to push through legislation creating the independent 9/11 Commission, and was a key player in federalizing airport security by creating the TSA. - In 2002, on the heels of the Enron scandal, McCain and Feingold teamed up with House allies, using some pretty slick legislative kung-fu to score the historic passage of their campaign reform legislation. Bush chose to pass on the traditional Rose Garden ceremony for the signing. So far, the Supreme Court has upheld it against appeals by the critics. - A strong supporter of the Iraq War, he nevertheless complained strongly about troop levels from the very beginning, and was a consistant and vocal critic of the administration's methods of prosecuting it and its aftermath. He took some heavy shots at Rumsfield and Cheney over the next few years, and criticized Bush for not being straight with America about the difficulty of the conflict and the sacrifices required. - In 2006, while considering his current presidential campaign, he came under attack by conservatives for working with Kennedy on immigration and guest worker reform (although Bush also supported the bill). - Later that year, he set up his exploratory committee, then followed up with a stern lecture to the conservative GOPAC about the hypocrisy of the party's rampant pork and the general swell of government spending. - Around the same time, he came under attack from the center and left for mending fences a bit with his old religious conservative antagonists. Of course, it's not like they're exactly tongue-kissing. I'm pretty sure the anxiety of the moderates will fade now that the primaries are over and he can safely tack back towards the center. - Finally, in January, the troop surge he'd always called for became policy, and he engaged in a more full-throated support of the war effort, despite the obvious risks to his presidential bid. Quoth he, "I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war."
"McBush?" "McSame?" You really can't expect this childlike gibberish to stick. Over a long career, this man has fought to do all the right things, and his opponents on all sides have been proven wrong time and again. His foresight and judgment are uncanny. He's a true leader.
Obama's resume can't possibly compare...and his judgment, foresight (and now, his integrity) are really nothing but a basket of question marks. Strictly for personal gain, he's committed the plainest flip-flop ever seen...on his "signature issue" of campaign reform, no less (although, on this issue, he's still a rank amateur compared to McCain).
Posted by man00ver at 06/21/2008 @ 02:05am
The article is based on false information. Obama did not promise to participate in public financing. This is a lie being pushed by the GOP, and readily sucked up and regurgitated by the media. Talk about unsettling.
The fact is, Obama said he would strongly consider public financing, but only if certain conditions could be met and agreements made by all candidates to make the system fair for everyone. We all know that public financing is in fact a broken system, however, McCain camp apparently did not want to make any further concessions or even have discussions about it. He never said he would take it, therefore broke no promise. It's a funny issue for McCain to try to manufacture considering his illegal public fund related actions during the primary.
On the tired topic of experience, each persons life experiences provide differing levels of knowledge, wisdom, understanding, thoughtfulness. The experience is not the important part of the equation. ability and intelligence are huge factors, as is the content of what one person may draw from a given experience. I really hate to see so much merit given to distractions such as these.
As long as the discussion has been raised... Obama: very successful stint as director of the Developing Communities Project, among many other community based and civil rights based efforts. Harvard Law School, President of the Harvard Law Review, Graduated J.D. magna cum laude. Constitutional Law Professor, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer at University of Chicago Law School. Civil Rights Lawyer. Illinois Senate 1996-2004. United States Senate 2004-present. Also authored two best selling books.
Not too shabby, and he seems to have a temendous ability to learn from these experiences.
Posted by rpg at 06/21/2008 @ 05:24am
The point I was making and I know you understand it, is prior experience to becoming President, not what they did after their swearing in. Sorry, Obama ranks dead last of very close to it while McCain is near the top.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
But your point is invalidated by the fact that experience doesn't seem to have correlated with being an effective Preisdent.
Posted by brunowe at 06/21/2008 @ 07:28am
rpg - I can see you're desperate to defend Obama's greedy maneuver, but you're wrong about his promise. Here it is, in writing, from not quite 8 months ago:
http://midwestdemocracynetwork.org/templates/media/MDNPresidentialQuesti onnaire.pdf
For those who can't bother to surf and read, here are the relevant citations:
*** Question I-B: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?
OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election. ***
Knowing what we know now, we can see that "his plan" was nothing but a sham, an exercise in posturing against Hillary. Obama's conditions were met, and McCain has kept his word. The presidential public financing system has not changed since Obama wrote this, although he now claims it is "broken" (even though Feingold disagrees and calls his decision a mistake). The only thing that has changed is the size of Obama's pile of "excess money from donors," which we now know he won't "return" in exchange for public funds, pledge or no pledge.
If you feel inspired by Obama's high ideals and lofty promises, you had better question his commitment to them. I won't dispute your summary of his academic and professional career, but I will refer you back to my recounting of McCain's activities. When the issues where serious, McCain has made his voice heard, while Obama has mostly voted "present." You don't effect a lot of "change" that way.
Posted by man00ver at 06/21/2008 @ 1:04pm
manoover-McCains voice has led us into a winless and costly war and bad economy.He would have been better off voting present.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/21/2008 @ 1:13pm
To i'm nobody - I guess you don't dispute that Obama's only significant legistlative record--on campaign finance reform--is now a record of hypocritical ruin, laid to waste by his cynical single-handed murder of the presidential public finance system.
Oh wait, you want to talk about McCain some more. Fine. Happy to oblige.
- If we had listened to McCain, we'd have had enough troops in Afghanistan for a decisive win at the pivotal battle of Tora Bora. Osama would be dead or locked up, al-Qaeda and the Taliban would have been smashed, and the game plan in the middle east would have been seriously changed.
- OK, we didn't listen. But then if we had only listened to McCain, our commitment of forces in Iraq would have mitigated the post-invasion chaos and stifled the insurgency. We know this because Bush FINALLY listened to him in January, and the troop surge has now accomplished those very things, making room for the latest signs of progress in the new Iraqi democracy. Obama opposed this, BTW, as did so many other weaklings on both sides. Was he standing on principle, or maneuvering for political advantage? It's kind of hard to tell with him.
- In short, if McCain had been running things, we'd have rapidly accomplished our goals after 9/11 with much less expenditure of blood and treasure, and most of the troops would be home by now.
- Our current economic woes are largely due to fallout from rampant speculation in the oil and housing markets. This is not really McCain's fault, BUT IF WE LISTEN TO HIM NOW, we'll move towards ramping up domestic drilling, refining, and nuclear power production. Even if we can't make this happen for 10 more years, merely talking about it seriously will cause the "pump-it-up" market speculators to flee in terror, and the price of oil will drop like a stone. How will that affect the US economy?
Discuss.
Posted by man00ver at 06/21/2008 @ 3:06pm
*- Our current economic woes are largely due to fallout from rampant speculation in the oil and housing markets. This is not really McCain's fault, BUT IF WE LISTEN TO HIM NOW, we'll move towards ramping up domestic drilling, refining, and nuclear power production. Even if we can't make this happen for 10 more years, merely talking about it seriously will cause the "pump-it-up" market speculators to flee in terror, and the price of oil will drop like a stone. How will that affect the US economy?*
I'd like to know either what planet you're living on or what drugs you're taking, because if you think all this is a simple case of supply and demand, I have two words for you: ENRON LOOPHOLE. Drilling more American oil won't make the speculators move one way or the other, simply because they respond to world conditions and therefore justify their moves globally. Not to mention there are thousands of thousands of proven oil reserves the oil execs are not using in the US right now.
Also ask yourself this: if supply is really limited, why do we not have gasoline rationing? If supply is really such an issue, shouldn't we therefore be noticing a distinct lack of gasoline available? I certainly haven't seen gas every other day and limits of ten gallons (save my pocketbook not capable of taking the strain). In order for supply to be truly effected to the degree of justifying a price of oil this high, there should be far less available period. Yet gas is as plentiful and available as before. Why?
Posted by yutsano at 06/21/2008 @ 4:27pm
yutsano - I guess you don't don't want to talk about Obama's fraud, either. But I'm glad to note your interest in McCain's energy policies, so let's play.
Although the current price of GASOLINE is negatively affected by our limited refinery capacity (and we'll see that quite painfully if we have bad storms on the gulf coast this season), I agree with you that the current price of OIL is not properly a problem of supply and demand (and I didn't say it was). In fact, a DOE-EAI study released last Tuesday pursuant to Sen. Stevens' request indicates that the increase in supply from drilling the ANWR would only offset oil prices by about $0.75/barrel in the mean case.
No, today's oil market represents a problem of speculation. The money people who bet on these things are looking at demand growth potential in China and India, the tightening of Russian production capacity, the strife affecting the growth of African production, and the US political tensions in the middle east and Venezuela. They're now GUESSING the world will have supply problems of various flavors in the near future, so they're buying futures like crazy and pumping up the price.
McCain says that demonstrating a serious intent to improve America's energy independence, using ALL practical and emerging means, will send a clear signal to the speculators that we're serious about reducing the direct influence of parties such as OPEC, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Putin on the US economy. It will also improve our balance of trade, extend the life of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline and other elements of our domestic energy infrastructure, and create unexportable good jobs in the oil, nuclear, and construction industries.
I agree with him. Maybe you don't, but then I'm sincerely interested in what you might believe is the real problem, and especially what you think might be the real solution for the next four years.
Posted by man00ver at 06/21/2008 @ 5:19pm
Do I wanna go through his? Ah sure why not I'm bored LOL.
*yutsano - I guess you don't don't want to talk about Obama's fraud, either. But I'm glad to note your interest in McCain's energy policies, so let's play.*
If Grandpa has an energy policy beyond standing pat and aping the White House I have yet to see it. If anything, he's addressing the short term while ignoring the impact on future generations. I sense a pattern here...
*Although the current price of GASOLINE is negatively affected by our limited refinery capacity (and we'll see that quite painfully if we have bad storms on the gulf coast this season), I agree with you that the current price of OIL is not properly a problem of supply and demand (and I didn't say it was). In fact, a DOE-EAI study released last Tuesday pursuant to Sen. Stevens' request indicates that the increase in supply from drilling the ANWR would only offset oil prices by about $0.75/barrel in the mean case.*
Then what, pray tell, are you arguing? If the impact is negligible, what's the sudden urgency to tap an energy resource that won't really have an effect for at least five years? Especially considering there are proven unused reserves sitting on American soil right at this very moment.
And the gasoline point: like oil, gasoline's price is affected by the amount out there available. Keeping it shorted enough so the oil companies make a decent profit is fine. But again, shouldn't there be some sort of dip in the amount commercially available if indeed our refinery capacity is so fragile?
*No, today's oil market represents a problem of speculation. The money people who bet on these things are looking at demand growth potential in China and India, the tightening of Russian production capacity, the strife affecting the growth of African production, and the US political tensions in the middle east and Venezuela. They're now GUESSING the world will have supply problems of various flavors in the near future, so they're buying futures like crazy and pumping up the price.*
You're missing an important detail regarding how oil is traded. In order to purchase an oil future, you have to put up a certain amount of money. The current rules state that the most actual cash you have to put up is only 10% of the actual futures you buy, the rest you purchase on margin. In other words, you bet that the amount you actually put up will cover the cash enough to allow your actual purchase to be made. It's a great scheme when what you put up turns into an insane profit with relatively little investment on your part. Of course since all the other players are playing the same game, it behooves them all to insure that the price moves up. And since there is zero regulation on that market, you get rampant uncontrolled speculation. The situation is unsustainable as all bubbles like this will eventually pop. But tell that to a senior citizen who can't afford to drive to see their grandkids now.
*McCain says that demonstrating a serious intent to improve America's energy independence, using ALL practical and emerging means, will send a clear signal to the speculators that we're serious about reducing the direct influence of parties such as OPEC, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Putin on the US economy. It will also improve our balance of trade, extend the life of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline and other elements of our domestic energy infrastructure, and create unexportable good jobs in the oil, nuclear, and construction industries.*
All of those economic benefits will occur with a large scale investment in clean energy technologies such as wind and solar. There will be very soon a commercially viable and easily mass-produced solar panel, and wind power is a proven successful technology in use in Europe right now. These investments need to occur now, or else we will get further and further behind.
I'm not necessarily ignoring how you want American production to increase because you think domestic production drops the price here, your argument is just specious. The only serious production news that will seriously make the speculators start shorting oil futures is if Brazil starts pumping their huge new field hardcore, and even that is ten or so years away.
*I agree with him. Maybe you don't, but then I'm sincerely interested in what you might believe is the real problem, and especially what you think might be the real solution for the next four years.*
I think his approach is narrow-minded and politically convenient. It's easy to wave the flag and open up our shores and soil to environmental damage just to pander for a few votes. Doing what is harder but will benefit in the long term is real political courage.
Posted by yutsano at 06/21/2008 @ 5:54pm
Posted by man00ver at 06/21/2008 |
Maybe "McCain-2000"....but he's not the same person as "McSAME-2008".
Sorry, time's up for the ol' feller.
Posted by Mask at 06/21/2008 @ 8:50pm
yutsano - Currently, proved nonproducing reserves in the US total up to about 5.2B barrels. That's the same as 5 years ago.
Area 1002 is a small plain on the northern coast of the very large ANWR. It's located due east of our largest US oilfield at Prudhoe Bay, and could easily and safely be tied into the Trans-Alaskan pipeline system, if it weren't in protected status. The mean estimate for its unproven reserves is 10.4B barrels. We should tap this right now.
Meanwhile we can work towards settling the political arguments about the environmental impacts of new coastal drilling. Before you panic, remember that you haven't heard any tragic stories about oil spills from our current inventory of offshore platforms...and that's because we know how to get this done safely, even in the stormy Gulf. At mean estimates, there's more than 100B barrels easily had out there, most of which is off the coasts of California and Florida.
I think you agree with me on the buying of oil futures. Just to be clear, I was discussing a put, where one buys the right to purchase a barrel of oil at a set price and time in the future, in the hopes the market price will be higher than the set price. If you guess right, you'll make a little or a fair profit...rarely is this an "insane amount." If you guess wrong, you don't buy the barrel, and you lose the price of your put. But yes, when lots of investors are buying puts, their expectations will tend to propagate through the market and prices go up due to their speculation. A change in market forces (like the McCain plan) can "pop the bubble," or at least let a little air out, by changing those expectations.
Is this proposal really "politically easy?" Or is it easier to sit on the moral high horse and proclaim it unthinkable that we might put a lot of people to work to tap our own natural resources? This plan, which includes an increase of nuclear-generated electicity from 20% to 50% of the US total, WILL stimulate our economy. It will strengthen the dollar, which will automatically lower the price of oil. The only people who can stop us is ourselves.
McCain's plan also includes intensive development of the alternate energy options you mentioned, among others. He also supports Kyoto-style international limits on carbon emissions via a cap-and-trade system, another issue where he breaks from the GOP (and this part of his plan, I don't really support; we need to make our own decisions and not be beholden to outside governments).
Plus, Obama is a proven double-dealer, and he's not offering us anything near this level of practical detail in his energy plan. We have a choice to make very soon here, and we should be carefully considering all pros and cons.
Posted by man00ver at 06/21/2008 @ 9:03pm
Manoover-McCain supported a pointless and needless war, showing very poor judgment.The surge is not working nor did listening to McCain bring us closer to ending that war.Study a bit about the history and culture of the region and learn about guerrilla warfare and find out about someone named al sadr.He is the reason that the surge appeared to work.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/21/2008 @ 9:06pm
To i'm nobody: al-Sadr is lightening up for several reasons, but you have to be willing to see the unstated subtexts and their connection to the troop surge in order to understand. The Iraqi public can clearly see America's commitment to their security (whereas talk of immediate troop withdrawals does not inspire confidence in us). Those innocent folks are also tired of seeing their neighbors getting killed in sectarian "guerrilla" actions...they know the history and culture of the region, and they know the score on who's to blame for this. al-Sadr, from his scholarly perch in Iran, can sense this shift in public opinion; he wants not to be perceived as the bad guy, and the surge is making it much more difficult for his forces, anyway. Not only that, but the Iraqi Government is now getting serious about providing their own security. Their Air Force is up and running. Today is the 3rd day of their Amarah security operation, which is the 3rd operation of the Iraqi government against Shiite extremists since March, agreed to even by Sadrist lawmakers. US troops have had only a supporting role in these actions, but the overall increased security we've provided has been an instrumental safety net in the strengthening and developing cohesion of al-Maliki and his crew. They're now taking control of the negotiations for agreements authorizing our continued presence in Iraq after the end of the year, and they're taking a strong stance here. This is a good thing, and represents the long-awaited positive movement towards Iraqi independence and security that will lead to our honorable withdrawal.
I feel pretty well-read on this already, certainly enough to assert that the surge is working, and that Obama has been wrong about it. Gen. Petraeus called for those extra troops, and Obama would have turned him down. You may think he would have had "the judgment" to keep us out of Iraq in the first place, but the only indication of this is that he says so. What Obama says is not always true, obviously. Regardless, he wasn't president or even a senator then; NOW, we're already in this war, and it will be critical for our next president to make the right decisions on how to proceed. We shouldn't choose a leader who will make bad decisions in order to pander to a public which is understandably weary of the poor planning of Bush/Cheney/Rummy.
Posted by man00ver at 06/21/2008 @ 11:39pm
Posted by man00ver at 06/21/2008
Translation?...."Four more years" under McSame.
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2008 @ 07:21am
manoover-Your views are simply too simplistic as they pertain to Iraq.The situation there is quite complex.America has no commitment to Iraqi security.We don't care about Iraqis which is why we invited jihadists to come in and kill Iraqis.The best we can hope for in Iraq is that their Islamic state won't be too conservative and won't be as bad as saddam,but it's quite likely that they will be just as oppressive.Jihadists,typically,come from these islamic states,like the one we are creating in Iraq, and it will be many years before we really know how Iraq will turn out.In fact,most of us won't live long enough to ever know how it really turns out.McCain aligned himself too closely with the bumbling Bush administration and is linked to it's massive numbers of failures.McCains time was 2000,but the GOP went with the buffoon.I'm not an Obama supporter and just view him as the lesser of two evils.I don't put my trust in politicians.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/22/2008 @ 10:58am
manoover-You must remember that McCain is one of those who predicted that we would have a quick victory in Iraq even though Bush did not give the military the number of troops that they requested.That showed amazing ignorance about the factions in Iraq and their feelings about one another.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/22/2008 @ 11:18am
To i'm nobody - Let's try to sort out the complexities in Iraq by sorting out who the players are and what they want:
Shi'a - The majority population, once suppressed under Saddam, who are now the major power brokers in the new Iraq. They are somewhat amenable (or susceptible, depending on one's POV) to influence from Iran due to correligionist status. Their internal flavors run the gamut from moderate (such as al-Maliki and other supporters of a somewhat secular Iraqi government) to religiously conservative (such as the Sadrists, who support a religious supremacist philosophy and a government that looks more like Iran). Currently, the moderate view is holding sway; as al-Maliki consolidates authority and the new regime solidifies, most players from all factions accept it, at least in theory, as a forum where they can participate towards rebuilding the country (and where they can advance their individual agendas in the future). Without the support of the US occupation, a weak regime would never have gained this level of multi-partisan tolerance, and if we leave before it gains full strength, it may yet dissolve under sectarian pressures. Prime Minister al-Maliki, who has nationalist leanings somewhat at odds with Iran's agenda, wants the US to stay for now, but it's important that he dictates the terms, at least in appearance. Iran, of course, wants us out right away, and is applying pressure with only limited success so far.
Sunni - the largest division of Islam, they comprise the minority in Iraq (and Iran), and were the oppressive ruling faction under Saddam. Like the Shi'a, their membership ranges over many schools of thought from secular/moderate to extremely conservative (such as the Wahhabism seated in Saudi Arabia, whose views are claimed by Osama bin Laden). The roots of the current insurgency in Iraq stem from this faction, and many insurgents have now aligned with al-Qaeda to form the membership of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). More moderate Sunnis are participating in the new central government, led by President Talabani (who is also Kurdish). Publicly, most Sunni leaders decry the American presence in order to embarrass al-Maliki and the Shiites; in a less vocal way, many Sunnis would prefer a continued American presence to prevent undue influence from Shiite Iran.
Kurds - They are a separate ethno-linguistic group with no real homeland but plenty of aspirations. They hope to establish a Kurdistan state in the north of a federated Iraq, and have participated in the new central government under this agenda. Traditionally, they have pretty consistently supported the US in furtherance of their own goals, although they regard us as an unreliable ally due to our close-ish ties to a Turkish government they regard as oppressive, and also because we abandoned them to Saddam's chemical slaughter at the close of Operation Desert Shield in the 90's. Predominantly moderate Sunni, their religious makeup is pretty complex. They largely support an American presence for now.
In summary - Save for the conservative Shi'a (who take their cues from Iran), all groups want the US to stay until they're ready for us to leave. At this point, there's an overall desire for the central Iraqi government to begin applying progressive limits to our powers in the country, and this is unfolding in the negotiations to maintain our presence after the UN mandate expires this year.
Does my understanding still seem simplistic to you? Well, I'll continue to describe the complexities of the current situation, then, and perhaps I'll shed some light on things you haven't realized yet. Some things that look bad for us are actually good for us.
Currently, the US' surge troops take the lead in handling all engagements with Sunni insurgents/AQI. This provides al-Maliki with political cover against accusations of sectarian bias, and leaves the door open for continued cooperation and reconciliation with the Sunni faction of the government. This process is critical toward the realization of a (Shiite-dominated) central government who can someday punish errant Sunni groups without sparking