Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain Changes Tactics?


Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., right, speaks as Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., listens during a townhall-style presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Heading into last night's presidential debate, the expectation was the John McCain would continue the attacks begun by his running mate -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- on Barack Obama's character and, in particular, his relationship with former Weather Underground member Bil Ayers.

But, McCain never went there during the 90-minute debate, and two new advertisements launched today -- one by McCain's own campaign, the other by the Republican National Committee -- focus on casting Obama as a big spending liberal with no mention of Ayers.

McCain's new commercial -- entitled "Folks" -- notes that Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate and calls into question the Illinois Democrat's contention that Republicans are simply not telling the truth about his record.

The RNC's latest ad goes after Obama as a risky big spender, arguing that he supports a trillion dollars in new spending on top of the $700 billion financial bailout that went through Congress last week. "One trillion more?" read the white words on a black screen. "Sound crazy? It is."

Then on a conference call this morning organized by McCain's campaign, former Illinois Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R) attacked Obama -- as McCain had done last night -- as a rank party ideologue for whom bipartisanship was simply a word to say to get elected to things.

"For Senator Obama, reform and nonpartisanship is something to campaign on but not something he does when he actually gets into office," said Fitzgerald who served with the Illinois Democrat in the state legislature. Fitzgerald added that Obama was nothing more than "one of those state Senators from Chicago who viewed the Democratic Party as being right 100 percent of the time and the Republican party wrong 100 percent of the time."

While this coordinated attack on Obama is not without punch -- he is a liberal who supports more government spending at a time of national economic crisis -- it is not the sort of hard-core character hit in the paid media that many expected from the McCain campaign amid faltering poll numbers both in key battleground states and nationally.

And yet, the McCain campaign doesn't appear to have entirely abandoned the Ayers line of attack either. In an email this morning to reporters, the McCain campaign distributed a statement from John Murtagh whose house was fire-bombed by members of the Weather Underground in 1970. "Barack Obama may have been a child when William Ayers was plotting attacks against U.S. targets -- but I was one of those targets," said Murtagh. "Barack Obama's friend tried to kill my family."

What gives? How can McCain not even mention Ayers during last night's debate or in his latest ads, and yet Palin can continue to accuse Obama of "palling" around with terrorists on the stump and the Arizona senator's campaign can put out a statement blasting the Democrat for his Ayers ties this morning?

The answer -- we think -- lies with the duality of McCain the man.

On the one hand, he is fiercely competitive, wants to win the presidency badly and believes he is far better qualified than Obama to be the next occupant of the White House.

On the other, McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns -- always viewing himself as above that sort of lowest common denominator politics. His refusal to bring up Ayers last night is reflective of his distaste for the knife-fight aspects of politics.

And yet, with his campaign trailing in every meaningful battleground state and being outspent at a three to one clip, McCain is rapidly running out of time and opportunity to fundamentally alter this race.

Ayers may not be a silver bullet but a discussion over Obama's past associations is far better ground on which for McCain to fight than the current debate over the country's economic malaise. Simply putting out a statement on Ayers and hoping that the resultant free media delivers the message to voters is not good enough to change the subject, however.

Watch to see if McCain goes on TV with Ayers over the coming days. It's a gamble but one McCain may have no choice but to take.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 8, 2008; 12:41 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: VIDEO: The Fix Breaks Down the Debate
Next: The Political Take: Breaking Down the Nashville Debate

Comments

Last Tuesday, October 7th, the second presidential debate that took place in Belmont University in Nashville attracted over 60 million viewers. Instead of coming to a more firm deliberation on how to improve the well-being of the United States and all of the American citizens who inhabit it, more questions have raised about how exactly these presidential candidates intend to better our obliterated economy. Frequent questions asked about the $700 billion Wall Street bailout were left unanswered. People are upset and even fear that it would not work and are in search of reassurance and a solution. It seems like their main focus is basically to criticize each other in hopes of rounding up a larger number of followers than the other. Their proposed intentions are based on completely irrelevant issues. Let’s take Barak Obama’s stance on payday advance lenders for an instance. He categorized them as “predatory lending”- effectively sanctioning the industry. This is not an issue that is downheartedly affecting our economy. As the real economic problems are ignored, they spend more time finding and using the pettiest affairs to add spice to the banking production.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

Posted by: PaydayLoanAdvocate | October 15, 2008 4:55 AM | Report abuse

I got a suggestion for the McCain campaign. Ask President Bush to endorse Obama. That way McCain can tie Obama with the unpopular President.

I think that's the most mavericky thing he can do! I double dare you!!

Posted by: helper1 | October 12, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I find it striking that the insider press simply CANNOT accept that they have been played for fools by McCain. They still hold fast to the delusion, many times proven false, that McCain is some kind of centrist maverick.

This sentence, in particular, is sad, coming from someone with the kind of career Mr Cilizza has had:

"On the other, McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns -- always viewing himself as above that sort of lowest common denominator politics."

Would Mr. Cillizza ever had simply taken the word of any other politician? I mean, McCain's history belies this assertion at pretty much every turn. It's clear, based on the evidence, that the McCain of 2000 was the fake one, not the one of 2008. But Cillizza still clings to the comfortable falsehood that McCain is somehow "above" the fray. This is the McCain who was THE Keating five. This is the McCain who lied about not using his POW status for political gain. This is the McCain who sold his MIA POW brethren to the highest bidder. This is NOT an honorable man.

Posted by: drobert | October 10, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

You're saying that McCain the man and McCain the campaign are two different things. Either that's true and he doesn't have control over his campagin or it's false and he's using the nasty tactics that he supposedly abhors.

McCain's statements over the last couple of days lead me to believe that it's the latter. He's using nasty tactics that he supposedly abhors. Don't continue to rationalize this for him. He's going where he said he'd never go. MCCAIN FIRST.

Posted by: niche | October 10, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone in the media ask the most obvious question of mccain: "Have you lost all sense of decency, Sir?" This gutter campaign is a disgrace to America and comes from 2 politicians with all kinds of ethical issues. Obama is not under investigation for an ethics violation -- Palin is. McCain's acts as a Keating 5 member were unquestionably unethical. And Rick Renzi -- the co-chairman of Sen. John McCain's campaign in Arizona -- has been indicted.

Posted by: fairandbalanced2 | October 10, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone in the media ask the most obvious question of mccain: "Have you lost all sense of decency, Sir?" This gutter campaign is a disgrace to America and comes from 2 politicians with all kinds of ethical issues. Obama is not under investigation for an ethics violation -- Palin is. McCain's acts as a Keating 5 member were unquestionably unethical. And Rick Renzi -- the co-chairman of Sen. John McCain's campaign in Arizona -- has been indicted.

Posted by: fairandbalanced2 | October 10, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone in the media ask the most obvious question of mccain: "Have you lost all sense of decency, Sir?" This gutter campaign is a disgrace to America and comes from 2 politicians with all kinds of ethical issues. Obama is not under investigation for an ethics violation -- Palin is. McCain's acts as a Keating 5 member were unquestionably unethical. And Rick Renzi -- the co-chairman of Sen. John McCain's campaign in Arizona -- has been indicted.

Posted by: fairandbalanced2 | October 10, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

I think this Ayer attack against Obama is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that McCain is bringing up something that happened to one of his friends almost 30 years ago almost makes him look like a senile senior citizen. Though it was a very malicious attack and is something that isn't very funny, the fact that McCain is at all trying to connect it to Obama who was around a year old is just stupid. What someone has already stated, it seems that McCain might be coming off a bit desperate in a time where he feels that attacks such as this one may get him back on track in the polls.

Posted by: ctardieu | October 10, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Dredging up Ayers IS a last-ditch effort by a candidate trailing in the polls. McCain is so frantic to win that he is dredging up ancient history in a desperate attempt to smear Sen. Obama. That's pathetic.

What is morally reprehensible is that he's allowing his pet pitbull, the one that wears lipstick, to stir up the barely submerged racial hatred in certain parts of our country in a last-ditch attempt to win this election. If her statements incite anyone in these crowds to racial or ethnic violence, may the blood be on her head.

Posted by: laSerenissima2003 | October 9, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

It's worth paying attention to world opinion of our Presidential contest. All 22 countries in a BBC World Service poll would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama to be elected US president instead of his Republican rival John McCain.

Obama is preferred by a four to one margin on average across the 22,000 people polled.

The margin in favour of Obama ranges from just 9% in India to 82% in Kenya. On average 49% prefer Obama to 12% preferring McCain. Nearly four in 10 do not take a position.

The poll also explored the expected impact of the US election. In 17 of the 22 countries surveyed the most common view is that, if Barack Obama is elected president, America's relations with the rest of the world are likely to get better. If John McCain is elected, the most common view in 19 countries is that relations will stay about the same as they are now.

The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations are America's NATO allies – Canada (69%), France (62%), Germany (61%), United Kingdom (54%), Italy (64%) – as well as Australia (62%) and the African countries Kenya (87%) and Nigeria (71%).

As Islamic extremists and hostile governments attempt to portray The United States as "The Great Satan" to their own citizens, it makes a difference that many of those citizens prefer Obama personally. Perhaps more important, as a symbol of what this country stands for, the very fact that he was nominated by a major party to run has already elevated the belief by many abroad that this country does indeed stand for the principles enunciated in our Declaration of Independence. While world opinion must, in the final analysis, take a back-seat to our domestic concerns, if Obama is elected, it will be at least a small step towards regaining the respect and approval of the rest of the people with whom we share this planet.

Posted by: thomas777 | October 9, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

For those who aren't old enough to remember the movie "The Caine Mutiny", it's the story of an aging Naval Commander and war hero, Captain Queeg (played by Humphrey Bogart), in the twilight of his career, attempting to hang on to past glory, and who is slowly losing his mind to paranoia and envy of his younger officers.

One night, during a training exercise, Queeg's destroyer, the USS Caine find itself in heavy weather, and Captain Queeg panics at a moment of grave danger to the ship. His first officer, reluctantly relieves Queeg of command and saves the ship. Later, at a courts-martial for the first officer, Queeg takes the witness stand and gives testimony against him, and in a rambling diatribe, descends further into madness, and ultimately impeaches himself.

The more I see and hear John McCaine, the more I am reminded of that film.

Posted by: thomas777 | October 9, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick of this McCain/Palin ticket and their dirty game that I cannot take it anymore. They deliberately ignite hate and intolerance, the worst and the most dangerous qualities. What a disgusting and desperate pair! And you want them to lead this country and the world? One does not have to be a genius to realize that McCain and Palin are intellectually-challenged, arrogant, and hateful people. I am a 65-year old white woman, a business owner; and I would not hire Sarah Palin to be my receptionist much less a manager. How in the world she was elected a governor? It is a mystery to me. THIS ONE is voting for ‘THAT ONE’ regardless of how many ‘fellow prisoners’ will support McCain/Palin ticket. I think it is about time to throw the McCain/Palin ticket into a history dumpster.

Posted by: elvera38 | October 9, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse


.


.


A great deal has been said of Obama as head of the Harvard Law Review - however the evidence is that he was voted into that position because the people thought it would be "cool" to have a black in there, not because he was more qualified than the other students.


Having said that, Obama NEVER wrote for the Harvard Law Review.


There is NOT ONE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY OBAMA IN THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

There is a pattern of Obama getting positions or jobs through affirmative action and then NOT doing those jobs.


1) First, he took a position in the class at Harvard Law School (from a white student) however Obama NEVER became a lawyer,


2) Obama became head of the Harvard Law Review, however Obama NEVER wrote a law review article.


3) Obama became a State Senator however Obama RARELY voted yes or not, voting present many many times - Emil Jones placed Obama's name on numerous bills which were Emil's work, and Obama took credit for Emil's work because someone decided that Obama was going to be pushed forward.


4) Obama was selected to be the Chairman of the SubCommittee to review NATO's role in Afghanistan however Obama NEVER held any hearings of this SubCommittee.


5) Obama was elected to the US Senator, however instead of doing his job as a Senator Obama went on a book tour and started a campaign for President - HOW MUCH TIME HAS HE REALLY SPENT ACTUALLY BEING A SENATOR ???


Sorry However NONE OF THIS IS IMPRESSIVE. In fact, it is rather sad.

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: hclark1 | October 9, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

officermancuso: Grandma would appreciate your blessing. She had pictures of Gramsci and Togliatti in her house here in America.

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 9, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

tHE PROBLEM WITH MCCAIN IS HE'S DEBATING THE MAVERICK OF 2000 AND THE MUDSLINGER HE'S BECOME TODAY. MCCAIN IS TRYING TO BE SOMETHING HE'S NOT AND ITS SHOWING AND THATS WHY HE'S LOSING. A MCCAIN PRESIDENCY WILL SHE SHAMBLES. MCCAIN ISN'T SMART ENOUGH, LACKS JUDGEMENT, LOOK AT HIS VICE PRESIDENT PICK, HAS NO IDEAS, OR VISION FOR THE COUNTRY. TELLS LIE FROM LIES AND LURCH FROM TACTIC TO TATIC. MCCAIN IS LOSING BECAUSE HE'S TRYING TO BE ONE THING ONE DAY AND HE'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PERSON THE NEXT DAY. EVERYTHING ABOUT MCCAIN IS A CONFLICT. WHAT HE SAYS CONFLICT WITH WHAT HE HAS DONE. HE'S ALL OVER THE PLACE AND I CAN'T TAKE A CHANCE WITH AN ERACTIC PRESIDENT.

Posted by: amosdefnails | October 9, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"...my fellow prisoners"
McCaint Rally Wednesday in Pennsylvania...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFm5kK4f1k&NR=1

take a good look at peeeuuu Palin...no response.....

I guess it went thru her empty skull like wind thru a tunnel....

And McCaint's past connections are coming back to haunt him as well...

A delegate who represented McCaint at the convention name...Marylin Shannon expressed sympathy for an activist who shot a doctor who performed abotions in Kansas.

Using the same logic that the GOP is using we can conclude that since members of the GOP are palling around with abortion clinic attack sympathizers they are supporters of right wing militants. McCain, in 1994 opposed a law that made it a federal crime to bomb or blockade abortion clinics.

In 1992 he addressed the ultra far right Oregon's Citizens Alliance.

He spoke at their convention and had kind words for an anti-abortionist activist who shot the doctor in both arms and bombed abortion clinics in Kansas.

He stated "She's a fine lady".

This fine lady was convicted of bombing clinics and of shooting the doctor.

At the time of sentencing the judge called her a domestic terrorist.

Another association of Sen. McCaint that tells much about his character.

His defense of "poor judgement" how many times are we going to hear this excuse for his pathetic and strange behavior.

...probably as many times as he calls the American public..."my friends"

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 9, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

I think the reason for McCain's avoidance of the Ayers topic during the debate is much simpler - If he brought it up during the debate, he gives Obama the chance to defend himself. Using it as a topic on the campaign trail allows them to speak unchecked.

Posted by: df198081 | October 9, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

McCain/Palin Economic Plan

If you purchased $1,000 of shares in Delta Airlines one year ago,
you would have $49.00 today.

If you purchased $1,000 of shares in AIG one year ago,
you would have $33.00 today.

If you purchased $1,000 of shares in Lehman Brothers one year ago,
you would have $0.00 today.

But if you purchased $1,000 worth of Bud within the last year,
drank all the Bud & recycled the aluminum cans,
you would have received $214.00.

The average US Citizen walks about 900 miles a year.
US Citizens drink on average 22 gallons of alcohol a year.
On the average, US Citizens get about 41 miles to the gallon!

Based on the above, the best current investment plan
is to drink Bud & recycle. It is called the 401-KegBud.

Posted by: OlderWhiteWoman | October 9, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

From "fact of the matter"
http://www.need4trth.blogspot.com

WHO IS JOHN SYDNEY MCCAIN????

(see full story at "fact of the Matter")

TONIGHT OUR COMPOSITION IS ON PRESS CREATED, THROUGH JOHN MCCAIN'S OWN SCATHING DISHONESTY, PRETENDED YET UNDESERVED HONOR AND HEROIC STATUS...FALSE CLAIMS OF BEING TORTURED INTO GIVING UP EVIDENCE THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED NATIONAL DAMAGE AS WELL AS TROOPS DEATHS (CONTRADICTED BY THE TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE WHO WORKED AT THE 'HANOI HILTON')....FALSELY CLAIMED, TROOP AND VETERAN SUPPORT.... NONE OF THESE CLAIMS SUPPORTED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD OR VOTING RECORD OF JOHN SYDNEY MCCAIN.... AND THE POINTING OF THE HYPOCRITICAL ACCUSATORY FINGER WHILE CHOKING ON THE SMOKE OF YOUR BURNING FACADE.

"And the Grand Facade, so soon shall burn..." Peter Gabrial

FLAGRANT:

shockingly noticeable or evident; obvious; glaring: a flagrant error, notorious ;scandalous: a flagrant crime; a flagrant offender., Archaic. blazing, burning, or glowing.

HYPOCRISY:

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess, a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude, an act or instance of hypocrisy.


THE FLAGRANT FINGER POINTING HYPOCRITE, SENATOR JOHN SYDNEY MCCAIN:

John McCain uses what he believes to be the ULTIMATE TRUMP CARD, an undeserved FALSE HERO STATUS and drunken decieved PRESS anointment of "THE MAVERICK". A Reputation that isn't disputed yet, isn't indisputable......

Posted by: need4trth | October 9, 2008 4:26 AM | Report abuse

If there is any doubt that McCain is a Bush clone just take a look at his recent campaign rhetoric. It is like a press release from the desk of Dick Cheney.

America is better than this sleazy politician.

Vote Hope not Hate.

Obama 08

Posted by: MarcMyWords | October 9, 2008 4:07 AM | Report abuse

Regarding the ragings of fundamentalist Revelation143:

Warren Buffet, some 20 generals, former US Presidents, and countless people from Stephen King to the Vice President of the Cato Institute, from Will Ferrell to George Lucas, from Madeleine Albright to Paul Volcker... All these friends of Obama who have endorsed him must simply hate America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_endorsements

The extremist right-wing is become ever more delusional, paranoid and dangerous in its obscurantism blind rage. Mr. Cillizza take note: You support the growth of this cancer with your amoral enabling at your peril and at the peril of the country.

Posted by: mikezz | October 9, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

It seems that friends of Obama have a lot in common:

Aires and wife
Reverand Wright
Father Flaggard
Farakan
Acorn
Rezco

THEY ALL HATE AMERICA. It is well known that birds of a feather flock together. So there you have it and I have called a spade a spade.

Wake up Democrats and use some common sense. Obama is a danger to our county. Obama is friends with black militant racists, terrorists and criminals and should be exposed as a FAKE AND A FRAUD.

Posted by: Revelation143 | October 9, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 9, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

I guess the McCain campaign can thank you for both doing their work for them (advertising the tenuous "Ayers connection" and promoting their guilt-by-association smear campaign) AND for making excuses for "McCain the man," as though he weren't ultimately responsible for what his campaign does.

McCain could burn down Obama's house and there would still be some in the press who would say, "Well, you know, the true John McCain hates burning down houses, but that's just an unfortunate part of a Presidential campaign. But with the economy in shambles and America embroiled in two wars, Barack Obama's advantage in the polls has forced McCain into a position where house-burning is his only option."

Posted by: libelian | October 9, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

My attempt to post at 1 a.m. Oct. 9th was met with "post held for blog owner" page, which I believe is a spoofed page inserted by a surveillance/hacking apparatus. So the following is relevant:

FIXISTA, BEWARE: IS BIG BROTHER HACKING YOU?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/parallel-internet-big-brother-screening-censoring-political-blogs OR (if the link becomes disabled)
members.nowpublic.com/scrivener re: "The Parallel Internet..."

p.s. If my links don't work, please contact nowpublic.com site administrators via their "contact" page or a post to another nowpublic.com blog.

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 9, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

I WILL NEVER VOTE OBAMA!!

WHY?
I do not trust leaving him alone with my family or my wallet in the same room!!

Posted by: lazerboy | October 9, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

"It's a gamble but one McCain may have no choice but to take." - here is, reduced to one sentence and in all its festering glory, the putrid moral corruption of Washington's political class.

Truth, honesty, decency... Nothing matters to Mr. Cillizza and his fellow swamp-dwellers, it's all a game. If running the most vile, dishonest, and dishonorable presidential campaign in the history of the country is what it takes to win, that's what Mr. Cillizza thinks that McCain has "no choice" but to do. Yes, people do have a choice, Mr. Cillizza, it's called right and wrong, truth and lies, decency and debasement. But Mr. Cilizza shows himself here as a deeply broken, amoral man -- this post comes across as repugnant and, yes, evil.

Posted by: mikezz | October 9, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

JOHN MCCAIN, TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY, COLLABORATOR WITH THE ENEMY, MILITARY DISGRACE.
Ted Sampley, a Vietnam Veteran and former Green Beret, issued a CHALLENGE to John McCain "If you can show us that the information presented in our mailer is untruthful . . . we will Stand Down" This CHALLENGE was issued during an interview with INSIDE EDITION on January 17, 2008.
John, family members of Vietnam POW/MIA(s) have been waiting for more then 14 years for you to have the courage to face them eye to eye in front of the American Public - Here is your opportunity for some "STRAIGHT TALK." Stop hiding behind your fabricated "War Hero" persona. You know we can prove your collaborations with declassified government documents . . . It is time for the American people to get to know the REAL John McCain - the John McCain that the POW/MIA families witnessed during the 1991-93 US Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs .
Bring It On John! HERE IS OUR NUMBER 252-527-0442
*********** ************* ************** *********** ***********
Activists accused McCain of stonewalling the release of POW records because they contained evidence he had collaborated with the North Vietnamese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MUY9S6iCvk

Posted by: popasmoke | October 9, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

FROM TWO FORMER GOP CONGRESSMEN TO U.S. COMBAT FORCES WORLDWIDE:

MCCAIN IS UNFIT TO SERVE AS YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

Former Congressmen Warn Troops: As Senator He Abandoned American POWs Trapped in Indochina; as President He'll Abandon You

Special to the U.S. Veteran Dispatch
By former U.S. Congressmen Bill Hendon (R-NC)
and John LeBoutillier (R-NY)
August 16, 2008

"He [McCain] has told me several times over the years that the myth of live POWs was a cruel hoax on the families. He chaired hearings into the issue in the 1990s and found nothing. 'The committee … pored over thousands of records and every claim of a sighting, no matter how outlandish,' says Salter. 'It was all untrue.'" Jonathan Alter, When Ross Perot Calls..., Newsweek.com January 16, 2008

Senator John McCain's heroic and inspiring wartime service in Vietnam notwithstanding, we know from personal experience he is not fit to serve as Commander-in-Chief of America's armed forces. Here is how we know this:

In mid-summer 1991, the U.S. Senate created the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs and charged it with conducting a no-holds-barred investigation into the long-festering matter of American POWs reportedly still held captive by the Communist North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao. On the day the legislation creating the Select Committee was passed, August 2, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted nationwide showed that 69% of Americans surveyed believed that Americans were still held captive in Southeast Asia and 75% believed the U.S. government wasn't doing enough to get them home.

Following months of negotiations between the committee and a very reluctant George H. W. Bush administration, committee intelligence investigators were finally able to obtain the postwar intelligence files relating to live POWs. Committee investigators spent some 2,700 man hours vetting, analyzing and crosschecking the postwar intelligence. They found it a textbook blend of human intelligence (HUMINT); intercepts of secret enemy radio traffic (SIGINT), and images taken by unmanned reconnaissance drones and U.S. spy satellites (IMINT). The committee's intelligence investigators told the senators that collectively the intelligence indicated the North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao had held back hundreds of POWs at Operation Homecoming in 1973 and that many were still alive in captivity during the late 1980's and early 1990's.

By the time committee investigators finally began briefing the senators in secret sessions in early spring, 1992, the issue of live POWs had become, as McCain later described it, "white hot;" this not only because of intense public interest in the plight of the POWs, but also because Texas businessman and longtime POW advocate H. Ross Perot had entered the presidential race, and had done so amid press accounts that he thought President Bush was not doing enough to bring the POWs home. By late May Perot was in first place in the national polls, ahead of President Bush, who was in second place, and the presumptive Democratic nominee, Governor Bill Clinton, who was in third. What would the committee find? Might a ruling that 69% of the American people were right and that, in fact, there were live POWs still held half a world away throw the election to Perot? How could it not?

Enter John McCain.

Given his wartime experiences as a POW in Vietnam, Sen. John McCain was by default the most powerful and influential member of the Select Committee. Members on both sides of the aisle deferred to his judgment; reporters hung on his every pronouncement. And so when McCain, his chief of staff Mark Salter and their allies on the Select Committee joined forces with top Bush administration officials to assail, ridicule, attack, discredit, photoshop, retouch, manipulate, massage and/or "cherry-pick" the intelligence in order to destroy its intelligence value and keep the matter of live POWs from becoming an issue in the 1992 election, the live POWs never had a chance.

How McCain and Salter and the others went about doing this is a case study in how powerful government officials can manipulate intelligence to make it say what they want it to say - and the main reason we believe that John McCain must not be Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.

During that spring and summer of 1992, McCain and the other members of the committee were briefed on some 925 HUMINT reports the investigators had deemed plausible, credible. These intelligence reports were some of the several thousand reports the U.S. government had received from human sources who testified they had personally observed or had been told or had otherwise learned about American servicemen in captivity after Operation Homecoming. Many of the reports corroborated one another as to location, time and circumstance, e.g., independent sources repeatedly reported seeing American POWs being held in the same area; in the same town or village, and/or at the exact same prison at the same time or over a period of time - and, of course, absent IMINT and/or SIGINT, corroboration by independent human sources is the best lie detector ever devised by man. But what did McCain and Salter make of this crucial intelligence? Not one of these reports of American POWs held prisoner after Operation Homecoming was credible, they loudly declared; instead, all 925 sources were either (1) lying, or (2) confused about what he or she had actually seen. Not one report, McCain and Salter declared, related to American POWs trapped in Indochina after Operation Homecoming.

The SIGINT - the half-dozen or so postwar intercepts of secret Pathet Lao radio transmissions where the PL were heard describing how, when, where and/or why they were holding and/or moving American POWs from one point to another inside their country - got the same treatment. When analyzed carefully by committee intelligence investigators and cross-checked with the HUMINT, it was clear these postwar radio intercepts alone collectively described the confinement and/or movement of well over 100 American POWs inside Laos. McCain's and Salter's ruling? Same as with the POWs described in the HUMINT, "nothing to any of it. All radio intercepts are false."

Finally came the IMINT - the priceless postwar satellite images showing missing pilots' names, their official secret four-digit authenticators, secret USAF/USN escape and evasion (E&E) codes given to them and/or other "I'm alive, get me the hell out of here" messages our men had laid out on the ground in hopes U.S. spy satellites would image their plea and rescue forces would be dispatched - and the similar, shocking result. A missing USAF flight officer's name along with a valid USAF/USN escape and evasion code imaged in a field adjacent to a prison in northern Vietnam on June 5, 1992 - photoshopped right out of the image, disappeared, gone! Nineteen four-digit authenticators matching those of missing airmen imaged in rice paddies along Route 4 in northern Laos - similarly photoshopped right out of the satellite image! The name of another USAF pilot and four digit number laid out beside a jungle road in northern Laos - "naturally occurring shadows on the ground," they said. A valid E&E code followed by the four-digit authenticator of another USAF flight officer in a field adjacent to a prison in northern Vietnam - "natural shadings in the field … not man-made intentional signals." The letters "USA," each 12 feet tall and together stretching over 37 feet across, and below them a huge 24 foot tall by 19 feet across valid secret USAF/USN E&E code imaged in a rice paddy in northern Laos - "a young Laotian boy's handiwork that he had copied off an envelope," McCain and Salter "explained" in McCain's 2002 memoir Worth the Fighting For. And on and on it went.

(See two versions of map of Indochina showing the 925 postwar HUMINT reports [pins color-coded by DOI] and how they cluster and corroborate one another, and the postwar SIGINT and IMINT hits [yellow squares] at http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/maps_bill_hendon.htm). Also see An Enormous Crime, cover photo and Chapter 31, "1992, The Fragging."

John McCain could have saved these men but chose not to. For that reason - and because one can photoshop pleas for help out of desert sand and/or rocky, mountain terrain just as easily as one can photoshop them out of jungle terrain, fields and rice paddies - he must not be accorded the highest and most sacred of all honors - that of serving as Commander-in-Chief of America's armed forces.

Former Congressman Hendon is co-author with attorney Elizabeth Stewart of the 2007 New York Times bestseller, AN ENORMOUS CRIME; The Definitive Account of American POWs Abandoned in Southeast Asia (Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press). Ms. Stewart's father is missing in action in northern Vietnam. In reviewing their book, Publisher's Weekly declared "Controversial former North Carolina congressman Hendon and attorney Stewart make the case that the U.S. knowingly left hundreds of POWs in Vietnam and Laos in 1973, and that every presidential administration since then has covered it up." (Publishers Weekly, week of April 9, 2007) Kirkus Reviews wrote that An Enormous Crime is "[a] sprawling indictment of eight U.S. administrations. Hendon and Stewart…appear nonpartisan in their disdain for governmental inaction and double-dealing. A convincing, urgent argument." (Kirkus Reviews, April 15, 2007) An Enormous Crime is currently available at some 400 libraries in the continental U.S. and overseas. Click here to see list of libraries.

You can read almost 100 pages of An Enormous Crime free of charge by clicking here.

Hendon served two terms on the U.S. House Task Force on POW/MIA Affairs; as consultant on POW/MIA Affairs with an office in the Pentagon in 1983, and as an intelligence investigator assigned full-time to the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs during 1991 and 1992. He has appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes, ABC's 20/20, Dateline NBC, ABC's Good Morning America, the NBC Today Show, Saturday Today, CNN's Larry King Live and on a number of network news and talk shows.

Former Congressman LeBoutillier served on the U.S. House Task Force on POW/MIA Affairs and is the author of VIETNAM NOW; The Case for Normalization (Praeger). He is a NewsMax.com pundit and a nationally recognized political commentator. Mr. LeBoutillier rose to national prominence in 1974 when, as a college student at Harvard, he raised over a quarter million dollars for a former Republican challenger against South Dakota Senator George McGovern. Mr. LeBoutillier's efforts caught the notice of President Ford's re-election campaign and in 1976 he was appointed regional coordinator, responsible for all field activities in New Jersey.

After graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard College, Mr. LeBoutillier completed a master's degree at Harvard Business School.

Mr. LeBoutillier has been a prolific writer, beginning with his best-selling book Harvard Hates America (October 1978). Later he authored Vietnam Now (September 1989) and co-authored Primary, a novel (September 1979). He has contributed to many major newspapers and magazines, including The New York Times, The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, among others.

In 1980, Mr. LeBoutillier was elected to represent New York's 6th District. He defeated a 16-year Democrat incumbent and became the youngest member of the 97th Congress. In the House, Congressman LeBoutillier served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and as a member of Special House POW/MIA Task Force.

After leaving Congress, Mr. LeBoutillier continued to be active in POW/MIA affairs. He currently runs Account for POW/MIA Inc., dedicated to recovering living American POWs in Southeast Asia. He also has been a frequent commentator and host of several media programs. He is a frequent guest on radio and television shows. In 1981 he conducted an exclusive interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn for NBC's Tomorrow show. He has hosted radio talk show programs on WMCA radio and WABC radio. In 1984, Mr. LeBoutillier interviewed Richard M. Nixon for the ABC Network radio in his first live network radio appearance since leaving the White House. He has been a frequent guest on many national talk show programs, including the Today show, ABC's 20/20, Nightline and CNN's Crossfire.

Both men have traveled extensively to South and Southeast Asia on behalf of America's POWs and MIAs. Hendon has visited the region some 33 times; LeBoutillier a dozen times.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/aug08/mccain_unfit.htm

Posted by: info4 | October 9, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

.
.
Ever time ah heers o' Beel Ayers, ah gits reeeeeeel skeered.
.
So prolly weel vote fer McCain.
.
.

Posted by: T-Prop | October 9, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

McCain, an American hero, is conducting the dirtiest campaign of which he should be ashamed. There is no honor in what he is doing during this campaign. I do not want a President who practices dirty politics. He is now hiding behind two skirts Cindy and Sarah...a pair of air heads! Poor Cindy! She has to compete with Palin, because she was pushed into the back ground with the appearance of Palin on the scene.

Palin calls herself a Christian, but her words and actions testify to the contrary. She has become the attack dog for McCain, and has no qualms inciting the mob. Palin has shown herself to be a low down mean spirited woman.

I am so proud of Michelle Obama, who was so classy on Larry King today, while answering questions about Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain, and their attacks on Obama. Michelle showed what a true Christian is all about, with her kind remarks about the McCains and Palin.

Posted by: pion54eer | October 9, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

It's pretty bad when you hate your former boss.

It's worse than pretty bad when you hate him because he knows that you've behaved in a way that could do serious damage to him.

But you go, Dick Morris.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree on what was said in this post. There are two arguments one being that yes McCain doesn't like the "knife fight" part of politics, and he is qualified to win without an attack. On the disagreeing side McCain didn't have the option of asking Obama about Ayers because the questions came from the people in the town meeting and Tom Brocov, furthermore an attack like that would not have gone well only poisoning McCain's reputation. But for all we know he would have made an attack if he could have or he just decided not to because he wants to win without trying to sabatoge his opponent. Who knows?

Posted by: ralphbray | October 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Dick Morris get caught with his pants down in a DC bathroom while he was working for Bill Clinton?

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

THE OBAMA-AYERS CONNECTION-AND OF COURSE THE BIG FIX REZKO THE CORRUPTION KING OF CHICAGO WHOSE HOUSING PROJECTS FAILED IN OBAMA'S DISTRICT WHERE THE RATS RAN IN THE BUILDINGS AND THE TENANTS GOT NO HEAT IN WINTER-

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on October 7, 2008

In the best tradition of Bill Clinton's famous declaration that the answer to the question of whether or not he was having an affair with Monica depended on "what the definition of 'is' is," Barack Obama was clearly splitting hairs and concealing the truth when he said that William Ayers was "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood."

The records of the administration of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), released last week by the University of Illinois, show that the Ayers-Obama connection was, in fact, an intimate collaboration and that it led to the only executive or administrative experience in Obama's life.

After Walter Annenberg's foundation offered several hundred million dollars to American public schools in the mid-'90s, William Ayers applied for $50 million for Chicago. The purpose of his application was to secure funds to "raise political consciousness" in Chicago's public schools. After he won the grant, Ayers's group chose Barack Obama to distribute the money. Between 1995 and 1999, Obama distributed the $50 million and raised another $60 million from other civic groups to augment it. In doing so, he was following Ayers's admonition to grant the funds to "external" organizations, like American Community Organizations for Reform

Now (ACORN) to pair with schools and conduct programs to radicalize the students and politicize them.

Reading, math and science achievement tests counted for little in the CAC grants, but the school's success in preaching a radical political agenda determined how much money they got.

Barack Obama should have run screaming at the sight of William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn. Ayers has admitted bombing the U.S. Capitol building and the Pentagon, and his wife was sent to prison for failing to cooperate in solving the robbery of a Brink's armored car in which two police officers were killed. Far from remorse, Ayers told The New York Times in September 2001 that he "wished he could have done more."

Ayers only avoided conviction when the evidence against him turned out to be contained in illegally obtained wiretaps by the FBI. He was, in fact, guilty as sin.

That Obama should ally himself with Ayers is almost beyond understanding. The former terrorist had not repented of his views and the education grants he got were expressly designed to further them.

So let's sum up Obama's Chicago connections. His chief financial supporter was Tony Rezko, now on his way to federal prison. His spiritual adviser and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of "God damn America" fame. And the guy who got him his only administrative job and put him in charge of doling out $50 million is William Ayers, a terrorist who was a domestic Osama bin Laden in his youth.

Even apart from the details of the Obama/Ayers connection, two key points emerge:

a) Obama lied and misled the American people in his description of his relationship with Ayers as casual and arm's-length; and

b) Obama was consciously guided by Ayers's radical philosophy, rooted in the teachings of leftist Saul Alinksy, in his distribution of CAC grant funds.

Since Obama is asking us to let him direct education spending by the federal government and wants us to trust his veracity, these are difficulties he will have to explain in order to get the votes to win.

Now that Obama is comfortably ahead in the polls, attention will understandably shift to him. We will want to know what kind of president he would make. The fact that, within the past 10 years, he participated in a radical program of political education conceptualized by an admitted radical terrorist offers no reassurance.

Why did Obama put up with Ayers? Because he got a big job and $50 million of patronage to distribute to his friends and supporters in Chicago. Why did he hang out with Jeremiah Wright? Because he was new in town, having grown up in Hawaii and Indonesia and having been educated at Columbia and Harvard, and needed all the local introductions he could get to jump-start his political career. Why was he so close to Rezko?

Because he funded Obama's campaigns and helped him buy a house for $300,000 less than he otherwise would have had to pay.

Not a good recommendation for a president.

Posted by: mharwick | October 8, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

I have a question for McCain supporters.

What did Dwight Eisenhower mean when he coined the term "military industrial complex"?

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Popasmoke, I think ya done went and got him skeewered, doncha know.

It would take a typical American family about 10 generations to pay for the aircraft John McCain crashed *before* he crashed in Viet Nam.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

WHO IS THE REAL JOHN MCCAIN?


THE Admiral SON.

In Oct. 26, 1967, the admiral's son while flying his 23rd mission over North Vietnam, once again fell from the sky, this time landing in the hands of a brutal enemy. He was beaten and bayoneted. His shoulder was smashed and his right calf was nearly perpendicular to his knee.
The severely wounded McCain was finally thrown on the back of a truck and hauled to the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison camp. Immediately, his captors began to interrogate him using sadistic methods they had perfected on hundreds of captured U.S. servicemen before him.

His interrogators demanded military information. When he refused, his guards kicked and pounded him mercilessly.
McCain admits that three to four days after he was captured, he promised the Vietnamese, "I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."
McCain also admits that the Vietnamese rushed him to a hospital, but denies he was given "special medical treatment" because of his promise.
He claims he was given medical care normally unavailable to captured Americans only because the Vietnamese learned he was the son of Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., the soon-to-be commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific including those fighting in Vietnam.

The Vietnamese figured that because POW McCain's father was of such high military rank that he was of royalty or the governing circle in the United States. Thereafter the communist bragged that they had captured "the crown prince"and treated him as a "special prisoner."

Less than two weeks after McCain was taken to a hospital, Hanoi's press began quoting him giving specific military information, including the name of the aircraft carrier on which he was based, numbers of U.S. pilots that had been lost, the number of aircraft in his flight, information about location of rescue ships and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place.
There is also evidence that McCain received "special" medical treatment from a Soviet physician.

After he was out of the hospital, McCain continued cooperating with the North Vietnamese for a period of three years. He made radio broadcasts for the communists and met with foreign delegations, including the Cubans. He was interviewed by at least two North Vietnamese generals one of whom was Vietnam's national hero, General Vo Nguyen Giap.

On June 4, 1969, a U.S. wire service story headlined "PW Songbird Is Pilot Son of Admiral," reported one of McCain's radio broadcasts: "Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of the United States commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain, purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner.
McCain says he violated the Code of Conduct only when the North Vietnamese brutally tortured him. He further claims that he was so distraught afterwards that he tried to commit suicide. He has never explained why his "aid to the enemy" continued for more than three years.

Even though there are no reports in the public record from other POWs who witnessed McCain's claims of torture and heroics or his attempted suicide, the American media has accepted his version of events word for word, no questions asked.

Yet, the same press that transformed the admiral's son into an "incredible war hero--an inspiration to all Americans," vilified the two grunts.
Comparing the incidents surrounding the fates of three POWs,' who collaborated with the enemy, makes one question why two faced possible execution for treason, while the third won acclaim as a hero fit to be President of the United States.
Once more, Lady Luck had smiled on John McCain . . . or was it the admiral?


Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

1. Bush postponed release of the intelligence report UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION (because -according to the McClatchy news - the report backs Obama's wise perception that the war in Iraq depends on political factors in Iraq, such as the relationship between the Kurds in the north, who have oil, and the Ba'athists, who do not have oil.

2. Bush ended the planned small consulate in Iran (until after the election), because talking to the Iranians is an Obama model and McCain would look bad (worse) if Bush does what Obama says we should be doing.

Vote Obama in 08

Posted by: ottothewise | October 8, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Inewsmaster wrote, "As Cheney would put it; "McCain is in his last throes" He should consider loosing in an honorable way (even though he doesn't know he's loosing) and not as "Mr Sleaze" which would just show how desperate he is. He should walk-the-talk and lose the campaign rather than lose his honor."

I can think of no reason to expect a Republican candidate for president to act so honorably.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

When people realize that the McCain health care plan will cost them $5,000 per person, even after the $2,500 per person tax write-off,
they will vote OBAMA in 08.

An individual cannot buy the same level of coverage for $2,500 as people are currently getting from employer group plans. The lobbyists intention is to make all citizens have individual plans, because then individuals dont get the benefit of group rate purchasing power. Subtle but worth BILLIONS for the insurance companies whose lobbyists who are working for the McCain campaign.

Those same billions will pay for tens of millions of newly covered people, under the Obama plan.

Thank you for voting Obama in O8. Save your health insurance coverage.

Posted by: ottothewise | October 8, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

McCain's health care plan will end the employer paid coverage for 20 million Americans. Do you think you can use the $2,500 per person health care money from McCain to get new coverage on the street. 1. Not. 2. You have to pay taxes on your health care coverage if your employer does NOT drop you in the McCain era. The value of the employer portion will be taxed. Likely that the $2,500 wont cover it.

That's the McCain tax plan. It was written by lobbyists for the health care industry.
You can look it up on some independent website.


Posted by: ottothewise | October 8, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Bush postponed release of the intelligence report because it backs Obama's claim that the war in Iraq depends on political factors in Iraq, such as the relationship between the Kurds in the north, who have oil, and the Ba'athists, who do not have oil.

Bush ended the planned small consulate in Iran, because talking to the Iranians is an Obama model and McCain would look bad if Bush does what Obama says we should be doing.

Vote Obama in 08 and end the war in IRAN. Yep. Iran. End it before McCain starts one.

Posted by: ottothewise | October 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Do we know that KMichaels is male?

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Actually "KMichaels" is one of those maggots, that benefits by outsourcing American technology jobs, displacing American workers with cheap Indian workers. This piece of filth, this parasite deserves to be treated like a rabid dog. He has forfeited all rights to citizenship by his treason and lies and racist filth. Actually, anyone in the outsourcing industry, anyone who makes their living off this base injustice, harming American citizens, should be treated like scum and made to PAY for that crime as the sort of criminal they are.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

I have been a lifelong Republican (I'm 62 years old), but enough is enough. McCain, with his erratic, hotheaded, nasty behavior has lost my vote.

There are four things that should matter: the issues, character, intelligence, and experience. Experience may well be the least important - after all, George W. Bush was very experienced when we reelected him, and look where that got us. McCain's trials as a POW are being touted as evidence of character and experience, but the opposite may be true. He certainly deserves respect and sympathy for what he went through (he has mine), but it may actually have left him with residual anger that would compromise his ability to govern rationally. Having been a POW is no training for serving as President of the United States.

Intelligence is VERY important - these last eight years have been The United States of Stupid. It's becoming more and more clear to me that Obama is both more intelligent and has a more stable personality than McCain.

McCain's "That One" jibe on Tuesday night may be a minor blip in comparison with the overwhelmingly difficult issues we face now, but it does illuminate his personality problem - nasty, impulsive, and condescending. What if he were in negotiation with a foreign leader and indulged in such talk in an angry moment? We don't want a president with a self-control problem.

Posted by: David1946 | October 8, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

I guess because I have an irresistible urge to become disreputable, I would like to say:

If you make $20/week more than what you spend, and are under the age of 50, get thee to a stock index mutual fund, and start investing $20/week. Also consider preferred stock mutual funds which are now paying dividends around 9 per cent taxed at the dividend rate.

It would be a heck of a lot smarter than starting at a market top.

My grandfather grew up on a farm and did decently for himself using a strategy like this during the great depression.

The bad news is, it may be 14 years before you see gains.

The good news is, if you stick to the plan, the gains you will eventually see will be dramatic enough to allow you to retire comfortably - assuming that the government doesn't take your land under some eminent domain claim.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that marcscoular actually wrote:

"Please save us.... ANOTHER STRATEGY. Thankfully this "shoot and then aim" candidate will fade into a footnote on the most bizarre campaign since we became a nation.

""Annoy a conservative, think for yourself""

because it seems so true. Is it possible that the reality-based community is about to take control? Be still my heart

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

In the last 8 years, Bush has spent $10 trillion and has NOTHING to show for it, except a world that teeters on the brink of a depression. He will live in infamy as the worst President in U.S. History.

Posted by: hamishdad | October 8, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Another thing McCain changed tactics on was buying out people's bad loans. Come on, I know the bankers are greedy but people know what they can afford. To quote a song, this campaign is giving me a case of Electile Dysfunction:

http://www.youtube.com/ElectileDysfunction

Posted by: Cheezit | October 8, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

"KMichaels and the rest of you neocon trash and paid flunkies of the McCain campaign, your hate, lies and trash is not going to work this time. You are going down and your McChicken and McMoose fast foods are going down with you. Good riddance."

Hush, as we speak, he is carefully examining the voting records of all US and Illinois Senators over the past fifteen years in order to compare them using a metric he generated in order to prove that Obama is the most liberal Senator among all members of the US and Illinois Senates.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Please save us.... ANOTHER STRATEGY. Thankfully this "shoot and then aim" candidate will fade into a footnote on the most bizarre campaign since we became a nation.

"Annoy a conservative, think for yourself"

Posted by: markscoular | October 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

That John McFail guy has the most menacing smile. I see why they call him Gollum and Smeagal. Kinda scary.

Posted by: qikceltic | October 8, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Why would America REWARD complete Republican failure ?

We wont.

Posted by: PulSamsara | October 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

As Cheney would put it; "McCain is in his last throes" He should consider loosing in an honorable way (even though he doesn't know he's loosing) and not as "Mr Sleaze" which would just show how desperate he is. He should walk-the-talk and lose the campaign rather than lose his honor.

Posted by: inewsmaster | October 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

that one


landslide


that one


landslide


that one


that one


that one

Posted by: BudG024 | October 8, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/10/fear-and-loathing-in-town-hall.html

Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Fear and Loathing in the Town Hall: A Predictive Fantasy

(The camera looks at the hall from above, into the hall, from the POV of the stage. Red meat has been hung from the walls and rafters, along with dollar bills which, upon closer inspection, are prop money.

The crowd is seated. They are strangely quiet. Their manner is that between those who are waiting for their instructions, post-op surgical recoverees, and post-war survivors. They are slightly slumped, in the same posture.

The candidates enter from opposite sides of the rear of the stage and walk to their podiums. The crowd rises as one and cheers with a loud, aggressive fervor reflective of their desperation.

Obama is standing tall in stride, looking a bit overcome by the experience, although genuine. McCain is smiling--his cheerful public grimace, although there is some genuine pleasure. His eyes have the slightest glaze of a gradually oncoming fog.)

MODERATOR: Tonight is a different format--one where you, the public, can ask your questions directly to the candidates. None of the questions have been screened in advance, and the candidates have been given no advance notice of what the questions, or who the questioners, might be. And with that, we begin. Our first question:

CITIZEN 1: My name is Jan, I'm from Murfreesboro? I've been watching the news, and I'm scared. I can't say that I've listened much about the stock market before? But I know that it's going down, and that's bad. I don't know what's going to happen to my job, or my house, or my kids. My question is for Mr. McCain? What will you do to help us understand what is going on, and to make it clear just what you will do about it?

(Crowd applauds vigorously as Jan sits down with a bit of embarrassment).

MCCAIN: (Holding the top of the rostrum with both hands and smiling): Well, first, I want to welcome each of you here tonight. You know, I know what each of you are feeling. I think that each of you must be scared--as I am, of not verifying myself in my father's and my grandfather's eyes. But, that's not so important today--or, at least saying it isn't. What is most important is to appear that I understand an economy that just months ago I said that I had little understanding of at all. I want to win. I need it, frankly, as a way of overcoming my own personal horrors and demons, of overcoming the anger that was bestowed and thrust, unwillingly, upon me. And that's why I'm still willing, even as the sharpest edges of mental function fade, to propel myself through this mass of insult. I understand how to respond to insult. With anger. And impulse. And that's what I'll bring to the White House, come January of 2009.

(Crowd applauds vigorously)

MODERATOR: The next question is for Senator Obama.

CITIZEN 2: Thanks. My name is Ross, from Shreveport. First-time caller, long-time listener. My question is: Senator Obama, it's not an error that you were given the middle name "Barack". We know that that is the same name of the murderous. Communist leader of Iran--and that's no accident. (A slight murmur from the crowd. The moderator looks vaguely stunned, but does not interrupt). Now, when you were going to Russia, with Bill Ayers, and dodging the draft--just like William Jefferson Clinton--(speaking more quickly now, more aggressively, turning to the crowd)--why weren't you here at home, saving our banks from the Liberals and the Socialists who want to take our money away from us and just give it to the terrorists?

SARAH PALIN: (Poking her head out from the wings, with a big smile): You betcha'!

(She withdraws).

OBAMA: Well. First of all, I also want to welcome you all here tonight. You know, I know that this is a difficult time. Many of you are worried about your jobs, your families, your homes. There are times that test a man's soul, and every woman's as well. And I know that this may be one of those times. I can understand why you would be frightened, even angry at what this nation has done. But we are a nation that has risen up in adversity even in the best of times, we found our strength, and honor, and courage, our ability to work as one, when faced with the most difficult situations. And I want to call on each of you, in that spirit of patriotic sacrifice, to join with me in that effort in the days ahead.

(Silence. Then applause, as the recognition of actual thought begins to spread through the crowd. It swells, and finally, subsides).

MODERATOR: The next question is for Senator McCain.

CITIZEN 3 (He is a man who appears to be in his early 40's wearing blue jeans that are stiff and obviously brand-new. They are perfectly creased. He is wearing a tight fitting, also obviously new T-Shirt that says "Average American...And Black With Rage!" beneath which is an American flag. He is wearing black wing-tip shoes. ). Senator McCain, I'm just an average American, just an average Joe, just your Average Joe-Sixpack (Blackberry begins ringing)...Oh...
excuse me...just...a...sec...my boss's phone...(whispering tensely into phone:) "No...I said sell. Sell. Yes, the entire portfolio. No, not Ghanan timber, for god's sake, gold, the lot of it. Jesus H....(tucks Blackberry back into pants pocket and then readjusts his stance to that of average Joe, slumping to one side again and changing his voice back to it's original tenor). Like I said, just an average Joe Sixpack. And I'm wonderin'. I heard what Mr. Hussein just said about "rising up", and I'm wonderin' if that's exactly what he wants to do! Oh, sure, he wants us to band together to rise up--where have we heard that before? Socialists! That's what they do! (crowd begins to murmur, and in the rising heat, the smell of the fresh meat begins to waft faintly through the hall). Rise up! That's what he wants to do! Well, we need to rise up! Against those kind of Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Atheist, Marxist policies! (the crowd is talking, some nodding their heads). And so what I want to ask you, Sen. McCain (crowd quiets), as an average everyday American, is this: What is it like, being a fighter pilot and all, when you know that Barack Hussein was out there, palling around with his Communist friends?

MCCAIN: Well, my friend--and by that, I mean that all of you are my friends--I'm glad you asked. Not everyone has had the luxury of gaining an education merely on the basis of their own talent, or the opportunity to travel the world learning how to be separate from important family members without their having significant pull, or to be able to experience the variety of foods that one has the chance to consume when they are paid for by the State. And, I can say that, in that way, I haven't been quiet as lucky. But I will say this--I will not look such fortune in the face and say: 'Fine, I'll work on education with the Bill Ayers of this world', "I'll be at the top of my class at Harvard", when I can be down, down there with you at the bottom! I know what it's like to be at the bottom when I've had all the opportunities--and I want to share that experience with those of you who have had none. You're angry. I'm angry. We have that in common. Let's be angry together, satisfied that, for another for four years, we've put those who have the arrogance to think for extended periods in their place, content in knowing that we're right--even if we're wrong.

CITIZEN 4: Hiya. My name is George, from Midland, altho' some would say Kennebunkport, heh, heh. I have a question for ya, John, and it's this. Listen: I'm goin' to be out of a job soon. Oil futures aren't lookin' that good, and I've got to tell ya', I didn't have too much luck there in the first place. So I'd like to ask ya, one flyin' man to another--what do you think I oughta do?

PALIN: (emerges from wings with purposeful strides to McCain's podium): I've got to take this one, John. Mr. Bush, if you can't figure out what you want to do after you leave and we move in, take a little time off, and then you come right up to Alaska. They love hunting just like you--and you can fly, you can learn to do it from a plane! The pipeline's big enough for any number of mistakes. So you come up here when you're finished--we've got plenty of bars with plenty of bowls of nuts and plenty of televisions right on Wasiila Main street--we'll take care of you right!

(Bush smiles and sits, crowd applauds, Palin, smiling and waving, exits).

CITIZEN 5: Well, look. This is a serious question. I'm John, from Carpenter. It's for both of you. I've got two kids, 4 and 6, a boy and a girl--so sweet. You know. My wife, she was working for the WaMu branch, center of town. It's closing next week. She's been looking in the ads, the newspapers, online--nothing. It's all she can do to keep a smile on her face for the kids. Myself, I built a commerical trucking business from the ground up. Sixteen years. Sweat everyday, grease on my hands, I can never get it out. We were never rich, but I made a good living. I didn't know about investing--who does, you're not born with it! Anyway, I went to an investment advisor, it seemed like the safe thing to do, protect the kids, plan for the future, not use my own dumb head (smiles). Well, he was so smart, and he was so sure, and he had it all planned out. And it looked so impressive on paper. Now--all of a sudden--it's gone. Everything is changing. It's changing so quickly. It seems like nobody--nobody knew. Not even the people who were supposed to! Everybody was talkin', makin noise, thinkin' of one thing: Themselves, themselves, themselves. Never worrying to think about someone else, about the future, about the next moment.

Well, now the next moment is here. And I wanna know--what are the two of you really going to do about it?

(The room is quiet as his last word echoes in the hall. The raw meat is rocking, slowly in the air, and the paper bills are gently fluttering). You can see Palin in profile, standing in the wings, holding her chin in her hand. The two candidates stare straight ahead, holding the podium. They are silent).


Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/10/fear-and-loathing-in-town-hall.html

Posted by: caraprado1 | October 8, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Mccain has a senior moment and POW flash back. Reminiscent of Jack Lemmon in the movie "Save the Tiger". as a man who is slowly losing his mind with flash back from the war. Lemmon is giving a speech when he has one of his flash backs much like Mccain did today. Be sure to catch the look on Palin's face who is standing behind her. Mccain is completely oblivious to what he had said..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFm5kK4f1k

Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

John McCain's fighting both history and Sarah Palin this election. The "guilt by association" argument (aka "palling around with X") is a no win situation for him and is sinking him further behind in the polls.

1. Charles Keating.

2. Sarah Palin's terrorist pals.

So maybe that's why he's recycling the dreaded "L word" (liberals) this month. There aren't many more tactics left for him. He can't announce he's going to suspend his campaign (again), during the debate he pulled out of his hat a "new" $350 billion plan to buy out bad mortgages but I think that only confused people, and he's looking and sounding increasingly testy and unwell as the campaign goes on.

It's never over until it's over. But it's close to over.

Posted by: votepalin | October 8, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Oldgeek143 wrote:

"John Mc Cain and Sarah Palin are dangerous people who apparently will say or do anything to promote their own self interests. They are after all the modern era Republicans who are willing to violate the Constitution of the United States in the name of the cause of the moment.

"If they think the Weather men were a threat in the 60's they need to look at themselves today."

=============================

Bravo!

I'm more concerned about the risk that my government can imprison me forever without showing cause to a court, than I am about the fact that Obama served on several perfectly respectably boards with William Ayers.

I'm more concerned that Sarah Palin might occupy the White House than I am concerned with Obama's religion - and I think his former pastor's being smeared.

If brownshirts and skinheads are your thing, do McCain/Palin.

If not, you know what to do. And don't be overconfident because polls say Obama wins.

VOTE

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels and the rest of you neocon trash and paid flunkies of the McCain campaign, your hate, lies and trash is not going to work this time. You are going down and your McChicken and McMoose fast foods are going down with you. Good riddance.

Posted by: skolniks | October 8, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels - You are a craven, dirty racist little swine. I just turned on the television and watch Palin gin up a crowd of bedwetters and idiots like you. This mod was screaming about shooting Obama, "kill him", they were screaming. It looked more like a KKK rally than anything I have ever seen. And your moron, your despicable cow, your little tarted up ex beauty queen was SMILING and urging the mob on. I think people here have finally figured out what sort of monster you are. What you are is a complete and total failure. An idiot who has never done anything, will never amount to anything, a loathsome racist, a tiny insignificant piece of trash that cries out to be discarded.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 8, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Senator Mc Cain's people are looking at their polling data and realize that unless they can turn the tide, they lose. It is now time for another "hail mary" and this time it's to go as negative at the expense of decency.

John Mc Cain knows how effective that approach can be, it was used against him in 2000. Sarah Palin who has for her entire life just traded on her looks, will say or do anything to get elected, the perfect person to play the pit bull in heels.

John Mc Cain and Sarah Palin are dangerous people who apparently will say or do anything to promote their own self interests. They are after all the modern era Republicans who are willing to violate the Constitution of the United States in the name of the cause of the moment.

If they think the Weather men were a threat in the 60's they need to look at themselves today.

Posted by: oldgeek143 | October 8, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Correct. Mac has no credible path on the electroral map to 270.

As you point out, he MUST win a number of states where he is now behind by double digits. For example, he is down 10 in VA and that is a real number.

A great article today says the so-called Bradley effect may be non-existent this year. It points out in the recent Harold Ford Senate race, his final vote exceeded the final day's polling. So the 11-point Gallup poll lead for O may well be real. Also O needs only get to 269, not 270, because of the Dem House of Representatives.

Out of desperation on Mac's side, count on non-stop racial junk and attempts at creating bogus controversies from now until Nov. 4.
_______

"Maybe, but he's going to have to run the table in VA, NC, FL, OH, MO, CO and NV. The polling doesn't support that scenario."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 8, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

armpeg wrote, "[Obama] stayed and supported this racist cult for more than 20 years."

--------------

"Sammy, I wish I felt just a little better....I would like to go back down there and make them one more Democratic speech. I just feel like I have one in me. The poor old state, they haven't heard a Democratic speech in thirty years.

"All they ever hear at election time is 'Nigra, Nigra, Nigra.'"

- Lyndon Baines Johnson, New Orleans, October 9, 1964

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Changing tactics? I don't think so.

I just put up a comrehensive piece on Senator McCain. It shows a campaign style more reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy, than anyone else.

I also let Mr. McCain have the last word via video. It is footage he will come to regret, taken from his failed 2000 campaign.

"McCain's Campaign Tactics Show He Is Unfit To Lead"
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccains-campaign-tactics-show-he-is.html

Posted by: scootmandubious | October 8, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I recognized the Murtagh story, and found it - from back in April at the New York Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/04/30/2008-04-30_barack_obama_pal_is_an_enemy_too.html
clkip:
Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family's life, there was never any doubt who was behind it.

Of course the bombing was wrong, but this is 'proof'? It doesn't sound like any of the other Weather Underground bombs which were clearly arranged to NOT hurt anyone, and yet Murtagh is ready to act as judge, jury and executioner for Ayers? I think we should chalk this up to a traumatic experience, but not take it as an incontrovertible 'fact' that Ayers did this. I'm just sayin'....

Posted by: TomJx | October 8, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Popasmoke, to summaraize a lengthy argument, neocon pundits like William Kristol - who's been a McCain supporter since at least 2000 - have, in the name of supporting Israel, done more damage to her cause than anyone since Nasser.

Almost as important to Israel's future as "what happens in Israeli politics" is, what happens in the politics of her most powerful ally.

That's where Kristol and his ilk are a danger to the security of Israel.

I'm fully aware that this post will likely elicit vermin. Let's see where they come from.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

...let's sum up Obama's Chicago connections.......Not a good recommendation for a president......


But not on enough voter's radar screens who are scared to death about their 401s, their kids college funds, their job, their homes and the overall economy.

Can McCain sow enough doubt about Obama with enough undecideds to win the WH ?

Maybe, but he's going to have to run the table in VA, NC, FL, OH, MO, CO and NV. The polling doesn't support that scenario.

And you can't come across as a whirling dervish, as McCain has these last three weeks on the major issue that's on a majority of voters minds.

Politics is about winning. And right now McCain doesn't have a winning strategy (or a winning message). In fact he has never really had one.

Posted by: mathas | October 8, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Palin is now being refereed to as a "CANCER ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY". by other republicans.
Some people like her, the rest don't just not care for her, they "HATE" her.
I have been getting email the last several days from democrats all over the country encouraging everyone to just vote democrat across the board. Everyone I know is doing it and this all since Palin and her campaign of hate began. Mccain is in his last death roll and he is taking the rest of the republican party with him. If your name has an "R" next to it, I don't care what a great guy you are you are getting voted out. Republicans now have plenty to worry about if they didn't already. This is being done by millions.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

blevins20061, America knows about Resko, Ayers, Rev. Wright, O's middle name, flagpins, and all the other idiotic distractions. Why? Because Faux News and media lemmings devoted about an entire month of onstop coverage to each of these pinheaded topics. Herr Hannity even had specials on them.

But we are grateful for your repeating this defamatory bilge for the 1234th time because it didn't sink in the first 1233 times we heard it. What this rubbish has to do with health care, national security, the economic meltdown, or any legitimate policy issue is beyond me.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 8, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

McCain hasn't changed tactics enough. What he should tell the American people is that Barack Obama is a racist white--hater and America--hater. Obama was a member and supporter of that vile racist Trinity UFC church for more than 20 years, and no one becomes a member and a supporter of a religious cult like that unless they agree with what's going on and what was being done. If McCain or Palin had been 20 year members of a church or club that was expousing hatred for BLACKS and falsely claiming that BLACKS were giving white people AID's in order to cause geocide among whites, they'd be nailed to the cross by blacks, liberal white Democrats, and the Democratic Party--controlled MSM. Barack Obama's 20 year membership with that racist hate-church speaks for itself. If he had had any decency, honesty, and was truly a man that abhors racial hatred and, like MLK, believed in a racialy blind society and the goodness of all people and races as he now claims in order to get the useful white idiot vote, he would have left that vile racist hate--church long ago. Instead he stayed and supported this racist cult for more than 20 years.

Posted by: armpeg | October 8, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Latest national polls: O up 10 in Daily Kos and 11 in Gallup (his highest number yet in that poll). And this is based on polling before the "That One" debate.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 8, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

let's sum up Obama's Chicago connections. His chief financial supporter was Tony Rezko, now on his way to federal prison. His spiritual advisor and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of "God damn America" fame. And the guy who got him his only administrative job and put him in charge of doling out $50 million is Ayers, a terrorist who was a domestic Osama bin Laden in his youth.

Even apart from the details of the Obama-Ayers connection, two key points emerge:

-- Obama lied and misled the American people in his description of his relationship with Ayers as casual and arm's length; and

-- Obama was consciously guided by Ayers' radical philosophy, rooted in the teachings of leftist Saul Alinksy, in his distribution of ACA grant funds.

Since Obama is asking us to let him direct education spending by the federal government and wants us to trust his veracity, these are difficulties he will have to explain in order to get the votes to win.

Now that Obama is comfortably ahead in the polls, attention will understandably shift to him. We will want to know what kind of president he would make. The fact that, within the past 10 years he participated in a radical program of political education conceptualized by an admitted radical terrorist offers no reassurance.

Why did Obama put up with Ayers? Because he got a big job and $50 million of patronage to distribute to his friends and supporters in Chicago. Why did he hang out with Wright? Because he was new in town, having grown up in Hawaii and Indonesia and having been educated at Columbia and Harvard, and needed all the local introductions he could get to jumpstart his political career. Why was he so close to Rezko? Because he funded Obama's campaigns and helped him buy a house for $300,000 less than he otherwise would have had to pay.

Not a good recommendation for a president.

Posted by: blevins20061 | October 8, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

It's bad enough that McCain has knuckled under to the same people (Bush/Karl Rove) who trashed his family so bad in 2000 that, according to his wife, his adopted daughter was in tears. John McCain won't even stand up for his own family, and he doesn't have the guts to look Obama in the eye. McCain learned the wrong lessons from the 2000 GOP primary, thinking that all he had to do was win a race to the bottom in order to win the highest office in the country. Now, he's a prisoner of the same people who abused him before, and he's losing.


John McCain sold his soul and he has nothing to show for it. No wonder he's lashing out.


For all these reasons, the thing to highlight is that John McCain, after bouncing from campaign gimmick to campaign gimmick, is freaking out. John McCain is a desperate loser and you can practically smell it. McCain is getting nasty and that will be the end of him. He's trapped between needing to lash out and needing to live down his reputation for being a volatile idiot.
.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html
.


Let McCain beat McCain, all we have to do is keep telling the truth about him and Side Show Caribou Barbie.
.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/obama_responds_to_mccains_angr.html
.


McCain's support has dwindled down to con-men and klansmen.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html
.


After years of supporting corruption and violence, McCain's career is nearly over, and he's willing to do anything to delay the final verdict. The problems of the country aren't even on McCain's mind. For McCain, it's all about McCain.


His campaign and his policies show that John McCain doesn't give a damn about this country.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Smearing his opponent with lies, distortions and race-based fear mongering is a course of conduct McSame "may have no choice but to take"?

Maybe not, since doing otherwise would require him to put "country first" - a paper-thin "strategy" he apparently is willing - and eager - to discard.

Posted by: bclark3 | October 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

There are a number of decent Republicans endorsing Obama, including the wife of Senator hagel, Susan Eisenhower, the President's grand daughter and Jim Leach, who served in Congress from 1977 to 2007. They said in so doing that well they respected Senator McCain and his service, that Senator Obama was the better candidate for the country. Putting country first is a two way street.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | October 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Why swim in this phony Ayers sewage? The media is an enabler here. Whatever Ayers did, O was 8 when he did it. Hannity, et al, just about wore this topic out months ago with 24/7 coverage. Who cares? Move on.

On all the other blogs (HuffPo, Daily Kos)they are talking about Mac's meltdown during the debates where: he called O "that one" (an insult practically everyone understood), refused to shake O's hand after the debate, and fled the scene right after the debate without meeting and greeting the real folks at the town hall (the ones he said he was so comfortable with) as O and Mrs. O did. BO and MO shook the hands of every single town hall participant.

There was also discussion on all the blogs of Mac's disrespecting the two AA questioners; Mac assumed one didn't know what Fannie Mae was (an assumption based on nothing) and he turned his back on the young girl who asked him about "green" jobs. Mac's snarly "that one" performance dominated Internet discussion everywhere --except here.

When you bring up Ayers and the other bogus distractions you are enabling the corruption of the political process.

"McCain has never been comfortable making harshly negative, personal attacks." Not even Mac's strongest supporters would buy into that mythology. Where did that come from? Even Mac himself would agree he lives for in-your-face, teeth-gritting, vein-bursting personal confrontation. This post should be condemning, not publicizing, this junk and demanding Mac get back to the issues, e.g., health care.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 8, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

McSenie is such a joke, Teddy Roosevelt was his hero,he miss quoted him. It is "Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far".Not talk softly, what a joke.
Connie from"Blue" Indiana

Posted by: grams1944 | October 8, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Petraeus Talk Seems to Bolster Obama
By SPENCER ACKERMAN 10/8/08 4:16 PM

Gen. David Petraeus (WDCpix)
Throughout Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, the Republican nominee has wrapped himself in the mantle of U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, proclaiming himself the leading advocate of the former commanding general in Iraq who devised last year’s controversial troop surge. Yet during a talk Wednesday about Iraq at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington policy organization, Petraeus repeatedly made statements that bolstered the foreign-policy proposals of Sen. Barack Obama, McCain’s Democratic rival, or cut against McCain’s own lines.
Petraeus relinquished command in Iraq last month. He assumes responsibility for U.S. Central Command later this month, putting him in charge of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
As a serving military officer, Petraeus attempted to avoid any explicit political discussion. “I’m not walking into minefields now,” Petraeus said, to laughter, when asked a question that referred to Tuesday night’s presidential debate. In fact, the general averred that he didn’t watch the debate.
Yet Petraeus, whether intentionally or not, often waded into areas of dispute between Obama and McCain involving Afghanistan, negotiating with adversaries and other recent campaign controversies. Each time, the general either lent tacit support to Obama or denied tacit support to McCain.
Unbidden, Petraeus discussed whether his strategy in Iraq — protecting the population while cleaving apart the insurgency through reconciliation efforts to crush the remaining hard-core enemies — could also work in Afghanistan. The question has particular salience as Petraeus takes over U.S. Central Command, which will put him at the helm of all U.S. troops in the Middle East and South Asia, thereby giving him a large role in the Afghanistan war.
“Some of the concepts used in Iraq are transplantable [to Afghanistan] while others perhaps are not,” he said. “Every situation is unique.”
Petraeus pointed to efforts by Hamid Karzai’s government to negotiate a deal with the Taliban that would potentially bring some Taliban members back to power, saying that if they are “willing to reconcile,” it would be “a positive step.”
In saying that, Petraeus implicitly allied with U.S. Army Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Last week, McKiernan rejected the idea of replicating the blend of counterinsurgency strategy employed in Iraq. “The word that I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word ’surge,’” McKiernan said, opting against recruiting Pashtun tribal fighters to supplement Afghan security forces against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. “There are countless other differences between Iraq and Afghanistan,” he added.
McCain, however, has argued that the Afghanistan war is ripe for a direct replication of Petraeus’ Iraq strategy of population-centric counterinsurgency. “Sen. Obama calls for more troops,” McCain said in the Sept. 26 debate, “but what he doesn’t understand, it’s got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.”
McCain qualified that statement in Tuesday’s debate, but clung to it while discussing Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Gen. Petraeus had a strategy,” McCain said, “the same strategy — very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation — but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.”
Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.
All that was the subject of one of the most contentious tussles between McCain and Obama in the first presidential debate, with Obama contending that his intent to negotiate with foreign adversaries without “precondition” did not mean that he would neglect diplomatic “preparation.”
McCain, apparently perceiving an opportunity for attack, Tuesday again used Obama’s comments to attack his judgment. “Sen. Obama, without precondition, wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions,” McCain said, referring to Iran.
Yet Petraeus emphasized throughout his lecture that reaching out to insurgent groups — some “with our blood on their hands,” he said — was necessary to the ultimate goal of turning them against irreconcilable enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Petraeus favorably cited the example of one of his British deputies, who in a previous assignment had to negotiate with Martin McGuiness of the Irish Republican Army, responsible for killing some of the British commander’s troops. The British officer, Petraeus said, occasionally wanted to “reach across the table” and choke his former adversary but understood that such negotiations were key to ending a war.
Petraeus reflected at length on the need to “take away and hold the strongholds and safe havens” possessed by Al Qaeda in Iraq during 2007 and 2008, saying that without doing so, the rest of the counterinsurgency strategy “won’t work.” While he did not initially make reference to Al Qaeda’s much greater presence in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, it was hard not to hear the overtones of the current argument over Pakistan policy between Obama and McCain.
McCain has attacked Obama for explicitly stating conditions under which he would order U.S. military action against the senior leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, deriding that by saying Obama is “going to attack Pakistan,” while advocating that the Pakistanis perform the task instead of U.S. troops.
Barbara Starr of CNN attempted to draw Petraeus out further, asking him about the importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, believed to be in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Petraeus did not tip his hand on advocating anything, saying merely, “clearly, Osama bin Laden remains very important, if for no other reason than sheer symbolic importance,” and warning that “decapitating” Al Qaeda would not end the threat from a jihadist entity that he compared to a “syndicate.”
He did, however, say that he was encouraged by what he called signs that the Pakistanis “increasingly see an existential threat to their country being in FATA,” referring to the tribal areas — something that might gel with McCain’s stated preference.
Naturally, since Petraeus centered his hour-plus talk on progress in Iraq, McCain could fairly claim to be closer to the general than Obama — who opposed the surge — on the subject. But, particularly given the Republican-friendly audience, it was remarkable as well what Petraeus did not say.
Unlike his three recent rounds of congressional testimony, Petraeus did not discuss withdrawal from Iraq. He did not issue warnings that withdrawal — which Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki support, while McCain instead calls for “victory” — would lead to a downward spiral of violence.
While the general warned that there were several “potential storm clouds” threatening to undermine progress, he said that Iraq was on a more stable footing since his last appearance on Capitol Hill in April. He never said terms like “victory” or “success” that McCain uses, and which the GOP nominee frequently chides Obama for avoiding.
The Heritage Foundation crowd clearly loved hearing from Petraeus. The think tank’s executive vice president, Philip Truluck, referred to Petraeus’ “history-making service in Iraq” before the audience greeted the general with the first of two prolonged standing ovations. A questioner proclaimed himself “honored and proud to be in the same room with you.”
Petraeus has repeatedly averred that he has no interest in running for president. “I think that Gen. Sherman had it right,” he told Fox News’s Chris Wallace in December, when asked if he’d run, referring to Sherman’s famous declaration that if nominated he would not run, and if elected, he would not serve.
But given McCain’s recent lagging poll numbers, perhaps many at Heritage hope Petraeus will change his mind before 2012.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Want some more?


Posted by: feastorafamine

so is Mccain wrong or right? you can't seem to make up your mind. If you have a mind, that is.

the problem with using someone's words against themselves is it implies you agree with them. but you forgot to chant the line about Mccain knowing nothing about economics right before you brag about his deep and solid knowledge.

I for one, don't think Mccain has any clue abour economics. Obama less so.

this is pretty much textbook stuff here. there are no economists left in congress - pretty much all lawyers now. see how well that worked out. and now you wish to elect another lawyer to lead the rest of the shysters.

I guess that makes sense.....if you're a Lib with no capability of independent thought, as you have aptly demonstrated.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 7:03 PM
----------------------------------
Oh i have my mind made up. Mccain seems to have a problem doing that. He now FAVORS regulation when he spent a lifetime OPPOSING it. See we call that FLIP-FLOPPING. A term i am sure you are familiar with. I myself am in FAVOR of regulation always have been. No confusion here buddy. Your candidate seems to have that problem. Please dont make me get quotes just weeks PRIOR to the bailout in which McCain rails AGAINST regulation only to be quoted over and over AFTER the bailout being in FAVOR of regulation.

You suggest that somehow because McCain tows a party line about deregulation that he know something about economics? He himself is quoted as saying...

McCain said ... "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff,'' he said. "But I would like to have someone I'm close to that really is a good strong economist. As long as Alan Greenspan is around I would certainly use him for advice and counsel."

Because he favors deregulation doesnt make his lack of knowledge on the subject an educated one. One can have an opinion (however ill-infomed) and still no nothing about which they speak. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I take it from this last post your tired of being hammered by a "dumb liberal" right? You have already called your own candidate ignorant on the economy. You want some more? I'm your huckleberry. The more you talk the less credible you look and so does your candidate. As for your constant assertion about independant thought how about me also putting a portion of the blame for deregulation at the feet of Bill Clinton. That sounds like inmdependant thought to me. But then again you dont know me. I know you prefer your stereotypes so go ahead and keep them. A person with "independant" thinking such as yourself probably wouldnt be working with sterortypes but then again what do i know right?

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse


JOHN MCCAIN LEADER OR MADMAN
YOU BE THE JUDGE.

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. “This is war,” he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.


Erik Jacobs for The New York Times
John McCain said he had consulted Henry A. Kissinger on foreign policy before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.

Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”

Now, as Mr. McCain prepares to accept the Republican presidential nomination, his response to the attacks of Sept. 11 opens a window onto how he might approach the gravest responsibilities of a potential commander in chief. Like many, he immediately recalibrated his assessment of the unseen risks to America’s security. But he also began to suggest that he saw a new “opportunity” to deter other potential foes by punishing not only Al Qaeda but also Iraq.

“Just as Sept. 11 revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand our freedom,” Mr. McCain told a NATO conference in Munich in early 2002, urging the Europeans to join what he portrayed as an all but certain assault on Saddam Hussein. “A better world is already emerging from the rubble.”

To his admirers, Mr. McCain’s tough response to Sept. 11 is at the heart of his appeal. They argue that he displayed the same decisiveness again last week in his swift calls to penalize Russia for its incursion into Georgia, in part by sending peacekeepers to police its border.

His critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region.

“He has the personality of a fighter pilot: when somebody stings you, you want to strike out,” said retired Gen. John H. Johns, a former friend and supporter of Mr. McCain who turned against him over the Iraq war. “Just like the American people, his reaction was: show me somebody to hit.”

Whether through ideology or instinct, though, Mr. McCain began making his case for invading Iraq to the public more than six months before the White House began to do the same. He drew on principles he learned growing up in a military family and on conclusions he formed as a prisoner in North Vietnam. He also returned to a conviction about “the common identity” of dangerous autocracies as far-flung as Serbia and North Korea that he had developed consulting with hawkish foreign policy thinkers to help sharpen the themes of his 2000 presidential campaign.

While pushing to take on Saddam Hussein, Mr. McCain also made arguments and statements that he may no longer wish to recall. He lauded the war planners he would later criticize, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Mr. McCain even volunteered that he would have given the same job to Mr. Cheney.) He urged support for the later-discredited Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi’s opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and echoed some of its suspect accusations in the national media. And he advanced misleading assertions not only about Mr. Hussein’s supposed weapons programs but also about his possible ties to international terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Five years after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. McCain’s supporters note that he became an early critic of the administration’s execution of the occupation, and they credit him with pushing the troop “surge” that helped bring stability. Mr. McCain, though, stands by his support for the war and expresses no regrets about his advocacy.

In written answers to questions, he blamed “Iraq’s opacity under Saddam” for any misleading remarks he made about the peril it posed.

The Sept. 11 attacks “demonstrated the grave threat posed by a hostile regime, possessing weapons of mass destruction, and with reported ties to terrorists,” Mr. McCain wrote in an e-mail message on Friday. Given Mr. Hussein’s history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, “his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously.” The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action “to prevent outlaw states — like Iran today — from developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Formative Years

Mr. McCain has been debating questions about the use of military force far longer than most. He grew up in a family that had sent a son to every American war since 1776, and international relations were a staple of the McCain family dinner table. Mr. McCain grew up listening to his father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., deliver lectures on “The Four Ocean Navy and the Soviet Threat,” closing with a slide of an image he considered the ultimate factor in the balance of power: a soldier marching through a rice paddy with a rifle at his shoulder.

“To quote Sherman, war is all hell and we need to fight it out and get it over with and that is when the killing stops,” recalled Joe McCain, Senator McCain’s younger brother.

Vietnam, for Senator McCain, reinforced those lessons. He has often said he blamed the Johnson administration’s pause in bombing for prolonging the war, and he credited President Richard M. Nixon’s renewed attacks with securing his release from a North Vietnamese prison. He has made the principle that the exercise of military power sets the bargaining table for international relations a consistent theme of his career ever since, and in his 2002 memoir he wrote that one of his lifelong convictions was “the imperative that American power never retreat in response to an inferior adversary’s provocation.”


But Mr. McCain also took away from Vietnam a second, restraining lesson: the necessity for broad domestic support for any military action. For years he opposed a string of interventions — in Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia, and, for a time, the Balkans — on the grounds that the public would balk at the loss of life without clear national interests. “The Vietnam thing,” he recently said.

In the late 1990s, however, while he was beginning to consider his 2000 presidential race, he started rebalancing his view of the needs to project American strength and to sustain public support. The 1995 massacre of 5,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica under NATO’s watch struck at his conscience, he has said, and in addition to America’s strategic national interests — in that case, the future and credibility of NATO — Mr. McCain began to speak more expansively about America’s moral obligations as the only remaining superpower.

His aides say he later described the American air strikes in Bosnia in 1996 and in Kosovo in 1999 as a parable of political leadership: Mr. McCain, Senator Bob Dole and others had rallied Congressional support for the strikes despite widespread public opposition, then watched approval soar after the intervention helped to bring peace.

“Americans elect their leaders to make these kinds of judgments,” Mr. McCain said in the e-mail message.

It was during the Balkan wars that Mr. McCain and his advisers read a 1997 article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page by William Kristol and David Brooks of The Weekly Standard — both now Op-Ed page columnists at The New York Times — promoting the idea of “national greatness” conservatism, defined by a more activist agenda at home and a more muscular role in the world.

“I wouldn’t call it a ‘eureka’ moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is what we are trying to articulate and they have already done a lot of the work,” said John Weaver, a former McCain political adviser. “And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the making-friends business. The Weekly Standard represented a part of the primary electorate that we could get.”

Soon Mr. McCain and his aides were consulting regularly with the circle of hawkish foreign policy thinkers sometimes referred to as neoconservatives — including Mr. Kristol, Robert Kagan and Randy Scheunemann, a former aide to Mr. Dole who became a McCain campaign adviser — to develop the senator’s foreign policy ideas and instincts into the broad themes of a presidential campaign. (In his e-mail message, Mr. McCain noted that he had also consulted with friends like Henry A. Kissinger, known for a narrower view of American interests.)

One result was a series of speeches in which Mr. McCain called for “rogue state rollback.” He argued that disparate regional troublemakers, including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia, bore a common stamp: they were all autocracies. And as such, he contended, they were more likely to export terrorism, spread dangerous weapons, or start ethnic conflicts. In an early outline of what would become his initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. McCain argued that “swift and sure” retribution against any one of the rogue states was an essential deterrent to any of the others. But Mr. McCain’s advisers and aides say his “rogue state” speeches stopped short of the most sweeping international agenda put forth by Mr. Kristol, Mr. Kagan and their allies. Mr. McCain explicitly disavowed direct military action merely to advance American values, foreswearing any “global crusade” of interventions in favor of relying on covert and financial support for internal opposition groups.

As an example, he could point to his 1998 sponsorship of the Iraqi Liberation Act, which sought to direct nearly $100 million to Iraqis who hoped to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The bill, signed by President Bill Clinton, also endorsed the ouster of Mr. Hussein.

Mr. McCain said then that he doubted the United States could muster the political will to use ground troops to remove the Iraqi dictator any time soon. “It was much easier when Saddam Hussein was occupying Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia,” the senator told Fox News in November 1998. “We’d have to convince the American people that it’s worth again the sacrifice of American lives, because that would also be part of the price.”

Hard Calls

Mr. McCain spent the afternoon of Sept. 11 in a young aide’s studio apartment near the Capitol. There was no cable television, nothing but water in the kitchen, and the hallway reminded him of an old boxing gym. Evacuated from his office but stranded by traffic, he could not resist imagining himself at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. “There are not enough Secret Service agents in the world to keep me away from Washington and New York at a time like this,” Mr. McCain told an adviser.


Over the next days and weeks, however, Mr. McCain became almost as visible as he would have been as president. Broadcasters rushed to him as a patriotic icon and reassuring voice, and for weeks he was ubiquitous on the morning news programs, Sunday talk shows, cable news networks, and even late-night comedy shows.

In the spotlight, he pushed rogue state rollback one step further, arguing that the United States should go on the offensive as a warning to any other country that might condone such an attack. “These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries,” Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure. “We’re going to have to prove to them that we are very serious, and the price that they will pay will not only be for punishment but also deterrence.”

Although he had campaigned for President Bush during the 2000 general election, he was still largely frozen out of the White House because of animosities left over from the Republican primary. But after Mr. Bush declared he would hold responsible any country condoning terrorism, Mr. McCain called his leadership “magnificent” and his national security team the strongest “that has ever been assembled.” A few weeks later, Larry King of CNN asked whether he would have named Mr. Rumsfeld and Colin L. Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” Mr. McCain answered, saying he, too, would have offered Mr. Cheney the vice presidency.

Even during the heat of the war in Afghanistan, Mr. McCain kept an eye on Iraq. To Jay Leno in mid-September, Mr. McCain said he believed “some other countries” had assisted Osama bin Laden, going on to suggest Iraq, Syria and Iran as potential suspects. In October 2001, when an Op-Ed page column in The New York Times speculated that Iraq, Russia or some other country might bear responsibility for that month’s anthrax mailings, Mr. McCain interrupted a question about Afghanistan from David Letterman on that night’s “Late Show.” “The second phase is Iraq,” Mr. McCain said, adding, “Some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.” (The Federal Bureau of Investigation says it came from a federal government laboratory in Maryland.) By October, United States and foreign intelligence agencies had said publicly that they doubted any cooperation between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda, noting Al Qaeda’s opposition to such secular nationalists. American intelligence officials soon declared that Mr. Hussein had not supported international terrorism for nearly a decade.

But when the Czech government said that before the attacks, one of the 9/11 hijackers had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official, Mr. McCain seized the report as something close to a smoking gun. “The evidence is very clear,” he said three days later, in an Oct. 29 television interview. (Intelligence agencies quickly cast doubt on the meeting.)

Frustrated by the dearth of American intelligence about Iraq, Mr. McCain’s aides say, he had long sought to learn as much as he could from Iraqi opposition figures in exile, including Mr. Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Over the years, Mr. McCain often urged support for the group, saying it had “significant support, in my view, inside Iraq.”

After Sept. 11, Mr. Chalabi’s group said an Iraqi emissary had once met with Osama bin Laden, and brought forward two Iraqi defectors who described terrorist training camps and biological weapons efforts. At times, Mr. McCain seemed to echo their accusations, citing the “two defectors” in a television interview and attesting to “credible reports of involvement between Iraqi administration officials, Iraqi officials and the terrorists.”

Growing Impatient

But United States intelligence officials had doubts about Mr. Chalabi at the time and have since discredited his group. In 2006, Mr. McCain acknowledged to The New Republic that he had been “too enamored with the I.N.C.” In his e-mail message, though, he said he never relied on the group for information about Iraq’s weapons program.

At a European security conference in February 2002, when the Bush administration still publicly maintained that it had made no decision about moving against Iraq, Mr. McCain described an invasion as all but certain. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching.”

Regime change in Iraq in addition to Afghanistan, he argued, would compel other sponsors of terrorism to mend their ways, “accomplishing by example what we would otherwise have to pursue through force of arms.”

Finally, as American troops massed in the Persian Gulf in early 2003, Mr. McCain grew impatient, his aides say, concerned that the White House was failing to act as the hot desert summer neared. Waiting, he warned in a speech in Washington, risked squandering the public and international support aroused by Sept. 11. “Does anyone really believe that the world’s will to contain Saddam won’t eventually collapse as utterly as it did in the 1990s?” Mr. McCain asked.

In retrospect, some of Mr. McCain’s critics now accuse him of looking for a pretext to justify the war. “McCain was hell-bent for leather: ‘Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, we have got to teach him, let’s send a message to the other people in the Middle East,’ ” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.

But Mr. McCain, in his e-mail message, said the reason he had supported the war was the evolving threat from Mr. Hussein.

“I believe voters elect their leaders based on their experience and judgment — their ability to make hard calls, for instance, on matters of war and peace,” he wrote. “It’s important to get them right.”

Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Toritto, a blessing on your grandmother. Betcha doncha know she knew Gramsci. But let us not talk of such things, lest we be accused of reading socialist literature! (Old Republican principle - never, ever spend a moment trying to understand how the adversary thinks, lest you end up in the archives of the FBI).

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Among Republicans I remember fondly is General Dwight David Eisenhower. In his farewell address to the nation as his 2'nd term in the presidency drew to a close, he warned the nation about the growth of a "military-industrial complex" that could wield inordinate power.

It looks to me like this generation of Republican chickenhawks - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld - who turned over work that should be done by our military to folks like Blackwater and Halliburton, weren't paying attention in history class.

I'll bet McCain wasn't either, given his standing at the United States Naval Academy.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

It just staggers me.

Apparently, in his 40-some years on this planet, in a lifetime of involvement with political, legal, and social issues and causes, Obama has, apparently, only spoken with and had dealings with Wright, Ayers, and Rezko.

No one else.

Those are his only contacts and involvements.

No citizens (Rep or Dem), no spiritual leaders, no other politicians, no financiers, no other social activists at all, no teachers, no unionists, no entrepreneurs, no farmers, no housewives, no college students, no foreigners, etc etc etc.

No nobody.

I guess you guys are right.

I too would not vote for anyone who surrounded himself with just a few handlers, yes-men, and accomplices.

Posted by: Ichristian | October 8, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Want some more?


Posted by: feastorafamine

so is Mccain wrong or right? you can't seem to make up your mind. If you have a mind, that is.

the problem with using someone's words against themselves is it implies you agree with them. but you forgot to chant the line about Mccain knowing nothing about economics right before you brag about his deep and solid knowledge.

I for one, don't think Mccain has any clue abour economics. Obama less so.

this is pretty much textbook stuff here. there are no economists left in congress - pretty much all lawyers now. see how well that worked out. and now you wish to elect another lawyer to lead the rest of the shysters.

I guess that makes sense.....if you're a Lib with no capability of independent thought, as you have aptly demonstrated.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Heehee.

My grandmother was an Italian Communist.

She grew up in a country where absentee landlords owned everything and everyone else owned nother. A country where women were virtually chattel.

She was so disappointed I grew up a Democrat.

She swore FDR kept the revolution from coming to America.

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 8, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

King_of_Zouk, you must be barely old enough to vote if you think Jimmy Carter represented the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

Posted by: officermancuso


yeah, he was a real right wing nut job. but the outcome of his presidency will mimic Obama's. they both like central control of the economy, big spending, raising taxes, losing wars, talk, talk, talk with no action, palling around with terrorists, wearing a sweater in lieu of an energy policy.

the result will be the same - wrecked economy, surrender overseas, gas lines, inflation, joblessness, one-term failure.

chant, rinse, repeat.

Maybe b hussain can just skip over this job (as is his preference) and go straight back to the community and build houses or something. Maybe he will finally find himself there, back where he started. Just like the wizard of Oz. I wonder when we will finally be treated by the press to a look behind the curtain? toto, sic him.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

I have a LIFETIME of quotes for ya if you like.


Posted by: feastorafamine


Yes it is clear you are tuned into the liberal chanting points, but also it is clear you have no provision for independent thought. don't feel bad, it comes with your party.

It was government regulation of the banking industry contrary to accepted norms that is at the root of this - giving loans to bad borrowers. It was required as part of the CRA. that is sometimes called "regulation".

now some institutions previously called banks were able to spread the risk around due to some changes in the laws, resulting in a lower loss overall. this is often called "deregulation".

Now who do you think would say it is a good idea to go into poor neighborhoods and increase the ability to own your own home and that the banks need to help this along? hint - ACORN and B hussain

doesn't sound like a repub idea when framed honestly, does it? you could also examine the voting records. you could also examine the tapes. you could also consult history books or economics texts.

but it would be much easier to paste your prepared content you got from huff, now wouldn't it?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

-----------------------------------
No independant thought? And you arrive at this desparaging view how? Oh wait i get it its a stereotype. Oh i see now. I will refrain from not doing the same to you.

So regulation was the cause then? WOW.

So why does your OWN CANDIDATE blame deregulation?

Government has a clear responsibility to act in defense of the public interest, and that's exactly what I intend to do," a fiery McCain said at a rally in Tampa yesterday. "In my administration, we're going to hold people on Wall Street responsible. And we're going to enact and enforce REGULATORY reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place."

He said the misconduct was aided by "casual oversight by regulatory agencies in Washington," where he said oversight is "scattered, unfocused and ineffective."

YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ECONMICS

Folks got bad loans due to DEREGULATION.
NOBODY WAS MANNING THE STORE GET IT? This is the POINT of regulation. This is easy stuff budy

Once again you seem to suggest that the GOP platform isnt deregulation, a concept Mccain now seems to think is horrible all of a sudden. An entire lifetime of advocating deregiulation now all of a sudden he is Mr. Reformer. Tooooo funny. How about some more quotes? None by the way from "Huff" I dont read their stuff. I use reputable unbiased sources. But of course sources like CNN, UPI, AP are all part of the liberal conspiracy right?

McCain: “I Understand Why The AFL-CIO And Maybe Other Unions May Oppose My Free Market, Less Regulation, Right To Work.” During an appearance on Fox’s “Special Report with Brit Hume,” John McCain said, “I understand why the AFL-CIO and maybe other unions may oppose my free market less regulation right to work. I think we have honest differences of opinion. I respect those labor unions, but I’m sure that those differences are very intense and very real.” [Fox News,” Special Report with Brit Hume,” 3/12/08]

McCain: “Let’s Reduce Regulation.” While speaking about the economy in St. Louis, Missouri, John McCain said, “I’m asked all the time are we in a recession or not in a recession. And I don’t know the answer to that because it’s kind of a technical term… I do not believe we should raise your taxes. I think it would be the worst thing we could do. And that means to me I think the tax cuts need to be made permanent. When you’ve got a bad economy, the worst thing you can do is increase people’s tax burden. Let’s reduce it. Let’s reduce regulation.” [CNN, “Ballot Bowl, 3/15/08]

To Fix the Economy, McCain Would “We’ve Got To Take Specific Actions, Keep Their Taxes Low, Less Regulation.” As shown on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” John McCain said, “That our economy is in terrible shape, that we’ve got to take specific actions, keep their taxes low, less regulation, get - start exploring and exploiting offshore oil deposits.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 7/2/08]

Want some more?

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The template for "liberalism" in USA politics is Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

For the most part, liberalism refers to a muscular use of the power of the state to protect people who work for a living from the excesses of people who enjoy and frequently abuse extraordiny economic power.

As distinct from "socialism", liberalism aims to preserve the free enterprise system, though it believes that this can only be accomplished by preventing capitalists from becoming so abusive that they bring about a popular revolution against their own interests.

And liberalism is not joined at the navel to anemic foreign policy. I don't think Hitler or Mussolini or Hirohito found Franklin Delano Roosevelt's foreign policy to be weak at the knees.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

You know who liberals are.

They are the ones who outlawed child labor, got the 40 hour week, founded public education, made sure you got overtime pay, vacations, holidays. Worried about job safety.


Gave women the right to vote and control their own bodies.

Brought your mom and dad social security and medicare.

Enacted the Voting Rights Act (along with liberal Republicans), desegregated schools, and the Civil Rights Act. Desegregated lunch counters and movie theaters.

Did away with Jim Crow and brought you the propserous New South.

Yup.

Liberals are proud....and we're not done.

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

have a LIFETIME of quotes for ya if you like.


Posted by: feastorafamine


Yes it is clear you are tuned into the liberal chanting points, but also it is clear you have no provision for independent thought. don't feel bad, it comes with your party.

It was government regulation of the banking industry contrary to accepted norms that is at the root of this - giving loans to bad borrowers. It was required as part of the CRA. that is sometimes called "regulation".

now some institutions previously called banks were able to spread the risk around due to some changes in the laws, resulting in a lower loss overall. this is often called "deregulation".

Now who do you think would say it is a good idea to go into poor neighborhoods and increase the ability to own your own home and that the banks need to help this along? hint - ACORN and B hussain

doesn't sound like a repub idea when framed honestly, does it? you could also examine the voting records. you could also examine the tapes. you could also consult history books or economics texts.

but it would be much easier to paste your prepared content you got from huff, now wouldn't it?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"You drool on queue like pavlovs dogs."

queue is a line of something. Like people waiting in line to see a movie is a queue.

You're thinking of "cue"

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"Holding Sarah Palin in front of them is like teasing a dog through a fence, but that's about it."

I'm kind of wondering why McCain didn't go with Bobby Jindal. Jindal has the same ultraconservatice credentials as Palin, but he is MUCH smarter and also has experience on the national stage. (as well as almost a year of executive experience.)

I'm guessing its because he is brown, male, or Catholic.

And I really doubt its because he's Catholic.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"McCain does not need to define it since it is commonly understood by most adults."

Ok, then since Obama clearly does not know what liberal means, his lack of denial is pretty meaningless.

So

1)Define "liberal" for me since neither Obama nor I don't know what the 100% concrete definition is.

2)Perform a comparative analysis showing that Obama is the most liberal Senator among all members of the US and Illinois Senates.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

King_of_Zouk, you must be barely old enough to vote if you think Jimmy Carter represented the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Kmichaels - these are the same loons who believed everything the clintons said and did, right up until the day the blue dress came back from the lab.


For Libs history consists of the following simple instructions:

chant, rinse, repeat

At least we got the clintons out of our hair (rinse), so if this is the price we have to pay for that, it may be worth it. It will be interesting to compare the criminal efforts.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

I suppose it should go without saying that if Sarah Palin has been reduced to speaking to hard-right audiences, but can't do any nonpartisan interviews because they're confident she'll blow it, and can't appear without John McCain because he may have to bail her out if things get dicey, and generally can't do anything but stay in her little anti-media box, coming out twice a day like the little bird in a cuckoo clock to yell a few phrases into a crowd and leave again, she's all but useless to her own campaign. Her favorable ratings have been diving. She's still got Troopergate in the works. There's still gawd knows how much embarrassing tape from her Katie Couric interview, which is probably going to keep being dribbled out from now until the election. So far, she's been making her most indelible American impressions on the pages of the National Enquirer.


Yeah, she's firing up the wingnut base. Who cares. The wingnut base is the easiest group of people on the planet to fire up. They get fired up when they think gays might steal their marriages. They get fired up when they have to press "one" for English. They get fired up when some black guy gets all uppity and runs for president. They get fired up when their sub-sub-sub-version of Christianity isn't the dominant religious ideal of the nation. Holding Sarah Palin in front of them is like teasing a dog through a fence, but that's about it.


So ya know, McCain -- by all means, if you're going to throw this Hail Mary pass, then throw it in earnest. Let her pop on out there for interviews with real reporters -- you know, as opposed to the biting "journalism" of rightwing lunitic fringers like Bill Kristol and Seany Hannity. Have her answer questions on the stump that haven't been pre-approved in triplicate. Right now, "maverick" seems synonymous with "coward" -- if the strength of your convictions extends only to inciting crowds against Obama, and you've got nothing else to run with, then I don't think you can get too snippy when the public just starts laughing at you.


McCain is finished, you can put a fork in him.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 8, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The libruls are coming!

The libruls are coming!

(Get used to it!)

....and we're going to enjoy making your neo-con, fascist lives miserable.

Everyday in everyway.

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 8, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

#1-This bailout wouldnt have been a neccessary evil had it not been for deregulation and supply-side economics,

nice try but your Lib talking point is amusing but false.

Deregulation actually softened this mess. a mess created by social engineering of lending standards led by, guess who??? Barney Frank, chris dodd, Upchuk schumer, and THE ONE, the only, messiah b hussain.

while at it they lined their pockets with donations from the offending organizations.

Just which party do you really think wanted to make sure that poor, unqualified buyers could get into homes - the black-hearted greedy Repubs?

hint - it is the same party that wants to elect an unqualified candidate.

Democrats - the party for the unqualified.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 6:17 PM
---------------------------------
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALING ABOUT?

Define "social engineering of lending standards" Ummm you mean REGULATION? So you are asseriting that the GOP platform hasnt been deregulation?
Hint- How did those "poor unqualified buyers" get thos loans approved in the first place?
OOPS
Deregulation. Nobody was minding the store. Do you know ANYTHING about economics? Now see i deal with facts and I am willing to look at a harsh reality if need be. It is TRUE that dems had a hand in deregulation. in 1999, Phil Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting off a wave of merger mania.
PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNED IT.
It was, in his defense slipped into another proposal and if Clinton wanted it to pass he had to eat this poison pill. Outside of that the party of deregulation has been the GOP.

McCain Supported A Banking Bill Because It Eliminated “The Tremendous Regulatory Burden Imposed On Financial Institutions.” While speaking in favor of bank deregulation on the floor of the senate, John McCain said, “This legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions… One principal reason banks are unable to make loans is the bewildering array of statutory and regulatory restrictions and paperwork requirements imposed by Congress and the regulatory agencies. While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community.” [Congressional Record, 11/19/93

McCain Said The Best Thing Government Can Do For Business Is “Stay Out Of Its Way.” While speaking about the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act on the floor on the Senate in 2000, John McCain said, “I am convinced that the best thing government can often do to advance the fortunes of the private sector is to stay out of its way. I support this bill because it makes progress toward that end, by improving companies’ flexibility to hire the talent they need, while providing for the regulatory framework and new educational opportunities to protect and promote American workers.” [Congressional Record, 10/3/00

In 1999, McCain Supported Phil Gramm’s Banking Deregulation Bill. In 1999, John McCain voted for passage of the Senate version of a bill that would eliminate current barriers erected by the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and other laws that impede affiliations between banking, securities, insurance and other firms. The bill also would exempt small, non-urban banks from the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), revise the Federal Home Loan Bank system and require that owners of automated teller machines (ATMs) provide notice on the ATM and on-screen of any charges imposed for the use of the terminal. The bill passed 54-44. [S. 900, Vote #105, 5/6/99

McCain: “I Don’t Think Anyone Who Wants To Increase The Burden Of Government Regulation And Higher Taxes Has Any Real Understanding Of Economics.” During a McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, John McCain said, “When we come out of this recession and we will because I believe that the fundamentals of our economy are good … Sen. Clinton wants the government to make the decisions for you on your health care, I want the families to make the decisions on their health care. I don’t think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics and the economy and what is needed in order to ensure the future of this country.” [McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, 4/23/08

McCain: “I Have A Long Voting Record In Support Of Deregulation.” The St. Petersburg Times quoted McCain at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing as having said, “I have a long voting record in support of deregulation.” [St. Petersburg Times, 6/5/03]

I have a LIFETIME of quotes for ya if you like.

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

DDawd, twisting in his tight I LOVE OBAMA panties writes:

"Of course, "liberal" isn't the most well defined term. McCain didn't define it."

McCain does not need to define it since it is commonly understood by most adults.

"Obama defined being liberal as being anti-Bush."

No what Obama did was to blame his liberal voting record on Bush, which was really stupid since most of his record is in the Illinois Senate.

"Ok, if being anti-Bush is being liberal, then we are in agreement"

What we are in agreement on is that you and Obama are essentially liars to your cores.

DDawd, you are incredibly stupid. You do make a good Obamite because of it. You drool on queue like pavlovs dogs. You insist on twisting every fact to suit your lies. Neither you nor your messiah Obama will rest on your mountain of lies. Sooner or later they all come crashing down and you end up buried beneath them with no breathing room. You and Obama deserve each other. False prophet and drooling village idiot.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

As an empiricist, my inclination is to try liberalism.

Posted by: officermancuso


Only one problem, the last time we tried extreme liberalism,Carter was in office.

Go measure those results and get back to me.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's a liberal!", they exclaim.

I'm an empiricist. That is to say, I think that reasoning should be tied to observable results, lest it become a sort of irrelevant gymnastics.

As a nation, we've tried conservatism. It's brought us wars without ends in sight, financial collapse, the collapse of our nation's hard-earned honor abroad as we embrace torture and abandon civil liberties, and it's brought upon us a culture which cheers the inability to construct properly formed sentences. You betcha, my friends.

As an empiricist, my inclination is to try liberalism.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

OMG! He's BLACK!!

The librul, socialist, pinko, commie, anarchist, nihilist, trotskite, leninist, muslim, islamo fascist Arab terrorist is PRESIDENT!!!!

AhhhgggggHHH!!

(You are free to leave the country at any time!!)

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"Again, jimcummings, where is your proof that Obama is anything more than vain words? Still waiting. BTW, I wont be surprised when you wont answer."

To prove that someone is or isn't lying is perhaps an exercise best left to the "real intellectuals."

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

#1-This bailout wouldnt have been a neccessary evil had it not been for deregulation and supply-side economics,

nice try but your Lib talking point is amusing but false.

Deregulation actually softened this mess. a mess created by social engineering of lending standards led by, guess who??? Barney Frank, chris dodd, Upchuk schumer, and THE ONE, the only, messiah b hussain.

while at it they lined their pockets with donations from the offending organizations.

Just which party do you really think wanted to make sure that poor, unqualified buyers could get into homes - the black-hearted greedy Repubs?

hint - it is the same party that wants to elect an unqualified candidate.

Democrats - the party for the unqualified.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Again, jimcummings, where is your proof that Obama is anything more than vain words? Still waiting. BTW, I wont be surprised when you wont answer. None of the Obamite crowd can come up with any proof to back up Obama. The best you can do is to repeat his own words, instead of looking at his own record. That makes you Obamites quite the fools. To believe that idiot snake-oil salesman Obama.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"When Obama admitted to having a liberal voting record on the fist debate, but tried to pin it on Bush should have been your first clue."

Of course, "liberal" isn't the most well defined term. McCain didn't define it. Obama defined being liberal as being anti-Bush.

Ok, if being anti-Bush is being liberal, then we are in agreement that Obama is far more anti-Bush than McCain.

I didn't know that was the point you were trying to make.

I guess that's yet another thing we agree on.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Some poll results. I went to yahoo, Cnn & Times.com. I did not go to Fox.
Over all B.O 49% with projected electorial votes 341
JMc 43.9% with 164 projected PEVs

Florida BO 48.3% JMc 45.3%
Penn B.O. 51.*% JMc 39.2%
Co. B.O 49.3% JMc 45.3%
N.H. B.O. 52.0% JMc 41.3%
Ohio B.O 48.9% JMc 44.9%

I don't know where the poster pulled up their earlier polls, unless if was from Fox

Posted by: leah1946 | October 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Nice try KMichaels. You didn't answer my question, and instead launched into a bunch of nonsensical rhetoric.

When you're ready to move from invective to facts, let us know.

But then again, you really don't care about facts and issues, do you?

Posted by: jimcummings | October 8, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"LOL i LOVE this socialism garbage. You mean to tell me that privitizing profits but SOCIALIZING the losses isnt worse?"

Well, several key issues with your claim.

1) The bailout was supported by more democrats than republicans.

2) The bailout is buying up a portion of the rights of the companies that are helped. So it is not a socialistic plan where you pay money for nothing of value, which is what dems tend to favor.

3) It was Republicans that complained the loudest about this bailout and had to have more things that proteced the taxpayer written into the plan.

4) It was Democrats that wholeheartedly supported the plan with very little questions asked. Obama was a yes man on this issue to the core.

5) McCain had deep reservations about the plan and pushed to have more indepth discussions on the details. Obama just voted present, over his cell phone.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:50 PM
-----------------------------
#1-This bailout wouldnt have been a neccessary evil had it not been for deregulation and supply-side economics, two STAPLES of the GOP platform. In case you hadnt realized the bailout was first suggested by your glorious leader GW. In case you hadnt read McCain voted for the bailout. In cas you hadnt read...nobody felt good about voting for it. Dems included.

#2-So your premise is that because we have a chance at a return on our investment that this doesnt make it socialism? You do realise that socialism is simply nationlizing the GNP right? You do realise that privitizing the PROFITS yet stepping in to "interfere" with the free market when there are losses is an oxymoron right?

#3-Sorry buddy your premise that the GOP wanted more conditions is laughable. Did you read the 2-1/2 page proposal by the GOP? You do realise the sticking opint of the proposed bailout once again centered upon regulation right? You do realise that the other sticking point the GOP wanted to discuss was the removal of the "golden parachute" clause right? More deregualtion, more siding with big business.

#4-Redundant with #3. Obama outlined a five point plan in response, conditions to be met before even considering such a plan. McCain? Hadnt evenread the proposal. In the meeting with the presidfnet and others Obama asked a total of 9 questions and spoke at legnth about the proposal. McCain NOT ONE SINGLE WORD IN THE MEETING TILL NEARLY THE END and then only to propose a brand new arrangement when the meeting was nearly at an end. How contructive.

#4- LIAR. Obama, like McCain showed up and BOTH voted for the bailout plan.

I noticed no comments on the pooling of wealth versus your socialism gargbage.

Tell me something about the virtues of supply-side economics. Tell me something about the virtues of deregulation. Tell me something about anything becides your bumper sticker GOP propaganda. I would love to have an INTELLIGENT conversation about either.

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Something tells me the loony Libs are going to be stupified (if it is possible to be more stupid than they already are) when the polls close on election day and the messiah, it turns out, can't actually walk on water.

although he can illegally register people to vote, collect donations from illegal overseas sources, wine and dine with terrorists, worship with racists, fake out the guilty with non-accomplishements.

As I have stated many times, unless he has over a 5% domination in the key states, the numbers will melt away.

all the dumb liberals will be left saying "I don't know anyone who voted for McCain".

the downtrend of the impending crash and burn has already begun. the race is narrowing and the press will be forced to report about the premature peak of the messiah.
all those facts about him keep sneaking out, much to his detriment.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Hey DDawd, did you bother to read any of the responses? I thought not. Go play with your Obama doll, dude. You seem to be fixated on ignoring anything that makes your Obama look less than the messiah that you envision in him.

When Obama admitted to having a liberal voting record on the fist debate, but tried to pin it on Bush should have been your first clue.

But, DDawd, we know how you tend to favor having your head in dark places so keep on hiding from the facts.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

So again I ask, KMicheals, where's your proof?

The fact is, you don't have any, and you're just on here posting talking points from Sean Hannity and the RNC.

You sound more desperate than McCain.

Posted by: jimcummings | October 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"He called Wright, one of the most disgusting anit-Americans on earth his mentor."

Oh, come on. If Wright were to post on this message board, he wouldn't even be the most disgusting anti-American to post here in the last ten minutes.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

jimcummings, do you have any proof that Obama will keep any of his promises or stand by any of his currently stated beliefs? The answer is obvious, since he panders in opposite directions sometimes on the same day we know that he will be unable to keep his word. The fact that his liberal works speak much more strongly than his current pandering words should be obvious to any sincere voter.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"Based on his voting record, DDawd. Do you have reading comprehension issues."

So you personally looked at every vote he has ever made and then compared it to every other senator in the US and Illinois Senate and decided that he is the most liberal Senator based on a metric that you will reveal to us in your response to this post I'm making now?

I'm looking forward to this.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Obamite writes:

"The reason this isn't working is because this is just a rehash of old accusations and issues resolved during the Democratic primary"

If it were resolved then why are CNN and New York Times only starting to write about the details now?

Perhaps you are wishing that it were over.

Obviously the bigger issue is not how many times it is brought up but rather the fact that Obama really does show a constant pattern of anit-American friendships. He called Wright, one of the most disgusting anit-Americans on earth his mentor. Obama has repeatedly praised Ayers and gave him political favors. Obama through the Ayers foundation funneled tens of thousands of dollars to Wright and to his own wifes group. Something is deadly wrong with Obama's dark habits.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

KMichales, do you have any proof to back up what you're saying? Oh, I forgot. McCain doesn't care what's a lie and what's the truth, and neither do his supporters.

Posted by: jimcummings | October 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

["Now Obama on the other hand does indeed have the most liberal voting record on record."]

DDawd cluelessly askes: "Based on what?"

Based on his voting record, DDawd. Do you have reading comprehension issues.

He was accused of being the most liberal voter during the first debate and did not deny it. He said he did it because of Bush. Which is pretty damned stupid since his liberal voting record goes back with Obama to the beginning of his Illinois days. His voting record is liberal compared to all the other politicians. He is graded on a curve. HE IS THE MOST LIBERAL.

Now DDawd, go back to sleep and have those socialist dreams of yours that you love so well. The one where you are sitting at the feet of Obama I hear is one of your favorites.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

The reason this isn't working is because this is just a rehash of old accusations and issues resolved during the Democratic primary . . . and frankly, it smacks of desperation.

Add to that the fact that the economic mess has reframed the dynamic of the entire campaign, and it has left John McCain floundering.

And deservedly so. McCain, not to mention his party, cannot answer the bell because they are bereft of ideas, and because McCain has managed to convince himself that he is entitled to the presidency.

Posted by: jimcummings | October 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"2) The bailout is buying up a portion of the rights of the companies that are helped. So it is not a socialistic plan where you pay money for nothing of value, which is what dems tend to favor."

How much "value" did we get for that $700 billion?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"LOL i LOVE this socialism garbage. You mean to tell me that privitizing profits but SOCIALIZING the losses isnt worse?"

Well, several key issues with your claim.

1) The bailout was supported by more democrats than republicans.

2) The bailout is buying up a portion of the rights of the companies that are helped. So it is not a socialistic plan where you pay money for nothing of value, which is what dems tend to favor.

3) It was Republicans that complained the loudest about this bailout and had to have more things that proteced the taxpayer written into the plan.

4) It was Democrats that wholeheartedly supported the plan with very little questions asked. Obama was a yes man on this issue to the core.

5) McCain had deep reservations about the plan and pushed to have more indepth discussions on the details. Obama just voted present, over his cell phone.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"Now Obama on the other hand does indeed have the most liberal voting record on record."

Based on what?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Here's the history of the Democratic party in the south in a nutshell.

1) The Republican party was anathema to southern whites for a very, very long time after the Civil War - for very nearly a century. Since blacks for the most part couldn't vote, or couldn't vote in proportion to their numbers during that period, the deep south had virtually one-party politics.

2) Southern democrats were fully on board with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

3) Southern democrats were not at all on board with the Civil Rights movement and legislation of the 1960's.

4) The Republican party won its current popularity in the deep south by opposing that movement and that legislation.

One historical figure makes a great case study here: Lyndon Baines Johnson, the first southerner since the post-Civil War "Reconstruction" to occupy the presidency.

He made a mess of the war in Viet Nam and has been vilified ever since. It's unfortunate that his political courage in putting his shoulder to the wheel in the matter of civil rights has never been fully appreciated.

His speech in New Orleans on October 9, 1964 is one of the great Democratic campaign speeches of all time. Knowing he was losing his native deep south due to his support for Civil Rights, he put aside his prepared text and spoke from the heart, including the following words, recounting a conversation of an old, retiring Senator with Senate Majority Leader Sam Rayburn:

"Sammy, I wish I felt just a little better....I would like to go back down there and make them one more Democratic speech. I just feel like I have one in me. The poor old state, they haven't heard a Democratic speech in thirty years."

According to William Edward Leuchtenburg's *The White House Looks South*, at this point Johnson was bellowing, arms outstretched:

"All they ever hear at election time is 'Nigra, Nigra, Nigra.'"

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

The republican campaign machine has started using personal attacks inciting hatred which may lead to violence. Hats off to McCain for resisting the advise to go into that direction. Unlike McCain, Obama and Bidden, Palin is a dangerous and stupid woman, easily manipulated to go into the gutter. I won't be surprise that the choice for the vp candidate was made by these faceless campaign team, rather than by McCain himself. I have great respect for McCain, but picking the wrong advisors throughout his career seems to be his achilles heel.

Posted by: nagamas1 | October 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

wunderwood drooling wonders: "How can we believe John McCain is against wasteful government spending after learning about his campaign manager?"

You review his voting record and his history in government. He is definitely conservative in his voting record. He definitely fought hard against government waste and has a record to prove it. He has also often gone against his own party to fight waste.

Now Obama on the other hand does indeed have the most liberal voting record on record. He is for raising taxes of all kinds. He is for evil forms of abortion. He is against parent noticfications. He is pretty much the liberals wet-dream. We can find DDawd and DavidsCott and mibrooks fondling over Obama here in a ritualistic manner each day.

Now, it is quite a stretch that you idiot Obamites think that Obama spending 20 years with radical anti-American Jeremiah Wright and 10 years with radical terrorist Bill Ayers is the same as some lame weak connection to some guy that gave a few dollars to McCains campaign.

Funny still is the fact that McCain posts all of his contributors on his website and Obama leaves the vast majority of his contributors in the dark. Many of them from very questionable sources.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"Who f'ing cares about Ayers. What bearing would he have on Obama's policies?"

That's sort of like asking what does believing in Karl Marx have to do with one's policies.

That fact that Obama was deeply involved in the socialistic anti-American crowd the majority of his adult life then it is a very relevent issue.

That fact that he associated with terrorists and radicals and general anti-Americans the majority of his adult life should have a lot to do with whether it is wise to vote for him.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:31 PM
-------------------------
LOL i LOVE this socialism garbage. You mean to tell me that privitizing profits but SOCIALIZING the losses isnt worse?
So Repubs call any goverment involvment with capitilism a form of socialism unless of course they want money for losses and bailouts then its called something elese?
I love when Repubs call taxes wealth redistribution. You mean to say supply-side economics isnt a redistribution of wealth? Is this trickling down into your brain yet?

The richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth. This isnt redistribution of wealth? Ummm its called POOLING of wealth.
Spare us your commie garbage, we can easily call you a fascist and given your posts that wouldnt be a stretch.

Fascism:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race or religion above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Sounds alot like the last 8 years when ANYONE who doesnt cowtow to the presidents policies is labeled a commie or unpatriotic. Sorry buddy it wont work this time. Go climb back into your little clock
KOO KOO
KOO KOO

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"DDawd, slapping you down is remarkably easy. You just look like a complete dope every time you open your hole."

I suppose I'm just not quite up to the level of intellect as George Bush.

Nice thing about the internet is that I don't have to keep a straight face while saying stuff like that.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"If so then yes, Obama would be anti-Black. However, what he did was to listen to 20 years to the most harshest of all anti-American speech from Jeremiah Wright and did not bother to stop visiting this person until he was caught doing it during an election."

It's funny. Supposedly the guy has been spewing anti-American speech for 20 years, but FOX News can only muster about 30 seconds of footage from several DVDs worth of material.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Idiot Obamite DDawd drools:

"Obama was also endorsed by a former KKK member. Not only is he anti-American, he is also anti-black."

Did Obama live next to him, visit him for twenty years and sit approvingly while he spewed anti-Black drivel?

If so then yes, Obama would be anti-Black. However, what he did was to listen to 20 years to the most harshest of all anti-American speech from Jeremiah Wright and did not bother to stop visiting this person until he was caught doing it during an election.

Same for his decade long association with Ayers, the American born terrorist.

DDawd, slapping you down is remarkably easy. You just look like a complete dope every time you open your hole.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

ACCEPTING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ASSOCIATES OF KNOWN TERRORISTS?

The Ayers-Weber-McCain connection. Truth? Guilt by Association? We report. YOU Decide!

Arnold R. "Arnie" Weber is a Chicago Annenberg Board Member and Chicago "insider". He was an Assistant Secretary of Labor and Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Richard Nixon. Arnie Weber, has held other Washington "insider" jobs, was former president of the Commercial Club of Chicago’s Civic Committee, and is a longtime REPUBLICAN donor. Arnie Weber was a member of the infamous **Chicago Annnenberg Challenge** Board, which was founded by known "TERRORIST" Bill Ayers!

Sarah "Barracuda" Palin was pointing out the "guilt by association" connection with Senator Barack Obama, a member of the same board. This, however, is a two way street and Ms. Palin may not understand this. The simple fact is, BY PALIN'S OWN DEFINITION, John McCain has accepted "tainted" campaign money from Arnie Weber, an associate of Bill Ayers.

Arnie Weber has given the legal limit of $1,500 to the McCain campaign in 2008. It's true! In 2008, Arnie Weber made two separate donations of $1,000 and $500 to McCain’s presidential campaign run by ex-lobbyist RICK DAVIS.

I strongly urge Senator McCain to renounce this man and his "terrorist associates", and to reject these donations. John McCain should investigate how such a thing could possibly happen inside his own campaign before seeking to cast stones at Senator Obama. RICK DAVIS needs to explain to the American voters his reasons for accepting this money. Are they really that desperate?

THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" SHOULD ASK JOHN MCCAIN WHY HE ACCEPTED TAINTED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THIS "TERRORIST" ASSOCIATE. Arnie Weber doesn't deny that he associated for years with a "known terrorist". This is probably because he hasn't been asked.

It turns out that these types of "facts" are simply baseless smear attacks with no merit. They are meant to distract the less informed voters near the end of a campaign. You don't hear about them very often because most people want to talk about REAL issues affecting REAL lives, not play "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon".

For example, it turns out that you can trace Obama's family tree to both George W. Bush (10th cousins once removed) and Dick Cheney (eighth cousins). This is yet another useless "fact" for Trivial Pursuit, but not worthy of time in this national election. Guilt by association is an attack on voters and on the democratic process. Voters need to learn about the issues.

Some associations, however, do need scrutiny. RICK DAVIS is worth talking about. Why? If a person is running the campaign and at the same time is profiting financially as a lobbyist, the American voter has a right to know the details. The information on RICK DAVIS is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Davis_%28politics%29

HERE IS A MAN THAT MADE MILLIONS AS A WASHINGTON LOBBYIST. This guy is a caricature of the very thing that John McCain claims over and over again that he "hates". EARMARKS ANYONE? Rick Davis PRACTICALLY INVENTED EARMARKS. He launched his lobbying career straight from a Reagan White House job! McCain calls that "revolving door" politics. Now RICK DAVIS is CEO for the McCain presidential campaign.

How can we believe John McCain is against wasteful government spending after learning about his campaign manager?

Posted by: wunderwood | October 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"Until about a month ago I was a Republican and pretty much, over the last 40 years have gone GOP......its over. I am ashamed of the level John McCain has hit. He does not represent me and I think he is dragging American politics into the toilet. Utterly low approach, untrustworthy and weak......my name for him is Slime Dog McCain."

It took McCain for you to switch?? What the hell happened to you four years ago???

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Yet another lying leftist troll writes:

"Until about a month ago I was a Republican and pretty much, over the last 40 years have gone GOP, yada yada yada."

Old KGB trick is what it is. And it still does not work.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"That fact that Obama was deeply involved in the socialistic anti-American crowd the majority of his adult life then it is a very relevent issue."

Obama was also endorsed by a former KKK member. Not only is he anti-American, he is also anti-black.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans are the true intellectuals of our day."

Hahaha, that's cute. Yup, that's what comes to mind when I see George Bush. An intellectual.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"Who f'ing cares about Ayers. What bearing would he have on Obama's policies?"

That's sort of like asking what does believing in Karl Marx have to do with one's policies.

That fact that Obama was deeply involved in the socialistic anti-American crowd the majority of his adult life then it is a very relevent issue.

That fact that he associated with terrorists and radicals and general anti-Americans the majority of his adult life should have a lot to do with whether it is wise to vote for him.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Until about a month ago I was a Republican and pretty much, over the last 40 years have gone GOP......its over. I am ashamed of the level John McCain has hit. He does not represent me and I think he is dragging American politics into the toilet. Utterly low approach, untrustworthy and weak......my name for him is Slime Dog McCain.
I am ashamed that the rest of the world is watching the low level of this campaign. Beyond belief.

Posted by: rayreyns | October 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

This is the best that idiot Obamites can come up with, a joke:

"Then there is the irresponsible comments about "bomb bomb bomb Iran",

There was a very funny song floating around that was sung to the Beach Boys tune of Barbarann.

Some group substituted the words BOMB IRAN. Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran. It was done during the time that Carter let our people in Iran get captured and held hostage for over a year.

So of course, the song was quite popular and again, rather cute.

And this is the great evil that McCain has done in the eyes of the idiot Obamites. Was to repeat in private some of the words of this song to a friend.

Surely you dopey Obamites have real issues to worry about. Like your next welfare checks.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Who f'ing cares about Ayers. What bearing would he have on Obama's policies? If McCain want my vote then he better start coming up with some plans that make sense as a middle class American.

And no a $5K tax credit for health care is a joke beyond contempt. So get crackin on some policies John!!

Posted by: theobserver4 | October 8, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

davidscrott rages on:

"Hating intellectuals is as central to the modern day GOP as stealing from our kids to cut capital gains taxes"

First off, Republicans are the true intellectuals of our day. Surely you liberals dont think that the liberals that you morons prop up as your best thinkers are really intellectuals? Just because you fools think you know how to think does not make it true.

As to taxes and kids the vast majority of taxes on American workers are a direct result of Democrat give away policies.

Your socialism may still be your favorite wet dream but it is a damning philosophy in practice.

"and airing ads about putting black men in prison."

You mean Republicans dare to suggest known rapists and murderers be put in prison. God forbid.

idiot scotty continues drooling:

"when they know perfectly well that what government mostly does is send Social Security and Medicare benefits to Republican voters."

Actually, based on registered voters, many more Democrats get SS and Medicare benefits than do Republicans. If you check most polls today, they understand that there is substantially more registered Democrats. And there tends to be a fair number of older people registered as Democrats. Substantially more than Republicans.

Scotty, you and idiot DDawd ought to get together and have a stupidity contest. I bet you will both win.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

As the teenage girls used to like to say, "oh my God!", are you McCain Palin supporters for real? McCain saw he was losing back in August, so he tried the Hail Mary, I'll pick that crazy and totally unqualified govenor of Alaska. He did no vetting, so he didn't know that she believed in witchcraft and had long term associations with sessationists. I don't think he even actually knew that Palin's daughter was pregnant, but who cares anyway. Well he got a few days boost in the polls, and a bunch of money from the far right Christian fundimentalists (I can only assume they don't actually know what Palin believes). When the polls showed that McCain was back where he started (losing) McCain suspended his campaign and went to Washington to fix the economic crisis. Of course he had been asked by the Treasury Secretaty not to get involved because of the obvious fear that Presidential politics would rear their ugly head and threaten to stall the process, which is exactly what happened. After the debacle with the bailout bill the poll numbers continued to get worse for McCain, so now he suddenly realized that the campaign should really be about the past, well at least Obama's past. Unfortunately what McCain forgot was that he also has a past and it's not all pretty.

From the confession signed as a POW, to the divorce of his crippled wife following many secret affairs, to the Keating five, and a history of deregulating Wall Street that is directly related to our present economic crisis, McCain is not the boy scout he wants us to see. Then there is the irresponsible comments about "bomb bomb bomb Iran", and "next stop Bagdad", all the while saying that Obama was being irresponsible to suggest that if the US had Bin Ladin in it's sights and Pakistan wouldn't act, that Obama would order the stike.

It all points to a McCain who is a shell of his former self, and that he is just too old or bitter or both, to be President. And the idea that the American people would even seriously consider Palin as President is rediculous beyond all reason.

Posted by: bjuhasz | October 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Hey DDawd, since you epitomize one of the mentally drugged posters, I find your comments about others rather laughable.

And slavery in America started with blacks from africa selling other blacks from africa. And it was not a religious thing, it was a financial thing.

And the party that supported slavery was your own democrat party. KKK was started by 5 prominent DEMOCRATS. KKK had up to 15% of the adult us population supporting it at it's peak and 90% of them were white protestant DEMOCRATS.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 4:55 PM
----------------------------------
What is this revisionist history lessons?

The first Klan was founded in 1865 by veterans of the Confederate Army. Its purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of the American Civil War.

The resurgance of the clan in the fifties WAS helped by Democrats. BUT.......

These Dems you refer to have another name. DIXIECRATS
To call them Democratic is a misnomer. By comparison these SOUTHERN dems were more conservative in their beleifs than their republicans counterpoints in the most conservative areas of the north. This is also why as of the civil rights movement when Dems decried bigorty, slavery and civil rights abuses that these southern states became red states.

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"I also said that while Obama PROPOSES to lower federal income tax for some people, he also PROPOSES to raise income tax for those same people through capital gains taxes, higher small business taxes and estate taxes. He is also in favor of raising energy related taxes which will in turn cause the same middle class to pay higher amounts of their money for gas, etc."

Ok, show me where he said that.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"I never said it did, dumbarse. That is why I stated slavery in America. Since we are mostly discussing America here."

As long as we're in agreement that you're responding to a point I never made, I'm happy.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse


Regarding the post "David Brooks spoke frankly about the presidential and vice presidential candidates Monday afternoon, calling Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party" but describing John McCain and Barack Obama as "the two best candidates we've had in a long time."

In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg at New York's Le Cirque restaurant to unveil that magazine's redesign, Brooks decried Palin's anti-intellectualism and compared her to President Bush in that regard."

Who is that raging phony Brooks kidding? Hating intellectuals is as central to the modern day GOP as stealing from our kids to cut capital gains taxes and airing ads about putting black men in prison. Intellectuals do not put James Watt in charge of our wonderful heritage, but Reagan did. Intellectuals don't lie for decades about cutting government when they know perfectly well that what government mostly does is send Social Security and Medicare benefits to Republican voters.

Yes, Palin is a stupid angry hick. If Brooks thinks this is a new strain in the GOP, he's mistaken. It's no newer than Lee Atwater's racist commercials.

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

DDawd, apparently your reading skills are severely lacking.

What I said was that Obama has a history of voting to raise taxes.

I also said that while Obama PROPOSES to lower federal income tax for some people, he also PROPOSES to raise income tax for those same people through capital gains taxes, higher small business taxes and estate taxes. He is also in favor of raising energy related taxes which will in turn cause the same middle class to pay higher amounts of their money for gas, etc.

Seems that DDawd has his head so far up Obama's behind that he cant think straight.

I PROPOSE that DDawd removes his head from whatever behind he has it embedded in and that he start doing some actual real thinking on his own.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

2005 [Victor Davis Hanson]
"HE [OBAMA] SAID THEY HAVE NOT SPOKEN BY PHONE OR EXCHANGED E-MAIL MESSAGES SINCE MR. OBAMA BEGAN SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN JANUARY 2005" (NEW YORK TIMES, 10/3)

WHY IN THE WORLD WAS BARACK OBAMA STILL COMMUNICATING ON THE PHONE OR VIA EMAIL WITH BILL AYERS UP UNTIL 2005 — WHEN IN 2001 AYERS GAVE WIDELY PUBLICIZED INTERVIEWS CLAIMING HE HAD NO REGRETS ABOUT THE BOMBING, INDEED REGRETTED THAT HE HAD NOT DONE ENOUGH, AND DID NOT NECESSARILY HAVE ANY REMORSE EITHER ABOUT HIS WEATHERMEN CAREER?

PONDER THAT: THE POSSIBLE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WELL AFTER 9/11 AND IN THE CLIMATE OF HOURLY WORRY OVER TERRORISM HERE AT HOME, WAS STILL FRIENDLY AND COMMUNICATING WITH AN ASSOCIATE THAT HAD TO ABANDON HIS BOOK TOUR DUE TO POPULAR OUTCRY, AND WAS WIDELY QUOTED AS ABSOLUTELY UNREPENTANT ABOUT HIS TERRORISM. THAT IS A DAMNING INDICTMENT OF HIS JUDGEMENT — AMONG OTHER THINGS — AND IT IS NO "SMEAR" TO RAISE THE ISSUE.

INDEED, THERE IS A DISTURBING PATTERN HERE. OBAMA'S ONCE-CLOSE RADICAL CHICAGO ASSOCIATES ARE NEVER JETTISONED OUT OF PRINCIPLE, BUT ONLY AT THE 11TH-HOUR WHEN THEY BECAME IMPEDIMENTS TO OBAMA'S POLITICAL CAREER. THUS WRIGHT IS DEFENDED THROUGHOUT HIS RACIST RANTINGS, UNTIL HE MAKES THE UNFORTUNATE DECISION OF BRINGING THAT HATRED TO DC'S ELITE NEXUS AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB — AND ONLY THEN IS IMMEDIATELY DROPPED, AS OBAMA RESIGNS FROM TRINITY CHURCH. DITTO AYERS. WHAT MADE OBAMA CEASE COMMUNCIATIONS WITH AYERS WAS NOT THE LATTER'S RADICALISM (INDEED OBAMA FACILITATED IT BY SERVING WITH AYERS TO DISPENSE MILLIONS TO QUESTIONABLE ORGANIZATIONS), NOR EVEN AYERS' BOASTS IN 2001 OF HAVING NO REGRETS ABOUT TRYING TO BLOW UP GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS. INSTEAD, 2005 COINCIDES WITH OBAMA'S ASCENSION TO THE SENATE AND THE PLAN TO BEGIN RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY — AND THUS AYERS, LIKE WRIGHT LATER, BECAME EXPENDABLE. DITTO REZKO, PFLEGER ET AL.
10/08 02:35 PM

Posted by: aamittal | October 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

2005 [Victor Davis Hanson]
"HE [OBAMA] SAID THEY HAVE NOT SPOKEN BY PHONE OR EXCHANGED E-MAIL MESSAGES SINCE MR. OBAMA BEGAN SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN JANUARY 2005" (NEW YORK TIMES, 10/3)

WHY IN THE WORLD WAS BARACK OBAMA STILL COMMUNICATING ON THE PHONE OR VIA EMAIL WITH BILL AYERS UP UNTIL 2005 — WHEN IN 2001 AYERS GAVE WIDELY PUBLICIZED INTERVIEWS CLAIMING HE HAD NO REGRETS ABOUT THE BOMBING, INDEED REGRETTED THAT HE HAD NOT DONE ENOUGH, AND DID NOT NECESSARILY HAVE ANY REMORSE EITHER ABOUT HIS WEATHERMEN CAREER?

PONDER THAT: THE POSSIBLE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WELL AFTER 9/11 AND IN THE CLIMATE OF HOURLY WORRY OVER TERRORISM HERE AT HOME, WAS STILL FRIENDLY AND COMMUNICATING WITH AN ASSOCIATE THAT HAD TO ABANDON HIS BOOK TOUR DUE TO POPULAR OUTCRY, AND WAS WIDELY QUOTED AS ABSOLUTELY UNREPENTANT ABOUT HIS TERRORISM. THAT IS A DAMNING INDICTMENT OF HIS JUDGEMENT — AMONG OTHER THINGS — AND IT IS NO "SMEAR" TO RAISE THE ISSUE.

INDEED, THERE IS A DISTURBING PATTERN HERE. OBAMA'S ONCE-CLOSE RADICAL CHICAGO ASSOCIATES ARE NEVER JETTISONED OUT OF PRINCIPLE, BUT ONLY AT THE 11TH-HOUR WHEN THEY BECAME IMPEDIMENTS TO OBAMA'S POLITICAL CAREER. THUS WRIGHT IS DEFENDED THROUGHOUT HIS RACIST RANTINGS, UNTIL HE MAKES THE UNFORTUNATE DECISION OF BRINGING THAT HATRED TO DC'S ELITE NEXUS AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB — AND ONLY THEN IS IMMEDIATELY DROPPED, AS OBAMA RESIGNS FROM TRINITY CHURCH. DITTO AYERS. WHAT MADE OBAMA CEASE COMMUNCIATIONS WITH AYERS WAS NOT THE LATTER'S RADICALISM (INDEED OBAMA FACILITATED IT BY SERVING WITH AYERS TO DISPENSE MILLIONS TO QUESTIONABLE ORGANIZATIONS), NOR EVEN AYERS' BOASTS IN 2001 OF HAVING NO REGRETS ABOUT TRYING TO BLOW UP GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS. INSTEAD, 2005 COINCIDES WITH OBAMA'S ASCENSION TO THE SENATE AND THE PLAN TO BEGIN RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY — AND THUS AYERS, LIKE WRIGHT LATER, BECAME EXPENDABLE. DITTO REZKO, PFLEGER ET AL.
10/08 02:35 PM

Posted by: aamittal | October 8, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

2005 [Victor Davis Hanson]
"HE [OBAMA] SAID THEY HAVE NOT SPOKEN BY PHONE OR EXCHANGED E-MAIL MESSAGES SINCE MR. OBAMA BEGAN SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN JANUARY 2005" (NEW YORK TIMES, 10/3)

WHY IN THE WORLD WAS BARACK OBAMA STILL COMMUNICATING ON THE PHONE OR VIA EMAIL WITH BILL AYERS UP UNTIL 2005 — WHEN IN 2001 AYERS GAVE WIDELY PUBLICIZED INTERVIEWS CLAIMING HE HAD NO REGRETS ABOUT THE BOMBING, INDEED REGRETTED THAT HE HAD NOT DONE ENOUGH, AND DID NOT NECESSARILY HAVE ANY REMORSE EITHER ABOUT HIS WEATHERMEN CAREER?

PONDER THAT: THE POSSIBLE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WELL AFTER 9/11 AND IN THE CLIMATE OF HOURLY WORRY OVER TERRORISM HERE AT HOME, WAS STILL FRIENDLY AND COMMUNICATING WITH AN ASSOCIATE THAT HAD TO ABANDON HIS BOOK TOUR DUE TO POPULAR OUTCRY, AND WAS WIDELY QUOTED AS ABSOLUTELY UNREPENTANT ABOUT HIS TERRORISM. THAT IS A DAMNING INDICTMENT OF HIS JUDGEMENT — AMONG OTHER THINGS — AND IT IS NO "SMEAR" TO RAISE THE ISSUE.

INDEED, THERE IS A DISTURBING PATTERN HERE. OBAMA'S ONCE-CLOSE RADICAL CHICAGO ASSOCIATES ARE NEVER JETTISONED OUT OF PRINCIPLE, BUT ONLY AT THE 11TH-HOUR WHEN THEY BECAME IMPEDIMENTS TO OBAMA'S POLITICAL CAREER. THUS WRIGHT IS DEFENDED THROUGHOUT HIS RACIST RANTINGS, UNTIL HE MAKES THE UNFORTUNATE DECISION OF BRINGING THAT HATRED TO DC'S ELITE NEXUS AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB — AND ONLY THEN IS IMMEDIATELY DROPPED, AS OBAMA RESIGNS FROM TRINITY CHURCH. DITTO AYERS. WHAT MADE OBAMA CEASE COMMUNCIATIONS WITH AYERS WAS NOT THE LATTER'S RADICALISM (INDEED OBAMA FACILITATED IT BY SERVING WITH AYERS TO DISPENSE MILLIONS TO QUESTIONABLE ORGANIZATIONS), NOR EVEN AYERS' BOASTS IN 2001 OF HAVING NO REGRETS ABOUT TRYING TO BLOW UP GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS. INSTEAD, 2005 COINCIDES WITH OBAMA'S ASCENSION TO THE SENATE AND THE PLAN TO BEGIN RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY — AND THUS AYERS, LIKE WRIGHT LATER, BECAME EXPENDABLE. DITTO REZKO, PFLEGER ET AL.
10/08 02:35 PM

Posted by: aamittal | October 8, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I see the all teh zealots from both sides of the aisle are out tonight, full moon? Us indies get a pure kick out of the rancor and frothing displayed by the need for bipartisan love festing.

Keep up teh good work, all....or run for office yourselves, you all have very obvious and very popular ideas for teh electorate...I am sure you will get heavily attended rallies.

Pure Comedy

Posted by: J_thinks | October 8, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Those poll numbers don't mean a thing. They've been putting out numbers for months that didn't even include people with cell phones. Obama has a big lead but their going to keep McCain competitive. The corporate media has been covering for McCain for months. Do you really think a few headlines about the housing crises and a bailout shifted the whole country in Obama's favor in three days. Naaa! This whole friggin thing is a bunch of bull. Obama picked his VP at 3:30 in the morning and by 5 the media had poll numbers out saying Biden wasn't helping Obama at all. You can't believe a word they say.

Posted by: HemiHead66 | October 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Idiot missing the key point DDawd drivels on:

"Um, yeah. The history of human civilization did not start in America, despite what Sean Hannity tells you to think."

I never said it did, dumbarse. That is why I stated slavery in America. Since we are mostly discussing America here.

If you want to know about slavery as a whole, you can bet that it was started for the same reason as blacks in Africa selling other blacks from africa. Because of economic issues.

DDawd, do you ever get any point right?

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"Apparently, DDawd ignored the fact that lots of politicians PROPOSE lots of things. In other words they make lots of promises."

As long as we are in agreement that Obama has proposed a tax cut.

Thanks for looking up the word. I didn't think you would. I've got a newfound respect for you.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"Probably an Eagles fan to boot."

I'm willing to bet he likes the Cowboys, Patriots, Yankees, and the Lakers as well.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Its the fact that Senator McCain is the problem and not the fix!


McCain can mobilize the devil in hell and it wouldn’t change his voting record or the fact that his neo-conservative ideology has caused the moral and financial decline of our nation!

Yet between the two parties its obvious where most of the blame/lack to regulate can be pointed to! The GOP!
And during this pivotal time which senator with a 26-year record never once voted for any form of regulation or oversight of Americas finacial culture? Which senator never voted once for science, technology and the implemantation of sustainable energies?

Which senator advocated and pushed hard for war in Iraq when intelligence has shown that the reasons for war (WMDs) were and still are non-existent!

It appears that Mccain never met a war he didnt like! Mccain said it himself, "I will slash/freeze all economic spending except for the military and the pentagon..."

Look up the definition of fascist! You will find Mccain and his theology re-defined!

Posted by: rubenlruiz | October 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"KKK was started by 5 prominent DEMOCRATS. KKK had up to 15% of the adult us population supporting it at it's peak and 90% of them were white protestant DEMOCRATS."

That's not true. A complete lie.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Are Kmichaels and Zouk swapping turns with the glory hole of some airport bathroom?

What a match in heaven

Posted by: theobserver4 | October 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Idiot headfaking, missing the key point DDawds writes:

"KMichaels, Look up the word "propose""

Apparently, DDawd ignored the fact that lots of politicians PROPOSE lots of things. In other words they make lots of promises.

Apparrently, DDawd actually believes that everything a lying politician like Obama proposes and or promises can be taken as gosple.

DDawd, you really are incredibly stupid.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Is it just my perception, or are PUMAs, of all participants in these comments, the most likely to offer blatantly racist rationales for a McCain/Palin vote?

I suppose there's no sense of grievance quite as deranged as that experienced by priveleged upper middle class white women. Or perhaps there's a better explanation, and I just haven't hit on it yet.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"And slavery in America started with blacks from africa selling other blacks from africa. And it was not a religious thing, it was a financial thing."

Um, yeah. The history of human civilization did not start in America, despite what Sean Hannity tells you to think.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Wow major tire swinging, You basically admitted you agree with John McCains attacks on Obama, then made excuses for him.

Beltway Pundits for McCain

Posted by: julian9682 | October 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

To the poster who writes: Obama's chosen past adult relationships include urban terrorists, left-wing fanatics, racist America-hating preachers, and even criminals. It is reasonable to suspect that these associations have influenced Obama's character and ideology. It is one of the major lingering doubts among voters who have not joined the Obama hysteria. Both the McCain campaign and the media have a responsibility to include this issue in the campaign discussions.
------------
Yes indeed, that was my first thought. Noble, brave John and Sarah doing their difficult duty to warn America of the Character-Challenged Commie Terrorist Menace, Barack H. Obama. And dont forget the H.

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels does not know what he wants to say. He will be tying Obama to Idi Amin before the day is done. He is just an attention hog who hopes to get people worked up over his remarks. He will argue with anyone who will respond. He knows McCain is going to lose so all he has left is arguing with democrats on blogs for stress relief. Pathetic display of human behavior if you ask me. Probably an Eagles fan to boot.

Posted by: gdavis4 | October 8, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Hey DDawd, since you epitomize one of the mentally drugged posters, I find your comments about others rather laughable.

And slavery in America started with blacks from africa selling other blacks from africa. And it was not a religious thing, it was a financial thing.

And the party that supported slavery was your own democrat party. KKK was started by 5 prominent DEMOCRATS. KKK had up to 15% of the adult us population supporting it at it's peak and 90% of them were white protestant DEMOCRATS.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"New Poll in from Ohio:

McCain --- 67%
Obama --- 33%

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008"

Wonderful. This person's multiple personalities can't even seem to agree on McCain's ability to handle the economy.

I guess that's what you'd expect from someone who is so out of it as to think that McCain and Palin are Democrats.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels

Look up the word "propose"

*sigh*

Bush supporters are so mind numbingly STUPID.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Is it your job to make excuses for McCain?

"McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns"

So if your VP says he doesn't see American like we do, his wife says he sends a cold chill down her spine, your campaign runs an ad claiming Obama wants to teach sex to kindergartners, compares him to Paris Hilton, lies about not visiting troops, calling the Governor of Alaska a pig...

At what point does McCain bear any responsibility?

Oh, he had no choice because the economy is bad.

That's ridiculous!

McCain would win the election if he had bothered to lay out an economic message instead of just trying to disqualify his opponent.

Posted by: richcain | October 8, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse


Another lying conservative write:

McBush is up in Ohio by 33 points.

McSame is not up on his own block by 33 points
----------------
DS: He may not be up in his own bathroom by 33 points. I say he has a flash of his squandered integrity and votes for Obama.

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 8, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

This country is in the middle of an economic melt-down (among other things) and McCain want's to talk about Bill Ayers etc?!?!

John McBush is finished...
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 8, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

So it's a gamble for the McCain campaign to target Obama's relationship with William Ayers in its ads? And why is that so? Obama's chosen past adult relationships include urban terrorists, left-wing fanatics, racist America-hating preachers, and even criminals. It is reasonable to suspect that these associations have influenced Obama's character and ideology. It is one of the major lingering doubts among voters who have not joined the Obama hysteria. Both the McCain campaign and the media have a responsibility to include this issue in the campaign discussions.

Posted by: bubba31138 | October 8, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

lunatic babbling brooks writes:

"KMichaels - Actually, what I wrote was that half of US engineers and computer programmers, over the age of 45, have an overall hi-tech unemployment rate of over 50%. That is, they may get jobs somehwere else int eh economy, but they cannot get jobs in hi-tech because hi-tech corporations"

First off, no, you did not write that. Secondly, you are still dead wrong. I have worked for years in hi-tech industries and there are still plenty of jobs for people over 45. Of 10 hi-tech people (over 45) that I personally know that were layed off of their previous jobs all 10 of them managed to get other hi-tech jobs within two weeks. And 8 of 10 got more pay than the jobs that they recently left. The other two got roughly the same pay.

I did research on your claim and found it to be bogus to the core, like most of your idiotic claims. The overall unemployment rate for people in the hi-tech industry is 6.5% for electrical engineers and less than 5% for software engineers. And this is the current overall rate of unemployment specific to those fields. So babbling brooks, quit your retarded lying.

"You, in response to that, advocated killing them if that was true."

And no, dimwit, I did not suggest killing anyone. Again, you cant seem to get your facts straight.

You, in response to that, advocated killing them if that was true.

And then, the topping of the lunatic cream from idiot babbling brooks

"the statistical economic model has predicted, with fightening accuracy, the ups and down of this economic cycle for nearly two years."

Which model would that be, blowhard? The nostradamus model of economic predictions?

YOU ARE A MORON.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is starting to sound like bunch of kids now. Kicking and screaming is not going to save you idiots. We know who Obama is and we like him. Your fuzzy haired senile candidate and his air headed VP candidate has shown nothing but lies and smears.

Posted by: ryanr007 | October 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

McBush isn't up by 33 point in his own family.

Posted by: DougH1 | October 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"mbacha1 - Actually, much good has come out of religion. Slavery ended, in this country, in large part, because of Quaker and Methodist activists. Religious movements were responsible for sufferage, for literacy, and for ending racism. I well remember the era of the Vietnam War. Protests took place and everyone ignored them, or ridiculed the participants, threw excrement and garbage at them. Then, one speech by Billy Graham and the number of protestors tripled overnight and the vast majority of ordinary people demanded to end it. One of the big evangelical leaders will likely get fed up with Iraq and, believe me, one sermon, and it will be over so fast your head will spin. Same with "free trade", "outsourcing", environmental issues. Religion can be a nearly unstoppable force for change, usually for the better."


I think people mistake a distaste for religion with a distaste for mindlessness. Yes, religion was a driving force behind the end of slavery, but it was a much bigger force for starting it in the first place. (White Man's Burden)

But its people who think that George Bush and Sarah Palin are credible leaders. Those who donate money to the likes of Pat Robertson so that he has a platform for his hate speech. Those who will demonize homosexuals because some power hungry preacher told them to. Those who feel that the abortion issue is more important than caring for the sick and indigent. Those who feel that evolution is wrong.

But cause and effect are misplaced. These people aren't mindless because of religion. They are just mindless people. Religion is what fills the vacuum in their empty heads. We have organized religion, but it could easily have been something else.

Yeah, people have been impelled by religion to do good works, but that is because they are fortunate to have come across someone who uses their tabula rasae for good instead of for power consolidation. That's hardly comforting.

But this stupidity isn't going away. People need to cling to something. Religion isn't the opiate of the masses. Religion is just the symptom of a mentally drugged populace.

And there are plenty of people who are smart and religious. You will find that they don't demonize homosexuals. They don't find Bush and Palin to be credible presidents. They don't do things just because some preacher tells them to.

Blame idiocy, not religion.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk

All I have to say is why tried the alternative to Obama, (republicans) and look at where we are. They want to run government and the country into the ground then pretend the other party was responsible. Now you have to convince people that Obama is worse than bush. Good luck trying to sell your smear/spin to voters after 8 years of republican failure. But what you dont realize is most people arent voting for Obama, they are rejecting bush. So the best thing for republicans to do like you said is allow the democrats to win, try like hell to stop them from accomplishing anything and then your platform for 1012 can be their lack of accomplishments. The trick is for congressional republicans to be productive at something besides just preventing Obama from passing anything because if thats all you have to show for yourselves in 4 years from now you will not win then either.

Posted by: gdavis4 | October 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Another lying conservative write:

McBush is up in Ohio by 33 points.

McSame is not up on his own block by 33 points.

Posted by: DougH1 | October 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

hclark1 - what a fantasy... if it were only true.

Here is the truth from Realclearpolitics.com

Only one poll puts McCain up by more than 1 point let alone 33.


Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 09/24 - 10/06 -- 48.9 44.9 Obama +4.0
CNN/Time 10/03 - 10/06 749 LV 50 47 Obama +3
FOX News/Rasmussen 10/05 - 10/05 1000 LV 47 48 McCain +1
PPP (D) 10/04 - 10/05 1239 LV 49 43 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 10/03 - 10/05 772 LV 51 45 Obama +6
Columbus Dispatch* 09/24 - 10/03 2262 LV 49 42 Obama +7
Democracy Corps (D) 09/29 - 10/01 600 LV 49 43 Obama +6
InAdv/PollPosition 09/29 - 09/29 512 LV 47 45 Obama +2
SurveyUSA 09/28 - 09/29 693 LV 48 49 McCain +1
Quinnipiac 09/27 - 09/29 825 LV 50 42 Obama +8

Posted by: DougH1 | October 8, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

New Poll in from Ohio:

McCain --- 67%
Obama --- 33%

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

---------------
Really?
Where is your source?

CNN/Time 10/03 - 10/06 749 LV 50 47 Obama +3
FOX News/Rasmussen 10/05 - 10/05 1000 LV 47 48 McCain +1
PPP (D) 10/04 - 10/05 1239 LV 49 43 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 10/03 - 10/05 772 LV 51 45 Obama +6
Columbus Dispatch* 09/24 - 10/03 2262 LV 49 42 Obama +7
Democracy Corps (D) 09/29 - 10/01 600 LV 49 43 Obama +6
InAdv/PollPosition 09/29 - 09/29 512 LV 47 45 Obama +2
SurveyUSA 09/28 - 09/29 693 LV 48 49 McCain +1
Quinnipiac 09/27 - 09/29 825 LV 50 42 Obama +8

RCP Average 09/24 - 10/06 -- 48.9 44.9 Obama +4.0

Here is mine
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html

Republicans for Obama Biden LOL.

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

popasmoke writes:
Yet another lying liberal writes:

==============================

AHH another Practicing NEOCON Bigot..

BTW what color is a LIBERAL now a days?

Since you are using Code words.
Were you referring to Obama..??

ISA

Posted by: Issa1 | October 8, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"David Brooks spoke frankly about the presidential and vice presidential candidates Monday afternoon ... describing John McCain and Barack Obama as "the two best candidates we've had in a long time." "

Ha! I said that here last week and was crucified by a couple folks for it. While I've been disappointed by McCain's campaign & don't agree with Obama on everything, I do still think they're the best set of candidates we've had in the last 20 years.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 8, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

New Poll in from Ohio:


Obama --- 100%
McCain --- 0%

THEY DO NOT USE
DIEBOLD
NEOCONS Controlled
Voting Fraud Machines
any more

Republicans for Obama and Biden

Posted by: Issa1 | October 8, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

DDawd the Obamite lap-dogger writes:

"No ha hasn't. Stop lying. He has proposed a tax cut for the country in aggregate."

Here is what we need to keep in mind about Obama.

1) He is a proven liar that says contradictory things based on who he is currently pandering to.

2) His history shows that he is the most liberal leaning of all the current top politicians.

3) His history shows that he generally votes in favor of tax raises and opposes tax cuts.

4) He currently promises tax cuts since he knows that idiots like mibrooks and DDawds will believe his current line of pandering.

5) Obama hides his true self long enough to get elected. Everyone with brains has noticed that Obama has shifted his real beliefs towards the middle, simply to get elected. This is yet another form of his outright dishonesty. He knows that his true beliefs will not get him elected.

6) While promising to cut taxes for the middle class on one hand via federal income tax, he wants to raise their taxes
based on small business taxes that he wants to raise, capital gains taxes that he wants to raise and keeping estate taxes, which he insists on keeping in place.

Yes, we know that simplistic Obamites are ready to believe every word out of that idiot Obama liar's mouth but wisdom would have us review his past works and judge him accordingly.

And every major issue where Obama was caught on the wrong side of a political issue Obama has managed to lie his way out of it. With the aid of MSM Obama lapdoggers and the idiot Obamite crowd we see on these boards.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels --

You are calling Jeremiah Wright a terrorist? This is a man that served our country in uniform both in the Marines and in the Navy.

How can you denigrate his service to our country by calling him a terrorist?

How anti-American can you get in your anger towards Obama?

God help our country.

Posted by: DougH1 | October 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels - Actually, what I wrote was that half of US engineers and computer programmers, over the age of 45, have an overall hi-tech unemployment rate of over 50%. That is, they may get jobs somehwere else int eh economy, but they cannot get jobs in hi-tech because hi-tech corporations hire H1-B workers, usually Indian, at a rate of 90% for new hires.

You, in response to that, advocated killing them if that was true.

And, silly failed stupid twit that you are, who will never in his life amount to anything, the statistical economic model has predicted, with fightening accuracy, the ups and down of this economic cycle for nearly two years.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

New Poll in from Ohio:

McCain --- 67%
Obama --- 33%

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: hclark1 | October 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Yet another lying liberal writes:

"I was just wondering what would be more egregious than referring to your opponent as a terrorist? At his most recent rally, supporters were saying Obama was a terrorist and shouting "Kill Him"."

Actually, nobody called Obama a terrorist. What was said, and accurately so, was that he palled around with terrorists. Both Ayers and Wright are proof of this fact.

As to what one of millions of supporters may or may not have said what the hell does that have to do with McCain?

We have seen worse threats coming from idiot Obamites on this very board.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse
-----------
reply:
That is what they do the take no responsibility. At todays rally, as the camera scanned there was a group that looked like skin heads in the crowd. Their rallied now resemble gatherings on the Nazi's or the KKK.

You saw that republican convention, it looked like a gathering of the Nazi party. Signs wit "Country first" and all the speeches in the effect of "You are either with us or you are not real americans or patriots"

A good quote from the Nazi's that applies to the republicans is:
“…it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. … All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
- Hermann Goering, founder of the Gestapo and one of the main architects of Nazi Germany.
See anything familiar?

Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

If Bin Laden et al want to ensure four more years of Republican blunders in the Middle East to advance its interests and boost its recruiting, they'll have to pull off something soon.

Sadly, that's probably the only way McCain could win, at this point. McCain has already proved that he believes in military belligerence even more so than Bush; continued missteps in Iraq and neglect of Afghanistan, together with coddling Pakistan, will simply strengthen al qaeda and expand the Taliban's reach beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And if Bush has been getting any warnings of imminent al-qaeda attacks, it seems he's ignoring them just as he ignored the 40+ warnings in 2001. And why not? The groundwork has already been laid for him to suspend the elections and the Constitution, and dissolve Congress. Another 9/11 scale terrorist attack would provide the perfect excuse and at least 25-30% of the population would applaud it (until the Army comes knocking down THEIR doors and by then, resistance will be futile).

Posted by: windrider2 | October 8, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Obama +10 in Wisconsin and +12 in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

**********************************************

I hope it holds....it's time for a real mandate and not the nonsense we've been fed for the last 8 years. Real problems call for pragmatic solutions and not dogmatic ones."


It should hold. Obama's 12 is for Pennsylvania is actually slighty BELOW his average for the state over the last two weeks.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse


David Brooks spoke frankly about the presidential and vice presidential candidates Monday afternoon, calling Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party" but describing John McCain and Barack Obama as "the two best candidates we've had in a long time."

In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg at New York's Le Cirque restaurant to unveil that magazine's redesign, Brooks decried Palin's anti-intellectualism and compared her to President Bush in that regard:

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.
Brooks praised Palin's natural political talent, but said she is "absolutely not" ready to be president or vice president. He explained, "The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there's no time to think or make decisions."

The New York Times columnist also said that the "great virtue" of Palin's counterpart, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, is that he is anything but a "yes man."

"[Biden] can't not say what he thinks," Brooks remarked. "There's no internal monitor, and for Barack Obama, that's tremendously important to have a vice president who will be that way. Our current president doesn't have anybody like that."

Brooks also spent time praising Obama's intellect and skills in social perception, telling two stories of his interactions with Obama that left him "dazzled":

Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So i say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.

And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception.

Brooks predicted an Obama victory by nine points, and said that although he found Obama to be "a very mediocre senator," he was is surrounded by what Brooks called "by far the most impressive people in the Democratic party."

"He's phenomenally good at surrounding himself with a team," Brooks said. "I disagree with them on most issues, but I am given a lot of comfort by the fact that the people he's chosen are exactly the people I think most of us would want to choose if we were in his shoes. So again, I have doubts about him just because he was such a mediocre senator, but his capacity to pick staff is impressive."

Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Yet another lying liberal writes:

"I was just wondering what would be more egregious than referring to your opponent as a terrorist? At his most recent rally, supporters were saying Obama was a terrorist and shouting "Kill Him"."

Actually, nobody called Obama a terrorist. What was said, and accurately so, was that he palled around with terrorists. Both Ayers and Wright are proof of this fact.

As to what one of millions of supporters may or may not have said what the hell does that have to do with McCain?

We have seen worse threats coming from idiot Obamites on this very board.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

.
.
.
It's vitally important to our great nation of America that we agree on the spelling of palling / paling. Dictionary spelling is "palling", but for political reasons I prefer "paling", especially if you drop the final "g" as regular 6-pack people do:

Palin' around with terrorists.

Now there's a subliminal message I can believe: Palin is goin' around with terrorists: McCain -- spreading fear (terror) to accomplish his ends.

.
.
.
.
.

Posted by: egc52556 | October 8, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama knew before he started law school he wanted "a life of public service." He serves a specific population of people and he assumes everyone is with him. He shows little emotion because he knows it will get him in trouble. In his teaching days in Chicago he sat back and never took a side. This hints strongly of what his personality is like--he can't handle conflict. He worries what he will look like to the point it is crippling. He should take lessons from Clinton, an excellent example. Just review any clip of Clinton at a funeral and what Clinton's face--he shows emotion.

As for McCain, I never liked him but this is a 2 party system. I have to go with the candidate of two poor choices. I don't understand at all how anyone could be ecstatic about Obama but I am not too thrilled by McCain either. As for his performance, it was hit and miss. He always answers as if he is in a trial. I think his intellect is a behind the desk type. Thinking on his feet is not obviously a big talent of his(nor Obama for that matter). He no doubt he has strong experience which more than makes up for this. His talking points are easily to come by; he just should have prepared NEW for this debate--he left himself open a couple of times. This would have been easily avoided, just look at Obama's retort regarding foreign policy understanding. Obama came back with a retort from polished practice and advisement. That was McCain's main mistake.

In all, the debate gave me no reason to cheer I guess there is too high an expectation. I forgot this is Obama Vs McCain, Liberal Nutty Vs Semi Something.

Posted by: Fred29 | October 8, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"He brazenly proposes heavy taxation in the face of a tax-hating citizenry."

No ha hasn't. Stop lying. He has proposed a tax cut for the country in aggregate.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza wrote: "Watch to see if McCain goes on TV with Ayers over the coming days. It's a gamble but one McCain may have no choice but to take."

Senator McCain has a choice. I remember 8 years ago when Senator McCain said he'd rather lose an election than to campaign that way (he had just been Roved). We'll see whether those were just words or not.

Posted by: amaikovich | October 8, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 wrote: "KOZ, Charlie - The staistical model has been updated, factoring the latest move. It doesn't work. In fact, it appears that a series of crashes begins on Friday that may take the DOW below 8500 by the end of next week. The good news is that Europe dodges the bullet and their markets actually stabalize next week. The bad news is that Asia sinks like a rock along with us."

This comes from the same dope (babbling-brooks) that claimed that engineers that have a 6% unemployment rate were unemployed at the rate of 50%.

The guy is a real lunatic. Now he thinks he is nostradamus.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

What's the deal with sending Cindy McCain out on the campaign trail to attack Obama? Is that because McCain has to campaign with Palin, so they've enlisted Cindy in order to cover more ground? It seems so odd to put her out there as an attacker, vs as someone who just fluffs her spouse.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

mbacha1 - Actually, much good has come out of religion. Slavery ended, in this country, in large part, because of Quaker and Methodist activists. Religious movements were responsible for sufferage, for literacy, and for ending racism. I well remember the era of the Vietnam War. Protests took place and everyone ignored them, or ridiculed the participants, threw excrement and garbage at them. Then, one speech by Billy Graham and the number of protestors tripled overnight and the vast majority of ordinary people demanded to end it. One of the big evangelical leaders will likely get fed up with Iraq and, believe me, one sermon, and it will be over so fast your head will spin. Same with "free trade", "outsourcing", environmental issues. Religion can be a nearly unstoppable force for change, usually for the better.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

To all those decrying McCain's supposedly uncivil behavior towards Obama last night: I think this discussion is pure pettiness, but if you want to go there..... If you will recall, at the very beginning of the debate, Obama had the first question. He responded by greeting Brokaw, Belmont, etc., but he specifically did not verbally acknowledge McCain. Did his initial rudeness inspire rudeness in return from McCain? Probably not, but let's not look at this with blinders as to Obama's own behavior.

Posted by: tampalawyer | October 8, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Illinois Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R) attacked Obama -- as McCain had done last night -- as a rank party ideologue for whom bipartisanship was simply a word to say to get elected to things.

Excuse me? Who was it who described himself as a bipartisan governor from Texas who knew how to work both sides of the isle? And, when he got elected, the only Democrat he let anywhere near the White House was Norm Mineta. So, Senator Fitzgerald, it looks like the pot calling the kettle black for a change (a change?).

Personally, I hope the Democrats sweep the elections and end up with a majority in the House and a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I'd love to see some of those really liberal bills get passed, for a change, instead of the really right-wing ones that Bush managed to get through his rubber-stamp Congress during his first term. I can hardly wait.

Posted by: rob15 | October 8, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm wondering how much more money we can borrow from China to pay for our debts? If China decides to ask us to pay what we owe them, we might have to sell Alaska.....No, this is not funny. Do any of you think about how our economy has been trying to survive aside from Wall Street? We are in massive debt to countries like China and Saudi Arabia. If either one pulls their financial support from us, what little economy we have to work with now, will become a disasterous memory. In the meantime, because of our debt, our hands are tied when dealing with other countries unless they are in agreement with what we plan to do. China has a big trade agreement with Iran. China will not let us deal militarily with N.Korea. Remember back when NK was testing their nukes? Bush was talking big before NK tested their nukes & after GW says we were going to use diplomacy.
China warned Bush not to use our military! Not using our military was probably a good decision, but the reason we didn't use our military shows China's hold over us....and that is bad!

Posted by: leah1946 | October 8, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Take a look at the poll averages at:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

you will notice that the blue line is no longer going up and has turned down.

you will also see that the red line has stopped going down and is now headed up.

some recent results:

Reuters: 45/47
diageo: 44/45
CBS: 45/48

the story next week will be the fade of Obama and the comeback kid Mccain. He was thought to be down and out several times.

Not dead yet.

Posted by: king_of_zouk

********************************************

Anyone else want to dig into the archives and see if the comment sections are kept? Replace Obama and McCain with Democrat and Republican and we're getting the exact same garbage that we were subjected to in 2006.

Someone was so sure of these polls that they volunteered to leave the Fix forever if they were wrong about the will of the people.

I'll be laughing yet again on Nov 5th.

Posted by: theobserver4 | October 8, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I have heard various bloggers stating that McCain's political attacks have been relatively tame, historically speaking. I was just wondering what would be more egregious than referring to your opponent as a terrorist? At his most recent rally, supporters were saying Obama was a terrorist and shouting "Kill Him". Where is the moral compass for the straight talk express. Allowing dangerous rhetoric to be stated without challenge is very troubling for me ... This type of comment was in part, motivated by Palin's comments about Obama palling around with terrorists. Is McCain not responsible for his own VP. Am I alone on this? Is this not scary and dangerous as well as compromising national security???

Posted by: ryanmcdonald84 | October 8, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

edallan

That was the worst post of the day:

Hawaiians, Texans, Alaskans, can not be faulted for wanting to leave the Union. Also, it is a problem that you try to tie the blame for the civil war and the death of the civil war on a wish for secession.

Posted by: Fred29 | October 8, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns..."

With all due respect, I think you're mistaken Chris. McCain (whom I supported in 2000) seems perfectly comfortable with the tenor of his campaign. It would require the proverbial "suspension of disbelief" to accept your premise. That he could profess honor and dignity for his entire career and then suddenly do an about-face and be uncomfortable doing so is unbelievable. I think we're seeing the real John McCain, a vicious mix of Joe McCarthy and Lee Atwater. He's not the John McCain I once knew and respected... and he never was.

Posted by: klosskid | October 8, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Here is an interesting video of the CEO of Fannie (third one now tied to Obama) calling Obama and his black caucus Friends and Family of Fannie Mae. He goes on to say how the black caucus has helped get more subprime loans out to the black community (later to go into forclosure since they could not pay for it). Interestingly, around this same time, Fannie Mae themselves came out with a study reporting that blacks were 300 percent more likely to default on a loan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Take a look at the poll averages at:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

you will notice that the blue line is no longer going up and has turned down.

you will also see that the red line has stopped going down and is now headed up.

some recent results:

Reuters: 45/47
diageo: 44/45
CBS: 45/48

the story next week will be the fade of Obama and the comeback kid Mccain. He was thought to be down and out several times.

Not dead yet.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

---------------------------
LOL Ok

Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 10/01 - 10/07 -- 49.0 43.9 Obama +5.1
Gallup Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 2747 RV 52 41 Obama +11
Rasmussen Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 3000 LV 51 45 Obama +6
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 1220 LV 47 45 Obama +2
Hotline/FD Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 904 LV 45 44 Obama +1
GW/Battleground Tracking 10/02 - 10/07 800 LV 49 45 Obama +4
Ipsos/McClatchy 10/02 - 10/06 858 RV 47 40 Obama +7
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/04 - 10/05 658 RV 49 43 Obama +6
CBS News 10/03 - 10/05 616 LV 48 45 Obama +3
CNN 10/03 - 10/05 694 LV 53 45 Obama +8
Democracy Corps (D) 10/01 - 10/05 1000 LV 49 46 Obama +3

Battleground states......

Ohio
RCP Average 09/24 - 10/06 -- 48.9 44.9 Obama +4.0

Penn
RCP Average 09/23 - 10/07 -- 51.6 39.2 Obama +12.4

Michigan
RCP Average 09/18 - 10/01 -- 49.1 42.1 Obama +7.0

Wis
RCP Average 09/22 - 10/06 -- 51.0 43.0 Obama +8.0

NH
RCP Average 09/25 - 10/06 -- 52.0 41.3 Obama +10.7

Virginia
RCP Average 09/27 - 10/05 -- 49.9 45.1 Obama +4.8

Florida
RCP Average 09/27 - 10/06 -- 48.3 45.3 Obama +3.0

Missouri
RCP Average 09/22 - 10/05 -- 47.8 47.5 Obama +0.3

Colorado
RCP Average 09/21 - 10/06 -- 49.3 45.3 Obama +4.0

NM
RCP Average 09/17 - 10/02 -- 49.8 42.5 Obama +7.3

Nevada
RCP Average 09/27 - 10/06 -- 49.6 46.6 Obama +3.0

Electoral map.......
Obama 264 (6 short)
McCain 163

SOURCE

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/#data

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, Mr. Cillizza, given the nature of the rhetoric that some of Sarah Palin's supporters have been spewing, inspired by shameless smearing, your referring to "bullets," whether silver or not, aimed at a candidate for president is singularly inappropriate. You will recall that Sarah Palin, whom John McCain agreed to accept as his running mate, quoted approvingly from the writings of a man who called for the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

It is really sad, in so many ways, that what the North Vietnamese could not do, with five years of "enhanced interrogation," John McCain has done knowingly to himself -- destroy his own integrity. John McCain is the person running for President; John McCain is the person approving the messages. Period, end of story.

John McCain, as an adult, as a Senator, has actively consorted with people who have been convicted of, in effect, attempting to subvert our own government -- and consorted with them both before and after their convictions. John McCain has actively sought the support of overt racists and bigots. John McCain has accepted as a potential president of the United States, which is what the vice-president is, someone who along with her husband has sought to revive secession, a notion that was settled for all time at the cost of over SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND American lives during the Civil War.

John S. McCain is in absolutely no position to cast stones, literally or figuratively, and you should be ashamed of yourself also, Mr. Cillizza, for suggesting that he even consider doing so.

Posted by: edallan | October 8, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, Charlie - The staistical model has been updated, factoring the latest move. It doesn't work. In fact, it appears that a series of crashes begins on Friday that may take the DOW below 8500 by the end of next week. The good news is that Europe dodges the bullet and their markets actually stabalize next week. The bad news is that Asia sinks like a rock along with us.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 8, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Unless Maverick is talking to a Republican like Senator Cornyn , where he might say Fawk you , this is chicken shirt . Or perhaps his wife shut up you dumb runt , or something like that .

Posted by: borntoraisehogs | October 8, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden 45%
McCain/Palin 44%
Undec 9%

Zogby:

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll:
Obama 47%, McCain 45%

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse
#########################################

You are cherry picking the low polls. CNN and Gallup both show Obama with much higher leads.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Posted by: maggots | October 8, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

bproulx45
Excuse me but one of the largest churches in the world, the Catholic church, a sturdy Democratic organization at times is completely against killing. You need to read some more before stating totally ridiculous statements..recent change indeed. Spare us all and find something else to do.

Posted by: Fred29 | October 8, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

jaynashvil wrote, "Perhaps it's best that Obama didn't do what I wanted and expected him to do. I was sure he was, right at the top of the debate, toss the rules aside (like a "maverick"?)and ask McCain, face to face, why he keeps calling him a terrorist."

Sure sounds like a plan to me! I like it.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Take a look at the poll averages at:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

you will notice that the blue line is no longer going up and has turned down.

you will also see that the red line has stopped going down and is now headed up.

some recent results:

Reuters: 45/47
diageo: 44/45
CBS: 45/48

the story next week will be the fade of Obama and the comeback kid Mccain. He was thought to be down and out several times.

Not dead yet.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Sad, sad, sad that the best the rightwing can come up with these days is something along the lines of:

"Obama is very, very, very, very liberal! And he's a Muslim!"

Really. A liberal Muslim? I didn't think the rightwing thought such people existed.

Posted by: castanea | October 8, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama Clearly won the Debate Last Night
Stayed adn talked to the participants.
While John McCain left the BUILDING

Republicans for Obama and Biden

Posted by: Issa1 | October 8, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Re:How can a Christian vote for such a evil stance.

Are you kidding??? Since when do Christians have anything against killing? We're killing in Iraq because GEE-sus told our President to. The christian aversion to baby killing is a recent change of attitude. When I hear the church rebuke G.W.Bush for the killing of 100,000 innocent iraqis we can talk about the babies.

Posted by: bproulx45 | October 8, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama group ACORN now accused of voter fraud in seven key states. Some ACORN workers have already confessed to fraud.

Obama connections to Ayers growing deeper and deeper. CNN finally reporting on the fact that Obama lied his arse off as to how deep the connection to Ayers was.

Obama was in charge of the Ayers foundation board. Through which Obama directed tens of thousands of dollars to guess who? Jeremiah Wright.

Obama also directed tens of thousands of dollars to an org that was run by guess who? Michele Obama.

Obama also voted against making sure that teen criminals were properly punished. This he did as a favor to Ayers.

Obama got his start in corrupt chicago politics in the home of none other than Ayers.

Obama has been found to be a liar on these and many other subjects. I supposed the change Obama talks about is his idea of changing facts to lies and lies to facts.

Obama CANNOT be trusted.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 8, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza, with his "knife" headline and lead, has gone into dark territory.

He is also, note, less and less invited onto even the gummiest talking head shows.
He is second class, has little to say, and all too obviuosly a McCain apologist.

That's fine, everyone has a favorite, but a flailing political would-be pundit going dark?

Posted by: whistling | October 8, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Palin: "God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built"
I don't think ya can stand up to the oil industry while announcing that the furtherance of their agenda is god's will.

Most likely to start another oil war: McCain Palin.

Posted by: e9999999 | October 8, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Sen. John McCain clearly won the debate last night.

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008.

Posted by: hclark1 | October 8, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
Perhaps it's best that Obama didn't do what I wanted and expected him to do. I was sure he was, right at the top of the debate, toss the rules aside (like a "maverick"?)and ask McCain, face to face, why he keeps calling him a terrorist. I really think he should have taken the bull by the horns and put an end to that issue right then and there. McCain would have no valid answer and that would be the end of that distraction from the election. Of McCain's campaign continues along this path, Obama needs to just confront the man to his face and watch McCain implode.

Posted by: jaynashvil | October 8, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

bklyndan22
Here are some facts.

Obama is very very liberal and as an example voted against the Anti-late term abortion law when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate--and he was present for the whole debate. How can a Christian vote for such a evil stance.

That is not mention he is staunch advocate of the estate tax. He called(QUOTE) "Upon the Christians and the Jewish community to and the Muslims to convene on Washington to oppose the repeal of the estate tax." --I wonder how he expects farmers to pass on their farm to their kids?? On the other hand it is even more strange that he uses a term called the "ownership society" and opposes things such as health savings accounts and school choice as he says they are like "social Darwinism." He is more socialist than any other candidate--can you say, HELLO BIG GOVERNMENT--HELLO SOCIALISM

Obama is Corrupt as the day is long, Tony Rezko , an indicted political fundraiser (under federal corruption investigation for receiving $6 million in kickback favor deals) is a close friend who Obama approached to buy property with---while the crook was still being investigated. Obama agreed to buy one lot and Rezko bought the other lot and then sold part of it to Obama. Now Obama paid $300 000 LESS than the asking price while the adjoining equally value property was bought by the crook at FULL asking price--sound crooked?? Of course it is as both properties where bought from the same seller. So why did Barrack get the land so cheap? Because the seller let the land go cheap to Barrack while he got his asking price from the crook, Rezko. Also, Rezko helped raise $60,000 for Barrack's campaign. SO what deal was made between these two (besides Rezko's business associate getting an internship. What does Obama now say? He now admits the deal was a "mistake." Bull, he is an obvious ethics question don't you think??

This is not about a first black president. As white people agree that it would great for race relations to allow a black president. It is absurd to think that this has anything to do with race !! We have long had good race relations. America was ready for a black president at least 8 years ago when it was shown that Colin Powell would easily beat Clinton by no less than 10% (according to polls). In other words Colin , a black, would have easily been our next president--if he wanted. So why is black an issue?? There are other politicals who are black whom I could much easier accept but I will never accept this liberal Hallmark card. The only thing Obama represents is: that the chance for the Republicans to appeal to the blacks is crushed (because who would vote against one "of their own" to support a Republican). LOTS of whites will be voting for the WRONG reason just to break the glass ceiling and become a "part of history" to vote in the first "black" (he is only half black) president. Reporters are going to continue to taught Dr. Martin Luther King's dream and how it is finally becoming a reality. AH, just a minute, it became reality a long time ago--just the Blacks won't accept it and the reporters are too stupid to realize it--I guess they have needlessly guilty feelings for being white.

Posted by: Fred29 | October 8, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

To an AmericanVoice


This man, who was not born in the USA.
Who has deep Muslim upbringing.
Who then entered politics and changed his official religious beliefs.
Who started his political career with men who advocated the bombing of USA buildings like the pentagon.
Who voted more times present in the Illinois senate than any other politician ever, rather than taking a stand that may affect his political future.
Who, until it became a political liability, actively went to a black activist church which hates white people and Hispanics.
Who has deep ties to the Chicago political machine whose members include men being indicted on criminal charges.
Who was the senator who Freddie Mac and Fannie May gave the most money to before the economic crisis.
Who says he will sit down personally with terrorists focused on the destruction of the Jewish people.


He was born in Hawaii--McCain was born OUTSIDE the US
he spent 1 year (at age 6) in a Muslim madrassa and was raised by his Mom & grandparents to respect all religions
He graduated Columbia and THEN went to work out of an office in a CHURCH doing community service. McCain went to an elite prep school, then the Naval Academy. His naval career was distinguished only by his patrimony--which allowed him to wreck 3 planes before his "heroic interception" of a SAM missile with a fourth
He worked with Ayers on a community board dealing with educational issues, and has condemned Ayers earlier activities (for which, by the way, he was NEVER convicted). McCain cracked under torture, made videos for the NVA and at every turn reminds you of his "heroism".
The church Obama belongs to is 30 percent white, 15 percent Hispanic--odd you'd miss that.
His ties to Rezko resulted in.....zero legal problems, since he engaged in no criminal activity. Let's contrast that with McCain's ties to known Mafia figures, indicted and convicted Iran-Contra figures, and Charles Keating (to name JUST a few)
Obama was 3rd in contributions received, and that figure (126K) is dwarfed by the fees collected by McCain's own senior staff (15K x 36 months [2005-2008]=$480,0000)
Not to shake your world, but Ahmendinejad in NOT the final word in Iran--the Ruling Council is--and speaking to people doesn't imply approval, numbnuts, it opens areas where misconceptions can be put to rest

Posted by: bklyndan22 | October 8, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

My wife (who is undecided) sat listening to the debate with her back to the TV while working on the computer. Her only comment was "McCain sounds like an idiot". Don't worry McPalin supporters it'll all be over soon.

"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind". -H.L. Mencken

Posted by: noel1963 | October 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

You bigoted A**hole Repuglicans keep refering to muslims as if every muslim has a vendetta to kill americans. Even if Obama was a muslim, which he's not, would make him unqualified to lead America? As if being a Christian would automatically make him more qualified or more intelligent. Last time I checked we have a "good christian" white man in office now and look how wonderful that's turned out.

Posted by: ryanr007 | October 8, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

On intrade Mccains stock is now worth toilet paper.

Obama now has a startling 50 point lead.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

LOL WHOOOOHOOOO!!!!
Tooo funny.
Ummm do really know anything about politics? I assume you do because your post in some ways suggests just that. However you are aware that supply-side economics and deregulation are staples of the GOP platform right?
You are aware that since 2006 when the Dems got a slight advantage in the House and the Senate that thye do not have the votes to get anything done right?
Yopu do realize that even if they did get legeslation through it would be vetoed right?
\You do realise that Bush in the first 6 years vetoed only ONE bill given to him from the Repub held Senate and Congress?
You do realise that since the Dems wrestled slim very slim control of both houses that Bush has vetoed more bills in the shortest period of time in US history?
The Dems are to blame? Sure Sure
Think anyone will buy it?
Now THAT is a short-cut to thinking

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You got that right! I was trying to tell someone yesterday that Pelois couldn't even get a bill passed to stop the speculation in oil trading three months ago. The Repubs were balling like baby's to gain access to those protected areas for drilling so they could lower gas prices and all the while they were killing the bill that would've lowered prices immediately. What a bunch of snakes in the grass. The Republicans have had control, what is it about 10 years now. If they wanted to fix this mess their wasn't nobody to stop them. I've never heard so many lies in my life. First McCain said he was pushing to fix this mess in 2005, but now he has an ad out saying it was 2006. I think he finally realized that if it was in 2005 it was probably blocked by his own people. What a friggin moron.

Posted by: HemiHead66 | October 8, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

legendarypunk,
Amen.

Everyone should have skepticism of organized religion, because organized religion brings intolerance by nature, which leads to conflict, over a 'faith', which means neither side can ever fully prove they're right! The majority of the worlds ongoing conflicts are traced back to religion. When religion comes into play in politics, it's bad for everyone. So quickly republicans forget Rob Parsley and John Hagee!

Posted by: mbacha1 | October 8, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

What Newspapers Does Obama Read?
Clarice Feldman
Looking at the facially preposterous claim by Obama's campaign that he did not know of Ayers' past, Jonah Goldberg reviews the papers in Chicago relevant to the issue and concludes either Obama never read the papers or he's forwarded a preposterous lie to cover the fact that he did know but it just didn't matter to him.


The Tribune is basically the paper of record in Chicago and also probably a good bellweather of other media coverage in the region (i.e. local TV news, the Sun-Times etc). And, yep, it turns out the Trib ran quite a few pieces on Ayers and his work as a founder of the Weather Underground, including a few before Obama's fundraiser at Ayers' home and a great many during Obama's tenure on the Woods Foundation board. Indeed, Ayers' memoir came out during that period and received national coverage, including a big story in the NYT. So presumably Obama heard something about that. If I wrote a memoir that received that kind of coverage, my guess is most of my professional friends and colleagues would have a pretty good idea of what it was about.


Maybe Couric could ask Obama what she asked Palin: What newspapers do you read?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: sobugged1 | October 8, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I don't see how anyone could vote for Obama. He is such an arrogant donkey headed man. His ego is so large that we need to place him on a ship and drag his ego out to sea to spare the lives of all Americans. There is not enough room in America for Obama's ego and the rest of us. John Mccain still looks like a fighter pilot ready for action. Cindy Mccain and Sarah Palin are also very very hot women and Obama's wife cannot compete. These are things that matter. All these other topics don't mean anything..personal likability and John Mccain wins on this.

Posted by: Scruffy1970 | October 8, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

It isn't always what you say but how you say it. When McCain says Senator Obama he says it with a sneer or a smirk. McCain's true character is one of cynicism and nastiness, it oozes from him.

Posted by: gosslaar7611 | October 8, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

have known many "players" in my life, notably in big corporations, who might have easily written, as Obama has, that they "serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." All of them turned out to be the ones who truly did have malicious intent. They were the ones who were survival-of-the-fittest professionals, ready to adapt to any circumstance and say whatever had to be said in order to win the game. They were the ones who built careers on the backs of people of more substance but less savvy, people who were either forced or were willing to lie face-down and be walked on. They were the ones whose artful dishonesty came with eloquence and a smile, concealing designs that were, in the end, hardly conceivable as virtuous. Often -- very often -- they were completely unqualified to lead. Always they found majorities who loved them.

So, I am now imagining a very real scenario -- similar to what I have seen on a smaller scale in the corporate world -- about to be played out on a national, and possibly global, level. Our country seems to be ready to put into the seat of power a man -- good-looking, charismatic, silver-tongued, to be sure -- who has almost no experience, has never served in an executive capacity, has barely held a real job, and has no record of success other than his remarkable campaign.


This is a man who in less than two years has arisen as a political messiah. He has mesmerized an emergent block of college-age voters (whose chief sources of information, by the way, are comedians). He has inspired "Obama youth" corps and Maoist-style choirs of praise. He has been dubbed "the One" by his Matrix-saturated worshippers. He has captured the hearts and minds of half of America, nearly all of the media, and most of the world itself.


This is also a man whose voting record (meager as it is) puts him in the "far left" category. He brazenly proposes heavy taxation in the face of a tax-hating citizenry. He is unapologetic about his support of entitlements and has consistently voted for bills laden with pork and earmarks. He believes redistribution of wealth is moral, not immoral, despite his supposed biblical roots. He supports every form of abortion, including infanticide. He has alarming ties to extremists, criminals, radicals, and foreign thugs. He started out as a lawyer who learned, and eventually taught, shakedown tactics. He is not afraid to use the race card even as he touts his biracialism as proof that he is "beyond" race. And his idea of defending our country from enemies is to first understand them.


If Obama is just another bumbling Democrat, who, armed with a lot of really bad policies, simply wants to do America proud, well, then, if elected, he will muddle through the next four to eight years trying to implement change, will be hindered by the American political system, will enervate liberals and thus energize conservatives, and, eventually, the tide will turn. Like the aftermath of a very disagreeable season, we will have weathered the storm, will survey the damage, and will send in the rescue teams to rebuild.


But then again: What if Obama doesn't have America's best interest at heart? What if his candidacy has to do with the willful and radical recreation of the country, one that embraces Marxist ideals, i.e., socialism in some form or another? What if the "change we can believe in" -- the central theme of his campaign -- is directed subversion of the Republic in favor of the sort of Utopian, collectivist state that radicals like Bill Ayers have been dreaming of since the Sixties?


Who needs revolution when one can use evolution? If Congress turns decidedly left, Obama will have a good chance to help the Supreme Court do the same. At that point, the Left's idea of a "living" Constitution, which allows interpretation to supplant the process of amendment, will be used to make us all believers.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama +10 in Wisconsin and +12 in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

**********************************************

I hope it holds....it's time for a real mandate and not the nonsense we've been fed for the last 8 years. Real problems call for pragmatic solutions and not dogmatic ones.

Posted by: theobserver4 | October 8, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Just like when he wasn't comfortable physically squaring off with (Republican) Charles Grassley behind the Senate's closed doors--right?

Since your assessment of McCain--the man, the myth, the legend--is basically unsupported opinion, here, Chris, let me offer my own: McCain dropped the negative attacks for last night's debate because it wasn't playing well with the public. If they'd been buying it in the same way Faux News was, he'd have followed through.

Another day, another McCain strategy.

Posted by: tellthetruth01 | October 8, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

94% of home loans are still being paid on. The crisis is because of what CEO's have been doing with the 6% that's not being paid. They knew the loans were risky. They didn't care. They packaged the loans, sold the loans with insurance they couldn't cover, sat back, made millions, and watched it all crash, all with NO regulation. Had it just been the default on 6% of the housing loans, the market would still be stable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/05/60minutes/main4502454.shtml

Posted by: mbacha1 | October 8, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

How does McLame plan on paying for his $300B plan? He's going to continue Bush's tax cuts. Secondly it's an over supply of houses that is causing house prices to tank. Buying up mortages will not decrease that problem.

As for atmospherics of the debate:

McSame dottered around stage like Jacob Marley's ghost. At one point early on, I thought he was working his way towards the exit.

Why was he picking on the hired help, Tom Brokaw? McSame's open contempt for Senator Obama doesn't make McSame seem like a person I want have a beer with. Imagine how McSame would treat the wait-staff at the bar.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | October 8, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"What difference does it make? Is being a christian somehow better or supierior than being muslim? A jew? A buddist or even athiest?"

Unfortunately, to some people it does make a difference.

I'm an athiest, so as long as the person is not a complete religious zealot I couldn't care less what their beliefs are.

There are also plenty of people with strong religious / spirtual ties that can "agree to disagree" so to speak, and will still support a person even if their religious views differ.

But then there are people who will vote for a person for the sole reason that they are a Christian (or whatever religion). There are also people that will refuse to vote for somebody if their religion does not match their own.

To be fair, you have this with pretty much every character issue (sex, race, economic standing etc.) - it shouldn't come as a shock.

Posted by: legendarypunk | October 8, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I answered a question about his religion. Asked and asnswered. If you took the time to read my statement it was all about how his relationship with Rev. Wrong came about.
Have you ever heard this guy speak; it is like listening to a bad Hallmark card:

About himself and another Democrat “We agreed to disagree but..without being disagreeable”–WHAT???

With respect to running for president, “I believe in the basic decency of the American people”–SOUNDS GREAT DOESN’T IT?

from his acceptance speech, “I know that I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of
Washington must change.”

About his grandma, “She was a typical white person…afraid of black people”–TALK ABOUT PREJUDICE but I guess that is allowed because he is a minority member; they
have carte blanch to insult without retribution.

from “Audacity to Hope” his book –about religion “I grew up around a healthy skepticism for organized religion and as a result so do I [have a healthy skepticism toward
organized religion]”

MY favorite “I believed Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, coveted nuclear arms, scoffed at UN resolutions and butchered his own people but I do not consider
that a threat to [post 911] America”

“The real threat in to peace in the Middle East is not Islamic extremism, its’ cynicism.” talk about a Pollyanna.

Posted by: Fred29 | October 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Watching Palin on the trail today you can tell she knows it's a lost cause. I can't wait until she packs up her sorry a$$ and goes back to moose country.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | October 8, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is starting to sound like bunch of kids now. Kicking and screaming is not going to save you idiots. We know who Obama is and we like him. Your fuzzy haired senile candidate and his air headed VP candidate has shown nothing but lies and smears.

Posted by: ryanr007 | October 8, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

mccain is a gutless wonder, he doesn't have the nerve to say something vile to a man's face, he'd rather go behind his back.

Posted by: hopeftomorrow | October 8, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

BCamp Says:

"I know it requires thinking and I know you’re a liberal."

First off, your posts just repeats the same GOP blame game B.S. that I read over an over by Republican koolaide drinkers like yourself. But I suppose since you are told by the GOP when to take a crap, it hasn't crossed your mind that both parties are to blame, or that the cause of the financial mess isn't entirely political.

"Might want to wonder why the "give a bro a mortgage" crowd ever put financial institutions (which are one of the pillars of the American economy) at risk"

Your racist "give a bro a mortgage" comment states the dems are at fault. Yes, blame the dems, I blame them as well. They are just as much at fault for relaxing regulations as republicans are. Not surprisingly though, you seem to have trouble looking at your own party and their own failed economic policies. Why, because as a typical republif*ck you would rather look to the past and point fingers (not to mention use snide bigoted comments) to make a failed argument that your party could do a better job. Just like McManchurianCandidate, I don't hear any solutions on how to fix the problems that we are facing, just more of the same rhetoric.

“crying racism when banks rightfully would not grant a no money down $400,000 mortgage to some guy working at Wendy's for 2 weeks”

And since you haven’t been listening to anything other than Rush Limbaugh for your facts, it would appear that the news that banks actually are also to blame has flown right over your little Republican head. Banks are at fault. Mortgage companies did issue risky loans to people with questionable finances. Plenty of white people are caught up in foreclosures as well, some for not living within their means….Are you suggesting that we should give the white people a pass for getting themselves into the same predicament?

"After the light goes on in that head of yours you can start considering why Obama would be stuffing his pockets with $126,000 in 2 years; the second largest amount EVER given by Freddie/Fannie in "campaign contributions""

Again, why is it so hard to look at your own party's corruption? Rick Davis’s ties to Fannie/Freddie. Failin’s vow of silence regarding investigations into her lack of ethics. John McWontBePresidents ties to the US Council of World Freedom, or his ties to the Keating 5. (Watch the spin on the Keating 5 by the way, I’m sure it will be something like: This is just more proof that McCant the Maverick can work across the aisle because he can work with democratic criminals as well.)

Like I’ve been telling many republiloosers out there to pull their head out I’ll tell you to do the same. You all sound like a bunch of parrots. “Squawk, a round of tax cuts for me and my friends!” “Squawk, black people and democrats are to blame!” “Squawk, you’re elitist and sexist if you don’t think Sarah Palin is a credible VP!”….Shouldn’t you be sacrificing goats in front of a Reagan altar or something? Your party needs it right about now.

Posted by: 1qaz2wsx1 | October 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Of course Sen. McCain is not going to attack Sen. Obama to his face, especially when he has his own 'closet', in front of Americans in a debate. Of course Sen. McCain is going to attack Sen. Obama when he is talking to people who don't care about the real issues America is dealing with right now. If Sen. Obama were to come out publicly, and say at a time like this, he is going to "turn the page" on the issues, I hope Democrats like myself would speak up and demand better. I think the smartest thing Sen. Obama can do right now is exactly what he is doing, stay focused on Americans. Let Sen. McCain and Gov. Six-pack keep doing what they're doing, because I have faith that Republicans will eventually demand better too. There was no change in tactics, just a one night 'suspension'. Sound familiar?

Posted by: mbacha1 | October 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

First of all, "UnAmericanVoice", stop lying.

Any person with the intelligence to get on a computer (other than you, evidently) can google a fact-checking site to check out your claims, and see that you're just a liar. A desperate, wacko liar.

(factcheck.org is a good one)


******

Now,

John McCain can not separate himself from the sleaze of his campaign.

It is John McCain's campaign. If it's a dishonest, dishonorable, fearmongering, unethical campaign, then McCain is a dishonest, dishonorable, fearmongering, unethical man.


John McCain has let his lust for the office obliterate any honor he once had.


Posted by: julieds | October 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The more McCain whines the more feeble and incompetent he appears.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | October 8, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

What's the matter with you, WaPo?
What kind of headline is that?
"McCain Doesn't Take Out a Knife and Stab Obama To Death in Front of Millions"?
"Chris Cillizza Doesn't Lose his Temper and Murder his Whole Family on TV this Evening"?

You ARE, seriously, losing it.

Posted by: wardropper | October 8, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

McCain has never been comfortable making negative, harshly personal attacks....when his opponent is in the same room with him.

Posted by: kay5 | October 8, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama +10 in Wisconsin and +12 in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

>Someone was confused as to whether or not Obama was a Christian.

What difference does it make? Is being a christian somehow better or supierior than being muslim? A jew? A buddist or even athiest?

Posted by: Dano111 | October 8, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

McCain is running a completely reactive game, jumping from one tactic to the next depending on the polls and criticism from his base. The democrats seem much more united by their candidate and are trusting Obama's leadership towards a new smarter style of politics.

Posted by: tculver | October 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"What do mean, McCain may have "no choice" to keep up the Ayers attack?"

Its like when a basketball team is down by 15 with two minutes to go. They have no choice but to start fouling.

It's terribly bothersome for the other team and incredibly annoying for the fans.

Also, the strategy will almost certainly fail.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

To the Candidates,

After last nights debate I have finally made a decision. I will vote for neither or you.
The issue comes down to integrity. You as candidates must speak the truth as most people are sheep and will follow a voice that sounds right. Both of you are at fault for speaking half truths and spouting numbers that are either outdated or inflated. These spoken words that you use with such conviction fall on the ears of those that want their tummies scratch. But for those who really investigate your voting records and your time spent in your Senate seat will truly see you both.

Senator McCain, my cousin, who was a cell mate of yours in Hanoi, tells me that you are a man of honor. In some cases I might agree. Yet you continue to use information falsely against Senator Obama, who does the same to you.

Senator Obama, your record of being on Senate floor is outlandish. How the people could overlook this is disturbing. Gov. Palin has more time in a broader, daily decision making capacity then yourself.

For these and other reasons, I will vote for neither of you because of a lack of confidence in you both and your respective parties.

Stop trying to look good as most politician try. For once standup and be a man for the decisions you have made and except the responsibility for what you voted on. Then you will win respect.

“Due unto others as you have them do to you” as integrity is all you really have.

This from a disgruntled voter and registered Republican.

Posted by: aForce | October 8, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And yet he has no problem allowing Caribou Barbie or other surrogates do it. Maybe Chris just means McSame doesn't like to deliver the mail in person.

Posted by: ElectricBill | October 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Senator McCain is absolutely right about the fact that Senator Obama and his sycophants in his campaign and the media, and his supporters, always want to change the subject when the questions about his past are asked.

Take William Ayers - this has evolved from 'just a guy in my neighborhood', to 'things he did when I was 8" to "I didn't know he was a terrorist". Get real. You've known the guy and his wife for over 10 years, well enough that you chose to be introduced to politics in his home. Just like Reverend Wright and Tony Rezko and others...you only change your tune when you are called on it - and you know you can't be elected as a socialist-liberal, so you pretend to be a centrist.

So, tell me, Obama fans - why did your guy solicit and accept the endorsement of the socialist New Party? Why was he described by the New Party as their candidate when running for the Illinois senate? Why doesn't he have this endorsement on his website or in his biographies?

Posted by: TxSaintFan | October 8, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

>How can you stand to politically attack a half black man who was nurtured as a baby and child by a white girl?

It disgusting and intolerable. One of the lowest points in our history and the lowest during mine.

Posted by: Dano111 | October 8, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Someone was confused as to whether or not Obama was a Christian. I would be suspicious of the fact that he was working as a community organizer and the pastors would have nothing to do with him He was very less effective not having a church(any church). A letter from a pastor of a church explained this to him so he immediately took and joined the congregation at a church, the Rev. Wrongs's church.

Now, it is, no doubt, great if his joining of the church led to a conversion. I just point out to you that he joined the Wrong church and the decision to join this church was one of expediency. This was probably not my definition of a conversion; that would have , most likely , had to come latter(if at all). I think it was too much of a coincidence that his joining "any" church was incited by a political objective.

Posted by: Fred29 | October 8, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Blech. The man-crush that major media figures have on John McCain is stomach-turning.

Why can't the punditry just admit what most Americans already know?

You were wrong about the guy. He's not honorable.

Posted by: kay5 | October 8, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Well, well, well, what’s good for the gander is good for the goose.

It looks like John McCain has his own character problems to address such as John Singlaub Iran/Contra scandal and of course an old favorite, the Keating 5 scandal which cost tax payers billions.

Wait until they get to the Palin’s. Succession for the US, troopergate, tax evasion, and their radical church practices just to name a few.

So the question is, "Who is the real John War-Monger McCain"?

Posted by: Dano111 | October 8, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Good God, frustrating. . ?!
How can you stand to politically attack a half black man who was nurtured as a baby and child by a white girl?
"You! Where is the big wonderful heart and soul of the negro here in America that you would have received in your mother's lullabies and in her deep secret messages to you?"
"You! Your mother ïs white! As mine is!"
Good God! Need this comment be continued in it's frustration of unattainable decency in this matter?

Posted by: abovetheassault | October 8, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

You end with the claim that McCain will have "no choice" other than to go down and dirty. McCain in fact has all sorts of choices. There's no inevitability here. He could choose to run on the issues. He could choose to consider us a thoughtful public. Lots of choices here.

Posted by: lstrauss2 | October 8, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

The major media are now going to join together and pretend that John McCain and Sarah Palin suspended the sleazy campaigning. Incredible. Turn on CNN, Chris. They lied.

It's like last week, where the major media joined together and pretended that John McCain had suspended his campaign.

Why not just reprint the McCain campaign releases?

Posted by: kay5 | October 8, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

You know these character attacts are dangerous. If the McCain camp keeps it up riots are going to break out and people are going to get hurt or worse.

I just read an article about a man who was shot 3 times in england for wearing an Obama shirt.

Go ahead John War-Monger McCain and Co., keep it up, but don't say I didn't tell you so.

Posted by: Dano111 | October 8, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"Watch to see if McCain goes on TV with Ayers over the coming days. It's a gamble but one McCain may have no choice but to take."

How bizarre, to believe that the direction of this nation's future at a time of war and economic crisis might hinge on whether or not a candidate for president emphasizes a minor personal contact on the other candidate's part.

I don't believe it. I don't have a real high regard for average voters' intelligence, but I give them more credit than that.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 8, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

It's a sad reflection on the state of political reporting in America today when any educated, observant commenter on a thread like this has a better grasp of politics and reality than the "journalist" who runs the blog itself.

Posted by: castanea | October 8, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like AnAmericanVoice is desperate just like his candidate. Funny how "decent" people will resort to the nastiest tactics and spew lies and hatred when they are running far behind in the polls. The REAL American Voice is the voters... who apparently don't want 8 more years of Republicans ruining our economy. That is why Obama is so far ahead in this election and y'all can't stand it. So go ahead... spew all the hate you want. It won't get you one step closer to power anymore.

Posted by: lancelot113 | October 8, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a Muslim, wait no he is black Christian activist, wait no, he is now a non-denominational Christian - for the moment...
AnAmericanVoice wrote:
"Obama is an ultra liberal and wants the war to stop now, wait no, he is a moderate and will end the war real soon, no wait, he is a liberal and now wants to pour more troops into Afghanistan, no wait, he is radical again and wants to invade Pakistan, who has nuclear weapons?....."

I didn't want to repost the entire ridiculous rant. I am not going to address any of the highly racially tinged views you're spewing because I don't want to lend you any credibility by responding too much. Most all of the garbage you've said in this post has been debunked and some of it by the Washington Post (birth certificate, Obama is not a Muslim, etc.)

Your angry ranting is indicitive of your mindset, old, angry, hateful, lying.....are you John McCain or Sarah Palin today? Maybe a hybrid of the two? Careful, your McCarthyism is showing....

Posted by: opinion8td | October 8, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

John War-Monger McCain always had other people do his dirty work. Who is the real John War-Monger McCain?

By the I will always use McCain's middle name in all my references from here on out. I urge all Obama supports to do the same. two can play that game.

Posted by: Dano111 | October 8, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

If Mccain goes "Ayers" on Obama after last nite, he will look ridiculous; really.
Regardless, it is the RWM (right wing media) folks, multi millionaires, who are paid to foam at the mouth about that kind of crap.
the Fact is, there were prominent republicans on the board with Ayers and Obama... this was politics as usual and Obama is a politician.
Therefore it is a dead issue; of course unless intelligence of the vote is severely compromised.

Posted by: ukeman | October 8, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

What do mean, McCain may have "no choice" to keep up the Ayers attack? The only reason he may have "no choice" is if he lacks the imagination, principles, or shame that compel him to make sensible arguments to the electorate instead.

By the way, you all know that McCain likes to "pal around" with communists who take pride in killing Americans. Yes, he repeatedly visited Vietnam after the war, and cozied up to officials proud of their records as Viet Cong commies (like VN PM Vo Van Kiet). Imagine, not only supporting but engaging in "direct talks" with the same red regime that killed 58,000 US soldiers!

...yeah, about as ridiculous as the Ayers attack on Obama.

Posted by: jhershb | October 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

This unknown is going to be giving the keys to move USA armies around the world, to be given the ability to spend the wealth of Americans, to determine the future of judges on the courts, to lead the most powerful country in the world with nuclear weapons, unchecked without a republican house or senate.

YES. YES! YES!!!!


Are you serious? This is starting to sound very much like when Hitler was given power.

Exactly like it. Glad you are the only one to figure it out. Keep it a secret, please?


Seriously. Yet the democrats are pulling off the homeless off the street and promising them meals to vote for Obama.

Our secret stategy. Register the homeless and rent limo's fill of Mad Dog to drive them to the polls on election night. How did you figure this out too? You ARE good!


How are so many so blind?

We are counting on at least 50 to 60 million blind people to pull off this election. PLEASE don't tell anyone okay??


Wake up America. We don't need another depression and world wars. He will say whatever you want to hear, to get into office...

Please don't wake them up!!


but what is his real agenda Who is really Obama?

This is still a secret and will be revealed at the proper time. Be patient a bit longer. Thanks.


Obama, whoever he is, he is not Presidential material - not for the USA.

He has taken on the title of "Black Moses" since Isaac Hayes has passed the torch to Obama. I thought you would be the one guy bright enough to figure this all out. You missed this one didn't you. Shame on you after you answered all the other questions.

Wake up America, wake up world... the world is at stake here.

Yes, YES, YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: patrick10 | October 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama knew before he started law school he wanted "a life of public service." He serves a specific population of people and he assumes everyone is with him. He shows little emotion because he knows it will get him in trouble. In his teaching days in Chicago he sat back and never took a side. This hints strongly of what his personality is like--he can't handle conflict. He worries what he will look like to the point it is crippling. He should take lessons from Clinton, an excellent example. Just review any clip of Clinton at a funeral and what Clinton's face--he shows emotion.

As for McCain, I never liked him but this is a 2 party system. I have to go with the candidate of two poor choices. I don't understand at all how anyone could be ecstatic about Obama but I am not too thrilled by McCain either. As for his performance, it was hit and miss. He always answers as if he is in a trial. I think his intellect is a behind the desk type. Thinking on his feet is not obviously a big talent of his(nor Obama for that matter). He no doubt he has strong experience which more than makes up for this. His talking points are easily to come by; he just should have prepared NEW for this debate--he left himself open a couple of times. This would have been easily avoided, just look at Obama's retort regarding foreign policy understanding. Obama came back with a retort from polished practice and advisement. That was McCain's main mistake.

In all, the debate gave me no reason to cheer I guess there is too high an expectation. I forgot this is Obama Vs McCain, Liberal Nutty Vs Semi Something.

Posted by: Fred29 | October 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

A small point, but did Tom Brokaw thank Senator McCain for his responses four or more times during the debate but did not thank Barack Obama once?

Posted by: GaryL1 | October 8, 2008 2:50 PM
_________________________________________
That's because he knew that Senator McCain was highly agitated and aggravated. Tom did not want to see him go into one of his angry tyrants.

That's what you do when you are around angry people... you try to be the calm one when you're dealing with.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | October 8, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The only way Sarah Palin can save the ticket is by dumping John McCain.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 8, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

If we all are going to be judge by the people we associated with the our past albeit because we went to the same school with him or sang in the church choir with her or served on a local committee with him or play on the same basketball/football or softbally field with him/her then very few of us will be innocent of the charge of guilty by association.

For heaven sake folks people have lost their full retirment funds, trust funds are evaporating and businesses are folding people are loosing the jobs, homes and everything else. Is this all a presidential campaign can come up with? What happened to compassionate conservatism? Isn't this what George Bush who is John McCain's Republican President preached?

John McCain talked about Obama being naive, I think he should look at his running mate Sarah "Eliza Dolittle" Palin. She is so naive, it hurts just to look at her. Who with some sense would have attacked someone while they are bereaved? Oh, I forgot, it's all in the game...and she will play whatever plays are handed to her by the coach.

Posted by: afa1771yahoocom | October 8, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

By my way of thinking, the Iraq war is the biggest discretionary spending program in the history of the nation.

As a contrast, the 2009 Department of education budget is $59.2B, about the cost of five months of war.

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget09/summary/edlite-section1.html

Posted by: jwallace1 | October 8, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"McCain acted like he was high on crack or some kind of speed drug the way he couldn't sit still and wandered around like he was looking for the men's room or something. Maybe he was having a personal 'surge.'"

That made me laugh - thank you!

Posted by: NMModerate1 | October 8, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

A small point, but did Tom Brokaw thank Senator McCain for his responses four or more times during the debate but did not thank Barack Obama once?

Posted by: GaryL1 | October 8, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Might want to update this comment, Chris.

McCain and Palin are spewing hatred and fear on CNN as we write.

No change in tactics. They're simply too cowardly to say this stuff to Obama's face.

Posted by: kay5 | October 8, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I am sitting here listening to John McCain and Palin spewing that vile from their mouths on the campaign stump again, the day after the second debate.

He is using some of Obama's answers to the questions last night. Not only that, he is still not saying specifically what he and Palin are going to do to help the little man.

The only thing I keep hearing from him and Palin are Obama did this, Obama didn't do that, blah, blah, blah.

The only thing John and Palin keep doing is lying, distorting the truth, and trying to assassinate Obama's character and making up shi% as they go along. Where is the substance.

John McCain you sly little "weasel".

OBAMA/BIDEN 2008
A Change I Can Believe In and Trust!

Posted by: lcarter0311 | October 8, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

At what point do the media drop their groveling at the feet of John McCain?

I'm watching McCain and Palin on television, snarling and spewing spittle, surrounded by the crazed crowds.

"John McCain has never been comfortable attacking his opponent..."

Hogwash.

John McCain is too cowardly to attack his opponent when his opponent is standing before him.

Posted by: kay5 | October 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

MCAIN SUPPORTERS SCREAM FOR THE DEATH OF BARACK OBAMA!

Posted by: SODDI | October 8, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Drudge-loving Cillizza has apparently reached the point at which he has nothing of substance to write, therefore he concocts tomfoolery about McCain's change in tactics.

Whatever.

Posted by: castanea | October 8, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a Muslim, wait no he is black Christian activist, wait no, he is now a non-denominational Christian - for the moment...

Obama is an ultra liberal and wants the war to stop now, wait no, he is a moderate and will end the war real soon, no wait, he is a liberal and now wants to pour more troops into Afghanistan, no wait, he is radical again and wants to invade Pakistan, who has nuclear weapons?

Obama has good roots in Kenya. Wait, where was he born? Is is actually a USA citizen or a Kenya citizen? Where is his birth certificate?

He wants establish programs for socialistic health care and for socialistic wealth redistribution... so he is a capitalist right? Or a socialist?

So just who is Obama? He is change - he changes all the time like a chameleon.

He is for world government - he had hundreds of thousands of Germans supporting him and chanting for him.

So let me get this straight.

This man, who was not born in the USA.
Who has deep Muslim upbringing.
Who then entered politics and changed his official religious beliefs.
Who started his political career with men who advocated the bombing of USA buildings like the pentagon.
Who voted more times present in the Illinois senate than any other politician ever, rather than taking a stand that may affect his political future.
Who, until it became a political liability, actively went to a black activist church which hates white people and Hispanics.
Who has deep ties to the Chicago political machine whose members include men being indicted on criminal charges.
Who was the senator who Freddie Mac and Fannie May gave the most money to before the economic crisis.
Who says he will sit down personally with terrorists focused on the destruction of the Jewish people.

This unknown is going to be giving the keys to move USA armies around the world, to be given the ability to spend the wealth of Americans, to determine the future of judges on the courts, to lead the most powerful country in the world with nuclear weapons, unchecked without a republican house or senate.

Are you serious? This is starting to sound very much like when Hitler was given power. Seriously. Yet the democrats are pulling off the homeless off the street and promising them meals to vote for Obama. How are so many so blind? Wake up America. We don't need another depression and world wars. He will say whatever you want to hear, to get into office... but what is his real agenda Who is really Obama? Obama, whoever he is, he is not Presidential material - not for the USA. Wake up America, wake up world... the world is at stake here.

Posted by: AnAmericanVoice | October 8, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"On the other, McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns -- always viewing himself as above that sort of lowest common denominator politics."

Hey Chris, how about leaving this sort of BS spin to the McCain campaign. The summer months all the way into the present day show that McCain is perfectly comfortable negative campaigning. Hell, he didn't even hold his fire on Republicans like Mitt "Great Hair" Romney during the Republican primary.

Given that it is now confirmed that McCain's ad spend is 100% negative, please stop your media butt kissing for a man who just isn't who you always thought he was and recognize your own lying eyes: the man is running the most disgusting, appalling campaign since the one Bush ran in 2000 to defeat him.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | October 8, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Democrats gained control of Congress, and our financial problems became manifest. Like it or not, this fiasco has happened under the watchful eye of a Democrat controlled Congress!
Posted by: edweirdness | October 8, 2008 2:32 PM
--------------------------------
LOL WHOOOOHOOOO!!!!
Tooo funny.
Ummm do really know anything about politics? I assume you do because your post in some ways suggests just that. However you are aware that supply-side economics and deregulation are staples of the GOP platform right?
You are aware that since 2006 when the Dems got a slight advantage in the House and the Senate that thye do not have the votes to get anything done right?
Yopu do realize that even if they did get legeslation through it would be vetoed right?
\You do realise that Bush in the first 6 years vetoed only ONE bill given to him from the Repub held Senate and Congress?
You do realise that since the Dems wrestled slim very slim control of both houses that Bush has vetoed more bills in the shortest period of time in US history?
The Dems are to blame? Sure Sure
Think anyone will buy it?
Now THAT is a short-cut to thinking.

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

McSame's principals are easy:

Rise to the next level
Add change to personality, values, morals, associates as needed

Here is a guy who married the rich young chick after his divorce and used her father's money to finance his campaign for Congress.

A guy who detested the right-wing of his party in 2000, then embraced them to win the nomination in 2008.

I actually liked 2000 McCain's policies. 2008 McCain has lost my respect, politically.

Both McCains lost my respect when I read about how he left his first wife and children. Seems that Ronny and Nancy Reagan lost respect for him too,

Posted by: DougH1 | October 8, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket - "My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand." - William Ayers

Not bad company....

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." -- Thomas Paine

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
-- John Adams

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe." -- Abraham Lincoln

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 8, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"There is no 'liberal bias' here; I see a full blown conspiracy!! If only someone would write about it so Drudge could link to it - we might be able to save this country before the next Redskins game."

Speaking of which, the last Redskins game before the election is against the Steelers at FedEx.

I'm not sure if the Redskins curse still holds since the streak was broken in 2004 or whether that was simply an aberration.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Hey is Liberal a dirty word. I don't recall Carlin ever using it. And how does John McCain plan on fixing the country with all those tax cuts he promised. When he says he wants to freeze spending does that mean our roads and bridges will continue to fall down. I know McCain hates earmarks but he loooves his corporate tax loopholes. When they wanted to close the tax loopholes and use the funding for our troops, McCain voted to keep the tax loopholes. Kill the earmarks and use the money to cover the loopholes. Now I understand. John McCain,, Ready to lead on day one. My Friends!

Posted by: HemiHead66 | October 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Aren't all of you folks being a little hard on "Grand-Dad"? I mean show a little respect. Have a little sympathy. He is just starting to show some signs of his age, his constant moving around, his shifting of responses, his periodic confusion, his inconsistent responses, etc. Maybe he is starting to exhibit the early onset of dementia or alzheimers. We've see that before with Ronnie, why not with McCain? Makes it easier for his handlers, who are only too happy to say when he is in the White House, "Here, John, take a couple of these pills, go to bed, we'll handle things!" Boy, isn't that a nightmarish scenario?

Go Obama!

Posted by: thekrule | October 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

edweirdness eeked:

There should never be any such thing as a career politician or a career bureaucrat. Indeed, such a concept would seem anathema to the principal of the citizen/legislator that our founding father's envisioned.


---------------

Then they would have put that in the Constitution. Voters have the ultimate say..it's their fault, not the politician's...our founding father's knew that those seeking office had to have their human weaknesses checked...which is why we vote.

Our nation is only as great as it citizens. And only as small percentage vote. We are to blame.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 8, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

McCain is not a principled campaigner who could not bring himself to attack Obama last night. He is a rank coward who is quite happy to attack at a distance in front of a rabidly supportive crowd.

McCain was afraid to attack Obama with the ridiculous Ayers "connection" because he knows that Obama would have easily parried that lame accusation with a much more compelling dicussion of McCain's involvement in the last financial collapse, the Keating 5 Savings & Loan scandal.

McCain will continue to hide behind the skirts of his attack puppy Palin and point wildly at "that one."

Dishonorable, disreputable, and unfit for the presidency, McCain is chosing to cap a lifetime of dubious achievement with this slime-fest of a final campaign.

What a disgusting way to go out.

Posted by: dee5 | October 8, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

John McCain's campaign is a disaster. When will the conservatives finally realize that the economy is more fundamental than foreign wars, because it's a sound economy that enables the US to succeed in those wars? They haven't realized yet, and it doesn't seem like they're going to any time soon.

Posted by: mattg251 | October 8, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

There is only one candidate who during the 1960's personally killed civilians en masse.

Posted by: jakdur | October 8, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Here's a good one.

" Like it or not, this fiasco has happened under the watchful eye of a Democrat controlled Congress!"

Like the Congress hasn't been Republican for the last 7 out of 8 years.

The republicans do love their propaganda.

Posted by: msmith97 | October 8, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Judging by some of the hysterics that Obama won last nights debate, its a safe assumption that John McCain must have hit one out of the park last night! Honestly, both Candidates seem to be recycling the same partisan drivel they always have. Republican's gained power because we, the people grew tired of the same stuff that Obama is now asserting as the alternative. Democrats gained control of Congress, and our financial problems became manifest. Like it or not, this fiasco has happened under the watchful eye of a Democrat controlled Congress! Democrats control all of the financial services, banking, regulatory and oversight committee's that should (and by most accounts did) see this coming. That Frank, Dodd and others appear to be up to their eyeballs in this nonsense, does not bode well for granting Democrats the White House, or a veto proof margin. Indeed, sad to say, the only candidate still running who has any record at all of "bucking" the powers that be, is Senator McCain. Neither candidate is truly representative of the interests and concerns of the American majority. Voters should focus on removing as many Congressional Elites and power brokers, as many long-serving pariahs as possible. By changing the balance of power and tenure in Congress, we can take back control of our government, and marginalize the damage that either an Obama or a McCain presidency will cause. By turning out incumbents (regardless of how much pork they bring to the district) as often as possible, we will eliminate the benefits of incumbency and power brokering that is responsible for the earmarks, the corruption, the lobbyists and the special interests that usurp our will! With "voter" implemented "term limits", lobbyists and special interests will no longer benefit from "relationships" with long-serving incumbents. Let's face it, if an elected official cannot produce results in two terms (maximum), they should not hold office and block someone who might be effective from seeking office. Just think of the billions (with a B) we'd save in Congressional perks and pensions, if we simply set aside our partisan self interests, and tell incumbents "thanks, you've done enough", and return these corrupt politicians to the private sector? There should never be any such thing as a career politician or a career bureaucrat. Indeed, such a concept would seem anathema to the principal of the citizen/legislator that our founding father's envisioned.

Posted by: edweirdness | October 8, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Here's a clue for all the McPalins out there, nobody gives a rats ass about about Ayres, or Keating, or the Reverend.

Grandpa thinks somehow that running Obama down and flinging mud at him hoping it will stick is pathetic.

John the voters care about losing their homes, their jobs, their kids education, their retirement fund.


Wake up John, its too late now!

Posted by: kentaylor1 | October 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

--"Chris,
Can you see the ridiculousness of a major news organization such as the Washington Post leaving the Ayers revelations for MCCAIN to bring up, and sitting back and seeing if he does it?"--

Yea me too!! How about the wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial a few years back- what was up with that? What's with NBC still airing SNL skits that deal with today's issues? Don't they realize that the danger of the boards of charity organizations being thoroughly infiltrated by reformed terrorists??

And Esquire magazine - the filthy lefty liberal rag that is it - tries to distract attention away from the Ayers stroy with a bit of titillation about Halle Barry.

There is no 'liberal bias' here; I see a full blown conspiracy!! If only someone would write about it so Drudge could link to it - we might be able to save this country before the next Redskins game.

Posted by: DonJasper | October 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

When people make statements like who cares about W Ayers, while Palin says the past does not matter I get confused. This is an incredible election year with what seems to be a great opportunity for educating ourselves.
We have google and factcheck. We can go read the bill congress passed for the bailout, if we can understand it. We have ordinary people paying attention.
The bombing of the pentagon on May 19th 1972 by the weatherman was in retaliation of the bombing of Hanoi according to wikipedia. The shooting of students by the national guard at Kent State was on May 4th, 1970.
The Dubois person being talked about in emails I keep receiving was the first black graduate from Harvard.

I am only a couple of years older then Obama and I do have grandchildren, no education, no health insurance, blah blah blah, however I remember feeling a sense of loss yet hopefulness from the 60's and early 70's. What I hear now is that same hopefulness, I see a bringing together of people.


Posted by: grandma4 | October 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

leah1946 - Sarah Palin is a whole different creature than John McCain. She isn't fit to be in the same room. She is a bimbo, a small time crook, a vile nutcase, that was selected by McCain's handlers to lock in the crazy Fundimentalist crowd. After this election, she will go home to multiple indictments, election defeat, and obsurity. You can forget all about the toxic Alaskan Barbie come November.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

WE NEED A STRONG PRESIDENT. ONE WHO TAKES CONTROL OF AND PUSHES THE CONGRESS TO GET OFF THE SEATS AND DO THEIR JOBS. WHICH IS KEEPING THIS COUNTRY STRONG AND FREE FROM OUTSIDE INFLUENCES. WE NEED SOMEONE TO FREE US FROM FOREIGN OIL, TO MAKE CAR COMPANIES COME UP WITH NEW IDEAS( LIKE 100 MPG) INSTEAD OF THE SAME TIRED OLD CONCEPTS OF DOING THE LEAST AMOUNT POSSIBLE AND CHARGING 100 X THE COST. SO McCAIN ? OBAMA ? WHO WILL STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND ANSWER OUR CALL OUR PLEAS FOR HELP?? AT THIS POINT IN TIME NEITHER HAS ANSWERED. GOD HELP US IF WE PICK WRONG THIS TIME. WE ARE LOOKING AT A DEPRESSION IN A YEAR IF NOT SOONER IF WE DON`T GET A LEADER WHO TAKE CHARGE.

Posted by: carol1747 | October 8, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists. "

Ernest Hemmingway

Posted by: msmith97 | October 8, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand."

This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that's the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. ("Keep up the good work," Palin told AIP members. "And God bless you.")

Posted by: whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket | October 8, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Did Bush ever mention the Swiftboat thing? No. He knows this sort of thing has to be carried by intermediaries. If he pulls out that sort of thing in a debate, he's getting hosed, and he knows it. Can we quit pretending his every move isn't being guided by some sort of internal electoral calculus? Distaste, or some other term vaguely evocative of a sense of honor, does not apply here.

Frankly, retreading the Ayers/Wright junk smacks of desperation and sounds like a broken record. Every time Palin amps up her rhetoric, she just fires up a Democratic base that wants to believe it has this thing wrapped up and reminds them of everything that they hate about Republican politicians.

Keep it up, McCain/Palin. At this rate, your current strategy has you sinking like a rock and Obama's cash registers working overtime. He's going to have enough money in the last two weeks to swamp a few key senate races too.

Posted by: starthom | October 8, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I think, McCain didn't go there, because somewhere inside, he knows its wrong or would hurt him. It would be nice if he would use that same judgment on the campaign trail, too, but I guess, we can't have everything.

[ Actually, I could care less, less I'm voting for Obama. ]

Posted by: wolfi101 | October 8, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I am tired, very tired, of column banners like the one used here: "Knife Attack Avoided." Its childish and it assumes the readers here and voters across the country are dumb and respond only to titillation. Time for media folks to grow up and show respect for the public. Time for them to come down of the mountain of assumed superiority.

Posted by: pbarnett52 | October 8, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It's looking like there's nowhere for John to go except Diebold.

The oil boys can't justify all the bad things they've done to this economy. They can't cover it up and John's just not a good enough candidate to get him in as their new puppet.

If Obama gets in, whatch for assasination attempts in the first six months. They have to try to stop him from finding out what Big Oil and Bush have been doing.

Posted by: msmith97 | October 8, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

It is too early to say the Rep duo Mc/Palin have lost their bid to the White House, but if they do....what happens to Sarah Palin? I believe she is being used by the McCain camp to be the aggressor, the one who uses the dirtiest and most inciteful speeches. Christians are getting upset that she is inciting words of violence and bias while letting her followers know she is a Christian. The Christ portrayed in the Bible is loving, forgiving, tolerant and a supporter of peace. America has seen her as demeaning with her winks and her "you betchas". Women who would love to have loved her are turning away in embarassment. If the Mc/Palin duo loses and they might, what next? Many Repubs are fighting for senate chairs in these elections and may not win. McCain who rarely mentions any of his "religious" values is exempt from most Christian's critical evaluation. SP has alienated many Repubs in Alaska she has bragged about hurting in her quest to be a maverick there. Her world reputation is in the crapper now. Her great chance to become a national politician may well become the beginning of the end to her political career beyond governing Alaska.
The loss of this election will be blamed on her by the Spin Doctors of the Repub Party. If the duo loses, McCain will take a few hits, but then he has the senate where he will stay till he chooses to retire. He is older and can afford to take what hits he will take if he loses. SP is much younger and this campaign and her part in it will follow her forever. If the duo loses this campaign, SP will be the scape moose.

Posted by: leah1946 | October 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

This morning John McCain put out a list of 100 former ambassadors who are supporting his campaign. Number two is Leonore Annenberg, the wife of Ambassador William Annenberg, the founder of the Annenberg Institute of Reform, which funded the Annenberg Challenge, which once had two famous board members: William Ayers and Sen. Barack Obama.


So either we should all be outraged that John McCain is supported by a family who funded a foundation that hired a "domestic terrorist", or this whole William Ayers thing is just plain silly. I choose the latter.


Smells like Wingnut desperation to me....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniG9l_7its
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The only way John McCain can turn his campaign around is to dump
Sarah Palin today!

Posted by: william9 | October 8, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"McCain Changes Tactics?"

He can change tactics 'til the cows come home; until he comes up with a strategy, he's just stabbing in the dark.

The voters seem to have awoken to what a McCain presidency would look like, by observing his candidacy. No strategy, no vision, just reflexive reactions to unanticipated adversity. With some better planning, he would have been a much more formidable candidate. Without it, he has been a disappointment.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 8, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

anothervoice2 - Actually KOZ can be quite thoughtful and downright hillarious. He is a dedicated conservative who got side blinded by the neocon twits. Right now, he is angry and more than a little lost. After the election, if you give him a chance, he and people like will be a constant and very healthy thorn in our side, keeping us honest. Ignore him until after the election.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 8, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

McCain's comment about the trillion dollar spending increase is patently debatable.

There are two think tanks that looked into the plans. The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates a spending increase of 990B and proposed spending cuts that amount to around $989 billion.

The conservative National Taxpayers Union says that Obama is proposing net spending increases of around $292 billion a year, or more than $1 trillion over four years.

So which is right? Take the cue from the alignment of the organization. The NTU was counting Obama's refundable health tax credits as extra government "spending," and ignored various spending cuts proposed by Obama.

So a classic manipulation of stats on this one and this has proven to be untrue by many party neutral fact checking institutions. McCain Lied.

Actually head over to factcheck.org. There isn't much McCain attacked that wasn't a complete fabrication or distortion. But hey, that is what you do when you have nothing to offer the american people but George W Bush's platform.

Posted by: fortheclueless | October 8, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

McCain new if he breathed the name William Ayers Obama would play the Keating 5 card and he DIDN'T want that so he kept his cakehole shut.

Posted by: blarsen1 | October 8, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

>>>>>> McCain believes he is far better qualified than Obama to be the next occupant of the White House. <<<<<<<

Of course, McCain, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and all the other candidates who ran as repub or demo believed the same way.

On cold day during the first week of January, 2008 in Iowa, voters met and decided we want Obama for whatever reason. Period.

We went through several ups and downs, excitements and turmoils during the election cycle but the winner will not change. Nobody can change that!

I think for McCain, he should plan to bow out for next 27 days with some dignity.

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | October 8, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Both of these men KNOW the USA is in a fix that it very bad, and each has not a clue of what to do.Like a fishing boat in a bad strom,hang on and pray.

Posted by: dv1236 | October 8, 2008 2:02 PM

=====================

You say Obama doesn't have a clue about how to fix it. So now tell us how you know that. Even it they don't, McCain don't more, so I'll take Obama.

Posted by: HemiHead66 | October 8, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Rolling Stone's profile of McCain paints a vastly different life story than he and the MSM peddle to the public. You think "lowest common denominator" politicking is uncomfortable turf for McCain because it rubs up against his principles? Read the RS piece and ask yourself what those principles might be.

URL: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Posted by: NowIsTheTime | October 8, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Well, McCain can change strategy and appear reasonable since he has an attack _ (insert as appropriate) running mate who is certainly not averse to a knife fight and, in a familiar tradition, being somewhat loose with the truth!

Posted by: anthony7 | October 8, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Please in the name of God!! Bill Ayers ? He is a professor right?? so how come he is teaching ?? Is he teaching terrorism??? So now our universities teaching terrorism ?? come on have some common sense !! I need to know what kind a university hired him for the last many many years if he a domestic terrorist?

Posted by: koons786 | October 8, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"Barack Obama may have been a child when William Ayers was plotting attacks against U.S. targets -- but I was one of those targets," said Murtagh. "Barack Obama's friend tried to kill my family."

This is right out of the Republican, 11th-hour, last-ditch-effort playbook. It's called a "Willie Horton," and it worked in 1988 when Bush 41 was desperate to open up a lead weeks before the election.

I hope Americans see this smarmy effort for what it is.

Posted by: kjohnson3 | October 8, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

They didn't change strategies ... they just tested it and wanted to plant seeds.

Guaranteed they are waiting until about 10 days before the election and then they will throw out all kinds of crap hoping at least some of it will stick to the wall long enough to affect the elections.

See ... if they fully play this card out now the public and press would do some research and find out the truth to Obama's favor before the election.

By waiting, they hope everyone will think they dropped it, before they launch it again at a point it is too late for he general public to find out the truth.

Posted by: dave40 | October 8, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, the old "win-by-projection" tactic - haven't we seen that in the primaries?
Isn't that ("it's in the bag") what Kerry and Mary Beth Cahil thought in 2004? I can still see the idiot pollsters on CNN stammering - and here you are again repeating the same mistake. How was it again Einstein defined insanity?

It'll be over on Nov. 4th.

Posted by: minghia | October 8, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

--------------------------------------
Win by "projection" strategy?
Mmmmmmm
no
Its called MATH.
Lets see if you can add..
The current electoral map:
Obama 264 (6 short of a WIN)
McCain 163
Battle ground states (All red mind you)

Ohio
RCP Average 09/24 - 10/06 -- 48.9 44.9 Obama +4.0

Penn
RCP Average 09/23 - 10/07 -- 51.6 39.2 Obama +12.4

Virginia
RCP Average 09/27 - 10/05 -- 49.9 45.1 Obama +4.8

Florida
RCP Average 09/27 - 10/06 -- 48.3 45.3 Obama +3.0

Missouri
RCP Average 09/22 - 10/05 -- 47.8 47.5 Obama +0.3

N Carolina
RCP Average 09/27 - 10/06 -- 47.6 48.2 Obama +0.6

McCain has t onot only win all these states but take several others away. Do the MATH my "friend" It isnt projection its called math.

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

So the Republicans are attacking Obama for 1) thinking the Republicans are wrong and 2) for wanting to spend money on people who are not wealthy.

That sounds like a winning formula.

Posted by: caribis | October 8, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Of course McCain has a choice and he has made it: he has run a dishonorable campaign filled with lies. He picked an incompetent running mate. He picked lobbyists to run his campaign. He picked Rove-trained slime merchants to run his campaign. And his bar-b-que buddies in the media still turn the other way and say he had no choice. Nice try. No way
****************************************
Dear havok26

Remember that all of these folks are human and that they make mistakes. Ensure that you check out you own VP candidate when calling Palin incompetent. If she is incompetent then he probably qualifies as an imbecile. Just check him out on You Tube, he casually tosses out racial aspersions and lies to get the best of his hecklers. He forgot who the President was at the beginning of the Great Depression and doesn't know when the TV was invented. He can’t keep his foot out of his mouth.

Btw, I am still voting Dem but not because anyone is incompetent. I just support a more pragmatic, Realpolitik foreign policy. The are all to blame for this mess, the Dems (Barney Frank) pushed the loosening of restrictions on Fannie and Freddie in order to get more people into the American dream. Most policies cannot be enacted without the majority on board, it is the result of the checks and balances established in the Constitution.

Posted by: wolcotts | October 8, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

MCAIN: "Oil drilling offshore now is vital so we can bridge the gap between imported oil ... and it will reduce the price of a barrel of oil. ... We've got to drill offshore and do it now."

THE FACTS: The government estimates that opening the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling "will not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030." Even then, it would only increase domestic oil production by 3 percent.

Since he refuses to vote for alternative energy unless it involves drilling, I guess this is Sen. McCain's energy plan?

I think Sen. Obama was more specific on his tax plan, and the difference between
Sen. McCain who would give his biggest cut to the top 5% (Tax Policy Center)

Sen. Obama also scored points on health care, being more specific on his plan, and being direct to the false statements made about his plan. While Sen. McCain called health care a responsibility, Sen. Obama followed the standard set by Sen. Ted Kennedy calling it a right.

As far as foreign policy, Sen. Obama again surprised the 'experts'. Sen. McCain said we should "talk small", so Obama throws Sen. McCain's own comments about Iran, N. Korea, and "Baghdad's next" at him. On Iraq specifically, bringing up the judgment by Sen. McCain to agree taking resources from Afghanistan to invade Iraq was strong. With the reasons for invading Iraq proven false, and Sen. McCain saying it would be cheap and quick, and saying we would "muddle through" in Afghanistan, and now the situation much worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Sen. McCain saying "I know how to get bin Laden" and yet he won't tell anyone? How can McCain attack Obama's judgment after this?

Posted by: mbacha1 | October 8, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

...."channeling Bob Dole"

,,,,"channeling Bob Dole"

...."Hello Bob?"

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 8, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Where is the MSM on connecting the dots between McCain himself and Wm. Ayers. Mrs. Annenberg is a supporter of McCain. Ayers served on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. What does that make her? Wm. Ayers is a distinguished scholar at the Univ. of South Carolina where Sen. McCain's friend Gov. Sanford also serves on the board. What does that make him? What does that make the Univ. of S.C.? What about Mayor Daley of Chicago? What about the Univ. of Illinois in Chicago where he is a distinguished scholar? What about Columbia University which allowed him to attend as a student, well after his radical youth? Are all of these people and institutions guilty by reason of association?

Posted by: MainLineGirl | October 8, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

McCain acted like he was high on crack or some kind of speed drug the way he couldn't sit still and wandered around like he was looking for the men's room or something. Maybe he was having a personal 'surge.'

McCain mentioned we need someone with a 'steady hand on the tiller.' Was that to remind us of his erratic behaviors during this financial crisis? It did.

McCain kept writing on his notepad, even before the debate started. That was his 'things to do' list for after the election ends Nov. 4 and he is out.


Posted by: darby124 | October 8, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

In the five weeks since Sarah Palin was named as John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin has spent most of that time hiding from the media. Beyond the interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, Palin has either been in an undisclosed location or only talking to the media arms of the Republican Party, where she faces a grilling on whether or not the liberal media has been fair to her. She has yet to appear on a Sunday news show, and she has held zero press conferences. Talk about being unable to answer questions (forthrightly or otherwise), and thinking the usual rules don't apply.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E
.


John McBush and Side Show Barbie must think the American people are stupid.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4egXbhSOhk
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 8, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

McCain can't quite bring himself to attempt character assassination? Maybe. I think that he realizes that there is an edge to the cliff.

Consider: The headline about the emergency rate cut, and Dana Milbank's column lambasting McCain for bringing up Ayers at a time of national crisis.

Instead McCain can be criticized for 'small game', but at least the day after he's still got game, and still in the game.

I wonder if Michelle has dared to take a steal a peek at FDR's inauguration speech while Barrack is away on a campaign stop.

Give you a hint: There is nothing to ____ but ____ itself.

Posted by: DonJasper | October 8, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
Can you see the ridiculousness of a major news organization such as the Washington Post leaving the Ayers revelations for MCCAIN to bring up, and sitting back and seeing if he does it?

It's your newspaper's responsiblity to report the full truth of the Ayers matter, not John McCain, and this story ought to be on the front pages of every newspaper in America today.

The story has just begun to enter the mainstream press.

I hope you realize the blockbuster revelation CNN reported yesterday. They did their own private investigation into the newly released files of the Annenberg project.

Three important conclusions:

1) Obama lied to the American people on TV about Ayers; he has not been forthcoming about the truth of the relationship.

2) It turns out they worked closely in two foundations together for several years, that Obama distributed $60M in funds per year from Ayers and the Annenberg grant and put the money to several of Ayers' pet programs, and that Obama’s ‘coming out party’ at Ayers home was orchestrated to launch his political future, and not as has been reported by the previous state Senator – she’s denying she set up the meeting.

3)This is now confirmed for the first time in the mainstream press and the genie is out of the bottle.

Check this out:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=190343

Breibart titled it: CNN Finds Extensive Ties Between Barack Obama and ‘Terrorist’ Bill Ayers

CNN’s Drew Griffin blows the lid off the Ayers/Obama association.

You can also find the video report with the result of CNN’s inquiry on the videos section of the CNN website.

Posted by: votewithyourfeet | October 8, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis, Chris, But, Sen. McCain can't change the race. Palin can, and I think she will.

Thanks for the forum WP. Vin at www.wegotsarah.com

Posted by: Vinprose | October 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Breaking News? If the following is true, somehow I knew this might going to happen when we passed the bailout. I had a fear this would gin up McCain-Palin's backers for the home stretch. Little did I know that Bailout money is being recycled through Wachovia into the GOP. Our tax dollars going to the bailout are now going to be recycled into the Republican Party's 2008 campaign through the failed Wachovia Bank: "The National Republican Congressional Committee . . . has secured an $8 million loan to spend on House races during the last few weeks of the campaign, according to sources. The NRCC reported $14.4 million in cash on hand as of Aug. 31, . . . As it did last cycle, the NRCC is procuring its loan from Wachovia Bank, sources confirmed." !!!

Posted by: osullivanc1 | October 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

RyanHealey

The reason McCain may lose this election is "the economy stupid". Apparently election history is not your forte'.

Who is to blame is another matter. Might want to wonder why the "give a bro a mortgage" crowd ever put financial institutions (which are one of the pillars of the American economy) at risk by crying racism when banks rightfully would not grant a no money down $400,000 mortgage to some guy working at Wendy's for 2 weeks. That loosening of regulations was originally crafted by Clinton/Reno.

After the light goes on in that head of yours you can start considering why Obama would be stuffing his pockets with $126,000 in 2 years; the second largest amount EVER given by Freddie/Fannie in "campaign contributions" at the very same time he was voting against S.190 which would have brought oversight to secondary subprime lenders like Freddie/Fannie.

I know it requires thinking and I know you’re a liberal. Just have the fire department standing by and when they see smoke escaping from your ears, hold your nose and let them hose you down.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I can't wait to see what the McCain campaign will be doing tomorrow! It's better than a sitcom. I guess it's a little example of how 'stable' a McCain presidency would be. You betcha! 'wink' 'wink'

Good thing that ain't happening!

Posted by: mbacha1 | October 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

The fact that it is taking the Dems 3 times as much money to barely see a lead should sound the alarm that Obama is NoBama!

NoBama is dangerously under qualified as he demonstrated during last night’s debate to all but the blind when he told Pakistan that he intended to invade!

This is the wrong time for his inexperience!

We have too much at stake for such naiveté! I’m sorry that we can’t “continue his dream of America” but reality must take hold!

Everyone realizes that NoBama has no military or foreign relations experience and to objectively look at the world situation and the dangers we face and suggest NoBama is the answer, is to put this Country at jeopardy in order to further a selfish agenda.

Furthermore, NoBama is a Democratic party-puppet! He always dose what his party mandates! No bi-partisanship ever! This alone demonstrates he is the wrong choice for the times!

And then there’s the current economic crisis for which NoBama bears significant responsibility…

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

We need a President who is a PROVEN independent decision-maker, not a party puppet!

Posted by: AverageAmerican1 | October 8, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

There's tactics and there's strategy. McCain has no strategy.

Like Hillary, too negative, too late.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 8, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Chris, chris, chris. We're you not paying attention to the little response lines on the bottom of the CNN tv screen? Every time there was a perceived attack by either candidate, it flat lined.

While both bases were screaming for blood on the floor, the undecided and moderates were more interested in why they should vote FOR someone, not why they should hate the other guy.

Bringing up Ayers, or any of the other garbage in this campaign will not help McCain and I think he knows it.

Bob Dole lost with honor. Maybe McCain still can as well.

Posted by: cfeher | October 8, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

garydenton: "sorry to tell you repubs, but you can piss on the fire, call the dogs, and go home. this party is over!!!"

Ah yes, the old "win-by-projection" tactic - haven't we seen that in the primaries?
Isn't that ("it's in the bag") what Kerry and Mary Beth Cahil thought in 2004? I can still see the idiot pollsters on CNN stammering - and here you are again repeating the same mistake. How was it again Einstein defined insanity?

It'll be over on Nov. 4th.

Posted by: minghia | October 8, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Both of these men KNOW the USA is in a fix that it very bad, and each has not a clue of what to do.Like a fishing boat in a bad strom,hang on and pray.

Posted by: dv1236 | October 8, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Both candidates should be too busy working on solutions to our problems than this ridiculous character bashing. And the media just eats it up. That's just sad.

Posted by: nanlee1 | October 8, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin palling around with secessionists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniG9l_7its

Why is that not making ANY news?!
That lady has nerve talking about Ayers.."

Yeah, everyone has some sticky associations.

Does anyone remember the article about radicals who were associated with Hillary during her hippie lawyer days and came out of the woodwork as a protest against her invoking Ayers? It was well after North Carolina and Obama had the thing wrapped up, so no one really cared.

(by the way, I use "hippie lawyer" in a very positive sense. Someone who stood up for progressive ideals.)

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

OK, the question I have about the Ayers/Obama connection is: True, no matter how detestable Ayers is Obama can always claim he didn't know him that well. If this is true, then, why did Ayers trust Obama with $50 million for his youth indoctrination programs? How many strangers are you willing to trust with that kind of money?

Posted by: DL13 | October 8, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

----------------------------
Ummm Ayers didnt trust Obama with the money. It wasnt Ayers money to give and it wasnt Obama's money to recieve. They served on the same board and that money was spent by COMMITTEE. Pathetic attempt to once again make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t. Is that all you have? Read any electoral maps lately? Perhaps that is why you post such pointless drivel.

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe that the "that one" comment was racist. It was just old crabby man talk. My grandfather would refer to his own children as "this one" and "that one" when he was displeased with them. Yes there is serious tension between the candidates mostly generated from unfair attacks like the sex ed, anti-american stuff, but I am actually relieved that there were few personal attacks and it was kind of boring. There has been a little too much excitement when it comes to this stuff and we should take a long sober look at our future and who should lead us.

I don't believe that McCain is actually even running his campaign anymore. These character attacks are not the McCain that I knew in 2000.

On a different note. Obama let the opportunity slip to defend his vote on the Bush energy bill. He simply should have stated that it was the first opportunity to vote for a Bush/Cheney energy bill that included alternative energy.

They are both in denial about their spending plans but dont want to be the candidate so close to the election that wants to break the news to the public about sacrifice. They either a. Dont know or b. both think its political suicide to explain how much we will suffer. Have we gone soft? Just give it to me straight doc...are we headed for a global depression? That would be refreshing.

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 8, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

WAS "THAT ONE" JUST ANOINTED BY AN ANGRY McCAIN?

"That one."

With two little words, John McCain 2008 buried John McCain 2000, and his hopes of ever reaching the White House -- honorably, at least.

The climax to what seemed to be a well-rehearsed body blow, "that one" suddenly became the president-in-waiting, the only potential presidential visage left standing.

The comment was mean, contemptuous, and, it could be argued, racially insensitive. It immediately conjured up thoughts of the Old South, a world where white men referred to blacks as "boy" or "that boy," a world where white men couldn't bear to look a black man in the eye, lest he be viewed as worthy of such common social courtesy.

The comment may explain why McCain seemed so incapable of anything more than a quick glance at Obama during the previous debate.

"That one" wasn't the only one. McCain blurted out a couple other pearls of persnickedyness during last night's otherwise dull proceedings. He condescendingly suggested to a young adult who happened to be black that prior to the financial crisis, "you probably never heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Even moderator Tom Brokaw fell victim to McNasty, who was asked who he might choose as his treasury secretary. "Not you," McCain snapped back incomprehensibly, calling to mind the phrase, "Angry old man shouting at cloud."

But do McCain's displays of pique signal something more troubling, more menacing, than the mere rantings of a crabby senior senator? His deprecating demeanor comes on the high heels of Sarah Palin's McCarthyistic slanders against a Barack Obama -- who, in her world view, is "palling around" with a "known domestic terrorist."

Nor does it seem an accident that at the very moment of Palin's invective, someone in the crowd, well within the range of the podium microphones, yelled out "Terrorist!" And another voice in the crowd could be heard shouting, "Kill him!"

Whether the shouter was referring to the supposed terrorist Bill Ayers or Barack Obama is irrelevant. The point is that someone in the McCain campaign hears these responses to their candidates' invectives. Their response? Mostly, deafening silence.

Is it the silence of an insidious, premeditated evil? At what point does McCain campaign rhetoric cross the line from hyperbole to an incitement to violence? In the case of Sarah Barracuda, that line already may have been crossed.

And it wasn't just the cries of an angry crowd that got ugly. At a recent Sarah Palin rally, a uniformed police officer who was doing an introduction referred to "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" (the emphasis was his). The crowd roared its approval; but was the remark something of a coded message by an authority figure that it's now open season on the Democratic nominee?

To invoke a much-worn phrase, "Words matter" -- especially when those words may have been sanctioned, or at the very least, countenanced, by the officials of America's ruling political party.

These are troubled times; the true causes of the current economic tumult are yet to be discerned. Could there be a connection between the economic chaos and provocative political rhetoric? Are combatants in this battle for power searching for scapegoats to blame for the downturn? Is reckless political rhetoric intended to spark a class war, or a race war, easing the way for an ugly victory of one ideology over another?

Such questions may seem far-fetched. But the notion of a global economic meltdown seemed far-fetched just a few months ago.
Better to ask these questions and search for answers now, before voters finally decide which side they should be on.

DID "EXTRAJUDICIAL TARGETING" BY GOV'T AGENCIES
HELP TRIGGER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis OR
http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener


Posted by: scrivener50 | October 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse


Good God. Could there be a dumber analysis? Here we go again, wih the MSM typing a favorite old narrative. Why didn't McCain launch personal attacks against Obama? McCain is "uncomfortable" with making personal attacks, Cilizza keens.

""McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns -- always viewing himself as above that sort of lowest common denominator politics. His refusal to bring up Ayers last night is reflective of his distaste for the knife-fight aspects of politics. "

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Let's look back to 2000 at McCain's noble aversion to smears. This was a time when:

--He was baldly misstating Bush’s budget proposal.
--He was running negatives ads which so offended Republican voters that he had to take them down—dramatically, of course.
--He was boiling over with obvious anger in the South Carolina debate—moderated by Larry King.
--He was lying about his actual views concerning the confederate flag. (Or so he later said.)
--He was paying large sums to two race men—presumably, to build his in-state conservative bona fides.
--He was making a series of bogus claims about negative flyers his campaign was distributing, in contravention of previous pledges.
--He was running anonymous phone calls in Michigan, painting Bush as anti-Catholic.
--He was lying, right in the face of the press, when asked if he was running those phone calls. (His campaign finally fessed up—the morning after the Michigan primary.)
--He was parading about, repeatedly saying he was going to “beat Al Gore like a drum”—even as the press corps praised him for his wonderfully uplifting politics.
He was repeatedly telling a story about Gore and the Buddhist temple that was baldly inaccurate.
-------------
People. Did it possibly occur to Cilizza that the reason he didn't go after Obama on a personal level is that to do so would have been a political loser at best and a tremendous risk at worst?

Did it occur to Cilizza that perhaps the McCain campaign is operating -- as these thugs do --on several levels: one, where McCain acts high-minded -- while his vp running mate whips the crowd into a near violent frenzy?

How dumb can you be?

Posted by: monk4hall | October 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

When this is over they have a lot of tax problems to go back to.. On one return Todd's business made only $30,000 while showing a net profit of $7,000. This was before Sarah had the pretty good job of governor. They are already being investigated going back 7 years. Lets face it, they live up in the middle of nowhere and people up there do what they want. I am sure they will find things like a $30,000 snow machine with no way to find where the money came from to buy it. Todds fishing business is a cash business. I am sure his books, if he even keeps them, are legit. Yea right. When this election is over and they go back to Alaska they will find all those republicans operatives protecting them now will disappear. They will be on their own. Except for the book that will most likely come out, I predict they go down the drain. They are both regular drug users according to people in Alaska as are their kids confirmed by the Enquirer along with Sarah's adultery that has also bee confirmed. These people are little more the backwoods trash.
---------
"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government," Vogler said in the interview, in which he talked extensively about his desire for Alaskan secession, the key goal of the AIP.

Palin has courted the group over the years.

She has repeatedly reached out to the group. The McCain campaign has confirmed she visited the group's 2000 convention, and she addressed its convention this year, as an incumbent governor whose oath of office includes upholding the Constitution of the United States.

Palin's husband, Todd Palin, was a member of the party from 1995-2002 with a brief exception in 2000.

It's worth noting that Vogler isn't just some figure from ancient history. He is still being hailed on AIP's site this year, the same year Palin addressed the group's convention.

Posted by: franglais | October 8, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and one more thing: Why is it that Obama is held accountable for the past actions of anyone he has ever met, but McCain is not even held accountable by the press for the actions of his own campaign?

Posted by: jak2 | October 8, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain didn't mention Ayers because he doesn't want to do the dirty work. Obviously his campaign is not above the smear tactics used against him by Bush in 2000. Also, I think reporters should stop referring to videos released on the internet by campaigns as "ads," instead referring them to video press releases. It's a subtle but important distinction if the campaign has not spent any money on ad buys in a particular market.

Posted by: breukelen | October 8, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about Bill Ayers? America is also the land of Second Opportunities. Ayers did some incredibly stupid, dangerous things as a very misguided young man. He was given a second chance, by luck or happenstance, and he made good on the social contract. 'nuff said.

Posted by: pete1013 | October 8, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

W T F

What Ayers and his associates did was treasonous. He should be rotting in the ground just like Tim McVeigh.

Posted by: flatlander1992 | October 8, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Rank party idealogue? Maybe that would be a problem if he were a Republican, a party from which most of the country seems to be running. Democractic voter registration is up, and the party seems to be polling better overall.

McCain is the one that needs to avoid being labelled a rank party idealogue. Calling Obama a Democrat isn't necessarily a winning strategy at this point.

As far as his voting record is concerned, from what data is he drawing the conclusion that Obama is the most liberal senator? I've seen research of interest group ratings that suggests Obama and Biden are closer to the middle, while McCain is one of the most conservative members of the Senate.

Posted by: JohninMpls | October 8, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

McCain kept walking around the stage while Obama was talking because the stool they gave him to sit on was too high for him to sit comfortably with his feet touching the floor. He's a short man - 5'7" (or the reported 5'9" that probably includes his lifts), and he very definitely exhibits traits of the short man/Napoleon syndrome. Probably was majorly pissed off because accomadations weren't made for his lack of height - he HATES being reminded of his small stature, probably just as much as he hates being bested by a black man.

Posted by: HedgeBaby | October 8, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns".

You forgot .... 'when he is in the same room as his opponent.'

It's called cowardice.

Posted by: jak2 | October 8, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns -- always viewing himself as above that sort of lowest common denominator politics."

Yes, he is such an honorable man that he lets other people do his dirty work!!

He may not have brought it up but his comment "that one" and the way he walked around the stage while Obama was talking were extremely rude and contemptuous. The same behavior - never looking Obama in the eye during the last debate - and his condescending tone show exactly what kind of a man he is.

I probably would have voted for him in 2000 but he has morphed into a pathetic shell of a man who's only goal is to be President regardless of what his campaign does to the country in the meantime.

I just shudder to think what the republicans will do in the next 3 weeks. I hope they reflect on the story of Lee Atwater, the man who ran one of the dirtiest campaigns ever for Bush Sr. As he was dying from terminal cancer less than 2 years after that election he asked for forgiveness for the slanders and lies he was responsible for against Dukakis.

Posted by: june54 | October 8, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

So McCain's idea of bipartisanship is calling the other side terrorist's and laughing when people scream "kill him".

Sounds just like the Bush/Cheney "bipartisanship" we have now.

Posted by: MarcMyWords | October 8, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

sorry to tell you repubs, but you can piss on the fire, call the dogs, and go home.
this party is over!!!

Posted by: garydenton | October 8, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting that so much commentary about the McCain campaign speaks of it as if it were a person, with one mind directed its actions. Even commentators like Cillizza, with sources inside the campaign, discuss Sen. McCain and his campaign, but never any of the people inside his campaign.

This is how campaigns prefer it, and some may threaten to withhold access to journalists who choose not to play by their rules. In this case, though, it is highly likely that McCain's campaign has some of the same internal disagreements about the approach to take that Michelle Cottle revealed in her story last spring about Sen. Clinton's campaign. Some of McCain's people -- probably the ones who used to work for George Bush -- want to move the race back to debating Sen. Obama's character and association; others prefer to stay away from that kind of thing, as much because they think it will backfire during an economic crisis as because they dislike tactics of this kind and know McCain does, too.

There could be an interesting story or two coming out about this, but not until after the election. For now, campaign journalists play by campaign rules; they will protect their access, and leave the reporting for later.

Posted by: jbritt3 | October 8, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

So what you are saying Mr. Cilizza is McCain aint got nothing intelligible to offer the American people but vague associations?

One more thing. If Ayers is such a "bad guy" why is he not behind bars. Why does Mayor Daley hold Ayers in such high regard? Why is Ayers the top of the political food chain in Chicago politics? Enquiring me wants to know.

Now if associations are everything to you and your buddy McCain, why is Sarah Palin's and her husband's membership and courting of the secessionist, anti-American Alaskan Independence Party not being addressed by you or the McCain Palin Camp?

Why is McCain's membership on the board of the anti-semetic and racist Council for the Defense of Freedom not being addressed. What about his strong associations with members of the Project for a New American Century? Again, enquiring me wants to know.


Posted by: d_sever191 | October 8, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

OK, the question I have about the Ayers/Obama connection is: True, no matter how detestable Ayers is Obama can always claim he didn't know him that well. If this is true, then, why did Ayers trust Obama with $50 million for his youth indoctrination programs? How many strangers are you willing to trust with that kind of money?

Posted by: DL13 | October 8, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Old grumpy pants must have got some anger management because he was almost civil. Still don't see him wearing a lapel pin. If Oboma did that he would be declared un-American.

Posted by: maphound | October 8, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps McCain has seen the handwriting on the wall, and actually refuses to go there personally. McCain, to his credit, has always tried to remain above the fray of the more disgusting personal attacks. He may want to avoid history saying that he resorted to these sorts of attacks in desperation.

I doubt that either the personal attacks on associations or the attacks on Obama's voting record as overly "liberal" are going to stick to any great degree. These lines of attack, to be effective, needed to begin long before now.

After two Presidential debates where Obama has appeared Presidential in manner and appearance, the economic crisis where Obama appeared calm in the eye of the storm while McCain's actions were rather erratic and where Obama is focused on real issues of the campaign, and the Couric interviews which revealed McCain's VP choice to be dangerously shallow and uninformed, such efforts by the McCain now to attack Obama personally after most voters are becoming more committed in their choices is doomed to fail.

Had McCain begun these lines of attack during the summer or at the Republican convention, and kept at them relentlessly, perhaps they would stick. But we've now reached a point where a real world event in the form of the economic crisis has intervened, forcing responses from the candidates, forcing a governmental response to the financial crisis, and that economic crisis seized control of the campaign. The two debates have focused on real issues, and given Obama the opportunity to reassure any lingering doubts among those who may have leaned his way on the issues but harbored doubts, who had difficulty viewing him as President. People's judgments are largely formed now.

Barring some real-world events that recast the Presidential race in a new direction, it is very unlikely that McCain can recover from his current deficit in the polls. He may rebound slightly in the closing days after the final debate, perhaps enough to hang onto states like Missouri and Indiana, but not enough to capture the necessary Electoral Votes to win. Obama is going to win with a minimum of 52% of the two-party vote, and more than 300 Electoral Votes, possibly approaching 350 EV's.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | October 8, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

McCain needs to launch into Obama's past?

He's afraid of the can of worms he will open up regarding his own past. There is plenty there - McCain's steadfast and effective opposition to repatriation of the heavily documented US POWs remaining in Vietnam after he himself was released; his association with Russian thugs in the Russian virtual takeover of Montenegro; his association with Italian mafioso. And the worst part of his past: how MUCH of it there is, and how little time may be left to him.

Posted by: imhodudes | October 8, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse
-------------

JOHN MCCAIN, TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY, COLLABORATOR WITH THE ENEMY, MILITARY DISGRACE.

Ted Sampley, a Vietnam Veteran and former Green Beret, issued a CHALLENGE to John McCain "If you can show us that the information presented in our mailer is untruthful . . . we will Stand Down" This CHALLENGE was issued during an interview with INSIDE EDITION on January 17, 2008.
John, family members of Vietnam POW/MIA(s) have been waiting for more then 14 years for you to have the courage to face them eye to eye in front of the American Public - Here is your opportunity for some "STRAIGHT TALK." Stop hiding behind your fabricated "War Hero" persona. You know we can prove your collaborations with declassified government documents . . . It is time for the American people to get to know the REAL John McCain - the John McCain that the POW/MIA families witnessed during the 1991-93 US Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs .
Bring It On John! HERE IS OUR NUMBER 252-527-0442
*********** ************* ************** *********** ***********
Activists accused McCain of stonewalling the release of POW records because they contained evidence he had collaborated with the North Vietnamese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MUY9S6iCvk

Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government," Vogler said in the interview, in which he talked extensively about his desire for Alaskan secession, the key goal of the AIP.

Palin has courted the group over the years.

She has repeatedly reached out to the group. The McCain campaign has confirmed she visited the group's 2000 convention, and she addressed its convention this year, as an incumbent governor whose oath of office includes upholding the Constitution of the United States.

Palin's husband, Todd Palin, was a member of the party from 1995-2002 with a brief exception in 2000.

It's worth noting that Vogler isn't just some figure from ancient history. He is still being hailed on AIP's site this year, the same year Palin addressed the group's convention.

Posted by: franglais | October 8, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"Ayers and Wright are the means to do that, but to be honest this is the weakest, most incoherent national campaign by a Republican in my lifetime (born 1970) and that's saying a lot since Dole was rudderless and GHWB in 92 was scattershot."

Dole had a consistent argument. The problem was that it was a weak one.

The economy was doing well at the end of the first Clinton term. The Dole argument is that it could have been better.

Not exactly convincing, is it?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I am so very sick of the people who imply that McCain is really just so "torn" about using sleazy tactics. Poor John, he just never wanted things to be this way but mean Barack wouldn't do town hall meetings with him so he HAD to start calling him a terrorist sympathizer!

This is HIS campaign and he is accountable for all the hate and bile being spewed by his spokespeople and his ridiculous Joke of a running mate. If he had so much "honor" and "integrity" he would never have gone down this road, indeed he would not have hired all the Rove-spawn to run his campaign.

If this is how he runs his own organization, how does he expect to govern in a "bipartisan" manner? The answer is that he will be just as divisive, erratic and unaccountable as he has shown himself to be during the campaign. Worse yet, we will be saddled with a Vice President whose entire political education and world view comes from listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

When McCain picked Palin, it was equivalent to America the middle finger.

Posted by: marSF | October 8, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

He is a collage professor who was never charged or convicted of anything, unlike Keating. If you think guilt by association matters you better track dow the thousands os students he has taught.
By the way, me neighbor once was Sam Giancana. I guess I must have Mafia ties then. You can play "Six degrees of separation with anyone".


---------------------
Who the hell is Ayers?

Posted by: nmoses | October 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 8, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

McCain needs to launch into Obama's past?

He's afraid of the can of worms he will open up regarding his own past. There is plenty there - McCain's steadfast and effective opposition to repatriation of the heavily documented US POWs remaining in Vietnam after he himself was released; his association with Russian thugs in the Russian virtual takeover of Montenegro; his association with Italian mafioso. And the worst part of his past: how MUCH of it there is, and how little time may be left to him.

Posted by: imhodudes | October 8, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I believe John McCain has correctly concluded that unless something Earth shattering happens, he WILL be loosing in November, it's just by how much.

His nasty personal attacks on Obama were dishonorable and turned away swing voters. If he is going to be returning to the Senate and working with a President Obama and Democratic Senate, he best try and repair some of the damage he has done to his reputation.

Republican, however, need to vent their anger over this upcoming loss not at Obama, but George Bush and Dick Cheney, who ran the "Republican Brand" into the ground and are the real reason McCain is loosing.

Posted by: RyanHealey | October 8, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin palling around with secessionists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniG9l_7its

Why is that not making ANY news?!
That lady has nerve talking about Ayers.....
Seriously, where is the headline news on this stuff? Talk about guilt by association!
That Vogler guy takes the cake for any "anti-American" sentiments.
And Sarah wasn't six years old when she spoke, what, like three times at their conventions?!

Posted by: franglais | October 8, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Ideally for McCain, the 527s would carry the negative message. With their absence, the message would be carried through attack ads and Palin. Not QUITE the distance McCain would like, but it will have to do.

In person in front of a live and nationally televised audience as well as in front of the subject of the attacks?

I think that's just political suicide and I think McCain's advisers would agree. I would have been genuinely surprised if McCain came out with Ayers and Wright stuff during the debate.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 8, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama in a landslide America and that my friends is a great thing. Time to throw out the same clowns that brought us the lies and smears George W. Bush used to become our worst President ever. Mc Same is the worst option we could have been given. Obama is a man of intellect and integrity two qualities Mc Grumpy does not have. OBAMANOS! WE WILL BRING THE CHANGE WE NEED NOW TO AMERICA!

Posted by: pedraza1 | October 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

What would a b hussain admin be? I don't know any candidate that goes by that name.

Can't you find a better part time job than RNC troll?

Posted by: theobserver4 | October 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The MSM needs this story. Without anything contraversial to cover, they would have to report on...umm...the issues? The MSM is trying desparately to keep this thing alive. McCain has let it go, maybe you should too, Chris.

Posted by: oubobcat99 | October 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"who starts off their first elective office in the LR of someone they hardly know?"

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 1:20 PM

Hate to tell you, Highness, but many campaigns start off in wealthy friends of friends' homes. The candidate may not know the person personally, but is assured by the mutual people/fundraisers that they're alright. Politics is all about taking people at their word, which is why it's sooooooooooo sticky!

Posted by: undercover_hon | October 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Senator McCain has a very arrogant attitude toward Seator Obama that is very obvious, ie. calling him "that one" It was totally a disgrace especially for someone of his equal.

PALIN INCITING HATE AND DANGER TO SEN. OBAMA

I have grave concern about the tactic Gov. Palin has taken to do McCain's dirty work.

1. It is coward of him to not put his own disgraceful message before the people.
2. It is inciting McCain's followers to become hateful toward toward Sen. Obama and perhaps African Americans. While she and McCain have associations with shady characters.

As it was evident that African Americans were taunted by the crowd, ie. CNN producer Carey Bodenheimer reported Tuesday that at several recent rallies, Palin has stirred up crowds by mentioning the "liberal media." Routinely, there are boos at every mention of The New York Times and the "mainstream media," both of which are staples of Palin's stump speech.

Bodenheimer said some audience members are openly hostile to members of the traveling press covering Palin; one crowd member hurled a racial epithet at an African-American member of the press in Clearwater, Florida, on Monday.

Washington Post columnist and CNN contributor Dana Milbank also commented on the incident.

"It's indicative of the very sort of sinister turn things have taken on the trail ... that people are that angry, that they'd be turning venom on somebody who just happens to be there recording the event.

She has gone over the line and her sinister messages can take racial hatred back 40 + years. I predict that if she continues some one will get hurt or perhaps worse.

Posted by: sbr102003 | October 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Zouk is a rethug troll on these websites. There is also a JakeD that is a clone. Xanadu3 may also be one - we will see how many distorted posts show up.
Huffingtonpost.com today reports:
On Wednesday morning, John McCain's campaign released a list of 100 former ambassadors endorsing the GOP presidential nominee.

Second on the list, though her name is misspelled, is Leonore Annenberg, currently the president and chairman of the Annenberg Foundation and widow of ambassador and philanthropist Walter Annenberg. Ms. Annenberg was herself the "chief of protocol" at the State Department under President Reagan.

If the last name sounds familiar, it's because it also graces the name of the Chicago education board where Barack Obama and William Ayers sat in the room six times together.

In recent days, the McCain-Palin ticket (and particularly Palin) has faulted Obama for having served on that board with Ayers, who was a founding member of the radical 60's Weather Underground group when Obama was in grade school.

Since then, however, Ayers has been rehabilitated in Chicago society, carving out a niche in education circles. As a former Republican representative in Illinois told NPR on Monday, smearing Obama for his board association with Ayers is "nonsensical."

"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier ... It's ridiculous," Republican Rep. Diana Nelson said. "There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."

Posted by: anothervoice2 | October 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Of course McCain didn't bring up Ayers last night. It would have been a stupid thing to do for as soon as Obama refuted it once and for all on a nationwide debate that takes all the sting out of it for future attacks....

Posted by: Tansen | October 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

What we witnessed at last night debate was another old asinine pathetic performance by this erratic old man, especially when he referred Obama as" that one". As an independent voter and war veteran At one time I respected McCain, now when I hear him talk spewing diarrhea from his mouth I vomit

Posted by: capskip | October 8, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns -- always viewing himself as above that sort of lowest common denominator politics."

So he saw the light, experienced a conversion and turned over his soul to Rove and Schmidt (the saviors) this week? Touching.

Posted by: smartchick1 | October 8, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"McCain has never been comfortable making harshly negative, personal attacks"
------------------------------
Who are you trying to kid?

Have you not seen his new ad, 'Dangerous?'

Do you suppose that his campaign surrogates have just decided to make these scurrilous charges on their own?

It is actually even more cowardly that McCain is hiding behind the pit bull's lipstick.

When the McCain campaign accuses Obama of 'palling around with terrorists, he not only smears Obama, but his supporters, as well.

For that reason, I have lost all respect for John McCain. He has sold his soul to win an election. If, by some accident, or if his racist campaign works, I will never refer to him as my president.

He doesn't deserve anyone's respect.

Only our disdain.

But then, what else should he expect from the supporters of a pal of terrorists.

I think that if McCain and Palin actually do pray, they should pray really hard that their incendiary rhetoric does not result in inspiring one of their more fanatical supporters to take up their cause.

Keep in mind that they have yet to denounce the person who yelled "kill him." They just amped up the rhetoric.

Do Americans really want loathsome creatures like that in the White House.

Isn't 8 years of hell on earth enough?

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com

Posted by: scootmandubious | October 8, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Who the hell is Ayers?

Posted by: nmoses | October 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I know that the b hussain admin is planning on outlawing all speech that does not praise liberals but until then, I remain.

someone on this blog has to tell the truth.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it's because someone pointed out to McCain that one of his financial backers is Leonore Annenberg. President of the Annenberg Foundation. The organization that ran the educational charity on the board of which Barack Obama served, together with William Ayers.

Posted by: thrh | October 8, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Nsubuga1, nobody gives a sh*t about your gay @ss blog.

Posted by: wangbang747 | October 8, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure why they even have these "debates" if they're not going to say anything for an hour and a half.

http://www.squatcrouch.com/

Posted by: Squatty_HJ | October 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

McCain/Palin needs to address Ayers but not in isolation. Bill Ayres and his wife are unrepentent, former domestic terrorists who now teach our children.

What kind of example are the Ayres' and Ward Churchill and Angela Davis to the future leaders of America?

How many other radical professors are manipulating and indoctrinating students?

Sen. John McCain has a history of taking on the rascals in DC especially those in his own party including the current administration.

Gov. Sarah Palin took on numerous rascals in her own party while cleaning up Alaska and strengthening its economy.

Sen. Obama has a history of going along with the rascals in his own party. Bill Ayres and his wife helped launch his political career. The Chicago machine sent him to Ayres because it was expected. Tony Rezko helped him purchase a home. Rev. Wright helped him gain street cred. Acorn gave him ground troops while making a sham of our election laws and undermining our financial system. Freddie/Frannie gave him large political contributions and political advisors while also undermining our financial system to the detriment of taxpayers and homeowners.

There is a pattern here of poor judgement and expediency.

Sen. Obama pretends to like Dems. in Pennsylvania and then jets off to San Francisco with the elite where he laughs at these folks and others in the fly over states who cling to family, faith, firearms and flag.

Gov. Palin has an executive record that has earned her the highest approval rating
of any governor in America and the hateful enmity of silly feminists.

Sen. McCain is a hero who has a record of moderation and independence, and the judgement to lead America.

Posted by: Xanadu3 | October 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,

Didn't you promise to go away forever after the people spoke loud and clear in November of 2006? People made their voices heard by their vote and the consensus is we're not interested in your partisan bickering anymore.

Go away

Posted by: theobserver4 | October 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

As a fellow Vietnam Vet, it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for McCain. I did 2 tours and was seriously injured before the end of my 2nd tour. I was just a basic grunt on the ground, but I went on to finish college and get my Masters. I don't want another President who's dumber then me. I hope I don't look as stodgy and decrepit as McCain. I have better ideas then McCain, but Obama is head and shoulders above any ideas I could have. We were both laid off last year, and because my wife had 4th stage cancer, I can't get her insurance. Because of my pre-existing conditions, I can't get insurance. Adding insult to injury, the VA closed where I live. Of course, that won't help my wife. I actually don't take some med's, but I never told my wife. I've never taken any gov't handouts, including my 75% military disability from being injured. After Katrina hit us, we didn't take any gov't handouts, and used up our savings and 401k. I hate Palin as VP and everything she stands for, and she's totally incapable of being the President. I was a HRC supporter, and now realize that Obama is the best overall choice. It's really an obvious conclusion. Just think if Obama was White, he'd have a 50 state win. Please, look beyond his color if that matters to you. Our country is in desperate shape, and it's 2008. Enough,
is enough!

Posted by: uc2it4us | October 8, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Avoided because mcsame is a chickens*^$, he won't say it to his face, he has his latest piece of tail go out and tell it for him.

Posted by: calif-joe | October 8, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

McCain acted like he was high on crack or some kind of speed drug the way he couldn't sit still and wandered around like he was looking for the men's room or something.

Maybe he was having a personal 'surge.'

Posted by: darby124 | October 8, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Based on combined polls and scientific forecasting methods:

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/PollyVote/index.php/pollyelectoral.html

Posted by: davids-k | October 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

WHO WILL BE SLEEPING IN THE LINCOLN BEDROOM IN AN OBAMA WHITEHOUSE? This is a serious question that has captured my attention. The question is in reaction to what almost everyone sees – a media blatantly refusing to report on legitimate issues and distorting anything or anyone who stands in the way the Obama election efforts. How many reporters are looking for people who can tell Obama’s story? I’m not sure anyone can without damaging Senator Obama. Go to: http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/who-will-be-sleeping-in-the-lincoln-bedroom-in-an-obama-whitehouse/

Posted by: Nsubuga1 | October 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

See Out Takes From Last Nights Debate, Obama and McCain practicing for the debate and the mistakes they made. http://www.watchdebate.com

Watch a video of McCain dropping the F-Bomb
in a video http://www.mccanes.com

So I just saw a new poll come out....Dream tickets for the president. Huckabee/Palin comes out 5 to 1 over McCain/Palin. Perhaps the RNC should switch out McCain for Huckabee, they might have a better chance at the white house this year cause I just can't see Obama loosing at this point. The problem is news stations are already calling the race for Obama.....switch it up and have a chance, or should we all stay home and just let Obama take the white house? see poll at http://www.mccanes.com/watchdebatevp.html

Posted by: pastor123 | October 8, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Gosh Cillizza, I'm not sure who comes up with your by-lines, but; "McCain has never been comfortable making harshly negative, personal attacks."

You'd think that with his entire campaign being based on "negative, personal attacks," since he can't defend his platform, it has to be getting easier for him for at least the last couple of months.

His running mate has caught on rather quickly. But she’s a natural. Her entire political career has been based upon unaccomplished promises.

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | October 8, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I literally do not understand the case being made by the Folks ad. It does not explain why (based on this ad) someone should vote against Obama. It has nothing to do with why you would vote for McCain, since he is not the subject.

What I see is a commonly repeated assertion against Obama, followed by Obama rejecting it, in his trademark level, confident tone. I can't decide between the two points of view based on this ad, but I certainly get a glimpse of Obama looking measured and forceful and standing up for himself. And McCain is paying for this?

If McCain was my favorite candidate in the whole world, I would still be puzzled by this bizarre ad. It just doesn't work on any level I can dream up. Desperation, I guess.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | October 8, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza: "McCain has never been comfortable making harshly negative, personal attacks."

Sure. Except on his wife, on Chelsea Clinton, etc.

Posted by: kevrobb | October 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The reality is that Obama and Ayers are not "friends".

so let's run through the facts here. Obama is considering running for the state senate. for the first meeting, which is a fundraiser, he chooses the living room of a known terrorist. Later he says he didn't know. Like he didn't know about all his other seedy friends.

Now who with a working brain really thinks that he had no idea that the guy who is leading the charge on his election is evil?

Same people who beleived that bill clinton was the target of all those girls' lies.

same people who think raising taxes is a fine idea and that only the top 5% will end up paying.

aka - gullible Libs.

who starts off their first elective office in the LR of someone they hardly know?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about Bill Ayers? America is also the land of Second Opportunities. Ayers did some incredibly stupid, dangerous things as a very misguided young man. He was given a second chance, by luck or happenstance, and he made good on the social contract. 'nuff said.

Posted by: pete1013 | October 8, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

A succinct editorial from Jonathan Freedland of the British newspaper 'The Guardian' on the upcoming US election.

'If Sarah Palin defies the conventional wisdom that says elections are determined by the top of the ticket, and somehow wins this for McCain, what will be the reaction? Yes, blue - state America will go into mourning once again, feeling estranged in its own country. A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African - Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama - with all his conspicuous gifts - could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president.

'But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany , France , Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America . If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.

'The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war.. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Non - Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US - friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was 'Drill, baby, drill!', as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.

'If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush - Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.

'Until now, anti - Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti - Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once - in - a - generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.

'And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that 'the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self - interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race'.

'Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, 'historical decline'. Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is 'not about the issues.'

'Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the 'candidate of Europe ' and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America , that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.'

Posted by: rdy4all2000 | October 8, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"... Not comfortable making personal attacks"?

How about "that one"? If it did not stink of racism, it certainly reeked of hostility. Why is McCain so angry at Obama? They are just political rivals, for heaven's sake. If McCain cannot control his temper when challenged and has to resort to being rude and crass, how can he be trusted in the foreign area where, as President, he would be called to deal with a lot of people with whom he disagrees?

Posted by: Gatsby1 | October 8, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

It's too late. Once McCain placed his fate into the hands of Bush's handlers, he was toast. More than at any time, since the Great Depression, this country needs a leader who can *inspire*. That is the whole point what is missing from the critiques of Obama. His critics keep demanding concrete steps, plans, details, "stuff" that doesn't matter. What this country needs, what it yearns for, however is someone who offers hope, an opprtunity for a shared goal, a dream, a chance to redeem ourselves from our recent bath in the NeoCon cesspool where we went to war and went shopping... both for absolutely no reason whatsoever. We need a Roosevelt or Kennedy and we are very fortunate that Obama was available to fill the position. What is unfortunate, and what many McCain supporters completely fail to understand, is that they had a candidate like that. The original McCain, the genuine maverick, the John McCain of 2000 complete with the Straight Talk Express, the open honesty, the guy with the genuine concern about ordinary people - not just talking about it, either, living it!, *was* that sort of inspirational leader, too. If they and McCain had actually believed in that maverick and trusted in genuine straight talk and honesty, sans the dirty tricks and Rove style attack politics, this would be a very different election right now. Now, however, John McCain's image has been sacrificed, his soul stolen, and the last genuine conservative has become a ghost - another victim of the NeoCon scam. The old McCain would have run his campaign on a shoe-string, hold fireside chats and talk about the mess created by greedy fools, told people they couldn't have both low Wal-Mart prices and decent jobs, told our citizens that homes were places you live, not "investment opportunities", and would have scewered investors for artificially inflating the price of real estate. He would have talked about ending tax cuts for the wealthy, ending this "free nonsense"; he would have that rough old populist we knew and loved. It's too late for any change of "tactics" and its high time someone told Mr. McCain that fact. Maybe he can regain his soul and work with President Obama to rebuild this country. God only knows, we need John McCain! It's just that we need the old one, made out of stone, not the phoney new one, created from tin, all glittery and tricked out by his handlers.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 8, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"Thank you for that great question about the school lunch program. And while we're on the subject of Commie traitors..."

McCain didnt bring up Ayers because he would have looked like an incendiary, clueless goat.

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

the reality of what the conservatives have done staring right back at us NOW.

Posted by: kurt_c_schulz


you really think that Barney Frank, chris dodd and B. hussain Obama are conservatives?

you seem to be reality challenged.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a coward. He allows his surrogates and running mate to make attacks that he is afraid to make in person. Rather than sniping from the shadows, McCain should have the guts to face Obama and deliver his dishonorable attacks man to man.

The reality is that Obama and Ayers are not "friends". Obama has denounced Ayers actions. If this attack by association is what McCain wants to talk about while the economy craters then he does not deserve to be President. The American people deserve better.

Posted by: fletc3her | October 8, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Correction: he has been uncomfortable making direct, personal attacks FACE to FACE. On the stump is a different matter.

Posted by: steveboyington | October 8, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

If the king of zouk doesn't know what an effective tax rate is, I recommend that he/she not comment on the issue. Effective corporate tax rates--that is, taking into account the various legal deductions--is indeed one of the lowest in the world, as posited by Obama.

Too, trying to scare the public with "look at what those horrible liberals plan to do" simply isn't going to work this time around because this time there's the reality of what the conservatives have done staring right back at us NOW.

Posted by: kurt_c_schulz | October 8, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

In these days and time, I think it is completely irresponsible to use the phrase "silver bullet" in describing what John McCain needs in this campaign. People in the media need to be more sensitive to such rhetoric.

Posted by: bjcooke3 | October 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin has done everything but call for a posse and a lynch mob for the Traitor Obama - the man who "doesnt think like you and I do" -- and you write about what a decent guy John McCain is? Like he has no responsibility for his own commercials or what his own VP choice says?

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 8, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Three Day Tracking Poll

Obama
10-7 47.1%
10-6 47.7%


McCain
10-7 45.2%
10-6 45.3%

the trend is clear. Obama is losing ground. his pretense at knowing anything is fading.

his debate performance was what the Libs accused Palin of doing - memorizing certain stump responses and mostly ignoring the questions. no specifics, no details, just more hope and change chanting.

not sure how hope is going to pay the mortgage or if the change we can expect from Obama is the loss of a job. raising taxes tends to do that.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

You got numbers, zouk, so do I.

A GAO study released in August showed that two-thirds (that's 66.66%) of U.S. corporations paid no corporate tax (0.00%) from 1998-2005.

What do you suppose that does to the effective corporate tax rate?

By the way, Gallup Tracking (just released):

Obama 52, McCain 41.

Posted by: cam8 | October 8, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

One question that remains to be addressed by both candidates is; when elected would the candidate set precedence, and reign in Presidential power unconstitutionally seized by Bush 43, by discontinuing the use of Presidential Signing Statements?

I heard Barack say during the primaries that he would likely continue their use, where McCain stands on this I would like to know. The next president must restore the balance of power in Washington, as was intended by the Framers. The office of the Executive is not a King, and was intended to be part of the checks and balances, not above it. I believe that this is an important issue that has gone unaddressed.

We do know that Palin believes (incorrectly) that the VP should have more legislative power, a stance that Biden opposes, as he is apparently well versed in the Constitution's position on this matter.

Posted by: pete1013 | October 8, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I am no fan of reckless spending but when an economy is in crisis, you have to spend, spend, and spend -- even if it takes distributing hundred-dollar bills on the street. You have to spend on infrastructure to create employment, and you have to create scholarships to keep as many young people as possible in school and off the street. McCain is dead wrong.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | October 8, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

On the other, McCain has NEVER been particularly comfortable carrying harshly negative, personal messages in campaigns -- always viewing himself as above that sort of lowest common denominator politics. His refusal to bring up Ayers last night is reflective of his distaste for the knife-fight aspects of politics.
------------------
Rubbish. He didnt bring up Ayers because doing that in a town hall meeting format -- especially when nobody asked -- would make him look like an incendiary idiot. John McCain is too nice a guy to go negative? Who are you kidding?

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 8, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I think the reason McCain didn't bring up the attacks is that he didn't want to invite Obama to respond. They know their attacks don't have much grounding.

If it is true that he just doesn't feel comfortable saying them during a debate, then he has all of the moral standing of your standard office gossip.

Posted by: jritten2 | October 8, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"McCain has never been comfortable making harshly negative, personal attacks", so that is why he uses his female dog surrogate to do his dirty work.
In other words, Whining John does not have the COJONES to mudsling Obama himself.
What a dirty chickensh*t coward!

Posted by: analyst72 | October 8, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

McCain simply couldn't mention Ayers to Obama's face, knowing he'd get a smackdown on national television.

Posted by: McBain1 | October 8, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Of course McCain has a choice and he has made it: he has run a dishonorable campaign filled with lies. He picked an incompetent running mate. He picked lobbyists to run his campaign. He picked Rove-trained slime merchants to run his campaign. And his bar-b-que buddies in the media still turn the other way and say he had no choice. Nice try. No way.

Posted by: havok26 | October 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

See Out Takes From Last Nights Debate, Obama and McCain practicing for the debate and the mistakes they made. http://www.watchdebate.com

Watch a video of McCain dropping the F-Bomb
in a video http://www.mccanes.com

So I just saw a new poll come out....Dream tickets for the president. Huckabee/Palin comes out 5 to 1 over McCain/Palin. Perhaps the RNC should switch out McCain for Huckabee, they might have a better chance at the white house this year cause I just can't see Obama loosing at this point. The problem is news stations are already calling the race for Obama.....switch it up and have a chance, or should we all stay home and just let Obama take the white house? see poll at http://www.mccanes.com/watchdebatevp.html

Posted by: pastor123 | October 8, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Even with a hurricane at his back, THE ONE can't close the deal. Just another in the long line of non-accomplishements after so much promise.

Some Headlines I Never Thought I'd See Today [Greg Pollowitz]

MSNBC:

Existing home sales jump 7.4 percent

Rise to highest level in more than a year comes as a surprise

Hotline/Diageo:

Obama/Biden 45%
McCain/Palin 44%
Undec 9%

Zogby:

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll:
Obama 47%, McCain 45%

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

America is not a unique free-market haven anymore, but many U.S. policymakers are oblivious to this new reality. Here is Barack Obama in the first presidential debate responding to John McCain’s idea to cut the corporate tax rate: “There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code . . . that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.”

It is simply not true that our effective corporate tax rate is “one of the lowest” in the world. Effective tax rates take into account statutory rates and elements of the tax base, such as depreciation deductions. In a new Cato Institute brief, Jack Mintz, one of Canada’s top tax experts, finds that the U.S. rate of 36 percent is the eighth highest of the 80 countries studied, and is far above the average rate of 20 percent. ""

got jobs?

not for long in a Dem administration. Look for the misery index to soar to carteresque levels. the Libs will not understand how this happened and try to blame someone else.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 8, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Nobody but the hard core cares about Ayers.

Ayers sat on a Walter Annenberg Board along with a bunch of other GOP stalwarts and Obama.

Nobody accuses Walter Annenberg of "hanging around with terrorists"

...Too big a Republican contributior I guess....

Posted by: toritto | October 8, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Peter Fitzgerald was a one-term staunch Republican Senator from Illinois that got out of national politics almost as soon as he entered them and did nothing in Congress except advocate against anything that would benefit his state, including transportation infrastructure improvements.

For him to complain about Obama's alleged partisanship (when did Dick Lugar switch parties?) is in and of itself partisan bickering and a person living in a glass house throwing a stone (Fitzgerald).

Try to research the substantive legislation Fitzgerald sponsored and you won't find any.

Posted by: crazy4glf | October 8, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

NO ONE CARES ABOUT AYERS!! NO ONE CARES ABOUT KEATING!! This election is about the present and the future. And it is predominantly about the economy. It's not surprising that McCain is not hammering Obama about Ayers as it's a waste of time and money and it's not relevant. It's better to let Palin bang on about it as it just adds to her cartoon image. McCain is stuck: he's made a deal with the devil (Rove et al) against his better judgement and is now suffering from it... McCain, Palin and the other Republicans will see how off message they've been the day after the election when they've lost in landslide....

Posted by: RickJ | October 8, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

He has to DO or SAY something, because the fundamental playing field has shifted so drastically that he cannot win by declaring that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.

They are not, and even a grade school kid can see it now. The GOP game plan to blame this on minority lending isn't biting, gas is going down substantially, so drill, baby, drill ain't going to cut it.

As mushy as the Obama team has been at pounding on the economy, and they have been pitiful, it is the GOP that has pushed the deregulation that has caused this meltdown. McCain is on record as supporting that, he has Phil Gramm (the architect of it) whispering in his ear, so he HAS to change the subject.

Ayers and Wright are the means to do that, but to be honest this is the weakest, most incoherent national campaign by a Republican in my lifetime (born 1970) and that's saying a lot since Dole was rudderless and GHWB in 92 was scattershot.

Posted by: leuchtman | October 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"McCain's new commercial -- entitled 'Folks' -- notes that Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate and calls into questions the Illinois Democrat's contention that Republicans are simply not telling the truth about his record."

There's a big difference between "notes" and "claims." "Notes" implies that they are pointing to something, "claims" means they are saying something that may or may not be fact.

Posted by: nrudy | October 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$540 billion: Annual U.S. Defense Budget

Posted by: maryna1 | October 8, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company