Forums | MacLife

McMonger made it a basic policy premise that staying in Iraq for 100 years is OK.

He also promised, in a straight-talk forum (You know, TownHall kinda thing, where he excels...) "There will be more wars."

I'm not smearing him, I'm QUOTING him. This is not trivial.

McCain promises voters ‘more wars’
By: Steve Benen on Monday, January 28th, 2008 at 5:16 AM - PST 

A few weeks ago, John McCain raised a few eyebrows when he said he’s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for another century. Yesterday, he made matters worse, assuring voters that there are more wars on the way.

    The presidential candidate who sang “Bomb bomb Iran” is already looking towards the war after the war in Iraq.

    Sen. John McCain told a crowd of supporters on Sunday, “It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars.” Offering more of his increasingly bleak “straight talk,” he repeated the claim: “I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.”

    McCain did not elaborate who the United States would be fighting. But he did warn the crowd to be ready for the ramifications of current and future battles.

That's from C&L...I don't know about YouTube. I saw it live, or thereabouts, either CSPAN or the Saturdays CNN was showing all candidates.

Now, as for 100 years....you know very well it is acceptable policy to still be there in force (no matter the relative merit or 'peace' on the ground) as the next new century dawns, in McMonger's view

I think, given the present world situation, that McCain believes that it will likely be necessary to expand our presence in the mid east. Whether that will be in conjunction with Israel, unilaterally, or israel doing it unilaterally, we can only wait and see. . . but it's clear that McCain supports the US/Israel status quo there. and will do pretty much whatever's necessary to maintain/advance it.

This includes militarily.

Do you have a problem with this view of McCain's "Hundred years commitment"?

But, the way in which they seek to 'disqualify' Obama is far different (with different 'standards') than Palin. Any of her 'problems' would have put him on the bench.

I'll take his family over the Palin clan, every time.
etc.

The way the DQ is being done is based on traits and allegations about Obama.

Her DQ is EVERYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF AND MORE. AND THAT'S ONLY UP TO TODAY.

Tomorrow never knows.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

So once again, all things are perfectly equal?  Is that what you're saying?  There's more than enough "slime" ("false slime," even) coming from Obama's campaign to match that which we're seeing directly from McCain's campaign?

Is it your contention that a person that kills 10 people is worse than a person that kills 5?
I'm saying they are both smurfing murderers.

And someone who lies 20 times a day compared to someone who lies twice a week ?

Both liars you can't trust.
I'll forgive being wrong, that's unavoidable.
Lying though is avoidable, it's a choice.

bratboy wrote:

Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.

Mr. Obama has also been accused of distortions, but this week Mr. McCain has found himself under particularly heavy fire for a pair of headline-grabbing attacks. First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama’s words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain’s claim to be the change agent in the race, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.” (Mr. McCain once used the same expression to describe Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health plan.)

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

In an interview Friday on the NY1 cable news channel, a McCain supporter, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, called “ridiculous” the implication that Mr. Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment was a reference to Ms. Palin, whom he also defended as coming under unfair attack.

“The last month, for sure,” said Don Sipple, a Republican advertising strategist, “I think the predominance of liberty taken with truth and the facts has been more McCain than Obama.”

Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama.

Mr. McCain came into the race promoting himself as a truth teller and has long publicly deplored the kinds of negative tactics that helped sink his candidacy in the Republican primaries in 2000. But his strategy now reflects a calculation advisers made this summer — over the strenuous objections of some longtime hands who helped him build his “Straight Talk” image — to shift the campaign more toward disqualifying Mr. Obama in the eyes of voters.

“I think the McCain folks realize if they can get this thing down in the mud, drag Obama into the mud, that’s where they have the best advantage to win,” said Matthew Dowd, who worked with many top McCain campaign advisers when he was President Bush’s chief strategist in the 2004 campaign, but who has since had a falling out with the White House. “If they stay up at 10,000 feet, they don’t.”

One of many, many examples.

Actually, if you want to talk about the number of attack ads it appears that Obama has run more.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arc … ve_ads.php

If you want to talk about really nasty attack ads, nothing that Mccain has run tops this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry9LnAazwMg

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch … act-1.html

It's got it all. out of context quotes, playing of the race card. Demagogic attacks. Character attacks and guilt by association. And again, playing of the race card. Truly Obama should be ashamed.

I thought Obama was above this sort of thing?

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-09-18 1:57 am)

Actually, it would mean executing the one on the board efficiently.

edit:

Or, 'responsibly' - if that's the preferred perspective.

Unless, some would 'cut-and-run'. Can't have that, now can we?

Last edited by daemon (2008-09-18 4:13 am)

And a week later he's airing ads by Bluegrass Legend Ralph Stanley:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoints … ars_bl.php

If you know the movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" you've heard him:
http://www.amazon.com/Man-Of-Constant-S … FNSYC86CQQ

I know him from "Old & In The Way" - 'White Dove'.

So, we've got Appalachia in play, I'd say.

Metacell wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

What's going on is that there are a lot of people who do not agree with your assessment that McCane is a virtual duplicate of Bush.

Or at least they choose not to listen with that part of their brain.

It's the same campaign team...its the same campaign.  It's more Karl Rove.

and that phil gramm ass hat.