Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

Especially since the only person who has 'executive experience' is a Vice-Presidential candidate. If her 'executive experience' actually matters to the McCain ticket, then Joe Biden's experience matters to the Obama ticket. Which defangs the experience attack on Obama altogether.

Talk about a self-defeating line of argument.

 

IMO, the whole "experience issue" is meaningless in this election, unless voters want more of the same. It seems that a lot of people are ready for change, and that means that the old crowd - along with the old ways of doing things - is going to go away. Change is desperately needed in Washington and elsewhere. People all over the country are crying for it. And there's McCain, standing there in the middle of all this, talking as if he has rediscovered what his job was supposed to be for the last 20 years. The guy is so full of crap that it's not even amusing at this point. He keeps chanting that "Washington changed him" and his fellow brother conservatives.

It could be that they changed Washington, and certainly not for the better. Now he is begging to be elected prez, and it's all really pathetic. Mostly because I don't hear, in almost anything he says, where he's ready to do anything different than what he and his Republican cronies have been doing for the last 8 years. I'm with Obama when he says that all this talk about change from Mac is really "hard to swallow."

 

McCain was a Captain in the Navy (for you Army types, that's equivalent to Colonel). He was also a lobbiest for the Navy -- which is an interesting job and gives a lot of exposure. He was considered to be fairly elite in the Navy and was certain to follow his father (and grandfather) in earning his stars when he chose to follow politics. Had he stayed in the Navy he would probably have retire with four stars.

As far as change; IMO Obama really doesn't stand out either. He has followed in step with the democratic line. No real change there. I don't think Obama has enough connections to do everything he said he will.

I've said it before, I think either candidate will make a good, and significantly above average, president. I find it interesting how willing many on the boards are to overlook the problems with Obama and yet so willing to jump on every negative rumor about McCain.

 

T2 - Well that is a good point. There is no doubt that this is going to be one of the most partisan elections in a long time. Your position regarding both candidates is a minority viewpoint, since the differences between them is quite plain. And voters will have to decide if they want more of the same, or if they want the kind of changes Obama may bring to the table. Obama gets it, as far as the change issue is concerned; Mac is still just mouthing the words, but I don't think he gets it....

 

You mean the way people around here have been jumping on Obama for every asinine negative, from his middle name to his a**hole pastor? Or for Biden for that matter? Have you not noticed when certain members of this board quite recently have harped on Biden's trivial gaffes while ignoring the other 99% of the time when he actually proves himself to be one of the most competent, respected and knowledgeable people in our government, all while lauding the most ridiculous VP candidate in modern history as "very popular" as her approval numbers sink like a rock in soup? Is that the kind of overlooking you're referring to?

What is it with conservatives around here calling others out for a double standard they seem all too willing to engage in themselves?

Personally, as someone who's been an admirer and supporter of John McCain for as long as I've been interested in politics, it's depressing and uncomfortable for me to see him turn into a petty partisan hack before my very eyes. I once thought we'd be in good shape no matter who won this election, but I just can't anymore. Some here clearly like voting for partisan, incompetent a**holes and may see McCain's new "screw my integrity" schtick and the wingnut credentials of his laughable choice of VP as a plus. I for one find that Obama's biggest negatives - and even I admit he has quite a few and there are several policies of his I'm not crazy about - don't hold a candle to the negatives of John McCain and Caribou Barbie. That I bring them up and not Obama's isn't a sign of a double standard, it's the reaction of someone honestly surprised he has to call them out at all.

 

You have to remember, to many he is considered the "The Chosen One" and will bring peace and harmony to the universe. Saying anything bad about him is blasphemy. I find this doubly curious as the left tends to be anti-religion but between Obama and global warming they seem to be finding a replacement for "faith".

Why you don't see this with McCain is very simple. The right really isn't that thrilled with him. However, he is considered a better choice then Obama ever will be. The right sees all of the problems with McCain/Palin but has decided that for the good of the country they have to live with them.

 

Snook, seriously...grow up.

 

DR, Snook is serious. I've heard some really kooky people out there campaigning for Obama. Mostly early 20-somethings that should probably be in college, or at a job. Some of these people bring new meaning to 'drinking the koolaid' (or rather, truely restore the original meaning).

As for Obama's faults, I've usually only brought them up in reaction to people criticizing McCain or Palin for the same things. And yes, they aren't that severe individually, but all together they paint a picture for me of consistent lying, a constructed false reality, and problems when holes in that reality appear. For example, did you know he isn't even really black? Or at least, not enough to count in the US. He's actually only 6.5% black. He's also 50% white (from his mother) and 43.5% arab (from his father, who is listed as an arab in the Kenyan records). And this comes from a Washington Post editor who supports Obama (or at least he did at the time). Now, I don't think I've yet heard him refer to himself as black (though I haven't listened that closely), but I have heard plenty of people around him saying it.

Now, I have nothing against arabs, nor anyone just for having the name Osama. My favorite professor at the University was Dr. Osama Kandil, a wonderfully patient and increadibly intelligent gentleman. I just have a problem with lies (thought this one I can understand).

Combine that with the severe contradiction between his current position on many policies and the positions he's held for years on the same issues (see guns especially) and I don't trust anything about him. I have no problem with a politician re-assessing their beliefs in light of new evidence (for example drilling for oil, both candidates have had opportunity to do that), but there should be evidence that this happened, and no just their word on it.

 

NOG,

I'm serious too. It's an idiotic line of argument, and Snook knows it. What candidate running for President doesn't have examples of hero-worship and kooky kool-aid drinkers among his supporters? You think Bush didn't? Christ, half the right wing blogs in existence were originally created for exactly that purpose. Is Sarah Palin immune to such fawning? Hardly. This "chosen one" nonsense doesn't apply to a single poster here, so bringing it up here is nothing more than a childish strawman and a not-so-thinly-veiled insult to the Obama supporters here, and again, Snook knows it. You can discuss this election like an intelligent adult and you're half his age. I fail to see why he can't do the same.

 

You are beginning with the wrong assumption (besides the fact that you think you are right) regarding the "left" and religion. I'm not sure about your church, which might be mostly conservative, but mine, appears at least, to be a pretty good cross-section of all kinds of political persausion. Our church has about 14,000 members which makes it a pretty good sized church and a lot of different walks of people attend. White, Southern Evangleical churches, tend to be conservative, as well as a lot of Baptists in the South, but John Kerry is a devout Catholic and that particular faith attracts all kinds of membership as well. A lot of Jewish people are good liberals also, and some certainly vote Democratic. Obama attended church also (which is well-known). My family has attended this church for about the last 4 years:

http://www.fotw.org/main/

Now, you may belong to a church in the Northeast, which may be largely conservative, and I'm not meaning to imply that all churchs in the South are "conservative," nor that the reverse is true in the Northeast. I just think there tends to be more conservatives in the South and West than in the Northeast so that is bound to be reflected in church memberships. But I don't believe that the "Left" tends to be anti-religious. That's just not right.

 

Interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is interesting. Considering how often the "religious right" is demonized by the left it never occured to me that there might be a "religious left". I'm still not convinced that in general the right isn't more religious.

 

I am almost positive that the right is, as a whole, more religious than the left. I believe what Chandos took exception to was NOG referring to the left as "anti-religious". It's one thing to see one group as more religious than the other (although I'm not convinced that's necessarily true, either). It's quite another thing (to the point of absurdity) to paint one group as pro-religion, and the other as anti-religion.

 

No, that was me.

 

My bad - but my point still stands. I think Chandos was more critical of you referring to the left as anti-religious. He wasn't saying one side was trying to out-religious the other.

 

I would agree that there are more religious folk on the right than on the left, but it's not at all accurate to call the left (at least in America) anti-religious. There are a great many church-going liberals in the US, and a surprising number of self-described evangelicals who are also Democrats. Not nearly as great in numbers, but they're out there. The left just prefers to keep religion as a personal matter, whereas the right (at least the religious right) seems to want religion to permeate every area of our culture, including government.

 

I would say that the perception of many is that the left is somewhat anti-religious, if only that the EXTREME left (communism) has as one of its central doctrines that religion is untrue and merely "the opiate of the masses." In addition, left wingers in the French Revolution (and other revolutions, IIRC) have traditionally called out for limitations on the powers of religion.

As for how that plays out today, though, that's a different story. Please don't think for a second I'm calling the present day Democrats or Obama a communist. I'm not -- they are most certainly NOT that far to the left.

What I do think is true, however, is that the left of both the US and Canada, while having many religious folks in it, also tends to attract atheists, agnostics and secularists. The right does not seem to attract nearly as many people without belief in deity of some sort. Perhaps statistics would prove me wrong on this, but this is about perception, and I think many people share my perceptions.

I have yet to see anyone on this board seriously bring up Obama's name as a negative (though sadly I know it's been done elsewhere.)

I have to say in closing that I firmly believe that both men have the best interests of the US at heart. Their beliefs on what is best for the country may be widely divergent, but I think they both are sincere. That said, even though their policies would be vastly different, I think in the long run the country would be well served by either candidate.

 

I agree with that. Moreover, while I believe that Obama is a vastly better choice than McCain, I will go one step further and say that even if McCain should win, I think he would represent a marginal improvement over the current administration. While I rarely like what I hear coming from McCain's mouth, at least it is intelligible, and having a president that has basic control over the diction of the English language will be a refreshing change compared to the last 8 years.

 

@ NOG (followup from earlier),

I guess I'm just confused about what lies you're referring to. Could you list some? Other than the gun issue, what do you think he's contradicted himself on so severely? Also - if what you say is true, and it's Obama's positional contradictions and lies that trouble you so much, then how do you feel about McCain's many flip-flops and Sarah Palin's many, many documented lies?

As for Obama being 43.5% Arab, I'd really like to see that Washington Post article. For one thing, Kenya is nowhere near Saudi Arabia, and if you've seen any photos of Barack Obama Sr., he doesn't look even remotely Arab. Linky. That there's dark chocolate, yo. So I'd really like to see the article's reasoning. For another, Obama's father was born and lived most of his life in Africa, and is undoubtedly a Negro. Obama's more than entitled genetically to consider himself African American, so I fail to see how he's lying about that.

 

Well, here's the link I found.

http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html

I've never heard of this guy before, so if anyone knows anything about him or can show the article to be false, please do.

DR, while Kenya may not have the same long history of immigration that the US does, I'm sure they do have some. According to the article, his father is 13% african, so could legally claim to be an African American if he were in America, but Obama can't with only 6.5%. I'm also fairly sure we all know how skin color isn't 100% indicative of heritage. There are people that are only 2% black that have darker skin than Obama, and people that are 50% black that are almost as white as me. I'm not going to argue off of appearances, but rather off of records.

The article also displays a number of 'truth fudges' in Obama's career. Mind you, this is standard fare in the Chicago political machine where he got his start, so this isn't anything special for the region, I'm just saying I don't like any of it.

McCai's flip-flops all seem to be either due to evidence or after years of changing circmstances. Remember, he's been in the Senate longer than I've been alive, so saying he once voted against alternative energy, if that vote was 15 years ago, doesn't mean much today. As for Palin, my jury's still out on her. I have yet to hear of one confirmed lie, but I've heard of many accusations. Could you specify?

 

NOG,

I'm not talking about McCain's entire career. On a long enough timeline, everyone is a flip-flopper. I'm talking about positions he's had since 2000. Against Bush's warrentless wiretapping, now supports it. Adamantly opposed to waterboarding, now he supports it. I could honestly go on for hours. He's flipped his position on nearly every major issue. Here's a more complete list compiled by Steve Benen who, while a liberal, is a devil for details and I've been reading him for years.

As for Palin, here's the most comprehensive list. UPDATE: This from the Alaska Daily News is a must watch.

http://community.adn.com/mini_apps/vmix/player.php?ID=2221420&GID=118

As for the Kenneth Lamb article, I can't read the page for some reason, it's coming through all gibberish to me (font issue). Can you find the original Washington Post article it references? I'd rather just read that. But until I do, I'd just ask you to look at an actual photo of Obama's father. It's more than just his skin color, which is far to dark for him to be significantly Arab in his heritage. His facial features, black nappy hair (which Obama Jr. has), are highly reminiscent of dominant Negro heritage. And even if we assume all this is true...Obama is clearly an African American by personal and cultural identity, as well as by his obvious physical features, despite parsing his genetic percentiles, and fail to see how it's relevant anyway. I assure you he's black enough to claim that inherent disadvantage in our society.